Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education Science

Course Debunking Intelligent Design Canceled 203

Posted by Hemos from the too-bad dept.
Thib writes "As widely reported everywhere, University of Kansas chairman of religious studies Paul Mirecki has withdrawn the "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and Other Religious Mythologies" course that he was preparing for the upcoming Spring semester. From the AP: "Mirecki recently sent an e-mail to members of a student organization in which he referred to religious conservatives as "fundies" and said a course depicting intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face." He later apologized, and did so again Thursday in a statement issued by the university." Mirecki was inspired to offer the course after the Kansas Board of Education moved to back intelligent design in state science standards in November."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Course Debunking Intelligent Design Canceled More

Course Debunking Intelligent Design Canceled

Comments Filter:

  • No double standard (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Julian Morrison ( 5575 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @09:11AM (#14184091)
    If I.D. is religion - and it is - then you doun't get to debunk it in public school on the goverment dime. Otherwise the next class might be "Islam, why it's a steaming heap of camel dung" or "Christianity and other ridiculous middle-eastern folk tales".

    • Re:No double standard (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @09:29AM (#14184205) Homepage
      You also don't get to teach it in public school on the government dime. However, this is Kansas we're talking about here, a state which has defined theology as within the realm of science for educational purposes.

      This was an action taken in response to the ID religious conservatives having their religion defined and taught as a science. However, opening it up to science opens it up to rebuttal, which can be thorough and at times brutal. I'm sad that this course didn't make it through, as I see no reason why it shouldn't exist in kansas.

      Rest of the world, please stop snickering at us. You wouldn't laugh at a person with alzheimers, would you?
      • You wouldn't laugh at a person with alzheimers, would you?

        No but we'd boo at the Special Olympics.
      • I don't know all the details, and can't be bothered to discover them, but when you introduce your course with disparaging remarks of the opposing view (which may well be the majority view of those in power there), you open yourself to getting shut down on something other than the merits (or lack thereof) of the course you want to teach.

        On a somewhat tangential note, has the act of pointing and laughing at someone who doesn't agree with what the evidence indicates ever worked to change people's minds? And i

        • Re:No double standard (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Ioldanach ( 88584 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @12:54PM (#14185737)
          I agree, this was a poor way to handle the class. I was expecting a nice scholarly look at all sides of an issue that would, as a result of being accurate, logical, and scientific, completely destroy the ability of I.D. to be taught as a serious scientific platform. Unfortunately, the instructor couldn't refrain from name-calling. With friends like this, who needs enemies?
    • If I.D. is religion - and it is - then you doun't get to debunk it in public school on the goverment dime.

      It was a university - so it's not an issue of public money. That being said, this move did seem unnecessarily antagonistic.

      I am (to put it gently) a critic of ID, but I would challenge it on its lack of merit, rather than feed the persecution complex of an inordinate number of its proponents.

      It really has no place in any course, public or private. It has neither the credibility of science or the

      • It stops being a persecution complex when the person who disagrees with you expresses a personal desire to slap you in the face (assuming they have any actual power to act against you). The "fundies" will milk this sort of behavior for all its worth (and Pat Robertson will doubtless milk it for far more), and if you want to speak out against their opinions, you will find you need to distance yourself from people whose moves are "unnecessarily antagonistic", or your ship will go down with theirs.
        • It stops being a persecution complex when the person who disagrees with you expresses a personal desire to slap you in the face

          No it doesn't. The obessive need to seek out instances of persecution is what marks it as a complex, in my book. The mere fact that you can find some is meaningless. It's a big place, and if you look hard enough, you'll find people that don't like you.

          To be clear, I do not wish to paint all IDers with this brush - I'm just remarking on the few that are out there (as there are

          • "No I don't, and no I won't"

            You actually think you can make this claim, and then promise to remain civil in the next paragraph or two? If this guy speaks for you, then I won't debate you, or even better, try for a discourse where the truth is the goal instead of merely winning debate points. I simply won't do it, period. If he doesn't, I'd rather try for a dialog than a debate, but the debate structure is better than nothing if that's what you want. That first point is simply not negotiable - I don't waste

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @09:47AM (#14184291)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • "Teach religion as religion, science as science" and "ID is religion". Therefore, don't intrude it into science (because it isn't), and don't directly attack it from science class (because the government isn't allowed to pick and choose religions).

        Of course, if the government doesn't own your school, do as you please.

      • Re:Double standards from the ID nuts (Score:4, Insightful)

        by sasami ( 158671 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @02:17PM (#14186508)
        This certainly underlines the double standards of the ID right. They want religious criticism of evolution put in science classes, and are using the ID trojan horse to do so, while trying to silence those who point this out in those self same classes.

        Disclaimer: I am not a proponent of ID, and do not support its teaching in schools.

        But it's rare that anyone in a rancorous debate won't have double standards. Narrowing the field to abiogenesis for a moment -- when respected nonreligious [yahoo.com] scientists [daviddarling.info] espouse speculative, largely unfalsifiable hypotheses of origins that have no evidentiary basis other than (hmm) the lack of evidence for abiogenesis, they are welcome to speak publicly, and write for journals and magazines. Where is the outcry?

        And you certainly can't wave your arms and yell "ID is the end of science in America!" when by far the greatest threat to science today is radical postmodernism [nyu.edu], whose adherents thrive in overwhelming numbers on university campuses, enjoying secure and unassailable academic respectability, and teaching both implicitly and explicitly that all "so-called facts," science included, are subjective social constructions with no true validity. Where is the outcry?

        Here's a personal observation. Although it's unfortunately true that most ID activists are motivated by a prior agenda, in my experience (of moderate sample size) most evolution activists are motivated by a prior agenda as well. Such people tend to be quite surprised when I tell them that I'm a Christian and that I have no overall problem with evolution -- and it is very revealing that this is often considered an insufficient response. They are ultimately satisfied only if I renounce religion entirely. Of course, I am not allowed to have an outcry.

        --
        Dum de dum.
        • And you certainly can't wave your arms and yell "ID is the end of science in America!" when by far the greatest threat to science today is radical postmodernism, whose adherents thrive in overwhelming numbers on university campuses, enjoying secure and unassailable academic respectability, and teaching both implicitly and explicitly that all "so-called facts," science included, are subjective social constructions with no true validity. Where is the outcry?

          The outcry came in the form of budget cuts and a lac

        • Re:Double standards from the ID nuts (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @05:06PM (#14188148) Homepage
          when respected nonreligious scientists espouse speculative, largely unfalsifiable hypotheses of origins that have no evidentiary basis other than (hmm) the lack of evidence for abiogenesis, they are welcome to speak publicly, and write for journals and magazines. Where is the outcry?

          Why should there be an outcry?
          First of all everyone (including scientists) have the right to free speech. Secondly the sequence of developing science almost always needs to start with wild speculation, some of which bears fruit to hypotheses, some of which bears fruit to theories, some of which bears fruit to solid tested and confirmed science.

          Abiogenesis is quite admittedly a weakly developed and weakly supported field. That is hardly surprising considering that it attempts to address a singular microscopic event hidden in the deep depths of time, and which has left no direct trace. And at one point nuclear fusion was a very weakly developed and weakly supported field due to it's own extreme difficulties.

          There is some very good science going on in the field of abiogenesis, but as I said it is still a weakly developed and weakly supported field. As such it rates little or no place on a highschool science curriculum. And as far as I am aware it does not appear on government highschool curriculums, and therefore there is absolutely no battle and no reason for any battle by anyone over it. The current stupidity going on is over evolution and only evolution, and those involoved who drag the origin of life into it either missunderstand evolution (thinking it includes abiogenesis), or are trying to use abiogenesis (and it's weakness) as a strawman for evolution to launch an invalid attack.

          The current "outcry" here is over people trying to push ID in government run highschools as science. Everyone is perfectly free to hypothesize anything they like (including ID), and they are perfectly free to burn their science textbooks and use the Bible as their science text in church or in private schools or almost anywhere else.

          Highscool science class is for teaching the fundamentals of science and the scientific method, and providing a general overview of the major fields of thoroughly tested and thoroughly supported science that has earned nearly universal acceptance in the relevant professional field.

          No double standard here. Evolution absolutely positively satisfies that standard. ID doesn't even make it out of the starting gate of scientific theory, much less pass the hurdles of "well tested" and "well supported", and it's acceptance in the relevant expert professional field is roughly zero-point-one-percent (as opposed to the roughly 99.9% acceptance of evolution amongst professional biologists).

          The founders of the ID movement explicitly created it to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling that they could not teach Biblical Creationism in government run classrooms. It is a religious agenda attempting to don a scientific costume, and that costume simply is not fitting and it falls apart at the slightest touch. It consists almost entirely of argument-from-ignorance (I don't understand X therefore Goddidit), and attacks on evolution that have been reviewed by the experts and exposed as horribly flawed.

          The government cannot take sides on religion, and highscool science classes are not a battleground for deciding science. Highschool teachers and highschool students are hardly capable of evaluating and judging competing theories of quantum mechanics. If someone believes that they have some theory as a viable alternative to evolution, or they believe they have identified some flaw in evolution, then they should present it to the PhD's and professionals in the field for peer review. The PhD's and professionals in the field *are* equipped to understand it and evaluate it and to see if it is valid or flawed. If and when it earns broad acceptance by the experts in the field then and only then should highschools teach students that this is current accepted best understanding in this field.
        • I disagree. Postmodernists don't have much of a power base outside of college campuses, in fact I don't think I've ever had a run-in with a postmodernist outside of school, or had a postmodernist come to my door to convert me to their cause.

          IDers, on the other hand, are everywhere. They're the ones in charge, and the ones who put their candidate in the White House. They run churches, companies, media outlets, and yes, schools. Compared to the vast numbers, wealth and influence of IDer's, postmodernists are

    • Re:No double standard (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @09:59AM (#14184348) Homepage Journal
      Why not? The fist amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." It doesn't say anything about disrespecting a religion. And in no way does this college course prohibit the free exercise of religion. If you want to interpret the word respect to have a meaning synonymous with "pertaining to" then you have to get rid of the laws giving tax breaks to religious groups.

      Now, as far as the others are concerned. If someone were to make a class named "Jews: The Secret Rules of the World" or "Why blacks should be slaves again" I wouldn't like it very much. It would be pretty obvious that the professor was a racist bastard and should be fired under the policies of the university. But, as a supporter of the first amendment I have to accept and allow this sort of hate speech no matter how distasteful it might be.
      • If someone were to make a class named "Jews: The Secret Rules of the World" or "Why blacks should be slaves again" I wouldn't like it very much. It would be pretty obvious that the professor was a racist bastard and should be fired under the policies of the university.

        Then again, if someone were to compare people who died on 9/11 to the Nazi murderer Eichmann, people in academia would leap to his defense.

    • "Islam, why it's a steaming heap of camel dung" or "Christianity and other ridiculous middle-eastern folk tales".

      The second statement seems perfectly reasonable to me. And the first is inflammatory, but not inaccurate. How about adding:

      "Judaism and other patriarchal tribal mumbo-jumbo from prehistory"

      "Buddhism and vague non-thinking for the weak-minded"

      "$cientology, pyramid schemes and other large-scale confidence tricks in modern society"

    • The Real Issue... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Morosoph ( 693565 )
      Is Morality.

      This is what is so hateful in Darwinian evolution to religious folks. It's not just that it opposes religious teaching, but that it appears to promote a selfish, self-centred (or, if they're more sophisticated, gene-centred) teaching in its place. You don't find the same opposition to humanism, do you?

      I wrote a JE [slashdot.org] on this.

      • This is what is so hateful in Darwinian evolution to religious folks. It's not just that it opposes religious teaching, but that it appears to promote a selfish, self-centred (or, if they're more sophisticated, gene-centred) teaching in its place. You don't find the same opposition to humanism, do you?

        I actually do, much to my initial surprise.
        They start off with rants about how they have no clue how the eye evolved so no one else must, and then they'll often veer off to rant about "secular humanism". Then

      • It's not just that it opposes religious teaching, but that it appears to promote a selfish, self-centred (or, if they're more sophisticated, gene-centred) teaching in its place.

        If this is really the case, then I think everyone who understands the principle of scientific investigation should be up in arms about this.
        Specifically, it is ridiculous (scientifically) to reject or fight against a scientific conclusion simply because you don't like its implications. Einstein famously "didn't believe" in q

        • In fact makes the verity of the concept in question less probable, since the presumed utility makes it more likely that that utility is the cause for belief, rather than the existance or truth of the phenomenon under question.

          To belief the reverse is simple Strausian doublethink [frontpagemag.com] (paragraph six).

          It is amazing how many scientifically educated individuals, or at least scientifically aware individuals in fact appear to deduce the opposite [slashdot.org] of that which is reached with a simple application of Bayesian logic. [slashdot.org]

  • because that was quite rude.

    It strikes me as interesting that he's out to "debunk" intelligent design. Isn't the complaint that everyone here on Slashdot makes against it that it's unfalsifiable- unable to be proved false?

    • Although I agree that I.D. as a theory is unfalsifiable, the claim that I.D. is not religiously inspired (as made by many of its supporters) is falsifiable - i.e., through letters, e-mails, etc.

      Additionally, I'm not sure that he ever said that he was out to "debunk" intelligent design, that's just the headline, and you know how accurate /. headlines are...

    • Brief de-confusion (Score:5, Insightful)

      by trurl7 ( 663880 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @09:37AM (#14184239)
      No, "everyone here on slashdot" (whoever that is) complains that ID is put forth as a "scientific theory".

      You see, Creationism can't be taught in schools officially because it's a religious belief, and we have separation of church and state (short short version). So, Creationism, version 2, relabeled "Intelligent Design" is put forth (to the best of my understanding) as a *scientific theory*. Since it's now "scientific", the claim goes, it can be taught in schools as an alternative theory to evolution.

      That's what the critics are complaining about - that it's being pushed through as being "scientific", though at it's core (the criticism goes) it's nothing more than Creationism wrapped in pseudo-scientific language. Presumably, the course would take the "scientific theory" angle and attack ID in terms of science (i.e. to be a theory it must be verifiable by experiments, be predictive, etc..) A real pity it got canned over some (from what I understand) private emails.

      I just have to mention this, thought: In one of the articles, someone criticizing this professor says "he is so full of hatefullness for religion". George Carlin moment here: WTF is "hatefullness"? Would that be something similar to...I don't know..."hate"? This person must have studied at the George W. Bush school of "Higherest Linguistication of the English Language".

      • Hate is when you don't like something. When you're full of hate, you're hateful. The state of being full of hate is 'hatefulness'. I have here at least one dictionary mentioning it [answers.com].

        Apparently the emails weren't as private as they ought to have been. Actually, my guess is he sent something to college-democrats-l@kansas.edu or its equivalent (college democrats? I don't know what sort of organization he targeted it at- I'll bet you it wasn't college republicans, though).

        ... Creationism ... is a religious

        • lol....Love the "religion" section!

          I hate to disagree with you, but "the state of being full of hate" is "the state of being full of hate". The link you gave defined "hateful", which I don't have a problem with. The -ness suffix creates a noun out of whatever it is appended to. Since the word you're changing already has a core noun meaning, appending the "-ness" makes no sense. Hence, "hate = hatefullness mod -ness"

          Oh, and if you do a google search on hatefullness [google.com]....the first link is "Hatefullness of C
          • hateful adj.

                  1. Eliciting or deserving hatred.
                  2. Feeling or showing hatred; malevolent.

            hate'fully adv.
            hate'fulness n.

            right there -^
            Hatefulness.
            Ah well. No matter.
    • Isn't the complaint that everyone here on Slashdot makes against it that it's unfalsifiable- unable to be proved false?

      I would hope not, because that's not a good argument. The issue is that it's not provable, testable, or in any way verifiable. There is no evidence - and that's a different issue than it being unfalsifiable.

      The Flying Spaghetti Monster has just as strong a claim to be the originator of the universe - and no one can conclusively prove otherwise.

      If we were to run around, having to giv

      • I would hope not, because that's not a good argument. The issue is that it's not provable, testable, or in any way verifiable. There is no evidence - and that's a different issue than it being unfalsifiable.

        The complaint against it is that it's unfalsifiable... unfalsifiable and untestable. The two complaints against it are its unfalsifiability and untestability... and unverifiability. Our three complaints against it are that it's not falsifiable, not testable, not verifiable... and not provable... Among

        • The complaint against it is that it's unfalsifiable... unfalsifiable and untestable. The two complaints against it are its unfalsifiability and untestability... and unverifiability. Our three complaints against it are that it's not falsifiable, not testable, not verifiable... and not provable... Among our complaints against it...

          Well, bloody hell! I wasn't expecting a Spanish Inquisition.

    • Re:thank you for your apology... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by n0dalus ( 807994 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @09:43AM (#14184271) Journal
      Isn't the complaint that everyone here on Slashdot makes against it that it's unfalsifiable- unable to be proved false?

      People tend to get confused when there's so much nonsense being generated by both evolutionists and creationists alike.

      Someone who is religious can say that God created the world and the creatures living on it. This can't really be proved or disproved by any scientific means. However, some other people who are religious are taking that one step further and saying 'how' God did it with claims that can be (dis)proved (eg, saying the Earth is 6000 years old and created in a week). People criticize creationists for being unscientific and being highly dogmatic, but in truth I have seen the same kind of crap from evolutionists too. People in both groups have some very good arguments though -- if you are willing to be objective about listening to them.

      Many Christians I have spoken to (including some highly respected university lecturers), don't think it matters whether the earth is 6000 years old or 4.5 billion years old. To them the Bible is about saying why God made the world, not when or how he went about creating it. The book is highly poetic and not necessarily written to be scientifically accurate. Most of the media these days with headlines like 'Evolution vs God' and stuff are just needlessly promoting a facile view that religion is incompatible with widely promoted scientific theories.
      • Amen, Brother n0dalus, I say amen amen! :)

        Joking aside for a moment, we were reading Inherit the Wind the other day in AmLit class. The worry from the 'fundies' of the day, as it were (though they were not called 'fundies' back then) was that mentioning Evolution in schools would somehow make young minds incapable of proper moral or religious thought, and that they'd be snatched away from the faith just like that! [snap]

        Looking at the hard-core anti-ID types today, we see that the worry about mentioning

    • You got it wrong. Please try again, or better yet don't.

      If your claim is that intelligent design is a scientific hypothesis, then your problem is that there is no way to show it may be false. This means that it can't be a scientific hypothesis.

      If your claim is that intelligent design is a religious belief, then it's subject to being debunked on religious grounds. So, for example, when I went to a Catholic university some years ago, I was taught that intelligent design is poorly reasoned, and thus a prett
      • The ID hypothesis itself cannot be proven true or false (except by direct contact with the Creator... ;-) However, the "evidence" that ID proponents are using can very easily be proven true or false - and so far, it's all proven to be false.

        Most scientists don't mind religion, because religion is inherently unprovable and so can't have any effect on scientists' fields of study. However, the "evidence" for ID is flat-out incorrect, and *that's* what bugs most people with an interest in science - to have th
      • If your claim is that intelligent design is a scientific hypothesis, then your problem is that there is no way to show it may be false. This means that it can't be a scientific hypothesis.

        Excuse me for summarizing the complaint improperly. The full complaint then, I suppose, is it's "not falsifiable" and therefore can't be a proper scientific theory. Which still leaves us at 'not falsifiable' and a Slashdot headline claiming the course was nevertheless going to 'debunk' it, which is just Slashdot misleadin

        • Catholic college? Are you presently Catholic? What denomination was this professor, out of curiosity?

          I am not Catholic; I believe the professor teaching the class was. I'm not sure that either point is relevant.

          Well, those are really touching words. Great way to encourage healthy dialogues and understanding!

          Yea, I don't really care. My take on it is this - intelligent design is old news, and it hasn't become any more interesting over the years. Let's move on to something else.

        • Which still leaves us at 'not falsifiable' and a Slashdot headline claiming the course was nevertheless going to 'debunk' it, which is just Slashdot misleadingness

          Isn't it just that the class would "debunk" the ID *movement*? It seems to me that, while you can't disprove intelligent design itself, you can very clearly disprove whether ID, such as it is, is acceptable in the realm of scientific study.

          I would say it is a (yet another) case of a Slashdot headline being unclear, rather than hypocritical.

    • Universal Skepticism (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Ieshan ( 409693 )
      "It strikes me as interesting that he's out to "debunk" intelligent design. Isn't the complaint that everyone here on Slashdot makes against it that it's unfalsifiable- unable to be proved false?"

      There is a nearly universal skepticism in Academia (and, well, the world at large) for things that have no evidenciary support. Demonstrating that I.D. has no evidenciary support is the same as "debunking" it. A serious claim need not be falsifiable to be wrong, it simply must have no support. It is up to the scien
      • There is a nearly universal skepticism in Academia (and, well, the world at large) for things that have no evidenciary support.

        Although I agree with most of what you said, I reject your idea that the "world at large" rejects things "that have no evidenciary support". I'm fairly certain that the majority of the world's 6 billion plus people believes in one faith or another. Correct me if I'm wrong on this...

  • Kansas (Score:5, Funny)

    by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @09:25AM (#14184182) Homepage
    The trouble with Kansas is; you can click your heels three times and repeat "There's no place like home", but you'll still end up in Kansas.

  • Choose your battles wisely (Score:5, Insightful)

    by a302b ( 585285 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @09:27AM (#14184190)
    Sigh. It always saddens me when great ideas and concepts are clouded by irresponsible speech. I think such a course would be a great benefit to students in Kansas. However, when someone (and professor of all people!) utters such uselessly degrading and unprofitable remarks, he destroys his own credibility. How many debates have decended into childish name-calling so that no-one is listening to anything that is being said? How many people, defending a just cause (such as environmentalism) have failed to pick their battles and have rabidly pursued a course to such an extreme as to alienate otherwise sympathetic folk?

    C'mon, if you have something valuable to say or important to do, then say it or do it with prudence and wisdom at least!

  • a little background... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bozzio ( 183974 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @09:28AM (#14184201)
    FSM [wikipedia.org]
    'nuff said.

    • Re:a little background... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by QMO ( 836285 )
      I can understand why the humor of the FSM is given so much attention.

      On the other hand, I am astounded by how many people seem to think that it has merit as an argument.

      • Re:a little background... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        FSM is irony. Real irony, not the Alanis Morrisette kind, not hypocrisy, but actual irony. The idea is to parody intelligent design in such a way as to use the exact same arguments, but result in a ridiculous, unsupportable conclusion. That way, when the intelligent design supporters claim it's ridiculous, they have to poke holes in their own argument to show that is the case. Then you merely repeat their own words back to them when they promote intelligent design.

        Unfortunately, intelligent design a

      • On the other hand, I am astounded by how many people seem to think that it has merit as an argument.

        I'm equally astounded by the number of people claiming that it's a silly or non-existant argument, without being able to tell us why.

        Of course, *I* know that the whole FSM thing is clearly silly, since the world was created 17 weeks ago by the Invisible Pink Unicorn - may we all be skewered on her righteous horn - but I'm not sure what the ID people argue.

  • The sad thing is: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by QMO ( 836285 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @09:28AM (#14184202) Homepage Journal
    "Professor Paul Mirecki, chairman of religious studies"

    This is like the chairman of the math department making fun of people for studying the work of Gauss, Galois, Ramanujan, Hilbert, etc.

    Having been a college student and teacher, I have a hard time beliving that anyone who feels like mocking people that are passionate about his subject is very effective as a professor. I don't trust his apology, either.
    • Whoa there, don't go elevating ID beyond what it is.

      He's debunking a transitory, but (sociologically) interesting myth. It would be like a math prof debunking Gauss et al if he were "debunking" the work of Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides, and Ibn Rushd.

      As it is he's just grubbing for headlines with reactionary tactics.
      • How is a math professor discussing religion in any way the same as the "Chairman of Religious Studies" mocking religion?

        And - whether you or I, personally, believe ID or not - most major religions include the fundamental belief that the world and our lives have purpose, and that the world and life did not come about by chance.

        Also: "Mirecki repeatedly criticized fundamentalist Christians and Jews and mocked Catholicism."
        • Sorry, he in this sentence, "It would be like a math prof debunking Gauss et al if he were "debunking" the work of Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides, and Ibn Rushd." Referred to the religious studies prof, not the hypothetical math prof.

          Just because most (all?) major religions believe that the universe wasn't created as the result of chance, doesn't mean that these religions should be logically compelled to argue ID in biology. Christianity for example would be good to argue that God is the reason the univers

    • Re:The sad thing is: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by GigsVT ( 208848 )
      It's more like the chairman of the physics department holding a class making fun of zero-point energy and free energy crackpots.

      It's not like ID is some accepted scientific theory, it's just some shit creationists made up because they needed to improve their marketing. In the past it was easier because everyone was brainwashed as a child about creationism. Now that people are better educated, and generally do not attend religious schools, they needed something they could plausibly sell to people weak on sc

      • Re:The sad thing is: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by FooAtWFU ( 699187 )
        It's more like a professor of the psychology department holding a class making fun of zero-point energy and free energy crackpots. Even though crackpots may be his expertise.

        Making fun of people is seldom a good way to encourage healthy dialogue and understanding... in any department.

  • More professionalism, please (Score:5, Informative)

    by PurifyYourMind ( 776223 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @09:42AM (#14184267) Homepage
    It's too bad that now fundamentalists are going to have this news story as a weapon against proponents of science. This is despite this person apparently having nothing to do with science. We need better representatives, like the following:

    Skeptical Inquirer: The Magazine for Science and Reason
    http://www.csicop.org/si/ [csicop.org]

    Discussion and debate of biological and physical origins
    http://www.talkorigins.org/ [talkorigins.org]

    Understanding Evolution
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ [berkeley.edu]
    • It's too bad that now fundamentalists are going to have this news story as a weapon against proponents of science.

      I agree. This guy should be ashamed of himself. What century is this? 21st? Only asshats demonize people who disagree with them.

      People who believe ID in spite of the overwhelming evidence of evolution really bug me, I will admit it, but since I'm not in the forth grade, I am mature enough not to call them names. I don't stoop to that level. I think it's really cheap.

  • High school science classrooms are not... (Score:5, Informative)

    by NitsujTPU ( 19263 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @10:02AM (#14184372)
    High school science classrooms are not a forum of scientific debate. What bothers me most about this entire discussion is the assertion that, for some reason, a board of education decides what is science... that introducing it in classrooms is somehow equivalent to having it published in Nature... and that, for some reason, this is a valid way to discuss what is and isn't science.

    It just isn't. Classrooms are for teaching science. Science has its own forums for such debates.

    Now, when you put it in that light, the question becomes "do we want material that is not accepted by the scientific community taught in classrooms.

    For those of you digging at religion, remember that a good portion of the religious community, including the Catholic Church, do not accept ID.
    • Now, when you put it in that light, the question becomes "do we want material that is not accepted by the scientific community taught in classrooms.

      I enthusiastically disagree. The teaching of ID in a science class makes the question, "Why are we teaching non-scientific subjects in science class?"

      ID cannot be tested by the scientific method; ergo, it is not science! No matter how much the proponents of this backwards "theory" wish it were science, it is not. You cannot test for the existence of God, a pre-r
      • How does that disagree with what I stated?
      • You cannot test for the existence of God, a pre-requisite for ID (otherwise, to what does "intelligence" refer in the title?).

        Aliens. I kid you not. When I've heard this taught (in my intro-to-science class at a religious university) it was made clear that "intelligent design" doesn't refer to a particular source of the design, only that it is intelligent, as opposed to mindless (that is, evolution.) It could be aliens, it could be a previous civilization of humans, it could be a trans-dimensional spaghetti

  • Politico Religious Fanatics != Scientist (Score:3, Insightful)

    by robix_mevdev ( 220397 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @10:44AM (#14184653) Homepage
    I am glad this guy made this comment and wanted to have this class. Intelligent design is not backed by any biologists. It is only so we can have creationism taught in our schools. What a bunch of shit. bunch of shit.

    When they have more than the bible and a few theologians then maybe it could be considered.

    If they worked with biologists to understand organisms and all of the stuff already studied, then maybe it could be considered.

    If they didn't just deride evolution instead of studying real things and relating them to the world, then maybe there could be a discussion considered.

    But when some jesus waving ignorant religious fanatic undermines hundreds of years of study with a good catch word, that pissed me off.

    If I were him I would not have apologized. I WOULD HAVE TELEVISED!!!
    • "I am glad this guy made this comment and wanted to have this class."

      You're glad that this prof abused his position of power in order to attack an entire set of religious beliefs? You're glad that this prof essentially intended to indoctrinate his students against Christianity? (Hey, anti-Christians band the word "indoctrinate" all the time; it seems to me that attacking a set of beliefs rather than presenting them in a fair and mature way is the essence of indoctrination.)

      "But when some jesus waving

      • You're glad that this prof abused his position of power in order to attack an entire set of religious beliefs? You're glad that this prof essentially intended to indoctrinate his students against Christianity? (Hey, anti-Christians band the word "indoctrinate" all the time; it seems to me that attacking a set of beliefs rather than presenting them in a fair and mature way is the essence of indoctrination.)

        I'm not exactly a fan of ID either, but this kind of hateful rhetoric goes against everything the US s

        • First: you can't "indoctrinate against [any religion]" because the opposing position is testable. Religious people indoctrinate their children and followers with religious dogma. Scientists investigate and test. It's completely different.

          Nice try. The word "indoctrinate" means "to teach doctrines to; teach uncritically." You can teach a doctrine of anti-religion just as easily as you can teach a religious doctrine.

          Second: nobody said to attack only Christianity. Judaism is just as bad, and Islam is wor

          • More than 3 billion people on the planet belong to one religion or another. This number is on the decline, yet the crime rates in many countries around the world are skyrocketing. This is a very simple comparison, of course, and not necessarily correlative, but I find it somewhat fascinating that where religious adherence falls, crime rates shoot through the roof.

            Data, please. I've seen these claims before, and they always boil down to a gut feeling that things were better in "the good old days." They

    • It saddens me that your angry ranting got an insightful mod. There's a lot of opinion flying here, but not much evidence to make the discussion interesting. I'll address some of your points and then some additional commentary.

      I am glad this guy made this comment and wanted to have this class. Intelligent design is not backed by any biologists. It is only so we can have creationism taught in our schools. What a bunch of shit. bunch of shit.

      The comments on this story are full of this type of misinformation

      • People reply to silly rhetoric with silly rhetoric because anyone paying attention to the original hype doesn't have the attention span to understand reasoned argumentation. Since you have chosen to argue for ID on a scientific ground, the discussion can proceed there. I shall do my best herewith:

        The "technical claim", if you will, of ID is (in my understanding) that evolution fails to explain major structural changes and only explains incremental changes. ID therefore claims to be the "missing element"

  • Good for the Goose (Score:4, Insightful)

    by joeytsai ( 49613 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @11:05AM (#14184802) Homepage
    I think this story nicely illustrates how you needn't be religious to be ignorant, insensitive and over-zealous. Also, I have a feeling that if this course was presented in an neutral and objective manner (with a nice boring title like, "Comparing and Contrasting Different Paradigms of Origin") nobody would've cared - not even the students. Indeed, I imagine the talk around campus would be "Don't take Origins, Mirecki's a dick" or "I wrote a 20 page paper where one of my points disagreed with his and he gave me a D!". I'm sure we can all relate to similar professors.
    • I think your post nicely illustrates how you needn't have facts before forming an opinion. A few choice quotes from a private e-mail is not enough to conclude that a teacher is disliked by his students, or that his classes are especially unprofessional. I've seen plenty of cases where a teacher got caught up in one of these absurd controversies, and their students became their most outspoken defenders.

      While he may have been insensitive and overzealous, I see nothing wrong with a professor of religious stu
      • " A few choice quotes from a private e-mail is not enough to conclude that a teacher is disliked by his students, or that his classes are especially unprofessional."

        FTA:

        'Mirecki recently sent an e-mail to members of a student organization in which he referred to religious conservatives as "fundies" and said a course depicting intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face."'

        You're telling me that a religious studies prof who says this could actually be anything *but* unprof

      • You are correct in saying I have no way of knowing if he was disliked or unprofessional, but those comments were obviously speculative and anecdotal. The only opinion I stated was that he was ignorant, insensitive and overzealous, which is seems pretty well supported from the articles. His position was much more apparent than "choice quotes from a private email". These were posts which were on a public yahoo discussion group, which is hardly the same thing. Did you say something about needing facts? Fu
    • I think this story nicely illustrates how you needn't be religious to be ignorant, insensitive and over-zealous. Also, I have a feeling that if this course was presented in an neutral and objective manner (with a nice boring title like, "Comparing and Contrasting Different Paradigms of Origin") nobody would've cared - not even the students. Indeed, I imagine the talk around campus would be "Don't take Origins, Mirecki's a dick" or "I wrote a 20 page paper where one of my points disagreed with his and he gav
  • My Karma is ranked too high, so I may as well fix that with this posting...

    1. In my reading of the constitution, it's the Congress (that is the FEDERAL legislature) that's barred from establishing religion. This was intended to preserve the rights of individual states to do what that wanted in this area. So IMO, Kansas may as a state decide to teach whatever the hell it wants, even if (gasp) the citizenries of other states disagree.

    2. It's practically speaking impossible to completely avoid the influence
    • I wondered about this the other day.

      Amendment XIV

      Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal prot
      • Good point. I've heard that it was the combination of amendments I and XIV that people apply to this issue. Thanks for posting it.

        The problem is, I read the non-establishment clause not as a protection of individual citizen's rights, but as a protection of states' rights. I read the non-establishment clause as a restriction on what the federal government can shove down the states' throats. I don't read the clause as a guarantee to individual citizens that they will be completely free from such legislatio
  • The story has been filtered through the oft-incomprehensible process of journalism, so who knows what's really going on, what the Prof really said or did.
    But I take away the point that no matter how ridiculous or simple or wrong someone's point of view may seem, if they are sincere about it, that point of view deserves respectful response and dialogue.

    Additionally, that respect for someone's opinion can never be confused with respect for the opinion itself; it doesn't mean aquiesence to or approval of thos

  • Tell it like it is...if you're on TV. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dr.badass ( 25287 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @04:27PM (#14187737) Homepage
    Mirecki recently sent an e-mail to members of a student organization in which he referred to religious conservatives as "fundies" and said a course depicting intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face." He later apologized, and did so again Thursday in a statement issued by the university."

    It's funny how people fully support this kind of forthright talk about any number of groups when it's done by politically-motivated radio and television personalities with license to broadcast over public airwaves to millions of people, but when a man with a doctorate of theology uses similar language in an email discussion with the atheist student group to whom he is an advisor, it causes an uproar.

  • He is in the Hospital; some PRO ID people beat him (Score:3, Insightful)

    by seabasstin ( 304888 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @04:07AM (#14191885) Homepage
    Please read this before you say that he shouldn't have spoken out. This is what has happened to him since the incident.

    http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/05/mirecki_h ospitalized_after_beating/?breaking [ljworld.com] Mirecki hospitalized after beating

    He was beaten down and sent to the Hospital by 2 people who where upset about his anti fundamentalism/anti ID stance.

    THESE ACTIONS are the real problem, as they represent the blindness of religious fundamentalism when pressed by the freedom of speech.

    The reason I think ID is an issue, is that fundamentalism doesn't allow for an other opinion, it is intractable in its stance about what is right in religion. (whatever the religion).

    Even thought Dr Mireki might not have been the most tactful person in his approach to counter the ridiculous decision in his state; it is NEVER acceptable for anyone to be terrorized because of his/her opinions, and the reality in America is that anyone who EVER confronts the religious rights ideals, gets taken down by any means necessary.

    This can be seen in the horrendous actions of anti-abortion activists; the pervasiveness of anti-sex education & the ineffective yet over emphasized abstinence movement; the obvious miscarriages of authority that are happening at the FDA in relation to the abortion pill; the rise of intolerance of religious differences; or any idea that goes against "Christians".

    In effect, this is the reflection of the Christian fundamentalist leader currently in power.

    So its all grand to have people here criticize his actions, when the reality is that in his particular environment (the middle of the bible belt in Kansas), he actually has to deal with the effects of these religious fundamentalist directly, especially working in the field of religion.

    Whether it is from the possibility of loosing his jobs from the university who feels public pressure trough their funding, or attacks on his and his loved ones physical person, this is not like being on slashdot with an alias and saying whatever crap and then disappearing.
    If you cross them they go after you especially if you have clout.

    Personally I really wish had not backed down, and given the course; furthermore the University should really support him no matter what as this directly reflects on their credibility as an independent institution of learning.

    Maybe Iran or China are worse.... or are they?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger

Close