Mirecki has resigned as chair of the Department of Religious Studies (though not as professor) and has withdrawn the course in question.
It appears Prof. Mirecki has been sending more than one “provocative” email:
Really? You honestly still believe this after being a member of the SDMB for six years?
Actually, he’s only been here 6 days. It’s that whole space … time … continuum thing. 
I suppose people can say, somewhere, that Creationism is the mathmatical principle behind compounding interest.
Hell, why speculate? I’ll do it.
There, now, that’s out of the way.
Now in future arguments, people can pull my quote off the web and misuse it to nitpick when someone like Miller uses the commonly accepted definition of Creationism in the context of political influence on American schools.
Of course there are other interpretations of Creation stories, and many traditions. But saying Creationism means merely believing in A creation story (in the context of this thread) is like entering a thread on Democrats and Republicans and arguing that the term Republicans must be broadened to include the losing side of the Spanish Civil War.
WIkipedia describes them thusly:
Hardly the same thing, and a big distraction from the topic, eh?
Sailboat
I sure do. My belief is based on faith.
Bah, the board can’t handle two separate quote boxes? Sorry.
Sailboat
I think the problem was you put the “end bold” code after the / in the “end quote” code of the 1st box, so it wasn’t interpreted.
Yeah, because you all are such experts, and should have taught us lesser life forms by now right?
Erek
When you look at the sedimentary layers which form the fossil record, with all those trilobites and the like at the bottom but nowhere else, then dinosaurs in layers way above them but nowhere else, and humans and modern mammals well above them and only there, what does your faith tell you? “Ignore it”?
Remove the “lesser life forms” strawman and, yes, actually. Literal-6-day-creation ignorance should have been eradicated by the expert teaching of numerous Dopers, IMO.
And you might look like less of an idiot if you stopped to realize that the way the skewed demographic you associate with uses a term isn’t necessarily the way everyone uses that term. It’s a mistake you and your droogs commonly make, that I like to point out.
In this case you might realize (though I doubt it) that you just gave the definition of intelligent design, which is an attempt to scientifically justify creationism. It doesn’t hold up, but that has nothing to do with creationism. It doesn’t tell us that God didn’t create the Earth, it only tells us that Intelligent Design is not an adequate explanation for creationism. Stop conflating Intelligent Design and Creationism, and you might actually take that quantum leap that will make you smarter than the people you are hating. Except for me, you’ll never be smarter than me of course. ;p
One day you might actually expand your brain enough to understand that our idea of “Days” is based upon our perception of the Earth rotation in relation to the Sun. Now, if God is CREATING that Earth, in otherwords creating your REFERENCE POINTS by which you measure the passage of TIME through SPACE, a day does not work the way your small flat-earth brain conceives of a day.
That and you’re a fucking idiot if you are trying to argue scientifically against an allegory. It means you don’t understand science, religion, mysticism, or literature. Don’t make the mistake that because some idiot rednecks get all uppity with their state legislature in some backwater locale, that they are in any way representative of people who believe a very commonly held worldwide belief. Evolution teaches us something, but it doesn’t teach us everything.
If you want to stretch your conception of time a little further maybe you’ll start thinking about how measurements are created, and the way that we bisect and double units of time, that those “7 Days” could be just a measure of some sort of lifecycle that repeats in blocks of 7, and “Days” are the simplest way for us to conceive of a base unit of measure for time. Those 7 days might have actually been 7 nanoseconds or 7 billion years. How long is a God day anyway? Of course you are the expert, so I’ll let you show everyone what a fool I am again. I can’t get anything past you and your merry band of mystery solving kids!
Though more than likely you’re not going to understand a word I said, and use this as evidence of my idiocy.
I reiterate science has never disproven Creationism. I reiterate that the definition that you and your pseudo-intellectual buddies in the atheist cartel on the Straight Dope don’t use the same definitions for things that everyone else uses. I’d like to point out that its almost a running gag that Academics don’t speak the same language that everyone else does. Think of a word as a circle in a Venn Diagram. Now your definition overlaps it, so that your edge comes just a little bit over the center of the word. Now the Creationists come from another angle, and their perception of the word overlaps the middle a little bit, but contains parts of the circle of the definition of the word that yours does not. Try to imagine that the “Objective” definition for a word is kind of decided by consensus, we all have our view of what that word means from our small little worlds of limited perception, and then the circle that is its actual definition is somewhere in the middle.
I suspect that you are merely regurgitating the party line. Someone you respected when you were younger probably told you that atheists were smarter, so in your desire to be smarter than others you justified your atheism by feeling smarter than everyone else, because of it, and you are having trouble understanding that someone can be smart, and still give credence to these things. I’ll give you a little tip, I am not saying the other side is correct, I am only saying that your limited little tunnel vision isn’t very indicative of a reasonable picture of the whole thing that is being discussed.
Creationism and Evolution are not necessarily in conflict. You are taking something you barely comprehend and then are trying to debunk it, making fun of others who barely comprehend it, but are trying to make sense of it.
Basically anyone that engages in the Creationism vs Evolution debate is a fucking idiot on both sides, and they are EQUALLY idiots. Der Trihs is of the same calibre as anyone who thinks ID should be put into textbooks in Kansas. I won’t compare any of you to the jackasses that beat that dude up, because all of you are at least a step up from that and are expressing your vitriole in a healthy way, by blathering at people you can’t see on the internet.
Is your goal to make your intellectual “enemies” look like fools, or is your goal to actually understand, and maybe remove a little bit of your own ignorance?
Erek
Ok, I can’t disagree with you on that. Literal 6 “EARTH” Day interpretation is silly.
Besides it was 7 days, he created rest on the 7th. 
Erek
Hey, I’m on board with that. Accepting evolution means believing in a flat Earth? Accepting evolution is hating? I’m afraid you lost me there.
Uh oh, it looks like a survivor of the S.S. Floundering Gibberish, sunk by a torpedo from the old reliable vessel, Intellectual Ass-kicking, has washed up on the shores of the pit.
It’s none other than Captain Idiosyncratic Definitions himself. Looks like he took the admonition he received ratehr bitterly:
I’m sorry, I just found it funny that you would come in here ranting about idiosyncratic word usage, after having just caught up on the fun in the other thread yesterday. I do hope you return to it sometime.
Seems that the good Senator threatened to de-fund the department unless Mirecki stepped down. Seems they do this every time someone has opinions they dont’ like:
Problem is, Mirecki is apparently a Christian himself.
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). But then Christians routinely mock and insult non-Christians all the time without a hint of outcry. If would be nice if this were an actual consistent value rather than a pitch at political populism.
I’d also look like less of an idiot if I stopped trying to debate you and just put you on my ignore list, but here we go anyway.
So, which is it? Is it an attempt to justify creationism scientifically, or does it have nothing at all to do with creationism?
I don’t hate creationist. Where did you get that idea? And where did I conflate ID with creationism? Be specific, please. Simply saying that I did it is not a persuasive argument.
Yeah, I figured that one out when I was in Jr. High. Glad to see your finally catching up. What does it have to do with anything I’ve posted in this thread, or anywhere else on these boards?
Good thing I’ve never tried to do that, eh?
Which commonly held worldwide belief am I conflating with Creationism?
No, it just teaches us how the vast complexity of life as we currently see it arrived at that state from simple beginnings. It doesn’t teach us anything about the origins of life, the creation of the Earth, or the nature of God, should such a being exsist. Again, where have I ever argued otherwise?
You do understand that I’m not a Creationist, right? I’m not sure why you think you need to tell me all this. It’s not exactly a new or challenging idea. Pretty much puts it in line with all your other ideas, really, except for a change, there’s actually some merit to this one.
You’re not half as deep as you think you are, Erek.
By your definition of Creationism, perhaps not. But that’s not the common definition of Creationism, it’s not the definition of Creationism being used by the OP, it’s not the definition of Creationism used in the story being discussed in the OP, and it’s explicitly not the definition of Creationism I’m using. It’s a hallmark of your almost total intellectual bankruptcy that the only way you can carry on a debate is by giving idiosyncratic definitions to common terms, and then calling anyone debating those ideas under the accepted definitions an idiot.
Prove it.
And all this is relevant how, exactly?
I’ll give you a tip: my utter contempt for you as a poster on these boards is not indicative of my attitude towards religious thought as a whole. It’s just indicative of my attitude towards you.
Where have I made fun of Creationists?
Personally, I wouldn’t call someone an idiot just because they’re a Creationist. I might do so if they defend Creationism in a particularly inept fashion, such as the way you defend your own belief system, but I don’t think I’ve ever called someone an idiot just because they have a belief system I don’t share. At least, not since high school.
My chief goal, on these boards, is to enjoy myself. Sometimes, that involves a vigorous debate with people I consider my intellectual equals. Sometimes, it’s all about sitting back and listening to people who are clearly more knowledgable than myself hold forth. And sometime, it means slapping around a silly, hyper-aggressive, self-aggrandizing little twit such as yourself.
You are an idiot, Erek. You’re not an idiot because of the beliefs you hold. And, really, I don’t think you hold the beliefs that you do because you’re an idiot. it’s just that your idiocy becomes most transparent when you try to defend your beliefs. Because you are so very, very bad at it, and because you are constitutionally unable to understand what anyone else in the conversation is saying to you. You don’t really “debate” at all, when you come right down to it. You just stand in the middle of a field full of strawmen and flail about wildly, while people point and laugh. It would be sad if it weren’t so funny.
Do you have a cite for this?
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 believe that there is an explanation for the phenomena you describe, but I do not purport to know that explanation. However, I also do not accept the explanation currently provided by science. 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.
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?
Heh, ditto.
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.
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. 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.
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?
Your definition of Creationism supplied in the previous post was a definition of Intelligent Design, not Creationism. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Probably so, but I’m digging.
Again I disagree that the common definition of creationism has a lot of the biases your are hanging upon it. Creationism is simply a belief that God created us. 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.
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”.
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. What I am against is the intellectual dishonesty I see from so many posters, 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
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.
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 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. 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:
The thing is you don’t really know much about what I believe, because I don’t share it that often. When I do share it, it gets completely glossed over. 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. My “Bias Clock” thread was all but ignored, and basically everyone who argued against me joined in with the bias I was talking about thinking I was trying to convince people of the existance of the Illuminati or that we should be more conspiratorial minded, when that wasn’t my point at all.
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.
Erek
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?