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
Actually, the ERV DNA sequences found in primates including humans affirmatively prove that they are descended from the single individual who got that virus millions of years ago. And thus prove evolution of humans from an earlier common ancestor shared by both those primates and humans.
But besides that, It's always amazed me that religious people would seek to criticize evolution by labeling it "religion". Are they trying to bring down evolution to their lower level? Or trying to raise their flimsy faith to the level of a science?
It shows that the academics of the non-science arts are much to blame for the original start of the controversy and the continued bitter actions.
I think there are Christians that believe the book of Genesis as a literal text in matters of planetary and chronological history that go much beyond my understanding. But overall, most conservative Christians have supported some of the State Board's actions due to the actions of the social science academic community over the the years in secondary and other levels of education. Most of us understand that Science teachers with science degrees aren't schooled in any versions of theory that are outside the scientific mainstream and we don't see science classes being used by the science teacher's as anti-religous propaganda forums. We do, however, note that for three decades that sort of action is much more prevelant in the other wings of education as a means of tearing down Judeaic/Chirstian religous belief and promoting a Dewey style Secular Humanist religion in its place.
Seeing that, we feel the pedulumn had swung too far and see the State Board as applying a corrective in the only manner possible: self-government.
This exchange of e-mails shows how even University departments of Religion are used by the social science wing of academia to accomplish those ends.
The social science teacher is able to marginalize traditional religion by treating it as being supplanted by scientific knowledge and classifying all religion as mythology. Its a game of saying, "Didn't you learn about evolution in science class?" and "Didn't you learn about the history of mythology in History and the age of the planet in Geology?"
Its not the science teachers that push this conflict. It is those teachers of the liberal arts that wish to marginalize religion, western tradition and our heritage in general to promote a quasi-religious secular humanism and the leftist view of the world in general.
What affirmative evidence for biblical creation of species?
Let's assume that by some miracle you could dis-prove evolution tomorrow. Why would that make biblical "creation" true? Perhaps there is another unknown natural process that we don't understand.
By definition "super" natural occurrences like biblical creation can't be scientifically observed in any way. Otherwise they would be "natural" occurrences, by definition. So falsifying evolution, which has been attempted by people smarter than either of us for 150 years, would not lend any affirmative evidence that biblical creation is true.
That's why they call creationism faith, and evolution science. Deal with it.
>> "I think that is exactly the appropriate place to put these kinds of ideas," he said. <<
I absolutely do think that teaching inteligent design and creationism can be put in a Religious Studies department. But teaching an ATTACK and RIDICULE of intelligent design does not.
The KU Clucks Klan insists ID doesn't belong in a science department, because it isn't science, but a critique of science. Well, than the attack on ID doesn't belong in a Religious Studies department. (Would the state tolerate a course entitled, "Stupid things ragheads believe?") And we can boot Nietzche from Philosophy, too.
(I'm not sure whether we can kick all the lesbofascists out of Women's Studies... Hey, don't hate me, liberals! According to the UN, Lesbians are a separate gender.)
YOu do realize that Intelligent Design is an explanation of evolution, don't you?
Baloney. They just announced this class, yet the Discovery Institute was collecting donation money from rich creationist fools for years now. They (re)started this mess, after the controversy basically went away 60 years ago. I was taught in a Southern Baptist Church that evolution and Genesis weren't contradictory 40 years ago. That same church has changed it's mind and has re-started the old fight. They will lose, again.
ID can be twisted to mean just about anything. Which is why it means nothing.
I missed the "non" part of the "non-science" arts and it set me off before I read the rest of your post.
oops.
3.) It is a giant leap to move from understanding evolution to claiming that it explains the origins of lifeA bigger leap to move from not understanding evolution to claiming that it explains the origins of life - But Genesisians do it all the time
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.Yet another call for obstruuction of science
Perhaps, but the above post indicates that the evolutionary process, if it is true, has failed in your case.
The social science teacher is able to marginalize traditional religion by treating it as being supplanted by scientific knowledge and classifying all religion as mythology. Its a game of saying, "Didn't you learn about evolution in science class?" and "Didn't you learn about the history of mythology in History and the age of the planet in Geology?"
Then by all means take the fight to the social sciences. I have no beef with that. Picking a fight with science in general and a cornerstone of the science of biology is not they way to go if you're objectives truly are as you state.
Its not the science teachers that push this conflict. It is those teachers of the liberal arts that wish to marginalize religion, western tradition and our heritage in general to promote a quasi-religious secular humanism and the leftist view of the world in general.
Then take the fight to the liberal arts teachers. You have my full support there. If this is what you really object to, then leave science in general and biology in particular out of it. You will only hurt your cause by trying to take the fight there.
The science community is all about arguing different concepts about how things work. But at some point issues become settled, and the controversy moves.
For example it's now well understood that the earth orbits the sun, the moon orbits the earth, and everything is kept synchronized by gravity and conservation of energy. There is no scientific controversy on the basic orbital concepts. But there IS serious controversy over the operation of the entire universe. How does dark matter effect universe expansion/contraction, whatever. Science does not understand all there is to the movements of celestial bodies, but there are some things that are beyond question. Bodies do orbit one another in space, that's a settled issue.
The scientific understanding of how species operate is a similar situation. There is zero genuine scientific argument about whether evolution occurs, and that the various species are the result of it. The human/primate ERV DNA sequences are affirmative proof of that, and a mountain of other things. But there is scientific controversy about the mechanisms of evolution. I don't understand the subject to describe those controversies, but if you wanted to teach students those controversies, fine. But the fact that evolution happens is settled among the scientists who study the subject of life on earth.
Even some of those rare scientists that promoted ID as a method to describe creationism without the "G" word, are beginning to talk about "intelligent evolution". They have run into the brick wall of evidence for evolution, just as the creationist scientists who attempted to prove a "young earth" in the 50's ran into a brick wall and gave up. But even "intelligent evolution", is just faith that there just simply MUST be something running the universe. There is no affirmative evidence of any outside entity guiding the changing of life on earth. If there were, it would cease being an "outside" supernatural entity, and we would study God scientifically and He would become part of the natural universe.
After centuries of effort, no one has be able to scientifically observe God. That's why they call it "faith", while we have evidence of evolution, which makes it "science".
This guy doesn't pass basic logic. The class doesn't scrutinize anything. It is all about mocking certain theories and "explaining" why stupid people believe them. It's as one-sided as their so-called science classes.
There is no religious freedom in American. The official religion is atheism.
It is obviously false to you. It doesn't seem very American to have the official government position saying that the Bible is mythology. Some religious freedom.
And your use of the phrase "cast the first stone" seems a bit out of place when you promote the "fact" that the Bible is mythology.
Very good and my views exactly. In the late 60's I took geology from an excellent professor who candidly introduced for study all the know views of the creation without mocking any or touting any one view over the other. It can be done, but doubtfully by a lib prof.
vaudine
False. Evolution is a scientific theory, requiring evidence to support it.
You want to see faith in action, try evaluating the evidence for the Global Flood at 2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years of course).
Check out Problems with a Global Flood, Second Edition, by Mark Isaak.
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.