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.
What a wonderfully scientifc argument you've made against the theory of evolution there. You must astound your friends at parties with you observations about the universe.
Yes, I must have been tricked by the ACLUers who ran into my house, somehow managed to avoid being shot, and waved a shiny coin in front of my eyes --- the words "In God We Trust" scratched off with a penkinife --- shouting at me that the scientific community is NOT hiding evidence against evolution in some bunker somewhere ... millions of scientists across the world are NOT holding this evidence in secret much like the evidence of faked moon landings ...
And I chose to believe them that it's difficult to keep a secret between two brothers --- let alone millions of scientists, any of which would become rich from leaking such information against the current TOE.
I'm sure there's hundreds of scientists killed each year because they were about to publish against the TOE.
Wait, you've broken through my ACLU brainwashing! I see the truth now!
The ACLU controls the world!
By the way, you might want to return to the minor league troll boards such as DU to practice your skills further before returning here. Tell your friends there that your attempts to make thinking conservatives look like fools isn't quite working, as a retarded parrot would have a slightly larger selection of catchprases to use than you seem to exhibit.
Er, no. You said 'showcase the flat-earth society'... so have 'em come in and make their case. It's a good lesson in how you can determine theories false.
We have a new pope now, Pope Benedict XVI. Both, really terrific men. Here's a bit about both of them:
“Further, he (the Pope) seems to be cautioning those who have been claiming Church endorsement of the full-bodied, design-defeating version of Darwin's theory of evolution, which, after all, is often little more than philosophical materialism applied to science,” added Chapman.
Chapman noted that in his very first homily as Pope, Benedict XVI had rebuked the idea that human beings are mere products of evolution, and that, like his predecessor, John Paul II, the new Pope has a long record of opposition to scientific materialism.
excerpt from: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3015&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage
If you want to see "scary," go read the PA forum. I get nasty remarks about "your" boy all the time even though you can see I do have criticism of him if I think it is warranted. PA posters don't like being reminded that if they vote for Casey, they are trading a decent conservative for a pro-life (until he gets to D.C.) socialist. I keep telling them by teaming up with the Democrats to "vote the bums out" and "clean house," they are going to give Rendell a Democrat legislature for his last 4 yrs., a Democrat Senator, and probably turn the House delegation into mostly Democrats. Then their only choice will be to vote with their feet to escape the mess they created.
I dunno, but I'm more interested in what these two wonderful men said:
“Further, he (the Pope) seems to be cautioning those who have been claiming Church endorsement of the full-bodied, design-defeating version of Darwin's theory of evolution, which, after all, is often little more than philosophical materialism applied to science,” added Chapman.
Chapman noted that in his very first homily as Pope, Benedict XVI had rebuked the idea that human beings are mere products of evolution, and that, like his predecessor, John Paul II, the new Pope has a long record of opposition to scientific materialism.
excerpt from: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3015&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage
Nonsense. He didn't need to get that from the Bible - no seafaring society truly believed that the Earth was flat. The evidence to the contrary was right before them.
That's a myth invented to make later societies feel superior to older ones. They might have been wrong about a lot of the natural world, but not about that.
If Columbus had to learn that the Earth was round from the Bible, he was a pretty poor sailor.
Well, there just might be some truth in what you say. Take a look at this excerpt:
The myth that people of the 15th century believed that the earth was flat was popularized by 19th century atheists in order to use science in their war against religion. What better way to discredit religion than to attribute an obviously false idea to religious people!
This myth can be traced directly to two very influential 19th century books: History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science by John William Draper (a physician) published in 1874 and History of the Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom by Andrew Dickson White (the first president of Cornell University) published in 1896. Both men used the flat-earth myth to help spread their arguments against religion. These books started the false and dangerous ideology that there is a war between science and religion, and that science is the only source of truth. The flat-earth myth did not appear in schoolbooks before 1870, but nearly all textbooks included it after 1880.
The attempt to make Columbus into a hero of the battle between science and religion is particularly ridiculous. Columbus was a deeply committed Christian whose own writings prove that his desire to carry the message of Jesus Christ to faraway lands was the primary motivation of his historic voyage to the New World.
http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/columbus/columbus.shtml
Just for fun all you anti-ID people.
See how your talking points compare with the ACLU talking points:
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17204&c=139
"Evolution is not faith based. It is the basis for modern biology."
Evolution in the sense you mean is to biology what history is to science. What exactly has evolution contributed to biology?
Let's cut to the chase, genetic mutation on the cellular level gives us science going forward. Next?
Ah, guilt by tenuous association. It's amazing how much further and further you move from debating the actual science, isn't it?
The Commie Manifesto was not the end all, be all of Marxism, it is only the first major work of the Marxist diatribe. Das Kapital, I would argue, had more of an impact on society than the Manifesto. ie, the term Capitalism iteself.
I'm aware of that. I said the canonization wasn't complete until later on. That's the same thing you just said - perhaps my choice of words of was unclear on the matter. But don't tell me that the four canonical gospels were the only ones in existence at that time - that just simply isn't true. (Many were easily determined to be forgeries, I know.)
Not true at all. You can read the works of the early church 'fathers' and how they built on the gospels from early days, not in a 'chaotic' manner, but building up a defined theology over time by drawing on the original gospels:
Thank you kindly for the link - this is a subject I am eager to learn more about. What of all the Gnostic and other various sects that were in existence of the time, though? (I'm aware that most did not survive for long - but it does appear to me that there was a period of confusion as to the identity of an "official" theology.)
The limits of scientific validity are not concerned with sectarian limitations - that simply isn't how the application of science works. And I agree that theology is a valuable discipline, and I really believe that spirituality is essential to our being as well. But when a theory becomes so overwhelmingly supported by material evidence as evolution has, it's time to stop sweeping it under the rug and perhaps learn how it may be part of the big picture.
Science can't ever be integrated into a literal reading of the bible for obvious reasons.
I don't think the Bible was intended as a science book, nor should one even try to integrate the two. I sure wouldn't try to read a genetics textbook for advice on how to treat my neighbor, and I wouldn't use the Bible for lessons on similarities between the human and chimp genome.
Here is a creation story from Rig Veda, circa 1500BC
Then was neither non-existence nor existence: There was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered it, and where? And what gave shelter? Was there, an unfathomed depth of water?Death was not then, nor was there anything immortal: no sign was there, the Day's and Night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and formless: by the great power of Warmth was born that One.Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the kinship of existence with non-existence.Transversely across the universe was their dividing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder.Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?He the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows it not.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/worldciv/workbook/ralprs5a.htm
I think all religious are socialists in nature and always at odds towards free thinkers and free economy. Lets look at the oldest religions that people had -- shamanism and tribalism. They were pretty socialistic in those economically egalitarian times.
Then came defined religions like Judiasm and Hinduism as people started living in settlements. They had some structure and hierarchy, but other than that they were socialistic in nature. Workers worked and fed and clothed, without any question asked.
As more defined religions came along, like Christianity and Islam, both were bent on socialism and marked anti-capitalism. Interest rates became grave evil in especially Islam. And everybody knows Jesus' anti loan and exchange rate policies.
And don't make me get started on Buddhism(the pure form). The pure grade Buddhism has contempt for the material world and, according to it, the suffering is because of desire. Thus, very antithetical towards capitalism.
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.