Posted on 11/13/2005 3:49:41 PM PST by Crackingham
U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said Saturday that he doesn't believe that intelligent design belongs in the science classroom. Santorum's comments to The Times are a shift from his position of several years ago, when he wrote in a Washington Times editorial that intelligent design is a "legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in the classroom."
But on Saturday, the Republican said that, "Science leads you where it leads you."
Santorum was in Beaver Falls to present Geneva College President Kenneth A. Smith with a $1.345 million check from federal funds for renovations that include the straightening and relocation of Route 18 through campus.
Santorum's comments about intelligent design come at a time when the belief that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power, an alternative to the theory of evolution, has come under fire on several fronts.
A federal trial just wrapped up in which eight families sued Dover Area School District in eastern Pennsylvania. The district's school board members tried to introduce teaching intelligent design into the classroom, but the families said the policy violated the constitutional separation of church and state. No ruling has been issued on the trial, but Tuesday, all eight Dover School Board members up for re-election were ousted by voters, leading to a fiery tirade by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson.
Robertson warned residents, "If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city."
Santorum said flatly Saturday, "I disagree. I don't believe God abandons people," and said he has not spoken to Robertson about his comments.
Though Santorum said he believes that intelligent design is "a legitimate issue," he doesn't believe it should be taught in the classroom, adding that he had concerns about some parts of the theory.
sorry my point went over your head. I'll type more slowly next time.
Sounds like Santorum knows he's down in the pols in PA and saw what happened to the Dover school board. He knows the losing side of an issue and isn't taking any chances.
You must have read: Pg. 29 - There is not only evidence supporting each theory, much of the evidence supports both (so therefore proves neither). There is no disagreement that small, adaptive chances...... BUT -
PLEASE READ THE REST OF IT.
You just broke my irony meter.
Those that come up with new and novel ideas for a living are more closed minded than the absolutists that demand a return to a Biblical way of life? A Bible that has putatively not changed in 2 thousand years and is primarily a book of restrictions?
I don't know what to say.
Good. Hopefully typing more slowly will help you type more accurately.
I don't "believe" in anything. I accept the best plausible explanation. Might be right, might be wrong; but "belief" doesn't enter into it. That is your world.
That DOES require some faith.
No. You say this because you know your view can only exist on faith and so you seek to impose this upon everyone else, to justify yourself. What you cannot conceive is a person who has no faith, yet accepts the majority of natural evidence as true. Scares you, doesn't it?
Don't lecture me on trashing of words and their meanings.
Hey, you trash words, I'm going to call you on it. Get as defensive as you want. You don't scare me punk.
You are conveniently predisposed to evolution being on solid enough ground as to be perfect in its presentation when it is still a work in much progress requiring more.
You don't know what I think,(conveniently predisposed) and have no right to judge me by your meager intellect. My mind is "wide open" and I have made no firm conclusion. I fully accept the fact that I will die without ever knowing the "absolute truth." Have you? Or are you a coward?
Conflation is the part and parcel that you and your kin live by. Your example is your definition of faith:
Faith has meaning for you as well, here is your definition :Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
I would rather give up the meaning of the word faith than accept the equivalence of believing in something supernatural is the same as believeing the in the veracity of something provable in the natural world. The discrepancy between the denotation and the connotaion is the meaning of the Fallacy of Conflation.
That is what you are doing here, Conflation. Religious "Faith" with common faith such as the "belief" in gravity. The difference is ignoring a belief in gravity will kill you while ignoring a belief in a religious faith will result in some, unprovable in this life, punishment.
They aren't the same thing and only the ignorant will equate them.
I prefer answer A). It is simple and pragmatic. Am I wrong to do so? Is the simplest explination (all other things being equal) usually the best?
Technically, gravity pulled the coffee down into the cup. You did not do that. All you did was align the pot with the cup and let natural forces do the rest.
The author has logic, rather than blind faith to the unproved evolution theory.
As does THIS author who you will put down, as does the ACLU.
Skepticism evolves
A 1980 Whitworth College graduate who majored in physics and geology, Meyer took a job out of college as a geophysicist with Atlantic Richfield. Meyer said that throughout his undergraduate years, he had always reconciled his scientific work and religious convictions by believing that evolution and theism were not incompatible. "I was quite comfortable accepting the standard evolutionary story, although I put a bit of atheistic spin on it - that (evolution) is how God operated."
While working for ARCO and living in Dallas, Meyer attended a conference that brought together top philosophers, cosmologists and origin-of-life biologists to debate the religious implications of contemporary scientific findings. "I remember being especially fascinated with the origins debate at this conference. It impressed me to see that scientists who had always accepted the standard evolutionary story were now defending a theistic belief, not on the basis that it makes them feel good or provides some form of subjective contentment, but because the scientific evidence suggests an activity of mind that is beyond nature. I was really taken with this."
excerpt
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC&id=1771
Then, based on your misunderstanding of scientific theories and proof, ALL scientific theories, not just the Theory of Evolution, must be removed. There is not a single, proven scientific theory in existence. Never has been and never will be. Can you tell me why?
And your point was . . .?
We do not know how life started. We do not have a continuous line of fossils between the original life and man. Neither of these is necessary to show man has a common descendant with the other apes. Nor are they necessary to show the common descent patterns observed for other organisms. Your questions, whether answered or not, do not falsify evolution. There is far too much evidence of evolution in general and common descent in particular to be derailed by an incomplete store of information, information we may or may not acquire in the future. The information we do have verifies the patterns we see to a very high degree of confidence.
I'm a scientist. But please ignore the comment.
"Sustainable incontrovertably by the evidence" is not possible scientifically. You don't get to make up your own criteria and demand that science comply with them.
No one can prove whether ID false or true. The problem with ID is that there is no possible way to falsify it, which is not the same as proving it false. You do understand the difference?
I can deal with it. Can you?
Easily.
Science leads you where the establishment-approved scientists lead you.
That's OK. Your opinion isn't the arbiter of science.
But that doesn't bother me at all. Unlike you, I'm not demanding my faith based beliefs be taught without an alternative.
I could just as easily state that the complexity of man provides a preponderence of evidence that Intelligent Design is the only possible origin.
You could, but the statement would simply be false
No, it would simply be a theory that you would choose not to accept.
<>I've asked you several times now where on earth you got this idea that just because you say something means you have to be taken seriously.Honestly, it doesn't. You could just as easily state that the ubiquity of fecal matter provides a preponderance of evidence that you pulled the universe out your @$$. Who cares what it looks like to you? The only thing that matters is what it looks like. Period.
Science at one time accepted that the earth was the center of the universe. You'll have to excuse me for realizing that today's belief on the origion of the species is based on acceptence of something that is not provable. It's rather comical that I have to keep saying this, because those on your side keep reiminding me that in science nothing is provable.
I don't seek to make that case.
Why not? If that's what the preponderance of the evidence shows, then make the case. I strongly encourage you to do so.
The preponderence of the evidence reveals that we do not know where man came from conslusively. That statement is scientificly sustainable and you know it.
Your side does seek to claim that your theory is the only possible origin based on the evidence.
Based on the evidence, evolution is the only plausible explanatory model.
Based on the evidence, evolution is not far removed from Saturday morning cartoon plot lines.
Well, I disagree.
Here's a cookie.
It's certainly your perogitive to claim falsity and inanity.
Yeah, but I don't rely on merely my say so.
So what you are saying is that when the United States voted for Clinton twice, everyone should have adopted the majority opinion? There you go again...
I'm sorry, but I can't buy into your last statement.
That's OK.
Threads like this refute that perception. Some of you folks are willing to compare others and myself to the Taliban...
I wasn't talking about "us folks" but rather just about me. Nothing I've posted in this thread refutes my statement, which would be unlikely if for no other reason than that it's true
Since your theory cannot be proven, and the preponderence of evidence doesn't sustain what you say it does, then I can come to no other conclusion that that your statement was false.
Your own words have betrayed you. Based on flimsy evidence you have opted to believe the theory of evolution based on faith. That may be acceptable to you, but it's hardly an example of scientific purity. The evidence does not prove what you believe. Why are you having such a hard time with this concept?
...just because we don't buy into your theories lock stock and barrel, and do not think exclusivity should be yours any more than ours.
I am not a relativist, and never will be. If you want any claim to 'inclusivity' then support your position. Otherwise, you can spout whatever nonsense makes you happy, just don't expect to be taken seriously, at least not by me.
...at least by me. LMAO, look I'm not particularly interested whether you take me serioiusly or not. For a guy that has expressed his belief in something that is not sustainable, but gets upset when others don't, I find it rather cute what you're trying to pass off as reasoned.
If you were genuinely concerned about scientific progress, you'd be willing to take a look at the 'evidence', and see two possible conclusions based on the evidence that exists and the evidence that doesn't.
I have taken a look at the evidence, and I even see multiple potential conclusions based upon it. Intelligent design isn't one of them.
Well you're welcome to you own conclusions on that. For what they're worth.
Your conclusions concerning the evidence, are all focused on accepting what you cannot prove. What bothers you is that I have also elected to accept something I cannot prove.
That is false. What bothers me is that you have elected to equate fantasy with science.
Is it scientific to have some evidence, then extrapolate that man evolved from a single celled organism? LOL, very impressive. Talk about fantasy...
The holes in your evidence don't dissuade me.
Gosh, I'd hope not. It's the evidence itself that's persuasive, not whatever holes might be in it.
Isn't it interesting, you are impressed by the evidence and I'm impressed by the lack of it.
The holes in my evidence should not disuade you.
You have no evidence at all. In fact, you explicitly stated above that you don't even seek to make the case.
Hmmm, afraid to acknowledge my complete comment? Evidently so.
This leaves us both unable to categoricly prove the other wrong.
Umm, no it doesn't. My position is that you have no evidence. If you disagree with that, then unless you come up with some you are categorically wrong.
I'm categoricly wrong when you can provide the complete lineage of mans evolution from a single cell. You can't even muster the courage to admit you can't even prove without a doubt how the first single celled organism came into being, but trash me for not following the idiotic pipe dream that is faith based evidence very lite.
None the less, your belief is teachable and my belief, both based on the uprovable, is not.
Your belief is definitely teachable as whatever it is, which isn't science.
Okay, me beliefs are not science and your beliefs are not supportable. I can live with that.
Down through the ages, there have been many people judged to be heritics.
Yes, well, the most common reason for that is because they were.
If that's the case you'd like to make, I'm willing to let that premise stand. I'm not buying into it.
Today the scientific community is the one making that charge, all the while claiming the high moral ground. Science is not faith-based. What on earth makes you think that just because you represent it that way means anyone has to take you seriously?
This from a person who cannot prove his theory, cannot disprove anyone elses theory, and is wasting more time than is necessary to admit to it.
I agree with you. But these ninnies continually harp on the "proof" thing. I keep asking for one single piece of evidence that justifies ID. Just one. They have none.
They can scream about fossils all they want but fossils support the ToE. There is nothing comparable for ID. Nothing. I'm just goading them. ID cannot be validated or refuted, by definition.
It isn't like science could ever support ID. There is one of those old lines: "It isn't even true enough to be wrong."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.