The intelligent design articles have never really been in a state where rational proponents of ID (they do exist) would agree that their views are represented neutrally, though I think they've been getting closer. I say this as a trained biochemist, a former supporter of intelligent design, and a historian of evolutionary biology in training. The main issue is the choice of which sources are considered significant/reliable enough to be included, since there is a wealth of potential sources for each side. Many of the anti-intelligent design sources I would consider of dubious objectivity, even though I agree with their objectives to prevent the political aspects of the ID Movement from gaining power in the educational system (as well as their conclusion that ID is no serious competition to evolutionary theory). In particular, Mark Perakh, Forrest & Gross, and Eugenie Scott (among others) are polemicists whose work responds to the political and ideological aspects of ID and does not attempt to engage seriously with the (limited but real) intellectual aspects.
The other problem is the intractable one of which aspects to emphasize and which not to. I've occasionally tried to insert material about the diversity of thought within the ID movement and among those who study it, but it generally gets removed as not significant (which I believe from personal experience not to be the case, but haven't seen any real evidence one way or the other).
Fortunately, I think there are a couple of scholarly treatments of ID in the works from historians and social scientists (science studies scholars, broadly speaking) who are not primarily approaching the issue as part of the anti-ID movement. (The proceedings of this year's Terry Lectures at Yale, which will take place today and tomorrow and eventually be published, are one example.) This will make obtaining less inherently controversial sources considerably easier.
-Ragesoss
On 9/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
.. and they're going to spam our e-mail queue: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/wikipedia_youre_on_notice.html
It would be nice to get some evolutionary biologists to review our entries on the respective topics systematically. I suspect there's probably a lot of creationist POV creep already.
It would also be nice to get some creationists to review our entries on Creatonism and Intelligent Design systematically; I suspect there's a lot of evolutionist POV creep.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l