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

[dsc]

"No, I didn't think you were too dumb, I thought I was too subtle. When I poked my head out of my *ss to see what was going on, I nearly took an incoming round."

Okay, sorry again.

[grey_whiskers]

See donh provided a perfect example. No logic and what do you get, polemics

OK< OK. Let's throw this one into the mix:

"God made the integers. All else is the work of man."--Kronecker

Cheers!

[AmishDude]

You might be interested in knowing that Brownian motion and Ito calculus is used in the Black-Shoales model of option pricing. I don't have a subscription to TheStreet.com

[AmishDude]

A proof is something that can convince a reasonable and knowledgable person. It is the highest hurdle in academia, but it still has its fuzziness. Suffice it to say that I was not convinced by A&H. It's a moot point now.

[AndrewC]

OK< OK. Let's throw this one into the mix:

Hey, don't ask me! I'm seriously thinking of becoming a minion here. ;)

[donh]

Nothing of substance is "proven" by a computer.

Well, I don't exactly know what "substance" consists of, but I helped write a generalized computer proof searcher back when I was an undergrad at Berkeley, and cranked out some marginally useful analytical geometry theorems that had not, until then, been discovered, as far as the math department, after substantial research, could tell.

At any rate, in what sense can you say nothing is proven by computer? My perspective is that the shoe is on the other foot--as long as you are merely bench checking proofs with hundreds of human eyes, you aren't proving squat--as the 300 year, off-again, on-again, off-again "proofs" of the 4 color theorem demonstrates. Only when a computer checks it over, do you have anything approaching a reliably vetted proof.

[AmishDude]

You can "prove" combinatorial identities until you die, but that doesn't make it a general, applicable theorem.

A computer program would have to be debugged. Lots of proofs are done by proving an algorithm works and applying the algorithm to a given idea. But if there's a bug in the program, how do you find it? It's rare that a computer program can be checked at the level of a proof.

What computers can often do is generate data that suggests a plan of attack for the general proof. I'm not saying that they aren't extraordinarily helpful. Bredan McKay in Australia makes a good living checking things with computers. But once the computer finds something, he has to write a conventional proof.

[aNYCguy]

this country treasures its freedom of religion. That includes freedom from having it "stuck to you" in public places.

That's simply not true. I could go out on a public street tomorrow and stick it to any religious group at all with speech and text. There would only be a basis for physically preventing me if it was determined that I was inciting a riot or some other tangential consideration.

Speech is protected. You are not protected from having your feelings hurt.

[Doctor Stochastic]

When I was in grad school, it was common among the various Communist (Stalinists, Trots, Maoists, Pseudo-Anarchists, Christian Socialists, Syndics, etc.) groups to talk about who should be killed first After The Revolution. They were in agreement that the Applied Mathematicians should be killed first but the Pure Mathematicians should be spared. (Applied Mathematicians were Caplitalist Lackeys, but Pure Mathematicians did if for the Glory Of Marx or Mao.)

One rather noted elderly (but younger than I am now) pure mathematician pointed out that the guy who solves Riemann's Conjecture will make lots of money, be hired anywhere desired, etc. On the other hand, some guy who computes how to save an airplane 1% in gas milage won't get much honor, (or even a bonus perhaps), but this will do more for society (in the sense of saving resources) than solving Riemann's Conjecture.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Are haarping on funding again?

[AmishDude]

You have an outdated view of "Applied" Mathematics. These days, it's descended into "fun with PDEs".

[Doctor Stochastic]

You left out Big Jule and the dice with no spots.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The mathematics was necessary to develop the requisite "laws of motion" rather than just saying "random." Einstein's insight was to notice that "velocity" could not be defined for Brownian particles, but position could. Experimentally, people couldn't get velocities; perhaps this was a hint to Einstein.

[grey_whiskers]

Why not? Look at your post 369 as haarping on funding in a different way--the 1% saved on mileage is something a business could make a truckload of money on. And as Arnold Schwarzenegger once said (paraphrase), "If I promise someone I can make them $400 million dollars, and I can deliver on it, then it's only fair that I get some of the money."

Cheers!

[dsc]

"That's simply not true. I could go out on a public street tomorrow and stick it to any religious group at all with speech and text."

We're not talking about the same thing. Yes, you can go out on the street and talk to anybody who'll listen. However, there are things you cannot legally or rightfully do.

For instance, as a supervisor in a workplace, you cannot legally or rightfully call your subordinates together and attempt to make adherents of a given religion objects of mockery in the workplace.

You cannot legally or rightfully call a meeting of your subordinates and say things like, "Hey, how about those Jews and those ridiculous dietary rules, eh? And the way they say they won't marry anybody who's not a Jew. What a pack of idiots, right? And have you ever seen one pull his weight on the job? No! Clowns, every one of them. Morons. Losers. How could anybody believe that superstitious crap in this day and age? Haw, haw, haw."

That is speech, but because of the circumstances and content, it rises to the level of religious persecution, and should result in criminal prosecution (or at least a good @ss-whipping).

Now suppose a college professor made those remarks to a class.

Suppose a publicly funded university decided to rename its Department of Religion, "Department of Superstitious Idiocy." Or to name every class within the Department of Religion, "Ridiculous Superstition 101," "Ridiculous Superstition 102," etc.

**So, what's your major?

**Superstitious idiocy. This semester I'm taking Ridiculous Superstition 304.

"Speech is protected. You are not protected from having your feelings hurt."

Usually I am on your side of this argument. However, there are important distinctions that must be drawn.

Suppose you have a public elementary school with one Jewish kid in it, like mine. And suppose all the other kids, and even the teachers, call him "Jew-boy," "Christ-killer," etc. etc. That's speech. Is it protected? Is that Jewish boy's freedom of religion being protected?

Speech can quite easily become persecution, especially when the speakers are in positions of authority. Can you imagine the outcry if a president were to say, "Jews are parasites and a drain on society?"

(Note: I do not personally endorse, subscribe to, or believe any of the derogatory things about Jews that are written above. They are given as purely hypothetical examples of wrongful behavior.)

[Doctor Stochastic]

Mathematics is somewhat like sex. First you do it because of a great teacher; then because you like it; finally, you just do it for the money.

No funding, no math.

[grey_whiskers]

Mathematics is somewhat like sex.

LOL, how about this formulation:

Tri-weekly

then

Try weekly

then

Try weakly.

[longshadow]

Mathematics is somewhat like sex.

With important differences: the first time I did Mathematics, I was neither alone nor scared, and it wasn't in the dark.

(apologies to Woody Allen)

[donh]

See donh provided a perfect example. No logic and what do you get, polemics

I see. Whereas your worshipful odes to logic and math were rigorous proofs.

[donh]

u

You can "prove" combinatorial identities until you die, but that doesn't make it a general, applicable theorem.

As you have pointed out, tree search is employed to prove mathematical theorems these days. This is economical because humans are unlikely to find proofs that aren't, in some manner, elegant. When mundane brute force is called for in proof, computers excel because humans can't stand to do it, and don't have the bandwidth.

Searching for interesting provable theorems is something else again, and, as you say, computers aren't as good as humans. However, computers are not entirely out of the running. We found two theorems by computer search, in spherical geometry, that were, in fact, employed by astronomers. Other people, over the years, have found other useful minor theorems, using similar programs. So it's not really true that computers don't find useful theorems, it's just not presently a very valuable, or cost efficient way to find theorems. It was a pretty viable way for CS students to grab a doctorate. I imagine it may be considered a little too mundane to leverage a doctorate with these days.

A computer program would have to be debugged.

And a human would have to follow a proof, and humans are fallible, and notorously resistent to debugging.

Lots of proofs are done by proving an algorithm works and applying the algorithm to a given idea. But if there's a bug in the program, how do you find it?

I think you have the cart before the horse. For the interesting bugs, The only way you know there's a bug in a program is to apply it to the real world. Most interesting bugs have to do with specs that are inadequate to the field of discourse. A provably correct program could still easily have a bug. If there's a bug in a program you redo the software and start the proof over from scratch. And then you will have a new provably correct program, which may easily still have a bug.

It's rare that a computer program can be checked at the level of a proof.

It's rare to unknown that a provably correct program still doesn't suffer from many bugs when the development team finally decides to quit wasting its time trying to generate a perfect program and ships before they all get fired.

Proof isn't the germane challenge in getting useful software out--We've had provable programming systems, arising from Lisp, Prolog, and the Wirth/Dykstra contribution, that I know of (there are probably others). And it's no more or less of a challenge to be absolutely convinced that your compilers produce proofworthy code, as it is to convince yourself that formal systems of proof are in fact, correct. Amusingly enough, syllogistic logic was formulated with two "bugs" by Aristotle, and this wasn't caught until the beginning of the 20th century. Sort of an inverse testement to just how useful logic actually is in daily life, or math, for that matter. Treating programs as if they were proofs added lots of expense, and little by way of value to the software production process. The real world is not a subset of math.

Math is a partial subset of the real world, which is sometimes quite useful, and sometimes a enormously expensive waste of time. Knowing the difference is important, and for that, you need humans, with feelings about analytically intractable things like love and duty and beauty and ambition, not mathematically tractable algorithms.