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.

[DoughtyOne]

Okay, the evidence does not sustain what you folks claim it does. You love to make 'wink and a nod' comments about Christians who accept creation on faith, but then excuse away your belief in things that can't be proven as scientific.

The flimsey evidence that exists to support the theory of evolution (from single cell to man) is just that, flimsey. You can't point to another theory that you will accept, so yours must be the only one.

In the dark ages, it was the Christians who vilified scientific thinkers. Today it's the scientific thinkers turn.

[Dimensio]

If you disagree, then please explain how ID does in fact meet the required criteria to be considered "theory". You could start with a hypothetical observation that would prove, without doubt, that Intelligent Design is false. If there is no definable falsification criteria, then ID can be rejected right there.

[LogicWings]

There are huge gaping holes in the lineage of single celled organisms to man. You guys have no answer for that that cannot be shot down. Therefore, it is a falsehood to claim that the theory of man's assencion from single celled organism is anything more than a faith based belief system.

As the old saying goes, "Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack."

Demonstrating that something might not be correct doesn't prove anything else true. This is what you won't deal with. You can "prove" evolution false all day long but that doesn't prove ID correct. Nothing can prove ID correct.

Deal with it.

[Dimensio]

The flimsey evidence that exists to support the theory of evolution (from single cell to man) is just that, flimsey.

Why is it flimsy?

You can't point to another theory that you will accept, so yours must be the only one.

What other theories are there? Be specific, and explain exactly how the explanations that you give meet the requirements to be considered "theory".

[b_sharp]

"Actually it is the other way around, since Darwinian origin is in fact pure religion, and the case for Intelligent Design is based in science. Hence Santorum is merely running with the shallow-thinking herd of hard-core secularists who oppose true science and open inquiry.

Really? Well I guess that with such a bold claim you have tons of evidence for this. Please share some of this evidence with the rest of us. Exactly what science does ID use? What theory, what falsifiable criteria, what predictions have been made and verified?

[ICE-FLYER]

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!

LOL!!! This is goofy...my reply is more of asking for clarification. Thanks for playing!

[DoughtyOne]

LOL, which is a claim I could make about evolution as well.

I cannot claim that mans evolution from a single cell is impossible. I've never sought to.

Thanks for the comments.

[Rebel_Ace]

"...I could just as easily state that the complexity of man provides a preponderence of evidence that Intelligent Design is the only possible origin..."

The complexity argument is actually weak. Let me illustrate with an example:

Suppose I looked at a sample of red balls and yellow balls. My first observation is that these red balls and yellow balls seem to appear without exception in groups of three. "That's odd," I might think, "It looks like SOMEONE grouped them all together in groups of three."

I look further and find that not only are they ALL grouped in triplets, without exception they are grouped as two reds and one yellow. NEVER two yellows and one red. "This clinches it!" I think. "These MUST have been arranged by SOMEONE. The order is TOO PERFECT. The arrangment TOO PRECISE. This cannot be random, SOME AGENT must have ordered this."

However, if I take the same example above, and substitute HYDROGEN ATOMS for "red balls" and OXYGEN ATOMS for "yellow balls", and allow them to "mix" in a sponteaneous reaction of uncontrolled combustion, I will get EXACTLY this result. Water will form as H₂0. Millions and millions of atoms, all sorted into threes, all of the same configuration.

Seemingly complex results can arise from a few simple rules, repeated over and over. The fact that the rules might not yet be understood does not necessiarily imply that an intelligent agent is at work.

[Quark2005]

Nothing can prove ID correct.

Or incorrect, for that matter. That's the whole problem with it.

[Dimensio]

LOL, which is a claim I could make about evolution as well.

Since you didn't quote the exact text to what you are responding, I don't know exactly what you mean by this. That it isn't falsifiable? The theory of evolution is falsifiable. Find a Precambrian rabbit fossil. Find a transposon in whales and cows that does not exist in hippos.

[Fruitbat]

You do know that ID means man evolved from a simple organism over millions of years ...

Nope! As such I apologize!!!

I've been under the impression that it was essentially a version of creationism, yet with some flaws, but by and large very close to it. After "further reveiw", I stand entirely corrected!!

[Fruitbat]

See post 151 I believe!

Apologies!!!

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Great point. I hope for Senator Santorum's sake that he has his resume together. His secret plan to woo liberal voters by deliberately alienating his base might not pay off as well as he hopes.

[Fruitbat]

I suppose. You're being gracious.

See post 151.

[b_sharp]

And the next ball is....B11, that is B11.

BINGO!!!

[DoughtyOne]

I have sought to state that belief in man's evolution from a single cell is not sustainable incotrovertably by the evidence. I have not sought to say it is impossible. As for ID, you can't prove that false or true. Neither can I.

I can deal with it. Can you?

[PatrickHenry]

Am I the only one who's made the connection between Santorum's flip-flop on ID and the recent Dover trial on ID, followed by tossing out the whole Dover school board? Santorum gets it. ID is an electoral loser. I hope other republicans learn the same message.

[FreeReign]

In the dark ages, it was the Christians who vilified scientific thinkers. Today it's the scientific thinkers turn.

Isn't Santorum being vilified for keeping I.D. out of science class?

[LogicWings]

"Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview." (A worldview is a set of basic, foundational beliefs concerning deity, humanity and the rest of the universe.) Thus we would consider Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, and Neopaganism to be religions. We also include Agnosticism, Atheism, Humanism, Ethical Culture, Darwininan Originism etc. as religions, because they also contain a "belief about deity" -- their belief is that they do not know whether a deity exists, or they have no knowledge of God, or they sincerely believe that God does not exist. "

This is just a bunch of BS to confuse the issue. This is why I love etymology, because idiots like this love to destroy words in order to confuse the language.

The idea that an "atheist" is a religious person is a contradiction in terms. You can believe it if you want, but then again, you have the right to be stupid. I am not going there.

The fact is "a belief about diety" doesn't apply to several of these definitions. Diety doesn't figure into the picture at all.

This is why American children are so stupid and put rings in their lips and ears. Because the adults are so irrrational. Stupid.

And, to make the point, all those definitions didn't include the true "agnostic" position. You are ignorant.

[Rebel_Ace]

"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?"

Well, more or less. My point is that complex biological activity depends upon energy from an outside source. There is no violation of the 2nd law, as we ARE INDEED increasing the entropy of the system as a whole.