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
Oh, you should certainly have faith in everything science tells you.
And you make very much a fatal flaw here. "Science" says nothing. Self-described scientists report results. They can be as corrupt as a prophet who claims God tells him to collect money and women from amongst his flock.
bump
What's not to mock?
Its a science class, no room for fundies.
Really? Is that right? Not to hear the zealots tell it. When science has spoken, all must obey.
But bad science does a lot of damage in the short term.
Well-established
Everybody keeps saying this and I'm not sure how to quantify "well-".
These statements are completely untrue.
Note that I said "some":Brownian Motion Under The Microscope (Einstein Nobel Prize Discovery Questioned)
It relies on specialists for verification.
This is a necessity. Have a better idea?
Not at all. But it's a flaw.
Specialists from different research groups & countries are in direct competition with each other.
I beg to differ. There is definitely an attempt to keep some subfields alive and there is an undercurrent of inertia which leads to certain beliefs and theories gaining prominence over others for no good reason other than the feel of the participating scientists.
And if it can't be independently verified, it goes out the window.
Not before the money is spent and the alchemists have moved on to a new project.
That's how science works. Generally it is the media that exaggerates the significance of new & incomplete research.
This is quite true. Rep. Patrick Kennedy is the countries most famous "scientist". The media goes to him for expertise. I am not kidding.
But it seems that the scientific community gets a lot less worked up over the misuse of science than over this whole ID thing.
There are some genuine controversies in science. This does not imply that all of science is a controversy.
I'm beginning to see "science" as an overbroad term.
Not really. You've made your contempt for all of science quite apparent,
Ah, it's about me, is it? How very unscientific.
AmishDude: 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.)
Quark2005: What are the 'flaws' in the scientific method?
AmishDude: What aren't the flaws?
Me: Does it do anything right? Why should we believe anything science says?
AmishDude: Well, my area requires proof so I do find the scientific method a bit lacking.
Me: So you don't have an answer to my questions.
AmishDude: Oh, you should certainly have faith in everything science tells you. And you make very much a fatal flaw here. "Science" says nothing. Self-described scientists report results. They can be as corrupt as a prophet who claims God tells him to collect money and women from amongst his flock.
That's, in general, called not answering the question, being evasive, attempting to distance responses as far down the thread as possible from where the original question was asked, etc. In this specific case it means you are wasting my time because you have nothing of substance to say. I'm inclined to conclude you're just trolling for amusement.
I wonder what the percentage of corrupt preachers is compared to the percentage of corrupt scientists.
Frankly, I'm getting annoyed at having to answer everybody's Socratic questions, so I have included a bit of sarcasm. So sue me.
In discussions like this, we should be careful about our terminology, so that we're all using words in the same way. One can "believe" in the existence of the tooth fairy, but one does not -- in the same sense of the word -- "believe" in the existence of his own mother. Belief in the first proposition (tooth fairy) requires faith, which is the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof. The second proposition (mother) is the kind of knowledge which follows from sensory evidence. There is also that kind of knowledge (like the Pythagorean theorem) which follows from logical proof. In either case -- that is, belief in things evidenced by sensory evidence or demonstrated by logical proof -- there is no need for faith.
In between mother and the Pythagorean theorem are those propositions we provisionally accept (or in common usage "believe"), like relativity and evolution, because they are scientific theories -- logical, testable, and therefore falsifiable explanations of the available, verifiable data (which data is knowledge obtained via sensory evidence).
Too many creationists come into these threads and appear to be clueless about the vital distinctions between reason and faith. There are vitally significant differences between an axiom and an article of dogma, fact and fantasy, hypothesis (or a more general theory) and conjecture. These fundamental differences allow us to distinguish reason-based science from faith-based teaching. They are commonly confused, but they are very different intellectual enterprises.
The theory of evolution is far more than a wild imaginary belief (such as belief in Zeus or the tooth fairy). Darwin proposed his theory as an explanation for the proliferation of species that we observe. It was scientific, in that it was a rational, comprehensible, cause-and-effect explanation that fit the data. This was about 150 years ago. Since then, hundreds of thousands of fossils have been uncovered, and NONE has been found that contradicted the theory. This alone is powerful evidence, as the theory predicts that all fossils will conform to the theory, so each new fossil find is therefore a test of the theory; and the theory successfully passes each such test. Purely theological matters are not capable of such testing, and thus theology is not scientific. The same can be said of quasi-theological propositions like Intelligent Design.
Then there's the matter of "proof." Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proven. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proven, because at least in principle, a counter-example might be discovered. Theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported by the facts they purport to rationally explain and by the predictions which they make. All scientific theories (including the theory of evolution) are subject to revision if new data is discovered which necessitates this. When a scientific theory (such as evolution) has a long history of being supported by the evidence, the most appropriate word for acceptance of the theory is usually "confidence," not "faith."
Useful website in this context: Do You Believe in Evolution?
"Exactness of Rokhlin endomorphisms and weak mixing of Poisson boundaries"
You haven't looked around enough.
Nor I. I wouldn't have even claimed that you were using jargon.
I always strive for charm and beauty rather than strangeness. (I got that from Reagan's movie: "Bedtime for Bosons.")
Applied mathematics is usually neither.
Oh, and thanks ever so much for the courtesy ping.
Wow. That's an expansion of harassment law I haven't heard even from the most virulent feminist or race-baiter. So a teacher can't even mock religion in his private life, because some fundie might dig it out and publicize it?
Fortunately, ou are as ignorant of the law as you are gutless about admitting to your posted threats.
By attempting to make believers objects of mockery, thereby impairing their equal access to the university.
An authoritarian attempt to gag those who disagree with you.
You're not a conservative, you're a fascist.
Wow. That's an expansion of harassment law I haven't heard even from the most virulent feminist or race-baiter. So a teacher can't even mock religion in his private life, because some fundie might dig it out and publicize it?
Fortunately, ou are as ignorant of the law as you are gutless about admitting to your posted threats.
By attempting to make believers objects of mockery, thereby impairing their equal access to the university.
An authoritarian attempt to gag those who disagree with you.
You're not a conservative, you're a fascist.
There was no question about Einstein's Nobel Prise in the article you linked to. I suggest that you learn how to do a conduct citation research before posting such nonsense. In fact, the article discussed experiments outside the range of Einstein's calculations (which were purely mathematical anyway; were Einstein wrong, so to Norbert Wiener.)
True, but the terminology isn't obvious.
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.