# Anti-ID Professor beaten in Kansas **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 6, 2005, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382 "2005-12-06T17:38:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382/81 "2005-12-08T22:06:41Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > This dichotomy has no basis in what I have said. Intelligent Design is _A_ theory of Creationism, it is not _THE_ theory of creationism. You like to think that your America-centric view of the whole debate encompasses ALL of it, but it doesn’t. We’re talking, on an American-based message board, populated primarily by Americans, about an event that happened in America, to an American, perpetrated by Americans, over a heated issue in American politics. Excuse the fuck out of me for using an “America-centric” definition of the word, you fucking tool. > [@](#): > > As my ‘cite’ as to people using definitions for words differently. I’ll point you to any argument about whether or not atheists act in a religious manner. That’s not what I asked for a cite about. I asked for a cite that my usage of “Creationism” was not the most common, or at least _a_ common, definition of the term. The fact that there are words whose meaning is in dispute is not news. The fact that hte word “creationism” itself is in dispute is also not news. You claimed that I was using the word in an unusual sense particular to a “skewed demographic.” I’d like to see you back that shit up. > [@](#): > > Clearly enough people agree with my definition of religion for it to be a pretty constant debate, even though of course the people on YOUR side of the debate are clearly using the CORRECT definition of religion. You might have noticed that I have said that atheism isn’t SUPPOSED to be a religion, just that many atheists act like it is. There are so many numerous threads on this topic, that there is no point in rehashing it. But clearly my definitions aren’t quite so idiosyncratic that other people don’t share them. What does this have to do with the definition of “Creationism?” Try to stay on topic for at least two paragraphs, birdbrain. > [@](#): > > I’d like to point out to you that Al Qaeda is AT WAR with us because they see our concept of ‘secularism’ as a threat to their ‘religion’. So of course you are capabale of telling me _I_ am an idiot when I try to point out that we are at war over this little semantic tick, but calling me an idiot is a lot more fun for you I’m sure. Why would they view our version of secularism as such a threat if it actually DID embrace Islam? Oh wait is it because we’ve tried to topple muslim religious states in order to impose out “Non-religious” happy fluffy secular democracy on other peoples? If it’s not religious, why are we trying to impose it by force? Jesus H. Christ, are you on drugs? What does this have to do with anything I’ve said in this thread? > [@](#): > > Your definition of Creationism supplied in the previous post was a definition of Intelligent Design, not Creationism. No, it wasn’t. You’re inventing your own definitions for words again. > [@](#): > > Creationism, is just the belief that we were created by a divine authority. My not sharing your limited provincial bias based upon the only version of the debate that YOU happen to know, doesn’t make my definitions self-serving OR idiosyncratic. If you want to debate Creationism in the context of a different nation or culture, fine. But that’s not what this thread is about. This thread is about Creationism as it is understood in the context of the current American social/political landscape. You keep insisting that everyone who is discussing it in that context is wrong because they’re not discussing it in whatever context you want to discuss it in. This is really, really fucking annoying, and I wish you’d stop it. > [@](#): > > Well good, at least another point of common understanding that will make it possible for me to communicate with you in the future has been established. It was something that I pretty much always understood quite honestly. I learned pretty early on about subjectivity and the limits of perception from one angle. I don’t buy that last sentence for a second. > [@](#): > > When you conflated ID with Creationism. You have this Americanized idea of Creationism that is loosely based on a Judeo-Christian view of it, that you assume to be “What people mean when they say creationism”. In these arguments I have seen a more rigid adherence to Christian dogma by atheists than any of the theists. Who do you think beat that professor up by the side of the road? Tibetan yak herders? They were Americans, angered by a perceived threat to their Judeo-Christian conception of Creationism. What other fucking definition of the term is relevant to this debate? > [@](#): > > I understand that you are not a creationist. Its funny that the only time you have touched upon the essence of the SINGLE POINT, I have been arguing for the past couple of months, you have found merit. The rest are all related to that single point that you found merit in BTW. Uh-huh. Perhaps you ought to meditate on what this say about your ability to convey your ideas, then. Please do so quietly, and at length. > [@](#): > > Again I disagree that the common definition of creationism has a lot of the biases your are hanging upon it. Which biases are these, exactly? > [@](#): > > Creationism is simply a belief that God created us. No, it’s not. It’s _your_ definition of the word, and I have no doubt you can find some support for it, but it is not the only definition of the word, it is not the most common definition of the word, and it most certainly is not the definition of the word being used in this thread _or_ by any of the people in the article that inspired it. > [@](#): > > I do not think that this is such a radical interpretation of the word, but if you need the bias created by years to understand the term then I guess it is pretty stupid for us to be talking. I’ll say. I can feel my IQ draining away just by being in the same thread as you. > [@](#): > > Certainly, I don’t really have utter contempt for you, you show lucidity once in a while. I never conflate myself with some larger grouping of people as being attacked. I do not identify with any particular religion or creed other than “Human”, and loosely “American”. So now you’re defining “religion” loosely enough to include both “American” and “human,” eh? Is there anything that you don’t define as being a religion? > [@](#): > > I mispoke, I am sorry if I lumped you into a group. You are very often one of the people who is attacking me en masse with other people, your arguments are more lucid than some, but the fact that you have different rules for backing up my arguments than you do for someone like Der Trihs who consistantly says really dumb shit, only you happen to be of a similar bent, so the rules of academic rigor are one sided. I’m not under any requirement to attack every single post on these boards with which I disagree. I don’t agree with much **Der Trihs** says, but I’m not interested in picking a fight with him. This may change at a future date. It may not. It bears no relationship to how I feel about you. > [@](#): > > What I am against is the intellectual dishonesty I see from so many posters… Which is funny, because from where I’m sitting, you’re pretty much the poster boy for intellectual dishonesty. Although I give you enough of the benefit of the doubt to assume that you’re not deliberatly dishonest, merely too stupid to recognize what you’re doing. > [@](#): > > …who will choose sides based upon social groupings, and not take to task those who are arguing for their side, regardless of what spills forth from their mouths. This is why I lump you together, because though you don’t share the same beliefs wholly, you do move in groups. Only a few of you have truly distinguished yourselves as having individual personalities, when it comes to debates such as these. If I ever heard you tell Der Trihs to shut up cuz he was saying some dumb shit about atheism, I’d probably faint. I’ve never said it to **Der Trihs** , but if you cared to look, you’d see that the majority of my posts about religion have been made in defense of theistic thought. Look for any religiously-themed thread featuring me and **gobear** , and you’ll see that we were usually at each other’s throats over the issue. > [@](#): > > Well that’s good. I believe this to be true, and I am sorry if I was less capable of differentiating you as an individual before now. I tend to see things in aggregations more than individuals. It’s my own particular little bias of things, it helps me in some ways, and hurts me in others. Yeah, you’ve always struck me as the bigoted type. Nice of you to admit it, I guess. > [@](#): > > Hey, we’re here for the same reason. For me to be self-aggrandizing, I’d have to believe that more people on this board didn’t think I was a complete idiot. I guess we’ll just have to add “self-aggrandizing” to the list of terms you don’t understand the meaning of. This is certainly turning into quite a long list. > [@](#): > > I believe that a lot of people think I’m an idiot, and I’m ok with that. I like playing the role of the court jester, I’m used to being the odd man out. That doesn’t however, make me actually wrong, or actually less intelligent than you. No, it doesn’t. The fact that you’re an idiot who wouldn’t know a fact if it smacked you in the face is what makes you both wrong and less intelligent than me. > [@](#): > > There are habits that I see that people on this board share in common, and my quest for fighting the ignorance of this board is to help root that out. It’s a hobby. :shrugs: How’s that working out for you? > [@](#): > > The thing is you don’t really know much about what I believe, because I don’t share it that often. Dude, that’s _all you ever talk about_ on here. > [@](#): > > When I do share it, it gets completely glossed over. From what I’ve seen, it usually gets addressed, rebutted, and then you throw a tantrum because people aren’t agreeing with you. > [@](#): > > What I generally do is go after what I see as misconceptions about things. Mainly they are semantic arguments, and until we can get past these semantic differences then we cannot communicate what I actually ‘believe’, so the truth of the matter is you know very little about my beliefs. These semantic arguments wouldn’t exsist if you would not insist on inventing your own definitions for commonly accepted terms, or at the very least, clearly define your terms before you start blasting people for not adhereing to your definitions. > [@](#): > > So the only point I’ve really made is that the limited definitions for words provided here, are not necessarily the definitions of those words, and that people are very often arguing with two different definitions for a word, but they think they understand what that other word means to the person they are arguing with, when they do not. The best example of this is the atheist debate. No, usually they’re arguing one very specific definition of the word, and you blow a gasket because they’re not using some specialized (or, more often, non-exsistant) definition that has nothing to do with the context of the debate at hand. If you’d just once try and comprehend the context of a debate before you jump in with both feet, you might actually end up contributing something useful to a debate. But I doubt it. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382/82 "2005-12-08T22:43:13Z")
**mswas** , you do have a tendency to just make up your own rules and definitions. And that’s fine, really, it shows you’re thinking about things. But if you want to talk and share these things with other people, don’t assume your definitions are the ones that are common - if you’ve come up with them yourself, logically they aren’t going to be common at all. Just define your terms a bit better when you argue. Oooh, and please answer my question from above, theists! ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382/83 "2005-12-08T22:44:04Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > Really? I find this kind of bizarre. I mean, there are various ways that members of a culture enforce its norms and mores. The strongest being law, a weaker form being social pressure, and weaker than that an explanation as to why something is right (or wrong). > > Unless I misunderstand your definition, mockery is naught but a form of social pressure that brings (perceived) inanities to light (e.g., political cartooning). Is that really what you are objecting to? All I was saying is that it’s not acceptable in public discourse to mock your opponents, you doodoohead. I wasn’t suggesting there should be any kind of sanctions or law against it, pusforbrains. I even find the Republican pressure to defund the school if it doesn’t fall in line a detestable exercise not of speech criticizing the words as unacceptable, but as political blackmail. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382/84 "2005-12-08T23:16:51Z")
I’m about as pro-evolution/anti-teaching creationism in science classrooms as anyone here, but I’m getting vibes about the Mirecki beating that apparently are similar to those of **NurseCarmen**. Maybe someone in Kansas got revved up about this sub-controversy enough to stalk Mirecki and assault him. Or he could have been the victim of a typical road rage incident and then tried to distract attention from his teaching troubles (and draw sympathy) by claiming the guys who slugged him were pro-creationist. I was reminded of another recent case where a guest speaker at a university claimed her car was vandalized and bigoted slogans scrawled on it - and it turned out she did it herself. I hope I’m wrong, but I have doubts about Mirecki’s story. ---
**Author:** ![Psycho\_Pirate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Psycho\_Pirate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Psycho_Pirate)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382/85 "2005-12-08T23:34:54Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > What do you require to hold that your beliefs are correct? I mean, you say you have faith, and i’m sure you do. Why? Well, this gets into my salvation experience I guess, but God has proven Himself sufficiently real to me that I take Him at His word. I know what I was before Jesus saved me, and I know what I am now. I have seen evidence of this change in others as well, and this is sufficient evidence for me to hold my beliefs. I know that there are others out there who say that evolution and a belief in God are not opposed, and that you do both at once. I respect their beliefs, but I personally find the beliefs diametrically opposed, and I do not feel comfortable removing God’s personal hand in the act of creation. Nor do I fully expect to understand the intricacies of how this creation is possible simply because I believe God to be a supernatural being, and thus it is beyond my ability to grasp the act of Creation. But I’ve hijacked this thread enough. On to condemning (and rightly so) those who beat up this professor. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382/86 "2005-12-09T00:51:49Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > All I was saying is that it’s not acceptable in public discourse to mock your opponents, you doodoohead. I wasn’t suggesting there should be any kind of sanctions or law against it, pusforbrains. I even find the Republican pressure to defund the school if it doesn’t fall in line a detestable exercise not of speech criticizing the words as unacceptable, but as political blackmail. Holy schmoley, what did I do to get up your ass? I didn’t say you were suggesting anything other than what you _actually did_: > [@Apos](#): > > I would agree that it’s not acceptable to mock anyone (though I would think that more leeway should be given to people speaking in private forums). I wondered if you actually meant it as categorically as I read it, which is why I ended my post with a _question_ about exactly that. Evidently, you do not. While I’m curious as to your definition of “mockery” and “public forum” and the limits on what might be (un)acceptable, I don’t really care all _that_ much. Carry on then, as it seems you’re awfully good at doing so, bless your heart. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382/87 "2005-12-09T00:53:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Holy schmoley, what did I do to get up your ass? Whoosh. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382/88 "2005-12-09T02:46:09Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Every bit as confrontational? Oh, please! I don’t see him trying to get his religion moved into science class, do you? I think getting beat up is a lot more confrontational than a private email to a select group of people. Further it looks like someone may have deliberately leaked the email for spiteful purposes. I lost the cite link. If asked, I will go looking again. > [@tdn](#): > > Personally, I admire the professor. (As well as Maryann). And clearly he is not to blame for what happened. But let’s face it, the course he set up was very provocative, and a hand-stab at Christianity. I don’t see it as a stab at Christianity. It is only a minor swipe at a small group that believes in Intelligent Design - a group who sees it as their right to force their dogma on other people… even if those people’s religions flatly reject ID. Several major religions do reject ID. Should these be forced to study something they consider false or heretical? It’s an important thing to think about. Why should one minor sect get preferential treatment over other, larger religious groups? It sounds unconstitutional to me. > [@Siege](#): > > By the way, the Episcopal Church also accepts evolution and I’ve heard Pat Robertson denounced during sermons in my church. With the sort of venom Robertson spews on a constant basis, _every_ church should denounce him. I’m happy the Episcopals and Catholics agree on this, and it strengthens my point above… making someone have to learn some other group’s religious views. > [@Psycho Pirate](#): > > Honestly, I don’t think about it that much. I’m not intentionally ‘burying my head in the sand’ so much that it just isn’t on my radar screen… I hold the beliefs on faith alone. That’s fine and dandy. You can believe whatever you choose. It’s a free country. Faith is a good thing. But you would not try to beat your belief into someone else. These yahoos in the OP did try. That’s the problem. It is religious intolerance at its “finest”. > [@Miller](#): > > Who do you think beat that professor up by the side of the road? Tibetan yak herders? They were Americans, angered by a perceived threat to their Judeo-Christian conception of Creationism. What other fucking definition of the term is relevant to this debate? If their faith was so easily threatened or shaken, then they have NO faith at all. True belief would mean they think their faith will stand on its own merits. > [@Psycho Pirate](#): > > I know that there are others out there who say that evolution and a belief in God are not opposed, and that you do both at once. I respect their beliefs, but I personally find the beliefs diametrically opposed, and I do not feel comfortable removing God’s personal hand in the act of creation. That there is the important thing. You may not share their beliefs but you respect them. Further, there is no need to remove God from anything. Evolution does not remove God. Physics does not remove God. Science can not go back to before The Creation. According to the Church (mine anyway), before the Creation, God was already there. The Prime Mover, the Creator, the Big Banger. There is no conflict. I can believe in evolution and God, and my church agrees. You may believe God continued guiding, and your church may agree. But at least you aren’t running around smashing nonbelievers. Below is, if you will “official church dogma” for Catholics. One quote is from the Vatican, the other is Saint Augustine. > [@News.com.au](#): > > Evolution in the bible, says Vatican > THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally. > > Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin’s theory of evolution were “perfectly compatible” if the Bible were read correctly. > His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive. > “The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim,” he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that “the universe didn’t make itself and had a creator”. > This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to “understand things better”. > His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the “intelligent design” view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail. > [@St Augustine](#): > > 1. Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” - Augustine, in his essay On Genesis This question is NOT directed at Psycho Pirate. He has already stated he respects other beliefs and would not compel anyone to follow his. It is directed at those who feel that ID should be required “learning” in Kansas, Dover or elsewhere, and who seem to think that a rude personal email somehow “justifies” a beating… How can “you” dare think you can require or force a teaching that is flatly rejected as wrong by other, equally “valid” faiths? Constitutionally, you can’t. How can you even begin to “justify” violence in the name of religion - any religion, when one of the biggest is yelling “hogwash”? ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382/89 "2005-12-09T03:39:57Z")
Damn, I only left to go finish Christmas shopping and the thread exploded. But I’ll try to address your question, **Steve** > [@SteveG1](#): > > This question is NOT directed at Psycho Pirate. He has already stated he respects other beliefs and would not compel anyone to follow his. It is directed at those who feel that ID should be required “learning” in Kansas, Dover or elsewhere, and who seem to think that a rude personal email somehow “justifies” a beating… How can “you” dare think you can require or force a teaching that is flatly rejected as wrong by other, equally “valid” faiths? Constitutionally, you can’t. How can you even begin to “justify” violence in the name of religion - any religion, when one of the biggest is yelling “hogwash”? I never justified the professor’s beating, in the name of religion or otherwise. In fact, I said: > [@](#): > > by no means did the man deserve to be chased down and beaten I went on to say this: > [@](#): > > but I would expect at least some verbal backlash. because of his pulicized email about figuratively slapping Christians in their fat faces, and because of his location. Not to generalize, but the midwest has a very large Christian population. I don’t believe anyone appreciates being called stupid, or having their beliefs insulted. That said: his asshole attitude toward Christians doesn’t make what happened right. But being right doesn’t excuse him for being a world class prick. And it certainly doesn’t mean that the people who are offended by what this professor has said about them shouldn’t be pissed off. All I was trying to point out is, it’s difficult to teach something to a bunch of people you’ve deeply offended, which is what the seminar purportedly was intended to do. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382/90 "2005-12-09T04:09:34Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > I never justified the professor’s beating, in the name of religion or otherwise. In fact, I said: … > I went on to say this: … > because of his pulicized email about figuratively slapping Christians in their fat faces, and because of his location. Not to generalize, but the midwest has a very large Christian population. I don’t believe anyone appreciates being called stupid, or having their beliefs insulted. > > That said: his asshole attitude toward Christians doesn’t make what happened right. But being right doesn’t excuse him for being a world class prick. And it certainly doesn’t mean that the people who are offended by what this professor has said about them shouldn’t be pissed off. > > All I was trying to point out is, it’s difficult to teach something to a bunch of people you’ve deeply offended, which is what the seminar purportedly was intended to do. I have no beef with you then. And yes, he did come off as a smug prick. Still, I wonder, if there were not this big push to “require” ID, would any of this have happened? How did the email get leaked, and who did it? Why? Intelligent Design is a religious belief, no matter what arguments are used. As such, it belongs in the churches of those who believe in it. That is where it should stay. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382/91 "2005-12-09T09:39:46Z")
> [@Psycho Pirate](#): > > Honestly, I don’t think about it that much. I’m not intentionally ‘burying my head in the sand’ so much that it just isn’t on my radar screen. But you accept that it is at least a little **ignorant**? > [@](#): > > I believe that there is an explanation for the phenomena you describe, but I do not purport to know that explanation. Why _can’t_ the explanation be that the Earth is billions of years old, and Genesis was being metaphorical? > [@](#): > > It is my belief that as science matures, evidence will point to my beliefs as being correct. But I do not require scientific evidence that my beliefs are correct in order to hold those beliefs. I hold the beliefs on faith alone. I assure you I’m not trying to ridicule or aggravate you here, but why do you believe that the Earth is round, or that the Holocaust happened? ---
**Author:** ![Psycho\_Pirate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Psycho\_Pirate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Psycho_Pirate)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382/92 "2005-12-09T13:22:38Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > But you accept that it is at least a little **ignorant**? At the risk of appearing argumentative or obtuse, no, I do not accept that it is ignorant. The two primary definitions given for ‘ignorant’ are 1)Lacking education or knowledge, and 2)Unaware or uninformed. As to definition number 1, I was the valedictorian of my high school. I hold a Bachelors degree in Computer Science, and a Masters of Software Engineering. I’m also almost finished with my Bachelors of Biblical studies. I have both education and knowledge. As to definition number 2, I am neither unaware or uninformed about the leading evolutionary process theories prevalent today (although I am not well versed in the finer points as they hold little interest to me). File me under “unconvinced”, or “unwilling to accept the current definition on how this universe, planet, and life on this planet came to be”. > [@SentientMeat](#): > > Why _can’t_ the explanation be that the Earth is billions of years old, and Genesis was being metaphorical? I’m not saying that _can’t_ be the explanation. I’m just saying that I don’t buy in to that explanation. It works both ways, you know. I don’t have to accept that explanation in order for you to accept it. Likewise, you don’t have to accept my beliefs in order for me to hold them. > [@SentientMeat](#): > > I assure you I’m not trying to ridicule or aggravate you here, but why do you believe that the Earth is round, or that the Holocaust happened? I appreciate your civility. I believe the earth is round because I have seen pictures of a round Earth, I have seen globes, I have seen photos taken from space of Earth, and it is round (although I recall reading somewhere that the poles were somewhat elongated or otherwise distorted, resulting in an imperceptible ovoid shape to the Earth). The Bible also backs up my belief (Isaiah 40:22). I believe that the Holocaust happened (though I wish it had not happened) because I have read about it, I have visited the Holocaust museum in Washington D.C., and I have seen several films and documentaries detailing the plight of those who died there, as well as the survivors. In both of these cases, I have been convinced by the evidence presented to me. So now you’re probably thinking, “But there’s just as much evidence, if not more evidence, that this planet is billions of years old, and that the process of evolution is the correct explanation for how life came to be on this planet”. Well, I disagree that this evidence is so “cut and dried” as to be convincing, at least to me. For one, there is the unfortunate matter of hoaxes that were perpetrated in the past. Anytime someone is willing to be dishonest about something tells me that they are not to be trusted. Second, I find many of the explanations too fleeting and ephemeral as to be convincing. I recognize that science changes as more evidence is uncovered, and that this is a good thing (otherwise as you point out we would still think Earth was flat). However, as I stated earlier, I believe that as science changes, it will fall more closely in line to my beliefs. I’m really not sure what else to say. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382/93 "2005-12-09T13:40:40Z")
Nice OP. I think responding to idiotic bigotry with more idiotic bigotry is definitely the best solution. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382/94 "2005-12-09T17:49:26Z")
> [@Psycho Pirate](#): > > So now you’re probably thinking, “But there’s just as much evidence, if not more evidence, that this planet is billions of years old, and that the process of evolution is the correct explanation for how life came to be on this planet”. Well, I disagree that this evidence is so “cut and dried” as to be convincing, at least to me. What are your alternate explanations for the evidence? > [@](#): > > For one, there is the unfortunate matter of hoaxes that were perpetrated in the past. Anytime someone is willing to be dishonest about something tells me that they are not to be trusted. The evidence for evolution and for an ancient Earth has been checked and rechecked by hundreds of thousands of scientists for more than a century, now, and it all keeps adding up to the same conclusion. It would have to be either a conspiracy of truly mind-boggling proportions for it to all be a hoax. > [@](#): > > Second, I find many of the explanations too fleeting and ephemeral as to be convincing. I recognize that science changes as more evidence is uncovered, and that this is a good thing (otherwise as you point out we would still think Earth was flat). However, as I stated earlier, I believe that as science changes, it will fall more closely in line to my beliefs. I’m really not sure what else to say. What evidence do you have that indicates science is going to eventually match up with your beliefs? I’d also like to add that one can be educated in some respects, and still be ignorant in others. I’m pretty ignorant about computer programing, for example. From your own statements, you’ve admitted that you’re ignorant of the science behind evolution: it’s not something that interests you enough to research. Which is fine, but the thing is: I don’t have many opinions about computer programming, because I don’t know enough about it to form them. You do have an opinion about evolution, but it’s not at all clear that you have enough information for that opinion to be informed. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382/95 "2005-12-09T18:02:12Z")
> [@](#): > > and a hand-stab at Christianity. Please, please, please stop perpetuating ignorance by using “hand-stab”. it never happened. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382/96 "2005-12-10T05:28:28Z")
Might be more (or less) to this than originally thought. [KU Professor Mirecki Resigns, Beat-Down Story Questioned](http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_2121756.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382/97 "2005-12-10T20:11:05Z")
> [@Psycho Pirate](#): > > just saying that I don’t buy in to that explanation. Why not? > [@](#): > > I disagree that this evidence is so “cut and dried” as to be convincing, at least to me. For one, there is the unfortunate matter of hoaxes that were perpetrated in the past. But what about the hundreds of thousands of **non-hoaxes** - you are not seriously suggesting that _every_ fossil is a hoax? You can go and dig them up _yourself_! If you do, you will find trilobites at the bottom, dinosaurs in the middle and humans only near the surface. What is you **explanation** for that? If you can’t think of a logically consistent alternative to the conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old, surely you must logically **accept** that the Earth is billions of years old until new evidence suggests otherwise? And then there’s extra-galaxctic supernova light/continental plate jigsaws/stalactite formation/scarcity of long half-life isotopes _etc. etc. etc._ Do you ignore these as well? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382/98 "2005-12-10T20:25:30Z")
Incidentally, **Pirate** we’re not (yet) talking about the finer points of speciation, cosmology, abiogenesis and all the rest of it. For now, we’re just talking about the **fact** that the Earth is billions of years old, which is as true a fact as that the Earth is round and that the Holocaust happened. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382/99 "2005-12-10T22:56:24Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Might be more (or less) to this than originally thought. [KU Professor Mirecki Resigns, Beat-Down Story Questioned](http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_2121756.shtml) Is this being provided as a “reliable” cite? I hope not. > [@Post Chronicle](#): > > KU Professor Mirecki Resigns, Beat-Down Story Questioned… > Mirecki reportedly decided to cancel the course after he allegedly caused controversy by using the slang term “fundies” to refer to Christian Fundamentalists (1) in an email to a student organization, the Society for Open Minded Atheists and Agnostics… > As Mirecki supporters spread the word of the attack in order to bolster support for the embattled professor, (2)skeptics have now poked holes in Mirecki’s story. > > Mirecki’s story has been reported on CNN, CBS, and any number of other major media outlets. Not surprisingly, (3)left-wing blogs are feeling righteously indignant. The Daily Kos, according to WorldNet Daily, ran as it headline yesterday, “Thugs beat up evolution supporter - We’re fighting back.” … > According to John Altevogt, a (4)conservative activist in Kansas, Mirecki has been unable to even identify the street on which his alleged beating occurred, according to the UW Badger Herald. … > Altevogt also said Mirecki’s description of his attackers - (5)white, 30-40 years old, wearing jeans and driving a big pickup truck - fits “half the population of Kansas.” Sorry, but that “article” smells like bullshit. Item (1) So if this email was a “private” message to similar minded people, and was not intended for “public consumption”, who the hell leaked it, and why? Item (2) Which skeptics? Who are they, and what did they say? Item (3) So much for impartial news, this is just bullshit propaganda. It’s those damn commie leftists again. Item (4) Who? John Altevogt? Who? Ohhhh a “conservative activist”. That’s real impartial. Who the hell is he, and why would I care what he says? Item (5) OK, ummmm if the attackers were white and wore blue jeans, then BECAUSE that could be anyone, it then follows that no attack occurred. No, it’s just a bullshit cite. Try better. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382/100 "2005-12-10T23:08:06Z")
Almost forgot. It’s not just that article that is crap, the entire website is shit. I was nosing around. Now I feel so dirty. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-id-professor-beaten-in-kansas/334382.md?page=6)