Talk:William A. Dembski/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Have just discovered a listing of the courses he's been teaching at SWBTS. Hrafn42 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Updating Recent Developments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Uncommon Descent addresses this issue .  I have read some of the "nice and caring" comments from those who are ardent pro evolutionists on ud and other ID sites, and in order to be published their "nice and caring" comments should be self moderated to the point of not using demeaning and uncalled for "nice and caring" language.notoadultery 18:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isnt this OR? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  False claim 

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

message: 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:
#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);
#I could find no evidence of staff associated with it, other than Wise (and previously Dembski);
#this center does not even have its own webpage on the SBTS site (only the Center for Biblical Counseling does);
#I could find no publications attributed to it in Google Scholar; and
#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)
thread_title:  SBTS's Center for Theology and Science 

message: I know this is both relatively minor & something that hasn't happened yet, but I thought it worth including in the article as:
#Dembski has been fairly inactive of late, so any news tends to round out the article; and
#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)
thread_title:  'Intelligent Design in Business Practice' conference 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Replace dembski image with GFDL 

message: : "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I agree that this is worth including. Can we find a WP:RS for it? Hrafn42 03:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Dembski and KvD trial 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  More on Baylor & EIL 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: opinion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Oklahoma University 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I took care of that for you. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.--128.36.147.159 21:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to "Activities since 2001" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bibliography section 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm the one that reverted you, but I agree with the total count problem. I think that keeping Shallit's link  is important. Out of fairness, we need to keep links to his blog. The review of No Free Lunch from biosystems is important . The Christianity Today article seems to be pretty tangential, being more about Baylor than Dembski, so I'd kill that. I'd kill all the audio/video links.Kww 15:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Linkfarm 

message: * The anti-evolutionists; William Dembski
* Critique of Dembski's No Free Lunch by Richard Wein from the talk.origins archive
* The Advantages of Theft Over Toil by John Wilkins and Wesley R. Elsberry, one of the few critiques of Dembski's ideas that is a peer-reviewed publication.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesley R. Elsberry (talk • contribs) 08:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticising Dembski 

message: http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006139.cfm
Interesting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: That Koons called Dembski "the Isaac Newton of information theory" has received considerable notice, including in scholarly sources:
* Creationism's Trojan Horse
* Doubting Darwin?: Creationist Designs on Evolution, by Sahotra Sarkar
On the flip side, I could find no source, other than the interview itself, which mentioned Marks calling Dembski "one of the most talented men I’ve ever met". As for the "genius" claim, this is what Marks actually said:
It is clear from this that Marks isn't calling Dembski a "genius" in any global sense, but simply at writing for a lay audience. In this I think Marks is wrong -- Dembski has a well-documented habit of throwing needless pseudomathamatics into his books, which adds nothing, but looks impressive. But regardless, Marks did not baldly call him a genius. HrafnTalkStalk 04:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I call peacock. Jefffire (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "the Isaac Newton of information theory" vs "genius" & "one of the most talented men I’ve ever met" 

message: I think this quote (originally here, but also quoted in Creationism's Trojan Horse, p 118) sums up Dembski perfectly:
Unfortunately, I can't find anywhere in the article for it to go. The article currently treats Dembski's writings in a very piecemeal fashion, so there's nowhere that it sits neatly. HrafnTalkStalk 10:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe that's because your opinions differ from those of reliable third party sources that have published information about Dembski, as required by verifiability policy and no original research policy. Wikipedia is not censored, and to gain consensus for changes you will probably find it most useful to make proposals for changes in a new section on this talk page, with sources as recommended in the talk page guideline. Thanks, . . dave souza, talk 08:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

text: WP:VALID means we should not "give equal validity" to Dembski's pseudomathematical pseudoscientific claims in comparison to the views of genuine scientists and prominent mathematicians. See for example William Dembski's treatment of the No Free Lunch theorems is written in jello. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perakh quote/piecemeal treatment of writings 

message: *"A mathematician and philosopher, William A. Dembski ... Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, philosophy, and theology journals ..."
*"...mathematician and philosopher William Dembski’s..."
*"...mathematician and philosopher William Dembski..."
See a pattern? HrafnTalkStalk 16:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "the Discovery Institute emphasises Dembski's credentials as a mathematician" 

message: Should we include something about his public speaking? We66er (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We could, but the information on it is likely to be fragmentary/'snap-shot' -- so it may be difficult to develop a coherent section on the general topic. HrafnTalkStalk 07:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but mention of his public speaking and criticisms about it would be a relevant issue. We66er (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added a mention in along with him attending creationist conferences. We66er (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public speaking 

message: William Dembski has repudiated his "explanatory filter". My article provides a quote and link to Dembski's statement:
: (1) I’ve pretty much dispensed with the EF. It suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not. Straight CSI is clearer as a criterion for design detection. 
--Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demise of the Explanatory Filter 

message: This wiki states "Panda's" introduces the term "Intelligent Design"  This is a fabrication.  I have made numerous attempts to rectify this, yet it is constantly undone in order to bring the worst light on Dembski.  Most of the Wiki on Dembski is to try to show him in the worst possible light by those who's POV is he is an evil christian trying to pull the wool over the eyes of unsuspecting people.  Most of the wiki about Dembski goes against Wiki policy about biographies on living persons.  This whole Wiki needs to be rewritten with a "controversies" section to address controversies. notoadultery 00:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that Dembski did not invent the phrase "intelligent design".  I will change the wording to prevent that misreading.  However I will also delete your editorial comments.  You are not allowed to insert your opinions into the article.  If you think something is biased you can cite some  reliable source giving an alternative opinion.  To avoid an edit war, I suggest you present your editing suggestions here first for discussion.  The main thing to remember is that this page is for discussing the article, not for discussing the topic of the article. McKay (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

text: No. The scientific community is "anti Dembski POV" and this wiki gives WP:DUE weight to this viewpoint. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

text: notoadultery, your fringe point of view is noted and given its due weight in proportion, per WP:WEIGHT. Please learn not to delete properly attributed majority views. . .dave souza, talk 23:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I did not mean other wiki, but other subjects here in Wikipedia, I appologize for the personal attacks and will not engage in them again.  I do maintain that this article has been fashioned to show Dembski in the worst possible light.  I read last night an article by a mathmatician that was definitely not pro Dembski, but he did state that Dembski was a very good mathmatician. notoadultery 23:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: If it's published by a WP:RS that may be something we can cite. However, a well noted scientist comments here. It appears that Dembski's not terribly good at programming, though I'm no expert. . dave souza, talk 23:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I not sure what Dembski is getting at, maybe he is myopic in what is being said.  I do know that the "methinks" program is backended to stop when it gets to the desired response. I heard Wilder-Smith explain the typing monkey problem on a tape about 20 years ago (I think).  He explained there was a missing element,they would never be able to type even a paragraph.  The missing element was equalibrium.  Every time they would print a string of characters, the erase button would go back and take away part of the string in random areas.  He related this to amino acid chains, every time one would form an opposing natural element would break it apart.  Not sure if he was giving way to amino acids forming naturally, but I thought it was interesting.  I guess that may be the missing part of Dawkin's program. 
It has always amazed me that somehow a program written to prove random selection and then proves it shows how evolution "could" work is actually accepted as proof.  It was written by an intelligent being.  I also find it interesting we are spending millions of dollars a year searching for extraterrestrials.  Some prominent scientists have suggested seeding got life started here (I think because there is no way to get this whole evolutionary chain of events started), even though there is no evidence of extraterrestrials, no one has ever seen them, and we have never heard from them in all the years we've been listening for them.  That is ok, yet looking for God is delusional.  I think there is a reason why one "fantastical" story is accepted over the other, that is because one does not incur a judgement on our moral choices and the other does.  Just some random thoughts.notoadultery 03:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Multiple things: 1.) As for ETs, imagine this scenario: I want to have a lobster dinner.  Thus, I open my door and sit at the dinner table, ready to eat.  After a few hours, no lobster has presented itself on my plate for me to eat.  Thus, I conclude lobsters do not exist.  As you can see, absence of contact does not necessarily mean impossibility of contact.  2.) As for your statement "there is no way to get this whole evolutionary chain of events started," several experiments/fields of thought (such as the Miller–Urey experiment, have shown that it might be in fact possible for evolution/life to have gotten started on its own.  Regardless, Darwin's goal was merely to describe an active process, not to explain when/how it started.  3.)  As for searching for God vs. ETs, God seems, by definition, to be incomprehensible and/or unable to be located in this form of existence, thus making locating God a rather tough endeavor.  ETs, on the other hand, by definition, would seem to be creatures that we can likely come in contact with (though not necessarily, i.e. invisibility, etc.).  Just thought I'd illuminate some things.  PS Glad to see you've moved past personal attacks.  This is a cooperative project after all!  Best, Vincent Valentine 04:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligent Design Origin

message: Somebody put a template-style notice on my user talk page calling for speedy deletion of this article and warning me against making personal attacks. What's going on? --Uncle Ed (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User Notoadultery2 believes this article is a personal attack on William Dembski (not by you).  I disagree, though it can be improved as all articles can.  Speedy deletion would of course be ridiculous.  McKay (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion and personal attacks

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

message: *NPR: 
*Evolution vs. creationism: an introduction, Eugenie Scott & Niles Eldredge, p125
I think that's sufficient substantiation for calling it the "hub". Can anybody come up with any contervailing evidence? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Guettarda (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Discovery Institute is the hub of the IDM 

message: On October 6, 2009 Dembski wrote:
I was just listening to Rush Limbaugh (I trust this radio preference of mine will make it quickly into my Wikipedia entry but that my work with the Evolutionary Informatics Lab will continue to be ignored there; by the way, I also enjoy reading Camille Paglia). In any case, Rush read portions...
Should Dembski's radio preference be included? NovakFan76 (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we now meatpuppets for Dembski? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

text: None of this notable. Not his listening to Limbaugh nor his work with EIL. If we get non-trivial independent reliable sources about the EIL then we can maybe add more about that. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The original creation of the EIL created generated some coverage, its activities since haven't. If we were to include every other public figure a topic merely mentioned they are a fan of, Wikipedia would turn into a social-networking site. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dembski's is a fan of [[Rush Limbaugh]] 

message: Self-published sources, including blogs, should not be used to make unduly self-serving (Dembski's claims) claims or about third parties (Pandas Thumb & Goodmath), and especially not in a WP:BLP. In any case, both Dembski blogging that XXX supports ID, and scientists blogging that his claims are complete nonsense, are both far too common to be noteworthy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The noteworthy thing is, IMO, that there is a peer-reviewed paper by Dembski and Marks. Of course, they will say that it is about intelligent design. That this claim is incorrect isn't surprising, but it is important to show how it is incorrect... DiEb (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, we're here to present evidence, not show how people are wrong. We have an article of ID, we don't need to rehash it here. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WEASEL controversy 

message: "William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American mathematician, theologian, and professor of philosophy...."  Since when did Bill Dembski become a mathematician?  Can I write some insane maths that no one can understand and call myself a mathematician too?  I can write book too! if I say "the intelligent designer is jeebus" does that make me a theologian AND a scientist?  why can the article not represent reality?  dembski is a theologian with a maths degree?  or better, he's a crack pot who makes his living misleading people who are not so bright.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the section "Childhood and Education." It says "He returned to school at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), where he studied psychology (in which he received a B.A. in 1981) and statistics (receiving an M.S. in 1983). He was awarded an M.S. in mathematics in 1985, and a Ph.D., also in mathematics, in 1988, both from the University of Chicago, after which he held a postdoctoral fellowship in mathematics from the National Science Foundation from 1988 until 1991, and another in the history and philosophy of science at Northwestern University from 1992–1993. He was awarded an M.A. in philosophy in 1993, and a Ph.D. in the same subject in 1996, both from UIC, and an M.Div from Princeton Theological Seminary, also in 1996." I'm pretty sure that receiving a degree in Statistics and then a Phd in Mathmatics makes him a mathematician, regardless of what you or I think of him. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ha ha ha now pull the other one

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

message: This is the paragraph in question, the third in the article.
The question of ID being science or theology was put on trial in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover (USA 2005). The key issue was the assertion that ID is faith-based and "junk science" – like creationism. As such, it was unacceptable curriculum in a publicly funded high school. In Judge Jones' 139-page decision on December 20, 2005, he wrote that "the overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43) A controversy arose when Dembski withdrew from giving testimony in the trial and rebuttal witness Shallit was removed from the schedule.[14][15]
To me, this paragraph seems out of place. The standard format that I've seen in most BLP's is to introduce the person in the first part of the article, highlighting the points that have made them notable, etc. I'm not sure why this paragraph is here. Certainly the man is famous because of intelligent design, and that should be noted. But, a commentary on ID itself in introduction? It seems like to me if someone wanted that much information, they could refer to the main article about ID. 
Even worse, the guy never actually participated in the trial mentioned in the paragraph. How can that be one of the most important things about his life? 
I'm deleting this paragraph.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.205.217.77 (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:WEASEL. Using "Effort to debunk" while Elsberry obviously debunked Dembski, would require a source to state that. As for the section you removed, I see it as a one of the highlights of Dembski's public career and it seems to fit into the lede nicely - it establishes contect. It could be worded a bit better, though.  --Sander Säde 10:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move paragraph from introduction or revise?