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."

[bobhoskins]

My take on this is that why teach either? You have people on both sides. To me, it is so obvious that God created the universe it is laughable to not believe it. I believe the account in the Bible - after all, the folks in the Bible were a lot closer to creation than we were/are. But to teach evolution as "the way we got here" is an entire hoax. What should be taught is how things are - biological reality - instead of the origin of the creation. That would pretty much put an end to evolutionary "science" - a good thing.

Should we stop trying to understand the science behind how we got here just because you do not think it is a worthy endevour? You should be confident enough in your faith that even if TOE does not match your convictions now, the scientific process --- re-examining, countering, and altering theories --- would lead to TOE coming to the conclusion, eventually, that a God-guided process led to us being here. (Unless God doesn't want us to find that out.)

Can't we revel in the universe by trying to more understand what it actually is and how it actually works? If God went to all that effort to make this place, shouldn;t we at least look at as much of it as we can?

[bobdsmith]

seriously this is why we evolutionists always get so irate when people say the flaws of evolution should be taught, because we know that 9 times out of 10 they are refering to flaws that are not even true.

Lucy's knee joint (ie the true story): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

What did he apparently say, and where did he say it. It's no use for these websites to make up these claims without reference. It is likely BS. The consensus is that it is Australopithecus afarensis (and other fossils of this species are known)

They are also typically selected about what research they mention: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html

[bobhoskins]

Well thats what I have been debating for the past few hours. If you do not believe man ascended from apes then what are we arguing? Also, if you don't believe that man evolved from apes then surely you can see why people would not want there children being taught that very thing in schools. At the very least a disclaimer would be in order.

We're arguing because people are confusing belief with science ... and would let their beliefs bleed into science, which leads to bad science (like global warming theory ... how do you disprove that ... it gets hotter --- must be global warming! --- it gets colder --- that's because of globakl warming, too!).

We need to let science be science, and not be tainted by politics.

And my belief in whether or not man evolved from apes has nothing to do with whether or not the evidence that currently exists does not counter the idea that man evolved from a common ancestor as other apes.

Science is a process, andif we did not evolve from some proto-ape, science will eventually figure it out. But we'd need to let science get there on its own ... and to do so we need to have a population that understands the actual scientific theories that large parts of science operates under ... otherwise there will be no one around who has the basic understanding to improve existing theories.

I doidn;t like how my wife made chili at first, but I didn;t throw the batch she made in her face. We worked together, adding a few spices in an attempt to make a better chili ...

[Jim_Curtis]

And you would leave us in the state that because we cannot determine who pulled the trigger, we should not attempt to determine if the gun in the room is the murder weapon.

You would ignore the question "who pulled the trigger" even after you have determined that the trigger was pulled. Furthermore, you would settle for a conclusion that the trigger was pulled by some strange accident rather than further peruse the matter of who pulled it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[bobhoskins]

Well, I'll take a look anyway. I am not completely closed off to the idea that in some way parts of the evolutionary theory can fit into creationism or vice versa. But you have to admit that a few fossil finds over millions of years is pretty thin. I mean millions of years. It must have been the quickest evolution in history. Crap, we find dinosaur fossils all over the place. :)

I'd suggest you find out how many complete dinosaur skeletons we've found and compare it to the number of complete ape-like skeletons we've found ... and THEN take into consideration the number of years dinos were around versus apish creatures.

We're not exactly tripping over complete fossils in the streeets, they DO take cerain conditions to be created ... such as the creature not being eaten, for one. or crushed. Most skeletons will NOT fossilize.

Lack of complete fossils is not a problem for me. I'm more on the lookout for proof against current TOE ... an ape with wings, dinos with exact human skulls, that sort of thing ... that would make people say "Hmm, where the heck did that come from?" (I'm not sure if that would actually disprove anything, but it would raise some questions.)

[bobhoskins]

You would ignore the question "who pulled the trigger" even after you have determined that the trigger was pulled. Furthermore, you would settle for a conclusion that the trigger was pulled by some strange accident rather than further peruse the matter of who pulled it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope, I wouldn't ignore the question, I'd just leave it to other members of the CSI team. And I wouldn;t completely discount the possibility that the trigger was pulled in some sort of strange evidence that it was not an accident.

Besides, we could go ahead and track down the owner of the gun, but if it was another gun that shot the victim, it would be a lot of time wasted.

[Blzbba]

[Yawn] Still got nothin', I see.

[smokeman]

But the bad/inconclusive chili of man to ape is being thrown in our kids face whether you realize it or not. Not all parents can afford private schools therefore IMO, there has to be a rebuttal or debate in public schools where its being taught and we cannot expect our kids to bring about that debate. That's what parents are for.

[smokeman]

True, but there seem to be a whole lot more dinosaur fossils, complete or incomplete, than there are ape-like fossils. Crushed or not, we find human, not ape-like, remains from the distant past all over the place. ID or no ID, I just think its too much of a stretch. It feels and looks like science constantly trying to stop a leaky faucet. Too many, oops where did that come from or maybe if we do this it will fit again. At least in terms of the ape to man evolution.

[Jim_Curtis]

Nope, I wouldn't ignore the question, I'd just leave it to other members of the CSI team. And I wouldn;t completely discount the possibility that the trigger was pulled in some sort of strange evidence that it was not an accident.

And what was the point of wasting the students' time with any of this?

[bobdsmith]

True, but there seem to be a whole lot more dinosaur fossils, complete or incomplete, than there are ape-like fossils.

That's because primates are just one family, wheras dinosaurs cover over 50 families. It's an invalid comparison.

Crushed or not, we find human, not ape-like, remains from the distant past all over the place.

These don't all look human:

In fact can you tell me where ape ends and human starts? I'll give you a clue - a is chimpanzee, n is homo sapien.

[smokeman]

You know the more I read the associated links for each of the skeletons the more skeptical I become of the whole ape to man theory. It seems that every specimen has either been dramatically reconstructed from just a few pieces. And once they are, they don't seem to know what to make of them. Just reading the first few descriptions, there seems to be handwaviness going on or major reconstruction on pieces they originally thought were worthless. Maybe its just my skeptical nature, but doesn't some of these specimens seem a little like puzzle pieces that were not meant to fit together. Also, some of the specimens in the same transitional stage look nothing alike. As to your question, its impossible to discern because each transitional stage has very different looking specimens that are supposed to be from the same species.

Link

[bobdsmith]

But you see there is no gap.

Here is a better site that explains some of the fossils in more detail:

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

[Cincinna]

Rick Santorum is stating the belief of the Roman Catholic Church.
They believe in intelligent design, that God created the Universe, but don't challenge Evolution.
I have always believed that God can do anything.
God can do Evolution.

[k2blader]

In a sense I don't understand the Christian outcry against the teaching of evolution in public schools. Christians allowed it to happen in the first place.

*Before* folks have kids they should understand and be committed to the enormous responsibility.

[Tempest]

I'm quite positive now that your nothing more than a leftwing troll posing as a conservative.

[k2blader]

I'm sure you are. *LOL*

What you probably fail to understand is that I believe in Creation.

[smokeman]

What's with all the question marks? I'm sorry but this is far from convincing. Good lord, most of the specimens in the same specie dont even look the same and some are just a small piece with no distinguishable characteristics. Please dont say, "but to the trained eye". I am trying to be open minded but this is ridiculous. Plus, take a look at these links and tell me where they go wrong. How many oops does it take before you say, "ok, something smells." At what point does your original diagram disappear. I am assuming that many of these species used to exist in the overall diagram.

Link 1
Link 2

[america-rules]

The idiot Rick Santorum voted against more border protection so he's nobody in my mind !

[smokeman]

Sorry, I can't find any recent articles that still suggest that Lucy is the missing link. I did find this article which I do not believe are those crazy creationists. Link

Here's the notable quote.

Most hominid fossils, including the two discussed by MOM (Lucy and Java Man), have never been claimed to be the "missing link" in the sense of a common ancestor of apes and humans.

Sorry, this looks very Clintonian. "What is the meaning of is?". Anyway, I can find very few articles recently that are still pushing Lucy. Maybe you can. I did find this article debunking Lucy, but not sure if you care to read.

Link 2

Notable quote:
LUCY Present-day speculation about human evolution revolves about a group of fossils called australopithecines and, in particular, a specimen called Lucy, a 40% complete skeleton. Lucy was discovered by D. C. Johanson in the Afar area of Ethopia during investigations conducted from 1972-1977. In a National Geographic article (December 1976) Johanson claimed that: "The angle of the thigh bone and the flattened surface at its knee joint end...proved she walked on two legs." However, the knee joint end of the femur was severely crushed; therefore, Johanson's conclusion is pure speculation. Anatomist Charles Oxnard, using a computer technique for analysis of skeletal relationships, has concluded that the australopithecines did not walk upright, at least not in the same manner as humans. In this connection, it should be mentioned that the chimpanzee spends a considerable amount of time walking upright. Thus, there is no scientific basis for a conclusiion of bipedalism in Lucy. Lucy and her relatives are probably just varieties of apes. Finally, there is evidence that people walked upright before the time of Lucy. This would include the Kanapoi hominid and Castenedolo Man. Obviously if people walked upright before the time of Lucy, then she must be disqualified as an evolutionary ancestor.