Re: [asa] Baylor, Marks, and Uncommon Descent

I would like to second what Michael has written. I have been accused (on
another forum) of being a village idiot or fellow traveller when I have
presented scientific arguments by atheists against the ID (Discovery
Institute version) position. To the extent that ID is poor science it is
inevitable that it will attract flack from scientists, a large number of
whom are atheists. If this attack is valid and well directed then that
should be accepted. There should be no obligation to support fellow
Christians who adopt a weak position on scientific matters. Rather, such
Christians should be persuaded to move to a defensible position.
Don

Michael Roberts wrote:
> David
>
> It is clear that you weren't given a proper ID education as you have a very questioning mind and think rigorously and when you present your arguments you make them clear and in the nicest way don't care whether others agree with you. I think that is the reason why you were banned from UcD. That is desperately sad as we need openness in discussion and that means some will ruffle a few feathers as they get others thinking.
>
>
> I always appreciate and value what you post even when I strongly disagree, which is occasionally but not too often.
>
> Why are some so terrified of disagreements?
>
> Michael
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Opderbeck
> To: Michael Roberts
> Cc: PvM ; AmericanScientificAffiliation
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 1:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Baylor, Marks, and Uncommon Descent
>
>
> Gosh, I went to an evangelical Christian college, and I never even realized I was being treated like meat puppet with a wink and a nod by the faculty who taught me! I'm so glad I understand this now! All this time, I thought those folks had sacrificed the higher pay and prestige they could have earned at other universities because they felt called to help kids like me integrate faith with learning -- to have a faith that seeks understanding. I thought they were teaching me to read deep and wide, to think critically, to soak up the thought of great Christian minds, to appreciate great art, literature, and music, and to love all truth as God's truth. I thought they were graciously giving me the foundation that helped me excel in law school and later in life within the context of God's mission for the world. Now I know better!
>
> Seriously -- if any UcD folks still follow this list, you should be ashamed of the simplistic, fanatical nonsense that has been spilled here. Thank goodness I've been banned from commenting over there, because I'd probably waste a morning and end up in knots.
>
> On 9/3/07, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> Pim
>
> didn't you know? UD is a spoof site set up by atheists to bring the whole
> Intelligent Design movement into disrepute?
>
> That is the most irreducibly complex interpretation of it.
>
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "PvM" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
> To: "AmericanScientificAffiliation" < asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 4:14 AM
> Subject: [asa] Baylor, Marks, and Uncommon Descent
>
>
> > In the last few days, some interesting developments have taken place,
> > culminating in some strange and counterproductive behavior by the
> > Uncommon Descent site.
> >
> > What has happened is best described in a posting at UcD by Denyse
> > O'Leary
> > http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/baptist-university-pulls-plug-on-evolutionary-informatics-lab-links-to-intelligent-design-fatal/
> >
> > Baylor University removed Robert Marks' website until Marks would
> > place some clear markers on the page that this so called 'laboratory'
> > was not associated with Baylor.
> >
> > As a side note, Denyse's historical interpretation of what happened at
> > Baylor seems a bit revisionist
> >
> > <quote>"Dembski's ordeal", above, refers to the Michael Polanyi Center
> > , a previous ID think-tank headed by Dembski that Baylor
> > suppressed.</quote>
> >
> > Of interest to ASA may be Denyse's spin about Baylor, a Christian
> > university that in my opinion for excellent reasons distances itself
> > from Intelligent Design. That Marks collaborated with Dembski and
> > formed a 'lab' may have added to the frustration. That the lab was
> > hailed as a great victory for Intelligent Design may have been the
> > icing on the cake.
> >
> > <quote>
> > Denyse O'Leary: A typical "Christian" university like Baylor battens
> > off the wealth of Christians who can afford college for their kids, on
> > the understanding that it brokers the relationship between Christians
> > and an increasingly hostile secular elite - an elite that often
> > displays a general contempt for traditional religious freedoms.
> > </quote>
> >
> > Is this all about traditional religious freedoms then? Does religious
> > freedom mean that anything religious should be allowed to be taught at
> > Baylor?
> >
> > <quote>The understanding is that - (a wink and a nod) - the real world
> > is irrelevant to the pious fantasies of Christians. But in large parts
> > of North America, for some unknown reason, Christians are a large,
> > powerful, and affluent group. So they must be taught to adapt. A wink
> > and a nod in many a faculty lounge, I am sure.
> >
> > Christians must be educated in such a way that they present no threat
> > to the secular establishment supported by their taxes, which makes the
> > laws and rules they must obey.
> >
> > At this point, you, clever reader, have probably already tumbled to
> > the one weakness in so elegant a strategy for battening off the wealth
> > of Christianity while drawing its sting: What if there were clear
> > evidence that - for example - Darwinism or materialism is not actually
> > a reasonable account of reality. The leadership of such a university
> > would lose most of its intellectual capital
> > </quote>
> >
> > Of course, Darwinism or materialism are two very different concepts.
> > While Denyse, who admits to not be a scientist, may not be familiar
> > with the differences, it should come as no surprise that the Discovery
> > Institute's approach has been to cloud the distinctions between
> > science and philosophy to suggest that Darwinism and science in
> > general, by using methodological naturalism, are forms of
> > philosophical naturalism.
> >
> > So what if, as the evidence strongly suggests, Darwinism is a
> > reasonable account of reality? Some of our children may be convinced
> > by poor 'scientific' arguments to adhere to the viewpoints of the
> > Discovery Institute and many of its ID followers? Surely, as Augustine
> > observed, such would do significant damage to our credibility as well
> > as to our faith.
> >
> > <quote>
> > In a trice, the harsh reality from which the institution protects its
> > dumb sheeplike students is - a harsh UNreality. The students are not
> > meat puppets who foolishly imagine that they have immortal souls and
> > must therefore be humoured by their silly little campus groups. They
> > are people who actually do have immortal souls who are being trained
> > by the institution to accept a culture that lies to them that they are
> > meat puppets. And the institution essentially brokers the lies in the
> > interests of the materialist culture - and to its own prestige.
> > </quote>
> >
> > Nice rhetoric, but this is a two-edged sword. What if universities
> > cater to a worldview which is known to be at odds with fact?
> >
> > <quote>
> > Now do you see the threat posed by an intellectually rigorous inquiry
> > into intelligent design?</quote>
> >
> > There is no such thing as an intellectually rigorous inquiry into
> > intelligent design, let's not fool ourselves.
> >
> > To see how non-scientists like Denyse may be easily fooled, I present
> > the following claim by her
> >
> > <quote>*It has been known since the 1960s that the evidence from
> > mathematical probability will not sustain Darwinism. Mike Behe's Edge
> > of Evolution follows up on that, using the evidence from
> > biochemistry.</quote>
> >
> > Surely, Augustine would be concerned with Denyse's statement which
> > most would recognize as in conflict with science. However, there are
> > no laws against following scientifically vacuous ideas, yet as
> > Christians we should be aware of the cost to our own faith as well as
> > to the larger concept of religion.
> >
> > And perhaps Denyse, if she is still reading this group, may explain
> > her use of Darwinbots?
> >
> > <quote>Won't Christian Darwinbots point to that as evidence that Marks
> > should never have been allowed in anyway? And if they can't get rid of
> > him, they can at least do their very best to suppress his
> > research.</quote>
> >
> > All these claims of suppression of his 'research' as if ID has done
> > any relevant research in these areas.
> >
> > As I said, there is more to this. Yesterday, a previously unknown
> > contributor to UcD named Botnik posted a 'letter from Lilley,
> > president of Baylor'. While the letter had all the earmarkings of a
> > parody, it was not marked as such until later when many ID proponents
> > had shared their outrage and other interesting comments on the matter.
> >
> > In many ways, this foolish attempt at parody seems to mirror Dembski's
> > press -release after Baylor had given him the directorship of the new
> > ID center at Baylor. Claiming that his opponents had met their
> > 'Waterloo', Dembski managed to fumble his recent success and was
> > quickly replaced by Baylor.
> >
> > It will be interesting to follow the developments with Baylor, the
> > 'parody' email.
> >
> > Wesley Elsberry has a good posting at his blog Austringer
> > http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2007/09/01/weird-situation-at-baylor-gets-weirder/
> >
> > PZ Myer also has a posting
> > http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/baylor_has_a_stalker.php#more
> >
> > <quote> Dembski:
> >
> > Here's a fun interview with my friend and colleague Robert Marks. I
> > hope you catch from the interview the ambitiousness of the lab and how
> > it promises to put people like Christoph Adami and Rob Pennock out of
> > business (compare www.evolutionaryinformatics.org with
> > devolab.cse.msu.edu). </quote>
> >
> >
> > Update: Peter Irons reports
> >
> > <quote>In reply to Bob O'H, Denyse O'Leary all-but-confirmed to me
> > that Dembski wrote the hoax letter, after I told her I suspected his
> > authorship, telling me that "Botnik" was someone "of whose identity I
> > suspect there is little doubt." Dembski hasn't denied it, although
> > I've given him the opportunity to do so.
> >
> > Posted by: peter irons | September 2, 2007 1:22 PM </quote>
> >
> >
> > More recently, Dembski removed the offending posting, although he
> > claims the actions were one of a third party who had approached
> > Dembski with the idea.
> >
> > The original thread is available at pandasthumb, enjoy
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 3 18:00:04 2007