Cornell president condemns intelligent design

©2005 Syracuse.com ^ | 10/21/2005, 12:03 p.m. ET | By WILLIAM KATES

[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."

[Dimensio]

Is man decendended from apes? Possibly.

I just don't find the plausibility of it because apes still exist.

The problem is in two errors of understanding here. The first in the common misconception that "man descended from apes" means that man descended from ape species that exist today. That is not the case. Humans and contemporary ape species descended from a common ancestor ape spcies that does not exist today. The second problem is that you seem to think that once a new species descends from a previous species, the older species must disappear. While this has happened with humans and their ape ancestor spcies, this is not a requirement and it is possible for a "parent" species to remain even after a new species has branched off.

[Vaquero]

Cornell, and the rest of the Ivy League, has been attacking rational thought decades. I agree with you.... I also agree with Cornell University Interim President Hunter Rawlings III and what he said about ID. Thankfully I probably don't agree with him about anything else.....

[mlc9852]

You have to travel way out into space to find it. Keep watching the Hubbel shots and maybe you'll get to see it.

[Dimensio]

And to keep saying evolution says nothing of how life began is just a silly way of saying you just don't know where it came from or how it started.

Don't lie. Gravity says nothing about how life began, but you don't trumpet the false implications of that as "proof" of your religious beliefs.

[Right Wing Professor]

And, if Dr. Rawlings is a secular humanist, there is probably no role for God in his life. That's not good.

He probably doesn't think there is a God to have a role, so I doubt he agrees.

[Right Wing Professor]

Always wondered how many drunk, drug-addled, depressed students commit suicide at the Falls each year?

My daughter's a student at Cornell. And, you, sir, are a know-nothing idiot, who probably couldn't find employment as a janitor at Cornell.

[RexBeach]

Quite so. And that's a pity.

Has a great name though for a mystery writer!

[Bigh4u2]

"The second problem is that you seem to think that once a new species descends from a previous species, the older species must disappear."

But doesn't the meaning of 'evolve' mean to 'change from one state to another'?

If something changes from 'one state to another' then how does the 'original' state still exist?

This is the crux of my confusion.

[Ichneumon]

Theory of Evolution is pockmarked with holes and unscientific

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

[narby]

He was created out of dust.

Adam was created out of the same stuff that biogenisis concepts started with, yet you said this was "nothing".

And to keep saying evolution says nothing of how life began is just a silly way of saying you just don't know where it came from or how it started.

We don't know how life began. And the question is irrelevant to whether evolution brought about species. You know this fact and are being dishonest about it. Or can't remember previous threads, take your pick.

If you have Alzheimer's, I'm sorry, no offense intended.

[PatrickHenry]

PH -- you have room in your list for this one? [I will never, ever believe humans descended from apes until I see irrefutable proof, which I don't believe exists.]

That's good, but we've got better. Besides, there's so many such utterances that I'd run out of bandwidth.

[narby]

You have to travel way out into space to find it. Keep watching the Hubbel shots and maybe you'll get to see [heaven].

I'm not the one who thinks it's there to be seen. That's your illusion.

[Ichneumon]

Would it strike any conservative (any true conservative - I'm not referring here to Patrick Henry) unusual that a far left CommuDem liberal "educator" who, as a secularist, is a firm believer in social Darwinism and doesn't believe in God, would make a statement like this??? Certainly seems normal to me. Cornell, one of the most evil secularist schools in the world, populated by anti-American socialist maggots, would certainly gravitate towards any theory that promotes randomness versus design.

Would it surprise anyone that Doc Savage would attack the statement in a classic ad hominem fashion instead of discussing the statement on its merits?

Whether Cornell is or is not as "evil" as you believe (cue "Church Lady" soundbite here), he happens to be correct on this point.

[Dimensio]

But doesn't the meaning of 'evolve' mean to 'change from one state to another'?

If something changes from 'one state to another' then how does the 'original' state still exist?

Because a subpopulation of one species can become isolated in a different environment wherein selection pressures cause the isolated subpopulation to become a new species, while in the previous environment the original species remains unchanged with no selection pressures leading to evolution.

[Thatcherite]

But doesn't the meaning of 'evolve' mean to 'change from one state to another'? If something changes from 'one state to another' then how does the 'original' state still exist? This is the crux of my confusion.

The answer to your conundrum lies in geographic isolation. A species will typically inhabit a large area. For lots of possible reasons a sub-group may become geographically isolated. Once this has happened each group can go its own way. For current living examples of this happening right in front of our eyes google "ring species", which is the biological term for one particular very interesting type of geographical isolation leading to speciation.

[connectthedots]

Hunter Rawlings III has a degree in what?

[NativeNewYorker]

...is God dead at Cornell?

Of course not.

He's just laughing himself silly.

[Ichneumon]

God-hating evolutionists misrepresent I.D.,

...evolution-hating people misrepresent evolutionists as "God-hating" in an attempt to distract attention when the evolutionists point out the actual flaws in "I.D."...

Clue for the clueless: The majority of American evolutionists are Christians. Sorry if that makes your head explode, and shatters your false and defamatory accusation.

while scientifically illiterate I.D. proponents misrepresent evolution.

You've got *that* one right. I have hundreds of examples.

Same thing as every other Crevo thread.

You forgot the part where the evolutionists provide tons of evidence, and demonstrate that the I.D.ers/creationists demonstrate almost complete ignorance of the actual field of science they're attempting to critique, while posting long-discredited falsehoods with no sense of shame. And yes, I have countless examples of that too, all you need do is ask.

[Thatcherite]

You have to travel way out into space to find it. Keep watching the Hubbel shots and maybe you'll get to see it.

Interesting, are you serious, or did you omit the humour tags? In the past I've made the mistake of assuming that remarks like this are jokes.

[Ichneumon]

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."'

You haven't a clue. Most religions *do* embrace evolution as a science. And yet, contrary to your confident-but-empty-headed prediction, no one is rejecting evolution as a result.

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.

Paranoid much? Some people never seem happy unless they can stoke a persecution complex.