Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 9

message: Re: this edit. In the section Ideas regarding the intelligent designer we have a short list of general, high-level flaws in design. The intention of this section is not to be a detailed list of inefficient designs found in nature. Reverting change. --Air 09:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  flawed design section should stay on topic 

message: The articles has really improved over the last few days.  I've just made a range of changes to the first half of the article, which I think make the article more readable, and a little more balanced.  I plan on making some similar changes to the second half later on.  If there's any problems, please leave specific criticisms here, and I'll be happy to discuss them.  --Brendanfox 06:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Changes

message: npov requires that articles describe ideas without implying either that they are valid or invalid.  the word "conjecture" is defined as a conclusion based on "incomplete evidence and guesswork." .  ID asserts that there is positive evidence FOR ID.  The word "conjecture" therefore minimizes ID to "guesswork."  Using the word "Idea" (as i did before Stirling reverted commenting only that 'Conjecture is better') avoids this problem without losing any information.  Stirling, why is 'conjecture' more npov?  Ungtss 18:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "hypotheses", "beliefs","theories".  Whichever is picked it should be plural since ID is not monolithic, especially since fine-tuned universe is discussed here and it is completely orthogonal to any evolution issues.--Silverback 19:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the status of ID as being scientific at all is an issue, NPOV requires that we not assert language which prejudices the matter. Stirling Newberry 19:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: that's why i think "Idea" (or "Ideas" as Mr. Silverback prefers) is a happy middle ground between "theory" and "conjecture."  eh?  Ungtss 19:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Except that it's not "an idea". It's a collection of diverse -- indeed, opposing -- viewpoints, attitudes, stances, and arguments, all united only in their opposition to purely naturalistic evolution. However, it is not untrue to call it a cultural movement. I agree with Silverback here -- if you are including "The fine-tuned universe" argument in with ID -- an idea that is held by such ardent Darwinists as Robert Wright, it is inaccurate to call it a single idea. --Goethean 17:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: seems we've got a semantic issue here.  "Intelligent Design" is simply the idea (singular) that there is evidence that natural things were intelligently designed.  Under this umbrella, we've got a NUMBER of ideas, including IC, SC, fine-tuned universe, etc ... ID is like an umbrella, no?  Ungtss 18:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  conjecture. 

message: 69.134.50.153 did not follow-up here on the talk page.--Silverback 10:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: absolutely.  facts are facts.  Ungtss 20:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed NPOV banner 

message: How come this talk page is almost entirely reduplicated? — B.Bryant 14:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other comments: reduplication on talk page

message: Please see the following article:
I would add it to the references, but I'm not sure that it belongs. There is a great deal of information in the article that is not well-included in this article. Joshuaschroeder 21:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New article