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."

[ExtremeUnction]

I am as far right wing as you can get, as are most of my conservative colleagues, but we, collectively, believe that, "Creationism" is bunk. This needs to be argued in Church. Our kids don't need to hear this debate in school. Let schools teach the truth, not religious wishfulness.

[smokeman]

Ok, so lets here why you believe that man comes from ape? What is your evidence?

[bobdsmith]

The gene that produces vitimin C in mammals is broken in the same place in chimpanzees, gorillas and humans. Is why we get scurvy if we don't get vitimin C in diet.

[WOSG]

"According to FReeper bayourod, Santorum is an "Anti". An "Anti" is a member of the Republican Party who disagrees with President Bush on any issue."

Well it aint so, so why bring it up?

[WOSG]

"My point is slavery is wrong. "

Devil's advocate question: On what moral basis is slavery wrong in your view?

[rcrngroup]

You're saying the law of gravity is part of the evolutionary theory that is contested by creationists?

Your example is ludicrous and nonsensical.

Rom 1:21 - "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

II Tim 3:7 - "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

(FYI, these are quotes from the Bible, New Testament)

[bobhoskins]

Show me anything just to get me started. Some tangible evidence that occurs in nature today. Not some random fossil from whenever

The following may contain some fossil evidence, but it contains a lot more ...

Ichneumon has some decent starter information he's compiled, so I'll point you to some postings he's made on various threads recently:

Hominid skulls and more

He had a much longer post with more information recently, but it was so big it was removed ...

There's a bunch of links in his post, I'm sure it'll take a while to examine.

And, as Ive stated before, while some of this may be evidence that supports the theory of evolution, nothing can conclusively prove any theory, so if you go in with the minset that things need to be proven, you'll find nothing there to convince you.

If, however, you look at a scientific theory as just the best possible explanation for the evidence we have, you might, at least, understand why others think it's a good theory, even if you do not.

.

Show me beetle turning into cockroach, a plant all of sudden breathing, anything happening right now that you can say, "Look, evolution said this would happen and its happening!".

Evolution does not say those things would happen, especially the all of a sudden part. Perhaps you are using exagerration, but please realize that you will not be taken very seriously when you are arguing against a scientific theory unless you argue against the actual theory.

(You did allude to the fact that your science teacher in public school may not have had a solid grasp of TOE ... so I can;t blame you.)

I am not claiming that all of TOE is crap, just that parts of it, i.e. ape to man is simply speculation based on a few bones and common genes found over a million years. I just don't buy it.

Why not? What parts of the actual theory of revolution do you think currently hold possible, and which parts can you disprove?

(No, I'm not being sarcastic here, I wish someone who was anti-evolution WOULD present some evidence that could be used to revise the theory of evolution ... find some data that makes the new TOE state that humans were an exception ... but the evidence we've (well, other people) have found so far does not show any reason why we should think humans were outside of the effects posited by the theory of evolution.

[smokeman]

I thought we already went over the common gene thing? Maybe you missed it. I'll try again. Do you have any evidence other than a few genes or bones? And I believe your vitamin C gene evidence has some issues.

Up until 1965 it was assumed that all primates were unable to produce their own ascorbic acid and were thus susceptible to the disease, scurvy. It was pointed out (Stone1) that this was merely an assumption and one which had never been tested. It was suggested that the whole order of the primates should be examined for the presence of L-gulonolactone oxidase in their livers. If this was done, then the data obtained might be useful in pinpointing, in time, when the mutation occurred. Thus it might be possible to determine in which primate ancestor of man this important enzyme system was lost. This suggestion was picked up and tests were reported from Harvard (Elliott et al.11) in 1966 and Yerkes Primate Research Center in 1969 (Nakajima et al.12) wherein it was indicated that all of the monkeys examined, which were members of the suborder, Prosimii, showed active enzyme, L-gulonolactone oxidase, in their livers while the livers of those members of the suborder Anthropoidea are inactive. While the data is not fully complete for all members of the primate order, the present sampling indicates that the dividing line between those primates which are susceptible to scurvy and those that arc not, is likely to be between the two main suborders, the Prosimii and the Anthropoidea
Article

[bobhoskins]

I appreciate your intelligent response but the problem with all of the "to that, there's this"...it leaves one unfulfilled...like evolution with no consideration of catalyst.

And it has to, as we really don't know what the catalyst is, although there are several theories.

The theory of evolution could certainly be effected by certain theories of how everything began gaining ground ... if a strong theory comes up that we're all a computer program, the theory of evolution would have to take that into consideration. However, if everything in the computer program acted, respinded, and appeared as if changes in mateable animals over time were allowed to propagate in offspring or not due to environmental conditions (oversimplification alert!), then the theory of evolution might still be valid with little change ...

I don't need to know how a gun got in a room to determine if it was the gun used to shoot the body lying on the floor next to it.

Certainly, there would be questions as to how the gun got there, if the shooting was intentional, if someone planned the death, etc., but for the purposes of the little bit of the puzzle TOE tries to understand, it's just like trying to figure out if this gun shot this person.

[bobhoskins]

The majority of proponents of creationism approach it from an Islamic view. So what?

I'd prefer we stick to the actual science involved when questioning scientific theories, and will allow other people to argue the politics behind ID vs. evolution.

[rcrngroup]

Rubbish. Utter total rubbish?

That's your scientific answer? Hardly qualifies for debunking evidence.

Also, temper....temper! Why do evolutionists get so unhinged when their theories are questioned or we simply want to expose people to an Intelligent Design view of life? You guys go ballistic on us. Methinks you protest too much and you realize your theory(s) are flawed but don't want to be confronted with it.

Rom 1:21 - "Professing themselves to be wise they became fools."

II Tim 3:7 - "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth"

[bobdsmith]

And I believe your vitamin C gene evidence has some issues.

The article you posted suggests no such thing. Even so, something more up to date:

Random nucleotide substitutions in primate nonfunctional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the missing enzyme in L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis (1999)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10572964&dopt=Abstract

Humans and other primates have no functional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase that catalyzes the last step of L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis. The 164-nucleotide sequence of exon X of the gene was compared among human, chimpanzee, orangutan, and macaque, and it was found that nucleotide substitutions had occurred at random throughout the sequence with a single nucleotide deletion, indicating that the primate L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase genes are a typical example of pseudogene.

[smokeman]

Link doesn't work, could you try reposting and I'll take a look. And the reason I don't buy it is because there simply isn't enough evidence IMO to support it. I just cannot believe that over millions of years, science can only provide a few incomplete examples/fossils of what they are stating as the most likely answer. Sometimes I have to bow to common sense.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Much of the argument is about the non-scientific beliefs held by various proponents. Of course, the Turkish biologists being hounded (in the usual Islamic extremist way) by the BWV (or whatever Mustafa's organization is called) have the same scientific attitudes as do the Christian biologists, atheist biologists, Hindu biologists, Buddhist biologists, etc. One advantage of science is that the results are identical across ethnic and religious boundaries (although the creationists and their postmodernist soulmates would deny this.) When I was in college, the liberal teachers were big on how science (and math for that matter) differs for different ethnic groups.

[bobdsmith]

That's your scientific answer? Hardly qualifies for debunking evidence.

What evidence? You just claimed "Every example of discoveries of prehistoric "man" have been exposed as hoaxes and frauds!" which is just false. How would you respond if someone claimed all roman artifacts ever found have been exposed as hoaxes and frauds?

Why do evolutionists get so unhinged when their theories are questioned or we simply want to expose people to an Intelligent Design view of life?

You aren't questioning any theories, you are throwing out ignorant and incorrect statements.

[bobhoskins]

Well we can definately agree on public schools. But the fact is teachers are teaching it as fact and therefore if I am forced to pay for this crap then I want all sides exposed. Just recently schools were forced to take off a sticker that said that evolution was a theory. Now I am not saying that the stickers were a good thing but what does it tell you that we had to have the sticker in the first place and that it was forced to be taken off?

It tells me that the problem with the theory of evolution is NOT the issue that it's "just a theory", as otherwise we would have a more general sticker (or, preferably, a nice chapter in the book itself) outlining what a scientific theory actually is, and how it differs from fact ...

The focus on TOE itself shows this is a political/religious issue, and not a scientific one.

This should give you a pretty good idea of how evolution is being taught in public schools.

None of which invalidates the theory of evolution itself, or validates the proto-theory of ID.

I'm sorry, based on all that I have read about ape to man evolution, I am just not buying it.

Why be sorry? I'd just ask that you read some more on the topic, and perhaps determine what parts, if any, of TOE make sense to you, and which seem implausible. If it's ALL wrong, there's some major problems with science.

But the (other) ape to man (still an ape!) transition does seem to be the hardest part to swallow, and it is sometimes due to religious/moral/philosophical issues. We like to think we are better or separated from other animals, and for some people, us having gotten to humanity through transitional forms (whether by accident, or God, or space aliens) seems to counter that assumption ... when it really shouldn't.

But, as I've said before, even if you don't "buy into" TOE from reading more about it (I suggest reading arguments from scientists favoring TOE, to get their viewpoint), you can at least have a more solid understanding from which to make your counterarguments.

And if you make your arguments against the actual TOE, using scientific reasoning and evidence, real scientists will have to consider your arguments.

Too many of those against TOE want to fight it in courtrooms, where even if they win they'll lose, which is why I appreciate you trying to interject science into your side of the argument. It leads to better questions about TOE that way.

(Wow, I hope I didn't seem condescending ... it's almost bedtime.)

[rcrngroup]

Oh and your statements are completely credible and airtight? I don't think so!

[bobhoskins]

There are 2 BILLION Buddhists?!

I believe the original poster meant 2 TRILLION, which is why they are such a potential meance.

[bobhoskins]

Show me all the common breakages. Show me the missing link? Oh, that's right its missing. Sorry, not buying.

What transitional forms do you need a link between? I'm sure if you ask, someone on this board could see if one has been found. (I can't, I'm not all that up to date with fossil finds.)

Of course, if you are HOPING that missing link think is a show-stopper, realize that any time a "missing link" is found between two forms, there iss then the ability to proclaim that there are now two NEW missing links (between the middle form and the one on each side)>

[bobdsmith]

Interesting how you think attacking my statements somehow validates your infactual statements.