User talk:41.146.42.157

December 2017

avoid detection or circumvent the blocking policy will not succeed. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia but your recent edits have been reverted or removed. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Josan Spain Autovia (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is not "vandalizing Wikipedia". This is correcting gross bias and inaccurate propaganda. Intelligent Design is *not* a religious movement. That is a claim made by its opponents, but cannot be supported by the literature produced by the ID proponents themselves.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.146.42.157 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

There is

SkyWarrior 20:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

You cannot write a factually true article on a movement on the basis of the "consensus" of those who oppose that movement. Any fair minded person who actually read the books produced by the Intelligent Design movement will tell you this is a gross inaccuracy. If Intelligent Design is a religious movement, how is it that secular Paleontologist Günter Bechly found the arguments of the movement to be compelling? Calling Intelligent Design a "Religious" movement is either ignorant or dishonnest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.146.42.157 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

It is not a question of advocates and opponents (and describing it as such would constitute

WP:3RR). Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 12:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Bottom line is this: ID is *not* a religious argument. It never invokes religious arguments, religious texts or religious authorities, and it has support from secularists as well. It is the critics of ID who wants to falsely cast it in that light in order to avoid the arguments, but there is no evidence for that in the ID writings. I find it regrettable that a group of Wikipedia Gestapo members will insist on keeping even the grossest inaccuracies and undo even minor corrections. I see it is not the first time that someone tried to correct this article, and it most certainly would not be the last time. As the very least, I think it is ok to add "Citation needed" at the claim that Intelligent design is a religious movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.161.59.178 (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the sources and about the history of the movement. I also recommend the SAGE Encyclopedia of Time's entries on "Creationism" and "Design, Intelligent" (

ISBN 978-1-4129-4164-8) which are short and easy to follow. —Paleo Neonate – 15:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Not only have I read multiple books from the Intelligent Design movement itself, including "Darwin's Black Box", "The Edge of Evolution", "Signature in the Cell", and "Darwin's Doubt", among other, but I have also read about the *real* history of the movement in "Doubts about Darwin"By Thomas Woodward. The movement has no ties with Creationism, makes no religious arguments, and use no religious sources. Your sources are factually incorrect and is nothing more than slander, which was the typical result of the Darwinian establishment when faced with criticism they can't refute. It is in the interest of the Darwinian establishment to misrepresent the argument and the character of Intelligent Design. The fact that this article uses extremely biased and inaccurate sources such as "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals", in which Barbara Forrest makes numerous references to her own work to substantiate her claims against ID, proves that this article is anything but neutral or balanced. Accusations that the ID Movement wishes to impose a "theocracy" appears completely alien to their actual published work. Be that as it may, I have a life outside of Wikipedia, and I don't have time to argue with an army of hostile Wikipedia Gestapo who refuses to allow any corrections on this article, even though most of them probably never read any first hand sources themselves. Everyone already knows that Wikipedia is not to be relied upon, and this is article is a perfect demonstration why.