Bradley and Beckwith on Baylor
by KrauzeThrough Hunter Baker of The Reform Club, I've discovered that the 2005 January/February issue of Academe ran an article recycling the "Wedging Creationism into Something We Hold Dear" theme, by Barbara Forrest and Glenn Branch. Barbara Forrest, you may recall, is co-author of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (the claims of which have been discussed at length, both here, here, and here), while Glenn Branch is Deputy Director of NCSE.
Forrest and Branch write about how the IDists are disingenuously holding conferences at respected universities so that they can co-opt their respectability for their own sinister projects, and they begin with how Baylor's president Robert Sloan hired William Dembski to run the Polanyi Institute, an intelligent design thinktank. "Baylor also hired two additional members of the Wedge," they write, "mechanical engineering professor Walter Bradley and philosopher Francis J. Beckwith."
Both Walter Bradley and Francis Beckwith found Forrest and Branch's treatment of them misleading, and fortunately, Academe offered to publish their responses. They're available here, but since you have to scroll down the page to find them, I've also placed them in their entirety beneath the fold. Francis Beckwith is also blogging about it here, and some good discussion can be found in the comments to his post.
TO THE EDITOR:
Barbara Forrest and Glenn Branch misleadingly depict my appointment at Baylor and my academic work on intelligent design in the January-February issue. They falsely imply that I was sought after by the Baylor administration and hired autocratically as part of some conspiracy to turn Baylor into an academic enclave for intelligent design. Until my on-campus interview in February 2003, I had never met or spoken to a Baylor administrator. That interview occurred while I was on the faculty at Princeton as a James Madison Fellow, five months after I had applied for the Baylor post in response to a national advertisement.
The authors state that twenty-nine descendants of my department's namesake (J.M. Dawson) requested that Baylor remove me from my post. They don't mention the support for me from my provost, department chair, department colleagues, and numerous professors from around the world, some of whom disagree with my views. One of them, Kent Greenawalt of Columbia Law School, was so aghast at the Dawsons' use of a quote of his to hurt my appointment that he wrote a letter to my chair condemning it.
I argue that it is constitutionally permissible to teach intelligent design in public schools, which is the conclusion of the thesis I wrote in 2001 as part of my M.J.S. degree at the Washington University School of Law. It was published as a book in 2003, and various portions of it appeared in articles in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, San Diego Law Review, and Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy. I'm not an intelligent design advocate, and I don't think it should be required in public schools. I do think, however, that some intelligent design arguments raise important questions about philosophical materialism and the nature of science that should be taken seriously and may indeed have a place for discussion in public school classrooms. Academic liberty knows no metaphysical litmus test, whether it's religious or irreligious, or proposed by Jerry Falwell or Barbara Forrest.
Although I stand by my work on intelligent design and public education, it is only a recent interest of mine. I had already established myself with scores of articles and many books in the areas of ethics, religion, and politics. In fact, my monograph on abortion is cited several times in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on that subject.
In my opinion, Forrest and Branch are blacklisters whose witch-hunt tactics should be shunned, and not published, by Academe.
FRANCIS J. BECKWITH
Associate Director, J. M. Dawson Institute for Church-State Studies
Baylor University
TO THE EDITOR:
I am writing in response to the article in the January-February issue by Forrest and Branch. In this article, my hiring at Baylor University is portrayed as being part of a grand conspiracy by the administration to pursue a secret intelligent design agenda, casting aspersions on my academic qualifications and on the administration's integrity. What is particularly galling is that the authors never bothered to contact me or my department head or dean to inquire about this matter.
Why was I hired at Baylor? Maybe it was because I am very academically qualified to help build an outstanding graduate program in engineering that will be synergistic with our under-graduate program. During my eight years at the Colorado School of Mines and twenty-four years at Texas A&M University, I published 140 refereed articles and book chapters, secured $4.5 million in external research funding, served as department head at TAMU, and received five local and one national research awards and two teaching awards. I am an elected fellow of the American Society for Materials and the American Scientific Affiliation.
During my interview at Baylor University, there was no discussion of my work in intelligent design. I spent most of my time in the School of Engineering, giving a seminar and visiting with all of the school's professors. I was told that the recommendation of my hiring was supported unanimously by the faculty in the school. The focus of my work since joining the school has been to begin to develop excellent master's programs and secure external funding to support them, which I have done.
Let me be very clear that I have done and will continue to do work in the areas of intelligent design, cosmology, and the origin of life. However, it is a blatant lie to pretend that my hiring was in any way connected to this extracurricular interest of mine as a "member of the Wedge," whatever that means. I am a fellow of the Discovery Institute in recognition of my work in the origin of life, not as a functionary in some fantasy conspiracy theory. This McCarthyism by Forrest and Branch has no place in the academy or in a publication by the AAUP, which is supposed to be a champion of academic freedom.
WALTER BRADLEY
(Engineering)
Baylor University
May 29th, 2005 at 11:00 pm
I note where Bradley writes,
That seems to be the pattern among the witch-hunters. Do they fail to verify their accounts before publishing because a) they have a guilty conscience or b) they don't want to risk losing a good piece of propaganda?
Comment by MikeGene — May 29, 2005 @ 11:00 pm
May 30th, 2005 at 2:03 am
Bradley and Beckwith do protest too much.
It is unfortunate, perhaps, that Forrest and Branch did not say that Bradley's hiring may have been purely coincidental — they don't claim that it was part of any plot. Bradley overreacts a bit. The claim in the article is that he is a fellow of the Discovery Institute, and that he was hired at Baylor. Which of those facts does he think his department head or dean would have contradicted?
Witch hunt? That is a statement of facts. They may be embarrassing to Bradley and Beckwith. Facts are stubborn things, as President Reagan was fond of noting. It's still true.
But I am curious about Bradley's claim to have done "work in the origin of life." Surely, as the world-class scientist he claims to be, he knows the path to the appropriate journals to make such work available to researchers. And yet, I can find no such reference in any index.
Besides his speeches to church groups, what has he done? What does he claim as work in origins of life? Where is it published? If anything, Bradley stands accused by Forrest and Branch of being a supporter and advocate of intelligent design. To that, he confesses.
Dr. Beckwith's claim that the Constitution allows intelligent design to be taught in schools rests on an unevidenced and incorrect assumption that ID will at some future date produce some real science. Absent this showing of real science product from ID, however, it is poor legal advice tantamount to malpractice to suggest a public school could teach what has been ruled to be religious belief as science, in a science class or anywhere else. Dr. Beckwith is not an attorney and so is not bound by the ethical canons lawyers must follow. In recent posts at Panda's Thumb he had appeared (to me) to back away from claiming that ID is science — these posts come after his letter to Academe, and so we hope his views remain as a non-advocate of ID.
The Dawson Center was founded to study and celebrate religious freedom, especially the policies American Baptist have traditionally supported, including the Constitutional policies that are usually summarized as separation of church and state. Dr. Beckwith's comments on biology textbooks suggested his views do not support the center's views (it certainly the thrust of his comments to the State Board of Education in 2003 — the comments that caused the Dawson family to question Beckwith's appointment at Baylor).
I don't think anyone questions that Dr. Beckwith is well published. What is questioned is the claim that teaching ID is constitutional, when all cases close to the point have gone the other way, and the claim we hope he has abandoned that ID is science.
Dr. Beckwith has, from time to time, made forays to forums where scientists are pleased to engage him in discussion. Dr. Bradley has not done so, to my knowledge. They would find many people happy to discuss ID with them at Panda's Thumb, or at Pharyngula, or at Talkorigins. They would get an even warmer reception were they to bring a hypothesis that might lay a foundation for serious study of intelligent design.
The door is open, but ID advocates must walk through it.
Comment by edarrell — May 30, 2005 @ 2:03 am
May 30th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
You are wrong. Forrest and Branch actually wrote:
Anyone with basic reading comprehension skills will notice this paragraph argues that the "Wedge" is trying to make Baylor a base and to support this sloppy accusation, the authors cite the hiring of Bradley.
It is ironic that Forrest and Branch end their "expose" with a warning about "power without responsibility." Where is the responsibility of Forrest and Branch? They clearly portray Bradley's hiring as "part of the Wedge," yet offer no evidence to support this reckless charge. They simply mention it in careless passing. What's even more irresponsible is that they made NO EFFORT to contact Bradley before casting him in this light.
Comment by MikeGene — May 30, 2005 @ 12:54 pm
May 31st, 2005 at 4:40 am
It's not a reckless charge, and it makes sense. As I noted, it's perhaps unfortunate that they didn't say it could have been coincidental. But then they have been covering several of the controversies at Baylor, and you haven't. President Sloan was recently forced out of office for pushing too much of a religious agenda — and this is the guy Dembski complained about for not pushing hard enough. There are other issues.
On the other hand, the only chunk of potential refutation you offer are the two letters from the participants, and of course they cannot be regarded as unbiased sources.
You failed to call Baylor, too. You have no platform to complain that anyone else failed.
Forrest and Branch have been tracking such issues for some years. They've been published by major publishing houses (places that employ fact checkers and worry about libel and slander, as opposed to Regnery).
They could be wrong. You don't make the case that it is. There is a smell, and an appearance of favoritism for Wedgites. Having two of the Wedgites say it ain't so, doesn't make it not so. Shoeless Joe denied the charges against him, too.
Comment by edarrell — May 31, 2005 @ 4:40 am
May 31st, 2005 at 4:42 am
Oh, and either way, Beckwith's legal claims are still wrong.
Comment by edarrell — May 31, 2005 @ 4:42 am
May 31st, 2005 at 6:52 am
Hi Ed,
"Forrest and Branch have been tracking such issues for some years. They've been published by major publishing houses (places that employ fact checkers and worry about libel and slander, as opposed to Regnery)."
One of the job of fact checkers is to contact the concerned parties to get their perspective on the events. Which of the people on the ID side were contacted on behalf of Forrest and Branch?
Comment by Krauze — May 31, 2005 @ 6:52 am
May 31st, 2005 at 9:24 am
Ed:
Oh, but I know, with certainty, that Forrest can play loose with the "facts." Y'see, she wrote about me in her book that was published by a major publishing house. Her account was quite flawed and even included a bogus reference to support an ad hominem attack. Go back to Krauze's entry - where he writes, "(the claims of which have been discussed at length, both here, here, and here): Click on the first "here" and you can read my response. You'll note that neither Forrest nor Gross ever showed up to defend their accusations.
I don't have to. They fail to make the case that they are right. All they do is spread gossip.
Ah yes, the sloppy standards of the crazed conspiracy theorist.
Having two WitchHunters say it is so don't make it so.
Now that I have dealt with your tangents, you need to get back to the original point. Why didn't Forrest or Branch make an effort to contact Bradley or the people who hired him? Your next reply needs to answer this question "“ anything else is flushed down the Hole.
Comment by MikeGene — May 31, 2005 @ 9:24 am
May 31st, 2005 at 10:03 am
Hi Mike,
"You'll note that neither Forrest nor Gross ever showed up to defend their accusations."
Considering the way Ed was implying that Beckwith and Bradley should discuss with the critics at Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, I'm sure he's firing up his e-mail service as we speak, explaining to Forrest and Gross why they should show up here.
Comment by Krauze — May 31, 2005 @ 10:03 am
June 1st, 2005 at 12:19 pm
I appreciate Ed's comments about publications. I try my best to do my best, but I fully understand that there will be critics. That's fine, for it sharpens me and forces me to exercise virtue in public.
Let me address Ed's two concerns. First, my testimony in July 2003 involved a very narrow legal question of whether science (including biology) textbooks may include critical comments about evolution in general and neo-Darwinism in particular. My answer was "yes." This seems modest and uncontroversial to me, but I can see why someone like Ed would view my comments as aiding and abetting "creationists." But the academic enterprise should be about the pursuit of truth, even if it means that those truths may provide comfort to those with whom one disagrees. Is Ed suggesting that I should have been dishonest and not told the Board what I really thought for fear that it may help those he perceive are his political adversaries? Sorry, but that's not the way I operate. Perhaps he thinks that I should have not testified at all. Fair enough. To be honest, if I had to do it over again, I would have rejected the invitation to testify for several reasons. But the primary reason is philosophically the least noble: it would have relieved my wife and me of the personal grief and public abuse we suffered at the hands of those that attempted to snuff out the joy of my new employment and our new home.
Second, my entire project concerns the question of whether the federal cases that dealt with the Creation/Evolution cases could applied to ID, which, I argue in my book and law review articles, cannot be legitmately classified as "creationism" as that term is understood by the body of law in this area. So, I think Ed begs the question when he says that "all the cases" go against my thesis. For that is precisely the question: Do all the cases go against my thesis? I argue, "no they don't," and I offer an extended argument that effect. What Ed should do is offer a critique of my arguments rather than taking the question under scrutiny and turning it into an affirmation.
Comment by fbeckwith — June 1, 2005 @ 12:19 pm
June 1st, 2005 at 11:19 pm
Fbeckwith:
Yes, this is perhaps the most troubling aspect of the anti-ID Movement. People need to realize that there are some critics out there who are willing in inflict real-world harm on anyone suspected of being part of "˜The Wedge.' It's a witch-hunter mentality that is rationalized with an "end justifies the means" attitude.
Comment by MikeGene — June 1, 2005 @ 11:19 pm