Leading Republican differs with Bush on evolution (Santorum)

Reuters ^ | 8/4/05 | Jon Hurdle

[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."

[smokeman]

I am not going to debate the definition of theory. The simple fact is that evolution in its entirety is not proven fact. When you can prove the evolution of ape to man in a lab, come talk to me, otherwise its just speculation. For example, I can prove relativity in a lab with a particle accelerator. You don't happen to have an evolution accelerator?

[bobhoskins]

I did look up theory using the link you provided, but got different results:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

I believe definition 1 + 2 are what applies when discussing scientific theory. Funny how 2 wasn't in your , and you only took part of #1. Must have been a server hiccup when you looked it up. I can take pieces of definitions too:

Hey, theory is ... "The branch of a ... fine musician who .. staked out the house."

No, wait, I've taken it too far.

Back on point: Yes, one word can have different definitions, but you really have to take the word in context. When I make my bed, I don't create it again ... I tidy it up.

[Dimensio]

But I guess this is your lame attempt to admit you have no rebuttal to my point.

What lack of rebuttal? You claimed that without your religious system of morals, there's nothing to stop people from raping or killing. Right Wing Professor demonstrated the utter absurdity of your claim. While he could have gone a step further and pointed out that you were using the appeal to consequences logical fallacy, I see nothing deficient in his reply to you.

[BikerNYC]

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...

You seem to suggest that human beings are incapable of giving things meaning and value. On the contrary, we do it ourselves every day of our lives. We create value because we decide things have value to us. You belittle the ability of human beings themselves to provide meaning to the universe. The fact is that we do it, without regard to whether or not there is a god.

[bobhoskins]

And, look, even I got it wrong. There were plenty more definitions of theory further down the page ...

[mountn man]

Why are you restricting God to supernatural means of orchestration? Why could he not have used natural means?

What I am trying to say is that if God is involved with anything, its automatically supernatural.

nat·u·ral
1-Present in or produced by nature.
2-Not altered, treated, or disguised.

su·per·nat·u·ral
1-Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2-Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3-Of or relating to a deity.
4-Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5-Of or relating to the miraculous

[bobdsmith]

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.

Neandertal man and Cromagnon man are not fabrications - they represent real species that used to exist (Cromagnon man is homo sapien!!).

[spunkets]

" This is lunacy...blah, blah, blah...you are your own best refutation.

Just stump the chump. Refute the proof. Your welcome to all the help you can recrute.

You want to play scientist? This is the way it's done. I present, you refute. You claim ID is science and want it in the classroom, yet you run away crying in a huff when your challenged about it?

ID is not science. It's the abandonment of science to embrace faith in BS.

[Jim_Curtis]

If they were really comfortable with Darwinism, they wouldn't be afraid to discuss alternative theories. It means that they believe that Darwinism requires at least some leap-of-faith to be accepted...that "faith" being a nonscientific thing. Great, using that logic, we'll just go ahead and: 1. Hold some Islamic prayer sessions in the local church.

The local church has its own religious ideas, why would they want to promote a different religion? You can only apply that analogy if you want to say that Darwinism is a faith.

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).

That is a man made question for man's observation. What "brought man to be" happened outside the power of man...I think we can all agree that man didn't create man but he did create math.

3. Psychiatry classes can teach about demons causing insanity ... it'll certainly help diagnoses.

Demons driving people insane might be one particular established religious belief but we aren't talking about promoting some established religion. We are considering if "all this" is an accident or not.

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,

For every theory there is someone who doesn't accept it. I don't care if the teacher tells her class that so-and-so doesn't accept this theory. Tell them that someone somewhere doesn't accept Darwinism too...who cares?

--- 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

"Considered valid" by whom?

--- 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.

I don't even know what "it" is. I'm for balance and I believe that Darwinism alone doesn't provide all the answers just as I don't believe Freud provides all the answers in psychiatry but Freud sure has consumed the time of many classrooms at the expense of other psychological theory.

In some ways, I think Darwinism is a religion unto itself. Right Wing Professor mentioned "existence angst", I believe some folks become devoted to Darwin to rid themselves of their existence angst...I think RWP showed an instructive bit of projection there.

[curiosity]

1-The majority of the proponents of TOE approach creation from either an atheist or agnostic viewpoint. This right there removes credibility.

First of all, the vast majority of evolutionary biologists don't deal with the question of creation. They just study evolution and don't even think about the theological implications. Some of them believe in God and some don't, but few believe their scientific work has anything to do with religion.

Second of all, the credulity of a scientific theory is in no way dependent on the religous beliefs of those who advance it.

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.

I don't doubt your honesty, but from what you write above, I can see that you really haven't studied this issue beyond a few creationist books and/or websites. I really suggest you go read some books by real scientists on this topic because it is pretty clear you don't know what you're talking about.

Regarding human ancestry, there was one fraud, Piltdown man, that was exposed by an evolutonary biologist over 50 years ago. It has been pretty well-established that Neanderthal man is not a human ancestor, and no, it is not a fraud. Cro-magnon man is simply fancy term for the earliest members of our species. No one claims they were any different from you or I. You really have some reading to do.

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.

I don't follow you. There are thousands of examples of transitional speices. There are mountains of evidence documenting evolution of amphibians from fish, reptiles from amphibians, and mammals and birds from reptiles, for example. There are coutless more examples. You really need to do some reading. I suggest Ken Miller's book, "Finding Darwin's God."

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.

First of all, Carbon dating is only realiable to about 14,000 years, so it can't be used to date the earth. Second of all, I don't know of a single instance where it was proven "wrong." Care to give a citation?

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.

The speed of light might have changed a little, but the amount it is postulated to have changed is not even close to the among needed to be consistent with a 10,000 year old universe. It might change our estimate of the age from 14 billion to 13 billion. Big deal.

5-Evolution without God doesn't make sense.

That's fine. You don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution.

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.

This is a version of Michael Behe's argument from irreduceable complexity. Ken Miller answers it extremely well in the chapter, "God the Mechanic" in the book I cited above.

Especially since that evolution takes the glory away from God instead of giving it to him.

I don't see why evolution should take away God's glory.

[spunkets]

Since we're talking science I gave you my own and the best def and cut from the Wik site. The other ones don't cut it in the real world of science. They have some items labeled theory, that were never more than hypothesis.

[smokeman]

Actually, I intenionally included #1 because it proves my point. A theory is devised based on observations, but that does not mean that this theory is fact, thus the word devised. Let me ask you, has TOE been consistent in its findings since its conception or is it everchanging based on new observations. Has TOE ever disproven any of its earlier claims? I think you know the answer. The fact is a theory is not fact due to new observations made over time that either disprove or change earlier claims. Once, neanderthal was widely accepted to be an ancestor of man. Now, scientists wonder if it was a species in itself. Some even wonder if was just human all along. I wonder, based on the limited fossils found, if there ever was a neanderthal man. Show me evolution, ape to man, in a lab and I will accept your theory as fact, otherwise, we can simply agree to disagree.

[b_sharp]

Very good post. Informative and fair.

[mountn man]

You seem to suggest that human beings are incapable of giving things meaning and value. On the contrary, we do it ourselves every day of our lives. We create value because we decide things have value to us. You belittle the ability of human beings themselves to provide meaning to the universe. The fact is that we do it, without regard to whether or not there is a god.

What I'm trying to state is that without God, we humans have no meaning, no value. WE might ascribe value to ourselves or things or others. But if we have no value to begin with, what does it matter if we ascribe value to it? In the end we all will be dead, returned to dust. And the things we ascribed value to will be useless to us and eventually be reduced to dust also. And the people we ascribe value to will be like us.

Without God, there is no eternity. So when we die, thats it. Our galaxy eventually will cease to exist. Stars going nova or becoming black holes or iron suns. Our galaxy either disintegrating or imploding on its own gravity. Any sign of our existence erased.

If we are not created, but just evolved out of random gases floating around in nothing, its pretty arrogant of us to give ourselves value over anything.

But if we are created, its even more arrogant to give ourselves value outside of the one who created us.

If I am wrong about creation versus evolution, it won't matter in the long run, because we all die, and end up the same.

[rcrngroup]

Persuasive evidence? You gotta be kidding me! There is not one, repeat not one, transitional life form that has been verified. Every example of discoveries of prehistoric "man" have been exposed as hoaxes and frauds! Men with rickets, bone of a pig, etc.
Circular reasoning (not scientific) abounds in evolution...the age of rocks prove the fossils and the fossils prove the age of rocks.
Santorum blew it (again)!

Here is a great quote and increasing dilemma for evolutionists as they find their own views increasingly debunked and discredited....

“Evolution may have some problems, but they will be solved as science advances.”

Response: Maybe. However, the opposite has been increasingly true for many decades. That is, as more has been learned, evolution appears even weaker. It is a theory in crisis, a theory without a mechanism. Let’s not withhold information. Suppressing evidence is not the way to advance science. Let’s just teach the scientific evidence that is known and undisputed. Insisting that only evolution be taught amounts to indoctrination—telling students what to think, not teaching them how to think. That deprives them of the opportunity to evaluate and think critically

[bobhoskins]

The majority of the proponents of TOE approach creation from either an atheist or agnostic viewpoint. This right there removes credibility.

1. Provide statistics or a link for your claim.

2. State how it invalidates research into TOE by Christians.

3. Point out how the theory of evolution would differ is a scientist of an acceptable religion did the research.

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.

Okay, many people on any side of an argument are out for themselves, to sell books, go on speaking tours, or to gain fawning admiration. Point out where the entire concept of Cromagnon man, Neanderthal man, and others have been debunked as fabrications. Individual examples won't do ... as you phrased it as the entire group.

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.

... but when more than a couple examples are presented on these threads, it's called an "info dump" or dismissed for other reasons.

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.

As has been pointed out before, evolution theory is unconcerned with creation of the world ... you may think it begs the question, but that's an interpretation of the theory, and not what it states.

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.

So, unless you understand or comprehend something, it can't possibly exist or have happened? When I was five, I couldn't comprehend how an airplane could fly, other than by magic. Did this disprove aerodynamics?

As for the rest, about how things in the universe effect one another ... that's part of what the theory of evolution tries to understand.

.

But I see no reason, using my own reasoning, as to why God would use evolution

I'm sure God understands His reasons ... how are we to know his plan or the reason for His methods? Just because you can't comprehend God's reason for doing something is no reason for humanity to not try to understand how nature works.

.

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.

Fantastic ... but if the opinions of those support evolution that are shaded by atheism should not be counted, why should yours?

(In a broader scale, why should we let ANY science be judged by opinions and misunderstanding and faith or lack therof ... shouldn;t we let science be determined by, well, science? If you choose to think the theory of evolution is a complete crock, go ahead. By don't try to press your opinions on science as science ...)

(Of course, maybe you aren;t trying to do so. I may be confusing you with other posters. If so, I thank you for your thoughts.)

[bobhoskins]

For example, I can prove relativity in a lab with a particle accelerator.

Prove it? Really? If you can do this scientifically, I think you'd get a Nobel Prize.

[PatrickHenry]

The speed of light might have changed a little ...

All the evidence we have says it hasn't changed at all. This is fairly new, but it's spectacular evidence that goes back 170,000 years:
The Age of the Universe and SN1987A.

[bobdsmith]

There is not one, repeat not one, transitional life form that has been verified.

There are hundreds. I'll mention one - archaeopteryx.

Every example of discoveries of prehistoric "man" have been exposed as hoaxes and frauds!

Rubbish. Utter total rubbish. You might as well claim elephants have 8 legs while you are at it.

I recommend you learn about something before you attack it.

[BikerNYC]

WE might ascribe value to ourselves or things or others. But if we have no value to begin with, what does it matter if we ascribe value to it?

Billions of years from now, the small pebble my young niece gave to me will be nothing but cosmic dust, but it means a lot to me now, it is priceless. The value of that pebble is precisely what I give it, no more and no less. And the presence or existence of god means nothing to the value I give to the wonderful gift my niece gave me.

Without God, there is no eternity. So when we die, thats it. Our galaxy eventually will cease to exist. Stars going nova or becoming black holes or iron suns. Our galaxy either disintegrating or imploding on its own gravity. Any sign of our existence erased.

Very true. That is why the meaning we give to the things that have value to us is so important. What we do here is it, we do not have a second chance. What we do here is important, because it is all we have.

You think that the fact that all of us will some day cease to be decreases the value we have right now. I say it increases the value we give to things right now, because it is all we have.