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.

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

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.

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"

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.

"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.

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?

Mirecki Aplogizes

Highlights:

"I have always practiced my belief that there is no place for impertinence and name-calling in a serious academic class," he wrote. "My words in the e-mail do not represent my teaching philosophy or the style I use in class.

"I have assured the provost of the university that I will teach the course according to the standards this university rightfully expects — as a serious academic subject and in an manner that respects all points of view."
…..
However, the department faculty, in approving the course Monday, dropped the last phrase, calling it simply, "Intelligent Design and Creationism."
….

"Given the current national debate, it is especially appropriate that intelligent design and creationism be treated as academic subjects in a university-level religious studies class," said Provost David Shulenburger in a statement.

I had predicted 2 years ago ID would appear in a religion course. I believe ID courses around the country will grow.

Salvador

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.

"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.

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.