Talk:Intelligent design and science: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 107:

{{od}} BTW Pkl728, you've missed the memo: claiming that Intelligent Design "is not a minority view as 83% of Americans identify themselves as part of a religious denomination" kinda messes up the claim that it's science oh no not religion we wouldn't dream of teaching religion in science classes why that would be against the Constitution ;-) . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 22:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

::It's also misleading, and on top of that it's irrelevant. Regarding the former, being part of a religious domination is not equivalent to being an ID advocate. Regarding the latter, fringe is not defined by what percentage of [[Commoner|the masses]] accept an idea but rather by what the ''experts'' accept. Most Americans believe in astrology but astronomers and physicists don't and that is the POV from which we write the article. [[User:Noformation|<font color="black">N</font>^{<font color="red">o</font>}<font color="black">f</font><font color="red">o</font><font color="black">rmation</font>]] <font color="black">^{[[User talk:Noformation|Talk]]}</font> 23:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

:::If you have a peer-reviewed paper which argues against the theory of evolution, but doesn't mention ID, then shouldn't it be used in the Theistic Science article? There are other opinions and philosophical movements behind theistic science than just ID, aren't there? [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 06:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)