Talk:Intelligent design

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scorpion (Talk | contribs) at 21:19, 4 June 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
! Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism.
Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.


I understand the need to monitor this "conservi" because of arguments, but there should be a way to get new ideas into a topic. So I commented that there is no evidence for intelligent design (at least in the section called "evidence"). It's a proposition or a belief, not a conveyance of facts. Show me a fact and I'll concede to "evidence," but that's not what is here. Opinions are here (see Evidence --> Support below). It's ok to believe in ID over evolution, but don't confuse your readers by calling a belief "fact." You're sending them backwards a step in their thinking; misleading them. --Propro 18:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

I came here to say the same thing. There is no evidence to support the conjecture of intelligent design under the "evidence" section of this article. In fact, that section spends more time talking about evolution than intelligent design. You don't prove a conjecture by disproving a theory. What I would do if I could is delete everything under the "evidence" section of this page for this reason.--MichaelK 11:33, 12 February 2008 (EST)
There is a dispute in the academic community over whether there is evidence for intelligent design. Your opinions don't count, if neither of you is an academic.
Specifically at issue is what sort of evidence can be accepted to prove or disprove ID's thesis - or for that matter, the naturalistic theory of evolution. --Ed Poor Talk 11:44, 12 February 2008 (EST)
But would you say that anything under the "Evidence" section of this article qualifies as evidence? --MichaelK 20:40, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Evidence --> Support

This section contains no evidence and properly belongs under "support." The statement "...that there are certain irreducible complexities in organisms which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer" is not supported by the book quote. The book quote paraphrases 'as humans we can't experience evolution in molecular biology, so we don't ~know~ that it is true.' Ok, that's fine and it is the same statement of doubt placed on all science. Science doesn't prove anything, it just finds evidence to support hypotheses.

However, refuting proof of molecular evolution provides no evidence for intelligent design, it just leaves room for another explanation. This is the classic argument from ignorance and offers (at best) support. --Propro 16:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)


"obfuscate?!!" I had to look it up. Anybody else pick up the irony in that statement? Education is not a bad thing. In academia, you're allowed to say just about anything you want... but you have to support it with an argument if you want people to listen.--Propro 17:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. DunsScotus 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. DunsScotus 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

With a kick butt secret hand shake too! Tmtoulouse 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. DunsScotus 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Dawkins is a known atheist, TmToulouse. DunsScotus 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
DunsScotus, I'm guessing your defition of "Ivory Tower snob" is anyone you can't understand. -AmesGyo! 16:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)


To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. Tsumetai 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --Horace 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --John Galt 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)
Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. Tsumetai 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? Harpie snark 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Perhaps you could start with the list of reasons above, not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. Tsumetai 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper conservative sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. Harpie snark 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)
"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. Tsumetai 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. Order 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. Order 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --MoeLarryAndJesus 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I find this "Bible argument" Hillarious. ID is simply idetifying in matter that an intelligent entity influenced it's existsnce. DNA and Natural law as well as the constant sad picture of mosaics show that Intelligent Design is simply identifying that the matter was created by something intelligent. There are Buddhists, Daoists, New Age, Hidnu, Moslem and Jewish people who publically support it in college. What a sad croc for evolutionsits to say it has to do with the Bible. --JollyCharacter 11:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)


There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --Mtur 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --MoeLarryAndJesus 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --MoeLarryAndJesus 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

two issues

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). Miles 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. Tsumetai 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The Theory of Intelligent Design

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --Horace 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. Tsumetai 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. WJThomas
Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is also a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present evidence that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. Opacic 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The theory part should be removed. Intelligent design is not a theory it is a hypothesis.--TimS 12:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not even a hypothesis. It's conjecture. It's a vague assertion inserted in a gap of understanding. It claims that a common ancestor species led to all extant life through the process of evolution, but at certian key points a "designer" of unspecified nature and origin used unspecified methods to "design" biological features on populations of divergent organisms that could not otherwise have emerged. It offers no actual mechanism (to qualify even as a hypothesis it must state exactly how the 'design' was implemented into a feature, not merely that a feature was 'designed'), it merely asserts that an unspecified mechanism had "design" intent behind it solely upon the basis of some people being unable to think of any means by which those aforementioned features could have emerged. Dimensio 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)


how come BCE isnt allowed?

Because it really means Be-Coming Evolutionsists! --Crackertalk 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

This is answered on the commandments page, but essentially its because the Conservapedia founders believe that any term that doesn't mention Christ is Anti-Christian. I dont understand it either, but they make the rules... just seems like nitpicking to me. - Suricou

Other Intelligent Causes

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --Order 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)
If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit
I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. Miles 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --Order 20 March
Why is it a tough sell? The design theorists all claim it could be a space alien and the Raelians all claim it is a space alien. Just seems odd to leave this fact out, especially since the Raelians are supporting intelligent design theory and not criticising it. Miles 14:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative's "factual error"

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:

  • You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
  • You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper

Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --Mtur 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-AmesG 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. Tmtoulouse 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
This should not be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. MountainDew 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
The footnote shows there have been more than one article. Conservative 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Lies makes baby jesus cry. Tmtoulouse 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:User:myk Myk 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. MountainDew 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be unlocked. ColinRtalk 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

To Conservative: calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. ColinRtalk 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

what is wrong with this sentence?

Recently, there has been articles which defended the intelligent design position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [1]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Conservative 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. Tmtoulouse 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Aside from the grammar, there have not been articles, there has been one. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. ColinRtalk
Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [2] DunsScotus 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
It is? I thought the scientific community was against it. ScorpionVote for Pedro 21:19, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
Those aren't peer reviewed articles. ColinRtalk 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. MountainDew 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --Mtur 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
fun reading Tmtoulouse 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.Murray 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

Conservative 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --Mtur 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --Mtur 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. Tmtoulouse 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! DunsScotus 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? Myk 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--CWilson 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --Mtur 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--Murray 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of Charles Darwin (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. DunsScotus 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Please don't say that they're liars. Just don't go down this road. There are many evolutionsits who have lied about their findings of "missing links" on the human evolutionary chain. There ahs been a lot of "hand waiving" on evolution by atheists, deists, liberals and neo-marxists for years.

We have seen this with "peer review" fraud by "denying articles on the basis of lack of peer review" for the Creation-Evolution Magazine for several years. THAT was fraud and Discovery Institute finally "broke" the peer review bubble troubling all of our "honest" evolutionists as shown in the movie: "Flock of Dodos." JollyCharacter 11 April 2007 (EDT)

why aren't you counting this?

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

Conservative 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. Tmtoulouse 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Would The Fortean Times be acceptable? --Crackertalk 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? Conservative 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Rivsta is a Theoretical Biology journal, not a research journal. personal remark removed Lol:)--TimS 12:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

ID is bad science. It assumes a priori that something is true (that some intelligent designer fashioned life with intent) and then attempts to find some sort of evidence to support these claims. It is entirely contrary to fundamental scientific methodology.

Furthermore, I would question the motive of people of faith who seek evidence of the hand of god within the origins of life. Christianity is predicated upon faith. You must profess a faith in God as your savior and to search for evidence to support that faith would seem to be a position that is contradictory and perhaps even heretical, no?

Impact Factor

No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. Tmtoulouse 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? Conservative 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. Tmtoulouse 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, Nature. DunsScotus 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the secularist publications and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --Mtur

Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? Conservative 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. Tmtoulouse 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal nobody reads is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. DunsScotus 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it journal does not equal science journalTmtoulouse 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. Conservative 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. Tmtoulouse 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Tmtoulouse, Why are you saying that Rivesta is not peer reviewed? Can you back that statement up? Secondly, who decides what IF number decides if a journal is a science journal. Is Tmtoulouse the decider? And who decides that IF number is even relevant in determining if a journal is a science journal. Again is it you? Please show me some authoritative source that gives a IF number cut off for something to be considered a science journal. Conservative 17:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

(undent) In order to be a science journal you must contribute to science if none of the article you published receive even a cursory glance then you can't not say your journal is contributing to science. Rivista is not a respected journal, the editor is fringe, publishes mostly rants against the "establishment" and has as much peer review as a journal published by the DI. If you REALLY want to add the Rivista citation, then we need to link to sites criticizing Rivista, and this is not needed in the article. But, even if Rivista WAS a science journal, as has been pointed out all ready the paper published there is NOT about intelligent design and did not us ID "theory". So its an interesting, though moot point, about the reliability of Rivista as a journal. Tmtoulouse 17:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid Conservative 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-AmesG 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. Tmtoulouse 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. Miles 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" DunsScotus 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Duns, I swear on everything I hold dear, the DI does not want you supporting them in one breath and then quoting scripture in the next. They won't get what they want that way. Myk 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)


Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-AmesG 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science can be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --Crackertalk 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of inferable truth with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. DunsScotus 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: falsifiability. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. DunsScotus 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
So much for God not being the author of confusion. --Crackertalk 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Well he is the source of translation error in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. Tmtoulouse 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Without Merit

Okay DunsScotus what is with out merit? Tmtoulouse 19:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Well's Centrioles paper

Whether or not Rivista is a credible journal is utterly irrelevant, since Well's hypothesis was in no way based on any theory of intelligent design. Tsumetai 14:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I found several articles in peer reviewed science journals which were ID

Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

Conservative 18:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Can you explain in your own words how each paper supports ID, or are you just taking the DI's word for it? Tsumetai 18:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

It will take me some time to review all of these, so I will get back to you. What I will look for is that they are published in a peer review science journal, address topics that are science and used Intelligent Design to make their conclusions. Tmtoulouse 18:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Blast! Beat me to it. Obviously the one from Rivista di Biologia isn't legit, as said above. Behe, too, is obviously suspect. Also, the "Higher Taxonomic" etc. is already mentioned in the article as the one peer reviewed ID article. Perhaps you could read the other articles and explain how they support ID: I don't really feel like taking the Discovery Institute at face value.-AmesG 18:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I think it's impolite to revert until other people have looked at those and agreed.-AmesG 18:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

...aaaaand it's protected again.-AmesG 18:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm familiar with the Behe/Snoke paper. Two minor details: one, it's an argument against evolution, not for ID. Two, what they actually managed to prove was that IC systems can evolve in a reasonable timeframe, which is the exact opposite of what they were going for. Tsumetai 18:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Please see the summary of the above articles located here. here Conservative 18:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I will NOT review these articles UNTIL the page is unprotected and returned to the consensus version. Tmtoulouse 18:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I'll take that as an admission that you are indeed just taking the DI's word for it, shall I? Tsumetai 06:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

The following papers are the ones that I am not immediately familiar with. JAD's work is out, the Axe work does NOT support intelligent design, the behe snoke paper also supports evolutionary theory. This is whats left. Anyone familiar with these works? Tmtoulouse 19:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Lying for Jesus: the American Taliban

This page is a joke, this site is a joke. I am done. There are many people here that thing they can do something with this site, do not be fooled. I thought there was hope, there is not. Give up on it. Turn your back on it. These fascist are not worth your time. Tmtoulouse 19:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Kitzmiller trap.

The first paragrah used to say:

The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [3].

Now it says:

Many design theorists leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[2]

This phrasing is problematic, since it helps opponents of intelligent design, such as in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. They say that ID is repackaged creationism. To not fall into this trap all it is essential for the theory to leave the intelligent cause open. And that is exactly what all theorists do. When they speak as private person, and not as scientist, they often admit that they think that is is God, but as theorists they all leave it open. And with good reason, because otherwise you kind of agree with the Kitzmiller party that intelligent design is not science but religous. I would strongly sugggest to revert the current version to the old version. Order 25 March, 17:10 (AEST)

The reason the question is not accessible by scientific investigation is because the designer is in the realm of the supernatural. Science is not capable of investigating the supernatural.

Regardless of how you word it, the intelligent designer is the ultimate reason ID isn’t science because ID theory requires the intervention of this designer. A designer who, in the end, must be supernatural. This is one of the reasons that ID doesn’t get as much support as many of the editors here would like.

Is it really right to change the wording to make this less apparent to the reader? Land Dweller 26 March, 03:35 (EDT)

So, you suggest to leave the Kitzmiller trap open because interlligent design cannot possibly be science, no matter how you word it? User:Order 27 March

The debate is between
  1. Those who call ID a form of creationism and want it kept out of public schools
  2. Those who call ID a legitimate topic of scientific discussion and want it to be allowed in public schools that wish to include it
Let's create an article (or section) on the Intelligent Design controversy. (Full disclosure: I'm "on probation" at Wikipedia for trying to create a neutral article there about this.)
We should present all the arguments (like E. Scott's) against; but also all the arguments for. --Ed Poor 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The "old" version - The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation
This begs the question - why is the question of who/what the intelligent designer "not accessible" by scientific investigation? If it is a space alien why could science not investigate it? That "old" version does not make a lick of sense. Miles 13:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps science has been defined so as to exclude consideration supernatural causes. But the scientific method as I originally learned it in school had no such limitation. It might be more accurate to say that physical science looks only at the natural world seen as being governed by natural law.
Scientific methods of investigation can be (and have been) used to examine the supernatural. I believe Harry Houdini spent a lot of time on this, revealing fraudulant spiritualists and mediums who conducted fake seances. --Ed Poor 16:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Fraudulent spiritualists and mediums are in no way supernatural. Tsumetai 04:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Order, in answer to your Kitzmiller trap question, I like the old version of the statement

The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation. for the reason stated below.

It offers the reason why ID proponents make no attempt to identity the designer or to learn anything about the abilities, motives or mechanisms used by the designer or designers. If ID proponents openly discussed the nature of the designer (who they generally believe to be God), it would be obvious to everybody that ID is just a new form of creation science. I think the reader should be informed of this reason because it is an important aspect of ID. Land Dweller 16:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Can you supply a source for this assertion? Who (besides you) makes this argument? --Ed Poor 16:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Sure, Ed. Although many prominent pro-evolution figures in the evolution creation debate believe ID is a new form of creationism, the only source I could easily find was Barbara Forrest’s expert report used in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. I couldn’t find a copy online, but here is a part of the first paragraph.
"ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for the natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, my research reveals that ID is not science, but the newest variant of traditional American creationism. With only a few exceptions, it continues the usual complaints of creationists against the theory of evolution and comprises virtually all the elements of traditional creationism."
Land Dweller 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Oops! Somehow I turned on this boxed format. Land Dweller 18:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Miles, it’s true that it would be within the realm of science to investigate a space alien designer, but no prominent proponent of ID believes the designer is an alien. Nearly all of them believe it is God who is clearly supernatural.

It does no good to say the designer is a space alien. If said alien possessed any irreducibly complex systems, such as an eye or immune system, then it too could not evolve through natural processes alone. You then have to investigate who designed the alien. Eventually you are trying to investigate a God. Land Dweller 16:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I think you are missing the point of ID's deliberate lack of identification of a designer. It makes an argument, based on irreducible complexity, that life shows signs of having been designed. It stops there, because of legal requirements.
You seem to be saying (along with E. Scott) that ID advocates' motivation for advancing this scientific argument is "part and parcel" of the theory; and that therefore it is a religious argument and/or religous theory. Is this what you are saying?
My point is to say the identity of the desiner is off limits to science is irrational and therefore does not belong in the article. Now, if they have proven the identity is supernatural or a diety, that might be different but so far those claims have not been proven. Otherwise you're basically saying "what goes up must come down, but it is beyond the realm of science to explain 'why'". it is also kind of crazy to suggest "I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science" Miles 17:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
In answer to your first statement: The existence of a designer is a part of the IC argument. It says natural evolution couldn’t do it so the designer did it. I don’t understand what you mean by “It stops there, because of legal requirements.” I think they stop there because acknowledging the supernatural nature of the designer makes it clear that ID is essentially religious.
In answer to you second statement: Yes. Since they specifically say that a supernatural designer (God), created the eye, the immune system, etc., ID falls outside realm of science. See my above quote from Barbara Forrest in my previous comment.
In answer to your third statement: I agree with you. It’s unscientific to say the designer is off limits to science. Nobody can scientifically prove the existence, or non existence, of a deity. I also agree that it makes no sense to say “I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science”. However I am not the one saying that. Footnote 2 in the Intelligent Design article refers to an IDEA website. They are supporters of ID and they say this under Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents.
“The consensus of ID proponents is intelligent design theory does not allow one to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.”
ID proponents make this statement even though this designer is required to make systems that are Irreducibly Complex, and it is acknowledged by some ID theorists that the designer is supernatural.
If the opponents of ID said the designer is beyond the limits of scientific inquiry, I would agree that that statement should be in Criticism of ID section. Since it's the proponents saying this, it is appropriate to put it in the main part of the article.
When I read User:Order’s comment about which statement he thought should be in the article, wrote a comment expressing preference for the first one. I didn’t intend for it to turn into a debate.
I agree with User:Ed Poor that there should be a separate section in the ID article about the criticisms and controversy surrounding ID.
I'm getting better at formatting now. Land Dweller 20:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I am not married to the statement that the identity of the designer cannot be known. My point is that the article should not say that intelligent design, or intelligent design theorists, say that the intelligent cause is God. First. because they don't say it, they are carefully not saying it. Because they would otherwise fall into the Kitzmiller trap. Not sure if Conservapedia wants that during the next Dover trial the Kitzmillers point to Conserapedia and say: "Look even Conservapedia says it is religion. " User:Orer 31 March

Please don't mingle the presentation of the theory with the dismantling or criticism of the theory. Everwill 07:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
It was about the presentation all the time. User:Order 2 April

Non-biological Intelligent Design

I'm not a subject expert, so I'll help as best I can. But is Intelligent Design a theory that stands in opposition to Evolution? Does Intelligent Design attempt to explain the order that is found in the highest and lowest ends of our percerption? In other words, who designed the subatomic particles that are busy doing their thing so that I can exist? What about the galaxies? What part of Intelligent Design is philosophy and what part is science?

Objections to ID

Advocates of methodological naturalism, vigorously oppose ID theory. Particular opposition comes from proponents of the materialistic Theory of evolution. [4]

A sticking point for many of these opponents that ID leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open. Some arguments against ID are:

  1. that there could not be a designer without an infinite regress of designers.
  2. that it is illegitimate for ID proponents to conceal their religious beliefs about the Intelligent Designer

[5]. However, some proponents admit to believing the intelligent cause to be God.

The above was cut from the intro (by me). --Ed Poor 12:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I think a page devoted to Intelligent Design should at least discuss the main objection to ID (that I can see) which is that the supposedly intelligent designer included so many design flaws (eg the vertebrate eye). Chrysogonus 12:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

It of course makes sense to include some of the objections if an idea/theory/thought is controversial. However, it's very important to keep the controversy separate from the presentation of the idea. Furthermore, this article should not evolve into an attempt to prove or disprove the theory. This should be a starting point for those who wish to research the idea further. Everwill 06:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
I agree, Everwill, there should be a neutral, straight forward presentation of the theory. Criticisms should be in a separate section of the article. I also believe it would be good to have a standard template for articles about scientific theories. It could include, but not be limited to, sections describing the theory, history of the theory, and criticisms of the theory.
I don't know if this type of format will succeed at Conservapedia. Have you seen the article on The Theory of Evolution? What to you think of that format? Land Dweller 14:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Ed, I think another objection that should be in a Criticisms section of this article is the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, not only in the United States, but worldwide don't accept the validity of ID theory.
I stated my opinion about an appropriate format for articles about scientific theories. However, if the format and style used in the current version of the Theory of Evolution article remains as it is, then perhaps it should also apply to this article for the sake of consistency. Land Dweller 14:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for that valuable feedback. I left a note on your talk page, and I started Template:Scientific theory for you. --Ed Poor 11:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

is the watch analogy useful or misleading?

I wonder if the watch analogy is useful or possibly instead misleading. A watch is not a biological entity nor does it reproduce. It reminds me of the Mount Rushmore analogy. Those seem like overly simplistic analogies and I wonder if some readers might find that insulting. I think there are better examples or analogies that those two. Just my opinion. Miles 16:22, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the watch analogy works better for debunking the Big Bang, rather than evolution.--Elamdri 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
How about the Rosetta Stone, Stonehenge, and the statues on Easter Island? Aren't they indicative of human influence, i.e., don't they show signs of having been designed? --Ed Poor 16:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't agree with the watch analogy - at all - but I think it works as a statement of intent. It gets the idea across quickly and concisely; it's perfectly serviceable. (I'm not sure where you're going with the Rosetta Stone, et al, argument there Ed, though I am curious to find out). Airdish 16:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
A watch is an obvious example of human design (and note no one claims we cannot identify the identity of the watch making intelligent designer) but a watch is not a biological entity and I believe ID argues for a designer of biological entity. I'm not wanting to debate or cause a stir, it just seems overly simplistic and is not comparing apples with apples yet it implies the opposite. If you are in a watch making factory and see a stray cat in the warehouse do you assume a human designer as you do with the watches?
When I read the watch analogy my reaction was sort of "who are you trying to fool?" (and I believe in ID). I wish we had something better to use but I don't have any suggestions yet. Miles 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Is the point not that the "great designer", or whatever it is to be called, is infinitely more powerful/intelligent than mankind and as such is capable of infinitely greater complexity of construction? Our puny earthling brains cannot comprehend the intelligence behind the design involved in the universe and so we need to reduce the argument to something which we can relate to comfortably. How are we supposed to understand something (even the idea behind it) if we can't contextualise the argument to something more suiting our own intelligences? We can conceive of designing and creating a watch. The "great designer" is infinitely greater than us, therefore he could conceive of and create the universe. Airdish 16:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
When you add what you said Airdish, with "The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation" I get even more unanswered questions. Anyhow, the watch analogy bothers me but it does not bother anyone else and I am cool with that. Thanks for everyone's opinions. Miles 18:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
For me, that's the fundamental problem with ID: Who is the Intelligent Designer? It seems that it still requires a leap of faith and a belief in a higher power. Which, to me, is indistinguishable from religion. I should probably stop now, I'm not here to try to convince you or anyone else away from ID. Airdish 18:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Well I am not a fan of what I would call the modern intelligent design movement, at least not the version being sold by the Discovery Institute. Before they came along I and millions of others already know who created the Heavens and Earth and I don't need their "theories" or bacteria speak to justify my faith. So their "it could be a space alien" and "you cannot say or talk about the intelligent designer, but ID is science and not faith" is all less than honest hogwash to me. They claim it could be a space man but the seconed you point out the Raelians truly believe they are in contact with space men they clam up. I am not a Raelian nor do I think the Raelians are on to something, I am just making a point of how absurd some of the modern intelligent design movement leaders claims are. Obviously the "it could be a space alien" is not meant to be taken seriously. But it makes them famous and lines their pockets with plenty of gold so oh well. I just hope the article accurately describes ID without using their clever and less than honest portrayals and arguments. If you believe God created All, why not just say it in the first place is what I have to say to the modern ID movement. But this article sure is better than the Wiki article. Miles 17:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

There are two things that strike me about the watch analogy. (1) It contains no references, and (2) It is completely fallacious. The watch 'analogy' only makes sense from the premise of a belief in Intelligent Design. If you follow the logic of Evolution, then it is entirely possible for an evolutionary process to come up with something at least as complex as a watch. Richard Dawkins in Climbing Mount Improbable provided many such examples of how evolutionary processes could lead to highly complex and organised systems. Thisnk about the following argument: I believe that the moon is made of cheese, whereas scientists say it is not. However, the moon looks like it is made of cheese, and everything which I have ever seen which are round an pock-marked have all been cheese. Therefore the moon must be made of cheese despite what the scientists say. See - it's complete nonsense. --CatWatcher 18:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Here, Hear

I hope it's not a waste of bandwidth, but I just want to praise the format of this article. I have no idea if the content is any good or not, but this should be a template for all controversial subjects. I bashed my brains out at Wikipedia arguing --- not for or against Intelligent Design --- but for something resembling readable and fair. I can't shower you with enough praise for taking this simple and adult stance. I doesn't matter if Intelligent Design is baloney or not. (Let the reader make up his own mind ... because he already has made it up anyway.)

State the premise. Seperate the discourse into pro's and con's and move on. No more tears. Perfect. Thank you for drawing breath. Everwill 08:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Creationist vs. Scientists

Suggest that you add to the begining: The problem between the two sides may be largely a matter of semantics. What scientists call the Universal Force, we call God. What we call Intelligent Design they call Chaos Theory.--Mike M 10:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think so. God is interventionist, has a plan, and his own mind. 'Forces' work determistic. I doubt that you want to constrain God to be deterministic. There would be nothing left. User:Order 6 April, 11:05 (AEST)
The Universal Force is simply the energy that brought forth the universe. Chaos Theory is the idea that what appears to be chaos has a clear pattern. Everything interacts. It is not deterministic.--Mike M 10:28, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
For a start: 'Force' and 'energy' is something different. But that's aside. Forces are deterministic, and chaos, according to Chaos theory, actually as well. Chaos theory says that you cannot predict the behavior, if you allow for inaccurate measurements, but it doesn't say that its non-deterministic or probabilistic. 'The energy that brought forth the universe' is at best a deistic belief, since it doesn't need an interventionist god. At worst it is just a curently unexplained physical force, like the weak electromagnetic force was hundered years ago. Not sure if you feel worshipping such a force; and you obey its laws if you believe in it or not. User:Order 9 April, 20:45 (AEST)
In science the Universal Force is the energy that brought forth the Universe. In this case force does means energy and energy is not deterministic. If science would admit to a deistic god that would be a start but my question would then be if there is'nt an interventionist god who broke the Universal Force into the strong force, weak force, and electromagnitism.Chaos theory has also not been shown to to deterministic. For science to say that we should not believe in God but in the Universal Force is just semantics.--Mike M 11:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • What broke up the forces? The expanding universe did, afaik. And that happened at at an exact size and an exact temperature of the universe, that can be computed from quantum physics. The force had no choice other than break apart.
  • Chaos theory is a theory that studies the behavior of deterministic functions. However, these deterministic functions are extremely sensitive to the initial conditions. It might look non-deterministic, but it isn't.
  • Calling God a force is actually just a bit short of atheism. Why would you worship a 'force'? Or believe in a 'force'? If you belief or not doesn't matter for a 'force'. How would you feel if you would find a tribe that worships magnetism?
  • 'Energy' is something different than 'force'. They are two different words, meaning something different. Your 'force'-speak sounds very much like New Age and Star Wars. Maybe that's what attracts you to it. But it's weasel language blurring the important difference between force and energy, and obscuring the deterministic nature of both. User:Order 10 April, 11:15 (AEST)

Statements and Analogies

Conservative the first block quote (Paley) has some stucktogether words in it. HTH. Crackertalk 00:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. Conservative 00:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative


Where it says:

One of the first major books with evidence for intelligent design was Michael Behe's.

We should probably specify which book of Behe's this is. There's a reference to Darwin's Black Box in the next sentence, but it's not clear in context whether it's that book or not, and if I remember correctly, that may not have been his first book. DanH 21:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Please add a sentence to the section on opposition:

I would like to add a sentence to opposition:

Critics of teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in public schools have long argued that it is unscientific because no intelligent design paper had been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. However, after Richard von Sternberg managed the peer review process and published a paper by Intelligent Design researcher Stephen C. Meyer, scietists at the Smithsonian Institution retaliated in what is known as the Smithsonian Controversy.

Of course, the sentece could be reworked as necessary.HeartOfGold 22:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

List is not needed given category

Please change List of Intelligent Design Theorists to Category:Intelligent design theorists (please look at source to see proper way to link). The list page is only linked from this page. --Mtur 21:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I think it is an added help to the article and no harm is done. Conservative 22:02, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
The category has all the information the list does, and is updated automatically as new items are added to the category. The list requires manual updates. If that page (too) becomes protected, then all the work needs to be done by sysops. As it is, the list page has two links on it, making it rather, well, useless. If nothing else, the link to the category should be provided in addition to the list. --Mtur 14:22, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I just came from wiki

I cannot believe how biased their ID article is. And I am not a conservative. However in many areas this site is much more accurate. ProtoCat 12:25, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

I just came from there too and it gives a FULL discussion of ID and the issues surrounding it.Alloco1 00:39, 21 September 2007 (EDT)


Apparently, there are conservatives against intelligent design. Who knew? --Afi 18:13, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Not all conservatives are willing to ignore or attempt to discredit things we seen as being anti-conservative. I don't see how so many people seem to view evolution as liberal and anti-christian. There are plenty of conservative christians who recognize the significance of evolution and realize that it does not go against their beliefs. I learned evolution in a Catholic school and somehow have managed to keep my faith and remain a Christian. --UPOD 13:23, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

My wife remembers being tought about evolution by a nun(who didn't bat an eye) in a Catholic school in Colombia.Alloco1 00:43, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

And who taught the nun? The Catholic Church expressly forbids any teaching evolution as it is commonly taught because it contradicts one Adam. See Humani Generis. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:58, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Needed Entry

There should be an entry in this article (in the interest of objectivity and facts) about president Bush's science advisor. Professor Marburger has stated that intelligent design is not science.

A new year of encyclopedia building

This article has been locked for 9 months. I don't think I need to ask anybody to unlock it, but any sysop thinks there's a problem go ahead and reprotect it.

I've opened discussions with two Wikipedians about the objections to intelligent design and have gotten some very illuminating answers here and here.

Not only do evolutionists believe that natural forces alone are sufficient to explain "the gradual appearance of new forms of life", but they also see ID in terms of a strategy or campaign to introduce Creationism into U.S. public school biology courses.

Plainly there is much hostility toward religion in America, and any excuse to keep it out will be employed. It's not just about science, but about the liberal movement toward secularism. The idea that God and religion can coexist with materialism is certainly not accepted by liberals. I'm not even sure how many conservatives think coexistence is possible. A lot of Christians would like to see schools teach that God exists, the He is the source of moral and ethical rules (or values), and so on.

The stakes are pretty high here. --Ed Poor Talk 12:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Cdesign proponentsists

I would like to include mention of the term Cdesign proponentsists under the opposition. It was a term coined during the Dover case as a strong piece of evidence against the legitimacy of ID. I believe that including external links for new users gets me banned, so please google the term if you are unclear about its meaning.--Gman2 18:03, 4 February 2008 (EST)


It's not possible to discuss ID or evolution without considering the implications. The clear implication of naturalistic evolution is that "forms of life came into being with God". In fact, 15% of Americans believe just that. The other 85% believe either that God caused the forms of life to come into being gradually, or that he created it all a few thousand years ago.

The Origins dispute covers this in more detail (or it should). --Ed Poor Talk 12:16, 12 February 2008 (EST)

The International Society for Science and Religion

The International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR) says that “intelligent design” is neither sound science nor good theology. Intelligent Design theorists do not have proper research programmes to make their points. In fact, what they believe is against science, according to the seven scientists who prepared the statement for the ISSR, a scholarly body devoted to dialogue between science and world faiths.

The whole of the society’s membership, many of whom are Christian, were involved in a consultation about the statement. The ISSR says it “greatly values modern science, while deploring efforts to drive a wedge between science and religion.”

Just thought I should mention this.--Able806 20:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)


Does this article need mention Ben Stien's instant classic: Expelled Everwill 21:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Sure: how about a 'see also' link at the end? --Ed Poor Talk 21:14, 19 April 2008 (EDT)