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
Thanks - You are correct - I looked it up.
Thanks.
I may be alone on this, but a course on religious creation mythology sounds fascinating.
"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"."
There was some hesitation on my part for beginning this thread on the day after giving thanks. I kept telling myself it really was my duty to submit this information, and not simply to cause irritation of the scholars.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1528320/posts?page=10#10
"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."
It's usually about the time that creationists have run out of argument that they break out the bible verses. Sorry, they don't work on me.
What time is it in Australia ? Have you really been searching for this discrepancy for five and one half hours ?
Well, if you believe that God created the universe in 6 days, and created man instantly from dust and deluged the earth in Noah's days, then God lied to you. I've seen affirmative evidence (not made by men) otherwise. Masses of evidence. Everywhere you look. And nothing that's been able to falsify it.
If God created the universe, and gave us the Bible, then God is either a liar in the physical evidence he gave us in His creation, or He's a liar in the literal words of the Bible.
Of course you COULD take the Catholic way out and believe both are true, and adjust your interpretation of the Bible to fit (a logical choice, since virtually no two people can agree 100% on what the Bible means anyway). But I'm sure you'll continue to think that the Bible is literally true and never realize that there is a huge contradiction between what we read in the physical universe, and what we read in the Bible that was put on paper by men (inspired by God, of course, wink, wink).
Actually this is good. Let the biased atheist professors expose themselves for what they are. Over time they will be dealt with and disposed of by the populace.
Sure. So where's your evidence of such interaction? In the Bible you say? OK. Well there are lots of other old books that claim interaction with the supernatural. Should we accept all of them? Surely not, as many of them contradict one another, particularly in this issue of where the universe came from. So the only answer is to accept none of them as scientific evidence.
That does not mean that one or more of them are not "true" (I happen to think none are, but that's opinion, not science). You can accept the supernatural on faith if you want. I choose not to.
If the scripture were clear on the subject, then all Christian denominations would agree on it. They don't. Which only goes to show that you can read anything whatever into the Bible.
If the Bible can be twisted to mean anything, then it means nothing.
Evolution is a fact. And a theory. If you pay attention to some of the posts around here, and perhaps look up some links, you will see why both is true.
A faithful person could certainly believe that God designed evolution, and it has operated continually for 3+ billion years. It is quite an invention. Evolution (life) acquires it's own energy. It is self correcting, even self improving. And so far, immortal (not individuals, but the chain of life has so far been immortal). Just imagine a human designed system running so well, for so long.
Religious people COULD look at evolution and see the greatest of Gods creations. But instead, they deny it, and contradict what we find in the evidence. If they can be so wrong on such a huge thing, the I figure they can be wrong on the existence of God himself.
Contrary to what some have posted here, it was humans (those beings called liars in an earlier post) that transcribed, translated, and yes, wrote the Bible. There is no evidence whatever that any supernatural being was involved in anything written in the Bible. Merely another book written by humans.
I was raised in a good Christian home. { and thankful for it } I was also taught "evolution" in public schools, along with it's cousin the "big bang" theory. I reconciled these differences as somehow, "they both must be right." Eventually my "observations" discredited the big bang and evolution, and fell in favor with what we call the Bible.
No doubt, this admission is causing some a hearty laugh. I'm not offended.
There are a great many well educated Christians that don't see any contradiction between those things. But if you do, well, whatever.
I personally don't buy into the Big Bang. But the first hypothesis of such a thing I believe came from a Jesuit Astronomer, who was apparently seeking to find some physical evidence of Gods creation. Hubble came along later with the Red Shift and provided some evidence.
Just how many "observations" relating to the Big Bang have you made?
"I was also taught "evolution" in public schools, along with it's cousin the "big bang" theory."
They have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other. No wonder you are so confused.
Can you calculate the odds that you are here?
That you live on a planet the precise distance from it's sun to sustain life ?
“So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Stephen W. Hawking, { his words, not mine }
As for "red shift", the Bible says God "stretched out the heavens"
I wasn't there. That is where "faith" comes into play.
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.