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.
I'm sorry, but that is Vast International Conspiracy for Evolution, or VICE. It's just one of the many ops we run at Darwin Central.
Should we remove all "unproven theor[ies]" from science classrooms (in which case we would remove all theories period, as well as all laws, facts and principles if we remove all "unproven" ideas whatsoever) or just the ones you personally do not like?
What makes you think you can demand something that science doesn't purport to supply and then reject one and only one branch of science because, like all the rest, it doesn't pretend to supply proof? Science uses facts and evidence, not proof. I'm done posting this to you. It would appear that it is, indeed a "foreign concept."
What I said all along, was that one couldn't buy into the theory of evolution without adopting that belief on faith.
And what you said all along is wrong. One need no faith whatever to accept the theory of evolution. One need only to examine the evidence.
You have stated that nothing in science is provable, so obviously you agree.
No I don't agree. That should be clear to anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension. That you haven't (or won't) figured it out yet speaks volumes.
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.
I know this will come as a horrible shock to you, but the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, which means, in simpler terms, it's a theory. Since Darwin first proposed the theory, it has been confirmed by all the evidence, even evidence that was not even suspected in Darwin's time. There is no faith involved. But you appear to be unable or unwilling to grasp this.
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?
It's "MISTER Bud," to you.
Your utter inability to understand what we're saying is "batting zero." Science has facts and theories. Science doesn't have proof and it's not a matter of "belief." That's it in a nutshell. You don't like it. I get that. There's not much anyone can do about it. There's not anything anyone should do about it.
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.
False dichotomy. I'm utterly unimpressed. In the case of scientific theories, they're accepted or not (belief having nothing whatever to do with the matter), on how well they explain the known facts. If they explain the facts, they're accepted. No belief needed. If facts then emerge that contradict the theory, it's either changed or abandoned. Again, no belief needed, no proof possible.
No, it's taught as fact an you know it. It was in my day and it still is.
If your comprehension on this thread is an example of your work in school, I have no difficulty at all believing you thought it was taught as a fact. Have I mentioned you don't seem to be paying attention?
My son happens to have had a unit last year in his 8th grade science class on evolution. They called it, "the theory of evolution." In scientific terms, it means it's a "theory," which is not the same as a "fact." They offered what scientists call "evidence" and "facts" to support the "theory." There was no proof. There was no proof in the unit on gravity, there was no proof in the unit on electromagnetism, and if they'd covered color theory, there wouldn't have been any proof there, either.
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.
No belief. It's where all the evidence points. But you're not paying attention.
If you want to banish everything from the classroom that isn't proven, you'll end up banishing not just science, but almost everything. Could I have bumped into the real motive here?
Where's the proof that George Washington wasn't a woman?
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.
It depends on what you mean by "proof," and what you're doing. If it's science, there isn't any proof. But it's clear that you don't care what science is.
I guess that makes you dishonest as well.
No doubt you do. I'll leave it for the other posters to decide.
Wilfully.
Close parody! Neat. I love using that technique. I use the spell-checker, though.
As though you couldn't bare to deal with it.
Well, there's a mistake the spell-checker would have missed. Maybe you weren't paying attention in English class, either.
I don't have a problem with an honest difference of opinion. Alamo-Girl and I, for instance, have an honest difference of opinion on ID. I have never called her dishonest, because she isn't. She has never felt the need to call me dishonest. When I make a mistake, I admit it. I'm not mistaken on the matter of proof/belief/evidence/facts regarding science. The problem isn't me, and it isn't science. It's your unwillingness to realize that lack of proof in science doesn't make science into some sort of belief-based system. At this point, it's futile to continue, so I won't.
Not to me. So on to the rest of your spiel. I pointed out to you that
Furthermore, It is a tautology.
Justify this claim.
As you may think you know, a tautology is always true and cannot ever be untrue (as long as the words are so defined). Since a tautology is a circular definition of words, it is ony about words. It is not about the empirical world. (Which is where the mathematical science of probability is compelling) It explains nothing about our observations.
Tautologies masquerade as though they convey knowledge and information, when in fact, they convey none.
Cosmology. A core basis for the naturalist ToE is a "cosmological naturalism" that is improbable (at extreme levels...at far beyond the purely mythical levels of monkeys typing up Shakespeare's Hamlet)...hence the "anthropic principle" previously alluded to is advanced, (in either the strong or weak version). Stephen Hawking's formulation is frequently embraced by those seeking a desperate evasion of the obvious.
"According to this theory, there are many different universes or many different regions of a single univer, each with its own initial configurtion and perhaps, with its own set of laws of science. In most of these universes the conditions would not be right for the development of complicated organisms; only in the few universes that are like ours would intelligent beings develop and ask they questions: "Why is the universe the way we see it? The answer is then simple: If it had been different, we would not be here! (Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 1988, p. 124-125)
He begins with a good discussion of the metaphysical antrhopic principle, with its many alternative universes having properties unlike ours. Then in the second half, he shifts the focus to our existence as observersd and gives the classic tautological formulation--the universe is the way we see it because "If it [the universe] had been different, we would not be here." The tautology captivates his readers since they automatically accept it as true, and it sounds explanatory. In actuality it explains nothing and may be removed without loss. All the explanatory power is derived from the "other universes." Yet Hawking gives his readers the erronieous impression that the tautological formulation is where the explanation resides. With this misperception in place, Hawking then goes back to remove the 'other universes' from his explanation altogether, as if they had no real importance.
[In]n what sense can all these different universes be said to exist? If they are really separate from each other, what happens in another universe can have no observable consequences in our own universe. We should therefore use the principle of economy and cut them out of the theory. (Hawking, 1988, p. 125)
In this way, Hawking gives the mistaken impression that the anthropic principle: (1) is an explanation of the universe's design; (2) is true; and (3) does not necessarily require other universes.
All of the anthropic principle props to cosmological naturalism so far are tautological, heavily dependent on an untestable metaphysical assumption, which is linguistically a sleight of hand.
Natural Selection tautologies. In biology, again the tautology in ToE manifests, when it relies on the necessary assumption of "natural selection" or rather of "selection of the fittest". Natural selection claims to identify the survivors. Which progeny survive? One ToE naturalist, Robert Chapman answered it thus: The progeny of those organisims who leave more surviving progeny. That is a tautology.
Tautological fitness is when fitness is defined as survival, thereby making natural selection a tautology. To reprise:
(1) It masquerades as an explanation when it is not.
(2) It is 'always true' (by definition) and thereby is intended to capture our confidence.
(3) Tautological fitness is observable and measurable, therefore it seems like empirical science...when it is not.
Now for a remark on the already proffered misrepresentations your side has tendered on probability "i.e., the fallacy of incredulity."
This attempted disparagement is non-responsive and non-persuasive, and in fact not an argument of "fallacy" at all. Science rarely deals in pure logic. Science is a tentative enterprise undertaken by finite beings finite observations. Empirical facts are never established with perfect, formal certainty. Instead, a fact is something so thoroughly confirmed it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.
For example, it is a fact that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard will not assemble an airplane, a house, or a watch. For the scientist it would be perverse to insist otherwise.
Yet some evolutionists do insist otherwise. They insist that no probability is ever too small to bar evolution. One example is from Robert Steiner's vociferous anti-creation article, in Reason magazine. A creationist had argued that the odds against forming even the simplest protein molecule by random chance were far greater than 10 to the 67th power, to one. Steiner argued that highly improbable outcomes can often occur, but in each of his examples, the outcome is guaranteed by his premises. The outcomes are already present within his starting assumptions, yet he erroneously calculates extremely low probablities. This creates the confusion on which his argument thrives. By misapplying probability theory he attempts to discredit its validity.
So also has every ToE zealot I have ever seen on a Free Republic thread to date.
Wrong. It is a SCIENCE in MATHEMATICS. You clearly can't handle science. You have destroyed ALL credible scientific seriousness in your posts.
Yes indeed, the tautological wordsmiths of the evolutionist-extremists are right out of Orwell's Oceana, Eurasia and Eastasia.
Truth, albeit there appears to be vastly more scientific evidentiary support for the ID position.
"Tautological fitness is when fitness is defined as survival, thereby making natural selection a tautology. To reprise:
(1) It masquerades as an explanation when it is not.
(2) It is 'always true' (by definition) and thereby is intended to capture our confidence.
(3) Tautological fitness is observable and measurable, therefore it seems like empirical science...when it is not. "
Natural Selection is not a tautology. It does not say that the *fittest* always survive to pass on their genes, but that they have a probabilistic advantage in reproductive success. Fitness is not defined as survival.
"For example, it is a fact that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard will not assemble an airplane, a house, or a watch. For the scientist it would be perverse to insist otherwise.
Yet some evolutionists do insist otherwise."
No evolutionists insist otherwise. The example of a tornado and a junkyard has nothing to do with evolution and is only proposed by those with a staggering ignorance of biological processes.
Actually it is the other way around, since Darwinian origin is in fact pure religion, and the case for Intelligent Design is based in science.
Once again, when a creationist wants to insult evolution he calls it "religion," and when he wants to elevate creationism he calls it "science."
A window into the creationist mind and what they really think about religion.
I should keep a list of all the times they do this. It speaks volumes about them.
Well, then I guess, in addition to evolution, we have to say goodbye to geology, archeology, astronomy, etc. This is definitely a red herring. The success of science lies not only in the ability to set up lab experiments, but to assess predictions about future data and create consistent models of the phenomena in question; evolution does both of these things.
If a Biology class mentions the origins of life, they could offer that although most biologist beleive evolution happened, more then just a few disagree.
If by more than "just a few", you mean around 1% or less, you're right. Personally, I think it's best to stick to what has been thoroughly peer-reviewed when putting together a curriculum for a primary or secondary school science class.
This speaks volumes about you. You evade the scientific issue every time.
Au contraire. Gould, Luria and Singer. And that is just the short list.
Examples please.
Don't look now, but your shoelaces are untied.
"Yeah, 96% then he comes out against the president on Iraq, and snubs him at an important rally in Pa. "
THAT IS COMPLETELY FALSE.
He criticized the media reporting on Iraq and the media made a false headline out of it. He had a prior speaking engagement, not a 'snub'.
Pay attention and don't get gulled by the biased media.
"Nothing more unseemly than conservatives who fake middle of the road when they see their poll numbers drop."
Nothing more unseemly than conservatives who fall for DNC-fed media bias and line up in the circular firing squad.
Hillary is smiling at your post.
Bad analogy. Evolution is not a tornado.
However, we do see seemingly "random" events producing "order" all the time in nature. (Ever look at a snowflake under a microscope??)
Evolution is not a tautology. It is independently verified under multiple lines of inquiry.
Randomness is not explanatory in the ToE. And the snowflake under the microscope, was a bad choice by you. What are the odds, Quark? And indeed virtually all the other features of H20, crucial to life... is yet further evidence of cosmological intelligent design.
Don't have no shoes on.
After sleeping on it, I just can't do it. The level of dishonesty would kill me. I guess you guys are stuck with me.
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.