Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University

I see no reason not to explore the idea of intelligent design.
I do have to wonder though. What definition of inteligence will be the measure? To me that will be a sticky one.

I am curious, What was to be the agenda...what structure, from what point of view or take is this class being aproached?I would have to agree that the seti program in many ways paralells this. We are seeking evidence of inteligent life we have no proof of, based on our definition of what inteligence is.

If we were already aware of a creators existance the search for inteligent design would be mute wouldn't it? I believe in this instance you do not mean design but rather intent. What science searches for intent?

Why is it that the question of a creator seems to be taboo in science? One would think it a worthy pursuit. Certainly more worth while than a theory that basically embraces the idea that stuff happens.
The perception of randomness that many have come to call the process of evolution may not be correct. It is an assumption. If one can teach that something that is not fully understood is random, why not give the perception that it is not random equal time? Why is one perspective more valid or less valid than the other?
How does one prove randomness? Randomness is a perception is it not?
To my understanding randomness has no support in fact.
If one thinks in terms of cause and effect there is no true random is there? Isn't it only relative based on point of view?

A deterministic or non deterministic view has nothing to do with science. Science gives no absolutes. Anyone who arives at such a conclusion is simply stating how they feel. Since when is probability not deterministic? Being on the ignorant side of the equation may delude some to false conclusions.Anywho. Perhaps there would not be such a push to bring ID into existance in education if many following evo did not promote the assumption that selection is random. Natural selection does not say random. One cannot follow evo and promote design or non design and remain impartial as science must. In this aspect of evo there has been a point of view promoted that has no basis in fact.
From my perspective there is no difference between claiming randomnessand claiming design. However if one is to teach design it must be without naming the designer. In this way it must remain impartial.
It should also completely avoid the search for intent. That would make it religion.Design or non design is a glass half empty/full kind of thing. In truth all ideas of that nature are non scientific animals/points of view and should never be confused with science. When we do, science ceases to be the wonderful tool it is and becomes a very dangerous and altogether different animal. It is no longer impartial and becomes someones tool for agenda.

Only by your perspective. These perspective have nothing to do with science. Correct. The question of a creator or lack ther of, is non scientific. Science must remain impartial. However we are human and very poor at that impartial thing. lol A deterministic or non deterministic view has nothing to do with science. Science gives no absolutes. Anyone who arives at such a conclusion is simply stating how they feel. Since when is probability not deterministic? Being on the ignorant side of the equation may delude some to false conclusions.Anywho. Perhaps there would not be such a push to bring ID into existance in education if many following evo did not promote the assumption that selection is random and from there determine lack of design. Natural selection does not say random. One cannot follow evo and promote design or non design and remain impartial as science must. In this aspect of evo there has been a point of view promoted that has no basis in fact.From my perspective there is no difference between claiming randomness
and claiming design. However if one is to teach design it must be without naming a designer. In this way it must remain impartial. Simply the generic search for evidence of design.
It should also completely avoid the search for intent. That would make it religion.Design or non design is a glass half empty/full kind of thing. In truth all ideas of that nature are non scientific animals/points of view and should never be confused with science. When we do, science ceases to be the wonderful tool it is and becomes a very dangerous and altogether different animal. It is no longer impartial and becomes someones tool for agenda.