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."
A theory is not a fact, thus called theory. Theory is simply speculation based on a set of observations/experiments in order to explain something that is not completely understood and attempt to make further predictions with said speculation. In the end though, a theory is still speculation, not fact.
They don't have to say it at all. It's in the proof.
"do you even know what it means to prove something? 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."
It should be a simple matter for you to show the proof is bad. After all, I posted it. If you can't understand it. I'll step you through it.
No. Theory is a proven hypothesis. The weight of the proof is equal to the weight of it's being fact. Speculation and guess are hypothesis.
What other theories are you referring too?
1 - 10
Creativity: 0
Predictability: 10
Persuasiveness: 0
So I take it the answer to my questions is, "No."
Dan
placemarker placemarker.
You raise a good point. In my kids' high school biology classes, evolution takes up maybe two hours out of the whole year, and is not covered in any serious depth anyway - how could it be? Much of the research is on levels well above high school biology. It sure seems that there is far more debate on this "curriculum," which rates barely a passing mention in all of high school, than there is on the rotten job being done on things like math...
Look it up, theory.
You replied: "They don't have to say it at all. It's in the proof."
This is lunacy. You claim that someone says something because you wrote down in your "proof" that someone said it??? There's a technical term for this: circularity.
And you claim to know something about science? You truly do not know what you are writing about. You admit you don't know anything about ID, you "prove" ID is wrong based on your false assumption that it is Creationism, and then you challenge me to prove you wrong and you LOL me?
You can have the last word if you wish--I will not reply to anything you write--you are your own best refutation.
The more I learn about TOE the more I find it less credible.
1-The majority of the proponents of TOE approach creation from either an atheist or agnostic viewpoint. This right there removes credibility.
2-When talking about mans evolution, Cromagnon man, Neandrethal man, and others, have been debunked as fabrications. Either for personal fame or promoting a personal view or agenda. Much like Dan Rathers memogate.
3-When so called steps in the evolution process are presented, there is generally only 1 or 2 examples of something. If there are more than 1 or 2 examples, they are in 1 area, and never other areas.
4-Something that is coming out more and more, is that creation is not as old as once thought. The accuracy of carbon dating has been proven wrongby too many people. Also scientists in the last 2-3 years are coming to the conclusion that the speed of light is not constant. That at one time it was faster. That the supposed big bang that everything started with might not have happened so long ago.
5-Evolution without God doesn't make sense. I mean a lung is just going to evolve without it being designed. The same with a heart or liver. Now every part of the body has to work together. If one doesn't work properly it affects all the others. This continues throughout creation. As humans we affect nature around us, and I'm not talking some "Force" thing. Our moon affects our planet. Our planet affects the other planets in our solar system. Our solar system affects the other solar systems in our galaxy. And our galaxy affects other galaxy.
Now your thinking what does this have to do with Evolution w/God. Not much, except it solidifies my belief in God creating the universe. But I see no reason, using my own reasoning, as to why God would use evolution. Especially since that evolution takes the glory away from God instead of giving it to him. Romans 1:18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Lastly I'm not going to simply refuse evolution. I have only touched on a few things that I see. And like I said earlier, for me whether God used evolution or not really is ultimately unimportant. But as I learn more and more things, the more it drives me away from believing God using evolution.
ROFL!!
I nominate this for Post Of The Year.
No kidding. What does that have to do with what I wrote? Are you going to argue that Creationist theories were never touched by the introduction of Evolution? I think you need to read a little more history before you start with the silly, piddly little "gotcha!" attempts.
Here use this:
Theory
Characteristics
There is sometimes confusion between the scientific use of the word theory and its more informal use as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., it
1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,
4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and
5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.
This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics (with minimal interpretation), plate tectonics, evolution, etc.
Do you desire this on all issues, or just when the theory of evolution is involved?
To which you responded:
What other theories are you referring too?
My post was in response to your statement:
Let my children here both sides of the debate if neither can be proven.
I was wondering if you desired this logic be applied to all issues (we can limit it to science, if you'd like) where there exist theories than cannot be proven.
I was referring to no specific theories.
I completely agree with Santorum. Science class is supposed to be for science, not theology. If you want the bible taught in schools, put your kids in parochial schools or get your public schools to put in theology classes.
That being said I believethat if science classes are go to mention the words evolution or Darwin, the word T H E O R Y ought to be right there in the same breath.
Ya. Even better was my response where I showed he completely missed the point!!! ROTFLMAO!!!
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.