Advertisement

Advertisement

News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education

Oct. 24, 2005

A Call to Action Against Intelligent Design

Cornell University’s interim president, Hunter R. Rawlings III, used his “state of the university” address on Friday to denounce “intelligent design,” arguing that it has no place in science classrooms and calling on faculty members in a range of disciplines to engage in public discussions about why the anti-evolutionary theory is both popular and wrong.

Looking for a job?
See all 139 new postings
Browse all job listings:
Faculty: 3,477
Administrative: 2,214
Executive: 192
FEATURED EMPLOYERS
Post a job

Related stories

Rawlings devoted the entire talk to intelligent design and to the role of Cornell and other universities in defending science from religious attacks. And he said it was time to do so again.

“I.D. is a religious belief masquerading as a secular idea. It is neither clearly identified as a proposition of faith nor supported by other rationally based arguments,” Rawlings said. “As we have seen all too often in human history, and as we see in many countries today, religion can be a source of persecution and repression. As Pascal, the great French philosopher, said, ‘Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.’ “

In recent months, the presidents of the Universities of Kansas and Idaho have also spoken out against intelligent design, which the overwhelming majority of scientists believe is a sham. The speech by Rawlings differed from some other recent criticisms of intelligent design by noting it has strong supporters among some students on his own campus (who promptly denounced his speech) and in his call for professors across fields to get involved in the debate.

Rawlings stressed that urging people to engage in debate does not mean that intelligent design has any place in the science classroom as a valid explanation. “A substantial fraction of the American people and of our own students accept creationism or intelligent design, so what is the harm?” he asked, before answering:

“The answer is that intelligent design is not valid as science, that is, 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.”

Rather than treat intelligent design as valid science, he said, faculty members should explore the issues raised by the theory’s spread.

“Social scientists should be asking questions such as: ‘How, if at all, might I.D. influence the public policy debate in the United States, given our strict separation of church and state?’ ‘What would constitute evidence of a conscious or intelligent designer of the universe?’ Humanists should be asking questions such as: ‘Are reason and faith polar opposites?’ ‘Are they inevitably antagonistic to one another?’ ‘How have the aesthetic roots of religious belief and the exploration of the spiritual shaped literature, music, art, and culture?’ ‘How might we frame conversations to talk about when human life begins amidst assertions that a definition of human life may be so inherently subjective as to preclude reaching a consensus?’ These are large and important questions. They go to the heart of our American democracy and to the essence of the human experience,” Rawlings said.

In an interview Sunday, Rawlings said that “this is really a cultural issue, in my view. This is not one scientific theory against another. This is religion and science.”

At the same time, he stressed that he did not view the defense of evolution as anti-religion. “I am concerned that we in the academy often do not take faith seriously enough and do not take religion seriously enough and we are often dismissive, and I don’t think we should be at all. I take faith very seriously, and religion is enormously important in the American experience,” he said.

In his speech, Rawlings cited a survey done regularly in a biology course at Cornell and noted that it indicated that many students shared some views that are similar to intelligent design. In the interview, he said he was initially surprised to find this level of support among Cornell students and nationally. “I’m surprised at how widespread it now is, and I think it’s particularly a problem right now in the public schools and within certain states, but it manifests itself elsewhere, too.”

William Provine, the professor Rawlings mentioned, asks students each year a series of questions at the beginning and end of an evolution course he teaches for non-majors in biology. While only very small percentages endorse the literal truth of the Bible or intelligent design in full, he said that fully half of students at the beginning of his course, and 40 percent or so at its end, say they agree that there is some “purpose” in the way evolution works.

Provine said that he encourages students who believe in intelligent design to defend their views and to challenge his, which is that intelligent design “is anti-science” and that those who are trying to add it to the school curriculum in some way “are trying to teach religion in science classes.”

Evolution does pose a challenge for some students’ religious beliefs, Provine said, and that is why he believes it is under attack right now. “I find that evolution is the most effective engine of atheism ever invented by humans, and I think the creationists are really afraid of something,” he said.

Provine praised Rawlings for calling for broader discussions of intelligent design and said such discussions were needed right now. He also stressed that rejecting intelligent design as science doesn’t mean you can’t engage with its proponents, as he has done many times.

Proponents of intelligent design at Cornell attacked Rawlings. A statement released by Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness, a student group, called the president’s speech “unscrupulous” and “unknowledgeable.”

Rachel Staver, vice president of the group and a nutrition major at Cornell, said that the organization has about 50 students on its mailing list and that 10 students participate in weekly discussions. “It’s very hard to get new ideas introduced into science because of the strength of scientific dogma and orthodoxy,” she said. Staver called Rawlings’s criticism of intelligent design censorship, adding that if science professors “were really confident of evolution,” they would accept the teaching of intelligent design as an alternate theory.

The Cornell student group is one of 23 that have been created recently at colleges and universities in the United States.

As intelligent design groups seek to spread their ideas, many scientists are fighting back. One recent petition drive gathered support from 7,733 scientists in four days. The petition was conducted in four days to contrast with the four years that it took the Discovery Institute, a leading proponent of intelligent design, to gather 400 signatures of scholars backing its views.

— Scott Jaschik

Got something to say?


Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Advertisement

Comments

Intelligent design

I would like someone to 1. Explain to me where the energy/matter came from that exploded in the “big bang” to create our known universe, and 2. Give me the name of a lab that has created a living organism out of inert matter.

Hans Gesund, at 7:20 am EDT on October 24, 2005

it’s not a theory. and every time any form of journalism uses such a term for id, they are inadvertently lending it undeserved legitimacy.

Jonas!, Mastermind at The CardBoard Box Mansion, at 9:46 am EDT on October 24, 2005

A Colossal Waste of Time

A president of a top university stands up for his “State of the University” address and proceeds to assault Intelligent Design? Is there nothing else of importance in this world for discussion?

If people want to believe evolution, let them believe it! If people prefer to believe in creation, let them believe it! Who cares?

You can’t change someone’s mind with a rant about your beliefs and you can’t stop a movement of individuals with legislation and condemnation.

Most scientists say that Evolution is science and ID is not. Well that’s great! They are free to think how they want and may they continue to excel in their field.

Nonetheless, regardless of what you choose to teach in the classroom, you cannot control what a person chooses to believe. Legislate all you want because in the end, each individual will make up his own mind!

Regards, Donnell Duncan, Founder and President, The Cracked Door, “If the Door is Open, the Door is Cracked!”

Donnell, Civil Engineering (Structures) Graduate at Georgia Instititute of Technology, at 9:46 am EDT on October 24, 2005

So am I to understand that we need to keep religion out of the science classroom, yet at the same time accept that “evolution is the most effective engine of atheism ever invented by humans"? Does anyone see the inconsistency here?

Perhaps if science was taught without the atheism (which is also unprovable), then this argument would be more persuasive.

D Hill, at 9:47 am EDT on October 24, 2005

But on the other hand....

At first glance, I’m encouraged by Rawlings comments to engage in a discussion. I particularly applaud the foundation for debate he puts forward in paragraph 8.

But on the other hand....

Rawlings continues to identify intelligent design as a “problem” that must be “solved.” He can barely bring himself to say “intelligent design,” and instead uses the acronym “I.D.” He champions evolution as the flag-bearer of atheism, and mentions a study that showed less students believed in some kind of greater purpose before taking an evolution class than after taking the class. And he is amazed that so few changed their minds — expecting all students to be indoctrinated by evolution.

Yes, I believe that God created all things and His presence is evident. Whether the Earth was created in seven days or seven milion years is, to me, a minor point. The point is that God is the Creator.

I also understand why science has such an issue with God the Creator. Rawlings sums it up well in paragraph 5. Of course intelligent design is about faith, and science is about reason. But to say they are incompatible and cannot exist in the same universe is short-sighted. I’m glad that Rawlings is opening the door to a discussion which I think can only lead to better understanding, and even common ground, between faith and reason.

Tom McCool, Ivy Tech Community College, at 9:57 am EDT on October 24, 2005

The federal trial over ID

It is telling that in the federal court trial against the Dover, PA school board — which required the teaching of ID in high school science classes last year — the lead witness for the school board today is a sociologist from Britain. Using a sociologist as a defender of ID is an indication of the shaky ground on which the school board finds itself in trying to defend its position of teaching ID as “science.”

Don, Associate Professor and Senior Research Associate at Penn State University, at 9:57 am EDT on October 24, 2005

answers to mr. gesund’s questions

1. gee, i don’t know. (i also don’t know where the tomato in my breakfast burrito came from, so i guess that proves it was made by a god who created the entire world on oct. 10, 4004, B.C., or the diety of the indian tribe who came to earth as a hawk and created life, or the great spirit in the volcano, or those strange beings atop mt. olympus, or... of course, there are no lab experiments that scientifically prove any of their existences.)

2. repeat #1, above.

and, of course, there’s the wonderful human conceit that whatever being presides over us must be not merely superior, but “supreme.” might it not be that the intelligent designer was itself designed by an even more intelligent designer (of intelligent designers), and that one by an even more intelligent designer...and so on, into infinity? just think how much valuable time in science classes we could waste by discussing that one!

Peter Plagens, at 9:58 am EDT on October 24, 2005

Intelligent Design

In response to Hans: The argument you present is interesting, but it seems to me that ID proponents are going far beyond the question of the origin of the first molecule in the universe. They are attempting to use the Bible and Christian mythos to discredit scientific evidence. Many students become confused because of this either/or scenario. Often, they are new to the idea of critical thinking—analysis and synthesis— and feel that to support Science is to betray their faith. As Dr. Rawlings points out, this is not a new debate. Many scholars are motivated and guided by their faith; however, while faith may be a part of their thinking—their perceptions—this need not blind them to scientific evidence.

K. Robertson, at 9:58 am EDT on October 24, 2005

Igmund Dunder strikes again!

It’s hilarious to me that defenders of I.D. continue to cite both “free inquiry” and “freedom of thought” as the justification for teaching mythology in science classrooms. Their entire argument and method shuts down any notion of scientific “inquiry” or “freedom of thought,” and instead offers “belief” as a legitimate grounds of knowledge. That may be fine for deciding what lifestyle and dress you choose, what church you attend, or what behaviors you find acceptable—but it’s not legitimate SCIENCE. Evolution is not a “belief"—it’s a theory developed through observation, testing, analysis, logical reasoning, and reproducible results. It expands and develops (one might say “evolves") with new discoveries and new technologies. This is what science does. I.D. on the other hand, is a stagnant belief in an a priori “cause” that can never be tested, disproven, or changed. It’s simply a default position for those who aren’t interested in inquiring any further. Teaching it in a science classroom defeats the purpose of all scientific inquiry, it returns us to a medieval mindset in which all roads of thought lead to the same conclusion, and all alternative notions are mere “heresy,” regardless of the “facts” or the inconsistencies that are clearly observable in nature. One needn’t “prove” where the original energy of the Big Bang came from or the recreate the moment at which organic life began in order to scientifically examine the results of those events. And the current limitations on our knowledge don’t “prove” the existence of some supernatural Creator—unless what He really represents is simply ignorance.

huntly, at 10:31 am EDT on October 24, 2005

Red Herring

Rawlings motivations seem questionable to me. I say this based on the following quotation: ““As we have seen all too often in human history, and as we see in many countries today, religion can be a source of persecution and repression.”

What does persecution have to do with anything? (Never mind that atheism in its militant form — in the former Soviet Union, for instance — is responsible for far more mass death than religion). His fretting about persecution betrays the fear of religion that is at the root of his position.

If he wants to establish Evolution as the only correct position, he had better find a way to do so without pitting it against religion. If religion “has no place in the science classroom", as the opponents of I.D. are fond of saying, why do people like Rawlings insist on making that the focus? Did Rawlings actually explain what is faulty about the science of I.D.? Isn’t that the only logically consistent way for the proponents of Darwinian evolution to take it on? Just saying that that I.D. is “religious” is a great example of the “poisoning the well” fallacy.

I find these Secular Savonarolas so tiring.

Cicero, prof., at 10:36 am EDT on October 24, 2005

Intelligent Design versus Untilligent evolution

The ongoing discussion of ‘intelligent design’, while interesting, seems to obscure two important issues. One issue pertains to the evolution of evolution itself and the possible evolution of creation, along with possibilities of parsimony in theses on evolution and creation. I believe that persons interested in the religious and spiritual aspects of the debate about evolution and creation should focus their attention and energy on these matters. For example, there are legitimate criticisms of specific theories of evolution, just as there are legitimate criticisms of specific outlooks on creation. My own research on long-term memories in living systems suggests that the findings of two ‘human genome projects’ reveals greater parsimony among Darwin’s and Lamarck’s views than had ever been appreciated. Indeed, I recently reported that Darwin’s models can explain ‘nature’ and at most 25% of human evolution. An alternative model can explain ‘nurture’ (which also involves changing DNA), though its changes are not transmitted “genetically” and most often are localized as in brain and/or the immune system. Both nature and nurture then are found to be parsimonious.

A second issue involves a need to distinguish between ‘intelligent design’ and the ‘unintelligent’. Both approaches to evolution cited above reveal the central importance of understanding both the ‘unintelligent’ and the fortuitous. To be sure, one is awed by the remarkable sophistication in structures, organs, and organisms which have evolved. However, sophistication is not the equivalent of ‘intelligent’. One only needs to contrast the evolution of different structures, organs and organisms to fully appreciate diversity in sophistication, and, by inference, the range in the ‘unintelligent’.

Roulette Wm. Smith, Ph.D.E-Mail: najms@postgraduate-interdisciplinary-studies.org

Roulette, Director at IPIS, at 10:36 am EDT on October 24, 2005

Tom Cool and I.D.

Tom Cool states that “God’s presence is everywhere.” That is a matter of faith. It can neither be proven nor disproven. That is what is wrong with Intelligent Design. It can not be proven, scientifically. It is a matter of faith.

The more I read, the more I study, the more I realize that the issue of faith is an internal matter without scientific basis. Religion has no place in a science classroom, nor in any legitimate study. It is the supporters of I.D. who are destroying the education fabric in the USA, attempting to devolve knowledge to the primitive fantasies of the Middle Ages when all things were answered with the simplistic comment “God decides.” No, no god is involved in the actions of mortalkind, for mortals chart their own destinies, are responsible for their own atrocities, and attempt to excuse their nefarious dealings with the medieval slogan “Deus veulte.” Religion is nothing more than another way of saying “I do not know,” and “God” is the word for those too lazy to investigate, study, and learn.

Arthur Ide, PhD, MD, DA, Lima, Peru, at 10:41 am EDT on October 24, 2005

Intelligent Design

I continue to be amazed that many academicians can spend so much time on such an unimportant subject such as this. The fact that something is “not scientifically proven” is a poor reason for for eliminating any discussion of this subject, assuming there should even be time spent in such a discussion. Rather then “calling people to action” over something as inconsequential as this, why not call people to action over something that matters?

We have far too many children graduating from high school who can’t even read this theory, nuch less question and discuss it. Why not call to action over that problem? Or how about coming up with ways to repair our weakened Social Security System or maybe putting their energy in coming up with ways to resolve or current health care problems?

I could go on to a number of other challenges that we face which I believe academicians can play a vital role in resolving but then I stand a chance at becoming as boring as they. Are they mustering for a fight on this because the stakes are so small?

I suspect that I am being too harsh but I continue to wonder when some of the best minds in the country are going to step off the safe little commmunities they live in (called campuses) and help our country face the basic problems that we have.

Ron Diegelman, Partner at MMS Advisors, LLC., at 11:17 am EDT on October 24, 2005

Arthur Ide

Arthur Ide says “Religion has no place in a science classroom, nor in any legitimate study.” The first part of that statement is reasonable enough, but the “any legitimate study” part is an absurd and ignorant proposition. How can we study human culture without thinking about religion? How can we study philosophy without evaluating claims for a creator? I guess, if Ide is correct, I can no longer teach Milton in my Brit. Lit. Survey. I can’t help but doubt the credentials Ide lists for himself, since if he has ever spent more than five minutes in a university, he surely would not make such an absurd assertion.

He also, by the way, has a very poor understanding of the medieval period, probably because he is laboring under the unfounded assumption of “progress.” People are not any smarter in 2005 than in 1100. We just have more gadgets.

Your post, Mr. Ide, seriously begs the question and merely provides an example for my previous assertion that those who are most opposed to religion in the classroom are the same people most likely to turn to faith-bashing as opposed to logical argument, ranting about the “primitive” medieval thought rather than telling us what is scientifically wrong with I.D. In fact, your lack of logic is overwhelming. Unless you are sitting on the world’s first proof for the non-existence of God, I believe your assertion that “mortalkind” is responsible for itself is improvable and thus, under scientific reasoning, deserves no credit. Atheism is a religion too; it takes a great leap of faith.

Cicero, at 11:48 am EDT on October 24, 2005

It is sad that people continue to intentionally confuse things like “not scientifically proven” with “not science.” If you discard the scientific method and no longer care about testability and replicability, you are not doing science. Not even faith should be able to equate science with not-science, but the anti-scientific continue to insist upon this equation.

Why is this important? Weelllllll, for one thing, science is the strongest fuel available to the economies of developed nations. So even if you don’t care about things like making rational long-term plans to preserve a decent quality of life on earth, you should have some concern about the short-term economic effects of bad science policy.

A hint: What is wrong with American science education today is NOT that there is TOO MUCH science in the science classroom. REMOVING some of the SCIENCE to make MORE ROOM for the NOT-SCIENCE is not going to make science education more successful.

In Japan, this whole “debate” is hard to take seriously, but when one is successful in making the point that this sort of silliness actually drives educational policy, the conclusion that is reached is that the US is unilaterally disarming itself for its own economic future.

Shooting oneself in the foot is bad. Shooting oneself in the head can be fatal.

Thane Doss

Thane Doss, at 11:54 am EDT on October 24, 2005

Oh, Wake Up!

Hans, I suggest you consider the first chapter of A Brief History of Time. In it, Hawking lays out a scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe. Now, thile this may not be satisfactory for some, you should go on to consider that the issue of the beginning of matter and energy is addressed by neither evolution nor ID (save four syllables per). Bringing ID into the science classroom will resolve none of the concerns you have addressed in any of the comments you have made on any story about ID on this site.

Donnell, what is a colossal waste of time is comments that are off topic. This issue is not about, nor has it ever been about changing what people believe.

This issue, like this site, is about education. The question of whether or not schools (at any level) should teach ID in the science classroom is an issue of great importance to the state and nature of education. How we answer that question could alter dramatically the ways in which we pursue science for decades. If discussing such an issue is, for you, a “colossal waste of time,” your spending time commenting on it puzzles me.

What I want to know is this: What justification is there for including ID in the science classroom? Please, people, if you answer that question, do so in a way that addresses the two elements of the question itself: science and pedagogy.

Andrew Purvis, at 2:42 pm EDT on October 24, 2005

ID is just an idea ... no more, no less.

For the record, I believe that Darwin got it right and that evolution is correct; but, I also think that intelligent design can be examined as a philosophical question. Reactions like those of Mr. Rawlings fall very neatly into the Chicken-Little category. The creationists don’t understand intelligent design conceptually but use it for their own ends and purposes; however, neither do people like Mr. Rawlings. Both should do what they’re best at and leave these questions to those individuals who have been part of this informal discussion for the past 15 years. Does Mr. Rawlings object to the physicists and mathematicians at Cornell University spending their time doing research and teaching string theory? String theory is not replicable in the laboratory and is not confirmed by observation in nature. Now, I am in no way equating intelligent design with string theory. I find string theory interesting (to the best that I can understand it) and hope that work in this area will continue but I think some small parallels exist. The point here is that it is not ID that should trouble Mr. Rawlings and those who shout the loudest against it; ID itself is just a symptom of the real problem. The real problem is the profound and stunning level of innumeracy and scientific illiteracy that exists in this country. Perhaps what troubles Mr. Rawlings and others is a fear that they may be part of an educational system that has done such a poor and dismal job, of not just teaching science and mathematics, but engendering a love of science and mathematics. ID as science is just an example of that innumeracy and scientific illiteracy.Intelligent design is just an idea, we need not fear it or burn it at the stake; it will blossom or wither on its own and we will be that much more educated. Focus on the real problem at hand in this country – lack of interest in natural science.

Joe Viscomi, Syracuse University, at 3:12 pm EDT on October 24, 2005

A Call to Action Against Intelligent Design

Of course “intelligent design” should be taught in schools, but only in English classes when they’re teaching a unit on mythology. Christian mythology is no less deserving of study than Greek, Norse or any other quaint pantheon. The story of Adam and Eve fits nicely with the tales of Prometheus or Marduk and Tiamat.But anyone who tries to teach it as science should be fired, because they’re not teaching, they’re actively spreading ignorance and superstition. This is the 21st Century, not the Dark Ages, and evolution has been -amply- proven at this point, right up to the process of speciation being studied in insects and microbes.

Kraig Blackwelder, at 4:19 pm EDT on October 24, 2005

It’s religion, not science

“Intelligent Design” postulates some sort of Supreme Being by whatever title. That is supernaturalism and by definition outside the realm of science. It therefore it has no place in a science curriculum. It is as simple as that. This debate will be won on constitutional grounds, not scientific, like all the other creationism cases before it. Someone up there in these comments said it “doesn’t matter” what we teach in classrooms because we can’t change what people “believe". What a sorry statement about education! Figures that it came from a non-educator. Teaching matters, as do ideas.

Mark A. Wilson, Professor of Geology at The College of Wooster, at 6:13 pm EDT on October 24, 2005

Responses

Joe, string theory has some theoretical math behind it, although many physicists question its veracity. ID doesn’t have theoretic math, it has some weak philosophy.

Essentially, thats what ID has become — a weak natural philosophy that accords better with faith than does the science of the modern era. I have to objection to discussing its merits — but not in a science class and not in a required course.

Some areas are simply not an opinion oriented areas. It would be nice if “leaders” like the president of Cornell could seperate this issue from politics and religion and analyse it based on science.

As a person, who, like Dr. Rawlings, is an atheist and a proponent of evolution, to hear that one leads to the other only strengthens the arguements of those who oppose science. Many religious individuals believe in evolution and science — many atheists have resorted to decidedly unscientific beliefs. The connection is a stretch at best and at worst ammunition for the Discovery Institute.

Lastly, I wonder why Dr. Rawlings considers it necessary to pick a fight with ID advocates in his speech, unless it is in response to some particular action at his university on their part. I wonder what the provocation, if any, was.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 6:59 pm EDT on October 24, 2005

Not So Intelligent Design.

Here’s a link to “Not So Intelligent Design", which critiques ID theory:

http://irascibleprofessor.com/comments-09-29-05.htm

Dr. Mark H. Shapiro, at 4:38 am EDT on October 25, 2005

ID in the College Classroom

I, as an English instructor, plan to dedicate one three-hour class session next semester to ID. I will be doing this in my critical thinking course, the primary purpose of which is training students to understand multiple perspectives while finding sound evidence to support the positions they hold.

The method I use in class, where I enforce strict rules regarding proper conduct (no direct attacks, no bald assertions the speaker refuses to back up, etc.), involves dividing the class into three general groups—pro, con, and undecided—and opening up a free form discussion between the camps. When the division is unbalanced, I join the side that is short, regardless of my personal beliefs.

ID will get an airing in my class, and I will encourage my students to study all of the claims made by all sides. This is how ID should be addressed in the college classroom, given the scientific information we have in hand right now. My position remains, however, that while it should be discussed, those discussions should not take place in the science classroom.

Andrew Purvis, at 4:38 am EDT on October 25, 2005

Synthetic biology versus Intelligent Design

I find it interesting that Synthetic Biology (SB) has hit its stride as a tangible applied scientific field at about the same time that Intelligent Design (ID) has apparently attained some kind of critical mass in the nonscientific culture. Both SB and ID promote a strictly materialist-technological view of biology, but SB demonstrates that the alleged “design” involved doesn’t require any kind of superhuman or supernatural intelligence. If humans can figure out how to engineer novel organisms, then if an “Intelligent Designer” created our prototypes, it didn’t need to possess intelligence much greater than ours, either.

Mark Plus, at 4:38 am EDT on October 25, 2005

Intelligent design is not science

As the discussion of science and intelligent design rages, it seems to me a simple way to sort out the educational dimension would be a decision by institutions of higher education to make clear that couses in which time is spend on intelligent design teaching would not be accorded science credit for purposes of admission to higher education, meeting distribution requirements, or other purposes. Courses that treat i.d. as science would be catagorized as humanities, or arts, but in light of the inability of i.d. to subject itself to the scientific method would be ruled inelligible for any science credit.

James Collins, at 11:16 am EDT on October 25, 2005

Intelligent design

I find it another sad day when supposed smart people can’t tell the difference between religion and science. I believe it is proof that we are only infinitesimally smarter than the apes. If we could genetically increase our intelligence by just a couple of percent, I believe our superstitions (religion) would disappear and mankind could actually make improvements in the human condition (through science of course).

Sam S.

Sam Sharp, at 1:08 pm EDT on October 27, 2005

Biological research is dependent on ID

I’ve got news for all you ID critics. ID is already employed in biological research! Michael Ruse, a prominent philosopher of science says:

“Both history and present Darwinian evolutionary practice have shown us that design-type thinking is involved in the adaptationist paradigm. We treat organisms –the parts at least — as if they were manufactured, as if they were designed, and then we try to work out their functions. End-directed thinking – teleological thinking – is appropriate in biology because, and only because, organisms seem as if they were manufactured, as if they had been created by an intelligence and put to work.” Michael Ruse, Darwin and Design: Does evolution have a purpose?, p. 268 (Harvard, 2003)

Warren

Warren, at 6:13 pm EDT on October 29, 2005

Intelligent Design Danger

Ideas are dangerous. He is right to fight back against threatening thoughts. Don’t debate.Sic the ACLU on the ID’ers, and sue the pants off them. That’ll determine what’s scientific truth.

Quentin L F Patch, at 3:06 pm EST on October 31, 2005

It is hard to believe

I have been following the ID stories for some time and it is hard to believe that so many americans cannot differentiate between religion and science.

It is also surprising to see that parents/ school boards/law, who may not know anything about science, can influence what is taught in science class.

Accepting ID is like saying I do not know and I do not need to prove it. Anything complex, here complexity can be relative, may be associated with ID. This will have great implication for science.

So what will be the discussions in science class. Teacher: Why is the sky blue? Student: Um don’t know ...it is so difficult and so perfect, the ID created it that way. Tecaher : Pretty close...any other answers.

How about biology class? Teacher: do you know anything about mitochrondria?Student: I read the reference materials twice (about people and pandas), but still do not know. So can we assume anything that is not covered in the book as designed by an ID......

Shyam, General Manager at Hong Kong, at 4:39 am EST on November 10, 2005

ID as science

I am from Dover PA that the big controversy took place, and the feeling in the community is varied. The religious people tend to force their beliefs on those that believe differently. The majority of the Dover residents had no problem teaching ID in a philosophy class or in a history class. The religious people who tried to push the idea through behind closed doors wouldn’t hear of it. It was as the judge said a group of uninformed people tried to push their religious agenda on everybody else. As a scientist I have no problem teaching ID in it’s proper setting but not as science. If and when the ID supporters can come up with testable evidence and fullfill the requirements of the scientific method then I think mainstream science would have no problem investigating it further. As it stands right now it is no more science than astrology. It is unreasonable to force your beliefs on another. What happens when your belief conflicts with another major faith based belief? There are many religioous beleifs on this planet and this country was founded on the freedom to worship as you please without fear of proscecution. Critical thinking is important and should never be stiffled but you can’t make something science by saying it is so. As any scientist will tell you we have advanced science through a set of principles that were put in place to verify integrety of data gathered. We can’t throw away that which has served so well throughout its history. Only those that don’t understand what science is could or would make such a claim. An example of this type of thinking was put forth on this very forum when one gentleman said that atheism was responsible for more deaths ( giving the former USSR as an example) than was religion. By that very statement it was obvious he hadn’t done his homework. People we have churches of all denominations in this country, they are there so you can teach your beliefs among others that share your views. Leave science to scientists and faith in the church or at home.

Paul, research chemist, at 5:40 pm EST on January 24, 2006

Don’t Be Brainwashed

I honestly cannot imagine how so many can be brainwashed into believing this “Intelligent Design” crap. We are all born with no knowledge of religion or anything else for that matter. Religion only exists because we are told it exists. The same holds true with “Intelligent Design". Those who believe that “Intelligent Design” is reality and Evolution is false are simply being brainwashed by those who have been brainwashed before them.

You have to weigh the facts of the issue. I know what you are asking yourself. “Isn’t the only reason people believe in Evolution because they were told it exists?” The answer is simply NO. In order to prove anything, you MUST HAVE EVIDENCE. Going on the words of someone else is pure insanity. There is enough proof around us that Evolution is happening and is reality. What proof can ANYONE IN THE WORLD give that “Intelligent Design” is real? NONE. You can’t. Saying that the Bible is proof is completely false. The Bible is a perfect example of people telling people what exists and what is right/wrong to control their lives and keep them controlled.

I was never taught one way or another about religion. I was never told that God did exist or that he didn’t exist. I have been neutral, and I figured it out on my own by simply observing the world I live in. I suggest you do the same. Believing something just because someone tells you to, and without any evidence whatsoever, is brainwashing plain and simple.

Make up your own minds.

Pro-Evolution, at 12:15 am EDT on April 24, 2006

Advertisement

 Jobs Related to A Call to Action Against Intelligent Design

or search for jobs directly.

Assistant Professor — Earth Sciences/Meteorology — Full-Time Tenure Track Faculty Opening
California University of Pennsylvania

Located on the Appalachian Plateau, an area of rolling hills, California University of Pennsylvania is a short drive from ... see job

Vocational Instructor
Temple University

* * PART-TIME * * The incumbent will conduct non-credit, vocational instruction to a variety of criminal justice personnel ... see job

Greensboro Bureau Chief
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

This position is responsible for general assignment reporting including quick turn-around spot news, interviews, reporter ... see job

Staff Nurse
Cornell University

Located in Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell University is a bold, innovative, and inclusive teaching and research university of ... see job

Student Academic Counselor/Qatar
Weill Medical College of Cornell University

Founded in 1898, and affiliated with what is now New York-Presbyterian Hospital since 1927, Weill Cornell Medical College ... see job

Senior Writer
University of California, Merced

Are you Communications professional? Interested in being a part of a developing Communications Department? Come join the ... see job

Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Assistant Professor of Sociology/Health & Behavioral Sciences
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center-Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora

Posting Description: The Departments of Sociology and HBSC invite applications for a tenure-track, Assistant ... see job

Youth Sports Health Coordinator (112087)
Northeastern University

Northeastern University, founded in 1898 and located in Boston, is a private research university that is a leader in ... see job

Registrar
Ithaca College

Job Description: Ithaca College invites applications for the position of Registrar. This position is ... see job