Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Bill Dembski: Trouble happens when they find out you mean business

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Continuing with James Barham’s The Best Schools interview with design theorist Bill Dembski – who founded this blog, we look at how he managed to not avoid trouble, principally with Christian academics:

WD: The problem is that within a month of publishing The Design Inference, I also published Mere Creation, the proceedings of a 1996 conference at Biola on creation and design. In that book, I did put my cards on the table regarding where I saw the methods developed in The Design Inference leading. So, Darwinists quickly made the connection and started going after the earlier book.

Another thing that worked against the book is that I was hired shortly after its publication to found and direct Baylor’s Michael Polanyi Institute. This gave me national prominence, to the consternation of Darwinists in- and outside of Baylor, and thus incentivized them to refute the book at all costs. When the Polanyi Center was dissolved a year later (more about this below), many who had their finger to the wind and wondered whether to back intelligent design, backed down. I stayed on at Baylor to complete my contract, but was persona non grata the entire time.

In 1999, I could still get a job in the mainstream academy on the basis of my work in The Design Inference. By the fall of 2000, my career was toast.

Okay, let’s hop to the Polanyi Institute. What happened there?

TBS: In 2000, after organizing and hosting a very successful and visible international conference (whose proceedings, coedited by you and Bruce Gordon, are now published as The Nature of Nature [ISI, 2011]), you were first demoted, then essentially fired, by Baylor University, in Waco, Texas. Can you explain how this came about? What were the ramifications of Baylor throwing you under the bus for you personally? What do you think the long-term ramifications of this incident have been for our intellectual culture as a whole?

WD: The short of it is that Baylor hired me to start an intelligent design think-tank, the Michael Polanyi Center, we put on a tremendously successful conference, and three days after the conference the faculty senate voted 27–2 to shut the center down. Not immediately, but a few months later, the Baylor administration acceded to the faculty senate’s wishes.

When I protested the center’s dissolution, I was fired as director from a center that had already ceased to exist. This, at Baylor—an ostensibly Christian institution. But in fact, the science faculty at Baylor were probably more Darwinian than their secular counterparts, having to prove that they were as “reliable” in their science as those outside.

The whole story is available online, arranged chronologically in a series of news articles: “The Rise and Fall of Baylor University’s Michael Polanyi Center.” If I had it to do again, I would never have gone to Baylor. But the past is past. It’s all there. It made national news. And Baylor got a black eye for its failure to respect freedom of thought and expression. But massive institutions like Baylor can handle a bit of battering. Private individuals who get chewed up by them are less fortunate.

Mmmm. For many Christian academics, the worst news possible is that the atheists they are discreetly selling out to don’t have the goods anyway. They don’t hate anyone as much as they hate the guy who can demonstrate that fact.

Next: What Dembski is planning to do now.

See also:

Why Bill Dembski took aim against the Darwin frauds and their enablers #1

Why Bill Dembski took aim against the Darwin frauds and their enablers Part 2

Bill Dembski: The big religious conspiracy revealed #3

Bill Dembski: Evolution “played no role whatever” in his conversion to Christianity #4

So how DID Bill Dembski get interested in intelligent design? #5a

So how DID Bill Dembski get interested in intelligent design? #5b – bad influences, it seems

Comment on Dembski interview here.

Comments
champignon states in regards to the censorship, which is enforced by law in public schools, at the behest of the NCSE cronies, of any questioning of neo-Darwinism, which no other 'science' ever taught in public schools has ever had to do before,,,
The facts aren’t in dispute.
Really champignon??? then why in blue blazes do you sit here day after day, fighting tooth and nail, disputing the 'facts' with such shallow rationalizations that everyone can see through???,, Personally, I can't find any substantiating facts whatsoever to prove the basic premises of neo-Darwinism
Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit
As well, I find that the recently discovered 'facts' of science, whether you personally agree with them or not, falsify neo-Darwinism completely!!!
Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US/edit?hl=en_US
Moreover I find neo-Darwinism to be, in reality, a pseudo-science with no more explanatory/predictive power than tarot cards;
Science and Pseudoscience - Imre Lakatos - exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’, i.e. as a pseudoscience, using Lakatos's rigid criteria https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpGd3smTV1RwmEXC25IAEKMjiypBl5VJq9ssfv4JgeM/edit
Moreover I find the atheistic-materialistic worldview, not Theism, to be the true science stopper:
Is Randomness really the rational alternative to the 'First Mover' of Theists? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pSSfbR2QFZ5JAJTOsrEXQDqkJ_6zPTvYNGwcI4YDvRY/edit
Whereas contrary to the delusions you so fervently believe in, of God being a anti-science position, the Judeo-Christian worldview not only was the worldview that brought modern science to a sustainable maturity, but is also the worldview that 'science' continues to nurse at for success;
Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit?hl=en_US
No champignon, the reason that neo-Darwinism has to sue public schools to keep any questioning of neo-Darwinism from being taught, is not that the facts are not in dispute, as you claim, it is because neo-Darwinism cannot stand the light of critical scrutiny or else it falls completely apart!!!bornagain77
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
From that interview:
And the “exit interview” of Richard Dawkins by Ben Stein is classic. Stein gets Dawkins to admit that ID might be legitimate, so long as the designer is not God but a space alien who evolved by Darwinian means. I almost always show that clip in my public presentations of ID. Indeed, Dawkins gives away the store in those two minutes.
Dembski himself "gives away the store" in those words, and reveals that he is not, despite his claim, "a scientist at heart". He's a theologian. And that's the problem he faces with regard to the scientific "academy" (which is, of course no such monolith).Elizabeth Liddle
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
Is this not an example of 'following the evidence where it leads,' in the sense of human communication and social action? The link provided to "the whole story," presented by William Dembski himself in the interview, constitutes 'evidence' of a certain historical variety, does it not? This stuff happened; we are each of us left to interpret the evidence in our own way. Such is the (academic) 'freedom' of interpretation that the 'intelligent design' movement is promoting. Is bornagain77 questioning whether or not Dembski actually said and did those things at & wrt Baylor University, i.e. that they 'happened,' or just expressing his/her disinterest in and antagonism ('culture war'-style) to anything said or written by NCSE? Does she/he value the truth of the evidence or care more about who is displaying it and whether or not they support or share his/her ideology or worldview? As for me, I try to 'follow the evidence where it leads' as a human-social scientist. So, let me offer this somewhat mysterious suggestion of 'evidence' soon to be uncovered publically on the internet: A solution to the most important piece to the puzzle about 'intelligent design' in the past decade (including anything Dembski himself has contributed) was found yesterday, in a hotel lounge in Eastern Europe, during a discussion about 'interdisciplinarity'. Ironically, during some of the presentations given at the conference that provided the background for the 'discovery,' the terms 'Inter-Disciplinarity' and 'Inter-Disciplinary' were shorthanded to 'ID.' ;) With the creator(s) of this thread, we are agreed that "Trouble happens when they find out you mean business," i.e. that you take seriously the ideas and perspectives that they hold, interepting them and the evidence in new ways. However, Dembski's interpretation that "Naturalism currently dominates science" doesn't hold sway the same way outside of 'natural sciences.' There is thus another story waiting to be told.Gregory
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT
F/N: Onlookers, NCSE has zero credibility, much like Talk Origins, Anti Evolution, Wikipedia and similar ideological Lewontinian a priori materialism talking point dispensers on these matters; save when they testify against their known interest and/or are backed up by other more reasonable sources. A capital example is their championing (esp. Ms Forrest, B) of the lie -- it is false, they know or should know it is false, and they choose to propagate it to persuade the naively trusting or gullible anyway -- that ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo. So, above, if you have a choice between BA and Ch's accounts [sorry Ch, I suspect you don't know the background context for my evaluation, I am just letting you know the problem with citing the source], you know which to pick. KFkairosfocus
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
Easy, BA. The NCSE is just the messenger. The facts aren't in dispute. I have to admit that I felt sorry for Dembski when the yahoos at SWBTS hauled him before the Inquisition for doubting teh Flud. P.S. BA, I've asked before, but didn't get an answer. What's with the triple and quadruple commas?champignon
January 27, 2012
January
01
Jan
27
27
2012
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT
Perhaps I'm missing something, but is this the same NCSE (National Center for Selling Evolution) Of Eugenie Scott, Nick Matzke fame??? where they sue public schools at the drop of a hat to keep any questioning of Darwinism out of public schools? ,,,, And do you support this censorship by law they enforce??? If so, Please tell me what other 'science', as if Darwinism is even a science, must pass laws so that it will not even be questioned in the classroom???bornagain77
January 27, 2012
January
01
Jan
27
27
2012
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
Bill Dembski: Trouble happens when they find out you mean business
Trouble also happens when you have a chronic case of foot-in-mouth disease, as Dembski does. From an NCSE article entitled "Baylor's Polanyi Center in Turmoil":
So the Michael Polanyi Center was stripped of its name, placed squarely under the jurisdiction of a philosophy and religion administrative unit, subjected to a faculty advisory committee, and not very subtly put on notice that ID lacked status as a scholarly enterprise. Nonetheless, on October 17, Director Dembski issued a stirring press release declaring victory for ID and the MPC. Although the Center was placed firmly under the aegis of the IFL, and it was the IFL that was encouraged to go beyond ID in its consideration of science and religion issues, Dembski's press release announced that the MPC had been given a broader mission. The stripping of the name "Polanyi" from the Center was spun as "the Center will therefore receive a new name to reflect this expanded vision". The admonition of the Center to conduct ID research only "when carried out professionally" juxtaposed with the citation of an article harshly critical of Dembski was transformed into "the triumph of intelligent design as a legitimate form of academic inquiry" and an "unqualified affirmation of my own work on intelligent design." Although many reading the committee's report and Dembski's press release might question whether Dembski "got it", apparently another sentence in the press release got him in trouble. Baylor critics of the MPC would have preferred a more strongly-worded committee report, but in general were satisfied with the results as a compromise between sides with strong disagreements. It appeared that perhaps peace could be restored after the committee's report had been issued. But in his press release, Dembski thumbed his nose at critics, shattering any possibility of effective interaction with a large percentage of the faculty. He gloated, "Dogmatic opponents of design who demanded the Center be shut down have met their Waterloo." Through newspaper accounts and personal communications, NCSE learned that members of the science faculty and the Baylor Faculty Senate expressed outrage to President Sloan over Dembski's uncollegial behavior, and on October 19, the Director of the Institute for Faith and Learning, Michael Beaty, announced that "Dembski's actions after the release of the report compromised his ability to serve as director" and relieved him of his position. Dembski's associate, Bruce Gordon, described as holding "a PhD in the history and philosophy of physics from Northwestern University, as well as degrees in mathematics, philosophy, theology and piano performance", was appointed as interim director, although he has stated that he does not wish to be the permanent director. On the same day, Dembski followed up with another press release responding to his dismissal. He claimed that the administration had called him on the carpet, asking that he withdraw his inflammatory press release. Dembski refused on the grounds that he meant what he had said "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." The inflammatory press release became for Dembski a matter of principle, and he accused the administration of "intellectual McCarthyism," a statement that is not likely to mend fences. Ironically, it was President Sloan who had established the MPC, defended it against a faculty outraged at the cavalier way in which it had been established, and supported Dembski all along. Now Dembski was accusing Sloan of "the utmost of bad faith", as if Sloan intended from the beginning to sack him: Dembski claimed that his refusal to withdraw an inflammatory press release "provided the fig leaf of justification for my removal".
Apparently Dembski hadn't sufficiently antagonized everyone at Baylor, because seven years later he was forced to apologize for more idiocy:
Nonetheless, on this blog I went too far in trying to hold up the Baylor administration’s actions to the light of day. I let it get personal and went over the edge in three things: (1) posting a parody letter attributed to Baylor President Lilley; (2) posting contact information for the Baylor Board of Regents in an effort to apply pressure to the Baylor administration; (3) posting an exchange between Peter Irons and John Lilley largely for the purpose of embarassing both.
It wasn't just "contact information" that he posted. It was home phone numbers, home addresses and private email addresses.
I’ve removed all three posts and herewith extend a public apology to the Baylor administration and Board of Regents for these actions on this blog.
When Dembski ponders why his career has imploded, he should remember to look in the mirror.champignon
January 27, 2012
January
01
Jan
27
27
2012
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply