Cornell President Says "Intelligent Design" Religion, Not Science

[sabra]

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/metro/apdesign10-21-05.htm

Cornell President Says "Intelligent Design" Religion, Not Science

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 interim president in the wake of this summer's sudden departure of former Cornell president Jeffrey Lehman.

[rodeodance]

1. oh oh--The right will have more amnuition to lable them as liberal!! but

glad he spoke out.

[rpannier]

2. HE'S A WITCH!!!!!! BURN HIM!!!!!

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!! Avert your eyes children! He may take on other forms!!!!! Heretic!!!!

[rkc3]

5. So he's.... made. of . wood?

Any excuse for a little Monty Python.

[VWolf]

7. Ummmm ... very small rocks? Churches? Lead?

:)

[rkc3]

9. Build a bridge out of her?

http://arago4.tn.utwente.nl/stonedead/main.html

If you're not familiar, this is a lovely little site for MP.

[papau]

19. cool - thanks for posting!

:-)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

30. turn him into a toad. He'll get better.

[regularguy]

10. He turned me into a newt!

I've gotten better....

[ozymandius]

22. I'll bet he weighs less than a duck.

And if not... burn him anyway!!!

[acmavm]

3. Excuse me but I have one question. If the world was created by

'intelligent design' why the hell did it bypass so many people. And how did it know that they were gonna be republican? Did the intelligent designer hate future republicans or what?

[rpannier]

4. scrub is proff of

DEVOLUTION. He's moving us back towards cro-magnon man.

[acmavm]

11. Hey, you and I agree. We are going through a process of Devolution

in a large segment of the species.

[Blaq Dem]

20. Intelligent design...so many stupid people

Yep. That makes sense.

I guess we're supposed to be dumb enough to believe in just anything.

[DrDan]

6. sure hope is wife is not an undercover CIA operative

[Missy M]

8. It is good to have an intelligent, rational person discussing this...

issue. "Intelligent design is not valid science" is clear and concise.
Discuss the issue of intelligent design at home, religious school or church if you wish to do so, but please leave it out of science class.
I wonder which right wing nut came up with the "intelligent design" BS in the first place because I sure question their intelligence.

[phantom power]

12. "It has no ability to develop new knowledge through hypothesis testing"

"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.

Hear hear! :applause:

[ProudToBeLiberal]

13. Cornellians Engage Crowd at Debate on Intelligent Design

Cornellians Engage Crowd at Debate on Intelligent Design
October 21, 2005

by Alex Lebowitz
Sun Contributor

The Cornell Political Coalition presented a debate in a crowded Kaufman Auditorium yesterday questioning if “intelligent design should be taught in public schools as part of the science curriculum.” The Cornell chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued against the theory being taught in public schools while the Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club, a newly formed group at Cornell, argued in its favor.

Intelligent design is a recent theory that explains how complex biological structures came to be in the modern world. The theory explains that an intelligent force played a major role in designing these structures. The major controversy involved in the debate is whether or not intelligent design is a religious belief. Teaching religious beliefs in public schools is considered a violation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

snip

“This is not a debate about religion,” said Michael Dill ’07. “Ideas do not go to church. We offer the merits of the ideas, not the people who purport them. Intelligent design explains natural changes that evolution does not. Evolution does not explain all the facts.”

snip

“Intelligent design is not a science,” said Everet Yi ’08. “It is a religious idea. If it is imposed upon people, it is a sign of religious dominance in a country and society which values religious freedoms. The Constitution forbids it.”


more at...http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/10/21/4358d81f8cb7a

[SCDem]

14. The whole Flying Spaghetti Monster Thing

"Ideas do not go to church. We offer the merits of the ideas, not the people who purport them."

Then where does it stop - if Intelligent Design is to be taught because it is ideas not church than Flying Spaghetti Monsterism must be taught and everything else that will come along - and the discussion originated out of a science room.

You'd never know would ya.

[slackmaster]

15. Sure, but which version of FSMism?

The Alfredians have quite a different view than the Marinarans or Pastafarians.

[papau]

17. Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death problem

As I recall the "war" was over the dip... :-)

[Spinzonner]

25. You forgot about those wacko Raviolians

[Canuckistanian]

28. We Pastafarai are the true followers

May the infidels be boiled in salted water for 8-15 min., then drained and lightly sprinkled with a good quality extra virgin olive oil.

[Gloria]

48. The Marinarians may have something to say about that....

eom

[Dudley_DUright]

49. Ramen Canuck

Those heretics need to be smothered in tomato sauce. ;-)

[Canuckistanian]

53. May ye be touched by his noodly appendage, my friend.

[teknomanzer]

55. All those are heresies...

Pestonian's alone know the the truth about FSM!

[ProudToBeLiberal]

16. Yeah I got an email about the Flying Spaghetti,

It was HILLARIOUS. lol

[sarcasmo]

37. WWFSMD my brother Pastafarian

[Zenlitened]

18. "Intelligent design explains natural changes..."

How?

How how how?

Do the IDers ever give a list of how ID explains natural changes?

:shrug:

[Dr Fate]

21. "God did it."

n/t

[arwalden]

23. Magic!

That's how.

[fshrink]

27. It sure doesn't explain

how a total idiot has been empowered to run a bloody world. Oh, wait, that's right, it's mysterious...

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[papau]

41. Teach us about science Zhade - and how your post relates to science.n/t

n/t

[Zhade]

43. Unlike IDiots, I leave the teaching of science to actual scientists.

And you know full well that my post was intended to mock those same IDiots.

They are fully deserving of being mocked, as they lie and/or ignore established facts to make their supernaturally-themed, unproven case.

[papau]

44. There are some good threads today on ID - all of which I think

agree with you - including my own posts.

:-)

I did not see an ID defender - perhaps all of DU is up to speed?

:toast:

I like your passion - but I could not think of any DUers that were into ID.

:toast:

:-)

[Zhade]

45. You posted in the Creationism/ID thread, I think?

In GD?

There's an example of the idiocy I'm describing in there.

And I am very aware, and happy, that you don't support the ID nonsense.

[rman]

26. ID is not a theory and it doesn't explain shit.

ID is not a theory and it doesn't explain anything.
The closest that ID-ers have come to explaining anything is claiming that ID explains something.

The closest they have come to anything substantial regarding ID is claims of holes in the theory of evolution. Those claims are fairly specific, and refuted every one of them. And even if they would shoot holes in the theory of evolution, that would only falsify that theory; it would not be proof that ID is correct.
There's no scientific substance whatsoever to ID. Even to call it a theory (as the article does) is an insult to science.

Perhaps it can be called a religious theory, but then that would explain why it has no place in science class.


I did send the above as feedback on the article (except for the shit part..)

[pinniped]

38. There they go calling it a theory again.

--Intelligent design is a recent theory--

[Festivito]

24. Hmm, but, he's not pope of the scientific belief system.

He should say that Intelligent design has not shown itself to be a valid science... not that it IS NOT valid science.

His pronouncement as fact simply entrenches boths sides further apart, and further divides our nation.

[The_Casual_Observer]

29. And then we have a dumb ass "president" who says

"intelligent design? sounds good to me, let's run with it!"

[YOY]

31. You have to be Interim President of Cornell to know that?

Pretty common knowledge and simple logic.

[JerseygirlCT]

32. You know what I really don't like?

The fact that this is news.

A university president calls ID religion -- and that makes the news. This shouldn't be something surprising.

[MindPilot]

35. Thanks for pointing that out!!

In other news, surgeons at Boston General today issued a statement saying that people bleed when cut. This follows an earlier press release from physicists at MIT who claim objects thrown into the air tend to fall back to earth.

[WildClarySage]

36. Hey, now, that gravity stuff is only a theory you know.

[JerseygirlCT]

51. LOL, exactly! nt

[Zhade]

33. Well, yeah. Only IDiots don't realize this.

NT!

[MarsThe Cat]

39. if the human eye is an example of intelligent design...

then why do so many people need glasses?

don't you think that an omnipotent, omniscient deity with an unlimited r&d budget and all the time in the universe could have done a better job?

[slackmaster]

42. God created us in His image, right?

We're fuckups, so maybe God is the greatest of all fuckups!

[MarsThe Cat]

46. that's my contention too-

if a god created us in his image, AND we're the result of 'intelligent design'...then who/what designed god?
i think the religoids have some 'splainin to do on this one.

[XemaSab]

50. Hear, hear!

:toast:

Or God could have given us two centers of focus, like raptors have. Or the ability to see at night like an owl, or see UV like an insect.

The part that really kills me about the IDiots is that they take parts that don't fossilize and that there's no record of, like the eye, and use them as examples. Why not use, say, the evolution of the hip in land animals as an example? Huh??? Pretty quiet over there...

It's like spontanous generation, or any other crackpot idea that science resolved a LONG time ago, only their examples are stuff that science has yet to resolve.

Personally, I have NO CLUE how the cheese in the fridge got moldy, so GOD must have done it! I have NO IDEA how the morning glories manage to take over the garden every year, so it must be GOD'S PLAN! And don't get me started on the crab grass! Or W! :D

[MarsThe Cat]

57. exactly-

why wouldn't the top-of-the-line model have the best peepers?

[jarnocan]

40. I like him

just met briefly when my son graduated, but seemed brilliant and nice. I just had started a thread on this subject at OLS, so this was helpful.

[Gloria]

47. Maybe I should fork over my class dues after all...

Thank you, Cornell. Some signs of life after all...

This doesn't mean I approve of cutting down the woods for that frigging parking lot...

[IDemo]

52. "Theory" doesn't mean "less than factual"

The word "theory" is too often used to suggest that the subject of the theory is itself unproven. Both gravity and evolution have been repeatedly observable; the theories underlying each do not somehow alter the likelihood of existence of either natural phenomenon:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

[NoodleyAppendage]

54. Damn...I was looking forward to FSM 101 classes.

Our beloved noodleness deserves to have his wonderment of creation taught to all carbohydrate-loving children...

Ramen.

B

[NAO]

56. "Some Mistakes of Moses" by Robert Ingersoll

excerpts from "Mistakes of Moses"...

"For many years I have regarded the Pentateuch simply as a
record of a barbarous people, in which are found a great number of
the ceremonies of savagery, many absurd and unjust laws, and
thousands of ideas inconsistent with known and demonstrated facts.
To me it seemed almost a crime to teach that this record was
written by inspired men; that slavery, polygamy, wars of conquest
and extermination were right, and that there was a time when men
could win the approbation of infinite Intelligence, Justice, and
Mercy, by violating maidens and by butchering babes. To me it
seemed more reasonable that savage men had made these laws; and I
endeavored in a lecture, entitled "Some Mistakes of Moses..."

"It is also my desire to free the schools. When a professor in
a college finds a fact, he should make it known, even if it is
inconsistent with something Moses said...With the single
exception of Cornell, there is not a college in the United States
where truth has ever been a welcome guest."

"Our country will never be filled with great institutions of
learning until there is an absolute divorce between Church and
School. As long as the mutilated records of a barbarous people are
placed by priest and professor above the reason of mankind, we
shall reap but little benefit from church or school."

"Just as long as religion has control of the schools, science
will be an outcast. Let us free our institutions of learning. Let
us dedicate them to the science of eternal truth. Let us tell every
teacher to ascertain all the facts he can -- to give us light, to
follow Nature, no matter where she leads; to be infinitely true to
himself and us; to feel that he is without a chain, except the
obligation to be honest; that he is bound by no books, by no creed,
neither by the sayings of the dead nor of the living; that he is
asked to look with his own eyes, to reason for himself without
fear, to investigate in every possible direction, and to bring us
the fruit of all his work."

"It probably will not be long until the churches will divide as
sharply upon political, as upon theological questions; and when
that day comes, if there are not liberals enough to hold the
balance of power, this Government will be destroyed. The liberty of
man is not safe in the hands of any church. Wherever the Bible and
sword are in partnership, man is a slave."


SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES by Robert G. Ingersoll (1879)
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/some_mistakes_of_moses.html