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
Economics is the art of finding the best-fit straight line to a single data point.
A very recent case example, the search for pentaquark
Physics is a bit more rigorous than the rest. There are a number of scientific fields in which you just report on the answer. But the interesting thing is that people make a living on just the search for the 5 quark. Mathematicians, if they can't make definite improvement on a problem, must throw out their useless non-answers.
There's where you're wrong. Did a mathematician build the computer you're working on?
Actually, yes. Boole. Or should the credit go to the kid at Dell who put it together?
Did a mathematician build the bridge you drove over to get to work?
Yep. Or does the credit go to the guy who put in the rivets?
Did a mathematician invent the antibiotics you took the last time you were sick?
Pretty much. Or does that idea go to the pharmacist? There's an intellectual food chain here. We are unthanked, forgotten and called "practical" only decades after we've died.
Are you aware, though, that there are difficulties of comparable magnitude in experimental science, as well?
They are all, at their root, mathematics.
The statistical end of it can be nightmarish, and has to be so to minimize the uncertainty in results.
See?
Without science, math doesn't have any practical use, though.
We thank you for doing the dirty work, but my point is that mathematicians see the whole forest. And the beach. And the mountains. The scientist, the practical scientist, is staring at the tree.
Theoretical physicists are little more than mathematicians who deal with physical phenomena.
Absolutely. They actually push the mathematics.
Mathematics is only 'superior' to science because it isn't inconvenienced by having to deal with real data.
Yep. Absolutely.
I'm not trivializing your field, I'm only stating that its importance is specific.
I disagree. It's general. Disgustingly general. Infinitely general.
Math is the language of science. Without somewhere to apply it, mathematics would be little more than an exercise in intellectual hedonism.
Mathematics is the language of the human mind. It is the only way we can understand the world. It will always be practical, no matter how hard you try. And I find it amusing that as a graph theorist (networks), I'm a "pure" mathematician.
Yes, I do have "faith" that the internal combustion process will get my car to work in the morning, so what? I have "faith" that beer and buffalo wings will taste good the next time I eat them. By your definition, I have "faith" in a lot of things.
No, what you describe is "expectation".
Apparently dsc thinks me and someone else are actually a different someone else. I guess it fits the profile.
"However, the intervention of God in earthly affairs is NOT something that is testable by the scientific method."
Let me ask this. Is it scientifically demonstrated that some psychotics experience hallucinations? Only the patient can see or hear them, and we rely entirely on his reports for our belief in their existence.
Where is the scientific skepticism that these events actually occur?
It seems to me that when we have repeated reports of phenomena that are not reasonably observable by second parties, the consistencies across such reports play the role of "replication" in lending credence to such reports.
Unless the reports deal with sensory experience of God. In that case, hundreds and thousands of reports are summarily categorized with ghost and UFO sightings.
"That is my problem with ID."
However misguided some attempts to give ID a scientific basis may (or may not) be, the core of ID is nothing more than the belief that at unknown times God influenced evolution in unknown ways. It could be that He influenced it only by setting up the dominos in the beginning to fall in a particular way.
"the whole movement trivializes the concept of God by trying to make Him just another measurable parameter."
More like looking for His fingerprints, I'd say.
"Blurring the line between science and religion does no service to either discipline."
ID as I understand it doesn't carry that risk.
"I've said it before, when it comes to religion and science, give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's."
That's pretty much what all this is about. There is a movement afoot to rewrite the second part of that equation: give to Caesar what is Caesar's and then shut up. Nothing further is permitted.
"Apparently dsc thinks me and someone else are actually a different someone else."
Why would you think I was talking about you?
"dsc's claim is based upon how he asserts the atheists here act"
Nah, you really do act that way.
"As a matter of fact, it is. Hard core leftism."
How is it "leftism" to teach the apple as a fruit that comes from a tree, not magical heavenly fruit that mysteriously falls to the ground?
"relegating religious beliefs to the status of "myths" is undeniably a move in support of that agenda."
Well, religious beliefs are just that -- beliefs based on mythologies of the past. Similar to Greek or Chinese or Hindu mythologies. So, it is more appropriate to teach them in a mythology class, not science class.
Exactly - maybe He did. Or maybe the final product was part of His master plan at the moment the universe was created and He didn't have to "lift a Finger" once things were set in motion. We'll probably never know. My point is that these sort of things aren't scientific questions.
More like looking for His fingerprints, I'd say...
I see God's fingerprints every day. However, my personal experience (relevant as it is to me) is not a test of scientific rigor. The problem is, there is no way to differentiate (scientifically) between that which was directly designed by God and that which evolved naturally through processes we don't yet understand. If we try to differentiate, we encroach upon the limits of the scientific method.
ID as I understand it doesn't carry that risk.
I respectfully disagree. If we try to relegate a phenomena to intelligent design, and then subsequently discover that evidence points to the natural evolution of that phenomenon, we have, in effect, "blotted out a fingerprint" of God. In other words, stating that something is designed by direct divine intervention just because we are incredulous as to its natural origins is premature. On the other hand, if we have faith that God is the ultimate author of all natural laws, we have nothing to fear from such a revelation. Either way, science simply doesn't have the power to differentiate between our personal ignorance and the direct design of God.
"Ever go over to DUmmieland and see how nutty they really are over there?"
I've been doing this since around 1990, in many different venues. I think I've seen the worst the dark side has to offer.
If a person got that nutty over here, they'd be zotted in short order. If you want to stay here, you have to be more subtle, but the underlying intellectual dishonesty is the same flavor.
Several of the atheistic evolutionists here are not debating in good faith. They use the same crooked strategems the left uses, and which Scott Adams described pretty well on his blog:
"Turn someone’s generality into an absolute. For example, if someone makes a general statement that Americans celebrate Christmas, point out that some people are Jewish and so anyone who thinks that ALL Americans celebrate Christmas is stupid. (Bonus points for accusing the person of being anti-Semitic.)
Turn someone’s factual statements into implied preferences. For example, if someone mentions that not all Catholic priests are pedophiles, accuse the person who said it of siding with pedophiles.
Turn factual statements into implied equivalents. For example, if someone says that Ghandi didn’t eat cows, accuse the person of stupidly implying that cows deserve equal billing with Gandhi.
Omit key words. For example, if someone says that people can’t eat rocks, accuse the person of being stupid for suggesting that people can’t eat. Bonus points for arguing that some people CAN eat pebbles if they try hard enough.
Assume the dumbest interpretation. For example, if someone says that he can run a mile in 12 minutes, assume he means it happens underwater and argue that no one can hold his breath that long.
Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.
Use the intellectual laziness card. For example, if someone says that ice is cold, recommend that he take graduate courses in chemistry and meteorology before jumping to stupid conclusions that display a complete ignorance of the complexity of ice."
In addition to which, several are positively addicted to the practice of attempting to personally discredit the opposition, with a truly creepy degree of malice.
I think I'm about done with this, for the nonce.
As in "expectation value" ?
(bra|y |ket) ?
"How is it "leftism" to teach the apple as a fruit that comes from a tree, not magical heavenly fruit that mysteriously falls to the ground?"
I wouldn't know, since to the best of my knowledge no one has ever believed or taught any such thing.
It is leftism to teach atheism, as atheism was born of leftism and is necessary to its continued metastasis.
"Well, religious beliefs are just that -- beliefs based on mythologies of the past."
You really don't have any idea what religion is, do you? you're as ignorant of it as any given Homo Erectus was of quarks.
May or may not be true, for the sake of argument, or the sake of agreement. Point is, how do you set up a control group?
God being, well, God ("I AM"), how do you 'guarantee' that God doesn't interfere in the control group once you DO set one up. (Don't put the Lord your God to the test, and all that?)
Echoes of medieval wrangling about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"....
It belongs, if anywhere, under Philosophy.
I give it a little more credence than that; my main point being that there are way too many boundary conditions on economic systems to get very reliable predictions from a model.
But the interesting thing is that people make a living on just the search for the 5 quark.
I personally know some people that were engaged in this search - it certainly wasn't the focus of their career - now that it looks fruitless, they're moving on to other things. Had they actually found it, would you think it was a waste of time? For every great success, there's a multitude of failures, but without the permission to search, there wouldn't be any success, either.
We are unthanked, forgotten and called "practical" only decades after we've died.
I appreciate what mathematicians do. There wouldn't be physics without math, there wouldn't be chemistry without physics, there wouldn't be biology without chemistry. I know that. You do make a good point that those furthest removed from the finished point of discovery are often "unsung heroes", but as you pointed out, science is a collaborative process (both horizontally and vertically). All deserve credit along the line, IMO.
No, what you describe is "expectation".
Couldn't it be said I have an "expectation" of the scientific method to work? I wouldn't call it faith, because I acknowledge the scientific method is not infallible (neither is my car or a recipe for buffalo wings, for that matter...)
"I see God's fingerprints every day. However, my personal experience (relevant as it is to me) is not a test of scientific rigor."
It would seem, then, that the scientific method as it now exists is inadequate to deal with some categories of real phenomena. The problem is the tendency to interpret that limitation as proof of the non-existence of such phenomena.
"If we try to relegate a phenomena to intelligent design, and then subsequently discover that evidence points to the natural evolution of that phenomenon, we have, in effect, "blotted out a fingerprint" of God."
Yes, I have to agree with that. Such a risk does exist. But that would be a misapplication of ID, IMO.
"On the other hand, if we have faith that God is the ultimate author of all natural laws, we have nothing to fear from such a revelation."
Very true.
"Either way, science simply doesn't have the power to differentiate between our personal ignorance and the direct design of God."
Yes, and I don't think ID should be trying to do that.
Cheers!
"Echoes of medieval wrangling about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"...."
You might want to do some more reading on that. The question was, are angels purely spiritual or corporeal? If corporeal, the number is finite, if purely spiritual, infinite. The "head of a pin" thing was shorthand for this, not an indication of any real concern with the absolute or approximate value of such a number.
"Point is, how do you set up a control group?"
Why would I do that? Physical science is by definition the wrong tool for the job.
I've been doing this since around 1990, in many different venues. I think I've seen the worst the dark side has to offer.
You didn't answer the question. And, BTW The Democratic Underground has only be around since 2001, according to their own website.
You seem to like to throw around generalities without backing them up. I know it's tempting to do, but in a forum like this when you are making accusations, you really ought to name names, cite your sources, present your evidence. and let people respond to the accusations. Isn't that one of the things America is all about?
"You didn't answer the question."
Are you really unaware how dishonest you're being, or do you find it amusing? My answer was one that would satisfy any fair-minded person.
"And, BTW The Democratic Underground has only be around since 2001, according to their own website."
And so? I said, "I've been doing this since around 1990, in many different venues." I didn't say anything about how long DU has been around. Perhaps you haven't been around long enough to know that there have been liberal discussion venues much like DU since the days of UNEWS.
"You seem to like to throw around generalities without backing them up."
Ah, yes, the old groundless assertion. I'm starting to feel the need for a shower.
"you really ought to name names, cite your sources, present your evidence. and let people respond to the accusations."
Sounds very lofty, but in reality it's nothing but dishonest drivel. There are people here who are as knowledgeable on their subjects as any "source," and the experience and understanding of such people make a real contribution to FR. Besides, when a "source" is offered, bogus grounds are found to dismiss it.
The only thing the atheistic evolutionists have done on this thread is to deny that which the article clearly shows, and that on the most tendentious and tortured of pretexts. After seeing how you people treat evidence when offered, you simply have no standing to try and hold others' feet to the fire about "evidence."
"Isn't that one of the things America is all about?"
What, derailing discussions by trying to impose artificial "rules of evidence" that are shown to be hypocritical by your automatic dismissal of any evidence offered and your own failure to follow them? I don't think so.
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.