"

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.  "