Talk:Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center

Notability[edit]

I think what makes IDEA Center noteworthy is their quest to put ID chapters into high schools. They explain how most public high schools are required to allow most clubs to form if they don't advocate violence, drugs, etc. They offer a packet of instructions to those who sign a statement that they agree with the IDEA mission statement. I have not found much information about this group except in random blogs, so it will be difficult to cite.Desoto10 (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Controversies' section[edit]

How can the matters raised in this section be "controversies" when it is only cited to IDEA itself, and there is no indication that any third parties even noticed? Were they arguing among themselves? I think not. I'm changing the section name to 'Activities'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger?[edit]

Given (i) the lack of third party coverage & (ii) the fact that it seems to be running out of steam (MacNeill's analysis plus the short tenure of Caroline Crocker), is it time to consider merging this article into Intelligent design movement? I'm not at the stage of formally nominating it just yet, but I am leaning that way. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"organization is moribund"[edit]

I'm failing to see how this is appropriate at all. The source is blog from a professor who is clearly involved in the ID debate, his blog is named "THE EVOLUTION LIST" and has made numerous posts on the ID. From the cited post every mention of intelligent design is wrapped in scare quotes and the post is ended with "So, why did I illustrate this post with a picture of a dodo? Because, like the "intelligent design" movement, the dodo was notorious for its stupidity and that fact that it is extinct." I'm not exactly a great supporter of the ID movement but can we at least appear to be impartial? BJ^Talk 00:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From memory, this blog was created to aid in a course that MacNeill was teaching on the evo/creo debate, which engaged the local IDEA Center in positive discussion. Yes, we could pull all blog-sourced material from this article, but then it'd lack any significant third-party sourcing, be unbalanced (in that it'd be almost solely sourced to IDEA Center itself) & unable to meet WP:Notability requirements. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the only sources are primary and a few blogs is the organization notable at all? BJ^Talk 05:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See # Notability & #Merger? above. I'll probably get around to nominating it for merger sometime, if somebody doesn't beat me to it. But given (i) such things often get flak from some of the Intelligent Design Project old-guard (who take removal of such articles personally) & (ii) I already have a contentious merger 'on my books' trying to merge Quality Science Education for All back into Larry Caldwell, I don't plan to do anything about it in the immediate future. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Moribund" is not an appropriate way to describe an organization that is listed as an "active" corporation by the California Secretary of State. See http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C2476831 Steve1597 (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Active" in this administrative sense merely means that the corporation is continuing to file returns, etc -- not that it is active in any wider sense. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This organisation is "moribund" because (in addition to MacNeill's analysis), it's own website tells us that:

It has no upcoming events[1]
It has only produced 1 press release in the last 12 months (and only three in the last two years).[2]
It appears not to have taught its 'IDEA Course' since 2004.[3]

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their "semi-annual newsletter" appears to be the most active part of the organisation, and even there the news is at best mixed:

No newsletters for 2009 as yet
Two for 2008
None for 2007
One each year for 2003-2006

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an "active" California Corporation[edit]

The first paragraph of the article might be revised as follows:

THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND EVOLUTION AWARENESS (IDEA) CENTER is a California corporation. [4] "The Center has existed since 2001, but has its roots in the pre-existing Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club at the University of California at San Diego." [5] The Center promotes, "as a scientific theory, the idea that life was designed by an intelligence". [6] This idea is based on the "conclusion" that biological structures were originally designed and created by an intelligent being. [7] Steve1597 (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a description is problematic in that it relies solely on primary & IDEA sources (on which this article relies to heavily already). Wikipedia articles are meant to rely predominately on (reliable) secondary sources published by third parties. Topics for which such sources do not exist may be subject to merger or deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn: I suppose that Debra Bowen, the California Secretary of State, is a "primary" source. Under California law, she has the authority to issue a certified copy of the articles of incorporation of a corporation and that document is prima facie evidence of the existence of the corporation. I think it would be quite odd for Wikipedia to delete an article about a corporation that does still exist, legally, and which has an extensive website. Steve1597 (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve1597: please read (i) WP:PSTS for the definition of 'primary sources' and how to treat them, and (ii) WP:ORG for the notability guideline on organisations (hint: mere existence and "an extensive website" doesn't come even close to meeting it). I would also like to inquire as to your involvement with IDEA Center, as your tone suggests that WP:COI may apply to you (if so, I would suggest that you read the guidelines it contains carefully). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would further note that all of these points are already set out very clearly in the templates at the top of this article:

This article may not meet the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged or deleted. (August 2008)
This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources. (August 2008)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn: The IDEA Center is a very important component of the intelligent design movement because it's "conclusion" that biological structures were originally designed and created by an intelligent being is the foundation for the "assertion that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.'" [8] Their conclusion provides the justification for referring to intelligent design as a scientific theory.

Please cite reliable third-party sources supporting this 'importance.' Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First they OBSERVE that living things are very complex. Then they HYPOTHESIZE that an intelligent being designed and created the universe, including living things in their present forms. Then they CONCLUDE that living things were originally designed and created by an intelligent being. Then they ASSERT that the intelligent design hypothesis has been verified, and that intelligent design is therefore a "scientific theory", and that the theory of intelligent design is a better explanation than the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. The aforementioned conclusion is a critical component of the chain of reasoning that supports intelligent design. The IDEA Center is thus a critical component of any effort to explain intelligent design.

All this is nothing more than WP:SOAP advocacy of a WP:FRINGE view. (i) ID has yet to come up with a scientifically or mathematically meaningful (i.e. one that has not been described as "written in jello" by an expert) definition of "complexity" that supports their claims. (ii) Their 'hypothesis' is utterly vacuous, as it contains no testable details (when/who/how/why/etc) of the hypothesised "intelligent being" created life. Moreover the "intelligent being [who] designed and created the universe" is almost certainly God (as Haught testified in Doiver, and as numerous ID proponents have admitted), rendering this hypothesis completely untestable. (iii) They can "ASSERT" that they're the Queen of Sheba for all I care -- it has the same value as this 'assertion.' To be 'verified' such a hypothesis, with supporting evidence, would first have to be published in a recognised scientific journal, and then be subjected to, and pass, considerable peer review. This has not happened, and we have the admission of one of ID's key proponents (William Dembski) that there is no intention to even attempt it. (iv) That such a scientifically illiterate (no scientific background is required for leadership -- unlike a religious background which was at one stage required) undergraduate organisation is a "critical component of any effort to explain intelligent design" is an indictment of the IDM. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not associated with the IDEA Center or with any other organization that promotes intelligent design. Steve1597 (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given your above screed, you will forgive me if I am somewhat skeptical. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would further note that your claims bear a remarkable resemblance to this piece by another 'Steve'. Coincidence? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn: The Wikipedia "Sources" guidelines provide that "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." I believe that it is appropriate to cite the California Secretary of State, regardless of whether she might be regarded as a primary, secondary or tertiary source in this instance. Steve1597 (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that there are tens (hundreds?) of thousands of such corporations registered in California alone (all of which would likewise have an entry on the California Secretary of State website), let alone the US, let alone the world. The vast majority of them don't have sufficient WP:Notability to warrant an article. I would further suggest that you read up on what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn: I agree with your assessment that the intelligent design hypothesis is "utterly vacuous." I nevertheless believe that it is important to provide a complete explanation of that hypothesis and the chain of reasoning that supports it. That chain of reasoning is set out in the IDEA Center publication titled Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell. [9] That chain of reasoning is defective in the sense that it does NOT include the intelligent design hypothesis! Instead, it includes an "If...then" statement rather than assertion of cause and effect. So you hit the proverbial nail on the head by labeling the ID hypothesis as "utterly vacuous." Steve1597 (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vacuity of this hypothesis is already dealt with in Intelligent design & Intelligent designer. Keeping the article on an organisation that did not originate the idea, just to discuss it again, would appear to be more than a little WP:COATRACK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Due to (i) lack of substantive third party sourcing (a blog post and a waybacked article from a relatively obscure university center is all there is) & the fact that the organisation appears moribund, I'm proposing merging (the lead of) this article (which happens to be the only section with third-party sourcing) into List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with deletion proposal[edit]

I know it is popular among some to constantly trim down the size of WP, but I take the opposite position. This organization is clearly notable, at least for historical reasons. It does not appear to be as active now as it once was, but that does not mean it is not relevant when one is seeking to document human knowledge and activities.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

smithsonian EL[edit]

See basically done discussion here Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]