Bill Demsbki has recently set up the Polanyi Center as part
of Baylor University. He has just put together a first class
conference exploring ID and naturalism that has attracted such
widely respected scientists as Simon Conway Morris, Christian
DeDuve, Alan Guth, and Mark Ptashne. The conference was
clearly not one-sided, but was inclusive of all perspectives
(reflecting the academic value of diversity). Yet the science
and philosophy faculty at Baylor seem intent on shutting
down the Polanyi Center. First, see:
http://www.baylor.edu/~Lariat/Archives/2000/20000413/art-front01.html
Here's an excerpt, where it appears that the would-be censors are
whining that the administration is not listening to them:
>The Polanyi Center, formed last fall, studies creationism, or the
>intelligent design of nature, depending on the point of view taken.
>Sloan said that although representatives of philosophy and other
>sciences approached him with the concern that the Polanyi Center
>would be detrimental to Baylor's reputation, it was not a unanimous
>decision."
Pay careful attention to the *political* motivation - a concern for
Baylor's REPUTATION. But it gets much clearer. See:
http://www.accesswaco.com/auto/feed/news/local/2000/04/10/955344993.22074.6595
.0026.html
Here are some excerpts:
>Skeptical science faculty at Baylor University are questioning
>the campus host behind a star-studded conference next week on
>naturalism - the belief that all phenomena can be explained in
>terms of natural laws.
>Critics are taking aim at the Michael Polanyi Center, a think
>tank created without fanfare last year by Baylor's administration
>to bridge the gap between religion and science. Several faculty
>members, however, charge its hidden agenda is legitimizing
>the discussion of creationism in classrooms.
>"These people are creationists," said Richard Duhrkopf, an
>associate biology professor. "They define that as someone
>who takes a literal interpretation of Genesis. We define it
>as someone who invokes nonscientific explanations
>for natural processes."
Very illuminating. The Polanyi Center is to be dismantled for
fear of a "hidden agenda." To support this political attack,
the label of 'creationist' is put on ID (which is like labeling
anyone who believes in national health care as a communist).
Why the need to rely on this label? Duhrkopf later lets the
cat out of the bag:
>Duhrkopf said Dembski and Gordon have no choice
>but to deny they're creationists.
>"If they labeled themselves creationists, no one would
>give them the time of day," Duhrkopf said. "But the idea
>they're trying to get into schools, Intelligent Design, is
>creationism. There's no scientific basis for what they say.
>We're talking about people who are not scientists."
Now it comes together. Even though Christian DeDuve
was able to distinguish between creationism and ID at the
Naturalism conference, Duhrkopf knows better. But it is
clear to me that he seeks to put the creationist label on the Center
in order that "no one would give them the time of day."
But consider this:
>Even those blasting the Polanyi Center admit it put together
>a conference featuring marquee names. It doesn't promise to
>be an absolute celebration of Intelligent Design. Weinberg,
>for example, has been quoted as calling religion "an insult to
>human dignity."
>"Such a conversation has a place at Baylor University,"
>said psychology and neuroscience professor Lewis Barker.
>"But not the Polanyi Center." Barker calls the center and
>those behind it "stealth creationists.""
Several decades ago, politicians worried about stealth
communists and even set up witch-hunts to ferret them
out. It would seem the scientific community is capable of
being just as emotive and propagandistic. But notice that
while Barker and others did not put on a conference that
has drawn the people Dembski drew, they complain that
such a conference should really belong to them. Who are they
trying to kid? They don't want a conversion. They complain
because someone took their preacher's podium from them.
Doesn't it concern any non-ID person that these scientists
are trying to shut down academic freedom? If the Polanyi
Center cannot exist at Baylor, where can it exist? The same
scientific community that complains ID does not produce research
in scientific publications also works vigorously to exclude ID
from any means of conducting this research. Like a business
monopoly, the scientific community seems intent on squashing
any attempt to get ID off the ground. It is not the world and
its data that are the stumbling blocks to ID, but the political
atmosphere engendered by the anti-ID critic's attempt to
maintain their monopoly through the tools of the Establishment.
And here's the kicker:
>Providing a home to advocates of Intelligent Design runs counter
>to Baylor's history and endangers the future of its students, Barker said.
>"Abner McCall (Baylor's 10th president) once said that there is
>no such thing as Christian chemistry," Barker said. "They should
>leave us alone and let us teach our students unadulterated science
>so they can continue to get into medical school and graduate school.
>If Baylor's reputation is damaged, it's the students who will suffer.
>What comes to mind when you hear Bob Jones University? If they
>can tar a presidential candidate who just sets foot on that campus,
>they can do the same thing to our students."
Yes, those "objective scientists" are worried about the REPUTATION
of their university. They engage in conspiracy-theory type paranoia
to paint ID as creationism, use rhetoric to elevate it to something
that "endangers" the university, and then scare people by trying to
equate Bill Dembski with Bob Jones University. These "objective
scientists" have not a shred of evidence that the Polanyi Center
is bothering them or will ever interfere with their ability to get
kids into medical school or graduate school. They are simply
reacting to their own simple-minded and hysterical labelling,
but, of course, are too "objective" to realize this.
But throughout all this, what really catches my eye is this
concern for their "reputation." This concern goes a long way
in explaining why the scientific community is not able to seriously
contemplate and weigh questions about natural history and ID.
When a concern about reputation shapes how we approach questions,
we're not dealing with that idealistic notion of objection science.
We're not talking peer review, we're talking high school-like peer pressure.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 17 2000 - 22:09:22 EDT