Evolution Intelligent Design

How’s that for an apology?

Spread the love

KU withdraws intelligent design course

Thursday, December 1, 2005

. . . “It was not my intent when I wrote the e-mails, but I understand now that these words have offended many on this campus and beyond, and for that I take full responsibility. I made a mistake in not leading by example, in this student organization e-mail forum, the importance of discussing differing viewpoints in a civil and respectful manner.” . . .

MORE

16 Replies to “How’s that for an apology?

  1. 1
    CharlesW says:

    This is still a good thing. It is strong progess that anti-ID propaganda is not bein taught at the University. Soon, we shall have this level of success against all the materialist propaganda at both a highschool and college level. Onwards marches intelligent design!

  2. 2
    Nate says:

    It appears that the other university in Kansas (Kansas State), is also going to be teaching an origins class that will discuss ID, among other things. Here is a story in the local paper that describes the class. (You might have to register and log in to view the article. It’s free, though.) The professor teaching the course describes ID as “not a scientific theory,” but does say it is “a very important cultural phenomenon and an interesting philosophical idea.” It appears to be being handled much better than the one at the KU.

  3. 3
    pmob1 says:

    A little name-calling and stereotyping? Hey, we used to call it “spirited debate.” There must be something else going on with this story. Like the “offended” students were handing him his ass and he went running for cover.

  4. 4
    dougmoran says:

    This is a nice appology and it should be accepted. But this man “Mirecki the apologetic” is not to be trusted. If he were a congressman, he would be resigning tomorrow under presure from the party. Were he a corporate leader, he would be fired for intolerable intolerance. But “Mirecki the amazing apolegitic professor” will be allowed to defile the entire education community and poison our young scholars with twisted athiestic crap. Don’t trust him or his boss(es).

  5. 5
    Michaels7 says:

    And this is what our fine institutions of learning give for such a high cost to students…

    “My fellow damned, The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category ‘mythology’ Doing my part to (tick)* off the religious right, Evil Dr. P.”

    funny, haha… so the chairman of KU’s religious-studies department sponsors an ‘atheist’ forum? For what possible purpose?

    lets see another example, “‘The majority of my colleagues here in the dept[ment] are agnostics or atheists, or they just don’t care,’ Mirecki wrote in explaining, “correctly”, that it wasn’t the job of the department to make converts. ‘If any of [the other professors] are theists, it hasn’t been obvious to me in the 15 years I’ve been here.'” (emphasis on the word ‘correctly’ mine.)

    you can see some outrageous examples at NRO online: http://www.nationalreview.com/.....301455.asp, be prepared, adult language references, the dear Professor says maybe its to harsh, but he ‘agrees with the idea’ of fake Gideon’s Bibles.

    mmmm hmmm, let the light shine… darkness flees before the light.

    Can’t anyone be objective of the subject they teach even if they ‘do not believe it’? Shouldn’t Kansas hire as Chair of the Biology Department a Creationist? It is just as valid as long as the Creationist is qualified in research and experience, teaching and good science and agrees to teach ‘CORRECTLY’ the basic tenents of biology, right? As I understand it, it is not up to the Science Teacher to ‘make converts’ now is it?

    Academia, Media…. truly are losing any respect these days. Double standards.

    A professor or school teacher is not allowed to openly object to evolution or the professor cannot be hired if they disagree. But a ‘agnotic or possibly atheist’ is allowed to Chair and teach theology classes? Why? Because, its all a ‘myth’ you see and therefore its not as important if your child learns from someone who does not believe in it. Harry Potter, Christ and Daffy Duck all in a row according to the atheist…. are all the same.

    On the otherhand, don’t dare touch evolution… no, no, no its how the world turns, we’d all lose our minds and go backwards 4000 years if we did not know the ‘truth’ and ‘facts’ of macro-evolution.

    The more the light is shinning bright, the more dirt is found. Is it not why evolutionist are such oppressors in Academia and Scientific post? Because they know their teachers must be ‘fervent believers’?

    KU as well as other universities truly need to rethink their approach to religous studies. Its one thing to hear opposing views. Its quite another to completely debunk, desanctify and devour young minds to the point of disbelief.

    If they cannot reconsider the application of professors hired towards academic studies in religion, then we should expect equal applications of such standards across all studies including science.

    No wonder students lose their identities at college. They’re under attack in the very courses of which they should feel safe. Regardless of whether the class knows it or not. They’re forced to listen to people who ‘do not believe’ what they’re teaching.

    I’m trying to imagine if there is any other area of study on campuses today which allows such antagonistic viewpoints? Are there any areas like this?

    On the one hand, you cannot ‘teach any opposing views, or express doubts’ about macro-evolution. Yet, you can certainly ‘preach’ against Christ and understand to teach against it is in the form of healthy debate, for growth and maturity to ‘understand’ other views.

    So, it is unhealthy to teach controversial realities about macro-evolution in a scientific format. But its healthy to debate the truth of Christ existence, the validity of New Testament documents, or whether Islam and Hindu are the same.

    Ultimate hypocrisy… They expect IDer’s, Creationist, and even Religous studies to take the heat, but they cannot do the same themselves.

    I hope more parents and students are awaking to these realities on campus and start to demand more even handedness in application of studies.

    I understand there are legitimate reasons for putting years of one’s life into the study and pursuit of what one passionately believes in. I can even understand people who work at the same place for years where they may not like so much.

    But can anyone advise or enlighten me why a person would pursue the study on an academic high level career and rigorous study of 30-45 years of their lives in something of which they do not believe? What could possibly be the purpose? Is it just tenure and a paycheck?

    I’m all verklumpt 😉 sighhhhh….

  6. 6
    Josh Bozeman says:

    I’ve no idea what atheists are doing teaching religious studies courses…you can hardly expect to get a fair treatment of religion if you’re totally closed your mind to even the possibility of God even existing. An atheist would teach religious classes as courses in fairytales and not look to study the society, the history, etc. because most atheists would deny the history, societal attitudes and issues, etc.

    Why would an atheist even want to teach religion if he’s adamant that it’s a bunch of bologna? Doesn’t even make sense to me that anyone would want to do such a thing.

  7. 7
    DaveScot says:

    Mireki didn’t lose his job, he didn’t get his pay cut, he still has his research privileges, he still has his office. You know, what’s his complaint? People weren’t nice to him. Well, life is not fair.

    Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some professors, many university adminstrators, and vast numbers of sleazy far-left politicians.

  8. 8
    dbergan says:

    “Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some professors, many university adminstrators, and vast numbers of sleazy far-left politicians.”

    Mr. Scot? What is to be gained by that? It is preferred that we patiently mete out the truth of the issue. Develop the program as best we can, be upfront and honest about any shortcomings, and get people interested in the fascinating questions. Nothing will be gained by your suggested tactics of anger, fury, and humiliation… unless you’re running for office, in which case you might win a term. But the reasonableness of ID will come around slowly as all things like this do. And if it turns out to be unreasonable, it will die a quiet death… which, if it turns out to be unreasonable, is the best outcome.

    Fire and gunpowder is for war. If the establishment gets the feeling that design theorists are looking for war, you know how they will respond. This is not war, because when it’s over you still have to live in harmony with everyone who “lost”. This is a discussion between brothers and friends whom you love even when they don’t agree with you. And never forget that science is always one repeatable experiment away from disproving any theory.

    Commit yourself to truth and patience. Only young or immature people look for quick and public victories on a topic like this.

  9. 9
    Dan says:

    Josh,

    This is part of the socialist/communist attempt to take over the world. The radical left, coming out of the 1960’s, knew that if they could control the education system, then they could change the world according to their viewpoint. They have been largely successful. The head of the NEA, in 1946, was a committed commie and wrote that what we as educators need to do is strip away the traditional and capitalist fabric away from the children through the education system…only then can we achieve our goal (paraphrase-but completely in context). If you control the religios depts, you can cut down the influence of the traditionalists in our society.

    More than 50% of students in seminary are agnostic/atheist because they want to change what the local congregations are teaching. I remember this number from an email chain that I recieved about 6 months ago from a REasons to Beleive member. Another 20% thought that being a preacher would be a good economic job choice. What we really need to do is educate ourselves well and get into those positions of influence.
    Dan

  10. 10
    neurode says:

    Provost Shulenberger: “I granted Professor Mirecki’s request and agree with his recognition that his actions had created an untenable situation.”

    Of course, the provist neglects to mention the obvious: that Professor Mirecki, far from offering this apology on his own miserable initiative, screwed up his fat, freshly-slapped face and forced it out only after being threatened with termination for being (1) a sarcastic atheist-materialist gasbag determined to sneakily grind his favorite philosophical ax on university time, and (2) witless enough to get caught in a spectacular way.

    The omission is unfortunate, if only because so many professional academics could benefit from the same sort of officially-administered attitude adjustment. One can only hope that the significance of Mirecki’s apology won’t be entirely lost on them.

  11. 11
    Watchman says:

    Josh Bozeman said: “Why would an atheist even want to teach religion if he’s adamant that it’s a bunch of bologna? Doesn’t even make sense to me that anyone would want to do such a thing.”

    I was wondering the same thing, when it occurred to me that it may explain one aspect of the recent Darwinism-In-The-Schools battles. On more than one occasion teachers who are reluctant to teach Darwinism as fact have been told, “Just teach the science and leave your beliefs out of it” as if it were the easiest thing in the world. Perhaps some professors have no difficulty making a career out of teaching something they believe to be absolute hogwash. Glad I’m not one.

  12. 12
    DaveScot says:

    dbergan

    Readers well versed in Eugenie Scottisms and PZ Myerisms will recognize their words which I sarcastically repeated with minimal changes except for directing Eugenie’s towards Mirecki instead of Sternberg and Myers towards the left instead of the right. Both quotes can be found on recent articles here in this blog with proper attributions.

  13. 13
    DaveScot says:

    dbergan

    Maybe you should head on over to Panda’s Thumb and tell them what you think of mainstream evolutionists using these words:

    Eugenie Scott – chief mouthpiece for National Center for Selling Evolution (NCSE)

    http://www.npr.org/templates/s.....Id=5007508

    Anyway, she says — echoing the comments of a Smithsonian official — Sternberg did not really suffer.

    “He didn’t lose his job, he didn’t get his pay cut, he still has his research privileges, he still has his office,” Scott says. “You know, what’s his complaint? People weren’t nice to him. Well, life is not fair.”

    or PZ Myers of Panda’s Thumb:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....2#more-502

    I totally agree with you when you say:

    “Only young or immature people look for quick and public victories on a topic like this.”

    You hit the nail on the head. But since Paul and Eugenie are both middle-aged it looks like we can rule out “young”.

  14. 14
    dbergan says:

    Thanks Dave, for the context. Your post is definitely more funny than angry in that context.

  15. 15
    DonaldM says:

    To me it looks like this is the beginning a new tactic to eliminate ID from scientific discussion. If enough universities begin offering courses that discuss, analyze and otherwise present ID, but not in a science class, but in a religion or philosophy class, then they (the anti-ID crowd) will say “see, ID can’t be scientific, otherwise why would all these pretigious universities be offering courses studying it in religion and philosophy and NOT science classes.”

  16. 16
    jacktone says:

    Actually, I’m kind of disappointed that he decided not to teach the class after all. Would have been interesting to see how much more trouble he could get into. Unless all those 25 KU students that signed up were his clones anyway…
    Still, I predict that the students who take the classes that are offered (like at KSU) they will emerge with quite a different perspective than what their professors intend. Fact is, that if folks are really open-mindedly curious about things, they are likely to be able to discern truth when exposed to both sides of the debate.

Leave a Reply