Cornell president condemns intelligent design

©2005 Syracuse.com ^ | 10/21/2005, 12:03 p.m. ET | By WILLIAM KATES

[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."

[aNYCguy]

[Lily] Theory of Evolution is pockmarked with holes and unscientific

[Ichneumon] Wrong, but thanks for playing.

[Lily] You may feel you evolved from an ape. That's your right. But I don't. Someone with more intelligence and thought developed my ancestors.

Let me understand this. Your position is "My religious beliefs contradict the TOE, therefore the TOE is unscientific?"

[lilylangtree]

You believe your ancestors came from apes which evolved from some icky, ape-like primoridial ooze too?

[Thatcherite]

You believe your ancestors came from apes which evolved from some icky, ape-like primoridial ooze too?

Yes, I think he does, and so do I. It is called examining the evidence, which is so far beyond overwhelming that even the arch-priests of ID, Behe, Dembski, and Denton accept it. The difference between the ID'ers and the evolutionists is that the ID'ers want to teach that a Designer was involved but He may be dead. Evolutionists simply don't believe that the evidence unequivocally points at a designer, and don't want to suggest that God (oops, sorry) the Designer may be dead.

[Quick1]

If you spent more time presenting your "facts" of evolution

Are you kidding? Icheumon [sp?] used to make giant posts full of facts about evolution, and they got few, if any responses.

[Coyoteman]

If you spent more time presenting your "facts" of evolution...

OK, good point. Here are some facts:

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Anything else you would like? (Actually Ichny did it better in his post, but with 50 pages of data you might have missed this one small section.)

[mlc9852]

What makes a human "human" as opposed to something else?

[Coyoteman]

What makes a human "human" as opposed to something else?

That is the "theory" part. We have millions of facts, such as the ones I just posted for you. From these facts we establish and test hypotheses. The hypotheses that pass the test are supported, and can be brought together into a theory. Repeated tests, if passed, lead to a well-supported theory, such as the theory of evolution.

Now, one part of the theory process is interpretation. We organize the data and we interpret the data. The people who know the data best have reached a consensus that at x point we draw the line between human and non-human. These lines are artificial, imposed on the data by theorists, and not all agree with their exact placement. However, the whole construct holds together nicely, and the majority of paleontology and human biology is working out some of the finer details.

Now you may not agree with the conclusion, but you have to do a lot of work to catch up with where science is at any given time. It is not very productive to sit on the sidelines, unfamiliar with the logic, methods, data, and theories of any particular science, and dispute the conclusions on unrelated or inapplicable grounds.

Two more points: to be a useful hypothesis or theory, you need to be able to make predictions. These predictions have to be testable and falsifiable. This can lead to new data. However, a theory can also be extended far beyond the actual data. This is where scientists have problems with ID. Saying "the intelligent designer did it all" overreaches the data, and leaves no place to apply a test.

Hope this helps.

[mlc9852]

I just want to know how scientists distinguish between human and non-human. I thought it would be simple.

[Thatcherite]

I just want to know how scientists distinguish between human and non-human. I thought it would be simple

You remember the bar shading from black to white. I want you to tell me at what exact point along its length the bar turns white. "I thought it would be simple."

The difficulty of answering such questions is a prediction of the theory of evolution. Speciation is a continuum, not a break. Remember, every creature is only minutely distinguishable from its parents. Creationists on the other hand think that it should be easy to distinguish non-human fossil hominids from human fossil hominids, yet all the different creationist sources disagree on the major fossil hominid finds.

[mlc9852]

Are you saying science cannot define "human"?

[Thatcherite]

We can define what constitutes a member of the human species now, but if we were miraculously able to summon up all of our ancestors back in time to something that everyone would agree is an ape, and stand them in a line, no-one would be able to point at one particular individual in that line and say "everyone before this is ape, and everyone after this is human."

Well, someone might claim they could do that by a variety of different metrics, but getting everyone to agree on what those metrics should be would be impossible. The entire definition of what consitutes a species is fuzzy, which is a prediction of the theory of evolution, because species are constantly evolving via genetic drift, sexual selection, and natural selection amongst other mechanisms.

[mlc9852]

So there is no scientific definition of human? That's can't be right.

[Coyoteman]

So there is no scientific definition of human? That's can't be right.

That is not quite what he said, but if you think you can make hay with it, knock yourself out.

Remember, science deals with facts and theories. If you want certainty, try faith.

[mlc9852]

I simply want a definition of human. Does that require faith?

[Thatcherite]

So there is no scientific definition of human? That's can't be right.

Why can't that be right? Because you want it to be right? Because you think it ought to be right? Because you think you've scored some kind of point? Anyway, that isn't quite what I said. But feel free to twist my answer to score an imaginary point.

Species change over time. At any fixed point in time a species is defined, but over geological time the definition of a species changes; every child is the same species as its parents, yet over thousands of generations the great, great..... great, great grandchildren become a different species. Over time the definition of species is fuzzy.

[Thatcherite]

I simply want a definition of human. Does that require faith?

Why do you want it? What additional understanding of the issues do you think a definition of human would help you gain?

Let's put it another way. What part of my thought experiment of lining up all our ancestors and being unable to point at a dividing line between human/non-human did you not understand. Why do you think (supposing for a moment that you accept evolution) that you should be able to draw such a line? I'm not trying to sneer or talk down; I'm trying to help you understand how we see it. I hope my explanations are helping.

[mlc9852]

I cannot believe there is no scientific standard for human. So with your explanation we might be human or we might not. I'm pretty sure I'm human, though I have questions about my offspring.

[Thatcherite]

I cannot believe there is no scientific standard for human. So with your explanation we might be human or we might not. I'm pretty sure I'm human, though I have questions about my offspring.

You need to read my explanation again more carefully. You draw unwarranted conclusions that don't follow from what I posted. I am sorry if I isn't clear to you, but I don't know how to make my explanation clearer. Maybe someone else will have a go, if they can be bothered.

I cannot help thinking that you are perhaps not really trying to properly understand what I have posted because it would conflict with your preconceptions, but maybe I am being unfair to you. [shrug] If so then I apologise.

[mlc9852]

I do have preconceived ideas. My idea is that I am human and I can recognize other humans. Are Aborigines human?

[Coyoteman]

Are Aborigines human?

In the collection of fossils in post #405, most scientists place the dividing line between C and D. That is some 2 million years ago.

Based on this, you should be able to infer that Aborigines are human.