[GCFL-discuss] Fundamentals of Science

[Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies List]

It's a new year, and time to throw out something provocative. I recently
sent the text below to the editors of Science magazine. I don't know if
they will publish it, but the young man who plays the keyboard at church
liked this draft.

The context may not be recognizable. It responds to articles about
University of Kansas professor (and chair of religious studies) Paul
Mirecki offering a course entitled:

REL 602 Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationisms and
other Religious Mythologies.

In a widely publicized email, Mirecki described the course:

The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a
nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies
class under the category “mythology.” I expect it will draw much media
attention. 

It did get some attention.

The Associated Press reported December 6 that police are investigating a
roadside beating of Paul Mirecki 6:40 a.m. Monday on a rural road south
of Lawrence, Kansas. Mirecki told the Lawrence Journal-World that the two
men who beat him were making references to his proposed course.

December 7 the university announced Mirecki had resigned as chairman of
the religious studies department. 2 days later Mirecki told the Lawrence
Journal-World he had been forced to step down.

Which leads to my letter to the editors.

--Siarlys

        When a professor of either science or theology designs a course
as "a nice slap" in anyone's "big fat face," it should be no surprise
that someone might throw a physical punch in response. True, assault and
battery are crimes in most states, even if "fighting words" have provoked
the attack. Still, University of Kansas professor Paul Mirecki
exemplifies the self-destructive arrogance which gets in the way of
expanding respect for plain scientific truths. What is the point, in a
country where religious faith has always played a powerful role, to
offering a course entitled "Intelligent Design, Creationism and other
Mythologies"? Frankly, the traditions of ancient cultures are entitled to
more respect than to be used as a foil for such petty sarcasm.
        Professional opponents of science are not the problem. Their
ability to influence millions of our devout fellow citizens, who have
been told their faith is under attack, is the problem. "Yuk, yuk, look
what those Christians are up to now," is not helpful. It might create
more respect for science to teach a course that distinguishes the
Judeo-Christian and Islamic scriptures from the respectable (but
superstitious) folk tales that our ancestors fervently believed in.
Nobody who truly believes in the inerrant truth of every word in the
Bible could deny the misnamed "Big Bang" theory. It is so succinctly
described in Genesis 1:3. There is of course no scientific proof that
"God said, 'Let there be light'" -- but ample evidence has been assembled
that "there was light." How did Moses know that, before telescopes and
orbiting anisotropy probes? There is little to the theories generally
described as "evolution" that are not encompassed by the clause "then God
said, let the waters bring forth the living thing that hath life." Does
any more primitive religious tradition offer such sophisticated accounts?

        I don't want to resurrect a 1960s cliche by saying "some of my
best friends are fundamentalists," but it is a fact, many are. Up close
and personal, they are cheerful, friendly, thoughtful, worthy of respect,
and listen with respect and interest when I defend modern cosmology and
biology. (It doesn't hurt that I go to the same church). We falliable
humans need less mutual contempt, and more open dialog on what we think
we might know. Intelligent Design can be reduced to a perfect legitimate
observation of some long odds in the existing data. (Fred Hoyle
acknowledged a few, in his own research on fusion in stellar cores.)
That, of course, robs ID of its arrogant claim to be an "alternative
theory." Yes, whales did evolve from land animals. That is also mentioned
in Genesis by the way, chapter one, verse twenty-one.
        Albert Einstein described the motivation of his entire life's
work as "I want to understand the mind of God." If Einstein could
recognize that "The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not," could
not humans in pursuit of the truth available through science exercise a
little subtlely also? 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://gcfl.net/pipermail/gcfl-discuss/attachments/20060110/9e62c40b/attachment.htm