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.
You come off as being a bit disingenuous. First you tell me that you don't know of scientists who are skeptical of evolution, and when I show you 700 skeptics, you say there have always been skeptics. If you do a search, you will find even more links of skeptical scientists.
If students spent their time studying every UNPROVED theory, there would not be enough time for the 3 R's. As a matter of fact, there is NOT enough time for the 3 R's.
Junk science, sex education, PC nonsense.......
Now back to ID logic:
DNA AND CELLS - 1
The DNA Molecule - This astounding little package contains so much!
Mathematical Possibilities - Calculations reveal the utter impossibility that DNA could form by chance
DNA AND CELLS - 2
Five Biological Materials - It would also be impossible for proteins, sugars, and fats to accidentally form
Additional Math Impossibilities - Still more insurmountable problems
Just to wet the appetite. For more info, visit: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/08dna02.htm
Are you trying to say that the entire ToE is incorrect because we lack a full lineage from one specific organism to the original life? That isn't terribly logical.
We have enough lines of descent to know that common descent for humans as well as other organisms is correct. Do you need to see the entire trajectory of a thrown football to know its general landing point? Does a batter need to see the baseball for the entire distance to know where it will cross the plate?
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119
FOSSILS
supports Intelligent Design
But please ignore the comment.
Then why try to "pull rank" and claim you are a "scientist?"
Makes you better than me, schmuck?
Mr. Ricky is running from a whole lot of people (including Bush) and things these days. What's next from Mr. Ricky? He was wrong on his Iraq war vote?
Your use of that word simply exposes your determination to ignore the evidence and retain your misunderstanding of how science works.
You know, I'm thinking of becoming a Creationist.
Here in evo land we dig up facts and post them. We straighten out quotes and post them. Ichy writes a new chapter in his book and posts it. We spend all this time trying to straighten out idiots. And all they do is ignore us.
As a creationist I can be much more, well, creative. I can say any idiotic thing I can dream up. My side won't complain. And I can repeat it until I tire and then start a new idea. And I can make you guys work to refute me. All I have to do is ignore you and keep repeating things. And if I get cornered, I can just say "Goddidit".
Life sure is a lot simpler in Creationland.
Thought for the day:
Anyone ever stop to think that some of the pro-Evolution scientists stand to lose money if the Evolution Theory is debunked?
It's a fact, but if you think about it you might understand the "lizard" comment.
You think flinging Bible verses over the internet is easy?
Santorum has become unpredictable. Unpredictable means incapable of being trusted anymore.
I'll go to bible school. Can't be that hard.
Probability.
Don't have much time, but the Big Things are clearly powerful evidence. As cited in Dr. Walter Remine's book, "The Biotic Message" (1993) [Still the most powerful mathematical critique yet today, as conceded by Gould and Hawking, and largely the basis for many of the lesser challenges] :
E.g., The structure of the universe itself is wildly improbable: the Big Bang itself is improbable (why has it not repeated?), and this creation event has left us evidence that it happened in a rather precise way, the resulting universe's parameters and behavior exhibit numerous peculiar properties necessary for life. For example if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different then stars would be unable to burn hyrdogen and helium. If the relative strengths of the nuclear and electromagnetic forces were slightly different, then carbon atoms could not exist in nature and therefore humans could not exist.
If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size (Hawking, 1988 p. 12)
The cosmos threatened to recollapse within a fraction of a second or else to expand so fast that galaxy formation would be impossibule. To avoid these disasters its rate of expansion at early instants needed to be fine tuned to perhaps one part in 10 to 55th (which 10 followed by 54 zeros). (Leslie, 1989 p. 3)
Fundamental parameters - the strength of the nuclear weak force, nuclear strong force, electromagnetism, and gravity; the expansion rate of the universe and the charge and masses of fundamental particles - all had to be fine tuned to extraordinarily tight tolerances. Remarkably, the values of these fundamental parmaters seem to have been finely adjusted to make life possible. ( See Leslie, 1989, p. 2-6; Hawking, 1988 p. 125) . How could these highly improbable detail be explained? Conclusion: The universe appears to be specially designed for life by a rational mind. Many people read the evidence precisely this way.The universe itself seems to be important evidence for an intelligent designer. Freeman Dyson (1979, p 245-253) correctly refers to these improbabilities as an argument from design, and this is evidence that "mind plays an essential role in the functioning of the universe." (p. 251)
Nowhere does Dyson mention the naturalist's last-ditch concoction, the anthropic principle (just random chance out of the infinity of universes lacking such properties in the multiverse), which is not a science, as it is neither explanatory nor testable and is disproven as a tautology.
The probabilities of the BIG THINGS are evidence of design. And the naturalists can't even lay a glove on Remine's theoretical treatment of the issue...
Then, as far as biological evidence, I think Probability again makes it rather clear which way the evidence points...as the rats are deserting the sinking ship of natural selection, or it's jazzed-up "random-leap" variants. Here is the story of one such major player showing intellectual honesty and bailing out:
Famed atheist concedes: evidence points to God
New York, Dec. 10, 2004 (CWNews.com) - Antony Flew, the British scholar who for years has been the world's most noteworthy philosophical proponent of atheism, has conceded that scientific evidence points to the existence of God.
Flew-- a prolific writer and energetic lecturer who has advanced atheist arguments throughout his long academic career-- made his dramatic concession in a video presentation on scientific evidence for the existence of God. In the video-- based on a conference held in New York in May of this year-- Flew said that the latest biological research "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved."
Early this year, writing in Philosophy Now magazine, Flew had indicated that his commitment to atheism was wavering. He wrote: "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."
Flew credited a Texas Catholic, Roy Varghese, with helping to persuade him that biological research points to the workings of an intelligent creator. Varghese, the author of The Wonder of the World , organized the May conference at which Flew first questioned his own atheistic position, and produced the video in which the 81-year-old scholar abandoned that stance.
Flew-- whose 1984 essay, "The Presumption of Atheism," fixed his place as the leading proponent of that view-- emphasizes that he has not accepted Christianity. He said: "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian, and far and away from the God of Islam." He likened his current position to the deism of Thomas Jefferson, explaining that he is now sympathetic to the researchers who theorize about an "intelligent design" in the working of creation.
Antony Flew conceded that many of his philosophical followers will be shocked by his announcement. But he told Associated Press: "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
Time for you guys to abandon your Evolutionists Toolkit, and fess up.
Al Gore dropped out before he flunked out.
Anyone ever stop to think that some of the pro-Evolution scientists stand to lose money if the Evolution Theory is debunked?
Why? Would there be fines?
Wouldn't they do what most scientists do, and research something else? Or continue researching whatever they were before, and see if it supports or counters whatever they new predominant theory is?
Placemarker.
Is he a Freeper?
"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.
Which is what I have said all along. You have faith in the theory of a single celled organism developing into a man even though there is no proof. Thanks.
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?
What it all boils down to is that you have your faith and I have mine. This is what I have said from the beginning of this thread.
You'd like to be able to weasle your way out of admitting it. You can't.
Teaching the theory of evolution in the classroom is little more than foisting off a fraud on the nation's youth. You can't prove it, yet it is taught every single day as fact across this nation.
I can deal with it. Can you? Easily.
Good
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.