Talk:Intelligent design/Points that have already been discussed

Points that have already been discussed
 * The following ideas were discussed. Please read the archives before bringing up any of these points again:


 * 1) Is ID a theory?
 * Fact and Theory
 * Does ID really qualify as a Theory?
 * 1) Is ID/evolution falsifiable?
 * Falsification
 * Falsifiability
 * ID is allegedly not empirically testable, falsifiable, etc.
 * 1) Is the article too littered with critique, as opposed to, for example, the evolution article?
 * Criticism that the Intelligent design page does not give citations to support ID opponents' generalizations
 * What ID's Opponents Say; is it really relevant?
 * Bias?
 * Various arguments to subvert criticism
 * Critics claim ...
 * Anti-ID bias
 * Apparent partial violation NPOV policy
 * Why are there criticizms
 * Critics of ID vs. Proponents
 * 1) Isn't ID no more debatable than evolution?
 * Argument Zone
 * The debatability of ID and evolution
 * 1) Isn't ID actually creationism by definition, as it posits a creator?
 * ID in relation to Bible-based creationism
 * What makes ID different than creationism
 * Moving ID out of the "creationism" catagory
 * Shouldn't this page be merged with creationism?
 * ID not Creationism?
 * 1) Are all ID proponents really theists?
 * ID proponents who are not theists
 * A possible atheist/agnostic intelligent design advocate?
 * 1) Are there any peer-reviewed papers about ID?
 * Scientific peer review
 * Peer-reviewed stuff of ID (netcody)
 * 1) Is ID really not science?
 * ...who include the overwhelming majority of the scientific community...
 * Meaning of "scientific"
 * Why sacrifice truth
 * Rejection of ID by the scientific community section redundant
 * Intelligent design is Theology, not Science
 * Philosophy in the introduction
 * Why ID is not a theory
 * Bad philosophy of science (ID is allegedly not empirically testable, falsifiable etc.)
 * The "fundamental assumption" of ID
 * Peer-reviewed articles
 * Figured out the problem
 * 1) Is ID really not internally consistent?;
 * Distingushing Philosophical ID (TE) from the DI's Pseudo-Scientific ID
 * The many names of ID?
 * Removed section by User:Tznkai
 * Pre- & post- Kitzmiller, proponents seek to redefine ID
 * Defining ID
 * Figured out the problem
 * "Intelligent evolution"
 * ID on the O'Reilly Factor
 * 1) Is the article too long?
 * Article Size
 * Notes
 * The Article Is Too Long
 * 1) Does the article contain original research that inaccurately represents minority views?
 * Inadequate representation of the minority View
 * The "fundamental assumption" of ID
 * 1) Is the intelligent designer necessarily irreducibly complex? Is a designer needed for irreducibly complex objects?
 * Irreducibly complex intelligent designer
 * Settling Tisthammerw's points, one at a time
 * The "fundamental assumption" of ID
 * Irreducibly complex
 * Irreducible complexity of elementary particles
 * Repeated objections and ignoring of consensus
 * Suggested compromise
 * Resolution to Wade's & Ant's objections (hopefully)
 * 1) Discussion regarding the Introduction:
 * Intro (Rare instance of unanimity)
 * Introduction (Tony Sidaway suggests)
 * 1) Is this article is unlike others on Wikipedia?
 * Why is Wiki Violating its own POV rule
 * Call for new editors
 * Archives 22, 23, 24
 * 1) Is this article NPOV?
 * NPOV
 * Archive 25
 * 1) Are terms such as 'scientific community' or 'neocreationist' vague concepts?
 * Support among scientists
 * "Neocreationist" social, not scientific, observation
 * Archive 26
 * 1) How should Darwin's impact be described?
 * Pre-Darwinian Ripostes
 * 1) Is the article really that bad?
 * WOW! This page is GOOOD!
 * 1) Peer Review and ID
 * Peer review?
 * Lack of peer review
 * Peer Review: Reviewed
 * 1) Discovery Institute and leading ID proponents
 * Are all leading ID proponents affiliated with Discovery Institute?
 * Archive 32
 * 1) '''Why is intelligent design lower case, not upper case?
 * Renaming Intelligent design as Intelligent Design