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.
Figure you're a Chinese guy in charge of forming educational policy. Part of your job is to read reports on educational trends in other countries -- and one day this report filled with newspaper clippings comes across your desk on ID.
What's your reaction?
After your jaw hits the table, you go with science. "Faith based" cannot be science. Science looks at the natural world only.
Faith is a wonderful thing, just does not belong in a science class.
Calling roll to see what students are in class is a good idea. But its not science...so not in science class I suppose.
People have burned up thousands of posts on these threads arguing science v. faith. However, few have given thought to the fall out of going with the ID model. Scientists from other countries as well as international businesses are reading about this debate and forming opinions. Those opinions will eventually translate into decisions...
You are spot on. However, I see Europe following suit with some of this.
All thru history any fundamental shift in a paradigm causing us as an entire species to rethink our place in the universe has been met with heavy opposition, often violent.
Takes time for people to realize this is not the end of the world, just the end of a particular viewpoint of our place in it.
This is not unlike the virulent opposition to the heliocentric model of our solar system.
I enjoyed your reply. Nice.
S
Wait til these folks get a load of string theory. It's gonna drive them nuts.
The point I was trying to make was that these things have consequences (good and bad).
The idea that an "atheist" is a religious person is a contradiction in terms. You can believe it if you want, but then again, you have the right to be stupid. I am not going there.
The fact is "a belief about diety" doesn't apply to several of these definitions. Diety doesn't figure into the picture at all.
This is why American children are so stupid and put rings in their lips and ears. Because the adults are so irrrational. Stupid.
And, to make the point, all those definitions didn't include the true "agnostic" position. You are ignorant.
An impressivly cool and rational response. I can see how you got your screen name.
Indeed! However, my personal take is that trying to trash an entire scientific theory is not a good answer.
How is calling roll considered apart of the curriculum?
Just more of the divide in this country.
If creation only referred to man's soul, then, yes, it is possible. But, there is absolutely no evidence for it not there ever will be. We are talking about supernatural here. Cannot substantiate it either way.
So, it does not belong in a science class. I think the whole point of the opponents of intelligent design is that supernatural stuff do not belong in a science class. It doesn't matter if 80% of Americans believe in it. It wouldn't matter if 100% believe in it. It simply does not involve science.
Creationism, on the other hand, involves the supernatural and requires a tremendous amount of faith on the ancient scriptures.
I have faith in the scientific method. Do you?
If religious scriptures are the source for all knowledge, then I'm sure if you can find a lot of pro-big government arguments in them.
In fact, I would argue that religious scriptures are socialist. Curing sick and blind without charging them? What is this, communism? What about the pharmaceutical industry? Who will continue to make medicines if miracles are for real?
:D
Your right. Its not science and its not even curriculum! Then it definatly shouldn't be in science class.
"I have faith in the scientific method. Do you?"
You are playing with the word "faith." No, I do not have faith in the scientific method like the way you are implying. But I believe that science has all the answers possible that explains EVERYTHING in the natural world. Even if the methods are not yet invented/discovered.
Is having faith in the scientific method essential?
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.