I'm not sure why that's necessary though. No reader who reads [[creationism]] will come away with the idea that it is accepted in scientific circles---the article itself does a good job of finessing the issue. The category is sort of a blunt object that summarizes one particular view of the issue (that of nearly all scientists) without explanation or nuance. This is fine when no nuance is necessary and pretty much all viewpoints agree on the categorization ([[United States Democratic Party]] can go into [[Category:United States political parties]] without objection), but IMO generally inappropriate when a dispute exists between different viewpoints.
You have to draw the line somewhere. Would you disagree with categorizing Christianity as a Religion? Jack T. Chick does (see e.g. frame 38 in this tract: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1023/1023_01.asp).
How far are you willing to go in the name of NPOV? How many Christian fundamentalists have to disagree with a fact to make it too controversial for Wikipedia to state in its unmarked voice? Our [[Earth]] article currently states without attribution that "[t]he planet formed around 4.57 billion (4.57×109) years ago". Do you think that sentence should be changed or qualified to reflect the "different viewpoints" on this subject?
None of these are meant as rhetorical questions or trick questions. I'm honestly interested in where you want to draw the line.
Regards, Haukur