At Princeton University, the Daily Princetonian reported:
In a lecture at Oxford University last week, Princeton’s President Tilghman pointed out potential clashes among science, politics and religion and defended Darwinian evolution against the challenges presented by proponents of intelligent design.
Her remarks at the prestigious annual Romanes Lecture mark the second time in the past month that Tilghman has publicly criticized intelligent design. In an interview Wednesday, she explained why she passionately and frequently defends the scientifically accepted theory of evolution.
“It’s one of the two monumental pillars on which modern biology rests,” Tilghman said. “When you have a group of people challenging one of the central tenets of biology, it’s very serious.”
Tilghman said opposition to Darwinian evolution began with “a small group of evangelical Christians” who, after creationist theory failed to gain popularity, “went back to the drawing board” and started pushing intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinism.
Proponents of intelligent design assert that Darwinian evolution is only a theory and that their theory is an alternative and equally valid explanation of the same observed phenomena.
Tilghman, however, said the approach lacks the substance of a scientific theory.
“Evolution is a theory that has arisen in the scientific field and has been tested and challenged for 150 years,” she said. “Intelligent design is a philosophical position that can be taught in social science classes or philosophy classes, but it’s not science.”
This ladies and gentlemen begs the question of President Tilghman: Has the theory of evolution ever been proven any more than that other theory – of intelligent design?
On Nov. 24, 1859, Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.”
Eleven years later, in 1870, this one-time preparer for the priesthood at Christ College, Cambridge, wrote: “I cannot look at the Universe as a result of blind chance, yet I can see no evidence of beneficent design, or indeed of design of any kind in the details.”
In the first part of that statement, dealing with “blind chance,” Darwin was apparently aware of the miniscule – even microscopic – chance of an explosion in a printing press resulting in Webster’s Dictionary.
As to his seeing no evidence of beneficent design in this life, did anyone ever ask him how he could prove the love he had for his wife, who was his cousin, Emma Wedgewood, to whom he was happily married for 43 years until his death in 1882?
Because love simply cannot be scientifically defined, or formularized, or analyzed, is no reason to try to deny its existence.
The Daily Princetonian also reports that President Tilghman, when asked about what she thinks of those who support teaching evolution and intelligent design in the same classroom, replied: “I think they’re undermining scientific education. Any such academic comparison would require you to compare apples and oranges.”
But Madam President: Are not apples and oranges both round? Do they both not have skin? Do they both not have seeds? Do they both not have juice? Do they both not grow on trees? And aren’t they both edible?
In a university which tolerates on its faculty Bioethics Professor Peter Singer, who publicly sanctions bestiality and post-birth infanticide, where is their academic freedom when the university’s president is so strongly supportive of the theory of evolution – and so utterly intolerant of the theory of intelligent design?
Does she believe that Princeton should officially repudiate its founders in the Presbyterian Church’s Synods of Philadelphia, New York and New Brunswick?