|
AS A CORNELL-TRAINED ENGINEER, I
can agree with Hunter Rawlings that intelligent
design (I.D.) is not valid as science
and is at its core a religious belief ("God
and Man at Cornell," January/February
2006). He made a good case for this by
stating what makes something valid as science:
(1) it must have the ability to develop
new knowledge through hypothesis testing;
(2) it must allow modification of the
original theory based on experimental
results; and (3) it must allow renewed testing
through more refined experiments,
which lead to more refinements and
insights. He unfortunately failed to conclude
that evolution also therefore can't be
a science, even though it masquerades as
one. Evolution is at its core a religious
belief as well. It's a religion that elevates
chance to a causal power. It's a religion that
enables man to get rid of God, making
man supreme. "The fool says in his heart
‘There is no God.' " (Psalm 14.1)
Carol Worman Nolan '73
Warwick, Rhode Island
WE ARE TOLD THAT PROPONENTS OF
I.D. do "not delve into the identity of the
unnamed intelligent designer who guides
the mechanisms of life." If I.D.were science,
then one would think that the nature of the
designer would be one of the most vigorously
investigated questions.My lab at the
University of Manitoba studies the interactions
between plants and fungal pathogens.
We are currently investigating plant genes
activated as part of the resistance response
to the fungus.We are interested in when
each gene is activated, but also what the
fungus is doing at the time each gene is
activated.Would I.D. "scientists" be content
to study only the plant, not knowing anything
about the pathogen?
It would be intellectually dishonest to
say "we can't study the designer because
he/she/it is supernatural."What proof is
there that the designer is not some sort of extraterrestrial or superdimensional
being,
highly advanced, but still acting within the
laws of nature? Even a supernatural intervention,
at some point, must manifest
itself as a change in commonplace, measurable
things. If the designer drives evolution
by causing members of a new species
to suddenly appear, that is an event that is,
at least in principle, observable. The
designer might act in more subtle ways,
such as causing the same mutation to
occur simultaneously in many individuals.
We certainly possess the statistical tools to
detect these presumptive events after the
fact. Science has again and again made discoveries
in areas that were once thought to
be unknowable. Considering the profound
implications of a positive discovery, the
I.D. proponents should be using their
imaginations to come up with hypotheses
and designing experiments to test them.
Brian Fristensky '80
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Canada
I FEEL I WAS MISREPRESENTED AND
quoted out of context in the sidebar "Leap
of Faith" in your last issue. David Dudley
suggests that I admit my opposition to
evolution is based in religion, and in support
he quotes me as saying, "If I was an
atheist, I'd have a hard time accepting that
I.D. had any validity." I have never "admitted"
that my religious beliefs influenced
my rejection of evolutionary theory, and
in fact have been clear that my rejection of
its tenets is based simply on the absence of
any real evidence in support of them.
When speaking to Dudley, I explained
that I felt I had more room to think than I
would if I were an atheist, for while it is
"socially acceptable" to believe in evolution
as a Christian, the same cannot be said of
I.D. and atheism.Nevertheless I would hope
that, in whatever hypothetical situation and
in spite of whatever social or philosophical
pressures might be brought to bear on me, I would be willing to follow
the scientific
evidence to its rightful conclusions.
Hannah Maxson '07
IDEA Cornell
Ithaca, New York
Soapbox?
IN THE NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005
issue, the lead item in the Class Notes for
the Class of 1978 concerns a doctor
involved in an AMA peer review project "as
it pertains to expert witnesses in medical
malpractice cases." Then the item says,
without attribution (though presumably
the doctor said it), "This is an important
issue related to diminishing ‘junk lawsuits.'"
I have never considered the Class Notes
to be a soapbox. But since the subject has
been raised,we need to remember the other
side of the story: that doctors do sometimes
commit malpractice that seriously injures
patients. The medical profession is notorious
for refusing to admit mistakes and for
the intense loyalty many doctors have for
each other. It can be very difficult to find
expert medical witnesses willing to criticize another doctor's performance,
even where
clear malpractice has occurred. The AMA
peer review project is yet another effort by
physicians to limit the pool of so-called
"qualified" experts.
As an attorney who represents injured
people (usually not in the medical malpractice
context), I have no problem
engaging in a debate over the degree of
responsibility physicians should bear for
their errors, but I do not think this debate
belongs in the Class Notes.
Chuck Geerhart '81
San Francisco, California
Ed. Note: We agree that the Class Notes
should not be used as a "soapbox," and our
editors regularly excise political, economic,
and religious rhetoric from submitted items.
In this case, the term "junk lawsuits"--
commonly used to describe suits that are
frivolous or ask for excessive damages--
should have been preceded by the qualifier
"so-called."
Credit Where Credit Is Due
THANK YOU FOR PUBLISHING THE
picture of President Emeritus Frank
Rhodes presenting the Sam Johnson
Memorial Scholarship plaque to Gene
Powers Johnson '52, Helen Johnson-
Leipold '78, and Winifred Johnson Marquart
'81 (Alma Matters, January/February
2006). While the scholarship was
initiated by the Class of '50, it was funded
not only by Sam's classmates but by
twenty-four Cornellians from other
classes who served as trustees with him.
Their names, as well as those of Sam's
classmates, appear on the plaque, and
their caring and generosity were a very
important part of the effort.
Jim Hazzard '50
Ithaca, New York
Corrections-- January/February 2006
"Historic Honor," page 8: In the list of
supporters of the Ralph Janis Seminars in
History, we omitted the name of Bob
Cowie '55. We regret the error.
"God and Man at Cornell," page 44: In the
sidebar titled "Leap of Faith," we stated
that the IDEA Center was "founded by a
UC San Diego law student named Casey
Luskin in 1999." The correct date for the
founding is 2001, and Luskin was not a law
student at that time; he later entered the
law school at the University of San Diego. |
