Sorry – what? The fact that some scientists were also believers in God does not lead to the conclusion that science owes its origins to a “Judeo-Christian framework”. How would you explain the considerable impact of Islamic science during the Middle Ages? How about China India? No science going on there?

Refer to Rodney Stark, particularly “The Victory of Reason.” His conclusion is that science owes its origins to a Judeo-Christian framework.

One might be excused for feeling somewhat baffled by such a reluctance to embrace design in light of the Judeo-Christian framework upon which modern science owes its origins.

Sorry – what? The fact that some scientists were also believers in God does not lead to the conclusion that science owes its origins to a “Judeo-Christian framework”. How would you explain the considerable impact of Islamic science during the Middle Ages? How about China India? No science going on there?

Is there more than one citation to support this claim?

Fine – let’s start with your calling persons you’re never met or seen “pockmarked basement dwellers” – whatever that’s a code-phrase for, it’s probably easily demonstrably false, and having been communicated to someone other than the person defamed, easily meets the criteria for “defamation.”

All Wikipedia (and Conservapedia) articles undergo a continuous (and sometimes vigorous) peer review – click on “discussion” in Wikipedia (“talk page” in Conservapedia) and “history” above any article to see the “peer review” in action.

You are often a stickler for Peer review. Tell me, was that Wiki article peer reviewed?

tragic mishap: False. I wonder if Wikipedia would allow anybody to change that and reference Dembski’s article?

There are a group of pockmarked basement dwellers who have seemingly made guarding any and every Wikipedia I.D. article their life’s mission. Anyone who supports I.D. gets a fact-free hatchet job; any attempted correction will be quickly erased.

Personally, I’d like to see some defamation lawsuits, if possible.

Odd – I lifted it directly off the article’s address – trying again:

http://msampler.wordpress.com/.....sentation/

Clive also wrote: “You’re a Wiki editor? That explains a lot!”

I am also a Conservapedia editor. What would that prove? See http://www.conservapedia.com/S.....aulBurnett

“The fundamental lesson here is that the Dembski-Marks approach to evaluating model assumptions is both arbitrary and a poor reflection of scientific reasoning.” – http://msampler.wordpress.com/…..entation/)

Did you make that up? because the link doesn’t work.

You’re a Wiki editor? That explains a lot!

Which Dembski article? I’m a Wikipedia editor – let’s find out.

(If you’re referring to the recent Dembski & Marks article in an obscure IEEE journal, the article does not even mention intelligent design, much less scientifically “support” it. The “Metropolis Sampler” commented “The fundamental lesson here is that the Dembski-Marks approach to evaluating model assumptions is both arbitrary and a poor reflection of scientific reasoning.” – http://msampler.wordpress.com/.....sentation/)

False. I wonder if Wikipedia would allow anybody to change that and reference Dembski’s article?