Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kansas Prof. Apologizes for E-Mail [referred to religious conservatives as "fundies" ....]
Yahoo ^

Posted on 11/29/2005 9:31:13 AM PST by Sub-Driver

Kansas Prof. Apologizes for E-Mail

11 minutes ago

A University of Kansas religion professor apologized for an e-mail that referred to religious conservatives as "fundies" and said a course describing intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face."

In a written apology Monday, Paul Mirecki, chairman of the university's Religious Studies Department, said he would teach the planned class "as a serious academic subject and in an manner that respects all points of view."

The department faculty approved the course Monday but changed its title. The course, originally called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationisms and other Religious Mythologies," will instead be called "Intelligent Design and Creationism."

The class was added to next spring's curriculum after the Kansas State Board of Education decided to include more criticism of evolution in its standards for science teaching. The vote was seen as a big win for proponents of intelligent design, who argue that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism — a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation — camouflaged in scientific language.

Mirecki's e-mail was sent Nov. 19 to members of the Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics, a student organization for which he serves as faculty adviser.

"The fundies (fundamentalists) 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."

Mirecki addressed the message to "my fellow damned" and signed off with: "Doing my part to (tick) off the religious right, Evil Dr. P."

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: academia; apology; crevolist; dems; evocreeps; fundies; highereducation; ku; libs; mirecki; pubs; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-723 next last
kook.....
1 posted on 11/29/2005 9:31:14 AM PST by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

follow up article...


2 posted on 11/29/2005 9:32:19 AM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

He's just sorry he got caught.


3 posted on 11/29/2005 9:32:26 AM PST by auto power
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Not a battle of flesh and blood.


4 posted on 11/29/2005 9:33:11 AM PST by Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I've discovered that it irritates the heck out of liberals to call them liberal fundamentalists.


5 posted on 11/29/2005 9:33:59 AM PST by cripplecreek (Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: auto power
He's just sorry he got caught.

Of course he is.

6 posted on 11/29/2005 9:34:42 AM PST by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

liberal demagogues is more accurate. And it makes them very angry.


7 posted on 11/29/2005 9:34:59 AM PST by saveliberty (I think so, Brain, but a #2 pencil won't write on Fruit-Roll-Ups)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
In a written apology Monday, Paul Mirecki, chairman of the university's Religious Studies Department, said he would teach the planned class "as a serious academic subject and in an manner that respects all points of view."

Sure he will.

And I have some oceanfront property in Kansas for sale.

8 posted on 11/29/2005 9:35:02 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

He needs a diversity course.

Not all conservative religious are "fundy's."


9 posted on 11/29/2005 9:35:15 AM PST by OpusatFR (Yup. I'm a Rad Trad in a Novus world. And loving it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: auto power

dont bite the hand that funds you.


10 posted on 11/29/2005 9:35:19 AM PST by printhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
"...said he would teach the planned class "as a serious academic subject and in an manner that respects all points of view."

I'll just bet he will.

You suppose a Christian in his class has any chance of getting an 'A'?

11 posted on 11/29/2005 9:35:42 AM PST by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

That is my new phrase! LOL!

That's a keeper..


12 posted on 11/29/2005 9:35:56 AM PST by OpusatFR (Yup. I'm a Rad Trad in a Novus world. And loving it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Paul Mirecki, chairman of the university's Religious Studies Department

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but I have to admit I was.

13 posted on 11/29/2005 9:35:59 AM PST by pettifogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
"Mirecki addressed the message to "my fellow damned" and signed off with: "Doing my part to (tick) off the religious right, Evil Dr. P."

A college professor hostile towards Christians? Who woulda thunk? I think its a hiring requirement now with verifiable references required on the resume.

14 posted on 11/29/2005 9:37:25 AM PST by GregoTX (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
===> Placemarker <===
15 posted on 11/29/2005 9:38:05 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
"... Paul Mirecki, chairman of the university's Religious Studies Department . . ."

Pretty odd email statements coming from the chairman of the Religious Studies Department.

16 posted on 11/29/2005 9:38:05 AM PST by Zuben Elgenubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
said he would teach the planned class "as a serious academic subject and in an manner that respects all points of view."

Does anyone believe that?

There are numerous differences between Creationism and Intelligent Design. Creationism is basically a religious approach, although understandably its proponents tried to disguise it as science after the Supreme Court declared that religion would not be allowed in the public schools. It's basically a response to a distorted interpretation of the Constitution that tries to get religion in the back door. It would be better if we could appoint some decent judges and allow open and fair discussion of religion in the schools via the front door.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, actually is a scientific approach, like it or not. It does not begin with Genesis, but begins with the nature of the universe as we find it. It does not claim to know whether the intelligence that designed the universe is the God of the Bible or something else, although people are welcome to draw their own conclusions.

The problem is, this joker will still pretend that they are the same, and that they are myths, and that the ONLY scientific theory possible is Darwinist. No other theories may be allowed to lift their heads in the public schools, now and forever more.

17 posted on 11/29/2005 9:39:45 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

bttt


18 posted on 11/29/2005 9:40:11 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: Sub-Driver

Christ gets no respect, but pagan elephant gods, sacred cows, and pieces of rock do.


20 posted on 11/29/2005 9:42:40 AM PST by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven
Here's his picture from his website.
A 1960s wannabee ...

21 posted on 11/29/2005 9:45:11 AM PST by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: auto power

Yep, for many years the leftists reigned supreme over the media, the government, and academia and now that they have lost control of the government and no longer have a monopoly on the media, they are becoming more and more desperate and their real thoughts and beliefs are slipping out with increasing frequency.


22 posted on 11/29/2005 9:45:48 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
There are numerous differences between Creationism and Intelligent Design. ...Intelligent Design, on the other hand, actually is a scientific approach, like it or not.

How do you reconcile these statements with the famous Wedge Document: here?

A sample paragraph:

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

23 posted on 11/29/2005 9:53:21 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
I feel for all parents who scrimp and save for years just to sent their children to this idiot to be "educated".
24 posted on 11/29/2005 9:56:08 AM PST by LIConFem (A fronte praecipitium, a tergo lupi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Fundies doesn't bother me. Now "happy clapper" is just waaaaaaay over the top.


25 posted on 11/29/2005 9:57:48 AM PST by TexanToTheCore (Rock the pews, Baby)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Okay. I thought "Intelligent-Design" is the belief that God created the universe, but not in the exact way the Bible portends in Genesis. Is this correct?


26 posted on 11/29/2005 9:59:22 AM PST by jjm2111 (99.7 FM Radio Kuwait)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver


More open minded, non judgemental, non partisanship from our friends in the University system.


27 posted on 11/29/2005 10:01:02 AM PST by Tzimisce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood
Christ gets no respect, but pagan elephant gods, sacred cows, and pieces of rock do.

How many people do you see waving their belief in "pagan elephant gods" on every other thread?

28 posted on 11/29/2005 10:01:13 AM PST by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I've been using the term 'left wing fundamentalists' for a while myself.


29 posted on 11/29/2005 10:01:19 AM PST by GSWarrior (Posting bandwidth-consuming images since November 2000.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven
"Rep. Brenda Landwehr, vice chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee, called the e-mail "venomous," adding, "He's not sorry he wrote it. He's sorry it became public."

Dude, my critic's last name is the same as the German army's.

30 posted on 11/29/2005 10:03:54 AM PST by jjm2111 (99.7 FM Radio Kuwait)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

evil Dr P -----yeah...Simply proves the fascist nature of Darwinists and atheists.

Professor of religion - eee gads! More like professor of Wicca. They should give him the Nero Chair in religious studies.


31 posted on 11/29/2005 10:08:06 AM PST by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I say that the "wedge" doctrine is someone else's take on it, not the belief of major ID proponents themselves. Or if, to raise a conjecture, it is their secret belief, that would be no more reprehensible than the opposite, not-so-secret belief of materialists.

You could say precisely the same thing about Darwinism, Marxism, and Freudianism, that they are "wedges" to promote the triumph of materialism and to pretend that a conjecture is an established fact.

How partisans try to make use of one theory or another has no necessary connection as to whether those theories are scientifically probable. Many scientists are ideologues, which is not all that reprehensible as long as they allow their facts to be checked.

For instance, if global warming were real, the question would be what we should do about it. But first, before that question arises, we need to establish that global warming is real.


32 posted on 11/29/2005 10:12:15 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Advisor to the Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics AND Chairman, Religious Studies Department.

Versatile guy..


33 posted on 11/29/2005 10:19:44 AM PST by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior

Both "liberal fundamentalist" and "left wing fundamentalists" are good boomerang terms.

I also like "Neo-Lib".


34 posted on 11/29/2005 10:22:20 AM PST by torchthemummy ("Reid...Kerry...Rockefeller. They were unable to attend due to a prior lack of commitment." - Cheney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
It would be better if we could appoint some decent judges and allow open and fair discussion of religion in the schools via the front door.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, actually is a scientific approach, like it or not.

I don't like it, I don't have to like it, and the "or not" ultimatum is an empty defense. ID is nothing more than Creationism all dressed up in a science dress that doesn't fit and that...

".... tries to get religion in the back door."

The problem with you ID'rs is that you are duplicitous.

35 posted on 11/29/2005 10:23:53 AM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: saveliberty

I like liberal traitors best. You should see the rise that gets out of them. :-)


36 posted on 11/29/2005 10:26:48 AM PST by DarthVader (Do something positive for America today: Insult an America hating leftie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: elbucko

I'm not sure if I'm an IDer, even. But I find the work of its more intelligent proponents interesting and reasonably plausible. I'd like to see more discussion.

My objection to Darwinism in the schools is mainly that Darwinists seem to want a complete and hermetically sealed monopoly on public school science. No competition allowed. No discussion allowed. No questions allowed.

I am not sure whether advocacy of religion in public schools would be a good idea, but a fair and free discussion of religion is certainly something children should be exposed to. They should know about the Pilgrims and Thanksgiving and the revival movements of the nineteenth century. They should know something about the Bible as they should know something about Aristotle, Plato, and Greek tragedy, and other major literary and philosophical works.

No single book has been more influential on our history, culture, and civilization than the Bible. Yet it is not allowed into our schools.

What was regretable is that it was always a legal battle, rather than an intellectual discussion, what should be taught in science courses. I have no problems with teaching Darwinism as long as it has any remaining credibility, but I refuse to agree that it should have a total monopoly imposed on our schools by unelected judges and Darwinist True Believers, as if it were written in stone forever.


37 posted on 11/29/2005 10:33:53 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
You could say precisely the same thing about Darwinism, Marxism, and Freudianism, that they are "wedges" to promote the triumph of materialism and to pretend that a conjecture is an established fact.

Nah, Darwinism is just a scientific theory; it is neutral in regards to god, and works by the scientific method: observation, hypothesis, theory. The other two, well...


For instance, if global warming were real, the question would be what we should do about it. But first, before that question arises, we need to establish that global warming is real.

Actually global warming is real. The current episode started about 15,000 years ago, and the seas have risen between 325 and 425 feet (depending on who you listen to). Most of that was prior to 5,000 years ago.

What is the equivalent of "the sky is falling" with the oceans? "The tide's coming in" doesn't have quite as nice a ring to it.

38 posted on 11/29/2005 10:35:46 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Actually global warming is real.

Absolutely. We've been on a slow temperature rise through the whole of the holocene period. Anthropogenic global warming is what that guy meant, I guess.

39 posted on 11/29/2005 10:40:33 AM PST by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver; gobucks; mikeus_maximus; MeanWestTexan; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; bondserv; ...
(((Creationist Ping)))



You have been pinged because of your interest regarding matters of Creation vs. Evolution - from the Creationist perspective. Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list.

Colossians 1:16 "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him."



It is entirely appropriate that he apologized. However, after this demonstration of a leftist anti-Christian agenda, he has shown that he cannot teach the class from an objective standpoint. He cannot give fair attention to the subject from all perspectives. Regardless of whether or not his apology is the result of getting caught, or the result of true remorse, his words cannot be unsaid. They reflect a heart attitude, and this cannot be expected to change overnight. It is irresponsible for the faculty to allow this person to teach this class; it should be either cancelled, or taught by someone who can bring himself to a more fair treatment.

It is refreshing, isn't it, to have someone actually voice his opinion on the subject? If you think about it, we would much prefer these evolutionists to admit who they are and what they think, instead of couching their agenda and dogma in the pretense of operational science or objective academia.

The very fact that he had to apologize for his opinion shows that, just like Rush Limbaugh reminds us about the Left, they cannot be intellectually honest about who they truly are.
40 posted on 11/29/2005 10:44:54 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Celebrating my first full year on FR! Has it been one year already?? Has it only been one year??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zuben Elgenubi
"Pretty odd email statements coming from the chairman of the Religious Studies Department."

Perhaps not.

I'm guessing that in order for there to even be a religious studies department, one has to assume a critical mass of individuals who are fundamentally opposed to religion in the first place.

Beginning from a point on the outside of religion, they purport to "study" religion as a rather curious but not universally accepted human oddity.

I never assume academia is on our side. They would have to prove it to me.

41 posted on 11/29/2005 10:51:12 AM PST by Designer (Just a nit-pick'n and chagrin'n)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics Ha! I bet.
42 posted on 11/29/2005 10:51:34 AM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Has anyone else noticed how a lot of these people we see in the news lately have impulse control problems?


43 posted on 11/29/2005 10:53:26 AM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Well if he said he is sorry......


44 posted on 11/29/2005 10:53:47 AM PST by N3WBI3 (If SCO wants to go fishing they should buy a permit and find a lake like the rest of us..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

"I've discovered that it irritates the heck out of liberals to call them liberal fundamentalists."

Me too. But, in order to be more accurate, I have stopped referring to them as "liberals," since, using the true definition of the word, that is a misnomer considering their beliefs.

Instead, the term "Socialist Fundamentalists" hits the nail right on the head for American Democrats since, despite their denials, they adhere to the "fundamentals" ("foundations"/"originals"/"basics") of Socialism.

45 posted on 11/29/2005 10:59:36 AM PST by NH Liberty ("For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus..." [1 Timothy 2:5])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Please add me to your ping list.


46 posted on 11/29/2005 11:01:10 AM PST by reagan_fanatic (Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence - R. Kirk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Good point - it is refreshing when they reveal what they really mean, despite the fact that this guy didn't mean for his words to be widely read! I think we should take him at his word and then monitor the classes to make sure that fair balance is given to the subject.


47 posted on 11/29/2005 11:04:33 AM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

>Nah, Darwinism is just a scientific theory; it is neutral in regards to god, and works by the scientific method: observation, hypothesis, theory. The other two, well...<

So is intelligent design. Creationists like to point to it as proof of the existence of God, but the actual hypothesis is neutral in regards to god.

By the way, you left out the most important part of the scientific method: experiment, the step TOE and its proponents turn a blind eye to.

For example, I have heard many arguments against irreducible complexity by Darwinists, but have yet to have ONE of them present an actual experiment to support their hypothesis.

In the real sciences (physics and chemistry), the very first thing you do is design the experiment to test your hypothesis. Otherwise, you're just another Aristotle presenting nothing more than sophistry and pretending it's science.

If someone comes up with a theory that explains away IC (like the arch), then be a real scientist and design the experiment. Otherwise just be honest about it and stop pretending that what you're practicing is actual science or that you are following the scientific method.


48 posted on 11/29/2005 11:31:10 AM PST by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Thank you for keeping me up to date.


49 posted on 11/29/2005 11:38:44 AM PST by Jo Nuvark (Those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed. Gen 12:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: frgoff
Creationists like to point to it as proof of the existence of God, but the actual hypothesis is neutral in regards to god. Creationists like to point to it as proof of the existence of God, but the actual hypothesis is neutral in regards to god.

Which is fine if you are talking philosophy. In order to elevate ID to a physical science, you are going to have to come up with a physical process by which this stuff occurs, and some shred of physical evidence. Otherwise you are just invoking miracles to get your design work done.

For example, I have heard many arguments against irreducible complexity by Darwinists, but have yet to have ONE of them present an actual experiment to support their hypothesis.

Every time biologists elucidate the mechanisms that cause biological structures to occur, they strike another blow against 'irreducible complexity'. Since much of this work is still in it's infancy, there are certainly many gaps in what we know. But I think it's silly (at best) to claim that it's impossible for complex structures to have developed by biochemical processes.

Anyway, it's easy to propose a hypothesis and challenge the world to prove it's impossible: "I claim that little invisible gnomes have created the world. Nobody has ever seen one, but I read in a Holy Book that they were responsible. I challenge all scientists to drop their research and investigate Intelligent Gnomism. If they don't, I concluded they are too scared of IG, which challenges their unproven evolutionary theories."

50 posted on 11/29/2005 11:41:56 AM PST by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-723 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson