What's in the mail?
by KrauzeLet me share with you how I've experienced the events surrounding the alleged assault on Professor Paul Mirecki. I first heard about it when "Myrmecos" posted a link to a news story on the ARN Board, and my immediate reaction was, "Why did they have to do something so stupid? If you want people to take your position seriously, this is the very thing to not do."
But later, I started to get the feeling that we weren't getting the full story. First, PZ Meyers at The Panda's Thumb wrote a post, pointing the finger at "ignorant thugs with a bible". Later, he updated it, saing that he'd received an e-mail with "other details" on the attack, and that he wasn't going to say any more until he'd received "confirmation one way or the other". And finally, he deleted the post altogether and replaced it with this, refraining from taking a stand, and stressing the fact that all they had to go on was "a few second-hand reports".
Now, I don't have a firm belief either way. Mirecki's story could still turn out to be 100% correct, and we can all go back to denouncing the vile behavior of his attackers. But, as Mike has just pointed out, we only have one fact. There's a lot of unanswered questions about this case, and the one that's on my mind is this: What was in the e-mail PZ Myers received?
Update: Thanks to David Heddle, I've discovered that the post is still available at Myers' own blog, Pharyngula.
December 7th, 2005 at 8:07 pm
Indeed. I know that Mirecki and his band of Atheistic Darwinians would like to pin this on the Christian fundamentalists, but whoever this nut is that perpetrated this act. Don't call him/her a Christian fundamentalist. To the likes of Mirecki maybe he thinks that whatever they are doing now is enough to cause Christians to physically attack him. This is more indicative of their mentality than the Christian's. Maybe in their mind this is what they would like to do to Christian fundamentalists, but this is completely antithetical to Christian beliefs. Christian have been used to pacifistic response in the face of persecution. We have been thrown in jail, burned at the stakes and thrown in the den of lions. Our response have always been one of pacifism "˜everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted' (2 Tim. 3:12) He told his followers that they would be "˜betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. All men will hate you because of me' (Lk. 1:16"“17) They would be "˜sheep in the midst of wolves'. Persecution involving physical suffering was inevitable (Matt. 10:16"“18) "˜If they persecuted me they will persecute you' (Jn. 15:20)
I have very little doubt that the Atheistic Darwinians are only interested protecting their worldview and not science. This is the reason why it engenders so much emotion from both sides. I have unapologetically declared that I am a Christian fundamentalist. I refuse to allow people like Mirecki to dirty a word that I find perfectly representative of my worldview. My fight with the likes of Mirecki is a war of words and ideas, not a battle of brass knuckles and steel-toed boots.
I am sorry for being preachy but I just want to set the record straight.
Comment by teleologist — December 7, 2005 @ 8:07 pm
December 7th, 2005 at 8:27 pm
Indeed (hot off the press), Mirecki's resigning as chairman (not anything said about professorship however). The guy should have been (to quote a phrase by Dean Esmay) "on the DI payroll".
(Courtesy RF Brady at KCFS)
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 7, 2005 @ 8:27 pm
December 7th, 2005 at 8:42 pm
Sal,
Wow, what a story all of this is!
Do you think KU's decision to "accept his resignation" (i.e., sack him) was made prior to Monday's alleged assault or after? Either answer leads to interesting questions.
Stu
Comment by Stuart Harris — December 7, 2005 @ 8:42 pm
December 7th, 2005 at 8:58 pm
Incredible. The resignation makes the beating look even more like a hoax, in my mind. He has a cell phone and doesn't call from the roadside. He goes to the hospital with no serious injuries. He has no license plate number for his attackers and his identification of them is extremely generic — even stereotypical. He goes mum; he says he can explain discrepancies, "but won't". And now we have a motive; he wanted to become a sympathetic victim to avoid the pressure for his removal from department chair. He resigned "on the recommendation of his colleagues in the department". I think maybe people who know him better than I are also suspicious?
One thing I'll give him. He's one entertaining dude!
Comment by jazzraptor — December 7, 2005 @ 8:58 pm
December 7th, 2005 at 9:05 pm
Letter dated December 6, 2005 is here:
Mirecki's Resignation
NOTE: they even had time to put it up in PDF format and on the website for all to see!
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 7, 2005 @ 9:05 pm
December 7th, 2005 at 9:13 pm
I'll tell you one thing - whoever masterminded and implemented this beating deserves whatever they get.
Comment by macht — December 7, 2005 @ 9:13 pm
December 7th, 2005 at 10:39 pm
Am I the only one who immediately found the story highly suspect?
Comment by Douglas — December 7, 2005 @ 10:39 pm
December 8th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Based off the the limited description he initially gave and how he handled the situation, I was having a very hard time believing it.
I've been jumped, took part in counseling sessions for others that were in similar situations and the one thing that struck me is how much detail everything was recalled in, with all of the accounts. Things that the person (myself included) wasn't even paying attention to. If I had to, I could still recollect with great accuracy what happened the night. If my recollection were to be compared with the police report I had to fill out I would wager that very few of the details would have become fuzzy.
Comment by Doug — December 8, 2005 @ 2:28 pm
December 11th, 2005 at 5:00 am
ID and Assault
It is interesting to watch ID activists act skeptically towards the reported beating of a recently controversial KU religion professor. If, as many critics now believe, the police will eventually conclude that the report is a hoax, they will…
Trackback by De Rerum Natura — December 11, 2005 @ 5:00 am
December 11th, 2005 at 5:21 pm
Reed A. Cartwright's post on De Rerum Natura tells us less about Mirecki than it does about Cartwright. For Cartwright, ID is simply about invoking "angels" whenever it's impossible to "produce an infinitely detailed naturalistic explanation (down to the position of every sub-atomic particle in the universe)". This should be kept in mind when reading him weighing in against ID; this is really what he's rejecting.
Comment by Krauze — December 11, 2005 @ 5:21 pm
December 11th, 2005 at 6:42 pm
If only angels could use their magical powers to help ID critics understand ID arguments. Alas, even the angels don't have that kind of power. I do wonder if angels sent a trackback to this blog post, though. Clearly Cartwright didn't since he didn't even link to this post.
Comment by macht — December 11, 2005 @ 6:42 pm
December 11th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
Hi Macht,
"I do wonder if angels sent a trackback to this blog post, though. Clearly Cartwright didn't since he didn't even link to this post."
Yes, that surprised me as well. Maybe an earlier version of Cartwright's post contained a link to my post, and that this link was later edited out.
Comment by Krauze — December 11, 2005 @ 7:06 pm