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

[donh]

Good! Sauce, goose, gander.

Could you specify which of my counter-arguments you regard as a "red herring", and in regard to which argument?

[RightWingNilla]

we can't really re-create the Battle of Waterloo, only this time give Napoleon a B-52.

Not a bad idea!

[grey_whiskers]

You're basically a silly pooper, and I think I might have been mistaken to take this for a serious argument.

(From my earlier post on this thread...)

Q. Knock-knock.
A. Who's there?
Q. Impatient Troll.
A. Impatient Tro--
Q. (interrupting) You're a Poopyhead!

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Tom Watson doesn't understand physics, chemistry and math? Interesting.

I dunno about Watson, but Holmes reportedly had an encylopedic knowledge of all the soil types within 50 miles of London. OTOH, he didn't even know that the moon orbited the Earth.

"Elementary, my dear Watson" :-) Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Get over yourself Amish. You aren't that important.

Well if he isn't, why are you spending so much of YOUR time on him? ;-)

Cheers!

[RightWingNilla]

Well if he isn't, why are you spending so much of YOUR time on him?

Oops, you forgot to ping him. Now he'll call the mod on you.

[grey_whiskers]

Fleming to stumble onto it with stupid old biological thinking.

I thought Fleming stumbled onto it as a result of not cleaning the glassware.

You know, right before he invented James Bond ;-)

(Speaking of confusion over names--Tom Watson, biologist /golfer; Principia Mathematica, Newton / Whitehead& Russell).

Full Disclosure: As a piece of trivia, the screenwriter for "You Only Live Twice" (on my TV now) was Roald Dahl, who wrote the original "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory".

Cheers!

[donh]

You'll forgive me if I don't have the whole of scientific history at my fingertips.

You had enough to identify Fleming's breakthru as specificially biological, rather than mathematical.

Molecular structure is mathematical,

I don't think this statement means much of anything concrete. Do you mean to decline Fleming his credit because some aspects of molecular structure are mathematically tractable?

as to specific credit, I believe that has been lost in the tide.

I think it's pretty clear to most people who should get the lion's share of credit for the breakthroughs of Fleming, Pauling, and Pasteur.

You are still arguing utility. That is fine as far as it goes,

Well, I suppose you will never fail, if you never test. I could equally assume tree sprites are the basis of "higher thinking", if I never have to actually test my thesis where the rubber hits the road.

but I suspect we are at cross-purposes at this point.

We were at cross-purposes from the very beginning, when you launched on the doubtful, but, somewhat original and entertaining tactic of denegrated evolutionary theory by mass-insulting non-mathematicians in the sciences.

[donh]

Q. Knock-knock.
A. Who's there?
Q. Impatient Troll.
A. Impatient Tro--
Q. (interrupting) You're a Poopyhead!

The difference being that in this case, I've been a good deal more patient than charity and common sense would demand.

[donh]

People write infinite loops all the time.

It's even wierder than that. People somethings write infinite loops intentionally, because they are useful.

[grey_whiskers]

The difference being that in this case, I've been a good deal more patient than charity and common sense would demand.

Naah, the only difference is that this time I hoped there'd be enough of an audience for someone to read my joke.! :-)

[AmishDude]

You had enough to identify Fleming's breakthru as specificially biological, rather than mathematical.

I was also not interested in doing your work for you.

It felt like I was working with the biologists all over again.

But here is a bigger question. Fleming discovered penicillin. He discovered that the bacteria did not grow in that area.

Did he have any clue at all why that was the case?

Of course, he didn't need to, to use the penicillin to treat disease. But in reality, all he did was observe. Thank God he did, but this isn't an example of high-order thinking. Not everybody has to be a high-order thinker. Plato didn't envision many philosopher kings, either.

[js1138]

But in reality, all he did was observe.

The most ignorant thing I've seen posted today.

[AmishDude]

After reading the second paragraph of my reply again, perhaps I should make more judicious use of this:

;)

[AmishDude]

In 1928 he was straightening up a pile of Petri dishes where he had been growing bacteria, but which had been piled in the sink. He opened each one and examined it before tossing it into the cleaning solution. One made him stop and say, "That's funny." Some mold was growing on one of the dishes -- not too unusual -- but all around the mold, the staph bacteria had been killed -- very unusual. He took a sample of the mold. He found that it was from the penicillium family, later specified as penicillium notatum.

[js1138]

Try injecting penicillium straight up.

[AmishDude]

Try injecting penicillium straight up.

I don't know what you're into, man, but keep it to yourself, OK?

[donh]

I recall, in doing some research on PM that there were others with the same title. I found at least one modern one.

"Found"? "Found"? I think you should immediately cease lecturing on the meaning, extent and value of mathematics and mathematical proof. I see now why you have such over-reaching opinions of the solvent power of mathematics, which, I'd like to point out, you do not share with the vast majority of the founders of your field.

[AmishDude]

I'm sorry. I found a work with the title of "Principia Mathematica". I'm not sure what you're saying here.

The founders of my field have been dead for at least 4000 years. I don't know of whom you are speaking.

[grey_whiskers]

The founders of my field have been dead for at least 4000 years. I don't know of whom you are speaking.

Do I hear a cock crowing? ;-)