Dembski tells a little story. It's a very sad story, revealing in its false premises, yet the sycophants at that weblog think it insightful and true.

A rabbi and a scientist were traveling together on an airplane. Each brought with them a grandson. The rabbi’s grandson came every few minutes to check on his grandfather’s welfare and inquire as to his needs, while the scientists’ grandson sat in back watching the movie, never once coming forward. The scientist asked the rabbi why his grandson was so profoundly respectful, whereas the scientists’ grandson had forgotten that his grandfather was even alive. The rabbi replied, “In our tradition, God gave the Torah to Moses at Sinai, and the closer you are to that great moment of revelation and truth, the more respect you deserve. Hence, my grandson accords me respect. But as an evolutionist, you believe that mankind begins in a primordial soup, and becomes ever more complex and developed with the passage of time. Every successive generation moves further away from its primate ancestors. Hence, your grandson believes he is your superior and that you should be respecting him. [[As told by one of my colleagues.]]

My first thought: what the hell is wrong with that rabbi? Why does he need to be checked on every few minutes? One commenter tells a variant of the story, with this strangely solicitous grandson taking the rabbi's shoes off and bringing him homemade sandwiches. Why can't the old geezer kick off his own shoes and carry his own damn sandwiches?

My second thought was for the rabbi's grandson. Doesn't he have anything better to do? Fussing over his grandfather is a waste of both their time—pointless, frequent inquiries about the old guy are unproductive. It's bizarre behavior that might be appealing to a petty tyrant, but not to a grandparent who respects the boy's autonomy.

What about the scientist's grandson? There are a lot of strange assumptions here. Leaving someone alone is not disrespectful, nor does it mean they've forgotten someone is alive. My kids don't need to hover over me to show their love and concern, and I don't need them to change my footwear for me to show they care.

The rabbi's explanation of the differences in behavior makes no sense at all, and I'm surprised that Dembski would think it at all meaningful. As a biologist with some knowledge of evolutionary history, I find the caricature of progressive evolution, where each succeeding generation is supposed to think itself better than the last, absurd. I see each individual as an example of variation; not better, but different, and each equally deserving of respect. And that belief goes right back to the stem of the tree of common descent. The whole passage is indicative of a thorough misunderstanding of evolution.

On the other hand, the rabbi's explanation also seems to express a disrespect for his progeny—he is superior to them because he was born earlier, and they deserve to serve him hand and foot.

What do we learn from this parable? That creationists are ignorant of our ideas, and willing to impose uncharitable and false expectations on us. It's sad and unknowing.

Speaking of unknowing, the ignorant creationist Homonculus at RedState.org continues his pitiful efforts. First it was a series of invalid definitions, and now it's an attempt to associate evolution with that horrid, wicked philosophy, atheism.

Twentieth century British atheist Bertrand Russell wrote extensively about how science had presented humanity with a world view that was "purposeless" and "void of meaning" in his book "Why I Am Not a Christian" (1957). Russell ominously states:

"That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspriation, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction...that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built".

Such is the zero-sum existence of life as postulated by neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. Darwinism makes as a first priority atheistic principles of metaphysics rather than the pure empricism of pure science. As such, we find a theory of macro-evolution that is flawed from its foundations. At the same time, proponents of evolution dismiss Intelligent Design theory as not only "not science" (based on their own biased definition of terms) but as religion. One pundit dismissed ID as "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo". Yet it is ID, not Darwinism, that "follows where the evidence leads", without biased premises designed to yield the results the practitioners desire.

Evolution is not atheism, OK? Nor is evolution Darwinism. You can believe in a god and practice good science; biology is a secular discipline that ignores deities and says nothing one way or the other about their existence, other than that they are not a component of good hypotheses about the material world. In the same way, we do not criticize auto repair because it involves good solid material objects like grease and oil and bolts and pistons and drive trains—mechanics are free to believe in god or not, and all that matters to us is that they don't pretend that prayer is a substitute for an oil change. Equating biology with atheism is a red herring, an attempt to take a cheap and unjustified shot at sliming a scientific discipline with that odious atheism stuff that the writer knows his superstitious audience will find repugnant.

The linkage is invalid, but so is the slander against atheism. Atheism is not nihilism, it is not despair, it is not some bleak philosophy of futility and death and nonexistence. As in Dembski's little story, we see again a profound blindness to the actual beliefs of their opponents. In that passage above, Russell is saying that we need to build our perceptions on a framework of reality, not delusions—we are mortal, we are a small part of the cosmos, we are made of carbon and hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and phosphorus. This is the foundation for the appreciation of real beauty, a grandeur that makes biblical tripe look petty and worthless. Read further into Russell and you'll find a positive atheism that looks deeper and farther forward.

We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of a God is a conception derived from the ancient oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.

That's potent stuff. Biology is not dependent on an atheistic worldview by any means, but at the same time, those of us who practice both biology and atheism do not bring any shame to the former, much as the creationists like to act as if it does.

I don't think I need to address his ludicrous claim that ID "follows where the evidence leads"; if that were true, he would have presented some evidence for Intelligent Design creationism. No ID proponent ever has.