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."
Speak for yourself, kneeler. I'm an extremely happy person.
You think people can only be "educated" if they believe in evolution? Is that your entire standard of educated? Pretty narrow definition, don't you think?
"It *could* be a valid field of science someday, at least in principle."
I've been reading and seeing a lot about it and one 'hypothesis' is that life is based on a mathimatical principal.
Which makes me wonder if an exact formula were found that explained life, would that be a basis for ID?
"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
The last two statements follow the formula of responses the typical creationist uses when trolling for an evolutionist to argue with.
If what you asked was indeed in earnest please accept my humble apology.
This is another common misunderstanding. Every creature is always the same species as its parents. It is quite hard to explain, but one possible analogy is a long bar that slowly changes from black to white along its length. Black is one species and white is another, and the bar is thousands of generations long. No-one can point at the position on the bar where black changed to white, it is just merging greys all the way along.
The president of Cornell saying something sane. Unbelievable
I just don't find the plausibility of it because apes still exist.
AMAZING!! You've done it!!! You've shown the flaw in common descent!!! And by this same reasoning, you've shown exactly why it is impossible for people to have living parents, siblings and cousins!!!!! Oh, wait a second...
So what is your evidence that your parents, grandparents or great...great grandparents were apes? Do you have some unusual habits like eating 50 bananas a day, have a tendency to let your knuckles drag on the ground, have curious urges to climb trees or pound on your chest?
"The last two statements follow the formula of responses the typical creationist uses when trolling for an evolutionist to argue with."
Sorry, But I have a tendency to 'think out loud' (just ask my wife, it drives her nuts)
I just ask questions based on my limited understanding.
I read alot and I know I don't know the answers to these questions and others do.
So please be patient. Maybe someday I'll get it right. (Well maybe.)
" If what you asked was indeed in earnest please accept my humble apology."
It was and no apology is necessary!
:0)
LMAO... I'm sure humans aren't vertebrates or mammals, either... LOL
If you are interested and have further questions, but you feel intimidated by the some of the comments you are getting from my friends then send me a freepmail and I'll try to help you further. But my all means continue to post in the thread if you wish to, which provides more information for lurkers.
"No-one can point at the position on the bar where black changed to white, it is just merging greys all the way along."
And that brings up another question. (Sorry I have a lot of them)
What causes the differences between races?
Is that based on environment as well?
Maybe I should save this for a different thread if I'm going to far off base.
I'm pretty sure humans are mammals and vertebrates. But I'm also pretty sure they aren't apes.
No they didn't. They're still H. sapien I suppose.
But they are different H. sapien(s) with subtle differences in hair, eyes, blood type, and a whole host of other distinctions. And their descendants will be different from your descendants, even more so.
And so on, etc.
Eventually you get to a point where a reasonable person will acknowledge the difference in degree has become a difference in kind.
Are you saying blacks and whites are different species? LOL And why aren't there any gray people?
Where is that tolerance for differing views that the left so often celebrates?
I assume that you are talking about the races of man. Environmental differences cause different selection pressures, micro-adaptions like skin-colours that are suitable for climate. It is a real bad idea to be a very dark-skinned inuit for example. Darwin correctly concluded in "The descent of Man" that despite superficial differences such as skin colour all the races of man are the same species.
And what do you suppose humans will become next?
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.