How did that e-mail from Doc P get spread all over Kansas so fast?

And is this about investigation or telling people what's what?

I mean, what's going on here...this is not what I expected.

The reason Kansas knows about the email is that Dr. Mirecki, who lost his common sense on the way to becoming a Professor, posted it on a publicly accessible forum.

If a supporter of Intelligent Design had posted a message with a similar tone in a similarly accessible forum, you can bet that opponents would seize on it and publicize it, and rightly so.

The Mirecki email was an instance of someone preaching to the choir, if SOMA will excuse my metaphor, and not counting on someone outside the choir finding out about the message, which comes across as vindictive, immature, and unprofessional.

I support ousting ID from the classroom, along with the School Board members who voted for it, but I know there are better ways to fight them. Using a strategy similar to Michael Moore's vs. George Bush in 2004 will have similar results. In other words, congratulating oneself for being smarter than IDers won't do the trick.

Ray Pence
KU American Studies Program

The more accurate answer is this: An ID-supporter with very limited ethics is hiding out on our email list forwarding our words outside the list. We have unaffectionately started calling this person our "mole."

At any rate, SOMA stands firm in its support of Dr. Mirecki and we feel he did nothing wrong.
I believe that it is not out of line for us to be angry about the tactics used by fundamentalists in this state, and that Dr. Mirecki tried to use humor to respond to those tactics. We should not have to censor our speech on our private discussion list to be palatable to the religious- they sure never censor themselves to avoid offending atheists. On the contrary, many conservative Christians speak very publicly about how much they hate us, think we are bad Americans, and think we should all "sit down and shut up." We are a group it is still considered politically acceptable (and even favorable!) to hate in America, and we're sick of it.

I'm just speaking for me in all this, however. (Aside from the fact that SOMA stands in support of Dr. Mirecki.)

Stephanie, SOMA Webmistress.

Hello,
it's not unacceptable to be angry about the ID supporters and their tactics. Nor is it acceptable for IDers to attack SOMA and others they identify as enemies. As for supporting Dr. Mirecki, SOMA doesn't have much of a choice at this point, and I think it would be ill-advised to back down.

My point, question, whatever you want to call it, is this: will the anger and the mockery bring about the needed change, or will it play into the hands of the IDers, who thrive on opposition from credentialed professionals in higher education?

I am not advocating responding to IDers in a way that is all sweetness and light--far from it. There needs to be an aggressive counterattack. ******* off the religious right is easy. Getting more voters to be sufficiently ****** off at the religious right so they will reconstitute the school board is much more difficult, but not impossible.

If SOMA members can put their energy into a coalition of activists that will educate voters and motivate them, they will succeed. But if this is mainly about getting into a ******* match with fundamentalists, the fundamentalists win. They're better organized, more determined, and right now they're setting the agenda for Kansas.

Ray Pence
KU American Studies

Who cares. As atheists, you all know that your mental processes are just a function of the "laws' of biology and chemistry.

We all do what we do...you, the IDer's, everybody.

You can call what YOU do "reason" but its just biochemical burping.

ID or mindless development? Pepsi or Diet Coke?

All the same.

Ray, I appreciate your sentiments about working against ID in a productive way- you are quite right that it needs to be done. But I must note that, while this is a very large part of SOMA's mission, this is not all of it. We also exist as a place where atheists and agnostics can come together and have a haven of some sort to say the things that we feel that we are not allowed to say out in public without repercussions. We are a social organization as well as an activist one. It is this mission of SOMA that I think has been violated by this whole controversy.

That said, I do think SOMA can be a force to challenge all the deeply irrational people who seem to be holding so many high positions in our state. But remember that we are all students, a great many of us are working to make ends meet and to pay tuition, and very few of us have a whole lot of free time. Our meetings are every other week and not everyone has time to even attend those. (Though many do, which we officers greatly appreciate.)

My personal thought is just that a group like KS Progressives, whose members are largely out of school, might be able to be more effective- though we haven't heard a word out of them over all this. (SOMA would be happy to work together with other groups interested in these issues, as well.)
Not to say that SOMA can't be a force for reason and rationalism, but just that you shouldn't try and place all the hopes of Kansas's science advocates on us.

Atheists, being irrational, cannot be a "force for rationalism".

The atheist believes that the irrational (that is, mindless, impersonal, undirected) processes can explain all existence, life, mind, and reason itseelf; thus, the atheist themself is irrational.

On the other hand, you have the cowardly atheist...you know, the one who says, "I have no beliefs...I simply LACK belief and have nothing to defend!"

Thus, having no beliefs, they take the cowards way out and, in the process, render themselves meaningless.

After all, if they have no beliefs, what's to discuss?

why is Doc P's e-mail no longer posted? What are you afraid of? If you posted it before let it stand. Doc P was obviously preaching to his choir.

Dr. M was preaching to the choir and he need not apologize for "freedom of expression" in a semi-private forum. Semi because lurking about is someone monitoring what we say.

With the attempt to redefine Scientific methods by introducing "Intelligent Design", there will soon be an attempt to redefine Logic by introducing "Rationale by Intelligent Design".

An atheist does not believe in existence of deities, therefore an atheist is irrational [Blair, 2005]. Wow! Such insight into the universal truth!

Blair,


"Atheists, being irrational, cannot be a "force for rationalism"."

In what way are we irrational? Simply making such a statement doesn't make it true. But I suppose that's the logic we should expect from religious people.


"The atheist believes that the irrational (that is, mindless, impersonal, undirected) processes can explain all existence, life, mind, and reason itseelf; thus, the atheist themself is irrational."

You make atheists sound like another species. Does it make you feel better to distance yourself from those who think differently then you do. Biological, Chemical, and other such processes are predictable, measurable, and quite personal since we experience such things very directly in our own bodies. These processes explain functions, not origins.

"On the other hand, you have the cowardly atheist...you know, the one who says, "I have no beliefs...I simply LACK belief and have nothing to defend!""

Every person has beliefs. I lack a belief in the divine, and I have to defend that lack of belief. However, I can do that far easier than religious people do because the burden of proof is on the people who make the claim.

"Thus, having no beliefs, they take the cowards way out and, in the process, render themselves meaningless."

Again, all people have beliefs of one form or another. I don't ask people to take my word for the things I believe, because my beliefs are grounded in empirical evidence. What are yours grounded in?

"After all, if they have no beliefs, what's to discuss?"

If we had nothing to discuss, you wouldn't be here posting this right now.

-Andrew

Ancient civilizations from the pigmies of Africa to the Mayans of South America all had stories of the "creation" of their people and stories to explain natural phenomena. Greeks once thought thunders were results of angry Gods. Early Christian thought the Earth was flat and center of the Universe.

If not for the Romans and their legions, Christianity would neither exist nor spread to the western world. If not for Saladdin, and later oil, Islam too would have languished as nothing more than a tribal belief in the middle east.

If the Greeks had created an European Empire that lasted a few thousand years, we would all be arguing about "Intelligent Design" in terms of Zeus and Trident today. If the Mayans had conquered all of Americas and invaded Europe, we may all be speaking Mayan and conducting periodic human sacrifices.

Christianity is nothing more than just one belief system created by 1 group of people (Roman converts) who "stole" the ideas from Jews. While Jewish belief focus on personal improvements, Christians decided to "spread" the gospels around the glode at the tips of a sword and at the ends of a gun barrel.

Claiming it to be the ultimate truth, putting it atop a pedastal beyond reproach, defending it with zealous mindless faith is at best irrational, at worst stupid.

I wonder how many such evangelical Christians truly understand the deeper teachings of the bible. Most are just regurgitating what someone else is screaming and are just blind followers. How sad and irrational.

What a waste of time and effort revisitng such issues when we should be looking forward into next phase of human evolution, how we can live in peace with each other and protect our only home, the planet Earth.

Stangl tells Blair that his beliefs are all grounded in empirical evidence.

As an atheist, he believes that all existence, life, mind and reason itself can be explained by mindless processess...and argues that this is due to the "predictable" laws of biology, chemistry and physics, begging the question of whether such laws are themselves the result of mindless processes or why the mindlessly developed organic brain of the human species should be able to apprehend them.

But I digress, what Stangl does in his claim to base all his beliefs on empirical evidence in fact goes beyond the evidence.

He presupposes the uniformity of nauture, the reliablity of our senses (which manifestly are flawed) the correlations of cause and effect and the ability of the biochemical burpings in the organic brain to give us objective knowledge of the universe.

In fact, despite his claim to rely on empirical evidence, he had not proven any of these things.

Thus, his atheism is a faith as much as anyones.

Dear Emanuel,

Instead of chastising us, may be it will help if you or Blair take the time to explain and educate.

If there truly is a guiding hand, and it is capable of producing so many wonderful scientific laws and theories, surely its existence must also be readily observable, measurable, and reproducible by our standard scientific methods?

Surely if science can systematically discover so much of HIS/HER/THEIR good work, it must then be good enough to discover their participation?

Do you know of some observable, measurable, computable model and reproducible processes that we can read, study and research to show us at least a hint of the existence of a deity that is guiding creation of all natural laws?

Or are you telling us, without proof, that this deity is so powerful that it can mask its existence and hide from our views? While I will grant you this much, you also must forgive my chuckle (if that's your answer) because it is sounding like Star Trek.

Please, teach us but not chastise us for we know not your truth.

Emanuel,

Can you do nothing but nit pick and treat with utter disdain absolutely everything I say? How about sharing your own viewpoint with us? Or are you too afraid your own view won't hold up to scrutiny?

But I'll amuse myself by responding to your post:

"As an atheist, he believes that all existence, life, mind and reason itself can be explained by mindless processess...and argues that this is due to the "predictable" laws of biology, chemistry and physics, begging the question of whether such laws are themselves the result of mindless processes or why the mindlessly developed organic brain of the human species should be able to apprehend them."

Dispite your sarcasm, that's precisely what we observe to be true using science. What are your credentials anyway?

"But I digress, what Stangl does in his claim to base all his beliefs on empirical evidence in fact goes beyond the evidence."

Sorry buddy, wrong again.

"He presupposes the uniformity of nauture, the reliablity of our senses (which manifestly are flawed) the correlations of cause and effect and the ability of the biochemical burpings in the organic brain to give us objective knowledge of the universe."

Human understanding of the natural world isn't perfect, but the scientific process has provided the best tool for understanding our surroundings. Inductive and deductive reasoning have formed the core of human understanding. While not perfect, they are far superior to the "believe what I say because I'm a religious person" argument.

"In fact, despite his claim to rely on empirical evidence, he had not proven any of these things."

Go and look for the information yourself. It's readily available in your local library, or un reputable scientific website on the internet.

"Thus, his atheism is a faith as much as anyones."

Thus you reassure yourself so you can sleep at night thinking that other people are locked into your viewpoint whether they like it or not.

How about sharing your beliefs and your proof for them? Or better yet, how about coming back after you catch up on the last 300 years of science.

Emanuel wrote: "Thus, his atheism is a faith as much as anyones."

Actually you are right in our faith in science. Faith is defined as loyalty or allegiance or a strong belief in a cause, an idea or a person. The word "faith" does not mean religion.

So we do have faith in scientific methods and ideas. Our faith in science is based on in its ability to question, to measure, to observe, to test and to reproduce an experiment. Our faith is in its drive to be impartial. Our faith is in its systematic method of revealing the truth, whatever it may be. If a theory is wrong, it is wrong. If it is right, it is right. If it needs more work and changes, it needs work and changes. We have faith in such a system.

Our faith did not happen overnight, nor was it given blindly without question. Our faith grow stronger through observation and experiments from grade school through college and onto commercial ventures. Whenever we follow its methods, we know what to expect. Our faith in science is not blind.

Can Emanuel or Blair kindly compare religious faith to our scientific faith?

Are these 2 faiths even the same?
Can one question religious beliefs?
Are religious claims subject to review, tests, analysis, reproducible experiments?
What is the religious method for getting results? Prayers? Do they always work like scientific methods in revealing the truth or produce results?

What brought on the industrial revolution and later the information revolution? Religious faith? or is it scientific faith?

Did religious faith make it possible for Blair and Emanuel to post here so easily? Did religious faith make it possible for Intelligent Design proponents to twist scientific work for their own purpose? Will they have found out about the bacterium structure by studiously exploring every letter in the bible?

I thought it was because of scientific discipline that we are where we are today.

Why then is it incomprehensible for scientific faith to coexsit in peace with religious faith?

Religion should deal with the spiritual and how to live with each other. Science can decide what and may be "who" created this universe in which we live. Won't that be a better compromise?