Talk:Specified complexity: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:26, 8 March 2024

Latest revision as of 14:30, 17 July 2024

(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 43:

: That this article actually has a "criticism" section is probably a sign that the bulk of the article is not properly balanced. The criticisms related to an article subject should not be lumped together but integrated with the rest of the body. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 01:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

::To decide what to promote and what not to promote is lack of neutrality. This article is an attack on ID. That is not "per se" bad, only it is not neutral at all. Perhaps Wikipedia should drop the requisite of "neutrality", it would be more honest. [[Special:Contributions/186.53.245.87|186.53.245.87]] ([[User talk:186.53.245.87|talk]]) 12:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

:::You do not understand what "neutrality" means on Wikipedia. It does not mean we give equal weight to serious scientists and con artists. It means reflecting what reliable sources say on a subject. That is what the article does. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 14:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

: Wikipedia is adopting the HHGTTG encyclopedic editorial standard. This article should be re-edited shortly as "It's bullshit", so people don't waste time trying to find amist criticism what the idea of specified complexity is. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/187.65.198.179|187.65.198.179]] ([[User talk:187.65.198.179|talk]]) 04:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Line 390 ⟶ 392:

::::::Oh, a consensus in theology and philosophy of “Creationism” is clear enough, but again the point is to be clear that is not a “scientific” consensus. The scientific communities simply and wisely did not go outside their ___domain to muck about in the fields of other experts. Their opinions on that topic would not be “reliable sources” for that as what is [[WP:RS]] always depends on context. In some contexts it’s even an ID proponent. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 15:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

:::::::Implying that the ID clowns are "other experts" is pretty silly - they can be quoted only on the subject of what is their own opinion, in articles about themselves - but if you do not want to call it a "scientific" consensus, that is alright. It's a consensus nevertheless. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 15:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

== Wkikpedia LIES ==

The term "specified complexity" was introduced by biologist Leslie Orgel in 1973, 25 years before Dembski's "The Design Inference," and you KNOW it. The concept was used as early as 1958 by Francis Crick, and identified by Richard Dawkins in 1986 in ''The Blind Watchmaker'' as “an important quality that needs a special effort of explanation.” And you KNOW it.

Most proponents of Intelligent Design - including sung noted atheists as Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle - are NOT Creationists - and you KNOW it.

Your BIAS behind your campaign against the SCIENCE of Intelligent Design is exposed. [[Special:Contributions/98.250.1.178|98.250.1.178]] ([[User talk:98.250.1.178|talk]]) 10:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)