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.
Why? It has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.
Because ID as it is presented by DI and other visible IDists necessitates the introduction of the supernatural into the scientific method. If the supernatural is allowed in, hypotheses become untestable, unfalsifiable and thereby unable to be eliminated or verified and so become part of a theory.
"If your theory is not provable, it's just comical to watch as you demand that it be taught to the exclusion of other theories.
Since the word 'proof' is the problem here, perhaps you misunderstand what we are saying. Science doesn't prove, but it does accumulate evidence for a theory. It spends a fair bit of time trying to falsify the individual hypotheses that make up a theory. If the hypothesis survives the tests it is taken to be a strong verification of the theory. The word proof (or prove) is not used because it has absolute connotations, where science is always considered to be tentative. This is true in all sciences, including physics. Laws that exist in science are not the same as theories. A law is simply a description of something that is observed to work in all circumstances. A theory is developed as an explanation of how the law, or other observations, comes to be. A theory never graduates to a law. A theory is not 'proven'. A theory 'is' a number of verified (or unfalsified) hypotheses and as such is as close to proven as science ever gets.
"You have faith in your theory. I don't necessarily have a problem with that. What I do find objectionable is that you simply refuse to accept the falibility of your theory.
We get all ajitter because so many creationists and IDists misrepresent the ToE.
We are trying to correct a number of misapprehensions.
We also see the probable outcome of changing the methodology science uses to develop tests for theories.
We also know that what is taught to children incorrectly is likely to lead to problems in later generations.
You made the claim, you have to supply the evidence.
'My side' admits what? where?
Touche.
Please allow me to make the first contribution to your Cap & Gown & Getting Loaded Every Weekend Fund.
Creationism, on the other hand, involves the supernatural and requires a tremendous amount of faith on the ancient scriptures.
Evolution refers to man's body.............. Creation refers to man's soul.
Is it possible both sides are right ?
Good post. Now I don't have to repeat it.
I vote mine.
I wouldn't rule out the former, but at this point the latter is unquestionable.
No matter how many times you say it or draw their attention to links about it, it is essential to their world view. Ever tried to drill a hole through 8 inches of concrete with just a hand drill?
Yes I did, demand proof. That would seem to be a reasoned way to find out what truth is. I guess that's a foreign concept to you.
What I said all along, was that one couldn't buy into the theory of evolution without adopting that belief on faith.
You have stated that nothing in science is provable, so obviously you agree.
Lots of evidence. LMAO Either it's provable or it isn't. If it isn't as you and or others have claimed here, then it's just a theory. Believeing that theory is a faith based belief.
Look bud, we're 200 posts into this thread and you folks are still claiming nothing in science can be proven, but you believe the theory of evolution anyway. If that's not batting zero, what is?
Look, belief in something that can't be proven has to be based on something. In the absense of proof, it has to be based on faith.
No, it's taught as fact an you know it. It was in my day and it still is.
Your evidence either proves what you believe, or you have chosen to believe something you cannot prove. I have no problem with that. I still say that it is wrong to teach something that cannot be proven, as fact.
I guess that makes you dishonest as well.
Wilfully.
As though you couldn't bare to deal with it.
That nothing in science is provable.
Teaching both evolution and intelligient design as "theories' or "alternate views" would be what a true liberal open-minded education would be about. But noooo...the educrat Commies want to squash any idea about creation other than their godless vacuous religion of swiss cheese evolution. Chairman Mao would be proud.
These gravitationalists MUST admit their FAITH!
Thanks for the ping!
I know of at least 4 people who came to trust evolution over creation after reviewing the scientific evidence for both.
He's hanging out with the Fledermauser.
Folks I'm going to have to move on now. I appreciate the comments for the most part and understand to a certain degree where you are coming from.
The evolution of single celled ogranism to man is taught and referred to across the education spectrum as if fact.
I would have very little problem with evolution being taught in it's observable form. That truly is a scientific fact. What's being passed off act as fact isn't IMO.
If it were taught that evolution is one theory and creation is another and left at that, I'd not really ask much more.
I realize that will tweak most of you, but I can't dedicate more time to this thread tonight.
Have a good week.
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.