`  :I strongly contest the use of this ``evidence`` that Langan is an advocate of intelligent design, for the following reasons: :*Firstly, and most importantly, it is not about Langan. It is about someone else entirely. :*Dembski is clearly a partisan commentator. Guettarda argues that if the pro-ID Dembski and the anti-ID editors of this entry both thinks someone is an ID advocate, then he is. This is a false conclusion. The fact that Dembski writes ``As a fellow of the ISCID, such and such is a card-carrying member of the ID movement,`` does not make it correct to infer that ISCID fellowship equals ID advocate. Dembski is involved in a pro-ID political campaign, so no doubt wants to claim people as pro-ID. :*Even Dembski is not cited here claiming Langan is pro-ID. So it is not true to say that ``both sides`` agree that Langan is pro-ID :*The fact that an anti-Langan editor is forced to resort to this kind of ``evidence`` is itself a further indication of how little actual evidence there is that Langan is an advocate of ID.   :*Not one citation has been provided from a secondary source stating that Langan is an advocate of ID. :*Not one citation has been provided from Langan stating that he is an advocate of ID. :*Substantial evidence and argument has been provided that Langan is not an advocate of ID, and that anti-Langan editors have persistently misunderstood the nature of Langan's position. None of this evidence and argument has been refuted, or even discussed, by anti-Langan editors. :And I note as well the continuing trend of anti-Langan editors to edit the entry, then make a comment on the talk page for possible discussion, rather than discussing the matter and seeing if there is agreement. That is if they leave a comment at all. This is clearly poor form in an entry that is obviously contested and controversial. Some people have been blocked for less.  `