Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID will be taught — the only question is how

William Dembski
November 22, 2005
Education, Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here’s the home page of the professor offering this course: http://members.aol.com/pmirecki/pmcv.htm

U. of Kansas Offers Creationism Study
Tuesday, November 22, 2005

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176354,00.html

LAWRENCE, Kan. — Creationism and intelligent design are going to be studied at the University of Kansas, but not in the way advocated by opponents of the theory of evolution.

A course being offered next semester by the university religious studies department is titled “Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies.”

“The KU faculty has had enough,” said Paul Mirecki, department chairman.

“Creationism is mythology,” Mirecki said. “Intelligent design is mythology. It’s not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not.”

Earlier this month, the state Board of Education adopted new science teaching standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory, defying the view of science groups.

Although local school boards still decide how science is taught in the classrooms, the vote was seen as a major victory for proponents of intelligent design, which says that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism — a literal reading of the Bible’s story of creation as the handiwork of God — camouflaged in scientific language as a way to get around court rulings that creationism injects religion into public schools.

John Calvert, an attorney and managing director of the Intelligent Design Network in Johnson County, said Mirecki will go down in history as a laughingstock.

“To equate intelligent design to mythology is really an absurdity, and it’s just another example of labeling anybody who proposes (intelligent design) to be simply a religious nut,” Calvert said. “That’s the reason for this little charade.”

Mirecki said his course, limited to 120 students, would explore intelligent design as a modern American mythology. Several faculty members have volunteered to be guest lecturers, he said.

University Chancellor Robert Hemenway said Monday said he didn’t know all the details about the new course.

“If it’s a course that’s being offered in a serious and intellectually honest way, those are the kind of courses a university frequently offers,” he said.

Comments
"it has already been clearly established that neither Naturalistic Science or Intelligent Design are pushing any philosophical or theological agenda." Both concepts, when taken at face value, push no philosophical or theological agenda; that is true. The supporters thereof (regardless of their field), however, can be heavily swayed by personal beliefs and biases. Again, this is true for both sides. Davidcrandaddy
November 23, 2005
November
11
Nov
23
23
2005
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
sorry...that newton comment is confusing Newton did not curse the Royale Academny when they were critical of his theory on the opticspuckSR
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT
Whoa russ...it has already been clearly established that neither Naturalistic Science or Intelligent Design are pushing any philosophical or theological agenda. So why philosophers? So...scientists...or as i like to refer to them...the brightest people society has to offer...are all either 1. Part of a massive conspiracy and coverup...for the apparent reason of protecting atheism 2. Completely clueless to reality You want to go with #1 Ok...so they are protecting atheism? Why, ID can be atheistic...ive been told that many times Wait...maybe they are protecting their beliefs? That cannot be, since they constantly "alter" their beliefs about Evolution...many people have alluded to this many times. So...why are they doing it? Im going to venture a guess here, maybe im wrong, maybe... what if they just do not agree with you? What if they believe that the current flaws with evolutionary theory only require a tweak to the theory, rather than a new theory? What if they are open to new ideas, but dont believe that ID actually introduces any new ideas? What if they have yet to validate ID evidence, and are still waiting to change their mind? What if all of this "controversy" is simply validating the point that ID is political, and not scientific? Newton didnt call flat-out insult the Royal Academy when they rejected his theories on optics... Joule developed and repeated his experiments to demonstrate the nature of heat... Many great men have had to withstand criticism of their theories...but most of them suffered the criticism quietly...because they knew in time that their superior theory would shine through... Take a lesson, and relaxpuckSR
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT
Puck wrote: "If Evolutionary theory is so “fundamentally” flawed, then why do the vast majority of Biologists fully support evolution..why are the strong supporters of ID mostly from alternative fields…such as mathematics, physics, and philosophy?" 1) Dissent from the party line is forbidden in what you would probably call "more relevant fields". See Guillermo Gonzalez, Richard Sternberg, et al. Apparently, mathematicians, physical scientists and philosophers can still make a living and maintain professional reputations if they are branded heretics by the establishment. 2) The problem is partly a philosophical one, hence, the involvement of philosophers. The philosophical assumptions contained in the establishment's definition of science effectively block dissent from evolutionary orthodoxy.russ
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT
LOL....have you ever read about Galileo mentok? Great man, great ideas, horrible at compromise. It has been proposed that his "troubles" were due more to his attitude than to his actual ideas. ::LOL:: Do you believe that if you say something is true enough times that people will believe you? If Evolutionary theory is so "fundamentally" flawed, then why do the vast majority of Biologists fully support evolution..why are the strong supporters of ID mostly from alternative fields...such as mathematics, physics, and philosophy? I am not claiming the superiority of "Darwinism", but i am insisting that your claims of "stupidity" are completely unfounded. I speak frequently of the "golden key". The experiment that will prove you absolutely. The funny thing is that even when you find that "golden key", you still have to struggle to get your idea accepted. Quit assuming that by simply attacking the opposition, you will be successful. You obviously dont have a sense of history or reality; otherwise, you would realize the preposterous nature of your claims and accusations. Once again, im not claiming that ID is wrong or right, but if you believe that insulting the current theory, while admonishing the minor flaws with the current theory will result in rapid change, you are sorely mistaken.puckSR
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT
Puck you seem to miss the entire point. You said "If it was completely stupid, then no one would believe it." Then I pointed out that completely stupid theories have regularly been believed and held as being rational and scientific by the mass of humanity. So if someone calls Darwinism stupid how is that any different from calling the flat earth theory stupid? Both were or are the mainstream scientific theory of it's day. Darwinian theory is based on stupidity. When it was first proposed it was based on ignorance. But today we can't say it's based on ignorance like flat earth theory because there is a lot of data showing how evolution is incompatible with intelligent conclusions based on the data. So today Darwins theory is stupid, whereas in the past it was just ignorant. You can't claim ignorance anymore, just like flat earthers can't claim ignorance anymore. But just like tribal people fear the unknown and worship forces of nature, evolutionists also fear the unknown and worship nature. It seems it is very difficult to help superstitious tribal cultures enter into modern society, too many bright lights I guess.mentok
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
Mentok...you obviously did not understand my comments I openly admit that Science changes on a regular basis, and often. Previous theories are frequently replaced by new theories. The old theories do appear laughable by modern standards, but they do not appear laughable while they are being contested. Notice that i mention Ptolemy. He believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe. We now know that this is completely wrong, but given the limited knowledge at the time, and his observation that celestial bodies seem to rise and sit around the earth, he believed it to be true. I am not claiming that ID is wrong or right, but to claim that "Evolution" is laughable clearly establishes a mock sense of superiority for an ID supporter. You obviously havent read any books by Darwin, since his original theory is rather vague in describing the mechanisms behind evolution. Even punctuated equilibrium can fit under "Darwin's Theory". It may not have coincided with the teachings of many "Darwinists" at the time, but it still falls squarely under Darwin's definiton of evolution.puckSR
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
puck you seem to be a young person; am I right? No offense, it's just that your grasp of the history of science among many others things seems to be very, well, meager? For instance you wrote: "I doubt they will come out saying “Darwin’s theory sucks”. That is the funniest thing i have ever heard. Do you have any idea how stupid it sounds anytime an ID proponent claims that Darwin’s Evolution is “stupid”. If it was completely stupid, then no one would believe it. It must at least have some observational integrity." People all throughout history have believed things to be true which were later revealed to be false. Even evolution underwent a facelift when it was discovered that Darwin's theories did not hold up, they had to re-invent evolution in the 1940's in order to try and make it fit into new discoveries in biology. That's why the Darwinism is no longer accepted by evolutionists, they noew teach Neo-Darwinism or the Synthetic theory as it's really called. For a very long time people believed the earth to be flat and other assorted theories that were accepted as scientific and rational and which later were proven to be false. Also I wonder why you post here. Over at Pandas thumb you crow to your fellow halfwits about hoe this site is full of morons. Don't you have better things to do with your time?mentok
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
Proven to be a myth? You mean how have i disproven the "fact" of Christian Creationism? I havent...but Im using the same criteria that you probably used to "disprove" Roman Creationism....or Norse CreationismpuckSR
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
I guess you have disproved Christian Creationism puckSR. Can you tell me exaxtly how you have proven this to be a myth? Also, I think this would be a great class. I would hope many well educated students that understand ID would be able to enlighten the class. DanDan
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
Sorry...massive mistake in the first sentence. Basically...it is a myth to believe that the Intelligent Designer was involved in every change in every organism. It is also a myth to believe that common descent is impossible under ID theory. Creationists believe those previous statements...not true scientists studying evolution The instructor could simply be mentioning the mythical(creationist) elements of ID in his discussion about the creation myth of Judeo/Christianity. Of course, Dr. Dembski should probably send the prof a strict outline of the scientific theory of ID, so that he can avoid getting the Scientific and mythical elements of ID confused. He could even bring up "darwinism". He could point out the myth that "dogs come from cats" or mention "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes". He could also point out that it is a myth to believe that Evolutionary Theory is strictly atheistic, or that it is materialistic(naturalistic is the correct term). Plus.... Christian Creationism is just another Creation myth, and many Christian Creationists believe in ID, so it is a valid topic of conversation. I doubt they will come out saying "Darwin's theory sucks". That is the funniest thing i have ever heard. Do you have any idea how stupid it sounds anytime an ID proponent claims that Darwin's Evolution is "stupid". If it was completely stupid, then no one would believe it. It must at least have some observational integrity. Ptolemy had a good idea with the limited information he had on hand. New information may require that a new theory replace the old one, but the old theory is hardly ridiculous based on previous information.puckSR
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
puckSR: speak English. What are you muttering about?PaV
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
OK...let me put it this way It is a myth to claim that ID requires that the Design Agent was every evolution of organisms and that common descent is impossible. That, however, is a very helpful position to Creationism...which is a myth. Therefore, they could simply approach the topic from the position of Creationists and point out the complete lack of support for creationism in ID theory. Right after they establish the definition of ID theorypuckSR
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Narrative isn't a bad word either but when someone honestly calls the modern synthesis a narrative the Darwin apologists get all bent out of shape. Apologist isn't a bad word either but they take offense at that too. So don't play innocent. Unless you're stupid we both know when inflammatory terms are being used.DaveScot
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
Who knows, maybe the UK is clever by half. I'm wondering how the students are going to react. Are they going to say: "This doesn't really belong in religious studies; there's serious scientific issues here."? Are they going to come out of the class and say, "Wow, Darwin's theory really sucks."? It will be interesting to see if this experiment backfires on them.PaV
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
True....people still find the term "Christian Mythology" offensive...even though it doesn't refer to the actual faith of Christianity being "Myth". Myth does have negative connotation to some people, but honestly...it's not that bad of a word. Still....it is a good idea to teach any class on ID in this way. To all of the ID supporters...Myth has become fact in the pastpuckSR
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
"If it’s a course that’s being offered in a serious and intellectually honest way, those are the kind of courses a university frequently offers" I suppose that universities might infrequently offer a course in a mocking, intellectually dishonest way as well. Who can tell which this kind of course might be?jaredl
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
I think UK is treating the situation appropriately. That said using the word mythology contains some obvious connotations that many might find offensive. A good idea but presented in a combative manner: C+.jmcd
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
Hi all. First time here. "Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism — a literal reading of the Bible’s story of creation as the handiwork of God — camouflaged in scientific language as a way to get around court rulings that creationism injects religion into public schools." They love hammering the strawman now and again, don´t they? Who is running the materialists´ propaganda machine? Goebbels?Marcos
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply