Kansas Anti-Creationism Professor Resigns 1469
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.
Re:Beaten? (Score:3, Interesting)
He handled it wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't get it either. (Score:2, Interesting)
What he discovered was a bit more than that, though. Not some semi-random beating from idiots who recognized him. Rather, that it's a bit more organized than that. Maybe they told him his national press was really, really unappreciated, and that if he didn't start backing down, he was in for worse.
Supposing something like that happened, might not you also resign?
Fron the article... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Religious Right (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm so fucking sick of these people. The fact that this guy calls a spade a spade (ie. calling crazy religious freaks "crazy religious freaks") and has to then resign is unbelievable.
End RantMy roomate is a Christian, and he's a standup guy, thinks creationists are crazy, hates war and the like. He said to me the other day "You know, I really like the term 'Religious Right'. It implies that there's a 'Religious Center' and a 'Religious Left'."
Re:His sign (Score:1, Interesting)
How can such a highly educated person be so lacking in tact?
Each person may have his or her own opinion, and they are rightly entitled to it. However, it is never acceptable to advance an opinion in such a spiteful, vicious way. It is disheartening that someone in the position of a Professor would choose to submit to such foolishness.
That said, I do feel as though something is being left out of this story. I can't pinpoint what, but something just seems a little fishy. Of course, it is said that truth is stranger than fiction.
I see a catholic revival in the future (Score:4, Interesting)
Every unfair stereotype of a an American WASP from 10 years ago has started to come true. Expect the unfair sterotypes of today to be true within 10 years (religious warriors, indeed).
This contrasts oddly with the vatican, who has decided to embrace science as the language of God's tapistry.
Even me, the dedicated Agnostic, finds that ringing a tone of truth.
What these ID idiots don't understand is that there is NO WAY a creator would use such a blunt tool as Creationism to *poof* the world into existence. "God works in mysterious ways". "All miracles are subtle". Blah Blah Blah; if THATs the case, than why WOULDN'T he use evolution?
In one swift motion, the creator, the mover unmoved, fathomed the universe. From that point on, utilizing all the 'random' constants that he blinked into existence, the universe expanded outwards in the big bang, following the scientific explanation of creation, evolution occurred, and we are currently at the present day.
How is that explanation not FAR, FAR more amazing, and mind blowing, and worth of a creator than, "Well, kids, God dreamed up our world, and a week later, it was there."
I guess the problem is that the American-style Protestant is really just not that smart.
Re:It depends upon the Church. (Score:3, Interesting)
Oddly they miss out on the fact that "An Eye for an Eye" is meant as an alternative to unlimited retaliation not as an alternative to forgiveness. It's a like a speed limit. It's supposed to be a maximum, but everyone treats it like a minimum.
analogy is backwards (Score:2, Interesting)
It's telling that you chose the opposite analogy, though. I have a theory that Christians like to see themselves as a persecuted minority, especially when they're in the majority and doing the persecuting.
Re:His sign (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Again, it depends upon the church. (Score:3, Interesting)
I prefer to crack my eggs on the big end, and all the little endians should be killed!
Re:Beaten? (Score:2, Interesting)
I just want to point out that BEATING PEOPLE UP is not a "fundamental" Christian philosophy. Jesus would certainly NOT approve.... Pick up a Bible and read through the entire new testament (you can skip Revelations if you'd like -- it's interesting, but confusing and not really the point.) Only then can a person actually understand what it REALLY means to live a christian life.
Blessed are the meek.... for they shall inherit the earth.
Chris
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It sounds like email (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It sounds like email (Score:5, Interesting)
The Southern Baptists, in particular are almost post-rational when it comes to any sort of reasoned argument. It's amusing in a sad/scary sort of way.
Re:*roll eyes* (Score:3, Interesting)
Christians are not persecuted in the US, but I think that they often think that they are for two reasons. First, evangelical Protestantism is an exclusive and evangelical religion. Since they think that they have the only truth, tolerance for other views is not a virtue and they think that they are not really able to be Christians unless the State enforces their views. Christians think that it is their right and duty to make everyone into a Christian. What for the rest of us is protection against harassment and imposition of Christianity is therefore for them an infringment of their right to spread Christianity.
The second reason that fundamentalists, feel persecuted is because they know that their views are considered to be ridiculous by many other people, especially intellectuals and scientists.
Re:It sounds like email (Score:3, Interesting)
Embarrassing (Score:2, Interesting)
On the issue of ID though, that fact that it's psuedoscience has already been establish, and I'm not sure you can even include "science" in that term. Last year in AP Biology, my teacher brought in a National Geographic article that reaffirmed Darwin's theories of natural selection. I think ID was mentioned once during that class but it was a subject that was quickly dropped. Of course, that was about 9 months ago, before ID became topic fodder for the New York Times, Newsweek, etc. That's when I knew we had a problem.
If the religious fanatics won't go away, then at least keep ID somewhere closer to the study of religion, not biology.
Good old unbiased CNN (Score:2, Interesting)
I love CNN's unbiased reporting.
Re:And vice versa... (Score:2, Interesting)
And although the overwhelming majority of BYU professors believe in a personal God, and many students believe that beliveing in God is the "obvious" philosophical, metaphysical and spirtitual answer, and also that the majority of mainstream science is completely consistent with that belief and mainstream science is taught there -- mean spirited attacks of people's beliefs are met with swift critisism, even "outrage."
You don't think it would make the news if we introduced a class called "Atheism: bad logic and hard hearts?"
Re:To clarify... (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously.
As far as I am aware, it just doesn't happen.
Slaves, etc. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is something I'm still working on.
Re:It sounds like email (Score:4, Interesting)
a = "without"
theism = "belief in a god or gods"
a-theism = "without belief in a god or gods"
As a fundamentalist atheist myself, I'm perfectly prepared to say there might be one. In fact, might be two or three. Or 42. Or thousands of them.
But since none have shown their heads, or their works, around my neck of the woods there is no point in getting all tangled up in some belief without a reasonable basis in objective fact to reason from. So I keep the idea in the same drawer with other ideas that require extraordinary evidence, such as pink unicorns, UFOs and telepathy. Sure would be interesting to see. When and if that happens, I'll re-evaluate the situation.
Re:It sounds like email (Score:5, Interesting)
Public school should be about proven fact and science meets that standard. Religion doesn't require proof but that's what makes it subjective. Science should be the one thing they all can agree on. Saying that science is wrong and three to four thousand year old religous text is right does make us look ignorant and that's how much of the world has begun to view us. Jewish scholars have found much of the old testment is incorrect. The irony is they have accepted the science and have begun to view much of it as stories with a message where as Christians in this country are still holding that it is fact and children should be taught as much in public schools. Can you see the irony? Christians borrow part of their religion from Jews who later find it is a collection of stories and not fact, they accept it but the later religion chooses to hang on inspite of what the parent religion now believes to be true. Even the Catholic faith has accepted evolution. What people need to consider is it the Bible that makes you disbelieve in evolution or what the preacher on Sunday told you? The New Testment makes no mention of how creation occured. What's really ironic is most Bibles these days don't even include the Old Testment yet that seems to be the part where all the contention is, that's the PreChristian part to be more specific. If the world being 6 billion years old instead of six thousand years old shakes a person's faith I think they need to exaimine the strength of their faith and not simply try to silence those who don't share their beliefs, in this case most of humanity. Just an FYI, if you think the preacher on Sunday morning is telling you the whole truth double check what is said against the Bible. There's alot of grossly inaccurate information being thrown around if the point is literally interpretation. My favorites always revolve around Angels and Heaven. Most are taught Heaven is full of good people and they turn into Angels when they die. Not sure where they got that? It wasn't from the Bible. The only "person" that comes to mind currently in Heaven is Jacob, direct assention. Everyone else is waiting judgement. Also Angels predated men/humans. They were never people but another race and were called "The Sons Of God". In fact there's no mention of female angels anywhere in the Bible. Sadly a lot of the intent has been lost. Praying to get things and passing judgement on others aways drives me nuts, they are blanantly unChristian. According to the Bible you are supposed to accept God's will and whatever happened to "Judge not lest yee be judged"? God is supposed to judge not man. I have no problem with re
Re:It sounds like email (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Rule #2 (Score:3, Interesting)
The ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict is decidedly not about control over world-class farm land, but about control over artefacts of religious value. Similarly, the Sunni vs Shiia issue in Iraq is not about getting the most competent people in power, but about electing people based on their non-objective interpretation a non-authoritatively documented divergence of religious views that happened 1500 years ago.
Perhaps we should do some stronger natural selection against the mal-adapted religious sects out there...
Humble pie (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It sounds like email (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's another perspective on the "extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof" issue. Sorry it's a little long.
(from the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Luke 16)
[The rich man] said, "but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent".
He replied "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced, even if someone rises from the dead."
And indeed it seems you haven't been convinced - even though someone rose from the dead. When it comes down to it, what you want isn't a one-time-proof, but for God to be in a state of constantly proving his existence with fresh miracles every day. I'll explain:
In Jesus's time, the Pharisees asked for a miracle as proof because they didn't believe the "extraoardinary claims" either (Matthew 16). Jesus said he'd give them one - rising from the dead. And he did. After the resurrection and pentecost, the apostles performed miracles in the process convincing some more people of the extroadinary claims (most of Acts). But naturally, you say those 'miracles' are just more extraordinary claims. You'd perhaps also say the book of Luke is a set of extraordinary claims even though it was Luke's report of his investigation into the extraordinary claims. At every step forward, there's a grumble that yesterday's proof is today just another extraordinary claim unless some more proof is given for that last piece of proof. Each day, someone wants another miracle, and that continues right up to today and your post.
So, what you want is your own personal miracle in your individual sight. (And, to be brutally honest, I suspect you would probably find a reason to disqualify any evidence unless it was God appearing to perform a personal miracle for you.) Well, the sovereign God responds to that with a bit of a poser. He does do some things specially for people on an individual basis [answering prayer] but the catch is you already need to have faith to ask in faith.
Perhaps having sent his son to die for you, God doesn't feel he needs to degrade himself any further just to prove himself to you individually? Personally, I can't really blame him - after all when it comes down to it, it's not his eternal life that's on the line.
Re:It sounds like email (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, for Pete's sake. Let's be perfectly clear here. If indeed anyone rose from the dead, it happened about 2000 years ago, didn't happen in front of me, wasn't recorded in any contemporaneous documents of the regime in power at the time, nor by any contemporary historian, and is only described as such by a book that was put together from codexes that date back to about 300 years after the fact [ideaspike.com]. To top it off, we know of no such event, and our knowledge of the universe says it can't happen. This reasonably leads me to the position of doubt. I'm not doubting because I'm just a crank, I'm doubting because there is an extraordinary event here, and no proof any kind, much less extraordinary. If someone rises from the dead in front of me after three days of rigor mortis, putrifaction, and zero life signs of any kind, I will be duly impressed.
If the story is true (which I do not believe to be the case), God sent his son to hang about on earth for thirty years, then gave him the best seat in heaven, after having him suffer a few days of moderate-level torture. For just one of many instances: Many Americans have sent their sons to die, where they ended up in the hellholes of Vietnam's POW camps, where those fellows endured being stabbed with dung-encrusted pungi sticks, maimed, beaten, caged, starved, diseased, mentally abused and worse, for years at a stretch. After which these fellows came home (well, those who survived) and were pretty well ignored by both the government and most of their fellow citizens, if they weren't actively reproached for having done what they were told to do. On a scale of one to ten, where let's call prisoner of war service a 7, I'd say Jesus's reported troubles rate about a two. If god wants to impress me with a sacrifice, then he can get down here and clean up some of the messes he's let go on without interference, such as birth defects, tsunmamis, regular failure of the female reproductive tract (with the side effect of killing the mother), Hitler, Cancer, Pol Pot, plagues, Stalin, the Spanish and Papal Inquisitions, the Crusades and so forth.
As a story, god's "sacrifice" of Jesus lands with a dull thud because (a) it was no sacrifice, it was a very short though admittedly annoying interval with a HUGE reward, and (b) human sacrifice dwarfs it on every level. By the numbers, and by intensity, and by the degree of what was hoped to be accomplished by many of the sacrifices made by humans. True story: I had a relative who was burned to death going into a burning home after a little girl's kitten. He tossed the kitten out of an upstairs window, but he didn't make it out himself. He was an atheist; I'd say his sacrifice dwarfs that of Christ's, even if, no especially if, the crucifiction story is true. My relative burned to death and according you and yours, he's going to suffer for all eternity. Christ, in the meantime, is where? At god's right hand.
I afraid you're ruffling my feathers here, because of all the Christian mythos, this is some of the most offensive tripe that hits the fan.
Your god is too something-or-other to help out, for instance, the most honorable, giving, self-sacrificing atheist who wishes for a child to be saved from cancer (or saves a little girl's kitten, as I related above); but he'll help you out for any random thing because you "have faith." I would not want anything to do with your god. Your god doesn't meet my standards for a decent hu