Category talk:Intelligent design advocates

Pseudoscientists
I have created a list at List of pseudoscientists to replace the deleted category. The list format will work better, as it allows for annotation of the entries and it should thus be less controversial to add items to the list. I have added Intelligent design movement to the list but have not added any explanation as I am not sufficiently well-versed on the topic. As such, I am removing the defunct Pseudoscientists category from this page. --Wclark 17:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing this category
It has not been established that all ID advocates are creationists and pseudoscientists. --Uncle Ed 16:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, so which ones aren't? &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 16:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If the scientific community view ID as pseudoscience, which it does, then promoters of ID are perforce promoting pseudoscience. FeloniousMonk 17:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But another contributor wrote, "It is fallacy to assume, that the existence of Pseudoscience imply the existence of "Pseudoscientists"."


 * I think the term your looking for is "Advocates of pseudoscience". Bush isn't a scientist of any kind, not even a "false" one, even if he supports a pseudoscienc. Coulter (according to you) doesn't even understand the science well enough to describe it, let alone to have developed it. She's not a pseudoscientist. --Uncle Ed 17:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The categorisation of this reflects category:intelligent design, which as you can read at intelligent design is pseudoscience. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 18:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is a designation for anything pretending to be scientific, or perhaps representing the scientific establishment, but in fact intended to make a political or social statement without having any empirical or logical substance behind it.

That being the case, nothing may be labeled "pseudoscience" unless there is "absolutely no" logical or empirical substance presented to back it up. Such as "straw man" attacks which attempt to discredit legitimate science by presenting lengthly essays attempting to expose their "political incorrectness" or supposed "religious bias".69.160.73.9 08:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing that cat, as WP only unofficially advocates atheism, not officially.

DarthSidious 08:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

HrafnTalkStalk 06:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * An argument can be made that all advocates of the pseudoscience of ID are "pseudoscientists". This is following the precedent of calling the advocates of creation science "creation scientists" and of Christian science "Christian scientists" -- it is merely a matter a semantics.
 * A stronger argument can be made for calling those, who represent their advocacy of ID as being a form of "scientific research", "pseudoscientists" -- in that they are not merely advocating a pseudoscience, they are actively involved in forging false scientific credentials for it. The most obvious examples of this would be Michael Behe and William Dembski, but this argument would also apply to the likes of Jonathan Wells and Scott Minnich. However, under this line of argument, it is less easy to justify calling those whose fields of expertise, and support for ID, is more philosophical or theological than scientific. This qualification however does not undermine the first argument, which is completely independent of this line of argument.

Politicians
Politicians and people who are not notable for being ID advocates should not be placed in this category. Currently, there are many dubious inclusion to this category. Mainly members of Congress, whose advocacy is unsourced and irrelevant to their notability. Even if this took a stance on the issue or a vote relating to the issue they do not belong in the category as ID advocates anymore than a politican who votes pro-choice should be included in a Pro-choice activist category. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also placing politicians in this category when it is a subcategory of Pseudoscientists makes no sense because none of the politicians claim to be scientists. If a politician has taken a stance against intelligent design would that mean they should be placed in a category for Opponents of intelligent design and that should be a subcategory of Scientists? 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already found two political figures (Boehner and Coulter), whose articles contain no information regarding their "supposed" belief in intelligent design. So why are they included? No doubt there are others here. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 14:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nonsecretarian and Nonpartisan
Currently, this page refers to the Discovery Institute as a conservative Christian think tank. Looking through the website of Discovery Institue, they never make the claim to be a Christian or conservative organization. They do reference being a nonpartisan organization. I had removed it but a few members who seem to believe that there opinion is as good as a source have reverted my edits. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I will also point out that the category is supposed to be for "major proponents". 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Discovery Institute, where I have started a thread which has already been replied to. siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 03:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Pro-choice activists and Pro-life activists
I sugget we apply to this category the same guidelines applied to those categories which would be:

"This category is not a list of anyone who is pro-intelligent design or believes in intelligent design (such as actors, musicians, or politicians)."

This would eliminate all these politicans whose stance on intelligent design is irrelevant to their notability. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think it is very useful to know which politicians have taken an affirmative stance on ID.  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 03:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that only because you have a particular interest in this subject? Intelligent design is certaintly not a more important political issue than universal healthcare, aboriton, or the death penalty and we do not put politicians in categories for all of those issues. You can't have it both ways, silly rabbit. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, there is absolutely no such policy. Just because consensus to exclude politicians from those categories has nothing to do with whether they should be included here.  Second of all, categories are supposed to be useful for people who have an interest in a subject.  The purpose is to facilitate navigation through related articles.  I see the inclusion of politicians who have taken an affirmative stance as quite topical and important.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 03:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that these politicians can hardly be considered "advocates" because of one stance they have taken. None of the politicians you wish to include are notable for supporting intelligent design. Also, if you have a category for Intelligent design advocates and include politicians, why not have a category for Intelligent design opponents and also include politicians? Wikipedia is not here for your specific interests, it's an encyclopedia. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But these politicians are notable for having taken an affirmative position on intelligent design, since not that many politicians have taken a stance at all. I would not object to a Category:Intelligent design opponents category, which included politicians who had taken a stance against intelligent design.  To my knowledge, not that many politicians have taken such a stance: it doesn't make it onto the radar for most of them.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 04:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that the intelligent design movement is primarily a political movement, it would seem ludicrous to eliminate politicians from it. Given the prominence of the Santorum Amendment in the history of the movement, is it reasonable to remove politician Rick Santorum from the category? I don't think so. HrafnTalkStalk 04:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And the pro-life and pro-choice movements aren't primarily political movements? 99.140.169.142 (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You're probably right -- but "advocate" requires far less direct involvement that "activist". HrafnTalkStalk 18:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Creationists & Category:Pseudoscientists
Intelligent design is both Creationism & Pseudoscience. Therefore Intelligent design advocates are Creationists & Pseudoscientists. Even if, as User:Karppinen suggests, they might be "advocat[ing] intelligent design without believing in it", they would still be just as legitimately Creationists & Pseudoscientists as they are Intelligent design advocates -- they'd just be advocating all three "without believing" in them. If belief isn't necessary (and is, in any case, unverifiable -- all we can verify is statements, and thus advocacy) for being an Intelligent design advocate, why is it necessary for being a Creationist or Pseudoscientist? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If that rationale is appropriate, then we couldn't include anyone in either category. How do you tell the difference between a true believer and someone who cynically advocates for an idea they don't believe? Guettarda (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Categories exist as a navigational aid, not a judgment on the articles they contain. For instance, Carl Sagan is categorized under Category:American UFO writers. This category belongs in the categories in question. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This category is for advocates only. Categorizing like this makes us assume that all ID advocates are creationists and pseudoscientists. Most of them definitely are, since ID is creationism and therefore pseudoscience. Because there is a possibility that one can be advocate of ID and not identify as a creationist and pseudoscientist, two categories should be removed. It is unlikely but possible. For example, one could advocate communism and not be a communist himself. Karppinen (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Self-identification is irrelevant as (i) no pseudoscientist is likely to self-identify as such & (ii) the whole idea of Neo-creationism is to attempt to disguise the creationist origins of your arguments. Would we exclude somebody from Category:Murderers simply because they didn't self-identify as such?
 * "For example, one could advocate communism and not be a communist himself." As there is no verifiable way to tell the difference between somebody who advocates communism and a communist, Wikipedia does not differentiate between the two.
 * Both arguments would appear to be specious. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If this page (as its header says) is a list of major proponents of ID (in the 'Discovery Institute' sense of the term), the I think including it in the Creationism category makes sense, since the formal theory of ID derives from Creationism. However, 'pseudoscientist' is more restrictive - not everyone who advocates for a pseudoscience is categorizable as a pseudoscientist; to be a pseudoscientist, one would seemingly need to be involved in the development of the theory (i.e. high-school teachers are not considered scientists because they teach physics, so by parallel ID advocates should not be considered pseudoscientists if they only advocate for the theory).  I don't think inclusion of this category in 'pseudoscientists' is justified, unless the list is restricted only to those who helped develop various aspects of ID.  -- Ludwigs 2  07:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (i) This is a category, not a page. (ii) Most Astrologers, Faith healers and Homeopaths are likewise not "involved in the development of [their respective] theor[ies]" but those categories are included in Category:Pseudoscientists. Most of pseudoscientific activity is advocacy and promotion of pseudoscientific ideas, not their original development. Restricting the category to the latter would appear to offer a very distorted view of of the extent of pseudoscience. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (i) categories are special kinds of pages; don't quibble over silly details when you clearly understand what I mean. (ii) I have not looked at those categories, and I am concerned that you are justifying one error by pointing out that the same error has been made many times before.  That would not be healthy logic.


 * With respect to the remainder of your comment: you yourself said above that "categories exist as a navigational aid, not a judgment on the articles they contain"; the claim that this is presenting some 'distorted view' is meaningless with respect to navigational aids. The only question we need to be concerned with here is whether readers would find it helpful to have all these people and groups listed as pseudoscientists, and it seems to me that it would not be useful, since most of these people and groups have little or no connection to anything resembling scientific effort and labeling them as pseudoscientists would simply water down the category. perhaps we could compromise by leaving this category alone, but creating a subcategory to contain those who actually engage in pseudoscience, and then subcat that category to pseudoscientists. -- Ludwigs 2  15:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I do hope that this list would include advocates for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Blueboar (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While the idea is amusing, I'm not sure it would be possible to reasonably to make a reasonably strong connection. To begin with, who are the FSM advocates? And while it was born as specifically anti-ID advocacy, I think it has grown beyond those roots. It would be very iffy to source. Also see the discussion in the section above. Guettarda (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)