Posted on 11/13/2005 3:49:41 PM PST by 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."
But on Saturday, the Republican said that, "Science leads you where it leads you."
Santorum was in Beaver Falls to present Geneva College President Kenneth A. Smith with a $1.345 million check from federal funds for renovations that include the straightening and relocation of Route 18 through campus.
Santorum's comments about intelligent design come at a time when the belief that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power, an alternative to the theory of evolution, has come under fire on several fronts.
A federal trial just wrapped up in which eight families sued Dover Area School District in eastern Pennsylvania. The district's school board members tried to introduce teaching intelligent design into the classroom, but the families said the policy violated the constitutional separation of church and state. No ruling has been issued on the trial, but Tuesday, all eight Dover School Board members up for re-election were ousted by voters, leading to a fiery tirade by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson.
Robertson warned residents, "If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city."
Santorum said flatly Saturday, "I disagree. I don't believe God abandons people," and said he has not spoken to Robertson about his comments.
Though Santorum said he believes that intelligent design is "a legitimate issue," he doesn't believe it should be taught in the classroom, adding that he had concerns about some parts of the theory.
You have been pung.
Spectre-Part-II-BUMP!
If faith baised issues should not be taught in schools, then evolution (as it applies to the origin of man) should not be taught there either.
If one unsustainable theory can be taught there, then all unsustainable theories should be able to be taught there.
I can't imagine why Santorum would even stick his foot into this one way or the other. No wonder he's so unpopular lately.
Yeah, no kidding!
When did Santorum lower his britches to get his onions pruned!
A lot of conservatives have been raving about how great Santorum's been since he got elected. But I see nothing indicative that he's any sort of real conservative.
"If faith baised issues should not be taught in schools, then evolution (as it applies to the origin of man) should not be taught there either."
He didn't say that faith based issues should not be taught in schools, he said they shouldn't be taught in a science classroom. Your use of the construction 'faith based issues' demonstrates why this is eminantly correct.
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.
What about gravity? God did it!
What about the moon? God did it!
See how easy that is?
Fine, then remove the unproven 'theory' of evolution from science classrooms. I have no problem with it. Thanks.
I think most of his conservative reputation is built on the fact the Left savaged him that one time when he suggested (quite correctly) that homosexual marriage would lead to other deviances being similarly accepted. The Left biliously hates him for that and says he's a "radical, extremist right-wing nut". Hence, we like him.
Santorum - watch how fast this guys scrambles for anyone to like him.
Run Ricky run...
Almost as easy as calling you a troll. Almost.
APf
Thanks. I'll crank up the list. This is important because: (a) it's Santorum; and (b) it shows how the GOP is learning from the Dover fiasco.
|
Yes, God DID do it. That gravity, thermodynamics and all the laws of physics can mostly be explained does not negate the God Who created it or sustains it.
That you do not believe it is not the universal measuring stick for others. That you deny it does not invalidate it. And the in-your-face simpleton labels you throw back at the believer is a purely sanctimonious retort. Faith required in the astronomical possibility of evolution is far greater than a faith required to believe in God, but the God Whom I choose to believe in is far more complex and powerful than that of evolution….so, why is that so simpleton?
Santorum said flatly Saturday, "I disagree. I don't believe God abandons people,"
Remember these verses, Rick?
Remember the Garden of Eden?
Genesis Chapter 3, verse 4. "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:"....Gen. 3:23-24 "23. therefore Jehovah God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden the Cherubim, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."
Or how about the Flood?
Genesis 6:13-14 "13. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. 14. Make thee an ark..."
And perhaps you also don't believe in Sodom & Gomorrah?
Genesis 19:24-25. "Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven. 25. And he overthrew those cities, and all the Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground."
I wonder if this habit of supposedly Christian-subscribing politicians reading out of existence these clear expressions of God's righteousness...and previous practice of "abandonment" of sinning people (those who consciously abandon God)...is a good indication of a similar inclination by these politicians to disregard the U.S. Constitution?
That's a big flip-flop from the Santorum admendment he proposed in the No Child Left Behind act
Too bad he learned a little too late that replacing science with mythology is a losing issue
Being conservative has nothing to do with evolution or ID. For you to suggest otherwise is not correct.
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.