More on Dembski and Baylor

From: Richard Wein (rwein@lineone.net)
Date: Fri Oct 27 2000 - 03:22:57 EDT

  • Next message: Richard Wein: "Re: Phil Johnson on the Second Law of Thermodynamics"

    This is my 4th attempt at making this post. None of the others seem to have
    been accepted by the Reflector. Perhaps they were too long, as I quoted the
    whole of an article. Anyway, I will now include only a link to the article,
    and I apologise in advance if all 4 posts suddenly turn up at once (like
    London buses).

    Here's a statement by the Cranach Institute on Dembski's dismissal.

    http://www.cuw.edu/Cranach/dembski_protest.htm

    It seems to me that Dembski (and to some extent the Cranach Institute)
    misread the report of the External Review Committee, taking it as an
    unqualified endorsement of Dembski's position, when it was actually a subtly
    worded compromise. (Perhaps too subtly worded!) The problem with Dembski's
    press release was not just its triumphal tone and offensive remarks about
    his colleagues, but that he was effectively rejecting the compromise.

    Let me list the errors that I think Dembski made:

    1. Dembski wrote: "...the peer review committee for its unqualified
    affirmation of my own work on intelligent design." In fact, the Committee
    did not affirm Dembski's work. It merely wrote 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."

    2. Dembski assumed that the Polanyi Center would continue in existence under
    another name. The Committee did not say this, merely saying that
    "...whatever research is carried out at Baylor on the design inference
    should not bear the Polanyi name." Furthermore, the Committee's
    recommendations made no mention of the "Center", but did write: "This
    mission can best be fostered by the University’s Institute for Faith and
    Learning where it seems to be naturally at home." Also: "Given the present
    circumstances, these discussions might best be carried out under the broad
    umbrella of the Institute through adequate administrative structures." These
    comments suggest that the Committee envisaged Dembski being directly
    attached to the IFL.

    3. The Committee subtly suggested that the MPC had been concentrating too
    much on ID and that Dembski should put more emphasis on other aspects of the
    relationship between science and religion. "Within the broad range of issues
    that bear on the relationship between the sciences and religion, those
    raised by recent work on the criteria appropriate to claims of intelligent
    design could well find a place." And: "In pursuing this mission, room should
    be made for a variety of approaches and topics. It would clearly be too
    restrictive on the part of the Institute to focus attention in this area on
    a single theme only, such as the design inference." Dembski ignored this
    subtle hint, and proclaimed that: "My work on intelligent design will
    continue unabated." One wonders how he intended to expand the scope of the
    center while still devoting as much time to his ID work, unless he planned
    on working a lot more hours or hiring more staff.

    4. The Committee wrote: "It is important to carry out this work in ways that
    encourage dialogue with faculty in a variety of fields." The offensive tone
    of Dembski's press release was hardly likely to encourage dialogue with
    faculty! He also seemed to overlook the Committee's proposed faculty
    advisory committee, with whom he would have to work.

    The External Review Committee could perhaps be faulted for an excessive
    degree of circumlocution, which contributed to Dembski's misreading of their
    report. However, one would expect someone in Dembski's position to read the
    report very carefully, especially after he had been given the opportunity to
    retract his press release. Unfortunately, I think this is rather typical of
    ID proponents' tendency to read what they want to read, rather than what is
    actually written.

    Richard Wein (Tich)
    --------------------------------
    "Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
    probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
      -- W. A. Dembski, who has never presented any calculation to back up his
    claim to have detected Intelligent Design in life.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 27 2000 - 06:39:46 EDT