Rick Santorum and rest of Intelligent Design Crowd Get Ahead of Themselves.

Washington Times ^ | March 14, 2002 | Rick Santorum

[ThinkPlease]

"I hate your opinions, but I would die to defend your right to express them." This famous quote by the 18th-century philosopher Voltaire applies to the debate currently raging in Ohio. The Board of Education is discussing whether to include alternate theories of evolution in the classroom. Some board members however, are opposed to Voltaire's defense of rational inquiry and intellectual tolerance. They are seeking to prohibit different theories other than Darwinism, from being taught to students. This threatens freedom of thought and academic excellence.

[ThinkPlease]

Where does the ID crowd find these guys?

We can hash over the main body of the arguments that he's trying to make during the thread, if anyone is interested. I'd like to make two points.

1. Though it may come as a shock Mr. Santorum, there was never any such language as described above written into law, and signed by the President. I would like to reference the following:

by Dr. Kenneth Miller

Which shows that one of the main thrusts of Mr. Santorum's argument is false, and I hope we see a retraction from Mr Santorum or someone else from the ID side of things soon.

Proponents of intelligent design are not trying to teach religion via science, but are trying to establish the validity of their theory as a scientific alternative to Darwinism.

2. I think Mr. Santorum should go have a word with Phillip Johnson, then, who is one of the advisors of the Discovery Institute, and has been speaking to church groups about Intelligent Design. Then he should perhaps tell the rest of the ID crowd that perhaps they should present their scientific results at a scientific meeting. That they have a scientific theory would be a great surprise to the rest of us, since they have never bothered to present it at any meetings, let alone publish. It can't be that hard to show up to a meeting. Heck, if Dr. William Tifft can present his quantized redshift evidence at meetings, and if that biochemist who took out that full page article in the NYT can present papers at the AAAS meetings, then perhaps a few IDers can do some work, instead of expecting free handouts from Congress.

[ThinkPlease]

Time for some crevo_list action

[ThinkPlease]

bumpity.

[Fish out of Water]

index bump

[longshadow]

Crevo-action bump!

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

They want to teach intelligent design in our schools. Will they let us teach science in their churches?

[longshadow]

I drafted an amendment to an education bill that emphasizes how students studying controversial issues in science, such as biological evolution, should be allowed to learn about competing interpretations.

Okay, shall we also teach astrology next to Astronomy?

Shall we teach numerology in Math class?

Shall we let the Flat Earth Society have equal time in geography class?

Shall Ebonics be given as much time as English grammer?

Shall we give Nazis time to teach "Holocaust Denial" in History class?

Shall we provide class time for the proponents of the Green Cheese Theory of the Moon?

If we must give "equal time" to every flaky alternative clutched by every fringe group, there will be no time for the students to learn anything remotely resembling a coherent concept of reality.

[father_elijah]

Very cute -- but there is much more to intelligent design theory than than say the Flat Earth Society. The largest problem is that ID theory requires a nexus with Philosophy, and most of the scientistic establishment wishes to live in a tidy divorce from the rest of human experience and learning.

[jennyp]

The largest problem is that ID theory requires a nexus with Philosophy, ...

What do you mean by that?

[jennyp]

Understand that it is a religious statement to declare that the Creation account in the Book of Genesis is false. To deny the Creator is just as much a statement of faith as to worship the Creator. Therefore, to teach evolution -- a naturalistic doctrine that is an explicit denial of biblical religion -- in taxpayer-funded schools is a violation of the First Amendment.

Evolution is science. The Theory of Evolution was arrived at via the scientific method: Inductively reasoning from the facts to a hypothetical common cause, and confirming the hypothesis by successful predictions & retrodictions. This is hardly the same as religion.

[longshadow]

Very cute -- but there is much more to intelligent design theory than than say the Flat Earth Society.

That doesn't invalidate the analogy.

Both are alternative attempts to explain phenomona, neither of which are embraced by most mainstream experts in their respective fields.

Here's another example: should we clutter up the minds of High School science students by teaching them Alternative Anti-relativity Theories? There isn't even time to do a good job of teaching them about Relativity as it is; if we take more time away to present them with "alternatives" that are NOT embraced by the vast majority of experts in the field, we do that student a grave dis-service.

For the moment, ID isn't even a scientific theory. It makes no useful predictions, it provides no explanatory framework, and it is not falsifiable. Hence, it isn't a theory.

[father_elijah]

ID theory is rooted in certain Philosophical categories as the grounding for deduction -- Thomistic reasoning/philosophy to name but one. This is in fact its strongest challenge to the accepted scientific method -- but it will take years of better apologists on both sides "duking it out" so to speak. Both positions have basic vocabularies and axioms that require some finesse to translate from one to the other and back again to finally reach something approaching communication. It is just easier right now to dump mud on each other.

[jennyp]

Interesting. Could you expand on that a little? (I promise not to throw mud pies... :-)

[The Man]

Well, since the theory of evolution is not falsifiable, I suppose that we shouldn't teach that in schools either because it is not a real scientific theory.

[Jolly Rodgers]

It is up to you to prove your own assertions, since you wish them to be taught at taxpayer expense in public schools, where students are forced to attend by compulsory education laws.

If you have a problem with the scientific foundation of evolution, then work to have it removed from the schools. Don't try to use it as an excuse to corrupt scientific education with intelligent-design pseudo-science.

Better yet, help bring an end to government involvement in education so that the free market can develop educational alternatives for us to choose from independent of forced taxation.

[Lancey Howard]

I have a great deal of respect for Senator Santorum. He is a full-fledged conservative, and an honorable and decent man. You seem to be spitting venom at the Senator because he dares to challenge a theory.
Whatever....

This stuff probably makes for great debate among those of you who take a special interest in it, but may I recommend lightening up a little? I could sense your blood boiling just from reading your post.

Regards
LH