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."
Can you prove ape to man in a lab or anywhere for that matter?
ERV distribution shows common ancestory between primates to be far beyond doubt.
Your point is utterly obliterated by the 2 billion or so Buddhists living relatively peaceful lives.
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.
I threw a religion one out for fun. I was responding to a statement that is a group was really comfortable with "x", they wouldn't be afraid to discuss alternate theories ... and was trying to point out that there are plenty of reasons other than fear to not accept alternate theories ... or, in the case of ID, things that aren;t even scientific theories yet.
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.
The theory of evolution is based upon man's observation ... it doesn;t state the existance of an outside force either way, while ID actually makes A MORE EXTRAORDINARY claim that an external intelligence IS required. This means it NEEDS to show evidence of the need for an external intelligence in order to provide more value than a theory of evolution ... not just the possibility of one, as evolution already covers the possibility ... it just states that evolution is the process that occurred.
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.
Sometimes it doesn;t seem that way ... and ID is actually not considering the question. It's stating, outright, that there's NO WAY this could have occurred without on outside intelligence.
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?
But WHY is it limited to this supposed Darwinism thing, and, I suppose, the theory of evolution? If, for every theory, there is someone somewhere that doesnn;t accept it, mustn't we by the logic being used, before every statement made in a classroom, state that someone somewhere doesn't agree with it?
"Considered valid" by whom?
(This referred to who would consider a potential theory of ID valid.)
It would need to follow the scientif method. It would need to be peer reviewed in scientific journals ... also imprtant so there is a theory of ID we can refer to, and can attempt to refute. It must be internally consistant. If it presents claims beyond what the theory of evolution claims, they must be backed up ...
It certainly shouldn;t be examined by lawyers or politicians (unelss they want to adhere to the scientific method ... not that many of them even knoww economics.)
I don't even know what "it" is
ID ... which should have been obvious by my statement about "it" being presented in the statement:
Why not wait until ID is considered a valid scientific theory --- if you consider it to be true
Did you not under stand that "it" was a standin for the phrase "ID", or were you trying for a more philosophical statment of not knowing 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.
... which is why the theory of evolution has moved beyond Darwin's initial theory ... these things do change over time as we understand more about the world.
In some ways, I think Darwinism is a religion unto itself.
Neat ... how do you feel about the theory of evolution, which is what we are discussing? If "creationism" must be referred to as non-religious "ID", IDers should at least have the courtesy to refer to what they'd call "Darwinism" as the "theory of evolution". Or does cloaking religious ideas in different terms only apply when actual religion is involved?
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.
And there are some people who become addicted or devoted to almost anything to make their lives fell better ... alcohol, TV< sports, movies, driving, work.
None of that addresses the theory of evolution, or that ID does not yet meet the standards of a scientific theory.
As I stated ERV distribution in primates shows primate common ancestory to be beyond doubt. It is not speculation. The ERV's are observed, studied, experiments are performed to understand how retroviruses work. From the results the deduction is made that shared ERV's across primates cannot have arisen independently (its against the odds), which may not conclusively demonstrate common ancestory except that the pattern of different ERV's across primate species coincidently fits a nested heirarchy which matches the expected tree of primate evolution. Too many coincidences. And there are the shared pseudo-genes which match the same tree of descent.
A crime doesn't have to be observed to fit the pieces together to a level beyond doubt.
Well, part of #1, but of course you would have included something to prove your point ... it wouldn't be a very good argument if you were tripping yourself up intentionally ...
A theory is devised based on observations, but that does not mean that this theory is fact, thus the word devised.
I wouldn't even try to argue that a scientific theory is a fact ...
Let me ask you, has TOE been consistent in its findings since its conception or is it everchanging based on new observations.
If it was unchanging, it would either be because we have determined no reason yet to change it, or because it was dogma. DNA wasn't even discovered until well after Darwin's time, so yes, it does change. A good scientifc theory has to allow for change, for the potential that it's not quite right. Even the theory of relativity is changing ...
And scientific theories changed by gathering new evidence and examining existing evidence, using the scientific method. It ID ever can get to the point of being a scientific theory, it would either merge with or replace the theory of evolution. (But it's not a scientifc theory yet ... a "theory" by different definitions? Yes.)
Has TOE ever disproven any of its earlier claims?
If you mean has a theory ever disproven itself ... I'm not sure. If you are asking if the theory of evolution ever had to be revised, sure it has. We understand more and more about the world ever day ... DNA needed to be taken into account. I'm sure someone more familiar with the theory or with access to links could point out more information on this. Google might work too. If you are curious, look it up ... if you are trying to lead to some point you want to make, just present the point.
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.
This is what I get for attempting a "real-time" response method, instead of reading ahead.
To be more accurate, the THEORY is that theory is not a fact ... as we cannot know is one of the scientific theories out there is actually dead on.
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.
It's strange you would accept a theory as fact in that case, after everything you wrote, because even supporters of the theory of evolution would not. The point is to try to show how the theory of evolution fails ... it's why scientists try to hard to show how it applies in many cases, because it they can't, there might be a problem with the theory ... if we ever did change an ape to a man (also defined as an ape technically, so I guess evolution is a fact :) ), all we'd prove is that we could change an ape to a man, not that evolution was a fact ... it might help support the theory ... but scientists wouldn't pick up their ball and go home, matter settled ...
Probably be better off getting into molecular cell biology than evolution. DNA etc.
Problem is, once you get above fifth-grade science, all this stuff sort of hangs together - “molecular cell biology”, “DNA”, organic chemistry, genetics, “evolution” – if you have a smart student, it pretty quickly becomes clear to them that these are not isolated fields of study, but part of an organic whole. (That’s why more sophisticated creationists with scientific backgrounds often tend, eventually, to end up in the “God created the world so it looks as though “evolution” is occurring camp, and why ID is so attractive to some observers) . It’s just very, very difficult to try to conceive of “evolution” as a unique process outside of and excluded from the biological matrix in which it’s embedded, and equally difficult for imagine, once you start understanding that matrix, how it could operate without producing “evolution” going forward.
As for Quantum Mechanics, anyone uneasy with the absence of God’s guidance in the process of “random evolution” ought to be outraged by the existence tunnel diodes – even Einstein couldn’t continence a God who plays dice in an indeterminate universe, but that's what QM is ALL ABOUT.
In this sense the Mullahs in Tehran (who at one point banned the teaching of statistics on similiar grounds) understood the threat of indeterminacy to extra-scientific opinion on such matters better than most Christian creationists.
I can imagine the clasroom now ...
"Kids (put down the knives, please), for our experiment today, we'll be seeing how things fall down when you drop them."
"Why does that happen, teacher?"
"I'm not allowed to tell you."
Leni
Great .. you've posted something that shows that they've produced effects predicted by the Theory of Relativity ... I don't believe that this mean the theory of relativity is a "fact" ... it's still a theory ... I've heard that there's a different explanation making it's way through scientific circles. (Just as many things predicted by Newton's theories can be produced in a lab, so can many things predicted by Einstein's theories. It doesn't mean eith er theory is "fact".)
They are just biding their time ...
Yeah, but ape to man can't be proven in any lab so where does that leave you? One word, speculation.
How would ape to man in a lab prove that evolution occurred over time outside the lab? Why would it take LESS evidence to prove evolution to you than it would to the scientific community (who would NEVER accpet the theory of evolution as perfect).
Find me an animal that is currently evolving into man.
This would likely be problematic for the theory of evolution is a different animal, under different environmental conditions, evolved at a different time to become a man. It would in fact be excellent evidence AGAINST the theory of evolution, as it WOULD point to some sort of design if location, time, conditions, and starting form did not matter ...
Perhaps you should look up some more information about the theory of evolution as it exists today?
I'll type slower ... THEORIES ... CANNOT ... BE .. PROVEN. Not the theory of relativity, not the theory of gravity, not any theory. We can make the best theories we can based upon evidence, but we cannot ever say we've "solved" anything completely ... all an experiment can do is NOT disprove a theory. And we can run more an more experiments testing more an more parts of a theory to see if it holds.
So let me get this straight, now you say it is not fact.
I have never said the theory of evolution is a fact. Where does this "now" come from. But, yes, now you finally understand what I was saying. Perhaps you would like to revise your arguments?
Then if it is not fact, what is it?
A theory. By the way, Who's on first?
Is it speculation based on observations? I can speculate that God exists simply because the odds are astronomical that the earth would be placed at a perfect distance from the sun, neither freezing or frying all human life.
Fabulous. You would be disproving any theories that you understood statistics properly, but go ahead. While you are at it, draw a random card from a deck of cards. Put it back. Repeat 99 more times. The odds of you drawing the cards you would draw would have been 1 in 52100, so you must not have done it ...
I have provided both statistical evidence and my supposition, so can I claim "the theory of God's existence" should be taught in school?
You have provided no such evidence, although you claim the ability to do so. Besides, science doesn't quibble much with the odds of something not happening if evidence points to it defying odds and actually happening. Improbability is not impossibility.
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.