Talk:William A. Dembski/Archive 2

Bible Code
Should Dembski's belief that God is behind the "bible codes" be added to this article? http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9808/reviews/dembski.html Mr Christopher 22:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * While it seems reasonable, it isn't clear to me what it adds to the article. JoshuaZ 23:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

From the article I linked above: At the same time that research in the Bible Code has taken off, research in a seemingly unrelated field has taken off as well, namely, biological design. These two fields are in fact closely related. Indeed, the same highly improbable, independently given patterns that appear as the equidistant letter sequences in the Bible Code appear in biology as functionally integrated ("irreducibly complex") biological systems, of the sort Michael Behe discussed in Darwin’s Black Box.

It would seem Dembski feels Intellgient Design and the Bible codes are closely related. Why wouldn't this be relevant? Mr Christopher 03:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you may be right about the merits of such inclusion, but isn't this more of a headache than it's worth? Although, I must concede, that I for one, wasn't aware that Dembski has embraced this nonsense. This hoax has been amply discussed and is dismissed by most professional mathematicians. See, for a review by Allyn Jackson and a commentary by Shlomo Sternberg, who besides being a distinguished mathematician (on the faculty at Harvard) is a (real) talmudic scholar.--CSTAR 04:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Headachieness is not relevant, if it should be in, it should be in. JoshuaZ 05:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK Mr Christopher, it's your headache.--CSTAR 05:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to mak a big deal out of it but mentioning Dembski is

1) Sympathetic to the Bible codes 2) Sees a relationship between Intelligent Design and the Bible Codes

Is worth mentioning in the Views and Statements section. I'll think some more and make an attempt soon. For those who are interested in the Intelligent design movement it's worth noting that Phillip E. Johnson wrote sympathetically (yet somewhat more cautiously than Dembski) about the Bible codes in the same journal. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9811/johnson.html Mr Christopher 02:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It certainly should be included if it can be properly cited. That it serves to emphasise Dembski's lack of intellectual stature is a useful side effect, of course. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the Bible code piece at the end of the Views and Staements heading. Feel free to improve it. I wonder if the Bible code portion should have its own header in the article? Mr Christopher 18:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Holy second derivatives... The acrimony here is astounding. Should anyone who is so unsympathetic and opposed to William Dembski be working on an article describing him? The entire article comes across as a snide attack. My fields are more biochemistry and physics than pure mathematics, and certainly information theory is not my speciality - yet having read some of Dembski's work, I do not think it merits the negative comments that so proliferate here. I would venture to be a LOT more cautious in this article. While it is fair to say that the published mainstream disagree with Dembski's theories, simply put it at that and leave the snideness for blogs rather than a Wikipedia article. There is certainly no suggestion of a NPOV here. I don't see this degree of negative criticism in many other biography articles, and I suspect it's conflicting personal ideologies that tinge the tone. I strongly suggest the article be edited to get rid of that tone. And good grief... if you plan to include the entirely irrelevant bit about the Bible Code, I'd suggest checking Dembski's current position on that. Don't forget that Isaac Newton did not grace his intelligence to the nth degree with his ideas of Frankish descent, yet does his biography comment snidely about this?

I should add that I am not a poster on Dembski's blog, nor am I a "troll" (which I see seems to be a favourite insult thrown at anyone who disagrees with the overtones of this article). I simply would like to see more neutrality here, as I feel this article suffers badly from the lack. Almirena 04:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you have a specific concern about the article or were you just needing to vent? Your comments are not clear. Mr Christopher 00:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr Christopher, as I said, yes, I have specific concerns. 1: "I strongly suggest the article be edited to get rid of that [snide] tone." If you want, I can paste here every example of snideness. 2: "...if you plan to include the entirely irrelevant bit about the Bible Code, I'd suggest checking Dembski's current position on that." To maintian a neutral point of view surely requires that if Dembski has amended his opinion on that, it needs to be mentioned if the Bible Code issue is included in this biography. Otherwise the implication is that the article is looking for ammunition against this man and will only mention negatives. That is the clear implication I receive. Let me know if you believe I need to clarify further. (I hesitate to mention this, but is "vent[ing]" really an appropriate word to use in response to my concerns? While I expressed myself strongly, I did so perfectly politely. I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to attempt to belittle my comments. Perhaps I misunderstand your use of the word "vent".) Almirena 02:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * People often vent on a talk page as a means of expressing their frustration, sometimes it is difficult to determine what is venting and what is someone's attempt to present criticism. I mean nothing in bad faith in suggesting you might be venting.  Sorry if it seemed otherwise or if my response did not seem polite.


 * Dembski presents himself as a math guy, his peers (DI that is) refer to him as the Isaac Newton of intelligent design. His favorable review and belief in the bible code is relevant to this article.  It would be innapropriate for us to contact Dembski and ask what his latest take on the bible code is.  We're not reporters and that would represent original research.  Besides, at the time the bible code was added to this article someone specifically asked Dembski what his latest views on the subject were on his blog.  Dembski ignored that person's question. Besides, if we were to have to check with Dembski for his latest views on pseudoscience subjects he has promoted, or just the astonishing things he does on a daily basis (think of him recording his own gas as it leaves his body and using those sounds in farting videos dedicated to his critics), we'd be calling him daily saying "do you still stand by the astonishing things you said yesterday?".  That is some crazy stuff and I'd rather not be the guy who has to call him on a daily basis.


 * My personal experience with those who promote pseudoscience is that they seldom if ever change their opinion on a pseudoscience subject. If they admit yesterday I was promoting  pseudoscience but now I can see it was pseudoscience, but don't confuse that mistake with what I am still promoting today then people might start looking at their current ideas a little closer.  But you are I are in complete agreement, if in fact Demsbki ever does write on the bible code subject again we'd need to update the article to reflect his current views.


 * We'll need specific examples of this "snide tone" you speak of, otherwise I/we'd just be guessing in the dark as to what you find is outside the boundaries of Wiki policy (snide comments). The article has gone through a lot of changes and I think most everything that is there is now cited/supported well but that doesn't mean we can't improve it more.  Finally, we are not required to be NPOV here on the talk pages.  We can talk like adults here, adults with opinions and such.  The article should be NPOV though.  Cheers! Mr Christopher 02:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining re "venting". No offence is taken.

I've gone through the article and explained why I think some things should be changed. I will leave it with you to decide whether my concerns are valid, as I'm currently so busy with a book that I doubt I'll have any further time for this. (I've given myself a headache - excuse me if I seem testy.)

“with leading scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science describing intelligent design as pseudoscience, and voices within the science community challenging his qualifications as a commentator on science, philosophy, and mathematics.”

This gives a misleading impression, because it is not true that all voices within the science community challenge Dembski’s qualifications, and it is not true that all leading scientific organisations describe intelligent design as pseudoscience. Qualifying both as “some” would be better, in my opinion. I would edit this as “with some leading scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science describing intelligent design as pseudoscience, and some voices within the science community challenging his qualifications as a commentator on science, philosophy, and mathematics.”


 * The original phrasing does not imply universality. Nevertheless, whenever any academy of science or major scientific association has made a statement, that statement supports evolutionary science and/or directly categorizes ID as pseudoscience. Every. Single. Time. "Some" is a mealy-mouthed misrepresentation of the true state of affairs.


 * From the decision in the Kitzmiller case:


 * Notably, every major scientific association that has taken a position on the issue of whether ID is science has concluded that ID is not, and cannot be considered as such. (1:98-99 (Miller); 14:75-78 (Alters); 37:25 (Minnich)). Initially, we note that NAS, the "most prestigious" scientific association in this country, views ID as follows:


 * 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.


 * P-192 at 25. Additionally, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (hereinafter "AAAS"), the largest organization of scientists in this country, has taken a similar position on ID, namely, that it "has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims" and that "the lack of scientific warrant for so-called 'intelligent design theory' makes it improper to include as part of science education . . ." (P-198). Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science. What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community. (21:37-38 (Behe); Fuller Dep. at 98-101, June 21, 2005; 28:47 (Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 89, May 26, 2005).


 * --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

“Dembski's supporters include intelligent design proponent Robert Koons, a Fellow along with Dembski at the Discovery Institute and Dembski's International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, and University of Texas at Austin philosopher [3]. Koons has referred to Dembski as "the Isaac Newton of information theory." However, mathematician, number theorist Jeffrey Shallit has studied Dembski's work, arguing that it should not be regarded as significant and that Dembski should not be viewed as the "Isaac Newton of information theory".”

This seems snide. The implication is that Robert Koons has not studied Dembski’s work but that Jeffrey Shallit has. I suggest this be reworded as “However, mathematician number theorist Jeffrey Shallit argues that it should not be regarded as significant, etc.”


 * I hadn't realized that there was an implication there, but if so, the import would be absolutely accurate. Koons either knows too little about information theory to have any business trying to assess anyone's stature in that field, or he has not studied Dembski's work with sufficient attention to realize that his hyperbolic statement about Newton-ish qualities is simply risible. I suspect that both apply. In any case, Shallit's expert report suitably documents this particular item, and one could with more justification say that "noted mathematician and number theorist Jeffrey Shallit testified under oath that it should not be regarded as significant".


 * Q. On page 2 of your report you mention the fact that Dembski has been viewed as the Isaac Newton of information theory by a proponent of intelligent design, Rob Koons.
 * A. Right.
 * Q. And you take issue with that; is that correct?
 * A. I do.
 * Q. And why?
 * A. Well, Isaac Newton was probably the greatest physicist or one of the greatest physicists of all time, and -- sorry, mathematicians of all time. And he -- to call somone an Isaac Newton of information theory would imply, for example, Isaac Newton was the founder of the calculus independently of LiveNet [Leibniz]. So to say someone is the Isaac Newton of information theory, you would think this is somone who founded the field or at least was a huge, towering figure with dozens of published papers or published works, viewed by everyone as either the founder of the field information theory, or certainly a very well recognized expert in the field. And I take exception because I don't see that any of those things are true.


 * Shallit is right. Those things are not true. --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

“(Kurt Wise, who heads Dembski's former theology and science center at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was in the same 1977 incoming class at the University of Chicago as Dembski)”

Of what relevance is the above comment? It seems completely unnecessary, but please retain if there is a point to it which I cannot see.


 * Relevance in a biographical setting is pretty broad. The fact that the antievolution community is a "small world" of its own with various connections as illustrated in this case by the overlap in two major figures sharing the same posting and having attended the same school at the same time is certainly an informative datum. --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

“Dembski's mathematical arguments rest on Behe's assertion that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve gradually. Dembski's specified complexity rides on Behe's claim, and its validity is dependent on the validity of irreducible complexity.”

This is a misstatement. No such connection as “rest on” or “rides on” or “dependent on” has been established in any science journal or publication of which I am aware, and claiming such a co-dependency would be original research. Behe’s work on the irreducibly complex systems is not co-dependent on Dembski’s work. Why not simply point out the connection that is incontestable? I suggest rewording to this: “Dembski’s mathematical arguments are known to be strongly associated with Behe’s assertion that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve gradually.”


 * It is not a misstatement. The point of Dembski's section 5.10 of his book, "No Free Lunch", is explicitly given as establishing that Behe's "irreducible complexity" is a "special case" of Dembski's "specified complexity". There is the problem that within Dembski's attempt to demonstrate this, he utilizes a supposed IC-ness of the E. coli flagellum as reason to exclude any evolutionary "chance" hypothesis from consideration, effectively begging the question. However, the fact remains that Dembski does make a mathematical argument (in section 5.10 of NFL) that does depend upon Behe's IC claims for a bacterial flagellum. The statement as given comports with the facts, and the proposed amendment is a misrepresentation of the strength of the connection between the two concepts. --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

“Dembski has published several popular books, but has published no papers on intelligent design within the peer-reviewed scientific literature.” According to a talk I’ve just had with a microbiologist in America, there is at least one instance when Dembski attempted to publish in at least one peer-reviewed publication, but it was stymied by non-scientists among the review panel. I cannot confirm this from personal knowledge, but is this commonly known? The implication is that Dembski hasn’t attempted to publish within the peer-reviewed scientific literature. I would like to explore this further, and if the case is true (that Dembski did attempt this and was indeed stymied as was described to me), I think it needs to be mentioned to correct the impression here.


 * The statement doesn't say that Dembski did not "attempt to publish"; it says that he has not published papers on intelligent design. Lots of scientists "attempt to publish" papers and get rejection notices from their initial choice of journal. The major journals turn down lots and lots of real research papers every single day. It's not like peer review is some sort of automatic rubber stamp. Once Dembski has gotten a peer-reviewed paper on intelligent design actually published in the scientific literature will be the right time to change the wording. As it stands, it is completely accurate, so why would anyone want to change it? --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

“During the three years after completing graduate school in 1996 Dembski was unable to secure a university position”

Has the above been verified? That he was UNABLE to secure a university position? This definitely needs a citation and verification!


 * I agree that the "unable" wording should be changed. This period is best explained as Dembski utilizing this time to further the aims of the Discovery Institute Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, where he was "Senior Fellow" and from whom he received his monetary support. --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

“As a mathematician and scientist he holds degrees but has contributed little to these fields.” This certainly seems snide and I would like this to be reworded to “As a mathematician and scientist he holds degrees but his detractors say he has contributed little to these fields”. Or even “… but some say”. Otherwise this is an indefensible statement.


 * It is a completely defensible and accurate statement as it stands. The proposed change is misleading and inaccurate. Again, one can reference Jeff Shallit's expert report and deposition. One can evaluate the impact that someone has on a field by both the quantity of published peer-reviewed articles (a measure of primary productivity) and by the number and distribution of citations to published work (a measure of impact of ideas on a field). Shallit's documented research on precisely these measures shows that Dembski's impact on the fields of math and science is, in fact, minute. Dembski's primary productivity is far smaller than would be expected for the average person so long removed from gaining his terminal degree, and the citations don't measure up to the overblown claims of relevance. To change that, one would have to dispute that the counting of published papers and citations is accurate, and that such counting is off by a large scale. Somehow, I don't think that is going to happen. --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

“Thus, while it is true to say that The Design Inference has been been peer-reviewed for mathematics and philosophy, it is false to claim that any work actually providing specific and detailed evidence for the existence of intelligent design for the universe has been so published in the arena of scientific press in which the topic is debated, which is what Dembski implies.”

Firstly, an extra “been” should be removed. Secondly, if Dembski has implied that “any work actually providing specific and detailed evidence &c” has been published in the area of the scientific press, that needs a citation – where does he imply this? I do not see any such implication. I suggest rewording to “Thus, while it is true to say that The Design Inference has been peer-reviewed for mathematics and philosophy, this does not imply that any work providing specific and detailed evidence for the existence of intelligent design for the universe has been so published in the area of scientific press in which the topic is debated.”


 * Third sentence of the paragraph is:


 * Dembski states: "this book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory".


 * That's where the implication resides. It is referenced by the link at the end of the second sentence. I think we would be able to tell if any publication making a positive scientific case for ID got published. Why should we pussyfoot about saying that Dembski's implication is, in fact, incorrect? In any case, the proposed replacement is close to incomprehensible. --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

“Dembski had known Sloan for about three years, having taught Sloan's daughter at a Christian study summer camp not far from Waco, Texas.”

Length of time of having known an associate, and whether or not one knows an associate’s daughter, is somehow RELEVANT? Of course it is not. Why is that there at all? The sentence could be perceived as trying to imply that Dembski was given his post out of a sort of mateship/nepotism without quite saying that. I strongly suggest it be removed.


 * Of course it is relevant to the question of how it came to pass that Dembski got offered that position at Baylor University. Networking is not a null issue in job hiring. But I would agree that the claim presented there needs a citation. As it stands, that piece of data comes from nowhere and is substantiated by nothing. If it can be verified, then it certainly deserves a place in the article. If not, it should come out. Given the living author status of the article, I'd recommend that it get put in a section here in the "Talk" page and be removed from the main article until it can be verified. --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The center's mission, and the lack of consultation with the Baylor faculty, became the immediate subject of controversy. The faculty feared for the university's reputation – it has historically been well-regarded for its contributions to mainstream science – and scientists outside the university questioned whether Baylor had "gone fundamentalist".

“Gone fundamentalist” is being used pejoratively here. Is that NPOV? In fact, I would suggest rewording the paragraph so as neither to a priori assume the faculty’s reasons nor to a priori throw in a link between a lack of pursuit of mainstream science and the centre’s mission. Perhaps as this: “The center’s mission, and the lack of consultation with the Baylor faculty, became the immediate subject of controversy. The faculty claimed fear for the university’s reputation in its historically well-regarded contributions to mainstream science, and scientists outside the university questioned Baylor’s metaphysical position.”

“Dembski's work, however, was strongly criticized within the scientific community, who argued that there were a number of major logical inconsistencies and evidential gaps in Dembski's hypothesis.”

This article really needs to be careful in its unqualified statements. This should be reworded to “Dembski’s work, however, was strongly criticized by some within the scientific community &c” or something similar.

“Dembski frequently gives public talks, principally to religious and pro-ID groups, and has several more books in preparation as well as producing a string of Flash animations mocking his detractors.”

If this is so (the Flash animations), it needs a citation. I am not assuming it’s incorrect, but it certainly needs to be supported by evidence.

“His mainstream scientific critics have accused him of dishonesty in his representation of scientific facts and writing”

Citation definitely needed. Which mainstream scientific critics? Where? On what basis? Again, I’m not stating this is incorrect, but such an accusation NEEDS citations.

“For his part, Dembski has attacked the refusal of mainstream scientists to debate ID proponents in public forums which his critics regard as undeservedly presenting ID and evolution as equally worthwhile hypotheses.”

Well, the above sentence doesn’t really make much logical sense, as hypotheses, being hypotheses, are on the same level in terms of verifiability. It does seem rather like begging the question. But if that is what his critics have said, so be it. Could citations be given here as to which critics have said this?

“Although intelligent design proponents (including Dembski) have made little apparent effort to publish peer-reviewed scientific research to support their hypotheses”

I’ve pointed out a problem with this in an earlier point. Can this be verified that intelligent design proponents have indeed made little effort to publish peer-reviewed scientific research?

“Dembski has so far failed to explain the origin of the intelligent designer that created the universe”

The above sentence is meaningless. As I understand the subject of ID, no part of the approach is to explain the origin of the “intelligent designer that created the universe”. This is like saying, “Dembski has so far failed to explain what the intelligent designer was wearing”. If the theory itself doesn’t claim to address an issue, attacking one of its proponents for not addressing that issue certainly seems out of place.

“Dembski's style in response to his critics (particularly of his mathematical papers) is polemical.” The link given is to an article which does not support this accusation. It discusses apologetics, not polemics. If Dembski’s style is polemical (as in aggressively disputatious), it needs to be verified. And in particular, it needs to be verified with relation to his response to critics of his mathematical papers, as the statement has particularised that.


 * Verification:


 * My most obnoxious critics have been Internet stalkers (e.g., Wesley Elsberry and Richard Wein), who seem to monitor my every move and as a service to the Internet community make sure that every aspect of my work receives their bad housekeeping seal of disapproval. As a rule I don’t respond to them over the Internet since it seems to me that the Internet is an unreliable forum for settling technical issues in statistics and the philosophy of science.


 * Both Wein and I are such critics as requested. --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

“Dembski has also shown a hostility for providing a mechanistic explanation for intelligent design theory.” Citation needed.


 * Citation given:


 * As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.


 * I think that fits the bill. --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

“Dembski's critics maintain that he has yet to provide a means of determining if ID is correct.” This is frankly untenable as a criticism. Is ID not a theory? Are ID proponents not attempting to gain consideration for ID as another way of addressing diversity of life? The statement seems to imply that unless a theory is provided with a means of determining whether it is correct, that is a critical flaw. Do biographies of proponents of macro-evolution include a statement that “[So-and-so’s] critics maintain that he has yet to provide a means of determining if macro-evolution is correct”? If so, I withdraw my point.

“Subsequently, James Downard in reviewing and debunking the representation of science in Godless criticized Coulter's favoring of secondary sources over primary sources, saying "she compulsively reads inaccurate antievolutionary sources and accepts them on account of their reinforcement of what she wants to be true."”

I realise that Ms Coulter obtained information from Dembski on the subject concerned, but the above comment is related to COULTER, not to DEMBSKI. I feel it is out of place in a biography about Dembski – put it into Ms Coulter’s biography instead.

“A small number of Dembski supporters from the uncommondescent blog have trolled blogs and forums critical of Dembski, notably Dispatches from the Culture Wars.”

Firstly, this should have citations in evidence of it if it is to be included. Secondly, is it really relevant to a biography of Dembski himself? Unless the article intends to imply Dembski is behind the trolling, it seems irrelevant.

Almirena 10:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Almirena

NPOV Discussion

 * I feel this article is not NPOV because of the anti-Dembski, anti design slant in the article. This is specially obvious in the terms "neo-creationism" in the intro and the idea that Dembski is opposed to 'evolution by natural selection' without clarifying what kind of evolution he opposes. There are many other examples that I think need to be sorted out before we can remove the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.201.246 (talk • contribs)


 * Why do you think that neo-creationist violaten NPOV?
 * What do you mean by "and the idea that Dembski is opposed to 'evolution by natural selection' without clarifying what kind of evolution he opposes"? Is there more than one kind of evolution by natural selection?  Guettarda 20:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you guys think terms like "neo-creationist" and "theologian" are anti-Dembski? What's bad about being a neo-creationist or a theologian? There's nothing shamefull about either pursuit.

First the term "theologian" was comically disputed, now his neo-creationist leanings are being questioned? Too funny.

What the heck do you think intelligent design is? A designer in the intelligent design movement is the same as a creator. As far as NPOV goes, Even a federal judge ruled on the creationist roots of intelligent design: "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" (page 31)

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43)

"We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. […] "

Now, if intelligent design is creationism, and Dembski is an intelligent design advocate, I believe that makes him a creationist, or a neo-creationist

Of course, the intelligent design crowd hates it when this verifiable fact is pointed out to them.

And who exactly are you? Would you mind signing your name?Mr Christopher 20:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first guy. The Dembski article is not NPOV. As Dembski and others clearly state intelligent design is not creationism and didn't come out of creationist thought.--Joy Crawford 22:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm adding the tag back on till we can all can sort this out. --Joy Crawford 22:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What does the "this" that needs sorting out refer to? As Mr Christopher points out, the overwhelming evidence, legal and otherwise, points to the opposite of your claim that "intelligent design is not creationism and didn't come out of creationist thought." --CSTAR 22:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunatly it seems like you're rabidly anti-ID. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Joy Crawford (talk • contribs)

Joy, just because Dembski and the Discovery Institute deny intelligent design is recycled creationism does not make it so. Saying "not guilty" does not make one not guilty. Have you not even read the entire article? The Jones ruling? Are you really this uninformed about intelligent design and William Dembski? Have you heard of Kitzmiler v Dover?

There is nothing to sort out, intelligent design is creationism for the 2000s, in addition to all that Dembski and others have admitted, we have a federal court ruling which clearly states intelligent design is about creationism.

The Discovery Institute and their followers (and fellows) deny intelligent design is recycled creationism in order to get it taught in public schools. Where have you been the last year? This is well documented.

Instead of putting a tag on (which should be a last resort) why don't you provide a specific objection and bring some evidence for your claim as well? Mr Christopher 22:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first guy's objections. I think also it's biased to say ID is not "accepted as valid by the mainstream scientific community. That does not belong in an NPOV article, it's only a rhetorical device. Something more unbiased would be: Many scientists disagree. . . or something like that. --Joy Crawford 22:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Joy, you have violated the 3RR, so in principle you could be blocked by an adm. Maybe you're new here and don't know the rules yet, so I won't do it.


 * Re: I think also it's biased to say ID is not "accepted as valid by the mainstream scientific community. That does not belong in an NPOV article,


 * Why? Do you think articles on crackpot theories in physics don't make such assertions? See Autodynamics for instance. --CSTAR 23:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "I think also it's biased to say ID is not "accepted as valid by the mainstream scientific community." No, that's a misbegotten notion. Your's and the anon's objections reflect an imperfect understanding of WP:NPOV. Presenting both sides of the ID issue of Dembski's activities is in accord with WP:NPOV, which clearly states: "To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia." The article's content also seems well-supported per WP:V and WP:RS. FeloniousMonk 23:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Joy, first of all "the first guy" objections are vauge and therefore useless to this discussion. Your last comment is much more specific and therefore useful. Just about every scientific organization in North America has come out against ID as science, that supports the "mainstream" comment. Can you name one mainstream scientific organization that believes ID is science? And by mainstream science organization I mean a science organization that employs naturalism and not supernaturalism as a method. Mr Christopher 23:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The reverting rule does not apply to simple vandalism, that's why I felt free to revert it back to the original left by the anonymous person.--Joy Crawford 23:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"Joy Crawford" seems to have come here only to edit this article, and despite being a supposed newcomer is very knowledgeable about relatively obscure bits of Wikipedia policy. Who is he/she? There's a very strong whiff of sock-puppet. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I was hoping that we could engage her/him to at least formulate some specific objection. If she/he were a newcomer, then misunderstanding re the NPOV policy would be a possible explanation of this behavior. It seems that she/he is relentless about reverting, (8 or 9 times, despite warnings) which is vandalism in my opinion.--CSTAR 23:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we revert prior to the tag since Joy (or "that guy") has not brought any evidence that suggests mainstream science does not reject ID as science on a wholesale level? And what is it with these people who throw the tag on without ANY discussion whatsoever? It makes me suspect their motives. So far all they have contributed is the notion they do not like how the article is written in spite of overwhelming evidence that flies in the face of their objections. Mr Christopher 23:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * To call Dembski a neo-creationist is biased and betrays an ignorance of intelligent design - evolution debate.--Joy Crawford 23:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A possibility might be to say that some people think he is a neo-creationist?--Joy Crawford 23:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's another example of outragous bias: "The PTR (over control of which name the society and the seminary wrangled) received funding from conservative Presbyterian backers (the Presbyterian Lay Committee), and primarily wrote from a conservative angle on theological issues of the day. Perhaps the most volatile of these issues was the PC(USA)'s consideration of the ordination of gays/lesbians, in which writers of the PTR (including Dembski) disagreed with Seminary faculty and their writings in nearly slanderous terms."--Joy Crawford 23:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Joy, "some people" kind of like "some scientists" :-)

How about we handle one objection at a time? Will you kindly respond to my response regarding your "mainstream scientist" concerns? Can you name one mainstream scientific organization that thinks ID is a valid scientific theory? While you're at it, can you tell me what the scientific theory of intelligent design actually is and also how it can be tested. Let's tackle that one first and then we can discuss the creationism piece. Fair enough? Mr Christopher 23:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've taken off the NPOV sticker for the next twenty-four hours. Mr. Christopher, I don't want to discuss the merits of intelligent design. Whatever you think of the merits, the article should be NPOV.--Joy Crawford 23:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Joy, YOU said " I think also it's biased to say ID is not "accepted as valid by the mainstream scientific community. That does not belong in an NPOV article, it's only a rhetorical device. Something more unbiased would be: Many scientists disagree. . . or something like that." To say the mainstream scientific community does not think ID is a valid scientific theory is not biased, it is a fact.

In order for us to change that wording I invited you to provide evidence that the maintsream scientific community does think ID is a valid scientific theory, I asked you to prove the article wrong. You have brought no evidence to the contrary. Therefore I am assuming you are no longer concerned about that sentence. So what is your next specific objection? Mr Christopher 23:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Joy you also wrote "To call Dembski a neo-creationist is biased and betrays an ignorance of intelligent design - evolution debate.--Joy Crawford 23:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC) "
 * Well this suggests you may be unfamiliar with a recent court ruling where based on expert testimony, including the leading intelligent design biologist in the world, intelligent design was not only found to be unscientific but rooted in creationism as well. I posted some quotes from that ruling above, have you had a chance to review them and the original ruling yet?  That Knowing the facts on intelligent design will greatly help your understanding of what is and is not bias.  Facts and verifiable evidence do not suggest bias.


 * Finally, you also wrote "Here's another example of outragous bias: "The PTR (over control of which name the society and the seminary wrangled) received funding from conservative Presbyterian backers (the Presbyterian Lay Committee)..."


 * I'll let those more familiar with that issue address your concerns, but as far as Dembski's neo-creationist leanings and the fact that the mainstream scientific community does not consider ID to be a valid scientific theory are well documented and well supported, so unless you can provide some significant evidence that would lead us to believe otherwise, those statements should remain as they are. Dembski's neo-creationist leanings are obvious, intelligent design is recycled creationism and there is not a mainstream scientific organization in North American that believes ID is a valid scientific theory.  Neither Dembski nor the Discovery Institute (and you apparently) can tell us exactly what the scientific theory of intelligent design actually is nor can they tell us how that theory can be tested. That is because no such theory exists.  And the notion that some things are "best" explained as having been designed is an opinion, or a value if you will, and not a valid scientific theory.  Mr Christopher 01:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears she was blocked after 8 or so reverts. --CSTAR 03:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * CSTAR, I think I addressed her concerns (though probably not to her liking) on the two main subject she was concerned about. I am not familiar with the whole "conservative Presbyterian backers" drama, does that piece of the article appear biased or should it be rewritten or more citations provided or is it fine the way it is?  Mr Christopher 04:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I think the article is fine as it is, but maybe my opinion is not too relevant here since, in her view I am a "rabidly anti-ID". Maybe you could attempt to provide more citations. I suspect that lack of documentation is not the problem, however.--CSTAR 04:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In the Biography section, the paragraph that begins with "While at Princeton Theological Seminary..." I have been unable to find anything online to support this paragraph. I am not saying such evidence does not exist, I am simply saying I have failed to find any citations or supporting evidence.  That paragraph reads like it was written by someone who personally observed these activities at Princeton. Do we know who added that part?  Perhaps they can offer some citations or some sort of supporting evidence? Without evidence the points made in that paragraph could certainly appear to be original research, no?  Mr Christopher 15:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent Controversies and article length
The state of Wisconsin has proposed legislation that will forbid supernaturalism (which included ID/C) from being taught in public science classrooms. Dembski is offering $1,000 to any teacher in Wisconsin who will break that law (assuming it is passed)..

"'I’m offering $1000 to the first teacher in Wisconsin who (1) challenges this policy (should it be enacted) by teaching ID as science within a Wisconsin public school science curriculum (social science does not count), (2) gets him/herself fired, reprimanded, or otherwise punished in some actionable way, (3) obtains legal representation from a public interest law firm (e.g., Alliance Defense Fund), and (4) takes this to trial. I encourage others to contribute in the same way.'"

How many "recent controversies" can this article take before it becomes too long? Mr Christopher 19:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed Sentence
I've removed the following line:


 * The committee also considered the legitimacy of research into intelligent design and gave it a lukewarm endorsement: "research on the logical structure of mathematical arguments for intelligent design have a legitimate claim to a place in the current discussions of the relations of religion and science."

The quote does not support the statement: research on the logical structure of mathematical arguments for intelligent design does not in any way bestow legitimacy to research on intelligent design. The line simply recognizes that the study of some forms of arguments is legitimate; it says nothing about the tenability of a scientific research programme on ID. Sir Paul 03:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence "Although Dembski uses his credentials as a mathematician and scientist to enhance his credibility, there appears no record of any publication in any academic journal--peer reviewed or otherwise, written by Dembski in any subject." Also changed a subsequent sentence related to this. According to Dembski's CV he has the two following published papers:

“Uniform Probability.” Journal of Theoretical Probability 3(4), 1990: 611–626. “Reverse Diffusion-Limited Aggregation.” Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 37(3&4), 1990: 231–234.

213.78.117.234 19:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the following sentence: "Although the Discovery Institute touts Dembski's credentials as a mathematician and scientist, there is no record of any publication in any academic journal--peer reviewed or otherwise, written by Dembski."

This appears to have been gratuitiously inserted after my previous removal even though I referred to Dembski's CV which gives details of papers by him published in academic journals. If there is no record of these papers can the author who inserted the above sentence please post the details of his investigation. 213.78.118.165 23:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition of Category:Pseudoscience
I haven't been active with this page, but the most recent edit came to my attention. Is it POV to place Dembski and supporters of Intelligent Design in the category? Rkevins82 06:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dembski isn't an example of pseudoscience, and he doesn't (so far as I know) practise pseudoscience. The mere fact that he accepts some pseudoscience doesn't really warrant the category, I think (if it did, that category would be enormous). --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mel, his recent activities associate him with pseudoscience. Are you contesting his whole WP article. This is from the intro:


 * his ideas are not accepted as valid by the mainstream scientific community, with leading scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences describing intelligent design as pseudoscience, and significant voices within the science community challenging his credentials as a commentator on science, philosophy and mathematics -- FloNight  talk  13:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Quantum theory is science, but not everyone who accepts it and talks about it is a scientist; I.D. is pseudoscience, but not everyone who accepts it and talks about it is a pseudoscientist. That he comments on science and maths when he's not really qualified to do so also doesn't make him a pseudoscientist, though it doubtless makes him an unreliable commentator on those areas.

Categories are tools to help the user of Wikipedia, not weapons to attack the subjects of articles. I've no problem with categorising pseudoscientific theories and activities as pseudoscience, but not someone who merely publicly says that he accepts pseudoscience. If there were a category Category:People who accept pseudoscientific claims, then fine (though I think that it would be silly; I'm holding my breath as I save this comment, in case the category link turns out to be blue rather than red...). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, someone who merely publicly says that he accepts pseudoscience. doesn't belong in Category:pseudoscience. That is not the case here. Currently, Dembski's lifework is blending theology with science in a way that is fundamentally unscientific. He has taken it to a new level with his recent (June 2005) appointment to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, as the Carl F.H. Henry Professor of Science and Theology and the first director of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's Center for Science and Theology. (The best part of Category:People who accept pseudoscientific claims would be the WP:POINT. At some point in their career many well-respected, intellegent people have thought about or even supported lame untestable ideas.) -- FloNight   talk  16:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm weeakening slightly in my opposition, but I'm still worried. He seems to be advocating or encouraging belief in pseudoscience, rather than doing it; we don't include as scientists (much less in Category:Science) people like Harold Wilson, for example, just because he said that science was important and that we ought to spend more money on it. Dembski appears simply to be someone who believes (or professes to believe) in pseudoscience, and who is in a position to talk about and advocate it. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Mel Etitis, understand your worry. WP:BLP encourage users to monitor biographies for malicious edits. My basic criteria for including a person in a category.


 * The categorization is relevant, verifiable and obvious from the article content.
 * Follows WP:BLP, especially as it relates to notability and harm.
 * The benefit from using a category outweighs the harm.


 * The word pseudoscience is used multiple times in his article. I don't see any extra harm from inclusion in the category. He is especially notable for his outspoken support of ID because of his mathematical arguments regarding irreducibly complex systems and specified complexity. My understanding is that his work is completely rejected by the mainstream scientific community.


 * I didn't put the article in the category (not sure who did?) and won't until your concerns are addressed. I'd like to make several other changes to the article. Will add them to talk later today. FloNight   talk  18:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I'm still largely unconvinced, but I'll not raise any further objections. You're doubtless right that it at worst won't do any harm. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Updated introduction for your consideration

 * William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18 1960) is an American mathematician, philosopher, theologian, and neo-creationist known for advocating the controversial idea of intelligent design in opposition to the mainstream theory of evolution through natural selection. Currently, Dembski is the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and the first director of the school's new Center for Science and Theology.


 * Dembski believes that the scientific study of nature reveals evidence of design, and opposes what he regards as mainstream science's commitment to "atheistic" materialism or naturalism, which rules out design a priori. His main proposal is that specified complexity, a type of information, is the hallmark of an intelligent designer. His work is controversial: his ideas are not accepted as valid by the mainstream scientific community, with leading scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences describing intelligent design as pseudoscience, and significant voices within the science community challenging his credentials as a commentator on science, philosophy, and mathematics (for one critic of note, see []).

Main changes.
 * Moved the word controversial from the first word to about the tenth word. This is consistent with other WP biographies of controversial living people..


 * Added sentence about his current position at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Also see above discussion about adding him to Category:pseudoscience. FloNight  talk  20:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've piped some of the links. It's a bit odd using his title; articles on real scientists, etc., generally don't. In other discussions I've often seen the view expressed that academic titles should be used in the summary only when they're not relevant to what the subject is mainly known for (for example, a politician or musician might be called "Dr"). --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making the title change. I completely missed it. It is my understanding that titles are left off articles. Any other changes needed? FloNight   talk  11:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Put the updated introduction in the article. -- FloNight  talk  02:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple of not-quite-right bits in the introduction:

"Dembski's supporters include Robert Koons,[3], a philosopher at the University of Texas at Austin who has referred to him as 'the Isaac Newton of information theory.'"

Rob Koons is just not some disinterested third party at UT Austin. Rob Koons is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture, and of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture before that. He is also a Fellow of Dembski's own society, ISCID. Koons is every bit as much of an advocate for "intelligent design" as Dembski is, making the introductory statement involving him misleading because there is no note of the interest that Koons has in promoting ID by promoting his fellow advocates.

"An emerging 'intelligent design community' regards him as a key theoretist to do its 'heavy lifting.'"

If Wikipedia is going to describe the "intelligent design community" as "emerging", it should briefly state what it "emerged" from and when, which would be the "creation science community" in the mid to late 1980s, around the development of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics textbook, Of Pandas and People. Simply look at the list of contributors and reviewers for that textbook (both editions) to verify that many of the recognized ID advocates were involved, and how many of those contributors have also signed onto the DI's "Dissent from Darwin" list. This is a cohesive community that goes back at least to 1987. Certainly the "emergence" period was over by the end of 1996 with the establishment of the Discovery Institute Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. If this isn't expressed in the article, then the "emerging" adjective should be dropped. --Wesley R. Elsberry 16:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I fixed it. That they are both Fellow Travelers so to speak should have been caught a long time ago. We're not paying enough attention to this apparently. FeloniousMonk 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest changing "neo-creationist" to "proponent of Intelligent Design". "Neo-creationist" is used perjoratively (I can provide many links to the perjorative use of this term - please let me know if you wish me to post them) and is neither a term by which proponents of Intelligent Design call themselves nor does the belief system it suggests automatically follow from the many varying ideologies that seem to be possible within an ID approach. I have worked with Hindu IDers, agnostic IDers and more - all of which are professionals in various branches of science. They would justly resent being called a "neo-creationist". If your specific point is that Dembski believes that God (Yahweh, to be specific) is the designer, that is in a sense irrelevant as certainly all of the work of his which I've read makes no such explicit connection. It's unambiguous and incontestable that Dembski is a proponent of ID. Is there really any reason to use "neo-creationist" rather than the alternative I suggest? And if so, could a citation be provided which asserts that Dembski teaches neo-creationism as opposed to ID?

My concern is for an unbiased article as I've said elsewhere on this Discussion page. While I agree with some of the work of William Dembski, I do not agree with other work of his. I hope that my comments are perceived in the light of a wish for neutrality, not a wish either to laud or degrade. Almirena 04:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Princeton History and Supporting Data
I made this point previously but I think it got buried in the sea of discussions surrounding it...So here's my second attempt:

The article reads,

"While at Princeton Theological Seminary, Dembski was involved in forming a group known as the 'Charles Hodge Society', ostensibly a group concerned with resurrecting positive evaluations of Old Princeton Theology. The Society organized discussions and informal colloquia, but its primary work centered on reviving Hodge's own journal, the Princeton Theological Review. The PTR (over control of which name the society and the seminary wrangled) received funding from conservative Presbyterian backers (the Presbyterian Lay Committee), and primarily wrote from a conservative angle on theological issues of the day. Perhaps the most volatile of these issues was the PC(USA)'s consideration of the ordination of gays/lesbians, in which writers of the PTR (including Dembski) disagreed with Seminary faculty and their writings in nearly slanderous terms. All of which is to say Dembski welcomed controversy and political theological struggles, and was becoming increasingly familiar with the deep pockets of ostracized conservatives in the Church."

To me this seems like an awful lot of historical data without any supporting evidence. It reads like someone who witnessed it giving a personal report. Without cites, it sounds like original research, no? I am not questioning the historical acuracy, rather I am suggesting some cites or some sort of supporting evidence would be in order. Anyone else have an opinion? Mr Christopher 05:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have any idea who added the text? And have you looked for it online? I quickly looked through the article history and didn't see an obvious edit where it was added. I googled the first sentence and didn't find any obvious supporting source. Since it might still be verifiabel from a reliable source lets leave it for a little bit longer and try to find the source. I'll go through the history and find the editor that added it. Hopefully, they will know a source. FloNight   talk  14:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It was added by in this edit. . No help unless the IP editor is someones who edits the article but forgot to sign in that day. Oh well! What now?  FloNight   talk  21:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I added a note to that IP's talk page, hopefully the person who was responsible will see it. JoshuaZ 22:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks JoshuaZ : ) Maybe they still read the talk page and will see it here. It's been 6 months, they may be gone. FloNight   talk  22:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * They don't seem to have any edits since then, so I doubt they are still around. JoshuaZ 22:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid we need to remove the text. First, I'll spend a little more time looking for a supporting source online. Okay? FloNight   talk  22:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no objections. JoshuaZ 22:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Found a source for a portion of the text. I removed the rest. The source is RECLAIMING THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION William A. Dembski and Jay Wesley Richards. They write about the same topic with a different slant, of course. I'm going to read it and pull more facts out. Other opinions welcome. : ) . FloNight   talk  00:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I made some changes to match the source I found. At this point, the paragraph doesn't give any details about the actions of the "Charles Hodge Society" that caused the ruckus at the school. Any suggestions about where to find a reliable source for this material? FloNight   talk  13:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighted photo
The photo in the article is a copyrighted photo from Dembski's website that specifically says no reproduction, with an exception for personal use. Would wikipedia qualify as "personal use"? I'm asking this question because I've never seen this before. FinFangFoom 03:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Almost certainly not. It should probably be removed, and someone should probably send Demsbki an email asking him for permission to use it (I'm already banned from his blog for correcting him on something, so I probably shouldn't be the one to do that.). JoshuaZ 03:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Well, no. Appears the uploader claimed fair use and the someone else changed the tag to promotional. Neither of these honor the request on the website for personal use only. We need to look for another one I guess. FloNight   talk  03:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My US$.02 -- Don't bother. Just get rid of the photo.--CSTAR 04:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: He was on the Daily Show, I think they are generally very nice about letting people use stills from their show, maybe someone could email them and find out if they have a problem if we use a capture of him when he was on the show? JoshuaZ 04:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt that they would release a still under an acceptable license, but chances are you could claim fair use on a screen capture from the show. I agree with CSTAR - get rid of the photo until we can find one that has either an acceptable license, or to which fair use rationale is clearly applied.  Guettarda 04:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed. JoshuaZ, are you going to find an image from the Daily Show and upload it as a fair use image? If so, we are suppose to use it next to text where the image content is discussed. So we need to put it lower on the page and make sure the text discusses his appearance on the show. Since this is an article about a living person, we need to be sure that it is not too unflattering. (Not saying you would do this on purpose. The content of his appearance on the show may make it difficult to discuss and remain encyclopedic.) FloNight   talk  05:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Will do, it may take me a few days to track down an appropriate one. JoshuaZ 12:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Just thought of a better idea. Given my location, I should be able to obtain a free image of the subject of this article. It may take me a few weeks to work out the details. Being free we could use it at the top of the article. JoshuaZ, if you want to add an image from the Daily Show for discussion in the article that would be okay, too. -- FloNight  talk  19:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you do get a photo, then use that. Until then, the photo is fair use. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 17:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can provide a photo of Dembski that I will give Wikipedia the appropriate rights to use. I'll try to get to this relatively soon. --Wesley R. Elsberry 20:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Photo 1 and Photo 2. Let me know if either of those will suit you. They were taken by me at Dembski's lecture at UC Berkeley on 2006/03/17. --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The first one looks good. It would do excellently. JoshuaZ 03:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you need anything in particular from me in order to use it? Let me know. --Wesley R. Elsberry 16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I uploaded the first photo to Image:Wad_by_wre_20060317_2972.JPG . --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Dembski and academic freedom?
I just saw this and this. Might merit mention, although more details and better references are needed. --CSTAR 16:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * See Mims-Pianka controversy - added link to the article as well. DLX 08:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good grief--- little wonder that users like myself are so reluctant to get involved in this mess. Still, it sticks in my craw that this kind of bullying discourages so many from taking the time to add their voices to the critics of Dembski's highly questionable "mathematical" claims.  Sigh... ---CH 22:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Uncommonly dense
The reason I put "(known as "Uncommonly Dense" among his opponents)" to external link of Dembski's weblog is that quite a lot of references to it are just "Uncommonly Dense writes...", "..in Uncommonly Dense" - so if someone searches Wikipedia wondering what "Uncommonly Dense" is....

I don't think that it is/was derogatory, as it was clearly stated that his opponents use that name. Didn't revert, no one likes trolling wars - but I think that this should be mentioned somewhere in the article. DLX 09:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello DLX : ) Thanks for responding on the talk page instead of reverting. I removed the "derogatory comment" for several reasons. First, I think it is derogatory. If I called you "Uncommonly Dense" for putting that comment in the article and trying to defend it as not being derogatory, I would expect to be warned for being uncivil to you. "Uncommonly Dense" is a put down. Both you and Dembski deserve better.


 * The civiliity standards we use toward each other are similar to the standards we use when writing biographies of living people. If you refer to the writing style section, it says: "The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated." IMO, substituting the derogatory name for the official name does not met this standard.


 * You also need to consider this point: Don't feed the trolls ask Wikipedia editors not to fan the flames. Articles related to Intelligent design attract strong point of view editors, sock puppets, and trolls. Adding controversial text to this article is troll bait.


 * DLX, I hope you will consider what I have written and not add the text back to the external link. FloNight   talk  12:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh - I totally disagree about "Demski deserving better" - have you actually read what he says? First he screams that there is no "academic freedom" because no one wants to teach ID -- and then he files a complaint to SS The Department of Homeland Security because Pianka dares to have that academic freedom.


 * I am *so* ashamed that someone like that is actually taken seriously... or that he actually exists. DLX 13:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * DLX, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We need to focus on policy and guidelines when writing the article instead of our personal opinions. Dembski needs to be treated in an encyclopedic manner. The external link was more appropriate for the The Daily Show and The Onion.


 * You seem knowledgeable about Dembski, so maybe you can help me with something I'm working on now. I'm looking for information about Dembski's time at Princeton Seminary. Dembski and the newly formed Charles Hodge Society caused a ruckus on campum. Do you know where to find information about this based on reliable sources. Something besides forum gossip. FloNight   talk  14:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Discuss concerns before adding pov tag
I removed the pov tag since there was no discussion of concerns raised by editor on talk page. -- FloNight  talk  03:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"polemic"
Unless you have access to every response to his critics Dembski has ever issued, the blanket statement alledging that Dembski's response to his critics "is polemic" is a POV smear backed by selected excerpts from his responses. The section shows overwhelming hostility toward Dembski and is unencyclopedic. Trilemma 14:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Trilemma, I do not see it as a smear. He wants to be contraversial. It is a strategy. To draw attention to himself and fulfill his life goals, he deliberately baits his opponents. If you want to provide evidence showing otherwise, now is the time and this is the place to do it. I'll support all well sourced text that says otherwise. FloNight  talk  14:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Has he said that he wants only to draw attention to himself and 'fulfill his life goals'? That's your opinion of what he wants. You have the right to hold that opinion but that's not encyclopedic, and taking selected quotes from selected responses to make a value judgement about the nature of his responses isn't appropriate. I think a straw poll would be appropriate in this situation. Trilemma 14:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the phrasing needs to be nuanced (it's too much of a generalisation right now) and better referencing never hurt. I agree with FN that Dembski often seeks to be controvertial.  I don't think a straw poll is the best way to go - it would just force people to take a side (if there was a straight up-down vote on whether this section should stay or go, I would vote "stay"; but I have no opposition to an attempt to improve it and put it in context). Guettarda 15:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Trilemma, lets discuss this on the talk page a bit first, you seem to want very much to run off to do DRish type things. The first step in DR should always be discussion on the talk page. JoshuaZ 15:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Trilemma, thank you for responding on talk. : ) I think you are jumping way to far ahead. We've just begun to discuss your concern. Please offer text with sources that support your changes. I promise you that all well sourced content will be included in the article. FloNight   talk  15:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a possible compromise we can produce about use of this word? If we mean polemical as in "related to polemics" than the word is fine, but the word does sometimes have negative connotations. Suggestions? JoshuaZ 15:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying about discussing it first; I apologize for taking action first. I'm glad you're understanding my point about the wording of the article. There are a few points I have with this:
 * 1) Is it really necessary and/or encyclopedic to include a section about the way Dembski has at times responded? I don't think it is, but that isn't my big gripe.
 * 2) If there is a case for the inclusion of the section, I feel it needs rewording so that it doesn't include the sweeping generalizations about Dembski, and pejorative characterizations--I agree with Joshua about the nature of the word 'polemic'. Trilemma 15:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue of Dembski's style of response is relevant. The current paragraph is accurate.
 * In most of Dembski's writing, he uses mathematical arguments that do not conform to standards of rigor and exposition that are currently used by math researchers generally. This is not a POV statement. Mathematical standards of rigor have developed over hundreds of years but have pretty much stabilized since the 1920s. Expository styles have been more fluid, but these also are pretty much stable since the mid 40s (i.e., it may be difficult to detect by the style of a paper whether it was written in 1955 or in 2005) When the fact that Dembski uses terms incorrectly is brought to his attention by serious critics, Dembski responds in ways which are not conducive to further dialogue. He attacks their motives or attacks their competency or responds in with other comments such as "he is not doing mathematics."
 * --CSTAR 16:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Trilemma, I'm glad we are discussing this issue. Originally I had concerns myself. When I read his work it changed my mind. Based on Dembski's words describing a Christian apologist, "polemic" is not an overstatement. Example:


 * That said, our response as Christian apologists must not be to stick our heads in the sand and mechanically repeat a creed. We are to engage the secular world, reproving, rebuking and exhorting it, pointing to the truth of Christianity and producing strong arguments and valid criticisms that show where secularism has missed the mark. Will we be appreciated? Hardly. The Pharisees of our day—those who know themselves to occupy the moral high ground—reside preeminently in the academic world. The Pharisees killed Jesus and are just as ready to destroy our Christian witness if we permit it. Nevertheless, this is our calling as Christian apologists, to bear witness to the truth, even to the point of death (be it the death of our bodies or the death of our careers). The church has a name for this—martyrdom. The early church considered martyrdom the highest Christian calling. Martyrdom was counted an honor and privilege, a way of sharing in Christ’s sufferings and living out the Christian life in its most logical and complete form.


 * Christian apologetics that’s worthy of the name is a call to martyrdom—perhaps not a martyrdom where we spill our blood (although this too may be required) but a martyrdom where we witness to the truth without being concerned about our careers, political correctness, the current fashion or toeing the party line. We are not called to please the world; we are called to proclaim the truth within whatever context and conventions we find ourselves. This means we must have a thorough knowledge of our context and conventions. We must be informed. We must listen. We must know where we stand, and we must know where we are withstood. This requires effort.


 * From this passage there is no denying that Dembski wants to be be aggessive, controversial, polemical. He literally sees himself as a martyr. FloNight   talk  16:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * FloNight's right. Nothing to see here, move along. FeloniousMonk 17:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, FloNight is right. I suggest we add FloNight's reference in right after the sentence with "polemical" in it so there won't be any question at all. JoshuaZ 17:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * CStar, why is it relevant? Merely stating "it is relevant" is not enough. Why is it relevant? Such obtuse concentration on the tone of responses is quite uncommon among articles on wikipedia.
 * From dictionary.com:"A person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, or refutation." By this standard, every individual involved with academic areas of dispute could be said to be involved in "polemic" writing. But yet that term is not used, because the term itself is a highly pejorative characterization.
 * What I find here is an orderly, cogent response to criticisms. Nothing about martydom. You may disagree with Dembski's beliefs, and I realize many of you do, but that doesn't permit the demonization of his writings.
 * Felonious, your continued refusal to positively contribute to the discussion and the casually dismissive tone you take with those who disagree with you is inapropriate.Trilemma 00:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Trilemma, did you read the text before you cited it. Most scientfic articles don't include the words intimidation, hostile, Taliban, or stranglehold.

''Comment: In other words, if you don't want to face social and legal intimidation from the ACLU, NCSE, and other groups and individuals in that small ten percent of the population that are hostile to ID (Gallup poll after Gallup poll confirms that about 90 percent of the U.S. population are behind some form of intelligent design), stay clear of intelligent design. All it will take is a few school boards and individuals to stand up against this pressure, and in short order we'll see a Taliban-style collapse of the Darwinian stranglehold over public education.''

Don't abuse my offer to support you. Citing text that you haven't thoroughly read is a waste of my time. Sorry for the scolding nature of this message. I want you to succeed as a Wikipedian editor. I stand by my offer to put relevant, well sourced content in this article. Please do better next time. FloNight  talk  01:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Trilemma:Mathematical critics have repeatedly pointed out flaws in Dembski's formalizations; this is independent of other people that have pointed out problems in his assumotions about how evolution operates. Among other things, Dembski assumes various terms are well-defined or operates with them as though they were defined. Dembski's responses in most cases can only be characterized as vitriolic. People do make mistakes, particularly in applied math, but the appropriate rational response is to find a restricted application. For Dembski, pulling back in this way means abandoning much of his program as applied to the existence of a designer. --CSTAR 05:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Flo, while a few statements in that could be interpreted as being polemic, the fact remains that much of that is not at all what one would call polemic. To have a blanket statement, "his style is polemic" is to distort the truth: it is to suggest that he responds with splenetic screeds of personal insults and diatribes. Now, if you were to say, "Dembski's responses have included polemic statements", that would be more acceptable. The blanket statement "his style IS polemic is not. It is clearly biased. Trilemma 23:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "A few statements in that could be interpreted as being polemic"? Have you read many of his books? Nearly every book of Dembski's is a polemic. FeloniousMonk 23:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We're not talking about his books, we're talking about his replies to critics. And, you're using the term polemic as a pejorative to decry those you disagree with. Or, would you not object to me editing Richard Dawkins to describe many of his writings as being polemic? Trilemma 23:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I for one would have little problem labeling much of what Dawkins' says as polemical. JoshuaZ 00:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, many of his replies to critics are found in his books. It would be better were to you become a bit more familiar with Dembski's work instead of making sweeping generalizations. FeloniousMonk 04:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're not addressing my points, Felonious. If you're only going to continue to post the same myopic rhetoric, I suggest you remove yourself from the discussion. Trilemma 18:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Trilemma, I don't think you have a winning argument here. Let's move on to another topic of discussion. Do you know anything about his seminary days? That paragraph needs to be expanded to discuss his activies. I reduced some of the material related to this because it wasn't sourced. Do you have access to any sources that describe this period of his life?  FloNight   talk  19:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything off by hand about his life at that point--it may seem otherwise, but I'm not actually a major follower of Dembski ;). And, I don't see how I don't have a winning argument here. Saying that Dembski's responses are "polemic" is a distortion of the truth. His responses are not limited to statements that can be deemed "polemics". They sometimes contain statements that can be interpreted (particularly by those who dislike the man) as "polemic" but it is not accurate to classify the response as a whole, and his response style, as such, as polemic. It's making a broad generalization. If 90% of his response does not contain polemic statements, then his responses are not "polemic." A "polemic" response would be a response limited to harsh insults and dismissals, much more fitting with someone like Sam Harris or Dawkins. Trilemma 20:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscientists categorization
Dembski's work is clearly controversial and subject to professional criticism. His work may be legitimately questioned as to whether it is pseudoscience or not. However, he is a qualified mathemetician and thus should not be listed in the category:pseudoscientists. According to one enthusiastic editor Dembski is not a scientist because he is a mathemetician. Please see the article mathematics. the word "mathematics" comes from the Greek μάθημα (máthēma) meaning science, knowledge, or learning. While there is some question about whether mathematics is itself a science, (see mathematics), for the purpose of academic credentials, Dembski is fully qualified. Mathematics is the basic tool of science, and Dembski has been well-trained in its use. What he does with that training may be something else. --Blainster 17:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. He is not known for his work in mathematics; so far as I know, he has done no significant work in mathematics. He is known as one of the primary individuals behind Intelligent design, a pseudoscience. The category is entirely accurate. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but one does not receive a PhD from the University of Chicago as a gift. It is a result of serious, published research in the field.  --Blainster 17:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict]Mathematics is not generally considered a science. Nonetheless, it's irrelevant - as I said in the edit summary, pseudoscience has nothing to do with qualifications.  You can be a scientist without a PhD, and you can engage in pseudoscience with one.  Guettarda 17:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that he has a PhD in math or anything else is irrelevant to the categorization. There are PhD physics pseudoscientists of the wildest kind (I will mention no names, but you can pretty easily dig them up on WP). --CSTAR 17:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please consider the difference between pseudoscience and pseudoscientists. These are two different categories for a reason, and should be recognized as such.  --Blainster 17:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering this distinction, I stand by my previous assertion.--CSTAR 17:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the difference between pseudoscience and pseudoscientists is why Dembski is in the pseudoscientist category, not the pseudoscience category. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that ID qualifies as pseudoscience, but that doesn't make Dembski a pseudoscientist. To say so is to denigrate his credentials, and by extension, the institution where he received them. I think that placing him in the same category with those who have no academic training is a mistake.  --Blainster 18:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a non sequitar - pseudoscientist has nothing to do with his credentials, lack thereof, or where he may or may not have aquired them. All of that is irrelevent and has no bearing on whether he is a pseudoscientist. He is known for ID; ID is pseudoscience; ipso facto, he is a pseudoscientist. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Doing science, or pretending to do science - has nothing to do with one's credentials. Someone without a degree can be an excellent scientist, while someone with a PhD from a top institution can engage in pseudoscience.  To say that Dembski's credentials makes him somehow "special" is silly.  Anyone with some modicum of intelligence, and a lot of stubbornness can get a PhD.  It says nothing about your character, and it certain doesn't make you in some way "better" than people without one.  Guettarda 19:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A medical doctor can be a quack even though they have a medical degree. So surely a trained scientist can be a pseudoscientist. -- FloNight  talk  19:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Pseudoscientist is entirely appropriate. His known (or "famous", if you will) contributions have nothing to do with science. DLX 20:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the earlier discussion, I'm not wholly convinced by the use of this category, but my main objections were at least diluted down to the point at which I was unable seriously to object. Still, on the side of keeping the category, I'd point out that if someone had a doctorate in history and then published a book of holocaust denial, there'd surely be no objection to criticising the person as a bad historian and the book as unhistorical. Now, there's no word analogous to "pseudoscientist", but if there were, I'd be happy to call such a person a pseudohistorian for peddling pseudohistory &mdash; and that would be independent of whether or not she claimed to have done original research in the matter or was just endorsing other people's views. Her university might be embarrassed at having awarded a doctorate to such a disgrace to her profession, but frankly that's their problem. (In a message to a User Talk page I made the mistake of using Davvid Irving as my example, but it turns out that he has no degree in history; the principle stands, though.)

Dembski undeniably peddles pseudoscience, and does so from the position of someone who claims to have expertise in the field (whose job title, in fact, suggests as much). It doesn't seem unreasonable to categorise him in terms of pseudoscince. perhaps we need a new category (Category:Supporters of pseudoscience, Category:Cheerleaders for pseudoscience, Category:Pseudoscience pimps, or whatever), but in the meantime, Category:Pseudoscientists is the best we have. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is true that Dembski wrote a Ph.D. dissertation in the area of probability theory at a respectable university (indeed, working under the direction of a leader in the field, Patrick Billingsley).


 * However, the inference drawn by his more credulous admirers, that he must therefore know what he is talking about, at least regarding allied topics such as information theory and dynamical systems theory, does not follow. In fact his depth of understanding can be challenged and has been challenged, by his peers.  In fact, his understanding of the mathematics he claims to apply in Intelligent design has been questioned by his former co-advisor Leo Kadanoff!  (See the link above to verify Kadanoff's role in Dembski's mathematical education.)


 * BTW, I also wrote a Ph.D. dissertation in the area of dynamical systems theory at a respectable university, and I also question Dembski's understanding of entropy, information theory, and dynamical systems. Of course you could make the same point about me which I just made about Dembski: simply having earned a Ph.D. in an area allied to probability/dynamical systems certainly does not ensure that everything one writes, even concerning probability/dynamical systems, is beyond question.  Unfortunately, in the end nonexperts confronted with highly trained experts questioning a former colleague's understanding concerning highly technical issues must either learn enough to themselves become expert (say by earning a Ph.D. in the field in question), or else must decide which set of experts to believe.


 * BTW, I could make a very detailed (and unfortunately very technical) critique of Dembski's "mathematical" claims, but unfortunately I am too busy (and am frankly reluctant to weigh in upon such a highly politically charged topic). In any case, FWIW, I support the Category:Pseudoscientists categorization of this article.---CH 21:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No Free Lunch
I just added a sentence detailing how the co-creator of the No Free Lunch Theorem characterized Dembski's book No Free Lunch as having been "written in jello." There's a source for this on the No Free Lunch Theorem page, which has a link to the article itself, but I'm not entirely clear on how to go about adding the link here and all that, because I'm stupid. Could someone do this? Thanks. BarrettBrown


 * Ah, I'd added cite before I saw this. I'm about to dash off, but if no-one's done it before I return to editing, I'll do it. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the most tabloidish comment in article. Does not follow [WP:BLP#Writing style]]. See article. William Dembski's treatment of the No Free Lunch theorems is written in jello By David Wolpert -- FloNight   talk  23:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually that's the term that was used...but it needs a source and named attribution. Guettarda 23:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Picking the most controversial statement out of an article? I'd rather us use the sound argument in the article. FloNight   talk  23:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not the most controversial statement; it's the title of the article from the theorem's author. It's not only perfectly acceptable to note, but necessary if we're to convey the intent and tone of the author. I've restored it. FeloniousMonk 01:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * FeloniousMonk, last night I came back to revert myself and saw that you'd already taken care of it for me. : - ) Still mildly disagreed with it, but I knew that BarrettBrown's addition would be supported by most editors of this article. There wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that it would stay out, making my revert needlessly unfriendly to a newbie. Shame on me! FloNight   talk  13:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous
This guy's academic "credentials" consist of teaching at some seminary in MO. Wow, I am REALLY impressed. I'm sure that the next nobel prize winner in the sciences will come from a theological seminary. For heaven's sake people, let's get real here. If you don't believe in BASIC SCIENTIFIC FACTS, don't you think it's a bit hypocritical of you to use the INTERNET??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.252.105 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi, 72.225.252.105, I assume that by "this guy" you mean Dembski. I agree that Dembski seems prone to imply that his academic credentials somehow put him beyond criticism.  Speaking as someone who is familiar with information theory and dynamical systems theory, I am confident that I could explain very serious technical objections to Dembski's recent claims (to others with similar background), although I lack the time (and the desire to become involved in this nasty controversy).


 * However, it is important to understand that back in 1988 Dembski did in fact earn a Ph.D. in the general area of probability theory. Indeed his first advisor, P. Billingsley, is the author of a classic textbook in this field.  Nonetheless, many of those with comparable training and ability have questioned Dembski's various mathematical claims even before his notoriety. I have been told that at least some mathematicians familiar with his case regard Dembski's brief mathematical career as something of an aberration.  It is telling that in a highly unusual step, his second advisor, Leo Kadanoff, has gone on record questioning Dembski's claims, in an attempt to counter the impression which Dembski and his admirers seem prone to promote, that Dembski's mathematical understanding/ability is beyond question or even that his mathematical claims are somehow accepted by mathematicians, which is not the case at all. ---CH 21:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Dembski's assault on Padian
Where do you even begin with something like this:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/05/more_dembski_de.html#more http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1105

Dembski portraying Kevin Padian as a racist for something someone else *might* have said? This would seem to be something that we call slander on Dembski's part. Dembski's efforts have lead to numerous other creationist blogs taking up the "Padian is a racist" cause yet Padian did not say anything that a reasonable person would conclude is racist nor did Dembski or any of the other blogs actually contact Padian and ask what he did or did not do or say before they concluded he (and "Darwinists" in general) are racist. Padian's home and business phone numbers were posted on Dembski's public blog for a very long time (all day and overnight) where the readers were encouraged to confront Padian on his alleged racism before his phone numbers were deleted. How do you write about Dembski obviously slandering someone without making it sound slanderous in this article. And it is difficult to cite Dembskis's blog because it's an Orwellian playground meaning so many of the comments are modified routinely or mysteriously vanish to reflect a new history (getting a cached copy of Dembski's blog is the only way to verify things there because the comments change so frequently). Mr Christopher 16:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But hey, he's the "Isaac Newton of Information Theory" ;) I wonder if Isaac Newton had such irrational outbursts? FeloniousMonk 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It gets weirder. Dembski's blog is now portraying Padian in cartoon form as a Ku Klux Klan Member http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1113  http://www.uncommondescent.com/images/padianintro.jpg What Dembski is doing to Padian on his blog is so offensive and dishonest that I don't think I could begin to write about it in the article and appear non-biased. And Dembski calls himself a Christian...I guess as a leading IDC advocate we should expect this sort of thing from him.   Mr Christopher 18:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there any mainstream media coverage? Surely this will be picked up by a newspaper. FloNight   talk  20:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What exactly will be picked up by a newspaper, Flo? Dembski's slander of Padian or Dembski's baseless accusations (the same thing actually)? I doubt either will get much airplay outside of creationist blogs and science oriented ones like the Pandas Thumb.  Demsbki has now pulled the KKK portrayal of Padian and admitted it was innapropriate.  The article where Dembski accuses Padian of being a racist is still there. Mr Christopher 20:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * On June 1, Demsbki is changing jobs. Maybe there will media coverage related to the change? Could pick this up this stuff too. FloNight   talk  03:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * KKK cartoon has been pulled from Uncommonly Dense now - anyone have a cached copy? DLX


 * Found one - http://img42.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc106&image=75435_padianintro.jpg (but since it is not nice to hotlink, use http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=446347d9869fd713;act=ST;f=14;t=1274;st=2790 DLX

The solution is to save copies of everything, upload them to wikisource, then link to them from here. As how best to handle posts made then deleted at uncommondescent, just describe the events plainly, 'on DATE a post was saying WHAT was made by POSTER at uncommondescent then deleted,' with a link to any reference at Pandas Thumb or Dispatches from the Culture Wars that describes the incident (there's usually at least one). FeloniousMonk 15:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I too attest to comments being routinely cleaned up or sanitized on his blog. And I notice in the history of this page that user 137.82.223.240 has cleaned up recent portions of this very Wikipedia page. I think one factor at play here is clearly that Dembski seems to like/enjoy the jousting and political exchanges just as much as (if not more than) the actual theory itself, and manipulating small things towards his own ends seems advantageous. NMagee 10:15, 31 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Talk:William_A._Dembski/Archive 2
I just archived about half of the previous version of this page, since it was very long. Hope that's OK with everyone.---CH 22:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Catholic not Christian?
"Later, after becoming a Christian, he read creationist literature."

Regardless of what some Protestant Churches argue, it's generally accepted that Catholics are Christians. If he was already a baptised Catholic, then what does this sentence mean? This should be changed to something more neutral, perhaps: "after embracing Fundamentalist Christianity" or something like "after becoming an Evangelical Christian".

--GuyIncognito 05:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a good point, I would agree with "after becoming an Evangelical Christian" since I don't think he is a fundamentalist. JoshuaZ 05:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Pianka and DHS
The only way that we know Dembski contacted the DHS about Pianka is from the UD post in which he also states that the DHS already knew about Pianka's speech. If it's from the same primary source and deals with the same topic, both statements should be given equal veracity. So why should we say one in the article and suppress the other?


 * We only have Dembski's word that the DHS already knew about Pianka's speech, and he has an interest in saying they did considering his liability and that the Dembski's report turned out to be baseless. Also, considering Dembski's history of revisionism at his blog, going back after the fact to change past statements to support more recent development, I think we need to be more than just a little circumspect here about what Dembski claims. If another non-partisan source makes the same claim, then Dembski's claim is on better footing. FeloniousMonk 21:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We also only have Dembski's word that he contacted them at all. The fact that he has an interest in saying they did is not exactly a compelling reason disallow part of the already cited source, especially a part as relevant as this.  Also, the edit never stated that they knew, it stated that Dembski REPORTED they knew.  So we have a relevant claim from an already cited source that is being suppressed.


 * We also have Pianka's statement in the press and on his blog that Dembski reported him the the DHS. That Dembski filed what turned out to be a bogus report with the DHS is note worthy. The he has an interest in claiming they already knew is obvious. Since when did we become a PR channel for Dembski? TelicThoughts, the other pro-ID blog that covered Pianka's speech had the integrity to retract their statements and issue an apology, sort of. Again, we need to be circumspect here about repeating partisan disinformation. FeloniousMonk 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If we could use Pianka's statement instead of (or at least in conjunction with) Dembski's UD blog for the citation, I suppose I would be satisfied. But disallowing Dembski's statement when the source was already cited seems awfully biased against Dembski.


 * We could do something like that. I'll look over the sources. FeloniousMonk 22:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer-review controversy
Here's the current text for the Peer Review section:

Critics of the intelligent design movement frequently object that ID proponents have published no papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in support of the conjectures of intelligent design. The same criticism has been levelled at Dembski's Design Inference. However, Dembski claims that the book has in fact been peer reviewed. Dembski states: "this book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory". 'In fact, The Design Inference'' was reviewed by mathematicians and philosophers; the book does not apply Dembski's argument to biology and evolution, the battleground in which intelligent design stakes its claim. The book's content is limited to examining the question of how to recognize intelligent design, Dembski's "explanatory filter"; it does not provide scientific evidence or justification for concluding that life was designed. Thus, while it is true to say that The Design Inference has been published in a peer-reviewed journal for mathematics and philosophy, it is false to claim that any work actually providing specific and detailed evidence for the existence of intelligent design for the universe has been so published in the arena of scientific press in which the topic is debated, which is what Dembski implies.'''

I'm still concerned about the passage I've bolded. When I first encountered it, earlier today, it completely lacked citations, and thus was a blatant example of Original Research. Since, several editors have added cites, but I am not convinced that the cites adequately support the assertions made in the text.


 * Cite 21 is to a review by Richard Wein on the Talk Reason website. The relevant passage is as follow:


 * 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.


 * There's nothing here to establishes a factual claim that the book "was reviewed by mathematicians and philosophers". The author speculates about the review process at CUP, but admits he don't know any details.


 * Cite 22 is to a blog, and blogs are specifically excluded as Reliable Sources. I'm willing to make exceptions for blogs by genuine experts (though I don't speak for the whole WP community), but this fellow is just an assistant professor of mathematics - a smart fellow, but not a relevant expert.


 * Cite 23 is to a submission to the Dover trial. The relevant passage reads:


 * "In his Disclosure, page 42, Dembski claims that his book The Design Inference was 'peer-reviewed'. As the author of a book published by the same publisher (Cambridge University Press), I know that book manuscripts typically do not receive the same sort of scrutiny that research articles do."


 * Again, there's nothing here but speculation, nothing that supports the factual claims its supposed to back up.


 * Cite 24 supports a number of the contentions, but author has no real credentials: he's a Public Information Project Specialist with the National Center for Science Education, with a MA in Geography.

Let me make it clear that I think the contentions in the passage are on the whole reasonable (except for the idiocy about books being published in peer-reviewed journals), but it needs adequate citations, not "kinda/sorta" citations.--CJGB (Chris) 00:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I restored the evolutionblog blog post. Blogs are reliable sourced if the indentity of the blogger is verifiable, and the blogger is enough of an expert to stand as a reliable source. The blog clearly identifies its author, James Madison Assistant Professor Jason Rosenhouse. Guettarda 02:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is the Richard Wein quote unacceptable? It addresses the issue.  The article does not state that Wein's conclusion is The Truth, so I don't see why you want it removed.  Dembski has called the book "peer reviewed", but has not produced any evidence of how detailed the review was; CUP has (apparently) said so as well, but has not produced details of the number & qualification of the reviewers.  In light of this, comments like Wein's are very relevant to the topic.
 * As said above, there's nothing wrong with Rosenhouse as a source. Rosenhouse actually has publications in at least one peer-reviewed science journal on this topic (see refs in Shallit paper).  See also his profile at Scienceblogs (which is where his blog now resides).
 * Testimony under oath isn't speculation (depositions are sworn testimony). In addition, Shallit is an expert on the topic.  The material you quote is embedded in a detailed explanation, which is well-supported by both examples and experience.  Shallit is an excellent source.
 * Please explain why you think that the Public Information Project Specialist of NCSE has "no real credentials"? On what grounds?  Nick Matzke has published extensively on the subject.  What sort of credentials do you want?  Guettarda 13:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Guettarda. Let me clarify my comments.
 * There's nothing wrong with Wein as a reference, but the article goes beyond what Wein says. Wein suspects the reviewers were philosophers without strong statistics backgrounds; the article states that the book was reviewed by mathematicians and philosophers. Speculation presented as fact: that's sloppy.
 * Re: Rosenhouse (and some of this applies to Matzke as well). I'm not sure I agree with your summary of WP policy. Here's the relevant quote:
 * Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym.
 * First, I don't see that R. is "well-known". I mean, if he's well-known, who are the obscure professional researcher/blogistas in the area? Secondly, his field of expertise is presumably some branch of mathematics. If publishing one peer-reviewed article makes ID into "his field of expertise", then logically one must argue that no-one can ever publish a peer-reviewed article outside their field of expertise - which is obviously not so. So I don't see that he clearly surmounts the barrier.
 * Shallit is also fine, of course, and I don't suggest he's lying under oath. But what he says does not support the text of the article. He says, more or less, In my experience, books are not as thoroughly peer-reviewed as papers, and I surmise that this was so with The Design Inference. One might call this speculation, but it's interesting speculation. However, the article doesn't touch on this point at all. The quote is evidence for something that the article doesn't assert.
 * Matzke is writing on his own dime (see the article's disclaimer), not under the imprimatur of NCSE. His own personal credentials are in geography. He's not a well-known journalist, either, though he might qualify as a journalist of some kind. I'm not saying his work isn't good; I think it is. But I don't see that he clearly meets the standard for Reliable Source.
 * I'm thinking of re-writing the passage to reflect only information backed up by the Wein and Shallit citations. Let me know what you think.--CJGB (Chris) 14:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "The article goes beyond what Weins says" - and that's a reason to delete the reference? What sort of weird rationale is that?
 * Rosenhouse is a well-known professional researcher writing about his field of expertise. Shallit cites two publications by Rosenhouse (only one of which counts as a peer-reviewed science journal).  Rosenhouse is a blogger (read: syndicated columnist) at Scienceblogs.  And Rosenhouse is writing about peer review of a mathematical work.  By your standards Dembski isn't qualified to write about his own work
 * No, you most definitely did accuse Shallit of lying under oath above. But if you retract it, that's fine.
 * Matzke's job requires that he have expertise on the topic. Unless you have a source that says that he is unqualified to do his job, then your argument holds no water.  And he is writing for an established, reputable and respected publication.  He is qualified to write about the matter, and it's published in a reliable source.  Simple enough.  Guettarda 16:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My response:
 * It's an excellent rationale. A reference that doesn't support the claims it's cited for is an inadequate reference and can be deleted. Likewise, a claim that is inadequately supported by its references can also be deleted.
 * I may be persuadable on Rosenhouse; let me think about it.
 * No retraction offered or required. Nothing in my comments of 00:06 30 August (or any other time) can possibly be construed as accusing Shallit of lying.
 * Please read the WP standards for Reliable Sources. I will spoon-feed you one more relevant passage:
 * However, editors should exercise caution [in using self-published material] for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.
 * Now, is Panda's Thumb a blog? No, it's got more heft than that. But read their disclaimer:
 * The opinions expressed in opening posts [i.e., articles like Metzke's] are those of the author only, and do not reflect the opinions of other authors, other organizations, or PandasThumb.org itself. PandasThumb.org does not review or approve material before it is posted.
 * Unfiltered, unedited content, in other words, just like blog. The fact Panda's Thumb selected Metzke as one of their contributers means something, sure, as does the fact that Metzke has a day job at a respectable institution. But neither of these facts is equivalent to him being a accredited academic with appropriate credentials and a peer-reviewed publishing record, or top-ranking journalist with equivalent creds. More importantly, they don't make this particular article in Panda's Thumb equivalent to a peer-reviewed or otherwise professionally vetted publication. It may be just as good, or better, than many such publications, but it just doesn't have the creds.
 * Come on, Guettarda: Dembski is one of the most widely discussed figures in science (or would-be science, or pseudoscience - whatever). The peer-review issue is one of the standard criticisms of his work. You should be able to find first-rate sources to back up a discussion of this issue. It does no service to the article's credibility to allow "kinda/sorta" references to sneak in. I'm not familiar enough with the literature to look them up myself with any efficiency, but I promise to be an eagle-eyed editor whne it comes to evaluating other people's refs.--CJGB (Chris) 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Peer review" for books from trade and university presses, like the Cambridge University press discussed here, is entirely unrelated to peer-review of scientific journal articles. This is covered at peer review. Publishers will print things they hope will sell well; the contents are understood to be the responsibility of the author alone. There is no formal review process in place, as there is for journals. Individual editors and publishers have discretion about whether or not to send a manuscript to an outside expert at all, and discretion to demand revisions from the author or not. This is true both at trade presses and university presses.


 * Most debate of ID, both pro and con, has taken place at blogs historically. Pandas Thumb is an acceptable source per WP:V and WP:RS and has been accepted widely across the project.


 * It seems clear to me that the sources provided support the content in question, which has stood for over a year. BTW, Dembski is hardly one of the most widely discussed figures in science. FeloniousMonk 18:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, unedited content from uncredentialed (or rather, insufficiently credentialed) commentators does not meet a very high standard of reliability. Many of the Panda's Thumb contributers have better credentials than Metzke, of course, and may qualify in their own right. I willing to discuss the WP:V and WP:RS issues, but please be specific in your claims. That fact that stuff hangs around for months isn't reason to let it hang around forever.


 * I've edited the passage to bring it in line with the two citations that are of indisputably high quality. Why anyone would want to lower the quality of documentation in the article is beyond me.


 * No doubt, more could be added on the general issue of peer review (I mean, apart from The Design Inference). There's material in the Wein article, and as I've said, I'm sure there's plenty of other excellent material available.--CJGB (Chris) 18:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement is properly cited, PT does represent mainstream scientific point of view, clearly. The idea that it is "not good enough" is patently ridiculous, the demanding of too high a standard of citation is a red herring and an attempt to remove citations and subvert NPOV. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 18:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If it represents the mainstream scientific point of view, then it should be possible to find better citations that support same contentions. I'm paraphrasing WP:RS. By the way, the only reason there are any citations for the disputed passage is because I intervened yesterday. Until then there were none at all, and apparently there had been none for over a year. Sorry if I'm not all that impressed by the standards of documentation upheld for this article thus far.--CJGB (Chris) 19:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, before any of us go digging for additional source, answer this question: What sort of source would you accept as supporting the original passage? I ask this because in addition to the original source that stood for a year, 3 new sources have been provided in the article in the last 24 hrs and you've rejected each. The original passage is a legitmate and verifable criticism that has been made many times. Others here feel the previous and current sources are fine, and they've been doing this for some time across a spectrum of topics. But what sort of source would you accept? FeloniousMonk 19:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me correct you here. Before yesterday, there was one cite for the first part of the paragraph, which I haven't challenged, and no cites for the second part, which I have. Since then, four cites have been provided for the second part, of which I have rejected two (one provisionally) and accepted two. Please revise your evaluation of my conduct on the basis of the facts.


 * I realise that many longstanding editors are happy with the quality of the article as it stands. I think there's some complacency in that view, especially with regard to the sourcing. I see some soft sources in terms both of quality and relevance. There are also some issues around argumentative language, but let me face one lynch mob at a time, OK?--CJGB (Chris) 20:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You were joking about the lack of credentials for Nick Matzke, right? You do know who he is and the role he's played in the debate, I hope. His view on the matter couldn't be more relevant. FeloniousMonk 20:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about his academic credentials and the unfiltered/unedited character of the Panda's Thumb site. Both those bring him down a few notches on reliability. I think his work is fine, BTW, but the specific essay cited does meet the formal standards for reliability.--CJGB (Chris) 20:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As a source, Nick Matzke's criticism is acceptable. His research on behalf of the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover played one of the most central roles in the outcome of the Dover trial. So what specifically about his academic credentials do you object to? Sorry, but his bonafides as a notable critic of ID are as good as anybody's, and better than most.


 * I'm curious, are you new to this topic? Because as for the nature of Pandas Thumb, compared to the other major venues where the ID debate takes place, Pandas Thumb is far better moderated than Dembski's UncommonDescent , less slanted than Dembski's Design Inference, and more neutral than the Discovery Institute's Evolutionnews.org . On a subject where almost all meaningful discussion takes place on blogs, messageboards, and partisan websites, Pandas Thumb remains one of the most vital and relevant venues. It remains as much an acceptable source as is the Discovery Institute, Uncommon Descent, and the Design Inference. Surly you're not arguing we can't cite them as sources as well? FeloniousMonk 21:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I should hope not as Panda's Thumb is well-respect and oft-quoted. It is considered one of the best of its type.
 * I also take issue with the charge of complacency. It is not complacency to assert that one's current cites are sufficient, nor is it complacency to refuse to run around grabbing and adding more sources just to please one editor who seemingly, in a manner reminiscent of Wade Tisthammer, is willing to reject every cite provided.  In fact, it seems to me that CJGB is parroting the classic IDM strategy of stating purported deficiencies and laughing as non-IDists scurry for cites, while he offers nothing concrete himself.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Before I sign off for the day, let me assure you I am not ID-ist. Regarding complacency, take a look at the disputed passage:


 * In fact, The Design Inference was reviewed by mathematicians and philosophers; the book does not apply Dembski's argument to biology and evolution, the battleground in which intelligent design stakes its claim. The book's content is limited to examining the question of how to recognize intelligent design, Dembski's "explanatory filter"; it does not provide scientific evidence or justification for concluding that life was designed. Thus, while it is true to say that The Design Inference has been published in a peer-reviewed journal for mathematics and philosophy, it is false to claim that any work actually providing specific and detailed evidence for the existence of intelligent design for the universe has been so published in the arena of scientific press in which the topic is debated, which is what Dembski implies.


 * This piece of argumentative original research remained in the article for over a year without a single supporting cite, or (apparently) an attempt to provide a cite. The fact that the well-informed and attentive editors of this article entirely overlooked a glaring need for documentation suggests something about complacency or unconscious bias. So if you feel I'm holding you to too high a standard, remember that you (and others) were holding yourselves to too low a standard for quite some time. --CJGB (Chris) 22:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * CJGB, while you are correct that this should be cited, accusing people of compacency and such is uncalled for. Given how many different articles need work and how much constant effort there has been to keep this article in something resembling an NPOV fashion it should not be surprising if a few sentences aren't perfectly cited. I suggest you spend a few months watching this page and then see how you respond when a similar issue comes up. On a related note, there is a long standing precedent at Wikipedia that PT meets WP:RS since it has none of the classic problems of blogs and articles are extensively vetted. JoshuaZ 00:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with "holding [people] to too high a standard" - it's about removing material that you don't say is false or in doubt, but rather, because you don't like the sources. It's about refusing to work constructively with other editors, but rather to simply delete material while making gratuitous insults to your fellow editors.  Before you go around trying to beat people over the head with your interpretation of policy, you should familiarise yourself with what the policy actually means and why it exists.  Wikilawyering is frowned upon.  Removing content and deleting sources just to make a point is frowned upon.  If you actually want to improve Wikipedia you should try providing sources for material you feel inadequately sourced, not deleting sources.  Guettarda 02:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Provided the following to show Dembski's practice on peer review:
 * Dembski's following open peer review

Dembski follows the peer review policy of ISCID, posting his publications on ISCID Archives for public discussion at ISCID Brainstorms, as well as at his own web site, DesignInference.org to obtain public review and comment. ,, , , , Dembski specifically rebutted charges by Eugene Scott that ID research including Dembski's monograph was not peer reviewed. , DLH 20:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Critics and enemies are useful. The point is to use them effectively. In our case, this is remarkably easy to do. The reason is that our critics are so assured of themselves and of the rightness of their cause. As a result, they rush into print their latest pronouncements against intelligent design when more careful thought, or perhaps even silence, is called for. The Internet, especially now with its blogs (web logs), provides our critics with numerous opportunities for intemperate, indiscreet, and ill-conceived attacks on intelligent design. These can be turned to advantage, and I’ve done so on numerous occasions. I’m not going to give away all my secrets, but one thing I sometimes do is post on the web a chapter or section from a forthcoming book, let the critics descend, and then revise it so that what appears in book form preempts the critics’ objections. An additional advantage with this approach is that I can cite the website on which the objections appear, which typically gives me the last word in the exchange. And even if the critics choose to revise the objections on their website, books are far more permanent and influential than webpages. (Source: William A. Dembski)"


 * The strategy outlined is one in which Dembski cynically manipulates the system to evade criticism and avoids acknowledging the debt that he owes to critics of his work. --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Gee, that's a pretty unfair misrepresentation of what Dembski says he does. What he said is that he puts his work out on the internet so he can find out what people will have to say in response to it, and then he responds to those objections in the published form. Maybe there's an issue of acknowledging his debt to critics of his work, but it's extremely unfair to call this "evading criticism". What it is is preemptively responding to critism by means of a practice that most academics now do when they put their papers online in order to receive criticisms that they will then have answers to when they publish the work in a print publication. This is by no means avoiding criticsm. It's heading it off before he gets his work published. They're nothing evasive about that. What's evasive, at most, is whether he acknowledges the critic. But that's not cynically manipulating the system to evade criticism. That line does not belong in Wikipedia. --Parableman 19:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Some notes:

Although the Discovery Institute touts Dembski's credentials as a mathematician and scientist, there is no record of any publication in any academic journal--peer reviewed or otherwise, written by Dembski.

There are, I think, two or three such references available in Dembski's CV IIRC, one or two math papers and an article in Nous. They aren't directly about his claims for ID, but that's not what's asserted in the quoted sentence. --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, The Design Inference was reviewed by mathematicians and philosophers.

This is not verifiable. I know, I tried contacting Brian Skyrms, the person in charge of the review process at CUP for TDI, and who Bill Dembski said would answer questions about it. Skyrms would not answer questions, even questions that were generically about the standard process of book review at CUP. --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

While the book does not directly apply Dembski's argument to biology and evolution, one battleground in which intelligent design stakes its claim.

Skyrms did make this claim, but he was wrong. Open TDI to Section 2.3, the section title is (approximately) "The Evolution - Creation Controversy: A Case Study". Within that, Dembski does apply his reasoning to the designedness of "Life". --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Davies and Kauffman
I've got another citation problem, this time to the last sentence in paragraph 2 of the introduction:


 * At the same time, a few prominent scientists, such as Paul Davies and Stuart Kauffman, regard his project of inferring design as legitimate, though they are not convinced that he himself has carried it out successfully.

The cite for Davies is a third-hand quote from Shallit's blog via Witham. That's OK; it would be better if someone could look up Witham and find out where and when Davies made kind remarks about ID.

The problem with both cites is that don't fully support the relevant claims in the article. The Davies quote relayed by Shallit runs, in toto:


 * "Dembski's attempt to quantify design, or provide mathematical criteria for design, is extremely useful. I'm concerned that the suspicion of a hidden agenda is going to prevent that sort of work from receiving the recognition it deserves. Strictly speaking, you see, science should be judged purely on the science and not on the scientist."

To say that ID is useful is a bit stronger than saying it is legitimate. On the other hand, nothing in quote the supports supports the claim that "they [Davies and Kauffman] are not convinced that [Dembski] has carried it out successfully."

As for Kauffman, the citation doesn't ascribe any even slightly pro-ID opinions to him. It just says that his "autonomous agents" view is contrary to ID and that he and Dembski are going to have a debate.

Let's fix this up these shortcomings, OK?--CJGB (Chris) 19:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Valid points, I think. I have no objection to removing the passage altogether or rewording it to reflect the first source (the second source has nothing on the topic as you say). FeloniousMonk 20:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Significant voices in the science community
Who are these "significant voices in the science community" who question Dembski's credentials and by what criterion are they significant? Shallit's say-so? It should be noted that Shallit is not a scientist by his criterion. It is an unsupported, subjective statement that should be removed. Robert O'Brien 11:28 September 8, 2006 (PDT)


 * Shallit says that "Dembski's work is extensively critizied in the literature" and Shallit and gives examples of Wolpert Perahk and Elsberry. So yes this is "Shallit's say-so". What precisely is your problem with that? JoshuaZ 18:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have communicated with Wolpert myself and I have yet to see him criticize Dembski's credentials. As for the others, I do not consider them significant. I will edit the article tomorrow. Robert O'Brien 11:38 September 8, 2006 (PDT)
 * I see. And you get to decide who is significant? JoshuaZ 18:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I've modified things to what may be a reasonable compromise form. JoshuaZ 18:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That is acceptable to me. Thanks. Robert O'Brien 11:52 September 8, 2006 (PDT)
 * Interesting, since I have one more peer-reviewed journal article on "intelligent design" than does Dembski. --Wesley R. Elsberry 22:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So Robert, why the switch from Panda's Thumb to Wikipedia, did you get tired of being lambasted over there? Jeez, it's the same discussion even...how you corresponded with Wolpert, how Dembski is right, Shallit and Ellsberry don't count, blah, blah, blah.  Time to check on the "modification".  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Lambasted? Keep dreaming. By the way, I still post to PT. Robert O'Brien 13:15 September 8, 2006 (PDT)
 * Dreaming, nay, my good man, just going through the archives. That's the great thing about archives of the written word, unlike our memories, they don't alter with time. ;)   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Barbecue
Does anyone know about Dembski's affiliation with "Brazos Barbecue" and whether that restaurant had any sort of ID gimmick? I have been able to find a little info on the topic, but hardly enough. Tim Long 02:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Their website makes no mention of this nor do they mention he is one of the owners. PT made somewhat of a parady about it (no free lunch, etc).  I'm not sure I see any relevance though.  If PT is correct he's a partner in a barbeque joint near Waco.  He probably owns some stocks and bonds too, again, I wouldn't see any notoriety in that either.  Unless of course they have some sort of ID related gimmick (as you wondered), which at first glance they do not.  Next time I'm down that way I'll pop by and do some original research on the ribs.  Mr Christopher 21:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the website linked shows some more information if you view the page source:


 * "William A. Dembski"


 * --Wesley R. Elsberry 14:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Let us know if the sauce is intelligently designed. ;)   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I dropped by on Tuesday, June 14th, 2005 to have a look at the place. Unfortunately, it was only open, it said, Thursday-Friday-Saturday, and maybe (don't recall exactly) Sunday. So I didn't have the opportunity to check out the ribs for myself. I took some pictures, but may have lost those in a hard disk crash. It's right on Hwy 6, but I'd recommend winter, spring, or fall visits, as I did not see any air-conditioned seating area there. --Wesley R. Elsberry 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I found a picture. Prof. Steve Steve was so disappointed; he hoped to try out their sauce over bamboo shoots. --Wesley R. Elsberry 14:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

DaveScot's libel claims
What I (DaveScot) wrote on Farfarman's blog about Dover has nothing to do with Dembski. He neither endorsed it nor was even aware of it. Morever the summary was libelous. I in no way endorsed any mistreatment of anyone. I only speculated that the people in Dover might very well ostracize the complainants for costing the township so much money. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.183.101.183 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Statements that were made by his chief moderator would seem to be relevant, and having read the comment you made it seems like an accurate summary. Sorry. JoshuaZ 02:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Copying the blog posts here so everyone can see


 * I hope someone keeps track of the 11 parents and their children. Everyone in Dover knows damn well that no children were forced to listen to the 60 second announcement regarding evolution and intelligent design. So what you have is 11 parents whose religious hostility extended to such a trivial matter they were willing to make the tiny school district pay a million dollars.


 * I won't be at all surprised if the children of these parents are so badly ostracized and abused by other students that they're forced to find another school and the parents will be snubbed and insulted and their cars keyed and their coworkers and supervisors making their lives miserable that they'll all end up moving away.


 * I hope that's all tracked so that the next group of parents that gets their panties in a bunch and volunteers to the be the designated shitheads know what it's going to cost them." (already referenced in the article). JoshuaZ 02:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The interpretation of what I wrote is libelous. I refer you to the top of the discussion page:

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard."

ESPECIALLY IF THE MATERIAL IS POTENTIALLY LIBELOUS. I've just given you warning as the accused that it is potentially libelous. I will keep reverting it until you lock the page then I'll get my lawyer involved. Fair warning. I don't care if you block me. I'll just use a dynamic IP until you're forced to lock the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.183.101.183 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:LEGAL. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also note that WP:BLP applies to "poorly sourced" claims, whereas this is well-sourced and so it isn't relevant. JoshuaZ 03:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, ignoring the legal-threat making unidentified individual who claims he is Dave Scott, there could be some modification of phrasing here. Pity our anon isn't mature enough to discuss things in a rational manner, but let's not knee-jerk and dismiss any potential concerns. I have entered a rephrase, soliciting input. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I prefer the earlier wording. He said explicitly "I hope someone keeps track of the 11 parents and their children...I grew up in a small town and when a few people pull crap like that that hurts everyone there will be payback...I hope that's all tracked so that the next group of parents that gets their panties in a bunch and volunteers to the be the designated shitheads know what it's going to cost them" That last sentence especially seems to be a pretty clear endorsement. He wants them to "know what it's going to cost them". JoshuaZ 03:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, with another cite perhaps? Ed Brayton states "...over at Larry's blog where he endorsed the bullying and intimidation of the children of the plaintiffs in Dover..." Yes? No? Maybe? Keep looking? KillerChihuahua?!? 03:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Does Ed's blog constitute a reliable source? I know that consensus is that PT is reliable, I'm not sure Ed's blog is. So it might not help us from a sourcing perspective. As far as I can tell the claim is so blatant in Dave's original comment that further sourcing is unecessary. JoshuaZ 03:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Blogs are generally considered reliable sources for what their authors state. As Ed states clearly he thinks it is an endorsement, I would think it would suffice for that statement. However, I concur that the actual text of the DaveScot quote is fairly clear on its own. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Scienceblogs published by a reputable publisher, so it's reasonable to conclude that it's actually Ed who's saying what he's saying.  That's really all that matters here.  But I do consider Ed to be a prominent enough source on the issue that he should be considerd a reliable source himself.  Guettarda 04:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. Scienceblogs by defintion isn't a random set of bloggers. If you want to revert it to the original version I won't object. Also, FYI, I am going to block his new IP. Even though I am involved it is a clear violation of his block and so my involvement shouldn't be an issue especially given the very serious nature of WP:LEGAL. JoshuaZ 04:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, if no one other than Dave objects by tommorow morning (US east coast time), I'm going to put in the original version with Ed Brayton as a source. In the meantime, I suggest that until Dave withdraws his legal threats he be reverted on sight. JoshuaZ 05:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dave, also please note that you are much more likely to get some sort of compromise or get it removed if you don't declare in advance that you intend to violate Wikipedia policies no matter what. Calm, rational discussion is always a better option than threats. JoshuaZ 03:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Josh, "Dave" is blocked for 3 hours, to give him time to cool down and read WP:LEGAL, and decide how he wishes to proceed. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Josh - like the most recent version. As it is a direct quote, with no interpretation, that covers any concerns about inaccurate interpretation. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The last edit was better but it still implied I intended to publish the names to encourage others to cause harm. My only intent there was so that the names could be googled to see if anything untoward had indeed happened which I presume would have received some press. I corrected it to better state what my intent was. I also pointed out that I never actually published any names. It was empty rhetoric. Lastly, I updated to reflect the fact that I had put back as a moderator on uncommon descent after a hiatus of 6 weeks. I still don't know what the hell my writing on a different blog has to do with Bill Dembski. I was an employee of Dell Computer too. Maybe you should update Michael Dell's webpage with my writings too. After all, he had no idea about it and it's your duty to inform him. Does that get the point across that I wasn't representing Dembski at Fafarman's blog? If it was dembski himself or if you had one iota of evidence he knew anything about it I wouldn't argue but he didn't know - I wrote that as an individual and didn't even hint it was the opinion of anyone at uncommon descent.

Block Dave and revert his edits on sight.
Per this I recommend that we block an IP Dave is using on sight and revert his edits until he withdraws his legal threats per WP:LEGAL. JoshuaZ 04:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Links 50 to 53 are dead. 72.183.101.183 23:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just another attempt to suppress the facts by Davescot with the help of Larry Fafarman now. I've updated the links to secondary sources now, which is better anyway as it put the issue in context. FeloniousMonk 17:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard response
I am here neutrally in response to this notice. The complaint appears to raise legitimate concerns about blogs being used as "reliable sources". Can someone please point out the sources in question to me? Crockspot 00:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Search for "Daves" in the article and you should find it. Note that the main source in the current version is from scienceblogs which is treated as a reliable source. Not to engage in ad hominems or well poisoning but the anon who brought the matter up is DaveScot. In fact, the matter was sourced to the primary comments until he got Larry to take them down and then attempted to remove the statement saying the sources didn't have it. He also initially tried to "clarify" what he meant with those comments so his attempt to say on the BLP board that maybe the comments weren't his is insulting to our intelligence. The bottom line is that no matter how unhappy Dave is with his comments and no matter how many times he makes libel accusations the comment is reliably sourced. JoshuaZ 01:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that blog posts can be vaporized so easily or manipulated is precisely one of the reasons that they are ill-suited as sources. I've only done a quick read, and it's a long article, but I have to say that from the "Peer review controversy" section down, it takes on an increasing flavor of original research. I also question what relevance the rantings of a moderator on Dembski's blog has to a biography of Dembski. If they aren't verifiably Dembski's own statements, then they probably can't be sourced by Dembski's blog. The rules about linking to and sourcing blogs have tightened up quite a bit just recently. See WP:EL for some significant changes, and WP:V, which is apparently eclipsing WP:RS as the standard. I have some other minor problems, like the excessive use of quotation marks on statements that either are not quotes, or do not cite the source being quoted. I'll try to help out here, but this article is huge, and it's going to take a lot of effort and time. And as a disclaimer, yes, I am a "conservative", but I had never heard of Dembski before an hour ago, and I've never paid much attention to ID, so I'm not here to push any agenda other than the Wikipedia agenda. - Crockspot 01:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I had issues with the use of the primary blog posts. But there is a longstanding precedent that scienceblogs are considered to be reliable since the standard problems with blogs (anonymity, lack of oversight, lack of credentialed authors etc.) don't exist for them. As to your other comments, I would agree there are other problems in the current article and any assistance with them would be gratefully appreciated. However, the Davescot matter isn't one of them. JoshuaZ 01:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Crockspot has it right in all particulars. Even if ScienceBlogs is considered reliable the primary source was Fafarman's blog which is not reliable. But that's not the main point.  Relevance is the main point.  DaveScot's comment did not appear on Dembski's blog and there's not a shred of evidence that Dembski either knew about it or agreed with it. So what is it doing on Dembski's biography?  Are there any precendents of this kind of thing in other BLPs on wiki?  If there are I haven't seen them. 66.61.146.77 07:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Relevance is a key issue here. Unless a convincing case can be made that discussion of DaveScots blog comments are relevant to this biography, I think it should come out. Also, I think that the "science blog" argument skirts the spirit of the exception. Science blogs can be reliable on matters of science, or the specialty that they deal with. Ranting and raving on those blogs should be treated the same as from any other blog. Crockspot 15:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Science blogs can be reliable on matters of science, or the specialty that they deal with" - this is Brayton's speciality. Guettarda 17:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you lost me. Are you saying that Brayton has established the science of documenting the rantings of a third party (who is not the subject of this bio) about pushing around children, and is recognized as an expert in this field? - Crockspot 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think your both a bit off track here. The reason that scienceblogs are acceptable is that the usual problems with blogs don't exist. In particular, everything that goes up has 1) both oversight and editorial supervision and 2) we know precisely who is making the claims. JoshuaZ 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In BLP articles, I think your interpretations is a little too generous. See WP:V and WP:V. Crockspot 18:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That says "For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources" I don

t see that as making a blanket statement. JoshuaZ 19:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's set aside the RS issue for a moment, and tackle the relevance. I still don't see what relevance the DaveScot post has to this biography. If this was an article about DaveScot, there might be a good case for inclusion, but this article is not about DaveScot. - Crockspot 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This semems like a more serious issue. DaveScot is a two-bit player on the ID scene and not nearly as important as he'd like to be or think he is. The argument would have to go something like "its relevant because the article is about Dembski and what happens at his blog is a major part of it" It might seem more reasonable to include it if we had a separate article on Uncommon Descent. On the other hand, we clearly don't have enough material to have a separate article on Uncommon Descent, so any such material would be reasonable to have here. I haven't made up my mind on this matter at all. (Given that the content is sourced and such I'm also tempted to keep it in simply in reaction to DaveScot's behavior since he first made libel claims then got Larry to take down the original posts and then tried to blank and vandalize this article, then made some more libel noises, and now is trying to claim that maybe the posts aren't his even though he had earlier tried to argue that he had meant something different. Indeed, Dave seems to be going out of his way to take the info out and if anything just to establish that Wikipedia won't back down from threats and manipulation we should consider keeping it if we think the sourcing is good.  JoshuaZ 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * According to your reply, the information is under contention now. That puts it in another light re WP:RS, regardless of the behavior of DS. We shouldn't be making editorial decisions based on spite. I have worked with Jimbo a little bit on issues very similar to this, and I'm sure if I asked him about this, he would chastise me for not having removed the info already. I'm trying not to be heavy handed here, but so far, I am not seeing adequate justification for the information remaining in the article. Also bear in mind that Wikipedia considers libel to be the responsibility of the editor who contributed it (an opinion that has been confirmed by a recent court decision), so if legal action ends up being taken, WP counsel is simply going to flip responsibility onto the editor(s) who contributed the material. That would not be a good position to be in. - Crockspot 18:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think the sourcing is bad enough to require removal under WP:BLP, you should remove it. JoshuaZ 19:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If it can be shown that Dembsky authorized DaveScot as moderator of his blog (twice), it seems to me that comments made by DaveScot reflect on Dembsky's views. Especially considering that DaveScot was reinstated after those comments.  I do agree that the rest of the article needs a lot of work. -- Cat Whisperer 18:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed most of the paragraph regarding DaveScot. It is irrelevant to the biography, and not well sourced. I noticed the scienceblog being cited starts off with "Assuming this is really DaveScot, and not...". Obviously, even the blogmaster cannot verify authorship. The sentence that I did leave should probably have a citation, hence the cn tag. There are other problems with the article, but this is the one that was reported, so that is all I am doing for now. I need to familiarize myself more with the material before trying to "fix" it further. Crockspot 18:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oooh, that's a good point about how the entry starts off. Clearly then your decision was correct. JoshuaZ 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, DS's subsequent actions and comments trying to explain what he meant removed any of the doubt expressed at the beginning of the blog post. DS never tried to deny the comments were his, but in fact, his response to was to spin try and spin them. I can provide sources for DS confirming the comments were his if necessary. That Dembski lets what most parties involved in the topic consider to be trolls run his personal blog is both revelant and necessary to any complete article on the topic of Dembski. The only question is how to present in a verifiable, dispassionate and neutral way. FeloniousMonk 20:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you write an article about DaveScot, and try to include this info there, because this information is irrelevant to this biography. Please read WP:BLP carefully, because the repeated insertion of this information, particularly after it has been more or less agreed upon to be a BLP violation, is a blockable offence. I am a regular volunteer of the WP:BLPP, and am here because of a complaint on the WP:BLPN. Calling what I am doing "wikilawyering" could be interpreted as a personal attack. My justifications were well though out, well presented, well founded in WP policy, and not executed until it had been discussed thoroughly. Crockspot 21:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please explain to us how any one individual's controversial choice on who to have run his personal website is irrevelant to that individual's article? Your reasoning here simply does not follow. FeloniousMonk 21:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do explain. This is also a bit odd, "Calling what I am doing "wikilawyering" could be interpreted as a personal attack."  Simply saying that you might be wrong "could" be seen as an ad hominem using that logic.  Also, who "more or less agreed" that it was a BLP violation?  I understand the sensitivity of BLP, but there are rational limits to deciding what is a violation of BLP.    &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * At the time that I removed the text, the only person engaging in this discussion made this conclusion. I chose the words "more or less" because of the apparent lack of interest by anyone else. The IP editor below seems to agree too. - Crockspot 00:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is some misinformation here in the running of Dembski's blog. DS is one of seven "administrators". In addition are two "editors" who have global moderation power, and nine "authors" who can moderate their own articles. DS has thousands of comments all over the internet and the comment under discussion wasn't even on Dembski's blog.  Selecting one comment from one moderator made on an obscure unreliable blogspot blog in an attempt to make Dembski look bad is far from NPOV. Crockspot removed something that clearly didn't belong for a number of very good reasons. 72.183.101.183 23:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said. With that, and what I have already stated above, there really isn't much else I can add. - Crockspot 00:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. It is accurate and verifiable; it is relevant (unlike the other 6 or so admins who haven't done anything much noteworthy one way or the other) because he is chosen by, and placed in his position by, Dembski. Dembski used to run that stuff himself; he hand picked people to carry on, as it were, who he felt shared his values and beliefs. What exactly are we doing here? DS is making legal threats, and you think it would be a good idea to knuckle under to him? I don't think so. And DaveScot is not notable enough by himself for his own article - as a minor inclusion in this one, as one of Dembski's hand picked successors on the blog, yes. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thinking over this more, I'm inclined to retract my earlier statements. First, what DaveScot does with Dembski on Dembski blog is clearly relevant especially since Dembski seems to be spending more time running his blog in the last few years than anything else. Second, rereading the Ed Brayton piece it becomes very clear that Ed is sure that the person on the blog was Dave Scott and Dave has made comments on Dembski's blog indicating that the statements were from him, so this does pass BLP. I also have to agree with KC that I'm appalled that after DaveScot's noise about libel and then outright vandalism of this page that we would even let him talk here at all. Until he withdraws his threats he should remain blocked per WP:LEGAL and put any more of his threats through OTRS not here. JoshuaZ 01:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that's just peachy. I'm sensing a lot of passion on this article, but I'm not here because I love or hate Dembski, or even give two shits about intelligent design, because I don't. I'd never heard of Dembski before I came to this article, and I'm not religious. Someone made a complaint, I investigated, and I found a problem. I fixed the problem, and I am prepared to stand my ground, because I know that I did the right thing, and that if it came down to it, the powers that be would back me up. If the "incidents" were truly relevant and important enough to merit encyclopedic entry in this biography, then they would be sourcable through reliable secondary sources, such as a newspaper, magazine, press release, or television interview. The rules about use of blogs are quite strict, particularly when dealing with negative information regarding living people. I would like to get on with generally improving the article by formatting the cites and cleaning it up a bit. I'm only two paragraphs in. Crockspot 01:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You didn't find a problem, you found what you believed to be a problem. (Whether or not you "fixed" anything is debatable). You then assumed that because one editor, who appears to have given the information a cursory glance at best, agreed with you that it was "more or less agreed upon to be a BLP violation", you could simply delete the well-sourced material.  You did not wait for other editors who were active in the discussion to weigh in, but rather you chose to take unilateral action.
 * The rationale you used for the deletion appears to hinge on a misreading of both WP:V and a sarcastic throw-away comment made by Ed Brayton. Additionally, the logic that, "If the "incidents" were truly relevant and important ... they would be sourcable through reliable secondary sources, such as a newspaper, magazine, press release, or television interview." is simply inane.  Believe it or not, neither Dembski nor Dave Scot are on the media radar screen -- in five years, Dembski has been mentioned in three articles by the NYT, and in none of those articles was he the focal point.
 * BTW, the comment by 72.183.101.183 is of no value as it was made by Dave Scot himself (see previous comments by that IP for proof). That you didn't bother to go up a few sections on the talk page to see that, but rather just cried "ditto" to the comments, is very troubling and casts doubt on the arguments you have put forth on this page.  As you indicate that you are planning on working your way through the article, I sincerely hope that you will henceforth act only after carefully researching each item rather than simply engaging in knee-jerk removal or rewriting of the item.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  13:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is incorrect speculation that Dembski handpicked anyone to moderate his blog. When he said he was going to shut it down because he no longer had the time to manage it a number of the commenters wrote asking if there was some way to keep the community the blog had established going.  He reconsidered and asked for volunteers from among those he thought knew the most about ID and had been contributors there long enough to know how he wanted the blog moderated.  The moderation job takes a lot of work. Uncommon Descent gets trolled to death.  No one sees the trolling  because there are a number of moderators there doing a lot of work behind the scenes.  DS had the requisite time and knowledge to moderate in the manner Dembski required so he initially got the highest rank which Dembski called "blogczar" at the time.  Currently no one is blogczar and there are seven top level administrators. In what form do you want me to retract my legal threat? I'm not about to forever sign away my constitutional right to legal redress but I'll retract the particular threat I made for the time being. 72.183.101.183 13:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What I also wrote on that blog, that nobody bothered to quote because it didn't support their thesis that I was a bad person who wanted to see children harmed, was that I felt sorry for the children of the 11 Dover parents because they had no influence on their parents' decision to sue. The facts are (which I also wrote, none of which can be cited now because Fafarman removed the whole thing) is that eleven parents got their panties in a bunch because of a 60-second schpiel at the beginning of biology class mentioning alternative beliefs to mainstream evolution and there was a book in the library for any students with an interest in those alternatives.  Moreover, any kids or parents that didn't want their kids to hear the schpiel could have a recess break while it was read.  The school board bent over backwards to accomodate everyone.  Dover is a tiny town and that trial cost a million bucks (likely over $1000 per taxpayer).  A million bucks can buy a sports arena, a new library, or any number of big time things for that tiny school district.  But nooooooooo.  Eleven parents in a kerfuffle over nothing cost a million dollars in ACLU recompense for legal fees.  My wife and have raised 3 children and are very active in our public schools.  We know how kids get ostracized over the most trivial things.  Just wearing the wrong clothes can make a kid a pariah.  Think what having a parent who traded in a sports arena to quash a trivial thing that none of the students actually gave a damn about is going to do to a kid.  My heart aches for what those children will almost surely be subjected to as long as they remain in that tiny school district where everyone knows everyone else.  The parents of these kids should have considered the social consequences of their actions and bit their tongues for the good of their own children. Now if you want to quote me on the above go right ahead if you can convince anyone it's relevant to Dembski's biography, which it clearly ain't because Dembski knew nothing of all this and there's nothing at all to say he condoned or agreed with I wrote on Fafarman's obscure little anonymous comment blog. 72.183.101.183 19:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "The parents of these kids should have considered the social consequences of their actions and bit their tongues for the good of their own children."


 * By that logic, a historian would argue that the American Revolution was a mistake, and that for the sake of their kids, the anti-Tory faction should have just sucked it up and put up with the tax structure imposed by the Crown.


 * I am glad that not everyone in the USA is as cowardly as the cynical philosophy espoused in the quote would make them. --Wesley R. Elsberry 10:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What about davescot's policy of banning people from UD for comments they make on other blogs. He's gone on record saying he reads blogs critical of ID and bans people from Dembski's blog if they say things anywhere on the internet that are critical of ID or Dembski. Both Dembski and davescot have a habit of deleting things from UD when they're caught or it's obvious they have said something clueless/ignorant/self incriminating but I think I can dig up the post where dimscot lets all the bloggers at UD know he is watching them and will ban them if they are caught saying critical things elsewhere on the internet.  The weirdness never ceases at dembski's online adult day care center. Mr Christopher 23:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * davescot was all "To answer your questions, yes I do occasionally check up on commenters here to see what they’re saying elsewhere and it will get you axed if you talk badly about this blog elsewhere then act all polite and kindly when here in order to participate. just plain creepy...Mr Christopher 23:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record Barbara Forrest (a leading ID/DI/Dembski critic) finds the davescot, William Dembski, UD love triangle noteworthy -  http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/kitzmiller.html  She mentions davescot's antics at UD in her article about Dembski as well.  I view davescot as Dembski's lap poodle. Mr Christopher 18:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Another NPOV and/or relevance issue in the discussion of Dembski's blog
"A small number of Dembski supporters from the uncommondescent blog have trolled blogs and forums critical of Dembski, notably Dispatches from the Culture Wars [44] and Wikipedia's Intelligent design article discussion page."

While this is true enough it's also true that Dembski has no control over what his followers do on other blogs. The statement above seems to imply that he does. Trolls abound on both sides of this issue. At the least if this stands an NPOV would require it be balanced by noting Dembski has no control over these supporters and there's no evidence he encouraged or approved any of that behavior. I'd prefer the statement simply be deleted because it isn't encyclopedic, smacks of original research, it's not NPOV unless it can be shown Dembski encoouraged these people, trolling is common on both sides of the debate, and its relevance is questionable in a personal biography. 72.183.101.183 13:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that's not true. To begin with, Dembksi turned over daily management of the blog to these people, and re-instated one of them after some of the most egregious postings.  In addition, UD is famous for its disappearing posts/comments, so anything that doesn't get removed is probably approved by Dembski.  So yes, there is evidence.  Guettarda 15:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've deleted that blog stuff as non-notable and contentious. IMHO the Wikipedia's Intelligent design article discussion page is especially non-notable to be mentioned (after all it is the talk page edited by non-notables). Same applies to any other non-notable critic unless someone notable is able to be quoted as presenting this accusation. In that regards is Ed Brayton notable ? This is too much blog-wars - who gives a damn how people manage their blogs unless there is some legal obligation to keep a record e.g. financial advice BUT is isn't so therefore it's just conjecture not in the spirit of WP:LIVING. I have removed the blog bits and {fact} the one-liner on the critics. Don't take that as a positive for Dembski by me as I'm with Kurzweil with respect to Dembski (e.g. see The Singularity Is Near page 474 etc). This is a Wikipedia quality issue. Ttiotsw 15:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course Brayton is notable. How not?  UD is a major element of how Dembksi operated pre-Kitzmiller.  His promotion or encouragement of hate-speech is highly relevant, as is his use of censorship, as is the fact that he uses his followers to disrupt critics.  Guettarda 15:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Two issues here: - we are talking about "freelance writer and businessman" Ed Brayton ? and I stuck his name into Wikipedia and nothing popped out. Obviously with Google lots of hits but thats the mesh of blogville. The method to get him into this article would be to first get him his own Wikipedia article with cites and bibliography etc. Then it kind of falls into place. (Playing devils advocate here). Ttiotsw 15:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * With regards to the fact - the problem here isn't that it's unsourced, the problem with that statement is that it isn't just "his critics", it's everyone who has looked at the issue who isn't a Dembski-ite. Guettarda 15:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I'm certainly not a Dembski-ite and it looks like a weasel worded one-liner IMHO. Get Ed Brayton or anyone else notable onto wikipedia who can then be used to cite that statement which I stuck the {fact} onto. Ttiotsw 15:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What exactly are Ed Brayton's credentials aside from the fact that he was invited to join scienceblogs even though he has no science degree? He describes himself of a freelance writer and businessman but mentions only a couple obscure journals that have published him.  He's a cofounder of a tiny non-profit Citizens for Science group in his home state. His blog writing is reactionary and inflammatory.  If it wasn't his own blog he'd be a troll.  And by the way, I happen to know it's Larry Fafarman that has been trolling Ed's blog.  No UD moderators to my knowledge have done so.  I know a UD moderator or two got fiesty on the Intelligent Design article but knowing them I bet they remained fairly civil. And no, Dembski sees virtually none of the unapproved comments on Uncommon Descent.  That's just another example of the speculation engaged in here that's presented as fact. I'd also point out that the blog ceased being Dembski's alone and became Dembski AND FRIENDS 11 months ago.  I also happen to know that none of the authors submit drafts of articles before publishing and Dembski doesn't exert any control over what they write.  Do any of you tell your friends what to say and what not to say?  UD is a group blog. 72.183.101.183 16:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Guettarda - Dembski knew nothing of those comments on Fafarman's blog and I challenge you to find a shread of evidence that he did. You're implying that he did and you're making that up out of thin air.  Correct me if I'm wrong with a citation. 72.183.101.183 19:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Guettarda - p.s. Dembski rarely approves or disapproves of anything anymore. Authors are given complete freedom.  It's Dembski AND FRIENDS, a group blog, and has been for the past 11 months which encompasses almost all the things under contention here.  Again you're just making things up about the management of Dembski's blog to suit your arguments with no evidence to back it up.  Please start providing cites for these claims or just stop making them as it's getting quite tiresome. 72.183.101.183 19:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote mining and general negative POV in this article
A Dembski *critic* on ATBC is offended by the POV in this biography.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1274;p=40599

This article really reflects poorly on Wikipedia as a neutral source of information. It's so full of negative quote mining it's ridiculous. One of the first things Crockspot noted was all the quotation marks making it look like original research. The negative quotes are completely lacking in balance. If the article were NPOV then positive or contrary quotes should appear as well. If statements from his critics are included so should statements from his proponents. Isn't that what NPOV is all about or I am somehow misunderstanding? If this were jounalism, which it sure looks like with all the quotes, even a good journalist strives for balance unless they're writing a partisan hatchet piece. It needs some serious cleanup and if there's a protracted discussion over every single bit of it's going to be a horrendous waste of time for all involved. 72.183.101.183 14:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The critic is more "bug"'ed and less "offended". The essence of his bug is the claim that "Dembski has no papers on any subject published in an academic journal" and yet states that "his CV shows a couple published in statistical journals.". The problem is that the section Peer-review controversy is fairly clear that there are papers that are peer reviewed but that this review for mathematics and philosophy and so it is false to claim that any work actually providing specific and detailed evidence for the existence of intelligent design for the universe (quoting wikipedia). Please do provide cites for peer-reviewed papers on intelligent design. The article doesn't seem that bad quote-mine wise especially given the controversial nature of any pseudoscience, of which intelligent design is clearly placed, but please highlight exactly where you think it's overweight. In fact why not edit the article yourself so I can get back to my beer. Ttiotsw 15:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Offended isn't really an unfair translation for bugged but point taken. However, this quote from bebbo "Even though I'm no fan of Dembski it does bug me that his Wiki page is obviously written from a totally anti-ID standpoint. I do think it's biased just by the choice of content, even if most of it is true." makes it pretty clear Doctor Bebbington isn't restricting his criticism to the CV trivia. ID is pseudoscience because it's claimed it isn't falsifiable. That's patently not true.  Confirmation of unintelligent design is the falsification of intelligent design.  For instance the Harvard Origins of Life Project has the goal of demonstrating how life can originate.  If they succeed then a central tenet of ID goes up in smoke.  If one accepts that it's scientific to hypothesize unintelligent origins then the converse must be true otherwise how is unintelligent origins to be falsified?  I'd certainly like to edit this article but every time I've tried it just gets immediately reverted.  I'm also honest enough to say I'm probably not someone who should be making wholesale edits to this article as I'm an ID POV warrior.  Some of the admins hovering over this article are just as clearly anti-ID POV warriors and should recuse themselves as well. JoshuaZ for example said he was banned from Uncommon Descent.  I've got a list of six respected scientists and religious leaders (so far) who've complained to me in email of FeloniousMonk heavy handidly not allowing them to make corrections of fact to their own biographies.  If Crockspot is willing to help me maintain an NPOV and be the final arbitor of any edits I'd be happy to work with him to clean this up.  If I have to argue ad infinitum and take it to the BLP complaint page for every change then I really don't have the time.  Any suggestions? Perhaps bebbo would be willing to start the ball rolling.  I believe he already corrected the CV complaint.  Sorry to take you away from your beer. 72.183.101.183 15:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. Letting you edit this article is a bizaare violation of WP:COI/WP:AUTO. As to your comment about me being banned(which I noted above), do you know how many comments it took for that to happen? Exactly 1, correcting a minor factual detail. The notion that somehow this makes me unable to edit the article is absurd and while you may self-identify as as "an ID POV warrior" that doesn't make people you disagree with in that category (Having Larry delete the comments on his blog was really impressive even by the standards of a self-identified "POV warrior" and then following that the blatant vandalism of the article really put it over the top. Between that and your non-retraction retraction of your legal threats (retracting them "for the time being")  You are a SPA, self-identified POV warror who has made legal threats and hasn't fully retracted them.  I don't see why we're even tolerating you on Wikipedia, much less this page. Putting any regular editor in the same category as you for editing purposes is off the wall. As for your unamed "six respected scientists and religious leaders" (who in all likelyhood means the many DI fellows that have tried to whitewash their own articles), if they followed WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:V I doubt they would have had any issues. I suggest you stop wasting your time casting vague aspersions on editors in good standing. JoshuaZ 17:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No - to me (and others) ID is pseudoscience because it posits a "supernatural" which patently can't be falsified (though abviously Dawkins has a good go by proposing a diminished probability of the same). It is that last leap of faith that divides the two. Same with Islamic "science" from revelation in the Qur'an. Few doubt that "Confirmation of unintelligent design is the falsification of intelligent design" as they are mirrors held up to the same problem. Even I would go to say that the first time science truely finds an irreducibly complex biological organism then I better read up on Pascals wager (though I really want to go with the Norse gods as there seems to be more drunk) but I won't hold my breath as so far all proposed examples are actually quite simple. The editor names you quote all hit my radar but then I choose to edit contentious articles; my concern is that you have "six respected scientists and religious leaders" who want their bio's tweaked. I don't see the problem as WP:LIVING is a lot more strict than other articles. Maybe you can post their views to a request for comments. Truthfully though I would have guessed controversy sold books. Ttiotsw 16:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Confirmation of unintelligent design is the falsification of intelligent design."


 * No, that would be disfavoring a competing hypothesis by means of Ockham's razor. Falsification, whether you credit it with serving as a demarcation criterion or not, is a technical term with a simple definition that is based upon modus tollens and has nothing to do with the truth-value of hypotheses other than the one being examined. Falsification, in essence, is testing whether a hypothesis makes false predictions, by looking for something that must be true if the hypothesis is true. Of course, this exact confusion over what falsification means is common among "intelligent design" high-level advocates, including William Dembski (see Dances With Popper). --Wesley R. Elsberry 10:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What exactly are Ed Brayton's credentials aside from the fact that he was invited to join scienceblogs even though he has no science degree? He describes himself of a freelance writer and businessman but mentions only a couple obscure journals that have published him.  He's a cofounder of a tiny non-profit Citizens for Science group in his home state. His blog writing is reactionary and inflammatory.  If it wasn't his own blog he'd be a troll.  And by the way, I happen to know it's Larry Fafarman that has been trolling Ed's blog.  No UD moderators to my knowledge have done so.  I know a UD moderator or two got fiesty on the Intelligent Design article but knowing them I bet they remained fairly civil. And no, Dembski sees virtually none of the unapproved comments on Uncommon Descent.  That's just another example of the speculation engaged in here that's presented as fact. I'd also point out that the blog ceased being Dembski's alone and became Dembski AND FRIENDS 11 months ago.  I also happen to know that none of the authors submit drafts of articles before publishing and Dembski doesn't exert any control over what they write.  Do any of you tell your friends what to say and what not to say?  UD is a group blog. Also, the version of ID we use on Uncommon Descent is this one which emphatically does not posit a supernatural.  Intelligence isn't necessarily supernatural unless you care to you and me as supernatural. http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ One of the problems with ID is that isn't a monolithic hypothesis. There are many versions. The one on Dembski's blog is considered the gold standard by most in the ID community.  Other ones you see that claim the intelligence must be supernatural are generally on the young earth creationist fringe or strawmen created by the endless supply of detractors calling it intelligent design creationism.  We don't even get to name our own theory or define the scope of it.  Isn't that just precious. Neither Behe nor Dembski are young earthers but they don't go out of their way to deny a young earth.  And why should they?  The age of the earth and the origin of intelligence is outside the scope of the definition of ID.  Chemists don't explain the origin of matter and energy in the universe and IDists don't explain the origin of intelligence.  That doesn't invalidate what they do attempt to explain. 72.183.101.183 16:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WRT Ed Brayton I've raised that as a new topic on the talk page as someone reverted my edits without clearly addressing why is Ed notable enough to be a critic on a wikipedia BIO page. As for the Dembski-flavor-ID quoting http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ it still has in para 1 a reference to ..."intelligent cause" and yet doesn't try and explain where this comes from. Its a red herring to say that Chemists don't look deeper as Chemists don't posit a supernatural cause for chemical reactions and then insist on not explaining that cause. It's a strawman to compare our intelligence with the supernatural as I'm not questioning "intelligence" but the nature of the thing that expresses this "intelligence". Thats the "God Delusion". Ttiotsw 16:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ttiotsw. Thank you for being so reasonable here. There is a difference between positing that an intelligence exists and explaining its origins.  The evidentiary trail ends with the things we can actually observe. There are two main sub-domains of ID - Biological and Cosmological.  The former uses observations of living things, particularly at the molecular level (machinery of life) and does not contend there is any evidence to determine the origin of the intelligence - there is only inferential evidence of its activity in the complexity of said machinery. It's open to falsification by demonstrating non-intelligent means of assembling those nano-scale machines. Cosmological ID is purely theoretical.  The origin of the universe is beyond any means of investigation. It is not falsifiable any more than the competing multi-verse theories of theoretical cosmology and mathematics are falsifiable.  I find CID interesting to think about and worthy of mention beside multiverse theory but not really the kind of science you can dig into with experiment like you can in trying to find a way for undirected assembly of cellular machinery.  I'm not sure this has any relevance to the article and I don't expect to persuade anyone here that ID isn't pseudoscience. I just thought you might like to know.  I'm an agnostic by the way.  The ONLY agnostic author/moderator/admin on Uncommon Descent.  Funny that Dembski would make an unapologetic agnostic his blogczar, isn't it?  I was a bit shocked myself.  At one point I got a little power crazy and announced that I would no longer tolerate any comments arguing against common descent because the scientific community would never accept us if we didn't ditch the young earth supporters.  Bill slapped my wrist for that one but I suspect it was for political reasons and not because he disagreed with me.


 * On a general note I'm pretty happy with this article now if Brayton is removed. Ditching the whole blog section would be even better but I won't insist as long as it's accurate.  Dembski wasn't the one deleting trackbacks either as the article states.  That was yours truly doing those deletions.  I have no desire whatsoever to help critic websites get more traffic and boost their google rankings off the coattails of ours.  UD isn't a soapbox for critics and doesn't pretend to be one. It's mostly someplace for ID supporters to go read and comment where they won't be mobbed by nasty naysayers. Some of the other admins disagree with me to a greater or lesser extent but Dembski is happy with it that way. His more serious work is on iscid.org which has its forums far better structured than wordpress blog comments.  There no heavy handed moderation there and none is needed as it isn't popular enough to be trolled.  72.183.101.183 17:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dave, if you were familiar with Dembski's work, you would know that he considers you, me, and all intelligence to be supernatural. Secondclass 23:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding Legal Threats: Follow WP:LEGAL
On WP:LEGAL I read this:

"Similarly, slander, libel, and defamation of character are not tolerated on Wikipedia. If you feel Wikipedia content libels you or someone else, you may bring it to the attention of the Community and administrators here, or by contacting the infoteam as described on this page. In either case the offensive material should be removed quickly."

The offensive material took a month to be removed. If Wiki procedure had been followed by quick removal and THEN discussion about reinclusion including arbitration by BLPP before reinclusion there would have been no legal threat in the first place. I followed procedure by deleting the offensive material and made no legal threat so long as it was gone first and discussed later. The editors who immediately restored it before any appeals could be made were the ones who were out of line IMO. 72.183.101.183 14:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Ed Brayton ?
We're heading for a revert war so lets spike it. The section on who did what to whom on their blogs quotes a certain critic called "Ed Brayton". My contention is this guy isn't notable. Unless some convincing argument is presented that makes Brayton notable then the sentences with him in it will have to go (which makes the rest of the para kind of disintegrate as WP:OR. Ttiotsw 16:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ed's name is well known in the blogosphere surrounding intelligent design mostly IMO because he's inflammatory and prolific in his writing. Nothing else about him is particularly notable. He has no degree that he's ever mentioned and is noted on Panda's Thumb "contributor list" as a non-academic .72.183.101.183 16:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dave's attacks above aside, Ed is a journalist and was asked to blog at scienceblogs and runs a major pro-evolution group which makes him notable enough as a critic. There's no need to confuse notable enough to have an article and notable enough for their opinions to matter. JoshuaZ 17:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In this new section questioning his notability I'm not confusing "notable enough to have an article" and "notable enough for their opinions to matter". If he is a journalist then who employs him as a journalist ?. If he is freelance then has he been published in "notable" press (heck I'd even take regional and public broadcast stuff here from the boondocks in the US)...links and cites please. Is he just in blogshere or has he done real-world talks and debates ?. Blogs don't really count for squat when it comes to science as they are so ephemeral. His notability isn't proven yet. Ttiotsw 17:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Joshua, have you actually looked at Michigan Citizens for Science website to see what Brayton's role in it is? He isn't even close to running it. That's an absurd claim. As to whether it's "major" it's one of 16 state non-profits.  NCSE is major. The National Academy of Sciences is major.  MCfS is a bit player in comparison. 72.183.101.183 18:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed the reference to Ed Brayton as the link provided is broken plus as above discussion shows very unclear if Ed Brayton is notable. Ttiotsw 02:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please provide your criteria for deciding that Brayton is not a notable critic. Guettarda 04:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As for the broken link - that took all of 5 minutes to fix (once I figured out which link you were talking about). Guettarda 04:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "What evidence do you have the Ed isn't notable?" - next you'll be asking me "What evidence do you have that god doesn't exist?" (thats a joke - we know god probably doesn't exist but Ed probably does). It's up to you to provide the evidence not me. That aside Ed can stay as the link is fixed and it seems he'd on national radio too. Ttiotsw 06:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd disagree with you on the nonexistence of God too, but that's just an opinion. Guettarda 19:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to critics typically polemic
I don't think this is typically true and the cites were POV cherry picked. Dembski addresses his critics often in live debate fashion and these are not polemic. Michael Shermer and Micheal Ruse are two of his most frequent debate opponents. At least Ruse is, I'm not sure how many times he's appeared opposite Shermer. The polemic comment should be restated to sometimes polemic and Shermer/Ruse/Dembski live debates covered as examples of non-polemic responses to critics. For balance, I can dig up the cites and add those if there are no objections. 72.183.101.183 18:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, a debate is not a response to criticism. A debate is nothing more than an opportunity for two sides to present their cases while ignoring everything the other side has to say. Debates are live infomercials and have nothing to do with arriving at the truth or responding to criticism.  I'm not saying Demsbki has not responded in a non-polemic manner, I am just saying a debate is not an example of him doing so.


 * Feel free to bring some evidence of Demsbki actually respondoing to criticism in a non-polemic manner, but don't bring debate material. Again, debates are staged, public advertisements. Instead, find something where Dembski carrefully considered criticism about his ideas and he responded in a professional manner.  And if you find such evidence keep in mind that would not negate the existing and significant polemic responses on his part.  Good luck!  Mr Christopher 16:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Christopher - Dembski, Ruse, and Shermer all directly criticize the other's views and respond in their live debates. Shermer and Ruse are both famous critics of Intelligent Design, both write columns for Scientific American.  Look here for a radio debate between Shermer and Dembski and for Dembski and Ruse on NightLine here.  Response to critics on a major network broadcast of Nightline is unquestionably a valid example of response to critics. I suspect it's pure POV if anyone objects to the Koppel and Shermer debates being added to this article under response to critics.  Ted Koppel sure beats Ed Brayton hands down. 72.183.101.183 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "My most obnoxious critics have been Internet stalkers (e.g., Wesley Elsberry and Richard Wein), who seem to monitor my every move and as a service to the Internet community make sure that every aspect of my work receives their bad housekeeping seal of disapproval. As a rule I don’t respond to them over the Internet since it seems to me that the Internet is an unreliable forum for settling technical issues in statistics and the philosophy of science. Consequently, I have now responded to critics in the following three forums: Philosophy of Science (under submission), Christian Scholar’s Review (accepted for publication), and Books & Culture (accepted for publication). (Source)"


 * So far, Dembski's responses to the Wilkins and Elsberry 2001 peer-reviewed journal article on the "explanatory filter" amount to a couple of simple dismissals in his books. --Wesley R. Elsberry 05:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Response to critics on a major network broadcast of Nightline is unquestionably a valid example of response to critics" - it is? Since when is Nightline a peer-reviewed publication?  Since when it Nightline a written medium where you can specifically address issues?  Guettarda 05:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

One thing we can agree on, Dembski handles critics on his blog (those that point out how unscientific and mistaken he is) by simply banning them and/or deleting their criticisms so no one can read them. I'm not sure if that's polemic, it's more Orwellian actually, but it's obviously not exactly an attempt to arrive at the truth. Mr Christopher 23:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Are Wikipedia discussion pages notable sources ?
The article has "A small number of Dembski supporters from the uncommondescent blog have trolled blogs and forums critical of Dembski, notably Dispatches from the Culture Wars [44] and Wikipedia's Intelligent design article discussion page." (my emphasis) and my main criticism of this is simply Are the discussion pages on Wikipedia notable enough to be recorded (in truthfully a non-cited paragraph anyway). I would have though that by the very definition of Wikipedia and it's policies of no original research that any discussion on Wikipedia is not a noteworthy source. I'm after consensus that we can't use what has happened to Wikipedia discussion pages on a WP:LIVING page as it is not a notable source as the text states.Ttiotsw 13:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to say remove the reference to Wikipedia, unless that was mentioned elsewhere - we certainly cite news articles which mention Wikipedia; are there any other sources or is this a self-ref? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * KC is correct. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It should never be cited directly. Reliable secondary source mentions would need to be cited. Crockspot 17:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Some general comments on sourcing
A lot of discussion has taken place in the day or so I was away, but no revert warring, so that is very good. You guys are very prolific writers. Rather than comment here and there, I'm just going to state a general case about some of the statements and sourcing in this article. I'm trying to ignore the real-world contentions, and look at this stricly from the viewpoint of WP standards.

From WP:V:
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
 * Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.
 * Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
 * See also WP:V for all the requirements.
 * The above principles are expanded upon in WP:RS.

My interpretation is that, when used in an article that the blog or blog owner is not the subject of, a "scientific blog" is only reliable when the scientist's work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications (therefore being a notable and noted expert), and it is commenting on the science that he is noted in. It would not be reliable or appropriate for social or personal commentary that strays outside of the science at hand. So notable scientific or theological critics, or even journalists, who have been previously published or published about, and have made verifiable blog posts that give valid scientific or theological criticism, may be used with caution. Dembsky's personal blog posts (posts made verifiably by him) may also be used in his own article, as long as they do not violate these rules.

Everything we need to guide us is contained within WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. There have been quite a few recent changes to all of these guidelines, so unless you have read them all in the last month, I suggest everyone take a half hour and review them again, with an objective mind. If one finds that these guidelines are an obstacle to one's goals on Wikipedia, perhaps rather than trying to find technical loopholes to circumvent the spirit of the guidelines, one should re-examine their goals here on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, used to neutrally document knowledge, and guide readers to sources for their further research. It is not a battleground of ideas and ideologies. It can be used to document some of those battles, but only if they are notable, and already commented on by secondary reliable sources. Otherwise, to even imply that something is controversial, in the absence of a reliable third party calling it controversial, is original research. Crockspot 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dembski "Trotter Prize" at Texas A&M
In the interest of balancing against critics... If no one objects I'd like to add a link in the biography to the Texas A&M Science Department's award of the endowed Trotter Prize to Dembski. Surely TAMU Science Department is a reliable, neutral source. 72.183.101.183 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He did indeed share the prize in 2005, according to that link. Do it - if and when a link is found which more clearly is about him winning, and what he was awarded the Trotter for, I'd be happier tho. I've looked but didn't find anything. Probably best to keep the statement fairly vauge and simple until more data is located. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Trotter Nomination Form from TAMU lists Dembski as a former recipient right underneath Francis Crick. It also describes the nature of the prize and the impressive list of people on the steering committee including two nobel laureates.  I'll include both links since this is all I could find as well. 72.183.101.183 22:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This link adds some information saying the prize was awarded for the paper “Searching Large Spaces: Displacement and the No Free Lunch Regress”.  It's mentioned as part of a Computer Science class assignment to summarize the paper so I don't think it warrants inclusion in the article (too roundabout).  I provide it here merely for reference. 72.183.101.183 23:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Springer, is that you again? That last link is interesting:


 * "03/21/2005    William Dembski of Baylor University will speak on “Searching Large Spaces: Displacement and the No Free Lunch Regress” on Monday, 4/4/2005, 4:10-5:25pm. This is part of the Trotter Prize lecture series at Texas A&M. Two recipients are selected each year to receive the Trotter Prize and to present an invited lecture focusing on 'Recognizing Seminal Contributions in Complexity, Information and Inference,' the overarching theme of the Trotter Lecture Series. The prize was established by Ide P. Trotter Jr. and Luella H. Trotter, with a matching contribution from ExxonMobil Corp., in 2001 to honor Ide P. Trotter Sr., former dean of Texas A&M University's graduate school. Dembski’s paper is given in the title link. Due to the difficulty of this paper, a summary of it will count for two research summaries."


 * 03/30/2005     IMPORTANT: The 4/4 CPSC 681 Seminar by William Dembski has been changed. The seminar is now OPTIONAL and will be held in HRBB 302, not HRBB 124. You can still turn the research summary in to me for double credit without attending the talk. You can attend the talk for credit if you wish, to make up an absence.


 * The link does *not* say that the Trotter Prize was awarded for the paper mentioned. Also, note the change in status of the lecture given, from part of the course to an optional activity. --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wes is right. Furthermore, the Shana Hutchins article on the TAMU website is neither reliable nor neutral as claimed. Dembski's notion of winning the "Trotter Prize" is one-sided and puffery, and so not appropriate to the article. FeloniousMonk 22:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, then I must reverse my position. Good job everyone for being so thorough. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

More Fundamental?
Current article statement:

"He concluded that randomness is a derivative notion, which can only be understood in terms of design, a more fundamental concept."

Dembski's book, The Design Inference, explicitly defines design as the set-theoretic complement of regularity and chance explanations. In other words, Dembski's work definitively seeks to determine design as what is left over when you eliminate randomness and regularity. The statement in the article either 1) is 180 degrees reversed from something Dembski said or 2) documents Dembski taking a stance inconsistent with his dissertation and The Design Inference. If (1), then it needs to be corrected, and if (2) it needs to be noted that Dembski does say completely inconsistent things about this point. --Wesley R. Elsberry 01:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

How is "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" notable ?
I've removed that dodgy paragraph (see article history) as so far in talk, wasn't clear if Ed is notable AND his link ( http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/11/update_on_dembski_and_shallit_1.php#comments ) is broken anyway plus unclear how Dispatches from the Culture Wars http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/ is notable too. The rest of that paragraph is simply WP:OR as I read some of the links where is is said that Dembski has censored critics but truthfully who gives a sh*t how Dembski manages his blogsite when he removed non-notable people. Now if people could prove that the "critics" who were removed actually notable in their own right e.g. one of those nicks was say Dawkins moonlighting as a troll then hey that would be notable but simply non-notable evolution-fanboys (that is me too) getting zapped. Give us a break. Zillions of Forums throughout the world remove critics. If I registered with his site I would probably be dropped in minutes. Is that notable for a WP:LIVING page ? Think of the flip side. If a herd of Islamics on some Jihad troll a Christian site would that be notable criticism of that Christian's site or the Christian. Only just maybe the site if the site was notable and the trolls notable Islamic scholars but not the person who is ostensibly linked to the site - that clearly fails notability. What about if a bunch of young-earthers hit a science blog run by a notable scientist ? Is that notable of the person who runs the science blog ? I don't think so unless the young-earthers were notable in their own right and the blog site was notable (i.e. it has been linked too/refered too by other notable press). Comments anyone ? Ttiotsw 02:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As brought up earlier, Brayton is a journalist who helps run a state-level pro-evolution group (indeed, the major group in his state) and is one of a very small number of people to have been asked to blog on scienceblogs. How is he not a notable critic? JoshuaZ 04:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What evidence do you have the Ed isn't notable? Isn't a journalist employed by a reputable magazine to do Op-Ed pieces notable with respect to the area upon which he specialises?  With regards to how Dembski manages his major publication - it wouldn't be notable except in an article about Dembski.  Of course, both Josh and I have raised these points before, and you have chosen to ignore them.  There's a difference between removing trolls and removing critics...of course, Dembski is also famous for removing his own postings when someone pokes too many holes in his argument.  Guettarda 05:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ...Listen to yourself "What evidence do you have the Ed isn't notable?" - next you'll be asking me "What evidence do you have that god doesn't exist?" . It's up to you to provide the evidence not me and so far all I've seen is parochial tit-for-tat blogging wars of a controversial nature which is innappropriate for WP:LIVING. But, that aside I'll let that ride as I read from http://positiveliberty.com/ed-brayton/ that he's a guest on "nationally syndicated radio talk shows" and the link is back (why wasn't that link checked when you were reverting it ages back). I think you guys have an inflated perception of what "State-level" and "magazine" means when viewed globally and truthfully it looks like we're scrapping the barrel here. You present an WP:NPA "(I) have chosen to ignore them" argument which is lame; anyone reading these talk pages where I have commented will see that's unsubstantiated claim by yourself. I shouldn't have to dig for this: you guys (especially the ones reverting) really needed to add why he is notable instead of just endlessly droneing on about how obvious it is. Any chance of now saying why Dispatches from the Culture Wars http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/ is worth linking to (and it's not because Ed writes for it else Ed would have his own page) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttiotsw (talk • contribs)


 * Ttiots, I don't know what your referring to when you say that "you guys" presented "an WP:NPA "(I) have chosen to ignore them" argument which is lame" - are you referring to some section above? You might want to consider that a) the editors here are not a monolith and b) the presence of one poor argument does not make later arguments necessarily bad. So let's go through the reasons why he's notable: 1) he's a journalist employed by a reputable magazine 2) he run's a state-wide organization dealing with the same issues that this article is about 3) he was asked to blog on scienceblogs a highly selective website. Simply dismissing these as parochial isn't helpful. Reasons have been given as to why he's notable- I don't see a single editor "droneing (sic) on about how obvious it is" If you think the above isn't sufficient demonstration of notability for his opinion please explain why. (If you want I'll add another reason he gets many google hits. Now, some seem to be for other people when you just do "Ed Brayton" but if you do "Ed Brayton" + "evolution"  or "Ed Brayton" +"intelligent design"  or "Ed Brayton" + "intelligent design" + "evolution" . Now please respond to the claims of notability made and don't just repeat yourself as you accuse others of doing. JoshuaZ 06:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have provided evidence that Brayton is notable. You have not provided any evidence, you have just said "I don't think he's notable".  How is it a personal attack to say that you have ignored the evidence when you go so far as to say "It's up to you to provide the evidence"?  How the heck can you call what I have said a personal attack just a few lines after you have affirmed what I said in my so-called "personal attack"?  You then go on to prove my point by saying  "Any chance of now saying why Dispatches from the Culture Wars is worth linking to" - I take it you mean apart from the reason I have given in the post immediately above your own?  How can you call my statement a personal attack and then ask the question which I have just answered?  How else would you characterise that other than ignoring my arguments?  I take it you must be joking, right?  Take a moment, read what I have written, and then try again, without all the over-the-top insults and hyperbole.
 * Regarding your "I think you guys have an inflated perception of what "State-level" and "magazine" means when viewed globally and truthfully" - you to throw around accusations of personal attacks and then turn around and call me a liar? WTF?  A print magazine which claims to reach "more than 600,000 young, educated, affluent and influential readers"  - you have the nerve to call me a liar while saying that 600,000 readers of a print magazine isn't "truthfully" a magazine?  You must be joking, right?  Guettarda 07:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah at last we're getting some where. This is the first time you have provided a link other than to blogs (which were what we are considering as non-notable context) which we can evaluate. The magazine you are refering too is called "Seed". I am the first person (not you) to mention that in the discussion, so yes what I said before still counts unless you can show that you provided this type of information before. Unclear if Ed has written for this magazine but that irrellevant for me anyway though given I've already said Ed is kind of OK but the other critics will now have a harder time removing what he says. Why does it feel like pulling teeth ? Ttiotsw 03:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "This is the first time you have provided a link other than to blogs"? "Unclear if Ed has written for this magazine"??  What are you talking about?  Seed magazine is the publisher of Science Blogs.  Dispatches... is published by Seed.  Are you seriously trying to tell me that you declared Science Blogs non-notable without bothering to figure that out?  This just gets stranger and stranger.  Guettarda 04:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Brayton has been a central player in the public debate and discourse over Demsbki's claims, with Dembski repeatedly responding on his own blog to Brayton's fisking of his assertions. Dembski repeatedly engaging Brayton means Brayton is by necessity notable. Ttiotsw, how closely have you been following the public debate of ID? If you had, you'd know this already. FeloniousMonk 18:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please focus on what I say - I have already said Ed is OK (and finally found the specific magazine that people are talking about though have to date never mentioned in name - is it some sort of secret because you are unclear if Ed has or hasn't written for it? ) Now any chance of now saying why Dispatches from the Culture Wars http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/ is worth linking to (and it's not because Ed writes for it else Ed would have his own page) nor that it is run by Seed because it contains contributions by others who are not in the print magazine. The UK based BBC has user-contributed content - does that automagically make the comments worthy of a Wikipedia BIO ? Ttiotsw 03:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is not just that he has written for Seed (which is I think in particular meant as a response to the issue brought up whether he had any actual journalism history). I'm not convinced that solely having written for a single magazine would be enough- however, the combination of that together with the other items discussed about Ed seem to make his opinion on these subjects easily notable. JoshuaZ 04:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dispatches... is part of Science Blogs which is a publication of Seed. Ergo, it is part of the online presence of a major publication - sort of like NRO is a part of National Review (only it's a bit less nutty than NRO).  Guettarda 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Category appropriateness
Is the "Category:Christian apologetics" being properly applied to this article? WP:BLP requires that cats be supported by sourced information in the article. I do not see any mention of apologetics in this article, nor do I see Dembski's name mentioned in the article Christian apologetics, which lists "modern Christian apologists". Has this cat been properly applied here, or should it be removed? If it stays, it should have supporting sourced info in the article. - Crockspot 18:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, he's a published apologist: Unapologetic Apologetics: Meeting the Challenges of Theological Studies by William A. Dembski (Editor) I'll add a mention up front with a source in the article if you really think it's necessary. FeloniousMonk 20:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I see it is already mentioned twice in the article, so readers just have to actually read the article to see that the category is appropriate. FeloniousMonk 20:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm fairly ignorant of the particulars of this subject, just checking. Crockspot 20:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Forrest vs Dembski
I just posted this link over at the Kitzmiller article but since Barabara Forrest takes Dembski personally by the horns (and his "vise strategy" and his gun totin', lawsuit threatenin' davescot) in her article I thought Dembski editors would find it interesting. [http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/kitzmiller.html The “Vise Strategy” Undone. by Barbara Forrest] Mr Christopher 21:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Great article. Thanks for the tip.--CSTAR 19:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Demsbki just responed to Forrest's article. Interestingly enough he claims he charged the TMLC $200 and hour (instead of pro-bono as the plaintiff's expert witnesses did) because he regarded the Kitzmiller case a "loser from the start". He knew it was a case that would lose yet he calls the Judge a "putz" and makes farting videos to mock him. Well if he knew the case stunk and was a lost cause, why on Earth does he mock the judge. Apprantly the judge also knew the case was a loser. How strange. Mr Christopher 20:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

False statement about Dembski's academic publications as a mathematician
The article makes the following claim: Although the Discovery Institute touts Dembski's credentials as a mathematician and scientist, there is no record of any publication in any academic journal--peer reviewed or otherwise, written by Dembski. However, this is simply not true. Dembski's cv can be found at, and it lists the following academic publication: which I have confirmed via the library. -- Cat Whisperer 00:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Uniform Probability." Journal of Theoretical Probability 3(4), 1990: 611–626


 * The topic here is peer reviewed ID articles (of which there are zero as noted in the Dover ruling), if the article is unclear then that can be fixed. "Uniform Probability" was not an ID article. FeloniousMonk 00:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That was not at all clear the way the sentence originally read. At a minimum, the sentence needs to be reworded to make that clear.  However, I should point out that Dembski considers that paper to be an ID article, part of his "Mathematical Foundations of Intelligent Design" series. -- Cat Whisperer 00:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with "Cat Whisperer" that the sentence as given doesn't read as specifically pertaining to ID; I've noted that earlier with a comment on this page. I think there are about three papers in Dembski's CV that more or less fit the bill as being academic peer-reviewed journal publications. Then again, I don't see that the article in question is supportive of ID; Dembski's whole schtick is about trying to establish that evolutionary processes are improbable, not that there is direct support for ID. --Wesley R. Elsberry 01:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, in that article Dembski tries (with limited success) to establish a general notion of uniform or alternatively "maximally random" probability measure. This is motivated in order to formulate in general a "Darwinian hypothesis" in a evolutionary path space.  I'm sure Dembski regards this paper as part of  his project in ID.--CSTAR 01:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * PS although I agree with the assessment that it doesn't provide support for ID; it just would (if succesful) make it possible to formulate a general definition of "maximally random" measure.--CSTAR 01:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so we're all in agreement that the passage in question needs to be rewritten to reflect the absence of peer-reviewed ID articles by Dembski, not non-ID articles (of which there are a few). Who wants first swipe at it? FeloniousMonk 02:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I think the point (which has been made elsewhere) is that while DI touts Dembski as a scientist and mathematician, he has no scientific publications and no recent mathematical publications. Pointing out a lack of peer reviewed ID pubs isn't all the noteworthy - no one has any.  Dembski, of course, acknowledges his lack of peer-reviewed pubs, saying he doesn't bother, that it takes too long, etc.  Guettarda 02:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dembski's Foray into Voice Acting
Dembski as the David Seville of Information Theory

Bwa Ha Ha!

From Dembski's email to critics, myself included:

There’s a Christmas present for you at www.overwhelmingevidence.com

– a flash animation that features each of you prominently (some of you are probably aware of it already). We’re still planning a few enhancements, including getting Eric Rothschild in there and having Judge Jones do the actual voiceovers himself (right now it’s me speeded up though it’s his actual words). In return for the judge doing himself, we’ll drop some of the less flattering sound effects. We would have included Prof. Padian, but the images of him on the internet weren’t of sufficient quality (I’m copying Prof. Padian – if you send me a hi res jpg of yourself, I’m sure we can work you in – you were after all the expert witness at the trial).

Best wishes, Bill Dembski

We do know that Kevin Padian showed up at the trial, and that Dembski did not. --Wesley R. Elsberry 06:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Kenneth Miller, yes THAT Kenneth Miller, was included in the email from Dembski mentioned above and hit "reply all" and offered Dembski some suggestions on improving the flash video Mr Christopher 20:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This stuff is too hilarious NOT to mention in the article. I love the part about the galloping horses audio and people (ID "expert" witnesses who got cold feet) screaming in the back ground as they ran from the trial. Mr Christopher 21:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since Dembski sent this email to his critics, I suppose this would belong in the response to critics section, no? Mr Christopher 21:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Recipients of Dembski's email:


 * Eugenie C. Scott, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Lawrence Krauss, Barbara Forrest, Kenneth Miller, Patricia Princehouse, Robert T. Pennock, Wesley R. Elsberry, Kevin Padian, Richard Thompson


 * The list includes mostly critics. The last person, Richard Thompson, heads up the Thomas More Law Center, the folks that Dembski billed for over $20,000 for his services as an expert witness, though he was withdrawn from the case even before a deposition was taken. --Wesley R. Elsberry 23:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Wes. I think it's fair to characterize this as yet another response to his critics. What a very strange man.  And it's a year since Kitzmiller and Demsbki (nor any IDers) have done any science that they had promised.  I suppose making fun of Judge Jones is about as much science as we can expect from Dembski and his ilk.  I assume you got Miller's reply, has anyone else replied to all yet?  Mr Christopher 23:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dawkins weighs in here. An interesting approach from the Intelligent Design movment in view of the Kitzmiller anniversary.  The DI starts a dishonest, smear campaign (the 90% nonsense) against Jones while Dembski resorts to this type of childishness and now commenters on UD are making poems where Jones is a dog and indulges in anal sex with the ACLU.  Id be interested to hear from some of the editors here who are intelligent design advocates.  Specifically where they think their movement is going, other than the trash heap.  Perhaps Behe will come out with a rap song where Jones is portrayed as a pedophile or something.  Mr Christopher 23:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't have any new insights to add other than to say that reading about this man fills me with a profound sadness. I've just been reading an extract from "Nature" about advances in the understanding of how the Malaria parasite evolves resistance to antimalarials.  What Dembski and his kind are implying that we just don't bother with any of that because it's based on evolution.  How can a supposedly rational and educated man deliberately choose ignorance and prejudice and attempt to propogate it?  I think the greatest sin a human can commit is the wilful abandonment of reason.  NBeddoe


 * Here is an interesting perspective - "...but in a culture war there are some tactics that works, and others that don't, and in this case Dembski pulled the pin, counted to three, and dropped the grenade in his own foxhole" Mr Christopher 22:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

response to critics section
The end of that section includes material related to his UD blog. Should we give UD it's own header so we're not combining UD activities with the response to critics section? UD seems to be more of a propaganda tool to sell books and discredit evolution than a means of responding to critics. Mr Christopher 19:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the range, volume and controversial nature of much of the activity on Uncommon Descent, I think it would be worthy of its own section. Hrafn42 16:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"Debatable"?
A recent anonymous edit did this:


 * Thus, while it is true to say that The Design Inference has been been peer-reviewed for mathematics and philosophy, it is false to claim that debatable whether any work actually providing specific and detailed evidence for the existence of intelligent design for the universe has been so published in the arena of scientific press in which the topic is debated, which is what Dembski implies.

Given the qualifications stated, this doesn't seem "debatable" to me. If it were true, it could be verified. --Wesley R. Elsberry 03:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Reverted.  Guettarda 04:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Templeton Foundation Grant
Here is an interesting article that indicates Demsbki was given a grant by the Templeton Foundation to write a book on Orthodox Theology that was never written  Things have been heating up on UD, PT and other sites concerning the Templeton Foundation and ID. We may be seeing more to this story that might (or might not) be appropriate for the article. Mr Christopher 20:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)