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."
I hear ya. I think you are right on the money.
I have proof - look around you.
How are you ever gonna prove string theory?
No, no, you misstate the obvious yet again. Feel free to try again when you graduate from the third grade.
Go read about it.
Well, you certainly took the fun out of it!
So you're a Raelian.
(I've never met a Raelian before)
Please - practice your insults. They are just so juvenile. Maybe you should watch reruns of Rodney Dangerfield.
I have a great value for human life!!
"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
I've missed you on these threads. Glad you're back.
proof of what? I'm not trying to be unpleasant, but evolution is out - no proof. God is in - the proof is, what, existence, nature? I really don't understand your reply.
Thank you! I have been very busy as of late. Was up for a strait 26 hours last weekend trying to get stuff done.
The sociological implications of a theory do not invalidate the theory itself.
Heck, I'm sad because gravity means I can't just fly around like Superman. Scientists don't factor my squashed dreams of being a superhero into the Theory Of Gravity, however.
>>>Always wondered how many drunk, drug-addled, depressed students commit suicide at the Falls each year?
Not as many as one might think given the ample opportunities the gorges provide.
From 1990 to 2000, nine students killed themselves at Cornell, representing 5.7 student deaths per 100,000 per year. With eleven suicides in the same number of years, a student death rate of 10.2, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) far surpassed Harvard University (7.4 deaths per 100,000 per year) and Duke University (6.1 suicides per 100,000 per year). MIT's suicide rate is also 53 percent greater than the national average among college students, which is 7 per 100,000 per year.
" So you're a Raelian.
Just putting forth a 'theory' that the current intelligent civilization may have not been the first.
Besides. Try as I may, I just can't seem to get my tinfoil hat to stay on straight!
He's using argument by "because I said so". He's made it clear in the past that he's not interested in rational discussion, but rather interested in assuming the truth his position, assuming the position of anyone who accepts evolution (note that he rather clearly implies that all who accept evolution are atheists, even though he knows that this is a lie), and ranting accordingly.
I have a feeling that if 'religion' embraced evolution as the best explanation, as a science, Cornell Univ Interim President Rawlings would 'condemn the teaching of evolution as science, calling it "a religious belief masquerading as a secular idea."' It's religion they hate, along with rational thought, and they seem bent on redefining 'rational thought' to suit their needs, especially their need to attack religion.
No, you're putting forth a hypothesis, not a theory. And that's the problem with "ID" -- it doesn't rise to the level of an actual scientific theory, and should not be (mis)represented (especially in schools) as if it did.
|The CrevoSci Archive
Just one of the many services of Darwin Central
"The Conspiracy that Cares"
CrevoSci threads for the past week:
OpenTag Date link Title closeTag Notes
CrevoSci Warrior Freepdays for the month of October:
|2005-10-12 Alice au Wonderland
2001-10-26 Genesis defender
2001-10-09 Mother Abigail
2004-10-03 Nicholas Conradin
1998-10-25 plain talk
2002-10-20 Z in Oregon
1998-10-29 zebra 2
Glossary of Terms
Crevo: Creation vs. evolution
CrevoSci: Creation vs. evolution/Science
Freepday: The day a Freeper joined Free Republic
of Darwin Central
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.