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

Wichita Eagle ^ | 25 Nov 2005 | Associated Press

[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

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"There is nothing outside of math."

So says the mathematician sitting in his room, ruling over Abstraction Land.

"How's that cure for psoriasis coming, there, chief? Yeah, I thought so."

You cure it. Just using mathematical theorems. Ok, chief? If science is so easy, why don't all you smart mathematicians solve the world's science problems. Oh, that's right, you can't. Not without a scientist to hold your hand and lead you through the problem.

"*eye roll* Biologists. The rule of Science is much like the rule of Saddam Hussein."

Now I KNOW you are nutty.

BTW, my training is in history (history of biology), which is one reason I can't do the proof you provided in your post. It's way outside my field. You are a mathematician, which is why you can't figure out biochemical pathways. Or speak intelligently about evolutionary theory and history. Both require more knowledge than you will get out of a calculus text. Knowledge you don't have.

"Would you like me to explain knock knock jokes while I'm at it?"

Using mathematical formulas? Go right ahead. Knock yourself out. :)

"And people wonder why mathematicians tend to go insane."

Tend to? :)

[AmishDude]

You cure it.

I don't put that stuff on my grant proposals and I don't pretend to be working to that end. I can only solve the problem. I can't flail, throw gold dust in the fire, and get the king to keep the money coming for my alchemy.

If science is so easy, why don't all you smart mathematicians solve the world's science problems.

We are. It'll take you guys a hundred years to figure out that it's already done.

Oh, that's right, you can't. Not without a scientist to hold your hand and lead you through the problem.

Oh, we can. We just don't.

Consider the following experiment: I'll take an undergrad class in history of biology. You take a class in -- take your pick: algebra, analysis, graph theory, even linear programming -- and we'll see who does better.

You are a mathematician, which is why you can't figure out biochemical pathways.

Oh, rest assured, I can.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I don't put that stuff on my grant proposals and I don't pretend to be working to that end. I can only solve the problem."

In other words, you can't cure psoriasis.

"We are. It'll take you guys a hundred years to figure out that it's already done."

That's a good joke, better than a knock knock.

"Oh, we can. We just don't."

Riiiiight.

"Oh, rest assured, I can."

Just using mathematical formulas? Impossible. Without the knowledge from chemistry, and a chemist holding your hand leading you through the steps, you wouldn't have a clue.

An a priori tool (math) cannot by itself figure out anything about the phenomenal world. Less arrogant mathematicians already know this. Why don't you?

[AmishDude]

In other words, you can't cure psoriasis.

And neither can you. But at least I do mathematics. What's your excuse?

Of course you have to make the connection between the actual phenomena and the mathematical models. Every language needs translators.

My only point is that this is low-order thinking. As Pink Floyd tells us, "Hanging on in quiet desperation is the bio way." It's quite sad actually.

[Virginia-American]

I can only think of two crazy mathematicians: Nash (schizoid) and Cantor (depression). And Nash was more famous as an economist. Erdos was kind of ... marginal. Maybe you could say the same thing about Newton (bipolar? alchemical poisoning?)

So what's the evidence that mathematicians tend to go (or be) crazy?

[AmishDude]

Look up Walter Petryshyn.

And, of course, there is the world's most famous mathematician, Ted Kaczynski. But you know him by another name.

[RightWingNilla]

so I do find the scientific method a bit lacking

Yet, every day of your life you invest great amounts of "faith" in science by enjoying its many fruits (electricity, medicine, computers, the internet etc...) without even giving it a second thought.

Or do you put your faith in a witch doctor when you are ill?

[AmishDude]

Or do you put your faith in a witch doctor when you are ill?

Oh, no, I go to an MD (mediocre doctor) who tells me "We really don't know what causes that and there is no effective treatment."

Well, thanks a lot there, Dr. Pasteur.

[RightWingNilla]

Who's we? You and the small subset of other pure mathematicians with a chip on their shoulder about the real world?

You really hit the nail on the head here.

[Coyoteman]

The rule of Science is much like the rule of Saddam Hussein.

One of the more ignorant statements I have seen here lately.

(And no, I will not attempt to explain why. If you do not see it already, nothing I could say would help.)

[RightWingNilla]

Or to put it simply: I know everything, I just don't know what you choose to call it.

Wow. Just *wow*

Take a bit of friendly advice and seek some professional help.

[Doctor Stochastic]

...then if science were a religion, they'd have to get their funding somewhere else...

Appeals on short wave radio or cable TV?

[Doctor Stochastic]

At least the expectation value of a single die throw isn't a possible die throw. Life's a bit like that sometimes.

[grey_whiskers]

...then if science were a religion, they'd have to get their funding somewhere else...

Appeals on short wave radio or cable TV?

Oh, you mean what THAT's the real reason for the SETI project?

Full Disclosure: Read Isaac Asimov's short story "Buy Jupiter" :-)

[RightWingNilla]

It can be correct, but it's easy. It makes the researcher nothing but a cog. So is carpeting my basement. It is. I wouldn't want to carpet my basement. But that's low-level thinking. The rule of Science is much like the rule of Saddam Hussein.

Man you are one bitter guy! Why are you so jealous of medical doctors and scientists? Your inferiority complex is hanging around your neck like a neon sign.

So what if you don't get any respect from the world? I am sure your wife and kids love you.

[grey_whiskers]

To prove your point, I have a PhD in molecular collision theory.

But I'm TOO LAZY to Google "stable marriage problem".

Could you point me to a link, please? ;-)

[grey_whiskers]

Then you do it. a^n+b^n=c^n has no natural number solutions when n>2. Go for it.

I have a really nifty proof, but I left it on another thread ... ;-)

Would you like me to explain knock knock jokes while I'm at it? And people wonder why mathematicians tend to go insane.

This knock-knock joke explains a LOT of threads... Makes more sense if you say it aloud.

Q. Knock-knock!

A. Who's there?

Q. Impatient troll.

A. Impatient tr--

Q. (interrupting) You're a Nazi!

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

And, of course, there is the world's most famous mathematician, Ted Kaczynski. But you know him by another name.

You mean he was the ghost-writer for Earth in the Balance?

Full Disclosure: Look it up, Kaczynski said "Conservatives are fools." Almost all he said about them, being an EarthFirst! type at heart.

[grey_whiskers]

At least the expectation value of a single die throw isn't a possible die throw. Life's a bit like that sometimes.

Great, now you've dragged in all THESE mutant topics:

Einstein
Quantum Mechanics
The existence of God
Was Einstein a theist / deist / who cares?
Argument from Authority
Random number generation
and of course...
Leptokurtic heteroskedacity :-)

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

And, of course, there is the world's most famous mathematician, Ted Kaczynski.

Hint to lurkers: maybe that should read infamous.