Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:03, 19 June 2005

Archive

• /Archive 1

Spelling

From the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style: "Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use center in one place and centre in another on the same page. Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country. For example: article on the American Civil War: U.S. usage and spelling." This being an article on a US citizen active largely in the US, the US spelling should be used here.--FeloniousMonk 03:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

reverting Noetica's reverts (etc.)

1. I sympathise with the dislike of 'analyze' — unlike genuine alternative spellings like 'symathize', it's ugly and etymologically deeply silly, but it's been declared to be U.S. English (I know educated Americans who disagree, but they don't count here, unfortunately).
2. More importantly, the question of the fallacy. An informal argument, especially, doesn't have to have a premise in the form explicitly of a universal generalisation; the following counts:

• If someone's a communist then she believes in equality
• Mary believes in equality
• Therefore Mary's a communist.

The first premise is a conditional, but the argument is still a classic example of the fallacy.

1. Besides, his argument is clearly fallacious, however you label it (and whether it's offered by him or by Richard Swinburne; do you have a preferred label? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm typing this in bed (yes, it has finally happened), so maybe I'm missing something, but why is that not an example of affirming the consequent, as Noetica wrote? The paragraph states that Demski argues, roughly: If there is a god, there is design. There is design. Therefore there is a god. SlimVirgin 09:54, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

I missed Noetica's reference to that (was it one of those long edit summaries?). Yes, I'm happy with that (we could call it modus (tollendo) tollens if we wanted to be pompous; that's how I learnt it, and it was such a relief to discover that there was a plain English name for it). In informal reasoning, the same error can often be assigned to more than one fallacy. If it makes people happy, I'll change the article accordingly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:07, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind. We can name all the fallacies Dembski makes. In fact, we could create a separate article called William Dembski's formal and informal fallacies in Latin, American English, and British English. SlimVirgin

I was writing from memory, but here's what we say D. says: "He decided that, if God were the creator of the universe, then there should be order in the world, not randomness. As order is indeed visible in many aspects of biological organisms, this must be evidence of design, and evidence against the idea that random changes could have produced those organisms." That's not quite "if p then q; q, therefore p" but it is more or less, because we're saying that when he says there is evidence of design, he's implying there's necessarily a designer, and furthermore implying that the designer is God, perhaps as a matter of definition, so it ends up as affirming the consequent. Of course, it's also a tautology, because it reduces to: "If there's a god, there's a god." But as we're discussing logic, I must hasten to sleep before I make an embarrassing error if I haven't made one already. SlimVirgin 10:21, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mel, and hi SlimVirgin (in bed). I was writing the following while you two were chatting, but I'll post despite its being somewhat overtaken by subsequent talk:

Mel, note first that I did only one revert. Then my question to you is this: why call the version to which you reverted "the last clean version"? Odd! The business with the barbarous spelling is understood, of course. We must accept these things. But why is a reference to undistributed middle "clean", and a reference that is more transparent and at least as circumspectly worded to affirming the consequent something other than "clean"? The argument under discussion is couched as follows (by someone or other):

If God were the creator of the universe, then there should be order in the world, not randomness. As order is indeed visible in many aspects of biological organisms, this must be evidence of design, and evidence against the idea that random changes could have produced those organisms.

Rendered more canonically, stripped of qualifications, accretions, and shifts in surface detail (some of which obscure the form), it surely amounts to this:

P1: If God were the creator of the universe, then there would be order in the world.

P2: There is order in the world.

C: God is the creator of the universe.

This is not an instance of undistributed middle. It is not even a categorical syllogism, of any sort. It is, plainly, an instance of the fallacy of affirming the consequent, which has this general form:

P1: If P then Q

P2: Q

C: P

I acknowledge that connexions can be found between the two kinds of fallacy at issue here; but I await your demonstration that my analysis is incorrect, and I await your detailed working to show that the argument is more informatively characterised as an instance of the fallacy of undistributed middle. The example you give concerning Mary and communism is not a sufficient demonstration, partly because it does not match closely enough the argument at issue.

My "clean" version of that argument does, in all relevant respects, reveal the structure in question, and that structure is affirming the consequent. (And in late news: no, it is NOT an instance of modus tollens! Revise your sentential logic, I suggest!) --Noetica 10:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Because I'm in a hurry, I've just hit another edit conflict; I hope that this turns out OK.)

I am at the moment (or should be) rushing out of the door in order to try to make my first tutorial of the day, but is it enough to say that I've altered the text (with internal link)? (It may be that I missed something in your change; I thought that you'd merely removed the reference to the fallacy. I reverted only one change, but then saw in the edit history that you'd made two, which makes me wonder if there was some sort of edit conflict.) I'd be happy to discuss the relationship between affirming the consequent and undistributed middle, but when I can sit down and write unhurriedly. I hope we're agreed on the article's wording now, at any event. My apologies for any misunderstanding. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your apologies are readily accepted, Mel! You edited in haste. In view of all this, I have taken the liberty of reverting to what I had put, which was not done in haste (with "analyzable" retained, of course). See my edit summary for my reason. --Noetica 10:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've just had a chance to look again, and it's worse than I'd thought; I have no excuse at all — no edit conflicts, no nothing. I just edited too hastily. Sorry. (I think, personally, that it's more straightforwardly an example of the fallacy than merely analysable as one, but that's not so important I suppose). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem at all, Mel! Such things can easily happen. An interesting article, with interesting discussion Catherine-wheeling its way quaquaversally from it. I'll watch this article; but since enough people have a stake in it already I'll do no editing. Whatever anyone says will not last anyway. Best wishes to you. --Noetica 13:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Templeton Foundation

A recent edit by User:138.130.192.82 () was accompanied by the edit summary "Reversed Templeton and Discovery Ins. because the former is not pro-ID". But the Foundation's website has this to say on its funding of research into Science and Religion:

http://www.templeton.org/science_and_religion/index.asp

The Foundation especially seeks to stimulate rigorous scholarly/scientific advances that increase understanding of the ultimate aspects of human purpose...

(Emphasis is mine).

On the same page, the Foundation's benefactor, Sir John Marks Templeton, is quoted as follows:

There is here no knockdown argument for design and purpose, but certainly there are strong hints of ultimate realities beyond the cosmos. One of the strongest hints, in our opinion, relates to the new understanding of the creativity of the cosmos, its capacity for so-called self-organization. ... From a theological perspective it is indeed tempting to see this remarkable self-organizing tendency as an expression of the intimate nature of the Creator's activity and identification with our universe.

To say that the Templeton Foundation is not strongly biased in favor of Intelligent Design would be, I suggest, to ignore the following facts:

1. it is an organisation that promotes teleological explanations of human existence;
2. it gives pride of place to its benefactor's strong statements in support of ID as a means of linking scientific findings and religious belief.

I'm returning the statement to its former order. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No way — Templeton is a theistic evolutionist, and has given the prizes to many evolutionists (e.g. Arthur Peacocke, Freeman Dyson. Of course he is a theist of some sort that believes that some sort of "god" is behind the universe, but behind the scenes, not by direct design as Dembski and the other IDers believe. Self-organization as you quoted is the antithesis of ID, which states that matter CANNOT organize itself into the complexity of life without intelligent input. The original edit seems reasonable 220.244.224.8 04:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment

The page on William A. Dembski is an obvious violation of the NPOV. Those overseeing this page are obvious secular Darwinians ready to slander Dr. Demski.

An exaggeration, but I have to admit there were some biased elements in the page, especially the "Darwin in a vise" image. I've removed these. If you have any more issues, list them here and we'll work it out. -- ChrisO

The "Darwin in a vise" stuff is still there.

I've removed the image from the article, and it's listed on Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems as a probable copyright violation. -- ChrisO 21:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chris, Thank you for your comments. They are appreciated. Here are a few comments.

1) "His critics have accused him of dishonesty in his representation of scientific facts and writing" This may be a fact but it is a polemical fact and irrelevant to the profile. If you read any profiles of Darwinist, I doubt it is noted that “some scientists accuse Dr. X of being a blind/atheistic/liar”. That is a factual statement (the charge, not the truth of it) but it is prejudicial. And the link in this case shows how irrelevant -- and predictable -- the comment is. What some claim or charge and what reality is may be two different things, particularly in a hotly disputed area. The point really is irrelevant to the profile so please drop it.

See my comments below under "Comments on Mel Etitis' edit summary". -- ChrisO 21:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2) "his ideas are not accepted as valid by the mainstream scientific community" This again may be a fact but it prejudices the reader. How about putting it in context and saying "his ideas are not accepted as valid by the mainstream Darwinian community " or something to that effect. Really, without that context, the statement while "factual" is prejudicial.

The "mainstream Darwinian community" is the mainstream scientific community. Dembski is not an evolutionary biologist, and even outside the evolutionary biologist community ID is not widely supported. The pro-ID "petition" organized by the Discovery Institute has only 400 names on it, which is a tiny fraction of the total number of practising scientists in the US alone. -- ChrisO 21:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3) The account of the "Baylor University controversy" reads very one-sided and is designed to prejudice the reader. It is almost salacious in its representations. If you want specifics listed I can do that but I would think that any fair editor can go in and remove the salacious comments.

I wrote most of it, though it's been revised since. You can edit the article even without having a Misplaced Pages account (just hit the "edit this page" tab) so if you can think of a better way of describing it, go for it. -- ChrisO 21:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll give a further list later if you are interested.

Comments on anon's comments

His critics have accused him of dishonesty in his representation of scientific facts and writing - Scientists have to publish in peer-reviewed journal. Since Dembski won't subject his ideas to peer review, it's appropriate to comment on the factual inaccuracies in his work.

his ideas are not accepted as valid by the mainstream scientific community - Dembski claims the guise of science, but he won't publish in scientific journals. He claims to be a scientist, but that claim is not backup up by his actions.

The account of the "Baylor University controversy" reads very one-sided and is designed to prejudice the reader - look at the archives of the Talk page. The account is based on referenced facts. Dembski's apologists may want to put a differnt spin on things, but it is not Misplaced Pages's role to be a PR agency. Guettarda 17:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to why Dembski's own words and image are PoV — or is the claim that they're not really his? If so, what are the arguments on each side?

I'm not sure what is meant by "salacious" here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Mel Etitis' comments

"I'm at a loss as to why Dembski's own words and image are PoV". Did you see me make any reference to "Dembski's own words"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.24.109 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The edit to which I was responding involved the deletion of a section that included a quotation from Dembski. (Incidentally, could you sign your comments? If you don't it makes following a discussion very difficult. Use four tildes (~~~~; that inserts your name or IP address, and the date and time.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Guettarda's comments

"Since Dembski won't subject his ideas to peer review, it's appropriate to comment on the factual inaccuracies in his work." (a) While he may not have subjected his ideas to the formal process of peer review, it hasn't kept anyone from reviewing and commenting on his claims. (b) You are mistaking a polemical argument for the issues which are not even debated on this page.

"that claim is not backup up by his actions". Please cite a source for this preposterous claim. Please state the law which he's broken to disqualify him from being a scientist. Don't mistake your assertion for the law

"The account is based on referenced facts." You mean referenced claims and facts. It's one sided and prejudicial. Misplaced Pages's role is not to be a PR agency. Nor is it to be a slander outlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.24.109 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• "While he may not have subjected his ideas to the formal process of peer review, it hasn't kept anyone from reviewing and commenting on his claims. - precisely why it is appropriate to include these comments (of dishonesty).
• Please cite a source for this preposterous claim (of Dembski not being a scientist). Scientists publish peer-reviewed science. If he refuses to publish, he is not participating in the process of science, so you can't call him a scientist.
• I should not have said "references facts", I should have said "referenced sources". See the history of the Talk page. It's all been hashed out in the past. Feel free to counter those arguments, and explain why the sources are slanderous. Guettarda 18:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Scientists publish peer-reviewed science." What kind of nonsense is that? Look up "scientist" in wikipedia. Whoever made that stupid remard should resign from editing this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/Scientist 66.69.216.76 16:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• See Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks.
• Misplaced Pages articles are works in progress - maybe scientist needs work. Communicating your results is an essential part of the scientific method. If you don't communicate if you don't have your work reviewed by your peers you aren't doing science. Guettarda 16:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I attacked the remark, not the person. Scientists working in the corporate world don't publish peer reviewed science. Your remarks are showing a lack of understanding of science and scientists. You therefore seem unqualified to edit an article about a scientist.

I changed "mainstream scientific community" to "many in the scientific community". The mainstream scientific community falsely implies almost all scientists and the fact of the matter is that few scientists have actually sit themselves down and studied Dembski's work which is prerequisite to valid acceptance or denial of it.

I also changed "in opposition to evolution and natural selection"  to "in addition to evolution and natural selection".  Nowhere in Dembski's work is there a hint that he doesn't accept some amount of descent with modification as being accomplished by Darwinian random mutation plus natural selection.  His only claim is that certain aspects of products of evolution carry evidence of design. 66.69.216.76 16:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look, it's an outright lie to say that Dembski's ID work is in opposition to evolution via natural selection. As far as Dembski is concerned design is a mechanism additional to, not a replacement for, random mutation + natural selection. Just ask him if you don't believe me. Shouldn't a scientist at least be able to define is his own position instead of some third party that obviously doesn't know better being allowed to define it for him? 66.69.216.76 16:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Scientists working in industry do publish in the peer-reviewed literature. Some of them are forbidden from doing so by their employers, but I suspect that you are confusing scientists, technicians and engineers. Nonetheless, failure to publish is failure to apply the scientific method.
• Mainstream science rejects ID. Overwhelmingly. It isn't science. "Many in the scientific community" suggests something less than an overwhelming majority. Thus, it's misleading, twisting the article in order to mislead is not acceptable.
• Shouldn't a scientist at least be able to define is his own position instead of some third party that obviously doesn't know better being allowed to define it for him? Apart from the fact that Dembski is not a scientist, this article should not be a PR vehicle for him. Dembski engages in a compex deception, and that deception and dishonesty has been widely documented. His reply to this is to shift his position a little (and so, contradict his former position, but he doesn't seem to be bothered by this; see Calvinball). Misplaced Pages cannot be party to this deception.
• Calling me stupid is a personal attack. So is "You therefore seem unqualified to edit an article about a scientist". Please desist. Guettarda 17:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have an idea. How about if everyone who has actually published peer reviewed science please so state so we can separate who's really an expert and who isn't here. Here's some of my peer reviewed work. http://tinyurl.com/5rxfs 66.69.216.76 17:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a joke, right? A patent? Well, it fits. See bait and switch. Do you even know what science is? Guettarda 17:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... isn't calling that a "joke" a personal attack on me by your definition? Physician, heal thyself. The scientific method does not include peer reviewed publication. Peer reviewed publication is an advancement criteria in academia. Scientists in industry advance by different criteria since profit motive usually precludes unprotected public disclosure. You do acknowledge that science and scientists are at work in private firms where protecting the profits that pay for the science is of utmost concern, right?

Regardless, Dembski's work does not deny natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism. I defy you to actually find a place in any of his work where he says that natural selection plays no role in evolution. If you do I'll gladly stop changing the fallacy you insist belongs in the article. Your bias is showing. Do the right thing and resign from editing this article. 66.69.216.76 18:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Peer review is indeed part of the scientific process, as most recent philosophy of science brings out.
2. With regard to commerce, I suspect that you're confusing science with technology — but in fact those scientists in commerce do indeed advance as scientists via peer review. As employees of their companies, they may advance in other ways, but that's not relevant here.
3. Natural selection and unnatural selection are opposed; to claim that Dembski allows for natural selection and is thus not opposed to the modern biological theories to which the phrase refers is at best sophistic. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Using a patent application as evidence of a peer-reviewed publication is strange. Either it's a joke, or it is a deliberate attempt to mislead. I chose the former by way of assuming good faith (well, not good, but better, at least).
• You have made no attempt to explain why you insist on inserting the word "many". It is misleading and inaccurate. Guettarda 18:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone appears to have blocked the IP address from even reading wikipedia. This is denying many innocent users (school children!) access to wikipedia. I will henceforward use an alternate IP address that will only effect myself if blocked. Please remove the block on the other.

It appears the "in addition to" edit was accepted but in case that's temporary here are sources where Dembski explicitely acknowledges that evolution through natural selection is an operative mechanism. His position is that ID is an additional mechanism of change.

The following are documented cases of Dembski acknowledging evolution through natural selection in some cases. Therefore it is not accurate to say his notion ID is in opposition to evolution through natural selection. His position is that ID is a mechanism that works IN ADDITION TO to natural selection.

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm

Dembski: CONFIRMATION: What about positive evidence for intelligent design and Darwinism? From the design theorist's perspective, the positive evidence for Darwinism is confined to small-scale evolutionary changes like insects developing insecticide resistance. This is not to deny large-scale evolutionary changes, but it is to deny that the Darwinian mechanism can account for them. Evidence like that for insecticide resistance confirms the Darwinian selection mechanism for small-scale changes, but hardly warrants the grand extrapolation that Darwinists want. It is a huge leap going from insects developing insecticide resistance via the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation to the very emergence of insects in the first place by that same mechanism.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.10.logicalunderpinningsofID.pdf

DEMBSKI: Intelligent design, by contrast, teaches that biological complexity is not exclusively the result of material mechanisms but also requires intelligence, where the intelligence in question is not reducible to such mechanisms. The central issue, therefore, is not the relatedness of all organisms, or what typically is called common descent. Indeed, intelligent design is perfectly compatible with common descent. Rather, the central issue is how biological complexity emerged and whether intelligence played an indespensible (which is not to say exclusive) role in its emergence.

I'll come back to mainstream science in separate discussion if the one about opposition to natural selection is now resolved. 66.61.146.2 19:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S. This is off topic but those weren't patent *applications*. They are *granted* patents that were peer reviewed by experts at the U.S. Patent & Trademark office before going from application to grant. And it isn't strange if you're a computer scientist working for a $40B/year computer company interested in protecting its intellectual property from use by competitors. Academic scientists actually aren't very well respected by scientists outside academia. There's an old saw that goes "if you can do, teach". I mean no disrespect but I do want to point out in no uncertain terms that much science takes place outside academia and much of it doesn't get published. Even in academia a lot of science isn't published due to national security. A friend of mine is a scientist at UT working on advanced weapons systems for the gov't. If you think his work is published you have another think coming.

Great example of the ID method and why it is not science. When you cannot connect to Misplaced Pages you assume that you have been blocked from reading. When you switch IPs, you can connect. Thus, you have proof that you were blocked from even reading. Just like the IDers - find an explanation, and assume that it is the explanation. The scientific method would tell you to test alternate hypotheses. Of course, the rest of us who can't connect don't assume that the world revolves around us.

So I was right, bait and switch. Or maybe the Chewbacca Defense. Claim a peer reviewed pub - and show a patent. When the deception is pointed out, you take great offense that I called your approved patent a patent application (apologies for your bruised ego). Then you insult academic science, and go on to talk about defense contractors. So, Dembski isn't publishing in peer reviewed journals because of national security concerns. Now I see. We bow before your brilliance.

Chewbacca Defense. Guettarda 20:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I said ****appears**** to have been blocked. That leaves room for doubt. Your bias is showing again when you try to conflate that to an example of why ID is not science. Please do the right thing and resign from editing this article. Your POV is not at all objective.

RE "many in mainstream science" vs. "mainstream science". I would not object to "a majority in mainstream science", "most in mainstream science", etc. Science isn't a democracy and not all scientists reject Dembski's ID out of hand. So while a majority of those polled do reject ID clearly some do not.

Here are two National Academy of Science members chiming in on ID.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/005/377xndpp.asp

Paul McHugh

If Michael J. Behe, the cellular biochemist who wrote Darwin's Black Box, proposes that the complicated molecular mechanisms sustaining the integrity of the cell seem impossible to explain as the result of random variations, the president of the National Academy of Sciences counters by pronouncing, "Modern scientific views of the molecular organization of life are entirely consistent with spontaneous variation and natural selection driving a powerful evolutionary process." That is, he affirms the Darwinian narrative by restating it, not by offering compelling proof that it is true. Lots of views are consistent with the cell's complexity--including the view Behe explores, that an intelligent creator designed the cell to work. But cellular formation needs identified generative mechanisms, not simply a consistent narrative, to explain it--a problem both for those who call on Darwin and those who call on an "intelligent designer."

http://www.idurc.org/interviews/skell0605.htm

Phillip Skell

5. What are your thoughts on intelligent design? Are you moved at all by the evidence and arguments presented by ID theorists? Should it be taught in schools?

ID is a balance for rampant Darwinism. From a science point of view, neither should be taught in a science class. They are both best presented in a non-science class devoted to speculations on pre-history.

6. You recently wrote a letter to the Kansas State Board of Education expressing support for teaching criticism of neo-Darwinism. What drove you to write this letter?

If Darwinism is to be taught, both its criticisms and the alternatives should be linked.

Here is an article discussing results of Gallup polls comparing the results of evolutionary beliefs of scientists and other groups. I fail to see how it can honestly be said that mainstream science as a whole rejects ID when 40% of American scientists say God had a hand in it and 5% say God did it all! My compromise offer of "many in mainstream science" is clearly more honest and unbiased and still probably doesn't tell the whole truth of how big the minority of ID believers among scientists really is.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp

Many Scientists See God's Hand in Evolution by Larry Witham

While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows. Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process.

66.69.216.76 20:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Once again, a mass of only vaguely related verbiage and obfustication. There is a huge gap between supporting a pseudoscience like ID and for attempting to reconcile your religious beliefs with the facts of evolution. As for citing anything out of the weekly standard - a source with negative creibility? Hundreds of words, no information in support of your idea. Sound familiar? Chewbacca Defense. And you still haven't provided a source for your claim that Dembski doesn't publish for reasons of national security - or is it to protect profit secrets? Or is it that he publishes his research in patent applications?

As for support - assuming that these people really are ID supporters, that amounts to <0.1% of the membership. So - you have three sources - one from an ID site (not exactly a reputable site) the National Review (an extreme right wing political publication which has limited credibility on any issue) and one quote from the NCSE - which you claim says what it does not say.

Obfusticate and bury under a mass of verbiage. You only prove my point. Chewbacca Defense. Guettarda 21:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems I'm the only one here willing to provide ANY cites to back up my claims. ID as Dembski defines it operates IN ADDITION TO evolution via natural selection. I have quoted him. You blithely ignore those quotes. All you do is try to defend by attacking the messenger. My only point about peer review is that it isn't part and parcel of the scientific method and you provided not a single link to back your claim that it is. Better get busy editing the Wiki entry on it if you think there's a fifth step

http://en.wikipedia.org/Scientific_method#Elements_of_a_scientific_method

1. characterization 2. hypothesis 3. prediction 4. experiment

I didn't claim Dembski doesn't publish because of national security or trade secret protection. I said that's why a lot of science doesn't get published in peer reviewed journals. Do the right thing and resign from editing this article. You are so biased you won't even acknowledge a link to the NCSE site.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp

Many Scientists See God's Hand in Evolution by Larry Witham

While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows. Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process.

Are you willing to argue that "God" is not an intelligent agent? If not then it is reasonable to say that 40% of scientists believe that an intelligent agent had a hand in evolution. The thing about ID is that intelligent agents aren't necessarily "God". So while it's true that ID is rejected by a majority of the scientific community it is also true that a large minority accepts it. The Wiki article on Dembski does not reflect the fact that this large minority exists.

66.69.216.76 22:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dembski's and Behe's positions on ID are virtually identical yet the Wiki entry for Behe does not state he is in opposition to natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism. That's good because Behe does indeed acknowledge that natural selection is an evolutionary mechanism. He, like Dembski, assert that natural selection can't explain everything. In addition, his entry also states that most of the scientific community rejects IC. That's at least technically accurate although it still misleads as it doesn't pay homage to the size of the minority that does not reject it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Michael_Behe

Why is there a discrepancy between Behe's page and Dembski's? It appears to me that materialist ideologists here are out gunning for Dembski or maybe they've just overlooked Behe. Do the right thing and resign from editing this article if you can't be objective about it.

66.69.216.76 23:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Mel Etitis' edit summary

My thoughts:

1) Saying that "he has been denounced" doesn't answer the key question of who has denounced him. The word "denounced" itself is excessively strong in my view (it carries connotations of criminal behaviour and/or treachery on the part of the person being denounced), hence my preferred alternative: his critics in the mainstream scientific community have accused him...

2) The phrase "has also been denounced some" is simply nonsense. I fixed it, so please don't break it again. :-)

3) Image:Darwin_in_a_vise.jpeg appears to be a copyright violation. It's taken from Dembski's blog but there is absolutely no indication either there or on Misplaced Pages that he's given permission for it to be redistributed. It's been listed on Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems. The caption is also pretty slanted, but as the image is going to be deleted anyway I'm not going to argue about that - no image, no caption. Can I ask people not to try restoring the image?

4) The sentence "As intellectual and legal setbacks for the intelligent design movement mount, Dembski has become increasingly hostile toward his scientific critics" is inherently POV; Dembski would no doubt disagree that ID is encountering setbacks or that he's becoming hostile towards his critics. His comments are a specific reference to the recent Kansas "kangaroo court" where pro-evolution scientists refused to testify, so citing them without explaining the context is also inherently POV. I've rewritten this to make the context clearer.-- ChrisO 21:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With regard to points 1 & 4 above: as I recall, one "denounce" was changed but not another, and it looked like little more than elegant variation; That Dembski would disagree with a characterisation of the status of his theory doesn't make that characterisation PoV. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)