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."

[js1138]

I have long since stopped worring about what you think of me, or what you think of anything. You have absolutely no concept of what science is or does, and no interest in learning.

Science is naturalistic because it is impossible for it to be otherwise. Problems that are outside the scope of naturalism are outside the scope of science.

I have no idea why people want to claim that theological ideas or religious history can be studied or confirmed by science. I can only assume that science has acquired some prestige over the centuries, an religion would like some of it to rub off.

This is a waste of time. Science will never answer the question of why existence exists, or what the attributes and actions of God might be.

Religious people have nothing to gain and much to lose by pinning their faith on things that must be verified by science.

You would know this if you ever listened to the words of Jesus. His words are about being kind and generous and loving, not about spewing legalistic theological mumbo-jumbo.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The idea of organized matter performing specific functions, like the idea of intelligent design, is not by necessity theological. But it is logical, reasonable, and well within the confines of scientific endeavor. Your statement above is a clear example of favoring philosophy over science. Your interest is not in the accuracy of knowledge to be obtained by science, but in supporting the unscientific notion that all things are natural.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

(Obviously, it has, since you've gone to the bother of inventing positions for your "opponant," positions he doesn't hold.)


If this is not a position you hold, then I shall do what I said, and recant. But, I did not invent this position just to oppose you.


This is YOUR statement.


(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.)


You seem to pride yourself on ridiculing those who believe in God. I had deduced, incorrectly it seems, that your belief is that there is no God. Which, applied to its full extent would mean that evolution was not designed. Now, it is your right to believe this, just as it is someone else's right to believe that there is a design guiding evolution. It seemed to me, that the root cause of your ridicule was emanating from this fundamental belief, which you do have the right to have. However, if this was the underlying foundation for your statements, such as the one above, I have the right to call to your attention that this is philosophical in nature. If it is dishonest to conclude this to be a philosophical issue, then please list all evidence that evolution could not have been designed by a creator, designer, maker, or so forth.


Since my premise is false though, and you do not take this position, then I stand corrected.

Hypothetically, if my premise were correct, then one should be careful in examining the root cause of derogatory statements before posting.


I am failing to see why you think I am dishonest, even though you keep insisting. I will concede that I may have drawn a false premise about you if I have taken your comments out of context. It was not purposefully dishonest.


(Yes, because you're debating dishonestly. I have little interest in actually debatign those who use such blatant falsehoods.)



May I suggest that you are accusing me of being dishonest because I am confronting you on a belief issue, and not a scientific one. I have no problem with you if your belief is that there is no purposeful design behind evolution. I do have a problem with you throwing out insults emanating from a false since of superiority based on such a belief.

Since this is not what you were doing, then never mind.


Will you kindly point out my falsehoods so I will formulate more accurate premises in the future.

[js1138]

I am saying that science can only study those things that follow regular processes. Regular phenomena, by definition, are natural.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Intelligent design, in case you did not know it, is a highly regular process.

[Antoninus]

"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."

There you go. Perhaps there's hope for American universities yet...

[js1138]

Intelligent design, in case you did not know it, is a highly regular process.

This seems to have remained hidden from those advocating Intelligent Design. They have, for two hundred years, been unable to explicate the process, provide specific examples, or describe the who, how, when and where of it.

Simply saying it is built in to the nature of matter is a restatement of the anthropic principle or fine tuning.

If you don't mind, science will continue its business of unraveling the specifics of this fine tuning. It makes no difference to the methods and goals of science.

[Boiler Plate]

That's one of those things you really know the answer to before you try to change the scientific community - much as you should study the government or the church before you try to run them.

Very profound, but, none the less, meaningless and simply a dodge on your part. There is no such thing as the "scientific community" there are associations, clubs, mailing lists, credentials, titles ect, but there is no ruling body, constitutions or elections that have end all, say all.

Science can be discovered or invented by anyone. It is elitism that is the greatest danger to science not ID or anything else. Most of what you would like to think of as the "Science Community" is big business with all the good and bad that comes along with it.

The biggest problem I see with evolution is that it is way to restrictive. My view of the universe is that it's infinite and it all has purpose and opportunity. The evo view of the world is meaningless, randomness and most of what is around us is a mistake. Now which view do you think promotes science?

[orionblamblam]

> This is YOUR statement.

Note the context that it was put in: not general belief in some god or other, but in a specific belief that some god or other did things in contradiction to all scientific evidence.

> You seem to pride yourself on ridiculing those who believe in God.

Wrong. It is a curious quirk among those whose faith is weakest and yet whose opinions are loudest that if you ridicule some ridiculous *facet* of a belief system, you are ridiculing the whole thing.

> May I suggest that you are accusing me of being dishonest because I am confronting you on a belief issue,

Suggest all you like. Doesn't change the fact that you are setting up dishonest strawmen. I seem to recall *some* religion or other had a minor provision that said that "bearing false witness" was a general no-no (it was probably in the small print, somewhere in a little-used Appendix at the back).... but I'm sure you'll get special dispensation.

[DennisR]

"...it threatens the future of the country.."

And how - exactly - does it do this?

[js1138]

The biggest problem I see with evolution is that it is way to restrictive.

Oddly inconsistent with your statement that it has no ruling bodies and can be done by anybody. The problem with your complaint is that the critics of evolution have had hundreds of years to do some science, and have not done any. This is their evaluation of the situation, not mine. This is the position of the Discovery Institute.

[Boiler Plate]

Oddly supporters of evolution refuse to debate the scientific merits of evolution with evolutions critics. Hmmm sounds like someone is afraid of something.

[js1138]

Supporter of heliocentrism have no interest in debating with geocentrists. Wonder why.

What we have on FR is not a debate, but rather a demonstration that not all conservatives are ignorant of science.

If you claim that the evidence has not been exhaustively presented, day after day, year after year, you are simply being untruthful.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

(Note the context that it was put in: not general belief in some god or other, but in a specific belief that some god or other did things in contradiction to all scientific evidence.)

I do indeed stand corrected!


(Wrong. It is a curious quirk among those whose faith is weakest and yet whose opinions are loudest that if you ridicule some ridiculous *facet* of a belief system, you are ridiculing the whole thing.)


Careful, you're bordering on a philosophical assumption here. Weak faith = loud opinion, reasoning behind this is?

I have also found it to be a curious quirk that opposing opinions often result to insults when evidence for an argument is weak.

Suggest all you like. Doesn't change the fact that you are setting up dishonest strawmen.

Please provide evidence of my purposeful dishonesty that I may be more cautious in the future.



I seem to recall *some* religion or other had a minor provision that said that "bearing false witness" was a general no-no (it was probably in the small print, somewhere in a little-used Appendix at the back).... but I'm sure you'll get special dispensation.


Another example that supports the probability that my previous premise was indeed correct. This premise being that the root cause of many of your comments is a general disdain for all things religion. I am beginning to suspect that you are attempting to twist an argument to avoid confronting the possibility that your "probable disdain" is founded in philosophy and not science.

You should have ended your reply with your first sentence.

[orionblamblam]

> Weak faith = loud opinion, reasoning behind this is?

Insecurity.

> Please provide evidence of my purposeful dishonesty

This thread, and your repeated misrepresentations. Had you truly misunderstood, you should have asked for clarification prior to making incorrect assessments.

> This premise being that the root cause of many of your comments is a general disdain for all things religion.

And where do you see that, praytell? Or are you unable to separate a complaint about *you* from a complaint about your *religion*? Are you that special? Are you Chosen of God?

I don't think so.

[gondramB]

""...it threatens the future of the country.."

And how - exactly - does it do this?

-----

I would refer the gentleman to my answer above.

[gondramB]

"You should have ended your reply with your first sentence."

It is sad but true that there are conservatives on each side of this debate who are not helping their "side" and also not helping conservatives to have good dialog and come to a useful conclusion.

[Boiler Plate]

js1138,
Look, if you claim there is no science behind ID, then you have nothing to worry about and the class will be abject failure. So relax and have a nice day.
Best Regards,
Boiler Plate

[Dimensio]

In addition to the fact that there are Christian and Jewish scholars who do not agree with the reference that you have supplied, there is also the matter that not all who believe in a deity are Jewish or Christian.

[js1138]

I have no problem with addressing ID in a history of science class, but since it has contributed no new ideas in 200 years, it is not exactly cutting edge.

There are areas of research that ID advocates cite as promising for their beliefs, but these areas are being explored quite adequately by mainstream science.

ID is basically the assertion that not everything can be explained. In the meantime, work goes on and explanations keep coming.