Nov. 28, 2005

Evolution, E-Mail and Kansas

When news spread last week of a new course at the University of Kansas on intelligent design, the reaction was fairly predictable. Since the course will be taught in the religious studies department and is called “Intelligent Design, Creationism and Other Religious Mythologies,” scientists said that intelligent design was being properly explained, supporters of intelligent design questioned whether the course would be biased against their ideas, and the university released a statement defending the academic freedom of the professor who created the course.

Looking for a job?

See all 272 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 2,719
Administrative: 2,095
Executive: 157
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

In Kansas, of course, intelligent design is not treated as the fringe idea that the vast majority of scientists consider it to be. The state’s Board of Education this month approved new science standards that, while preserving the teaching of evolution in Kansas public schools, also call for students to learn about differing views.

So when newspapers published e-mail comments by the professor who created the new course in which he mocked intelligence design, legislators and other supporters of intelligent design interrupted their Thanksgiving vacations to demand that the university do something — and many said that the course should be called off. A spokeswoman for the university said Sunday that the chancellor of the university would review the plans for the course, in light of the e-mail comments of the professor, Paul Mirecki, who is the chair of religious studies at Kansas.

In the e-mail message to a listserv, Mirecki said of intelligent design: “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.’ ” Mirecki said he was “doing my part” to upset “the religious right” and signed his posting “Evil Dr. P.”

Mirecki could not be reached for comment, but the head of the Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics at the University of Kansas, whose listserv posted the remark, confirmed its authenticity.

However, Andrew Stangl, president of the group, added that politicians in Kansas have taken the posting “completely out of context” by suggesting that Mirecki was mocking all Christians or all religious people. Stangl said that in the context of the larger discussion in which Mirecki was participating, it was clear that he was talking only about supporters of requiring the teaching of intelligent design.

Stangl also said that the listserv is closed and Mirecki thought that he was sharing his views only with the group’s members, but that a “mole” had apparently leaked the comments to newspapers in Kansas. “We assumed that people would have better things to do than monitor a secular group’s e-mails and activities with the intent of using them against us or our members,” he said.

Intelligent design supporters increased their criticism when another professor announced that he would add material about the concept to a course called “Archaeological Myths and Realities.” John W. Hoopes, an associate professor of anthropology at Kansas, said that the course has typically covered such topics as myths surrounding real objects such as the pyramids or Stonehenge, as well as myths about things that don’t exist at all, like the supposedly lost continent of Atlantis.

Of intelligent design, Hoopes said, “I think it is very likely it would qualify as pseudoscience. It is based on hypotheses that are not falsifiable,” he said, explaining that when dealing with real scientific theories, proponents will indicate the kind of evidence that would make them back away from their theory — something intelligent design supporters are unable to do.

Hoopes said he was very concerned about the idea that university officials were reviewing Mirecki’s course because of his posting to a listserv. “I feel that the university should be very cautious about reviewing the content of any courses,” he said. “Academic freedom should assure the freedom of any faculty member to teach what they want to teach.”

The issue is important because Kansas faculty members have an obligation to get involved in the intelligent design debate, Hoopes said. He said that he thinks the state board’s requirement may have a positive and unintended consequence of inspiring high school biology teachers to do a much better job at teaching evolution, and result in Kansas students knowing more about evolution that those elsewhere. But Hoopes said that colleges and employers nationwide are likely to now think Kansas high school graduates “will need remedial education” in science.

Brian Sandefur, a mechanical engineer who has been an active proponent of intelligent design in Kansas, said it was “totally irrational and reactionary” to say that Kansas high school students would face any problems for not being taught that evolution was a fact. “Our students will be better equipped to think scientifically,” he said.

Sandefur said that when he heard about the new courses at the University of Kansas, he was initially inclined to wait to see syllabuses before raising any concerns. But he said that based on Mirecki’s listserv posting, the courses “should be tabled.”

“My initial suspicions are clearly demonstrated. There is no interest in serious reasoned examination of intelligent design. It’s crystal clear from that e-mail,” Sandefur said. “The attitude of the university is, ‘let’s take the easy way out and mischaracterize intelligent design as a bunch of religious fundamentalists who don’t like evolution,’” he added.

Sandefur, who is on the board of the Intelligent Design Network, said he also objected to intelligent design being taught by religious studies and anthropology professors. “Both of those are not the most appropriate” disciplines, he said. “Intelligent design belongs in biochemistry and molecular biology class. That’s the very foundation of intelligent design.”

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

What?

“Academic freedom should assure the freedom of any faculty member to teach what they want to teach.”

IMHO, ID is a silly, duplicitious way for the Falwell crowd to raise $$$ and make their type of noise. Ignore them, let them play with themselves, and the ID issue goes away.

However — as to the claim that “academic freedom” is 100% — does that mean if I develop an interest in rare Asian flora, my budget should be increased for extensive travel? As if, there is an unlimited amount of resources? Does that appear logical?

Bob A., at 6:11 am EST on November 28, 2005

...what could he be thinking?

Intelligent design is less a problem than the absence of intelligent comments from university chairmen! By dropping down to the same level of political engagement as the ID advocates, Mirecki has squandered his and perhaps other universities’ position as evidence-seekers and truth-tellers. Onewonders what he could have been thinking....

EMB, at 6:45 am EST on November 28, 2005

EMB and ID

Paul Mirecki, who is the chair of religious studies at Kansas, is one of the most rational individuals in Kansas. I applaud his efforts and wish him well. On the other hand, “EMB” appears to be a reactionary who would damn anyone other than himself/herself. It is stalwart sentries of science and freedom like Mirecki that invite the conduct of inquiry, and show the interlocking of religion, mythology, and science to the betterment of mortalkind. Mirecki offers hope to the intellectually darkening world of Kansas while EMB is extinguishing the flame of conscientious considerations.

Arthur Ide, PhD, at 7:40 am EST on November 28, 2005

Intelligent Design

I believe the intent behind Mr. Mirecki’s course is antithetical to the whole notion of a university and the free flow of ideas. I think he is correct that ID should be taught as part of a religious curriculum. However, his whole attitude towards the subject is so obviously poisoned before the class even starts that it loses any sense of fairness or worse, intellectualism.

Professors like Mr. Mirecki instruct us all on how our universities are stifling young minds and the creative process. Structuring a course so lopsided as these emails indicate does for our students. Someone needs to inform Mr. Mirecki that there are indeed many aspects to human knowledge and that perhaps he does not, alone, hold The Truth! His stance requires more blind faith than even Jerry Falwell could muster in a monthful of Easter Sundays!

Feudi Pandola, at 8:16 am EST on November 28, 2005

EMB & Dr. Ide

Dr. Ide defends Paul Mirecki thusly: “Paul Mirecki, who is the chair of religious studies at Kansas, is one of the most rational individuals in Kansas."At this point, it’s not clear exactly what kind of a credential THAT is.

What IS clear is that (as EMB states) Mirecki’ squanders the opportunity to offer a meaningful course that might further the discussion because the attitude revealed by his leaked e-mail (a) does not show a commitment to truth-seeking and (b) is guaranteed to enflame the prejudices of the people he should be seeking to enlighten.

ID does NOT have a place in the cellular biology lab. It should be studied in religious studies and sociology classes with a view to understanding how evolutionary theory threatens the religio-political right. But Mirecki did us no favors by, in essence, sticking his tongue out and putting his thumbs in his ears and wiggling his fingers at the religious conservatives in our midst.

Mirecki could make better use of his time by postponing his own ID/mythology course and enrolling in a couple of fundamental public relations/interpersonal communications courses.

Bill Dockery, University of Tennessee, at 9:45 am EST on November 28, 2005

Intelligent design

It is amazing that a mechanical engineer would want to prescribe what is taught in biochemistry and molecular biology courses. Design considerations may have a place when studying the development of mechanical things developed by people, such as internal combustion engines — but I am not an engineer and will not be so arrogant as to prescribe what engineers do or teach. However, intelligent design has no place in any biochemistry course, except perhaps to point out that it is not in any way supported by experimental data, and in fact is clearly contradicted by a large body of experimental data that arise out of work in the area of the combinatorial chemistry of nucleic acids.

Manfred Philipp, Professor of Chemistry at Lehman College/City University of NY, at 10:21 am EST on November 28, 2005

ID

Having a class with the dedicated purpose of attacking the views of others hardly sounds like free inquiry and independant thought.

Delete this course. It is clear no rational objective discussion will be had here.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 10:27 am EST on November 28, 2005

It seems to me that Professor Mirecki’s e-mail, even if intended for a limited audience represents the meeting of both EGO and ID!

In the corporatist universities of today, the issue of what courses are taught is not related only to the ‘academic freedom’ of individual faculty—the mazeways of getting a course approved at my institution suggests that the image of the brave professor facing the forces of darkness is inappropriate—more like facing the muddled impuses of greyness. That said, KU’s administration had best be circumspect in their response to this little squall.

Frank Conlon, Professor Emeritus at University of Washington, at 11:14 am EST on November 28, 2005

Anyone discussing Sandefur, the mechanical engineer’s comments, especially the comment that “Our students will be better equipped to think scientifically,” needs to keep in mind that it is the intent of the intelligent design gang to redefine “science” so that the mainstream meaning of the word occupies only a miniscule space in the universe of “all forms of questioning” that tghey would redefine science to be.

I note that that venerable mag. called _Science_ points out that the one significant addition to the section of the proposed new guidelines dealing with “science as inquiry” says ” ‘[The student] understands methods used to test hypotheses about the cause of a remote past event (historical hypothesis) that cannnot be confirmed by experiment” (V.310, #5749, p.754).In other words, you’ll need to understand how to test the untestable to get out of high school in Kansas, as “test” and “experiment” are essentially equivalent in conventional English.

Of course, once one starts redefining individual words to exclude all meanings that don’t suit one’s purposes, a cascade of other redefinitions immediately follows. I once had the experience of questioning a woman who claimed that everything in the Bible was literally true—I asked about parables and use of metaphor. After winding around a few circles, she concluded that I just meant something wholly different than she did when I used words like “metaphor” and “parable,” because when she used them, they were the same as “literal truth,” as that was the only way her argument could stand. We were only a step away from “the meaning of every word in the language is ‘literal truth,’ including ‘a’ and ‘the’” (the last line here paralleling a comment picked up in passing from an article about Dick Cavett—apologies for forgetting the author who used it). ———————————————————Kevin, in saying, “Having a class with the dedicated purpose of attacking the views of others hardly sounds like free inquiry and independant thought,” should keep in mind that the primary purpose of intelligent design is to displace evolution from biology (and he should use three _e_s in “independent").

Kevin and Bob A.—freedom to teach is different from research funding, which most often must be earned competitively. But in increasingly corporatized universities, anything is a valid _elective_ that attracts enough students. Academic freedom means one can propose any course, but one can only teach it if there are students who want to take it. Get enough of ‘em, and your research project starts to look much more competitive. ———————————————I will repeat, as I often do, that the problem with science educaiton in the U.S. is NOT that there is TOO MUCH science taught in science classes. I will also repeat that here in Japan, this is all viewed as a long-term project of unilateral economic disarmament by the U.S. The politicians and businessmen who use these sideshows to get the votes empowering them to make legislation enriching themselves will simply leave the U.S. for more interesting and exotic climates once they’ve destroyed the country’s economic viability. Many already have.

Thane Doss

Thane Doss, at 12:27 pm EST on November 28, 2005

Hats off to Prof. Mirecki

Professor Mirecki has aptly named his new course “...ID and Other Religious Mythologies.” Hopefully his university has a strong AAUP chapter to defend his academic freedom if it comes to that. I’m just grateful that it’s Kansas this time and not Alabama.

Jim Bradley, Professor, Biological Sciences at Auburn University, at 1:44 pm EST on November 28, 2005

Are we on same planet?

“The politicians and businessmen who use these sideshows to get the votes empowering them to make legislation enriching themselves will simply leave the U.S. ..”

Hello? U.S. academia is many things. But I have NEVER heard anyone, across the globe, say that U.S. academia is controlled by a narrow-minded myopic Kennedy/Bush/Gates cabal.

In fact, anyone who has spent time with international students in the U.S. will tell you that those students come to the U.S. for the personal freedom to break out the ambition-stifling social class structures of their own countries.

That does not mean there is unlimited funding for obtuse, unproductive topics that will never generate enough tuition revenue to cover costs.

But above that level, my international students tell me that there more raw creative diversity in the U.S. academia than anywhere else in the world. Yes, even more than France.

Is there an IHE in France? Do the French embroil themselves in silly, inane debates like ID? I mean, really ..

Bob A., at 2:07 pm EST on November 28, 2005

Evolution, Email and Kansas

Intelligent design fails to explain the existence of its proponents. But then so does natural selection.

William, Citizen, at 2:50 pm EST on November 28, 2005

Engagement and debate, not exclusion and derision

Thus far, IMO, only Mr. Dockery and Mr. Conlon speak to the real issue here. We want to engage those we disagree with and this cannot be done through ridicule or subtle personal (or otherwise) agendas. If we truly believe in science then we argue against intelligent design, we do not ridicule ID or its proponents. I.e., we do not alienate the very people we are trying to educate. Based on many of the posts from today and past columns I worry that too many people are getting all the information on ID from the popular media; we have classified anyone who even mentions ID into the category ‘creationist’ and that is not the case. Human engineered intelligent design has taken place for centuries; all one needs to consider is the advancements in agriculture, livestock breeding and other comparable arenas.

I agree that creationist views that attempt to bind science, ID, and organic life into one concept must be challenged and addressed but we need to bring these people into the circle and not exclude them from it. If we are truly smarter, better educated and informed, then we need to start acting like it. Ideas pertaining to ID should be discussed and examined but my opinion is that it belongs within the discipline of philosophy (my apologies to all the philosophers; you folks probably don’t want this “hot Potato” either).

Mr. Doss, with all due respect sir, your post is the kind that fuels a similar brand of polarization that is so predominant at this juncture in our political landscape. They are not the “ … intelligent design gang … “; they are proponents of an idea that you (and I) disagree with. Please tell us, where you learned “ … that the primary purpose of intelligent design is to displace evolution from biology … ” I have followed this debate since the late eighties and know of no one authoritative spokesperson for ID that states this objective. Finally, criticizing someone for spelling is a cheap shot; IMO, this is a forum that should encourage ideas, discussion, and debate. I hope that Kevin will continue to participate.

Joe Viscomi, Syracuse University, at 3:02 pm EST on November 28, 2005

E-Mail and Kansas

Faculty members cannot just teach what they want in a certain institution with various stakeholders. If it is a parochial college, it seems that what can be taught is even more limited, although one could question the institution’s academic credibility. Yet they go in with alacrity because of public support by the majority in Kansas and elsewhere who do not exercise academic rigor. What concerns me here, though, is more the ethics of spamming e-mail messages without permission of the author to those whom the message was not intended. Does such content thus become admissible in legal or formal decision-making spheres? Unlike the open Web where we take our chances of misunderstanding, a personal e-mail or one to a select group should be subject to privacy protection, no?

Japanned, Professor at Osaka Jogakuin College, Japan, at 6:08 pm EST on November 28, 2005

E-mail and Japanned

“What concerns me here, though, is more the ethics of spamming e-mail messages without permission of the author to those whom the message was not intended. Does such content thus become admissible in legal or formal decision-making spheres? Unlike the open Web where we take our chances of misunderstanding, a personal e-mail or one to a select group should be subject to privacy protection, no?”

Ethics? E-mail? Privacy? No. These concepts don’t belong in the same conversation.

My apologies for posting a second time on this topic, but there are two important points that Japanned needs to understand about e-mail.1. There doesn’t seem to be much of a legal presumption of privacy for e-mails of any type. In the state of Tennessee, e-mails are by legal statute part of the public record (see the TN Open Records law) in they reside on state-owned servers. My university lost a president to that principle several years ago. The higher-ups at Enron also learned that e-mails can have legal implications.

In fact, personal “hardcopy” papers have little privacy standing — their only advantage is that authorities may not know about they or know that they have been destroyed.

2. As the info scientists/librarians say, “information just wants to be free.” Even if there WERE strong legal sanctions for privacy of e-mails, they would still be leaked, if their content resonates strongly in a given political situation.

The abiding principle is “You write it, you own it.” If you don’t want to see your e-mail appear in the least advantageous situation for you, don’t send it.

Bill Dockery, University of Tennessee, at 9:14 am EST on November 29, 2005

Mocking Expert?

How in the world (and why in the world) does Professor Mirecki become chair of the religious studies department at a university? His opinions about ID aren’t particularly important (and I happen to agree with them). But how does someone with such a derisive attitude towards any religious belief (ID, Buddhism, wiccan, or whatever) become chair of a religious studies department (imagine an anthropologist expressing similar disdain towards natives of the rain forest: worthy of being chairman at KU?)? And why would he do so? Why would such an attitude be popular or accepted in the field of religious studies? Its the implications of his language-what he said, why he would say it, why someone with his attitude would be successful in religious studies, why academia would have a religious studies department with such attitudes-that are important. His personal beliefs (perhaps more politely expressed) towards ID are frankly secondary in the story.

Steve

Steve, at 1:49 pm EST on November 29, 2005

Professor Mirecki’s issues an apology

The full text of Professor Mirecki’s apology:“ I accept full responsibility for an ill-advised email I sent to a small group of students and friends that has unintentionally impugned the integrity and good name of both the university and my faculty colleagues. My words were offensive, and I apologize to all for that.

“ I especially regret that the email betrays what I have consistently practiced in the classroom during my sixteen-year teaching career at KU: I believe that civil discourse is vital to a democratic society, and we must, especially in a university environment, be able to discuss differing points of view in a open, fair and civil fashion. I have always practiced my belief that there is no place for impertinence and name calling in a serious academic class. My words in the email do not represent my teaching philosophy or the style I use in class.

“ I have assured the provost of the university that I will teach the course according to the standards this university rightfully expects — as a serious academic subject and in an manner that respects all points of view.”

Feudi pANDOLA, at 8:26 am EST on November 30, 2005

Evolution, E-mail and Kansas

I am a poorly educated hillbilly from western Kentucky whose knowledge of the world is limited to what I have seen from its tobacco fields, so I may be out of place in this intellectually elite discussion. But I am going to put in my two cents worth anyway.

First, Dr. Mirecki’s apology should be accepted. Everybody is entitled to a stupid mistake once in a while, even college professors.

Second, why not just adopt this statement in place of “Intelligent design"—which, along with evolution, is too complicated for me or anyone else of my limited intellect to understand anyway:

“God created the physical universe and the mechanisms that govern its operation. No matter what the exact details of the creative process may have been, and regardless of how the intricate governing mechanisms of its self-sustaining operation may function, the universe works in obedience to God’s prescient will.”

I am not really sure where I heard this, but it probably came from a barely literate tobacco farmer in Appalachia—or maybe he was from Anatolia.

Ricky Dale Calhoun, Rick Calhoun, at 10:29 am EST on December 1, 2005

Mirecki

Follow the link: (note; the details are at this link as well as other sites in the blogosphere).

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/boyles200511301455.asp

Apparently, Mirecki thinks Catholics don’t know what they are doing, and “go home and beat their wives", calls Christian Fundamentalists “fundies” and set up his class to be a “slap in the face” to them (note: all three are direct quotes from Mirecki, quoted above), thinks German Christians saw Hitler as the Messiah, and more, including disdain for Gideons and Jews.

Thus is the state of religous studies at Harvard (where Mirecki earned his degree) and at Kansas (where Mirecki is the CHAIRMAN OF THE RELIGIOUS STUDIES DEPARTMENT). Thus is the state of academia.

So my questions remain. How and why would such a person devote his life to studying relgion when he obviously disdains it? How could such a person succeed in an religious studies department in academia? How and why should the taxpayers of Kansas fund such a program?

Steve

Steve, at 1:03 pm EST on December 1, 2005

Mirecki

It is such a waste. Professor Mirecki has squandered his opportunity to help students develop a greater understanding of the issues in the evolution-intelligent design discussion. His vicious statements about those with which he disagrees are completely unworthy of the title of Professor. He has provided much fodder for those who believe that ID is science and that most university professors are left-wing nuts. Then I read some of the messages which assert that academic freedom should allow him to proceed. What nonsense. Academic freedom is not at issue here. Professors do not have acadmic freedom to teach whatever they want to teach. He forfeited that right the minute he pressed the keys that resulted in personal attacks upon those with whom he disagrees. His administrators and the taxpayers of Kansas are well within their rights to ask about the teaching of this class and his position as chair of the Department of Religious Studies. One can only hope that professors at other universities are more intelligent as they attempt to shed some light on the issues at hand here.

David Buchanan, at 11:29 am EST on December 2, 2005

Mirecki

Another case of email nabs you. Shouldn’t have done that. Warrants minor spanking — but not much. To tell you the truth I’d be facinated to take his course now. Can’t blame anybody with 2 brain cells for shooting off once in awhile.

It’s not so much “Intelligent Design” or it’s occational mumbling or soft peddling of.. It’s definately not science — should be after school. No what bothers me I don’t want to keep track of every snake bit preacher in the school system — whatever weird stuff are they laying on kids? Is it parents job to go “police” all the time. That’s a bigger concern — you have to draw a line CHURCH AND STATE — PERIOD. And people have to know it.

Greg Petrich, Flat Earth Inc.., at 3:41 pm EST on December 3, 2005

Wake up

A few folks here just don’t get it. They seem to think that if one’s belief, no matter how stupid or harmful or hateful, is based on a religious dogma, then that belief is above harsh criticism.

I recognize that this is the way our media works and habitual liars make strange “Bible-based” statements to our nations journalists and “pundits” every week and are not seriously questioned about why non-members of the religion should give a hoot.

But we’re not on TV and I’m not a pundit and — guess what — neither is Dr. Mirecki. In fact, Dr. Mirecki is an expert on religion and how religions function and grow and shrink and die.

Religions do shrink and die, you know. It happens all the time. It’s happening right now to some religion, somewhere. Anyone want to disagree?

Feudi writes

“I think he is correct that ID should be taught as part of a religious curriculum. However, his whole attitude towards the subject is so obviously poisoned before the class even starts”

Really? Is Dr. Mirecki’s “attitude” “obviously poisoned” or has Dr. Mirecki maybe — just maybe —LEARNED as a matter of FACT that the Discovery Institute and its employees are documented LIARS who are promoting “ID theory” in an attempt to diminish the status of science and promote their belief that the United States should be run from the top down as an officially Christian nation?

Is that not a possibility?

Bill Dockery writes

“attitude revealed by his leaked e-mail (a) does not show a commitment to truth-seeking “

Really? Or does Dr. Mirecki’s “attitude” merely show that Dr. Mirecki has possibly — just possibly — LEARNED as a matter of FACT that the Discovery Institute and its employees are documented LIARS who are promoting “ID theory” in an attempt to diminish the status of science and promote their belief that the United States should be run from the top down as an officially Christian nation?

Is that not a possibility?

“Having a class with the dedicated purpose of attacking the views of others hardly sounds like free inquiry and independant thought.”

How about a class which attacks the view that blowing up buildings so you can die as a martyr and further the struggle of your people in their efforts to defeat infidels is a productive way to behave? Assuming students are free to ask questions, how is this not “free inquiry” and “independent thought"?

I didn’t hear anything about Dr. Mirecki not allowing people to ask questions in his class. You are smearing Dr. Mirecki and making it sound as if he is engaged in some sort of brainwashing exercise.

Perhaps he is merely telling the truth about the “fundies” at the Discovery Institute and their behavior.

Did you consider that possibility?

Maybe the “fundies” at the Discovery Institute NEED a big slap in their fat face because they all the time and our lazy media let’s them get away with it?

Did you consider that possibility?

I’m just engaging some free inquiry here.

Joe V. writes

“we do not alienate the very people we are trying to educate.”

The people who are alienated by comments such as Dr. Mirecki’s do not want to be educated. They want to educate you. They want to educate you about Jesus Christ and his Word. They don’t care about science. They don’t care about facts. They care about promoting their religion. Search the net for information about the Discovery Institute’s “WEdge Document” if you want to learn more about this.

“But how does someone with such a derisive attitude towards any religious belief (ID, Buddhism, wiccan, or whatever) become chair of a religious studies department”

Huh? How about the religious belief that women are like cattle to be sold and must never step outside of the house and should be killed if they are raped? If I’m a female professor of religious studies, can I not hold a derisive attitude toward that belief?

This is exactly what I was getting at above. Religious beliefs are not above criticism. The religious beliefs of Christians in this country are often de facto above criticism for fear of reprisal if they are criticized.

Dr. Mirecki will be happy to tell you about that, I’m sure.

kmf writes

“He has not only revealed his strong personal opinion of IDers, he has armed critics of evolution who argue that academia is intellectually dishonest and hostile toward conservative Christians.”

Dr. Mirecki’s opinions barely register on the scale. The “critics of evolution” will take virtually any statement about anything made by a scientist who criticizes “ID theory” into an attack on religion.

Linus, at 9:38 pm EST on December 5, 2005

Mirecki’s comment wasn’t so bad, course looks great

I’ve said all sorts of inflammatory things around topics that I teach outside the classroom, and I have still been perfectly capable of teaching them well to my students. I have had to teach around topics of the supposed adaptiveness of human rape, which is hogwash, and have been able to set it up in class so that my students can think for themselves about this topic and have the space to agree and disagree.

I don’t understand why Mirecki should be burned for being angry at the religious right. If I were a religious studies professor, I would be angry at the way the fundies were taking over my state as well, and would want to figure out a way to reach out and teach ID the way I think it should be taught, as mythology, in a religious studies class. Sounds like he’s doing the best he can in a state where anyone who uses his/her brain probably feels like his/her back is up against a wall.

Kate, at 8:03 am EST on December 6, 2005

Professor Mirecki

I applaud Professor Mirecki and his decision to issue a formal written apology. His actions are an intelligent response to this situation and should be instructive to his supporters.

feudi pandola, at 1:19 pm EST on December 6, 2005

Believer in ID...

It seems that everyone in here has not thought of the possibility that ID is true. I know I’m in the minority here, but I do have a background in graduate-level evolution, biochem, genetics, etc, and still hold to the belief that a higher-being was responsible for our design. Many of you claim otherwise, but I really wonder if you have looked at all the facts with an open mind, and not coming into this with preconceived ideas. To give you further understandings, the idea behind design detection is not isolated to ID. In fact, it is used in anthropology, forensic sciences, and cryptanalysis. So, please, understand that ID science can be tested and evaluated in the same manner as tests for design in other sciences.I would encourage each of you to truly research this, as you may find more than you bargained. Because, I guarantee you that the scientists involved in pushing ID are not a bunch of hillbillies, but have done their homework. And as this number grows, ideas will be change, and so will the curriculum in classrooms...

Respectfully,Clifton

Clifton, at 3:21 pm EST on December 7, 2005

If an instructor of a course on affirmative action were to promise a slap in the face to “liberal n——-s,” I doubt that conservative African-Americans would be reassured to know that the racial slur had been applied strictly to their liberal brothers and sisters, nor would the offense be excused for having occurred in a forum where no African-Americans were believed to be present. The bigotry of the left is no less offensive than that of the right and it is time to recognize it for what it is.

Joe Murray, at 6:15 pm EST on December 7, 2005

Fundie bashing

Race isn’t a matter of choice—religion is. If folks want to be fundamentalists then they should be prepared to take the consequences. It’s their choice.

LogicGuru, at 2:25 pm EST on December 8, 2005

So racism is wrong only because “it’s not their fault"? Is that what you’re saying? If African-Americans had freely chosen to be Black, would they too be fair game for childish taunts by their professors? And would you also have no objection to a Christian professor referring to Jewish students as “kikes” and promising a course on the Holocaust that is a slap in their faces? Or are you selective in your tolerance for bigotry?

Joe Murray, at 9:30 pm EST on December 8, 2005

RE: Clifton’s comment — “...please, understand that ID science can be tested and evaluated in the same manner as tests for design in other sciences.I would encourage each of you to truly research this, as you may find more than you bargained..”

Please, share ANY example of research that has tested ANY aspect of Intelligent Design. I don’t believe you will find any. ID cannot and has not been tested under the accepted rules and procedures of science, yet its proponents want it to be taught in science classes. Huh? This is why the Kansas School Board changed the definition of science.

Jennifer, An ashamed Kansan, at 12:57 pm EST on December 15, 2005

RE: Jennifer — The complexity of the human eye, genetic code of bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium, distance of the Earth to the Sun, bacterial motors, cilia, cellular transport and blood-clotting...you want more, because we have more...we cannot explain these “specific complexities” through any natural, evolutionary means...we aren’t simply trying to slap a label on it and say, “well, since we can’t explain it, it must be uncomprehensible", but “let’s try to identify patterns here, that were ‘designed’ for a specific purpose and scientifically study, analyze these processes to gain further understanding"...please, just because it can’t be “proven” without reproducable facts means that it’s not science, because we do that in this field all the time...for instance, we assume the universe is infinite...can you prove to me infinity?..mathematically we can...and that’s the same field of science in which ID is based...mathematically, we can prove the odds of ID are in our favor...seriously, do some research on this...check out www.arn.org and other ID research sites...go into it with an open mind...

Clifton, at 10:09 am EST on December 21, 2005

ID as science? get real

Clifton, since you mentioned the ‘complexity of the human eye’ which is the standard example pulled out by anti-evolutionists, and considered all the more damning because darwin worried over it, let me point you (and other interested folks) to andrew parker’s excellent works: _In the Blink of an Eye_ and _Seven Deadly Colours_. And let me say that the Darwin Exhibition at the Museum of Natural History in NYC kicks some serious ID ass. Clifton and other ID-supporters, I have one question for you — why the assault on natural selection and biology and not on archaeology, geology and the other natural sciences that have refuted just as much biblical ‘truth’ as poor old natural selection? It is to answer a question such as this one that ID needs to be taught in anthropology, religion and sociology departments. a class such as Mirecki’s would have been invaluable. i would also recommend Richard Lewontin’s excellent article in the New York Review of Books: ‘The Evolution Creation Struggle’ (Oct 20, 2005). Go ahead and believe that the world was created in 6 days — just don’t lobby government agencies to ensure that my kids learn that as the scientific ‘truth’.

Saadia Toor, assistant professor at college of staten island/CUNY, at 4:38 am EST on January 6, 2006

let’s be honest

Steve, your statement seems to confuse “religious belief” and “religion.” You use the terms interchangeably:

“But how does someone with such a derisive attitude towards any religious belief (ID, Buddhism, wiccan, or whatever) become chair of a religious studies department [...]?”

The professor is by no means derisive of Christianity, but, rather, superstition. Now, let’s be honest: what’s your position on, say, human sacrifice, or faith-healing that barrs medical assistance to dying children? Do you doubt that anyone with antipathy toward these should serve in a religious studies department?

aitatxua, at 10:20 am EDT on May 29, 2007

Jobs Related to Evolution, E-Mail and Kansas

or search for jobs directly.

Tenure-Track Assistant Professor of Dance
University of Colorado

Posting Description: The dance program in the Department of Theatre and Dance seeks an established artist / ... see job

Technology Support Analyst — Journey
East Carolina University

East Carolina University, a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina, is a doctoral institution with an ... see job

Assistant or Associate Professor IRC23636
Rochester Institute of Technology

The E. Philip Saunders College of Business invites applications for two tenure-track faculty positions at the Assistant or ... see job

Professor of Fibers
Savannah College of Art and Design

The Savannah College of Art and Design seeks candidates for a full-time faculty position in fibers. Qualified candidates ... see job

Assistant Director – Food Technology Center
University of Idaho

Assistant Director – Food Technology Center (Pilot Plant Research Manager) Food Technology Center Open for Recruitment: ... see job

Part-Time Clinical Faculty, Associate Degree Nursing (PL)
Eastern Kentucky University

Eastern Kentucky University, located in Richmond, Madison County, Kentucky near the Heart of the Bluegrass, is a ... see job

Assistant Professor, Theoretical Chemistry
University of Colorado

Posting Description: The Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of Colorado, Boulder ... see job

Financial Aid Officer
Sinclair Community College

Sinclair is a comprehensive community college with an enrollment of over 24,000 students that offers career and transfer ... see job

CSE and/or MSSE Teaching Specialist
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

It Sr Project Leader
University of Pennsylvania

The nation’s first university, Penn is a world-renowned leader in education, research, and innovation. Situated on a ... see job

Evolution, E-Mail and Kansas

Related stories

Comments

What?

...what could he be thinking?

EMB and ID

Intelligent Design

EMB & Dr. Ide

Intelligent design

ID

Hats off to Prof. Mirecki

Are we on same planet?

Evolution, Email and Kansas

Engagement and debate, not exclusion and derision

E-Mail and Kansas

E-mail and Japanned

Mocking Expert?

Professor Mirecki’s issues an apology

Evolution, E-mail and Kansas

Mirecki

Mirecki

Mirecki

Wake up

Mirecki’s comment wasn’t so bad, course looks great

Professor Mirecki

Believer in ID...

Fundie bashing

ID as science? get real

let’s be honest

Jobs Related to Evolution, E-Mail and Kansas

Tenure-Track Assistant Professor of Dance University of Colorado

Technology Support Analyst — Journey East Carolina University

Assistant or Associate Professor IRC23636 Rochester Institute of Technology

Professor of Fibers Savannah College of Art and Design

Assistant Director – Food Technology Center University of Idaho

Part-Time Clinical Faculty, Associate Degree Nursing (PL) Eastern Kentucky University

Assistant Professor, Theoretical Chemistry University of Colorado

Financial Aid Officer Sinclair Community College

CSE and/or MSSE Teaching Specialist University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

It Sr Project Leader University of Pennsylvania

Tenure-Track Assistant Professor of Dance
University of Colorado

Technology Support Analyst — Journey
East Carolina University

Assistant or Associate Professor IRC23636
Rochester Institute of Technology

Professor of Fibers
Savannah College of Art and Design

Assistant Director – Food Technology Center
University of Idaho

Part-Time Clinical Faculty, Associate Degree Nursing (PL)
Eastern Kentucky University

Assistant Professor, Theoretical Chemistry
University of Colorado

Financial Aid Officer
Sinclair Community College

CSE and/or MSSE Teaching Specialist
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

It Sr Project Leader
University of Pennsylvania