Walt Ruloff op-ed on academic suppression at Baylor — “Does the Baylor administration believe in God?”
| September 19, 2007 | Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design |
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, 2007It 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
85 Responses to Walt Ruloff op-ed on academic suppression at Baylor — “Does the Baylor administration believe in God?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
ultimate175,
Here is a comment from a thread at ASA by Ted Davis about the conflation of ID with YEC.
“I would not lump YEC with ID. This, unfortunately, is what many schools are afraid of – they are afraid of the legal and scientific confusion caused by the YEC camp back in the 80′s – they don’t want that to happen again – I don’t blame them. However, if 45% of their students hold YEC misconceptions or any misconception, is it not good teaching to address it scientifically and openly?
TED: Anyone who pays attention knows that I am the last person to lump ID in with YEC.
However, as I’ve also made clear, the IDs have contributed substantially to this confusion (to wit, that ID = YEC) by failing to do any/all of the following things.
(1) ID’s have not made an “old” earth/universe part of their official platform, insofar as they have one. This by itself, obviously, would refute the claim that ID = YEC. Most IDs accept an “old” earth/universe, and a few use big bang cosmology (which is anathema to YECs) to promote design–if more of them did this, there’d be much less confusion. But it isn’t usually the first card played, which IMO it ought to be since the strongest design arguments (IMO) are cosmological rather than biological.
(2) TDI did not publicly renounce (unless I missed it somewhere, and I looked for it) efforts to remove the big bang and an old earth from science standards in Kansas in 1999. Those were led by an outfit calling itself the “Intelligent Design Network,” and their concerns were clearly YEC in orientation. Rather, TDI pretty much accepted IDN as an ally against a common foe. It’s not entirely unfair, even if it’s inaccurate, that people will then claim that ID = YEC.
(3) Some leading IDs (Johnson, Dembski among them) have said in strong terms that TE is not acceptable, that it’s just wimpy or wrong or both. They are to some extent claiming this on the basis of a definition of “evolution” that absolutely denies the possibility of interpreting it within a larger metaphysical framework that includes purpose–that is, if you accept their definition of “evolution” or “Darwinism”, then you conclude they are right.
(4) The full cooperation that leading IDs gave in converting a clearly “creationist” book into the ID book, “Of Pandas and People,” speaks for itself. One of the dumbest decisions that could have been made, IMO.
In the politics of science, the politics drives the science. Again and again. And again.”
On Ted Davis’s last sentence, I agree, agree and agree.
Jerry, the Intelligent Design Network in Kansas is absolutely not YEC, despite what your sources may think. Now, if they are not explicitly “anti-YEC” enough to prevent confusion in some people’s minds, and that therefore is justification for claiming ID = YEC, well then I guess we can’t win.
By the way, as I recall, the changes in 1999 were not primarily led by ID groups. In 2005 they were, and that’s why I posted a link to the actual changes in ’05. I suppose they are confusing too, however, since they don’t bash YECs explicitly either.
Dave,
As best I can see there are 4 competing claims for what caused the origin of life and the origin of new species.
1. Traditional neo Darwinism or some variant of it.
2. Some other naturalistic cause, yet unknown, that may involve some transfer of information, some self organization of information or some other phenomena. Who knows what it may be.
3. Interference by some intelligence at various points in time in the creation or rearrangement of genomes.
4. The creation of one or more genomes in the deep past that had the necessary information to produce the various species we now see on earth and in the fossil record and these original genomes were triggered by some unknown external event to produce new genomes as time progressed and the environment changed.
I do not know if I expressed them correctly or if there are additional options. I personally do not believe there is any information to support any of them. Which is why most of the arguments are in the negative direction to undermine the three of the four you do not like.
Since I believe that three of the four would have to leave substantial forensic evidence that they happened and there is the fact that none is available, I tend to lean to the one that doesn’t require forensic evidence to be true. My beliefs are as simple as that.
Show me evidence for one of the other four and I will listen and maybe believe that is the correct mechanism. Given that, none of the four mechanisms affects my religious beliefs or any other beliefs one iota.
ultimate175,
I have no other comments except what Ted Davis wrote. If what he says is correct why would the IDN try to remove standards relative to the Big Bang and the age of the earth from the Kansas 1999 document? Did this happen? Or if it didn’t happen then someone should inform Ted Davis who seems to be a reasonable person.
Jerry, I think you are making things more complicated than they need to be. While YEC advocates may muddy the waters somewhat, to the extent that they add to the confusion about IDs methodology (it is only to that extent that I accept your millstone metaphor), they are not real players in the current raging battle. Darwinists know very well what the differences between CS and ID are. They are not confused when they conflate the two, they are lying.
The general public, on the other hand, which often does confuse the issue, does not militate against us. So, at this point at least, it doesn’t matter. I don’t see why it hurts our cause that they are open to both. If we are going to be “purists,” we could have internal battles on common descent as well. But what sense would that make? Our beef is not with a confused general public, who will eventually make the necessary distinctions. Our beef is with lying Darwinists who do get it right now and will do anything to survive.
Theistic evolutionists and creation scientists are not really on the front lines. All the hand to hand combat takes place between Darwinists and ID scientists. You should worry less about future philosophical battles among Theists, and more about the current life-and-death battle with Darwinists.
IDN did not try to remove references to those things in 1999. That’s not to say someone else didn’t, but IDN did not. As I mentioned before, IDN was not the primary driver of changes in 1999 as they were in 2005, and if you would review the changes IDN proposed in ’05, it would be clear what their primary issues are.
Correcting Ted Davis is not one of my priorities. I suppose on the logic presented here he would suspect that IDN also thinks the Earth is flat, since it wasn’t explicitly renounced in it’s proposed changes. For the record, IDN does in fact think the Earth is spherical.
One of my favorite Darwinists, and there are not many, is someone who used to comment here frequently but I haven’t seen for awhile. He is probably busy. His name for this and other blogs is great_ape. Here is an excellent quote from great_ape from Telic Thoughts relative to the perception of ID from the other side.
“If ID consisted solely of yourself and a small group of others, your point would carry far more weight with me. As it stands, however, “official ID”, is is a very open-ended platform that enjoys (or suffers, depending on your perspective) a very big tent. You’ve got a handful of reasonable folks amongst an army of yahoo YECs, etc.. They’re all attacking evolutionary theory at every level, from many diverse perspectives, even those aspects of evolution that folks like yourself take as a given.
Now attacking the status quo and bringing a diversity of perspectives to the table is good. Up to a point. But there’s a point where it becomes unproductive noise and detracts energy from more fruitful endeavors. The society of mapmakers should not have to take up the flat earth debate at each annual meeting. I hold the very same opinion for the geological society and young earth. Now where exactly to draw the line and who decides is a difficult subject, but I know it *must* be drawn, implicitly or explicitly, at some point or nothing would ever get accomplished.
So take a pragmatic perspective. Forgive the fanciful metaphor, but let’s imagine you’re dealing with a many-headed hydra, a few heads of which are knowledgeable enough to be amenable to a rational debate. The rest of the heads are snarling, biting, and spitting fire. And they’re out to get you. Given limited time/resources–most of us have rather time-consuming jobs, after all–how do you deal with the beast? Do you (generally) engage it intellectually or violently/politically? Consider also that you know full well that, even having reached an understanding with heads #1 and #2, heads #3 thru 3000 will not stop until someone is carried effectively lifeless from the battlefield.
From a different angle, if you take offense at being lumped in with the “liberals,” and to hearing your adversaries make arguments against positions you don’t even hold, leave the Democratic party and join another. Same with Republican… (For the record, I’m neither.) But when you join a platform you get all the perks (name-recognition, support of peers) *and* the drawbacks (stereotyped, lumped together). And like it or not, ID–because of its open-ended criteria for inclusion–is more like a political platform than a specific philosophical/scientific position. And that’s how the other side is responding to it. If it looks like a duck…quacks like a… In other words, it’s probably OK to shoot it.
The way I see it, one party (the evolution camp) must respond to the general nature of the beast (2998/3000 snarling/biting/spitting hydra heads), and if there are a couple of rational heads (interesting positions, speculations, etc) among the bunch then chalk those up to collateral damage.
(yes, we have a few snarling heads of our own, but hopefully I’m conveying my general point. Lumping folks together under the “ID” banner/platform and engaging the “lump” according to its *general* characteristics/dispositions is human nature and necessitated by pragmatic considerations. Not every ID proponent can be individuated and given their due consideration; there’s too much noise coming from the overall beast)
this was rather rushed, but I hope I was able to convey something thru the sloppiness and mixed metaphors
Comment by great_ape — February 27, 2007 @ 2:06 am”
This was a perspective of ID from a main stream scientist. I personally would like great_ape to reappear here because he is always cordial, honest and insightful. And he is a Darwinist in the sense that he support neo Darwinism as the mechanism for species origin.
Jerry, why should one compromise when one is right?
tribune7,
How many things do you think you are right on? How do you determine when you are right? What evidence do you use to determine that you are right?
I suppose I’m a bit confused about how any Darwinists are being carried “lifeless off the battlefield” by YEC’s. Can you point me to some?
Casting ID away under the guise of all this dangerous “noise” from elsewhere seems disingenuous. From my perspective the YEC crowd is powerless against the Darwinist machine. When the many-headed hydra is viewed from that perspective, the most appropriate way to deal with the monster would be to respectfully engage the heads with the most substance and best arguments.
Lumping ID and YEC together to discard the whole kit and kaboodle is a cop out IMHO.
Jerry, I think you have been conned by smooth talking Darwinists wearing their altruistic colors. Haven’t you ever seen democrats on cable TV giving advice to republicans on how to improve their party. That’s what great-ape was doing to you.
So, you really believe that if all IDs publicly disavowed creationists and marched in lock step to either Dembski, or Behe, or Meyer (they all have differences, you know) that great ape would change his Darwinist ways and say, “Wow, you folks have got it together now. I am no longer a materialist-atheist.” Come on.
Jerry –How many things do you think you are right on? How do you determine when you are right?
I am taking your position as advocating that the ID organizations should make a declaration that YEC is wrong.
Now, ID does not address — and as far as I can tell — is incapable of addressing YEC.
If ID is incapable of addressing YEC, the right course is for ID organizations to say ID does not address YEC.
There should be no compromise on this principle.
I’ve skimmed the above discussion, and can offer some information.
It is correct that the 1999 standards were primarily driven by YEC proponents. The IDN got more involved at the end, but the state BOE elections had already made it so that a moderate majority would take over and soon vote the YEC influenced standards out, so the IDN efforts were short-lived.
The IDN did make one important contribution to the 1999 standards, changing the phrase “natural explanations” to “logical explanations” in the definition of science.
The 2005 standards situation was driven by John Calvert and Bill Harris, both of whom are not YEC, but virtually everyone else involved was YEC: most or all of the rest of the ID group on the standards committee and the conservative members of the state BOE were YEC, and a substantial number of the witnesses at the 2005 science hearings.. The standards themselves did not contain YEC arguments as the 1999 ones did, but most of the supporters did offer YEC arguments at various times when discussing the standards.
What we have seen in Kansas has been the big tent policy at work: I think at least 90% of the people in Kansas who have supported the anti-evolutionary changes to our standards in 1999 and 2005 are YEC, but they adopted the more general ID arguments in 2005 as a matter of strategy and as a consequence of Calvert, a non-YEC, being the primary leader of their efforts and primary author of the changes they wanted made and the rationale for them.
P.S. For the most part, in Kansas the YEC’s and the non-YEC IDists agree in their denial of common descent.
Jerry has been implying that ID=YEC, in part due to “lack of explicit renunciation” in Kansas, as alleged by Ted Davis. It should be clear now that this is erroneous. The IDN is the voice of ID in Kansas, and their record is clear. The IDN’s point of contention is the dogmatic and often undisclosed use of materialism to both proffer certain unsubstantiated explanations, and censor other pieces of data that would likely be construed unsupportive of Darwinism.
Jack, if you would, I’d like you to elaborate on the YEC witnesses at the hearings. Who were they? How do you know they’re YEC? And if they are, how is it relevant to the 2005 standards, since those standards had nothing to do with YEC matters? It seems to me that this is really a double fallacy (red herring and guilt by association).
This brings up another point you made on which I’d like you to expound. What YEC arguments were offered by “most of the supporters”?
I think the last point, that “at least 90% of the people in Kansas who supported” these standards are YEC, is dubious at best. But none the less I’m appreciative that you recognize that ID does not equal YEC, even in Kansas.
Jack,
Thank you for your comments. Is there anything in writing or on the internet about what was done during each of the years?
Jerry, did you read the link I posted before?
I had another post in response to Jack that hasn’t appeared. Can a moderator tell me if it’s in the holding tank, or if it just disappeared?
ultimate175,
What I read was changes to the science standards in 2005. None seemed to be really controversial and it gave room to question a lot of neo Darwinism while not proclaiming anything that was YEC.
Is that how you or others read these changes.
There was nothing about the sub-text of who argued what either in 2005 or in 1999.
Jerry, I agree with your interpretation, and disagree with Jack’s account of events in some respects. I think he is greatly overstating his case in regards to YEC arguments used in 2005, especially considering there was nothing of note in the changes that even relates to YEC matters.
I can assure you, however, that the 2005 changes were extremely controversial to people like Jack and the Darwinist machine, precisely because they did “give room to question a lot of neo-Darwinism”.
To Patrick: it appears I have been put on moderation, which had not been the case before a few days ago. As I said in another post (which has not gone through), this really makes it impossible to participate: I can’t have a conversation with people if it takes hald a day or more for a comment to go through.
If my participation is still welcome here, could you look into this matter.
Thanks,
Jack
Jack,
Kathy Martin is Catholic and NOT a YEC, and she was one of the three board members who was involved in the science hearings. I know this because I had several conversations with her. The only two I know who specifically leaned toward the YE perspective were Abrams and Morris.
There was nothing in the 2005 standards that the conservative board approved that had any impact on the age of the earth…no YEC arguments in those standards whatsoever.
Several news articles went as far as saying that evolution had been taken out of the standards and curriculum altogether. In reality, the changes that were made were highly insignificant overall. They could have possibly opened up classroom discussion to considering some of the controversial issues surrounding the ToE, but that’s about it.
Jack and KCFS went off the deep end with their scare tactics and ended up making the state of Kansan look foolish. In reality, the conservative board members were NOT a bunch of raving fanatical YECers. They were reasonable, rational individuals who had concerns about the dogma being forced upon Kansas schools.
Kansas…typo
Test
Hi all – I appear to be back on immediate access, which is good.
First, I’d like to point out to ultimate175 and ftk that I didn’t say there were YEC arguments in the 2005 standards. In fact I wrote in #73 above:
and I wrote,
Ftk says that Board members Abrams and Morris “leaned toward the YE perspective,” but that is too mild of a statement: they are definitely young-earth creationists and have readily said so, and so is Board member John Bacon and then-Board member Iris Van Meter. Kathy Martin may not be, and I don’t know about Ken Williard.
There were eight members of the ID group on the standards, and I know that a majority of them were young-earth creationists, and that they occasionally offered YEC arguments during discussion during the committee meetings.
Also, a number of other YEC were supporters of and workers for IDN during this time: Celtie Johnson, Mark Mathews, Paul Ackerman, Ken Carlson.
The truth is that there are lots of YEC in Kansas, and I believe from extensive interaction with the issue that most of the people who have vocally supported the IDN in Kansas are YEC.
Utimate175 writes,
I know because we asked about 2/3rds of them how old they thought the earth was, and a number of them said young: Sanford, Leonard, Ely, DeHart, Bryson and perhaps others. You can read the transcripts of this at http://www.talkorigins.org/faq.....garoo.html if you’re interested.
Ultimate175 asks,
I’m not making any claims about all this – I’m just trying to answer some factual questions about the situations in Kansas that were raised by ultimate175 in posts #62 and #66 above, including supporting his claim that YEC stuff was in the 1999 standards but not in the 2005 standards.