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."

[orionblamblam]

> if you claim there is no science behind ID, then you have nothing to worry about and the class will be abject failure.

Do you say the same regarding, say, the new law being passed about in California to mandate the teaching of the wonders of homosexuals?

[jec41]

But it is logical, reasonable, and well within the But it is logical, reasonable, and well within the confines of scientific endeavor. I>

What is the confines of scientific endeavor?

[jec41]

You should have ended your reply with your first sentence.

Good!! Stick to method. Argue philosophy with the method of philosophy and science with the method of science. The two are different and not interchangeable. You are learning.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Thank you. Orionblamblam seems to have missed the point that if his arguments are so well founded in science, then there should be no reason to resort to statements such as this:

(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?)

and this,


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

Here's a good response to one a while back.


you are calling me and all creationists cranks and crackpots.

(If the shoe fits...)

and, this one

(You're welcome. I find that laughter is the best response to cranks and crackpots.)

and my personal favorite,

(Indeed. 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.)

[jec41]

Science does not determine everything. Governments, democracy, taxes, laws, rights, and religion are all philosophy. They provide no new facts however they determine society by numbers. Though not modern nor having new knowledge, humans survived for centuries with little science. Some argue science a luxury and not needed by other species for survival. Science may slow our evolution because it provides for our survival and many changes may not be necessary. Although most of philosophy may be wrong it still provides a basis for society.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Evidence of insecurity? Other than circular reasoning.



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


I have given you an opportunity with in each post to correct me if I had misconstrued your statements. It was quite simple. You, however, chose to be combative. Why?



(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?)

Another interesting example. You seem to be unable to ask a legitimate question with out adding some sort of derogatory tag along. Why is this?

I took into consideration that I have misconstrued your comments on this thread, and that led you misconstruing my efforts at addressing this as "dishonest." So, I took the time to review your post from previous threads. In doing so, allow me to present some of the evidence that led me to my above mentioned premise.

Statement by Orionblamblam:

you are calling me and all creationists cranks and crackpots.

(If the shoe fits...)


and

(You're welcome. I find that laughter is the best response
to cranks and crackpots)

and


(Just figured I'd argue like a Creationist, and see what's it's like to go intellectually slumming. Much easier and quicker than using reason and facts, I must admit.)

This is a good one


(Ah, well. It hardly matters. While the IDers and the Geocentrists mioght well triumph, and the meek may well inheirit the Earth... thos who abandon such childish belief systems will conquer the universe soon enough. Maybe we'll leave the Earth and its culture of whack-jobism as sort of a zoo. It'll be entertaining to watch y'all try to build surface-to-space interceptors when y'all have to reject the rotation of the Earth.)

This one would have been an acceptable answer, except for the tag along.

(Ah. Then you *are* an evolutionist, then. God created the universe billions of years ago and set up the physical laws and constants such that Mankind eventually evolved by way of those physical laws.

*That* is a reasonable theology. But "Poofists" make baby Jesus cry.)

Another

(I scientifically tested the efficacy of rain dances multiple times as a child, and in my experience they never work.

Rather like prayers to God, then.)

and this,


(Intelligent design is the concept that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an “intelligent cause”

LEPRECHAUNS)


and here,

(Yup. Wonderful thing, science. It incorporates new evidence, rather than just closing its eyes, sticking its fingers in its ears and humming real loud.)

and the most honest of all,

Can you answer my last question without any personal attacks?
(Yes. But where's the fun in that? It'd be like posting about a Democrat without posting something like this:)


In light of my research, I have come to a different opinion than you. My opinion is that you do not really believe I am dishonest. I am holding you accountable for some very unscientific remarks, and you simply don't like it. I will grant this, you remarks may be primarily directed at YEC and a few others. You have science on your side, in this case. So, why do you feel the need to resort to comments like these:


(Interesting that you would bring the notion of killing your fellow man into a discussion that is entirely unrelated to that sort of thing. Will you kill someone who contradicts you in public? Will you kill a school teacher who teaches your children science and not your religion?)

and


(Indeed. God may or may not be decent enough fella. But his fan club... sheesh!)


of course, my personal favorite,


(Indeed. 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.)

[Conservative Texan Mom]

I'm grateful for science! I thihnk it has given us a great deal. I also believe that it is valuable to view the world through many facets, including, but not limited to science. I suspect most on these threads think the same.

[Fester Chugabrew]

What is the confines of scientific endeavor?

Anything that is intelligible.

[orionblamblam]

Interesting to see that I finally have a stalker.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . for two hundred years . . .

Two hundred years? Your version of history suddenly shrinks, as if the world did not know how to conduct science until Charles Darwin arrived on the scene. In general, science has been undertaken with the assumption the obsevable universe is intelligible, and as such is quite possibly a product of intelligent design. This assumption has little or no effect on the general conduct of science. To see you and your ilk jump like frogs at the suggestion intelligent design might be behind it all only serves as a clear indicator you are not really interested in science per se, but in defending a personal ideology that may have little or no bearing on objective reality.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

research= stalker, reasoning behind this?

Just wanted to be thorough, so as to not misconstrue anything.
Agreed?

I have to go, we have church tonight.

[scottdeus12]

"...In light of my research, I have come to a different opinion than you. My opinion is that you do not really believe I am dishonest. I am holding you accountable ...."

Good post, but unfortunately I think your valiant effort to document unsubstantiated personal attacks falls on deaf ears.

One cannot debate with an opposing viewpoint whose defense is a myraid of condescending remarks and unwarranted insults like the ones you have posted. Not to mention self-important statements such as, "..I have a stalker...."

CTM, I enjoy these threads and reading your posts. Please continue to do so.

Scott

[jec41]

What is the confines of scientific endeavor?

Anything that is intelligible.

Theology

[Fester Chugabrew]

Yep. Anything intelligible is open to scientific inquiry, i.e. within the confines of scientific endeavor. Unless, of course, one is closed-minded and thus either opposed to free inquiry or dedicated to a particular philosophy. Last time I checked it was evolutionists who prefer to use the law to choke out any mention of intelligent design in association with organized matter that performs specific functions. I guess they'd like to give former creationist tactics a whirl. Have at it, fellas!

[js1138]

I'm sorry, Fester, but science is a closed shop, and you don't have the key.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I hardly expect a devotee of an ideology to tell me what does or does not constitute science.

[js1138]

Sorry, It's a closed shop, and you're out.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Sorry, but your words, like your philosophy, are idle.

[Sola Veritas]

"You can't have it both ways."

Sophistry my friend. A disagreement with TOE is not an attack on science in general. Once again, you are placing too much importance on that one concept. You also do not make a logical case for your bold assertion that having americans not holding to TOE will put us behind China. You are reasoning in circles.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

I agree. I do enjoy the challenge.

Yes, I have noticed the number of self important statements too. I suppose they provide this individual some comfort, but it does make one wonder why there is such need.