
#REDIRECT Intelligent design
Here, put alternative passages for all to consider. Then post cleaned up whole versions to Intelligent Design. Anyone want to try this with me? --User:Ed Poor P.S. Those who object to frequent multiple edits to Intelligent Design can ignore this page. ---- Intelligent design (ID) is a theory of evolution which asserts that God guided the process of evolution. The basis of ID is the observation that some differences between species are too complex to have come about without having been designed (irreducible complexity). ID's acceptance of the fossil record distinguishes it from Sudden Creationism and represents one point of agreement with Evolution. Although ID accepts the fossil record, thus agreeing that evolution did occur, it disagrees with the view that Natural Selection causes new species to come into being. It is only after a new species has come into being that it is subject to the weeding out process of Natural Selection, maintains ID, not before. This is the chief difference between ID and Darwinian evolution, and apparently an irreconcilable one. Unlike Darwinian evolution, which says new species arise due to various random forces such as DNA transcription errors, chemicals, or radiation, ID propenents argue that new species arise only (or chiefly) by an intelligent force. Natural Selection is sometimes defined as being both (a) the cause whereby new species arise and (b) the weeding out process whereby only successful variations propagate; or only (b). ID rejects (a) and accepts (b). Critique of Intelligent Design The scientific view of evolution is based on two premises. Variations occur in the genetic makeup of organisms, and through the process of Natural selection, the most fit of those variations survive while the others die out. Intelligent Design accepts much of the scientific theory, but differs in the role of God in causing the variations. It accepts that fact that there has been evolution, i.e., species have changed and diverged over time from earlier forms of life to the forms which exist today. It does not necessarily accept that there is speciation, the creation of more than one species out of a single species. It accepts the fossil record as an accurate representation of the history of the evolution of species, and accepts that analysis of the fossil record gives accurate and useful results. It accepts that there is a process of natural selection that acts on species ''after'' their creation, but disagrees with the scientific view that natural selection causes the species to come into being in the first flace. Only after the variation has been caused due to deliberate acts of God is the survival or extinction of a newly arisen species is believed to then be subject to the weeding out process. Where it departs from the commonly accepted biological view is in the belief that the variations which are subsequently acted upon by Natural Selection are not random, but guided by the hand of God. In the scientific view, these variations are random and usually small. In the Intelligent Design viewpoint, these small, random variations exist but are not the explanation for speciation. Instead, speciation occurs when God steps in and causes the variation to occur. Unlike Darwinian evolution, which says new species arise due to various random forces such as DNA transcription errors, chemicals, or radiation, ID propenents argue that new species arise only (or chiefly) by an intelligent force. They point to complex biological structures such as the eye, saying that such structures could not have possibly have developed due purely to random chance. Symbiotic relationships, such as plants who can only be pollinated by a specific species of insect, which in turn can only reproduce by using the plant, could not have arisen -- a typical chicken-and-egg problem. Adherents of ID consider their idea that God causes speciation a viable scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally consider it unscientific, because it is not falsifiable and so merely a philosophical or religious idea outside the realm of science. These ideas distinguish ID from Sudden Creationism, which denies completely the existence of evolution. talk:Intelligent_Design Responses of the scientific community to ID The main response of scientists to intelligent design has been to argue that it is a superfluous assumption, on the grounds that Darwinian evolution already explains the problems it was supposed to address. So, for instance, in response to the claim that an eye is too complicated to have developed on its own, one might present a series of evolutionarily intermediate forms leading up to the eye, each of which is close enough to its predecessor that the transition through random chance does not seem unlikely. The entire sequence, of course, remains improbable, but the argument is that some form must have developed, and whatever it is would be equally unlikely - just as someone must win a lottery, as unlikely as it is that any given person will win. Once it is argued that intelligent design is unnecessary, it is usually dismissed. Strictly speaking, the argument is not falsifiable, since it makes no testable predictions, but any number of such explanations can always be invoked and it is generally argued they may be dismissed by parsimony (Occam's Razor). :It is also a common, and dishonest, rhetorical tactic of creationists to call Darwinian evolution a "random" process. Mutation can be random, but not all variation is, and ''selection'' is the exact 180-degree opposite of random. How many of your ancestors were infertile? Died before puberty? None. Zero. That's not random, that's 100% predictable. ::Thanks, that's exactly the kind of feedback this draft page needs. I want to be sure that if use the word 'random' I use it in the right place. I understand that variation is random but selection is orderly. Can you help create an Intelligent Design page that expresses ID's views and contrasts ID with Darwinist evolution? As an extra bonus, write a Darwinist critique of ID, too. --User:Ed Poor For the record, I said the transitions could arise through random chance, and they have to. It's whether or not you keep the end result that's not random. Structures can't evolve unless the opportunity is given. ---- Based on what has been expressed in this article, ID does make assertions which it shares with "sudden creationism"--and I wonder if these are falsifiable. The whole "eye" example is an example of this. Apparently ID is claiming that certain complex features of species cannot emerge from of the accumulation of incremental small changes. I think that Stephen Jay Gould addresses this question in one of his books, but maybe my recollection is wrong on that. So ID is not simply asserting that God is the source of the array of mutations or incremental changes that occur over time; rather, it is asserting that specific kinds of gross characteristics cannot possibly occur as the result the accumulation of incremental changes. this is not simply an example of Occam's razor at work here, because it is asserting that "intermediate" changes of certain kinds cannot exist. This is definitely different than just saying that all those incremental changes were directed by God, which obviously is not falsifiable because that would is positing an unverifiable cause to what appear to us to be random changes. Instead, it claims that these "intermediate" changes never occured, and that God just instantly created major changes, such as by directly creating an eye. As I've said elsewhere, this is similar to the sorts of accusations against evolution that sudden creationists use, and in my opinion it is just as bogus and unscientific. That being said, the question is, are such claims falsifiable? I would think that they might be, but I'm not a scientist, so what do I know. --Egern :''See also :'' Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design (or ID) is a highly controversial claim holding that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent designer, rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Most ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be. But ID advocate William Dembski in his book "The Design Inference" [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html] lists ''God'' or an ''alien life force'' as two possible options. The scientific community does not recognise ID as a scientific theory and considers it to be creationist pseudoscience. ==ID in summary== ID was born out of opposition to the theory of evolution and is investigating whether or not there is empirical evidence that life on Earth was designed by an intelligent agent or agents. Proponents of ID study objects in an attempt to isolate what they call ''signs of intelligence'' — physical properties of an object that necessitate design. Examples being considered include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity. Many design theorists believe that living systems show one or more of these ''signs of intelligence'', from which they infer that life is designed. This stands in opposition to naturalistic theories of evolution, which explain life exclusively through natural processes such as random mutations and natural selection. William Dembski, one of ID's leading proponents, uses the example of Mount Rushmore to provide an analogy to the underlying premise of ID: :"What about this rock formation convinces us that it was due to a designing intelligence and not merely to wind and erosion? Designed objects like Mt. Rushmore exhibit characteristic features or patterns that point us to an intelligence."--The Design Revolution, pg. 33. The Intelligent Design movement, which began in the mid-1990s, is closely associated with the Center for Science and Culture, an organization that counts most of the leading ID advocates among its fellows or officers. The movement claims ID exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy, and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism (philosophy). The ID movement has attracted considerable press attention and pockets of public support, especially among conservative Christians in the US. Critics call ID an attempt to recast religious dogma in an effort to force public schools to teach creationism in schools, and ID features notably as part of a campaign known as ''Teach the Controversy''. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education assert that ID is pseudoscience . While the scientific model of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, and speciation, the "Intelligent Designer" in ID is neither observable nor repeatable. This violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. ID violates another cornerstone of the scientific method called Occam's Razor by creating an entity to explain something that may have a simpler and scientifically supportable explanation not involving outside help. Critics contend that ID is attempting to redefine natural science.[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html] Natural science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation alone (sometimes called empiricism). Intuition is extremely important in natural science, but the scientific method holds nothing to be true until it can be observed repeatedly. The idea that some outside intelligence created life on Earth is a priori (without observation) knowledge. ID proponents cite some complexity in nature that cannot yet be fully explained by the scientific method (for instance, abiogenesis, the generation of life from non-living matter, is only partially understood by science). They ''intuit'' that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically. Since the designer cannot be observed, it is ''a priori'' knowledge. This ''a priori'' intuition that an intelligent designer (''God'' or an ''alien life force'') created life on Earth has been compared to the ''a priori'' claim that ''aliens'' helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids [http://server1.fandm.edu/departments/Philosophy/staticpages/Murray/Providence.pdf],[http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/timesleader/news/opinion/11448226.htm],[http://www.sfweekly.com/issues/2001-07-04/news/letters_2.html]. In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable, observable, or falsifiable, and it violates Occam's Razor as well. Empirical scientists would simply say "we don't know exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids" and list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques. ===Origin of the term=== The phrase "intelligent design", used in this sense, appeared in Christian creationist literature, including the textbook ''Of Pandas and People'' (Haughton Publishing Company, Dallas, 1989). The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book ''Darwin on Trial''. Johnson is the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture and is considered the father of the intelligent design movement. ===What Intelligent Design is not=== Intelligent Design is not and does not claim to be an alternative theory replacing mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, or speciation. All of these have been observed in laboratories and in the field. For example, humans have themselves created many new species and have observed new species appearing in nature. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html][http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html] This is contrary to how ID is sometimes characterized by both supporters and critics. ==ID as a movement== The Intelligent Design movement is an organized campaign to promote ID arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the United States. Intelligent design proponents strive to eliminate both methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. ID movement proponents allege that science, by relying upon methodological naturalism, demands an ''a priori'' adoption of a naturalistic Philosophy of science that dismisses out of hand any explanation that contains a supernatural cause. Principal ID proponents have stated a goal of greatly undermining or eliminating altogether methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism with the teaching of evolution in public school science, and thus secure recognition of creationism claims of scientific legitimacy by opening the door to supernatural explanations. The intelligent design movement is largely the result of efforts by the conservative Christian think tank Discovery Institute, and its Center for Science and Culture. The Discovery Institute's wedge strategy and its adjunct, the ''Teach the Controversy'' strategy, are campaigns intended to sway the opinion of the public. They target public school administrators and policy makers to facilitate the introduction of intelligent design into the public school science curricula and marginalize mainstream science. The Discovery Institute acknowledges that private parties have donated millions for a research and publicity program to "unseat not just Darwinism, but also Darwinism's cultural legacy."[http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/06/ahmanson/] Critics note that the principal ID proponents share an explicit religious vision, that the Discovery Institute as a matter of policy obfuscates its agenda, and claim that these facts prove the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious worldview that undergirds it." [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/wedge.html] They go on to portray ID as the latest attempt at Intelligent design#.22Stealth_creationism.22. ==Intelligent design debate== The intelligent design debate centers on three issues: #whether the definition of science is broad enough to allow for theories of human origins which incorporate the acts of an intelligent designer; #whether the evidence supports such theories; and #whether the teaching of such theories is appropriate in public education. ID supporters generally hold that science must allow for both natural and supernatural explanations of phenomena. Excluding supernatural explanations limits the realm of possibilities, particularly where naturalistic explanations utterly fail to explain certain phenomena. Supernatural explanations provide a very simple and parsimonious explanation for the origins of life and the universe. Proponents claim that the evidence strongly supports such explanations, as instances of so-called irreducible complexity and specified complexity appear to make it highly unreasonable that the full complexity and diversity of life came about solely through natural means. Finally, they hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, because teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding the Creationist beliefs. Teaching both, ID supporters argue, allows for a scientific basis for religious belief, without causing the state to actually promote a religious belief. According to critics of ID, not only has ID failed to establish reasonable doubt in its proposed shortcomings of accepted scientific theories, but it has not even presented a case worth taking seriously. Critics of ID argue that ID has not presented a credible case for the public policy utility of presenting Intelligent Design in education. More broadly, critics maintain that it has not met the minimum legal standard of not being a "clear" attempt to establish religion, which in the United States is forbidden by law. Scientists argue that those advocating "scientific" treatment of "supernatural" phenomena are grossly misunderstanding the issue, and indeed misunderstand the nature and purpose of science itself. Between these two positions there is a large body of opinion that does not condone the teaching of what is considerd unscientific or questionable material, but is generally sympathetic to the position of Deism/Theism and therefore desires some compromise between the two. The nominal points of contention are seen as being proxies for other issues. For example Richard Dawkins, a very prominent spokesman for evolutionary theory, has argued that evolution disproves the existence of God. Many ID followers are quite open about their view that "Scientism" is itself a religion that promotes secularism and materialism in an attempt to erase religion from public life. This larger debate is often the subtext for arguments made over Intelligent Design. ====Irreducible complexity==== The term was coined by biochemist Michael Behe in his 1996 book ''Darwin's Black Box''. The irreducible complexity argument holds that evolutionary mechanisms cannot account for the emergence of some complex biochemical cell systems. ID advocates argue that the systems must therefore have been deliberately engineered by some form of intelligence. Irreducible complexity is defined by Behe as: :"...a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."--(Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference). According to the theory of evolution, genetic variations occur without specific design or intent. The environment selects variants that have the highest fitness, which are then passed on to the next generation of organisms. Change occurs by the gradual operation of natural forces over time, perhaps slowly, perhaps more quickly (see punctuated equilibrium). This process is able to create complex structures from simpler beginnings, or convert complex structures from one function to another (see spandrel). Most ID advocates accept that evolution through mutation and natural selection occurs, but assert that it cannot account for irreducible complexity, because none of the parts of an irreducible system would be functional or advantageous until the entire system is in place. Behe uses the mousetrap as an illustrative example of this concept. A mousetrap consists of several interacting pieces—the base, the catch, the spring, the hammer—all of which must be in place for the mousetrap to work. The removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Likewise, biological systems require multiple parts working together in order to function. ID advocates claim that natural selection could not create from scratch those systems for which science is currently not able to find a viable evolutionary pathway of successive, slight modifications, because the selectable function is only present when all parts are assembled. Behe's original examples of irreducibly complex mechanisms included the bacterial flagellum of ''E. coli'', the blood clotting cascade, cilia, and the adaptive immune system. ====Specified complexity==== The ID argument of specified complexity was developed by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski. Dembski uses the term ''specified complexity'' to denote a property that makes living things unique. He claims that specified complexity is present when there exists a large amount of ''specified information'': *High information, low specificity. For example, the 10-character (computing) structure "dkownl xel". According to Claude E. Shannon's information theory, a random string of letters contains the highest possible information content, because it cannot be compressed into a smaller string. However, the random nature makes the string without meaning, and thus non-specified according to Dembski. (Note that "meaning" does not play a role in Shannon's information theory.) *High specificity, low information. For example, the 10-character structure "aaaaaaaaaa". The sequence has low information because it can be compressed into a smaller string, such as "10 a's" . However, because it conforms to a pattern it is highly specified. *Specified information. For example, the 10-character structure "I love you". According to Dembski, this has both high information content, because it cannot be compressed, and specificity, because it conforms to a pattern (grammar and syntax). In this case, the pattern it conforms to is that of a meaningful English phrase, one of a selection of strings which together make up a small fraction of all possible arrangements. In living things, the "pattern" that molecular sequences conform to is that of a functional biological molecule, which make up only a small fraction of all possible molecules. Dembski defines ''complex specified information'' (CSI) as something containing a large amount of specified information, which has a low probability of occurring by chance. He defines this probability as 1 in 10150, which he calls the ''universal probability bound''. Anything below this bound has CSI. The terms "specified complexity" and "complex specified information" are used interchangeably. Dembski and other proponents of ID argue that specified information is best explained by design and is therefore a reliable indicator of design. ====Fine-tuned universe==== ID proponents use the argument that we live in a fine-tuned universe. They propose that the natural emergence of a universe with all the features necessary for life is wildly improbable. Thus, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular outcome. Opinion within the scientific community is still divided on the "finely-tuned universe" issue, but this particular explanation and assessment of probabilities is rejected by most scientists and statisticians. Within mainstream physics this is related to the question of the anthropic principle, whose weak form is based on the observation that the laws of physics must allow for life, since we observe there is life. The strong form, however, is the assertion that the laws of physics ''must'' have made it possible for life to arise. The strong form is a distinctly minority position and is highly controversial. (See also cosmology) ===Criticisms of arguments=== ====Scientific peer review==== One of the scientific community's chief oppositions to ID is the perception that ID proponents are attempting to "end run" the Scientific method.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Peer_review_evaluation], either by not submitting to Peer review journals, or by setting up "peer review" that consists entirely of ID supporters. Proponents of ID explain the reason for their absence in peer-reviewed literature is that papers explaining the findings and concepts in support of ID are consistently excluded from the mainstream scientific discourse.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Scientific_method_and_the_practice_of_science] They claim this is because ID arguments challenge the principles of Philosophical naturalism and uniformitarianism that are accepted as fundamental by the mainstream scientific community. Thus, ID supporters believe that research that points toward an intelligent designer is often rejected simply because it deviates from these "dogmatically held beliefs", without regard to the merits of their specific claims. According to their critics, this is an ''ad hominem'' attack, designed to cover over the lack of success in creating scientifically testable or verifiable data or theory, by claiming that there is a conspiracy against them. Critics of ID point out that this is an argument commonly used by advocates of pseudoscience views (most notably by UFO enthusiasts), and that the perceived bias is simply the result of ID being unscientific and inadequately supported. A notable exception to this explanation for lack of published, peer-reviewed writings is William Dembski, who claims in a 2001 interview that he stopped submitting to peer-reviewed journals due to their slow time-to-print and that he makes more money from publishing books [http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i17/17a00801.htm]. To date, the intelligent design movement has only succeeded in publishing one article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 ''The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories''](Meyer, Stephen C., ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'', Jan. '05. ''Please note:'' Since its publishing, the article was removed from the journal's website. The link provided is hosted by the Discovery Institute.) The journal subsequently disowned the paper. The author is the Program Director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, the major organization promoting ID. The journal issued a public [http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html statement] explaining that the Meyer paper did not go through the journal's approved peer review process and does not meet the scientific standards of the journal. This assertion has been [http://www.rsternberg.net/Procedures.htm denied] by Richard Sternberg, who was managing editor at that time. Critics of Meyer's paper believe that Sternberg himself may be biased in this matter, since he is a member of the editorial board of the Created kinds Study Group, an organization with a creationist agenda. The Baraminology Study Group's official position is that Sternberg is not a creationist and acts primarily as a skeptical reviewer.[http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/clarifications.html] A critical review of the article is available on the Panda's Thumb website.[http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html] The vast majority of practicing biologists oppose Intelligent Design. The Scientific community does not regard the argument over ID to be of the same kind as, for example, differing theories on how particular traits evolved, or even in the realm of scientific speculation, the way, a hypothesis of panspermia might be considered as a plausible scientific speculation. The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse, and the failure to submit work to the scientific community which withstands scrutiny is regarded by the critics of ID as a strong argument against Intelligent Design being considered as "science" at all. ====Irreducible complexity - criticism==== Critics of ID point out that the IC argument only makes sense if one assumes that the present function of a system must have been the one that it was selected for. But the concept of cooption, in which existing features become adapted for new functions, has long been a mainstay of biology. Many purported IC structures have functional subsystems that are used elsewhere. ID advocates have often reacted to this by trying to define an "IC core", or by changing the number of parts required for an IC system. Critics have claimed that these instances of "moving the goal posts" show that IC is not a clear concept that can be objectively applied. While Behe has considered cooption, he rejects it as unlikely, which critics contend is an unwarranted dismissal. The IC argument also assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary, and therefore could not have been added sequentially. But something which is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary. For example, one of the clotting factors that Behe listed as a part of the IC clotting cascade was later found to be absent in whales[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9678675], demonstrating that it isn't essential for a clotting system. Many purported IC structures can be found in other organisms as simpler systems that utilize fewer parts. These systems may have had even simpler precursors that are now extinct. Perhaps most importantly, evolutionary pathways have been elucidated for IC systems such as blood clotting, the immune system[http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/Evolving_Immunity.html] and the flagellum[http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum_background.html]. If IC is an insurmountable obstacle to evolution, it should not be possible to conceive of such pathways -- Behe has remarked that any such plausible pathways would defeat his argument. Computer simulations of evolution also demonstrate that IC can evolve. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12736677&dopt=Abstract][http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html] ID advocates respond by saying that proposed models for the evolution of IC structures are not detailed enough, or cannot be tested. They also dismiss computer simulations as biologically unrealistic. ====Specified complexity - criticism==== The conceptual soundness of Dembski's SC/CSI argument is strongly disputed by critics of ID. First, specified complexity, as originally defined by Leslie Orgel, is precisely what Darwinian evolution is proposed to create. It is not enough for Dembski to take a property of living things and arbitrarily declare it to be a reliable indicator of design; he must also provide compelling reasons why no natural processes could create such a property. According to critics of ID, by taking this burden of proof on himself, that is, to prove a negative, he must show not merely that there is no explanation currently accepted, but that no such explanation is possible within the framework of genetics and natural selection. Additionally, Dembski confuses the issue by using "complex" as most people would use "improbable". He defines CSI as anything with a less than 1 in 10150 chance of occurring naturally. But this renders the argument a tautology. CSI cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature. To demonstrate this, Dembski would need to show that a biological feature really did have an extremely low probability of occurring naturally by ''any'' means, an enormously difficult (perhaps impossible) task that would require definitively ruling out all potential theories, including those that may not have been thought of yet. In general, Dembski does not attempt to do this, but instead simply takes the existence of CSI as a given, and then proceeds to argue that it is a reliable indicator of design. Among the many criticisms of this approach is the problem of "arbitrary but specific outcomes". For example, it is unlikely that any given person will win a lottery, but, eventually, a lottery will have a winner. To argue that it is very unlikely that any one player would win is not the same as proving that there is the same chance that no one will win. Further, mathematicians have pointed out that Dembski's information theory is flawed, that many of his examples that he claims cannot be compressed further, in fact can be. For example, the 10 byte phrase "I love you" can be written "luv u"; or, in context, even the three bytes of "ily" will convey the same message; and the ASCII art "heart" symbol "
==Archives== */Archive1 (2002-2003) */Archive2 (2003) */Archive3 (Jan-Sep 2004, 53kb - Are oppositions/criticisms of ID relevant?) */Falsification (Aug-Oct 2004, 46kb - Is ID theory falsifiable?) */Archive4 (Sep-Nov 2004, 42kb - Overwhelming majority: POV? What does "scientific" mean?) */Scientific supernaturalism? (Nov 2004 - POV problems with claiming space for the supernatural within science) */Archive5 (Nov-Dec 2004) */Archive6 (Dec 2004-early Jan 2005) *Talk:Intelligent design/archive7 (Jan 2005) */Archive8 ( Jan-April 2005) */Archive9 (April - May 2005) */Archive_10 (Early - Mid June 2005 - Structured debate; the Pryamid analogy; Article Splits) ==Theological debates== Needs major work. The 'Materialism vs. Spirituallity' section is basically 'Nature of the Designer' stuff. But there's good stuff. It could also use some of the 'Other' links from the former arguments section. And a brief overview of "deck-stacking".--User:A ghost 17:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==''a priori adoption'' of a naturalistic metaphysics.== What the hell does this mean??? metaphysics means "outside" physics or outside science or outside nature, i.e. super-natural. how can science be called metaphysical when it by definition is within physics? this quote is from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#ID_as_a_movement ID as a movement]. User:FuelWagon 02:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Not a clue. Ask User:FeloniousMonk. I think it translates to, "Movement proponents charge that methodological naturalism in science requires the ''a priori'' adoption of a constant set of rules or laws of nature. ID claims to free science from the assumption that the laws of the Universe are fixed." I'm not sure if that's exactly what he means, but I think it's in English.--User:A ghost 14:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Metaphysics simply means ontology. User:Graft 15:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Graft is partially correct. Metaphysics is the study of ''knowing'' and being [http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.1?o2=&o0=1&o6=&o1=1&o5=&o4=&o3=&s=metaphysics]. This being true, then ID movement proponents alleging that science (in relying upon methodological naturalism) demands a priori adoption of a naturalistic way of knowing (metaphysics) is also correct. The original passage was correct as it stood. I'll be restoring it or a more clear version of it. User:FeloniousMonk 17:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::I skimmed metaphysics, the bit that stood out was that it is a study of "first principles", which I think is what should go in this sentence, rather than "metaphysics". The metaphysics article seems to spend a bit of energy saying that metaphysics is hard to define, however I think "first principles" are fairly easily defined, and much more accurate for what's being talked about in this sentence. User:FuelWagon 23:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::''First principles'' would be preferable because it seems this bit conflates ''metaphysics'' with ''epistemology''. --User:Rikurzhen 23:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) ::::::Someone changed it to "naturalistic philosophy" which is OK by me. User:FuelWagon 14:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) All of the ''a priori''/''a posteriori'' text should be trashed. It's original research. --User:Goethean ॐ 16:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::dude, give it a rest. Some of us can put two and two together without having to quote someone else on it. Go work on integral-wiki since you claim to have it all figured out over there. User:FuelWagon 17:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Right here I think they are referring to the part in "ID as a movement" where design theorists claim that science is skewed because it currently operates under an ''a priori'' assumption of naturalistic philosophy. It's certainly true that design theorists think this way, I could quote several ID books to that end. User:Dbergan 17:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) See below.--User:A ghost 21:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==the ''a priori''/''a posteriori'' thing in "ID in summary" paragraph 5== :As far as the ''a priori''/''a posteriori'' thing in the intro regarding ID's legitibility (which User:Goethean is referring to)... do we have any notable person on record for holding this opinion? This is the first time I've ever encountered it. User:Dbergan 17:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::and so commences the moving target again. This time dbergan wants a ''notable'' person on record. tune in again next week when it will be a completely different target. User:FuelWagon 17:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Sorry that you consider me to be such a pain in the ass. I was just wondering if we had any outside basis for that paragraph, because it was new to me and I thought one of the planks of wikipedia is no original research. User:Dbergan 17:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC ::::You and goeth are both pains in the ass. ID is attempting to redefine science from "the world rules are constant" (current scientific defintion) to "the world rules can be changed as god intervenes". ID argues that natural rules by themselves are INSUFFICIENT for life to develop on it own, and so god (or some designer) must INTERVENE, CHANGE THE RULES, and then let nature take over from there. Science will not INTUIT a god or anything else that it cannot prove through obsevability. science is a posteriori (go see the wikipedia page on natural science). id WILL intuit a god, without direct observation of a god, which is a priori. If you can't fucking figure out the difference between a priori and a posteriori, you are an idiot. I don't need to fucking quote someone to take ID's arguments and piece them together in contrast with science. This is not "independent research", this is taking the arguments of ID and piecing them together in contrast with the definition of natural science. My guess is that you DO understand the difference but your feigning ignorance and claiming a quote is required to cut out criticim of ID. User:FuelWagon 19:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::My apologies FuelWagon. ghost pointed out the source below. Hate to tell if I'm a pain in your ass, the feeling isn't mutual. I actually like to see what you're going to say next. Sure, I'm convinced your prejudice blinds you from actually learning what ID is (you seem unwilling to separate the scientific study of ID from a supposed religious conspiracy)... and I find it humorous that you talk as an expert on the topic when you probably haven't even read one book on the subject... but I have to respect a man who says what he means and means what he says. User:Dbergan 17:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::Cool. User:FuelWagon 18:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I'm pretty sure (if I read this all correctly) this is just the formal philisophical term for axom or basic assumtions or postulates. In semi-plain english, this is how I understand it; The field of science is only concerned with that which can be fallsified repeated and empirically observed. Thus nature is the focus of study, and that which is supernatural is ignored. A contention of ID is that science should not do this, the contention of mainstream of science is it can, it will, and it must. Or something like that. At any rate, if this is somewhere close to correct this assumtion is found in every single science textbook worthy of the name. The better ones will note that supernatural is not so much disproven by science, but ignored.--User:Tznkai 17:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::I've heard the falisification and repeatability arguments before (and do not object to their being presented here), but not the ''a priori''/''a posteriori'' one. If this just one of our own personal arguments, it should be scrapped. Who wrote it? Fess up. Show us where you got it, or else take it down. User:Dbergan 17:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Here's some relevant quotes from ID proponents: *''"I got the opportunity when I was on a sabbatical in London in 1987 or 1988 to read more about Darwinism. It was immensely interesting to discover that it’s all circular reasoning, deception, and pseudo-science. I had suspected that, but I saw that it was really true. It is a pseudo-science that simply works for confirming examples of a materialist philosophical system that’s held up by a priori grids."'' --Phillip Johnson [http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.5docs/15-5pg40.html] *''"With creationist explanations disqualified at the outset, it follows that the evidence will always support the naturalistic alternative. We can be absolutely certain that the Academy will not say, "The evidence on the whole supports the theory of evolution, although we concede that the apparent abrupt appearance of many fully formed animal groups in the Cambrian rocks is in itself a point in favor of the creationists." There are no scientific points in favor of creation and there never will be any as long as naturalists control the definition of science, because creationist explanations by definition violate the fundamental commitment of science to naturalism. When the fossil record does not provide the evidence that naturalism would like to see, it is the fossil record, and not the naturalistic explanation, that is judged to be inadequate..... When pressed about the unfairness of disqualifying their opponents a priori, naturalists sometimes portray themselves as merely insisting upon a proper definition of "science," and not as making any absolute claims about "truth." By this interpretation, the National Academy of Sciences did not say that it is untrue that "the creation of the universe, the earth, living things and man was accomplished through supernatural means inaccessible to human understanding," but only that this statement is unscientific. Scientific naturalists who take this line sometimes add that they do not necessarily object to the study of creationism in the public schools, provided it occurs in literature and social science classes rather than in science class."'' --Phillip Johnson. Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. [http://www.windowview.org/arnfiles/evolutionasdogma.html] Hope this helps. User:FeloniousMonk 18:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Link to one more quote [http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9811/articles/johnson.html] User:FeloniousMonk 18:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I totally agree with you FM, that design theorists cite science as having an 'a priori' assumption of naturalism. No argument at all there. I started this section to refer to "ID in summary" paragraph 5. Where are the quotes that the evolutionists (or anyone) think that recognizing intelligent design is based only on 'a priori' intuitions? I know it's confusing with the term 'a priori' being used in both parts. User:Dbergan 18:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::OK, we're talking about different things. I was confused. User:FeloniousMonk 19:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Folks, [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html the link that David requested] was in the Anti-ID Links section. FuelWagon took the liberty of translating it into something approaching English. Let's please read the references before we start beating each other up asking for links we already have.--User:A ghost 21:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::Thanks ghost. Sorry for not checking that before raising the issue. User:Dbergan 22:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::It happens. I'm as guilty as anyone else. Let's move on.--User:A ghost 22:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) == NPOV == I want to thank those that have been watching the page recently. It appears that we have a few people trying to insert the NPOV flag, without first discussing this here. Since I've been heavily involved recently in trying to rebalence the article, trim the fat & remove POV tone I'd like to offer this space for those that still have POV concerns. I won't pretend that the article's perfect, I still think is needs plenty of work. But I think on the whole, it's vastly improved in the last several weeks.--User:A ghost 17:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I agree. I don't see a need for the flag. The article is indeed much improved. User:FeloniousMonk 17:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I don't agree. Strongly. This article is as neutral as an Al-Qaeda recruit with IED's strapped around his waist. It is better than it was, I will give you that. It is still full of misinformation. The section on peer-review is either poorly researched or is full of lies. Here's an example of what I am talking about: :"To date, the intelligent design movement has only succeeded in publishing one article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal..." :This statement is ridiculously ignorant. What "date" might that be? Must have been back in 1992, before anyone even knew what the phrase "intelligent design" meant.--User:Netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) -- try any date bub. intellegent design is almost as much of a laughing stock as creationism.-uber ::The article is listed in the article with a proper reference.--ghost :Did anyone bother to look in the journals? Obviously not. Are we relying on pop-news to provide fact? Yes.--User:Netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::You are incorrect. I lost count of how many I searched, all in the last month. Links to two journal search engines used at listed in the ref section. I also used Google and AltaVista--ghost :Below are a few peer-reviewed works that have been published (and not "disowned"). There are many more, ask me in this discussion section if you would like to see more. :Would anyone mind if I edited this section to report facts?--User:Netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::You're welcome too.--ghost :Thanks for the info, I'll dig thru it this afternoon and evening. BTW, since you seem to have come here with an agenda and disrespected the work of a large number of editors with your Al-Qaeda remark, do you expect us to treat you differently than you have us? No? Good. Expect me to double check your work with a fine-tooth comb. And treat it as you have others.--User:A ghost 16:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Al-Qaeda recruit??? Good grief. This is the new variant of Godwin's law... User:FuelWagon 16:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Wow... Mr. Tact and Respect is on my side? Great. Nothing like joining in on a discussion and offending everyone else. User:Dbergan 18:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Moved netcody's peer-reviewed articles to it's own section below. User:Dbergan 17:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)) ==quantum physics== what the fuck does this mean? "In general, arguments posed against Intelligent Design assume that the universe is the result of a chain of causality. However, quantum physicists point out that possibility provides a better explanation of the nature of universe than causality, and that consciousness cannot be separated from observation. If the universe is a field of infinite possibilities which every consciousness goes about creating (according to science), then Intelligent De--User:Tznkai 18:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)sign cannot be defined in terms of causality unless the existance of a creator is assumed. However, since all consciousnesses are affecting the universe(s) that we share, it is not inconceivable that some kind of super-consciousness exists in the form of possibility and free will. It seems the intelligence behind the design would be need to be a creative one... but that is only one possibility which does not reach beyond the paradigm of causality." How can something be in such mumbo-jumbo? The lead section from a while back was much better. User:Duncharris|User talk:duncharris 17:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I just had an edit conflict with you about the same thing. I removed it. User:FuelWagon 17:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I agree, it's nonsense. Maybe Sokal wrote it as one of his jokes again ;-) User:FeloniousMonk 17:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Also, I'm not sure I understand Tznkai's reversion of Dunc's addition of the position of the scientific community to ID to the intro (which I have no objection to; it was brief and factual). He seems to be invoking discussion on the talk page as justification for the revert, but I see nothing here that supports that. If no one else objects, I'll be reverting to Dunc's version. User:FeloniousMonk 17:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::That portion of it wasn't the main problem, it was the removal of the redirect tag. I considered the entire edit suspcicious since it seemed that Dunc has not been paying attention to whats been going on.--User:Tznkai 18:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::I understand now. Thanks. I'll just re-add the scientific pov then. User:FeloniousMonk 18:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::Fine by me. I think we need to clarify that ID propose "directed" evolution while scientific community at large simply feels evolution happens, directed or otherwise. No evidence of direction, so we don't think about it.--User:Tznkai 18:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::No, that's wrong. ID specifically rejects evolution of certain physical structures. They could ONLY exist, according to ID, by special creation. That is, God (or something else) came down and wrote DNA sequence (or whatever) from scratch, NOT that God merely encouraged evolution to move in specific directions through His divine influence (which is more like evolutionary creationism). User:Graft 18:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::I'm not sure if I get the diffrence. God stacks the deck so dna has to show up, or God waves his hands and dna appears. Seems pretty similar to me if you accept God as a supreme being...--User:Tznkai 19:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::From what I've read, ID only rejects the plausibility of evolution of some structures (i.e., natural evolution of them has a low probability) -- not that they are logically or physically impossible. --User:Rikurzhen 19:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) :::::::As I understnad it, it goes a little like this Science: Random mutation! ID: not-so-random mutation! Science: well, maybe, but you can't prove that, its a matter of faith. ID: yes we can! See? Science: No you didn't! Thats crack!. Logic being on science's side by quite a bit--User:Tznkai 19:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::ID proponents generally reject "deck stacking" because it means that god wound up the universe like a clock at the beginning of time and hasn't touched it since. ID proponents want an interactive god. A stacked deck means that the rules of nature are fixed and unchanging, and therefore science, which has fixed world rules as its only assumption, is sufficient to explain life. ID isn't really needed if the rules are fixed but the deck is stacked. ID is arguing that god changed the rules and THAT is specifically outside of what science can detect. User:FuelWagon 19:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ====Quantum physics==== :In general, arguments posed against Intelligent Design assume that the universe is the result of a chain of causality. However, quantum physicists point out that ''possibility'' provides a better explanation of the nature of universe than ''causality'', and that consciousness cannot be separated from observation. If the universe is a field of infinite possibilities, then Intelligent Design cannot be defined in terms of causality unless the existence of a creator is assumed. However, since every consciousness is capable of affecting the universe(s), it is not inconceivable that some kind of super-consciousness exists in the form of possibility and free will. It seems the intelligence behind the design would be need to be a creative one, but only if the ontology used to define Intelligent Design is congruent with the paradigm of causality. The above is the current version as of 6/16. I moved it here because: *It's not in English. Yes, I understand it, but our goal is to make the article accessable to the average reader, and encourage them to learn. Not make their head hurt. *It smacks of Original Material. I've been thru the links, and this is new to me. *It needs major Wikifing. *It fits more logically in other sections, such as 'Fine-Tuned Universe'. I'm all for reinserting after a major rework, but let's make sure it makes sense.--User:A ghost 21:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==24.64.223.203 & the intro== 24.64.223.203 has violated 3rr already with his repeated insertions in the intro, in case nobody noticed. I say give him one more chance to play ball, and if not, then report it. User:FeloniousMonk 19:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==quoting sources, the word of god== Since some editors hold the position that we can't put subject and verb together unless we quote it from someone, I thought this might be a good quote for the article [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html]: ::Scientific creationism is 100% crap. So-called "scientific" creationists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data. Their ideas are based on religious dogma, and their approach is simply to attack evolution. The types of arguments they use fall into several categories: distortions of scientific principles ( the second law of thermodynamics argument), straw man versions of evolution (the "too improbable to evolve by chance" argument), dishonest selective use of data (the declining speed of light argument) appeals to emotion or wishful thinking ("I don't want to be related to an ape"), appeals to personal incredulity ("I don't see how this could have evolved"), dishonestly quoting scientists out of context (Darwin's comments on the evolution of the eye) and simply fabricating data to suit their arguments (Gish's "bullfrog proteins"). ::Most importantly, scientific creationists do not have a testable, scientific theory to replace evolution with. Even if evolution turned out to be wrong, it would simply be replaced by another scientific theory. Creationists do not conduct scientific experiments, nor do they seek publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Much of their output is "preaching to the choir." ::The most persuasive creationist argument is a non-scientific one -- the appeal to fair play. "Shouldn't we present both sides of the argument?," they ask. The answer is no Anyway, since a quote is the priority around here, I thought it was cool that we can quote someoen as saying ID is "crap". User:FuelWagon 19:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Hm, actually, this guy says right there that "creationists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data", which means we can quote that and then expand on the definition of "scientific reasoning", which I'm pretty sure is a posteriori. But I might be thinking for myself a bit too much...User:FuelWagon 19:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Uh. Who are you quoting, again? User:Graft 20:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::LOL. Although I find this quote funny as hell, it's not appropriate for the body of the article. If you wanted to provide a link to it to support some other "ID is not science" statement, I'm good with that. The article's here to present the concept, and let the reader conclude whether or not it's crap. (I think you told me that once. ;-] )--User:A ghost 20:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Not to mention that the quotation is referring to Scientific Creationism, which is different from ID. --User:Goethean ॐ 21:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Graft, I'm quoting from talkorigins.org, a paper written by Chris Colby. the page didn't have his resume/background, but his email address is bio-bu.bu.edu (or .org, cant remember now). User:FuelWagon 23:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Goeth, since most critics would say that ID actually IS "scientific creationism" in sheeps clothing, I think it's still on topic. Not that I'm saying we quote the "crap" part. I was having a little fun and you're still a pain in my ass. I'm curious, if ID, changes its name tomorrow to "SmartEngineering", would the SE article only get to quote SE critics? Or can we connect some fucking dots and figure out that scientists consider SE and ID and ScientificCreationism to be cut from the same cord of bullshit? The article was last updated in 1996. Does every critic have to go back and update their articles every time the bible thumpers come up with a new name for their game? User:FuelWagon 23:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Uh. See above where you explained to me how ID and scientific creationism are not the same. you can't have it both ways--User:Tznkai 23:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :\"you explained to me how ID and scientific creationism are not the same\" uhm..... ''what?'' I just searched for "creation" and couldn't find anything by me with that assertion. Not that I didn't say that, but I sure don't remember saying that. Unless it wound up in an archive, which I didn't search. Could you point me to the subsection at least? User:FuelWagon 23:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Maybe it wasn't you, but it was explained to me in the quantum physics subsection of this talk page :::Damn it, man. was it me or not? You're the one making the accusation. Are you just gonna leave it hanging out there? User:FuelWagon 00:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::Nevermind I got confused. It wasn't an accusation, it was confusion.--User:Tznkai 00:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Peer-reviewed stuff of ID (netcody)== • W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 1998). This book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. The editorial board of that series includes members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi, who shared the prize in 1994 with John Nash, the protagonist in the film A Beautiful Mind. Commenting on the ideas in this book, Paul Davies remarks: “Dembski’s attempt to quantify design, or provide mathematical criteria for design, is extremely useful. I’m concerned that the suspicion of a hidden agenda is going to prevent that sort of work from receiving the recognition it deserves. Strictly speaking, you see, science should be judged purely on the science and not on the scientist.” Quoted in L. Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003), p. 149. --User:Netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :This is a book, not a journal. It was not subject to scientific peer review.--ghost ::Actually, this book was more rigorously peer-reviewed than most journal articles. [http://www.designinference.com/documents/05.02.resp_to_wein.htm Click here] and scroll down to "2. Peer Review". User:Dbergan 17:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Wait, citing Dembski's own site? Not compelling. Other more reputable sources (like the National Academies) have emphatically stated that no ID research has survived peer review to be published in any credible, significant scientific publications. I can provide many neutral, credible cites on this if required. Further, that ID lacks formal, credible peer review is a fact easily verified-- a search of PubMed [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi] for the term "intelligent design" returns no hits for peer reviewed primary writings in support of ID. Netcody's cites are inconclusive. He alludes to each as supporting ID, I recognize several here as well-known examples of actual research that is often misquoted/misinterpreted by ID supporters, to the chagrin of the research authors. User:FeloniousMonk 18:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::Are you saying Dembski made up the info about TDI's review process? Do you have any neutral sources that tell you it was reviewed in a different manner? This is a simple question of fact that should be easy to find out if he's wrong. User:Dbergan 18:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::I'm saying that as a matter of policy the Discovery Institute and it's officers consistantly misrepresent their work and that of others, and so we need to be circumspect here. User:FeloniousMonk 20:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::This illustrates a common thread that I've suspected since getting involved in this article. That the term peer review, and the requirements needed to reach acceptance by the larger scientific community are subjective. In the case of ''The Desgin Inference'' the peer-review conducted was done by Philosophers. The peer review conducted was based more on copy and content from a philosophical context; thus it might be called a soft-scientific peer review at best. The hard-scientific peer review that many of our more skeptical editors refer to is the type conducted by, say medical doctors, mathematicians and analytical chemists. Dembski himself admits that this is a different standard. Felonious, gathering those sources discounting IDs peer reviews, and how these other articles were or weren't misquoted/misinterpereted, would be be best. Netcody, ''TDI'' doesn't make the cut as scientific peer reviewed at this time. The Discovery Institute wants us to buy into it as scientific fact comparable to evolution, not philosophy.--User:A ghost 18:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::Part of the aforementioned site says: ''"TDI appeared in Cambridge University Press's monograph series known as Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. This series is the equivalent of a journal. It has a general editor, Brian Skyrms (who, by the way, is a member of the National Academy of Sciences). It also has an editorial board, which at the time of publication consisted of the following: Ernest Adams, Ken Binmore, Jeremy Buttterfield, Persi Diaconis, William Harper, John Harsanyi, Richard Jeffrey, Wolfgang Spohn, Patrick Suppes, Amos Tversky, and Sandy Zabell. This editorial board is a literal who's who in the statistics and inductive reasoning world. Persi Diaconis (Stanford) and Sandy Zabell (Northwestern) are personal acquaintances and are housed in the statistics departments of their respective schools"'' Math/statistics certainly qualifies as scientific... and the editor is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. The reviewers weren't all from philosophy and humanities. User:Dbergan 18:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::David, you're assuming that the entire board reviewed the book. They did not. Dembski states clearly the 5 philosophers reviewed the manuscript prior to publication. No Math or statisics profs. Sorry, move on.--User:A ghost 19:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::Huh? I think you misread it. He says 5 philosophy profs reviewed it for his PhD. Afterwards, this math board reviewed it so as to include it in their ''Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory'' series. We're talking about two separate reviews, one by the philosophers and the other by the mathematicians. If anyone on the math board for this second review read the book, that consititutes a peer-review. However, there is the possibility that Dembski's site is all lies... but then we should easily find someone who said that there was no review process for its inclusion in the ''Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory'' series. If not, TDI should be mentioned in the peer-review section of our article. User:Dbergan 19:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::I didn't misread. And I think you're missing my point. The philoposphers read & peer reviewed the manuscript prior to publication. Everyone else read it after. This, according to Dembski. He admits it not going thru the same type of critical review process that his mathematics dissertation did (which was not ID related). Further, he states reasons for avoiding just such a review of his later works. Unfortunately, this commercial decision left him and ID open to this type of critic. In hindsight, it was a severe stategic blunder. But we've all gotta put food on the table. As to Dembski's comments about the eariler standards of peer review, although they might be technically correct, no one as accepted those standards on over a generation. And the theories he quotes as being published without review have withstood the most intense of scrutiny, while lots more fell by the wayside. ID has not (yet).--User:A ghost 20:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::::I see your point... it was "published" (if you can call a PhD approval "publication") before the mathematicians reviewed it. But are you arguing that the mathematicians didn't review it and give it a pass before "publishing" it in their prestigious series? Or are you saying that their review doesn't count for some reason? User:Dbergan 21:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::You're making me repeat myself, but I'll give it a final try. Dembski 'feels' that ''TDI'' received a peer review greater than that of a normal scientific article. This because, it went past 5 philosophers and the review process for the Cambrige University Press(CUP) prior to publication. The more critical reviews that it received followed publication, so Dembski seems to write them off as sour grapes. ::::::::::The arguement that undermines ''TDI's'' peer review is that same that underlies the ID debate as a whole. First, that the peer review of a PhD dissertation by Philosophers qualified ''TDI'' as a valid philospohical subject. Nothing less, but nothing more. Second, that Brian Skyrms is that only board member of the CUP that Dembski mentions being involved in the secondary review, thus we cannot assume that rest of this multi-disciplinary board was involved. Third, that the CUP published this as a book on philosophy, not hard-science. In this way, one could view the Discovery Institute attempts to present it as hard-science as being disingenuous. Finally, that Dembski's use of sales figures as a way to measure credibility is about as ridiculous as saying that magic exists because ''Harry Potter'' says so. ::::::::::In this way, the debate over ID as a hard-science resembles the debate surrounding cold fusion. Even the scientists that might like the idea aren't about to back it up until they see some hard evidence. They have no interest in putting their career's on the line for what could be a mirage. A lot of people are more than happy to approach ID as a philosophical debate. They draw the line where others attempt to cross it over to a hard-science. '''So, if we want to characterize ''TDI'' as a peer reviewed book on philosophy, I'm all for it. It's has failed subsequent peer review as a book on hard-science, so we cannot allow it to be construed it any other way.'''--User:A ghost 22:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) • D.D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, 301 (2000): 585–595. This work shows that certain enzymes are extremely sensitive to perturbation. Perturbation in this case does not simply diminish existing function or alter function, but removes all possibility of function. This implies that neo-Darwinian theory has no purchase on these systems. Moreover, the probabilities implicit in such extreme-functional-sensitivity analyses are precisely those needed for a design inference. --User:Netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :This is wrong. The work does NOT show that. It shows that simultaneous conservative substitutions of several groups of amino acids can eliminate a specific function. It does NOT claim that neutral substitutions are impossible; in fact, it shows exactly the opposite. User:Graft 17:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::My version of Acrobat's on the fritz, I'll have to confirm this tomorrow. But reading [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10966772 the abstract] leads me to think that this is Uncertainty principle applied to amino acids. The only thing that appears to link this paper to ID is the accusation that the author is a closet-creationist. I frown on guilt-by-association, even if it's true. But no gold on this one. Next.--User:A ghost 23:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) • W.-E. Loennig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389–410. This article examines the role of transposons in the abrupt origin of new species and the possibility of an partly predetermined generation of biodiversity and new species. The authors’ approach in non-Darwinian, and they cite favorably on the work of Michael Behe and William Dembski. --User:Netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :This is a rather long review about McClintock's theories of transposons and control of gene expression/influence on evolution. It contains a very BRIEF aside mentioning irreducible complexity, and ONLY mentions it to say that the given transposon mechanisms are a possible way that apparently "irreducible" systems could have developed. User:Graft 19:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Agreed. And, since the full text is availible by subsciption only, we're forced to work from [http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.genet.36.040202.092802?journalCode=genet the abstract.] If someone would be so kind as to make the full-text availible, it would be much appreciated. One of the items I'm curious about is if any correlation was investigated between the TE "hotspots" and any known mathematical phenomenon. Prime numbers and fractals in particular. Both are seen in nature everyday, with little understanding of their causation. If there's a solid link between the TE "hotspots" and mathematical phenomenon, large chunks of Irreducible Complexity go BOOM.--User:A ghost 23:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) :AFAIK, papers in Annual Review of Genetics are not peer-reviewed. --User:Rikurzhen 00:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) • 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. The opening paragraph of this article reads: “Detection of complex specified information is introduced to infer unknown underlying causes for observed patterns [10]. By complex information, it refers to information obtained from observed pattern or patterns that are highly improbable by random chance alone. We evaluate here the complex pattern corresponding to multiple observations of statistical interdependency such that they all deviate significantly from the prior or null hypothesis [8]. Such multiple interdependent patterns when consistently observed can be a powerful indication of common underlying causes. That is, detection of significant multiple interdependent patterns in a consistent way can lead to the discovery of possible new or hidden knowledge.” Reference number [10] here is to William Dembski’s ''The Design Inference.'' --User:Netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::No gold here either. First, I can't access the full-text of this. In fact, the only references that can be found are on websites that take an extreme position on one side or another. We can't address what we can't access. Also, I have some concerns that I'll address below.--User:A ghost 00:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) • M.J. Denton & J.C. Marshall, “The Laws of Form Revisited,” Nature, 410 (22 March 2001): 417; 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. This research is thoroughly non-Darwinian and looks to laws of form embedded in nature to bring about biological structures. The intelligent design research program is broad, and design like this that’s programmed into nature falls within its ambit. --User:Netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :This is a pretty silly review, NOT research. Okay, yes, there's a limited number of protein folds. So what? First of all, it's not even clear that, say, TIM barrels are not monophyletic. Even if they aren't, this doesn't mean much of anything other than "convergence occurs". That's like saying "Mountains are all pointy - why don't they take on any of the OTHER bazillion possible shapes?!? OMG!!!" Dumb. :Anyway, these are NOT ID proponents' writings, and as far as I can tell, none of them are actually writing in support of the idea of intelligent design, even obliquely or unintentionally. User:Graft 19:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::You got me all excited for a minute. I thought, OMG [http://www.estovest.net/ecosofia/lawsofform.html a link!] Little did I know that it was two paragraphs that concluded with: :::''"...If it does turn out that a substantial amount of higher biological form is natural, then the implications will be radical and far-reaching. It will mean that physical laws must have had a far greater role in the evolution of biological form than is generally assumed. And it will mean a return to the pre-darwinian conception that underlying all the diversity of the life is a finite set of natural forms that will recur over and over again anywhere in the cosmos where there is carbon-based life."''--Denton & Marshall, ''Laws of form'' ::And then your follow-up article destroyed the ID of the articles supporting ID with the statement: :::''"We speculate that it is unlikely that the folds will prove to be the only case in nature where a set of complex organic forms is determined by natural law, and suggest that natural law may have played a far greater role in the origin and evolution of life than is currently assumed."''-- Denton, et. al., ''The protein folds as platonic forms: new support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law.'' ::Duh. Symmetry in nature. Darwin does not discount symmetry in nature anymore than anyone else does. In fact, symmetrical forms have been shown to be advantageous, therefore Darwinian theory reinforces the likelihood of symmetry. If you doubt this, ask yourself why the model with the symmetrical face is more attractive than the Elephant Man. No gold.--User:A ghost 00:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Come on DB, citing Dembski's own site as proof of peer review? Not compelling. Other more reputable sources (like the National Academies) have emphatically stated that no ID research has survived peer review to be published in any credible, significant scientific publications. I can provide many neutral, credible cites on this if required. Further, that ID lacks formal, credible peer review is a fact easily verified-- a search of PubMed [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi] for the term "intelligent design" returns no hits for peer reviewed primary writings in support of ID. Netcody's cites are inconclusive. He alludes to each as supporting ID, I recognize several here as well-known examples of actual research that is often misquoted/misinterpreted by ID supporters, to the chagrin of the research authors. User:FeloniousMonk 18:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :OK, I recognize from past months here most of the research cited on netcody's list allegedly supporting ID as being comprised of research commonly misquoted and misinterpreted by ID supporters. It was shown to be gratuitous then, read Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive3. Nothing's changed in the interim, so no, there's no justification for claiming ID benefits from this or any peer reviewed works. User:FeloniousMonk 18:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::BTW, Netcody, if you're going to put this number of people thru this much work again, please have the decency to provide links.--User:A ghost 20:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::And RTFA... User:FeloniousMonk 22:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) Many apologies for my statement about the Al-Qaeda recruit, I did not direct the statement at any person(s) in particular; it was a rhetorical device to make a point. I understand that I have lost all respect in the eyes of everyone involved in this discussion, I had no idea this is taken so seriously. I apologize for my intrusion into this community. On ID as the “antithesis” of evolution as “natural law”: ID supporters do not (or should not) claim that evolution is completely and entirely false. Nor will ID definitively disprove every shred of evidence that has been collected by biologist for the 100+ years. ID is seeking to understand how natural forces, random events, and intelligent activity each function individually and synergistically: INdependently and INTERdependently. Evolution and ID are not antitheses of each other, unless one forces them into opposition by making them say something they do not. As to whether or not ID has credibility in peer review: of course, you are not going to find the phrase "intelligent design" in the “establishment.” There are, however, many quasi-design theoretic works being reviewed and printed. It was the same for Darwin: the establishment in his day rejected him outright. What began to happen was evolution-theoretic research accumulated, and eventually evolution gained a foothold. I see a similar pattern happening for ID. To speak directly to statements by the establishment (like the National Academies) about ID having no basis for research, ID scientists are building a basis, an intellectual foundation. Whether ID will directly benefit from the accumulation of design-theoretic peer reviewed articles is yet to be seen. As for my future involvement with this discussion, I will submit any articles in this discussion to the community and do with it as you will, and certainly you will. --User:Netcody 21:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :None of the references I read (I haven't got access to the last) provide any arguments in favor of intelligent design. How can you pretend they do? The pretense that ID is somehow slowly gaining traction within the scientific community is absurd. User:Graft 21:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Apology accepted (I can't speak for anyone but myself on that). In the future, if you come to a page such as this and use rhethorical speech, it's like shoving a stick into a hornet's nest. Expect to get stung. The references provided above are interesting, but either we can't examine them, or they don't back ID as you might hope. Further, I'm deeply troubled by the fact that: a)all of these references are several years old; b)they are all used (abused?) repeatedly by the Discovery Institute in their rhetorical publications. I challenge you to find something fresh that supports ID directly (not by insinuation), that isn't spewed from the lips of the pundits. Might I suggest looking into string theory? It's not there yet, but it's teetering on the brink. ::For my part, I have no issues with ID being presented as a philosophical theory. The problem is that a vocal minority want to hold it up as scientific fact. That is unacceptable. We have a responsibility to the children who will read this reference we're writing to get it right. I ask all the editors to review the article with the idea that your kid will read it, as mine already are. Let's clean it up, it's too important not too.--User:A ghost 00:44, 20 Ju
Intelligent Design
#REDIRECT Intelligent design
Intelligent Design
Here, put alternative passages for all to consider. Then post cleaned up whole versions to Intelligent Design. Anyone want to try this with me? --User:Ed Poor P.S. Those who object to frequent multiple edits to Intelligent Design can ignore this page. ---- Intelligent design (ID) is a theory of evolution which asserts that God guided the process of evolution. The basis of ID is the observation that some differences between species are too complex to have come about without having been designed (irreducible complexity). ID's acceptance of the fossil record distinguishes it from Sudden Creationism and represents one point of agreement with Evolution. Although ID accepts the fossil record, thus agreeing that evolution did occur, it disagrees with the view that Natural Selection causes new species to come into being. It is only after a new species has come into being that it is subject to the weeding out process of Natural Selection, maintains ID, not before. This is the chief difference between ID and Darwinian evolution, and apparently an irreconcilable one. Unlike Darwinian evolution, which says new species arise due to various random forces such as DNA transcription errors, chemicals, or radiation, ID propenents argue that new species arise only (or chiefly) by an intelligent force. Natural Selection is sometimes defined as being both (a) the cause whereby new species arise and (b) the weeding out process whereby only successful variations propagate; or only (b). ID rejects (a) and accepts (b). Critique of Intelligent Design The scientific view of evolution is based on two premises. Variations occur in the genetic makeup of organisms, and through the process of Natural selection, the most fit of those variations survive while the others die out. Intelligent Design accepts much of the scientific theory, but differs in the role of God in causing the variations. It accepts that fact that there has been evolution, i.e., species have changed and diverged over time from earlier forms of life to the forms which exist today. It does not necessarily accept that there is speciation, the creation of more than one species out of a single species. It accepts the fossil record as an accurate representation of the history of the evolution of species, and accepts that analysis of the fossil record gives accurate and useful results. It accepts that there is a process of natural selection that acts on species ''after'' their creation, but disagrees with the scientific view that natural selection causes the species to come into being in the first flace. Only after the variation has been caused due to deliberate acts of God is the survival or extinction of a newly arisen species is believed to then be subject to the weeding out process. Where it departs from the commonly accepted biological view is in the belief that the variations which are subsequently acted upon by Natural Selection are not random, but guided by the hand of God. In the scientific view, these variations are random and usually small. In the Intelligent Design viewpoint, these small, random variations exist but are not the explanation for speciation. Instead, speciation occurs when God steps in and causes the variation to occur. Unlike Darwinian evolution, which says new species arise due to various random forces such as DNA transcription errors, chemicals, or radiation, ID propenents argue that new species arise only (or chiefly) by an intelligent force. They point to complex biological structures such as the eye, saying that such structures could not have possibly have developed due purely to random chance. Symbiotic relationships, such as plants who can only be pollinated by a specific species of insect, which in turn can only reproduce by using the plant, could not have arisen -- a typical chicken-and-egg problem. Adherents of ID consider their idea that God causes speciation a viable scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally consider it unscientific, because it is not falsifiable and so merely a philosophical or religious idea outside the realm of science. These ideas distinguish ID from Sudden Creationism, which denies completely the existence of evolution. talk:Intelligent_Design Responses of the scientific community to ID The main response of scientists to intelligent design has been to argue that it is a superfluous assumption, on the grounds that Darwinian evolution already explains the problems it was supposed to address. So, for instance, in response to the claim that an eye is too complicated to have developed on its own, one might present a series of evolutionarily intermediate forms leading up to the eye, each of which is close enough to its predecessor that the transition through random chance does not seem unlikely. The entire sequence, of course, remains improbable, but the argument is that some form must have developed, and whatever it is would be equally unlikely - just as someone must win a lottery, as unlikely as it is that any given person will win. Once it is argued that intelligent design is unnecessary, it is usually dismissed. Strictly speaking, the argument is not falsifiable, since it makes no testable predictions, but any number of such explanations can always be invoked and it is generally argued they may be dismissed by parsimony (Occam's Razor). :It is also a common, and dishonest, rhetorical tactic of creationists to call Darwinian evolution a "random" process. Mutation can be random, but not all variation is, and ''selection'' is the exact 180-degree opposite of random. How many of your ancestors were infertile? Died before puberty? None. Zero. That's not random, that's 100% predictable. ::Thanks, that's exactly the kind of feedback this draft page needs. I want to be sure that if use the word 'random' I use it in the right place. I understand that variation is random but selection is orderly. Can you help create an Intelligent Design page that expresses ID's views and contrasts ID with Darwinist evolution? As an extra bonus, write a Darwinist critique of ID, too. --User:Ed Poor For the record, I said the transitions could arise through random chance, and they have to. It's whether or not you keep the end result that's not random. Structures can't evolve unless the opportunity is given. ---- Based on what has been expressed in this article, ID does make assertions which it shares with "sudden creationism"--and I wonder if these are falsifiable. The whole "eye" example is an example of this. Apparently ID is claiming that certain complex features of species cannot emerge from of the accumulation of incremental small changes. I think that Stephen Jay Gould addresses this question in one of his books, but maybe my recollection is wrong on that. So ID is not simply asserting that God is the source of the array of mutations or incremental changes that occur over time; rather, it is asserting that specific kinds of gross characteristics cannot possibly occur as the result the accumulation of incremental changes. this is not simply an example of Occam's razor at work here, because it is asserting that "intermediate" changes of certain kinds cannot exist. This is definitely different than just saying that all those incremental changes were directed by God, which obviously is not falsifiable because that would is positing an unverifiable cause to what appear to us to be random changes. Instead, it claims that these "intermediate" changes never occured, and that God just instantly created major changes, such as by directly creating an eye. As I've said elsewhere, this is similar to the sorts of accusations against evolution that sudden creationists use, and in my opinion it is just as bogus and unscientific. That being said, the question is, are such claims falsifiable? I would think that they might be, but I'm not a scientist, so what do I know. --Egern :''See also :'' Intelligent Design
Intelligent design
Intelligent Design (or ID) is a highly controversial claim holding that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent designer, rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Most ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be. But ID advocate William Dembski in his book "The Design Inference" [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html] lists ''God'' or an ''alien life force'' as two possible options. The scientific community does not recognise ID as a scientific theory and considers it to be creationist pseudoscience. ==ID in summary== ID was born out of opposition to the theory of evolution and is investigating whether or not there is empirical evidence that life on Earth was designed by an intelligent agent or agents. Proponents of ID study objects in an attempt to isolate what they call ''signs of intelligence'' — physical properties of an object that necessitate design. Examples being considered include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity. Many design theorists believe that living systems show one or more of these ''signs of intelligence'', from which they infer that life is designed. This stands in opposition to naturalistic theories of evolution, which explain life exclusively through natural processes such as random mutations and natural selection. William Dembski, one of ID's leading proponents, uses the example of Mount Rushmore to provide an analogy to the underlying premise of ID: :"What about this rock formation convinces us that it was due to a designing intelligence and not merely to wind and erosion? Designed objects like Mt. Rushmore exhibit characteristic features or patterns that point us to an intelligence."--The Design Revolution, pg. 33. The Intelligent Design movement, which began in the mid-1990s, is closely associated with the Center for Science and Culture, an organization that counts most of the leading ID advocates among its fellows or officers. The movement claims ID exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy, and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism (philosophy). The ID movement has attracted considerable press attention and pockets of public support, especially among conservative Christians in the US. Critics call ID an attempt to recast religious dogma in an effort to force public schools to teach creationism in schools, and ID features notably as part of a campaign known as ''Teach the Controversy''. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education assert that ID is pseudoscience . While the scientific model of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, and speciation, the "Intelligent Designer" in ID is neither observable nor repeatable. This violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. ID violates another cornerstone of the scientific method called Occam's Razor by creating an entity to explain something that may have a simpler and scientifically supportable explanation not involving outside help. Critics contend that ID is attempting to redefine natural science.[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html] Natural science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation alone (sometimes called empiricism). Intuition is extremely important in natural science, but the scientific method holds nothing to be true until it can be observed repeatedly. The idea that some outside intelligence created life on Earth is a priori (without observation) knowledge. ID proponents cite some complexity in nature that cannot yet be fully explained by the scientific method (for instance, abiogenesis, the generation of life from non-living matter, is only partially understood by science). They ''intuit'' that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically. Since the designer cannot be observed, it is ''a priori'' knowledge. This ''a priori'' intuition that an intelligent designer (''God'' or an ''alien life force'') created life on Earth has been compared to the ''a priori'' claim that ''aliens'' helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids [http://server1.fandm.edu/departments/Philosophy/staticpages/Murray/Providence.pdf],[http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/timesleader/news/opinion/11448226.htm],[http://www.sfweekly.com/issues/2001-07-04/news/letters_2.html]. In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable, observable, or falsifiable, and it violates Occam's Razor as well. Empirical scientists would simply say "we don't know exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids" and list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques. ===Origin of the term=== The phrase "intelligent design", used in this sense, appeared in Christian creationist literature, including the textbook ''Of Pandas and People'' (Haughton Publishing Company, Dallas, 1989). The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book ''Darwin on Trial''. Johnson is the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture and is considered the father of the intelligent design movement. ===What Intelligent Design is not=== Intelligent Design is not and does not claim to be an alternative theory replacing mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, or speciation. All of these have been observed in laboratories and in the field. For example, humans have themselves created many new species and have observed new species appearing in nature. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html][http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html] This is contrary to how ID is sometimes characterized by both supporters and critics. ==ID as a movement== The Intelligent Design movement is an organized campaign to promote ID arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the United States. Intelligent design proponents strive to eliminate both methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. ID movement proponents allege that science, by relying upon methodological naturalism, demands an ''a priori'' adoption of a naturalistic Philosophy of science that dismisses out of hand any explanation that contains a supernatural cause. Principal ID proponents have stated a goal of greatly undermining or eliminating altogether methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism with the teaching of evolution in public school science, and thus secure recognition of creationism claims of scientific legitimacy by opening the door to supernatural explanations. The intelligent design movement is largely the result of efforts by the conservative Christian think tank Discovery Institute, and its Center for Science and Culture. The Discovery Institute's wedge strategy and its adjunct, the ''Teach the Controversy'' strategy, are campaigns intended to sway the opinion of the public. They target public school administrators and policy makers to facilitate the introduction of intelligent design into the public school science curricula and marginalize mainstream science. The Discovery Institute acknowledges that private parties have donated millions for a research and publicity program to "unseat not just Darwinism, but also Darwinism's cultural legacy."[http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/06/ahmanson/] Critics note that the principal ID proponents share an explicit religious vision, that the Discovery Institute as a matter of policy obfuscates its agenda, and claim that these facts prove the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious worldview that undergirds it." [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/wedge.html] They go on to portray ID as the latest attempt at Intelligent design#.22Stealth_creationism.22. ==Intelligent design debate== The intelligent design debate centers on three issues: #whether the definition of science is broad enough to allow for theories of human origins which incorporate the acts of an intelligent designer; #whether the evidence supports such theories; and #whether the teaching of such theories is appropriate in public education. ID supporters generally hold that science must allow for both natural and supernatural explanations of phenomena. Excluding supernatural explanations limits the realm of possibilities, particularly where naturalistic explanations utterly fail to explain certain phenomena. Supernatural explanations provide a very simple and parsimonious explanation for the origins of life and the universe. Proponents claim that the evidence strongly supports such explanations, as instances of so-called irreducible complexity and specified complexity appear to make it highly unreasonable that the full complexity and diversity of life came about solely through natural means. Finally, they hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, because teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding the Creationist beliefs. Teaching both, ID supporters argue, allows for a scientific basis for religious belief, without causing the state to actually promote a religious belief. According to critics of ID, not only has ID failed to establish reasonable doubt in its proposed shortcomings of accepted scientific theories, but it has not even presented a case worth taking seriously. Critics of ID argue that ID has not presented a credible case for the public policy utility of presenting Intelligent Design in education. More broadly, critics maintain that it has not met the minimum legal standard of not being a "clear" attempt to establish religion, which in the United States is forbidden by law. Scientists argue that those advocating "scientific" treatment of "supernatural" phenomena are grossly misunderstanding the issue, and indeed misunderstand the nature and purpose of science itself. Between these two positions there is a large body of opinion that does not condone the teaching of what is considerd unscientific or questionable material, but is generally sympathetic to the position of Deism/Theism and therefore desires some compromise between the two. The nominal points of contention are seen as being proxies for other issues. For example Richard Dawkins, a very prominent spokesman for evolutionary theory, has argued that evolution disproves the existence of God. Many ID followers are quite open about their view that "Scientism" is itself a religion that promotes secularism and materialism in an attempt to erase religion from public life. This larger debate is often the subtext for arguments made over Intelligent Design. ====Irreducible complexity==== The term was coined by biochemist Michael Behe in his 1996 book ''Darwin's Black Box''. The irreducible complexity argument holds that evolutionary mechanisms cannot account for the emergence of some complex biochemical cell systems. ID advocates argue that the systems must therefore have been deliberately engineered by some form of intelligence. Irreducible complexity is defined by Behe as: :"...a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."--(Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference). According to the theory of evolution, genetic variations occur without specific design or intent. The environment selects variants that have the highest fitness, which are then passed on to the next generation of organisms. Change occurs by the gradual operation of natural forces over time, perhaps slowly, perhaps more quickly (see punctuated equilibrium). This process is able to create complex structures from simpler beginnings, or convert complex structures from one function to another (see spandrel). Most ID advocates accept that evolution through mutation and natural selection occurs, but assert that it cannot account for irreducible complexity, because none of the parts of an irreducible system would be functional or advantageous until the entire system is in place. Behe uses the mousetrap as an illustrative example of this concept. A mousetrap consists of several interacting pieces—the base, the catch, the spring, the hammer—all of which must be in place for the mousetrap to work. The removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Likewise, biological systems require multiple parts working together in order to function. ID advocates claim that natural selection could not create from scratch those systems for which science is currently not able to find a viable evolutionary pathway of successive, slight modifications, because the selectable function is only present when all parts are assembled. Behe's original examples of irreducibly complex mechanisms included the bacterial flagellum of ''E. coli'', the blood clotting cascade, cilia, and the adaptive immune system. ====Specified complexity==== The ID argument of specified complexity was developed by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski. Dembski uses the term ''specified complexity'' to denote a property that makes living things unique. He claims that specified complexity is present when there exists a large amount of ''specified information'': *High information, low specificity. For example, the 10-character (computing) structure "dkownl xel". According to Claude E. Shannon's information theory, a random string of letters contains the highest possible information content, because it cannot be compressed into a smaller string. However, the random nature makes the string without meaning, and thus non-specified according to Dembski. (Note that "meaning" does not play a role in Shannon's information theory.) *High specificity, low information. For example, the 10-character structure "aaaaaaaaaa". The sequence has low information because it can be compressed into a smaller string, such as "10 a's" . However, because it conforms to a pattern it is highly specified. *Specified information. For example, the 10-character structure "I love you". According to Dembski, this has both high information content, because it cannot be compressed, and specificity, because it conforms to a pattern (grammar and syntax). In this case, the pattern it conforms to is that of a meaningful English phrase, one of a selection of strings which together make up a small fraction of all possible arrangements. In living things, the "pattern" that molecular sequences conform to is that of a functional biological molecule, which make up only a small fraction of all possible molecules. Dembski defines ''complex specified information'' (CSI) as something containing a large amount of specified information, which has a low probability of occurring by chance. He defines this probability as 1 in 10150, which he calls the ''universal probability bound''. Anything below this bound has CSI. The terms "specified complexity" and "complex specified information" are used interchangeably. Dembski and other proponents of ID argue that specified information is best explained by design and is therefore a reliable indicator of design. ====Fine-tuned universe==== ID proponents use the argument that we live in a fine-tuned universe. They propose that the natural emergence of a universe with all the features necessary for life is wildly improbable. Thus, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular outcome. Opinion within the scientific community is still divided on the "finely-tuned universe" issue, but this particular explanation and assessment of probabilities is rejected by most scientists and statisticians. Within mainstream physics this is related to the question of the anthropic principle, whose weak form is based on the observation that the laws of physics must allow for life, since we observe there is life. The strong form, however, is the assertion that the laws of physics ''must'' have made it possible for life to arise. The strong form is a distinctly minority position and is highly controversial. (See also cosmology) ===Criticisms of arguments=== ====Scientific peer review==== One of the scientific community's chief oppositions to ID is the perception that ID proponents are attempting to "end run" the Scientific method.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Peer_review_evaluation], either by not submitting to Peer review journals, or by setting up "peer review" that consists entirely of ID supporters. Proponents of ID explain the reason for their absence in peer-reviewed literature is that papers explaining the findings and concepts in support of ID are consistently excluded from the mainstream scientific discourse.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Scientific_method_and_the_practice_of_science] They claim this is because ID arguments challenge the principles of Philosophical naturalism and uniformitarianism that are accepted as fundamental by the mainstream scientific community. Thus, ID supporters believe that research that points toward an intelligent designer is often rejected simply because it deviates from these "dogmatically held beliefs", without regard to the merits of their specific claims. According to their critics, this is an ''ad hominem'' attack, designed to cover over the lack of success in creating scientifically testable or verifiable data or theory, by claiming that there is a conspiracy against them. Critics of ID point out that this is an argument commonly used by advocates of pseudoscience views (most notably by UFO enthusiasts), and that the perceived bias is simply the result of ID being unscientific and inadequately supported. A notable exception to this explanation for lack of published, peer-reviewed writings is William Dembski, who claims in a 2001 interview that he stopped submitting to peer-reviewed journals due to their slow time-to-print and that he makes more money from publishing books [http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i17/17a00801.htm]. To date, the intelligent design movement has only succeeded in publishing one article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 ''The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories''](Meyer, Stephen C., ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'', Jan. '05. ''Please note:'' Since its publishing, the article was removed from the journal's website. The link provided is hosted by the Discovery Institute.) The journal subsequently disowned the paper. The author is the Program Director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, the major organization promoting ID. The journal issued a public [http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html statement] explaining that the Meyer paper did not go through the journal's approved peer review process and does not meet the scientific standards of the journal. This assertion has been [http://www.rsternberg.net/Procedures.htm denied] by Richard Sternberg, who was managing editor at that time. Critics of Meyer's paper believe that Sternberg himself may be biased in this matter, since he is a member of the editorial board of the Created kinds Study Group, an organization with a creationist agenda. The Baraminology Study Group's official position is that Sternberg is not a creationist and acts primarily as a skeptical reviewer.[http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/clarifications.html] A critical review of the article is available on the Panda's Thumb website.[http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html] The vast majority of practicing biologists oppose Intelligent Design. The Scientific community does not regard the argument over ID to be of the same kind as, for example, differing theories on how particular traits evolved, or even in the realm of scientific speculation, the way, a hypothesis of panspermia might be considered as a plausible scientific speculation. The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse, and the failure to submit work to the scientific community which withstands scrutiny is regarded by the critics of ID as a strong argument against Intelligent Design being considered as "science" at all. ====Irreducible complexity - criticism==== Critics of ID point out that the IC argument only makes sense if one assumes that the present function of a system must have been the one that it was selected for. But the concept of cooption, in which existing features become adapted for new functions, has long been a mainstay of biology. Many purported IC structures have functional subsystems that are used elsewhere. ID advocates have often reacted to this by trying to define an "IC core", or by changing the number of parts required for an IC system. Critics have claimed that these instances of "moving the goal posts" show that IC is not a clear concept that can be objectively applied. While Behe has considered cooption, he rejects it as unlikely, which critics contend is an unwarranted dismissal. The IC argument also assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary, and therefore could not have been added sequentially. But something which is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary. For example, one of the clotting factors that Behe listed as a part of the IC clotting cascade was later found to be absent in whales[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9678675], demonstrating that it isn't essential for a clotting system. Many purported IC structures can be found in other organisms as simpler systems that utilize fewer parts. These systems may have had even simpler precursors that are now extinct. Perhaps most importantly, evolutionary pathways have been elucidated for IC systems such as blood clotting, the immune system[http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/Evolving_Immunity.html] and the flagellum[http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum_background.html]. If IC is an insurmountable obstacle to evolution, it should not be possible to conceive of such pathways -- Behe has remarked that any such plausible pathways would defeat his argument. Computer simulations of evolution also demonstrate that IC can evolve. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12736677&dopt=Abstract][http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html] ID advocates respond by saying that proposed models for the evolution of IC structures are not detailed enough, or cannot be tested. They also dismiss computer simulations as biologically unrealistic. ====Specified complexity - criticism==== The conceptual soundness of Dembski's SC/CSI argument is strongly disputed by critics of ID. First, specified complexity, as originally defined by Leslie Orgel, is precisely what Darwinian evolution is proposed to create. It is not enough for Dembski to take a property of living things and arbitrarily declare it to be a reliable indicator of design; he must also provide compelling reasons why no natural processes could create such a property. According to critics of ID, by taking this burden of proof on himself, that is, to prove a negative, he must show not merely that there is no explanation currently accepted, but that no such explanation is possible within the framework of genetics and natural selection. Additionally, Dembski confuses the issue by using "complex" as most people would use "improbable". He defines CSI as anything with a less than 1 in 10150 chance of occurring naturally. But this renders the argument a tautology. CSI cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature. To demonstrate this, Dembski would need to show that a biological feature really did have an extremely low probability of occurring naturally by ''any'' means, an enormously difficult (perhaps impossible) task that would require definitively ruling out all potential theories, including those that may not have been thought of yet. In general, Dembski does not attempt to do this, but instead simply takes the existence of CSI as a given, and then proceeds to argue that it is a reliable indicator of design. Among the many criticisms of this approach is the problem of "arbitrary but specific outcomes". For example, it is unlikely that any given person will win a lottery, but, eventually, a lottery will have a winner. To argue that it is very unlikely that any one player would win is not the same as proving that there is the same chance that no one will win. Further, mathematicians have pointed out that Dembski's information theory is flawed, that many of his examples that he claims cannot be compressed further, in fact can be. For example, the 10 byte phrase "I love you" can be written "luv u"; or, in context, even the three bytes of "ily" will convey the same message; and the ASCII art "heart" symbol "
<3" even conveys the same message in two bytes. The genome similarly has redundancy and reliability built in, which makes its information content much lower than the number of base pairs used. In addition, the space sampled by an evolutionary process is a restricted set of the total possible genetic combinations. Only genetic sequences which result in reproducing organisms and are connectible through small deviations to other reproducing organisms are possible. This is a significantly smaller set than the total possible genetic combinations, which places significant inaccuracies in arguments which use the total possible combinations.
====Fine-tuned universe - criticism====
ID proponents assert that we live in a "finely-tuned universe". They hold that the natural emergence of a universe with all the features necessary for life is wildly improbable. Thus, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular outcome. This argument is a variation of the strong anthropic principle.
Critics of both ID and the weak form of anthropic principle argue that they are essentially a tautology; life as we know it may not exist if things were different, but a different sort of life might exist in its place. The claim of the improbability of a life-supporting universe has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination for assuming no other forms of life are possible (see also carbon chauvinism).
Based on the unproven idea that some of the universe's initial conditions might have been different, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle have shown that from the initial conditions of the universe, that is, the moment immediately after the Big Bang, a large number of types of universe could have formed. The type of universe that we live in is called a Hartle-Hawking universe universe. According to their calculations, the chance that a Hartle-Hawking universe forms is over 90%. Thus, the chance that our particular universe formed may be small, but the chance that a universe of the same type, with stars, planets and the other elements required to create life as we know it would come out of the Big Bang is over 90%, not improbable at all.
Recent advances in cosmology have put forth the mathematical possiblity of a multiverse. This would allow many types of universes to simultaneously arise, of which ours is one possibility. Although multiverse theories currently lack falsifiable predictions, some astronomers believe that gravity may leak into other dimensions, providing the first observable data to support these theories.
===="Stealth creationism"====
In the 1987 Supreme Court of the United States ruling, ''Edwards v. Aguillard'', the teaching of creationism science classes in public schools in the United States was ruled unconstitutional, as it was found to violate the Establishment clause of the Constitution. Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father and architect of the ID movement, acknowledges that the goal of the movement is to promote a theism and creationism agenda cast as a scientific concept. [http://www.christianity.ca/news/social-issues/2004/03.001.html]
Accordingly, critics observe that the Discovery Institute and its allied organizations are merely stripping the obvious religious content from their anti-evolution assertions as a means of avoiding the legal restriction on establishment.[http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/world2.html] They argue that ID is simply an attempt to put a patina of secularity on top of what is a fundamentally religious belief.[http://ebd10.ebd.csic.es/pdfs/DarwSciOrPhil.pdf] One that is driven largely by the unwillingness of many people to accept that the world evolves by understandable, verifiable and describable means.
The basis for this argument rests, first, on the nature of many ID arguments being updated versions of old teleological attacks on evolution. These include the "watch requires a watchmaker", "lack of intermediate steps" and "improbability" arguments. According to critics of ID, all of these arguments rest on a fundamental disbelief in evolution, which rests, in turn on an unstated belief in something else.
===="What designed the designer?"====
By raising the question of the need for a designer for objects with irreducible complexisty, ID also raises the question, "what designed the designer?" By ID's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex. Unlike with religious creationism, where the question "what created God?" can be answered with theological arguments, this appears to create a logical paradox, as the chain of designers can be followed back indefinitely, leaving the question of the creation of the first designer dangling.
One ID counter-argument to this problem invokes an uncaused causer - in other words, a deity - to resolve this problem, in which case ID reduces to religious creationism. At the same time, the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts the fundamental assumption of ID that a designer is needed for every complex object. Another possible counter-argument might be an infinite regression of designers. However, admitting infinite numbers of objects also allows any arbitarily improbable event to occur, such as an object with "irreducible" complexity assembling itself by chance. Again, this contradicts the fundamental assumption of ID that a designer is needed for every complex object, producing a logical contradiction.
Thus, according to opponents, either attempt to patch the ID hypothesis appears to either result in logical contradiction, or reduces it to a belief in religious creationism. ID then ceases to be a falsifiable theory and loses its ability to claim to be a scientific theory.
====Argument from ignorance====
Some critics have pointed out that many points raised by Intelligent Design Theorists strongly resemble Argument from ignorance. In the argument from ignorance, one claims that the lack of evidence for one view is evidence for another view. Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a dichotomy where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. In scientific terms, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" for naturalistic explanations of observed traits of living organisms.
==Political issues==
===Dover, PA case===
In 2004, Dover, Pennsylvania, passed a law requiring the teaching of Intelligent Design. Dover contends that Intelligent Design is not creationism, and its being taught does not have a "clear intent" to establish religion. The standard for which was established in Edwards v. Aguillard for determining whether a requirement to teach particular material is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A hearing in Federal District Court is scheduled for next September.
===Cobb County School District===
''Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al'' created controversy in the arena of creation and evolution in public education.[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/] Stickers were placed on text books stating that evolution was a theory and not a fact.
==Theological debate==
===Materialism versus spirituality===
Intelligent Design's most vociferous supporters and critics sometimes portray the debate as between science and faith, and by implication that Intelligent Design speaks for everyone who believes in a higher power, or higher powers. However, this is not the point of view of many others. Theology, assuming such a power, draws implications about that power from the observed world which that power is said to have created. In the view of theologians, Intelligent Design then, implies a certain nature of its designer. This leads to the question as to whether Intelligent design is "good theology" as well as the question as to whether it is "good science". While the Discovery Institute is very careful to phrase its arguments in secular terms, not all ID supporters are so carefully neutral. Focus on the Family, which has funded a pro-ID documentary, argues that "Secularists have dismissed Christianity as an acceptable intellectual option." [http://www.family.org/fofmag/pp/a0021018.cfm] and argues that "Intelligent Design" promotes their views on Christianity.
However, Pope Pope John Paul II issued the following statement [http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm] in an address entitled "Truth cannot contradict Truth":
:"The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans."
The statement argues that the role of spiritual value is defined by philosophy and theology, not by science. In the message, John Paul II references possible theories of evolution, which leaves the door open to divinely guided evolution, but within the context of "theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person."
This position then is potentially compatible only with those forms of Intelligent Design which presume spirituality, and which presume teleological intent to produce Man from the intervention, since "Man is the only creature for which God cares of himself". But is incompatible with Intelligent Design that is absent these qualities, and with any form of pure materialism.
===Nature of the designer===
Although the Intelligent Design movement is often portrayed as a variant of Bible-based Creationism, many ID arguments are formulated in secular terms. Most ID arguments do not depend on Biblical fundamentalism. They do not explicitly state that their adherents accept the Bible's accounts, they do not explicitly state that God is the designer, but the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened at so many different points in time and space (sometimes even outside of time and space) that only God or an extremely capable, long-lived and persistent alien culture could fulfill the requirements.
The key arguments in favor of the different variants of ID are so broad that they can be adopted by any number of communities that seek an alternative to evolutionary thought, including those that support non-theistic models of creation although the designers might be different. For example, the notion of an "intelligent designer" is compatible with the materialism hypotheses that life on Earth was introduced by an alien species, or that it emerged as a result of panspermia, but would not be with the designer(s) of the "fine-tuned" universe.
Likewise, ID claims can support a variety of theistic notions. Some proponents of creationism and intelligent design reject the Christian concept of omnipotence and omniscience on the part of God, and subscribe to Open Theism or Process theology. It has been suggested by some opponents that ID researchers who believe that an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God is the designer may face an additional burden of proof beyond the standard claims of the ID movement, by having to additionally demonstrate that the designs themselves are flawless and anticipate all eventualities. Existing evidence poses many difficult challenges for the advocates of omniscient, omnipotent design, for example:
*the poor ability of the human body to repair spinal cord injuries
*the inability of the human body to grow replacement limbs
*the failure to anticipate the demands of a plentiful, sedentary lifestyle leaving the human body vulnerable to chronic diseases such as type II diabetes and atherosclerosis
*the poor design of the human eye, which places the optic nerves on the "wrong" side of the retina, unlike that of the octopus
*using the same genetic code for various species making it dangerously easy to transmit viruses across species' barriers
*the requirement of a lower temperature for mammalian spermatogenes that results in the carrying of the testicles externally in a more vulnerable position
*brain-imaging researchers find that 2−8% of ostensibly "normal" research subjects have "clinically significant" findings, such as tumors, malformations or serious disease (J. Illes et al. J. Magn. Reson. Imag. 20, 743−747; 2004).
Some of these ID researchers would instead argue that this is fallacious in that, when compared to that of an all-knowing God, our own knowledge is insignificant, so features that may appear flawed to us, are actually perfect to God; or that benevolence does not imply the need for physical perfection in Creation.
==See also==
{|
|
* Anthropic principle
* Argument from evolution
* Cosmological argument
* Creation (theology)
* Creationism
* Creator god
* Day-Age Creationism
* Dating Creation
* Evolution
* Evolutionary creationism
||
* Falsifiability
* Gap Creationism
* Irreducible complexity
* Old Earth Creationism
* Pseudoscience
* Supernaturalism
* Theories of the origin of humans
* Tim Berra
* Young Earth Creationism
|}
==Further reading==
===Pro-ID ===
* Michael J. Behe. ''Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution'', New York: Free Press, 1996. ISBN 0684834936. Argues that several exquisite biochemical mechanisms could not have arisen by a sequence of random mutations and selection.
* William A. Dembski, Charles W. Colson. ''The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design''. Inter Varsity Press. 2004, ISBN 0830823751.
* Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer. ''Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute)'', Ignatius Press 2000, ISBN 0898708095
* William A. Dembski. ''Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology'', InterVarsity Press 1999. ISBN 0830815813
* William A. Dembski, James M. Kushiner. ''Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design'', Brazos Press, 2001, ISBN 1587430045
* William A. Dembski, John Wilson. ''Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing'', ISI Press, 2004. ISBN 1932236317
* Phillip E. Johnson. ''Darwin on Trial'', Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991.
* Phillip E. Johnson. ''Defeating Darwinism by opening minds'', Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997.
* Phillip E. Johnson. ''Evolution as dogma:?(null)?(null) the establishment of naturalism'', Dallas, Tex.: Haughton Pub. Co., 1990
* Robert G. Neuhauser. ''The Cosmic Deity: Where Scientists and Theologians Fear to Tread'', Mill Creek Publishers 2004. ISBN 0975904302
* William Paley. [http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/p/pd-modeng/pd-modeng-idx?type=header&id=PaleyNatur ''Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity'' ], London: 12th edition, 1809. Online in full.
* Geoffrey Simmons, William Dembski. ''What Darwin Didn't Know'', Harvest House Publishers, 2004, ISBN 0736913130
* Thomas Woodward. ''Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design'', Baker Books, 1993, ISBN 0801064430
* Dean L. Overman, ''A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization'', Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997, ISBN 0847689662
* Lee Strobel: ''The Case for a Creator'', Zondervan (2004)
* [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC%20Responses&id=2101 The Discovery Institute: The "Wedge Document": "So What?"]
=== Anti-ID ===
* [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195157427/qid=1095946867/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-1200768-5974420 Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design], Forrest, Barbara C. and Gross, Paul R., Oxford University Press, 2004.
* [http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/06/ahmanson/ "Avenging angel of the religious right"], Blumenthal, Max, ''Salon Magazine'', Jan. '04.
* [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12736677&dopt=Abstract The evolutionary origin of complex features.], Lenski, et al., ''Nature'' 423:139-44, 2003.
* [http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/050530fa_fact Devolution: Why intelligent design isn't] -- ''New Yorker'' (May 30, 2005) feature on the central arguments of ID's two foremost proponents, and reasons why they're wrong.
* [http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/ Was Darwin Wrong? (No. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.)], ''National Geographic Magazine'', November 2004.
* [http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/22/mooney-c.html "Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message"], ''American Prospect'' magazine, by Chris Mooney, December 2002.
* [http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.mooney.html "Research and Destroy"], ''Washington Monthly'' magazine, by Chris Mooney, October 2004.
* [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html "The Crusade Against Evolution"], ''Wired'' magazine, October 2004.
* Matt Young, Taner Edis eds.: ''Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism'', Rutgers University Press (2004). ISBN 081353433X Anthology by scientists.
* Robert Pennock ed.: ''Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives'', MIT Press (2002). ISBN 0262661241 Comprehensive anthology including IDT advocates.
* Robert Pennock: ''Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism'', MIT Press (1999). ISBN 0262661659 Early critique of IDT - compare to similar more recent.
* Niall Shanks: ''God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory'', Oxford University Press (2004). ISBN 0195161998 Philosopher/biologist concludes the ID movement threatens scientific and democratic values inherited from the Enlightenment.
* Mark Perakh: ''Unintelligent Design'', Prometheus (Dec 2003). ISBN 1591020840 Distinguished physicist, the mathematical claims of IDT.
* Frederick C. Crews: [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14622 "Saving Us from Darwin, Part II"], The New York Review of Books, Vol 48, No 16 (18 October 2001). Discusses Pollack, The Faith of Biology and the Biology of Faith; Haught, God After Darwin; Ruse, Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?; Miller, Finding Darwin's God; and Stephen Jay Gould, Rocks of Ages.
* Frederick C. Crews: [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14581 "Saving Us from Darwin"], The New York Review of Books, Vol 48, No 15 (4 October 2001). Discusses Johnson, The Wedge of Truth; Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?; Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box; William Dembski (Ed.), Mere Creation; William Dembski, Intelligent Design; Pennock, Tower of Babel; and Miller, Finding Darwin's God.
* Kenneth R. Miller: ''Finding Darwin's God'', HarperCollins (1999). ISBN 0060930497 A cell biologist and devout Christian critiques Intelligent Design Theory and advocates theistic evolution.
* National Academy of Sciences: ''Science and Creationism'', National Academies Press (1999). ISBN 0309064066 The collective scientific mainstream speaks on anti-evolution.
* Ernst Mayr: ''One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought'', Harvard University Press (1993). ISBN 0674639065 Explanation of and tiny fraction of evidence behind mainstream evolutionary theory.
* [http://www.showmenews.com/2004/Feb/20040217Comm010.asp], Feb. 2004.
* [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml AAAS urges opposition to "intelligent design theory"]
* [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=6&catID=2 Scientific American magazine's article "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense"], which includes refutations of Behe and Dembski, amongst others.
* [http://apu.sfn.org/content/AboutSfN1/Guidlines/evolution.html Society for Neuroscience], supports teaching evolution in science classrooms, and opposes Intelligent Design Theory.
*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11978331 The Lancet editorial entitled "Science and Myth"], about teaching creationism or Intelligent Design, (20 April, 2002).
==External links==
=== Pro-ID ===
*[http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ Intelligent Design network, inc.]
*[http://www.arn.org/id_faq.htm Intelligent Design FAQ (for ID)]
*[http://www.arn.org/behe/mb_response.htm Michael J. Behe Responds to Critics]
*[http://www.idurc.org Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center, ID/evolution student community]
*[http://www.discovery.org Discovery Institute]
**[http://www.discovery.org/csc/ Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/ CreationWiki]
*[http://www.millcreekpublishers.com/ The Cosmic Deity: A fresh look at intelligent design]
*[http://www.origins.org/ Origins]
*[http://www.iscid.org International Society for Creation, Information and Design]
*[http://www.trueorigin.org/design01.asp Is the Design Explanation Legitimate?] article from the True.Origin archive
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevnews.htm Crevnews: news in science seen in ID perspective]
=== Anti-ID ===
*[http://www.talkorigins.org Talk Origins Archive]
*[http://www.talkdesign.org Talk Design Archive]
*[http://www.talkreason.org Talk Reason.org]
*[http://www.pandasthumb.org The Panda's Thumb]
*[http://www.evowiki.org EvoWiki]
**EvoWiki
*[http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml Resolution disparaging ID and ID politics, by the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science]
*National Center for Science Education [http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=8 resources on ID]
**[http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/996_intelligent_design_not_accep_9_10_2002.asp "Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by Most Scientists]
*[http://www.skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html Entry about Intelligent Design in "The Skeptic's Dictionary" by Robert Todd Carroll]
*[http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/IntelligentDesign.shtml Michael Wong's Analysis of Intelligent Design]
*[http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/ Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences] by the Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences
*[http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/27/03541/2520 The Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design] Op-Ed article plus many reader comments
*[http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html Intelligent Design?] a special report reprinted from Natural History magazine
*[http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=104349 The "New" Creationism] Robert Wright. Slate. 2001
*[http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/evolve/flyers/word_about_id_v2.0.pdf A Word About Intelligent Design Creationism], a white paper suitable for distribution as a flyer by a member of [http://kcfs.org Kansas Citizens for Science].
*[http://www.math.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/Detectives.htm reviews and analysis of William A. Dembski's ''Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology'', and Phillip E. Johnson's ''The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism''] by Jason Rosenhouse, Assistant Professor, Mathematics, James Madison University
*[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection] Barbara Forrest. 2000. Originally published in Philo, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall-Winter 2000), pp. 7-29.
=== Neutral ===
*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/design.htm Entry about Intelligent Design in "The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" by Kenneth Einar Himma] Though ultimately concludes "design inferences simply cannot do the job they are asked to do in design arguments for God's existence".
*[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html "The Crusade Against Evolution", a somewhat critical history of the Intelligent Design movement, supplemented by a pro-Intelligent Design article by George Guilder of the Discovery Institute]
==Miscellaneous==
===Young-Earth creationist comment===
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp AiG's (Answers in Genesis') views on the Intelligent Design Movement]
===ID and education===
* David Morris, Alternet, 23 May 2005, [http://www.alternet.org/story/22039/ "Having Fun With Intelligent Design"]
===Scientific databases===
Anyone reading this online Encyclopedia can just as easily conduct an online scientific literature search to read about the relative scientific merits of evolution and creationism:
* [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi PubMed]
* [http://www.sciencedirect.com/ sciencedirect]
===Legal References===
* [http://libinfo.uark.edu/specialcollections/findingaids/creation.html McLean v Arkansas Board of Education].
Creationism
Pseudoscience
Intelligent design
Evolution
Intelligent design
==Archives== */Archive1 (2002-2003) */Archive2 (2003) */Archive3 (Jan-Sep 2004, 53kb - Are oppositions/criticisms of ID relevant?) */Falsification (Aug-Oct 2004, 46kb - Is ID theory falsifiable?) */Archive4 (Sep-Nov 2004, 42kb - Overwhelming majority: POV? What does "scientific" mean?) */Scientific supernaturalism? (Nov 2004 - POV problems with claiming space for the supernatural within science) */Archive5 (Nov-Dec 2004) */Archive6 (Dec 2004-early Jan 2005) *Talk:Intelligent design/archive7 (Jan 2005) */Archive8 ( Jan-April 2005) */Archive9 (April - May 2005) */Archive_10 (Early - Mid June 2005 - Structured debate; the Pryamid analogy; Article Splits) ==Theological debates== Needs major work. The 'Materialism vs. Spirituallity' section is basically 'Nature of the Designer' stuff. But there's good stuff. It could also use some of the 'Other' links from the former arguments section. And a brief overview of "deck-stacking".--User:A ghost 17:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==''a priori adoption'' of a naturalistic metaphysics.== What the hell does this mean??? metaphysics means "outside" physics or outside science or outside nature, i.e. super-natural. how can science be called metaphysical when it by definition is within physics? this quote is from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#ID_as_a_movement ID as a movement]. User:FuelWagon 02:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Not a clue. Ask User:FeloniousMonk. I think it translates to, "Movement proponents charge that methodological naturalism in science requires the ''a priori'' adoption of a constant set of rules or laws of nature. ID claims to free science from the assumption that the laws of the Universe are fixed." I'm not sure if that's exactly what he means, but I think it's in English.--User:A ghost 14:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Metaphysics simply means ontology. User:Graft 15:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Graft is partially correct. Metaphysics is the study of ''knowing'' and being [http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.1?o2=&o0=1&o6=&o1=1&o5=&o4=&o3=&s=metaphysics]. This being true, then ID movement proponents alleging that science (in relying upon methodological naturalism) demands a priori adoption of a naturalistic way of knowing (metaphysics) is also correct. The original passage was correct as it stood. I'll be restoring it or a more clear version of it. User:FeloniousMonk 17:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::I skimmed metaphysics, the bit that stood out was that it is a study of "first principles", which I think is what should go in this sentence, rather than "metaphysics". The metaphysics article seems to spend a bit of energy saying that metaphysics is hard to define, however I think "first principles" are fairly easily defined, and much more accurate for what's being talked about in this sentence. User:FuelWagon 23:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::''First principles'' would be preferable because it seems this bit conflates ''metaphysics'' with ''epistemology''. --User:Rikurzhen 23:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) ::::::Someone changed it to "naturalistic philosophy" which is OK by me. User:FuelWagon 14:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) All of the ''a priori''/''a posteriori'' text should be trashed. It's original research. --User:Goethean ॐ 16:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::dude, give it a rest. Some of us can put two and two together without having to quote someone else on it. Go work on integral-wiki since you claim to have it all figured out over there. User:FuelWagon 17:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Right here I think they are referring to the part in "ID as a movement" where design theorists claim that science is skewed because it currently operates under an ''a priori'' assumption of naturalistic philosophy. It's certainly true that design theorists think this way, I could quote several ID books to that end. User:Dbergan 17:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) See below.--User:A ghost 21:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==the ''a priori''/''a posteriori'' thing in "ID in summary" paragraph 5== :As far as the ''a priori''/''a posteriori'' thing in the intro regarding ID's legitibility (which User:Goethean is referring to)... do we have any notable person on record for holding this opinion? This is the first time I've ever encountered it. User:Dbergan 17:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::and so commences the moving target again. This time dbergan wants a ''notable'' person on record. tune in again next week when it will be a completely different target. User:FuelWagon 17:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Sorry that you consider me to be such a pain in the ass. I was just wondering if we had any outside basis for that paragraph, because it was new to me and I thought one of the planks of wikipedia is no original research. User:Dbergan 17:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC ::::You and goeth are both pains in the ass. ID is attempting to redefine science from "the world rules are constant" (current scientific defintion) to "the world rules can be changed as god intervenes". ID argues that natural rules by themselves are INSUFFICIENT for life to develop on it own, and so god (or some designer) must INTERVENE, CHANGE THE RULES, and then let nature take over from there. Science will not INTUIT a god or anything else that it cannot prove through obsevability. science is a posteriori (go see the wikipedia page on natural science). id WILL intuit a god, without direct observation of a god, which is a priori. If you can't fucking figure out the difference between a priori and a posteriori, you are an idiot. I don't need to fucking quote someone to take ID's arguments and piece them together in contrast with science. This is not "independent research", this is taking the arguments of ID and piecing them together in contrast with the definition of natural science. My guess is that you DO understand the difference but your feigning ignorance and claiming a quote is required to cut out criticim of ID. User:FuelWagon 19:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::My apologies FuelWagon. ghost pointed out the source below. Hate to tell if I'm a pain in your ass, the feeling isn't mutual. I actually like to see what you're going to say next. Sure, I'm convinced your prejudice blinds you from actually learning what ID is (you seem unwilling to separate the scientific study of ID from a supposed religious conspiracy)... and I find it humorous that you talk as an expert on the topic when you probably haven't even read one book on the subject... but I have to respect a man who says what he means and means what he says. User:Dbergan 17:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::Cool. User:FuelWagon 18:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I'm pretty sure (if I read this all correctly) this is just the formal philisophical term for axom or basic assumtions or postulates. In semi-plain english, this is how I understand it; The field of science is only concerned with that which can be fallsified repeated and empirically observed. Thus nature is the focus of study, and that which is supernatural is ignored. A contention of ID is that science should not do this, the contention of mainstream of science is it can, it will, and it must. Or something like that. At any rate, if this is somewhere close to correct this assumtion is found in every single science textbook worthy of the name. The better ones will note that supernatural is not so much disproven by science, but ignored.--User:Tznkai 17:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::I've heard the falisification and repeatability arguments before (and do not object to their being presented here), but not the ''a priori''/''a posteriori'' one. If this just one of our own personal arguments, it should be scrapped. Who wrote it? Fess up. Show us where you got it, or else take it down. User:Dbergan 17:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Here's some relevant quotes from ID proponents: *''"I got the opportunity when I was on a sabbatical in London in 1987 or 1988 to read more about Darwinism. It was immensely interesting to discover that it’s all circular reasoning, deception, and pseudo-science. I had suspected that, but I saw that it was really true. It is a pseudo-science that simply works for confirming examples of a materialist philosophical system that’s held up by a priori grids."'' --Phillip Johnson [http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.5docs/15-5pg40.html] *''"With creationist explanations disqualified at the outset, it follows that the evidence will always support the naturalistic alternative. We can be absolutely certain that the Academy will not say, "The evidence on the whole supports the theory of evolution, although we concede that the apparent abrupt appearance of many fully formed animal groups in the Cambrian rocks is in itself a point in favor of the creationists." There are no scientific points in favor of creation and there never will be any as long as naturalists control the definition of science, because creationist explanations by definition violate the fundamental commitment of science to naturalism. When the fossil record does not provide the evidence that naturalism would like to see, it is the fossil record, and not the naturalistic explanation, that is judged to be inadequate..... When pressed about the unfairness of disqualifying their opponents a priori, naturalists sometimes portray themselves as merely insisting upon a proper definition of "science," and not as making any absolute claims about "truth." By this interpretation, the National Academy of Sciences did not say that it is untrue that "the creation of the universe, the earth, living things and man was accomplished through supernatural means inaccessible to human understanding," but only that this statement is unscientific. Scientific naturalists who take this line sometimes add that they do not necessarily object to the study of creationism in the public schools, provided it occurs in literature and social science classes rather than in science class."'' --Phillip Johnson. Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. [http://www.windowview.org/arnfiles/evolutionasdogma.html] Hope this helps. User:FeloniousMonk 18:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Link to one more quote [http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9811/articles/johnson.html] User:FeloniousMonk 18:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I totally agree with you FM, that design theorists cite science as having an 'a priori' assumption of naturalism. No argument at all there. I started this section to refer to "ID in summary" paragraph 5. Where are the quotes that the evolutionists (or anyone) think that recognizing intelligent design is based only on 'a priori' intuitions? I know it's confusing with the term 'a priori' being used in both parts. User:Dbergan 18:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::OK, we're talking about different things. I was confused. User:FeloniousMonk 19:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Folks, [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html the link that David requested] was in the Anti-ID Links section. FuelWagon took the liberty of translating it into something approaching English. Let's please read the references before we start beating each other up asking for links we already have.--User:A ghost 21:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::Thanks ghost. Sorry for not checking that before raising the issue. User:Dbergan 22:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::It happens. I'm as guilty as anyone else. Let's move on.--User:A ghost 22:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) == NPOV == I want to thank those that have been watching the page recently. It appears that we have a few people trying to insert the NPOV flag, without first discussing this here. Since I've been heavily involved recently in trying to rebalence the article, trim the fat & remove POV tone I'd like to offer this space for those that still have POV concerns. I won't pretend that the article's perfect, I still think is needs plenty of work. But I think on the whole, it's vastly improved in the last several weeks.--User:A ghost 17:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I agree. I don't see a need for the flag. The article is indeed much improved. User:FeloniousMonk 17:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I don't agree. Strongly. This article is as neutral as an Al-Qaeda recruit with IED's strapped around his waist. It is better than it was, I will give you that. It is still full of misinformation. The section on peer-review is either poorly researched or is full of lies. Here's an example of what I am talking about: :"To date, the intelligent design movement has only succeeded in publishing one article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal..." :This statement is ridiculously ignorant. What "date" might that be? Must have been back in 1992, before anyone even knew what the phrase "intelligent design" meant.--User:Netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) -- try any date bub. intellegent design is almost as much of a laughing stock as creationism.-uber ::The article is listed in the article with a proper reference.--ghost :Did anyone bother to look in the journals? Obviously not. Are we relying on pop-news to provide fact? Yes.--User:Netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::You are incorrect. I lost count of how many I searched, all in the last month. Links to two journal search engines used at listed in the ref section. I also used Google and AltaVista--ghost :Below are a few peer-reviewed works that have been published (and not "disowned"). There are many more, ask me in this discussion section if you would like to see more. :Would anyone mind if I edited this section to report facts?--User:Netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::You're welcome too.--ghost :Thanks for the info, I'll dig thru it this afternoon and evening. BTW, since you seem to have come here with an agenda and disrespected the work of a large number of editors with your Al-Qaeda remark, do you expect us to treat you differently than you have us? No? Good. Expect me to double check your work with a fine-tooth comb. And treat it as you have others.--User:A ghost 16:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Al-Qaeda recruit??? Good grief. This is the new variant of Godwin's law... User:FuelWagon 16:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Wow... Mr. Tact and Respect is on my side? Great. Nothing like joining in on a discussion and offending everyone else. User:Dbergan 18:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Moved netcody's peer-reviewed articles to it's own section below. User:Dbergan 17:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)) ==quantum physics== what the fuck does this mean? "In general, arguments posed against Intelligent Design assume that the universe is the result of a chain of causality. However, quantum physicists point out that possibility provides a better explanation of the nature of universe than causality, and that consciousness cannot be separated from observation. If the universe is a field of infinite possibilities which every consciousness goes about creating (according to science), then Intelligent De--User:Tznkai 18:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)sign cannot be defined in terms of causality unless the existance of a creator is assumed. However, since all consciousnesses are affecting the universe(s) that we share, it is not inconceivable that some kind of super-consciousness exists in the form of possibility and free will. It seems the intelligence behind the design would be need to be a creative one... but that is only one possibility which does not reach beyond the paradigm of causality." How can something be in such mumbo-jumbo? The lead section from a while back was much better. User:Duncharris|User talk:duncharris 17:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I just had an edit conflict with you about the same thing. I removed it. User:FuelWagon 17:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I agree, it's nonsense. Maybe Sokal wrote it as one of his jokes again ;-) User:FeloniousMonk 17:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Also, I'm not sure I understand Tznkai's reversion of Dunc's addition of the position of the scientific community to ID to the intro (which I have no objection to; it was brief and factual). He seems to be invoking discussion on the talk page as justification for the revert, but I see nothing here that supports that. If no one else objects, I'll be reverting to Dunc's version. User:FeloniousMonk 17:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::That portion of it wasn't the main problem, it was the removal of the redirect tag. I considered the entire edit suspcicious since it seemed that Dunc has not been paying attention to whats been going on.--User:Tznkai 18:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::I understand now. Thanks. I'll just re-add the scientific pov then. User:FeloniousMonk 18:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::Fine by me. I think we need to clarify that ID propose "directed" evolution while scientific community at large simply feels evolution happens, directed or otherwise. No evidence of direction, so we don't think about it.--User:Tznkai 18:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::No, that's wrong. ID specifically rejects evolution of certain physical structures. They could ONLY exist, according to ID, by special creation. That is, God (or something else) came down and wrote DNA sequence (or whatever) from scratch, NOT that God merely encouraged evolution to move in specific directions through His divine influence (which is more like evolutionary creationism). User:Graft 18:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::I'm not sure if I get the diffrence. God stacks the deck so dna has to show up, or God waves his hands and dna appears. Seems pretty similar to me if you accept God as a supreme being...--User:Tznkai 19:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::From what I've read, ID only rejects the plausibility of evolution of some structures (i.e., natural evolution of them has a low probability) -- not that they are logically or physically impossible. --User:Rikurzhen 19:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) :::::::As I understnad it, it goes a little like this Science: Random mutation! ID: not-so-random mutation! Science: well, maybe, but you can't prove that, its a matter of faith. ID: yes we can! See? Science: No you didn't! Thats crack!. Logic being on science's side by quite a bit--User:Tznkai 19:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::ID proponents generally reject "deck stacking" because it means that god wound up the universe like a clock at the beginning of time and hasn't touched it since. ID proponents want an interactive god. A stacked deck means that the rules of nature are fixed and unchanging, and therefore science, which has fixed world rules as its only assumption, is sufficient to explain life. ID isn't really needed if the rules are fixed but the deck is stacked. ID is arguing that god changed the rules and THAT is specifically outside of what science can detect. User:FuelWagon 19:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ====Quantum physics==== :In general, arguments posed against Intelligent Design assume that the universe is the result of a chain of causality. However, quantum physicists point out that ''possibility'' provides a better explanation of the nature of universe than ''causality'', and that consciousness cannot be separated from observation. If the universe is a field of infinite possibilities, then Intelligent Design cannot be defined in terms of causality unless the existence of a creator is assumed. However, since every consciousness is capable of affecting the universe(s), it is not inconceivable that some kind of super-consciousness exists in the form of possibility and free will. It seems the intelligence behind the design would be need to be a creative one, but only if the ontology used to define Intelligent Design is congruent with the paradigm of causality. The above is the current version as of 6/16. I moved it here because: *It's not in English. Yes, I understand it, but our goal is to make the article accessable to the average reader, and encourage them to learn. Not make their head hurt. *It smacks of Original Material. I've been thru the links, and this is new to me. *It needs major Wikifing. *It fits more logically in other sections, such as 'Fine-Tuned Universe'. I'm all for reinserting after a major rework, but let's make sure it makes sense.--User:A ghost 21:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==24.64.223.203 & the intro== 24.64.223.203 has violated 3rr already with his repeated insertions in the intro, in case nobody noticed. I say give him one more chance to play ball, and if not, then report it. User:FeloniousMonk 19:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==quoting sources, the word of god== Since some editors hold the position that we can't put subject and verb together unless we quote it from someone, I thought this might be a good quote for the article [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html]: ::Scientific creationism is 100% crap. So-called "scientific" creationists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data. Their ideas are based on religious dogma, and their approach is simply to attack evolution. The types of arguments they use fall into several categories: distortions of scientific principles ( the second law of thermodynamics argument), straw man versions of evolution (the "too improbable to evolve by chance" argument), dishonest selective use of data (the declining speed of light argument) appeals to emotion or wishful thinking ("I don't want to be related to an ape"), appeals to personal incredulity ("I don't see how this could have evolved"), dishonestly quoting scientists out of context (Darwin's comments on the evolution of the eye) and simply fabricating data to suit their arguments (Gish's "bullfrog proteins"). ::Most importantly, scientific creationists do not have a testable, scientific theory to replace evolution with. Even if evolution turned out to be wrong, it would simply be replaced by another scientific theory. Creationists do not conduct scientific experiments, nor do they seek publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Much of their output is "preaching to the choir." ::The most persuasive creationist argument is a non-scientific one -- the appeal to fair play. "Shouldn't we present both sides of the argument?," they ask. The answer is no Anyway, since a quote is the priority around here, I thought it was cool that we can quote someoen as saying ID is "crap". User:FuelWagon 19:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Hm, actually, this guy says right there that "creationists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data", which means we can quote that and then expand on the definition of "scientific reasoning", which I'm pretty sure is a posteriori. But I might be thinking for myself a bit too much...User:FuelWagon 19:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Uh. Who are you quoting, again? User:Graft 20:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::LOL. Although I find this quote funny as hell, it's not appropriate for the body of the article. If you wanted to provide a link to it to support some other "ID is not science" statement, I'm good with that. The article's here to present the concept, and let the reader conclude whether or not it's crap. (I think you told me that once. ;-] )--User:A ghost 20:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Not to mention that the quotation is referring to Scientific Creationism, which is different from ID. --User:Goethean ॐ 21:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Graft, I'm quoting from talkorigins.org, a paper written by Chris Colby. the page didn't have his resume/background, but his email address is bio-bu.bu.edu (or .org, cant remember now). User:FuelWagon 23:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Goeth, since most critics would say that ID actually IS "scientific creationism" in sheeps clothing, I think it's still on topic. Not that I'm saying we quote the "crap" part. I was having a little fun and you're still a pain in my ass. I'm curious, if ID, changes its name tomorrow to "SmartEngineering", would the SE article only get to quote SE critics? Or can we connect some fucking dots and figure out that scientists consider SE and ID and ScientificCreationism to be cut from the same cord of bullshit? The article was last updated in 1996. Does every critic have to go back and update their articles every time the bible thumpers come up with a new name for their game? User:FuelWagon 23:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Uh. See above where you explained to me how ID and scientific creationism are not the same. you can't have it both ways--User:Tznkai 23:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :\"you explained to me how ID and scientific creationism are not the same\" uhm..... ''what?'' I just searched for "creation" and couldn't find anything by me with that assertion. Not that I didn't say that, but I sure don't remember saying that. Unless it wound up in an archive, which I didn't search. Could you point me to the subsection at least? User:FuelWagon 23:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Maybe it wasn't you, but it was explained to me in the quantum physics subsection of this talk page :::Damn it, man. was it me or not? You're the one making the accusation. Are you just gonna leave it hanging out there? User:FuelWagon 00:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::Nevermind I got confused. It wasn't an accusation, it was confusion.--User:Tznkai 00:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Peer-reviewed stuff of ID (netcody)== • W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 1998). This book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. The editorial board of that series includes members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi, who shared the prize in 1994 with John Nash, the protagonist in the film A Beautiful Mind. Commenting on the ideas in this book, Paul Davies remarks: “Dembski’s attempt to quantify design, or provide mathematical criteria for design, is extremely useful. I’m concerned that the suspicion of a hidden agenda is going to prevent that sort of work from receiving the recognition it deserves. Strictly speaking, you see, science should be judged purely on the science and not on the scientist.” Quoted in L. Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003), p. 149. --User:Netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :This is a book, not a journal. It was not subject to scientific peer review.--ghost ::Actually, this book was more rigorously peer-reviewed than most journal articles. [http://www.designinference.com/documents/05.02.resp_to_wein.htm Click here] and scroll down to "2. Peer Review". User:Dbergan 17:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Wait, citing Dembski's own site? Not compelling. Other more reputable sources (like the National Academies) have emphatically stated that no ID research has survived peer review to be published in any credible, significant scientific publications. I can provide many neutral, credible cites on this if required. Further, that ID lacks formal, credible peer review is a fact easily verified-- a search of PubMed [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi] for the term "intelligent design" returns no hits for peer reviewed primary writings in support of ID. Netcody's cites are inconclusive. He alludes to each as supporting ID, I recognize several here as well-known examples of actual research that is often misquoted/misinterpreted by ID supporters, to the chagrin of the research authors. User:FeloniousMonk 18:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::Are you saying Dembski made up the info about TDI's review process? Do you have any neutral sources that tell you it was reviewed in a different manner? This is a simple question of fact that should be easy to find out if he's wrong. User:Dbergan 18:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::I'm saying that as a matter of policy the Discovery Institute and it's officers consistantly misrepresent their work and that of others, and so we need to be circumspect here. User:FeloniousMonk 20:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::This illustrates a common thread that I've suspected since getting involved in this article. That the term peer review, and the requirements needed to reach acceptance by the larger scientific community are subjective. In the case of ''The Desgin Inference'' the peer-review conducted was done by Philosophers. The peer review conducted was based more on copy and content from a philosophical context; thus it might be called a soft-scientific peer review at best. The hard-scientific peer review that many of our more skeptical editors refer to is the type conducted by, say medical doctors, mathematicians and analytical chemists. Dembski himself admits that this is a different standard. Felonious, gathering those sources discounting IDs peer reviews, and how these other articles were or weren't misquoted/misinterpereted, would be be best. Netcody, ''TDI'' doesn't make the cut as scientific peer reviewed at this time. The Discovery Institute wants us to buy into it as scientific fact comparable to evolution, not philosophy.--User:A ghost 18:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::Part of the aforementioned site says: ''"TDI appeared in Cambridge University Press's monograph series known as Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. This series is the equivalent of a journal. It has a general editor, Brian Skyrms (who, by the way, is a member of the National Academy of Sciences). It also has an editorial board, which at the time of publication consisted of the following: Ernest Adams, Ken Binmore, Jeremy Buttterfield, Persi Diaconis, William Harper, John Harsanyi, Richard Jeffrey, Wolfgang Spohn, Patrick Suppes, Amos Tversky, and Sandy Zabell. This editorial board is a literal who's who in the statistics and inductive reasoning world. Persi Diaconis (Stanford) and Sandy Zabell (Northwestern) are personal acquaintances and are housed in the statistics departments of their respective schools"'' Math/statistics certainly qualifies as scientific... and the editor is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. The reviewers weren't all from philosophy and humanities. User:Dbergan 18:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::David, you're assuming that the entire board reviewed the book. They did not. Dembski states clearly the 5 philosophers reviewed the manuscript prior to publication. No Math or statisics profs. Sorry, move on.--User:A ghost 19:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::Huh? I think you misread it. He says 5 philosophy profs reviewed it for his PhD. Afterwards, this math board reviewed it so as to include it in their ''Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory'' series. We're talking about two separate reviews, one by the philosophers and the other by the mathematicians. If anyone on the math board for this second review read the book, that consititutes a peer-review. However, there is the possibility that Dembski's site is all lies... but then we should easily find someone who said that there was no review process for its inclusion in the ''Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory'' series. If not, TDI should be mentioned in the peer-review section of our article. User:Dbergan 19:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::I didn't misread. And I think you're missing my point. The philoposphers read & peer reviewed the manuscript prior to publication. Everyone else read it after. This, according to Dembski. He admits it not going thru the same type of critical review process that his mathematics dissertation did (which was not ID related). Further, he states reasons for avoiding just such a review of his later works. Unfortunately, this commercial decision left him and ID open to this type of critic. In hindsight, it was a severe stategic blunder. But we've all gotta put food on the table. As to Dembski's comments about the eariler standards of peer review, although they might be technically correct, no one as accepted those standards on over a generation. And the theories he quotes as being published without review have withstood the most intense of scrutiny, while lots more fell by the wayside. ID has not (yet).--User:A ghost 20:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::::::I see your point... it was "published" (if you can call a PhD approval "publication") before the mathematicians reviewed it. But are you arguing that the mathematicians didn't review it and give it a pass before "publishing" it in their prestigious series? Or are you saying that their review doesn't count for some reason? User:Dbergan 21:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::You're making me repeat myself, but I'll give it a final try. Dembski 'feels' that ''TDI'' received a peer review greater than that of a normal scientific article. This because, it went past 5 philosophers and the review process for the Cambrige University Press(CUP) prior to publication. The more critical reviews that it received followed publication, so Dembski seems to write them off as sour grapes. ::::::::::The arguement that undermines ''TDI's'' peer review is that same that underlies the ID debate as a whole. First, that the peer review of a PhD dissertation by Philosophers qualified ''TDI'' as a valid philospohical subject. Nothing less, but nothing more. Second, that Brian Skyrms is that only board member of the CUP that Dembski mentions being involved in the secondary review, thus we cannot assume that rest of this multi-disciplinary board was involved. Third, that the CUP published this as a book on philosophy, not hard-science. In this way, one could view the Discovery Institute attempts to present it as hard-science as being disingenuous. Finally, that Dembski's use of sales figures as a way to measure credibility is about as ridiculous as saying that magic exists because ''Harry Potter'' says so. ::::::::::In this way, the debate over ID as a hard-science resembles the debate surrounding cold fusion. Even the scientists that might like the idea aren't about to back it up until they see some hard evidence. They have no interest in putting their career's on the line for what could be a mirage. A lot of people are more than happy to approach ID as a philosophical debate. They draw the line where others attempt to cross it over to a hard-science. '''So, if we want to characterize ''TDI'' as a peer reviewed book on philosophy, I'm all for it. It's has failed subsequent peer review as a book on hard-science, so we cannot allow it to be construed it any other way.'''--User:A ghost 22:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) • D.D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, 301 (2000): 585–595. This work shows that certain enzymes are extremely sensitive to perturbation. Perturbation in this case does not simply diminish existing function or alter function, but removes all possibility of function. This implies that neo-Darwinian theory has no purchase on these systems. Moreover, the probabilities implicit in such extreme-functional-sensitivity analyses are precisely those needed for a design inference. --User:Netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :This is wrong. The work does NOT show that. It shows that simultaneous conservative substitutions of several groups of amino acids can eliminate a specific function. It does NOT claim that neutral substitutions are impossible; in fact, it shows exactly the opposite. User:Graft 17:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::My version of Acrobat's on the fritz, I'll have to confirm this tomorrow. But reading [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10966772 the abstract] leads me to think that this is Uncertainty principle applied to amino acids. The only thing that appears to link this paper to ID is the accusation that the author is a closet-creationist. I frown on guilt-by-association, even if it's true. But no gold on this one. Next.--User:A ghost 23:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) • W.-E. Loennig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389–410. This article examines the role of transposons in the abrupt origin of new species and the possibility of an partly predetermined generation of biodiversity and new species. The authors’ approach in non-Darwinian, and they cite favorably on the work of Michael Behe and William Dembski. --User:Netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :This is a rather long review about McClintock's theories of transposons and control of gene expression/influence on evolution. It contains a very BRIEF aside mentioning irreducible complexity, and ONLY mentions it to say that the given transposon mechanisms are a possible way that apparently "irreducible" systems could have developed. User:Graft 19:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Agreed. And, since the full text is availible by subsciption only, we're forced to work from [http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.genet.36.040202.092802?journalCode=genet the abstract.] If someone would be so kind as to make the full-text availible, it would be much appreciated. One of the items I'm curious about is if any correlation was investigated between the TE "hotspots" and any known mathematical phenomenon. Prime numbers and fractals in particular. Both are seen in nature everyday, with little understanding of their causation. If there's a solid link between the TE "hotspots" and mathematical phenomenon, large chunks of Irreducible Complexity go BOOM.--User:A ghost 23:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) :AFAIK, papers in Annual Review of Genetics are not peer-reviewed. --User:Rikurzhen 00:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) • 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. The opening paragraph of this article reads: “Detection of complex specified information is introduced to infer unknown underlying causes for observed patterns [10]. By complex information, it refers to information obtained from observed pattern or patterns that are highly improbable by random chance alone. We evaluate here the complex pattern corresponding to multiple observations of statistical interdependency such that they all deviate significantly from the prior or null hypothesis [8]. Such multiple interdependent patterns when consistently observed can be a powerful indication of common underlying causes. That is, detection of significant multiple interdependent patterns in a consistent way can lead to the discovery of possible new or hidden knowledge.” Reference number [10] here is to William Dembski’s ''The Design Inference.'' --User:Netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::No gold here either. First, I can't access the full-text of this. In fact, the only references that can be found are on websites that take an extreme position on one side or another. We can't address what we can't access. Also, I have some concerns that I'll address below.--User:A ghost 00:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) • M.J. Denton & J.C. Marshall, “The Laws of Form Revisited,” Nature, 410 (22 March 2001): 417; 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. This research is thoroughly non-Darwinian and looks to laws of form embedded in nature to bring about biological structures. The intelligent design research program is broad, and design like this that’s programmed into nature falls within its ambit. --User:Netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :This is a pretty silly review, NOT research. Okay, yes, there's a limited number of protein folds. So what? First of all, it's not even clear that, say, TIM barrels are not monophyletic. Even if they aren't, this doesn't mean much of anything other than "convergence occurs". That's like saying "Mountains are all pointy - why don't they take on any of the OTHER bazillion possible shapes?!? OMG!!!" Dumb. :Anyway, these are NOT ID proponents' writings, and as far as I can tell, none of them are actually writing in support of the idea of intelligent design, even obliquely or unintentionally. User:Graft 19:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::You got me all excited for a minute. I thought, OMG [http://www.estovest.net/ecosofia/lawsofform.html a link!] Little did I know that it was two paragraphs that concluded with: :::''"...If it does turn out that a substantial amount of higher biological form is natural, then the implications will be radical and far-reaching. It will mean that physical laws must have had a far greater role in the evolution of biological form than is generally assumed. And it will mean a return to the pre-darwinian conception that underlying all the diversity of the life is a finite set of natural forms that will recur over and over again anywhere in the cosmos where there is carbon-based life."''--Denton & Marshall, ''Laws of form'' ::And then your follow-up article destroyed the ID of the articles supporting ID with the statement: :::''"We speculate that it is unlikely that the folds will prove to be the only case in nature where a set of complex organic forms is determined by natural law, and suggest that natural law may have played a far greater role in the origin and evolution of life than is currently assumed."''-- Denton, et. al., ''The protein folds as platonic forms: new support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law.'' ::Duh. Symmetry in nature. Darwin does not discount symmetry in nature anymore than anyone else does. In fact, symmetrical forms have been shown to be advantageous, therefore Darwinian theory reinforces the likelihood of symmetry. If you doubt this, ask yourself why the model with the symmetrical face is more attractive than the Elephant Man. No gold.--User:A ghost 00:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Come on DB, citing Dembski's own site as proof of peer review? Not compelling. Other more reputable sources (like the National Academies) have emphatically stated that no ID research has survived peer review to be published in any credible, significant scientific publications. I can provide many neutral, credible cites on this if required. Further, that ID lacks formal, credible peer review is a fact easily verified-- a search of PubMed [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi] for the term "intelligent design" returns no hits for peer reviewed primary writings in support of ID. Netcody's cites are inconclusive. He alludes to each as supporting ID, I recognize several here as well-known examples of actual research that is often misquoted/misinterpreted by ID supporters, to the chagrin of the research authors. User:FeloniousMonk 18:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :OK, I recognize from past months here most of the research cited on netcody's list allegedly supporting ID as being comprised of research commonly misquoted and misinterpreted by ID supporters. It was shown to be gratuitous then, read Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive3. Nothing's changed in the interim, so no, there's no justification for claiming ID benefits from this or any peer reviewed works. User:FeloniousMonk 18:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::BTW, Netcody, if you're going to put this number of people thru this much work again, please have the decency to provide links.--User:A ghost 20:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::And RTFA... User:FeloniousMonk 22:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) Many apologies for my statement about the Al-Qaeda recruit, I did not direct the statement at any person(s) in particular; it was a rhetorical device to make a point. I understand that I have lost all respect in the eyes of everyone involved in this discussion, I had no idea this is taken so seriously. I apologize for my intrusion into this community. On ID as the “antithesis” of evolution as “natural law”: ID supporters do not (or should not) claim that evolution is completely and entirely false. Nor will ID definitively disprove every shred of evidence that has been collected by biologist for the 100+ years. ID is seeking to understand how natural forces, random events, and intelligent activity each function individually and synergistically: INdependently and INTERdependently. Evolution and ID are not antitheses of each other, unless one forces them into opposition by making them say something they do not. As to whether or not ID has credibility in peer review: of course, you are not going to find the phrase "intelligent design" in the “establishment.” There are, however, many quasi-design theoretic works being reviewed and printed. It was the same for Darwin: the establishment in his day rejected him outright. What began to happen was evolution-theoretic research accumulated, and eventually evolution gained a foothold. I see a similar pattern happening for ID. To speak directly to statements by the establishment (like the National Academies) about ID having no basis for research, ID scientists are building a basis, an intellectual foundation. Whether ID will directly benefit from the accumulation of design-theoretic peer reviewed articles is yet to be seen. As for my future involvement with this discussion, I will submit any articles in this discussion to the community and do with it as you will, and certainly you will. --User:Netcody 21:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :None of the references I read (I haven't got access to the last) provide any arguments in favor of intelligent design. How can you pretend they do? The pretense that ID is somehow slowly gaining traction within the scientific community is absurd. User:Graft 21:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Apology accepted (I can't speak for anyone but myself on that). In the future, if you come to a page such as this and use rhethorical speech, it's like shoving a stick into a hornet's nest. Expect to get stung. The references provided above are interesting, but either we can't examine them, or they don't back ID as you might hope. Further, I'm deeply troubled by the fact that: a)all of these references are several years old; b)they are all used (abused?) repeatedly by the Discovery Institute in their rhetorical publications. I challenge you to find something fresh that supports ID directly (not by insinuation), that isn't spewed from the lips of the pundits. Might I suggest looking into string theory? It's not there yet, but it's teetering on the brink. ::For my part, I have no issues with ID being presented as a philosophical theory. The problem is that a vocal minority want to hold it up as scientific fact. That is unacceptable. We have a responsibility to the children who will read this reference we're writing to get it right. I ask all the editors to review the article with the idea that your kid will read it, as mine already are. Let's clean it up, it's too important not too.--User:A ghost 00:44, 20 Ju