News from Baylor U.

From: Wesley R. Elsberry (welsberr@inia.cls.org)
Date: Wed Oct 18 2000 - 02:53:47 EDT

  • Next message: Chris Cogan: "Re: Supernaturalism's Basic Flaws"

    The external review committee review on the Michael Polanyi Center
    is in.

    <http://pr.baylor.edu/polanyi>

    It is an interesting document, though brief. The committee
    affirmed the traditional importance of study of the relation
    between science and theology at Baylor, and indicated that
    Dembski and Gordon's work could be seen as part of that
    tradition. The committee advised that it was inappropriate
    to utilize the name of Michael Polanyi in association with
    the "Intelligent Design" focus of Dembski and Gordon.
    The committee also recommended a faculty advisory committee
    to be involved in planning and review of work at the
    Institute for Faith and Learning, the current parent of the
    MPC.

    On my first reading, the report appeared to do relatively
    little to change the status quo. A name change for the MPC,
    perhaps. An advisory committee that could be two steps
    removed from the action, and with a little extra help,
    relatively ineffective. But there are hints that more may
    be in the works.

    It can be taken as a recommendation that the MPC be dissolved
    as a separate entity, but that Dembski and Gordon be retained
    in association with the Institute for Faith and Learning.
    The committee's identification of the IFL as the "appropriate
    administrative structure" for pursuing a science and religion
    dialogue could be regarded in this way.

    Either way, it looks like what has resulted is a compromise
    between the extremes. Dembski and Gordon will, it appears,
    still be associated with Baylor. The faculty have the
    potential for having some say in how the programs in the IFL
    get run. The Michael Polanyi name will no longer be
    associated with "Intelligent Design" activities at Baylor.
    At least, that's the way it looks to me at the moment.

    A very interesting point in the report is that the review
    committee does not classify Dembski's work as science, but
    rather as something relevant to the relationships between
    science and religion.

    Wesley



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 18 2000 - 02:00:51 EDT