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."
Liberals aren't interested in dialogue or ideas. They are interested in using any and all rhetoric they can to shut us up. President Rawlings' diatribe is simply an Ivy League demand that non-liberals shut up, in this case about evolution. The Prez. can go skrew himself.
You guys are all really brave for trying to duke this one out! Brave or insane... :)
I confess to a certain degree of ignorance in what the science of intelligent design purports to be. I am a Christian, but I don't consider it to be a matter of science-- it is a matter of faith.
That said, the development of ID as a science should not be squelched. It appears to be in its infancy qua science, and is deserving of a chance to germinate, and perhaps develop falsiable theories. My recollection of the treatment of most new fields of science is that they are met with ridicule and attack (often even physical attack and torture) as they develop, this attack coming by the "established" sciences. Geocentrism gave way to heliocentrism, but only reluctantly. I am sure others can give other and better examples.
I don't suggest that science should be abandoned in favor of the study of ID, but I am not sure even ID people suggest that. It seems to me that much scientific achievement is made upon "hunches" or stabs in the dark, thereafter proven (and more often disproven).
Does God exist? I believe so. Can it be proven? I don't know, but should the effort be squelched?
Finally, the nature of the argument on this topic, as I lurk on these threads from time to time, usually quickly devolves into shrieks and insults, which I usually take as a sign of weakness in any argument. I am sure many are frustrated, but if one cannot formulate a logical and measured response even to that which one believes is lunacy, might I suggest you take a drink and come back calmer....
Interesting. I married another species entirely. A thorough bred canine, more commonly refered to as a bi*ch. In case Ms Allred is reading this, I am just joking.
No.
LOL And why aren't there any gray people?
Because people aren't actually "black" or "white", they're various shades of brown and pink. And the shades in between are sort of mocha.
Now, was that actually so hard to figure out?
Do Africans tan and burn as well or is their pigment different enough to shield them from there hotter environment?
Most Blacks in the US are mixed, and that may explain the tanning ability. There probably has not been enough time in the last 200-300 years for serious change otherwise.
It us my understanding that there is virtually no tanning ability in sub-Saharan Africa, but there are a lot of different groups living in a lot of different environments so there may be some examples I am not aware of.
All people have the same skin pigment (melanin), only the amounts vary; albinos are the only ones without the pigment responsible for skin color.
The important part of all of this is that these traits, skin color, nose form, body form, etc. have nothing to (in the long run) with descent. They are adaptations to local conditions which occur over time. Genetic traits such as blood type, fingerprint pattern, ear wax form, etc., can be used to track descent. Particularly helpful is mtDNA, or mitochondrial DNA. That is in the last 10 years or so becoming extremely useful for tracking population movements. By comparing mtDNA of humans vs. other living primates, it helps identify the exact relationships between groups. Some of the others on these threads are quite familiar with some of these details and perhaps can answer questions for you.
To all that have helped me on this thread.
I'm logging off now to go do some shopping but I wanted to thank those that have been a help to me in trying to understand evolution.
I still have a lot questions but they will have to wait for another time. (maybe tomorrow).
Thanks again and have a great day!
Is it putting "rational thought under attack" to consider that, where there is design, there may be a designer?
So... You're saying you aren't interested in their ideas or dialog with them?
They are interested in using any and all rhetoric they can to shut us up.
...you say, using your own dismissive rhetoric.
President Rawlings' diatribe is simply an Ivy League demand that non-liberals shut up, in this case about evolution.
Perhaps you could quote where you fantasize that he actually said that.
For those of us with working reading comprehension, and less of a gigantic chip on our shoulders, what he's actually saying is that a) creationists are telling lies about evolutionary biology, and b) they're dishonestly claiming that "ID" is a science, when it's not. And that honest people shouldn't be shy about speaking up and pointing out that "ID"'s emperor has no clothes. Free speech to combat dishonest free speech.
I agree with him 100%, and I'm hardly a "liberal".
The fact that you can't discuss what he said on its merits and instead have to engage in false accusations, broad stereotypes, and ad hominem doesn't reflect well on your side of the issue.
It is when you actually take the time to understand it, and don't just look for excuses to ridicule it.
A closed mind gathers no thought...
Probably not, since "mathematical principles" arise naturally in many situations, they don't have to be "preprogrammed in".
People like you are enabling the arrogance of the materialist/secularist establishment. What are y'all
so g-damned afraid of, anyway? You own the educational system and the scientific establishment lock, stock, and barrel, do you not?
Rawlings received his Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1970 and is a 1966 graduate of Haverford College, with honors in classics.
During his presidency he set strategic scientific priorities in the life sciences and engineering -- advanced materials science, computing and information science, and the new fields that comprise the biological revolution, including genomics, computational biology, bioinformatics, and nanobiotechnology. He reorganized the biological sciences on the Ithaca campus and set in motion the plans for a pioneering Life Science Technology Building.
["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.]
100% correct.
The methodology of science has a specific definition with many obligatory processes contained within it, and there are many people and organizations who wish to benefit from the appearance of science without having to go through all the necessary steps required for genuine scientific support of their favorite theories.
Neanderthal probably didn't survive the last great ice age even though there's an unproven theory that they were assimilated and even contributed the red hair gene to our current population. Cromagnon was an early Euroasian who's descendants currently populate the earth.
No, I don't think so. I think the other poster likes to get confused about these things. Not your fault.
Consider his diatrabe to be a verbal knee-jerk all the way down the throat and out the rectum. It happens often enough when issues of academic and moral accountability are brought to light.
Individuals don't evolve. Populations gradually evolve over many generations.
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.