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 ...
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.
Has anyone else noticed how a lot of these people we see in the news lately have impulse control problems?
Well if he said he is sorry......
"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.
Please add me to your ping list.
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.
>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.
Thank you for keeping me up to date.
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."
Please. This has been refuted so often it's just sad. Do some homework before throwing up this weak old argument...
|
On the contrary, Darwinism posits as its underlying axiom that God never intervenes in any way in the universe and that divine providence plays no role in nature or history. You could, if you liked, believe in some sort of Deist clockmaker God, if you liked, but nothing more than that.
You can make a pretty good Freudian case, if you believe that Freud was still worth mentioning, that Darwin was motivated by his desire to revolt against his religious, authoritarian father, as indeed many of Darwin's biographers have suggested. Samuel Butler paints a very similar picture in his autobiographical novel, "The Way of All Flesh." Darwin certainly had an agenda--which would be perfectly fine, as I've suggested, if his facts all checked. But they really don't. The odds against General Evolution, as opposed to limited evolution, are worse than astronomical.
******************
LOL! Good one.
(...to members of the Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics, a student organization for which he serves as faculty adviser.)
With an adviser like that, I'm sure they are very open minded... /sarcasm off.
That was pretty much the perspective of Newton. Obviously Christians believe in specific miracles, but not necessarily continuous intervention. Science cannot be done if you assume the ground beneath your feet is continuously shifting.
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.