Is William Dembski a 'True Christian'

[notto]

It seems that recently there have been a whole raft of YEC Christians accusing other Chrisitans of not being Christian enoungh or of not being 'true Christians'. Based on their reasoning, would one consider William Dembski, the champion and primary proponent of Intelligent Design theory, a 'True Christian'. Would you want the ideas of this ID proponent taught? Are they biblical?

Discuss.

http://www.counterbalance.net/id-wd/index-body.html

First off, let me come clean about my own views on intelligent design. Am I a creationist? As a Christian, I am a theist and believe that God created the world. For hardcore atheists this is enough to classify me as a creationist. Yet for most people, creationism is not identical with the Christian doctrine of creation, or for that matter with the doctrine of creation as understood by Judaism or Islam. By creationism one typically understands what is also called "young earth creationism," and what advocates of that position refer to alternately as "creation science" or "scientific creationism." According to this view the opening chapters of Genesis are to be read literally as a scientifically accurate account of the world's origin and subsequent formation. What's more, it is the creation scientist's task to harmonize science with Scripture.

Given this account of creationism, am I a creationist? No. I do not regard Genesis as a scientific text. I have no vested theological interest in the age of the earth or the universe. I find the arguments of geologists persuasive when they argue for an earth that is 4.5 billion years old. What's more, I find the arguments of astrophysicists persuasive when they argue for a universe that is approximately 14 billion years old. I believe they got it right. Even so, I refuse to be dogmatic here. I'm willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. Yet to date I've found none of the arguments for a young earth or a young universe convincing. Nature, as far as I'm concerned, has an integrity that enables it to be understood without recourse to revelatory texts. That said, I believe that nature points beyond itself to atranscendent reality, and that that reality is simultaneously reflected in a different idiom by the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

- William Dembski, Cards on the Table

 

[disciple777]

It seems that recently there have been a whole raft of YEC Christians accusing other Chrisitans of not being Christian enoungh or of not being 'true Christians'. Based on their reasoning, would one consider William Dembski, the champion and primary proponent of Intelligent Design theory, a 'True Christian'. Would you want the ideas of this ID proponent taught? Are they biblical?

Discuss.

http://www.counterbalance.net/id-wd/index-body.html

First off, let me come clean about my own views on intelligent design. Am I a creationist? As a Christian, I am a theist and believe that God created the world. For hardcore atheists this is enough to classify me as a creationist. Yet for most people, creationism is not identical with the Christian doctrine of creation, or for that matter with the doctrine of creation as understood by Judaism or Islam. By creationism one typically understands what is also called "young earth creationism," and what advocates of that position refer to alternately as "creation science" or "scientific creationism." According to this view the opening chapters of Genesis are to be read literally as a scientifically accurate account of the world's origin and subsequent formation. What's more, it is the creation scientist's task to harmonize science with Scripture.

Given this account of creationism, am I a creationist? No. I do not regard Genesis as a scientific text. I have no vested theological interest in the age of the earth or the universe. I find the arguments of geologists persuasive when they argue for an earth that is 4.5 billion years old. What's more, I find the arguments of astrophysicists persuasive when they argue for a universe that is approximately 14 billion years old. I believe they got it right. Even so, I refuse to be dogmatic here. I'm willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. Yet to date I've found none of the arguments for a young earth or a young universe convincing. Nature, as far as I'm concerned, has an integrity that enables it to be understood without recourse to revelatory texts. That said, I believe that nature points beyond itself to atranscendent reality, and that that reality is simultaneously reflected in a different idiom by the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

- William Dembski, Cards on the Table

I am a strong believer in creation. However, I do not use the Bible as a Text book on Science. I am defending my faith based on Science. Intelligent Design is an excellent tool for me to engage the Evolutionists in conversation. The moment you mention either God or Bible, they get turned off. That is the end of all discussion.

I do not know if Dr. Dembski is a creationist. That is not important for me. What is important is his support for Intelligent design. We must also use this tool. What is the point in all our posts here? I strongly believe that as Apostle Paul said," We must be prepared at any time to answer the questions. Let us not throw the baby. Let us only discard the dirty water.If y ou are not comfortable with Dembski, please read Dr. michael Behe's book, the Black box.

 

[notto]

I am a strong believer in creation. However, I do not use the Bible as a Text book on Science. I am defending my faith based on Science. Intelligent Design is an excellent tool for me to engage the Evolutionists in conversation. The moment you mention either God or Bible, they get turned off. That is the end of all discussion.

I do not know if Dr. Dembski is a creationist. That is not important for me. What is important is his support for Intelligent design. We must also use this tool. What is the point in all our posts here? I strongly believe that as Apostle Paul said," We must be prepared at any time to answer the questions. Let us not throw the baby. Let us only discard the dirty water.If y ou are not comfortable with Dembski, please read Dr. michael Behe's book, the Black box.

I'm perfectly comfortable with Dembski's theological position, it is his claim to science that I have issues with. I consider him a Christian. Do you? That is the question I'm asking. If you consider Dembski a Christian, I'm curious as to why Christians who accept evolution along would not be.

Do you consider Dembski a 'True Christian' even though he accepts a world that is 4.5 million years old and a universe much older than that.

(Behe never wrote a book called The Black Box)

 

[Remus]

I'm perfectly comfortable with Dembski's theological position, it is his claim to science that I have issues with. I consider him a Christian. Do you? That is the question I'm asking. If you consider Dembski a Christian, I'm curious as to why Christians who accept evolution along would not be.

Do you consider Dembski a 'True Christian' even though he accepts a world that is 4.5 million years old and a universe much older than that.

(Behe never wrote a book called The Black Box)

If he has claims to have accepted Christ as his Lord and savior, then who am I to say otherwise? One's origins beliefs aren’t a factor.

 

[vossler]

If he has claims to have accepted Christ as his Lord and savior, then who am I to say otherwise? One's origins beliefs aren’t a factor.

Ditto that!

Who am I to say? I certainly don't know him personally and haven't observed any behavior that could lead one to doubt.

 

[shernren]

This needs a follow-up ... has AiG said anything yet? After all, if they can blast Hugh Ross, then a magazine for featuring Hugh Ross, and Campus Crusade for even suggesting that their views aren't necessarily infallible, how can they not blast Dembski? Even if he is on the same side of the evolution fence ...

There'll probably be a grudging "enemy of my enemy" stance with a "we're praying for you to discover the full truth, Mr. Dembski!" blessing.

 

[Remus]

This needs a follow-up ... has AiG said anything yet?

About this particular article or just Dembski in general?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0207dembski.asp

I would like to add a follow-up as well. I wonder what everyone thinks about this statement.

Throughout my last ten years as a public advocate for intelligent design, I've encountered a pervasive dogmatism in the academy. In my case, this dogmatism has led fellow academicians (I hesitate to call them "colleagues" since they've made it clear that I'm no colleague of theirs) to trash my entire academic record and accomplishments simply because I have doubts about Darwinism, because I don't think the rules of science are inviolable, and because I think that there can be good scientific reasons for thinking that certain natural systems are designed. These are my academic sins, no more and no less. And the academy has been merciless in punishing me for these sins.

How many times has we heard how scientist are unbiased?

 

[notto]

About this particular article or just Dembski in general?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0207dembski.asp

I would like to add a follow-up as well. I wonder what everyone thinks about this statement.

How many times has we heard how scientist are unbiased?

The only thing that has been asked of Dembski is that he follow the same scientific methodology and practice as any other proponent of any other theory.

1) Actually spend time in the lab collecting, organizing, and publishing data that supports his ideas and include in this publishing his methods so the research can be repeated.

2) Submit his research through public peer review and reputable journals of science so that they can be scrutinized, corrected, and again, repeated.

3) Provide a discussion of the mechanisms that he proposes cause the phenomena he observes and a discussion on what further research could possibly falsify his conclusions.

He has failed on all three counts. He is not a scientist. He is a mathematician and a philosopher with an idea. Scientists spend time gather data and applying their theories to physical things.

As far as I am aware, Dembski has never applied his 'design filter' to actual physical biological specimins. Until he does, it is not a theory in the sense that other scientific theories are.

As far as I am aware, Dembski has never tried to publish any new research and as far as I am aware, Dembski has never even done such research.

After the Dover trial, Dembski has this to say:
“I think the big lesson is, let's go to work and really develop this theory and not try to win this in the court of public opinion. The burden is on us to produce.”

He could not be more correct. Produce and nobody can ignore you. Just ask Darwin.

 

[Remus]

If what you say is true, then why does he claim that some try "to trash [his] entire academic record and accomplishments"? This doesn't look the same as what you are claiming. Why would he deserve this unless someone wants to discredit him?

 

[notto]

If what you say is true, then why does he claim that some try "to trash [his] entire academic record and accomplishments"? This doesn't look the same as what you are claiming. Why would he deserve this unless someone wants to discredit him?

Well, he might simply be claiming persecution when what is really being attacked is his claim that he is doing science when he provides little evidence that he is doing science.

He writes books for the public press, he shouts from the mountain tops that ID is science but when asked to actually act like an academic researcher and show the science behind ID, he can't do it.

He is a little light on examples of this trashing. If all the trashing consists of is him being asked to act like a scientist if he claims what he is advocating is a valid scientific pursuit, then the criticism is justified.

You will notice that Dembski doesn't ever point to any actual research he has done or published. No data, no statistics, no discussion of tests or trials that show his explanation explains any set of data better than what he rails against.

Dembski may be a great mathematician, a great philosopher, and an upstanding Christian. He is not, however, a research scientist in the area of biology and as such, he should not suggest that any work he has done is of any value when compared to the work of the thousands in the field who spend their time in the lab testing and validating the theory of evolution and the hypothesis they come up with based on it. If he want's to play scientist and suggest that his ideas explain anything new or have value in the field to explain the data better, he will need to show it in the lab. He will need to, by his own admission, produce results.

 

[Remus]

Well, he might simply be claiming persecution when what is really being attacked is his claim that he is doing science when he provides little evidence that he is doing science.

How can you read "entire academic record and accomplishments" as "being attacked in his claim that he is doing science..."? Is he not telling the truth or is it so hard for you to believe that they would do this to him? Do you really believe that many scientist aren't biased?

 

[notto]

How can you read "entire academic record and accomplishments" as "being attacked in his claim that he is doing science..."? Is he not telling the truth or is it so hard for you to believe that they would do this to him? Do you really believe that many scientist aren't biased?

I haven't seen his entire academic record and accomplishments being attacked, only his claims to science. Without the context or examples of what he considers an attack on his entire academic record and accomplishments, it is really hard to know one way or the other if he is exaggerating or not.

What we do know is that Dembski has never published any academic scientific research in the area of biology. He then makes claims that his ideas can explain things in the areas of biology. It is this claim that I have seen attacked and it is justified.

As far as scientists being biased, sure they are. That is why if one is going to claim they are doingn science, they have to do it in the same was as all the other scientists are and publish research results for peer review and give enough detail so they can be repeated.

Is it safe to say that Dembski, if we consider him a scientist, is biased as well? The affect of bias one way or the other can be eliminated quickly if the researcher can back their ideas through results.

“I think the big lesson is, let's go to work and really develop this theory and not try to win this in the court of public opinion. The burden is on us to produce.”

From what I've seen, this is what Dembski has been told repeatedly. My guess is that he considers this an attack on his acedemic record and accomplishements because basically it is being pointed out to him that no matter what those acedemic record and accompliments are, they are not in the area of the science he wishes to speak about.

Until he provides an example of this attack in context, its hard to accept it as anything other than sour grapes that he cannot change the field of science and biology to accept his unsupported ideas in the area.

 

[Remus]

Does anyone else find it ironic that notto started this thread out asking if Dembski was a "true Christian" or not?

With a little poking around, I found this:

and significant voices within the science community challenging his credentials as a commentator on science, philosophy and mathematics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._A._Dembski
There's a link to something written by Jeffrey Shallit as an "expert" witness to the Dover case as an example.

Here is a link to something that Dembski wrote addressing Shallit:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/155

As far as scientists being biased, sure they are. That is why if one is going to claim they are doingn science, they have to do it in the same was as all the other scientists are and publish research results for peer review and give enough detail so they can be repeated.

What if this process is flawed? Actually, I don't think that the process is flawed. Most likely it is those that drive this process allow their bias to prevent it from working. For example, there are scientists that disagree with the big-bang theory, yet they can't get funding nor get papers published. They claim that this is due to big-bang supporters controlling the committees. They also claim that there is no toleration to dissent to this theory. Are they right about the big-bang? Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to say one way or the other since they won't be heard. Are their claims true? It's hard to say, but from what I've seen, it's not unlikely.

 

[notto]

Does anyone else find it ironic that notto started this thread out asking if Dembski was a "true Christian" or not?

Nothing ironic about asking the question. There seem to be a few YEC's here who would question him being one. That is why I asked. Glad to see it is not the majority opinion. Basically his theology is the same as theistic evolutionists who's status as a Christian seems to be questioned from time to time.

With a little poking around, I found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._A._Dembski
There's a link to something written by Jeffrey Shallit as an "expert" witness to the Dover case as an example.


Here is a link to something that Dembski wrote addressing Shallit:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/155

You will notice that the criticism is specific to his mathematics and it was presented in peer review. This is how criticism is done. It is not a friendly process. Do you know who Shallit is? What is his field? He is directly criticising the content of Dembski's work based on its weakness and also clarifying that Dembski is not a scientist. If dembski's ideas in mathematics can survive this type of peer review that's great for his accompliments in mathematics. Still doesn't make him a scientist.

What if this process is flawed? Actually, I don't think that the process is flawed. Most likely it is those that drive this process allow their bias to prevent it from working. For example, there are scientists that disagree with the big-bang theory, yet they can't get funding nor get papers published. They claim that this is due to big-bang supporters controlling the committees. They also claim that there is no toleration to dissent to this theory. Are they right about the big-bang? Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to say one way or the other since they won't be heard. Are their claims true? It's hard to say, but from what I've seen, it's not unlikely.

Well, if they had relevent science, it would get noticed. Not every wackjob out there has an idea that can pass muster. They have to show with excruciating detail that their ideas are well founded, can be backed up with hard evidence, and that the evidence can be collected and observed by everybody. It's not bias, it is how science is and has to be done. That is how evolution came to become the accepted theory, it had to be scrutinized, tested, and reviewed. Why should anything that claims to replace it not have to go through the same process?

There are people who argue that they can overturn evolution, plate techtonics, relativity, big bang cosmology, etc. The scientific process is open to them doing this. It won't be easy, but it can be done. After all, Darwin and Einstein both managed to take their ideas, turn them into theories, back them with evidence, and overturn the status quo.

To overturn evolution, one needs to at least try to do science to do it. This will involve actually spending a day or two in the lab working biology and address the community of biologists by publishing something that is accessible to them, available for them to critique, and available for them to repeat and get the same data.

Dembski has never done this.

“I think the big lesson is, let's go to work and really develop this theory and not try to win this in the court of public opinion. The burden is on us to produce.

 

[Remus]

Nothing ironic about asking the question. There seem to be a few YEC's here who would question him being one. That is why I asked. Glad to see it is not the majority opinion. Basically his theology is the same as theistic evolutionists who's status as a Christian seems to be questioned from time to time.

How do you equate "a few" to "majority"?

You will notice that the criticism is specific to his mathematics and it was presented in peer review. This is how criticism is done. It is not a friendly process. Do you know who Shallit is? What is his field? He is directly criticising the content of Dembski's work based on its weakness and also clarifying that Dembski is not a scientist. If dembski's ideas in mathematics can survive this type of peer review that's great for his accompliments in mathematics. Still doesn't make him a scientist.

Let's go back a sec. Dembski said that "this dogmatism has led fellow fellow academicians ... to trash my entire academic record and accomplishments simply because I have doubts about Darwinism". Even the wiki verified this. You doubted this and when I show you proof of it, you think this is normal? Is it normal for someone like Shallit to single out Dembski and attempt to discredit him? Is it normal for Shallit to "harass anyone who endorses [Dembski's] work"?

Well, if they had relevent science, it would get noticed. Not every wackjob out there has an idea that can pass muster. They have to show with excruciating detail that their ideas are well founded, can be backed up with hard evidence, and that the evidence can be collected and observed by everybody. It's not bias, it is how science is and has to be done. That is how evolution came to become the accepted theory, it had to be scrutinized, tested, and reviewed. Why should anything that claims to replace it not have to go through the same process?

It would seem that there are some scientists that believe that this isn't true. They say things like:
"Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible."
This is how science is done? I often hear that scientists are rewarded for disproving theories. Here is a very good indication that that isn't true. As someone who is a big fan of science, it troubles me that there is such bias in some of the scientific communities. I would think that anyone with interest in science would agree that this should be addressed and addressed quickly.

There are people who argue that they can overturn evolution, plate techtonics, relativity, big bang cosmology, etc. The scientific process is open to them doing this.

You can say that the "process is open to them", but from what I've seen and shown, this isn't always the case.

It won't be easy, but it can be done.

Aye and it will. It's just a matter of time.

To overturn evolution, one needs to at least try to do science to do it. This will involve actually spending a day or two in the lab working biology and address the community of biologists by publishing something that is accessible to them, available for them to critique, and available for them to repeat and get the same data.

I wonder if it would do some good if some of the bologists spent some time outside of the lab

Dembski has never done this.

“I think the big lesson is, let's go to work and really develop this theory and not try to win this in the court of public opinion. The burden is on us to produce.

Sounds like he's on the right track.

 

[notto]

How do you equate "a few" to "majority"?

I didn't, that is why I asked. I am glad to see that those that think that in order to be a Christian you have to be YEC are in the minority here.

Let's go back a sec. Dembski said that "this dogmatism has led fellow fellow academicians ... to trash my entire academic record and accomplishments simply because I have doubts about Darwinism". Even the wiki verified this. You doubted this and when I show you proof of it, you think this is normal? Is it normal for someone like Shallit to single out Dembski and attempt to discredit him? Is it normal for Shallit to "harass anyone who endorses [Dembski's] work"?

Where is it shown that Shallit is criticizing Dembski because of his doubts about evolution? His criticism focuses on Dembski's mathematics, his claims in that area, and his publications in mathematics journal. It also criticizes Dembski's claims of doing science. This all valid criticism. It is very normal for people in the same field to be highly critical of each other. I would encourage you to look into who Shallit is and recognize that he is a well published mathematician who was once a professor of Dembski's. They have competing ideas in their discipline. It would certainly seem that Shallit's criticism is not based biasedly on any ideas Dembski has about Darwinism. Shallit directly criticizes Dembski's mathematics and is qualified to do so.

Wiki might repeat the claim but it certainly doesn't verify it. Dembski uses it as a shield to hide the fact that in both mathematics and science, he doesn't seem to want to play by the rules of proper review, publication, and addressing criticism. That makes a great story for people to read if they want to see him as a persecuted genius. Unfortunately for him, his work doesn't match up with his claims as anything particularly revolutionary in either mathematics or biology.

It would seem that there are some scientists that believe that this isn't true. They say things like:
"Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible."
This is how science is done? I often hear that scientists are rewarded for disproving theories. Here is a very good indication that that isn't true. As someone who is a big fan of science, it troubles me that there is such bias in some of the scientific communities. I would think that anyone with interest in science would agree that this should be addressed and addressed quickly.

Well, reducing the qualifications for what passes as science isn't going to resolve it. Dembski isn't doing science so this really doesn't address your concerns with why his ideas are not seen as relevant in the area. As far as Big Bang goes, the current model works and explains phenomena. The minute it stops doing so, it will lose favor. It is questioned everyday but confirmations keep coming. It won't be easy to falsify but that does not mean that anyone is being prevented from doing so.

You can say that the "process is open to them", but from what I've seen and shown, this isn't always the case.

Well, science is producing results and is getting things done. If the critics of particular theories present ideas that have value, it would be looked into. Again, this really has nothing to do with Dembski's issues because he isn't even trying to do science by the same process that has put the current theories and ideas at the front. You make it seem like evolution, big bang, etc were always the status quo. They were not. They only got to be mainstream after years of research. Shortcutting the process will not give us better science. It will only give us more psuedoscience pretending to be science.

Sounds like he's on the right track.

Well, I look forward to seeing his reasearch and published methodology and results. Any idea when it will be forthcoming?

 

[shernren]

Mmm. AiG's response is a classic "screw the enemy of my enemy" response, essentially saying that what William Dembski got right AiG already knew long before him and what he gets wrong makes him useless in the fight against evolutionism. Such camaraderie.

(Is Scriptura sub scientia really something people have said before or is it a made-up phrase by them to add Latin credibility to their statements?)

 

[disciple777]

I'm perfectly comfortable with Dembski's theological position, it is his claim to science that I have issues with. I consider him a Christian. Do you? That is the question I'm asking. If you consider Dembski a Christian, I'm curious as to why Christians who accept evolution along would not be.

Do you consider Dembski a 'True Christian' even though he accepts a world that is 4.5 million years old and a universe much older than that.

(Behe never wrote a book called The Black Box)

Many geologists are having problems with millions of years. I met a Geology Professor in a Christmas party. He is a Christian. However, he is struggling with the biblical accounts of creation and the geological strata when I asked him.
Obviously, Dr. Dembski has taken the views of the geologists at their face value. To be a "CHRISTIAN" means too many things to too many people. For some, Going to church makes them Christians. Others claim to be christians because, they were born to Christian parents. Others follow this as tradition. However, there are few who have serious convictions. They believe 1) in Salvation only through Jesus Christ 2) in following Christ anywhere and everywhere.3) in believing Bible as the Word of God entirely Bible from cover to cover. These are the only people who believe that God created all the species(of their kind) instantly. There was no time gap between species. They also believe that after God created all individual species, he made man out of dust and breathed into him and he became alive. So, all the species of plants and animals were created instantly. Not from one another.

If a Christian believes the entire Bible, there is no way he/ she can believe in Evolution. Otherwise, to them, Bible is not the word of God. For those who claim to be christians but believe in Evolution, they either do not believe Bible as the Word of God or they believe everything except Genesis.

At least for me, it is impossible to believe in the bible and also in Evolution. One or the other and not both.

 

[notto]

If a Christian believes the entire Bible, there is no way he/ she can believe in Evolution. Otherwise, to them, Bible is not the word of God.

This is a false conclusion.

 

[Remus]

I didn't, that is why I asked. I am glad to see that those that think that in order to be a Christian you have to be YEC are in the minority here.

Ah, sorry. I misread what you said.

Where is it shown that Shallit is criticizing Dembski because of his doubts about evolution? His criticism focuses on Dembski's mathematics, his claims in that area, and his publications in mathematics journal. It also criticizes Dembski's claims of doing science. This all valid criticism. It is very normal for people in the same field to be highly critical of each other. I would encourage you to look into who Shallit is and recognize that he is a well published mathematician who was once a professor of Dembski's. They have competing ideas in their discipline. It would certainly seem that Shallit's criticism is not based biasedly on any ideas Dembski has about Darwinism. Shallit directly criticizes Dembski's mathematics and is qualified to do so.

You still believe what Dembski is saying isn't true?
I have looked into who Shallit is. I've noticed that he writes a lot about science and such, yet he is not scientist. Is he qualified to criticize Dembski's science? Have you read Shallit's letters to the editor? Fascinating stuff.

Wiki might repeat the claim but it certainly doesn't verify it. Dembski uses it as a shield to hide the fact that in both mathematics and science, he doesn't seem to want to play by the rules of proper review, publication, and addressing criticism. That makes a great story for people to read if they want to see him as a persecuted genius. Unfortunately for him, his work doesn't match up with his claims as anything particularly revolutionary in either mathematics or biology.

Play by the rules? It would seem that the rules are not to express doubts about Darwinism. He does publish and much of his work is reviewed, but I'm sure it doesn't pass the review of those that disagree with him. He also addresses the criticism.

It would be nice to see the same scrutiny for people who don't doubt this. If that would happen, then it wouldn't be possible for people like Zieten to get away with what he did. He was the on that "manipulated scientific facts over the past 30 years".
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42940

And you wouldn't have so many scientists changing "study's design or results to satisfy a sponsor, or ignored observations because they had a "gut feeling" they were inaccurate."

"'The fraud cases are explosive and can be very damaging to public trust," Martinson said. "But these other kinds of things can be more corrosive to science, especially since they're so common.'"

"'Science has changed a lot in terms of its competitiveness, the level of funding and the commercial pressures on scientists," Martinson said. "We've turned science into a big business but failed to note that some of the rules of science don't fit well with that model.'"

It goes on...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/08/AR2005060802385.html

If you're concerned about people not "playing by the rules", it's not the likes of Dembski that you should be worried about.

Well, reducing the qualifications for what passes as science isn't going to resolve it. Dembski isn't doing science so this really doesn't address your concerns with why his ideas are not seen as relevant in the area. As far as Big Bang goes, the current model works and explains phenomena. The minute it stops doing so, it will lose favor. It is questioned everyday but confirmations keep coming. It won't be easy to falsify but that does not mean that anyone is being prevented from doing so.

What you describe as "reducing the qualifications" is what others describe as not shutting them out.

Well, science is producing results and is getting things done. If the critics of particular theories present ideas that have value, it would be looked into. Again, this really has nothing to do with Dembski's issues because he isn't even trying to do science by the same process that has put the current theories and ideas at the front. You make it seem like evolution, big bang, etc were always the status quo. They were not. They only got to be mainstream after years of research. Shortcutting the process will not give us better science. It will only give us more psuedoscience pretending to be science.

I must say that your faith in the scientific community is strong. I'm sorry to say that I don't share such faith.

Well, I look forward to seeing his reasearch and published methodology and results. Any idea when it will be forthcoming?

*shrugs* I have no idea.