Talk:William A. Dembski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
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.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Archive
Archives
  1. Feb 2005 – Mar 2005
  2. Jul 2005 – Nov 2005
  3. Dec 2005 – Apr 2007

Contents

[edit] Updating Recent Developments

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

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

To answer that question you'd first need to know if there was any actual research being done at Southwestern. Considering that it is a seminary, the answer seems doubtful. Odd nature 22:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The only evidence of 'research' I've seen is mention of books under development, the only evidence of 'teaching' is guest lectures at other universities (e.g. SMU). The only thing he has published of even minor prominence (i.e. listed in Google Scholar or Amazon) since arriving (baring paperback versions of previous books) is Darwin Strikes Back with Thomas Woodward in November 2006. Hrafn42 02:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Have just discovered a listing of the courses he's been teaching at SWBTS.[1] Hrafn42 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this a hoax? take "A Primer on Intelligent Design (SBTS #28677)" - maybe they'll find a theory? Perhaps not... "Write a 2,000- to 2,500-word critical review of Forrest and Gross’s Creationism's Trojan Horse".. anyway, glad to see a concern about standards: "Also, in an age of spelling and grammar checkers, I will count off on such mistakes." Eh? Is that good American? It certainly doesn't work in English. ... dave souza, talk 18:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
"Is this a hoax?" No. It is Dembski's own website (www.designinference.com), as listed in the article. Interesting that his writing output has fallen off considerably since 2005 (25 pieces in 2005, 5 in 2006, none so far listed for 2007). One would suspect that he's lost heart since Dover. Hrafn42 04:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Dembski's own "teaching page" is referenced in the footnotes of the article. It was updated in October, 2007, and lists these courses:
  • Critical Thinking, in which he asks students to write a critical review of Richard Dawkins' two-part video series against "religion/Christianity" and gives examples to follow of his own writing
  • Christian Apologetics
  • Christian Faith, Knowledge, and Science
  • Critical Thinking, in which he asks students to write a 2,000-word critical review of Richard Dawkins' two-part 2-part series “The Root of All Evil?” and references his Primer on Probability (PDF), in which he instructs students on how to infer design
  • A Primer on Intelligent Design, in which he asks students to write a 2,000-word to 2,500-word critical review of Forrest and Gross’s Creationism’s Trojan Horse
I don't know if he means "critical" to refer to the methodology or the conclusions. The syllabus indicates that Christian Faith, Knowledge, and Science is a doctoral course. Monado (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Centers" and "Institutes" and "Groups", yes -- calling them "Labs" is a little weird, though. and you don't get to claim institutional affiliation just because you feel like it. If I arbitrarily decided to create the "Pharyngula Institute for the Promotion of Godlessness" and put it on one of the academic hosts I have access to, and pretended it was an official group under the umbrella of UMM, I think I could expect to be deservedly slapped down in very short order.

– [2]

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

[edit] Isnt this OR?

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

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

Part of William Dembski's method of outreach concerns his weblog. Leaving all of that unmentioned would make the article incomplete. Mentioning Dembski's weblog without taking notice of the shenanigans that happen with the community Dembski has fostered there would then make the article misleading. So, there's a right conundrum. --Wesley R. Elsberry 01:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned given that Dembski is a living person that this may run afoul of WP:BLP. If we had someoen who was less involved than Brayton that was a non-partisan source it might be better. JoshuaZ 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Brayton is an imperfect source for this, but I think it is important to document Dembski's UcD activities, as this appears to have been his main outlet over the last year or two, as he has retreated into seminaries, and his more formal writings have dropped off (as can be seen from the number of articles listed by year on his www.designinference.com website). This retreat appears to have some aspects of a 'bunker mentality' to it. If better sources can be found, then well and good, but I would disagree with any wholesale pruning of this section. Hrafn42 16:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You might call it "unsourced" but I have seen personal references over and over again: "I posted a question, a comment, pointed out some science mistake" and it was not published, it was deleted, or after the third question I was banned. I wasn't being rude but trying to carry on a discussion." It would certainly be possible to line up a dozen such testamonies and they stretch back for at least a couple of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monado (talk • contribs) 21:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no shortage of people who have been expelled from UD for not adopting the correct IDC posture. Open discussion has never been welcome there. You'll get banned quickly for asking the "wrong" questions or reaching the "wrong" conclusions. I have seen them ban actual scientists, devout christians, and ID proponents. One of the more entertaining and illuminating bans can be read here http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/10/first-time-dembski-booted-me.html The fact that IDC has no scientific legs is something Dembski and his followers wish to keep under wraps. Oh, and the UD tactic for expelling dissent has changed. They no longer ban accounts, they just take away your ability to contibute (so no one ever sees your comments). It's a more Orwellian approach. Angry Christian (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] False claim

The article says:

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

This is not true. I have access to both editions of Johnson's book, through my library. The 1993 edition alters a footnote, and adds a section on embryology as well as an epilogue. In none of the new sections does he ever use the phrase "intelligent design." The only place that phrase shows up in the entire book is in the following sentence: "...the presence of intelligent design in the cosmos is so obvious that even an atheist like [Heinz] Pagels cannot help noticing it..." (p. 119 in the 1993 edition, though this sentence also appeared in the original edition). Nowhere in either edition does Johnson show any awareness that the phrase "intelligent design" would become the name of the movement. marbeh raglaim 17:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really useful information. Of course the "intelligent design" movement got under way in all of its essentials under the leadership of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics following the publication of Pandas, but I've yet to find any evidence of Johnson using the term before 1995. Will modify the Timeline of intelligent design accordingly, do you want to make the change here? .. dave souza, talk 18:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've neglected to alter the page because I'm not sure what to replace the incorrect sentence with. If I just delete the whole sentence, that will undermine the paragraph, which attempts to trace the terminology that individual ID advocates have come up with, culminating in Demski's "specified complexity." (I guess the paragraph is "irreducibly complex," which proves it must have had a designer, in this case a very bad one. :D ) I don't think that Johnson either coined or popularized the phrase "intelligent design." I'm not sure who did, or even if that can be clearly determined. Remember, it's not about who used the phrase offhandedly, but who was the first to apply it to the movement itself. Johnson did coin one phrase, the "blind watchmaker thesis," which he used in the epilogue to the '93 edition, though he had also used it earlier. But that phrase never caught on. In any case, he didn't update the book for the purposes of altering terminology. marbeh raglaim 00:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I must correct myself. I looked at Johnson's book again, and there's one other place where he uses the phrase "intelligent design," though it's not in the main text of the book but rather in the citations (in both editions). It is when he cites Of Pandas and People, he makes the following observation: "This book is 'creationist' only in the sense that it juxtaposes a paradigm of 'intelligent design' with the dominant paradigm of (naturalistic) evolution" (p. 204 in the '93 edition). This may actually be an early use of the phrase to describe the movement (or at least the central concept advocated by the movement), and Pandas (which I haven't read) was probably the catalyst. Still, the sentence about Johnson is still incorrect, and I wonder if it was actually talking about Pandas and mixed it up with Johnson's book. marbeh raglaim 08:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again, that's excellent information. I've now modified this page accordingly, and will try to incorporate the change into other related pages. As Introduction: Of Pandas and People, the foundational work of the 'Intelligent Design' movement by Nick Matzke shows, there's a lot of misunderstanding about this issue, probably due to Johnson's cronies inflating his claims to be the "father of the intelligent design movement". Seems to have missed its birth! ... dave souza, talk 13:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I just checked the article on Darwin on Trial, and it reports that the phrase "intelligent design" is used on pp. 17, 119, 146, and 204 in the 1993 edition. So it looks like I was wrong again (I had better stop relying on my memory). But I'm just quibbling now. My general point remains: all of the occurrences showed up in both editions, and all of them, with the exception of his reference to Pandas, were offhanded, without attaching any special significance to the phrase. marbeh raglaim 11:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dembski confirms explicitly lack of acceptance of Common descent

here. Should we note this in the article? JoshuaZ 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TDI and peer review

The article states:

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

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

I just checked the sources cited for this passage. I could not not find in any of them a statement that "The Design Inference was reviewed by mathematicians and philosophers." I would suggest that, if a reliable source can't be found, that this sentence should be deleted. Hrafn42 14:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
That's just the problem with the first sentence I quoted. The second sentence is also false. TDI does apply Dembski's EF in section 2.3, the "case study" being the "creation-evolution controversy". Beyond that clause, the remainder is arguable. The EF in TDI is supposed to be an argument in propositional logic, some of whose terms require math to determine their truth value. It seems to me that that is not the same thing as "mathematical arguments for" the EF. By contrast, Shannon described information entropy, H, and then delivered nine theorems concerning the properties that H had. --Wesley R. Elsberry 11:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't doubt that you are correct on the second sentence, however:
  1. I don't have a copy of TDI, so cannot offer independent confirmation on this point, so I just commented on what I could independently confirm; and
  2. if the first sentence gets nuked, the second sentence becomes irrelevant, and so would probably go even if it were true.
Hrafn42 16:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SBTS's Center for Theology and Science

I've just been going over Dembski's recent activities, looking to see if there was anything new for the article, and this caused me to look into the SBTS's Center for Theology and Science, which Dembski was the first director of. I have come to the suspicion that it may be only a 'vanity' center consisting only of a professor as director and whatever grad students this professor would have gotten anyway. Reasons for this suspicion are as follows:

  1. The Department of Christian Philosophy it is part of has two 'centers' between only five professors (with Kurt Wise being the only professor in the field of Theology and Science);[3]
  2. I could find no evidence of staff associated with it, other than Wise (and previously Dembski);[4]
  3. this center does not even have its own webpage on the SBTS site (only the Center for Biblical Counseling does);[5]
  4. I could find no publications attributed to it in Google Scholar; and
  5. I have yet to see any mention of it, apart from Dembski's and Wise's appointments as its director.

Would such a 'vanity' center be worthy of its current mention in this article? Do we have any evidence that it has a more substantive existence (or alternatively any more evidence of a lack of substantive existence)? Hrafn42 12:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Intelligent Design in Business Practice' conference

I know this is both relatively minor & something that hasn't happened yet, but I thought it worth including in the article as:

  1. Dembski has been fairly inactive of late, so any news tends to round out the article; and
  2. this is the first I've heard of the IDM attempting to venture into the business world.

I can provide names and additional refs for the fields of the 3 unnamed academics, but did not want to crowd the article with unnecessary details & refs. Hrafn42 05:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replace dembski image with GFDL

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

[edit] Dembski and KvD trial

"Dembski withdrew from the trial prior to testifying."

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

This issue is covered in a bit more detail in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#Background. I'm not sure that Dembski's non-appearance really needs much more detail here. The Forrest quote: "Dembski 'escaped critical scrutiny by not having to undergo cross-examination' when he withdrew from the case on June 10." pretty much says it all. He cut and ran, the exact details of how he did so really don't matter, what does matter was that he didn't think his claims would stand up to cross-examination. I would place fairly long odds against Dembski ever putting his ideas (and his ego) on the line in a venue where he can be cross-examined. Hrafn42 17:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I still think that a change to "Dembski withdrew from the trial prior to being deposed." would be appropriate. --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've put wording to that effect in the mention of his withdrawal in the "Views and statements" section. Have also deleted the duplicated mention of his withdrawal from 'Uncommon Descent'. Hrafn42 02:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the fact that he later went on to confront the Thomas More Law Center until they paid him around $20K for his time spent on the Dover trial is notable as well. Odd nature 20:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this is worth including. Can we find a WP:RS for it? Hrafn42 03:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Having a look. Panda's Thumb article, Denyse O'Leary blog. Haven't found a mainstream media source yet. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on Baylor & EIL

The Chronicle of Higher Education is now reporting on this here (unfortunately behind a subscription wall, so we can't get the full story -- if somebody can find a link to the full article, it'd be useful). Pharyngula picks it up here, and apparently Dembski's involvement extended to a weird sort of post-doc, with an office etc. In the course of the article Dembski apparently also discusses just how odious he made himself at Baylor. All useful stuff, if we can get a hold of it. Hrafn42 07:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

being behind a toll barrier is be no reason why it cannot be used. There is no restriction whatsoever to sources that are available without charge, by repeated decisions at WP:RS and AfD and the RS noticeboard. It's a published source--and is available in most large libraries free in print format in any case. I've added it. I have the article, however, and it does not really discuss much on Dembski, except to say "Mr. Marks's chief collaborator in this research is William A. Dembski, who started a center for the study of intelligent design at Baylor in 1999. Members of Baylor's faculty strongly objected to the center, and it was eventually dismantled" DGG (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I prefer not to insert references into an article until I know what they in fact say. As you have read it, and are confident that it supports the statement, I'm more than happy that it's in -- the other ref was rather borderline on WP:RS but the best that I had access to at the time. Hrafn42TalkStalk 17:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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

It should be noted here that Marks had received a grant from an outside organization that was administered through Baylor University to do this research. And that grant had been approved by the President of the University himself. Interestingly, the involvement of William Dembski caused Baylor to return the grant.

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

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

Still more bizzareness in this case -- the money for Dembski's post-doc came from Biologic Institute researcher Brendan Dixon.[6] This incident is getting just too crazy, and it may be worth waiting for the dust settles before writing anything significant. Hrafn42 05:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] opinion

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

The Shallit comment should be referenced directly, to his Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District‎ expert report (the source of the quote), not to the PT. I'll track down a ref for it. Hrafn42TalkStalk 16:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Done Hrafn42TalkStalk 16:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oklahoma University

Dembski's recent foray at Oklahoma University appears to have been an something of a Waterloo & generated considerable coverage on the blogosphere, e.g. at Pharyngula, at ERV & at another blog. Apparently there was a full page anti-Dembski ad & three Op-Eds (one supportive, two opposing) in the local student newspaper, The Daily Oklahoman. If somebody can track this newspaper down, it might prove a WP:RS for some coverage. Hrafn42TalkStalk 05:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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

“ After considering his academic qualifications, I attended Dembski’s lecture with the expectation that I would hear a serious theoretician consider the logical and scientific aspects of an important topic: the origins of biological systems on planet Earth.

As a researcher who understands the biochemistry that was the main subject of the lecture, I was surprised to find the discussion much less substantive than I anticipated.

It was a bit more like the naive questions of a teenager than the keen insights of an erudite philosopher.

 ”

HrafnTalkStalk 07:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Dembski's talk at the University of Oklahoma got some good play also at the blog Ontogeny (see http://mattdowling.blogspot.com/2007/09/evolution-news-roundup-september-25.html). One thing which was particularly important about this event was that it was the first time (according to Dembski) that a full-page newspaper ad was taken out against him. The next issue of the National Center for Science Education newsletter should have a piece or two about Dembski's debacle in Oklahoma, as well. I would add stuff about this to this entry, but since I myself wrote both the full-page ad (with help from various faculty members) and one of the pieces to appear in the NCSE newsletter, I'm not sure it would be ethical for me to do so. Dicksonlaprade 22:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dembski & EIL in the article

The 'Activities since 2001' now has two paragraphs on this:

In July 2007, Dembski became involved in the short-lived Evolutionary Informatics Lab, formed by Baylor University Engineering Professor Robert J. Marks. The lab was shut down and its website was deleted because Baylor's administration considered that it violated university policy forbidding professors from creating the impression that their personal views represent Baylor as an institution. Baylor will however permitted Marks to resume work in the informatics lab on his own time and repost his website, provided a disclaimer accompany any ID-advancing research to make clear that the work does not represent the university's position.[1][2] [3]

...and now:

In 2007 Dembski played a central role in the largely defunct and controversial[4] Evolutionary Informatics Lab [5] at Baylor University. The lab, set up by Robert Marks and Dembski prior to being disavowed by Baylor President John Lilley consisted just of a website whose domain registration listed Dembski as its registrant.[6]

Can I suggest merging these into:

In July and August 2007, Dembski played a central role in the short-lived and controversial[7] Evolutionary Informatics Lab, formed by Baylor University Engineering Professor Robert J. Marks. The lab was shut down and its website was deleted because Baylor's administration considered that it violated university policy forbidding professors from creating the impression that their personal views represent Baylor as an institution. Baylor have said that they will permit Marks to resume work in the informatics lab on his own time and repost his website, provided a disclaimer accompany any ID-advancing research to make clear that the work does not represent the university's position.[8][9] [10]

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

Dembksi's office was part of a dept. at Baylor, not the lab. Since the Evolutionary Informatics Lab had no other assets in its name other than a website, saying the lab "consisted just of a website" is accurate. This point has been widely reported BTW at Pandas Thumb and elsewhere, so it's verifiable. If it is verifiable, it's a very notable point that this "lab" had just a website, not a physical site, so it should stay in. Odd nature 18:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Dembski was there under some weird post-doc arrangement funded by Brendan Dixon to work for this project. Having a post-doc working on it is surely more than a website. In research, it's what funding you have, not what assets you have. Many astronomy departments won't own their own observatories for instance. HrafnTalkStalk 18:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You should also include in your change that Marks founded the lab with help from Dembski and DI backing, according to this source: [7] That the DI was helping Dembksi bankroll his position at the lab with cash from Brendan Dixon is a pretty important point. Odd nature 18:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Though we should be careful to include the form that PT cites as well, backing up this claim. HrafnTalkStalk 18:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
permit Marks to resume work in the informatics lab
Is there some verifiable source that indicates that there *is* a physical lab space for Marks to work in? So far as I can tell, the EIL is a consortium of individuals working in their spare time on writing, not an actual place in the Baylor physical plant.
I'll also note that the listed "publications" of the EIL are down from 3 to 2. One was removed due to a pretty basic error in a script used to generate numbers for their analysis. Another one also has a mistake basic to its analysis, where one of the authors got a heads-up that it was an error seven years ago. --Wesley R. Elsberry 05:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Baylor Lariat article noting issue over research content. Another Baylor Lariat article also bringing up EIL research content. I'm looking for feedback concerning adding the information about withdrawal of 1/3 of the research content associated with the EIL. If there's no substantive objection, I'll edit that in later on. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to "Activities since 2001"

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

I'm reverting this cruft -- there is no "theory of evolutionary algorithms" -- just a bunch of flawed modelling. See WP:WTA#Theory. HrafnTalkStalk 08:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
And reverting again. First, this leaves false info about Baylor (see above). Second, I did not say that Dembski "had a theory" or such, so your link to the discussion of the word "theory" is irrelevant. Third, I did not say his work was accurate or useful. Evolutionary algorithms are a branch of computer science. They have an associated theory. Dembski is doing work in this field. If you feel that his work is useless, feel free to add footnotes to relevant articles to that effect. This section is about what Dembski is currently doing. This is what he is currently doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.84.18 (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Rather embarrassingly, however, the last 3 sections have disappeared, and all my efforts won't restore them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.84.18 (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I took care of that for you. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you.--128.36.147.159 21:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography section

This section appears to contain a mess of obscure stuff -- journal articles, encyclopedia entries, etc. I'm intending going through it and weeding out the worst offenders. HrafnTalkStalk 15:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update

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

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

[edit] Linkfarm

Well, I went to go remove the linkfarm in Dembski's article, but apparently there are some underlying problems with just leaving the first couple. Perhaps a discussion's needed on which ones to remove, I'm sure we don't need this many. Wizardman 15:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one that reverted you, but I agree with the total count problem. I think that keeping Shallit's link [8] is important. Out of fairness, we need to keep links to his blog. The review of No Free Lunch from biosystems is important [9]. The Christianity Today article seems to be pretty tangential, being more about Baylor than Dembski, so I'd kill that. I'd kill all the audio/video links.Kww 15:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:UNDUE, I think the list should be pared down to his official website, his official blog, his DI bio & the most prominent and/or scholarly of his critics (e.g. Mark Perakh, David Wolpert, H. Allen Orr, Jeffrey Shallit, Elliot Sober). HrafnTalkStalk 17:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright. I'll let you two come to a consensus on this, since it doesn't seem like one would be a problem. So long as there's no undue weight and they're knocked down to single digits (if we can, if that's not possible then no big deal), then it'll be good. Wizardman 17:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Pro-Dembski

[edit] Criticising Dembski

[edit] Audio and video

[edit] Dembski's description as a mathematician

That's pretty much a pro-ID biography. Dembski is not a mathematician (or he wouldn't have written "No Free Lunch"), and is not notable as a philospher. He is first and foremost a proponent of ID, and uses the other titles to make that seem respectable.Kww (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Just to clarify the point of discussion, for people watching. CruftCutter changed the lead from William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American mathematician, philosopher, theologian, proponent of intelligent design, author and keeper of the intelligent design blog Uncommon Descent to William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American mathematician, philosopher, theologian, author and keeper of the intelligent design blog Uncommon Descent. I've proposed William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American proponent of intelligent design, author and keeper of the intelligent design blog Uncommon Descent, with degrees in mathematics and theology and William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American proponent of intelligent design, philosopher, theologian, author and keeper of the intelligent design blog Uncommon Descent, with degrees in mathematics and theology. I object mildly to describing Dembski as a mathematician, and strongly feel that the lead must start with proponent of intelligent design, because that is the only reason anyone has ever heard of him.Kww (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was more. I agree that he is a proponent of ID. So is the current version okay, then? (I think it is a bit redundant, but the ID blog doesn't necessary mean it is a pro-ID. CruftCutter (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed totally disputed, since you seem to only want him described as an ID proponent first. If you still object to the mathematician part, go ahead and throw the {{Totally-disputed}} tag back in the article. CruftCutter (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I feel describing Dembski as a mathematician does a real disservice to Wiki readership. It's very misleading. I'm familiar with the subject matter and as a reader I find it somewhat insulting. For instance I know very well that virtually no one in the field of mathematics even knows who dembski is. Those who do have pointed out how clueless/mistaken Dembski is. What makes him noteworthy is his ID advocacy, period. He teaches bible classes at a bible college, nothing noteworthy there. He has not published anything noteworthy in the field of philosophy. I suppose you could argue the value of his theological contributions. Many people write apologetics yet they do not have a Wiki artcle (rightfully so). As is the introduction describes someone far more accomplished than Dembski actually is. He is not a philosopher, not a mathematician and not much of a theologian. Just because someone has a college degree does not mean they automatically become noteworthy in that field. Am I missing something here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I just corrected the intro to something that can be verified. If one of you cowboys wants to revert my change please offer some reliable evidence that demsbki is in fact a mathematician, philosopher and theologian. As I said, just because one has earned a degree in a certain field does not make them noteworthy in it. The intro should be what demsbki is known for, not what degrees he's earned. I hope this makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess what i'm trying to say is the intro should not read like a puffed up resume or a puffed up press release, and we need not lists his degrees there either. The intro should reflect what he is most known for. The ONLY thing he is known for is his ID advocacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I made another edit to the intro using this logic:
What he is = an ID proponent
What he's done = write books on a variety of topics
I think this gives the intro a far more precise summary of who he is and what he does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

From Dembski's CV:

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

So, why, exactly, do are we saying that he is not a mathematician? Are we setting an awfully high burden of proof for this fact? If this was anyone save Dembski, and there wasn't so much emotional investment in whether he is this or that, his credentials as a mathematician would be pretty much beyond all doubt, based on the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.101.181 (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

He's clearly notable as an ID proponent, and that comes first. Preceding it by describing him as a mathematician gives undue weight to his "eminence" in that field. However, the paragraph appropriately goes on to note that he's written about maths – that can be extended to cover the above in a concise way. .. dave souza, talk 08:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Dave. He is primarily known as an ID-advocate/pseudomathematician, secondarily as a Theologian/Apologist. Any notability as a mathematician comes in a very distant third as, unlike the first two, he has neither done any significant work in the field, nor done anything recently -- I note that there's nothing in 76.18.101.181's list that dates from after 1991. HrafnTalkStalk 09:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with reality, Dembski has not been involved in the math world for at least 18 years. Look at the dates provided. And 18-20 years ago he was not notable for anything. Dembski is ONLY notable for his IDC advocacy and other forms of fringe pseudoscience and quackery (bible codes for one). There is more evidence that he is a movie producer (farty videos) than he's a maths guy. Without ID/creationism Dembski would not be notable at all, he'd be just another bible teacher at a bible college. Angry Christian (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006139.cfm

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

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

[edit] Section Renaming

The former "Plagiarism Controversy" has been renamed idiosyncratically as "Controversy over unauthorized re-use of material", with a comment that "Dembski's lawyer" had insisted on the change. I don't see anything here on the talk page substantiating that there has been communication with "Dembski's lawyer", whoever that may be. If there is actually an issue with using the word "plagiarism", then the real phrases to pick from would be "copyright infringement controversy" or "intellectual property controversy". --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It came through the OTRS, and they don't discuss much. It's the office that receives things like legal threats for Wikipedia, and the user that made the change is an admin, so I don't doubt the need for the change. How does "misuse of intellectual property controversy" sound to you?Kww (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, OTRS doesn't always verify that we have either a legal or a Wikipedia policy based reason to change something. In this case, since the sources use the term "plagiarism" I'm inclined to go tell Dembski's lawyers to go complain to the sources. In the meantime, I'd suggest that the title "Accusations of Plagiarism" may actually be the most NPOV description. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
What about alleged plagiarism? Alleged copyright infringement? Purported plagiarism is more alliterative. I don't want to get lawyers riled up, but the sources say what the sources say.--Filll (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

"Copyright infringement controversy" would appear to be the most accurate and concise title. HrafnTalkStalk 03:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

From what I'd heard, the video had all information as to its true source stripped out and Dembski's own voiceover placed over the top of it, giving the strong impression that it was his own -- that comes very close to plagiarism. HrafnTalkStalk 03:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
"A voiceover", probably not Dembski's (it was compared to "Big Gay Al"). Guettarda (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "the Isaac Newton of information theory" vs "genius" & "one of the most talented men I’ve ever met"

That Koons called Dembski "the Isaac Newton of information theory" has received considerable notice, including in scholarly sources:

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

Currently, we want to do the research. I have actually tried to begin a draft of a book trying to explain the results of our research without the mathematics. I’m an engineer; it’s hard for me to write a page without putting an equation on it. Bill, of course, is genius at doing that. He’s one of the most talented men I’ve ever met. But he has the ability to write at a wonderful lay level without getting into all the details. I think that’s a ways off, however, because we have a lot of other things to do before that. [My emphasis]

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

The description of Dembski as "the Isaac Newton of information theory" does suggest a belief in astrology and the occult, but doesn't hold up as Newton was pretty good at mathematics and physics. .. dave souza, talk 10:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I call peacock. Jefffire (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It is, I think, the blatant absurdity of the peacockery that has made it noteworthy. It is emblematic of the unrealistic mutual-admiration & egotism that runs rampant in ID circles. HrafnTalkStalk 10:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Perakh quote/piecemeal treatment of writings

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

Dembski's style reveals his feelings of self-importance, which is obvious not only from his penchant for introducing pompously named "laws" but also from his categorically claimed conclusions and such estimates of his own results as calling some of them "crucial insight," "profoundly important for science," or "having a huge advantage" over existing concepts.

Unfortunately, I can't find anywhere in the article for it to go. The article currently treats Dembski's writings in a very piecemeal fashion, so there's nowhere that it sits neatly. HrafnTalkStalk 10:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "the Discovery Institute emphasises Dembski's credentials as a mathematician"

  • "A mathematician and philosopher, William A. Dembski ... Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, philosophy, and theology journals ..."[10]
  • "...mathematician and philosopher William Dembski’s..."[11]
  • "...mathematician and philosopher William Dembski..."[12]

See a pattern? HrafnTalkStalk 16:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. What I don't see is the word scientist, which is what the main text says. Also, I don't see any reason to suggest that mathematician is being emphasised over philosopher. Is it just because that word comes first that you feel it has more emphasis? If so, I think that is a strange notion, and would be interested to know what others think about that. Finally, I suspect that you are purposefully using the WP:WTA word 'although' juxtaposed with 'emphasis' to introduce non-encyclopeadic derision of this man because of your personal views. It seems obvious to me that you have an axe to grind . As I have not, I will not revert your last edit, but hope someone else does. (PS You seem to have messed up the references section for Mozilla Firefox users. I'm not sure to fix it). Mannafredo (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
"Scientist" is more problematic from current sources (but wasn't a point you had previously been arguing). My suspicion is that the DI may leave this more flimsy claim for the Christian press to make on Dembski's behalf. "Philosopher" is also being emphasised, but legitimately (as he currently works as a 'Research Professor of Philosophy'), unlike mathematics (an area that he hasn't worked in since his post-doc days). You haven't attempted to remove "although" to date (as far as I can tell) -- you merely complained about it in an edit summary changing something else. HrafnTalkStalk 13:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
My previous points have been about the word 'emphasises' (and 'touts' prior to that) which relates to both mathematician and scientist. DI claims may well be flimsy (and I think you'll find the the overwhelming majority of Christian press have little or no regard for this man), but whilst adding references to show they are regarded as flimsy by prominent others is okay, placing your own bias in an encyclopaedic article is not. I don't have a great personal problem with the word 'although' on its own, or when used with a dormant word like 'lists'. The problem with 'emphasises' is that it is a relative word. Tell me, 'mathematics' is emphasised relative to what? Not 'philosopher', as you say. If you emphasise everything, then nothing is emphasised. That means the word has no meaning, becomes weasily and inappropriate. There is nothing wrong with using the word 'lists' in its place, and I argue that it is much more suitable. It in no way lightens the inference that this man is claiming academic prominence that he can not justify. Mannafredo (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)