William Dembski got a good job!

. . . well, at least an appropriate one.  From onenewsnow via Jeffrey Shalit via reader Michael, we learn that the redoubtable William Dembski, graduate of the University of Chicago and winner of the Absentee Award at the Dover Trial, has landed his dream job:

Renowned intelligent design expert Dr. William Dembski is taking a teaching position at the Southern Evangelical Seminary this August.

Dembski will be the Phillip E. Johnson Research Professor of Science and Culture, named for the founder of modern intelligent design. He says he is especially concerned about the 70 to 80 percent of students who shed their faith after attending college. He will also be working to advance the seminary’s Institute of Scientific Apologetics.

What? Scientific apologetics?

“I don’t see apologetics as the full solution to it, but I think it’s a piece of the puzzle, and I think [for] a lot Christians, a lot of church-going people, the question is asked — why do you believe in Christianity? Why do you think it’s true,” he suggests. “I think they don’t really have an answer.”

Never fear—Dembski will tell them! On the down side, he’ll have to adhere to the seminary’s doctrinal statement, which includes the following:

  • Creation. We believe in the special creation of the entire space-time universe and of every basic form of life in the six historic days of the Genesis creation record. We also believe in the historicity of the biblical record, including the special creation of Adam and Eve as the literal progenitors of all people, the literal fall and resultant divine curse on the creation, the worldwide flood, and the origin of nations and diverse languages at the tower of Babel.

That’s a lot of scientific evidence that Dembski’s gonna have to explain away. But wait—there’s an apparent conflict:

Dembski says he is “an old-earth creationist” when it comes to the Genesis account of creation.

“So I don’t read it as a literal six days, 6,000-year chronology. I know there’s some variation on that,” he admits. “The other position certainly is the traditional one, and I don’t have a problem with believers who hold that.”

I guess “historic days” differ from “literal days.”

Here’s what else Dembski must espouse:

  • Resurrection. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ arose from the dead in the same physical body, though glorified, in which He had lived and died, and that His resurrection body is the pattern of that body that will be given to all believers at the return of Christ.
  • Ascension. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ ascended into heaven in the same glorified physical body in which He arose, was seated at His Father’s right hand, assuring us of the perfection of His work of redemption, and that He now, as Head over all things to the Church, is engaged on behalf of the saved as their only Advocate.

There are a lot more, but this is the best one:

  • Satan. We believe that there is a personal devil, a being of great cunning and power, who is “the prince and the power of the air,” “the prince of this world,” and “the god of this age.” We believe that he can exert vast power but only as far as God permits him to do so, that he shall ultimately be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone and shall be tormented day and night forever.

Since Dembski is apparently keeping his job as a senior fellow at the intelligent-design-laced Discovery Institute, his acceptance of the flood, of Adam and Eve, and of the instantaneous origin of all life will put him at odds with some of his ID colleagues. But we knew that Dembski was lying for Jesus all along.

64 Comments

  1. newenglandbob
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    Meshugganah, for sure.

  2. wunelle
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    Imagine having to embrace this risible claptrap publicly! It’s like a shaming ceremony.

    • Aidan Karley
      Posted March 30, 2012 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

      … so he’d better get pregnant and go to Texas for the State Rape with a Shaming Wand.

  3. Kevin Alexander
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

    Scientific apologetics? My vote for oxymoron of the week.
    Science is about starting with evidence and using the tools of reason to arrive at a conclusion.
    Apologetics is starting with a conclusion and (mis)using the tools to validate it.

    Maybe I’m missing something. Could someone from the non cognitive elite explain it to me?

    • Mark Joseph
      Posted March 30, 2012 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

      Kevin:

      You’re not missing anything.

  4. Wowbagger
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    Why is it asking me to log in?

    • Marella
      Posted March 31, 2012 at 1:15 am | Permalink

      It’s been doing that, try a different email address.

  5. John Harshman
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    Have you considered the possibility that Dembski is lying, not for Jesus, but for a job? He seems to adjust his opinions based on whatever the bible college he’s teaching at demands.

    • Posted March 30, 2012 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

      I seriously believe that all, I mean ALL, famous apologists for theism, do not believe the stuff they profess. It is their bread and butter, their method of making coin for the nice things of this life. Only a fool would believe in this type of thing.

      • Achrachno
        Posted March 30, 2012 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

        Surely you’re not saying apologists cannot be fools?

        • Posted April 1, 2012 at 3:47 am | Permalink

          Yes, I am saying that, because only a non fool could come up with such convoluted arguments, like kittens do not feel pain and this is why.

          The end result may seem foolish, but the mind needed to get there is not that of a fool, it’s like a lawyer getting a person that he knows to be guilty off the charge, he is doing it not for justice, but for coin.

    • bernardhurley
      Posted March 30, 2012 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

      A modern Vicar of Bray? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viw5JXopin0&feature=related

    • Tim
      Posted March 30, 2012 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

      Now, now, maybe he is a hollow, pathetic weakling, and not a liar. Perhaps he really is so intellectually vacuous that he genuinely believes that a douchebag bible-thumping president of a pseudocollege really can decide what is true by decree.

    • steve oberski
      Posted March 31, 2012 at 7:26 am | Permalink

      Perhaps a program similar to Dan Dennett’s Clergy Project would be appropriate for religious apologists who no longer believe the party line.

  6. Robert MacDonald
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

    “His resurrection body is the pattern of that body that will be given to all believers at the return of Christ.”

    Eek! Everyone in heaven is going to look like the Shroud of Turin dude!

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted March 30, 2012 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

      What? Even black people? Just imagine, billions of identical Jesi** walking around. How will their nearest & dearest recognise them? They’ll all have to wear big photo-ID name tags.

      (**Same plural formation as ‘octopi’).

      • Posted March 31, 2012 at 1:49 am | Permalink

        Surely, “Jesodes”?

        /@

      • Bonzodog
        Posted March 31, 2012 at 2:18 am | Permalink

        And what about the half of the human race called “women” ……

        • MAUCH
          Posted March 31, 2012 at 6:43 am | Permalink

          Are you telling me that I am supposed to include in the human race a group of people who tempted me to eat of the apple. Sorry gays, blacks, women, unraptured Jews, etc are not part of the Christian human race.

        • rmw
          Posted March 31, 2012 at 6:46 am | Permalink

          We don’t count in the minds of many Christians here on earth. What makes you think it would be any different in heaven?

        • truthspeaker
          Posted March 31, 2012 at 11:20 am | Permalink

          Bad news. They’re going to Islamic heaven.

  7. DV
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

    “We believe that he[Satan] can exert vast power but only as far as God permits him to do so”

    Makes one wonder why it has never occurred to him to ask why God would not lower his permission level for Satan to the nice round number of zero.

    • Tulse
      Posted March 30, 2012 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

      Obviously because the world is Fallen and cursed. Duh.

    • Sigh
      Posted March 30, 2012 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

      Sado-Masochistic relationship.

    • Gluon
      Posted March 31, 2012 at 1:14 am | Permalink

      “God bids three hundred quatloos for the bearded man.”

      • Posted March 31, 2012 at 1:50 am | Permalink

        Something to do with free will. See Time Bandits.

        /@

    • steve oberski
      Posted March 31, 2012 at 7:27 am | Permalink

      Job security.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted March 31, 2012 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

      Because God *needs* Satan. Same way Dubya needed Saddam. It’s much easier to keep the population subjugated if there’s a bogeyman to point to.

  8. Posted March 30, 2012 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think Dembski being an old-earth creationist will be a problem. We already know that he’s perfectly willing to repeat any party line he’s told to repeat in exchange for a paycheck.

    • Posted March 31, 2012 at 4:11 am | Permalink

      Note that the other two people in that “scientific apologetics” program are OEC’s. I doubt YEC is a required position.

      See:

      http://ses.edu/scientific.htm

      • derekw
        Posted March 31, 2012 at 11:35 am | Permalink

        Yeah Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Fuz Rana are part of the Reasons to Believe ministry ( reasons.org ) The organization has always distanced themselves from the ID movement in part because RTB fully espouses old earth/old universe. The ID folks have always been ‘afraid’ to offend YEC. In my mind it just makes many of the ID folks look silly in ‘picking and choosing’ their science.

  9. Posted March 30, 2012 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ arose from the dead in the same physical body, though glorified, in which He had lived and died, and that His resurrection body is the pattern of that body that will be given to all believers at the return of Christ.

    I’d like to take this opportunity to apologize to Christians for my habibit of mischaracterizing the corporeal nature of the Risen Christ. In the future, I will endeavor to correctly describe the Doubting Thomas incident not as mere intestinal fondling, but as the groping of glorified guts. And, further, I truly hope all y’all enjoy playing with your own holey hands in the after-death whilst groping each other’s (and Jesus’s!) glorified guts.

    I’ll personally take a pass, thanks…not my thing. But if that’s what gets you off, by all means. Knock yourselves out.

    Sincerely,

    b&

    • Posted March 31, 2012 at 1:51 am | Permalink

      Surely, “gorified”?

      /@

    • Scote
      Posted March 31, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

      “Thomas incident not as mere intestinal fondling, but as the groping of glorified guts. And, further, I truly hope all y’all enjoy playing with your own holey hands in the after-death whilst groping each other’s (and Jesus’s!) glorified guts.”

      Uhm, through the Glory Hole? :-O

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted March 31, 2012 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

      What is it with you and holy intestines, Ben? I think a spear(?) wound would have tended to close up again, it’s not like one of our modern civilised weapons that would blow a big hole and leave bits of Big J’s anatomy dangling in the breeze. I mean, there are plenty of ghastly bits in the Bible without needing to exaggerate that one.

      (Of course I could be quite wrong since my Biblical scholarship is, to a first approximation, zero, it could be that the Bible rabbits on about it endlessly and they skipped that bit in Sunday School).

      Oops, I’ve just spotted something else:
      “His resurrection body is the pattern of that body that will be given to all believers at the return of Christ.”
      What, complete with holy holes forever? No thanks, I’ll take my chances with Satan, I think.

  10. mordacious1
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    “He says he is especially concerned about the 70 to 80 percent of students who shed their faith after attending college”.

    Is that true? Or just some crap they made up? I don’t remember that many people who attended college with me giving up religion. Just the ones in the science departments.

    • Scote
      Posted March 31, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

      It is actually more complex than that. There is a *congruence* of loss of faith during college attendance but it isn’t necessarily causal. But who would expect Dembski to be good with math or causality?

      ““There is no statistical difference in the dropout rate among those who attended college and those that did not attend college,” said Thom Rainer, president of the Southern Baptists’ LifeWay Christian Resources research firm. “Going to college doesn’t make you a religious dropout’

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/experts-challenge-santorums-remarks-linking-college-to-faith-loss/2012/02/27/gIQARs6GeR_story.html

      • truthspeaker
        Posted April 1, 2012 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

        I wouldn’t be surprised if the statistic only counts people from certain fundamentalist denominations who leave the faith, or that kind of faith.

  11. Jim Jones
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    Jesus !&@#^*!@#*! Christ that’s a giant load of crap – imagine a life spent studying things that didn’t happen to people who never existed.

    Perhaps the “Southern Evangelical Seminary” can add a course in Harry Potter apologetics?

    At least those books are far better written and much easier to read.

    • Marella
      Posted March 31, 2012 at 1:22 am | Permalink

      Better morals too.

  12. Kiwi Dave
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

    I guess this is not the sophisticated theology of True Christians.

    When Christ is seated at his father’s right hand, is this literally seated next to a literal right hand or, quelle horreur, a metaphor?

    • truthspeaker
      Posted March 31, 2012 at 11:18 am | Permalink

      There you strident new atheists go again, assuming that people hold the beliefs they explicitly say they believe.

  13. Posted March 30, 2012 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

    I am 5 miles down the road from these folks and I on them like white is on rise.

    • Posted March 31, 2012 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

      Don’t worry, your rice is risen, too!

  14. Posted March 30, 2012 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

    opps — “white is on rice”

  15. infiniteimprobabilit
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 12:24 am | Permalink

    “… I think [for] a lot Christians, a lot of church-going people, the question is asked — why do you believe in Christianity? Why do you think it’s true,” he suggests. “I think they don’t really have an answer.”

    Give credit where credit’s due – the dude is almost certainly absolutely right about that.

  16. DiscoveredJoys
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 1:32 am | Permalink

    The next time some fool burbles on about ‘God is Love’ point out that their loving god masterminded “… the literal fall and resultant divine curse on the creation…”

  17. Stephen Turner
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 2:46 am | Permalink

    Ah, but there’s evidence for Satan right there in the doctrinal statement:

    We believe that there is a personal devil, a being of great cunning and power, who is “the prince and the power of the air,” “the prince of this world,” and “the god of this age.”

    Who else could have put the punctuation inside the quote marks?

    • chascpeterson
      Posted March 31, 2012 at 5:40 am | Permalink

      Kate Turabian?

      • chascpeterson
        Posted March 31, 2012 at 5:47 am | Permalink

        wait a minute…
        The University of Chicago?
        Satan?

        • Posted March 31, 2012 at 9:04 am | Permalink

          Well, many years ago when I was writing my thesis at U of C Kate Turabian’s set of rules sure made my life hell.

  18. heleen
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 3:52 am | Permalink

    The Satan bit is the worst: actually, heretic and not even Christian.

    • RFW
      Posted March 31, 2012 at 9:13 am | Permalink

      Good point. There are a few references in the bibble to Satan, but on the whole the concept, as understood by the mass of crazies today, is distantly derived from gnostic dualism, well-laced by folk religion (the stuff that’s not in books, but everybody¹ believes²).

      Indeed, a lot of what the fundies sort-of believe falls under the folk religion heading. Just as the real religion of China is a folk religion, with no scripture and no hierarchy, though Buddhist and Taoists priests are called on as required.

      ¹ for some values of “everybody”.

      ² for some values of “believe”.

  19. mandrellian
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 4:15 am | Permalink

    Enlightened theology alert:

    “We believe that [Satan] can exert vast power but only as far as God permits him to do so, that he shall ultimately be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone and shall be tormented day and night forever.”

    The first and most obvious of the questions this statement begs is “Why the frack did God CREATE Satan in the first place if he knew what a horrid little shit he was going to be, what with the omniscience and everything?”, which can move through to “Why does the most powerful being in (or out of) the Universe permit Satan to do ANYTHING?”, which could easily progress to “Couldn’t Big Awesome Perfect Everything God have thought of a better way to get to know us after our deaths than to create an eternal post-mortem horror show (complete with eternally horrible dungeon-master) and then expect us to believe he had his avatar sacrificed to himself in order to be spared from it?”; we could then probably end nicely with “What the bloody hell is God waiting for? Christmas?”

    I’m fairly certain JAC and the other denizens of this website can add more.

    Honestly, the more you analyse the doctrine of Hell and the existence of Satan, the more they both become simultaneously more ridiculous and horrifying.

    Oh, and of course well-meaning, caring, loving people teach their kids this shit in all seriousness.

    And people ask why atheists get angry.

    • chascpeterson
      Posted March 31, 2012 at 5:42 am | Permalink

      Should have thought of all that before biting the forbidden apple, Mr. Smartguy.

    • Christian
      Posted March 31, 2012 at 6:07 am | Permalink

      And if you argue against this shit you get scolded by sophisticated theologians that you only knock down straw men and that no one really believes this crap.
      Yeah, sure!

    • Scote
      Posted March 31, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

      ““Why the frack did God CREATE Satan in the first place if he knew what a horrid little shit he was going to be, what with the omniscience and everything?”,”

      Obviously it’s because whoever wished Yahweh into existence did so using an evil magic monkey paw.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted March 31, 2012 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

      “Why the frack did God CREATE Satan in the first place if he knew what a horrid little shit *He himself* was going to be, what with the omniscience and everything?”
      There, fixed it for ya. If ya got God of the Bible, what with all the genocides and mass murders and stuff, who needs Satan? :)

  20. Jeff Engel
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 5:59 am | Permalink

    I’m guessing “historic days” is intended as a contrast with purely mythic days, rather than as literal 24 hour periods, or single passages from midnight to midnight. Mind you, at that point, I have a hard time making out how or why you’d specify _six_ of them. Maybe it’s crafted to be ambiguous between young and old earth creationism.

    I’m more puzzled about how one gets to be seated at the right hand of an omnipresent entity.

    • mandrellian
      Posted March 31, 2012 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

      “I’m more puzzled about how one gets to be seated at the right hand of an omnipresent entity.”

      So are US fundamentalists – that’s why they’re playing it safe by sitting as far right on the political spectrum as they possibly can.

  21. MAUCH
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 6:27 am | Permalink

    Talking about a diploma mill! Can you get an education in this place? Perhaps I can get a PhD in Christian Denial.

  22. Posted March 31, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    Good old Dembski, a moron for all seasons. He did it to himself, you know. Never had a real job. No 401k, lousy royalties from lousy books. Bounced from Baylor through two seminaries and nearly hit total rock bottom working for the Disco Tute, probably as a cage cleaner for Luskin, only to be saved from that ignominious fate by an even MORE PITIFUL seminary with five (5), count ‘em, five, resident faculty.

    SES will offer through Dembski a “certificate” program in “scientific” apologetics. That and a Certificate in Massage Therapy would enable the successful student to operate as a massage therapist.

    Checking Monster.Com for creationist jobs results in the following:

    Intelligent design (not software): ZERO
    Scientific apologetics: ZERO
    Creationism: ZERO
    Massage therapy: 225 !
    Biology: 1,000 +

  23. FastLane
    Posted April 2, 2012 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    “His resurrection body is the pattern of that body that will be given to all believers at the return of Christ.”

    So…foreskin, or no foreskin? Inquiring minds and all that. :p


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27,606 other followers

%d bloggers like this: