Revision as of 20:46, March 23, 2007

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. Tsumetai 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --Horace 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --John Galt 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. Tsumetai 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? Harpie snark 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Perhaps you could start with the list of reasons above, not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. Tsumetai 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper conservative sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. Harpie snark 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. Tsumetai 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. Order 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. Order 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --MoeLarryAndJesus 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"notable"?

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --Mtur 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --MoeLarryAndJesus 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --MoeLarryAndJesus 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

two issues=

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). Miles 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. Tsumetai 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The Theory of Intelligent Design

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --Horace 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. Tsumetai 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. WJThomas

Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is also a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present evidence that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. Opacic 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

BCE

how come BCE isnt allowed?

Because it really means Be-Coming Evolutionsists! --Cracker^talk 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Other Intelligent Causes

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --Order 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. Miles 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --Order 20 March

Conservative's "factual error"

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:

• You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
• You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper

Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --Mtur 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-AmesG 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. Tmtoulouse 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

This should not be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. MountainDew 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The footnote shows there have been more than one article. Conservative 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative