Leading Republican differs with Bush on evolution (Santorum)

Reuters ^ | 8/4/05 | Jon Hurdle

[Right Wing Professor]

Your Catholic school teacher may have been giving you a common but false interpretation of what the Catholic position on evolution is.

Nope. We were canonical.

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.

That is my understanding of Catholic dogma, and it's what we were taught: there is no conflict with the proposition that species evolved from other species, but only with the idea that humans are entirely the result of the evolution of natural processes.

I'm not saying I accept this, mind :-)

[ndt]

"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?"

Actually, no, they are actions taken AGAINST Babylon by Cyrus of Media and are presented as "the day of the Lord". And my point is that dashing babies against rocks is bad. You disagree?

"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?"

No again. Lot was the one SAVED from the destruction. Although God did not make him commit these deeds, you have to remember, that God judged Lot as being the only one in Sodom that was righteous enough to be worth saving and God knew full well what he was capable of. My point is that sleeping with your underage daughters is wrong. You disagree?

"Third, the verse from Leviticus does indeed constitute God setting up a system of economic servitude. What's your point?"

It's slavery, pain and simple. My point is slavery is wrong. You disagree?

[Right Wing Professor]

You can say we're all liars if you'd like, but .... why deny it?

I'm not calling you a liar. I'm saying I've never seen it taught; and that I distrust anecdotal evidence. But I wouldn't be surprised if there's an occasional proselytizing atheist teaching high school who tells kids that evolution proves there is no God. After all, there are millions of proselytizing Christians out there.

These days, though, most teachers are gun-shy about teaching anything beyond the bare curriculum.

[spunkets]

" Good science should recognize the simple fact that no one can scientifically claim that the "laws" of physics are sufficient "

Wrong path. The burden of justification to abandon science-THE LAWS OF PHYSICS- lies with the ones abandoning science.

" It's not necessarily a religious claim to say that the laws of physics are insufficient to govern the world"

Yes it is, it's pure faith necessarily. That's, because it's an arbitrary choice that arises out of thin air. Handwaiving and blank stares are the only way to support the contention of choice to abandon science. ID is nothing, but false science and faith.

[mountn man]

That the Theory of Evolution has no bearing on whether or not any gods exist and intervened in any affairs beyond biological systems.

To suppose the Theory of Evolution, one would eliminate that God was involved in the creation of man.

[Oztrich Boy]

Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

You are possibly new to the crevo threads. This has been explained before - more than twice. Briefly there are facts which indicate that species are related, that some of them are descended from earlier species.

This facts that give this pattern of interrelation are sometimes called "evolution".

The "Theory of Evolution" is an attempt to explain how this happened by naturalistic means.

It may be right, but then so may be the conjecture that "Sparky the Omnipotent Wonder Yak just created it this way, and any facts that lead to any other explanatition is just Sparky messing with our minds" - but that isn't a scientific theory.

[Maceman]

Privatizing education is another argument.

No. It is THE argument. It is exactly the argument I was making.

Besides, even if you allow for government funding, there is still no legitimate reason for the federal government to dictate the curriculum. The government could provide vouchers and let everyone make their own choices.

Frankly, public schools were a LOT better before Jimmy Carter invented the Department of Education in 1979.

[macamadamia]

jbloedow, you clearly reject the TOE. I'm curious whether you subscribe to any alternative theory about the origin or history of species, the origin of the cosmos, etc. Do you solely adhere to Genesis as both theological AND scientific explanation or do you reference some other text that provides a comprehensive explanation of the origin of things in scientific parlance? I'm genuinely curious.

[spunkets]

"I wouldn't be surprised if there's an occasional proselytizing atheist teaching high school who tells kids that evolution proves there is no God."

In general they're just idiot leftists making fun of the "mythology". In general, it's political, if not simply babbling.

LOL! No. Many of them are uninhibited idiots. The science depts in general are not this way and that includes UW Madistan here.

[Dimensio]

To suppose the Theory of Evolution, one would eliminate that God was involved in the creation of man.

How? Be specific.

[Oztrich Boy]

Were my teachers just wasting time?

(Must not respond ... no ... no ..., no) "OK I'm back"

[Jim_Curtis]

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.

Darwin looked for answers out of angst. We bother ourselves with learning anything out of angst. I could ask you: "Do we teach Darwinism to relieve people's origination angst?". Why teach the topic at all? We are here, what does it matter how we got here?

[Oztrich Boy]

"That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up." Genesis 19

O wait, he was drunk. Yup, never heard that one before.

Actually it's "they led him on. They wanted it".

[jbloedow]

My aplogies for the mistake on the role of the Babylonians in the first example. Nevertheless, the "day of the Lord" doesn't mean that God is commanding each of these actions to take place. It's a much more involved concept in Scripture.

Yes, just because Lot was saved and considered "righteous" relatively, that doesn't mean that the Bible is saying his behaviour there was acceptable. Many heroes of the faith committed despicable acts, and it is to the Bible's credit that it does not attempt to gloss over these details.

Third, I'm not going to go into a global history of slavery with you, but suffice it to say that not all slavery is just "slavery pure and simple". The Mosaic law allowed for voluntary servitude as a merciful option for certain people in certain cases. Anyway, that said, this was involuntary slavery, and you could come up with much better examples to make your point: yes indeed, God did instruct his people to slaughter certain other people at one time.

In the final analysis your point that you want me to be outraged at God's morality based on some morality of my own invention. I could take each of these hair-raising examples and create a compelling apologia for God in each case, but in the end that's not the point:

On what basis should I object to God's standard of righteousness? On what basis do you? Why do you object to all children being dashed against the rocks? Darwinism proscribes no such moral outrage? Survival of the fittest, might is right, to the victor goes the spoils... It's selective adaptation? Pain is just a biochemical phenomenon. So is life. It's just particles of matter arranged a certain way? Why do you put moral value on one arrangement over the other?

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

Yes it is, it's pure faith necessarily. That's, because it's an arbitrary choice that arises out of thin air. Handwaiving and blank stares are the only way to support the contention of choice to abandon science. ID is nothing, but false science and faith.

Who's abandoning science? I gave you careful arguments from scientific theory as well as from religion and phillsophy that distinguish and also interrelate science and religion. You reply with some wild-eyed circular rhetoric about abandoning science. The ID folks at least know a bit about what science is and isn't. You're just blowing smoke--arguing neither from science nor religion nor philosophy.

[kcvl]

A leading Republican senator allied with the religious right differed

A leading Democrat senator allied with the anti-religious left differed

[Jim_Curtis]

To: Jim_Curtis; Right Wing Professor Were my teachers just wasting time? (Must not respond ... no ... no ..., no) "OK I'm back"

RWP was able to resist that easy one. But it is true, they did waste a lot of time on me...Sunday school teacher too.

[aposiopetic]

Better yet, teach them that there's only one respectable point of view, ridicule all the others and people who hold to them, laugh at them if they even question the dogmatic orthodoxy you're shoving down their mind-numbed throats, ridicule them mercilessly if they even show the slightest sign of thinking for themselves or approaching science with a hint of academic skepticism, and then watch as the school system marches out millions of little brainwashed secular humanist idiots just as Mann and Dewey hoped.

Oh, wait...

Good one.

[ThinkPlease]

Wasn't Santorum behind the Santorum Amendment that was nearly inserted in No Child Left Behind? The one that said that the controversy should be taught in the classroom?

Talk about diving for the middle!

[Blzbba]

"not until the Democrat party of higher taxes and big government is disbanded completely and destroyed beyond repair."


Let's hope that the current big-gov't GOP gets destroyed with it and we can return to our Jeffersonian roots.

I also share your 'now isn't the time' sentiment concerning this issue, considering the far larger issues at hand.