Science and Mythology

[wordsmythe]

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/no...cates/?ku_news

KU class angers ‘design’ advocates
Course would be taught as religion, not as science

By Sophia Maines

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Creationism and intelligent design are slated to be the subjects of a Kansas University class next semester — but as mythology, not science.

“The KU faculty has had enough,” said Paul Mirecki, chairman of KU’s religious studies department. He said he planned to teach “Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies” next semester.

Mirecki’s plans angered some of the state’s religious conservatives, who earlier this month successfully pushed changes in state science standards that critique evolution. And one intelligent design proponent questioned Mirecki’s science credentials.

“I would predict that (Mirecki’s) effort will go down in history as one of the laughingstocks of the century,” said John Calvert, an attorney and managing director of the Intelligent Design Network in Johnson County.

Mirecki said the course would be capped at 120 students, exploring intelligent design as a modern American mythology. Intelligent design is the idea that life is too complex to have evolved without a “designer,” presumably a god or other supernatural being.

The course also will cover the origins of creationism, why it’s an American phenomenon, and why Americans have allowed it to pervade politics and education, Mirecki said. He said several KU faculty have volunteered to be guest lecturers.

“Creationism is mythology,” Mirecki said. “Intelligent design is mythology. It’s not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not.”

KU Chancellor Robert Hemenway said Monday he didn’t have all the details on the course, and couldn’t speak substantively about it. He said academics did not shy away from a course simply because it was controversial.

“If it’s a course that’s being offered in a serious and intellectually honest way, those are the kind of courses a university frequently offers,” he said.

Credentials

But intelligent design proponents say the class is meant to demean them.

“To equate intelligent design to mythology is really an absurdity, and it’s just another example of labeling anybody who proposes (intelligent design) to be simply a religious nut,” Calvert said. “That’s the reason for this little charade.”

Calvert questioned Mirecki’s expertise, saying the teaching of intelligent design requires an extensive understanding of evolution and science.

“I think the guy is going to fall all over himself,” Calvert said. “I would love to go to his class and say, ‘Explain to me how DNA arose in the primordial soup?’”

John Altevogt, a conservative columnist and activist in Kansas City, said the situation was the equivalent of David Duke teaching about race relations or Fred Phelps teaching about homosexuality.

“These guys should not be teaching classes in religion, because they’re both bigots,” Altevogt said of Mirecki and a fellow faculty member who could not be reached for comment Monday.

Calvert said efforts by educators to demean intelligent design proponents can be effective.

“My voice is a very, very small voice in the woods,” he said. “My voice is rarely heard because we’re in the minority. A strategy that seeks to demean can be very, very effective to them.”

Mirecki said intelligent design proponents liked to view themselves as the victims, but that’s not the case.

“The educational system of Kansas is under attack,” Mirecki said. “All they are is oppressors. They’re not martyrs and victims ... I’m expecting insecure, threatened people to start being more and more vocal. They don’t want their beliefs to be analyzed rationally. That’s what this class is devised to do.”

[agnostic]

I will have to try and enroll in that class it sounds excellent. Here's the chancellor's thoughts on the whole evolution deal:

September 26, 2005

Evolution Statement

Dear Colleagues:

Six years ago the Chronicle of Higher Education published a column I wrote on the evolution controversy. My point of view then, and remarks I have made publicly many times since, should surprise no one: Evolution is the central unifying principle of modern biology, and it must be taught in our high schools, universities and colleges. On a personal level, I see no contradiction in being a person of faith who believes in God and evolution, and I'm sure many others at this university agree.

But the attack on evolution continues across America and compels me to again state the obvious: The University of Kansas is a major public research university, a scientific community. We are committed to fact-based research and teaching. As an academic, scientific community, we must affirm scientific principles.

The university's position is not an attack on anyone. We respect the right of the individual to his or her beliefs, including faith-based beliefs about creation. However, creationism and intelligent design are most appropriately taught in a religion, philosophy, or sociology class, rather than a science class.

I encourage students, faculty and staff to take the opportunity to see the "Explore Evolution" exhibit that will open November 1 at the KU Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Center at Dyche Hall. The exhibit focuses on seven contemporary research projects that contribute to our knowledge of evolution in creatures large and small, from a study of farmer ants to an analysis of the fossils of whales. A grant from the National Science Foundation funded six museums to create the exhibit. I applaud our Natural History Museum for partnering in this project along with the Science Museum of Minnesota and the natural history museums at the universities of Michigan, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas.

The United States cannot accept efforts to undermine the teaching of science. Our focus should be to raise the level of scientific literacy among our citizenry because we face a critical shortage of scientists in the next two decades. As a public research university, we have a special mission to educate tomorrow's scientists and to support the science teachers who will inspire young people to become chemists, geologists, biologists and physicists. Let us use the evolution controversy to intensify our efforts to provide a world-class education to our students and to support the faculty who engage in the important research and teaching missions of our schools and universities.

Sincerely,
Bob Hemenway
Chancellor

http://www.chancellor.ku.edu/message...er2605.shtml?M

[Detector]

We are committed to fact-based research and teaching.

Ya know, if the whole evolution thing was fact-based we wouldn't be having these discussions. There is no evidence that macro-evolution ever happened period. So why is a theory with no evidence to back it up any more scientific than the theory life may have been planed or started from an outside source? Both can be scientifically researched.

[agnostic]

Where is the scientific evidence supporting intelligent design that says more than 'we must be created by God because, well durn it, everything just works so dern well!'

[Detector]

Where does it say Intelligent Design says we must be created by God? Being created by God is only 1 theory for ID not the only one. Even so, then one needs to define God before you label ID a religious belief. God could be defined simply as a superior being. Life could well have started for us on a distant planet and made its way to Earth riding on the back of a meteor. God the creator may well live or had lived in our past and had nothing what so ever to do with religion.

I see nothing wrong with teaching ID in mythology until it is proved to be more. Just like the idea that evolution could have created all species is still only a myth, and should also be taught in mythology until proved otherwise. It would be the first time a mythological person was found to have actually walk the Earth.

[TexKan]

I think they all sound like the House of Representatives lasf Friday night...... What horse and pony show....... this fits well into that circus...... I say teach the class - everyone will form their own opinion anyway thru raising,life experiences, and just plain CHOICE...........don't know why either side is so scared of oppositon........ must be some tax dollars behind it.........

[agnostic]

At least you agree that ID should be kept in mythological terms until proven scientific, because you certainly can't do that.

The entire preface of intelligent design entails design by intelligence. That intelligence is God. I've never heard of any ID theories not involving God, but ok.

God is usually a general definition and also generally understood. It/he/she is the most supreme being. I think it was Anselm or said he was the greatest being that could be conceived, maybe it was Aquinas. Again, if the universe was created by design, and God didn't design it, his magical elves must have, right? C'mon.

Life could well have started for us on a distant planet and made its way to Earth riding on the back of a meteor. God the creator may well live or had lived in our past and had nothing what so ever to do with religion.

That's not really any more outlandish than a lot of creationism stories. The thing we all must remember is that they are creation stories and should be treated as such. They are merely scientifically unbased explanations on how we got here.

Enter evolution. From wikipedia.org:

Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have become resistant to antibiotics. Because microevolution can be observed directly, both pro-evolution and some anti-evolution groups agree that it is a fact of life.

Futhermore:

There are a number of views regarding macroevolution. Some evolutionary biologists, particularly Charles Darwin and those subscribing to the modern synthesis, see the only difference between microevolution and macroevolution as being one of scale. Other evolutionary biologists, including Gould, Schmalhausen, and Waddington, hold that microevolution and macroevolution are fundamentally different processes. Essentially the question is - how important are sudden developmental "spurts" to the overall process of evolution? Are they the driving force, or is gradual change the more important process?

Macroevolution is controversial only outside the scientific community,[so much for your lack of scientific basis assertion] and aspects of it are disputed by many movements such as creationism and intelligent design. Generally speaking, these groups differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting that the former is an observable phenomena, but that the latter is not. They have proposed a number of limits beyond which they believe evolution cannot occur. Proponents of Intelligent design argue that the mechanisms of evolution are incapable of giving rise to instances of specified complexity and irreducible complexity. Proponents of creation biology assert that life was originally created in a finite number of discrete created kinds beyond which and between which no evolution can occur, and that the dominant source of biological change is population isolation and genetic drift, or the loss of the diversity of the original kinds, rather than an increase of genetic diversity through mutation.

Evolution is not a tale to explain how we were created, but how we evolved from that point on. Evangelicals just get their panties in a bunch because it conflicts with their stories. Boo-hoo. Keep your stories in your churches and out of the public schools, and keep our science in.

[Detector]

The entire preface of intelligent design entails design by intelligence. That intelligence is God. I've never heard of any ID theories not involving God, but ok.

I see, and since you've never heard of any other theories there can't be any right? Sorry to be the one to enlighten you but there are others.

Macroevolution is controversial only outside the scientific community

Its no surprise since the scientific community invented the idea that macroevolution happened. So its not outlandish to think macroevolution happened, although there is absolutely no evidence to show it. Although we find plenty of evidence of microevolution for some unexplainable reason we find no mutated fossils showing that one species ever mutated to another. And they call that science huh?

I don't know about you but I find it rather odd that for example if birds mutated from lizards we find many fossils of the two but nothing in between? Where are the fossilized lizards mutating into birds? And how do we explain that some of the mutated fossils are older than the fossils they are supposed to have mutated from?

If you ask me it seems both ID and macroevolution fit well in the realm of mythology.

[The Drifter]

im not buyin this mutation thing....evolution doesnt happen over night. it's a long period of change. there are many examples of evolution between species.

btw. if you find it hard that an organism so complex as yourself and many other organisms have evolved from tiny single cells. think about this: you and i, as well as our pet dogs, cats, fish and all grew from 1 cell, an egg.

if a bacteria cell can become antibiotic resistant, why can't it change again? and again? and again? and again? over a time span of millions of years and end up as a whole new organism, totally different than its original?

[Detector]

btw. if you find it hard that an organism so complex as yourself and many other organisms have evolved from tiny single cells. think about this: you and i, as well as our pet dogs, cats, fish and all grew from 1 cell, an egg.

True, the difference is that tiny single cell already had the genes/DNA that would define what it would develop into. This is true with all living things. They all STARTED with the genes that makes them grow from an egg/1 cell into a predetermined(by the genes) species. Only many many many mutated genes could change one creature into another, and science has shown mutated genes either die young or never get passed along. Hence the problem with macroevolution.

Even if it did, where are all the mutated fossils? There ain't none. They just magically mutated over night into new species. I'm not buying that either.