Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
From an article in a Kentucky newspaper:
To William Dembski, all the debate in this country over evolution won't matter in a decade.By then, he says, the theory of evolution put forth by Charles Darwin 150 years ago will be dead.
The mathematician turned Darwin critic says there is much to be learned about how life evolved on this planet. And he thinks the model of evolution accepted by the scientific community won't be able to supply the answers.
"I see this all disintegrating very quickly," he said.
This is not his first attempt at playing prophet. His last prediction, over which he offered a wager, didn't work out too well:
I'll wager a bottle of single-malt scotch, should it ever go to trial whether ID may legitimately be taught in public school science curricula, that ID will pass all constitutional hurdles.
This was directed specifically at Genie Scott and Glenn Branch. To my knowledge, they have never received that bottle of single-malt scotch despite the ruling in Dover. As for his current prediction, he has of course been claiming this for at least the last 10 years, and his fellow creationists have been claiming it for well over a century. Eberhard Dennert wrote in 1904:
Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of Descent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel.
In 1905, Luther Tracy Townsend wrote The Collapse of Evolution, a title that was recycled by Scott Huse in 1983. The mere fact that the same title was used nearly 80 years apart might have given them some pause. In 1912, George Frederick Wright wrote The Passing of Evolution. In 1922, George McCready Price declared:
The science of twenty or thirty years ago was in high glee at the thought of having almost proved the theory of biological evolution. Today, for every careful, candid inquirer, these hopes are crushed; and with weary, reluctant sadness does modern biology now confess that the Church has probably been right all the time
In 1929, Harold Clark said:
The world has had enough of evolution ... In the future, evolution will be remembered only as the crowning deception which the arch-enemy of human souls foisted upon the race in his attempt to lead man away from the Savior. The Science of the future will be creationism. As the ages roll by, the mysteries of creation week will be cleared up, and as we have learned to read the secrets of creative power in the lives of animals and plants about us, we shall understand much that our dim senses cannot now fathom. If we hope to continue scientific study in the laboratories and fields of the earth restored, we must begin to get the lessons of truth now. The time is ripe for a rebellion against the dominion of evolution, and for a return to the fundamentals of true science.
Harry Rimmer in 1935:
The chain of evidence that purports to support the theory of evolution is a chain indeed, but its links are formed of sand and mist. Analyze the evidence and it melts away; turn the light of true investigation upon its demonstrations and they fade like fog before the freshening breeze. The theory stands today positively disproved, and we will venture the prophecy that in another two decades, when younger men, free from the blind prejudices of a passing generation are allowed to investigate the new evidence, examine the facts, and form their own conclusions, the theory will take its place in the limbo of disproved tidings. In that day the world of science will be forced to come back to the unshakable foundation of fact that is the basis of the true philosophy of the origin of life.
I could easily go on with quotes from every decade of the 20th century. Glenn Morton has collected dozens of such predictions of the imminent demise of evolution, which he calls the longest running falsehood in creationism. It seems that evolution is perpetually just that close to collapsing, yet it never does. One would think that Dembski and his pals would be a tad bit more reticent about making predictions in light of that history, but they forge ahead valiantly, always convinced that victory resides just around the next bend. Meanwhile, to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the death of evolution appear to be highly exaggerated.
Comments
"One would think that Dembski and his pals would be a tad bit more reticent about making predictions in light of that history, but they forge ahead valiantly, always convinced that victory resides just around the next bend."
Since when did observation of repeatable events ever enter the M.O. of Dembski and the boys at the Disco Institute?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
| April 3, 2006 10:53 AM
BigDumbChimp scooped me...
Posted by: coturnix
| April 3, 2006 11:00 AM
Has Dembski assigned a probability to that event?
Posted by: mark
| April 3, 2006 12:23 PM
I've forgotten my Sunday School lessons. Does evolution meet its demise before or after the Rapture?
Posted by: pough
| April 3, 2006 1:35 PM
pough, evolution only dies after the Rapture. According to Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins in The Glorious Appearing, Jesus soundly rebukes Lucifer for the lie of evolution, which was meant to show that there is no need for God.
Unfortunately, we shall have to wait until the end of the Tribulation to be corrected.
Posted by: Irrational Entity
| April 3, 2006 2:05 PM
Check out this nugget from Mr. "I'll detect design using my fantastic probability skills and filters"
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/371
The actual verdict he gives a less than 10% probability. Clearly his math is tainted with wishfull thinking.
Perhaps he can come up with a probabilistic filter to find his arse using both hands?
Posted by: Rich
| April 3, 2006 5:12 PM
If ID is still in its "infancy" after more than a decade, then it must be one of the worst cases of arrested development on record. It also means that its 'researchers' (of whom Dembski is one of the foremost) have been lazy and/or incompetent in developing it.
Posted by: Tim Makinson
| April 3, 2006 11:56 PM
Possibly Dembski is predicting a new Dark Ages where Science and Reason are made a crime.
Posted by: Doug | September 21, 2006 3:25 PM
Speaking of predicting something will be forgotten in "ten years"...
"Owen says my book will be forgotten in ten years, perhaps so; but, with such a [short but prestigious] list [of scientific supporters], I feel convinced that the subject will not." [Darwin in a letter to J. D. Hooker, 3/3/1860].
"I have read lately so many hostile views [of The Origin of Species], that I was beginning to think that perhaps I was wholly in the wrong, and that Owen was right when he said the whole subject would be forgotten in ten years; but now that I hear that you and Huxley will fight publicly (which I am sure I never could do), I fully believe that our cause will, in the long run, prevail." [Darwin in a letter to J. D. Hooker, 7/2/1860]
Darwin's little prediction that "the subject [of evolution] would not be forgotten," and that, "our cause will, in the long run, prevail," proved true. While, Richard Owen's prediction that the "whole subject" would be "forgotten in ten years" proved false. By Biblical standards, that makes Darwin a "true prophet," and Richard Owen (who was a creationist) a "false prophet." (Chuckle.)
Lastly, since the Discovery Institute's "Five Year Plan" seems a bit shy of completion, no wonder Dembski switched to a new "Ten Year Plan."
Posted by: Edward T. Babinski | January 2, 2007 6:16 PM
To me it is strange that two of the three great atheists of the nineteenth century are no longer regarded as saying the last word about economics (Marx) or psychiatry (Freud) but somehow the Darwinians (and Neo-Darwinians like Richard Dawkins) cling to Darwin as if he had the last word and can't be revised. No wonder they've been called fundamentalists. Why can't we see that perhaps Intelligent Design has a valid point--that evidence for intelligent design is there? Why the fanatic opposition to the scientific evidence for design?
Posted by: Dr. Les | April 18, 2008 11:01 PM
To me it is strange that two of the three great atheists of the nineteenth century are no longer regarded as saying the last word about economics (Marx) or psychiatry (Freud) but somehow the Darwinians (and Neo-Darwinians like Richard Dawkins) cling to Darwin as if he had the last word and can't be revised. No wonder they've been called fundamentalists. Why can't we see that perhaps Intelligent Design has a valid point--that evidence for intelligent design is there? Why the fanatic opposition to the scientific evidence for design?
Posted by: Dr. Les | April 18, 2008 11:01 PM
"Reticent" is hardly the word for Mr. Dembski. He feels entitled to his own facts even if he has to make them up. He has invented his own law, the Law of Biogenesis: "Matter and energy do not possess the attributes of life, and therefore cannot be the cause of life." He doesn't define the attributes! Maybe they are some kind of magical quality? And he thinks this question-begging vicious circle qualifies him to stand with Newton.
Posted by: Monado, FCD | April 19, 2008 12:52 AM
Why the fanatic opposition to the scientific evidence for design?
Remind us again what that evidence is...?
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 19, 2008 12:59 AM
That's because you're completely ignorant of the matter. No-one "cling[s] to Darwin as if he had the last word and can't be revised"--that's just stupid. No-one accepts Darwin as their personal prophet who is completely infallible. That is a pathetic projection on your part. We know Darwin got many things wrong, and guess what? It doesn't bother us! That's because science has actually progressed in 150 years.
Perhaps because no-one has ever actually presented any "evidence for intelligent design"? Hell, no-one has even managed to articulate what "intelligent design" should look like, or how to distinguish it from anything else. How on earth are we supposed to tell that things are designed intelligently? You say that evidence is there--well, show us. We'll listen.
There isn't any fanatic opposition to the scientific evidence for design. There just isn't any scientific evidence for design, and therefore there is opposition to teaching children that there is some.
Posted by: Skemono | April 19, 2008 1:02 AM
Dr. Les types that the Darwinians (and Neo-Darwinians like Richard Dawkins) cling to Darwin as if he had the last word and can't be revised.
I say that he "types" this rather than that he "thinks" this because no thinking person could hold to this claim.
First, if Darwin did have the last word, then there would be no need for research in evolutionary biology. The journal Evolution would have no manuscripts to publish, and Dawkins would be out of a job
Second, even Darwin knew that Darwin didn't have the last word. From Origin of Species: "I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification." (Emphasis added.) Indeed, much of chapter 14 of the Origin is a list of open questions concerning evolution.
So, Dr. Les, it's time for you. Where did you get your misconceptions?
Posted by: Dan | April 19, 2008 1:08 PM
For sure, organized religions, with their dogmatic, "My book is the inviolate word of God so all other books that don't agree with that fact must be wrong," are fighting the spirit of truth and will go the way of Zeus and Diana (not the princess) worshipers. However, the unknown is most definitely not a void. Twelve step programs, beginning with Alcoholics Anonymous, have been making proper use of the concept of a loving higher power (if nothing more than the very real powers of love, truth, wisdom, and understanding grouped under the name of 'god' for simplicity) to more successfully institute the process of allowing their members to opt for humility and let humbling truths . . . still associated with the possibility that there actually is ultimate meaning to a given human existence, move them from the loneliness and incapacity to love which is egoism towards the communal spirit and infinite capacity to love which would be pure humility.
Eckhart Tolle has picked up on the realization that humble people are far happier and more useful to their societies than egoists, and has become a millionaire making use of that simple truth. Sadly, he makes statements in his books which would lead people to believe that he *knows* that reincarnation is a fact (at least for zebras ???).
Yet his books, along with the writings of the recovering alcoholic Bill Wilson, have within them 'spiritual statements' which are testable for truth (in the manner of scientific inquiry) and have, across the years, shown themselves to change human beings through a 'surrender' to a willingness to be led by humbling truth from egoism towards humility.
The product of a surrender to these humbling ideas is not only the kind of inner peace and happiness that in centuries past would have been easily accessed through religious beliefs; the product is increased love wherever, in the universe, these practices might come into existence. From this perspective, if sentient existence adds to the powers of love, truth, wisdom, and understanding; powers which every human being must deal with (either with the presence or absence of them within their psyches), then, it seems to me, while the terminology must change, there is no reason not to believe that rather than this latest big bang being the first, it perhaps could be the forty-thousandth, with love, truth, wisdom, and understanding always being the final product.
I saw a science show last week which pointed out that there is a microbe at the bottom of the ocean which has the capacity to get its sustenance from the rock within which it lives. The scientists are now wondering if such rocks also exist on the Jupiter moon they are making plans to someday colonize. Perhaps with each big bang DNA molecules are sprayed out right along with everything else. Atheism for the present, yes, so long as it doesn't close its mind to the very clear insight that the unknown is still not a void. Blessings - Chuck
Posted by: Chuck Mason | July 10, 2009 2:12 PM
Your points are well worth making and taking. The Theory of Evolution has stood the last 150 years or so and continues to be a thorn in the side of those who believe in ID, but it still has a long way to go. Religion has painted a long history on this earth and I believe that the evolution theory would have done much better had it not been used as a way to replace God. How does evolution explain religion over the years? Why would it have taken so long for mankind to realize its design was in this process over billions of years?
We are people who know where we come from. I know my dad’s name, my grandfather’s name, and many other grandparents’ names in my genealogy. I believe the humans before us know where they came from and had a direct revelation and contact with God. I don’t believe that God set things in motion and has left us alone, but is still at work in our lives today that one can see when they choose to encompass their worldview with a God in mind. Something happened back there that would cause the vast majority of them to believe in a God. Scientist will say that God was the “unknown” and helped them all explain what they didn’t understand but I believe they knew something that we can still hold onto today in the midst of research. If evolution is the way, it deserves to be praised and worshiped, for it has created man, the most sophisticated being ever made.
Posted by: Zack Ross | November 30, 2009 10:06 AM
Zack Ross, do you have the slightest shred of evidence to support these "beliefs" of yours? Any evidence at all? Even a speck?
If so, you would be the first in all the history of the world to find actual evidence for the existence of god. You could be rich and famous beyond your wildest dreams, and usher in a new revival of religion the world over.
But of course, we all know you DON'T have any evidence at all. If you did, you would have offered it up instead of babbling and whining about the creationist fraud that is ID. You've got nothing.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 30, 2009 10:36 AM
Evolution replaced ignorance, as every other scientific explanation has. The problem is that many people had tried to stuff God in the gaps in their knowledge, so as to paper over their own ignorance. Now that we actually have a better explanation more thoughtful believers have come to realize their mistake and learned not to look at their ignorance and call it 'God'. Unfortunately, some like yourself continue to cling to and worship their ignorance.
So don't blame science for replacing God, blame yourself for worshiping ignorance.
Posted by: DaveL | November 30, 2009 10:49 AM
Zack Ross, #17: Religion has painted a long history on this earth and I believe that the evolution theory would have done much better had it not been used as a way to replace God.
Did thermodynamics and chemistry replace God when they developed better theory of the reason it rains? Why is evolution any different?
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 30, 2009 10:59 AM