A slap in the face
by KrauzeMore news on Professor Paul Mirecki, who's planning a course on intelligent design as mythology at Kansas University. In an official statement by the provost, David Shulenburger regretted that "the course title's reference to mythologies' has been misconstrued", and that it shouldn't be taken as an "affront". But it seems that Professor Mirecki himself is of a different opinion. In an e-mail sent to the list-serve of the Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics, he wrote:
"The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category 'mythology,'" Mirecki wrote.
He signed the note "Doing my part (to upset) the religious right, Evil Dr. P."
What was the reaction of the self-styled "Evil Dr. P." Attacking the person who forwarded the e-mail!
Mirecki didn't deny writing the message but suggested it wasn't meant to be seen by the general public. He said Wednesday that a "mole" who had been monitoring the student organization's list-serve sent the message to a fundamentalist organization.
"It's their version of ethics — one citizen spying on another and reporting to authorities," he said.
This is rich. Instead of dealing with the disconnect between his e-mail and the "official message" from the provost, Professor Mirecki complains that his e-mail "wasn't meant to be seen by the general public." As for his theory about being spied on by a "mole"… well, it appears that there is some disconnect there as well:
Andrew Stangl, president of the Society of Open- minded Atheists and Agnostics, said the list-serve was designed to provide an open and informal forum for discussion. The list-serve is open to the public, but users must register with a username and a password.
In spite of all of this, I support Professor Mirecki's academic freedom to teach this course, and I'm looking forward to it starting. If Mirecki's child-like e-mail and conspiracy-prone speculations are anything to go by, the students at the University of Kansas are in for a spectacular display of an academic mind slamming shut at the mention of intelligent design. I wish I could be there to watch the fireworks.
(HT: David Heddle and Forthekids )
November 25th, 2005 at 11:07 pm
Mirecki is a doctor of theology who is apparently ignorant of how theologians commonly use the term "mythology." Leonard's right, in theology, a body of related scientific literature is no less a mythology than the Holy Bible. Apparently no one at the University of Kansas knows that.
I looked at the doctor's pubs page and I don't see a single one on science"”even the inevitable (hackneyed) "science vs. religion" paper. Not a single paper on Intelligent Design. Not a single paper on Creationism. Not a single paper on "other Religious Mythologies." (A lot about "magic," though. It is interesting how science is related to magic. Think he'll explore that in his class?)
Apparently his best qualification to teach such a course is his experience as faculty advisor to the campus atheist-agnostic society.
I'm sure I don't understand how universities work but I was wondering, say I was a doctor of theology, conservative and evangelical, very publicly critical of evolutionary theory, and I decided, just one day on a whim, that I wanted to teach an introductory course on evolutionary biology? Is the university somehow obliged to make its facilities available to me? Is there someone who actually approves this stuff, or is it just an academic free-for-all? Can I just decide I want to teach anything? Can I just make it up as I go along?
Could I teach a course about Coptic Gnosticism? Say I once visited Egypt and talked to some Coptics while I was there. Would that qualify me to teach the subject?
Like I said, I really don't know how the system works. (Or if it works. LOL)
Comment by Rock — November 25, 2005 @ 11:07 pm
November 26th, 2005 at 12:56 am
Rock,
Since it's a "Special Topics" course, my guess is that it doesn't require any approval beyond the departmental level and doesn't even go in the course catalog. And yes, it doesn't look like Mirecki is qualified to teach such a course. But when the end justifies the means, who cares, right?
Comment by MikeGene — November 26, 2005 @ 12:56 am
November 26th, 2005 at 9:51 am
The course and facility approval depends on each university, but I would presume there are common elements. Since I have been passively working on getting college ID courses installed in unversities, and not being a university insider, my role has been mostly to gather information and pass it along to people who may be able to influence policy. So this is what I do know….
At one secular school I was working with, many professors are on a fixed salary. If they choose to offer and experimental course, they require very little approval except by the deaprtment (Mirecki is the department chair). And if the professor offers the course in addition to his teaching load, it therefore becomes financially advantageous to the university since the university is providing more classroom seats at almost no cost to the university….
Experimental courses can last for a few semesters. If the experimental course is popular, it may get incorporated as a regular offering. So if the courses are offered "for free", the university is quite delighted.
Special topics in religion courses pop up all the time because of current events (9/11 for example caused hightened insterest in understanding islam among evangelicals and other non-islamic americans). Because of this, religion departments list "Special Topics" in there catalogue as a regular 300 level offering and notify the students of the special topics available on a per/semester basis. So the route of experimental course or special topics is are avenues to have these sorts of courses. Further, it's easier to get people who are "qualified" if it's in the religion and philosophy department to discuss ID…..
Regarding qualifications, the interesting thing is several of these anti-ID courses have popped where one would not expect, like say, this English class at my university: Anti-ID English Class! Now what in the heck is anti-ID focus doing in an English class!
Why is that? The topic can't be ignored. ID is already getting mentioned in science classes and textbooks in our university (if only in a negative light). The professors are aware of this rising epidemic. For example, recall, Jessica Young in the NPR report, NPR on Academic Freedom, the bio senior, IDist, honors student who complained, that evolution was "being crammed down her throat every day" — well her professor is requiring her and her honors classmates to attend Eugenie Scott's lecture at our school Thursday, December 1, 2005 about "why scientist reject ID".
The point about qualifications is that the science professors have done all they can or are willing to do, and the English and Religion professors must now join the fray because they are disconcerted about what is happening.
Why are these non-scientist joining the fray? I should point out one other factor: consider that 1/3 of the freshman biology class at Iowa State are creationists (Adam-and-Eve-is-true-and-Darwin-is-a-bad-guy creationists!). At some point, does it make sense for an anti-ID bio department to be antagonizing 1/3 of an entire class! That is what I am seeing at other secular schools, the science professors are reluctant to slap their students in the face if for no other reason than to keep their departments growing. And often many creationist and ID leaning students are at the top of these classes.
In the past, when it seemed an IDist bio student was an isolated case, a slap in the face was an effective method to bring everyone else into line, but when it's 1/3 of one's entire class, perhaps cooperation is the wiser avenue. So they leave the face slapping to be done outside the bio department by people like Mirecki…
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 26, 2005 @ 9:51 am
November 26th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
As Harry Truman once said "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".
It seems to me that those who support ID feel no compunction about criticizing evolution, but they get all testy when someone criticizes their "theory".
Comment by doctormark2 — November 26, 2005 @ 3:08 pm
November 26th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
Hi doctormark2,
"It seems to me that those who support ID feel no compunction about criticizing evolution, but they get all testy when someone criticizes their "theory"."
What makes you think that? Did you miss my post, in which I said that I was actually looking forward to Mirecki's course starting?
Comment by Krauze — November 26, 2005 @ 3:56 pm