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

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

At a conservative estimate, say 15 Sites per enzyme must be fixed to be filled by particular amino acids for proper biological function. . . [T]he probability of discovering this set by random shuffling is one in 1040,000, a number that exceeds by many powers of 10 the number of all atoms in the entire observable universe [Science News, Vol. 121 (January 16, 1982)].

"I would expect that someone with a PhD in mathematics would understand that it is totally meaningless to apply probability in such a convoluted manner."

---

Yes, faced with a strange argument like this from a NT professor at the neighboring seminary a few decades ago, I said essentially the same thing. I hope I dissuaded him from using his bogus argument, but never followed up by reading his publications. Other priorities intervened.

Why do you think I am responsible for the above argument?

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

Devotees of scientism have always sought to rule out challenges to their faith in strictly materialist metaphysics.

Sorry, you don't get to change the definition of science. Science can & always has & always will address the natural world only, and has a myriad of facts on its side to support evolutionary theory. Good for the NABT for reiterating the importance of the theory.

Y'all have been asking for years that ID be given time in the classroom, and now you got it. As they say, be careful what you wish for...

---

Science, by it's methodology, is restricted to explanations "from nature". I have no problem with that, and in fact recognize that such constraints are the glory of that methodology. Where the partisan tunnel-visioned users of scientific work product slide into scientism is in illicitly bootlegging the scientific enterprise's contributions into arguments about meta-physical issues, where it has no special authority.

Evolutionary theory, due to the above noted illicit applications, is laden with bogus arguments, phony "examples", and volumes of "just so" stories that rival the mythologies of the Middle East and Greece. The Intelligent Design alternative could be a means of cleansing the Augean stables of biology from its materialist Darwinist blinders, but Darwinism's obtuse devotees will have none of it. So be it.

As a practitioner and supporter of home-based education, I don't much care what NABT, the Kansas bureaucrats, or other denizens of the tax-supported state indoctrination centers are doing with these issues, other than to hope that their various self-destructive endeavors speed the growth of more economic and productive means of inducting the next generation into the human race.

[orionblamblam]

> It is blindingly obvious that it is gravely insulting to label a person's religious faith "mythology."

Really? I'll have to remember that. You'll have to remember that, too, and never *ever* use the word again. There is nothing today that most consider "mythology" that someone, somewhere doesn't believe in.

However, to the thinking and knowledgable man, "mythology" is a proper term for a great many things, including "Creationism." The fact that some people falsely believe Creationism (specifically: God said "Zap" and mankind popped out of nowhere, fully formed) is a part of their religion does not change the fact that Creationism *is* mythology. Thinking Christians acknowledge this.

> I don't know what could account for your statement except bigotry or an inability to think.

See, you prove my point for me. *You* don't know. Not because such reasoning doesn't exist... it's just that you are unable to figure it out.

[Quark2005]

At a conservative estimate, say 15 Sites per enzyme must be fixed to be filled by particular amino acids for proper biological function. . .

Why do you think I am responsible for the above argument?

You used it in your post to Coyoteman; I assumed this meant you were using the statement to make a point. If not, I stand corrected, but I'm left wondering why you included it in your collection of quotes.

Science, by it's methodology, is restricted to explanations "from nature". I have no problem with that, and in fact recognize that such constraints are the glory of that methodology.

We agree on this.

Evolutionary theory, due to the above noted illicit applications, is laden with bogus arguments, phony "examples", and volumes of "just so" stories that rival the mythologies of the Middle East and Greece.

Evolution has a lot of open-ended hypotheses (most complex science paradigms do - a guess is the first step towards new theory). It also has a tremendous number of well-proven theories under its belt. No "just so" story is universally accepted by the scientific community without verification.

The Intelligent Design alternative could be a means of cleansing the Augean stables of biology from its materialist Darwinist blinders, but Darwinism's obtuse devotees will have none of it. So be it.

So, what factual science information, verified by testing and/or data collection, would comprise a classroom lesson in intelligent design? I'm honestly puzzled here - you say that naturalism is a strength of the scientific method then castigate it for its materialistic methodology? What exactly is more materialistic about biological evolution than climatology, plate tectonics, particle theory or stellar evolution? I'm not deliberately trying to be obtuse, here, I am honestly a little confounded by your perspective.

[AmishDude]

Surely it depends on what you want to know. You don't have some natural world as a crutch. Theorems proven with or without the AoC are simply done that way. Your system depends on assumptions. Without the AoC, you are constrained and can only gather certain conclusions. With it, you can get a lot more, but at the cost of an assumption.

A lot of scientists do not realize exactly how many things they assume when they use some ancient model. It's essential to understanding when it fails to predict something.

When you strip the particulars from any problem, you get a much better perspective on the one you care about. You can see how it relates to similar problems and how that was attacked. You can then see that biology is chemistry is physics is engineering in a very broad sense. It's the same issues and the same problems over and over again. But this involves dealing in the abstract.

[Right Wing Professor]

You'll be happy to know you're the founder member of my Virtual Ignore list. Details are on my profile page. I'm sure we'll both be much happier for it.

[Liberal Classic]

I see God's fingerprints every day. However, my personal experience (relevant as it is to me) is not a test of scientific rigor. The problem is, there is no way to differentiate (scientifically) between that which was directly designed by God and that which evolved naturally through processes we don't yet understand. If we try to differentiate, we encroach upon the limits of the scientific method.

"ID as I understand it doesn't carry that risk."

I respectfully disagree. If we try to relegate a phenomena to intelligent design, and then subsequently discover that evidence points to the natural evolution of that phenomenon, we have, in effect, "blotted out a fingerprint" of God. In other words, stating that something is designed by direct divine intervention just because we are incredulous as to its natural origins is premature. On the other hand, if we have faith that God is the ultimate author of all natural laws, we have nothing to fear from such a revelation. Either way, science simply doesn't have the power to differentiate between our personal ignorance and the direct design of God.

Occasionally, slogging through these tedious threads one will stumble on a real gem. Thanks.

[donh]

...A lot of scientists do not realize exactly how many things they assume when they use some ancient model. It's essential to understanding when it fails to predict something....

All university-trained scientists I have ever met were familiar with ZFC, and the value of the discovery of isomorphisms between the mathematics of disparate disciplines. Try not to break your armature patting yourself on the Laplace Transform.

[dsc]

"I'll have to remember that."

Won't do you any good. As your following remarks show, you lack the intellectual honesty to understand the ramifications correctly.

"You'll have to remember that, too, and never *ever* use the word again."

This is the tactic of restating the opponent's position as an irrational extreme. My objection to bona fide religious persecution you attempt to extend to the content of private conversations. So crooked you can't lie in bed straught.

"There is nothing today that most consider "mythology" that someone, somewhere doesn't believe in.

Road apples.

"However, to the thinking and knowledgable man"

How would you know? You've demonstrated that you can't think, and what you know of theology and philosophy could be written on the surface of a boson in grease pencil.

"Thinking Christians acknowledge this."

My Church holds that the 7-day creationists are mistaken; it does not, however, endorse such uncharitable behavior as calling it "mythology" solely for the sake of antagonizing them. That would be religious persecution.

"Not because such reasoning doesn't exist... it's just that you are unable to figure it out."

I probably had it figured out -- and had the flaws figured out -- when you were in diapers.

But if you want to embarrass yourself further, just lay out the reasoning behind your statement that calling someone's religious beliefs "mythology" is not insulting, and I will explain why you are wrong. Again.

[dsc]

"Where the partisan tunnel-visioned users of scientific work product slide into scientism is in illicitly bootlegging the scientific enterprise's contributions into arguments about meta-physical issues, where it has no special authority. "

I hope you have better luck with that argument than I've had. The only response I got to it was to be labeled a creationist.

[dsc]

"You'll be happy to know you're the founder member of my Virtual Ignore list."

Going to be looking for some easier marks for your bigoted browbeating, eh? Ah, well, stand up to a bully, and they'll run away every time.

[AmishDude]

Then your experience is different from mine.

[orionblamblam]

> As your following remarks show, you lack the intellectual honesty to understand the ramifications correctly.... So crooked you can't lie in bed straught. ... You've demonstrated that you can't think...

Take your ad hominem attacks elsewhere. They do nothing but make you look like a schmuck.

> My objection to bona fide religious persecution you attempt to extend to the content of private conversations.

Well, now, that's a flat-out lie. Discussion, debate and even mockery are not "persecution." Only do the paranoid see it thus.

> just lay out the reasoning behind your statement that calling someone's religious beliefs "mythology" is not insulting

Because it's not. It's a simple statement of fact.

> My Church holds that the 7-day creationists are mistaken; it does not, however, endorse such uncharitable behavior as calling it "mythology" solely for the sake of antagonizing them. That would be religious persecution.

Oh My God. You *actually* believe that, don't you.

That's just so very, very sad.

[donh]

Then your experience is different from mine.

Perhaps you should hang out at universities where knowledge of the historical significance of "Principia Mathematica" is a core part of undergraduate math education.

[dsc]

"Take your ad hominem attacks elsewhere."

Another one who can dish it out but not take it.

"Well, now, that's a flat-out lie. Discussion, debate and even mockery are not "persecution." Only do the paranoid see it thus."

Ah, the old dishonest tactic of referring to a differing opinion as a lie. And on top of that, the false implication that I have asserted that discussion and debate are persecution. Pathetic.

There's no point in even referring you to the discussion above of how mockery can rise to the level of persecution. Your mind is closed.

"Because it's not. It's a simple statement of fact."

Oh, yeah, that's a compelling argument. That's not a statement of fact, it's an expression of willful blindness, of closed-minded bigotry.

"You *actually* believe that, don't you."

Me and hundreds of millions of other people, yes.

"That's just so very, very sad."

Whereas your refusal to accord people of belief the same consideration you demand for yourself is just disgusting.

[AmishDude]

Oh, and it also wasn't my experience with the scientists on this thread. There are many things in heaven and earth, donh, than are dreamt of in Newton's philosophy.

[orionblamblam]

>>"Well, now, that's a flat-out lie. Discussion, debate and even mockery are not "persecution." Only do the paranoid see it thus."

> Ah, the old dishonest tactic of referring to a differing opinion as a lie.

Nope. Mockery = Persecution isn't an opinion... it's nonsense.

Does this look like persecution to you:

For the record, it's not. Nor is this:

Nor this:

So, neither is this:

As you have decided that it'd be Really Cool to be a martyr, and since there's nobody out there actually trying to throw you to the lions, you'll just have to make up persecution. In that case, there is little point in further debate with you, as I disagree that even the most rancid of mockery rises to anything even remotely resembling persecution when it's not being forced on anyone.

[orionblamblam]

> There are many things in heaven and earth, donh, than are dreamt of in Newton's philosophy.

Yup. Newton was dead wrong about all that "alchemy" rubbish he went on about for years, and Newtonian physics breaks down rather badly at relativistic conditions.

Ain't science grand?

[AmishDude]

He died more than 300 years ago. I could get you more up-to-date on the subject, but if you want to stay in the 17th century, go right ahead.

[orionblamblam]

> I could get you more up-to-date on the subject, but if you want to stay in the 17th century, go right ahead.

Some of us are quite happy in the 21st century and moving forwards, thank you.