RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: KU class angers ‘design’ advocates< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Jason Spaceman



Posts: 163
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2005,22:41   

John Calvert is upset because Kansas University is teaching ID the way it should be taught; as religion

Quote
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.


Read it here.

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2005,01:10   

Awesome!  Thanks for the link.

  
celtic_elk



Posts: 11
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2005,04:24   

What I find interesting (and granted, this may only be of interest to me, because I study the subject informally) is the resistance to being labelled "mythology."  Calvert is quoted later in the article as saying "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."  The implication here is clearly that to label something "mythology" is to say it's intellectually worthless.  Most people who actually *study* religion, on the other hand, would argue that mythology has had, and continues to have, tremendous importance in shaping the human worldview throughout the centuries.  I guess ID sees anything less than full scientific recognition as evidence of its second-class status.  Not surprising, that....

  
Julie Stahlhut



Posts: 46
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2005,06:25   

Also (mildly) amusing that "one intelligent design proponent questioned Mirecki’s science credentials", since as far as I can tell from the article, Mirecki is claiming neither to be a scientist nor to teach a science class -- he's a religious-studies professor teaching a religious-studies class!

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2005,08:55   

Teach the controversy!
--er, I mean don't teach that there's a controversy!

No, no. Get it right. We want to teach the controversy. I'm sure that's what the DI said.

But don't teach that there is a controversy, that's all.

So, we're supposed to teach it, but not that it exists...

You're catching on.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Jason Spaceman



Posts: 163
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2005,23:13   

Some more news

Quote
Provost tries to put class in context; conservatives threaten to attack funding for higher education

By Sophia Maines (Contact)

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

A Kansas University official tried Tuesday to calm critics of a new religion class that labels intelligent design as “mythology,” but conservatives said they might take aim at the university’s funding.

“It is unfortunate that the course title’s reference to ‘mythologies’ has been misconstrued,” Provost David Shulenburger said in a written statement released Tuesday afternoon. “The terms ‘myth’ and ‘mythology’ are common in the academic study of religion and not an affront. A myth refers to the common use of stories or rituals to symbolize in a meaningful manner the core beliefs of a religion; it does not refer to any religion as a whole.”

But some conservatives, such as Sen. Kay O’Connor, R-Olathe, were unmoved.

“Why poke a stick in somebody’s eye if you don’t have to?” she said. “If you’re going to have an intelligent design course and call it mythology, I think in the very least it’s a slap in the face to every Judeo-Christian religion that’s out there.”

And John Altevogt, a conservative columnist and activist in Kansas City, said Tuesday that state officials should require the university to change the name of the Department of Religious Studies to the “Department of Religious Intolerance.”

“If we can’t do that,” Altevogt said, “maybe we settle for some cuts in spending.”

   
snaxalotl



Posts: 9
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2005,12:18   

what I find interesting is the secondary layer of mythology. not the fact myth that "someone designed stuff", but the myth that "there exists an unbreakable scientific proof of the stuff we believe". In the sciences you can't get away with stuff like that, but in the real world people pass around proof myths (which are beyond their scientific capacity to verify) and the disproofs which exist are such esoteric knowledge as to be irrelevent to that culture.

--------------
Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

  
stevestory



Posts: 10394
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2005,03:54   

I'm in favor of the class. However if Mirecki really made the comments that "“The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category mythology.” then he should perhaps be removed from teaching it.

   
  7 replies since Nov. 21 2005,22:41 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]