KU prof's e-mail irks fundamentalists (Christian Bashing OK)

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.

"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."

"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?"

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

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

One has to question the intelligence of someone who uses language like the above in a call for polite discourse.

And one must question someone who, earlier in this thread, questioned someone for attacking the messenger. Let me quote:

Maybe should should learn to argue the issue, rather than attack your adversary.

21 posted on 11/25/2005 11:06:26 AM CST by Right Wing Professor

As I said: a dime deep, an ocean wide. Looks as though right wing professors are less than a shot put throw away from their liberal colleagues. However, I do give you credit for muddling your foolishness with academic talk and proper grammar. That usually confuses the idiots who think pseudo knowledge is a decent substitute for wisdom.

Cheers and beers, "doctor".

APf

Climatology and some areas of economics are the worst. But it's even true in applied math and particularly biomath.

Analysis is only as good as your boundary conditions, I agree, and our uncertainty in these fields reflects the fact that they are areas where it is inherently difficult to isolate boundary conditions. Still, a lot of progress has been made in these subjects (except economics, arguably, I'll give you). Climatology is far from perfect, agreed, but we know much more about it than we did a half century ago.

Who fails in science?

People whose theories and findings are not vindicated by alternate lines of inquiry. A very recent case example, the search for pentaquark (5-quark as opposed to standard 3-quark particles), which was tentatively thought to exist, has not been found where it was expected to in recent experiments. The theory failed, and unless something new comes out to lend credence to its existence, it's likely to become a relic. An example of where enthusiasm ran high to look for something that was thought to exist but competition has driven the idea to lesser relevance. Sometimes the absence of a phenomena can be just as revealing as the presence of one, though (e.g. the null result of Michelson-Morley experiment?)

EXACTLY! That's what makes mathematicians the only ones who actually know what they're doing.

There's where you're wrong. Did a mathematician build the computer you're working on? Did a mathematician build the bridge you drove over to get to work? Did a mathematician invent the antibiotics you took the last time you were sick? There's inherent uncertainties in science, but that doesn't equate to complete uncertainty. (e.g. Someone who says the earth is flat is wrong. Someone who says the earth is a sphere is also wrong. They are not both equally wrong, however.) The bottom line in any science theory is, does it make predictions that are fulfilled, and does it continue to do so?

And math is HARD.

No joke. I've trudged my way through enough grad level physics courses to know that. Nothing I've ever done was more difficult. Anyone with the ability to make it as a mathematician has my due respect in that regard. Are you aware, though, that there are difficulties of comparable magnitude in experimental science, as well? The statistical end of it can be nightmarish, and has to be so to minimize the uncertainty in results.

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.

Without science, math doesn't have any practical use, though. Scientists do consult mathematicians where necessary. Theoretical physicists are little more than mathematicians who deal with physical phenomena. Chemists and biologists work with statistics constantly. Mathematics is only 'superior' to science because it isn't inconvenienced by having to deal with real data. I'm not trivializing your field, I'm only stating that its importance is specific. Math is the language of science. Without somewhere to apply it, mathematics would be little more than an exercise in intellectual hedonism. (Don't take that the wrong way - I'm well aware of the importance of having pure mathematicians around - just pointing out that its real world applicability is the bulk of what makes it important to humanity.)

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.

Call it what you want - my "faith" in science (as you term it) is based on its track record for success, though. Yes, I do have "faith" that the internal combustion process will get my car to work in the morning, so what? I have "faith" that beer and buffalo wings will taste good the next time I eat them. By your definition, I have "faith" in a lot of things. None of these things, including science, have to do with my religious "Faith", however - that is a completely different matter.

"I'd very much prefer that people like Brownlee kindly exclude us Catholics from any association with creationism. As JPII said, faith must never conflict with reason."

As I recall, though, he meant reason that is grounded in scientific knowledge, and not, broadly, any product of any person's reason.

While I agree with His Holiness regarding creationism, the God-haters are no more tolerant of us than they are of the YECs. With freedom of religion under attack, it might be better to make common cause with them to repel that onslaught, and hash out differences over dogma when the principal enemy is defeated.

"People like Brownlee wouldn't know reason if it bit them in the butt."

You and I are convinced that YECs are wrong, but at least Brownlee is able to discern an attack on freedom of religion when she sees it.

"She does not speak for Christianity and it's terribly arrogant for her to assume to do so."

I see it a bit differently. I welcome it when anyone speaks out against the attempt to ban God from the public square.

"I hate it when people, especially politicians, do that."

Hey, at least she's opposing the God-haters.

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.