A 1960s wannabee ...
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 ...
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.
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.
Fundies doesn't bother me. Now "happy clapper" is just waaaaaaay over the top.
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?
More open minded, non judgemental, non partisanship from our friends in the University system.
How many people do you see waving their belief in "pagan elephant gods" on every other thread?
I've been using the term 'left wing fundamentalists' for a while myself.
Dude, my critic's last name is the same as the German army's.
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.
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.
Advisor to the Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics AND Chairman, Religious Studies Department.
Versatile guy..
Both "liberal fundamentalist" and "left wing fundamentalists" are good boomerang terms.
I also like "Neo-Lib".
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.
I like liberal traitors best. You should see the rise that gets out of them. :-)
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.
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.
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.
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.