Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a44f4781c89a99fe

Jump to content

Talk:Wedge strategy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two audiences

[edit]

I'd like to expand our coverage of how the ID movement (1) reveals the religious nature and purpose of their approach to one audience but also (2) denies that ID is in any way religious to another audience. One place to start would be the "designer". Does intelligent design begin with a premise that life began because it was created (as in Creationism) by The Creator (as in God)? Or does it simply argue that scientific observations lead us to the logical conclusion that cells and organisms show evidence of "having been designed"?

I'd like to see a list of quotations from proponentsists (hee, hee!) acknowledging and boasting about the religious basis of ID. This would look great alongside a similar list of denials, evasions, rationalizations, etc., as they try to promote ID as properly secular and academic - having no connection to Creationism.

To ID opponents, this is all obvious, perhaps, but I'd like to make it more explicit for the reader. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

There are plenty of sources in the articles: for example, Timeline of intelligent design may help. . .dave souza, talk 20:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Socks

[edit]

Noting that Ethanfgrant and Cimerondagert were socks of Allenroyboy. —PaleoNeonate – 07:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't Wedge strategy (diplomacy) be the main article?

[edit]

It seems weird to me that "Wedge strategy" in the Creationism debate has the main article whereas the more widely understood "Wedge strategy" from diplomacy has the (diplomacy) in parenthesis. Shouldn't it be the reverse? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you...I'm guessing that since Wedge strategy (diplomacy) is such a small and undeveloped article that that is the reason...but that doesn't mean it needs to stay that way.---Avatar317(talk) 01:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply