Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, November 22, 2005

KU class angers ‘design’ advocates

Course would be taught as religion, not as science

November 22, 2005

Advertisement

Creationism and intelligent design are slated to be the subjects of a Kansas University class next semester - but as mythology, not science.

"The KU faculty has had enough," said Paul Mirecki, chairman of KU's religious studies department. He said he planned to teach "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies" next semester.

Mirecki's plans angered some of the state's religious conservatives, who earlier this month successfully pushed changes in state science standards that critique evolution. And one intelligent design proponent questioned Mirecki's science credentials.

"I would predict that (Mirecki's) effort will go down in history as one of the laughingstocks of the century," said John Calvert, an attorney and managing director of the Intelligent Design Network in Johnson County.

Mirecki said the course would be capped at 120 students, exploring intelligent design as a modern American mythology. Intelligent design is the idea that life is too complex to have evolved without a "designer," presumably a god or other supernatural being.

The course also will cover the origins of creationism, why it's an American phenomenon, and why Americans have allowed it to pervade politics and education, Mirecki said. He said several KU faculty have volunteered to be guest lecturers.

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

KU Chancellor Robert Hemenway said Monday he didn't have all the details on the course, and couldn't speak substantively about it. He said academics did not shy away from a course simply because it was controversial.

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

Credentials

But intelligent design proponents say the class is meant to demean them.

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

Calvert questioned Mirecki's expertise, saying the teaching of intelligent design requires an extensive understanding of evolution and science.

"I think the guy is going to fall all over himself," Calvert said. "I would love to go to his class and say, 'Explain to me how DNA arose in the primordial soup?'"

John Altevogt, a conservative columnist and activist in Kansas City, said the situation was the equivalent of David Duke teaching about race relations or Fred Phelps teaching about homosexuality.

"These guys should not be teaching classes in religion, because they're both bigots," Altevogt said of Mirecki and a fellow faculty member who could not be reached for comment Monday.

Calvert said efforts by educators to demean intelligent design proponents can be effective.

"My voice is a very, very small voice in the woods," he said. "My voice is rarely heard because we're in the minority. A strategy that seeks to demean can be very, very effective to them."

Mirecki said intelligent design proponents liked to view themselves as the victims, but that's not the case.

"The educational system of Kansas is under attack," Mirecki said. "All they are is oppressors. They're not martyrs and victims ... I'm expecting insecure, threatened people to start being more and more vocal. They don't want their beliefs to be analyzed rationally. That's what this class is devised to do."

Comments

Slash_Gordon 7 years, 3 months ago

So, life (primordial soup) began from a rock (that came from a dot, that came from nowhere and nothing), that rained chemicals on it(that came from nothing and nowhere), for millions of years (which no one saw). Then somehow, a evolutionary process started (by nothing/who flipped the on swith?). On top of that, where are the thousands of transitionals that should be linking every kind of animal we see today? Someone told me, that we won't see evolution, cuz it takes millions of yrs. What? Evolutionists have already had billions of years! Where are those sneaky transitionals hiding? I don't want to see drawings, either.

Evolution and its beginnings is much more mythological, than there being an uncreated Creator that created the numerous, and complex lifeforms, and all the provisions needed to sustain life.

Here's an added note: How many ppl know that Charles Darwin had no PhD in any of the forms of science, and that includes biology? Yet, ppl will gladly believe him, and ignore the 600+ real scientists who don't believe in Darwinism! http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

0

glen922 8 years, 4 months ago

Oh crap, it died, and Dr. Mirecki is leaving. It was a truly great idea. Dr. Mirecki should come back to Harvard where great ideas are tolerated.

0

glen922 8 years, 4 months ago

This is perfect. All religion is mythology, which is precisely why ID does not belong in the science classroom.
Of course 'Evolution' is a theory - but it is not 'merely' a theory. A theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly supported by factual evidence. All science that is taught is theory. The theories that comprise the body of science provide a logic-based roadmap that enables talented minds not only to expand our knowledge of the physical and bilogogical universe, but to make valuable discoveries and inventions, and to solve myriad problems that plague humanity and the world. The once-hypothesis, and now-theory, that vascular neogenesis (the growth of new blood vessels) is essential to the growth and invasive potential of a cancerous tumors, has led to the development of antiangiogenic cancer therapies that are revolutionizing the treatment of cancer to a degree unimaginable just a few years ago. This is just one tiny example of the power of a single scientific theory. 'Intelligent design' is not a theory, and its only byproduct to date is a wave of pseudoscientific idiocy that threatens to undermine the education of potentially brilliant young minds. At best it is a hypothesis, one that has been supported by exactly zero scientific evidence - you know: experiments, data; science. We do not teach hypotheses in science classrooms. We teach the concept of a hypothesis, and the scientific process whereby hypotheses may or may not be elevated to the important and noteworthy status of theory.
Mythology is where intelligent design belongs, along with studies of Zeus, Apollo, Vishnu, Brahma et al.. KU's move to incorporate intelligent design into a religious mythology course is appropriate, if not brilliant strategy.

0

LarryFarma 8 years, 4 months ago

The reference to "mythologies" should be removed from the title of the course. I read the provost's defense of this reference and found it to be unpersuasive. This defense said, "it is unfortunate that the course title's reference to 'mythologies' has been misconstrued." There could be no misconstruction and no need for an explanation if this unnecessary term (or the related term myth") were simply left out of the course title. This term implies a strong bias and suggests that the course will not fairly present both sides of the controversy over evolution vs. intelligent design. The present course title makes a mockery of the university's role as a place of open-minded inquiry. I am very interested in this controversy but would not take a course with such a title. Also, I think that it was very arrogant of Prof. Mirecki to presume to speak for all the faculty members when he said, "the KU faculty has had enough." Also, since the course will presumably touch on scientific issues and include scientists as guest lecturers, I think that it should be offered as an interdisciplinary course.

Larry Fafarman Los Angeles, Calif. LarryFarma@aol.com

0

badger 8 years, 4 months ago

You know, LuckyNun and craigers have both done a fine job of explaining why they do or do not believe in a god. However, it's important to remember that explaining one's own reasons for choices of faith don't necessarily explain why others should share that choice of faith.

I have my reasons for choosing my path of faith, and those reasons are perfectly crystal clear to me. My mother doesn't understand them at all, and she usually just looks at me and says, "Well, you seem to be happy with your life, so whatever you're doing must be working for you." I wouldn't expect my own experiences to convince any of you that my mythology is better than yours. The only thing that might convince another person is for him or her to see that you are happy and fulfilled in your life and spiritual choices, and come to you and say, "Hey, are you this happy because of what you believe?"

0

craigers 8 years, 4 months ago

LuckyNun, I am sorry for anything like that that you went through in your life. I know that isn't why you posted what you did, but I am sorry. However, I realize that not all prayers are answered and that still boggles some believers but it won't keep us from believing. God is responsible for all the suffering in the world because He does allow it. Suffering sucks and I don't see why little children have to be sick, mean people live a long healthy life, while nice people die early. These are all questions I wonder myself but that doesn't invalidate what I have experienced and seen. You can say it is mind over matter but I won't buy that either. I never said that you had to buy what I said, but I have received my confirmation of His existence and will never deny that He does exist.

Yourworstnightmare, no hug neccessary but hey big fella why not?

0

DuQuesne 8 years, 4 months ago

When you propose that any phenomenon not explainable by anything but "intelligent design", or "spooky convergence" or some other ad hoc and circularly self-buttressing argument, then you propose only that it is not explainable to you.

Thusly: "Y'all know whut we dun wuz we took Jr. an' his tumor down to them doctors at the May-Oh Klinic an' they coundn't 'splain it!" No, Mabel June, they couldn't explain it not to y'all.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 4 months ago

Wonderful to see this course being offered and for ID to be taught in its rightful place, outside of science.

Hey Craigers, I like your absurd claim that something (doesn't) "look like chance" so that means it must be somehow 'designed.' Hilarious.

Flipping a coin 10 times and finding the outcome: H H H H H H H H H H (sure doesn't look like chance!)

yet the probability of that occurrence is IDENTICAL to the following: H H T H T T T H T H (sure looks random!)

When probability is brought into the equation, I can only shake my head in the negative. Probability involves a claim about a finite set of occurrences. Let's say, hypothetically, that "time" (in the lay sense) has always been; the present universe (again, in the lay sense of the universe being a discrete instance) might be the n-th instantiation of a universe in a "sea" of an infinite number of universes. Claims about the "odds" of everything coming together "just right" to form life are absurd. With an infinite number of universes, a universe where everything is "just right" (even if there is ONLY 1 just right) is a certainty! It WILL occur at some point!

Its sad that some guys musing about explanations for their observations is LITERALLY seen as gospel.

0

Tanya Spacek 8 years, 4 months ago

it hurts to try and think outside the parameters of human existence. ever try it? it gives me a sharp pain up front. maybe that's a brain tumor. anyway...

as humans with an obvious beginning (parents), we are wired to think everything must have a beginning. it boggles the human mind to try and imagine what came before the beginning of everything. just like a blind person can't imagine colors, and deaf people can't imagine music, humans can't imagine going beyond our recognized parameters of time and space. ID theory says "give up at this point, and chalk the rest up to an intelligent designer". why should we give up now? we're unraveling so many mysteries, and building on previous discoveries. who says we won't go "aha!" a few generations from now, and something we couldn't understand today will be blatantly obvious to some genius in the near future?

0

gontek 8 years, 4 months ago

seriously - a scientific theory is a description which allows to understand a scientific phenomonon in a way which it can be tested and develpoed.

Copernicus had a theory that the earth revolved around the sun. Kepler had a theory that turned in to Three Laws regarding the orbit of the earth and planets around the sun. These laws were based on mathematical approximations that lined up with the facts based on detailed astronomy records available at the time.

As the concept of time and astronomy improved, flaws in the orbits of certain bodies threatened the acceptance of these laws as fact. Then Einstein and a few others came up with the theory of relativity and a concept of space time, that mathematically supported Keplers laws but changed our understanding of the universe.

There is still a lot we don't know. So we study, we theorize, and we prove and disprove these theories.

What does ID offer to science other than an excuse for not understanding these things. What does an ID physicist or an ID biologist do - retire? He has nothing to prove, unless he can provide mathematical support and proof of existence of a higher being.

All the bibles, koran, and religeous texts were passed down through mythology, the stories that our uncivilized ancestors told around a campfire after eating some meat. These stories were about the creation of man, our existence and purpose on the earth, of great disasters, and of people who lived to unbelieveable ages. The sholars and literates in history collected these stories, and these holy books are not to be taken literally in the stories of genesis, and the first books of the bible.

I have no trouble with having faith in a higher being. I also have no trouble wondering about the unexplained paradoxes of mathematics and science, like the equation known as Gabriel's horn or black holes. However, I have a problem with using a belief in a higher being to explain away these paradoxes to satisfy my scientific curiosities. Where does it end? ID is not science, it belongs with mythology, or perhaps a subset of scientific history, but it is not in and of itself, science.

Miracles belong in the category of reliegon. Science may or may not be able to explain them. I believe that the human mind is the most powerful force on earth, and that mind over body phenemenon is certainly achievable with meditation and faith. Maybe these ID scientists can explain that to me using MRI on the brain or something, then I will lend them a scientific ear. Know what I mean?

0

wendt 8 years, 4 months ago

I don't want to belittle LuckyNun's testimony by giving it an academic base. LuckyNun survived a horrific incident and her post is eloquent and moving. My heart goes out to her.

LuckyNun's dilemma with God is called the Problem of Evil in theological circles. It's a real theological problem, admittedly one that has not been adequately resolved.

In a nutshell:

1) God exists 2) God is omniscient (or omnipotent) 3) Evil exists

To place it in LuckyNun's context:

1) God exists 2) God knows about LuckyNun's rape (or God could do something to stop LuckyNun's rape) 3) LuckyNun gets raped.

The problem of evil also shows up in The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoyevsky. It is expressed as the question "Why do the children have to suffer?"

0

Tanya Spacek 8 years, 4 months ago

craigers: the possession story as proof of a god? hardly.

when I was a kid, I was raped. I was always taught that if I called out god's name, whatever bad thing that was happening would stop. guess what? it didn't.

did I deserve to be raped? is that why god didn't answer? was he too busy helping your friend get un-"possessed"? why did god help your friend and not me? what life lesson was being raped by five guys supposed to teach me?

sorry, I'm not buying your "miracles". some good people die of breast cancer, some bad people live to be 100. if a bad person gets killed early, is that god's will? if so, what is it when a good person gets killed early? people get prayed over and die anyway, people get prayed over and live a while longer. why is prayer saving some people and not others? there is such a thing as amazing coincidence, and the power of mind over matter, but no miracles wrought by god. if it helps you sleep at night, then by all means, believe. personally, letting myself stop believing in god cleared up most of my depression. I still get winter blues, but nothing like the soul-crippling depression I had when I believed in god. explain that miracle.

0

even_money 8 years, 4 months ago

I've fallen and I gan't get up!

0

one_more_bob 8 years, 4 months ago

Does that mean that intelligent falling is going to quit some day?

0

wendt 8 years, 4 months ago

Bankboy119 keeps exceeding our expectations....

I like the one about the Earth's gravitational field decaying at an exponential rate. HAHAHHAAAHHHA

0

gontek 8 years, 4 months ago

Good for KU, I am a proud alumni today. Here's the problem with ID the way I see it:

I could while away the hours Conferrin' with the flowers Consultin' with the rain And my head, I'd be scratchin' While my thoughts were busy hatchin' If I only had a brain.

I'd unravel ev'ry riddle For any individ'le In trouble or in pain

With the thoughts I'd be thinkin' I could be another Lincoln, If I only had a brain.

Oh, I could tell you why The ocean's near the shore, I could think of things I never thunk before And then I'd sit and think some more.

I would not be just a nuffin' My head all full of stuffin' My heart all full of pain. I would dance and be merry Life would be a ding-a-derry If I only had a brain!

0

harrierist 8 years, 4 months ago

Actually genetisists have seen random chance occur in the Canine line over 70,000 years. Your current Dog has no other genes from any animal. They all came from the Wolf. What science can see is the random variations in gene pairings that have produce all the canines allover the world. They have found that the genes that govern emotion, are also on the same strand as genes governing physical charateristic. So 50,000 years ago when the dog began domestication, dogs that nolonger need to hunt, over time the lack of this reinforcing behaivor produced dogs that nolonger needed to have their ears perched at attention.

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 4 months ago

craigers,

You should have said before that all you wanted was a big hug. C'mere, big fella. Hug hug hug.

Ok, now the group hug is out of the way and everyone is feeling good about themselves.

0

avhjmlk 8 years, 4 months ago

grimpeur--point well taken. I think I was just trying too hard to be diplomatic.

You're right. ID isn't examining anything. They don't do any research, or use the scientific method.

0

Prydain 8 years, 4 months ago

If I remember right the 'flipping' of the polarity happens every few million years but the actual transistion takes only one ten's of thousands of years. Thats a blink of an eye in geologic time.

0

craigers 8 years, 4 months ago

You know badger, I would have to say that I greatly appreciate your last comment on this board and it shows that you have great character. Thank you and I agree that ID shouldn't be put into a science classroom. I mean without us being back at that point in time we can't show pictures of God creating this world. It is nice to know that you know the real definition of tolerance and that is to respect that others do have opinions and not to trash them because of those opinions.

0

grimpeur 8 years, 4 months ago

avhjmlk: "So, in the converse, ID (meant to be an examination of supernatural influences on the world) should not be used to prove or disprove things discovered through the scientific process."

Except that ID doesn't intend to examine anything. Rather, it intends to promote established religious beliefs for political purposes, then introduce these beliefs into scientific curricula in public schools in order to promulgate a religious viewpoint in our public schools beginning with early childhood education. Don't let them fool you with the "ID isn't religion" bit. It is religion. It is not science.

0

hobb2264 8 years, 4 months ago

"random chance has nothing to do with evolution"

Is that really a misconception? Aren't the mutations that occur in the DNA of offspring supposedly random? And who's to say that the DNA most suited to an environment ALWAYS survives and is passed on? What about these environmental pressures... wouldn't you consider the vast majority of these to be considered random in nature (meteors, volcanos, earthquakes, etc., weather in general)? If these aren't examples of how randomness drives the theory of evolution, then please explain.

0

sloppyscience 8 years, 4 months ago

So you guys don't believe in Bigfoot, huh. Well then what exactly am I doing with this plaster Bigfoot footprint and Bigfoot hair found on a tree in Idaho? Both of these artifacts were discovered by the unbiased scientific organization, "I'll bet my children's lives on the fact that there's a bigfoot".com

0

hobb2264 8 years, 4 months ago

fossil....

"bottom line -- whichever side you are on, can you argue for it without the word "believe"? Evolutionist can. I can't see where ID can."

God created the universe. God created life.

Didn't use the word believe once. :-)

0

avhjmlk 8 years, 4 months ago

So, in the converse, ID (meant to be an examination of supernatural influences on the world) should not be used to prove or disprove things discovered through the scientific process.

0

avhjmlk 8 years, 4 months ago

hobb--I think the "if there were evidence of a god..." comment is meant to illustrate that the scientific method cannot be used to support or refute the supernatural, because, in their very essence, they are not "natural phenomena."

Grimpeur is saying that the scientific method is appropriate for the study of natural phenomena. Not that the scientific method disproves the existence of the supernatural. It is completely separate from the study of the supernatural.

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 4 months ago

hobb - random chance has nothing to do with evolution. That's a misconception around here. It has to do with environmental pressures influencing the animals/plants in that environment.

0

badger 8 years, 4 months ago

craigers-

I disagree fervently with you on just about every political topic we could name. I think your opinions are flat wrong about a lot of things, and I've made no secret of that, so I won't try to deny it now.

However, I respect the daylights out of you for unabashedly and proudly living your faith. That decision, especially in light of some of the sophomoric bashing that anyone who chooses to openly live a path of faith in this world can expect (see above for examples), requires a great deal of courage and strength of will. I also think people who mock you for believing in things you can't see to discredit you, instead of responding to what you've actually advocated, are taking the coward's way out.

I fully support your right to believe as you do. I can even sort of see where you're coming from, though my own experiences and observations have led me to a different conclusion. My only opposition is to the implementation of it as part of the science curriculum, not to any study, practice, or principles of the Christian faith, and I think there are a lot more ID opponents out there who feel the same.

0

hobb2264 8 years, 4 months ago

"If there were evidence of a god, science would not rule it out. However, since science is constrained to observable natural phenomena, belief in a supernatural entity rules ITSELF out."

According to you, science will not rule out the presence of God, but the belief in a "supernatural" entity is ruled out. In your mind, isn't God a supernatural entity? Doesn't this statement contradict itself?

The reason for my post was not to prove to you scientifically or otherwise that there is a God. It was definitely not to "win" this unwinnable argument. The reason was just to show how pointless it is to argue the existence of God scientifically.

I can look at nature and see God's beautiful and intricate design. Can I use the scientific method to prove it to you...of course not! Just as you can not prove to me scientifially that random chance controls nature.

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 4 months ago

bottom line -- whichever side you are on, can you argue for it without the word "believe"? Evolutionist can. I can't see where ID can.

0

harrierist 8 years, 4 months ago

Science is Science....each step is accomplished through the method of Test-ReTest. Seeing if a clinican gets the same results in repeated succession. You can't test creationism or intelligent design. So they remain beliefs, beliefs that are sustained through Myth. Mythology is fine, and some philosphies built off these Myths have helped to create stable societies. It is not sciences job to create stable societies. Science deals with fact - you drop an apple and an elephant from the same hieght and they hit the ground at the same time. Science can prove Gravity. It is a negative electron force at the sub atomic particle level. But you can't prove God created the force. I think an intelligence probably did, but you can't prove it under the scientific method. And this is what our and the world's Educational Science curriculm is based on - teaching pupils to reach conclusions by the Scientific method. Intelleigent Desigh folks want students to reach conclusions about the natural world based on BELIEF and Faith! Religion also has a problem with Physics as well, Both Einstien and Ronald Person and Issac Newton formulated mathematical equations proveing the invisible part of the universe. Einstein postualted that if man had an energy apart form the Earth dimeinsion form that at death this is where the "Soul" would go. But again we can't prove that God created this etheric energy space at the sub particle atomic level.

0

ive_got_my_ascot_n_my_dickie 8 years, 4 months ago

It's disturbing to see so much intolerance here. If someone wants to believe in I.D., so be it. If someone wants to believe in evolution, again, so be it. It's a shame to see people being belittled because of their stance on this issue. I thought Lawrence was supposed to be an open-minded and tolerant place. Live and let live.

0

avhjmlk 8 years, 4 months ago

Since I haven't read the purported evidence behind the statement about the electromagnetic business, I wonder if it at all discusses the fact that the electromagnetic direction of the Earth's crust has switched back and forth across the Earth's history? Every time that happens, does it have an effect on the state of the magnetic qualities of the Earth that bankboy's scientists claim as proof that the earth is less than 20,000 years old?

0

glockenspiel 8 years, 4 months ago

overwhelmingly showed that we were shipped here, in our present forms, from another galaxy?

oooh, scientology...another reason to get advice about our lives from actors.

0

glockenspiel 8 years, 4 months ago

Yeah, I didn't read much into it. The electromagnetic spiel caught my eye as one that could easily be studied and refuted...btw

I really don't care about the class thing...If it offends you, don't take the class.

0

grimpeur 8 years, 4 months ago

bankboy, the difference between our views of the 1) vast body of work (yes, including the gaps and many disproven hypotheses) that is scientific evidence and 2) the non-existent body of science that is ID/creationism/religion is that I am not trying to use false evidence to prove anything. Nor is any scientist I know trying to claim absolute knowledge about origins of life or universe. I am simply repeating the fact that despite the best efforts of the scientific community, evolution still stands as the most reasonable scientific explanation of the biological world. Not some god, not ID, not religion, and not creationism.

You apparently read your proof in a book called the Bible. If I read something in a book that contradicts what you read, which one is correct? How about if you do the experiment yourself, record/publish the results, revise and retest the hypothesis? What if millions of scientists did the same experiments, submitted the results to you, and your combined evidence overwhelmingly showed that we were shipped here, in our present forms, from another galaxy? Would you believe your book, or would you believe your empirical results and those of your millions of colleagues? Well, they have done the experiments, and the results are there for you and anyone else to see, if you wish (and even if you don't wish).

I submit that scientific "correctness" is found in the method itself: the testing of hypotheses and subsequent revision of hypotheses based on observation of natural phenomena. Only the hypotheses that stand up under scrutiny make it to the pages of textbooks, gain scientific acceptance, and earn the title "theory." So far, there's no evidence of a creator and no evidence supporting ID. In fact, there's not even a such thing as an ID theory. Why not? Because nobody has bothered to even come up with an experimental model, let alone test the hypothesis that this universe was designed. Why not? Because ID/creation/religion proponents in KS are interested in perpetuating the myths of Christianity. When they instead decide to challenge their own beliefs (as scientists do), then we can talk about ID in science curricula. But as long as the sum total of evidence for creation is contained between Genesis and Revelations, ID will remain well outside the realm of science.

0

avhjmlk 8 years, 4 months ago

glock-actually, the article that tolawdjk linked to has more scientific evidence and inquiry in it than the webpage that bankboy linked for us.

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 4 months ago

bank boys' "evidence" - I'll stick to my area of expertise. I don't profess to being an atomic physicist, but apparently bank boy is...

?Man-made artifacts such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past. (11)"

Hammer in Cretaceous rock - it's a modern hammer with rust and mud that has hardened around it. You see it all the time with metal left in mines, battlefields, etc.

All the rest are either shapes in rocks or downright forgeries. I can't count the times that I have been shown a rock that is "a pterodactyl egg, a fish, a human leg" just because they are shaped like that.

bank boy has presented no "evidence" of a young earth. He would have much more luck presenting evidence that the Earth is flat.

0

glockenspiel 8 years, 4 months ago

keep bashing bankboy....Forget about refuting his evidence. Instead, kill the messenger. Don't use science or research to discredit his evidence. Just flame him instead.

You all pretend to be scientists. Then use science, not politics, to dismiss his evidence.

0

tolawdjk 8 years, 4 months ago

You think you would know something about those arguements before you just blindly throw them up there, Bankboy.

Polonium is not a typo of plutonium, polonium is polonium and used to be known as radium.

If you want a counter to the polonium article http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

0

coldsplice 8 years, 4 months ago

ok-cease fire for one second and let's look at the bigger issue here. As i see it, human civilization, with obvious exceptions was relatively slow moving for thousands of years. Then along came what we would call modern science and our world was transformed. From medicine, to technology, transportation, you name it. All that comes out of the current set of scientific rules, predictablility/testability/observability/etc. That said, the big issue here is for the creationists and ID folks to realize that when the evolutionists look at this issue we look at it and say science should be the tool we use to evaluate because so far, it's done a pretty good job using it's basic approach which involves a progression of testing/failure/re-testing/repeatability/predictability. ID holds (as i understand it) that because we something is so complex, it must have been created by a higher being. There is no progression in that. It is a leap that assumes that because we don't get it, it's the work of God. I guess what i am trying to say is that the scientific community has built it's wins and losses on a theory that creationism simply refutes as a logical framework for discovery. Until that gets resolved, this isn't going to end.

0

grimpeur 8 years, 4 months ago

Hobb:

If there were evidence of a god, science would not rule it out. However, since science is constrained to observable natural phenomena, belief in a supernatural entity rules ITSELF out.

If there were EVIDENCE that something other then natural selection, descent with modification, and genetic heritability, etc. were at work in the natural world, I'd be happy to consider it. So would the millions of biologists and other scientists whose life work is the questioning and testing of the theories which explain our understanding of life on our planet. Everyone trying to convince people that science can prove there's a god is going about it in the wrong way, because they're not using science in their arguments.

You're correct that the rules of science are stacked against anyone whose explanations consists of ancient mythologies without basis in fact, evidence, or nature. This is no fault of science. Rather, as your apparent desire to "win" the argument suggests, it is the artifact of persistent refusal to consider what your own eyes would tell you, were you to accept what you see, instead of accepting what you are told to accept or want to believe. It's not important that my hypotheses be correct, but it is important that I find out WHETHER they're correct, and I'm certainly going to test them before telling anyone whether they are. This is not true of religious believers who falsely claim to have scientific evidence. They're mistakenly trying to prove there IS a god, instead of simply trying to find evidence either way. So far, of course, there is no evidence of a god.

What if nobody had ever told you about a god? Would you believe in one? The answer must be no, because you haven't seen evidence of one yet. And if science can prove there's a god, then with all the creationists on the job, they'd have done so by now, don't you think?

0

grimpeur 8 years, 4 months ago

If there were evidence of a god, science would not rule it out. However, since science is constrained to observable natural phenomena, belief in a supernatural entity rules ITSELF out.

If there were EVIDENCE that something other then natural selection, descent with modification, and genetic heritability, etc. were at work in the natural world, I'd be happy to consider it. So would the millions of biologists and other scientists whose life work is the questioning and testing of the theories which explain our understanding of life on our planet. Everyone trying to convince people that science can prove there's a god is going about it in the wrong way, because they're not using science in their arguments.

You're correct that the rules of science are stacked against anyone whose explanations consists of ancient mythologies without basis in fact, evidence, or nature. This is no fault of science. Rather, as your apparent desire to "win" the argument suggests, it is the artifact of persistent refusal to consider what your own eyes would tell you, were you to accept what you see, instead of accepting what you are told to accept or want to believe. It's not important that my hypotheses be correct, but it is important that I find out WHETHER they're correct, and I'm certainly going to test them before telling anyone whether they are. This is not true of religious believers who falsely claim to have scientific evidence. They're mistakenly trying to prove there IS a god, instead of simply trying to find evidence either way. So far, of course, there is no evidence of a god.

What if nobody had ever told you about a god? Would you believe in one? The answer must be no, because you haven't seen evidence of one yet. And if science can prove there's a god, then with all the creationists on the job, they'd have done so by now, don't you think?

0

avhjmlk 8 years, 4 months ago

Besides, what's so wrong with my child having a gay man for a godfather? Christ spent a considerable amount of his time with a prostitute.

0

even_money 8 years, 4 months ago

o_m_b, I couldn't stay away. This place is simply too much fun!

Nancy Reagan once defended herself for having a handgun in the drawer of her bedside table, "But it's just a little gun."

I'm on vacation and, "It's just a little computer." :)

0

avhjmlk 8 years, 4 months ago

I never said that we evolved straight out of ooze.

The bible says we were made out of dirt, so I don't really see how a carbon-based ooze is any different anyway.

And, bankboy, thanks for using a comment I made on another post board a few days ago to trash whether or not I can be an honest Catholic. Nice move, slick-o. I'm glad that you decided to store up everything you dislike about me in your mind so you could throw it back in my face unnecessarily in a completely inappropriate setting.

0

craigers 8 years, 4 months ago

There are other miracles that I could state, but I guess it really doesn't matter to some of you.

0

craigers 8 years, 4 months ago

It's amazing how people can be honest with how they feel on this board and then get bashed for it. Grimpeur I am glad you offer such great ideas to the board along with jayhawktownie. You have really made me think. I would expect name calling and putdowns from junior high kids, but I think they are in school now so it must be adults.

However, yourworstnightmare the miracles didn't involve unicorns or fairies. It was actually a person that was possessed by evil spirits and when they were prayed for they immediately tensed up and were released. Please bear in mind that throughout the prayer the person grew hostile until we said in the name of Jesus and it was over. There is a spirit world that we live in and it is real. You all can choose to poke fun of those that believe it, but it is real.

0

bankboy119 8 years, 4 months ago

HKP it's not scaring me at all. I'm not saying that ID should be in science or in schools, I don't want creationism wrapped in shiny foil...oh by the way avjsahlskdf, for proclaiming to be a Christian but saying we evolved from ooze and having a gay godfather for your child and thinking it's a good thing, you've kind of strayed far from Christian teaching haven't you? Please don't ever lump yourself in with the rest of the Christians who do keep their beliefs to what the Bible teaches.

Grimp why don't you read the rest of the site before you say one thing in there is crap. I'm sure not all of it is right, but with evolution it has had "experiments" and "proof" that people have debunked as well. If you're going to say one is okay but has errors and crocks in it, then accept the other side with the same open mind.

0

one_more_bob 8 years, 4 months ago

e_m, "Cretaceous radio"? Didn't they do some videos on MTV back in the day?

0

hobb2264 8 years, 4 months ago

adky,

"Why do people insist on believing the stories told in a book written centuries ago, by scores of unknown people, and amended by thousands of others to support their own views?"

Fear...yes, I agree. Also, besides the book of Genesis the authors in the Bible were first or second hand witnesses of the historical events that they wrote about. If you don't like the amended versions, you can always read the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

"Why do we have to have faith..."

Because God wants us to choose Him. And fortunately, we don't have to go through intermediates like Pat Robertson to get to know God. Jesus took care of that problem for us.

0

Mr_Christopher 8 years, 4 months ago

On emore thing... :-)

John Calvert said "I would predict that (Mirecki's) effort will go down in history as one of the laughingstocks of the century"

Mirecki will go down in histrory as a hero! Kansas is now ground zero for honestly teaching the controversy!

Chris

0

Mr_Christopher 8 years, 4 months ago

This is the greatest new development I have heard about. I hope the will cover ID methods such as the "Wedge Strategy" and "Teach The Controversy"

This is cool news, hopefully we'll see other universities offer similar classes all accross the country. Instead of Kansas being the laughing stock of science perhaps they will be the leaders in exposing Intelligent Design for what it really is.

I love you Kansas!

0

Hong_Kong_Phooey 8 years, 4 months ago

You know, I think that the religious folk out there who want ID taught in the schools are afraid. They are afraid that if they were to recognize that by chance we evolved out of the primordial soup, the planets aligned, etc. then there really is "no one flying the plane" so-to-speak. This would mean that everything happens by chance and that they are in as much control over their lives as God would be. I think this scares the hell out of them. So, instead of realizing this, they cling to the bible and ID like a little kid to his woobie.

0

hobb2264 8 years, 4 months ago

YWN,

"Oh, this sounds like an unbiased, purely scientific organization."

How can you write that with a straight face? Science by definition is biased against any kind of "supernatural" entity. Everyone (bankboy, craigers and others) trying to convince people that science can prove God is doing so without any chance of winning. The rules are clearly stacked against you when the definition of science clearly excludes anything but "natural" explanations. Even if a god does exist, the existence (and effects) can not be verified by a system that automatically rules Him out.

0

adky 8 years, 4 months ago

What a load of nonsense! Why do people insist on believing the stories told in a book written centuries ago, by scores of unknown people, and amended by thousands of others to support their own views? Wendt had the answer - fear. Humans have a wonderful ability to ease their fears by inventing fairy stories. If this creator was so great why doesn't he pop down and tell us all how he did it? Why do we have to have faith or listen to his message through conduits such as Pat Robertson? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but it keeps folks happy, makes lots of $$$$ for church leaders and preachers, and maintains GW in power! Praise the Lord!

0

avhjmlk 8 years, 4 months ago

Ah hah. bankboy has just shown us that ID is, in fact, no matter how hard they try to deny it, creationism wrapped in shiny paper.

And, craigers, you should also remember that the human body cannot always heal itself. What more proof could there be of the worth and importance of science and human intellect than, say, amoxicillin? Or, the use of electric shock (only during certain kinds of rhythms--scientists had to figure out which ones) to restart a stopped heart? That some children learn to read phonetically, and others through word recognition and pattern? That, when attempting to determine how a human body decomposes, the best animal to test on is a pig, because they decompose in a predictably similar way to the human body?

Whose to say that God didn't decide that, through Evolution, the first humans would come to be?

0

bennyoates 8 years, 4 months ago

Let's hope this will be a first step in rehabilitating the image of Kansas that has come to dominate the mass media in the last couple of weeks. Those of us who don't want to be lumped in with the ignoramuses on the school board and their followers have our work cut out for us. I'm close to graduating from KU with my Ph.D. and am bracing myself for the sarcastic remarks I'm sure to hear out on the job market.

0

even_money 8 years, 4 months ago

Boy oh boy o_m_b! It's nice enough out that I'm going to go dig in my back yard for artifacts. Stay tuned. Whatever I find I will post evidence of it on the internet--maybe on the radio too! What about a Cretaceous radio? Now THAT would be a find.

Did Sears make those?

0

one_more_bob 8 years, 4 months ago

If the hammer in the Cretaceous rock is a Craftsman, you can take it to Sears & get a new one. They guarantee all Craftsman tools!

0

bankboy119 8 years, 4 months ago

I'm sorry what's wrong with having creation in the name? You should check it out. Maybe you'll learn something. If it had evolution in the name I'm sure you would jump right on it as being incredibly "scientific." There is work in there by Nobel prize winners, scholars, all the lovely people you try and say have nothing to do with the evolution debate.

It would be ridiculous for you to ridicule it without even taking a look at it.

0

grimpeur 8 years, 4 months ago

bankboy:

You follow a good question with debunked dreck like this? "Dr." Baugh's "alleged 'giant man track' from Glen Rose, Texas, regarded by most researchers as a carved print and considered dubious even by most creationists" is supposed to convince us that the overwhelming scientific evidence is all wrong? Hoooookay, bub.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilfig1.html

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 4 months ago

Spankboy,

What peer-reviewed journals published this "work"?

The "Creation Evidences Museum"? Oh, this sounds like an unbiased, purely scientific organization.

It says "creation" in the name, ferchrissakes!

Spankboy, I think you have hit a new low of ridiculousness.

0

bankboy119 8 years, 4 months ago

Actually it comes from the Creation Evidences Museum. Fossil, how am I in over my head? Because I've finally put up evidence that you do not know how to refute?

Nightmare,

I believe plonium should be plutonium. If you'd like to see the entire site I'll gladly give you the link.

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/evidencefor/evidencefor.html

At the bottom there are different areas to visit and you can go see the rest of the explainations. I won't waste the time putting it all up here.

Bob, no it's not on the radio.

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 4 months ago

Bankboy "Man-made artifacts such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past. (11)" I've seen the "evidence" of all of these and they are all simply marks in rocks, or in the case of the hammer, corrosion on a piece of steel. No one outside of the young earth fundamentalist web sites gives them any credence. BTW, you forgot the Cretaceous "battery" too.

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 4 months ago

Spankboy,

I agree with Fossil. What politico-religious website did you pull these references from? What peer-reviewed journals were these reports published in? What is "plonium"?

0

grimpeur 8 years, 4 months ago

craigers:

Thanks for the insight into your view. I am familiar with your interpretation of the complexity of natural phenomena. I recognize that the "evidence" you posit suggests the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I used to think this FSM stuff was just silly talk, but now it's beginning to make sense.

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 4 months ago

bankboy - huh? You're in over your head here.

0

one_more_bob 8 years, 4 months ago

Bankboy, is that what they say on the radio?

0

bankboy119 8 years, 4 months ago

Man-made artifacts such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past. (11)

(11) Carl Baugh, Ph D WHY DO MEN BELIEVE EVOLUTION ... AGAINST ALL ODDS?

0

bankboy119 8 years, 4 months ago

Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of plonium-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. (10) This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

(10) Robert Gentry CREATIONN'S TINY MYSTERY)

0

bankboy119 8 years, 4 months ago

Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. (4) Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand years.

  1. Thomas Barnes, ICR Technical Monograph #4, ORIGIN AND DESTINY OF THE EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD.
0

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 4 months ago

Craigers,

Did the miracles you witnessed involve unicorns and faeries?

0

Jamesaust 8 years, 4 months ago

Proof that only you can see = ghosts

A self-proving hypothesis? Is that ringing telephone the Nobel Prize Committee calling (or is it just a self-ringing telephone)?

0

one_more_bob 8 years, 4 months ago

"If the earth was closer to the sun, then we would have a planet like Venus, uninhabitable for people, and if it were further away we would freeze." The Flying Spag. Monster would have given us umbrellas on our heads for shade or warm fur like grizzle bears.

0

even_money 8 years, 4 months ago

Obviously craigers believes we are 'special'. Live and let live.

http://lithiumlite.com/ChurchLady.jpg

0

Tanya Spacek 8 years, 4 months ago

I'm so glad KU is putting ID where it belongs. Bravo!

In the meantime, I'm going to educate my children so that when they're confronted with the ID theory in junior and senior high, they'll know what's going on and be able to resist the ID theories' demand to stop thinking and chalk everything up to a magical 'creator'. You know, people used to think fire, pestilence, even babies came directly from the gods. We've come a long way. Why regress now?

0

adky 8 years, 4 months ago

craigers:

What proof for a creator? Does it stand up to scientific testing?

0

jayhawktownie 8 years, 4 months ago

craigers- Since when is something which we don't fully understand proof of anything? The purpose of science is to gain understanding of things we don't currently understand. Sure, there are some things in the natural world that are still beyond the realm of our scientific knowledge but you cannot use this as proof that there will never be a scientific explanation. Your reasoning shows a complete lack of critical thinking and exposes the weakness of the intelligent design position. Are human's supposed to give up the pursuit of knowledge and just say, "we don't get it, it must be the creator?" Please, come back to the board when you have something thought-provoking to contribute.

0

craigers 8 years, 4 months ago

grimpeur, I see the complexity of our bodies and how they heal themselves when hurt, how the nervous system as well as the others work as proof of a creature. I dont' see the logic of concluding that the least likely option as being the right answer, ie evolution for our origin. I know some will counter back with how is a God more logical when you can't see him? I guess it depends on our lives. I have spent my life in church, but have seen miracles take place and that confirms the word of God for me, the proof that he is real. Therefore I can see that he is real and it is logical to see Him as the creator. As for nature, the way moisture returns to the sky to once again rain down and water the fields to allow them to grow and to allow us with water to drink since it is essential to life. If the earth was closer to the sun, then we would have a planet like Venus, uninhabitable for people, and if it were further away we would freeze. There are many other reasons that I see as proof and I realize that the application of evolution will explain some of the adaptations of our bodies among many other useful facts. However, it can't explain our origin. This world is its own proof. Please remember that I am not trying to advocate ID in the science classroom because I see that it doesn't fit into the scientific study parameters. I just don't see how people can so easily dismiss the idea of a creator. Christians are seen as feeling dehumanized by the thought of coming from an animal ancestor, but then those who uphold evolution consider themselves as too intelligent to believe in a creator. (This is merely an observation of most evolutionists I have encountered, not everybody on this post so please don't get angry)

0

Kodiac 8 years, 4 months ago

"I would predict that (Mirecki's) effort will go down in history as one of the laughingstocks of the century," said John Calvert, an attorney and managing director of the Intelligent Design Network in Johnson County.

"Calvert questioned Mirecki's expertise, saying the teaching of intelligent design requires an extensive understanding of evolution and science."

"I think the guy is going to fall all over himself," Calvert said. "I would love to go to his class and say, 'Explain to me how DNA arose in the primordial soup?'"

For anyone who considers themselves an ID person, this is not the guy you want representing you. Consider the question Calvert claims he would ask. As Travis pointed out earlier, the absurdity of this question clearly shows a lack of scientific understanding even from a layman's perspective. Calvert is "one of the laughingstocks of the century." Notice how scientists defend evolution and attorneys and politicians defend ID/creationsism. The irony of the "expertise" statement is staggering.

I think it is amusing to watch Calvert and his cronies all hyperventilate over an elective course being offered by KU on mythology. This course which somehow "demeans" ID and makes "victims" out of ID defenders, should be the least of their worries. The scientific method is where their focus should be since it is responsible for destroying every argument that ID has tried to put forth.

0

grimpeur 8 years, 4 months ago

craigers:

"Obviously, you have chosen to reject the proof in nature and our own bodies."

I'll repeat my question: What proof? What does it prove, and how?

0

BunE 8 years, 4 months ago

YWN, you are a dreamboat!

When the Idiots frame the argument we all lose!

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 4 months ago

This religion class can explore the roots of creationist ID "thought", but CanadianPassport, who said that ID belongs in a politics class, is on to something.

ID creationism is a facet of a wider anti-intellectualism that has been a part of populist political thought for at least 150 years and probably longer.

It is part of a populist political reaction against professionals, experts, and academics that is prevalent in our political culture.

One need to look no further than denials of scientists about global warming and evolution, denials of "activist" judges, and Michael Brown.

0

Confrontation 8 years, 4 months ago

wendt: Thanks for bringing in some common sense to this argument! It is crazy to see all these people who believe that a book (bible, koran, etc.) is proof of anything. If some guy claimed to be getting the "word of God" today, then we'd lock him up in a mental ward. It cracks me up to hear a Christian make fun of Scientology. Really, are alien souls really that much less believable than all sorts of stuff from the bible? I think religion is good in the sense that it teaches a set of morals and encourages people to not cheat on their spouse or kill people.

0

BunE 8 years, 4 months ago

Woooooooowoowoooooowowoooooooo. This is not for you to ponder...God works in mysterious ways. The earth was made in 4004 BC. woooowowoooo. Your science and reason are no match for the power of scripture.

or something like that

Creationists are afraid to have the mysteries explained but man does not have the ability to just accept the status quo. Those who do are looked upon as lazy or drags on society. Don't be afraid. If the hypothesis is correct and god did design this big ol goofy world than that would change the face of science forever!

Let me put it words they can understand.

God is said to have bestowed man with its innate curiosity. It would be sinful not to let it follow its course. Science by its nature is critical of itself. Let the ID-ists step up and enter the world of scientific discovery. Wouldn't a god that created this amazing machine that is our body and the computer that controls it want us to use it to its fullest? I doubt that blind worship is the whole point of self awareness. Welcome into a whole new world of rigorous analysis. Maximizing one's potential seems to me to be a better vehicle for god's glory than wasting it.

Its what god would want. Does he have something to fear?

Also if the the majority of the world is going to hell than god is sort of a jerk.

0

dirtykaw 8 years, 4 months ago

Don't come running to John Calvert if God becometh angry and smites KU with a holy hurricane

0

CanadianPassport 8 years, 4 months ago

I think it would make sense to teach creationism in a mythology class, but not ID. Nor do I think ID should be taught in a science class. At this point, ID should only be taught in a politics class. If a biology teacher wants to address any holes in evolutionary theory, there is obviously more than one way to teach that; let them decide. Regardless of my opinion of the French, Ascot got it right with the Freedom Fries analogy. It's petty. This is just a hastily thought-up way to cash in on public divisiveness.

I don't understand why some Christians feel so threatened by the teaching of evolution. If you believe in any God, you believe that man was given his intellect so that he could use it. Some Christians have a very literal interpretation of the bible, others don't. Regardless, a Christian's salvation does not hinge upon any of the stuff in the ID debate.

0

craigers 8 years, 4 months ago

Obviously, you have chosen to reject the proof in nature and our own bodies.

0

grimpeur 8 years, 4 months ago

craigers:

"Proof for a creator?" Such as?

It would be correct to say that understanding (of anything) doesn't negate the POSSIBILITY of a creator. Of course, nor does it confirm the possibility of a creator. However, unlike ID/creationist/religion, science doesn't pretend to have proven or disproven anything about origins of universe or life on earth. Rather, science has provided many insights into the possible mechanisms of such beginnings and subsequent proliferation of life on earth, all based on observation of natural phenomena and experimental testing.

Creationists, however, have not done this, haven't provided any scientific data for their beliefs, and so are pretending that proof exists of such a creator, despite the fact that there is none. That's why ID will never make it as a science, and why it's perfectly suited to a mythology class.

0

travis 8 years, 4 months ago

"I think the guy is going to fall all over himself," Calvert said. "I would love to go to his class and say, 'Explain to me how DNA arose in the primordial soup?'"

As attorney and managing director of an ID group you think he would have a better understanding of suspected initial pathways.

Correct me if I'm wrong but RNA is widely thought to have preceded DNA.

If you have seas of nucleotides that are freely binding together you will get larger molecules, if your component nucleotides are of the right set (which is assumed) RNA molecules will form. RNA can act as a catalyst. As soon as the mechanics for self-replication have formed in RNA as a product of random binding (this is the crucial step) you have the start of life.

Imperfectly replicating agents with limited resources means competition and evolution.

I imagined this years ago with little guidance and have since read it with more detail in biochemistry texts and Dawkins for example.

There are, of course, other explanations of the biochemical origins of life (and tens of thousands of explanations of supernatural origins as well). Just wanted to drop this in.

Nice excerpt from Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker": http://print.google.com/print?id=dhqToCuk4MIC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=rna&sig=A4vXyJYvkjyKB90SUi1-GEL80DU about visible evolution of RNA-replicase within a set of test tubes.

0

craigers 8 years, 4 months ago

wendt I am glad you can detect sarcasm and then turn it into saying I am an idiot. Thank you super intelligent wendt for pointing that out to me.

feeble, once again understanding something doesn't negate a creator. I might understand how a car, electricity, among many other things work, but does that mean that I can say that Henry Ford had nothing to do with automobiles? Or that Edison had nothing to do with the lightbulb? Absolutely not. That fact that you can understand and tell how something works doesn't negate it's need for someone that created it.

Since the world shows the proof for a creator then no man is without excuse saying he didn't know that God existed.

0

Jamesaust 8 years, 4 months ago

I've warned before that those seeking to insert religion into government should be prepared for government to insert itself into religion. I guess that warning fell on deaf ears.

We'll see if the class is an honest evaluation of this sociological phenomena or whether its critics' fears of bigotry are proved out. But if some feel that the idea of such a class is "to slam all Christian ideology," the critics' scientific ignorance pales in comparison to their theological stupidity as ID is not and never has been an element of Christian theology. Not understanding the difference is the equivalent of confusing a present with the present's packaging.

0

planetwax 8 years, 4 months ago

"They don't want their beliefs to be analyzed rationally. That's what this class is devised to do."

You can say that again and again!

0

moveforward 8 years, 4 months ago

This is PERFECT! Yeah!?!?

I never had a problem with presenting the ID theory... just not as science. What an elegant solution! Way to go KU... now maybe our local school district can step up to the plate... they surely stretch into theology when teaching the philosphies of Descartes, Plato and Taoism.

0

badger 8 years, 5 months ago

I applaud this.

All faiths are on some level mythologies, and everyone who practices a faith does it because they believe that theirs is the correct mythology, or they would be practicing a different one.

Mythology does not have to be a derogatory term. It can also apply as a neutral description to a linked set of beliefs explaining how the world works together.

Religions are one form of mythology. Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, paganism, all of these are linked sets of beliefs offering metaphysical explanations for what is. There are varying degrees of evidence and proof for any of these faiths, and their mythology, because it's based in metaphysical and supernatural explanations, belongs with the study of the metaphysical and supernatural in Religion and Philosophy classes.

The evolutionary theory of the origin of life is also a mythology, one that offers a linked set of beliefs based in a physical explanation for what is. Because it's a physical and scientific study, it belongs in Science classes with the study of physical and natural phenomena. Just as you can take a Biology class and a Philosophy class without the two of them invalidating each other, you can examine physical and metaphysical explanations for what is without the ideas necessarily contradicting each other. You just need to keep separate what is addressing the metaphysical and what is addressing the physical.

He's not actually trying to teach that ID is wrong. He's exploring it as a philosophical topic, as it should be explored:

"Mirecki said the course would be capped at 120 students, exploring intelligent design as a modern American mythology. Intelligent design is the idea that life is too complex to have evolved without a "designer," presumably a god or other supernatural being.

The course also will cover the origins of creationism, why it's an American phenomenon, and why Americans have allowed it to pervade politics and education, Mirecki said. He said several KU faculty have volunteered to be guest lecturers."

It looks to be more a study of the concepts themselves and how they apply to modern American life, and how they affect our social framework. I think it sounds like an interesting philosophy class.

0

feeble 8 years, 5 months ago

@ craigers

I take it you slept through History class during the discussion of Ptolemy and his epicycles. The irony here is quite profound.

0

mason_powell 8 years, 5 months ago

It is interesting that Calvert's response has nothing to do with the actual class that is perhaps going to be offered. What does DNA and the primordial soup have to do with teaching a class about American mythology. There are classes about Chinese mythology and I don't see Calvert throwing a fit about that. If Calvert has questions about DNA then he needs to enroll in a biology course. Finally, these instructors are not teaching classes "in" religion, that is why a person gets religious training. Religious Studies teaches students "about" religion. American Mythology is fair game, as it falls into that category. Unless someone is going to tell me that religion has nothing to do with ID or creationism. People have no problem talking about the mythology of other cultures. Just don't talk about theirs, is that the rule?

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 5 months ago

This class sounds great. Thank you Professor Mirecki. It is truly an example of the sort of thing that a university should be doing. Bravo.

Don't forget about the Flying Spaghetti Monster ID myth, may you be touched by his noodly appendage.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

Craigers:

I love how the quality of reflection is "odd" to you.

Is there anything else in reality that confuses you???

To be sure, creationism "addresses" our origins. It's how correct the explanation is, that's the rub.

If creationism is not correct, then creationism is just a story, a myth. Therefore, creationism gets placed in a religion class, along with creation myths from other cultures.

The most instructive thing is the comparison with other creation myths. It reveals ourselves, what we want, what we fear, etc.

0

craigers 8 years, 5 months ago

My point is not to say that ID is science or Astronomy. Thanks for jumping to that conclusion. My point is that no matter if you understand the universe and all the natural things that go on, doesn't negate the obviousness of a creator. All the other solar systems have orbits too? No doubt does this call for some higher being putting them on this orbit. I don't see how arrogant people can be. For me to say that Jesus is the only way to God is intolerant and arrogant, but you are consider a man of the people if you show creationism as a myth and evolution the only way to explain our origins. Nobody sees the hypocrisy in this? I know you are smarter than that fossilhunter. You are bringing up all the cliched arguments against anybody that brings up a creator or ID. I am not talking math or science or anything like that, but the proof that this universe and all the other solar systems provides isn't a world created by chance, but by a creator.

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 5 months ago

Craigers - Now astronomy is ID too? You just completed the argument why ID is not science. If you can apply the same reasoning to EVERYTHING, then it is not science. "Is it just coincidence that 1+1=2? I think not! It could have just as easily equalled 3, but it was designed to equal two." Your argument about the planets can apply to every one of the billions of solar systems -- all planets have orbits, all planets have suns, most planets have moons that reflect light back.....what you have are the physics of gravity, inertia, light....

0

billybeanbag 8 years, 5 months ago

I love this town, this school and this is a great use of academia's muscle.

0

tir 8 years, 5 months ago

Good for Mirecki and the KU School of Religion. I don't see this class as something that just "puts down" ID--I think it will help put ID into perspective, by discussing it as simply one of the many creation myths that have arisen over the centuries. Studying creation myths can tell us a great deal about the people and societies that believe in them. I think it sounds like a wonderful class and I hope a lot of people sign up for it.

0

craigers 8 years, 5 months ago

I just love how everybody seems to think they can explain our origins with evolution, that is what creationism is addressing. Not the gradual changes within species that we have all stated and believe is correct. I love how the solar system and all the planets being on their orbits just occurred by chance, like the earth being tilted at 23.5 degrees in order to provide proper distribution of the sun, the sun lights up our day and the moon oddly reflects the sun's light to keep our nights from being completely black. Oh yeah, completely looks like chance. As to people's objections of how we Christians feel about who get's to go to heaven isn't accurate at all. I didn't make this decision, God did. Don't be mad because you feel that you might be wrong, we have been over this before. The fact that they majority of the world will go to hell isn't an opinion it is exactly what Jesus told us would happen. I am glad that people view Christians as intolerant and unloving but when one of the scientific community steps out and just wants to slam all Christian ideology they praise him as being intelligent and correct in being an indignant bigot. Welcome to Lawrence.

0

ladysilk 8 years, 5 months ago

This is almost worth going back to school for. I think I may sign up to take classes! Bravo!!!

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 5 months ago

This is brilliant strategy! Kind of the "ying" to the "yang" of the ID/Evolution "trial".

0

neopolss 8 years, 5 months ago

"I think the guy is going to fall all over himself," Calvert said. "I would love to go to his class and say, 'Explain to me how DNA arose in the primordial soup?'"

"God made it that way." That's using ID LOL.

0

BrianR 8 years, 5 months ago

Mythology being taught as mythology. Brilliant.

Is that the sound of wacko religious conservative heads exploding?

0

one_more_bob 8 years, 5 months ago

Seems like the sort of thing a university should be doing.

0

ive_got_my_ascot_n_my_dickie 8 years, 5 months ago

It seems childish and petty to me. This mythology class ranks right up there with "Freedom Fries."

0

jayhawk2000 8 years, 5 months ago

We can't go back in time to determine the precise nature of our origins, but if I see a tree lying across the road after an ice storm I'm going to blame the weight of the ice, not some divine force or hungry beavers. And I'll be able to come to that conclusion without hopping into my time machine.

Maybe it WAS a gang of hungry beavers out on a rampage in an ice storm this one time, but when faced with evidence (say, divergence of species on the Galapagos Islands as was the case with Darwin) we should explain things more simply with specific, scientific theories rather than generalisations about a nameless, inscrutable divine being.

Time for a shave with Ockham's Razor, methinks. Any volunteers from the ID brigade??

0

even_money 8 years, 5 months ago

As an undergraduate I learned a lot about building construction. Medieval builders, for example, learned from their mistakes. When a building would fall down (and many did), they would attempt to correct their errors during the construction of the next one, often by using better materials and / or making walls thicker where they had failed previously. Construction technology was essentially building mythology.

Then along came the scientific method which used the 'original' new math to calculate strengths of various materials and devise methods where primitive iron could be 'upgraded' and be produced as steel. In a relatively short amount of time, buildings became engineered using highly accurate scientific calculations for understanding the properties of our new and improved construction materials. Engineered timber, concrete, and steel frames now support 'modern' buildings. We still have ancient buildings, though--at least the ones which haven't fallen down. But it's true. They don't build 'em like they used to.

All this saddened me a little, though. Science, I felt, had debunked the myth. Instead of explaining the heavens using stories of constellations, we now had the properties of physics to enable us to understand the behavior of the cosmos. Etc., etc. But scientific calculations fall short of providing the richness ancient mythology gave us.

Dr. Mirecki, I thank you for bringing mythology back to our modern world, and I look forward to paying close attention to, and enjoying, your stories.

0

scottjp 8 years, 5 months ago

I am truely happy to be an alumni of KU. They are stepping up to the plate.

Calvert wants to know what Mirecki's scientific credentials are while he is a lawyer leading ID. What are your scientific credentials Mr. Calvert?
Do you not want ID taught with religion because it hurts you trying to prove it as science? Do you not want ID myth to be taught with religion because it brings out the myth in religion? You can't have it both ways.

Again, thank you KU

0

Barclay 8 years, 5 months ago

Once again, Kansas students are the losers because of the arrogance of higher education. I agree with devobrun. All we have is evidence- evidence of what? Science has not "proven" anything about origins. Anthony Flew, leading contemporary aetheist philosopher, says the evidence is leading him away from naturalistic interpretations of origins.

0

devobrun 8 years, 5 months ago

Prof Mirecki is half way to the proper class description. If he simply includes "evolution" in the title of his course he will find a rich smokin' smelly pile of material to fill his class. Mythology is right on. "Where did we come from and how did we get here?" are questions that cannot be answered scientifically because they cannot be tested. We cannot go back in time. Nor can we conduct an experiment that lasts a million years. All we have is evidence subject to the mythological tendencies of the human spirit. Sing your songs, evolutionists, dance your dances, creationists. Stop using the term science prematurely. You haven't tested all that you claim.

0

Bowhunter99 8 years, 5 months ago

OHH YEAHHH.... I'm hoping they have to move this class to the large 600+++ student auditoriums due to the strong demand.

This is great! They wanted their nonsense taught in a classroom??? Here it is. Enjoy!

File ID under mythology! Great Job Mr Mirecki.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.