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
That's fine and all, but what I really need is minions.
Then there are archaeologists. In addition to being brilliant academics, many of us can chip out a pretty functional point.
See donh provided a perfect example. No logic and what do you get, polemics
I doubt that a mathematician wants someone in his fan club whose focus is in the humanities.
It wasn't a flame at all--I am used to being largely ignored on these threads, and so I was too surprised at being responded to, to notice at first that you were agreeing with me.
My point about "angels on the head of a pin" and "control groups" were the same things you are saying--science isn't able to study the supernatural directly. But I do suffer from the tendency of understating my case.
Cheers!
"I'd wait for a mea culpa from the RWP."
It's funny how important that is, isn't it? You get all kind of credibility just from being able to say, "Okay, okay, I was wrong about that."
Those who don't apologize...?...well......
That hasn't been true for at least 30 years. Do you claim the current proof of the 4 color theorem was, in substantial part, not written by a computer?
"It wasn't a flame at all--I am used to being largely ignored on these threads, and so I was too surprised at being responded to, to notice at first that you were agreeing with me."
Well, then, if it was not your intention to flame, I apologize.
"My point about "angels on the head of a pin" and "control groups" were the same things you are saying--science isn't able to study the supernatural directly. But I do suffer from the tendency of understating my case."
I don't think understatement was the problem with that note. The phrasing lent itself to the interpretation, "You were too dump to pick up on my subtlety."
Humanities? Sheesh! You shouldn't even be talking to Amish.
Nothing of substance is "proven" by a computer. There are things that can be verified by exhaustive computer search. The proof part of the A&H theorem was the reduction to the cases that were then "verified" by computer. It was still viewed with suspicion.
dump=>dumb
Which brings us back to the difficulties with different definitions of terms as used by different disciplines...
Something about "parsimony" way earlier in the thread. :-)
But seriously, the only thing I remember about Brownian motion was reading Einstein in translation, ages ago; and a writeup of a molecular dynamics study using "simulated" Brownian motion to attempt to incorporate its effects on solvent caging of a substrate at an enzyme's active site. So your "everywhere continuous" and "nowhere differentiable" fail to ring a bell...Although it does present room for speculation about the size or scale of the system (number of particles and detail of interaction potential) during which a bunch of discrete particles can begin to be successfully modeled as a continuum. Could you please post a reference to a link or two? Enlightenment gratefully accepted. :-)
My considered opinion is that Einstein and Feynmann are two of the most elegant and economical writers in English I have come across (except J.R.R. Tolkien).
< snicker>
"Humanities? Sheesh! You shouldn't even be talking to Amish."
Given the current state of university humanities departments, I can sympathize with him. However, I think that he could be persuaded of the value of the humanities, correctly pursued.
A few books by Thomas Sowell ought to do it.
Cheers!
All I know about Brownian motion is in Ito calculus:a primer here
Friendly fire is something to be avoided on these threads :-)
Cheers!
So...it's a proof, and it hasn't been contradicted, and yet, it's "viewed with suspician"....sounds more like a blundering-around science than a pellucid palace of logic to me.
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.