Well, alot has happened since I last posted on the whole "KU/ID is mythology" class to be taught by a professor Paul Mirecki. To begin with, the class got canceled when even more of Mirecki's emails leaked out. You can read about it here. The emails themselves are available somewhere...they include such morsels as comparing the eucharist at his Catholic Church to vomitting in his mouth and more along those lines. Classy.

I also wanted to point out that one of my alma mater's, Kansas State University, is also teaching a class that deals with ID, as you can read about here. While ID is still not given much credit, it does seem that the class will be handled properly and with respect, which is about all you can ask for at this point. I don't think ID should be taught as science, but it DOES need to be discussed fairly at this point in time, and it appears this class is a step in the right direction.

Now this is where things get strange. It's being reported that the aforementioned Professor Mirecki has been beaten up, literally. He was driving to breakfast this morning when he stopped and got out of his car to confront 2 men who were following him. They then proceeded to beat him up.

Now, let me first say that if this story is true, than it is a sad commentary and gives an even more negative view of my fellow Kansans. Violence should not be resorted to over an issue like this ever. However, since I am rather insignificant myself and anyone with any significance wouldn't be able to say this, I am rather suspicious () of how convenient this whole situation is for Mr. Mirecki. He goes from being the goat to being a victim and at the same time makes his view look like the superior and correct one by casting those who oppose him in an extremely negative light. He has no alibies, as it was on a deserted road early in the morning. He suffered bruising, but that was about it. To me, it's all a little too fishy and sounds like he is pulling a political PR stunt to save face. But maybe I am wrong. Let's hope so. I do, though, want to recommend to Mr. Dembski and Mr. Behe and others that they should quickly arrange a similar situation for themselves, where they get roughed up a bit, but come out looking like a victim and completely embarrasing the other side.

UPDATE: Prof. Mirecki's story is now starting to gain a more wide based criticism, as everyone who hears it seems to be a little bit skeptical. Here is a blog entry that gets into the details regarding all of the discrepencies.

Over at the Evangelical Outpost, Joe Carter has a great post on what not to do when arguing. His basic point is this: think of the people that you trust for advice or opinions on various topics. Now think of the people you know who use hyperbole whenever they speak. The people you thought of in the first group are not the people you thought of in the second group, right?

A classic example of this is when I hear people say things such as "George W. is the worst president ever," or, "Intelligent Design is just Creationism and Pseudoscience." Now, has this person really looked at the history of the presidency enough to make a judgment like that? Have they really gave an honest look at ID theorist's work? Probably not. But they believe what they are saying is true and they will argue with you about it. Mr. Carter's advice? Avoid this type of "stupid" person, as engaging in an argument will get you nowhere, regardless of how rhetorically skilled you are or how valid your points are. He also points out that the skill set that it would take to research and find the answers to those questions is the same type of skill set that would make you smart enough not to employ hyperbolic rhetoric. Think about that for a second...

People often claim to be open-minded, and I have encountered this many times in the blogosphere, but rarely are. How can you tell? By their poor use of rhetoric. I see it over and over in blogging and in "real" life, especially in classroom settings. What is usually the give-away that a person is in fact close-minded? Constant use of hyperbole in their language, plus a good dose of not trying to understand what the other person is saying. In most arguments that I have been in at Universities or with those with differing views have been filled with poor rhetoric. (From my side of the argument also.) It is definitely something that everyone should work on, as it makes for more decent dialogue and leads to a better understanding of the opposition's position, and your own position as well. (I will note that here on blogstream I have seen less close-mindedness than I have anywhere else. Let's keep it that way.)

Well, it seems that my little-known, oft-made fun of, home state is back in the news again, and once again it has to do with Intelligent Design. With all the negative attention received, it makes me long for the time where all people knew of Kansas was the Wizard of Oz.

Kansas first stepped into the limelight recently with the huge inflation of truth that ocurred when the passing of the State's science standard's was ran as headline news worldwide. As I pointed out in a previous post here, the new standards are not what was made of them. They now sit in accordance with most other states' standards, and, contrary to the reporting, do not mandate or even allow the teaching of Intelligent Design.

This leads to the second step into the limelight...We have been getting national attention because of a professor at the University of Kansas who will be teaching a course this next fall on "Myth's". One of the main "myth's" to be discussed? Intelligent Design. This is a classic example of the naturalists refusing to look at evidence and being closed minded (which something they so often decry). To make things even more controversial, an email that he sent through a Yahoo listserv was released that exposed his true motivations for the course. Some sample quotes:

“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,’”

He signed the note:

“Doing my part (to upset) the religious right, Evil Dr. P.”

You can find more about the whole ordeal here. The email reveals alot about the motivation of the course and calls into question whether or not the course should be taught in this manner, which is clearly not academic, but rather propaganda. I understand that KU (and most universities, for that manner) lean to the left quite a bit and so some of this is to be expected. I attended KU for a semester of Undergrad, and it really is like a San Francisco in KS. (Not that it is a bad thing, just giving a little persepective). The course itself seems to have jumped the gun a little bit with classifiying ID with mythology. It's relatively young (about 10 years), and there appears to be a lot of potential in design theory, so it seems premature to go ahead and throw it out before it has a chance. It's this kind of behavior that makes outsiders observing the whole debate wonder whose side the facts are really on, when one side is talking science and the other is talking motivations, classifications of science, etc. etc. (Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, has been blogging about this fact recently. The overwhelming negativity that he has received from the darwinists has really just proved the point he was trying to make. You can read his posts here. This linked post is the 3rd in the series, you can easily find the first 2)

Well, I've been gone for Thanksgiving (saw family in Indiana and Kansas) and I've been extremely bogged down with tests and practicals and presentations at school. This will continue to be the case through the next few weeks. I miss blogging regularly and will hopefully be able to keep up a little bit with it and with everyone else's blogs as much as possible.

The other day I mentioned Biomimetics, the imitation of nature in technology (or the reverse engineering of nature), in reference to how it might yield some surprising technological advances, especially when approached from a design inference. Well, just yesterday I came across this MSNBC article here that involves this very topic. It describes researchers who are using the different types of eyes found in nature to produce new and more efficient optical systems. You won't find the mention of evolution anywhere (except for a slight reference to natural selection), as it's not important when advancing science, as I've said before here.

I'll be out the rest of the week. Have a good Thanksgiving.