Santorum now critical of Dover case

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 12/22/2005 | Carrie Budoff and Paul Nussbaum

[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.

...

[ml1954]

We really should amend the Constitution to give Senators something actually useful to do.

[Antoninus]

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

[trek]

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.

[Mamzelle]

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

[Antoninus]

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."

[OldFriend]

Santorum has truly lost his way. Pathetic waffling.

[Mamzelle]

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

[PatrickHenry]

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.

[highball]

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.

[indcons]

This story has been posted in other sources too.

[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"?

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

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"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.

[Dimensio]

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

[AntiGuv]

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.

[linda_22003]

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

[Mamzelle]

Welcome to FR. Find your way here by IM?

[linda_22003]

By instant message? No.

[Gumlegs]

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!

[dmz]

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!

[Ciexyz]

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.