Leading Republican differs with Bush on evolution (Santorum)

Reuters ^ | 8/4/05 | Jon Hurdle

[Crackingham]

A leading Republican senator allied with the religious right differed on Thursday with President Bush's support for teaching an alternative to the theory of evolution known as "intelligent design."

Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a possible 2008 presidential contender who faces a tough re-election fight next year in Pennsylvania, said intelligent design, which is backed by many religious conservatives, lacked scientific credibility and should not be taught in science classes.

Bush told reporters from Texas on Monday that "both sides" in the debate over intelligent design and evolution should be taught in schools "so people can understand what the debate is about."

"I think I would probably tailor that a little more than what the president has suggested," Santorum, the third-ranking Republican member of the U.S. Senate, told National Public Radio. "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom."

Evangelical Christians have launched campaigns in at least 18 states to make public schools teach intelligent design alongside Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Proponents of intelligent design argue that nature is so complex that it could not have occurred by random natural selection, as held by Darwin's 1859 theory of evolution, and so must be the work of an unnamed "intelligent cause."

Santorum is the third-ranking member of the U.S. Senate and has championed causes of the religious right including opposition to gay marriage and abortion. He is expected to face a stiff challenge from Democrat Bob Casey in his quest for re-election next year in Pennsylvania, a major battleground state in recent presidential elections.

SNIP

"What we should be teaching are the problems and holes -- and I think there are legitimate problems and holes -- in the theory of evolution. What we need to do is to present those fairly, from a scientific point of view," he said in the interview.

"As far as intelligent design is concerned, I really don't believe it has risen to the level of a scientific theory at this point that we would want to teach it alongside of evolution."

[jbloedow]

You said elsewhere that thhere is no conflict between the time scale of evolution and that of the Bible. So how else does evolution contradict your religious beliefs?

Darwinian Dogmatics dictates that death entered the world long before Man, and hence long before Sin. The Bible clearly teaches that Death entered the world after Sin, which started with Man.

If the Bible is wrong about Sin, then it's wrong about Jesus, who was Incarnated and Crucified so that we could be forgiven for our Sin.

If the Darwinistas are right, Christianity is a complete and utter fraud. This bullcrap about there being no conflict between the two is the unintelligable blatherings of the uninformed.

[JohnnyZ]

You won't get that plan from the science class, they don't have one, nor can one be shown in nature.

Obviously there is order in nature.

What is your evidence that there is no plan or design in nature?

[smokeman]

In contrast, and despite two hundred years of trying, anti-Darwinists haven't been able to come up with a single notion addressing the evidence that even begins to fulfil the criteria for "theory." Wonder why that is?

Well then let me give you a pile of crap and you use that proven theory and make that crap walk and talk, otherwise evolution, in as it pertains to the origins of life, is no more provable than creationism. Oh, let me guess, we need a few million years for this to happen.

[Clemenza]

When is it the rule that in order to be a "conservative" you must support an asinine idea like "creation science" or "Intelligent Design?"

[HairOfTheDog]

Bush told reporters from Texas on Monday that "both sides" in the debate over intelligent design and evolution should be taught in schools "so people can understand what the debate is about."

Bush is right on this, and Santorum is wrong. This doesn't have to be that complicated, at the level of a high school science class. When I was in school, it was presented as "some people believe in Darwinist natural selection and some think God has a hand in things." Usually the classroom discussion was very interesting, with many points of view and many theories discussed and questioned.

Here's my opinion, don't hog-tie teachers either from or for religious issues and prevent them from guiding discussion on any topic.

[curiosity]

This is a favorable development.

[smokeman]

You said elsewhere that thhere is no conflict between the time scale of evolution and that of the Bible. So how else does evolution contradict your religious beliefs?

No, I said that the timelines that you presented as evidence that the Bible has been debunked is bogus and I assumed that you agreed. I did not say that all of evolution could fit into scripture, nor do I believe that. For example, I do not believe that all man evolved from apes, monkeys, whatever. This is taught in biology class, at least is was in mine. This contradicts my religious beliefs. The Bible states that Adam had dominion over animals not that he was an animal.

[ValenB4]

Well said, Sen. Santorum.

[Modernman]

Well then let me give you a pile of crap and you use that proven theory and make that crap walk and talk, otherwise evolution, in as it pertains to the origins of life, is no more provable than creationism

The TOE in no way pertains to the origins of life.

Perhaps you should limit your criticisms of the TOE to areas that the TOE actually attempts to explain.

[smokeman]

Spend a lot of time over there, do you?

There is at least some statistical evidence that storks bring babies. That puts it ahead of creationism.

I'm just gonna move on from this particular debate. You win. Maybe one day, you will get to meet the stork that brought you.

[Maceman]

Public school classrooms are goverment.

Sez who? Unless one is a Progressive, maybe,

If what you are saying is that Government by right ought to be the arbitor and delivery vehicle for what our children learn, then we have very different ideas of what a free society is all about.

We will never get beyond failed, old-fashioned 20th century Progressivism to reclaim our nation's birthright of liberty if we continue to accept Progressive prejudices about the role of government as if they were handed down by God.

[Right Wing Professor]

The Bible clearly teaches that Death entered the world after Sin, which started with Man.

There ya go. But then, there's just tons of scientific evidence that things were dying long before man came along. So if you want us to discuss the Bible in science class, we'll have no alternative but to say, well, that's simply wrong.

In fact, man can't even get beyond the early embryonic state without death. Programmed cell death is an essential part of embryogenesis.

[Mylo]

My point was not that Scientists don't believe in god or an ordered universe or a designed universe; many do - including myself.

My point was that presupposing supernatural intervention has not been a hallmark of highly successful theories that have led to technological advancement and our better understanding and ability to predict events in the universe. "Naturalistic" explanations, however, HAVE led to highly successful theories that have given rise to technological advancement and our better understanding and predicting the universe.

Newton believed in a ordered universe and a god, however he used mathematics, observation, and logic to discern the nature of gravitational attraction- he didn't just say "God does it." and leave it at that.

All ID has going for it now, and why it is not a fully formed scientific theory, is that "things are complex, and rather than investigating possible or probable solutions to the complexity we just say 'God must have done it' and then leave it at that."

Ah. But HOW did God do it? If god was responsible for the formation of the ocular structure what components did he use for raw material? What methods to effect the change? Once those questions are answered you find that you really didn't need God pulling the strings after all- he just had to set up the rules of the game (what I believe as a Deist).

[ValenB4]

"but you can't just up and say things that way -- especially to your base.

He already lost the support of his base when he campaigned for Specter instead of Toomey. Speaking against ID will help him in Pa. I still think he'll lose to Casey next year.

[xzins]

Santorum/Frist political suicide watch.

Rule #2 - Don't speak on issues you really don't have to address.

[GraniteStateConservative]

but you can't just up and say things that way -- especially to your base.

What does that say about the kooks in his supposed base? They prefer lies and sycophancy?

[Right Wing Professor]

For example, I do not believe that all man evolved from apes, monkeys, whatever. This is taught in biology class, at least is was in mine. This contradicts my religious beliefs. The Bible states that Adam had dominion over animals not that he was an animal.

Well, I'm sorry that you've decided to adopt a belief system that conflicts so radically with the fossil record and with the comparative genomics of humans, apes and mammals. Living in the 21st century must be a trial for you.

[curiosity]

Evolution is *not* that important for science.

Nah, it's only the unifying principle of biology. That's not important.

Seriously, part of the purpose of high school education is to prepare kids for college. And they're not going to be prapared to take college-level biology if they do not understand evolution.

Besides, it's so simple, there's no reason not to teach it.

[highball]

Your language is neither necessary nor persuasive. You may complain all you want, but you cannot change the facts.

Evolution is not in any way comparable to creationism. That's just nonsense. One is scientific, the other is religion. Each has its place, but religion's is not in a science class.