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.
"When did Santorum lower his britches to get his onions pruned!"
Probably right about the time he realized there will be exactly ZERO conservatives working for him in his next election. Though I'm sure a few self-styled conservatives will immediately pop up to claim otherwise.
The sad thing is I'm not even an aficionado of ID, but he did advocate it before and now he's flipping. I would rather elect a consistent, obvious lefty than a GOP waffler who'll screw you when you least expect it and need them on your side. At least with the lefty you know to keep your guard up, and at least with the lefty you will eventually get to nominate a conservative after the lefty embarrasses themselves. With guys like this, you're thinking you've got the votes, and then whammo, you get a Bowie to the dorsal.
"You would have to call the founders that because they did not see God in the classroom as an enemy to Science and that evidence is pleantiful."
Yeah, the founders also thought that blacks were 3/5 of a man, women had zero rights to anything, and one (Jefferson) even believed that the 'lost tribe of Israel' would be found in the newly-acquired Louisiana Purchase, giving specific instructions to Meriwether Lewis on how to handle them if Lewis & Clark found them.
I.E. Not everything the Founders did was necessarily correct nor above scrutiny.
Just asking.
ROFLMAO! Saved this post BUMP!
He indeed brought a new convenant, but did not change what God was hoping for, nor his judgment.
Matthew 5:17-18
17. Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. 18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.
And for sure, the love of Christ for sinners is truly a grace, that the second chance is always there for those who repent. But don't forget his words in Luke, 24 v. 44. And he said unto them, These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me. 45. Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the scriptures; 46. and he said unto them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day; 47. and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48. Ye are witnesses of these things.
Anyways, special protections in this material plane certainly can be withdrawn (abandonment) without any particular abandoning of hope for the miscreant's souls. Up to the day they expire, they have an opportunity for repentance. But they don't need special perquisites of divine protection up to that point....nor are they entitled to such.
No, you're having a hard time accepting that absent proof, the evidence is inconclusive. I do understand the terms you guys would like to limit this to. As I said to another person, I don't blame you.
You know that the evidence is not conclusive. I know the evidence is not conclusive. Why do you folks have such a hard time admitting what we all know?
"I accept Christ based upon spiritual faith. Has it been proven that Christ was the son of God? No.
I accept God as an article of spiritual faith. Has it been proven that God exists? No.
Science is not about faith, it is about empricial observations. You're having trouble with that concept."
How refreshing! Someone who gets it and whose faith is NOT threatened by science!
Well it doesn't automatically. But as I understand it, that's pretty common.
Religion concerns itself with "supernatural" issues. Evolution (there is no such thing as "Darwinianism" - idiots) only concerns itself with "materialism" (the main complaint against it) so it cannot be a "religion." You guys need to study the English language more and learn the meaning of words. As it is, you don't understand what you are talking about.
"If one unsustainable theory can be taught there, then all unsustainable theories should be able to be taught there.
To steal a demand from the creationist cadre: Prove that the theory of evolution is a faith based science. Prove that the ToE is unsustainable.
No? I thought not.
A preponderance of the evidence.
You're loathe to admit that 'evidence' is not conclusive.
No, I am not. The 'evidence' is not conclusive.
Therefore your theory cannot be proven.
Which theory?
You don't like it that I use that word.
If you mean either the word "faith" or the word "proof" then my objection to your use of them is that it's false (and inane).
I don't blame you.
I don't have anything against you either. My concern is scientific progress and the education necessary to promote it. Otherwise, I have no problem with you believing whatever makes you happy.
If people really wanted freedom they would educate their own kids -- and pay for their own everything else too. But people only give lip service to freedom. No one really believes in it anymore. So what do we do? Well, I stay as far away from gov't schools as I can, for starters.
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?
I don't have to prove it. Your own side admits it. Even the supporters of teaching evolution to the excusion of anything else, admit it.
Not really. The three-fifths clause started out as a proposal to apportion taxes among the states under the Articles of Confederation. The more population you had, the more taxes your state would pay. The South wanted to count only citizens; the North piously said they wanted to count everyone. The North offered the 3/5 clause as a compromise. It wasn't accepted.
Both sides flip-flopped during the Constitutional Convention, when, for purposes of representation in the House, a big population was an advantage. So they fell back on 3/5, for both taxation and representation.
No one was debating what a black person was worth compared to a white.
Actually the better definition [See Religious Tolerance.Org ] is as follows:
"Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview." (A worldview is a set of basic, foundational beliefs concerning deity, humanity and the rest of the universe.) Thus we would consider Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, and Neopaganism to be religions. We also include Agnosticism, Atheism, Humanism, Ethical Culture, Darwininan Originism etc. as religions, because they also contain a "belief about deity" -- their belief is that they do not know whether a deity exists, or they have no knowledge of God, or they sincerely believe that God does not exist. "
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.