Statements on Teaching Evolution
From Scienticity
JNShaumeyer (Talk | contribs) m (→Science Professionals) |
JNShaumeyer (Talk | contribs) (→Education Professionals) |
||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
The introduction of intelligent design theory in natural science courses would be a blow to the integrity of education in California. [...] [T]he domain of the natural sciences is the natural world. Science is limited by its tools — observable facts and testable hypothesis. Because religious beliefs are based on faith, and are not subject to scientific test and refutation, these beliefs should not be taught in the realm of natural sciences. | The introduction of intelligent design theory in natural science courses would be a blow to the integrity of education in California. [...] [T]he domain of the natural sciences is the natural world. Science is limited by its tools — observable facts and testable hypothesis. Because religious beliefs are based on faith, and are not subject to scientific test and refutation, these beliefs should not be taught in the realm of natural sciences. | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Hunter R. Rawlings III === | ||
| + | |||
| + | The ''Cornell Daily Sun'' reported{{ref|hrr}} on the State of the University Address, given on 21 October 2005 by Cornell University's interim president Hunter R. Rawlings III to a joint session of the Board of Trustees and University Council. Rawlings is quoted as saying: | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | We should not suspend, or rather annul, the rules of science in order to allow any idea into American education. Intelligent Design is a subjective concept. It is, at its core, a religious belief. | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
