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 ...
####That is what you're suggesting, correct? Students learning that science does not include deities in its scope?####
Partly, but not entirely. You see, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. But neither can it prove or disprove godless naturalism. We can observe, for example, that 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen produce water. But we have no idea whether this happens because God made it that way or because it just simply "happens". To argue that science must assume the latter and exclude the former is simply bias, not the product of "freethinking" or any scientific process.
That's not a defining difference for ape/human line.
It was a marker that worked to sort specimens, until the discovery of ones that didn't fit it - such as afarenis AL-400, where the sides are not parallel: but not curved either.
That means a dierent marker must be used as the crtical one.
CG - you're not only going to Hell, you're already there, and Fedexing your lies from there as we speak
BWahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!
Yeah, but if it's all random, how would a complex organ like an eye or an ear "evolve?" Or lungs? Or...self-consciousness?
That's the truth. And, as long as scientists are willing to examine their assumptions in light of the evidence and reason, Christianity has nothing to fear.
It occurs because of covalent molecular bonding.
So, the Darwinists concede that God could exist, and could have created the universe? But nevertheless that human life must be merely a product of random mutation over millions of years?
In case you hadn't noticed, Quackwatch is still there.
. . . discussion of "organic units" touches upon a seldom-discussed facet of this whole "ID vs. Evolution" debate (even though it does inform Behe's ideas of irreducible complexity). Namely, there is a "system-level" aspect to the problem that is hard to address by appealing to individual mutations that may or may not be advantageous. <--snip-->
His site still seems to be up, and I don't see anyone suing him. The suit that was thrown out was him suing someone else.
At any rate, his situation has nothing to do with your personal mental disease.
Cecum. Hence, cecal "pellets."
It's a bit disturbing to watch the first time you see a bunny recycling its own output.
Here is the OTHER side of the story:
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bolen.html
A little different than was presented here.
You: Yeah, but if it's all random, how would a complex organ like an eye or an ear "evolve?" Or lungs? Or...self-consciousness?
What's random about some combinations of genes being better able to have offspring in some environment? Let's say the climate's getting colder. Some animals will, at random, have a combination of metabolism and fur that works better in a cooler environment than in a hot one; they're more likely to pass their genes down to the next generation. Which particular individuals have the better combination is random, but which ones survive and reproduce isn't.
The classical argument for eye evolution is from Darwin himself. He observed that for living organisms there is practically a continuum of eyes, from simple pigment spots to vertebrate eyes. It is easy to see how simple mutations can convert a simple pigment spot to a deeper and deeper cup, then, a step at a time, into our own eyes. It is also obvious that any improvement in this organ will provide a survival advantage - "in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king"
Here's a good place to start your literature search.
You've hit the nail on the head; many people are susceptible to anti-Evolutionism precisely for the same reason they reject modern medicine, pharmacology, and other sciences: they are unable to distinguish real science from pseudo-science. This makes them a "mark" for every crackpot idea that comes along, whether it be dietary cures for all diseases or "free-energy" scams.
The saddest part of this is that these people, who in many instances were probably ill-educated through no fault of their own, have an extraordinary opportunity via the internet to interact directly with people such as yourself, who have dedicated their careers to learning, education, and scientific research. The following is something I posted a while back that captures the sadness of this circumstance:
It's worse than that; much worse. In the history of the world, only a tiny fraction of all the people who ever lived have had the opportunity to ask highly qualified scientists direct questions, and learn from their wisdom. Happily, because of the internet and places like FR, it is now possible for people from all walks of life to converse directly with all sorts of scientific experts; we have physicists, microbiologists, mathematicians, astronomers, and chemists, to specify but a few, roaming these threads, and eager to explain what they know and how they know it to virtually anyone willing to ask an intelligent question.But there is another segment of people on these threads who, instead of asking these learned folks intelligent questions and thus expanding their knowledge and understanding, insist instead upon bludgeoning them with their ignorance, and questioning the patriotism, honesty, and intellect of people who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of scientific knowledge.
I submit that such people are not here to learn anything, but are in fact interested in quite the opposite. I submit they are here to interfere with the dissemination of scientific knowledge that they find offensive. They don't want other people to ask the experts questions and learn from them; no, they are here to attack the experts and cast doubt upon their wisdom, in the desperate hope that others will turn away and not listen to them.
IMHO that is why the same people show up over and over again parroting the same refuted diatribes and misinformation, and spewing the same bogus out-of-context quotes designed specifically to disrupt the dissemination of scientific knowledge. That why the same people show up over and over again misrepresenting what scientific theories and laws are, despite having had it explained to them 1720th time; they are here to instill confusion and spread their ignorance, not to disseminate knowledge.
The experts here on these threads ought to be revered and thanked for sharing with us their insights and explanations of the natural world around us; instead scorn is heaped upon them and their knowledge by the belligerently ignorant. I submit that these purveyors of unknowledge should be treated for the intellectual disruptors that they are. They stare the best opportunity any of us will ever have to gain more insight and understanding in the eyes, and spit in the faces of those who offer and have the knowledge to help make that a reality.
Behold, I give you the belligerently ignorant, the intellectual Luddites of our time. Know them for the anti-knowledge disruptors they are.
How sad. How very sad.
So which one of quackwatch's quacks do you suppose editor works for?
A while back ther was a freeper called JaneS or something like that, promoting hormones that would make you live forever.
There's always someone.
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.