Posted on 10/21/2005 10:26:36 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
ITHACA, N.Y. — Cornell University Interim President Hunter Rawlings III on Friday condemned the teaching of intelligent design as science, calling it "a religious belief masquerading as a secular idea."
"Intelligent design is not valid science," Rawlings told nearly 700 trustees, faculty and other school officials attending Cornell's annual board meeting.
"It has no ability to develop new knowledge through hypothesis testing, modification of the original theory based on experimental results and renewed testing through more refined experiments that yield still more refinements and insights," Rawlings said.
Rawlings, Cornell's president from 1995 to 2003, is now serving as interim president in the wake of this summer's sudden departure of former Cornell president Jeffrey Lehman.
Intelligent design is a theory that says life is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying a higher power must have had a hand. It has been harshly criticized by The National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which have called it repackaged creationism and improper to include in scientific education.
There are brewing disputes involving evolution and intelligent design in at least 20 states and numerous school districts nationwide, including California, New Mexico, Kansas and Pennsylvania. President Bush elevated the controversy in August when he said that schools should teach intelligent design along with evolution.
Many Americans, including some supporters of evolution, believe intelligent design should be taught with evolution. Rawlings said a large minority of Americans — nearly 40 percent — want creationism taught in public schools instead of evolution.
For those reasons, Rawlings said he felt it "imperative" to use his state-of-the-university address — usually a recitation of the school's progress over the last year — to speak out against intelligent design, which he said has "put rational thought under attack."
"If you are interested and have further questions, but you feel intimidated by the some of the comments you are getting from my friends then send me a freepmail and I'll try to help you further."
Thanks. I appreciate the help.
I don't feel intimidated at all even if some of the responses seem a little bit 'off the wall'.
I can understand peoples frustration when try do defend their position and how easily it can be to misinterpret others intentions as well.
That's one of the things about this forum. There is always someone smarter than me.
(probably most)
:0)
Let me amplify on this a little. If you are truly interested, this example may help.
Modern humans left Africa some 60,000+ years ago. Much of the subsequent expansion of these initial groups actually came quite a bit later. All human races (outside of Africa) developed in that time span due to adaptation to local environmental conditions through the mechanism of natural selection.
I did a major post on this yesterday on another thread, and don't want to go through the labor again. Short version:
Skin color is an adaptation to reduce ultraviolet radiation (dark) or augment vitamin D production (light). Tanning is a method to split the difference.
Nose form (or more precisely the nasal chambers of the skull) is related to increasing the temperature and humidity of air reaching the lungs, and the variation worldwide corresponds well to local climate. However, this changes slowly, so some migrations, such as North American Indians, mostly retain the cold-weather adapted form.
Body shape also corresponds to temperature, with large or rounded bodies better suited to cold climates and smaller or linear bodies to hot climates.
In all of these traits there are clines, or gradual changes from one environment to another, allowing us to examine the intermediate forms. For example, skin becomes progressively lighter from north Africa to the sub-arctic (but the Eskimos have do not have the extremely light skin of northern Europe because there is no way to get enough vitamin D with the low light levels, nor could they expose enough skin to the sunlight anyway; they rely on fish oils as supplements).
Now these examples, and many others just within our species, show adaptation to local environments through the mechanism of natural selection. Given enough time, this can result in speciation.
Hope this helps.
I apologize for post 188. In light of your statements in post 187, I believe I was much too dismissive in my post, and it was, in retrospect, uncalled for. I trust you continue to open your mind to new education.
Take it easy. It is humor, maybe a poor attempt at humor. No offense intended.
No.
That's a nice distinction. Evidence to a point--how else could it pose even as a rational hypotheses? Proof, no; and I'm no fan of David Hume. Sequential similarities don't demonstrate cause and effect. It absolutely amazes me that we can accept "scientific" notions about creation (or beginnings of the universe) when we're unable to identify, treat, or cure a common cold or flu--never mind AIDS or cancer. Some things continue to be unknowable and, in that strict sense, "unscientific."
Just "pretty sure"??? Last time I checked, backbones and boobies were pretty much standard equipment for ol' Homo the sap.
I also think you don't understand what an "ape" actually is.
I said that most educated people believe in evolution, not that belief in education is the standard of education. Got it?
Incidentally, for the avoidance of all doubt, in case there are any terminally stupid people around, my anology about a coloured bar was nothing to do with skin colour.
Don't forget sexual selection...
Actually, I believe researchers have made great strides in treating AIDS and cancer and even eliminated many diseases. I still marvel that polio was virtually wiped out. So science has accomplished many wonderful things.
Interesting that the presisent of the u of Idaho said the same thing that Rawlings did either today or yesterday. Wonder if these remarks have anything to do with the Dover evo v. ID trial going on and behe's testimony Wed, Thurs and today.
Maybe the trial isn't going nearly as well as the evolutionists hoped.
I read the transcript of the first day of Behe's cross examination. He did very well.
Even us feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguards try to practice that particular type of selection as often as possible.
I understand what "ape" is - I was married to one.
Wake up you sleepy headDavid Bowie - Oh You Pretty Things
Put on some clothes, shake up your bed
Put another log on the fire for me
I’ve made some breakfast and coffee
Look out my window what do I see
A crack in the sky and a hand reaching down to me
All the nightmares came today
And it looks as though they’re here to stayWhat are we coming to
No room for me, no fun for you
I think about a world to come
Where the books were found by the golden ones
Written in pain, written in awe
By a puzzled man who questioned
What we were here for
All the strangers came today
And it looks as though they’re here to stayOh you pretty things (oh you pretty things)
Don’t you know you’re driving your
Mamas and papas insane
Oh you pretty things (oh you pretty things)
Don’t you know you’re driving your
Mamas and papas insane
Let me make it plain
You gotta make way for the homo superior
"Skin color is an adaptation to reduce ultraviolet radiation (dark) or augment vitamin D production (light). Tanning is a method to split the difference."
Ok. But some friends of mine who are black also tan and sunburn.
Would that be due to the fact that they are living in a temperate (colder) climate?
Do Africans tan and burn as well or is their pigment different enough to shield them from there hotter environment?
" Hope this helps."
It's helping me understand a lot.
I wish I could take some courses to get a better understanding, but at my age (56) by the time I learn about how 'life' works, it will probably be over. :)
Not a problem.
I do understand the frustration of having do defends ones beliefs because it has happened to me as well.
"I trust you continue to open your mind to new education."
I'm trying!
:)
"my anology about a coloured bar was nothing to do with skin colour."
Sorry!
That was probably my fault with the question I had asked about it!
I've gotten a fair idea, after reading hundreds of your posts on these threads.
Let's stick to facts here, shall we?
That would be refreshing.
Isn't that what science is all about?
Yes, although not *just* bare facts -- science involves the methods by which possible explanations for the facts are either validated or falsified.
Oh, I know you imagine yourself to be a genius and perhaps you are. But you don't have all the answers.
I never said I did. But I can recognize fallacies and errors when I see them. And I know that evolutionary biology and other fields of science have a lot more answers than most of its critics will ever manage to realize, given how often they make ignorant attacks on it based on misconceptions and lack of knowledge instead of actual familiarity with the subject.
I'm not even sure you have good questions.
Judging by how often the anti-evolutionists dodge and evade those questions, they're apparently good enough that some people have to run from them.
Now getting back to the topic we were discussing, you wrote:
And I see the evidence as pointing to God. I guess it's all in the interpretation.When I replied, "No, it's all in the fact that I know how to test and validate hypotheses suggested by the evidence, and you don't", I wasn't taking specific issue with your feeling that you "see the evidence as pointing to God", I was taking issue with your comment that "it's all in the interpretation".
No, it isn't. The validation of alternative explanations of evidence is far more than mere "interpretation". Apparently all you do is "interpret" evidence and then stop dead there, but don't make the mistake of presuming that the rest of us do. We work hard at testing, validating, and when necessary falsifying our interpretations, in order to determine whether our interpretations are somewhere in the vicinity of actually being true. Thus my comment. It's hardly "all" in the interpretation -- for many of us, "all" encompasses far more than merely the interpretation phase.
Also, my reply was making the point that you made your comment in the context of your earlier claim that you had "irrefutable proof" of God. My reply was directed at the fact that when asked for this alleged "proof", you hand-waved about "looking around", and when pressed further, you retreated to merely asserting that you "see the evidence as pointing to God", which is a far, far weaker thing than the "irrefutable proof" you claimed you had.
My comment about how you don't know "how to test and validate hypotheses" was aimed directly at the fact that you obviously don't understand the vast difference between "how you see the evidence" and "irrefutable proof". The fact that you could offer the former in response to a request for the latter very clearly demonstrates the degree of your confusion on this matter.
So when you assert, "You, Ichneumon, have no idea what I know how to do", I must strongly disagree -- I *do* have an idea, based on your own posts, that you don't know how to distinguish an "interpretation" from "proof".
You catch on fast!
For a scientific theory, to be a theory, it has to be testable. (I will get flamed for this, but...) ID, evolution and the big bang theory are not things that can be readily reproduced in the laboratory. From a hard science perspective, these ideas don't rise to the level of a scientitfic theory. Which is a completely different question from the question of which of them actually happened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.