http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/livi...printstory.jsp

Posted on Tue, Dec. 06, 2005


Professor beaten; attackers cite KU creationism class


Associated Press

LAWRENCE - A professor whose planned course on creationism and intelligent design was canceled after he sent e-mails deriding Christian conservatives was hospitalized Monday after what appeared to be a roadside beating.

University of Kansas religious studies professor Paul Mirecki said that the two men who beat him made references to the class that was to be offered for the first time this spring.

Originally called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies," the course was canceled last week at Mirecki's request.

The class was added after the Kansas State Board of Education decided to include more criticism of evolution in science standards for elementary and secondary students.

"I didn't know them," Mirecki said of his assailants, "but I'm sure they knew me."

One recent e-mail from Mirecki to members of a student organization referred to religious conservatives as "fundies," and said a course describing intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face." Mirecki has apologized for those comments.

Lt. Kari Wempe, a spokeswoman for the Douglas County Sheriff's Department, said a deputy was dispatched to Lawrence Memorial Hospital after receiving a call around 7 a.m. regarding a battery.

She said Mirecki reported he was attacked around 6:40 a.m. in rural Douglas County south of Lawrence. Mirecki told the Lawrence Journal-World that he was driving to breakfast when he noticed the men tailgating him in a pickup truck.

"I just pulled over hoping they would pass, and then they pulled up real close behind," he said. "They got out, and I made the mistake of getting out."

He said the men beat him on the head, shoulders and back with their fists, and possibly a metal object.

Wempe said Mirecki drove himself to the hospital after the attack.

Mirecki told the student newspaper, the University Daily Kansan, that he spent between three and four hours at the hospital. He said his injuries included a broken tooth.

"I'm mostly shaken up, and I got some bruises and sore spots," he told the Lawrence Journal-World.

Wempe said Mirecki described the suspects as two white men between 30 and 40 years of age. One of the men was described as wearing a red, visorlike ball cap and wool gloves. Mirecki said the men left in a large pickup.

Wempe said the department would investigate "every aspect," but couldn't discuss specifics.

Andrew Stangl, president of the Society for Open Minded Atheists and Agnostics at the university, described the attack as "bizarre and terrifying." He said Mirecki, who is the group's faculty adviser, was adamant that the beating was related to the recently canceled course.

"That absolutely shocked me," he said, "because people don't do that in a civilized society."

State Sen. Kay O'Connor, a Mirecki critic, said there is no excuse for someone physically assaulting the professor -- regardless of their politics.

"I have zero tolerance for thugs," she said. "There is never an excuse to behave in such a manner. This was just thugs. They used a flimsy excuse, if they had one, to behave as thugs. They can talk about the ID (intelligent design) course if they want to, but that's not an excuse."

 

I think its great that UK was trying to introduce intelligent design/creationism into a structured academic curriculum, particularly because they were trying to put it in the right department -- not science.

I'm actually a little skeptical that this guy was really beaten because of the class. I know it sounds a little ridiculous, but I wonder if he didn't just beat himself up and drive to the hospital to get some attention.

 

Speaking of flimsy, the story sounds a little flimsy to me. First off, wouldn't anybody, especially a professor, be smart enough to mentally record the license plate numbers when they drove off? I'm surprised Kansas University even allowed a course to be centralized around calling a religion a myth.

Atheists are such funny creatures too. They criticize Christians because Christians have a definite set of beliefs that God exists. They criticize Christians because Christians have faith in a higher power that they cannot prove. Yet atheists themselves also have a definite set of beliefs. They deny the existence of God; yet they too cannot prove their stance. They are in the same positions as Christians.

 

Right on about teaching intelligent design in the appropriate department. Isn't the distinction between "religion" and "myth" just a matter of perspecitve? We refer to native american relgious cannonas "myths" why not more accepted religious cannon ? The word has several definitions and the primary ones don't imply falshood,,,,
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=myth

Also, just cause the guy's a professor (of religious studies) doesn't give him some extra-memory power, especailly after a severe beat down, so i dunno if that makes the story flimsy...seems like he was beaten not cause of the class but cause of his trying to provoke conflict with the "fundies" comments...


seems to me like another example of direct contradiction of Jesus' teachings done in "His" name to me . . .nothing unusual here...

 

Take a deep breath and relax, dude. It is specious to say that atheists are all on some kind of anti-religious or anti-Christian warpath.

I'm an atheist. I do not criticize Christians for having the faith that they do; I choose not to believe the same thing that they do.

It seems like you're disparaging atheists here for not being able to prove that God doesn't exist. I also can't prove that the Earth wasn't created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. I also can't prove that you're not a four year old girl. Do I really have to prove any of these things in order to NOT believe that they're true?

The fact is that I have no reasonable proof for the existence of an invisible, omnipotent diety, and so I choose not believe that one exists. I have unanswered questions about the universe. I don't accept the answers that religions provide. I don't disparage others for accepting those answers; I only demand that they not to try to force their beliefs on me.

 

You ever been beat up and thrown around and tried to remember things? Hell, you ever been in a hit and run and forgotten to get a license plate? He's a professor, not a soldier, not a paramedic, and not law enforcement; professor's aren't trained to gather information under high stress situations.

Why does that surprise you? Everything you read about Greek mythology and Roman mythology is part of ancient Greek and Roman religions.

Not all atheists bash Christians, just as not all Christians bash atheists (hint hint). From your argument, you could Christians are funny creatures: they criticize atheists for being Godless, having no faith, and leading society to sin. But atheists do have beliefs, have faith in other things like logic and science, and have rules (like law) that keep them out of trouble. I say just let them each go their way.

 

>>>>The fact is that I have no reasonable proof for the existence of an invisible, omnipotent diety, and so I choose not believe that one exists.>>>>>


But why deny the existence of God? I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, or a Muslim. I am agnostic. Subconsciously we are all agnostic. We do not know if God exists or not. Yet some, followers of all religions, choose to believe that a higher power exists that dictates each and everyone of their afterlives. Sure, it's a fun idea, and I'd love it to be true, but we don't know. The reason I attacked Atheism in that paragraph is because that news article you copied and pasted dealt with a closed minded idiot atheist professor who made smart ass comments about people who choose to have a faith. So I addressed him in my paragraph. So, Benjie, slow down, relax and start breathing! I am not out to get you. If you would have copied and pasted a news article on a TV evangelist who called atheists and agnostics "the walking damned" I would have addressed the hypocrisy. However, in this case, this guy is the one guilty of hypocrisy.

BTW, that was a nice way to take a jab at me. "I can't prove you're not a 4 year old girl." The insult fit perfectly within the context. Something I would have expected on the playground, but irregardless, Good job.

 

For the same reason I deny the existence of witches: there's no proof.

Posting the link and agreeing with everything in the article are not the same thing. As in most of your posts, you have assumed too much.

If you have a complaint about that one obnoxious professor, then make that complaint about him. Don't judge everyone who shares one of his ideas on his actions.

 

Where are you getting that the professor is an atheist from and not agnostic (note the club name)? Do you have a source or reference? I would bet my money on a "religious studies" professor having religion be an important part of his life, and likley belonging to one. He attacked fundamentalists, people who take the bible as literal truth and want their view to replace scientific views in public education, that's a different group then "Christians"

And where do you get that this man is a closed minded idiot, you don't know him, In many of your posts I see you grouping together people and declaring out what "they" (liberals, aethiests, etc) think as a group. That is poor logic and bad form (especially when the two groups you tend to be about individualism)

By trying to upset "fundies" the proffessot was being, in my opinion, a jackass. But how is he being a hypocrit?

 

<<<<For the same reason I deny the existence of witches: there's no proof.>>>>

You really don't get it. I don't know how you do it but you manage to misconstrue every statement I make. You deny the existence of God, right? Okay, but you cannot prove your atheist stance, correct? If you look at Christians as people who cannot prove their beliefs, why take an opposing stance and deny the existence of God? It is hypocritical. You are in the same position as Christians, but an anomaly. You believe in a non-God while they believe in a God. Why have a set of beliefs that may close your mind? Agnostics are open-minded to any possibility. Now, don't get me wrong, don't tell me "I assume to much" because in addition to that line getting old and played out, I am not saying you have a closed mind. I am saying, however, that atheism can do that to you. A definitive set of beliefs will close your mind. I realize I have a closed mind to any kind of government other than Democratic. I grew up in a democratic government and I see that as the only government I want to participate in. Now there may be a better form out there but I am not interested because I am happy in the position I am in.