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."
No, No, No. Just the opposite. He's against teaching intelligent design.
I just love blanket statements with no references. [sarcasm off] Examples please..., Thanks
Sounds good to me.
Whatever. In Blader Elementary, have your teachers teach nothing.
Meanwhile, most people find it common sense to do as I suggested above.
Dan
"Isaac Newton presupposed supernatural agency.
...I always feel he contributed in some slight way to science"
but he's a dead white guy !
Genesis says the Earth was created in 6 days, and adding up the lifespans in Genesis gives an age of about 6000 years. Best scientific evidence is the Earth is over 4 billion years old.
But you knew that.
The point I was trying to make was that if you're going to use the Genesis creation story as an alternative to accepted scientific theories, bear in mind that scientific theories can be proven wrong. Do you really want science teachers telling kids that the primary source of their religion is demonstrably false?
Of course, what I find amusing is that those who are most vocal on this issue would never allow their own children to labor under the illusion that there is only one view i.e. what they are taught in science class. So, as usual, the entire concern is for what other children will learn in school - IOW, we want the school to teach my religious view to kids other than my own.
Interesting. I have read Newton's theorems on universal gravitational attraction and didn't see where he said that the attraction was caused, influenced, or affected by a supernatural agency.
Catholics dont deny Evolution. They believe god works in mysterious ways..and they accept, Evolution, Sun centered solar system...etc. they didnt always treat believers in these things as they do know. Thank heaven they do now. Other faiths could take a lesson from the church that, when I was a kid in the 1950's, was condemned by many other christians as being backward.
Thank goodness there's still someone in the Pubbie Party with some horse-sense!
Agreed--people aren't arguing that some OTHER non-scientific explanation for man's existence be discussed. But not bringing up creationism or ID just because it's not the scientific view is just silly when it was the dominant view, and evolution began to erode belief in that. When teaching any scientific breakthrough, the students should learn WHY it was a breakthrough, and what it was, uh, breaking through. It's like not talking about the rationale behind alchemy. It's essential to know what used to be the generally-accepted ideas in order to put the new ones in context, so I have no prob with ID being discussed in class.
"Good News for Evolution" Ping
This one's getting a lot of traction, but then again we knew the liberals were going to go after conservatives as a bunch of scientifically-illiterate yahoos.
The Principia begins with the assumption of an ordered universe in which consistent laws can be discovered.
This assumption was based on his theological convictions.
He said it better than I ever could.
My strong faith in God does not depend on the current state of scientific theories.
Obviously someone who doesn't have a clue as to what they're talking about.
If you don't beleive in one you MUST believe in the other. Choose one or the other. Anything else is intellectual apathy.
Either the entire universe developed from absolutly nothing on its own accord. Or a devine being orchestrated it. There is NO middle ground. Or other ground.
Another politician blasted for speaking the truth.
I'm sure we'd all be happier if our elected representatives stuck to cliches.
I'm most intrigued that some conservative Christians are attacking the whole ID concept, by taking the tack that the Bible is real clear on how things happened, and we don't need no cockamamie pseudo-scientific theory to prove it.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be 'mentioned' in science class. I am saying it shouldn't be taught as science in science class. But I really don't think it is a postive thing, either, to cast the Bible in with the other 'formerly generally accepted theories' that have been pushed aside by scientific discovery.
The Bible is not in competition with science, unless one wants to deliberately set it up that way.
"To me it only makes sense to teach--in a science class--what the prevailing beliefs were up to the acceptance of evolution. Why are people so afraid of that?"
Because this would necessitate teaching that evolution replaced creationism. That'll flip some wigs around here.
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.