Talk:William A. Dembski/Archive 3

Updating Recent Developments
The Recent Developments section hasn't been updated since Dembski's move to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, which means it talks about his stint at Southern in the present tense, and includes some forward-looking comments that may have been rendered moot by his move. Admittedly, some of it (particularly the YEC differences stuff) could probably be rendered current by referring to "seminaries" instead of "seminary" (as their theological position would be identical).

Given that Dembski is a "Research Professor" at Southwestern, does anybody know if he is doing any teaching? Will he still "help train ministers" there? Hrafn42 13:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To answer that question you'd first need to know if there was any actual research being done at Southwestern. Considering that it is a seminary, the answer seems doubtful. Odd nature 22:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The only evidence of 'research' I've seen is mention of books under development, the only evidence of 'teaching' is guest lectures at other universities (e.g. SMU). The only thing he has published of even minor prominence (i.e. listed in Google Scholar or Amazon) since arriving (baring paperback versions of previous books) is Darwin Strikes Back with Thomas Woodward in November 2006. Hrafn42 02:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Have just discovered a listing of the courses he's been teaching at SWBTS. Hrafn42 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this a hoax? take "A Primer on Intelligent Design (SBTS #28677)" - maybe they'll find a theory? Perhaps not... "Write a 2,000- to 2,500-word critical review of Forrest and Gross’s Creationism's Trojan Horse".. anyway, glad to see a concern about standards: "Also, in an age of spelling and grammar checkers, I will count off on such mistakes." Eh? Is that good American? It certainly doesn't work in English. ... dave souza, talk 18:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Is this a hoax?" No. It is Dembski's own website (www.designinference.com), as listed in the article. Interesting that his writing output has fallen off considerably since 2005 (25 pieces in 2005, 5 in 2006, none so far listed for 2007). One would suspect that he's lost heart since Dover. Hrafn42 04:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dembski's own "teaching page" is referenced in the footnotes of the article. It was updated in October, 2007, and lists these courses: Critical Thinking, in which he asks students to write a critical review of Richard Dawkins' two-part video series against "religion/Christianity" and gives examples to follow of his own writing Christian Apologetics  Christian Faith, Knowledge, and Science  Critical Thinking, in which he asks students to write a 2,000-word critical review of Richard Dawkins' two-part 2-part series “The Root of All Evil?” and references his Primer on Probability (PDF), in which he instructs students on how to infer design A Primer on Intelligent Design, in which he asks students to write a 2,000-word to 2,500-word critical review of Forrest and Gross’s Creationism’s Trojan Horse   I don't know if he means "critical" to refer to the methodology or the conclusions. The syllabus indicates that Christian Faith, Knowledge, and Science is a doctoral course. Monado (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, somebody needs to write up the John Lilley parody letter incident. Since the original page has been tossed into the memory hole at UD, one can see the text that they passed off as Baylor President Lilley's here. --Wesley R. Elsberry 01:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the parody letter is just another minor piece of Dembski 'street theatre' -- not worthy of a serious academic, but also not worth an encyclopedia commenting on. Personally, I agree with Wesley's interpretation of the incident, but have been unable to come up with a WP:RS (the only source I could find was the Religious Right World Magazine) to support this without drawing my own conclusion (which would be WP:SYNTH). Hrafn42 03:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

PZ Myers rather nicely echoes what I suspect happened at Baylor, on his Pharyngula blog:

O'course, I can't prove any of this, so it'll have to stay out of the article until I can. Hrafn42 10:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Isnt this OR?
Dembski has been accused of censoring critics on his blog, Uncommon Descent. Ed Brayton, a critic of Dembski, alleges that Dembski as a matter of course removes reasonable criticisms and questions left at his personal blog, uncommondescent.com [54]. Along with comments, Dembski often removed "trackback" links to other blogs where his claims were discussed. A number of Dembski supporters from the uncommondescent blog have trolled blogs and forums critical of Dembski, notably Dispatches from the Culture Wars.[55] At Dembski's blog those whose comments are in opposition to Dembski's own views but not disruptive have been blocked by Dembski from contributing

Really can we use bloggers as verifiable resources? FarFromCrowd 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Part of William Dembski's method of outreach concerns his weblog. Leaving all of that unmentioned would make the article incomplete. Mentioning Dembski's weblog without taking notice of the shenanigans that happen with the community Dembski has fostered there would then make the article misleading. So, there's a right conundrum. --Wesley R. Elsberry 01:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned given that Dembski is a living person that this may run afoul of WP:BLP. If we had someoen who was less involved than Brayton that was a non-partisan source it might be better. JoshuaZ 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that Brayton is an imperfect source for this, but I think it is important to document Dembski's UcD activities, as this appears to have been his main outlet over the last year or two, as he has retreated into seminaries, and his more formal writings have dropped off (as can be seen from the number of articles listed by year on his www.designinference.com website). This retreat appears to have some aspects of a 'bunker mentality' to it. If better sources can be found, then well and good, but I would disagree with any wholesale pruning of this section. Hrafn42 16:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You might call it "unsourced" but I have seen personal references over and over again: "I posted a question, a comment, pointed out some science mistake" and it was not published, it was deleted, or after the third question I was banned. I wasn't being rude but trying to carry on a discussion." It would certainly be possible to line up a dozen such testamonies and they stretch back for at least a couple of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monado (talk • contribs) 21:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no shortage of people who have been expelled from UD for not adopting the correct IDC posture. Open discussion has never been welcome there.  You'll get banned quickly for asking the "wrong" questions or reaching the "wrong" conclusions.  I have seen them ban actual scientists, devout christians, and ID proponents.  One of the more entertaining and illuminating bans can be read here http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/10/first-time-dembski-booted-me.html  The fact that IDC has no scientific legs is something Dembski and his followers wish to keep under wraps.  Oh, and the UD tactic for expelling dissent has changed.  They no longer ban accounts, they just take away your ability to contibute (so no one ever sees your comments).  It's a more Orwellian approach.  Angry Christian (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Uncommon Descent addresses this issue . I have read some of the "nice and caring" comments from those who are ardent pro evolutionists on ud and other ID sites, and in order to be published their "nice and caring" comments should be self moderated to the point of not using demeaning and uncalled for "nice and caring" language.notoadultery 18:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notoadultery2 (talk • contribs)

False claim
The article says:

In 1993, lawyer Phillip E. Johnson revised his 1991 book to use the phrase "intelligent design"

This is not true. I have access to both editions of Johnson's book, through my library. The 1993 edition alters a footnote, and adds a section on embryology as well as an epilogue. In none of the new sections does he ever use the phrase "intelligent design." The only place that phrase shows up in the entire book is in the following sentence: "...the presence of intelligent design in the cosmos is so obvious that even an atheist like [Heinz] Pagels cannot help noticing it..." (p. 119 in the 1993 edition, though this sentence also appeared in the original edition). Nowhere in either edition does Johnson show any awareness that the phrase "intelligent design" would become the name of the movement. marbeh raglaim 17:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's really useful information. Of course the "intelligent design" movement got under way in all of its essentials under the leadership of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics following the publication of Pandas, but I've yet to find any evidence of Johnson using the term before 1995. Will modify the Timeline of intelligent design accordingly, do you want to make the change here? .. dave souza, talk 18:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've neglected to alter the page because I'm not sure what to replace the incorrect sentence with. If I just delete the whole sentence, that will undermine the paragraph, which attempts to trace the terminology that individual ID advocates have come up with, culminating in Demski's "specified complexity." (I guess the paragraph is "irreducibly complex," which proves it must have had a designer, in this case a very bad one. :D ) I don't think that Johnson either coined or popularized the phrase "intelligent design." I'm not sure who did, or even if that can be clearly determined. Remember, it's not about who used the phrase offhandedly, but who was the first to apply it to the movement itself. Johnson did coin one phrase, the "blind watchmaker thesis," which he used in the epilogue to the '93 edition, though he had also used it earlier. But that phrase never caught on. In any case, he didn't update the book for the purposes of altering terminology. marbeh raglaim 00:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I must correct myself. I looked at Johnson's book again, and there's one other place where he uses the phrase "intelligent design," though it's not in the main text of the book but rather in the citations (in both editions). It is when he cites Of Pandas and People, he makes the following observation: "This book is 'creationist' only in the sense that it juxtaposes a paradigm of 'intelligent design' with the dominant paradigm of (naturalistic) evolution" (p. 204 in the '93 edition). This may actually be an early use of the phrase to describe the movement (or at least the central concept advocated by the movement), and Pandas (which I haven't read) was probably the catalyst. Still, the sentence about Johnson is still incorrect, and I wonder if it was actually talking about Pandas and mixed it up with Johnson's book. marbeh raglaim 08:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, that's excellent information. I've now modified this page accordingly, and will try to incorporate the change into other related pages. As Introduction: Of Pandas and People, the foundational work of the 'Intelligent Design' movement by Nick Matzke shows, there's a lot of misunderstanding about this issue, probably due to Johnson's cronies inflating his claims to be the "father of the intelligent design movement". Seems to have missed its birth! ... dave souza, talk 13:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just checked the article on Darwin on Trial, and it reports that the phrase "intelligent design" is used on pp. 17, 119, 146, and 204 in the 1993 edition. So it looks like I was wrong again (I had better stop relying on my memory). But I'm just quibbling now. My general point remains: all of the occurrences showed up in both editions, and all of them, with the exception of his reference to Pandas, were offhanded, without attaching any special significance to the phrase. marbeh raglaim 11:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dembski confirms explicitly lack of acceptance of Common descent
here. Should we note this in the article? JoshuaZ 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

TDI and peer review
The article states:

In fact, The Design Inference was reviewed by mathematicians and philosophers. While the book does not directly apply Dembski's argument to biology and evolution, one battleground in which intelligent design stakes its claim, the book examines the question of how to recognize intelligent design and lays out mathematical arguments for Dembski's "explanatory filter".

In fact, the relevant expertise of reviewers of TDI, or even their existence, is unknown and unverifiable. Dembski at one point suggested that anyone with questions should ask the person in charge of the TDI manuscript at CUP, Dr. Brian Skyrms. So I did. Skyrms provided no answers beyond that TDI received the normal review procedure for a book in its series. Skyrms declined to even describe what a normal review process at CUP consisted of. The article's claim above that TDI does not apply Dembski's argument to biology and evolution was echoed in a question Skyrms asked me, which was if I was aware that TDI did not even mention evolution. Not only am I not aware of that, I knew that, in fact, section 2.3 of TDI is "A Case Study: The Creation-Evolution Controversy", where Dembski does indeed apply his argument to the origin of life, or as Dembski writes it in TDI, "LIFE". That the person in charge of editing Dembski's manuscript at CUP, and that Dembski asserted was in charge of his manuscript, did not have even a cursory familiarity with its contents was stunning to me. That's the true measure of the level of "peer-review" that TDI received as best as I can determine. --Wesley R. Elsberry 12:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just checked the sources cited for this passage. I could not not find in any of them a statement that "The Design Inference was reviewed by mathematicians and philosophers." I would suggest that, if a reliable source can't be found, that this sentence should be deleted. Hrafn42 14:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's just the problem with the first sentence I quoted. The second sentence is also false. TDI does apply Dembski's EF in section 2.3, the "case study" being the "creation-evolution controversy". Beyond that clause, the remainder is arguable. The EF in TDI is supposed to be an argument in propositional logic, some of whose terms require math to determine their truth value. It seems to me that that is not the same thing as "mathematical arguments for" the EF. By contrast, Shannon described information entropy, H, and then delivered nine theorems concerning the properties that H had. --Wesley R. Elsberry 11:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that you are correct on the second sentence, however:
 * I don't have a copy of TDI, so cannot offer independent confirmation on this point, so I just commented on what I could independently confirm; and
 * if the first sentence gets nuked, the second sentence becomes irrelevant, and so would probably go even if it were true.
 * Hrafn42 16:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

SBTS's Center for Theology and Science
I've just been going over Dembski's recent activities, looking to see if there was anything new for the article, and this caused me to look into the SBTS's Center for Theology and Science, which Dembski was the first director of. I have come to the suspicion that it may be only a 'vanity' center consisting only of a professor as director and whatever grad students this professor would have gotten anyway. Reasons for this suspicion are as follows: Would such a 'vanity' center be worthy of its current mention in this article? Do we have any evidence that it has a more substantive existence (or alternatively any more evidence of a lack of substantive existence)? Hrafn42 12:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The Department of Christian Philosophy it is part of has two 'centers' between only five professors (with Kurt Wise being the only professor in the field of Theology and Science);
 * 2) I could find no evidence of staff associated with it, other than Wise (and previously Dembski);
 * 3) this center does not even have its own webpage on the SBTS site (only the Center for Biblical Counseling does);
 * 4) I could find no publications attributed to it in Google Scholar; and
 * 5) I have yet to see any mention of it, apart from Dembski's and Wise's appointments as its director.

'Intelligent Design in Business Practice' conference
I know this is both relatively minor & something that hasn't happened yet, but I thought it worth including in the article as: I can provide names and additional refs for the fields of the 3 unnamed academics, but did not want to crowd the article with unnecessary details & refs. Hrafn42 05:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Dembski has been fairly inactive of late, so any news tends to round out the article; and
 * 2) this is the first I've heard of the IDM attempting to venture into the business world.

Replace dembski image with GFDL
We have Image:Wad by wre 20060317 2972.JPG shouldn't we just use that since that's a GFDL pic? JoshuaZ 19:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Dembski and KvD trial

 * "Dembski withdrew from the trial prior to testifying."

The article statement is true, but not as precise as it could be. Dembski's withdrawal was announced on Friday, June 10, 2005, just before his scheduled deposition on Monday, June 13, 2005. He had, at that point, contributed one expert report and one rebuttal report. A rebuttal report to Dembski's expert report was filed by the plaintiffs and prepared by Jeffrey O. Shallit. It was unclear even just before the trial how much the defense would rely upon Dembski's ideas, even if Dembski were not present, and so the plaintiffs kept Shallit on their list of witnesses. The defense requested the removal of plaintiffs's experts Forrest and Shallit in a motion in limine prior to the trial; the judge denied it in Forrest's case and deferred a decision in Shallit's case since the plaintiffs said that at the time they did not plan to call Shallit unless Dembski's ideas were made a large issue at trial. While Dembski's ideas about "design-detection" were mentioned during the trial testimony, the plaintiffs did not feel those mentions warranted bringing in Shallit to rebut them. --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This issue is covered in a bit more detail in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. I'm not sure that Dembski's non-appearance really needs much more detail here. The Forrest quote: "Dembski 'escaped critical scrutiny by not having to undergo cross-examination' when he withdrew from the case on June 10." pretty much says it all. He cut and ran, the exact details of how he did so really don't matter, what does matter was that he didn't think his claims would stand up to cross-examination. I would place fairly long odds against Dembski ever putting his ideas (and his ego) on the line in a venue where he can be cross-examined. Hrafn42 17:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I still think that a change to "Dembski withdrew from the trial prior to being deposed." would be appropriate. --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've put wording to that effect in the mention of his withdrawal in the "Views and statements" section. Have also deleted the duplicated mention of his withdrawal from 'Uncommon Descent'. Hrafn42 02:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that he later went on to confront the Thomas More Law Center until they paid him around $20K for his time spent on the Dover trial is notable as well. Odd nature 20:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is worth including. Can we find a WP:RS for it? Hrafn42 03:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Having a look. Panda's Thumb article, Denyse O'Leary blog. Haven't found a mainstream media source yet. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

More on Baylor & EIL
The Chronicle of Higher Education is now reporting on this here (unfortunately behind a subscription wall, so we can't get the full story -- if somebody can find a link to the full article, it'd be useful). Pharyngula picks it up here, and apparently Dembski's involvement extended to a weird sort of post-doc, with an office etc. In the course of the article Dembski apparently also discusses just how odious he made himself at Baylor. All useful stuff, if we can get a hold of it. Hrafn42 07:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * being behind a toll barrier is be no reason why it cannot be used. There is no restriction whatsoever to sources that are available without charge, by repeated decisions at WP:RS and AfD and the RS noticeboard. It's a published source--and is available in most large libraries free in print format in any case.  I've added it.  I have the article, however, and it does not really discuss much on Dembski, except to say "Mr. Marks's chief collaborator in this research is William A. Dembski, who started a center for the study of intelligent design at Baylor in 1999. Members of Baylor's faculty strongly objected to the center, and it was eventually dismantled"   DGG (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I prefer not to insert references into an article until I know what they in fact say. As you have read it, and are confident that it supports the statement, I'm more than happy that it's in -- the other ref was rather borderline on WP:RS but the best that I had access to at the time. Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 17:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

More on this from the Discovery Institute. Mostly blather, but does reveal that:

This is getting weirder & weirder. I would love to get full details of this incident from a reliable source. Hrafn42 11:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dembski appears to be spinning this like mad, and the Baptist Press has swallowed it hook line & sinker: I.D. rift hits Baylor again. Hrafn42 12:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Still more bizzareness in this case -- the money for Dembski's post-doc came from Biologic Institute researcher Brendan Dixon. This incident is getting just too crazy, and it may be worth waiting for the dust settles before writing anything significant. Hrafn42 05:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

opinion
WP cannot states as its own opinion that he has "contributed little to these fields" (mathematics & science), true though it is. I have removed the statement. The source used to support it is a blog, and that is also unusable for a negative statement about BLP, even if the author was a reputable scientist. . I can think of another way to do it, which is to list his most cited scientific papers, which is reporting an objective fact. DGG (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Shallit comment should be referenced directly, to his Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District‎ expert report (the source of the quote), not to the PT. I'll track down a ref for it. Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 16:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Done Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 16:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma University
Dembski's recent foray at Oklahoma University appears to have been an something of a Waterloo & generated considerable coverage on the blogosphere, e.g. at Pharyngula, at ERV & at another blog. Apparently there was a full page anti-Dembski ad & three Op-Eds (one supportive, two opposing) in the local student newspaper, The Daily Oklahoman. If somebody can track this newspaper down, it might prove a WP:RS for some coverage. Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 05:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Managed to track down the student paper. It has two articles: an op-ed from a chem/biochem prof who attended, 'IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY' REFLECTS HUMAN IGNORANCE & a 'Your Views' piece, WHY REAL SCIENTISTS SCOFF AT WILLIAM DEMBSKI. I don't know if either are particularly useful for the article, but did like the concluding remarks in the former:

After considering his academic qualifications, I attended Dembski’s lecture with the expectation that I would hear a serious theoretician consider the logical and scientific aspects of an important topic: the origins of biological systems on planet Earth. As a researcher who understands the biochemistry that was the main subject of the lecture, I was surprised to find the discussion much less substantive than I anticipated. It was a bit more like the naive questions of a teenager than the keen insights of an erudite philosopher. HrafnTalkStalk 07:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dembski's talk at the University of Oklahoma got some good play also at the blog Ontogeny (see http://mattdowling.blogspot.com/2007/09/evolution-news-roundup-september-25.html). One thing which was particularly important about this event was that it was the first time (according to Dembski) that a full-page newspaper ad was taken out against him. The next issue of the National Center for Science Education newsletter should have a piece or two about Dembski's debacle in Oklahoma, as well. I would add stuff about this to this entry, but since I myself wrote both the full-page ad (with help from various faculty members) and one of the pieces to appear in the NCSE newsletter, I'm not sure it would be ethical for me to do so. Dicksonlaprade 22:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dembski & EIL in the article
The 'Activities since 2001' now has two paragraphs on this:

...and now:

Can I suggest merging these into:

While it is correct that the website is registered to Dembski, he also apparently had an office in Baylor as part of this project, so it is inaccurate to state that the lab "consisted just of a website". HrafnTalkStalk 09:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dembksi's office was part of a dept. at Baylor, not the lab. Since the Evolutionary Informatics Lab had no other assets in its name other than a website, saying the lab "consisted just of a website" is accurate. This point has been widely reported BTW at Pandas Thumb and elsewhere, so it's verifiable. If it is verifiable, it's a very notable point that this "lab" had just a website, not a physical site, so it should stay in. Odd nature 18:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dembski was there under some weird post-doc arrangement funded by Brendan Dixon to work for this project. Having a post-doc working on it is surely more than a website. In research, it's what funding you have, not what assets you have. Many astronomy departments won't own their own observatories for instance. HrafnTalkStalk 18:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You should also include in your change that Marks founded the lab with help from Dembski and DI backing, according to this source: That the DI was helping Dembksi bankroll his position at the lab with cash from Brendan Dixon is a pretty important point. Odd nature 18:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Though we should be careful to include the form that PT cites as well, backing up this claim. HrafnTalkStalk 18:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * permit Marks to resume work in the informatics lab


 * Is there some verifiable source that indicates that there *is* a physical lab space for Marks to work in? So far as I can tell, the EIL is a consortium of individuals working in their spare time on writing, not an actual place in the Baylor physical plant.


 * I'll also note that the listed "publications" of the EIL are down from 3 to 2. One was removed due to a pretty basic error in a script used to generate numbers for their analysis. Another one also has a mistake basic to its analysis, where one of the authors got a heads-up that it was an error seven years ago. --Wesley R. Elsberry 05:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Baylor Lariat article noting issue over research content. Another Baylor Lariat article also bringing up EIL research content. I'm looking for feedback concerning adding the information about withdrawal of 1/3 of the research content associated with the EIL. If there's no substantive objection, I'll edit that in later on. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes to "Activities since 2001"
Hi,

Twice I tried to make the following changes, which apparently are controversial. Comments?

The paragraph on Ann Coulter is out of order chronologically. I moved it and toned down the language in one sentence.

The paragraph on the current Baylor controversy is no longer accurate. Baylor retracted its offer to let him host the website with a disclaimer. See for example note 23 (among several notes that reflects this update) in my update, which is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_A._Dembski&oldid=163506550.

Finally, I added to the beginning of the paragraph a summary of WD's recent activities, since that is what the section is about.

I'd appreciate comments. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.120.22 (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm reverting this cruft -- there is no "theory of evolutionary algorithms" -- just a bunch of flawed modelling. See WP:WTA. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 08:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And reverting again. First, this leaves false info about Baylor (see above). Second, I did not say that Dembski "had a theory" or such, so your link to the discussion of the word "theory" is irrelevant. Third, I did not say his work was accurate or useful. Evolutionary algorithms are a branch of computer science. They have an associated theory. Dembski is doing work in this field. If you feel that his work is useless, feel free to add footnotes to relevant articles to that effect. This section is about what Dembski is currently doing. This is what he is currently doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.84.18 (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather embarrassingly, however, the last 3 sections have disappeared, and all my efforts won't restore them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.84.18 (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I took care of that for you. &mdash; Dave (Talk | contribs) 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you.--128.36.147.159 21:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography section
This section appears to contain a mess of obscure stuff -- journal articles, encyclopedia entries, etc. I'm intending going through it and weeding out the worst offenders. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 15:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Update
BU had role in Dembski return Nov. 16, 2007, looks informative.... dave souza, talk 11:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Unevenly informed I would say -- failing to note that Dixon, despite his protestations to the contrary, works at the Biologic Institute, which has strong ties to the DI, and that his foundations donations to the DI made up slightly over 70% of their donations for 2006 (so they were hardly one of many). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 12:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Linkfarm
Well, I went to go remove the linkfarm in Dembski's article, but apparently there are some underlying problems with just leaving the first couple. Perhaps a discussion's needed on which ones to remove, I'm sure we don't need this many. Wizardman 15:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm the one that reverted you, but I agree with the total count problem. I think that keeping Shallit's link is important. Out of fairness, we need to keep links to his blog. The review of No Free Lunch from biosystems is important . The Christianity Today article seems to be pretty tangential, being more about Baylor than Dembski, so I'd kill that. I'd kill all the audio/video links.Kww 15:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Per WP:UNDUE, I think the list should be pared down to his official website, his official blog, his DI bio & the most prominent and/or scholarly of his critics (e.g. Mark Perakh, David Wolpert, H. Allen Orr, Jeffrey Shallit, Elliot Sober). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright. I'll let you two come to a consensus on this, since it doesn't seem like one would be a problem. So long as there's no undue weight and they're knocked down to single digits (if we can, if that's not possible then no big deal), then it'll be good. Wizardman  17:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a first run of a clearance on the above basis -- will include the deleted references here as a subsection, to allow easier debate of any that may need re-insertion:

Pro-Dembski

 * Articles by Dembski
 * ARN articles
 * Chat with William Dembski
 * ChristianityToday's outline of what it terms "the William A. Dembski debacle"
 * Intelligent Design at Baylor University: Chronicle of a Controversy by Dembski
 * Intelligent Design at Baylor University: Chronicle of a Controversy by Dembski

Criticising Dembski

 * The anti-evolutionists; William Dembski
 * Critique of Dembski's No Free Lunch by Richard Wein from the talk.origins archive
 * The Advantages of Theft Over Toil by John Wilkins and Wesley R. Elsberry, one of the few critiques of Dembski's ideas that is a peer-reviewed publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesley R. Elsberry (talk • contribs) 08:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems a reasonable candidate for insertion (so I'm inserting it) -- but this is a section of removed links, so I would recommend that any further proposed links be placed in a new section below (otherwise they may be missed). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 09:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Audio and video

 * The Diane Rehm Show. Dembski debates Eugenie C. Scott, director of National Center for Science Education
 * Interpreting Evolution: Scientific and Religious Perspectives, Haverford, June 2001
 * A debate between William Dembski and skeptic Michael Shermer
 * Ruse vs. Dembski on Nightline
 * Intercollegiate Studies Institute Debate, Dembski vs. Silver

Dembski's description as a mathematician
That's pretty much a pro-ID biography. Dembski is not a mathematician (or he wouldn't have written "No Free Lunch"), and is not notable as a philospher. He is first and foremost a proponent of ID, and uses the other titles to make that seem respectable.Kww (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is his own biography, is it not? Is it not an acceptable source?  CruftCutter (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If he wrote it, contributed to it, or it was written by people that had an incentive to inflate his credentials, no. He has never functioned as a "mathematician", and does not make contributions to peer-reviewed journals on mathematics. He is a pseudoscientist, so you have to be extremely wary of credential inflation, especially those coming from pseudoscientific organizations like the Discovery Institute.Kww (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume you're referring to this edit in which I reference in the edit summary http://www.designinference.com/biosketch.htm. I apologize if this is wrong, but it may be because you just referred to the Disocvery Institute.  (Does the Discovery Institute run designinference or something).  In any event, I am not sure it matters.  Grigori Perelman doesn't make contributions to peer-reviewed journals on mathematics, either, but he was educated in mathematics.  It looks like Dembski actually writes books that are published.  Do you have a pointer to some policy on when a person may and many not be referred to as a mathematician?  CruftCutter (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just added a    to the article to attract other thoughts on this matter.  CruftCutter (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify the point of discussion, for people watching. CruftCutter changed the lead from William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18 1960) is an American mathematician, philosopher, theologian, proponent of intelligent design, author and keeper of the intelligent design blog Uncommon Descent to William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18 1960) is an American mathematician, philosopher, theologian, author and keeper of the intelligent design blog Uncommon Descent. I've proposed William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American proponent of intelligent design, author and keeper of the intelligent design blog Uncommon Descent, with degrees in mathematics and theology and William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American proponent of intelligent design, philosopher, theologian, author and keeper of the intelligent design blog Uncommon Descent, with degrees in mathematics and theology. I object mildly to describing Dembski as a mathematician, and strongly feel that the lead must start with proponent of intelligent design, because that is the only reason anyone has ever heard of him.Kww (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought it was more. I agree that he is a proponent of ID.  So is the current version okay, then?  (I think it is a bit redundant, but the ID blog doesn't necessary mean it is a pro-ID.  CruftCutter (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed totally disputed, since you seem to only want him described as an ID proponent first. If you still object to the mathematician part, go ahead and throw the     tag back in the article. CruftCutter (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel describing Dembski as a mathematician does a real disservice to Wiki readership. It's very misleading. I'm familiar with the subject matter and as a reader I find it somewhat insulting.  For instance I know very well that virtually no one in the field of mathematics even knows who dembski is. Those who do have pointed out how clueless/mistaken Dembski is.  What makes him noteworthy is his ID advocacy, period.  He teaches bible classes at a bible college, nothing noteworthy there. He has not published anything noteworthy in the field of philosophy.  I suppose you could argue the value of his theological contributions.  Many people write apologetics yet they do not have a Wiki artcle (rightfully so).  As is the introduction describes someone far more accomplished than Dembski actually is.  He is not a philosopher, not a mathematician and not much of a theologian.  Just because someone has a college degree does not mean they automatically become noteworthy in that field.  Am I missing something here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I just corrected the intro to something that can be verified. If one of you cowboys wants to revert my change please offer some reliable evidence that demsbki is in fact a mathematician, philosopher and theologian.  As I said, just because one has earned a degree in a certain field does not make them noteworthy in it.  The intro should be what demsbki is known for, not what degrees he's earned.  I hope this makes sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess what i'm trying to say is the intro should not read like a puffed up resume or a puffed up press release, and we need not lists his degrees there either. The intro should reflect what he is most known for.  The ONLY thing he is known for is his ID advocacy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I made another edit to the intro using this logic:


 * What he is = an ID proponent
 * What he's done = write books on a variety of topics


 * I think this gives the intro a far more precise summary of who he is and what he does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

From Dembski's CV:
 * Degrees
 * M.S. - statistics - University of Illinois at Chicago - 1983
 * S.M. - mathematics - University of Chicago - 1985
 * Ph.D. - mathematics - University of Chicago - 1988
 * Dissertation
 * Mathematics: "Chaos, Uniform Probability, and Weak Convergence"
 * Fellowships
 * National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship
 * for psychology and mathematics, 1982-1985
 * McCormick Fellowship (University of Chicago)
 * for mathematics, 1984-1988
 * National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship
 * for mathematics, 1988-1991
 * Academic Experience
 * Lecturer, University of Chicago, Department of Mathematics
 * teaching undergraduate mathematics, 1987-1988
 * Visiting Fellow, MIT, Department of Mathematics
 * research in probability theory, 1988
 * Visiting Fellow, University of Chicago, James Franck Institute (physics)
 * research in chaos & probability, 1989
 * Research Associate, Princeton University, Department of Computer Science
 * research in cryptography & complexity theory, 1990
 * 1986-88--University of Chicago and Cornell--Calculus and Precalculus

So, why, exactly, do are we saying that he is not a mathematician? Are we setting an awfully high burden of proof for this fact? If this was anyone save Dembski, and there wasn't so much emotional investment in whether he is this or that, his credentials as a mathematician would be pretty much beyond all doubt, based on the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.101.181 (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He's clearly notable as an ID proponent, and that comes first. Preceding it by describing him as a mathematician gives undue weight to his "eminence" in that field. However, the paragraph appropriately goes on to note that he's written about maths – that can be extended to cover the above in a concise way. .. dave souza, talk 08:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dave. He is primarily known as an ID-advocate/pseudomathematician, secondarily as a Theologian/Apologist. Any notability as a mathematician comes in a very distant third as, unlike the first two, he has neither done any significant work in the field, nor done anything recently -- I note that there's nothing in 76.18.101.181's list that dates from after 1991. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 09:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with reality, Dembski has not been involved in the math world for at least 18 years. Look at the dates provided.  And 18-20 years ago he was not notable for anything.  Dembski is ONLY notable for his IDC advocacy and other forms of fringe pseudoscience and quackery (bible codes for one).  There is more evidence that he is a movie producer (farty videos) than he's a maths guy.  Without ID/creationism Dembski would not be notable at all, he'd be just another bible teacher at a bible college.  Angry Christian (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole paragraph should be deleted "Computer scientist and number theorist Jeffrey Shallit states in an expert report that despite common claims in the popular and religious press, Dembski is not a scientist by any reasonable standard, has not published any experimental or empirical tests of his claims, submitted his claims to the scrutiny of his peers or published in a scientific journal. In a footnote Shallit states that he does not consider mathematics to be science. Shallit describes Dembski's published mathematical output as "extremely small" for a research mathematician, and remarks that "it is very unlikely that his meagre output would merit tenure at any major university".[48]"

It is total POV from the author, and it is included only to make the claim Dembski is unqualified. He has shown his qualification by receiving a masters degree in mathmatics from a major accredited university. This whole paragraph is Shallit's opinion, and as such should not have made it into the Wiki. Here is a website showing Dembski's PHD in Mathmatics. Shallit may not like Dembski's POV on darwinism (which shows through in his editiorial) but he cannot take away Dembski's earned doctorate.

If there is no discussion of why this paragraph about a living person should stay, I will delete in in a couple of days.notoadultery 01:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notoadultery2 (talk • contribs)


 * If you add something to a year-old section, don't be surprised if no one notices it - especially when you are also adding new sections. You seem to misunderstand WP:NPOV - it doesn't mean that everything written in Wikipedia must be neutral (see WP:NPOV/FAQ).  Shallit's opinion here is notable, and thus is included.  Guettarda (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * [ Deleted per WP:BLP ]. It is also incorrect, unless you are stating that universities are just giving out doctorates. Just because Shallit has a low opinion of Dembski does not make it notable.notoadultery 02:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notoadultery2 (talk • contribs)
 * I think you really need to study the meanings of words like "libel" before you throw them around that way. I also think you really need to grasp that Dembski's work is not respected by any credible people involved in either mathematics or biology, and that is going to be reflected in any decent reference work, Wikipedia included.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If Shallit's sworn deposition in the Kitzmiller case was "actually libel", it should be easy to find some reliable sources supporting this position. In keeping with our policy on articles about living people please provide reliable sources to support your claim, or remove it.  Thanks.  Guettarda (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006139.cfm

Interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Has Dembski indicated what scientific method he used to determine the intelligent designer was in fact the god of christianity? Did he use the filter thingy to reach this scientific conclusion? Just curious. What "design inferance" lead him to believe this? Did the bible code help him conclude the intelligent designer is the god of christianity? Is there a cross or something tattooed on the bacterial flagellum? Knowing what scientific method he used to determine this would be highly relevant to the article I think. So far I have been unable to find anything that sheds light on the subject. Maybe I'm wrong but it appears Dembski tries to make the evidence fit his preconceived conclusion, which is not science at all. On a related subject, since Wells and Dembski co-wrote Pandas and People III, does Well's think the intelligent designer is the god of christianity too, or does he think the initelligent designer is the god of Sun Myung Moon? So many unanswered questions....Angry Christian (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Section Renaming
The former "Plagiarism Controversy" has been renamed idiosyncratically as "Controversy over unauthorized re-use of material", with a comment that "Dembski's lawyer" had insisted on the change. I don't see anything here on the talk page substantiating that there has been communication with "Dembski's lawyer", whoever that may be. If there is actually an issue with using the word "plagiarism", then the real phrases to pick from would be "copyright infringement controversy" or "intellectual property controversy". --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It came through the OTRS, and they don't discuss much. It's the office that receives things like legal threats for Wikipedia, and the user that made the change is an admin, so I don't doubt the need for the change. How does "misuse of intellectual property controversy" sound to you?Kww (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, OTRS doesn't always verify that we have either a legal or a Wikipedia policy based reason to change something. In this case, since the sources use the term "plagiarism" I'm inclined to go tell Dembski's lawyers to go complain to the sources. In the meantime, I'd suggest that the title "Accusations of Plagiarism" may actually be the most NPOV description. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What about alleged plagiarism? Alleged copyright infringement? Purported plagiarism is more alliterative. I don't want to get lawyers riled up, but the sources say what the sources say.--Filll (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright controversy is also alliterative and has a nice ring to it.--Filll (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Copyright infringement controversy" would appear to be the most accurate and concise title. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright issues aside, Dembski did not claim to have created the material himself, and no one has accused him of that. It's the sort of minor semantic difference that lawyers thrive on. Dembski can be, and is, criticized for many things, but what he did with that material can by no means be considered plagiarism. DS (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I'd heard, the video had all information as to its true source stripped out and Dembski's own voiceover placed over the top of it, giving the strong impression that it was his own -- that comes very close to plagiarism. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "A voiceover", probably not Dembski's (it was compared to "Big Gay Al"). Guettarda (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"the Isaac Newton of information theory" vs "genius" & "one of the most talented men I’ve ever met"
That Koons called Dembski "the Isaac Newton of information theory" has received considerable notice, including in scholarly sources:
 * Creationism's Trojan Horse
 * Doubting Darwin?: Creationist Designs on Evolution, by Sahotra Sarkar

On the flip side, I could find no source, other than the interview itself, which mentioned Marks calling Dembski "one of the most talented men I’ve ever met". As for the "genius" claim, this is what Marks actually said:

It is clear from this that Marks isn't calling Dembski a "genius" in any global sense, but simply at writing for a lay audience. In this I think Marks is wrong -- Dembski has a well-documented habit of throwing needless pseudomathamatics into his books, which adds nothing, but looks impressive. But regardless, Marks did not baldly call him a genius. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The description of Dembski as "the Isaac Newton of information theory" does suggest a belief in astrology and the occult, but doesn't hold up as Newton was pretty good at mathematics and physics. .. dave souza, talk 10:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I call peacock. Jefffire (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is, I think, the blatant absurdity of the peacockery that has made it noteworthy. It is emblematic of the unrealistic mutual-admiration & egotism that runs rampant in ID circles. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 10:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Perakh quote/piecemeal treatment of writings
I think this quote (originally here, but also quoted in Creationism's Trojan Horse, p 118) sums up Dembski perfectly:

Unfortunately, I can't find anywhere in the article for it to go. The article currently treats Dembski's writings in a very piecemeal fashion, so there's nowhere that it sits neatly. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 10:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the "piecemeal" treatment of the Dembski writings is that most writings quoted about Dembski are opinion editorial-like prosie that have no place on any legitimate or self respecting encyclopedia. I am beginning to realize that wikipedia is no more than a self serving and irrational forum for so-called sourced information--all debating the validity of each bias. Wikipedia is an intellectual "4chan". Your article and quotation has no validity and I am moving to censor all of this. Free information does not mean "free-source" and "free-opinion". I am rather infuriated. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's because your opinions differ from those of reliable third party sources that have published information about Dembski, as required by verifiability policy and no original research policy. Wikipedia is not censored, and to gain consensus for changes you will probably find it most useful to make proposals for changes in a new section on this talk page, with sources as recommended in the talk page guideline. Thanks, . . dave souza, talk 08:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:VALID A vital component: good research Balance Impartial tone Characterizing opinions of people's work WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:VALID means we should not "give equal validity" to Dembski's pseudomathematical pseudoscientific claims in comparison to the views of genuine scientists and prominent mathematicians. See for example William Dembski's treatment of the No Free Lunch theorems is written in jello. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"the Discovery Institute emphasises Dembski's credentials as a mathematician"
See a pattern? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 16:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "A mathematician and philosopher, William A. Dembski ... Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, philosophy, and theology journals ..."
 * "...mathematician and philosopher William Dembski’s..."
 * "...mathematician and philosopher William Dembski..."


 * Yes. What I don't see is the word scientist, which is what the main text says. Also, I don't see any reason to suggest that mathematician is being emphasised over philosopher. Is it just because that word comes first that you feel it has more emphasis? If so, I think that is a strange notion, and would be interested to know what others think about that. Finally, I suspect that you are purposefully using the WP:WTA word 'although' juxtaposed with 'emphasis' to introduce non-encyclopeadic derision of this man because of your personal views. It seems obvious to me that you have an axe to grind . As I have not, I will not revert your last edit, but hope someone else does. (PS You seem to have messed up the references section for Mozilla Firefox users. I'm not sure to fix it). Mannafredo (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Scientist" is more problematic from current sources (but wasn't a point you had previously been arguing). My suspicion is that the DI may leave this more flimsy claim for the Christian press to make on Dembski's behalf. "Philosopher" is also being emphasised, but legitimately (as he currently works as a 'Research Professor of Philosophy'), unlike mathematics (an area that he hasn't worked in since his post-doc days). You haven't attempted to remove "although" to date (as far as I can tell) -- you merely complained about it in an edit summary changing something else. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 13:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My previous points have been about the word 'emphasises' (and 'touts' prior to that) which relates to both mathematician and scientist. DI claims may well be flimsy (and I think you'll find the the overwhelming majority of Christian press have little or no regard for this man), but whilst adding references to show they are regarded as flimsy by prominent others is okay, placing your own bias in an encyclopaedic article is not. I don't have a great personal problem with the word 'although' on its own, or when used with a dormant word like 'lists'. The problem with 'emphasises' is that it is a relative word. Tell me, 'mathematics' is emphasised relative to what? Not 'philosopher', as you say. If you emphasise everything, then nothing is emphasised. That means the word has no meaning, becomes weasily and inappropriate. There is nothing wrong with using the word 'lists' in its place, and I argue that it is much more suitable. It in no way lightens the inference that this man is claiming academic prominence that he can not justify. Mannafredo (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Todd Bentley Story

 * OK, here's the thing. Dembski's recollections of going to see Lakeland Revival/Bentley are published as a FIRST PERSON editorial on the blog of that Baptist newspaper website. That doesn't meet any 3rd-party verification that I've read, and this is a BLP - higher standards, not lower. It should be out.


 * Dembski himself referred to this Bentley story as "OFF THE TOPIC" on his own blog. It just doesn't belong. My two cents. &#124;EBY&#124; (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * [The above comment was copy-and-pasted from the Todd Bentley talk page] Quote from WP:PSTS: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care..." Dembski's own words from an article by him in the Baptist Press are ok. Furthermore, if you actually take time to read this article then you'll note that much of this is source from Dembski's blog. Do you want those removed too?


 * The fact that Dembski went to a faith healing revival maybe of interest to people trying to understand the man and his beliefs. We66er (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to restore it if there are no objections. We66er (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Restored. We66er (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Public speaking
Should we include something about his public speaking? We66er (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We could, but the information on it is likely to be fragmentary/'snap-shot' -- so it may be difficult to develop a coherent section on the general topic. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 07:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but mention of his public speaking and criticisms about it would be a relevant issue. We66er (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a mention in along with him attending creationist conferences. We66er (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Demise of the Explanatory Filter
William Dembski has repudiated his "explanatory filter". My article provides a quote and link to Dembski's statement:


 * (1) I’ve pretty much dispensed with the EF. It suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not. Straight CSI is clearer as a criterion for design detection.

--Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

no peer-reviewed publications?
I'm a mathematician who thinks that ID is a complete load of crap. However, let's get this article correct. The article states: "Although the Discovery Institute emphasises Dembski's credentials as a mathematician and scientist,[46][47] he has no peer reviewed scientific publications and no recent mathematical publications.[48]" where [48] is a pointer to his CV. However, on page 9 of that CV, the first paper listed under 1990 is definitely peer-reviewed since the Journal of Theoretical Probability is a serious journal that reviews all submissions. I verified this paper is in the journal as listed. The second one under 1990 is almost certainly also peer-reviewed; I'm only not 100% sure because the journal placed it in a section "Comments, conjectures, and conclusions" that I'm not familiar with. Probably these two papers are outcomes of his PhD work. For this reason I am changing "no peer reviewed scientific publications" to "very few peer reviewed scientific publications". If that's not good enough, change it further but don't put back the claim that is wrong. McKay (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * These are mathematical, not science publications -- so they don't contradict "no peer reviewed scientific publications", and they are approx 19yo -- so they don't contradict "no recent mathematical publications". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Mathematics is a branch of science according to almost everyone. If you want to clarify the meaning of the sentence, feel free, but you can't have "no peer reviewed scientific publications" because that is factually incorrect. The statement "no recent mathematical publications" is not under dispute and I didn't change it. McKay (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The first paper is pure mathematics and some people might say it isn't science (but I disagree and most scientists would disagree). The second one is about Brownian motion which is a key physical phenomenon and I doubt any scientist at all would dispute that it is science.  How about this as a more precise statement: "he has no peer reviewed scientific or mathematical publications other than two mathematical papers in 1990" ? McKay (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, mathematics is methodologically a subset of logic and thus of philosophy, and makes no use of the scientific method, making the two quite distinct epistemologically, and thus it is quite common to distinguish the two, as the sentence explicitly does by talking separately about his mathematical and scientific publications. This distinction is also made by Jeffrey Shallit in his pre-trial statement. Brownian motion is both a physical phenomenon and an abstract stochastic process. If analysed purely from the latter viewpoint, it is a purely statistical paper. Only if it explicitly analyses physical phenomena would it, from the viewpoint of making the above distinction, be considered scientific. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Further, the distinction is an important one to make from the viewpoint of describing Dembski, as much (all?) of his claims are made from the viewpoint of abstract mathematics without any real consideration of their applicability to the physical phenomena (and thus to the science analysing said phenomena) he is attempting to prove impossible. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but your personal opinion of mathematics is beside the point. I didn't say I think mathematics is a branch of science, I said according to almost everyone it is a branch of science.  And that is a plain fact, whether or not you or I agree.  As evidence I note that all the dictionaries I could find in 10 minutes of searching (including standard ones like Oxford and Meriam-Webster) define mathematics as a science. Your personal analysis of Dembski's claims is also inadmissible here.  I am not here to defend Dembski (I think his work is complete nonsense), I am only here to correct text in the article which will mislead a lot of readers.  In this regard the relevant consideration is what people generally think science encompasses, not what you believe about it.   While we on this passage, the other part I didn't dispute before "no recent mathematical publications" is clearly an opinion, since many of his recent publications have an overt mathematical appearance (they use formulas etc). An opinion that these recent publications are not mathematics must be sourced according to the rules.
 * In summary, what is objectively true is that his peer-reviewed publications amount exactly to two old mathematical papers. That is what the article should say. McKay (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but your personal opinion that it is merely my personal opinion that mathematics is not a science is WRONG. Shallit expresses exactly the same distinction when he states of Dembski that "he possesses no advanced degrees in any scientific field. His advanced degrees are in philosophy, theology, mathematics and statistics.". This stricter usage is supported by both Science, and the OED (online edition, 5b): "In modern use, often treated as synonymous with ‘Natural and Physical Science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use." (my emphasis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs) 13:45, 2 March 2009
 * So, we've a source specifically describing Dembski's maths as not science. It's original research to argue that some common dictionaries have a different definition, to avoid that we'd need a reliable source making that claim with specific reference to Dembski. Note that given their track record in court, DI related publications or other creationist sources cannot be held to be reliable sources as to what is or is not science. . . dave souza, talk 15:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of this debate is completely irrelevant. The fact is that we have some text in the article that different reasonable people will read in different ways. Regardless of whose reading is right, this is bad encyclopaedia writing and should be fixed. The way to fix it is to use wording that will convey the truth to as many readers as possible. I don't understand Hrafn's opposition to plainly stating the facts. McKay (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:V – verifiability, not The Truth. A wording that distinguishes science from the looser or broader "science plus mathematics" definition might work, but for most people an old maths paper isn't a peer reviewed science publication, in my opinion, and we certainly don't want to mislead people into thinking that Dembski has published scientific work in the usual sense. Got a source relating these issues to Dembski? . . dave souza, talk 22:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am very familiar with the rules, and they support me. The facts (verified by the sources already cited in the article) are as follows: (1) Dembski published two articles in 1990 in the peer-reviewed mathematical literature. (2) Otherwise he has not published any articles at all in the peer-reviewed scientific or mathematical literature.  Do you agree or not agree that this is a correct statement of the verifiable facts?  If you do agree, please explain why you oppose giving this information in the article. McKay (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement was cited to Dembski's CV, and it appeared to me to be original research deciding whether or not the list included peer reviewed scientific publications. I've therefore commented that out, and have revised the article to reflect more closely the various sources, attributing the opinion that Dembski is not a scientist and that maths ain't science directly to Shallit. Hope that's clearer. . dave souza, talk 10:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Amazing, those who apposed to Dembski have this wiki completely full of POV. Dave Souza admits this above, "attributing the OPINION that(sp) Dembski is NOT a scientist...."  It is Souza's and Hrafn's opinion, and as such they edit out any evidence that does not support thier conclusion.  That is PURE POV and most of this wiki does not abide by Wikipedia's rules regarding living people.

Each section goes to great pains to tear down Dembski. These should be saved to a "Controversies" section. This whole wiki needs to be re-written with that in mind. Most of it is pure drivel from an athiestic aspect, funny which group actually is quick to censor! BTW, since scientific journals do not agree with the view point they are wrong, they will not publish papers proving that point, I mean, "unpublishing" a paper once it is found out it is by an anti-darwinist, how bizarre is that? Just to deny a person had a peer reviewed paper. By the way Hrafn, YOU NEED TO GET RID OF THE WIKI ON MATHMATICS, it is opposed to your POV against Dembski here. As a matter of fact the mathmatic wiki even has the audacity to oppose you by stating in the etymology section "The word "mathematics" comes from the Greek μάθημα (máthēma), which means learning, study, science, and additionally came to have the narrower and more technical meaning "mathematical study", even in Classical times."notoadultery 00:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notoadultery2 (talk • contribs)

Peer review, Nature, and UD
I added the following, which was taken down almost immediatly showing that this is indeed an attack wiki on Dembski. I have supporting articles, the reason it was taken down is "Dembski does not hold a NPOV on Peer Review Journals. This wiki is ABOUT Dembski, so his opinion on this subject that is used against him constantly is notable.  I find it interesting his opinion does not count, but those who have a negative POV of Dembski opinions do count? "Dembski's Uncommon Descent Blog published an article about peer review journals publishing papers that are flawed or are fraud [1]. That along with these articles show the problems with the major peer journals, [2][3][4][5][6]. One of the points that is made seems to have merit, that is, if a paper is forwarded that is supportive of the consensis thought of the time (say global warming/climate change) a paper like "Historical phenology: Grape ripening as a past climate indicator"[7] passed muster because it supported the current line of thinking of "a majority of scientists". In their arguments that peer review journals are censoring them, cases like this lend to that argument, especially when there are cases of journals "recalling" a reviewed paper when it was learned an ID proponant was the author. Some are calling the peer review as we know it a process which is no longer workable." notoadultery 04:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm having a hard time following what you wrote there. But to address your addition to the article:
 * Dembski's Uncommon Descent Blog published an article about peer review journals publishing papers that are flawed or are fraud  This is a post at UD by a blogger going by the name "Dave S." It's not clear who this is, or why his opinion is notable here.
 * That along with these articles show the problems with the major peer journals,  Well no, it doesn't, since there's no indication why "Dave S." should be considered a reliable source. But the real question is one of relevance.  What does this have to do with Dembski?
 * One of the points that is made seems to have merit, that is, if a paper is forwarded that is supportive of the consensis [sic] thought of the time (say global warming/climate change) a paper like "Historical phenology: Grape ripening as a past climate indicator" passed muster because it supported the current line of thinking of "a majority of scientists". (Emphasis added). To begin with, the writing here isn't up to the standard that we expect here. Far more important is the bit I bolded: "seems to have merit" is the sort of editorial comment that doesn't belong in an article.  And, of course, there's the question of relevance - what does this have to do with Dembski?
 * In their arguments that peer review journals are censoring them, cases like this lend to that argument, especially when there are cases of journals "recalling" a reviewed paper when it was learned an ID proponant [sic] ''was the author."? This is a totally new idea, it hasn't been discussed in the article prior to this point.  You need to provide context before jumping into a discussion of the issue.  In addition: who are we talking about here?  Who's this "them"?  Dave S?  How does that relate to Dembski?
 * Some are calling the peer review as we know it a process which is no longer workable. What argument "that peer reviewed articles are censoring them". Who are these "some"? Who are "we"?  Again, what does this have to do with Dembski?  Guettarda (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Notoadultery, it is really very simple. You have to stick to material that specifically relates to Dembski, and you have to stick to sources that that meet the WP standard of "reliable source". Your addition failed on both counts. McKay (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles like this, William A. Dembski, are proof to exactly why your wikipedia is considered: biased, unreliable, and irrelevant; consistant arguements against the person being documented are not necessarily the focus of that person's life and there fore, though you and other pro-evolutionists feel so impassioned and unified against the theory of creationism, versus the theory of evolutionism, those arguements against William A. Dembski's arguements should not define this article; many of the arguements made rely by: blogs, media, and though established as professors--opinions less evidence; as an biased and unreliable document, this article must be irrelevant. Of course, as any source may be established as far as wikipedia is concerned--being any word printed "else where", then I will happily "copy and paste" this paragraph with in the sides of your article on William A. Dembski. As far as relevance, this paragraph has as much to do with his life as does the opposition conjecture to his life's works. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See my advice at above, and also note WP:NPOV requirements, particularly WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL. . . dave souza, talk 09:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent Design Origin
This wiki states "Panda's" introduces the term "Intelligent Design" This is a fabrication. I have made numerous attempts to rectify this, yet it is constantly undone in order to bring the worst light on Dembski. Most of the Wiki on Dembski is to try to show him in the worst possible light by those who's POV is he is an evil christian trying to pull the wool over the eyes of unsuspecting people. Most of the wiki about Dembski goes against Wiki policy about biographies on living persons. This whole Wiki needs to be rewritten with a "controversies" section to address controversies. notoadultery 00:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct that Dembski did not invent the phrase "intelligent design". I will change the wording to prevent that misreading.  However I will also delete your editorial comments.  You are not allowed to insert your opinions into the article.  If you think something is biased you can cite some  reliable source giving an alternative opinion.  To avoid an edit war, I suggest you present your editing suggestions here first for discussion.  The main thing to remember is that this page is for discussing the article, not for discussing the topic of the article. McKay (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As I stated before, most of this wiki is anti Dembski POV, and you know it.notoadultery 00:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notoadultery2 (talk • contribs)


 * No. The scientific community is "anti Dembski POV" and this wiki gives WP:DUE weight to this viewpoint. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying the scientific community cannot be wrong? Like the climate change hoax that is going on which the public is now beginning to abandon ? Your comment shows your bias against Dembski. Thus you should recuse yourself from editing here, you are so biased you disagree that mathmatics is a science even though in Wikipedia it shows the greek etimology of the word is defined as, SCIENCE.notoadultery 00:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notoadultery2 (talk • contribs)


 * WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Encyclopaedias print the best scientific knowledge of the time, the don't attempt to second-guess it. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, and no basis for an article (on this or on climate change). Dembski's work has been ridiculed by his peers (including being described as "written in jello" by one of the authors of the 'No Free Lunch' theorems that he named one of his books after). And the meanings of words change considerably over the centuries, so it's Greek derivation is by no means determinative. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's at least an internal consistency in refusing to consider the evolution of the meanings of words.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree with Hrafn. Whether Dembski is correct or not, we must stick to reliable, third-party sources, and the vast majority of them indicate that Dembski is generally inaccurate.   Dembski's own positions already receive due weight within the article.  In addition, Notoadultery, can you honestly say that you are not biased in favor of Dembski?  Your edits would certainly seem to suggest you are.  That being the case, you should recuse yourself from editing here.  Vincent   Valentine  06:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

For Hrafn "Many philosophers believe that mathematics is not experimentally falsifiable, and thus not a science according to the definition of Karl Popper.[22] However, in the 1930s important work in mathematical logic showed that mathematics cannot be reduced to logic, and Karl Popper concluded that "most mathematical theories are, like those of physics and biology, hypothetico-deductive: pure mathematics therefore turns out to be much closer to the natural sciences whose hypotheses are conjectures, than it seemed even recently."[23] Other thinkers, notably Imre Lakatos, have applied a version of falsificationism to mathematics itself." I would consider Popper an authority on Science, although I disagree with his falsifiablilty as part of scientific method (seems to have worked well before Popper came along, besides, falsifiability itself is not falsifiable, if it were it wouldn't be used, and since it is not falsifiable it is not science.).

Oh, and BTW THANK YOU for admitting Dembski is indeed a scientist, I quote you from above "Dembski's work has been ridiculed by his peers (including being described as "written in jello" by one of the authors of the 'No Free Lunch' theorems that he named one of his books after)." By his peers.

Vincent, there is a difference between Hrafn and me. I don't go trolling through pro darwin wiki's just to challenge anything that is written in them. I have seen Hrafn's antics in pro- ID wikis. He likes to quote Dover, as if a judge can judge what is doing science. If that were the case, our side won decades ago in Scopes. The only thing that Dover did was close off a line of study and critical analysis for children in public schools.notoadultery 22:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notoadultery2 (talk • contribs)
 * notoadultery, your fringe point of view is noted and given its due weight in proportion, per WP:WEIGHT. Please learn not to delete properly attributed majority views. . .dave souza, talk 23:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Notoadultery2: <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I made no such 'admission' -- the peer in question is David Wolpert, a mathematician. He goes on to describe Dembski's work as "fatally informal and imprecise" and lacking "sufficient precision of formulation, to allow one to declare unambiguously 'right' or 'wrong' when reading through the argument. All one can do is squint, furrow one's brows, and then shrug." I will however admit that even calling mathematicians his "peers" is a stretch -- as Dembski is accused of being a pseudomathematician as well as a pseudoscientist -- and has never submitted any of his mathematical ID claims (Specified Complexity, Laaw of Conservation of Information) to peer review (though I will note that there are some, early unconfirmed, signs that he may do so with Active Information).
 * 2) To the best of my memory, your claim that you "have seen Hrafn's antics in pro- ID wikis" is false, as (as far as I can remember) I've never posted on "pro- ID wikis". I certainly don't have accounts on any of them (so even if I had posted, it would have had to have been anonymously).


 * I did not mean other wiki, but other subjects here in Wikipedia, I appologize for the personal attacks and will not engage in them again. I do maintain that this article has been fashioned to show Dembski in the worst possible light.  I read last night an article by a mathmatician that was definitely not pro Dembski, but he did state that Dembski was a very good mathmatician. notoadultery 23:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notoadultery2 (talk • contribs)
 * If it's published by a WP:RS that may be something we can cite. However, a well noted scientist comments here. It appears that Dembski's not terribly good at programming, though I'm no expert. . dave souza, talk 23:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I not sure what Dembski is getting at, maybe he is myopic in what is being said. I do know that the "methinks" program is backended to stop when it gets to the desired response. I heard Wilder-Smith explain the typing monkey problem on a tape about 20 years ago (I think).  He explained there was a missing element,they would never be able to type even a paragraph.  The missing element was equalibrium.  Every time they would print a string of characters, the erase button would go back and take away part of the string in random areas.  He related this to amino acid chains, every time one would form an opposing natural element would break it apart.  Not sure if he was giving way to amino acids forming naturally, but I thought it was interesting.  I guess that may be the missing part of Dawkin's program.

It has always amazed me that somehow a program written to prove random selection and then proves it shows how evolution "could" work is actually accepted as proof. It was written by an intelligent being. I also find it interesting we are spending millions of dollars a year searching for extraterrestrials. Some prominent scientists have suggested seeding got life started here (I think because there is no way to get this whole evolutionary chain of events started), even though there is no evidence of extraterrestrials, no one has ever seen them, and we have never heard from them in all the years we've been listening for them. That is ok, yet looking for God is delusional. I think there is a reason why one "fantastical" story is accepted over the other, that is because one does not incur a judgement on our moral choices and the other does. Just some random thoughts.notoadultery 03:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Multiple things: 1.) As for ETs, imagine this scenario: I want to have a lobster dinner. Thus, I open my door and sit at the dinner table, ready to eat.  After a few hours, no lobster has presented itself on my plate for me to eat.  Thus, I conclude lobsters do not exist.  As you can see, absence of contact does not necessarily mean impossibility of contact.  2.) As for your statement "there is no way to get this whole evolutionary chain of events started," several experiments/fields of thought (such as the Miller–Urey experiment, have shown that it might be in fact possible for evolution/life to have gotten started on its own.  Regardless, Darwin's goal was merely to describe an active process, not to explain when/how it started.  3.)  As for searching for God vs. ETs, God seems, by definition, to be incomprehensible and/or unable to be located in this form of existence, thus making locating God a rather tough endeavor.  ETs, on the other hand, by definition, would seem to be creatures that we can likely come in contact with (though not necessarily, i.e. invisibility, etc.).  Just thought I'd illuminate some things.  PS Glad to see you've moved past personal attacks.  This is a cooperative project after all!  Best,  Vincent   Valentine  04:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the venue for our continued discussion...but... My view is on 2.) is all these experiments prove that it takes intelligent agents using their intellects to make these things happen. For the life of me I don't know why this is not a line of reasoning ID proponants are not hitting hard on.  It would be a great subject to submit for peer review.  3.) I searched for God and located Him when I was 19. I talk to Him all the time, and at times He talks to me. Crazy? I don't think so, Great men of history have done the same thing. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Von Braun, Newton (well both of them). I found Him in a book that claims He used men to write what he wanted written, and which showed positive scientific priciples thousands of years before modern science confirmed them. (Washing in running water to stop the spread of disease (Medical science), saying the stars had their own noise and were impossible to count (Astronomy), The wind and water circuits (Meteorolgy)....) I have some examples of him answering some of my requests and questions. I have never seen anyone claim the same thing about ET's. One last thing, as far as peer review, you are incorrect about Dembski not being peer reviewed. I have seen many scientists and mathmaticians peer review his works on the internet. I think that he could learn from those who are giving him hints on (complaining and tearing him down) some of his weaknesses in his arguments, I think he could improve them by taking the critcisms (usually personal against him, BECAUSE of his viewpoint, not because of his arguments, because if he were someone they agreed with, they would be hitting the weak points of his papers, not making it personal.  Granted he has made things personal with some as well.) and reworking where it is due. I hope I am explaining this well. notoadultery 00:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notoadultery2 (talk • contribs)

Deletion and personal attacks
Somebody put a template-style notice on my user talk page calling for speedy deletion of this article and warning me against making personal attacks. What's going on? --Uncle Ed (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * User Notoadultery2 believes this article is a personal attack on William Dembski (not by you). I disagree, though it can be improved as all articles can.  Speedy deletion would of course be ridiculous.  McKay (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Resources or Links
Springer Online First record for Elsberry and Shallit (2009) article in Synthese. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute is the hub of the IDM
I think that's sufficient substantiation for calling it the "hub". Can anybody come up with any contervailing evidence? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * NPR:
 * Evolution vs. creationism: an introduction, Eugenie Scott & Niles Eldredge, p125


 * Agreed. Guettarda (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Dembski's is a fan of Rush Limbaugh
On October 6, 2009 Dembski wrote:

I was just listening to Rush Limbaugh (I trust this radio preference of mine will make it quickly into my Wikipedia entry but that my work with the Evolutionary Informatics Lab will continue to be ignored there; by the way, I also enjoy reading Camille Paglia). In any case, Rush read portions...

Should Dembski's radio preference be included? NovakFan76 (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are we now meatpuppets for Dembski? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * None of this notable. Not his listening to Limbaugh nor his work with EIL. If we get non-trivial independent reliable sources about the EIL then we can maybe add more about that. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. The original creation of the EIL created generated some coverage, its activities since haven't. If we were to include every other public figure a topic merely mentioned they are a fan of, Wikipedia would turn into a social-networking site. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

WEASEL controversy
Self-published sources, including blogs, should not be used to make unduly self-serving (Dembski's claims) claims or about third parties (Pandas Thumb & Goodmath), and especially not in a WP:BLP. In any case, both Dembski blogging that XXX supports ID, and scientists blogging that his claims are complete nonsense, are both far too common to be noteworthy. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The noteworthy thing is, IMO, that there is a peer-reviewed paper by Dembski and Marks. Of course, they will say that it is about intelligent design. That this claim is incorrect isn't surprising, but it is important to show how it is incorrect... DiEb (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, we're here to present evidence, not show how people are wrong. We have an article of ID, we don't need to rehash it here. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

ha ha ha now pull the other one
"William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American mathematician, theologian, and professor of philosophy...." Since when did Bill Dembski become a mathematician? Can I write some insane maths that no one can understand and call myself a mathematician too? I can write book too! if I say "the intelligent designer is jeebus" does that make me a theologian AND a scientist? why can the article not represent reality? dembski is a theologian with a maths degree? or better, he's a crack pot who makes his living misleading people who are not so bright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Read the section "Childhood and Education." It says "He returned to school at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), where he studied psychology (in which he received a B.A. in 1981) and statistics (receiving an M.S. in 1983). He was awarded an M.S. in mathematics in 1985, and a Ph.D., also in mathematics, in 1988, both from the University of Chicago, after which he held a postdoctoral fellowship in mathematics from the National Science Foundation from 1988 until 1991, and another in the history and philosophy of science at Northwestern University from 1992–1993. He was awarded an M.A. in philosophy in 1993, and a Ph.D. in the same subject in 1996, both from UIC, and an M.Div from Princeton Theological Seminary, also in 1996." I'm pretty sure that receiving a degree in Statistics and then a Phd in Mathmatics makes him a mathematician, regardless of what you or I think of him. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

no one said he didn't have a maths degree. can we get a second opinion, or just as well, a reality check? demsbki teaches bible study, works for a church, and writes about jeebuz, oh but wait...he has a phd in maths. THAT makes him a mathematician? what maths of his has been peer-reviewed in a legitimate maths journal in the last 10 years? answer me that, please. name one legitimate mathematician (who is not a christian who is persecuted by da darwinists) that recognizes dembski as a mathematician. i'm all in favor of a reality check here. my point is the reader is being grossly mislead by the intro. grossly mislead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

read the first two paragraphs of mathematician and tell me with a straight face that dembski is a mathematician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Too long?
Okay, I know little to nothing about this guy, nor do I really care (ID isn't a threat to science, it isn't even a good theory... so I wonder why people, on both sides, treat it as such). But when I read through the page, all I notices was "Dembski said this," "critic said that," "Dembski had this response," "Critic responded to his response," "oooh the controversy," "oh the madness." You get the picture. This article is long and draws out so many arguments. This is Wikipedia, not a book on William A. Dembski or an issue of People Magazine. Can any of you come up with a compromise to get the mess sorted out? Like, maybe a few sentences touching the controversies, his ideas, and the criticisms of those ideas, rather than "mainstream science says this," and then a trail of sentences... We all understand that his ideas are fringe theories, I don't think shoving it down a reader's throat more would be a good thing. A link will suffice. And no, I'm not going to be bold. You guys SHOULD be able to compromise. I don't have an account, and no, I'm not really into the business of wanting one. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your helpful critique. You should of course note that ID is a significant threat to science education, particularly in the U.S.. As for the article; Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  . .  dave souza, talk 09:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Move paragraph from introduction or revise?
This is the paragraph in question, the third in the article.

The question of ID being science or theology was put on trial in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover (USA 2005). The key issue was the assertion that ID is faith-based and "junk science" – like creationism. As such, it was unacceptable curriculum in a publicly funded high school. In Judge Jones' 139-page decision on December 20, 2005, he wrote that "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) A controversy arose when Dembski withdrew from giving testimony in the trial and rebuttal witness Shallit was removed from the schedule.[14][15]

To me, this paragraph seems out of place. The standard format that I've seen in most BLP's is to introduce the person in the first part of the article, highlighting the points that have made them notable, etc. I'm not sure why this paragraph is here. Certainly the man is famous because of intelligent design, and that should be noted. But, a commentary on ID itself in introduction? It seems like to me if someone wanted that much information, they could refer to the main article about ID.

Even worse, the guy never actually participated in the trial mentioned in the paragraph. How can that be one of the most important things about his life?

I'm deleting this paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.205.217.77 (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, careful about the removal of so called "weasel words". Tell me, how does an editor for Wikipedia decide that an article has been debunked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.205.217.77 (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:WEASEL. Using "Effort to debunk" while Elsberry obviously debunked Dembski, would require a source to state that. As for the section you removed, I see it as a one of the highlights of Dembski's public career and it seems to fit into the lede nicely - it establishes contect. It could be worded a bit better, though. -- Sander Säde  10:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Original Research
Coming at this as a BIO:LP editor, this article seems to be more about a conceptual debate and less about the subject. That's neither uncommon or necessarily a problem. However, the controversy has affected the article's neutrality and verifiability and at points, the article reads like an amalgam of (original research) term papers. And example of all 3: "While fellow intelligent design proponents have praised Dembski's writing effusively..." This phrase violates WP:BLPSTYLE 10 ways to Friday - it is clearly original research, very challengable without cite, its tone is not disinterested, and is it sophism? A better approach might be... "The book was widely panned by..." with a follow up of "Favorable reviews included..." The subject is a living person and as such there is a higher bar on this article - not lower. EBY (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't gotten very far into the article, but haven't found any OR so far. I've added 3 refs, but stopped short of this one wrt Dembski's "sabbatical," which as told in the article is clearly his accentuating the positive in a decidedly negative situation.  There's no claim Baylor actually gave him a sabbatical, and Panda's Thumb makes that clear as well, but does not have the direct quote.  Does anyone think it should be added?  It doesn't seem quite up to snuff to me.
 * Maybe tomorrow I'll have time to review some of the recent deletions; in a quick scan it seems at least one may have been unwarranted.
 * I'd love to see that tag come off this article!  This man is nationally known, and we should have a trustworthy article for our readers.  --Yopienso (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent design and Christianity
In the Intelligent design and Christianity section, the quote:


 * "The conceptual soundings of the [intelligent design] theory can in the end only be located in Christ"

is wrong and misleading. What he actually says is:


 * "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ."

It is not about Intelligent Design, it's about scientific theory.

Seems to me he's saying two things: a) From an ID stance, yes, it could have been a god, gods, aliens etc. b) From a Christian stance, God, his particular god, is responsible for all things scientific. These two things are not at odds with each other, so he is not being "somewhat inconsistent", as the paragraph states. Mannafredo (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So his answer in some fora is unchristian, in others it's a Christian stance? "ID theory" says sometimes that it could be an unidentified flying alien, and at other times that it can only be "in Christ". Clearly inconsistent in terms of both science and theology, and it didn't stand up in court. . . dave souza, talk 17:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Look at it this way. The last bit of cake has been eaten, and it must have been one of ten people, say, in the room that did it when the lights went out. So the first thing he is saying is ‘somebody must have done it’ which is a true first statement - and is not pro or anti anyone in the room. After a while, for whatever reasons, he decides that he knows who ate the last bit of cake, and sticks with this belief until it is proven wrong. His first statement and subsequent belief are not inconsistent.


 * However, the quote as it appears in this section, is a mis-quote and should be removed or changed. Mannafredo (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we can all agree that is is one of the most perverted things ever said about scientific theory. The quote reads like dark ages mentality. That said, we should clean up the quote. Maybe put the entire quote in the article so the readers can see for themselves how twisted Dembski's (i.e. "intelligent design theory") "logic" is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * While your thoughts on mentality etc. are offtopic WP:SOAP, the principle of showing the entire quote is good. Does someone have access to the book so that they can add it, giving the page number? . dave souza, talk 21:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)