Santorum: Don't put intelligent design in classroom

Beaver County Times & Allegheny Times ^ | 11/13/5 | Bill Vidonic

[Crackingham]

U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said Saturday that he doesn't believe that intelligent design belongs in the science classroom. Santorum's comments to The Times are a shift from his position of several years ago, when he wrote in a Washington Times editorial that intelligent design is a "legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in the classroom."

But on Saturday, the Republican said that, "Science leads you where it leads you."

Santorum was in Beaver Falls to present Geneva College President Kenneth A. Smith with a $1.345 million check from federal funds for renovations that include the straightening and relocation of Route 18 through campus.

Santorum's comments about intelligent design come at a time when the belief that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power, an alternative to the theory of evolution, has come under fire on several fronts.

A federal trial just wrapped up in which eight families sued Dover Area School District in eastern Pennsylvania. The district's school board members tried to introduce teaching intelligent design into the classroom, but the families said the policy violated the constitutional separation of church and state. No ruling has been issued on the trial, but Tuesday, all eight Dover School Board members up for re-election were ousted by voters, leading to a fiery tirade by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson.

Robertson warned residents, "If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city."

Santorum said flatly Saturday, "I disagree. I don't believe God abandons people," and said he has not spoken to Robertson about his comments.

Though Santorum said he believes that intelligent design is "a legitimate issue," he doesn't believe it should be taught in the classroom, adding that he had concerns about some parts of the theory.

[Rudder]

...that science has no place with God. I say thats nonsense.

I have never suggested that---read my posts on this thread....carefully, please.

Science has limitations. Science is merely a method, a tool if you will for understanding, by human beings, the physical properties of human existance. At its conceptual outset, science does not deal with supernatural (or spiritual, in other words) phenomena. You might well consider that as an apology, for science was never designed by human beings to ascertain ALL knowledege---but only a limited slice thereof.

[ICE-FLYER]

Yeah, the founders also thought that blacks were 3/5 of a man, women had zero rights to anything, and one (Jefferson) even believed that the 'lost tribe of Israel' would be found in the newly-acquired Louisiana Purchase, giving specific instructions to Meriwether Lewis on how to handle them if Lewis & Clark found them.

LOL!!. The 3/5ths clause was the first attack in government against slavery. Why not learn of a subject before your wield it as some form of argumentative weapon!

[LogicWings]

Who was Lilith's mommy?

[furball4paws]

Have you ever heard of a lizard in a jar?

[Rebel_Ace]

"...Why not learn of a subject before your wield it as some form of argumentative weapon!..."

Careful here, as you did not do too well yourself with Physics and that whole "2nd Law" thing a while back.

[B Knotts]

Actually, there are some Catholics who are pro-ID and/or anti-evolution theory.

I'm not an ID proponent; frankly, I don't know enough about it to make a judgment on it either way.

I would agree with you that the real problem here is the mixing of education and state, which inevitably leads to these kinds of conflicts.

Religion and values are a necessary part of education, but how do you impart same to kids in government schools in a pluralist society?

[DoughtyOne]

Your belief in evolution based on a preponderence of the evidence is not a real strong arguement IMO.  I could just as easily state that the complexity of man provides a preponderence of evidence that Intelligent Design is the only possible origin.  I don't seek to make that case.  Your side does seek to claim that your theory is the only possible origin based on the evidence.  Well, I disagree.

It's certaily your perogitive to claim falsity and inanity.

I'm sorry, but I can't buy into your last statement.

"My concern is scientific progress and the education necessary to promote it. Otherwise, I have no problem with you believing whatever makes you happy."

Threads like this refute that perception.  Some of you folks are willing to compare others and myself to the Taliban, just because we don't buy into your theories lock stock and barrel, and do not think exclusivity should be yours any more than ours.

If you were genuinely concerned about scientific progress, you'd be willing to take a look at the 'evidence', and see two possible conclusions based on the evidence that exists and the evidence that doesn't.

Your conclusions concerning the evidence, are all focused on accepting what you cannot prove.  What bothers you is that I have also elected to accept something I cannot prove.

The holes in your evidence don't disuade me.  The holes in my evidence should not disuade you.  This leaves us both unable to categoricly prove the other wrong.  None the less, your belief is teachable and my belief, both based on the uprovable, is not.

Down through the ages, there have been many people judged to be heritics.  Today the scientific community is the one making that charge, all the while claiming the high moral ground.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for your final word on that.

[ICE-FLYER]

I accept your answer, Rebel_Ace. You're saying that we evolved from a combination of events ranging from the sun and its activity to the earth going from superheated surface to cooler surface to molicules coming in from space to then arrive on the planet through our atmosphere after the cooling period, to mix with others to have the suns heat and nutrition combine with that mixing to form yet more complex organisms to then on and on and on to today. Is this what you are saying?

[Lancey Howard]

Good grief! Please don't tell me Santorum, of all people, is already choking and going the "moderate" route because he's running scared from the scumbag liberal Democrat press??

If so, he is chasing away the "broken glass" conservative base that gets him elected.
If so, he is toast.

[spinestein]

[I fail to see how Catholic automatically = pro-evolution.]



The Catholic Church officially teaches evolution to students in its schools.

The nuns taught us evolution in science class and the symbolical story of creation in religion class.

I think the Catholic Church learned a valuable lesson from the fallout from their persecution of Galileo hundreds of years ago for his suggestion that the Earth traveled around the Sun and not the other way around.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for your question. Yes I do. I'd like to extend those remarks but I'm not able to keep up with the posts as it is. Leter.

[LogicWings]

the case for Intelligent Design is based in science.

You missed the irony. That's all. I'm supposed to be having fun. I've been told.

One "wet iota" (see poet John Ciarti) of evidence for ID. That's all. Just one.

[Rudder]

Humans tinkering around with the DNA sequences to "tweak" an attribute or two. After all, that would by definition be "Intelligent Design".

I certainly think we all should be against that since we have no real foreknowledge of the environmental future. Lberals may reproduce fewer offspring and, someday, the world will be wholly conservative.

Or...

And that's another debate altogether, BTW, 'cause we scientists can produce knowledge with which humankind can do terrible things.

I had one distinguised professor who put it thusly, "Our job is to discover, it's society's job to deal with it."

[spinestein]

[ID is backed by facts coming out the wazoo.]




This is true but not in the way you meant it.

[Lancey Howard]

You know, "intelligent design" is about the crappiest name I ever heard for something purportedly undertaken by God. Whoever came up with the moniker "intelligent design", anyway? Yeccch.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I've suggested more electives, but no one seems to want that. Give the families a choice. Offer rigid evolution classes as well as classes where you can criticize evolution. Let them choose which one they want and give them full credit either way. Adapt the standardized tests to reflect just a basic understanding of the core points without drawing conclusions. But noooooo....can't have that.

[ICE-FLYER]

"...Why not learn of a subject before your wield it as some form of argumentative weapon!..." Careful here, as you did not do too well yourself with Physics and that whole "2nd Law" thing a while back.

LOL!! You reply to me on the law of thermodynamics because I ASKED about it and call that wielding? Please Rebel, wait until I respond to you before you jump on me for it and besides, tell me where I am wrong about the 3/5ths clause....after all it happened in our countries history with a clear historical record to substantiate without question....what you and I are talking about regarding Evolution and ID is about things tens of thousands to millions of years old with no record other than what we have to painstakingly search for which in the minds of many is evidence that requires many interpretations finally acting in agreement.

[Fruitbat]

If you even remotely atune to some of the biological research that's been done in the area you wouldn't need to ask!

As I said, for those with the intellectual honesty and diligence to do the research, it's there. It's ridiculous of you to ask for a "synopsis" as you did revealing that you haven't even begun to do such research.

It's all out there partner!

[Dimensio]

Once again, a creationist is presented with a full-on explanation of exactly why an assertion that they made is wrong. Does the creationist admit being in error? Of course not! The creationist simply changes the subject!