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
Anybody else hear those voices?
I don't use the term alchemy lightly. Much of science is unending promises. They never pan out or they promise much more than they can deliver. It's one fad after another. Now it's stem cells. Next it's something else. Much of it is little more than a big scam to keep the money flowing.
And don't get me started on the humanities.
LOL. Yeah science is all a big scam. OK.
Meanwhile the brilliant starving math profs are sleeping in their Hyundais.
Poor poor AmishDude. He gets no respect. No respect at all.
The world is *so* unfair.
"They mainly show up on the science and history channels."
In Yokohama, we don't get those.
"I have never before had anyone raise the exact issues I was suggesting (albeit subtly) and think they were correcting me."
Whereas I have on numerous occasions seen people congratulate themselves for subtlety after wasting time on the obvious.
Whereas I have on numerous occasions seen people congratulate themselves for subtlety after wasting time on the obvious.
Geez, and we're in substantial agreement. At the very least you could have posted one of those "Master of the Obvious" graphics if you were going to flame me.
Cheers!
And the theorem I used was developed 30 years ago.
And it was developed in pure mathematics. Number theory, actually. It never would have been developed otherwise and the people studying phylogenetic trees would still be pursuing a dead end.
But, hey, it's all about me.
How scientific of you.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pretendence
1 entry found for pretendence.
pretendence
\Pre*tend"ence\, n. The act of pretending; pretense. [Obs.] --Daniel.
"At the very least you could have posted one of those "Master of the Obvious" graphics if you were going to flame me."
Do you intend to pretend that your "raise the exact issues" quip wasn't a flame?
You mean, like the original proof of the four-color theorem?
The Appel and Haken proof was always viewed with suspicion. The subsequent revision was more easily checked.
I'm curious as to what math is necessary to say that particles move and collide randomly?
"Randomly" is ill-defined. Brownian motion is defined from four axioms. Two that I recall are "everywhere continuous" and "nowhere differentiable".
It must get lonely at the "top of the intellectual food chain".
Indeed, but one never gets hungry.
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.
Shhesh. I think it all starts with sharpened rocks. Arrowsmiths are the centerposts of civilized discourse and understanding--academics are merely entertainers who ride on the backs of arrowsmiths.
"It must get lonely at the "top of the intellectual food chain".
I'm sure it is. For pure, abstract brain-power, mathematicians stand alone. I can't do it, but I do admire it.
The only part of any of the hard sciences I ever had any problem with was the mathematics. That includes organic chemisty and a graduate-level course in molecular genetics(both of which I took as electives, just for giggles).
Amish, you have the beginnings of a fan club here.
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.