Jump to content


Photo

Wikipedia's "intelligent Design" Page


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#1 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 19 August 2017 - 04:40 PM

The first words on Wikipedia's Intelligent Design page are:

This article is about a form of creationism.

 
The main article starts:

Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God. Presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins", it has been found to be pseudoscience.

 
One of Wikipedia's five the pillars is "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view", but this page is obviously erroneous, reads like propaganda and is offensive.  The material is presented disdainfully, unlike most topics: "ID proposes", "ID proponents conclude", "as defined by ID". And it has rebuttals mixed in with the presentation: "... has been criticized as a false-dichotomy"

I have seen other pages on other topics that have a banner at the top announcing that the content has been contested, but I couldn't see any way to contest it.  I considered editing it, but there's a dire warning against doing that.
 
Does anyone know how to get a contested banner put in place?  Does anyone else care?
 
The Discovery Institute has a relevant article, Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same.
  • mike the wiz and Gneiss girl like this

#2 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 19 August 2017 - 10:35 PM

The first words on Wikipedia's Intelligent Design page are:


This article is about a form of creationism.

 
The main article starts:

Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God. Presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins", it has been found to be pseudoscience.

 One of Wikipedia's five the pillars is "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view", but this page is obviously erroneous, reads like propaganda and is offensive.  The material is presented disdainfully, unlike most topics: "ID proposes", "ID proponents conclude", "as defined by ID". And it has rebuttals mixed in with the presentation: "... has been criticized as a false-dichotomy"

Welcome, Ken.

 

The statement that ID has been found to be pseudoscience is correct.  If necessary, I can provide a list of more than a dozen major scientific groups that have made explicit statements to that effect.  IMHO, scientists are the ones best qualified to determine what is valid science.

 

Then there is the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling.  This was referenced by multiple footnotes in the Wikipedia article you cited.

 

 

I have seen other pages on other topics that have a banner at the top announcing that the content has been contested, but I couldn't see any way to contest it.  I considered editing it, but there's a dire warning against doing that.
 
Does anyone know how to get a contested banner put in place?  Does anyone else care?

On the left side of the Wiki page, at the bottom of the interaction list is a "contact" link.  I suggest you start there.

 

 

The Discovery Institute has a relevant article, Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same.

This is, of course, the same Discovery Institute that had as part of their strategy statement:

 

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. ... the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature....

...  Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

 

Governing Goals

  • To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
  • To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God

......

Twenty Year Goals

  • To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
  • To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
  • To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

 (Note:  DI has taken the statement down, but a copy is available at http://www.antievolu...ures/wedge.html )



#3 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 20 August 2017 - 01:18 AM

When I first began to post here, I refused to acknowledge the subject source as legitimate, as I had been boycotting the source for a long time prior to 2014.

I found my first post on the subject.

I remember that people here seemed to agree--that references to that source fell gradually to zero.

Any and everywhere I post--comments-sections of articles--I refuse to acknowledge this source and register my opposition to people using it when references appear.

#4 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 20 August 2017 - 02:00 AM

When I first began to post here, I refused to acknowledge the subject source as legitimate, as I had been boycotting the source for a long time prior to 2014.

I found my first post on the subject.

I remember that people here seemed to agree--that references to that source fell gradually to zero.

Any and everywhere I post--comments-sections of articles--I refuse to acknowledge this source and register my opposition to people using it when references appear.

I'll agree that Wiki isn't the best source.  For my own part, I try to restrict my use of Wiki to non-controversial verifiable matters of fact. 

 

At school, we don't allow Wiki as a source.  When students complain, I explain Wiki is a secondary source.  What they can do is use the footnotes in Wiki articles to access the primary source and reference that original source in their work.



#5 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 20 August 2017 - 04:06 AM

The statement that ID has been found to be pseudoscience is correct.  If necessary, I can provide a list of more than a dozen major scientific groups that have made explicit statements to that effect.  IMHO, scientists are the ones best qualified to determine what is valid science.

Did no respected scientists call relativity or quantum mechanics "pseudoscience" in their early days? ID is new and debate is lively. That doesn't mean it should be slammed to the ground by a site that prides itself in neutrality.

There are a number of PhD's in the field that have signed on and at least one prominent atheist.
 

Then there is the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling.  This was referenced by multiple footnotes in the Wikipedia article you cited.

Oh yes, I saw that. It continues to amaze and even amuse me how scientists are eager to cede a decision of science to a political judge. Imagine if he ruled on a question of physics, chemistry or thermodynamics. Would scientists rally around his decision and say, see it's settled?
 

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

You quoted The Discovery Institutes's strategy without stating your objection. Note that "scientific materialism" doesn't mean what most people might assume.

But regardless of DI's strategy, this is the most relevant part of the page I referenced:

Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, ... Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws.


  • Gneiss girl likes this

#6 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 20 August 2017 - 04:35 AM

Any and everywhere I post--comments-sections of articles--I refuse to acknowledge this source and register my opposition to people using it when references appear.


I understand the refusal to use wikipedia as a source in an article or paper. For one thing, the text and even the thesis of any page can change after you publish.

But I personally frequent it for things I don't know about, often for things that I have zero knowledge about. I have been very impressed at how evenhandedly divisive topics are presented. This experience makes the ID page all the more shocking.

Independent of whether one thinks ID is science or not, this topic is presented in an unprofessional and unethical fashion. People who have never heard of it before will get a very biased view instead of the neutral information they're used to. The ID page even lists a couple other world religions and their perspectives, as if that is somehow relevant.

ID is called religious and evolution is called science. This reminds me of the way a particular political party speaks. Everything is backwards.

#7 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 20 August 2017 - 08:20 AM

...
But I personally frequent it for things I don't know about, often for things that I have zero knowledge about. I have been very impressed at how evenhandedly divisive topics are presented. This experience makes the ID page all the more shocking.
...

.
To clarify, I chose to abide zero usage of the site over political content.

You have added to my conviction.

On what basis do you continue to "frequent it?"

#8 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 20 August 2017 - 08:23 AM

...
 
One of Wikipedia's five the pillars is "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view", but this page is obviously erroneous, reads like propaganda and is offensive.  The material is presented disdainfully, unlike most topics: "ID proposes", "ID proponents conclude", "as defined by ID". And it has rebuttals mixed in with the presentation: "... has been criticized as a false-dichotomy"

I have seen other pages on other topics that have a banner at the top announcing that the content has been contested, but I couldn't see any way to contest it.  I considered editing it, but there's a dire warning against doing that.
 
Does anyone know how to get a contested banner put in place?  Does anyone else care?
 
The Discovery Institute has a relevant article, Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same.

 
 
Wikipedia may be a good source of information for unloaded subjects, e.g. gravity, Julius Caesar, geography of Madagascar. As soon as it gets to a loaded subject, that may be seen as a threat or cultural asset, it gets problematic. There is editors and viewers on wikipedia that guard certain subjects against alternative opinions. Evolution/ID is for sure one of them and you'll get gate keepers at relevant articles. There would be plenty of other subjects as well. The other POV's are at least suppressed. 
 
What you can do is write in the comment section first, but actually you'd need to be allied with an Editor or Viewer to get any meaningful changes through. 

I'm perfectly happy with showing different points of view there, even if I don't agree with it. One just has to formulate it ABC says XYZ. 
 
 

Welcome, Ken.
 
The statement that ID has been found to be pseudoscience is correct.  If necessary, I can provide a list of more than a dozen major scientific groups that have made explicit statements to that effect.  IMHO, scientists are the ones best qualified to determine what is valid science.

 
The statement would person/organisation XYZ calls it pseudoscience. But I don't believe that people just having a degree position within a scientific group makes that necessary reliable. In fact, they may themselves have an agenda in all this. And believe me, I've seen plenty of degreed scientists making highly unscientific statements or using unscientific tactics, when it come to Evolution. 

 

Then there is the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling.  This was referenced by multiple footnotes in the Wikipedia article you cited.
....

 

Here you have the power of government being the arbitrator on scientific truth. Do you think they are a good institution for doing that. 


  • Gneiss girl likes this

#9 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 21 August 2017 - 01:20 AM

 

The statement that ID has been found to be pseudoscience is correct.  If necessary, I can provide a list of more than a dozen major scientific groups that have made explicit statements to that effect.  IMHO, scientists are the ones best qualified to determine what is valid science.

Did no respected scientists call relativity or quantum mechanics "pseudoscience" in their early days? ID is new and debate is lively. That doesn't mean it should be slammed to the ground by a site that prides itself in neutrality.

I'm sure there were some respected scientists who called those theories "pseudoscience."  Unfortunately, in the case of ID, it's a lot more than "some."

 

To the best of my understanding, ID pretty much traces it's basic argument to Paley's "watchmaker" example.  That would be around 1800 or so.  The modern ID movement was kicked off by Philip Johnson in around 1991.

 

According to the Discovery Institute: "Johnson, 65, is often referred to as the father of intelligent design"  If you Google "who is the father of ID" the results will confirm Johnson is generally acknowledged as that person.

 

I thought Wiki was more concerned about accuracy than neutrality.   You complained the page is inaccurate.  I have pointed out the comment that "ID has been found to be pseudoscience" is correct and accurate.   This is true in both the scientific and legal context.

 

Just to be clear here ..... ID is an excellent theological/philosophical argument.  But that doesn't make it good science.

 

 There are a number of PhD's in the field that have signed on and at least one prominent atheist.

Yeah, I'm familiar with DI's list of scientists who question evolution. 

 

The response was NCSE's "Project Steve." A list of scientists supporting evolution started by NCSE as a direct response to DI's list.  Named "Project Steve" in honor of Steve Gould.  In order to sign, one had to be named "Steve" or a derivative (Steven, Stephan, Stephanie, etc.).  Last time I checked Steves outnumbered DI's list by something over 1400 to 670 or so.  Since only 1% of the population is eligible to sign the Steve list, that represents over 140,000 to less than 700.  Now, it's been some time since I checked the numbers, but I have no reason to think they've changed much.

 

This isn't about who's right or wrong, but a reflection of how much support there is for ID in the scientific community.  Now, I understand every theory has to start somewhere, but at this point in time, ID is little more than a fringe.

 

 

 

Then there is the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling.  This was referenced by multiple footnotes in the Wikipedia article you cited.

Oh yes, I saw that. It continues to amaze and even amuse me how scientists are eager to cede a decision of science to a political judge. Imagine if he ruled on a question of physics, chemistry or thermodynamics. Would scientists rally around his decision and say, see it's settled?

Since you quoted me on it, you must have noticed I first mentioned the many scientific organizations that reject ID.  Would you like a list?

 

You also quoted me that arguments about what constitutes valid science are best decided by scientists.  So there is no excuse for you not knowing that is my position.

 

Kitzmiller was mentioned only to demonstrate that ID has been declared pseudoscience in the legal forum as well as the scientific ones.  There's a long history of creationist efforts to ban the teaching of mainstream science and/or mandate the teaching of creationism here.....

 

It's not the evolution side that takes the discussion outside the forums of science.  In each and every case, Kitzmiller included, the creationists initiated action in legislatures, state boards of education, and local school boards.  Who makes up those bodies?  You'll find a lot more lawyers, farmers, and plumbers than scientists.

 

It continues to amaze and even amuse me how creationists will use political processes to fight against evolution then complain when those who oppose them go to the courts for a remedy.

 

No, Ken, the scientific portion should be settled in the forums of science.  Right now, the best numbers I have indicate ID is losing by about 199-1. (Based on the ratios of Project Steve and DI's campaign.)

 

BTW, did you know the "Father of ID," Dr. Philip Johnson is a creationist lawyer, not a scientist?

 

Did you know the Discovery Institute is a political lobbying organization, not a scientific research center?

 

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

You quoted The Discovery Institutes's strategy without stating your objection. Note that "scientific materialism" doesn't mean what most people might assume.

My objection is that their goal is to overturn modern science and "replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.... To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God ... To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life "

 

IOW, their purpose is religious, political and philosophical, not the advancement of science.

 

This, BTW, is the leading ID organization. 

 

Given the history of creationists, and ID, it shouldn't be surprising the claims of ID are met with a substantial dose of skepticism.

 

ID may someday be able to make a case in biology or physics, but they aren't there yet .... by a long shot. 



#10 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 21 August 2017 - 01:28 AM

 

Then there is the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling.  This was referenced by multiple footnotes in the Wikipedia article you cited.
....

 

Here you have the power of government being the arbitrator on scientific truth. Do you think they are a good institution for doing that. 

 Maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear.....

 

The validity of scientific theories should be determined by scientists.  Not legislators.  Not state board of education members.  Not local school boards.  Not judges.

 

Judges only get involved AFTER creationists have attempted using legislators, state board of education members, or local school boards as the arbitrators of scientific truth.

 

Specifically, with reference to ID, the process is FIRST become accepted science THEN be taught in the schools.

 

Even the leading ID organization, the Discovery Institute, recognizes that ID is not (yet) ready for the classroom.



#11 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 August 2017 - 02:05 AM

 

 

Wiki: Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God. Presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins", it has been found to be pseudoscience

 

This is a false argument because I am an intelligent-designist and I don't argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory. If you claim ID is science, then it may arguably count as pseudoscience, if you don't, it doesn't. To say that a percentage do argue it is science therefore it is pseudoscience, is like saying that because a percentage of theists say evolution is religion that therefore evolution is pseudo-religion rather than a science theory. (Laughably silly reasoning from wiki, and an absence of intelligent thought completely.)

 

For example, nobody would say that art is pseudoscience, and nobody would argue that geography is pseudo-religion, because very few artists would claim art is science and I presume nobody would claim that geography is religion. If three people did, would wiki take those three people and conclude therefore that geography is pseudo-religion?

 

So the wiki agent first needs to take a course in basic logic. He commits equivocation by changing the ordinary definition of intelligent design, SO THAT HE CAN REMOVE THE FOCUS of us going about examining designed things, and studying what makes them designed, so as to see if life is designed, which it clearly is if studied properly. 

 

Secondly, to state, "intelligent design is..." then go on to say, "is X", and to then only treat it as what you have stated it is, begging the question. What a scrutineer of critical thinking asks is this; "what truly is intelligent design, in all of it's defining characters?"

 

if you ask that you then get a proper answer; the proper answer being that intelligent design is NOT just one group of people that create a theory of science, but it is much more than that cherry-picked definition. In fact "intelligent design" is, the construction of a car, or a helicopter also. What specifically is I.D then if we get incredibly particular?

 

The true and sound answer in it's entirety is that it is a set of features listed thus;

 

Specified complexity

Contingency planning

Aesthetics and symmetry

Viability

Information

Information storage density

Directed energy 

Energy efficiency

Correct materials

Goals

Function

Teleology

Systems and congruency

 

This is what intelligent design actually is, not a group of people claiming something scientific. Intelligent design is factual in our world, the quest of finding out whether life is intelligently designed can be looked upon as an investigation. It is of course scientifically factual that features in lifeforms contain the features of intelligent design, meaning that although the subject is much broader than a science theory, basically we can find the science of design to be factual, for example the eyeball in all it's parts, is constructed to see. This in itself is not a pseudo-scientific statement, or a religious belief. The materials in the eyeball are the correct materials, rather than wood or clay or whatever, meaning the eye contains the design feature, "correct materials", the eye would be damaged if it was dry and couldn't remove grit, the eyelids and watering of the eye are "contingency planning", etc.....

 

As you can see, there is nothing "pseudo" to my explanations, unless you count correct deductive reason as, "pseudo science and religion". (rhetorical propaganda, like naming a man with a male organ, a woman, as though naming a thing X will make it X)

 

Another point is, people such as William paley, was an IDist but he wasn't part of the ID movement, which was after his time, so how can ID only be this movement? There are also agnosts and atheists that accept that the eyeball is constructed to see and wouldn't argue that all of the thousands of parts are coincidentally arranged correctly by evolution. They would also agree that the eyeball has eyelids and waters itself, and that the pupil can widen in the dark, etc..in other words, that organisms are designed to be viable organisms, is an obvious reality. I find it inane that it would be referred to as a "science theory" any more than the existence of Mount Everest would be called a "science theory". The blatant reality that our bodies are constructed to be viable, to walk, see, eat, digest, doesn't need to be called a theory, it is plain reality. Even evolutionists tacitly accept that lifeforms are viably designed and tend to then give the credit to evolution. They believe evolution or God through evolution, are the designers. But to pretend the design isn't there? I can accept it if you argue that somehow evolution is the designer, though of course that is a separate argument, but to pretend it is not there is to pull the wool over your own eyes IMHO.


  • Gneiss girl likes this

#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 August 2017 - 03:47 AM

Message one in this thread can help us to understand intelligent design better;

 

http://evolutionfair...or-peer-review/

 

if you have the question, "But how do I find out if something is designed?"

 

The answer is in message one of this thread;

 

http://evolutionfair...ething-like-id/

 

(I have put a lot of thought and study into intelligent design, generally most people haven't.)



#13 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 21 August 2017 - 06:32 AM

I am going to repeat my question for the only reason that the subject website was cited today in another thread (with a link) and there have been no objections raised in posts after the citation.

Here is entry #4 of the word cite from Webster:
.

4. To refer to or specify, as for support, proof, illustration, or confirmation.

.

...
But I personally frequent it for things I don't know about, often for things that I have zero knowledge about. I have been very impressed at how evenhandedly divisive topics are presented. This experience makes the ID page all the more shocking.
...

.
To clarify, I chose to abide zero usage of the site over political content.

{-----Change from previous post---} You have added to my conviction--when you added your observations about non-political content.

On what basis do you continue to "frequent it?"

#14 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:44 AM

I am going to repeat my question ...

On what basis do you continue to "frequent it?"


You force me to defend the very institution I'm challenging. How thoroughly obnoxious of you.

A few days ago I couldn't remember if 1 is considered a prime number or not. When I googled "prime number" (actually I use startpage.com because google's information storage policy scares and offends me) the Wikipedia page was on top so I clicked it. It starts, "A prime number (or a prime) is a natural number greater than 1 that ..."

So Wikipedia say the answer to my question is NO, 1 is not a prime number. I have not second checked it. Should I consider it suspect and go find a second source?

At some point I ran across the Ulster Constabulary. You don't often hear the term "constable" in the US and never "constabulary", so I wondered what their relationship was to the police. After all, here in the US we often have both a sheriff and the police and I've never understood why they're not redundant.

The Wikipedia page says, "The Royal Ulster Constabulary was the police force in Northern Ireland from 1922 to 2001." Oh! They WERE the police. That's good enough. I read some more of the history, but only out of curiosity. Should I assume it's slanted and go find a second source?

When my confusion about ARM processor versions boiled over, I finally went looking to make sense of it all. The ARM architecture page says ARMv6 and ARM11 are the same thing and are 32-bit. And all 64-bit processors are ARMv8, but not all ARMv8 are 64-bit. This confirmed my impression that the ARM version landscape is a mess, though I failed to make sense of it all.

Numerous times I have wondered who was the US President or UK Prime Minister when some event in history happened, or what date some war started or ended, or when some country or organization was founded. I have confidence in Wikipedia for these. And it almost always has the quickest, easiest answer.

Oddly enough, the reason I went to the page in question was not to see how they treated ID, but to answer the specific question of who coined the term "intelligent design". In a discussion I was having, someone claimed Darwin himself used the term in a letter he wrote. I was sure the guy made that up. I thought I remembered that it was William A. Dembski in his book "The Design Inference", which I don't have.

My memory was wrong. The page says, "'Of Pandas and People' was published in 1989, ..., was the first book to make systematic use of the terms 'intelligent design'". Maybe I should verify that, but it also listed occasional use earlier. As a result of seeing the various usage, I decided that it was plausible enough to not challenge the claim. (Though obviously Darwin wasn't talking about DNA, protein folding, information theory or kinesin motor proteins walking on microtubules.)

Just now as I was typing this response, I couldn't remember Dembski's first name or the name of his book, so how did I find it? I googled and clicked on Wikipedia.

A few pages I've found are clearly slanted, and I think this ID page is the worst I've seen. But even with the slant, the page was useful to me. On the other hand, I have read several controversial topics and was impressed at the evenhanded coverage and at how my point of view was addressed. The pages are authored and modified by a lot of authors. Some strive to clearly present the information for maximum understanding and truth. Some have an agenda.

My concern in raising the issue is not getting good information for me. I'm concerned that casual readers will assume it's right and so the truth will not be advanced.

#15 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:50 AM

I am going to repeat my question ...

On what basis do you continue to "frequent it?"


You force me to defend the very institution I'm challenging. How thoroughly obnoxious of you.

A few days ago I couldn't remember if 1 is considered a prime number or not. When I googled "prime number" (actually I use startpage.com because google's information storage policy scares and offends me) the Wikipedia page was on top so I clicked it. It starts, "A prime number (or a prime) is a natural number greater than 1 that ..."

So Wikipedia say the answer to my question is NO, 1 is not a prime number. I have not second checked it. Should I consider it suspect and go find a second source?

At some point I ran across the Ulster Constabulary. You don't often hear the term "constable" in the US and never "constabulary", so I wondered what their relationship was to the police. After all, here in the US we often have both a sheriff and the police and I've never understood why they're not redundant.

The Wikipedia page says, "The Royal Ulster Constabulary was the police force in Northern Ireland from 1922 to 2001." Oh! They WERE the police. That's good enough. I read some more of the history, but only out of curiosity. Should I assume it's slanted and go find a second source?

When my confusion about ARM processor versions boiled over, I finally went looking to make sense of it all. The ARM architecture page says ARMv6 and ARM11 are the same thing and are 32-bit. And all 64-bit processors are ARMv8, but not all ARMv8 are 64-bit. This confirmed my impression that the ARM version landscape is a mess, though I failed to make sense of it all.

Numerous times I have wondered who was the US President or UK Prime Minister when some event in history happened, or what date some war started or ended, or when some country or organization was founded. I have confidence in Wikipedia for these. And it almost always has the quickest, easiest answer.

Oddly enough, the reason I went to the page in question was not to see how they treated ID, but to answer the specific question of who coined the term "intelligent design". In a discussion I was having, someone claimed Darwin himself used the term in a letter he wrote. I was sure the guy made that up. I thought I remembered that it was William A. Dembski in his book "The Design Inference", which I don't have.

My memory was wrong. The page says, "'Of Pandas and People' was published in 1989, ..., was the first book to make systematic use of the terms 'intelligent design'". Maybe I should verify that, but it also listed occasional use earlier. As a result of seeing the various usage, I decided that it was plausible enough to not challenge the claim. (Though obviously Darwin wasn't talking about DNA, protein folding, information theory or kinesin motor proteins walking on microtubules.)

Just now as I was typing this response, I couldn't remember Dembski's first name or the name of his book, so how did I find it? I googled and clicked on Wikipedia.

A few pages I've found are clearly slanted, and I think this ID page is the worst I've seen. But even with the slant, the page was useful to me. On the other hand, I have read several controversial topics and was impressed at the evenhanded coverage and at how my point of view was addressed. The pages are authored and modified by a lot of authors. Some strive to clearly present the information for maximum understanding and truth. Some have an agenda.

My concern in raising the issue is not getting good information for me. I'm concerned that casual readers will assume it's right and so the truth will not be advanced.

.
I won't repeat the question.

I will not be reading any of your posts on this forum. You are not on the ignore list.

#16 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:55 AM

I won't repeat the question.

I will not be reading any of your posts on this forum. You are not on the ignore list.


I am flabbergasted. I went to all that effort to answer a question you repeated and you shove it back in my face. Why? I don't understand.

If he doesn't answer, can someone else please guess what the problem is?

#17 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:45 AM

Ken I have private messaged you. 



#18 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 21 August 2017 - 11:06 AM

I won't repeat the question.

I will not be reading any of your posts on this forum. You are not on the ignore list.


I am flabbergasted. I went to all that effort to answer a question you repeated and you shove it back in my face. Why? I don't understand.

If he doesn't answer, can someone else please guess what the problem is?

.
I shouldn't have posted while in a hurry. I meant to explain the meaning for persisting with my question, which, after your replies, should be rephrased as:

On what basis do you continue to support that website?. When you visit the site you support it's ability to attract revenue, contributing to it's survival and, thereby, contributing to it's destructive effects.

I appologize for not clarifying.

Please note, that I will continue to boycott your posts if you don't have an acceptable reply to the rephrased question. The reason is stated quite clearly in my second sentence in this post, specifically, "When you visit... ."

Let's be clear about the importance of this subject. It is more than difficult enough to separate the wheat from chaff in the intellectual realm, which includes online content. Anyone who contributes to the problem--the "KenJackson" who continues to frequent and support--is part of the problem.

#19 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 August 2017 - 11:17 AM

 

 

Schera: Please note, that I will continue to boycott your posts if you don't have an acceptable reply to the rephrased question.

 

Threat number one. (as I predicted Ken)

 

Example of fallacy of argumentum-ad-baculum (do X or threat P)

 

"I am the chairman of the board, all those who disagree with my proposal please raise your hand and say; I resign."



#20 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 21 August 2017 - 11:32 AM

Schera: Please note, that I will continue to boycott your posts if you don't have an acceptable reply to the rephrased question.

 
Threat number one. (as I predicted Ken)

.
This above quoted post was reported as harassment.
.

I won't repeat the question.

I will not be reading any of your posts on this forum. You are not on the ignore list.


I am flabbergasted. I went to all that effort to answer a question you repeated and you shove it back in my face. Why? I don't understand.

If he doesn't answer, can someone else please guess what the problem is?

.
I shouldn't have posted while in a hurry. I meant to explain the meaning for persisting with my question, which, after your replies, should be rephrased as:

On what basis do you continue to support that website?. When you visit the site you support it's ability to attract revenue, contributing to it's survival and, thereby, contributing to it's destructive effects.

I apologize for not clarifying.

Please note, that I will continue to boycott your posts if you don't have an acceptable reply to the rephrased question. The reason is stated quite clearly in my second sentence in this post, specifically, "When you visit... ."

Let's be clear about the importance of this subject. It is more than difficult enough to separate the wheat from chaff in the intellectual realm, which includes online content. Anyone who contributes to the problem--the "KenJackson" who continues to frequent and support--is part of the problem.

.
KenJackson, I reported m-the-w's post as harassment. There is no threat to you if I inform you that your behaviour will inform my future reading.

Do you understand?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users