Talk:Intelligent designer

message: There's some subject-verb agreement issues in this and related articles. I appears some of the articles have the British standard (the intelligent design movement are ___), and others the US standard (the intelligent design movement is ___). I'd argue for singular verbs throughout, but I thought we might disccus this. My reson for this is because the movement is largely based in the US and has the most influence here. Thoughts? Jokestress 01:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  is/are? 

message: I have now removed this from the article twice, on the grounds that it is badly written, fails to make a point, fails to introduce this 'Tony Bundhus', fails to introduce this 'theory', etc, etc.
"The Theory of Reproductive Thought gives some insight to what this intelligent designer might be. Tony Bondhus explains in his Theory of Reproductive Thought, that the process of thinking is simply the process of combining two pieces of information and producing a result. The process of sexual reproduction is also a process of combining two or more pieces of information and producing a result. The process of sexual reproduction is therefore a thinking process. Tony Bondhus combines this theory with Gaia Theory and Evolution Theory, to create Highlife Theory, which shows the existence of a super intelligent super organism, which is the "intelligent designer" of probably all life on Earth." -- Ec5618 11:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony Bundhus

message: This is original research - hence, it's on the talk page and not just a straight edit.
One possible explanation for the designer is that the designer is not irreducibly complex.
If a non-complex designer is capable of designing an irreducibly complex entity, then all the paradoxes are resolved.  Indeed, it's a perfect explanation for some things that are irreducibly complex, like an automobile, which is designed by a non-irreducibly-complex human auto engineer.
Of course, it doesn't require a supernatural being, which will put off most of the proponents.20:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is indeed one of the criticisms already included on irreducible complexity. --ScienceApologist 20:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another possible designer 

message: I feel there needs to be a section describing the "common designer" argument...the creationist answer to universal common descent. The concept that all life is made of DNA because DNA is the most logical means of producing life and not because all life diverged from a gene pool made of DNA. Hovind likes to use the example the just because a Honda uses nuts and bolts doesn't mean it evolved from a lawn mower. This should NOT give undue weight but rather inform and possible correct misconceptions about the view. Pbarnes 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once upon a time, there was only one internal combustion engine. SheffieldSteel 05:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Common Designer Section

message: Time, accident and necesity are also "entities". To fit with the definition this entity must have will an be self-conscious. --Igor21 14:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Willed and self-consciuos 

message: Isn't there intimations of this in Thomism, in the arguments that natural reason can lead to the realization there there IS God, but not tell us much about God?
The long tradition of rational theology in Christendom, as well as in Islam and Judaism, should put the kibosh on the notion that Intelligent Design is a modern invention of Christian fundamentalism.  The term "fundamentalism" was invented in the early 20th century, as a religion to religious modernism (usually in Protestant garb, not the type of modernism that appeared in Catholicism).
24.61.16.25 03:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomism 

message: *Intelligent design theory detects design by looking for the very general tell-tale signs that a designer was at work. The tell-tale sign that is usually looked for is a form of information produced only by the action of intelligence called "complex and specified information." When we find complex-specified information (CSI), all we can infer is that the object was designed by an intelligence. The mere presence of CSI does not tell us anything about the identity of the designer. The fact that ID does not identify the designer is only because of epistemological limitations of the scope of this scientific theory. This question is thus left as a religious or philosophical question outside the scope of intelligent design theory. IDEA Center
Let's stipulate that (1) every ID advocate believes that God designed life and that (2) therefore they believe He is the intelligent designer.
Even so, is it possible to consider ID simply (or purely) as a critique of naturalistic evolution? Has anyone ever requested this consideration?
The quote above (from a website associated with Behe, Dembski and Johnson) seems to assert that the identity of the designer is unrelated to ID theory. (I'm assuming that's what they mean by "outside the scope".)
Yet, every critique of ID I've seen begins with the point that ID implies a designer who must be God (or a god). From this point, they conclude that ID argues for the existence of God. This implies that ID advocates a religious idea (duh! that God exists!!), and so on.
What would happen if a scientist simply examined the "signs of design" part of ID? Has any scientist done this? Or only scientists who already believe in God and/or that "God is the designer"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They have done so, long since -- the "signs of design" are "written in jello". ID has not put forward a single 'critique of naturalistic evolution' that hasn't been completely demolished scientifically, completely independently from the ID-advocates' blatant religious motives related to the fact that the designer=God. HrafnTalkStalk 16:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Design and the designer

message: I've always been rather curious (and perhaps here is not the place for such discussion) as to why it seems so many detractors of ID seem to dismiss the concept outright as not even worthy of consideration for a moment, while the concept is in many ways the focus of Stephen Jay Gould's famous essay on The Panda's Thumb. In that essay, he states that "[I]deal design is a lousy argument for evolution, for it mimics the postulated action of an omnipotent creator." Gould's essay--a very insightful one, in my opinion, for people on both sides of the issue--is really only notable if the concept of intelligent design is at least worth considering. BBrucker2 (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept is given full and serious consideration under its usual name of the teleological argument as a theological argument which is not within the remit of science. ID is a specific presentation of that argument as though it was science, and is rejected as such. . . dave souza, talk 08:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so you're saying it boils down to more of a philosophical argument in the end than a scientific one? That makes sense. Thanks. BBrucker2 (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks BBrucker.  In the past, I've had Gould swimming around in my muddled head.  You've encouraged me to dig my copy of Panda out of storage.  Cheers, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

text: A major difference between scientific disagreements and philosophical ones is that scientific ones are generally settled by evidence (comparing to existing evidence and doing experiments to gather new evidence), and thus tend to be of far shorter duration (years or decades rather than centuries). A philosophic argument that wanders into the scientific realm has a reasonable chance of getting spanked and sent home crying therefore. HrafnTalkStalk 03:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Jay Gould and intelligent design 

message: I'm brand new at this so forgive me if I've made any mistakes but I think the article ought to be deleted or at least substantially atered to the point of unrecognizability(in which case what's the point?) Thought I'd discuss it with you guys first though.MitchellAsburySims (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, new posts at the foot please. The first thing to do is to set out and discuss your reasons for thinking the article should be deleted or extensively altered, and note that WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason for deletion. . . dave souza, talk 08:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry. So is this article about "intelligent designer" as an idea poposed by various ID groups or is it an article discussing the concept of an intelligent designer and proposed identities of said designer(s)?149.166.177.113 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter would appear to be a legitimate part of the former, so I'd answer "both". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

text:  I think that the article as it stands shows significant prejudice against the article's topic. I feel as though the arguments against evidence of an intelligent designer should be entirely in the criticisms section. As it is now, each reason for evidence of an intelligent designer is directly followed by a reason against. If this article is about an intelligent designer exclusively in relation to the recent intelligent design movements as opposed to an intelligent designer in the larger context of history perhaps this style is appropriate. Still, wasn't this article a spin off from intelligent design? Shouldn't ID movements then be disscussed as only an aspect of the article instead of as the central focus of the article?
Appreciate your thoughts:)   MitchellAsburySims (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move For Deletion 

message: is out of date, and this is now the only article still employing it (I've been making an effort to replace it with  and the more up to date ). Can anybody give a good reason for retaining it? Is there any reason why this article requires both an ID and a creationism nav-template? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationism template 

message: This article takes a negative, accusatory tone as though the personal opinions of leading Intelligent Design advocates were somehow being hidden, or that the claim of the Intelligent Design movement that it's position neither includes nor excludes those opinions is somehow disingenuous. This really needs to be cleaned up so it's not tripping over itself to berate the idea even before the actual idea is explained. --BenMcLean (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusatory tone 

message: I don't see why there should be two articles: Intelligent Design and Intelligent designer.  Is there any information in this article that is not, or should not, be in the other, main, article? BigJim707 (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion of what engineering is also includes the generalized definition of an engineer, but there is also a page discussing the specifics of what an engineer is. VT 64.56.31.130 (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Why two articles?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Intelligent designer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040622175700/http://www.equip.org/free/DL303.htm to http://www.equip.org/free/DL303.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071107005414/http://www.coralridge.org/specialdocs/evolutiondebate.asp to http://www.coralridge.org/specialdocs/evolutiondebate.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Intelligent designer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070710053017/http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/experts/Forrest_expert_report.pdf to http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/experts/Forrest_expert_report.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217212817/http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006139.cfm to http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006139.cfm
*Added  tag to http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Michael Behe, in his book Darwin's Black Box, suggested the designer might be a time traveling cell biologist."
In the cited source - Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Simon and Schuster. p. 249 - the author does not make that suggestion. Instead, the author is discussing a speculative scenario as an explanation for scientist Francis Crick's unorthodox theory that aliens planted biological seeds on Earth. At the end of that same paragraph, the author states: "Most people, like me, will find these scenarios entirely unsatisfactory, but they are available for those who wish to avoid unpleasant theological implications." [Emphasis mine.]
Should be removed or rewritten. NunnyRosary (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed it. Maybe, WP:ONEWAY should also be applied to adding even crazier ideas to articles about crazy ideas. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious: Michael Behe line. 

message: I am willing to engage in a sincere and/or formal discussion about the topic at hand. VerifyTruth01 (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you should go elsewhere. Read WP:TALK to find out what Wikipedia Talk pages are for. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for sincere discussion about the topic