Posted on 11/25/2005 8:34:07 AM PST by Exton1
KU prof's e-mail irks fundamentalists
http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/living/religion/13252419.htm
Associated Press
LAWRENCE - 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 that he regretted the words Mirecki used but that he supported the professor and thought 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 the Kansas State Board of Education adopted new school science standards that question evolution.
The course will explore intelligent design, which contends that life is too complex to have evolved without a "designer." It also will cover the origins of creationism, why creationism is an American phenomenon and creationism's role in 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."
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 Christianity in America," she said.
University Senate Executive Committee Governance Office - 33 Strong Hall, 4-5169
Faculty
SenEx Chair
Joe Heppert, jheppert@ku.edu , Chemistry, 864-2270 Ruth Ann Atchley, ratchley@ku.edu , Psychology, 864-9816 Richard Hale, rhale@ku.edu ,Aerospace Engineering, 864-2949 Bob Basow, basow@ku.edu , Journalism, 864-7633 Susan Craig, scraig@ku.edu , Art & Architecture, 864-3020 Margaret Severson, mseverson@Ku.edu , Social Welfare, 864-8952
University Council President Jim Carothers, jbc@ku.edu , English 864-3426 (Ex-officio on SenEx)
Paul Mirecki, Chair The Department of Religious Studies, 1300 Oread Avenue, 102 Smith Hall, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Kansas,Lawrence, KS 66045-7615 (785) 864-4663 Voice (785) 864-5205 FAX rstudies@ku.edu
I'm saying faith in the scientific method is a faith. You must accept its validity in order to use it. (This does not address the flaws in the method, which are most egregious in so-called junk science. Of course, these flaws can be considered part of the method itself.)
Kewl...
I believe you're correct and right on point.
Science imposes no such a priori dichotomy as it is but merely a method and not a philosophy.
I didn't say they are equivalent, you did. I simply state that you must have a faith in the scientific method in order for it to apply. It may "make sense" to you, for example. You've accepted the notion for so long, you don't realize that there are simply premises that must be accepted.
What are the 'flaws' in the scientific method?
Scientists trust in the scientific method based on several centuries of experiment and improvement.
If we were to believe you, then how did the scientific method evolve? It didn't just spring into existence all tested and ready to go, did it? No. It was developed through trial and error (or in the case of my field, by trowel and error).
Faith does not evolve in this manner. It is based on an entirely different origin and it is not accurate to equate the two.
What aren't the flaws?
I got five pile of Current Contents that will never be read and they keep on coming...
Science is too prolific, it needs a "summary" publication, and more, to keep us abreast of the major discoveries.
That is a faith. Period. It may be a good one based on your life experience and your understanding of others' life experience, but you still believe it will work.
Will it? Well, I can give you plenty of examples (in mathematics, I grant you) where you can get what appears to be closer and closer and closer to the correct solution only to find, after a lot of work, that you were very far off. The example I have in mind is Newton's method for finding zeros of functions. Nonetheless, it is quite possible that trial and error will lead you to entirely the wrong solution for any given problem.
What aren't the flaws?
Does it do anything right? Why should we believe anything science says?
I did it on purpose to confuse stupid people.
Well, my area requires proof so I do find the scientific method a bit lacking.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! And thus you have confused no one but yourself.
"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?"
Funny to see the right use the language of the hated left. Is Sen. O'Connor going to campaign for hate speech rules next?
Well, my area requires proof so I do find the scientific method a bit lacking.
So you don't have an answer to my questions.
That is a faith. Period.
Post #153 I did it on purpose to confuse stupid people.
You are being deliberately offensive. Words mean things, and to deliberately confuse two clearly different meanings does not contribute to the discussion, nor to your credibility.
Whether you wish to admit it or not, there is a clear difference between a belief or a faith, based on no clear evidence (a religious belief, for example), and the scientific method which has been worked out by trial and error for centuries. Either can be wrong, but the trust one places in the scientific method is different than the belief one places in ones faith.
Its late and I haven't shaved. I may check back to see if the thread has evolved tomorrow.
Because you choose to make it and because you have decided that the word "faith" is a pejorative.
You use "belief" and "trust" as substitutes.
Its late and I haven't shaved. I may check back
I read this quickly and it suggested to me that there was too much information being conveyed as to what you were shaving.
Um, it works remarkably well?
It can be woefully wrong in the short term. (See studies which say coffee is good for you/bad for you/good for you. Global warming. Etc.)
Cutting edge science can frequently be mistaken, that is why it is subject to revision and peer review. Well-established and tested theories, though have proven their validity over and over again.
Some of Einstein's theories are being tested only now. Some can never be tested.
These statements are completely untrue. Einstein's theories have proven themselves to be remarkably accurate along many separate lines of inquiry.
It relies on specialists for verification.
This is a necessity. Have a better idea?
This produces a corrupt result as these specialists depend on each other to keep their area active and to draw grant dollars from other areas.
Specialists from different research groups & countries are in direct competition with each other. Scientists profit from proving/disproving new theories, and have to withstand each other's attacks constantly.
The grant system also rewards favored areas of science and exaggerated claims of success, which leads to greater problems in the area of my first bullet point.
And if it can't be independently verified, it goes out the window. That's how science works. Generally it is the media that exaggerates the significance of new & incomplete research. There are some genuine controversies in science. This does not imply that all of science is a controversy.
But I think your question is more revealing than my answer.
Not really. You've made your contempt for all of science quite apparent, now. What would you suggest we replace it with?
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.