Category talk:Intelligent design

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Hob Gadling in topic Explanation of "Denialism" category's removal

Untitled

edit

I am relieved to see that you dispel the common pseudo-scientific belief that Andy Devine created all things. Please keep the section entitled, "Non Devine Creation." Thank you.

Always thought it was Sydney Devine, meself. ...dave souza 07:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Parent categories

edit

See Category talk:Creationism and Talk:Intelligent design#I've been bold and (hopefully) defused the situation:, and leave this page as a subcategory of pseudoscience. Please. ....dave souza 20:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Category:Pseudoscience

edit

There are a bunch of articles in this cat (intelligent design) and also in the parent cat (pseudoscience). Can we get the articles moved out of the parent cat of pseudoscience? They're mostly just cluttering that cat; there doesn't seem to be much point in having them here and there. I tried doing this on my own, but was pomptly reverted ... linas 02:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Intelligent Design is Pseudoscience?

edit

Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this category, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this category. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Did you even look at the article on ID? Check out the second paragraph down. The category stays. — Scientizzle 00:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, this seems fairly obvious, thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Explanation of "Denialism" category's removal

edit

The use of the label, which actively implies unequivocal condemnation of whatever it is applied to as meritless and false, obviously does not belong here, or on any category of similar broadness, for that matter. JustMyTwoCents (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

That is only obvious to people who don't know a lot about ID. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply