i honestly believe and i've said this before that there is a way of resolving this question and the reason i believe it is because i believe that there has been a big misunderstanding about who christopher michael langan is and what he stands for i would like to make two points to be an advocate of something means to advocate for it that is it means to argue for it publicly one could be a private advocate around the dinner table i suppose but to argue this in an encyclopaedia would need very good evidence so if somebody is an advocate there should be clear evidence that he advocates the thing of which he is an advocate being an advocate means something different from and something more than being a member of an organisation if it has been so difficult to find the clear evidence langan advocates id that should give editors pause for thought even those editors ill disposed to the man i believe the reason this evidence has been so difficult to locate is because langan is not an advocate of id he is just not an advocatory kind of guy if i may be permitted to put it like that he is a very individual probably very self preoccupied sort of person contrary to how he has been presented my impression is that he is anything but a self promoter he certainly is a guy who seems confident he is right about what he thinks and would like people to listen to him but that is not the same thing as being a self promoter more importantly he comes across as somebody who is not at all interested in joining political movements and is in general not a joiner of any kind i truly believe that as a guy totally outside academia he was happy to receive the offer to speak at the id conference and could see grounds whereby what he had to say pertained to the interests of id proponents and the id proponents for their part and as anti id people must surely recognise are happy to accept into their fold anybody who seems like they could help the cause so it was if you like a man and a movement taking mutual advantage of each other additionally and as i have argued many times now langan's ctmu is disqualified from being a species of id theory because it explicitly disavows scientific proof the very opposite of id theory which constantly tries to claim scientific testability langan i honestly believe is just not the kind of guy he has been taken for by anti id editors and that is probably why the evidence just does not seem to be there