let me get this straight, somebody with Liberals Disease and obviously limited intelligence condemns intelligent design??? too funny... brought to you by the Peoples Unintelligent DemocRATic Republic of Ithaca EVIL!!!
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."
Not good!
Pot meet kettle.
You hit the nail on the head.
More recently than me, I bet.
Your point?
With all do respect, have the crackpots at the Discovery Institute ever shown PHYSICAL and RATIONAL evidence for the existence of a "Creator" via the scientific method?
Will they ban teaching string theory in physics for the same reason?
Biology labs "evolve" life every day. Where have you been?
Intelligent Design looks at the same record of evidence and comes to a different conclusion than Darwinism.
ID attempts to find fault with evolution, and then claims that these faults are evidence of God. Balony. If the highly unlikely situation occured that all the multiple lines of evidence for evolution were blown away, that's not a reason to believe in the supernatural. Some other unknown natural process could have been the cause of species.
It appears so.
When did Big Bang
Both the Big Bang and Evolution fall within the realm of science.
and pseudoDarwinism become "valid science"?
What is "pseudoDarwinism"?
Doesn't mean it isn't something supernatural, either. But then you are very close-minded when it comes to anything having to do with God.
And I can say the same thing about you with regards to science.
No you can't. I think science is wonderful. I just don't understand why Darwinists are so afraid of a little competition. If you were so sure of your position, you would welcome it.
"Biology labs "evolve" life every day. Where have you been?"
They create variations within species...they do not create new species. When biologists turn dog progeny into say, a cow, get back to me. LOL!
"ID attempts to find fault with evolution, and then claims that these faults are evidence of God. Balony"
ID does find fault with Darwinism, but it also proposes Intelligent Design on its own evidence...i.e. the complexity of life, even microbes. You have not done your reading my friend.
So....baloney to you too...:)
First, it's politically incorrect to use the term "creator". From now on the anti-science charlatans expect you to use the correct term "designer". To answer your question: No. Showing physical and rational evidence is not part of the Discovery Institute's agenda to dumb down science in our schools.
let me get this straight, somebody with Liberals Disease and obviously limited intelligence condemns intelligent design??? too funny... brought to you by the Peoples Unintelligent DemocRATic Republic of Ithaca EVIL!!!
Again, you are confusing the Metaphysical (God/Zeus/Allah) with the Physical (ie the existence of Dinosaurs in the past, the age of the earth, etc.).
A little something on the Friedrich Nietzsche God is dead quote:
Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!"
As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.
"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. ....
"What Nietzsche is concerned at in relating is that God is dead in the hearts of modern men - killed by rationalism and science. This same God however, before becoming dead in men's hearts and minds, had provided the foundation of a "Christian-moral" defining and uniting approach to life as a shared cultural set of belief fully within which people had lived their lives. Nietzsche suggests that the acceptance of the Death of God will also involve the ending of accepted standards of morality and of purpose. Without the former and accepted faith based standards society is threatened by a nihilistic situation where peoples lives are not particularly constrained by considerations of morality or particularly guided by any faith related sense of purpose."
So is God dead at Cornell?
No need, Aquinasfan, for you to condemn him. We've got a bigger hitter on our bench. The Big Guy HisOwnSelf.
This nut condemns the story of how God created the universe?
So, who cares?
Wait until the Big Guy HisOwnSelf gets around to condemning the third and most self-important version of Hunter Rawlings.
I'm not confusing anything. I simply made a statement.
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.