Is the Wikipedia page on Intelligent Design biased?

[John_Harshman]

@Eddie

Do you mean my post to Ron Sewell?

No, I refer to this:

@Eddie

Several people here keep harping on the “nested hierarchy” thing, Bill. I gave up arguing with them about it long ago. First they always try to give the impression (even if they don’t claim it directly) that design is incompatible with a nested hierarchy, and bully their opponents into submission that way, but then, when it’s demonstrated that design is not incompatible with a nested hierarchy, they change the argument to: “Well, design is only compatible with a nested hierarchy, whereas unguided evolution predicts a nested hierarchy, so unguided evolution is the right view.” But of course, since either view is compatible with a nested hierarchy, the existence of such a hierarchy doesn’t constitute a proof that unguided evolution is true and design is false. A philosopher can see this, but apparently some scientists can’t.

Now of course the error here is something you impute to some other, unspecified persons. But does anyone say anything like that, much less “always”? You are commiserating with Bill about an error he is the major proponent of. Isn’t that an odd thing to do? Unless of course you are merely recognizing a fellow member of the tribe.