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."
Most people still don't. Ask any creationist why he accepts the Bible as the Word of God.
One guy invented the light bulb and everybody else flipped the switch.
Don't forget co-evolutionary situations.
The Theory of Evolution and the Law of Gravity are hardly equal in terms of scientific certitude, although both require a certain amount of faith.
Louder. Nobody heard you.
"genotype is that which is programmed by your genes and can't be changed."
DNA?
But isn't DNA modification what they are working on now to makes changes? Or am I seeing it too simplistically?
I think I have a better understanding about how natural selection works now from others that have explained it as well.
But I do appreciate your replies and help.
Each of you has a unique way of explaining and from that it has helped me better understand it's workings.
Thanks.
Evolution applies to populations, not individuals. A very simplified desctiption would be to notice that any population is slightly different from its parent population (this difference maybe due to mutations, crossing over, or other genetic happening.) Not all individuals in a population have the same number of offspring in the daughter population; this can be due to strength, speed, beauty, wealth, luck, weather, etc. Thus the frequency distribution of genetic material changes between each generation. (Generations may overlap.)
That's all there is to evolutionary theory. Any system which undergoes inexact replication will undergo Darwinian evolution. All that is necessary is inexactness in replication and/or members of the system being in different environments even if only slightly.
Nothing is evolution is strictly random. The closest to random is the 'variation' part of evolution and even that occurs in some areas of the genome more frequently than in others. Selection is by no means random and is basically just math. I have 4 kids, you have 10. My kids have 4 kids each, your kids have 10 kids each and so on. Who's genes are going to dominate the population we live in, yours or mine?
"I only ask because I did see a program about a scientist who claims that our biological makeup seemed to be structured rather than random.
There are many IDists that claim that. However their entire philosophy and methodology is based on an argument from incredulity and a false dichotomy. They can't imagine that evolution could do what it does so therefore it didn't do it. If evolution didn't do it then it must be designed.
"His point was that there seemed to be a definate 'design' to it.
Complexity occurs in the human design world. Simplicity occurs in the human design world. Complexity occurs in nature. Simplicity occurs in nature.
"But I still wonder if the design was really the result of evolution and not the result of a 'blueprint'.
That is a good question. However you did say evolution in both cases. Evolution is limited to the examination and explanation of natural phenomena as it applies to living organisms. How life came about is not and can not be addressed by evolution. If some designer started the whole thing off, so be it. That in itself does not mean that natural evolution is not capable of producing the variation in species we see.
Just as a small point, the arrangement of genes and highly preserved non-coding areas of the genome, along with development processes suggests that the genome is a recipe rather than a blueprint.
Note that "same species as" isn't a transitive relationship. I'l use the (middle) character (of) "=" as "can interbreed with" just to shorten thing; also elipses "...". There may be a chain (geographical one have been observed) of individuals such that along the chain, neighbors can interbreed:
A = B = C = D = E
However, it does not follow that A = E. Were C to be cut out, then there would be two differing "species."
This can happen over time, A1 = A2,....A10000000=A10000001 but A1 cannot interbreed with A10000000. So even though each parent-offspring population is "of the same species," it may happen that the billionth generation would be "a different species" from the first.
Our large 'amorphous' population makes any evolutionary changes less likely to become fixed (or even noticed).
Yeah, but a lot (maybe most) of 'em are the same people.
"If some designer started the whole thing off, so be it. That in itself does not mean that natural evolution is not capable of producing the variation in species we see."
I think that goes back to my earlier statement of God and 'free will'. Even in lower species.
" suggests that the genome is a recipe rather than a blueprint."
Yes. That would make more sense from a 'primodial' point of view. (Thinking Ghostbusters here)(slimer) :0)
Sort of like creating a recipe for stew.
The ingredients may be fixed, but I can alway add something to the pot to make it better.
I have always thought that evolution didn't reflect a narrow view of history, but a larger understanding of God.
Sorry about the seeming 'religious' aspect, but that's just my thoughts.
"However, it does not follow that A = E. Were C to be cut out, then there would be two differing "species."
Cut out as in removed from the chain? Or nonexistant?
If it's nonexistant that how would you get from A to E?
If A=B=C=D=E and D were cut out, would that also lead to differing species? Or would the final step not occur?
Cut out, not non-existant. A link may be removed from an existing chain.
Ring species are an example. There are some mountains (I'm not sure where; I saw this about 50 years ago.) where plants can interbreed with their neighbors but not with others of "the same species" on the other side.
Not by traditional classification, no. But then there are a number of ways to classify organisms.
There is very strong evidence in the genome (and at least not contradicted by fossil evidence) that humans and chimpanzees share a more recent last common ancestor with each other than either does with gorillas. Now -- if you follow a strictly "cladistic" scheme, where you attempt to ensure that each named group includes all the common branches since a given evolutionary divergence -- then if you want to call both chimps and gorillas "apes," then you are required to call humans "apes" as well.
At the same time there are other classification schemes which allow you to recognize that one evolutionary lineage has diverged sufficiently from others in its evolutionary sister group to justify giving it a different name, even at the same taxonomic level. In that case you can call humans something different even while recognizing they form a sister group with chimps exclusive of other apes.
Sorry, I don't mean to be patronizing or pedantic. You may realize all this. But in my defense I often find it impossible to tell in your case as you have a (IMHO bad) habit of pursuing purely semantic debates with undiminished insistence even when you possess sufficient information to know that's all they are.
"Cut out, not non-existant. A link may be removed from an existing chain. "
Ok. Now I got it.
"where plants can interbreed with their neighbors but not with others of "the same species" on the other side."
That's fascinating. I wonder why that would be the case if they are the same species?
Minor differences in their genetic structure?
The more I read, the more interesting this subject gets.
Like I said earlier, by the time I learn about how life works, it will be over. :0)
One generation would not enable the 'fear' gene to overcome the 'altruism' genes. His point was quite accurate that just about anything can become a selective 'force' to a population. However, changes in allele frequency that fix in a population have specific requirements. The population needs to be isolated enough so any new alleles coming in do not 'thin out' the original. The population needs to be large enough to survive any Founder Effect. There are others but I'm too tired to think so I'll leave them until tomorrow.
Thanks.
I think I get the idea.
" There are others but I'm too tired to think so I'll leave them until tomorrow."
I was just thinking the same thing. I've been on here quite a while today (even with the shopping break) so I think it's time to pack it in for tonight and maybe continue tomorrow or maybe on another thread.
Thanks for the input and info. I have learned quite a bit today (although I'm not sure if I'll retain much at my age).
But it is genuinely fascinating.
Thanks to all again.
This is just my theological lay opinion, but I don't think you even need to analyze it to the level of "free will" or "choice". I think all you need to grant is that God's gift of "being," period, is (is, not "was" btw) generous and unstinting to the point that all objects are in complete possession of all the potentialities of their being. God gives everything the freedom to be what it is. It's more fundamental than will or choice.
Granted that the ancients, including the authors of the Bible, didn't tend to see it quite this way. First of all they tended to have a deep fear of chaotic forces. They thought most elemental forces were inherently and insistently chaotic. Second they tended to conceive God by analogy to human kings and rulers, who governed by decress, edicts and sometimes compacts. Thus they emphasized (and IMHO very much overemphasized) God setting bounds and limits on nature, imposing order on chaos, and etc.
By contrast I'd say that both the order there is in the world, and the diversity, results from the authenticity of being that all objects posses, as God's gift. God doesn't command a thing to be this way or to behave that way. He "tells" each thing (gives it the freedom) to be fully itself.
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.