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 simply do not want teachers presenting ape to man evolution as fact when IMO the evidence is not conclusive. However, if they feel that's its appropriate to teach as fact anyway, then alternatives should be also be taught. In what class to do that in, I could care less.

[bobhoskins]

Well then you were not responding to my original inquiry. You simply fabricated a response from a question never asked.

I did point out the post of yours I was responding to. Maybe you meant to use different phrasing in your post, but I'm not a mindreader ... or am I?

woooooEEEEEEwooooooooEEEEEEooooooooh

Didn't work that time.

My original statement was these supposed ape-like specimens look completely different for being in the same species. No, not a little different, completely different. You see, when looking at the transition from "ape" to "man" (to use the wrong terms), each transition needs to be only a little bit different from the next ... otherwise it will be argued that the transitions are TOO different from one another. Why not just ignore every other one, and keep doing that until you see the bigger changes?

I used the jawbone as an example because one of the species from your link had multiple specimens. One looked like an ape, the other looked like a human.

So .... the idea that jawbones can be clearly specified as "ape" or "human" exists? What are your categories for this? Where is the "line" you'd draw separating them? I wa trying to point out that there is no one specific "human" jawbone shape that exists ... there is a RANGE. So, at what point doe ssomething fall so far out of the range (no, not just jawbones) that it is no longer the same "species"? I'm curious, because I'm beginning to think there is no "evidence" you will ever let convince you of evolution (you did want someone to try to convince you with evidence).

Are you claiming that there are humans today that look exactly like an ape.

No, because, barring any internal differences, they would then still be an ape. So that would be a stupid argument. What I AM saying is that you can't think of APE and HUMAN as one specific template .. they are each a "range" of possible form. Some people are tall, some are short, etc.

We've already established "micro-e" as happening, so why would THAT point still be up for debate?

Or are you just arguing for the purposes of arguing?

[smokeman]

At what percentage of belief does an opinion become reality?

Well, I could ask what percentage of science is handwaviness presented for lack of substantial evidence? It happens all the time. A scientist finds a specimen and says eureka, the holy grail only to have some "kook" creationist come back at blow it away. Just my opinion of course.

[smokeman]

Our species simply does not differ in the way that many of those specimens from the exact same species do. We can argue this all day long. And we have billions of our species to observe. Which is more probable?

[bobhoskins]

Well, I could ask what percentage of science is handwaviness presented for lack of substantial evidence? It happens all the time. A scientist finds a specimen and says eureka, the holy grail only to have some "kook" creationist come back at blow it away. Just my opinion of course.

And when creationists --- or IDers, "creationist" is so 80s --- do contribute to science by finding hoaxes, I will commend them, just as I commend anyone who does so.

However, lies that point in support of an existing theory really don't mean much in the grand scope of things, as the theory is ALREADY thought to be our best idea currently ... the better hoax for IDers to uncover would be if someone HID evidence of a fossil that seemed to go against the current TOE.

Or better yet, IDers could get off their butts, and actually start looking for such fossils.

And if a few people falsifying evidence is enough to invalidate a theory supported by other evidence, then BOTH evolution and ID would be invalid by this logic. A well, as plenty of other fields that con men through the ages tried to pass off. I guess we'll never find a cure for cancer (or most other diseases), never fly to the moon, never break the sound barrier.

[smokeman]

By the way, I appreciate your argument that there is some evidence that common ancestor is possible. I just don't accept that it is probable based on that evidence. I also appreciate that we managed to keep this debate above personal attacks unlike some others on this thread. Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree on whether public schools should be teaching ape to man evolution to our children.

[bobhoskins]

Our species simply does not differ in the way that many of those specimens from the exact same species do. We can argue this all day long. And we have billions of our species to observe. Which is more probable?

You mean between the ideas that all other species BUT man evolve, or that all species evolve?

You should be careful about the softballs you pitch ...

Occam's Raor would seem to apply, and as evolution for everyone would asset one less proces be involved (evolution for everything, as opposed to at least some evoltuion for some, different something for humans)...

... well, it's more probable all species evolve the same way.

Now, this would, of course, lead to the question as to whether or not this is actually CORRECT, which is possibly what you meant rather than "probable".

In that case, I'll say that the descriptions we use of "forces" we are aware of --- gravity, magnetism, evolution, supply and demand --- are assumed to hold true universally unless we see some reason why they should not.

If you think evolution occurs at least in some animals, do you require the same level of proff for the development of each "species" as you do for humans? If so, what species might have come from evolution, and where did you find the evidence that you based this opinion on?

[RightWingNilla]

...based on the fact that many of your so called specimens and species have disapperared, been debunked or completely reclassified over time.

References?

[smokeman]

And if a few people falsifying evidence is enough to invalidate a theory supported by other evidence, then BOTH evolution and ID would be invalid by this logic. A well, as plenty of other fields that con men through the ages tried to pass off. I guess we'll never find a cure for cancer (or most other diseases), never fly to the moon, never break the sound barrier.

There you go again. I did not say that TOE was invalid. I said that ape to man evolution was inconclusive and therefore should be presented as such. Our schools simply do not present it this way. If they did, me and you would not be having this discussion.

[smokeman]

I have provided many references in this thread. Please go back and look. You might also want to take a look at post #505 where I am discussing this very thing.

[bobhoskins]

By the way, I appreciate your argument that there is some evidence that common ancestor is possible.

As long as you understand that people have a reason to think TOE is valid, and it's not just some blind religious position for everyone "supporting" TOE, what more can I ask for?

I just don't accept that it is probable based on that evidence. I also appreciate that we managed to keep this debate above personal attacks unlike some others on this thread.

But the personal attacks make these threads so much more fun! (I am guilty of them sometimes.)

Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree on whether public schools should be teaching ape to man evolution to our children.

Well ... I'll go one further than you ... I don't like the idea of required public schools at all. (SO they shouldn;t be involved with our children at all.) Private schools solve much of this dilemna by allowing students and parents much more involvement in education.

More math classes? Pick a school that does that. No evolution theory? Go ahead! MORE on evolution? That could be done, too.

I'm afraid public school is here to stay, though, at least in my lifetime.

I'm more concerned with and peeved at the IDers who try to legislate science ... as they totally miss the point of science that way.

It's a waste of everyone's time, when they'd be better off doing more reasearh/analysis/archeological digs.

[smokeman]

No, I am saying use your eyes. They look nothing alike yet they are supposed to be the same species. Humans are homo sapiens. We do not vary in appearance to the extreme as many of the specimens from ape-like species do and there are billions of us whereas only a few of these ape-like specimens. At some point common sense has to kick in. These specimens don't fit. This is what I am saying.

[bobhoskins]

There you go again.

Darn. Come back, me!

I did not say that TOE was invalid. I said that ape to man evolution was inconclusive and therefore should be presented as such. Our schools simply do not present it this way. If they did, me and you would not be having this discussion.

Then why, in 503 (which I was responding specifically to, and quoted) did you state:

Well, I could ask what percentage of science is handwaviness presented for lack of substantial evidence? It happens all the time. A scientist finds a specimen and says eureka, the holy grail only to have some "kook" creationist come back at blow it away. Just my opinion of course.

I had to point out, based on that statement, that just because some evidence that did not counter a current theory might have been faked, it doesn't outright invalidate ALL evidence presented as being in line with that theory.

Please realize that when I quote one of your statements, it's because I'll be repsonding, specifically, to that quoted statement in most circumstances.

I do agree with you that ape to man should not be presented as conclusive, one, because it's no really what TOE says, and two, because all students should be presented with in their studies of science that ALL scientific theories are not the final word, and be encouraged to find flaws in the theories.

But, that said, I think if the students do not know what the theories actually are, they will not be able to effectively argue against the theories, only their concept of the theories, which may be outdated and/or wrong.

Of course, many students will never find themselves arguing certain theories ... or doing math ... or writing poetry ... or reading Shakespeare ... or being involved in politics ... but where do we decide what knowledge we present to students in order for them to determine what they DO want to do in the future.

And, yes, private schools would be the best option, as then a student (and/or the parents) would have a chance to actual choose what to study.

(Which is why college was much more interesting than high school.)

[smokeman]

I'm afraid public school is here to stay, though, at least in my lifetime.

Then if I am having to pay for this with my tax dollars, I believe that I have should have some say when theory's are being presented as settled fact when in fact they are not. I believe that a majority of creationists would say the same thing. They do not despise all of TOE, they simply want the disclaimer. By the way, not all people can afford private schools.

[Dimensio]

To give you a hint, speculation with some evidence to support it but yet still incomplete.

And what happens if a theory becomes "complete"? How could a theory ever become "complete"?

[smokeman]

Then why, in 503 (which I was responding specifically to, and quoted) did you state:

Well, I could ask what percentage of science is handwaviness presented for lack of substantial evidence? It happens all the time. A scientist finds a specimen and says eureka, the holy grail only to have some "kook" creationist come back at blow it away. Just my opinion of course.

Ok, where in this statement does it say that TOE is invalid. I was simply stating a fact. A theory is made up of multiple scientific evidence. I simply stated that some of that evidence has been disproven or debunked. I did not say that because of this that the entire theory was debunked, just inconclusive. And in the case of ape to man evolution, unconvincing IMO.

[Maceman]

Though, to be fair, local school boards are responsible for their fair share of educational stupidity.

That is true. But personally, If I had a complaint that impacted my daughter's education, I would much rather be in a fight with a local school board than with the US Department of Education.

[bobhoskins]

No, I am saying use your eyes. They look nothing alike yet they are supposed to be the same species.

This is a different argument than the probability argument I responded to. Fine, I'll play along, but I do wish we could stay on one track for a while.

Humans are homo sapiens. We do not vary in appearance to the extreme as many of the specimens from ape-like species do and there are billions of us whereas only a few of these ape-like specimens.

Do you mean we vary more from all other primates as they do one another? Or that within our species we vary less than other species do within their own species?

If the former, does a gorilla look more like a person or a spider monkey?

If the latter, all apes look the same to me ...

Or are you possibly wondering why there are not more sekeltal specimens, which I think this discussion was on at one point but veared off of? If so, I ask again, which skeletal/fossil remains shown in the transition of the human species (I think it may have been elsewhere in this thread) are human and which are some other kind of ape? Where is the line drawn ... and then why is the last item on one side of the line so similar to the first item on the other sid of the line?

It's a legitimate question, and evolution tries to answer it. We need to start somewhere to understand it ... your answer may be that you don't know why that is.

And I can accept that answer. I'm really more curious than anything.

At some point common sense has to kick in.

Common sense isn;t always right when it comes to science ... otherwise we'd never change our ideas of science. It was once common sense that tomatoes were poisonous ... that the speed of light was contant ... that man could not break the sound barrier ... but unless someone is willing to question common sense, where would we be now? (Even though there probably were LOTS of things that were poisonous that people ate before realizing ... hey, this tomato DIDN'T kill me.)

These specimens don't fit. This is what I am saying

And I understand your reasoning for your position. I just don't agree with it ... otherwise these would be some boring posts full of "You're right!", "No, you're right!", etc.

[smokeman]

Apparently never, but the fact is that a part of it, ape to man evolution, is being taught in our schools as complete, thus the issue arises and I feel the debate must also exist in the school. Otherwise, have the schools teach it as incomplete and inconclusive, which some on this thread who support it have stated that it is. Is that asking too much?

[Dimensio]

My argument is that if Darwinism is true, all moral beliefs and value judgments are arbitrary and relative.

And your argument is completely wrong. The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever about the existence of an absolute moral system.

Sure, anyone can make up any moral beliefs that they want to try to live under, and they may succeed, but that doesn't make them true in any objective sense.

And what would make a moral system true in an "objective" sense, and how is this incompatable with the theory of evolution being true?

What's more, are you actually trying to formulate an argument against evolution here? Even if what you say is true (it's not), it would have no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution. I'm not sure why you're even bringing it up, or are you saying that we should reject valid since no matter how well-founded just because you don't happen to like one of the perceived implications of it being true?

You are forced to believe in fabrications, myths, to make your lives pleasant.

Evolution does not state this. Even if it did, it has no bearing on the truth value of the theory.

And when a Hitler comes along and says "this is absurd, why are we wasting all these precious resources on the unfit, the weak, the infirm, and polluting our gene pool", to what do you appeal?

You could appeal to an absolute moral system to which you adhere, because despite your claim the theory of evolution does not preclude the existence of such a thing. You could also point out that if there are no absolute morals, his proposed system is arbitrarily no better than yours, and you don't like his, so why comply?

You could also point out that his claims of "wasting resources" is totally arbitrary in itself and relies solely on his impression of "valuable" resources and the nature of the "weak and infirm" which many may well not share or dispute that we're actually "polluting our gene pool" by allowing biodiversity.

There. Three possible angles of attack, and I'm sure there are more. Of course, you probably won't accept one of them because it relies on rejecting one of your unfounded assumptions, but then you've not done a good job of supporting your assumption so I see no reason in discarding it.

You want the science that grew out of Christianity, and the civilization and moral order that grew out of Christianity, but then you want to toss Christianity aside as if the fruits can be separated from the roots in some sort of philosophical cafeteria. You want fries with that?

Ah. It all boils down to you wanting to throw out scientific inquiry when you don't like the implications.

That's not a rational approach. You don't ignore reality just because you don't like what it implies.