Posted on 08/04/2005 12:43:01 PM PDT by 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."
It's one way to introduce a subject. Personally, I don't think it's a very good way. Often, it just creates and knocks down straw men. For example, most of the people who are accused of thinking the earth was flat really didn't think that.
But is it really what you want? "Well, there's an alternative theory, in the Bible, but the Bible is full of scientific errors, and it's completely wrong about the age of the earth and the origin of life".
Wrong. Canon 1 of the Council of Orange is refuted by God Himself in John 9 and prior to that Ezek 8. Paul does not overrule God.
I would think that they are both subject to such tests. Just because some things can't be seen, doesn't mean they don't excist.
If we automatically disregard ID either because of religion or because of "science", the first thing that has to be viewed is, that man, being nothing more than an accident, a freak combination of the right matter being mixed together, cannot replicate, biologically, any of his organs. A liver "evolves" on its own. Same with a heart. Or an eye. And yet man with ALL his knowledge, aquired over millenia, passed on by generations, cannot reproduce any of these organs. We might be able to "build" mechanics that roughly imitate them. But nothing created from pure matter. And nothing in a biological sense.
I had 11 years of Catholic education. That's what I was taught. Take it up with the Pope.
Second, your assertions about what the scientific evidence purportedly demonstrates fails to mention that all of these interpretations and conclusions started with the assumption of evolution.
Not at all. People were digging up dinosaur bones, and noticing that there were eons of biological life long before humans came along, well before Charles Darwin.
will you go all the way and admit that if Darwinisim is true then there is absolutely no credible way to construct or believe in any system of morality, ethics, meaning, law, or civilization?
But why would I admit to a fabrication concocted by you?
If the Belief System which you want to brainwash the kiddies with is correct, then the entire moral system which stops those kiddies or anyone else from raping, torturing, killing, and/or eating you for their afternoon snack is gone too
So you're telling me you'd rape, torture, kill and eat people if you didn't believe in God?
If you live within 1000 miles of Lincoln, Nebraska, would you mind signing up for your local sex-offender list now, just in case you have a crisis of faith some time in the near future? I'd sleep better, knowing the cops are watching a guy who's only a few religious doubts away from a Jeffrey Dahmer-like killing spree.
You mean that other sentence? Wow, lighten up--paranoia kills.
In order for this claim to be true, you must show that science proves the God of the Bible does not exist.
No I don't. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this site--congratulations!
If you are going to claim that science and religion are not and never have been in opposition, we have nothing more to say to each other. Hooboy!
The TOE now includes cosmology? Hmmm.
I'm not sure what point your trying to make.
It's funny how nearly all the fathers of the (modern) scientific revolution shared all of the faith commitments, as Christians, that you deem so terribly unscientific.
Your problem is that if you assume God doesn't exist, then divine intervention is indeed impossible. You are claiming that miracles are in conflict with science? They wouldn't be deemed miracles if they weren't a temporary violation of the regular laws of physics and/or biology. The point is that the laws of science are generalizations about how God has ordered the world to work 99.999% of the time, but He reserves the right to overrule those once in a while to remind us that He's in charge, or for whatever reason He sees fit actually.
Newton, Hooke, Kelvin, Boyle, any number of these giants of modern science would be most surprised at the education you've just given us!!! Newton spent more time studying Christianity than he did science. What a nut!
Well, that's a most creative way to protect your BS.
It was a philosophical postulate, not a personal threat. I assumed you had the acumen and education to understand the difference. But I guess this is your lame attempt to admit you have no rebuttal to my point. Nuf said.
I'm agnostic. I am not prepared to accept our existence as being accidental anymore than I accept the idea of creation by a higher being. That being the case, if the class topic is "how did we get here?", I can't possibly favor one theory and dismiss the other from discussion.
I can't go to church for any scientific consideration of creation. At the church I am expected to have faith and follow the instruction of that particular church based on that faith. The place to consider creationism is in science class and then, if you subscribe to the notion of a higher being creating everything you might want to subscribe to one of the various religions.
It's this kind of "intellectual debate" that makes FR such a joy sometimes. If you can't see the value in presenting the opposing sides, and thus showing what and why they lasted so long, and then presenting the scientific ideas which knocked them down from their dominance, there's no helping you.
That is not what they are proposing to do.
They are advocating putting the two ideas out as of equal validity, not as one superceded by another for a reason.
So9
"There's no reason not to teach Evolution"
Since a large part of the population feels that it interferes with the free exercise of their religion I don't agree. I also don't accept the often repeated explanation of why if we delete evolution from the curicullum, our kids won't be able to understand biology and the rest of their science studies. Most kids don't understand biology anyway. Heck, they don't even have a firm grasp on the 3 Rs. They are pushing more fundamental sciences out of the curicullum than evolution. A lot of schools don't even teach physics anymore, which is the most fundamental of all the sciences. If you're not teaching the basics, then I see little reason to go out of our way to teach something that isn't.
As I'm sure you know, that is not proof.
Go back to your atheist leader for guidance.
Well, in practice we don't teach classes in 'how did we get here', at least not science classes. We teach classes in how species arise from other species. I've occasionally taught a class in possible origins for life, but I make sure the students are clear that all theories of abiogenesis are highly speculative. Last time I did it, we even considered 'panspermia' (people have actually done experiments looking at the viability of bacterial spores in interstellar space, etc.)
You've never met anyone who teaches that God didn't create the world?
You are lying or a shut-in. Or maybe both.
" The observatons have sofar been explained solely by the laws of physics. Can you show that the laws of physics require design?"
Nope. We teach science, not religion.
You are lying or a shut-in. Or maybe both.
Neither. In fact, I work at a university, and have done for 30 years. What basis do you have for your claim that people teach that God did not create the world?
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.