The RfC I was referring to was the informal one on the article talk page I notice no one has responded to it but we have all chosen the threaded discussion instead I m all for an outside discussion but I m thinking you may not approve of the Denialism category itself which is a whole nuther argument Have you checked it out to see what s in it I think you may have missed what we are saying is being deniedevolution We are not saying that to believe in God is denialism or that God is a fairy tale I believe in God Elohim Jehovah El Shaddai We re saying that denying evolution is denialism of the accepted scientific theory You wrote While some editors have argued that this refers to ID s alleged denial of evolution Why alleged I quoted Behe to you from the DI s website Darwinism is false That is patent denial of evolution I agree with Cla88 s post of 00 57 28 February 2012 The first paragraph of the lede is deeply flawed and probably the tone of the whole article is dismissive editorializing rather than objective presentation of the concept I haven t read the whole thing at one sitting for a long time so I m not sure of that The first paragraph is very confusing on the identity of the designer which should not even be brought up there ID proponents though are themselves two faced about this point This subject is very contentious and I despair of ever seeing a fully objective article When I m in Wiki land I do as the Wikipedians doadhere to the 5 pillars Also I hope you ve caught on that the specific variety of intelligent design of which this particular article treats is the ID of the Discovery Institute and its affiliates and sympathizers Can t think of a better word than sympathizerfollower maybe those who agree with and may promote the idea without actually being affiliated The community church on the corner for example That means everything will focus on the Johnson Dembski Behe et al axis Best wishes