"The KU faculty has had enough," religious studies department chair Paul Mirecki, defiantly proclaims. What they've had enough of is the idea that God created the universe. To the end of discrediting that notion, Mirecki offers for the spring semester the course "Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies," which starts with the assumption that Intelligent Design and Creationism are myths. So much for the academic values of balance, diversity, and open mindedness! Intellectuals, understandably, don't want religion taught in science classes. That they don't want religion taught in religion classes is where they overreach.

"Creationism is mythology," Mirecki explained to the Associated Press. "Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not." But religious studies isn't science, either, no matter how much Professor Mirecki wants it to be. The Kansas State Board of Education's sensible decision to allow the teaching of critiques of scientific theories alongside the mandatory teaching of those scientific theories generated an international controversy. The University of Kansas's decision to launch an advocacy course--in religious studies, no less--dedicated to attacking Intelligent Design and Creationism won't cause a peep. There is something startlingly amiss about defending science while attempting to mute critics.

The word "creation" is extremely pliable. It can refer to the claim that God is the primary cause of the universe but not the proximate cause of anything, or that God is the fashioned this planet and everything on it in the course of six days.

I am Christian, and I think that the second sense of "creation" (or anything close to it) is false. I think that a the first chapters of Genesis are mythology (nonetheless they convey truth).

Once the appropriate distinctions are introduced, the dichotomy you suggest turns out to be false.

I too am a Christian, and not particularly concerned whether a fellow Christian chooses to believe in "young earth" evolution or some other version which might be construed as assigning the first chapters of Genesis to some kind of "mythology" status.
The point is that, in their arrogance, academics claiming to be our leading experts in matters "divine" are actually the most sanctimonious, poorly adapted, faithless people on the planet.
The reaction of Christians of all beliefs should be to demand that the chancellor at the university of Kansas at least require that his professors exhibit a minimal amount of respect and discretion for the taxpaying populace.

Myth: A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society:

Genesis is a traditional ancient story dealing with a supernatural being that explains aspects of the natural world. Ergo it falls under the category of myth. Myth, to a religious studies professor, refers to just those sorts of stories rather than the common meaning of a falsehood that has become attached to "myth."

I believe that the stuff in the Book of Genesis is literal truth describing what actually happened.

Regardless I have qualms about its education to people who cannot actually use it for anything.

Honestly the story of Man's fall from paradise and into sin only has relevence at all if one believes that there is a Christ to save us from sin.

The problem I face is that while I believe the modern theories of evolution to be primarily a broad creation myth that the majority of secular America and its culture have bought into (primarily because the contemporary culture and its chosen favored scientific doctrine-dogma has championed this avenue of thought for sales and classrooms) I don't have enough authority or knowledge in the apropriate fields to suggest alternative modes of thought.

If the earth really is as young as the Bible would have literalists believe, than the notion that the Earth is billions of years old could actually be harmful and detrimental to future science and future scientists. Regardless of Adam and Eve and sins and Serpent there should be proper studies of the possibilities, dealt with a tad more open-mindedness than what the current secularists doctrine holds.

Keep in mind that I do not reject the whole billions-of-years scenario on a scientific basis but simply because it won't fit into a literal reading of Genesis, even if you read between the lines. In fact, the only way such a long-term idea function is if certain lines are ignored entirely. Scripture says we should not subtract from the scripture.

I am hesistant to take the evolutionary stances as science instead of myth.... so I assign it to the same status of religion as I do the book of Genesis and various 'world tree'/'giant turtle's back' notions.... because there was no one alive during the period in question to take an accounting. It's just speculation and guesswork making broad connections between various species with differing DNA strands and skull shapes. I won't judge you too harshly for keeping to those standards of discovery if you won't condemn me as a dumb-ass for believing that God created the world in six days.

That was overly long, wasn't it?

sorry.

Yeah, but you never once used the word "dichotomy"...

Re Webster's post -
The definition is good - thank you - but I can't help but think that there might just a wee bit of condescension, or negative connotation at least, in the choice of the course title:

"Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies"

Do you actually believe that those who don't follow the secularist doctrine are going to receive fair treatment or respect in that particular classroom? Not likely. After all, Professor Mirecki makes it clear that the faculty has "had enough". Of what - outside meddling with the curriculum? Or maybe Christians who actually believe in God? Hard to figure how the underlying hostility of academics to their constituency would be tolerated anywhere but academia. Well, maybe Congress.

It's obvious that Mirecki feels intelligent design and creationism are myths and not science. He does not appear to be qualified to determine whether they meet the requirements of science, and so he appears to have a bias. He is qualified to discuss the aspects they share with myth. It would be interesting if he included evolution in the course as it too shares some qualities of myth. For instance, though Mirecki is probably unschooled in scientific method and evolution I bet he believes (i.e., has faith) in it.

Biologists are more qualified to discuss scientific bases or ID vs. evolution, not Mirecki.

What is the difference between a "fact"
and a "theory"?

Why is it that they
call it the "theory" of evolution and not
the "fact" of evolution?

Hmmmmmmm.....

Actually, that evolution has occurred is an undeniable fact of science, for which there is abundant evidence. It is curious, though, that, in most circles, there is an attempt to negate this by referring to it still as the "theory" of evolution more than 150 years later when fossil evidence of the transition from one species to another is readily viewable in any museum of natural history.

About the initial post, I agree that to create a course of this nature for a theological school is overstepping the bounds and certainly undermines the spirit of equal consideration. I do support the exclusion of so-called "creationsim" or "intelligent design" from science curriculums, though. The attempt to include them in science classes is a deliberate attempt to undermine evolutionary science by claiming it has no more legitimacy than religion does. If this is what the religious establishment believes, fine; they can preach this in churches, where it is appropriate. To include "intelligent design" in the science classroom, however, only shortchanges our children's already dismal understanding of the physical world.

Where in the scientific world has the theory of evolution been proved? It changes every decade as they search for the evidence going from the "Big Bang Theory" to "Quantum Physics". One of the things that came out of the debates of the 80's between evolutionists and creationists is that neither party could totally prove their point to the audiences because neither party was able to duplicate the circumstances which they stated to be the cause of the universe. No one can explain how all the energy that it took to start the cosmos or where it came from. I am a creationist and have heard alot of the arguments of the creationists and they are not always consistently compatible in their views but evolutionists have not done so either. Let's at least be ready to listen and let science be the empirical investigation and observation of the world in which we live.

Anyone truly interested in this subject
should read this link.

http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/5862/creation.html

And Neaderthal Man isn't mythology? There's no credible proof whatsoever that he/she/it existed, other than a couple of strangely ape-like bones and some incredibly imaginative artist renderings.

I think you all are very confused. The problem is this...the word THEORY actually means something to scientists. It DOES not mean that someone has an idea, uses a few existing observations to back it up, and tada! it is science. Theories make predictions, generally very specific ones and they are tested over and over again, generally by people who have the MOST to gain by exposing them as false and the LEAST to gain by proving them true.

No scientist argues that challenges to theories aren't useful and necessary. In fact this is the ONLY way to make a theory stronger (or to prove it false). However the CHALLENGE must be able to stand up to the same scrutiny as the theory it is challenging! This is where ID breaks down. Situations and obsevations that "fit" ID are used to "back it up" but situtation that knock it down are ignored, or worse, attributed to scientists "attacking" ID. If ID was REALLY a theory it would welcome such challenges because it would weather those arguments and be stronger for it.

ID is not a theory. Theories must make predictions and ID doesn't and can't. When it runs into something it can't cope with it uses supernatural explanation to fill in the blanks. That isn't science. It IS mythology and not different than what the Greeks and Romans did.

As for the difference between laws and theories...many things in your households, CD players, computers, etc rely solely on scientific theories. There are very few "laws" in science and most of them are historical (ie Newton's laws) I don't believe anything will ever be a law again! This isn't because we don't believe that they are true and it certainly isn't because they haven't been tested ad nausem (ie evertime you use a mircowave!) but because it is hubris to assume that we understand ANYTHING perfectly.

That being said it is also incredible hubris to attack what we do know with an idea that can not even stand up to the mildest of scientific attacks. People accuse academics of being condescending, but isn't is also incredibly arrogant for religious leaders to step in and tell scientists that ID must be respected as a scientific theory because it is a religious belief? You can't have it both ways. Either we respect it like a religious belief and we don't teach it as science or we rip it apart and try to put it back together like we do with every other science theory that comes along.