Welcome to our online chat with J-W's Sophia Maines and Scott Rothschild about KU and intelligent design.
The chat took place on Wednesday, November 30, at 1:15 PM and is now closed, but you can read the full transcript on this page.
Moderator: Hi folks. We'll get underway on our chat with Scott and Sophia in just a few minutes.
Moderator: And here we go....
Larry Fafarman, Los Angeles: Will the course study intelligent design from a scientific standpoint or not? I wish someone would straighten that out.
Sophia Maines: I'll take that one Scott. It's obviously a key point that the course will be offered in the Department of Religious Studies. Prof. Mirecki has said the course will cover the origins of creationism, why it's an American phenomenon and why Americans have allowed it to pervade politics and education. Also, the course starts with the assumption that intelligent design is not science.
Merrill, Lawrence: This is a question of legislators micromanaging a university and in a large way the public school system as well. We see this in Bob Corkins as well. It is certainly not the job of legislators to micromanage out school systems or to worry about a personal message some professor put out on a chatboard.
What is their point?
Any creationism supporters ought to be thankful that a higher education school decided to provide
a venue for a very public discussion of creationism . What's the problem?
Journal-World higher education reporter Sophia Maines responds to reader's questions online.
Scott Rothschild: Merrill -- Legislators who sometimes get into the business of the universities say they have to answer to their constituents who bring up concerns. Public higher education gets a big chunk of its funds from state taxpayers and student tuition, so they are in part accountable to the Legislature.
It usually depends on whether you agree with the legislator if you think they are unduly micromanaging.
On the issue of whether creationists should be thankful that a class is being offered, I think some are.
Ronald Pine, Lawrence: What can you tell us about how the quotes were extracted from Dr. Mirecki's listserve communication and who did it? Also, what can you tell us about how the press was contacted?
Sophia Maines: The Journal-World received a copy of the e-mail from John Altevogt, a conservative activist in Kansas City. Altevogt sent the e-mail not only to the Journal-World, but several media outlets. To date, Altevogt has not said how he received the e-mail.
John, Lawrence: Is anybody really angry over the fact that KU's religious studies department would offer a class dealing with intelligent design and creationism? Or is everyone just mad about the tone of Professor Mirecki's e-mail?
Evolution
Evolution in Kansas
- Video
- 6News video: Some question group's move with elections nearing (07-08-06)
- 49abcnews.com video: Discovery Institute starts ad campaign weeks before elections (07-07-06)
- 6News video: Film explores evolution circus (01-03-06)
- 6News video: Group takes shot at Mirecki through postcards (12-15-05)
- 6News video: Mirecki resigns from KU department post (12-07-05)
- Stories
- Education board to revisit debate over evolution (02-11-07)
- As old board departs, new evolution stance takes shape (12-14-06)
- Biologist speaks for intelligent design (12-08-06)
- Cultures clash in Democratic primary (07-06-06)
- Education department spokesman leaves job (06-15-06)
- Evolution, religion comments put heat on department spokesman (05-26-06)
- KU profs support evolution skepticism (02-21-06)
- Science teachers pan new standards (02-14-06)
- 'Dodos' circling around I.D. (01-04-06)
- Attorneys in I.D. case spread message (01-04-06)
- Professor blasts KU, sheriff's investigation (12-10-05)
- Kansas ranks last in science (12-08-05)
- Discovery Institute
- Evolution timeline: Events related to the Kansas controversy
- U.S. District Court Ruling in Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Area School District (PDF)
- Center for Science and Culture: A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism
- Parody: Intelligent Design Society of Kansas
- Mirecki press release (.pdf)
- More evolution coverage
- LJWorld.com's Evolution in Kansas coverage
Scott Rothschild: John -- Legislators I have talked with who are angry about this situation say they were first put off by the title of the course, equating creationism with mythology. This just fed into the sentiment held by some that the university is elitist or that Judeo-Christian beliefs are snickered at. The revelation of the email just added fuel to the fire. Another concern by several lawmakers, who have now gotten into this, is whether the course measures up to graduate level work.
Badger, Austin TX: Someone may have already asked this, as I'm 'submitting the question early', but if attacking ID is, as some have stated, 'anti-Christian', then how is supporting it not 'pro-Christian'? For folks who say their view isn't based in religion, they sure do run pretty fast to claim religious discrimination. I don't understand how that logic works. Can you explain it?
Sophia Maines: That's a good question, and one that has been raised by opponents of Intelligent Design. I think that's a question that could best be answered by a proponent of Intelligent Design.
Scott Rothschild: Badger: There have been statements all over the board on this. I suspect folks will jump on either side of this to bolster their arguments. I have spoken to all of lot of Christians who will have nothing to do with ID.
Veronica, Lawrence: If he would have made these remarks about another religious or ethnic group would his punishment from KU been more rigorous than a slap on the wrist and a forced public apology?
Scott Rothschild: Veronica -- I don't know how the university would have reacted, and I don't know if you could substitute another religious or ethnic group into those remarks. There is a huge, volatile debate going on in Kansas over intelligent design and there are things being said on both sides that many people would consider intemperate.
Wonderhorse, Lawrence: How are legislators necessarily equipped to say what does or does not constitute graduate level work?
Scott Rothschild: Wonderhorse: Legislators are like everyone else, they've got an opinion. Some are probably better equipped than others to make this determination, but that won't stop any of them. Again, when they get complaints from people about something, they have a duty to get involved.
Sophia Maines: As for the creation of courses, faculty do have discretion in developing classes and teaching. As we're seeing in this case, courses can be reviewed by others in the university.
Chris, Shawnee: Those in the legislature and on the school board have been very quick to criticize and engage in name-calling with Dr. Mirecki and the KU administration without even looking at a course outline for the proposed class. As journalists, what can you do to make sure readers know the full story ââ " that they haven't even looked at how the class will be taught and already are criticizing the university and the professor in a seemingly unfair manner.
Sophia Maines: Chris, some who have voiced concerns have admitted they don't have all the facts and have said they want more information. In today's story, for example, Rep. Brenda Landwehr said she wants to learn more. As for giving readers the full story, today's story also reports in the eighth graph that a course description, reading list and syllabus aren't available yet.
Scott Rothschild: Chris: Religion is a touchy subject. The legislators who have criticized the course believe they are victims of someone equating their religion with mythology. No one wants their beliefs scorned. It seems the university should make the case that one of its jobs is to be provocative and challenge students and their world views, while still being respectful.
Fred, Topeka: I recently read a Columbia Journal Review article criticizing the local Kansas news media for allowing equal representation of non fact-based theories of evolution. The article stated that equal representation often confuses readers and gives credence to an unproven theory. The CJR article also criticized local papers for not taking a pro-evolution stance within the editorial pages of the newspapers. How can newspapers, which should be fact-based entities, do a better job of presenting unpopular views (science-driven) and not worry about being fair & balanced, when it flies in the face of hard science.
Moderator (Joel Mathis): I'll answer this one.
In nearly all of our stories on the intelligent design/evolution controversy, we've tried to note that the vast majority of mainstream scientists support evolution and reject intelligent design as a scientific theory -- the latter because, they say, intelligent design is not "falsifiable" or "testable."
That said, while scientists don't see a controversy regarding this subject, there is a cultural and social debate that's going on here -- and it demands coverage.
As for the editorial stance -- you'll have to talk to our editorial writers about that topic. Our news reporters don't get involved on that front.
Moderator (Joel Mathis): Thanks for your participation today! Sorry we weren't able to get to all the questions -- we'll do this again soon.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
jayhawks71 (anonymous) says…
The same people who have trouble with equating "their beliefs" with myth are the same people who do not know what science is.
Let's look at the dictionary.com defintion of myth and see if creationism fits...
A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.
The (old testament) creation MYTH is part of a tradition, thus it is traditional. It is thousands of years old, as were the Ancient Greek myths, therefore the aforementioned creation mythi is ancient. There is a "god" who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent; knows it all... is all powerful.... is everywhere... if that's not supernatural, please explain to me what is? There are ancestors, (Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, etc...) Eventually there is a "hero" in Jesus Christ, who saves humanity!
This is definitely a fundamental worldview of a people (creationists), who explain their society, the rules, the thought processes and the ideals/morals of their society as emanating from the Bible and "god's" creation.
If you believe in this, you believe in a MYTH. Learn what the words mean before crying foul. Semantics you say? It is unfortunate, but ever so true that words have meanings. Creationism is a MYTH.
wonderhorse (anonymous) says…
How DARE you to apply logic to the argument!
jayhawks71 (anonymous) says…
wonderhorse, you caught me and the whole scientific community with our proverbial pants down. we cannot get out of looking at something that is totally illogical without our applying our penchant for logic. guilty as charged.
wonderhorse (anonymous) says…
Nobody expects the ... Spanish Inquisition!
devobrun (anonymous) says…
Let's see: Luca (last universal common ancestor); "in the beginning was the word, and the word was RNA"; "that life is chemistry is true but boring, like saying that football is physics"; guide RNA, vault RNA, small nuclear RNA, small nucleolar RNA, self-splicing introns.
Is the tree of life from roots to branches or visa versa? The genome is the book of life. Each gene is a record of all who passed before you for the past 4 billion years.
Very heady stuff evolutionary biologists. Great story too. Look, CSI has run outtta stories, maybe you guys could create a new series called EBI Cambridge.
Episodes would include EBI teams finding a portion of "junk DNA" which really isn't junk, but the real reason Einstein was so abstract. The "abstract gene". The possibilities are even bigger than CSI.
Fits right in with the first entry on this board regarding the definition of myth.
jayhawks71 (anonymous) says…
Here is one for creationists to ponder. Let's say there WAS a God that created the universe, and one could provide strong scientific evidence to support the claim that this was all created by the so-called intelligent designer. Creationists would attempt use such "proof" that there is a "God." Unfortunately, proof of the prior existence of a being is not evidence of the current existence of that same being!
Creationists have slowly crept toward justifying their MYTH by trying to make their stance more "science-like." See, they value science; it makes too much sense and has led to such amazing advances in understanding and technology not to accept science. However, the double-edged sword of science now irritates them; they want science's "approval" (and I use that word lightly), but do not want to play by science's rules (and the rules of logic!). "Accept us on our terms, not yours!" cried, the ID advocate!
Oh well, as long as the supernatural remains outside of the domain of science and in the domain of mythology, there is no real need for anyone to further ponder this question.
jimincountry (anonymous) says…
Sophia, not trying to pry into your politics, but you stirred up a bunch of people, me included. Thanks for that! Mirecki really crossed the line. You didn't say that he did, but some of us felt that he did. I hope you are a KU jounalism graduate (because the university seems to need help under Hemenway's leadership) and your piece put the story out here for us with very little bias!
clearxs (anonymous) says…
What do all those names like:
Eric Rothschild from Scottish & jewish Masonry ('duke of') Hamilton law firm (Pepper Hamiilton);
And Scott Rothschild ???
hopping in and around this story?
Family Rothschild, heading the secret orders with secret knowlegde that has to be kept secret, now suing I.D.???
And a Rothschild 'reporting' this story as well?
A very common name, Rothschild; purely accidental....
Ha-ha... who-ho....
have a Holy Christmas!
(& I'm not a believer, but I believe sometihing strange is going on here)