Professor Paul Mirecki, from Kansas University, is planning to teach a new course entitled, "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies." That got me to wondering. Might the syllabus for the course contain this?
UPDATE: The professor could, of course, upgrade:
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:28 am
What's really funny about Mirecki and his ilk is that they are unable to see just how anachronistic darwinism is! There they are standing on the high water mark of applied enlightenment rationalism calling out in increasingly desperate tones 'jump in the waters fine'!
Comment by willo — November 23, 2005 @ 1:28 am
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:50 am
What is it with professors of religion and criticism of ID these days?
Comment by Krauze — November 23, 2005 @ 1:50 am
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:59 am
Krauze,
I know what you mean. It's like Son of Hector. Like Hector, this guy not only chairs the relgion department, but also the faculty sponsor for the college atheist group.
Comment by MikeGene — November 23, 2005 @ 1:59 am
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:04 am
Krauze, are you suggesting that professors of religion have no business critiquing ideas put forth by lawyers?
Comment by Art — November 23, 2005 @ 2:04 am
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:17 am
Professors of religion are free to critique ID all they want. As is anyone else. Hopefully, however, we'll get a chance to critique some of his critiques. I wouldn't expect much of an intellectual challenge, mind you. After all, we're probably dealing with yet another dime-a-dozen critic who confuses creationism with ID.
Comment by MikeGene — November 23, 2005 @ 2:17 am
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:27 am
Mike, maybe you'd like to donate to Mirecki your treatise that takes Phil Johnson to task for conflating ID, creationism, and antievolutionism. No reason for a professor of religion to have all the fun in debunking lawyerly myths, eh?
Comment by Art — November 23, 2005 @ 2:27 am
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:39 am
Art,
I've read very little of Johnson. The only argument I have read concerning this conflation is the one people commonly cite "“ some footnote in one of his books. Ironically, Eugenie Scott nicely criticizes this by showing that Johnson so watered things down that theistic evolutionists end up becoming "˜creationists.' Now, I have indeed pointed out the errors of this conflation in several of my essays (just did so in my last blog, for example). When it comes to this issue, rather than react to what people say, I think it makes more sense to think it through.
Comment by MikeGene — November 23, 2005 @ 2:39 am
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:42 am
Sometimes a critic will say that ID is "bad science, and bad theology, too". That always cracks me. Bad theology? How many Scientific investigations get labeled as "bad theology" Just a strange, strange criticism. Fairly absolute proof that some people just don't get it.
Comment by jazzraptor — November 23, 2005 @ 3:42 am
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:48 am
Seems the Provost is trying to do some damage control. He sees that Mirecki is already perceived as insulting student's personal beliefs.
Why cover up a department chair's true colors? Let the devout among the student body see Mirecki's disrespect for them in all it's fullness.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 23, 2005 @ 7:48 am
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:48 am
Mike, your essays dwell on so-called critics and avoid, like the plague, going to the heart of the "problem" you perceive. When you write one that tackles the core issues and gets to the true source of this problem, then perhaps Mirecki can fold it into his course.
Comment by Art — November 23, 2005 @ 9:48 am
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:48 am
The provost's comments are very interesting. He admits it is possible to misconstrue the title of the course, which argues strongly for the need to have this course clarify the use of the term "˜mythology.' In other words, Mirecki should begin the course by defining mythology, making it clear he is not passing truth judgments about ID, but only trying to understand it from within the confine of religious belief. This is what the course should be "“ "A myth refers to the common use of stories or rituals to symbolize in a meaningful manner the core beliefs of a religion." Mirecki has himself in a box.
What's more interesting are these quotes:
And
It looks like the door has been opened for another department in the humanities to offer a course something like, "Intelligent Design: More than Mythology?"
Comment by MikeGene — November 23, 2005 @ 9:48 am
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:00 am
Art, the essays dwell on the claim that ID = creationism. When you mention that I avoid going to the heart of the problem, I assume you mean the whole "Wedge" phenomena, where creationism evolved into ID for socio-political reasons. But dwelling as such is to commit a logical fallacy known as the genetic fallacy. It's better to employ critical thinking skills to determine if indeed ID = creationism.
Imagine someone were to find a valid document that shows the UN was constructed by powerful men in America as a means to better control the world according to American interests. If the UN did truly originate as an act of "American imperialism," should we disband the UN? Would the UN = American Imperialism?
Comment by MikeGene — November 23, 2005 @ 10:00 am
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:08 am
Since Mirecki has boxed himself in with his own chosen course title, there are other things he needs to fold into his course. Since it's about the "the common use of stories or rituals to symbolize in a meaningful manner the core beliefs of a religion," he'll need to address the long history of teleological thinking and its various expressions. Some people actually believe a lawyer crafted the idea of design a mere 20 years ago in order to mask creationism! It would be academically irresponsible to teach this type of revisionism as history.
Comment by MikeGene — November 23, 2005 @ 10:08 am
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:19 am
"ID = creationism" Two terms that are so nebulous and all-meaning make for a pretty vacuous equation, and certainly nothing that can be the subject of "critical thinking skills".
OTOH, there is a fact out there - that the vast majority of ID supporters, from the grass roots on up to the upper echelon, routinely, habitually, consistently conflate ID, creationism, and antievolutionism. It's not like the self-styled critics are making any of their criticisms up from thin air. There's more data than can be incorporated into even a long piece of writing. And it is provided by IDists themselves.
Including the keepers of this blog. Consider that ID has (like it or not) been coopted, subsumed, even hijacked by those for whom ID truly is creationism and antievolutionism. Your idea, Mike, is being used to many effects (I won't say good) by the vast majority of IDists who make this conflation routinely. The question is, was it stolen or given away? Well, if someone stole something of mine, and I knew where they lived, then I'd be at their doors yelling and screaming, fighting to get my prized possession back. Do we see any indications here that "ID" was stolen? None at all. Nada. Rather, it's pretty clear that it was given away. With many blessings.
What conclusion will "critical thinking skills" draw from the banter on this blog? Why will it be any different from the one drawn from extensive reading of the writings of other ID supporters? Why should it be?
Comment by Art — November 23, 2005 @ 10:19 am
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:25 am
I agree. Hopefully, he'll include some discussion as to why teleology fell out of favor in scientific circles, and how its (apparent) resurgence today is borne out of political and religious sentiments, not scientific necessity or even uncertainty.
Looking at Mirecki's web page, I get the feeling that he's very well qualified to teach this subject, and that he'll do a sterling job.
Comment by Art — November 23, 2005 @ 10:25 am
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:50 am
ID leaning, tenured professors are already offering courses. This will only likely accelerate the trend toward more course offerings on the issue in secular and private universities….
Full text : Provost on ID Course
"We would be remiss to ignore it." :=)
Ahh, yes, I said the battle for ID will be in the universities. The forgotten battle ground is becoming forgotten no longer!
I point out my exchange with Eugenie Scott:
ID in the Universities
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 23, 2005 @ 10:50 am
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:54 am
Art wrote:
"Well, if someone stole something of mine, and I knew where they lived, then I'd be at their doors yelling and screaming, fighting to get my prized possession back."
Where was Art, yelling, screaming, and fighting when Dawkins tried to coopt the authority of science to label a religious upbringing a kind of child abuse?
Comment by Krauze — November 23, 2005 @ 11:54 am
November 23rd, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Art:
Yes, since it is the critics who make the equation, it is important to point out the multiple-meanings that can be used. Nevertheless, critical thinking can be applied to this subject, as I have done here, here, and here (for example).
It's common for human beings to incorporate data that fit their stereotypes while ignoring data that does not. I've explored the implications of these stereotypes before. For me, it's not a question of what people believe, it's a question of ID101. I'm trying to look forward rather living in the moment or look behind me. If the vast majority of ID supporters, from the grass roots on up to the upper echelon, routinely, habitually, consistently conflate ID, creationism, and antievolutionism, I'm helping to show this need not be the case. Someday, it might be something we call 'history.'
There it is. The problem with the "keeps of this blog" is that we don't wear the brass knuckles and the steel-toed boats! We don't fulminate and lash out in rage. Y'see, to the critic, ID is nothing more than dangerous nonsense. If you don't agree with this opinion, then you become a supporter of the dangerous nonsense and thus become The Enemy. Yet it never seems to occur to Art that his angry, screaming solution is a proven failure. For all the screaming and anger we've seen over the last few decades, the percent of Americans who embrace creationism has remained the same. Since Art and his pals are proven failures in this regard, perhaps another approach is needed. But I don't expect Art to get it. There is something about wearing those steel-toed boats that does something to your thinking.
Just because you view everything through the political prism gives you no right to project this attitude on us. Critical thinking skills would allow someone to understand that there is more than "banter" on this blog. There are valid points and argument on this blog, points and arguments that the critics either ignore or recast in strawman terms for the rhetorical purpose of ridicule. Why is it that Art cannot acknowledge this? Because Art is thinking like President Bush "“ if you are not for us, you are against us. Better yet, if you are not against Them, you are against Us. His personal advice to me is informative: Either write something that everyone else ignores or doesn't ignore. If they don't ignore it, sound like PZ Myers or freely give ammunition to The Enemy. It's as if he thinks he is entitled to being free from criticism.
Sorry Art, but my priorities, during the very limited time I have, are different than yours. I don't agree that ID is nothing more than Dangerous Nonsense. I don't view ID through the stranglehold of the political prism. I honestly think it raises intriguing questions and raises novel approaches. As such, priority #1 for me is to develop that line of thought (since I have seen meager payoffs already) and priority #2 is to respond to the character assassins and propagandists who would seek to create an environment that demonizes me for daring to ask the questions I do. As for battling the creationists, Pandas Thumb and the NCSE seem to have cornered that market. It is my honest suspicion that you demand I spend lots of time helping to turn this blog into Pandas Thumb2 because you don't want me to spend time on my two priorities. Why should I think otherwise?
Comment by MikeGene — November 23, 2005 @ 12:17 pm
November 23rd, 2005 at 12:25 pm
The sentiment attributed to Dawkins is, IMO, a delusion that is typical of the misrepresentation and fabrication that the inquisitors here are prone to when it comes to matters Dawkins.
(How's that for yelling and screaming, Krauze? Not quite what you wanted, I'm sure, and I expect in due time to be drawn and quartered by the inquisitors for daring to stray from the party line. But that's their job
.)
Comment by Art — November 23, 2005 @ 12:25 pm
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Art:
"The sentiment attributed to Dawkins is, IMO, a delusion that is typical of the misrepresentation and fabrication that the inquisitors here are prone to when it comes to matters Dawkins."
This is a nice example of how Art's political prism warps his perspective. How have the writers on this blog acted as "inquisitors" towards Dawkins? Have we attempted to have him fired? Have we sent out petitions, asking the faculty and the administrators to publicly denounce positions held by Dawkins? Have we sent letters labelling Dawkins a "fascist", telling people that if they attend a seminar organized by him, they'd be adding legitimacy to his cause?
No, we've done none of this. What have we done? We've quoted Dawkins public statements, poking fun at them or asking for their factual basis. But for Art, who writes with a sense of entitelment on behalf of Dawkins, that's all it takes.
Comment by Krauze — November 23, 2005 @ 1:27 pm
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Mike, yer missing the point.
When a critic says "ID=creationism and antievolutionism", MG say "NOT!!".
When an IDist says "ID=creationism and antievolutionism", MG says "well, OK".
What can one possibly make of this?
LOL
Mike, it's obvious to even the casual reader of this blog that your #1 priority, in the "limited time" that you have, is to see Dawkin's head paraded about the streets of London on a stake.
But your last suspicion is interesting. Whyever would I want to distract you from your role as Grand Inquisitor, a role that mocks any hope that ID has of being taken seriously? Your self-appointed task of rididng the world of Dawkinites and Dawkinism plays squarely into the hands of those who would trivialize and marginalize ID. Why would I ask you to devote your efforts towards tasks that would clarify and (horrror of horrors!) even advance your singular pursuit?
I may have to re-think my own requests, no?
Comment by Art — November 23, 2005 @ 1:37 pm
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:07 pm
Art,
I'm not missing your point at all. When I point out that the concept of ID does not equal creationism, the argument is not critic-dependent or critic-specific. They are arguments that apply to anyone who would seek to equate ID with creationism.
Secondly, you are engaged in selective perception. Here is a very recent example where I try to steer a creationist away from this conflation. What's funny is if you scroll down, you'll see my gentle touch being criticized for being to harsh. LOL. Remember people, according to many critics, if you don't wear the brass knuckles and steel-toes when dealing with a creationist, you are a closet-creationist.
Thirdly, I have argued with hundreds of critics and found that the vast majority hear "˜creationism' when "˜ID' is mentioned, as they are invested in this equation for political reasons. In contrast, I see more and more creationists recognizing the difference between ID and creationism. Ask Sal.
Art also writes:
This is how character assassins work. Notice that Art does not back up this claim by documenting it with several, specific examples. He just "floats" it as a perception. Why, Art, do you stoop to such tactics? Even though you have refused to criticize Dawkins for his bigoted comments, you don't see me attributing his bigotry to you.
The fact that you are relying on the perception of a "˜casual reader' ought to clue you in that something is terribly wrong with this perception. Instead, you need to start thinking like a scientist. We'll overlook the propagandistic use of melodrama (heads on stakes, etc.) and interpret you to be complaining about the times I have criticized Dawkins. Questions need to raised.
First, are the criticisms valid? I (and many others) think so and nothing you have said argues otherwise.
Secondly, we would need to determine the percent of blogs that criticize Dawkins. I would estimate that it would be less than 5%. In fact, someone on the ARN forum tried to attack me as Art does. Readers of this blog might enjoy this thread. As you scroll to the bottom, you'll see the attack blow-up in the face of my critic.
Thirdly, one can go to my web page and find over 60 essays about ID. One of those essays criticizes Dawkins and the criticisms don't even focus on his evolutionary views.
Art could have made a better argument if he had noted that most of my blogs don't address priority #1. He could have argued that I seem to spend most of my time commenting on "The Debate" than in developing the concept of ID. But alas, that complaint would fail too.
Sorry, Art, but priority #1 is #1. I should know.
Yes, I understand that people get upset when I notice they are relying on stereotypes or engaging in character assassination. It's called cognitive dissonance. But why do you expect me to treat the critics as if they don't do any of this? (BTW, thanks for admitting that you would like to ensure that ID never has a hope of being taken seriously).
I see. The scholarly thing to do is nod when Dawkins argues that raising a child in a religious tradition is mental child abuse. In other words, abandon science to wallow in bigotry. Art, are you aware that there are scientists who study "˜mental child abuse?' Do you know what "˜mental child abuse' does to someone? When Dawkins makes his very public accusations, please explain to me why I am supposed to remain silent.
Comment by MikeGene — November 23, 2005 @ 3:07 pm
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:16 pm
Art:
Art, while it may be your opinion that we are delusional, I only need to point out that you have completely failed to support your opinion. And as Krauze noted, there is no "inquisition" here. Thus, you not really in good position to accuse others of having delusions, now are ya?
Comment by MikeGene — November 23, 2005 @ 3:16 pm
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:53 pm
What IDists say "ID = creationism and antievolution"
Comment by Joe G — November 23, 2005 @ 3:53 pm
November 23rd, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Joe,
I would imagine what Art has in mind is the creationist who, for example, might argue that ID predicts the sudden appearance of feathers. There are creationists who use ID to argue for creationism and the critics pick up on this.
Comment by MikeGene — November 23, 2005 @ 4:36 pm
November 23rd, 2005 at 4:52 pm
"ID = creationism and antievolution"
If I can be a little anal here:
ID is a necessary but not sufficient condition for special creation.
This also means, if we take the logical contrapositive, that arguments that can destroy the design hypothesis (such as the Blindwatchmaker hypothesis) can effectively destroy the arguent for special creation. It is of deep interest therefore for creationists to defend the design hypothesis.
Regarding anti-evoltuion, formally speaking, in the remote chance one can "prove" special creation, the following is also logically equiivalent:
Special creation is a sufficient but not necessary condition for intelligent design.
Arguments such as ReMine's Population Genetics argue for design by trying to prove special creation.
So that should clarify it. I'm not aware of any leading advocates of ID nor special creationists that don't see the difference. I note even in our IDEA brochures:
Furthermore, major YEC institutions like AiG and ICR have somewhat slammed ID, so these YECs have little interest in making any conflation.
YECs like myself, Paul Nelson, and the IDEA leadership are aware of the differences. We are creationists and IDists, but that does not mean we can not distinguish between the two perspectives.
I don't see any large scale conflation on the part of creationists, and certainly not among knowledgeable IDists.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 23, 2005 @ 4:52 pm
November 24th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 24, 2005 @ 2:06 pm