Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Intelligent design/Archive1

Intelligent design
[Sonam Yeshe] Not sure where it would fit in, but there *are* other angles which should be explored, IMHO, in this 'origin myth debate'. After all, Arthur C. Clarke's "2001" might be considered a story about "intelligent design". But all such explanations suffer from the problem of infinite regress: who (or what) created the [Cc]reator(s)?

[comment] Infinite regress would be "The Creator" then. [/comment]

Or intelligence (or any factors that produce this phenomena) is simply just a basic property with reality, an "absolute" (something without cause). There must exist one or more absolutes in order for reality as we know it to "work". That can be deduced logically. [/comment]. In fact, infinite regress

"Micro"evolution is clearly an irrefutable fact: regardless of one's belief system, bacteria & viruses adapt to everything we throw at them (and they are ahead of us at the moment!) Yet the "holes" in evolutionary theory, eg, "How can a leg become a wing, when the intermediate forms are clearly maladaptive?" deserve exploration. Such "gaps" in evolutionary theory are not a convincing argument for the existence of some form of Cosmic Designer, however. I believe there is a Hindu saying, "God is not proved", which would seem to apply here... (Yogananda, "Autobiography of a Yogi")

[comment] Microevolution: Is adaptation actually evolution? Where is the borderline between adaptation and evolution? [/comment]

All in all, I found it to be a very good article. Kudos!

I was just surfing Wikipedia when I found this article. This article is in my opinion worthy of being featured. I haven't worked on it myself. --Maitch 22:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ITs pretty good a little bit excessive with the criticism but overall very good.  My only worry is that it is a controversial topic, and therfore will have stability issues. It seems to be going ok right now so I will go ahead and  Support.Falphin 01:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, please do work on it yourself, rather than shoving it straight onto this page, unedited. I was pleasantly surprised that it's not full of self-justifying religious hype; so it would be nice to see this article promoted, but it's not there yet. I've only looked properly at the lead; all of the text needs work. Here are a few things you can do to warm to the editing task:
 * Standardise the spacing of the numerical reference citations. (Best no space before, I think, but if you do retain a single space, insert &amp;nbsp; to avoid line overhang.
 * 'Despite ID sometimes being referred to'—ungrammatical.
 * Comma before 'which'.
 * Remove 'As has been argued before' as redundant; sift through every phrase looking for redundancies.
 * Some sentences are rather long and need to be divided.
 * Use a simpler word than 'putative', or remove it.

Why not alert the contributors to such articles as 'Evolution', 'Darwin', 'Evolutionary psychology', 'Richard Dawkins', to this nomination; I'm sure some of them would be pleased to assist. Tony 05:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll fix those grammatical problems and dividing the sentences won't be to hard. How exactly would I standardize the reference citations? Falphin 00:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It wasn't exactly shoved, the article has already been through Peer Review. Really most of the problems in the article are gramatical. I don't believe alerting them here is the best because along with the good editors will come more POV pushers. Perhaps alerting them on individual basis.  But thats just my opinion. Falphin 01:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It's getting closer, but I don't thinks it's yet up to par as one of Wikipedia's best. I say give it a while to develop some more clarity, and it would be a good candidate.Gandalf2000 15:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. I thought it was getting closer, and working toward consensus and clear representation of both sides of the issue.  But nearly every discussion on the Talk page gets side tracked into name-calling debate, and the long-term contributors jump right into the fray.  Modest attempts to tone down the rhetoric and "hot-button" language have been thwarted.  It seems too many contributors are concerned with winning the debate, rather than dispassionately summarizing it.--Gandalf2000 19:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What specifically can be done? This article seems close to FA and I might work on it a bit if there are some specific things suggested. Thanks Falphin 00:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gandalf. Please do go ahead improving it; I'm keen to see it become a FA, whether sooner or later. Tony 02:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. Article presently violates "Fairness and sympathetic tone" guidelines of Wikipedia NPOV policy, as I've previously pointed out and explained on it's discussion page. Also, it should be noted in the article that the particular claim "that computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally" is false.--Johnstone 11:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you have a suggestion on how both views can be acommadated? Falphin 00:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A few things that would help toward making the article follow the "Fairness and sympathetic tone" guidelines of the Wikipedia NPOV policy, which state, "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section." (I realize that this is not the only guideline for NPOV.  None of the following suggestions implies otherwise.):
 * - Criticisms should be consolidated into a single section.
 * - The amount of criticism of ID greatly exceeds (by about 3 to 1) the positive presentation of ID. This is simply excessive.  Reduce the ratio.
 * - The "Additional criticisms" section of the intelligent design article presents criticisms of things that are related to ID ("[Accusations of lack of] Scientific peer review", "Who designed the designer?", and "Argument from ignorance"). Since these issues are not directly related to actual ID concepts, but originate from critics, it would be only fair to present ID responses to them.  For example, Dembski's book The Design Revolution has chapters (41, 27 and 30, respectively) dedicated to answering each of the above criticisms.  Summaries from each could be added (in a single "Replies to additional criticisms section, of course).Johnstone 00:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There's a reason criticism exceeds positive representation - an overwhelming majority of experts in the fields ID affects dispute it vehemently. You'd find an equal disparate ratio in an article on, say, whether Stalin was a nice guy or not. — ceejayoz talk  [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|24px]] 22:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with previous comment; the article appears to be based on sound, scientific principles; I have no problem with the idea that computer simulations demonstrate the mechanisms of evolution—that's pretty basic. Tony 12:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Falphin, just insert &amp;nbsp; between the previous character and the reference number, in all cases, with no intervening spaces; or better still, just jam the number up to the stop. Tony 01:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As I suggested, Falphin, you'll need to enlist a few other people here. While some of the criticisms here are careful to avoid the appearance of religious ideology, I have no wish to have to defend the scientific view in such a basic way. Only to say to Johnstone that of course there are more criticisms than defence of ID—it's a pretty silly ideology. Keep the article purely in scientific terms. Tony 01:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Strongly Object This article is not even about the philosophical concept of intelligent design. It is a discussion about Theists. Intelligent design has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. The article is completely off-topic and looks more like a rant about not just Theists, which would at least make some sense, but about Christian Creationists.--Ben 01:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a section on Religion and ID but I'm not really sure on the philosophy infact I've read books by Idists and even they don't talk about philosophy. Read Michael Behes Black Box for example. The article clearly shows that ID is not science but an attempt at it. If you can guide me on how to add a philosophy section I will. And note to the others, I probably won't get done with Intelligent Design before this FAC is up, but I'll probably renominate it later. Falphin 20:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the problem here is that "intelligent design" means different things to different people. Taken on its face in the context of philosophy or religion, it means simply that "an intelligent being designed the universe." However, it is often used differently. As a result, the talk pages are often filled with people (including me; I am trying to at least get a disambiguation link to Theism), who say things like "ID has nothing to do with creationism" or "ID is about complexity, not God" etc. etc. etc..... etc. This is because the article is more like a personal essay on the this Dembski guy's book, rather than an encyclopedic topic. It almost cannot be an encyclopedic topic. It would be very helpful to readers to have an article which can sort out the mish-mash of religion, science, pseudoscience, philosophy, and all that, but instead the article treats them as if this mash is a subject unto itself. The result is a lot of argument and a lot of dissatisfaction. There's not much reason for controversy when everything is in its proper place. Either you believe in God or you don't. Either you think evolutionary theory is sound or you don't. Either you think the existence of God can be proven with Dembski's "complexity theory", or you don't. Instead, people are arguing all over the place, and to me that doesn't even warrant a nomination for featured status, let alone receiving featured status. --Ben 03:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Shows Wikipedia At Its Worst Much too long. Readers will want to know what Intelligent Design is. The Introduction and Summary are quite adequate to explain that. The rest of the article is confusing and often incomprehensible. If it was translated into plain words some of it might be worth retaining but a lot would be clearly seen as meaningless. The article is not suitable for Featured Aticle status. It makes Wikipedia look like a home for self-indulgent contributors. --82.38.97.206 20:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)mikeL


 * Object It's very difficult to talk about "Intelligent Design" without mentioning creationism. This article is way too long and should be merged into Creationism. 67.103.32.20 00:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Creationism represents a field of very specific ideas, while this article presents a theory in more general terms of scientific merit.  However, I believe the tone in which it is written sacrifices professional objectivity. Doctor Love 07:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Strongly Object Who nominated this diatribe? It's awful. Here's an example from the second paragraph: "...ID does not constitute serious research in biology." What is this phrase supposed to mean? And who wants to try to straighten it out, with the incessant and mean-spirited revert wars going on? This is one of the worst articles I've ever read on Wikipedia. ô ¿ ô  07:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Violates NPOV and frequently (albeit probably unintentionally) distorts ID Johnstone made some good points here, but there's something else that troubles me.  The article often does not accurately represent the ID position it criticizes.  For instance, the ID claim for the fine-tuning of the universe is that certain physical constants being changed would prevent any form of physical life, not just life as we know it (see Mere Creation or this article).  Even if the view is wrong, it should at least be accurately represented.  Whatever its faults, ID is also not an “argument from ignorance.” It isn't the mere fact that evolution doesn't have a means, it’s also the alleged barriers (e.g. irreducible complexity, chemical problems of abiogenesis) that exist in the natural world that allegedly require artificial intervention to overcome.  Even if such views are wrong, they should be accurately represented.  The claim, “By ID's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex” is a bit fishy, and the author provides no references (the same is true with "fundamental assumption of ID that every complex object requires a designer"). Behe himself (the guy who introduced irreducible complexity in Darwin's Black Box) concedes in Darwin's Black Box that maybe the designer is composed of something which could have come about naturally.  Again, even if such views are wrong, they should at least be presented accurately.  Until such matters are cleared up, I do not think this article should be a featured article.  --Wade A. Tisthammer (10/26/2005)
 * That's the spirit! Throw a bunch of walls up and run for cover. The problem is, those walls are made of toothpicks, and you built them in quicksand... and you're not a particularly good builder to begin with. I call it intellectual filibustering. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-10-27 01:32
 * Why do you claim my “walls” are made of toothpicks built on quicksand? That the article puts forth a badly distorted version intelligent design theory is a very legitimate criticism.  --Wade A. Tisthammer (10/27/2005)
 * Article is too long, much ado about nothing, not unlike like the subject itself.

November 1, 2005 This article makes Wikipedia look bad; it's that simple. It is not doing justice to this site. I was dissapointed in reading this article on ID. It is not the standard objective type of writing in Wikipedia and I think it should be changed to read neutral. It's obviously written by someone with very strong feelings against ID and that comes across too clearly. ID is accepted by the scientific community because ID is made of scientists. That's why it's so controversial -the scientists are fighting the scientists. That the 'other', older, larger scientific community does not accept ID is true. In any case, please be neutral. It doesn't need to advocate ID anymore than it needs to say it's bologna. Inform your reader; don't push your views down our throats. (unsigned by )


 * What is this based on? No scientist in the world would advocate a theory that cannot ever be disproven.  That's rule one of science.--Xiaphias 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Object, needs focus Intelligent design is presented as it is without the hype, duplicity, and sophistry (most likely a result of peer review). It is well-referenced and thorough. But it's still sloppy. It blurs the assertion and the movement too much. The crux of the "science" of ID is the assertion that intelligent design, the conscious arrangement of parts by an intelligent entity, is empirically observable. Other concepts have been proposed to elaborate/demonstrate this idea (most notably by Dembski). But the page is so mucked up switching between that mythology's meager (if even existent) evidence and its adherents (which when discussing ideas, is ad hominem) without demarcation it could very easily be accused of being a strawman and it is consistently accused of violating NPOV. It's somewhat of an unstable article, and thankfully its regular contributors are stubborn, but this is a double-edged sword. When I pointed out that its adherents have zeal is not reflective of the "theory" itself, my edits were reverted. My point is that cleanup probably won't be easy. - JustSomeKid

Support and with two notes: 1. Wikipedia's Intelligent Design article has received positive endorsements as being accurate and complete from several neutral sources:
 * Librarian in the Middle - Resources and News for Middle School Librarians: "IF there were an equivalent article to Wikepedia’s in an online or paper encyclopedia, we could expect expertise in choice of links, neutrality of language, balance in POV. But, especially in the case of ID, that article hasn’t been writen or is given only a cursory treatment (and sometimes in unsigned articles)."
 * Librarian and Information Science News: "The Wikipedia ID article [wikipedia.org] is fairly neutral."
 * Talk of the Nation. 2 November 2005 National Public Radio: "the Wikipedia entry for Intelligent Design... it is a good entry, perhaps even an excellent entry..."

2. At least 3 or 4 of those objecting here have had POV issues at the article. Their objections given here reflect the nature of their earlier issues there. The former point validates the article's content, whether it becomes a featured article or not. The latter point does not. FeloniousMonk 04:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Mild object. IMHO the amount and detail of criticism of ID burdens the article and indeed makes it (slightly) bloated, and subject to (in small part mind you) POV skirmishes. Needs to be trimmed down, made more succinct and in so doing creates a win-draw for everyone involved. (a win-win would simply be too optimistic at this point, maybe after the trial we can make further progress... what the heck is going on with that thing anyway) - RoyBoy 800 06:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. I agree that exhausting battles with PoV-pushers have made this article longer than it needs to be, as with just about any article in this general area (and FM is clearly right that objecting here is a continuation of many of those pushers' battle), but I don't think that it's seriously bloated (look at Human for an example of real bloat, for the same reasons). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Article lacks knowledge of all the facts. Evolution is not science it's a theory or an idea developed by someone's thoughts to arrive to their conclusion, but it's not conclusive nor supported by solid scientific data. The said fact is we're teaching our kids to have faith in a theory that has yet to be proven. This unbiased opinion has skewed millions of children's thoughts in the United States. Let's get faith based ideas out of our schools!! Or at least be honest with the kids and teach them ALL the theories. What are you afraid of? Evolutionists that use the excuse of "Religion" to not have to teach all theories reminds me of Castro in Cuba. "Communism works!" Carl Marx wrote it in a book so it must be true... Think about it; 99.9% of Americans will never take the time to evaluate or study the facts of this debate. They're sheep. Even the people who read the article, and commented positively below, have been brain washed. What conclusive studies have they done? Where they there? How many carbon dating theory machines do we see in an average American's living room? They are kept by the few, and the true theory of how they work is known by less. Don't let a few people fill your mind with their theoretical ideas without asking questions. Don't kid your self evolution is a theory! Let your mind be open to all ideas. Let our children see the facts and hear the huge lies and mistakes that fill our history books. We do live in the United States? We don't live in a society that forces beliefs down ones throat? Let Freedom Ring! Let all the theories be studied!! NER --24.123.44.195 16:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Moved from top of page; new comments at the bottom. I'm glad this was posted, as it is fairly representative of some of the editors and their objections and methods we've had to deal with in writing the ID article. FeloniousMonk 17:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is a good example of why articles should not be written and policed by the bitter opponents of the subject of the article. User:Stuckerj hit the nail on the head with his parody of FeloniousMonk's attitude here. Yes, the article has to be defended from creationists who are ignorant of science and who don't get or care for NPOV. But this fact should not keep us from writing for the enemy, which hasn't even been accomplished in the intro. The article has made progress since bad old days of when creationists were freely editing the page, but we can do better, and a featured article should be better. It should provide an account of ID from the perspective of its proponents. Making this a featured article would give right-wingers authentic ammunition in their claims that Wikipedia exhibits left-wing bias. Wikipedia has set some very high ideals for itself, and this article does not yet meet them. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 23:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I must add that it is certainly currently biased against ID. All the one-sided references would be better left out and summed up by mentioning the conflict as a whole without taking sides, and letting the reader pursue it further if interested. This article has come a long, long way from simply and objectively explaining what ID is and the associated history. Just one detailed example of bias: it is stated flatly - in spite of many intelligent scientist adherents - that ID is based upon circular logic [by virtue of the fact that if the complexity proves a designer, that designer must be more complex, and herefore must itself have a designer, ad infinitum, which is not possible (reductio absurdem)]. This is a patently incorrect statement for two reasons: 1. As presented by the statement, the ID argument results in an INFINITE REGRESSION, not circular reasoning. The latter is an argument which logically depends upon one of its own conclusions. ID's conclusion that a designer must exist is not used as a premise in its argument. As presented above it only leads to a logical infinite recursion of the conclusion (a spiral, if you like). 2. It does not necessarily follow from the ID argument that the designer is only somewhat more complex than nature. Equally possible is that the designer is infinitely complex, and thus could not have been designed. Before any hasten to point out that an infinitely complex, undesigned designer is an absurd concept, it should be obvious that any theory whatsoever terminates finally at an infinite, uncreated existence. Take the Big Bang for example: where did the original point of condensed matter come from? Hopefully nobody is foolish enough to propose a cyclical Big Bang as a solution to this face-to-face clash with infinite existence.
 * Comment. Should this article be given Featured status, I predict that a lot of (onesided) disccusion will forever go into removing that status. -- Ec5618 12:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article is so often vandalised, that little energy is left to actually edit the article. I'm not sure it is at Featured quality. -- Ec5618 12:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Most of the oppose votes above mean nothing to me. They complain of POV, but are unable or unwilling to present a fairly rewritten section we could insert into the article. -- Ec5618 12:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. This page highlights the fundamental problem with Wikipedia. At the bottom of this obvious war lies one tense argument: Does God exist? Some people insist that he must, and some cannot stand any implication that he might. Both sides push the evidence and arguments in their preferred direction with all their might, striving not for consensus but for victory, and because of the depth of the implications, this war will never end until God is proved or disproved. Therefore editing this page is a waste of time. It will never settle into a uniform consensus.

These should be obvious points to anybody scientifically educated, mature and intelligent enough to take it upon themselves to edit a Wikipedia page. One could argue that perhaps the flaw of Wilkipedia's tolerance of all edits is that it allows faulty statements. However, there are many, many other examples of bias against ID in the current article. Rather than go through them painstakingly I will just name a few (and please note, I won't be back to waste my time further with this eternal argument): Constant references which carry negative overtones are made, such as ID being controversial (historically evolution has this role), being [neo-]creationism not accepted by the scientific community (should state the majority of), 'junk science' (argumentative and unfounded), not experimentally verifiable (Nobel Prize winner physicist and agnostic Leon Lederman does not believe this to be a requirement for a scientific theory, see 'The God Particle', page 389; furthermore macro-evolution is in the same camp), religious in nature and Christian specifically (false - it is purely scientific - of course a religion like Christianity would have major attraction, involvement and overlap with it, but this should not be presented as an attribute of ID itself; evolution and secularism have a similar relationship); and other simply incorrect statements concerning proofs and disproofs. I mention the above for the record, however, I do not expect any agreement from those whose POV is in line with the article, because ultimately this is about whether one can face the fact the God exists or does not exist, and proponents will hold to their camp with a tenacity as great as they hold to life itself. ant 14:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's interesting to note that this was User:Antandcharmi's ("Ant") very first edit to Wikipedia. This is represents another tactic those working on the article have faced.


 * Much of Antandcharmi's criticism of the article arises from not understanding WP:NPOV, the policy governing how pseudoscience is covered at Wikipedia. The article's content is compliant with the policy. FeloniousMonk 16:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Object. I have no reason to think that any article in which claims of pseudoscience are inherent can ever achieve Featured Article status.  It is too difficult to distinguish NPOV (essential) from SPOV (which is actually a POV).  Any such article, such as this one or Creation science, will involve too much hostility and uncivil editing, and so is not likely to get to Featured Article status.  Also, any article that is the subject of a user conduct RfC or an RfAr (even if a badly filed one) probably is too far from consensus to be worth trying to get consensus by FA process.  Robert McClenon 17:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Though I still support the article for FA, sadly, I must admit Robert McClenon makes some very valid points and is likely right. FeloniousMonk 23:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article, in my view, has too many problems to be a featured article, although the work that has gone into it is admirably comprehensive and well-sourced.  However, the problems are essentially threefold:

First, it is much too long. In an effort to accommodate the many arguments that whirl within the debate the article has ballooned to an unreasonable length; this makes it hard to get through and a cumbersome presentation of the central ideas.

Second, it is important to note that ID is, at the moment, essentially an American issue, insofar as school boards, religious and scientific communities, not to mention political leaders, outside of the US are not implicated in the debate. Unfortunately, I cannot think of how to rectify this particularly, but the fact remains that for a project of international scope, this article is addressing concerns that have surfaced in a public debate almost solely in the US. That should be of central importance, since it highlights the lively debate about the role of religion, and religious derived thinking, in US public and scholastic life. As it stands, this article reads like a painstaking attempt to provide an NPOV description of ID as it exists within its US context. I think that the Amero-centrism of the article further makes its FA status problematic. I speak only for myself here, but as I see it, ID's importance is less the raiments of the theory/hypothesis, as much as the way it is illustrative of current US politico-religious life. I invite other non-US editors, of course, to disagree and smack down this reservation. But ID is not taken seriously anywhere else in the world. That should be central.

Finally, as noted above, the ongoing polemicising and casuistry suggest the article is currently too unstable to make FA.

All that said, I wish to salute the amazing efforts of all the editors who have contributed to this effort. Politics, not competence, intervenes to make this currently not FA level. Dottore So 17:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The ID debate is not a solely U.S. (not American) issue. Because it is not about ID versus Natural Selection. It is about a bunch of people whose faith is challenged by discoveries of fact.

In places where facts intersect with their opinon, it isnecessary for the facts to give way, so these people have designed an attack using a mixture of religion and debate. Please understand that it is not theology. It is no more fostered by theology than the young men who blow themselves and others to pieces. They are unhappy and they can't reconcile themselves to their surroundings. They may mistake it for religion as a man mistakes lust for a nobler emotion. Howard Ahmanson, the man who funded the Center for Science and Culture, appears to favor the establishment of Biblical Law. This is similar to movements in other countries whether established or recent. Yes, ID is an "American" cancer, but examine the similar "turn the clock back" cancers. If we can't unite over this, we are a hopeless bunch.

The fact that the article is as stable as it is says much for the Wikipedia model. This is not just a run-of-the-mill bitching session. This article reaches across national boundaries because we keep our workers ignorant in every country. Wikipedia can do something about it. b_calder 00:00:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Support.There are so many people in the scientific community who are against Intelligent Design that I think comments on this topic would be overwhelmingly representative of the Community hired to teach and do research in public institutions. Not every ID supporter is going to rebuttal every point made (Personal comment: Unfortunately). Therefore, why would this article not be placed on Wikipedia's home page. I think this topic is vital to put forward since it is a hot-button issue to Americans. Americans who have knowledge on the topic also want to jump on the bandwagon and display what they know, so I support this article's advancement. --MEGOP, 2:58 (UTC) 13 June 06

OBJECT - Highly anti-ID with severe distortions Heavily edited against ID by those who do not understand how origin theories are modeled or how to disprove them. DLH 03:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * COMMENT: The above is yet one more example of bad faith attempts by pro-ID edtiors to scuttle the FA candidacy of any ID article that presents both sides of the topic fairly and in a balanced manner. DLH, a largely single topic, single viewpoint contributor, has a history of using Wikipedia to promote an aggressively partisan pro-ID viewpoint, and has consisently violated WP:NPOV in so doing. Objections in the same manner as his scuttled the last FA attempt, and his comments above serve to illustrate how those not dedicated to NPOV but to a particular POV will always try to derail any FA status for this article. I'm afraid until a method is adopted to properly weigh and deal with bad faith or just clueless objections, hot button topics like ID will always be vulnerable to such acts of partisan activism. FeloniousMonk 21:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * REBUTTAL: FeloniousMonk accuses of "bad faith" with no evidence. He is one of the primary causes of the anti-ID bias in this article. I have been working for many months to correct these biases by summarizing both sides. Overview ID & Conventional Science. Peer Review However, FeloniousMonk and those working with him systematically revert, refusing to allow any changes.DLH 17:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Contrary to FeloniousMonk's caricaturization of "single topic single viewpoint" contributor, I have participated in at least 63 pages. He accuses me of being "aggressively partisan" and having "consistently violated WP:NPOV". I have worked at providing objective cited material, correcting FelonousMonks overtly anti-ID editorials. This diatribe is another example where FeloniousMonk appears to be following WP:ABF.DLH 18:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC) There have been at least a dozen explicit wholesale reversions with no effort at editing or seriously pointing out what the objections are. I have worked with constructive criticism to revise the and improve the statements and citations.DLH

Support as featured (although given how much vandalism and junk I've had to deal with on previous occasions that I had an FA on my watchlist I'm almost inclined to oppose. This article is going to make many other articles seem like a cakewalk. ) JoshuaZ 23:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems a great shame that this article has been rejected due, frankly, to partisan ID supporters. It's an excellent article, and no less NPOV than an article on flat-earth science. Shame on the nay-sayers, and shame on wikipedia for allowing it to happen. Tomandlu 22:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)