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."
If science is to be taught, how can this subject be ignored? Tap dancing around our origin is avoiding the very essence of science.
Darwin's TOE explains how matter (already here!) evolved over time, it doesn't address who put the matter here in the first place.
Are you confusing TOE with the Big Bang Theory?
Why not?
But whether or not God used evolution or not, for me is truely unimportant.
From a spiritual standpoint, it makes no difference. From a technological standpoint, it is very important to know whether that's the case.
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.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Everything above is perfectly compatible with both evolution as well as Christianity. Where is your problem?
Hmmm...on the borderline. Well science includes all points on the boundary. Either something can be proven, or it can't. Philosophy and religion are elsewhere. Any part of the overlap, including the boundary is within the relm of science.
So.
To say the laws of physics, science, are/is insufficient requires that you leave the bounds of science entirely and jump somewhere else. Call it religion, philosophy, but it's no more than faith.
"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."
Hmmm...Let's shake the word "is" now first, to get folks good and dizzy.
" 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
Fine.
"and must always remain so.
LOL! Here's where the shake of "is" and the dizzy comes in for most folks. PROVE IT! While you're at it, prove we can never knnow what you don't particularly want us to know, or anybody wants us to know. PROVE THAT, IN GENERAL THERE IS SOME X, SUCH THAT X CAN NEVER BE KNOWN. If that don't work, try: There is some X, such that once handwaiving begins, regarding that X, it will be forever hidden from sight.
"That's why we get paradigm shifts in explanatory models ("laws"). "
This and the rest is pure unadulterated handwaiving based on your unproven contention meaningless handwaiving filler.
In another year we may not have any senator we can call conservative.
these debates about creationism and stem cells arent good for the GOP
Both sides? Not in Science class
Exactly right.
Welcomely surprised at Santorum bump.
Why are you restricting God to supernatural means of orchestration? Why could he not have used natural means?
All Darwinian evolution means is that the diversification of life has a natural explanation. That still leaves room for God's guidance if one beleives God is the creator and sustainor of nature.
And neither does the physics describing the smashing, the math used to calculate the physics, the biology used to describe why death occurs.
The theory of evolution is simply the best current way the scientific community has of describing certain processes/evidence/behaviors that we note in the world as we understand it ... it should not assign value judgements.
So, the strong survive, generally. Oh no, we mustn't even mention that! Creatures which live longer and breed better than other creatures might have a better chance for species suvival -- the evil just DRIPS out of that idea.
Pain is just a biochemical phenomenon. So is life.
And if it appears to be that way, for all intents and purposes, so what?
It's just particles of matter arranged a certain way? Why do you put moral value on one arrangement over the other?
Just because it appears to work that way doesn't mean it necessarily is that way ... just as Newton's laws of motion were found to be close, be flawed, so to will this happen with evolution ... scientists know it's not perfect.
Hoever, they also know that advances in scientific understanding must come from doing actual science, and not come from the legislatures or the courts.
If IDers want to actually add to scientific nowledge, they need to do more science ... add to the knowledge. But this issue seems to be more about politics than actual science.
None. I've proven that ID requires the laws of physics to be abandoned. I believe those are God's laws anything else is pure unadulterated BS. I can show that God says they are His laws and also that anything ID comes up with contradicts God. Give me a good reason why I should waste my time wading through the rubbish of ID.
Intelligent design is too controversial because it exposes the homosexual fallacy of dual colon use...
Amen! As an Ex-evolutionist turned Christian I am amazed at how deceit and compromise, even among so-called Christians is growing in these last days.
Of course this was predicted in the scriptures. We shouldn't be surprised.
""Still living down to your screen name.
Have the cliched rationalizations completely dulled your conscience yet? Or is that unease still there? "
Still refusing to address fact. What about my post made you so fearful to address any of the Creation issues I pointed out (esp. that creepy intra-family Adam/Eve mating thing)?
How many are actual pieces and how many are constructed to come up with an estimate? Where is the article that explains how these first 2 pics were produced. As for the second pic, I would simply say that it looks nothing like the first 2 that are supposed to represent neanderthal. It looks more like an ape than any human. In order to understand these pictures, context/article would be nice.
You replied: None. I've proven that ID requires the laws of physics to be abandoned. I believe those are God's laws anything else is pure unadulterated BS. I can show that God says they are His laws and also that anything ID comes up with contradicts God. Give me a good reason why I should waste my time wading through the rubbish of ID.
So, when in your initial statement you said that ID people say that the "laws of physics are inadequate to govern the world" you had never actually studied what ID advocates say but made an assertion with no first-hand evidence? Pretty slick trick for someone who claims to be an empirical scientific type dude.
And then you use the word "proven"--do you even know what it means to prove something?
You are refuting ID without even knowing what it claims, you think you know what it claims because you think it is a form of religious/Fundamentalist Creationism, which it is not, and you wish to be taken seriously? What a phony you are. You call ID "rubbish," you admit you don't even know what it asserts but you know that it's not worth wasting time finding out.
If scientists operated this way we'd never have discovered the wheel or fire.
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.