Cornell, ID, and Openness

Last week, Hunter Rawlings, the interim president of Cornell University (my alma mater), gave a speech on some of the scientific and public policy implications of the "intelligent design" movement. On the question of whether ID should be taught alongside evolution in science classrooms, his response is unequivocal, as it should be:

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.

But his real focus is the question of how society as a whole should address this issue, as well as the larger issue of the interaction of religion and civil society. On this point he is also unequivocal:

I want to suggest that universities like Cornell can make a valuable contribution to the nation's cultural and intellectual discourse. With a breadth of expertise that embraces the humanities and the social sciences as well as science and technology, we need to be engaging issues like evolution and intelligent design both internally, in the classroom, in the residential houses, and in campus-wide debates, and also externally by making our voices heard in the spheres of public policy and politics.

I agree with Rawlings that issues like these need to be tackled directly by expanding the discourse, not by the different "sides" hunkering down in their ideological bunkers and refusing to engage each other. And given Rawlings rather unambiguous statement to this effect, I was a little surprised to see this reaction:

John G. West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, which is a leader in the intelligent design movement, said he was concerned that Cornell's president was "fanning the flames of intolerance."

"A college president is in a unique position to create an atmosphere of free speech," Mr. West said. "If he's implying that faculty don't have the right to discuss ideas, I'm very concerned."

Clearly, the only one "fanning the flames of intolerance" here is West, and I can't help but wonder why. If West really wants ID taken seriously as science, then he should spend more time working on its scientific bona fides instead of taking cheap shots at someone who is actually encouraging public debate on the issue. But then it's altogether possible that West might have a completely different agenda.