glenn morton wrote:
> 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.
Whether Glenn meant it this way or not, Glenn writes as though Bruce wrote this
letter after becoming director of the MPC, and in favor of the Baylor decision
to demote Bill. But in fact Bruce wrote the letter two days before the Baylor
decision to demote Bill, so Bruce's letter cannot be defending *that* action.
(In fact, from what he says in the letter, Bruce wrote the letter even before
the conclusions of the External Review Committee were released.) In the entire
letter Bruce never mentions some "Baylor decision" that he defends, so it is
unclear what Glenn is referring to in that regard. The American Spectator piece
that Bruce was reacting to was not a response to Bill's demotion, but was rather
about the entire MPC controversy. That article was begun a number of weeks ago,
before the events of last week transpired. So, none of Bruce's letter is about
anything that happened last week. Construing Bruce's letter (and the American
Spectator article) as a reaction to the events of last week is therefore
inaccurate and misleading.
- Bryan
>
>
> 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 - 10:57:16 EDT