Skip to comments.Cornell president condemns intelligent design
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."
For laboratory evidence that massively supports big bang theory google "cosmic microwave background". Essentially this phenomenon was predicted by big bang theory, and then detected later. The finest vindication of a scientific theory is prediction of future observations. Evolution also has a large number of impressive such predictions.
Yeah, right. I predict the sun will appear in the East tomorrow.
Everything has a temperature.
I don't know what I said that gave you the idea I was for squelching anything. The issue is time and place. We're not talking about research at the university level. We are talking about high school--generally introductory biology class.
Biologists will not recognize ID as a scientific theory until its proponents show that they are serious about developing falsifiable hypotheses, testing them, and publishing the results. I actually would not object to discussing why ID is not a scientific theory in biology class, but to present it as science there is not honest.
You could call ID a philosophy--I have no objections. Teach it in philosophy or religion class--fine. Just don't call it a scientific theory because at the moment it is not. If the ID people start doing the necessary hypothesis development and testing, I will change my position. How's that?
[Is it putting "rational thought under attack" to consider that, where there is design, there may be a designer?]
No, that happens when a legitimate scientific theory such as evolution, which has been validated by as much supporting evidence as the law of gravity, is in danger of being marginalized in our schools by people who believe religion is an acceptable alternative to science.
The fact that you can't discuss what he said on its merits and instead have to engage in false accusations, broad stereotypes, and ad hominem doesn't reflect well on your side of the issue.
What are y'all so g-damned afraid of, anyway?
Not a thing. What has you so afraid that you lapse into profanity at a moment's notice?
You own the educational system and the scientific establishment lock, stock, and barrel, do you not?
If so, I'd like to know why I'm not getting paid rent.
Now would you like to discuss the topic on its merits? I thought not.
I don't think so.
|ape ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p)
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-67269 ----(human evolution)
Hominidae are distinguished from Pongidae (anthropoid apes) by evolutionary trends that illustrate the adaptations of each for different environmental situations.
Humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than chimpanzees are to gorillas. If chimpanzees and gorillas are apes, then so are humans. That seems to be the general reasoning behind it.
Wikipedia explains it in a lot of detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape#Historical_and_modern_terminology (which is where I read it)
Wikipedia is a not a primary source. ("Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.")
My sister is predominantly of Central American Indian (Honduran) ancestry, but she has enough European blood in her that she can get sunburned without protection.
More people believe in God than evolution so you are still on the losing end. And I am confident that some day there will be proof (more than we have now) that humans were created separately from other animals. Until that time we will all just have to keep arguing I guess.
Nah. Only things with a well-defined Boltzmann distribution of states have a temperature.
Good old Boltzmann, without him we would not have a universe.
I'm torn. On one hand I see his point. on the other, why use a traditionally apolitical speech to make this point? also I wish Rawlings and others would apply the same healthy skepticism to similarly dubious but politcally liberal theories such as global warming
Luckily, science isn't a popularity contest.
Glad you enjoyed it! ;-)
Luckily, science isn't a popularity contest.
More to the point, neither is truth.
Wow! You started out claiming "irrefutable proof" for God, then when asked for that proof you retreated to saying that's how you "interpret" the evidence, and then when it's pointed out that "interpretation" is a far distant thing from "proof", or even validated interpretations, you retreat even further to "more people believe one than the other, nyah nyah".
Cling to that if it brings you some comfort. But if you really want to pin your hopes on the notion that truth is determined by some sort of popularity contest, you probably don't want to think too hard about the fact that evolution is believed by more people than the specific type of God-belief known as Christianity.
And I am confident that some day there will be proof (more than we have now) that humans were created separately from other animals.
You are free to believe that someday your beliefs will actually be supportable, if you wish.
Meanwhile, we'll continue to believe what the vast amount of evidence actually already shows, because we're more interested in seeking out what is actually true, instead of what we'd wish to be true. Accepting the results of reality-checks against the real-world evidence is the best known way to do that.
Which position is more intellectually honest, would you say?
Until that time we will all just have to keep arguing I guess.
Or perhaps you'll get around to following the evidence where it actually leads for a change, instead of where you wished it did, or hope it might someday. Or perhaps you won't.
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.