A friend sent me the following letter which was addressed to the American
Spectator who apparently has started an article talking about the lynching
of Bill Dembski. Bruce Gordon, who took over as director and who is a
friend of Bill's wrote a defence of the Baylor decision. While I didn't meet
Gordon, my understanding is that he is an IDer. This letter shows several
things--1. reporters make up their mind before they gather the facts
(probably for sales),2. Dembski is not a martyr but a self-inflicted victim
3. the committee was a fair minded one and 4. the faculty senate vote last
Spring was not about Bill Dembski but about the manner in which the Polanyi
Center was founded--something I raised with Paul Nelson last Spring. Here is
the letter.
Date: 10/17/0 3:10 PM
From: Bruce Gordon
The Michael Polanyi Center
P.O. Box 97130
Baylor University
October 16, 2000
The Editor
The American Spectator
2020 N. 14th St., Suite 750
Arlington, VA 22201
Dear Sir:
When your reporter made an appearance on the Baylor University campus a
couple of weeks ago to do a story on the Michael Polanyi Center (MPC)
controversy, I was under the impression that he was here to speak to those
involved, gather the relevant facts, and write an objective journalistic
account. This impression turned out to be rather naive. When the reporter
contacted me again to check on the accuracy of some of his statements, it
became clear that he had been sent with a mandate from you to do a hatchet
job. The reporter said he would make some changes in light of our
interaction, but I doubt whether they will be substantial enough to change
the general tone of the article, so I feel compelled to write this letter.
I was appalled to discover the article was entitled "The Lynching of Bill
Dembski: Scientists Say the Jury is Out - So Let the Hanging Begin," and
that this was the title you gave him *prior* to his campus visit! Not only
is this muckraking, prejudicial, and inflammatory rhetoric, it creates a
false impression of the science faculty and of the actual situation at
Baylor. I didn't realize that *The American Spectator* was a wholly owned
subsidiary of *The National Enquirer*!
I do not deny that the work of Bill Dembski, the MPC's Director, has been
unfairly and publicly criticized by a small but vocal number of Baylor
faculty. These criticisms were reactionary, based largely on a serious
misunderstanding of Bill's academic project, and catalyzed by a long and
unfortunate history of ignorant attacks on the Baylor science faculty by
backward fundamentalists who object to the teaching of evolution. While the
etiology of this response renders it intelligible, the experience has not
been pleasant for Bill. Be that as it may, what gravely concerns me is that
as I discussed with your reporter what he had written, I gained the
impression that the Baylor situation had been grossly misrepresented, and
that this misrepresentation was the result of *your* instructions. From what
I was able to glean, the article comes perilously close to slandering the
science faculty (the biologists in particular), and it casts aspersions on
the organizers and members of the External Review Committee charged with the
task of evaluating the work of the MPC. I cannot let this go unchallenged.
Through largely private communications, I've become aware of a broad base of
support among Baylor faculty, many scientists included, for giving the MPC
the academic freedom it needs to pursue its research. This does not
necessarily mean that these faculty endorse what we do, just that they see a
respectable academic project being pursued, and think that we should have
the freedom to pursue it. As we make the effort to connect with faculty in
various departments, listen to their concerns, and clarify our various
projects for them, we're seeing this base of tolerance and good will expand.
The assertion embodied in the title of your article is an outright lie - it
is by no means the case that the science faculty at Baylor want to lynch the
director of the MPC! Your article will do nothing but undermine the trust
that we're working very hard to establish. Quite frankly, it would be better
for the Michael Polanyi Center and for Baylor University as a whole if you
didn't publish it at all!
But what, you might object, of the 27-2 Faculty Senate vote last spring
recommending to the administration that the Polanyi Center be disestablished
(something the administration declined to do, given its commitment to
academic freedom and the fact that discussions with the faculty had already
led to the External Review Committee process)? What needs to be understood
is that for the *majority* of the Faculty Senate, this vote had nothing to
do with Bill Dembski's work, and everything to do with a pre-existing
struggle between a segment of the faculty and the administration. The MPC,
since it was established by an administrational initiative, has become an
incidental pawn in this ongoing dispute. As one of the Faculty Senate
members from the Religion Department remarked, after voting to recommend our
disestablishment while knowing nothing of Bill's work, "we wanted to send a
clear message to the administration." This vote was not about Bill's work;
it was about internal Baylor politics. There is a segment of the faculty who
(mistakenly, in my view) do not trust Baylor's administration, and oppose it
whenever they have an opportunity.
As for the work of the MPC itself, even among those critical of design
theory (which only constitutes one quarter of the Center's research), most
are content to let the External Review Committee do its work and keep an
open mind. Things are relatively quiet on the Baylor campus right now as
everyone awaits the Committee's report. All your article will do is disturb
the peace. Beyond that, it does no one at Baylor any good, least of all Bill
Dembski and the MPC. And this leads me to the last issue that must be
addressed. The impression I got from your reporter is that the article would
cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality both of those who organized the
External Review Committee, and those who are serving on it. No portrayal of
the matter could be further from the truth! I personally know most of the
faculty and administration members who put together the Committee, and I
trust them implicitly. They are fair-minded individuals of good will, and to
imply otherwise does them great injustice! As for the Committee itself, I
know the chair, William Cooper, personally, as do most other faculty at
Baylor. I can't think of anyone on campus capable of carrying out the
responsibilities of that important position more fairly and even-handedly.
Initial concern that the Committee did not include a statistician or a
physicist with academic qualifications in the area of Bill Dembski's work or
my own were addressed expeditiously, and scholars with these qualifications
were added. I had a searching, but congenial interaction with the Committee
when they came to Baylor to interview those integrally involved in the
situation. My impression is that as a whole the Committee will be fair. I
believe they recognize the academic legitimacy of our work, and I am very
optimistic that they will make some helpful recommendations. For you to
represent the matter otherwise would do them an injustice as well.
I'm not sure how far along in production the relevant issue of your magazine
is, but I hope that after reading this letter you'll take a hard look at the
content of this article, and either change its title and alter its tone, or
even better, scuttle it completely. This would be the mandate of responsible
journalism. Otherwise, you'll prove yourself to be nothing more than a
muckraking conservative rag, eminently worthy of being ignored.
Sincerely,
Bruce L. Gordon, Ph.D.
Associate Director, The Michael Polanyi Center
Assistant Research Professor, Institute for Faith and Learning
Baylor University
***end of letter***
Unfortunately, the American Spectator will probably publish their piece of
sensationalist literature and thus enshrine Dembski among the likes of
Giordano Bruno and Gallileo. Nothing could be further from the truth.
glenn
see http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 24 2000 - 02:30:49 EDT