Kansas Prof. Apologizes for E-Mail [referred to religious conservatives as "fundies" ....]

Yahoo ^

[Sub-Driver]

Kansas Prof. Apologizes for E-Mail

11 minutes ago

A University of Kansas religion professor apologized for an e-mail that referred to religious conservatives as "fundies" and said a course describing intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face."

In a written apology Monday, Paul Mirecki, chairman of the university's Religious Studies Department, said he would teach the planned class "as a serious academic subject and in an manner that respects all points of view."

The department faculty approved the course Monday but changed its title. The course, originally called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationisms and other Religious Mythologies," will instead be called "Intelligent Design and Creationism."

The class was added to next spring's curriculum after the Kansas State Board of Education decided to include more criticism of evolution in its standards for science teaching. The vote was seen as a big win for proponents of intelligent design, who argue that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism — a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation — camouflaged in scientific language.

Mirecki's e-mail was sent Nov. 19 to members of the Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics, a student organization for which he serves as faculty adviser.

"The fundies (fundamentalists) want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category mythology."

Mirecki addressed the message to "my fellow damned" and signed off with: "Doing my part to (tick) off the religious right, Evil Dr. P."

[Coyoteman]

Evolutionists abhor all evidence, and rely on academic dogma to support their positions. On FR evo's have a perfect record of avoiding all evidence that is contradictory to their positions, which is all of the evidence.

Your falsehoods are showing. I have posted this several times, as have others. This is evidence! You may not like it, and you may not believe it, but it is evidence and you can't make it go away. (And if you need, I have a lot more; just say the word.)

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[cornelis]

You prefer polytheism over monotheism. There is good reason for debate between competing claims about a reality we did not cause or bring into existence. We face it and in doing so have come to realize we make mistakes. So we make claims and some use reason to argue, others preference.

Monotheism in Christianity (you say Western God) looks to the resurrected Christ as the revelation of the one true God.

[cornelis]

Unfortunately, reality does not bear that out. While the ToE does not address origins, as we've been told, and science cannot in it's present state deal with the supernatural; a quick reading of some of these threads shows that many *scientists*, as opposed to science, do just that. There have many comments on *the ramblings of bronze age goat herders* and *If you want your kids to grow up to be idiots or janitors* and calling religion outright mythology. Since science does not deal with the supernatural, it always seemed to me that anyone who then tells me that it is not true or not real has overstepped the bounds of what they are qualified to speak on because they don't know that it's not real; they just can't measure it scientifically. There is reality that cannot be measured in the lab but is no less real. Emotions, art, music, social interactions, are all real and perhaps science can record some of the physical properties of some of these things, but it still misses what they are as a whole

Interesting observations. Especially the last. It suggests that the departmentalization of life may be involved in an active resistance larger reality of human life. I guess it's a comfort to depend on what we know to count for what we don't know.

[rootkidslim]

I'm not an expert, but I think I remember hearing that the ongoing dispute about the correct classification of Neanderthals was resolved fairly conclusively. I think the current consensus is that they were a separate species descended directly from H. Erectus, not a subspecies of H. Sapiens. The battle went on for at least a decade until someone succeeded in extracting Neanderthal DNA from some bones.

[cornelis]

active resistance to the larger reality of life

[cornelis]

Christianity OR Common Descent

I also reject the simple dichotomy. We need to be more careful Conceptions of Christianity differ. The concept of Common Descent is sometimes misapplied.

[metmom]

Thanks, I was trying to figure out what you meant there. I figured that your brain was working faster than your fingers, like mine does often.

[Right Wing Professor]

To top it off, posting a Darwin Fish on your school web site is a direct slam against Christians, as the Ichtuhs was an early Christian symbol used to secretly identify each other during times of Roman Government persecution. To post a Darwin fish is to express contempt for the Christian religion as a whole, as it is a desecration of a sacred religious symbol.

Any other expression you'd like to ban, while you're at it?

The Darwin fish is a perfectly fair piece of political commentary. It is not disrespectful, nor is intended to be. Evidently you want your symbols to be immune from any sort of comment. Sorry.

I happen to have a Darwin fish tee shirt on today, but your post reminds me I should also add one to my University of Nebraska web page.

You are right, the evos tend to be facist while at the same time accusing their opponents of being the thing that they are.

The sheer self-unawareness of this is hilarious.

[Chiapet]

I am not sure whether advocacy of religion in public schools would be a good idea, but a fair and free discussion of religion is certainly something children should be exposed to. They should know about the Pilgrims and Thanksgiving and the revival movements of the nineteenth century. They should know something about the Bible as they should know something about Aristotle, Plato, and Greek tragedy, and other major literary and philosophical works.

No single book has been more influential on our history, culture, and civilization than the Bible. Yet it is not allowed into our schools.

First, I think that advocacy of religion in public schools is a terrible idea. It would create an endless string of problems and battles, beginning with whose religion to advocate and ending with the inevitable bad teaching that you find in public schools. Do the religious folks in this forum really want to entrust the teaching of religious doctrine to the public schools?

And second, while I agree that the bible and the history of judeo-christianity should be taught in public schools, as you can see from this thread, if, as you suggest, it is taught as a literary and philosophical work, fundamentalist Christians will scream and whine because it isn't being taught as fact. It seems to be an insurmountable problem.

[cornelis]

I'm slowly acquiring the habit of using the spell button. I do try to post replies that are in the interest of knowledge rather than petty score keeping.

[Chiapet]

It is irresponsible for the faculty to allow this person to teach this class; it should be either cancelled, or taught by someone who can bring himself to a more fair treatment.

I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall from the earlier article that this guy isn't the one teaching the class. It is just being taught in his department. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong :)

[js1138]

...unless evoluion can definitively state that there was no design or purpose.

Evolution doesn't have anything at all to say about purpose. As for design, that is what natural selection attempts to explain. No alternative mechanism has been proposed, at least according to Behe, testying in court under oath.

[rootkidslim]

Thanks for the welcome, I enjoy reading your posts.

[KC Burke]

I think Hayek makes a point somewhere how the slow evolutionary processes of careful reform in social concepts, politics and government, were actually laid out in 18th century english and scottish englightenment documents that were drawn upon by Darwin in his biological theorizing.

[js1138]

the scientist would trust that the principles of nature have an aspect of free agency and expects things along the line of unpredictability.

There are countless unpredictable things studied by science. Complexity is unpredictable, as is chaos. And Quantum level events are, to the best of our ability to define the concept, completely random and uncaused.

None of this hinders our ability to study unpredictable phenomena.

[cornelis]

It seems to be an insurmountable problem.

Yes, it does. But this is a recent phenomenon. It wasn't always the case.

I completely disagree with the concept of content neutrality in education which half the Supreme Court has ruled by. I don't think there is such as a thing as neutrality in education. We aren't neutral people.

And I agree with you that entrusting the education of these important works to teachers who are actively resistant to them is detrimental. Imagine letting PatrickHenry and Right Wing Professor teach the Bible!

But of course academic freedom would not prevent them from pinging their ideas. Some kind of freedom is necessary for right ideas to prevail.

The answer then, short of being insurmountable, is a change in the concept of public education. This will be especially necessary if our government insists that public education will not allow academic freedom.

[cornelis]

Evolution doesn't have anything at all to say about purpose.

Not true for Darwin.

[furball4paws]

Hhhhmmmm....
Some threads get to the point that they "stink", like this one. When that happens someone usually finds some new newsworthy thing to post.

[js1138]

Educate me. What does Darwin have to say about purpose.

[cornelis]

There are kinds of things we term unpredictable, some instrinsic, some extrinsic. The concept of spontanaeity and abiogenesis, for example, are used to address either more or less contextual phenomena that provide the conditions for the possibility of an event.

Agency of will is an extrinsic cause. Your use of science is restricted to particular causality, but the event is not.