Talk:William A. Dembski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Portal:Creationism
 Creationism Portal
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Archive
Archives
  1. Feb 2005 – Mar 2005
  2. Jul 2005 – Nov 2005

Contents

[edit] "Controversial"

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

There's no denying that Dembski's views are very controversial. 98% of the subjects that have bios here have not stirred things up the way Dembski has. FeloniousMonk 06:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
True, but "what's happened on wikipedia" isn't the same thing as "what tone wikipedia itself should take" (this too shall pass, but articles are forever!) I agree that controversial is something of a sloppy term: while it's certainly factual, applying it to some figures and not others just seems arbitrary. I'm not convinced that there isn't a better, more specific word, though I can't think of what it might be, Plunge 17:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

You keep citing articles that have the word 'theology' in them as if that's proof that he is a theologian... that's just semantics. So, let's look at your list.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for admitting the obvious. Let's see, he has a MA in theology, he's held chairs in theology in several theology depts, and he writes about theology. If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it's likely a... FeloniousMonk 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
First, he does not have an M.A. in Theology. He has an M.Div, which is used by most as a precursor to getting an M.A in Theology. Second, here's a list of every position he's ever held. None of them have been in theology.
  • Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science, Southern Baptist

Theological Seminary, Louisville, June 2005–present

  • Associate Research Professor

, Conceptual Foundations of Science, Baylor University research in intelligent design, 1999–May 2005

  • Fellow, Discovery Institute, Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture

research in complexity, information, and design, 1996–present

  • Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Dallas, Department of Philosophy

teaching introduction to philosophy, 1997–1999

  • Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Notre Dame, Department of Philosophy

teaching philosophy of religion + research, 1996–1997

  • Independent Scholar, Pascal Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

research in complexity, information, and design, 1993–1996

  • Postdoctoral Fellow, Northwestern University, Department of Philosophy

teaching philosophy of science + research, 1992–1993

  • Research Associate, Princeton University, Department of Computer Science

research in cryptography & complexity theory, 1990

  • Postdoctoral Visiting Fellow, University of Chicago, James Franck Institute

research in chaos & probability, 1989

  • Postdoctoral Visiting Fellow, MIT, Department of Mathematics

research in probability theory, 1988

  • Lecturer, University of Chicago, Department of Mathematics

teaching undergraduate mathematics, 1987–1988

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

Still a duck, er theologian. FeloniousMonk 02:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
So, depsite the fact that all of the evidence you presented for Dembski being a theologian was invalidated, you still insist he is a theologian? Augustinian 02:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Now I know you're trolling us. He's educated in theology, he writes extensively on theology, and he's now Professor of Theology and Science, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. By any meaningful definition, Dembski is a theologian. Stop wasting your time and ours. FeloniousMonk 02:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
"He is educated in theology."--Yes, but not to the degree of a theologian. He lacks even an M.A. in Theology. Even C.S. Lewis was not considered a theologian because he had very little theological education. "he writes extensively on theology"--No, he doesn't. None of the articles in the list you provided as evidence for this were about theology. They were all either about intelligent design's implications for theology, or about something entirely different. Can you name even one article Dembski has written that is purely about theology? If not, then what should this tell you about giving him the title 'theologian'. "he's now Professor of Theology and Science, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary"--that was dealt with above. It's on record that Dembski will be teaching ID at in that position.
Also, let's see what the President of SBTS has to say about this: “Dr. Dembski is one of the most skilled philosophers of science in this generation. He is a primary theorist of intelligent design as well as a primary opponent of Darwinism and evolutionary theory ... His name is well-known in the scientific world. This is a new thing for a theological seminary and it is a great thing. We look forward to having Dr. Dembski on this campus.”
Why should this be a new thing for a theological seminary unless Dembski is teaching something other than theology? Augustinian 03:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You're simply ignoring the facts. "Theologian" is defined as: 1) One who is learned in theology. 2) someone who is learned in theology or who speculates about theology (especially Christian theology) [1] Dembski has satified both definitions: he has studied theology, earning a M.Div in Theology as you've pointed out, and he's written extensively on the subject, as shown above. FeloniousMonk 03:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring facts, you're broadening definitions. 1.) Dembski did not earn an 'M.Div in Theology". To my knowledge, no such degree exists. An M.Div is a degree that focuses upon ministerial matters firstly, and theological matter, secondly. That is why many go on to earn M.A.'s in Theology after getting M.Div's. 2.) The definition you gave of theologian would broaden the definition so as to make virtually anyone who has studied theology at all a theologian. This is obviously not restrictive enough. You never responded to the fact that C.S. Lewis was not considered a theologian, despite the fact that he wrote prolifically more on theological topics than Dembski. 3.) Can you recall even one time when Dembski speculated about and exposited a certain Christian doctrine? Have you ever heard him offer his opinions on Substitutionary Atonement or Molinism? No. Why? He doesn't write about those kinds of things; theology is not his field.
The definition I gave unduly broadens the term? Nope. The definition I provided for "theologian" comes from two canonical reference sources: "One who is learned in theology" is taken from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. "Someone who is learned in theology or who speculates about theology" comes from WordNet 2.0, Princeton University. Both are provided at dictionary.com. FeloniousMonk 04:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
So, I suppose that I'm a theologian by the second definition, and that the youth minister at my church is a theologian by the first. So both I and my youth minister are theologians, right? (Also, you have ignored the point I brought up about C.S. Lewis). Augustinian 05:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


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

I see the vigorous denials of the obvious continue apace, so I'll leave Augustinian with Dembski's own words to chew on. From Dembski to head seminary's new science & theology center By Jeff Robinson. Baptist Press. Sep 16, 2004 [2]:

Dembski said he desires to help students understand how science should be understood in terms of Christian theology. Theology, he said, underpins all of his views of science and intelligent design.

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

"Theology is where my ultimate passion is and I think that is where I can uniquely contribute ... I am looking forward to engaging students and theological students have always been my favorite to deal with because for theology students, it's not just a job, but a passion, especially at a place like Southern, because they want to change the world." --From Dembski to head seminary's new science & theology center --William Dembski [3]

Now I expect Augustinian is not about to let something as plainly obvious as a direct quote change his mind on a topic he's already obviously made up his mind about. But this, taken with the other evidence presented here, is convincing enough for objective editors to conclude that Dembski is indeed a theologian by definition. FeloniousMonk 05:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

To Guettarda: I have already addressed everything you've said above. It would be an undue burden on me to repeat everything I've said. One thing about the M.Div though; there seems to be a lot of confusion about it. The M.Div is a pastoral degree. It teaches you enough about ministry to become a pastor, and the basics of theology. Those who go on to pursue advanced degrees in theology are almost always required to pick up a Masters in Theology as well, because the M.Div is pastoral rather than academic.
To FeloniusMonk: Thanks for ignoring my query about C.S. Lewis for the fourth time in a row. Please respond to it, next go-round. As for Dembski's quote, while it does show exactly what it says, that Dembski's worldview and everything he does is undergirded by his theology, this doesn't show much. There are scientists, historians, psychologists, etc. on my campus who have said the same thing. But it doesn't follow that they are theologians any more than it follows that Dembski is. My campus is a Christian campus, and many of the professors who are in fields other than theology have degrees in theology (like M.Div's, for instance), but will not, for an instant, claim to be 'theologians'. My pastor (D.Min.) probably wouldn't even claim to be a theologian. And don't forget about Lewis! (Forgot: Augustinian 07:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC))
Given that Dembski's post is Professor of Theology, at a Theological university, I'm wondering why you are making this disruptive, tendentious argument. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Augustinian - you said you have addressed the issues above, but I don't see them answered. You say that an M.Div. is a pastoral degree, but I seem to remember that schools offered either a pastoral M.Div. or a non-pastoral one which was aimed at people who planned to go on for a PhD in theology. Anyway - if you have an academic appointment in a field, and you have published in that field, the assumption is that you can be called a practitioner of that field. So what it comes down to, for our purposes, is some good reason, some external source, for not doing the obvious and calling him a theologian.
"My campus is a Christian campus, and many of the professors who are in fields other than theology have degrees in theology (like M.Div's, for instance), but will not, for an instant, claim to be 'theologians'. My pastor (D.Min.) probably wouldn't even claim to be a theologian." - do any of these people hold endowed chairs in theology? Have they published in theology?
In the case of C.S. Lewis, his primary academic appointment was in Lit. Guettarda 13:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Both of you refer to the fact that Dembski's currentpost is 'Professor of Theology'. But it's not. It's 'Professor of Theology and Science' And according to the Dean of the School, "Dembski became the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky in June 2005, and also plans to establish a new Center for Science and Theology. According to Russell Moore, dean of the seminary's School of Theology, Dembski will help train ministers to counter the idea that "human beings are accidents of nature" He will be teaching intelligent design.
"Anyway - if you have an academic appointment in a field, and you have published in that field, the assumption is that you can be called a practitioner of that field." I absolutely agree. The problem is, no one could offer even one article on theology that Dembski has ever published. Out of 150+ article on his CV about 4 have 'theology' in the title, and all of them are about intelligent design. So, unless you can actually show that Dembski publishes in the field of theology, then he shouldn't be called a theologian. Just like someone should be called a philosopher unless they publish a lot in the field of philosophy and have a strong philosophical education, so the same with theologians.
"In the case of C.S. Lewis, his primary academic appointment was in Lit." But he published far more works on theology than Dembski. Not even one paper can be pulled up for Dembski that's about theology, and C.S. Lewis has whole books dealing with theological topics. Yet you want us to call Dembski a theologian and not Lewis? 64.193.115.26 16:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, yes, nevermind Dembski's said: "Theology is where my ultimate passion is and I think that is where I can uniquely contribute ... I am looking forward to engaging students and theological students have always been my favorite to deal with because for theology students, it's not just a job, but a passion, especially at a place like Southern, because they want to change the world."[4]"
"Professor of Theology and Science" Hmmm, The theology part is easy enough to see in his work. But where's the science? Show me the science.
One also has to wonder exactly how much science and of what quality gets taught in the dept of Theology and Science at a theological seminary. FeloniousMonk 18:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

"Hmmm, The theology part is easy enough to see in his work. But where's the science? Show me the science." I never claimed that Dembski was a scientist. Trust me, I think he's far from it. And whether intelligent design is true or not is completely beside the point. But whether you think his concept of science is terrible or not is completely beside the point. And,you keep saying that it's easy to see the theology in his work. Here's a challenge: find ONE article by Dembski that is solely about a theological question. If you can, then let's talk. But if you can't, then that should end this entire matter.
"One also has to wonder exactly how much science and of what quality gets taught in the dept of Theology and Science at a theological seminary." Indeed. But what does this have to do with Dembski's status as a theologian?
"Anyone still questioning Dembski's status as a theologian versus a scientist..." Wait, no. This is wrong already. If you people would read what's been said already, then you would know that NO ONE is trying to call Dembski a scientist. The only point being made is the fact that Dembski is not a theologian. "Dembski teaches Christian apologetics and not science." Bingo. Dembski does not teach theology, he teaches intelligent design et al.
By the way, FeloniusMonk, thanks for ingoring the double standard applied to C.S. Lewis vs. Dembski once again! Augustinian 22:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, you don't want to say he is a theologian, and everyone seems to agree he isn't a scientist, what precisely do you suggest? We can hardly put in the article: "Dr. William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is a person for whom we have no descriptive title, because he teaches Theology and Science, but one editor does not want theology mentioned, and he's never done any science."
Puppy is getting a bit testy at all this, apologies. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
So, by deduction, you can only be either (a) a scientist or (b) a theologian? I don't understand the question, here. Why can't we just say that Dembski is a mathematician (and, possibly, a philosopher)? After all, he has extensive education in both of those fields, and has published articles in both. Augustinian 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Because that is not his job nor the most salient thing about him.
That would be like writing an article about someone who was a Nobel prize winner, who liked to putter around in the kitchen and was a fair gourmet chef on the side with "John Doe is a cook." You tell about his work, his Nobel prize, etc. Then you make a determination whether it is germane to the article to add "He also cooks." KillerChihuahua?!? 22:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Then, please, take up my challenge and find just one article that Dembski has written that deals solely with theology. If you can't do that, then that should settle the debate. Augustinian 22:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I just read over this thread, and find it either laughable or inane. Or both. Augustinian, you know well that a thinker does not have to write *solely* in theology to be a theologian, just as Dembski's chairship does not have to be in one or the other field. His title, like many of his writings, is about these two fields coming together. However, to take up your challenge, I offer the co-written piece cited on the Dembski wiki page itself, link Reclaiming Theological Education, which addresses the dearth of Christian apologetics today, and responds to Schleiermacher, Barth, and threads key theological concepts through western history. I don't seriously think there is much dispute that this is theology -- whether it is good theology or not I will leave to others. However, it does bring in ancillary topics as they relate to theology -- but I don't think that disqualifies its theological focus. What I find more interesting is to ask: what is at stake in saying he is NOT a theologian? A final point of clarification: M.Div. degrees from Princeton are not awarded with concentrations such as "theology" or "bible," etc. (I attended there myself.) It is, as Augustinian says, a professional degree, and at least at PTS are not in either a theology or non-theology track. Nmagee 09:47, 18 December 2006 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Christopher,
Why do any of those quotes indicate that Dembski is a theologian? Be specific.
"I think we can agree William Demsbki does not make math a big priority in his activities nor has he demonstrated any particular talent for mathematical theory."--I will agree that Dembski doesn't make math a big priority (I suspect he once did, before he was pushed to the forefront of the ID debate, though). I won't admit that he doesn't have any talent for mathematical theory. You don't earn a Ph.D in math without have a very thorough grasp of it. "So wishing him to be a significant person in the field of math is not going to win a tug of war with reality."--Why must he be a 'significant' person in the field of math in order to be a mathematician? Do you think that most of the professors in academia impact their fields signficantly? No. For the sake of argument, though, let's assume that you're right about Dembski not being a mathematician. Why does that make him a theologian?
"Demsbki contradicts himself often and crafts his message to whomever he is speaking to, so he could justifiably be described in many different ways but the facts remain William works at a school of theology, as a professor of theology (and "science", wink) but when you review the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary course offerings you cannot help but note the lack of any science being taught."--So, the argument goes 'His title is 'Professor of Science and Theology' and he doesn't teach science. Therefore, he teaches theology.'? That's not a very good argument. Go read the quote that I've already provided and alluded to multiple times. Dembski is teaching ID there (and possibly asome apologetics), not theology.
"And Dembski's theological motivations behind his intelligent design theories have been made clear by Dembski himself."--Agreed. Why does this make him a theologian?
"Finally, the Discovery Institute helps support Demsbki and let's not forget one of their two governing goals includes, "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." One cannot help but note that they, like Demsbi, share this desire to see materialistic explanations replaced with theistic , and not mathematical, or intelligent design understandings, but theistic ones."--Agreed. Why does this make him a theologian?
"please do not pretend his current calling is not one grounded in theology. Demsbki does not try and hide this fact, nor should you."--I'm not trying to 'hide' anything. The fact that Dembski's main motivation lies in his religion doesn't show in any way whatsoever that he is a theologian.
Augustinian 06:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, now we're here, mathematician is a bit dodgy too isn't it? Considering that the "Isaac Newton of information theory" has had his math described as being "written in jello"? Dembski maths is basically bullshit to confuse anyone who (a) has a priori faith in the conclusion and (b) is impressed by incomprehensible math. So he shouldn't really be called a mathematician. So what's better then? Propagandist? Apologist? Liar? — Dunc|☺ 14:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Before I answer the question, I'd like validation that Dembski is, in fact, employed as both (a) a scientist and (b) a theologian. Augustinian 15:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure. [5] KillerChihuahua?!? 16:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not seeing where it says that he is a scientist and a theologian. Augustinian 16:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Can we move along now? FeloniousMonk 16:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to, but unless someone gives a good reason that Dembski should be considered a theologian, don't expect the word 'theologian' to stay in the article. Augustinian 17:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Augustinian, The existnece of "Is Intelligent Design a form of Natural Theology?" is simply an example of Dembski's tendencies to lie, contradict himself and say radically different statements to different audiences. If you think we should add a section on whether or not Dembski is a theologian and include all his own contradictory statements on the matter a long with all his contradictory statements about whether or not ID is theological in nature, I would not object. JoshuaZ 21:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is all about. There's lots of information that would appear to assert that Dembski is a theologian. If you want us to disregard all that factual information you need an authoritative source which says "despite all that other stuff, Dembski is not a theologian". The issue of degrees is irrelevant. You keep pointing out his lack of an advanced degree in theology. However, unlike professional disciplines like medicine or law, a lack of an advanced degree is not a barrier to entry in academic disciplines. People with a PhD in one field often end up doing work in another field. But it doesn't matter how likely or unlikely something is. Dembski holds a chair in theology ("science and theology" is still theology) in a school of theology and has published on theology and has said his first love is theology. If we are to disregard this, we need an authoritative source. It isn't for you to convince me or me to convince you. Find a source to support your position. Simple enough. Guettarda 01:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

"Good lord, Augustinian, what do you want?"--I really just want 'theologian' taken out of the first paragraph. "Anyone with marginal intelligence will read this sentence and conclude Dembski's ideas are controversial (supported by evidence), Dembski dabbles in math, philosophy, theology, neo-creationism and is known for advocating the idea of intelligent design... How could anyone object to that?"--Most of what you say is true. But Dembski doesn't just 'dabble' in math. He's a mathematician, with a Ph.D. and a Masters in math, and post-doctoral fellowships in math. And the problem with the first paragraph is just that: when it says that Dembski is a theologian and a mathematician, it implies that Dembski is proficient and highly-educated in both. But he's not. He's not nearly as much of a theologian as he is a mathematician. That's my objection. I would have no objection if you mentioned that he also had an M.Div or something similar, or saying that a frequent topic of his research is its relation to Christianity, but saying that he is a theologian is simply not true, especially saying it directly after listing off his other qualifications. 'Theologian' is mentioned in a qualificatory way, and it shouldn't be, because Dembski is not qualified. "Now we can agree his theological contribution does not fit YOUR definition of theology but the evidence suggests otherwise."--So what's your definition of 'theologian'? What would someone have to do to be considered a theologian in your mind? I've tried to show that by any reasonable definition that keeps consistent with similar titles of qualification (philosopher, mathematician, historian, etc.) that Dembski does not qualify as a theologian, and I've supported everything that I've said with evidence. "Gosh, the title suggests he is trying to use Intelligent Design to create a bridge between science and...um...theology."--Therefore, he is a theologian? No. Alvin Plantinga defends the warrant of Christian theology throughout his entire tome Warranted Christian Belief, but, as I've said so, so many times now, that does not make him a theologian. He is a philosopher. "I for one am done feeding the troll."--Good.
"I therefore think it is safe to conclude that Augustinian is someone(possibly Dembski or DaveScott) who has a strong personal interest in claiming that Dembski is not a theologian."--Fascinating. Augustinian 22:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To begin with, where's the external source saying that we should ignore all the evidence? (You can argue all you want about how the facts should be interpreted, but novel interpretations like you are suggesting fall under the category of "original research"). As for the rest...let's see:

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

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


Guettarda,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I certainly do. FeloniousMonk 23:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
As do I. If you make such an edit against consensus, it will be reverted. Stop trolling, stop ignoring the facts, stop wasting our time. The evidence clearly shows that Demski is a theologian. Period. End of story. Finis. Jim62sch 00:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Felonius: Care to expound? Jim: You can say that, but it's just blowing air without any actual argumentation. Augustinian 01:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I object as well. Actual argumentation? There are enough arguments here against your claims. Are you now claiming that unless we have engaged you here on your own terms then we can't revert you? You have the option of an RFC. That should keep you busy. BTW the way, as a professional mathematician myself, I am not particularly happy with the claim Dembski's a mathematician.--CSTAR 01:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
As I said before, find a source. Guettarda 03:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Saying that Dembski is a mathematician is almost laughable. A quick check of mathscinet shows one published actual paper (from 1990), 1 article in a questionable journal that mathscinet didn't even bother reviewing and two of dembski's books which are massively panned by the reviewers (which is pretty rare for mathscinet, it normally only has descriptions, something needs to be of pretty low quality for it to be panned). Many undergrads have more papers than he does. So no, by any reasonable standard Dembski is not a mathematician. And what's wrong with all the earlier mentioned sources that Dembski is a theologian? Dembski does theology, Dembski doesn't do math. By most definitions that would make him a theologian well before he is a mathematician. Incidentally, are you a davescott sockpuppet, Dembski himself or some other sockpuppet? JoshuaZ 19:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll just jump in briefly to confirm that while Dembski did earn a Ph.D. in the area of probability theory, his recent claims concerning information and probability theory are generally regarded as highly suspect by the majority of those mathematicians with similar qualifications who have examined them. These include his former second Ph.D. advisor, Leo Kadanoff.---CH 22:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The Discovery Institute disagrees with you. Exhibit 1:
Writing in such a context, it makes sense for Dembski to give his interpretation of the religious and theological meaning of intelligent design for his own Christian faith. After all, Dembski is a theologian with an M-Div from one of the most prestigious seminaries in the U.S. (Princeton).
Exhibit 2
Given that Dembski is a trained theologian (he holds an m-div. from the prestigious Princeton Theological Seminary), in addition to holding doctorates in mathematics and philosophy, he has every right to evaluate ID in the context of his Christian religious faith (theistic evolutionist scientists often do the same thing for evolution—see below).
The DI rehosted a Time magazine article that is Exhibit 3:
Still other advocates, including mathematician, philosopher and theologian William Dembski, who is heading up a new center for intelligent design at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, use the mathematics of probability to try to show that chance mutations and natural selection cannot account for nature's complexity.
Then Dembski, given the opportunity to disclaim "theologian" status for himself, does not do so.
Dembski has training as a theologian, publishes as a theologian, is publicly recognized by his fellow ID advocates as a theologian, and does not himself demur about his status as a theologian (his reply to Gross was to build up his math and philosophy cred, not to dismiss his theology background and practice).
Now, where were you when Rob Koons asserted that Dembski was "the Isaac Newton of information theory"? Your input would have been useful there, since Dembski has no degree in information theory, no publications in information theory, and no recognition by the information theory community as being one of their own. --Wesley R. Elsberry 16:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bible Code

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

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

From the article I linked above:

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

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

Well, you may be right about the merits of such inclusion, but isn't this more of a headache than it's worth? Although, I must concede, that I for one, wasn't aware that Dembski has embraced this nonsense. This hoax has been amply discussed and is dismissed by most professional mathematicians. See [6], for a review by Allyn Jackson and a commentary by Shlomo Sternberg, who besides being a distinguished mathematician (on the faculty at Harvard) is a (real) talmudic scholar.--CSTAR 04:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Headachieness is not relevant, if it should be in, it should be in. JoshuaZ 05:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
OK Mr Christopher, it's your headache.--CSTAR 05:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People often vent on a talk page as a means of expressing their frustration, sometimes it is difficult to determine what is venting and what is someone's attempt to present criticism. I mean nothing in bad faith in suggesting you might be venting. Sorry if it seemed otherwise or if my response did not seem polite.
Dembski presents himself as a math guy, his peers (DI that is) refer to him as the Isaac Newton of intelligent design. His favorable review and belief in the bible code is relevant to this article. It would be innapropriate for us to contact Dembski and ask what his latest take on the bible code is. We're not reporters and that would represent original research. Besides, at the time the bible code was added to this article someone specifically asked Dembski what his latest views on the subject were on his blog. Dembski ignored that person's question. Besides, if we were to have to check with Dembski for his latest views on pseudoscience subjects he has promoted, or just the astonishing things he does on a daily basis (think of him recording his own gas as it leaves his body and using those sounds in farting videos dedicated to his critics), we'd be calling him daily saying "do you still stand by the astonishing things you said yesterday?". That is some crazy stuff and I'd rather not be the guy who has to call him on a daily basis.
My personal experience with those who promote pseudoscience is that they seldom if ever change their opinion on a pseudoscience subject. If they admit yesterday I was promoting pseudoscience but now I can see it was pseudoscience, but don't confuse that mistake with what I am still promoting today then people might start looking at their current ideas a little closer. But you are I are in complete agreement, if in fact Demsbki ever does write on the bible code subject again we'd need to update the article to reflect his current views.
We'll need specific examples of this "snide tone" you speak of, otherwise I/we'd just be guessing in the dark as to what you find is outside the boundaries of Wiki policy (snide comments). The article has gone through a lot of changes and I think most everything that is there is now cited/supported well but that doesn't mean we can't improve it more. Finally, we are not required to be NPOV here on the talk pages. We can talk like adults here, adults with opinions and such. The article should be NPOV though. Cheers! Mr Christopher 02:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

The original phrasing does not imply universality. Nevertheless, whenever any academy of science or major scientific association has made a statement, that statement supports evolutionary science and/or directly categorizes ID as pseudoscience. Every. Single. Time. "Some" is a mealy-mouthed misrepresentation of the true state of affairs.
From the decision in the Kitzmiller case:
Notably, every major scientific association that has taken a position on the issue of whether ID is science has concluded that ID is not, and cannot be considered as such. (1:98-99 (Miller); 14:75-78 (Alters); 37:25 (Minnich)). Initially, we note that NAS, the "most prestigious" scientific association in this country, views ID as follows:
Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.
P-192 at 25. Additionally, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (hereinafter "AAAS"), the largest organization of scientists in this country, has taken a similar position on ID, namely, that it "has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims" and that "the lack of scientific warrant for so-called 'intelligent design theory' makes it improper to include as part of science education . . ." (P-198). Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science. What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community. (21:37-38 (Behe); Fuller Dep. at 98-101, June 21, 2005; 28:47 (Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 89, May 26, 2005).
--Wesley R. Elsberry 17:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I hadn't realized that there was an implication there, but if so, the import would be absolutely accurate. Koons either knows too little about information theory to have any business trying to assess anyone's stature in that field, or he has not studied Dembski's work with sufficient attention to realize that his hyperbolic statement about Newton-ish qualities is simply risible. I suspect that both apply. In any case, Shallit's expert report suitably documents this particular item, and one could with more justification say that "noted mathematician and number theorist Jeffrey Shallit testified under oath that it should not be regarded as significant".
Q. On page 2 of your report you mention the fact that Dembski has been viewed as the Isaac Newton of information theory by a proponent of intelligent design, Rob Koons.
A. Right.
Q. And you take issue with that; is that correct?
A. I do.
Q. And why?
A. Well, Isaac Newton was probably the greatest physicist or one of the greatest physicists of all time, and -- sorry, mathematicians of all time. And he -- to call somone an Isaac Newton of information theory would imply, for example, Isaac Newton was the founder of the calculus independently of LiveNet [Leibniz]. So to say someone is the Isaac Newton of information theory, you would think this is somone who founded the field or at least was a huge, towering figure with dozens of published papers or published works, viewed by everyone as either the founder of the field information theory, or certainly a very well recognized expert in the field. And I take exception because I don't see that any of those things are true.
Shallit is right. Those things are not true. --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third sentence of the paragraph is:
Dembski states: "this book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory".
That's where the implication resides. It is referenced by the link at the end of the second sentence. I think we would be able to tell if any publication making a positive scientific case for ID got published. Why should we pussyfoot about saying that Dembski's implication is, in fact, incorrect? In any case, the proposed replacement is close to incomprehensible. --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verification:
My most obnoxious critics have been Internet stalkers (e.g., Wesley Elsberry and Richard Wein), who seem to monitor my every move and as a service to the Internet community make sure that every aspect of my work receives their bad housekeeping seal of disapproval. As a rule I don’t respond to them over the Internet since it seems to me that the Internet is an unreliable forum for settling technical issues in statistics and the philosophy of science.
Both Wein and I are such critics as requested. --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Citation given:
As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.
I think that fits the bill. --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] NPOV Discussion

  • I feel this article is not NPOV because of the anti-Dembski, anti design slant in the article. This is specially obvious in the terms "neo-creationism" in the intro and the idea that Dembski is opposed to 'evolution by natural selection' without clarifying what kind of evolution he opposes. There are many other examples that I think need to be sorted out before we can remove the tag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.84.201.246 (talk • contribs).
  • Why do you think that neo-creationist violaten NPOV?
  • What do you mean by "and the idea that Dembski is opposed to 'evolution by natural selection' without clarifying what kind of evolution he opposes"? Is there more than one kind of evolution by natural selection? Guettarda 20:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

What the heck do you think intelligent design is? A designer in the intelligent design movement is the same as a creator. As far as NPOV goes, Even a federal judge ruled on the creationist roots of intelligent design:

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" (page 31) "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43) "We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. […] "

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

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

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

I agree with the first guy. The Dembski article is not NPOV. As Dembski and others clearly state intelligent design is not creationism and didn't come out of creationist thought.--Joy Crawford 22:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm adding the tag back on till we can all can sort this out. --Joy Crawford 22:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
What does the "this" that needs sorting out refer to? As Mr Christopher points out, the overwhelming evidence, legal and otherwise, points to the opposite of your claim that "intelligent design is not creationism and didn't come out of creationist thought." --CSTAR 22:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunatly it seems like you're rabidly anti-ID. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Joy Crawford (talk • contribs).

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

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

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

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

I agree with the first guy's objections. I think also it's biased to say ID is not "accepted as valid by the mainstream scientific community. That does not belong in an NPOV article, it's only a rhetorical device. Something more unbiased would be: Many scientists disagree. . . or something like that. --Joy Crawford 22:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Joy, you have violated the 3RR, so in principle you could be blocked by an adm. Maybe you're new here and don't know the rules yet, so I won't do it.
Re: I think also it's biased to say ID is not "accepted as valid by the mainstream scientific community. That does not belong in an NPOV article,
Why? Do you think articles on crackpot theories in physics don't make such assertions? See Autodynamics for instance. --CSTAR 23:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
"I think also it's biased to say ID is not "accepted as valid by the mainstream scientific community." No, that's a misbegotten notion. Your's and the anon's objections reflect an imperfect understanding of WP:NPOV. Presenting both sides of the ID issue of Dembski's activities is in accord with WP:NPOV, which clearly states: "To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia." The article's content also seems well-supported per WP:V and WP:RS. FeloniousMonk 23:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

To call Dembski a neo-creationist is biased and betrays an ignorance of intelligent design - evolution debate.--Joy Crawford 23:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
A possibility might be to say that some people think he is a neo-creationist?--Joy Crawford 23:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's another example of outragous bias: "The PTR (over control of which name the society and the seminary wrangled) received funding from conservative Presbyterian backers (the Presbyterian Lay Committee), and primarily wrote from a conservative angle on theological issues of the day. Perhaps the most volatile of these issues was the PC(USA)'s consideration of the ordination of gays/lesbians, in which writers of the PTR (including Dembski) disagreed with Seminary faculty and their writings in nearly slanderous terms."--Joy Crawford 23:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Joy you also wrote "To call Dembski a neo-creationist is biased and betrays an ignorance of intelligent design - evolution debate.--Joy Crawford 23:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC) "
Well this suggests you may be unfamiliar with a recent court ruling where based on expert testimony, including the leading intelligent design biologist in the world, intelligent design was not only found to be unscientific but rooted in creationism as well. I posted some quotes from that ruling above, have you had a chance to review them and the original ruling yet? That Knowing the facts on intelligent design will greatly help your understanding of what is and is not bias. Facts and verifiable evidence do not suggest bias.
Finally, you also wrote "Here's another example of outragous bias: "The PTR (over control of which name the society and the seminary wrangled) received funding from conservative Presbyterian backers (the Presbyterian Lay Committee)..."
I'll let those more familiar with that issue address your concerns, but as far as Dembski's neo-creationist leanings and the fact that the mainstream scientific community does not consider ID to be a valid scientific theory are well documented and well supported, so unless you can provide some significant evidence that would lead us to believe otherwise, those statements should remain as they are. Dembski's neo-creationist leanings are obvious, intelligent design is recycled creationism and there is not a mainstream scientific organization in North American that believes ID is a valid scientific theory. Neither Dembski nor the Discovery Institute (and you apparently) can tell us exactly what the scientific theory of intelligent design actually is nor can they tell us how that theory can be tested. That is because no such theory exists. And the notion that some things are "best" explained as having been designed is an opinion, or a value if you will, and not a valid scientific theory. Mr Christopher 01:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
It appears she was blocked after 8 or so reverts. --CSTAR 03:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
CSTAR, I think I addressed her concerns (though probably not to her liking) on the two main subject she was concerned about. I am not familiar with the whole "conservative Presbyterian backers" drama, does that piece of the article appear biased or should it be rewritten or more citations provided or is it fine the way it is? Mr Christopher 04:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Well I think the article is fine as it is, but maybe my opinion is not too relevant here since, in her view I am a "rabidly anti-ID". Maybe you could attempt to provide more citations. I suspect that lack of documentation is not the problem, however.--CSTAR 04:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
In the Biography section, the paragraph that begins with "While at Princeton Theological Seminary..." I have been unable to find anything online to support this paragraph. I am not saying such evidence does not exist, I am simply saying I have failed to find any citations or supporting evidence. That paragraph reads like it was written by someone who personally observed these activities at Princeton. Do we know who added that part? Perhaps they can offer some citations or some sort of supporting evidence? Without evidence the points made in that paragraph could certainly appear to be original research, no? Mr Christopher 15:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Controversies and article length

The state of Wisconsin has proposed legislation that will forbid supernaturalism (which included ID/C) from being taught in public science classrooms. Dembski is offering $1,000 to any teacher in Wisconsin who will break that law (assuming it is passed).[7].

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

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

[edit] Removed Sentence

I've removed the following line:

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

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

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

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

213.78.117.234 19:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Addition of Category:Pseudoscience

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

Dembski isn't an example of pseudoscience, and he doesn't (so far as I know) practise pseudoscience. The mere fact that he accepts some pseudoscience doesn't really warrant the category, I think (if it did, that category would be enormous). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Mel, his recent activities associate him with pseudoscience. Are you contesting his whole WP article. This is from the intro:
his ideas are not accepted as valid by the mainstream scientific community, with leading scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences describing intelligent design as pseudoscience, and significant voices within the science community challenging his credentials as a commentator on science, philosophy and mathematics --FloNight talk 13:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Mel Etitis, understand your worry. WP:BLP encourage users to monitor biographies for malicious edits. My basic criteria for including a person in a category.
  1. The categorization is relevant, verifiable and obvious from the article content.
  2. Follows WP:BLP, especially as it relates to notability and harm.
  3. The benefit from using a category outweighs the harm.
The word pseudoscience is used multiple times in his article. I don't see any extra harm from inclusion in the category. He is especially notable for his outspoken support of ID because of his mathematical arguments regarding irreducibly complex systems and specified complexity. My understanding is that his work is completely rejected by the mainstream scientific community.
I didn't put the article in the category (not sure who did?) and won't until your concerns are addressed. I'd like to make several other changes to the article. Will add them to talk later today. FloNight talk 18:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Updated introduction for your consideration

William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American mathematician, philosopher, theologian, and neo-creationist known for advocating the controversial idea of intelligent design in opposition to the mainstream theory of evolution through natural selection. Currently, Dembski is the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and the first director of the school's new Center for Science and Theology.
Dembski believes that the scientific study of nature reveals evidence of design, and opposes what he regards as mainstream science's commitment to "atheistic" materialism or naturalism, which rules out design a priori. His main proposal is that specified complexity, a type of information, is the hallmark of an intelligent designer. His work is controversial: his ideas are not accepted as valid by the mainstream scientific community, with leading scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences describing intelligent design as pseudoscience, and significant voices within the science community challenging his credentials as a commentator on science, philosophy, and mathematics (for one critic of note, see [[8]]).

Main changes.

  • Moved the word controversial from the first word to about the tenth word. This is consistent with other WP biographies of controversial living people. [9] [10] [11].

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

I've piped some of the links. It's a bit odd using his title; articles on real scientists, etc., generally don't. In other discussions I've often seen the view expressed that academic titles should be used in the summary only when they're not relevant to what the subject is mainly known for (for example, a politician or musician might be called "Dr"). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for making the title change. I completely missed it. It is my understanding that titles are left off articles. Any other changes needed? FloNight talk 11:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Princeton History and Supporting Data

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

The article reads,

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

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

Do you have any idea who added the text? And have you looked for it online? I quickly looked through the article history and didn't see an obvious edit where it was added. I googled the first sentence and didn't find any obvious supporting source. Since it might still be verifiabel from a reliable source lets leave it for a little bit longer and try to find the source. I'll go through the history and find the editor that added it. Hopefully, they will know a source. FloNight talk 14:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
It was added by 69.207.23.150 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) in this edit. [12]. No help unless the IP editor is someones who edits the article but forgot to sign in that day. Oh well! What now? FloNight talk 21:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I added a note to that IP's talk page, hopefully the person who was responsible will see it. JoshuaZ 22:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

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

They don't seem to have any edits since then, so I doubt they are still around. JoshuaZ 22:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid we need to remove the text. First, I'll spend a little more time looking for a supporting source online. Okay? FloNight talk 22:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no objections. JoshuaZ 22:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Found a source for a portion of the text. I removed the rest. The source is RECLAIMING THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION William A. Dembski and Jay Wesley Richards. They write about the same topic with a different slant, of course. I'm going to read it and pull more facts out. Other opinions welcome. : ) [13]. FloNight talk 00:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Copyrighted photo

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

Almost certainly not. It should probably be removed, and someone should probably send Demsbki an email asking him for permission to use it (I'm already banned from his blog for correcting him on something, so I probably shouldn't be the one to do that.). JoshuaZ 03:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, no. Appears the uploader claimed fair use and the someone else changed the tag to promotional. Neither of these honor the request on the website for personal use only. We need to look for another one I guess. FloNight talk 03:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
My US$.02 -- Don't bother. Just get rid of the photo.--CSTAR 04:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion: He was on the Daily Show, I think they are generally very nice about letting people use stills from their show, maybe someone could email them and find out if they have a problem if we use a capture of him when he was on the show? JoshuaZ 04:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that they would release a still under an acceptable license, but chances are you could claim fair use on a screen capture from the show. I agree with CSTAR - get rid of the photo until we can find one that has either an acceptable license, or to which fair use rationale is clearly applied. Guettarda 04:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Removed. JoshuaZ, are you going to find an image from the Daily Show and upload it as a fair use image? If so, we are suppose to use it next to text where the image content is discussed. So we need to put it lower on the page and make sure the text discusses his appearance on the show. Since this is an article about a living person, we need to be sure that it is not too unflattering. (Not saying you would do this on purpose. The content of his appearance on the show may make it difficult to discuss and remain encyclopedic.) FloNight talk 05:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Will do, it may take me a few days to track down an appropriate one. JoshuaZ 12:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

If you do get a photo, then use that. Until then, the photo is fair use. — Dunc|☺ 17:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I can provide a photo of Dembski that I will give Wikipedia the appropriate rights to use. I'll try to get to this relatively soon. --Wesley R. Elsberry 20:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Photo 1 and Photo 2. Let me know if either of those will suit you. They were taken by me at Dembski's lecture at UC Berkeley on 2006/03/17. --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The first one looks good. It would do excellently. JoshuaZ 03:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you need anything in particular from me in order to use it? Let me know. --Wesley R. Elsberry 16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded the first photo to Image:Wad_by_wre_20060317_2972.JPG . --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dembski and academic freedom?

I just saw this [14] and this [15]. Might merit mention, although more details and better references are needed. --CSTAR 16:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Uncommonly dense

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

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

Hello DLX : ) Thanks for responding on the talk page instead of reverting. I removed the "derogatory comment" for several reasons. First, I think it is derogatory. If I called you "Uncommonly Dense" for putting that comment in the article and trying to defend it as not being derogatory, I would expect to be warned for being uncivil to you. "Uncommonly Dense" is a put down. Both you and Dembski deserve better.
The civiliity standards we use toward each other are similar to the standards we use when writing biographies of living people. If you refer to the writing style section, it says: "The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated." IMO, substituting the derogatory name for the official name does not met this standard.
You also need to consider this point: Don't feed the trolls ask Wikipedia editors not to fan the flames. Articles related to Intelligent design attract strong point of view editors, sock puppets, and trolls. Adding controversial text to this article is troll bait.
DLX, I hope you will consider what I have written and not add the text back to the external link. FloNight talk 12:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Heh - I totally disagree about "Demski deserving better" - have you actually read what he says? First he screams that there is no "academic freedom" because no one wants to teach ID -- and then he files a complaint to SS The Department of Homeland Security because Pianka dares to have that academic freedom.
I am *so* ashamed that someone like that is actually taken seriously... or that he actually exists. DLX 13:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
DLX, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We need to focus on policy and guidelines when writing the article instead of our personal opinions. Dembski needs to be treated in an encyclopedic manner. The external link was more appropriate for the The Daily Show and The Onion.
You seem knowledgeable about Dembski, so maybe you can help me with something I'm working on now. I'm looking for information about Dembski's time at Princeton Seminary. Dembski and the newly formed Charles Hodge Society caused a ruckus on campum. Do you know where to find information about this based on reliable sources. Something besides forum gossip. FloNight talk 14:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss concerns before adding pov tag

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

[edit] "polemic"

Unless you have access to every response to his critics Dembski has ever issued, the blanket statement alledging that Dembski's response to his critics "is polemic" is a POV smear backed by selected excerpts from his responses. The section shows overwhelming hostility toward Dembski and is unencyclopedic. Trilemma 14:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Trilemma, I do not see it as a smear. He wants to be contraversial. It is a strategy. To draw attention to himself and fulfill his life goals, he deliberately baits his opponents. If you want to provide evidence showing otherwise, now is the time and this is the place to do it. I'll support all well sourced text that says otherwise.FloNight talk 14:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Has he said that he wants only to draw attention to himself and 'fulfill his life goals'? That's your opinion of what he wants. You have the right to hold that opinion but that's not encyclopedic, and taking selected quotes from selected responses to make a value judgement about the nature of his responses isn't appropriate. I think a straw poll would be appropriate in this situation. Trilemma 14:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the phrasing needs to be nuanced (it's too much of a generalisation right now) and better referencing never hurt. I agree with FN that Dembski often seeks to be controvertial. I don't think a straw poll is the best way to go - it would just force people to take a side (if there was a straight up-down vote on whether this section should stay or go, I would vote "stay"; but I have no opposition to an attempt to improve it and put it in context). Guettarda 15:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Trilemma, lets discuss this on the talk page a bit first, you seem to want very much to run off to do DRish type things. The first step in DR should always be discussion on the talk page. JoshuaZ 15:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Trilemma, thank you for responding on talk. : ) I think you are jumping way to far ahead. We've just begun to discuss your concern. Please offer text with sources that support your changes. I promise you that all well sourced content will be included in the article. FloNight talk 15:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

I understand what you're saying about discussing it first; I apologize for taking action first. I'm glad you're understanding my point about the wording of the article. There are a few points I have with this:
1) Is it really necessary and/or encyclopedic to include a section about the way Dembski has at times responded? I don't think it is, but that isn't my big gripe.
2) If there is a case for the inclusion of the section, I feel it needs rewording so that it doesn't include the sweeping generalizations about Dembski, and pejorative characterizations--I agree with Joshua about the nature of the word 'polemic'. Trilemma 15:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The issue of Dembski's style of response is relevant. The current paragraph is accurate.
In most of Dembski's writing, he uses mathematical arguments that do not conform to standards of rigor and exposition that are currently used by math researchers generally. This is not a POV statement. Mathematical standards of rigor have developed over hundreds of years but have pretty much stabilized since the 1920s. Expository styles have been more fluid, but these also are pretty much stable since the mid 40s (i.e., it may be difficult to detect by the style of a paper whether it was written in 1955 or in 2005) When the fact that Dembski uses terms incorrectly is brought to his attention by serious critics, Dembski responds in ways which are not conducive to further dialogue. He attacks their motives or attacks their competency or responds in with other comments such as "he is not doing mathematics."
--CSTAR 16:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Trilemma, I'm glad we are discussing this issue. Originally I had concerns myself. When I read his work it changed my mind. Based on Dembski's words describing a Christian apologist, "polemic" is not an overstatement. Example:
That said, our response as Christian apologists must not be to stick our heads in the sand and mechanically repeat a creed. We are to engage the secular world, reproving, rebuking and exhorting it, pointing to the truth of Christianity and producing strong arguments and valid criticisms that show where secularism has missed the mark. Will we be appreciated? Hardly. The Pharisees of our day—those who know themselves to occupy the moral high ground—reside preeminently in the academic world. The Pharisees killed Jesus and are just as ready to destroy our Christian witness if we permit it. Nevertheless, this is our calling as Christian apologists, to bear witness to the truth, even to the point of death (be it the death of our bodies or the death of our careers). The church has a name for this—martyrdom. The early church considered martyrdom the highest Christian calling. Martyrdom was counted an honor and privilege, a way of sharing in Christ’s sufferings and living out the Christian life in its most logical and complete form.
Christian apologetics that’s worthy of the name is a call to martyrdom—perhaps not a martyrdom where we spill our blood (although this too may be required) but a martyrdom where we witness to the truth without being concerned about our careers, political correctness, the current fashion or toeing the party line. We are not called to please the world; we are called to proclaim the truth within whatever context and conventions we find ourselves. This means we must have a thorough knowledge of our context and conventions. We must be informed. We must listen. We must know where we stand, and we must know where we are withstood. This requires effort. [16]
From this passage there is no denying that Dembski wants to be be aggessive, controversial, polemical. He literally sees himself as a martyr. FloNight talk 16:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
FloNight's right. Nothing to see here, move along. FeloniousMonk 17:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, FloNight is right. I suggest we add FloNight's reference in right after the sentence with "polemical" in it so there won't be any question at all. JoshuaZ 17:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


CStar, why is it relevant? Merely stating "it is relevant" is not enough. Why is it relevant? Such obtuse concentration on the tone of responses is quite uncommon among articles on wikipedia.
From dictionary.com:"A person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, or refutation." By this standard, every individual involved with academic areas of dispute could be said to be involved in "polemic" writing. But yet that term is not used, because the term itself is a highly pejorative characterization.
What I find here [17] is an orderly, cogent response to criticisms. Nothing about martydom. You may disagree with Dembski's beliefs, and I realize many of you do, but that doesn't permit the demonization of his writings.
Felonious, your continued refusal to positively contribute to the discussion and the casually dismissive tone you take with those who disagree with you is inapropriate.Trilemma 00:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Flo, while a few statements in that could be interpreted as being polemic, the fact remains that much of that is not at all what one would call polemic. To have a blanket statement, "his style is polemic" is to distort the truth: it is to suggest that he responds with splenetic screeds of personal insults and diatribes. Now, if you were to say, "Dembski's responses have included polemic statements", that would be more acceptable. The blanket statement "his style IS polemic is not. It is clearly biased. Trilemma 23:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
"A few statements in that could be interpreted as being polemic"? Have you read many of his books? Nearly every book of Dembski's is a polemic. FeloniousMonk 23:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
We're not talking about his books, we're talking about his replies to critics. And, you're using the term polemic as a pejorative to decry those you disagree with. Or, would you not object to me editing Richard Dawkins to describe many of his writings as being polemic? Trilemma 23:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I for one would have little problem labeling much of what Dawkins' says as polemical. JoshuaZ 00:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Um, many of his replies to critics are found in his books. It would be better were to you become a bit more familiar with Dembski's work instead of making sweeping generalizations. FeloniousMonk 04:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
You're not addressing my points, Felonious. If you're only going to continue to post the same myopic rhetoric, I suggest you remove yourself from the discussion. Trilemma 18:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Trilemma, I don't think you have a winning argument here. Let's move on to another topic of discussion. Do you know anything about his seminary days? That paragraph needs to be expanded to discuss his activies. I reduced some of the material related to this because it wasn't sourced. Do you have access to any sources that describe this period of his life? FloNight talk 19:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Pseudoscientists categorization

Dembski's work is clearly controversial and subject to professional criticism. His work may be legitimately questioned as to whether it is pseudoscience or not. However, he is a qualified mathemetician and thus should not be listed in the category:pseudoscientists. According to one enthusiastic editor Dembski is not a scientist because he is a mathemetician. Please see the article mathematics. the word "mathematics" comes from the Greek μάθημα (máthēma) meaning science, knowledge, or learning. While there is some question about whether mathematics is itself a science, (see mathematics#Is mathematics a science?), for the purpose of academic credentials, Dembski is fully qualified. Mathematics is the basic tool of science, and Dembski has been well-trained in its use. What he does with that training may be something else. --Blainster 17:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. He is not known for his work in mathematics; so far as I know, he has done no significant work in mathematics. He is known as one of the primary individuals behind Intelligent design, a pseudoscience. The category is entirely accurate. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but one does not receive a PhD from the University of Chicago as a gift. It is a result of serious, published research in the field. --Blainster 17:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[Edit conflict]Mathematics is not generally considered a science. Nonetheless, it's irrelevant - as I said in the edit summary, pseudoscience has nothing to do with qualifications. You can be a scientist without a PhD, and you can engage in pseudoscience with one. Guettarda 17:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The fact that he has a PhD in math or anything else is irrelevant to the categorization. There are PhD physics pseudoscientists of the wildest kind (I will mention no names, but you can pretty easily dig them up on WP). --CSTAR 17:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Please consider the difference between pseudoscience and pseudoscientists. These are two different categories for a reason, and should be recognized as such. --Blainster 17:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Considering this distinction, I stand by my previous assertion.--CSTAR 17:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the difference between pseudoscience and pseudoscientists is why Dembski is in the pseudoscientist category, not the pseudoscience category. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that ID qualifies as pseudoscience, but that doesn't make Dembski a pseudoscientist. To say so is to denigrate his credentials, and by extension, the institution where he received them. I think that placing him in the same category with those who have no academic training is a mistake. --Blainster 18:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a non sequitar - pseudoscientist has nothing to do with his credentials, lack thereof, or where he may or may not have aquired them. All of that is irrelevent and has no bearing on whether he is a pseudoscientist. He is known for ID; ID is pseudoscience; ipso facto, he is a pseudoscientist. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Doing science, or pretending to do science - has nothing to do with one's credentials. Someone without a degree can be an excellent scientist, while someone with a PhD from a top institution can engage in pseudoscience. To say that Dembski's credentials makes him somehow "special" is silly. Anyone with some modicum of intelligence, and a lot of stubbornness can get a PhD. It says nothing about your character, and it certain doesn't make you in some way "better" than people without one. Guettarda 19:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
A medical doctor can be a quack even though they have a medical degree. So surely a trained scientist can be a pseudoscientist. --FloNight talk 19:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Pseudoscientist is entirely appropriate. His known (or "famous", if you will) contributions have nothing to do with science. DLX 20:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

It is true that Dembski wrote a Ph.D. dissertation in the area of probability theory at a respectable university (indeed, working under the direction of a leader in the field, Patrick Billingsley).
However, the inference drawn by his more credulous admirers, that he must therefore know what he is talking about, at least regarding allied topics such as information theory and dynamical systems theory, does not follow. In fact his depth of understanding can be challenged and has been challenged, by his peers. In fact, his understanding of the mathematics he claims to apply in Intelligent design has been questioned by his former co-advisor Leo Kadanoff! (See the link above to verify Kadanoff's role in Dembski's mathematical education.)
BTW, I also wrote a Ph.D. dissertation in the area of dynamical systems theory at a respectable university, and I also question Dembski's understanding of entropy, information theory, and dynamical systems. Of course you could make the same point about me which I just made about Dembski: simply having earned a Ph.D. in an area allied to probability/dynamical systems certainly does not ensure that everything one writes, even concerning probability/dynamical systems, is beyond question. Unfortunately, in the end nonexperts confronted with highly trained experts questioning a former colleague's understanding concerning highly technical issues must either learn enough to themselves become expert (say by earning a Ph.D. in the field in question), or else must decide which set of experts to believe.
BTW, I could make a very detailed (and unfortunately very technical) critique of Dembski's "mathematical" claims, but unfortunately I am too busy (and am frankly reluctant to weigh in upon such a highly politically charged topic). In any case, FWIW, I support the Category:Pseudoscientists categorization of this article.---CH 21:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Free Lunch

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

Ah, I'd added {{cite}} before I saw this. I'm about to dash off, but if no-one's done it before I return to editing, I'll do it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This is the most tabloidish comment in article. Does not follow [WP:BLP#Writing style]]. See article. William Dembski's treatment of the No Free Lunch theorems is written in jello By David Wolpert [18] --FloNight talk 23:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually that's the term that was used...but it needs a source and named attribution. Guettarda 23:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Picking the most controversial statement out of an article? I'd rather us use the sound argument in the article. FloNight talk 23:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not the most controversial statement; it's the title of the article from the theorem's author. It's not only perfectly acceptable to note, but necessary if we're to convey the intent and tone of the author. I've restored it. FeloniousMonk 01:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk, last night I came back to revert myself and saw that you'd already taken care of it for me. : - ) Still mildly disagreed with it, but I knew that BarrettBrown's addition would be supported by most editors of this article. There wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that it would stay out, making my revert needlessly unfriendly to a newbie. Shame on me! FloNight talk 13:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous

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

Hi, 72.225.252.105, I assume that by "this guy" you mean Dembski. I agree that Dembski seems prone to imply that his academic credentials somehow put him beyond criticism. Speaking as someone who is familiar with information theory and dynamical systems theory, I am confident that I could explain very serious technical objections to Dembski's recent claims (to others with similar background), although I lack the time (and the desire to become involved in this nasty controversy).
However, it is important to understand that back in 1988 Dembski did in fact earn a Ph.D. in the general area of probability theory. Indeed his first advisor, P. Billingsley, is the author of a classic textbook in this field. Nonetheless, many of those with comparable training and ability have questioned Dembski's various mathematical claims even before his notoriety. I have been told that at least some mathematicians familiar with his case regard Dembski's brief mathematical career as something of an aberration. It is telling that in a highly unusual step, his second advisor, Leo Kadanoff, has gone on record questioning Dembski's claims, in an attempt to counter the impression which Dembski and his admirers seem prone to promote, that Dembski's mathematical understanding/ability is beyond question or even that his mathematical claims are somehow accepted by mathematicians, which is not the case at all. ---CH 21:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dembski's assault on Padian

Where do you even begin with something like this:

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

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

But hey, he's the "Isaac Newton of Information Theory" ;) I wonder if Isaac Newton had such irrational outbursts? FeloniousMonk 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It gets weirder. Dembski's blog is now portraying Padian in cartoon form as a Ku Klux Klan Member http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1113 http://www.uncommondescent.com/images/padianintro.jpg What Dembski is doing to Padian on his blog is so offensive and dishonest that I don't think I could begin to write about it in the article and appear non-biased. And Dembski calls himself a Christian...I guess as a leading IDC advocate we should expect this sort of thing from him. Mr Christopher 18:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there any mainstream media coverage? Surely this will be picked up by a newspaper. FloNight talk 20:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
What exactly will be picked up by a newspaper, Flo? Dembski's slander of Padian or Dembski's baseless accusations (the same thing actually)? I doubt either will get much airplay outside of creationist blogs and science oriented ones like the Pandas Thumb. Demsbki has now pulled the KKK portrayal of Padian and admitted it was innapropriate. The article where Dembski accuses Padian of being a racist is still there. Mr Christopher 20:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
On June 1, Demsbki is changing jobs. Maybe there will media coverage related to the change? Could pick this up this stuff too. FloNight talk 03:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
KKK cartoon has been pulled from Uncommonly Dense now - anyone have a cached copy? DLX
Found one - http://img42.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc106&image=75435_padianintro.jpg (but since it is not nice to hotlink, use http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=446347d9869fd713;act=ST;f=14;t=1274;st=2790 DLX

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

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

[edit] Talk:William_A._Dembski/Archive 2

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

[edit] Catholic not Christian?

"Later, after becoming a Christian, he read creationist literature."

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

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

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

[edit] Pianka and DHS

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

We only have Dembski's word that the DHS already knew about Pianka's speech, and he has an interest in saying they did considering his liability and that the Dembski's report turned out to be baseless. Also, considering Dembski's history of revisionism at his blog, going back after the fact to change past statements to support more recent development, I think we need to be more than just a little circumspect here about what Dembski claims. If another non-partisan source makes the same claim, then Dembski's claim is on better footing. FeloniousMonk 21:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
We also only have Dembski's word that he contacted them at all. The fact that he has an interest in saying they did is not exactly a compelling reason disallow part of the already cited source, especially a part as relevant as this. Also, the edit never stated that they knew, it stated that Dembski REPORTED they knew. So we have a relevant claim from an already cited source that is being suppressed.
We also have Pianka's statement in the press and on his blog that Dembski reported him the the DHS. That Dembski filed what turned out to be a bogus report with the DHS is note worthy. The he has an interest in claiming they already knew is obvious. Since when did we become a PR channel for Dembski? TelicThoughts, the other pro-ID blog that covered Pianka's speech had the integrity to retract their statements and issue an apology, sort of. [19] Again, we need to be circumspect here about repeating partisan disinformation. FeloniousMonk 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
If we could use Pianka's statement instead of (or at least in conjunction with) Dembski's UD blog for the citation, I suppose I would be satisfied. But disallowing Dembski's statement when the source was already cited seems awfully biased against Dembski.
We could do something like that. I'll look over the sources. FeloniousMonk 22:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer-review controversy

Here's the current text for the Peer Review section:

Critics of the intelligent design movement frequently object that ID proponents have published no papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in support of the conjectures of intelligent design. The same criticism has been levelled at Dembski's Design Inference. However, Dembski claims that the book has in fact been peer reviewed [20]. Dembski states: "this book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory". In fact, The Design Inference was reviewed by mathematicians and philosophers; the book does not apply Dembski's argument to biology and evolution, the battleground in which intelligent design stakes its claim. The book's content is limited to examining the question of how to recognize intelligent design, Dembski's "explanatory filter"; it does not provide scientific evidence or justification for concluding that life was designed. Thus, while it is true to say that The Design Inference has been published in a peer-reviewed journal for mathematics and philosophy, it is false to claim that any work actually providing specific and detailed evidence for the existence of intelligent design for the universe has been so published in the arena of scientific press in which the topic is debated, which is what Dembski implies.[21][22][23][24]

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

  • Cite 21 is to a review by Richard Wein on the Talk Reason website. The relevant passage is as follow:
We are told (by Dembski and the publisher) that The Design Inference did undergo a review process, though no details of that process are available. It is interesting to note, however, that The Design Inference originally constituted Dembski's thesis for his doctorate in philosophy, and that his doctoral supervisors were philosophers, not statisticians. The publisher (Cambridge University Press) catalogues the book under "Philosophy of Science". One suspects that the reviewers who considered the book on behalf of the publisher were philosophers who may not have had the necessary statistical background to see through Dembski's obfuscatory mathematics.
There's nothing here to establishes a factual claim that the book "was reviewed by mathematicians and philosophers". The author speculates about the review process at CUP, but admits he don't know any details.
  • Cite 22 is to a blog, and blogs are specifically excluded as Reliable Sources. I'm willing to make exceptions for blogs by genuine experts (though I don't speak for the whole WP community), but this fellow is just an assistant professor of mathematics - a smart fellow, but not a relevant expert.
  • Cite 23 is to a submission to the Dover trial. The relevant passage reads:
"In his Disclosure, page 42, Dembski claims that his book The Design Inference was 'peer-reviewed'. As the author of a book published by the same publisher (Cambridge University Press), I know that book manuscripts typically do not receive the same sort of scrutiny that research articles do."
Again, there's nothing here but speculation, nothing that supports the factual claims its supposed to back up.
  • Cite 24 supports a number of the contentions, but author has no real credentials: he's a Public Information Project Specialist with the National Center for Science Education, with a MA in Geography.

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

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

  • Why is the Richard Wein quote unacceptable? It addresses the issue. The article does not state that Wein's conclusion is The Truth, so I don't see why you want it removed. Dembski has called the book "peer reviewed", but has not produced any evidence of how detailed the review was; CUP has (apparently) said so as well, but has not produced details of the number & qualification of the reviewers. In light of this, comments like Wein's are very relevant to the topic.
  • As said above, there's nothing wrong with Rosenhouse as a source. Rosenhouse actually has publications in at least one peer-reviewed science journal on this topic (see refs in Shallit paper). See also his profile at Scienceblogs (which is where his blog now resides).
  • Testimony under oath isn't speculation (depositions are sworn testimony). In addition, Shallit is an expert on the topic. The material you quote is embedded in a detailed explanation, which is well-supported by both examples and experience. Shallit is an excellent source.
  • Please explain why you think that the Public Information Project Specialist of NCSE has "no real credentials"? On what grounds? Nick Matzke has published extensively on the subject. What sort of credentials do you want? Guettarda 13:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Guettarda. Let me clarify my comments.
  • There's nothing wrong with Wein as a reference, but the article goes beyond what Wein says. Wein suspects the reviewers were philosophers without strong statistics backgrounds; the article states that the book was reviewed by mathematicians and philosophers. Speculation presented as fact: that's sloppy.
  • Re: Rosenhouse (and some of this applies to Matzke as well). I'm not sure I agree with your summary of WP policy. Here's the relevant quote:
Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym.
First, I don't see that R. is "well-known". I mean, if he's well-known, who are the obscure professional researcher/blogistas in the area? Secondly, his field of expertise is presumably some branch of mathematics. If publishing one peer-reviewed article makes ID into "his field of expertise", then logically one must argue that no-one can ever publish a peer-reviewed article outside their field of expertise - which is obviously not so. So I don't see that he clearly surmounts the barrier.
  • Shallit is also fine, of course, and I don't suggest he's lying under oath. But what he says does not support the text of the article. He says, more or less, In my experience, books are not as thoroughly peer-reviewed as papers, and I surmise that this was so with The Design Inference. One might call this speculation, but it's interesting speculation. However, the article doesn't touch on this point at all. The quote is evidence for something that the article doesn't assert.
  • Matzke is writing on his own dime (see the article's disclaimer), not under the imprimatur of NCSE. His own personal credentials are in geography. He's not a well-known journalist, either, though he might qualify as a journalist of some kind. I'm not saying his work isn't good; I think it is. But I don't see that he clearly meets the standard for Reliable Source.
I'm thinking of re-writing the passage to reflect only information backed up by the Wein and Shallit citations. Let me know what you think.--CJGB (Chris) 14:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "The article goes beyond what Weins says" - and that's a reason to delete the reference? What sort of weird rationale is that?
  • Rosenhouse is a well-known professional researcher writing about his field of expertise. Shallit cites two publications by Rosenhouse (only one of which counts as a peer-reviewed science journal). Rosenhouse is a blogger (read: syndicated columnist) at Scienceblogs. And Rosenhouse is writing about peer review of a mathematical work. By your standards Dembski isn't qualified to write about his own work
  • No, you most definitely did accuse Shallit of lying under oath above. But if you retract it, that's fine.
  • Matzke's job requires that he have expertise on the topic. Unless you have a source that says that he is unqualified to do his job, then your argument holds no water. And he is writing for an established, reputable and respected publication. He is qualified to write about the matter, and it's published in a reliable source. Simple enough. Guettarda 16:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
My response:
  • It's an excellent rationale. A reference that doesn't support the claims it's cited for is an inadequate reference and can be deleted. Likewise, a claim that is inadequately supported by its references can also be deleted.
  • I may be persuadable on Rosenhouse; let me think about it.
  • No retraction offered or required. Nothing in my comments of 00:06 30 August (or any other time) can possibly be construed as accusing Shallit of lying.
  • Please read the WP standards for Reliable Sources. I will spoon-feed you one more relevant passage:
However, editors should exercise caution [in using self-published material] for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.
Now, is Panda's Thumb a blog? No, it's got more heft than that. But read their disclaimer:
The opinions expressed in opening posts [i.e., articles like Metzke's] are those of the author only, and do not reflect the opinions of other authors, other organizations, or PandasThumb.org itself. PandasThumb.org does not review or approve material before it is posted.
Unfiltered, unedited content, in other words, just like blog. The fact Panda's Thumb selected Metzke as one of their contributers means something, sure, as does the fact that Metzke has a day job at a respectable institution. But neither of these facts is equivalent to him being a accredited academic with appropriate credentials and a peer-reviewed publishing record, or top-ranking journalist with equivalent creds. More importantly, they don't make this particular article in Panda's Thumb equivalent to a peer-reviewed or otherwise professionally vetted publication. It may be just as good, or better, than many such publications, but it just doesn't have the creds.
Come on, Guettarda: Dembski is one of the most widely discussed figures in science (or would-be science, or pseudoscience - whatever). The peer-review issue is one of the standard criticisms of his work. You should be able to find first-rate sources to back up a discussion of this issue. It does no service to the article's credibility to allow "kinda/sorta" references to sneak in. I'm not familiar enough with the literature to look them up myself with any efficiency, but I promise to be an eagle-eyed editor whne it comes to evaluating other people's refs.--CJGB (Chris) 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
"Peer review" for books from trade and university presses, like the Cambridge University press discussed here, is entirely unrelated to peer-review of scientific journal articles. This is covered at peer review. Publishers will print things they hope will sell well; the contents are understood to be the responsibility of the author alone. There is no formal review process in place, as there is for journals. Individual editors and publishers have discretion about whether or not to send a manuscript to an outside expert at all, and discretion to demand revisions from the author or not. This is true both at trade presses and university presses.
Most debate of ID, both pro and con, has taken place at blogs historically. Pandas Thumb is an acceptable source per WP:V and WP:RS and has been accepted widely across the project.
It seems clear to me that the sources provided support the content in question, which has stood for over a year. BTW, Dembski is hardly one of the most widely discussed figures in science. FeloniousMonk 18:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, unedited content from uncredentialed (or rather, insufficiently credentialed) commentators does not meet a very high standard of reliability. Many of the Panda's Thumb contributers have better credentials than Metzke, of course, and may qualify in their own right. I willing to discuss the WP:V and WP:RS issues, but please be specific in your claims. That fact that stuff hangs around for months isn't reason to let it hang around forever.
I've edited the passage to bring it in line with the two citations that are of indisputably high quality. Why anyone would want to lower the quality of documentation in the article is beyond me.
No doubt, more could be added on the general issue of peer review (I mean, apart from The Design Inference). There's material in the Wein article, and as I've said, I'm sure there's plenty of other excellent material available.--CJGB (Chris) 18:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement is properly cited, PT does represent mainstream scientific point of view, clearly. The idea that it is "not good enough" is patently ridiculous, the demanding of too high a standard of citation is a red herring and an attempt to remove citations and subvert NPOV. — Dunc|☺ 18:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If it represents the mainstream scientific point of view, then it should be possible to find better citations that support same contentions. I'm paraphrasing WP:RS. By the way, the only reason there are any citations for the disputed passage is because I intervened yesterday. Until then there were none at all, and apparently there had been none for over a year. Sorry if I'm not all that impressed by the standards of documentation upheld for this article thus far.--CJGB (Chris) 19:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, before any of us go digging for additional source, answer this question: What sort of source would you accept as supporting the original passage? I ask this because in addition to the original source that stood for a year, 3 new sources have been provided in the article in the last 24 hrs and you've rejected each. The original passage is a legitmate and verifable criticism that has been made many times. Others here feel the previous and current sources are fine, and they've been doing this for some time across a spectrum of topics. But what sort of source would you accept? FeloniousMonk 19:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me correct you here. Before yesterday, there was one cite for the first part of the paragraph, which I haven't challenged, and no cites for the second part, which I have. Since then, four cites have been provided for the second part, of which I have rejected two (one provisionally) and accepted two. Please revise your evaluation of my conduct on the basis of the facts.
I realise that many longstanding editors are happy with the quality of the article as it stands. I think there's some complacency in that view, especially with regard to the sourcing. I see some soft sources in terms both of quality and relevance. There are also some issues around argumentative language, but let me face one lynch mob at a time, OK?--CJGB (Chris) 20:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
You were joking about the lack of credentials for Nick Matzke, right? You do know who he is and the role he's played in the debate, I hope. His view on the matter couldn't be more relevant. FeloniousMonk 20:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm talking about his academic credentials and the unfiltered/unedited character of the Panda's Thumb site. Both those bring him down a few notches on reliability. I think his work is fine, BTW, but the specific essay cited does meet the formal standards for reliability.--CJGB (Chris) 20:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
As a source, Nick Matzke's criticism is acceptable. His research on behalf of the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover played one of the most central roles in the outcome of the Dover trial. So what specifically about his academic credentials [25] do you object to? Sorry, but his bonafides as a notable critic of ID are as good as anybody's, and better than most.
I'm curious, are you new to this topic? Because as for the nature of Pandas Thumb [26], compared to the other major venues where the ID debate takes place, Pandas Thumb is far better moderated than Dembski's UncommonDescent [27], less slanted than Dembski's Design Inference[28], and more neutral than the Discovery Institute's Evolutionnews.org [29]. On a subject where almost all meaningful discussion takes place on blogs, messageboards, and partisan websites, Pandas Thumb remains one of the most vital and relevant venues. It remains as much an acceptable source as is the Discovery Institute, Uncommon Descent, and the Design Inference. Surly you're not arguing we can't cite them as sources as well? FeloniousMonk 21:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I should hope not as Panda's Thumb is well-respect and oft-quoted. It is considered one of the best of its type.
I also take issue with the charge of complacency. It is not complacency to assert that one's current cites are sufficient, nor is it complacency to refuse to run around grabbing and adding more sources just to please one editor who seemingly, in a manner reminiscent of Wade Tisthammer, is willing to reject every cite provided. In fact, it seems to me that CJGB is parroting the classic IDM strategy of stating purported deficiencies and laughing as non-IDists scurry for cites, while he offers nothing concrete himself. •Jim62sch• 22:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Before I sign off for the day, let me assure you I am not ID-ist. Regarding complacency, take a look at the disputed passage:
In fact, The Design Inference was reviewed by mathematicians and philosophers; the book does not apply Dembski's argument to biology and evolution, the battleground in which intelligent design stakes its claim. The book's content is limited to examining the question of how to recognize intelligent design, Dembski's "explanatory filter"; it does not provide scientific evidence or justification for concluding that life was designed. Thus, while it is true to say that The Design Inference has been published in a peer-reviewed journal for mathematics and philosophy, it is false to claim that any work actually providing specific and detailed evidence for the existence of intelligent design for the universe has been so published in the arena of scientific press in which the topic is debated, which is what Dembski implies.
This piece of argumentative original research remained in the article for over a year without a single supporting cite, or (apparently) an attempt to provide a cite. The fact that the well-informed and attentive editors of this article entirely overlooked a glaring need for documentation suggests something about complacency or unconscious bias. So if you feel I'm holding you to too high a standard, remember that you (and others) were holding yourselves to too low a standard for quite some time. --CJGB (Chris) 22:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
CJGB, while you are correct that this should be cited, accusing people of compacency and such is uncalled for. Given how many different articles need work and how much constant effort there has been to keep this article in something resembling an NPOV fashion it should not be surprising if a few sentences aren't perfectly cited. I suggest you spend a few months watching this page and then see how you respond when a similar issue comes up. On a related note, there is a long standing precedent at Wikipedia that PT meets WP:RS since it has none of the classic problems of blogs and articles are extensively vetted. JoshuaZ 00:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with "holding [people] to too high a standard" - it's about removing material that you don't say is false or in doubt, but rather, because you don't like the sources. It's about refusing to work constructively with other editors, but rather to simply delete material while making gratuitous insults to your fellow editors. Before you go around trying to beat people over the head with your interpretation of policy, you should familiarise yourself with what the policy actually means and why it exists. Wikilawyering is frowned upon. Removing content and deleting sources just to make a point is frowned upon. If you actually want to improve Wikipedia you should try providing sources for material you feel inadequately sourced, not deleting sources. Guettarda 02:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Dembski's following open peer review

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

Dembski follows the peer review policy of ISCID, posting his publications on ISCID Archives for public discussion at ISCID Brainstorms, as well as at his own web site, DesignInference.org to obtain public review and comment. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], Dembski specifically rebutted charges by Eugene Scott that ID research including Dembski's monograph was not peer reviewed. [6], [7] DLH 20:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The strategy outlined is one in which Dembski cynically manipulates the system to evade criticism and avoids acknowledging the debt that he owes to critics of his work. --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Gee, that's a pretty unfair misrepresentation of what Dembski says he does. What he said is that he puts his work out on the internet so he can find out what people will have to say in response to it, and then he responds to those objections in the published form. Maybe there's an issue of acknowledging his debt to critics of his work, but it's extremely unfair to call this "evading criticism". What it is is preemptively responding to critism by means of a practice that most academics now do when they put their papers online in order to receive criticisms that they will then have answers to when they publish the work in a print publication. This is by no means avoiding criticsm. It's heading it off before he gets his work published. They're nothing evasive about that. What's evasive, at most, is whether he acknowledges the critic. But that's not cynically manipulating the system to evade criticism. That line does not belong in Wikipedia. --Parableman 19:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Some notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Davies and Kauffman

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

At the same time, a few prominent scientists, such as Paul Davies and Stuart Kauffman, regard his project of inferring design as legitimate, though they are not convinced that he himself has carried it out successfully.[30][31]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Significant voices in the science community

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

Shallit says that "Dembski's work is extensively critizied in the literature" and Shallit and gives examples of Wolpert Perahk and Elsberry. So yes this is "Shallit's say-so". What precisely is your problem with that? JoshuaZ 18:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I have communicated with Wolpert myself and I have yet to see him criticize Dembski's credentials. As for the others, I do not consider them significant. I will edit the article tomorrow. Robert O'Brien 11:38 September 8, 2006 (PDT)
I see. And you get to decide who is significant? JoshuaZ 18:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, I've modified things to what may be a reasonable compromise form. JoshuaZ 18:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
That is acceptable to me. Thanks. Robert O'Brien 11:52 September 8, 2006 (PDT)
Interesting, since I have one more peer-reviewed journal article on "intelligent design" than does Dembski. --Wesley R. Elsberry 22:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
So Robert, why the switch from Panda's Thumb to Wikipedia, did you get tired of being lambasted over there? Jeez, it's the same discussion even...how you corresponded with Wolpert, how Dembski is right, Shallit and Ellsberry don't count, blah, blah, blah. Time to check on the "modification". •Jim62sch• 19:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Lambasted? Keep dreaming. By the way, I still post to PT. Robert O'Brien 13:15 September 8, 2006 (PDT)
Dreaming, nay, my good man, just going through the archives. That's the great thing about archives of the written word, unlike our memories, they don't alter with time. ;) •Jim62sch• 20:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Moved Dembski's web site The DesignInference.com from "Defending Dembski" as it is his primary site, not otherj's "defending" him. Updated UncomonDescent.com description to current.71.120.35.49 02:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbecue

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

Their website[32] makes no mention of this nor do they mention he is one of the owners. PT made somewhat of a parady about it (no free lunch, etc)[33]. I'm not sure I see any relevance though. If PT is correct he's a partner in a barbeque joint near Waco. He probably owns some stocks and bonds too, again, I wouldn't see any notoriety in that either. Unless of course they have some sort of ID related gimmick (as you wondered), which at first glance they do not. Next time I'm down that way I'll pop by and do some original research on the ribs. Mr Christopher 21:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the website linked shows some more information if you view the page source:

<o:DocumentProperties><o:Author>William A. Dembski</o:Author>

--Wesley R. Elsberry 14:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Let us know if the sauce is intelligently designed. ;) •Jim62sch• 23:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I dropped by on Tuesday, June 14th, 2005 to have a look at the place. Unfortunately, it was only open, it said, Thursday-Friday-Saturday, and maybe (don't recall exactly) Sunday. So I didn't have the opportunity to check out the ribs for myself. I took some pictures, but may have lost those in a hard disk crash. It's right on Hwy 6, but I'd recommend winter, spring, or fall visits, as I did not see any air-conditioned seating area there. --Wesley R. Elsberry 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I found a picture. Prof. Steve Steve was so disappointed; he hoped to try out their sauce over bamboo shoots. --Wesley R. Elsberry 14:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DaveScot's libel claims

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

Statements that were made by his chief moderator would seem to be relevant, and having read the comment you made it seems like an accurate summary. Sorry. JoshuaZ 02:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Copying the blog posts here so everyone can see
I hope someone keeps track of the 11 parents and their children. Everyone in Dover knows damn well that no children were forced to listen to the 60 second announcement regarding evolution and intelligent design. So what you have is 11 parents whose religious hostility extended to such a trivial matter they were willing to make the tiny school district pay a million dollars.
I won't be at all surprised if the children of these parents are so badly ostracized and abused by other students that they're forced to find another school and the parents will be snubbed and insulted and their cars keyed and their coworkers and supervisors making their lives miserable that they'll all end up moving away.
I hope that's all tracked so that the next group of parents that gets their panties in a bunch and volunteers to the be the designated shitheads know what it's going to cost them." [34] (already referenced in the article). JoshuaZ 02:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please see WP:LEGAL. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Also note that WP:BLP applies to "poorly sourced" claims, whereas this is well-sourced and so it isn't relevant. JoshuaZ 03:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, ignoring the legal-threat making unidentified individual who claims he is Dave Scott, there could be some modification of phrasing here. Pity our anon isn't mature enough to discuss things in a rational manner, but let's not knee-jerk and dismiss any potential concerns. I have entered a rephrase, soliciting input. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the earlier wording. He said explicitly "I hope someone keeps track of the 11 parents and their children...I grew up in a small town and when a few people pull crap like that that hurts everyone there will be payback...I hope that's all tracked so that the next group of parents that gets their panties in a bunch and volunteers to the be the designated shitheads know what it's going to cost them" That last sentence especially seems to be a pretty clear endorsement. He wants them to "know what it's going to cost them". JoshuaZ 03:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, with another cite perhaps? Ed Brayton states "...over at Larry's blog where he endorsed the bullying and intimidation of the children of the plaintiffs in Dover..." [35] Yes? No? Maybe? Keep looking? KillerChihuahua?!? 03:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Does Ed's blog constitute a reliable source? I know that consensus is that PT is reliable, I'm not sure Ed's blog is. So it might not help us from a sourcing perspective. As far as I can tell the claim is so blatant in Dave's original comment that further sourcing is unecessary. JoshuaZ 03:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Blogs are generally considered reliable sources for what their authors state. As Ed states clearly he thinks it is an endorsement, I would think it would suffice for that statement. However, I concur that the actual text of the DaveScot quote is fairly clear on its own. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Scienceblogs published by a reputable publisher, so it's reasonable to conclude that it's actually Ed who's saying what he's saying. That's really all that matters here. But I do consider Ed to be a prominent enough source on the issue that he should be considerd a reliable source himself. Guettarda 04:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Scienceblogs by defintion isn't a random set of bloggers. If you want to revert it to the original version I won't object. Also, FYI, I am going to block his new IP. Even though I am involved it is a clear violation of his block and so my involvement shouldn't be an issue especially given the very serious nature of WP:LEGAL. JoshuaZ 04:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, if no one other than Dave objects by tommorow morning (US east coast time), I'm going to put in the original version with Ed Brayton as a source. In the meantime, I suggest that until Dave withdraws his legal threats he be reverted on sight. JoshuaZ 05:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Dave, also please note that you are much more likely to get some sort of compromise or get it removed if you don't declare in advance that you intend to violate Wikipedia policies no matter what. Calm, rational discussion is always a better option than threats. JoshuaZ 03:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Josh, "Dave" is blocked for 3 hours, to give him time to cool down and read WP:LEGAL, and decide how he wishes to proceed. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Josh - like the most recent version. As it is a direct quote, with no interpretation, that covers any concerns about inaccurate interpretation. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Block Dave and revert his edits on sight.

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

Links 50 to 53 are dead. 72.183.101.183 23:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Just another attempt to suppress the facts by Davescot with the help of Larry Fafarman now. I've updated the links to secondary sources now, which is better anyway as it put the issue in context. FeloniousMonk 17:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BLP Noticeboard response

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

Search for "Daves" in the article and you should find it. Note that the main source in the current version is from scienceblogs which is treated as a reliable source. Not to engage in ad hominems or well poisoning but the anon who brought the matter up is DaveScot. In fact, the matter was sourced to the primary comments until he got Larry to take them down and then attempted to remove the statement saying the sources didn't have it. He also initially tried to "clarify" what he meant with those comments so his attempt to say on the BLP board that maybe the comments weren't his is insulting to our intelligence. The bottom line is that no matter how unhappy Dave is with his comments and no matter how many times he makes libel accusations the comment is reliably sourced. JoshuaZ 01:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The fact that blog posts can be vaporized so easily or manipulated is precisely one of the reasons that they are ill-suited as sources. I've only done a quick read, and it's a long article, but I have to say that from the "Peer review controversy" section down, it takes on an increasing flavor of original research. I also question what relevance the rantings of a moderator on Dembski's blog has to a biography of Dembski. If they aren't verifiably Dembski's own statements, then they probably can't be sourced by Dembski's blog. The rules about linking to and sourcing blogs have tightened up quite a bit just recently. See WP:EL for some significant changes, and WP:V, which is apparently eclipsing WP:RS as the standard. I have some other minor problems, like the excessive use of quotation marks on statements that either are not quotes, or do not cite the source being quoted. I'll try to help out here, but this article is huge, and it's going to take a lot of effort and time. And as a disclaimer, yes, I am a "conservative", but I had never heard of Dembski before an hour ago, and I've never paid much attention to ID, so I'm not here to push any agenda other than the Wikipedia agenda. - Crockspot 01:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I had issues with the use of the primary blog posts. But there is a longstanding precedent that scienceblogs are considered to be reliable since the standard problems with blogs (anonymity, lack of oversight, lack of credentialed authors etc.) don't exist for them. As to your other comments, I would agree there are other problems in the current article and any assistance with them would be gratefully appreciated. However, the Davescot matter isn't one of them. JoshuaZ 01:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Crockspot has it right in all particulars. Even if ScienceBlogs is considered reliable the primary source was Fafarman's blog which is not reliable. But that's not the main point. Relevance is the main point. DaveScot's comment did not appear on Dembski's blog and there's not a shred of evidence that Dembski either knew about it or agreed with it. So what is it doing on Dembski's biography? Are there any precendents of this kind of thing in other BLPs on wiki? If there are I haven't seen them. 66.61.146.77 07:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Relevance is a key issue here. Unless a convincing case can be made that discussion of DaveScots blog comments are relevant to this biography, I think it should come out. Also, I think that the "science blog" argument skirts the spirit of the exception. Science blogs can be reliable on matters of science, or the specialty that they deal with. Ranting and raving on those blogs should be treated the same as from any other blog. Crockspot 15:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"Science blogs can be reliable on matters of science, or the specialty that they deal with" - this is Brayton's speciality. Guettarda 17:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you lost me. Are you saying that Brayton has established the science of documenting the rantings of a third party (who is not the subject of this bio) about pushing around children, and is recognized as an expert in this field? - Crockspot 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think your both a bit off track here. The reason that scienceblogs are acceptable is that the usual problems with blogs don't exist. In particular, everything that goes up has 1) both oversight and editorial supervision and 2) we know precisely who is making the claims. JoshuaZ 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
In BLP articles, I think your interpretations is a little too generous. See WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper) and WP:V#Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s). Crockspot 18:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That says "For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources" I don

t see that as making a blanket statement. JoshuaZ 19:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's set aside the RS issue for a moment, and tackle the relevance. I still don't see what relevance the DaveScot post has to this biography. If this was an article about DaveScot, there might be a good case for inclusion, but this article is not about DaveScot. - Crockspot 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This semems like a more serious issue. DaveScot is a two-bit player on the ID scene and not nearly as important as he'd like to be or think he is. The argument would have to go something like "its relevant because the article is about Dembski and what happens at his blog is a major part of it" It might seem more reasonable to include it if we had a separate article on Uncommon Descent. On the other hand, we clearly don't have enough material to have a separate article on Uncommon Descent, so any such material would be reasonable to have here. I haven't made up my mind on this matter at all. (Given that the content is sourced and such I'm also tempted to keep it in simply in reaction to DaveScot's behavior since he first made libel claims then got Larry to take down the original posts and then tried to blank and vandalize this article, then made some more libel noises, and now is trying to claim that maybe the posts aren't his even though he had earlier tried to argue that he had meant something different. Indeed, Dave seems to be going out of his way to take the info out and if anything just to establish that Wikipedia won't back down from threats and manipulation we should consider keeping it if we think the sourcing is good. JoshuaZ 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
According to your reply, the information is under contention now. That puts it in another light re WP:RS, regardless of the behavior of DS. We shouldn't be making editorial decisions based on spite. I have worked with Jimbo a little bit on issues very similar to this, and I'm sure if I asked him about this, he would chastise me for not having removed the info already. I'm trying not to be heavy handed here, but so far, I am not seeing adequate justification for the information remaining in the article. Also bear in mind that Wikipedia considers libel to be the responsibility of the editor who contributed it (an opinion that has been confirmed by a recent court decision), so if legal action ends up being taken, WP counsel is simply going to flip responsibility onto the editor(s) who contributed the material. That would not be a good position to be in. - Crockspot 18:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
If you think the sourcing is bad enough to require removal under WP:BLP, you should remove it. JoshuaZ 19:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
If it can be shown that Dembsky authorized DaveScot as moderator of his blog (twice), it seems to me that comments made by DaveScot reflect on Dembsky's views. Especially considering that DaveScot was reinstated after those comments. I do agree that the rest of the article needs a lot of work. -- Cat Whisperer 18:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and removed most of the paragraph regarding DaveScot. It is irrelevant to the biography, and not well sourced. I noticed the scienceblog being cited starts off with "Assuming this is really DaveScot, and not...". Obviously, even the blogmaster cannot verify authorship. The sentence that I did leave should probably have a citation, hence the cn tag. There are other problems with the article, but this is the one that was reported, so that is all I am doing for now. I need to familiarize myself more with the material before trying to "fix" it further. Crockspot 18:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Oooh, that's a good point about how the entry starts off. Clearly then your decision was correct. JoshuaZ 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
No, DS's subsequent actions and comments trying to explain what he meant removed any of the doubt expressed at the beginning of the blog post. DS never tried to deny the comments were his, but in fact, his response to was to spin try and spin them. I can provide sources for DS confirming the comments were his if necessary. That Dembski lets what most parties involved in the topic consider to be trolls run his personal blog is both revelant and necessary to any complete article on the topic of Dembski. The only question is how to present in a verifiable, dispassionate and neutral way. FeloniousMonk 20:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you write an article about DaveScot, and try to include this info there, because this information is irrelevant to this biography. Please read WP:BLP carefully, because the repeated insertion of this information, particularly after it has been more or less agreed upon to be a BLP violation, is a blockable offence. I am a regular volunteer of the WP:BLPP, and am here because of a complaint on the WP:BLPN. Calling what I am doing "wikilawyering" could be interpreted as a personal attack. My justifications were well though out, well presented, well founded in WP policy, and not executed until it had been discussed thoroughly. Crockspot 21:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Please explain to us how any one individual's controversial choice on who to have run his personal website is irrevelant to that individual's article? Your reasoning here simply does not follow. FeloniousMonk 21:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please do explain. This is also a bit odd, "Calling what I am doing "wikilawyering" could be interpreted as a personal attack." Simply saying that you might be wrong "could" be seen as an ad hominem using that logic. Also, who "more or less agreed" that it was a BLP violation? I understand the sensitivity of BLP, but there are rational limits to deciding what is a violation of BLP. •Jim62sch• 22:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
At the time that I removed the text, the only person engaging in this discussion made this conclusion. I chose the words "more or less" because of the apparent lack of interest by anyone else. The IP editor below seems to agree too. - Crockspot 00:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
There is some misinformation here in the running of Dembski's blog. DS is one of seven "administrators". In addition are two "editors" who have global moderation power, and nine "authors" who can moderate their own articles. DS has thousands of comments all over the internet and the comment under discussion wasn't even on Dembski's blog. Selecting one comment from one moderator made on an obscure unreliable blogspot blog in an attempt to make Dembski look bad is far from NPOV. Crockspot removed something that clearly didn't belong for a number of very good reasons. 72.183.101.183 23:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Well said. With that, and what I have already stated above, there really isn't much else I can add. - Crockspot 00:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. It is accurate and verifiable; it is relevant (unlike the other 6 or so admins who haven't done anything much noteworthy one way or the other) because he is chosen by, and placed in his position by, Dembski. Dembski used to run that stuff himself; he hand picked people to carry on, as it were, who he felt shared his values and beliefs. What exactly are we doing here? DS is making legal threats, and you think it would be a good idea to knuckle under to him? I don't think so. And DaveScot is not notable enough by himself for his own article - as a minor inclusion in this one, as one of Dembski's hand picked successors on the blog, yes. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thinking over this more, I'm inclined to retract my earlier statements. First, what DaveScot does with Dembski on Dembski blog is clearly relevant especially since Dembski seems to be spending more time running his blog in the last few years than anything else. Second, rereading the Ed Brayton piece it becomes very clear that Ed is sure that the person on the blog was Dave Scott and Dave has made comments on Dembski's blog indicating that the statements were from him, so this does pass BLP. I also have to agree with KC that I'm appalled that after DaveScot's noise about libel and then outright vandalism of this page that we would even let him talk here at all. Until he withdraws his threats he should remain blocked per WP:LEGAL and put any more of his threats through OTRS not here. JoshuaZ 01:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Well that's just peachy. I'm sensing a lot of passion on this article, but I'm not here because I love or hate Dembski, or even give two shits about intelligent design, because I don't. I'd never heard of Dembski before I came to this article, and I'm not religious. Someone made a complaint, I investigated, and I found a problem. I fixed the problem, and I am prepared to stand my ground, because I know that I did the right thing, and that if it came down to it, the powers that be would back me up. If the "incidents" were truly relevant and important enough to merit encyclopedic entry in this biography, then they would be sourcable through reliable secondary sources, such as a newspaper, magazine, press release, or television interview. The rules about use of blogs are quite strict, particularly when dealing with negative information regarding living people. I would like to get on with generally improving the article by formatting the cites and cleaning it up a bit. I'm only two paragraphs in. Crockspot 01:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
You didn't find a problem, you found what you believed to be a problem. (Whether or not you "fixed" anything is debatable). You then assumed that because one editor, who appears to have given the information a cursory glance at best, agreed with you that it was "more or less agreed upon to be a BLP violation", you could simply delete the well-sourced material. You did not wait for other editors who were active in the discussion to weigh in, but rather you chose to take unilateral action.
The rationale you used for the deletion appears to hinge on a misreading of both WP:V and a sarcastic throw-away comment made by Ed Brayton. Additionally, the logic that, "If the "incidents" were truly relevant and important ... they would be sourcable through reliable secondary sources, such as a newspaper, magazine, press release, or television interview." is simply inane. Believe it or not, neither Dembski nor Dave Scot are on the media radar screen -- in five years, Dembski has been mentioned in three articles by the NYT, and in none of those articles was he the focal point.
BTW, the comment by 72.183.101.183 is of no value as it was made by Dave Scot himself (see previous comments by that IP for proof). That you didn't bother to go up a few sections on the talk page to see that, but rather just cried "ditto" to the comments, is very troubling and casts doubt on the arguments you have put forth on this page. As you indicate that you are planning on working your way through the article, I sincerely hope that you will henceforth act only after carefully researching each item rather than simply engaging in knee-jerk removal or rewriting of the item. •Jim62sch• 13:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
It is incorrect speculation that Dembski handpicked anyone to moderate his blog. When he said he was going to shut it down because he no longer had the time to manage it a number of the commenters wrote asking if there was some way to keep the community the blog had established going. He reconsidered and asked for volunteers from among those he thought knew the most about ID and had been contributors there long enough to know how he wanted the blog moderated. The moderation job takes a lot of work. Uncommon Descent gets trolled to death. No one sees the trolling because there are a number of moderators there doing a lot of work behind the scenes. DS had the requisite time and knowledge to moderate in the manner Dembski required so he initially got the highest rank which Dembski called "blogczar" at the time. Currently no one is blogczar and there are seven top level administrators. In what form do you want me to retract my legal threat? I'm not about to forever sign away my constitutional right to legal redress but I'll retract the particular threat I made for the time being. 72.183.101.183 13:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
What I also wrote on that blog, that nobody bothered to quote because it didn't support their thesis that I was a bad person who wanted to see children harmed, was that I felt sorry for the children of the 11 Dover parents because they had no influence on their parents' decision to sue. The facts are (which I also wrote, none of which can be cited now because Fafarman removed the whole thing) is that eleven parents got their panties in a bunch because of a 60-second schpiel at the beginning of biology class mentioning alternative beliefs to mainstream evolution and there was a book in the library for any students with an interest in those alternatives. Moreover, any kids or parents that didn't want their kids to hear the schpiel could have a recess break while it was read. The school board bent over backwards to accomodate everyone. Dover is a tiny town and that trial cost a million bucks (likely over $1000 per taxpayer). A million bucks can buy a sports arena, a new library, or any number of big time things for that tiny school district. But nooooooooo. Eleven parents in a kerfuffle over nothing cost a million dollars in ACLU recompense for legal fees. My wife and have raised 3 children and are very active in our public schools. We know how kids get ostracized over the most trivial things. Just wearing the wrong clothes can make a kid a pariah. Think what having a parent who traded in a sports arena to quash a trivial thing that none of the students actually gave a damn about is going to do to a kid. My heart aches for what those children will almost surely be subjected to as long as they remain in that tiny school district where everyone knows everyone else. The parents of these kids should have considered the social consequences of their actions and bit their tongues for the good of their own children. Now if you want to quote me on the above go right ahead if you can convince anyone it's relevant to Dembski's biography, which it clearly ain't because Dembski knew nothing of all this and there's nothing at all to say he condoned or agreed with I wrote on Fafarman's obscure little anonymous comment blog. 72.183.101.183 19:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
"The parents of these kids should have considered the social consequences of their actions and bit their tongues for the good of their own children."
By that logic, a historian would argue that the American Revolution was a mistake, and that for the sake of their kids, the anti-Tory faction should have just sucked it up and put up with the tax structure imposed by the Crown.
I am glad that not everyone in the USA is as cowardly as the cynical philosophy espoused in the quote would make them. --Wesley R. Elsberry 10:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
What about davescot's policy of banning people from UD for comments they make on other blogs. He's gone on record saying he reads blogs critical of ID and bans people from Dembski's blog if they say things anywhere on the internet that are critical of ID or Dembski. Both Dembski and davescot have a habit of deleting things from UD when they're caught or it's obvious they have said something clueless/ignorant/self incriminating but I think I can dig up the post where dimscot lets all the bloggers at UD know he is watching them and will ban them if they are caught saying critical things elsewhere on the internet. The weirdness never ceases at dembski's online adult day care center. Mr Christopher 23:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
davescot was all "To answer your questions, yes I do occasionally check up on commenters here to see what they’re saying elsewhere and it will get you axed if you talk badly about this blog elsewhere then act all polite and kindly when here in order to participate. [36] just plain creepy...Mr Christopher 23:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
For the record Barbara Forrest (a leading ID/DI/Dembski critic) finds the davescot, William Dembski, UD love triangle noteworthy - http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/kitzmiller.html She mentions davescot's antics at UD in her article about Dembski as well. I view davescot as Dembski's lap poodle. Mr Christopher 18:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another NPOV and/or relevance issue in the discussion of Dembski's blog

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

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

No, that's not true. To begin with, Dembksi turned over daily management of the blog to these people, and re-instated one of them after some of the most egregious postings. In addition, UD is famous for its disappearing posts/comments, so anything that doesn't get removed is probably approved by Dembski. So yes, there is evidence. Guettarda 15:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted that blog stuff as non-notable and contentious. IMHO the Wikipedia's Intelligent design article discussion page is especially non-notable to be mentioned (after all it is the talk page edited by non-notables). Same applies to any other non-notable critic unless someone notable is able to be quoted as presenting this accusation. In that regards is Ed Brayton notable ? This is too much blog-wars - who gives a damn how people manage their blogs unless there is some legal obligation to keep a record e.g. financial advice BUT is isn't so therefore it's just conjecture not in the spirit of WP:LIVING. I have removed the blog bits and {fact} the one-liner on the critics. Don't take that as a positive for Dembski by me as I'm with Kurzweil with respect to Dembski (e.g. see The Singularity Is Near page 474 etc). This is a Wikipedia quality issue. Ttiotsw 15:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course Brayton is notable. How not? UD is a major element of how Dembksi operated pre-Kitzmiller. His promotion or encouragement of hate-speech is highly relevant, as is his use of censorship, as is the fact that he uses his followers to disrupt critics. Guettarda 15:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Two issues here: - we are talking about "freelance writer and businessman" Ed Brayton ? and I stuck his name into Wikipedia and nothing popped out. Obviously with Google lots of hits but thats the mesh of blogville. The method to get him into this article would be to first get him his own Wikipedia article with cites and bibliography etc. Then it kind of falls into place. (Playing devils advocate here). Ttiotsw 15:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
With regards to the {{fact}} - the problem here isn't that it's unsourced, the problem with that statement is that it isn't just "his critics", it's everyone who has looked at the issue who isn't a Dembski-ite. Guettarda 15:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm certainly not a Dembski-ite and it looks like a weasel worded one-liner IMHO. Get Ed Brayton or anyone else notable onto wikipedia who can then be used to cite that statement which I stuck the {fact} onto. Ttiotsw 15:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
What exactly are Ed Brayton's credentials aside from the fact that he was invited to join scienceblogs even though he has no science degree? He describes himself of a freelance writer and businessman but mentions only a couple obscure journals that have published him. He's a cofounder of a tiny non-profit Citizens for Science group in his home state. His blog writing is reactionary and inflammatory. If it wasn't his own blog he'd be a troll. And by the way, I happen to know it's Larry Fafarman that has been trolling Ed's blog. No UD moderators to my knowledge have done so. I know a UD moderator or two got fiesty on the Intelligent Design article but knowing them I bet they remained fairly civil. And no, Dembski sees virtually none of the unapproved comments on Uncommon Descent. That's just another example of the speculation engaged in here that's presented as fact. I'd also point out that the blog ceased being Dembski's alone and became Dembski AND FRIENDS 11 months ago. I also happen to know that none of the authors submit drafts of articles before publishing and Dembski doesn't exert any control over what they write. Do any of you tell your friends what to say and what not to say? UD is a group blog. 72.183.101.183 16:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Guettarda - Dembski knew nothing of those comments on Fafarman's blog and I challenge you to find a shread of evidence that he did. You're implying that he did and you're making that up out of thin air. Correct me if I'm wrong with a citation. 72.183.101.183 19:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Guettarda - p.s. Dembski rarely approves or disapproves of anything anymore. Authors are given complete freedom. It's Dembski AND FRIENDS, a group blog, and has been for the past 11 months which encompasses almost all the things under contention here. Again you're just making things up about the management of Dembski's blog to suit your arguments with no evidence to back it up. Please start providing cites for these claims or just stop making them as it's getting quite tiresome. 72.183.101.183 19:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote mining and general negative POV in this article

A Dembski *critic* on ATBC is offended by the POV in this biography.

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

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

The critic is more "bug"'ed and less "offended". The essence of his bug is the claim that "Dembski has no papers on any subject published in an academic journal" and yet states that "his CV shows a couple published in statistical journals.". The problem is that the section Peer-review controversy is fairly clear that there are papers that are peer reviewed but that this review for mathematics and philosophy and so it is false to claim that any work actually providing specific and detailed evidence for the existence of intelligent design for the universe (quoting wikipedia). Please do provide cites for peer-reviewed papers on intelligent design. The article doesn't seem that bad quote-mine wise especially given the controversial nature of any pseudoscience, of which intelligent design is clearly placed, but please highlight exactly where you think it's overweight. In fact why not edit the article yourself so I can get back to my beer. Ttiotsw 15:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Offended isn't really an unfair translation for bugged but point taken. However, this quote from bebbo "Even though I'm no fan of Dembski it does bug me that his Wiki page is obviously written from a totally anti-ID standpoint. I do think it's biased just by the choice of content, even if most of it is true." makes it pretty clear Doctor Bebbington isn't restricting his criticism to the CV trivia. ID is pseudoscience because it's claimed it isn't falsifiable. That's patently not true. Confirmation of unintelligent design is the falsification of intelligent design. For instance the Harvard Origins of Life Project has the goal of demonstrating how life can originate. If they succeed then a central tenet of ID goes up in smoke. If one accepts that it's scientific to hypothesize unintelligent origins then the converse must be true otherwise how is unintelligent origins to be falsified? I'd certainly like to edit this article but every time I've tried it just gets immediately reverted. I'm also honest enough to say I'm probably not someone who should be making wholesale edits to this article as I'm an ID POV warrior. Some of the admins hovering over this article are just as clearly anti-ID POV warriors and should recuse themselves as well. JoshuaZ for example said he was banned from Uncommon Descent. I've got a list of six respected scientists and religious leaders (so far) who've complained to me in email of FeloniousMonk heavy handidly not allowing them to make corrections of fact to their own biographies. If Crockspot is willing to help me maintain an NPOV and be the final arbitor of any edits I'd be happy to work with him to clean this up. If I have to argue ad infinitum and take it to the BLP complaint page for every change then I really don't have the time. Any suggestions? Perhaps bebbo would be willing to start the ball rolling. I believe he already corrected the CV complaint. Sorry to take you away from your beer. 72.183.101.183 15:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Letting you edit this article is a bizaare violation of WP:COI/WP:AUTO. As to your comment about me being banned(which I noted above), do you know how many comments it took for that to happen? Exactly 1, correcting a minor factual detail. The notion that somehow this makes me unable to edit the article is absurd and while you may self-identify as as "an ID POV warrior" that doesn't make people you disagree with in that category (Having Larry delete the comments on his blog was really impressive even by the standards of a self-identified "POV warrior" and then following that the blatant vandalism of the article really put it over the top. Between that and your non-retraction retraction of your legal threats (retracting them "for the time being") You are a SPA, self-identified POV warror who has made legal threats and hasn't fully retracted them. I don't see why we're even tolerating you on Wikipedia, much less this page. Putting any regular editor in the same category as you for editing purposes is off the wall. As for your unamed "six respected scientists and religious leaders" (who in all likelyhood means the many DI fellows that have tried to whitewash their own articles), if they followed WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:V I doubt they would have had any issues. I suggest you stop wasting your time casting vague aspersions on editors in good standing. JoshuaZ 17:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
No - to me (and others) ID is pseudoscience because it posits a "supernatural" which patently can't be falsified (though abviously Dawkins has a good go by proposing a diminished probability of the same). It is that last leap of faith that divides the two. Same with Islamic "science" from revelation in the Qur'an. Few doubt that "Confirmation of unintelligent design is the falsification of intelligent design" as they are mirrors held up to the same problem. Even I would go to say that the first time science truely finds an irreducibly complex biological organism then I better read up on Pascals wager (though I really want to go with the Norse gods as there seems to be more drunk) but I won't hold my breath as so far all proposed examples are actually quite simple. The editor names you quote all hit my radar but then I choose to edit contentious articles; my concern is that you have "six respected scientists and religious leaders" who want their bio's tweaked. I don't see the problem as WP:LIVING is a lot more strict than other articles. Maybe you can post their views to a request for comments. Truthfully though I would have guessed controversy sold books. Ttiotsw 16:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
"Confirmation of unintelligent design is the falsification of intelligent design."
No, that would be disfavoring a competing hypothesis by means of Ockham's razor. Falsification, whether you credit it with serving as a demarcation criterion or not, is a technical term with a simple definition that is based upon modus tollens and has nothing to do with the truth-value of hypotheses other than the one being examined. Falsification, in essence, is testing whether a hypothesis makes false predictions, by looking for something that must be true if the hypothesis is true. Of course, this exact confusion over what falsification means is common among "intelligent design" high-level advocates, including William Dembski (see Dances With Popper). --Wesley R. Elsberry 10:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
What exactly are Ed Brayton's credentials aside from the fact that he was invited to join scienceblogs even though he has no science degree? He describes himself of a freelance writer and businessman but mentions only a couple obscure journals that have published him. He's a cofounder of a tiny non-profit Citizens for Science group in his home state. His blog writing is reactionary and inflammatory. If it wasn't his own blog he'd be a troll. And by the way, I happen to know it's Larry Fafarman that has been trolling Ed's blog. No UD moderators to my knowledge have done so. I know a UD moderator or two got fiesty on the Intelligent Design article but knowing them I bet they remained fairly civil. And no, Dembski sees virtually none of the unapproved comments on Uncommon Descent. That's just another example of the speculation engaged in here that's presented as fact. I'd also point out that the blog ceased being Dembski's alone and became Dembski AND FRIENDS 11 months ago. I also happen to know that none of the authors submit drafts of articles before publishing and Dembski doesn't exert any control over what they write. Do any of you tell your friends what to say and what not to say? UD is a group blog. Also, the version of ID we use on Uncommon Descent is this one which emphatically does not posit a supernatural. Intelligence isn't necessarily supernatural unless you care to you and me as supernatural. http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ One of the problems with ID is that isn't a monolithic hypothesis. There are many versions. The one on Dembski's blog is considered the gold standard by most in the ID community. Other ones you see that claim the intelligence must be supernatural are generally on the young earth creationist fringe or strawmen created by the endless supply of detractors calling it intelligent design creationism. We don't even get to name our own theory or define the scope of it. Isn't that just precious. Neither Behe nor Dembski are young earthers but they don't go out of their way to deny a young earth. And why should they? The age of the earth and the origin of intelligence is outside the scope of the definition of ID. Chemists don't explain the origin of matter and energy in the universe and IDists don't explain the origin of intelligence. That doesn't invalidate what they do attempt to explain. 72.183.101.183 16:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
WRT Ed Brayton I've raised that as a new topic on the talk page as someone reverted my edits without clearly addressing why is Ed notable enough to be a critic on a wikipedia BIO page. As for the Dembski-flavor-ID quoting http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ it still has in para 1 a reference to ..."intelligent cause" and yet doesn't try and explain where this comes from. Its a red herring to say that Chemists don't look deeper as Chemists don't posit a supernatural cause for chemical reactions and then insist on not explaining that cause. It's a strawman to compare our intelligence with the supernatural as I'm not questioning "intelligence" but the nature of the thing that expresses this "intelligence". Thats the "God Delusion". Ttiotsw 16:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Ttiotsw. Thank you for being so reasonable here. There is a difference between positing that an intelligence exists and explaining its origins. The evidentiary trail ends with the things we can actually observe. There are two main sub-domains of ID - Biological and Cosmological. The former uses observations of living things, particularly at the molecular level (machinery of life) and does not contend there is any evidence to determine the origin of the intelligence - there is only inferential evidence of its activity in the complexity of said machinery. It's open to falsification by demonstrating non-intelligent means of assembling those nano-scale machines. Cosmological ID is purely theoretical. The origin of the universe is beyond any means of investigation. It is not falsifiable any more than the competing multi-verse theories of theoretical cosmology and mathematics are falsifiable. I find CID interesting to think about and worthy of mention beside multiverse theory but not really the kind of science you can dig into with experiment like you can in trying to find a way for undirected assembly of cellular machinery. I'm not sure this has any relevance to the article and I don't expect to persuade anyone here that ID isn't pseudoscience. I just thought you might like to know. I'm an agnostic by the way. The ONLY agnostic author/moderator/admin on Uncommon Descent. Funny that Dembski would make an unapologetic agnostic his blogczar, isn't it? I was a bit shocked myself. At one point I got a little power crazy and announced that I would no longer tolerate any comments arguing against common descent because the scientific community would never accept us if we didn't ditch the young earth supporters. Bill slapped my wrist for that one but I suspect it was for political reasons and not because he disagreed with me.
On a general note I'm pretty happy with this article now if Brayton is removed. Ditching the whole blog section would be even better but I won't insist as long as it's accurate. Dembski wasn't the one deleting trackbacks either as the article states. That was yours truly doing those deletions. I have no desire whatsoever to help critic websites get more traffic and boost their google rankings off the coattails of ours. UD isn't a soapbox for critics and doesn't pretend to be one. It's mostly someplace for ID supporters to go read and comment where they won't be mobbed by nasty naysayers. Some of the other admins disagree with me to a greater or lesser extent but Dembski is happy with it that way. His more serious work is on iscid.org which has its forums far better structured than wordpress blog comments. There no heavy handed moderation there and none is needed as it isn't popular enough to be trolled. [37] 72.183.101.183 17:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Dave, if you were familiar with Dembski's work, you would know that he considers you, me, and all intelligence to be supernatural. Secondclass 23:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avoiding Legal Threats: Follow WP:LEGAL

On WP:LEGAL I read this:

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

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

[edit] Notability of Ed Brayton ?

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

Ed's name is well known in the blogosphere surrounding intelligent design mostly IMO because he's inflammatory and prolific in his writing. Nothing else about him is particularly notable. He has no degree that he's ever mentioned and is noted on Panda's Thumb "contributor list" as a non-academic [38].72.183.101.183 16:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Dave's attacks above aside, Ed is a journalist and was asked to blog at scienceblogs and runs a major pro-evolution group which makes him notable enough as a critic. There's no need to confuse notable enough to have an article and notable enough for their opinions to matter. JoshuaZ 17:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
In this new section questioning his notability I'm not confusing "notable enough to have an article" and "notable enough for their opinions to matter". If he is a journalist then who employs him as a journalist ?. If he is freelance then has he been published in "notable" press (heck I'd even take regional and public broadcast stuff here from the boondocks in the US)...links and cites please. Is he just in blogshere or has he done real-world talks and debates ?. Blogs don't really count for squat when it comes to science as they are so ephemeral. His notability isn't proven yet. Ttiotsw 17:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Joshua, have you actually looked at Michigan Citizens for Science website to see what Brayton's role in it is? He isn't even close to running it[39]. That's an absurd claim. As to whether it's "major" it's one of 16 state non-profits. NCSE is major. The National Academy of Sciences is major. MCfS is a bit player in comparison. 72.183.101.183 18:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the reference to Ed Brayton as the link provided is broken plus as above discussion shows very unclear if Ed Brayton is notable. Ttiotsw 02:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Please provide your criteria for deciding that Brayton is not a notable critic. Guettarda 04:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
As for the broken link - that took all of 5 minutes to fix (once I figured out which link you were talking about). Guettarda 04:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"What evidence do you have the Ed isn't notable?" - next you'll be asking me "What evidence do you have that god doesn't exist?" (thats a joke - we know god probably doesn't exist but Ed probably does). It's up to you to provide the evidence not me. That aside Ed can stay as the link is fixed and it seems he'd on national radio too. Ttiotsw 06:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd disagree with you on the nonexistence of God too, but that's just an opinion. Guettarda 19:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to critics typically polemic

I don't think this is typically true and the cites were POV cherry picked. Dembski addresses his critics often in live debate fashion and these are not polemic. Michael Shermer [40] and Micheal Ruse [41]are two of his most frequent debate opponents. At least Ruse is, I'm not sure how many times he's appeared opposite Shermer. The polemic comment should be restated to sometimes polemic and Shermer/Ruse/Dembski live debates covered as examples of non-polemic responses to critics. For balance, I can dig up the cites and add those if there are no objections. 72.183.101.183 18:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, a debate is not a response to criticism. A debate is nothing more than an opportunity for two sides to present their cases while ignoring everything the other side has to say. Debates are live infomercials and have nothing to do with arriving at the truth or responding to criticism. I'm not saying Demsbki has not responded in a non-polemic manner, I am just saying a debate is not an example of him doing so.
Feel free to bring some evidence of Demsbki actually respondoing to criticism in a non-polemic manner, but don't bring debate material. Again, debates are staged, public advertisements. Instead, find something where Dembski carrefully considered criticism about his ideas and he responded in a professional manner. And if you find such evidence keep in mind that would not negate the existing and significant polemic responses on his part. Good luck! Mr Christopher 16:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Christopher - Dembski, Ruse, and Shermer all directly criticize the other's views and respond in their live debates. Shermer and Ruse are both famous critics of Intelligent Design, both write columns for Scientific American. Look here[42] for a radio debate between Shermer and Dembski and for Dembski and Ruse on NightLine here[43]. Response to critics on a major network broadcast of Nightline[44] is unquestionably a valid example of response to critics. I suspect it's pure POV if anyone objects to the Koppel and Shermer debates being added to this article under response to critics. Ted Koppel sure beats Ed Brayton hands down. 72.183.101.183 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

So far, Dembski's responses to the Wilkins and Elsberry 2001 peer-reviewed journal article on the "explanatory filter" amount to a couple of simple dismissals in his books. --Wesley R. Elsberry 05:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"Response to critics on a major network broadcast of Nightline is unquestionably a valid example of response to critics" - it is? Since when is Nightline a peer-reviewed publication? Since when it Nightline a written medium where you can specifically address issues? Guettarda 05:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Are Wikipedia discussion pages notable sources ?

The article has "A small number of Dembski supporters from the uncommondescent blog have trolled blogs and forums critical of Dembski, notably Dispatches from the Culture Wars [44] and Wikipedia's Intelligent design article discussion page." (my emphasis) and my main criticism of this is simply Are the discussion pages on Wikipedia notable enough to be recorded (in truthfully a non-cited paragraph anyway). I would have though that by the very definition of Wikipedia and it's policies of no original research that any discussion on Wikipedia is not a noteworthy source. I'm after consensus that we can't use what has happened to Wikipedia discussion pages on a WP:LIVING page as it is not a notable source as the text states.Ttiotsw 13:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say remove the reference to Wikipedia, unless that was mentioned elsewhere - we certainly cite news articles which mention Wikipedia; are there any other sources or is this a self-ref? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
KC is correct. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It should never be cited directly. Reliable secondary source mentions would need to be cited. Crockspot 17:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some general comments on sourcing

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

From WP:V:

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

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

[edit] Dembski "Trotter Prize" at Texas A&M

In the interest of balancing against critics... If no one objects I'd like to add a link in the biography to the Texas A&M Science Department's award of the endowed Trotter Prize to Dembski[45]. Surely TAMU Science Department is a reliable, neutral source. 72.183.101.183 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

He did indeed share the prize in 2005, according to that link. Do it - if and when a link is found which more clearly is about him winning, and what he was awarded the Trotter for, I'd be happier tho. I've looked but didn't find anything. Probably best to keep the statement fairly vauge and simple until more data is located. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The Trotter Nomination Form from TAMU [46] lists Dembski as a former recipient right underneath Francis Crick. It also describes the nature of the prize and the impressive list of people on the steering committee including two nobel laureates. I'll include both links since this is all I could find as well. 72.183.101.183 22:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This link [47] adds some information saying the prize was awarded for the paper “Searching Large Spaces: Displacement and the No Free Lunch Regress”. It's mentioned as part of a Computer Science class assignment to summarize the paper so I don't think it warrants inclusion in the article (too roundabout). I provide it here merely for reference. 72.183.101.183 23:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Springer, is that you again? That last link is interesting:

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

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

The link does *not* say that the Trotter Prize was awarded for the paper mentioned. Also, note the change in status of the lecture given, from part of the course to an optional activity. --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Wes is right. Furthermore, the Shana Hutchins article on the TAMU website is neither reliable nor neutral as claimed. Dembski's notion of winning the "Trotter Prize" is one-sided and puffery, and so not appropriate to the article. FeloniousMonk 22:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] More Fundamental?

Current article statement:

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

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

[edit] How is "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" notable ?

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

As brought up earlier, Brayton is a journalist who helps run a state-level pro-evolution group (indeed, the major group in his state) and is one of a very small number of people to have been asked to blog on scienceblogs. How is he not a notable critic? JoshuaZ 04:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
What evidence do you have the Ed isn't notable? Isn't a journalist employed by a reputable magazine to do Op-Ed pieces notable with respect to the area upon which he specialises? With regards to how Dembski manages his major publication - it wouldn't be notable except in an article about Dembski. Of course, both Josh and I have raised these points before, and you have chosen to ignore them. There's a difference between removing trolls and removing critics...of course, Dembski is also famous for removing his own postings when someone pokes too many holes in his argument. Guettarda 05:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
...Listen to yourself "What evidence do you have the Ed isn't notable?" - next you'll be asking me "What evidence do you have that god doesn't exist?" . It's up to you to provide the evidence not me and so far all I've seen is parochial tit-for-tat blogging wars of a controversial nature which is innappropriate for WP:LIVING. But, that aside I'll let that ride as I read from http://positiveliberty.com/ed-brayton/ that he's a guest on "nationally syndicated radio talk shows" and the link is back (why wasn't that link checked when you were reverting it ages back). I think you guys have an inflated perception of what "State-level" and "magazine" means when viewed globally and truthfully it looks like we're scrapping the barrel here. You present an WP:NPA "(I) have chosen to ignore them" argument which is lame; anyone reading these talk pages where I have commented will see that's unsubstantiated claim by yourself. I shouldn't have to dig for this: you guys (especially the ones reverting) really needed to add why he is notable instead of just endlessly droneing on about how obvious it is. Any chance of now saying why Dispatches from the Culture Wars http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/ is worth linking to (and it's not because Ed writes for it else Ed would have his own page) ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ttiotsw (talk • contribs).
Ttiots, I don't know what your referring to when you say that "you guys" presented "an WP:NPA "(I) have chosen to ignore them" argument which is lame" - are you referring to some section above? You might want to consider that a) the editors here are not a monolith and b) the presence of one poor argument does not make later arguments necessarily bad. So let's go through the reasons why he's notable: 1) he's a journalist employed by a reputable magazine 2) he run's a state-wide organization dealing with the same issues that this article is about 3) he was asked to blog on scienceblogs a highly selective website. Simply dismissing these as parochial isn't helpful. Reasons have been given as to why he's notable- I don't see a single editor "droneing (sic) on about how obvious it is" If you think the above isn't sufficient demonstration of notability for his opinion please explain why. (If you want I'll add another reason he gets many google hits. Now, some seem to be for other people when you just do "Ed Brayton" but if you do "Ed Brayton" + "evolution" [48] or "Ed Brayton" +"intelligent design" [49] or "Ed Brayton" + "intelligent design" + "evolution" [50]. Now please respond to the claims of notability made and don't just repeat yourself as you accuse others of doing. JoshuaZ 06:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I have provided evidence that Brayton is notable. You have not provided any evidence, you have just said "I don't think he's notable". How is it a personal attack to say that you have ignored the evidence when you go so far as to say "It's up to you to provide the evidence"? How the heck can you call what I have said a personal attack just a few lines after you have affirmed what I said in my so-called "personal attack"? You then go on to prove my point by saying "Any chance of now saying why Dispatches from the Culture Wars is worth linking to" - I take it you mean apart from the reason I have given in the post immediately above your own? How can you call my statement a personal attack and then ask the question which I have just answered? How else would you characterise that other than ignoring my arguments? I take it you must be joking, right? Take a moment, read what I have written, and then try again, without all the over-the-top insults and hyperbole.
Regarding your "I think you guys have an inflated perception of what "State-level" and "magazine" means when viewed globally and truthfully" - you to throw around accusations of personal attacks and then turn around and call me a liar? WTF? A print magazine which claims to reach "more than 600,000 young, educated, affluent and influential readers" [51] - you have the nerve to call me a liar while saying that 600,000 readers of a print magazine isn't "truthfully" a magazine? You must be joking, right? Guettarda 07:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah at last we're getting some where. This is the first time you have provided a link other than to blogs (which were what we are considering as non-notable context) which we can evaluate. The magazine you are refering too is called "Seed". I am the first person (not you) to mention that in the discussion, so yes what I said before still counts unless you can show that you provided this type of information before. Unclear if Ed has written for this magazine but that irrellevant for me anyway though given I've already said Ed is kind of OK but the other critics will now have a harder time removing what he says. Why does it feel like pulling teeth ? Ttiotsw 03:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
"This is the first time you have provided a link other than to blogs"? "Unclear if Ed has written for this magazine"?? What are you talking about? Seed magazine is the publisher of Science Blogs. Dispatches... is published by Seed. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you declared Science Blogs non-notable without bothering to figure that out? This just gets stranger and stranger. Guettarda 04:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Brayton has been a central player in the public debate and discourse over Demsbki's claims, with Dembski repeatedly responding on his own blog to Brayton's fisking of his assertions. Dembski repeatedly engaging Brayton means Brayton is by necessity notable. Ttiotsw, how closely have you been following the public debate of ID? If you had, you'd know this already. FeloniousMonk 18:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Please focus on what I say - I have already said Ed is OK (and finally found the specific magazine that people are talking about though have to date never mentioned in name - is it some sort of secret because you are unclear if Ed has or hasn't written for it? ) Now any chance of now saying why Dispatches from the Culture Wars http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/ is worth linking to (and it's not because Ed writes for it else Ed would have his own page) nor that it is run by Seed because it contains contributions by others who are not in the print magazine. The UK based BBC has user-contributed content - does that automagically make the comments worthy of a Wikipedia BIO ? Ttiotsw 03:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the issue is not just that he has written for Seed (which is I think in particular meant as a response to the issue brought up whether he had any actual journalism history). I'm not convinced that solely having written for a single magazine would be enough- however, the combination of that together with the other items discussed about Ed seem to make his opinion on these subjects easily notable. JoshuaZ 04:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Dispatches... is part of Science Blogs which is a publication of Seed. Ergo, it is part of the online presence of a major publication - sort of like NRO is a part of National Review (only it's a bit less nutty than NRO). Guettarda 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category appropriateness

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

Nope, he's a published apologist: Unapologetic Apologetics: Meeting the Challenges of Theological Studies by William A. Dembski (Editor) I'll add a mention up front with a source in the article if you really think it's necessary. FeloniousMonk 20:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I see it is already mentioned twice in the article, so readers just have to actually read the article to see that the category is appropriate. FeloniousMonk 20:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm fairly ignorant of the particulars of this subject, just checking. Crockspot 20:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forrest vs Dembski

I just posted this link over at the Kitzmiller article but since Barabara Forrest takes Dembski personally by the horns (and his "vise strategy" and his gun totin', lawsuit threatenin' davescot) in her article I thought Dembski editors would find it interesting. The “Vise Strategy” Undone. by Barbara Forrest Mr Christopher 21:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Great article. Thanks for the tip.--CSTAR 19:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] False statement about Dembski's academic publications as a mathematician

The article makes the following claim:

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

However, this is simply not true. Dembski's cv can be found at [52], and it lists the following academic publication:

  • "Uniform Probability." Journal of Theoretical Probability 3(4), 1990: 611–626

which I have confirmed via the library. -- Cat Whisperer 00:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The topic here is peer reviewed ID articles (of which there are zero as noted in the Dover ruling), if the article is unclear then that can be fixed. "Uniform Probability" was not an ID article. FeloniousMonk 00:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
That was not at all clear the way the sentence originally read. At a minimum, the sentence needs to be reworded to make that clear. However, I should point out that Dembski considers that paper to be an ID article, part of his "Mathematical Foundations of Intelligent Design" series. -- Cat Whisperer 00:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with "Cat Whisperer" that the sentence as given doesn't read as specifically pertaining to ID; I've noted that earlier with a comment on this page. I think there are about three papers in Dembski's CV that more or less fit the bill as being academic peer-reviewed journal publications. Then again, I don't see that the article in question is supportive of ID; Dembski's whole schtick is about trying to establish that evolutionary processes are improbable, not that there is direct support for ID. --Wesley R. Elsberry 01:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
For the record, in that article Dembski tries (with limited success) to establish a general notion of uniform or alternatively "maximally random" probability measure. This is motivated in order to formulate in general a "Darwinian hypothesis" in a evolutionary path space. I'm sure Dembski regards this paper as part of his project in ID.--CSTAR 01:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
PS although I agree with the assessment that it doesn't provide support for ID; it just would (if succesful) make it possible to formulate a general definition of "maximally random" measure.--CSTAR 01:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Dembski's Foray into Voice Acting

Dembski as the David Seville of Information Theory

Bwa Ha Ha!

From Dembski's email to critics, myself included:

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

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

Kenneth Miller, yes THAT Kenneth Miller, was included in the email from Dembski mentioned above and hit "reply all" and offered Dembski some suggestions on improving the flash video Mr Christopher 20:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
This stuff is too hilarious NOT to mention in the article. I love the part about the galloping horses audio and people (ID "expert" witnesses who got cold feet) screaming in the back ground as they ran from the trial. Mr Christopher 21:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Since Dembski sent this email to his critics, I suppose this would belong in the response to critics section, no? Mr Christopher 21:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


Recipients of Dembski's email:
Eugenie C. Scott, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Lawrence Krauss, Barbara Forrest, Kenneth Miller, Patricia Princehouse, Robert T. Pennock, Wesley R. Elsberry, Kevin Padian, Richard Thompson
The list includes mostly critics. The last person, Richard Thompson, heads up the Thomas More Law Center, the folks that Dembski billed for over $20,000 for his services as an expert witness, though he was withdrawn from the case even before a deposition was taken. --Wesley R. Elsberry 23:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Wes. I think it's fair to characterize this as yet another response to his critics. What a very strange man. And it's a year since Kitzmiller and Demsbki (nor any IDers) have done any science that they had promised. I suppose making fun of Judge Jones is about as much science as we can expect from Dembski and his ilk. I assume you got Miller's reply, has anyone else replied to all yet? Mr Christopher 23:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Dawkins weighs in here. An interesting approach from the Intelligent Design movment in view of the Kitzmiller anniversary. The DI starts a dishonest, smear campaign (the 90% nonsense) against Jones while Dembski resorts to this type of childishness and now commenters on UD are making poems where Jones is a dog and indulges in anal sex with the ACLU. Id be interested to hear from some of the editors here who are intelligent design advocates. Specifically where they think their movement is going, other than the trash heap. Perhaps Behe will come out with a rap song where Jones is portrayed as a pedophile or something. Mr Christopher 23:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't have any new insights to add other than to say that reading about this man fills me with a profound sadness. I've just been reading an extract from "Nature" about advances in the understanding of how the Malaria parasite evolves resistance to antimalarials. What Dembski and his kind are implying that we just don't bother with any of that because it's based on evolution. How can a supposedly rational and educated man deliberately choose ignorance and prejudice and attempt to propogate it? I think the greatest sin a human can commit is the wilful abandonment of reason. NBeddoe
Here is an interesting perspective - "...but in a culture war there are some tactics that works, and others that don't, and in this case Dembski pulled the pin, counted to three, and dropped the grenade in his own foxhole" Mr Christopher 22:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] response to critics section

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

[edit] "Debatable"?

A recent anonymous edit did this:

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

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

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

[edit] Templeton Foundation Grant

Here is an interesting article that indicates Demsbki was given a grant by the Templeton Foundation to write a book on Orthodox Theology that was never written [53] Things have been heating up on UD, PT and other sites concerning the Templeton Foundation and ID. We may be seeing more to this story that might (or might not) be appropriate for the article. Mr Christopher 20:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/l/Talk%7EWilliam_A._Dembski_baf6.html"