Yet More on the Mirecki Show
by MikeGeneLet me provide a review of my response to this whole Mirecki show. I first brought attention to this news here. I simply poked fun of Mirecki in a way that turned out to be slap-in-the-face prophetic. LOL. In the comments section, I noted, "Professors of religion are free to critique ID all they want. As is anyone else." After Sal alerted me to the Provost's comments, I wrote, "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." I then turned my attention of the issue of identifying the designer. Then Krauze found the article that discusses Mirecki's internet taunting. I provided a balanced and objective commentary here.
Now, the "IDolators" who run this blog do not support any cuts in funding. On the contrary, we are striving to be fair and objective about this. So let's survey the current state of affairs.
Some are worried about funds being cut. Have any been cut yet? No. Is there any evidence that funds are about to be cut? No. I can understand how the threats of a few yahoos play into people's fears, but I'm focused on what's happening in the actual world.
Mirecki's e-mail tells us we have a professor who has made it clear he designed the course for the purpose of offending people. It looks politically motivated and it looks like he did this because of anger. He has also undercut the official explanation provided by Provost, thus embarrassing his University. All this simply means that people are going to be watching the course very closely.
If Mirecki is going to teach ID as mythology, he is obligated to teach the students a correct understanding of the mythology. Since he is not an expert on this topic, and has never published out it, he should consult proponents of the ID myth in a professional manner (i.e., do not spin their words or rely on hearsay), perhaps even inviting them to provide lectures so the students properly understand the mythology. Also, since professors do not debunk or scoff at the myths they teach in such courses, none of this should be allowed. Students are there simply to learn about the myths and how they "symbolize in a meaningful manner the core beliefs of a religion." They are their to understand, not agree or disagree.
But there is already great cause for concern. Mirecki is planning to teach ID as an "American phenomenon" when it is clear that Paley, for example, was not an American and was also drawing from an older line of thought. He should consult and teach the long tradition of teleological thinking in Western civilization. Failure to make this a central component of the course does a disservice to teaching the mythos of ID.
In my opinion, Mirecki is professionally obligated to teach ID as he would teach any other myth. Help the students understand it. Help the students see it in its larger context by tracing the tradition as far back as you can go. And no debunking or scoffing.
November 27th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
The Darwinian narrative, of course, is as capable as any other of creating symbols which give meaning to its core beliefs. Haeckel's embryos, Piltdown Man, and other (in)famous symbols could be lifted up in the syllabus. Perhaps "Icons of Evolution" could be one of the books on the suggested reading list.
Is it too much to suppose that a course in a university could approach the subject in a fairly dispassionate way? If it were possible, it certainly would be fascinating. And worthwhile, I believe.
Comment by Lutepisc — November 27, 2005 @ 3:48 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
Mirecki's course should require the students to read Dembski and Behe. After all, what course in mythology does not have the students read the actual myths? And there is no place for debunking/response books, either. What course in mythology has student's read books that debunk the myths.
In my opinion, Mericki is professionally obligated to teach ID as he would teach any other myth.
Comment by MikeGene — November 27, 2005 @ 5:36 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 6:16 pm
Got it, MikeGene. I'm not sure if my tangent is actually tangential…or whether it's perhaps in line with your own thinking. I was thinking of the meaning-creating function of myth. This function is readily evident (certainly to Mirecki) in intelligent design. The books you suggest convey "myth" in language intelligible to 21st-century Americans (science/biology, mathematics, philosophy).
But it would also be informative at the same time to look at what meanings are packed into the Darwinian narrative. I believe these would be most evident in the "icons" which stretch or distort the data. What is it that we want the data to say? I suspect these are harder for Mirecki to articulate, but would certainly be suitable material for a course like he's proposing.
Comment by Lutepisc — November 27, 2005 @ 6:16 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 6:45 pm
Atheism is a myth too!
Comment by Benjii — November 27, 2005 @ 6:45 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
The course is entitled, "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationisms and other Religious Mythologies." While someone could, I suppose, develop a course that looks at the Mythos of Naturalism, I wouldn't demand Mirecki include this into his course. However, he should be required to teach the ID mythos as any other myth would be taught in a religion class. I spelled this out. Anyone disagree?
Comment by MikeGene — November 27, 2005 @ 7:34 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 7:47 pm
Here, for example, is one mythology syllabus:
Like I said, Mirecki should include Behe's book and Dembski's book as required reading and it would be inappropriate to critique ID in this course. He's free to talk and teach about ID from the point of mythology, but he needs to let the proponents of this myth tell their myth "to see what the subject means, not to accept or reject it."
Comment by MikeGene — November 27, 2005 @ 7:47 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 8:13 pm
Hi Mike,
Are you guessing maybe that he will not follow through with his professional obligations?
I don't know that anyone can require Mirecki to do anything. If he wants to violate some of the standards of professionalism in his own field, I would presume the university can't really make any direct sanctions against him. Given the idea of academic freedom, I don't know which elements of professional conduct take precedence over academic freedom….I just don't know.
I do agree that teaching ID like he would any other "myth" course in the way you describe would be what is professionally appropriate, but given the sensitivity of the subject (there are very few who believe Greek mythology as truth compared to many creationists who believe Genesis as truth), I think it would have been appropriate for him to not even treat it like a myth course in the first place.
Given that he has labeled it a myth class, I think his professional conduct ought to compel him to run the class as you say, but even then, given the sensitivity of the issue, he is operating under not the best of circumstances which he chose for himself. I've somewhat given up expectation that Mirecki will conduct himself with professionalism on this issue….
You have outlined the standard which he is ought to follow, and I think you are right. We may have the opportunity to see if he follows that standard.
I never thought of that! Well, several New Testment courses at one secular university I'm familiar with had some of that debunking….part of that stems from the fact that there is a large body of debunking literature on certain topics. There is not really so much debunking literature for things like Greek mythology or other narratives….lots of debunking stuff for ID and creationism, heck, full time professionally prepared debunking!
The one debunker course that I recall was at my school, you know, : College Course on [anti]-ID. I somewhat expect Mirecki to mirror that course.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 27, 2005 @ 8:13 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 8:49 pm
Salvador,
Yes, I suppose no one can tell Mericki how to teach his course. But if he fails to treat ID as we would treat any other myth in a mythology course, it will become quite clear that the course is political rather than educational. This will be yet another element of dwindling credibility.
BTW, it looks like KU is preparing and fertilizing the ground for one of your IDEA clubs. I would imagine that there will be a student hunger/demand for a less hostile look at ID.
Comment by MikeGene — November 27, 2005 @ 8:49 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 9:11 pm
I missed your earlier posting, but this is very well said, thank you for finding it. You know, Mike, as devout as I am, I've never taken one religion course in college. You gave me a little education on how these courses are handled. Thank you.
Heck yeah! Go, Mirecki, go!
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 27, 2005 @ 9:11 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 9:53 pm
Salvador writes:
"…part of that stems from the fact that there is a large body of debunking literature on certain topics. There is not really so much debunking literature for things like Greek mythology or other narratives"¦."
Yes, the debunking literature for Greek mythology was written centuries ago. Jaroslav Pelikan writes (The Christian Tradition, v. 1, p. 41f.), "The closing of the philosophical school at Athens by the emperor Justinian in 529 is usually interpreted as the victory of Christian theology over classical thought…The closing of the Athenian academy was more the act of a coroner than an executioner…the pagan school in Athens had already outlived its purpose…"
Comment by Lutepisc — November 27, 2005 @ 9:53 pm
November 27th, 2005 at 9:59 pm
Salvador,
I know you are interested in seeing ID taught somewhere at the University level after being encouraged to do so by NCSE's Eugenie Scott. You might want to consider that Prof. Mericki has opened a very interesting door for you.
I realize it would be a very bitter pill for many ID proponents to teach ID as mythology, but it raises fascinating angles of thought. KU has acknowledged that such an approach is appropriate. As I have argued above, there is an existing template for teaching mythology and that template does not usually include debunking/scoffing. Students are there to learn the myths and understand what they mean. So you spend a few weeks discussing Behe and Dembski, not trying to agree or disagree with their myths, but simply trying to understand what they believe. It would be crucial that the professor not side with Behe/Dembski and turn the mythology course into a philosophy or science course (which is why there is no room for the debunking). Simply help the students to "see" another world view to better appreciate our multicultural reality.
Of course, myths "symbolize in a meaningful manner the core beliefs of a religion." So what is ID symbolizing? Two possibilities to ponder.
1. An adherence to a teleological viewpoint as a reaction to Darwinism. To better appreciate the power of the ID Myth, we must understand its context. According to the syllabus I linked to, goals of that course were "to describe and discuss the cultures that produced the myths," and "to discover what these stories have to do with our lives today." At this point, something like Ken Miller's chapter 6 of Finding Darwin's God might come into play. Or better yet, this book might very useful at this point in the course
2. The second thing the ID Myth might symbolize is a great respect for Science in that those who adhere to the ID Myth yearn for the approval of Science. This opens the door for a historical exploration of the relationship between Christianity and science and perhaps a little philosophy of science.
Just something to contemplate.
Comment by MikeGene — November 27, 2005 @ 9:59 pm
November 28th, 2005 at 10:39 am
Bravo! What an outrageously wonderful and innovative idea! Indeed, as I have been in discussions with various interested parties about such a course, 2 scenarios came up which echo your points:
1. Have the course taught by an atheistic professor in the religion department who would treat the subject matter in pretty much the manner you said, ,much the way I would expect Antony Flew (prior to his coversion) would have treated it…..
2. Have a course for future pastors and laymen wanting wanting to teach intelligent design. It would have to be genererally as one would prepare a teacher of literature or mythology.
Now why would I be so willing to "swallow the bitter" pill? It is apparent (I hope) that I have been generally positive about Mirecki's class and ID is appearing in a religion class… Why? ID is a deep topic, and just getting students to read the primary original source literature is a pain, much less getting them to accept it.
I hate to say this, but I hardly know one IDEA member in the Virginia chapters who have reaad Dembski's work. A few have read Darwin's Black Box. A few can, with some difficulty articulate the basic concepts of ID. Why? Lack of interest or intelligence? No.
These students are studying math, physics, biology, english, etc. and do many other things a 19 or 20 year old would do. Slogging through primary ID literature is low on their priorities, and attending IDEA meetings is the way they are able to get a few morsels of ID theory….
But if it's offered for class credit, they now have a good excuse to spend hours seriously studying the theory. One IDEA chapter president (a biology senior) had to fit learning of ID primary literature by writing english papers on the topic. Also, even many biology majors in our chapters hardly know evolutionary theory! I have to almost pull teeth to get them to take evo classes. So even a slanted class like College English [anti]-ID class would give them more exposure to concepts I would want them familiar with before they go out there and start trying to argue and defend theories they are barely acquainted with. Even an anti-ID class is better than no class as it will challenge the students to learn the arguments.
This may sound surprising that I seem to be so willing to throw younling IDists to the wolves, but if I may offer this, I've not seen one ID-sympathizing bio student in our chapters be fully "deconverted" by taking any amount of evo classes, not one….
For them, studying an ID mythology course would be like teaching a gravity mythology course. The label would do little to persuade them it is a myth. It may cause them to question creationism, but not ID……but skepticism of ones own beliefs can be a good thing….
I am confident the worthiness of ID's consideration (whether in the end ID is true or not) will shine through even in a mythology course.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 28, 2005 @ 10:39 am
November 28th, 2005 at 11:04 am
Perhaps an intersting thread for ARN or Telic Thoughts:
"If I had to teach ID and/or creatiionism as Mythology, how would I teach it?"
Both critics and sympathizer of ID would give interesting answers in my opinion.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 28, 2005 @ 11:04 am
November 28th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
Presenting two videos, The Privileged Planet and Unlocking the Mystery of Life would also add insight and should be mandatory viewing. One 60 minute class for each video plus discussion time.
However this may cause too much damage. Students would no longer to tell between the procedures of mythology and procedures of science…
Comment by Joe G — November 28, 2005 @ 2:42 pm
November 28th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
Salvador,
You are being rich, but not deep in your analysis. If you suscept ID to mythological status, you will destroy the foundation on which you are building your appeals to 'ID science.' Most American religious persons are rationalists, through and through. They are not mystics; read: letter of the law, not spirit of the law. There are indeed few American mystics. If you equate ID with myth(ology), it will compromise the rational-empirical-scientific basis on which typical ID-leadership arguments have been constructed. And you don't really want to confront Joseph Campbell with your ID, pseudo-mythological theory, do you?
Perhaps as an outsider, Asian-American IDist, this does not seem obvious to you. Still, it may be worth considering as a possibility regarding the brief history and future of ID theories. This is said by someone who has been rationalized, but not caged by rationalist thinking, thus providing a source of tactical advice.
Arago
Comment by g arago — November 28, 2005 @ 5:24 pm
November 29th, 2005 at 12:30 am
G. arago makes a good point, but there is a difference between teaching ID is Myth and ID as Myth. After all, I think you could likewise teaching Darwinism as Myth. Not in the sense that Darwinism is false, but in the sense of what it might symbolize in our culture/society.
Comment by MikeGene — November 29, 2005 @ 12:30 am