Talk:Intelligent Design

As I edit, I'm going to catalogue certain deletions so others may comment, augment agree or disagree. I just deleted this sentence and I will continue deleting similar sentences:

A scientific view accepts that our understanding of life and its origins is imperfect, but holds that, as a research programme, "evolution by natural selection" is a powerful framework for studying and understanding life, which enables us to rationally and systematically address the questions that remain unanswered.

This is what I would categorize as an editorial comment. We should leave the philosophizing to philosophers. Will Nesbitt 10:37, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Overstatement

The article makes no mention that Intelligent Design, in and of itself, does not oppose evolution (though some proponents do). This gives the whole article a tone of overstatement which needs correction. David L Green 20:01, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Misleading title

I have a big issue with the title 'Intelligent Design Theory', as it suggests that ID is a theory, i.e. accepted scientific fact. It should be renamed Intelligent design to avoid this, because as it stands, ID is basically religion. John Stephenson 23:14, 16 May 2007 (CDT) and John Stephenson 05:01, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

YES, PLEASE, REVERT THIS TITLE TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!!!!

ID is not a theory. I may not agree that a theory is an "accepted scientific fact" (sorry about that, John). But John is otherwise darn right. People out there will look at this and say "oh, so those guys at CZ believe ID is a theory! Let's go back to Wikipedia, there are some experts there at least". Please revert! Please please please!!!

I left more comment in the talk of the disambiguation page. Take a look if you want. --Nereo Preto 06:24, 17 May 2007 (CDT)