KU prof's e-mail irks fundamentalists (Christian Bashing OK)

Wichita Eagle ^ | 25 Nov 2005 | Associated Press

[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

[AmishDude]

I have no idea what motivates one to be such a thing, and he's certainly not a scientist.

And yet he is a defender of science. Interesting.

I too taught a seminar course a couple of years back. It was called The chemical basis of evolution,... Half the class dropped after the first meeting, when they found they'd actually have to learn some science.

Why? It's not like you required any math. Anybody who can tie his own shoes can do that stuff.

[Dimensio]

ID has not sought to eliminate the discussion of evolution, just to have it included. What's the big deal?

ID is not science, and it is dishonest to treat it as such. But then, you've been told this before, which makes me question the motive behind you asking something to which you already have received an answer.

[Dimensio]

And yet he is a defender of science. Interesting.

I can name quite a few "defenders of Christianity" who have made incredibly rude and nasty comments, not to mention outright lies. Interesting?

[AmishDude]

The entire "mention ID in the classroom" movement arose in reaction to this.

Exactly! That's exactly what ID is. It's a reaction. The evangelical atheists don't see how they just feed it.

[AmishDude]

The point is that this defender of science, presumably, knows nothing about science. Even the wussy qualitative stuff that passes for biology.

But the biggest environmentalists are English majors and the animal rights activists live in pet-free apartment buildings.

[Dimensio]

Exactly! That's exactly what ID is. It's a reaction. The evangelical atheists don't see how they just feed it.

What about the rational Christians who also oppose teaching ID as science? Are they feeding it?

[AmishDude]

It doesn't matter. Whatever "rational Christians" do (I suppose others are irrational, or are they complex?) is drowned out by those whose credo is the scientific method, whose priests are self-described scientists.

I just find it fascinating that scientists get so worked up over a "non-science" but have nothing to say when junk science overflows the landscape. As long as the grants keep coming, I guess.

[Right Wing Professor]

Anybody who can tie his own shoes can do that stuff.

You think so, huh?

Why don't you pull up, say, 20 sequences of one particular ribosomal protein, say s7, from 20 different and widely separated organisms, and cosntruct a maximum parsimony tree. Post it here, and I'll tell you how you'd have done in the course.

[Dimensio]

It doesn't matter. Whatever "rational Christians" do (I suppose others are irrational, or are they complex?) is drowned out by those whose credo is the scientific method, whose priests are self-described scientists.

So you're saying that sticking to the scientific method is incompatable with being a Christian? I don't want to believe that you're trying to say that, but your statement seems to imply that the two are mutually exclusive.

[Right Wing Professor]

No, I was pointing out that our contemporary society holds some religions as sacrosanct while leaving other religions open for cheap pot shots.

Disagree.

I'm sorry you missed this obvious point. Maybe if you let go of your anti-Christian bias, you'll be able to appreciate the reality of the situation.

Your point doesn't at all follow from what you posted. You can criticize Islam any way you want in America; I do, frequently. You can't in Saudi Arabia; and you weren't at all clear where you meant.

I don't have a bias against Christianity. I do have an animus towards creationists, based on long experience.

[orionblamblam]

> Just *wanting* to 'stick it to the fundies' is indicative of severe corruption of the worldview, whether one acts out or not.


Really? Do you even know what he meant by "stick it" in this context.?

> That includes freedom from having it "stuck to you" in public places.

Hardly. If you saw, say, a Scientologist or a Wahabbi on a streetcorner handing out literature, you have the freedom to "stick it" to him by handing out debunking literature, engaging in debate or even mocking. You do not exactly have the freedom to lie, but you do, as with the case with the prof, have the freedom to point out the flaws, inconsistences, lies and whatnot in your opponents worldview.

[AmishDude]

Now, of course, there's a bit of translation that is necessary. People in the easier areas of science and in the area of humanities often create vocabulary in order to obscure their subject. As a mathematician, this baffles me, because my vocabulary is an endless search for intuitive terms.

Nonetheless, a quick search of the terminology leads to the fact that what you describe is an NP-hard problem. So, in general, it would be impossible to conduct an efficient algorithm for what you ask. Although approximation would be possible, any attempt to create a maximum tree would just be ad hoc.

But if you are in the habit of giving your students monkey-work, maybe they are able to get the measure of your field.

[Dimensio]

You do not exactly have the freedom to lie

Yes he does. Creationists excercise that freedom on these forums all the time.

[AmishDude]

So you're saying that sticking to the scientific method is incompatable with being a Christian?

No, but I appreciate your attempt at creating a strawman. I am saying that believe in the validity of the scientific method is a faith. But you knew that. Unless you were being intentionally obtuse. Or you're stupid. I'll choose the former.

[BibChr]

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Actually, there are many, many Christian-bashers at FR. Typically they excuse, disguise, or redefine their bashing in terms of whatever theyv'e adopted as their preferred dodge. Frequently they use the current scientistic dogma as camouflage for their unresolved (or mis-resolved) personal issues with God. Unable directly to assault God Himself, they settle for venting their bile on His people; and the harder those targets try to be true to God — which necessarily involves being true to His word — the more arrogant and abusive they become.

Dan

[APFel]

Being rude and antagonistic is protected speech.

Okay, you sold me. I think I will verbally assault some stranger on the street and then head down to the playground to call children some mean names.

Those who cite the First Amendment in order to justify crass behavior is using a coward's shield. Free speech is responsible speech, and frankly I'm tired of folks wheeling out the Bill of Rights every time they feel the need to be an a**hole. And since we are speaking frankly, I'm tired of colleges and universities protecting and paying these mealy mouthed individuals.

Free speech, free speech, free speech, decorum be damned. Everyone has the right to be a butthole while working in a publicly funded educational institution because free speech gives you the right to be a jerk. Respect means jack, cuz we got that free speech. Polite discourse is for suckers.

Whoopdie freakin' do. Just the kind of society I want to live in. Let's all embrace our right to be rude.

APf

[AmishDude]

believe=belief

[sagar]

It isn't "leftism" to put religious mythologies in a mythology class. It would be leftism, however, to "feel" for the other side, be politically correct, and allow unscientific stories be taught as science.

[onja]

But also there are no trees before the supposed time of the flood. They all magically start at around 4000 or so years.

And I know you didn't expect me to know all the details of those fossils. What I'm wondering though is whether we know that the fossil evidence shows the progression of the evolution of the animals(or humans) or whether we have little jumps that could be seperate animal or human groups. Like say a black, white, and Asian face are all different but the same species. Perhaps Neanderthals are another segment of the homo sapiens who were very stupid and so got assimilated. Just wondering.

I'm not trying to argue with you. Just trying to learn like the student I am. I am acting from my religious belief in that I personally know that there is a God. From there I'm trying to see which one makes more sense.