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
You want it both ways. Whatever serves your own personal theory at the moment. That's the way it sounds to me. You want the government to force on its citizens your approved theories as fact -- no questions asked. That's not freedom of any sort.
Someone wake me up when any of this supposed evidence ever materializes...
If the shoe fits...
Other that having fun with the HTML Bold tag, did your post serve a purpose?
Once again, that sounds just like ID.
When have ID proponents ever demanded classes present their theory as fact? Or when have they demanded their theory be the only theory presented? No, that sounds like the Darwinists and them only.
I wonder if students could opt out of science classes that force evolution on them, claiming it violates their religious freedom rights. I bet they couldn't. The religious argument works only one direction.
There is a Christian High School that teaches the Theory of Evolution along side Biblical Creationism. They have been threatened by the University of California Educrats, to not accept the Christian schools graduate applications.
Despite the students exposure to Darwinism - because they are taught to be skeptical of TOE - they are deemed not to make the UC admission requirements.
How do laws evolve then? (Kind of funny if the answer is they spontaneously come into being).
The topic concerns origins of life. Your point is mine. Evolution as a theory is simple, and examples abound. This does not mean that it is correct to use it as widely as is commonly done.
I love these flaming Creationism/Evolution threads.
OK Oztrich boy - point out where I recommended obstruction of science. Are you frightened your theory would not stand up to head to head competition?
From the flavor of your post I would guess you view yourself as "scientific". Yet if you read what I wrote you will note that "Creationism" would not fair well in a head to head technical comparison. Evolution ought to.
At the same time, it might be worthwhile to discuss openly the weaknesses of evolution in explaining the entire picture. You seem reticent to do so. It appears to me that you would prefer to obstruct an honest attempt to determine the truth.
The world rejected Jesus and it rejects us. The hard part is that for so long we had enough true Christians in this country that the reality of that biblical truth was on pause. We had it good and we squandered the opportunity by adopting with the world's ways. Now who can tell the difference between us and them most of the time. So I guess we now get to experience what those who went before us experienced. May we be found faithful in the end whatever the cost.
Your note is what I envision for the class - to rationally point out the strengths and weaknesses of the "Theories" (I'm stretching here to be kind to the non/semi-scientific theories). Trying to educate both sides of this discussion -
From that we see -
1.) What is settled.
2.) What is controversial
3.) etc.
Evolution will do fine in a head to head comparison. What I do wonder about though is the willingness of many to extend the reach of evolution into areas where it is not settled science, and for which there is little evidence.
It seems to me a bit that the anti-religionists like to use evolution for political purposes, and oversell it.
I mean - just for fun - let's say evolution is the perfect mechanism for developing plants and animals (which it appears to me to be). OK - well who designed a system that could be run by this perfect simple rule. If evolution is perfect, from what did it evolve to become perfect? Just kidding - Etc.
Yes - that is "educating" people - not indoctrinating anyone.
A law is a simple description of something in nature. A theory is an explaination for it. You can write a law in a single equation, wheras a theory requires a whole library.
Thus I am educated. Thanks.
I just looked up the definitions on Google -
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
Note that they specifically list "Law of Gravity" - which is always the way when you call out something by name - I understand your point completely - with no controversy desired or intended.
My point is that many people commonly extend the range of the theory of evolution from what is proven to areas that are weak. It is a great theory.
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.