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.

[Willie Green]

Now you've gone and done it. You said "please". Pretty soon we'll have to say "Thank You", too. And there goes the neighborhood. (/sarc)

Of course I said "please".
Although DoughtyOne and I may disagree on this, I consider him to be a long-time friend on this forum. He has more than earned my highest respect many times over.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Evolution, as a theory of creation by random events is absolutely faith based."

Fortunately for the ToE, it isn't a theory of creation by random events.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"None of the believers in evolution would ever call the Vedics stupid."

If they were pushing their religion on our children we would.

[Alamo-Girl]

Interesting indeed - and very entertaining!

[Alamo-Girl]

Great! I look forward to your comments!

[Paul Ross]

And again, please be specific.

Like you have been? Hardly.

Probability.

[editor-surveyor]

"I'd like to help you, but I can't find any bacterium mentioned in Bill Vidonic's piece."

The inaccuracy of the author's notation not withstanding, I'm confident that you're aware of which class of bacteria he intended to invoke. (but it's still fun, isn't it?)

[after dark]

Oh please ! Just because the left does not call what they are teaching in public schools religion does make it any less so.

[furball4paws]

Scientists have no position on the Vedic. There are plenty of Hindu scientists that deal with evolution every day. It doesn't seem to bother them.

Creationist scores in mathematics have nothing to do with science. You seem confused. The only outcome from teaching Creationism and not Science in Christian schools is that universities will not give them credit for science classes. They will either have to go the remedial route or go to colleges where science has no importance. There have been several threads on precisely these topics if you look back (fairly recent).

Any discrimination will be self imposed (in this case through the actions of their parents).

In the long run, Creationism will hurt these children and it won't be because of discrimination. It will be because they will not have the tools to be successful in sceintific pursuits. And that touches everyone in the world today.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Oh please ! Just because the left does not call what they are teaching in public schools religion does make it any less so."



You can say evolution is religion until you're blue in the face but that will never make it so. So I repeat, evolution supporters would most certainly come down hard on any religious group that tried to inject their beliefs into science.

[js1138]

I'm confident that you're aware of which class of bacteria he intended to invoke. (but it's still fun, isn't it?)

Are you sure you're logged in?

[furball4paws]

It just means you need to be a little more careful.

[Quark2005]

Just because the left does not call what they are teaching in public schools religion does make it any less so.

And likewise, just because someone calls evolution a religion does not make it any more so.

[highball]

And again, please be specific.

Like you have been? Hardly.

Probability.

Fine then. If you want to pretend that I've said something, but refuse to back up your accusations, I can't help you.

Personal attacks are no substitute for evidence. You can't deny that when creationists want to disparage evolution, they call it "religion." When creationists want to elevate creationism, they call it "science." That is easily demonstrable on this very thread, and your personal attacks cannot change that.

[Dead Dog]

There is something kinda funny about all this, in a sad way.
The mandatory and strict adherence to a particular dogma in science is that it is not scientific unless an unsuption is made that there is no God. That any acknowledgment of the possibility of a creator is superstition and not science.

Therefor, all deductive reasoning must be based off of an inductive conclusion that there is no God.

It is intellectually crippling, just as it was when the old Soviet Union demanded all scientific papers adhere to Dialectic Materialism. In fact, the Soviet's dogmatic adherence isn't even an analogy..it is the exact same perversion of the scienctific process.

Science simply cannot check the box of Yes God or No God and still be deduction, at this point they have to assume it is an unknown. Anything else is an act of faith..which does belong in philosophy and theology.

Right now, the scientific community as a whole is hell bent on conforming to Materialism....as per Marx, not even Hegel.

[highball]

The mandatory and strict adherence to a particular dogma in science is that it is not scientific unless an unsuption is made that there is no God.

Kindly cite a single scientific source to back up your assertion.

Any one will do.

[after dark]

"Creationist scores in mathematics have nothing to do with science. You seem confused. The only outcome from teaching Creationism and not Science in Christian schools is that universities will not give them credit for science classes. They will either have to go the remedial route or go to colleges where science has no importance. There have been several threads on precisely these topics if you look back (fairly recent)."


You are right I am confused by why anyone would be so arrogant as to put a student with perfect math scores into remedial science classes because they went to a school that taught ID.

You would have put Newton into remedial science classes.

As far as the Indians go, are you so sure that an Indian from one of those backward schools which teach Devolution whose degree is in engineering is really using Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

[durasell]

World opinion matters for a lot of reasons, particularly now when the debate can be watched in "real time."

As far science being dead in America, nothing could be more untrue. Immigrant kids are eager to use science as a stepping stone to the middleclass. Any large city has from one or several public schools filled with immigrant kids doing exceptionally well in science. And then there are the universities, which attract foreign students from all over the world.

[Dead Dog]

For some it is. Otherwise there would be no conflict between ID of ToE. As soon as ToE rejects, in principle ID, it becomes a religeon in it's self.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The mandatory and strict adherence to a particular dogma in science is that it is not scientific unless an unsuption is made that there is no God. That any acknowledgment of the possibility of a creator is superstition and not science."

That's not even remotely true. Science requires only that supernatural explanations not be part of a scientific theory. It has nothing to say about the existence of a deity.

NO scientific theory uses supernatural causes as an explanation, why is evolution penalized for doing what all other scientific theories also do?