Talk:Intelligent design movement: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:50, 9 January 2007

Revision as of 21:41, 9 January 2007

Line 539:

:Pollinator, what on ''earth'' is the conceptual underlayment for the statement "a zealous religious belief (Evolutionism)?" Are we in 2007 or 1907, or 1807? Geez, it took, as far as can tell to date, some 15 billion years for our universe to manifest to the current stage, and some 3 billion + years for life to manifest on Earth to the current stage. What on earth is going on here? Your suggestion that the article "move away from being a propaganda piece" will not in the end be adequately specific to sort out what you assert to be problematic about this article.

:<p>While I already put forward my reservations about the use of the adjective "evangeli..." in any of the widely misunderstood (and also still widely debated) applications of each of the many variants of the word, this article tells the truth about the situation in words most English-speaking persons can understand, and is verified by an unusually high number of citations from academic sources, general media sources, legal sources and firsthand material from the organization that made the term "intelligent design" famous in the modern world. After the objection to the issueissues of the use of "evangeli..." and "fundamentalist" is potentially settled, what else? Maybe it would be appropriate, I humbly suggest, per your suggestion to "take a breather" with this, to just take a day or so, and maybe make a bulleted (or preferably numbered) list of all the objections to the explanation the article provides of what the "intelligent design movement" is, and what it seeks to do, what it has done to date, etc. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] 05:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

: Pollin, the article doesn't say it is part of the "fundamenetalist" movement, but that it arose out of the closely connected creation science movement. So what precisely is the issue? (It might make sense to have a note that some YECs such as AIG and ICR now strongly condemend the ID movement but nothing in the article is factually inaccurate). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 05:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)