Intelligent Design at Baylor University

Intelligent Design at Baylor University

Chronicle of a Controversy

William A. Dembski

The following documents detail the rise and fall the Baylor's Michael Polanyi Center (MPC). The documents are of mixed quality, with a lot of chaff but also some gems (e.g., a letter by Antony Flew indicating his willingness to defend my academic freedom). There is also some material presented here that has hitherto never been made public, including the original planning document for the MPC presented to the Baylor administration at their request (I've edited it slightly for clarity, but this is essentially what the administration signed off on). Also included here for the first time is a memo and summary from May 2000 that indicates the troubles facing the MPC well before the public debacle in October of that year. There is a lot to wade through. The documents are arranged in chronological order, not in order of importance.

[Planning Document for the Michael Polanyi Center]

PROPOSAL FOR INTEGRATING SCIENCE AND FAITH

AT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY

William A. Dembski

March 1999

Naturalism currently dominates science, both in the secular and in the Christian academy. According to naturalism, science is best practiced without reference to anything "non-natural." Granted, science's proper object of study is nature. Naturalism, however, assumes an impoverished view of nature that artificially limits nature to brute material processes subject to no intelligent guidance or control. The problem with naturalism is not that it limits science to the study of nature, but with its hidden assumptions about the nature of nature. Is nature a seamless causal web controlled solely by undirected natural processes--what Jacques Monod called "chance and necessity"? Or do intelligent causes also play a fundamental and ineliminable role within nature? Naturalism answers Yes to the first question, No to the second.

So long as naturalism dominates science, there is no possibility of integrating science and faith. Christian theology has traditionally subscribed to two books of revelation: the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature. By testifying to the God who is their common author, both books were seen as mutually supporting each other. Within naturalism, however, that mutual support is lost. A physical world of undirected natural processes is incapable of reflecting the divine wisdom. Within such a conception of nature, faith and science go their separate ways. Thus, many scientists who are Christians but tacitly accept naturalism end up living dual lives, one a private life of personal faith, the other a scientific life indistinguishable from that of their atheistic colleagues.

The key to integrating science and faith is an enriched conception of nature that leaves room for intelligent causes. What has come to be known as "intelligent design" is all about enriching our conception of nature. Intelligent design holds that intelligent causes rather than undirected natural causes best explain the complex, information-rich structures of nature. The physical world contains events, objects, and structures that exhaust the explanatory resources of undirected natural causes, and that can be adequately explained only by recourse to a designing intelligence. This is not an argument from ignorance. Precisely because of what is known about natural processes and their limitations, science is now in a position to demonstrate design in nature rigorously. At the same time, intelligent design resists speculating about the nature, moral character, or purposes of this designing intelligence. In particular, intelligent design presupposes neither a creator nor miracles. Intelligent design is not creationism.

Intelligent design formalizes and makes precise something humans do all the time. All of us are all the time engaged in a form of rational activity which, without being tendentious, can be described as "inferring design." Inferring design is a perfectly common and well-accepted human activity. People find it important to identify events caused through the purposeful, premeditated action of an intelligent agent, and to distinguish such events from events due to natural causes. Intelligent design unpacks the logic of this everyday activity and applies it within the special sciences. There is no magic, no vitalism, no appeal to occult forces here. Inferring design is common, rational, and objectifiable. It is therefore ideally suited for integrating science and faith within the academy.

------

To effectively integrate science and faith at Baylor University, I propose two programs: A research institute at Baylor known as the Michael Polanyi Center for Complexity, Information, and Design (MPC) and a professional society administered through the Michael Polanyi Center known as the International Society for Intelligent Design (ISID) [After the MPC was dissolved in October 2000, this society was formed independently of Baylor and named the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design: www.iscid.org. --WmAD, 5.3.05]. I envision the Michael Polanyi Center as a counterpart to the Santa Fe Institute (www.santafe.edu). The Michael Polanyi Center would work in close association with the Institute for Faith and Learning, and initially share office space, staff, and resources. The two would, however, be separate entities because intelligent design can be developed as a scientific theory in its own right and because the scientific community is primarily interested in doing science rather than in integrating science and faith.

The Michael Polanyi Center would be named after Michael Polanyi. Polanyi was a physical chemist who turned to philosophy to correct the distortions of the materialist reductionism that infected science in the twentieth century. He was one of the first thinkers to effectively challenge logical positivism. In the 1960s he wrote about life's irreducible structure and the problem of trying to give a purely naturalistic account of biology. Polanyi was horrified at the denigration of the creative spirit that followed even in democratic societies from the tendency to see science as a purely naturalistic enterprise that filtered out the personal element. He turned from chemistry to philosophy to show that science as he knew it was inseparable from faith, inspiration, and freedom. Polanyi will serve as a marvelous symbol for the integration of faith and science.

The Michael Polanyi Center will focus on "complexity, information, and design." Complexity, information, and design are precisely those aspects of science that naturalism tries to undercut and that are congenial to theism. I am, for instance, to attend a workshop at the Santa Fe Institute this October (1999) organized by the Templeton Foundation and Paul Davies titled "Complexity, Information, and Design: An Appraisal." Topics to be discussed at that workshop include "creativity in nature," "emergence versus reduction," "the arrow of time," and "design in physical systems." The Michael Polanyi Center will thus focus on precisely those places where science and faith are in meaningful conversation.

The Michael Polanyi Center will initially be a visiting institute. Thus, besides support staff, the center will initially have no permanent researchers who are not also Baylor faculty. This will keep the MPC properly connected to the university community as well as keep a steady stream of exciting visitors coming through its doors. Visitors will be invited for talks, discussions, symposia, and conferences. Fellowships for extended periods of research at the MPC will have to await separate funding.

To build trust with the university community, the MPC will focus especially on facilitating dialogue between proponents of naturalism and intelligent design. The MPC will provide a non-threatening setting where proponents of diverse views can candidly discuss their differences. Emphasizing dialogue will be especially important in the early stages of the MPC to build trust with the university community. We need at all costs to avoid the impression that the MPC is a tool for proselytizing the Baylor community into some particular point of view. The MPC will stress open and frank discussion, giving all academically rigorous points of view a place at the table. [Looking back, this paragraph is incredibly naïve. The naturalists were out to kill the MPC as soon as they saw what it was trying to accomplish. –WmAD, 5.3.05]

I would like, for instance, to see a discussion in which Daniel Dennett and Kenneth Miller (a Brown University biologist) take the naturalistic side, Michael Behe and Paul Nelson take the design side, and they all discuss the problem of accounting for the irreducible complexity of biochemical systems. The discussion could take place over an entire day, with 45 minute talks by each of the participants in the morning and then rebuttals in the afternoon, with the entire discussion interlaced by Q&A from the university community (hopefully well-represented by the biology department).

The Michael Polanyi Center would also house the International Society for Intelligent Design (ISID). The ISID would be a professional society for design theorists. Intelligent design as an intellectual movement is rapidly gaining credibility and momentum. Even so, the movement lacks coherence and its advocates have no recognized forum for convening. The ISID would provide that forum. I envision this organization as a web-driven entity with an annual meeting. The MPC would administer its website and organize its annual conference. Baylor housing the ISID would be equivalent to the University of Delaware housing the American Philosophical Association.

The MPC and the ISID will enhance each other. The ISID will provide a pool of individuals that will benefit both Baylor and the MPC. From the ISID will come (1) teachers who attend MPC teacher workshops; (2) high school and college students who attend MPC summer workshops; and (3) potential undergraduate and graduate students for Baylor degree programs. The ISID will enable the MPC to keep its hand on the pulse of the intelligent design movement. At the same time, the ISID will benefit by being at the center of the intelligent design movement since the MPC should quickly become the premier place for intelligent design research.

What follows is a five-year plan for the MPC and ISID. I believe all these projections are feasible:

Year 1, 1999-2000:

The Michael Polanyi Center for Complexity, Information, and Design (MPC) as well as, International Society for Intelligent Design (ISID) are both founded and begin operation fall 1999 at Baylor University. I direct both programs and have the title Visiting Associate Research Professor in the Conceptual Foundations of Science at the university. During this year I am a professor at large, though my natural affinity will be with the philosophy department. The MPC shares support staff with the Institute for Faith and Learning. The main expense for the MPC and ISID is hiring a webmaster to oversee a state of the art website. I have no teaching duties in the fall, but offer a weekly three-hour philosophy seminar in the spring on "Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology." I get no salary, but any expenses I incur for MPC/ISID are covered. Also, any salary I would reasonably be paid will get used at my discretion for inviting visitors to campus for talks, discussions, symposia, and conferences. Rob Koons was able to put on a conference with over a hundred participants for around $6,000 in February 1997 ("Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise"). I would like to see a steady stream of campus visitors throughout the fall and spring, and a small conference represented by naturalists and design theorists in the spring. [Instead, we had a full-blown international conference titled The Nature of Nature; see below. –WmAD, 5.3.05] The emphasis during this first year will be on building trust with the Baylor community.

Year 2, 2000-2001:

A director of program development is hired to raise money for the MPC (ideally we would be able to hire such a person even the first year). The ISID, since it is web-driven, pays for itself, especially since its overhead costs are covered by the MPC. The MPC, however, needs to develop into a full-fledged research institute, with post-doctoral fellows, visiting fellows, and permanent fellows. Special room needs to be left for visiting fellows drawn from Baylor faculty--this will build goodwill with the campus community. I continue this year to be a professor at large living in Dallas and commuting once or twice a week to Baylor. Visitors continue to stream through the MPC. Also, December of 2000 the ISID holds the first of its annual conferences at Baylor. Organizing this conference and publishing the conference proceedings will take much of my time this year. The emphasis during this year will be showcasing the MPC as an example of science-faith integration. Especially with an ISID international conference on intelligent design, Baylor should get plenty of media coverage. [Comment: I began a five and a half year contract on salary with Baylor in February 2000, thus speeding up the timetable. This was possible through a $100,000 Templeton grant that I was awarded in the fall of 1999. My family and I moved to the Waco area summer 2000. –WmAD, 5.3.05]

Year 3, 2001-2002:

I move to Waco from Dallas and become Associate Research Professor in the Conceptual Foundations of Science, with joint appointments in mathematics and philosophy, though my primary affiliation is in the philosophy department. I divide my time between teaching in the philosophy department and overseeing the MPC. The MPC hires its first permanent fellow, who becomes associate director of ISID and assumes the primary responsibility of running the ISID (perhaps Charles Thaxton, a physical chemist, who would be terrific to have on campus for doing faith-science integration; cf. his book with Nancy Pearcey, The Soul of Science). The MPC continues to have a steady stream of visitors, but also is able to fund several postdoctoral fellows as well as several Baylor faculty for release time from teaching. Finally, Baylor is able to hire a major design theorist (ideally Michael Behe) as a Distinguished Research Professor. In addition to holding an appointment in one of the science departments, this professor will also be a permanent fellow of the MPC.

Years 4 and 5, 2002-2004:

The MPC starts building a full research and conference center, with offices for fellows, seminar rooms, library, state of the art computers and communications, etc. The MPC's fellowship program is now in full-swing. Baylor science faculty are persuaded that the MPC is an exciting addition to the university even if they still don't fully accept its conclusions. Baylor hires several additional University/Distinguished Professors who are scientists and not afraid to be associated with the MPC. ISID continues to gain membership. ISID members attend summer workshops organized by the MPC. The MPC achieves international acclaim as a model of how to do faith-science integration. [Well, that was the dream. Not much left of it at Baylor. –WmAD, 5.3.05]

The Michael Polanyi Center

[From the original MPC website--set up December 1999;
removed November 2000 when the center was closed.]

The Michael Polanyi Center derives its name from the physical chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi (1891-1976). Polanyi was a world-class physical chemist who turned to philosophy at the height of his scientific career because he was dismayed at the abuses and restrictions that materialist philosophy, especially in its Marxist guise, was inflicting on scientific research. The influential approach to the philosophy of science he articulated in response to this crisis was thoroughly non-reductive in character. He illustrated how philosophical, religious, psychological, sociological, and scientific concerns interact to affect each other's development, arguing that each perspective is essential and that none can be reduced to any other. Polanyi extended this multi-leveled analysis into his discussion of complexity in nature, arguing, for example, that the sort of complexity exhibited in biology could never be reduced to the laws of physics and chemistry. The information content of a biological whole exceeds that of the sum of its parts. His concern for the unhealthy effects of philosophical naturalism in science, his recognition that reductionism as a universal strategy in the sciences must fail, and his emphasis on the need for multiple levels in the understanding of any phenomenon, make Michael Polanyi the ideal representative for the center that bears his name.

The Michael Polanyi Center (MPC) seeks to develop a scientifically responsible design-theoretic alternative to the non-telic approaches that currently dominate complex systems theory, thereby promoting awareness of the ways naturalism and reductionism constrain both theory and methodology in contemporary science. This goal is pursued through both research and education. The scientific research of the MPC focuses on the development and outworking of models in the physical, biological, and social sciences that recognize the irreducible character of various classes of information-theoretic structures. This research challenges the dominance of naturalism as the philosophical matrix for scientific practice, and raises important questions in the conceptual foundations of science. As a consequence, the MPC is concerned to study how science, philosophy, and religion interact and influence each other, and the effects this has on the culture at large. Knowledge of this research is disseminated to the academic community through the publication of books and articles in technical journals, as well as through the organization of a variety of academic meetings and seminars. Areas of special interest include the history and philosophy of science, information and complexity theory as a framework for scientific research, and the interactions among science, religion, and culture. The significance of the MPC's research and educational efforts are communicated more broadly through articles and books aimed at a popular audience, and through workshops for lay audiences and pre-college students.

The Nature of Nature

[announced January 2000]

An Interdisciplinary Conference on the Role of Naturalism in Science

Dates: April 12-15, 2000
Place: Baylor University

OVERVIEW: Is the universe self-contained or does it require something beyond itself to explain its existence and internal function? Philosophical naturalism takes the universe to be self-contained, and it is widely presupposed throughout science. Even so, the idea that nature points beyond itself has recently been reformulated with respect to a number of issues. Consciousness, the origin of life, the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics at modeling the physical world, and the fine-tuning of universal constants are just a few of the problems that critics have claimed are incapable of purely naturalistic explanation. Do such assertions constitute arguments from incredulity -- an unwarranted appeal to ignorance? If not, is the explanation of such phenomena beyond the pale of science? Is it, perhaps, possible to offer cogent philosophical and even scientific arguments that nature does point beyond itself? The aim of this conference is to examine such questions.

Presidential perspective

President Robert B. Sloan Jr. speaks on Christian higher education and the university's place in it.

http://www3.baylor.edu/Lariat/Archives/2000/20000420/art-front01.html

March 27, 2000

Lariat Commentary: Baylor has long been the focus of criticism for its insistence on maintaining a strong Christian element in an academic environment. Most recently, controversy surrounding the Michael Polanyi Center, intended to study creationism or intelligent design theory, has left the administration stinging from charges that they are pursuing pseudo-science, based more on religious convictions than scientific reality. President Robert B. Sloan Jr. has met his critics head-on, continuing to push his vision for a blending of faith and learning. The following is a transcript of a March 27 interview with Sloan about this vision and his response to critics. It has been edited for space. As a private, Christian institution, does Baylor have a unique role in higher education? What is that role?

In the 20th century we have seen a decline in religiously oriented, church-related institutions of higher learning and I think, therefore, that Baylor has both an opportunity and responsibility to attempt to understand the implication for higher education of the Christian confession that Jesus Christ is Lord.

I think the Christian faith is a great historical, theological, moral, spiritual and intellectual tradition. It is complex and varied, but it is not anything you want to make it. There are core convictions and there is something that can be called Christian conviction. Baylor is an institution that grew up out of Christian conviction, particularly Baptist Christian conviction. While the world has changed enormously in the last 155 years in terms of industry, technology, world wars, nations, politics and teaching, and Baylor must stay attuned to all of those, nonetheless there is a Christian tradition and we must seek to provide the finest possible educational experience for our students within the world view, intellectual framework and nurturing environment of Christian faith.

You spoke both of a Christian tradition and a Baptist tradition. Is Baylor replacing its Baptist identification with a Christian identification?

We are not replacing our Baptist identification with a Christian identification. Being a Baptist is a subset of being a Christian. If you're not Christian you can't be a Baptist. Unfortunately I think there are some people who extract Baptist principles from the historic Christian faith or extract Baptist politics from the epic of the historic Christian faith. That of course is a social and spiritual tragedy, but that is not the way it should be.

First of all, to be a Baptist means to be a Christian. That doesn't mean that every student has to be a Baptist, or every professor or every staff member. Obviously not. But I do think it means we retain a vital connection to the particular voice and nuances of the Christian faith which Baptists have historically brought to the conversation.

I think it's important for us to maintain a critical mass of Baptist students and faculty and staff, but I think in fact it would be a mistake if everyone here were Baptist because I think we need the enriching experience of other faith traditions to keep Baylor vital and thoughtful. Generic Christianity is more easily described in the abstract, but I'm not sure it really exists. Every confession of faith occurs within a sociological and social context, and therefore every confession that Jesus Christ is Lord is going to be made within the framework of some sort of intellectual and ecclesiastical tradition.

I think it's important for Baylor to maintain its Baptist connectivity, but at the same time it's not either/or. It's very important for Baptists to understand they're located within the larger framework of the church. The Christian faith is larger than Baptists. The church is larger than the Baptist voice, but the Baptist voice is still important.

You've been accused of being too conservative and too liberal, too fundamentalist and too reformist. How do you see yourself?

I see myself as a Christian deeply committed to higher education and the importance of the Christian intellectual tradition as a force that shapes minds and shapes life. I see absolutely no contradiction between intellectual rigor and academic excellence on the one hand and a sincere, unapologetic Christian commitment on the other. I think higher education in America needs a distinctive Christian voice. There are Christian schools, I'm not saying we're the last one, but I think we are--on the Protestant side of Christiandom--we are the only major, comprehensive university that comes to mind that still pursues vigorously an agenda that seeks to integrate faith and learning. For the sake of diversity in American higher education, our voice is important.

What exactly do you mean when you talk about the integration of faith and learning?

It's a shorthand phrase. It can mean a lot of different things. First, when I say faith I am talking about a Christian faith, although I do think it is important for Christians to understand and appreciate the Jewish faith because the Jewish faith is the mother of the Christian faith.

I have an assumption that truth is one. I believe in the unity of truth. Not that we fully know the truth, of course not, but I believe while we have not yet in any measure filled in the gaps and never will, I believe in the unity of truth. So that whether one enters this great field of truth as a physicist or a theologian, a musician or an athlete, if you think about life, ultimately the great truths of the empirical world and the great truths of the philosophical world cohere and are consistent with one another. If the Christian faith is true, then the truths of the Christian faith are consistent with what can be learned about the world from any other vantage point.

When we talk about the integration of faith and learning we are simply saying that if, from that artificial discipline of Chemistry, (for example) we look into this great multidimensional thing called truth, and the artificial discipline of Theology does the same, I think ultimately, even though they may come at this great thing called the truth at different angles and from far apart, that in their deepest structures, if we knew all that we could know, we would say, "Ah, they really do cohere. They fit."

This integration between faith and learning, some critics have referred to it as dangerous in a university setting because it replaces objectivity in an unbiased pursuit of the truth with subjectivity in approaching truth from a pre-designated viewpoint.

Well, it's very naïve for anyone to say that he or she has an objective point of view. I challenge the assumption from the word go. Anyone who claims objectivity has assumed the stability of the environment and the stability of his or her senses. He or she has assumed something about an order to things. He or she has made assumptions about reasonableness and the nature of reality. He or she has made assumptions about the orderliness of reality and how when things are objectively observed this can be written up and replicated by others. There are many assumptions that are at work there, and so it's philosophically very naïve for anyone to say that if you've got a perspective, therefore your work is somehow tainted. Everyone has a perspective.

I think there is nothing more dangerous, frankly, than someone who would try to assume that he or she has no assumptions, that he or she has achieved objectivity because that's when, under the guise of objectivity, great harm is done. People under the guise of objectivity as well as under the guise of ideological perspective have done great harm in the world. We all have a perspective. Part of being human is this ability to reflect and to ask ourselves questions, to have this self-reflective capacity. So it's not do I have assumptions, but can I reflect upon these assumptions and can I seek to see that these assumptions do not blind me to all of reality and to what all is going on.

Barbara Forrest's Letter to Simon Blackburn

From: Barbara Forrest

To: Simon Blackburn [invited speaker to Nature of Nature conference]

Date: March 2000

This letter concerns the conference, "The Nature of Nature," hosted by the Michael Polanyi Center at Baylor University, which you will be attending in April. The title of this conference and the list of participants conceal the fact that the Polanyi Center is the most recent offspring of the creationist movement, the agenda of which is the destruction of evolutionary theory as the central principle of biology.

Even though I think that the participation--witting or unwitting--of reputable scholars in the Baylor conference plays into the hands of Dembski, Gordon, and the CRSC in that it lends them an undeserved academic legitimacy, I am not trying to dissuade you from going because I have no right to do that. You are already committed. I do, however, believe you have a right to know the nature of the atmosphere into which you are walking.

The director of the MPC is William Dembski, and the associate director is Bruce Gordon. Although they insist on calling their brand of creationism "intelligent design theory," its true nature is evident to anyone who has followed the development of creationism. For a thorough examination of creationism, including intelligent design, I refer you to Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism (MIT Press, 1999), an excellent book by a fellow philosopher, Prof. Robert Pennock of The College of New Jersey. Prof. Pennock critiques the work of Dembski, as well as the intelligent design movement as a whole.

Both Dembski and Gordon are members of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, the creationist arm of the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank in Seattle. It is significant that the CRSC recently received $1.5 million from wealthy businessman Howard Ahmanson. See Walter Olson's article at http://www.reason.com/9901/co.wo.darkbedfellows.html. For over twenty years, Ahmanson has served on the board of Chalcedon, Inc., an extremist Christian organization run by R.J. Rushdoony. See Jerry Sloan's article, "The Man Behind Knight" at http://www.frontiersweb.com/sfv18iss21/Pages/feat_1.html. You can view the CRSC site from the Discovery Institute page at http://www.discovery.org. The page has an announcement about the Baylor conference and other activities in which Dembski is participating. You will find links to CRSC articles, including Dembski's.

The establishment of the Polanyi Center at Baylor has aroused the anger of Baylor science faculty since it was accomplished with no prior knowledge or input from them. However, the faculty's anger stems primarily from their recognition that this organization and its founders, Dembski and Gordon, are creationists with a religious/political agenda, and they fear that the prominence and influence of such creationists at Baylor will severely damage the good reputation the faculty has worked so hard to build there. In fact, the faculty senate at Baylor scheduled this matter at the top of its agenda for its March 2 meeting with Baylor University President Robert Sloan. The first two questions on the agenda, addressed directly to Sloan, were these:

1. By creating the Polanyi Center has Baylor not institutionalized the propagation of a position, Intelligent Design Creationism, which is contrary to the prevailing assumptions of the majority of the world's scientists, specifically the scientific commitment to methodological naturalism? Arguing for a controversial position is one thing, but institutionalizing it is another. Moreover, that those associated with the center are described by their own colleagues outside of Baylor as part of a "new generation of creationists" constituting a "coalition to bring down evolution" is creating serious problems for the reputation of Baylor's science and pre-medical programs? It is the belief of some of us that the center was established by the administration without an awareness of these implications, and it is the hope of others of us that you will step in and preserve the integrity of the university and its science programs. Please comment?

2. Since the establishment of an institution such as the Polanyi Center has far-reaching implications for areas of the university such as the biology and psychology departments, shouldn't faculty members from those departments be consulted when such an institution is being considered?

Some history leading up to the Baylor conference:

In 1996, Phillip Johnson, a law professor at Berkeley who has taken it upon himself to cleanse American education and culture of "naturalistic evolution," initiated a conference at Biola University called the "Mere Creation" Conference. Johnson recruited Dembski and a host of others to help him do this. Dembski was one of the most active organizers of this conference. You can find a 1996 article about the conference at http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/11-30-96/national_2.asp. You can also view the web site for the Mere Creation conference at http://www.origins.org/mc/menus/index.html. Please follow the links to the off-site web pages as well. The nature of intelligent design as "mere creationism" is unmistakable.

If you go to Dembski's "virtual office" at "Leadership University," sponsored by the Christian Leadership Ministries, you can see Dembski's list of the most important creationist books in the movement, "The Intelligent Design Movement: A Brief Catalog of Resources," at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/menus/reso.html. Among them is Of Pandas and People, which creationists around the country have tried to get local school boards to adopt in public school science classes and which Dembski has defended as a legitimate science text. You can read the National Center for Science Education's analysis of Pandas at http://www.natcenscied.org/mianal.htm#pandas. I have also attached a critique of this book by Dr. Gary Bennett of Idaho, who recently spoke to Idaho legislators, urging them not to adopt this anti-evolution text. You can also see at http://www.aclu.org/news/n100298a.html an ACLU press release regarding the use of this book by Roger DeHart, a public school teacher in Burlington, WA, where a full-fledged fight against creationism has developed and is ongoing at this moment. According to the Burlington-Edison Committee for Science Education, several CRSC members have become involved in the controversy there on the pro-creationist side. Dembski recently traveled to the University of Washington to promote his latest book. While there, he conducted a book-signing to help Skagit Parents for Scientific Proof in Education, a parents group working on DeHart's behalf. See http://www.skagitvalleyherald.com/daily/00/february/08/a3creation.html.

Reflecting its agenda of getting intelligent design creationism into American schools, the CRSC recently added to its web site intelligent design lesson plans for teachers. Until sometime near the end of February, they could be viewed at http://www.discovery.org/crsc/scied/evol.index.html.Now, however, the CRSC has restricted public access to them and they are in a "Secured Administration Area" requiring a name and password. I have found nothing else on the CRSC site which requires this. The reason is obvious: restricted access prevents the lesson plans, which are unconstitutional, from being scrutinized and evaluated, and it allows the CRSC to know who is getting them. You can, however, see the CRSC document, written by Gonzaga law professor and CRSC member David DeWolf, outlining the legal aspects of trying to get ID into public schools, at http://www.discovery.org/crsc/articles/TeachingTheOriginsControve.html. The ID creationists are looking for loopholes in Edwards v. Aguillard, a 1987 Supreme Court ruling on a case which originated in my state of Louisiana and which outlawed creationism in public schools.

The agenda of the intelligent design movement is spelled out in a CRSC document which surfaced last year and is commonly referred to as the "wedge document" because of its enunciation of the creationists' "wedge strategy," the brainchild of Phillip Johnson, who has spoken openly about this strategy. This document outlines the intelligent design movement agenda from 1999-2003. My analysis of CRSC's planned activities as stated in the document shows that they are systematically enacting every part of their agenda except the only one which would gain them the legitimacy they so crave: the production of scientific research using their "theistic science." As I stated earlier, Johnson, Dembski, and their associates have assumed the task of destroying "Darwinism," "evolutionary naturalism," "scientific materialism," "methodological naturalism," "philosophical naturalism," and other "isms" they use as synonyms for evolution. (You can see Dembski's articles on a creationist web site, "Access Research Network," at http://www.arn.org/dembski/wdhome.htm. One of them is "Teaching Intelligent Design as Religion or Science?") The wedge document is available at http://www.humanist.net/skeptical/wedge.html and also at http://www.infidels.org/org/aha/skeptical/wedge.html. You can also find an article on the wedge strategy written by Jim Still, manager of the Internet Infidels web site, at http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/wedge.html. Another article written on the wedge document at the time it surfaced is at http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/archive/thomas_wedge.html. This was done by Keith Lankford, past president of the Sagan Society at the University of Georgia.

The wedge document specifically includes as one of its goals the following: "[W]e will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings.... The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready." So the plan of the ID proponents is to lure legitimate, respected scholars into conferences they organize. Not only have they managed to "wedge" themselves into the "significant academic setting" of Baylor, but the MPC web site shows that they have long-term plans there.

Very important with respect to the MPC and the Baylor conference is an article on intelligent design's move into the higher education mainstream (which is the purpose of the newly established Polanyi Center) at http://www.natcenscied.org/scot171.htm. This was written by Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in Berkeley, CA. And at http://www.au.org/cs4995.htm is an article by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State in which Johnson asserts that the wedge strategy "enables us to get a foothold in the academic world and the academic journals. You have to prepare minds to hear the truth. You can't do it all at once." This remark in itself explains the reason for the establishment of the MPC at Baylor and the naturalism conference you will be attending.

It is interesting to note the following information about the Baylor conference listings as they appear to date on the Polanyi Center web site at http://www.baylor.edu/~polanyi. Of the 31 confirmed participants, at least 10 appear to be part of Dembski's network of creationists. Of these 10, 7 are members of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Of the 11 plenary sessions, 8 have participants who are creationists (not always as presenters, but with some serving as moderators). The only plenary sessions without creationists participating in some way are the one hosted by Stuart Rosenbaum (a Baylor philosopher), the one in which Simon Conway Morris is listed as the sole speaker, and the last session, for which the moderator is still to be announced.

A similar conference was held in 1997 at the University of Texas-Austin, organized by Robert Koons, a philosophy professor and also a CRSC member. The title was, like that of the Baylor conference, academically innocuous: "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise." See Koons' web site at http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/main.html/, which has a link to information about this conference. You can read Koons' assessment of the conference at http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9701/koons2.html. However, Koons' assertion of the high degree of consensus reached on the feasibility of and need for "theistic science" was not shared by all attendees. Legitimate scholars and students sent papers, only to find after they arrived that they had been lured into an event dominated by creationists and clearly organized as a platform for them.

I know several people who attended the UT conference in 1997. I have asked one of them, Wesley Elsberry, to attest to its nature. You may contact him at welsberr@inia.cls.org. Wesley is one of the most knowledgeable people in the country about the intelligent design movement and has extensively critiqued Dembski's work, as has philosopher Elliot Sober. You will find Wesley's writings, and a link to Sober's, at http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/ae/dembski_wa.html.

Cordially,

Barbara Forrest, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Philosophy Department of History and Political Science

Southeastern Louisiana University

Baylor's Polanyi Center to Host Inaugural Naturalism Conference

April 06, 2000
by LoAna Lopez

Baylor University's Michael Polanyi Center -- part of the Institute for Faith and Learning -- will host its inaugural naturalism conference April 12-15 on the Baylor campus. The conference is titled "The Nature of Nature: An Interdisciplinary Conference on the Role of Naturalism in Science."

Horace Freeland Judson, director of the Center for History of Recent Science and research professor of history at George Washington University, is the featured speaker for Friday night's banquet lecture. Judson, whose topic is "Speculations about Conceptual Blocks," is best known for his book The Eighth Day of Creation, a history of molecular biology and its makers from its origins to the early 1970s.

Other scheduled speakers include: Steven Weinberg, the Josey Regental Chair of Science at the University of Texas at Austin, and winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics and the 1991 National Medal of Science; and Christian de Duve, founder and director of the Christian de Duve Institute of Cellular Pathology, whose discovery of lysosomes and peroxisomes earned him the 1974 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine. He also is a professor emeritus at the Université Catholique de Louvain in Belgium and Rockefeller University in New York.

Among the topics to be discussed are: "Neurogenesis and Being a Person," Howard M. Ducharme, department chair of philosophy at the University of Akron; "Thomistic Natural Law as Darwinian Natural Right," Larry Arnhart, professor of political science at Northern Illinois University; and "The Incompatibility of Naturalism and Scientific Realism," Robert C. Koons, associate professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin.

The Nature of Nature conference registration fee is $105 for the general public and $65 for non-Baylor students. For those who wish to attend the conference on either Thursday, Friday or Saturday, the cost is $35 for the general public and $20 for non-Baylor students. Wednesday evening's session is $20 for the general public and $10 for non-Baylor students. With the exception of the banquet lecture Friday evening, Baylor students, faculty and staff may attend the conference without charge.

The Michael Polanyi Center was established in 1999 as an interdisciplinary research and educational initiative focused on advancing the understanding of science. Its purpose is to support and pursue research in the history and conceptual foundations of the natural and social sciences; study the impact of contemporary science on the humanities and the arts; be an active participant in the growing dialogue between science and religion; and pursue the mathematical development and empirical application of design-theoretic concepts in the natural sciences.

Michael Polanyi (1891-1976) was a world-class physical chemist who turned to philosophy at the height of his scientific career because he was dismayed at the abuses and restrictions that materialist philosophy was inflicting on scientific research. He illustrated how philosophical, religious, psychological, sociological and scientific concerns interact to affect each other's development. Polanyi also realized the need for significant dialogue between science and religion.

For more information about the conference, contact the Institute for Faith and Learning at 710-4805, or visit the Michael Polanyi Center website at http://www.baylor.edu/~polanyi/ .

--30--

BU science-religion center draws critics

Polanyi Center's views may hurt department reputations, some fear

by Blair Martin
The Baylor Lariat
April 6, 2000
http://www3.baylor.edu/Lariat/Archives/2000/20000406/art-front01.html

Baylor's Michael Polanyi Center, a new center devoted to the study of science and religion, is hosting a conference, "The Nature of Nature," Wednesday at various campus buildings. Because of the center's controversial views, faculty will be watching closely.

"The purpose of the conference is for the scientists, philosophers, historians and theists to get together and talk about the complexity in nature in relation to scientific and philosophical religious concerns," said Dr. Bruce Gordon, associate director of the Michael Polanyi Center.

The Polanyi center sees itself as creating a dialogue connecting religion with the sciences.

"We see science and religion as complementary ways of looking at the earth because they have mutual relevance to each other," Gordon said. "I think they contribute to a more completely adequate understanding of the world and in order for us to derive to that state, we must take into account the relationship of science and religion and find harmony in between."

However, many professors in Baylor's arts and science departments are alarmed that the center's rhetoric will generate negative publicity that could harm the reputations of their departments.

"I am concerned as a science professor because something involving the sciences occurred without us [faculty] knowing about it," said Dr. Joe Yelderman, a geology professor.

Yelderman said he was not aware the center existed until after looking on Baylor's Web site and finding that the Polanyi Center stated that it was involved in the natural sciences.

"As a professor, I am concerned that people will make us guilty by association and assume that we are associated with or linked to this organization that is very well established as a pseudo-science rather than science," Yelderman said.

Dr. Charles Weaver, associate professor of psychology and neuroscience, agrees that the new center may jeopardize the integrity of Baylor science degrees.

"Historically, Baylor has been successful in attracting potential pre-med students and accomplished faculty," Weaver said. "But, if I'm a potential physician, I am not going to a school that has questions about scientific integrity."

In response, Gordon attributes much of the debate as a misunderstanding of the intended purpose of the center.

"I think the science faculty has been concerned that we might be infringing on their area of expertise," Gordon said. "What we are doing is merely asking the question of whether there are empirical means in nature. The significance of that, of course, is not a scientific question; it needs to be evaluated from the perspective of philosophy and theology."

Gordon said he thinks the conference will serve as evidence of the center's good faith and the legitimate nature of its research. He invited faculty to attend a session they find interesting.

Though Yelderman and Weaver agree that the conference will be a good test for the Polanyi center, they do not plan to attend because of time constraints and the belief that the conference's approach to science is unproductive.

"One of the many problems that many of us scientists have is that it is very time-consuming to discuss our views," Yelderman said. "That is not the productive end of science. I would rather experience science, through my students or in my own research, than just talk about it."

Weaver said he will not attend because his colleagues' input is not encouraged.

"We are asked to observe, but our input has never been asked for," he said.

The Michael Polanyi Center, established in October 1999, consists of two people, director William Dembski, mathematician and philosopher, and associate-director Gordon, philosopher of physics.

The concept for creating such a center was sparked after Dr. Michael Beatty, director of the Institute of Faith and Learning and philosophy professor, and Dr. Donald Schmeltekopf, provost and vice-president of academic affairs, read the articles of director William Dembski.

They approached Dembski with the idea of creating a research center that would be a component of the Institute of Faith and Learning.

Named after Michael Polanyi, a physical chemist who studied the interaction of science, philosophy and religion in the 1930s, the center is affiliated with Baylor's Institute of Faith and Learning. It was established as a research initiative, focused on advancing the understanding of science, and exploring the interaction between science and religion.

Speakers from many disciplines, such as philosophy, theology and biology, plan to attend the event, including two Nobel Laureates, theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg of University of Texas in Austin and biochemist Christian de Duve of the Universite Catholique de Louvian in Belgium.

Guest speakers will discuss topics such as the origins of life and consciousness, the fine-tuning of physical constants, the effectiveness of mathematics at modeling the physical world and the role of naturalism in the history of science.

A pre-conference lecture will begin 3:30 p.m. Wednesday in the Cashion Academic Center.

Opening remarks will begin the conference at 7p.m. in Cashion.

Professors debate legitimacy of Polanyi

Outgoing prof says Sloan is discouraging comment on issue

by Blair Martin
The Baylor Lariat
April 12, 2000
http://www3.baylor.edu/Lariat/Archives/2000/20000412/art-front01.html

When the Michael Polanyi Center was quietly established on the Baylor campus last fall, few people knew of its existence or how much controversy it would foster.

A debate over the reputation of Baylor as a university has erupted among the teachers and administrators, concerning the establishment of the center as a campus institute.

That debate intensified Tuesday, when an outgoing Baylor professor said President Robert Sloan is intimidating faculty into not commenting on the controversy.

"Faculty are not speaking out because Sloan can make their lives miserable," Dr. Lewis Barker, psychology and neuroscience professor, said. "They don't speak out for fear of their salaries and of being singled out by administration.

"I know you can't get many faculty responses, but the ones you have represent the majority of the faculty. The others are just too scared to speak out and want to hold on to their jobs."

The Polanyi Center -- which studies creationism or the intelligent design of nature, depending on the point of view taken-- is drawing criticism and support as it opens its Nature of Nature conference today.

The Michael Polanyi Center consists of two people: director William Dembski and associate director Bruce Gordon.

A committee has been established to evaluate the center's influence on Baylor's reputation.

At an arts and science faculty meeting in March, Dean Wallace Daniel told faculty members that he had heard "many strong concerns" relating to the center and that he, Dr. Donald Schmeltekopf, provost and vice president for academic affairs, and Dr. Keith Hartberg, biology chairman, would work to put the committee together. Schmeltekopf was out of town Tuesday and could not be reached for comment, despite several messages left for him this week.

Barker said there has been "unanimous consent that the Polanyi Center is detrimental to Baylor's science department."

Barker, who has taught at Baylor since 1972, is leaving Baylor to take a position as chairman of the psychology department at Auburn University. Barker is concerned with the center's promotion of creationism as a legitimate science and how it could potentially taint the integrity of students' degrees from Baylor.

Barker said President Sloan refuses to listen to the science departments' concerns.

"My best guess is that as long as President Sloan wants the Polanyi Center here, it will stay here," Barker said. "And it will continue to do what it wants, no matter what concerns the faculty have.

"The major concern of faculty is not that the Polanyi Center can do anything, but that Baylor's entire realm of science can be brought under suspicion."

Sloan is returning from out of town today and could not be reached for comment Tuesday. Messages were left at Sloan's office and at his home.

Dr. Joe Yelderman, a geology professor, agrees that the Polanyi Center could generate negative publicity that could harm the reputation of his department.

"As a professor, I am concerned that people will make us guilty by association and assume that we are associated or linked to these organizations that have been established as psuedo-science," Yelderman said.

Barker's colleague in psychology and neuroscience, Dr. Charles Weaver, associate professor, also worries about Baylor's reputation.

"Those of us who work really hard at trying to keep our reputations as uncompromised as scientists, find this frustrating to deal with," Weaver said.

According to Barker, the major concern of the faculty is the attempt by the Polanyi Center to use science to prove religion.

He told the Waco Tribune Herald in a Monday article, "I really don't want someone to say, as Dembski does, that he can prove the existence of God using statistical formulas. The problem with that is that if you disprove his argument, you prove there's no God."

Dr. Michael Beatty, director of the Institute of Faith and Learning and philosophy professor, disagrees with Barker. He believes that the Polanyi Center will enhance the academic quality of Baylor's science degrees and serve as an aid to the sciences.

"The purpose of the center is to help foster reflection and conversation between religion and the historical and philosophical nature of science," Beatty said. "The science department should know that there is no real danger, because it is not a religious center, nor a science center."

Gordon regards the debate between the departments as a "misunderstanding."

"I think the worries that have been expressed about the Polanyi Center are a misunderstanding as to what we are actually trying to do," Gordon said. "We are not creationists, we are merely asking whether there are empirical means in nature."

Gordon said the center studies the intelligent design of nature through various techniques in mathematics, such as probability, complexity, and information theories, the center can develop a method to detect signs and see if they can be applied to other structures, such as cosmological or biological forms.

Dr. Charles Garner, chemistry associate professor, agrees that there is a misunderstanding.

"The Polanyi Center's not talking about explaining God, it is simply talking about explaining its observations," Garner said. "Maybe science professors should be a little more careful in finding out what the center stands for."

However, Barker said he understands fully the nature of the Polanyi Center.

"How many times do I have to listen to Gordon and others tell us how much we do not understand?" Barker asked. "I understand perfectly and am not in the minority. How is that we [science faculty] can be all wrong and he [Gordon] be right?"

At the heart of the debate is the true definition of science. Critics of the center believe that science should be able to pass the test of peer review and should follow established criteria on whether to accept or reject findings, regardless of the outcome.

Scientists must accept the possibility their research will not produce expected results. Critics said they don't believe the center is capable of accepting alternative explanations.

"One of the cornerstones of academic life is peer review, you have people who will engage in debates on a level playing field and whether we are right or wrong, the consensus of one's peers plays a great role," Weaver said. "This, in my opinion, is out of that context."

Yelderman is waiting for the center to produce scientific works.

"There may be science involved, but I have not seen any at this stage," Yelderman said. "Just because someone uses mathematics or statistics, does not necessarily mean that it is science."

Garner disagrees with his colleagues and respects what the Polanyi Center is trying to accomplish.

"I think the center is a good thing," Garner said. "They are seeking out to answer some important and much need questions and are going about it very professionally."

Garner thinks that the Polanyi Center will enhance Baylor's science department.

"Science could never explain God, therefore God and science are always excluded from each other," Garner said. "They [Polanyi Center's researchers] are not talking about explaining God, they are talking about explaining their observations."

According to Garner, the center is approaching the study of evolution from a perspective that counters that of most scientists. He said the center studies theistic evolution, which "uses the facts of evolution but also involves God in the crucial points along the way." The alternative, according to Garner, would be atheistic evolution that has "no dominance by God, it is strictly the properties of chemistry and physics that can account for all these things."

Baylor faculty are not the only ones troubled by administration's decision.

Dr. Sahotra Sarkar, director of the history and philosophy of science program at the University of Texas in Austin, agrees that Baylor's faculty have a legitimate concern.

"I, for one, am extremely distressed by the decision of the center not to involve scientists at Baylor in its activities," Sarkar wrote in an email. "It almost seems that the center's staff have a fear of genuine science."

Sarkar is a plenary lecturer at the Nature of Nature conference. However, Sarkar will not pocket her speaking fees.

"In order to emphasize even further our distance from the pseudo-creationist agenda of the Polanyi Center, some of us-including me-are donating all or part of our honoraria to organizations that will promote the study of evolution in our schools," Sarkar said. "We are committed to a rational and scientific understanding of the world and our role in it."

Another concern of the Baylor arts and science faculty are the alternative science links, such as the Creationism Connection and Discovery Institute, that now appear on or connect to the Polanyi web site.

"We now show up in a cohort of people that Baylor has worked very hard at disassociating themselves with," Weaver said. "So, my concern is partly how quickly word is going to get out and how compromised it will make us look?"

Weaver considers the links "damning publicity" and is fearful such implications could scare off potential faculty and promising medical students.

Beatty understands their concern.

"I understand the science faculty's point of view regarding the web sites," Beatty said. "It is understandable how the center's interest is presented, or in this case, misrepresented."

Beatty said it was "regrettable that the net could be used to misrepresent your work" but explains that "when you are on the net, you are vulnerable to a lot of outside links and are unable to control who links to you or how your work is perceived."

Gordon agrees with Beatty that such links are unfortunate.

In an interview with the Waco Tribune Herald, Gordon said, "We have no control over who decides to link to our site. We do not endorse a connection to those sites at all. They didn't ask our permission. It would be better if they removed it, but we can't spend our time policing the Internet."

THE NATURE OF NATURE:

An Interdisciplinary Conference on the Role of Naturalism in Science

April 12-15, 2000

Is the universe self-contained or does it require something beyond itself to explain its existence and internal function? Philosophical naturalism takes the universe to be self-contained, and it is widely presupposed throughout science. Even so, the idea that nature points beyond itself has recently been reformulated with respect to a number of issues. Consciousness, the origin of life, the unexpected effectiveness of mathematics at modeling the physical world, and the fine-tuning of universal constants are just a few of the problems that critics have claimed are incapable of purely naturalistic explanation. Do such assertions constitute arguments from incredulity - an unwarranted appeal to ignorance? If not, is the explanation of such phenomena beyond the pale of science? Is it, perhaps, possible to offer cogent philosophical and even scientific arguments that nature does point beyond itself? The aim of this conference is to examine such questions.

SCHEDULE

The building location key for the campus map, which will help you locate each of the sessions, is indicated in parentheses opposite each session on the schedule below. You will find a map of the campus in your conference packet. A brief description of each of the talks is given along with a short biography of each of the plenary and concurrent session speakers.

Bill Daniel Student Center (BDSC)

Cashion Academic Center (Cashion)

Fountain Mall

Miller Chapel

Memorial Residence Hall

Conference Registration and Campus Information Table -- Cashion 5th Floor

Book Display -- Cashion 5th Floor

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12

3:30, Pre-Conference Lecture:

The Herbert H. Reynolds Lecture in the History and Philosophy of Science

Fifth Floor, Cashion Academic Center

"Cloned Sheep, Headless Frogs, Human Futures: Meanings for the New Biology"

Everett Mendelsohn, Professor and Chair

Department of the History of Science

Harvard University

5:30-6:45, Buffet Dinner -- Fountain Mall

7:00-7:15, Welcome and Opening Remarks -- Cashion 510

Robert Sloan, President, Baylor University

William Dembski, Director, Michael Polanyi Center

7:15-9:45, Plenary Session: The Nature of Nature, Cashion 510

Moderator: Alvin Plantinga, University of Notre Dame

"The Incompatibility of Naturalism and Scientific Realism"

--Robert Koons, Philosophy, University of Texas, Austin

"Must Naturalists Be Realists?"

--Michael Williams, Philosophy, Northwestern University

"Are There Any Sound Arguments for Supernaturalism?

--Michael Tooley, Philosophy, University of Colorado, Boulder

THURSDAY, APRIL 13

8:00-10:00, Plenary Session: Are Evolution and Naturalism Compatible? -- Cashion 510

Moderator: Bruce Gordon, Baylor University

"An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism"

--Alvin Plantinga, Philosophy, University of Notre Dame

"Naturalism Undefeated"

--William Talbott, Philosophy, University of Washington, Seattle

10:00-10:30, BREAK

10:30 -12:30,Plenary Session: Naturalism and the History of Science -- Cashion 510

Moderator: Stuart Rosenbaum, Baylor University

"Naturalistic Explanation and 19th Century Biology"

--Everett Mendelsohn, History of Science, Harvard University

"Science without God: Natural Laws and Christian Beliefs"

--Ronald Numbers, History of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison

"Naturalism and Natural Theology"

--Ernan McMullin, Philosophy of Science, University of Notre Dame

12:30-1:30, LUNCH -- MRH

1:30-3:30, CONCURRENT SESSIONS

Session 1, DEBATE: Is There Direction and Purpose in Evolution?

"The Contingent Nature of Evolution"

--Michael Shermer, Well-Known Author, Editor of Skeptic Magazine

"The Direction of Evolution"

--Robert Wright, Well-Known Science Writer

Session 2, Miller Chapel

"Naturalism and the Nature of Philosophy"

--David Yandell, Philosophy, Loyola University, Chicago

"How Can God Do Anything?"

--Evan Fales, Philosophy, University of Iowa

Session 3, Cashion 101

"Application of Mathematics, Naturalism, and Underdetermination"

--Otavio Bueno, Philosophy, California State University, Fresno

"Can Naturalism in Psychology Tolerate the Objectivity of Norms?"

--Terry Winant, Philosophy, California State University, Fresno

"Naturalism and the Problem of Consciousness"

--Todd Moody, Philosophy, St. Joseph's University

Session 4, Cashion 102

"Scientific Analysis of Paracelsus' Late Conceptualization of Remedy Underlines Pantheistic Naturalism"

--Béatrice Anner, Pharmacology, Geneva University Medical School, Switzerland

"The Social Construction of Naturalism in 19th Century Debates about the Cambrian Explosion"

--Michael Keas, History of Science, Oklahoma Baptist University

"A Conceptual Bridge Between Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution"

--Robert DeHaan, Developmental Psychology, University of Chicago (Retired)

Session 5, Cashion 105

"Solar Ultraviolet Radiation is Finely Tuned to Enhance the Survival of Many Forms of Life"

--Forrest Mims III, Solar and Atmospheric Physics, Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network

"Information, Entropy and the Origin of Life"

--Walter Bradley, Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University

"Does Quantum Theory Pose a Problem for Naturalistic Metaphysics?"

--Bruce Gordon, Philosophy of Science, Baylor University

"Natural Theology: Cosmic Coincidences, Carbon, and Conundrums"

--Allen Utke, Chemistry, University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh (Emeritus)

Session 6, Cashion 107

"The Nature of Nature: A Perspective from Traditional Christianity"

--Rudolf Brun, Biology, Texas Christian University

"Naturalism in New Testament Studies"

--Jay Richards, Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute

"An Evidentiary Challenge to Naturalism: A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote Intercessory Prayer on Coronary Care Unit Patients"

--William Harris, Medicine, University of Missouri, Kansas City

"The Impotence of the Gap Argument"

--John Mark Reynolds, Philosophy, Biola University

Session 7

"Is Natural Selection a Biological Designer?"

--Paul Nelson, Philosophy of Biology, Senior Research Fellow, Discovery Institute

"Junk DNA: A Case History in the Interpretation and Reinterpretation of Data"

--Timothy Standish, Biology, Andrews University

3:30-4:00, BREAK

4:00-6:00, Plenary Session: Does Science Support Naturalism?

Moderator: Robert Koons, University of Texas, Austin

"Naturalism as a Non-Issue"

--Steven Weinberg, Theoretical Physics, University of Texas, Austin

"Science and Theism: Conflict or Coherence?"

-- Henry F. Schaeffer III, Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia, Athens

6:00-7:30, DINNER -- Fountain Mall

FRIDAY, APRIL 14

8:00-9:00, Plenary Session: Biological Complexity I -- Cashion 510

"What's Inevitable in Evolution?"

-- Simon Conway Morris, Paleontology, University of Cambridge

9:00-9:30, BREAK

9:30-12:30, Plenary Session: Biological Complexity II -- Cashion 510

Moderator: Simon Conway Morris, University of Cambridge

"What Counts as Evidence of Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design?"

--Michael Behe, Biochemistry, Lehigh University

"Mysteries of Life: Is There 'Something Else'?"

--Christian de Duve, Cytology and Biochemistry, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium

"On the Evolvability of Gene (and Other) Regulatory Systems"

--Mark Ptashne, Molecular Biochemistry, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

12:30-1:30, LUNCH -- MRH

1:30-3:30, Plenary Session: The Origin of Biological Information -- Cashion 510

Moderator: Horace Freeland Judson, George Washington University

"DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification and Explanation"

--Stephen Meyer, Philosophy of Science, Director, Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture

"On the Emergence of Semiotic Information in Macromolecular Systems"

--Sahotra Sarkar, Philosophy of Biology, University of Texas, Austin

3:30-4:00, BREAK

4:00-6:0, Plenary Session: Cosmology -- Cashion 510

Moderator: Robin Collins, Messiah College

"How Well Can We Understand Cosmology with the Principles of Physics?"

--Alan Guth, Theoretical Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

"Cosmic Evolution as the Manifestation of Divine Activity"

--Howard Van Till, Astronomy and Physics, Calvin College

"Naturalism and the Origin of the Universe"

--William Lane Craig, Philosophy, Biola University

6:30 - 9:30, Conference Banquet and Banquet Lecture -- Fountain Mall

Remarks by Donald Schmeltekopf, Provost, Baylor University

"Speculations about Conceptual Blocks"

--Prof. Horace Freeland Judson, Director, Center for History of Recent Science, George Washington University

SATURDAY, APRIL 15

8:00-10:00, Plenary Session: Naturalism and Ethics -- Barfield Room, 2nd Floor BDSC

Moderator: J. Budziszewski, University of Texas, Austin

"Naturalism's Incapacity to Capture the Good Will"

--Dallas Willard, Philosophy, University of Southern California

"Thomistic Natural Law as Darwinian Natural Right"

--Larry Arnhart, Political Science, Northern Illinois University

10:00-10:30, BREAK

10:30-12:30, Plenary Session: Naturalism and the Barfield Room, 2nd Floor BDSC

Effectiveness of Mathematics

Moderator: William Dembski, Baylor University

"Effectiveness Without Design: A Naturalist Philosophy of Mathematics"

--Edward Zalta, Senior Research Scholar, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University

"The Unreasonable Uncooperativeness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences "

--Mark Wilson, Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh

12:30-1:30, LUNCH -- MRH

1:30-3:30, CONCURRENT SESSIONS

Session 1

"Evolutionary Naturalism and the Reduction of Ethical Demand"

--John Hare, Philosophy, Calvin College

"The Limits of Reductive Materialism: Dualistic Theory in Recent Scientific Accounts of Human Altruism"

--Jeffrey Schloss, Biology, Westmont College

Session 2

"Can Evolutionary Algorithms Generate Specified Complexity?"

--William Dembski, Probability and Complexity Theory, Baylor University

"Can an Inflationary Many-Universes Hypothesis Explain the Fine-Tuning?"

--Robin Collins, Philosophy of Science, Messiah College

Session 3, Houston Room,