Talk:Intelligent design movement

In brief:

abc means the form of the title for alphabetization, e.g. "Doherty, John". cat1, cat2 and cat3 are categories; if there is only one category, put it in cat1. cat_check: put "yes" if you want someone to check over the categories status: 0 for approved articles; 1 developed, 2 developing, 3 stub, 4 external underlinked: put "yes" if not enough other articles link to it (click "What links here" at left) cleanup: put "yes" if basic cleanup has been done. by: Names of anyone editing the checklist, in reverse chronological order. Retrieved from "http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Template:Checklist"

Again, where does this initial quotation come from? --Larry Sanger 08:39, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

I have no idea. Will Nesbitt 10:59, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

I've moved some criticism from ID here, as it seemed more directed at the proponents than at the theory.Gareth Leng 08:53, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

National Review article

This article in National Review probably can serve as a good source to understand the movement. Yi Zhe Wu 15:51, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Merge with ID

This should be merged with the main ID article. I dropped the biology workgroup--this is mostly politics. Richard Jensen 20:57, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

God: he, not He?

I'm not terribly sure about this, but isn't the use of capitalised pronouns an act of reverence towards the Christian God? Doesn't that mean we're assuming that one exists, particularly as in paragraph two, the words presently refer to the Intelligent Designer? John Stephenson 03:52, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

It is standard usage in numerous Bible translations, such as the New American Standard Bible and New King James, to capitalize the pronoun for God. The prefaces make it clear this is an editorial decision to show reverence. However, just as many, such as the New International Version and New Revised Standard Version, go with proper English, "he"; "him". As a matter of style, I would choose the latter, while of course leaving any quotes as-is. Stephen Ewen 04:19, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I made the change. ---Stephen Ewen 04:26, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Capital "G" God implies a monotheistic god and not a defference to the Abrahamic God, Jesus or Allah. Non-capitalized god in the singular sense refers to one of many polytheistic gods. Will Nesbitt 07:01, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I never believed that "GOD" was/is male, anyway...--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 07:24, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

If it's God, it's He by all traditional usage, and since this article concerns a fundamentalist Christian group - whether or not that group is strictly defined that way, for whom traditonal usage is important then certainly common courtesy requires any reference that can possibly be taken to be to God to be followed up with a capital pronoun. IMHO Nancy Sculerati 08:38, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

My two cents: To me, 'He' and 'Him' in a text immediately signals a Christian wrote this. As a non-Christian who grew up in a fundamentalist-dominated area, I am bothered by that usage in a reference work. I see now that the pronouns have been changed to "Intelligent Designer" or just "Designer." I don't think these terms should be capitalized either. It has the same connotation, but I doubt it is offensive to Christians to not capitalize them. --Eric Winesett 15:54, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I would say then either the authors should studiously avoid using the word god here, or figure out some way to make it clear that they are referring to the Christian God.. If it is the god that the intelligent design movement is referring to , then it is the Christian God, isn't it? If I was writing out something that pertained to fundamentalist Jews, I would be very careful not to write out the name, it would be Y*W*H or something. I would at least check it out to be least offensive to that culture. It's downright insulting to use god with a small g when referring to the diety of fundamentalist Christians, why should we be insulting? Nancy Sculerati 16:01, 30 May 2007 (CDT) Well, maybe not- I just read over the article. It was my impression that this is a Christan movement, but maybe that's not the case. Nancy Sculerati 16:06, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

The humorous side of this is that no one believes there is an Intelligent Designer. The proponents in fact all believe that a personal Christian-style God did the creation. They use ID as a poltiical-legal-rhetorical straw god. Richard Jensen 16:27, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

To me it doesn't matter the topic of the article. Is it okay to offend the fundamentalist Jew in an article that doesn't pertain to fundamentalist Jews? I realize I am probably in a small minority, but any of these things make me feel like I'm reading a religious text, which implies bias. (And of course Christians will see the lowercase as a bias against them, and sometimes it's just easier to let the Christians win.) In any case, I think it's best to avoid the he/He/him/Him pronouns if possible.--Eric Winesett 17:27, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Only God gets the capital pronoun He. ID gets capitalized as a proper name, with lower case "he". No one is insulted here because no one believes in ID. Richard Jensen 17:37, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I don't know about your last comment :-) Yi Zhe Wu 17:40, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

What are they then, Richard, pure tricksters and hucksters? That's pretty radical, don't you think? ---Stephen Ewen 18:18, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

It appears that way, yes. It's done to circumvent the first amendment. We're talking about a half dozen people out in Seattle. Richard Jensen 18:22, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Not everyone who believes in a Creator God connect it to a political agenda, do they? Stephen Ewen 18:25, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Oh no, it's the ID folks who have created a new rhetoric that combines religion, politics and science. They get support from fundamentalists because they have a clever legal angle--the fundamentalists are not allowed to talk God in public school but ID people are allowed to talk ID, as long as ID is not called God. Richard Jensen 18:32, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Hmm, I have to say that I have absolutely no time or patience for this ID "theory". However, if it appears as an entry on CZ then it cannot offend ANY religious group, including its proponents, and its claims have to be treated as genuine beliefs or hypotheses. If, on the other hand, CZ were to take a clear editorial decision that ID is exactly what Richard describes it as, then it should be treated differently. I think we all know already what the CZ position would be, so can someone please check what the majority of ID proponents do with the capitalizations of "him" and "god" and CZ will follow accordingly. This should be an editorial matter, not one of personal opinion.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:31, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

ID is officially NOT a religious group (because it would be blocked from public schools). It's a rhetorical/political device, I think, used by religious people to circumvent the First Amendment re no teaching of religion in schools. I've read statements by most of its leaders and they all say they believe in the old-fashioned God. If there is one who does not I have missed him (or they keep that fact quiet). Richard Jensen 19:40, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Jensen, but I heard that the Raelist sect believes in some sort of atheistic design, correct me if I'm wrong. Yi Zhe Wu 20:22, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes, the Raelians claim to be atheists -- they believe in what appear to be very powerful angels (the intelligent designers) who come from outer space, two of whom have worked with Mr Rael. He is setting the stage for their arrival on earth in 2035. I don't think they are connected with the Seattle group.Richard Jensen 21:42, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

The real answer(?)

It occurred to me that we actually do have an official style guide: the Chicago Manual of Style (for American English, anyway, which seems most appropriate for this article). I was quite surprised to find that Chicago does not capitalize he or him referring to God. I actually found this on a third-party website, so someone with a copy nearby or web subscription should double-check. --Eric Winesett 22:47, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Bingo--Chicago Manual of Style 8.102 "pronouns referring to God or Jesus are not capitalized." Richard Jensen 23:21, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Stanley Miller

Strange, nobody mentions the classical experiments performed around 1953 by Miller that proved all you need to create complexmolecules is: simple natural atmospheric gasses and water, mixed with some lightning and you get complex aminoacids - nearly all of them. Since these are basic in the fundament of life there seems no need for some designer to create the basic blocks that constitutes so many of the proteins. I wonder why basics so often are forgotten. Robert Tito |  Talk  22:11, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Not sure Teilhard du Chardin fits, but...

Pierre Teilhard du Chardin, SJ came at the issues from a very different way, qualified both as a theologian and paleontologist. The Vatican ruled that he was not quite into heresy, but forbade his publishing his key work, The Phenomenon of Man. Being a smart Jesuit (are there any other kind?), he carefully and quietly made a non-Catholic his literary executor, so the book was published posthumously, in a situation where the Vatican had zero authority. If it's of interest, he was the model for Father Jean in Morris West's The Shoes of the Fisherman. He did publish, while alive, his view that there is no conflict between religion and evolutionary biology -- they are different areas.

In his main work, however, he hypothesized that evolutionary biology does exist, and it was built into the rules of the universe by a creator. His theory was based on the concept of the Big Guy creating man in his own image. He then assumed that becoming godlike was the ultimate goal of creation; what he called the god-state was the Omega Point, starting from the most basic life forms at the Alpha Point. This drove the Vatican ballistic, because, in their interpretation, Teilhard was saying that the deity chose to limit his realm of choices by deliberately chosen rules, and that goes against omnipotence. It must be noted that Teilhard did not address whether the Deity also evolves.

Anyway, where ID seems to start from the premise that evolutionary biology is a mistake, here you have a very devout priest saying "OK, evolutionary biology was built in by a creator. From that axiom, what hypotheses can be drawn -- and tested?" I haven't had that much personal interaction with ID advocates, but when I've brought up this approach, the individuals started yelling a lot.

Howard C. Berkowitz 17:07, 24 August 2008 (CDT)

I don't think I'd consider Teilhard du Chardin fitting for this article. He may have advocated a form of "lower case" intelligent design, but he's certainly not advocating the same sort of thing as Behe, Dembski etc. Do start an article on Pierre Teilhard du Chardin though. Just to note: my knowledge of the ID movement and ID is because I wrote my undergraduate philosophy dissertation evaluating their arguments (no prizes for guessing my take). --Tom Morris 17:31, 24 August 2008 (CDT)

Oh, I agree he wasn't saying the same thing as the ID advocates. "Lower case" is a good way to put his approach, unless you want to call it ID with intelligence added. Let me see if I have his books in storage, or if I can find adequate online material. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:45, 24 August 2008 (CDT)

Discovery Institute

I have rewritten the section on the Discovery Institute: it is not a "Christian educational foundation", but a "conservative think tank". And Stephen Meyer wasn't a co-founder of the DI - only Chapman and Gilder. –Tom Morris 03:29, 26 September 2008 (CDT)

Definition and Slant

As it stands this article is speaking about the intelligent design movement as perceived by the opponents of such. For example, the definition claims that it is a "form of creationism" and that it is an "American political movement". Both of these claims are denied by all ID proponents. The creationism claim is denied by all ID proponents and by all major creationist organizations. In addition, the article provides no evidence that such a claim is true. While the ID movement's major proponents are American, it is not limited to the States. It is present - at least - in Canada and Britain. Furthermore, while the ID movement does have political elements, this is not the whole of the movement as perceived by ID proponents themselves. (They also believe in educating the public and advancing science as an end in itself.) This rather obvious slant appears in the first parts of the article as well.

This slant is rather obvious as many of the controversial claims are either without references or are improper appeals to authority. Since the intelligent design proponents reject these accusations and understand their purposes and intentions differently, one would need the authority of a historian (not a philosopher) for an argument otherwise. Such claims include, but are not limited to: that there could be a theology of the designer (entailed by the comment that ID proponents do not discuss such), that the designer is a 'higher intelligence' rather than an 'intelligence' as such, that ID is a rhetorical device to attack Darwinism and that Johnson's change in belief (in evolution) happened after rather than before his religious conversion. Unless this article is retitled "The ID movement as perceived by those who reject ID", these problems need to be addressed.Matthew McKean 02:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A discussion of claims and counterclaims is an entry into an unending series of exchanges, similar to debates over religion and politics, or global warming. The article therefore has to be crafted in terms of events and a description of the players. It seems to me to do that. John R. Brews 16:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to make a very clear distinction here between the notion of "intelligent design", which has a long history in philosophy where it is known as the teleological argument [1], and the intelligent design movement.

The former need not be dealt with in detail here; it belongs under teleological argument probably with intelligent design as a redirect. It does need links from both text and the "related articles" page, though, and it should link to this.

The movement is the topic of this article. I think the main problem is as it stands is that it merely says it is an "American political movement" and "primarily a rhetorical device used to attack Darwinism", without going into the history, showing it as a creationists response to losing in court on attempts to have schools teach Genesis as an alternative to evolution. Also "Darwinism" is a century or more out of date.

John is right. "The article therefore has to be crafted in terms of events and a description of the players." Unlike John, I do not think we are near that yet, though. Sandy Harris 02:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)