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.
And if no one was around to hear it, how do you know it wasn't a ping or a boom or even a Boeing (assembled by the explosion.)
Michael Behe disagrees with you:
I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent.
The classic "WERE YOU THERE?" has to be in the toolkit. Might even want to make some room for "CAN YOU REAPEAT (sic) IT IN THE LAB?!?!"
Only valid alternatives.
Any analyst should be fired for mentioning that one way to escape a charging bear is to coat oneself in barbacue sauce and beat oneself with a meat tenderizer, as there's an off chance it will confuse the bear, and claiming this is as valid as running as fast as one can, or shooting it with the shotgun one holds.
ID. Snake handlers.
Film at 11.
No ad hominum here, just a recall of my experiences on these threads.
BTW, are you a scientist?
LOLOL!
And there you have hit the nail on the head. Physics and chemistry are real science, where evidence is weighed and when a theory is found to be unsupportable it falls, whereas with evolution, when evidence is found that refutes it, the evidence is rejected, and worship continues at the shrine of evolution.
Thank you for pointing out that stark difference.
Yet atheistic evolution, which is a theory with an agenda if their ever was one, does belong in the classroom?!
I'll float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.
It is truly an honor to bask in the presence of such great minds. I feel truly unworthy.
Thanks for the ping!
What you are is unbearably insipid in your lack of intellectual honesty.
Is there anything more unseemly than a politician changing his colors just to get re-elected? He's history.
The purpose is to show that their views lead to anything but, as you're well aware.
I know what you mean. The guy only has an ACU rating of 96. What's wrong with the guy. I mean why would we try and keep a guy from Pennsylvania who votes conservative 96% of the time.
Off with his head.
Right?
Your whole post consists of a Hypothesis Contrary to Fact. Probability is an abstract concept, not a fact.
"Intelligent Design" is a conclusion for which there is no evidence. As you state:
Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.
First you have to have some evidence, of which ID has none. Just because Antony Flew proved he was an idiot doesn't prove anything else other than he is an idiot. He didn't submit any such evidence, just the fallacious conclusion. Maybe he wasn't so smart to begin with.
As I said, One Wet Iota. Just one.
Self ping
mega-dittoes
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.