In other words:
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."
As do I.
You close your mind to science but don't demand any proof for your superstitions?
That's fine. So what?
You're not the first (and that's a hypothesis - not a theory, at least until there's some supporting evidence).
Giordano Bruno was probably the earliest to speculate on this.
Funny how "competing theories" were resolved in the Church.
Hey - you stole my child's science project!
LOL!!! That cartoon pretty much sums it all up!
All I see is evidence pointing to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
What's the difference?
Well, he's not going to be too keen on the so-called "intelligent design" question and adhere very strongly to the evolutionary theory.
And, if Dr. Rawlings is a secular humanist, there is probably no role for God in his life. That's not good.
Right. Because that would not be evolution. Evolution would be the changes since that life began.
> I don't believe I have condemned anyone.
"Suppose you're wrong and we all have the last laugh."
Maybe you meant something else by this, but this is standard Creationist rhetoric. When the evolutionist refuses to bow to irrational superstitious drivel, accuse them of being evil and threaten them with Hell. Look at posts 74 and 75 for the genesis of that thinking on this thread.
You and your crazy Flying Spaghetti Monster - you have a fixation with that thing! I don't think I've even known anyone who believes in it. Tell me more.
a+b=b+a
oops guess i meant scentific law.
Do you know the difference between a theory and a law in the context of science?
" Funny how "competing theories" were resolved in the Church."
Yeah. I've read (somewhere) that the church is either in agreement with evolution or at the very least not against it.
I myself believe that evolution is a given, but 'creation' is not explained by it.
Is man decendended from apes? Possibly.
I just don't find the plausibility of it because apes still exist.
Maybe I'm just missing the 'link'.
ID claims that evolution of species (what creationists falsely label as "macro" evolution) is impossible. And because it is impossible, then an intelligence is their sole alternative (because they ignore the idea that some other natural process could be the cause *if* evolution was incorrect).
The whole foundation of ID is their claim that evolution is impossible.
If you meant life was created out of nothing by nothing, then yeah, evolution is impossible.
You believe that Adam was created out of nothing don't you?
But beside that point, you've been around these threads for long enough to understand that where life came from is irrelevant to the issue of evolution and common descent. Why are you pretending you don't know that? Are you dishonest, or merely can't remember discussions from previous days?
Actually, I don't think I've brought up the FSM idea on FR before. Why do you think I have a fixation with it?
I don't think I've even known anyone who believes in it. Tell me more.
I believe it for exactly the same reason you believe in God. Just because I do.
Look up in the sky mlc and point out to me where heaven is and the throne of God.
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.