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."

[FairWitness]

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.

Just so. I'm sure there are lots of very good high school science teachers. There are also far too many, from what I have read, who teach science without having been science majors. I sincerely wonder what percentage of high school biology teachers can do justice to the teaching of evolution.

[Dimensio]

Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong. Bad logic, try again.

My statement was a direct response to your claim that common descent requires a "specific" method for the origin of life. If that is not what you meant, then the error is yours.

Again, without specific assumptions about the origin of life, there is no reason to assume monophyly.

Monophyly is not assumed based upon assumptions regarding the origin of life. Assumptions regarding the origin of life are based upon abundant evidence for monophyly.

[Boiler Plate]

What's funny is that you failed to prove your point. Instead you just provided baseless accusations and assumptions. Do you think that kind of crap would past muster in debate class?

Now try and cite specific evidence that proves your assertions.

[connectthedots]

http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/petworkshop/stricklecture3.shtml

[JamesP81]

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.

Yes, some guy thinks God created the universe, ergo, the sky is falling. Good God man, calm down. Just because someone disagrees with evolution doesn't mean the energy-state death of the universe is at hand.

[atlaw]

I suspect those who take this class will be quite versed in ID and evolution, and will not let the lecturer get away with B.S. comments denigrating ID.

How just plain old questions, or is that off limits as denigrating ID as well?

[gondramB]

"What's funny is that you failed to prove your point. Instead you just provided baseless accusations and assumptions. Do you think that kind of crap would past muster in debate class?

Now try and cite specific evidence that proves your assertions."

No I still think the funny part is where you ask for proof that damaging science will harm the country and are not satisfied that the areas that support our strength in the world all depend on science.

That link seems very obvious to me but I don't have a way to prove on paper that energy ,biochem, medicine, aerospace, computers, telecommunications, defense will be harmed if science education is harmed.

And I don't have a way to prove that our country's strength depends on energy ,biochem, medicine, aerospace, computers, telecommunications, defense.

So I guess I guess you win and its ok to cut research and tech non-science in science classes.

[gondramB]

"
Yes, some guy thinks God created the universe, ergo, the sky is falling. Good God man, calm down. Just because someone disagrees with evolution doesn't mean the energy-state death of the universe is at hand."

You're right about that.

What we need is to recognize that faith can continue without being in conflict with exploring the natural world.

[Right Wing Professor]

Do you have any evidence at all for polyphyly in 23S RNA, which isn't subject to lateral transfer?

[Right Wing Professor]

Incidentally, as the paper I referenced points out, the evidence doesn't require it, either, and actually speaks against it in many ways.

The link completely ignores ribosomal RNA, whcih, if monophyletic, proves common descent, regardless of what other genes are laterally transferred.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

(Nobody is dissing those who believe in some god or other. However, it's fully appropiate to dis those who believe that their god created a universe full of fraudulent evidence for the purposes of fooling that gods creations.)


Is that what you AREN'T doing here.

(People can indeed choose to believe in utter superstitious rubbish. And in a way, that's for the best. We need stratification in society. While some will choose to discover facts and will go to the stars, some will choose to disbelieve facts, and will serve a useful role scrubbing toilets and sweeping the streets, and wondering why it is that their prayers aren't curing their diseases.)




And here


(Darwin's discovery of the facts of evolution, however, cannot be destroyed or swept under the rug, no matter how much the supernaturalists might want to.)



Here again


(Take it up with the superanturalists. They are the true experts at name-calling.)



Here too

(Is there *anything* funnier than a creationist? Well, the geocentrists, probably, but they are pretty rare. Though we do have some here at FR, disturbingly.)


I believe in God. I'm not a YEC. I believe evolution occurs, but, too what extent, I'm yet unsure. I do not dispute any evidence that supports evolution. I do wonder if it is always interpreted correctly. I don't think there is a stitch of fraudulent evidence around. I do believe that life was designed. I don't think it is appropriate to be taught as science under the criteria that defines science. I do think it is appropriate to be taught as philosophy. I also find the assertion that there is no designer, and it all just happened to be another philosophical view. Even though I believe in a designer, I do not advocate stopping research, as it would be most interesting to discover how a designer might have done it. I'm not sure why so many on these threads are terrified of belief in God leading to the "Dark Ages". It seems that many on these threads share my philosophy, and support further research even though they believe life was designed. You are rather belligerent in defending your philosophy. I would encourage you to quite hiding behind science in defense of your belief, and to debate it philosophically, as that is a more appropriate arena

[orionblamblam]

Surf through this rather lengthy thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1604848/posts

The posts by "GourmetDan" are especially enlightening in an "I'm dumber for having read that" sort of way. Also a fair heap of dishonesty in them, especially as the thread goes on and his arguements gets profoundly trashed. He does the "ID Goal Post Shuffle."

[orionblamblam]

>>(Nobody is dissing those who believe in some god or other. However, it's fully appropiate to dis those who believe that their god created a universe full of fraudulent evidence for the purposes of fooling that gods creations.)

> Is that what you AREN'T doing here.

Actually, it's *exactly* what I'm doing here. I'm dissing those who abandon reason for madness, who determine that the purely mundane in fact must have supernatural explanations.

> I'm not sure why so many on these threads are terrified of belief in God leading to the "Dark Ages".

Here's yopur problem: there's almost certainly *NOBODY* on these threads who believes any such thing. So, why do you say there are? Have you been tricked? Are you lying? Have you not thought about things critically?

Nobody is afraid that belief in God is goign to lead toa Dark Age. However, the wiser of us recognize that replacing hard fact with sup[erstition *can* lead toa Dark Age. You want to believe in a god? go right ahead. you want to beleive that the world was created last Thursday, looking old with our memories built in place? That's nuts. And that's just not that different from creationism.

> You are rather belligerent in defending your philosophy.

No. I'm rather belligerantly defending *reality.*

> debate it philosophically

Why? Should I also debate the germ theory of disease philosophically rather than scientifically? How about the theory of relativity? How about the theory of gravity? How about the historical theories that hold that the Nazis tried to exterminate Europe's Jews? In philosophy, there is no "wrong" answer. In science, there is.

[Dimensio]

Yes, some guy thinks God created the universe, ergo, the sky is falling. Good God man, calm down. Just because someone disagrees with evolution doesn't mean the energy-state death of the universe is at hand.

Are you aware that belief that God created the universe does not necessarily imply a disagreement with the theory of evolution?

[Conservative Texan Mom]

For something that almost nobody on these threads believes, It's brought up pretty much "every time" we start a new thread. If no one believes it, then what purpose does it serve other than to denigrate the intelligence of those who believe in a Creator, Designer, Maker, Source of intelligence, or so on?

With the exception of a few, I haven't read many posts that advocate replacing HARD FACTS with superstition.


(Why? Should I also debate the germ theory of disease philosophically rather than scientifically? How about the theory of relativity? How about the theory of gravity? How about the historical theories that hold that the Nazis tried to exterminate Europe's Jews? In philosophy, there is no "wrong" answer. In science, there is.)

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I did not suggest debating germ theory of disease, or the theory of gravity, or any other scientific theory philosophically. If someone wished to debate those theories they should do so following the epistemology of science, not philosophy. To apply an inappropriate epistemology in defense of either would be "stupid". Since, I believe that evolution does occur, I'm not even suggesting that we debate that. I am asking you to defend your philosophical belief that life could not have been designed, and that those of us who think it could have been are a bunch of superstitious toilet bowel cleaners.

If I am wrong, and this is not your position, then I recant.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Time to clean a toilet bowel placemarker

[balrog666]

With the exception of a few, I haven't read many posts that advocate replacing HARD FACTS with superstition.

How 'bout simply replacing belief in superstition with uncertainty, especially in the absence of any contrary facts? Is that too big a leap for you?

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Nope, that's not a leap at all! and, with the exception of the YEC, the answer is still NO.

[Sola Veritas]

"that is a recipe for scientific disaster as the Chinese and our other competitors don't suffer from that same issue."

I didn't realize that science between countries is a competition. In fact, I thought a common holding of "scientific fact" was a basis for communion. Isn't "science" a universal language?

Do you actually mean to say that we will fall technologically behind the Chinese? Do you rationally hold that questioning totally naturalistic explanations is somehow going to put us behind the Chinese in technology? If that is so, you are IMO mistaken and indulging in needless worry expressed in hyperbole.

[AndrewC]

Where's the office pool on how long it will be before the professor is moved next to the incinerator in the utility building?