Wikipedia talk:WikiProject intelligent design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I noticed we've gotten nowhere with this....might be time to start it up again, and make it current! •Jim62sch• 22:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Guettarda 05:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur. This could be a good project if cleaned up and revived. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added articles, a few ideas, fixed grammar, etc. We need to flesh out the rest. I also noticed that there is no WikiProject for Creationism, and there probably should be. •Jim62sch• 13:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I just joined this Wikiproject! So Hi! Caleb09 20:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Caleb, welcome. •Jim62sch• 23:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Activity 2 RfArb 3 Assessment 4 Wikipedia Day Awards 5 Carl Sagan FAR 6 Proposed merger 7 Requested move 8 New AfD 9 Templates 10 Input appreciated

[edit] Activity

We haven't really been doing much on the project pages per se, although we've been editing the articles... Should we revisit the to-do list? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as it isn't the one on the ID article talk page. •Jim62sch• 17:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfArb

User:Iantresman has started a request for arbitration members of this project may wish to comment on WP:RfArb#Pseudoscience__vs_Pseudoskepticism. --ScienceApologist 12:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

Assessment is now up - see Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design/Assessment. Guettarda 02:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Sagan FAR

Carl Sagan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger

Considering that it has only minimal content and no recent activity other than a recent merger, I was wondering whether the members of this project would consider merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Origin of life and related debates into this project. Badbilltucker 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather leave that stillborn project alone. Guettarda 19:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think there would be any objections to a deletion, then? Badbilltucker 19:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm very much against the merger, I object against "intelligent design", and if Wikipedia:WikiProject Origin of life and related debates is merged with "intelligent design", I'm going to create a Wikipedia:WikiProject Christians against Pseudo-christian systemic lying. Rursus 10:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Of possible interest to members:

• Level of support for evolution → Endorsement and rejection of evolution —(Discuss) - According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), this article has a very poor title. Note that both "level" and "support" are quite ambiguous. Would you know from the current title that this article would be about polls and open letters regarding both the endorsement and rejection of evolution in the context of the creation-evolution controversy? A number of the other editors have proposed equally ambiguous titles, the alternative is the only one that has seemed to have had at least a moderate (if somewhat guarded) support. Another idea floated was Popularity of evolution or Popular support for evolution, but I believe those two titles to be more ambiguous than the proposed one here. Note that there are a lot of ways to write an imprecise title to this article, but precision is absolutely necessary because we need to make sure that people are not misled in, for example, a POV-pushing fashion. For example, the simple title "support for evolution" rightly redirects to evidence for evolution because evolution's support isn't verifiably tied to opinion polls and open letters but rather to the scientific evidence. --ScienceApologist 05:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the above post mischaracterizes the situation markedly.--Filll 06:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Level of support for evolution Please comment. --ScienceApologist 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Here are the three templates related to the creation-evolution controversy. Any two of these may appear on the same page. I have used {{clear}}, which has poor text-friendliness, but points out the necessary information.

In short, these templates are not the same width, so they can't be put into a holding infobox together. If they aren't put into a holding box together, then the popular solution of putting one next to the TOC... breaks hideously simply by clicking the hide button on the TOC.

We need to make combined templates, or standardise the width. Which is preferable? Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of the Biology series on

Evolution

Mechanisms and processes

Adaptation Genetic drift Gene flow Mutation Selection Speciation

Research and history

Evidence History Modern synthesis Social effect / Objections

Evolutionary biology fields

Ecological genetics Evolutionary development Human evolution Molecular evolution Phylogenetics Population genetics

Biology Portal · v • d • e

Part of the series on

Intelligent design

Concepts

Irreducible complexity Specified complexity Fine-tuned universe Intelligent designer Theistic realism

Intelligent design movement

Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture Wedge strategy Critical Analysis of Evolution Teach the Controversy Intelligent design in politics Santorum Amendment

Reactions to Intelligent design

Jewish · Roman Catholic Scientific organizations

Part of the series on

Creationism

History of creationism Neo-Creationism

Christian views

Day-age creationism Gap Creationism Old Earth creationism Progressive creationism Theistic evolution Young Earth creationism

Non-Christian views

Hindu · Islamic · Jewish

Creation Theology

Creation in Genesis Genesis as an allegory Framework interpretation Omphalos hypothesis

Creation science

Baraminology Flood geology Intelligent design

Controversy

Politics of creationism ... in public education History Teach the Controversy Associated articles This box: view • talk • edit

[edit] Input appreciated

I would greatly appreciate input in discussions surrounding content of Jewish reactions to intelligent design. My interference appears to have gotten this and Jewish opposition to evolution blocked. I apologise. But I think both articles need serious attention less they waltz into OR and essay gray areas.--ZayZayEM 09:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)