Talk:Irreducible complexity/Archive 4

message: :Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg

message: I've placed brackets (and a ?) on 'creationism' in the statement "intelligent design [creationism?][1]" in this article because, even though I'm aware of how much a problem I.D. is for Scientismists (that is Sceintific Fundamentalists), I.D. in-and-of-itself is NOT creationism and neither should it be PURPOSELY expounded as such. Some supporters of I.D. may in fact have creationist leanings but that does not mean all do, nor does it mean that they automatically must assume {stereotypically implied by opponents} that they believe the "intelligence" is a deity of whatever theological conceptualized sort. 
Indeed this was not a very OBJECTIVE and UNBIASED description of the idea of Irreducible Complexity.
--Carlon 19:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The place to argue whether ID is creationism is at Talk:Intelligent design. As far as this article is concerned, the source quoted immediately after the phrase 'intelligent design creationism' uses that phrase to describe the ID campaign. I'll edit the article to make that a little more clear. Another editor already reverted that change; obviously I'm not the only one who thinks it problematic. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 21:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the place to argue the point of view isn't on article talk pages, though the question of the wording is appropriately discussed here. The reliable secondary source cited is clear that ID is indeed creationism, and we should not give undue weight to the religiously motivated legalistic denials of its proponents which are essentially primary sources. .. dave souza, talk 21:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very strange to claim that you have a "reliable secondary source" in a policy position paper  of an advocacy organization.  Also, your remark simply dismissing the statements made by intelligent design advocates for having religious convictions is itself an NPOV violation.  They do not define intelligent design that way. It seems that most ID advocates are theistic (which does not in and of itself imply that they are religious...religion and theism are two different things, although they can be related), but simply showing this doesn't prove dishonesty or some sort of illegitimate "bias", any more than pointing out that opponents of ID most often have a materialist worldview. 200.56.182.195  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Intelligent design creationism[1]"  

message: There is a dispute over whether fair use applies to the image on this page.  Please join the debate at .  Rossami (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use of [[:Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg]] 

message: I've blocked Matthew C. Hoffmann for 72 hours, due to his rather extreme refusal to assume good faith. Hopefully, this will let him calm down. However, he probably will have other things to say about this, so it's probably best not to take his silence as acceptance. Adam Cuerden talk 17:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block 

message: The lead to this article is... not very good. Admittedly, I'm a bit out of it today, but I find it difficult to follow the lead, and am fairly knowledgeable on irreducible complexity, which isn't a good sign for those who don't know it. The major problem seems to be a lack of any coherent logical structure - the presentation of facts doesn't seem to fall into any sensible order, and the language is, well, as pompous and annoying to read as Behe himself. Which isn't a good thing, as anyone who read his Kitzmiller testimony will agree.   Adam Cuerden talk 17:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead