Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Walt Ruloff op-ed on academic suppression at Baylor — “Does the Baylor administration believe in God?”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Walt Ruloff, the executive producer of the Ben Stein movie EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED, has an amazing op-ed in today’s Baylor Lariat, the school newspaper. WOW!

BU administration silencing science by design
Sept. 18, 2007

It may sound like a crazy question, but it needs to be asked: Does the administration at Baylor believe in God?

This is a legitimate question in light of the university’s heavy-handed actions in shutting down the research Web site of Dr. Robert Marks.

As many of you have heard, Marks, a distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering, has been conducting research that ultimately may challenge the foundation of Darwinian theory. In layman’s terms, Marks is using highly sophisticated mathematical and computational techniques to determine if there are limits to what natural selection can do.

At Baylor, a Christian institution, this should be pretty unremarkable stuff. I’m assuming most of the faculty, students and alumni believe in God, so wouldn’t it also be safe to assume you have no problem with a professor trying to scientifically quantify the limits of a blind, undirected cause of the origin and subsequent history of life?

It would seem this kind of research would be praised and encouraged at Baylor.

But the dirty little secret is university administrators are much more fearful of the Darwinian Machine than they are of you.

I’ve spent the last two years of my life researching the widely accepted Neo-Darwinian theory and the theory of Intelligent Design.

My team and I (including lawyer, economist, actor, game show host and social commentator Ben Stein) have interviewed dozens of the world’s top experts in biology, astronomy, physics and philosophy.

What we have uncovered in our documentary film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, is an attack on freedom of speech and scientific inquiry that is as frightening as it is appalling. And it’s happening right here at Baylor.

Last month Dr. Ben Kelley, dean of engineering and computer science, shut down Marks’ Web site. He apparently had the blessing of President John Lilley. Why? The university put forth a bunch of phony-baloney procedural explanations that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

The truth however, can be found in an e-mail sent to Marks by Ben Kelley in which he told Marks, “I have received several concerned messages…” about his Web site. These complaints have been kept anonymous. How convenient.

Here’s what’s going on: Somebody within the scientific community let Kelley know that Marks was running a Web site that was friendly to Intelligent Design.

Such a thing is completely unacceptable in today’s university system — even at a Christian institution. Kelley was probably told to have the site shut down immediately or suffer the consequences.

What are those consequences? The ultimate penalty is to have Baylor marginalized by being designated as not a “legitimate institution of higher learning.” So designated merely for the “crime” of allowing Neo-Darwinism to be questioned, since conventional elitist wisdom holds it’s no longer a theory but an inviolable truth.

Do you think this is some kind of fanciful conspiracy theory? Google the names of Richard Sternberg, Caroline Crocker, Guillermo Gonzalez, Dean Kenyon and Bill Dembski and see what you find. These distinguished scientists have suffered severe consequences for questioning Darwinian theory and there are hundreds, if not thousands, more.

We want to speak with President Lilley about this academic suppression, so we are going to give him one more chance. Mr. Stein is sending a crew down to knock on President Lilley’s door Thursday, September 20.

Will he talk? We hope so. But even if he doesn’t, the actions of the Baylor administration will be in our film.

Walt Ruloff

Executive producer, Premise Media

Comments
jerry I certainly understand where you're coming from. Recall I'm the one who wrote a post here nearly two years ago saying I was going to delete anything that attempted to dispute common ancestry and an old earth. That said, I can't say I'm convinced that the YEC contingent is wrong. We appear to live in a universe that is governed by immutable physical laws and everything is understandable by those laws. Certainly if we apply these laws backward in time we see an old universe and common descent. Appearances however can be deceptive. There's nothing that proves the universe, the laws that govern it, and its apparent history weren't created any time from a moment ago to billions of years ago. Consider that time and space now appear to be digital (pixelated). There is a Planck length and a Planck time. This is strikingly like how computer simulations (artificial realities) are constructed. A master clock ticks and at each clock tick a set of rules are applied and the model is updated from one state to the next. The programmer (or hardware designer) chooses the clock rate and rules that apply. He may change both the rules and the clock rate at his whim. He can also start the simulation running with any arbitrary set of initial conditions. He can also stop and start the model at any time. If we as conscious human beings are constructs inside such a model how would we be able to know if what we observe is real or the machinations of some entity outside the model? All we can do is look for inconsistencies (violations) of the rules that govern the model. So far I don't think we've categorically observed any inconsistencies but since the apparent history of the model, viewed from inside the model, is manipulable by an outside agency we really have no way of knowing if the clock was stopped and the rules were changed and the state of the system changed to make the new rules appear to be the rules that were there all along. ID is basically a tentative finding of an inconsistency. If RM+NS is the true source of organic evolution it is so statistically unlikely to have generated the patterns that we see that it warrants a conclusion that there's an entity involved who either stacked the deck (set up the initial conditions and laws to produce a certain outcome), which is the deist position of esteemed minds like Einstein, or there's an entity that intervened over the course of time to steer the course of events towards a desired outcome. I prefer the deist position - the deck was stacked one time and the immutable rules take over from there in a clockwork universe not because it must be that way but because it makes the universe rational and predictable. DaveScot
September 21, 2007
September
09
Sep
21
21
2007
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
Jehu, I once was in a Ph.D. program in mathematics and have had several courses in probability and statistics. I was also an undergraduate physics major and have read a lot of biology and genetics and most of the books written on ID and evolution. And I have read most of the discussions here for the last two years. So assume I know what much of the technical discussionS are about including the probability aspects of it. And I also am eager to learn which I frequently do while participating in or reading these discussions. What I find interesting about your comments is that I am one who usually insists that the discussions remain on science. But as I said on another recent thread it is hard to ignore the 2000 pound gorilla in the room when you are trying to keep the discussion strictly on science.jerry
September 21, 2007
September
09
Sep
21
21
2007
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT
Dave, You should know what I understand about ID from my comments over the last couple years. You should also know that ID is heavily identified with religion in the public's mind, rightly or wrongly. And this identification is exploited strongly by those who oppose ID. This site is the main site on the internet for discussing ID and religion is a constant point of discussion here. It is one thing to proclaim on the upper right hand corner of every page what ID is about and to have the link to its definition and then to have a large portion of the discussions here concern the religious implications of it and then deny that ID is not about religion. ID is not just associated with religion in general but heavily associated with one interpretation of religion. Then to go on and make believe that this association does not exist is "having one's head in the sand." Especially when it comes back to bite you such as in the recent cases at Iowa State and Baylor. It is one thing to discuss specific empirical findings of scientific endeavors but there is another empirical finding that we all ignore and that is the actual perception in the public's mind. We can excoriate all we want the hypocrisy of the Darwinists but it does no good if it doesn't move us closer to the objective most of us want. We can then ask how that perception is generated and whether discussions on this site contribute to the perception or not. By the way it is more than geology and biology involved in the YEC science controversy, it is also astronomy or cosmology and maybe physics in general that is under attack. I do not believe if one wants to be thought of as an honest purveyor of knowledge in science to then proclaim the hypocrisy of one group's conclusions and then stand by and not denounce the hypocrisy of another group's conclusions. Especially when that second lack of denunciation is the source of many of your problems. You cannot cherry pick which science standards you accept and object to. If computer science was under attack because of its association with a bogus approach to science and it didn't denounce this association then you would think it was "nuts." There would probably be a journal devoted to just why it is not associated to this bad approach to science. It would be self preservation.jerry
September 21, 2007
September
09
Sep
21
21
2007
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT
jerry What aspect of YEC does ID refute? I'm quite willing to point out anything philosophic, religious, or scientific that ID theory somehow refutes. I simply can't find anything about ID that disputes YEC. Geology is the primary science in conflict with YEC. It's unreasonable to demand that ID proponents speak to the age of the earth. It's like demanding that computer scientists make statements about the age of the earth. Nothing about computer science speaks to the age of the earth. The demands made by members of the Church of Darwin that ID leaders like Dembski and Behe reject YEC reveal more about the agenda of the chance worshippers than anything else. When IDists refuse to distance themselves from the YEC crowd the chance worshippers smugly say "Aha! ID is just religion in disguise." What is really revealed by this is that the chance worshippers are at war with religion. The "ID is bad science" mantra is transparently disingenuous.DaveScot
September 21, 2007
September
09
Sep
21
21
2007
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT
StephenB
Jerry, I certainly agree with your comment that YEC is a mill stone around the neck of ID.
Oh please, that is very niave. The mill stone around ID's neck is that it threatens materialist dogma. Then again, the NCSE needs ID as a reason to exist and continue to raise funds. According to the NCSE, ID is huge and growing even bigger. It has spread to the UK where a disturbing precentage of university students agree with it. ID is a threat! Send your checks to the NCSE! Meanwhile, p. falciparum is still not evolving.Jehu
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT
jerry,
I love it. This is an attitude that will bury ID.
Wrong. ID is not about attitude, it is about the evidence. What will bury ID is evidence that Darwinism can actually create complex specified information. So far the evidence is nil.
What makes you think you understand what ID is and I don’t. Read what I say carefully.
I have. You don't appear to understand ID. You seem only to understand things like attitude, motive, affiliations, and image. I invited you to make an intelligent comment about "the universal probability bound, specified complexity, or the probability of creating complex specified information via a random walk and how any of those concepts are based on religion" and you ducked. Jerry, explain for me how the universal probability bound is based on Christianity. Also explain how failure to condem YEC affects the UPB. I am waiting to hear your insightful answer.Jehu
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT
Jerry, I owe you an apology. I think I am beginning to see your point. Is this what you are saying? Each time we express outrage over Baylor's treatment of Prof. Marks. we are dramatizing the fact that a Christian university should be willing to accomodate a relgion-friendly approach to science. How, then, can we keep making indirect references about how religion-friendly ID is without underminng the fact that it is not BASED on religion. Keep in mind that context is everything. This problem comes up all the time. The fact that ID is consistent with some religious perspectives does not in any way take away from the fact that its methods are soley empirical. We should not lose this opportunity to expose the oppressors and hold their feet to the fire simply because there is a potential for misunderstanding about this subtle point. From this point on, we are going to have to explain ID from both a theological an scientific vantage point anyway. We simply have to keep it up until people get it, because we are telling the truth. It is our adversaries that are lying. Don't forget that.StephenB
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT
Jerry, I certainly agree with your comment that YEC is a mill stone around the neck of ID. I believe that if you had made that point earlier, there would have been little controversy. Apparently, you were making all your supporting points in advance of your main argument; I recommend that you do it the other way around next time. What I don't understand is what you think we can do that we are not already doing. Beyond setting the record straight and calling out the liars, most of whom are Darwinists, what else is there to do. I don't know that we have any control over renigade YECers who want to exploit the ID brand name--there is no patent for it as far as I know.StephenB
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
Oh Yeah, one more i just thought of, 12. Materialism predicts animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Yet man himself is the last scientifically accepted fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record. Theism would of predicted that man himself was the last fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record. I truly think the Theistic philosophy has been belittled for no good reason! In Fact, Materialism should rightly be belittled for misleading scientists down wrong paths for so long!!!!bornagain77
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
StevenB, You said "I believe the most constructive thing you can do is to use your sphere of influence to clear up the confusion about ID and to make sure that you are familiar with all the relevant terms and concepts involved." What do you think I am trying to do? I believe that YEC is a mill stone around the neck of ID. If I believe this, then what should I do? I can only point out what I think is true and what the dynamics of perceptions are in this debate. Many here may not agree with me but I think more than a few do. When Nick Matzke hopes that ID doesn't criticize the YEC's because he says it is then easier to conflate the two then I think you have your answer. When someone from ASA comes here and tells us how ID has painted itself into a corner by not criticizing YEC then you have another confirmation of my point of view. Nearly everyone at ASA assumes that ID and YEC are similar. They are ignorant but why do they think this? I know what ID is as well as anyone here so to suggest that I smarten up and learn is just a example of putting one's head in the sand.jerry
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
Dave, I agree with you that the Big Bang's acceptance has nothing to do with religion even though it supports the idea of a creator and a finite time sequence for the universe. It fits observational data including making predictions. It is a good example of science at work. A few hundred years ago there were few avowed atheists but many Deists and the Big Bang would certainly be in sync with their beliefs. The addition of the fine tuning aspect to the Big Bang (which would not upset a Deist), has little awareness in the popular arena. But you now find science coming up with all sorts of ways to try and fight this fine tuning addition because it is embarrassing. Welcome the various multi-verse hypothesis which to me have one objective only, to undermine and ID explanation for the fine tuning. There has always been some multi-verse hypotheses but the seriousness with which they are now treated is rooted in attempts to undermine the religious implications of the fine tuning of the Big Bang. But remember that Deists would be comfortable with the Big Bang and fine tuning. What even they would be uncomfortable with is the creation of life itself and maybe a continuing input because this implies a creator that did not go away or leave us on our own.jerry
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
Jerry, you seem to be doing the same thing ID enemies are doing. You speculate about ID scientists and their motives for devoloping their methods and ignore the methods themselves. On the one hand, you say that ID should separate itself more overtly from YEC, on the other hand, you continue to stress what you percieve to be the similarities. On the one hand, you suggest that ID "uses the tools of science to bolster religious belief," on the other hand, you insist "it would be a respectable science if it werent for its religious implications." On the one hand, you seem to lament the fact that uninformed "ID advocates" keep muddying the waters, on the other hand, you seem to suggest that ID scientits deserve to bear the brunt of the resultant confusion. I believe the most constructive thing you can do is to use your sphere of influence to clear up the confusion about ID and to make sure that you are familiar with all the relevant terms and concepts involved.StephenB
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
Carl Sachs, I do not think there is a good criticism of Theistic Evolution. They have written several books on the subject and there is a wide range of views on just how God operates in the world. One thing that seems to be in common is an acceptance of neo Darwinism as the mechanism for change in life forms over time. Some almost incorporate it into their theology and I have heard someone commenting at ASA to a theistic evolutionist about what would he do when Darwinism was disproved because part of his theology is based on this mechanism for God's control of change of life forms. Thus, any criticism of neo-Darwinism which is the real forte of ID is also a criticism of theistic evolution.jerry
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
jerry I have to disagree with you. ID would be a backwater in terms of the popular conscious if it wasn’t for its religious implications I won't argue with that but I'm not certain it's true. Do you think the big bang theory would be a backwater in terms of the popular conscious absent theological implications? I'd like to think it wouldn't be. Maybe I have more faith in scientific integrity than the practioners of science deserve.DaveScot
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
Jehu said "Maybe you weren’t bright enough to understand because your own comments are equally spurious." I love it. This is an attitude that will bury ID. What makes you think you understand what ID is and I don't. Read what I say carefully.jerry
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
jerry,
That is why Rob’s comment is apropos.
I have already explained why Rob's comment is lame. Maybe you weren't bright enough to understand because your own comments are equally spurious. Please make a logical statement based on what ID actually proposes rather than your personal feelings about ID. For example, make an informed comment about the universal probability bound, specified complexity, or the probability of creating complex specified information via a random walk and how any of those concepts are based on religion. Otherwise, you are just a guy venting an unfounded opinion.Jehu
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
There are two prevailing philosophies vying for the right to be called the truth in man's perception of reality. These two prevailing philosophies are Theism and Materialism. Materialism is sometimes called philosophical or methodological naturalism. Materialism is the current hypothesis entrenched over science as the nt hypothesis guiding scientists. Materialism asserts that everything that exists arose from chance acting on an material basis which has always existed. Whereas, Theism asserts everything that exists arose from the purposeful will of the spirit of Almighty God who has always existed in a timeless eternity. A hypothesis in science is suppose to give proper guidance to scientists and make, somewhat, accurate predictions. In this primary endeavor, for a hypothesis, Materialism has failed miserably. Let's take a look at a few of the predictions where Materialism has missed the mark and Theism has been remarkably accurate for a philosophy that is supposedly so unscientific. 1. Materialism did not predict the big bang. Yet Theism always said the universe was created. 2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space. 3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein's special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity. 4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, which allows life as we know it to be possible. Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning, unchanging, clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism. 5. Materialism predicted that complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Yet statistical analysis of the many required parameters that enable complex life to be possible on earth reveals that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support complex life in this universe. Theism would have expected the earth to be extremely unique in this universe in its ability to support complex life. 6. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code. 7. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what most likely is, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA. 8. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity for the “simplest” life on earth. 9. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Yet we find evidence for “complex” photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Minik T. Rosing and Robert Frei, “U-Rich Archaean Sea-Floor Sediments from Greenland—Indications of >3700 Ma Oxygenic Photosynthesis", Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6907 (2003): 1-8) Theism would have naturally expected this sudden appearance of life on earth. 10. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. The Cambrian Explosion, by itself, destroys this myth. Yet Theism would have naturally expected such sudden appearance of the many different and completely unique fossils in the Cambrian explosion. 11. Materialism predicted that there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record. Yet fossils are characterized by sudden appearance in the fossil record and overall stability as long as they stay in the fossil record. There is not one clear example of unambiguous transition between major species out of millions of collected fossils. Theism would have naturally expected fossils to suddenly appear in the fossil record with stability afterwards as well as no evidence of transmutation into radically new forms. I could probably go a lot further for the evidence is extensive and crushing against the Materialistic philosophy. As stated before, an overriding hypothesis in science, such as Materialism currently is, is suppose to give correct guidance to scientists. Materialism has failed miserably in its predictive power for science. The hypothesis with the strongest predictive power in science is "suppose" to be the prevailing philosophy of science. That philosophy should be Theism. Why this shift in science has not yet occurred is a mystery that needs to be remedied to enable new, and potentially wonderful, breakthroughs in science.bornagain77
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
ID would be a backwater in terms of the popular conscious if it wasn’t for its religious implications. Darwinism would be laughed at if not for its religious implications. It's not a matter of "ifs" but about what best fits the evidence.tribune7
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
idnet.com.au, I have to disagree with you. ID would be a backwater in terms of the popular conscious if it wasn't for its religious implications. Maybe for some it can inspire but I gather it is used more to counter act materialist explanations thus it may be more reassurance than inspiration. It would also be considered a respectable scientific endeavor if it weren't for its religious implications but not a major one. Also from what I heard recently, ID advocates did nothing to remove young earth aspects of the Kansas scientific standards a few years ago. They had a chance to but they didn't object to these parts of the standards. If this is true, then the conflation of ID with YEC is deserved because it appears that ID advocates are also YEC advocates and not necessarily interested in correct science. ID should try to separate itself from YEC more overtly to get rid of this conflation. Maybe someone who knows more about the Kansas situation might want to comment.jerry
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
Given the misunderstanding and outright lying that goes on about this subject, it is absolutely essential to draw a hard line between what ID may be "consistent with" and what it "is."StephenB
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
jerry "ID is inspired by religious belief and is an attempt to use the tools of science to bolster part of a religious belief." In my opinion the following more accurately reflects reality. ID can inspire religious belief and may be used by some to bolster such belief.idnet.com.au
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
(27) the tenets/conclusions of ID do not in the least challenge Christianity. In fairness, whether or not the tenets or conclusions of neo-Darwinism challenge Christianity is open to debate, and there's a wide range of views. Some people find that 'theistic evolution' is acceptable and reasonable -- others don't. (I find it funny that if there's one thing that Dembski and Dawkins agree on, it's that people like Collins and Miller are fundamentally confused.) Where might I go to find a good criticism of theistic evolution from the perspective of intelligent design theory?Carl Sachs
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
ID is not a religious belief but it is inspired by religious belief. It is an attempt to use the tools of science to bolster part of a religious belief. As such it is often difficult for many to discern the difference. There are also times when this difference may not be there at all. Many are using ID as a proselytizing tool. This site is evidence of this. How many here are here without some religious motivation? Though it is less than it was in the past it is not uncommon to see people quote passages from the bible as evidence for their beliefs. Or it is not uncommon for many here to defend Young Earth Creationism. Though many like myself will criticize YEC, many who support ID do not try to distance themselves from YEC ideas. That is why Rob's comment is apropos. ID expects a better audience at a Christian institution than one such as Harvard or Cal Berkeley. When the legitimate science part of ID cannot get a hearing at Baylor, then where can it go among major research institutions? Isn't that what is behind the reaction of people here to Baylor's suppression of Marks' site. If Baylor were Iowa State we would be angry but not to the level it is because it is Baylor.jerry
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
I have dealt with this "Logos theory" business and similar kinds of foolishnes countless times on other websites. The results were always the same. Never has anyone responded saying, "Oh, I get it now, context matters," or "yes, you're right, 'consistent with' is not synonymous with 'depends upon,'" or "right, motives are different than methods." Never. On the contrary, they dig their heels in and start quoting some stupid judge in Pennsylvania or some feminist atheist in New Orleans. What can I conclude, then exept that there is no good faith dialogue taking place? For the sake of third parties who are confused I will offer the needed explanation if there is no one else to do it. But on this website I consider it an unnecessary nuisance unless the offending party is truly ignorant and open to the truth. But that can't be the case when the issue is framed as "the oft-repeated CLAIM that ID is not a religious belief."StephenB
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
I hope the producers of this documentary are aware of the so-called "Velikovsky Affair". The scientific community in 1950 threatened to cancel all book orders with McMillan Books if they went ahead and published Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision", which gave scientific credence to biblical/mythical writings. If they aren't aware, they should be aware. This isn't the first time that the scientific community has tried to suppress speech. Hopefully, we are also witnessing the "Fall of the Scientific Empire", wherein the chief priests of science would have us believe that they will lead us to all "truth". It seems like they're really not too interested in the truth.PaV
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
The producers of "EXPELLED" could not have asked for a better premise for their film. I bet they are secretly hoping that the Baylor administration continues to stonewall ID. If they do, It will make the impact of the film on the American public all the greater! It is one thing for a secular university to stonewall ID because of its obvious inference to a "source of intelligence". Yet it is quite another for Baylor, arguably the leading Baptist University in America, to stonewall the ID movement. Baylor should be very excited to allow this type of research since it threatens the very materialistic foundation of the atheistic world view that is in direct opposition to their stated world view. This is truly sad for Darwinism/Materialism truly is a drastic obstacle as far as breakthrough science is concerned. Yet, even though I see Darwinism/Materialism blocking breakthrough scientific progress, I can also see an ID foundation in which science opens up many avenues for breakthrough discoveries (such breakthroughs that would come through answering questions as how complex information/light/matter intimately interact with each other) there are many such avenues that could be researched from a ID perspective that are not even considered possible from the Materialistic perspective.bornagain77
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
All theory is totalitarian by nature--the same unifying power that makes theories seem appealing also cannot tolerate dissent--and this intolerance has been on display for some time in secular circles. What makes Baylor unique is its Christian charter. Darwin's theory depends upon the unifying principle that everything that exists came into being through purely natural processes. ID poses a threat to this unity of thought by demonstrating that purely natural processes cannot account for complex designs. Baylor, as a prestgious university, therefore finds itself in the interesting predicament of either having to uphold the totalitarianism of the theory or allowing the argument to design to be heard, which is perfectly reasonable, and also consistent with the statement that "through him all things were made, and without him nothing was made that has been made." Baylor finds that it must choose between the prestige it covets in the academic community and dialgoue that reflects its own charter. This makes it a striking example of the intolerance of the theory and of Modernism itself.allanius
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
On a completely unrelated topic since someone in the next room is blaring the Beatles, these lyrics just caught my ear: You say you want a revolution Well, you know We all want to change the world You tell me that it's evolution Well, you know We all want to change the world Darwinism really isn't about science.tribune7
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
TexasChem You have to understand that the attempt to equate ID with religion is an attempt to win the war without a fight i.e. it allows opponents to say that claims ID makes based on reproducable measurements or observations can be ignored because the entire enterprise is mumbo jumbo. Further, this mode of debate has a long history here, and has gotten rather old. Regarding Rob's question -- and there are those who think it insincere -- as to why we would expect a professed Christian university to not oppose ID, the tenets/conclusions of ID do not in the least challenge Christianity. Further, Christian principles require fidelity to the Golden Rule. Marks hasn't appeared to violate any university or academic standard in his endeavors, so why should Baylor -- a professed Christian institution -- treat him differently than others? Here is something to ponder -- if a tenured, respected prof had a website challenging the Resurrection would Baylor allow it?tribune7
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
"BTW: The current layout causes some of the words to be blocked by the sidebar. It is quite frustrating." Try Mozilla Firefox if you have it. That fixed the problem for me.Lord Timothy
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply