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.
Well, look at it this way. China, North Korea, former Soviet Union, et al are atheistic countries, and won't even allow religions. China does allow religions only if they are sanctioned by China, but they are pseudo religions. Real religions need to go underground.
What the evolution people don't want is even a hint that there is a God.
That is why anti-religion and anti-God groups, like the ACLU, are fighting against Intelligent Design being taught side by side with the evolution THEORY. They don't want students to decide for themselves.
Do we want history to repeat itself, and the same thing to happen in our country, like what happened in other countries.
And now Newdow wants to take our national motto, "In God We Trust" off our money.
Don't you see what is happening?
And it's all being done under the guise of freedom of religion.
"I guess geography should showcase the Flat-Earth society?"
You are right to quibble, but devils advocate question: Why not?
Look, I was taught the Bohr model of the atom. And werent we ALL taught the precopernican views by Ptolemy as what was once believed? So why not 'flat earth' view? Many science and other textbooks have promuglated theories that turned out to be false. It is far more educational to explain 'here are multiple theories, here is the evidence for each' than to simply announce the truth, which leads to the illusion of science as something that happened rather than something that happens every day.
If you have confidence in your theory, you won't mind the competition in the marketplace of ideas.
"Well, look at it this way. China, North Korea, former Soviet Union, et al are atheistic countries, and won't even allow religions."
FWIW, former USSR is now Russia and they do allow religion (Russian Orthodox) openly.
"What the evolution people don't want is even a hint that there is a God."
That is a false generalization. Many people believe in both God and evolution. I am one of them.
"I did, and I stand corrected. I believe the link was actually Das Kapital (Historic Materialism) being inspired in some way by Origin of Species. Marx was a fan of Darwin..it appears the admiration was not completely mutual."
The Communist Manifesto was published 11 years *before* Darwin's treatise.
Moreover, the most immediate use of Darwin's theory was by folks like Herbert Spencer and their "Social Darwinism", whereby life's winners and losers were judged to have gotten their just desserts as a result of social forces.
Kind of the opposite of the socialist/communist view.
"Like Hegel and Wagner, Darwin, (and Christ for that matter) bare no responsibility with the twisted nutters that expanded on their ideas."
Exactly. Darwin doesnt prove capitalism, communism or social darwinism 'right' or 'wrong'. It merely posits survival itself as the 'guidance' mechanism of the evolutionary process.
You have to be kidding, right? Teaching that the earth is flat?
If memory serves, Spencer was before Darwin.
Given the choice of taking "God" off our money and teaching that the earth is 6000 years old I would have to side with taking God off our money.
In God We Trust was only put on paper money since 1957
Everything taught in science is a theory ... and there are usually more than a "both" sides ... the only way to know which one to teach is through the processes of science.
Makes me wonder what the evolution people are afraid of.
Why is there this idea that scientists are afraid of something? Scientists will galdy accept a well-presented, supported theory that follows the processes of science --- not politics --- to prove itself worthy. It's not like the schools are pressing Newtonian physics, or claiming that heavier objects fall faster in a vaccuum, or so on.
Scientists are HAPPY to see better theories come along, because IT HELPS THEM MAKE DISCOVERIES!
If ID or creationism proved itself to be a more accurate description than evolution, scientists would gladly use it, as they could perform more accurate experiments using a better theory ... which is why they ARE constantly trying to refining the existing theory of evolution ... which isn't some "religion" for scientists that cannot be changed. People may be under the false impression that TOE doesn't change, but it's constantly being refined ... as are most scientific theories ... as we learn more about the universe.
Change in accepted scientific theory can be slow ... it's because research needs to be done and evidence gathered. And we can;t just present an alternative, no matter how much it's proponents "know it to be true", until the necessary work is done to back up the scientific opinion with actual science ... otherwise, plenty of bad theories would be presented, and there WOULD NEVER be a firm starting point for students of science to start from.
And that's where IDers arguments REALLY fall apart. We don't teach students what we WANT to be true with science. Heck, even what students are taught is KNOWN not to be perfectly true ... this is why scientists still do research. But without students getting a solid understanding of what science considers the best explanation, scientificlaly, at that very moment, students will not have a good starting point from where to question scientific knowledge and expand upon what we know.
.... as can frequently be seen in these threads, by anti-evolutionists presenting plenty of non-starter arguments against evolution over and over and over and over again, when they even bother to resorting to scientifc arguments as opposed to ad hominem attacks and wondering what "the evolution people are afraid of".
What this is about, is that the ACLU types, and friends, don't even want a HINT of God.
... or the above, which isn;t much of a scientific argument against the theory of evolution at all. A bunch of Satan worshippers could come out in solid support of gravity, claiming it helps keep people away from heaven ... would that change what we know about the theory of gravity?
And even if the ACLU is in this fight because of their God-aversion, it doesn;t change the fact that plenty of scientists --- many of whom could care less about politics at all --- don;t want their science corrupted by the whims of politicians, and find the very idea that scientific instruction has to be decided in a courtroom at all.
And I should probably answer your wonderment about what I'm afraid of, as I'd probably fit your definition of "evolution people":
I'm afraid of shortcuts in science. I'm afraid of teaching something as theory because peeople know in their hearts something is true, and don't want to take the time to back up their opinions with science. I'm afraid students will be TOLD there are flaws in evolution specifically and will miss the point that there are going to be flaws in ANY scientific theory, and will somehow think evolution is an exception.
And I'm afraid that people will start to see the current way the fight against TOE is being taken as being valid scientific debate ... they will miss any intelligent questions raised against TOE, and will instead focus on the non-scientific issues.
"I'm not an expert on the subject, but I do know the Bible didn't reach a finished form until sometime around the 4th Century. "
LOL ... Yes, you are NOT an expert, for sure. Even though the canonization of the New Testament occured later, the gospel texts and epistles themselves were all complete before 100AD, and there is solid sourcing back to near-original versions.
"Until then, there was no organized canon of the New Testament - the state of organized Scripture was quite chaotic."
Not true at all. You can read the works of the early church 'fathers' and how they built on the gospels from early days, not in a 'chaotic' manner, but building up a defined theology over time by drawing on the original gospels:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/
You certainly like saying that, despite it being, at best, a painting done with a very broad brush, and a worst, an outright lie.
But two can play that game ... I've heard of a Muslim supporting ID, so I guess I'll go with:
Supporters of ID and creationism are pushing for the U.S. to become a Muslim nation.
See how stupid that sounds?
In God We trust was designated national motto in 1956...
Possibly correct, but it's not why SCIENTISTS are against them being taught side by side. Scientists know that we don't want students deciding for themselves what predominant scientific theory is ... as there is only one predominant theory. The others are currently footnotes at best ... wishful thinking in some cases, which may EVENTUALLY be shown to have good evidence, but currenlty have no evidence that doesn't also back up TOE.
Unless you want alternatives taught as they would in a math class ... "Most people think 2+2 = 4. Some think it equals 5, but they are fools."
or ... "Someone sued the schoool, and we now must say that it MIGHT BE invisible space pixies pressing us down, and not gravity. He has solid evidence for this theory, he says, such as the fact that most scientists do not support his theory, so they must be afraid of it."
Bah.
Because other, older theories taught in science classes show the progression of the predominant theories until wherre the predominant scientific theories are today. Perhpas some day evolution will be taught in that same way when all the ID scientists point out the discoveries that led to evolution needed to be tweaked to include the alien overlords who designed us as meat crops.
It is far more educational to explain 'here are multiple theories, here is the evidence for each' than to simply announce the truth, which leads to the illusion of science as something that happened rather than something that happens every day.
And it is MOST educational to tell students the predominant scientific theory, so they have a starting point from where to take their studies and research, than to present as a valid "theory" something that still has not met the level of a theory. If there was another SCIENTIFIC theory, it could be presented.
And the battle here is NOT between battling scientific theories, it's between the scientific theory of evolution, and some thoughts that, despite there being no scientific evidence for it, there MUST be a designer.
Which, of course, anyone paying attention would realize TOE takes NO stance on ... there may or may not have been a designer.
And, despite the talk of broadening knowledge, ID wants to take away the possibility that there MIGHT NOT have been a designer before we've discovered evidence --- not just conjecture or faith --- of that.
So it seems. I didn't realize that. I guess we have two mottos, the first of which has been around for over two centuries.
The study of prophecy in scripture seems to qualify under your loose definition. The experiments are trying to date the manuscripts--through language, carbon dating or whatever.
For instance if one accepts that Daniel was written by Daniel, it pretty much proves God. The secular view is that it was a fraud written centuries later...because the prophecies being too specific and accurate to otherwise discard.
But my own internet searching has produced amazing differences of opinion about what qualifies as science. People pretty much contriving that what they prefer qualifies.
Sounds like you've been duped by the ACLU. Sorry about that.
Good bye? Certainly not, they are valuable disciplines. But then so is Theology.
The scientific method might be applicable in these disciplines is some cases, but not in others--depending in part on how loose your definition, which is sadly growing increasingly self serving and diverse depending on what people are selling.
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.