William A. Dembski

William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18 1960) is an American mathematician, philosopher, theologian and proponent of intelligent design in opposition to the theory of evolution through natural selection. From 1999 to 2005, he was on the faculty of Baylor University, where he was a constant focus of attention and controversy. For the academic year 2005-6, he was briefly the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, as well as the first director of the school's new Center for Theology and Science (since taken over by the well known creationist Kurt Wise).[1] On 1 June 2006 Dembski became research professor in philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.[2][3] The Southern Baptist Convention operates both seminaries.

According to Dembski, the scientific study of nature reveals evidence of design, and opposes what he regards as mainstream science's commitment to "atheistic" materialism or naturalism, which he believes rules out "Intelligent Design" a priori. His main proposal is that specified complexity, a type of information, is the hallmark of an intelligent designer. His work is controversial: the mainstream scientific community largely rejects his ideas, with leading scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science describing intelligent design as pseudoscience, and voices within the science community challenging his qualifications as a commentator on science, philosophy, and mathematics.

Dembski has his fans. Robert Koons,[4] a philosopher at the University of Texas at Austin has referred to him as "the Isaac Newton of information theory." And an emerging "intelligent design community" regards him as a key theoretical light to do its "heavy lifting." Nothwithstanding, mathematician, number theorist Jeffrey Shallit has studied Dembski's work, arguing that it should not be regarded as significant and that Dembski should not be viewed as the "Isaac Newton of information theory"[5]. Scientist Stuart Kauffman ,a researcher in biocomplexity [6], regards Dembski's project of inferring design as legitimate, but he has stated that he does not feel it is applicable to biological problems [7].

Biography

Dembski was born in Chicago, Illinois. He was brought up as a Catholic, the only child of a college biology professor (who accepted and taught evolution). He was educated at Portsmouth Abbey School, at the time an all-male Catholic preparatory school in Rhode Island, but left the school a year early before graduating to enter the University of Chicago, which admitted exceptional students who had not graduated high school (Kurt Wise, who heads Dembski's former theology and science center at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was in the same 1977 incoming class at the University of Chicago as Dembski). In 1988, as a postdoctoral fellow at MIT, he delivered Portsmouth Abbey's Dom Luke Child's lecture for that year. After the lecture, the school awarded him his high school diploma, ten years after he would have graduated.

He struggled socially at the college level and dropped out at the age of seventeen to work in his mother's art dealership. He says that he did not initially accept the precepts of Christianity, but during this "difficult period" he turned to the Bible in an effort to understand the world around him. Later, after becoming an Evangelical Christian, he read creationist literature. He did not accept the doctrines of literal creationists, though their criticisms of evolutionary theory did strike a chord in him. He says of Young Earth creationism:

"Nonetheless, it was their literature that first got me thinking about how improbable it is to generate biological complexity and how this problem might be approached scientifically. A.E. Wilder-Smith was particularly important to me in this regard. Making rigorous his intuitive ideas about information has been the impetus for much of my research." [8]

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 S.M. 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 at 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.

Dissatisfied with the "free-swinging academic style" of the Princeton Theological Seminary, Dembski was involved in forming a group known as the "Charles Hodge Society", by and large a group concerned with resurrecting positive evaluations of Old Princeton Theology. The Society organized discussions and informal colloquia, but its primary work centered on reviving Hodge's own journal, the Princeton Theological Review. The PTR primarily wrote from a conservative angle on theological issues of the day. [9] In the Unapologetic Apologetics Dembski claims that "members of the Charles Hodge Society were threatened with two lawsuits for their work on the Princeton Theological Review, threatened with physical violence, accused of racism and sexism, denied funding that other campus groups readily received, had posted signs destroyed and removed, and were explicitly informed by faculty that membership in the Charles Hodge Society jeopardized their academic advancement."

Dembski holds that his knowledge of statistics, and general scepticism concerning evolutionary theory, led him to believe that the extraordinary diversity of life was statistically unlikely to have been produced by natural selection.^{[citation needed]} A key turning point for him was reached at a conference on randomness at Ohio State University in 1988, where statistician Persi Diaconis concluded the event by saying, "We know what randomness isn't. We don't know what it is." Dembski cites this event as a catalyst for his subsequent work on design. [10] He concluded that randomness is a derivative notion, which can only be understood in terms of design, a more fundamental concept. He presented these thoughts in his 1991 paper "Randomness by Design", which appeared in the journal Noûs. These ideas led to his notion of specified complexity, which he developed in The Design Inference, a revision of his Ph.D. dissertation in philosophy.

In 1991, lawyer Phillip E. Johnson coined the phrase "intelligent design" to refer to the idea that there is scientific evidence that life was created through unspecified processes by an intelligent but unidentified designer. Biochemist Michael Behe devised the argument of "irreducible complexity" (IC) to which Dembski added his doctrine of "specified complexity" (SC) as a supporting element. Dembski's mathematical arguments rest on Behe's assertion that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve gradually. Dembski's specified complexity rides on Behe's claim, and its validity is dependent on the validity of irreducible complexity.

In 1998, Dembski published his first book, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, which became a Cambridge University Press bestselling philosophical monograph. Another book, Mere Creation, echoed the book Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. Dembski has published several popular books, but has published no papers on intelligent design within the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Discovery Institute

During the three years after completing graduate school in 1996 Dembski was unable to secure a university position and so until 1999 he received what he calls "a standard academic salary" of $40,000 a year as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Discovery Institute's, Center for Science and Culture (CSC). "I was one of the early beneficiaries of Discovery largess," says Dembski.[11]

Dembski serves now as a senior fellow at the CSC, where he plays a central role in the center's extensive public and political campaigns advancing the concept of intelligent design and its teaching in public schools through its "Teach the Controversy" campaign as part of the institute's Wedge strategy.

Peer-review controversy

Critics of the intelligent design movement frequently object that ID proponents have published no papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in support of the conjectures of intelligent design. The same criticism has been leveled at Dembski's Design Inference. Although Dembski uses his credentials as a mathematician and scientist to enhance his credibility, there appears no record of any publication in any academic journal--peer reviewed or otherwise, written by Dembski in any subject. So as a mathematician and scientist he holds degrees but has never contributed to these fields or stood the test of peer review and scrutiny of established mathematicians and scientists. Dembski does, however, claim that the book has in fact been peer reviewed [12]. Dembski states: "this book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory". In fact, The Design Inference was reviewed by mathematicians and philosophers; the book does not apply Dembski's argument to biology and evolution, the battleground in which intelligent design stakes its claim. The book's content is limited to examining the question of how to recognize intelligent design, Dembski's "explanatory filter"; it does not provide scientific evidence or justification for concluding that life was designed. Thus, while it is true to say that The Design Inference has been published in a peer-reviewed journal for mathematics and philosophy, it is false to claim that any work actually providing specific and detailed evidence for the existence of intelligent design for the universe has been so published in the arena of scientific press in which the topic is debated, which is what Dembski implies. [13][14][15][16]

Baylor University controversy

In 1999, Dembski was invited by Robert Sloan, President of Baylor University, to establish the Michael Polanyi Center at the university. Named after the Hungarian physical chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi (1891–1976), Dembski described it as "the first intelligent design think tank at a research university". Dembski had known Sloan for about three years, having taught Sloan's daughter at a Christian study summer camp not far from Waco, Texas. Sloan was the first Baptist minister to serve as Baylor's president in over 30 years, had read some of Dembski's work and liked it; according to Dembski, Sloan "made it clear that he wanted to get me on the faculty in some way."

The Polanyi Center was established without much publicity in October 1999, initially consisting of two people — Dembski and a like-minded colleague, Bruce L. Gordon, who were hired directly by Sloan without going through the usual channels of a search committee and departmental consultation. The vast majority of Baylor staff did not know of the center's existence until its website went online, and the center stood outside of the existing religion, science, and philosophy departments.

The center's mission, and the lack of consultation with the Baylor faculty, became the immediate subject of controversy. The faculty feared for the university's reputation – it has historically been well-regarded for its contributions to mainstream science – and scientists outside the university questioned whether Baylor had "gone fundamentalist". Faculty members pointed out that the university's existing interdisciplinary Institute for Faith and Learning was already addressing questions about the relationship between science and religion, making the existence of the Polanyi Center somewhat redundant. In April 2000, Dembski hosted a conference on "naturalism in science" sponsored by the broadly theistic Templeton Foundation and the pro-ID Discovery Institute, seeking to address the question "Is there anything beyond nature?". Most of the Baylor faculty boycotted the conference.

A few days later, the Baylor faculty senate voted by a margin of 27–2 to ask the administration to dissolve the center and merge it with the Institute for Faith and Learning. President Sloan refused, citing issues of censorship and academic integrity, but agreed to convene an outside committee to review the center. The committee recommended setting up a faculty advisory panel to oversee the science and religion components of the program, dropping the name "Michael Polanyi" and reconstituting the center as part of the Institute for Faith and Learning. [17] These recommendations were accepted in full by the university administration.

In a subsequent press release, Dembski asserted that the committee had given an "unqualified affirmation of my own work on intelligent design", that its report "marks the triumph of intelligent design as a legitimate form of academic inquiry" and that "dogmatic opponents of design who demanded that the Center be shut down have met their Waterloo. Baylor University is to be commended for remaining strong in the face of intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression." [18]

Dembski's remarks were criticized by other members of the Baylor faculty, who protested that they were both an unjustified attack on his critics at Baylor and a false assertion that the university endorsed Dembski's controversial views on intelligent design. Charles Weaver, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor and one of the most vocal critics of the Polanyi Center, commented: "In academic arguments we don't seek utter destruction and defeat of our opponents. We don't talk about Waterloos."

President Sloan asked Dembski to withdraw his press release, but Dembski refused, accusing the university of "intellectual McCarthyism" (borrowing a phrase that Sloan himself had used when they first tried to dissolve the center). He declared that the university's action had been taken "in the utmost of bad faith ... thereby providing the fig leaf of justification for my removal."[19] Professor Michael Beaty, director of the Institute for Faith and Learning, said that Dembski's remarks violated the spirit of cooperation that the committee had advocated and stated that "Dr. Dembski's actions after the release of the report compromised his ability to serve as director." [20] Dembski was removed as the center's director, although he remained an associate research professor until May 2005. He was not asked to teach any courses in that time and instead worked from home, writing books and speaking around the country. "In a sense, Baylor did me a favor," he said. "I had a five-year sabbatical."[21]

Recent developments

In December 2001, Dembski launched the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), of which he is Executive Director. Dembski is also the editor-in-chief of ISCID's journal, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID).

In 2002, Dembski published his book No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. It was No Free Lunch that prompted Demsbki's Discovery Institute colleague Robert C. Koons deeming of Dembski the "Isaac Newton of information theory." Dembski's work, however, was strongly criticized within the scientific community, who argued that there were a number of major logical inconsistencies and evidential gaps in Dembski's hypothesis. David Wolpert, co-creator of the No Free Lunch Theorem on which Dembski based his book, characterised his arguments as "fatally informal and imprecise", "written in jello", reminiscent of philosophical discussion "in art, music, and literature, as well as much of ethics" rather than of scientific debate.^[1]

Dembski became the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky in June 2005, and also plans to establish a new Center for Science and Theology. According to Russell Moore, dean of the seminary's School of Theology, Dembski will help train ministers to counter the idea that "human beings are accidents of nature" with no spiritual character and no purpose other than to seek sex and power. The seminary teaches creationism but its professors vary on the details, with most adhering to the Young Earth creationist viewpoint of a relatively recent creation which occurred literally as described in Genesis; Dembski does not hold to Young Earth creationism. Despite such "acceptable" differences, Dembski noted in a statement when he was hired that "this is really an opportunity to mobilize a new generation of scholars and pastors not just to equip the saints but also to engage the culture and reclaim it for Christ."

On his position at Southern, Dembski also remarked,

“Theology is where my ultimate passion is and I think that is where I can uniquely contribute ... I am looking forward to engaging students and theological students have always been my favorite to deal with because for theology students, it’s not just a job, but a passion, especially at a place like Southern, because they want to change the world.”[22]

Dembski frequently gives public talks, principally to religious and pro-ID groups, and has several more books in preparation. He is also a member of American Scientific Affiliation, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, and the American Mathematical Society, and is a senior fellow of the Wilberforce Forum.

Dembski, along with fellow Discovery Institute associates Michael Behe and David Berlinski, "tutored" Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Approximately one-third of the book is devoted to polemical attacks on evolution, which Coulter, as Dembski often does, terms "Darwinism."^[2]

Views and statements

Dembski's views on evolution have been a source of considerable controversy within both the mainstream scientific and creationist communities. His mainstream scientific critics have accused him of dishonesty in his representation of scientific facts and writing [23], and he has also been criticised by some in the traditional creationist community for not supporting the "Young Earth" creationist position, [24] though he is also defended on other grounds by the same creationist community. [25] [26] [27]

For his part, Dembski has attacked the refusal of mainstream scientists to debate ID proponents in public forums which his critics regard as undeservedly presenting ID and evolution as equally worthwhile hypotheses. He has called for a "vise strategy" (illustrated with a picture of a plush Darwin doll with its head in a vise) in which supporters of evolution would be subpoenaed to appear before such forums:

"I'm waiting for the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas in which evolutionists are deposed at length on their views. On that happy day, I can assure you they won't come off looking well." William Dembski (May 7 2005)

Like many other intelligent design advocates, Dembski regards evolution as being an undesirable ideology being promoted by an atheistic liberal elite, rather than it being a factually based scientific theory. He summarises his position (in an article in the Las Vegas City Life newspaper) thus:

"The elite in our culture are materialistic and atheistic. Intelligent design challenges their materialistic science and materialistic evolutionary theory. If you look at discipline after discipline, it's been evolutionized — medicine, business, religion, literature. [...] If we are right, all these superstructures built on evolution need to be questioned.

"Intelligent design is the only view opposed to the reductionist materialism that prevails in the academy and in the scientific view the elites of the culture. Most of the unwashed masses, and I count myself among them, believe there's a sense of purpose. We're giving a voice to those people, saying: 'The science backs you up.'" ("Evolution Revolution", Las Vegas City Life, February 24 2005)

He has also admitted that "So long as methodological naturalism sets the ground rules for how the game of science is to be played, IDT has no chance in Hades"[28] and has made statements that encourage undermining established scientific methodological rules, "The real significance of intelligent design theory and its related movement is the success with which it undermines the materialistic and naturalistic worldview central to the theory of evolution.”[29]

Dembski's position on intelligent design's relationship with Christianity has been somewhat inconsistent. He has suggested that the "intelligent designer" was not necessarily synonymous with God: "It could be space aliens. There are many possibilities." (San Francisco Chronicle, March 17, 2002) In other forums, however, he has been very specific about linking intelligent design with a Christian revival through which Christianity can be restored to its formerly pre-eminent place in society, supplanting "materialist" science. Indeed, one of his books is entitled Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology (Dembski, 1999), and in it he states that "The conceptual soundings of the [intelligent design] theory can in the end only be located in Christ" (p. 210). He has expanded on this theme in a 2005 article for the pro-intelligent design designinference.com website:

"Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." (Dembski, "Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution", Designinference.com website, February 2005)

Dembski has also spoken of his motivation for supporting intelligent design in a series of Sunday lectures in the Fellowship Baptist Church in Waco, Texas, the last of which took place on Sunday, March 7, 2004. Answering a question, Dembski said:

"I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed. [...] And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done — and he's not getting it." ("The design revolution?" TalkReason.org 2004)

Although intelligent design proponents (including Dembski) have made little apparent effort to publish peer-reviewed scientific research to support their hypotheses, in recent years they have made vigorous efforts to promote the teaching of intelligent design in schools. Dembski is a strong supporter of this drive as a means of making young people more receptive to intelligent design:

"My commitment is to see intelligent design flourish as a scientific research program. To do that, I need a new generation of scholars willing to consider this, because the older generation is largely hidebound. So I would like to see textbooks, certainly at the college level and even at the high school level, which reframe introductory biology within a design paradigm." (Houston Press, December 14 2000)

Dembski sees intelligent design as being a popular movement as well as a scientific hypothesis and claims that it is in the process of dislodging evolution from the public imagination. At the Fourth World Skeptics Conference, held on June 20–June 23, 2002 in Burbank, California, he told the audience that "over the next twenty-five years ID will provide the greatest challenge to skepticism". He asserted that "ID is threatening to be mainstream", and that polls show 90 percent support for the hypothesis, indicating that it has "already becom[e] mainstream within the public themselves". "The usual skeptical retorts are not going to work against ID" and ID "turns the tables on skepticism". Evolution, in his view, "is the ultimate status quo" and "squelches dissent". Young people, who "love rebellion". see that and are attracted to ID as a result. "The public supports intelligent design. The public is tired of being bullied by an intellectual elite". He contends that skeptics resort to rhetoric and "artificially define ID out of science," allowing in only material matters. ID "paints the more appealing world picture", whereas skepticism works by being negative, which "doesn't set well with the public... To most people evolution doesn't provide a compelling view". (Skeptical Inquirer, September 1 2002)

Dembski has so far failed to explain the origin of the intelligent designer that created the universe, something he argues as unnecessary since such an intelligent designer is likely outside the dimensions of space and time, or to have any of his pro-intelligent design articles published in the peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals. While this is often claimed to be due to a pro-evolution conspiracy, Dembski himself has said that he prefers to disseminate his ideas in non-peer-reviewed media: "I've just gotten kind of blase about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print. And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more." (The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 21 2001)

Dembski has also indicated an interest in the discredited Bible code [30][31][32][33]. In a favorable book review [34].of Jeffrey Satinover's Cracking the Bible Code Dembski noted

At the same time that research in the Bible Code has taken off, research in a seemingly unrelated field has taken off as well, namely, biological design. These two fields are in fact closely related. Indeed, the same highly improbable, independently given patterns that appear as the equidistant letter sequences in the Bible Code appear in biology as functionally integrated ("irreducibly complex") biological systems, of the sort Michael Behe discussed in Darwin’s Black Box.

In that review Dembski also suggested "The philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked why he didn’t believe in God. He replied, "Not enough evidence." Satinover’s fascination with the Bible Code is that it may provide evidence for God’s existence that would have convinced even a Bertrand Russell."

Responses to critics

Dembski's style in response to his critics (particularly of his mathematical papers) is polemical.[35] For instance, in reply to a critique of the "law of conservation of information" posted on talkreason.org [36], Dembski states: "I'm not and never have been in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity", adding later:

"Here's a prediction. Erik is a close reader of my work and, despite all his protestations against it, is actually researching its ramifications. I expect he'll be publishing something in the peer-reviewed literature inspired by the ideas of No Free Lunch, though no doubt with the requisite sneers in my direction — if only to help it through the peer-review process."
(If Only Darwinists Scrutinized Their Own Work as Closely: A Response to "Erik")

Another critic, Mark Perakh, is a frequent target of Dembski's:

Mark Perakh, the Boris Yeltsin of higher learning, has weighed in with yet another screed against me (go here). The man is out of his element. I’m still awaiting his detailed critique of "Searching Large Spaces" — does he even understand the relevant math? [37]

Dembski has also shown a hostility for providing a mechanistic explanation for intelligent design theory. In one ISCID exchange Dembski remarked [38],

You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering

Dembski's critics maintain that he has yet to provide a means of determining if ID is correct.

On having lent expertise to Ann Coulter for her polemic Godless: The Church of Liberalism on the topics of evolution and intelligent design, Dembski said "I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters." [39] Subsequently, James Downard in reviewing and debunking the representation of science in Godless criticized Coulter's favoring of secondary sources over primary sources, saying "she compulsively reads inaccurate antievolutionary sources and accepts them on account of their reinforcement of what she wants to be true."[40] [41] Downard approached Dembski to account for what Downard called Coulter's "Coulter’s remarkable unfamiliarity with the range of the ID controversy and apparent unawareness of the biogeographical underpinning of speciation, as well as a consistent inattention to any of the available fossil information." Dembski's response was not to take responsibility for the apparent errors made by Coulter but to publish both of Downard's e-mails to his blog, characterizing them as "sheer smarminess" and "entertainment."[42][43]

Dembski has been accused of censoring critics on his blog. 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 [44]. Along with comments, Dembski often removed "trackback" links to other blogs where his claims were discussed. A small number of Dembski supporters from the uncommondescent blog have trolled blogs and forums critical of Dembski, notably Dispatches from the Culture Wars [45] and Wikipedia's Intelligent design article discussion page. 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 [46] [47].

Six days after the conclusion of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in which it was ruled that presenting intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature,[48] Dembski announced he was shutting down his blog on December 26, 2005.

On January 4, 2006, six days after shutting down his blog, Dembski announced that the blog would be restarted, but with limited participation from himself. Instead running it would be those supporters who have been accused by critics of trolling other fora critical of Dembski and intelligent design [49]. On July 18 Dembski announced DaveScot was being replaced by journalist and author Denyse O’Leary at Dembski's blog.[50] In September 2006 DaveScot was reinstated as a moderator.

Eric Pianka and the Department of Homeland Security

On 2 April 2006, Dembski stated on his blog that he reported Eric Pianka to the Department of Homeland Security because he and fellow Discovery Institute Fellow Forrest Mims felt that Pianka's speech while accepting the Texas Academy of Sciences Distinguished Scientist of the Year award in 2006 fomented bioterrorism.[51] This resulted in the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewing Pianka in Austin.[52]

On 5 April Dembski offered a wager concerning Pianka:

"I'm willing to wager $1000 with David Hillis that sympathy not just nationally but at UTAustin for Pianka will take a nose dive once his TAS speech goes public. Of course, we need to set the terms of this wager more precisely. But it's a wager easily settled -- Pianka needs merely to make his speech before the TAS public (the actual speech -- not a bowdlerized version of it)." [53]

Bibliography

Are We Spiritual Machines?: Ray Kurzweil vs. the Critics of Strong A.I. by Jay W. Richards, George F. Gilder, Ray Kurzweil, Thomas Ray, John Searle, William Dembski, Michael Denton. Discovery Institute. ISBN 0-9638654-3-9
Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA. William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse (eds) ISBN 0-521-82949-6
The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. ISBN 0-521-62387-1
The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems. (biology textbook co-authored with Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Percival Davis, and Dean Kenyon). Dallas: Foundation for Thought and Ethics, expected 2005.
The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design. Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004. ISBN 0-8308-2375-1
"Fourth World Skeptics Conference in Burbank a lively foment of ideas: Scams, intelligent design, urban legends, fringe psychotherapies get critical attention", Skeptical Inquirer, September 1 2002
"In God's Country". Houston Press (Texas), December 14, 2000
Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology. Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999. ISBN 0-8308-2314-X
Mere Creation. Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998. ISBN 0-8308-1515-5
Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists ISBN 0-8308-2666-1
"Nature's diversity beyond evolution", San Francisco Chronicle, March 17, 2002
No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.
Science and Design, First Things 86, October 1998.
Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute, vol. 9 (coauthored with Michael J. Behe and Stephen C. Meyer). San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000. ISBN 0-89870-809-5
"Seminary site to explore cosmic designer concept; Scholar contends Darwin was wrong", The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY) February 20, 2005
Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design. William A. Dembski, James M. Kushiner, 2001. ISBN 1-58743-004-5
Testimony of William Dembski before Texas State Board of Education, September 10 2003 (Adobe PDF)
Unapologetic Apologetics: Meeting the Challenges of Theological Studies. William A. Dembski, Jay Wesley Richards. Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001. ISBN 0-8308-1563-5
What Darwin Didn't Know (2004) ISBN 0-7369-1313-0

References

^ William Dembski's treatment of the No Free Lunch theorems is written in jello By David Wolpert, talkreason.org
^ Ann Coulter: The Wedge for the Masses Dembski. Uncommondescent.com, June 12, 2006

External links

Defending Dembski

Criticising Dembski

The anti-evolutionists; William Dembski
Critique of Dembski's No Free Lunch by Richard Wein from the talk.origins archive.
Review of No Free Lunch in biosystems (pdf file)
A free lunch in a mousetrap by Mark Perakh
Critique of No Free Lunch by H. Allen Orr from the Boston Review
Jeffrey Shallit's pre-trial statement on Dembski from Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Dembski’s mathematical achievements Jeffrey Shallit, May, 2004.
How Not To Detect Design: A Review of William A. Dembski's The Design Inference Elliot Sober, 1999.

Audio and video

[1] William Dembski's treatment of the No Free Lunch theorems is written in jello By David Wolpert, talkreason.org

[2] Ann Coulter: The Wedge for the Masses Dembski. Uncommondescent.com, June 12, 2006

[1]

[2]