Talk:Intelligent design

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.

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
Current status: Featured article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Creationism FA‑class 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 articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please read before starting

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's Intelligent Design article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.

Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here.

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines.

These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).

Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of intelligent design or promote intelligent design please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

Notes to editors:

This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory.
Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Intelligent Design article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to make an opinion heard. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject(s) at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said.
Please use edit summaries.

Ref for first sentence

I spotted this while getting the above Behe quote:

"Its principal argument is that certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected causes such as Darwin's theory of natural selection." - Pamphlet used by the Dover Area School District, agreed as accurate by Behe.

This might be worth adding, but it's a bit of an odd source, so I didn't want to just go ahead and do so. As an aside, I like "undirected causes" better than "undirected processes", but assembling our favourite parts of all the variants would become more awkward than just paraphrasing in the end, and "Darwin's theory of" is just awful. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's completely consistent with the existing def as used by the 3 leading organizations, of which Behe is a Fellow of 2, I don't see to need to add it as a source or alter the def. FeloniousMonk 03:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, evrything seems to need over-referenced of late. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:A does not require, and never required, a direct citation for every statement in an article. Summaries and other descriptions of one or more aspects of a topic quite frequently involve a consensus process about how something will be expressed in "original language", which is quite different from "original research". The additional footnotes, as FeloniousMonk has previously observed and with which I agree at this stage of discussion, help to make clear, to persons whose wont is to make hasty conclusions or assert pre-conceived conclusions about some aspect of the content, that the article reflects a great deal of attention to sourcing. Occasionally, there is legiimate question about whether a particular footnote properly reflects the article-statement(s) to which it is appended, or vice-versa. In my personal opinion that's more than fair enough (assuming it's a rational question), and I believe there may still be some more work to be done on those 170-or-so footnotes. ... Kenosis 13:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayemm true, but so many of the questions of late are completely irrational. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But as you saw in the trolling questions in the recently archived discussion, no one reads the references. Well, we do. Speaking of references, is this article stable enough to begin cleaning up and formatting the inline cites?Orangemarlin 14:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, yes. It's not really undergoing major changes - the dispute I was part of blew over in the end, hopefully to everyone's reasonable satisfaction, and wthere's only stamndard editing of late. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring above to the specific content of citations, for instance several of the footnotes in the "Defining intelligent design as science" section and perhaps a few others too. Please do not combine citations. Not only is it important to make clear that there are separate sources involved in supporting many of the statements in the article, a fair number of the citations in this article are derived from the same sources (especially but not limited to the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision), but they actually refer specifically to different places in those sources. Please keep'm separate. If one or more turns out to be erroneous or misplaced, it should be able to be dealt with by referring to a specific number (e.g. "currently footnote x" or "presently footnote y"). No objection to standardizing the format (though I personally dislike those forms that've been used by many on WP of late). The present method of presentation appears to be that quotations are put first in the footnote with the source placed after the quote, a method I'm willing to support-- any thoughts about this? ... Kenosis 21:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the "quotations-first" approach, particularly in cases where multiple parts of the same document may be referred to. It makes it much easier to see which part of the cited work is being used to justify the statement being made. SheffieldSteel 21:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I like when the cite says "blah blah blah blah blah" in: Smith, M (2006), Intelligent design is controlled by Mickey Mouse. Journal of Uncovering BS 22 (1):100-105. And combining references suck. Orangemarlin 06:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ri). I agree with all three of Kenosis' points: combining footnotes creates problems in verification and tends to obscure the actual facts; the form used in many WP articles is abominable; and quoting first and adding a link to the source is fine. Above all, though, is your first point: do not combine. Jim62sch 21:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think combining is a good idea in non-cotroversial articles, but accept there's enough idiots tha t we can't do it for ID. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my Adam. Are you implying there are idiots out and about? Orangemarlin 01:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, do you mean IDiots? Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to evilutionists. -PromX1 13:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, who made those up, anyway? Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw HELLiocentric once

OMG, that is almost as good as TFiaToS Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent vs Modern

In the first paragraph the adjective "modern" implies some positive judgment on this form of the argument, while "recent" would be a more neutral one.--BMF81 23:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed it to recent. Feel free to do it yourself though: Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. Cheers, Rothery 10:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I suppose I can imagine how "recent" might be considered more "neutral" than "modern" to persons who regard "modern form" as somehow inherently preferable to "traditional ... argument...", or that "modern" is somehow either inherently preferable or inherently negative. Frankly, I don't see how "recent form of the traditional teleological argument..." is preferable or more neutral than "modern form of the traditional teleological argument...". ("Hey, what have you been doing recently?" "Well, for the past 20 years now I've been substituting the words "intelligent design" for the word "creationism". What have you been up to?") Any thoughts about this issue of "recent" as opposed to "modern" among those who are more familiar with the article? ... Kenosis 14:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern" seems more accurate, in my opinion, and, in the context it's being used, seems to be judgement-neutral. "Recent" is a very inexact, questionable substitution. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Recent" implies that there was no predecessor to ID, and if you bother to read the sources given in the article see that we have sources indicating there was indeed a predecessor: "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century." Dover ruling, page 24. Clearly the use of "recent" is inaccurate here, and I have at least half a dozen other notable reliable sources that all support that ID is simply a restatement of a much older teleological argument, meaning "recent" is never going to fly. I will add them to the article if necessary. FeloniousMonk 15:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is:

It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.

So straight after modern/recent it goes and explains that it is an old candy bar in a new wrapper. I still think 'modern' is a loaded word and would prefer something more neutral such as recent, or maybe even a year if it doesn't take up too much space. But if you guys think 'modern' will suffice, then it will. Cheers, Rothery 23:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If one reads the article further, it turns out to be a fairly complex mix of ideological socio-political educational advocacy, a form of philosophy/religion/theology cast as science for the purpose of teaching creation-based views in the public school biology classes in the US. Yes, I'm sorry to say it turns out to be an old candy bar, with a modern sugar-coating, in a new wrapper. And yes, a lot of these points are debatable. .... Kenosis 01:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern and recent are not synonyous, no matter what Mr Roget has to say. Jim62sch 18:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

The article currently states that the first written record of the idea of a designer came from Greek philosophers, but nearly every culture in the world has some type of creation story. I really only know about western traditions, but the old testament surely pre-dates the greek. Is it because these creation stories are considered religious writing and the Greeks are considered philosophical writings the reason the Greek are used here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.70.121 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

First, if you "sign" your posts with four tilde symbols (~~~~) it will put your IP address or username after your post, so we know who we're talking to. Secondly, to try to answer your question, I think that there's a distinction to be made - between a creator and a designer - which is important but subtle (and one which many groups fail to make). Perhaps we should emphasise that contrast more in the article? Let's see what other editors have to say. SheffieldSteel 20:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely no singular creation myth. A solitary designer, however, is part-and-parcel to the philosophies of individualism which, though not entirely Western, are almost always viewed by scholars as originating with the Greeks and subsequently co-opted by the monotheism developing in the Roman world. A contrary case may be possible, but it isn't the place for Wikipedia to attack the view that individualism/monotheism originated with the West: that would be original research. --ScienceApologist 21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point in this article, the Ancient Greeks were the first to record the teleological argument – ooh, that natural object looks complicated, it must have been designed, there, that proves God exists. See also the Babel fish. That's generally considered to be the concept or argument underlying ID, though perhaps the main concept is "if we call creation science ID, we can sell schoolbooks and get it taught in U.S. public schools". Anyway, if you find an example of the teleological argument in the Old Testament, please cite it chapter and verse....... dave souza, talk 21:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC) correkted 21:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Job 38-39, off the top of my head. Tevildo 06:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me: where's the teleological argument in that? Lot of boasting from someone claiming to run a flat earth cosmology, complete with corners to the earth and gates to stop water from popping up from underneath. Nowt about design, afaik. Do explain, and for the purposes of this article provide confirmation of the the dating of Job to see if it preceded Plato, as well as a source making this argument in relation to ID so it's not original research. Unless, of course, it's just off topic. ... dave souza, talk 08:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, the book of Job dates from the 4th century BC, and so is more-or-less contemporary with Plato. I doubt if either author was familiar with the other's work, though. :) On the issue in question, I'm not aware of any arguments for the existence of God to be found in the Bible itself; to answer the original enquiry, there's a difference between professing a belief in God (or any other controversial subject), and providing an argument for this belief. The idea of a formal argument does originate with the Greek philosophers, specifically Parmenides, and the text reads: "The first recorded arguments for a designer..." (emphasis added). Hope this clarifies things a little. Tevildo 14:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, there's no need for the second sentence of that section. ("The first recorded arguments for a designer come from Greek philosophy.") It could just as easily and accurately read:

Philosophers have long debated whether the complexity of nature indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator. In the 4th century BC, Plato posited a "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his Timaeus. Aristotle also developed the idea of a creator-designer of the cosmos, often called the "Prime Mover," in his work Metaphysics. In De Natura Deorum, or "On the Nature of the Gods" (45 BC), Cicero stated that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature."[cite]

... Kenosis 15:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<unindent>I think that would be OK, provided we change the section title to something like "History of the concept" (rather than "Origin"). If we're staying with "Origin", we need to make a definite statement about the first use of the concept (presumably by Plato). Tevildo 15:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, good point Tevildo. I've no objection to the removal of that unnecessary (and somewhat speculative) sentence and the retitling of the section as "History of the concept". I think it's fairly straightforward and ought be uncontroversial, though if I'm wrong about that I'm sure I'll be corrected quickly enough. Any objections? ... Kenosis 16:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over all I think the article gives too much credence to :

the 'concept' of Intelligent design. The first sentence should state that it is a marketing ploy. Xavier cougat 17:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tried that. Lead balloon :-( SheffieldSteel 17:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't fit WP:NPOV and is hard to reference. Readers should see for themselves that the evidence overwhelmingly points to the DI's mindset. Besides, I'm pretty sure that a lot of those less influenced by information truly believe that c#*p, so it'd be notable as a concept anyway. Malc82 19:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

objections

1. spontenious order - see snow flakes
2. artificial intelligence - though man made, shows that natural processes can be made to do just about any thing observable in the natural world.
3. comprehension seems the only unexplained characteristic of human cognition linked perhaps to sentient awareness, but not linked to actual functioning of the material world and thus not demonstratable as a necessity.
4. without specific goals or purpose the natural world cannot be demonstrated to be consciously directed or designed.
5. the universe in total seems very barren of life and just what one would expect from random forces and spontenious order rather than intelligent design.
6. If Intelligence is seen as a function of evolved systems, then an intelligent designer is no answer just a prior evolved system and only puts the mystery back one step rather than answering any questions.
7. the only apparent avoidance of infinite regression is to postulate that elementry particles moving according to their own nature evolving into complex systems can explain anything at all.

Jiohdi 17:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not get what you are saying here. Xavier cougat 19:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such opinions have to be attributed to a reliable source which specifically relates the synthesis of facts to ID so that it doesn't breach WP:NOR, and have to be dealt with proportionately in what is already a long and complex article, while adhering scrupulously to WP:NPOV as is set out at the top of this talk page. This page is about suggesting improvements to the article – got any proposals which are fully backed up in accordance with these policies? .. dave souza, talk 19:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cradle of Life AfD

Heads up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity - Cradle of humanity is some sort of comparison of Evolutionary and Creationist views of the Out of Africa theory... Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any descent from Lara Croft must be considered highly improbable ;) . . dave souza, talk 10:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion That Will Almost Certainly Be Shot Down

Hi! I think you guys are doing an excellent job keeping such a high quality on this controversial topic, but about the footnotes... Sadly, on many articles, these footnotes aren't so much helpful to rational readers, but are perhaps used to prove the point to POV-pushers. This is a pity. Here is the suggestion. Why not create a separate evidence page as a sub-page of this talk page, and keep all the refs there, normal readers would need one or two refs for many of these claims. Additionally, I'm sure there is some policy that forbids this, but what would be the harm in replacing a bunch of footnotes with a single footnote saying "Evidence for this claim is available here" or something like that? Many apologies if this has already been discussed, but I really felt like I wanted to say this. I'm not going to push this issue any further so thanks for considering it, Merzul 12:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there is a technical reason, why this was a bad idea. Wikipedia mirrors don't carry talk pages and their sub-pages... I knew there had to be some problems, or something like this would probably already be in use. Ah well... --Merzul 12:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's perfectly possible to combine multiple footnotes into one. It's done on Evolution, for instance. But this page, sadly enough, is even more controversial than Evolution (!!), and, frankly, there's a lot of stupidity in the objectors: They kept talking about how only one reference said something, while clearly having never looked down to see that "one reference" was, in fact, 10 different articles.

Yeah, I know, it's stupid. But what can we do? Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to differentiate (e.g. by bold vs non-bold, colour, whatever) between purely 'defensive' references and references that may provide valuable further reading? This would mean that we could have both, while ensuring that those non-nitpickers only interested in the latter would not have to plough through the former to find them. Hrafn42 13:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading sections should be handled separately, in fact there is one in this article but it only consists of one book. If you count the external links as further reading (which I would), there already are enough reading suggestions in this article. Malc82 13:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Adam. I wish there was some neat solution to this though, because grouping refs has problems of its own, especially when one of the group is used elsewhere, and it doesn't really address the main concern, namely that we are catering to POV-pushers at the expense of reasonable readers. I feel it is an insult to my intellect to have all these refs about the same claim. The argument for keeping them is that when one of them is removed, then a POV-pusher is going to insist we use prose attribution, such as "According to the court ruling, its primary proponents are ..." Well, it is a sad fact that just because POV-pushers cause more trouble, contributors to these articles care more about their feelings than mine. Note, this melodramatic tone was just to make my point, I'm not actually sad, and fully understand that perhaps we just have to live with this. --Merzul 14:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam's assessment is correct. Repeatedly there have been objections to facts and issues that are stated in the article based on WP:A. Virtually every conceivable rational objection and countless irrational objections have been raised, despite clearcut evidence from a wide variety of reliable sources including legal and scientific sources. In numerous instances the person objecting quite plainly has not even looked at the relevant footnotes. Providing separate footnotes makes clear that there are multiple reliable sources for statements in the article which have been objected to in the past. Most of the participants in this process agree that it would be preferable if this were not the case, but given that it is the case, separate footnotes have been agreed to be presented. The only conspicuous exception to this practice is is what is presently footnote 20 in the second lead paragraph, which remains combined as before, but is supported by multiple footnotes later in the paragraph. ... Kenosis 14:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

overview edit

I added this to the overview section: "The Harris poll also showed that a majority of U.S. adults (54%) do not think human beings developed from earlier species." I thought to bring up a poll and only show one narrow aspect of it was slightly bias, what does everyone else think? (Dbcraft 18:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This is a great argument for getting rid of all those poor quality polls. One problem with the above inclusion is that it shows 54% of US adults not believing in evolution. That's all very well, but this article is all about Intelligent design, so it's not really relevant. Or was your point that we could also quote, say, opinion polls showing how many US adults believe Elvis is alive? I might be down with that. It would certainly put things in context. SheffieldSteel 18:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point, I added "64% of respondents in the Harris poll believed human beings were created by God" as part of the Harris poll instead. I believe that is directly relevent to ID. Harris is a more reputable polling company than the one contracted by the Discovery Group, as was stated in the article. I think to show one question of the poll is misleading and bias, my addition will add to the neutrality of the article. (Dbcraft 18:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The quality of the polls is already the matter being covered in that section, so the actual numbers are of secondary concern and need not be expanded on. Coverage of the polls is necessary because the DI often touts its Zogby poll results as evidence of support for what it seeks to do. Odd nature 19:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the quality of the Zogby polls is being covered in that section but not the Harris poll. Not that I question the quality of the Harris poll, it just seems that one question of the poll was cherry picked, leaving the reader without an overall feel for the poll results. (Dbcraft 19:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Origins of the Term

Propose the following link to an extensive list of references on the origins and use of the term "Intelligent Design":

ResearchID maintains the Intelligent Design timetable summarizing origins and use of the term "Intelligent Design". DLH 19:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenosis Please show the policy denying reference to any wiki. Wikipedia itself provides for numerous internal links which are by definition to a wiki. Wikipedia provides anti-ID links. If you deny any references to wikis, then you must also delete

The evo wiki article on intelligent design DLH 19:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This timeline, even if it is accurate, is more about the origins of the concept, not the term. I have to personally say, who cares? I mean really...--Filll 19:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's two problems here with using researchintelligentdesign.org, one, it's partisan, two, its a wiki, and so fails to meet WP:RS. It's also terribly incomplete. At first glance it's clearly lacking any mention of the context Thaxton and Pandas, such as Edwards v. Aguillard, most likely a function of its partisanship. Odd nature 20:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis fail WP:RS (not peer reviewed and lots of other stuff). Generally, encyclopedias are usually not allowed to be used as references. Also, since you yourself could edit the other article, using WP-articles as a reference violates WP:NOR. Malc82 20:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well. He has edited the other article: [1] Some may view this as an attempt to sneak pov in through the backdoor. Odd nature 20:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice timeline, relatively very thorough even if it has some noticeable gaps.

(1) It is not conventional practice in WP to refer folks in the fashion proposed above, even internally within WP to such subpages, unless its an article about the timeline.

(2) In the case of intelligent design, we have two timelines involved, one of which is the history of the teleological argument, and the other of which is the history of the use of the words "intelligent design". The words "intelligent design" didn't become a term intended to describe a field of study until Of Pandas and People, when they were used to replace the word "creation-" in response to the decision in Edwards v. Aguilard.

I notice, though, that Walter R. Thurston uses the words "intelligent design" and "intelligently designed" in a paper titled "Realism and Reverence" presented in 1985 at a conference on "Christian Faith and Science in Society", which was later published in June 1987, the same month of the Edwards decision, in PSCF, "Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith". He uses the words in exactly the same way as James E. Horigan does in the 1979 philosophy book Faith and Design. I think this usage should be mentioned in the WP article section on "Origins of the term". ... Kenosis 20:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]