Talk:Intelligent design

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intelligent design article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article contains a translation of Intelligent design from en.wikipedia.

Smarter? God?[change source]

I don't think 'smarter force' is a good synonym for 'intelligent designer'. The word 'smarter' is a comparison whereas the term intelligent designer is suppose to imply a designer who has the ability of free thought. Whilst those who believe in intelligent design may see the designer as an entity that is smarter than any human, the name in no way implies that (if the designer was no smarter than an infant it would still be considered an 'intelligent designer').

128.250.5.246 (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest...opinions always welcome.-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 07:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see 'intelligent designer' as a synonym for 'intelligent agent', and thus I don't think you need to go all the way to the idea of free thought and the various comparisons of intelligence as they relate to infants, grown adults, and beyond. 'smarter force' doesn't seem all that bad when you compare it to say the elementary rules that are currently attributed to particle interactions. 68.175.118.95 (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extend?[change source]

Does anyone feel like extending this? - I mean EnWP has an 180kb article (that is the equivalent of a Very good article here). On the other hand, all we get is a one-paragraph article? --Eptalon (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to help where I can, though the article might need a POV check (and what I think is more likely, a check to see if it's scientifically correct) after I'm done. :) Love, —Clementina talk 06:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article still needs to be expanded[change source]

Most of the article is just examples of how evolutionists criticize the theory, not what the theory is. Would it be more appropriate to split that off to a separate page, say, 'Criticism of Intelligent Design', then reserve this article solely for what they believe? Enthdegree (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One-Sided[change source]

The article here says that Creationists created intelligent Design to go around legal arguments that don't allow Creationism to be taught in schools. I don't think this is NPOV. What do you think? Frogger48 (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really NPOV because it is explaining the origins of creationism. That is crucial to any article talking about it. Not to mention it is sourced. -DJSasso (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]