Category talk:Creationists

message: I removed the :Category:Pseudoscience tag, because not all Creationists or forms of Creationism make scientific claims.
Some certainly do, notably Creation Scientists. They claim that their literal view of Genesis is "scientific". They also reject the Fossil record. 
Intelligent Design is also considered pseudoscience; the fact that mainstream science considers ID to be pseudoscience is not disputed anywhere. --Uncle Ed 16:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, Theistic evolution is a sub-category of :Category:Creationism. Since this is controversial and describes living people, it needs to be removed. StAnselm (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As is Evolutionism. Neither are considered to actually be subtypes of Creationism, merely closely related topics (incidentally, both are articles, not sub-categories). Given that all Creationism, regardless of form (YEC, OEC, ID, Progressive, etc), involves the denial of the scientific evidence for evolution, it is hard to imagine how it can avoid being pseudoscientific. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I've removed Evolutionism and Theistic evolution from :Category:Creationism. Amusingly enough, the cat-tag in the latter article was in a section titled "Creationist opponents of theistic evolution", clearly demonstrating the incongruity of the categorisation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "pseduoscience" category is a separate case to that of "pseudoscientists", since we are categorising people here. Mike Huckabee, for example, would not claim to be a scientist, so he can't really be called a pseudoscientist, even though he is a creationist. But getting back to Theistic evolution, the alternate name is "evolutionary creationism", which does suggest it's a subset of something called "creationism". StAnselm (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd probably agree with that. Perhaps we need to either (i) create sub-cats that differentiate between those actively involved in formulating & propagating creationist claims versus mere supporters or (ii) remove the mere supporters (many/most? of whom aren't particularly known for their creationism) from the category. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And the obvious category would be :Category:Creation scientists. I've just seen the same problem with :Category:Intelligent design advocates - it means Michele Bachmann is listed a "pseudoscientist". StAnselm (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Creation science is only one thread of pseudoscientific creationism (one associated almost exclusively with YEC). Inteligent design is another. Additionally, you have a few non-ID-affiliated OECs claiming a scientific basis for their views (e.g. Hugh Ross (creationist)). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Thinking about it, it would probably make sense to have :Category:Christian creationists → :Category:Young earth creationists (unlike OECs, a fairly homogeneous group) → :Category:Creation scientists. ID pseudoscientists are almost exclusively already in :Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors and/or :Category:Fellows of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: I changed the cate description.  The old wording seemed to try to give advice to people, who weren't quite sure where to slot somebody.  People should simply follow what reliable sources say, and that's it.  --Rob (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad advice 

message: Per discussion in #Pseudoscience above, I am proposing two new subcategories of :Category:Christian creationists:
*:Category:Young earth creationists, and within it:
**:Category:Creation scientists
I'll post a notice of this on WT:WikiProject Creationism. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed subcats