Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Intelligent design

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:44, 23 February 2007.

---

Intelligent design

Archive Excellent work on a highly controversial topic. It does have difficulties: It's a discredited arguement, (c.f. s:Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_et_al.), but a few, very vocal people still propogate it. A balance was, with great difficulty, attempted, and I think it comes as near to WP:NPOV (noting the "Undue weight" clause) as possible. What d'ye think? Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose There remains some unsourced theories and material in the Intelligence as an observable quality. Until that is resolved I don't think the article can proceed yet.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 18:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Working on it... Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Meets the FA criteria and one of Wikipedia's better supported articles. Oft cited offsite as a good article on the topic by neutral sources such as School Library Journal, Jurist legal news and research, Univertisty of Pittsburgh, Talk of the Nation on National Public Radio, and Librarian and Information Science News. Offered as a source by Salon and as a primer by Science & Theology News. FeloniousMonk 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment 21 citations in the lead??? It's meant to be a summary of the article where information is referenced in the body. Web sources are missing date retrieved and publisher (website). Image:Time evolution wars.jpg is missing a fair use rationale - too many external links. M3tal H3ad 07:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, some of these seem like valid critiques and need to be addressed. However, just responding to the first concern 21 citations in the lead- the presence of those citations is due the controversial nature of topic which has resulted in everything being cited in great detail even when something is arguably a summary of a later information in the article. JoshuaZ 07:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you read through WP:LEAD, it would appear that the lead should be supported like any other text (after all, it isn't an abstract). Anyway, there's a reason that everything is cited. Guettarda 14:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional support An incredibly impressive article given the controversial nature of the topic. If this made FA it would serve as a great example of how this sort of thing ought to be done. But... according to WP:WIAFA, it really needs a "References" section that lists all of the sources that have been cited in the article. Given the number of footnotes, I don't envy the person who puts it together. But it really has to be done. MLilburne 11:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - this is an excellent article and is especially well referenced. Guettarda 14:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - fair use image (magazine cover) not significant to article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: it’s a good article, but there are some issues that stop me from supporting just now:
  • The article (correctly) portrays the issue as endemic to the USA, but this is only said explicitly once, in the ‘Movement’ section, and it is not cited there. If I understand correctly, there should be a mention of this earlier in the article (maybe in the lead?) and there should be some kind of citation to substantiate the geographical disparity.
  • There are several definitions of ‘science’ or ‘scientific method’ in the article that are not thoroughly referenced. It may be enough to have them all share one footnote, but that footnote must appear next to each.
  • Per the Manual of Style punctuation at the end of an inline quoted passage should be outside the quotes, “like this”, unless “the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation (‘logical’ quotations).” (Also, I happen to prefer Unicode quotation marks to ASCII quotation marks, but that’s not an objection to the article.)
  • Use a consistent dash style (outside of quotations, where of course the dashes should be preserved). Apparently the preferred style for the article is to use spaced em-dashes — like this —, but I’ve noticed several en-dashes.
  • There should be no spaces between punctuation marks and subsequent ref tags.

  —xyzzy_n 22:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Minor object. Not comprehensive - no treatment of how it is viewed outside US, UK and Australia. Also, there are some unreferenced paragraphs. See also is very large, per MoS the relevant terms should be incorporated in text. Finally - can we have some pictures?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this is largely because it, as opposed to creationism, hasn't actually spread beyond those countries. Trying to find evidence of this. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article on a controveisal topic. I do have a small quibble with the criteria listed in 'Defining intelligent design as science'. It says a theory must be "Correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)" while at the same time being falsifiable. These would seem to be contradictory. Given that the "Evolution can't be falsified" argument is a common ID canard, this should probably be clarified. Raul654 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Whatever happened to the policy that the lead is supposed to be free of references? That's a rhetorical question by the way (please don't waste your time and tell me to read WP:LEAD. I practically have it memorized). The load of references in the lead is ugly beyond comprehension. Quadzilla99 17:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The rule as we have defined it is that the lead should established the notability of th subject, and summarize information found in the rest of the article. Thus, for a properly written lead, refs are not necessary, but not prohited either. This article is fine. Raul654 17:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I could explain the rule to you backwards with my eyes closed so there's no need to attempt to explain it to me. I commented the lead was ugly and your basic response was "This article is fine." Quadzilla99 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If you know what the rules are, you wouldn't have said "Whatever happened to the policy that the lead is supposed to be free of references?" when no such policy has ever existed. Raul654 02:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Ugly but funtional. Being a controversial topic, content (especially in the lead) is regularly challenged or removed, especially by new editors. Referencing every statement in the lead reduces this problem, and thus improves the stability of the article. Guettarda 16:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment as per comments below

• 2.5 out of the 3 lead paras discuss the controversy of the topic, and what it is not. More info needs to be put in on what it *IS*.
• The lead para, as per wikipedia policy, should not be so heavily cited
• You do not distinguish between footnotes and citations. See Roman-Spartan War for a far better way of distinguishing the two
• The "Creationism" navbar template is flawed, since it puts all the articles listed on a single footing and puts ID and Hindu Creationism on a similar footing, whereas ID and Young Earth Creationism are a sub-theory of "creation science", which is itself a subsection of christian creationism.
• "The stated purpose of intelligent design is to investigate whether or not existing empirical evidence implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents" - "intelligent design" doesn't have a stated purpose, it is just a concept. People have purposes, concepts don't.
• "ID" - I don't like this acronym being used, since it has a much more common usage for another word. I'd use the full phrase.
• "Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern development of natural theology " Weasel words. Find someone who does say that and cite it, or don't say it at all.
• "Examples offered in the past included the eye (optical system) and the feathered wing; current examples are mostly biochemical" Why? Were the earlier examples disproved? If so, I would mention this, it seems apposite.
• Proceedural Aside - I'm not sure I like the idea of the Featured Article Director supporting FAC nominations and contributing to discussions. the FAD is supposed to objectively review the comments made and reach a conclusion on consensus, this will surely be hampered by a personal involvement in discussion on the article

  I don't want to put too fine a point on this (so don't take what I'm about to say personally), but your comment is flatly wrong. I have been participating on the FAC for years, including making both support and oppose comments. My involvement in this case has been limited (A) to reviewing the article and determining whether or not it meets the criteria, which is something I unequivocally reserve the right to do AT ANY TIME to any article nominated on the FAC, and (B) giving clarification to others involved on this FAC nom as to issues of policy (since this is a topic where policies tend to get invoked a lot, both rightly and wrong). Raul654 05:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Raul's comments have no more or less weight than those of any other registered user. Consequently, there is no reason to bar him from contributing. TimVickers 23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

When these are fixed, I am happy to support - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. This is not an article about Intelligent Design, but an article against Intelligent Design. Many of the criticisms may be referenced, but that the criticism is there, especially in the quantity it is, is POV-pushing. This is not a neutral article, but an anti-ID article.

• The criticism begins in the introduction, and 70% of the introduction comprises criticism or rejection of the idea.
• Almost every section other than perhaps the sections under "Overview" includes criticism of the aspect of ID being explained.
• One section ("Arguments from ignorance") is entirely criticism, without even putting an ID answer to that criticism.
• It argues some points rather than documenting them, such as the second paragraph under "Peer Review".
• It makes demonstrably wrong claims. The claim (in the first sentence under "Peer Review") that there have been no peer-reviewed ID papers, whilst supported by the first of the two references supplied, is contradicted by the second reference (which tries to dismiss the paper, but does acknowledge that is was peer-reviewed). It also overlooks likely ID papers published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Creation.

The above is not meant as an exhaustive list, but merely to provide actual examples of the bias in this article. Philip J. Rayment 15:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the peer review comment, the article states "To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal". This is what the sources say. The "Journal of Creation" is not a peer reviewed science journal. Guettarda 16:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That is NOT what the second reference says. The second reference acknowledges that there was a peer-reviewed ID article, as I said above.

The Journal of Creation is (a) peer-reviewed, (b) has articles about science, and (c) is a journal. So your counter claim is false.

Philip J. Rayment 23:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The peer review section could be better cited but the rest of your claims are less than persuasive. If a topic gets a lot of criticism, it isn't NPOV to pretend otherwise. If every single aspect of an idea is rejected by the larger scientific community, that should be clear. Meanwhile, attempting to argue that content published in an avowedly creationist "journal" constitutes peer review of ID is funny at so many different levels...(and in any event, we have reliable sources saying there is no peer review material making your personal opinion about what constitutes peer reviewed papers irrelevant)JoshuaZ 16:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Where did I suggest that the article should pretend that the topic doesn't get a lot of criticism? I didn't. And neither did I say that it shouldn't be clear that it's all rejected by the majority of the scientific community. Both those points could be briefly mentioned (not argued). I said that the article should be about ID, not against ID, which is how it is at the moment.

What provokes your sense of humour is irrelevant. That the Journal of Creation is peer reviewed is NOT merely a personal opinion. It is a fact, despite what your apparently unreliable sources claim. If you still maintain that it is not peer-reviewed, could you please show me where these "reliable sources" claim that the Journal of Creation is not peer-reviewed. I will be interested to see if they exist, and if they do, whether they have anything to back up the claim or are mere assertion.

Philip J. Rayment 23:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Reviewed by a peer, to make sure it follows creationist values" is not what is generally meant by "peer-review". I suppose that definining terms might help here. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It would help enormously if you didn't invent a fictional definition to argue your case. Philip J. Rayment 04:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review. Since you obviously have no idea what it means. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Me? You're the one that invented a definition. Instead of insulting me, how about you actually explain the alleged problem? Philip J. Rayment 12:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please show me some evidence that JC is "peer reviewed science"? It isn't ISI indexed, and while the Instructions to Authors say "Do not use too many big or extra words", there's nothing about peer review or any idea of the composition of the editorial committee. The assertion that there are no ID publications in peer reviewed scientific publications is supported by references, including evidence under oath by ID-proponent Michael Behe. Do you have any reputable references which say otherwise? Guettarda 02:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're simply looking for something that says that the Journal of Creation is peer-reviewed, see here.

I don't know why you are asking for a reference for peer-reviewed ID articles when I've already pointed out twice that one of the two references in the article to the very statement in question talks about such an article!

Philip J. Rayment 04:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Rayment's "strong oppose," appears to be just the sort of objection with no basis in policy or fact that is discussed here Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Intelligent_design as a bad faith or clueless objection. FeloniousMonk 16:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think that no matter what the answer was to one of Rainman's objections, including agreeing with him, he'd find some reason why the answer was wrong and simply raise another specious objection. Best not to feed the trolls. •Jim62sch• 22:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to both FeloniousMonk and Jim62sch: Your responses appear to be merely dismissal of opposing views based on your own POVs. I have provided specifics as to what is wrong with the article, and neither of you has attempted to address them. And calling me names is not a valid form of argument. Philip J. Rayment 22:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And they have provided specifics as to what is wrong with your objections. It’s not a fallacy when it’s justified. —xyzzy_n 23:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I struggle to understand how you could possibly say that. Perhaps you are referring to the various people who have attempted to respond to my objections. In that case, I'll clarify that I was talking specifically about FeloniousMonk and Jim62sch, who have not replied to my objections here at all. The other objections have been answered. Philip J. Rayment 12:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that the Journal of Creation can Peer Review ID is abusing the concept of peer review. The term “Peer” refers to colleagues in the domain the subject is covering(experts in the field). ID wants itself to be a biology related domain, a scientific hypothesis. It should therefore be reviewed by biologists. It is not peer reviewing to submit a biology related article to “astrologists.” This doesn’t mean ID is not valid, it just mean that ID has not been published in a peer reviewed journal, I believe this needs clarification by adding “scientific”, since when the term “Peer Reviewed” is used, it is in connection to science related journals. ID being also about creationism, I do admit that we can call it Peer review if it is reviewed by some “experts” in creationism like theologists. But it sure is not a “Peer Reviewed Science” it might be “Peer reviewed theology” though. So further clarification there could be worthwhile. I too have a problem with the introduction but the rest of your critics I don't believe are valid. Fad (ix) 21:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fad, I agree with the your description of what peer review is, but not with the unstated implication that the Journal of Creation doesn't do this. What gives you the idea that papers in the JoC are not reviewed by "colleagues in the domain the subject is covering(experts in the field)"? Your objection amounts to a slur against the JoC unless you can demonstrate the JoC does not do this. Philip J. Rayment 02:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

“Demosntrating” is quite a strong word. I don’t have to support the thesis that they do not peer review, since this would be a logical fallacy. The existence and not the non existence should be supported. Do you have evidences that the JoC peer review in any field of science? If not, then we can’t claim it is peer reviewed science. Fad (ix) 04:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would it be a "logical fallacy"? And do you put the onus to demonstrate peer review on all claimants of it, or just creationists? Philip J. Rayment 11:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The onus to support the position is on all claimants of existence. Nothing to do with creationists. This is how science work, I am not talking about sceptic organizations or other systems which claim to do science by trying to “prove” non existence. This article doesn’t mean the ID hypothesis is fake, it just highlight that it is not peer reviewed science and that this is not what most scientists believe. It is also pathetic that we need to transform such articles into a kind of “polling scientists” thing, which if you ask me is a success for those contributors who support ID. It’s obvious that most scientists support natural selection, obvious, we don’t go on writing thousands of words and polling articles by citing how most scientist believe in a well established hypothesis. If we are at a point that this need to be done, scientists are at the defensive and this reaction is a defence mechanism. Fad (ix) 16:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Is there any reason why the Discovery Institute's reprint of "Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure" is cited along with the original version from The American Spectator website? They say the same thing, and I don't have to worry about how on Earth I am supposed to indicate where it's reprinted using the template. Unless they have policy of making content unfree after a certain period of time, which seems rather unlikely given the date of publication, I see no reason to include the reprint.

And all web references --Rmky87 22:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not whether or not the referneces go to the web but whether or not they are reliable. One of the most cited sources is the testimony and ruling in the Kitzmer case (and specifically, links to them on the web). These are reliable. So to complain that they are "all web references" is to focus on the wrong thing. Raul654 02:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant that they should all have retrieval dates and other information like whether or not it is part of a larger work, who wrote it, who published it, when it was published/last updated, etc. I must have hit enter by mistake.--Rmky87 02:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- well-written and fully supported by references (which are necessary, BTW, given the controversial nature of the topic). •Jim62sch• 22:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, unless the section on the movement is reduced ' to a sentence or two leading to its article. & the section on Controversy made NPOV. ID (despite the motives on many of its proponents) is an intelligible argument, very much more difficult to refute than many other creationist positions. The article should be devoted to it in its own right, with of course the arguments against it. Having the material on the Movement is inherently NPOV, and the actual section on the movement is entirely NPOV without any defense of the Movement. Further, the section on the controversy is entirely devoted to arguments against ID. This is reasonable, except that there should be a rejoinder of similar some reasonable though not necessarily equal length--and there isn't. I notice that summaries of the same arguments is also placed at the end of each of the sections on the theory itself. (As for personal POV, let me mention that I am not a supporter of ID in any sense of the word, and most certainly not a supporter of the Movement) DGG 21:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment This strikes me as another clueless objection since it references policies and FA requirements that do not exist. Can you please point us to the specific policy or FA requirement that specifies that sections of articles detailing controversies must have a "a rejoinder of similar length" and where sections that have spin out articles must be only "a sentence or two." Wikipedia:Content forking notwithstanding, is simply a guideline, and there is no way you can properly summarize a topic as complicated as the movement as required by WP:NPOV in one or two sentences. Unless you can provide specific policy to support your objection, it runs the risk of being discounted here. FeloniousMonk 22:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, from WP:NPOV, below. You are right that it doesn't have to be equal, but the basic requirement is that you cannot make criticisms from one side and not include replies. The section on criticism needs some perhaps smallish amount of ID rejoinder.

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.... Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.''DGG' 01:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You're cherry picking from the NPOV policy. As the ID article states, ID is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. The WP:NPOV policy tells us when writing about pseudoscience: "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." (emphasis in original) WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. Clearly the article complies with WP:NPOV exactly, and your undue weight objection is baseless. FeloniousMonk 05:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It might also help both of you to have a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Principles Raul654 05:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not the least objection to adding the category pseudoscience, because, in summary, that is what I think it is. I can argue for it, but as Writing for the enemy. A category should indicate the various aspects of an article & pseudoscience is certainly one of them, and I have never said otherwise. But this is pseudoscience defended from another viewpoint. There's also the viewpoint of the ID Movement. Personally, i have an extremely negative view of many of the activities discussed there, but I do not think this theory owes its origin there--rather, it was conveniently at hand for adoption as being something not overtly ridiculous. ID still needs a serious presentation, and the article as a whole can not sum up for or against it. The reader will do that, and with a fair presentation and a good article, the reader will do that correctly. The reader without preconceptions will do so even without a slanted POV.

To write as much from the creationist point of view as from the mainstream point of view would give undue weight to the creationists. As for uncritical description, none of ID’s notability is directly due to its propositions so we shouldn’t waste any paragraphs on it. —xyzzy_n 22:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right that it need not necessarily be as much, but something. .DGG 00:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design is supposed to be a "scientific" topic (it was designed to get around the Edward case, which declared that creation science was religion, not science. In the 20 years it has been around, something like 300,000 papers are published a year in the biological sciences; almost all of them work within the neo-darwinian paradigm. Even taking the broadest view of "publications" (ie, stuff in ISCID, etc) you're looking at something like 1 in a million papers which use the "paradigm" of ID, no matter how broadly...and these handful of papers have almost never been citationed by others (which is the currency of scientific publication). So, when it comes down to it, the ID perspective is given far too much space in this article. It's an incredibly tiny fringe position in science. So to say it need not necessarily be as much suggests a lack of understanding of the situation. Guettarda 06:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Those complaining about citations in the lead paragraph need to consider the nature of the topic. They are essential for such a controversial subject such as this, and are needed for stability, though I recommend condensing a few of the multiple footnotes into one note, rather than having a horizontal line of footnote numbers referencing one point. See example here

Also, as I commented above over a week ago, there are still some unsourced ideas and statements and my oppose still stands.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 00:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you must admit that it's far better than it was. Give it a little more time. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work on clipping the references in the lead, indeed it is better now. As far as I'm concerned its just the unsourced points lower down the page.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 03:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. The article seems NPOV to me. An article on Adolf Hitler would include a great deal of negative information, and an anrticle on Martin Luther King Jr. would include a great deal of positive inofrmation. Likewise, an article on a discredited pseudoscientific theory would make that fact — that it is discredited both in United States courts and scientific circles — and therefore would include a great deal of negative information. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

the Article on Adolf Hitler is almost entirely devoted to a factual summary of his deeds, including several paragraph-length quotations from his work. There is no quotation from any of his opponents either in the text or the notes, though there are links. The only part that contains comment is "Since the defeat of Germany in World War II, Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism have been regarded in most of the world as synonymous with evil. Historical and cultural portrayals of Hitler in the west are, by virtually universal consensus, condemnatory." And that is the only negative comment necessary. Similar political leaders are treated in a similar fashion.DGG

So you are trying to say that the Adolf Hitler article is written from Nazi-party approved sources? It's entirely (or almost entirely) written from the perspective of "the other side". The entire article is written from a "negative slant"...I don't see any party-approved sources. And, you really need to read the article more carefully - it's full of negative statements (like that he dodged taxes on Mein Kampf) or the statement that "Opponents unconnected with the SA were also murdered". Guettarda 07:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think he would have much objected to the article as a whole. The objective things that are said there are things he intended to do, knew he was doing, and generally did not try to hide. When he did what he did, he boasted about it. But back to our subject:

This should be such an article that the ID people could say--yes, it presents ID fairly. Naturally, we don't agree with the negative criticisms, but we have answered them, and anyone who believes as we do will see the merit of our case. And the strong evolutionists (like myself) could say, Yes it presents ID fairly, and it give our objections clearly, and although the ID people have tried to answer them, anyone who knows about science will see the justice of our case. DGG 07:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That’s not what WP:NPOV says. —xyzzy_n 17:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. I totally endorse Philip J. Rayment's comments. Wikipedia has justifiably been called "The Abomination that Causes Misinformation". No where is this more true than the hatchet jobs performed by admins on articles opposing evolutionary dogma, while they censor any criticism of the most rabid antitheists like Harris and Dawkins. Evidently their idea of NPOV is "agreeing with me". Compare The Six Sins of the Wikipedia60.242.13.87 04:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. A well balanced and well referenced article on a highly controversial topic. I would like to note that Rayment's objection that criticism is given too much weight is not conclusive. The controversy around ID and its total lack of success in the attempt to be accepted as science is much of what there is interesting about it, so the abundance of criticism in the article is absolutely justified. Kosebamse 19:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Adam (and to anyone else who is fixing the objections brought up here) - I'm satisfied that this article meets our criteria and all the valid objections have been dealt with. Finish off that last citation-requested tag and I'll promote the article. Raul654 22:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.