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.

[Paul Ross]

No they didn't.

Yes they did with their defense of the order of improbabilities they have been confronted with.

[Dimensio]

And indeed virtually all the other features of H20, crucial to life... is yet further evidence of cosmological intelligent design.

How are the features of water evidence of intelligent design? Be specific.

[WOSG]

"This is an example of many Republican politicians today."

That they get bashed by the media? Yes. That the media wrote a biased headline? Sure.

"They get in on the backs of conservatives and then they decide they have to go left to widen their base."

W.r.t. Santorum that is not true. Name a northeast Senator who is a better conservative. Name ten senators who are betterin the whole Senate.

You can't. He's not a RINO like the other 7-8 northeast senators (Sen Sununu of NH excepted). HE's a conservative, and a good one.

His demise is purely because conservative have a death-wish for their own leaders. Why is that? Do you really want a liberal democrat in that post? Will that give you warm fuzzies at night?

[b_sharp]

Talk origins deals with the Dr. A. Flew claim better than I can. Talk Origins

As for the last paragraph in your link:

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.

The attempt to link the ToE with communism is a weak use of appeal to consequences and is not convincing in the least. Links of this sort can and have been made about almost every point of view and only works with those that are easily swayed by emotional appeals.

[dmz]

With all due respect, doesn't that tell us more about the people you associate with than telling us anything about the evolution/ID debate?

[highball]

ID is backed by facts coming out the wazoo.

State some of these facts.

Still waiting for Fruitbat to demonstrate even a single fact supporting ID. Not expecting it now, since at the time he made his wild claim he was unaware that ID involved evolution and common descent.

Fruitbat, who gave you "the impression that it was essentially a version of creationism, yet with some flaws, but by and large very close to it"? Where on Earth did you get that?

And isn't it telling that you deduced from that misunderstanding that ID "is backed by facts coming out the wazoo"? Just because you thought it was creationism?

So tell us, what are the facts that back up creationism?

[Zack Nguyen]

Hmmm, not sure what to make of that!

[highball]

News (sic) evidence debunks evolution, and more and more scientists are becoming skeptical of evolution.

Kindly cite the evidence to support your claim that new evidence debunks evolution.

[Sloth]

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

More media lies. ID is not an "alternative" to evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your kind words and the ping to your post! IMHO, the science threads are must helpful to Lurkers where there is mutual respect so that the subjects rather than the correspondents are challenged.

I would like to add something to the sidebar you are having with DoughtyOne:

It seems to me that a lot of students go through public education on auto-pilot and end up not really understanding the terms used, in science of course - but other subjects as well. Perhaps some are not exposed to the language? Perhaps some simply don’t care unless/until they specialize in higher education. And yet, in such a high profile and hot subject as intelligent design (or politics) it makes quite a difference if the correspondents are speaking the same language and are on “the same page”.

In the case at hand, the term “theory” is not a measure of confidence. The amassing of evidence in support of a theory is the measure of confidence. The term “law” however can be taken as a measure of confidence.

But a "law" is not subject to "proof" - that is a mathematics term. "Conjecture" (the rough equivalent of theory which lacks evidence in math) is subject to "proof". In science, a theory which lacks evidence is often called a "speculation".

The term “belief” is more correctly associated with philosophy or theology. But science derives from philosophy (philosophy > science) – after all, if nature were not logical and intelligible then science would have nothing to do.

Thus, a person can say that he "believes" a scientific "theory" or a mathematical "conjecture". But that is philosophy/theology.

But the reverse does not hold (science > philosophy). IOW, people who derive their belief system from science are not seeing the whole picture, the epistemology. IMHO, the proper term for this "belief" would be "second reality" - an imagining which ignores other knowledge. I would also say they are tunnel-visioned to the objects of scientific investigation.

cornelis introduced this issue on at least two other threads. And the discussion is ongoing, with many helpful contributions by betty boop. (the discussion thread)

To quote cornelis:

Yes, tautology is the logical term, the first move in classical logic. If A is A it is not non-A. Tautology is involved in definition, to some degree. A thing is what it is. This is obvious and tautological. It is also true. In fact, if the world wasn't made of multiple things, we wouldn't need dictionaries. If someone slips up and gets too complex, just refer them to rule number one, A is A and that is all you need to say. - post 459

The tautological points out a logical aspect. As the word's etymology will indicate, tauto= from the Greek "the same." But, knowledge of an event that we obtain through sense perception is and is not the same thing. Otherwise that tree you see is growing in your head. And then everything is in everything and the game is over. There is nothing more to say.

Magritte pointed out by example, C'est nest pas une pipe. Everybody can see that it is. Obviously, it is and is not a pipe.

This suggest different modal aspects of existing things. Before we apply the concept of the tautological for practical argumentation, we should first recognize that there are kinds of knowledge, biological, logical, physical, mathematical.

It may be that with each of the kinds of knowledge their is a self-referential aspect that is inescapable. But we can't substitute one for the other on a false notion of the tautological. Not at all.

Still, the concept of unity is a riddle, both for human consciousness and for the world of nature. I tried to ask this question in a conversation with js1138 here.

Leibniz pointed out something along these lines. If you posit "the same," you imply the other. Once you have A, you imply non-A. And the objection should be respected: this doesn't say what non-A is. That's right. And a logical proof is not a proof of its existence. One can't reason anything into existence. What to do? Was Descartes & co. on track to shrink the universe to A for the sake of certainty and never mind what might be non-A? The only way out of this conundrum is to present A, and show something that is non-A. Philosophy did this long ago when it posited a First Cause. It spoke to the existence of it. Knowledge about it may be limited to describing it extrinsically and in relation to causality in general.

If the influence of extrinsic causes depends on the existence of extrinsic causes there may be some preliminary work to do. On the other hand, it is a dangerous game to assume that the scope of our knowledge is identical with the object of our knowledge. - post 493.

But assuming that “the scope of our knowledge is identical with the object of our knowledge” is the risk when a person’s beliefs (philosophy/theology) are based on science (science > philosophy).

I really don’t wish to get two identical discussions going on separate threads, but if this subject is of interest to anyone here, please come and join us!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Yes they did with their defense of the order of improbabilities they have been confronted with."

The *probabilities* were pulled out of the posteriors of the creationists who made them up and had no resemblance to any known biological process. So no, no evolutionist in any way thinks the junkyard scenario has anything to do with evolution.

[Stultis]

No surprise there. Of course he won't argue in favor of teaching a theory he disagrees with

Actually those of us on the evolution "side" of this debate (and I think I can speak for most all of us in this limited respect) are committed to, at least potentially, arguing in favor of teaching theories we may disagree with. IOW our argument is that this is an issue of academic standards and academic integrity, and that creationism and ID have failed to accrue, on merit, the academic standing in the market place of scientific ideas that would be expected of any other scientific theory before it is included in curricula.

In consequence, though, other theories that are part of science (as can be objectively determined by consulting the professional literature) might also be included whether or not we agree with them individually.

Of course one might say the same of the creationist side. They argue that the determination of curricula content should be a popular or political decision, so that if a legislature or school board votes to include some idea they don't like, then they would be (if consistent) beholden to argue that teaching such would be appropriate, at least until the decision might be reversed by the same means.

The difference, of course, is that the creationists and ID'ers are NOT consistent in this respect. In every other discipline (and even in the natural sciences if it concerns issues like environmentalism or abortion) they, at least those that are conservatives, shift to the same ground of arguing for high and hard-nosed academic standards that we "evolutionists" consistently occupy.

[highball]

This speaks volumes about you. You evade the scientific issue every time.

For example? Be specific now.

My original post reflected on the fact that creationists, when they wish to insult evolution call it a "religion" and when they want to elevate creationism call it "science." How is that evading the scientific issue?

And again, please be specific.

[Quark2005]

And the snowflake under the microscope, was a bad choice by you.

I don't think so. I'm not trying to say that a snowflake is as complicated as a living organism, only that order can arise from "random" organization.

What are the odds, Quark? And indeed virtually all the other features of H20, crucial to life...

I don't know what the specific odds are (nor does anyone - the boundary conditions of biological systems are way too complex to make any meaningful calculations as such), but any calculation made retrospectively is irrelevant, for the simple reason that we have the anthropocentric tendency to view the outcome that exists as being somehow "favorable" just because we do exist. Like dealing out a deck of cards and looking at the order - the odds of the outcome you dealt occurring are about 1 in 10⁶⁸ - that doesn't make it a miracle.

And indeed virtually all the other features of H20, crucial to life... is yet further evidence of cosmological intelligent design.

Evolution has virtually nothing to do with cosmology (except in the minds of creationists, who tend to lump every scientific theory from the Big Bang to geological gradualism to stellar evolution to biological evolution under the blanket name "evolution".) In any case, it seems to me that a universe where H₂O was designed specifically to promote life would look pretty similar to a universe where organic molecules and the subsequent life adapted to the properties of H₂O.

I can't really argue against the possibility of intelligent design, but therein lies the crux of the problem. Intelligent Design can't be falsified at all - it is not science. If you want ID to be science, you have to find an experiment that can differentiate between the following two situations:

1) An organism that was intelligently designed

2) An organism that appears complex but evolved naturally and we just don't know how yet

Proponents of ID have yet to provide any method to differentiate between these cases.

Regardless of the specific mechanisms involved in each and every minute case, the evidence is overwhelming that evolution has occurred over the 3.5 billion year history of life on earth. Reminding us that we don't know how every existing gap is filled does not subtract from this certainty, it only serves to obfuscate the issue to no productive end.

Science, based on the tools of inquiry it uses by necessity, can only provide naturalistic explanations. Intelligent Design does not provide any explanation at all - it is akin to saying "this stuff looks too complicated, let's stop looking for an explanation". It is the very antithesis of science.

[b_sharp]

Our loss, their gain....

No, I mean their gain our loss.....

No,no,no. I didn't mean it like that. Our gain, their loss.

Yes, that's it. I knew I could do it.

[ICE-FLYER]

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

Fabulous! This has to be one of the best lines on this thread, and no, I am not mocking you or joking, its refreshing, especially since I am sipping my own brew which I take rather seriously :)

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.

I say there is not. If you don't choose to believe in God then its easier for the atheist or agnostic. If you do believe then you have the crisis of belief. You will have to acknowledge that the God Who created it all also created the physics laws that govern it but He Himself was not constricted or restrained by them. This is where we get the futile argument from the non-believe that He cant be God because He can not create a rock bigger than He can lift. The endless circle debate. The arena of Christian apologetics is vast and requires quite a bit of reading and a fair amount of discussion. Years for some, less for others. In the end the conclusion was one I could not escape. The Bible is real and verifiable. It is the only document to exist in its purist form in greater numbers than any other work the next being Homers Iliad (900 copies). 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 will have to assume you know my starting point. Its again believing in God or not. If so you then would believe His word to be true and there you will see that He made clear He reveals Himself in nature and in all of creation. This is not accepted by the non-believer, after all he or she will claim biblical inconsistencies.

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.

This, of course, would be the way you demand to see Him. He is supposed to conform to your way of seeing the world, thus denying the supernatural characteristics of God. He is not bound by mine or your constructs.

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.

I appreciate your honesty.

[furball4paws]

Shaking in fury or humor?

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I do not believe you. Maybe you want to think you're pro-debate, but I've been on way too many of these threads to believe you (as representative of the average evolutionist, not you personally). No way. And let me tell you what. I don't care anymore. You have harmed your own credibility and believability with this stubborn arrogance. Yeah, that's right. Until you guys stop being so pompous, students aren't even going to buy what you are selling. So thanks. You help my side. And saying that you welcome debate isn't the same thing as welcoming it. So no credit.

[furball4paws]

Sorry, AG. Someone has seen his shadow too early in the year.

[b_sharp]

ROTFLMAO