DarthAtom

Now that you have an account, welcome to Wikipedia! -- Ec5618 22:04, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

a question about one of your ID changes

I don't know, BTW, what the best way to reference your change is.... Here is a URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&diff=22646168&oldid=22645978

My question is basically whether or not proponents of ID (either on their own or officially) agree with the statement, "a claim for the existence of an unobservable phenomenon violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability".

Your edit seems to imply that you believe that they would disagree with this statement. Is there evidence of this? If not, then your edit obfuscates the matter by implying a rift where there is none. If so, then I would think that there must be (at least) some shade of difference in the meaning given to these terms by the two camps. (none of which are defined by ID, based on the article)

I have no idea, of course, whether you can speak for any of these people in an official capacity, but overall, your edits do seem to indicate that you are defending their POV. Therefore, I am wondering if you can explain the reason for the edit.

--Wmarkham 23:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi DarthAtom,

Just saw your posts on the ID talk page and wanted to let you know that we seem to have a similar take on ID. I've put together a Wikiproject for people interested in ID, and until we have a substantial representation, I find it useless to try to make accurate changes to the ID page. Check this summer's talk archives, and you'll see my futile attempts to persuade the faceless masses toward balancing the page.

Drop me a line if I can help you in any way. David Bergan 06:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)