Talk:Centre for Intelligent Design

Pseudoscience
WP:FRINGE/PS states "2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." Therefore it is not a violation of WP:NPOV to describe ID as such. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The introduction of the main article on Intelligent Design does not even classify the proposition as "pseudoscience." Why would we use that adjective here? It is unnecessary to do so. Most articles pertaining to organizations espousing fringe theories themselves do not use the term in the introduction. See the British UFO Research Association or the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, for example. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't we? That noun is explicitly permitted by policy, and far more accurate than your original grossly inaccurate "theory" (a theory explains, it does not "argue"). Though I don't think it necessary to force the issue on this point. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't necessary to dictate to readers what intelligent design is. Just call it intelligent design. The characterization of ID as a proposition, theory, pseudoscience, or whatever, is out of scope for this article. Regardless of how true a descriptive noun or adjective might be, there's no benefit to using it if it's going to be perceived as POV-pushing. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Overwhelming scientific consensus
The Guardian article on this centre contains the information that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the arguments against the theory of evolution promoted by intelligent design advocates are invalid. It is therefore perfectly relevant to include that information here. It is also correct per WP:DUE to include the majority viewpoint when discussing a minority view. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Hrafn, I must start by saying that I do not necessarily endorse Intelligent Design. I was reading about the Centre and thought I would create an article on it, since there was currently not one extant in this encyclopedia. Nevertheless, I wish to maitain WP:NPOV. I is unnecessary to rehash arguments of ID vs. Evolution on this article, which should be about the organisation. If you would like to discuss the validity of Intelligent Design, please do so at the main article. Moreover, this organisation is also not opposed to evolution, unless it is classifed as "undirected". Therefore, the information is irrelevant anyways. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is necessary (per WP:DUE) to "make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant". That these viewpoints have been made in direct reference to the C4ID, in articles explicitly about the C4ID makes them relevant. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and please don't cite this piece of excrement at me. (i) It fails WP:SELFPUB as "unduly self-serving". (ii) It contains the same 'we accept evolution but ... [pile of caveats that serve to completely gut the theory]' equivocation that I've seen dozens of times before. It starts off with Michael Behe stating "Random variation doesn’t explain the most basic features of biology. It doesn’t explain the elegant sophisticated molecular machinery that undergirds life", for heaven's sake. It is worthless from an evidentiary standpoint. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - WP:FRINGE covers this issue explicitly. -- Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. Some such statement clearly belongs in the entry. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Religious motivations
I would note that Anupam has stripped out virtually all of the sourced information on the religious motivations of the Centre's leadership. Is it a coincidence that their president is a YEC, their VP an Evangelical and their Director works for a group advocating increased religious education in schools? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And I'm amused that this information is considered less relevant than the trivia that its trust is "governed by the laws of Guernsey, Channel Islands". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see Assume good faith. Your unsourced insertions equating this institution with fundamentalism are simply a violation of WP:NPOV. I object to your addition of the creation-evolution controversy here as well per MNA. Moreover, your use of profanity regarding this institutions work is simply unacceptable. I am contacting an administrator to assist with this page. Thanks, AnupamTalk 07:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Who is violating WP:AGF here: Anupam has repeatedly violated WP:AGF by making false accusations against me of inserting unsourced information. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * False accusation of "unsourced insertions equating this institution with fundamentalism". Source: "but critics have pointed to the leaders’ fundamentalist Christian backgrounds and the leaps of faith inherent in their logic" -- supported by: "Its president, Professor Norman Nevin OBE – a geneticist at Queen’s University in Belfast – told a meeting in the city earlier this year he believed Adam was “a real historical person”. He also said: “Genesis chapter 1-11, which indeed many Darwinists and evolutionists say is myth or legend, I believe is historical, and it is cited 107 times in the New Testament, and Jesus refers himself to the early chapters of Genesis at least 25 times.” In these books of the Bible, the universe is created in six days, God makes Eve out of Adam’s rib, and Noah saves the Earth by building an ark. Dr Alastair Noble is a Glasgow University graduate who became a teacher and later HM inspector of schools. He is currently education officer for CARE, a Christian charity which campaigns for more faith teaching in schools. Dr David Galloway, C4ID’s vice- president, is also vice-president of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, and a member of the Lennox Evangelical Church in Dumbarton."
 * False accusation of "unsourced information". Source: "Publicly-funded schools in England and Wales were told by the government in 2006 that material distributed to educational establishments advocating "intelligent design" should not be used in the teaching of science." A point reiterated by the Scottish government in this source.


 * You are only now presenting sources for some of the information which you have inserted. In your last revision of the article, you did not cite the sentence about fundamentalism. Once again, the statement about public schools and ID materials was unsourced when you first added it, which is why I removed it. Upon further examination, I removed the statement again because the article never explictly stated that the Centre for Intelligent Design was responsible for the distribution of these intelligent design materials to public schools. It is actually very unlikely that this Centre for Intelligent design did so, in light of the fact that the government proclamation was issued in 2006, and this organization arose in 2010. Finally, believing in the historicity of Adam and Eve does not make one a fundamentalist. Many Christians reconcile the Genesis creation narrative with science (see the BioLogos Foundation for example, which advocates evolutionary creation). The entire Roman Catholic Church (1 billion people) teaches the historicity of Adam and Eve and that does not make them Young Earth Creationists or fundamentalists. I have filed a case on this dispute here and encourage your participation in it. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 08:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * More false accusations. Both disputed passages were sourced on inclusion into the article:
 * "In 2006 the British government that they were not to use distributed material advocating intelligent design. The Centre's president is Norman Nevin, emeritus professor of medical genetics at Queen's University in Belfast, and its vice-president is David Galloway, the vice president of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. "
 * "Its leaders have a fundamentalist background. Its director, Alistair Noble, is a former school inspector, currently working for CARE, a Christian charity campaigning for more religious education in schools, as its education officer. "
 * HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The sentence, as well as the sentence after it, was cited to the Herald article. Wikipedia does not require explicit sentence-by-sentence citation. All material before a citation are implicitly cited to it, unless another citation or a paragraph-break interrupts this. You will very rarely see articles with citations attached to every single sentence, and likewise very rarely see articles with citations attached on each immediately following sentence, to the same source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also point out that the Catholic position on this is heavily nuanced & equivocal -- it does not baldly state that Adam and Eve were historical -- and explicitly throws in words like "topical" and "figurative" to describe the Creation and the Fall. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The government prohibition is relevant because (i) the Christian Century article made mention of it in an article on reaction to the opening of the Centre and (ii) because it is a prohibition on the use of materials about intelligent design -- which just happens to be the proposition that is the Centre's sole purpose for existence. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, you do not have to add every single thing that is going on about intelligent design in the UK for an article about one organisation. The government prohibition was issued in 2006; this Centre was founded in 2010. Thanks, AnupamTalk 18:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting the situation. This is NOT "every single thing that is going on about intelligent design in the UK" -- this is an issue that a third party source considered to be relevant in reporting on the Centre. The government has not rescinded its prohibition, so it will be relevant to the impact that Centre can have. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I am not. You are only speculating the "the that impact that Centre can have." If you insert that information, I must also insert information from The Guardian delineating the fact that half of Britons do not believe in evolution and 22% support creationism and intelligent design. I hope you can see how futile it would be to bring in tangential information into the article. One can also make the speculation that such an organisation would be welcome by the British people, in light of their views. Thanks, AnupamTalk 19:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (i) Yes you are, by exaggerating how broad a net I was drawing -- when I was restricting myself to articles on the subject of the Centre. (ii) I was pointing out that the passage of four years does not render the government prohibition irrelevant (as you seemed to be implying). (iii) My insertion of information in no way forces you to insert other information. The only 'futility' I see is of a completely nonsensical argument. (iv) This is particularly true because the article you cite IS NOT EVEN ABOUT THE CENTRE! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Only one article mentioned that piece of tangential information, which both you and I know, cannot be linked to an organisation established four years later. I do not support its insertion into the article. If it is inserted, I must also demonstrate that in the United Kingdom, evolution is rejected by half its populace and 22% support creationism and ID. Thanks, AnupamTalk 19:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ROFLMAO! The fact that the "overwhelming scientific consensus is that the arguments against the theory of evolution put forward by creationists and those who advocate intelligent design (ID) are invalid" is only "tangential" to the promotion of ID, and a Centre whose sole purpose is that promotion? That is a ludicrous argument! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The third party sources have explicitly described the religious motivations and context of this organisation, as well as noting the overwhelming majority scientific consensus that ID is not science, but is pseudoscience. These aspects should properly be shown in the article to meet the requirements of WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSCI and all other aspects of WP:NPOV. Anupam, please don't delete information giving this required weight to majority views: discuss specific points here rather than removing properly sourced information. . dave souza, talk 09:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have asked the Mediation Cabal to come inspect this article and to address it in regards to Wikipedia policy. That being said, I do not object to User:Dougweller's insertion of a criticism section in the article as it presents the information in a neutral way. Thanks, AnupamTalk 18:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that MEDCAB's function is neither inspection, nor ruling on policy, I suspect you have an unrealistic expectation as to their involvement. But you're welcome to try. :) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment
Ladies and Gentlemen, I think the discussion has strayed. Can I remind everyone that the purpose of this page is to discuss the article, the whole article and nothing but the article? Can we please get to a position of AGF (the F being Faith, but Wikipedia Faith not religious Faith, of course)? Whatever one's viewpoint, the Centre exists and has had coverage. At present, there is a tag disputing the neutrality of the article. At present, the article looks (to a rather tired person) reasonably neutral overall. Would anyone disagree? If so, please be brief. The longer the post (from my experience at AfD) the less said. (If you agree, you can be even briefer.) Let's get down to basics. Most probably the people in favour of the views of the Centre wish to put them in a good light. The people who think it is putting forward a load of pseudoscience wish to put them in a bad light. Can everyone please remember NPOV? I was asked to look at this article by a friend with whose religious views I differ greatly, (and who doesn't seem to be involved in either the article or the discussion). That does not stop us being good friends (although a good few thousand miles apart...). Everyone has views. They should be checked at the door along with the shotguns, the camel prods, the pick-axes and the Crudens Concordances (an excellent weapon when dropped from a height). When dealing with spam, I often tell people to imagine they have no connection with the company, and that they have just found a handout (the article). I ask them if they would regard it as a good indication of a company's worth or standing, or if it is a load of promotional guff written in buzz words. Over to you, Gentlemen and and Ladies... Peridon (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Could Peridon please (i) read WP:DUE, and then (ii) read the sources, before venturing an opinion -- as an opinion that is not based upon an understanding of the policy and the facts lacks any legitimate basis. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Peridon, I support the article as it stands now. It meets WP:NPOV and even has a well written criticism section following it. I do not wish to present the organisation in positive or negative light; I only wish to present the organisation in a neutral light. Thanks for your comment. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I will add: There is nothing about WP:DUE that requires this article to re-hash creationist arguments and rebuttals. Information about the merits ID are out of scope for this article. Information about this Centre specifically, are fair game, provided the sources are reliable.
 * Hrafn is correct that information in this article should be weighted according to what reliable sources say about the Centre. If the reliable sources out there predominantly put the Centre in a negative light, then that same light will naturally show up in this article. WP:DUE essentially requires us to present views according to their weighting. We must be careful, however, to ensure that the article is written to be clear that the sources, not Wikipedia, are making these judgments. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have read DUE, and the sources, and practically every week New Scientist's articles on ID. I would suggest that to comply with DUE that perhaps Anupam might help <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) to balance things if the majority opinion in the UK is shown to favour the scientific view of 'creation' rather than the ideas of the Centre. Peridon (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify my post, I mean if the coverage anti is greater than pro, this should be reflected. Probably there should be External Links added to something from the anti side - so long as this is concerned with the Centre and not ID in general. Peridon (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * When the Centre's sole purpose is the promotion of ID, how can the merits of ID be completely beyond the scope of this article? I am not proposing "re-hash[ing every] creationist arguments and rebuttals", but rather that both the scientific view of their central proposition, and views of any arguments they themselves may make in support of that proposition, are within the scope of this article. The Guardian would appear to agree with me, in soliciting Michael Reiss' (professor of science education at the Institute of Education in London) views on that proposition in writing their article on the Centre. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Peridon, I support your proposition. Per WP:MNA, there is no reason to rehash the creationism-evolution debate on this page. This article is about the organisation, not intelligent design in general. Thanks, AnupamTalk 19:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hrafn: If you are proposing to model this article after its closest parallel Discovery Institute, that's fine. That article doesn't go into any great detail about scientific merits but simply mentions them. It doesn't even go into any great detail about what ID is, because we have an article on it already. Rather, it goes into detail about the institute, its programs, criticism of its tactics, controversies the institute has been embroiled in, court cases, etc.
 * Any news article about criticism of this UK Centre is naturally likely to include relevant background information about ID and its merits. The fact that they do so doesn't necessarily make it in scope for this article, because we already have articles about the merits of ID. The scientific view of their general proposition deserves at most a mention with a wikilink to the appropriate place. This article should stick to its topic, which isn't ID, that's a tangent. The topic is the centre, its activities, it controversies, its history, its personnel, and anything else about it. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I support User:Amatulic's comment above. User:Amatulic, are you okay with the article as it stands now? I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thanks, AnupamTalk 20:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * From a neutrality perspective I'm OK with it. It still needs some fleshing out, particularly third-party coverage, whether positive or negative. I just reorganized it a bit to comply with WP:MOS guidelines (lead content, sections, layout). ~Amatulić (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Amatulic, thank you for your reorganising. However, I do not feel that the mentioning of criticism in the introduction was necessary, especially in light of the fact that we have a section devoted to it. As of now, the article remains neutral. Thanks, AnupamTalk 21:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:LEAD. That is the entire purpose of the lead, to summarize the content of the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Amatulić: my intention was, at this stage, to limit the "scientific merits" to Michael Reiss's point, made in response to being asked "what he thought about the Centre for Intelligent Design", that "the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the arguments against the theory of evolution put forward by creationists and those who advocate intelligent design (ID) are invalid." If and when C4ID gets around to making specific and/or original arguments for-ID/against-evolution, and if and when the scientific community gets around to criticising those arguments, we can reopen whether the topic requires further expansion. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. It's just one comment, not undue weight. There's precious little information on this organization anyway since it's so new, so it's hard to judge how to weight things. If they start gaining notoriety, then I'm sure the article will be appropriately weighted to coverage of their activities. If the Discovery Institute article is any indication, it's likely that reporting on their activities will outweigh scientific criticism. Personally I'm amazed that such organizations merit the notice of scientists. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My impression is that it is (and is likely to remain) somewhat of a paper tiger, particularly in comparison to its more incendiary 'predecessor', Truth in Science. The most 'controversial' thing that C4ID has done to date is to invite Michael Behe to come on a speaking tour of the UK (which doesn't seem to have garnered much attention). It is barely notable -- but may end up getting merged to List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy (per WP:MERGE criteria 'text') if it doesn't garner some more coverage. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mentioning of the controversy has been inserted in only from unclear bilateral discussion. User:Peridon and I both pointed out that such an addition is unwarranted. Please gain consensus with the rest of the community before making such an addition. Thanks, AnupamTalk 20:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of two objections in this allegedly "unclear bilateral discussion", WP:WEIGHT policy requires: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." There's a clear enough consensus that we show the majority view as expressed by sources specifically discussing this organisation, and in any event consensus doesn't override policy. . . dave souza, talk 20:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * While I agree with Dave, I am concerned that sentences in the lead paragraph that are about another topic do indeed violate WP:WEIGHT as well as WP:LEAD. I have moved the sentence about scientific views of ID into the body. No information was removed, just moved. This article is about an organization, not about ID. The lead paragraph should reflect information about the organization, not about ID. The lead already contains a summary statement of the criticism; that should be sufficient. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree in principle with these points, particularly that the detail should go in the body. The news article makes an explicit connection to the organisation, will think about explaining that a little more. The lead should summarise the article, and presenting the creationist claim about "best explained by intelligent causation" needs to be shown in majority view context: to do that briefly, I've added to the sentence about "undermine science education" the clarification "by promoting discredited unscientific arguments." . . dave souza, talk 21:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree to User:Amatulic's version of the article and I have restored the article to that version. The idea of an Intelligent Designer, i.e. God, has never been discredited; it cannot be proven either. Thanks, AnupamTalk 22:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It may astound you to learn that the idea of God is a religious idea, not science, and what has been discredited is the ID claim that creationist anti-evolution arguments comprise scientific validation of the existence of an Intelligent Designer, i.e. God. If pov is to be removed from the lead in accordance with your edit summary, then it should be done in a balanced way to meet NPOV policy including WP:LAYOUT. On that basis, I've moved the creationist claim into the body of the article where it can be shown in context, and expanded the quote to include the claim that ID is scientific. The fact that the idea of an Intelligent Designer, i.e. God cannot be disproven is just what makes it not science, which is always provisional and subject to disproof. . . dave souza, talk 23:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are only echoing the argument I just stated above. However, what is unique about this organisation is that it states that theistic evolution and intelligent design are compatible; the objection this organisation has is when individuals make the claim that the process is unguided (see statement). Nevertheless, your recent move, in my eyes, is acceptable. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 23:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That position would appear to be incoherent. Most of ID (specifically irreducible complexity and specified complexity, but also much of their more general writings) are arguments against evolution, and therefore subsidiarily theistic evolution. Many (all?) theistic evolutionists believe that God in some way guided evolution. The point of difference between TE & ID is over whether such guidance is scientifically verifiable. On the subject of WP:DUE, I am highly amused that neither Anupam nor Amatulić appeared to have any problem with including the WP:SELFPUB characterisation of ID from "only a website and an office" in the lead (thanks for moving it Dave), but objected to including its characterisation by a prominent expert on science education there. This is clearly standing WP:DUE on its head. I personally think that both go better in the lead, by way of prefatory scene-setting, but have no great objection to where, as long as they are together. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (On the "unclear bilateral discussion" issue, I would point out that Griswaldo had already given specific approval, and Dave generalised approval, for inclusion of the majority viewpoint. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC) )
 * It isn't inappropriate to include in the lead a short statement about how an organization describes itself, since that organization is the topic of the article, whereas criticism is not. However, I agree that it's much improved by moving that quotation into the body. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mention of scientific criticism is appropriate in the lead, per WP:LEDE, when it "establish[es] context" or it reflects the emphasis that sources give to that criticism -- and both apply here. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Centre for Intelligent Design is NOT a "public relations company"

 * Hrafn, this current article is a result of compromise. Not all parties will get their way but the article will reflect a collaboration of several individuals. I would also request you to cease adding the "Category:Conservative political pressure groups of the United Kingdom" at the footer of the page. The British Centre for Science Education identifies the organisation as an "advocacy or public relations operation" (source). Do not remove these categories and add the former one without a reference. Thanks, AnupamTalk 17:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

C4ID is not a "public relations compan[y]" (i) because it is not a company, it is a charity/non-profit organisation & (ii) because public relations companies conduct public relations for (paying) clients, not on their own behalf. It is thuse completely inaccurate to so categorise them. The closest relevant category is Category:Conservative political pressure groups of the United Kingdom, as C4ID is engaged in political advocacy for a conservative cause (i.e. ID -- which is ubiquitously associated with both religious and political conservatism). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

(P.S. -- I don't know why you attempted to tack this issue onto -- as it has little to do with this issue, and is getting rather long in any case. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC) )

I would further point out that Advocacy group lists "pressure groups" as a synonym, further confirming the appropriateness of Category:Conservative political pressure groups of the United Kingdom. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I pondered this for a while myself. "Conservative advocacy groups of the United Kingdom" may be more appropriate if that category existed. I don't think that calling it a political pressure group is appropriate at this stage in the Centre's existence. When reliable sources report on any political activities, then the category is appropriate, but for now, the group's stated purpose is education through bringing speakers to give lectures. I'd go with Category:Advocacy groups for now (because there isn't anything better), and make the category more specific as the organization's activities become more specific. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I support User:Amatulic's comment. Calling the Centre for Intelligent Design a "Conservative political pressure group" is your own POV. The source we have right now, from the BCSE, calls the Centre an "advocacy or public relations operation" (source). We should therefore use the appropriate category on Wikipedia to fit that description. Thanks, AnupamTalk 21:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (i) As far as I can see, the fact that C4ID is member of 'pressure groups of the United Kingdom' is indisputable. (ii) As far as I can see the adjective "conservative" is not disputed (at least as yet). (iii) the main sticking point would appear to be the adjective "political". (iv) Both the intelligent design movement and the creation–evolution controversy‎ are widely described as having a strong political element. (v) Promotion of ID entails clear public policy issues, a point that has been repeatedly raised by the third party sources. (vi) It would therefore not appear to be inaccurate to characterise it as "political". (vii) This category appears to confer far more relevant information than the extremely-generic Category:Advocacy groups. Oh, and Anupam, argumentum ad nauseam really pisses me off! (So stop harping on about the BCSE quote -- I heard you the first time and already addressed the point here.) <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above arguments constitute WP:SYNTHESIS. Unless you can find a source that explicitly refers to this organization as a political organization, the category isn't appropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No more so than the pigeon-holing inherent in many (most?) categorisations on Wikipedia. But as long as it isn't Category:Public relations companies of the United Kingdom, I'm not going to complain too much. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We agree there. A PR firm this isn't. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)