Advertisement

Archive for Friday, December 16, 2005

Postcard repudiates Mirecki’s remarks

Religious studies board aims to inform department donors about recent controversy

December 16, 2005

Advertisement

The fundraising and support arm of Kansas University's religious studies department has mailed a postcard to the thousands of people on its mailing list renouncing the disparaging comments made by professor Paul Mirecki, whose words about Catholicism and religious fundamentalists raised a firestorm recently.

"We repudiate the inappropriate comments in publicized (e-mails) of one of our faculty members, even though we continue to appreciate his scholarly work and teaching," reads the postcard from Friends of the Department of Religious Studies.

Mirecki planned to teach a religious studies course on intelligent design until his comments on an Internet discussion board about religion and the course sparked sharp criticism. The course was canceled. Mirecki resigned from his post as department chairman, and reported being physically assaulted by two unknown men in an incident he said was connected to the controversy.

The religious studies department recently mailed its annual newsletter that includes an envelope for contributions to the department, but the newsletter was printed too early to include the department's response to the Mirecki controversy.

"The card is simply an addendum to the newsletter, because people are going to wonder what's going on," religious studies professor Tim Miller said.

The Department of Religious Studies postcard.

The Department of Religious Studies postcard.

Miller said the postcard is a statement that the department is continuing its mission.

"This department continues to be committed to open academic inquiry, fair and respectful dialogue, religious tolerance, and appreciation for the important contributions of religions in society," the postcard reads. "We will work more diligently than ever to merit your confidence."

Howard Baumgartel, a former member of the Friends of the Department board, said he received the newsletter and figured it had been printed too early to include response to Mirecki's widely publicized remarks.

"I was very sad that this happened," he said. "It didn't win the department many friends. That's for sure."

But Baumgartel said he thought the department's rejection of Mirecki's comments in the new mailing would help overall.

Kevin Goering, a board member of Friends of the Department, said he didn't think the controversy would have major consequence for the department.

He said new annual contributions to the organization supporting the department typically amounted to a few thousand dollars and usually weren't a significant part of the assets that the organization managed. Still, Goering said he thought the postcard was a good move.

"It was important to acknowledge the situation, rather than just totally disregard it," he said. Goering said the postcard was paid for by Friends of the Department.

Allen Wiechert, a member of Friends of the Department, said he thought the issue was blown out of proportion.

"Mostly what I've heard is support for professor Mirecki," he said.

Comments

pundit 9 years ago

Let's see.....how can the LJW keep this story stirred up and in the news.

bankboy119 9 years ago

Yeah it's pretty much beating a dead horse...or dog

mefirst 9 years ago

It's all about the money...yeah--big news.

neopolss 9 years ago

whack whack whack

My arms are tired from all of this flogging.

bankboy119 9 years ago

Wendt, I have posted a site that gave credible evidence. You have chosen to ignore it. Don't flat out lie though.

As for something that's not a dead horse...I just read this on fox

"Israel's top general during the U.S. invasion of Iraq says Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but moved them to neighboring Syria six weeks before the war began. Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon tells the New York Sun, "He transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria," adding that they haven't turned up because "No one went to Syria to find it.""

wichita_reader 9 years ago

The theory of Iraq having nukes and moving them to Syria before the invasion has been out for sometime.

Surely Israel doesn't have an ax to grind against Iran, and neither does Fox have an agenda.

wichita_reader 9 years ago

Make that "Iran" an "Iraq", and sorry for the off-topic post, wendt.

Jay_Z 9 years ago

Wendt--I don't think KU is endorsing ID. They are trying to take care of a messy situation in which a professor made a mockery of the classroom. Appears to me that one of his intentions behind the class was motivated by politics and his disdain for conservatives. (I am sure that is pretty obvious) I want KU to be a credible university, and do not want any class to be offered with the aim of giving a professor glorified soapbox to spout his/her political beliefs--professors should be teaching, not trying to settle a score with liberals or conservatives in their classroom. Just my opinion though.

LarryFarma 9 years ago

News item -- the lawsuit against the evolution-disclaimer textbook stickers of Cobb County, Georgia is now in a federal appeals court. See -- http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles?id=n20051215185909990003&cid=505

The above article says --

bigjim 9 years ago

1,043 posts now by wendt on this ID topic! What a loser with nothing else to do! Obviously he's a flaming liberal with an ax to grind against ID.

Wendt, don't be afraid to let the ID/Creationism/evolution debate play out and the truth to be found. The truth is what we're all after and your attempt to suppress ID only shows your acknowledgement that the "theory" of evolution is threatened with all the things it cannot explain.

LarryFarma 9 years ago

From post by wendt , December 16, 2005 at 7:48 a.m. **How many times can a Department of Religious Studies (and a University) proclaim that it is tolerant of ...a science? Does this mean that Intelligent Design / Creationism is now officially a religion? Does this mean that the people who promote Intelligent Design / Creationism will discontinue selling Intelligent Design / Creationism as a science because it was disrespected as a religion?***

The postcard said nothing specific about tolerating ID or creationism as science. The postcard only repudiated Mirecki's email, which included a derogatory reference to "fundies," a religious group. And Chancellor Hemenway's official statement on the subject only repudiated the email's reference to religion.

And how could such tolerance of ID/Creationism as science mean that ID/Creationism "is now officially a religion"? That is a non sequitur if ever there was one. And ID/Creationism proponents are not going to stop selling it as science just because some bigoted KU religious studies professor treated it as a religion. That would be stupid.

**Intelligent Design / Creationism has no data. Intelligent Design / Creationism has no data collection ongoing.**

ID/Creationism can use data that has already been collected -- just like evolution theory can. More data can be collected if necessary.

**Intelligent Design / Creationism has no experimental protocols being performed to confirm / deny the theories it expouses. Intelligent Design / Creationism has no peer review being conducted to examine the results of experiments that aren't being run.**

No experiments are being run -- or can be run -- for macro-evolution theory, either.

harrierist 9 years ago

Dr. Mirecki made appropriate fun of the Fundies and the Catholics. Becuse all reigion is Myth. Just watch examine the studies of the late Joseph Campbell or Houston Smith. Cultures took mystical Ideas form each other and blended them into their own religions. The idea of Jesus of Nazareth to ask his followers to each his flesh and drink his blood in the representative form of bread and wine was not a new thought. It came from cultures who literally drank the blood and eat the flesh of their dead hero. I am sure Dr. Mirecki is aware that the ancient hebrew really records Jesus saying I Am the way the truth and the life. The hebrew text uses the form of God himself I AM, so Jesus is not talking about himself, the is saying that the Creator of the Universe - God the Father is the way the truth and the life, not himself, Jesus. yet fundies base their doctrine in this and a miss read of Jesus words. There are misreads through out all religions, based on bad re-writes from the earliest writings, so nothing in life is sure. But in the study of Evolution throught the scientific method, we can find things that are sure, by a careful and slow study.

LarryFarma 9 years ago

Posted by wendt on December 16, 2005 at 8:18 a.m. *More of this double posting. I hate this.*

Wendt, I think that the double posting is caused by clicking twice on the screen's "post public comment" button. At least that happened to me on another website when I got impatient for the acknowledgment of my message to appear. Just click once and wait patiently for your post to be accepted.

bigjim 9 years ago

Evolution is not a science because it because its assertions are not potentially falsifiable. A true science, like physics, makes claims that can be tested and thus potentially falsified; this vulnerability is what makes it worthy of belief when despite this, the falsification does not happen. But evolution does not make claims of this kind. Furthermore, it is one of the touchstones of science that it is based on repeatable experiments. The data used to support evolution are neither experiments nor repeatable, nor can they be, since the origin of species on earth was a unique event. Evolution, therefore, doesn't have the right to demand the kind of acquiescence that physics demands on the strength of its being straightforwardly a science. What exactly evolution is, is an open question.

Biology, DNA, and the fossil record are also showing that the "theory" of evolution is doomed.

Come up with another theory if you like, but evolution doesn't cut it.

bigjim 9 years ago

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today.

There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind.

classclown 9 years ago

I wonder how many people that recieve these apology cards might end up a little miffed at the fact that KU is apologizing for what Mirecki said instead of backing him up.

I'm sure this issue is bigger than just what we see on these boards and KU's benefactors are probably split accordingly. I'm sure amongst them will be those who disagreed with his proposed class and thought that KU was right in hanging him out to dry, while others were upset with the way they handled it.

classclown 9 years ago

bigjim...

So are you saying that ID/creationism is a science because it can be proven to be false?

classclown 9 years ago

bigjim said..."But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found."

Just the other day I was watching a program on television that was discussing fossils of that very nature being studied. Even showed the fossils.

bigjim 9 years ago

Darwin himself stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

Darwin also admitted that the number of transitional links "must have been conceivably great." The fact that there are none prompted him to conclude that this fact is "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." The point to remember...is that the fossil problem for Darwinism is getting worse all the time.

If Darwin was alive today, he would have abandoned his own theory since he asserted, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Alfred Russell Wallace, considered to be the co-inventor with Darwin of natural selection was said to have "Found this argument (evolution) convincing until he attempted to explain the advanced state of human faculties." We must note then that when Darwin wrote his paper, Origin of Species, he had no skulls, his contemporaries were filled with racism as they tried to find the less than humans, and his Co-founder, Wallace, eventually decided against the theory.

Today, even Darwin would have been smart enough to drop his "theory".

bigjim 9 years ago

This quote says it all ...

Regarding evolution, where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science." W.R.Thompson, pro-evolution, in his introduction to Origin of Species by Darwin.

bigjim 9 years ago

Darwin himself stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

Darwin also admitted that the number of transitional links "must have been conceivably great." The fact that there are none prompted him to conclude that this fact is "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." The point to remember...is that the fossil problem for Darwinism is getting worse all the time.

If Darwin was alive today, he would have abandoned his own theory since he asserted, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Alfred Russell Wallace, considered to be the co-inventor with Darwin of natural selection was said to have "Found this argument (evolution) convincing until he attempted to explain the advanced state of human faculties." We must note then that when Darwin wrote his paper, Origin of Species, he had no skulls, his contemporaries were filled with racism as they tried to find the less than humans, and his Co-founder, Wallace, eventually decided against the theory.

Today, even Darwin would have been smart enough to drop his "theory" .

bigjim 9 years ago

Good for KU and their apology cards. Trying to avoid a mass tort for religious discrimination or just an outstanding university? I like to think the later.

Kodiac 9 years ago

BigJim,

You need to reread Wendt's posts. As Wendt says, Darwin did not have the evidence and facts that we have today. You are quoting someone from the 1800's. Think about it BigJim. Do you really want to use data from Darwin's time to bolster your arguments regarding evolution.

Linda Aikins 9 years ago

Wendt - you're a nurse and you're working today? I hope I'm not a patient of yours. And you were on KU search committees? What did the world look like on Everest?

And you continue to be rude.

If you are debating Wendt, give up. He twists things to a point where you are wondering what the heck was the question. And he will always try to degrade you with big words and rude comments.

I think this should be removed, but I had to get my words out.

bigjim 9 years ago

Gootsie:

I agree with you. Wendt either doesn't know the art of debate or he is purposely avoiding the arguments with his drivel and name calling. As I posted earlier, this is the way with many evolutionists....

Regarding evolution, where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science." W.R.Thompson, pro-evolution, in his introduction to Origin of Species by Darwin.

Kodiac 9 years ago

Gootsie,

I am not sure what you think is being twisted here, if any twisting is being done here, it is being done by the ID/Creationist crowd. To lie and be dishonest is about as twisted as you can get and certainly not a christian thing to do. As far as being degraded, I think it is very degrading for someone to sit there and shove their religion down my throat.

badger 9 years ago

sigh

Well, at least Mirecki's detractors won't be blathering about how he's still trying to keep his face in the paper. He had nothing to do with this.

I think this isn't really the best choice for KU. I think that they're already going to have a hard time luring quality educators to the university, and sending out postcards putting their lack of support of a controversial professor into writing is not going to help.

Inside Kansas, there's a certain degree of support for ID and its camp, and there's a lot more detail about the past several weeks discussed and debated; there are a lot of differing opinions about the use of the religion department to grind a political ax and the validity of the assault claims. Outside of Kansas, what's been reported about it is that the BoE put creationism into the classroom, a professor wanted to teach a course debunking it, and he got fired as the chair of his department and beaten up by the side of the road, because religious fanatics objected. Whether it's an accurate perception or not, that's the face Lawrence, KU, and Kansas are showing right now.

I'm 700 miles away, in a fairly liberal city in a fairly conservative state. People here, even the conservatives, are a little appalled at the information coming to them. CNN picked up the stories, and without all the debating and the 'who said what'-ing and so forth, it really looks like someone who didn't support creationism got canned and assaulted for that belief. Were I a professor looking for a position, I think I'd simply cross KU off my list and look elsewhere. No one intelligent signs on with an employer he thinks will not support him if he does something unpopular with religious fanatics. Unless I were at the absolute bottom of my profession and desparate to find work, I wouldn't work for someone if I thought they'd give my head on a platter to Salome.

hobb2264 9 years ago

from Harrier...

"Dr. Mirecki made appropriate fun of the Fundies and the Catholics. Becuse all reigion is Myth"

Since when is it okay to "make fun" of people who are different than you? We are all adults...we should not have to resort to 2nd grade tactics of calling each other names to make us feel better about ourselves. This is why I don't understand why everyone has been so supportive of this man's comments. He is a Harvard graduate acting like a seven year old in a major university setting.

Linda Aikins 9 years ago

Kodiak - Wendt's history of twisting everything. Not just this topic. It amazes me sometimes.

Laura Wilson 9 years ago

Iwonder how many people that recieve these apology cards might end up a little miffed at the fact that KU is apologizing for what Mirecki said instead of backing him up.

I for one (though I won't get a card). I've been very disturbed by the university's lack of support for one of their own's right to free speech, regardless of how repugnant the things he said were, and the beating. As far as I know, there has been no formal statement denouncing the violence against Professor Mireki and/or the university's support of him.

And I keep wondering if this is just the first step. Do professors now have to worry about supporting or saying anything controversial? Don't we WANT them to express controversial topics and debate from every angle? Do they have to fear for their lives and/or reputations?

It's a scary world we're creating here.

Godot 9 years ago

It was silly to send the card, and then give an interview where a spokesman for the Friends of the Department of Religious Studies discounts the importance of new donations, and then a board member is quoted as saying most people in the department support Mirecki. Looks like it was not exactly a heartfelt apology.

If new donations are not that important, I wonder what is the source of the existing funding for the Friends of the Religious Studies Dept.

Linda Aikins 9 years ago

Wendt, you crack me up! Wow! I apologize to all of you for falling into this and making you read through it. I will stop now.

Tis the season to be jolly y'all!

I hope this Mirecki mess gets cleared up soon. I too don't think it reflects well on KU to send that along with a donation card (if I understood the article correctly).

classclown 9 years ago

Posted by Kodiac... "Think about it BigJim. Do you really want to use data from Darwin's time to bolster your arguments regarding evolution."

Actually that's rather updated information for him considering the rest of his knowledge is based on writings that are thousands of years old. As in the books of the bible.

bigjim 9 years ago

ladyoneill:

No offense, but I don't think there is a clear understanding of the issue of Mirecki's comments. He used a public forum, sponsored by the school, and the school's email system, and as the advisor/representative of the school, to discriminate against Catholics, Jews, and Christians. This is not only an act of professional misconduct in the area of Mirecki's expertise (for which he could easily be fired), but it is religious discrimination on the scale of a mass tort/class action. If the above named religious groups were as aggressive as the liberals, they would have filed suit several times over by now.

Don't blame the school for their actions. They're only trying to protect themselves from the embarrassment and legal ramifications an unmanageable professor has caused with his anti-religious agenda.

bigjim 9 years ago

Gootsie:

Don't worry. The rest of the board can easily recognize the juveniles for what they are. Beating up on you is their way of avoiding the real problems they face, namely defending evolution. They would be more convincing if they were civil.

bigjim 9 years ago

ladyoneill:

No offense, but I don't think there is a clear understanding of the issue of Mirecki's comments. He used a public forum, sponsored by the school, and the school's email system, and as the advisor/representative of the school, to discriminate against Catholics, Jews, and Christians. This is not only an act of professional misconduct in the area of Mirecki's expertise (for which he could easily be fired), but it is religious discrimination on the scale of a mass tort/class action. If the above named religious groups were as aggressive as the liberals, they would have filed suit several times over by now.

Don't blame the school for their actions. They're only trying to protect themselves from the embarrassment and legal ramifications an unmanageable professor has caused with his anti-religious agenda.

LarryFarma 9 years ago

From post of classclown , December 16, 2005 at 9:28 a.m. *I wonder how many people that recieve these apology cards might end up a little miffed at the fact that KU is apologizing for what Mirecki said instead of backing him up.**

Though Mirecki claimed that he received more than 2,500 emails and letters from academics around the world supporting him --- see http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/10/professor_blasts_ku_sheriffs_investigation/?evolution --- he didn't say how many emails and letters of opposition he got, and my gut feeling is that most people think that Mirecki blew it. And that 2,500+ number probably included messages from people who supported Mirecki before the exposure of his infamous email and who changed their minds afterwards.

Anyway, I think that the postcard was unnecessary. I think that most of the people offended by Mirecki were probably appeased by the combination of the following -- (1) the cancellation of the course; (2) Mirecki's public apology for the email; (3) the chancellor's public condemnation of the email; and (4) Mirecki's resignation as department chairman, with the blessing of his departmental colleagues. Anyone wanting to learn more about the situation could use the Internet to find out more.

Linda Aikins 9 years ago

Thanks BigJim. Will you merry me? (this is going to be fun)

bigjim 9 years ago

wendt says, "A further note: You can only file a case once. Duplicate filings get thrown out."

Ha ha ha ha ha. Wendt, since you're a nurse, go look up the fen-phen class actions and settlements. There were many of them. Same with the breast implant class actions. Stick with what you do best, which is emptying bed pans.

Kodiac 9 years ago

BigJim,

Such a copout of a statement bigjim. The material that you cut and paste from internet sites has been dealt with, not avoided. I suspect that you do not read what you are posting and you ignore any responses that have clearly refuted your own postings. It reminds of a boy who will stick his fingers in his ears and try to drown out other voices by yelling nonintelligible incoherent noises. Now that is juvenile.

bigjim 9 years ago

Gootsie:

I'm already married. But if I wasn't .... you do sound like my kind of girl.

hobb2264 9 years ago

Since everyone is behaving on a second grade level....anyone up for a good game of kickball?

bigjim 9 years ago

wendt, through your posts and various reactions, I have attempted to profile you. Are you gay? I am not making any judgments here, just wondering if I profiled you correctly.

harrierist 9 years ago

bigjim your are ingnorant - We know a great deal about evolutionary change in our life time through primary study of the Wolf and their descentants the common dog. Genetic change clearly occurred in this animal over 70,000 years. No outside DNA has corrupted this animal line, all adaptations have come through environemtal change in the animals habitat and man through breeding manipulation. But further back we find that the wolf and the sea lion have a common ancestry. Evoluotionary change has been plan on Earth since the beginning.

Calliope877 9 years ago

Posted by bigjim (anonymous) on December 16, 2005 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"wendt, through your posts and various reactions, I have attempted to profile you. Are you gay? I am not making any judgments here, just wondering if I profiled you correctly."

BigJim -- And you're calling Wendt juvenile? I guess you couldn't think up a better come-back, huh? :(

bigjim 9 years ago

harrierist:

Regarding dogs and wolves, it's called micro evolution/selective breeding of which I agree. However, there is no evidence of wolfs and sea lions or African lions ever being part of the same species. As a general rule, most theories are partly true or they wouldn't have been raised in the first place. Selective breeding/micro evolution is that part of the theory that makes sense and can be proved. Conversely, macro evolution, which says that humans developed from bacteria, pond scum, etc. is stretching the theory and is unsupported by any evidence.

Kodiac 9 years ago

Well BigJim, I guess you are showing your true colors through your bigotry, ignorance, and prejudice.

What does being gay have to do with anything being said on here? Why even bring it up?

How are you "attempting" to profile Wendt? and what makes anything Wendt does or say a person who is gay?

I think we have gone past being juvenile to being infantile...

Kodiac 9 years ago

Actually,

BigJim there is evidence for the wolf, sea lion, and african lion sharing a common ancestor. There are anatomical, cellular, and molecular evidences for these relationships. If you really wanted to get a better understanding about these types of evidences, I can recommend several beginning evolutionary courses that you can take.

bigjim 9 years ago

Kodac,

I said "no offense" and I certainly didn't mean to hit a nerve with you. It was an innocent question and should have been viewed as such. It is like Mirecki asking if a student is Christian. I simply asked the question to see if I was right. Believe it or not, profiling is part of my job and I am very good at it. I await an answer from wendt.

badger 9 years ago

You know, an awful lot of people who start statements with 'no offense' are lying.

Because if you think that something you are about to say might be offensive, and you say it anyway, then you certainly do mean the offense (or you don't care if you offend), or you wouldn't say 'no offense,' you'd just say what you thought and then be surprised that a statement you didn't think should be offensive offended someone.

Really, instead of 'no offense,' you ought to say, "hey, I'm about to say something you're probably going to consider boorish and rude, and I'd like you to know I don't want you to think I'm a jerk for saying it."

You may, if you like, profile me. I imagine you'll probably be very good at it.

Gootsie, I must ask: Did you get your Master's in English with a focus on e.e. cummings?

On topic: the very continuation of the debate over Mirecki's comments and the validity of ID on this board marks the issue as controversial, one upon which there are a lot of differing opinions among people across a wide range of educational levels, lifestyles, and social classes. In the light of the fact that controversy does still exist surrounding it and the facts of the matter aren't held in universal agreement one way or another, I think it sends a very bad message for the University to publicly side against one of their professors, and I think that they may very shortly find that the repercussions for that go much farther than they anticipate.

Kodiac 9 years ago

How is asking if you are gay an innocent question? Why are you asking it? Why are you worried about sexual orientation? Why are you trying to profile Wendt? Does it change his opinions or statements? Does it make them less important if he is gay? I would guess from reading your posts that you are probably christian, but I am not sit here and ask you if you are christian. It doesn't matter to me if you are a christian. It doesn't make me view you or your opinions in a different light because you might be christian.

bigjim 9 years ago

This is too much fun. I asked an innocent question without being judgmental whatsoever and the liberals get all ticked off. But yet they don't think it's a big deal when Mirecki vehement trashed Catholics, Jews, and Christians! You all fell for it hook, line and sinker. Now I only need to hear from wendt to see if I'm correct.

Linda Aikins 9 years ago

I don't know what that means about e.e. cummings. And I do NOT have a masters in English. I was just yanking someone's chain.

I'm sorry if I caused a rift!

Profile me! Profile me!

laughingatallofu 9 years ago

Posted by hobb2264 (anonymous) on December 16, 2005 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Since everyone is behaving on a second grade level....anyone up for a good game of kickball? <<<

Yeah why not? I haven't seen anything worthy of reading on this topic yet. Now if only the LJW will donate the kickball, seeing that they are obviously stirring this pot.

bigjim 9 years ago

Gootsie:

Just for fun .... I see you as a good mom at home with her kids working on your computer when time permits. I also see you as a woman of good conscience that has good natural instincts and logic.

Linda Aikins 9 years ago

Wow! You are really close! Only my kids are grown and I work in KC, live in Lawrence. But I do think the rest of that is pretty close. The good instincts and logic have definitely improved with age.

Thanks!

laughingatallofu 9 years ago

Posted by bigjim (anonymous) on December 16, 2005 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"wendt, through your posts and various reactions, I have attempted to profile you. Are you gay? I am not making any judgments here, just wondering if I profiled you correctly." <<<

OOh, bigjim, I think you've crossed the line regarding civil discourse.

Well, I "profile" him to be a happy person, so he surely appears jovial and gay to me on his posts. <<<

Now, you're backtracking. I don't think that's what you meant, bigjim, and you know it, and so does everyone else.

You owe wendt and everyone else here an apology---not for "profiling him" (in your own ignorant mind) as gay, but because you crossed the line.

laughingatallofu 9 years ago

Sorry, prospector. My mistake, I was reading too fast.

Nonetheless, I think bigjim still oves this board an apology.

bigjim 9 years ago

Do I need to apologize? Are you saying that being gay is a bad thing? Shame on you for making judgements like that.

laughingatallofu 9 years ago

bigjim,

No, I'm saying that you need to apologize because there was absolutely no reason to bring up the subject. What was your point? What did it have to do with the current discussion? That's MY Point. What was YOURS?

bigjim 9 years ago

You're saying that "gay" is something that shouldn't be brought up? That, my friend, is judgemental. If it's a neutral word then who cares?

bigjim 9 years ago

Yes, that's a very good question. Is that website really saying that?

I'm sure the cops already wondered the same thing when trying to figure out why Mirecki would jump out of his car in the dark to confront those two guys.

badger 9 years ago

Gootsie said:

"I don't know what that means about e.e. cummings. And I do NOT have a masters in English. "

Um, the first sentence means you don't even have to utter the second, frankly.

I note that bigjim doesn't feel qualified to profile me.

I shall languish and pine, I'm certain.

laughingatallofu 9 years ago

OK, bigjim has a little bit of trouble staying focused, so I'll TRY help him out:

<<< Posted by bigjim (anonymous) on December 16, 2005 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wendt, through your posts and various reactions, I have attempted to profile you. Are you gay? I am not making any judgments here, just wondering if I profiled you correctly. <<<

So, what is the purpose of this post, as it has nothing to do with the topic?

Posted by bigjim (anonymous) on December 16, 2005 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Do I need to apologize? Are you saying that being gay is a bad thing? Shame on you for making judgements like that. <<<

No, not at all. I'm wondering why you brought it up? Are you trying to change the topic?

Posted by bigjim (anonymous) on December 16, 2005 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You're saying that "gay" is something that shouldn't be brought up? That, my friend, is judgemental. If it's a neutral word then who cares? <<<

I'm just wondering why you bought it up in this discussion? Explain yourself, retract your statement, or apologize.

You're trying to go off topic because you don't have anything intelligent to contribute to this discussion.

bigjim 9 years ago

Poor laughingatallofu has a real problem. He can't remember why he is asking his questions. Then he berates people when he thinks they have diverged from the topic (even though he was just talking about playing kickball a few post ago).

Linda Aikins 9 years ago

Badger, what does it mean, really? I'd like to know! I'm not picking anything here - I'm just interested!

laughingatallofu 9 years ago

Yawn,

Wake me up when bigjim has anything of substance to contribute to this discussion.

Or, if you have a lot of time on your hands, go back through his posts today and let me know if he has contributed anything of substance. Period.

bigjim 9 years ago

mr. prospector,

look up the website. that's the context it was in. Interesting, isn't it. But try to relax. It was just someone's blog and probably isn't even true.

wonderhorse 9 years ago

e.e. cummings was a poet (died in 1960 something) who wrote without using any capitalization. He claimed he was an insect (I think it was a grasshopper) who jumped on the keys of a typewriter. Thus, he couldn't capitalize letters.

bigjim 9 years ago

It looks like laughable gave up and said "uncle".

laughingatallofu 9 years ago

No, laugh said, "Yawn". Yawn is not the same is uncle.

laughingatallof u "laughs" at bigjim.

Another day, pilgrim.

badger 9 years ago

ee cummings was a poet whose trademark was deliberately defying selected rules of spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

Many people who don't care to learn or use those rules hold him up as an example of how "you can write just fine without learning the rules" but they don't understand that he knew the rules and broke them intentionally to make a point, and that breaking a rule because you don't know any better isn't the same thing as carefully considering and rejecting certain conventions as a literary or poetic device.

Linda Aikins 9 years ago

Oh! Thank you wonderhorse! All that because I didn't capitalize the "M" in Masters? How funny!

I probably am part insect, or at least was during my evolutionary days. And I type 100+ wm. It all makes sense now!

wonderhorse 9 years ago

Gootsie

No, I don't think you were an insect during your evolutionary days. I think that mammals and insects, while they came from the same protein "soup", developed from different ancestors. I'm not a biologist, so I don't know. If somebody does, please let me know.

harrierist 9 years ago

Wonderhorse you are correct ... from the same protein soup, but differrent paths. Same is true of the Elephant and the mouse - related DNA but followed different developement due to environmental adaptation.

bigjim 9 years ago

Boyz, can you see this "Protein Soup"? Has anyone every seen it? Has a fossil record of this soup ever been found? Could it be that a number of similiar DNA between mouse and elephant simply indicates that they were both made by the same designer?

james bush 9 years ago

Bigjim, thanks for posting. Keep it up. I like seeing the psuedo-intellectual, anti-ID hypocrites squirm and fail to adequately respond to your posts. Gootsie, enjoyed your posts too. Thanks

Kodiac 9 years ago

Bigjim,

Your claim lacks any substance. It is a subjective assertion to sit there and say "see it was designed". Design is not self-evident which is demonstrated by the difficulty people have in trying to describe the objective evidence for it. Go ahead BigJim, provide objective evidence for DNA being designed.

Densmore 9 years ago

Kodiac:

Give it a rest. These knuckleheads that you are earnestly trying to educate are hopeless.

This thread is perhaps the sorriest thing that I have ever read in the LJW e forum.

I suggest that you ALL give it a rest. Click on my handle and read my post from yesterday about KU football if you want to read something relevant.

By the way, the best post of the day, courtesy of laughingatallofu:

"Since everyone is behaving on a second grade level....anyone up for a good game of kickball?"

james bush 9 years ago

PS, thanks LJW for keeping Mirecki's bad judgment in the news. This is news worthy even though the aetheists,agnostics, and liberals like to post that it's "old" news and the paper should not keep things stirred up.

MadAnthony 9 years ago

Ditto Country Jim!

Why this verbal cracking on the libs has been so much fun we just might have to pick another dark county road to hang out on next time the temperature gets below 15 degrees and wait for some controversial KU prof to drive by and stop after we buzz him with our big pickup. Remind me to work the metal pipe harder next time, and let's be sure to remind the hapless prof of where the incident took place.

Charles L Bloss Jr 9 years ago

I don't appreciate anything about the man, and people like him are a good reason why tenure should be abolished! I certainly would not let my children be taught by him. Thank you, Lynn

laughingatallofu 9 years ago

Lynn731,

Just curious---Have you ever met the man? Or is your opinion of him based solely on what you've read here or in the paper? If the latter is the case, that's very sad.

BTW, I've never met him either. But I'm not going to deride him based solely on what's posted on this silly board.

Lynn731,

WWJD? John 8:7. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone...

MadAnthony 9 years ago

Cyber buddies, OK abit over the top, I agree. Just a joke to again point out how many holes appeared in the original story after only one day. Did not mean to thrown any suspicion toward any Jims living in the country or BillyBobs living in town.

laughingatallofu 9 years ago

MadAnthony,

Maybe you should be a bit more careful? I'm hoping that you're not as ignorant/stupid as your last post makes you out to be. (Or, will you prove me wrong?) Keep it civil. Just a suggestion.

Boxcar_Bobby85 9 years ago

Wow, when Wendt went to work this web-site became woefully warped. There, how's that for keeping it civil? (I really need to get a life)

bigjim 9 years ago

Country Jim, Lynn, & Mad, welcome to the board! Glad you're here. I had a tough day educating all these libs by myself. They get themselves cornered then they change the subject. Way too funny. Kind of like John Kerry changing his positions when he saw they weren't working. Fact is, evolution has a multitude of problems and is unprovable in every sense of the word. But the libs have nothing else to go with so they defend it even when you prove them wrong. How do you argue with that? So, about all we can do is to have fun with them.

MadAnthony 9 years ago

Prospector! Great send up, you made Big Jim's point in spades. I had noticed the same. Seems when the questions get to tough minded, the libs go awol. I will always attempt to answer a lib's or atheist's questions, always, but many of my questions on the board have gone unanswered these past ten days. (Since I found this great distraction.)

But I like you libs and atheists anyway. It is our duty to demonstrate what right reason looks like, in case any of you decide to follow that path to sanity.

Oh and the part about finding conspiracy to murder funny -- it is the part about the blood libel of Dr. Mirecki against all who endorse the work of Providence in Nature. You may find my satire and sarcasm difficult to stomach. I find academics willing to lie to get ahead (Meade, De Chardin, etc and etc) while being paid "by the people" to destroy traditional values and religion difficult to stomach.

Goto go. My bible needs a good thumping before bed. Guess I will include the wife and kids, too. You know us ignorant fundy types, just cannot help ourselves. Not like there is some smarty pants professor around to absorb my unbridled aggression.

MadAnthony 9 years ago

I will sleep soundly Prospector. If the LPD has any time or reason to chase a lead as spurious as those on this board they would have found the real killers for OJ by now. That would pay much better, and may be a more likely target for investigation, being a more credible crime theory and all.

Billsey 9 years ago

wendt: bigjim:

I'm a nurse. I worked yesterday. I'm working today. I get to save lives at my job.

We can't suppress data that ain't there.

We refuse to create a fairy tale for things we can not explain,,......yet.

Then why are you working so diligently to shout down what you claim isn't there? Evolution is an attempted explanation of origins that absolutely, categorically refuses to explain origins in a scientifically testable and reproduceable fashion. It is a farse perpetrated by charlatans who are terrified of a god that they claim doesn't even exist. Which perhaps explains why they are so fervently trying to shout down something that they claim doesn't even exist. What a pathetic bunch of losers!

Billsey 9 years ago

For all those who refuse to see the obvious:

When a person has-whether they knew it or not-already rejected the Truth, by what means do they discern a lie, or how can you tell that something is a lie without first knowing the Truth? What do you compare it to? Without first knowing the Truth it is impossible to tell whether or not something is a lie and therefore to defend yourself against the consequences of having believed a lie to be true, and when you have-whether you knew it or not-already rejected the Truth as though the Truth were a lie, you render yourself defenseless against all genuine lies-such as evolution-and the resulting consequences-whether you knew it or not-are yours to bear. Christ Jesus (whose name, translated into modern usage would be "The Anointed One-Yahweh-saves") Himself-and about Himself-says, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to The Father (God) except through Me." You either believe the Truth, or you believe a lie. The consequences of your decision rest upon you and no one else.

LarryFarma 9 years ago

Posted by bigjim , on December 16, 2005 at 11:02 a.m. **ladyoneill: No offense, but I don't think there is a clear understanding of the issue of Mirecki's comments. He used a public forum, sponsored by the school, and the school's email system, and as the advisor/representative of the school, to discriminate against Catholics, Jews, and Christians. This is not only an act of professional misconduct in the area of Mirecki's expertise (for which he could easily be fired), but it is religious discrimination on the scale of a mass tort/class action. If the above named religious groups were as aggressive as the liberals, they would have filed suit several times over by now.**

bigjim, I disagree. Mirecki's email was just an act of disparagement, not an act of discrimination. And I think that his statements are protected by the 1st Amendment. However, I think that he does not have a constitutional right or even a legal right to university credit for the course he was going to offer. He clearly showed by statements in his email that he is not fit to organize the course.

Godot 9 years ago

Mirecki's statements are not protected by the first amendment; his right to make the statements is protected. And others' rights to criticize and repudiate him for the way he exercised his free speech is protected, as well.

The first amendment protects us from having the government interere with our speech. It doesn't protect us from social scrutiny and repercussions. Mirecki wrote what he wrote; he wasn't arrested; his blogging privileges were not taken away; the website was not shut down; Mirecki can still say whatever he wants, whenever he wants. And others, including his employer, are free to respond. That's freedom of speech.

LarryFarma 9 years ago

News update -- here is some more info on the lawsuit over the Cobb County evolution-disclaimer textbook stickers --

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-evolution16dec16,1,6097507.story?coll=la-headlines-nation says --

----- ATLANTA - A federal appeals court panel appeared sharply critical Thursday of a ruling this year that ordered the removal of stickers in science textbooks stating, "Evolution is a theory, not a fact." Judge Ed Carnes of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said that the lower court judge had misstated facts in his ruling, overstating the influence religious protests had on the school board's actions. He also said the words on the sticker are "technically accurate," and that the Cobb County school board was justified in singling out the theory of evolution for comment. -----

Discussion --

Though the Dover, PA case has been getting most of the hoopla, this Cobb County case may have a quicker and greater effect on the issue of criticism of evolution theory in public school science classes. The Cobb County case is already getting oral hearings in a federal appeals court whereas the Dover case has not yet been decided in a federal district court, and the Dover case has been greatly complicated by the ouster of all of the defendants from the school board. The Dover case got a lot of hoopla because of a long sensational trial which included testimony from national figures in the debate.

The primary issue in these lawsuits against criticism of evolution theory in public school science classes (Cobb County, GA and Dover, PA) seems to be the following first "prong" of the three prong "Lemon test" (named for Lemon v. Kurtzman) --- does the government action have a legitimate secular purpose? But does this refer to the intended purpose of the people who are responsible for the action, or can it refer to any conceivable legitimate secular purpose?

I think that intentions or motives should not be considered here, for the following reasons -- (1) different people have different intentions or motives, and (2) intentions or motives may be difficult to determine. A Supreme Court or federal appeals court decision that uses this first prong of the Lemon test to prohibit a government action would be binding not only on the defendants but would also be binding on others who might have non-religious motives for taking the same action, and I think that is unfair. There are kinds of court cases where I think consideration of intent or motive is appropriate, e.g., murder cases and racial discrimination cases, and in those kinds of cases, a court decision would have no effect on other cases. The Lemon test has fallen into disfavor, and I think that it should be modified or scrapped.

Biodude 9 years ago

To understand origins requires an education! Since many of those posting here clearly do not have much, save maybe grade school, it is unlikely that the discussion will provide much insight. Name calling, a nurse must be gay, etc. is just evidence for the lack of education and understanding of the seriousness of this issue. What a bunch of Loser? Yeah, right! A century of Ph.D./M.D. scientists that have spent the better parts of their lives studying how living things operate and evolved are losers? Some idiot with a keyboard from LawrenceFrikinKansas is the real genius..."dude, living things are so complex...they were obviously created...moreover anyone that doesn't think so is an evil Nazi"...you people need help, seriously. This is not a social problem, but a psychological one...you people are sick and you're going to hurt someone...oh, that's been done! How many more kids have to die, how many WDMs have you found the "capability" for today? What's next? How about Kent State? How about assasination? Why stop with Kansas...make the whole frkn world believe what you believe; world domination! ID will triumph! Next time you or yours get sick and you need help...don't take any medicine...you'll be putting that product of Darwinian evolution into your system...might cause a transformation. Idiots! Bloody Country-Stupid Idiots! No sav'in em!

james bush 9 years ago

Biodude---Ranting is good! Sometimes one has to let it all out--makes me feel better too sometimes.

MadAnthony 9 years ago

I can picture BioDude in a brown uniform with snazzy black boots giving his rant in impassioned tones to the adoring evolving masses, his frothing mouth framed by a little black mustache while spitting out the pure dogma of the evolutionary superstate. See my posts under the Mirecki postcard for more detail. "To understand origins requires an education::at the University of Berlin!" All others up against the wall, to be shot for being ignorant obstructionists of Social Darwinism. Science will lead us into a glorius reign of the ubermen. (IE bloody stupid country idiots need not apply.)"

Biodude 9 years ago

Billsey says, "and when you have-whether you knew it or not-already rejected the Truth as though the Truth were a lie, you render yourself defenseless against all genuine lies-such as evolution-and the resulting consequences-whether you knew it or not-are yours to bear. Christ Jesus (whose name, translated into modern usage would be "The Anointed One-Yahweh-saves") Himself-and about Himself-says, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to The Father (God) except through Me." You either believe the Truth, or you believe a lie. The consequences of your decision rest upon you and no one else."

Could your god use a mechanism like evolution by natural selection to reveal his truth to you? What about evolution would circumvent any of your statements?

Apparently, you are saying that you cannot believe in Jesus Christ and believe in evolution...is that what you're saying...if so, back it up...why not?

You idiots want to play, but you don't have the means...go back to school...try to pass this time...then we'll talk!

Biodude 9 years ago

I do think you can picture me in black boots...probably happens a lot for you...do you and your partner engage in this kind of thing often?

Good Luck Ahole!

MadAnthony 9 years ago

IF there was a superior being who created the planet, would we not expect to find evidence of the same? One does not find a Seiko on the beach and assume that the actions of the waves, over millions of years, produced it....unless he is so blinded by his "religious" dogma (he may not call it religion, but it would be seriving that same world view ordering purpose nonetheless) that he could consider no other explanation.

Not to be a broken record, but kinda like the German elite circa 1936-1945:

http://www.shoaheducation.com/darwin.htm......"As Darwin became fully incorporated into the science of the day despite cries of heresy from the more orthodox corners of the Church, another application came forefront which would help to found not only the 'racial science' of the Third Reich, but the political science and Sociology of the Reich as well. It came to be known as "Social Darwinism". While Darwin winced at his theories being made a "religion", others made that into their platform.......http://www.shoaheducation.com/darwin.htm.....

JUST LIKE A TRIBAL GOD, EVOLUTION WILL ALLOW NO OPPOSITION. THAT IS WHY ID MUST NOT BE TAUGHT AND WHY EVOLUTION MUST NOT BE CRITISIZED IN THE SCHOOLS OF THE SUPERSTATE.

MadAnthony 9 years ago

Biodude,

One can believe that JC lived and believe that evolution happens.

One can believe that JC lived and reject belief in a Creator.

Christians affirm that JC lived, dead and was risen on the Third Day. A miracle.

One can believe that JC rose from the dead and believe that evolution happens. I do.

One can believe that JC rose from the dead and reject belief in a Creator. But that person should not call herself a scientist. SHe is a shaman of some kind.

One can believe that JC rose from the dead and reject purpose in Nature. But that person should not call herself a scientist. She is a nihilist full of false consciousness when it comes to Christian teaching. She is more than confused, she is conflicted.

One who calls herself a Christian should affirm the existance of a creator. A creator who created. A creation created by that creator. A creation that bears the fingerprints of that creator and that creation event.

And that is, my friend, ID. At least as I understand it. And most all of the men and women who founded the framework for modern science so believed, country idiots that they were!

Biodude 9 years ago

What's your point? That knowledge of the natural world should be suppressed because some dumb ass like you would not be able to tell the difference between natural science and society and therfore might misuse information? Oh God! Really, you are afraid that information might be misused...I mean for evil purposes! Hey, man, I got some British intelligence you should look at, makes a clear case for WMD...no...it has not been confirmed, but it should be good enough for you to sell a war to the American people...hell, they're still debating Darwin!

Good Lord! Stop the presses! Don't want any one to hear the truth about the earth bein' round! Pretty soon, som'in Satan-Worshipers gunna figger out dat der solair sisem and then...faster den you can say Pinko-Liberal-Democrate...bada bing...you gotcha Nuclear Bomb...oh well, never mind...long as we don't hurt any white people...yawhn!

Go to school Madman...having a computer and the ability to type into the Google box doesn't make you worthy. No elitism necessary.

Biodude 9 years ago

One who calls herself a Christian should affirm the existance of a creator. A creator who created. A creation created by that creator. A creation that bears the fingerprints of that creator and that creation event.

And that is, my friend, ID. At least as I understand it. And most all of the men and women who founded the framework for modern science so believed, country idiots that they were!

Wow! my favorite part is..."a creator who created." By God! I hope so! "Wood'n want one them thar creator's that jus-a-sits-rnd all day and watches them dogone viruses and bacterial swap genes and evolve new characteristics...liken antibiotic resistence in sh_t!"

Dude...I rolled...I want you to publish your surely soon to be famous definition of ID!

Madman, you are a classic...thanks for the fun, but dude...I got more important stuff to do...like getting serious about scratching my ass...HAAAAA! Creator that creates....Geez, man! You trying to bust my gut! Oh...I guess I better be careful...on the look out for madman and his pickup with the pipe and all...HAAA! You got one Creatin Creator there Madman! HAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

MadAnthony 9 years ago

Lame Biodude, quite lame. Believe it or not, I can intelligently discuss history, physics and biology even without a degree in the same. Guess you are only comfortable teaching kids your theories, not defending them when placed under scrutiny. Like so many in the public system wanting to indoctrinate young Americans while brokering no dissent when it comes to a dogmatic presentation of Natural Selection.

LarryFarma 9 years ago

From post of Biodude, December 17, 2005 at 2:15 p.m. **To understand origins requires an education! Since many of those posting here clearly do not have much, save maybe grade school, it is unlikely that the discussion will provide much insight.***

The study of the origin of species is not rocket science --- no knowledge of advanced mathematics is required. Any amateur willing to spend the time can become an expert on the origin of species.

MadAnthony 9 years ago

Right. But it takes an expert to dodge the inquiries of those who finds the macro theory full of holes.

Biodude 9 years ago

Indoctrinate....HAAAAAAAHAAAA! You are the indoctrination folks...indoctrinate your ridiculous philosophy as science and force it onto other peoples' kids, right? That is your plan, isn't it?

There is a reason why calculus is a required course for any biology or chemistry or physics major...it is because calculus is used to demonstrate how these sciences work!

To really understand evolution and natural selection you do indeed need to know, for example..What is a Hox gene, Larry? Do you know anything about morphogenic factors and the program of cell fate in a developing embryo? Why do birds and dinos seem so similar and what about those dogone fossils that show your transitional forms that you just hate to admit exist? Do you know what meiosis means for genetic diversity? Did you know that during gamete development genetic information is programmed to diversify...every egg and every sperm is changing as we go...what would be your reason for such an effective diversity generating system...to provide, what?

Like I say, fine! More power to you and your kids...I wish you God's grace, really, I do...but when you try to push your ridiculous crap on other people's kids, that is when you step over the line! The line of democracy, the line of freedom, and the line of tolerance! I will tolerate anyones religious ideology...if you guys want to believe in the God of dogdo...go ahead! But don't try to get the God of dogdo taught along side Darwininan evolution in public schools without a fight!

There is a reason experts think you are full of it, man...it is beause they are experts! Moreover, folks that want you to believe that they are experts so that you can keep your preverted worldview are after one thing...your money and my money and world domination! Take back our country from those liberal socialists that have preserved civil society and whose science made this materialistic world what it is today! Heck, if we would just listen to you guys all those people overthere would just die and we'd be better off, right...all us white christians...hell, we own this country, right...admit it, you want to dominate the world! How ridiculous, religious intolerance, suppression of truth, and ignorance of the very issues you base your philosophy upon! No need for professionals on your side...you have all the answers don't you! The only thing full of holes is your understanding of history, religion, science and human nature...other than that you guys are right on...keep on trukin, dude...sooner or later you'll loose, because no matter what you throw at it the truth exists irrespective of your understanding of it!

Calliope877 9 years ago

I really don't agree with this "Libs vs Fundies" bull$h!t.

MadAnthony & BigJim:

If you want to apply a label to me, I'm a "moderate conservative." But since I detest labels, I'd prefer to be called an "individual" with differering views from your own.

This applies to both sides of the argument on this forum: Categorizing posters on this forum based off their comments and attempting to profile them is just plain stupid.

Can we please gear this discussion into a more intelligent discussion without resorting to questioning someone's sexual preference, labels, and name-calling?

BuenSabor 9 years ago

Look. Darwin's theory (as originally stated) is garbage, but no modern evolutionist believes or agrees with Darwin. Darwin is a straw man for ID.

A major problem in the current debate is that noone has adequately defined the term "species".

There is the old, common sense biblical definition of "kinds", based on macro observable characteristics.

There is a second definition (which I include in my own) which pertains to reproductive exclusivity.

There is a third definition, current in biological research circles, which incorporates the worst (most unprovable) aspects of the previous two.

But they all ignore basic genetics.

The first point is that there are multiple, distinct, levels of organization within the DNA of each cell of each member of each species. There is a level called "chromosomes", which determines the actual "kind" of life form that exists. This chromosome structure, or overall genetic "pattern" defines the function of each gene encoded in the DNA, as well controlling the DNA replication process during growth. "Above" the level of the sponge, it is only when two life forms, with the same chromosomal structure, and of opposite sexes, practicing sexual reproduction, can produce fertile offspring. Without that, there is no ongoing "species", just a dead-end mutant.

From this we must assume that for any higher life form to "evolve", therefore, there must be a chromosomal change, not only in one individual (highly possible, given enough time and environmental factors), but the identical chromosomal changes must happen in multiple individuals, of both sexes, in close enough geographic and temporal proximity, to allow for successful sexual reproduction; and an enviroment conducive to the successful rearing of offspring at least to the onset of puberty. This is one place where the probabilities start getting hairy.

Below the level of the chromosomes, or genotypes, there is the genetic level, where the varying genes for the phenotypes of each observable characteristic occurs. These can vary wildly, yet all fit into the chromosomal structure without changing it. There is NO evidence that accumulated changes at this level can become a change at the chromosomal level or a "speciation event"; to the contrary, this smacks of Lysenko's discredited theories about "Soviet Biology" and "the inheritance of acquired characteristics."

In another venue, I discussed this and was led to study some additional research which indicated some macro evolution in plant breeding experiments (due to polyploidal mutations); 60% of this was pure garbage, but the remaining 40% only needed better controls and a cleaner definition of the project. So perhaps the Creation is not yet finished.

So, under the circumstances, the believability of "evolution" as currently understood, really is still an open question. And even if ID is as bad as asserted by the evolutionists, it's still a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Calliope877 9 years ago

I apologize for the question I'm about to ask because it's off the topic:

Why is it that websites like CNN.com and Reuters do not have a forum for public discussion on the articles they've posted? Are there forums on their websites allowing free posting from the public? Or do you have to pay a fee for some kind of membership in order to discuss it? If "No" is the answer to both of my questions, I think it's a shame. Our media could learn alot from public input, despite how overwhelming the input is.

I was just curious. :)

Biodude 9 years ago

Good grief...you don't want to change chromosome structure to yield an expressed variation in a genetic characteristic! Chromosomes are read by enzymes called polymerases when they are copied...changing chromosome structure would make them unreadable and would be a leathal mutation...i.e., dead end in terms of evolution.

Evolution happens when a relatively subtle change to the DNA sequence changes the amino acids that will be encoded by the gene for the protein structure. If a single base is changed, for example in the case of sickle cell hemoglobin, this can change the protein structure by changing the amino acid that is incorporated at that position during translation. This can have drastic effects on protein function. In the case of Hbs it causes red blood cells to sickel because the Hbs polymerizes during low oxygen tension. This is bad when two copies (alleles) of Hbs are present in the individual, i.e. the individual got both Hbs from mom and dad. Turns out it is a good thing when only one Hbs allele is present (heterozygous advantage) in parts of the world where malaria is endemic. One copy of Hbs leads to some polymerization that interferes with the life cycle of the sporozoite of the malaria parasite. Where do we find a high frequency of the Hbs allele...in the US...no, we don't have the climate (niche) for the malaria parasite or its vector...you find high Hbs in Africa, man...exactly where it will provide a selective advatage to those with the Hbs allele. Nature (God, if you like) recognizes the trade-off...some will die before reproduction...that is because of a 1/4 chance for both Hbs alleles, 2/4 will be heterozygous and have substantial protection from malaria...versus the 1/4 that are homozygous wild-type Hb. This is evolution by natural selection...the malaria endemic population has evolved to carry Hbs because of the selective pressure of the malaria parasite that can kill human beings before reproductive age.

Biodude 9 years ago

If you are talking about how a human descends from a primordial ape...it is the same basic mechanism, except we are talking about genes that effect body plan, i.e., homeotic genes, morphogenic genes, transcription factiors. A relatively few base changes can affect the timing of expression of genes required for body plan in development. This is why even though chimps look way different from Jessica Simpson, they are 95% similar at the DNA level. Only takes a few changes in body plan genes to alter the appearance of two species.

A recent paper in science was able to show that changes in the expression of a single gene, BMP-4, could explain the drastically differrent shapes of Darwin's finches. Further, ectopic expression of BMP-4 could generate a beak that looks like a duck or a beak that looks like a chicken in chicken embryos.

Face it boys...EvoDevo is your worst enemy...it is clear now how evolution worked...true, we cannot go back in time...but it is quite clear that there is no need, at least for PhD biologist that went to school for (in general) 8-10 years beyond a bachelors degree and in most cases have spent lifetimes in learning the subject that you all profess to "understand" by doing Google searches of crap literature on the web.

ID cannot offer any explanation. Your Seiko on the beach is such crap. A Seiko is nothing like a starfish, etc. If our world was composed of little springs and gears, and the person on the beach was a robot...well, then you might have something...maybe all the parts formed in a pool of oil initiated by God in the primoridal robot universe...then along comes a rapid fire of solder and the first gear forms...this gear is able to do work and God says...this is good...it it goes on from there. Alas, we are made of carbon and life forms are based on the quantum mechanics of atoms and evolution obeys all natural laws of physics and chemistry and biology, the most important of which was Darwin's insight (since proven hundreds of thousands of times) that life evolves by the selection of programmed variability in biological organisms! Give up...while Kansas and the rest of God's country-fied folks still have a chance to be whatever they want to be, including secular humanists and the other demonic creatures you wackos are so afraid of.

But, I have never understood one philisophical tenet for you guys..If God designs everything, etc., did God not want Mirecki to write his email? Did God want Darwin to be a priest and not go on that damn ship? Did the Devil make Darwin do it? How does this work for you all?

Godot 9 years ago

Calliope877: just a guess as to why CNN doesn't have a forum for comment after each article: the number of responses would be overwhelming; and there could be legal repercussions for CNN for what is posted.

Godot 9 years ago

"But, I have never understood one philisophical tenet for you guys..If God designs everything, etc., did God not want Mirecki to write his email? Did God want Darwin to be a priest and not go on that damn ship? Did the Devil make Darwin do it? How does this work for you all?"

Apparently you are not associated with the Dept of Religious Studies. Your questions reveal that you do not have even a rudimentary understanding of Christianity or Judaism. You must be relying on rumor and conjecture to form your opinion of these religions and their followers.

Ironically, evolutionists on this fourm accuse people who question evolution of the same thing.

Biodude 9 years ago

So Godot...since I don't even have a rudimentary understanding of Christianity or Judaism...actually this is quite wrong...you won't (or can't) answer a couple simple questions? There you go...I gave you idiots some biology, but you refuse to answer a simple question...If the designer is in charge of everything, then why would you protest when liberal left-wing radicals want to keep your religion out of the secular science classrooms? No answer...says a lot about your intellectual integrity...ohmy...what a frikin surprise!

Godot 9 years ago

Actually, I did not answer because I was doing other things. I don't spend my entire life waiting to see how someone responds to my post on the LJW forum.

Now that I've checked back in, let me say that I won't respond to your question because I am not a right wing Christian. There you go again, making erroneous assumptions. What a frikin surprise!

MadAnthony 9 years ago

"If our world was composed of little springs and gears, and the person on the beach was a robot...well, then you might have something."

So let me get this right. You would accept the argument if it were based upon minerals we pull from the ground, we smelt into alloys, we hammer into form, we assemble into machines and we breathe life into via electricity.

But the fact that we, in all of our vast intelligence, cannot even begin to so assemble and breathe life into a single celled organism causes you to conclude that this most complex of simple life forms was formed by time + chance + nothing.

Well I've got bad news for you Sunshine: the little springs and gears are the cellular components that make up you and starfish. And both spring from the same intelligence. Both are the product of design. Greater design than it takes to make a mechanical starfish, robot or Seiko.

Oh, and as for the question that Godot passed on. You are, if you are consistent, the determinist, for chemistry must determine it all for you. We Christians believe that there is a ghost in the machine. Free Will, Love and a host of other software options exists due to this ghost. Not so if biology is the sum total of existance. Hardware is then the sum total of your reality. Thus you are locked into a pre-determined universe, not us Christians.

But you do not have to stay in that false consciousness.

Godot 9 years ago

Thanks for stepping in, M.A.

Billsey 9 years ago

Apparently, you are saying that you cannot believe in Jesus Christ and believe in evolution...is that what you're saying...if so, back it up...why not?

Either you believe Jesus or you do not believe Jesus. You cannot have it both ways. Jesus refers to the first chapters of Genesis as historical fact. Evolution flatly contradicts that. Therefore, if you do not believe that Genesis is historical fact, you quite necessarily do not believe Jesus, because in that point you are calling Jesus a liar. You cannot at the same time believe Jesus and also believe He is a liar. Either you believe Him or you do not. The choice is yours. The consequences will be meted out by Him-not by you. You can decide what you believe, but you cannot decide the consequences; those are set by God, not by men.

MadAnthony 9 years ago

Billsey, sorry that strawman will not hunt. Jesus spoke metaphorically at times, calling himself a door, a gate, etc. You are confusing biblical interpretation with biblical inspiration. Common error.

You are quite welcome Godot. Just wait a bit longer, I have it on good authority He is on the way.

Billsey 9 years ago

One of the most ironic (iconic perhaps) arguments being made by evolutionists attempting to stem the tide of criticism of evolution is that those critics are trying to teach religion in science classes, when the fact of the matter is that in the vast majority of cases all the critics are trying to do is introduce a fair and critical analysis of evolution into the science classroom saying nothing of teaching any alternative. It is the reaction of evolutionists to this process that makes evolution appear to be the religion being taught in science classrooms, since the evolutionists are so dead-set against allowing any form of critical analysis to be directed at evolution in the science classroom. How ironic that those leveling the charge are in fact those exhibiting the behavior being charged.

LarryFarma 9 years ago

From post of Biodude, December 18, 2005 at 11:04 a.m. **Alas, we are made of carbon and life forms are based on the quantum mechanics of atoms and evolution obeys all natural laws of physics and chemistry and biology, the most important of which was Darwin's insight (since proven hundreds of thousands of times) that life evolves by the selection of programmed variability in biological organisms! **

Biodude, "Programmed" variability in biological organisms? I thought that mutations were supposed to be random, not programmed !

I think that you are probably so obsessed with your high-falutin high-tech analyses of evidence supporting macro-evolution that you do not stop to consider whether macro-evolution actually makes sense or not. I think that you cannot see the forest for the trees. Your obsession with "evidence" is reminiscent of the following joke about a trial of an alleged chicken thief -- defendant (to witness) -- "Did you see me enter the henhouse?" witness -- "Yes." defendant -- "Did you see me leave the henhouse?" witness -- "No." defendant -- "Aha! I'm still in that henhouse!"

Biodude 9 years ago

Not so. Evolution by Natural Selection is and has been critically analyzed every single day, in thousands of molecualr biology laboratories throughout the world. What you do not understand is that ID is not a legit critisism because it is not a science. That all...nothing more. Darwinian evolution does not ever discount your creator, although it does suggest temporal constraints. It is just not true that you have to make a choice between following Jesus Christ and accepting the scientific fact of Evolution by Natural Selection. That you paint the picture this way is certainly your choice, but it is not a choice that you can force upon others! If you think there are gaps in Darwinian evolution then do the work to be able to argue them in scientific terms. Using the Bible as your argument is just not valid, because the Bible is not science and Darwinian evolution is science. I woud not argue the relevance of Christianity with the Origin of Species. You are just confused by a simple, but critical difference between the two doctrine. One applies to science and one applies to religion....apples and oranges!

So let me get this right. You would accept the argument if it were based upon minerals we pull from the ground, we smelt into alloys, we hammer into form, we assemble into machines and we breathe life into via electricity.

No, because you are putting the cart before the horse. You are stuck on something (ID) being required to assemble everything. That is what makes living things living dude, you don't need to do a damn thing if you get the right enzyme and the correct starting material, in the right conditions...the reaction goes, dude...no need for intelligence...the intelligence is in your goddem machine man...your ghost is anothers biology.

Basically, the disagreement here is in the temporal nature of your intelligent designer. I think if God can keep me on an icy road, then it would be pretty easy to orchestrate the first biochemical reaction, the first cell, the first organism, etc. God would be real happy to see a system that sustains itself and changes with the environment.

Why do people have to fight about splitting hairs...there is no need. Many, many, biologists are religious people...they are not liars...that is bigotry Billsey. You can believe that everything necessary for being a thinking human being is in the Bible...but, your wrong...sorry, man...you are!

Wake-up, smell the coffee, and try and practice religious tolerance...it's what our country was founded upon...that ought to be enough for you!

BuenSabor 9 years ago

Yes, but alleles are genes, not chromosomes. I'm not arguing unchangeability of genes within a species, just unchangeability of chromosomal structure. (I do not see anyone discussing the "Hb/Hbs alleles" in chimps, sharks, spiders, or bananas.) It's what delineates a species, or "kind". If the chromosomes change, you have a new species, as evidenced by an inability to procreate between earlier and later forms. Otherwise it is still the same species, e.g. dogs are just specialized breeds of wolf, not separate species, and are in fact capable of cross breeding with wolves, and producing fertile young.

The experiments that suggest a possibility of this speciation event (chromosomal change) have not included the controls of checking, demonstrating, and ensuring the improbability of cross-breeding. They are therefore flawed and need to be corrected and repeated before any sound conclusions can be drawn from them.

As far as the fossil records go, these have been hopelessly doctored and provide little evidence of anything.

Understand, human reason does not require the same limitations that science does. I do not unreservedly endorse creationism, and have yet to be convinced of young-earth theories; I still accept the astronomic timetable for galactic, solar, and planetary creation, although I do find the geologic column suspect. But I find some scriptural literalism to fall under that latter heading as well, wondering about foolhardy conclusions concerning the immanence of the parousia, when prophetic research will reveal that predicted events cannot occur for at least 150,000 years (or perhaps as many as 6,000,000 years, depending on how you read it) in the future. And that being the case, will mankind even exist as a species at that point?

Biodude 9 years ago

Yes, but alleles are genes, not chromosomes. I'm not arguing unchangeability of genes within a species, just unchangeability of chromosomal structure. (I do not see anyone discussing the "Hb/Hbs alleles" in chimps, sharks, spiders, or bananas.)

I think you must mean chromosome number. Different species can have the same chromosome number and "structure" save specific changes in DNA sequence, i.e., gene nucleotide sequence. It is the changes in nucleotide sequence that lead to distinct protein function over time. For example, if you have a nucleotide sequence change in a Hox gene that alters its affinity for a promoter, this can enhance or diminish its ability to initiate development of body plan. Thus, it would be the case that neurological development would continue in this zygote, whereas in the previous generation it ceased! Also, a morphogenic factor, like BMP might be expressed at an earlier time, or in higher concentration in a particular region of the embryo, thus leading to a "new" skeletal structure, e.g., legs for fins, etc. Chromosome basic structure need not change, chromosome number need not change and you still have strikingly distinct creatures. These changes occur and accumulate over millions of years and are positively and negatively selected by behavior, environment, competition from other species, etc. Reproductive isolation occurs near the end of this scenario, when enough changes have led to a group that will no longer breed with the founder population. This can be genetic or behavior. There are species of African Cichlids for example that could interbreed, but they do not because their mating behavior is linked to the genetic expression of pigmentation. Fish of different stripes in other words just are not attracted to one another! Kind of like why no intelligen humans are interested in dating ID believers!

There is no scientific misconduct associated with transitional fossils. This is a pretty serious claim, and I challenge you to back it up! You can't just call someones PHD thesis fabricated and not back it up...that's actually quite against the law. But, I guess you folks are not really interested in laws, that is, unless it involves making new ones that block human progress.

Basically, you just have a very elementary knowledge of biology, like most of your leaders in ID. All you got to do is get a biology degree, go to graduate school, spend about 10 years doing research in evolutionary biology, then you'll be prepared to argue your case...oh, but you won't because by that time you will have learned how incredibly ignorant you were in the first place!

bigjim 9 years ago

Good work Madanthony, County Jim, Buensabor, LarryFarma. Your posts make a lot of sense. Larry, you said it right when you said that biodude can't see the forest for the trees. And, chance never has created a Seiko watch, which has no life and isn't even close to as complicated as a single celled organism.

It is interesting to note that evolution is not even a science. "Science" by its definition means "the study of." To "study" something, it must be observable. Not only is evolution not observable, it is not testable or repeatable in a lab and is therefore not a science. Because it is more difficult to believe that chance/evolution created everything as opposed to an intelligent designer, it actually takes more faith to believe in evolution. Who says evolutionists (notice I didn't call them scientists) don't have any faith?

MadAnthony 9 years ago

Word. Nice team effort. Atheists are all big bang and no staying power. No wonder Christianity built the west and sustained it for 15 centuries and atheism is undoing it in one. See Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the crass materialistic banality gently rocking the USA into the grave.

MadAnthony 9 years ago

btw....since this is the only Mirecki story still hanging on the board......

Check out my posts on another Mirecki story. Any one think I have a point when I say...........

PAGING SCOTT ROTHSCHILD. WOULD ACE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER SCOTT ROTHSCHILD PLEASE REPORT FOR DUTY???? SCOTT, I GREATLY RESPECT YOUR WORK. NOW I ASK YOU, IF THIS IS A STORY..... "State Board of Education member John Bacon has charged taxpayers for his expenses to attend a church-school sponsored event that featured leaders of the movement to make the Bible the foundation of public life." THEN WHY IS IT NOT A BIG STORY THAT THE KU SCHOOL OF RELIGIOUS STUDIES IS, IN FACT, A LIBERAL WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES SEMINARY PUMPING OUT DENIGRATORS OF TRADITIONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND USING STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDS TO DO SO? Come on, Scott, show us your kahones and take on this glaring example of liberal hypocrisy. Let's say they were pumping out fundamentalist clergy and scholars at the KU School of Religious Studies.....how long would the ACLU and Barry Lynn put up with that???? Just long enough to file an action in federal court and go on the networks ripping their robes and screaming "separation of religion and state!" SIC 'EM SCOTTY! GET YOURSELF A PULITZER TAKING ON THE SADDUCEES WHO LIVE FAT AND SASSY OFF OF KANSAS AND FEDERAL TAXES WHILE BEING, IN ESSENSE, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RELIGIOUS ORTHODOXY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS.

MadAnthony 9 years ago

If the above makes sense to you, then check out my other rants on the same concept at

KU: Mirecki left leadership post voluntarily Professor's peers advised him to resign, officials say

I could be missing something on this one, and could be talked off of my position. But at first blush it makes one hell of alot of sense to me. (But then I am MAD!)

Billsey 9 years ago

Certainly Jesus SOMETIMES spoke metaphorically. That does not, however, mean that He never spoke literally. When He spoke metaphorically it was generally obvious that He was speaking metaphorically. When He spoke of the early chapters of Genesis, He spoke as though it were literal. There is a truism in today's society, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", that unfortunately does not always hold true. Such is the case when attempting to decipher the meaning and literary intent of an ancient text. In order to discover the Truth of the text, one must discover the author's intent, not the beholder's desired interpretation.

In the case of the early chapters of Genesis there is no sign or clue that it was intended to be taken in any way other than as historical narrative, to be taken literally. When a historical narrative is a Divinely inspired historical narrative, it is necessarily an accurate historical narrative. When Jesus speaks of this particular historical narrative, He speaks of it not as poetic, or apocalyptic, or prophetic literature, but as historical narrative, to be taken literally.

The Truth of Scripture is not to be discovered in what we desire that Truth to be, but in what God says it is, and-in Scripture-He has given us clear and direct guidance as to what that Truth is. We only need cast off our own biases and hopes, wishes and dreams regarding the content of that Truth and take to heart what God says it is in order to discover what that content actually is.

Billsey 9 years ago

PAGING SCOTT ROTHSCHILD. etc.

Ah, but are those kahones actually there?

Good catch, Mad.

Biodude 9 years ago

Let's try this...the only thing "random" in biology is your world view of the ultimate purpose (cause) for any particular biological event in question.

Does that statement work for you? Could you agree to this statement with your world view?

It is a "scientific fact" (I know you folks don't like those, but I'm trying, here...gimme a chance?) that each of us human beings has about 30 polymorphisms that are "new" with respect to those present in mom & dad. True, some of these are "mutations" in the (dare-I-say, and this hurts) common lay-language use of the term. This means (I think) basically (and I do mean basically, because all the data are not in yet) stochastic errors in DNA replication, such as when DNA polymerase misreads a base and inserts the wrong complimentary base. Many changes (polymorphisms=more than one form) are introduced during gamete formation during meiosis. This is when you have crossing-over of mum & dads chromosomes and new chromosome combinations are produced in that particular egg or sperm. Indeed, the chances are that different combos occur in different eggs and sperm, so that the particular egg and sperm that you came from makes a difference with respect to your individuality. That's why each of us is unique, save identical twins. The point is that this variation is programmed into the mechanism (mieosis) that generates the sperm and egg...every sperm and egg is programmed to diversify. This is the diversity generating mechanism of sexual reproduction and it provides pool of diversity upon which natural selection operates.

That is programmed...i.e., "designed" Could your God have designed that kind of "intelligence" Mine sure as hell could! Mine can keep me on an icy road...sure as hell can figure-out meoisis!

You don't have to be a non-believer to understand nature! To bad (for you folks) that you think you have to "understand" nature to be a believer! Nevertheless, if you are going to pretend to "understand" nature, it is certainly up to those that do know a few things to inform you when you are wrong! That's the point...your dogma is flat-out, and completely, wrong...end of discussion!

MadAnthony 9 years ago

hMMM, maybe I was mistaken. Guess as long as no prof in the religious studies program has the ignorant audacity to teach that there may be a Creator, and that proof of His creation may be evident in nature (see Romans 1) then I guess that the program is not a violation of the US Constitution.

Carry on Comrades! And thank Lenin for our wonderful pulik education system in Amerika.

bigjim 9 years ago

Biodude has himself confused. Nothing but pure drivel.

I repeat, evolution is, by definition, not even a science. To qualify as a science, something must be observable, testable or repeatable. Evolutionist say that evolution is happening all around us. Funny how no one has ever seen it and no one has been able to repeat it. In all their attempts over the decades, science has not been able to create one single cell of life.

Evolutionists need a lot of blind faith to believe in their b.s. "theory".

Bubarubu 9 years ago

Mad--

KU's Religious Studies Department is not a seminary. A seminary would have to offer divinity degrees. Divinity degrees would include courses in homiletics, exegesis, pastoral care, and pastoral counseling. Most M.Divs also require an internship/practicum. The point of seminary is to teach people how to be clergy. It is, in many ways, a professional degree. An MA, on the other hand, is not. No one leaves the religious studies program at KU and walks into the pastorate of a church. You remain singularly uninformed.

wonderhorse 9 years ago

Tim Miller has been appointed as temporary chair of the Religious Studies Department. Good news.

Biodude 8 years, 12 months ago

KU is/was a place distinct from the rest of Kansas and the attitude presented by the hillbillies on this stream. I think that it is fair to say that Mirecki is evidence of that fact. Whatever your point of view, this latest little bit of KU history will be consistently reverberated within the next decade as Kansas tries to figure out its place in society. Brownback, etc., want to push us back into the pre-Cambrian, but nevertheless, there are many Kansans that would welcome progress, that would welcome the realization of our potential. Go ahead if you love something...set it free...if it comes back to you...then it was real! Step-up Kansas...have some guts!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.