Krauze referred to John Wilkins' blog about the Mirecki story and PZ Myers praises it as an objective account.

Wilkins begins his blog by outlining the series of events, beginning with Paul Mirecki deciding to teach Intelligent Design as mythology. We at Telic Thoughts had supported Dr. Mirecki's right to teach this class when we heard about it . But apart from some lip-service, Wilkins fails to address the contents of Mirecki's e-mail, as it raised several red flags. In fact, Wilkins' entire blog has very little bad to say about Mirecki's e-mail. He describes it as "obnoxious," but its not hard to imagine that many atheists would proudly be obnoxious when dealing with those "stupid bastards" (as Wilkins calls them). So it's not clear if this is really a criticism. Other than this, Wilkins only laments that the e-mail was "ill-advised" and "bad manners."

Over in Australia, Wilkins may be spreading stereotypes about people in Kansas: "SOMA is a group of skeptics and atheists, which in Kansas is equivalent to saying, really, really, brave people." Does Wilkins actually have any evidence to support this notion that you have to be really, really brave to be an atheist in Kansas? Or is he just appealing to his reader's dark side?

Wilkins then criticizes some of Mirecki's vocal opponents and tells us that Mirecki is a Christian. Really? Apparently, Wilkins did not know a few of the basic facts about this whole story.

Wilkins then tells us what the "real issues" are. First, Wilkins informs us, in a matter-of-fact manner, that "there is no other motivation or feature of ID than the religious." Apart from telling us Wilkins is yet another critic whose mind hears "religion" when his eyes are presented with "ID," this issue is a Red Herring and adds nothing to the Mirecki story.

Second, Wilkins finally gets to the e-mail (without ever quoting it), calling it "obnoxious," but then quickly assures us, "but in no way unjustified or immoral or contrary to decent ethical standards." The e-mail was "in no way unjustified?" Hmmm. Wilkins apparently thinks the e-mail was justified. In what way? Is it standard operating procedure for professors to design their classes for the purpose of offending a group of people, in order to "slap their fat faces?" Do they normally design classes to make a political statement? It's interesting to note that Wilkins can read Mirecki's e-mail and come away asking, "So what is at issue?"

Wilkins then turns to "academic freedom," but since we at Telic Thoughts have always supported his academic freedom, that's not really an issue around here.

Wilkins' fourth issue? "We who support science need not therefore support every action made by fellow supporters." It is funny to see Wilkins make this point in a blog that peddles stereotypes about Kansas, doesn't offer any substantive criticism of Mirecki, and tells us "religious people make much worse comments about "godless atheists" every day." Apparently, Wilkins' doesn't think much of his fourth issue.

Finally, Wilkins ends by peddling another stereotype: "Christians form something like 90% of the population - they control or affect public life in every way. What is going on there, in this case as in others, is that they oppose any dissent from what they think the world ought to be like. They are the persecutors"¦"

My, how frightening. These "persecutors" control or affect "public life in every way." The Handmaid's Tale, right?

All in all, it seems pretty clear to me why Wilkins asks, "So what is at issue?", while PZ Myers praises his objectivity. Standard operating procedure.

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 8th, 2005 at 9:39 pm and is filed under Media, Paul Mirecki. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/wilkins-on-mirecki/trackback/