Posted on 11/25/2005 8:34:07 AM PST by Exton1
KU prof's e-mail irks fundamentalists
http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/living/religion/13252419.htm
Associated Press
LAWRENCE - Critics of a new course that equates creationism and intelligent design with mythology say an e-mail sent by the chairman of the University of Kansas religious studies department proves the course is designed to mock fundamentalist Christians.
In a recent message on a Yahoo listserv, Paul Mirecki said of the course "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationisms and Other Religious Mythologies":
"The fundies 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."
He signed the note "Doing my part (to upset) the religious right, Evil Dr. P."
Kansas Provost David Shulenburger said Wednesday that he regretted the words Mirecki used but that he supported the professor and thought the course would be taught in a professional manner.
"My understanding was that was a private e-mail communication that somehow was moved out of those channels and has become a public document," Shulenburger said.
The course was added to next semester's curriculum after the Kansas State Board of Education adopted new school science standards that question evolution.
The course will explore intelligent design, which contends that life is too complex to have evolved without a "designer." It also will cover the origins of creationism, why creationism is an American phenomenon and creationism's role in politics and education.
State Sen. Karin Brownlee, R-Olathe, said she was concerned by Mirecki's comments in the e-mail.
"His intent to make a mockery of Christian beliefs is inappropriate," she said.
Mirecki said the private e-mail was accessed by an outsider.
"They had been reading my e-mails all along," he said. "Where are the ethics in that, I ask."
When asked about conservative anger directed at him and the new course, Mirecki said: "A lot of people are mad about what's going on in Kansas, and I'm one of them."
Mirecki has been taking criticism since the course was announced.
"This man is a hateful man," said state Sen. Kay O'Connor, R-Olathe. "Are we supposed to be using tax dollars to promote hatred?"
But others support Mirecki.
Tim Miller, a fellow professor in the department of religious studies, said intelligent design proponents are showing that they don't like having their beliefs scrutinized.
"They want their religion taught as fact," Miller said. "That's simply something you can't do in a state university."
Hume Feldman, associate professor of physics and astronomy, said he planned to be a guest lecturer in the course. He said the department of religious studies was a good place for intelligent design.
"I think that is exactly the appropriate place to put these kinds of ideas," he said.
John Altevogt, a conservative columnist and activist in Kansas City, said the latest controversy was sparked by the e-mail.
"He says he's trying to offend us," Altevogt said. "The entire tenor of this thing just reeks of religious bigotry."
Brownlee said she was watching to see how the university responded to the e-mail.
"We have to set a standard that it's not culturally acceptable to mock Christianity in America," she said.
University Senate Executive Committee Governance Office - 33 Strong Hall, 4-5169
Faculty
SenEx Chair
Joe Heppert, jheppert@ku.edu , Chemistry, 864-2270 Ruth Ann Atchley, ratchley@ku.edu , Psychology, 864-9816 Richard Hale, rhale@ku.edu ,Aerospace Engineering, 864-2949 Bob Basow, basow@ku.edu , Journalism, 864-7633 Susan Craig, scraig@ku.edu , Art & Architecture, 864-3020 Margaret Severson, mseverson@Ku.edu , Social Welfare, 864-8952
University Council President Jim Carothers, jbc@ku.edu , English 864-3426 (Ex-officio on SenEx)
Paul Mirecki, Chair The Department of Religious Studies, 1300 Oread Avenue, 102 Smith Hall, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Kansas,Lawrence, KS 66045-7615 (785) 864-4663 Voice (785) 864-5205 FAX rstudies@ku.edu
This from the same idiot who thinks we need to start shooting academics? You are a joke on any forum.
His comments may or may not, but certainly the class would.
As to his comments, "My understanding was that was a private e-mail communication that somehow was moved out of those channels and has become a public document," Shulenburger said.
I would wager that public funds were used somewhere.
There is a difference between criticism and mockery. To wit.
Criticism: The act of criticizing, especially adversely. A critical comment or judgment.
The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works. A critical article or essay; a critique. The investigation of the origin and history of literary documents; textual criticism.
Mockery: Scornfully contemptuous ridicule; derision. A specific act of ridicule or derision. An object of scorn or ridicule: made a mockery of the rules. A false, derisive, or impudent imitation: The trial was a mockery of justice. Something ludicrously futile or unsuitable: The few packages of food seemed a mockery in the face of such enormous destitution.
Failure to realize the difference proves, again, the bankruptcy of professorial pretendence.
Sure. And some things deserve only mockery...
Failure to realize the difference proves, again, the bankruptcy of professorial pretendence.
...; for example, worthy of mockery are people who make up words like 'pretendence'.
Mocking religion does not interefere with its free exercise.
How interesting that you call me a "Mullah," when you defend the "right" of this professor to abuse his authority by infringing on freedom of religion, while I am arguing for the free exercise of religion.
How did the professor interfere with free exercise?
These are exercises for a math class, not a biology class.
Get a clue.
criticism <> mockery
Since we're parsing and splitting rhetorical/definitional hairs, mockery is certainly a subset of criticism.
you really, REALLY need to look beyond creationist sources if you are going to debate this issue.
You have been lied to - there were trees FAR earlier than 4000 years ago (2000BC) and FAR earlier than 4000BC (6000 years ago)
if you desire evidence, look up Amber. That is pertified pine tree sap. There are quite a few examples of such, even some containing trapped insects, dating from before the KT Event (~65 MILLION years ago) where there was pine sap, there were pines. I encourage you to seek more - there is quite a staggering amount of it.
while you are at it, you might wish to contemplate the problem for YEC (and especially the Flood notion) posed by the existence of the iridium layer known as the KT Boundary. If you wish, I will illustrate why it is a serious problem for Flood Believers, but I would prefer to leave you to work it out on your own.
But also there are no trees before the supposed time of the flood. They all magically start at around 4000 or so years.
you really, REALLY need to look beyond creationist sources if you are going to debate this issue.
You have been lied to - there were trees FAR earlier than 4000 years ago (2000BC) and FAR earlier than 4000BC (6000 years ago)
if you desire evidence, look up Amber. That is pertified pine tree sap. There are quite a few examples of such, even some containing trapped insects, dating from before the KT Event (~65 MILLION years ago)
where there was pine tree sap, there were pine trees.
that is one minor sample of evidence.
I encourage you to seek more - there is quite a staggering amount of it.
while you are at it, you might wish to contemplate the problem for YEC (and especially the Flood notion) posed by the existence of the iridium layer known as the KT Boundary. If you wish, I will illustrate why it is a serious problem for Flood Believers, but I would prefer to leave you to work it out on your own.
"This from the same idiot who thinks we need to start shooting academics? You are a joke on any forum."
Trying to perpetuate a fallacy, eh? That's very "scientific" of you.
"His comments were cited from a Yahoo listserv. How does this involve public funds?"
His remarks serve only to blow his cover. The abuse of authority and misuse of public funds lies in what he did and plans to do with regard to the class.
He's a SIPO. Scientist In Pretension Only
"Mocking religion does not interefere with its free exercise."
It can. Free exercise includes equal access to public facilities. Making believers objects of mockery impairs their equal access.
"How did the professor interfere with free exercise?"
By attempting to make believers objects of mockery, thereby impairing their equal access to the university.
It can. Free exercise includes equal access to public facilities. Making believers objects of mockery impairs their equal access.
By attempting to make believers objects of mockery, thereby impairing their equal access to the university.
You have learned and adopted the ways of the left-wing postmodern deconstructionists well, grasshopper. However, any criticism you may have ever had of their methods has now become invalid as you have become as one with them in your methods.
What I ask are fundamental questions regarding your technique. Again, running the algorithm is not conceptually difficult. There's nothing to understand, it's all shallow.
You have a great deal of faith in the notion that the method is well-established (care to quantify?) and in the means by which the method was established.
"You have learned and adopted"
Road apples.
What I am learning here is that there are those on the atheistic evolution side who are every bit as intellectually dishonest as Michael Moore and Al Franken.
Are you suggesting that science abandon the scientific method? I'm having trouble discerning what it is you're trying to argue here.
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.