Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Dembski has an amusing post at Uncommon Descent where he takes dead aim at Ken Miller, Francis Collins and the other theists who accept evolution as true and valid - then shoots himself squarely in the foot. He begins with a bit of projection:
Miller has called himself an Orthodox Christian and an Orthodox Darwinian (cf. the 2001 PBS Evolution Series). But one has to wonder which of these masters he serves more faithfully.
What is it about fundamentalists and their need to presume that everyone thinks like them? Bill Dembski may be pushing an ideology because he views himself as serving a master, but that doesn't mean his opponents do too. Ken Miller advocates evolution because it's the only rational explanation for the evidence, he doesn't serve it as a master.
Evolution is a scientific theory. It is accepted because it explains the data, just like every other well accepted theory in science is accepted on that same basis. Dembski would never complain that those who advocate the validity of the germ theory of disease against the arguments of the Christian Science Church are "serving" modern medicine as their "master." He only uses that terminology in regard to evolution and only because his reason for rejecting it is his own perception that he is serving God by doing so.
Next Dembski does what he so often does and ducks right into a punch:
A year or so ago, when Richard Dawkins's website posted a blasphemy challenge (reported at UD here -- the challenge urged people to post a YouTube video of themselves blaspheming the Holy Spirit), I asked Ken Miller for his reaction. He pooh-poohed it as "a clumsy attempt to trivialize important issues." The obvious question this raises is whether systematic efforts by atheists to trivialize (and indeed denigrate) important issues is itself an important issue.
And I agree with Miller on that. The blasphemy challenge was not only a silly attempt to trivialize an issue, it was juvenile and idiotic. But do we really need to hear whining about trivializing a serious issue from the man who created a video about the Dover trial with Judge Jones speaking while emitting fart noises? Seriously, Bill, buy a mirror.
And the punchline to the joke? He actually urges people to compare the endorsement of Ken Miller's book by Francis Collins to the endorsement of Dembski's book by....Ann Coulter. Let's see, whom should we take more seriously on questions of science: the head of the human genome project or a hateful she-beast who knows as little about evolution as I do about Venezuelan yak farming?
Dembski is actually proud to have Coulter endorse his book. I'd say that's pretty much game, set and match for whatever meager bit of credibility he had left.
Politics
Comments
Dembski - Debunked. Good job Ed!
I'm guessing that Dembski will condemn you hell also, right after he wipes away his tears.
Posted by: J-Dog | June 16, 2008 9:50 AM
The "serving a master" language is very revealing of Dembski's mindset. Like many on the right wing fringe, Dembski's ultimate goal is authoritarian: he wants to control people's behavior by controlling their beliefs. That's why he sees gay marriage as stemming from a "world without design".
Posted by: Wes | June 16, 2008 9:51 AM
...or a hateful she-beast who knows as little about evolution as I do about Venezuelan yak farming?
Not only is this a great description of the nameless one, but it is about the funniest thing I have read in months.
Posted by: Josh | June 16, 2008 9:57 AM
Dembski would never complain that those who advocate the validity of the germ theory of disease against the arguments of the Christian Science Church are "serving" modern medicine as their "master."
He would if the right people flattered him the right way. There's no bottom to stupid, or to sleazy either.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 16, 2008 9:57 AM
They farm yaks in Venezuela?
Posted by: Rich | June 16, 2008 10:00 AM
The yak (Bos grunniens) is a long-haired humped domestic bovine found in Tibet and throughout the Himalayan region of south central Asia.
I guess they don't "farm" them in Venezuela, Ed.
I trust your insights on most topics, but the next time I'm in market for a new Yak I may not seek your advice.
Posted by: Skip | June 16, 2008 10:04 AM
Re: Yaks. That's part of why the comment is so funny--and appropriate when describing Coulter's understanding of evolution...
Posted by: Josh | June 16, 2008 10:07 AM
Now, now, Ed. The Judge Jones School of Law flash animation was not an attempt to trivialize a serious issue. It was "an instrument of grace to bring Dawkins and others to their senses". WmAD said so himself. If you weren't a damn, dirty athiest (or one of their enabling fellow travelers), you would know that.
Posted by: carlsonjok | June 16, 2008 10:11 AM
I disagree Ed. This is not at all silly. In the environment where evolutionary biologists get death threats a title of "let the bloodletting begin" is the height of irresponsibility. Please excuse my not laughing.
Also his claim that he would have a civil conversation with TEs is completely disingenuous. A number of ASA members went to UD to find common ground. But the instant I mentioned that design was a religious/philosophical conclusion and not a scientific one (or talked about theology at all) I was summarily booted.
My amateur psychologizing is that Dembski et al are projecting. They censor and threaten and blindly follow their presuppositions irrespective of the evidence. They assume others do the same. This underscores Ken Miller's point that an accurate description of how science is *really* done needs to be taught in the public schools for those who are not going to be professional scientists and engineers. It is also part and parcel with the goal of the ASA to promote scientific integrity (and why Ken Miller got such a glowing blurb from ASA fellow Francis Collins). We are not beholden to our Darwinist "masters". Rather, we are beholden to the evidence.
Posted by: Rich Blinne | June 16, 2008 10:41 AM
"The "serving a master" language is very revealing of Dembski's mindset."
I think you're overinterpreting this; it's a standard Christian idiom from the Sermon on the Mount: "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other." All Dembski is trying to do is throw in some Biblical allusions to remind his followers that ID isn't about religion.
Posted by: Tom Jackson | June 16, 2008 10:44 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | June 16, 2008 10:47 AM
My contribution to Ed's education:
Yak 40 arrival at Porlamar (Venezuala)
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | June 16, 2008 10:49 AM
The hardest part is getting them planted. Although digging them up again once they're grown is no picnic either.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | June 16, 2008 10:54 AM
Wikipedia sez
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | June 16, 2008 10:56 AM
This underscores Ken Miller's point that an accurate description of how science is *really* done needs to be taught in the public schools for those who are not going to be professional scientists and engineers.
*nodding* This is basically why I harp endlessly to my friends and colleagues that our high schools would likely be doing the entire world a favor if they spent more time/energy on the process of science. I often have people critique this opinion (rationally) with the argument that there simply isn't time. We have so much science to teach them, that there just really isn't the time to go into how science is done very much at all or the philosophy behind how we obtain the facts that are getting taught. I have, however, gotten to the point where I think we'd be better off in the long run teaching them process/philosophy to the exclusion (if it had to be) of some basic science facts/content. Honestly, I would much rather have college freshman walking in the door not having much of an idea of how a covalent bond forms but understanding that all facts in science are tentative or that theories do not tend to evolve into laws or whathaveyou as they get more and more tested. I think we would be better off in the long run if the general populace didn't really understand how tides work or how eclipses happen but knew that science doesn't prove things. Even if a student never takes a science class past high school, that student will still be exposed to some science as he or she moves through life. But they are much more likely to get exposed to the facts as they move through life than the philosophy/process. Just my opinion on the issue.
Posted by: Josh | June 16, 2008 11:00 AM
At least we know that evolution happens. Yak farming in Venezuela, not so much.
Posted by: noncarborundum | June 16, 2008 11:09 AM
At least we know that evolution happens. Yak farming in Venezuela, not so much.
Exactly...
Posted by: Josh | June 16, 2008 11:12 AM
So has the Disco Inst discarded the whole "ID has nothing to do with religion" conceit officially, or are they just no longer able to maintain message discipline even with their central spokespeople?
Posted by: Shygetz | June 16, 2008 11:18 AM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 16, 2008 11:20 AM
The "serving a master" meme fits in perfectly with a general argument made by the faithful/creationists/ID'ists that both evolution and atheism are religions. I mentioned that over the weekend/last week that I've been seeing that argument more and more. Science in general, and evolution in particular, are claimed to be religions, requiring faith, etc. I think for many of the opponents of evolutionary theory, because they are motivated by their beliefs, the only way they can comprehend their opponents support for evolution is by projecting their own mental pattern onto their opponent. It just seems like the concept that those of us who accept the evidence for evolution agree with the theory based on that evidence is completely alien to them.
They also can't get it through their heads that repeating Bible verses over and over again doesn't make them evidence in the existence of God or creation. It seems like, for the truly die hard creationist/ID-ist, there is a mental disconnect when it comes to the concept of evidence.
Posted by: dogmeatib | June 16, 2008 11:20 AM
Don't sell yourself short, Ed. I'm sure you know that Venezuelan yak farming involves yaks, and it happens in Venezuela. That's two facts - that probably does put you ahead of Ann Coulter's understanding of evolution.
Remember, she thinks evolution is the religious belief of America's liberal atheist elite.
Posted by: ShavenYak | June 16, 2008 11:21 AM
"From the book jacket: I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski,..."
Does "generous" mean that, for once, he didn't ask for money?
Posted by: Christophe Thill | June 16, 2008 11:23 AM
Dear Billy Dembski:
Can we just "annotate" the Bible with fart noises, and call it a day?
Posted by: Kristine | June 16, 2008 11:30 AM
I actually got within 5 feet of a yak in Tibet. Ugly creatures. Yak butter tea is a Tibetan staple but hard to the palate of a Westerner.
As far as this argument goes I see no reason why a person cannot be a orthodox Christian and evolutionist. The Bible simply does not rule evolution out no matter how hard these guys to make it do so. It is their teaching and tradition that no one examines to see if it is true. I have read some of the science and it is entirely possible that man evolved from apes. It could take me years at the pace I have been going to be convinced of it or maybe one day I rule it out. But how many actually study it before drawing conclusions that is it wrong? For that matter, how many actually study the Bible to see if what they are being fed is true?
On the first question I have found zero. On the second maybe a handful over the years. They will all tell you that you are wrong though. Had a pastor do it to me last week. Told me I needed to do something and quoted a scripture. I asked if she had ever looked at the context and original language? If she had she would know what she was saying might be true but the scripture she used as proof was not saying what she was saying it was. Did she back down and back up from her lecture? No. Sad but true.
Posted by: King of Ireland | June 16, 2008 11:45 AM
I actually didn't know that there were no yaks in Venezuela, but that only highlights perfectly how little I know about the subject!
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 16, 2008 12:24 PM
Ed has now learned more about yak farming in Venezuela (re.: the fact that yaks are not native there) than Coulter knows about biology. Ironically, this invalidates his analogy.
Posted by: Dave S. | June 16, 2008 12:45 PM
Tom--
I think it's a bit of both. We can't discount the psychological issues at play with the likes of Dembski any more than we can discount their reliance on fundamentalist Christian doctrine.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 16, 2008 1:57 PM
I have some sympathy for Dembski here as people like Miller really do have a muddled stance when it comes to combining their science with their theology. That being said Miller is an excellent science spokesman.
The bible doesn't rule out much of anything. Evolution does real damage to Christianity on multiple fronts. It is possible to be Christian and think evolution correct but I often wonder if those that do so have really thought about what they are saying. The problem in part is the irrational and completely unfounded belief that the bible is a source of information on par with a science theory. It's a bizarre world.
Posted by: JimC | June 16, 2008 1:58 PM
Well they may have some YAK-130s soon.
Posted by: Chris' Wills | June 16, 2008 2:00 PM
JimC, it seems to me that belief in evolution and adherence to Christianity are incompatible only if one chooses to interpret the Bible in a literalist fashion. Are you suggesting that there is a right way to read the Bible? My hunch is that most theistic evolutionists have given a great deal of thought to their position since, in our popular culture and in much of our religious discourse, to believe in evolution is to decidedly reject the doctrines of Christianity (and theism in general).
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 16, 2008 2:23 PM
I disagree although I guess if one wants to bend and twist the narrative so your essentially creating a seperate line of thought from the bible it could be done but it doesn't answer alot of hard question the TOE puts out there.
I don't think most theistic evolutionists have given alot of thought to how a combination would work in a real world sense at all. They seem to rest on a fuzzy 'well it could be' and I say this after having a lengthy email exchange with Ken Miller over this idea. He had the same problems with original sin and other ideas as the typical fundie. He prefers the rather amorphous 'man became selfish/rebellious' view of sin entering the world while ignoring the eons of death and killing prior to this. Hard to blame man for death when it's been occuring for millions of years.
Posted by: jimC | June 16, 2008 2:43 PM
jimC:
"I don't think most theistic evolutionists have given alot of thought to how a combination would work in a real world sense at all. They seem to rest on a fuzzy 'well it could be' and I say this after having a lengthy email exchange with Ken Miller over this idea. He had the same problems with original sin and other ideas as the typical fundie."
One reason they haven't may be that it doesn't occur to them to be one of life's pressing issues. They may be informed by their religious beliefs in terms of relationships, work ethic, family, financial stewardship, friendships, history... on and on. Why do they need to juxtapose their whole belief system with evolution, a central principle of biology?
Oh yes, the Ann Coulters of the world keep blasting away about this because they have made it a right wing political wedge topic, having picked up on a the most fundamentalist reading of biblical time scales and creationism. Right wing political types can't believe that pure science could be at work when they see mostly left leaning people doing it. And they have cultivated the fundamentalist portion of Christian thought just for this type of battle. So we have the perfect battle ground set up for right wing ideology tied to right wing partisianship against the evil scientists. Stupid as hell. But it does not mean a large (and less vocal) portion of the population don't hold religious beliefs that square easily with science. Indeed vast amounts of science are done appart from evolutionary biology where there is no political war in place and niether side has staked out territory that makes their side "right". Here's hoping it stays that way...
Posted by: Rich | June 16, 2008 3:52 PM
"Ann Coulter. ...a hateful she-beast... "
That kind of misogynistic name calling has no place in civilized discourse - what where you thinking???
Just because you don't agree with Coulter's politics should not give you license to smear all of womankind with an association with that hateful man.
;D
Posted by: Gingerbaker | June 16, 2008 4:25 PM
Correct I'm sure but that then is not a great excuse to pretend they mesh well together. To me it's neither here nor there.
Square easily = ignore alot. Like I said as long as people accept the science it's good but it's a fragile alliance when one digs even a little below.
Posted by: JimC | June 16, 2008 4:31 PM
He might, if he was also "into" So-Called Alternative Medicine. I've actually read arguments very like this.
People who like to use the germ theory of disease as the common-sense, universally-accepted foil for evolution forget that there's a growing number of people falling behind vitalism and poo-pooing germs as causes of 'dis-ease.'
Alt med's a whole other area of pseudoscience, and, like creationists, its advocates jump back and forth between "it's well-proven science, many studies show it works" and "science is just another religion, everyone picks and chooses according to what they want to have faith in."
There's even some overlap between the groups: if nothing else, they share the common assumption that the scientific establishment, as a whole, is lying to you because they're dirty materialists who don't want to accept spiritual truths.
Posted by: Sastra | June 16, 2008 5:43 PM
There may be no yaks, but there is venezuelan beaver cheese.
But not today, sir.
Posted by: grasshopper | June 16, 2008 5:44 PM
If it does not exist yet, I would like to propose Cleese's Law: "There is no discussion on the Internet for which a relevant Monty Python reference cannot be found."
Posted by: Tulse | June 16, 2008 10:38 PM
I just keep thinking of all those cartoon lab assistants to the mad scientist saying, "Yesss, Massster!"
Posted by: Ed Darrell | June 16, 2008 10:48 PM
Bill Dembski should long ago have been renamed Bill Dumbski.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | June 16, 2008 11:42 PM
"I don't care how fucking runny it is, bring it hither forthwith."
On another train of thought, do thay farm YECs in Venezuela? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 17, 2008 12:49 AM
http://scienceavenger.blogspot.com/2008/06/bill-dembski-butkus-ken-miller-brings.html
Ann Coulter says: "With this book, two more witches present themselves for burning: Sean McDowell, whose gift is communicating with young people, and Bill Dembski, often called the Isaac Newton of intelligent design. I think Dembski is more like the Dick Butkus of Intelligent Design. His record for tackling Darwiniacs is unmatched."
Something tells me she don't like Mr. Dembski very much! She knows she's full of baloney. And loving it...
All the way to the bank, I'm sure!
Posted by: 386sx | June 17, 2008 2:48 AM
This is hilarious.
Miller no more claims to be an "Orthodox Christian" (big O) than he would claim to be a (small-c) catholic Christian. An "Orthodox Christian" is a member of the Orthodox Church (whether orthodoxly or heretically so) (similarly 'Catholic Christian', 'Reformed Christian', etc refer to the denomination, not the individual). A small point, but one that you'd expect a theologian, teaching in a seminary, to be careful of. Dembski just doesn't give a fig about what he says any more.
One wonders what a (big O) Orthodox Darwinian would look like? Large beard and beautifully elaborate and formal scientific experiments perhaps?
Posted by: Hrafn | June 17, 2008 6:26 AM
Re King of Ireland
The theory of evolution does not say that humans evolved from apes, if by apes one means those that are extant (i.e. chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangoutangs). The extant apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor, which split occurred some 6 million years ago. The common ancestor has long since disappeared.
Posted by: SLC | June 17, 2008 7:14 AM
Although if we were to go back in time and look at one of these ancestors, we'd probably call it an ape.
Posted by: Dave S. | June 17, 2008 7:57 AM
now now there's only one big O, he didn't have a beard
you got it anything at all...
Posted by: wobert | June 17, 2008 8:13 AM
Posted by: Taz | June 17, 2008 10:07 AM
Josh wrote (@ 11:00 AM - 06/16/2008): "Honestly, I would much rather have college freshman walking in the door not having much of an idea of how a covalent bond forms but understanding that all facts in science are tentative or that theories do not tend to evolve into laws or whathaveyou as they get more and more tested. I think we would be better off in the long run if the general populace didn't really understand how tides work or how eclipses happen but knew that science doesn't prove things. .."
I agree.
In line with the underlying premise for this thread - can anyone identify the two "Reverends" who made these embarrasing statements? (don't peek!):
"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen"
[(Could that statement legitimately be called, "Lying for Jesus"?)]
".. human induced global warming is a weapon of mass destruction at least as dangerous as chemical, nuclear or biological weapons that kills more people than terrorism."
"[I] had a "conversion" on climate change so profound in Oxford that [I liken] it to an "altar call," when nonbelievers accept Jesus as their savior.
Posted by: Jan | June 17, 2008 11:08 AM
BillD is more likely the Dick Butkicked if ID. whenever the science side wants to have a laugh, we haul in BillD's sorry you-know-what and give his "reputation" a pasting. BillD is Dick Butkicked also for the manner in which he scooted from Dover like a scared rabbit when he heard that he would have to testify.
Posted by: rimpal | June 17, 2008 7:01 PM
jimC:
Essentially, this is the same trap that IDiots fall into. You start with an assumption that some religion must be this, and anyone who believes something else must be either ignoring it (you) or otherwise not "serving" your master "faithfully" (Dembski).
I've never understood why some atheists (and I'm not necessarily talking about jimC here, but I will name Sam Harris as one blatant offender) are so willing to accept this obviously fundie premise.
Posted by: Pseudonym | June 18, 2008 3:31 AM
A much simpler answer for this (although somewhat more complicated regarding the doctrine of original sin) is that death did in fact exist before humans were around, and the Fall is merely a metaphor for how humans (the first beings with the cognitive ability to relate to God) became separated from God through willful disobedience. In fact, this accounts very nicely for the fact that, as many people have pointed out, that Adam and Eve did not literally die when God told them they would and were instead cast out of Eden.
I would guess that there are lots of things that atheists, agnostics, etc. might have trouble explaining if they were really pressed on it, but I wouldn't say that there's anything that's wholly inexplicable for the position. Likewise, I think there are perfectly reasonable ways of accounting for certain ideas within a belief system, even where some individuals are content to settle with inadequate solutions. Broad generalizations about what theistic evolutionists can and can't account for, as a result, may not be very useful at all.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | June 18, 2008 5:20 PM
On June 17, 2008, Jan wrote: "In line with the underlying premise for this thread - can anyone identify the two "Reverends" who made these embarrasing statements? (don't peek!):
"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen"
[(Could that statement legitimately be called, "Lying for Jesus"?)]
".. human induced global warming is a weapon of mass destruction at least as dangerous as chemical, nuclear or biological weapons that kills more people than terrorism."
Answer: The Reverend Sir John Houghton (first chairman of IPCC)
And yes, if you admit that you're deliberately misleading people; scaring them with imaginary disasters, I think one may legitimately call that, "lying for Jesus".
Sorry, I had to peek. Found him on Google
~~~
"[I] had a "conversion" on climate change so profound in Oxford that [I liken] it to an "altar call," when nonbelievers accept Jesus as their savior."
Answer: The Reverend Richard Cizik (vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals)
I Googled that quote also and found him in the New York Times
Very interesting! :)
Posted by: Lynn | June 22, 2008 9:49 PM