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."

[Virginia-American]

Why is evolution considered anti-Christian? ...about 60 million Roman Catholics in the U.S. -- two or three times the number of evangelicals. ... but the church leadership teaches that evolution is an historic fact.

I thought I said something like that. The post I replied to was fussing about the prof's perceived anti-Christian bias, and I pointed out that Catholics and "main-line" Protestants on the whole are OK with biological evolution, but that Scientologists, Moonies, and Muslims are creationists.

[cornelis]

It is an abstraction

That's one way of looking at it.

[puroresu]

The problem is the underlying assumption of atheism that exists in evolution as it is currently taught. I don't know how many times I've heard evolution proponents argue that ID can be taught in the religious studies department but not in the science department. Then, it turns out that the chairman of the religious studies department at this Kansas school is an atheist who wants to create a class in his department to mock and ridicule ID'ers.

So you can have a presence among us. We just can't have a presence among you.

Is macro-evolution true? Maybe. There's some evidence for it. But **IF** it is true, does that mean it occurred for purely naturalistic reasons or did God guide it, or at least set it in motion?

Or to put it another way: Does God have anything at all to do with how we got here? The fundamentalist evolutionist position is that He didn't. That evolution just happened to occur. Even if God exists, it still just happened to occur. He had nothing whatsoever to do with it. It would have occurred exactly the same way whether He exists or not.

If that's one's position, fine. We're all entitled to our opinion. But you can't simultaneously argue that position and then argue that purely naturalistic evolution isn't anti-Christian. A central tenet of Christianity is that we're children of God, created in His image, not some random product of processess He had nothing to do with.

Yes, the Catholic hierarchy accepts evolutionary theory. They also once taught that the earth is the center of the universe, a non-Biblical position which was the prevailing view of the "enlightened" at the time they adopted it.

This isn't an easy issue to deal with. But a little humility would help ease things. I don't claim to have all the answers. But I don't think science has always assumed that God is irrelevant to the universe's existence. Yet, we're told that to even suggest that an outside force greater than man had something to do with the order we see in the universe is "unscientific" and thus banned from the science class. Even if it's TRUE, it would have to be banned, which would seem to be a paradox. It establishes rules for science which would guarantee that it can't find the truth if God exists. It can only be accurate if He doesn't exist.

Would you find it outrageous if, in science classes, it was suggested that A) there are alternative explanations for the evidence put forth for evolution and B) science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence, so He MAY be necessary for the universe and science itself to exist?

[js1138]

Actually, evolution describes the effects of the environment on populations, not individuals. The difference is important when arguing with a nitpicker.

The semantic problem is describing what it is that changes in response to environmental pressure. The most nearly correct answer is allele frequency.

ID folks would love to assert that variation anticipates or responds to need, that variation is purposive.

[js1138]

ID has nothing to do with religion. Folks have testified under oath to this effect. Mocking ID is not mocking religion.

[editor-surveyor]

The "nonsense" is working for hundreds of people, Kevin Trudeau not withstanding. Live in darkness by choice.

[cornelis]

Fine post. Thanks.

[editor-surveyor]

How can totally unrelated skulls be evidence of anything? The differences between them is in most cases quite striking. The term 'hominid' is obviously incredibly broad. I await 'evidence' that proves something other than that some people wish to be descended from kritters that have mouths like dogs, and no room for brains.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

I was talking about Natural Selection, which does have the individual as it's target (mostly; social organisms complicate the picture). Evolution does indeed need a population in that if you are going to talk about the change in allele frequency, you need to have more than one individual to establish difference. Evolution is not Natural Selection, per se. Evolution can happen through means other than natural selection.

"The semantic problem is describing what it is that changes in response to environmental pressure. The most nearly correct answer is allele frequency."

And this is always after the fact. As you say, the ID'ers will find no comfort here.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The "nonsense" is working for hundreds of people, Kevin Trudeau not withstanding. Live in darkness by choice."

When it isn't killing them. My sister has MS, and it is most definitely NOT caused by a dietary deficiency, nor an improper body PH.


You DO know where this stuff comes from, right? Scientology.

BTW, the wild claims for the benefits of coral calcium are a lie.

Live in darkness if you wish.

[zeeba neighba]

Exactly true. Giving up meat for example, affects arthritis positively, as uric acid is reduced. But, let them eat whatever they wish, lol. (Oh by the way, you seem to be, along with Mamzelle the new whipping-boy, congrats!)

[Right Wing Professor]

I'm not attempting to ban it, I just don't think it is appropriate for a professor of Religion to use a desecrated religious symbol as a political statement on a web site paid for by the hard earned tax dollars of people who consider it to be a sacrilege.

Uh-huh. Back in the late 80's, I remember when the left wanted to shut us up, they'd tell us what we said was 'not appropriate'. You want by legal means to prevent Mirecki and me from expressing our views, in an area that is in both our cases directly related to our scholarship. That's banning.

The Ichthus predated the cross as the identifying religious symbol of Christians during their persecution by the Roman authorities. The Darwin fish is nothing more than a statement of contempt for Christianity in general and what you contemptuously refer to as "fundamentalist" Christianity in particular.

I am well familiar with the history of the Icthys symbol. The Darwin fish is not a symbol of contempt for Christianity in general, it's an affirmation of the independence of science and a rather witty, yet gentle way of adapting the symbolism of those who seek to destroy it - fundamentalist Christians.

You note that it is your desire to use tax dollars to post a Darwin fish on your University of Nebraska web page. I am not surprised at all that you would think nothing of desecrating a religious symbol to make a political statement and mock those whose religious beliefs are in contrast to your own. Your arrogance is obvious to everyone. You are not the Right Wing professor that you portray yourself to be. A "right wing" professor would show some respect for other's deeply held religious beliefs. You, however, feel no compunction about urinating all over other's beliefs and then calling it art. You and Andres Serrano are blood brothers in that department. Both of you seem willing to use tax dollars to denigrate the religious beliefs of taxpayers

Your bizarre hyperbole is hilarious. If you want to be taken seriously, lose the hysteria.

When I went to college, the professors wore suits and did not denigrate the institutions of higher learning that were paying their salaries by wearing silly T-Shirts with anti-religious political statements on them. Back then professors had class

And you drove to school in a horse and buggy. Welcome to the 21st century.

I suspect that if a professor wore an "Ichthus" shirt <>< to class at the University of Nebraska (or even an Ichthus lapel pin) that the administration would be all over him like white on rice and he would probably be hauled before some committee who would be more than happy to revoke his tenure and give him the boot

You are deluded. Faculty have all sorts of symbols posted in their personal space here, from Christian crosses to gay rainbows. If any one of them were fired for it, all of us would be up in arms.

You have a serious martyrdom complex.

In fact, it's the other way round. A former colleague of mine, from biology, had a Darwin fish on her door, and was pressured to remove it by a senior colleague who said it offended him. And since she was on a temporary appointment and he was tenured, she had no alternative.

I dare you to denigrate some Islamic symbol and post it on your web site or to wear a T-Shirt that denigrates some Islamic symbol and otherwise disrespects the religious views of the Muslims at your school.

Fundamentalist Muslims object to Darwin, just as fundamentalist Christians do. If you come up with some symbol that in a witty way takes a symbol of fundamentalist Islam and adapts it to affirm evolution, I will be delighted to display it.

I've freely expressed my opinion of fundamentalist Islam here and elsewhere.

[cornelis]

There is a difference between the problem of equivocation and the error of univocal predication.

[zeeba neighba]

The Darwin "fish" is just a creepy crawly thing.

[Coyoteman]

How can totally unrelated skulls be evidence of anything? The differences between them is in most cases quite striking. The term 'hominid' is obviously incredibly broad. I await 'evidence' that proves something other than that some people wish to be descended from kritters that have mouths like dogs, and no room for brains.

In response to your challenge that no evidence has been posted on these threads, I posted some evidence. You apparently are unwilling to see it. I'll post some more when I have time. (None is so blind...)

Have a nice day.

[Right Wing Professor]

The Darwin "fish" is just a creepy crawly thing.

Well, I think he's cute.

[zeeba neighba]

Im not surprised.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Clearly you are one of the Pharma trolls here. The lies that people like you tell are harming milloins of people."

"Scientology has nothing to do with it, scientology is much like evolution: a refuge for the willfuly ignorant, and a home for tyrants. Nutrition is the complete key to life and an end to all disease."

The whole Trudeau based *Natural Cures* movement is tied in with Scientology. It is based on scientelogical principles. Trudeau's book specifically says to use scientelogical principles.

Nutrition will not *cure* most diseases. My sister ate the same food as we all did; why did she get MS and not the rest of us (I have three brothers)?

You sir, are a scientific illiterate.

[teawithmisswilliams]

I pointed out that Catholics and "main-line" Protestants on the whole are OK with biological evolution, but that Scientologists, Moonies, and Muslims are creationists.

Catholics and Protestants do believe, though, that God created the universe. Does Darwinism require that you reject that premise?