Posted on 12/22/2005 1:41:44 PM PST by jennyp
[subhead: He denies he is contradicting earlier statements of support for the cause.]
Early this year, Sen. Rick Santorum commended the Dover Area School District for "attempting to teach the controversy of evolution."
But one day after a federal judge ruled that the district's policy on intelligent design was unconstitutional, Santorum said he was troubled by court testimony that showed some board members were motivated by religion in adopting the policy.
And, he said in an interview, he disagreed with the board for mandating the teaching of [ID], rather than just the controversy surrounding evolution.
Santorum - who sits on the advisory board of the Thomas More Law Center, which defended the school board in court - said the case offered "a bad set of facts" to test the concept that theories other than evolution should be taught in science classrooms.
"I thought the [TMLC] made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did," Santorum said.
He said he intends to withdraw his affiliation with the Michigan-based public-interest law firm that promotes Christian values.
...
Santorum would not comment on the ruling itself, saying that he had yet to fully review it.
The case highlighted Santorum's high-profile role in the debate over teaching evolution. ... [H]is actions - most notably, an effort in 2001 to insert a "teach the controversy" amendment into a landmark education bill - figured prominently into the case.
It also has become a political issue for Santorum as he faces a tough reelection in 2006. His leading Democratic challenger, state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., has seized upon the senator's seemingly contradictory statements on intelligent design to portray him as a "flip flopper" who puts an ideological agenda above other interests.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
The experiment had nothing to do with evolution though, as the origin of life is not covered in evolutionary theory.
But it is part of Darwinist theory, which is what I was talking about. You keep switching from Darwinism to Evolution like they're the same theory. They're not.
Owl_Eagle
"You know, I'm going to start thanking
the woman who cleans the restroom in
the building I work in. I'm going to start
thinking of her as a human being"
Recent research shows they may have been closer than you think. Also, they showed organic compounds form under natural conditions
In an atmosphere with artificially high amounts of free hydrogen, they were able to create glycine. No one has been able to create any complex amino acids in a primitive earth atmosphere.
Owl_Eagle
"You know, I'm going to start thanking
the woman who cleans the restroom in
the building I work in. I'm going to start
thinking of her as a human being"
"But it is part of Darwinist theory, which is what I was talking about. "
No, it has nothing to do with Darwin or evolution.
"You keep switching from Darwinism to Evolution like they're the same theory. They're not."
There is no *Darwinism*, other than in the deluded minds of creationism. There is the theory of evolution.
I'd recommend you read either Darwin's Black Box or Icons of Evolution just so you get the most basic understanding of the theory you're railing against.
I had to sit through six years of Darwinist B.S. so I've bothered to investigate both sides. I find Darwin's ideas full of holes.
Owl_Eagle
"You know, I'm going to start thanking
the woman who cleans the restroom in
the building I work in. I'm going to start
thinking of her as a human being"
But it is part of Darwinist theory, which is what I was talking about.
No, it isn't. Tell you what, go off and endlessly amuse yourself trying to document this claim. And no, creationist misrepresentations or "quote-mining" don't count.
You keep switching from Darwinism to Evolution like they're the same theory. They're not.
And the difference would be...?
If you're trying to say that "Darwinism" is the things which Darwin wrote about, then I'd love to hear your explanation for how the Miller-Urey experiment, which took place long after Darwin was dead, is "part of Darwinist theory". This should be amusing.
That was going to be the very question I asked him!
I was disagreeing with the notion that students (of all people), should be allowed to decide what is or isn't science.
I believe Santorum is gun shy after all the flack he's taken for some of his previous outspoken and controversial positions. (gay issues, the Schiavo case etc)
He's worried about losing his Senate seat and is trying to play it safe.
When Owl_Eagle posted "six years of University biology," there was no mention of having been in any of the classes ... much less having slept through them.
You claimed that, "I love biology and bet I could run circles around you in any discussion on the topic", and yet both times I've tried to get you to engage in a discussion on that very topic, you vanished from the thread...
Ready now?
Santorum looks like Michael Jackson doing the moonwalk.
Game, set, match!
You claimed that, "I love biology and bet I could run circles around you in any discussion on the topic", and yet both times I've tried to get you to engage in a discussion on that very topic, you vanished from the thread...
Ready now?
Are you REALLY that hard up for somebody to debate with?
FR is a BIG place.
Believe it or not my life doesn't center around entertaining and responding to your every comment. I doubt if I even read your last post.
I've debated evolution for years in online forums and could probably address every detail of every challenge you present simply by cutting and pasting from my archives.
It gets boring really fast dude.
You can spend every minute of everyday trying to disprove Creation or ID and push evolution till you reach Hell for all I care.
I know what it's like trying to talk in the black hole of unbelief and wonder if there's really anybody there to convince of anything.
So don't expect me to waste my time engaging you when I tire of a discussion. Move on bro.
MRSA*** upon their ignorant houses.
***Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
"I am he
as you are he
as you are me
and we are all together"
I am not a scientist. That is the point. Why can't scientists try to figure it out? Doesn't science try to find answers to questions?
I'm sure students make decisions regarding homosexuality. How could they not the way the schools push it on them?
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.