Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 16

message: The article would be better in structure and easier to read if the criticism of Intelligent Design were put to a separate article. (unsigned comment left by 130.230.93.22 - 01:00, 12 October 2005)
:And no doubt the Discovery Institute and ID proponents would be pleased as well... FeloniousMonk 03:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read on down a bit on the talk page, and you'll see an extended discussion on this very point, under the heading Apparent partial violation NPOV policy, round 2.  I agree that the article will be more clear when the arguments for and against ID are separated out a bit.   However, a clear description of the criticism and reaction to ID does belong in this article.  The big question is how to most clearly and accurately describe both sides of the issue.Gandalf2000 04:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: I notice that a recent change to allow (within this concept) the possibility of multiple designers was 'rev'ed back to a prior version.  Is it the opinon of this august body that this concept precludes multiple designers as a consideration? If that is the case, then it may be useful to be specific about "a single designer or agent".  Of course the other phrasing raises theological arguments ... begging the issue of who 'owns' the discourse in this area. JimNH 21:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Singular vs plural

message: 66.213.198.226, your first edit to Wikipedia was a pretty contentious and arguable edit. Assuming you're not an established editor who's been working on this article who just forgot to log in (well, actually, even then), could you please explain your edit? I don't want to dismiss it out of hand, but I don't think it should be included in the article without some discussion. Thank you! :)  --Ashenai (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello, 66.213.198.226 :) 

message: I would like it if the numbskulls who watch the ID article would stop erasing my section about the difference between ID and creationism. They are completely different movements with different focuses. If you continue to feed people bad information by infering false motives about ID, we know someone here is obviously feeling threatened by the truth...
:Please observe Wikipedia:Civility. Your section was removed because it was unsubstantiated drivel. "Intelligent Design merely believes.." ID believes nothing. And we can't be sure what its proponents believe. We can say with certainty, that a great number of ID advocates are creationist. And that that makes their motives a little suspect. We can also quote ID proponents from speeches given to select groups of people, in which some of them suggest that they are sure the Designer is god. Which is what the article does. -- Ec5618 21:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  numbskulls here 

message: In the criticism of fine-tuned universe, the article says:
:The claim of the improbability of a life-supporting universe has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination for assuming no other forms of life are possible (see also carbon chauvinism).
But the last link goes to alternative biochemistry. That article says (emphasis mine):
:Alternative biochemistry collectively refers to an assortment of astrobiology theories and hypotheses in which life is based on chemical systems other than those used by currently known forms of life. 'Proponents of such theories sometimes use the expression 'carbon chauvinism' to pejorate the assumption that carbon molecules are necessarily the basis for all life. Up to this point, however, no non-carbon based life-form has been discovered.
I think that the "see also" text should be changed from "carbon chauvinism" to "alterative biochemistry". That's the name of the article. --goethean ॐ 20:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest deleting the "see also" passage altogether as alternative biochemistry is a bit of a non sequitur to the point being made. What's missing is an actual article on carbon chauvinism, a concept distinct from alternative biochemistry. Just delete 'see also' althogether. FeloniousMonk 20:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  carbon chauvinism