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

Skip to comments.

Santorum now critical of Dover case
Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 12/22/2005 | Carrie Budoff and Paul Nussbaum

Posted on 12/22/2005 1:41:44 PM PST by jennyp

[subhead: He denies he is contradicting earlier statements of support for the cause.]

Early this year, Sen. Rick Santorum commended the Dover Area School District for "attempting to teach the controversy of evolution."

But one day after a federal judge ruled that the district's policy on intelligent design was unconstitutional, Santorum said he was troubled by court testimony that showed some board members were motivated by religion in adopting the policy.

And, he said in an interview, he disagreed with the board for mandating the teaching of [ID], rather than just the controversy surrounding evolution.

Santorum - who sits on the advisory board of the Thomas More Law Center, which defended the school board in court - said the case offered "a bad set of facts" to test the concept that theories other than evolution should be taught in science classrooms.

"I thought the [TMLC] made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did," Santorum said.

He said he intends to withdraw his affiliation with the Michigan-based public-interest law firm that promotes Christian values.

...

Santorum would not comment on the ruling itself, saying that he had yet to fully review it.

The case highlighted Santorum's high-profile role in the debate over teaching evolution. ... [H]is actions - most notably, an effort in 2001 to insert a "teach the controversy" amendment into a landmark education bill - figured prominently into the case.

It also has become a political issue for Santorum as he faces a tough reelection in 2006. His leading Democratic challenger, state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., has seized upon the senator's seemingly contradictory statements on intelligent design to portray him as a "flip flopper" who puts an ideological agenda above other interests.

...

(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevo; crevolist; dover; evolution; pennsylvania; santorum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-123 next last
Between the conservative voters of Dover kicking the creationist board members out, and now Santorum desperately waffling like this, it really looks like creationism in the public schools is a loser, at least in Pennsylvania.
1 posted on 12/22/2005 1:41:45 PM PST by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jennyp

"But one day after a federal judge ruled that the district's policy on intelligent design was unconstitutional, Santorum said he was troubled by court testimony that showed some board members were motivated by religion in adopting the policy."

Is there any other motvation?


2 posted on 12/22/2005 1:43:48 PM PST by gondramB (Rightful liberty is unobstructed action within limits of the equal rights of others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Santorum has become a very adroit politician, in that he has now found there are more than two sides to any question.

Santorum decides which way the wind is blowing on any particular day to decide what side to take. No more votes for this waffler.

3 posted on 12/22/2005 1:44:58 PM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

This one might be ping-worthy. WWtGMD?


4 posted on 12/22/2005 1:45:07 PM PST by jennyp (PILTDOWN MAN IS REAL! The evolutionist's story that Piltdown was a hoax is the REAL hoax!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Truth


5 posted on 12/22/2005 1:48:01 PM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

Wait! Let me see....

Hmm, a politician changed his mind based on public opinion.

Nope, nothing to see here!


6 posted on 12/22/2005 1:49:08 PM PST by 2nsdammit (By definition it's hard to get suicide bombers with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB; jennyp; Tribune7

Is there any other motvation?

Just science that shows the pillars of Darwinism to be dead wrong (Miller Urey, the Finches).  Oh, and probably the total lack of any evidence of one species turning into another.  But that's it.

Sunlight hit some amino acids and created life, and humans and maple trees have a common ancestor.  It's rock solid science and questioning it is like questioning heliocentrism.

Owl_Eagle

(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,

 it was probably sarcasm)

7 posted on 12/22/2005 1:51:06 PM PST by South Hawthorne (In Memory of my Dear Friend Henry Lee II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

"Truth"

I have yet to see a non born again Christian advocate forcing the teaching of Intelligent design in science class. There may be a few but this is almost entirely about whether or not to use this method to get religion back into public schools.

Even though I believe in Intelligent design I don't like this method because it doesn't feel honest. And it certainly doesn't feel like a search for truth so much as it feels anti-science anti-intelectual.


8 posted on 12/22/2005 1:51:34 PM PST by gondramB (Rightful liberty is unobstructed action within limits of the equal rights of others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
it really looks like creationism in the public schools is a loser

Looks like it's a loser? It is a loser, plain and simple.

There's a reason that the Discovery Institute didn't want to be a part of this case. It was doomed from the start. Now even the politicians are running away from it.

9 posted on 12/22/2005 1:53:09 PM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
So religion is automatically anti-intellectual? Only Darwin's truth is allowed in schools? And how excited do you really think 9th graders are over evolution anyway? It's about much more than 9th grade biology, isn't it?
10 posted on 12/22/2005 1:53:28 PM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle

"Just science that shows the pillars of Darwinism"

There are thousands of scientific theories..how man y of these people are also trying to force schools to teach other scientific issues one way or another? Their interest in this issue is that they think it contradicts their religion.

Evolution and Christianity are not in conflict...which makes this particularly sad.


11 posted on 12/22/2005 1:53:49 PM PST by gondramB (Rightful liberty is unobstructed action within limits of the equal rights of others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

--But one day after a federal judge ruled that the district's policy on intelligent design was unconstitutional, Santorum said he was troubled by court testimony that showed some board members were motivated by religion in adopting the policy.

I take it the PI does not endorse Santorum.


12 posted on 12/22/2005 1:54:35 PM PST by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Truth is not a question for science. It is for philosophy.

Science is limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. It rejects the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. In deliberately omitting theological or “ultimate” explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of “meaning” and “purpose” in the world.

While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method. Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.


13 posted on 12/22/2005 1:54:50 PM PST by NC28203
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

"So religion is automatically anti-intellectual? Only Darwin's truth is allowed in schools?"

you know the answer to that..no and no. But forcing schools to teach science that scientists don't believe in is anti-intelectual.

As for Darwin - he was 100 years ago and most of his work has been superceded.


14 posted on 12/22/2005 1:55:32 PM PST by gondramB (Rightful liberty is unobstructed action within limits of the equal rights of others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
So religion is automatically anti-intellectual?

No, only some of the more bone-headed practitioners and failed concepts.

Only Darwin's truth is allowed in schools?

I have no trouble presenting ideas like ID where they belong: in theology or philosophy classes.

15 posted on 12/22/2005 1:55:59 PM PST by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Evolution and Christianity are not in conflict

Neither is evolution (in that organisms change and adapt over time) and ID.  But watch how often the opponents of ID (Darwinists) refer to ID as "creationism" (literal belief in The Book of Genesis) in order to cloud the waters so that they may continue to preach this distortion of science.  Darwinism is the icon of materialism.

 

Owl_Eagle

(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,

 it was probably sarcasm)

16 posted on 12/22/2005 1:57:29 PM PST by South Hawthorne (In Memory of my Dear Friend Henry Lee II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NC28203

Why do you assume God and/or supernatural is not testable? And every scientific inquiry must start with ideas. What is your definition of "nature"?


17 posted on 12/22/2005 1:57:56 PM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: blowfish

I don't think it matters much what subject we call it, so long as it is allowed to be taught. Students can decide for themselves if it's science or not.


18 posted on 12/22/2005 1:59:11 PM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle
Neither is evolution (in that organisms change and adapt over time) and ID. But watch how often the opponents of ID (Darwinists) refer to ID as "creationism" (literal belief in The Book of Genesis) in order to cloud the waters so that they may continue to preach this distortion of science.

"IDer" is to "creationist" as "liberal democrat" is to "socialist".

19 posted on 12/22/2005 2:00:24 PM PST by jennyp (PILTDOWN MAN IS REAL! The evolutionist's story that Piltdown was a hoax is the REAL hoax!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

Frankly, I am fed up with the creationists trying to push their curriculum on the public schools. It didn't have to happen, they could have handled the situation without putting it into the courts. We lost a lot more than the right to include intelligent design in the curriculum. We set a precident of court interference in local school curriculum. This is not good.

I remember my very fundamentalist Sunday school teacher explaining that evolution could not have happened without God's hand in it. If we could handle it that way, there is no reason, that parents can't do the same today.


20 posted on 12/22/2005 2:00:31 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
We really should amend the Constitution to give Senators something actually useful to do.
21 posted on 12/22/2005 2:01:09 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

Gee, I wonder if the Philadelphia StInquirer has it in for Sen. Santorum?


22 posted on 12/22/2005 2:01:16 PM PST by Antoninus (Hillary smiles every time a Freeper trashes Santorum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Santorum is in an untenable position on the subject of the origin of the species because nobody will speak the truth on the real issue that is in play. The problem is not ID, creation science or Darwinism. The problem is government schools. The vast majority of the citizens support the concept of universal education. But the virtuous end of universal education has been intentionally confused with the ineffective and problematic means of government schools.

Until someone on the right is willing to make the distinction between universal education and government schools, the politicians on the right will continue to struggle. As if often the case, only the truth will set you free.

23 posted on 12/22/2005 2:02:08 PM PST by trek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

Think you'll be able to put a Dem in his seat?


24 posted on 12/22/2005 2:06:27 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
The case highlighted Santorum's high-profile role in the debate over teaching evolution. ... [H]is actions - most notably, an effort in 2001 to insert a "teach the controversy" amendment into a landmark education bill - figured prominently into the case.

I have no problem with the 'teach the controversy' attitude. Too often, science is presented in schools as "this is how it is--you will accept it" rather than as "this is why we think it is--learn it and draw your own conclusions."

It also has become a political issue for Santorum as he faces a tough reelection in 2006. His leading Democratic challenger, state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., has seized upon the senator's seemingly contradictory statements on intelligent design to portray him as a "flip flopper" who puts an ideological agenda above other interests.

Ideological agenda--as in his own personal beliefs? I guess we're supposed to set those aside when we take political office? "Well, I'm personally opposed to rounding up all Democrats and shipping them off to Guantanamo, but I can't let my personal ideology get in the way."
25 posted on 12/22/2005 2:06:41 PM PST by Antoninus (Hillary smiles every time a Freeper trashes Santorum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

Santorum has truly lost his way. Pathetic waffling.


26 posted on 12/22/2005 2:06:51 PM PST by OldFriend (The Dems enABLEd DANGER and 3,000 Americans died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

I think Santorum is definitely a target of the evo-Democrats, and he knows it.


27 posted on 12/22/2005 2:07:40 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
Evolution Ping

The List-O-Links
A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 330 names.
See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped.
To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit,
and How to argue against a scientific theory.

28 posted on 12/22/2005 2:11:54 PM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
I have no problem with the 'teach the controversy' attitude.

The problem is that there is no "controversy." There are no "competing theories."
There's just the Theory of Evolution, with all the evidence that supports it and that is itself supported by the vast majority of scientists, and on the other hand there's people like those at the Discovery Institute and on this school board who are trying to promote their religious beliefs under the cover of science.

Once someone can articulate another scientific theory that addresses the evidence, then there will be a "controversy" to teach.

29 posted on 12/22/2005 2:13:17 PM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

This story has been posted in other sources too.


30 posted on 12/22/2005 2:15:31 PM PST by indcons (FReepmail indcons to join the MilHist ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

>>>Why do you assume God and/or supernatural is not testable? And every scientific inquiry must start with ideas. What is your definition of "nature"?

Prove me wrong. Show me a testable hypothesis about God, or ID, or creation science.


31 posted on 12/22/2005 2:17:16 PM PST by NC28203
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle
"Just science that shows the pillars of Darwinism to be dead wrong (Miller Urey, the Finches)."

1) Miller Urey experiment: A successful attempt to show that certain organic compounds can be formed in the conditions of the early Earth. It was NEVER an attempt to create life. Not connected to evolution, but to abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't deal with the origins of life.

2) The finches of the Galapagos; an excellent example of natural selection at work.

"Sunlight hit some amino acids and created life,..."

Nobody is saying it happened like that.

"...and humans and maple trees have a common ancestor."

They do.

" It's rock solid science and questioning it is like questioning heliocentrism."

At this stage, pretty much.
32 posted on 12/22/2005 2:21:39 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

I remember when he first expressed reservations about the board's actions in Dover. Someone here on FR called him a "traitor".


33 posted on 12/22/2005 2:24:54 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NC28203

God and the supernatural are absolutely testable in my view. The problem is that every single known test produces results indistinguishable from those characteristic of a phenomenon which does not exist. So, rather than accept the self-evident, it's considered preferable to just pretend that God is not testable.


34 posted on 12/22/2005 2:25:56 PM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

They don't need to be; he's perfectly capable of messing up on his own.


35 posted on 12/22/2005 2:28:06 PM PST by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003

Welcome to FR. Find your way here by IM?


36 posted on 12/22/2005 2:29:30 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

By instant message? No.


37 posted on 12/22/2005 2:30:34 PM PST by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
I don't think it matters much what subject we call it, so long as it is allowed to be taught. Students can decide for themselves if it's science or not.

Should they be allowed to decide if it's English or not? Math or not? Why bother with teaching them anything at all? Let the little beggars figure it out for themsleves!

38 posted on 12/22/2005 2:31:18 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

Santorum said he was troubled by court testimony that showed some board members were motivated by religion in adopting the policy."
________________________

I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!


39 posted on 12/22/2005 2:33:27 PM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that people of faith have any legal standing on this issue. Which goes to show that we mustn't put our trust in public institutions to further our values.

We have to live in a secular world, but we can carve out our own niche within it.

40 posted on 12/22/2005 2:34:04 PM PST by Ciexyz (Let us always remember, the Lord is in control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
I don't think it matters much what subject we call it, so long as it is allowed to be taught. Students can decide for themselves if it's science or not.

Funny comments.

Should we also let students decide if homosexuality is natural or not?

41 posted on 12/22/2005 2:35:43 PM PST by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003; Mamzelle; Senator Bedfellow
Welcome to FR.

And to explain Mamzelle's question....she has this theory that posters on FR who are pro-evolution communicate and coordinate their posts on FR using IM, or maybe ESP, or something like that. She even thinks many of us are the same person.

There's more to her theory, but I think you get the idea.

42 posted on 12/22/2005 2:38:19 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

I believe that is the nature of politics in general, don't you? One party will strike where the other is weak. Tom Daschle is a demo case in point.

Sadly, it apparently trumps doing useful things with their time in DC.


43 posted on 12/22/2005 2:39:37 PM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

Thanks for the explanation; I'm still learning the language around here. No, from reading the boards around here, it's obviously possible to dislike Santorum for any one of a number of reasons. ;-D


44 posted on 12/22/2005 2:43:06 PM PST by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

Look, whether one agrees or disagrees with the result of this case and no matter where one stands on the ID debates, the fact the federal govt. can dictate what a local school can and can't teach as science should give all cause for concern.


45 posted on 12/22/2005 2:43:16 PM PST by joebuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: vanbc
Isn't there a seperate, Catholic/Christian school board for EXACTLY this reason?

Yup.

47 posted on 12/22/2005 2:47:08 PM PST by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

Education is a wonderful thing and conservative is not synonymous with ignorance.


48 posted on 12/22/2005 2:48:05 PM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003

it's obviously possible to dislike Santorum for any one of a number of reasons

No doubt about that. But unless the Republicans have a better alternative, what's one to do?

I'm stuck with Obama and Durbin. It would be nice to have a Republican Senator I could complain about.

49 posted on 12/22/2005 2:48:27 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
I have yet to see a non born again Christian advocate forcing the teaching of Intelligent design in science class.

From my experience most born again Christiana aren't advocating it either. There's only a vocal few who have been duped by a charlatan book selling hoax to side with an idea that, when examined closely, is mostly contrary to bible teachings.

50 posted on 12/22/2005 2:52:37 PM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-123 next 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