No you don't.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." -- Inigo Montoya.
look around you.
I have. The evidence around us overwhelming points to evolution.
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 sure you wouldn't understand anyone trying to explain God. Either you believe or you don't - kind of like evolution.
Now that's an open mind!
PH -- you have room in your list for this one?
LOL - I bet you're right.
Ok..
A 'hypothesis'..
But doesn't theory start as a 'hypothetical' until observed causes and effects either prove or disprove the 'theory' based on it's conclusions?
No you don't.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." -- Inigo Montoya.
look around you.
I have. The evidence around us overwhelming points to evolution.
All rightee, then.
I appreciate the insightful discussion.
He's a secular humanist. How's that?
If you applied that same standard (requiring "irrefutable proof"), then you would believe *nothing*. There is no such thing as "irrefutable proof" in this world, only in artificial realms like mathematics. Do you really set the bar so high on everything before you believe it -- or only on things you don't *want* to believe?
Never mind, the answer is obvious.
>If you spent more time presenting your "facts" of evolution ...
150 years worth.
> You all come off as very mean-spirited, which does nothing to promote your case.
Huh. Coming from the side that declares that all evolutionists are evil commies, that doesn't really carry much weight with me.
> Time and again I see where those defending Darwin just make fun of others.
And how do you feel about those who make fun of astrologers?
> Suppose you're wrong and we all have the last laugh.
Suppose you are wrong and God slams you into Hell for misleading people about how he made the world, as a consequence driving many people away from religion. Suppose you are wrong and the Muslism are right. Suppose you are wrong and the Hindus are right.
See, here's the thing: you get snippy for evolutionists callign your side names. But you don't seem to have trouble threatening evolutionists with eternal damnation.
"But doesn't theory start as a 'hypothetical' until observed causes and effects either prove or disprove the 'theory' based on it's conclusions?"
That was lousy sentence structure, but I hope you get the idea of it.
Sure it does. The foundation of ID is that evolution is impossible, therefore an intelligence must have brought about the species. But if evolution is impossible, then there's no source for an "intelligence" other than a supernatural entity.
It's the old "who designed the designer" problem.
I was just summarizing the thread for all you good people.
PseudoDarwinism, not quasiDarwinism or Darwinism, is what masquerades as science in most American classrooms today. Darwin never claimed, never even hypothesized, that men hailed from apes; yet this hypothesis is taught as fact and as fact attributable to Darwin. Belief in purportedly Darwinian theories (when they apply at all) takes at least as much credulity as belief in creationism or intelligent design. No proofs exist, period.
|
Asserting that there is no evidence for common descent of humans from ancestral species does not make the last 150 years of researched evidence go away. Claiming that it's just speculation when it is not only demonstrates that you've not actually studied the relevant science behind the claims.
Are you implying that no evidence exists? Or that it does not meet your standards for belief?
Where's your proof?
And I see the evidence as pointing to God. I guess it's all in the interpretation.
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.