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 the quote seems to be saying, is that evolutionists have left themselves so many outs, that essentially nothing is provable or disprovable using their own processes.
Oh dang, I went and used the wrong terminology again.
We can't prove anything, but their claims are above reproach and unquestionably right. My mistake.
I need to get over to that other thread. Thanks for the post. Nice one.
Read the freakin' thread already.
If you could find a billion year old lizard or mammal, you would prove evolutionary biology wrong. But to do it, you'd have to believe the geologists who think the world is old.
I don't fully understand your point, but I do understand your concept. The lizard proof thing is escaping me at the moment. I do have a great sympathy for your seeming intimation of billions upon billions upon billions upon billions is more than a little overkill. I gree.
That's because you don't really know any evolutionary biology.
It's the fossil record that made the case for evolution. That's why none of the anti-science crowd discuss it.
As a simple example, reptile fossils appear in the fossil record before mammals do. So the theory says that due to this and the morphological features of the fossils, mammals evolved from reptiles.
If you were to find a fully-developed human fossil older than any reptile fossil, you would have significant evidence for evolution being wrong.
150 years of searching has not produced this huan fossil.
I followed you until you got to the "huan fossil". LOL, just kidding. I know what you mean. Thanks for the refresher.
LOL!
Thanks. I meant Chinese human fossils. ;)
BTW, I don't have a problem discussing any aspect of evolution. If I had incontrovertable proof of creation, it woudln't be faith. I'm willing to take a closer look at evolution, but it's not going to make much difference.
That won't sound very enlightened. I can live with it.
Neither of which are the four words on every US coin.
I look at it slightly more sideways.
We are obviously here (in my philosophy anyway), so creation is a fact.
My faith in God tells me he put us here and that we can learn about creation up to some point, but we still have to learn to live. Scripture fills that void.
Science is how we learn to make toasters, computers and antibiotics. Trivial in comparison, but useful.
That works for me. I probably wouldn't have stated it that way, but upon reading your comments I don't disagree.
I don't expect to have every question answered in this life. As far as science goes, it is useful. I agree with a number of it's concepts. I just don't think science has the answer to some of the most important questions in life.
I agree with you.
Thanks. I appreciate the exchange.
Likewise. ;)
There are more pro-evolution THEORY scientists in this country than ID scientists (for now).
Does that make the ID scientists wrong?
P.S. Thanks for helping me prove my point.
Scientists are the ones doing the science. There is no science behind ID. Your point is moot.
I think you missed my point.
My point is, despite the washing of the brains for 40 years in the schools, these good folks have used their own logic.
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.