Reflectorites
Here is a post that am cross-posting to the egroups List I am now on,
namely creationevolutiondebate@egroups.com (I hope that is OK by
the two Moderators-could they please let me know if it's not.).
In view of the Calvin Reflector's imminent demise and the fact that many
Reflectorites are also on that egroups List, I am winding up my posts on
the Reflector, and will only respond to these cross-posts on egroups
(assuming I even have time to respond there, until after exams are over i
n 3 weeks!).
Here is a Houston Chronicle report on Dembski's removal as Director of
the Michael Polanyi Center at Baylor University, with my comments in
square brackets. These are my own opinions and are not necessarily the
views of Dembski or the ID Movement.
I did not see the copyright notice at the top until I had prepared my
comments. So I have now gone back and cut out all but the skeleton
of each paragraph. The URL of the article is below so it can be read in
full for context.
Reactions to Dembski's removal will depend on which philosophical
position one starts from, and will probably coalesce around three basic
positions:
1. To those who are committed evolutionists, Dembski will no doubt
appear to be totally in the wrong and acting unreasonably and provocatively
(even wickedly!) in strongly asserting the vindication of his ID research
program.
2. There will be those in the middle who will regret that Dembski was
removed but will think he was unwise in publicly asserting his vindication.
3. Those who support ID will probably believe that, in the circumstances,
Dembski most likely had no choice but to assert his vindication in the
finding of the External Review Committee that:
"(2) Nevertheless, the Committee wishes to make it clear that it
considers research on the logical structure of mathematical
arguments for intelligent design to have a legitimate claim to a place
in current discussions of the relations of religion and the sciences."
My personal position was between 2 and 3 but now it is 3. My initial
reaction was one of shock and dismay and concern that Dembski might
have gone too far. However, on reflecting on all the factors (which
Dembski would know better than anyone), I have come to the view that
Dembski probably did what he had to do, knowing that if in the light of the
next recommendation:
"(3) An advisory committee to the Institute for Faith and Learning,
composed of Baylor faculty members, should be appointed to assist
in planning and reviewing the science and religion component of the
Institute."
his position would be intolerable in the long run - reporting to an Advisory
Committee comprised of his avowed opponents who strongly denied the
legitimacy of ID. I am not saying that Dembski deliberately provoked his
dismissal (IMHO his statement was not strong enough for that) but that he
felt he had to emphasise the positive aspects of the Committee's findings
while he still could.
There is a good summary at Christianity Today's site at:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/142/53.0.html which has links to
Dembski's Metaviews press release and a history of this conflict.
Steve
=================================================
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.hts/metropolitan/721907
[...]
Houston Chronicle
[...]
Oct. 19, 2000, 10:21PM
`Intelligent design' leader demoted By RON NISSIMOV Copyright 2000
Houston Chronicle
The director of a controversial center at Baylor University investigating ...
"intelligent design" ... was demoted ....for ...gloating that his research had
been vindicated ....
[Whether one perceives Dembski's comments as "gloating" depends on
one's point of view. IMHO Dembski was entitled to express his feeling of
vindication after the shameful persecution he suffered at the hands of
evolutionists at what purports to be a Christian university.]
"Intellectual McCarthyism ... at Baylor," William Dembski said ....
[I agree. The majority of the Baylor academic staff, particularly the Biology
faculty, showed themselves to be intolerant of anything but Naturalistic
Evolution.]
Dembski was ...allowed to stay at the university ... to continue his research.
[This is probably a blessing in disguise. Dembski will be able to pursue his
ID research without having to be constrained by the so-called "collegiality"
of the Naturalistic Evolutionists on the Baylor faculty]
Dembski, [wrote] that a report issued by an external committee ..."marks ...
intelligent design as a legitimate form of academic inquiry."
[And so it did. And that has not changed, despite Dembski's removal.]
He ended his e-mail ..., "Dogmatic opponents of design who demanded
that the Center be shut down have met their Waterloo. Baylor University is
to be commended for remaining strong in the face of intolerant assaults on
freedom of thought and expression."
[This is the *truth*. But whether Dembski should have said it is a
legitimate question. But Dembski is no fool. He may have realised that the
Advisory Committee of Naturalistic Evolutionists on the Baylor faculty
looking over his shoulder would have made his position intolerable and he
decided to risk making a strong statement of his academic independence.
On balance, I support him in his courageous decision.]
... professor Jay Losey ... felt Dembski took a cheap shot at them. He said
Dembski also falsely implied that an external review committee legitimized
the claims of intelligent design.
[This last shows that it was not "a cheap shot" and that the Advisory
Committee did not regard ID as legitimate and therefore Dembski's
position as Director in the long run would have been intolerable.]
"It was an attack of the Baylor faculty....
[What about all the attacks by the Baylor faculty on Dembski?]
Losey said ... it was a sad day for the Waco campus.
[Indeed it is. Maybe it will turn out to be much more a "sad day" for Baylor
University than Losey realises. Baylor seems well on the way to
secularising, like many former Christian Universities.]
... professor ... Beaty... said Dembski's e-mail violated the spirit of
cooperation that the committee advocated....
[Some "cooperation" after first trying to close the Center down and then
still denying that Dembski's ID research was legitimate!]
"Dr. Dembski's actions ... compromised his ability to serve as director," ...
[Why. Because he told the truth about the "Dogmatic opponents of design
who demanded that the Center be shut down"? Or because he
"commended" Baylor University for "remaining strong in the face of
intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression"?]
... a search for a director will begin as soon as possible.
[I wonder who they will get? Not anyone who believes that design is
*real*. Probably some Theistic Naturalist with a position that is so wishy-
washy that it is "not even wrong" (see tagline)]
[...]
Baylor, a private university with a Baptist mission ..., is the only university
in the country to devote an academic center to intelligent design ...
Proponents claim they can use probability models to prove life was created
through the intervention of a purposeful, intelligent design.
[It is interesting that a university which claims to be "Baptist" is so
affronted by the idea that "life was created through the intervention of a
purposeful, intelligent design[er]"!]
Although many intelligent design researchers believe God is responsible
...[they] ...say their methods can only prove the existence of an intelligent
design "agent." ....
[This is a fair statement of ID, although the word "prove" is too strong and
the emphasis should be on the *design* not the "agent."]
Many scientists say intelligent design ...is simply a front for creationism ...
They say it is impossible to observe an agent of intelligent design [and] no
credible, peer-reviewed scientific journals have ever published such
research.
[BTW Even if ID was "a front for creationism" (which it isn't) why would a
*Christian* university be so against that? And if observability was a
criterion of science then macroevolution would fail:
"These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and
irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish
as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability of the
experimental method to the study of such unique historical
processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals
involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter.
... Experimental evolution deals of necessity with only the simplest
levels of the evolutionary process, sometimes called
microevolution." (Dobzhansky T., "On Methods of Evolutionary
Biology and Anthropology," Part I, "Biology," American Scientist,
Vol. 45, No. 5, December 1957, p.388)]
In order to quell a controversy that erupted ...President Robert Sloan
convened an external review committee ... to examine whether the center
was performing legitimate academic research.
The committee said ... the center should be allowed to continue to operate
because intelligent design has a "legitimate claim to a place in...discussions
of the relations of religion and the sciences," ....
[So Dembski was right about ID being found to be legitimate and the real
lack of "collegiality" was in those Baylor faculty members who caused the
"controversy" in the first place and who refused to accept the committee's
findings.]
The committee said a faculty advisory committee should be appointed ...
and that the center's name should be changed ... because Michael Polanyi
...did not espouse the same views as the center.
[This is debatable. Polanyi said a number of things which implied he
believed in some sort of intelligent design. For example, in an article titled
"Life Transcending Physics and Chemistry" he spoke of the origin of life
requiring "a profoundly informative intervention." (Polanyi M., in Thaxton,
et al. "The Mystery of Life's Origin: 1992, p.185.]
Sloan, who has been criticized by some faculty members for placing too
much emphasis on religion ....
[Isn't that terrible? A president of a Christian university "placing too much
emphasis on religion"!]
Dembski said ... Sloan "personally solicited me to come to Baylor and
establish the center."
[If Baylor's president approached Dembski to come to Baylor then
Dembski has a right to feel aggrieved at the treatment he has received at
this purported Christian university.]
He said he was shocked that Sloan asked him ... to retract his email ...
[Dembski is entitled to feel "shocked" at being asked to retract what was,
after all, a true statement.]
"...the administration claimed my refusal to retract my press release
constituted a lack of collegiality ... and charged that this compromised my
ability to serve as director ...Dembski said.
[Dembski's removal was an overreaction, considering how much lack of
"collegiality" the evolutionists had shown in the past.]
Dembski's attorney ... could not be reached for comment on whether
Dembski plans to take legal action.
[I hope Dembski does not take legal action but he would be entitled to.]
Dembski has been called one of the leading figures in intelligent design ....
[This experience will probably refine Dembski and make him more `battle-
hardened']
Baylor officials have said Dembski ...became interested in intelligent design
after undergoing a "religious experience."
[I wonder what they meant by that? Does this purported Christian
university deny the validity of "religious experience"?]
[...]
http://www.HoustonChronicle.com
[...]
=================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Wolfgang Pauli was once asked whether he thought that a particularly ill-
conceived physics paper was wrong. He replied that such a description
would be too kind-the paper was not even wrong. I happen to think that
the religious conservatives are wrong in what they believe, but at least they
have not forgotten what it means really to believe something. The religious
liberals seem to me to be not even wrong." (Weinberg S., "Dreams of a
Final Theory," Pantheon: New York NY, 1992, pp.257-258)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 23 2000 - 23:48:26 EDT