Posted on 11/25/2005 6:19:05 AM PST by 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
OK. Since you bring this up, and you don't have to, what do you study?
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".
Post #137:
Learn what is analogy and learn what is scientist.
First, I didn't change any words. I quoted you exactly. Scientific training, I guess.
I also think that there are quite a few other scientists posting on these threads. Our goal is not to "bash" religion, but to keep ID out of science classes.
This whole fight was started not by scientists, but by the "ID" crowd after CS was removed from science classes by the Supreme Court. They seem to be following The Wedge Strategy of the Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture.
You want to see some real bashing? Take a look at the hatred and, frequently, outright falsehoods some of the CS and ID types throw at evolution and the scientists who study it. There are many examples on these threads.
Finally, I think the number of "evos" on these threads, as you define them, are very few.
Of course. It's clear from years of these threads that that is the actual interest of the "evos" much more than studying biology or evolution.
Never did I equate "evo" with scientist. You did that in answering.
These threads predate any attempt put ID in science classes.
OK. Since you bring this up, and you don't have to, what do you study?
Anthropology, but mostly the "hands dirty" fields, archaeology and physical anthropology. Two of my fields for the Ph.D. exams were human osteology and fossil man.
However, I still think there are few of what you define as "evos" on these threads. There are a number of scientists on these threads.
I think most here are "evos". I don't see much real understanding of or genuine interest in science.
You don't understand what religion is. Religion has nothing to do with God; religion is man's way of side-stepping God's commandments to create a god in their own twisted image. Christianity is not religion; It's the only irrefutable reality that exists.
"Are they trying to bring down evolution to their lower level?"
Evolution is the product of the lowest level. It is the result of the desire to live by one's own standards, rather than proven, irrefutable truth.
"Or trying to raise their flimsy faith to the level of a science?"
Is your faith flimsy? - Science is the objective acceptance of the observable. When the observable supports faith, then science requires acceptance of that fact.
Balderdash! - The supernatural is constantly observed, and it is by far the most studied subject on earth.
Thanks for the ping!
well said. Most religions are man-centered rather than God centered. The focus of Christianity is on Christ and Christ's grace rather than Man and man's works. This is what distinguishes Christianity from the rest and makes it more likely to be the true path.
What you quoted applies equally well to the whole evolution theory of origins.
The spontaneous generation of life is equally outside the realm of the observable. Yet without that evolution has no chance.
Good and interesting point
Yes, because Jesus Christ taught that it would happen that way.
Mat 7:22-23
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Or is my contention correct that they merely interpreted the Bible differently, in a way where they believed they were not committing sin?
As you can clearly see, Jesus Christ expects us to understand the correct interpretation. The straightforward one. This is not some kind of game of dial-in-your-preferred-interpretation.
The point is not that some of us can be perfect. The point is that only some of us will recognize that we are imperfect, and ask God for His mercy and grace.
Evols don't seem to know the difference between creationism and intelligent design.
Or perhaps it's that they don't WANT to know there is a difference. I've explained the difference more than once on these threads and the evols continue to 'play dumb.'
I really don't understand it. If they were confident that the theory of evolution is solid, they certainly wouldn't display such fear of questions.
Perhaps they are not so confident as they'd like to appear.
"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."
Wow, how old is this guy? Three?
Now that this "professor" has suffered one or two slaps to the face certain evos are alarmed at the "disgusting violence so many Christians condone." At the same time, they have little to criticize about a professor who sets up a class specifically intended to ridicule the beliefs of others. It's the perfect opportunity for folks to play the game of self-righteous victim while paiting all Christians with the broad brush of violent ignoramuses.
At one time science said the Bible was wrong, and the Hittites did not exist. However, the Bible was correct, and science wrong.
History of man is not a terribly hard science. DNA sequencing, like that tying together primate species including humans via identical virus insertions, is.
Time and again the Bible has been proven right and mockers wrong, and you will be too.
I'm sure there are "correct" part of the Koran too. And the Torah. But none of them can point to independent evidence of a deity.
The tone of your last sentence sounds as if you're petrified of the idea that there might not be a God. You should be scared. It's lonely without my imaginary friend now. Seriously.
I just find it impossible to believe in a fantasy. I cannot lie to myself.
At least you have finally revealed yourself for what you are in reality...an atheist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.