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."
God was not created. "I am Who am".
If you think of God as a complex scientific phenomenon you'll get nowhere fast. Well maybe Hell but God only knows.
Oh how I love Amateur Hour at the Random Bible Verse Generator...
First, the verses from Isaiah is about the terrible things that would happen to Israel at the hands of the conquering Babylonians because of their wickedness. What's your point?
Second, the verse from Genesis is talking about wicked things that were done and that is exactly how it is presented, as sin. What's your point?
Third, the verse from Leviticus does indeed constitute God setting up a system of economic servitude. What's your point?
The very fact that you find moral objection to raping, baby slaughter, slavery, etc. is exactly my point. What's that based on? Darwinism? You want to tell me how the right to life, the notion of the sanctity of human life, of private property, or anything else derives from a meaningless, random (oh, sorry, undirected) distribution of matter and energy over time?
Why does life have any more value than non-life? Why does human life have any more value than other life? Why does private property have value?
Go ahead, this dumabass creationist is waiting...
Or do you want to go back to your Random Out-of-All-Context Bible Verse Generator for Secular Dummies?
You replied: Wrong. ID says the laws of physics are insufficient to govern the world. That is not science, that is religion.
It's not necessarily a religious claim to say that the laws of physics are insufficient to govern the world but you are right to lift this question out--it's on the borderline between science and philosophy/religion hence, with the philosophy of science that straddles both worlds. These two worlds are not separate but are distinguishable. Everyone has to operate in both and to think that one operates only in on is foolish.
It all depends what you mean by "laws of physics" and perhaps also what you mean by "world." In theory, you are correct. But in fact, there's a bit of a problem.
Good science should recognize the simple fact that no one can scientifically claim that the "laws" of physics are sufficient in fact because all the "laws of physics" that we know are themselves to some degree incompletely known and must always remain so. That's why we get paradigm shifts in explanatory models ("laws"). One could, in theory or in the abstract, perhaps, make the claim that the laws of physics are sufficient to govern the material/natural world (but of course it's a religious claim to reduce the "world" to the physical/natural). But that would merely be a hypothetical and not very helpful in the present debate.
To claim the laws of physics in any sense of actuality are sufficient is definitely an overt religious/philosophical claim. But to claim that they are insufficient to govern even the natural/material world actually can be grounded from good philosophy of science. And certainly, if the "world" is not reducible to the material/physical, then the laws of physics could not possibly be sufficient. But I assume the ID folks meant by "world" the material world and that by "laws of physics" they do not include the will or knowledge of the Intelligent Designer. But in passing, I do need to point out that to limit science to the material world is itself not self-evidently the best way to distinguish science and philosophy/religion--the social sciences tend to reduce human beings to matter, reduce emotions and beliefs to brain chemistry but there's no "scientific" way to be sure that non-material forces are not at work in what we observe with our five senses. So, while I've stipulated "material world" here for the sake of argument, I think one could do good science and assume that the boundary between mind and matter is very fluid and that mind is not merely matter--this only shows how every scientist is constantly making philosophical judgments about mind/matter/soul/body etc..
What are the "laws" of physics? Can we stipulate that, unlike "laws of logic" or "laws of mathematics," "laws of physics" refers the physical, material universe as ordered into patterns, or "laws" resulting from our analysis of the sum total of the hitherto observed patterns? No good scientist claims that we have observed all possible data that ever have been observed or ever will be observable. We have observed a huge pile of data but unless one has observed absolutely everything that ever has been or ever will be one cannot claim complete sufficiency of observation. If so, the laws our analysis of the data deduce would always have some contingency and limitedness, would they not?
One can claim an immense amount of regularity and dependability for the patterns our analysis deduces from the data, but claims of complete sufficiency would be a huge leap of faith. It is possible that after millions upon billions of additional data are observed, what we now call "laws" (really patterns) have to be significantly modified.
If we ever could observe all data that ever have been or will be, then we would know everything and would know the laws of physics fully. We don't and never will. This gap between what could be in theory and what is in fact is what produces the distinction between "science" and "philosophy" or "religion." Religion claims to know on some basis other than hitherto observed empirical fact information about the "laws of physics" or laws of human nature or laws of the soul etc.
If by "laws of physics" you included knowledge about how things work derived from religion and philosophy, then I would agree that the laws of physics are sufficient to govern the world. But I doubt that you meant that by "laws of physics." Most people, including most scientists, assumed that "laws of physics" means explanatory models for sets of empirical data. If that's what one means by "laws of physics" then it is empirically and logically impossible for such "laws of physics" (which are merely hitherto-obser ed patterns of data) to govern the world, though one could believe as a matter of (naturalistic/secularist) dogma that they do so.
So if the ID advocates mean by "laws of physics" what most people mean by "laws of physics" they are actually on good scientific ground to make the claim and those who make the opposite claim are the ones who have ventured on to the territory of "religion" or "dogma" as these are normally distinguished from "science."
In a nutshell, on what scientific, empirical basis can one show, scientifically, that the "laws of physics" (as normally understood) are indeed sufficient to govern the world? I know that many people firmly believe this to be the case, but how would one go about proving it scientifically? To really prove sufficency one would have to stand outside all of it and see everything. So the insufficiency claim actually is grounded simply in the finite limitations of our knowledge, which most people accept as real.
Now, one could perhaps get around this by saying that the "laws of physics" govern the material/natural world, "as far as we can see that world and as far as we know the laws of physics" and that on this basis it is reasonable to conclude/believe that they govern in a similar, extrapolated way beyond what we can see and beyond what we know of these laws. The extrapolation is a reasonable one but it is an extrapolation based on an assumption that what we do see and know is constant with what always has been and always will be. It's a good extrapolation and one held by the ancient Greeks, among others. But it is a philosophical extrapolation, not a scientifically observed fact. And it sounds just a tad "insufficient" to me.
Now the ID folks may be claiming something different when they propose (if they do--I am simply taking your claim that they do as a starting point here) that the laws of physics are insufficient to govern the world. But at the very least, the considerations outlined above suggest that it's not so clearcut as you claimed.
Once again, you're being misleading about the meaning of the word "theory."
Once might have been ignorance, now it's just deliberately perpetuating a falsehood.
Way to go, Rick!
You mean, raping and murder, in the way God commanded the Israelites to do to the Midianites?
We evolved a tendency to treat our fellow human beings as creatures like ourselves because it's to our advantage to be able to understand them and predict how they'll act, and the best model we have of others is ourselves. We treat them well because we expect that reciprocally they'll treat us well. There is a basic evolutionary reason for moral behavior.
Having said that, we are not bound by evolution in constructing systems of ethics. Just because something is natural, doesn't mean it's right. We can found ethics on reason and logic, although we would be foolish to entirely ignore our own nature in doing so, as Christianity so often does in its strictures relating to sex.
A man with so much talent from God and you passed over #162. Surely you can show how God and science are wrong and your:
" "The Bible clearly teaches that Death entered the world after Sin, which started with Man."
Canon 1 of the Council of Orange is refuted by God Himself in John 9 and prior to that Ezek 8. Does Paul overrule God?
If there was no God there would be no natural law and moral law and -- well of course there would be no created world so we wouldn't be here, which makes it a ridiculous hypothetical, but going along with it for a second, there no reason people wouldn't rape and murder with abandon if there were no God. People would act like animals -- or worse even, because who knows how f'd up the animal world would be without God since, you know, nature is ordered by God as well. But, obviously, God is.
You replied: "I had 11 years of Catholic education. That's what I was taught. Take it up with the Pope."
Did the Pope teach you for all eleven grades or only one or two? Your Catholic school teacher may have been giving you a common but false interpretation of what the Catholic position on evolution is. I explained it in detail in # 140, based primarily on John Paul II's statement to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in about 1996. Recently Benedict XVI has pointed out that John Paul II dealt with the issue in greater detail elsewhere, but the basics are as I outlined them. Catholic teaching tries to respect the distinction between science and theology and accepts or rejects various forms of evolution theory depending on how well they are or are not borne out by empirical data but insists that any evolution theory claiming the species homo sapiens was derived totally and naturally from another species is categorically to be rejected. The direct divine creation of the human species by virtue of direct divine creation of the human soul is Catholic dogma by virtue of Biblical teaching. For sciencists to claim that they know otherwise is bad science because science can't make statements about the existence or non-existence of the soul. Scientists can, of course, make dogmatic faith statements about the non-existence of the soul and complete evolution from apes but that's bad science.
You can't separate that underlying question "how did we come to be" from any discussion on the origin of species and it is inconsiderate to give agnostics like myself only one side of the story and purposely exclude things from the subject that I may have given some consideration to.
It seems the Darwinists want complete control over our thoughts...and I was always told that's what the religious types wanted.
I haven't done a national survey but I do have plenty of anecdotal evidence, which in this case is proof positive.
Sure I can. I'm employed to teach science, not to relieve people's existential angst. You want answers to the ultimate questions, hire a guru, not a professor.
It seems the Darwinists want complete control over our thoughts...
I want to control your thoughts by having no interest in answering some of your questions? Wow, that's a really subtle way of controlling someone!
Correction: True science (as opposed to Scientism) has repeatedly upheld the truth of Scripture and debunked men's personal interpretations of Scripture, both in the past and today.
OK. Lots of college courses have web sites. Can you find one that teaches this?
What, like videos of lectures online? Colleges don't usually post those puppies for the world to see.
I would guess (and/or hope) that it's more likely to be taught in high school and lower levels, but I have only my own experience and that of people I've talked to or read about.
You can say we're all liars if you'd like, but .... why deny it?
I'm basically on your side in defending miracles, but you don't have to take this "interventionist" and "overruling laws of nature" route. See G. K. Chesterton in Orthodoxy ch. 9 ("The Ethics of Elfland" chapter, I believe or perhaps it's ch. 4). It all turns on whether "laws of physics" are "inviolable" like laws of logic or mathematics or whether, as Chesterton argues, they are statements about hitherto observed patterns based on massive but necessarily finite bodies of data. If the latter, then the total patterns, if they could ever be observed fully (and they cannot because we cannot observe data of the future) might be large and complex enough to fit the "miracles" within them. C. S. Lewis takes a somewhat different approach in Miracles but in the end comes to the same conclusion: laws of nature are not violated by miracles, rather, miracles would be instances of hitherto or rare variable being inserted into an unviolated law of nature producing a different than normal outcome but upholding the law in its principles.
I would be very cautious about arguing in favor of miracles from the claim that God zaps in and out at will. It doesn't adequately recognize the stability and orderliness of the world that we Christians and Jews believe God created. I do think you would find Chesterton's explanation much more adequate both to the solidness of the world's patterns around us and to the infinity and immensity of the God who created it. He also blows Hume's argument against miracles to smithereens by pointing out that Hume merely asserts a priori dogmas rather than arguing either logically or scientifically or historically. (Indeed, Hume's argument drips with elitist prejudice against the ability of uneducated folk to observe with their five senses--Hume pits his dogmatic theory against the empirical observations of honest people and dismisses the latter in a totally circular argument.)
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.
According to FReeper bayourod, Santorum is an "Anti". An "Anti" is a member of the Republican Party who disagrees with President Bush on any issue.
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.