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.
His saying so does not make it so does it? Are all scientists in the club? I say not. What does the club really bring? Is it all science?
Wolf
Since scientists are constantly checking each others findings, any subjectivity gets weeded out. That you think otherwise shows your ignorance of the scientific process.
Dont put Santorum in the Senate again.
There are literally millions of papers on observations and experimentation confirming the theory of evolution. There are a handful of books written for popular consumption in support of ID. You do the math.
No doubt it's the same "logic" that leads 57% of Americans to believe that lasers work by focusing sound waves. Or the same "logic" that leads 55% of Americans to believe that atibiotics kill viruses.
What is their death-wish for conservatism based on?
Post-Toomey Stress Syndrome?
I dont get it... I've supported and help Republican a *lot less* desireable than the wonderful conservative Santorum.
"I keep telling them by teaming up with the Democrats to "vote the bums out" and "clean house," they are going to give Rendell a Democrat legislature for his last 4 yrs., a Democrat Senator, and probably turn the House delegation into mostly Democrats. Then their only choice will be to vote with their feet to escape the mess they created."
You are absolutely right!
"I agree that Santorum is better than most, but it's going to take a long time for me to forget that his and Bush's betrayal of Pat Toomey put Arlen Specter back in the Senate."
First, I am as disappointed as anyone in Toomey's failure to beat Specter. I gave Toomey money, I called some PA friends and made the case. But there is something you forget here. Santorum is a conservative, yes, but I dont recall him ever saying he wouldnt work with other kinds of Republicans.
He never betrayed you, if he had not endorsed Specter he would be betraying a friend and colleague who helped him win two times in a row...
Here's what another freeper told me: " I have given up trying to reason with the PA conservatives on here who are willing to cut their own throats to punish Rick for his support of Specter over Toomey. Specter plucked his bacon out of the fire in Rick's first senate campaign and even though I never vote for Specter (or God forbid, the Democrat) I understand that Rick was repaying a debt he owed and could not just stay out of it when Specter asked for help. Santorum has been THE BEST Senator PA has had in my voting life, as well as easily the best from the NE and with one or two possible exceptions as good or better than anybody elected from the whole country since '94."
Now, it is almost ALWAYS the case that Republicans endorse fellow incumbents unless there is something seriously amiss. If you think Specter being a RINO is a big problem, fine, I agree with that but I cant fault Santorum for assisting his colleague and I certainly am NOT going to let a liberal Democrat win because one of our own conservatives didnt stab a mod/RINO Republican colleague in the back 2 years ago. (Yes, have you actually THOUGHT about the implications of Santorum endorsing Toomey and Toomey still losing to Specter; how great would *that* be for the PA Republican party?)
"He has also compromised what I know are his principles a few more times than I would like for the sake of political expediency."
He does it a lot fewer than most... Fewer times than my conservative senators (from Texas) and fewer than Bush in the White House. I've stated before that Santorum is in the top 10 of Senators in the current Senate. Can you really name more than 10 Senators who are better conservatives than him? Then name 10 from *blue states*... pretty tough, huh?
"I'll vote for him again but not as enthusiastically as I did the last two times."
I think if you consider the dismal alternative and the fact that Hillary's power will inevitable increase if a Dem wins ... you might find some enthusiasm by election day.
No politician is perfect. But Santorum is the rare politician who is from a blue state yet has been an unabashed conservative. Give him credit for that at least. And the media is doing plenty of BASHING to beat that out of him.
Who much is Hillary paying you to shill for the Democratic Senatorial campaigns?
As far as evolution as the origin of life, I'm inclined to beleive it (have been for the last 20 years or so), but I don't think its validated by the scientific method nor paticularly useful in biology. I just it is the only reasonable explination fo the evidence. By contrast ongoing evolution is very useful scientific theory (and I don't mean theory in the "its only a theory" layman way, I mean it in the "good science" way).
Along come some folks (fellow Christians I would guess) challenging the evolution as the origin of life model, and want to have some statement read in one of my kid's biology class. Hey, my nose skin remains undiminished, paticluarly if evolution as the origin of life were also presented.
But for the most part the biology class should just be about the science, not about extrapolating the science into the distant past.
As for other school districts, let the other parents decide what they want. It seems to me nationalizing education was a mistake in the first place, and just because congress is gathering education funds and redistributing them, does not give them a mandate to pass laws regulating what is and is not to be considered approriate in biology class. It is even more inapproriate for the federal courts to try to legeslate it (for they are both the wrong level AND the wrong type of government to legislate local matters).
Be that as it may, both the Darwin camp and Creation camp on these threads seem to assume I reject evolution outright. I don't feel paticularly inclined to let on that this assumption is wrong, perhaps because I'm a bit of a smart ass, but partly because it really shouldn't matter if my arguments are valid.
What, you're the only one allowed to do the non-sequitor thing on this thread? I think not.
Attempting to discredit evolution by equating it with marxism, dialectical materialism, or anything else is a logical fallacy. I used the same logical fallacy in my response to you. You understood how ridiculous it was there, but cannot when it comes to your own arguments.
I do agree that science shouldn't make wild unproven extrapolations - presenting material evidence along multiple lines of inquiry (paleontological, morphological, genetic and biogeographical) and linking together a theory about the distant past isn't just a wild conjecture, though. Naturally, we do much more about the evolution of life 1 million years ago than 1 billion years ago from these lines of evidence, but the pattern of evolution is quite ubiquitous throughout the whole history of life. As far whether evolution should be taught as "fact", well I don't believe any scientific theory should just be thrown at students as a rote "fact" to be taken on faith; evolution, like any other science theory should be presented with the evidence that supports it, and its overall place in the paradigm of science should be demonstrated. I only get annoyed when either outright faulty or unscientific principles are expected to be taught with equal weight - a competent science teacher simply can't do that in good conscience.
As for other school districts, let the other parents decide what they want.
I concur. Just as you pointed out that people seem to wrongly assume you don't accept evolution, people seem to wrongly assume I'm not for local control of school boards. I do, however, think that school boards are making a grave mistake to trivialize or ban such an important theory from the science classroom, and that doing so is not good for the reputation of the district. Voters in Dover, PA let their school board know this; and if Kansas voters don't apply the same pressure they'll have to accept the negative stigma that comes with their decision, including not being allowed to use printed material by the NSF and National Academy of Sciences and the general shunning of scientists (which can't be good for business in the state). I don't have "faith" in evolution, but I do have faith in the democratic process.
The PA Senate is supposed to vote on repeal of the pay raise today, already passed in the House, but that is not enough to satisfy the PA conservatives. It is still their intention to punish the Republicans in the state legislature who voted for it come November. Since the Republicans are mostly "Republicrats," the only reason this is going to be a disaster is because it will give Rendell a free hand for 4 yrs. to further the destruction of PA with more socialist policies.
My point was simply that Marx was influenced by Darwin. In incorrectly stated that Dialectic Materialism was based off of Darwin's work. Marx's later line of BS, Historic Materialism would have been more correct.
Like I've stated several times on this thread: Darwin isn't responsible for the nutters that expanded on his ideas. That is why I said, read the freakin' thread.
Yes, right now we see Jesus as the Lamb of God but He is also the Lion of the tribe of Judah. The question is which side do we want to experience? It is easy to forget the Savior and Shepherd is also King of kings and Lord of lords.
Rev. 6:16-17 "And said to the mountains and rocks, 'Fall on us, and hide us from the face of Him that sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of His wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?'"
What a paradox--wrath coming from a lamb!
Take this analogy
Man::computer
Force::life
Man has never made a living organism from something non-living and yet we desire to say a non-living force brought about life. How convoluted is that. Only mature life can reproduce. You cannot have larvae without a male and a female fly. And why is there a male and a female? Seems like we could easily through evolution just have one gender.
"And why is there a male and a female?"
Wrong analogy. Not all species have a male and a female. In fact, lower organisms are asexual and reproduce by fission or budding. Thank you introductory biology!
True but that is not uniform in nature. So why do the higher forms of life rely on the male and female for reproduction? If it is good for the lower, why not the upper forms? I think the bottom line is that humans were created in the image of God that is why there is huge gap between a human and animal. I don't see them driving to stores or putting on a radio program without human help. They don't have an everlasting existence. Once Fido dies, he ceases to exist. Not so, with us moral creatures, we exist forever.
I'm anything but thrilled with Santorum's recent votes - like the one yesterday on the war,"
The Dems spun it as some kind of repudiation of Bush.
I havent seen how the media spun that vote, but i wouldnt be surprised if its simply DNC-based exageration. JMHO.
But that view is spin/wrong.
It was simply asking Bush admin to report on progress in Iraq and have metrics etc, as they are already doing ... at least that is how Rumsfeld felt about it when he was on Hannity yesterday.
The more serious troop withdrawal proposal went down to defeat.
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.