Group:
Here is an article in Christianity Today's Books and Culture defending
Dembski.
The fallout from this in the Christian world may be only just beginning!
What *are* they so afraid of?
Steve
=========================================================================
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/143/11.0.html
Books & Culture Corner: Unintelligent Designs
Baylor's dismissal of Polyani Center director Dembski was not a smart move.
By John Wilson | posted 10/23/00
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, Demsbki, 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 a substantial
portion of the entire report 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" that is, professionally up to snuff 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.
=========================================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the final analysis, it is not any specific scientific evidence that convinces
me that Darwinism is a pseudoscience that will collapse once it becomes
possible for critics to get a fair hearing. It is the way the Darwinists argue
their case that makes it apparent that they are afraid to encounter the best
arguments against their theory. A real science does not employ propaganda
and legal barriers to prevent relevant questions from being asked, nor does
it rely on enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the
official story. If the Darwinists had a good case to make, they would
welcome the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and they would
want to confront the best critical arguments rather than to caricature them
as straw men. Instead they have chosen to rely on the dishonorable
methods of power politics." (Johnson P.E., "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting
the Foundations of Naturalism," Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL.,
2000, p.141)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 26 2000 - 20:00:51 EDT