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.

[AndyTheBear]

Thus, I would believe in scientists in matters regarding biology/science, rather than a layman who has emotional attachment to some ancient writings.

No matter what?

I am no biologist. So I defer to my wife who is a biologist and standing right next to me wondering why I'm staying up so late...

I AM a biologist/scientist and a Christian who does not regard the THEORY of evolution to be without gaping errors. If you would note that the various creatures, plants, and so forth on this earth all have a similar basic chemical structure, fitting somewhat with both the theory of evolution and intelligent design. The creatures tend to have body types that follow a basic pattern - for example land animals and aquatic mammals have four limbs. This could also fit both theories. Unfortunately for evolution, the transition between the species is not evident. We should see more living examples than we do.

Ironically, I am inclined to believe Darwinian evolution of life. I don't believe in it, but it makes logical sense to me. Although I'm not a biologist (my wife has an M.S. in Biology, I just have a B.S. in Math). So when you appeal to the authority of Biologists, are you ready to throw my wife out of Biology for the sake of your faith?

Writings from 2,000 years ago from the time when people were scientifically ignorant and superstitious, have zero authority over science. Sure, some of those writings shed light on historical events. Nothing more.

People are superstitious today. The other day I was talking to some guy who thought it was bad luck to mention the concept of God in a science class...no wait, um forget I said that.

[AndyTheBear]

Nice dishonest shift of topic. The comment was referring to God not being within the realm of the natural world, not your faith in God.

I took it literally to illustrate that it was not well thought out.

How do people cutting you off in traffic provide a test regarding the existence of God? How would God be falsified or have his/her/its existence better established as being likely as a result of someone cutting you off in traffic?

It tries my faith, it does not test the existence of God. But you made a good, decent, honest shift in topic all the same. The discussion was actually about faith in the first place. The little provocative tidbit that got it going was I asked if he had "faith" in the scientific method.

What has this [chairs breaking under AndyTheBear's immensity] to do with God?

It was from an early analogy trying to illustrate what faith is. Good. Then this God and anything that it has allegedly done is not in any way relevant to science, and certainly has no place in a science classroom.

This seems too reckless to be recognized as an argument except by those who want to agree with you. Please calm down and try to enlighten me with a more precise break down of this logic. I think you may find it actually does not follow.

How exactly does a scientist examine evidence for miracles?

No differently then anyone else. Through personal experience. I may have mentioned this is not something that is subject to the scientific method. I believe you were just trying to make something of that above...so why do you ask about scientists in particular? Do you never evaluate evidence outside of science? How do people who are not scientists survive? (golly my hand hurts, its all red and bright around it, do you think its a bad idea to keep it in this fire thingy?)

Science is part of common sense. The idea that you try something out and see if it is so, with rules of being careful about it. Common sense is what most people use in evaluating the world around them. If you don't have faith in common sense, then how can you have faith in science?

False analogy. Darwin's theory makes testable predictions that could potentially fail to pan out, thus falsifying the theory. What testable predictions can be derived from God? How would the existence of a God be falsified?

I am a hard ass when it comes to the definition of the scientific method. Many people have different definitions and argue for them. But usually they do it to include what they are researching and their own methods. Do you not see a problem with that?

I am from old school: repeatable experiments. No repeatable experiment, then no science. One might be right in their conclusion, but one should not be trying to borrow from the credibility that repeatable experiments have earned.

Short term everyday evolution is testable by repeatable experiments.

Long term evolution is not. The further you go back in time, the less direct any repeatable experiment is until you are left simply looking for clues to fit your model, like historians do. I mean no disrespect for historians, nor to people searching for evidence to support evolution. I just do not accept that they are engaged in what gave science its impeccable reputation for accuracy.

So my analogy stands.

So you want to lie to students about dogma (belief in God) by claiming that it is not dogma?

Yes thats it. I consider my faith in God to be dogma and I still want it shoved down the throats of your kids! Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha!

Actually I would prefer to let the local schools decide the curriculum without interference from the feds or activist judges or national crusaders. And I don't want children to be afraid of mentioning God, or praying to God in the schools.

If a Biology class mentions the origins of life, they could offer that although most biologist beleive evolution happened, more then just a few disagree. Are the later to be kicked out of biology and suppressed, or ridiculed by lack of mention?

[shuckmaster]

Fine, then remove the unproven 'theory' of evolution from science classrooms.

Perhaps you should consider entering a science classroom before exposing your ignorance about science.

[Oztrich Boy]

I know what you mean. The guy only has an ACU rating of 96. What's wrong with the guy. I mean why would we try and keep a guy from Pennsylvania who votes conservative 96% of the time.

This is reminding me hoiw the Dummies of DU turn vicious when they find one of their favorite sons is not as moonbat crazy as they are. "Barack Obama is justa UNCLE TOM - I knew we couldn't trust him"

[shuckmaster]

my faith in God is part of the natural world, as is my faith in science and in chairs.

Does god ever sit in a chair or does he just stand up all the time?

[PatrickHenry]

The classic "WERE YOU THERE?" has to be in the toolkit. Might even want to make some room for "CAN YOU REAPEAT (sic) IT IN THE LAB?!?!"

"Were you there?" is there (B8). "Repeatable evolution" is on my list for the possible new row. Evolution Troll's Toolkit.

[Junior]

There was a time when matter did not exist.

Technically, this is wrong. Matter is a form of energy, which is a product of the expansion of space-time. It came into existence when time came into existence. There was no "before" the universe.

[Junior]

Well actually they are both based on faith.

Well, no they are not. One is based upon observation, testing, and repeatability. The other is based upon 2500 year-old manuscripts purported to be the Word of God.

But, of course, if you don't know anything about science I can see how it would look like magic.

[Junior]

Columbus believed the world was round by reading the Bible, which is stated in his writings.

Really. Cite please. The learned world had known the Earth was a sphere since a few centuries before Christ. A Greek fellow not only deduced its shape, but he also calculated the size (to within a few hundred miles of its actual size). It was only the ignorant peasantry of the late Medieval period, taking literally the Bible stories they'd been read, who believed the Earth was flat.

Now, Columbus did make a major mistake though -- he thought the Earth was a lot smaller than it was. That's why he thought he'd reached India when he bumped into the Americas.

[ICE-FLYER]

why do you have such a hard time accepting that evolution is nothing but an extension of those rules. Sure, maybe God did create man (along with everything else) but if he did it, he did it just like with the rest of the universe, by establishing this set of rules we call reality which includes a process we call evolution.

Maybe? Is this admission;) You're trying to pry me in your direction with the God set it up and walked away line. I am not a Deist. I do not believe in a Clockmaker God. It stands to reason that God being God can make what He wishes in the time He chooses and suffers no restriction in how it gets done, THAT is the complexity I speak of with God. That you or anyone else simply dismisses it because His creation and science in your mind can not coexist is an issue for you and others to face and deal with. I know, you may well reject such a thing is possible yet you have enough faith in the amazing chance of just the right things happening out of billions and billions of chance possibilities because of the knowledge you do know. I get a bit of a chuckle out of how I am told that I am the idiot because I question the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I get told I am the idiot for not believing the explanations of those in science who have divorced God from it all as a possibility and then try to tell me the God I believe in perhaps set it all up this way. Its funny because they demand I believe in God this way and yet dismiss the Bible. So, I am left with dismissing the Word of God on one hand and believing in their version of God or I am left to trust that Science does indeed support God and His work of creation. You can just take a guess at which one I will gravitate towards. Have any faith in the Bible at all? Not a set up, I am asking seriously. Why or why not?

[bobdsmith]

I am from old school: repeatable experiments. No repeatable experiment, then no science. One might be right in their conclusion, but one should not be trying to borrow from the credibility that repeatable experiments have earned.

I don't know what you mean exactly by experiments, but science does not require phenomenon to be directly observed in labs for explainations of that phenomenon to qualify as science.

For example paleontologists study past life by looking at bones - by doing so they are indirectly studying past life. In a way studying bones IS a kind of experiment. It is certainly repeatable - another paleontologist can repeat the study using the same bones. In this way a paleontologist can reach the conclusion that a certain fossil bones belong a reptile for example. Noone reproduced the reptile in the lab, but it's still science.

Seeing as evolution is partly based upon fossil evidence of this kind then it certainly qualifies as a science too.

Long term evolution is not. The further you go back in time, the less direct any repeatable experiment is until you are left simply looking for clues to fit your model, like historians do.

But long term evolution does not have to be directly observed to conclude that it happened, anymore than dinosaurs have to be directly observed to conclude that they happened. Geology, Archeology, Cosmology and Paleontology are all historical sciences which all rely on observing present evidence to test hypothese about the past (effectively therefore performing experiments). That makes them definitely science.

[KenmcG414]

This is an example of many Republican politicians today. They get in on the backs of conservatives and then they decide they have to go left to widen their base. This has proven to be their demise ie, Al D'Amato, George Pataki etc.

[airborne]

Rick has officially 'jumped the shark'!

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

The voters are visiting their wrath on the Santorum senatorial campaign. Looks like crap has hit the fan since the voter has heard Santorum has campaign stafff that engage in sodomy.

[doc30]

Not many scientists write texst books, college teaching positions have some of the lowest salaries for a PhD scientists and research grants are not direct pay to researchers. Grants pay for the hardware, lab space and for hiring research assistants. It does not go to the pocket of the researcher. Learn how research funding operates and what the scientific payscales are before saying things you know nothing about.

[Casloy]

This is reminding me hoiw the Dummies of DU turn vicious when they find one of their favorite sons is not as moonbat

Well, if you like the people you elect and support to start pandering to the opposition, then you must love Santorum. Problem is, it never works, and all it does is make you question how deep his convictions are.

[bobhoskins]

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??

Are you trying to say that if ID became the predominant theory, it would be the end of science?

Because if not, why wouldn't the scientists just write new books ... get new grants ... teach the different theory. Heck, I'd think scientists would LOVE a new theory to come up, as there would be BIG MONEY in rewriting all the textbooks and selling them to all the schools.

This argument you are trying to push for a Vast Evolution Supporter Conspiracy is a non-starter.

Then again, many of the arguments against evolution are not based in science, and THAT is what bothers scientists. They are willing to look at and debate actual scientific arguments ... true scientists love being able to question common knowledge, but they want to do it within the framework of science, and not have to detemine if a theory is greedy, atheistic, immoral, or used to support skewed worldviews, as none of that effects the validity of the theory itself.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I don't see evolution's answers as being any more thorough. Evolutiondidit!

[after dark]

"You understand that the debate on evolution versus ID in the U.S. is being watched very carefully by the rest of the world, right?"

When we depend on the opinion of the rest of the world to decide how our children are educated ,we have become a 3rd world country and all is lost anyways.

The problem with Darwin is the blasted Marxists attempted to use Darwin to beat faith in God out of children.

Ultimately whoever controls the gold rules anyways, no one gives a damn if a rich Arab believes in Darwin or he believes in Allah.

Belief in Darwin ,is not prerequisite for doing well in Calculus, chemistry or physics. Most children will never be taught any of these subjects. This is the real reason science is dead in America.

[ndt]

"Maybe? Is this admission;)"

I never said I was an atheist, I'm agnostic and despite the claims of some here on both sides, there is a big difference. Both Atheists and theists accept on "faith" that their absolute position is true, despite the fact that the subject at hand (God, god, gods, goddess, whatever) is at least at the present unknowable. By unknowable I don't mean a wishy washy sense of "the guiding hand of God", I mean measurable, testable.

On one hand, you have theists claiming the existence of something that can not be seen (though some claim to) and on the other, you have atheists claiming that lack evidence proves its nonexistence. Both are untenable positions.

I accept what I can examine, and the rest I shrug off and have another cup of coffee.

"His creation and science in your mind can not coexist is an issue for you and others to face and deal with."

Yes, there are incompatibilities between God (big G) and science. Many of those on the evolution side of the debate are themselves Christians of one type or another and claim otherwise, however unless you take a very liberal (classic definition not political) interpretation of the Bible, there are glaring inconsistencies between what we see and what the Bible says happened.

What you refer to as the "Watchmaker God" is not inconsistent with science, sitting comfortably outside of the reach of scientific measurement, that type of god would not come into the argument one way or another.

An active god, the type that stops the movement of the heavens, floods the world and creates man from dirt, would leave his fingerprints on everything he touched, and this trace evidence could be gathered and examined. That evidence is not there, despite cries to the contrary, the world is exactly as we would expect it to be given the natural processes we know about.

That leaves only two options:

1. That God, after each miracle, took steps to erase his tracks and leave the world looking like its current state was the result of natural processes. For example, after creating everything in 7 days, God scattered fossils of invertebrates that never really existed in the strata of mountain rocks and set the current level of atomic decay to make them appear to be billions of years old (what a trickster).
   
2. The world is the way it is due to natural processes.

"I know, you may well reject such a thing is possible yet you have enough faith in the amazing chance of just the right things happening out of billions and billions of chance possibilities because of the knowledge you do know."

If you have a billion sided dice, and throw it one time, the odds of getting a 1 are 1 in a billion, if you have a billion dice, and they are all thrown, there is a really good chance that one of them will hit the magic number. If you have 4x10^79 dice, the odds of NOT getting a 1 are astronomical. Its a big universe and the "against the odds" argument is only valid if you are limiting it to a very small local region of the universe. If the universe is big enough, then just about anything that is possible, no matter how probable, will likely occur.

"Have any faith in the Bible at all? Not a set up, I am asking seriously. Why or why not?"

No, not in the way I think you're asking. Faith in this sense is to believe in something without logical proof. An unwaivering faith in a world that can not be seen, touched, tasted or measured is quite literally a divorce from reality.