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
Heck, orginally (to age 40) and supposely at the end of his life Darwin had a strong faith in God and was sort of an IDer when he created his evolution theory. He believed that God created life and helped guide the evolutionairy process by the playing out of natural law. Evolution to him was always the explanation of "what happens" not the "why it happens."
I agree with you totally.
I believe in Evolution, ,but equating Christian beliefs with "Mythology" is beyond the pale and a definite attack on Christianity in general - something the leftist in our institutes of "higher education" have been doing for decades.
Once again, the word is real and your grammatical sentence construction is incorrect.
\Pre*tend"ence\, n. The act of pretending; pretense. [Obs.]
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Why, thanks for the ping, Mr. Manners.
Sorry, guy, when you use the word 'butthole' in calling for politeness anmong university faculty, you have made yourself the issue. Learn to express yourself without obscenity. You'll find it's more effective. I don't initiate ad hominem, but I'm happy to return it in kind when subjected to it.
They must have made a special, different copy for you.
Maybe in rabbitese.
See #286
They must have made a special, different copy for you.
He borrowed President Bush's old copy.
And sorry for not pinging you on the earlier post when I was praising you with faint damns. :-)
Cheers!
If corporeal, the number is finite, if purely spiritual, infinite.
"Point is, how do you set up a control group?"
Why would I do that? Physical science is by definition the wrong tool for the job.
I have never before had anyone raise the exact issues I was suggesting (albeit subtly) and think they were correcting me.
Cheers!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
Yes, but that doesn't mean it is seemly, or tasteful, or becoming.
All it accomplishes is driving the more civilized participants away from the discussion...which is what the rude and antagonistic people want. Then they can declare themselves to be "geniuses" because "no-one contests their brilliance." In actuality, everyone else has simply left the rude rubes behind because they are as obnoxious as a skunk's butt.
Never seen one.
They mainly show up on the science and history channels.
I say: yes. You argue practicality. Fine. What practical value do you have with that? Any time machines been built yet?
The whole world is looking for the cure for cancer, but they don't even have an effective treatment for psoriasis. Sometimes "practical" is in the eye of the beholder.
Mathematics is a sledge hammer. Most scientists would rather use the heel of their shoe because it is more convenient and the sledge hammer is way over on the other side of the room.
Being difficult is not in itself a virtue.
"Any idiot could have figured out..." is not a good descriptor of research from where I'm sitting.
Only when it is used as a tool by a scientist who knows how to apply it to physical evidence can it achieve it's highest function, to serve science.
You people have no idea what is untapped. Perfect example: Room scheduling had another FUBAR this semester. My class was across campus in a room completely unsuited to teach math. Another class was in my building in a room completely unsuited for it. Why? Because Room Scheduling or the computer program they use had never heard of the stable marriage problem. Pure math. A simple algorithm that would produce an optimal scheduling in less time than it takes to enter the data of one class. Do they care? No. They'd rather use the program they bought from somebody doing an ad-hoc algorithm.
A mathematician will be useless when trying to work out the biochemical pathway for metabolic processes if he doesn't go into the lab and put in the hard work.
That's low-concept thinking. You can give that to a trained simian. Or, equivalently, a graduate student. Any idiot could...
We live in the real world, and here Science rules.
Indeed, much like Iraq in the 90s.
It can be correct, but it's easy. It makes the researcher nothing but a cog.
BTW, proving something when you know all the premises are true isn't very hard.
Then you do it. a^n+b^n=c^n has no natural number solutions when n>2. Go for it.
That's why it's done so well with computers that don't have to think.
That's pretty good. Suffice it to say, no, computers do not write proofs.
How does this argue against the fact that math is only useful when it is applied properly to the real world?
Like the mathematician to the scientist, I shall spell it out for you in terms you can understand: The original question, solved in the 60s, was one of pure math. The theory of partially ordered sets. The theorem gained attention mostly because of its elegant solution. It turns out to be wildly applicable -- after the fact.
Mathematicians live in the real world too. What we consider to be valuable does not differ much from what is actually practical, but we're free from having to solve the problem that's right in front of our faces, instead developing a solution that is practical, but only after the computing power developed later on. Again, from mathematics.
There's a great story in my abstract algebra book that, essentially says that one of the physics Nobel prizes in the 30s was awarded because these supergeniuses figured out -- wait for it -- matrices don't necessarily commute. That's it. An idea that'd been taught to undergraduates for decades and they got a Nobel prize for it.
It's just as hard, or harder, than proving a mathematical theorem.
So is carpeting my basement. It is. I wouldn't want to carpet my basement. But that's low-level thinking.
You have to actually know something outside of math.
There is nothing outside of math. It expands and grows with knowledge. It isn't some obscure branch of engineering with limitations.
If all you know is mathematical theorems, you will NEVER figure out the biochemical pathway.
How's that cure for psoriasis coming, there, chief? Yeah, I thought so.
How did science rule in the Iraq of the 90's? What a nutty statement.
*eye roll* Biologists. The rule of Science is much like the rule of Saddam Hussein.
Would you like me to explain knock knock jokes while I'm at it? And people wonder why mathematicians tend to go insane.
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.