Talk:Timeline of intelligent design

Creationism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Article: Excellent and Ironic

Loved the article. Creationism couldn't survive. So it changed and adapted. Became, eventually, ID. ID failed in court. ID proponents examine the most recent court decisions to find ways to adapt their ideas to the current environment. Creationism evolves before our very eyes, and the irony is completely lost on its supporters. 74.128.143.21 04:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)kjdamrau[reply]

You'll probably find it worthwhile downloading http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/media/nova-id-briefing.pdf for the cartoon :) .. dave souza, talk 16:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a strong link is questionible

I don't see strong links between the Creationism of the 80's and the later ID movement, while there may be some figures that went from one position to the latter, my impression is that there are mostly different leaders in each group, ID is not concerned with defending any specific religious view of origins (the YEC's have criticised them for this), the only views they seem to largely share in common is the concept of an intelligent creator/designer and a rejection of a purely undesigned view of origins, I don't think this is specifically secterian or religious, but mostly philosophical. Granted most of the leaders in ID are religious, but they are not mostly Genesis literalists, while ALL the YEC's are fundamentalists and literalists. Even with the few points in common, it doesn't follow that one 'evolved' into the other, ID and creationism may have emerged distinctly from larger social movements with some later cross pollenation. Even with any overlap, they mostly remain distinct. Rickal66 03:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)rickal66[reply]

Anti-evolution creationism which really began in the 1920s was at that time OEC, and the only YEC proponents were 7th Day Adventists. YEC creation science began in 1961, and when ID started in all but name with The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Charles Thaxton and Dean Kenyon's affadavit, both in 1984, it's clear that Kenyon was content to push for a "creation science" that avoided defending any specific religious view of origins. These are the authors that coined the term "intelligent design" in 1987, and they were in contact with the next generation including Johnson and Behe, joining them as early members of the DI's CRSC / CSC. Both Behe and Johnson got their ideas from the book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton. ID has been described as progressive creationism, and aims to be compatible with both YEC and OEC, like Denton's book promoting anti-evolution as a way of opening science classrooms to the teaching of various forms of creationism, and defeating constitutional separation of church and state. Various forms of creationism fight each other, but ID was aimed at providing a "big tent" campaign for all of them. Read the Wedge document. .. dave souza, talk 16:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

65.4.31.33 23:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC) While there are points of contact in the beginning, I still see them as largely distinct movements, hasn't Micheal Denton moved away from traditional ID? Is he even a Christian?[reply]

The timeline assumes a divergence (it doesn't talk about non-ID creationism after the 80s), although there is still movement between ID and other creationist groups. Guettarda 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cdesign proponentsists

Missing link found. Please see discussion at Talk:Intelligent design#cdesign proponentsists--ZayZayEM 00:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute

The article, in particular the "creation becomes intelligent design, “' cdesign proponentsists'" implies a level of imvolvement between creationism and ID that hasn't been substaniated. It associates people, but not the ideas. 19:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atari2 (talk • contribs)

It's been well substantiated, not least at the Kitzmiller trial, that ID has creationist roots. More specifically, as shown in the cdesign proponentsists section with several sources, the concepts remained the same when the label was changed from "creation" to "intelligent design". Same people, same ideas. As this critique states, "all of the basic arguments of these ID proponents are found in essentially modern form in the 1989 Of Pandas and People (Behe's irreducibly complexity argument is found in the 1993 edition of Pandas)." You've not given any sources for your argument, so I'll remove the tag for now, please show sources if you want to discuss this further. . . dave souza, talk 00:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timeline of intelligent design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.equip.org/free/DL303.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution News

Intelligent alien

This blog post is used to support several points in the timeline but is actually an argument that ID is not creationism. It's also not considered a reliable source so I'll tag it as such, a better alternative can likely be found. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 10:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, some instances can be deleted and in other cases there will be better alternatives. Will aim to help with this soon, . .. dave souza, talk 00:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PaleoNeonate – Done, think it works as WP:ABOUTSELF in couple of instances, see what you think. . dave souza, talk 11:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I agree that the source is fine to cite its own main argument briefly like is done now. —Paleo Neonate – 13:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]