The Rise and Fall of Baylor University�s
Michael Polanyi Center
William A. Dembski
The following documents detail the rise and fall the
Baylor's Michael Polanyi Center (MPC). The documents are of mixed quality, with
plenty of chaff but also some gems (e.g., a letter by Antony Flew indicating
his willingness to defend the center�s academic freedom). Some material
presented here was not made public during the height of the controversy
surrounding the center, including the original planning document for the MPC
presented to the Baylor administration at their request (edited slightly for
clarity, but this is essentially what the administration signed off on) as well
as a crucial memo and summary from May 2000 that indicates the troubles facing
the MPC well before its dismantling in October of that year. There is a lot to
wade through. The documents are arranged in chronological order, not in order
of importance. The final entry, five years later than the others, is an
interview from the fall of 2005 and provides some additional backstory to the center�s
demise.
[Planning Document for the Michael
Polanyi Center]
PROPOSAL FOR
INTEGRATING SCIENCE AND FAITH
AT BAYLOR
UNIVERSITY
William A. Dembski
March 1999
Naturalism
currently dominates science, both in the secular and in the Christian academy.
According to naturalism, science is best practiced without reference to
anything "non-natural." Granted, science's proper object of study is
nature. Naturalism, however, assumes an impoverished view of nature that
artificially limits nature to brute material processes subject to no
intelligent guidance or control. The problem with naturalism is not that it
limits science to the study of nature, but with its hidden assumptions about the nature of nature. Is nature a
seamless causal web controlled solely by undirected natural processes--what
Jacques Monod called "chance and necessity"? Or do intelligent causes
also play a fundamental and ineliminable role within nature? Naturalism answers
Yes to the first question, No to the second.
So
long as naturalism dominates science, there is no possibility of integrating
science and faith. Christian theology has traditionally subscribed to two books
of revelation: the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature. By testifying to
the God who is their common author, both books were seen as mutually supporting
each other. Within naturalism, however, that mutual support is lost. A physical
world of undirected natural processes is incapable of reflecting the divine
wisdom. Within such a conception of nature, faith and science go their separate
ways. Thus, many scientists who are Christians but tacitly accept naturalism
end up living dual lives, one a private life of personal faith, the other a
scientific life indistinguishable from that of their atheistic colleagues.
The
key to integrating science and faith is an enriched conception of nature that
leaves room for intelligent causes. What has come to be known as
"intelligent design" is all about enriching our conception of nature.
Intelligent design holds that intelligent causes rather than undirected natural
causes best explain the complex, information-rich structures of nature. The
physical world contains events, objects, and structures that exhaust the
explanatory resources of undirected natural causes, and that can be adequately
explained only by recourse to a designing intelligence. This is not an argument
from ignorance. Precisely because of what is known about natural processes and
their limitations, science is now in a position to demonstrate design in nature
rigorously. At the same time, intelligent design resists speculating about the
nature, moral character, or purposes of this designing intelligence. In
particular, intelligent design presupposes neither a creator nor miracles. Intelligent design is not creationism.
Intelligent
design formalizes and makes precise something humans do all the time. All of us
are all the time engaged in a form of rational activity which, without being
tendentious, can be described as "inferring design." Inferring design
is a perfectly common and well-accepted human activity. People find it
important to identify events caused through the purposeful, premeditated action
of an intelligent agent, and to distinguish such events from events due to
natural causes. Intelligent design unpacks the logic of this everyday activity
and applies it within the special sciences. There is no magic, no vitalism, no
appeal to occult forces here. Inferring design is common, rational, and
objectifiable. It is therefore ideally suited for integrating science and faith
within the academy.
------
To
effectively integrate science and faith at Baylor University, I propose two
programs: A research institute at Baylor known as the Michael Polanyi Center for Complexity, Information, and Design (MPC) and a professional society
administered through the Michael Polanyi Center known as the International Society for Intelligent
Design (ISID) [After the MPC was
dissolved in October 2000, this society was formed independently of Baylor and
named the International Society for
Complexity, Information, and Design: www.iscid.org. --WmAD, 5.3.05]. I
envision the Michael Polanyi Center as a counterpart to the Santa Fe Institute
(www.santafe.edu). The Michael Polanyi Center would work in close association
with the Institute for Faith and Learning, and initially share office space,
staff, and resources. The two would, however, be separate entities because
intelligent design can be developed as a scientific theory in its own right and
because the scientific community is primarily interested in doing science
rather than in integrating science and faith.
The
Michael Polanyi Center would be named after Michael Polanyi. Polanyi was a
physical chemist who turned to philosophy to correct the distortions of the
materialist reductionism that infected science in the twentieth century. He was
one of the first thinkers to effectively challenge logical positivism. In the
1960s he wrote about life's irreducible structure and the problem of trying to
give a purely naturalistic account of biology. Polanyi was horrified at the
denigration of the creative spirit that followed even in democratic societies
from the tendency to see science as a purely naturalistic enterprise that filtered
out the personal element. He turned from chemistry to philosophy to show that
science as he knew it was inseparable from faith, inspiration, and freedom.
Polanyi will serve as a marvelous symbol for the integration of faith and
science.
The
Michael Polanyi Center will focus on "complexity, information, and
design." Complexity, information, and design are precisely those aspects
of science that naturalism tries to undercut and that are congenial to theism.
I am, for instance, to attend a workshop at the Santa Fe Institute this October
(1999) organized by the Templeton Foundation and Paul Davies titled
"Complexity, Information, and Design: An Appraisal." Topics to be
discussed at that workshop include "creativity in nature," "emergence
versus reduction," "the arrow of time," and "design in
physical systems." The Michael Polanyi Center will thus focus on precisely
those places where science and faith are in meaningful conversation.
The
Michael Polanyi Center will initially be a visiting
institute. Thus, besides support staff, the center will initially have no
permanent researchers who are not also Baylor faculty. This will keep the MPC
properly connected to the university community as well as keep a steady stream
of exciting visitors coming through its doors. Visitors will be invited for
talks, discussions, symposia, and conferences. Fellowships for extended periods
of research at the MPC will have to await separate funding.
To
build trust with the university community, the MPC will focus especially on
facilitating dialogue between proponents of naturalism and intelligent design.
The MPC will provide a non-threatening setting where proponents of diverse
views can candidly discuss their differences. Emphasizing dialogue will be
especially important in the early stages of the MPC to build trust with the
university community. We need at all costs to avoid the impression that the MPC
is a tool for proselytizing the Baylor community into some particular point of
view. The MPC will stress open and frank discussion, giving all academically
rigorous points of view a place at the table. [Looking back, this paragraph is
incredibly na�ve. The naturalists were out to kill the MPC as soon as they saw
what it was trying to accomplish. �WmAD, 5.3.05]
I
would like, for instance, to see a discussion in which Daniel Dennett and
Kenneth Miller (a Brown University biologist) take the naturalistic side,
Michael Behe and Paul Nelson take the design side, and they all discuss the
problem of accounting for the irreducible complexity of biochemical systems.
The discussion could take place over an entire day, with 45 minute talks by
each of the participants in the morning and then rebuttals in the afternoon,
with the entire discussion interlaced by Q&A from the university community
(hopefully well-represented by the biology department).
The
Michael Polanyi Center would also house the International Society for
Intelligent Design (ISID). The ISID would be a professional society for design
theorists. Intelligent design as an intellectual movement is rapidly gaining
credibility and momentum. Even so, the movement lacks coherence and its
advocates have no recognized forum for convening. The ISID would provide that
forum. I envision this organization as a web-driven entity with an annual
meeting. The MPC would administer its website and organize its annual
conference. Baylor housing the ISID would be equivalent to the University of
Delaware housing the American Philosophical Association.
The
MPC and the ISID will enhance each other. The ISID will provide a pool of
individuals that will benefit both Baylor and the MPC. From the ISID will come
(1) teachers who attend MPC teacher workshops; (2) high school and college
students who attend MPC summer workshops; and (3) potential undergraduate and
graduate students for Baylor degree programs. The ISID will enable the MPC to
keep its hand on the pulse of the intelligent design movement. At the same
time, the ISID will benefit by being at the center of the intelligent design
movement since the MPC should quickly become the premier place for intelligent
design research.
What
follows is a five-year plan for the MPC and ISID. I believe all these
projections are feasible:
Year 1, 1999-2000:
The Michael Polanyi
Center for Complexity, Information, and Design (MPC) as well as, International
Society for Intelligent Design (ISID) are both founded and begin operation fall
1999 at Baylor University. I direct both programs and have the title Visiting
Associate Research Professor in the Conceptual Foundations of Science at the
university. During this year I am a professor at large, though my natural
affinity will be with the philosophy department. The MPC shares support staff
with the Institute for Faith and Learning. The main expense for the MPC and
ISID is hiring a webmaster to oversee a state of the art website. I have no
teaching duties in the fall, but offer a weekly three-hour philosophy seminar
in the spring on "Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology."
I get no salary, but any expenses I incur for MPC/ISID are covered. Also, any
salary I would reasonably be paid will get used at my discretion for inviting
visitors to campus for talks, discussions, symposia, and conferences. Rob Koons
was able to put on a conference with over a hundred participants for around
$6,000 in February 1997 ("Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific
Enterprise"). I would like to see a steady stream of campus visitors
throughout the fall and spring, and a small conference represented by
naturalists and design theorists in the spring. [Instead, we had a full-blown
international conference titled The Nature of Nature; see below. �WmAD, 5.3.05]
The emphasis during this first year will be on building trust with the Baylor
community.
Year 2, 2000-2001:
A director of
program development is hired to raise money for the MPC (ideally we would be
able to hire such a person even the first year). The ISID, since it is
web-driven, pays for itself, especially since its overhead costs are covered by
the MPC. The MPC, however, needs to develop into a full-fledged research
institute, with post-doctoral fellows, visiting fellows, and permanent fellows.
Special room needs to be left for visiting fellows drawn from Baylor
faculty--this will build goodwill with the campus community. I continue this
year to be a professor at large living in Dallas and commuting once or twice a
week to Baylor. Visitors continue to stream through the MPC. Also, December of
2000 the ISID holds the first of its annual conferences at Baylor. Organizing
this conference and publishing the conference proceedings will take much of my
time this year. The emphasis during this year will be showcasing the MPC as an
example of science-faith integration. Especially with an ISID international
conference on intelligent design, Baylor should get plenty of media coverage.
[Comment: I began a five and a half year contract on salary with Baylor in
February 2000, thus speeding up the timetable. This was possible through a
$100,000 Templeton grant that I was awarded in the fall of 1999. My family and
I moved to the Waco area summer 2000. �WmAD, 5.3.05]
Year 3, 2001-2002:
I move to Waco from
Dallas and become Associate Research Professor in the Conceptual Foundations of
Science, with joint appointments in mathematics and philosophy, though my
primary affiliation is in the philosophy department. I divide my time between
teaching in the philosophy department and overseeing the MPC. The MPC hires its
first permanent fellow, who becomes associate director of ISID and assumes the
primary responsibility of running the ISID (perhaps Charles Thaxton, a physical
chemist, who would be terrific to have on campus for doing faith-science
integration; cf. his book with Nancy Pearcey, The Soul of Science). The MPC continues to have a steady stream of
visitors, but also is able to fund several postdoctoral fellows as well as
several Baylor faculty for release time from teaching. Finally, Baylor is able
to hire a major design theorist (ideally Michael Behe) as a Distinguished
Research Professor. In addition to holding an appointment in one of the science
departments, this professor will also be a permanent fellow of the MPC.
Years 4 and 5, 2002-2004:
The MPC starts
building a full research and conference center, with offices for fellows,
seminar rooms, library, state of the art computers and communications, etc. The
MPC's fellowship program is now in full-swing. Baylor science faculty are
persuaded that the MPC is an exciting addition to the university even if they
still don't fully accept its conclusions. Baylor hires several additional
University/Distinguished Professors who are scientists and not afraid to be
associated with the MPC. ISID continues to gain membership. ISID members attend
summer workshops organized by the MPC. The MPC achieves international acclaim
as a model of how to do faith-science integration. [Well, that was the dream.
Not much left of it at Baylor. �WmAD, 5.3.05]
The Michael Polanyi Center
[From the original MPC website--set up December 1999;
�removed November 2000 when the center
was closed.]
The Michael Polanyi Center derives its name from the
physical chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi (1891-1976). Polanyi was a
world-class physical chemist who turned to philosophy at the height of his
scientific career because he was dismayed at the abuses and restrictions that
materialist philosophy, especially in its Marxist guise, was inflicting on
scientific research. The influential approach to the philosophy of science he
articulated in response to this crisis was thoroughly non-reductive in
character. He illustrated how philosophical, religious, psychological,
sociological, and scientific concerns interact to affect each other's
development, arguing that each perspective is essential and that none can be
reduced to any other. Polanyi extended this multi-leveled analysis into his
discussion of complexity in nature, arguing, for example, that the sort of
complexity exhibited in biology could never be reduced to the laws of physics
and chemistry. The information content of a biological whole exceeds that of
the sum of its parts. His concern for the unhealthy effects of philosophical
naturalism in science, his recognition that reductionism as a universal
strategy in the sciences must fail, and his emphasis on the need for multiple
levels in the understanding of any phenomenon, make Michael Polanyi the ideal
representative for the center that bears his name.
The Michael Polanyi Center (MPC) seeks to develop a
scientifically responsible design-theoretic alternative to the non-telic
approaches that currently dominate complex systems theory, thereby promoting
awareness of the ways naturalism and reductionism constrain both theory and
methodology in contemporary science. This goal is pursued through both research
and education. The scientific research of the MPC focuses on the development
and outworking of models in the physical, biological, and social sciences that
recognize the irreducible character of various classes of information-theoretic
structures. This research challenges the dominance of naturalism as the
philosophical matrix for scientific practice, and raises important questions in
the conceptual foundations of science. As a consequence, the MPC is concerned
to study how science, philosophy, and religion interact and influence each
other, and the effects this has on the culture at large. Knowledge of this
research is disseminated to the academic community through the publication of
books and articles in technical journals, as well as through the organization
of a variety of academic meetings and seminars. Areas of special interest
include the history and philosophy of science, information and complexity
theory as a framework for scientific research, and the interactions among
science, religion, and culture. The significance of the MPC's research and
educational efforts are communicated more broadly through articles and books
aimed at a popular audience, and through workshops for lay audiences and
pre-college students.
The Nature of Nature
[announced January 2000]
An Interdisciplinary Conference on the Role of Naturalism
in Science
Dates: April 12-15, 2000
Place: Baylor University
OVERVIEW: Is the universe self-contained or does it require something
beyond itself to explain its existence and internal function? Philosophical
naturalism takes the universe to be self-contained, and it is widely
presupposed throughout science. Even so, the idea that nature points beyond
itself has recently been reformulated with respect to a number of issues.
Consciousness, the origin of life, the unreasonable effectiveness of
mathematics at modeling the physical world, and the fine-tuning of universal
constants are just a few of the problems that critics have claimed are
incapable of purely naturalistic explanation. Do such assertions constitute
arguments from incredulity -- an unwarranted appeal to ignorance? If not, is
the explanation of such phenomena beyond the pale of science? Is it, perhaps,
possible to offer cogent philosophical and even scientific arguments that
nature does point beyond itself? The aim of this conference is to examine such
questions.
Presidential perspective
President Robert B. Sloan Jr. speaks on Christian higher
education and the university's place in it.
http://www3.baylor.edu/Lariat/Archives/2000/20000420/art-front01.html
March 27, 2000
Lariat Commentary: Baylor has long been the focus of
criticism for its insistence on maintaining a strong Christian element in an
academic environment. Most recently, controversy surrounding the Michael
Polanyi Center, intended to study creationism or intelligent design theory, has
left the administration stinging from charges that they are pursuing
pseudo-science, based more on religious convictions than scientific reality.
President Robert B. Sloan Jr. has met his critics head-on, continuing to push
his vision for a blending of faith and learning. The following is a transcript
of a March 27 interview with Sloan about this vision and his response to
critics. It has been edited for space. As a private, Christian institution,
does Baylor have a unique role in higher education? What is that role?
In the 20th century we have seen a decline in religiously
oriented, church-related institutions of higher learning and I think,
therefore, that Baylor has both an opportunity and responsibility to attempt to
understand the implication for higher education of the Christian confession
that Jesus Christ is Lord.
I think the Christian faith is a great historical, theological,
moral, spiritual and intellectual tradition. It is complex and varied, but it
is not anything you want to make it. There are core convictions and there is
something that can be called Christian conviction. Baylor is an institution
that grew up out of Christian conviction, particularly Baptist Christian
conviction. While the world has changed enormously in the last 155 years in
terms of industry, technology, world wars, nations, politics and teaching, and
Baylor must stay attuned to all of those, nonetheless there is a Christian
tradition and we must seek to provide the finest possible educational
experience for our students within the world view, intellectual framework and
nurturing environment of Christian faith.
You spoke both of a Christian tradition and a Baptist
tradition. Is Baylor replacing its Baptist identification with a Christian
identification?
We are not replacing our Baptist identification with a
Christian identification. Being a Baptist is a subset of being a Christian. If
you're not Christian you can't be a Baptist. Unfortunately I think there are
some people who extract Baptist principles from the historic Christian faith or
extract Baptist politics from the epic of the historic Christian faith. That of
course is a social and spiritual tragedy, but that is not the way it should be.
First of all, to be a Baptist means to be a Christian. That
doesn't mean that every student has to be a Baptist, or every professor or
every staff member. Obviously not. But I do think it means we retain a vital
connection to the particular voice and nuances of the Christian faith which
Baptists have historically brought to the conversation.
I think it's important for us to maintain a critical mass of
Baptist students and faculty and staff, but I think in fact it would be a
mistake if everyone here were Baptist because I think we need the enriching
experience of other faith traditions to keep Baylor vital and thoughtful.
Generic Christianity is more easily described in the abstract, but I'm not sure
it really exists. Every confession of faith occurs within a sociological and
social context, and therefore every confession that Jesus Christ is Lord is
going to be made within the framework of some sort of intellectual and
ecclesiastical tradition.
I think it's important for Baylor to maintain its Baptist
connectivity, but at the same time it's not either/or. It's very important for
Baptists to understand they're located within the larger framework of the church.
The Christian faith is larger than Baptists. The church is larger than the
Baptist voice, but the Baptist voice is still important.
You've been accused of being too conservative and too
liberal, too fundamentalist and too reformist. How do you see yourself?
I see myself as a Christian deeply committed to higher
education and the importance of the Christian intellectual tradition as a force
that shapes minds and shapes life. I see absolutely no contradiction between
intellectual rigor and academic excellence on the one hand and a sincere,
unapologetic Christian commitment on the other. I think higher education in
America needs a distinctive Christian voice. There are Christian schools, I'm
not saying we're the last one, but I think we are--on the Protestant side of
Christiandom--we are the only major, comprehensive university that comes to
mind that still pursues vigorously an agenda that seeks to integrate faith and
learning. For the sake of diversity in American higher education, our voice is
important.
What exactly do you mean when you talk about the
integration of faith and learning?
It's a shorthand phrase. It can mean a lot of different
things. First, when I say faith I am talking about a Christian faith, although
I do think it is important for Christians to understand and appreciate the
Jewish faith because the Jewish faith is the mother of the Christian faith.
I have an assumption that truth is one. I believe in the
unity of truth. Not that we fully know the truth, of course not, but I believe
while we have not yet in any measure filled in the gaps and never will, I
believe in the unity of truth. So that whether one enters this great field of
truth as a physicist or a theologian, a musician or an athlete, if you think
about life, ultimately the great truths of the empirical world and the great
truths of the philosophical world cohere and are consistent with one another.
If the Christian faith is true, then the truths of the Christian faith are
consistent with what can be learned about the world from any other vantage
point.
When we talk about the integration of faith and learning we
are simply saying that if, from that artificial discipline of Chemistry, (for
example) we look into this great multidimensional thing called truth, and the
artificial discipline of Theology does the same, I think ultimately, even
though they may come at this great thing called the truth at different angles
and from far apart, that in their deepest structures, if we knew all that we
could know, we would say, "Ah, they really do cohere. They fit."
This integration between faith and learning, some critics
have referred to it as dangerous in a university setting because it replaces
objectivity in an unbiased pursuit of the truth with subjectivity in
approaching truth from a pre-designated viewpoint.
Well, it's very na�ve for anyone to say that he or she has
an objective point of view. I challenge the assumption from the word go. Anyone
who claims objectivity has assumed the stability of the environment and the
stability of his or her senses. He or she has assumed something about an order
to things. He or she has made assumptions about reasonableness and the nature
of reality. He or she has made assumptions about the orderliness of reality and
how when things are objectively observed this can be written up and replicated
by others. There are many assumptions that are at work there, and so it's
philosophically very na�ve for anyone to say that if you've got a perspective,
therefore your work is somehow tainted. Everyone has a perspective.
I think there is nothing more dangerous, frankly, than
someone who would try to assume that he or she has no assumptions, that he or
she has achieved objectivity because that's when, under the guise of
objectivity, great harm is done. People under the guise of objectivity as well
as under the guise of ideological perspective have done great harm in the
world. We all have a perspective. Part of being human is this ability to
reflect and to ask ourselves questions, to have this self-reflective capacity.
So it's not do I have assumptions, but can I reflect upon these assumptions and
can I seek to see that these assumptions do not blind me to all of reality and
to what all is going on.
Barbara Forrest's Letter to Simon Blackburn
From: Barbara Forrest
To: Simon Blackburn [invited speaker to Nature of Nature conference]
Date: March 2000
This letter concerns the
conference, "The Nature of Nature," hosted by the Michael Polanyi Center
at Baylor University, which you will be attending in April. The title of this
conference and the list of participants conceal the fact that the Polanyi
Center is the most recent offspring of the creationist movement, the agenda of
which is the destruction of evolutionary theory as the central principle of
biology.
Even though I think that the
participation--witting or unwitting--of reputable scholars in the Baylor
conference plays into the hands of Dembski, Gordon, and the CRSC in that it
lends them an undeserved academic legitimacy, I am not trying to dissuade you
from going because I have no right to do that. You are already committed. I do,
however, believe you have a right to know the nature of the atmosphere into
which you are walking.
The director of the MPC is William
Dembski, and the associate director is Bruce Gordon. Although they insist on
calling their brand of creationism "intelligent design theory," its
true nature is evident to anyone who has followed the development of creationism.
For a thorough examination of creationism, including intelligent design, I
refer you to Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism
(MIT Press, 1999), an excellent book by a fellow philosopher, Prof. Robert
Pennock of The College of New Jersey. Prof. Pennock critiques the work of
Dembski, as well as the intelligent design movement as a whole.
Both Dembski and Gordon are members
of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, the creationist arm of
the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank in Seattle. It is
significant that the CRSC recently received $1.5 million from wealthy
businessman Howard Ahmanson. See Walter Olson's article at
http://www.reason.com/9901/co.wo.darkbedfellows.html. For over twenty years,
Ahmanson has served on the board of Chalcedon, Inc., an extremist Christian
organization run by R.J. Rushdoony. See Jerry Sloan's article, "The Man
Behind Knight" at
http://www.frontiersweb.com/sfv18iss21/Pages/feat_1.html. You can view the CRSC
site from the Discovery Institute page at http://www.discovery.org. The page
has an announcement about the Baylor conference and other activities in which
Dembski is participating. You will find links to CRSC articles, including
Dembski's.
The establishment of the Polanyi
Center at Baylor has aroused the anger of Baylor science faculty since it was
accomplished with no prior knowledge or input from them. However, the faculty's
anger stems primarily from their recognition that this organization and its
founders, Dembski and Gordon, are creationists with a religious/political
agenda, and they fear that the prominence and influence of such creationists at
Baylor will severely damage the good reputation the faculty has worked so hard
to build there. In fact, the faculty senate at Baylor scheduled this matter at
the top of its agenda for its March 2 meeting with Baylor University President
Robert Sloan. The first two questions on the agenda, addressed directly to
Sloan, were these:
1. By creating the Polanyi Center
has Baylor not institutionalized the propagation of a position, Intelligent
Design Creationism, which is contrary to the prevailing assumptions of the
majority of the world's scientists, specifically the scientific commitment to
methodological naturalism? Arguing for a controversial position is one thing,
but institutionalizing it is another. Moreover, that those associated with the
center are described by their own colleagues outside of Baylor as part of a
"new generation of creationists" constituting a "coalition to
bring down evolution" is creating serious problems for the reputation of
Baylor's science and pre-medical programs? It is the belief of some of us that
the center was established by the administration without an awareness of these
implications, and it is the hope of others of us that you will step in and
preserve the integrity of the university and its science programs. Please
comment?
2. Since the establishment of an
institution such as the Polanyi Center has far-reaching implications for areas
of the university such as the biology and psychology departments, shouldn't
faculty members from those departments be consulted when such an institution is
being considered?
Some history leading up to the
Baylor conference:
In 1996, Phillip Johnson, a law
professor at Berkeley who has taken it upon himself to cleanse American
education and culture of "naturalistic evolution," initiated a
conference at Biola University called the "Mere Creation" Conference.
Johnson recruited Dembski and a host of others to help him do this. Dembski was
one of the most active organizers of this conference. You can find a 1996
article about the conference at
http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/11-30-96/national_2.asp. You can also view
the web site for the Mere Creation conference at http://www.origins.org/mc/menus/index.html.
Please follow the links to the off-site web pages as well. The nature of
intelligent design as "mere creationism" is unmistakable.
If you go to Dembski's
"virtual office" at "Leadership University," sponsored by
the Christian Leadership Ministries, you can see Dembski's list of the most
important creationist books in the movement, "The Intelligent Design
Movement: A Brief Catalog of Resources," at
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/menus/reso.html. Among them is Of Pandas
and People, which creationists around the country have tried to get local
school boards to adopt in public school science classes and which Dembski has
defended as a legitimate science text. You can read the National Center for
Science Education's analysis of Pandas at
http://www.natcenscied.org/mianal.htm#pandas. I have also attached a critique
of this book by Dr. Gary Bennett of Idaho, who recently spoke to Idaho
legislators, urging them not to adopt this anti-evolution text. You can also
see at http://www.aclu.org/news/n100298a.html an ACLU press release regarding
the use of this book by Roger DeHart, a public school teacher in Burlington,
WA, where a full-fledged fight against creationism has developed and is ongoing
at this moment. According to the Burlington-Edison Committee for Science
Education, several CRSC members have become involved in the controversy there
on the pro-creationist side. Dembski recently traveled to the University of
Washington to promote his latest book. While there, he conducted a book-signing
to help Skagit Parents for Scientific Proof in Education, a parents group
working on DeHart's behalf. See
http://www.skagitvalleyherald.com/daily/00/february/08/a3creation.html.
Reflecting its agenda of getting
intelligent design creationism into American schools, the CRSC recently added
to its web site intelligent design lesson plans for teachers. Until sometime
near the end of February, they could be viewed at
http://www.discovery.org/crsc/scied/evol.index.html.Now, however, the CRSC has
restricted public access to them and they are in a "Secured Administration
Area" requiring a name and password. I have found nothing else on the CRSC
site which requires this. The reason is obvious: restricted access prevents the
lesson plans, which are unconstitutional, from being scrutinized and evaluated,
and it allows the CRSC to know who is getting them. You can, however, see the
CRSC document, written by Gonzaga law professor and CRSC member David DeWolf,
outlining the legal aspects of trying to get ID into public schools, at
http://www.discovery.org/crsc/articles/TeachingTheOriginsControve.html. The ID
creationists are looking for loopholes in Edwards v. Aguillard, a 1987 Supreme
Court ruling on a case which originated in my state of Louisiana and which
outlawed creationism in public schools.
The agenda of the intelligent
design movement is spelled out in a CRSC document which surfaced last year and
is commonly referred to as the "wedge document" because of its
enunciation of the creationists' "wedge strategy," the brainchild of
Phillip Johnson, who has spoken openly about this strategy. This document
outlines the intelligent design movement agenda from 1999-2003. My analysis of
CRSC's planned activities as stated in the document shows that they are
systematically enacting every part of their agenda except the only one which
would gain them the legitimacy they so crave: the production of scientific
research using their "theistic science." As I stated earlier,
Johnson, Dembski, and their associates have assumed the task of destroying
"Darwinism," "evolutionary naturalism," "scientific
materialism," "methodological naturalism," "philosophical
naturalism," and other "isms" they use as synonyms for
evolution. (You can see Dembski's articles on a creationist web site,
"Access Research Network," at http://www.arn.org/dembski/wdhome.htm.
One of them is "Teaching Intelligent Design as Religion or Science?")
The wedge document is available at http://www.humanist.net/skeptical/wedge.html
and also at http://www.infidels.org/org/aha/skeptical/wedge.html. You can also
find an article on the wedge strategy written by Jim Still, manager of the
Internet Infidels web site, at
http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/wedge.html. Another article
written on the wedge document at the time it surfaced is at
http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/archive/thomas_wedge.html. This was done by
Keith Lankford, past president of the Sagan Society at the University of
Georgia.
The wedge document specifically
includes as one of its goals the following: "[W]e will move toward direct
confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge
conferences in significant academic settings.... The attention, publicity, and
influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate
with design theorists, and we will be ready." So the plan of the ID
proponents is to lure legitimate, respected scholars into conferences they
organize. Not only have they managed to "wedge" themselves into the
"significant academic setting" of Baylor, but the MPC web site shows
that they have long-term plans there.
Very important with respect to the
MPC and the Baylor conference is an article on intelligent design's move into the
higher education mainstream (which is the purpose of the newly established
Polanyi Center) at http://www.natcenscied.org/scot171.htm. This was written by
Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in
Berkeley, CA. And at http://www.au.org/cs4995.htm is an article by Americans
United for the Separation of Church and State in which Johnson asserts that the
wedge strategy "enables us to get a foothold in the academic world and the
academic journals. You have to prepare minds to hear the truth. You can't do it
all at once." This remark in itself explains the reason for the
establishment of the MPC at Baylor and the naturalism conference you will be
attending.
It is interesting to note the
following information about the Baylor conference listings as they appear to
date on the Polanyi Center web site at http://www.baylor.edu/~polanyi. Of the
31 confirmed participants, at least 10 appear to be part of Dembski's network
of creationists. Of these 10, 7 are members of the Center for the Renewal of
Science and Culture. Of the 11 plenary sessions, 8 have participants who are
creationists (not always as presenters, but with some serving as moderators).
The only plenary sessions without creationists participating in some way are
the one hosted by Stuart Rosenbaum (a Baylor philosopher), the one in which
Simon Conway Morris is listed as the sole speaker, and the last session, for
which the moderator is still to be announced.
A similar conference was held in
1997 at the University of Texas-Austin, organized by Robert Koons, a philosophy
professor and also a CRSC member. The title was, like that of the Baylor
conference, academically innocuous: "Naturalism, Theism, and the
Scientific Enterprise." See Koons' web site at http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/main.html/,
which has a link to information about this conference. You can read Koons'
assessment of the conference at http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9701/koons2.html.
However, Koons' assertion of the high degree of consensus reached on the
feasibility of and need for "theistic science" was not shared by all
attendees. Legitimate scholars and students sent papers, only to find after
they arrived that they had been lured into an event dominated by creationists
and clearly organized as a platform for them.
I know several people who attended
the UT conference in 1997. I have asked one of them, Wesley Elsberry, to attest
to its nature. You may contact him at welsberr@inia.cls.org. Wesley is one of
the most knowledgeable people in the country about the intelligent design
movement and has extensively critiqued Dembski's work, as has philosopher
Elliot Sober. You will find Wesley's writings, and a link to Sober's, at
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/ae/dembski_wa.html.
Cordially,
Barbara Forrest, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Department of History and Political Science
Southeastern Louisiana University
Baylor's Polanyi Center to Host Inaugural Naturalism
Conference
April 06, 2000
by LoAna Lopez
Baylor University's Michael Polanyi Center -- part of the Institute for Faith
and Learning -- will host its inaugural naturalism conference April 12-15 on
the Baylor campus. The conference is titled "The Nature of Nature: An
Interdisciplinary Conference on the Role of Naturalism in Science."
Horace Freeland Judson, director of the Center for History of Recent Science
and research professor of history at George Washington University, is the
featured speaker for Friday night's banquet lecture. Judson, whose topic is
"Speculations about Conceptual Blocks," is best known for his book
The Eighth Day of Creation, a history of molecular biology and its makers from
its origins to the early 1970s.
Other scheduled speakers include: Steven Weinberg, the Josey Regental Chair of
Science at the University of Texas at Austin, and winner of the 1979 Nobel
Prize in physics and the 1991 National Medal of Science; and Christian de Duve,
founder and director of the Christian de Duve Institute of Cellular Pathology,
whose discovery of lysosomes and peroxisomes earned him the 1974 Nobel Prize in
physiology or medicine. He also is a professor emeritus at the Universit�
Catholique de Louvain in Belgium and Rockefeller University in New York.
Among the topics to be discussed are: "Neurogenesis and Being a
Person," Howard M. Ducharme, department chair of philosophy at the
University of Akron; "Thomistic Natural Law as Darwinian Natural
Right," Larry Arnhart, professor of political science at Northern Illinois
University; and "The Incompatibility of Naturalism and Scientific
Realism," Robert C. Koons, associate professor of philosophy at the
University of Texas at Austin.
The Nature of Nature conference registration fee is $105 for the general public
and $65 for non-Baylor students. For those who wish to attend the conference on
either Thursday, Friday or Saturday, the cost is $35 for the general public and
$20 for non-Baylor students. Wednesday evening's session is $20 for the general
public and $10 for non-Baylor students. With the exception of the banquet
lecture Friday evening, Baylor students, faculty and staff may attend the
conference without charge.
The Michael Polanyi Center was established in 1999 as an interdisciplinary
research and educational initiative focused on advancing the understanding of
science. Its purpose is to support and pursue research in the history and
conceptual foundations of the natural and social sciences; study the impact of
contemporary science on the humanities and the arts; be an active participant
in the growing dialogue between science and religion; and pursue the
mathematical development and empirical application of design-theoretic concepts
in the natural sciences.
Michael Polanyi (1891-1976) was a world-class physical chemist who turned to
philosophy at the height of his scientific career because he was dismayed at
the abuses and restrictions that materialist philosophy was inflicting on
scientific research. He illustrated how philosophical, religious,
psychological, sociological and scientific concerns interact to affect each
other's development. Polanyi also realized the need for significant dialogue
between science and religion.
For more information about the conference, contact the Institute for Faith and
Learning at 710-4805, or visit the Michael Polanyi Center website at
http://www.baylor.edu/~polanyi/ .
--30--
BU science-religion center draws critics
Polanyi Center's views may hurt department reputations,
some fear
by Blair Martin
The Baylor Lariat
April 6, 2000
http://www3.baylor.edu/Lariat/Archives/2000/20000406/art-front01.html
Baylor's Michael Polanyi Center, a new center devoted to the
study of science and religion, is hosting a conference, "The Nature of
Nature," Wednesday at various campus buildings. Because of the center's
controversial views, faculty will be watching closely.
"The purpose of the conference is for the scientists,
philosophers, historians and theists to get together and talk about the
complexity in nature in relation to scientific and philosophical religious
concerns," said Dr. Bruce Gordon, associate director of the Michael
Polanyi Center.
The Polanyi center sees itself as creating a dialogue
connecting religion with the sciences.
"We see science and religion as complementary ways of
looking at the earth because they have mutual relevance to each other,"
Gordon said. "I think they contribute to a more completely adequate
understanding of the world and in order for us to derive to that state, we must
take into account the relationship of science and religion and find harmony in
between."
However, many professors in Baylor's arts and science
departments are alarmed that the center's rhetoric will generate negative
publicity that could harm the reputations of their departments.
"I am concerned as a science professor because
something involving the sciences occurred without us [faculty] knowing about
it," said Dr. Joe Yelderman, a geology professor.
Yelderman said he was not aware the center existed until
after looking on Baylor's Web site and finding that the Polanyi Center stated
that it was involved in the natural sciences.
"As a professor, I am concerned that people will make
us guilty by association and assume that we are associated with or linked to
this organization that is very well established as a pseudo-science rather than
science," Yelderman said.
Dr. Charles Weaver, associate professor of psychology and
neuroscience, agrees that the new center may jeopardize the integrity of Baylor
science degrees.
"Historically, Baylor has been successful in attracting
potential pre-med students and accomplished faculty," Weaver said.
"But, if I'm a potential physician, I am not going to a school that has
questions about scientific integrity."
In response, Gordon attributes much of the debate as a
misunderstanding of the intended purpose of the center.
"I think the science faculty has been concerned that we
might be infringing on their area of expertise," Gordon said. "What
we are doing is merely asking the question of whether there are empirical means
in nature. The significance of that, of course, is not a scientific question;
it needs to be evaluated from the perspective of philosophy and theology."
Gordon said he thinks the conference will serve as evidence
of the center's good faith and the legitimate nature of its research. He
invited faculty to attend a session they find interesting.
Though Yelderman and Weaver agree that the conference will
be a good test for the Polanyi center, they do not plan to attend because of
time constraints and the belief that the conference's approach to science is
unproductive.
"One of the many problems that many of us scientists
have is that it is very time-consuming to discuss our views," Yelderman
said. "That is not the productive end of science. I would rather
experience science, through my students or in my own research, than just talk
about it."
Weaver said he will not attend because his colleagues' input
is not encouraged.
"We are asked to observe, but our input has never been
asked for," he said.
The Michael Polanyi Center, established in October 1999,
consists of two people, director William Dembski, mathematician and
philosopher, and associate-director Gordon, philosopher of physics.
The concept for creating such a center was sparked after Dr.
Michael Beatty, director of the Institute of Faith and Learning and philosophy
professor, and Dr. Donald Schmeltekopf, provost and vice-president of academic
affairs, read the articles of director William Dembski.
They approached Dembski with the idea of creating a research
center that would be a component of the Institute of Faith and Learning.
Named after Michael Polanyi, a physical chemist who studied
the interaction of science, philosophy and religion in the 1930s, the center is
affiliated with Baylor's Institute of Faith and Learning. It was established as
a research initiative, focused on advancing the understanding of science, and
exploring the interaction between science and religion.
Speakers from many disciplines, such as philosophy, theology
and biology, plan to attend the event, including two Nobel Laureates,
theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg of University of Texas in Austin and
biochemist Christian de Duve of the Universite Catholique de Louvian in
Belgium.
Guest speakers will discuss topics such as the origins of
life and consciousness, the fine-tuning of physical constants, the
effectiveness of mathematics at modeling the physical world and the role of
naturalism in the history of science.
A pre-conference lecture will begin 3:30 p.m. Wednesday in
the Cashion Academic Center.
Opening remarks will begin the conference at 7p.m. in
Cashion.
Professors debate legitimacy of Polanyi
Outgoing prof says Sloan is discouraging comment on issue
by Blair Martin
The Baylor Lariat
April 12, 2000
http://www3.baylor.edu/Lariat/Archives/2000/20000412/art-front01.html
When the Michael Polanyi Center was quietly established on
the Baylor campus last fall, few people knew of its existence or how much
controversy it would foster.
A debate over the reputation of Baylor as a university has
erupted among the teachers and administrators, concerning the establishment of
the center as a campus institute.
That debate intensified Tuesday, when an outgoing Baylor
professor said President Robert Sloan is intimidating faculty into not
commenting on the controversy.
"Faculty are not speaking out because Sloan can make
their lives miserable," Dr. Lewis Barker, psychology and neuroscience
professor, said. "They don't speak out for fear of their salaries and of
being singled out by administration.
"I know you can't get many faculty responses, but the
ones you have represent the majority of the faculty. The others are just too
scared to speak out and want to hold on to their jobs."
The Polanyi Center -- which studies creationism or the
intelligent design of nature, depending on the point of view taken-- is drawing
criticism and support as it opens its Nature of Nature conference today.
The Michael Polanyi Center consists of two people: director
William Dembski and associate director Bruce Gordon.
A committee has been established to evaluate the center's
influence on Baylor's reputation.
At an arts and science faculty meeting in March, Dean
Wallace Daniel told faculty members that he had heard "many strong
concerns" relating to the center and that he, Dr. Donald Schmeltekopf,
provost and vice president for academic affairs, and Dr. Keith Hartberg,
biology chairman, would work to put the committee together. Schmeltekopf was out
of town Tuesday and could not be reached for comment, despite several messages
left for him this week.
Barker said there has been "unanimous consent that the
Polanyi Center is detrimental to Baylor's science department."
Barker, who has taught at Baylor since 1972, is leaving
Baylor to take a position as chairman of the psychology department at Auburn
University. Barker is concerned with the center's promotion of creationism as a
legitimate science and how it could potentially taint the integrity of
students' degrees from Baylor.
Barker said President Sloan refuses to listen to the science
departments' concerns.
"My best guess is that as long as President Sloan wants
the Polanyi Center here, it will stay here," Barker said. "And it
will continue to do what it wants, no matter what concerns the faculty have.
"The major concern of faculty is not that the Polanyi
Center can do anything, but that Baylor's entire realm of science can be
brought under suspicion."
Sloan is returning from out of town today and could not be
reached for comment Tuesday. Messages were left at Sloan's office and at his
home.
Dr. Joe Yelderman, a geology professor, agrees that the
Polanyi Center could generate negative publicity that could harm the reputation
of his department.
"As a professor, I am concerned that people will make
us guilty by association and assume that we are associated or linked to these
organizations that have been established as psuedo-science," Yelderman
said.
Barker's colleague in psychology and neuroscience, Dr.
Charles Weaver, associate professor, also worries about Baylor's reputation.
"Those of us who work really hard at trying to keep our
reputations as uncompromised as scientists, find this frustrating to deal
with," Weaver said.
According to Barker, the major concern of the faculty is the
attempt by the Polanyi Center to use science to prove religion.
He told the Waco Tribune Herald in a Monday article, "I
really don't want someone to say, as Dembski does, that he can prove the
existence of God using statistical formulas. The problem with that is that if
you disprove his argument, you prove there's no God."
Dr. Michael Beatty, director of the Institute of Faith and
Learning and philosophy professor, disagrees with Barker. He believes that the
Polanyi Center will enhance the academic quality of Baylor's science degrees
and serve as an aid to the sciences.
"The purpose of the center is to help foster reflection
and conversation between religion and the historical and philosophical nature
of science," Beatty said. "The science department should know that
there is no real danger, because it is not a religious center, nor a science
center."
Gordon regards the debate between the departments as a
"misunderstanding."
"I think the worries that have been expressed about the
Polanyi Center are a misunderstanding as to what we are actually trying to
do," Gordon said. "We are not creationists, we are merely asking
whether there are empirical means in nature."
Gordon said the center studies the intelligent design of
nature through various techniques in mathematics, such as probability,
complexity, and information theories, the center can develop a method to detect
signs and see if they can be applied to other structures, such as cosmological
or biological forms.
Dr. Charles Garner, chemistry associate professor, agrees
that there is a misunderstanding.
"The Polanyi Center's not talking about explaining God,
it is simply talking about explaining its observations," Garner said.
"Maybe science professors should be a little more careful in finding out
what the center stands for."
However, Barker said he understands fully the nature of the
Polanyi Center.
"How many times do I have to listen to Gordon and
others tell us how much we do not understand?" Barker asked. "I
understand perfectly and am not in the minority. How is that we [science
faculty] can be all wrong and he [Gordon] be right?"
At the heart of the debate is the true definition of
science. Critics of the center believe that science should be able to pass the
test of peer review and should follow established criteria on whether to accept
or reject findings, regardless of the outcome.
Scientists must accept the possibility their research will
not produce expected results. Critics said they don't believe the center is
capable of accepting alternative explanations.
"One of the cornerstones of academic life is peer
review, you have people who will engage in debates on a level playing field and
whether we are right or wrong, the consensus of one's peers plays a great
role," Weaver said. "This, in my opinion, is out of that
context."
Yelderman is waiting for the center to produce scientific
works.
"There may be science involved, but I have not seen any
at this stage," Yelderman said. "Just because someone uses
mathematics or statistics, does not necessarily mean that it is science."
Garner disagrees with his colleagues and respects what the
Polanyi Center is trying to accomplish.
"I think the center is a good thing," Garner said.
"They are seeking out to answer some important and much need questions and
are going about it very professionally."
Garner thinks that the Polanyi Center will enhance Baylor's
science department.
"Science could never explain God, therefore God and
science are always excluded from each other," Garner said. "They
[Polanyi Center's researchers] are not talking about explaining God, they are
talking about explaining their observations."
According to Garner, the center is approaching the study of
evolution from a perspective that counters that of most scientists. He said the
center studies theistic evolution, which "uses the facts of evolution but
also involves God in the crucial points along the way." The alternative,
according to Garner, would be atheistic evolution that has "no dominance
by God, it is strictly the properties of chemistry and physics that can account
for all these things."
Baylor faculty are not the only ones troubled by
administration's decision.
Dr. Sahotra Sarkar, director of the history and philosophy
of science program at the University of Texas in Austin, agrees that Baylor's
faculty have a legitimate concern.
"I, for one, am extremely distressed by the decision of
the center not to involve scientists at Baylor in its activities," Sarkar
wrote in an email. "It almost seems that the center's staff have a fear of
genuine science."
Sarkar is a plenary lecturer at the Nature of Nature
conference. However, Sarkar will not pocket her speaking fees.
"In order to emphasize even further our distance from
the pseudo-creationist agenda of the Polanyi Center, some of us-including
me-are donating all or part of our honoraria to organizations that will promote
the study of evolution in our schools," Sarkar said. "We are
committed to a rational and scientific understanding of the world and our role
in it."
Another concern of the Baylor arts and science faculty are
the alternative science links, such as the Creationism Connection and Discovery
Institute, that now appear on or connect to the Polanyi web site.
"We now show up in a cohort of people that Baylor has
worked very hard at disassociating themselves with," Weaver said.
"So, my concern is partly how quickly word is going to get out and how
compromised it will make us look?"
Weaver considers the links "damning publicity" and
is fearful such implications could scare off potential faculty and promising
medical students.
Beatty understands their concern.
"I understand the science faculty's point of view
regarding the web sites," Beatty said. "It is understandable how the
center's interest is presented, or in this case, misrepresented."
Beatty said it was "regrettable that the net could be
used to misrepresent your work" but explains that "when you are on
the net, you are vulnerable to a lot of outside links and are unable to control
who links to you or how your work is perceived."
Gordon agrees with Beatty that such links are unfortunate.
In an interview with the Waco Tribune Herald, Gordon said,
"We have no control over who decides to link to our site. We do not
endorse a connection to those sites at all. They didn't ask our permission. It
would be better if they removed it, but we can't spend our time policing the
Internet."
THE NATURE OF NATURE:
An Interdisciplinary Conference on the Role of
Naturalism in Science
April 12-15, 2000
Is the universe self-contained or does it require something
beyond itself to explain its existence and internal function? Philosophical
naturalism takes the universe to be self-contained, and it is widely
presupposed throughout science. Even so, the idea that nature points beyond
itself has recently been reformulated with respect to a number of issues. Consciousness,
the origin of life, the unexpected effectiveness of mathematics at modeling the
physical world, and the fine-tuning of universal constants are just a few of
the problems that critics have claimed are incapable of purely naturalistic
explanation. Do such assertions constitute arguments from incredulity - an
unwarranted appeal to ignorance? If not, is the explanation of such phenomena
beyond the pale of science? Is it, perhaps, possible to offer cogent
philosophical and even scientific arguments that nature does point beyond
itself? The aim of this conference is to examine such questions.
SCHEDULE
The building location key for
the campus map, which will help you locate each of the sessions, is indicated
in parentheses opposite each session on the schedule below. You will find a map
of the campus in your conference packet. A brief description of each of the
talks is given along with a short biography of each of the plenary and
concurrent session speakers.
Bill Daniel Student Center
(BDSC)�����������������������������������������������������������������
Cashion Academic Center
(Cashion)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Fountain Mall���������������������������������������������������������������������
Miller Chapel
Memorial Residence Hall
Conference Registration and
Campus Information Table -- Cashion 5th Floor
Book Display -- Cashion 5th
Floor
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12
3:30, Pre-Conference Lecture:
The Herbert H. Reynolds
Lecture in the History and Philosophy of Science
Fifth Floor, Cashion Academic
Center
"Cloned Sheep, Headless
Frogs, Human Futures: Meanings for the New Biology"
Everett Mendelsohn, Professor
and Chair
Department of the History of
Science
Harvard University
5:30-6:45, Buffet Dinner --
Fountain Mall
7:00-7:15, Welcome and
Opening Remarks -- Cashion 510
Robert Sloan, President,
Baylor University
William Dembski, Director,
Michael Polanyi Center
7:15-9:45, Plenary Session:
The Nature of Nature, Cashion 510
���������������
Moderator: Alvin Plantinga,
University of Notre Dame
"The Incompatibility of
Naturalism and Scientific Realism"
--Robert Koons, Philosophy,
University of Texas, Austin
"Must Naturalists Be
Realists?"
--Michael Williams,
Philosophy, Northwestern University
"Are There Any Sound
Arguments for Supernaturalism?
--Michael Tooley, Philosophy,
University of Colorado, Boulder
THURSDAY, APRIL 13
8:00-10:00, Plenary Session: Are
Evolution and Naturalism���� Compatible?
-- Cashion 510
Moderator: Bruce Gordon,
Baylor University
"An Evolutionary
Argument Against Naturalism"
--Alvin Plantinga,
Philosophy, University of Notre Dame
"Naturalism
Undefeated"
--William Talbott,
Philosophy, University of Washington, Seattle
10:00-10:30, BREAK
10:30 -12:30,Plenary Session:
Naturalism and the History of Science -- Cashion 510
Moderator: Stuart Rosenbaum,
Baylor University
"Naturalistic
Explanation and 19th Century Biology"
--Everett Mendelsohn, History
of Science, Harvard University
"Science without God:
Natural Laws and Christian Beliefs"
--Ronald Numbers, History of
Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison
"Naturalism and Natural
Theology"
--Ernan McMullin, Philosophy
of Science, University of Notre Dame
12:30-1:30, LUNCH -- MRH
1:30-3:30, CONCURRENT
SESSIONS
Session 1, DEBATE: Is There
Direction and Purpose in Evolution?
"The Contingent Nature
of Evolution"
--Michael Shermer, Well-Known
Author, Editor of Skeptic Magazine
"The Direction of
Evolution"
--Robert Wright, Well-Known
Science Writer
Session 2, Miller Chapel
"Naturalism and the
Nature of Philosophy"
--David Yandell, Philosophy,
Loyola University, Chicago
"How Can God Do
Anything?"
--Evan Fales, Philosophy,
University of Iowa
�
Session 3, Cashion 101
"Application of
Mathematics, Naturalism, and Underdetermination"
--Otavio Bueno, Philosophy,
California State University, Fresno
"Can Naturalism in
Psychology Tolerate the Objectivity of Norms?"
--Terry Winant, Philosophy,
California State University, Fresno
"Naturalism and the
Problem of Consciousness"
--Todd Moody, Philosophy, St.
Joseph's University
Session 4, Cashion 102
"Scientific Analysis of
Paracelsus' Late Conceptualization of Remedy Underlines Pantheistic
Naturalism"
--B�atrice Anner,
Pharmacology, Geneva University Medical School, Switzerland
"The Social Construction
of Naturalism in 19th Century Debates about the Cambrian Explosion"
--Michael Keas, History of
Science, Oklahoma Baptist University
"A Conceptual Bridge
Between Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution"
--Robert DeHaan,
Developmental Psychology, University of Chicago (Retired)
Session 5, Cashion 105
"Solar Ultraviolet Radiation
is Finely Tuned to Enhance the Survival of Many Forms of Life"
--Forrest Mims III, Solar and
Atmospheric Physics, Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network
"Information, Entropy
and the Origin of Life"
--Walter Bradley, Mechanical
Engineering, Texas A&M University
"Does Quantum Theory
Pose a Problem for Naturalistic Metaphysics?"
--Bruce Gordon, Philosophy of
Science, Baylor University
"Natural Theology:
Cosmic Coincidences, Carbon, and Conundrums"
--Allen Utke, Chemistry,
University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh (Emeritus)
Session 6, Cashion 107
"The Nature of Nature: A
Perspective from Traditional Christianity"
--Rudolf Brun, Biology, Texas
Christian University
"Naturalism in New
Testament Studies"
--Jay Richards, Senior
Fellow, Discovery Institute
"An Evidentiary
Challenge to Naturalism: A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of
Remote Intercessory Prayer on Coronary Care Unit Patients"
--William Harris, Medicine,
University of Missouri, Kansas City
"The Impotence of the
Gap Argument"
--John Mark Reynolds,
Philosophy, Biola University
Session 7
"Is Natural Selection a
Biological Designer?"
--Paul Nelson, Philosophy of
Biology, Senior Research Fellow, Discovery Institute
"Junk DNA: A Case
History in the Interpretation and Reinterpretation of Data"
--Timothy Standish, Biology,
Andrews University
3:30-4:00, BREAK
4:00-6:00, Plenary Session:
Does Science Support Naturalism?
Moderator: Robert Koons,
University of Texas, Austin
"Naturalism as a
Non-Issue"
--Steven Weinberg, Theoretical
Physics, University of Texas, Austin
"Science and Theism:
Conflict or Coherence?"
-- Henry F. Schaeffer III,
Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia, Athens
6:00-7:30, DINNER -- Fountain
Mall
FRIDAY, APRIL 14
8:00-9:00, Plenary Session: Biological
Complexity I�� -- Cashion 510
"What's Inevitable in
Evolution?"
-- Simon Conway Morris,
Paleontology, University of Cambridge
���������������
9:00-9:30, BREAK
9:30-12:30, Plenary Session:
Biological Complexity II -- Cashion 510
Moderator: Simon Conway Morris,
University of Cambridge
"What Counts as Evidence
of Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design?"
--Michael Behe, Biochemistry,
Lehigh University
"Mysteries of Life: Is
There 'Something Else'?"
--Christian de Duve, Cytology
and Biochemistry, Universit� Catholique de Louvain, Belgium
"On the Evolvability of
Gene (and Other) Regulatory Systems"
--Mark Ptashne, Molecular
Biochemistry, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
12:30-1:30, LUNCH -- MRH
1:30-3:30, Plenary Session: The
Origin of Biological Information -- Cashion 510
Moderator: Horace Freeland
Judson, George Washington University
"DNA and the Origin of
Life: Information, Specification and Explanation"
--Stephen Meyer, Philosophy
of Science, Director, Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science
and Culture
"On the Emergence of
Semiotic Information in Macromolecular Systems"
--Sahotra Sarkar, Philosophy
of Biology, University of Texas, Austin
�
3:30-4:00, BREAK
4:00-6:0, Plenary Session:
Cosmology -- Cashion 510
Moderator: Robin Collins,
Messiah College
"How Well Can We
Understand Cosmology with the Principles of Physics?"
--Alan Guth, Theoretical
Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
"Cosmic Evolution as the
Manifestation of Divine Activity"
--Howard Van Till, Astronomy
and Physics, Calvin College
"Naturalism and the
Origin of the Universe"
--William Lane Craig,
Philosophy, Biola University
6:30 - 9:30, Conference
Banquet and Banquet Lecture -- Fountain Mall
Remarks by Donald
Schmeltekopf, Provost, Baylor University
"Speculations about
Conceptual Blocks"
--Prof. Horace Freeland
Judson, Director, Center for History of Recent Science, George Washington
University
SATURDAY, APRIL 15
8:00-10:00, Plenary Session: Naturalism
and Ethics -- Barfield Room, 2nd Floor BDSC
Moderator: J. Budziszewski,
University of Texas, Austin
"Naturalism's Incapacity
to Capture the Good Will"
--Dallas Willard, Philosophy,
University of Southern California
"Thomistic Natural Law
as Darwinian Natural Right"
--Larry Arnhart, Political
Science, Northern Illinois University
�
10:00-10:30, BREAK
10:30-12:30, Plenary Session:
Naturalism and the Barfield Room, 2nd Floor BDSC
�
Effectiveness of Mathematics ��������
Moderator: William Dembski,
Baylor University
"Effectiveness Without
Design: A Naturalist Philosophy of Mathematics"
--Edward Zalta, Senior
Research Scholar, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford
University
"The Unreasonable
Uncooperativeness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences "
--Mark Wilson, Philosophy of
Science, University of Pittsburgh
12:30-1:30, LUNCH -- MRH
1:30-3:30, CONCURRENT
SESSIONS
Session 1
"Evolutionary Naturalism
and the Reduction of Ethical Demand"
--John Hare, Philosophy,
Calvin College
"The Limits of Reductive
Materialism: Dualistic Theory in Recent Scientific Accounts of Human
Altruism"
--Jeffrey Schloss, Biology,
Westmont College
Session 2
"Can Evolutionary
Algorithms Generate Specified Complexity?"
--William Dembski,
Probability and Complexity Theory, Baylor University
"Can an Inflationary
Many-Universes Hypothesis Explain the Fine-Tuning?"
--Robin Collins, Philosophy
of Science, Messiah College
Session 3, Houston Room, BDSC
"Naturalism and Material
Objects"
--Michael Rea, Philosophy,
University of Deleware
"Teleology, Free Will,
and Materialism"
--Stewart Goetz, Philosophy,
Ursinus College
Session 4, Lipscomb Room,
BDSC
"Science and Naturalism:
Life Without Design, Purpose, and Meaning"
--Steven Schafersman,
Geology, University of Texas, Permian Basin
"The Design Inference:
Methodological Naturalism to the Rescue"
--Robert O'Connor,
Philosophy, Wheaton College
"Agency, Explanation,
and Evolution"
--Stephen Griffith,
Philosophy, Lycoming College
"Can Natural Law Lead Science
Beyond Naturalism?"
--Karl Stephan, Electrical
and Computer Engineering, University of Massachussetts, Amherst
Session 5, Claypool Room,
BDSC
"Complex Idea Systems in
Biological Organisms and a Conjecture as to their Origins"
--Arne Wyller, Astrophysics,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (Retired)
"Can a Conscious
Universe Obviate Philosophical Naturalism and Vanguard Physical Teleology?
--Richard Amoroso, Philosophy
of Mind, Noetic Advanced Studies Institute
"Finding God in Prozac,
or Finding Prozac in God: Preserving a Christian View of the Person Amidst a
Biopsychological Revolution"
--Michael Boivin, Psychology,
Indiana Wesleyan University
Session 6, Cowden Room, BDSC
"The Place of Teleology
in Nature"
-- James Barham, History of
Science, Independent Scholar
"A Problem of Evil for
Naturalism"
--R. Douglas Geivett
3:30-4:00, BREAK
4:30-6:30, Plenary Session:
Neuroscience and Consciousness -- Cashion 510
Moderator: David Berlinski,
Universit� Interdisciplinaire de Paris, France
"Current Research Into
Consciousness"
--John Searle, Philosophy and
Cognitive Science, University of California, Berkeley
"Theism and Nonreductive
Physicalism: Why Christians Should Appreciate John Searle's
Account of the Mind"
--Nancey Murphy, Theology and
Philosophy, Fuller Theological Seminary
"Neurogenesis and Being
a Person"
--Howard Ducharme,
Philosophy, University of Akron, Ohio
6:30-9:00, Dinner for plenary
and concurrent speakers at the Northwood Inn
END OF CONFERENCE
BIOSKETCHES OF PLENARY SPEAKERS
AND A SHORT DESCRIPTION OF EACH TALK:
_____
Larry Arnhart:
"Thomistic Natural Law as Darwinian Natural Right"
This paper defends a
Darwinian ethical naturalism as part of the natural law tradition of Thomas
Aquinas.
Larry Arnhart is Professor of
Political Science at Northern Illinois University. His B.A. is from the
University of Dallas, and his Ph.D. is from the University of Chicago. He
teaches courses in political philosophy, American political thought, and the
philosophy of science. He is the author of three books: Aristotle on Political
Reasoning: A Commentary on the "Rhetoric" (1981), Political
Questions: Political Philosophy from Plato to Rawls (1987), and Darwinian
Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature (1998). He is currently
writing a book on the biology of natural law from Thomas Aquinas to E. O.
Wilson.
_____
Michael Behe: "What
Counts as Evidence of Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design?"
Several counterexamples
proffered by scientific critics of a theory of intelligent design in
biochemistry will themselves be critiqued, and the question of the
falsifiability of intelligent design and Darwinism will be explored.
Michael J. Behe was awarded
the Ph.D. in biochemistry in 1978 by the University of Pennsylvania. From
1978-1982 he did postdoctoral work at the National Institutes of Health. In
1985 he moved to Lehigh University where he is currently Professor of
Biochemistry. In his career he has authored 40 technical papers and one book,
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, which argues that
living system at the molecular level are best explained as being the result of
deliberate intelligent design. The book has been reviewed by the New York
Times, Nature, Philosophy of Science, Christianity Today, and over 80 other
publications. Behe and his wife reside near Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, with their
eight children.
_____
William Lane Craig:
"Naturalism and the Origin of the Universe"
The paper explores in the
light of modern cosmology the Leibnizian question of why the universe exists
rather than nothing.
William Lane Craig earned a
doctorate in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England, before taking
a doctorate in theology from the Ludwig Maximiliens Universit�t-M�nchen, Germany,
at which latter institution he was for two years a Fellow of the Alexander von
Humboldt-Stiftung. Having spent seven years at the Higher Institute of
Philosophy of the Katholike Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, he is currently a
Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology. He has authored
over a dozen books, including The Kalam Cosmological Argument, Divine
Forknowledge and Human Freedom, and Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, as
well as nearly a hundred articles in professional journals of philosophy and
theology, including The Journal of Philosophy, American Philosophical
Quarterly, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy, and British Journal for
Philosophy of Science. He currently lives in Atlanta with his wife Jan and
their two children Charity and John.
_____
Simon Conway Morris:
"What's inevitable in evolution?"
This talk will address
problems of constraints versus runaway "experimentation" in
evolution, with special emphasis on convergence.
Simon Conway Morris was born
1951, and brought up in London, England. 1969-1972 BSc University of Bristol;
1972-1979 Cambridge, PhD student and then post-doc (Research Fellow at St
John's College) working on the Burgess Shale. From 1979-1983 he was at the Open
University, and from 1983-present in the Earth Sciences at Cambridge, where he
is now Full Professor and Fellow of St. John's College. Conway Morris was
elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1990. He has been the recipient of
various prizes, most recently the Lyell Medal of Geological Society of London.
His principal research interests are the Cambrian "explosion" and
early evolution of animals. He has widening interests in evolution and its
implications for theology (and vice versa). He recently gave the Tarner Lectures,
sponsored by Trinity College, Cambridge, on these issues. He has an immense
admiration for G.K. Chesterton.
_____
Christian de Duve:
"Mysteries of Life : Is there 'something else'?"
In this talk I argue that
there is at present no valid scientific reason for rejecting purely
naturalistic explanations of the nature, origin, and evolution of life.
Born in England in 1917 and
educated in Belgium, Christian de Duve holds MD, M.Sc. and PhD. degrees from
the Catholic University of Louvain. He has been professor of biochemistry at
the medical faculty of that university between 1947 and 1985 and has, since
1962, been simultaneously associated with the Rockefeller University in New
York as professor of biochemical cytology (until 1974) and as Andrew W.
Mellon professor from 1974
until 1988. He is also Founder-Administrator of the Christian de Duve Institute
of Cellular Pathology (ICP), founded in Brussels in 1974. Christian de Duve's
work has been mainly in the area of cell biology. His discovery of lysosomes
and peroxisomes has earned him the 1974 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine,
jointly with Albert Claude and George Palade. He is a member, among other
organizations, of the US National Academy of Sciences, the American
Philosophical Society and the Royal Society.
_____
Howard Ducharme:
"Neurogenesis and Being a Person"
This paper argues that recent
discoveries of neurogenesis - the generation of new neurons in the adult brain
- call for reconsideration of a Cartesian argument on the metaphysical nature
of persons.
Howard M. Ducharme is Chair
of the Philosophy Department at the University of Akron. He has written and
lectured extensively on the metaphysical implications of contemporary science
and the nature of persons, as well as a wide range of bioethical issues.
Ducharme received his D.Phil. from the University of Oxford. He did a graduate
degree in Philosphy of Religion and an undergraduate degree in Chemistry,
Biology, and Philosophy. Professor Ducharme is also an Editorial Consultant to
the Journal of the History of Philosophy, The Journal of Clinical Ethics, and
Neurology (Journal of the American Academy of Neurology). He is Director of
"2001--The Human Genome Odyssey Conference: The Science, Business, Law and
Ethics of Engineering Human Life," April 5-7, 2001. Related publications:
"Personal Identity in Samuel Clarke", Journal of the History of
Philosophy 24 (July 1986): 359-383; "The Vatican's Dilemma: On the
Morality of IVF and the Incarnation," Bioethics (January 1991):57-66;
"Thrift-Euthanasia, In Theory and in Practice: A Critique of
Non-Heart-Beating Organ Harvesting,"Law and Medicine, ed. by Andrew Lewis
and Michael Freeman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
_____
Alan Guth: "How Well Can
We Understand Cosmology with the Principles of Physics?
In this talk I argue that
while many properties of the universe remain obscure, much progress has been
made in the scientific understanding of cosmology.
Alan J. Guth is the Victor F.
Weisskopf Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Trained in particle theory at MIT, Guth held postdoctoral positions at
Princeton, Columbia, Cornell, and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC)
before returning to MIT as a faculty member in 1980. His work in cosmology
began at Cornell, when Henry Tye persuaded him to study the production of
magnetic monopoles in the early universe. Using standard assumptions, they
found that far too many would be produced. Continuing this work at SLAC, Guth
discovered that the magnetic monopole glut could be avoided by a new proposal
which he called the inflationary universe. Guth is a member of the National
Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Guth
continues to work on the cosmological consequences of particle theory, and is
the author numerous articles in technical journals and of The Inflationary
Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origin (Addison-Wesley/Perseus
Books, 1997).
_____
Horace Freeland Judson:
"Speculations about Conceptual Blocks"
In this talk I discuss
several anecdotes from the history of science that illustrate how
preconceptions or expectations have created conceptual blocks to scientific
discovery, and further speculate about this phenomenon.
Horace Freeland Judson is
Director of the Center for History of Recent Science, and Research Professor of
History, at The George Washington University. He calls himself a writer by
trade, an academic by accident. In a checkered career, he has been editor,
advertising copywriter, book reviewer, theatre and art critic, foreign
correspondent (seven years for Time as Arts & Sciences Correspondent in
London and Paris), social historian, and author of a number of books. He is
best known for The Eighth Day of Creation, a history of molecular biology and
its makers from its origins to the early nineteen-seventies. An expanded
edition of the book appeared in November of 1996. Other books he has written
are The Techniques of Reading; Heroin Addiction in England; and The Search for
Solutions. His academic accidents have included nine years as Henry R. Luce
Professor at Johns Hopkins University and four years as Senior Research Scholar
at Stanford University. He has been a fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim
Memorial Foundation, of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral
Sciences, and a fellow of the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin. He is a fellow of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He was the recipient
of a John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.Prize in 1987. He is
completing a book with the working title Truth's Trumpet Cracked, about fraud
and other misconduct in science, and another, Our Thumbprints in Our Clay,
about the technology of the gene.
_____
Robert Koons: "The
Incompatibility of Naturalism and Scientific Realism"
I argue in this paper that
naturalism (taken as the conjunction of an ontological thesis about what exists
and a metaphysical thesis about the nature of intentional representation) is
logically inconsistent with scientific realism, given a widely accepted thesis
about the practice of theory choice in physics (namely, the preference for a
kind of simplicity).
Robert C. Koons is Associate
Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. After graduating
from Michigan State University, he attended Oxford University on a Marshall
Scholarship, receiving First Class Honours in 1981. He received a Ph.D. in
philosophy in 1987 from UCLA under Tyler Burge. His first book, Paradoxes of
Belief and Strategic Rationality, a study of Liar-like paradoxes in the social
sciences, received the Gustave Arlt Prize in Humanities in 1992. His
forthcoming book, Realism Regained: An Exact Theory of Causation, Teleology,
and the Mind, will be published this summer by Oxford University Press.
_____
Ernan McMullin:
"Naturalism and Natural Theology"
In this talk I discuss how
one might relate the natural theologies of earlier centuries to the
methodological naturalism of contemporary science.
Rev. Ernan McMullin (Ph.D.,
Louvain) is John Cardinal O'Hara Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the
University of Notre Dame. His areas of specialization are the philosophy of
science, history of the philosophy of science, and science and religion. Books
he has written or edited are: (editor) The Concept of Matter 1963; (editor)
Galileo, Man of Science (1967); Newton on Matter and Activity (1978); (editor)
Evolution and Creation (1985); (editor) Construction and Constraint: The
Shaping of Scientific Rationality (1988); (edited with James Cushing)
Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory (1989); (editor) The Social
Dimensions of Science (1992); The Inference That Makes Science (1992). Some of
his recent articles are:"Indifference Principle and Anthropic Principle in
Cosmology," Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science (1993);
"Enlarging the Known World," in Physics and Our View of the World
(1994); "Galileo on Science and Scripture," in The Cambridge
Companion to Galileo (1998); "Cosmic Purpose and the Contingency of Human
Evolution," Theology Today (1998); "Materialist Categories,"
Science and Education (1999); "Biology and the Theology of Human
Nature," in Controlling our Destinies (1999).
_____
Everett Mendelsohn:
"Naturalistic Explanation and 19th Century Biology"
This talk examines several
key 19th Century texts in which a conscious choice is made to limit the forms
of explanation to the natural and to actively exclude other types of
explanation of biological phenomena.
Everett Mendelsohn is Professor
and Chair of the History of Science at Harvard University, where he has been on
the faculty since 1960. He has worked extensively on the history of the life
sciences as well as on aspects of the social and sociological history of
science and the relations of science and modern societies. He is the founder
and former editor of the Journal of the History of Biology and serves(d) on the
editorial boards of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Social Science and
Medicine, Social Epistemology, Social Studies of Science, and Fundamenta
Scientiae, among others. He is past president of the International Council for
Science Policy Studies and has been deeply involved in the relations between
science and modern war as a founder of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science's Committee on Science, Arms Control, and National
Security, and the American Academy of Arts and Science's Committee on
International Security Studies. He was a founder and first president of the
Cambridge based Institute for Peace and International Security. He was awarded
the Gregor Mendel Medal of the reorganized Czechoslovak Academy of Science in
1991. During 1994 he held the Olof Palme Professorship in Sweden. Among recent
publications are the jointly edited volumes, The Practices of Human Genetics
(1999); Biology as Society, Society as Biology: Metaphors (1994); Technology,
Pessimism and Postmodernism (1993); Science, Technology, and the Military
(1988), and numerous articles for academic journals.
_____
Stephen Meyer
"DNA and the Origin of
Life: Information, Specification and Explanation."
DNA exhibits a specified
complexity of information content, the origin of which cannot be explained
adequately by undirected evolutionary mechanisms.
Stephen Meyer is a professor
of philosophy at Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington. He holds a B.S. in
physics and geology from Whitworth College, and an M.Phil. and Ph.D. in the
history and philosophy of science from Cambridge University. He specializes in
the philosophy of biology, particularly origin of life studies, the structure
of evolutionary arguments, and the methodological character of the historical
sciences. He has published a variety of technical articles in journals and
collections, as well as popular ones in the Los Angeles Times and the Wall
Street Journal. Meyer is a fellow of the Pascal Center, and is the Director of
the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.
_____
Nancey Murphy
"Theism and Nonreductive
Physicalism: Why Christians Should Appreciate John Searle's Account of the
Mind"
This paper begins by
articulating theological, biblical, scientific and philosophical grounds for
rejecting mind-body dualism, and then argues that a non-reductive physicalism
similar to John Searle's account of the mind can meet the challenges facing it,
and actually is more consistent with the theism of the Semitic religions than
the dualism that has long been a part of them.
Nancey Murphy is Professor of
Christian Philosophy at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA. She holds
a B.A. in philosophy and psychology from Creighton University, a Ph.D. in
philosophy of science from U.C. Berkeley, and a Th.D. from the Graduate
Theological Union at Berkeley. Her research interests focus on the role of
modern and postmodern philosophy in shaping Christian theology, and on
relations between theology and science. Her first book, Theology in an Age of
Scientific Reasoning, won the American Academy of Religion award for excellence
and a Templeton Prize for books in science and theology. She has authored five
other books dealing with topics in science, religion and ethics, and co-edited
six volumes, two of which deal with the implications of the neurosciences for
theology and the understanding of human nature. Murphy is also an ordained
minister in the Church of the Brethren.
_____
Ronald Numbers: "Science
without God: Natural Laws and Christian Beliefs."
This paper discusses the
history of methodological naturalism and the role Christians played in promoting
it.
Ronald L. Numbers is Hilldale
and William Coleman Professor of the History of Science and Medicine and chair
of the Department of the History of Medicine at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison, where he has taught for over a quarter-century. He has
written or edited more than two dozen books, including, most recently, The
Creationists (Alfred A. Knopf, 1992), Darwinism Comes to America (Harvard
University Press, 1998), and Disseminating Darwinism: The Role of Place, Race,
Religion, and Gender (Cambridge University Press, 1999), coedited with John
Stenhouse. For five years (1989-1993) he edited Isis, the flagship journal of
the history of science. He is writing a history of science in America (for
Cambridge University Press), editing a series of monographs on the history of
medicine, science, and religion for the Johns Hopkins University Press, and
coediting, with David Lindberg, the eight-volume Cambridge History of Science.
He is the immediate past president of the American Society of Church History
and the current president of the History of Science Society. A former
Guggenheim Foundation Fellow, he is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts
and Sciences and a member of the International Academy of the History of
Science.
_____
Alvin Plantinga: "An
Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism".
In my paper I argue that the
conjunction of naturalism with current evolutionary theory is self-defeating;
the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable, given naturalism (N)
and the proposition that our faculties have arisen by way of the mechanisms
suggested by current evolutionary theory (E), is low or inscrutable; either
gives one who accepts N&E a defeater for the proposition that his cognitive
faculties are
reliable, but then also a
defeater for anything else he believes, including N&E itself.
Alvin Plantinga (Ph.D.,
Yale), is John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre
Dame and Director of the Center for Philosophy of Religion. Prior to that he taught
at Calvin College for 19 years, and has been a visiting professor at a number
of places including Harvard, Arizona, Oxford, and UCLA. He specializes in
epistemology, metaphysics, and philosophy of religion. He is the author of
numerous journal articles and several books, including: God and Other Minds
(1967); The Nature of Necessity (1974); God, Freedom & Evil (1974); Does
God Have a Nature? (1980); Warrant: the Current Debate (1993); Warrant and
Proper Function (1993); and Warranted Christian Belief (2000).
_____
Mark Ptashne
"On the Evolvability of
Gene (and Other) Regulatory Systems"
Complicated gene regulatory
systems are constructed by reiterative uses of simple (and rather crude)
molecular interactions - they are thus highly "evolvable."
Mark Ptashne holds the Ludwig
Chair of Molecular Biology at the Sloan-Kettering Institute, and is the
Principal Investigator of the Gene Regulation Laboratory at the Memorial Sloan
Kettering Cancer Center. He has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences,
the American Academy of Sciences, and the New York Academy of Sciences. He is
the author of over 160 articles in scientific journals and collections, and a
book entitled A Genetic Switch, Phage Lambda and Higher Organisms. His work in
molecular biochemistry has been honored with a variety of awards, including the
Massry Prize, the Lasker Award and le Prix Charles-Leopold Mayer of the French
Academy of Sciences (with Walter Gilbert). He was educated at Reed College and
Harvard University, and taught at Harvard, where he was the Herschel Smith
Professor of Molecular Biology before moving to the Sloan-Kettering Institute
in 1997.
_____
Sahotra Sarkar: "On the
Emergence of Semiotic Information in Macromolecular Systems."
This paper analyzes the
ongoing controversy about the role of informational thinking in molecular
biology and constructs some speculative scenarios for the origin of
informational systems from underlying macromolecular reactions during the early
evolution of semi-living systems.
Sahotra Sarkar is an
Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director, Program in the History and
Philosophy of Science, University of Texas at Austin. He is also a Research
Associate of the Redpath Museum, McGill University, Montreal. Sarkar was born
22 October 1961, in Calcutta, India. He attended Columbia University (1977 -82,
BA 1981), and the University of Chicago (1981 -89, PhD 1989). He taught at
McGill University (1994-1998). Senior Fellow, Sidney Edelstein Center, Hebrew
University of Jerusalem (1993); Fellow, Dibner Institue at MIT (1993 -94):
Fellow, Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin (1996-97); Resident Scholar, Max Planck
Institute for the History of Science, Berlin (1997 -98). He is the author of
Genetics and Reductionism (CUP, 1998), and the editor of several books:
Founders of Evolutionary Genetics (Kluwer, 1992), The Philosophy and History of
Molecular Biology: New Perspectives (Kluwer, 1996), and Science and Philosophy
in the Twentieth Century: Basic Works of Logical Empiricism (6 volumes,
Garland, 1996).
_____
Henry F. Schaefer III:������� "Science and Theism: Conflict or
Coherence?"
��������������� This talk examines the history and current status of
the "warfare metaphor" for the relationship between science and
theology, and argues that this is not how the relationship should be conceived,
illustrating the point by considering the views of a variety of distinguished
scientists, both historical and contemporary.
Henry F. Schaefer III was
born in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1944. He received his B.S. in chemical
physics from M.I.T. in 1966, and Ph.D. degree in the same from Stanford
University in 1969. For 18 years (1969-1987) he served as a professor of
chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley. During the 1979-1980
academic year he was also Wilfred T. Doherty Professor of Chemistry and
inaugural Director of the Institute for Theoretical Chemistry at the University
of Texas, Austin. Since 1987 Dr. Schaefer has been Graham Perdue Professor of
Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the
University of Georgia. His other academic appointments include Professeur
d'Echange at the University of Paris (1977), Gastprofessur at the
Eidgenossische Technische Hochshule (ETH), Zurich (1994, 1995, 1997), and David
P. Craig Visiting Professor at the Australian National University (1999). He is
the author of more than 800 scientific publications, the majority appearing in
the Journal of Chemical Physics or the Journal of the American Chemical
Society. He is the recipient of five honorary degrees. He is the
Editor-in-Chief of the London-based journal Molecular Physics and President of
the World Association of Theoretically Oriented Chemists. His major awards
include the American Chemical Society Award in Pure Chemistry (1979), the
American Chemical Society Leo Hendrik Baekeland Award (1983), the Schrodinger
Medal (1990), and the Centenary Medal of the Royal Society of Chemistry
(London, 1992). His research involves the use of state-of-the-art computational
hardware and theoretical methods to solve important problems in molecular
quantum mechanics.
_____
John Searle:��������� "Current Research into
Consciousness".
In this talk I will discuss
how we can have an account of consciousness as a natural biological process that
occurs in the brain in the way that, for example, digestion is a natural
biological process that occurs in the stomach.
John R. Searle is the Mills
Professor of the Philosophy of Mind and Language at the University of
California at Berkeley. Born in Denver, educated at University of Wisconsin and
Oxford, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, John Searle began teaching at Oxford in
1956, moving to Berkeley in 1959. He has written ten books and more than 100
articles. His works have been translated into 20 languages.
_____
William Talbott:
"Naturalism Undefeated"
In this paper I argue that
Plantinga's argument against naturalism is unsuccessful.
William J. Talbott is
Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Washington. He received
his bachelor's degree in philosophy from Princeton and his doctorate from
Harvard. He has published articles in epistemology, moral and political
philosophy, and rational choice theory. He is currently working on a book in
epistemology, to be titled Learning from Experience, and a book in political
philosophy, to be titled Why Human Rights Should be Universal.
_____
Michael Tooley: �"Are there any Sound Arguments for
Supernaturalism?"
In this talk I shall take a
brief, critical look at some central arguments for supernaturalism, and I shall
argue that all of them are unsatisfactory.
Michael Tooley is a graduate
of the University of Toronto (B.A., 1964) and Princeton University (Ph.D.,
1968). He has been a professor of philosophy at the University of Miami and at
the University of Western
Australia, and a senior
research fellow at the Australian National University, and he is presently a
professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He is the
author of three books - Abortion and Infanticide (1983), Causation: A Realist
Approach (1987), and Time, Tense, and Causation (1997), as well as the editor
of a number of collections on causation and analytical metaphysics. He is a
Fellow of the Australian Academy of Humanities, and has been a Woodrow Wilson
Fellow and President of the Australasian Association of Philosophy.
_____
Howard Van Till: "Cosmic
Evolution as the Manifestation of Divine Creativity"
In my paper I argue that,
contrary to popular rhetoric, evolutionary cosmologies do not eliminate the
need for a Creator but instead they entail exceptionally high expectations
regarding both the creativity and the generosity exercised by a Creator.
Howard J. Van Till is
Professor (emeritus) of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College, located in
Grand Rapids, Michigan. After graduating from Calvin College in 1960, he earned
his Ph.D. in physics from Michigan State University in 1965. Dr. Van Till's
research experience includes both solid state physics and millimeter-wave
astronomy. During the past two decades he has devoted a considerable portion of
his writing and speaking efforts to topics regarding the relationship of
science and theology. Having concluded that the usual creation/evolution debate
is the product of serious misunderstandings, Van Till's goal is to encourage a
non-adversarial and mutually informative engagement of Christian theology and
the natural sciences. He is the author of several books, book chapters, and
essays on this theme and has spoken at numerous universities and colleges.
_____
Steven Weinberg:
"Naturalism as a Non-Issue."
In my talk I argue that
naturalism is not a doctrine, but at most an attitude, one that is -- in every
sense -- natural.
Steven Weinberg holds the
Josey Regental Chair of Science at the University of Texas at Austin, and is a
member of its Physics and Astronomy Departments. He has been elected to the
National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, the American Philosophical
Society and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences He is the author of Gravitation
and Cosmology, The First Three Minutes, The Discovery of Subatomic Particles,
Dreams of a Final Theory, and The Quantum Theory of Fields, and has been an
occasional contributor to The New York Review of Books and other periodicals.
His work in physics has been honored with numerous prizes, including in 1979
the Nobel Prize in Physics and in 1991 the National Medal of Science. Educated
at Cornell, Copenhagen, and Princeton, he also holds honorary doctoral degrees
a from dozen American and foreign universities. He taught at Columbia,
Berkeley, M.I.T., and Harvard before coming to Texas in 1982.
_____
Dallas Willard:
"Naturalism's Incapacity to Capture the Good Will"
In this paper I will argue
that intention is the fundamental locus of moral value and, following Kant,
that the only unconditional good in the domain of moral values is a good will -
something for which no consistent form of naturalism can give an account, or
even comprehend. The paper will begin with a discussion of how naturalism and the
ethical aspect of human life are to be understood, since these are topics of
much present confusion.
Dallas Willard is Professor
of Philosophy at the University of Southern California, where he has been since
1965. He also taught at the University of Wisconsin Madison (1964-65), and has
had visiting appointments at UCLA (1969) and University of Colorado (1984). He
is the author of Logic and the Objectivity of Knowledge (1984), and The Divine
Conspiracy (1998), among other books. He is currently working on a new book, to
be entitled The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge: An Essay on Ethical Thought
in the 20th Century.
_____
Michael Williams
"Must Naturalists be
Realists?"
It is argued in this paper
that philosophical naturalists do not have to be realists, and in fact they
should not be realists. A deflationary approach to metaphysical and
truth-related issues provides a superior point of view.
Michael Williams is presently
the Charles and Emma Morrison Professor of Humanities at Northwestern University,
but will be joining the Philosophy Department of Johns Hopkins University in
the fall of 2000. He was educated at Oxford and Princeton, where he received
his Ph.D. in 1973, and prior to Northwestern, taught at Yale and the University
of Maryland. His areas of specialization are the theory of knowledge,
skepticism, philosophy of language, and the history of modern philosophy. He is
the author of numerous journal articles and three books, Groundless Belief: An
Essay on the Possibility of Epistemology (1977, reissued with a new afterword
in 1999), Unnatural Doubts: Epistemological Realism and the Basis of Scepticism
(1994), and Problems of Knowledge (forthcoming from Oxford later this year). He
is currently working on a new book entitled Curious Researches: Reflections on
Scepticism, Ancient and Modern.
_____
Mark Wilson: "The
Unreasonable Uncooperativeness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences"
A number of writers (Eugene
Wigner; Mark Steiner) suggest that the surprising applicabilty of mathematics
to physics poses a "philosophical problem." In this talk I will
survey what might possibly be intended in such a claim.
Mark Wilson (Ph.D, Harvard,
1976) is professor of philosophy and a fellow of the Center for Philosophy of
Science at the University of Pittsburgh. Before coming to Pittsburgh, he taught
at the University of California-San Diego, the University of Illinois-Chicago
and Ohio State. His main research investigates the manner in which physical and
mathematical concerns often become entangled with issues characteristic of
metaphysics and philosophy of language; he is currently writing a book on the
subject. He is also interested in the historical dimensions of this
interchange; in this vein, he has written on Descartes, Frege, Duhem and
Wittgenstein. He has also
published a number of recordings of traditional folk musicians.
_____
Edward Zalta:
"Effectiveness Without Design: A Naturalist Philosophy of
Mathematics"
If we (i) axiomatize the
abstract objects that serve as the subject matter of possible mathematical
theories, and (ii) argue that the axioms which do this are justified by the
fact that they ground the possibility of scientific theories, we can (a)
reconcile a platonist philosophy of mathematics with philosophical naturalism, and
(b) begin to offer a naturalist explanation of the effectiveness of mathematics
in the sciences.
Edward N. Zalta is a Senior
Research Scholar at the Center for the Study of Language and Information at
Stanford University. His research specialties include Metaphysics and
Epistemology, Philosophy of Language and Intensional Logic, and the Philosophy
of Mathematics. Zalta has published two books: Abstract Objects: An
Introduction to Axiomatic Metaphysics, D. Reidel, 1983; and Intensional Logic
and the Metaphysics of Intentionality, MIT, 1988) and articles in the Journal
of Philosophy, the Journal of Philosophical Logic, Nous, and elsewhere. Zalta
has taught courses at Stanford University, Rice University, the University of
Salzburg, and the University of Auckland, and has presented talks in various
universities in North America, Europe and Australasia. He also designed and
serves as the Principal Editor of the online Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Further information and a list of publications can be obtained from
<http://mally.stanford.edu/zalta.html>.
LIST OF CONCURRENT SPEAKERS
Richard Amoroso, B�atrice
Anner, James Barham, Michael Boivin,Walter Bradley, Rudolf Brun, Otavio Bueno,
Robin Collins, Robert DeHaan, William Dembski, Evan Fales, R. Douglas Geivett,
Stewart Goetz, Bruce Gordon, Stephen Griffith, John Hare, William Harris,
Michael Keas, Forrest Mims III, Todd Moody, Paul Nelson, Robert O'Connor,
Michael Rea, John Mark Reynolds, Jay Richards, Steven Schafersman, Jeffrey
Schloss, Michael Shermer, Timothy Standish, Karl Stephan, Allen Utke, Terry
Winant, Robert Wright, Arne Wyller, David Yandell.
ABOUT THE MICHAEL POLANYI
CENTER: The Michael Polanyi Center (MPC) is a cross-disciplinary research and
educational initiative focused on advancing the understanding of science. It
has a fourfold purpose: (1) to support and pursue research in the history and
conceptual foundations of the natural and social sciences; (2) to study the
impact of contemporary science on the humanities and the arts; (3) to be an
active participant in the growing dialogue between science and religion; and
(4) to pursue the mathematical development and empirical application of
design-theoretic concepts in the natural sciences.
Opposing views still hang over Polanyi
Professors continue to clash in wake of recent conference
by Blair Martin
The Baylor Lariat
April 18, 2000
http://www.baylor.edu/~Lariat/Archives/2000/20000418/art-front01.html
Critics and supporters alike attended the Nature of Nature
conference sponsored by the Michael Polanyi Center last week.
Nancy Pearcey, senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, who
attended the conference, explained the Intelligent Design Theory the Polanyi
Center is studying.
The Discovery Institute, where Polanyi director William Dembski
is a senior fellow, studies the theory they call intelligent design.
"The basic question that these scientists are trying to
solve is, 'Is there anything beyond nature?'" Pearcey said.
Pearcey offers the example of a watch to illustrate her
point.
"You pick up a watch in a field and ask where it did
this come from? Is this a product of natural causes or is it made by a human
being?" Pearcey said.
"As you look at it, you see the type of structure in
the watch and see that that kind of structure can only come from human
manufacture. You conclude that this watch was designed by people. So, the
design argument is to go out in nature and to find things that have the same
structure as the things that are made by intelligent beings."
According to Pearcey, bringing up the intelligent design
theory at Baylor could only enhance the university.
"It will enhance it for a variety of reasons,"
Pearcey said. "One is, it's good to have debate. These guys are coming up
with a genuine scientific argument, and it can't help but be stimulating."
Dr. William Craig, professor at Talbot School of Theology in
California, said he thought the conference was very well-balanced and gave an
interesting diversity of perspective.
"I think it's great that Baylor is doing this. For
these ideas to be brought to the surface like this is the only way learning can
be advanced. This kind of discussion is tremendously healthy and Baylor
University should be proud," Craig said.
Dr. Walter Bradley, science professor at Texas A&M
University, said the conference was a good opportunity to express an
alternative view to science.
"It is always good to have another view," Bradley
said. "Instead of wrestling with the nuts and bolts of science, you have
the opportunity to meet and interact with people who have other thoughts and
different views."
However, Dr. Sahotra Sarkar, associate professor of
philosophy at University of Texas, remains skeptical of the Polanyi Center and
the conference it sponsored.
"I haven't read all the sessions yet, but all the
design theorists' arguments that I've heard are all old arguments that nobody
writes about anyway," Sarkar said. "Clearly there has not been a
single case where either side has convinced the other of anything at all."
Last week, Sarkar, who attended as a speaker, said he and
others were not accepting the honorarium given to them by the Polanyi Center.
Instead, they will donate the money to other organizations
that will promote the study of evolution in their schools.
Sarkar's colleague, Dr. Ed Zalta, a professor at Stanford,
said he was going to split his honorarium between the American's Association of
the Advancement of Science and the National Center for Science Education.
"I can't in good conscience accept the honorarium that
they are going to pay me from either the center or the Discovery
Institute," Zalta said.
Sarkar also questioned Baylor's affiliation with such a
center.
"If you got some real scientists involved it might be a
useful role. But so far, it doesn't," Sarkar said.
Sarkar also doubts that a center such as the Polanyi Center
could be established at his university.
"There's a chance it could happen," Sarkar said.
"And if it did, it would be the laughing stock of campus."
Zalta also doubts that such a center would exist at
Stanford.
"I don't think it would have been established at
Stanford." Zalta said. "I don't think the administration could have
established an academic type of institution without consulting the
faculty."
Despite the critics, Pearcey said she thinks the controversy
surrounding Baylor and the Polanyi Center can only help by shedding light on a
subject that needs attention.
"Everyone wants to get in on this controversy."
Pearcey said. "So, it's good pedagogically. Students are more interested
in it. They learn to think critically and to weigh data. They ask questions
like 'Where's the data? Where's the facts? Do we have the evidence to support
the conclusion? And this is all great stuff. This is the kind of thing
education should be about," she said.
"As long as you keep it to the scientific data so that
it's valid science, I think it will enhance the education."
Baylor University
Faculty
Senate Newsletter
April,
2000
___________________________________________________________________
The 1999-00 Faculty Senate officers and membership: Chair:
Robert Baird (Arts and Sciences) / Chair-elect: Jay Losey (Arts and
Sciences) / Secretary: Charles Weaver (Arts and Sciences) / Publicity:
Buddy Gilchrest (Education) / Arts and Sciences: Linda Adams, Robert
"Bob" Baird, Rosalie Beck, Anne-Marie Bowery, William Jensen, Phillip
Johnson, David Longfellow, Jay Losey, Dan McGee, Richard Riley, Sara Stone,
Joan Supplee, Charles Weaver, Ray Wilson, Joe Yelderman, David Young / Business:
Gary Carini, Joe Cox, Charles Davis, Mark Dunn, Karen Johnson, Jane Williams / Education:
Fred Curtis, Buddy Gilchrest, Deborah Johnston / Engineering and
Computer Science: Don Farris / Law: Marianne Auld / Libraries: William
Hair / Music: Jane Abbott-Kirk, Christopher Buddo / Nursing: Sandra
Genrich / Truett Seminary: David Garland.
Comments
from Robert Baird, Senate Chair:
The
Polanyi Center
Although I would like to conclude my final piece for the Senate Newsletter
on a high note, I feel responsible as chair of the Senate for addressing the
creation of the Polanyi Center -- one of the most divisive issues to have
arisen on the Baylor campus during my thirty-two years on the faculty.
For the last Presidential Forum, the Senate received more questions about
the Polanyi Center than on any other topic. As chair of the Senate, I continue
daily to receive expressions of concern about the creation of the Center,
especially from my colleagues in the sciences, but by no means solely from
them.
The fundamental question the creation of the Center raises concerns the
mutual trust and confidence between administration and faculty, which is the
defining characteristic of a collegial relationship. The Polanyi Center's
Internet home page includes immediately under the title of the center the
phrase "advancing the understanding of science." This seems to be the
basic purpose of the Center. The directors of the Center claim to be doing
science; that is, they argue for introducing intelligent design into science as
an explanatory category. Yet the Center was created without consultation with
colleagues in the sciences. Another major purpose of the center is to examine
the connections between science and religion, yet again it was created without
consultation with colleagues in the Department of Religion.
Often the question has arisen in my mind, "How would my colleagues and
I feel and respond if a Center committed to 'advancing the understanding of
philosophy' were created without consulting those of us in the philosophy
department?" How would members of any department feel and respond if a
Center were created to further the understanding of that department's
discipline without consulting the faculty of that department about the purpose
of the center and its proposed directors?
The creation of the Michael Polanyi Center creates particular problems for
the Philosophy Department because the director and the associate director of
the Center have degrees in philosophy. The philosophy department was not
consulted about the formation of the Center. Additionally, the creation of the
Polanyi Center fails to take into account the role of the recently inaugurated
Herbert H. Reynolds Lectureship in the History and Philosophy of Science. The
result of a gift to the department by Chancellor and Mrs. Herbert Reynolds, the
Lectureship will eventually evolve into a Chair in the History and Philosophy
of Science and beyond that into an Institute. Importantly, this program is
directed not simply by the Philosophy Department but by a committee
representing the departments of Biology, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Geology,
History, Physics, and Psychology/Neuroscience. No conversations with
representatives of this committee took place concerning the creation of the
Polanyi Center.
Let me reemphasize that the crucial issue in this whole matter is the
collegial relationship between the administration and the faculty. Such a
relationship could be affirmed by dissolving the Polanyi Center and starting
over. If it is desirable for Baylor to have a center to explore the connections
between science and other disciplines, a committee of Baylor faculty from
across the disciplines could be formed. That committee could make
recommendations about both the nature of such a center and its directors. The
administration has responded to some of these concerns by agreeing to form a
committee to evaluate the work of the director and associate director of the
Polanyi Center, but this does not get at the basic issue of initiating a Center
without faculty consultation.
As I look back over my years at Baylor, one of the most satisfying
dimensions of my career has been the collegial relationship that I have
witnessed between faculty and administration. Personally, I recall with
gratitude my collegial relationships with Presidents McCall and Reynolds. When
I became chair of the Senate, one of my first acts was to make an appointment
with President Sloan. He graciously gave me almost two hours out of his busy
schedule. It was an open, honest, collegial conversation. As indicated above,
the administration has been quite responsive to faculty concerns this year in
working with the Senate to develop new grievance, dismissal, and promotion
policies. My hope is that this collegiality will continually be a dimension of
our life together at Baylor. Would not the dissolution of the Polanyi Center
and a fresh start with broad faculty input concerning such a proposed
enterprise make a significant contribution to such collegiality? Might it not
also generate an important discussion between the administration and faculty
concerning procedures for the establishment of new centers and institutes at
Baylor? Such conversations are the heart of mutual respect and confidence.
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
April
18, 2000
Cashion
303
MINUTES
Present: Abbott-Kirk, Adams, Auld, Baird, Beck, Bowery, Buddo,
Carini, Curtis, Davis, Farris, Garland, Gilchrest, M. Sanford (for Genrich),
Hair, Jensen, K. Johnson, P. Johnson, Johnston, Longfellow, Losey, McGee,
Riley, Stone, Supplee, Weaver, Williams, Wilson, Yelderman, Young
Absent: Cox, Dunn
Also present: D. Myers (Committee on Committees), M. Essary (Tenure
Committee)
I. Call to Order & Announcements...
II. Consideration of Agenda...
III. Consideration of March Minutes...
IV. New Business...
V. Old Business...
VI. Committee/Liaison Reports...
VII. Additional Business
McGee introduced the following resolution:
Be it resolved that the Baylor University Faculty Senate expresses it
enthusiastic support of its Chair, Dr. Robert Baird, and the sentiments that he
stated regarding the establishment of the Polanyi Center as published in the
April, 2000 issue of the Faculty Senate Newsletter. The Senate requests that
the Baylor Administration respond affirmatively to Dr. Baird's request that the
Polanyi be dissolved, as a positive sign of the Administration's respect for
the Baylor faculty and their judgments regarding academic programs.
The motion was seconded by Beck, and passed by an overwhelming majority (27
votes in favor, 2 against, 1 abstention).
Committee to review Center
Faculty Senate chair suggests dissolving Polanyi
by Blair Martin
The Baylor Lariat
April 19, 2000
http://www.baylor.edu/~Lariat/Archives/2000/20000419/art-front01.html
In a newsletter to the faculty, Dr. Robert Baird, chairman
of the Faculty Senate, suggests that the dissolving of the Michael Polanyi
Center could enhance the administration and faculty relationship.
Baird referred to the creation of the center as "one of
the most divisive issues to have risen on Baylor campus during my 32 years on
faculty."
Baird said the lack of faculty involvement is at the root of
the debate.
"The crucial issue in this whole matter is the
collegial relationship between the administration and the faculty," Baird
wrote in the April issue of the Faculty Senate newsletter.
In an attempt to improve the relationship, a peer review
committee, mainly composed of scholars from other universities, is in the
works.
"This will be a standard academic review process,"
said Dr. Donald Schmeltekopf, provost and vice president for academic affairs.
"This will help us assure as much objectivity as possible."
The administration hopes to use the committee to better
communicate its intentions and address faculty concerns, an administration
spokesman said.
But Baird's basic question remains unanswered.
"This does not get at the basic issue of initiating a
Center without faculty consent," Baird wrote.
Baird also wrote that although the Center's purpose is to observe
the connections between science and religion, Baylor's religion, philosophy and
science departments were not consulted about its creation.
"The directors of the Center claim to be doing science;
that is, they argue for introducing intelligent design into science as an
explanatory category," Baird wrote. "Yet the Center was created
without consultation with colleagues in the sciences."
According to Baird's newsletter, since directors Dr. William
Dembski and Dr. Bruce Gordon both have degrees in philosophy, the philosophy
department would be the obvious place for peer review.
"How would my colleagues and I feel and respond if a
Center committed to 'advancing the understanding of philosophy' were created
without consulting those of us in the philosophy department?" Baird asked.
Baird also mentioned that the Polanyi Center had failed to
consider the role of the Herbert H. Reynolds Lectureship of History and
Philosophy of Science.
Initiated in 1994-1995, Dr. Herbert H. Reynolds' last year
as Baylor president, the lectureship was designed to evolve ultimately into an
institution.
"This all came into play the year before I retired as
president," Reynolds said. "The Board of Regents started the Herbert
H. and Joy C. Reynolds Endowment Fund for University Excellence. From the
initial $2 million, one-fourth went to the Herbert H. Reynolds Lectureship fund
in hope to promote a better understanding of science."
Dr. Herbert H. Reynolds explained the original intent of his
lectureship.
"This Lectureship has already been established,"
Reynolds said. "As the fund grows over time, the positions will change.
The lectureship will become a professorship to be held by a full-time faculty
member and then in another three or four years, it will be established into an
institute."
Reynolds said that his lectureship would involve
representatives from six of the science departments in order to ensure
balanced, yet eclectic research and study.
CHRONICLE OF HIGHER
EDUCATION
Wednesday, April 19, 2000
Baylor U. Faculty Senate Seeks Closure of Center
Created to Study Religion and Science
By BETH McMURTRIE
An institute created at Baylor University to
explore the relationship between science and
religion has instead inflamed the campus. On Tuesday, the Faculty Senate
voted overwhelmingly to ask the administration to dissolve the center,
which was established without the knowledge of
most faculty members, "to show respect for the
Baylor faculty" and its "judgment regarding academic programs."
Since it was quietly established last fall as a
part of the university's Institute for Faith
and Learning, the Michael Polanyi Center has attracted a growing
number of critics among Baylor's faculty. In addition to their irritation
over lack of input -- some faculty members said they only found out
about it when they stumbled across the center's Web site -- opponents
argue that it is run by creationists attempting
to promote their views with psuedo science.
"I have never seen faculty as upset over
any issue, and I've been here 12 years now,"
said Charles A. Weaver, an associate professor of psychology and neuroscience.
"It's just sheer outrage."
Provost Donald D. Schmeltekopf said Tuesday that
the administration's decision to hire two
men from outside Baylor who are critical of established evolutionary
theory to organize the center was not an attempt to shut out Baylor's
faculty. Rather, he said, the administration saw a gap that needed to
be filled: the academic exploration of the relationship between religion
and science.
"We have done this sort of thing before,
and other universities have done this kind of
thing," he said. "It's very difficult to do anything in those
gaps unless you take an initiative."
William A. Dembski, the center's director, is a
senior fellow with the Discovery Institute's
Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, which rejects
Darwinism and other aspects of evolutionary science. He is an advocate
of intelligent design theory, which holds that that the origin and development
of life are so complex that they must be the work of some kind of active
intelligence. It also holds that this intelligence can be empirically
proved or disproved using mathematical tools.
Both he and Mr. Bruce L. Gordon, the center's
associate director, are critical of
naturalism, which Mr. Dembski described in one article as "the
view that nature is self-sufficient and thus
without need of God or any guiding
intelligence."
Though Mr. Schmeltekopf noted that neither man
was hired as a faculty member, Mr. Dembski was
given the title of associate research professor in the conceptual
foundations of science at the Baylor Institute for Faith and Learning.
Mr. Gordon is listed as an assistant research professor at the institute.
In an interview Tuesday, Mr. Gordon said that
intelligent design is not the same as
creationism because it does not attempt to describe the kind of intelligence
that might be behind evolution.
Others at Baylor are not so sure. Several
faculty members have dismissed the theory as bogus
science. In an interview, Lewis M. Barker, a professor of psychology
and neuroscience at Baylor, tagged it "stealth creationism."
Mr. Barker said he and others see the hand of
President Robert B. Sloan Jr. behind the
establishment of the center. Mr. Sloan has had a controversial tenure
at Baylor, a Baptist university, in part because of his conservative
religious beliefs and his stated desire to
develop the university's academic strength in
tandem with its Christian identity. (See an article from The Chronicle,
July 23, 1999.)
"This is as much an affront to the religion
faculty as it is science faculty," Mr.
Barker said.
Mr. Sloan did not return a telephone call to his
office Tuesday, but Mr. Schmeltekopf said that
nobody was trying to force a particular religious viewpoint
on the campus. Mr. Dembski's basic viewpoint, he said, is that "what
has occurred within the cosmos cannot be reduced to natural processes.
It seems to me that's an interesting academic
issue for places like Baylor to address."
Mr. Gordon said that research using intelligent
design theory was just one aspect of the
center's work. It also plans to examine how scientists' religious
and philosophical views affect their work and to study the impact of
modern science on literature and art.
"It's certainly not an ideal
situation," he said of the uproar. "We've been trying
to build bridges with the faculty but with the controversy of late,
it's been difficult."
The Faculty Senate's vote was prompted by a
recent article in the senate's newsletter by
its chairman, Robert M. Baird. He wrote that administration's failure
to consult Baylor's religion, science, or philosophy departments in
the development of the Polanyi center
"raises concerns" about "the mutual trust
and confidence between administration and faculty." Mr. Baird suggested
that only by dissolving the center and starting
over could that trust be restored.
Daniel B. McGee, a religion professor and former
senate chairman, said he voted in favor of the resolution
to send a message to Baylor administrators. Because
it was created by administrative fiat, he said, the Polanyi center "lives
under a cloud of suspicion and separation between that program and the
larger faculty."
Mr. Sloan has agreed to create a peer-review
committee to examine the center's creation and
purpose, and Mr. Schmeltekopf said Baylor intends to proceed
with that.
"I think it's a very dangerous thing to
unilaterally dissolve academic programs like
this," he said of the Faculty Senate's recommendation, which came
on a vote of 26 to 2. "There's a lot of emotional pressure within the
campus to do this sort of thing, but we put a
process in place and we agreed to it."
Even that decision, though, has raised faculty
ire because the administration wants the
committee to consist mainly of faculty members from other institutions
to ensure impartiality.
Several faculty members say they're simply
waiting to see who is appointed to the committee.
Said Mr. Weaver: "How Baylor responds is going to say an awful
lot about what this institution is going to
become."
President Sloan Addresses Polanyi Center Issue
by President Robert B. Sloan, Jr.
April 20, 2000
http://pr.baylor.edu/feat.fcgi?2000.04.20.polanyi
The establishment of the Michael Polanyi Center at Baylor
University has generated a great deal of campus discussion these past few weeks
and also attracted statewide media coverage. In light of the attention this
Center and its work have received and the Baylor Faculty Senate's April 18
resolution calling on the administration to dissolve the Polanyi Center, I feel
it is important for me to respond.
It has been suggested by some that the focus of this
controversy should be on the procedures by which the Center was established and
that the administration's failure to consult with the faculty in the creation
of the Polanyi Center is the heart of the matter. Certainly those issues are
important, but I do not believe they are the heart of the matter for two reasons:
One, there was indeed some consultation with faculty. I do not recall or know
all the details and all the individuals involved in the conversations, but I do
know that some faculty both in the humanities and in the sciences conversed
with Drs. William Dembski and Bruce Gordon, director and associate director of
the Center, before it was established and later were aware of the creation of
the Polanyi Center and its program charge. Unfortunately, it is now being
commonly said, and repeated in the newspapers as if unqualified fact, that the
Center was established without faculty consultation. The fact is, and I have
readily admitted as much at the recent open forum sponsored by the Faculty
Senate and elsewhere, that, in retrospect, there are some things the
administration could have done to manage this process more effectively. There
were some conversations with faculty and there could no doubt have been more.
One can always do a better job of processing issues, but hindsight is 20/20.
The second reason I do not believe procedural issues are at
the heart of this matter is that throughout higher education, and here at
Baylor as well, there is a legitimate place for administrative initiative in
academic matters. Certainly, there are different patterns and formats for both
administrative and faculty involvement. Much depends upon the nature of the
issue and/or the tradition of involvement in question. Obviously, for example,
there is great involvement on the part of the faculty in the hiring process. On
the other hand, there is also a lengthy tradition at Baylor with respect to the
creation of various institutes and centers whereby there is a wide spectrum of
involvement and/or initiative between faculty and administration.
Administrative initiative is certainly one (though not the
only) means whereby institutes and centers and other academic enterprises can
be begun. The Center for Jewish and American Studies, established about the
same time as the Polanyi Center, is an example. Creation of that Center involved
significant administrative initiative and leadership, though not without some
conversation with faculty and others. There was no objection in that regard, I
note, though it was potentially very controversial. Though how the Polanyi
Center was established is an important matter, I do not agree that it is
"the heart of the matter." In my experience, people often object to
"the way things were done" as a rhetorical substitute for what was
done. I think the more substantive issue here is the philosophical/ideological
objection of some to the work of the Center itself. Again, I do not dismiss the
other issues. They are important. But I do not think they are the heart of the
matter.
If that were the case, there would have been objections to
the initiation of any number of other institutes, centers, and/or academic
programs at the University. Such has simply not been the case. The real
objection here is to the substance of the issues raised by the Polanyi Center.
Indeed, in the end, a final decision about the Polanyi Center must also be
dependent upon the academic and intellectual substance of the Centers work. By
dissolving the Center, as the Faculty Senate has proposed, we would in effect
be imposing a form of censorship on the work of the Center. I believe there are
matters of intellectual and academic integrity at stake here. Drs. Dembski and
Gordon, both highly capable scholars with the credentials to support their
qualifications to study the subjects that the Center was established to pursue,
should be allowed to do their work. If their conclusions do not stand up to
peer review, then so be it. But to quash their research and to mute their point
of view because of political pressure and without sound intellectual cause is
antithetical to everything for which a true university ought to stand. We
should not be afraid to ask questions, even if they are politically incorrect.
Indeed, I am proud of Baylor's willingness to ask questions which some are
apparently afraid to entertain.
Provost Don Schmeltekopf, Dean Wallace Daniel and I met with
a number of individuals several weeks ago to deal with the concerns expressed
in regard to the Centers presence at Baylor. Such concerns are precisely the
reason for our initiating a process whereby the work of the Polanyi Center can
be evaluated. Our concern over these issues is also reflected in my extensive
and, I believe, very transparent answers to the faculty questions delivered
both in writing and in person at the March 2 Presidential Forum sponsored by
the Faculty Senate. On that occasion, and on others, I reiterated my own deep
and abiding support for the work of the sciences at Baylor. No one at Baylor
has ever been asked to quit teaching evolution. No one will be. That is not the
way ideas are generated, corrected, flourish or even die. The various
evolutionary paradigms have a respectable intellectual history as working
models that continue to promote discovery and to produce research and new
research hypotheses. These paradigms have also from time to time been subjected
to critique, some valuable, some not, and have themselves undergone revision.
So it is with intellectual work. Ideas should rise and fall, or be revised, on
their own merit.
My administration and I have worked tirelessly to provide
the much-needed facilities, equipment, and programming that the sciences need
for the 21st century. Further, I have made it abundantly clear where I stand on
the question of "creation science." I think it is not good theology,
and I would be embarrassed for what I understand to be creation science to be
taught at Baylor University.
Nonetheless, I obviously do believe in the Creator God and
that this is His creation, accomplished, mysteriously, through the agency of
Jesus Christ. Those are historic Christian beliefs. Whether or not there are
patterns of design, information, and purpose in this universe that can be
detected by scientific processes, I do not know. I do think, however, that it
is an interesting question. Indeed many people regard it as an issue of
significant intellectual import. Surely it is fair game in a place like Baylor
to ask such questions. It is simply too easy to dismiss as "creation
science" every attempt to relate belief in the Creator God to the human
processes of understanding the created order.
There are other constituencies both internal and external to
the University who have been very complimentary of the Center's recent
conference, "The Nature of Nature," and very positive about the
courage Baylor has shown in tackling such a significant set of academic issues.
Nonetheless, I return once again to my point: that these matters will not be
decided on emotional grounds. Nor will the way the Center was established be
determinative for whether or not the Polanyi Center should be dissolved. Nor,
indeed, will the unfortunate behavior of some count for any arguments that it
should stay. We are a university. These are matters of serious intellectual
value and debate. The process that we agreed to several weeks ago is the
process we will follow. There will be an evaluation committee/panel established
of largely external membership to consider the academic and intellectual
legitimacy, from both scientific and extra-scientific grounds, of the work of
the Center.
Baylor has received much attention because of the Polanyi
Center and the recent conference. We have received attention of both a negative
and positive character. The last thing we can do now is allow these matters to
be decided upon political grounds. I call upon all faculty to let the peer
review committee do its work and make its recommendations. I am committed to
treating the committee's recommendations with the utmost seriousness. Let us
all proceed in a collegial manner worthy of the quality of discussion
characteristic of a civil and intellectually rich university environment -- the
kind we all so deeply treasure here at Baylor.
Sloan nixes decision to dissolve Polanyi
President says a committee will review center first
by John Drake
The Baylor Lariat
April 20, 2000
http://www.baylor.edu/~Lariat/Archives/2000/20000420/art-front03.html
President Robert B. Sloan Jr. rejected a faculty senate
resolution to dissolve the Polanyi Center in Wednesday's State of the
University address.
"We will not dissolve the Polanyi Center without going
through the process that has been set forth." Sloan told the audience of
primarily faculty members gathered in Barfield Drawing Room for the annual
address. "We have utterly no intention of doing so."
Dr. Robert Baird, chairman of the philosophy department and
acting chair of the faculty senate, said he accepted the president's position.
"While he and I differ with regard to the best method
of proceeding here, he is the one in the position to make the decision."
Faculty members said they were not surprised by the
president's announcement.
"I didn't anticipate them reversing themselves and
adopting the senate's recommendation," said Dr. David Longfellow,
associate professor of history. "What the senate wanted was for the
administration to back up and start over."
Instead, the president indicated he will go forward with
allowing a committee, composed primarily of scholars from other universities,
to review the work of the Polanyi Center.
"I think that for the administration to choose a committee
to evaluate an institute that the administration itself created neglects the
need for an open and extended discussion within the Baylor community
itself," Longfellow said.
Dr. Jay Losey, associate professor of English and
chair-elect of the faculty senate, said its main concern was the lack of
consultation with faculty in creating the institute.
"We are puzzled by the fact that this center was
created, and up and running, and no one knew anything about it," he said.
If the center involved academic pursuits, Losey said, then
faculty should have been consulted.
"Although it's a non-academic center, it suggests
academic standing," he said. "The ordinary process of selecting a
committee was not followed in this case."
He said no one from Baylor's religion, science or philosophy
departments was consulted in creating the center.
Sloan told the audience that he recognizes the process
involved in creating the center could have been better.
"In retrospect, it [the process] was not as good as it should
have been, but not as bad as characterized by some."
After his address, Sloan said that in many cases "a
center is an interdisciplinary project just to see if you have a question that
needs study."
Sloan said he does not believe the conflict stems from the
process involved in creating the center, but instead is rooted in a conflict
with the substantive issues the center is dealing with.
Part of the center's purpose is to reconcile religion and
science into a single Truth.
"The sciences are rightly disturbed because the very
basis of modern science involves verification," Losey said. "There
can be no verification of results in the intelligent design approach. If you
dismiss or belittle evolution as a process, then you call into question the
whole endeavor of modern science."
Both Sloan and Losey said the controversy will not lead to
increased division between the faculty and administration, but for very
different reasons.
"We're pretty much as divided as we can be," Losey
said. "Although we're embroiled in this controversy, it's my deep belief
that the administration knows the importance of communication and will do
everything in its power not to let something like this happen again."
But Sloan said he is not worried about a division between
the faculty and administration.
"There has been more conversation with faculty members
than [one] would think," he said. "In the long run, it will promote
more discussion."
BU faculty Senate supports dismantling Polanyi Center
April 22, 2000
By MARK ENGLAND Waco Tribune-Herald staff writer
The Faculty Senate at Baylor University Tuesday approved a resolution
supporting chairman Bob Baird's call for the dismantling of the Michael
Polanyi Center, a think tank created by the administration last year to
build a bridge between religion and science.
Baylor's creation of the Polanyi Center without consulting faculty in either
the science or religion departments outraged many faculty members.
"The Senate requests that the Baylor administration respond affirmatively
to
Dr. Baird's request that the Polanyi Center be dissolved as a positive sign
of the administration's respect for the Baylor faculty and their
judgmentregarding academic programs," the resolution concluded.
In a senate newsletter released over the weekend, Baird, a philosophy
professor, urged Baylor's administration make the move to preserve the
school's collegial atmosphere.
However, Baylor spokesman Larry Brumley said Monday that the administration
will appoint a peer-review committee, made up largely of people outside the
university, to study the Polanyi Center's effectiveness and its
"appropriateness" for a university like Baylor.
Religion professor Dan McGee said faculty senators believe that approach
could harm the administration's relationship with faculty.
"Establishing a peer-review committee doesn't deal with the initial
problem
of the administration establishing a center that involves the sciences and
not involving any Baylor scientists in that decision," said McGee, a
faculty
senator as well as a past chairman of the Faculty Senate.
A faculty senator, who asked not to be identified, called the Polanyi Center
controversy "painful."
"Many faculty members have seen Baylor as a collegial place where the
faculty was a valued entity," the faculty senator said. "I don't
think
faculty members feel particularly valued in respect to this decision. For
many, it was a slap in the face."
Science faculty at Baylor have also criticized the staff of the Polanyi
Center, director William Dembski and associate director Bruce Gordon,
accusing them of promoting creationism. They deny that charge.
Dembski, though, has written extensively about intelligent design, the
argument that some natural phenomena are so complex that their existence is
evidence of an intelligent creator. A mathematician, Dembski employs
statistics to try to prove his argument that the existence of such phenomena
can't be attributed to random chance.
Some Baylor faculty argue the center could damage Baylor's scholastic
reputation, harming students' chances to get into medical and graduate
schools.
However, such criticism has recently taken a backseat to procedural issues
involving the center's creation.
"Creating the center without any input from Baylor faculty is the heart
ofthe problem," Baird said.
A faculty senator said learning of the Polanyi Center after the fact upset
many faculty members.
"The faculty is tremendously concerned that something of this scope could
be
conceptualized, the money allocated for it and two people hired to run it
and an enormous number of faculty didn't even know it existed," said Sara
Stone, a journalism professor. "A lot of people didn't find out about it
until the publicity went out for its recent conference."
Last weekend, the Polanyi Center helped sponsor a conference on naturalism
featuring two Nobel Prize winning professors, which amounted to its
coming-out party.
Baird said he hopes Baylor's administration will meet with faculty to
discuss how future centers and institutes will be formed.
"My hope is that all the talk and controversy generated will cause all of
us
to renew our commitment to the pursuit of communication with each other when
it comes to new ventures at Baylor University," Baird said.
Defending Faith and Learning
Baylor University's Polanyi Center comes under fire from
the university's faculty.
By John Wilson
Christianity Today
April 24, 2000
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/117/12.0.html
When The Chronicle of Higher Education reported last week that the faculty
senate of Baylor University voted 26-2 to recommend that the administration
dissolve the recently established Michael Polanyi Center for Complexity,
Information, and Design, many readers must have assumed that the new hotspot in
the Darwin Wars was Waco, Texas. Move over, Kansas. After all, despite much
huffing and puffing about procedural matters--the center was established by
administrative fiat, under the auspices of the university's Institute for Faith
and Learning, rather than through traditional faculty channels--it is clear
that opposition to the center has a great deal to do with the ongoing debate
over the "intelligent design" movement, which one Baylor faculty
member describes as "stealth creationism." But the controversy at
Baylor is more complicated than simply a battle between defenders of the
Darwinian establishment and champions of intelligent design, and those
complications have much to tell us about the challenges facing Christians who
are committed to excellence in scholarship--and who are convinced that their
faith and their scholarship do not belong in separate compartments, sealed off
from each other.
The Baylor story begins with Robert B. Sloan, Jr., who has been president of
the university since 1995. Sloan, a New Testament scholar with a doctorate in
theology from the University of Basel, has sought to increase Baylor's academic
excellence while re-emphasizing the university's Christian tradition. As a
result of his unapologetic statement that prospective Baylor faculty members should
be "individuals who sincerely espouse and seek to express their academic
and professional identities through the particularity of the Christian
faith--i.e., commitment to the universal lordship of the crucified and risen
Jesus Christ," Sloan has been pilloried by faculty critics at Baylor as a
"fundamentalist" (see The Chronicle of Higher Education, July
23, 1999).
Here, as at many historically Protestant and Catholic colleges and
universities today, we see the convolutions of faculty who dismiss, as somehow
outrageous, the very raison d'etre of the institutions they serve. To do
justice to this phenomenon would require the savage satiric genius of Jonathan
Swift. But this fifth column is not the only threat to genuine integration of
faith and learning at Christian institutions. The fundamentalist bogeyman is
all too real, as countless faculty members and administrators at Christian
colleges could attest, to their sorrow. Indeed, not long before Sloan became
president, Baylor's science faculty came under fire from fundamentalist
Baptists for teaching evolution.
Which brings us back to the Polanyi Center. William Dembski, the center's
director--and a familiar figure to readers of Books & Culture--is
one of the leading voices of the intelligent design movement. But Dembski and
Bruce Gordon, the center's associate director, while they disagree strongly
with the naturalistic assumptions that are at the foundation of mainstream
Darwinism, do not want to shut down debate by quoting from Genesis (as many
fundamentalist critics of evolution do), nor do they engage in the flimsy
pseudo-scholarship that characterizes so-called creation science. Rather, they
want to promote high-level debate on issues of "complexity, information,
and design" in the universe, just as the center's full name promises.
To that end, just before the faculty senate vote reported in the Chronicle,
the Polanyi Center hosted a conference on naturalism that brought together
leading Christian thinkers with robust defenders of naturalism. The conference,
which featured an extraordinary lineup of influential scientists, philosophers,
and scholars from other fields, should serve as a model for first-rate
Christian engagement with scholarship, showing that, contra Richard Rorty,
religion is not a conversation-stopper in the national conversation.
A day after the Chronicle reported the faculty vote, President Sloan
gave a "State of the University" address in which he reaffirmed the
university's commitment to the center and noted that its work would be evaluated
by a panel largely consisting of outside experts. That is good news. We need
more centers like this, and more administrators with the vision and courage to
make them a reality.
John Wilson is Editor of Books & Culture: A Christian
Review.
|
Discovery Institute Holds
D.C. Briefing
|
May 8, 2000
http://www.usnewswire.com:80/topnews/Current_Releases/0508-102.html
Discovery Institute to
Hold Policy Briefing May 10 U.S. Newswire 8 May 9:20
Discovery Institute to
Hold Congressional Policy Briefing May 10 in Washington To: National Desk,
Science Reporter Contact: Rob Crowther of the Discovery Institute,
206-292-0401, ext. 107; Web site: http://www.discovery.org
WASHINGTON, May 8
/U.S. Newswire/ -- Discovery Institute will bring top scientists and scholars
to Washington D.C. to brief Congressional Representatives and Senators and
their staffs on the scientific evidence of intelligent design and its
implications for public policy and education, Wednesday, May 10, in the U.S.
Capitol Building and the Rayburn Office Building.
Congressional co-hosts
include: Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Rep. Charles Canady (R-FL), Rep. Sheila
Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Thomas Petri (R-WI), Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-PA), Rep.
Mark Souder (R-IN), Rep. Charles Stenholm (D-TX).
While much of the
scientific evidence for design in nature is only now coming to light publicly,
its significance for politics and public life is profound.
"Public policy is
downstream from culture," explained Bruce Chapman, president of Discovery
Institute, the think tank sponsoring the science briefing. "It expresses
people's fundamental beliefs or worldview. The worldview of the American
Founders included a high sense of human dignity...the belief that the world is
the design of a benevolent Intelligence. As the Declaration of Independence
puts it, we 'are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.'"
But the rise of modern
science encouraged a materialistic view of life and undercut the classic
understanding of human dignity, implying that humanity is the product not of
design, but of blind chance and natural laws -- a cosmic accident.
"The
materialistic view of human nature has had enormous negative implications for
our public life," added Chapman. "It influences politics, law,
morality, and threatens the American republic from both sides of the political
spectrum."
Yet recent
developments in science are turning up startling new evidence of purpose and
intelligent design in the world. Today a new generation of scientists and
scholars, called "design theorists," is following this evidence, many
of them associated with the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of
Science and Culture (CRSC). "Design theory" promises to reinvigorate
the defense of human dignity and of the democratic political systems necessary
to preserve that dignity.
Design theory will be
the topic of a private luncheon, hosted by Discovery Institute's Center for the
Renewal of Science and Culture, May 10, from noon-1:30 P.M., in the U.S.
Capitol Building, HC7. Immediately following the luncheon, scientists and
scholars will address the evidence for design at a special policy briefing 2-5
p.m. in room 2237 of the Rayburn Office Building. There will be a closing
reception from 5-7 p.m. Media are invited to attend the briefing and reception.
Speakers at the
briefing will address questions such as: What is the new scientific case for
design? How has the Darwinian and materialistic worldview influenced public
policy in education, family policy, welfare, and criminal justice? How could
scientific evidence for design help resolve the long dispute over the teaching
of origins in public schools, often described as the "battle between
creation and evolution?"
Leading scientists and
scholars in the growing "intelligent design" movement will speak at
the briefing, and will be available for interviews at the private luncheon and
the closing reception. They include: Prof. Phillip Johnson, Jefferson E. Peyser
Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley, Author of Darwin on
Trial, Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds;
Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Michael Behe, Professor of Biological Sciences,
Lehigh University, Author of Darwin's Black Box; Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. William
Dembski, Associate Research Professor and Director of the Michael Polanyi
Center, Baylor University, and author of The Design Inference and Intelligent
Design; Discovery Fellow Nancy Pearcey, author of How Now Shall We Live? (with
Chuck Colson) and of The Soul of Science (with Charles Thaxton); and Dr.
Stephen Meyer, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Whitworth College, Director
of Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture and
author of the forthcoming book DNA by Design.
For more information
or to schedule interviews contact Rob Crowther at: 206-292-0401, ext. 107, or
at robcr@discovery.org, or browse Discovery Institute's website at
http://www.discovery.org/.
Discovery Institute is
a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in Seattle
and dealing with national and international affairs. For more information
browse Discovery's website at http://www.discovery.org.
-0- /U.S. Newswire
202-347-2770/ 05/08 09:20
****MEMO****
To: Robert Sloan, Donald Schmeltekopf, Michael Beaty, and
Bruce Gordon
From: William Dembski
Re: My Role at Baylor Henceforth
Date: May 10, 2000
Dear Colleagues:
I'm sorry to have to include Robert and Donald in this memo, but I've reached a
decision, and given all the pressures we are facing, it's best that I inform
all of you of it as soon as possible.
Since things became unsettled at Baylor regarding the Polanyi Center earlier
this year, I have found my range of motion increasingly limited. I am a
research scholar, yes, but I am also a public intellectual. I have research
that I do, but there are also implications of that research, and I need to be
able to speak freely both about my work and its implications.
It appears, however, that increasingly my academic freedom has been curtailed
at Baylor. Most recently I was asked not to speak at a congressional briefing
in Washington, DC. It seemed to me then and it still seems to me now a
perfectly reasonable meeting for me to be involved with and present my work on
intelligent design. The focus of the briefing was to be on recent scientific
developments in intelligent design and their implications for wordview
formation and education.
As a faculty member at an educational institution I do have a stake in public
education and specifically in the role of intelligent design within public
education. I do not support equal-time laws nor do I support legislation that
would enforce the teaching of intelligent design (nor for that matter do any of
the presenters at the Washington briefing). Nor do I want the teaching of
evolution in any way curtailed. I do have views, however, on the role of
intelligent design within public education, and my academic freedom includes
the right to express those views in the public square.
My name has now been associated with this congressional briefing for several
weeks and widely circulated within Washington, DC. This Monday the Discovery
Institute issued a national press release that retained my name despite my
withdrawing from the program on Saturday. I'm convinced this was an innocent
mix-up given my last minute cancellation, but I'm now finding myself being
asked to explain why I was on the program and why I subsequently chose not to
attend. What's more, I'm being encouraged to say that I discovered only too
late that Discovery was politicizing intelligent design and that I, as director
of the MPC, could properly have nothing to do with such a program since the MPC
is strictly a research center [see letter written for William Dembski just
after this memo].
This way of spinning what happened is false, and I will not sign on to it. In
fact, I will not concede that Discovery is "politicizing" intelligent
design in any shape or fashion. There are legitimate issues of public interest
connected with intelligent design, and the briefing is addressing them. No
policy is being proposed. Congress is not being asked to sign onto something
that will curtail anyone's freedom. There is one and only one reason I did not
go to Washington, and that's as a courtesy to you because of the pressures you
are experiencing.
Looking back now I think it was a mistake not to go. Our enemies are as
incensed as ever, and we now have fewer potential allies because, by not going
to Washington, I was unable to network with the very people who could actually
help the Michael Polanyi Center. I see a dismal pattern emerging: Placating
people who will never support us, and in the process either alienating or
missing opportunities with people and groups who might benefit us.
Tonight I re-read my contract. I was hired to make a go of the Polanyi Center.
Instead I have found my hands increasingly tied. The atmosphere at Baylor
continues to be highly charged and prejudicial. I've had no opportunity to
speak and defend myself before accusers. And my academic freedom has been
infringed in ways that will not withstand public scrutiny. I've described to
colleagues outside Baylor the sorts of concessions I've been asked to make on
behalf of the MPC, and the overwhelming reaction has been shock, disbelief, and
outrage -- they simply could not imagine academics at other institutions
putting up with the strictures that have been imposed on me.
My decision, then, is this. I have the same right to academic freedom as any
other academic, and I will make full use of it. I will not do things to
needlessly exascerbate the difficulties of the administration with the faculty
and board of regents. But I regard placating enemies at the expense of winning
allies as a losing strategy, and I will henceforth have no part in it. I have a
5 and 1/2 year contract to make a go of the Polanyi Center. I will attempt to
do that. I will henceforth pass up no opportunities to win powerful supporters,
like members of Congress. As a research scholar and public intellectual on the
faculty at Baylor, I will expect the same freedom from strictures that my Ivy
league counterparts enjoy.
This, then, is my decision. Whether Baylor can live with it is another matter.
I realize it places in jeopardy my own position and the MPC. That is a risk,
however, I'm willing to take.
Sincerely, Bill Dembski
LETTER DRAFTED BY BAYLOR ADMINISTRATION 5/9/00 FOR WILLIAM
DEMBSKI TO SIGN TO ALLAY BAYLOR FACULTY CONCERNS ABOUT HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE
WASHINGTON BRIEFING [I refused to sign this. �WmAD, 5.3.05]
Response
from Bill Dembski to faculty concerns about his involvement with the
congressional briefings on ID Theory (for internal distribution to critics):
The
briefings were initiated by a few members of Congress who had become aware of
ID theory through discussions in the public press and wanted to know more about
it. I was invited to be a part of the briefings solely for the purpose of
informing these congressmen about my academic research, nothing more. When the
Discovery Institute learned that a briefing was being requested and it was
desired that a variety of ID theorists be involved, they entered the picture to
coordinate the presentations. While this was going on, I was occupied with a
variety of projects that required my full attention, and from April 23-30 was
actually out of the country. When I returned, I began to think again about the
Washington meeting, because it was coming up soon, and I took a closer look at
what would be involved. I had some concerns, because it looked to me like it was
no longer going to be strictly an academic briefing on ID research, and I asked
Mike Beaty and Bruce Gordon for their advice. They advised against my
involvement, and when I discovered on Saturday that public school education
issues were going to be discussed, that clinched the matter: I immediately sent
notification to Discovery that I would not be participating. Such political
issues are no part of what the Polanyi Center is about, and my presence at such
a gathering would give the wrong impression. The MPC is a research center and
must distance itself from politicization of design theory in any way, shape or
form. While work on design is one component among its research concerns, this
work is strictly academic. Unfortunately, though I left a message at the
Discovery Institute on Saturday that I would not be participating in the
briefings, the press release (which came out early Monday morning (EST) and has
raised questions at Baylor) had been arranged by Discovery at the end of the
preceding week. By the time Discovery personnel returned to the office on
Monday morning and learned of my withdrawal from the proceedings, the notice
had already hit the wires and th about it. I regret that this happened, but
there's nothing I can do at this point but apologize that the list of
participants in the briefings were made public before I was able to dissociate
myself from the event.
SUMMARY OF CONTROVERSY OVER MICHAEL
POLANYI CENTER
By William Dembski
May 23rd, 2000
In early February 1999 I received an unsolicited phone call from Michael
Beaty, then an associate professor of philosophy at Baylor University and
head of its Institute for Faith and Learning (he is now full professor in
the philosophy department). He called to inquire whether I might be
interested in a faculty position at Baylor. We began to explore this
possibility and I came down in March 1999 for interviews with Michael Beaty
and the provost Donald Schmeltekopf. I explained that I was a senior fellow
of the Discovery Institute and that with this position came a full salary
allowing me to devote full-time to my research. Thus I was not interested in
an ordinary faculty appointment; nonetheless, I would be interested in
directing a research center devoted to questions of complexity, information,
design, the conceptual foundations of science, and the relation between
science, religion, and culture generally. Given that Michael Beaty is
director of Baylor's Institute for Faith and Learning and given that he had
for some time wanted to have a component of this institute that dealt with
science and religion, he as well as the provost were interested in my idea
for a center. They asked me to compose a planning document for such a
center, which I did mid-March 1999.
The center I proposed was to be called the Michael Polanyi Center, named
after the Hungarian physical chemist who turned to philosophy later in life
because he saw science being subverted by materialist ideology. The center
would initially be part of Baylor's Institute for Faith and Learning. It
would focus on questions of complexity, information, design, the conceptual
foundations of science, and the relation between science, religion, and
culture. It would eventually become a free standing degree-granting
department offering graduate degrees in the history and philosophy of
science as well as in complex systems. It would sponsor conferences,
symposia, and speakers on campus. It would run a colloquium to engage Baylor
faculty. It would offer summer workshops for high school students and inner
city children on the relation between science and religion along the lines
of Eugene Rivers's work in Boston. Finally, it would initiate and then host
an international scholarly society concerned with complexity, information,
and design (tentatively called the International Society for Intelligent
Design).
The president of Baylor, Robert Sloan, its provost, Donald Schmeltekopf, and
the Institute for Faith and Learning's director, Michael Beaty, all received
my planning document for the Michael Polanyi Center with enthusiasm. I came
to campus in early April to give a talk about my own work in intelligent
design and to have lunch with about a dozen faculty members at the faculty
club. At this time I gave Donald Schmeltekopf and Michael Beaty copies of my
book _The Design Inference_ and to Beaty also a copy of my edited collection
_Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design_. I wanted to be
certain that they knew my work and the controversy connected with it in the
scientific community.
Because of various commitments requiring me to stay in Dallas for two years
(among them my wife being a doctoral student at the University of Dallas),
it seemed that the best way to expedite the formation of the Michael Polanyi
Center was by hiring an associate director. Until my arrival at Baylor two
years down the road, I would therefore be the director from afar and though
officially on the faculty of Baylor I would receive no pay (my pay check
would instead be coming from the Discovery Institute). It was agreed to hire
my friend and colleague Bruce Gordon, a recent graduate from Northwestern
University specializing in philosophy of physics. Bruce was interviewed in
early June 1999, offered the position of associate director of the Michael
Polanyi Center as well as an assistant research professorship in the
Institute for Faith and Learning. Gordon arrived in Waco in mid-August 1999
to assume his responsibilities. That fall he was to teach a logic sequence
in the philosophy department, run a colloquium for Baylor faculty interested
in science and religion, and help get the ball rolling for the Michael
Polanyi Center.
For reasons that are still unclear to me, the Michael Polanyi Center was not
officially launched at Baylor until October 1999. It was announced quietly
and its first activity was a faculty colloquium devoted to Lee Smolin's book
_Life of the Cosmos_. Between ten and twenty faculty attended the colloquium
on average. There seemed to be good-will and rapport between Bruce Gordon
and me on the one hand and the Baylor faculty who attended the colloquium on
the other. As our goals and interests at the Michael Polanyi Center became
apparent, they were greeted with respect even if also with skepticism. By
comparison with the spring that would follow, the fall of 1999 was a
peaceful time at the Michael Polanyi Center. Even some of our most outspoken
antagonists in the spring were kindly disposed toward us in the fall. That
fall we also set up a website (www.baylor.edu/~polanyi) and began organizing
a conference on naturalism, which took place at Baylor April 12-15, 2000.
One other thing happened fall of 1999: I was awarded a Templeton Book Prize
worth $100,000, which freed me up from my responsibilities in Dallas and
would allow me to move to Waco as soon as possible. I explored whether
instead of fall 2001, as was initially planned, I might assume my
responsibilities as director in-residence of the Michael Polanyi Center at
Baylor immediately, with the Templeton Prize front-loading my Baylor salary
for the first 17 months, and then Baylor committing an additional four years
for me to head up and make a go of the Polanyi Center. A contract was
drafted and signed December 1999, the signatures including mine and the
provost Donald Schmeltekopf. The contract specified that I should direct the
Michael Polanyi Center and "develop a research program and related
activities in the conceptual foundations of science and the interface of
religion and science." My appointment was set "for the period of
February 1,
2000 through May 31, 2005." Before the contract was drafted I gave the
president, the provost, and Michael Beaty a copy of my latest book
_Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology_ so that they
would have no doubt about what my intellectual program was.
Controversy over the Michael Polanyi Center erupted early in the spring
semester of 2000. My first indication that something was amiss came January
17, 2000 when I received a contentious email from a Baylor biologist asking
whether I had considered the negative impact that the Michael Polanyi Center
would have on the "hard sciences" at Baylor. Such attacks became
commonplace. I found that my training in mathematics at the University of
Chicago, my postdoctoral fellowships in mathematics, physics, and computer
science at MIT, University of Chicago, and Princeton University respectively
were ignored. Opponents at Baylor characterized me as a fundamentalist and
creationist. Some of this was filtered to me through Michael Beaty and Bruce
Gordon. Some of this came out in newspaper articles and postings on Internet
newsgroups.
The colloquium continued spring of 2000 with the focus this term being on
Stephen Jay Gould's _Rocks of Ages_, a book discussing the relation between
science and religion. Although Baylor religion faculty continued to attend
the colloquium, science faculty quickly dropped out. Science faculty had
several meetings with Michael Beaty, the provost, and the president, urging
them to dissolve the Michael Polanyi Center. The pressure to dissolve the
center became intense. Even after Bruce Gordon and I had secured two Nobel
laureates for the then upcoming naturalism conference (April 12-15, 2000),
we were almost uniformly dismissed as charlatans by the science faculty. It
became clear that no matter what the outcome of the naturalism conference,
it would be used against us (if it succeeded, it simply would show how
devious we were at pursuing our agenda; if it failed, the it showed us as
incompetents -- in either case it would be in the best interest of Baylor to
cashier us). It's worth point out here that in all the meetings that the
Baylor administration had with critics of the Polanyi Center and of me
personally, I was never once given the opportunity to be present, face my
accusers, or offer a defense (this was true even at the meeting of the board
of regents on May 4th, 2000 -- see below).
Despite all this controversy, I put up my house for sale early February 2000
and put a down payment on a house in the Waco area around the same time. I
remained fully intent on carrying out my duties as director of the Michael
Polanyi Center and commuting as required down to Waco until my house was
sold and the move could be completed. Moreover, the administration showed
every sign of backing the Michael Polanyi Center, and that despite
significant pressure.
Nonetheless, the pressure was also having an effect on the administration,
which resulted increasingly in restrictions being placed on me, both in what
I could do through the Michael Polanyi Center and on my academic freedom.
Because of faculty pressure, the administration repeatedly asked us (Bruce
Gordon and me) to make changes to our website, thus altering the very focus
of the Polanyi Center. In my initial planning document I had conceived of
the Michael Polanyi Center as a counterpart to the Santa Fe Institute, doing
first and foremost scientific research. The Polanyi Center was to have as
its principal focus complexity, information, and design, and then leverage
these to examine the conceptual foundations of science and the connection
between science, religion, and culture. These were now all put on a par.
Even so, the center would still be doing scientific research. Next, however,
we were barred from even claiming that we were doing scientific research. In
place of the motto "for the understanding and advancement of science"
we
were told by the administration to replace it because the science faculty
were claiming that we were "not doing science." So we substituted
"advancing
the understanding of science." After making all the changes we were asked
to
make, it was finally put to the administration to remove the Polanyi website
entirely from Baylor's server. Thankfully the administration refused to bow
to pressure on this point.
The greater academic community was also putting pressure on Baylor.
Repeatedly I was informed of faculty outside Baylor importuning Baylor
faculty about the Polanyi Center with the hope of hastening its demise.
Efforts to sabotage the Polanyi Center did not stop here. A professor at
Southeastern Louisiana University, Barbara Forrest, circulated an email
aimed at naturalism conference
plenary speakers informing them that the
Polanyi Center was a creationist
front and thereby attempting to create
a domino effect among speakers
causing them to drop out of the conference
(fortunately only one speaker did so).
The naturalism conference was an outstanding success (and that despite the
boycott by many Baylor faculty). We had two Nobel Laureates (Stephen
Weinberg and Christian de Duve), several members from the National Academy
of Sciences (e.g., Mark Ptashne and Alan Guth), world class scientists and
scholars (e.g., Simon Conway Morris, John Searle, and Alvin Plantinga). More
than just the quality of speakers, there was great rapport among thinkers
who held to widely differing perspectives. Christian de Duve tied it all
together at the final conference dinner when he toasted the conference for
its good spirit and stimulating exchanges -- what Michael Polanyi referred
to in his writings as "conviviality."
Unfortunately, the conference afterglow was short-lived. Right after the
conference, the faculty senate at Baylor voted 26-2 to dissolve the Polanyi
Center, citing lack of faculty consultation as the reason for its
dissolution. President Robert Sloan rejected this argument, claiming that
not procedure but rather substantive disagreements with the center's
research program were the reason for the vote. To his credit, Sloan hung
tough and refused to dissolve the center at the faculty senate's behest.
Nonetheless, the administration did institute an evaluation committee to
address the faculty's concerns about accountability of the Polanyi Center
and extent to which it was meeting its stated goals. Frankly, this seemed to
me premature. The Polanyi Center had just been formed. Evaluation committees
are usually formed only after an entity has had a chance to prove itself.
More worrisome about the evaluation committee, however, was the lack of
consultation with me, the director of the center, about the committee, nor
any specified standards by which the evaluation committee would judge the
Polanyi Center. I repeatedly asked the administration to clarify:
(1) Why was the MPC evaluation committee formed without my consultation?
(2) Who is on the committee and who selected the committee?
(3) What is the timetable for evaluations?
(4) What standards will the committee employ for evaluation?
(5) Other than my written work, what recourse do I have for
�persuading the committee about the
legitimacy of my work?
Thusfar I know only four names on the committee. I'm told there will be a
dozen or so people on it. I have submitted eight of my articles to the
committee for review and I am told that the committee is to be given copies
of my books. If the committee decides this summer that the Michael Polanyi
Center is not worth keeping, will it be gone in short order? I do not know.
All this pressure on the administration translated to increasing pressures
on me personally and my vision for the Michael Polanyi Center. For instance,
I had an article on my Baylor homepage (www.baylor.edu/~William_Dembski) on
"Teaching Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula."
This
article gave a nice summary of intelligent design and argued that it is a
scientific theory fully worth being taught in the public school science
curriculum. It did not advocate any coercive measures for injecting
intelligent design into the public schools. It's aim was simply to open up
the discussion. Nonetheless, I was pressed by the administration to remove
this article from my website. The rationale given was that the Michael
Polanyi Center was a research center and the director should not be seen as
associated with anything that might in the least be construed as political.
I acceded, but thought the administration's rationale misconceived.
More worrisome were the increasing restrictions on the Polanyi Center
itself. I was hired by Baylor in part to raise money for the center. The
naturalism conference ended up costing about $80,000. I managed to procure
$16,000 from the Discovery Institute and then put the Discovery Institute in
touch with the Templeton Foundation, which ended up giving us about $20,000
matched against conference registration fees. This still left a considerable
shortfall. I then contacted Touchstone Magazine, for which I had
guest-edited a special issue, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, and
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville for funds. While I was
negotiating with the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
(SBTS) for a contribution of $10,000, I was informed by the administration
that Baylor could not take any contribution from that seminary. I was
puzzled as to why not -- both Baylor and SBTS are Southern Baptist
institutions. Well yes, but the Southern Baptists divide down moderate and
conservative lines, with moderates preponderant at Baylor and conservatives
preponderant at SBTS, and to accept money from SBTS would set the moderates
at Baylor against the Michael Polanyi Center.
Next I had actually procured $4,000 from the Foundation for Thought and
Ethics (FTE), a publisher of books on intelligent design as well as
textbooks for high school students. When the administration found out that
FTE had an intelligent design supplemental high school biology text that had
been involved in legal disputes, they refused to take money from FTE as
well. I argued that it was not FTE that was responsible for the legal
disputes, but rather the ACLU and similar groups that were intimidating
teachers and school boards that attempted to teach intelligent design using
FTE's materials. This argument carried no weight with the administration,
for whom the slightest whiff of political controversy was enough to nix an
ally.
Finally, I had also procured $5,000 from Touchstone Magazine. This the
administration accepted until they came across the special issue on
intelligent design that I had guest edited for Touchstone and in particular
a controversial article by Phillip Johnson. Having accepted the money, the
administration decided rather than return the money to Touchstone to forbid
Touchstone from displaying the problematic special issue at the naturalism
conference. Touchstone threatened to make this act of censorship public
knowledge, whereupon the administration backed down.
I found a dismal pattern emerging here: Placating critics and alienating
friends. It was an embarrassment to me personally to have to return money or
place restrictions on those giving it. It certainly damaged my credibility
and effectiveness as a fund-raiser, and more generally as director of the
Michael Polanyi Center. I felt increasingly as one whose hands were being
tied.
The faculty senate vote of 27-2 to dissolve the Michael Polanyi Center was
startling but not the cause of undue concern. Indeed, the Baylor
administration appears not legally bound to accede to faculty demands and
seems regularly to exercise this prerogative. Nonetheless, it is legally
bound by the decisions of the board of regents. On May 4, 2000 the
president, the provost, and Michael Beaty (I was not asked to be present)
met with the academic subcommittee of the board of regents. The focus of the
discussion was the Michael Polanyi Center. A motion was made that would have
reconstituted the evaluation committee in a way that would have been sure to
sink the the MPC. Fortunately, this motion did not even come to a vote. My
own sense, though, is that this meeting left the administration sobered and
shaken, as the next set of events would prove.
In November of 1999 Brad Clanton, committee counsel for the House Judiciary
Committee (specifically with the Constitution subcommittee), wanted from me
an executive summary for an upcoming Congressional hearing on intelligent
design. Colleagues of mine in the intelligent design community, me included,
were worried that a hearing would politicize intelligent design. Since our
concern is that intelligent design be received on its merits and not through
political force, we preferred a **briefing** rather than a hearing and to
have it sponsored by both Democrats and Republicans (Congressional co-hosts
included even two Democrats from Texas: Charlie Stenholm and Sheila
Jackson-Lee). This briefing was scheduled for May 10th and I was to speak at
a session with Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer devoted strictly to
intelligent design as a scientific theory.
Back in early January of 2000 (January 6, 2000), before things erupted at
Baylor, and while it still looked as though the Congressional meeting was
going to be a hearing rather than a briefing, I informed the provost Donald
Schmeltekopf of the possibility of the hearing and my invitation to it. He
wrote back: "I appreciate your giving us a heads up on this, and I
appreciate the fact that you are sensitive to how a research project could
be soured by politics." After raising several questions, each of which
were
answered satisfactorily, he concluded: "If the responses to my two
questions
are satisfactory, I don't see a problem with you testifying. In fact, it
could well be a useful opportunity. But I would like to hear from Mike and
Bruce. Perhaps there are some issues I haven't thought of."
Michael Beaty was less sanguine about my congressional involvement. In an
email dated January 6, 2000 he wrote: "Why would some member of congress
in
this election year be interested in putting forward a resolution on the
constitutionality of teaching intelligent design in the public schools
unless it is for political gain?" Mike's suspicions were also voiced by my
colleagues in the intelligent design movement. As long as this was to be a
hearing, with a vote by Congress on some resolution, there was the danger of
politicizing intelligent design.
The matter was therefore dropped for a few weeks and then reopened and
reframed as a bipartisan academic conference/briefing of congressional
members. Not until February 21st was a date set for such a briefing. Because
my preparations for the naturalism conference were at this point in full
swing and because the Congressional meeting was to be a briefing rather than
a hearing, I put the matter in cold storage. What's more, I thought this
would be a low-key event, with minimal media involvement. Perhaps I should
have known better. At any rate, I marked the Congressional briefing on my
calendar and didn't think much about it. Shortly before the event, however,
it became clear that there would be a lot of media attention focused on this
event. That same week the board of regents met with the administration (May
4th). I had been out of town the prior week (April 23rd to 30th), so my
awareness of the congressional meeting becoming a media event and my
awareness of the administration having to meet with the board of regents
(the meeting being called on short notice) happened simultaneously. In
particular, I was not trying to blindside the administration.
On Friday, May 5, 2000 I informed the administration of my planned trip to
Washington to brief members of Congress about intelligent design and of the
expected media presence. Michael Beaty, the administration's representative,
immediately expressed his dismay at my attending the briefing and urged me
to bow out. Although the initiative to hold the congressional briefing came
from members of Congress, Discovery Institute, at which I continue to be a
senior fellow, was organizing the meeting. On Saturday, May 6th, I wrote to
the Discovery Institute as follows:
�The problem I face in relation to the
upcoming
�congressional briefing is this. Michael
Beaty,
�head of the Institute for Faith and
Learning,
�the provost Donald Schmeltekopf, and the
�president Robert Sloan have gone to the
mat for
�me and the MPC, assuring faculty and the
board
�of regents that the Michael Polanyi
Center and
�Bill Dembski in particular are devoted
to
�developing ID as a scientific research
program.
�My understanding with the congressional
briefing
�is that it was to be a small meeting of
�congressman and aids. From Jay Richard's
most
�recent post it's now clear that it will
be a
�major media event. Given all the
pressures my
�colleagues at Baylor are facing, I
therefore
�had to let them know of the media
involvement.
�Baylor has formally asked me not to
attend the
�upcoming congressional briefing. Since I
am now
�officially an employee of theirs and
since I want
�to make a go of the MPC, I see no other
option
�but to agree to their request.
�Sincerely,
�Bill Dembski
Despite this letter, my own view is that it was a mistake not to attend this
meeting, or if not a mistake, then certainly a lost opportunity because of
pressure on the administration. I saw attending this meeting as entirely
within my job description of making the Michael Polanyi Center a scientific
research center. Part of my job description is fund-raising. An integral
part of fund-raising is networking with important, powerful, and wealthy
people. Where better than to start than Congress? What's more, even though
intelligent design is still widely regarded as "fringe," it has a
growing
following and it might just be able to get a piece of NSF funding
(alternative medicine now has a yearly budget within the NIH). I declined to
attend the Washington briefing on prudential grounds, not on principled
grounds.
My email telling the Discovery Institute to cancel my appearance went out on
Saturday, May 6, 2000. Despite that, on Monday, May 8th, the Discovery
Institute issued a national press release listing me as one of the speakers
at the congressional briefing. I'm convinced this was an innocent mix-up
given my last minute cancellation. Nonetheless, immediately the
administration asked me to issue a disclaimer, explaining why I was on the
program and why I subsequently chose not to attend. Specifically, I was
urged to say that I discovered only too late that the Discovery Institute
was politicizing intelligent design and that I, as director of the MPC,
could properly have nothing to do with such a program since the MPC is
strictly a research center.
This way of spinning what happened is false, and I would not sign on to it.
In fact, I do not concede that Discovery is "politicizing"
intelligent
design in any shape or fashion (and that despite the notorious
"Wedge"
document that's all over the Internet). There are legitimate issues of
public interest connected with intelligent design, and the briefing was to
address them. No policy was being proposed. Congress was not being asked to
sign onto something that would curtail anyone's freedom. There was one and
only one reason I did not go to Washington, and that was to relieve pressure
on the Baylor administration. As it was, even without the national press
release, my name was all over Washington, connecting me to the briefing. Not
going to Washington lost the MPC potential allies. On the other hand, it
certainly failed to win us any allies among Baylor faculty and board of
regents, though it may have allayed some fears momentarily.
The Washington briefing occurred on May 10th, 2000. That day I issued a memo
to the president, provost, Michael Beaty, and Bruce Gordon, making clear
that the way the administration applied pressure to me to forego briefing
Congress, and then further applied pressure for me to issue a disclaimer
about why I didn't brief Congress violated my academic freedom and that I
would allow no such abridgement of my academic freedom in the future. This
produced a swift response from the administration prompting a meeting with
Michael Beaty on Thursday, May 11th, in which the Baylor administration was
prepared to make a settlement with me and have me leave Baylor. I was given
to understand that:
(1) The president had expended as much "political
�capital" as he could on the MPC,
and that further
�turmoil with the MPC could bring down
not only
�the MPC but also the administration.
(2) Even though no other member of the Baylor faculty
�would be barred from speaking to
Congress, I would.
�If I were to stay at Baylor, I would be
subject
�to unique contraints in terms of what I
could and
�could not say or do.
(3) That my academic freedom would be limited until
�I managed to attain tenure in some
department
�at Baylor.
I found this last item remarkable. My five and a half year contract with
Baylor came not only without tenure but also without the promise of tenure.
I had always regarded this as an asset: I would have the freedom to do what
I needed to make a go of the MPC, and if things didn't work out, Baylor
could get rid of me at the end of that period. I did forego tenure for
precisely the reasons that were now being given to me for needing tenure.
The administration was prepared to settle right then and there. I decided to
forego a decision for the moment. I understood the administration to be
giving me the following ultimatum: (A) Submit to administration demands to
curb my academic freedom. It was clear that they were willing to take me
back on this condition. (B) Agree to a settlement and leave. (C) Get fired.
With regard to option (A), I asked the administration repeatedly "On the
matter of restrictions to my academic freedom, can you specify what I will
and will not be able to do if I remain at Baylor? I realize you can't cover
every eventuality, but if you could at least give me general guidelines,
that would be helpful." I was never given any specifics. The closest thing
to an answer was "as conditions at Baylor allow."
On Saturday, May 20th, 2000 I gave the administration my decision:
�I've decided to abide by my memo of May
10th. In
�other words, I will accept nothing less
than the
�full academic freedom accorded to other
Baylor
�faculty and which Baylor is expected to
accord to
�its faculty as part of the broader
academic community.
�This decision is firm.
�The question is where we go from here.
As I see it,
�there are the following possibilities:
�(1) Baylor grants me the academic
freedom that
�is legally and contractually my right.
�(2) Baylor offers me an acceptable
settlement,
�upon which my employment is terminated.
�Baylor and I cannot agree upon a
settlement,
�in which case
�(3) Baylor grudgingly retains me.
�(4) Baylor fires me.
�Given my decision and given our
discussion on
�Thursday, May 11th, 2000, my
understanding is that
�(2) and (4) are the only live
possibilities that
�the administration is considering.
Please let me know
�if this is correct and what the next
step is.
�Sincerely,
�Bill Dembski
In response to this memo, I received an email from Mike Beaty on May 22,
2000 giving still a fifth option: "Baylor removes you as director of MPC
and
retains you in the capacity of Associate Research Professor in the
Conceptual Foundations of Science." If I had wanted a straight research
position, I need never have come to Baylor in the first place since I
already had a straight research position with the Discovery Institute. Beaty
also wrote: "Don Schmeltekopf [the provost] is out of the country and will
not be back in the office until Friday, June 2. This will give you time to
consider all the options." This last statement I found puzzling. I had
made
my decision to maintain my academic freedom. The ball was now in the
administration's court whether to fire me or settle or come up with some
other resolution.
This is where things stand at present. It's evident that the MPC and I
myself are caught in a political cross-fire and that the opposition I am
experiencing has less to do with me and my ideas than with an internecine
struggle at Baylor between the administration and faculty. Baylor
University's administration is about to force me from my position here
because of my public role in intelligent design. I've been given to
understand I have really only two live options: either a settlement or a
straight sacking (I've repeatedly raised the question whether not settling
will entail firing, and the closest thing I've been told is "We don't want
to do that" -- not "We would never do that" or "We will
abide by your
contract"). I interpret my present crisis as follows: Because of my
writings
on ID, I am now not only a research scholar but also a public spokesman. The
Baylor administration feels deeply threatened by my role as a public
spokesman for intelligent design. The board of regents is now scrutinizing
the Polanyi Center and the controversy is being characterized as the most
divisive at Baylor in the last 30 years. The administration worries that the
board of regents will bring them down. If it's a question of the
administration going down or me, the choice is clear.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT
A SCIENCE
(House of Representatives - June 14, 2000)
[Page: H4480] �GPO's PDF
The
SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, on June 1, I received a letter that was written by
seven members of the biology department and one professor of psychology from
Baylor University in response to my co-hosting a recent conference on
intelligent design, the theory that an intelligent agency can be detected in
nature, sponsored by the Discovery Institute.
The professors denounced intelligent design as pseudo science and advocated
what is bluntly called the materialistic approach to science.
Mr. Speaker, I am appalled that any university seeking to discover truth, yet
alone a university that is a Baptist Christian school, could make the kinds of
statements that are contained in this letter. Is there position on teaching
about materialistic science so weak that it cannot withstand scrutiny and
debate?
Intelligent design theory is upheld by the same kind of data and analysis as
any other theory to determine whether an event is caused by natural or
intelligent causes; just as a detective relies on evidence to decide whether a
death was natural or murder, and an insurance company relies on evidence to
decide whether a fire is an accident or arson. A scientist looking at, say, the
structure of a DNA molecule goes through exactly the same reasoning to decide
whether the DNA code is the result of natural causes or an intelligent agent.
Today, qualified scientists are reaching the conclusion that design theory
makes better sense of the data. Influential new books are coming out by
scientists like molecular biologist Behe, Darwin's Black Box, the Free Press,
and mathematician William Dembski, the Design Interference, Cambridge
University Press, which point out the problems with Darwinian evolution and
highlight evidence for intelligent design in the university.
The tone of the letter I received seems to suggest that my congressional
colleagues and I were unsuspecting honorary co-hosts in a conference on
intelligent design. That is not the case. My good friend, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Canady), chairman of the House Judiciary
Subcommittee on the Constitution has considered holding a congressional hearing
on the bias and viewpoint discrimination in science and science education.
Ideological bias has no place in science and many of us in Congress do not want
the government to be party to it.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) approached several
people, including the Discovery Institute, about plans for such a hearing. The
people at Discovery suggested that instead we allow them merely to put on a
modest informational briefing on intelligent design. That is exactly what
happened, and we regarded the result as very valuable.
Nevertheless, many of us continue to be concerned about the unreasoning
viewpoint discrimination in science. This letter dismisses those who do not
share the philosophy of science favored by the authors as frauds. It is ironic,
however, that the authors do not ever actually get around to answering the
substantive arguments put forward by people at the Discovery Institute. The
authors support a philosophy of science they call materialistic science. The
key phrase in the letter is that we cannot consider God's role in the natural
phenomenon we observe. Yet this assumption is merely asserted without any
argument.
How can the authors of this letter be so confident that God plays no role in
the observable world? Once we acknowledge that God exists, as these professors
presumably do since they teach as a Christian university, there is no logical
way to rule out the possibility that God may actually do something within the
universe He created.
In addition, the philosophy of science the authors talk about is just that, a
philosophy. It is not itself science, even according to the definition of
science put forward by the authors themselves. They state, for example, that
all observations must be explained through empirical observations. I am not
sure what that means but I do know this: This statement itself is not
verifiable by observation or by methods of scientific inquiry. It is rather a
philosophical statement.
If they prefer it to the alternative that they suppose it advanced by the
Discovery Institute folks, then the preference itself cannot be based on
science. It is a difference of philosophy, but they are biologists not
philosophers. They have no special authority in philosophy, even the philosophy
of science.
Even more egregiously, they say that God cannot be proved or disproved. Now
there is a philosophical statement for you. Of course many philosophers agree
with it, but there are philosophers of stature who disagree with it, too. Why
should the philosophical viewpoint of a group of biologists enjoy privileged
status?
And then there was Darwinism. This letter treats Darwinism as a
straightforwardly scientific position despite the criticism advanced by many
responsible, informed people that Darwinism itself rests not on demonstrable
facts but rather on controversial philosophical premises. In other words,
serious people make a case against Darwinism, precisely the case that Baylor's
biologists themselves are trying to make against intelligent design.
Yet the Baylor biologists simply ignore these criticisms. One senses here not a
defense of science but rather an effort to protect, by political means, a
privileged philosophical viewpoint against a serious challenge.
In digging into this matter further, it turns out that an international
conference related to this topic, the Nature of Nature, was held recently at
Baylor University. It was hosted by the Polanyi Center at Baylor and sponsored
by the Discovery Institute and the John Templeton Foundation. A number of
world-class scientists participated in the event, and contrary to the
assertions made in this letter, advocates of intelligent design, as well as
materialism, presented their ideas publicly. The authors of this letter have
been part of an intense effort to close down that center, which was founded in
part to explore these issues.
I would like to insert the rest of this statement in the Record,
as well as the letter from the professors at Baylor University.
- I would like to reference the
words of the Israeli statesman, Shimon Peres: He said, 'Science and lies cannot
coexist. You don't have a scientific lie, and you cannot lie
scienifically. Science is basically the search of truth--known, unknown,
discovered, undiscovered--and a system that does not permit the search for
truth cannot be a scientific system. Then again, science must operate in
freedom. You cannot have free research in a society that doesn't enjoy
freedom. . . . So in a strange way, science carries with it a color of
transparency, of openness, which is the beginning of democracy . . .'
- Dr. Bruce Alberts, President
of the National Academy of Sciences made a recent speech where he said
`Scientists, as practitioners, teach important values. These include
honesty, an eagerness for new ideas, the sharing of knowledge for public
benefit, and a respect for evidence that requires verification by others.
These `behaviors of science' make science a catalyst for democracy.
Science and democracy promote similar freedoms. Science and democracy
accommodate, and are strengthened by, dissent. Science's requirement of
proof resembles democracy's system of justice. Democracy is buttressed by
science's values. And science is nurtured by democracy's principles.'
- There seems to be a tension
between science as democratic, welcoming new ideas and dissent--and
science as a lobby group, seeking to impose its viewpoint upon others. As
the Congress, it might be wise for us to question whether the legitimate
authority of science over scientific matters is being misused by persons
who wish to identify science with a philosophy they prefer. Does the
scientific community really welcome new ideas and dissent, or does it
merely pay lip service to them while imposing a materialist orthodoxy?
- Only a small percentage of
Americans think the universe and life can be explained adequately in purely
materialistic terms. Even fewer think real debate on the issue ought to be
publicly suppressed.
- I ask my colleagues to join
with me in putting aside unfounded fears to explore the evidence and
truthfulness of the theories that are being presented by those on both
sides of this debate.
- I want to thank Philip
Johnson of the University of California at Berkeley. Robert * * * of
Princeton University, and others is drafting this response.
Baylor
University,
June 1, 2000.
[Page: H4481] �GPO's PDF
Dear
Congressman Souder, We became aware of a meeting on May 10, 2000 that
you and other legislators attended with members of the Discovery Institute from
their website. According to the website, the main topics of the meeting
involved the scientific case for design, the influence of the Darwinian and
materialistic worldview on public policy, and how intelligent design will
affect education. As citizens concerned with science education, we wish to give
you the perspective of mainstream scientists and science teachers.
[Page: H4482] �GPO's PDF
INTELLIGENT
DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE
It
is an old philosophical argument that has been dressed up as science. We and
other mainstream scientists refer to it as intelligent design creationism. Some
have referred to it as `creeping creationism' due to the methods used by its
proponents to sneak creation science into the classroom. The hypothesis of
intelligent design is that living creatures are too complex to have arisen by
random chance alone. However, we have yet to see any scientific, empirical data
to support this hypothesis. Some of the proponents use statistics to show the
improbability that living creatures have arisen by random chance, but this does
not say that living things could not have arisen through such means. The
members of the Discovery Institute stress that the idea of design is entirely
empirical. If this is true, then their data should be presented to the
scientific community. If mainstream scientists deem the data as evidence for
design, then your office will be flooded with messages from professional
scientists asking for more funding for design research. However, as the
supporters of intelligent design have never openly presented their data, we
have to conclude that either there is none or that it does not provide evidence
for design.
THE
PROPONENTS OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN DO NOT OPERATE AS LEGITIMATE SCIENTISTS
In
science, all research must go through some sort of peer review. A scientist
requests funds from various agencies, such as the National Science Foundation
(NSF), which requires the scientists to give a detailed explanation of the
research to be conducted. After conducting the research, the scientist then
publishes or presents his/her findings in peer reviewed, scientific journals or
at meetings sponsored by scientific organizations. In this way, other
scientists can critically study the research, how it was conducted, and if its
conclusions are correct. Proponents of intelligent design do none of this.
Their funding comes from think tanks such as the Discovery Institute which have
their own agenda. They do not publish in scientific journals nor present their
ideas at meetings sponsored by scientific organizations. Rather, they publish
books for the general public which go through no sort of review process except
by editors at publishing companies who are often concerned more with the
financial gains and less of the scientific merit of the book.
INTELLIGENT
DESIGN DOES NOT BELONG IN THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM.
Because
intelligent design has no scientific, empirical data to support it, we see no
reason why it should be allowed into the science classroom. The proponents of
intelligent design would say that they should have equal time in the classroom
as a competing theory against Darwinism. However, in science, a theory isn't given
equal time, it earns equal time. Ideas should be allowed into the science
classroom only when they have amassed so much empirical evidence as to gain the
support of the scientific community. Intelligent design has not risen to this
level.
INTELLIGENT
DESIGN COULD HAVE A SERIOUS NEGATIVE IMPACT ON SCIENCE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH.
Much
of the proposed research from intelligent design deals mainly with
understanding the personality and limits of the designer. Within the intelligent
design paradigm, a possible answer to any scientific question is `That's how
the designer wanted it'. This does not answer anything at all. How are science
teachers to inspire curiosity into the natural world when the answer to every
question is `That's just how it is', Also, we fear that future school board
administrators would cut funds for science education because the role of
science will have shifted from an exploration of the natural world to an
exploration into the mind of a supposed designer. This could also have a
negative impact on scientific research. Future Congresses with the need to
balance budgets may cut funding to the National Science Foundation, Center for
Disease Control, or National Institute for Health for the same reason as the
school board administrator.
THE
MEMBERS OF THE DISCOVERY CENTER ARE MISREPRESENTING MATERIALISTIC SCIENCE.
The
current philosophy of science states that all observations must be explained
through empirical observations. Materialistic science does not say that there
is no God. Rather, it says that God, due to His supernatural and divine nature,
cannot be proved or disproved, thus we cannot consider His role in the natural
phenomena we observe. Therefore, the existence of God is not a question within
the realm of science. Many scientists have a strong belief in a divine God and
do not see any conflict between this belief and their work as scientists.
MATERIALISTIC
SCIENCE HAS GREATLY INCREASED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S QUALITY OF LIFE.
Considering
that materialistic science has been the predominant paradigm of science for
about 150 years, let us look at life in America before and after the 1850's.
First, all races were certainly not considered as equals. Women were considered
inferior to men in every way. Also, the number of cause of death in women was
giving birth. The infant mortality rate was equal to any Third World nation
today. People died of diseases such as polio, small pox, and influenza.
Mentally ill people wee locked up in institutions that resembled the horrors of
the Inquisitions. The average life expectancy for people born in the 1850's was
in the early sixties. Since the advent of materialistic science we have shown
that all the races are much more alike than they are different. Medical health for
women has improved to the point that couples rarely worry if the woman and/or
child will die during birth. Also, women have become more empowered than any
other time in human history. Diseases such as polio and small pox have
essentially been wiped out in America. Also, due to improved sanitation and
health regulations, typhoid, cholera, and malaria, are unheard of in America
today. Mental illness is seen as a treatable, if not curable, disease. Children
born in the 1990's could expect to live to be ninety years old.
THE
PROPONENTS OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARE MAKING AN EMOTIONAL APPEAL AND NOT A
SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT.
The
proponents of intelligent design are trying to use meetings such as the one
that you attended to make an emotional plea to the general public about the
ills that face our society. They would have us believe that all of our problems
in society can be blamed on Darwinism. As a U.S. Legislator, we are certain you
are aware of the many problems, great and small, facing America. As any
concerned citizen, we watch the news and wonder why is there violence in the
schools, why does racism and intolerance persist, and why can't the greatest
nation in the world feed and house all of its people? The answer to these
questions is neither Darwinian evolution nor materialistic science. Rather
materialistic science could be the cure for many of society's problems.
We thank you in advance for considering the above information and for seeking
more complete information regarding this important issue affecting the
congressional debate regarding science education programs in this country.
Sincerely,
Cliff Hamrick, Biology Department, Baylor University.
Robert
Baldridge, Professor of Biology, Baylor University.
Richard
Duhrkopf, Associate Professor of Biology, Baylor University.
Lewis
Barker, Professor of Psychology & Neuroscience, Baylor University.
Wendy
Sera, Assistant Professor of Biology, Baylor University.
Darrell
Vodopich, Associate Professor of Biology, Baylor University.
Sharon
Conry, Biology Department, Baylor University.
Cathleen
Early, Biology Department, Baylor University.
[TIME: 2310]
The
SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
(Mr.
HOLT addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions
of Remarks.)
MPC
Peer-Review Committee
June
23, 2000
From:
owner-BaylorNewsFlash-L@baylor.edu
[mailto:owner-BaylorNewsFlash-L@baylor.edu]On Behalf
Of Larry Brumley
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 3:51 PM
To: Baylor NewsFlash
Subject: Polanyi Committee
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Donald D. Schmeltekopf
announces the appointment of the Michael Polanyi Center Peer Review
Committee.
Dr. William F. Cooper, professor of philosophy and former dean of the
College of Arts and Sciences, is serving as chair of the committee. Other
members include Dr. Cutberto Garza, professor of nutritional science at
Cornell University; Dr. John A. Moore, professor emeritus of biology at the
University of California at Riverside; Dr. Judith Dilts, chair of the
Biology Department at William Jewell College; Dr. Scott K. Davis, vice
president
for research at GenomicFX in Austin and former assistant professor of
animal science at Texas A&M University; Dr. Ernan McMullin, The John
Cardinal O'Hara Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Notre
Dame;
Dr. Ronald Numbers, chair and professor in history of medicine at the
University of Wisconsin; Dr. Elaine Lambert, clinical associate professor of
medicine in rheumatology at Stanford University; and Dr. William Abraham,
Albert Cook Outler Professor of Wesley Studies at Southern Methodist
University's Perkins School of Theology. Drs. Garza, Davis and Lambert are
Baylor graduates. Three other individuals were invited to serve on the
committee
but declined because of other commitments.
The committee is charged with assessing the purposes and activities of
the Polanyi Center, assessing the effectiveness and appropriateness of the
Center's work, and providing recommendations about the Center's future. It
will convene on campus August 14-15.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN:
Baylor
professors concerned that research center is front for promoting creationism in
classrooms
By RON NISSIMOV
Houston Chronicle
June 2, 2000
WACO -- The
e-mail that Baylor University biology professor Richard Duhrkopf received on
Jan. 17 asked imploringly, "Is it true?"
Duhrkopf, who has
taught at Baylor for 16 years, was startled. A colleague in Illinois wanted to
know if Baylor had established a center to investigate whether life on Earth
was created through "intelligent design," a theory Duhrkopf and most
other scientists associate with creationism.
It couldn't
possibly be true, Duhrkopf thought to himself. Aside from boasting that it is
"the world's largest Baptist university," Baylor has maintained a
strong reputation in its biology prograin by consistently defending the right
of its faculty to teach evolution, he thought.
"Absolutely
not" Duhrkopf responded to the email. "We would never do anything
that dumb."
That is how,
Duhrkopf says, he became the first faculty member to learn that Baylor had
indeed set up the Michael Polanyi Center to investigate intelligent design. The
center opened in October, a few months before Duhrkopf received the email that
led him to check into the matter. Much of the initial funding is being funneled
through a conservative think tank that hopes to see intelligent design taught
in the public schools.
Although a
growing number of scholars nationwide are conducting intelligent design
research and many universities have held conferences addressing the topic,
Baylor, a private college founded in 1845 with a Baptist mission, is the first
to devote a research center to the issue.
The quiet
methods used by Baylor to set up the center, and the type of work being done
there, have ignited a confrontation between the faculty and administration that
has reached even Congress. The dispute could be telling of what course Baylor
plans to chart for its near future, and may be a litmus test of how the
intelligent design movement will be received at major academic institutions.
Opponents
contend Baylor is being used to try to legitimize the teaching of so-called
"creeping creationism" in public schools, as well as being made a
pawn in a relatively new plan to infiltrate higher education with these ideas.
The
intelligent design movement, born in the 1980s but having intellectual roots
from antiquity, argues that some life forms and organic molecules are too
complex to have been formed simply through known natural laws, such as chance
mutation and natural selection. Proponents of the movement claim they can use
probability models to calculate if natural phenomena are a result of chance or
a purposeful, intelligent design.
Many
intelligent design researchers, including those at the Polanyi Center,
personally believe that God is the creator, but they say their
"empirical" methods do not necessarily reveal the "agent"
behind the design. Polanyi, who died in 1976, was an eminent European chemist
and philosopher who challenged the notion that all knowledge could be reduced
to the laws of inanimate nature.
Although
Duhrkopf and many other Baylor faculty members say they are not worried that
the Polanyi Center will influence the university's commitment to teaching
evolution, they are concerned it will stain the school's reputation.
"Our big
fear is that people off campus will believe the science faculty is embracing
these ideas," Duhrkopf said in a recent interview. "We want to get
the word out that we (in the biology department) are unanimously opposed to
this. People in intelligent design do not understand what science is. They
believe fully formed life occurs spontaneously. That's creationism."
In April, the
Baylor faculty senate, representing a cross-section of the university, voted
27--2 to recommend dismantling the center and starting the project from scratch
with faculty input. The senate did not vote on the propriety of intelligent
design research, but demanded that the administration always elicit faculty
input before creating academic centers.
The
administration has refused the request.
Baylor President
Robert Sloan, who has been accused by some faculty members of emphasizing
religion over academics since he took over in 1995, said he has been surprised
by the negative faculty reaction to the Polanyi Center.
Sloan, the
first Baptist minister since the early 1960s to serve as Baylor's president,
said neither he nor the researchers at the center believe in a literal
interpretation of the Genesis creation story. But he said there are legitimate
concerns about evolution's ability to explain the formation of all life, and
that these issues should be explored in a university setting.
"It's
rather ironic that people in the scientific community, whose rights had to be
protected in the face of ideological pressure, now appear to be suppressing
others," Sloan said. "People have always asked questions about the
relationship of religious views and the natural phenomena we see in the world.
I think it just borders on McCarthyism to call that creation science.
As a show of
good faith, Sloan said, the university has established a nine-member committee
of scholars primarily from outside Baylor to examine whether the Polanyi Center
can contribute to constructive dialogue. He said the administration will
consider the committee's recommendations, expected in August, with "utmost
seriousness," but it does not have to abide by them.
Donald
Schmeltekopf, provost and vice president for academic affairs at Baylor who
worked closely with Sloan to set up the Polanyi Center, said the administration
"was concerned about the fact there would be opposition" when the
idea for the center was conceived in the spring of 1999.
"What we
tried to do was avoid that by laying low, staying out of the line of fire as
much as possible," Schmeltekopf said. "If something is controversial,
it's best not to make it a big deal. If you try to throw it in their faces from
the get-go, you're asking for trouble."
Sloan said
Baylor has the right to create academic centers in any way it deems fit, and
it's not unusual to do so with little faculty input. He said a potentially
controversial Jewish-American studies center was recently started at the school
without much faculty input, but there has been no uproar over that. He said
this shows the faculty is not necessarily concerned with the way the Polanyi
Center was created, but the nature of its research.
"I think
its important for Baylor to be involved in questions of the relationship
between religion and science," Sloan said. "Our mission statement and
our historical identity as a Christian institution of higher learning almost by
definition calls for this kind of involvement."
He said
alumni, students and parents have "overwhelmingly" supported the
goals of the Polanyi Center, but he would still back the center even without
such support.
Some of the
science faculty, such as organic chemistry professor Charles Garner, back the
center.
"Baylor
is in serious danger of becoming too secular," said Garner, a
self-described literal creationist who gives a "sermon" to his
students to not blindly accept evolution. "Baylor's always worrying about
becoming too religious and looked down upon."
Duhrkopf, a
devout Methodist, and other critics of intelligent design say they agree that
universities should explore the nature of science and religion. But they believe
proponents in this debate don't want to engage in honest dialogue.
They point out
that although intelligent design theorists claim to be using scientific
methods, they never publish findings in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific
journals. "They're making a sales pitch; they're not dialoguing",
said Wesley Elsberry, a Texas A&M doctoral student who runs a Web site out
of his San Diego, Calif., home critiquing the intelligent design movement.
"They're saying, 'We want you to call what we're doing science.' They want
the imprimatur of science."
Critics also
say they are suspicious of the intelligent design movement because it seems to
be embracing fundamentalist groups who want to dilute the teaching of evolution
in schools.
"Intelligent
design people don't want to alienate the biblical literalists," said
Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education,
a nonprofit group in El Cerrito, Calif., that promotes the teaching of
evolution. "They want everybody to link arms against evolutionists and, as
good Christians, work among ourselves later."
Many
intelligent design researchers have been funded by the Center for the Renewal
of Science & Culture, part of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute
conservative think tank. They say they rely on such private funding because the
National Science Foundation and most universities refuse to sponsor the work
William
Dembski, the director of the Polanyi Center, is currently a senior fellow at
the Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture, while Bruce Gordon,
assistant director of the Polanyi Center, is a fellow at the Seattle
organization.
Dembski has
received yearly fellowships from the Seattle group of $40,000 to $50,000, and
his salary at the Polanyi Center is being paid by a $75,000 grant from the John
Templeton Fund, distributed through the Discovery Institute.
Baylor
spokesman Larry Brumley said the university will pay for Dembski's salary after
the grant expires next year, and that it is paying Gordon's salary. Sloan said
Dembski and Gordon must answer to Baylor and not the Discovery Institute,
adding that he believes the Seattle organization is a credible group more
concerned with research than a political agenda.
Jay Richards,
program director for the Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture, said
the Discovery Institute is simply distributing the grant for Dembski's salary
and it has no intention of directing his work at the Polanyi Center. He said
the nonprofit institute hopes intelligent design will be taught along with
evolution.
The Discovery
Institute invited Dembski to testify in Washington, D.C., at a May 10 hearing
held by the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Constitution. The hearing examined
whether teaching solely evolution in public schools amounted to "viewpoint
discrimination."
Schmeltekopf
said Baylor told Dembski in February that he should not speak at the hearing to
avoid the appearance that the Polanyi Center was promoting curriculum reform.
However, the school was surprised to find out in eariy May that he still
intended to speak at the hearing.
Schmeltekopf
said there was "a little shoving back and forth," but Baylor
prevailed and Dembski did not attend.
Dembski
declined to comment. His lawyer, John Gilmore of St. Paul, Minn., said,
"Professor Dembski cannot comment on matters contained in this story due
to sensitive negotiations currently ongoing between Baylor University and
himself."
Gordon and
Richards said Dembski felt Baylor infringed on his academic freedom by not allowing
him to speak at the hearing.
School
spokesman Brumley, citing a personnel matter, offered a brief written response:
"Issues have arisen regarding the mission of the center and the role of
Dr. Dembski as director. Baylor hopes to resolve those issues in a manner
satisfactory to Baylor and Dr. Dembski."
Critics of
intelligent design say the movement coalesced after a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court
ruling striking down a requirement that public schools give "equal
time" for the teaching of evolution and creation science. Because the high
court said it was impermissible to advance the view that a supernatural being
created man, creationists were forced to develop a new approach that pretended
to be a science and minimized the role of God, critics say.
"Creationism
is evolving," wrote Robert Pennock in his 1999 book Tower of Babel, The
Evidence Against the New Creationism, to sarcastically describe what he
claims to be the changing face of the creationist movement.
Pennock a
philosophy professor at The College of New Jersey, wrote that intelligent
design researchers are often regarded as the "upper tier" of
creationists because, "unlike their counterparts, they carry advanced
degrees from major institutions, often hold positions in higher education and
are typically more knowledgeable, more articulate and far more savvy."
For example,
the widely recognized leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip
Johnson, is a University of California at Berkeley law professor who in 1991
wrote the book Darwin on Trial and has since published other books on
the topic.
In what many
perceive to be the manifesto for the intelligent design movement, Johnson has
written that the "wedge strategy," which is also espoused by the
Discovery Institute, is the key to breaking the stranglehold evolution has over
the educational establishment.
Johnson writes
that the goal is to drive a "wedge" between evolution and intelligent
design camps by having discussions at "respectable academic
gatherings." In the same article, Johnson wrote that Dembski is one of the
"key wedge figures."
"The
controversy at Baylor is the expected result of being the target of the
Discovery Institute's 'wedge' strategy,'" said Pennock about the Polanyi
Center.
Gordon said
the center will not promote any political agenda.
Yet some
Baylor faculty members see the creation of the Polanyi Center as further
evidence that Sloan intends to take the school rightward on the political
spectrum.
Sloan, who
allowed the school to sponsor its first dance but also threatened to expel
women wanting to pose for Playboy shortly after he was named president, has
denied charges that he has forced job applicants to go to great lengths to
prove their devoutness.
Still,
he acknowledged that since the school changed its charter in 1990 to avoid the
possibility of fundamentalists altering he curriculum, Baylor has has been
"very intentional and deliberate about our religious identity, to indicate
we are not turning away from our heritage."
Deciding fate of Polanyi Center
Panel to discuss future of think tank on religion, science
By� JASON EMBRY | Waco Tribune Herald
Tribune-Herald staff writer
Published September 8, 2000
A panel of
scholars will discuss the future of
Baylor University�s Michael Polanyi
Center today in Waco.
Baylor administrators created the think tank to forge a
relationship between religion and science. The center put together an April conference on naturalism, or the
belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural laws.
But some Baylor faculty charged the center�s agenda was to bring creationism into classrooms. The
school�s Faculty Senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution asking the adminis-
tration to dissolve the center
and consult the faculty when considering a new one.
Administrators called for the review committee that meets
today and Saturday at Baylor. Philosophy professor and former arts and sciences
dean William Cooper chairs the committee, which is made up of 10 scholars from outside Baylor.
Their fields include science, statistics and theology, and
some are Baylor graduates. Members were chosen by administrators and faculty at
Baylor, said school spokesman Larry Brumley.
�They�re going to be assessing the effectiveness and the appropriateness
of the center�s work, and out of
that will come, presumably, recommendations about the center�s future,� Brumley said.
William Dembski is director of the center and
Bruce Gordon is associate director. Dembski said he�s been asked to be available
to speak to the committee if needed.
�My hope is that the committee will have some good
recommendations for us in terms of
interacting on the Baylor campus and making the Polanyi Center part
of the campus community,�
Dembski said.
Worries of
the faculty
Richard Duhrkopf, a Baylor biology professor and a critic of the center during the spring, said he has spoken to Cooper about the
upcoming meeting. Duhrkopf, who said Dembski has �an agenda to introduce
non-science into the classroom,� has sent committee members articles and
materials from Web sites that look at the center director�s work.
�We�re confident to just let the committee meet and come to
their own conclusions,� he said.
Jay Losey, a Baylor English professor and chair of the Faculty Senate, said the spring
resolution was about more than whether the center should be shut down.
�We just think it makes more sense to involve faculty when
faculty interests and the academic integrity of the university are in the foreground,� he said.
Intelligent design
Dembski, a mathematician, has written extensively about
intelligent design. He said the theory suggests that features in the natural
world point to an intelligent agent, but not necessarily a creator.
�People are very worried that intelligent design is a
coercive program to get creation science and biblical literalism taught in
schools,� he said. �We�re not about that at all.�
The committee has been reading up on intelligent design,
including work that has come out of
the Polanyi Center. John Moore, a professor
emeritus of biology at the
University of California at
Riverside and a committee member, said he was given a 10-inch pile of material to read before coming to
Waco.
�I haven�t read the whole pile, but I have read an awful lot
of it,� said Moore, who has been
studying related issues for almost 30 years.
He said Dembski�s work is well-written. But he also called
it slanted, and said it could be convincing to someone not paying close
attention.
�He comes to some interesting conclusions,� Moore said. �You
have to regard it not as science, but as politics.�
William Abraham, a theologian from Southern Methodist
University and member of the
committee, said he did not want to comment on the Polanyi Center
before meeting with other members.
But he said he brings a unique perspective because he was
educated in Europe, where religion and higher education mix more regularly than
in the United States. He said sharp differences in opinion serve colleges well.
�The danger is, will the believer be able to make their case
in the American academy?,� he said. �It�s less of a problem in the private universities, but in the sense that
they take their cues from the public ones, it�s problematic.�
Baylor University
Faculty Senate Newsletter
October, 2000
The
2000-01 Faculty Senate officers and membership: Chair: Jay Losey (Arts and
Sciences); Chair-elect: David Longfellow (Arts and Sciences); Secretary:
Charles Weaver (Arts and Sciences); Publicity: Buddy Gilchrest (Education)
Comments from Jay Losey, Senate Chair:
Communication and Collegiality Issues
I'd
like to begin my remarks by expressing my thanks to Bob Baird, last year's chair.
As chair-elect, I learned a great deal from Bob and marveled at his leadership.
I'd also like to express my thanks to all the senators serving this year. As
representatives of the faculty, they assume a vital responsibility.
No
doubt the first and most important concern early this academic year involves
the Polanyi Center and the work of the external review committee. During the
summer, Larry Brumley, on behalf of the Provost Don Schmeltekopf, announced
most of the committee's members: Dr. William F. Cooper, professor of philosophy
and former dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, is serving as chair of the
committee. Other members include Dr. John A. Moore, professor emeritus of
biology at the University of California at Riverside; Dr. Judith Dilts, chair
of the Biology Department at William Jewell College; Dr. Scott K. Davis, vice
president for research at GenomicFX in Austin and former assistant professor of
animal science at Texas A&M University; Dr. Ernan McMullin, The John
Cardinal O'Hara Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Notre
Dame; Dr. Ronald Numbers, chair and professor in history of medicine at the
University of Wisconsin; Dr. Elaine Lambert, clinical associate professor of
medicine in rheumatology at Stanford University; and Dr. William Abraham,
Albert Cook Outler Professor of Wesley Studies at Southern Methodist
University's Perkins School of Theology. Recently, Dr. Lori Toombs who teaches
mathematics at the University of South Carolina and Dr. William Klink who teaches
physics and astronomy at the University of Iowa were added to the committee.
Several members of the committee are Baylor graduates. The committee met in
early September and is currently drafting a report on the viability of the
Polanyi Center. After the committee issues its report, the Faculty Senate may
want to respond as seems appropriate. I anticipate the report's being widely
distributed sometime in mid-to-late October.
The External
Review Committe Report
Baylor University
October
16, 2000
http://pr.baylor.edu/pdf/001017polanyi.pdf
The
External Review Committee was convened to review the status of the Michael
Polanyi Center at Baylor University, which was established a year ago with the
primary aim of advancing the understanding of the sciences. In the early
summer, members of the Committee received copies of books and articles relevant
to the work of the Center. On September 8 and 9, 2000, the Committee met to
discuss what they had read, to hear from persons who addressed matters about
which the Committee was concerned, and to formulate a response to the charge
the Committee had been given. The vigorous discussions about the issues
contained in the charge reflected the variety in the backgrounds and
perspectives of the Committee members. The outcome of these discussions was a
thorough and even-handed review of the concerns before the Committee.
It
is important from the outset to emphasize that the sciences at Baylor
University are the inheritors of a long and distinguished tradition. For many years,
undergraduate instruction in the sciences at Baylor has been conducted in an
exciting and effective manner. The graduate and research programs are solid and
well respected throughout the scientific community. Not only have students and
faculty been active in the mainstream of scientific disciplines, but they have
also pursued initiatives in new areas and directions. Baylor's heritage, in
this regard, is clearly one of which it can be proud.
The
relationship of the sciences to other academic fields is a further
responsibility that Baylor seeks to address. Relationships between the sciences
and the humanities, as well as issues relating to the environment and public
policy, are matters of real concern to the Baylor community. The Committee
strongly endorses, therefore, the aim of enhancing the public understanding of
science, particularly as this is expressed through serious work in the history
and philosophy of science. This particular responsibility is one that has
already been recognized by the institution of the Herbert H. Reynolds
Lectureship in the History and Philosophy of Science. Efforts in this area
could well receive an appropriate and timely emphasis on the part of the
university.
Given
the universitys tradition, there is a natural interest also in the relationship
of science and religion. Research in this area ought to be strongly encouraged,
at the same time recognizing that this goal is best served by promoting a
variety of perspectives. The university should continue to foster a broad range
of scholarship in this domain and in this way contribute to the active dialogue
between science and religion now in progress. The Institute for Faith and
Learning would seem to be an appropriate administrative structure for
furthering this end.
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. As research members in the
Institute for Faith and Learning, Drs. William Dembski and Bruce Gordon would
be enabled to pursue their interests in these areas. It is important to carry
out this work in ways that encourage dialogue with faculty in a variety of
fields.
An
advisory committee composed of members of the Baylor faculty would be of
strategic importance in clarifying policies and practices for the science and
religion component of the Institute for Faith and Learning. In addition, this
committee could serve as an effective sounding board for such programs
undertaken by the Institute. It could also provide helpful communication with
those academic fields from which its members would come.
Given
Baylor's tradition, issues related to the interaction of science and religion
need to be dealt with openly and freely, and these should be of continuing
interest within the program of the Institute for Faith and Learning. Given the
present circumstances, these discussions might best be carried out under the
broad umbrella of the Institute through adequate administrative structures.
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.
The
recommendations of the Committee can thus be expressed as follows:
(1)
It is important for a university in the Christian tradition to take an active
interest in issues involving the complex and changing relationships between
science and religion. This mission can best be fostered by the Universitys
Institute for Faith and Learning where it seems to be naturally at home. 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.
(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. Although this work, involving as it does technical
issues in the theory of probability, is relatively recent in origin and has
thus only just begun to receive response in professional journals (see, for
example, the essay by Elliot Sober in Philosophy of Science, 66, 1999, pp.
472-488), the Institute should be free, if it chooses, to include in its
coverage this line of work, when carried out professionally.
(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.
(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.
In
conclusion, fostering dialogue regarding the history and philosophy of science
and especially the relationship between science and religion is important, even
if sometimes controversial. Willingness to encourage such dialogue is a measure
of the commitment of an institution to the flourishing of academic freedom.
William
F. Cooper, Chair
External Review Committee
October 16, 2000
Baylor
Releases Polanyi Center Committee Report
by
Larry Brumley
Baylor University Press Release
Oct. 17, 2000
http://pr.baylor.edu/feat.fcgi?2000.10.17.polanyi
Baylor
University President Robert B. Sloan Jr. today released the report of the
Michael Polanyi Center peer review committee, which was appointed last spring to
assess the purposes and activities of the controversial center.
The
eight-member committee, composed of academics from throughout the country and
chaired by Dr. William F. Cooper, professor of philosophy and former dean of
the Baylor College of Arts and Sciences, concluded that the Polanyi Center's
mission of fostering dialogue regarding the history and philosophy of science
and especially the relationship between science and religion is important, even
if sometimes controversial. The report further stated that "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."
Polanyi Center Director William Dembski's research and writings in the area of
intelligent design have been the most controversial aspects of the Center's
work, even though its academic mission is much broader. Specifically, the
committee recommended that the University establish an advisory committee, to
be composed of Baylor faculty members from disciplines related to the Center's
work, to assist in planning and reviewing its activities. The report also said
that the linking of the name of Michael Polanyi to programs related to
intelligent design is, on the whole, inappropriate, given the late scientist's
views as expressed in his book Personal Knowledge.
The
committee recommended that the University discontinue the use of the name while
continuing the Center's work within the Institute for Faith and Learning. The
Polanyi Center has resided administratively within Baylor's three-year-old
Institute for Faith and Learning since it was established in 1999.
"I
want to express my deep appreciation to Dr. Cooper and the other members of the
review committee for their diligence and dedication in carrying out their
charge," Sloan said. "They invested many hours in reviewing and
evaluating the work of the Polanyi Center and have delivered a well-written and
thoughtful report. I accept all of the committee's recommendations and have
asked Provost Donald Schmeltekopf to implement them fully and specifically as
soon as possible. "I am pleased that the central mission of the Center has
been affirmed and that the committee has underscored the fact that support of
academic freedom includes protecting controversial ideas," Sloan said.
"We certainly could have and should have handled more effectively the
program's implementation, but we will correct some of those early mistakes by
acting on the committee's recommendations, specifically to appoint a faculty
advisory committee and to discontinue the use of the Michael Polanyi
name."
Schmeltekopf
said work will begin immediately on appointing the advisory committee. "I
will be consulting with Dr. Wallace Daniel, dean of the College of Arts and
Sciences, and others on the appointment of an advisory committee that includes
faculty members from disciplines that relate to the history and philosophy of
science as well as those disciplines that touch on the relationship between
science and religion. Its role will be to clarify policies and practices and
serve as a sounding board for these programs in the Institute for Faith and
Learning. I also anticipate that the committee will play an important role in
encouraging better communication between the Institute and various academic
departments on campus."
William
Dembski Press Release
Date:
Tue, 17 Oct 2000 18:03:54 -0400
Sender:
Metanews <metanews@META-LIST.ORG>
From:
"William A. Dembski (by way of William Grassie)"
Subject:
Polanyi Center Press Release
The
Michael Polanyi Center Peer Review Committee has now released its official
report (http://pr.baylor.edu/pdf/001017polanyi.pdf) and the Baylor University
administration has responded to the report
(http://pr.baylor.edu/feat.fcgi?2000.10.17.polanyi). As director of the Center,
I wish to offer the following comment:
The
report marks the triumph of intelligent design as a legitimate form of academic
inquiry. This is a great day for academic freedom. I'm deeply grateful to
President Sloan and Baylor University for making this possible, as well as to
the peer review committee for its unqualified affirmation of my own work on
intelligent design. The scope of the Center will be expanded to embrace a
broader set of conceptual issues at the intersection of science and religion,
and the Center will therefore receive a new name to reflect this expanded
vision. My work on intelligent design will continue unabated. Dogmatic opponents
of design who demanded 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.
-30-
"Intelligent
design" center at Baylor gains support from review committee
by
Ron Nissimov
The Houston Chronicle
October 18, 2000
A
controversial center at Baylor University researching the idea that life was
created through "intelligent design" instead of evolution should be
allowed to continue its work, an external review committee said Tuesday. The
committee recommended that a faculty advisory committee be appointed to try to
improve the academic center's relationship with the rest of the university. It
also recommended that the Michael Polanyi Center change its name because
Polanyi -- a European chemist and philosopher who died in 1976 - espoused views
different from the theories being researched at the center. Although Polanyi
challenged the notion that all knowledge could be reduced to the laws of
nature, the committee said he did not necessarily believe in the existence of
an external force such as intelligent design. The intelligent design movement,
which was born in the 1980s and grew in strength in the early 1990s, argues
that some life forms and organic molecules are too complex to have been formed
through known natural laws, such as chance mutation and natural selection.
Proponents say they can use probability models to calculate whether natural
phenomena are the result of chance or of a purposeful, intelligent design. Many
scientists at Baylor and other universities say intelligent design is akin to
explaining little-understood phenomena by invoking spiritual forces. They say
it is not a science because there is no way to verify the existence of an
intelligent design agent through observation and because no intelligent-design
research has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
The
nine-member external review committee, which was convened by the university in
the spring and met Sept. 8-9, did not address two of the more controversial
aspects of the Polanyi Center. Those are the secretive methods used by Baylor
President Robert Sloan to establish the center in 1999 and whether it is being
used to promote the teaching of creationism in public schools. Although a
growing number of scholars nationwide are conducting intelligent-design
research and many universities have held conferences on the topic, Baylor -- a
private college founded in 1845 with a Baptist mission - is the only university
in the country to devote a research center to the issue.
Sloan,
who has been accused by some faculty members of emphasizing religion over
academics since he took over in 1995, said the university will comply with the
recommendations. "I am pleased that the central mission of the center has
been affirmed, and that the committee has underscored the fact that support of
academic freedom includes protecting controversial ideas," Sloan said in a
news release. "We certainly could have, and should have, handled more
effectively the program's implementation, but we will correct some of those
early mistakes by acting on the committee's recommendations."
The
review committee said: "Given the university's tradition, there is a natural
interest also in the relationship of science and religion. Research in this
area ought to strongly be encouraged, at the same time recognizing that this
goal is best served by promoting a variety of perspectives." Faculty
members who have been publicly critical of the Polanyi Center could not be
reached for comment Tuesday.
Baylor
spokesman Larry Brumley said the faculty generally had a positive reaction to
the recommendations Tuesday. Molleen Matsumara, network projects director for
the Center for Science Education, which promotes the teaching of evolution,
said it would be wrong to interpret the committee's findings as a validation of
intelligent design's claims to scientific legitimacy. Matsumara said the
committee explicitly said it would be valid for Baylor, as a religious
institution, to investigate the "mathematical arguments for intelligent
design," but she stressed that mathematics is not science. The external
review committee was chaired by Baylor philosophy professor William Cooper,
former dean of the school's college of arts and sciences. Other committee
members were from universities around the nation. The committee's expenses were
paid by Baylor.
Cooper
said he had a fruitful meeting Tuesday with members of the faculty senate.
"They were mindful of the recommendations, and they thought the
recommendations provided a very good foundation to begin to address some of
their concerns," he said. Cooper said the committee did not address the
methods used to form the center, because that issue was "past
history." The faculty senate, which represents a cross-section of the
university, voted 27-2 in April to recommend dismantling the center and
starting the project from scratch with faculty input. The senate did not vote
on the propriety of intelligent-design research but demanded that the
administration seek faculty input before creating academic centers. Cooper also
said the committee did not investigate the center's connections with the
Seattle-based Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank that promotes the
teaching of intelligent design in public schools.
Many
intelligent-design researchers have been funded by the institute's Center for
the Renewal of Science & Culture. They say they rely on such private
funding because the National Science Foundation and most universities won't
sponsor the work. William Dembski, director of the Polanyi Center, is a senior
fellow at the Discovery Institute's center, and Bruce Gordon, assistant
director of the Polanyi Center, is a fellow at the Seattle organization.
Dembski has received fellowships of $40,000 to $50,000 from the Seattle
institute, and his salary at the Polanyi Center is paid from a $75,000 grant
from the John Templeton Fund, which the institute distributes. Brumley said the
university will pick up Dembski's salary after the grant expires next year.
Sloan has said Dembski and Gordon answer to Baylor and not the Discovery
Institute. Dembski could not be reached for comment Tuesday, but Gordon said he
believes intelligent design should be taught in public schools only once it
gains widespread scientific credibility.
Polanyi
committee suggests compromise
by
Blair Martin
The Baylor Lariat
October 18, 2000
http://www3.baylor.edu/Lariat/Archives/2000/20001018/art-front04.html
A
report issued by the peer review committee appointed to evaluate the
credibility and legitimacy of the Michael Polanyi Center was finally released
Tuesday morning, stating that despite controversy, it found the Center's
research legitimate.
The
committee, composed of eight respected scholars from all over the country and
led by Dr. William F. Cooper, recommended that the university should
"foster a broad range of scholarship" to address the relationship
between science and religion.
Controversy
erupted shortly after the center was created in 1999 as a result of a perceived
"creationist" undertone of its mission and the lack of communication
between Baylor science faculty and the administration.
Chairman
of the Faculty Senate, Dr. Jay Losey, said he thought the committee's review of
the center was concise while remaining sensitive to all of the concerns raised.
"I
am very pleased with the content," he said. "I thought they were very
diplomatic and offered great ways to address some of the major concerns."
Although
the committee deemed the research valid, they expressed several recommendations
to mend the bridge of communication between faculty and the center's
administration.
First,
the committee concluded that the center's mission is best supported under the
structure of the Institute of Faith and Learning, "where it seems
naturally at home."
Therefore,
Dr. William Dembski and Dr. Bruce Gordon, who had been the sole researchers for
the Center, will remain on campus to continue their research under the
supervision of Dr. Michael Beaty, the director of the Faith and Learning
Institute.
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.
Third,
an advisory committee, composed of Baylor faculty members, should be created to
assist in planning and reviewing the science and religion component of the
center.
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.
The
transition and formation of an advisory committee should take a couple of
weeks, Sloan said.
Although
Sloan insisted that the committee's recommendations will be carried out
completely and as soon as possible, the question of administrative structure
within the center still remains unresolved.
Whether
the center will re-emerge under a new name or just be another research project
within the Institute of Faith and Learning is unclear.
"We
are going to ask the advisory committee to consider that," Sloan said.
"If they think its appropriate that we still have a structure like the
center, then one of the things they can suggest is a new name."
Changes in store for Polanyi Center
BU institution losing name, retooling focus
By� JASON EMBRY | Waco Tribune Herald
Tribune-Herald staff writer
Published October 18, 2000
The controversial Michael Polanyi Center at
Baylor University will lose its name and work with a faculty advisory committee
to refocus its mission, school President Robert B. Sloan Jr. said Tuesday.
The changes
were recommended by a panel of eight scholars who reviewed the center, which aims to study the
intersection of religion and science. Over the past year, it has faced heavy
criticism from many Baylor faculty members who charge that the center promotes creationism.
Part of the center�s
work focuses on intelligent design, a theory that suggests that features in the natural world point to an intelligent
agent. The committee said the study of intelligent design has a place under the
task of looking at the relationship be- tween science and religion.
�I am pleased that the central mission of the center has been affirmed and that the
committee has underscored the fact that support of academic freedom includes
protecting controversial ideas,� Sloan said.
Director William Dembski, who has written extensively on
intelligent design, and associate director Bruce Gordon make up the center. Dembski hailed the
recommendation as a triumph for
academic freedom.
�Baylor University is to be commended for remaining strong in the face of intolerant assaults on
freedom of thought and expression,� he said.
Controversy over the center
flared in April when Baylor
played hosted to a conference on naturalism, which is the belief that all
phenomena can be explained in
terms of natural laws. The school�s faculty senate overwhelmingly passed a
resolution asking the administration to dissolve the center and consult the faculty when considering a new one.
Fresh viewpoints
The advisory panel, made up almost entirely of scholars from
outside Baylor, recommended the center
stop using Polanyi�s name and
work within Baylor�s Institute for
Faith and Learning. The 3-year-old institute focuses on the connection between
religion and scholarship.
Polanyi was a
Hungarian chemist who studied the interaction of science, philosophy and
religion. According to the committee�s report, Polanyi did not believe an agent such as the one implied by
intelligent design theory was needed to explain the growth of the living world.
�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,� the report says.
Sloan said the study of intelligent design has always been
one of several missions of the center.
He said the center�s purpose is
also to study the history and philosophy of science, as well as the
relationship between science and religion.
�What the committee in
effect said was don�t overlook the broader program mandates and don�t just
exclusively focus on one of those mandates, but keep the broader work of the
original center in mind,� Sloan said.
Baylor provost Donald Schmeltekopf will appoint a committee
of Baylor faculty to clarify the center�s
policies and activities and serve as a sounding board for its programs. He said the committee will include faculty
members from disciplines that relate to the center�s purposes.
Sloan said the committee will be asked to recommend if a new
center with a new name should be
established, or if the work should be carried out within the Institute of Faith
and Learning.
�The key thing is that the work itself continues,� he said. �It�s
very important that there be serious research and a collegial environment in which that research can take place.�
Welcomed changes
Jay Losey, a Baylor English professor and chair of the
faculty senate, said he welcomes the recommendations and is pleased Sloan has
accepted them. He said the name change
is important because the Polanyi
moniker has become associated with intelligent design instead of the larger
religion-science connection.
Losey said Dembski could ease faculty members� concerns by
publishing his work in scholarly
journals that face the scrutiny of peer reviews before they are printed. He
said much of Dembski�s work has been in
the popular press.
�Baylor faculty will accept Dembski and Gordon as
colleagues, provided that they do what all of their other colleagues at Baylor
University are doing,� Losey said. �That is disseminating their best thinking in peer-review journals and presses
that have readers reviewing manuscripts submitted for publication.�
Dembski said he�s interested in expanding who publishes his work, but he does not think it�s
accurate to say he has kept mainly to the popular press.
�I don�t think I really need to defend my academic record,�
he said.
Dembski said he will be glad to work with the faculty committee.
He said he believes he has many allies at Baylor, as well as �friendly critics.�
�The problem has been the most vocal people at Baylor have
the been the opponents,� he said.
The committee that made the recommendations to Sloan was
chaired by William Cooper, a Baylor philosophy professor and former dean of
arts and sciences. The scholars � whose fields include science, math and
theology � met at Baylor for two
days in September.
Report on
the Baylor University Controversy
The
Discovery Institute
October 19, 2000
A
report issued by the peer review committee appointed to evaluate the
credibility and legitimacy of the Michael Polanyi Center was finally released
Tuesday morning, stating that despite controversy, it found the Center's
research legitimate. The committee, composed of eight respected scholars from
all over the country and led by Dr. William F. Cooper, recommended that the
university should "foster a broad range of scholarship" to address
the relationship between science and religion.
Controversy
erupted shortly after the center was created in 1999 as a result of a perceived
"creationist" undertone of its mission and the lack of communication
between Baylor science faculty and the administration.
Chairman
of the Faculty Senate, Dr. Jay Losey, said he thought the committee's review of
the center was concise while remaining sensitive to all of the concerns raised.
"I am very pleased with the content," he said. "I thought they
were very diplomatic and offered great ways to address some of the major
concerns."
Although
the committee deemed the research valid, they expressed several recommendations
to mend the bridge of communication between faculty and the center's
administration.
First,
the committee concluded that the center's mission is best supported under the
structure of the Institute of Faith and Learning, "where it seems
naturally at home." Therefore, Dr. William Dembski and Dr. Bruce Gordon,
who had been the sole researchers for the Center, will remain on campus to
continue their research under the supervision of Dr. Michael Beaty, the
director of the Faith and Learning Institute.
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.
Third,
an advisory committee, composed of Baylor faculty members, should be created to
assist in planning and reviewing the science and religion component of the
center.
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.
The
transition and formation of an advisory committee should take a couple of
weeks, Sloan said.
Although
Sloan insisted that the committee's recommendations will be carried out
completely and as soon as possible, the question of administrative structure
within the center still remains unresolved. Whether the center will re-emerge
under a new name or just be another research project within the Institute of
Faith and Learning is unclear.
"We
are going to ask the advisory committee to consider that," Sloan said.
"If they think its appropriate that we still have a structure like the
center, then one of the things they can suggest is a new name."
Polanyi
official's e-mail concerns some faculty
Center
director issues statement vowing research to 'continue unabated'
by
Blair Martin
The Baylor Lariat
October 19, 2000
http://www3.baylor.edu/Lariat/Archives/2000/20001019/art-front03.html
Some
faculty members expressed "deep, genuine concern" after receiving an
e-mail from the director of the Michael Polanyi Center a day after a report
affirmed the center's legitimacy and credibility, according to the chairman of
the Faculty Senate.
A
report was released Tuesday by a committee appointed to review the operation of
the center. The committee was comprised of eight scholars from across the
country and led by Dr. William F. Cooper.
In
response to that report, Dr. William Dembski issued the following statement:
"The
report marks the triumph of intelligent design as a legitimate form of academic
inquiry. This is a great day for academic freedom. I'm deeply grateful to
President Sloan and Baylor University for making this possible, as well as to
the peer review committee for its unqualified affirmation of my own work on
intelligent design. The scope of the Center will be expanded to embrace a
broader set of conceptual issues at the intersection of science and religion,
and the Center will therefore receive a new name to reflect this expanded
vision. My work on intelligent design will continue unabated. Dogmatic
opponents of design who demanded 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."
Chairman
of the Faculty Senate, Dr. Jay Losey, said that "anyone can look at the review
and also at Dembski's e-mail and make a personal judgment for themselves."
"However,
I will say there is deep, genuine concern on the part of Baylor faculty
regarding some of the statements made in the e-mail," Losey said.
"Deep, genuine concern."
Attempts
to reach Dembski at his office Wednesday were unsuccessful.
Dembski
Relieved of Duties as Polanyi Center Director
by
Larry Brumley
Baylor University Press Release
October 19, 2000
http://pr.baylor.edu/feat.fcgi?2000.10.19.polanyi
William
Dembski was relieved of his duties as director of Baylor University's Michael
Polanyi Center today. He will remain associate professor in conceptual
foundations of science within the university's Institute for Faith and
Learning.
The
action follows by two days the release of a peer review committee's report on
the Polanyi Center that affirmed the academic work of the center while calling
for the appointment of a faculty advisory committee and the dropping of the
Polanyi name.
"The
theme of the report emphasized the need for the individuals associated with the
center to work in a collegial manner with other members of the Baylor
faculty," said Dr. Michael Beaty, director of the Institute for Faith and
Learning, which houses the center. "Dr. Dembski's actions after the
release of the report compromised his ability to serve as director."
Dr.
Bruce Gordon, associate director of the center, has been appointed interim
director of the program. Gordon holds a Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of
physics from Northwestern University, as well as degrees in mathematics,
philosophy, theology and piano performance. He was recently a postdoctoral
fellow of the Center for Philosophy of Religion at the University of Notre
Dame, and is presently at work on a series of articles leading to a book on the
metaphysical import of quantum statistics.
William
Dembski Press Release
Date:
Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:58:08 -0400
Sender:
Metanews <metanews@META-LIST.ORG>
From:
"William A. Dembski (by way of William Grassie)"
Subject:
[METANEWS] Dembski's Response to His Removal
October
19, 2000: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
STATEMENT
BY WILLIAM DEMBSKI ON HIS REMOVAL AS DIRECTOR OF THE MICHAEL POLANYI CENTER AT
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY
Baylor
University President Robert Sloan has removed me as director of the Michael
Polanyi Center despite his having personally solicited me to come to Baylor and
establish the Center as a means of furthering work on intelligent design. Some
Baylor faculty have exerted enormous pressure on Baylor to disassociate the
university from me and my research. Earlier President Sloan had properly
characterized these efforts as "intellectual McCarthyism."
Because
I released a press statement (see below) applauding the results of the peer review
committee that passed upon and approved the academic soundness of my work, I am
now being labeled as not "collegial" and the statement is said to
have fatally compromised my ability to serve as Director. My press release
allowed me publicly to state my full support for the results of the peer review
committee report. Having made that statement, I then expected to proceed full
steam ahead to implement the committee's recommendations by expanding the scope
of the center while still focusing my own research on intelligent design --
just as the peer review committee recommended and President Sloan agreed.
Instead,
I was informed that my press release created a "firestorm" on campus.
Shockingly, the administration formally asked me to retract my press release. I
explained that the press release accurately conveyed how I perceived the
outcome of the peer review committee and that for me to retract it would be
tantamount to giving in to the censorship and vilification against me that had
been a constant feature since I arrived on campus. I could not and would not
betray all that I have worked for in my professional career.
In
the utmost of bad faith, the administration claimed my refusal to retract my
press release constituted a lack of collegiality on my part and charged that
this compromised my ability to serve as director, thereby providing the fig
leaf of justification for my removal. Intellectual McCarthyism has, for the
moment, prevailed at Baylor. The announcement of my removal from the Polanyi
Center directorship states that I am to be kept on in my capacity as an
Associate Professor in Baylor's Institute for Faith and Learning. I look
forward in that capacity to continuing to work on intelligent design and its
implications.
------Previous
Press Release of October 17, 2000------
The
Michael Polanyi Center Peer Review Committee has now released its official
report (http://pr.baylor.edu/pdf/001017polanyi.pdf) and the Baylor University
administration has responded to the report (http://pr.baylor.edu/feat.fcgi?2000.10.17.polanyi).
As director of the Center, I wish to offer the following comment:
The
report marks the triumph of intelligent design as a legitimate form of academic
inquiry. This is a great day for academic freedom. I'm deeply grateful to President
Sloan and Baylor University for making this possible, as well as to the peer
review committee for its unqualified affirmation of my own work on intelligent
design. The scope of the Center will be expanded to embrace a broader set of
conceptual issues at the intersection of science and religion, and the Center
will therefore receive a new name to reflect this expanded vision. My work on
intelligent design will continue unabated. Dogmatic opponents of design who
demanded 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.
-30-
Polanyi Center director replaced
Dembski�s e-mail proclaiming win over �dogmatic� critics brings change at
Baylor think tank
By� JASON EMBRY | Waco Tribune Herald
Tribune-Herald staff writer
Published October 20, 2000
The director
of Baylor University�s Michael Polanyi
Center was removed Thursday, a
day after a controversial e-mail he wrote spread through the campus.
William Dembski was demoted from director to an associate professor with the center, which was created last year as
a think tank focused on science and religion. Bruce Gordon, associate director and the only other member of
the center, was appointed
interim director.
Baylor President Robert B. Sloan Jr. said Tuesday he would
follow external recommendations to eliminate the Polanyi name and continue its work under Baylor�s Institute for
Faith and Learning. The institute focuses on the connection between religion
and scholarship. Dembski on Tuesday claimed triumph in an e-mail that called
some detractors �dogmatic� and their criticism of him �intolerant.�
News of the e-mail quickly spread on campus Wednesday, and
Baylor released a written statement announcing Dembski�s demotion Thursday.
School spokesman Larry Brumley said he and Sloan could not comment on Dembski
beyond the statement, citing strict guidelines in personnel matters.
�The theme of the report emphasized the need for the
individuals associated with the center
to work in a collegial manner with other members of the Baylor faculty,� said
Michael Beaty, Institute for Faith and Learning director, in the written statement. �Dr. Dembski�s actions after
the release of the report compromised his ability to serve as director.�
Dembski, 40, has written extensively on intelligent design,
which says that some aspects of nature are so rich and complex that they show
evidence of a higher power that created them. But some professors have charged
he promotes creationism. Earlier this year, the faculty senate overwhelmingly
passed a resolution calling on school administrators to scrap the center and consult faculty when
considering a new one.
In a news release sent to the Tribune-Herald Tuesday,
Dembski said Baylor remained strong �in the face of intolerant assaults on
freedom of thought and expression.� He also sent the release to Metanews, an
e-mail list server focused on science and religion.
Dembski said he wrote the e-mail, which he said went out to
about 1,600 people, to address critics at Baylor who had been against him since
his arrival on campus. He said Beaty asked him to retract the e-mail Wednesday,
but he refused.
�I think it needed to be clear in my statements that there
was tremendous opposition to this center,
and it would not have been an accurate representation if there was not some
reference,� he said.
Wrong message sent
In its report to Sloan, an eight-member panel made up mostly
of scholars from outside Baylor suggested Dembski and Gordon continue their
research �in ways that encourage dialogue with faculty in a variety of fields.�
But Jay Losey, a Baylor English professor and chairman of the faculty senate,
said many believed Dembski�s message did not represent what they hoped would be
a new cooperative spirit.
�I think everyone is saddened when a colleague is demoted,
but these things happen,� Losey said. �In this case, in my judgment, the
colleague was intemperate in remarks that he made. There has to be
accountability.�
Losey said he received Dembski�s message Wednesday from a
member of Baylor�s science faculty who subscribes to Metanews. Losey forwarded
the message to Sloan, provost Donald Schmeltekopf and the 32 other senators.
�When I read it, I knew that we had a problem that needed
immediate attention, and that�s why I sent it on,� Losey said.
Dembski, who is working on two books this year and often
works out of his home, said he came to Baylor Thursday to work on setting up a
new office on campus. He said Beaty came to his office and told him of his
removal, handing Dembski a demotion letter from Sloan.
�I was informed that my duties would be adjusted two or
three weeks down the line,� Dembski said.
Standing by
statements
He wrote a reaction to his demotion Thursday on Metanews. It
said giving in to Baylor�s request that he retract the first e-mail �would be
tantamount to giving in to the censorship and vilification against me that had
been a constant feature since I arrived on campus.�
Dembski said he is not sure what his future will be at
Baylor, where he has five years left on his contract.
The Polanyi Center was created with little fanfare
last year to study the history and philosophy of science, the relationship
between science and religion and intelligent design. Dembski and Gordon are its
only researchers.
Controversy erupted earlier this year after the center hosted a conference on
naturalism, which is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of
natural laws. The senate passed its resolution, and Sloan called for an
advisory panel of scholars to review the center�s work.
The panel met at Baylor for two days last month, and Sloan
said Tuesday he accepted its recommendations. One recommendation called for an
advisory panel of Baylor professors that would clarify the center�s policies and practices and
serve as a sounding board for its programs.
Another recommendation called for the center to stop using the name of Polanyi, a Hungarian chemist who
studied the interaction of science, philosophy and religion. According to the
committee�s report, Polanyi did
not believe an agent such as the one implied by intelligent design theory was
needed to explain the growth of the living world.
Sloan said Tuesday he was glad to see the center�s work preserved. He said he
hoped serious research in a collegial environment would follow.
��I think everyone is saddened when a colleague
is demoted, but these things happen. In this case, in my judgment, the
colleague was intemperate in remarks that he made. There has to be
accountability.� --Jay Losey, Baylor professor, head of faculty senate
HEADLINE:
'Intelligent design' leader demoted
October
20, 2000
The
Houston Chronicle
Friday,
Pg. A31
BYLINE:
RON NISSIMOV
The
director of a controversial center at Baylor University investigating whether
life was created through "intelligent design" instead of evolution
was demoted Thursday, apparently for calling his critics "intolerant"
and gloating that his research had been vindicated two days ago.
"Intellectual McCarthyism has, for the moment, prevailed at Baylor,"
William Dembski said in a news release about his demotion. Dembski was demoted
as director of the Michael Polanyi Center but was allowed to stay at the
university as an associate professor and to continue his research.
Dembski,
40, widely regarded as a leading figure in the intelligent design movement,
posted e-mail on a science and religion Web site Wednesday saying that a report
issued by an external committee Tuesday "marks the triumph of intelligent
design as a legitimate form of academic inquiry." He ended his e-mail by
writing, "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."
Baylor
English professor Jay Losey, chair of the faculty senate, said many faculty
members who raised concerns about the center 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. "It was an attack of the
Baylor faculty. I don't know how else to read the final two sentences,"
Losey said about the e-mail.
Losey
said he felt the administration's response was appropriate but that it was a
sad day for the Waco campus. Baylor philosophy professor Michael Beaty,
director of the school's Institute for Faith and Learning, which oversees the
Polanyi Center, said Dembski's e-mail violated the spirit of cooperation that
the committee advocated Tuesday. "Dr. Dembski's actions after the release
of the report compromised his ability to serve as director," Beaty said.
Dembski
will be replaced temporarily by Bruce Gordon, the assistant director of the
center. Gordon said he does not want the job permanently, and a search for a
director will begin as soon as possible. Baylor spokesman Larry Brumley said
the university could not comment further because it is a personnel matter.
Baylor, a private university with a Baptist mission founded in 1845, is the
only university in the country to devote an academic center to intelligent
design, which theorizes that organic molecules and life forms are too complex
to have been created simply through evolution.
Proponents
claim they can use probability models to prove life was created through the
intervention of a purposeful, intelligent design. Although many intelligent
design researchers believe God is responsible for creating life, they say their
methods can only prove the existence of an intelligent design
"agent." The movement was born in the 1980s and gained strength in
the 1990s. Many scientists say intelligent design falsely portrays itself as a science
but is simply a front for creationism because it tries to explain
little-understood phenomena through spiritual causes. They say it is impossible
to observe an agent of intelligent design, and therefore such research cannot
be considered science. They point out that no credible, peer-reviewed
scientific journals have ever published such research.
In
order to quell a controversy that erupted earlier this year after the center
opened, Baylor President Robert Sloan convened an external review committee in
the spring to examine whether the center was performing legitimate academic
research. The committee said Tuesday that the center should be allowed to
continue to operate because intelligent design has a "legitimate claim to
a place in the current discussions of the relations of religion and the
sciences," but it stopped short of saying the theories are valid. The
committee said a faculty advisory committee should be appointed to improve the
center's relations with the university and that the center's name should be
changed to dissociate it from previous controversy and because Michael Polanyi,
a scientist who died in 1976, did not espouse the same views as the center.
Sloan,
who has been criticized by some faculty members for placing too much emphasis
on religion since he took over the post in 1995, agreed to carry out both
recommendations. Dembski said Thursday that Sloan "personally solicited me
to come to Baylor and establish the center." He said he was shocked that
Sloan asked him Wednesday to retract his e-mail because officials said it
caused a "firestorm" on campus. "In the utmost of bad faith, the
administration claimed my refusal to retract my press release constituted a
lack of collegiality on my part and charged that this compromised my ability to
serve as director, thereby providing the fig leaf of justification for my
removal," Dembski said. D
embski's
attorney, John Gilmore of St. Paul, Minn., could not be reached for comment on
whether Dembski plans to take legal action. Dembski has been called one of the
leading figures in intelligent design by University of California, Berkeley law
professor Phillip Johnson, widely recognized as the father of the movement.
Baylor officials have said Dembski, who holds doctorates in mathematics and
philosophy, became interested in intelligent design after undergoing a
"religious experience."
Unintelligent
Designs
Baylor's
dismissal of Polyani Center director Dembski was not a smart move.
By
John Wilson
Christianity Today
October 23, 2000
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/143/11.0.html
Several
months ago we reported on the efforts of faculty at Baylor University to shut
down the recently founded Michael Polanyi Center for Complexity, Information,
and Design. The center, established by administrative fiat at the behest of
Baylor President Robert B. Sloan, Jr., under the auspices of the university's
Institute for Faith and Learning, came under fire in part because Sloan had
avoided traditional faculty channels. But it was clear from the outset that the
debate over the center was driven first and foremost by intense opposition to
the Intelligent Design movement; the director of the center, who had been
personally recruited for the position by Sloan himself, was William Dembski,
the most outstanding scholar associated with the ID movement.
In
response to faculty criticism, Sloan called for an external review committee to
consider the work done under the umbrella of the Polanyi Center and to make
recommendations as to whether and how the center should continue to function at
Baylor. Last week, on October 17, the committee's report was released. While
its tortured language reflected bitter conflict (about which more below), the
report nonetheless affirmed the "mission" of the center, as Sloan
himself noted in a Baylor press release the same day.
Dembski,
as the director of the center, also commented on the report in a one-paragraph
e-mail message following its release. "The report marks the triumph of
intelligent design as a legitimate form of academic inquiry. This is a great
day for academic freedom," Dembski began. He concluded by observing that
"Dogmatic opponents of design who demanded 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."
The
following day, opponents of the center among the Baylor faculty, including Jay
Losey, head of the faculty senate, reacted strongly to Dembski's e-mail. Baylor
administrators pressured Dembski to retract the message, but he refused, and on
October 19 he was removed as director of the center. "The theme of the
report emphasized the need for individuals associated with the center to work
together in a collegial manner," said Michael Beaty, director of the
Institute of Faith and Learning, in an official statement announcing Dembski's
dismissal. "Dr. Dembski's actions after the release of the report
compromised his ability to serve as director." Dembski's contract with Baylor
still has several years to run, and the terms of his position following the
demotion have not yet been spelled out.
What
are we to make of this? First, caution is in order in commenting from a
distance on personnel decisions at any institution. One doesn't always have
possession of all the relevant facts. Moreover, I come to this case with great
respect not only for President Sloan but also for Michael Beaty. Still, from
this vantage point, the decision to dismiss Dembski as director of the center
appears to be a terrible blot on Baylor's record.
When
I read that Dembski was being demoted for a lack of collegiality, I wished for
a latter-day Jonathan Swift, whose satiric genius could do justice to this affair.
Given the way that Dembski's opponents have repeatedly vilified him and his
work, with charges of "stealth creationism" and the like, the man has
shown the forbearance of a saint.
"Ah,"
you say, "but what a shame that he didn't maintain that forbearance just a
bit longer. Then he could have continued his work at the center." I'm not
so sure. Quoted in a Waco Tribune-Herald story, Dembski, explaining his refusal
to retract the e-mail, said, "I think it needed to be clear in my
statements that there was tremendous opposition to this center, and it would
not have been an accurate representation if there was not some reference"
to the conflict.
And
in fact, as noted above, that conflict is very much apparent in the elephantine
language of the external review committee, which sounds more like the language
of courtiers than the product of a robust intellectual community. (Note for
example the two paragraphs early on&emdash;a substantial portion of the
entire report&emdash;given to lauding the great tradition of the science
faculty at Baylor, rather as one might flatter a medieval monarch.) How bizarre
that the question of the "legitimacy" of Dembski's work "on the
logical structure of mathematical arguments for intelligent design" should
have to be adjudicated by such a committee in the first place! (And note the
condescension that follows; the italics are mine: "the Institute should be
free, if it chooses, to include in its coverage this line of work, when carried
out professionally.") Having been rigorously peer-reviewed for publication
by Cambridge University Press, Dembski's work is obviously
"legitimate"&emdash;that is, professionally up to
snuff&emdash;by any reasonable standard.
That
doesn't mean his arguments will ultimately be vindicated. On that, the jury is
out and probably will be for some time. But that isn't and never has been the
issue at Baylor. Within any academic field at any moment there are many rival
arguments on the table, many of which are mutually contradictory. What
opponents of the Polanyi Center have sought to claim is that such work is
simply beyond the pale, that it doesn't meet the requirements of the relevant
academic disciplines. Hence the opening sentence of Dembski's offending e-mail,
which we'll quote again: "The report marks the triumph of intelligent
design as a legitimate form of academic inquiry."
Here
is what it looks like, then. Dembski's opponents hoped that the external review
committee would agree with the faculty senate's April 2000 resolution to
disband the center. When that didn't occur, they contrived an excuse to get
Dembski dismissed. Presumably the next step will be to ensure that the center
goes in a different direction (and there is plenty of wiggle room for that in
the committee's report).
What
are they so afraid of?
John
Wilson is Editor of Books & Culture and Editor-at-Large for Christianity
Today.
Intelligent
design controversy continues to fester at Baylor
By
Art Toalston
Current Baptist Press News
October 24, 2000
WACO,
Texas (BP)--When it comes to creation and evolution, science increasingly is a
subject of debate at Baylor University.
A
noted scientist who holds to "intelligent design" of the universe
rather than Darwinian-style evolution was removed Oct. 19 from his post as director
of a Baylor think tank after refusing to rescind a statement he had circulated
on campus and the Metanews e-mail list focused on science and religion.
The
prof, William Dembski, had stated:
"The
report [a Baylor-commissioned study of the university's Michael Polanyi Center
for Complexity, Information, and Design headed by Dembski released Oct. 17]
marks the triumph of intelligent design as a legitimate form of academic
inquiry. This is a great day for academic freedom. I'm deeply grateful to President
Sloan and Baylor University for making this possible, as well as to the peer
review committee for its unqualified affirmation of my own work on intelligent
design. ... My work on intelligent design will continue unabated. Dogmatic
opponents of design who demanded 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."
Dembski,
whose publishers include Cambridge University Press, remains under contract at
Baylor and now holds the post of an associate professor.
Opponents
of Dembski's work at Baylor, which is affiliated with the Baptist General
Convention of Texas, have interpreted Dembski's references to "dogmatic
opponents" and "intolerant assaults" as references to themselves
and their opposition to Dembski's thinking on intelligent design.
Also
putting the Waco, Texas, university in the spotlight has been a letter by eight
Baylor science professors declaring, "Intelligent design is not a
science," that made its way into the Congressional Record.
The
eight professors were writing to Rep. Mark Souter, R.-Ind., complaining of a
Capitol Hill conference on intelligent design May 10.
The
Congressional Record entry, including Souter's comments and the professors'
full letter, can be seen at a Southern Baptist Convention Internet site,
www.Baptist2Baptist.net.
Intelligent
design is "an old philosophical argument that has been dressed up as
science" and has not undergone substantive peer review in the scientific
community, the eight professors wrote.
While
many scientists believe in God, the profs wrote, "Materialistic science
does not say that there is no God. Rather, it says that God, due to His
supernatural and divine nature, cannot be proved or disproved, thus we cannot
consider His role in the natural phenomena we observe. Therefore, the existence
of God is not a question within the realm of science."
Souter,
in his remarks entered into the Congressional Record, stated, "I am appalled
that any university seeking to discover truth, yet alone a university that is a
Baptist Christian school, could make the kinds of statements that are contained
in this letter. Is their position on teaching about materialistic science so
weak that it cannot withstand scrutiny and debate?"
Souter
noted, "Today, qualified scientists are reaching the conclusion that
[intelligent] design theory makes better sense of the data" for such
questions as "whether the DNA code is the result of natural causes or an
intelligent agent."
The
Congressional Record entry has received ongoing attention since its publication
in mid-June.
The
controversy over Dembski and the Polanyi Center was sparked by a 26-2 vote by Baylor's
faculty senate on April 18 calling for dissolution of the center, which had
been created at the initiative of Baylor President Robert B. Sloan Jr.
The
faculty senate vote came just three days after the center sponsored a four-day
conference on the role of naturalism in science featuring leading proponents of
both Darwinian evolution and intelligent design theories. At issue during the
conference was the question: Is the universe self-contained, as widely held
throughout the scientific community, or does it require something beyond itself
to explain its existence and internal function?
The
controversy prompted Sloan to create an external review committee, chaired by a
Baylor faculty member but otherwise composed of scholars from other academic
institutions. The committee's report was issued Oct. 17 and affirmed by Sloan.
Among
the committee's conclusions: "... research on the logical structure of
mathematical arguments for intelligent design [has] a legitimate claim to a
place in current discussions of the relations of religion and the
sciences."
The
field of pursuit is new, having "only just begun to receive response in
professional journals," the external review committee said, yet Baylor
"should be free, if it chooses, to include in its coverage this line of
work, when carried out professionally."
Among
the review committee's other recommendations were placing the center under
Baylor's Institute for Faith and Learning and discontinuing use of the Polanyi
name because the late Hungarian chemist for whom the Baylor center is named,
while having built a reputation for studying the interaction of science,
philosophy and religion, did not believe that an agent of intelligent design is
needed to explain the growth of the living world.
The
committee also suggested that an advisory committee of Baylor faculty be
appointed "to assist in planning and reviewing the science and religion
component" of the institute.
The
external review committee's endorsement of study in intelligent design prompted
Dembski's e-mail statement, which caused controversy on campus and led to his
demotion.
Michael
Beaty, director of the Institute of Faith and Learning, in an official
statement announcing Dembski's dismissal, said, "The theme of the report
emphasized the need for individuals associated with the center to work together
in a collegial manner." Dembski's actions after the release of the report,
Beaty said, "compromised his ability to serve as director."
Dembski,
in response to the statement by Beaty, told the Waco Tribune-Herald, "I
think it needed to be clear in my statements that there was tremendous
opposition to this center, and it would not have been an accurate
representation if there was not some reference [to the conflict]."
Dembski
holds Ph.D. degrees in mathematics from the University of Chicago and in
philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has done
post-doctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of
Chicago and computer science at Princeton University. He earned a B.A. in
psychology and M.S. in statistics also from the University of Illinois at
Chicago and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary.
Dembski's
writings include a book titled, "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between
Science and Theology," published by Inter Varsity Press in November 1999,
and 1998 Cambridge University Press book titled, "The Design Inference:
Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities."
Jay
Losey, a Baylor English professor and faculty senate chairman, told the Waco
newspaper, "I think everyone is saddened when a colleague is demoted, but
these things happen. In this case, in my judgment, the colleague was
intemperate in remarks that he made. There has to be accountability."
Losey
told The Lariat, the Baylor student newspaper, that "there is deep,
genuine concern on the part of Baylor faculty regarding some of the statements
made in the e-mail. Deep, genuine concern."
Losey,
to the Tribune-Herald, also said, "Baylor faculty will accept Dembski and
[another center associate, Bruce] Gordon as colleagues, provided that they do
what all of their other colleagues at Baylor University are doing," Losey
said. "That is disseminating their best thinking in peer-review journals
and presses that have readers reviewing manuscripts submitted for
publication."
Sloan,
in a statement in conjunction with the external study committee's report
release Oct. 17, had said, "I am pleased that the central mission of the
center has been affirmed and that the committee has underscored the fact that
support of academic freedom includes protecting controversial ideas."
Polyani
Center's future is unclear
Director's
removal arises from e-mail
by
Blair Martin
The Baylor Lariat
October 24, 2000
http://www3.baylor.edu/Lariat/Archives/2000/20001024/art-front02.html
In
the wake of Dr. William Dembski's removal from his duties as director Thursday,
the Michael Polanyi Center's future is even more unclear.
Dembski
was released from his position Thursday after the release of a controversial
e-mail he wrote that caused concern among some faculty members.
Faculty
senate chairman, Dr. Jay Losey, said Dembski's e-mail conflicted with the theme
emphasized in the external committee's report, which stated that he and the
Center would work in a collegial manner with other members of the Baylor
faculty.
"Any
faculty member who posts intolerant remarks should be held accountable for
those statements," he said.
Dr.
Michael Beaty, director of the Institute of Faith and Learning, said he
wouldn't comment on any particulars surrounding Dembski's reassignment except
that Dembski's actions, after the release of the e-mail, compromised his
ability to serve as director.
Beaty
said Dembski will now serve as associate research professor in conceptual
foundations of science within the university's Institute of Faith and Learning,
where he will devote himself to the research of intelligent design and can
serve the remainder of his five-year contract.
In
Dembski's absence, Dr. Bruce Gordon, assistant-director of the Polanyi Center,
was appointed as interim director to continue the center's daily functions and
implement the recommendations of the external peer review committee's report,
one of which is to establish an advisory committee to oversee the center.
Gordon
said he and Beaty are in the midst of "generating a list of possible names
for the advisory committee to be submitted to the provost and Dean Wallace
Daniel."
"At
the moment, everything is up in the air," he said. "But it is my hope
that we [Beaty and Gordon] might reconstitute a new center."
Dr.
Charles Weaver, associate professor of psychology and neuroscience, said the
advisory committee, which will be composed of faculty members, will serve an
important function.
"This
is what most faculty was concerned about prior to the report," he said.
"By having the formation of this advisory committee, the Polanyi Center
will be subject to peer review for their research and writings and will have to
actually defend their views."
Weaver
said that initially the center's two-man operation, Dembski and Gordon, were
outside of any kind of accountability.
"With
academic freedom comes accountability," he said. "Responsibility to one's
own peers, students and professional colleagues across the nation."
Dembski's
reassignment not only adds to the uncertainty of the center -- it is also
another incident in the continuing evolution of the center's controversial
existence on campus, which began a year ago.
TIME
LINE
Oct.
1999 - The Michael Polanyi Center quietly establishes itself onto Baylor's
campus. Primarily consisting of Drs. William Dembski and Bruce Gordon, few
realized its existence or how much controversy it would foster.
April
12 to 15, 2000 - The Michael Polanyi Center hosts its first conference on
campus, titled The Nature of Nature. With debate already surrounding the
center's purpose, faculty members were encouraged to attend the various
seminars led by acclaimed science and philosophy scholars from around the
country.
April
18, 2000 - After much debate among faculty within science, philosophy and
theology departments, the Faculty Senate calls for the administration to dissolve
the Polanyi Center, stating that the center's study of intelligent design has
"creationist" undertones and may ultimately jeopardize their
department's degrees.
April
20, 2000 - Sloan publicly rejects the Senate's recommendation to dissolve the center,
saying that faculty members were consulted before the center's establishment
and that there was a legitimate place for the center on Baylor's campus.
Spring
- Administration and faculty reach a compromise and an external peer review
committee, consisting of eight academic scholars led by philosophy professor
Dr. William F. Cooper, is established to investigate the legitimacy and
validity of the Center's research.
Sept.
8 to 10, 2000 - The committee holds its final meeting on Baylor's campus, where
they draft a report that will list their thoughts and recommendations of the
Center's mission and affiliation with Baylor.
Oct.
17, 2000 - Committee's report is released citing four major recommendations.
First, the Center's mission is best supported under the structure of the
Institute for Faith and Learning. Second, the Center should not only continue
to pursue the intelligent design theory but should also expand a broader focus
to include broader areas of its mandate as well. Third, an advisory committee,
composed of Baylor faculty members, should be created to assist in planning and
reviewing the science and religion component of the Center, and finally, that
the Center should no longer bear the name Michael Polanyi.
Oct.
19, 2000 - One day after he released a controversial e-mail, Dr. Dembski is
released from his duties as director and reassigned to associate research
professor in conceptual foundations of science.
Currently
- Drs. Gordon and Beaty are generating names of potential members for the advisory
committee.
Sloan
fields faculty questions at forum
Salaries,
Polanyi among concerns
By
BLAIR MARTIN
The Baylor Lariat
October 26, 2000
http://www3.baylor.edu/Lariat/Archives/2000/20001026/art-front03.html
President
Robert B. Sloan Jr. answered faculty questions at the President's Faculty Forum
Meeting at 3:30 p.m. Wednesday in Kayser Auditorium in the Hankamer School of
Business.
During
the meeting, which was mediated by Faculty Senate Chairman Dr. Jay Losey, Sloan
answered 14 of the given 28 questions, selected by the Faculty Senate, in front
of attending faculty members.
After
the president responded to a question, he asked faculty for any additional
questions they had on the specific topic he was addressing.
Larry
Brumley, spokesman for Baylor, said he thought the format of the forum was well
organized and educational for him and his colleagues.
"I
thought the meeting was very helpful and allowed ample opportunity for
follow-up questions to be asked," Brumley said. "Because there is a
fair amount of depth in all of the questions, the president does his homework
and takes each one seriously."
The
first question Sloan addressed concerned the external committee's report of the
Michael Polanyi Center.
"There
were two major issues I saw in regard to the report," Sloan said.
"First, the committee saw that this intellectual project with a broader
mandate is indeed a legitimate project, and second, that collegiality among the
university is important."
Sloan
said it was unfortunate that "further distractions occurred,"
referring to Dr. William Dembski's reassignment from director of the center,
but that it is necessary for colleagues, especially in an academic setting, to
be able to maintain constructive dialogue among their fellow academic
colleagues.
"We
ought to be able to discuss the philosophy and religion of science at a
university, even if we don't always agree," he said. "It is important
for us all to work together, and we can do so without being disagreeable with
one another."
Another
question posed to the president was whether he would be willing to announce the
average raise for faculty each year as well as for executive personnel.
Sloan
said he would not because "he didn't see anything positive to be gained to
publishing these numbers."
However,
Sloan provided a list of statistical evidence to faculty, which stated that
Baylor salaries for assistant, associate and full-time professors were within
average percentile among the salaries of other competitive schools.
When
asked to comment on an article in Atlantic Monthly about evangelical schools,
which claimed he wanted to make Baylor the "Notre Dame of the Baptist
world," Sloan said he never "recalled ever using another school as a
model or basis for Baylor" but felt that Baylor had the potential to be a
"tier one" school and among the top 50 universities in the world.
He
was also asked how he and the provost intend to strengthen Baylor's reputation
beyond its status as a good undergraduate school or a "mediocre university
with a good law school."
Sloan
said that, although it is "important as a university to emphasize the
value of scholarship, teaching is what Baylor prizes."
"What
happens in the classroom is our bread and butter," he said, "but that
doesn't mean that we can't improve on research and other areas of
discovery."
Press
Release by Michael Beaty
Michael
Beaty
Director, The Baylor Institute for Faith and Learning
October 27, 2000
In
light of remarks on the META list that indicate a significant misunderstanding
of the recent events surrounding the Polanyi Center at Baylor University, most
particularly the removal of Dr. Dembski as its director, I think it is
important to clarify the significance of what has happened.
Dr.
Dembski was not removed from the directorship for any academic failure. Baylor
recognizes the value and legitimacy of his academic work, as did the External
Review Committee. Baylor fully supports his academic freedom to pursue his
research and hopes that he will continue to do so. Dr. Dembski was removed from
his post as director on administrative grounds. In order to function in his
administrative capacity, it was necessary that Dr. Dembski be able to work well
with other Baylor faculty, first and foremost an advisory committee. It was the
judgment of the administration that some of his recent actions severely
compromised his ability to perform his central administrative duties. It was
for this reason, and this reason alone, that he was removed from his
directorial post.
There
also has been a suggestion that the removal of Dr. Dembski as director is a
sign that Baylor has succumbed to political pressure to squelch work on
intelligent design. Nothing could be further from the truth. Having been freed
from administrative tasks, Dr. Dembski will be able to devote himself
exclusively to research, which arguably is the most valuable contribution he
can make to design theory.
Finally,
some have claimed that this sad episode suggests that Baylor is weakening its
commitment to being a Christian university. Baylor University remains committed
to encouraging a faithful intellect and an intellectually responsible faith.
Committee
backs center at Baylor
Beth McMurtrie
10/27/2000
Chronicle of Higher Education
Page A14
A controversial center at Baylor University, where researchers have been
exploring the idea that the universe was created through intelligent design,
should continue its work, but under academic scrutiny, an independent review
committee concluded last week.
The committee was appointed earlier this year after faculty members
protested that the Michael Polanyi Center was created without their
knowledge and was promoting what some described as pseudo science.
Baylor's president, Robert B. Sloan, whose administration established the
center last year and hired its two scholars, William A. Dembski and Bruce L.
Gordon, defended their work but convened the committee to review the center,
which is housed in the university's Institute for Faith and Learning.
The committee agreed that the theory of intelligent design, which holds that
the origins and development of life are too complex to be explained by
evolution, is a topic worthy of exploration. But in order to "encourage
dialogue" with various academic fields, Baylor should set up a
faculty-advisory panel to help plan and review the science and religion
component of the institute.
The committee also recommended that Michael Polanyi's name be removed from
the center. Mr. Polanyi, a chemist and philosopher who died in 1976, did not
agree that a conscious force was needed to explain the evolution of life.
In a statement, Mr. Sloan said he was pleased that the committee
"underscored the fact that support of academic freedom includes protecting
controversial ideas." He noted that he "should have handled more
effectively
the program's implementation," but said that the appointment of a
faculty--
advisory committee and the removal of Mr. Polanyi's name from the center
should correct "those early mistakes."
Jay Losey, an associate professor of English and chairman of the Faculty
Senate, said "an overwhelming majority" of senators supported the
committee's report after it was discussed at their meeting last week.
Mr. Losey said the faculty-advisory panel would ensure that Mr. Dembski's
and Mr. Gordon's future research "meets traditional academic standards for
scholarship."
-BETH MCMURTRIE
The Lynching
of Bill Dembski
Scientists
say the jury is out -- so let the hanging begin.
by
Fred Heeren
The American Spectator
November 2000
http://www.spectator.org/archives/0011TAS/heeren0011.htm
Mathematician
William Dembski stands accused of bringing shame upon a major university. Not
only that, say his colleagues, he has managed to disgrace the entire scientific
enterprise.
Scientists
from distant universities wrote letters to the editors of his university
newspaper, and biologists spoke up through the surrounding city papers, telling
the public why this man must be stopped. When Dembski organized an academic
conference, one incensed professor from another state sent long e-mails to the
scheduled speakers, seeking to discredit Dembski and convincing one famed
philosopher to cancel.
The
faculty senate of his own Baylor University voted 26 to 2 to recommend that his
research center be dismantled. Eight members of Baylor's science departments
wrote Congress about the dangers of Dembski's project, and several briefings on
the issues were made before a bipartisan group of congressional members and
staff.
So
you're wondering: What kind of new and evil science is William Dembski
practicing? Is he cloning half-humans without souls to create cheap labor?
Several Baylor students interviewed for this article couldn't pinpoint the
exact deed, but knew it was immoral because they heard that it had something to
do with an evil use of the human genome project.
What
does Bill Dembski think of all this? A mild-mannered mathematician more at home
with probability theory than politics, he shakes his head in disbelief.
"I've found that when people get to know me one-on-one, they think what
I'm doing is legitimate, or at least worth pursuing. But when they start
listening to the siren call of the Internet, things get out of control."
What
Dembski has actually done hardly seems nefarious. As a scientist with twin
Ph.D.'s in mathematics and philosophy, Dembski has set about developing
mathematical methods for detecting intelligent design, should it be
discernible, in nature. That's all. What's more, he has submitted his work to
the scientific scrutiny of his peers. So why are all these professors so
hysterical?
Disguised
Creationism?
Since
the 1980's, critics have charged that the intelligent designconcept is really
just "a disguised form of creationism." According to Eugenie Scott, executive
director of the National Center for Science Education: "They're really
saying God does it, but they're not as honest as the Biblical creationists. The
intelligence is really spelled in three letters: G-O-D."
Not
at all, says Dembski. Intelligent design points not to a creator, but to a
designer -- a crucial distinction. "If you examine a piece of
furniture," he explains, "you can identify that it is designed, but
you can't identify who or what is responsible for the wood in the first place.
Intelligent design just gets you to an intelligent cause that works with
pre-existing materials, but not the source of those materials."
Neuroscientist
Lewis Barker, who left Baylor in protest over the administration's
"religious" policies, buys none of this: "I see it as a form of
stealth creationism, a very old argument wrapped in new clothes." Later,
however, he adds: "The whole notion of using mathematics, that's something
new."
Also
novel is the respect many "intelligent design" proponents have earned
in the academic community. "They're real academics, not cranks,"
admits Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer, whose editorial board is
overwhelmingly composed of intelligent design critics such as Stephen Jay Gould
and Eugenie Scott herself. "They have real degrees and tenure," adds
Shermer. Not only does William Dembski have doctorates in mathematics and
philosophy, he has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, physics at the
University of Chicago, and computer science at Princeton University. Even Lewis
Barker says: "He seems to be a very bright guy."
Eugenie
Scott argues that intelligent design proponents don't have a scholarly position
because they never submit their work for peer review. But each time she brings
up the kind of scholarly evaluation that's lacking -- the reviewed publications
or academic conferences -- she stops short when she comes to the work of
William Dembski.
Regarding
conferences, Scott remembers Dembski's "The Nature of Nature"
conference (April 12-15 at Baylor) and grudgingly admits: "They actually
did invite some scientists there." In fact, the slate of speakers included
two Nobel Prize-winning scientists and several members from the National
Academy of Sciences. The list was weighted toward prominent biologists, physicists,
and philosophers who were critical of intelligent design.
And
when Scott ticks off a list of non-peer-reviewed design literature, she
hesitates when she recalls that Dembski's book, The Design Inference, was
written as part of a Cambridge University philosophy of science series.
Published as Dembski's doctoral dissertation in philosophy, it became
Cambridge's best-selling philosophical monograph in recent years. After
surviving a review of 70 scholars, and then the standard dissertation defense
at the University of Illinois, The Design Inference finally underwent
corrections and refereed scrutiny for two years at Cambridge University Press.
The
great irony is that just as Dembski is proposing to test his theory with the
help of molecular biologists, the very scientists who are challenging
intelligent design to pass scientific tests are using every means possible to
ensure those tests never take place.
Birth
of a Think Tank
The
brief story of Dembski's Michael Polanyi Center starts with its home: Baylor
University, the world's largest Baptist institution, located in Waco, Texas.
For years, Baylor had a reputation among conservatives for going the way of
many once-Christian colleges, neglecting its religious heritage and embracing
the politically correct tenets of secular humanism instead.
All
that began to change when Robert Sloan became president of Baylor University in
1995. Sloan, a New Testament scholar with a doctorate in theology from the
University of Basel, proposed to return the school to its mission of
integrating academic excellence and Christian commitment. To foster this goal,
he oversaw the establishment of the university's Institute for Faith and
Learning, which explores opportunities for profitable engagement between faith
and academic pursuits like art, history, business -- even science.
Sloan
resisted the urging of fundamentalists to "throw the evolutionists
out" of the biology department, vowing never to bar anyone at Baylor from
teaching evolution. He rejects the notion of a "creation science"
(6-day creation a few thousand years ago). But he also believes that "the
academic world has become far too compartmentalized."
"Baylor
ought to be the kind of place where a student can ask a question and not just
get the runaround," says Sloan. "He shouldn't have to go to the
theology department and be told, 'Oh, that's a scientific question. Don't ask
me that.' And then the student goes to the science department and they tell
him, 'That's a religious question. Don't ask me that.'"
So
far this doesn't sound too different from many other universities nationwide
that have recently set up centers to revisit the relationship between science
and religion. But matters took a fateful turn in the fall of 1998 when
President Sloan read an article by William Dembski and was wowed by his work
and credentials. Others in the administration were also impressed. Michael
Beaty, director of the Institute for Faith and Learning, says that Dembski's
work "fit right in with the institute. Bill was fruitfully dialoging with
religion and science."
When
Beaty sounded him out about his interest in joining the institute, he learned
that Dembski was seeking to build a research center to test the theory of
intelligent design. The administration received his ideas with enthusiasm. His
research would pursue not only intelligent design, but a broad range of topics
having to do with the foundations of the natural and social sciences. Thus was
born the Michael Polanyi Center, which Dembski named for an eminent physical
chemist who taught that biology is not reducible to chemistry and physics.
"This
was an opportunity to reaffirm that Baylor is a university where controversial
issues can be discussed," says Donald Schmeltekopf, Baylor's provost.
"We decided to go ahead and give it a chance, believing the university
would be a richer and more compelling place, knowing that there would be those
who would have objections." His pleasant expression disappears, and he
adds: "We didn't anticipate the amount of objection."
Controversy
After
Dembski brought on board Bruce Gordon (Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of
physics) as associate director of the Polanyi Center, the duo made a good first
impression on the faculty they met. Gordon led a colloquium reading group,
using two books about interactions between science and faith. Discussion with
participating faculty was cordial.
"The
controversy began after our Website debuted in mid-January," explains
Gordon. "That's what drew more faculty attention to the center."
While the Polanyi site itself was unexceptionable, other groups with
evolutionist-bashing agendas began linking up their Websites to the center.
Many on the biology faculty flashed back to old culture battles, when such
groups had publicly questioned the professors' integrity.
Gordon
is understanding, but explains that the realities of the Web are such that the
Polanyi Center has no control over who connects to their site.
"We
don't endorse a connection to those sites at all. They didn't ask our
permission. But we can't spend our time policing the Internet."
Reaction
built quickly. One professor who had previously been friendly at the reading
group wrote Gordon an insulting letter. An e-mail frenzy began between faculty
in all departments, calling special attention to the creationist Websites that
claimed the Polanyi Center as one of their own.
News
spread to other universities, and soon newspapers in Waco and Houston were
filled with reactions from a handful of vocal Baylor professors who were
appalled that such a monstrosity as the Polanyi Center should be found on their
campus.
By
this time, plans were well under way for a large Polanyi conference called
"The Nature of Nature." Most Baylor biologists decided to boycott the
event. Even so, the April conference drew 350 scholars from around the world
whose views varied wildly on the conference's central question: "Is the
universe self-contained or does it require something beyond itself to explain
its existence and internal function?"
By
all accounts, the conference itself was an outstanding success, drawing
attention to Baylor as a place that could attract world-class scholars for
dialogue on the big questions. In spite of one out-of-state professor's
campaign to convince all speakers to cancel, the conference brought together
such luminaries as Nobelist/physicist Steven Weinberg, Nobelist/biochemist
Christian de Duve, big bang cosmologist Alan Guth, paleontologist Simon Conway
Morris, and philosopher Alvin Plantinga.
But
the conference only focused the Baylor faculty's anger more intensely on the
Michael Polanyi Center. A few days after it ended, the faculty senate met and
voted to recommend that the administration dissolve the center immediately. The
faculty claimed that President Sloan had no right to set up such a center and
choose its head without their involvement.
"It's
rather ironic that people in the scientific community, whose rights had to be
protected in the face of ideological pressure [from creationists], now appear
to be suppressing others," says President Sloan. "People have always
asked questions about the relationship of religious views and the natural
phenomena we see in the world. I think it just borders on McCarthyism to call
that 'creation science.'"
The
day after the faculty senate vote, President Sloan addressed the faculty,
telling them that he would not close down the Polanyi Center merely because
they demanded it. The procedure he had used in setting up the center was no
different from the one he and previous administrators had used to establish
other centers.
Michael
Beaty, director of the Institute for Faith and Learning, notes that they had
used the same procedure for setting up the Center for American Jewish Studies,
without criticism.
Recognizing
that the faculty's real objections were not about procedure, Sloan repeated to
the faculty an earlier announced plan to form an independent peer review
committee to evaluate William Dembski's work and the work of the Polanyi
Center. He said that he sympathized with the science faculty over their concern
for their reputations, but that the bigger issue is academic freedom. He didn't
like the idea of snuffing out a project without giving it a chance to have its
work reviewed by peers.
Assuming
the committee would impartially address the matter, Dembski welcomed the
review. "Academic programs need to be held accountable," he said at
the time. "I would go further than that and say that I value objective
peer review. I always learn more from my critics than from the people who think
I'm wonderful."
Initially,
Baylor spokesman Larry Brumley insisted that the committee wouldn't be asked
whether the center should be dissolved. "It's not a committee to look at
whether we should reconsider having the Polanyi Center," Brumley said.
"They're looking at how we can better communicate its purpose and address
the concerns of faculty members."
When
the committee membership was announced, however, Dembski was surprised to find
antagonistic biologists in the majority. Worse, the committee did not include a
single person capable of understanding the mathematical arguments made in
Dembski's The Design Inference. (This was partially rectified when one
statistician was later added to the team.) Neither were Dembski's prospects
brightened when the committee chose as its head William Cooper, a philosophy
professor who calls the Polanyi Center extremely "polarizing" and
doubtlessly connected to the old-style "creationists."
Lingering
anger in the biology department is perhaps an understandable reaction after
years of ideological assault by creationism activists. But the personal outrage
against the very idea of Dembski's work runs even deeper than that. The
resentment becomes obvious to any outsider who dares to roam the halls of the
Baylor biology department and ask professors for their take on the dispute.
What
exactly is intelligent design (ID), and why do the very words incite such fury
among some biologists?
What
Is Intelligent Design?
ID
depends upon a concept known as specified complexity.
Say
you're out raking leaves in the backyard. If you were to find little piles of
leaves, equally spaced apart in a long line, the arrangement would be an
example of specificity, but it could be explained by what fell out of a rolling
barrel. Each time the barrel made a revolution, another clump fell out, each
spaced apart by about the same distance. The pattern is specified, but not
complex.
When
you come across thousands of piles of leaves in no particular pattern, that's complex,
and it may take billions of overturned barrels to produce another pattern just
like it. But it's not specified. No intelligent design is required to explain
it.
But
let's say you come across a thousand leaves arranged as letters spelling
meaningful words, sentences, paragraphs, even a whole story--that's specified
complexity. Specified complexity creates information and meaning, and that
requires intelligent design.
Many
scientific disciplines already use such logic to distinguish between phenomena
produced by an intelligence from those that are not. The cryptologist, when
breaking a code, looks for patterns that create meaning and are not due to
chance. SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) does the same in its
search for signals of intelligence from space (think Jodie Foster in Contact).
Even Quincy's forensic science was all about trying to determine whether a
death was due to an accident, natural causes, or the design of an intelligence.
William
Dembski puts it this way: "Specified complexity powerfully extends the
usual mathematical theory of information, known as Shannon information.
Shannon's theory dealt only with complexity, which can be due to random
processes as well as to intelligent design. The addition of specification to complexity,
however, is like a vise that grabs only things due to intelligence. Indeed, all
the empirical evidence confirms that the only known cause of specified
complexity is intelligence."
Thus
when Dembski observes this specified complexity in DNA messages and protein
coding, he infers intelligent design. These patterns give real information in
the form of meaningful instructions, precisely analogous to language with
words, sentences, punctuation marks, and grammatical rules.
The
old "scientific creationism" based itself upon two tenets: a
supernatural agent created all things, and the Bible gives us an accurate
account of what happened. In contrast, according to Dembski, intelligent design
is built upon three very different tenets:
1.
Specified complexity is well defined and empirically detectable.
2.
Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining specified complexity.
3.
Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity.
The
anti-ID school might argue that in the case of biological evolution, natural
causes do eventually produce the specified complexity we see in living things.
Natural selection culls through countless mutations over time, eventually
producing specified complexity. As the need for survival helps organisms
evolve, new information is created and they ratchet their way up into new
forms.
The
problem with this scenario, according to ID theorists, is that mutations do not
produce new information. Natural selection has slim pickin's to choose from,
even when it picks the fittest. Without an intelligence to produce new
information, no amount of re-shuffling of genes will result in a new organism.
Biologist
Peter Medawar called this principle the law of conservation of information.
Michael Polanyi himself believed that natural selection and mutation, the two
mechanisms of neo-Darwinism, are inadequate for the task of producing new
anatomies or functions in evolving animals. The focus on information theory is
one reason mathematicians have often been more skeptical of rigid Darwinist
explanations than their colleagues in biology.
If
the creation of new information is such a problem, you ask, then why isn't this
common knowledge in our institutions of higher learning? And if intelligent
design is such an obvious answer, why haven't we heard more about this before?
For one thing, no one's ever gotten far enough along to test it before. But
William Dembski is getting close.
Bruce
Gordon says that design theory, as a scientific strategy, involves two goals: 1.
to mathematically characterize designed structures (using stochastic processes
theory, probability theory, complexity theory, etc.) to detect intelligent
design, and 2. to go into nature and see whether the mathematical structures
map onto the physical structures in a way indicative of design.
This,
of course, is precisely what Dembski has been preparing to do with his research
center. He is laying the groundwork to hire molecular biologists to do research
on protein structure and protein folding to test ID. "What has to
happen," says Dembski, "is that ID has to generate research that's
more fruitful for biology than neo-Darwinism."
Can
design actually be tested as part of science?
"Has
ID really been tried?" repeats Eugenie Scott. "I think that's a legitimate
question. I don't really think we have an answer yet."
"The
jury is out on that," says William Cooper, chair of the committee
evaluating the Polanyi Center. "The mathematical discussion has not
progressed sufficiently."
Of
course, if the committee pronounces final sentence on the Polanyi Center and
ends all discussion now, we'll never know. The hanging will have occurred
before the jury comes back.
Before
Congress
On
May 10, a month after Baylor's big Polanyi conference, a number of members of Congress
attended a three hour briefing on intelligent design. William Dembski had been
invited to join other ID scientists in the presentation, but the Baylor
administration ordered him not to participate. President Sloan wanted to keep
Baylor from all appearance of mixing academics with politics.
But
some Baylor biologists became so concerned about how far the intelligent design
message was spreading that eight of them drafted a long letter to Congressman
Mark Souder, an Education Committee member, who had co-hosted the meeting.
Their letter was intended to let the congressman know that he had been duped by
the ID proponents, and that ID research is not legitimate science. Their
attempt to embarrass the ID people was turned around on them when Congressman
Souder responded with his own presentation to the House of Representatives,
including the reading of their letter into the Congressional Record.
Using
their letter as Exhibit A, he told the House that these scientists were
practicing "viewpoint discrimination in science and science
education," and that "ideological bias has no place in science."
Referring
to the letter's frequent use of the phrase "materialistic science" as
their noble cause, the congressman told his colleagues, "One senses here
not a defense of science but rather an effort to protect, by political means, a
privileged philosophical viewpoint against a serious challenge.... As [members
of] the Congress, it might be wise for us to question whether the legitimate
authority of science over scientific matters is being misused by persons who
wish to identify science with a philosophy they prefer."
A
preferred philosophy? Could it be that it took an outsider, a congressman from
Indiana no less, to get an objective fix on the real source of the conflict?
Philosophizing
Science
There
is a method used in science today that goes beyond the scientific method. It's
based on a philosophy called naturalism, defined by Funk & Wagnalls as
"the doctrine that all phenomena are derived from natural causes and can
be explained by scientific laws without reference to a plan or purpose."
It's the "without plan or purpose" part that nixes intelligent
design.
When
this philosophy is applied to science, it's called methodological naturalism,
and for many scientists today it is an unquestioned assumption.
Last
spring biology Professor Richard Duhrkopf got his picture in the papers when he
accused the Polanyi Center of trying to "change the philosophy of
science." But is science supposed to have a particular philosophy attached
to it? Many of us laymen have always thought that science was supposed to be
about applying the scientific method to observations and measurements and
gaining as much knowledge of the world as possible, not reaching foreordained
conclusions.
Methodological
naturalism proposes that scientists be provisional atheists in their work, no
matter what contrary evidence they find. Intelligent design proponents are
asking simply that science be purified of all philosophical biases. At least,
no philosophical bias should be promoted as scientific. Scientists are welcome
to hold to personal philosophies and even have them running in the background,
as guiding principles, if they think that helps them do their work. But those
personal philosophies should not be confused with science.
Berkeley
law professor Phillip Johnson stated the issue succinctly at the congressional
briefing: Americans, he said, must choose between two definitions of science in
our culture: 1. science is unbiased, empirical testing that follows the
evidence wherever it leads, or 2. science is applied materialist philosophy
which, like Marxism or Freudianism, is willing to impose its authority.
Being
Methodologically Correct
"The
twentieth century was the high point of methodological correctness," says
President Sloan. "We all know that life is more than sociology or history
or anthropology. Unfortunately, people have forgotten that the methodological
brackets we apply are purely artificial, intended to be temporary."
ID
keeps an open mind, and is entirely agnostic on the subject of religion. The
intelligent design that Dembski hopes to detect could belong either to a
Biblical God or to an earlier race of Martians who planted us here (like in the
movie Mission to Mars).
The
idea that life here was seeded from another place may seem pretty far out. But
Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of DNA's
structure, is one of a number of scientists who have seriously promoted the
"panspermia" hypothesis, the idea that life was sent here in the form
of seeds from a faraway civilization. The reason for such an idea? Crick wrote
that "the probability of life originating at random is so utterly
minuscule as to make it absurd."
Writing
with his colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe, Crick stated: "The theory that
life was assembled by an intelligence...is so obvious that one wonders why it
is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather
than scientific."
Asked
about the Mission to Mars possibility, Michael Shermer replies, "That's a
legitimate hypothesis. That's testable, that's explainable. But 'a miracle
happened' -- that's different." In other words, design is detectable and
testable--but only as long as you can be sure ahead of time that the designer
isn't God.
This
is less a philosophy than an intellectual straitjacket. By this reasoning,
scientists whose findings point to natural causes may proceed unimpeded, while
those whose evidence points to a supernatural cause must immediately close up
shop and go home. One thing you have to say for Dembski's intelligent design
theory: It makes the ultimate questions real, putting them into our own world.
By blocking ID research, methodological naturalism becomes not only a method
for doing science, but a method for keeping the deepest human concerns a safe
distance from our personal lives.
On
September 8 and 9, the peer review committee finally met and even brought in
Dembski and Gordon for 45 minutes of grilling. One committee member chastised
Dembski for questioning the adequacy of neo-Darwinism. Dembski, however, showed
none of the hoped-for contrition. As this issue goes to press, the committee is
getting set to announce its recommendation.
What
will be the fate of Dembski, Gordon, and their Michael Polanyi Center? It's up
to one man only -- President Robert Sloan. He can bow to faculty pressure and
dissolve the present Polanyi Center, perhaps restaffing it with scholars more to
the faculty's liking; or clip Dembski's wings by taking away his ability to
raise money to run programs. Or he can stand behind the man he hired, make the
case that science should be about facts, not McCarthyite lynch mobs -- and take
the heat that will surely be generated by disgruntled faculty and their
sympathetic media.
Either
way, the ultimate victim or victor won't be Bill Dembski, it will be unbiased
science and humanity's quest to discover the truth -- wherever that truth leads
us.
Top
10 Accusations
Bill
Dembski is guilty of: (a) Politically incorrect thought-crimes. (b) True crimes
against science and religion. You decide. Here are the leading accusations--and
how the Polanyi Center folks reply:
1.
It's all a front for the creationists.
Lewis
Barker: "These people are creationists. They define that as someone who
takes a literal interpretation of Genesis."
Reply:
ID is a research project to find out if design is detectable. Unlike
creationism, it's not concerned with the identity of the designer. It proposes
scientific tests that can be falsified, not presuppositions that must be
believed. Bruce Gordon says, "The Polanyi Center has no interest at all in
the Biblical literalist approach. I have considerable problems with it. It
doesn't do justice to science nor to Biblical hermeneutics."
2.
It's all politics.
Michael
Shermer: "Their agenda is a re-introduction of Judeo-Christian thought
into the public schools. They're carrying out a bottom-up strategy, by starting
in the academy."
Reply:
The Polanyi Center's purpose is research, not getting involved in politics or
textbook wars. If ID proves correct, say its adherents, its research results
should of course be included in textbooks. But no one at Polanyi is proposing
that Genesis be taught in public schools.
3.
ID is a science stopper.
Complaining
Baylor faculty members, says one journalist, "see the intelligent design
crowd as seeking to put a tourniquet on inquiry."
Reply:
Dembski says that naturalism often stops inquiry, "such as in its
expectation for the uselessness of vestigial organs and junk DNA, whereas
intelligent design profitably continues looking for their function." The
call for the dissolution of the Polanyi Center is a better example of
"putting a tourniquet on inquiry." Even ID proponent Phillip Johnson,
the Berkeley law professor most abhorred by ID critics, does not advocate the
removal of Darwinism from the curriculum, but that schools should "teach
the controversy."
4.
ID doesn't want peer review or criticism.
Included
in the Baylor biologists' letter to Congress was the claim: "The
supporters of intelligent design have never openly presented their data."
Reply:
Anyone looking at the list of scientists invited to the "Nature of
Nature" conference should be cured of that notion. The majority were
critics of ID.
5.
All they say is that God did it. And where did He come from?
Saying
that God did it, writes Darwinist Richard Dawkins, only leaves us with an
unobservable cause that itself needs to be explained.
Reply:
ID, says Dembski, studies the results, the design, not the agent that produced
it. Dembski further points out that most new theoretical entities would forever
remain off limits if their source had to be fully understood before they could
be proposed. Example: Boltzmann's kinetic theory of heat, which invoked the
motion of unobservable particles (now called atoms and molecules), which
Boltzmann could not explain.
6.
ID can't be quantified.
Lewis
Barker: "There is absolutely no prediction Dembski can make. His arguments
do not produce a new research agenda."
Reply:
Lewis Barker should read Dembski's monograph, in which he lays out rigorous,
mathematical tests to identify complex specified information and to show how
CSI always implies intelligent design.
7.
All ID can do is criticize evolution.
Eugenie
Scott: "It is certainly fair to describe them as anti-evolutionists."
Reply:
In fact, says Bruce Gordon, "intelligent design is compatible with
evolution. Many biologists are theistic evolutionists. Design can be understood
as built into the initial conditions, so that the subsequent development was
continuous and not interrupted by any transcendent intervention. Yet the
teleology could still be quantified through the methods of the mathematical techniques
of design theory."
8.
It's bad theology.
Eugenie
Scott: "Theologians don't like it because it creates a mammoth
'God-of-the-gaps' problem."
Reply:
If intelligent causes exist (as forensic science and SETI already assume), then
it is wrong to assume that all gaps in present knowledge must eventually be
filled by non-intelligent causes.
9.
It's bad science, or not science at all.
Reply:
Dembski points out that if you say ID is not science because it can't be
observed, then we must also toss out theoretical entities like quarks,
super-strings, and cold dark matter. If you say it's not science because the
design is not repeatable, then out goes the big bang, the origin of life, and
the origin of humans. If you say science must deal exclusively with what is
governed by law, then out goes the special sciences that deal with intelligent
agents, like forensics and SETI. ID advocates aren't asking to be cut any more
slack than these.
10.
ID invokes supernatural causes.
According
to Eugenie Scott and biologist/philosopher Michael Ruse, science studies
natural causes, and to introduce design is to invoke supernatural causes.
Reply:
Dembski says that this contrast is wrong: "The proper contrast is between
undirected natural causes on the one hand and intelligent causes on the other.
Whether an intelligent cause is located within or outside nature is a separate
question from whether an intelligent cause has acted within nature. Design has
no prior commitment to supernaturalism."
Fred
Heeren is a science journalist who writes about modern cosmology, paleontology,
and biology. He lives in Wheeling, Illinois.
The Deed is
Done
by
Fred Heeren
The American Spectator
December 2000/January 2001
http://www.spectator.org/archives/0012TAS/heeren0012.htm
In
our last issue we reported on the brouhaha at Baylor University over the
Michael Polanyi Center and its director, noted mathematician William Dembski,
who attempted research into the subject of intelligent design in nature. As we went
to press, Bill Dembski was left with a noose around his neck, being hoisted
upon a skittish horse by an angry mob of Baylor faculty, with Baylor's
president Robert Sloan holding the reins and Dembski's erstwhile sidekick,
Bruce Gordon, having drinks with other Baylor faculty in the saloon across the
street.
For
a brief moment, it looked as if Dembski might get a reprieve, but no such happy
ending was in store for the besieged mathematician. With the faculty mob in
full cry, President Sloan let loose the reins and gave the horse a stiff slap
on the rump for good measure. Dembski was fired as director of the Michael
Polanyi Center, and the Center itself looks to be effectively
"redefined" out of any meaningful existence.
For
those who just tuned in, here's the background: William Dembski, noted
mathematician and leading thinker on applications of probability theory, was
hired by President Sloan over a year ago to run the Michael Polanyi Center, a
research institution set up by President Sloan himself to investigate the
concept of intelligent design in nature.
Therein
lay the rub: The intelligent design movement, of which Dembski is a prominent
member, is based on the theory that life, which is made up of mutually
dependent parts, can be better explained as the product of mindful planning
than of chance. Dembski proposed to test that hypothesis using mathematical
methods to investigate biological systems.
Baylor
faculty, however were intent on preventing such research from taking place.
Though few of the opposing faculty had the training or knowledge to even
understand Dembski's mathematical methods, they were convinced that it was
nothing more than stealth "creationism." (Dembski's book on
intelligent design, The Design Inference
was published by Cambridge University Press in 1998 after extensive peer
review.)
By
the time the Polanyi Center put on a conference last April, attended by many
mathematicians and scientists, two Nobel Prize winners among them, critics at
Baylor were up in arms. They not only boycotted the event, but they took to the
press and the Internet to publicly excoriate Dembski. Colleagues at other
universities even tried to sabotage the conference by "disinviting"
all the scheduled speakers.
When
the conference turned out to be a resounding success, Dembski's critics were
aroused to greater fury. The faculty senate recommended that the university
dissolve the center. At first, Robert Sloan refused, saying that the response
had "border[ed] on McCarthyism." Seeking some means to placate them,
however, Sloan convened an "independent committee" to evaluate
Dembski's work and ideas.
Meanwhile,
Sloan essentially put Dembski under a gag order. He had been pressured not to
attend a meeting in Washington, when intelligent design advocates met some
members of Congress and their staff; and he was restricted in what he could put
on his website and in how he could reply to his critics, no matter how public
or vocal they became. Freedom of speech at Baylor, it seems, only works one
way.
In
mid-October the committee released its report. While it could find no errors in
Dembski's monographs or papers, and it affirmed the legitimacy of intelligent
design research in general, it also attacked it as "too restrictive"
and mandated that more "room should be made for a variety of approaches
and topics." The Baylor faculty would decide by committee what Dembski
could and could not research at his center. In fact, the report managed to
avoid all mention of the center it was assigned to evaluate, as if attempting
to erase it from history.
Dembski,
who realized then that he was facing "death by a thousand cuts,"
chose finally to break his silence. Accentuating the positive, he released a
statement noting the committee's acceptance of intelligent design research as
"a legitimate form of academic inquiry." He promised that his work
would continue unabated and declared that "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 academic expression."
Apparently
this was wishful thinking. The faculty, which had spent the last year publicly
savaging Dembski, claimed that his statement was not collegial. Sloan, seemingly
feeling that McCarthyism can be resisted only so long, acceded to their wishes
and fired him from his director position.
Dembski
himself is philosophic. He has four years remaining on his contract, and will
continue on at Baylor with the title of associate research professor within the
Institute for Faith and Learning, the home of his former center. He will find
the means somehow to continue his research. It's the faculty and administration
that has suffered the real black eye. President Sloan achieved peace for his
time at the expense of academic freedom. Bruce Gordon, the Richard Hatch of
this tale, survived, but all his efforts at "damage control" and
"building bridges" have only served to help destroy Dembski's
original vision for the research center. And what have the Baylor faculty
accomplished? They have ensured that their university will be remembered as a
place where the rule of the mob trumps free scientific inquiry.
Congratulations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred
Heeren is a science journalist who writes about modern cosmology, paleontology,
and biology. He lives in Wheeling, Illinois. "The Lynching of Bill
Dembski" appeared in the November 2000 issue of The American Spectator.
The follow-up article, titled "The Deed is Done," appeared in the
December 2000 issue of The American Spectator.
Advisory
Committee for Baylor Science and Religion Project
From:
Donald Schmeltekopf [the Baylor Provost]
Re: Advisory Committee
I am pleased to report that the following faculty members have agreed to
serve on the advisory committee for the project on science, religion, and
related fields that is a part of the Institute for Faith and Learning:
William F. Cooper, Committee Co-chair
Professor of Philosophy
Benjamin A. Pierce, Committee Co-chair
Professor of Biology and Associate Dean for
Sciences, College of Arts and Sciences
David M. Arnold
Professor and The Ralph and Jean Storm Professor
of Mathematics
William H. Brackney
Professor and Chair of Religion
Melissa A. Essary
Professor of Law
Barry G. Hankins
Assistant Professor of History and Church-State
Studies
W. Keith Hartberg
Professor and Chair of Biology
Truell W. Hyde II
Associate Professor of Physics and Director of
Graduate Studies
Kevin G. Pinney
Associate Professor of Chemistry
M. David Rudd
Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience and
Director of Psy.D. Program
Tina L. Thurston
Assistant Professor of Anthropology
The first order of business for the advisory committee is to work with the
Institute for Faith and Learning in implementing the recommendations of the
external review committee of the Polanyi Center as submitted in its report
of October 16, 2000. (The use of the name "Polanyi Center" has been
discontinued.) On a long-term basis, the responsibility of the advisory
committee is to help in shaping the direction and programmatic activities of
the project on science and religion that is a component of the Institute for
Faith and Learning. The advisory committee will submit its periodic reports
and recommendations to the Director of the Institute for Faith and Learning
and to the Provost. The establishment of this advisory committee is
permanent and the members named above will serve staggered terms of up to
three years and may be reappointed.
Thank you for your support of this committee and its work.
Donald D. Schmeltekopf
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
THE CRANACH
INSTITUTE
SECOND PROTEST STATEMENT
AGAINST THE DEMOTION OF DR. DEMBSKI FROM HIS
DIRECTORSHIP
OF THE ERSTWHILE MICHAEL POLANYI CENTER
[The
Cranach Institute is a Lutheran research institute "devoted to continuing
the Reformation tradition... and applying its insights today." For further
information, visit our web site at: http://institutes.cuw.edu/cranach/]
But
even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear
what they fear; do not be frightened." But in your hearts set apart Christ
as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give
the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
keeping a clear conscience so that those who speak maliciously against your
good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander (1 Peter 3:14-16).
Subsequent
to the previous protest
statement made by the Cranach Institute (attached) concerning the removal
of Dr. William Dembski from his directorship of the Michael Polanyi Center, a response was posted by
Michael Beaty (attached), Director of the Baylor Institute for Faith and
Learning, in which the Michael Polanyi Center was housed. The Cranach Institute
Board of Directors had a plenary meeting on Friday, November 3rd
during which the Board unanimously agreed that Dr. Beaty's explanation of the
matter was unsatisfactory and that a second statement be made in response by
the Cranach Institute.
In
the Cranach Institute's earlier statement, we had said that Dr. Dembski did not
seem to have been removed on legitimate academic grounds. Dr. Beaty's response
to this shows a misunderstanding of what was claimed. His reply is that
"Dr. Dembski was not removed from the directorship for any academic
failure." We agree, and have never claimed that he was demoted for this
reason. What we do claim, and will substantiate below, is that Dr. Dembski's
academic freedom has been abridged, and that the real reason he was demoted was
to placate hostile faculty who are more interested in conformity to secular
canons of academic respectability than in robust and free academic dialogue
between proponents of differing positions.
According
to Dr. Beaty's letter, however, Dr. Dembski was removed on "administrative
grounds" reiterating the earlier claim that his actions subsequent to his
vindication by the independent peer review committee were lacking in
collegiality and "severely compromised his ability to perform his central
administrative duties." The fact is, however, that Dembski was removed for
refusing to retract the email (attached) which he sent out after his
vindication was announced. It is the judgment of the Cranach Institute that
requiring Dr. Dembski to retract this email violated his academic freedom.
Furthermore,
the Cranach Institute maintains that the claim that Dr. Dembski was demoted on
administrative grounds for a want of collegiality is, quite literally,
incredible. In our unanimous judgment, this claim is an attempt to cloak an
unjust action in euphemistic and evasive language. Those who have followed Dr.
Dembski's story have seen numerous occasions on which Baylor (and other)
faculty have misrepresented Dr. Dembski's views as "fundamentalist"
or "creationist" and on which they have attempted to use political power
to close the Michael Polanyi center and remove Dr. Dembski from his position.
Were a lack of collegiality grounds for demotion, the Baylor administration
owes everyone an explanation of why not one of Dr. Dembski's detractors, no
matter how vocal in expression of misinformed and mean-spirited views, has
suffered similar penalties. Furthermore, it is rather obvious that if
"collegiality" were a criterion for demotion, numerous (downward)
changes in professional status would be required all across American Universities.
It
would be nice if we could believe that this violation of Dr. Dembski's academic
freedom was an isolated incident, but the Cranach Institute has obtained
documentary evidence which shows that this is not the case. Here, just three
documented examples will be listed.
(1) Dr.
Dembski was required to make changes to his web-site for the Michael Polanyi
center, even though its contents were in no way in conflict with Baylor's
mission. These changes involved dropping the claim that the Michael Polanyi
Center was advancing science because Baylor science faculty denied Dr.
Dembski's program of research was science; instead the website could include
only the weaker claim that the Center advanced the understanding of
science.
(2) Earlier
this year, Dr. Dembski was pressured not to attend a Congressional Briefing to
inform members of Congress on Intelligent Design. It was claimed that this
would "politicize" Intelligent Design and reduce its credibility as a
purely scientific research program. Yet 8 Baylor science professors promoted
"materialist science" in a letter to Congressman Souder without the
scientific character of their work being questioned and without any demotion in
status.See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r106:H14JN0-828:
for further details.
(3) At
the Nature of Nature conference, Baylor officials attempted to prevent the
display of the Touchstone special issue on Intelligent Design. One of
the Cranach Institute's Board members, Dr. Angus Menuge, was an eyewitness to
this stunning denial of free speech in general and academic freedom in
particular (none of the materials were anti-Christian or opposed in any way to
the mission of Baylor University). Only when Touchstone officials
threatened to make this act of censorship public knowledge did the Baylor
administration relent.
It
is clear from these examples that the real issue here is a violation of
academic freedom designed to placate hostile faculty members who seem afraid to
step outside the grounds of secular academic respectability. Should
neo-Darwinist views face real difficulties, how will anyone ever learn this if
to criticize these views is by definition not respectable? Not since academic
Marxism has such extraordinary dismissive dogmatism taken hold of the minds of
so many in the academy. Can we not all learn humility from the example of
Newton? He never claimed gravitation was a fact, only that it was a hypothesis,
despite ample supporting evidence. In a less tentative and less scientific
mood, Kant then claimed that the entire Newtonian worldview was a synthetic a
priori, revealing the necessary structure of all humanly possible
experience. Yet Newtonian theory has turned out to have only a limited domain
of validity and has been superseded by Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics.
There is every reason to expect that neo-Darwinist theory will likewise be
shown to have only limited validity and that more powerful theories that can
better explain the available data will be developed. This may simply lead to a
new theory of evolution, or it may lead to a theory, such as Intelligent
Design, which tries to understand the nature and origin of complex specified
information. The best way to find out is to use the model of open dialogue and severe
criticism found in the community of physicists, not the model of dogmatic
ideology and censorship that has infected the social sciences. If Baylor wishes
to demonstrate its commitment to free scientific enquiry, it should reinstate
Dr. Dembski as Director.
Members
of the Board of Directors of the Cranach Institute,
Bruce Gee, Ilona Kuchta, Dr. Angus Menuge, Rev. Todd Peperkorn,
Rev. David Speers, George Strieter, Dr. Gene Edward Veith (chair).
=====
Response
from Dr. Beaty, Director of the Baylor Institute for Faith and Learning:
In
light of remarks on the META list that indicate a significant misunderstanding
of the recent events surrounding the Polanyi Center at Baylor University, most particularly
the removal of Dr. Dembski as its director, I think it is important to clarify
the significance of what has happened.
Dr. Dembski was not
removed from the directorship for any academic failure. Baylor recognizes the
value and legitimacy of his academic work, as did the External Review
Committee. Baylor fully supports his academic freedom to pursue his research
and hopes that he will continue to do so. Dr. Dembski was removed from his post
as director on administrative grounds. In order to function in his
administrative capacity, it was necessary that Dr. Dembski be able to work well
with other Baylor faculty, first and foremost an advisory committee. It was the
judgment of the administration that some of his recent actions severely
compromised his ability to perform his central administrative duties. It was
for this reason, and this reason alone, that he was removed from his
directorial post.
There
also has been a suggestion that the removal of Dr. Dembski as director is a
sign that Baylor has succumbed to political pressure to squelch work on
intelligent design. Nothing could be further from the truth. Having been freed
from administrative tasks, Dr. Dembski will be able to devote himself
exclusively to research, which arguably is the most valuable contribution he
can make to design theory.
Finally,
some have claimed that this sad episode suggests that Baylor is weakening its
commitment to being a Christian university. Baylor University remains committed
to encouraging a faithful intellect and an intellectually responsible faith.
Michael
Beaty
Director,
The Baylor Institute for Faith and Learning
=====
FIRST STATEMENT OF THE
CRANACH INSTITUTE
PROTESTING THE REMOVAL OF WILLIAM DEMBSKI
AS DIRECTOR OF THE MICHAEL POLANYI CENTER
AT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY
The
Cranach Institute wishes to express its dismay at the decision to remove
William Dembski as Director of the Michael Polanyi Center (Metanews,
10/19/2000). Shortly before this announcement, we learned that the committee
appointed to evaluate the status of the Center upheld the importance and
legitimacy of Dr. Dembski's work, while calling on the Center to be redefined
in its scope (http://pr.baylor.edu/pdf/001017polanyi.pdf). In his press release
(Metanews 10/17/2000 and attached), Dr. Dembski clearly agreed to these terms,
stating that "[t]he scope of the Center will be expanded to embrace a
broader set of conceptual issues at the intersection of science and religion
and the Center will therefore receive a new name to reflect this expanded vision."
We appreciate that Dr. Dembski has not actually been fired as Associate
Professor, but his removal as Center Director does not seem to have been made
on legitimate academic grounds. It is quite true that Dr. Dembski goes on to
say that the dogmatists who had wanted to close the center "have met their
Waterloo." This may be "offensive" to some of Baylor's faculty
but (a) it is unquestionably true-the center will live on, albeit with a new
name and wider vision; (b) it is inappropriate for a school with a strong
Christian tradition such as Baylor University to acquiesce to the demands of
political correctness.
The
compartmentalized approach to faith and academic work has become prevalent in
American Universities, even Christian ones, and it would appear that what many
oppose in Dr. Dembski's work (at Baylor and elsewhere) is his explicit and
rigorous integration of the two. How popular would Leibniz or Newton be at such
universities if they expressed all their views, including an overarching
religious understanding of their scientific work?
There
is nothing in what Dr. Dembski says in his press release that is not protected
by normal academic freedom, and further, while he may be called to be
"collegial" with other faculty, this can hardly be construed to mean
that he should be "nice" to those who have misrepresented his work or
who have engaged in caricature.
I
would like to clarify the Cranach Institute's perspective on this matter. The
Cranach Institute is a Lutheran research institute "devoted to continuing
the Reformation tradition... and applying its insights today." Here is a
relevant insight from the life of Martin Luther. When Rome called Luther to
recant his teaching on justification, Luther asked Rome to agree to a neutral
forum of academic debate in the great universities of Europe, so that the
matter could be settled by reasoned argument and not force. Rome refused and
paid a long-term price for doing so. Many universities are now in an analogous
position to Rome during the Reformation. There is considerable entrenched power
of secular humanism and an almost indistinguishable liberal Protestantism, both
of which are calling for dissenting (and especially robust Christian) views to
be squashed by force not debate. To its great credit, Baylor did not initially
follow this path, and instead appointed an independent peer review committee.
However, since the committee has upheld the academic integrity of Dr. Dembski's
work, it would be a retreat from the "great universities of Europe"
model to the dogmatism of Rome model if Baylor now relies on force to overrule
the committee. Is Baylor content to count itself among those universities in
which political power can stifle academic dissent? I hope and pray not, not
only for the sake of the religious mission of Baylor, but also for its academic
reputation as an institution which is not willing to be ideologically captive.
It is worth noting that Concordia University Wisconsin, the home of the Cranach
Institute, hosted the Design and its Critics conference (June 22-24, 2000),
featuring both proponents and opponents of Intelligent Design. The conference
was much like the excellent "Nature of Nature" conference held at
Baylor during the Spring of this year. At both of these conferences, a much
higher degree of academic civility was attained than is usual. At many
conferences, such ideological dogmatism has taken hold that there is only
debate about the details within a system of unquestioned first principles. At
both the Nature of Nature and the Design and its Critics conferences, there was
real dialogue between proponents of different first principles. Naturalism
itself, the very foundation of the modern academy, was on the table for review.
Nor was either conference a straw-man side show. The conferences recruited the
very best defenders of naturalism and critics of intelligent design to meet
their opposite numbers so that there was a real risk of each side being shown
to have weaknesses. Surely these conferences, both of which Dr. Dembski helped
to organize, are the academy at its very best, and anyone who has the knowledge
and courage to facilitate them should be rewarded, not punished. Certainly they
were vastly superior to the sycophantic gatherings of the like-minded that have
made many conferences in the Humanities and Social Sciences venues for the
self-perpetuation of unexamined prejudice. The very premise of the university
is the pursuit of truth, not cultural power, and when power becomes the
overriding objective, truth, and those who believe in it, are always the first
victims. It is a sorry day when universities make sacrifices of those who
epitomize what a university should be all about. For all of these reasons, the
Cranach Institute urges Baylor University to reconsider its decision to remove
William Dembski as Director of the Michael Polanyi Center.
Yours
faithfully,
The Board of Directors of the Cranach Institute:
Bruce Gee, Ilona Kuchta, Dr. Angus Menuge, Rev. Todd Peperkorn,
George Strieter, Dr. Gene Edward Veith (chair).
Additional Signatories:
Prof. Gary H. Locklair, Rev. Michael Roberts, Don W. Korte, Jr., Pd.D.,
D.A.B.T, Chair Dept. Of Natural Sciences, Prof. Mary Korte.
Design
Interference
William Dembski fired from Baylor's
Intelligent Design center.
By
Tony Carnes
Christianity Today
December 2, 2000
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/014/18.20.html
Baylor
University in October terminated well-known Intelligent Design scientist
William Dembski as head of the Michael Polanyi Center for Complexity,
Information, and Design. The center was placed in limbo, without a name or
certain future at the university in Waco, Texas.
Dembski,
who retains his Baylor professorship, says he was overwhelmed by politicking
within Baylor. The Polanyi Center's critics were apprehensive, he says, partly because
of Southern Baptist conflicts between creationists and
evolutionists&emdash;one front in the ongoing struggle between moderates
and conservatives for control of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Intelligent
Design, favored by some conservatives, is a new approach to the
creation-evolution debates that lays aside the question of who designed the
universe to ask whether there is any evidence of design.
Dembski's
own work, published by Cambridge University Press in The Design Inference,
employs careful statistical testing of the natural world to see if it shows
evidence of intelligent design. Like a code-breaker of secret messages, the
Intelligent Design analyst asks whether the signals of the natural world are
simply random or point to an intelligent creative force. Dembski, an Orthodox
Christian, says Intelligent Design research is like looking for the difference
between a jumble of clouds and skywriting that broadcasts a message.
Baylor,
which describes itself as "the largest Baptist university in the
world," has long been a source of complaint for Southern Baptist
conservatives. For example, Judge Paul Pressler of Houston, Texas, decided to
rally Southern Baptist conservatives after hearing students in his church youth
group describe what they were being taught at Baylor.
Moderate
Texas Southern Baptists recently redirected $5 million away from Southern
Baptist seminaries and agencies and awarded additional funds to Texas schools,
including Baylor.
Robert
Sloan Jr., president of Baylor since 1995, has attempted to take Baylor in two
directions at the same time: moving it into the top tier of national
universities while also reconnecting the school to its Baptist heritage.
Sloan's
method of sidestepping established means for academic appointments has been
controversial. In the meantime, more than a dozen lawsuits are alleging
wrongful termination and demotion during Sloan's presidency.
Critics
say the creation of the Polanyi Center is an example of Sloan's acting without
extensive faculty involvement; it has been a sore spot for the center's critics
from the beginning.
Dembski
walked into a tense situation and was subject to dismissive comments that he
was a "stealth creationist." Michael Beaty, head of Baylor's
Institute for Faith and Learning and Dembski's immediate boss, urged him to
follow a turn-the-other-cheek strategy.
As
the controversy escalated, Dembski became ever more embattled. In January,
Polanyi Center critics questioned administrators about the scientific
legitimacy of Intelligent Design and warned that Baylor's reputation would be
severely hurt in the scientific world.
In
April and May, critics asked members of Congressional education committees to
withdraw an invitation for Intelligent Design scientists to give a briefing.
The faculty senate voted 26&endash;2&endash;1 to ask that Baylor's
president completely dissolve the Intelligent Design initiatives.
Dembski
says that Baylor officials, alarmed at the escalating conflict, ordered him not
to attend the Washington meeting and to write a letter disavowing it. When
Dembski refused, university officials began considering his termination.
President
Sloan appointed a committee to evaluate the Polanyi Center. The committee
recommended stripping the center of its name, absorbing its functions into the
Institute for Faith and Learning, and setting up a Baylor faculty advisory
committee to guide the institute on its involvement with the Intelligent Design
movement. The ad-hoc committee also clearly recognized Intelligent Design as a
legitimate scientific discipline.
But
Dembski mistakenly read the committee's report as a definitive victory,
proclaiming "the triumph of Intelligent Design" in one e-mail
message. He was terminated as director two days after his e-mail became public
knowledge.
"The
wedge of truth has a very sharp edge" and will prevail, said Intelligent
Design master strategist Phillip Johnson, speaking at Pressler's church soon
after Dembski's firing. But for now, he says, the Intelligent Design movement
has suffered a huge setback.
Early
on, scientists researching Intelligent Design recognized some powerful
advocates for evolution would oppose such research. Some, worried about adverse
publicity, received Intelligent Design research grants from the Discovery
Institute without public disclosure. Says David Berlinski, a leading
Intelligent Design scientist and author of the recently acclaimed Newton's
Gift, "Those who have benefitted from the change from a fundamentally
religious society to a fundamentally secular one are reluctant to relinquish
their power."
INTELLIGENT
DESIGN AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM AT BAYLOR
Rapid
Response Report
Defending
Historic Christianity in a Postmodern World
December
4, 2000
http://www.fni.com/cim/rapid/RRRSeven.htm
While
the Intelligent Design movement had precedents, it really did not create much
of a stir on the scientific scene until the blockbuster book: Darwin's Black
Box, by Michael Behe, was reviewed by most of the major newspapers in the
U.S. With some risk of oversimplification, Behe's thesis is that a
simple living cell is not all that simple, in fact, it is irreducibly
complex. He uses the analogy of a mousetrap: what components
can you eliminate for it to still function? The answer is:
nothing. With this irreducible complexity and what we now know about the
DNA code, the natural inference is that the cell shows undeniable evidence
of intelligent design. For a good overview of what's happening in the ID
movement see "The evolution Wars," by Tom Bethell in The
American Spectator Dec. 1999/Jan. 2000 (sorry, it's not on the web).
One
spokesperson for the ID movement that has been leading this drive is Bill
Dembski, a scholar with two doctorates, one in math and the other in
philosophy. His recent book: The Design Inference was published by
Cambridge University Press, and was peer-reviewed by 70
scholars. Because of his academic standing he was asked by the president
of Baylor University to head up the Polanyi Center, a think tank set
up to further explore Intelligent Design. Problem: it was set up
without the vote or cooperation of Baylor's faculty. But aren't they
broad-minded and open to hearing ideas being promulgated by a growing group of
highly credentialed and mostly Christian scholars? Nope! In fact,
they put up such a ruckus the backed-in-a-corner president removed Dembski as
the head of the think tank and effectively closed its operation. The
story of the opposition of Baylor's "open-minded" faculty is
told in The American Spectator: "The Lynching of Bill
Dembski," by Fred Heeren. You can find it here
www.spectator.org/archives/0011TAS/heeren0011.htm
In
the current issue of The American Spectator (Dec2000/Jan2001) there is a
follow-up article by the same author. See: "The Deed is Done."
www.spectator.org/archives/0012TAS/heeren0012.htm
In
the same issue there are two other worthy articles, one by Tom Bethell,
"No Time for Science, (not on the web) and the lead story by
Jonathan Wells "The Survival of the Fakest." (not on the web)
The latter article is a condensation of Wells' new book Icons of Evolution:
Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong? This
book is already causing some teeth-grinding among evolutionists. Some of
the teachings Wells documents as being erroneousare: The Miller-Urey
experiment, Darwins's tree of life, homology in vertebrate limbs, Haeckel's
embryos, archaeopteryx, peppered tree moths, Darwins's finches, four-winged
fruit flies, fossil horses, and ape to man. Christianity Today also
reports on the Baylor controversy at:
www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/014/18.20.html
The
magazine we referred to several times above: The American Spectator is the
conservative publication Hillary Clinton was referring to when she proclaimed
there was a "vast rightwing conspiracy." This publication was
recently bought out by George Gilder, a futurist and economist of some
note. He is also one of the founders of the Discovery Institute, a
conservative think-tank located in Washington state. Their website is one
you will definitely want to bookmark as they post articles of great importance
for keeping up with cultural trends (www.discovery.org). Another important
website to keep up with the intelligent design movement is Access Research Network
(www.arn.org), and it is also my personal favorite site for Christianity and
science issues. You must visit this site.
Chance and
Divination: Dembski gambled and lost
by
Lewis Barker
December 10, 2000
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/message/9011
An
article on gambling in the Dec 11 issue of The
New Yorker (The Story of Dice, by Ricky Jay, p. 91) contains the following:
"Almost all early civilizations were interested in chance and divination,
a formidable combination that paved the way for high-stakes gambling and
philosophical rumination."
This
observation may help us understand Bill Dembski, who a number of people think
was "lynched" by Baylor University for espousing Intelligent Design
(ID). Dembski's version of ID is, indeed, a formidable combination of
"chance and divination."
No
such lynching occurred; rather, Dembski gambled that his activities were the
science he espoused them to be. He was subsequently subjected to peer review
and was found wanting. A committee (comprised of faculty in the sciences and
humanities) was appointed after a faculty senate vote of no confidence in the
activities of the Polanyi Center of which Dembski was one of two members. Their
report (http://pr.baylor.edu/pdf/001017polanyi.pdf) recommended that the center
be renamed; pointed out the necessity that the research activities of the
center by peer reviewed; that it broaden its focus on faith/science matters to
more than questions of ID. Finally, the report urged the two members of the
center to be collegial in their dealings with other faculty, as befitting their
place in an academic community.
I
call this peer review, because Dembski never understood the embarrassment he
caused other academicians at Baylor University. To him, they were not peers to
be convinced by his scholarship, but infidels opposing his Crusade for ID. He
was, indeed, in a game of "high-stakes gambling and philosophical
rumination." He never understood that in a university setting, his was not
the only game in town.
Dembski's
response to the report was a gloating broadside of VICTORY in his war against
"naturalism" (aside: still can't figure that word out); his e-mail
response became widely distributed (see http://listserv.omni-list.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind00&L=metanews&D=1&O=D&F=PP&S=&P=31540).
After
reading Dembski's comments, the Baylor University administration concluded that
Dembski had not even understood that he had been peer reviewed, and that his
peer review had not been nearly as positive as he claimed; hence, given this
lack of good judgment, they dismissed him as director of the Polanyi Center
(since renamed). (see http://pr.baylor.edu/rel.fcgi?2000.10.19.05).
Although
I have since left, at that time I was a professor of psychology and
neuroscience at Baylor. Several news/magazine articles repeated my description
of Dembski's version of ID as "stealth creationism." Then as now many
of my colleagues and I fail to see how it is possible to integrate science and
religion, and for the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would want to
do so. They are separate realms, separate methodologies, separate intellectual
worlds. That's my gamble.
Lewis
Barker
Professor and Chair of Psychology
Auburn University
barkele@auburn.edu
In God's
Country | Monkey Business
by
Lauren Kern
In
God's Country
Houston Press
December 14, 2000
http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/2000-12-14/feature2.html/page1.html
Monkey
Business
Dallas Observer
January 11, 2001
http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2001-01-11/feature2.html/page1.html
William
Dembski thought Baylor University would be the perfect place to investigate a
scientific alternative to Darwinism. He didn't know he'd be crucified for his
cause.
In
the beginning, there was a bang. A very big bang. Nothing exploded into
something. Quarks and leptons collided violently in an intense fireball of
plasma. As the plasma expanded and cooled, the collisions became less violent,
and particles joined together to form protons and neutrons and electrons, then
nuclei and atoms and molecules. Huge clouds of these particles coalesced into
galaxies of stars and planets, still expanding, always expanding, away from the
central point of the explosion.
On
one particular planet, in a very ordinary galaxy, molecules somehow formed
living cells. And these cells linked together to become organisms, some of
which had certain genetic mutations that better enabled them to survive and
replicate in the primordial atmosphere. Over the next, oh, billions of years,
the fittest of these organisms evolved into plants and fish and amphibians and
birds and dogs and cats and apes and humans--all thanks to the whims of chance
and the laws of nature. If the pull of nuclei were slightly stronger, if the
force of gravity were slightly weaker, if the speed of universal expansion were
off just a hair, if the genetic mutations had been a little bit different, we
wouldn't be here.
It's
a fanciful story, but it's the best one that modern science has come up with so
far to explain human existence. A small cadre of philosophers, scientists, and
mathematicians, however, have come to the conclusion that it's a little too
fanciful, that perhaps there is a better explanation for the origin and
diversity of life, that perhaps that explanation involves an intelligent
designer, a.k.a. God.
It's
not a new argument. Eighteenth-century British natural theologian William Paley
gave the intelligent-design theory its most memorable metaphor: Happening upon
a watch, one would notice that its various parts work together for a purpose,
that the cogs and springs and gears produce motion, and that the motion is
regulated to indicate time. We would infer from the watch that it was crafted
by a watchmaker. Paley argued that living organisms are more complicated than
watches "in a degree which exceeds all computation," and that we,
too, must therefore be the products of some grand watchmaker, an intelligence.
Since
the dawn of Darwinism, Paley's watchmaker analogy has been dismissed as a
quaint notion of a much simpler scientific time. Darwin's theory of natural
selection explained that the design we see in nature and in ourselves is merely
an illusion: What appears to be design is not, in fact, the product of a
designer, but the result of a long and undirected history of evolution in which
organisms became better and better adapted to their environments. Darwinism
forever separated science and religion. Religion was a matter of faith;
science, a matter of natural causes, observable fact, empirical evidence. Sure,
you could believe in God if you wanted to, but you certainly couldn't look for
him to reveal himself in the natural world.
But
intelligent-design theorists are bringing religion back into the laboratory,
adding bite to Paley's old watchmaker argument, attempting to show--with
mathematical theories and biological examples--that a designer can be
empirically detected. This has mainstream scientists hopping mad and may lead
to the most intense battle between science and religion since the Catholic
Church put Galileo under house arrest for suggesting that the earth was not the
center of the universe.
The
first major skirmish has already taken place at Baylor University, where
William Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design, was demoted from
his position as director of a center set up to study the theory. The last fight
may be on your local school board.
William
Dembski wasn't always a religious man. The only child of a college biology
professor (who, in fact, didn't question Darwin's theories) and an art dealer,
he spent six days a week at an all-male Catholic preparatory school in Chicago.
He went through the motions at school, but he didn't buy into Christianity.
"Any sort of God who was behind it all, who we were accountable to, who
really cared for us, with whom we could have any connection, that was just off
my radar," Dembski says. That is, until he came upon his life's first
rough spot.
Dembski
was always a good student, especially in math. He finished high school a year
early, completing a full course of calculus in just one summer. The 17-year-old
tested into some advanced mathematics courses at the University of Chicago, but
he struggled in them. He was doing fair, but he wasn't used to doing fair. He
couldn't handle the disappointment.
Dembski
was having trouble outside of class as well. His experiences as an only child
who spent most of his time in the insular world of a boys' school had not
prepared him for college life. His social skills, Dembski admits, were a bit
lacking. He dropped out of school and went to work in his mother's art
dealership business. He built crates and typed letters, but mostly he just
floundered. "It was just not a very happy time in my life," he says,
"and I guess when you're not very happy, you start looking."
He
read the Scriptures, trying to understand the faith. And he read creationist
literature, trying to understand the world around him. He had always had a
sneaking suspicion that Darwinism was an inadequate theory, and although he
could not believe the doctrine of literal creationists, their criticisms of
evolution fueled his active young mind. He went back to school, studying
statistics at the University of Illinois and adding that knowledge to his
developing disbelief in Darwinism. It seemed to him statistically improbable
that natural selection could produce the diversity of life all around him.
Still, he hadn't come up with an alternative theory.
Then,
in 1988, he had a eureka moment. At a conference on randomness at Ohio State
University, a statistician concluded the event by saying, "We know what
randomness isn't. We don't know what it is." It made sense to Dembski. If
God is the creator of the universe, then there should be order in the world,
not randomness. Darwinists were having so much trouble defining the randomness
inherent in evolutionary theory because life was essentially not random. It was
designed. And randomness could be understood only in terms of that design.
"That insight really has propelled me all these years," Dembski says.
Armed
with Christian faith, Dembski found that he could be happy in the world of
academia. In fact, he's been there ever since his religious conversion. In all,
he has earned a B.A. in psychology, an M.S. in statistics, and a Ph.D. in
philosophy from the University of Illinois; a Ph.D. in mathematics from the
University of Chicago; and a master of divinity from Princeton Theological
Seminary. He has also done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics
at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton. But his
relationship with academia would not always be pleasant. Dembski's theories
were taking him further and further afield from mainstream science. His
mathematics were leading him to the same place that his faith had. To his
colleagues, this wasn't science; it was religion.
We
distinguish between intelligent and natural causes every day--every time a
detective investigates a possible homicide, every time an archaeologist picks
out an arrowhead from a pile of rocks, every time radio astronomers at the
Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence listen for patterns in the noise
coming from outer space. In these cases, modern science doesn't have a problem
assuming that some intelligent being is responsible for the evidence--a human,
even an alien. But if you try to distinguish between intelligent and natural
causes in basic biological systems, things get a little messier. If you find
intelligence in biology, then who or what was the intelligent designer? It's a
question science doesn't want to pose, let alone answer.
But
Dembski contends that if he can codify the process by which we recognize
intelligence in other fields, he can justifiably apply that process to biology.
If he can codify that process, he says, intelligent design is not a matter of
religious belief but a matter of following the evidence wherever it leads. Such
a codification is Dembski's contribution to the intelligent-design movement,
and his claim to fame. It is an explanatory process that can be used for
judging objects, events, and information. It begins by ruling out chance and
natural law as explanations, and then infers design.
The
first step in the process is what Dembski calls contingency. In other words,
something that is designed must be compatible with natural law but not required
by it. Something that is required by natural law leaves no room for the choices
inherent in design. It is just following orders.
The
second test is for complexity. Here, Dembski turns to the sci-fi movie Contact,
based on a novel by Carl Sagan, for an example. In the movie, Jodie Foster and
her radio astronomer friends at SETI receive a signal of 1,126 beats and pauses
representing all the prime numbers from two to 101. They interpret the signal
to be a sign of extraterrestrial intelligence. But if they had received a
sequence of only the first three prime numbers, they would not have jumped to
the same conclusion. Any random radio signal might happen to emit this sequence
by pure chance. Mathematically speaking, this is a probability argument. The
short sequence is simply not complex enough to be improbable as a result of
chance.
But
complexity by itself isn't enough. The final filter is for specification. Any
particular sequence of 1,126 beats and pauses is highly unlikely. The sequence
in Contact was special not just because it was complex, but because it
contained an independent pattern: increasing prime numbers. Voila. If something
is contingent, complex, and specified, according to Dembski, we can infer that
it is the product of intelligence. Dembski calls it the specified-complexity
criterion.
The
next step for intelligent-design theorists is to apply the criterion to
biological systems. They start small, with bacteria and their proteins, to keep
the probability computations manageable. But the idea is that if they can prove
that life's subsystems are designed, then they can prove that the whole system
is designed.
The
bacterium's flagellum may be intelligent design's favorite subsystem. A
flagellum is a whip-like outboard motor, complete with an acid-powered rotary
engine, O-rings, and a drive shaft. "The scientific community has come up
short with any sort of plausible, detailed explanation of how you could have
gotten something like this by purely natural causes," says Dembski,
"and when you start applying the sort of methods that I've developed, it
clearly indicates design."
A
flagellum is compatible with natural law but not required by it; after all,
there are bacteria without flagella. It is specified in the sense that its
pattern of parts performs a specific function. And it is complex not just in
the sense of its machinelike combination of parts, but also in the
improbability of its arising by chance. In fact, Michael Behe, the biochemist
who most famously made the case for design in the bacterial flagellum, contends
that it would be virtually impossible for the motor to come about by mutation
and natural selection.
Behe
calls the flagellum an irreducibly complex system. In other words, its parts
are so interrelated that if one part were taken away, the entire system
wouldn't work. A mousetrap, for instance, is irreducibly complex. Take away the
platform, the hammer, the spring, the catch, or the holding bar, and it is impossible
to construct a working mousetrap. Similarly, if you take away any one of the 50
proteins required in the bacterial flagellum, the motor ceases to work. Behe's
argument is that the flagellum is too complex to arise in one single mutation
and then be acted upon by natural selection, and that the undirected nature of
the Darwinian mechanism could not support a gradual accumulation of the
necessary proteins. Just one of these proteins offers no survival and
reproductive advantage. How could nature know to preserve it for future
generations? How could nature know that the bacterium was in the process of
building itself a motor?
Dembski
is looking to apply his specified-complexity theory on an even more microscopic
scale than the bacterial flagellum: that of DNA. The precise sequence of
nucleotides in DNA conveys the information necessary to build proteins. The
origin of this information has become the Holy Grail of origin-of-life biology.
Mainstream science is looking for an algorithm or a natural law to account for
it, but Dembski says that this DNA encoding is complex, specified information
if ever there was any--and thus indicative of intelligent design. Natural
causes cannot originate information, Dembski argues via his complicated
mathematical proof, the Law of Conservation of Information. It's a somewhat
circular argument: Natural laws and algorithms cannot create complex, specified
information, because they cannot create anything that is not required by natural
law. Chance can generate complex, unspecified information or simple, specified
information, but not information that is both complex and specified.
It
is for this law that Rob Koons, an associate professor of philosophy at the
University of Texas, calls Dembski the "Isaac Newton of information
theory." It may be that intelligent design will revolutionize science just
like Newtonian physics did. It may also be that this is just the perfect way to
evangelize a generation of Americans who put their faith in science without
entirely understanding it.
William
Dembski met Baylor University President Robert Sloan in the summer of 1996,
when he was teaching Sloan's daughter at a Christian-study summer camp not far
from Waco. Sloan, who is the first Baptist minister to serve as Baylor's
president in more than 30 years, had read some of Dembski's work. "He
liked my stuff," Dembski recalls. "He made it clear that he wanted to
get me on the faculty in some way."
Three
years later the president offered Dembski not just a position at Baylor but a
whole center dedicated to studying the relationship between science and
religion and to furthering Dembski's work in intelligent design. It would be
named after Michael Polanyi, a Hungarian chemist who questioned the idea that the
world could be explained through natural laws alone. It was a big step for
intelligent design, the first center of its kind at a major research
university, a huge inroad into mainstream academia.
The
Polanyi Center was established quietly in October 1999. Dembski and his
like-minded colleague Bruce Gordon were hired outside the traditional academic
channels of a search committee and departmental consultation. Dembski says that
he did meet with some faculty, both before and after Baylor hired him. But the
vast majority of them were unaware of the existence of the center until its Web
site went online and scientists outside the university began sending
incredulous e-mails to their colleagues at Baylor. What, they asked, was this?
Had Baylor gone fundamentalist? Would they be teaching creation science instead
of evolution in their biology classrooms? The Baylor scientists, already
sensitive to their university's religious mission, were now the laughingstock
of the scientific community, and they didn't like it.
"When
you say Baylor now, people are going to go, 'Oh, yeah, they have that
creationist center,'" says Charles Weaver, a professor of psychology and
neuroscience at Baylor and one of the most outspoken critics of the Polanyi
Center. "We fought that as a city for a long time: 'Waco. Oh, you guys are
the crazy ones with Koresh.'" He worries that the Polanyi Center and
Dembski's association with the intelligent-design movement will discourage
promising premed students and respected faculty from coming to Baylor.
Baylor
Provost Donald Schmeltekopf defends the university's actions by pointing out
that there are more and more people in academia interested in questioning the
naturalistic assumptions of the scientific establishment and that Dembski is
one of the most visible among them. "We thought it would be an interesting
thing for Baylor to get into the conversation and to be a participant," he
says.
But
Weaver says Baylor faculty members have been asking these questions about the
relationship between science and religion for years in the school's
interdisciplinary Institute for Faith and Learning. "The inference that
some of us have drawn is that...we must have come up with answers that aren't
those we were expected to come up with," says Weaver, who is a Presbyterian
elder. "My faith background is one of asking lots of questions and living
with a lot of doubts, and those may not be qualities that are valued at Baylor
anymore. It may be that those of us with certainties are better adapted for the
environment."
In
any case, Schmeltekopf's conversation was about to turn into an argument, and a
nasty one at that. In April, Dembski's Polanyi Center hosted a conference on
naturalism sponsored by the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank
where Dembski is a fellow, and the Templeton Foundation, whose moneys have gone
a long way to bankroll the intelligent-design movement. The conference sought
to answer a very unusual question: Is there anything beyond nature? An
impressive collection of scientists from all over the world attended the
conference, among them Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg. Of
course, Weinberg titled his presentation "No," a straightforward
answer to the conference's central question. And other speakers announced that
they were going to give their honoraria to organizations that promote the study
of evolution in schools.
Baylor
faculty, by and large, boycotted the conference altogether. But that wasn't
all. Just days after the naturalism conference, the faculty senate voted 27-2
to dismantle Dembski's center. If there was to be a center studying the
intersection of science and religion at Baylor, they held, it should be rebuilt
from the ground up--with faculty input. In an editorial published in the
Houston Chronicle, President Sloan charged that this uproar over faculty input
was a cover for the real issue: the substance of the work being done by the
center. "In my experience," he wrote, "people often object to
'the way things were done' as a rhetorical substitute for what was done."
Sloan refused to dissolve the Polanyi Center, citing issues of censorship and
academic integrity.
He
hit the nail on the head. A lack of input might have annoyed the faculty, but
it was the center's promotion of intelligent design that made them angry.
Dembski claims to be doing science, a science that hopes to question the very
validity of naturalism and give Darwinism a backseat to design. And that is
something that Baylor's mainstream scientists cannot abide. "You can
always look at something and say, 'That's something that God did,'" says
Weaver. "Well, what can I do to prove you wrong?...If I can't prove your
theory incorrect, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong, but it means
it's not science."
Weaver
says that intelligent design is little more than an ego trip. How do we know a
biological system has been intelligently designed? Because it's designed the
way we would have designed it, in a way that we can understand it. "That's
a nice little egotistical thing, isn't it?" he says. "It's designed
to make us feel more comfortable. We do best when we believe ourselves to be at
the pinnacle of creation. And it doesn't have much to do with theology; it has
much more to do with our insecurity as a species."
Intelligent
design has been completely ignored in professional literature, Weaver says. No
real scientists take it seriously. "Dembski's got a whole long list of
places where he's written articles and published books, and none of them are
peer-reviewed. They're not done in scientifically or philosophically
respectable places," Weaver says. "We judge things in the academic
world not by how many books are sold at Waldenbooks," but by what a
scientist's peers think of his work. Dembski's peers in mainstream science have
hardly even dignified him with a response. The famous Harvard paleontologist
Stephen Jay Gould, who visited Baylor in the wake of the Polanyi Center
controversy, dismissed intelligent design as nothing more than modern-day
creationism.
But
Charles Garner, an organic chemistry professor at Baylor who says he prays with
students when they come to him with problems and criticizes evolutionary theory
in class, argues that it would be virtually impossible to get
intelligent-design articles peer-reviewed fairly by a pro-evolution scientific
establishment. "Remember," he says, "you're going to be
upsetting people's worldviews with this stuff."
Sloan
wouldn't shut down the center, but he had no problem holding Dembski's work up
to the light of peer review, especially if it would help smooth things over
with the faculty. He assembled a group of nine biologists, philosophers,
science historians, and theologians--primarily from other universities--to look
into the legitimacy of the center and intelligent design. Dembski was furious.
The Baylor administration knew his work; he was hired because of it. Now, they
were going to risk his academic reputation with a very public review by
scholars he wasn't even sure were qualified to assess his work. "The peer-review
committee, from my perspective, was called for purely political motives, to
assuage the angry faculty," he says, "but in doing that they put me
in the frying pan."
Surprisingly,
Dembski emerged relatively unscathed. The review committee recommended an
advisory committee to oversee Baylor's science and religion program and removed
the Polanyi name from the center (even though Dembski claims he cleared the use
of the name with Polanyi's son). But ultimately the outside scholars concluded
that "research on the logical structure of mathematical arguments for
intelligent design...have a legitimate claim to a place in the current
discussions of the relations of religion and science."
Dembski
was ecstatic. He issued a press release that stated in part: "Dogmatic
opponents of design who demanded 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."
Any
progress that the review committee had made in soothing faculty concerns was
undone in the space of two sentences. These were fighting words. "In
academic arguments," says Weaver, "we don't seek utter destruction
and defeat of our opponents. We don't talk about Waterloos."
The
Baylor administration gave Dembski a chance to retract, or
"contextualize," his comments, and when he refused, he was demoted.
They cited a lack of "collegiality" that compromised his ability to
serve as director of the center. The center that had no name now had no leader
either. "We certainly didn't demote him because of positions he has
taken," says Schmeltekopf. "That had nothing to do with it. We just
had to move forward here."
It's
true. Dembski was not demoted because of his positions. He was demoted because
his positions had become a political hot potato. Initially Dembski thought that
if an intelligent-design center could be successful anywhere, it would be at
Baylor. Now, he thinks that if an intelligent-design center could be successful
at Baylor, it could succeed anywhere. "I think what you've got at Baylor
is...this whole history of the Southern Baptists with this
moderate-fundamentalist controversy and split," Dembski says. "And
Baylor is--I didn't fully realize this--the bastion for the moderates where
anything that smacks of fundamentalism, creationism, just sends people through
the roof.
"Baylor
may be the bastion of Baptist moderates, but some of these moderates have
accused President Sloan of leaning toward the fundamentalist end of the
spectrum. It is certainly difficult to see how his administration could have
been blind to the fact that intelligent design comes with a political agenda
that is far from moderate. The very way in which it formulates its scientific
questions seeks to tear apart the Darwinian underpinnings that influence our
laws, our public policies, our economic systems, our psychological theories,
our schools, our sense of who we are--in short, our entire worldview. If there
is a designer, do we have obligations to that designer? What are they? Do we
have an intrinsic sense of morality? Have we been designed to operate best
within certain constraints? "Every scientific discipline is going to have
to be rethought if Darwinism and naturalism are thrown seriously into question,"
says Dembski. "I think the implications are huge."
If
the science is sound, then perhaps we should be willing to rework our
worldviews. But Baylor certainly was not willing to lead the way. "One of
the things we were very clear about from the beginning," says Schmeltekopf,
"was that the work of Dembski and Gordon did not have underneath it a
political agenda of some kind; that is, to get into textbook wars and
creationist politics and that kind of thing."
To
that end, Baylor administrators pressured Dembski not to attend a May
bipartisan congressional briefing by the Discovery Institute's
intelligent-design program, the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.
Dembski's colleagues presented the case for intelligent design and how it could
help resolve the debate over the teaching of origins in public schools.
Dembski
was surprised by Baylor's limitation of his "academic freedom." He
had made no secret of his association with the Discovery Institute, which
considers the "wedge strategy" one of its primary projects. The wedge
strategy is a term coined by Phillip Johnson, godfather of intelligent design
and author of the popular Darwin On Trial. The metaphor portrays mainstream
science as a seemingly impenetrable log that can be cracked with the sharp edge
of a wedge. The sharp edge of the Discovery Institute's wedge is designed to
separate modern science's naturalistic bias from scientific fact. Once this
crack has been made, Johnson can pound in the thicker parts of the
wedge--including intelligent design, its cultural implications, and even the
Bible--until eventually the log of mainstream science is split wide open.
Johnson considers Dembski to be a key wedge figure.
Dembski
also makes no bones about his personal position on textbooks. "My
commitment is to see intelligent design flourish as a scientific research
program," he says. "To do that, I need a new generation of scholars
willing to consider this, because the older generation is largely hidebound. So
I would like to see textbooks, certainly at the college level and even at the
high-school level, which reframe introductory biology within a design
paradigm." He doesn't, however, want to legislate these ideas. "I
think they're powerful enough that once they get in circulation, they'll win on
their own."
He
might be right. Academia may not be embracing intelligent design, but the
general public, it seems, is primed for it. Gallup polls over the last decade
have shown that only about 10 percent of Americans believe in the scientists'
definition of evolution via strictly chance mutation and natural selection.
Nearly everyone else believes that God created life, either directly or by
guiding the process of evolution. Last year in Kansas, the state school board
voted 6-4 to no longer include evolution in statewide science tests.
Intelligent design will likely prove to be a popular theory for the majority of
Americans, especially because the theory can be applied to many faiths. Even
though most intelligent-design researchers, like Dembski, come from a Christian
background, the theory itself only detects a designer; it doesn't presume to
know anything about that designer. Hence, Jews, Muslims, even agnostics, are
signing on.
Sitting
at the dining-room table in his ranch-style home just outside of Waco, William Dembski
looks more like a scientist than a minister. He's thin and stern, with a long,
narrow face that mumbles through complicated mathematical theory without taking
a breath. Every so often, he loses his train of thought and apologizes, saying
he is quite tired. One assumes the exhaustion is a product of the ordeal at
Baylor, but then a screaming toddler, recently awakened from her nap, comes
running into the room to attach herself to her father's leg. Hot on the
toddler's heels is Dembski's wife, her belly swollen with twins that will be
born any day. It is clear that the late nights are a result of concerns much
closer to the heart.
Dembski
spends most of his time at home with his family these days, even though he
still has a five-year contract as an associate research professor at Baylor. He
doesn't like going to the university's campus. He's much more comfortable here,
surrounded by his stretch of land that came complete with a horse and a fishing
pond. It's the perfect place to ponder life's great questions, at least when
the toddler is asleep. And center or no center, there is still much work to do.
"What if science itself is coming to the place where it says we got some
things wrong and, in fact, things that we ended up dismissing in religion now
have to be taken seriously?" he asks. What if "that intelligence in
the world that your religious faith is talking about has an ally?" What
if?
Commentary:
It's Perilous to Ponder the Design of the Universe
By
Uwe Siemon-Netto, UPI Religion Correspondent
United
Press International
December 21, 2000
GENERAL NEWS
Professor
William A. Dembski, 40, does not show his face at Baylor University in Waco,
Tex., all that often anymore.
"That's
a very hostile environment over there," he told United Press International.
"I go to the library and use the athletic facilities, but I work from
home."
Baylor
calls itself the world's largest Baptist university with 18,000 students. So
why would this eminent scholar feel unwelcome in this Christian school? Why is
he an exile within his own four walls?
Well,
Dembski entertains the hypothesis that the universe is the product of mindful
planning rather than a random set of circumstances. Though an evangelical
Christian, this scholar with doctorates in mathematics and philosophy does not
name the designer, at least not in his work.
Still,
his ideas do not sit well with Baylor professors stuck in methodological
naturalism. This stricture obliges scientists to be provisional atheists in
their work, even if their research surfaces evidence to the contrary.
They
denounced Dembski's theories as "stealth creationism," as though he
had promoted the notion that God made this world in six days, exactly as the
Bible says.
In
e-mails and letters to the local media, Dembski's opponents accused him of
endangering Baylor's scholarly reputation. At one point, the controversy became
so frenzied that Robert Sloan, the university's president, spoke of
"McCarthyism."
Sloan,
a renowned New Testament scholar, reminded faculty members how much scientists
had suffered in the past when pressured by fundamentalist creationists.
"It's rather ironic that people in the scientific community now appear to
be suppressing others."
Yet
it took Dembski's antagonists a little over a year to have him fired from his
position as Baylor's Center for Complexity, Information and Design. Now he is
just an associate research professor.
Sloan
had caved in, although he "still supports Dembki's work," according
to Larry Brumley, Baylor's spokesman.
William
Dembski is a leading proponent of a theory known as Intelligent Design. This is
also the title he gave to one of his books that received much acclaim around
from the world. It has already sold 20,000 copies, a staggering figure for a
volume of this kind.
In
his research, Dembski applies mathematics and statistics to detect purpose in
the makeup of the natural world. As the magazine Christianity Today put
it, he is "looking for the difference between a jumble of clouds and
skywriting that broadcasts a message."
President
Sloan himself had discovered him a little over a year ago. Sloan had set
himself two goals: leading Baylor into the top tier of American universities
while also guiding it back to its Baptist heritage.
As
part of this endeavor, Sloan set up the Michael Polanyi Center and put Dembski
in charge. The problem is that Baylor is caught up in the tension between the
conservative Southern Baptist Convention and the more liberal Baptist General
Convention in Texas to which this school owes allegiance.
"I
stepped into internecine Baptist struggles," Dembski told UPI referring to
the ironic kind of struggle where even men and women of faith purport a
materialist way of thinking while at work. "Some of my greatest enemies
are Christians," Dembski said.
So
fierce was the opposition that in April most Baylor biologists boycotted a
Polanyi Center conference attended by renowned mathematicians and other
scientists from around the world, including two Nobel laureates. Scholars from
other universities even tried to sabotage the conference. They sent bogus notes
to all schedules speakers "disinviting" them, the American
Spectator reported.
Although
the conference was a resounding success, Baylor's faculty senate voted to ask
President Sloan to end all Intelligent Design initiatives. Sloan then convened
an "independent committee" to evaluate Dembski's work. It recommended
absorbing the center's functions into the Institute for Faith and Learning but
unambiguously recognized Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific
discipline.
Buoyed
by this report, Dembski sent out an e-mail: "Dogmatic opponents of design
have who demanded the center be shut down have met their Waterloo." Said
Dembski, "I did not reckon with the faculty's lack of a sense of
humor." Two days later, with Sloan's accord, Dembski was fired from his
position as director of the center.
Baylor
spokesman Brumley mused on Thursday that "a lot that some bridge-building
has to be done within the faculty" for Dembski's work to go forward.
Meanwhile, Dembski works in his house determined not to let his foes relish
their success.
"I
have offers from some Christian colleges," he said, "but to go there
would mean handing a victory to my opponents here. My contract with Baylor runs
for another four years."
William Dembski and the Intelligent Design Movement:
A Case Study in Academic Freedom1
Angus J. L. Menuge,
Ph.D., DCA
Associate Professor of
Philosophy
Director of the Cranach
Institute
Concordia University Wisconsin
12800 N. Lake Shore
Drive, Mequon, WI 53097.
1. Introduction�The Cost
of being a Public Christian Intellectual.
Robust Christian
expression has always been unpopular with authority.� Unbelievers like Pilate found it a dangerous
obstruction to efficient administration.�
But even believers don�t like it when the extent of their accommodation
to the world is thrown up in sharp relief.�
Jesus calls his disciples to be in the world but not of it (John 17:
14-19)2, and amongst his disciples are Christian academics.� However, many Christian scholars are tempted
to compromise their faith in order to find approval from the gatekeepers of
academic correctness.� They even deceive
themselves into thinking that this is an act of humility which exemplifies their
Christian walk.� In his classic book, The
Christian Mind, Harry Blamires exposes the fallacy underlying this approach:
By analogy with that
charity of the spirit which never asks or claims but always gives and gives
again, we have manufactured a false �charity� of the mind, which never takes a
stand, but continually yields ground.3
To give of ourselves
indeed is a powerful Christian witness. But to give up our beliefs, in order to
be accepted, undermines our witness, making us blend in with the world like a
chameleon.
On the other hand, when
Christian thinkers refuse to blend in, they often suffer consequences.� In extreme cases, such as Dietrich
Bonhoeffer�s, the penalty is death.� More
often, careers suffer: hires are not made; promotion is denied; contracts are
terminated. Despite his unsurpassed brilliance in Sixteenth Century English
Literature,� C. S. Lewis was never
promoted to the rank of (full) Professor while he remained at Oxford
University.� William Dembski, one of the
leaders of the Intelligent Design movement, is another Christian intellectual
who has eschewed the path of the chameleon.�
Dembski has remained in the world, gaining impressive academic
credentials in mathematics and philosophy, and fearlessly hosting conferences
that have invited the very best critics of Intelligent Design to articulate
their misgivings.4� Yet Dembski has also
maintained a distinctively Christian perspective on the scientific and
philosophical issues addressed, showing the connection between his scientific
proposals and theology.
One would think that
faculty at a strong Christian school like Baylor University would welcome such
an academic, regardless of whether or not they agreed with his views.� But with some notable exceptions, especially in
the departments of business and engineering, this has not been the case.� There is all too much evidence that Dembski�s
academic freedom was denied at Baylor to propitiate hostile faculty concerned
about secular canons of academic respectability.5� What is worse, Dembski is now treated as an
intellectual leper, excluded from virtually all academic activities on campus.
There is no reason to think that he will have any position at Baylor after his
current contract runs out in 2005.
In what follows I will
first recount Dembski�s experiences at Baylor, pointing the interested reader
to more detailed sources.� I will then
argue that Dembski�s harsh treatment is unjustified and in no way a good thing
for the academy in general or science in particular.� The argument will draw on the history and
philosophy of science to show why dissent is important in science.�
2. What Happened at
Baylor.
William Dembski was
already a research fellow for the Seattle based Discovery Institute6 when he was
approached by Baylor University President Robert Sloan in 1996.� Sloan had read some of Dembski�s work and
thought that Dembski could help with his project of promoting the integration
of faith and learning on campus.� Sloan�s
approach to integration was not heavy-handed.�
He had �resisted the urging of fundamentalists to �throw the
evolutionists out� of the biology department, vowing never to bar anyone at
Baylor from teaching evolution.�7� In
1999, Sloan was able to establish a Center, named for Michael Polanyi, a
Hungarian chemist who had denied that biological information could be reduced
to physics and chemistry.8��
Dembski and Bruce Gordon
were directly appointed to the Center and for a while enjoyed a favorable
reception: �the duo made a good first impression on the faculty they met.� Gordon led a colloquium reading group�.� Discussion with participating faculty was
cordial.�9�� The honeymoon ended suddenly
when the Polanyi Center established its Website in January, 2000.� There was nothing wrong with the site itself,
but unfortunately, when �other groups with evolution-bashing agendas began
linking up their Websites�[m]any on the biology faculty flashed back to old
culture battles, when such groups had publicly questioned the professors�
integrity.�10
An email frenzy began on
campus and spread to other schools.�
Dembski �was subject to dismissive comments that he was a �stealth
creationist.��� Michael Beaty, head of
Baylor�s Institute for Faith and Learning�urged him to follow a
turn-the-other-cheek strategy.�11� In all
the furor, it seems that many did not notice the injustice of attributing guilt
by association.� As Gordon has often
pointed out, the Michael Polanyi Center never endorsed the connections from
other Websites.� Sadly, many faculty were
quite unable (or unwilling) to distinguish work on Intelligent Design (ID) from
old-style creationism.� ID merely looks
for empirical evidence of design in nature and does not presume to settle the
identity of the designer, and it does not start from Scripture or a dogmatic
position about the age of the Earth.
Despite this setback,
the Polanyi Center went ahead and hosted the Nature of Nature conference in
April, 2000.� This conference examined
the adequacy of naturalism as a foundation for work in the natural sciences and
philosophy. The conference drew an impressive cast of top scholars and
scientists from around the world, the majority of whom were critical of ID,
favoring either full naturalism or some form of methodological naturalism such
as Howard Van Till�s Robust Formational Economy Principle, which asserts that
nature is gifted with all that it needs to develop autonomously.� Yet a significant voice of dissent was heard
from those who argued that naturalism is too poor in resources to explain all
the phenomena, including the ultimate origin of the cosmos, biological
complexity, ethics and the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics and
logical reasoning.�� This was certainly
the most intellectually significant conference this writer has attended.� Real civility was demonstrated as people
openly debated deeply held presuppositions.�
Tragically, many at
Baylor had already made up their minds and �not only boycotted the event, but
... took to the press and the Internet to publicly excoriate Dembski.�12� One would have thought that any open-minded
person would have at least listened to some of the debate, especially given the
presence of so many erudite critics of ID.�
Yet worse was to come.� �Just days
after the naturalism conference, the faculty senate voted 27-2 to dismantle
Dembski�s center.�13�� Faculty complained
that they should have been involved in creating the center.� The claim had no credibility with President
Sloan as �[t]he procedure he used in setting up the center was no different from
the one he and previous administrators had used to establish other centers,�14
such as the center for American Jewish studies, yet no-one had objected to the
creation of these centers.�� Sloan also
pointed out the double standard many of the hostile scientists were
employing:� �It�s rather ironic that
people in the scientific community, whose rights had to be protected in the
face of ideological pressure [from creationists], now appear to be suppressing
others.�15� It is also "ironic that
while faculty members at Christian colleges often resist conforming to
statements of faith, they demand adherence to the tenets of the secular
academic establishment with stereotypical dogmatism."16� Sloan courageously refused to close the
Center, but �essentially put Dembski under a gag order.� Dembski was pressured not to attend a meeting
in Washington, where intelligent design advocates met some members of Congress
and their staff; and he was restricted in what he put on his Website and in how
he could reply to his critics, no matter how public or vocal they became.� Freedom of speech at Baylor, it seems, only
works one way.�17� In addition, Sloan
agreed to create an external review committee to evaluate the Polanyi Center's
academic credentials.
Dembski�s extensively
peer-reviewed publication of The Design
Inference with Cambridge University Press should have made such a review
unnecessary.� Yet, not being a person to
shy away from criticism, Dembski initially welcomed the review: �I always learn
more from my critics than from the people who think I am wonderful.�18� It seems that committee selection was far
from fair, including a majority of hostile critics and no-one with the
background to understand Dembski�s mathematical arguments.� Yet we learned on October 17th of 2000 that
the committee upheld the importance and legitimacy of Dr. Dembski�s work, while
calling for the Center to be renamed and broadened in its scope.19� To be sure, the background conflict is still
very clear in the exaggerated deference to Baylor�s scientists, who are
described as �the inheritors of a long and distinguished tradition,�20 as if
anyone had questioned their credentials.�
Indeed, the �elephantine language of the external review
committee�sounds more like the language of courtiers than the product of a
robust intellectual community.�21
Vindication by a largely
hostile source is about the highest form of endorsement one can hope for.� So one would think that the matter was
over.� Yet one short email changed everything.
On the same day the report was released, Dembski broadcast the following
comment by email:
The report marks the
triumph of intelligent design as a legitimate form of
academic inquiry. This
is a great day for academic freedom. I'm deeply
grateful to President
Sloan and Baylor University for making this
possible, as well as to
the peer review committee for its unqualified affirmation of my own work on
intelligent design. The scope of the Center will be expanded to embrace a
broader set of conceptual issues at the intersection of science and religion,
and the Center will therefore receive a new name to reflect this expanded
vision. My work on intelligent design will continue unabated. Dogmatic
opponents of design who demanded 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.22
This statement clearly
agrees to the review committee�s stipulations regarding the future of the
center. It also expresses gratitude to those who had--albeit in a qualified
way-- supported Dembski�s academic freedom.�
In fact, only the last 2 statements could be called �offensive� and even
so they seem to me to be accurate.�
Dembski�s opponents had acted in a dogmatic and intolerant way and their
hope that the review committee would find against ID had been dashed.
This short email, it was
claimed, provoked a fire-storm of protest across Baylor�s campus.� Cheek-turning was conspicuous by its
absence.� The administration asked Dembski
to retract or contextualize his email.�
He refused on the grounds that his remarks accurately reflected the
nature of the controversy. As a result, Dembski was removed from his
directorship and the Polanyi Center lost its name and identity, being absorbed
into the larger Institute for Faith and Learning.� It was stated that Dr. Dembski was removed on
�administrative grounds,� because his comments (and refusal to retract them)
were lacking in collegiality and �severely compromised his ability to perform
his central administrative duties.�23
This claim is quite
literally incredible.� If lack of
collegiality is grounds for demotion, Baylor administration owes everyone an
explanation of why not one of Dembski�s detractors at Baylor, no matter how
misinformed or mean-spirited in their criticism, has suffered similar
penalties.� Baylor faculty have
misrepresented Dembski�s work as �creationist� or �fundamentalist.�� They boycotted his first major conference,
then tried to close the Polanyi Center altogether.� These are not collegial actions.� Furthermore, when have leaders of
controversial movements ever been noted for collegiality?� Socrates, Francis Bacon and Martin Luther
were at times immensely uncollegial, yet each in his way pressed for needed
reforms.� Jesus himself is a prime
example of a powerfully dissenting reformer, although he had an agenda that
transcended worldly affairs. The truth is that Dembski�s detractors enjoyed
full academic freedom to criticize his work and engage in ad hominem attacks,
yet Dembski�s own academic freedom has been abridged.� The leader of an intellectual movement has
every right to criticize opponents who attempt to censor his views even when he
offers an open forum for critical debate.
Some would argue that as
an administrator, Dembski can be held to a different standard than an ordinary
academic.� This has plausibility when one
thinks of typical administrative positions dedicated to personnel management.� But Dembski's position was different in two
important respects. �First, it was a
flagship position for the ID movement and so he was expected to defend that
movement's right to be heard.�
Second, Dembski's
administrative role was one of rejuvenating the integration of faith and
learning at an institution that had started to drift towards compartmentalized
thinking.
According to Robert
Benne�s recent survey of top Christian schools, at Baylor University �a large
majority (90 percent) of the...faculty support the traditional �add-on� or
�two-spheres� approach to Christian higher education... .�24� By this, Benne means that faith is held
largely to be a matter of personal piety and spirituality, with no significant
cognitive connections to a professor�s academic discipline.� In such an environment, it is not likely that
one can promote integration of faith and learning without making some people
defensive and upset.
Yet Baylor officials
continued for months with the same line that the decision was purely
administrative. There are two problems with this.� Calling something �administrative� is an
attempt to mask the underlying moral issues with neutral language.� Can Pilate�s actions be justified by
describing them as an �administrative necessity�?� Secondly, the basis for this decision was
clearly the reactions of other faculty.�
This sets the alarming precedent that academic freedom is conditional on
the sensitivities and approval of the majority of other faculty.� Such a principle could only be defended if
the majority were infallible in judgment and if their taking offense were
always justified.� Since neither of these
conditions is met, the practical result is that a tyrannical majority may
censor dissent.� Fred Heeren bluntly
asserts that Baylor faculty have �ensured that their university will be
remembered as a place where the rule of the mob trumps free scientific
enquiry.�25
But why exactly did
Dembski make people so mad?� Overall, my
sense is that there is a local factor, peculiar to Baylor, and a broader
factor, which Dembski would have encountered at most major schools.� The local factor is that Southern Baptists
have been through a painful controversy and schism between �fundamentalists�
and �moderates,� and Baylor has emerged as a stronghold for the latter.26� As Dembski recently put it, �Baylor is�I
didn�t fully realize this�the bastion for the moderates, where anything that
smacks of fundamentalism, creationism, just sends people through the
roof.�27�� The broader factor reflects
the enormity of Dembski�s challenge to contemporary academia.� Like C. S. Lewis before him28, William
Dembski has dared to do what has become unthinkable for many in the
post-Enlightenment academy.� He has
exposed the fact that �Naturalism [is] the implicit creed of half his
colleagues and (worse) that��if he is right��it [is] nonsense.�29� He has thereby alienated the accommodationist
establishment who, in Blamires� words, �prefer blunting sharp edges in
controversy and greasing the works of social and intellectual interchange with
the oil of noncommitment.�30
3. A broader
perspective.
Many of the popular
discussions of the Dembski affair, sympathetic or otherwise, tend to view the
matters in contemporary political terms and fail to provide the broader
perspectives of history and philosophy.��
In what follows, I will attempt to remedy this by outlining some general
historical and philosophical arguments to show that Dembski's harsh treatment
is good neither for the academy in general nor science in particular.
3.1. The Benefits of
Openness and Pluralism in Science.
A. Historical precedent.
The history of science
is full of examples where an important theoretical insight was initially
resisted on ideological grounds.�� In
Newton's day, the dominant paradigm was mechanism, which held that all
causation depended on the motion of contiguous material particles.� Thus, when Newton first proposed his theory
of gravity, it was initially rejected because it postulated an
"occult" force that acted across empty space.� In effect, the objection was that gravity was
a "force-of-the-gaps," masking our ignorance of the real mechanism,
parallel to the "God-of-the-gaps" argument used against ID.
Interestingly, Newton's
theory became widely accepted without determining a mechanical basis for
gravity.31� What convinced the scientific
community was that Newton's mathematical formulae worked, successfully
accounting for such diverse phenomena as the tides, apples falling to the
ground and planetary orbits.�� Showing
that a force is working does not require us to know how it works.� Much the same point has been emphasized by
proponents of ID: a detective may infer an intelligent, preconceived killing
without knowing the killer or his motives; there are numerous items in the
Smithsonian which are obviously artifacts (that is, the results of intelligent
design, and not wind sculptures, for example), whose purpose is entirely
unknown.�� Thus we do not object to
force-of-the-gaps or mind-of-the gaps explanations when we know that they work.
The moral of the story
is clear.� "Intelligent Design"
may seem like an occult notion to many scientists who require a mechanical
explanation such as mutation and selection.�
But if proponents of ID succeed in expressing laws that reliably
identify complex specified information (such as is found in DNA) and explain
its transmission better than any available mechanism, the God-of the-gaps
objection to ID will ultimately be as impotent as the force-of-the-gaps
objection to gravitation.�
Openness to new, even
"impossible" ideas is essential to scientific progress.� Martin Luther initially opposed Copernicus'
heliocentric hypothesis on theological grounds.�
Even from a scientific point of view, the available evidence made the
geocentric hypothesis seem impregnable.�
Nonetheless, Luther allowed the brilliant mathematician Georg Rheticus
to explore Copernicus' theory unmolested at the University of
Wittenberg.32� This serves as a wonderful
precedent to the treatment Dembski should have received at Baylor University.
B. Philosophy of
science.
It may be objected that
some ideas are just "crazy" and unscientific.� The problem with this view is
three-fold.� First, many of the greatest
advances in science have derived from individuals with "crazy"
beliefs.� Newton advanced his whole
mechanical philosophy as an apologetic against atheism. Many today would regard
Newton's Christian beliefs as "crazy," yet they were essential to the
development of his theories.� Prior to
Newton's work, most scientists followed Aristotle in supposing that there was
one set of laws (terrestrial physics) for the corruptible sub-lunar domain and
another (celestial physics) for the incorruptible heavens.� It was precisely because Newton believed in a
rational God who was creator of all that he expected to find physical laws
valid for both the terrestrial and celestial domains.33�� Likewise, Kepler was a Pythagorean mystic,
believing that number was the essence of universe.� Crazy or not, this view assisted Kepler in finding
a mathematical ellipse as the orbital pattern in Tycho Brahe's astronomical
data.
Second, nature is not
beholden to human norms of sanity: crazy beliefs may have truth in them.� Even Newton's alchemical beliefs were not
entirely false, as the discovery of the transition from radioactive uranium to
lead has shown.� And Aristotle's idea of
biological formal causes as an explanation of embryonic development, ridiculed
for centuries, was at least partially confirmed by the discovery of the
biological programs in DNA.
Third, as Karl Popper
reminds us, we need sharply to distinguish between the context of discovery and
the context of justification.�� In the
context of discovery, all sorts of ideas and prejudices may condition a
scientist's expectations and theory construction, and no-one has ever shown a
principled way of excluding some of these as inherently unfruitful.� It is claimed that Kepler, a good Lutheran,
first thought that planetary orbits might be elliptical after he observed the
curvature of beer barrels.� If the story
is true, the ridiculous manner in which Kepler acquired this belief did not
prevent it from surviving the context of justification: the idea accounted for
Tycho Brahe's data effectively.� The
point is that the context of discovery does not have to be "scientific"
for an idea to have scientific value: that depends on the context of
justification.
This basic point has
escaped those like Michael Shermer34 and Charles Weaver35, who have attacked
Dembski's work on psychological grounds, claiming that he holds the views he
does because he is "insecure,"�
"born again" or "fundamentalist."�� For example, Weaver says that the worldview
of ID "is designed to make us feel more comfortable.� We do best when we believe ourselves to be
the pinnacle of creation....it has...to do with our insecurity as a
species."36� Even if these
allegations were true, they simply have no bearing on the merit of Dembski's
ideas.� One could argue that Newton
wanted a comfortable universe governed by simple, universal laws, but that was
what propelled him to make some of the most significant scientific discoveries
to date.� And ad hominems are two a
penny. We can easily suggest that Weaver and Shermer, like stereotypical baby
boomers, are threatened by the notion of divine order and purpose and cling to
uncertainty as a refuge: that would be equally nasty, and equally pointless in
evaluating the objective quality of their ideas.
3.2. The Dangers of
Ideological Dogmatism.
Aside from the benefits
of an open, pluralistic science, there are clear dangers in allowing a single
paradigm to monopolize the conversation.�
The history of science shows that entrenched theories tend to ossify
into unquestioned axioms, which are no longer seriously tested against the
natural world.� Aristotle
"knew" that heavier objects fall more quickly to the earth because it
was a deduction from his metaphysics. But when�
Galileo tested the hypothesis by dropping objects of equal size but
different weight, such as a cannon ball and a cabbage, it� was disproved.� In The New Organon, Francis Bacon showed how
scholasticism led to an approach to science which deduced results from
preconceived ideology, then distorted the evidence to agree:
[H]aving first
determined the question according to his will, [the scholastic] then resorts to
experience, and bending her into conformity with his placets leads her about
like a captive in a procession.37
As Jonathan Wells has
recently shown38, much the same pattern can be found in the work of dogmatic
Darwinists.� For example, consider the
Miller-Urey experiment of 1953, which seemed to show how the building blocks of
life could arise from lightning in earth's primordial atmosphere.� Diagrams of the apparatus used still appear
in recent textbooks even though geochemists have shown that the experiment
falsely supposes that the early atmosphere lacked oxygen (a reducing
agent).� Instead of accepting this
difficulty, dogmatists have simply deduced the "fact" that the early
atmosphere lacked oxygen from the assumption that the Miller-Urey experiment
must be basically correct.�� As Bacon put
it in his day, "The logic now in use serves rather to fix and give
stability to the errors...than to help the search after truth."39
As Bacon also
emphasizes, human beings are afflicted by various "idols of the
mind," prejudices which obstruct the search for truth.� One of these idols is the tendency of the
proponents of a theory to be too willing to accept apparently confirming
evidence and too unwilling to fairly consider apparently disconfirming
evidence.� This is why computer
programmers have their programs tested by a third party.� And it is why it is always a good thing for
science to listen to the critics of currently accepted theory.�
Scientists of integrity
should therefore welcome the challenge of ID as a stimulus to reexamine
received opinions: even if the only outcome of ID is stronger justifications of
Darwinian claims, it will have been good for science.� Without such openness, Darwinists are
vulnerable to the charge of Congressman Souder.�
Souder responded to a formal letter by eight Baylor faculty claiming
that ID is not science because it is not materialistic:� "Is their position on teaching about
materialistic science so weak that it cannot withstand scrutiny and
debate?.�� [S]erious people make a case against
Darwinism.�� Yet the Baylor biologists
simply ignore these criticisms.� One
senses here not a defense of science but rather an effort to protect, by
political means, a privileged philosophical viewpoint against a serious
challenge.�� As the Congress, it might be
wise for us to question whether the legitimate authority of science over
scientific matters is being misused by persons to identify science with a
philosophy they prefer.� Does the
scientific community really welcome new ideas and dissent, or does it merely
pay lip service to them while imposing a materialist orthodoxy?"40
In a dogmatic
environment, we will hear evermore overblown claims quite unjustified by the
evidential base.� For example, Dobzhansky
claimed that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of
evolution."41� Yet much work in
biochemistry, anatomy and ecology can proceed without assuming current
evolutionary theory, because it analyses intrinsic properties and relations rather
than speculating on their etiology.� It is
a mistake to think that dogmatism is only bad because it protects false
beliefs.� Ideas also have
consequences.� Darwinists should beware
of following in the footsteps of Lysenko.�
On the basis of dogmatic adherence to Marxist dialectical materialism, Lysenko
denied Mendelian genetics and required all Soviet scientists to subscribe to
his own neo-Lamarckianism, with disastrous effects on agriculture.� When we hear evolutionary psychologists like
Stephen Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer provide naturalistic rationalizations
of rape42, we ought to be concerned about whether these consequences are really
backed by good science, or are simply the result of the single child of
Darwinism being spoiled by its lack of competition.
4. Conclusion.
Not attending to history
we are condemned to repeat it.� Galileo's
ideas were so philosophically and politically unacceptable that after being
persecuted, he was forced to live out his life under house arrest.� After his demotion, "Dembski [now]
spends most of his time at home with his family."� He hasn't been imprisoned, but it is hardly
surprising that "[h]e doesn't like going to the university's
campus,"43 where he has been the target of so much ill will.� The two beacons of generosity have been the
departments of engineering and business. For example, the business school has
encouraged Dembski to develop models of business organization based on
Intelligent Design, rather than laissez-faire Darwinian principles.� But otherwise Dembski has largely been
ostracized. He is never apprised of departmental colloquia or forums that might
be of interest to him. He is never asked to speak about his work in any
cross-campus convocation, and his strong sense is that the administration will
expend no more political capital on him, is simply going to allow his contract
to expire.� Even when the business school
did offer him a position, administration blocked it, and they have never
offered a renewal of contract in any department or capacity.� This prophet is decidedly unwelcome in his
home town. Nontheless, Dembksi remains totally committed to the vision of the
Michael Polanyi Center, and will see if fulfilled somewhere, even if it must be
an independent research institute.
Dembski's demotion and
subsequent ostracism is a triumph of dogmatism over open dialogue, of a
culturally protected monopoly over serious competition, of secular
accommodationism over robust Christian faith, and of ideological censorship
over academic freedom.� Regardless of whether
they think there is merit in Dembski's work, open-minded thinkers, Christian
and non-Christian alike, should be outraged at what happened to Dembski at
Baylor.� Science and the academy are
helped in every way by making room for dissenting voices.� Indeed it is the very idea of a university to
allow a plurality of ideas to compete in the search for truth.�
Notes:
1An abridged, earlier
version of this paper appeared as �Few Signs of Intelligence: The Saga of Bill
Dembski at Baylor,� Touchstone magazine, May 2001, 54-55.
2For more on Christian
engagement with Science, see my �Lutheran Theology Meets Intelligent Design,�
Dialog: A Journal of Theology Theology (Vol. 40:1, Spring 2001), 61-63.
3Harry Blamires, The
Christian Mind, Study Guide Edition (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 1997),
39.
4This occurred at the
Nature of Nature conference (held at Baylor University, April 12-15, 2000) and
the Design and its Critics conference (held at Concordia University Wisconsin,
June 22-24, 2000).
5Some of this evidence
is cited in the Second Protest statement of the Cranach Institute, a body
devoted to working out the consequences of the Reformation for contemporary
issues.� For more on the Cranach
Institute, see http://www.cuw.edu/Cranach/default.htm.� The protest statement itself is available at:
http://www.cuw.edu/Cranach/dembski_protest.htm.
6The Discovery Institute
is a non-partisan organization devoted to supporting scientific and
philosophical critiques of, and alternatives to, Darwinism.� See �www.discovery.org� for more details.
7Fred Heeren, �The
Lynching of Bill Dembski,�� The American
Spectator, November, 2000, 46.
8One of the sillier
arguments made by the external review committee who evaluated Dembski�s work
was that since Polanyi did not argue for intelligent design, his name should
not be used for the center.� This
overlooks the enormous importance of the fact that Polanyi, like Dembski, did
see complex biological information as a distinct category to be explained.� It is also never going to be the case that
those who work at a named center agree with all the views of the person for
whom it was named. Should just those physicists who believe in all and only the
beliefs of Cavendish be employed by Cavendish Laboratories?!
9Fred Heeren, �The
Lynching of Bill Dembski,�� The American
Spectator, November, 2000, 47.
10Ibid.
11Tony Carnes, �Design
Interference,� available at:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/014/18.20.html, 3.
12Fred Heeren, �The Deed
is Done,� from The American Spectator (Dec 2000�Jan 2001), available at:
http://www.spectator.org/archives/0012TAS/heeren0012.htm,� 3.
13Lauren Kern, �In God�s
Country,� originally published by Houston Press, December 14, 2000, retrieved
from:
�http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/2000-12-14/feature2.html/printable_page�, 5.
14Fred Heeren, �The
Lynching of Bill Dembski,� The American Spectator, November 2000, 48.
15Ibid.
16Gene Edward Veith,
"The Galileo Treatment," World, November 18, 2000, 13.
17Fred Heeren, �The Deed
is Done,� 3.
18Fred Heeren, �The Lynching
of Bill Dembski,� The American Spectator, November 2000, 48.
19The text of the
External Review committee�s report can be downloaded from
http://pr.baylor.edu/pdf/001017polanyi.pdf.�
For the administration�s response, see http://pr.baylor.edu/feat.fcgi?2000.10.17.polanyi.
20From �The External
Review Committee Report: Baylor University,� paragraph 2.
21John Wilson,
�Unintelligent Designs: Baylor�s dismissal of Polanyi Center director Dembski
was not a smart move� available at �http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/143/11.0.html�
and from �www.discovery.org�.
22Dr. Dembski�s letter
is available at: http://www.cuw.edu/Cranach/dembski_protest.htm, 6
23Michael D. Beaty,
�Baylor University Responds to Misconceptions about the Polanyi Center Controversy,�
Metanews, October, 27, 2000.� Dr. Beaty�s
response is available at:
http://www.cuw.edu/Cranach/dembski_protest.htm,
3-4.
24Robert Benne, Quality
With Soul: How Six Premier Colleges and Universities Keep Faith with Their
Religious Traditions (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 116-117.� For a survey of the different models at work
in Christian higher education and an argument in favor of the �dialog� model,
see my �Promoting Dialogue in the Christian Academy,� Logia, Eastertide 2002
XI: 2, 19-28.
25Fred Heeren, �The Deed
is Done,� 5.
26These labels
themselves are interesting, since liberals like to describe themselves as
�moderates� to make their radical agendas seem reasonable, and to cast all
conservatives as �fundamentalists� to make them seem unreasonable.
27Lauren Kern, �In God�s
Country,� 6.
28Indeed Lewis was on
numerous occasions denied deserved promotions because of his outspoken
Christian views, never attaining the rank of professor while he remained at
Oxford University.
29Harry Blamires,
�Teaching the Universal Truth: C. S. Lewis among the Intellectuals,� in David
Mills (ed.), The Pilgrim�s Guide: C. S. Lewis and the Art of Witness (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 18.�
30Ibid., 21.
31Newton himself
speculated that gravitation could be explained by some sort of cosmic particle,
but was unable to provide evidence.
32For a first rate
examination of this episode, see Patrick Ferry, �The Guiding Lights of the
University of Wittenberg and the Emergence of Copernican Astronomy,� Concordia
Theological Quarterly, October 1993, 265-291.
33Nancy Pearcey and
Charles Thaxton argue in detail that presuppositions of Christian theology were
instrumental in the rise of modern science.�
See their The Soul of Science (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), especially
pp. 21-37.� See also my �Thinking God�s
Thoughts After Him: How the Bible and Science View the World.� Editorial in
Issues in Christian Education Spring 2001, Vol. 35, No. 1, 4-5.
34Shermer is head of the
Skeptics Society and when invited to debate ID at the Design and its Critics
conference at Concordia University Wisconsin, June 22-24, spent most of his
time on psychological explanations for the belief in ID.� This is a classic example of what C. S. Lewis
called �Bulverism,� where one attempts to explain away a �false� belief without
ever showing that it is false.
35Charles Weaver is a
professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor University and one of
Dembski's most vociferous critics.
36Charles Weaver quoted
in Lauren Kern, "In God's country," 5.
37Francis Bacon, The New
Organon, LXIII.
38Jonathan Wells, Icons
of Evolution (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2000).�
See also my review of this work, �Shattering the Icons of Dogmatic
Darwinism,� Human Events, December 1, 2000, 12, 19.
39Francis Bacon, The New
Organon, XII.
40From Congressman
Souder's response to the Baylor 8 in the Congressional record for June 14,
2000, page H4480, available from: http://thomas.loc.gov/ entry for June 14,
2000, 1-3.
41Theodosius Dobzhansky,
�Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,� The American
Biology Teacher 35 (1973), 125-129.� See
also Jonathan Wells� critical discussion in his Icons of Evolution, 245-248.
42Randy Thornhill and Craig
Palmer authored the already notorious book, A Natural History of Rape:
Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000).�
43Lauren Kern, "In
God's Country," 7.
Letter from
Antony Flew to Angus Menuge
regarding MPC Controversy
18
January 2001
Dear
Angus Menuge,
Thank
you for your letter of January 9th. I had already seen the articles in The American Spectator, a journal to
which I have been a long time subscriber. I wrote to the editor asking for more
information about Dembski's published work, since I wanted to ensure that the
one or two Skeptical and Humanist journals I can influence would
give it due attention. I got no information from that source. But a friend at
Liberty University � Jerry Falwell's foundation � gave me particulars of both The Design Inference and Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical
Challenge to Evolution. I have some success already on both counts.
Of
course I am in total agreement with everything you say in 'Dembski and Academic
Freedom', and I will gladly add my name to the signature list of any protest
organized in the USA. (For when the offenders are citizens of a liberal state I
think the protest initiatives should come form their scandalized fellow
citizens.)
You
may be interested to learn that I knew both C.S. Lewis and Michael Polanyi, and
engaged in public discussions, both oral and printed, with C.S. Lewis.
Yours,
Antony
Flew
The Public
Square
Richard
John Neuhaus
First Things, February 2001
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0102/public.html
Baylor
University has legitimate aspirations to being recognized as a major research
institution. Those hopes were dealt a severe setback when William A. Dembski
was removed as director of the newly established Michael Polanyi Center.
Dembski, a contributor to this journal, is a widely acclaimed leader in
intelligent design theory, and became a victim of what is best described as
intellectual McCarthyism agitated by Baylor faculty who were fearful that the
Baptist school would be tainted by association with "creationism"--in
this case a smear word for any scientific challenge posed to Darwinian
orthodoxies. The sordid story is told in detail by Fred Heeren in "The
Lynching of Bill Dembski" (American Spectator, November 2000).
University president Robert Sloan finally caved and dismissed Dembski for not
being "collegial." His offense was that he had issued a press release
following a peer review committee's finding in his favor and refused to retract
it. His release said, "My work on intelligent design will continue
unabated. Dogmatic opponents of design who demanded 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." That is feisty, but it is as nothing compared to what his
opponents said about him. I know and respect President Sloan, but the dismissal
of William Dembski is a personal injustice, a disservice to academic and scientific
integrity, and, as aforesaid, a severe setback to the aspirations of a good
university to be respected as among the best.
Few Signs of
Intelligence
The
Saga of Bill Dembski at Baylor
by
Angus J. L. Menuge
May 2001
http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/14.4docs/14-4pg54.html
William
Dembski, a leader in the intelligent design movement, was demoted last fall
from his position as director of the newly founded Michael Polanyi Center at
Baylor University in Waco, Texas. This action followed concerted efforts
earlier in the year by members of Baylor's faculty to close the center.
An
external review committee had been appointed to evaluate the credentials of the
center's work. Despite the hostility of many of its members, the committee
eventually found in favor of the legitimacy of Dembski's research. With
reporters on his heels just after the committee report became public, Dembski
issued a press release celebrating the vindication of his research and of the
center&emdash;and the victory gained over his academic adversaries. This
enraged many of his critics. It was claimed that Dembski's action
"severely compromised his ability to perform his central administrative
duties," hence his removal from the directorship.
How
is it that a highly respected author and leader of the intelligent design
movement became persona non grata at the very Christian university that hired
him to carry on research in his field in the first place?
From Favor to Furor
William
Dembski was already a research fellow for the Seattle-based Discovery Institute
when he was approached by Baylor University President Robert Sloan in 1996.
Sloan had read some of Dembski's work and thought that Dembski could help with
his project of promoting the integration of faith and learning on campus.
Sloan's
approach to integration was not heavy-handed. He had "resisted the urging
of fundamentalists to 'throw the evolutionists out' of the biology department,
vowing never to bar anyone at Baylor from teaching evolution."1 In 1999,
Sloan was able to establish a center named for Michael Polanyi, a Hungarian
chemist who had denied that biological information could be reduced to physics
and chemistry.
Dembski
and Bruce Gordon were hired and appointed to the center, and they enjoyed a
favorable reception. But the honeymoon ended when the Polanyi Center
established its website in January 2000. When "other groups with
evolution-bashing agendas began linking up their Websites . . .
[m]any on the biology faculty flashed back to old culture battles, when such
groups had publicly questioned the professors' integrity."2
An
e-mail frenzy at Baylor spread to other schools. Dembski "was subject to
dismissive comments that he was a 'stealth creationist.'"3 As Gordon has
often pointed out, the Michael Polanyi Center never endorsed the connections
from other websites. Sadly, many faculty were quite unable (or unwilling) to
distinguish work on intelligent design (ID) from old-style creationism. ID
merely looks for empirical evidence of design in nature and does not presume to
settle the identity of the designer, and it does not start from Scripture or a
dogmatic position about the age of the earth.
Despite
this setback, the Polanyi Center went ahead and hosted the Nature of Nature
conference in April 2000. This conference examined the adequacy of naturalism
as a foundation for work in the natural sciences and philosophy. The conference
drew a cast of top scholars and scientists from around the world, the majority
of whom were critical of ID, favoring either full naturalism or some form of
methodological naturalism. Genuine civility was demonstrated as people openly
debated deeply held presuppositions. Probably all sides were surprised to learn
that the sophistication and intellectual muscle of their opponents far
surpassed the stereotypes they feared.
Tragically,
many at Baylor had already made up their minds and "not only boycotted the
event, but . . . took to the press and the Internet to publicly
excoriate Dembski."4 During the conference, both the local Waco newspaper
and the Baylor newspaper published stories about the controversy, with comments
about "pseudo-science" emanating from some Baylor faculty. One would
have thought that any open-minded person would have at least listened to some
of the debate, especially given the presence of so many erudite critics of ID.
Yet
worse was to come. "Just days after the naturalism conference, the faculty
senate voted 27&endash;2 to dismantle Dembski's center."5 Faculty
complained that they should have been involved in creating the center. Sloan
courageously refused to close the center, but the administration
"essentially put Dembski under a gag order. Dembski was pressured not to
attend a meeting in Washington, where intelligent design advocates met some
members of Congress and their staff; and he was restricted in what he put on
his Website and in how he could reply to his critics, no matter how public or
vocal they became. Freedom of speech at Baylor, it seems, only works one
way."6 In addition, Sloan agreed to create an external review committee to
evaluate the Polanyi Center's academic credentials.
Waterloo in Waco
Dembski's
extensively peer-reviewed publication of The Design Inference with Cambridge
University Press (1998) should have made such a review unnecessary. Yet, not
being a person to shy away from criticism, Dembski initially welcomed the
review: "I always learn more from my critics than from the people who
think I am wonderful."7 It seems that the committee selection was far from
fair, including a majority of hostile critics and no one with the background to
understand Dembski's mathematical arguments.
Even
so, in October the committee upheld the importance and legitimacy of Dembski's
work&emdash;yet called for the center to be renamed and broadened in its
scope. Vindication by a largely hostile source is about the highest form of
endorsement one can hope for. So one would think that the matter was over. Yet
one short e-mail changed everything. On the same day the report was released,
Dembski broadcast the following comment by e-mail:
The
report marks the triumph of intelligent design as a legitimate form of academic
inquiry. This is a great day for academic freedom. I'm deeply grateful to
President Sloan and Baylor University for making this possible, as well as to
the peer review committee for its unqualified affirmation of my own work on
intelligent design. The scope of the Center will be expanded to embrace a
broader set of conceptual issues at the intersection of science and religion,
and the Center will therefore receive a new name to reflect this expanded
vision. My work on intelligent design will continue unabated. Dogmatic
opponents of design who demanded 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.
Only
the last two statements could be called "offensive," and even so they
seem to be accurate. Dembski's opponents had acted in a dogmatic and intolerant
way, and their hope that the review committee would find against ID had been
dashed.
This
short e-mail, it was claimed, provoked a firestorm of protest across Baylor's
campus. The administration asked Dembski to retract or contextualize his
e-mail. He refused on the grounds that his remarks accurately reflected the
nature of the controversy. As a result, Dembski was removed from his
directorship, and the Polanyi Center lost its name and identity, being absorbed
into the larger Institute for Faith and Learning. It was stated that Dembski
was removed on "administrative grounds," because his comments (and
refusal to retract them) were lacking in collegiality and "severely
compromised his ability to perform his central administrative duties."8
If
lack of collegiality is grounds for demotion, the Baylor administration owes
everyone an explanation of why not one of Dembski's detractors at Baylor, no
matter how misinformed or mean-spirited his criticism, has suffered similar
penalties. Baylor faculty have misrepresented Dembski's work as
"creationist" or "fundamentalist." They boycotted his first
major conference, then tried to close the Polanyi Center altogether. These are
not collegial actions.
Too Hot to Handle
Why
did Dembski make people so angry? There is a local factor, peculiar to Baylor,
and a broader factor, which Dembski would have encountered at most major
schools. The local factor is that Southern Baptists have been through a painful
controversy and schism between fundamentalists and moderates, and Baylor has
emerged as a stronghold for the latter. As Dembski put it, "Baylor
is&emdash;I didn't fully realize this&emdash;the bastion for the
moderates, where anything that smacks of fundamentalism, creationism, just
sends people through the roof."9
The
broader factor reflects the nature of Dembski's challenge to contemporary
academia. Like C. S. Lewis before him, William Dembski has dared to do
what has become unthinkable for many in the post-Enlightenment academy. He has
exposed the fact that "Naturalism [is] the implicit creed of half his
colleagues and (worse) that"&emdash;if he is right&emdash;"it
[is] nonsense."10
One
would think that faculty at a strong Christian school like Baylor University
would welcome such an academic, regardless of whether or not they agree with
his views. But with notable and courageous exceptions, this has not been the
case. There is too much evidence that Dembski's academic freedom has been denied
at Baylor to propitiate hostile faculty primarily concerned about secular
canons of academic respectability. For Christian faculty who are worried about
being associated with the "fundamentalist creationists," intelligent
design apparently is just too hot to handle. The risk, even if slight, of being
associated in any way with "creationism" seems to be too great to
face, even if it means ignoring both intelligence and design.
NOTES
1.
Fred Heeren, "The Lynching of Bill Dembski," The American Spectator,
November 2000.
2.
Ibid.
3.
Tony Carnes, "Design Interference," Christianity Today, December 4,
2000.
4.
Fred Heeren, "The Deed Is Done," The American Spectator, Dec.
2000/Jan. 2001.
5.
Lauren Kern, "In God's Country," Houston Press, December 14, 2000.
6.
Fred Heeren, "The Deed Is Done," op. cit.
7.
Fred Heeren, "The Lynching of Bill Dembski," op. cit.
8.
Michael D. Beaty, "Baylor University Responds to Misconceptions about the
Polanyi Center Controversy," Metanews, October 27, 2000.
9.
Lauren Kern, "In God's Country," op. cit.
10.
Harry Blamires, "Old Western Man," in David Mills (ed.), The
Pilgrim's Guide: C. S. Lewis and the Art of Witness (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Eerdmans, 1998), 18.
Angus
J. L. Menuge is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director of the
Cranach Institute Speaker Series at Concordia University Wisconsin.
Baylor's
Bastard Child
Editorial
by James Kushiner
Touchstone, May 2001
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=14-04-003-e
If
you only heard about Bill Dembski from his enemies, you would think Baylor
University was well rid of him as head of the Michael Polanyi Center, an
institution that Baylor invited Dembski to found in 1999. According to faculty
opponents, Dembski posed a threat to the science department at Baylor with his
ideas about intelligent design. In published stories last year, some even
accused him of practicing pseudo-science.
Dembski
is a leader in the intelligent design movement and the author of several
groundbreaking books, including The Design Inference (Cambridge
University Press) and Intelligent Design (InterVarsity). (In March, Signs
of Intelligence [Brazos Press], an expansion of Touchstone's 1999
issue on intelligent design, was released, edited by Dembski and me.)
A Front for
Creationism?
So
why was Dembski fired as director of a center dedicated to intelligent design
theory--at a Christian school? Essentially because intelligent design is not
considered legitimate science by many in the academic establishment and because
Dembski tired of playing the part of second-class citizen expected of him.
Intelligent
design is opposed by scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould,
who are philosophically committed to Darwinism, essentially a purely
naturalistic explanation for everything that exists: the cosmos, life, and
everything that makes us human beings. But materialist scientists are not the
only ones fiercely fighting Dembski and others. Some Christian scientists
committed to Darwinism (such as those at Baylor, a Baptist school) oppose
intelligent design as science because they believe it may be too closely
associated with "creationism," and creationism is not welcome in
serious academic circles. Creationism, generally speaking, takes as its
starting point Genesis 1, a "religious text," and seeks to conform
scientific findings to what is read (often literally, i.e., six 24-hour days)
therein.
But
Dembski and his intelligent design associates have limited their claims for
intelligent design to purely scientific research and data. In April 2000,
Dembski organized a conference at Baylor on "The Nature of Nature,"
which brought scientists together to debate intelligent design. Did the
conference--boycotted by most of the Baylor science faculty--live up to its
opponents' billing as a front for creationism? Hardly. Prominent scientists
opposed to intelligent design, including two Nobel laureates, dominated the
three-day event. And at the closing dinner of the conference, Christian De
Duve, the Nobel laureate from Belgium and one of the world's leading cell
biologists and evolutionists, rose and publicly complimented the scholarly
quality of the conference and the civility of the debate. He toasted the
organizers of a conference that had been, in his words, "intelligently
designed."
Misbehaving
Despite such affirmations, Dembski was treated as a bastard son of real
science. His critics tried to put Dembski in his place, but he didn't behave
himself.
�
Shortly
after the conference, the Baylor faculty voted to ask President Sloan to close
the center. Sloan formed a review committee. In October the committee released
its report, recommending that Dembski's work be recognized as legitimate
science. They also said that the Faith and Learning Center, under which the
Polanyi Center had been operating, should be free to run programs dealing with
intelligent design. But they also said the Polanyi name should be dropped,
effectively closing the center as it had been established. Further, they moved
the new unnamed entity under the umbrella of the Faith and Learning Center,
stipulating that Dembski could work there under an advisory board.
Apparently at Baylor, a Christian
university, if
an intelligent design theorist is given a
place
(under supervision), he'd best not get
uppity.
Dembski
cannily issued a public memo expressing his appreciation for the vindication of
his work on intelligent design, and his determination to carry on his research
"unabated" under a reorganized center as approved by the committee.
Then he went on to say that the opponents of intelligent design had "met
their Waterloo." He closed by commending Baylor "for remaining strong
in the face of intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression."
This
was too much for Dembski's opponents and a firestorm of protest broke out on
campus. Dembski was asked by Sloan to retract his celebratory memo. Unwilling
to do this, he was removed from the directorship for "uncollegial"
behavior. (For a fuller account and analysis of this story, see Angus
J. L. Menuge's "Few Signs of Intelligence" in this issue,
pp. 54�55.)
Their Loss
To
understand Baylor's perspective of Dembski and attitude toward him, think of
Baylor as a well-heeled family and Dembski as a bastard son (in their view) who
wants to be admitted to the family plantation (legitimate science). Well, after
the family examines his claim, they can't deny that this is indeed the son of
one of their boys (Cambridge University Press and a peer-reviewed book). But he
is a bastard and racially mixed (intelligent design seems to play into the
hands of those creationists). They admit him to the plantation (it would be
scandalous to turn him away), and they will take care of him (honor their
contract with him). They are stuck with him. But they will be darned if he will
have the privileges of the other family members. He really can't live in the
same house and eat his supper at the same table. He can live on the plantation,
but in the servants' quarters where he will work (under Baylor supervision).
The poor boy needs to remember his place.
Well,
when he hears this, crazy ol' Bill thanks the family for recognizing his
pedigree and for letting him move in (his memo). He walks right into the house
and gives thanks (his memo again) that justice has been done and that bigotry
has been set aside in his favor. He asks one of the ladies of the house what's
for dinner and might he be shown to his bedroom so he can tidy up beforehand.
Crazy Bill is hustled (demoted) back to the servants' quarters. He may be
related to the family, but he sure enough is not going to be treated as an
equal.
Apparently
at Baylor, a Christian university, if an intelligent design theorist is given a
place (under supervision), he'd best not get uppity. This is a shameful way to
treat someone initially hired to direct a new center for scientific research,
even if it is on a controversial theory.
We
think that Baylor's loss is sadly, well, their loss, and eventually will become
someone else's gain. For it would seem that when his contract is up, Dembski
could do better than work at a school that treats him as Baylor has. Oxford
University is sometimes remembered by admirers of C. S. Lewis as the place
where he taught most of his academic career and yet couldn't get a
professorship, largely because of his popularization of Christian doctrines and
his apologetic work. Lewis eventually received a professorship at Cambridge.
If
someday intelligent design theory--contrary to the devout wishes of many of the
Baylor science faculty--is established as the best scientific explanation for
life, it would be ironic (and fitting) if Baylor is remembered as the place
that demoted Bill Dembski.
--James
M. Kushiner, for the editors
William Dembski: An Intelligent Voice in the Design
Debate
An interview by Glenda Mathes
(appeared in the 28sep05 vol24, no2 issue of Christian Renewal)
Dr. William A. Dembski is one of the most articulate and productive
proponents of intelligent design theory. With advanced degrees in mathematics,
philosophy and theology, Dembski�s intellectual arguments are making inroads
within the scientific community while a more general audience finds his writing
understandable.
An astute debater and prolific author, Dembski has written, co-authored and
edited several books including: The
Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design,
No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity
Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance
through Small Probabilities, The
Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems, Science and Evidence for Design in the
Universe, Uncommon Dissent:
Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing and Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design.
Dr. Dembski is the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at the
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville and a senior fellow at the
Discovery Institute�s Center for Science and Culture.
Christian Renewal recently had the
opportunity to interview him via email.
CR: Dr. Dembski, you write in The
Design Revolution: �Intelligent design is not creationism and it is not
naturalism. Nor is it a compromise or synthesis of these positions. It simply
follows the empirical evidence of design wherever it leads. Intelligent design
is a third way� (pp. 26-27). Can you briefly explain for Christian Renewal
readers how intelligent design differs from creationism and naturalism and what
it offers as a �third way�?
WD: Naturalism affirms that reality is constituted of material entities
governed simply by undirected forces. Intelligence, from a naturalistic
perspective, is simply the result of material processes working over the course
of history (�blind evolution�). Creationism, on the other hand, affirms that
there is an intelligence that governs nature but then goes further to assert
that this intelligence is the Christian God who acted in line with Genesis, and
specifically by interpreting Genesis so that the days of creation are six
consecutive 24-hour days. Intelligent design is merely committed to an
intelligence acting in and governing nature, without any stake in harmonizing
this view with the Bible. Moreover, it claims to show that the actions of this
intelligence are scientifically detectable.
CR: Do you ever feel as if you�re caught between the �rock� of creationists,
who wish you were more overt in the expression of your biblical faith, and the �hard
place� of evolutionists who accuse you of covertly trying to inject biblical
faith into scientific debate?
WD: In fact, I tend to be on good terms with creationists. Duane Gish,
perhaps the best known young-earth creationist after Henry Morris, commended
intelligent design at a conference last year, saying �I love what you guys are
doing.� A few years back, John Morris, head of the Institute for Creation
Research likewise commended intelligent design to me, saying that while it did
not go the whole way with the Christian doctrine of creation, it did sound the
death knell for Darwinism, which he regards as a very good thing (as do I). I
think many creationists are happy to see intelligent design as a positive
contribution to our understanding of God�s handiwork in creation. To be sure,
intelligent design falls short of providing a full doctrine of creation and
some creationists are not entirely happy with this because they see it as
distracting Christians from such a fuller understanding. But even that
difference is ultimately a difference in emphasis. It does not undercut
intelligent design and its role within a Christian worldview. As for the
Darwinists and their efforts to try to identify intelligent design with young
earth creationism, this is merely a transparent ploy. It has no intellectual
merit. It is done simply for political purposes because creationism was
defeated in the courts in the 1980s, and by identifying the two, they hope to
avoid the hard work of defeating intelligent design by sound argument, something
they have been utterly incapable of doing.
CR: Why is the adjective �intelligent� necessary to distinguish intelligent
design from apparent design?
WD: Richard Dawkins in his book The
Blind Watchmaker asserts that �biology is the study of complicated things
that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.� The language
of design is common throughout biology. But most biologists take a
materialistic view of biological origins and regard biological complexity as
the result of an impersonal naturalistic process (e.g., natural selection and
random genetic change). Thus, for most biologists, every instance of design in
biology is merely apparent � there is no actual intelligence behind it. By
contrast, in putting the adjective �intelligent� in front of �design,�
proponents of intelligent design are emphasizing that they are referring to
real design and not merely to apparent design. Note also that the adjective �intelligent�
does not mean to imply anything about the goodness, cleverness, or competence
of the designing intelligence. It is merely stressing that the intelligence is
actual.
CR: Did you coin the term �specified complexity,� how would you define it,
and why is it so important for intelligent design theory?
WD: The term has been around for at least thirty years, though until I gave
it a rigorous formulation it was used intuitively or, as philosophers of
science might say, pre-theoretically. The term refers to a type of patterned
complexity that is best explained as the product of intelligence. Recall the
movie Contact, which was about the
search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Radio astronomers in the movie were
looking for signs of intelligence from outer space in radio signals. In the
movie they received a radio signal that came in as a sequence of beats and
pauses. It was a long sequence, so it was complex. But complexity itself was
not enough to require a design explanation (get out a coin and start flipping
it long enough, and you�ll witness a highly complex sequence of coin tosses;
still there won�t be any design there). Additionally what was needed was that
the signal these astronomers received exhibited a salient pattern � in this
case, it was a sequence of prime numbers. So it was complexity plus a
particular type of pattern, what I call a specification, that convinced the
astronomers that they were dealing with intelligence. This concept is important
to intelligent design theory because it shows that we are not just blowing
smoke � we have solid methods for identifying the effects of intelligence that
in principle are applicable to biological systems. In other words, intelligent
design is fully scientific.
CR: You�ve written several books and numerous articles, given lectures and
participated in debates promoting the intelligent design theory. Yet it seems
as if the more you articulate, the harsher criticism you receive. For instance,
H. Allen Orr in �Devolution: Why intelligent design isn�t,� which appeared in
the May 30, 2005 issue of The New Yorker,
admits that your books �are generally well written and packed with provocative
ideas,� but he also sharply criticizes you and calls intelligent design �junk
science.� How do you view such attacks? Are they part of Darwinism�s death
throes?
WD: I like to think of how scientists are reacting to intelligent design in
terms of the stages of grief when someone is confronted with a catastrophe.
Intelligent design represents nothing less than a catastrophe to conventional
materialistic science, committed as it is to an atheistic understanding of the
physical world. That�s because if we�re right, it�s not just evolutionary
theory that must change but our very conception of science, which must open
itself to intelligence as a fundamental power in nature. Recall that the stages
of grief are usually the following:
1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance
Even two or three years ago, the scientific community was still in a state
of denial, denying that ID was any sort of factor in scientific discussions. We�re
now clearly in the anger stage, with violent attempts to shut down the
discussion (Orr�s criticisms are actually fairly tame � compare, for instance,
the attacks by his close colleague Jerry Coyne). I expect soon enough
evolutionists will start bargaining, attempting to minimize the importance of
ID while trying to incorporate some of its legitimate insights. The problem is
that ID cannot be assimilated into a strict materialism, and so the more
atheistic scientists will become depressed. As for acceptance, I doubt that the
old guard will ever get that far. Rather, acceptance will come from a younger
generation that is able to throw off the shackles of materialistic thinking.
CR: When you wrote your preface to No
Free Lunch in 2002, you were an associate research professor with no
teaching duties at Baylor University�s Institute for Faith and Learning and
thanked Robert Sloan, the University president, for the opportunity to devote �uninterrupted
time� to research on intelligent design. Last September you were appointed as
director of the newly established Center for Science and Theology at Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary and began your new duties as the Carl F.H. Henry
Professor of Theology and Science on June 1. What happened at Baylor?
WD: My story at Baylor has been widely reported and I give a complete
chronicle on my website
(www.designinference.com/documents/2005.05.ID_at_Baylor.htm). The short of what
happened is that dogmatic materialists, both inside and outside the school,
pressured the Baylor administration to shut down an intelligent design research
center that the administration had previously encouraged me to found. The
administration bowed to pressure.
CR: One of your first actions at the Michael Polanyi Center at Baylor was to
organize the impressive April 2000 conference on �The Nature of Nature,� which
examined the role of naturalism in science, featured high profile scientists
(including two Nobel laureates) from a variety of disciplines, and allowed
good-natured exchanges between differing views. It was a huge success. In spite
of that, the Faculty Senate voted overwhelmingly just a few days later to
request that the Baylor Administration dissolve the Center. The Administration
appointed an External Review Committee whose report, while flattering Baylor�s
scientific community, endorsed the work of the Center by suggesting that it
expand its vision and change its name to reflect that broader scope. Your press
release in response hailed the Committee�s report as a victory not only for
academic freedom, but also for intelligent design �as a legitimate form of
academic inquiry.� The final two sentences of your press release, which created
an immediate uproar, stated: �Dogmatic opponents of design who demanded 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.� Looking back on the firestorm that ensued from that
press release, do you think you might have been hasty and do you regret the
wording? Or do you believe your response was necessary and appropriate?
WD: Many people have interpreted my press release and the now famous �Waterloo�
comment (it was widely reported in the press; Google reports over 500 hits) as
an intemperate assault by a feisty academic who should have known when to shut
up. Now that my appointment with Baylor is over, let me give you the real
story. In May of 2000, before the review committee was installed, I was invited
to speak on Capitol Hill before members of Congress. This was a bipartisan
briefing � not a hearing � so there was no policy or law to be enacted on the
basis of my remarks.
The Baylor administration, despite installing me as director of the Polanyi
Center with duties to raise monies for the center, forbade me from attending
this conference. I decided to play along (despite the clear violation of my
academic freedom), but when a press release mistakenly appeared saying that I
would be at the meeting on Capitol Hill after all, the Baylor campus was in an
uproar and the Baylor administration drafted a letter which they wanted me to
sign addressed to the Baylor community assuring them that I was not going to
the Capitol Hill briefing because that would politicize intelligent design,
something I could not do as director of the Polanyi Center.
I told the administration that I did not attend the briefing out of courtesy
to them because of all the pressure they were under on account of the Polanyi
Center, but that I would not sign the letter because I saw it as well within my
prescribed duties to attend such meetings and that in the future I would do so.
They reacted very negatively to this. In fact, they wanted to settle with me
right then and there and show me to the door. I had to get a lawyer and after
two months of negotiations they offered me $15,000 to buy me out of a five and
a half year contract. I told them to forget it and that I would be moving to
Waco [Ed. note: Baylor is located in Waco]. All this happened summer of 2000.
When the review committee finally met in September of 2000, it was a star
chamber. I was grilled. All my works were scrutinized. I had no recourse to
anyone on or outside campus. Unlike tenure review decisions, all the findings
of the committee would be made public. John Moore, one of the persons on the
committee, was interviewed in the local paper the day before the committee met
with me and told the reporter that I was clever but that my work had only
political, not scientific, significance. So the deck was already stacked
against me.
When the committee issued its report a month later, they made four
recommendations: (1) drop the name of the Polanyi Center; (2) absorb whatever
entity it might become into Baylor�s Institute for Faith and Learning (in which
I had no administrative authority); (3) change the emphasis of whatever this
center might become from the scientific investigation of intelligent design to
that fuzzy catch-all category known as �science and religion�; and (4)
institute an advisory board to determine what should be done on the Baylor
campus with regard to science and religion issues. In short, there was no more
Polanyi Center.
The Baylor administration immediately signed off on these recommendations. I
was to have been given two days notice about the review committee�s
recommendations and the Baylor administration�s decision whether to adopt them.
Instead, I learned of the recommendations Monday late afternoon. By Tuesday
morning the review committee�s report was broadcast all over the Internet along
with the Baylor administration�s full endorsement. By Tuesday afternoon the
press was after me for comment. I therefore decided to issue the press release
to which you referred. The one bright spot in the peer review committee report
was that they had said my work had legitimacy. I decided to highlight that in
the press release.
On the other hand, my whole purpose for coming to Baylor had been thwarted.
My �Waterloo� comment was meant to underscore the irony, indeed the
ridiculousness, of these entire proceedings. Unfortunately, those Baylor
faculty who were most eager to shut down the Polanyi Center were also the most
humorless people I have ever met. Rather than seeing the irony and
understanding that they had been completely victorious in crushing the Polanyi
Center, they agitated still further, thereby compounding the irony. Thus Baylor
president Robert Sloan, after shutting down the Polanyi Center, went further
and fired me from a center that no longer existed. I still have that letter.
CR: Now that you�ve received the appointment at the Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary and are regularly teaching classes, how will you find time
to continue your research and your prolific publication schedule? How will your
current work at the Seminary promote your goals with regard to intelligent
design?
WD: As for my duties at Southern Seminary, I see this as an opportunity to
influence and attract talent to the ID movement from a denomination that has by
and large stayed faithful to traditional Christian belief. I don�t see my
teaching duties as undercutting my research. I can do doctoral seminars on
books that I�m writing, and I find it helpful to interact with students to see
how my ideas are being received and how I need to clarify them.
CR: In your preface to The Design
Revolution, you write that clearing away the stumbling blocks is �the most
important task in moving the design revolution forward.� What are the primary
stumbling blocks, what can the average person do to clear them away, and why
should a Christian work to promote intelligent design theory?
WD: As for clearing away stumbling blocks, I was referring to questions
raised in many people�s minds about intelligent design that prevent them from
taking its claims seriously. I think my book The Design Revolution does a good job clearing away such obstacles,
as do many other books and videos that my colleagues and I have recently
produced � I think especially of the video Unlocking the Mystery of Life,
available through Illustra Media. Such a �ground clearing� operation is
important from the vantage of Christian apologetics because atheists and
agnostics often appeal to a materialistic way of viewing science to dismiss the
claims of Christian faith. Richard Dawkins, for instance, remarks that Darwin
made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Intelligent design
no longer leaves atheists that option.
CR: I�ve read that a sovereign Creator who was also a personal God was �off
your radar� when you were younger. How and when did that change for you and
what role has your Christian faith played in developing your theories of
intelligent design? What role does your faith continue to play in your work?
WD: I would say my faith has been very important in getting me to think that
certain lines of scientific inquiry might prove fruitful when, on materialistic
grounds, those lines of inquiry would be precluded from the start. In short, my
faith encouraged me to look in new places and explore new possibilities. Robert
Schuller has coined the phrase �possibility thinking,� which, regardless of how
one views Schuller�s theology, seems to capture what my faith brought to my
scientific and intellectual endeavors. Because Christian theology teaches that
God by wisdom made the world, it is a perfectly natural question whether any
aspects of that wisdom might be evident to scientific investigation. What I
found is a natural world chock-full of design.