Intelligent design goes Ivy League: Cornell offers course despite president denouncing theory

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | 04/11/2006

[SirLinksalot]

Intelligent design goes Ivy League

Cornell offers course despite president denouncing theory

--------------------------------------------------------

Posted: April 11, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Cornell University plans to offer a course this summer on intelligent design, using textbooks by leading proponents of the controversial theory of origins.

The Ivy League school's course – "Evolution and Design: Is There Purpose in Nature?" – aims to "sort out the various issues at play, and to come to clarity on how those issues can be integrated into the perspective of the natural sciences as a whole."

The announcement comes just half a year after Cornell President Hunter Rawlings III denounced intelligent design as a "religious belief masquerading as a secular idea."

Proponents of intelligent design say it draws on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines that indicate some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Supporters include scientists at numerous universities and science organizations worldwide.

Taught by senior lecturer Allen MacNeill of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology department, Cornell's four-credit seminar course will use books such as "Debating Design," by William Dembski and Michael Ruse; and "Darwin's Black Box," by Michael Behe.

The university's Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness club said that while it's been on the opposite side of MacNeill in many debates, it has appreciated his "commitment to the ideal of the university as a free market-place of ideas."

"We have found him always ready to go out of his way to encourage diversity of thought, and his former students speak highly of his fairness," the group said. "We look forward to a course where careful examination of the issues and critical thinking is encouraged."

Intelligent design has been virtually shut out of public high schools across the nation. In December, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones' gave a stinging rebuke to a Dover, Pa., school board policy that required students of a ninth-grade biology class to hear a one-minute statement that says evolution is a theory, and intelligent design "is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."

Jones determined Dover board members violated the U.S. Constitution's ban on congressional establishment of religion and charged that several members lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs.

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy," Jones wrote. "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

[mlc9852]

Relax - it's a college course taught by a biology professor. It isn't like it's a high school course taught by a Sunday School teacher. Your Darwin is safe in the hallowed halls of academia.

[ThinkPlease]

There's a thread here that discusses some of that(with the professor taking part in the discussion):

http://telicthoughts.com/?p=634

[tallhappy]

There is nothing wrong with ID being taught in school - its only when they teach it in science class as valid science that it threatens the future of the country.

The sky is falling. What hyperbole.

[tallhappy]

Some argue that Evolution, itself, is more philosophy than science.

That's a fair argument.

[johnnyb_61820]

They are giving science credit for the class. If you want to see the professors views on the class, see his blog:

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/04/evolution-and-design-is-there-purpose.html

The professor is also answering questions and having a discussion with the folks at TelicThoughts about the subject:

http://telicthoughts.com/?p=634

[Unam Sanctam]

I'm sure they have philosophy courses. Even if you define science to exclude speculation like ID, it should still constitute philosophy and an interesting intellectual challenge that should be debated, not silenced.

[puroresu]

####The sky is falling. What hyperbole.####

Exactly! Leftists demand the censorship of scientific data all the time. Feminists do it. Egalitarians do it. Homosexual activists do it. Others put forth wild theories that are given consideration in scientific forums nationwide. Environmentalists, for example, do that. The response of the scientific community (with a few notable exceptions) is to capitulate to the censorship, or just avoid the controversy and work quietly on their own projects.

But if people who question the theory of evolution merely request an opportunity to present their case, the same "scientifically minded" people who wilt like a petunia when confronted by a howling feminist suddenly begin beating their chests like Taezan and vowing to fight this "attack on science" with every ounce of strength they have.

Shows the power of Political Correctness.

[johnnyb_61820]

Also I forgot to mention that their science faculty includes both at least one ID'er and at least one YEC:

http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/faculty/sanford/
http://www.mae.cornell.edu/Psiaki/default.html

[puroresu]

Taezan = Tarzan! :-)

[gondramB]

Reality is what is left when you stop believing in it.

The point is that science should teach the best science available and all those classes are free to teach whatever they want.

The twin threats to science of cutting research because the administration doesn't like the answers and forcing classes to teach unfounded science is a threat to America and its place in the world.

[gondramB]

"The sky is falling. What hyperbole."

The levers that America to produce beyond its natural resources are almost all based one way or another on science.

so yes, the economic sky is falling and people who want to force the teaching of science without scientific basis are a very large part of thaty problem.

[gondramB]

thats unfortunate, thanks for the info.

[gondramB]

"Also I forgot to mention that their science faculty includes both at least one ID'er and at least one YEC: "

I don't see the inclusion of people who believe in ID as a problem. I'm a Christian and I believe in intelligent design but until there is scientific evidence of it, it doesn't belong in science class.

[Boiler Plate]

its only when they teach it in science class as valid science that it threatens the future of the country.

Really? Do you have any proof?

[gondramB]

"Really? Do you have any proof?"

That's funny.

Energy ,biochem, medicine, aerospace, computers, telecommunications, defense.

What do they have in common? All are key to Ammerica's dominant position in the world, all are based on science and all are threatened by the current anti-science movement.

[shhrubbery!]

I agree the merits or demerits of Intelligent Design (or for that matter Probabilistic Design) can not be rationally or even adequately discussed at the middle school or high school level. In general teachers at these levels are too poorly trained in science to do any more then rote teach facts out of a textbook. That's a hard enough problem considering how bad textbooks are at that level.

You're right about how bad textbooks are. As I understand it, some biology textbooks STILL present fake "evidence" for Darwinism, e.g. Ernst Haeckel's fake embryos, and the fraudulent peppered moth photos!

But I have to disagree with you about the need to wait until the college level before students can have an intelligent discussion about intelligent design.

Smart high school students deserve more than a Darwinian indoctrination; and regardless of how ill-trained their teachers may be, I believe there are resources out there that could be used as a basis for discussion of the subject.

One is a short, easy-to-read book by James Perloff called The Case Against Darwin: Why the Evidence Should Be Examined.

The book is a good overview of the subject; it also exposes some Darwinian claims, e.g. Haeckel's embryos, as a fraud.

[gondramB]

"short, easy-to-read book"

"exposes some Darwinian claims"


His work is like the guy who exposes a faith healer as a fraud and says religion should no longer be taught.

[tallhappy]

The levers that America to produce beyond its natural resources are almost all based one way or another on science.

so yes, the economic sky is falling and people who want to force the teaching of science without scientific basis are a very large part of thaty problem.

You are as hysterical as Al Gore and just as irrational.

For centuries we have lead the way in science and technology despite having the most believers and your dreaded ignoramuses of the Bible Belt etc...

We did fine -- in fact excelled.

Logic and reason -- try it. You'll find it works better than emotion in analyzing things.

[puroresu]

#####all are based on science and all are threatened by the current anti-science movement.#####


The LEFT-WING war on science! There is no conservative war on science. The assertion that there is one is a fraud, a myth, and figment of the liberal media's imagination. It's as phony and non-existent as the alleged conservative "war against women", "war against an independent judiciary", "war against the poor", etc.

The supposed conservative war on science consists of nothing more than a VERY MILD request that alternatives to evolutionary theory be given a hearing, and conservative opposition to human embryo farming. Hardly a war against science, especially considering the real war against it being waged by the left.

[js1138]

You're right about how bad textbooks are. As I understand it, some biology textbooks STILL present fake "evidence" for Darwinism, e.g. Ernst Haeckel's fake embryos, and the fraudulent peppered moth photos!

If you are going to make this kind of charge I'm going to ask you to back it up. Name the textbooks.