Posted on 11/13/2005 3:49:41 PM PST by 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.
"Last I looked, it sure seemed that the typical televanglist was rakin' in a lot more than most biologists or paleontologists."
And your point is????
So you said "Last I looked,...." - so what was the comparison amount of money at an average. I'm curious to see the figures.
Scientists make a lot of money writing books (including textbooks) government grants, teaching in universities, etc.
Do you think they would want to have to start working for a living??
Yeah, I know a guy who made a fortune in the paleontology racket. Retired at 30 and bought a 90 foot sailboat. Sits courtside next to Jack Nicholson at the Laker games.
What's interesting is that there are more and more former atheists who are now believers.
For instance:
Dr. Antony Flew, the well respected British philosopher and atheist, recently told a journal published by the Evangelical Philosophical Society that “I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries.” Flew, now a theist, added that “I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.”
Twenty-five years ago, Science Digest, noted that, “Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities.” (Larry Hatfield, Educators Against Darwin, 1979)
http://www.aclj.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=1190
PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Hundreds of supporters of "intelligent design" theory gathered in Prague in the first such conference in eastern Europe, but Czech scholars boycotted the event insisting it had no scientific credence.
--snip--
Pavel Kabrt, a Czech who served on the committee that organized the event, said the capital of the ex-communist country _ now a highly secular republic _ was a fitting backdrop for the debate.
"Communism is gone, but its main pillar, Darwin's theory, is still here ... the evolution theory is taught as dogma here starting in nursery school," said Kabrt, an electrician who lectures on intelligent design at Czech high schools.
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/34122.html
Last paragraph is an interesting thought to ponder, don't you think?
"Is having faith in the scientific method essential?"
Faith, to me, is something you would believe no matter what. Science is different, as it seeks evidence and undergoes constant improvement.
As someone who is into business/management, I only trust the most qualified people who know what they are into. In this case, I trust the scientists and not their opponents who claim to have knowledge from prehistoric writings.
"I hear that the flat earth people are still, after all of these years, racking in the bucks.
Right?"
Good point.
Which reminds me. Columbus believed the world was round by reading the Bible, which is stated in his writings.
"Yeah, I know a guy who made a fortune in the paleontology racket. Retired at 30 and bought a 90 foot sailboat. Sits courtside next to Jack Nicholson at the Laker games."
I knew it!!
When I sit down on my chair I have faith that it will hold me up. I don't understand exactly how, but I have a working understanding through personal experience.
I just expect it to hold me up because it has before.
Can science give me any other guarantee for such a faith in chairs? The scientific method as most rigorously applied must depend on the idea of trying something out to see if you are right. If everybody does the same experiment and gets the same results, then they develop a faith in what is postulated.
There is no play on words here. My faith in God is no different then my faith in chairs or the scientific method. They all rely on personal experience.
"People have burned up thousands of posts on these threads arguing science v. faith."
Well actually they are both based on faith.
Yeah, 96% then he comes out against the president on Iraq, and snubs him at an important rally in Pa. Nothing more unseemly than conservatives who fake middle of the road when they see their poll numbers drop. It's not going to work for him any more than it's going to work for Hillary pretending to be a moderate. Santorum is going to lose.
There was a time when matter did not exist. But there never has been a time when nothing existed...otherwise nothing would exist now. You may well ask; "How did matter suddenly come into existence"?
1 John 1-4: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
I do not call that faith. I call that being obtuse.
In this case, I trust the scientists and not their opponents...
A good scientist does not oppose or support ideas any more then a good referee does. They are there to test them.
...who claim to have knowledge from prehistoric writings.
Sorry to be a bit of a smart-ass, but I must point out that "prehistoric writings" is an oxymoron. The writings of the Bible are part of history, not "prehistoric". In addition to super natural events, they serve as historical records: for instance Isiah tells of a man named Cyrus overthrowing several nations militarily and finally restoring the temple in Jerusalem in about 530 B.C. This is all part of history and hardly remarkable. (The fact that Isiah said exactly this about 200 years before it happened might be though).
However one does not need to have faith in the Bible to postulate that a Creator made everything. You need not be a Jew nor a Christian, nor particularly religious. It only requires an open mind--which is definitely a requirement for science.
"When I sit down on my chair I have faith that it will hold me up. I don't understand exactly how, but I have a working understanding through personal experience."
The difference here is that chair is an object in the natural world. Your faith in God is different from your faith in your chair.
"There is no play on words here. My faith in God is no different then my faith in chairs or the scientific method. They all rely on personal experience."
Your faith in God is something out of the realm of the natural world. You cannot ever test your faith in God. In fact, it isn't even relevant.
I don't hold that ID is science, but answering your challenge for just one piece of evidence for ID may help me illustrate a point.
Before this century many have postulated that the universe was created by a God or by some gods.
An immediate implication of this postulate is that the universe did not always exist, but had a definate begining. Conversly those rejecting this hypothesis would most likely maintain that the universe simply always existed.
Astrophysists claim to have evidence that the universe popped into existance long ago in some kind of big bang. Which shows some confirmation that the universe did not always exist--which was predicted by the postulate that it was created.
NO, it would be more akin to teaching Ebonics along with English. Perhaps you know an English teacher who is that openminded, but I don't want him teaching anyone I'm responsible for. I'd be totally inwilling to pay his salary.
Note that this in English class. It is proper to study Ebonics as part of linguistics, or in the context of Uncle Remus stories. It is unacceptable to call it standard English, or to pretend that it is. The same applies to other politically-mandated studies, such as Afrocentric history. It is fraudulent to call it history.
ID is another such politically-mandated study.
One of the problems here is that the ID side is attempting to change the definition of what science is. This was explicit in Kansas. Politicians simply do not have the authority to do such a thing.
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientists, and almost all biologists, accept evolution. If kids are going to learn science, they should learn what scientists say it is.
Would you like to see ID used as an example of a nonfalsifiable, and hence nonscientific, claim, along with freudianism and lasts Thursdayism?
How do you know that?
XenuDidit placemark
I think we can agree that I myself, am part of the natural world. Even assuming that God does not really exist my faith in God is part of the natural world, as is my faith in science and in chairs.
You cannot ever test your faith in God. In fact, it isn't even relevant.
Heck my faith in God gets tested all the time. Like when people cut me off in traffic. So does my faith in chairs. I'm a heavy fellow, and some have broken under me.
I maintain that testing for the existence God is not something that is subject to the scientific method (at least not how I define it. Others with a looser definition of science might disagree).
God seems content to let the natural laws of nature prevail in almost all cases, and does not seem to be willing to cooperate with super natural intervention at the whim of scientists trying to reproduce results. Which makes it about as testable as trying to see if Darwin was actually right (O.K. God, please back up time a few million years again, we are trying to fine tune Darwin's hypothesis).
The best we can do is look at evidence after one time events in both the case of miracles and the origin of life through evolution. In both cases experience and common sense guide us, but not strict science.
If we discuss one in Biology, lets discuss the other as well. And lets treat neither as dogma in the classroom.
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.