I tried to insert the following protest on the discussion page for the Wikipedia article on intelligent design, but discussion is closed; so I vent by preaching to you folks. I have not altered my original wording at all.
I have to protest the biased and ridiculous first paragraph of this article (as I have protested the similar lead of the Stephen C. Meyer article) even though no one here is listening. As with the Meyer article, it is unprofessional to include the controversial term "pseudoscientific" in the definition of a theory; it belongs rather in the discussion in the article under "Scientific criticism."
Further, the paragraph makes itself contemptible with its failure to understand a distinction relevant to the issue, when its calls ID "a form of creationism." An encyclopedia that cannot distinguish design from creation (who designed the Saturn V rocket? Was it the same set of persons who built it?) has no business offering any remarks concerning these subtle questions.
Further, the first paragraph asserts, as an uncontroversial fact, that "ID ...offers no testable or tenable hypotheses," without the writers apparently having glanced at testable hypotheses easily accessible in such articles as
A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design | Evolution News
The issue is not whether you, the reader, like intelligent design. The issue is whether Wikipedia comes across as a source of knowledge or as a swamp of dogma. -- John Harvey
™ Version 4.2