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 see.
So what you are saying is a species 'evolves' if it's environment changes, in order for it to survive.
Ok. I can see that.
But it still doesn't explain why neanderthal and cromagnon man no longer exist.
Was it environment that caused their extinction, because of their stubborness to adapt to that environment, or where they just too stupid to move?
Maybe a catyclismic change that was unavoidable?
BTW. Thanks for explaining these things to me in a way that even a dumb 'layman' like myself could understand.
No, it's all in the fact that I know how to test and validate hypotheses suggested by the evidence, and you don't.
Yet somehow you haven't figured out this hysterical person is a woman?
Dimensio, you got suckered.
There are no "facts" about evolution, only theories.
"Dimensio, you got suckered."
Trying to learn something about evolution is 'suckering' someone?
Explain?
That's because it doesn't address the question. Electromagnetic theory doesn't explain 'creation', so are you going live in the dark?
Is man decendended from apes? Possibly.
Order Primate, family Hominidae, genus Homo, species Sapien (or H. sapien sapien depending on whose taxonomy you use). Gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) are also in Hominidae, so they're like uncles and cousins if you will.
Man is a primate, and all the decendants of man will be primates.
I just don't find the plausibility of it because apes still exist.
When you were born did your uncle(s) and cousins go *poof* into nothing-ness?
Maybe I'm just missing the 'link'.
That's a distinct possibility.
Yeah, one kind of lizard turned into another kind of lizard. Amazing.
The exact answer to this question may never be known, and even if we knew it for some of our hominid cousin species we still wouldn't know the answer for all of the untold billions of species that have gone extinct over geological time. Some things we can only speculate about, but that doesn't make the evidence for evolution less convincing.
Species go extinct because insufficient members survive to child-rearing age. Cataclysmic change can make this happen very rapidly to a large number of species; witness the current effects of habitat destruction by man. Species that cannot adapt fast enough to the changed circumstances will die out. Or even in unchanged environmental circumstances a new similar competitor can lead to rapid extinction. A few decades ago a single pregnant grey squirrel must have arrived in the UK somehow, which only had red squirrels (in their millions). Now red squirrels are all but extinct, surviving only on islands that the greys haven't reached, and in Scotland where the greys advantages are not so crushing.
You, Ichneumon, have no idea what I know how to do. Let's stick to facts here, shall we? Isn't that what science is all about? Oh, I know you imagine yourself to be a genius and perhaps you are. But you don't have all the answers. I'm not even sure you have good questions.
Human are apes. African Great Apes, to be exact.
" When you were born did your uncle(s) and cousins go *poof* into nothing-ness?"
No they didn't.
But I didn't evolve into a different species either.
I assume his/her uncles and cousins were still humans, no?
Why? Because virtually all of the educated world and a good chunk of the rest isn't enough???
Actually, there is no "proof" or "disproof" in science. Such certainties are not to be found in the real world. But yes, theories are developed by incorporating explanations which work, which were found by testing hypotheses.
But my point is that untested (or worse, falsified) hypotheses have no place in the classroom. There's not enough time in science class to teach all of even the most essential validated knowledge, it's criminal to waste students' time with "what ifs". And to date, ID at best rises no higher than the status of a "what if". At worst, it's a body of misrepresentations, fallacious arguments, propaganda, and pseudoscience.
It *could* be a valid field of science someday, at least in principle. And if/when that day comes, sure, teach it in science classes. Until then, however, it doesn't belong there (even aside from the fact that it's intended as a Trojan Horse for religious creationism), nor should it dishonestly present itself as valid science in the realm of public discourse. It deceptively pretends to be something it isn't, and tries to present itself as somehow on par with established science like evolutionary biology.
No they aren't. Humans are humans and apes are apes. Can a human and ape reproduce? Okay - times for the jokes.
He is trying to say that his ancestors (great...great grandparents) and apes have a common ancestor. Now he may be right. But my and your ancestors were not apes or ape-like. I think he is wrong about his ancestors but I have not seen his picture or a picture of his parents. :-)
By the way, I love the "swimmer" reference. LOL.
Descended from?? Human are apes...
For the moment I'm running with the idea that Bigh4u2 genuinely wants to understand the scientific viewpoint.
Bigh, the reason for b_sharp's "sharpness" is that in these threads we often get new creationists with what they think are "gotcha" questions that somehow haven't occurred to millions of professional biologists over 150 years. Usually these people turn out to have no interest in actually understanding why biologists overwhelmingly believe that the evidence supports evolution, and their unwillingness to learn (despite a common pretence of interest) can get very irritating. I am sure that you aren't like that though.
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.