Notes From A Retired Preacher

Baylor Rejects Intelligent Design

April 23, 2008 · 27 Comments

Baylor University, formerly a great Baptist university in Texas has unveiled their true colors. They have succumbed to the religion of Darwinism by rejecting the concept of Intelligent Design (that the universe in which we live was created by a greater Intelligence). Biblical Christians reject the ridiculous theory of Darwinism and evolution.
Below is a quote from The Berean Call which shows the depths to which Baylor has sunk.

We’re saddened to report on a recent administrative action at Baylor University (a Baptist school) in Texas, where administrators ordered a professor’s personal website be shut down because of “anonymous concerns” that the site supported ideas associated with the intelligent design movement (IDM).
Baylor’s record on dealing with academic freedom, particularly as it concerns intelligent design the IDM, is now all the more odious. In 2000, Baylor removed intelligent design theorist William Dembski, now at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, because Dembski “refus[ed] to rescind a statement supporting Intelligent Design as a legitimate form of academic inquiry.”
The professor under fire this time is Robert Marks, distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering, who launched a website called the “Evolutionary Informatics Lab” in June to study whether natural selection can use chance mutations to generate new information. “Marks’ conclusions, as explained on the website, placed limits on the scope of Darwinism and offered scientific support for Intelligent Design,” explains Baptist Press.
The debate, surprisingly, does not concern the validity of Marks’ research, but rather “Baylor’s policies and procedures of approving centers, institutes, products using the university’s name,” according to Lori Fogleman, director of media communications at Baylor. In July, after giving an interview to the IDM-promoting Discovery Institute, Marks was asked by Baylor’s engineering school dean to remove the website. In response, Marks requested a meeting for discussion, but just shy of a week before the scheduled meeting, all references to the Evolutionary Informatics Lab on Marks’ website were forcibly removed.
Should we be surprised? Dembski, the previous victim, offers a fairly chilling perspective on academic freedom when it comes to disagreement with Darwin:
“You have to understand, in the current academic climate, Intelligent Design is like leprosy or heresy in times past. To be tagged as an ID supporter is to become an academic pariah, and this holds even at so-called Christian institutions that place a premium on respectability at the expense of truth and the offense of the Gospel.”

Excerpted from Answers In Genesis

Pray for the students and administration at Baylor.

Click here — Find out how to be absolutely sure of Heaven.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

Categories: Christianity · Faith · Religion · Webloggin Blogroll

27 responses so far ↓

  • Jon // April 24, 2008 at 1:23 am

    I’m a recent Baylor alumnus. Now, I do understand why you’ve posted this — legitimately, Baylor is squelching any ID research. The Web site rules are technicalities which most departments never hear about.

    But please don’t post that “they” at Baylor have sunk to these depths. While ID lost in this case (as it did in the Dempski case), it’s first off not a strictly Baptist issue, because it simply has nothing to do with salvation, and secondly, at Baylor — and this is very important — it’s still a discussion.

    Most colleges wouldn’t have articles about this because those writing for the college newspapers would think the idea of ID too foolish to even write about seriously. Baylor, where the most liberal students are the ones reporting the news (I know, from personal experience), still has enough intellectual honesty to create the discussion.

    I’m not saying that’s good. I’m saying it’s not as bad as it could be, and I’m saying that the kerfluffle over this particular issue is a sign of life at Baylor, not the other way ’round.

    I don’t know if you’ll agree, and further (and no offense intended) I doubt that you’ve got many scientific arguments lined up on either side of this debate (I’ve done a bit o research, but I don’t either), but I do want to stand up, in some poor, partial, imperfect bway, for Baylor in this matter.


  • matjew // April 24, 2008 at 3:27 am

    Baylor is wrong, as is the whole anti-ID intolerance, for a simple reason. The PC police demand that all of us believe that the entire history of life on earth happened RANDOMLY (natural selection, etc.). Any questioning of randomness is equated with heresy. In any other scientific discipline, such orthodoxy would be rightly seen as ridiculous.

    To raise the possibility that something more than mere random mutation reshuffling of binary DNA code led to all the complexity of life on earth is not heresy. It’s good science.

    Whether that ‘more’ is processing or programming, random or not, at higher levels of ‘code’ (as with computers, binary is only the most basic level, and the real information is stored at higher levels) or is a ‘more’ of some super-intelligent programmER, or any other possibility, is not so relevant. But to DEMAND compliance with a belief in randomness is no less ridiculous than demanding compliance in belief in God.

  • seedsaside // April 24, 2008 at 4:00 am

    There are more than “just mere” random mutations to lead to evolution. Please try to understand the concept of natural selection, which is the next step, and it’s adding a lot, conceptually speaking. Natural selection is the non-random choice among randomly produced variants over time, and this quite different from the ‘randomness’ you stated. Moreover, DNA is not a binary code at all. I understand your position but I think you would more appropriately consider the debate at hand if you understand biology and evolution better.

  • ponderingpastor // April 24, 2008 at 7:34 am

    You write: “Biblical Christians reject the ridiculous theory of Darwinism and evolution.”
    Wrong. Dead wrong. Biblical Christians hold many different views, and some of them hold to the theories of evolution. You don’t get to define “Biblical Christians”.

  • Chris Taylor // April 24, 2008 at 7:53 am

    “Biblical Christians hold many different views and some of them hold to the theories of evolution”…

    Careful…Who created Man? Darwinian Evolution says Man evolved from single celled organisms. God tells us that He created Man from the clay/dust.

    Job attests to being made from clay/dust

    Apostles attest to the idea of returning to clay/dust

    God bless,

  • seedsaside // April 24, 2008 at 8:54 am

    >”Who created Man? Darwinian Evolution says Man evolved from single celled organisms. God tells us that He created Man from the clay/dust.”

    Ultimately, the synthetic view of evolution holds that the single celled ancestor came from non-celled precursors.

    And among scientific theories about the origin of life, one makes the hypothesis of appearance of self-replicating molecules from clay substrates. This, for example, would allow Christians to both accept science and a metaphorical reading of the bible as compatible and valid. (there is no mention anywhere in the bible that creation of Man was not evolutionary guided).

    Taking the bible litterarily such as creationists do is somewhat ways more “ridiculous” than evolution science. For bible is self-contradicting at many places (please read it –and for a good reason, it’s a self assemblage of different texts written by different authors). I don’t mind people taking it as an absolute truth, as long as they don’t try to push this historically and scientifically inaccurate view as valid science (which is what political ID proponents do).

  • expreacherman // April 24, 2008 at 9:13 am


    I appreciate your stopping by and thanks for your comment. I pray for Baylor, the students and administration.

    True, these circumstances show that there is a sign of life at Baylor, but with a proper Biblical administration, this kerfuffle would never have happened at all..

    No, I am not a scientist… just a retired preacher with a hobby of science for four decades, studying the Bible and Creation Science.

    I appreciate your stand for the truth.and your school.. Maybe others like you can influence Baylor to return to the truth.

    In Christ eternally,


  • expreacherman // April 24, 2008 at 9:49 am


    Thanks for your views..

    It seems it would to take more faith to believe in a theory of Random Evolution than to believe in Creation and Intelligent design by the God of the Universe.

    As a former atheist who tinkered with the theory of evolution and Darwinism, I am now a believer in Jesus Christ and the Bible. I am also relieved to know that I am not the random, accidental ancestor of primordial pond scum.

    In Christ,


  • expreacherman // April 24, 2008 at 10:00 am

    Thanks Chris,

    Absolutely true… Appreciate your comment.

    In Christ eternally,


  • expreacherman // April 24, 2008 at 10:06 am


    Your entire premise neglects the facts.

    You said:
    “the single celled ancestor came from non-celled precursors.”

    “one makes the hypothesis of appearance of self-replicating molecules from clay substrates”

    We ultimately must understand — that non-celled precursors did not create themselves. — these supposed self-replicating molecules in clay substrates would not be accidents. If such ever existed, they were created. Your strong faith in randomized evolution is commendable but wrongly placed.

    Everything in this marvelous, well timed, perfectly ordered and aligned universe was created by the God of the Universe. It did not just “happen.”

    In Christ eternally,


  • Ozymandias // April 24, 2008 at 10:37 am

    There is nothing wrong with accepting that we evolved from monkeys.

  • God // April 24, 2008 at 11:38 am

    Traitors to the cause! They just made My List!

  • expreacherman // April 24, 2008 at 11:57 am


    Choose your ancestors if you think you can.


  • seedsaside // April 24, 2008 at 12:52 pm

    We ultimately must understand — that non-celled precursors did not create themselves.

    I leave this possibility open, I don’t need a “must”. My take on this, based on biochemistry is that it could well ‘happen’, as you put it. I don’t blame anybody to think otherwise though.

    Your strong faith in randomized evolution is commendable but wrongly placed.

    i/ Please try to understant evolution is not just a “randomized” process. It is not.

    ii/ I do not have “faith” in evolution, I lean where scientific evidence is. It doesn’t require faith, it only require understanding the facts. My concern with “faith” though is that people who only rely on faith fail to acknowledge there are other ways to understand the universe (and science is one). For example, lighting a lamp doesn’t require to have faith in electricity.

  • totaltransformation // April 24, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    Man’s rebellion against God indeed knows no limits.

    “Biblical Christians hold many different views, and some of them hold to the theories of evolution”

    Indeed, when God’s word tells us that death entered the world through sin, we should instead believe that death was an essential part of God’s plan of natural selection and survival of the fittest. This makes perfect sense. So what do you think when you read Paul’s statement that sin (death) entered the world through one man (Adam), and was conquered by one man (Christ)? Of course we must reject Paul, correct? For death has always been a part of creation, no?

    How sad, the lengths to which even believers will go to avoid looking foolish in the eyes of the world. But they receive their reward in this world- as they are patted on the back for compromising God’s word and avoid the scorn and derision directed towards those foolish enough to believe in God’s complete roll in Creation.

    “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”

  • expreacherman // April 24, 2008 at 1:35 pm


    You said:
    For example, lighting a lamp doesn’t require to have faith in electricity.

    You already have faith — based upon your knowledge and experience.

    The lamp did not create itself.. a person designed and built it for a specific purpose.

    Electricity did not discover itself — a person discovered it and designed ways to use it, the lamp.

    Intelligent design in both cases..

    You must have faith, that when you flip the switch for the lamp — it will work. You believe the switch and the lamp will do what they were designed to do — light the lamp. The same applies with everything around you.

    Faith is required by you that your automobile will start when you turn the key. You may not think about it but you know from your automobile manual and your experience that it will start when you turn the key. This illustration goes for everything around you — too many to mention in this small comment section.

    Our “manual” is God’s Word, the Holy Bible. It is absolutely reliable when applied properly.

    In Christ eternally,


  • expreacherman // April 24, 2008 at 1:37 pm


    Thanks — a great comment — and true!

    In Christ eternally,


  • Lynda // April 24, 2008 at 8:09 pm

    For anyone who thinks they are a Christian, but that it’s okay to believe in evolution: if you don’t believe Genesis, the rest of the Bible is gibberish to you. If you can’t believe God’s Word regarding ‘In the beginning, God created….’ then you can’t believe anything Jesus said (He quoted from Genesis, you know) and you can’t believe that He rose from the dead and saved you from your sins.

    In your worldview lie the seeds of destruction. God is a God of His Word Who cannot lie. Deal with it, or deal with the consequences of your disbelief. It’s that simple.

  • expreacherman // April 24, 2008 at 9:03 pm


    Great Biblical based comment — as usual.



  • seedsaside // April 25, 2008 at 2:19 am


    So let’s follow the logic:
    The lamp did not create itself.. a person designed and built it for a specific purpose.

    1. So is it for lamps, cars, well anything human produces. But each kind of lamp wasn’t designed by a single designer, nor are cars for that very same reason. Therefore, this is “evidence” for multiple designers… I think you thus made an argument for pantheism (there’s nothing that urge people to think there’s only one grand designer of Nature, while there are so many designers for manufactures).

    2. Let’s look at cars. Okay, they are designed. But cars from the 1920’s are not the same from those we see now (same for lamps or whatever manufactured good). Actually, there are lines were you can see improvements over time. Yep, cars evolved. Your argument is therefore an argument for evolution too.

    Thanks and cordially,

  • expreacherman // April 25, 2008 at 10:15 am

    Sorry Seedsaside, spurious sophistry.

    Jesus Christ is the answer to your confusion.

    Check Him out at:

    In Christ eternally,


  • matjew // April 27, 2008 at 4:02 am

    seedsaside, the evidence has never shown any intermediate species. All billions’ of years’ worth of fossil record.

    The existing theory of evolution by random mutation + natural selection works just fine to explain variation, but not speciation. I do know a lot about it– I’ve taken MA level classes in evolutionary biology and count David Stern of Princeton as a friend of mine.

    The problem is that this has become a religious debate on BOTH sides. A theory that does NOT yet adequately explain the facts has been put out as if it’s something that needs to be BELIEVED in, in contrast to most science (nobody need believe in Einsteinian physics to use nuclear power!). And counter-theories (I personally like ‘punctuated equilibrium far more than ID, anyway) have also been hijacked for explicitly religious purposes.

    Unfortunately evolutionary scientists and pundits have sought to explain, not just describe, the process by which life arose and developed on earth. They have exceeded what science was really capable of.

    Big Bang theory is perfectly compatible with theology (at least with Jewish theology, which I know the most about); it says what happened, and even aspects of how, but leaves plenty of room for WHY and HOW to bigger forces than science can grasp. Evolutionary EVIDENCE has that room– but the theory does not.


  • expreacherman // April 27, 2008 at 11:38 am


    A very thoughtful piece… even though I disagree with some of it. The “billions of years” might disagree with my theology but you make a great point, no “intermediate species.”

    The Big Bang theory is a stretch for an evolutionist — because the materials (energy) which supposedly comprise the Big Bang had to be there (created) to go “Bang.” Without “something created” it would not even be a whimper.

    Your Tanakh and my Bible have the answer in Genesis 1:1
    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    Thanks for your comments.

    In Christ eternally,


  • matjew // April 29, 2008 at 3:43 am

    ExP, check out Gerald Schroeder. The Genesis account of 5768 years, and the billions of years that physics, geology, and paleontology claim, need not contradict.

    In fact there is a Jewish midrash from thousands of years ago that alleges that Adam was actually the 974th generation of mankind (Moses was the 1000th). That would about work with anthropology’s claim of the arising of modern man some tens of thousands of years ago.

    Nachmanides, from 900 years ago, based on biblical sources and mysticism, claimed that the universe was over 4 billion years old. No problem with geology.

    A biblical view holds that before people entered ‘fallen’ time, before experiencing the expulsion from Eden, they lived in an eternal ‘now’, where passage of time was subjectively felt differently. (check out hunter-gatherer groups… ;) Only after Adam’s sin, do we feel time as we currently do– thus 5768 years.

  • Richard Bowman // April 29, 2008 at 9:21 am

    This may be a meaningless comment to most, but if you had of been there on Feburary 11, 1999 and held my son the day he was born, you would of been convinced that he was wonderfully created by the Living God!!!!!

  • expreacherman // April 29, 2008 at 2:06 pm


    Amen!! There is proof.

    In Christ eternally,


  • expreacherman // April 29, 2008 at 3:03 pm


    The Schroeder link did not work.. but never mind as I will stick to the Genesis account and apparent age concept rather than the billions of years idea.

    You said, “alleges that Adam was actually the 974th generation of mankind..”

    I believe the Biblical account that affirms Adam as the first man according to the book of Genesis. In addition we see:
    1 Corinthians 15:45, 47
    And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
    The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second Man is the Lord from heaven.

    I disagree with Mr. Nachmanides, since he is a mystic, using portions of the Bible. Unfortunately there are many such mystics subverting the Bible who claim the “truth” from that time period — before and since. We see Mohammed, Joseph Smith and scores more — but there is no truth therein.

    MatJew, I appreciate your comments and scholarship but obviously we disagree on theology. I appreciate that you agree that evolution is a myth.

    Thanks for your comments.

    In Christ eternally,


Leave a Comment