The Mirecki show continues
by KrauzeWhen I blogged about Mirecki's revealing e-mail, I noted: "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." However, it seems that not everyone feels the same way. Mike has already pointed to Senator Karin Brownlee's disturbing statement that "[w]e have to set a standard that it's not culturally acceptable to mock Christianity in America". And over at Thoughts from Kansas, Josh Rosenau is highlighting this passage, from the ID blog In the News:
It's this kind of activity that should cause some Kansas legislators to question the extent to which Kansas taxpayers should be funding state sponsored faith bashing.
While I have criticized Rosenau for his attempt to paint all ID supporters with his broad brush, I agree with him that this is a situation where ID supporters, of all people, should support academic freedom. It is simply hypocritical to use the principle of academic freedom to protect a controversial subject you agree with, and then turn around and demand government regulation when someone wants to teach a controversial subject which you disagree with.
If you think Professor Mirecki is bashing something you hold dear, the answer is not to have his course cancelled. Instead, find out what he is teaching in his class, and use your freedom of speech to explain the problems with it.
November 26th, 2005 at 9:36 am
That's a good word, Krauze. If ID is going to prevail in the world of ideas, it will be through reasoned responses, and not through reactions born of anger. That's probably even more true when we're responding to what seems very unreasonable.
Comment by TomG — November 26, 2005 @ 9:36 am
November 26th, 2005 at 10:28 am
I fully agree Mirecki's academic freedom should be supported. Pro-ID politicians like Brownlee may publicly express their dislike of Mirecki, but they should be thanking God that his snotty attitude, unprofessionalism, and vindicitiveness are on display for all the world to see.
If there is any doubt that this Mirecki's course may end up being a pro-ID public relations victory, check out the comments of his flock at KU:
KU Society of Open Minded Atheists on Mirecki
This reminds me of Bill Dembski and Michael Shermer having a couple of beers together one night and suggesting how to wage a PR campaign which would increase their book sales. Dembski responds to Gross
It's in the interest to support Mirecki's academic freedom so as to help raise an outcry for more ID.
Go, Mirecki, go!
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 26, 2005 @ 10:28 am
November 26th, 2005 at 10:38 am
Well stated, Krauze!
It's actually quite instructive to visit Rosenau's site, as there you will find a hyperventilating critic defined by his fear. You'll notice no criticism of Prof. Mirecki's e-mail, the thing that obviously sparked the fury among the religious crowd. Since he is not a critical thinker, Rosenau ignores that inconvenient point. So it becomes clear that Rosenau is simply a mirror-image of the fundies he despises. It's the secular fundies vs. the religious fundies "“ Battle of the Fundies.
Comment by MikeGene — November 26, 2005 @ 10:38 am
November 26th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
Krauze,
You are quite correct. I would not support any effort at having the course cancelled.
Aside: Sal, was that strategy between Dembski and Shermer tongue in cheek? If not, I personally find it somewhat disturbing.
Comment by heddle — November 26, 2005 @ 12:59 pm
November 26th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
The specific quote Krauze provided is not about cancelling courses, but about cutting funding to KU (its KU, folks, NOT UK). Any comments about these sentiments? Does anyone see something akin to the attempted sacking of Missouri scientists by Illinois developing in Kansas?
Comment by Art — November 26, 2005 @ 1:13 pm
November 26th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Great to see you Dave,
I think it was tongue in cheek but with a grain of serious truth to it. I can appreciate you are concerned.
But I should point out, Bill is quite happy to point out his marketing ambitions. Had a deal like this been struck between Shermer and Dembski in secrecy, then I would REALLY be disturbed.
The top tier ID proponents are masters of public relations. Jonathan Witt even quipped with Dean Esmay that PZ Myers should be put on the DI payroll because PZ has done so much to promote ID. I view Mirecki's participation in almost the same light….
I can only provide the more context here from Dembski's website: Dembski reponds to Gross
That was only 2 years ago. What has been happening, from a PR standpoint, is almost according to script. It is of note, the Shermer/Dembski debate show has been touring the country. Reminds me of the Ali/Frazier fights touring the world. I have to think there is a bit of showmanship on both sides going on……
I point this out to say, the Mirecki case has some elements that the ID PR strategists could not have been happier about. From a standpoing of principle, I support Mirecki's academic freedom. The fact he's making this a public relations disaster is icing on the cake…..
Salvador
PS
I know an ID leaning physics major at your old school in Virginia. I really enjoy your theological discourses and insights. I'm a member of the PCA…..Happy Thanksgiving.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 26, 2005 @ 1:37 pm
November 26th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Hi Art,
"The specific quote Krauze provided is not about cancelling courses, but about cutting funding to KU (its KU, folks, NOT UK). Any comments about these sentiments?"
From my post:
"It is simply hypocritical to use the principle of academic freedom to protect a controversial subject you agree with, and then turn around and demand government regulation when someone wants to teach a controversial subject which you disagree with."
Comment by Krauze — November 26, 2005 @ 1:57 pm
November 26th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
At what point is the line drawn about what is acceptable as class material at the college level?
Inferring from Mirecki's wish you "slap the big fat faces" of ID proponents/the religious right/conservatives, I would assume that the class is going to be one man pouring out his animosity for an opposing viewpoint that he wishes to frame in the most unreasonably negative way possible. If it's just going to be a man with a microphone spouting polemics and not actually teaching, then that would be a major waste of my academic schedule and I sure wouldn't want to take the class.
Comment by BrianH — November 26, 2005 @ 2:54 pm
November 26th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
That should be "wish to"
Comment by BrianH — November 26, 2005 @ 2:59 pm
November 26th, 2005 at 5:20 pm
Couldn't agree more with Krauze. In science and in journalism, suppression of dissent is always the sign of a weak argument. So as an occasional ID blogger, I'm for maximum freedom. Besides, as others have already said, Mirecki is like a gift to ID. The same could be said of Hector Avalos and PZ (who has been bashing Scott Adams of Dilbert fame) and the lovely folks at the Smithsonian. At some point, the public is going to realize people on both sides of this argument are looking to justify their own presuppositions. What we're seeing now is a leveling of the playing field. It's about time.
Comment by Foyle — November 26, 2005 @ 5:20 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 9:54 am
I agree with Krauze; however, I'd like to see the course syllabus (perhaps Dr Mirecki will post it) and hear from students in the class before deciding if it was taught properly or not. I will be very disappointed if Dr Mirecki squanders this opportunity and reduces his analysis of ID to the level of the T-Shirt used by the group that he sponsors. Personally, I think he can: I had a comparative religions course in high school taught by an atheist, in which no religion was denigrated or 'slimed'. The teacher was attacked by parents and students before the course was taught, on the grounds that an atheist was not qualified to teach comparative religion. His own views on religion were used against him. Yet the course was a great success from his student's point of view.
As for Salvador's remarks, if seeing ID relegated to courses in comparative religion makes ID supporters angry, maybe it will inspire some of them to get into the lab and the field and start producing data to support the hypothesis so it can be taught in science classes. If the ID hypothesis has any scientific merit, the data will come– assuming the proper effort and discipline are applied, of course.
Comment by KC — November 27, 2005 @ 9:54 am
November 27th, 2005 at 11:05 am
Where do we draw the line? IOW how do we distinguish academic freedom from inflamatory hubris?
Can any professor just get up, start a course of his/ her choosing and teach whatever he/ she wants? Or does the course have to have some basis in reality?
Freedom, academic or otherwise, is never free.
Comment by Joe G — November 27, 2005 @ 11:05 am
November 27th, 2005 at 11:10 am
KC:
As for Salvador's remarks, if seeing ID relegated to courses in comparative religion makes ID supporters angry,
It makes us "angry" because although ID may coincide with one or some religious tenets, there isn't anything religious about ID.
KC:
maybe it will inspire some of them to get into the lab and the field and start producing data to support the hypothesis so it can be taught in science classes.
Been there, done that. Have you read The Privileged Planet? It is based on data gathered during scientifc research.
Comment by Joe G — November 27, 2005 @ 11:10 am
November 27th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
Mike Gene:
If Mike had actually done what he advocated and read TfK, he'd see that calls to cut funding began the moment the course was announced, before the email was made public.
Since all the commentary after that is fruit of the poisoned tree, I consider it rebutted.
Krauze: The issue for IDolators has never been academic freedom. They talk about it, but that's not what's at issue in the Kansas Board of Ed, and it isn't what was at issue in Dover. In both cases, creationists are forcing science teachers to toe a politically determined line. All the talk about academic freedom is a poorly executed smoke screen, and a little wind blew that away.
The rest of you: Surely no one is so stupid as to think that a course like this is offered without any review or discussion? If anyone cared, a quick Googling would have revealed the Faculty Senate's rules which allow departments to set their own rules, but require review by the senior vice provost. Furthermore, several faculty members have volunteered to participate in the course, indicating this isn't just one man's soap box.
That's why comments like this:
are ill-informed. Of course such a class would be a waste of everyone's time: that's why it wouldn't get added to the schedule. Duh.
I've taken lots of classes with professors with strong opinions on the subject. One English professor had trouble seeing Shakespeare as anything but poetry, a philosophy professor had serious issues with Hobbes. Nonetheless, we discussed the dramatic elements in Shakespeare and treated Hobbes as a serious part of the dialog in political philosophy. You don't get to be a professor by being a close-minded jerk.
Those people go to work for the Discovery Institute.
Comment by Josh — November 27, 2005 @ 12:15 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 3:00 pm
Mirecki's class will be joined by another professor.
2nd KU class denies status of science to design theory
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 27, 2005 @ 3:00 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
"cannot be tested and proven false". LOL which one is it?? Sounds like Jono is on the DI's payroll as well! Here's a prediction surf, dr logic et al:
ID has the power to morph a stable well reasoned intellectual who is wedded to materialism into an unreasoning whingeing, bullying child!
Comment by willo — November 27, 2005 @ 3:51 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
A few months later:
Mirecki's approach wasn't exactly what Chancellor Hemeneway had in mind.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 27, 2005 @ 7:06 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
TPP is a book-length review article. That's not what I was a talking about:
Comment by KC — November 27, 2005 @ 7:09 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
KC:
TPP is a book-length review article.
Wrong. TPP is scientific research- both field and lab. There is no getting around it.
Where do you think the data for the book came? How do you think that data was gathered? What is it about that data that is not scientific, did not come from the field nor lab?
then Josh chimes in:
The issue for IDolators has never been academic freedom. They talk about it, but that's not what's at issue in the Kansas Board of Ed, and it isn't what was at issue in Dover. In both cases, creationists are forcing science teachers to toe a politically determined line. All the talk about academic freedom is a poorly executed smoke screen, and a little wind blew that away.
Please tell us what do you base the above on? The testimony by both Drs Behe and Minnich more than showed ID's reality.
As for reviewing the KU course- that review is only relevant if the reviewer is qualified.
Josh:
You don't get to be a professor by being a close-minded jerk.
It may have taken some practice but the results are clear (in this case).
Comment by Joe G — November 27, 2005 @ 8:46 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 11:19 pm
Academic freedom would not entail forcing science teachers to read a statement which they find scientifically inaccurate, nor would it entail incorporating a textbook which they find inaccurate.
Don't even start on Behe and Minnich. Neither has actually produced a research program which could falsify a hypothesis from IDC. Indeed, no such hypothesis exists, all either offers is "Evolution can't yet explain this."
Learn what "review article" means.
Comment by Josh — November 27, 2005 @ 11:19 pm
November 28th, 2005 at 12:40 am
Josh:
"all either offers is "evolution can't yet explain this".
Man when are you guys going to get it?? Id is not based on personal incredulity but on an observance of specified complexity and information rich systems in biology. You don't observe these in any other field and even consider that natural processes brought them about, why should biology be any different? When one observes say the figures on Easter Island or the faces in Mount Rushmore no one says you're lazy and foolish to conclude intelligent design - because SC makes it self evident!
What is that I hear you say - who designed the designer? LOL. Josh all you need to complete your picture is two ears with both hands jammed firmly over them.
Comment by willo — November 28, 2005 @ 12:40 am
November 28th, 2005 at 9:24 am
Josh:
Academic freedom would not entail forcing science teachers to read a statement which they find scientifically inaccurate, nor would it entail incorporating a textbook which they find inaccurate.
But no science teacher was forced. Why would you say that? An admin could have read the statement. As for finding the statement scientifically inaccurate perhaps they could state their case for saying that.
On the witness stand Dr. Behe described how to falsify ID. He provided an experiment that could do so.
I have also provided a way to falsify ID and Harvard is just starting a research program that if successful will do just that.
Comment by Joe G — November 28, 2005 @ 9:24 am
November 29th, 2005 at 1:49 pm
(courtesy forethekids)
Mirecki Aplogizes
Highlights:
I had predicted 2 years ago ID would appear in a religion course. I believe ID courses around the country will grow.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 29, 2005 @ 1:49 pm
November 29th, 2005 at 4:21 pm
However, the department faculty, in approving the course Monday, dropped the last phrase, calling it simply, "Intelligent Design and Creationism."
It will be interesting to see what, exactly, was approved. It will also be interesting to see the credentials of those teaching the course- IOW how will it be determined who is qualified to teach a course on "Intelligent Design and Creationism"
A qualified teacher of Creationism should have at least a certificate from Ken Ham or Henry Morris saying that person understands the Creation account. A qualified teacher of ID would have to have a similar cert. signed by Wm. Dembski, Dr. Behe and Dr. Gonzalez.
Knowing that will never happen I wonder if KU will allow guest speakers?
Comment by Joe G — November 29, 2005 @ 4:21 pm
November 29th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
Joe:
"I wonder if KU will allow guest speakers?"
Nice point Joe I suspect not, hence there should be a course on rhetoric running at the same time right next door entitled, 'straw man arguments and how to recognise them'.
As this too won't happen ID supporters in fact anyone who is interested in seeing balance in this debate should put an info sheet on ID together so people who take the course might go in at least part way informed.
Comment by willo — November 29, 2005 @ 4:49 pm
December 4th, 2005 at 12:45 am
Hey Sal. I just thought you should know that the message board you quoted from SOMA's website is public. It's not just SOMA members on that board. In fact the one person you quoted as a SOMA member reacting was not. So…. Yeah.
The truth is that we stand with Dr. Mirecki and are still very proud to have him as our group's sponsor. His message on a listserv for SOMA members was leaked by a mole and spread to attack his character. He was completely justified in assuming it was a private correspondence, and the message should not be construed to be any sort of public statement.
Comment by Jhawk — December 4, 2005 @ 12:45 am
December 4th, 2005 at 8:22 am
Hi Jhawk,
I don't think anyone thinks of Mirecki's e-mail as a public statement. In fact, what attracted my interest in this story was the disconnect between the public pronouncements from the Provost and the private statements of Professor Mirecki to his like-minded supporters.
What exactly does it mean when you say that SOMA "stand with Dr. Mirecki" Do you think he should have taught his course in a way that constituted a slap in the big fat mouths of "fundies" Do you agree with his statement, "I don't think most Catholics really know what they are supposed to believe, they just go home and use condoms and some of them beat their wives and husbands"
Comment by Krauze — December 4, 2005 @ 8:22 am
December 4th, 2005 at 8:30 am
Jhawk,
I don't think it's a question of attacking his character. It looks like Mirecki designed this course for the purpose of a) making a political statement and b) offending a group of religious people.
Comment by MikeGene — December 4, 2005 @ 8:30 am
December 4th, 2005 at 9:20 am
Jhawk,
My apologies if I represented someone who was not a member of your group as a member. Jpence was very sympathetic to your cause and seemed to be giving advice to you guys. Both he and Josh Rosenau seemed displeased with things leaking out of Mirecki's e-mail.
I'm appreciative you visit Telic thoughts and read the weblogs. I hope it's evident, I and several others were pulling for your advisor to succeed in having his class and excercising his academic freedom.
For the record, I have many atheist friends, and it was the atheist and agnostic group, Freethinkers, at James Madison University who worked with me (not against me) to help advance an Intelligent Design class at that school see Thoughts on Nature, April 28, 2005. They wanted the class to offer the strongest arguments from both sides. I think they might have been a little disappointed with Mirecki's take. They seem to really enjoy my presentations on Intelligent Design.
The Freethinker group at JMU exemplifies academic freedom, and I think they handled well a recent clash with some Christians on the campus. You might be interested in the following account which one of the Christian freethinkers offered: I would encourage you to conatact them: http://orgs.jmu.edu/freethinke...
When the Freethinkers have been attacked by Christians, I and the other Christian members of the group (about 15% of the group) have stood up in their defense. I'm pleased to say, we have help avert a lot of hard feelings toward the group, and last year several of the Freethinker officers were received and applauded at a Campus Crusade for Christ meeting.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 4, 2005 @ 9:20 am