Talk:William A. Dembski

message: As part of a general review, I'm going to be going through the references and tidying them up as well as seeing how things fit together a bit better.  There's too many sections which are a bit incoherent in my opinion.  I've done a bit with the bio section so people can see what kind of thing I mean.  Mostly, stuff needs citation templates and a pretty thorough review.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing review

message: Talk.origins is seen as a good parity source, particularly for creationism topics.  It's not a "usenet group", it has its own wikipedia page and it's award winning, and is recognized by Scientific American, Science, the AAAS, the Smithsonian, and used in many, many college courses.  This isn't a random website.  
WP:BLP does not overwrite all other policies, and WP:UNDUE requires us to contextualize things in proportion to their mainstream acceptance - and no mainstream publication accepts intelligent design as valid.  We are enjoined to get BLPs right, and that "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone."  My points are always sourced, the sources are always reliable, the material is presented responsibly, conservatively and in a disinterested tone.  The scientific consensus is that ID is pseudoscience.  This is not controversial, this is not a minority position, there's no debate over this.  There has been no scientific papers published supporting ID, no scientific society agrees that ID is a worthwhile idea, or even a scientific theory.  It's not that I disagree with Dembski (I do, he's wrong).  My personal opinion is not the point.  The point is we must give DUE WEIGHT to the appropriate scholarly opinion, that that opinion is what I am sourcing.  Not my own.  Perhaps I'm confused - what specific part of BLP are my edits violating?  
Also, if anyone objects to a section, remove that section - don't blanket revert to remove actual improvements like citation templates.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the edits to the page.  There was a reason I replaced multiple citations with one - Young & Edis is a superior citation because it is explicit, and only one was needed.  Though the other sources could be used, Y&E is better because it refers to Dembski specifically, criticizes his work specifically, and doesn't lead to source-spamming.  The time article is from 2005, and he's not employed as a professor of theology at Southern Baptist anymore.  By far he is best known as a proponent of intelligent design, not as a professor of anything.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not remove the well sourced descriptions of the man's career again. We get that you disagree with him, but that doesn't allow you to engage in vandalistic BLP violations. Freakshownerd (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First, where is the BLP violation?  Second, why do you keep replacing unnecessary sources?  Third, why do you not retain the incremental improvements to citation templates?  Fourth, where is the vandalism?  Fifth, where have I removed "well-sourced descriptions of the man's career"?  He's not a professor of theology anymore, he's a professor of philosophy.  Sixth, I'm removing the unnecessary and inaccurate use of a duplicate citation to the time article; there's no reason to replace it, the overall citation to the article is to the front page, we don't need to link to every single page that exists.  Plus, it's from 2005 and is now inaccurate.  His employment and degrees are noted, but his expertise and profession is more tenuous.  This isn't about disagreeing with what he says, this is about the most reasonable summary of his career.  This certainly isn't worth edit warring over.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to fix thte citations. I apologize if I messed them up. That was no intentional. DO NOT remove the well sourced content on the man's career in an attempt to belittle and disparage him because you don't happen to agree with his views. That is a clear BLP violations and is unacceptable. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't make up false accusations and don't assume bad faith motives. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligent design is pseudoscience 

message: Archived the page.  The archives were screwed up, two less than 100K and one more than 300, I tried to even them out to 250 apiece but am on possibly the slowest computer in the world and may have screwed it up.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: to be a biblical literalist and believes Adam and Eve were the very first people, whom everyone else came from, and that evolution had no part of human development. He also believes in the 6 day myth. http://www.baptisttheology.org/documents/AReplytoTomNettlesReviewofDembskisTheEndofChristianity.pdf  http://www.sbts.edu/resources/category/journal-of-theology/sbjt-134-winter-2009/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Dembski claims 

message: Synthese Volume 178, Number 2 / January 2011 is an entire issue devoted to 'Evolution and its Rivals'. It includes articles by such heavyweights as Robert T. Pennock, Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit, Sahotra Sarkar, Niall Shanks, Barbara Forrest & James Henry Fetzer. Elsberry & Shallit's article, Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski’s “complex specified information” would be particularly relevant to this topic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looking at this article again, and I'm not sure why our Synthese essay is not in the list of critiques at the end of this article. We were given the room to be pretty comprehensive. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-009-9542-8 Springer Link]. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it to the list of references. . . dave souza, talk 11:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Synthese]]'' on 'Evolution and its Rivals' 

message: I have to admit this article always delivers when it come to comedy.  Who in the entire would knows Dembski as an "analytic philosopher"?  Other than wikipedia, can you provide one source that refers to him as an "analytic philosopher" Where in the world did you folks come up with that?  Talk about original research. He teaches creationism at a bible school, how many other bible teachers are described as "analytic philosophers"?  Why are so many editors here afraid to call dembski what he really is? Look at the articles about other IDers/fundies/nutjobs, and you don't see the kind of fear based descriptions that you see in this one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you find "fear based" in your sources? The spurious description is gone, for now. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  william dembski is an "analytic philosopher"?  Are you kidding me 

message: "...inventor of the concept of specified complexity."  Is "inventor" the most descriptive term we can use?  When we step back and realize specified complexity is utter nonsense, using the phrase "inventor of" suggests something sciency is going on here, when the verifiable accounts suggest otherwise.  Would "originator" be a more acurate description?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Specified complexity, the term originated around 1973 with Leslie Orgel. __Just plain Bill (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but as far as I can tell, neither Dembski, nor anybody else, uses it in Orgel's original, more general, meaning. And certainly without SC, nobody would bother to write about Dembski. He has written many books attempting a none-too-successful elaboration on this concept into a purported evolution-stumper. 19:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Widely known for promoting" works just fine, thanks. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: ...inventor of the concept of specified complexity?

message: TOA has been discussed many times at WP:RSN, and the consensus is that is is a reliable source []. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Origins archive 

message: The comment that Dembski believes his daughter's autism is related to vaccines should be removed, as it is a covert way to cast aspersions, since the consensus of the scientific community is that vaccines are safe and unrelated to autism. The comment does not enhance the article, and serves only as a veiled slur on Dembski's scientific credibility.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmp717200 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Close. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 18:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

text: What an extraordinary suggestion. Dembski's belief is a documented fact. It's not up to us to determine what can be inferred from that, or to avoid stating something just because of what might be inferred from it. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This conversation is from two years ago. Noformation Talk 08:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Questioned 

message: The article appears to derive the following passage:
But the following passage is all that the cited source has to say about his "early" opposition:
It is clear that the derived material contains a number of ideas not contained in the citation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep up with this stuff better than I do.  My issue with your revert was that it's been like this for awhile, and I don't believe that the editor had made the change.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Early opposition to evolution' section 

message: The lead states that Dembski is a "former proponent" of intelligent design, implying that he is no longer a proponent, as if he has changed his views. Because the lead is supposed to be an overview of the article body, I looked through the article body and couldn't find any indication that this "former proponent" characterization is correct. Did I miss something? ~Anachronist (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Former proponent of ID means to me that he no longer subscribes to this creationism in disguise attempt. I looked at his personal web page. He states he left the board of directors or something and no longer is active in it, but this doesn't mean he isn't a creationist or ID cdesign proponistreation. 207.61.145.4 (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Former proponent" of ID? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on William A. Dembski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140110094817/http://www.religionlink.com/source-guides/evolution-vs-intelligent-design-the-battle-continues/ to http://www.religionlink.com/source-guides/evolution-vs-intelligent-design-the-battle-continues/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
*Added  tag to http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The entry describes Dembski's adherence to ID in the past-tense. He has recently given a number of interviews in support of the 2nd edition of The Design Inference, published by ID-proponent the Discovery Institute. His comments in these interviews make it clear he his endorsement of ID is not in the past tense, and probably never was. I propose to edit this article to reflect this, but thought I should raise it for discussion first. Possibly the most succinct edit would just be to delete the final two sentences of the opening paragraph, and maybe mention his hiatus further down somewhere. --Russell E (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to description as ex-ID