At this point I do not care whether intelligent design wins or not. It's not my theory entirely either. I just like the debate. But I don't care because I do not believe in the public school system. They are anti-Christian in every way -- every last one of them.
I fail to see how Catholic automatically = pro-evolution.
You know, on this point I entirely agree. It's funny because on so many issues I find myself coming down on the same side as Christians. This is one of those. Government schools are an atrocity. They are socialist brainwashing camps. That is why this debate is so - ? ? ? - weak, feeble, stupid, or fill in your favorite invective here.
I used to think that having an educated populace was a requirement for democracy and the existence of the U.S. which justified public schools. I question that now. Would it be better to have government schools brainwashing students into socialism or tests for literacy before individuals could vote? Today it would no longer be a racial issue. Just as many whites are illiterate anyone else. What's the harm?
"Ah, this is just typical MSM pitting one religious person against another. Santorum is Catholic so he is pro-evolution."
Maybe Santorum reads to read THIS:
Further, he (the Pope) seems to be cautioning those who have been claiming Church endorsement of the full-bodied, design-defeating version of Darwin's theory of evolution, which, after all, is often little more than philosophical materialism applied to science, added Chapman.
Chapman noted that in his very first homily as Pope, Benedict XVI had rebuked the idea that human beings are mere products of evolution, and that, like his predecessor, John Paul II, the new Pope has a long record of opposition to scientific materialism.
excerpt from: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3015&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage
I'm not an ID proponent; frankly, I don't know enough about it to make a judgment on it either way.
I would agree with you that the real problem here is the mixing of education and state, which inevitably leads to these kinds of conflicts.
Religion and values are a necessary part of education, but how do you impart same to kids in government schools in a pluralist society?
Right, that is the key point. I don't trust the media to tell me whenthe sun will rise, I sure aren't going to trust their claims *today* when just yesterday they totally distorted what Santorum said about the war in Iraq (check my pings for what I'm talking about.)
Santorum is Catholic so he is pro-evolution. No surprise there. Of course he won't argue in favor of teaching a theory he disagrees with, though it would be nice if he had the class to support debate.
He may well support that debate, I'm catholic and I find no problem with showing different views on this in class.... you just don't know with this media whether they are slicing and dicing Santorum's comment just to hurt him politically or what... take with grain o salt...
Actually those of us on the evolution "side" of this debate (and I think I can speak for most all of us in this limited respect) are committed to, at least potentially, arguing in favor of teaching theories we may disagree with. IOW our argument is that this is an issue of academic standards and academic integrity, and that creationism and ID have failed to accrue, on merit, the academic standing in the market place of scientific ideas that would be expected of any other scientific theory before it is included in curricula.
In consequence, though, other theories that are part of science (as can be objectively determined by consulting the professional literature) might also be included whether or not we agree with them individually.
Of course one might say the same of the creationist side. They argue that the determination of curricula content should be a popular or political decision, so that if a legislature or school board votes to include some idea they don't like, then they would be (if consistent) beholden to argue that teaching such would be appropriate, at least until the decision might be reversed by the same means.
The difference, of course, is that the creationists and ID'ers are NOT consistent in this respect. In every other discipline (and even in the natural sciences if it concerns issues like environmentalism or abortion) they, at least those that are conservatives, shift to the same ground of arguing for high and hard-nosed academic standards that we "evolutionists" consistently occupy.