Talk:Intelligent design
I don't think 'smarter force' is a good synonym for 'intelligent designer'. The word 'smarter' is a comparison whereas the term intelligent designer is suppose …
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intelligent design article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
 | This article contains a translation of Intelligent design from en.wikipedia. |
Smarter? God?
I don't think 'smarter force' is a good synonym for 'intelligent designer'. The word 'smarter' is a comparison whereas the term intelligent designer is suppose to imply a designer who has the ability of free thought. Whilst those who believe in intelligent design may see the designer as an entity that is smarter than any human, the name in no way implies that (if the designer was no smarter than an infant it would still be considered an 'intelligent designer').
128.250.5.246 (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- What would you suggest...opinions always welcome.-- † CM16 t c r 07:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see 'intelligent designer' as a synonym for 'intelligent agent', and thus I don't think you need to go all the way to the idea of free thought and the various comparisons of intelligence as they relate to infants, grown adults, and beyond. 'smarter force' doesn't seem all that bad when you compare it to say the elementary rules that are currently attributed to particle interactions. 68.175.118.95 (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Extend?
Does anyone feel like extending this? - I mean EnWP has an 180kb article (that is the equivalent of a Very good article here). On the other hand, all we get is a one-paragraph article? --Eptalon (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to help where I can, though the article might need a POV check (and what I think is more likely, a check to see if it's scientifically correct) after I'm done. :) Love, —Clementina talk 06:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
This article still needs to be expanded
Most of the article is just examples of how evolutionists criticize the theory, not what the theory is. Would it be more appropriate to split that off to a separate page, say, 'Criticism of Intelligent Design', then reserve this article solely for what they believe? Enthdegree (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
One-Sided
The article here says that Creationists created intelligent Design to go around legal arguments that don't allow Creationism to be taught in schools. I don't think this is NPOV. What do you think? Frogger48 (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't really NPOV because it is explaining the origins of creationism. That is crucial to any article talking about it. Not to mention it is sourced. -DJSasso (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.