Professor of new creationism course criticized for e-mail

The Morning Sun {Pittsburg Kansas} ^ | November 25 2005 | AP author unknown

[labette]

LAWRENCE (AP) - Critics of a new course that equates creationism and intelligent design with mythology say an e-mail sent by the chairman of the University of Kansas religious studies department proves the course is designed to mock fundamentalist Christians.

In a recent message on a Yahoo listserv, Paul Mirecki said of the course "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationisms and other Religious Mythologies:"

"The fundies 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."

He signed the note "Doing my part (to upset) the religious right, Evil Dr. P."

Kansas Provost David Shulenburger said Wednesday he regretted the words Mirecki used, but he supported the professor and believed the course would be taught in a professional manner.

"My understanding was that was a private e-mail communication that somehow was moved out of those channels and has become a public document," Shulenburger said.

The course was added to next semester's curriculum after Kansas Board of Education adopted new public school science standards that question the theory of evolution.

The course will explore intelligent design, which contends that life is too complex to have evolved without a "designer," presumably a god or other supernatural being. It also will cover the origins of creationism, why it's an American phenomenon and why Americans have allowed it to pervade politics and education.

State Sen. Karin Brownlee, R-Olathe, said she was concerned by Mirecki's comments in the e-mail.

"His intent to make a mockery of Christian beliefs is inappropriate," she said.

Mirecki said the private e-mail was accessed by an outsider.

"They had been reading my e-mails all along," he said. "Where are the ethics in that, I ask."

When asked about conservative anger directed at him and the new course, Mirecki said: "A lot of people are mad about what's going on in Kansas, and I'm one of them."

Mirecki has been taking criticism since the course was announced.

"This man is a hateful man," said state Sen. Kay O'Connor, R-Olathe. "Are we supposed to be using tax dollars to promote hatred?"

But others support Mirecki.

Tim Miller, a fellow professor in the department of religious studies, said intelligent design proponents are showing that they don't like having their beliefs scrutinized.

"They want their religion taught as fact," Miller said. "That's simply something you can't do in a state university."

Hume Feldman, associate professor of physics and astronomy, said he planned to be a guest lecturer in the course. He said the department of religious studies was a good place for intelligent design.

"I think that is exactly the appropriate place to put these kinds of ideas," he said.

John Altevogt, a conservative columnist and activist in Kansas City, said the latest controversy was sparked by the e-mail.

"He says he's trying to offend us," Altevogt said. "The entire tenor of this thing just reeks of religious bigotry."

Mirecki said intelligent design proponents are pushing indoctrination, not education.

O'Connor countered that it is not indoctrination to give permission to teach what somebody believes to be the truth.

"He wants me to say thank you by giving more money," O'Connor said. "Who is the ignoramus here? Who is the uninformed one here? The professor with the degree or this high school graduate?"

Brownlee said she was watching to see how the university responded to the e-mail.

"We have to set a standard that it's not culturally acceptable to mock

[Elsie]

A God that can't even communicate a single common belief among His followers is impotent.

You're really trying to get Him to 'communicate' to you; eh?

;^)

(Now you've got a REALLY big crowd of Believers praying for you!)

[labette]

I suspect Mr Rational really DID mean to write "present" and not "prevent".
I suppose we could ask him. But to reheat an argument simply for the sake of argument isn't likely to be productive.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"But; withOUT the BB, we never get to the point of E."

Nor do you get to any other point in science. Does that mean that the BB theory is tied into every other theory in science?

[narby]

Just as the Toe CHANGES when new data contradicts the old guesses.

Evolution has changed? Let's see, Darwin said species changed over time, multiple species had common ancestors, survival of the fittest was one of the input elements. What's changed?

Whereas ID can be God made the universe in 6 days via separate creations. Or, God made evolution happen and directed it. Or, extra terrestrials planted primitive cells that evolved on their own.

Which is THE Intelligent Design Elsie?

As I said, ID can be anything, therefore it is nothing.

[narby]

You're really trying to get Him to 'communicate' to you; eh?

I'd be satisfied if all Christians believed the same thing. The fact that they don't tells me there is no real God at the center of their faith.

[Elsie]

Well...

without a beinging........

[Elsie]

I'd be satisfied if all Christians believed the same thing.

Well, don't get dissatisfied when you find out that all Evolutionists do not believe the same then!

[dangus]

First, this is about intelligent design, not creationism.
2nd, The professors have made clear that who they hate are Christians.
3rd, while Islamic beliefs may be reasonably accurately called "creationist," the term uis understood to refer specifically to Christian beliefs.

[LiteKeeper]

YEC INTREP

[dennisw]

rep-tile

[labette]

YEC INTREP

Huh ?
WSTOMH { while scratching top of my head }

[labette]

Young earth creationist ? Intelligence report ??

[Pipeline]

A theory in science never becomes a law no matter how much evidence is accumulated. Thusly, gravitational theory will always remain a theory. A theory in science is the end point.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary/theory

excerpt:[ 4b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory 5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena 6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE]

We have identified the elements on the periodic table (with more to follow, I'm sure) and have gone further to speculate (theorize?) as to what they are made of. When you consider that the entire universe is made of just over 100 basic units it certainly seems plausible that there is some intelligence to the design of the elements. Since no one can explain the origin of the elements or their components, if someone proposes (theorizes?) that the elements may have been designed, does that not constitute a theory?

[Coyoteman]

Since no one can explain the origin of the elements or their components, if someone proposes (theorizes?) that the elements may have been designed, does that not constitute a theory?

As used in science, a theory is not a guess, idle speculation, or "an unproved assumption." In science a lot of steps and work go into a theory, and it is the endpoint of the process, not the beginning.

Your example, above, would be speculation. To be a true scientific, hypothesis and capable of being tested, there would have to be some data, or some connection to the natural world. If it cannot be addressed or tested by science, your speculation could not lead to a scientific hypothesis or theory.

Here are some definitions, more as they are used in science (from a google search):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)

Observation: any information collected with the senses

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

[tallhappy]

Or then again maybe some of the scientists on these threads prefer to follow evidence, rather than belief?

Sorry I missed this.

And of course democrats are pure at heart and want to only help the poor and downtrodden.

[Coyoteman]

Or then again maybe some of the scientists on these threads prefer to follow evidence, rather than belief?

Sorry I missed this.

And of course democrats are pure at heart and want to only help the poor and downtrodden.

You are comparing "scientists" to "democrats"??? Now I am insulted!

[tallhappy]

Learn what is analogy and learn what is scientist.

Then you'll feel better.

[Coyoteman]

Learn what is analogy and learn what is scientist.

Son, I "is" a scientist. But you, if I may hazard a guess, didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[tallhappy]

No idea what you are talking about, but, as far as scientists here. You may be one. The people I'm talking about -- the vast majority here -- are certainly not.

[tallhappy]

You changed the word. I stated "evos" in quotes. I never said anything about scientists. An "evo" may actually have a job as a scientist of some sort. Most don't. "Evos" are people who see this issue as one where by they use science to participate in religious argument and the like. The interest is not the science or evidence for its own sake but for bashing Christians or other beliefs.

That is what I meant by learn what a scientist is as opposed to an "evo".