<http://www.discovery.org/embeddedRecentArticles.php3?id=486>
<http://www.baylor.edu/~Lariat/Archives/2000/20001018/art-front04.html>
The article goes over some of the practical effects of the
recommendations of the review committee. The vagueness with
which some recommendations were made has caused multiple
interpretations of just how Dembski and Gordon should be
administratively classified: directors of a separate center,
or research faculty under the IFL?
There's something that doesn't read quite right in the
article.
[Quote]
Second, the committee believes the center should not only continue to
pursue the intelligent design theory but should expand its focus to
include broader areas of its mandate as well.
[End Quote - B Martin,
<http://www.discovery.org/embeddedRecentArticles.php3?id=486>]
This isn't the direction that the review committee's report
reads. Instead, they identify the IFL as legitimately having
a broad mandate such that the "intelligent design" focus of
Dembski and Gordon could be incorporated into IFL activities
if the IFL so chooses. The first recommendation reads more as
a castigation of the IFL and MPC for narrowness of focus than
it does as a call to expand a successful program. The second
recommendation begins with "Nevertheless", which is inconsistent
with the positive spin that Dembski gives the review report's
comments on expansion of coverage of issues under the IFL.
Nevertheless, we are told, Dembski's work could be legitimately
carried out under the aegis of the IFL, if the IFL so chooses,
and if such work is carried out professionally. The sounds like
rather a lot of qualifiers for an "unqualified affirmation".
The call for dropping the Polanyi name is being handled ever
so delicately in Martin's article.
[Quote]
Finally, the committee recommended that the center no longer
bear the name Michael Polanyi.
President Robert B. Sloan Jr. said the name change was due to
the controversy surrounding the center and its mission.
"The discontinuance of the name, I believe, is for a couple of
reasons," Sloan said. "First, I think that name now has
gathered a lot of political baggage, and its important for the
institute to get a fresh, new start."
He also said that there was inconsistency between the late
scientist's views and the original intent of the center.
[End Quote - B Martin,
<http://www.discovery.org/embeddedRecentArticles.php3?id=486>]
Now let's review what the review committee actually said.
[Quote]
It is quite appropriate to associate the name of Michael
Polanyi with discussions relating to science and
religion. However, Polanyi explicitly indicated that he did
not think that an agency such as that implied by claims of
intelligent design need be invoked when dealing with the
growth in complexity of the living world over aeons past
(Personal Knowledge, p. 395). Given this, and given also the
debates that have surrounded the Michael Polanyi Center from
its origins, it would seem best that whatever research is
carried out at Baylor on the design inference should not bear
the Polanyi name. The more inclusive mandate of the Institute
for Faith and Learning would allow it to accommodate research
of this sort while pointing to a broader range of interests as
well.
[...]
(4) For the reasons stated above, the Committee believes that
the linking of the name of Michael Polanyi to programs
relating to intelligent design is, on the whole,
inappropriate. Further, the Polanyi name has come by now in
the Baylor context to take on associations that lead to
unnecessary confusion.
[End Quote - Review Committee Final Report,
<http://pr.baylor.edu/pdf/001017polanyi.pdf>]
For the review committee, the inappropriateness of using
Polanyi's name was primary, and the political aspect was
secondary. Sloan and Martin have neatly inverted that.
Wesley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 19 2000 - 11:23:20 EDT