Steve,
I think we need to clear up some things. You accuse me of greatly
disliking the conservatism of science. How you got this idea is
beyond me, but this is simply not true. I never claimed any type
of conspiracy against religion, so why you brought that claim up
is equally as mysterious. I never argued anywhere that science
should embrace ID nor did I argue that the science faculty at
Baylor should embrace the Polanyi Center. In my mind, all of this
is clearly off-topic, so let me try to bring this back to the
concerns I actually raised.
You write:
>What you have described in you last few posts on this topic is
>behavior that is intrinsic to science.
I hope not. For what we have seen are scientists and philosophers
relying on misleading and inflammatory rhetoric in order to shut down
the Polanyi Center. This is shameful activity for a group of people
who would like to be considered scholars. Let's keep some facts in
mind.
First, the Baylor administration did not attach the Polanyi Center to
a science department or division. I would support the faculties' concern
if indeed this ID think tank was fused with a science department. But
it was/is not.
Yes, Dembski and Gordon adopt very controversial positions many
might view as a "threat to science." But if this is justification for
banning the Polanyi Center from academia, why stop there? Many
feminist scholars, among the university, have promoted the thesis that
science is a patriarchal system that rapes nature. Post-modernists
call into question some of the most basic assumptions for doing science.
The animal rights movement, that has sought to ban animal experimentation,
is often alive-and-well on many campuses and has leaders who are
part of academia. Shall we extend our witch hunt further or are we
selectively biased in what witches we seek to hunt out?
As I said, this is an issue bigger that our opinions about origins. This is
an issue of academic freedom and whether such freedom depends on
sharing certain "correct" views of the world. Regardless of one's views
about Dembki's views, the level of his arguments and the nature of his
academic background are not obviously inferior to the average faculty
member of any other university. His opinions are controversial, yes. So
what? Isn't that what the university setting is supposed to be about? If you
people want to all go on record as being in opposition to academic freedom,
then be my guest and say so. We can explore this intolerance of other views
in more depth.
Secondly, the faculty is not required to embrace the Polanyi Center.
Nor does anyone claim they are obligated to agree with the views of
Dembski and Gordon. And the existence of this Center has no
influence whatsoever on the science curricula at the college. The
university is supposed to be a place that engenders tolerance and
diversity. What is interesting is that while the Christian faculty
of Baylor still seem to live in an age where intolerance and
conformity are values, the Polanyi Center hosted a first-rate
conference that was tolerant, diverse, and inclusive.
The Polanyi Center asks questions that draws scientists from
around the world with all sorts of views and embodies the
true spirit of academia. On the other hand, the ID critics
rely on the use of misleading labels and inflammatory rhetoric
with the objective of shutting down any meaningful dialog.
Thirdly, the issue of "reputation" keeps coming up in these
news articles. This is a gold mine to explore, as a concern for
reputation is purely subjective and is tied to socio-political
considerations. Is the faculties' concern at Baylor unique to
this school, or is there something deeper here about how
science is practiced that might be relevant to the overall
issue that is debated?
Steve:
>We all should keep in mind that science is a very conservative enterprise
>and you are seeing this in action at Baylor. While such conservatism runs
>the risk of rejecting novel truths, it also strongly protects against
>falsehoods being accepted as truth. The alternative to this conservative
>behavior of the scientific collective is to lower the barrier of what is
>accepted to be true, which would increase the risk of sanctioning ideas
>that are false.
Ami nailed it on the head: " We should be conservative as to what is
accepted, but not what is explored."
You are defending the actions of the status quo to eliminate any
attempt to *explore* an unpopular view from within the walls of
academia. You are defending intellectual segregation, rabid intolerance
of another's viewpoint, the use of cheap rhetoric to serve a political
agenda, and an attack on academic freedom rationalized with an
"ends justifies the means" approach. At least, that is how I see it.
If I am wrong, perhaps you can clear this up with something more
relevant than an argument about the conservative nature of
science.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 20 2000 - 00:58:12 EDT