Is the Wikipedia page on Intelligent Design biased?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Tim

But I did in fact present evidence, the fact that it was the opinion of a prominent Philosopher of Science, published in a peer-reviewed journal. I have also presented evidence suggestive that this opinion may be widespread in Academia.

You have presented nothing that would suggest that a “defin[ition of] pseudo science and [a] show[ing of] why ID meets this category” is necessary to carry this argument.

I will also ignore your rather blatant and childish attempts at baiting.

You are a bright guy and if this was true you could explain it. You know you cannot because it is a false claim. ID is not pseudo science because we can test the claim using humans as a test bed. You can use the scientific method to directly test it. This is not true for most of macro evolutionary theory.

@Mercer

Easy. No ID proponent has ever advanced or tested a single scientific hypothesis. It’s all rhetoric and no science, evidenced by your framing above.

We have discussed Behe/Snoke’s model here. There have been years of knock out experiments on the flagellum. There is Winston’s paper we discussed. There is also Axe’s experiment. Are you really taking an unbiased look at ID?