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 ...
The Bible is not my area of scholarship, although I am by no means ignorant of its origins. However, I suspect your problem is more basic. Most Christians believe things about the Bible that are objectively false - they identify three of the four evangelists with apostles, for example. Any real Bible scholar is going to reject the idea that the Bible is literally true, and in fact what is taught under Bible studies in most fundamentalist colleges is, I suspect, rubbish.
Good to see you KC. Hope all is well with you.
That sounds like a really cool class. When can I enroll?
I think you and PH would do a credible job teaching the bible. You have objectivity and don't feel threatened by the content. OTOH a YEC teaching Evolution would be very difficult. They have neither the objectivity nor the background and would feel "dirty" obtaining that background.
My name is Inago Montoya...you killed my father...prepare to die.
Seems to me just the fact that he is faculty adviser to the Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics would disqualify him.
Fitness is a form of teleology. The concept of Nature as well.
You want the chair of the Criminology Department to be a criminal?
Someone posted earlier that he is a Doctor of Theology from Harvard. Who better to be in a Religion Department? He studies all theologies.
And he has a sense of humor (SOMA, he, he, he, he...)
I don't think that is so much to ask of someone who is is support to be instructing students.
"Fitness is a form of teleology. The concept of Nature as well."
How so?
Huh? Biological fitness is survival probability to successful reproduction. How is that teleological?
What??? You mean these subjects are being taught in public schools today??? Whoda thunk!?!
CA....
He mocked only some religious beliefs, and he did so to a group of like-minded people. I think his email was injudicious, but I also reject the idea that all religious beliefs are sacrosanct and should not be mocked. Would you have had a problem if he'd mocked the Raelians or the Scientologists?
I don't think that is so much to ask of someone who is is support to be instructing students.
I instruct students; does that mean I give up my free speech away from the classroom?
Maybe you should concentrate less on sounding superior, and a little more on studying actual science. IC systems exist everywhere in Chemistry, Physics and mathematics and experiments have and are being done to define the IC system, then to break it and see what you get.
Ever heard of an atomic element?
The other view suggests that whatever happens is fitness. There is a problem with this view. Can we say that "unfitness" is "unnatural?" Not really.
I received my degree in Anthropology and Archaeology so find it repugnant to mock anyones religious beliefs.
I instruct students; does that mean I give up my free speech away from the classroom?
By no would I restrict his freedom of speech away from the classroom, I just question if he can be objective in his instruction with such personal animosity towards a religious belief.
By George, I think he's getting it.
There is a problem with this view. Can we say that "unfitness" is "unnatural?" Not really.
The persistence of unfitness certainly is unnatural. Unfitness has a tendency to be selected out of the gene pool in the most final way. That is essentially the definition of unfitness and fitness. Fitness persists, unfitness doesn't. A changing environment (which can include the living competition both in the same species and other species) alters what is fit.
Not preferable, but preferred. Fit individuals persist to reproduce. Unfit ones don't.
There is no "fitness," as Darwin called it, without conditions and elements that make biological motion take place toward increasing order, rather than decreasing order.
You are just plain wrong here. There is no implied direction of fitness towards increasing order.
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.