	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Creationism: Intelligent design

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Bibliographies

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Recommend entering/converting references to use the following cite book tool: "Jane Doe (2006). Book Title. Book Publisher. ISBN 0123456789." Jane Doe (2006). Book Title. Book Publisher. ISBN 0123456789. DLH 13:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recomemnd further subcategorizing book by

Popular

World View, Methodology

  Pearcey Total Truth 2005
  Coulter Godless 2006 etc.

Technical

  Behe Darwin's Black Box

Highly Technical

  Dembski Design Inference 1998

Title

Recommend changing the page to: "Intelligent Design works"

Need to coordinate or combine this page with "Intelligent Design books"DLH 23:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added:

External Links

with link to Research Intelligent Design bibliographyDLH 23:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Walker work

I think it does not fit here. Fad (ix) 21:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists Confront

Godfrey, Laurie R. and Andrew J. Petto. Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism. W.W. Norton.

Amazon and Norton websites.

Since I'm a contributor to the anthology, I'll suggest this here for addition to the critical section. If I don't hear objections, I'll add it later if it hasn't already been added by that time. --Wesley R. Elsberry 12:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Hrafn42 13:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advantages of Theft Over Toil

Wilkins, John S, and Wesley R Elsberry. 2001. The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance. Biology and Philosophy 16 (November):711-724. Online version. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add this? It looks like a paper, not a book. --Filll (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not -- it has sections for "Papers, Articles" & at least one of the authors is notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the notability issue when it comes to peer-reviewed papers is the reputation of the publishing journal. Biology and Philosophy has a good reputation. I'd appreciate it if someone would go ahead and add the reference. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Did I mention that I really hate {{cite journal}} -- what sort of mutant template only lets you do an automatic author-link for the first author? :( Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil in Dover

Lauri Lebo's book, "The Devil in Dover", is available now.

This is a personal account of the Kitzmiller v. DASD IDC case by a local journalist who provided some of the best coverage during the trial. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done (I've classified it under 'Neutral'). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By Date

Wouldn't it be far more productive to arrange the publications by date, instead of by author? 74.250.162.67 (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Readers looking for a book are more likely to know who wrote it than when it was published. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

does "neutral" make any sense?

I found this page searching for information on Stanley Salthe. I was surprised to find that the book I am reading, "Development and Evolution", is listed as "neutral" on the question of intelligent design. The idea that Salthe (or many other authors on the list) are neutral (i.e., take no position on whether or not the best explanation of biological complexity is an intelligent, God-like agent) is absurd. The fact that intelligent design is not mentioned in Salthe's book does not mean the book is "neutral" on the question -- any more than it makes the latest Harry Potter film neutral on the same question. Is there any rationale? 192.12.12.155 (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take 'neutral' to mean neither fully in the camp of evolution nor ID. This description would certainly fit Fodor's book (which, while not promotional of ID, certainly received praise from the ID community and condemnation from the scientific community). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten how silly wikipedia was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.90.185 (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of a "neutral" category is ridiculous. This article is itself biased through abuse of these categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.115.207 (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of works on intelligent design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on List of works on intelligent design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of works on intelligent design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]