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
True, the last does include self-reference. I suppose that means I'm trolling. I'm taking it to also mean that I'm right.
I'm taking it to also mean that I'm right.
About what?
Just so you know where Sen. O'Connor is coming from, she also believes women should not have been given the right to vote, because it damages family values.
Seems to me if she were consistent, she'd be cooking her man a meal, rather than bothering her head with this legislative stuff.
Oh, I disagree, but this is more philosophy and might be merely a point of view. Mathematics is how we understand stuff. Whatever stuff that is, we can only grasp it mathematically. A perfect example is vectors. If you try to draw something in 9 dimensions...well, good luck. But you can express it just fine using vectors.
Just make sure its in the right circles. Doing so in a back alley or a less 'safe' environment, and it can get you a black eye or worse.
I sometimes am of the belief that when dueling was legal, people took a bit more time considering their words.
At least it is established that the professor is a jack***. What the heck, might as well get more virulent. After all, there seems to be an endless supply of cheeks to turn.
For now.....The funny thing is, it is the moral restraints in society to allow schmucks like this to do what they do with impunity. There will be a day when this won't be so. I'll be in the Yukon or Alaska by that point. Goodie for me.
People say far worse on this site every day. And while it's easy to despise liberals, a few of them know how to shoot, too,
I really think it starts with logic, but that was what my philosophy professor stated, and he was biased. In any case, without those two, everything else would be merely polemics.
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.
The reason bad science can do its damage is because people and the media fail to differentiate between cutting edge (truly controversial) science and science which has been well-established (i.e. theories that have been well-tested over the last century or two).
Note that I said "some":Brownian Motion Under The Microscope (Einstein Nobel Prize Discovery Questioned)
This is a prime example of this point. No one in science is really doubting that Einstein was correct that Brownian motion occurs, or the basic reason that it occurs, or that his basic calculations were completely wrong. The article implies that there may be corrections needed to Einstein's idea to provide the observed precision of Brownian Motion. Science generally works by the refinement of well-proven theories, not by demolishing and replacing them.
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.
Where specifically do you feel this is happening?
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.
Sometimes good ideas don't work. Science starts with hypotheses - one cannot expect them all to be correct all the time. Failure is sometimes how we learn.
But it seems that the scientific community gets a lot less worked up over the misuse of science than over this whole ID thing.
ID is hardly the only misuse of science that upsets the scientific community. It is, however, one of the only ones that threatens to be worked into school curricula as a matter of policy.
Ah, it's about me, is it? How very unscientific.
Perhaps I spoke too harshly. I certainly don't see science as infallible - but you seem to have to have unrealistic standards for what constitutes "proof" - pure mathematics is the only science that deals with the sort of proof you speak of. What you refer to as "faith" in the scientific method is more aptly labelled as "confidence" (see PatrickHenry's post earlier). The amount of confidence one can have in a theory, of course, depends on the amount of evidence and testing that supports the theory. One can't look at the most uncertain aspects in modern scientific research and assume that all science is uncertain as a result.
Marvelous, isn't it (not)? Sitting in front of a computer screen on the information superhighway is like the false courage when someone drives an SUV in traffic.
While I'm an individual that has been told I look scary in sh**kickers and leather, I try to avoid handing out insults like free samples of candy. Not only is it a matter of common courtesy, but also enlightened self-interest.
Climatology and some areas of economics are the worst. But it's even true in applied math and particularly biomath. The "hot" areas (those that receive funding) are monoliths.
ID does not claim to be science. Junk science does. And there is nary a peep over it.
Sometimes good ideas don't work. Science starts with hypotheses - one cannot expect them all to be correct all the time. Failure is sometimes how we learn.
Who fails in science? Conduct an experiment. Does it give what we want? Great! Write it up. Does it fail to give what we want? Great! Write it up. Who needs a wastebasket?
pure mathematics is the only science that deals with the sort of proof you speak of.
EXACTLY! That's what makes mathematicians the only ones who actually know what they're doing. We prove it. Period. It's always right or always wrong. It is immutable, constant as the northern star. None of this flailing. And math is HARD. The best of us fail constantly in order to get a little success. In short, math is superior than science and if the scientist knew just a little more math (or paid a mathematician to do his thinking for him) he'd see that there's a lot that it can do.
I read PH's article and I don't buy it. It's just an attempt to avoid the pejorative associated with the word "faith". No different from any other "my religion is better than yours" argument.
"Mathematics is a game played according to certain simple rules with meaningless marks on paper."
It is an exercise for the reader to ascertain which statement, and author, has more credibility.
I certainly don't see science as infallible - but you seem to have to have unrealistic standards for what constitutes "proof" - pure mathematics is the only science that deals with the sort of proof you speak of.
Of course science is not infallible. No one ever claimed it was. Concerning the rest... From Wikipedia... "If one considers science to be strictly about the physical world, then mathematics, or at least pure mathematics, is not a science". Practically speaking, and science is practical, math is a useful tool.
Great quote. Now Hilbert was a mathematician who knew how to be useful!
"Wir müssen wissen. Wir werden wissen."
Mathematics may not be practical from your limited point of view, but it does have the unique virtue of being difficult.
Actually, mathematics is infinitely applicable, but some "scientists" need to be lead by the hand to see how it's done.
"Some people have got a mental horizon of radius zero and call it their point of view."
It's applicability is left as an exercise for the astute reader....
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.