Talk:Centre for Intelligent Design

Pseudoscience

WP:FRINGE/PS states "2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." Therefore it is not a violation of WP:NPOV to describe ID as such. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The introduction of the main article on Intelligent Design does not even classify the proposition as "pseudoscience." Why would we use that adjective here? It is unnecessary to do so. Most articles pertaining to organizations espousing fringe theories themselves do not use the term in the introduction. See the British UFO Research Association or the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, for example. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Overwhelming scientific consensus

The Guardian article on this centre contains the information that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the arguments against the theory of evolution promoted by intelligent design advocates are invalid. It is therefore perfectly relevant to include that information here. It is also correct per WP:DUE to include the majority viewpoint when discussing a minority view. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Hrafn, I must start by saying that I do not necessarily endorse Intelligent Design. I was reading about the Centre and thought I would create an article on it, since there was currently not one extant in this encyclopedia. Nevertheless, I wish to maitain WP:NPOV. I is unnecessary to rehash arguments of ID vs. Evolution on this article, which should be about the organisation. If you would like to discuss the validity of Intelligent Design, please do so at the main article. Moreover, this organisation is also not opposed to evolution, unless it is classifed as "undirected". Therefore, the information is irrelevant anyways. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It is necessary (per WP:DUE) to "make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant". That these viewpoints have been made in direct reference to the C4ID, in articles explicitly about the C4ID makes them relevant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh and please don't cite this piece of excrement at me. (i) It fails WP:SELFPUB as "unduly self-serving". (ii) It contains the same 'we accept evolution but ... [pile of caveats that serve to completely gut the theory]' equivocation that I've seen dozens of times before. It starts off with Michael Behe stating "Random variation doesn’t explain the most basic features of biology. It doesn’t explain the elegant sophisticated molecular machinery that undergirds life", for heaven's sake. It is worthless from an evidentiary standpoint. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)