" 

 == argument vs. concept == 

 in this article ID is referred to as an 'argument' yet in the creationism article 'creationsim' is referred to as a 'concept' think this should be changed back to 'concept' for consistency sake.   

 * Opposed   

 : can you explain why?? i think there should be consistency otherwise it looks like POV or bias to me   

 ::Raspor, could you link to and quote a sentence or paragraph in the specific Wikipedia policy that leads you to believe us describing ID as an argument is POV or biased?  That would greatly help this discussion.  Thanks!    

 ::: well somethings are specifically spelled out in wiki policy and have to be reasoned out here. i think consensus would be one wiki policy. if most people think it should be 'concept' then it SHOULD be 'concept' isnt that how the wiki policy of consensus works? also have to ask what term do you feel comfortable with describing yourself as far as your belief in darwinism?    

 ::::I'll ask again, could you link to and quote a sentence or paragraph in the specific Wikipedia policy that leads you to believe us describing ID as an argument is POV or biased, as you claimed? Thanks!  Oh, and my belief on ""darwinism"" has nothing to do with improving the article which is what this talk page is dedicated to.    

 ::::: like i said the consensus wiki concept. and the reason i asked what you like to be referred to as is important to me becuz i do not want to offend you. i have been told that 'darwinist' is a bad term so i want to know how would like to be referred to. i do not like to be referred to as a creationist cuz i am not. i dont have a problem with IDer or pro-IDer.   

  
 More importantly, there is the issue that ID is a proposition (viz. 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. ""), and there are several arguments for and against it. There's really no justifiable way to label it an argument, and a judge misusing a word doesn't really cut it. As it stands, the opening sentence of this article is simply nonsensical. If not ""concept,"" then perhaps ""proposition"" or ""thesis"" would be ideal.  (/)  

 : Yes any of those would be better in my opinion.   

 How about hypothesis? Of course, one might be stuck with needing a source for any of these. I find argument a bit strange myself, to be honest, but I do not think it is a big deal either. It is a very minor point. The one big advantage for argument is that it lets people slip in the teleological argument link.  

  
 : in the creationism article there is no source for the use of the word 'concept' why is it only necessary here. is this a POV issue?   
 ::I seem to recall the term ""concept"" causing confusion with the idea that any theist believing in divine creation must therefore be a proponent of ID on the basis of their definition. Proponents of ID have pointed to the teleological argument as a predecessor to what is essentially a philosophical argument claiming scientific credentials – albeit subject to science being redefined as theistic science. Theory is confusing because it reinforces the disputed claim that it's science, and hypothesis is likely to be unacceptable to ID proponents as it's less than a theory. Proposition seems a possibility, but unless it's sourced it could have the same problem. The alternative is to put the source at the start, as in Intelligent Design is claimed by its proponents to be ""A theory.... etc. ..."" Just my tuppence worth. .. ,   

 ::, please confine yourself to your own talk page, or the subpage of the intelligent design talk page that was created for you. You stated that you wished only to talk to a select group of people. I suggest you direct your suggestions to them, and let them bring them up on the main talk page. That way, your often incoherent posts (no offense) will not dominate the main talk page, and