Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Santorum: Don't put intelligent design in classroom
Beaver County Times & Allegheny Times ^ | 11/13/5 | Bill Vidonic

Posted on 11/13/2005 3:49:41 PM PST by Crackingham

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 501-550551-600601-650651-686 last
To: WOSG
He does it [comrpomises with the liberals] a lot fewer than most....yet has been an unabashed conservative

The 2 statements don't go together. I actually think we're on the same page though. I don't go around bashing Santorum, and I will vote for him, but my enthusiasm has taken a hit over the last couple of years. You sounds like yours has too.

651 posted on 11/19/2005 8:24:05 AM PST by Minuteman23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: Minuteman23

I was responding to someone who claims he is a compromiser. well, heck, every good politician does some of that, and its not necessarily bad. However, Santorum is less of a compromiser than, say, Hatch, Frist, Stevens, Dole, DeWine, etc.

I stand by my claim that Santorum is in our "TOP TEN" of good conservative Senators. My enthusiasm is not diminished at all, but I am fearful that we will lose him if we don't get our act together and rally around his re-election.


652 posted on 11/19/2005 8:28:11 AM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 651 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
The structure of the universe itself is wildly improbable

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact. To claim that it is improbable that the Universe exists as it is, is Reification. "Improbability" is an abstract concept held by human beings, not a extant fact.

The Universe exists, therefore it is entirely probable, no matter the faulty opinions of some men.

The rest of your post amounts to the same, and isn't worth my time.

653 posted on 11/20/2005 7:57:44 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
Conversly those rejecting this hypothesis would most likely maintain that the universe simply always existed.

Astrophysists claim to have evidence that the universe popped into existance long ago in some kind of big bang. Which shows some confirmation that the universe did not always exist . . .

I can't expect you to follow all my past posts. I have always held that something has always existed, that the Big Bang as stated is flawed. I suppose I could resort to ID and say "that is not explained, THEREFORE God did it!!!" But I won't.

Just because we don't know how it happened doesn't mean it has a supernatural cause.

654 posted on 11/20/2005 8:03:35 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Wrong. It is a SCIENCE in MATHEMATICS. You clearly can't handle science. You have destroyed ALL credible scientific seriousness in your posts.

Class . . . CLASS . . . CLASS!!!!

Notice, this is entirely a personal attack with NO CONTENT. This the technique of all those who lack ALL credible scientific seriousness who have to resort to character assination instead.

Pathetic.

655 posted on 11/20/2005 8:08:28 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
I have always held that something has always existed, that the Big Bang as stated is flawed.

The big bang and long term evolution seem to be the most popular guesses among those who study the physical evidence of such things.

However if you have considered the astronomical evidence and maintain an alternate conclusion, I hardly care to argue that you do not have "even one iota of evidence". That would just be silly.

656 posted on 11/20/2005 11:49:55 PM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings; Paul Ross
[LogicWings]...Just because Antony Flew proved he was an idiot...

[LogicWings]Notice, this is entirely a personal attack with NO CONTENT. This the technique of all those who lack ALL credible scientific seriousness who have to resort to character assination instead.

657 posted on 11/21/2005 12:00:47 AM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
Notice, this is entirely a personal attack with NO CONTENT.

Class, Class, Class.

Note you never, ever, did or could, apparently, defend your baseless failures on probability science. Hence, your diatribe, divrced from the proper rhetorical context, attempting to mischaracterize my observations of your lack of credibility, make it clear that it is YOUR REJOINDER which is entirely a personal attack with NO CONTENT.

Hoist by your own Petard, aren't you? Just agree, since it is true.

Pathetic.

658 posted on 11/21/2005 11:57:56 AM PST by Paul Ross ("The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the govt and I'm here to help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies]

To: 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."

It's good to see that some politicians are capable of learning and putting their errors behind them.

659 posted on 11/30/2005 7:26:52 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
I hardly care to argue that you do not have "even one iota of evidence".

There isn't. Present it. My cosmology doesn't need it.

660 posted on 12/03/2005 7:44:08 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 656 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

[LogicWings]...Just because Antony Flew proved he was an idiot...

yeah


661 posted on 12/03/2005 7:45:29 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Note you never, ever, did or could, apparently, defend your baseless failures on probability science.

That was because there was nothing to defend. You couldn't defend giving me "one wet iota" of evidence for ID. There is none, so you tried to change the subject. There is no probability for that which does not exist. Evolution exists, therefore the probability is 100 percent.

Pathetic

Yeah.

662 posted on 12/03/2005 8:07:08 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
There isn't. Present it. My cosmology doesn't need it.

It seems strange that you would want me to present evidence for your own cosmology, particularly when you insist not only that you have none, but that there is none.

For the sake of whatever your argument is, lets say that there is not even one iota of evidence for your cosmology. I am curious to know what you would argue with such a strange premise.

663 posted on 12/03/2005 9:14:46 PM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 660 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
The original statement I made in post 91 was:

One "wet iota" (see poet John Ciardi) of evidence for ID. That's all. Just one.

Now you say:

It seems strange that you would want me to present evidence for your own cosmology, particularly when you insist not only that you have none, but that there is none.

My, my you people are dishonest. I never said there is none. I could never assert that, it would require Proving the Negative.

For the sake of whatever your argument is, lets say that there is not even one iota of evidence for your cosmology. I am curious to know what you would argue with such a strange premise.

So for you to turn this on its head say that I am asserting there isn't "one wet iota" for my point of view is laughable.

What I said is precisely the opposite, there isn't one wet iota of evidence for ID and you simply will not admit that fact.

664 posted on 12/04/2005 5:16:11 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 663 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
That was because there was nothing to defend.

This a wholesale abdication on your part.

I take it as Proof that you have no argument. You can't prove your alternate universes. And your probabilities are insupportable.

Design is the only logical conclusion. And that goes for your probabilities on the biochemistry too. The supposedly 'higher probability' interactions which you assume have not been accounted for...are themselves highly improbable, hence likely designed in. I.e., the conclusion is well-nigh inescapable, that the universe was designed to support life. Again, probability defeats you handily.

Hence, you can''t give one wet iota of proof for naturalism. The burden of proof is on you, and you don't know probability:

"Evolution exists" says you. ..."therefore the probability is 100 percent."

That turns around. Clearly, first, that is a nonsequitur. And then second, if you start from the opposite,( and well defended alternate hypothesis) "Evolution doesn't exist"...therefore the probability is 100 percent against. Ditto, eh?

665 posted on 12/05/2005 12:59:48 PM PST by Paul Ross (My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple...It is this, 'We win and they lose.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
So for you to turn this on its head say that I am asserting there isn't "one wet iota" for my point of view is laughable.

Read both parts of post 660:

[Me]I hardly care to argue that you do not have "even one iota of evidence".

[You]There isn't. Present it. My cosmology doesn't need it.

Your "no iota" reflex seems to have fired at the wrong time. It might behoove you to check what you are responding too first.

Moreover my argument in post 354 has certainly met your "one iota" standard in terms of ID, and seems that in two weeks you have only presented two incomplete attacks against it:

1) I have always held that something has always existed, that the Big Bang as stated is flawed.

Sure you can maintain this, but this does nothing to make all the evidence that supports the big bang go away.

2) Just because we don't know how it happened doesn't mean it has a supernatural cause.

I did not present a proof, I simply presented something that met your "one iota of evidence" standard.

The postulate that God created the universe predicted that there was a definitive starting point. Thus evidence for the big bang is evidence for creation.

The postulate existed before the evidence supporting it was found. Thus it seems to meet the reckless definition of science used by many arguing for Darwinism--although it does not meet mine.

But don't let reality slow you down. Go ahead and call me stupid, or and idiot, or dishonest. And then tell me how I have no class and am attacking you personally. And then keep repeating that there is not one iota of evidence for creation.

666 posted on 12/05/2005 8:07:26 PM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 664 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

"In God We trust was designated national motto in 1956..."

Actually "In God We Trust" was was printed on Federal Notes after the abandonment of the gold standard in 1948.

Fiat currency became the new God and a false god at that.

It has everything to do with phoney money and nothing to do with theology.


667 posted on 12/05/2005 8:35:09 PM PST by beaver fever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Design is the only logical conclusion.

Intelligent Design is not a conclusion, it is a hypothesis. You have no content, no evidence, no premise to justify this supposed "conclusion."

The supposedly 'higher probability' interactions which you assume have not been accounted for...are themselves highly improbable, hence likely designed in.

"Probability" is an abstraction. Thus you commit the Fallacy of Reification when you assert "...are themselves highly improbable". That is merely an opinion, not a fact. The word "improbable" reveals the uncertainty of the assertion.

hence likely designed in.

Now there's hard science for you. It is likely, maybe, might be, I guess it may, I guess it might, be "designed in."

Yeah, that is really useful in science. That is going to a much better understanding of the Universe.

Hence, you can''t give one wet iota of proof for naturalism.

HA HA HA !!! I don't have to give proof of naturalism since "proof" BY DEFINITION is naturalistic. There is no "evidence" in science that stands outside of naturalistic evidence. Besides "Naturalism" is a philosophy that I never said I embraced so don't put that on me.

And then second, if you start from the opposite,(and well defended alternate hypothesis) "Evolution doesn't exist"...therefore the probability is 100 percent against. Ditto, eh?

What "evidence" do you have that "Evolution doesn't exist?" Go ahead Prove that Negative.

Or conversely, give one wet iota of evidence for Intelligent Design. Just one.

668 posted on 12/11/2005 6:22:35 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 665 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
Evolution rejects the notion of a supernatural.

Actually -the theory of evolution can make no such claim. It is the atheist evolutionists that make such faithful claims at the altar of their moral relative God of science...

669 posted on 12/11/2005 6:28:51 PM PST by DBeers ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
I simply presented something that met your "one iota of evidence" standard.

You did not. The rest of your post is irrelevant.

670 posted on 12/11/2005 6:29:01 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
Evolution rejects the notion of a supernatural.

Actually -the theory of evolution can make no such claim. . . .

the altar of their moral relative God of science...

I wish you guys could go back to the world as it would be without the "God of science."

Can you say DARK AGES?

671 posted on 12/11/2005 6:34:08 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 669 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings

I would say that you have exposed your bigotry. I would suggest you frequent a Christian hate forum rather than meekly cloak your bigotry in 'science'...


672 posted on 12/11/2005 7:31:29 PM PST by DBeers ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
You did not. The rest of your post is irrelevant.

My argument was pretty easy to understand, but being that you reject it so vehemently without expressing a logical reason to, let us take it one little baby step at a time and see where you have a problem with it:

Premise A) There is much more then "one iota" of evidence for the Big Bang theory (albeit not conclusive proof, the evidence could be interpreted a different way).

Any problem so far?

673 posted on 12/11/2005 7:39:01 PM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings; DBeers
I wish you guys could go back to the world as it would be without the "God of science."

Can you say DARK AGES?

Once again I am impressed with the way that LogicWings uses logic to back up his position. The argument above clearly shows that:

Evolution rejects the notion of a supernatural.

674 posted on 12/13/2005 3:22:26 AM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
Any problem so far?

You mean aside from the fact that your statement isn't a premise?

675 posted on 12/21/2005 5:25:43 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 673 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
I would say that you have exposed your bigotry. I would suggest you frequent a Christian hate forum rather than meekly cloak your bigotry in 'science'...

There was no bigotry in the post. Ain't no time to hate, barely time to wait. Nice beam you got there. Doesn't that hurt?

676 posted on 12/21/2005 5:29:55 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
Once again I am impressed with the way that LogicWings uses logic to back up his position.

If evolution is science it rejects the notion of the supernatural as an explanation for natural occurances. Evolution is science. Therefore:

677 posted on 12/21/2005 5:33:49 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 674 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
Nice beam you got there. Doesn't that hurt?

You can choose to take fraternal correction or leave it... It is your choice.

678 posted on 12/22/2005 7:50:49 AM PST by DBeers ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 676 | View Replies]

To: Malacoda

And when you loose control, you'll reap the harvest that you've
sown

So have a good drown, as you go down, alone
Dragged down by the stone.


679 posted on 12/22/2005 7:59:06 AM PST by conservative barking moonbat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
You mean aside from the fact that your statement isn't a premise?

It may not be a premise that you accept. I am trying to find a starting point that we can both agree on.

If you insist on being obtuse, I can guarantee that it will haunt you.

So shall I broadcast on later threads that LogicWings will not accept that there is an iota of evidence for the big bang? Or does LogicWings grow wings and fly away at the first sign of a logical argument?

680 posted on 12/23/2005 10:17:15 AM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 675 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
If evolution is science it rejects the notion of the supernatural as an explanation for natural occurances[sic].Evolution is science. Therefore:

Therefore what? Did you mean the colon at the end, or were you trying to tender this as some kind of argument, that concludes its own premise?

681 posted on 12/23/2005 10:22:19 AM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 677 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
which was predicted by the postulate that it was created

From 354. The postulate of some ancient myth-making is not evidence, not even one wet iota.

Premise A) There is much more then "one iota" of evidence for the Big Bang theory (albeit not conclusive proof, the evidence could be interpreted a different way).

From 673. This is not a premise. Define the major and minor terms.

Any problem so far?

From 675 to which I replied: This not a premise.

It may not be a premise that you accept. I am trying to find a starting point that we can both agree on.

No, you are trying to be clever, which is evidently somewhat beyond you.

So shall I broadcast on later threads that LogicWings will not accept that there is an iota of evidence for the big bang?

Say whatever you like, the people who would consider your slander valid aren’t people of any interest to me anyway. I don’t have your fragile ego.

To return to the original formulation. There isn’t one wet iota of evidence for Intelligent Design. You never presented one. You presented a convoluted postulate that if the Big Bang were accurate then this somehow proves the “one wet iota” criteria but this is just a hypothetical supposition based upon pre-scientific mysticism. These same people used to think everything was made up of “earth, air, fire and water.” Proved to be a really useful theory for survival didn’t it?

. . . at the first sign of a logical argument?

Have yet to see one.

682 posted on 12/29/2005 7:19:53 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 680 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
Therefore what? Did you mean the colon at the end, or were you trying to tender this as some kind of argument, that concludes its own premise?

What's the matter? Can't finish a Syllogism?

683 posted on 12/29/2005 7:21:46 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 681 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Just an aside, Dimensio, since you are one of the most stalwart defenders of rationality on Crevo threads, the Dover decision proved one thing:

it will not effect the length of Crevo threads on FR.

The IDers are obsessives. The will never quit regardless of how absurd the debate becomes.

If this issue comes up in six months in the MSM forum the GOP will run from it like the bird flu.
684 posted on 12/29/2005 8:22:23 PM PST by beaver fever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
From 354. The postulate of some ancient myth-making is not evidence, not even one wet iota.

Insulting a postulate does not make it not a postulate. And I never said that the postulate was evidence.

From 673. This is not a premise. Define the major and minor terms

My Meriam-Webster dictionary defines a premise as:

a statement of fact or supposition made or implied as a basis for an argument.

There is no mention of defining major or minor terms in this definition. This is more or less the definition I am using when I ask if you accept this premise.

No, you are trying to be clever, which is evidently somewhat beyond you.

No, I was trying to reach a reasonable starting point. I want to ascertain whether you agree there is evidence for the big bang or not. I find it hard to be more straight forward and clear.

Have yet to see one [a logical argument].

Logical arguments start with a set of premises. If you simply refuse to acknowledge any premise, you will continue not to see a logical argument.

You presented a convoluted postulate that if the Big Bang were accurate then this somehow proves the “one wet iota” criteria but this is just a hypothetical supposition based upon pre-scientific mysticism.

I presented what seems to me a logical argument that you did not see. I am now trying to investigate where we disagree. To start off with, a straight forward question: Do you agree that there is more then an iota of evidence for the big bang?

685 posted on 12/29/2005 9:02:56 PM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 682 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
What's the matter? Can't finish a Syllogism?

Not a word I recognize. I looked it up and got this:

a logical scheme of formal argument consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion which must logically be true if the premises are true.

Hmmm so if each of these premises has a major and minor "term" that you need to define, then that would mean I would need to see at least the following defined:

1) a major-major term (major term for major premise)

2) a major-minor term (minor term for major premise)

3) a minor-major term (major term for minor premise)

4) a minor-minor term (minor term for minor premise)

But I suppose that your idea of premise and syllogism might be different then that of my Meriam-Webster dictionary.

So I will assume you mean the implied conclusion was that evolution rejects the supernatural. But your first premise:

If evolution is science it rejects the notion of the supernatural as an explanation for natural occurances.

Is a bit much to swallow for someone who does not already accept this conclusion? Also it would seem there were some weasel words added: "as an explanation for natural occurrences". Should I assume the same qualification belongs on the conclusion?

686 posted on 12/29/2005 9:25:13 PM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 501-550551-600601-650651-686 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson