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

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | 04/11/2006

[orionblamblam]

> each person can still decide what they want to believe

Indeed. People can indeed choose to believe in utter superstitious rubbish. And in a way, that's for the best. We need stratification in society. While some will choose to discover facts and will go to the stars, some will choose to disbelieve facts, and will serve a useful role scrubbing toilets and sweeping the streets, and wondering why it is that their prayers aren't curing their diseases.

[gondramB]

"
For centuries, we have been leading the way in scientific advancement because we've been leading the way *from* supernatural explanations *to* natural ones. Now there are those who want to reverse that trend."

There is not the conflict between belief in God and a physical understanding of the world that you seem to see.

People who cannot see that God wants us to understand the world are people I feel need to grow in their understanding rather than being objects for scorn.

[orionblamblam]

> Name calling from either side is not helpful.

It's not? How, then, do we hold a debate if we are not allowed to call things what they are? You've got your naturalists and your supernaturalists in this debate.

> people who believe in God can have well founded reasons to believe - without examining those reasons it makes no sense to dis them

Nobody is dissing those who believe in some god or other. However, it's fully appropiate to dis those who believe that their god created a universe full of fraudulent evidence for the purposes of fooling that gods creations.

[orionblamblam]

> There is not the conflict between belief in God and a physical understanding of the world that you seem to see.

Your barkign upm the wrong tree. It's the supernaturalists who cannot see natural explanations for things who are the ones who have an inability to see.

> God wants us to understand the world

POssibly. If so, God gave Man the ability to reason and use science to discover how things work. Those who reject reason and science would thus be rejecting God.

[doc30]

I suspect those who take this class will be quite versed in ID and evolution

I think it will go a lot deeper than that. You can support ID all you want, but there are these pesky things called facts that get in the way. If they want to go down the road of irriducible complexity, then that will open the door to all these metabolic pathways and the whole realm of genetics and biochemistry, including cutting edge research. Even ID cannot answer the question of the origin of the necessary complexity of the designer. Since ID claims evidence of design is everywhere base simply on how complicated things are, then those same arguments must be applied to what they describe as a designer.

[gondramB]

>.Your barkign upm the wrong tree. It's the supernaturalists who cannot see natural explanations for things who are the ones who have an inability to see.<<

It is at least a two sided problem... you have a contribution too...

>>POssibly. If so, God gave Man the ability to reason and use science to discover how things work. Those who reject reason and science would thus be rejecting God.<<

I would not have put it that way - I would have said their vision of God is too small if they think he can be harmed or disrespected by using our talents to examine the world and trying to understand how it works.

[orionblamblam]

> you have a contribution too...

Indeed. They're called "facts." The things that remain whether you believe in them or not.

> I would not have put it that way

These are people who not only think they understand the mind of God, but also think they can order God and his creation around.

Boy won't *they* be surprised when they find themselves standing before Crom...

[mlc9852]

I haven't seen where anyone at Cornell demanded anything. I believe the class is an elective, is it not?

[gondramB]

"
Indeed. They're called "facts." The things that remain whether you believe in them or not.


That's a great quote, in fact if'll you look up you'll see i referenced it above.

But to present yourself as the hold of the facts flies in the face of the very argument you make. It would seem you have anti-religious feelings. You're entitled to whatever feelings you have.

But if you want to make a positive contribution you should refrain from being condescending and hostile and indulging in name calling - that is not the way to advance your position.

It is, however, a good way to disrupt the discussion and prevent progress.

[KMJames]

... by a means so cruel it couldn't be imagined by the most psychopathic human being.

What exactly is your meaning for "cruel"? From where does your idea of "cruelty" originate?

[mlc9852]

You are so amusing. I actually look forward to reading your posts on this subject. Lots of laughs.

[mlc9852]

"Those who reject reason and science would thus be rejecting God."

So you don't reject God? I never thought you did really.

[Dimensio]

But the Non-Evos counter: we need to prove that life came from non-life or abiogenesis.

The "Non-Evos" are simply wrong, then. The theory of evolution does not address life originating from non-life.

If we don't know how this game started by naturalistic, evolutionary processes then how do we know that it happened by naturalistic and evolutionary processes?

This would seem to suggest that a partial history of a sequence of events cannot be known unless the entire history is known. This is clearly a fallacious line of thinking.

The point of the IDer's, I think, is to not be pigeonholed by some definition of Science... but rather to consider other truths that exists but can't be pushed into a test tube... or tested empirically.

If a concept cannot be tested, then it is not a useful model of reality. It becomes mere baseless speculation, and is of little if any use at all.

And I don't think they are saying that we should run around claiming that God did everything.

It is true that Intelligent Design does not invoke a deity specifically, however I find it troubling that a number of ID advocates seem to believe that it does. I find it difficult to take a field of study seriously when a significant portion of its own advocates clearly do not understand it.

[js1138]

What exactly is your meaning for "cruel"? From where does your idea of "cruelty" originate?

Possibly from the same inner sense of right and wrong that leads you to call God good.

[Dimensio]

You're right about how bad textbooks are. As I understand it, some biology textbooks STILL present fake "evidence" for Darwinism, e.g. Ernst Haeckel's fake embryos, and the fraudulent peppered moth photos,

What textbooks are still promoting Haeckel's fraud and what is fraudulent about the peppered moth photographs?

[Dimensio]

It was _thought_ that the Darwinism had found a way to create informational systems from nothing, but the fact remains that Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life.

The theory of evolution has never purported to explain the origin of life. I do not understand the relevance.

When you exclude chance and necessity what is left? Intelligent causation.

This is an appeal to ignorance. You are suggesting that all other possible causes are known and ruled out. You have not demonstrated this to be true.

[orionblamblam]

> It would seem you have anti-religious feelings.

Only with respects to those religious beliefs that stand in stark opposition to the facts.

> But if you want to make a positive contribution you should refrain from being condescending and hostile and indulging in name calling - that is not the way to advance your position.

Take it up with the superanturalists. They are the true experts at name-calling.

[gondramB]

Flaws in others do not reduce your own responsibility nor mine.

[orionblamblam]

> So you don't reject God?

Which God?

The important point, though: It's no great shakes for a Christian, say, to reject, say, Shiva as a valid explanation for something or other. But those Christians who insist on geocentrism or creationism are rejecting their *own* god. Rather bizarre.

[orionblamblam]

No, but they make for great entertainment.

Is there *anything* funnier than a creationist? Well, the geocentrists, probably, but they are pretty rare. Though we do have some here at FR, disturbingly.