Kansas Anti-Creationism Professor Resigns

An anonymous reader writes "A Professor of religion at University of Kansas has resigned from his position at the university because of his anti-creationism views." From the article: "Mirecki had planned to teach a course in the spring that examined creationism and intelligent design after the State Board of Education adopted science standards treating evolution as a flawed theory. Originally called 'Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies,' the course was canceled last week at Mirecki's request." The article goes on to explain that Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-Christian sentiments around to people interested in the class, and was subsequently beaten for his troubles.

It sounds like email

[by Anonymous Coward]

Could've used a bit of intelligent design.

To clarify...

[exley (221867)]

He resigned as department chair, but as of that article, hasn't quit entirely. Just in case you don't want to RTFA (not that that happens here).

Only from the Chair position not as a prof

[abbamouse (469716)]

I read this story earlier today on HNN. He resigned as department chair, not as a professor. He's still doing all the same stuff, but with less paperwork. I know that in many departments, chair is a generally detested position because although it carries some prestige it often carries little real authority and ALWAYS comes with scads of paperwork that prevent academics from spending time on their first love (research or teaching, as the case may be). So the guy isn't out of a job or anything; the move is largely symbolic.

From the article

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

A recent e-mail from Mirecki to members of a student organization 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." Mirecki apologized for those comments.

Me thinks "poorly worded" is an understatement. It's one thing when you're a troll on Slashdot using that language. It's a completely different thing to be in a respected teaching position and acting like a Slashdot troll. And he wonders why people are upset with him. *shakes head*

(P.S. I do hope they catch the assholes who beat him. That's not exactly acceptable behavior, either, no matter what he said.)

The darn fool.

[Halfbaked Plan (769830)]

Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-Christian sentiments around to people interested in the class, and was subsequently beaten for his troubles.

All he had to do was stick to science and his ideas would have won. Instead, he played into the stereotype that 'scientists are anti-Christian' and has paid the price.

But there are really three sides to the issue:

1. Dogmatic Christians pushing their belief system as the anti-science.

2. Dogmatic Athiests pushing their belief system as the anti-religion.

3. The Rest Of Us.

Re:The darn fool.

[smallpaul (65919)]

I don't understand what scientists you are referring to. He is a religious studies professor.

...Chair of Religious Studies Dept.?

[theGreater (596196)]

That's the part that confused me enough to make me read it twice. The CHAIR of the Religous Studies Dept. was saying things like:

• referring to religious individuals as "fundies"
• "a nice slap in their big fat face"
• others described as "repugnant and vile"
  

That boggles the mind. No excuse for beating the man, for any reason.

-theGreater.

Boy, I sure am surprised!

[Thaelon (250687)]

Someone else was beaten or killed in the name of religion! *gasp*

What's the total up to now? A few billion?

Interesting...

[AstynaxX (217139)]

The choices of prefix for this post... I'm curious, why is he anti-creationist rather than pro-evolutionist? Now, this may be innocuous, but choice of words can reveal bias.

Also, anti-fundamentalist is not the same as anti-christian. Being opposed to a specific, fanatical, often belligerent sect of a religious denomination is not the same as being opposed to the entire faith.

Fron the article...

[Lendrick (314723)]

A recent e-mail from Mirecki to members of a student organization 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." Mirecki apologized for those comments.

It's too bad he had to be so unprofessional. I'm all in favor of his class, but I can't sympathize with someone who acts like that. He's basically ruined it for other universities that may want to do something similar because he made it into a personal issue instead of an academic one.

Something similar happened at a friend's school...

[Spy der Mann (805235)]

here in Mexico. There was a student riot and strike (or something similar), they (the "students") shut down school. Some of them participated in violent protests against the government, and were sent to jail.

A law professor was going to give a talk about "Difference between political prisoners and criminals". The pseudo-students didn't let him start the talk, and he had to run away because they were all throwing him rotten food.

Lesson: Unless you're willing to become a martyr, never tell an angry mob they're WRONG.

And vice versa...

[HexRei (515117)]

...would people be equally outraged if the Religious Studies Chair at a religious school, let's say BYU, were to badmouth atheism? My guess is that it probably happens all the time.

Way to go

[The Cisco Kid (31490)]

The only difference between religion and mythology is that mythology was the nonsense that people used to beleive, and religion is the nonsense they beleive today.

Keep your religion out of our science! You beleive what you want, but anyone that thinks they have a right to force what they beleive on someone else needs a swift kick in the ass (and yes, that includes other people's children, its tragic enough that parents are allowed to brainwash their own children)

Re:Beaten?

[by Anonymous Coward]

'I actually did that act one night in the south, then after the show these three rednecks came up to me. "Hey buddy, we're Christians and we didn't like what you said." I said "Then forgive me." Later on, when I was hanging from the tree...'
--Bill Hicks

Re:Beaten?

[Rei (128717)]

So what are you alleging? That he beat himself up? Do you think that "a conservative activist in Kansas" has more credibility with respect to the investigation than Lt. Kari Wempe of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office?

Does smear have no bounds in this country?

Re:Beaten?

[Omnifarious (11933)]

I know, he had his friends beat him up! Or, err... He managed to convince a hospital to fake a report or something.. err... and the police department too! Yeah, that's it! Obviously anybody who's beaten up is going to remember the exact road it's on and everything. And you're going to remember exact details about your attackers too, even when it's at night. Nobody's confused, frightened or panicky after being physically assaulted, especially atheists!

Perhaps we ought to test out these theories on the stupid idiot who's trying to cast some sort of cloud over the guy's credibility without having any hard evidence to back it up.

Re:Beaten?

[Lifewish (724999)]

I would have downmodded the parent (yay! Mod points!) but sadly there isn't actually a moderation option for 'bollocks'. You'll note that, of the parent's links, one is just Mirecki refusing to speak to a fundamentalist journalist (this is what we call "following the lawyer's advice", and from the tone of the subsequent interview I can only say that I would have done the same). The second is a Conservative activist incisively pointing out that not all information on brutal beatings is immediately made available to the public (or it would be incisive if that's what he realised he was doing) and suggesting that the request for Mirecki's resignation (which iirc occurred before the beating) indicates he's a shifty sort of fellow.

This is complete trash. It barely even suggests that Mirecki lied, let alone naturally pointing towards that conclusion. There are no inconsistencies. There is no need for double-quotes round the word 'beating'. There is only a respected member of the academic community, who planned a controversial course (and then made a stupid comment about it on an obscure mailing list), getting beaten up by two punks and a heavy object for suggesting that their beloved Creationism might, just possibly, be classed as a 'myth' in Religious Studies circles (which happens to be factually accurate, and wouldn't even count as tactless if he hadn't made the aforesaid dumb remark). This is unjustifiable and I'm mildly shocked to see anyone other than the monosyllabic perpetrators fighting Mirecki over this.

More, I'm deeply worried by the chilling effect this will have on other courses similarly critical of Intelligent Design and Creationism. Evolutionary biologists critique evolution every day - why should ID and 'scientific creationism' be exempt merely by dint of being scientifically vacuous?

Re:Beaten?

[poopdeville (841677)]

I can't wait for the F Games on ESPN. Sports to the Fundament.

Re:Kansas...

[pilgrim23 (716938)]

"Dear Auntie Em: Hate your Intleligent Design, Hate Kansas> Took the dog" -Dorthy

Re:Kansas...

[Fulcrum of Evil (560260)]

The United State of Kansas.

U SOK?

It depends upon the Church.

[khasim (1285)]

Remember, there are a lot of Books in the Bible. Some of the older ones (Old Testament) have a lot of stuff about smiting and even killing or enslaving your enemies.

It all depends upon what part of the Bible the church you attend wants to focus on. There's as much legitimacy in focusing on God's Rightous Wrath as there is in focusing on Jesus Forgiving.

Re:It depends upon the Church.

[Hektor_Troy (262592)]

Can't say that I'm a believer (I'm baptised, but I didn't have much of a choice then), but ...

If you're a christian church and focusing more on the old testament than the new - and especially the loving and forgiving christ (Jesus), isn't it a fair case to call you a jew instead of a christian?

As I understand it, christianity builds on the old testament, sure - but it weighs in much more heavily on forgiveness (obviously forgotten during the crusades and inquisition) and love than on "smiting your enemies". Pretty sure you'd be shit out of luck if you tried portraying Jesus as wanting you to "smite and even kill or enslave your enemies".

Or did I not get the memo?

Re:Yeah, well... what did he expect?

[Alien Being (18488)]

"attacking a given faith"

He attacked "faith run amok". The problem isn't that people have this faith. The problem is that some of them try to pass it off as science and to make laws out of it. Their zealotry goes against what this country stands for.

Re:Yeah, well... what did he expect?

[el-spectre (668104)]

Reverence wasn't what I expect. For that matter, there are lots of courses in college that exist specifically to question a subject.

The mistake was not the class, it was sending insulting email in a professional context, that's all.

Re:Gotta love that...

[craXORjack (726120)]

Presumably these Christians haven't heard of such advice as "turn the other cheek".

The two men on a country road sound like the kind of christians who do say "turn the other cheek" as well as "squeal like a pig, boy!"