This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Intelligent design movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Intelligent design movement. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Intelligent design movement at the Reference desk. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
From the article: "the intelligent design movement is an effort to reshape American society into a theocracy, primarily through education." Hint: the state, according to ID, should posit that there is a God, namely the god of the Christian religion. Not the god of liberal theology, but the god of fundamentalist Christianity. So, it breaches the wall of separation between church and state by a favoring a particular religion against other religions. According to the ID movement, the US public education system should dictate The True Religion™ or The True God™ to the masses, despite Catholics and liberal Protestants who as a rule of thumb find creationism ridiculous in its ambition to pass for a scientific theory. tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
the term "Pseudoscienctific" is unnecessary and pejorative. The Encyclopedia Britannica does not describe the theory of Intelligent Design as Pseudoscience. And a Gallup poll found that only 87% scientists affirm an entirely undetected form of evolution. Further there are at least a dozen PhD trained scientists, including at least a few non-religious ones, who support ID 91.125.244.172 ( talk) 20:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The liberal U.S. senator Edward Kennedy wrote in 2002 that “intelligent design is not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has no place in the curriculum of our nation’s public school science classes.”
This statement, evolutionists have responded, may have theological validity, but it destroys intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis, because it provides it with an empirically impenetrable shield against predictions of how “intelligent” or “perfect” a design will be. Science tests its hypotheses by observing whether predictions derived from them are the case in the observable world. A hypothesis that cannot be tested empirically—that is, by observation or experiment—is not scientific.
Scientists, moreover, have pointed out that not only do imperfections exist but so do dysfunctions, blunders, oddities, and cruelties prevail in the world of life. For this reason theologians and religious authors have criticized the theory of intelligent design, because it leads to conclusions about the nature of the designer at odds with the omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence that they, like Paley, identify as the attributes of the Creator.
Religious scholars in the past had struggled with such dysfunction and cruelty because they were difficult to explain by God’s design. Evolution, in one respect, came to their rescue.
it leads to conclusions about the nature of the designer at odds with...WP:V "disastrous for theology", and
A hypothesis that cannot be tested empirically—that is, by observation or experiment—is not scientificWP:V "unfit for science".
I've never been able to properly create named references. I can't understand the instructions. Here, for example:
I can't find any hyphen or ndashes. I see equals signs.
I've just tried to create named references for a 2003 article by Jason Rosenhouse and am utterly flummoxed. Please help. YoPienso ( talk) 21:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
<ref name="name" />
, but instead you tried to re-cite it by using <ref name="Rosenhouse" />
. Since there was no reference with the name "Rosenhouse" in the article, you got the error.
Avessa (
talk) 10:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
|first=
, |last=
, etc.) that are supplied to citation templates ({{
Cite web}}, etc.) which are then inserted between the reference tags.<ref name="rj2003">{{Cite web|last=Rosenhouse|first=Jason|...}}</ref>
<ref name="rj2003" />
rather than, say, <ref name="Rosenhouse, Jason" />
.
Avessa (
talk) 11:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Intelligent design movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Intelligent design movement. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Intelligent design movement at the Reference desk. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
From the article: "the intelligent design movement is an effort to reshape American society into a theocracy, primarily through education." Hint: the state, according to ID, should posit that there is a God, namely the god of the Christian religion. Not the god of liberal theology, but the god of fundamentalist Christianity. So, it breaches the wall of separation between church and state by a favoring a particular religion against other religions. According to the ID movement, the US public education system should dictate The True Religion™ or The True God™ to the masses, despite Catholics and liberal Protestants who as a rule of thumb find creationism ridiculous in its ambition to pass for a scientific theory. tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
the term "Pseudoscienctific" is unnecessary and pejorative. The Encyclopedia Britannica does not describe the theory of Intelligent Design as Pseudoscience. And a Gallup poll found that only 87% scientists affirm an entirely undetected form of evolution. Further there are at least a dozen PhD trained scientists, including at least a few non-religious ones, who support ID 91.125.244.172 ( talk) 20:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The liberal U.S. senator Edward Kennedy wrote in 2002 that “intelligent design is not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has no place in the curriculum of our nation’s public school science classes.”
This statement, evolutionists have responded, may have theological validity, but it destroys intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis, because it provides it with an empirically impenetrable shield against predictions of how “intelligent” or “perfect” a design will be. Science tests its hypotheses by observing whether predictions derived from them are the case in the observable world. A hypothesis that cannot be tested empirically—that is, by observation or experiment—is not scientific.
Scientists, moreover, have pointed out that not only do imperfections exist but so do dysfunctions, blunders, oddities, and cruelties prevail in the world of life. For this reason theologians and religious authors have criticized the theory of intelligent design, because it leads to conclusions about the nature of the designer at odds with the omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence that they, like Paley, identify as the attributes of the Creator.
Religious scholars in the past had struggled with such dysfunction and cruelty because they were difficult to explain by God’s design. Evolution, in one respect, came to their rescue.
it leads to conclusions about the nature of the designer at odds with...WP:V "disastrous for theology", and
A hypothesis that cannot be tested empirically—that is, by observation or experiment—is not scientificWP:V "unfit for science".
I've never been able to properly create named references. I can't understand the instructions. Here, for example:
I can't find any hyphen or ndashes. I see equals signs.
I've just tried to create named references for a 2003 article by Jason Rosenhouse and am utterly flummoxed. Please help. YoPienso ( talk) 21:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
<ref name="name" />
, but instead you tried to re-cite it by using <ref name="Rosenhouse" />
. Since there was no reference with the name "Rosenhouse" in the article, you got the error.
Avessa (
talk) 10:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
|first=
, |last=
, etc.) that are supplied to citation templates ({{
Cite web}}, etc.) which are then inserted between the reference tags.<ref name="rj2003">{{Cite web|last=Rosenhouse|first=Jason|...}}</ref>
<ref name="rj2003" />
rather than, say, <ref name="Rosenhouse, Jason" />
.
Avessa (
talk) 11:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)