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."
(I'm thinking of that as a tagline.)
Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.Suggestion underlined.Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
[Tagline switch]
I feel compelled to reply to this comment but, I can't think of anything appropriate.
If you include the Muslims.
Believe it or not, I just got back from shopping!
And as far as 'Thatcherite', I figured that out from his screen name (fond of Margret Thatcher)
See! I'm getting smarter all the time!/sarc
Anyway. I have a question about 'natural selection'.
If a species is evolving because of environmental changes, the would natural selection just be a weeding out of the weaker part of the gene pool?
In other words. Would each generation of species the weaker ones in favor of the stronger ones?
"Would each generation of species 'EVOLVE OUT' the weaker ones in favor of the stronger ones? "
Sorry about that!
But there are so many who believe in God and yet still believe in evolution...you seem to want to believe that just because someone believes in God, he will not believe in evolution...you may want to believe it, but that will never make it true...people do believe in God and evolution at the same time, and see no conflict...you obviously do see a conflict...however, you cannot speak for others who do believe in God...right here on FR, there are those who say they believe in God and evolution at the same time...and thats just on FR...in the world at large, there are many, many more...
You seem to insinuate that since there are more who believe in God, than believe in evolution, that somehow evolution will eventually 'lose', some battle...I think you will be disappointed...
The weaker ones? More like "die out" than evolve out. They're not going anywhere.
In various traits, there is a continuum from one end to the other (say, light skin to dark skin as an example). Under various conditions natural selection will nibble at one end of the range or the other, reducing the population of the end of the range that is less suited to the conditions. The survivors get to pass on their genes. The subsequent generation will be just slightly different, in the direction of better adapted.
Apply a few hundred thousands of years of time to many small, isolated populations, stir well.
Only in the sense that a weakness relates to the particular enviromental pressure.
Cornell grad here. Rawlings is awful but I agree with him on this.
"More like "die out" than evolve out."
Yeah! That's probably the term I should have used.
But basically tho, I'm right about the stronger ones surviving which would be natural selection? Or not?
I'm not sure I'm asking this right, so bear with me.
This is why the evolution fight is stupid for Christians to pursue. All it can do is tear the best and brightest away from the church and alienate the rest into a persecution complex cult.
The Discovery Institute is doing professional atheists a huge favor.
My son is also a Cornell grad...and hes quite conservative in many matters...hes not at all the yammering leftist, contrary to what others on this thread seem to believe of all Cornell students...
"Only in the sense that a weakness relates to the particular enviromental pressure."
So the stronger ones would survive and weaker ones would die out?
And that would be the explanation of 'natural selection'?
I'm sorry if I'm asking what may seem to be dumb questions, but I usually can rationalize things better if I just repeat what I'm thinking.
Something to do with what my wife calls 'driving me nuts' syndrome!
Lemme butt in for a moment. I think the word "stronger" is a problem, or at least potentially misleading. If a creature can survive and breed, its genes get passed on to the next generation. If not, then whatever problems it had will not get passed on. It's as simple as that. "Stronger" isn't required. Maybe faster, better eyesight, better ability to digest a changing vegetation, better ability to adapt to a drier (or wetter) climate, etc. Whatever.
Over time -- lots of time -- these tiny changes in the gene pool will accumulate, and after a great number of generations the population may be quite different from the ancestral stock.
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.