Sunday, April 02, 2006
Imminent Demise . . . Again!
For those unfamiliar with Mr. Morton, he is an interesting figure in the evolution/creationism controversy. Glenn was a young Earth creationist who had published quite widely in creationist media. However, in the course of his work as a geophysicist in the oil industry interpreting seismic data, he was unable to maintain his belief in a 6,000 year-old Earth in face of the evidence he was seeing daily. He is the author of "Morton’s Demon," which is an explanation of how he held out so long. You can read more about him at his website.
Glenn has collected numerous predictions of the demise of evolution, beginning well before Darwin published the Origin of Species and culminating (for the moment) in Dembski’s latest prediction. Dembski is in Glenn’s database going back to 1998. Given evangelical Christianity’s record with predicting the Second Coming, you’d think they’d learn . . .
In any event, Dembski went on the record in an Associated Press article by Dylan T. Lovan entitled "Evolution theory on last legs, says seminary teacher" that appeared in the Lexington Herald-Leader:
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. ...
Dembski, who holds a Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, teaches a course on intelligent design at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. He calls Darwinian evolution "viscerally unacceptable" to most Americans. ...
"I guess I would say that even though intelligent design has a long way to go, it seems to me evolutionary theory is so problematic that just about any alternative that's scientific, or has the possibility (of being scientific) should be allowed on the table," he said.
He wouldn't put it that way, of course . . . not enough winks and nods. But that's the truth of it.