The Argument Clinic

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@Tim

@Eddie

Wikipedia is rarely a “reasonably good indication” of anything. Most of its authors are amateurs and dilettantes, writing about subjects in which they have zero academic training.

@Tim remembers that Eddie has demonstrated zero understanding of how Wikipedia actually works, or its strengths and weaknesses, so:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

He’s also demonstrated zero understanding of its contents, even for pages he claims familiarity with. I doubt I’ll ever forget this howler:

@Eddie

If Wikipedia would split its article into two, one on ID theory and one on the ID movement, and accurately characterize each, I would not have a problem.

So @Eddie, for all his ranting about the Wikipedia entry on ID, doesn’t know that Wikipedia does have a separate page for the ID movement. Even though that’s literally the first thing on Wikipedia’s page on “Intelligent Design”:

This article is about a specific pseudoscientific form of creationism. For generic arguments from “intelligent design”, see Teleological argument. For the movement, see Intelligent design movement.