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
It is difficult to denigrate sharpened rocks.
A high hurdle, and a different one, no doubt, but weeding your way through several terabytes of data from several thousand digitial channels of a particle detector, for example, presents its own myriad of challenges, let me assure you.
I'm sure it's challenging. I'm sure you have to make a number of clever connections. But I think that several interpretations can be valid from said data. In other words, it requires a smaller wastebasket, so to speak.
It's not just a tool. It's a point of view. It's the difference between life in the clouds and life in the dirt.
The real world applications is fine, but it's also easy. And narrow.
A biologist knows nothing, NOTHING about physics or chemistry or even many other areas of biology. For me, it's all the same. Optimization is optimization. Vectors are vectors. It's like Stephen Breyer, who can't figure out how that old Constitution applies to the modern world. That's exactly the mentality I've been fighting on this thread. You've got to see the big picture and applied scientists refuse to.
And yet still you managed it, such are your awesome powers of denigration.
See, you can actually read. I did say it was not easy. Plus my comment was not to you, you first commented to me using the "Shhesh." word. Now in light of that sequence, I will call the following a mistake on your part. No, it doesn't. It indicates a quarrel, which you started by denigrating my contribution,, rather than the lie it seems to be.
Plus my comment == my original comment about logic and math
Good grief! It's rare to find someone so insistently rude about displaying his ignorance. You can't do micro-biology without a substantial grounding in chemistry and physical biology. At Berkeley, when I was there, the biggest users of the math supercomputer weren't the quantum guys at Lawrence, or the nuc guys at the trig3 reactor--it was the forestry and micro-biology departments. The microbiologists I have known were about as arrogantly rude as you are toward physics, chemistry and math honks, regarding them as children in secure playpens, afraid to apply your tools to the really challenging, cutting edge problems.
For me, it's all the same. Optimization is optimization. Vectors are vectors. It's like Stephen Breyer, who can't figure out how that old Constitution applies to the modern world. That's exactly the mentality I've been fighting on this thread. You've got to see the big picture and applied scientists refuse to.
I guess I should rest my case on your theory that your professional math discipline has something central to contribute to the argument for constitutional strict construction theory. You're basically a silly pooper, and I think I might have been mistaken to take this for a serious argument.
Don't you see? That's exactly my point. They don't understand physics, chemistry and math. They only understand the facets of those fields which have been distilled and presented to them so that they can use them.
In general, engineers -- even engineering professors -- do not understand calculus. They don't. They take it. They don't understand it.
We spend much of our lives distilling and cheapening our field so that others can use and understand it. They only get to see an ice cube, not even the tip of the berg.
I guess I should rest my case on your theory that your professional math discipline has something central to contribute to the argument for constitutional strict construction theory.
You are just falling into my trap. Read this again. What you are saying is "Show me the algorithm." "Give me the connection." It's a point of view, a philosophy, mental discipline that requires us to see the big picture.
I think I might have been mistaken to take this for a serious argument.
At least you say this to me directly, instead of others in this thread. I admit, I do exaggerate to make a point.
Uh, huh...
I'd like to say we agree to disagree.
Hey, Barbie's quote wasn't "Molecular Biology class is tough," was it?
Both the Kempe and Tait proofs were widely and warmly accepted for over a decade, before they were both discovered to be flawed. There was also a flaw in Principia Mathematica, which wasn't discovered for about 50 years. It makes one wonder what the intense value of formal rigor actually consists of. You can at least run computer programs against real problems, and flush out their more blatant bugs--proofs, once generated, seem to just sit around enjoying the veneration of formal mathematicians.
Jeez, enough with the trolling already.
Surely someone as brilliant as yourself has better things to do?
Well, heck, guy, we have some really urgent, painfully serious problems in biology, like my relatives dying in extremely painful and humiliating ways from metastasized lung cancer, or innocent children dying of aids. If you math honks have solutions to many of these problems, but are being handicapped by the existence of biologists, why don't you just bypass the biologists and fix them yourselves with your amazing points of view of the Big Picture?
I don't recall that, but I'm quite sure it's true. I'm a bit surprised in that the 4-color theorem was a holy grail of sorts. This is always the problem with long and complicated proofs. Also, refereeing is a thankless job, so there's no incentive to be careful other than love of the profession.
Wiles' proof took years to check and they even found a hole (which was fixable, but nontrivial).
There was also a flaw in Principia Mathematica, which wasn't discovered for about 50 years.
You're talking about Newton's PM, right? (There are a few people who have published works with the same name.) That era was much less rich with professional mathematicians and the standards were not well-established. Gauss did yeoman's work in formalizing all of mathematics.
But you'd expect a flaw there. After all, PM was essentially a physics text. :)
It makes one wonder what the intense value of formal rigor actually consists of.
It's the best we have and a higher bar than any other field.
You can at least run computer programs against real problems,
True, but you cannot check an infinite number of cases, unless you have a really powerful computer. The really interesting problems are on absurdly large systems. One nice area is models of the Internet.
Oh, by the standards of mathematicians, I am quite mediocre. By most other standards...
Unfortunately, I have to spend time searching through this thread for when you are talking about me behind my back.
Tom Watson doesn't understand physics, chemistry and math? Interesting.
Please stop feeding the troll.
He's obviously pulling your collective leg.
Hey, I can fail to come up with a cure for cancer or a cure for Aids even more cheaply than it is currently not being done.
Penicillin was a great invention. And a total accident. Mathematics won't find penicillin, but neither is its discovery a profound concept.
Trial and error can get you a lot of things, but it won't get you true understanding beyond a good guess. Sometimes, to actually solve something, you actually have to know something. If you math honks have solutions to many of these problems, but are being handicapped by the existence of biologists, why don't you just bypass the biologists and fix them yourselves with your amazing points of view of the Big Picture?
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.