Talk:Creationism and Intelligent Design

Intelligent design merge

Preparing for merger by attaching edit histories ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia edit history

1. (cur) (last) 22:36, July 4, 2005 192.117.107.224
2. (cur) (last) 22:40, July 3, 2005 FreplySpang (vfd - nominate for deletion)
3. (cur) (last) 22:29, July 3, 2005 Simpletoremember

Wikiquote edit history

   * (cur) (last)  06:35, 26 August 2005 MosheZadka (remove more quotes which are already in merged page)
   * (cur) (last) 06:29, 26 August 2005 MosheZadka (removed several quotes already on Creationism and Intelligent design)
   * (cur) (last) 08:14, 27 July 2005 Jeffq (Revised intro to reduce POV content and irrelevant prose. Standardized article title citation.)
   * (cur) (last) 02:52, 20 July 2005 MosheZadka (merge)
   * (cur) (last) 02:46, 20 July 2005 24.251.234.191 (transwiki from wikipedia)

Sectioning

Would it be helpful to separate "pro" and "anti" quotations here? Most of the quotations are resoundingly anti-creationist (perhaps unsurprisingly), but there are several creationist quotations mixed in there. Seems to me it'd be helpful to tease them apart. Any complaints if I do this? Cheers, --Plumbago 12:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

On that note, I'm removing the Einstein quote: putting his pantheistic views in an article about creationism is misleading. 89.211.50.230 14:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the quote, but it is still on the page. does anyone know why this is? thanks 89.211.50.230 07:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fred Hoyle O-16 quote

Is the quote about ¹⁶O (oxygen-16) actually from Fred Hoyle? It seems odd that someone would refer to himself in the third person in an scientific article solely written by himself. I suspect the source attribution may be in error (e.g., perhaps it was several authors, or someone else entirely). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It does sound wrong, doesn't it. I reckon it's been cut and pasted badly, and that it's actually two quotes separated by the Fred Hoyle text from the cited source. I'm not sure how best to re-cut it and retain its sense. --Plumbago 17:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I should have thought of that myself. A little digging turned up the following article containing the exact quote:

• Ross, Hugh; President, Reasons to Believe. " Design and the Anthropic Principle". Reasons.org. Retrieved on 2006-09-13.

This is actually Ross supposedly quoting from the cited Hoyle text. The original quote, of course, would have more impact, coming from the professional astronomer rather than the lesser-known president of an organization obviously wishing to promote this viewpoint, but I imagine the web site was easier to fetch than an excerpt from a scholarly paper. I'll correct the citation, but here is original Hoyle citation (which is also included in Ross's "References" in the article), properly formatted, in case someone wants to dig it up:

• Hoyle, Fred (1982). "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections". Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 20: p. 16. ISSN 0066-4146.

Thanks for the suggestion, Plumbago. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Topic grouping

Why are "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" lumped together? Are they not vastly different theories? You might just as well have one topic for "Creationism" and another for "Intelligent Design and Evolution".

Or is this page intended to represent the controversy between creationism and intelligent design? If so, that does not seem to be reflected in the selection of quotes. –Cúthalion (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design is a carbon copy of creationsim and hence they are put together to avoid confusion. 89.211.50.230 14:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)