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
Now from what side of politics do we usually hear that?
Is that a scientific viewpoint? I would be curious about how you jumped to your conclusion and what research went into the "proof" and the following "ergo".
The language used in the e-mail was a little rough. But any one of us who hasn't used in appropriate wording in a private e-mail can cast the first stone.
I have great respect for many things the Christian fundimentalists are doing. But creationism/ID is not one of them, and they should be mocked for their support of something that is obviously false, yet taught as "truth".
I was taught as a boy at a Southern Baptist church retreat that there were no contradictions between Genesis and science (evolution). These fundimentalist churches should return to that teaching from 40 years ago, and there will be no conflict. And there will be no physical evidence to tempt young people to reject their faith, because the faith will be in harmony with the physical evidence. This is what the Catholic Church does, and they will have no damage from this silly controversy.
Sorry, My error. The last of the quote didn't come through.
"The entire tenor of this thing just reeks of religious bigotry."
Struck a nerve, he did. What hypocrisy. It's okay to try to push teaching of ID and a supernatural cause in high school biology classes and it's okay to mock the ToE and call it a religion, but it's not okay to explore ID and Creationism as religious beliefs in a college level comparative religion course.
I'll assure you that my ancestors were Divinely created.
What's a fundimentalist?
If these comments were made about any other religious or special interest group this professor would be reprimanded or forced to resign.
Imagine the statement "I'm teaching womens studies just to piss off these lezbos". Oh the outrage we would hear.
The creationism/ID/Evolution is a bit complex, however, some notes -
1.) It is not scientific to investigate something when you are biased against it.
2.) There are real good reasons why we use the term "Theory of Evolution" rather than "Law of Evolution".
3.) It is a giant leap to move from understanding evolution to claiming that it explains the origins of life. One can easily say that that "leap" is a leap of faith.
4.) The class should prevent pros and cons of competing theories in a scientific, (non-biased) manner, and let the chips fall where they may. This professor has indicated he is biased, and will be unable to do that.
"Christian fundimentalists... they should be mocked"
Doesn't sound like a reasonable or scientific way to engage debate with anyone.
Use your imagination.
A scientific theory can never become a law. apples and oranges.
3.) It is a giant leap to move from understanding evolution to claiming that it explains the origins of life.
Evolution is not about the origin of life.
Much as I think ID is an utter scientific crock and con game, I can't agree with this as the standard for what should and shouldn't be taught. I mean, surely we don't teach the Holocost and slavery "objectively", but that doesn't mean we shouldn't teach those subjects on those grounds.
Would you get into a serious debate with someone who thought they would live in paradise with 72 virgins if they martyr themselves against Americans?
I rather think you'd mock them for such stupidity.
Once the overwhelming scientific information for evolution has been rejected by a creationist/IDer, then they deserve mocking for believing in complete balderdash. There is no basis for honest "debate", because they've been shot down in flames for 150 years and enough already. Creationists/IDers have given us no correct information, they have produced no affirmative evidence in their favor, in all that time. All they can do is critique evolution, and badly at that.
ANYTHING can be criticized. Creationists should pray that the pushback they get from science doesn't result in direct examination of the rest of their faith, because such a thing won't be pretty.
Throwing rocks from a glass house isn't a smart move by creationists.
Evolution is more than a myth - it's a religion, requiring faith to believe it.
Holocost == Holocaust, obviously.
Evolution evolved, from a hypothesis to a theory to a "fact".
A fish can't have a reptile and a reptile can't have a bird. Evolution isn't science; it's a fairy tale.
"Once the overwhelming scientific information for evolution has been rejected by a creationist"
The overwhelming evidence for creation and against evolution is ignored by its believers.
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.