Category talk:Intelligent design advocates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Creationism Portal
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Category This article has been rated as Cat-Class on the Project's quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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? — Dunc|☺ 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. — Dunc|☺ 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

  • 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.

HrafnTalkStalk 06:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)