Talk:William A. Dembski/Archive 1

highly qualified scientists
138.130.192.10, would you please name those "highly qualified scientists" defending Dembski? Otherwise that comment should be deleted. --Hob Gadling 13:14, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm on my second revert of this, so I've asked for comment. An anon calling me a vandal is, well.  The only "highly qualified scientist" who supports Dembski is Michael Behe.  It's a blatant argument from authority. I have tried to write this NPOV, the best place for criticism in the lead section is the last sentence, after explaining what he thinks he's done.  I've already put in that his friends at the Discovery Institute think he's the Isaac Newton of information theory in the main section.  Dunc|&#9786; 14:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * There are plenty A scientific dissent from Darwin And whether Duncharris likes it or not, the AiG scientists have earned Ph.D.s, some in biology.

Hows that?
I removed all mention of unknown scientists, which is always best. What say thee, good gentlemen? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. Dembski has support from some individuals with scientific qualifications in fields tangentially or not at all connected with biology, but I don't think many (any?) biologists support him. Behe is a biochemist, as I recall. -- ChrisO 17:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well lets not cite them in the intro, anyhow. In the body of the article comparing the prestige / pedigree of supporters and detractors is fine, so long as turns of phrase like "most scientists think.." and the "scientific community rejects..." are left out, since those sorts of things are completely unverifiable. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * That's simply not the case. Someone with zero peer reviewed papers whose only supporters are co-religionists is a pretty good candidate for "the scientific community rejects". Stirling Newberry 09:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When have the opinions of the scientific community, even of one nation (much less the earth) been surveyed and summarized? I can't (off hand ;) think of anything less scientific than saying "most scientists think ..." or "the scientific community rejects...". Likely an enourmous amount of scientists have simply been unexposed to the ideas of Mr. Dembski, and out of those who have heard of them, a great many are likely unqualified to say any more about it than you or I. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Not worthy of serious reply. Stirling Newberry 17:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Too good for intellectual rigour, are you? Turn your nose up at the concept of citations if you like, but if so, why bother w facts at all? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions)


 * Well, worthy of something, surely. If absolute proof of the scientific community's views are demanded, then no &mdash; we can never say that scientists agree that, or believe that, or reject that, anything (that the Earth is flat, that its moon is a natural satellite, that Einstein was born after Newton, etc.).  In fact the demand for that level of proof would rapidly empty Wikipedia of all content.
 * If someone stands up and offers the theory that the world was created in 4124 B.C., that fossils are just god's nasty little practical joke, and that cats are really demons, do we really need to survey every scientist in order to discover their opinions? Presumably not.  So surely we agree that sometimes it's not clear what scientists agree on, and that sometimes it is; it's not acceptable simply to reject appeal to scientific opinion in principle.  What needs to be established is how we can distinguish between the two sorts of case.  What do you suggest? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine any scientists who would say that. But there are plenty who are skeptical that materialism can explain the origin of life and development of biological complexity. 138.130.194.229 04:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of scientists who are sceptical of quantum mechanics, more, in fact, then who doubt the material genisis of life and the evolution of complexity through genetic codification and natural selection, this does not mean that any assertion against quantum mechanics is, ipso facto, a scientific theory. Stirling Newberry 04:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Prove the numbers there. It's a fact that no one has shown how life could have arisen by naturalistic processes.  So any belief that it happened that way is just that, belief, not fact.  Quantum mechanics on the other hand is good operational science.


 * My if that isn't a slippery slope. Lets just cite who says what, and leave the ludicris generalizations about what "most scientists" believe out. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow; what's the slope, and why is it slippery? And what is it about my argument that's unsound? To simplify: many claims about what most scientists believe are perfectly justificable and uncontroversial, while other such claims are not. You insist that this is one of the latter cases (indeed, even worse, you think that it's ludicrous), so what makes you say that? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 23:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "If absolute proof of the scientific community's views are demanded, then no — we can never say that scientists agree that, or believe that, or reject that, anything (that the Earth is flat, that its moon is a natural satellite, that Einstein was born after Newton, etc.). In fact the demand for that level of proof would rapidly empty Wikipedia of all content.
 * If someone stands up and offers the theory that the world was created in 4124 B.C., that fossils are just god's nasty little practical joke, and that cats are really demons, do we really need to survey every scientist in order to discover their opinions? Presumably not."

That is a slippery slope. Again, cite who says what, don't make generalizations about what the scientific community thinks. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I still don't see it; in order to show that it's a slippery slope, you have to show how the view could gradually be extended, until it reached an unacceptable point. But I specifically said that this is one sort of case (in response to your denial that it's ever acceptable to say what most scientists believe), and that in other cases we'd judge differently.  I then asked how you suggested we distinguish between the two.  That simply can't be a slippery slope.  If you think that my argument is unsound, then fine &mdash; explain how; gesturing vaguely at supposed fallacies with catchy titles isn't a substitute. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 23:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear... Lets try to make this simple. You are wrong. The situations you describe won't happen, because there are citable sources regarding each of them. if there are uncited claims, they should be removed. Doing so certainly would not empty the wikipedia of its content. It may empty it of certain editers who can't abide with citing their sources, however. There is no situation where making uncited claims in a book of reference is acceptable, particularly when they are challenged. Please cite who says what, don't make generalizations about what the scientific community thinks. We can leave the definition of a slippery slope for another day, methinks. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly be interested to see a citation of the sort you demanded, in which &ldquo;the opinions of the scientific community, even of one nation (much less the earth) [have] been surveyed and summarized&rdquo;. And see below, where I give just two (but I can supply many, many more) examples of extremely reputable reference works making &ldquo;uncited&rdquo; generalisations about what the scientific community thinks. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Modified revert of summary
I've just reverted to Stirling Newberry's version simply because it made better grammatical sense; for example, no-one claims that intelligent design is flawed pseudoscience; they claim either that it's flawed science or that it's pseudoscience (would flawed pseudoscience be good science? never mind). I changed part of the first paragraph to something that seemed to express the claim more clearly, though. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 23:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't intend to allow this article (or any other) to daydream about what uncited "scientists" think. Thats an old canard, and just the sort of foolishness that makes people like me prefer reference sources to editorial columns. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't you respond to the arguments offered, and questions asked, above before repeating your assertions? And you surely don't really suggest that an editorial column constitutes evidence one way or the other for scientific consensus, or for the acceptablity of a theory &mdash; or for anything much at all? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 23:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I get the impression that we arn't communicating perfectly. I was trying to say that editorializing is bad, and that books of reference don't do that (or shouldn't, in this case). (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This isn't editorializing, it is reporting. And stop making personal attacks. Stirling Newberry 04:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry Sam, but the National Academies, the preeminant US scientific body, the national advisors to the federal government and the public on science, have issued policy statements that intelligent design, as with all forms of creationism, is pseudoscience. Since the NAS speak as representatives for the scientific community as a whole, this in turn means the original phrase "His work is controversial and generally regarded as pseudoscientific" is factually accurate and should remain as it was.


 * From Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition by the Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Science:


 * "Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses."


 * "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge."
 * --FeloniousMonk 23:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * A survey by Larson and Witham (Nature 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998) showed that there is a large percentage (almost 3/4 of respondents) of atheists in NAS, so this is not the objective source you claim. Yet they try to downplay it, in a way that Larson and Witham find disingenuous:


 * NAS President Bruce Alberts said:"There are very many outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists." Our research suggests otherwise.


 * Also, Michael Crichton pointed out in a lecture:


 * There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.138.130.194.229 13:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Science is a way of explaining reality. In relation to science, the religious or non-religious beliefs of individual scientists is a non sequitur. Science takes no position about religion either way, other than to insist that all evidence be accessible and verifiable, e.g.; rational and natural. The NAS's ability to represent matters of science fairly is not in doubt, except by those with an overriding religious agenda and other creationists. Also, the 2001 Gallup poll on the origin and development of human beings conflits significantly with the conclusions of Larson and Witham. It found that 5% of American scientists (not necessarily working in fields connected with evolution) believed in biblically literal creation, 40% believed in "theistic evolution", and 55% believed in "naturalistic evolution" . Big difference between 75% and 55%.--FeloniousMonk 19:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, if religious beliefs of scientists is a non sequitur, then this applies to creationist scientists. And there is no conflict, because Larson and Witham specifically wrote about the religious beliefs of the NAS that was cited as an authority, and they were heavily atheistic.  And if the religious beliefs of creationists are enough reason to dismiss their scientific claims, then the same must apply the atheistic religious beliefs of the NAS 138.130.192.82 12:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK then! Now we have a citation, thats great. The hubris regarding the National Academy of Sciences is odd, but who cares, I'm assuming that "speak as representatives for the scientific community as a whole" fluff isn't going into the article, so everybody wins. As always, a little research does wonders for article quality. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * (Three(!) Edit Conflicts got in the way)
 * Sam Spade, you're right with regard to one point, at least; I completely misread your last comment. Sorry.  But I still object to the idea that it's never right (in works of reference, too) to refer to what the scientific community generally holds.  A couple of examples:
 * &ldquo;Vitalism is not a popular theory among biologists, for many reasons apart from its affinity with various lost causes.&ldquo; (from the article on Vitalism in Paul Edwards [ed.-in-chief] The Encyclopedia of Philosophy vol.8 (1967: Macmillan & The Free Press), p.256)
 * &ldquo;Most evolutionary biologists agree that selection does not operate at the level of the group, that the mechanism of selection and hereditary transmission operates exclusively at the level of the individual, and that group properties must be fully explained by appeal to the properties and interactions of individuals.&rdquo; (from Philosophy of Social Science in W.H. Newton-Smith [ed.] A Companion to the Philosophy of Science (2001: Blackwell) p.456)
 * I could add more, but they make the point, I think. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 23:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(My comment was somehow broken up by – unsurprisingly – an Edit Conflict)
 * Here and in the previous section, I and others have given arguments and cited examples against Sam Spade's insistence that it's unacceptable to mention the broad scientific consensus in this area. He hasn't countered these, except to make vague and unsubstantiated suggestions about slippery slopes; he simply continues to repeat the same claims here, and to revert the attempts by other editors to set the record straight in the article.  I've reinserted the comments that he rejects on principle, while leaving in the section of quotations (though to be honest it looks rather odd in an article of this sort).
 * Sam, in the light of the quotations above (and I can add more if you think that two don't settle the issue), will you now agree that it's widely regarded as acceptable to make this sort of claim in a reputable reference work? If you believe that, in this case, the claim is false, could you provide some evidence &mdash; a number of reputable and independent scientific sources that support Dembski's work or treat it as scientifically reputable?   You argued earlier (rather hyperbolically) that &ldquo;the opinions of the scientific community, even of one nation (much less the earth) [have never been] surveyed and summarized&rdquo;  Well, true; it's not unlike the problem of induction &mdash; no matter how many quotations and citations you're offered, you can always claim that there might be even more scientists who hold the opposite view, or no view at all.  But all it takes to disprove the claim is a reasonable number (say three?) genuine counter-examples. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 13:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

will you now agree that it's widely regarded as acceptable to make this sort of claim in a reputable reference work?


 * Absolutely not. When challenged, such claims need citations, and are bad form generally. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * So yet again you're simply ignoring the arguments and the evidence that's been offered (at length), and denying the conclusion. In those circumstances, I don't see that those who disagree with you have any option but to watch the article and revert your changes until you do them the courtesy of listening to what they have to say and responding to them.
 * If you don't accept the arguments and evidence, why not give your reasons? That's not beneath you is it?  If you don't understand the arguments, say so, and we can express them differently; that's not beneath us.  But this apparently mindless repetition of your claim in the face of reason doesn't sit well with the position you claim to hold. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 13:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'm not trying to be rude, but this is so obvious there isn't alot of wiggle room. Anyone can come up w examples of just about anything, but the point is, being a book of reference, disputed statements need Citations. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's why you haven't bothered to respond to arguments and examples: it's because it's obvious... Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 15:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)\

I'm sorry, this doesn't seem to be going anywhere. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By all means escalate it. Stirling Newberry 17:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

quote just obfuscates
We already have an extensive article on intelligent design, so how is that quote relevant? It is clear that ID is considered pseudoscience and people can go there to see that. How is it relevant specifically to Dembski?

"IDist says x, but scientists say that's nonsense" is a fairly good way of summarising the position. He is trying to say "IDist says x, but scientists say that's nonsense, but creationists views are supported by many scientists", when the third part is patently false and is clearly POV. Dunc|&#9786; 13:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Because Dembski is one of the intellectual, to use the term loosely, leaders of Intelligent Design, and his work is frequently cited as a defense of Intelligent Design. Stirling Newberry 13:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I also note that Sam Spade's assertion that the other POV is "ludicrous" is a break down of good faith, and further indicate of the POV intent of his edits and the inability of the intelligent design supporters to act in good faith. Stirling Newberry 13:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Please reread what I wrote. Statements like "most scientists believe" and "the scientific community rejects" are ludicrous, and utterly unscientific. Think rigour. No insult was made or intended. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Quotes by Dembski shouldn't be a problem (we have wikiquote), I'm just concerned that that's getting off-subject. Also, I'm wary of quoting because it gives creationists leave to misquote elsewhere, which they're very good at.


 * Also, the main problem with his work is not the philosophical naturalism that he doesn't believe in, it's because it's completely illogical. Actually that needs to be emphasized, because Dembski will complain that scientists are being unreasonable and not accepting his work because it implies that supernatural in defence of ID, which is supposed to make scientists look unreasonable.  He's very clever, and intellectual.  Dunc|&#9786; 14:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some numbers
In a 2001 Gallup poll on the origin and development of human beings found that 5% of American scientists (not necessarily working in fields connected with evolution) believed in biblically literal creation, 40% believed in "theistic evolution", and 55% believed in "naturalistic evolution". --FeloniousMonk 19:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Immaterial. The entry requirement for science is not holding a travelling road show, nor publishing an unpeer reviewed book, nor getting someone to write a big check to sit you in a university. It is presenting hypothesis for scrutiny, and having it survive that scrutiny. That many scientists might like to believe in theistic evolution is in the same category as many scientists would like to believe that quantum chromo dynamics is not physically true - until there is a physically plausible model that can survive scrutiny, it is, at best "belief", "opinion" or, if given some level of falsifiability, "conjecture". Stirling Newberry 21:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. We're arguing from the same side here. I'm just putting out some credible numbers as a baseline to check anyone who, like 138.130.194.229, make unsubstantiated generalizations about science and scientists.--FeloniousMonk 03:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Possible CR violation?
While researching the "...claims of ID, which mainstream science regards as a pseudoscience..." issue, I came across this article on the topic at the American Association of University Professors site  where I noticed it appears much of this article's passage in question seems to be cut and pasted from. I suggest everyone take a look. I'm uncertain if this is a copyright violation or not, I'll you decide for yourselves.--FeloniousMonk 20:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you be more specific? They're both long enough that I don't want to go back and forth through them trying to find the supposed copyright violation. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Factual error as to who was dismayed
The phrase "Scientists at Baylor were dismayed that the claims of ID, which mainstream science regards as a pseudoscience, would damage Baylor's and their reputation for scientific integrity." is factually incorrect. It was actually the the Baylor faculty senate, consisting of faculty of all disciplines, that raised the row, and the Baylor administration agreed to convene an outside committee to review the center. The committee recommended that a faculty advisory panel oversee the science and religion components of the program and that the center drop the name of Michael Polanyi. I'll correct this error in the article.--FeloniousMonk 20:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BTW-- this edit removed the pseudoscience phrase and avoided much of the possible CR violation. Unless someone wants to reinsert the "...which mainstream science regards as a pseudoscience..." point somewhere else (it does seem relevent to me), then there's no need for the relevant quotations section Sam added, or the RFC for that matter.--FeloniousMonk 21:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the recent revert of the corrected content
This section originally started out as a justification for the corrected content which, based on Stirling's edit summary notes, I assumed had been reverted in its entirety. I see that I was incorrect in that assumption, so I've re-added Stirling's phrase to the current version, removed in my revert of his previous edit. --A cautionary tale to always see the diff before making up your mind or taking action. That still leaves us with the issue that the original passage might have been a cut and pasted from AAUP site. I feel it is a non sequitur at this point since the passage has been reworded and we can drop it.--FeloniousMonk 04:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Latest revert of Sam Spade's unexplained deletions
In the absence of explanation (beyond cryptic Edit sumaries like 'fmt'), Sam Spade's insistence on deleting large chunks of text, presumably because they offend against his PoV, is beginning to look like simple vandalism. If there's good reason for his latest cuts, could he explain it here before just acting? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 15:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Cryptic, like "please cite/attribute contested info"? I get the impression that your trolling. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I may have missed one of the edit summaries &mdash; but that's beside the point. Your frankly bizarre approach to the nature of citation and attribution (look above for a vast amount, incidentally) and insistence on your own point of view against everyone else's (yes, I know, you're the only one in step) just leads to stalemate.  There's something unpleasantly authoritarian in the way that you've assumed ownership of the page, and are insisting that editors conform to your views &mdash; an impression strengthened by your continuing refusal to respond to counter-arguments and evidence, and your constant repetition of the same, unargued slogans. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 15:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe this is a fair summation of the issue here with Sam.--FeloniousMonk 18:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you are unable to accept the need to cite and attribute contested statements, and consistantly focus on the individual rather than the argument violates numerous wikipedia policies. These include Cite your sources, Wikiquette, and NPOV. Pay especially close attention to NPOV. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I've offered a series of arguments and references; you've ignored all of them. Is that in line with  Wikipedia policies (much less good manners)?  I've also asked, repeatedly, for your reasons for rejecting the references I gave, and offered to give more; you've repeatedly ignored those requests too.  Mouthing dogma at me, and giving references to Wikipedia guidelines, is no substitute for engaging with the actual issues.
 * With regard to personalising the debate, you were the first to use words like 'ludicrous', 'foolishness', 'daydream', etc. I tried to offer calm, clearly reasoned arguments, and continually received responses that ignored what I'd said, but simply repeated your claims with more and more intemperate language.  The pattern is all there, above this section. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mel's version of the facts around Sam's actions. Sam should leave the rhetoric off the page and not randomly revert facts he's uncomfortable with.--FeloniousMonk 18:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you review it with an open mind and thereby learn from your errors, or move to doing something productive elsewhere. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh good grief, what a smug, self-satisfied comment. Ignore the arguments, insist that you're right, then try to push those who disagree with you out of Wikipedia.  Even if your claims were right and mine were wrong, your inability to reason would make you right by pure luck, and would make your approach to editing unacceptable.
 * If you're so confident, why not take this further, through due process? See how your peers judge the issue.  If I lose an RfC, I'll do what you want, and abandon the Wikipedia project. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Best to get used to it-- this was Sam's MO at Talk:Atheism as well. Best to build consensus and put those who flaunt it on ignore.--FeloniousMonk 18:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting you leave the wikipedia, and an RfC has already been filed. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I can broadly go along with Sam Spade. The wording of the description of the mainstream reception in the article is extremely vague and this indicates poor research.
 * I don't see any vaguesness; it's very specific &mdash; but it's general. That's correct, because it refers to a fact about a general view.  I and others have supplied numerous references to back it up; Sam Spade has provided none to dispute it, only the relentless repetition of his general and unargued position.  He has openly admitted that he ignored my arguments and examples because they're irrelevant &mdash; he knows that he's right.  In the face of that, there's not much that anyone can do except keep reverting his PoV edits. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What we do have, however, is quite a few reviews of works such as The Design Inference and No Free Lunch by competent scientists with good reputations in the relevant disciplines (computational intelligence and biology). In addition to this there is the failure of Dembski's critiques of darwinism, to date, to make inroads on the science of biology.  The explanatory filter is not being used in published papers, to my knowledge; the No Free Lunch algorithms are not being used to produce much (if any) science.  The wheels of the Dembski engine seem to be spinning in the sand.  The books are popular with critics of darwinism, but those people tend not to be biologists or computational scientists.


 * I suggest that we just write a section "Dembski and mainstream scientists", containing an overview from half a dozen online reviews of Dembski's books written by scientists highly qualified in the appropriate fields  This would give an accurate picture of scientific critiques of Dembski's views, which seem to be generally unfavorable critiques of his reasoning. If suitably qualified scientist champions have written rebuttals to any of these reviews, they also belong in that section. Summaries of Dembski's own rebuttals belong there too. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not trying to make any claim that this guy is widely known about, much less accepted, but he doesn't deserve to be malighned with vague and unattributed criticisms. A section such as Tony suggests, and a clarification of which critics and proponants (and mr. dembski himself, assumably) say what would be excellent, and would resolve all objections I have with the article, assuming the contested statements listed above are either removed or attributed. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that a brief but intellectually honest appraisal of who says what about Dembski and how he responds, would be much more informative than the vague, and contested, wording. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree, a "Dembski and mainstream scientists" section would imply that it is just individual scientists that have issue with Dembski's assertions, not the field as a whole. Also, contrasting lists/sections are considered harmful because they fragment the presentation of facts, oversimplify controversies, invite spurious correspondences between "sides", and are never complete, and thus invite biased contributions. Embedding the facts that Sam considers controversial within their relevant sections avoid these issues and it is therefore preferred. The existing format is the preferred format, you can add outside links when siting support.--FeloniousMonk 18:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't see that you could argue that it's only individual scientists who have problems with Dembski. Certainly if we only listed individual critiques that might appear to be the case.  But the fact of the matter is that Dembski hasn't made any good science here. This wouldn't be a "pro and con" list.  In the circumstances, it would be a demolition job. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Design versus designer
Is it correct to say: "Dembski believes that the scientific study of nature reveals evidence of design by God," and "Dembski's main idea is that of specified complexity, a type of information that he feels is the hallmark of God."

There's a Dembski paper here that says:

"The crucial question for science is whether design helps us understand the world, and especially the biological world, better than we do now when we systematically eschew teleological notions from our scientific theorizing. ... If design cannot be made into a fertile new point of view that inspires exciting new areas of scientific investigation, then it deserves to wither and die. Yet before that happens, it deserves a fair chance to succeed."

"We are now in a position to see how intelligent design parts company with natural theology. Ian Barbour claims that my colleagues and I are in the business of using scientific evidence to establish the existence of a designer. And presumably once we've established the existence of a designer, then we'll want to expatiate on the attributes of that designer. If Barbour's characterization of our enterprise were correct, then the charge that intelligent design is a form of natural theology would stand. But that's not what we're about. Barbour has the logic of intelligent design backwards. That logic does not move from features of the world to proof of the existence of a designer to cataloguing attributes of the designer. Rather, intelligent design begins with features of the world that are inherently inexplicable in terms of natural causes -- not merely features of the world that for now lack a natural-cause explanation but rather for which natural causes are in principle incapable of providing an explanation (for instance, in my writings I argue that the specified complexity of certain biological systems constitutes such a feature). Next, intelligent design notes that in our ordinary experience, when objects whose causal story we know exhibit such features, then a designer was crucially involved in the object's causal history."

"It's at this point that intelligent design could be co-opted into doing natural theology, proclaiming that natural objects exhibiting such features establish the existence of a designer. But intelligent design resists that temptation. Instead of arguing for the existence of a designer (and thus formulating a revamped design argument), intelligent design asks how positing an intelligent cause to explain such objects offers fresh scientific insights. The designer of intelligent design is not the God of any particular religious faith and not the God of any particular philosophical reflection but merely a generic intelligent cause capable of originating certain features of the natural world. Positing such a designer to account for certain types of biological complexity is like positing quarks to account for certain properties of subatomic particles. The point is to see what a designer helps explain; the point is not to establish the existence of the designer." SlimVirgin 18:10, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that what you are suggesting is that it appears Dembski is not making an argument for creation by god, but by a unnamed 'designer', right? If that is the case, then we should consider Dembski's past statements as the motive for his scholarly assertions. At the 1996 "Mere Creation" conference at Biola, in his introduction to the conference proceedings, published in 1998 as Mere Creation: Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design, Dembski describes the purpose of the conference as formulating "a theory of creation that puts Christians in the strongest possible position to defeat the common enemy of creation."


 * I think it's safe to say based on Dembski's own words that Dembski has a christian creationist agenda.--FeloniousMonk 20:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not suggesting this for the article, but here's a great Douglas Adams quote:

"...imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in. It fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well. It must have been made to have me in it!'" SlimVirgin 18:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I like that one.--FeloniousMonk 19:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry to disappear &mdash; dinner time. Yes, I use Adams' puddle all the time in tutorials.
 * I don't think, as indeed FeloniousMonk has demonstrated, that there's much doubt about Dembski's object. As for whether simply finding a synonym for 'psedoscience' would help &mdash; I doubt it, but it's worth a try. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I still have a problem with what he appears to be saying in the paper I quoted from. He says there that he is positing the idea of a designer to see what explanatory power the idea has, and compares his designer to a nuclear physicist's quarks. That's not quite the same as the simplistic creationism this article appears to be attributing to him. Now, the paper I'm citing isn't dated, so maybe it's an old one and he wouldn't stand by this interpretation of his ideas anymore.

Also, I'd say that just because he says (during a political speech) that his ideas may put Christians in a strong position to "defeat the common enemy", that doesn't mean he himself is searching for the Christian god. It may mean that, but it doesn't have to. By the way, I can see these comments in the history, but not on the page, so I'm having to write from memory. If I'm not referring to relevant responses or if I'm misquoting s'thing, that's the reason. Best, SlimVirgin 01:09, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * The situation with Dembski's work and his motives and that of the movement he belongs to are far too complicated to just rely on the putative good faith of Dembski's statements in his work. It's crucial to understand it in the historical background and context of the stated agenda of the ID movement. ID's agenda is to promote christian creationism under the guise of science. This agenda was set forth by the 'father' of the ID movement, the creator of the term "intelligent design" and drawer of the strategic road map followed by most ID proponents (including Dembski by his own admission), Phillip E. Johnson. Understanding that agenda and strategy as set forth by Johnson, styled as "The Wedge", is critical to correctly understanding what is going on here, and with Dembski. The stated "governing goals" of the wedge strategy are "1. To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies" and "2. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Lifting a page directly out of Johnson's book "The Wedge of Truth", Dembski adopts a pretense of science but his assertions still require a supernatural creator, now just innocuously termed "designer." Also, a thorough reading of Dembski's other public statements, taken in light of his degree in divinity, puts him squarely in the christian creationist camp. I suggest reading the article "Wedging Creationism into the Academy" at the American Association of University Professors website.  It covers the duplicitious agenda of ID and those who are part of "The Wedge", including Dembski. I can post other Dembski quotes citing his christian creationist agenda if it is needed.--FeloniousMonk 02:21, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks FM, I'll read your link later and will try to read more about this elsewhere. I have no Christian or creationist POV, by the way, just to make that clear. I think in part I'm reacting to the idea that we state or imply that Dembski has an agenda that has to be taken into account when interpreting ID, while implying that mainstream scientists don't. Pseudoscience is an inherently POV term, meaning nothing more than "boo", while "scientific" often just means "hurrah" &mdash; and it's a "hurrah" I don't share. I'll try to find time to read more about Dembski's ideas. I take your point that the ideas and agenda shouldn't be separated, but they are separable, and the article should perhaps make that clearer. Also, I was wondering what's meant by "the apologist C.S. Lewis" and the "science master's degree". SlimVirgin 05:39, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * While I'd agree that 'pseudoscience' can be used as a mere insult, just as 'communist' or 'Cartesian' or 'Nazi' can, like them it has a perfectly objective, NPoV sense. Simply, it refers to non-science that calims to be science.  There are different accounts of science, of course, which lead to slight differences in the extension of 'psedoscience &mdash; but most disagreements in this area concern how to define pseudoscience rather than what falls into that category.
 * I suppose for most non-philosophers (and many philosophers) it's associated primarily or even wholly with Popper's falsification theory. I don't think anyone nowadays would go along with falifiability as being the criterion of what is or isn't scientific, but it does point to an important aspect of science: that it should be genuinely subject to evidence.  It mustn't respond to evidence by invoking ad hoc hypotheses which have no independent evidential justification.  (If, when, Newton's theories were apparently falsified by the observed position of Uranus, scientists had simply said : 'Oh, there must be another planet out there disturbing things', that would have been pseudoscience &mdash; but they looked for it and found it, thus providing independent evidential grounds for its existence, so they stuck to genuine science.)
 * There are other factors, but the problem with 'creation science', intelligent design, and other intrusions of religious faith into science, is that they depend upon hypotheses that are by definition not independently verifiable. They're therefore not science.  If they claimed (as some of the more honest creationists do) that science was simply wrong and inappropriate, and that religious belief should override it, they'd not be doing pseudoscience (I have other arguments against such a position, but that's another matter).
 * So, as I climb down from my soapbox, I conclude that calling Dembski's work pseudoscience could have been a mere insult, but in fact it's based upon an understanding of the nature of science and of his work. (We don't have to worry about Sam Spade joining in this discussion; he's already told me on his Talk page that he ignores my arguments and evidence because he knows that he's right...) Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:06, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Find a source for the statements you keep reinstating, cite and attribute the sources making the statements in question, and stop slandering Mr. Dembski and making ad hominem attacks and other fallacious arguments in order to silence your opposition. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Q.E.D. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:09, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see Mel Etitis making any "ad hominem attacks" or "fallacious arguments" or even slandering Dembski here, Sam. I think you are slandering Mel Etitis though by making such a patently false claim. Knock off the oblique personal attacks on Mel Etitis and stick to the topic here, please.--FeloniousMonk 18:11, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Slim-- you were wondering what was meant by phrases "the apologist C.S. Lewis" and the "science master's degree". As you know an apologist is a person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution. C.S. Lewis was an apologist for christianity, and his book "Mere Christianity", was one of the more popular christian apologist tomes of the 20th century. "Science master's degree" refers to an MS, a graduate degree in science known as a Master of Science.

Pseudoscience is a legitimate term and not necessarily a loaded or charged term. As the flip-side to the science coin, it is well defined. It is not necessarily always intended or used as a pejorative, though it is often perceived as such by those who find themselves labeled thusly.--FeloniousMonk 19:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, FM. I'm not sure I agree that pseudoscience is not necessarily a loaded term. The first site returned by Google for it is here and calls it "an established body of knowledge which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms . . . ". I'd say this is the way most people understand the term, and it's clearly POV. Regarding a "science masters degree," is this an MSc? If so, do we know in what? Or perhaps there is a such a thing as a "science masters degree" in no particular subject. If there is, sorry, but I haven't heard of it. Speaking of degrees, the article says he has:


 * 1981: B.A. psychology
 * 1883: M.A. statistics
 * 1985: Science master's degree (M.Sc?); subject not specified
 * 1988: Ph.D mathematics
 * 1993: M.A. philosophy
 * 1996: Ph.D philosophy
 * 1996: Master of Divinity

First problem is the B.A. seems to have taken two years, not three. Also, it would be unusual to be allowed to move from psychology to statistics to a PhD in maths without some kind of conversion course: perhaps that was the role of the "science masters degree." Again, to go straight to an MA in philosophy would be unusual; and to be awarded a PhD and MA in the same year, also unusual, unless the Divinity thing was honorary. Are we sure these details are right?


 * Answering my own question here. Dembski's website says he has:

Regarding C.S. Lewis, that's what the word "apologist" should mean but it's not how many (most?) people understand it. I'd say many people use the word to imply some kind of dishonesty, or manipulation of the facts, so I wonder if it would be better simply to say "Christian writer"; but if apologist is used, we should say "Christian apologist", otherwise we're assuming readers know who he is. SlimVirgin 18:13, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1981 B.A. psychology University of Illinois at Chicago
 * 1983 M.S. statistics University of Illinois at Chicago
 * 1985 S.M. mathematics University of Chicago
 * 1988 Ph.D mathematics University of Chicago
 * 1993 M.A. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago
 * 1996 M.Div. theology Princeton Theological Seminary
 * 1996 Ph.D. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago SlimVirgin 23:05, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to mention this point &mdash: the article says somewhere (W is too slow to check the exact wording) that Dembski has published many popular books but his publications have not been peer-reviewed. Is this fair or accurate? For example, his 1998 The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities can hardly be described as "popular"; it was, I believe, his PhD thesis and, apart from that process, would have been put through a peer-review process by CUP. SlimVirgin 18:36, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * The article says: Dembski has published several popular books, but has published no papers on intelligent design within the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The book was based on his PhD in philosophy (his PhD in mathematics was Chaos, Uniform Probability, and Weak Convergence ). So I would say that the statement is valid at least in this respect (I cannot speak for the totality of his work).
 * As for the other part, psychology can be a very statistical field - it wouldn't surprise me if someone went from a BA in psychology to a MA in statistics to a PhD in "mathematics" (it's in stats, if you look at the title). Guettarda 19:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. Where did we get his bio from, do you know? SlimVirgin 22:15, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've searched the following academic and research article citation databases for citations of Dembski's work, with 0 results: Expanded Academic ASAP, PubMed, and GLADIS (Berkeley). From everything I've read, this was to be expected: from Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates, A critique of William Dembski's book No Free Lunch, by Richard Wein (2002):
 * Dembski claims to have provided a rational foundation for the Fisherian approach to statistics and to have discovered a new Law of Conservation of Information. If these claims were true, they would be of profound importance to statisticians and information theorists. Yet his work on these subjects has not appeared in any journal of statistics or information theory, and, as far as can be determined, not one professional statistician or information theorist has approved of this work. Had any done so, I am sure we would have heard about it from Dembski himself, since he makes a habit of using informal references as a substitute for peer review:
 * ''"Mathematicians and statisticians have been far more receptive [than philosophers] to my codification of design inferences. Take, for instance, the positive notice of The Design Inference in the May 1999 issue of American Mathematical Monthly as well as mathematician Keith Devlin's appreciative remarks about my work in his July/August 2000 article for The Sciences titled "Snake Eyes in the Garden of Eden": "Dembski's theory has made an important contribution to the understanding of randomness--if only by highlighting how hard it can be to differentiate the fingerprints of design from the whorls of chance."
 * Keith Devlin is a respected and widely published mathematician, but he is not a statistician. His article was of a general nature in a popular magazine, not a scholarly journal, and did not address the details of Dembski's work. The content of the article overall was rather more negative towards Dembski's work than the concluding remark suggests. The "positive notice" in the American Mathematical Monthly reads as follows, in its entirety:
 * "Probability, S, P, L. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities. William A. Dembski. Stud. in Prob., Induction, & Decision Theory. Cambridge Univ Pr, 1998, xvii + 243 pp, [ISBN 0-521-62387-1] Not a text but a philosophical tract about when one can infer design behind events of very small probability. Thought provoking, fun to read, full of interesting examples."
 * The fact that Dembski has to resort to such barely favourable references for support indicates the complete lack of acceptance of his work by the experts in the relevant technical fields.


 * We are told (by Dembski and the publisher) that The Design Inference did undergo a review process, though no details of that process are available. It is interesting to note, however, that The Design Inference originally constituted Dembski's thesis for his doctorate in philosophy, and that his doctoral supervisors were philosophers, not statisticians. The publisher (Cambridge University Press) catalogues the book under "Philosophy of Science". One suspects that the reviewers who considered the book on behalf of the publisher were philosophers who may not have had the necessary statistical background to see through Dembski's obfuscatory mathematics. In any case, much of the material in No Free Lunch, including the application of Dembski's methods to biology, did not appear in The Design Inference, and so has received no review at all.--FeloniousMonk 21:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have friends who've been through the peer-review process to have their material published by CUP and it's gruelling, or can be. It's extremely unlikely that this would have been read by people with no background in statistics or mathematics (not to mention that the author has such a background). I'm guessing of course, but it's also guesswork to assume that a thesis for which a PhD has been rewarded and which has subsequently been published by CUP has not been thoroughly peer reviewed. SlimVirgin 22:15, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Why would a publication in philosophy be peer-reviewed by mathematicians? I doubt many philosophers would have had the necessary background to be able to spot the problems with Dembski's claims about probability.  Guettarda 22:48, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's why they'd be likely to show it to people who did. Also, regarding the Richard Wein article linked to above, apparently he has a Bachelor's in statistics but nothing more. I wonder how accurate his criticisms are. SlimVirgin 23:05, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we can all agree that arguments from authority are fallacious, as are arguments from a lack of authority. Valid arguments are valid arguments, despite who makes them. Wein's level of education is an irrelevant factoid that does not detract from Wein’s well substantiated criticism, validated by no less than David Wolpert, the originator of the No Free Lunch (NFL) theorems. A valid deconstruction by an undergraduate of the putatively superior work of a PhD would cast more doubt on the quality of the work of the PhD than it would on the undergraduate. Call me old-fashioned, but I still judge each and every argument on it's merits, not the credentials of it's creator.--FeloniousMonk 23:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, as I said, I've run searches on the Expanded Academic ASAP, PubMed, and GLADIS article databases for citations of or to Dembski's work, and got no results. That means his work is not indexed or cited by any of the credible peer-reviewed journals. This validates the article's criticism of Dembski on that count. Also, Dembski's own comments on why he does not subject his work to peer review leaves little doubt whether or not he currently submits his work for review: "I've just gotten kind of blasé about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print. And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more"


 * Which discipline performs the peer review is determined by the discipline of the work to be vetted. Since CUP catalogs "The Design Inference" as "Philosophy of Science" and not "Science" or "Mathematics", it's safe to assume that it was reviewed by fellow philosophers, not scientists or mathematicians. A glance at Dembski's bibliography in the article will show that there's been plenty of work he could have submitted to journals, but has not; either he has not been able to get it across the threshold or has been unwilling to try. His own statements would indicate the latter, though that may just be a figleaf for the former.--FeloniousMonk 23:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FM, you say that arguments from authority are fallacious, but then go on to rely on one yourself ("validated by no less than David Wolpert"). There is, of course, nothing wrong with an argument from authority so long as the authority really is one, and there is nothing at all wrong with an argument from lack of authority, as you put it. My problem is that I have no qualifications in statistics or mathematics and so I have to rely on the authority of the published references, and someone with a bachelor's in statistics isn't terribly convincing next to someone with PhDs coming out of his ears. That doesn't make the former wrong, as you point out, but you see the problem. I think you're making too much of the peer-reviewed journal business. I know good academics who don't regularly appear in peer-reviewed journals, and I know terrible ones who do. He's running up against the dominant ideology, and so is likely to be torn to shreds during peer review for that reason alone; it's therefore not surprising that he avoids it. What makes you think that the discipline that performs the peer review for the publisher is determined by the discipline of the work being vetted? You may be right, but my understanding of CUP is that the editor decides who to send the work to, and s/he may send it to people inside or outside the discipline. In any event, you're assuming that no one in the philosophy dept, or history and philosophy of science dept, at Cambridge understands probability theory, and the book manuscript needn't, of course, only have been read by Cambridge dons. SlimVirgin 00:01, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * An actual appeal to authority would be "Y says X, therefore X is so" whereas "Y says X" is merely a statement of fact. I said that Wein’s criticism is validated by David Wolpert, co-creator of NFL; it's a statement of fact. David Wolpert disputes Dembski's use of NFL for the same reasons as does Wein, hence we would be justified in accepting Wein's argument on its face. And being lettered in mathematics or statistics is not required to see that there's very little support in either field for Dembsky's claims.


 * Let's not get into what an appeal to authority is. Suffice to say, it's not always (informally) fallacious, and is sometimes a perfectly acceptable way to proceed &mdash; it depends on how it's used. SlimVirgin 04:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * As for the weight of Dembski's credentials, we cannot let that overly impress us. Quantity does not equal quality . ..


 * Agreed. SlimVirgin 04:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

. . . and reason dictates that quality be questioned when an entire parade of ideas are roundly and repeatedly rejected over the course of an academic career.


 * What is right and what is wrong, what is well argued or badly argued, cannot be decided by a majority vote. SlimVirgin 04:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Even if Dembski accumulated more letters after his name than all of us put together should that mean his claims get a walk? They would if Dembski accumulated endorsements of his claims from within his field instead. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann, John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler were all highly educated scientists too. There's no shortage of qualified scientists sporting fine imprimaturs from scholarly institutions who've gone on to suggest plainly absurd ideas, thus joining the roster of cranks. The fact someone has "PhDs coming out of his ears" could be considered suspect to begin with, since a well documented chapter of "The Wedge" canon is the collecting of official credentials to invoke before impressionable audiences.


 * That's something I wondered about: why he took that second PhD. Academically, there was no need for it unless he wanted to teach philosophy, which I'm assuming he doesn't do. SlimVirgin 04:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually he teaches philosophy and has a position in philosophy. His CV only has two mathematical pubs (of any sort) and they date to 1990 Guettarda 21:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If he's actually teaching philosophy at the moment and has a current position doing that, that should probably be in the intro. I tried to find out what he's teaching now, but it isn't clear, and I'm too tired to go on looking right now. Regarding straight philosophy teaching, his bio says he taught philosophy of science 1992–1993, philosophy of religion 1996–1997, and introduction to philosophy, 1997–1999. That's not a huge amount, and neither philosophy of science nor philosophy of religion are core areas. SlimVirgin 05:29, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's the scholarly audience whose vote counts in measuring the value of a new hypothesis, and they don't seem to be too impressed with Dembski's; his claims have gotten almost no traction within his profession and others, which is not helped by his choosing to withdraw from publishing in the journals.


 * I don't hold with this peer-review argument. You may be right in this case, of course. But in general, you're making out an argument for majority rule; and in favor of whatever the dominant ideology of the day happens to be. You're not taking into account that paradigm shifts occur, and that they may not be well received to begin with. Again, I stress that I'm not trying to hold Dembski up as a misunderstood genius. I'm arguing in general terms, but also saying that, while some of your criticisms of him are interesting and valid, others are less so, in my opinion. SlimVirgin 04:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * As you say, there good academics who don't regularly appear in peer-reviewed journals and terrible ones who do. But there are precious few academics who get anywhere in challenging the dominant ideology without publishing.


 * But he does publish: just not always in the "right" places (though CUP is one of the right places). Also bear in mind that academics give lectures to their peers and that this is a form of peer review; though in this case, I accept he may choose to lecture only to the converted. SlimVirgin 04:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * No one is saying he is a bad philosopher - but he backs his philosophy with mathematics (which were termed to have a foundation of "jello" ) and wanders into biology, an area in which he has no background at all. Guettarda 21:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's also not forget that this all must be viewed in the context of the "The Wedge Strategy". Much of that strategy is directed toward the broader public, as opposed to the professional scientific community. By touting degrees and faculty positions while not actually participating in genuine science allows Wedge proponents to co-opt the prestige of scientific institutions without having to address the more troublesome aspects of actual research, like publishing your findings.--FeloniousMonk 01:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a good point. Thank you for taking so much time to address my concerns. I feel bad about you having to do that, especially with Wikipedia being so slow, though it has speeded up a little today. I've downloaded some material about Dembski which I'll try to find the time to read carefully. I have the sense that his design argument is more sophisticated that we're allowing, though I'm hampered by my inability to understand his probability argument; still, I'll try to make some sense of it. SlimVirgin 04:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you in return for hearing me out and considering my points; it's actually been fun. Here's a couple of articles that critque Dembski's argument that I found helpful and fair:, . Cheers.--FeloniousMonk 21:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi FM, I just read your recent edit, below. Re: my comment about D's ideas being more sophisticated than we're allowing &mdash; perhaps not, after all.

He does write in an odd way for someone so clever. I was reading more about his ideas on probability last night. I can't pretend to understand it all but some of it is strikingly simplistic. Thanks for the additional links. SlimVirgin 21:25, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * "I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God’s glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God’s glory is getting robbed." He continued, "And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done - and he’s not getting it."

Sources cited
OK, I've added citations for the statements in the article that Sam has been insisting on.--FeloniousMonk 17:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes
Good recent edits. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I felt it needed some more referencing (doesn't everything on Wikipedia?) and it needed to say a bit more about the man's own views. -- ChrisO 14:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I very much agree. There are still some statements which I contest, but progress is being made, and really, who can ask for more than progress? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stop press: Biologist accepts evolution!
OK, now that the notion of it's being ironic is gone, it's not so bad (though hardly worth mentioning). The other edits are almost all personal stylistic preference, making little difference to the clarity, but so long as we're happy with the result, fine. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

knowledge of statistics
I don't like this sentence:

"Dembski's knowledge of statistics, coupled with his general scepticism concerning evolutionary theory, prompted him to regard it as statistically improbable that natural selection could produce the extraordinary diversity of life."

I think that closer to the truth would be

"Dembski's knowledge of statistics, coupled with his general scepticism concerning and lack of understanding of evolutionary theory, prompted him to regard it as statistically improbable that natural selection could produce the extraordinary diversity of life."

But of course that would be POV. Anyway, the sentence as it is makes readers think that knowledge of statistics is all you need to judge the question, when in reality you need knowledge of statistics and evolutionary biology. There are loads of biologists (and other scientists) who understand both and who accept evolution. After all, the modern synthesis contains a lot of math, mainly coming from population genetics. But how to formulate that? --Hob Gadling 11:26, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * You're assuming that Dembski is ignorant of evolutionary theory. There is of course also the possibility that he is very well aware of it but chooses to misrepresent it for ideological reasons.


 * As for the sentence you dislike, how about this as a simpler alternative?


 * "Dembski came to believe that it was statistically improbable that natural selection could produce the extraordinary diversity of life."


 * -- ChrisO 11:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

revert of most of anon's edits
I've just taken the page back to ChrisO's last edit (though retaining a few of anon's uncontroversial changes). The changes were mostly very PoV, clearly attempting to push the article more pro-Dembski. (For example, labelling peer-reviewed science journals 'evolution-accepting'; aside from the matter of style, this is a peculiar way to acknowledge that the scientific community accepts evolution. In fact, of course, it's a crude attempt to make that fact look like a matter of prejudice.  Supporters of I.D. might want to claim that, but it's not for a Wikipideia article to do so.) Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 15:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another PoV addition (by same anon.) removed. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 15:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, OK, sorta. At least you didn't remove the uncontrovertable ones as well.  However, calling NCSE a leading science organisation is POV (NAS is reasonable to decribe that way).  And I found the article with a claim about YECs denouncing Dembski, so it seemed reasonable to put a ref for that, as well as some balancing ones where they support it.  And it seemed to me like a bad case of potly melanism to accuse Dembski of seeking utter destruction of opponents when the accuser had tried to close his center down.  Last time I checked, Cambridge study groups were peer reviewed. 138.130.192.82 16:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * What is POV about calling NCSE a "leading science organisation"? And, um, what is "potly melanism"?  I'm confused.  Guettarda 17:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Pot calling the kettle black, perhaps? -- ChrisO 17:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Chris is right. And NCSE exists to promote evolution and attack creationism; it does no research into physics, chemistry etc.  Really, it has as much to do with science as Dawkins has to do with "public education of science", and I thought Mel would relate to that, judging by his comments on Dawkins.138.130.192.82 23:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Mel, why do you think it's "factual" to describe the Discovery Institute as "right wing"? I hope the change to "conservative" is enough of a compromise. 138.130.192.82 12:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The idea that leading science organisations should promote 'leading science' (as per anon's edit summary) is, of course, absurd (unless they're described as 'leading-science organisations' I suppose), as is the initial claim that of course it would support evolution because that's the sort of thing it supports. Note also that closing a centre isn't the same as utterly destroying one's opponents; supporting free speech doesn't commit one to paying for people to speak freely (and the 'arguably' gave the game away).  I'm gad, though, that anon. is posting comments to the Talk page instead of simply editing the article.Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Then define leading science organization. How can a small organisation devoted to promoting evolutionary education and headed by an obscure physical anthropologist like Eugenie Scott be described as a leading science organization. At the very least, it is POV.  No one would object to describing the NAS as a leading science organization.

For goodness' sake, Dembski never talked about destroying anyone literally, only preventing his censorship. It's also crazy that an ostensibly Christian university is so petrified of promoting the idea that there might be scientific evidence for divine creation. It's as incongruous as an atheistic organization rejecting evolution.


 * I assume that the above unsigned comments are by the same person. I'll reply as if they were, anyway.
 * Does a leading carpet manufacturer have to manufacture leading carpets? No, the leading refers to its standing as a manufacturer that makes carpets.  In the same way, a leading science organisation is a leading organisation concerned with science.
 * Eugenie Scott is no more obscure than Dembski
 * It's only 'crazy' that the university behave as they did if you're assuming that Dembski's work is legitimate &mdash; but in that case, any suggestion of surprise is PoV.
 * There's nothing peculiar about an atheist rejecting evolution (though note that that's a very vague notion: it's mad for any rational person to reject the claim that species have developed from othjer species, but perfectly rational to question the phylogenetic claims of a particular evolutionary theory, or the mechanism suggested by a particular theory). Only creationists (and religiously fanatical atheists of the Dawkins type)think that acceptance or rejection of scientific theories should be dictated by one's position with regard to religion.
 * Under which User name or IP address did you engage in a discussion in which I commented on Dawkins? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 23:52, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice any proof that Eugenie Scott's group is a leading scientific organization. The onus is on you and other supporters to prove that it is one, since this is a very POV term.  It is hardly relevant whether Dembski or Scott are more obscure &#8212; are either of them leading in science?  What discoveries have they made?  What are some of their science research projects?  For that matter, what is the size of the NCSE?  How many full-time staff?


 * Also, it seems to be a foundational tenet of Christianity that God created, and also that people have no excuse for denying this (Romans 1:20). So one must wonder about a Christian university that is so anti any type of creation, except one that is for all practical purposes indistinguishable from atheistic evolution. 220.244.224.8 04:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The NCSE article describes them as an AAAS-affiliate, although I couldn't find this on their own website. If true, AAAS is the gold standard in US science.
 * Even a cursory glance shows that Eugenie Scott has peer reviewed pubs in the field, which beats Dembski...so "obscure" is an interesting call
 * The President of NCSE, Kevin Padian lists 12 2004 pubs in peer-reviewd journals...looks pretty high-powered to me
 * it's as incongruous as an atheistic organization rejecting evolution. - Stalin rejected neo-Darwinism, and John Paul II accepts it. Francisco Ayala, NCSE "supporter" has a doctorate in theology.  Meaningless point.
 * I don't know enough about them to judge, but I would be interesting in knowing what "anon" considers a "leading" organisation. Can you explain your points and back them up with evidence please?  Thanks  Guettarda 00:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Stalin converted to atheism after reading Darwin at a seminary, according to his biographer Yaroslavsky. Later he became a fan of the neo-Lamarckian evolutionist Lysenko.  Doctroate in theology has nothing to do with being a Christian &#8212; Ayala is a self-declared apostate.


 * Please also explain the apparent objection to adding a reference to the claim that YECs have criticized Dembski. If it is not referenced, then the sentence remains unsupported so should be dropped. 220.244.224.8 04:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the anon's edits, you're probably all aware of this, but in case not: Requests for comment/138.130.194.229. SlimVirgin 01:05, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow. Thanks SV. I for one was not aware of this RfC.--FeloniousMonk 01:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, FM. SlimVirgin 01:46, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Archive

 * /Archive 1
 * /Archive 2 (the present page is getting long, but archive 1 is 65kb and some of the current page is only 3 weeks old, so I'll let it slide a bit. --Blainster 21:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Spelling
From the Wikipedia Manual of Style: "Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use center in one place and centre in another on the same page. Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country. For example: article on the American Civil War: U.S. usage and spelling." This being an article on a US citizen active largely in the US, the US spelling should be used here.--FeloniousMonk 03:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

reverting Noetica's reverts (etc.)

 * 1) I sympathise with the dislike of 'analyze' &mdash; unlike genuine alternative spellings like 'symathize', it's ugly and etymologically deeply silly, but it's been declared to be U.S. English (I know educated Americans who disagree, but they don't count here, unfortunately).
 * 2) More importantly, the question of the fallacy. An informal argument, especially, doesn't have to have a premise in the form explicitly of a universal generalisation; the following counts:
 * If someone's a communist then she believes in equality
 * Mary believes in equality
 * Therefore Mary's a communist.
 * The first premise is a conditional, but the argument is still a classic example of the fallacy.


 * 1) Besides, his argument is clearly fallacious, however you label it (and whether it's offered by him or by Richard Swinburne; do you have a preferred label? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm typing this in bed (yes, it has finally happened), so maybe I'm missing something, but why is that not an example of affirming the consequent, as Noetica wrote? The paragraph states that Demski argues, roughly: If there is a god, there is design. There is design. Therefore there is a god. SlimVirgin 09:54, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I missed Noetica's reference to that (was it one of those long edit summaries?). Yes, I'm happy with that (we could call it modus (tollendo) tollens if we wanted to be pompous; that's how I learnt it, and it was such a relief to discover that there was a plain English name for it).  In informal reasoning, the same error can often be assigned to more than one fallacy.  If it makes people happy, I'll change the article accordingly.  Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 10:07, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't mind. We can name all the fallacies Dembski makes. In fact, we could create a separate article called William Dembski's formal and informal fallacies in Latin, American English, and British English. SlimVirgin


 * I was writing from memory, but here's what we say D. says: "He decided that, if God were the creator of the universe, then there should be order in the world, not randomness. As order is indeed visible in many aspects of biological organisms, this must be evidence of design, and evidence against the idea that random changes could have produced those organisms." That's not quite "if p then q; q, therefore p" but it is more or less, because we're saying that when he says there is evidence of design, he's implying there's necessarily a designer, and furthermore implying that the designer is God, perhaps as a matter of definition, so it ends up as affirming the consequent. Of course, it's also a tautology, because it reduces to: "If there's a god, there's a god." But as we're discussing logic, I must hasten to sleep before I make an embarrassing error if I haven't made one already. SlimVirgin 10:21, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Mel, and hi SlimVirgin (in bed). I was writing the following while you two were chatting, but I'll post despite its being somewhat overtaken by subsequent talk:


 * Mel, note first that I did only one revert. Then my question to you is this: why call the version to which you reverted "the last clean version"? Odd! The business with the barbarous spelling is understood, of course. We must accept these things. But why is a reference to undistributed middle "clean", and a reference that is more transparent and at least as circumspectly worded to affirming the consequent something other than "clean"? The argument under discussion is couched as follows (by someone or other):


 * If God were the creator of the universe, then there should be order in the world, not randomness. As order is indeed visible in many aspects of biological organisms, this must be evidence of design, and evidence against the idea that random changes could have produced those organisms.


 * Rendered more canonically, stripped of qualifications, accretions, and shifts in surface detail (some of which obscure the form), it surely amounts to this:


 * P1: If God were the creator of the universe, then there would be order in the world.
 * P2: There is order in the world.
 * C: God is the creator of the universe.


 * This is not an instance of undistributed middle. It is not even a categorical syllogism, of any sort. It is, plainly, an instance of the fallacy of affirming the consequent, which has this general form:


 * P1: If P then Q
 * P2: Q
 * C: P


 * I acknowledge that connexions can be found between the two kinds of fallacy at issue here; but I await your demonstration that my analysis is incorrect, and I await your detailed working to show that the argument is more informatively characterised as an instance of the fallacy of undistributed middle. The example you give concerning Mary and communism is not a sufficient demonstration, partly because it does not match closely enough the argument at issue.


 * My "clean" version of that argument does, in all relevant respects, reveal the structure in question, and that structure is affirming the consequent. (And in late news: no, it is NOT an instance of modus tollens! Revise your sentential logic, I suggest!) --Noetica 10:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * (Because I'm in a hurry, I've just hit another edit conflict; I hope that this turns out OK.)
 * I am at the moment (or should be) rushing out of the door in order to try to make my first tutorial of the day, but is it enough to say that I've altered the text (with internal link)? (It may be that I missed something in your change; I thought that you'd merely removed the reference to the fallacy. I reverted only one change, but then saw in the edit history that you'd made two, which makes me wonder if there was some sort of edit conflict.) I'd be happy to discuss the relationship between affirming the consequent and undistributed middle, but when I can sit down and write unhurriedly. I hope we're agreed on the article's wording now, at any event.  My apologies for any misunderstanding. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 10:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Your apologies are readily accepted, Mel! You edited in haste. In view of all this, I have taken the liberty of reverting to what I had put, which was not done in haste (with "analyzable" retained, of course). See my edit summary for my reason. --Noetica 10:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've just had a chance to look again, and it's worse than I'd thought; I have no excuse at all &mdash; no edit conflicts, no nothing. I just edited too hastily. Sorry. (I think, personally, that it's more straightforwardly an example of the fallacy than merely analysable as one, but that's not so important I suppose). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem at all, Mel! Such things can easily happen. An interesting article, with interesting discussion Catherine-wheeling its way quaquaversally from it. I'll watch this article; but since enough people have a stake in it already I'll do no editing. Whatever anyone says will not last anyway. Best wishes to you. --Noetica 13:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like a long time since the last reply here but let me just say it's incorrect to characterize Dembski's argument as deductive, and thus to apply this fallacy to it. He explicitly argues in chapter 7 of Intelligent Design that this argument is not deductive but abductive, and inference to the best explanation. As such this criticism does not apply, he does nothing like the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Takumi4G63 16:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Templeton Foundation
A recent edit by User:138.130.192.82 was accompanied by the edit summary "Reversed Templeton and Discovery Ins. because the former is not pro-ID". But the Foundation's website has this to say on its funding of research into Science and Religion:

http://www.templeton.org/science_and_religion/index.asp


 * The Foundation especially seeks to stimulate rigorous scholarly/scientific advances that increase understanding of the ultimate aspects of human purpose...

(Emphasis is mine).

On the same page, the Foundation's benefactor, Sir John Marks Templeton, is quoted as follows:


 * There is here no knockdown argument for design and purpose, but certainly there are strong hints of ultimate realities beyond the cosmos. One of the strongest hints, in our opinion, relates to the new understanding of the creativity of the cosmos, its capacity for so-called self-organization. ... From a theological perspective it is indeed tempting to see this remarkable self-organizing tendency as an expression of the intimate nature of the Creator's activity and identification with our universe.

To say that the Templeton Foundation is not strongly biased in favor of Intelligent Design would be, I suggest, to ignore the following facts:
 * 1) it is an organisation that promotes teleological explanations of human existence;
 * 2) it gives pride of place to its benefactor's strong statements in support of ID as a means of linking scientific findings and religious belief.

I'm returning the statement to its former order. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * No way &#8212; Templeton is a theistic evolutionist, and has given the prizes to many evolutionists (e.g. Arthur Peacocke, Freeman Dyson. Of course he is a theist of some sort that believes that some sort of "god" is behind the universe, but behind the scenes, not by direct design as Dembski and the other IDers believe.  Self-organization as you quoted is the antithesis of ID, which states that matter CANNOT organize itself into the complexity of life without intelligent input.  The original edit seems reasonable 220.244.224.8 04:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment
The page on William A. Dembski is an obvious violation of the NPOV. Those overseeing this page are obvious secular Darwinians ready to slander Dr. Demski. [ Comment by User:204.96.24.109, moved from top of page by Guettarda ]


 * An exaggeration, but I have to admit there were some biased elements in the page, especially the "Darwin in a vise" image. I've removed these. If you have any more issues, list them here and we'll work it out. -- ChrisO

The "Darwin in a vise" stuff is still there.


 * I've removed the image from the article, and it's listed on Copyright problems as a probable copyright violation. -- ChrisO 21:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chris, Thank you for your comments. They are appreciated. Here are a few comments.

1) "His critics have accused him of dishonesty in his representation of scientific facts and writing" This may be a fact but it is a polemical fact and irrelevant to the profile. If you read any profiles of Darwinist, I doubt it is noted that &#8220;some scientists accuse Dr. X of being a blind/atheistic/liar&#8221;. That is a factual statement (the charge, not the truth of it) but it is prejudicial. And the link in this case shows how irrelevant -- and predictable -- the comment is. What some claim or charge and what reality is may be two different things, particularly in a hotly disputed area. The point really is irrelevant to the profile so please drop it.


 * See my comments below under "Comments on Mel Etitis' edit summary". -- ChrisO 21:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2) "his ideas are not accepted as valid by the mainstream scientific community" This again may be a fact but it prejudices the reader. How about putting it in context and saying "his ideas are not accepted as valid by the mainstream Darwinian community " or something to that effect. Really, without that context, the statement while "factual" is prejudicial.


 * The "mainstream Darwinian community" is the mainstream scientific community. Dembski is not an evolutionary biologist, and even outside the evolutionary biologist community ID is not widely supported. The pro-ID "petition" organized by the Discovery Institute has only 400 names on it, which is a tiny fraction of the total number of practising scientists in the US alone. -- ChrisO 21:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3) The account of the "Baylor University controversy" reads very one-sided and is designed to prejudice the reader. It is almost salacious in its representations. If you want specifics listed I can do that but I would think that any fair editor can go in and remove the salacious comments.


 * I wrote most of it, though it's been revised since. You can edit the article even without having a Wikipedia account (just hit the "edit this page" tab) so if you can think of a better way of describing it, go for it. -- ChrisO 21:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll give a further list later if you are interested.


 * Comments on anon's comments
 * His critics have accused him of dishonesty in his representation of scientific facts and writing - Scientists have to publish in peer-reviewed journal. Since Dembski won't subject his ideas to peer review, it's appropriate to comment on the factual inaccuracies in his work.
 * his ideas are not accepted as valid by the mainstream scientific community - Dembski claims the guise of science, but he won't publish in scientific journals. He claims to be a scientist, but that claim is not backup up by his actions.
 * The account of the "Baylor University controversy" reads very one-sided and is designed to prejudice the reader - look at the archives of the Talk page. The account is based on referenced facts.  Dembski's apologists may want to put a differnt spin on things, but it is not Wikipedia's role to be a PR agency.  Guettarda 17:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm at a loss as to why Dembski's own words and image are PoV &mdash; or is the claim that they're not really his? If so, what are the arguments on each side?
 * I'm not sure what is meant by "salacious" here. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Comments on Mel Etitis' comments
 * "I'm at a loss as to why Dembski's own words and image are PoV". Did you see me make any reference to "Dembski's own words"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.24.109 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 18 Jun 2005

The edit to which I was responding involved the deletion of a section that included a quotation from Dembski. (Incidentally, could you sign your comments? If you don't it makes following a discussion very difficult.  Use four tildes ( ~ ; that inserts your name or IP address, and the date and time.) Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 19:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Comments on Guettarda's comments
 * "Since Dembski won't subject his ideas to peer review, it's appropriate to comment on the factual inaccuracies in his work." (a) While he may not have subjected his ideas to the formal process of peer review, it hasn't kept anyone from reviewing and commenting on his claims. (b) You are mistaking a polemical argument for the issues which are not even debated on this page.
 * "that claim is not backup up by his actions". Please cite a source for this preposterous claim. Please state the law which he's broken to disqualify him from being a scientist. Don't mistake your assertion for the law
 * "The account is based on referenced facts." You mean referenced claims and facts. It's one sided and prejudicial. Wikipedia's role is not to be a PR agency. Nor is it to be a slander outlet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.24.109 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 18 Jun 2005


 * "While he may not have subjected his ideas to the formal process of peer review, it hasn't kept anyone from reviewing and commenting on his claims. - precisely why it is appropriate to include these comments (of dishonesty).
 * Please cite a source for this preposterous claim (of Dembski not being a scientist). Scientists publish peer-reviewed science.  If he refuses to publish, he is not participating in the process of science, so you can't call him a scientist.
 * I should not have said "references facts", I should have said "referenced sources". See the history of the Talk page.  It's all been hashed out in the past.  Feel free to counter those arguments, and explain why the sources are slanderous.  Guettarda 18:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Scientists publish peer-reviewed science." What kind of nonsense is that? Look up "scientist" in wikipedia. Whoever made that stupid remard should resign from editing this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist 66.69.216.76 16:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * See No personal attacks.
 * Wikipedia articles are works in progress - maybe scientist needs work. Communicating your results is an essential part of the scientific method.  If you don't communicate if you don't have your work reviewed by your peers you aren't doing science.  Guettarda 16:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I attacked the remark, not the person. Scientists working in the corporate world don't publish peer reviewed science. Your remarks are showing a lack of understanding of science and scientists. You therefore seem unqualified to edit an article about a scientist.

I changed "mainstream scientific community" to "many in the scientific community". The mainstream scientific community falsely implies almost all scientists and the fact of the matter is that few scientists have actually sit themselves down and studied Dembski's work which is prerequisite to valid acceptance or denial of it. I also changed "in opposition to evolution and natural selection" to "in addition to evolution and natural selection". Nowhere in Dembski's work is there a hint that he doesn't accept some amount of descent with modification as being accomplished by Darwinian random mutation plus natural selection. His only claim is that certain aspects of products of evolution carry evidence of design. 66.69.216.76 16:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look, it's an outright lie to say that Dembski's ID work is in opposition to evolution via natural selection. As far as Dembski is concerned design is a mechanism additional to, not a replacement for, random mutation + natural selection. Just ask him if you don't believe me. Shouldn't a scientist at least be able to define is his own position instead of some third party that obviously doesn't know better being allowed to define it for him? 66.69.216.76 16:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Scientists working in industry do publish in the peer-reviewed literature. Some of them are forbidden from doing so by their employers, but I suspect that you are confusing scientists, technicians and engineers.  Nonetheless, failure to publish is failure to apply the scientific method.
 * Mainstream science rejects ID. Overwhelmingly.  It isn't science.  "Many in the scientific community" suggests something less than an overwhelming majority.  Thus, it's misleading, twisting the article in order to mislead is not acceptable.
 * Shouldn't a scientist at least be able to define is his own position instead of some third party that obviously doesn't know better being allowed to define it for him? Apart from the fact that Dembski is not a scientist, this article should not be a PR vehicle for him.  Dembski engages in a compex deception, and that deception and dishonesty has been widely documented.  His reply to this is to shift his position a little (and so, contradict his former position, but he doesn't seem to be bothered by this; see Calvinball).  Wikipedia cannot be party to this deception.
 * Calling me stupid is a personal attack. So is "You therefore seem unqualified to edit an article about a scientist".  Please desist.  Guettarda 17:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have an idea. How about if everyone who has actually published peer reviewed science please so state so we can separate who's really an expert and who isn't here. Here's some of my peer reviewed work. http://.com/5rxfs 66.69.216.76 17:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a joke, right? A patent? Well, it fits.  See bait and switch.  Do you even know what science is?  Guettarda 17:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... isn't calling that a "joke" a personal attack on me by your definition? Physician, heal thyself. The scientific method does not include peer reviewed publication. Peer reviewed publication is an advancement criteria in academia. Scientists in industry advance by different criteria since profit motive usually precludes unprotected public disclosure. You do acknowledge that science and scientists are at work in private firms where protecting the profits that pay for the science is of utmost concern, right?

Regardless, Dembski's work does not deny natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism. I defy you to actually find a place in any of his work where he says that natural selection plays no role in evolution. If you do I'll gladly stop changing the fallacy you insist belongs in the article. Your bias is showing. Do the right thing and resign from editing this article. 66.69.216.76 18:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Peer review is indeed part of the scientific process, as most recent philosophy of science brings out.
 * 2) With regard to commerce, I suspect that you're confusing science with technology &mdash; but in fact those scientists in commerce do indeed advance as scientists via peer review. As employees of their companies, they may advance in other ways, but that's not relevant here.
 * 3) Natural selection and unnatural selection are opposed; to claim that Dembski allows for natural selection and is thus not opposed to the modern biological theories to which the phrase refers is at best sophistic. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Using a patent application as evidence of a peer-reviewed publication is strange. Either it's a joke, or it is a deliberate attempt to mislead.  I chose the former by way of assuming good faith (well, not good, but better, at least).
 * You have made no attempt to explain why you insist on inserting the word "many". It is misleading and inaccurate.  Guettarda 18:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone appears to have blocked the IP address [66.69.216.76] from even reading wikipedia. This is denying many innocent users (school children!) access to wikipedia. I will henceforward use an alternate IP address that will only effect myself if blocked. Please remove the block on the other.

It appears the "in addition to" edit was accepted but in case that's temporary here are sources where Dembski explicitely acknowledges that evolution through natural selection is an operative mechanism. His position is that ID is an additional mechanism of change.

The following are documented cases of Dembski acknowledging evolution through natural selection in some cases. Therefore it is not accurate to say his notion ID is in opposition to evolution through natural selection. His position is that ID is a mechanism that works IN ADDITION TO to natural selection.

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm

Dembski: CONFIRMATION: What about positive evidence for intelligent design and Darwinism? From the design theorist's perspective, the positive evidence for Darwinism is confined to small-scale evolutionary changes like insects developing insecticide resistance. This is not to deny large-scale evolutionary changes, but it is to deny that the Darwinian mechanism can account for them. Evidence like that for insecticide resistance confirms the Darwinian selection mechanism for small-scale changes, but hardly warrants the grand extrapolation that Darwinists want. It is a huge leap going from insects developing insecticide resistance via the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation to the very emergence of insects in the first place by that same mechanism.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.10.logicalunderpinningsofID.pdf

DEMBSKI: Intelligent design, by contrast, teaches that biological complexity is not exclusively the result of material mechanisms but also requires intelligence, where the intelligence in question is not reducible to such mechanisms. The central issue, therefore, is not the relatedness of all organisms, or what typically is called common descent. Indeed, intelligent design is perfectly compatible with common descent. Rather, the central issue is how biological complexity emerged and whether intelligence played an indespensible (which is not to say exclusive) role in its emergence.

I'll come back to mainstream science in separate discussion if the one about opposition to natural selection is now resolved. 66.61.146.2 19:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S. This is off topic but those weren't patent *applications*. They are *granted* patents that were peer reviewed by experts at the U.S. Patent & Trademark office before going from application to grant. And it isn't strange if you're a computer scientist working for a $40B/year computer company interested in protecting its intellectual property from use by competitors. Academic scientists actually aren't very well respected by scientists outside academia. There's an old saw that goes "if you can do, teach". I mean no disrespect but I do want to point out in no uncertain terms that much science takes place outside academia and much of it doesn't get published. Even in academia a lot of science isn't published due to national security. A friend of mine is a scientist at UT working on advanced weapons systems for the gov't. If you think his work is published you have another think coming.


 * Great example of the ID method and why it is not science. When you cannot connect to Wikipedia you assume that you have been blocked from reading.  When you switch IPs, you can connect.  Thus, you have proof that you were blocked from even reading.  Just like the IDers - find an explanation, and assume that it is the explanation.  The scientific method would tell you to test alternate hypotheses.  Of course, the rest of us who can't connect don't assume that the world revolves around us.
 * So I was right, bait and switch. Or maybe the Chewbacca Defense.  Claim a peer reviewed pub - and show a patent.  When the deception is pointed out, you take great offense that I called your approved patent a patent application (apologies for your bruised ego).  Then you insult academic science, and go on to talk about defense contractors.  So, Dembski isn't publishing in peer reviewed journals because of national security concerns.  Now I see.  We bow before your brilliance.
 * Chewbacca Defense. Guettarda 20:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I said ****appears**** to have been blocked. That leaves room for doubt. Your bias is showing again when you try to conflate that to an example of why ID is not science. Please do the right thing and resign from editing this article. Your POV is not at all objective.

RE "many in mainstream science" vs. "mainstream science". I would not object to "a majority in mainstream science", "most in mainstream science", etc. Science isn't a democracy and not all scientists reject Dembski's ID out of hand. So while a majority of those polled do reject ID clearly some do not.

Here are two National Academy of Science members chiming in on ID.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/005/377xndpp.asp

Paul McHugh

If Michael J. Behe, the cellular biochemist who wrote Darwin's Black Box, proposes that the complicated molecular mechanisms sustaining the integrity of the cell seem impossible to explain as the result of random variations, the president of the National Academy of Sciences counters by pronouncing, "Modern scientific views of the molecular organization of life are entirely consistent with spontaneous variation and natural selection driving a powerful evolutionary process." That is, he affirms the Darwinian narrative by restating it, not by offering compelling proof that it is true. Lots of views are consistent with the cell's complexity--including the view Behe explores, that an intelligent creator designed the cell to work. But cellular formation needs identified generative mechanisms, not simply a consistent narrative, to explain it--a problem both for those who call on Darwin and those who call on an "intelligent designer."

http://www.idurc.org/interviews/skell0605.htm

Phillip Skell

5. What are your thoughts on intelligent design? Are you moved at all by the evidence and arguments presented by ID theorists? Should it be taught in schools?

ID is a balance for rampant Darwinism. From a science point of view, neither should be taught in a science class. They are both best presented in a non-science class devoted to speculations on pre-history.

6. You recently wrote a letter to the Kansas State Board of Education expressing support for teaching criticism of neo-Darwinism. What drove you to write this letter?

If Darwinism is to be taught, both its criticisms and the alternatives should be linked.

Here is an article discussing results of Gallup polls comparing the results of evolutionary beliefs of scientists and other groups. I fail to see how it can honestly be said that mainstream science as a whole rejects ID when 40% of American scientists say God had a hand in it and 5% say God did it all! My compromise offer of "many in mainstream science" is clearly more honest and unbiased and still probably doesn't tell the whole truth of how big the minority of ID believers among scientists really is.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp

Many Scientists See God's Hand in Evolution by Larry Witham

While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows. Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process.

66.69.216.76 20:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hate to point out the obvious, but the world and the "mainstream scientific community does not just consist of scientists in the US. Such a fundamentalist Christian society like America's is bound to produce more people who believe in God's role. Wikipedia is for the world. Look outside your borders and you will find a vastly different picture than your survey shows.61.29.35.190 04:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, a mass of only vaguely related verbiage and obfustication. There is a huge gap between supporting a pseudoscience like ID and for attempting to reconcile your religious beliefs with the facts of evolution.  As for citing anything out of the weekly standard - a source with negative creibility?  Hundreds of words, no information in support of your idea.  Sound familiar?  Chewbacca Defense.  And you still haven't provided a source for your claim that Dembski doesn't publish for reasons of national security - or is it to protect profit secrets?  Or is it that he publishes his research in patent applications?
 * As for support - assuming that these people really are ID supporters, that amounts to <0.1% of the membership. So - you have three sources - one from an ID site (not exactly a reputable site) the National Review (an extreme right wing political publication which has limited credibility on any issue) and one quote from the NCSE - which you claim says what it does not say.
 * Obfusticate and bury under a mass of verbiage. You only prove my point.  Chewbacca Defense.  Guettarda 21:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems I'm the only one here willing to provide ANY cites to back up my claims. ID as Dembski defines it operates IN ADDITION TO evolution via natural selection. I have quoted him. You blithely ignore those quotes. All you do is try to defend by attacking the messenger. My only point about peer review is that it isn't part and parcel of the scientific method and you provided not a single link to back your claim that it is. Better get busy editing the Wiki entry on it if you think there's a fifth step

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_a_scientific_method

1. characterization 2. hypothesis 3. prediction 4. experiment

I didn't claim Dembski doesn't publish because of national security or trade secret protection. I said that's why a lot of science doesn't get published in peer reviewed journals. Do the right thing and resign from editing this article. You are so biased you won't even acknowledge a link to the NCSE site.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp

[snip]

Many Scientists See God's Hand in Evolution by Larry Witham

While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows. Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process.

[end snip]

Are you willing to argue that "God" is not an intelligent agent? If not then it is reasonable to say that 40% of scientists believe that an intelligent agent had a hand in evolution. The thing about ID is that intelligent agents aren't necessarily "God". So while it's true that ID is rejected by a majority of the scientific community it is also true that a large minority accepts it. The Wiki article on Dembski does not reflect the fact that this large minority exists.

66.69.216.76 22:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dembski's and Behe's positions on ID are virtually identical yet the Wiki entry for Behe does not state he is in opposition to natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism. That's good because Behe does indeed acknowledge that natural selection is an evolutionary mechanism. He, like Dembski, assert that natural selection can't explain everything. In addition, his entry also states that most of the scientific community rejects IC. That's at least technically accurate although it still misleads as it doesn't pay homage to the size of the minority that does not reject it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

Why is there a discrepancy between Behe's page and Dembski's? It appears to me that materialist ideologists here are out gunning for Dembski or maybe they've just overlooked Behe. Do the right thing and resign from editing this article if you can't be objective about it.

66.69.216.76 23:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm...let's see - you provide sources that say nothing. This whole argument has been hashed out here in the past - if youi are too lazy too look through the archives and the diffs, that's not my problem.  There are cited sources in the article.  You are citing Wikipedia as a source - it's not a valid external source for citations in Wikipedia articles.  And you are parroting the same old talking points that we have heard over and over.  You are repeating these citations that you chose to cite to mean something other than they say.  You have shown that 0.1% of NAS members support ID (assuming that (i) your first source is telling the truth - big assumption, and (ii) that your second "NAS member" actually is - something that your source does not say...but you would know that if you hadn't just copied the same old talking points were have all heard ad nauseum.
 * As for Dembski not publishing for national security reasons - that is your point. Or did you just bring in unrelated material to pad your argument with meaningless verbiage (see Chewbacca Defense, since you have obviously either not read the article...unless you have read it and are trying to use it).
 * So, in what alternate reality is your patent application (oops, sorry, you approved patent) "peer reviewed science"? And in what alternate reality does the fact that defense contractors not publishin the literature have any bearing on Dembski's failure to publish?  Guettarda 23:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On second thought do not feed the troll. Guettarda 23:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I strongly contest the objectivity of the Dembski article. If you wish to have a debate, then please go to the appropriate BB.

Comments on Mel Etitis' edit summary

 * My thoughts:
 * 1) Saying that "he has been denounced" doesn't answer the key question of who has denounced him. The word "denounced" itself is excessively strong in my view (it carries connotations of criminal behaviour and/or treachery on the part of the person being denounced), hence my preferred alternative: his critics in the mainstream scientific community have accused him...
 * 2) The phrase "has also been denounced some" is simply nonsense. I fixed it, so please don't break it again. :-)
 * 3) Image:Darwin_in_a_vise.jpeg appears to be a copyright violation. It's taken from Dembski's blog but there is absolutely no indication either there or on Wikipedia that he's given permission for it to be redistributed. It's been listed on Copyright problems. The caption is also pretty slanted, but as the image is going to be deleted anyway I'm not going to argue about that - no image, no caption. Can I ask people not to try restoring the image?
 * 4) The sentence "As intellectual and legal setbacks for the intelligent design movement mount, Dembski has become increasingly hostile toward his scientific critics" is inherently POV; Dembski would no doubt disagree that ID is encountering setbacks or that he's becoming hostile towards his critics. His comments are a specific reference to the recent Kansas "kangaroo court" where pro-evolution scientists refused to testify, so citing them without explaining the context is also inherently POV. I've rewritten this to make the context clearer.-- ChrisO 21:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With regard to points 1 &amp; 4 above: as I recall, one "denounce" was changed but not another, and it looked like little more than elegant variation; That Dembski would disagree with a characterisation of the status of his theory doesn't make that characterisation PoV. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protection
I've protected this against an anon IP's edits: as he was changing his IP address, there was no point in blocking him for 3RR. However, if any regular editor wants to resume editing, drop me a note on my talk page or e-mail me, or if I'm not around, ask another admin or leave a note on Requests for page protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dembski's religious affiliation
The article states that Dembski was raised Catholic (assume the Vatican). But there is a category at the bottom indicating Russian Orthodox. Can someone clear this up? (If the Orthodox affiliation is correct, then the Catholic label in isolation is misleading, even though Orthodox traditions also use the term.) --Blainster 21:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily contradictory - he could have been raised in the Uniate tradition (Orthodox rites but recognising the Pope's authority). -- ChrisO 21:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a good technical response (your suggestion is one possibility), but the point remains that the article is in need of some clarification of this issue. --Blainster 05:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This article/interview may shed some light on Dembski's religious affiliation and influence:

"'Dembski, who is 44 and has three children, grew up in the Chicago area as a Roman Catholic but said he did not take religion seriously until he was in college, when he and his parents had conversion experiences and began attending evangelical Protestant churches.'" Mr Christopher 17:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Responses to criticism
Do we need this? At first I thought that it was OK, but then I saw that the examples are all Web-based &mdash; and fit the profile of most exchanges on the Web. If he'd written like this in print, it would have been noteworthy. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 10:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The response to Mark Perakh is web-based if by that you mean a blog. However, the response to Erik is a pdf file, available on line, which one would expect to be less strident. I think these are typical of Dembski's strident tone.--CSTAR 14:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Re:You thought it was OK? Excuse me, but that is Demsbski's modus operandi. Regarding "fair play" under a hypothetical "web standard", note Dembski has engaged in other more vicious attacks which I didn't include. For example, the attack on Wein's critique of NFL was painful to read,  He began that attack by pointing out Wein had only a bachelor's degree "that's it" he said. --CSTAR 14:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, we're agreed that he's an unpleasant little man with silly ideas that appeal to bigots and a nasty manner when criticised. Is there anywhere where he shows this last quality in print, though? I'm not saying that it's essential, but it would be nice to have. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Concerning IC and SC
The validity of a particular theory should not be argued by you in an objective/encyclopedic article. If you wish to address concerns dealing with the validity of IC/SC, you should mention those sources that contest the validity and the grounds upon which they do so. Furthermore, from the literature that is out there, SC is not utterly dependant upon IC. Both arguments can stand on their own, though, as I said, the argument for ID seems a bit more convincing when both are implemented. Your statement is inaccurate in light of the material that is currently out there concerning both theories.

Again, according to the literature, SC can be used by itself to show that there may be an intelligent designer. It cannot be used to debunk evolution as a whole. It can only contest that evolution was by chance and not intelligence. When SC is added to IC, then evolution can be contested. If that is the point you're making, please make that clear and mention that it is in the current literature. Do not write it as if it is your own opinion, which is the way it was phrased the first time I read it.

(Note: I apologize for posting this entry in Mel Etitis' personal talk page. I am still unfamliar with wikipedia's site.)


 * You are right up to a point about the independence of IC and SC. However, the claim is usually made that Dembski's estimate of the ordinal complexity of the bacterial flageluum (e.g. Dembski's &phi; function) relies on IC. Now admittedly it is hard to see whether it makes any difference anyway, since Demsbki's computation is utterly preposterous. He ignores the asymptotic nature of complexity and as far as anybody knows his function &phi; could be completely trivial, e.g. not based on a real ordinal ranking of complexity but based on the default lexicographical ordering used to resolve ties.--CSTAR 15:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your point and was aware the SC USUALLY is used in conjunction with IC in the manner you described. However, in the general literature it is not ALWAYS. Consequently, to say that SC stands or falls on IC is an inaccurate statement by Mel Etitis.

My main problem with Mel Etitis' original segment is the unqualified and simplistic rendering of the two theories' relationship. I like objectivity, despite how distasteful it may be to the writer. Poor, and in this case, erroneous scholarship is never acceptable.

In this TALK forum, such statements can/should be made and I would have no objection. In fact, I would applaude it. However, in an article that is trying to be objective, Mel Etitis' segment is out of line.


 * Please sign your posts. Without signatures it makes it very difficult to follow a discussion thread.
 * Would you be willing to reword your edit in the article taking into account some of what I said above (obviously I don't expect you to put in my comment about his calculation being "preposterous")

--CSTAR 17:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. Please forgive me for the lack of knowledge about discussion in TALK. Good idea. I'll re-edit the segment with your recommendations sometime this week. And, of course, I'll leave your opinions out. ;) BTW, how do you insert the time each comment is written. --NOWEEK 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sadly, my remark about the possible triviality of the &phi; function is not just a personal opinion. You are technically correct only about the independence of the definition of SC from IC, but not in regards to any purported computation of SC.--CSTAR 19:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) You "sign" by adding four tildes ( ~ ); that automatically adds your Userr name (linked to your User page) and the date and time. You can alter the appearance of your signature via the preferences page (see top right of the page, third link from the right).
 * 2) It's not my statement; I reverted the removal of it because the removal of text from a controversial article, without discussion on the Talk page, should always be avoided.
 * 3) I've reinstated the removed text again until some agreement can be reached. It's clear from CSTAR's comments here that consensus hasn't yet been reached. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Two things: (1) CSTAR: I did not mean your inclusion of &phi; was your opinion. I meant your comment about the "triviality" of it was your opinion. I was commenting on your own admission that such a statement was an opinion. It was a joke.

(2) Mel Etitis: Thanks for the singing tips. As for the deletion/addition of the segment...well, I'll leave it be. Though a consensus has not been reached, it is clear from the discussion that SC and IC are not compeletely dependent upon each other as seems to be the point of the segment. This would make the segment inaccurate, and thus not worthy of inclusion in an objective article by what is generally understood as good scholarship. Noweek 22:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a simple matter of logic that for any unique charactistic to be genuinely "specifically complex" it would have to be "irreduciably complex" first. When Dembski applies his mathematical arguments to actual biological systems he makes essential use of Behe's claim that irreducibly complex systems can not evolve gradually. Specifically, in his "Complex Specified Information" Dembski states that he applies the phrase "discrete combi-natorial object" to any of the biomolecular systems which have been identified by Michael Behe as being "irreducibly complex."

Ignoring for a moment that Dembski confuses 'improbable' with 'impossible,' to follow Dembski's reasoning he must first show any trait he claims is indeed improbable and thus complex in his reasoning. I suggest a read through Elsberry's and Shallit's analysis of SC for a more in depth understanding of why SC rests on IC: and Fitelson's, Stephens', and Sober's "How Not to Detect Design*". FeloniousMonk 22:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

FeloniusMonk is obviously not familiar with the "general literature." There are various takes on the relationship between SC and IC. You can argue and you can cite authors that argue SC and IC are utterly dependant upon each other; however, you must not ignore that other authors have come to differing conclusions. You may see these authors as dim wits, but some of them come with prodigious and recognized credentials. Their opinions are seen as worth recognizing even by many who disagree. I'm not saying we must include any and every possible angle. There are always crack-pots in any field. However, when the voice of dissent is significant, even though it's false, it should still be mentioned. This is the method behind writing aritcles like this. SC has been applied without any reference to IC in various articles that I remember reading. I will go look them up when I have time. You may see a connection; however, you are not the sole authority. Even if you are convinced, you cannot ignore the other takes. Thus, both sides, especially on an issue that generates so much debate, must be represented. If you think this is not true, then you are obviously ignorant as to how to write encyclopedic articles. If you want to argue your case, do so in the appropriate forum. This talk forum is fine, but not in the general article. For information's sake, we need to edit the segment with an ACCURATE representation as to what is in the whole of the literature. I don't particularly care about IC or SC being dependant upon each other. If they are, they are. But that's not what everyone is saying. I just can't stand SHODDY scholarship. Noweek 23:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, no personal attacks in the form ad-hominem arguments. Saying "X" is not familiar with "Y" is a personal attack it adds nothing to the argument. My favorite exmaple is Talk:Bell's theorem, where I was continually attacked by the same kind of argument. See crackpot index.


 * Re: You may see these authors as dim wits, but some of them come with prodigious and recognized credentials.
 * Irrelevant; I certainly haven't said he is a dimwit, although one needs to be careful what says about Dembski, because it may end up as an endorsement of his book. (Poor Persi Diaconis will have to live with his being cited &mdash; as a famous statistics prof member of the NAS with positions in Cornell, Harvard and Stanford who wrote in a perosnal note to Dembski that he was surprised to find out he wrote as well he did. )


 * Re:SC has been applied without any reference to IC in various articles that I remember reading. That's your opinion. If someone writes a proof ignoring an assumption, and it's pointed out in the literature that this assumption is needed, it's a well-known error. You don['t get to make the call because you read an account that didn't use it.


 * I'm glad you hate shoddy scholarship. So do I.


 * --CSTAR 01:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Sarcasm is an attack as well (i.e. your statements on how Dembski may use personal attacks as endorsements for his books and your closing statement in the last post). It’s passive-aggressive, though still direct. Does that make your statement okay? I apologize for my statement that FeloniusMonk is “unfamiliar with the general literature.” There is no way that I know that. That was a lapse in my judgement. However, I do know that I kept my statements direct without being passive-aggressive.

From the literature I've read, it has been argued that SC can stand alone. It is not the mere exclusion of a necessary assumption. The explanatory filter has been used simply to try to detect intelligence. It is not always used as means to debunk evolution. Even though Dembski might have done it this way, modifications can be made when other scientists run with it. It does not have to be an error. Some theorists have found that SC can stand independently from the IC assumption. I have not kept up with the literature as of late; however, a some years back, I read several articles (plural) indicating such. However, because I don’t have time to rummage through the websites and reread many of the articles to find these particular articles to cite them, I will keep from insisting on the change of the segment. Noweek 01:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The statement about Dembski's endorsements may have been sarcastic although (a) It is true and (b) it was not directed at you. I don't know what you refer to as my  closing statement in the last post. I have not used sarcasm anyplace in this page that I can remember, although, admittedly, I did use a lot of it in Talk:Bell's theorem since I had exhausted all rational arguments.--CSTAR 02:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The "closing statement" I was referring to occurs where you say, "I'm glad you hate shoddy scholarship. So do I."


 * Whoa!, how could that possibly be sarcastic? You seem to have set yourself up to be a guardian of good scholarship by your remark. Well that's possible and fine by me, but why shouldn't I make a similar claim? If anything you could have accused me of making a trite rejoinder, but calling my remark sarcastic is odd.--CSTAR 02:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You can make a similar claim about scholarship. No problem. Also, you may call what your wrote a trite rejoinder, but you can see how I could have taken it as sarcastic? Taken a certain way, it could be seen as quite mocking. If, however, you didn't mean it to be sarcastic, that's cool. Noweek 04:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, Noweek is no stranger to trite rejoinders himself, I see from his recent posts here, but all this, while slightly amusing in a banal sort of way, is getting pretty far afield from the topic which is if SC is dependent on IC. I'll let Dembski's own words suffice to prove it is. In his book No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, Dembski states on page 115: "Ultimately what enables irreducible complexity to signal design is that it is a special case of specified complexity... Moreover, in virtue of the function, these systems embody independently given patterns that can be identified without recourse to actual living systems. Hence these systems are also specified. Irreducible complexity is thus also a special case of specified complexity." And on 144: "It is CSI that Michael Behe has uncovered with his irreducibly complex biochemical machines (see chapter 5)." Though this evidence puts to rest the claim that Dembski's SC is not built upon Behe's IC, I predict Noweek will choose to ignore or explain away this evidence. That's his choice, but he shouldn't expect others here to follow his example or find it compelling. FeloniousMonk 15:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why we have to continue to be so mean though. I apologized for my initial attack. And I sincerely mean it. Can we not keep this friendly?

What you quoted does not the least bit refute my initial contention. I stated that SC is not dependant upon IC, not the other way around. Notice Dembski's own words, "Irreducible complexity is thus also a special case of specified complexity." Simple logic should clear this up. Because IC is a case of SC (which I fully accept and no where did I indicate otherwise), does not mean that SC is dependant upon IC. IC is simply an example of SC. If SC is a set, IC is an element found in this set. Dependancy is not claimed. If, however, SC is to be used to refute evolution, it will need the help of IC. But as I pointed out before, SC is not always used for that purpose. 68.165.142.106 19:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As I said. Have you read No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, or Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology ? If not, you should before making this claim.


 * Regardless of whether Dembski, nearly half a decade after Behe introduced IC, BTW, claims that IC is a special case of SC instead of acknowledging the actual relationship of IC to SC, the fact remains that SC in its proposed application to biology it is nothing but an addendum to Behe's ideas. Dembski makes essential and explicit use of Behe's claim that irreducibly complex systems can not evolve gradually. It is no exaggeration at all to say that Dembski's work contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion of evolution and intelligent design, much less the refutation of evolution. Dembski is explicit that SC is key to refuting evolution; its only use is for that purpose. There is no other practical or theoretical application for SC/CSI. FeloniousMonk 20:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Dembski is explicit that SC is key to refuting evolution; its only use is for that purpose. - In the book Mere Creation, Dembski gives an example of specified complexity regarding the case of Nicholas Caputo rigging ballots and claiming that his selection methods were random. In The Design Revolution he says:
 * Specified complexity, as I develop it, incorporates five main ingredients:
 * a probabilistic version of complexity applicable to events
 * conditionally independent patterns
 * probabilistic resources, which come in two forms: replicational and specificational
 * a specificational version of complexity applicable to patterns
 * a universal probability bound
 * Then he goes on to clarify each of those five bullets. Some of the examples of specified complexity he gives in this chapter include: opening a combination lock, an archer shooting arrows at targets, drawing a royal flush, sequences of coin tosses, and what researchers at SETI are looking for as a sign of intelligence from outer space.  Where does he say that SC is only relevant to evolution?  David Bergan 21:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I was going to reply with the simple SETI example to refute FeloniusMonk's absolute claim that there is no theoretical or pracitcal application of SC, but DBergan has done a much better job. Noweek 21:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've read Mere Creation, and Dembski's points are a non sequitur. SETI is not actually using any of Dembski's computations or methods. That Dembski claims that what he specifically proposes is useful is not proof enough. As I said, there is no other practical or theoretical application for SC/CSI yet shown. FeloniousMonk 21:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've read Mere Creation, and Dembski's points are a non sequitur. - Isn't it convenient that you get to declare things that refute your claim as non sequitur? Since you have the book, show us why the Caputo example isn't an application of SC.  David Bergan 21:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As the one making the claims (that SC is not dependent upon IC, SC is a valuable set of calculations), the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why others should accept your claims, something to you, like Dembski, have failed to do. A theoretical application's value is in it's potential practical applications. That being so, you could start by providing us one instance where SC is being used outside of Dembski and his fellow ID peddlers. FeloniousMonk 22:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The claim for Caputo's situation being an example of SC is outlined in the book Mere Creation in the chapter that Dembski wrote. You said you have the book, so it isn't worth our time for me to type the chapter out.  Yes, I do have the burden of proof, but my case (which is Dembski's case) is right there.  Unless you rebut the example, it stands as an application of SC in a non-evolutionary context.  David Bergan 01:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? Have you actually read this book? Read pg. 94-100. Nowhere does it say that the court actually used SC. What it does say is that Dembski believes SC can distinguish between two possible explanations both involving the actions of a conscious being: either Caputo drew the ballots fairly or he cheated. Dembski only offers Caputo as an example of how SC could be applied, not that it was applied, and so far there's few, if any takers of his pitch. Again, there is no other practical or theoretical application for SC/CSI yet shown. FeloniousMonk 02:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Dembski only offers Caputo as an example of how SC could be applied, not that it was applied - I agree. Thanks for pointing this out.  They did not explicitly invoke Dembski's theory (they couldn't, the Caputo incident happened before Dembski wrote his book), but they did invoke it implicitly.  The methodology they used was identical to Dembski's design inference based on specified complexity.  So if the case happened to come up again tomorrow, they could use it explicitly this time around.  The design inference could be applied to all sorts of inorganic examples, all of which are a thousand miles from evolution.  You are (implicitly) using it right now when you read this string of letters and assume there is an intelligence on the other side... one whom you have never met, and for all you know could be extra-terrestrial... or supernatural.  But you come to that conclusion by ruling out the other two possible means of causation: natural law (impossible) and random letter selection (massively improbable).  And making this conclusion based on this string of text has absolutely nothing to do with irreducible complexity.


 * As for examples of "applications" where SC is explicitly invoked... I can't think of any besides the preceeding paragraph. Have a good night FeloniousMonk.  David Bergan 06:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "The methodology they used was identical to Dembski's design inference based on specified complexity." We only have your's and Dembski's word for that. No one else makes this claim or connection.
 * "The design inference could be applied to all sorts of inorganic examples, all of which are a thousand miles from evolution." But is it? We have yet to see one example of SC being used in a practical application outside of Dembski's attempts to apply it. And again, considering the utter indifference to SC found in the many communities for which Dembski claims SC has practical applications, no one but fellow ID proponents appear to be buying what Dembski is selling here.
 * "You are (implicitly) using it right now when you read this string of letters and assume there is an intelligence on the other side..." You're claiming we're implicitly using SC when we read this page? No. We are making a natural and rational assumption. There's nothing being done by the readers of this page that even resembles the hallmarks of SC. No one is applying Specified Complexity in reading these pages. FeloniousMonk 17:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

DBergan has shown clearly how the explanatory filter, which Dembski uses to detect SC, is used everyday, even in the reading of an article. Now, you can disagree that the explanatory filter is able to actually do this. However, you cannot disagree that Dembski does claim that SC does have theoretical and practical implications beyond biology. Of course, you can contest the validity of Dembski's claim. However, if you are going to contest the validity of his claim, in an encyclopedic article you need to represent his original claim intact. You cannot just say that SC's validty is dependant upon IC because you feel it is so. You need to take into account the original author's understanding when proving or disproving his point. Either prove it or disprove it and show how you did it step by step, but don't make a blanket statement because you yourself have come to that conclusion. That's not the best way to faithfully represent any person/place/idea in a factually and historical sensitive article that claims to be objective. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you leave it out.

I took the time to go through some of my past readings on SC. As I stated before, I remember clearly that SC is used outside of the context of biology. Here are Dembski's own words. I do hope this can put this issue to rest.

''The third stage of the Explanatory Filter therefore presents us with a binary choice: attribute the thing we are trying to explain to design if it is specified; otherwise, attribute it to chance. In the first case, the thing we are trying to explain not only has small probability, but is also specified. In the other, it has small probability, but is unspecified. It is this category of specified things having small probability that reliably signals design. Unspecified things having small probability, on the other hand, are properly attributed to chance.''

''The Explanatory Filter faithfully represents our ordinary practice of sorting through things we alternately attribute to law, chance, or design. In particular, the filter describes'' how copyright and patent offices identify theft of intellectual property

how insurance companies prevent themselves from getting ripped off

how detectives employ circumstantial evidence to incriminate a guilty party

how forensic scientists are able reliably to place individuals at the scene of a crime

how skeptics debunk the claims of parapsychologists

how scientists identify cases of data falsification

how NASA's SETI program seeks to identify the presence of extra- terrestrial life, and

how statisticians and computer scientists distinguish random from non-random strings of digits.

'Entire industries would be dead in the water without the Explanatory Filter. Much is riding on it. Using the filter, our courts have sent people to the electric chair. Let us now see why the filter works.'

I do not know how to cite on the web using links, so here's the original source in detail. This segment was taken from William Dembski's Article "The Explanatory Filter: A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design" written in 1996. If someone wants to reformat the citing of the source, please do so. -- Noweek 15:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What you are talking about is statistical hypothesis testing which is quite old and predates Dembski by about a hundred years. To claim that it's the same thing as Dembski's explanatory filter is simply wrong.--CSTAR 16:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Correct. Noweek's claim that Dembski's explanatory filter is widely used is specious. Noweek is conflating or confusing SC for common statistical analysis; the two are not the same thing. FeloniousMonk 17:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the statistical analysis CSTAR mentioned does predate Dembski. Dembski, however, does say it is an example of what SC is. It is not I who is making this claim. Dembski is. Remember, we are not arguing about whether Dembski is correct or not in the usage of SC. We are focusing on what he has said it is. Let's not stray from the discussion. FeloniusMonk, if you read the previous entry, it is not I who is conflating anything. These are Dembki's words. Please be sure you address the correct source (i.e. me or Dembski) when making your arguments. Noweek 18:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

CSTAR writes: To claim that [statistical hypothesis testing] the same thing as Dembski's explanatory filter is simply wrong. I will use Dembski's own words to refute CSTAR. Dembski writes: ''The Explanatory Filter faithfully represents our ordinary practice of sorting through things we alternately attribute to law, chance, or design. In particular, the filter describes...'' I don't how else to take that but as Dembski saying the Explanatory Filter represents the statistical method CSTAR metions. You may disagree with Dembski. That's fine. But, again, for the sake of the article, we're trying to get at Dembski's understanding of those concepts and how they should be applied, no? Noweek 18:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well what you've just shown is that Dembski makes the claim that SC is a particular case of statistical hypothesis testing (and BTW not the other way around as you said above). So what? It is preposterous to claim that SETI or forensic science are based on SC or even as DBergan seems to be suggesting (I'm not sure he's really serious), that my reading this page is somehow a use of SC. To prove this, go to your local university library and do a mathsci.net search for specified complexity or CSI as Elsberry and Shallit did in 2003 and reported in their paper.--CSTAR 18:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * PS. Here is the quote from Elsberry and Shallit's paper p14 (see the main article for a URL)
 * A 2002 search of MathSciNet, the on-line version of the review journal Mathematical Reviews, turned up 0 papers using any of the terms “CSI”, “complex specified information”, or “specified complexity” in Dembski’s sense. (The term “CSI” does appear, but as an abbreviation for unrelated concepts such as “contrast source inversion”, “conditional symmetric instability”, “conditional statistical independence”, and “channel state inversion”.)

Otherway around or not, Dembski does correlate SC and STH, which is my point. Again, CSTAR you are straying from the discussion. We are trying to see what Dembski thinks of SC and its application. The example Dbergan used about reading text being an example of SC is one that Dembski uses all the time. (See the 1999 article by Dembski, "Signs of intelligence") Also, to address FeloniusMonk's previous rebuttal of the Caputo example being how SC "could" be used instead of "is" used, read the following words taken from the 1996 article by Dembski I mentioned previously: To see how the filter works in practice, consider the case of Nicholas Caputo (emphasis, mine).

Also, CSTAR's reference to Elsberry and Shallit's paper proves only that the terms SC and CSI are not used. That does not mean the methods used by the authors of the papers they searched are not what Dembski describes as examples of SC. Noweek 19:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You mean statisticians have been using and continue to use SC without realizing it? I think by now at least one of them would have caught on and pointed to the fact that Dembski's SC is just STH, if indeed it were true. And also as to the point of this discussion: It was not at least originally, about what Dembski thinks of SC. It was whether SC can calculate anything non-trivial without assuming IC. The argument pro that I can glean from the above goes as follows: Since Dembski claims SC is a special case of STH (or vice-versa, or something &mdash; nobody seems to know exactly) and STH is used in forensics (viz Caputo) then SC has been used in forensics. Therefore SC has applicability independently of IC.  Is that it?--CSTAR 20:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Continuation
Exactly. I'm not saying Dembski is right. I'm just saying that's what he's claiming SC to be. He says that SC (apart from IC) can do more than detect intelligence in biology. The original point of contention was whether SC can stand independently of IC. We've shown that Dembski believes it can be. Yes, we may see it as trivial or simply an example of STH, but what we do see is that there are cases where Dembski's definition of what SC is can possibly be applied elsewhere. That's all I'm saying. Thus, the point that SC is utterly dependant upon IC is false. Maybe when it comes to critiquing evolution it needs IC, but not when it comes to its use in forensics or whatever. Yes, maybe SC is just STH in disguise. The point is, if SC is STH in disguise, then SC as Dembski sees it is being applied outside of biology. Noweek 20:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * But noweek, this argument is clearly flawed. OK we at least agree on what Dembski is claiming and I think we also agree that he can claim whatever he wants without it being true. For example, if he claims "SC is used in forensics" it does not follow that SC is used in forensics.  Therefore one cannot prove a fact about what is true about the relation between IC to SC from Dembski's claim about SC.  The counterclaim was that Dembski's estimate of SC of Flagellum relies on IC because one needs to assume evolution is like a symmetric random walk (e.g. all displacements equally likely). This is part and parcel of IC.--CSTAR 22:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * PS Here is a quaote from Elsberry and Shallit (p 37) regarding my remarks above:


 * Specification is just one half of specified complexity; Dembski must also show matching the specification is improbable and thus complex in his framework. To do so, he ignores the causal history and falls back on a uniform probability approach, calculating the probability of the flagellum’s origin using a random assembly model. Biologically his calculations verge on the ridiculous, since no reputable biologist believes the flagellum arose in the manner Dembski suggests. Further, even if an E. coli flagellum appeared according to the chance causal hypothesis Dembski proposes, it would not establish a heritable trait of flagellar construction in the lineage of E. coli, and thus is under no account an evolutionary hypothesis. Dembski justifies his approach by appealing to the flagellum’s “irreducible complexity”, a term coined by fellow intelligent-design advocate Michael Behe. But Dembski ignores the fact that sequential evolutionary routes for the flagellum have indeed been proposed [77]. True, such routes are speculative and not as detailed as one would like. Nevertheless, they seem far more likely than Dembski’s random assembly model. 
 * --CSTAR 02:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

CSTAR, your argument is right on. First, you are right, what Dembski "claims" about SC cannot be used to prove what is or is not true about the relation between IC and SC. Second, you are also right in that since IC takes evolution to be like a symmetric random walk, SC does depend upon the validity of IC. I will concede to your argument.

However, let me explain the thinking behind my arguments. My problem with IC is that the examples Behe and others have used as examples of irreducible complexity are not very convincing. I believe many of these, if not all, could have evolved gradually. So, you can see why I would not want SC in its current formulation to be dependant upon the current examples of IC. However, at this point we deal with another problem. I believe Dembski's mistake with SC and his application of it to IC is that if IC mechanisms are shown to have evolved gradually, even though the probability of them having done so is extremely low, then SC's ability to detect design is suspect (though, possibly at even lower probabilities, it may function). I do, however, believe that there is some merit to IC and SC in general. Here I must expose my own bias. I personally believe (via historical/philosophical/cosmological arguments, not biological) that there is a Creator. I also believe there was a beginning to the universe which was initiated by this Creator. Consequently, it is my belief that there may be, at this point in time, a causal gap where we simply cannot understand how certain things could have been created other than by a detectable intelligence. (This gap does not have to be there, for maybe the Creator created in a gradualist and humanly comprehensible fashion...but if there were to be a gap, the most likely place would be here.) These things, if they exist, would be both irreducible, specified, and complex. However, it is possible that these things do not exist at all and that intelligence detection must incorporate theories beyond the scope of SC and IC.

But as SC and IC are currently debated, SC is therefore still dependant upon IC; however, IC is much more palatable and convincing when better examples are used. Of course, these examples are probably out of our investigative reach, and thus will probably make discussion between people who believe in God and don't believe in God unproductive (unless, other fields of knowledge and understanding are brought into the discussion). So, in conclusion, my mistake is that I did not want SC to be dependant upon the current examples of IC, because I do not believe the current examples of IC ultimately to be examples of IC.

Please do accept my apologies for making our discussion longer than it had to be. It's been years since I talked to anyone about ID. Yes, it's an excuse, but I'm not as sharp on the uptake and the output as I used to be. Nevertheless, for me, it has proven to be a healthy exercise. I do believe I have been made sharper through the experience. As for commenting on this last post...well, let's try not to if we could (it'll lead the discussion far afield). I was not posing an argument at all. I was simply exposing my personal beliefs and biases as to why I pursued this debate. Blessings to all. Noweek 14:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Links
As this is an article about Dembski, not about ID, is the huge section of links appropriate?


 * You're quite right, it isn't. I've reduced it to only those items which are actually by or about Dembski or his work. -- ChrisO 23:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

That looks slimmer and more to the point, I've changed the headings for the subsections, but I'm not sure about the first; what would be better than "defending"? "Endorsing" doesn't seem right. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The "pro and con" format for links is a bit constricting. Not all links or information lean one way or another. For instance Demsbki makes his course materials available from his design inference web site and I think they shed some light on the kind of "science" Dembski teaches at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary but what category would those belong in? Pro or con? I think a simpler format for links is in order and a brief description of each would be an appropriate place to designate them as "pro" or "con"

These are all PDF files:


 * Final Exam for Course #28960. This is an open-book take-home exam due midnight on Friday, December 2, 2005.


 * Midterm Exam Study Questions Fall 2005. Study questions for course #28960.


 * 2005–06 Syllabi. Dr. Dembski’s courses for the 2005-06 academic year at Southern Seminary in Louisville.

Mr Christopher 18:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon deletion
Anon IP 12.220.209.203 has made, and continues to make unjustified changes to the article. There are many changes, which that user didn't discuss nor provide an edit summary for, as well as being innapropriate. For example, that user seems intent onkeeping Dembski's theologian status under the covers, as it were, as well as deleting the claim that the scientific community (or the vast majority in the scientiic community) consider his work pseudo-science.--CSTAR 14:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only one...
...who thinks the "Defending Dembski" and "Criticizing Dembski" sections are superfluous? Dante (Δαντε) 05:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you are not the only one. Mr Christopher 18:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

... or who thinks that the paragraph on Princeton Theological Review in the Biography section gets bogged down in unimportant details? Mrand 17:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Misinformation
Wow, I came looking for an information page on William Dembski, instead I came across a very cleverly disguised anti-Intelligent Design page. Honestly, no matter how subtle, it's very obvious to anyone who knows the debate that a large chunk of this information has the slant of discrediting Dembski and ID.

For example: I have to laugh when I saw that someone posted that Dembski's critiques are always polemical, and gave these few internet examples. Hmmm...did this person forget that Dembski wrote an entire book that consisted entirely of responses to objections, The Design Revolution?

And there is just misinformation. Who in the world wrote that Specified Complexity depends for its validity on Irreducible Complexity? That's so completely backwards it's hard to know where to start. SC is about information, IC is about biological machines. Do some research before posting in an encyclopedia!

And the clever bit about ID not being published in any peer-reviewed journals. That's just false. There are many that have been published today. You can find ten here:

And whoever tried to cleverly argue that The Design Inference really doesn't make any kind of relevant argument for Intelligent Design for the sole reason that he doesn't mention any actual examples does not realize that the main premise if ID is that CSI is detectable and it is a mark of design - anyone familiar with the debate knows this is the crucial point of the theory.

How about we try to make this page ACCURATE and INFORMATIVE rather than an anti-Dembski, anti-ID page.

On a different note, about all that business that Dembski affirms the consequent. That's false and I can prove it. Dembski's argument does not take anything like the form you imply: (1)If God, then design. (2)Design. (3)Therefore, God.

If you had read chapter 7 in Intelligent Design, Dembski explicitly argues against the necessity of this kind of logic (deductive) in providing justification. Instead he argues for abductive argumentation, or inference to the best explanation. The kind of logic you attribute to him he explicitly denies. Dembski has a Ph.D in philosophy...you may want to consider that before charging him with making such an elementary fallacy.

His argument is very roughly that given theism, one would expect design, so theism is a good explanation. There is no fallacy there. It is inference to the best explanation.Takumi4G63 16:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply to misinformation
I am going to reply to just one of the comments that Takumi4G63 made above. This user wrote the following:
 * And the clever bit about ID not being published in any peer-reviewed journals. That's just false.  There are many that have been published today.  You can find ten here:

I decided to check out one of the so called ten examples. I picked one from a journal that looked respectable. All ten can be found starting at page 28 from the "Expert witness report: The scientific status of intelligent design. by William Dembski" in the quoted link. Each reference is cited with a short summary of how that particular citation supports intelligent design:

The peer reviewed ID article I decided to read was:
 * W.-E. Loennig & H. Saedler, "Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements" Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.
 * Dembski's annotation below:
 * This article examines the role of transposons in the abrupt origin of new species and the possibility of a partly predetermined generation of biodiversity and new species. The authors' approach is non-Darwinian, and they cite favorably the work of Michael Behe and William Dembski. (bold comments are addressed below)

First, this review does not seem to be as described as it is NOT an article about ID at all. It does, however, cite two ID books that have been published (not peer reviewed). The two books cited are:
 * Ref 5. Behe M. _1996. Darwin's Black Box. New York: Free Press.307 pp.
 * Ref 33. Dembski WA. _2002. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.404 pp.

The review concerns the "longstanding differences between molecular biology and paleontology as to the phylogenetic relationships and times of origin of many different plant and animal groups"

The paleontological view is "the abrupt appearance and stasis (morphological constancy) for the overwhelming majority of life forms in Earth's history" This "phenomenon led in the 1970s to the theory of punctuated equilibrium".

The molecular view (and neo-Darwinian) "continuous evolution".

One section of the review "focuses on possible TE-mediated chromosome rearrangements" and their likelihood of causing an "abrupt appearance of biodiversity and new life forms". Note: This this nothing to do with intelligent design.

The review focuses on a quote from German paleontologist Otto H. Schindewolf:


 * "According to Darwin's theory, evolution takes place exclusively by way of slow, continuous formation and modification of species: the progressive addition of ever newer differences at the species level results in increasing divergence and leads to the formation of genera, families, and higher taxonomic and phylogenetic units. Our experience, gained from the observation of fossil material, directly contradicts this interpretation. We found that the organizing structure of a family or an order did not arise as the result of continuous modification in a long chain of species, but rather by means of a sudden, discontinuous direct refashioning of the type complex from family to family, from order to order, from class to class. The characters that account for the distinctions among species are completely different from those that distinguish one type from another." Schindewolf OH. _1993. Basic Questions in Paleontology. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.467 pp.

I think it is this paragraph that gets the special creation advocates excited but this has nothing to do with special creation. This is a legitimate biological debate that is considering the RATE of evolution. Not whether evolution happened or not. In the case of this review they are specifically discussing the role that transposable elements may have had in causing massive genomic changes, aka as "genomic shock", that could explain a fast rate of evolution. One think for sure is that, in Dembski's words "The authors' approach is non-Darwinian," is completely false. It is Darwinian, just not neo-darwinian. The theory of evolution is not on trial in this review they are discussing the mechanisms of evolution.

So what is the context is the reference to the Dembski and Behe books? Here is the context for each cite. The following is a direct quote from the review:
 * "McClintock's "genomic shock"] hypothesis is intrinsically attractive and a promising possibility that warrants further investigation. However, if all the proof that is still lacking to substantiate her view on the origin of species were available, would that also give us the mode of origin of the higher systematic categories and types of life referred to by Schindewolf? To be more specific: If so, to what extent can any of the TE-incited rearrangements contribute to the origin of novel genes and new gene reaction chains as well as the genesis of irreducibly complex structures? All three of these may be especially relevant for the origin of higher systematic categories (3, 4, 5, 33, 69, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 121, 122, 130)."

This quote seems to challenge the conclusions that might be in the Behe book or the Dembski book. The specific challenge comes from the following sentence "TE-incited rearrangements contribute to the origin of novel genes and new gene reaction chains as well as the genesis of irreducibly complex structures". It looks to me as if the authors are implying that there does NOT need to be a designer for irreducibly complex structures to emerge. This is a far cry from how Dembski interprets the citation "they cite favorably the work of Michael Behe and William Dembski."

In short, I have looked at one of the ten peer reviewed ID articles and it is bogus to claim that is supports ID. Even more amazing is that this is regarded as one of the ten BEST examples of intelligent design in a peer reviewed journal by supporters of intelligent design. I have not looked at the other nine since it took me ages to review this. I would not be surprised to find if they too are not real examples of intelligent design being endorsed by science. David D. (Talk) 00:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply to David
Thank you for your research on this issue.

(A) First it is important to realize that the point in dispute is whether ANY work by supporters of ID has been published in peer-reviewed scientific literature. This is claimed in the page on Dembski. Picking one example of the ten and then generalizing the other 9 does not mean that you are justified in believing that all other 9 have absolutely nothing to do with intelligent design. Simply put, Stephen Meyer's article was EXPLICITLY arguing for intelligent design, and it WAS published in a peer-reviewed journal, which created a lot of controversy. Therefore the claim is simply false.

Now I cannot claim that because this is a legitimate example, the other 9 are probably legitimate. Neither can you do the opposite. The article that you picked seemed to me to be spoken of by Dembski as not one that is very explicit in supporting ID. But other out of the ten would probably have more relevance (based on Dembski's comments), and perhaps those would have been better options to research. You may be right in your critique of the article but sorry to say it does not have much relevance to the changes that need to be made to the Dembski page. (B) The other problem is that the language of the article implies that this lack of publish somehow tinges the credibility of Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory. That bit of opinion should just be outright eliminated. If not, at least it should be noted what ID proponents say in defense of themselves on that point. Something like "ID proponents claim that a minimal amount of publishing in peer-reviewed literature does not imply that ID is an illegitimate science." However I'd be more in favor of just removing this bias of peer-review literature somehow making the theory less credible. It has been the case all through history that the majority of scientists have been wrong...so there's nothing convincing about this lack of acceptance by mainstream science as evidence that it isn't science, or it isn't credible.
 * I was trying not to extrapolate to the other nine, I did explicitely say I had not read them. I will look at Stephen Meyers article, although i don't have time immediately. David D. (Talk) 07:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

(C) There is an entire section devoted to showing that Dembski's Design Inference doesn't really support ID, so it doesn't qualify as a legitimate peer-reviewed article. How is this expositional? It is clearly only written in virtue of keeping Dembski out of the "peer-reviewed author category."

And this section is just incorrect. It claims it does not "support the conjectures of intelligent design," The main premise of ID is that CSI is empirically detectable and it implies design - this is what Dembski argues for. Dembski argues for the main premise of ID, yet this does not "support the conjectures of ID"? That is obviously not true.

Suggestions for change:

(1) It should not be claimed anywhere on the Dembski page that no work of ID proponents has been published in peer-reviewed journals. Stephen Meyer alone proves this assertion false...there is no need to even consider whether the other 9 examples are legitimate.

(2) It should not be claimed that Dembski has not published any peer-reviewed articles on ID. The Design Inference is peer-reviewed and explicity is "in support of the conjectures of intelligent design" - it argues that CSI implies design. Should this section be included, it needs to be accurate.

(3) The language used in the page that implies lack of peer-review tinges the credibility of ID should be changed to be neutral.

Specific examples: "Dembski has published several popular books, and has published no papers on intelligent design within the peer-reviewed scientific literature."

Recommended change: "Dembski has published several books at the intellectual and more popular levels with success."

The "popular" before the comma, and last bit after the comma is clearly meant to imply that his work is not scientifically respectable. This is not expository, it is critical of Dembski. Plus he published Design Inference, which is all about ID and was peer-reviewed.

There are a host of other problems in this article with being critical rather than expository, as well as outright misinformation. But I guess we can focus on this for right now?

HOW do I reply to a message like you did? I have looked at every single link around these pages, and the help page, and I can't find any way to reply to a message. This is the most difficult to use website I have ever used.Takumi4G63 06:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It took me a while to sort it out too. Look to the left of the lines and you will soon work out the nomenclature. Note I changed your title to indent.  You could add yet another = and it would indent the title one step more.  Other tricks are:
 * For example, this indents.
 * As does this.
 * Or simply this. It is actually more complex since numbering can also be used with a #. I hope this helps David D. (Talk) 07:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

"Controversial"
I took the word "controversial" out of the first sentence because I think that the first sentence (or paragraph) of any bio page should stick to bare facts. Any analysis, including whether he or she is "controversial", should be dealt with later in the article. Also, if we choose to include this word in the first sentence, we might as well add it to about 98% of all bio pages, since surely at one point any persons life they have done something controversial. Comments? 71.65.54.92 06:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There's no denying that Dembski's views are very controversial. 98% of the subjects that have bios here have not stirred things up the way Dembski has. FeloniousMonk 06:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * True, but "what's happened on wikipedia" isn't the same thing as "what tone wikipedia itself should take" (this too shall pass, but articles are forever!) I agree that controversial is something of a sloppy term: while it's certainly factual, applying it to some figures and not others just seems arbitrary.    I'm not convinced that there isn't a better, more specific word, though I can't think of what it might be, Plunge 17:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference
What Every Theologian Should Know about Creation, Evolution, and Design By: William A. Dembski The Princeton Theological Review April 1, 1996

Doesn't this qualify as theology? --CSTAR 18:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to mention:
 * Unapologetic Apologetics: Meeting the Challenges of Theological Studies. William A. Dembski, Jay Wesley Richards. Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001.  ISBN 0830815635
 * Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology. Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999. ISBN 083082314X
 * FeloniousMonk 18:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Our anon friend reverting here has all the hallmarks of one of the contributors at Dembski's blog, uncommondescent.com. The group there trolled this article and the ID article last fall as you may recall. I encourage others not supply any troll food. Watch the page, revert ill-formed, misguided or bad faith edits, and leave it at that. FeloniousMonk 18:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So, you looked through Dembski's CV and found three articles (of 150+) that have the word 'theology' in the title (not to mention the fact that two of them are actually about intelligent design). Therefore, Dembski is a theologian? Dembski has an M.Div in theology and describes himself as a mathematician. He also has a Ph.D and M.A. in Philosophy, but he doesn't describe himself as a philosopher. Perhaps that's because he's NOT a philosopher, he's a mathematician. All of his training has been in math. In order to be called these things (i.e. philosopher, theologian, mathematician), you actually have to merit the title. To say that he is a theologian is an abuse of language. (I am that 'anon' user, by the way) Augustinian 22:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * He is described as the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky in June 2005. Guettarda 22:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Dembski became the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky in June 2005, and also plans to establish a new Center for Science and Theology. According to Russell Moore, dean of the seminary's School of Theology, Dembski will help train ministers to counter the idea that "human beings are accidents of nature" with no spiritual character and no purpose other than to seek sex and power."

In other words, his duty at that post is to teach intelligent design. He is not a theologian, and the burden of proof is on you to show that he is. Augustinian 22:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And we have:
 * The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendence and Immanence by William A. Dembski
 * Are We Spiritual Machines? by William A. Dembski
 * Unapologetic Apologetics: Meeting the Challenges of Theological Studies. by William A. Dembski, Jay Wesley Richards.
 * Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology. by William A. Dembski
 * What Every Theologian Should Know about Creation, Evolution, and Design by William A. Dembski, published in The Princeton Theological Review
 * You simply choose to ignore the facts. FeloniousMonk 22:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You keep citing articles that have the word 'theology' in them as if that's proof that he is a theologian... that's just semantics. So, let's look at your list.
 * The Act of Creation... http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-the_ac.html Go look at it.  It's an intelligent design article.
 * Are We Spiritual Machines... http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/meme/memelist.html?m%3D19 Funny, it's Philosophy of  Mind
 * Unapolgetic Apologetics... I already dealt with this one; it's also intelligent design
 * Intelligent Design: Bridging the Gap b/w Science and Theology... this one is obviously also intelligent design
 * What Every Theologian Should Know... http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-theologn.html Read it.  Surprise!  It's about intelligent design.

So, rather than accuse me of 'ignoring facts', why don't you look into this for yourself? Augustinian 23:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have. I've read almost all of Dembski's books and most of his articles. And the common thread in them is that he believes God is the designer. Dembski sees ID as a useful adjunct to his theological position, which is first and foremost. FeloniousMonk 23:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask how that makes him a theologian? Phillip Johnson argues based on his theological position, also. That doesn't make him a theologian. It just makes in an IDer whose biases lie in Christianity.


 * So in "Intelligent Design: Bridging the Gap between Science and Theology" Dembski is only writing about ID and science, but not theology? I think you may want to read the references provided before arguing this line and wasting your time and ours. The man writes on theology extensively. FeloniousMonk 23:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That obviously deals with theological questions. But you have yet to show that that makes him a theologian. Many of his writings deal with theological questions, but, as I have been saying that doesn't make him a theologian. Theologians are trained in theology. Dembski has absolutely minimal training in theology (even his M.Div is sans an M.A. in Theology). You can't call him a theologian without bending the meaning of theologian, or lowering what it means to have qualification in a field. Augustinian 23:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for admitting the obvious. Let's see, he has a MA in theology, he's held chairs in theology in several theology depts, and he writes about theology. If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it's likely a... FeloniousMonk 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * First, he does not have an M.A. in Theology. He has an M.Div, which is used by most as a precursor to getting an M.A in Theology.  Second, here's a list of every position he's ever held.  None of them have been in theology.

Theological Seminary, Louisville, June 2005–present , Conceptual Foundations of Science, Baylor University research in intelligent design, 1999–May 2005 research in complexity, information, and design, 1996–present teaching introduction to philosophy, 1997–1999 teaching philosophy of religion + research, 1996–1997 research in complexity, information, and design, 1993–1996 teaching philosophy of science + research, 1992–1993 research in cryptography & complexity theory, 1990 research in chaos & probability, 1989 research in probability theory, 1988 teaching undergraduate mathematics, 1987–1988
 * Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science, Southern Baptist
 * Associate Research Professor
 * Fellow, Discovery Institute, Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
 * Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Dallas, Department of Philosophy
 * Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Notre Dame, Department of Philosophy
 * Independent Scholar, Pascal Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
 * Postdoctoral Fellow, Northwestern University, Department of Philosophy
 * Research Associate, Princeton University, Department of Computer Science
 * Postdoctoral Visiting Fellow, University of Chicago, James Franck Institute
 * Postdoctoral Visiting Fellow, MIT, Department of Mathematics
 * Lecturer, University of Chicago, Department of Mathematics

So, whatever you were saying about him holding theology positions is untrue. Augustinian 00:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Still a duck, er theologian. FeloniousMonk 02:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So, depsite the fact that all of the evidence you presented for Dembski being a theologian was invalidated, you still insist he is a theologian? Augustinian 02:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Now I know you're trolling us. He's educated in theology, he writes extensively on theology, and he's now Professor of Theology and Science, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. By any meaningful definition, Dembski is a theologian. Stop wasting your time and ours. FeloniousMonk 02:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "He is educated in theology."--Yes, but not to the degree of a theologian. He lacks even an M.A. in Theology.  Even C.S. Lewis was not considered a theologian because he had very little theological education.  "he writes extensively on theology"--No, he doesn't.  None of the articles in the list you provided as evidence for this were about theology.  They were all either about intelligent design's implications for theology, or about something entirely different.  Can you name even one article Dembski has written that is purely about theology?  If not, then what should this tell you about giving him the title 'theologian'.  "he's now Professor of Theology and Science, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary"--that was dealt with above.  It's on record that Dembski will be teaching ID at in that position.


 * Also, let's see what the President of SBTS has to say about this: “Dr. Dembski is one of the most skilled philosophers of science in this generation. He is a primary theorist of intelligent design as well as a primary opponent of Darwinism and evolutionary theory ... His name is well-known in the scientific world. This is a new thing for a theological seminary and it is a great thing. We look forward to having Dr. Dembski on this campus.”


 * Why should this be a new thing for a theological seminary unless Dembski is teaching something other than theology? Augustinian 03:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're simply ignoring the facts. "Theologian" is defined as: 1) One who is learned in theology. 2) someone who is learned in theology or who speculates about theology (especially Christian theology)  Dembski has satified both definitions: he has studied theology, earning a M.Div in Theology as you've pointed out, and he's written extensively on the subject, as shown above. FeloniousMonk 03:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not ignoring facts, you're broadening definitions. 1.) Dembski did not earn an 'M.Div in Theology".  To my knowledge, no such degree exists.  An M.Div is a degree that focuses upon ministerial matters firstly, and theological matter, secondly.  That is why many go on to earn M.A.'s in Theology after getting M.Div's.  2.) The definition you gave of theologian would broaden the definition so as to make virtually anyone who has studied theology at all a theologian.  This is obviously not restrictive enough.  You never responded to the fact that C.S. Lewis was not considered a theologian, despite the fact that he wrote prolifically more on theological topics than Dembski.  3.) Can you recall even one time when Dembski speculated about and exposited a certain Christian doctrine?  Have you ever heard him offer his opinions on Substitutionary Atonement or Molinism?  No.  Why?  He doesn't write about those kinds of things; theology is not his field.


 * The definition I gave unduly broadens the term? Nope. The definition I provided for "theologian" comes from two canonical reference sources: "One who is learned in theology" is taken from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. "Someone who is learned in theology or who speculates about theology" comes from WordNet 2.0, Princeton University. Both are provided at dictionary.com. FeloniousMonk 04:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So, I suppose that I'm a theologian by the second definition, and that the youth minister at my church is a theologian by the first. So both I and my youth minister are theologians, right?  (Also, you have ignored the point I brought up about C.S. Lewis). Augustinian 05:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the question of whether Dembski is a theologian - he holds an endowed chair in theology ("Theology and Science", but theology is first mentioned). I'm sure we could have a lively discussion as to whether ID is theology or philosophy, but it would be immaterial, since it isn't our opinions that matter here, but rather what external sources say. Dembski holds an endowed Chair in Theology and has published in the field. Could you explain on what grounds you say he isn't a theologian? Sure, his PhD is not in theology, but I would hazard a guess that his M.Div. is theological rather than pastoral. So he has an advanced degree, publications and an endowed chair in theology and is best known for his work in ID which could either be described as "religious philosophy" or "theology". Would you be willing to lay out your case as to why he should not be called a theologian? Thanks. Guettarda 05:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I see the vigorous denials of the obvious continue apace, so I'll leave Augustinian with Dembski's own words to chew on. From Dembski to head seminary's new science & theology center By Jeff Robinson. Baptist Press. Sep 16, 2004 : "Dembski said he desires to help students understand how science should be understood in terms of Christian theology. Theology, he said, underpins all of his views of science and intelligent design."

"'I started out as a straight research mathematician but got into these questions of philosophy and theology because I was so exercised in my spirit about the unbelief I saw in the academy [and] why it seemed so reasonable to disbelieve the Christian faith,'...'That is what really motivated me to work on Christian worldviews and apologetics and it is in the background of my work on intelligent design as well.'"

"Theology is where my ultimate passion is and I think that is where I can uniquely contribute ... I am looking forward to engaging students and theological students have always been my favorite to deal with because for theology students, it's not just a job, but a passion, especially at a place like Southern, because they want to change the world." --From Dembski to head seminary's new science & theology center --William Dembski Now I expect Augustinian is not about to let something as plainly obvious as a direct quote change his mind on a topic he's already obviously made up his mind about. But this, taken with the other evidence presented here, is convincing enough for objective editors to conclude that Dembski is indeed a theologian by definition. FeloniousMonk 05:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * To Guettarda: I have already addressed everything you've said above. It would be an undue burden on me to repeat everything I've said.  One thing about the M.Div though; there seems to be a lot of confusion about it.  The M.Div is a pastoral degree.  It teaches you enough about ministry to become a pastor, and the basics of theology.  Those who go on to pursue advanced degrees in theology are almost always required to pick up a Masters in Theology as well, because the M.Div is pastoral rather than academic.


 * To FeloniusMonk: Thanks for ignoring my query about C.S. Lewis for the fourth time in a row. Please respond to it, next go-round.  As for Dembski's quote, while it does show exactly what it says, that Dembski's worldview and everything he does is undergirded by his theology, this doesn't show much.  There are scientists, historians, psychologists, etc. on my campus who have said the same thing.  But it doesn't follow that they are theologians any more than it follows that Dembski is.  My campus is a Christian campus, and many of the professors who are in fields other than theology have degrees in theology (like M.Div's, for instance), but will not, for an instant, claim to be 'theologians'.  My pastor (D.Min.) probably wouldn't even claim to be a theologian.  And don't forget about Lewis! (Forgot: Augustinian 07:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC))
 * Given that Dembski's post is Professor of Theology, at a Theological university, I'm wondering why you are making this disruptive, tendentious argument. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Augustinian - you said you have addressed the issues above, but I don't see them answered. You say that an M.Div. is a pastoral degree, but I seem to remember that schools offered either a pastoral M.Div. or a non-pastoral one which was aimed at people who planned to go on for a PhD in theology.  Anyway - if you have an academic appointment in a field, and you have published in that field, the assumption is that you can be called a practitioner of that field.  So what it comes down to, for our purposes, is some good reason, some external source, for not doing the obvious and calling him a theologian.
 * "My campus is a Christian campus, and many of the professors who are in fields other than theology have degrees in theology (like M.Div's, for instance), but will not, for an instant, claim to be 'theologians'. My pastor (D.Min.) probably wouldn't even claim to be a theologian." - do any of these people hold endowed chairs in theology?  Have they published in theology?
 * In the case of C.S. Lewis, his primary academic appointment was in Lit. Guettarda 13:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Both of you refer to the fact that Dembski's currentpost is 'Professor of Theology'. But it's not.  It's 'Professor of Theology and Science'  And according to the Dean of the School, "Dembski became the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky in June 2005, and also plans to establish a new Center for Science and Theology. According to Russell Moore, dean of the seminary's School of Theology, Dembski will help train ministers to counter the idea that "human beings are accidents of nature"  He will be teaching intelligent design.


 * "Anyway - if you have an academic appointment in a field, and you have published in that field, the assumption is that you can be called a practitioner of that field." I absolutely agree.  The problem is, no one could offer even one article on theology that Dembski has ever published.  Out of 150+ article on his CV about 4 have 'theology' in the title, and all of them are about intelligent design.  So, unless you can actually show that Dembski publishes in the field of theology, then he shouldn't be called a theologian.  Just like someone should be called a philosopher unless they publish a lot in the field of philosophy and have a strong philosophical education, so the same with theologians.


 * "In the case of C.S. Lewis, his primary academic appointment was in Lit." But he published far more works on theology than Dembski.  Not even one paper can be pulled up for Dembski that's about theology, and C.S. Lewis has whole books dealing with theological topics.  Yet you want us to call Dembski a theologian and not Lewis? 64.193.115.26 16:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, nevermind Dembski's said: "Theology is where my ultimate passion is and I think that is where I can uniquely contribute ... I am looking forward to engaging students and theological students have always been my favorite to deal with because for theology students, it's not just a job, but a passion, especially at a place like Southern, because they want to change the world.""
 * "Professor of Theology and Science" Hmmm, The theology part is easy enough to see in his work. But where's the science? Show me the science.
 * One also has to wonder exactly how much science and of what quality gets taught in the dept of Theology and Science at a theological seminary. FeloniousMonk 18:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone still questioning Dembski's status as a theologian versus a scientist might want to to examine Dembski's own Southern Baptist Theological Seminary course materials via the links I provided above under the Links category of this discussion page. See if you can find the part where he teaches his students to be wary of allowing "logic" to keep them from "Christian truths". I am unable to find ANYTHING scientific in his "science" course materials. Also note that the amount of peer reviewed science literature coming out of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is a steady zero. Dembski teaches Christian apologetics and not science. Read his course materials and then get back with me if you doubt this. Mr Christopher 20:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Hmmm, The theology part is easy enough to see in his work. But where's the science? Show me the science." I never claimed that Dembski was a scientist.  Trust me, I think he's far from it.  And whether intelligent design is true or not is completely beside the point.  But whether you think his concept of science is terrible or not is completely beside the point.  And,you keep saying that it's easy to see the theology in his work.  Here's a challenge: find ONE article by Dembski that is solely about a theological question.  If you can, then let's talk.  But if you can't, then that should end this entire matter.


 * "One also has to wonder exactly how much science and of what quality gets taught in the dept of Theology and Science at a theological seminary." Indeed.  But what does this have to do with Dembski's status as a theologian?


 * "Anyone still questioning Dembski's status as a theologian versus a scientist..." Wait, no.  This is wrong already.  If you people would read what's been said already, then you would know that NO ONE is trying to call Dembski a scientist.  The only point being made is the fact that Dembski is not a theologian.  "Dembski teaches Christian apologetics and not science."  Bingo.  Dembski does not teach theology, he teaches intelligent design et al.


 * By the way, FeloniusMonk, thanks for ingoring the double standard applied to C.S. Lewis vs. Dembski once again! Augustinian 22:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you don't want to say he is a theologian, and everyone seems to agree he isn't a scientist, what precisely do you suggest? We can hardly put in the article: "Dr. William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is a person for whom we have no descriptive title, because he teaches Theology and Science, but one editor does not want theology mentioned, and he's never done any science."
 * Puppy is getting a bit testy at all this, apologies. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So, by deduction, you can only be either (a) a scientist or (b) a theologian? I don't understand the question, here.  Why can't we just say that Dembski is a mathematician (and, possibly, a philosopher)?  After all, he has extensive education in both of those fields, and has published articles in both.  Augustinian 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Because that is not his job nor the most salient thing about him.
 * That would be like writing an article about someone who was a Nobel prize winner, who liked to putter around in the kitchen and was a fair gourmet chef on the side with "John Doe is a cook." You tell about his work, his Nobel prize, etc. Then you make a determination whether it is germane to the article to add "He also cooks." KillerChihuahua?!? 22:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then, please, take up my challenge and find just one article that Dembski has written that deals solely with theology. If you can't do that, then that should settle the debate. Augustinian 22:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I just read over this thread, and find it either laughable or inane. Or both. Augustinian, you know well that a thinker does not have to write *solely* in theology to be a theologian, just as Dembski's chairship does not have to be in one or the other field. His title, like many of his writings, is about these two fields coming together. However, to take up your challenge, I offer the co-written piece cited on the Dembski wiki page itself, link Reclaiming Theological Education, which addresses the dearth of Christian apologetics today, and responds to Schleiermacher, Barth, and threads key theological concepts through western history. I don't seriously think there is much dispute that this is theology -- whether it is good theology or not I will leave to others. However, it does bring in ancillary topics as they relate to theology -- but I don't think that disqualifies its theological focus. What I find more interesting is to ask: what is at stake in saying he is NOT a theologian? A final point of clarification: M.Div. degrees from Princeton are not awarded with concentrations such as "theology" or "bible," etc. (I attended there myself.) It is, as Augustinian says, a professional degree, and at least at PTS are not in either a theology or non-theology track. Nmagee 09:47, 18 December 2006 (EST)

From the Wiki theology entry: Theology is reasoned discourse concerning God (Greek θεος, theos, "God", + λογος, logos, "word" or "reason"). It can also refer to the study of other religious topics. A theologian is a person learned in theology.

Dembski has a degree in theology, he teaches theology at a theological seminary and the media generally refers to him as a theologian or a "mathematician and theologian". Depending on his audience when lecturing he is often introduced as a theologian and also a "mathematician" or "philosopher" and even "scientist". He writes more on matters of theism (aka "intelligent design") than any other topic. Of all his degrees and activities it seems to be that "theologian" best describes his efforts and interests.

Look what the guy does for a living and where he does it - he is a professor of theology and science at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (he is not puttering around in soem kitchen) and his own course materials prove he is not teaching science but is instead teaching Christianity, so again, I think the theologian title fits nicely. Now you could make a case that he is not a very good theologian, but I think theologian best describes what he does. Mr Christopher 00:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Dembski has a degree in theology"--So does the youth minister at my church. In fact, the youth minister at my church has the same degree Dembski has.  "he teaches theology at a theological seminary"--Have you not been following this discussion at all??  He doesn't teach theology.  I've made this point at least three times.  'the media generally refers to him as a theologian or a "mathematician and theologian"'--I didn't know whether this was true or not, so I went to Google news and typed in 'Dembski'.  He was referred to as 'ID proponent' and 'mathematician and philosopher' most often.  I typed in 'Dembski' and 'theologian' and it came up with three articles in total.  In two of the articles, 'theologian' was referring to William Paley, the 18th century theologian.  The one article in which the word 'theologian' applied to Dembski (it was actually 'mathematician-theologian) was an opinion article written to the editor of a newspaper.  "Depending on his audience when lecturing he is often introduced as a theologian and also a "mathematician" or "philosopher" and even "scientist"." (1) So, does this mean he's a scientist, since they refer to him as that?  Or is there some other standard by which you judge whether someone is a scientist?  If you accept that there is another standard, then you have to accept the same thing for the title 'theologian'. (2) Not in any of the lectures I've ever heard, but, considering I haven't heard many lectures by Dembski, I'm not going to deny this.  Give some evidence, then we can decide.  "He writes more on matters of theism (aka "intelligent design") than any other topic."--This does not mean he is a theologian at all.  Take Alvin Plantinga, for instance.  Plantinga has produced volumes of material about theism and Christianity, but he is not a theologian, he is a philosopher.  Or C.S. Lewis.  Lewis has many books dealing with Christian theological topics.  Not a theologian, though.  "Of all his degrees and activities it seems to be that "theologian" best describes his efforts and interests."--(1) His degrees point exactly to the opposite of what you said... Unless anyone who gets an M.Div is a theologian, that is. (2) Exactly what activities are you talking about?  Whenever Dembski speaks, he always speaks about intelligent design, not theology.  Whenever he writes papers, they're about intelligent design, not theology.  Whatever Dembski does, he does about intelligent design.  Not theology. Augustinian 01:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Augustinian, let's see what Dembski has to say on the subject.

"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world." – National Religious Broadcasters, 2000

Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God." - Science Test, Church & State Magazine, July/August 2000.

"The world is a mirror representing the divine life..." "The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." - with A., Kushiner, James M., (editors), Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, Brazos Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2001.

"I think the opportunity to deal with students and getting them properly oriented on science and theology and the relation between those is going to be important because science has been such an instrument used by the materialists to undermine the Christian faith and religious belief generally." "This is really an opportunity," Dembski added, "to mobilize a new generation of scholars and pastors not just to equip the saints but also to engage the culture and reclaim it for Christ. That's really what is driving me." – Dembski to head seminary's new science & theology center, 2004

&;;quot;If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."

I got those from Wiki http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski, you'll find much more on Google.

Oh and on Dembski'c math contributions, go here as they say http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/05/dembskis_mathem.html

I think we can agree William Dembski does not make math a big priority in his activities nor has he demonstrated any particular talent for mathematical theory or application. So wishing him to be a significant person in the field of math is not going to win a tug of war with reality.

Dembski contradicts himself often and crafts his message to whomever he is speaking to, so he could justifiably be described in many different ways but the record shows William Dembski works at a school of theology, as a professor of theology (and "science" - wink) but when you review the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary course offerings you cannot help but note the lack of any science actually being taught. There is no math link there.

Also, Dembski is also a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and let's remember one of their two governing goals is "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." One cannot help but note that Dembski and the Discovery Institute share this desire to see materialistic explanations replaced with theistic (and not math or intelligent design) explanations. And note none of their governing goals mentions math, so again, no math link for Dembski here either.

The religious and politcal motivations and activities of the intelligent design movement are well documented. None of them are concerned with math and they all of the intelligent design Discovery Institute seniour leadership admit their own personal belief is the intelligent designer is in fact God, but that's only their personal belief. They all believe it is God, but they're happy to let the kids call Him an intelligent designer to get it back in the classroom. This fools no one.

Finally, If some of Dembski's math activities or accomplishments have been omitted then add them. They belong. But note - Dembski's theological motivations behind his intelligent design theories have been made clear by Dembski himself. Please do not pretend his current calling is not one grounded in theology. Dembski does not try and hide this fact, nor should you. Mr Christopher 05:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. Christopher,


 * Why do any of those quotes indicate that Dembski is a theologian? Be specific.


 * "I think we can agree William Demsbki does not make math a big priority in his activities nor has he demonstrated any particular talent for mathematical theory."--I will agree that Dembski doesn't make math a big priority (I suspect he once did, before he was pushed to the forefront of the ID debate, though). I won't admit that he doesn't have any talent for mathematical theory.  You don't earn a Ph.D in math without have a very thorough grasp of it.  "So wishing him to be a significant person in the field of math is not going to win a tug of war with reality."--Why must he be a 'significant' person in the field of math in order to be a mathematician?  Do you think that most of the professors in academia impact their fields signficantly?  No.  For the sake of argument, though, let's assume that you're right about Dembski not being a mathematician.  Why does that make him a theologian?


 * "Demsbki contradicts himself often and crafts his message to whomever he is speaking to, so he could justifiably be described in many different ways but the facts remain William works at a school of theology, as a professor of theology (and "science", wink) but when you review the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary course offerings you cannot help but note the lack of any science being taught."--So, the argument goes 'His title is 'Professor of Science and Theology' and he doesn't teach science. Therefore, he teaches theology.'?  That's not a very good argument.  Go read the quote that I've already provided and alluded to multiple times.  Dembski is teaching ID there (and possibly asome apologetics), not theology.


 * "And Dembski's theological motivations behind his intelligent design theories have been made clear by Dembski himself."--Agreed. Why does this make him a theologian?


 * "Finally, the Discovery Institute helps support Demsbki and let's not forget one of their two governing goals includes, "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." One cannot help but note that they, like Demsbi, share this desire to see materialistic explanations replaced with theistic, and not mathematical, or intelligent design understandings, but theistic ones."--Agreed. Why does this make him a theologian?


 * "please do not pretend his current calling is not one grounded in theology. Demsbki does not try and hide this fact, nor should you."--I'm not trying to 'hide' anything. The fact that Dembski's main motivation lies in his religion doesn't show in any way whatsoever that he is a theologian.
 * Augustinian 06:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, now we're here, mathematician is a bit dodgy too isn't it? Considering that the "Isaac Newton of information theory" has had his math described as being "written in jello"?  Dembski maths is basically bullshit to confuse anyone who (a) has a priori faith in the conclusion and (b) is impressed by incomprehensible math.  So he shouldn't really be called a mathematician.  So what's better then? Propagandist? Apologist? Liar? &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 14:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dembski's day job is a professor of theology (and science - wink) at a school of theology. Augustinian insists Dembski is not a theologian and the course material and course offerings indicate he is not teaching science. Therefore Dembski must be a fraud or a con man (or both). Augustinian, since he is neither a theologian nor a scientist yet he is employed as both, do you think fraud is more accurate or would con man best describe him? Mr Christopher 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Before I answer the question, I'd like validation that Dembski is, in fact, employed as both (a) a scientist and (b) a theologian. Augustinian 15:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing where it says that he is a scientist and a theologian. Augustinian 16:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Can we move along now? FeloniousMonk 16:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to, but unless someone gives a good reason that Dembski should be considered a theologian, don't expect the word 'theologian' to stay in the article. Augustinian 17:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Augustinian you are a funny guy. How about you prove Demsbki is not a professor of theology at a theological school. Then we'll talk. (an unsigned message from Mr Christopher


 * Since I've already answered this question numerous times, how 'bout the burden of proof lies with you to prove that he does teach theology? Augustinian 17:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is your answers are not supported by the evidence that he does, including his own words, and so have failed to gain any traction here. That being so, it's clear to me that it's time you to drop this and find a more contructive way to contribute to the project. FeloniousMonk 17:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"The problem is your answers are not supported by the evidence that he does, including his own words, and so have failed to gain any traction here."--Answers not supported by evidence?? To the charge that Dembski often writes about theology, I found all of the articles that were provided and linked to them, showing that they were about intelligent design (and one about philosophy of mind). To the charge that he teaches theology, I posted a quote from the dean of the school implying that he would teach intelligent design, and pointed out that he's not nearly educated enough in theology to be a professor of theology. To the charge that Dembski has held chairs in several theological departments, I listed every position he's ever held and what he did at those positions. To the charge that he is a theologian because he has an M.Div, I pointed out that by that standard, many of the professors on my campus (psychologists, historians, music professors, etc.) would also be theologians. To the charge that he was a theologian because he writes about theology a lot, I challenged anyone to find even on article written by Dembski that was solely about theology, and, as of yet, no one could. I also provided examples of people who wrote much more about theology than Dembski, yet were not theologians (a challenge which you've yet to address, btw). To the charge that Dembski is often referred to as a theologian by the press, I did a google news search yielding abysmal results for the affirmative. And you're saying that I don't support my answers with evidence? Augustinian 18:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If no one responds to the above, it would be fair for me to go ahead an edit out 'theologian' from the article. Augustinian 03:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," William Dembski. Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4. July/August, 1999. So he certainly seems to think he is doing theology, and his books certainly have substantial theological content. JoshuaZ 03:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Major issue is that we don't go by our own understanding of things. To say that Dembski, who holds a chair in theology (and science) in a school of theology, is not a theologian, we would have to have an external source saying why he isn't one. Augustinian is allowed the opinion that he is not a theologian - but s/he needs to provide an external reference - some solid source that says Dembski is not a theologian. Otherwise it fails to meet our standards. We don't write about our own opinions - we report what has been said elsewhere. Guettarda 08:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Josh: So Dembski thinks information theory is theology? Or is he perhaps making a different point that we're supposed to infer from this quote? This point is easily refutable, but I want to make a point out of it before I do. Many of the people arguing that Dembski is a theologian simply provide some quote by Dembski emphasizing some theological point, and expect that to be enough to prove that Dembski is a theologian. I could do that with many, many other people who are not theologians but who let their faith (i.e. their theological commitments) guide what they do. It's much easier to find some seemingly anomalous quote than to actually systematically and thoroughly arguing your point as I have done. So this is what I'm trying to say: if you want to maintain that Dembski's a theologian, you're going to have to answer the points I've brought up. Find that elusive theological article, or show me why Dembski is a theologian when Lewis isn't. Don't just find a quote. Anyway, to answer the point, there is an article out by Dembski that's entire premise is that ID is not theology. It's called "Is Intelligent Design a form of Natural Theology?" Guettarda: I am tempted to not even respond to this. You keep bringing up this point, saying that Demsbki "holds a chair in theology (and science)". Why do you always put the "and science" in quotes, and why do you always put 'theology' first (since it's 'Science and Theology")? Why haven't you responded to that quote I provided at least 4 times already?  Why don't you explain how Dembski an teach theolgoy when he doesn't even have a Masters in Theology?  Why haven't you responded to the fact that Dembski doesn't even have one article out that that's solely about theology? Augustinian 18:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Augustinian, The existnece of "Is Intelligent Design a form of Natural Theology?" is simply an example of Dembski's tendencies to lie, contradict himself and say radically different statements to different audiences. If you think we should add a section on whether or not Dembski is a theologian and include all his own contradictory statements on the matter a long with all his contradictory statements about whether or not ID is theological in nature, I would not object. JoshuaZ 21:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is all about. There's lots of information that would appear to assert that Dembski is a theologian.  If you want us to disregard all that factual information you need an authoritative source which says "despite all that other stuff, Dembski is not a theologian".  The issue of degrees is irrelevant.  You keep pointing out his lack of an advanced degree in theology.  However, unlike professional disciplines like medicine or law, a lack of an advanced degree is not a barrier to entry in academic disciplines.  People with a PhD in one field often end up doing work in another field.  But it doesn't matter how likely or unlikely something is.  Dembski holds a chair in theology ("science and theology" is still theology) in a school of theology and has published on theology and has said his first love is theology.  If we are to disregard this, we need an authoritative source.  It isn't for you to convince me or me to convince you.  Find a source to support your position.  Simple enough.  Guettarda 01:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"There's lots of information that would appear to assert that Dembski is a theologian."--I posted a paragraph above in which I summarized all of the objections that have been made thus far, and showed my answers to them. If you want to maintain that there is 'lots of information' that says he's a theologian, show me why my responses fail. Since I have responded to everything, the burden of proof now lies on you to show that Dembski IS a theologian. "The issue of degrees is irrelevant."--I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. I might understand if you said "Though he doesn't have degrees, X indicates that he is a theologian because..." But irrelevant? How can you POSSIBLY maintain that the issue of whether he's educated enough in theology is irrelevant to his being a theologian? "Dembski holds a chair in theology ("science and theology" is still theology)"--If you don't show why the quote from the dean indicating that Dembski is teaching ID is wrong, then you're just spouting that he's teaching theology over and over and over, without any support for you position. "has published on theology"--If he has, then we don't know it yet, because no one could produce EVEN ONE article on theology by Dembski. "Find a source to support your position."--I'd say the same thing to you. The best argument you have is that Dembski works at a school of theology, but until you respond to the quote that argument doesn't work. So, Dembski hasn't published in theology, he doesn't teach, nor has he ever taught, theology, he has two doctoral degrees in other fields, and only an M.Div when it comes to religious studies, he calls himself a mathematician, and it's obvious to everyone that his main area of research is ID (which he wrote was not theology). Augustinian 02:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, among other issues the Logos quote makes it seem like he thinks he is doing theology, so your last sentence seems problematic. JoshuaZ 04:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Good lord, Augustinian, what do you want? Here is the opening sentence:

"Dr. William Albert 'Bill' Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is a controversial American mathematician, philosopher, theologian and neo-creationist known for advocating the idea of intelligent design in opposition to the theory of evolution through natural selection"

Anyone with marginal intelligence will read this sentence and conclude Dembski's ideas are controversial (supported by evidence), Dembski dabbles in math, philosophy, theology, neo-creationism and is known for advocating the idea of intelligent design... How could anyone object to that?

Now we can agree his theological contribution does not fit YOUR definition of theology but the evidence suggests otherwise. And I recognize you reject the theological evidence. Have you read Dembski's Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology? Gosh, the title suggests he is trying to use Intelligent Design to create a bridge between science and...um...theology.

I for one am done feeding the troll. Mr Christopher 18:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think [User:Augustinian|Augustinian] is a troll. If one looks at his [| Contributions] he has solely edited the Dembski page (aside from two comments about the page on user talk pages). I therefore think it is safe to conclude that Augustinian is someone(possibly Dembski or DaveScott) who has a strong personal interest in claiming that Dembski is not a theologian. JoshuaZ 18:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Good lord, Augustinian, what do you want?"--I really just want 'theologian' taken out of the first paragraph. "Anyone with marginal intelligence will read this sentence and conclude Dembski's ideas are controversial (supported by evidence), Dembski dabbles in math, philosophy, theology, neo-creationism and is known for advocating the idea of intelligent design... How could anyone object to that?"--Most of what you say is true.  But Dembski doesn't just 'dabble' in math.  He's a mathematician, with a Ph.D. and a Masters in math, and post-doctoral fellowships in math.  And the problem with the first paragraph is just that: when it says that Dembski is a theologian and a mathematician, it implies that Dembski is proficient and highly-educated in both.  But he's not.  He's not nearly as much of a theologian as he is a mathematician.  That's my objection.  I would have no objection if you mentioned that he also had an M.Div or something similar, or saying that a   frequent topic of his research is its relation to Christianity, but saying that he is a theologian is simply not true, especially saying it directly after listing off his other qualifications.  'Theologian' is mentioned in a qualificatory way, and it shouldn't be, because Dembski is not qualified.  "Now we can agree his theological contribution does not fit YOUR definition of theology but the evidence suggests otherwise."--So what's your definition of 'theologian'?  What would someone have to do to be considered a theologian in your mind?  I've tried to show that by any reasonable definition that keeps consistent with similar titles of qualification (philosopher, mathematician, historian, etc.) that Dembski does not qualify as a theologian, and I've supported everything that I've said with evidence.  "Gosh, the title suggests he is trying to use Intelligent Design to create a bridge between science and...um...theology."--Therefore, he is a theologian?  No.  Alvin Plantinga defends the warrant of Christian theology throughout his entire tome Warranted Christian Belief, but, as I've said so, so many times now, that does not make him a theologian.  He is a philosopher.  "I for one am done feeding the troll."--Good.


 * "I therefore think it is safe to conclude that Augustinian is someone(possibly Dembski or DaveScott) who has a strong personal interest in claiming that Dembski is not a theologian."--Fascinating. Augustinian 22:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no one seems to have repsonded for a while, so here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to briefly lay out the case that Dembski should not be considered a theologian once more, and summarize the objections brought up against my position once more. Anyone who has an (substantial) objection, please speak up. If no one does after a day or two, I'm going to make the edit I've been arguing for (and hope that all hell doesn't break loose).

1.) Dembski is not academically qualified to be a theologian. There are numerous reasons I say this. First, and most damningly, he's not educated enough.  Dembski has an M.Div, which is a Masters degree that focuses on pastoral matters, theology being one of those.  The M.Div is a more practical than academic degree; that is to say that if Dembski wanted to go on to earn a Ph.D in Theology, he would probably need to get a Masters in Theology first.  Secondly, Dembski has not published anything in the field of Theology.  A scan of his CV (which lists the articles he's written) brings up a few articles that have some form of the word 'theology' in them.  This has been used in this thread to argue that Dembski is a theologian.  Upon closer inspection, though, the articles in question all ended up having to do with either intelligent design or, in the case of one of them, philosophy of mind. Furthermore, no one has been able to produce even one article on theology that Dembski has written. This should tell us something.

2.) Dembski has published virtually nothing in the field of theology.  Firstly, Dembski's works on theology (as of this moment--I'm open to the fact that someone might find one considering he did get an M.Div) amount to 0 publications.  Various people have argued that since Dembski brings theological topics into his writings sometimes he should be considered a theologian.  This is demonstrably false.  Alvin Plantinga, for instance, wrote his seminal Warranted Christian Belief as an analytic philosopher.  Theological topics abound in this book, but that doesn't mean that Plantinga is a theologian.  It means that he is an analytic philosopher with strong interests in Christian theology.  I've also brought up the example of C.S. Lewis.  Lewis is one of the most prolific and cherished Christian writers of the 20th century.  All of his most famous books touched on theological topics, and there were a great many of them. Yet Lewis admits his own ignorance in The Problem of Pain (a book dealing with the Problem of Evil) when he says in the introduction "Any theologian will see easily enough what, and how little, I have read." Many other examples of this could be brought up, but the point is understood easily enough: (1) Dembski has not published in theology (2) Publishing in theology is not the same thing as publishing in another field (e.g. analytic philosophy) and talking about theology in relation to it (e.g. Warranted Christian Belief).

3.) Dembski describes himself as a mathematician. Not unsurprisingly, Dembski's assessment of himself as a mathematician seems to coincide quite nicely with his academic acheivements in that field.  He has a Masters and Ph.D in math, and has held numerous post-doctoral fellowship in that field.  He has a peer-reviewed book (Cambridge University Press) out that deals with probability theory.  All this to say that Dembski is obviously qualified as a mathematician.  When you compare Dembski's mathematical acheievements and his theological acheivements, the latter looks exceedingly sparse.  This would explain well why neither Dembski nor virtually anyone else describes him as a theologian.

4.) None of the positions Dembski has ever held have been in theology (I deal with his current appointment below).

Those are the reasons why I think it's extremely reasonable to conclude that Dembski is not a theologian. Now I'm going to summarize the main objections that have been brought up against my position.

1.) Dembski is a professor of Theology (and science). I put 'science' in parentheses because it shows how the arguments have unfolded on this topic up to date.  Dembski's official title is "Carl H. Herny Professor of Science and Theology".  As everyone has noticed, Dembski's title has the word "Theology" in it.  This is perhaps the most damning argument against my position, and I can see the force of it.  However, if you into this objectively, then you can see that Dembski is not, as his title has been used so superficially to suggest, a Professor of Theology (i.e. a professor whose main duty is to teach theology).  I have provided a quote from the dean of Dembski's department numerous times previously that seems to imply rather strongly that Dembski is going to be teaching intelligent design and related things while at SBTS.  Hence, I contend that there is no great reason to think that Dembski is teaching theology, especially considering his educational background in that subject.

2.) Dembski if often referred to as a theologian by the press. This is simply untrue.  After this was claimed, I did a google news search for 'Demsbki'.  It pulled up 50 or so newspaper articles that mentioned Dembski.  In most of these, Dembski was referred to as either a mathematician/philosopher, or an ID-proponent.  I then did a search for 'Dembski' and 'theologian'.  The search produced 3 results.  In 2 of the results, the word 'theologian' was referring to someone other than Dembski.  In the other, Dembski was called a 'mathematician-theologian'.  Notably, however, this article was not written by a press official, but was an opinion letter written to a newspaper.  Hence, it's simply untrue to say that Dembski is often called a theologian by the press.

3.) Dembski writes a lot about theology. I dealt with this above, but I think it's an important point to deal with.  Earlier in this discussion, I challenged anyone who wanted to maintain that Dembski publishes in the field of theology to produce any works that they found that meet this description: (a) the work had to be written by Dembski and (b) the work had to be solely about theology.  No one has been able to produce any such work.  Many have produced articles that Dembski has written that deal with theological topics (ironically, reading one of the main articles being cited, "What Every Theologian Should Know...", one gets the impression from the language Dembski uses that he is talking to a group of academics outside his field, which is significant considering the article is addressed to theologians), but, as I have shown earlier, this does not in any way make Dembski a theologian (any more than it makes Plantinga a theologian). In fact, in response to this charge, I cited C.S. Lewis, who wrote much more prolifically on theology than Dembski, yet was not a theologian. Hence, despite the fact that Dembski does deal with theological topics in some of his writings, I think its reasonable to maintain that Dembski is not a theologian.

I think I have covered the main arguments for and against the accuracy of calling Dembski a theologian in this post. I also think that it shows rather convincingly that Dembski is not a theologian. If anyone has something to bring up that I didn't mention, then do so, and if anyone has an objection to something I've said, then speak up. As I said in the first paragraph, however, if, in fact, no one does bring up any substantial objection within the next day or two, I'm going to go ahead an remove 'theologian' from the opening paragraph. Augustinian 04:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, where's the external source saying that we should ignore all the evidence? (You can argue all you want about how the facts should be interpreted, but novel interpretations like you are suggesting fall under the category of "original research"). As for the rest...let's see:
 * First section
 * 1. False (previously addressed).
 * 2. False (previously addressed)
 * 3. Irrelevant. Dembski is first and foremost a philosopher (most of his publications and positions have been in philosophy).
 * 4. False.


 * Second section
 * 1. If, as you say, he is teaching ID, then he is neither teaching science nor theology. So why is he appointed to an endowed chair with those names?  Well, for one, is his primary responsibility teaching?  An endowed chair is not a throw-away position.  An endowed chair in "Science and Theology" in a School of Theology is no small matter, unless you are suggesting that the seminary has no standards in whom it hires.
 * 2. Huh?
 * 3. Please provide some reference to support your assertion that, in order to count as a paper in theology it must be solely about theology.

You have rehashed your arguments in greater depth, but you have not provided any new evidence to support your claims. Guettarda 04:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda,

I think it's a bit uncharitable of you to take this response I've just taken time to write and pass it off with "False, false, irrelevant" etc. I ask you to explain why you're saying what you're saying, or we won't get very far.

"To begin with, where's the external source saying that we should ignore all the evidence?" There is a phrase: "Lack of evidence is evidence." What I have been trying to show is that there is no evidence that Dembski is a theologian. So, when you say "Where's the source that contradicts all of this evidence?" it's very nearly begging the question. If there is no good reason to think that Dembski is a theologian, then that's enough. We don't need a source saying that he's not one.

"If, as you say, he is teaching ID, then he is neither teaching science nor theology. So why is he appointed to an endowed chair with those names?" It seems to me that SBTS has hired him so that its students can reconcile the theology they're being taught (which is probably YEC) with the leading scientific theories of today (evolutionary biology). Intelligent design is used in a growing number of conservative Christian colleges for this purpose. Hence, "Professor of Science and Theology".

"Please provide some reference to support your assertion that, in order to count as a paper in theology it must be solely about theology." I somewhat did above. Look at Warranted Christian Belief, for an example. Christian theology permeates the book. But it's not a theology book. For it to be a theology book, it would need to be about theology. Augustinian 05:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Uncharitable? I suppose you coud say so, but your long-winded reply fails to address the previous questions - just like this answer.  " Look at Warranted Christian Belief, for an example.  Christian theology permeates the book.  But it's not a theology book."  This doesn't answer my question.  To support your answer, you need to provide a source.  "In XXX YYY says that a book that in order to be considered a theological work a book cannot be about "theology + zzz", or something like "AAA has called Dembski's work on theological topics to not qualify as theology".  You are asking us to discount information on your say-so.  That isn't good enough.  Your assertion that Dembski doesn't have the education doesn't ring true.  People with one PhD can often move between disciplines without getting a second PhD.  You need to supply an authoritative external source that says "Dembski cannot be considered a theologian because..."
 * "It seems to me that SBTS has hired him so that its students can reconcile the theology they're being taught (which is probably YEC) with the leading scientific theories of today (evolutionary biology)." Again, you are going on a guess, which really doesn't cut it.  According to the course schedule he is teaching a "Studies in Apologetics" course (about ID) and a logic course ("CRTCLTHNKNG & ARTOF ARGMTN") this semester, which suggests that his teaching assignments do not reflect his research appointment.  None of these prove anything one way or the other.  Guettarda 14:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

''This doesn't answer my question. To support your answer, you need to provide a source. "In XXX YYY says that a book that in order to be considered a theological work a book cannot be about "theology + zzz", or something like "AAA has called Dembski's work on theological topics to not qualify as theology".--The problem is, I doubt there are any sources that detail exactly what counts as a 'theology article'. Issues like that rarely come up unless (as in this case) the definitions are necessarily pushed to pedantry.  Hence, the only way that we can really come up with some coherent answer is to look at other examples.  That's why I took Warranted Christian Belief and compared it.  If the problem is that you want more examples like WCB, then I'll be happy to oblige.  But as a matter of denotation, we're not going to find an exact definition of what a 'theology article' is, and comparing Dembski to other authors is the best we're able to do.  Your assertion that Dembski doesn't have the education doesn't ring true. People with one PhD can often move between disciplines without getting a second PhD. I admit this is true (though it doesn't happen 'often'), but I don't think that there is a good case to be made that Dembski has indeed'' moved to theology as a discipline. So, before the burden of proof is moved to me, a good case must be made that Demsbki has, in fact, moved from mathematics/philosophy to theology. And saying that 'his title is "Professor of Science and Theology"' isn't good enough. Again, you are going on a guess, which really doesn't cut it.--(1) It's not a blind guess; I provided a quote from the dean of the departmet Dembski works for. (2) Supposing it is a guess, it's equally a guess that Dembski is teaching theology there (which is the worse for the wear given the quote and the course list you curteously provided). ''According to the course schedule he is teaching a "Studies in Apologetics" course (about ID) and a logic course ("CRTCLTHNKNG & ARTOF ARGMTN") this semester, which suggests that his teaching assignments do not reflect his research appointment. None of these prove anything one way or the other.'' --It certainly proves at least one thing: Dembski is not teaching theology this semester. And it seems to me that if he was a professor of theology, he would be. I don't deny that I might be wrong about this, however. But can't we agree that if Dembski was a theology professor, then, on any given semester, he would probably be teaching theology? Augustinian 15:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My comment above relates to this as well, but Augustinian my question for you is this: When academic institutions are normally VERY careful about the titles and chairships they bestow upon scholars, are you really suggesting that Dembski was given an inappropriate (half-) title when he is named "Professor of Science and Theology"? This would mean either (a) his institution is foolish and capricious in how it gives titles, (b) Dembski is being disingenuous in accepting such a title, or (c) the institution feels he does something that he himself isn't aware that he does. It doesn't make sense that he would ever, if he didn't himself believe that he was, at least in some part, "doing theology", accept such a title. Dembski, as most every other scholar I know, would be quite self-conscious about how he is portrayed and in with what language. This seems to be part of his core complaint about what is "science" and what is not, who qualifies as a "scientist" or not, etc. Furthermore, deans or provosts or chancellors or presidents might make particular remarks about a scholar regarding the chief reason s/he is appreciated, or why s/he has been given a post, but this would never be all-encompassing, and is often not really the language the academic might use in describing her own work. You are using the dean's comments to nullify half of Dembski's own title. Secondly, to your above point, you are indeed wrong, a possibility you allowed for: a course in CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS would be a topic considered in the core of traditional "theology." I have no idea how you could suggest otherwise -- having read the syllabus it weighs in on ID but covers a variety of other aspects of traditional apologetics. If it were only about ID, he would not make reference to Kierkegaard in his final exam, etc. The course objective in the syllabus of the apologetics course never mentions ID, or science, or Darwin, or evolution. It reads:

Course Description: This course provides an overview of Christian apologetics. Of special interest are how various apologetic strategies alternately help or hinder the Christian in defending one’s faith and making it plausible to others. Course Objective: The goal of this course is to help students reflect with philosophical precision and theological rigor on the Christian apologetic enterprise.


 * I look forward to the fascinating way you will obviously try to refute that. It is fair to label Dembski a "theologian" and find your adamance suspicious, or inexplicable, or (now) irrelevant. Nmagee 12:45, 18 December 2006

It's been two days. Does anyone have any more objections before I make the edit? Augustinian 23:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly do. FeloniousMonk 23:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As do I. If you make such an edit against consensus, it will be reverted.  Stop trolling, stop ignoring the facts, stop wasting our time.  The evidence clearly shows that Demski is a theologian.  Period.  End of story.  Finis.  Jim62sch 00:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Felonius: Care to expound? Jim: You can say that, but it's just blowing air without any actual argumentation. Augustinian 01:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I object as well. Actual argumentation? There are enough arguments here against your claims. Are you now claiming that unless we have engaged you here on your own terms then we can't revert you? You have the option of an RFC. That should keep you busy. BTW the way, as a professional mathematician myself, I am not particularly happy with the claim Dembski's a mathematician.--CSTAR 01:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said before, find a source. Guettarda 03:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"There are enough arguments here against your claims."--I have responded to all of the arguments put forth against my position, and there are points that I have brought up that have not been addressed. So, what arguments are you referring to? "BTW the way, as a professional mathematician myself, I am not particularly happy with the claim Dembski's a mathematician."--So, a Masters, Ph.D., multiple post-doctoral fellowships, teaching positions in, and publications in mathematics isn't enough? But, an M.Div and no publications in theology is. "As I said before, find a source."--As I said before: "There is a phrase: "Lack of evidence is evidence." What I have been trying to show is that there is no evidence that Dembski is a theologian. So, when you say "Where's the source that contradicts all of this evidence?" it's very nearly begging the question. If there is no good reason to think that Dembski is a theologian, then that's enough. We don't need a source saying that he's not one." Also, I have a question: assuming that he's NOT a theologian, why would we expect to find a source saying that he ISN'T one. It's not customary to list what someone isn't, but what someone is. And all of the sources I have encountered say that Dembski is a mathematician/philosopher. So here's another test. Find a few sources that say that Dembski is a theologian. Augustinian 07:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying that Dembski is a mathematician is almost laughable. A quick check of mathscinet shows one published actual paper (from 1990), 1 article in a questionable journal that mathscinet didn't even bother reviewing and two of dembski's books which are massively panned by the reviewers (which is pretty rare for mathscinet, it normally only has descriptions, something needs to be of pretty low quality for it to be panned). Many undergrads have more papers than he does. So no, by any reasonable standard Dembski is not a mathematician. And what's wrong with all the earlier mentioned sources that Dembski is a theologian? Dembski does theology, Dembski doesn't do math. By most definitions that would make him a theologian well before he is a mathematician. Incidentally, are you a davescott sockpuppet, Dembski himself or some other sockpuppet? JoshuaZ 19:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll just jump in briefly to confirm that while Dembski did earn a Ph.D. in the area of probability theory, his recent claims concerning information and probability theory are generally regarded as highly suspect by the majority of those mathematicians with similar qualifications who have examined them. These include his former second Ph.D. advisor, Leo Kadanoff.---CH 22:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I added Dembski's now famous "pathetic level of detail" quote in the Response to Critics section. Mr Christopher 19:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I should note that Richard Swinburne is not listed by Wikipedia as being a theologian. The reason? He is not qualified to count as a theologian, since he has no degrees in theology. He is a philosopher. He writes a lot about natural theology, a branch of philosophy (something Dembski also does as a philosopher). What he doesn't do is engage in the field of theology, which has its own journals that are not the same journals as the field of philosophy. Dembski publishes in philosophy of religion journals, but he does not publish in theology journals. He is certainly unqualified to be called a theologian if Richard Swinburne is. His degrees are in mathematics and philosophy, and since anyone can be an apologist without being degreed that term should also be fine. I don't think it's fair to degreed theologians to call Dembski one, since he doesn't do theology as those in the field of theology do it. What he does has a bearing on theology, and he has a title that indicates that what he does relates both science and theology, but one can be a professor dealing with the intersection of two fields without being a practitioner of either. A professor of sociology might study science and religion from a sociological perspective without being a scientists (in the more restricted sense of natural science) or a professor of religion. Similarly, Dembski is a professor of Theology and Science, but that doesn't mean he is a professor of either. If he is, that must be established on independent grounds besides his title. Parableman 18:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I take some of that back. Dembski does have some publications in the field of theology, mostly in one journal but I think once in another journal. He hasn't contributed as much to theology as he has to philosophy, but it's almost as much. But people don't typically consider Richard Swinburne a theologian, and it seems strange to consider someone with no degree in theology and handful of publications in the field to be a theologian. In philosophy we don't consider someone a metaphysician for having a few publications in metaphysics but mostly work in other branches of philosophy. We don't consider someone an ethicist who has just a few papers in ethics but mostly work in other branches of philosophy. The only exception might be if their Ph.D. dissertation was in the field in question. But Dembski has no dissertation in theology, whereas he does have disssertations in mathematics and philosophy. So I do stand by my claim that it's a little strange to call him a theologian. Most theologians would consider that to be strange. But since this is Wikipedia, and the fact that other people say something counts more than the argument actually being a good argument, no one will listen to me unless I can find someone bothering to say what every theologian assumes but never says. Verificationism will reign supreme, and the benefit of the doubt will remain with those who have not given a verified quote from any theologian claiming Dembski to be a theologian while insisting that others prove a negative. Parableman 18:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, did you not read the entire section that preceeded your comments? There is a wealth of information there/here. As a small tidbit - In Dembski's own words "Theology is where my ultimate passion is and I think that is where I can uniquely contribute". From Dembski's web site Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, philosophy, and theology journals if you still have doubts look at the titles of what Demsbki has written on the subject of theology as well as some of his speeches on the subject. Mr Christopher 19:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I read what seemed relevant to the points I thought worth making and skimmed through the rest, much of which had little relevance for the particular issue of whether theologians would consider him a member of their profession (e.g. what an academic dean might happen to think in assigning a title or what Dembski himself might think). Some of the points I wanted to make were made. Some weren't. I then made the ones that weren't. In the process of looking for something else I discovered his C.V. and then made my second comment. As for the irrelevant argument that you've just given, all it shows is that Dembski considers himself a theologian. Considering yourself a theologian doesn't necessarily make you more than an amateur theologian. If it's in your Wikipedia description, people will think you're a professional theologian, and if that's not true then it sends the wrong message. It's at best an ambiguity that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I remain convinced that most theologians will consider him at most an amateur theologian, since he lacks training in their discipline. As a philosopher, I'm happy to consider him a professional philosopher given his Ph.D., even if his publications are only a few. But it doesn't work that way if you don't have the degree and just occasionally post a paper here or there in a journal. [User:Parableman|Parableman]] 01:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Discovery Institute disagrees with you. Exhibit 1:


 * Writing in such a context, it makes sense for Dembski to give his interpretation of the religious and theological meaning of intelligent design for his own Christian faith. After all, Dembski is a theologian with an M-Div from one of the most prestigious seminaries in the U.S. (Princeton).


 * Exhibit 2


 * Given that Dembski is a trained theologian (he holds an m-div. from the prestigious Princeton Theological Seminary), in addition to holding doctorates in mathematics and philosophy, he has every right to evaluate ID in the context of his Christian religious faith (theistic evolutionist scientists often do the same thing for evolution—see below).


 * The DI rehosted a Time magazine article that is Exhibit 3:


 * Still other advocates, including mathematician, philosopher and theologian William Dembski, who is heading up a new center for intelligent design at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, use the mathematics of probability to try to show that chance mutations and natural selection cannot account for nature's complexity.


 * Then Dembski, given the opportunity to disclaim "theologian" status for himself, does not do so.


 * Dembski has training as a theologian, publishes as a theologian, is publicly recognized by his fellow ID advocates as a theologian, and does not himself demur about his status as a theologian (his reply to Gross was to build up his math and philosophy cred, not to dismiss his theology background and practice).


 * Now, where were you when Rob Koons asserted that Dembski was "the Isaac Newton of information theory"? Your input would have been useful there, since Dembski has no degree in information theory, no publications in information theory, and no recognition by the information theory community as being one of their own. --Wesley R. Elsberry 16:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)