Content deleted Content added
Silly rabbit (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 1,229:
:(e/c) I don't understand your objection. Intelligent design ''is'' a modern form of the teleological argument. It is also modified to avoid specifying the nature of the designer. There are no motives, ulterior or otherwise: this is just a summary of the argument. Moreover, ID proponents also agree (see, for instance, the testimony of [[Scott Minnich]] in the Dover trial). See also [http://www.discovery.org/a/285 this article] at the Discovery Institute. [[User:Silly rabbit|<font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit</font>]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help"><font color="#c00000">talk</font></span>]]) 00:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
::You may want to re-read the article, and pay special attention to the sources (which are backed up through labourious and repeated consensus). ID proponents themselves, through documents like the wedge strategy and elsewhere, have claimed that ID is a step in a socio-political battle to have creationism taught in schools. Court rulings have affirmed this. On Wikipedia, we can only report what has been said in reliable sources, and we must avoid giving undue weight to fringe or minority views.
It's noble to want to preserve a sense of neutrality, but others more eloquent and educated than I am have been over these issues with many, many others.
If you have a concrete suggestion or alternate wording, that can be backed up by reliable sources, though, by all means suggest it here. [[User:Quietmarc|Quietmarc]] ([[User talk:Quietmarc|talk]]) 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
| |||