My point was not that the evidence for ID was overwhelming but that Wikipedia's beginning its article on ID with the term "pseudoscientific' was biased and juvenile.
In case someone hasn't already pointed this out, here's how the Wikipedia article on Astrology begins:
quote:Astrology is a pseudoscience that claims to divine information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects.
Here's how the Wikipedia article on Homeopathy begins:
quote:Homeopathy or homœopathy is a system of alternative medicine created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on his doctrine of like cures like (similia similibus curentur), a claim that a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people would cure similar symptoms in sick people. Homeopathy is a pseudoscience – a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific.
Wikipedia's introduction to its Flat Earth article includes this:
quote:Despite the scientific fact of Earth's sphericity, pseudoscientific flat Earth conspiracy theories are espoused by modern flat Earth societies and, increasingly, by unaffiliated individuals using social media.
Describing pseudoscience as pseudoscience makes perfect sense, which Wikipedia typically seems to do right in the introduction.