I strongly contest the use of this evidence that Langan is an advocate of intelligent design for the following reasons Firstly and most importantly it is not about Langan It is about someone else entirely Dembski is clearly a partisan commentator Guettarda argues that if the pro ID Dembski and the anti ID editors of this entry both thinks someone is an ID advocate then he is This is a false conclusion The fact that Dembski writes As a fellow of the ISCID such and such is a card carrying member of the ID movement does not make it correct to infer that ISCID fellowship equals ID advocate Dembski is involved in a pro ID political campaign so no doubt wants to claim people as pro ID Even Dembski is not cited here claiming Langan is pro ID So it is not true to say that both sides agree that Langan is pro ID The fact that an anti Langan editor is forced to resort to this kind of evidence is itself a further indication of how little actual evidence there is that Langan is an advocate of ID Not one citation has been provided from a secondary source stating that Langan is an advocate of ID Not one citation has been provided from Langan stating that he is an advocate of ID Substantial evidence and argument has been provided that Langan is not an advocate of ID and that anti Langan editors have persistently misunderstood the nature of Langan s position None of this evidence and argument has been refuted or even discussed by anti Langan editors And I note as well the continuing trend of anti Langan editors to edit the entry then make a comment on the talk page for possible discussion rather than discussing the matter and seeing if there is agreement That is if they leave a comment at all This is clearly poor form in an entry that is obviously contested and controversial Some people have been blocked for less