Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cornell president condemns intelligent design
©2005 Syracuse.com ^ | 10/21/2005, 12:03 p.m. ET | By WILLIAM KATES

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."


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: academia; atheist; cityofevil; cornell; crevolist; evolution; hellbound; intelligentdesign; ithaca; scumbag
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 441-454 next last
To: Bigh4u2
The Big Bang theory was repeated in a laboratory?

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.

241 posted on 10/21/2005 2:34:52 PM PDT by Thatcherite (Feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
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.

Yeah, right. I predict the sun will appear in the East tomorrow.

Everything has a temperature.

242 posted on 10/21/2005 2:39:27 PM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
[Name-calling again. I always expect it from liberals and Darwinists.]


But never from conservatives or creationists? What's this then?

"City of Evil"

"He is an idiot!"

"Hunter Rawlings III? My word, what a pish-toshy name."

"Rawlings is an idiot...but what do you expect from Ithaca?"



I always expect that there will be the name calling from both sides on this issue and it bogs down rational debate whenever and from whomever it occurs. That's why these threads usually turn into 1000 post unreadable monstrosities.
243 posted on 10/21/2005 2:42:11 PM PDT by spinestein (Forget the Golden Rule. Remember the Brazen Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: daviscupper

you're funny!


244 posted on 10/21/2005 2:47:44 PM PDT by shuckmaster (Bring back SeaLion and ModernMan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441
Does God exist? I believe so. Can it be proven? I don't know, but should the effort be squelched?

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?

245 posted on 10/21/2005 2:50:42 PM PDT by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

[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.


246 posted on 10/21/2005 2:54:17 PM PDT by spinestein (Forget the Golden Rule. Remember the Brazen Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot
People like you are enabling the arrogance of the materialist/secularist establishment.

I repeat:

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.

247 posted on 10/21/2005 2:55:03 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Certified pedantic coxcomb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; daviscupper
Humans are apes. QED.

I don't think so.

ape   Audio pronunciation of "ape" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (p)
n.
    1. Any of various large, tailless Old World primates of the family Pongidae, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, gibbon, and orangutan.
    2. A monkey.
  1. A mimic or imitator.
  2. Informal. A clumsy or boorish person.

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.

248 posted on 10/21/2005 3:00:10 PM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
It used to be true that apes didn't include humans but now they do.

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)

249 posted on 10/21/2005 3:04:46 PM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
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.")

250 posted on 10/21/2005 3:08:11 PM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

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.


251 posted on 10/21/2005 3:13:58 PM PDT by RightWingAtheist (Free the Crevo Three!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

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.


252 posted on 10/21/2005 3:24:48 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Everything has a temperature.

Nah. Only things with a well-defined Boltzmann distribution of states have a temperature.

253 posted on 10/21/2005 3:31:02 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
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.

254 posted on 10/21/2005 3:32:59 PM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist

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


255 posted on 10/21/2005 4:00:23 PM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
More people believe in God than evolution so you are still on the losing end.

Luckily, science isn't a popularity contest.

256 posted on 10/21/2005 4:04:12 PM PDT by Wormwood (Iš! Iš! Cthulhu fhtagn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

Glad you enjoyed it! ;-)


257 posted on 10/21/2005 4:04:23 PM PDT by daviscupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood; mlc9852
[More people believe in God than evolution so you are still on the losing end.]

Luckily, science isn't a popularity contest.

More to the point, neither is truth.

258 posted on 10/21/2005 4:19:57 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Certified pedantic coxcomb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2
I found the larger post I did yesterday on human variation. Here is the link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1505777/posts?page=56#56

259 posted on 10/21/2005 4:30:57 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852; Wormwood; narby; dmz; PatrickHenry; Dimensio; Coyoteman
More people believe in God than evolution so you are still on the losing end.

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.

260 posted on 10/21/2005 4:33:30 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Certified pedantic coxcomb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 441-454 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson