Talk:Intelligent design/Points that have already been discussed
Points that have already been discussed
- The following ideas were discussed. Please read the archives before bringing up any of these points again:
- Is ID a theory?
- Is ID/evolution falsifiable?
- Is the article too littered with critique, as opposed to, for example, the evolution article?
- Criticism that the Intelligent design page does not give citations to support ID opponents' generalizations
- What ID's Opponents Say; is it really relevant?
- Bias?
- Various arguments to subvert criticism
- Critics claim ...
- Anti-ID bias
- Apparent partial violation NPOV policy
- Why are there criticizms
- Critics of ID vs. Proponents
- Isn't ID no more debatable than evolution?
- Isn't ID actually creationism by definition, as it posits a creator?
- Are all ID proponents really theists?
- Are there any peer-reviewed papers about ID?
- Is ID really not science?
- ...who include the overwhelming majority of the scientific community...
- Meaning of "scientific"
- Why sacrifice truth
- Rejection of ID by the scientific community section redundant
- Intelligent design is Theology, not Science
- Philosophy in the introduction
- Why ID is not a theory
- Bad philosophy of science (ID is allegedly not empirically testable, falsifiable etc.)
- The "fundamental assumption" of ID
- Peer-reviewed articles
- Figured out the problem
- Is ID really not internally consistent?;
- Is the article too long?
- Does the article contain original research that inaccurately represents minority views?
- Is the intelligent designer necessarily irreducibly complex? Is a designer needed for irreducibly complex objects?
- Irreducibly complex intelligent designer
- Settling Tisthammerw's points, one at a time
- The "fundamental assumption" of ID
- Irreducibly complex
- Irreducible complexity of elementary particles
- Repeated objections and ignoring of consensus
- Suggested compromise
- Resolution to Wade's & Ant's objections (hopefully)
- Discussion regarding the Introduction:
- Intro (Rare instance of unanimity)
- Introduction (Tony Sidaway suggests)
- Is this article is unlike others on Wikipedia?
- Is this article NPOV?
- Are terms such as 'scientific community' or 'neocreationist' vague concepts?
- How should Darwin's impact be described?
- Is the article really that bad?
- Peer Review and ID
- Discovery Institute and leading ID proponents
- Why is intelligent design lower case, not upper case?