Talk:Intelligent design (disambiguation)

message: What does MoSed mean?  --Ben 02:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's an abbreviation for Manual of Style'd -- in other words, a more fitting edit description would have been "modified to conform to Manual of Style guidelines" Slicing 23:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I answered five days ago on the User's Talk page (largely because I first saw his question on my Talk page).  It's worth pointing out that "MoSed" is widely used on Wikipedia. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Ben, the recent definition of ID ambiguous *ehm* by design.  Since it's reinvention as a Code word, it's been in the political self interests of some people to makes the definition fuzzy.  Let's make sure we're not feeding the fire.--ghost 15:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben's tried this before , and has been spoken to/warned against previously. I've removed it once again. FeloniousMonk 23:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Per discussions on the main Intelligent Design article Talk page, making  link for a historical articl on 19th-centruy use of the phrase.  Partl as seperate topic since he main article defines itself as explicitly the DI flavor, partly for WP:SIZE including WP:SIZE notes about contentious parts split to their own article and this topic was strongly debated and edited in/out there so now it can be wrangled in it's own sub-topic sandbox.   The Reaction to On the Origin of Species or History of the creation–evolution controversy seem closer to appropriate, but seems standalone article might be better sticking either of those with this contentious bit as a sub-section.  
Markbassett (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say, I'm a little concerned about this phrasing: "the 19th century positions against evolution, differing from current usage in being explicitly deism".  I understand this article is still a stub, but that seems like such an odd thing to say.  Why does the historical usage of the phrase intelligent design refer only to 19th century positions?  Were there really no earlier uses of the phrase?  Or did earlier uses refer to something different?  Did they all refer to deism explicitly, not theism in general?  And, most importantly, do we have the sources to support this strong a claim?  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Also, I edited the DAB page to point to the name the article should have (with a lowercase D in design), but that article does not exist yet.  I've reverted until the newly created page is moved to its proper namespace (Intelligent design (historical)).  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Okay, that was even easier than I thought it was (I have never moved an article before).  It's now moved and the DAB has been updated to reflect this.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Thanks for capitalization improvement.  I'm generally noting 19th century to demark a historical limit on subject scope (i.e separation of topics from main article) to the era of Darwinian developments and early discussion.  The ngram viewer shows it increasing around the time of Darwin then declining circa 1890, plus contemporary uses it as a label for particular debate approach, and people were offering at main article numerous and notable cites including letters of Darwin ut being rejected from scope of that article.  How it came to be and any 18th century mentions of 'Design' becoming 'Intelligent design' might be reasonable sidenotes in here.  I'd also say that the stub should be the later usage as a portion of all discussions -- except that (a) DI flavor seems factually to have independantly come to the same label with separate meaning of particular scientific phraseology so is an unconnected reuse of the label hence disambiguation and (b) the contemporary lookups are looking for the DI flavor or treating it as currently active, not yet ready to view it as just a brief section in some large history.  Markbassett (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The only source for the demarcation sounds like it is your original research right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding historical link