Intelligent design goes Ivy League: Cornell offers course despite president denouncing theory

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | 04/11/2006

[SirLinksalot]

Intelligent design goes Ivy League

Cornell offers course despite president denouncing theory

--------------------------------------------------------

Posted: April 11, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Cornell University plans to offer a course this summer on intelligent design, using textbooks by leading proponents of the controversial theory of origins.

The Ivy League school's course – "Evolution and Design: Is There Purpose in Nature?" – aims to "sort out the various issues at play, and to come to clarity on how those issues can be integrated into the perspective of the natural sciences as a whole."

The announcement comes just half a year after Cornell President Hunter Rawlings III denounced intelligent design as a "religious belief masquerading as a secular idea."

Proponents of intelligent design say it draws on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines that indicate some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Supporters include scientists at numerous universities and science organizations worldwide.

Taught by senior lecturer Allen MacNeill of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology department, Cornell's four-credit seminar course will use books such as "Debating Design," by William Dembski and Michael Ruse; and "Darwin's Black Box," by Michael Behe.

The university's Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness club said that while it's been on the opposite side of MacNeill in many debates, it has appreciated his "commitment to the ideal of the university as a free market-place of ideas."

"We have found him always ready to go out of his way to encourage diversity of thought, and his former students speak highly of his fairness," the group said. "We look forward to a course where careful examination of the issues and critical thinking is encouraged."

Intelligent design has been virtually shut out of public high schools across the nation. In December, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones' gave a stinging rebuke to a Dover, Pa., school board policy that required students of a ninth-grade biology class to hear a one-minute statement that says evolution is a theory, and intelligent design "is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."

Jones determined Dover board members violated the U.S. Constitution's ban on congressional establishment of religion and charged that several members lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs.

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy," Jones wrote. "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

[gondramB]

"I disagree. The proof of revelation is whether or not it is TRUE."

Perhaps there are other kinds of revelations but the one I recieved did not provide proof I could share with others.

[blowfish]

Even people who believe in the Tooth Fairy have at least received some communication implying the Tooth Fairy's existence. And if you can imagine a Tooth Fairy, shall we say what is in your imagination does not exist?

A better summation of FesterWorld could hardly be stated.

[gondramB]

"So you are unaware of any current legal challenges to the idea of intelligent design in association with organized matter?"

I am unaware of any efforts to stop you from thinking or studying such matters. I am aware of scientists objecting to science class time being used to non-science but that's not specific to "organized matter."

If you want science class time to be used for something you just need to convince scientists that what you are working on is documented repeatable science.

[gondramB]

"as if science can operate without shaping principles attendant to each observer."

Did you just argue for complete relativism? That doesnt sound very conservative.

[gondramB]

"God is bigger than science marker"

Agreed. But he does seem to have given us a desire to understand the natural world.

[gondramB]

"That does not mean it was not intelligently designed"

no it doesn't. But to teach something in science class requires substantial positive evidence. If does not appear that God has left us such evidence or if He did it looks like we have not found it.

If you can get the education so that you can find and present such scientific evidence then people will listen to you.

But most ID proponents want the skip the hard part part of actually doing the discovery and supporting work and just force their faith into science by a vote.

[stands2reason]

The Bible =! God

[stands2reason]

Id cannot be falsified, therefore it is not scientific.

My belief in God is not scientific, and you know what? I'm fine with that, because science is not my religion. Science isn't the bastion of all truth, despite what you may think.

[stands2reason]

You seem to pride yourself on ridiculing those who believe in God.

No he doesn't. I believe in God, and he's not describing me.

[stands2reason]

I hope you don't take offense, but since you're relatively new here, you might not know some of the courtesies that are expected from fellow Freepers.

First off, we don't bring up posts on other threads to accuse other posters.

Second, if you discuss a poster in your post, it is recommended that you put the poster in question in the To: box so he'll have the opportunity to respond.

To do otherwise is considered bad form.

[stands2reason]

Interesting to see that I finally have a stalker.

Whaddayamean "finally"? That just goes to show you haven't been looking behind you very often. ;-9

[stands2reason]

Science is not the be-all and end-all to Life, the Universe, and Everything.

I feel pity for those who think science has all the answers.

[stands2reason]

But he does seem to have given us a desire to understand the natural world.

Yep. Reason is either Godly, or it is Illusion/Evil. I refuse to believe that reason is a lie -- it is a gift from God.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Bosh. Even you yourself used a mathematical principal, namely enumeration, in spelling out how many types of knowlege you believe exist. Mathematics do not exist in a vacuum, but are generally incorporated into the greater body of knowledge. The mathematical sciences are considered to be more precise than sciences such as psychology. Each discipline enjoys a different degree of certitude. Pronouncements for or against intelligent design denote a shaping principal that stems from both inductive and deductive reasoning and should not be considered the final word from a human standpoint. At the same time, it is folly to employ the law as if such pronouncements ought be illegal in a public, academic context; as if science can box itself into a vacuum void of all speculation.

[Fester Chugabrew]

My, what a champion of inference and circumstantial evidence you seem to be, until it comes to inferences regarding how matter becomes organized and performs specific functions. Seems only certain types of inference and circumstantial evidence suit your fancy, namely those that suit your personal philosophy regarding objective reality.

[js1138]

Science makes inferences from things that can be observed and checked by others. It is interesting that scientists from all over the world agree on the main paradigms of the various sciences, while people of varying religions are killing each other over the interpretation of texts.

It is interesting that most scientific disputes are settled in a few years or a few decades, while people of various religions are re fighting 1700 year old heresies.

There are distinct difference in the subject matter and methodologies of religion and science. Science only studies those questions that can be resolved by empirical methods.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You seem to use the word "evidence" as if evidence of intelligent design requires the designer to be present and directly testify at all times to his work. You require less evidence for the intelligent design of an automobile than for the design of objects that function specifically on a scale far more complicated than any human intelligence has been able to design or build.

Put another way, direct observation of an intelligent designer is necessary when it comes to biological phenomena, but is not needed where human artifacts are concerned. This is an arbitrary double standard for defining what causes matter to be organized and perform specific functions.

There is no harm for science to proceed under the assumption that God built and maintains the physical universe. It has done so for thousands of years. There certainly is no need to cry foul when this idea is set forth in qualified language. Unless, of course, one is a devotee of a particular philosophy of his own.

[js1138]

The harm is that it inserts an entity that has no properties, no methods, and no limitations into the causal chain. This is not the way science works.

[Fester Chugabrew]

All humans are religious. All scientists are religious, too. You err in setting them up as holy disciples of objective reality, incapable of fighting, jealousy, hatred, murder, and all that attends to human emotion, bad motives, and the like. If you truly believe science and scientists are capable of pure objectivity then you have deceived yourself with a faith more absurd than belief in a Tooth Fairy. Objectivity by definition begins outside of human experience and can only be attained impurely. Normal, human limitations bespeak as much.

[gondramB]

>>You seem to use the word "evidence" as if evidence of intelligent design requires the designer to be present and directly testify at all times to his work.<<

Nope, I don't feel that way at all.

>>There is no harm for science to proceed under the assumption that God built and maintains the physical universe.<<

There is no problem with considering that assumption. Assumptions are "arbitrary elements" (Hawking) that are "accepted without proof, and it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either/

Asimov said "It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality. .. On the other hand, it seems obvious that assumptions are the weak points in any argument, as they have to be accepted on faith in a philosophy of science that prides itself on its rationalism. Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible."


If ID could be shown to lead to deductions that could be verified and could not be deduced without that assumption then ID would be on its way to being useful scientifically. If you are interested in promoting ID this could one approach you could take to get it introduced into science.

But without usefulness the scientific community is not going to want to teach an assumption based on faith.