Skip to comments.Santorum now critical of Dover case
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 ...
"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?
Santorum decides which way the wind is blowing on any particular day to decide what side to take. No more votes for this waffler.
This one might be ping-worthy. WWtGMD?
Wait! Let me see....
Hmm, a politician changed his mind based on public opinion.
Nope, nothing to see here!
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,
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.
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.
"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.
--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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
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"?
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.
"IDer" is to "creationist" as "liberal democrat" is to "socialist".
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.
Gee, I wonder if the Philadelphia StInquirer has it in for Sen. Santorum?
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.
Think you'll be able to put a Dem in his seat?
Santorum has truly lost his way. Pathetic waffling.
I think Santorum is definitely a target of the evo-Democrats, and he knows it.
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.
This story has been posted in other sources too.
>>>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.
I remember when he first expressed reservations about the board's actions in Dover. Someone here on FR called him a "traitor".
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.
They don't need to be; he's perfectly capable of messing up on his own.
Welcome to FR. Find your way here by IM?
By instant message? No.
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!
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!
We have to live in a secular world, but we can carve out our own niche within it.
Should we also let students decide if homosexuality is natural or not?
There's more to her theory, but I think you get the idea.
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.
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
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.
Education is a wonderful thing and conservative is not synonymous with ignorance.
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.
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.