Talk:Intelligent design

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intelligent design article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90Auto-archiving period: 6 months

	Intelligent design is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 2, 2005 Peer review Reviewed January 21, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 16, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 9, 2007 Peer review Reviewed February 23, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted July 24, 2007 Featured article review Kept December 14, 2008 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

Discussions on this page have often led to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to pseudoscience and fringe science. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Arbitration ruling on the treatment of pseudoscience In December 2006, the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision included the following: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Alternative views High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Creationism: Intelligent design Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (assessed as Top-importance). Christianity Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Science / Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of science Philosophy of religion Skepticism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Intelligent design (ID). To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Should ID be equated with creationism? A1: ID is a form of creationism, and many sources argue that it is identical. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and Phillip E. Johnson, one of the founders of the ID movement, stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept.[1][2] Not everyone agrees with this. For example, philosopher Thomas Nagel argues that intelligent design is very different from creation science (see "Public Education and Intelligent Design", Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 36, no. 2, 2008). However, this perspective is not representative of most reliable sources on the subject. Although intelligent design proponents do not name the designer, they make it clear that the designer is the Abrahamic god.[1][3][4][5] In drafts of the 1989 high-school level textbook Of Pandas and People, almost all derivations of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were replaced with the words "intelligent design".[6] Taken together, the Kitzmiller ruling, statements of ID's main proponents, the nature of ID itself, and the history of the movement, make it clear—the Discovery Institute's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding—that ID is a form of creationism, modified to appear more secular than it really is. This is in line with the Discovery Institute's stated strategy in the Wedge Document. Q2: Should ID be characterized as science? A2: The majority of scientists state that ID should not be characterized as science. This was the finding of Judge Jones during the Kitzmiller hearing, and is a position supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.[7] Scientists say that ID cannot be regarded as scientific theory because it is untestable even in principle. A scientific theory predicts the outcome of experiments. If the predicted outcome is not observed, the theory is false. There is no experiment which can be constructed which can disprove intelligent design. Unlike a true scientific theory, it has absolutely no predictive capability. It doesn't run the risk of being disproved by objective experiment. Q3: Should the article cite any papers about ID? A3: According to Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, papers that support ID should be used as primary sources to explain the nature of the concept. The article as it stands does not cite papers that support ID because no such papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Behe himself admitted this under cross examination, during the Kitzmiller hearings, and this has been the finding of scientists and critics who have investigated this claim.[7][8][9][10] In fact, the only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.[11][12] Broadly speaking, the articles on the Discovery Institute list all fail for any of four reasons: The journal has no credible editorial and peer-review process, or the process was not followed The journal is not competent for the subject matter of the article The article is not genuinely supportive of ID The article is published in a partisan ID journal such as PCID If you wish to dispute the claim that ID has no support in peer-reviewed publications, then you will need to produce a reliable source that attests to the publication of at least one paper clearly supportive of ID that underwent rigorous peer-review in a journal on a relevant field. Q4: Is this article unfairly biased against ID? A4: There have been arguments over the years about the article's neutrality and concerns that it violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The NPOV policy does not require all points of view to be represented as equally valid, but it does require us to represent them. The policy requires that we present ID from the point of view of disinterested philosophers, biologists and other scientists, and that we also include the views of ID proponents and opponents. We should not present minority views as though they are majority ones, but we should also make sure the minority views are correctly described and not only criticized, particularly in an article devoted to those views, such as this one. Q5: Is the Discovery Institute a reliable source? A5: The Discovery Institute is a reliable primary source about its views on ID, though it should not be used as an independent secondary source. One of the core missions of the Discovery Institute is to promote intelligent design. The end purpose is to duck court rulings that eliminated religion from the science classroom, by confusing people into conflating science and religion. In light of this, the Discovery Institute cannot be used as a reference for anything but their beliefs, membership and statements. Questionable sources, according to the sourcing policy, WP:V, are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight, and should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. See also: WP:RS and WP:V Q6: Are all formulations of intelligent design pseudoscience? Was William Paley doing pseudoscience when he argued that natural features should be attributed to "an intelligent and designing Creator"? A6: While the use of the phrase intelligent design in teleological arguments dates back to at least the 1700s,[13] Intelligent Design (ID) as a term of art begins with the 1989 publication of Of Pandas and People.[14] Intelligent design is classified as pseudoscience because its hypotheses are effectively unfalsifiable. Unlike Thomas Aquinas and Paley, modern ID denies its religious roots and the supernatural nature of its explanations.[15] For an extended discussion about definitions of pseudoscience, including Intelligent Design, see Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten, eds. (2013), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, University of Chicago, ISBN 978-0-226-05179-6. Notes and references ^ a b Phillip Johnson: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca. Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin. "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." Johnson 1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution. "So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson ^ "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."…"Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"…"I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won ^ Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999 ^ Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999. "[M]embers of the national ID movement insist that their attacks on evolution aren't religiously motivated, but, rather, scientific in nature." … "Yet the express strategic objectives of the Discovery Institute; the writings, careers, and affiliations of ID's leading proponents; and the movement’s funding sources all betray a clear moral and religious agenda." Inferior Design Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, August 10, 2005. ^ "ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief." Expert Witness Report Barbara Forrest Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, April 2005. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., pp. 31 – 33. ^ a b Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., 4. Whether ID is Science, p. 87 ^ "Science and Policy: Intelligent Design and Peer Review". American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-19. ^ Brauer, Matthew J.; Forrest, Barbara; Gey, Steven G. (2005). "Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution" (PDF). Washington University Law Quarterly. 83 (1). Retrieved 2007-07-18. ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly "peer-reviewed" journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of "peer review" that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows. ^ Isaak, Mark (2006). "Index to Creationist Claims". The TalkOrigins Archive. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical ^ "Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington". Biological Society of Washington. Retrieved 2007-07-19. ^ See also Sternberg peer review controversy. ^ Wilkins, John (9 November 2013), "The origin of "intelligent design" in the 18th and 19th centuries", Evolving Thoughts (blog) ^ Matzke, Nick (2006), "Design on Trial: How NCSE Helped Win the Kitzmiller Case", Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 26 (1–2): 37–44 ^ "Report of John F. Haught, Ph. D" (PDF). Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (NCSE). 2005-04-01. Retrieved 29 August 2013.

This article has been mentioned by some of its subject's developers: Dembski, William A. (16 November 2022). "William Dembski: Gauging the Success of Intelligent Design". Discovery Science. Retrieved 26 January 2025 – via YouTube. Let me give you the Wikipedia first paragraph on intelligence design: 'Intelligent design is a pseudoscientific argument'.

Archives

Philosophy sources

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 180 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

No one in the ID movement suggests ID is creationism. It posits there is intelligence behind certain things in nature. It makes no suggestion as to what that intelligence is. Some will address that with a deistic or theistic creator, others with concepts such as the simulation hypothesis. The best description of ID I have heard posits it as a critique of concepts like Neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis. In this case, ID has more in common with Critical Theory than theology. Meh130 (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Meh130, please read the FAQ at the top of this page. --McSly (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was to "discuss improvements to the Intelligent design article", per the first line of this page.

Thank you. Meh130 (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And that is covered by the FAQ. --McSly (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I would make an edit, but someone would revert it. When people revert the fuselage length of an airplane supported by a link to the manufacturer's web page stating the length of the airplane, Wikipedia become 100% unreliable across the board. We could have a discussion about a philosophy, and ID is a philosophy, just like many other fields of philosophy. But if the powers that be decide that some philosophies are more equal than others, it is time for Jimmy to wrap up this experiment, because if that is the case, it is not working. Meh130 (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. See WP:FORUM. Also, no one stops you to close your browser tab and move on if you are unhappy with WP. --McSly (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That comment proves you have no interest in the truth, and should get your privileges permanently revoked. Meh130 (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPA HiLo48 (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Over more than four decades of life and twenty thousand edits on this project, it has been my unfailing experience that anyone who responds to a comment by saying it 'proves' that the commenter doesn't care about the truth has already lost the argument and is simply being too stubborn to admit it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ID isn't a philosophy, it's an attempt to prove the existence of "intelligence behind certain things in nature" (your words). Attributing things you cannot explain to the supernatural isn't science.

BTW, do you have any sources that compare ID to critical theory? TFD (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Meh130 - I've thought ID was a productive criticism of the then-common simplistic views of evolution as Modern synthesis (20th century), with the misconceptions of March of Progress about linear progress and that natural selection explained everything, but where did you see that description of it as a critique ? It does seem that enough time has passed that historical perspectives might have kicked in so I'm wondering.

But for what it's worth, I'll suggest the way I got more or less reconciled to seeing the vague pejorative 'pseudoscience' in the first line was that I think the article is irretrievably biased so being obvious about it in the first line is better in a fair-warning or two-wrongs make an almost-right sense. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh - not this again. The reason "pseudoscience" is in the first sentence is simply because ID is pseudoscientific. Indeed, it might even be the poster child for pseudoscience, being something that claims to be science but which has no scientific grounding whatsoever and is completely untestable by any scientific method ... which is pretty much the definition. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100% agreement with this. Prior to ID, YEC was the ur-example of pseudoscience, a title which ID took by being a form of creationism that tries even harder to masquerade as science. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well now. Grokipedia begs to differ: "Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that holds certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected processes like natural selection." Which perhaps says more about Grokipedia than about Intelligent design. -- JMC (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And we should accept Grokipedia as a reliable source... why, exactly? TechBear (he/him) | Talk | Contributions 04:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because nothing, literally, says "reliable and trustworthy sources" more than a Wikipedia mirror site set up by a notorious rightwing flimflam man documented with a personal grudge against Wikipedia, populated with thousands of plagiarized Wikipedia articles rewritten by his personal AI program to give them "rightwing spins" in order to sate said flimflam man's documented pathological need to deceive and ensnare people with rightwing propaganda. Mr Fink (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gockipedia is an ideologically-driven, right-wing Wikipedia mirror built by an LLM that was deliberately trained on neo-nazi conspiracy theories, Christo-fascist talking points and the naval gazing nonsense of the world's most fragile ego.

And no, I did not type the name wrong. If you don't get it, turn your google safe search settings off and do an image search for 'gock'. You may want to make sure you're alone before you do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Black Kite thanks for a civil comment but *sigh* back - yet another presenting of WP:OR to defend doing it does not make it better, that still just makes it look like WP:RGW. The first line instead of defining the article topic is characterising it with a vague pejorative, and then continues relating how it is characterised "by its proponents" which instead cites to 5 critics. It all seems just being obvious about the bias. Meh - makes an almost-right.

In this thread I was curious about where User:Meh130 saw ID said in terms of being a critique, and to offer a somewhat less BITEY interaction. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the "vague pejorative" bit, Mark. Yes, "pseudoscientific" is pejorative, but is in no way vague, except to those who do not understand it, or stubbornly refuse to understand it. Can you explain how you think "vague" is an apt description here? Just plain Bill (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I could - but it's the strong desire of editors here to be starting with an insult - repeatedly shown by WP:OR WP:RGW as above, and despite WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, or WP:V, is what's giving the fair-warning what the article's going to be like. That the pejorative is vague doesn't matter particularly though it adds a bit to the line per se being a bit more off. You can google further on why it's vague or the origin by Popper or common overuse of the term in more imprecise ways if you want to look at it, but I think such do not matter in articles where there is the apparent desire for leading with a WIKIVOICE denouncement. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that the subject of this article is a poster child for pseudoscientific efforts to shoehorn religion into US public school biology classrooms. It is not an edge case testing the boundaries of demarcation.

Intelligent Design as promoted by the Discovery Institute and its associates is a core example of pseudoscience, and does not need every precious epistemological thread to be teased out before gauging the "pejorative" description to be accurate, and weighty enough to merit prominent early wikivoice mention in the lead. Calling it an insult is a stretch, IMO. I could be persuaded that as a shibboleth, it is a sign to a certain subset of readers, better suited to having their biases confirmed at Conservapedia, who might not find the contents of this article to their liking. Just plain Bill (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite The reason "pseudoscience" is in the first sentence ..." I'll quibble with this. The noun "pseudoscience" doesn't appear anywhere in the lead. I would prefer that it did. The adjective "pseudoscientific" is what we have instead, and it comes across, like most adjectives, as unqualified subjective opinion. That is why we have these tiresome endless discussions here. I have argued for replacing the adjective with the noun, but it fell on deaf ears, and I have even been bold and made the change myself a long time ago, but it was reverted. I don't recall any of the regulars here presenting an intelligent argument about why the adjective would be preferable to the noun. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I misspoke there. It is "pseudoscientific" in the first line, at "pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God" in the article and "specific pseudoscientific form of creationism" in the short description above it. It was the strong desire of editors here to be starting with that - a strong WP:CONSENSUS, to give it the policy name. You might propose a rewording, something that puts "pseudoscience" within the first line might have a chance. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current wording is "Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God..."

Changing to a noun: "Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscience promoting the existence of God..."

Better flow using two lead sentences: "Intelligent design (ID) is a teleological argument presented by its proponents as 'an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins'. The scientific community regards it as pseudoscience." In this case, both sentences are objective statements of fact. No one would disagree with them, not even ID proponents. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronist - The first version might have a shot as such a small change.

The two line version I think wouldn't pass the previous desire to have "pseudo" in the first line.

And the second line would still fail WP:V because many bodies that represent the "scientific community" officially rejected ID as non-science -- but didn't go out of their domain or use language like "pseudoscience". There's a partial collection of some at List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting intelligent design, but you can see that the word is only there at a PR stunt Project Steve from the advocacy group NCSE, and an apparent side-remark from Mike Padilla of one of the Teachers associations when that group issued a statement. Those would not constitute the scientific community. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the second version was to create unambiguously and objectively true statements that nobody could disagree with, thereby eliminating the need for these endless debates. If the second one needs modifying, that's fine, it could say "pseudoscience or non-science". I don't understand the insistence that the word absolutely must appear in the first sentence. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Search in the archives for the word and find past discussions on the word, where it’s placed, what phrasing is associated, etcetera. Intellectually interesting debates and points, though IMHO it was part of a period trend that many articles got into declaring a judgement in WIKIVOICE and such language. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would get behind this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ID is not Science nor is it Pseudoscience, It's Philosophy. Anyone with a brain can figure that out. It draws upon knowledge from the natural sciences to make its arguments, but so do naturalists/materialists. Why are scientific organizations weighing in on what is ultimately a philosophical question. The wording and assumptions that this article makes misrepresents ID, and simply creates a strawman to tear down. ~2025-38987-85 (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it stupid because "presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins"." never happened, or because it did happen but it's stupid that it did? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing ID with the teleological argument made by some philosophers. ID is pseudoscience because it "draws upon knowledge from the natural sciences to make its arguments." Science is concerned with developing theories that have predictive value rather than determining the nature of reality.

I agree that you cannot use science to disprove the teleological argument, and some materialists themselves may be guilty of pseudoscience if they try to do this. TFD (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Design is considered a pseudoscience because its proponents simultaneously insist, without evidence, that it is both science and superior to science, thus the proponents of Intelligent Design lobbying to have schools in America teach faith-based curricula themed around "GOD DESIGNER DID IT." And having said that, please provide WP:SOURCEs to show that "ID is not Science nor is it Pseudoscience, It's Philosophy." Mr Fink (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Apokryltaros - I think the concept itself and descriptive principles are the topic, not whether some individuals might make internally inconsistent arguments. But out of curiosity, can you clarify what cites to individuals you were looking at, or were conveying the impression of others or yourself there ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All of the Flimflam Artists For Jesus at the Discovery Institute, among others. Mr Fink (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Apokryltaros - uh-huh, so no proponent items nor outside commentator then. Thanks for the reply. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Spare me your thanks. I don not appreciate your dragging me back into someone else's dead thread just to put words into my goddamned mouth just to score points and flout WP:NOTAFORUM just to engage in Nonsensical Navel Gazing For Jesus. So, can you just spit out what the hell you're trying to get at and stop bothering me with your snide sniping, please? Mr Fink (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I had curiosity of exactly what was said that you were describing is all. Thank you for the reply meant thank you for the reply. No more, no less. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ID is probably the most pseudoscientific pseudoscience out there. Anyone with a brain can figure that out. Calling it a 'philosophy' in this context is... Well... Ironic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is - Just to record some more thinking on this - I agree Science is not right nor the pejorative Pseudoscience, but from seeing Philosophy as the entire field of the study of knowledge rather than the making of a hypothesis itself that doesn't seem a fit either. I think smaller descriptives like 'rejected hypothesis' (because it was rejected) or 'creationist proposal' (because it proposes creation and I've seen it binned as a branch of Creationism) or 'criticisms of Darwinian completeness' might fit, but.... While I dislike starting with a vague pejorative 'pseudoscience', which seemed a WP fad about a dozen years ago, I long ago decided the article was irretrievably biased so starting out with a bit of judgmental rant serves as a fair warning in a two wrongs make an almost-right kind of way. So I'll say keep as is and just try to keep clear at a lower level, e.g. that Irreducible complexity is whether something is irreducible and Specified complexity is about something is too complex. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Current version:

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".

Proposal:

ID is a theory about life's origins which supporters claim is scientific; many creationists use it to argue for the existence of God. Opponents have labeled ID as pseudoscience because it fails to provide testable hypotheses.

I'm not saying we should replace the first sentence immediately; I'm thinking of the principle of Wikipedia:LEADFOLLOWSBODY - put new material in the body first. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ID must be described as pseudoscience in wiki voice to be neutral per the principle of calling a spade a spade. Attributing that to 'opponents' presents a false balance. Because it factually is a pseudoscience in that it is religion masquerading as science. As I pointed out above, it is perhaps the ur-example of a pseudoscience.

P.S. Altering the entire article to present a false balance between opponents and supporters is a gross violation of WP:NPOV. The supporters distort the principles of science and even their own data to support their conclusions, whereas the opponents use valid science and logic to debunk it. For us to not make that clear would be to undermine the very principle of an encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll have to study the body of the article to find where it shows that ID is religion masquerading as science and that its supporters use distortions to support it. I had previously thought that there are ways that ID could be tested. Excuse me if I'm being too hasty. Uncle Ed (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The history section clearly lays out the origins of ID, covering its roots in creationism. In addition, the famous cdesign proponentsists error demonstrates how misleading attempts by ID proponents to distance themselves from creationism are.

ID is creationism, and creationism is religion.

I would also point out that on your userpage, you wrote "if you find yourself pushing a particular view into an article rather than attempt to create a coherent picture of the topic as a whole, you've missed the point of NPOV" and would invite you to reflect on that in light of your comments here and your recent edits in the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose changing the lede. The current version is more accurate than the word salad that is proposed. I must note the following Wikipedia P&Gs:

False Balance

Fringe Theories

Wikipedia is not a battleground Bill Heller (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article is incredibly poorly written and reads like some random guy's New Atheist screed against "creationism" circa 20 years ago. The "Origin of the Concept" section focuses mainly on United States specific textbook controversies, and barely actually addresses the history or origin of the concept/argument, which predates the United States entirely.

Among the myriad of irritating and juvenile mistakes in this article, the article uses the non-word "theologists" in the first paragraph of the second sentence. This article is protected, so I am unable to correct it to the proper word. I won't spoil the fun by spelling the word out for you, but the great minds behind this article and the decision to protect it against edits can surely figure it out. Can someone with access at least do this? ~2025-35051-95 (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph of the second sentence of the history section* ~2025-35051-95 (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article focuses on the U.S. because that is where it was created and most of its proponents and adherents live. TFD (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is -ironically- a juvenile screed.

See Wikt:theologist for a definition of the word you don't recognize. At the very least, I would expect anyone making or suggesting edits to this page to at least have the vocabulary to do so.

As for the 'myriad' of other problems, you should perhaps consider that if you're unable to enumerate them, then perhaps that could be a hint as to whether your objections are based in a serious analysis, or in your fee-fees. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What distinguishes a theologian from a theologist? notes the validity of both terms, but Ayala uses "theologians" in the cited source, so I've changed it to that. . dave souza, talk 17:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to that. Throughout my entire experience diving into theology (which is going on 30 years now), I've seen the words used essentially interchangeably, though that link's claims seem reasonable enough. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• For reference, there was a "Intelligent Design (historical)" article, although not "predates the United States entirely". In 2013 I edited up Intelligent Design (historical), the 19th century positions against evolution, differing from current usage in being explicitly deism, and not connected to the later Discovery Institute or phrasings of Irreducible Complexity and Specified Complexity. But Intelligent Design (historical) got proposed AfD and deleted about as soon as it was posted. The usage in late 1800s as a phrase and concept in evolution debates was not merged anywhere, and the Intelligent Design (historical) was simply made into a redirect to Teleological argument. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"This article has been mentioned by a media organization: [..] William Dembski [..]"

Since when is the Center for Science and Culture a media organization? It's a think tank. What it does is lobbyism, not journalism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If they produce books, articles, videos, IMO it's not unreasonable to see them as press/media org, "journalism" isn't necessarily the qualifier. See also the Template documentation text at Template:Press. It's not a mark of approval, it's saying "this coverage exists." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know ID isn't science, but I think we should be clear about what ID supporters are arguing. Compare the current sentence: Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".

The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States. ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.

with the leading sentence from the first revision of the article: A theory of evolution asserting that the appearance of new species in the fossil record are authentic. According to Intelligent Design, God created each new species right around the time they first appeared in the fossil record.

or that of Britannica's entry: intelligent design (ID), argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an “intelligent designer.”

We don't state what they are asserting. We just say they call it "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins", which is extremely vague. A modified and more explicit version of the fourth paragraph might work to actually state what the argument is. It's like if the first sentence of Holocaust denial was Holocaust denial is an antisemitic argument relating to the Holocaust. For instance, one idea is Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument arguing that instead of evolving, organisms were created in their current form by an "intelligent designer", assumed to be God. As another note, I was surprised to see that this is a featured article. It has a lot of uncited statements, and relies heavily on primary sources. Should this article go to WP:FAR? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]