You would think so.
:7)
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."
Folks were made in the image and likeness of God and He came to teach them. He said, that no one knows the Father, but through Him. That's, because Jesus and the Father are one. God's std of righteousness can only be known, by first looking to God Himself-that's Jesus. No where else will you find it.
The 'teach the controversy' line Santorum is taking is a deliberate strategy being pushed by the Discovery Institute in the York, PA case and elsewhere. Santorum is actually in lockstep with the slicker minds of the creationist movement. They realize that if they actually teach anything positive (ID) it can be shot down as religious instruction by the courts, and they don't want to set that precedent. But what judge could object to teaching 'scientific' objections to a scientific theory?
Then perhaps we should push that Americans are taught what the theory of evolution actually is, and not condemn that theory for how people misinterpret it.
"I agree. And also, they should talk about how science has repeatedly debunked the ideas of creationism from the bible.
That's a pretty bold statement. Care to provide examples? And please provide references, if possible."
The articles citing the actual age of the earth are far too numerous to list here, as are the articles that prove that there isn't enough water on the globe for a Great Flood. I know the 'Flood' isn't Creation but it too has been debunked. There WAS a large-scale regional flood, most likely due to the Mediterranean overflowing the Bosporous and subsequently (and quickly) creating the Black Sea, coincidentally occurring in the region where Noah and his people were thought to have lived.
You know, God, er, an "Intelligent Designer" could use Earth's own plate tectonics to do wonders. Wonders that would be completely out of the realm of understanding to people who could barely read or write, much less comprehend such ideas as plate tectonics. Why this idea is so threatening to allegedly educated Christians today is bewildering. Just because Creation may have occurred slowly over billions of years, or that a Flood was a regional event doesn't preclude the fact that Jesus died and rose again, which is the basis of Christianity, not some fun myths in the Old Testament.
Handwaiving!
"You reply with some wild-eyed circular rhetoric about abandoning science."
Right, wild eyed circular rhetoric. It should be a simple matter to prove this w/o handwaiving.
"The ID folks at least know a bit about what science is and isn't."
If theyn do they're flat out liars.
" You're just blowing smoke--arguing neither from science nor religion nor philosophy."
Oh? Prove it w/o handwaiving.
I see humans that are apes EVERY DAY.
or pigs tooth turn into neanderthal.
Wait., that would be evidence FOR evolution? Sounds more like evidence AGAINST evolution ... and most of science as we know it.
You would think so.
:7)
Wrong. Hasn't it ever occurred to you that God used evolution as a tool to make man?
"Meanwhile, most people find it common sense to do as I suggested above. "
I'd support that as long as ALL 'alternatives' were taught, and not just the oft-told and full-of-holes Christian Creation tale. I mean, c'mon- talking snakes? Apples of Sin? Blame the woman for Temptation and Original Sin? Besides, what child hasn't heard the Creation story? I fully agree with you that children should learn ALL religions' creation stories, not just that of Christianity. That is what you're supporting, right? Or just more of the same old boring OT myth, with its dark hinting of intra-family mating and brother/sister marriage, and master-race-like idea of "people of Nod"?
Many of the Native American cultures' creation tales are far more interesting, in the way Greek Mythology is interesting. They're not worthy of inclusion in a serious science class, but they're great English Lit reading.
Great, using that logic, we'll just go ahead and:
1. Hold some Islamic prayer sessions in the local church.
2. Teach students that some people can;t add properly, and believe 2+2 = 5 ... if the teachers have solid belief that 2+2=4, then it should provide no confusion to tell students that all answers are equally valid (wait, come to think of it, I think this happens already).
3. Psychiatry classes can teach about demons causing insanity ... it'll certainly help diagnoses.
If you are going to allow alternate theories to be discussed, would you be fine with a teacher ALSO stating that ID is not generally accepted as a valid theory, --- that the idea of God, aliens, or a big computer guiding life along is not well supported by science?
Why not wait until ID is considered a valid scientific theory --- if you consider it to be true, you should know that eventually if IDers actually did some work in the lab for once, instead of the courtroom, they could devlop the theory properly. Presenting a half-baked theory in class will only hurt it.
Do you desire this on all issues, or just when the theory of evolution is involved?
True evolution would be "naturally" evolving. But if God was involved, orchestrating creation, now we're talking supernatural, and no longer natural.
If scientist were then to come to the theory that another intelligence was involved with our development, then the theory of evolution would be very small and meaningless to the MUCH MUCH larger question. WHO DESIGNED AND CREATED US. With that, the thought of random "laws of nature" would be irrelevant. The "laws of nature" would have been put in place, which then means they could be taken out of place.
Now if someone accepts evolution without God. There is no higher power involved with creation. Which means that there is no God. Which means that there is no one that you or I need to answer to. Which means that any and all religions are useless and a waste of time.
Now some people accept this. And thats fine. But with that, they then have to accept they don't have to answer to anyone and no one has to answer to them. Including spouses or children. After all by what grounds does one develope their moral or societal authority. That would mean that if someone were stronger or faster or smarter than someone else, they could do or take whatever they wanted.
And finally, with evolution, and no God, there is one final conclusion. You and I are nothing more than a compilation of matter. We have absolutely no value, except for the approximately $1.00 that we value our basic material. Your life and my life don't matter. Once we die thats it. Nada. Our legacy's will have no meaning. Why? Because the people that we would be leaving our legacy's to, don't matter either. Nothing in life, that we hold dear, would mean anything at all. All we would be is an aborition of nature. ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS.
Now if we look at life created by God, we HAVE to be in awe of all of creation, simply because it didn't just happen. And couldn't JUST happen. And we can't recreate it. Not from absolutly nothing.
Lastly if God created the entire universe, there is an important question. WHY? To sustain life? Then the most important question is. Why did God create man? More specifally you or I.
Still living down to your screen name.
Have the cliched rationalizations completely dulled your conscience yet? Or is that unease still there?
Dan
The inclination to use scientific discovery to justify-or negate-religious beliefs, or to wield relgion as a cudgel against scientific inquiry is misguided, in my opinion.
Could you please list the Intelligent Design authors whose articles or books you have actually read? Or are you simply assuming that Intelligent Design = Creationism? From what you write about ID, one wonders if you even know what it is or are instead making assumptions about it based on MSM portrayal of it.
Buh-Bye Rick! I really liked you and thought you had promise to be a presidential contender, but you screwed up "big time" with this dumbass comment that probably offended every religious conservative Christian on the planet. You're so out of touch that now you won't even win your damn Senate seat.
I'm thrilled he said this. Religion/Faith needs to be taught outside the school, and not passed off as science.
Actually, at one time I thought I believed that that was possible. Now, I really doubt thats the case. But whether or not God used evolution or not, for me is truely unimportant. The means God does things, doesn't over shadow what he does. If God used what WE call evolution, HE was the one who placed the laws of nature in place that "evolution" must follow. It was HIS design. And I am HIS creation. Outside of being GODS creation, I have absolutely no worth.
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.