Santorum endorses ID in science classes

[Charlie Brown]

http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/anotherview/all-santorumjan23,0,3227942,print.story?coll=all-newsopinionanotherview-hed

"For these reasons, Darwin's theory of evolution should not be taught as absolute fact in the science classroom. Instead, it should be taught as the leading and dominant scientific theory explaining the origin of species, but also as a theory subject to significant limitations, failed predictions and important criticisms. We should encourage schools to teach better science and to teach more about evolution, including the gaps and controversies surrounding evolution. We should not be afraid to teach children what we know and what we have not yet discovered in science, and we should certainly not deny our children the truth about controversies surrounding science. By teaching the controversy, we remain true to science and yet sensitive to the ideas and interests of parents and children."

[Beware the Beast Man]

1. Ahem, Ricky, hence the word "theory".

What an assbag.

[aden_nak]

2. I keep saying it. Gravity and Time are both theories. Same rules for them?

[Toots]

36. Actually it is the "Law" of Gravity

It is no longer a theory. Newton's Law of Gravity can be summed up as such

[aden_nak]

40. I thought that there were still problems with Gravity on a quantum level.

As in, we can understand what happens, but not WHY.

[K-W]

45. Its not so much a problem as a lack of knowledge.

But you got it, we havent figured that out yet.

[K-W]

42. The law is a part of the theory.

Gravity is what happens when you drop something.
The theory of gravity is our understanding of how and why that happens.
The law is a part of that theory.

To relate that to evolution.
Evolution is a natural observable phenomenom.
The theory of evolution is our understanding of how and why that happens.

Intelligent design is philosophy.

[RobertSeattle]

3. Should probably teach Sun rotating around earth

I just wish that "theoretical" gravity that holds Santorum to this earth would let go...

[Occulus]

4. I wonder what he would think of the Many Worlds Interpretation n/t

[fertilizeonarbusto]

5. I'm so proud

the biggest moron in Congress is one of my Senators.

[CottonBear]

12. I thought I had it bad w/ Zell as my senator.

Sorry about your moron senator. Here in GA, the Cobb Co. evolution sticker controversy is raging and our State School Superintendent supported anti-evolution teaching policies. I've got two republican senators from GA now. And just think: a few years ago, Max Cleland was one of my senators. Heavy sigh. We live among fundy idiots.

[hopein08]

14. Strength in numbers...I feel your pain...

Maybe I'll send him an email and ask him about what other posters here have mentioned about the theory of relativity, gravity, etc.

[Trixxie]

6. Just curious

How many people know about Rick Savage's "Sanatorum Movement" ?

[underpants]

10. I don't but I truly fear that union of brain power

:eyes:

Seriously what is the "Santorum Movement"? Is that a PC saying for taking a crap?

[AngelAsuka]

16. Actually I think its a good idea.

What with all the flaws in science, and all, perhaps we should also teach important things about the flaws in other scientific pursuits...like math. For example, we should provide a teaching lesson on the physics of feeding 5000 people with a couple of fish, or perhaps the flaw in math that allows people like Sanitarium to 'be elected'. I'm quite certain students could find some of these 'alternative theorems' quite interesting. :nuke: :nuke:

</sarcasm>

~~AA~~

[hopein08]

11. No, please fill me in... n/t

[Kingshakabobo]

Google the word "SANTORUM" and you will see.

Dan Savage started a campaign to attach a new meaning to the word SANTORUM. It is now the first thing that pops up when one searches.

[Trixxie]

23. When Little Ricky Santorum made a statement that compared Homosexuality to

Bestiality and Suggested that Heterosexual bedroom practices could use some good old moral majority type government regulating. The Gay Sexual Advice Columnist Rick Savage (The Onion AV Club) started a movement to equate the word Santorum with something sexually nasty, what is the tolerance for sexual explicit language on this site?

[bobbyboucher]

54. Knock yourself out.

Tolerance is high.

[Taxloss]

21. I know about it. "The frothy mix..."

It's on hold at the moment, I believe.

[JI7]

7. Santorum fucks dogs

is that a result of "intelligent design" ?

[underpants]

8. Santorum is just positioning himself for a WH run

He doesn't decide what he thinks anyway he is told what to believe.

[MattBaggins]

28. You really think he believes he has a chance?

what do you think brining a dead baby home to his kids will do? Has that been used in any of his senate runs yet?

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. Okay, I'm paying attention now.

What is the flaw in Darwin's theory of Evolution? The fact that we haven't found the missing link? Isn't it funny how the cries for Creationism and the massive attempt to discredit Evolution came about the same time that the evidence was pointing to one common ancestor who developed vocal chords? The fact that the origination of civilization is in Africa just frightens the hell out of them, doesn't it? More reason to believe that this is just another drastic attempt by White Supremacists to keep the races apart.

[The Doctor.]

17. I love their argument;

"The fossil record doesn't explain how we came to be - there's a big gap!"

Well, DUH!

Exactly WHAT PERCENTAGE of the Earth's surface have we excavated to put together a full and complete fossil record?

1%, .5%

No. More like;

.00000000000001% of Earth's surface. (ballpark guestimate)

So if we're REALLY lucky, we have a .005% complete compilation of the fossil record.

(I'll admit I'm no archaeologist, but am I very far off?)

[jobycom]

27. There are questions

How did it happen? How did it happen so fast? How did the first spark of life occur? There are theories on these, but no proof.

There are also issues in just the basic way science operates. Like any theorist, scientists form ideas then test them, even when they believe they are only forming ideas from the evidence. Otherwise, they wouldn't even know how to form the questions to ask, if they didn't have some idea of what they thought they were looking for.

These types of assumptions lead to bad science, on occasion. Models are constructed improperly from bone fragments. Assumptions are made that later are proven wrong. Remember recently they found a small dinosaur in a mammal's stomach, when they had previously believed that reptiles were not prey for mammals.

So there are lots of adjustments, fine tuning, and wrong paths in every theory. Teach these to kids, show them how science operates. When Copernicus first published De Revolutionibus, arguing that the world was not the center of the universe, his mathematical equations didn't work properly to predict the paths of the planets and stars. The old formulas, which assumed the Earth was the center, worked much better, since they had had thousands of years to work out formulas for that model. It took a while for astronomers to get the formulas right. They didn't prove Copernicus wrong, just incomplete.

Nothing wrong with teaching that our understanding of the origins of the species is incomplete. Teach all the current scientific theories on it, and who knows, maybe some kid will become interested enough to solve the whole problem, either by perfecting Darwin's theory or coming up with the correct one. Hey, before Copernicus anyone who argued against the Earth as the center of the universe would have been trashed by scientists as well as the Church. Even Copernicus was. All great ideas once challenged or overturned commonly accepted scientific knowledge.

Leave religion out of it, though. If they develop any scientific evidence for a creator, then it becomes science. Until then, it is still religion, and that should be kept out of science.

[yellowcanine]

13. The only "controversy" is in your pea brain, Ricky. There is no

scientific controversy about Darwinian evolution being the best available explanation for the diversity of life. There is also no requirement to teacn nonscientific assertions, which both creationism and its bastard spawn ID are.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

15. Like I need another reason to vote against this guy...PUHLEEZE. nt

[jobycom]

18. He never mentions ID in that speech. In fact, in that speech, he's almost

right.

I agree, teach evolution in schools, teach the scientific weaknesses or gaps in understanding in the current scientific understanding of evolution. I like the idea of teaching kids what parts of science are proven, what parts are open to interpretation, what parts are unsupported theories, and what evidence supports and undermines these theories that make up the big theory. That's just good science, and in fact, good practice in life. If we educated our citizens to be more critical of what they are told by authorities, we wouldn't have Bush, and we wouldn't have the blood of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis on our hands.

But when he starts saying we should explain the philosophical and religious disputes surrounding the science of evolution, I disagree. Maybe in a a social studies class we could talk about the groups who disbelieve science because it interferes with their preset religious beliefs. But that has nothing to do with science, no with what Santorum said in the majority of his speech, and so it should stay out of science classes.

I wonder if Santorum has the same all-inclusive theory on sex education. For instance, shouldn't we inform our kids of the alternatives to "abstinence only" curriculums? Shouldn't we explain the real science behind condoms, birth control, disease prevention, and safe sex, both for straight and non-straight couples, or larger groups? Shouldn't we teach our kids the complete science behind orgasms and how they happen, and how to have them? If he wants to be thorough, then let's be thorough.

[yellowcanine]

22. The problem is there really isn't any evidence that "undermines"

the Theory of Evolution. It is well-supported by the available evidence and is the ONLY theory about the diversity of life that is. The assertions of the creationists and IDers is not evidence, it is either appeals to religious authority (creationist) or appeals to incredulity(ID). Neither is evidence that supports a logical argument.

[ashmanonar]

52. exactly.

there may be disputes as to the exact mechanism of evolution, but not that species evolve and change over time, due to changes in gene as regards to environmental conditions.

[DrWeird]

25. I find it ironic...

that people who want to decide what children are being taught in science class have an incredibly dismal understanding of science.

[jobycom]

29. You mean me?

I've got a good background in science, and I've studied the history of science along with the rest of my historical studies.

If you mean Santorum, it isn't his background in science that is the problem, it's his background in religion that bothers me.

[DrWeird]

31. I didn't mean you.

Although rereading your post, you do convey a profound lack of knowledge regarding both Evolution and ID.

[jobycom]

33. Fill me in, then. Where?

I'm not a geek on the subject. What do you think I'm missing the point on?

[DrWeird]

35. you said "he never mentioned ID in his speech."

Half truth. He never mentioned ID by name, but he said this:

"Charles Darwin wrote about his theory of evolution at a time when evidence was weak. In recent years, evidence of the complex circuits, miniature machines, sophisticated feedback loops, and digital information inside the cell has enabled scientists to poke holes in the principle evidence used to support evolution and therefore, more and more respected biologists are entering the debate as to the plausibility of evolution.

For these reasons, Darwin's theory of evolution should not be taught as absolute fact in the science classroom. Instead, it should be taught as the leading and dominant scientific theory explaining the origin of species, but also as a theory subject to significant limitations, failed predictions and important criticisms. We should encourage schools to teach better science and to teach more about evolution, including the gaps and controversies surrounding evolution. We should not be afraid to teach children what we know and what we have not yet discovered in science, and we should certainly not deny our children the truth about controversies surrounding science. By teaching the controversy, we remain true to science and yet sensitive to the ideas and interests of parents and children."

And that, in a nutshell, is the "theory" of Intelligent design. And just as fraudulent and phony as anything else that's ever come out of Santorum. There are no holes in evolution, there are no great contraversies, there are no respected biologists "entering the debate" on the plausibility of evolution. And anybody who has had more than a high school education on the subject knows it.

[jobycom]

39. Well, my college degree in engineering

didn't find his argument as outrageous as you do, but it was only an associates degree, and I changed to a history major in the middle of my junior year, before earning my MA and almost getting a PhD. Sorry that's deficient.

I recognized that he was talking about ID, but he doesn't mention it, which you also demonstrate. And while I suspect i would disagree with large portions of what Santorum says on the specifics of the subject, I don't disagree with MOST of what he said, which is what I said in my OP. Evolution "should be taught as the leading and dominant scientific theory explaining the origin of the species." "We should encourage schools to teach better science and to teach more about evolutionn, including the gaps and controversies surrounding science. By teaching the controversy, we remain true to science..."

All of that is true. No scientific knowledge (I hate the word theory because it's so misunderstood around here) is complete, there are always shortcomings, and to teach that we KNOW something for sure is pretty much the opposite of science. Copernicus wasn't just condemned, posthumously, by the Church, but also by a lot of scientists, because he not only went against the Church, but also against the majority of scientists of his era. Dogma in science is no better than dogma in religion. Worse, actually, because religion has nothing else to recommend it but dogma, while the scientific method is the opposite of dogma.

There are questions in Evolution involving the origins of life, and the seeming speed of evolutionary change at some periods, and while scientists don't abandon evolution over these questions, scientists do admit to them, or at least did last time I payed attention to the matter. If they've solved these issues conclusively in the last couple of years, I missed it, so fill me in.

Any unanswered question should be seen as a hole in a theory, for two reasons: One, the answer may weaken or destroy the theory, and two, dogmatic belief in a theory may prevent the question from ever being explored completely. Unfortunately, with the religious attacks on evolution, some people act as though they have to rally around evolution more than examine it, otherwise they will be suspected of religious motives.

Teach the theory. Teach the holes, weaknesses, and whatever counter evidence exists. Teach kids to understand how scientific ideas are formed, how they are supported, how they work in real life, rather than just teaching them to take someone else's word for it. That's good science, that's true to the spirit of science. Where Santorum is arguing that, I agree with him.

I'm aware of what he is ultimately arguing, and there I disagree. But although that is clearly the purpose of his rhetoric, it's not as explicit in this speech.

[LuCifer]

19. I wish evolution would hurry up and...

...kill off all these goddamn repukes. I have had it with this flat-Earth crowd of toothless freaks.

HAIL SATAN!
HAIL EVOLUTION!
Lu Cifer

PS Can I get some of "President" BUSHitler's faith based orafice's money for SATAN?!

[Coastie for Truth]

20. Electronics is just a "Theory"

...based on "Quantum Theory" -- have you ever seen a "Quantum"

Radio is just a "Theory"
...based on "Maxwell's Theory" ---
......which is based on "Imaginary Numbers" (what is the square root of minus 1)
......and on Vector Calculus -- explain GRAD, DIV, and CURL to me.

What can you expect from a state that elected Pete Flaherty as Mayor of its second largest city -- and then kept electing and re-electing Tom Murphy as Mayor.

[McKenzie]

24. hmmm, Hey ID types. Why do I have nipples?

I mean they are no fucking good to me coz I'm male.

Just wondering WTF I'd get two bits that have no purpose whatsoever.

No doubt the ID fantasists will come up with yet another convoluted answer.

[jmowreader]

47. What do you mean, they're no good to you?

Get them pierced and you will have someplace to put your keys when you go swimming.

[ashmanonar]

53. LOL

indeed. only problem is, nipple piercings hurt...

[jmowreader]

65. Just for a second.

[LeftyMom]

55. male nipples have a purpose

Think of them as the emergency backup baby feeding option. :)

http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/milkmen.htm

[McKenzie]

57. bloody 'ell! men who breastfeed. that's new to me. n/t

[FlyByNight]

26. Hey Rick, some other facts for you:

the Earth orbits the Sun; the Earth is not flat; the Moon orbits the Earth; there are 365 days in a year...

What the fuck does "We should not be afraid to teach children... what we have not yet discovered in science" mean? Incoherent. How do you teach something if you haven't discovered it yet?

Actually, Rick, you may have a point. It seems apparent you haven't evolved.

[Hugin]

30. Isn't it amazing...

The Intelligent Designer made him so he can put his head
where he sits!

This is NO accident! Lemme tell ya!

[theorist]

32. Bait-and-switch on methamphetamines.

Forget the fact that what Santorum is proposing here would require a Ph.D.'s worth of education on evolutionary theory, including embryology, comparative anatomy, game theory, etc. Forget that we can barely teach high schoolers calculus on a large scale. Also forget that in almost every subject, students can only get a very limited survey.

None of that is important. What these guys want is to teach the origin of man in the context of Genesis. Do you think they'll be up for a proposal that we teach the Old Testament creation story where we stress the scientific and historical inaccuracies within it?

Are these people not proposing the same be done with a scientific theory that has withstood harsh testing for a century and a half? It feels like bait and switch.

Oh, by the way. "Evolution", defined to be changes in gene frequency over time, is not theoretical. It can be demonstrated in a lab. You see it in everyone who is not an identical copy of yourself. The mechanism by which certain genes are "chosen" over others is what is up for debate.

[noonwitch]

34. Intelligent design is for Sunday School, Evolution is for science class

Kids can think for themselves and decide what they think is the truth.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

37. One only need to look at a very young embryo

human, dog, pig, whatever and notice the similarities: tail, gill-like structures, big fish-like eyes. Even without a basic knowledge of biology, how can anyone not see the common ancestry at our most basic level?

[geniph]

38. This just in! Santorum kowtows to religious zealotry!

Up next: Fire - hot! Mexico - full of Mexicans!

Santorum - religious loony. Who knew?!

[Donkeyboy75]

41. Ummm, recent experiments

reinforce the theory of evolution. It certainly doesn't weaken it. It's all too fucking easy to say

"In recent years, evidence of the complex circuits, miniature machines, sophisticated feedback loops, and digital information inside the cell has enabled scientists to poke holes in the principle evidence used to support evolution and therefore, more and more respected biologists are entering the debate as to the plausibility of evolution."

Digital information? :wtf: This guy is a fucking moron. He is saying the opposite of what is true, and giving NO examples. And we wonder why science education sucks in the US?

:nuke: :nuke:

[Hugin]

43. This is a smoke screen...

To hide the fact they futechuped ALL the stem cells.

"has enabled scientists to poke holes in the principle evidence used to support evolution"

Whaaaat?

Why wasn't I sent the memo?

[Democrat Dragon]

49. Santorum is a moron...but...

I do agree evolution has some gaps, which is why many evolutionists argue with each other on the order that evolution happened. One case is that there are some scientists who say that tree-climbing lizards evolved into birds, and then of course you have those who say it was the dinosaurs.

"digital information inside the cell"

:wtf:

Like I said, as much as I agree with this stance(and so does Senator Kennedy), Santorum is a overall a moron. His true intention may be to open a door into adding the protestant version of creationism into textbooks(which is forcefeeding religion to children).

[Donkeyboy75]

56. There aren't claims

that we can use evolution to explain everything. Some of the mechanisms are still being debated (puntucal equilibrium is one). But, in no way have recent experiments cast more doubt on evolution. The contrary is true. His letter is full of lies.

[Tafiti]

44. This reminds me...

[Coastie for Truth]

46. I actually read Santorum's article in Morning Call

... very clearly rebutted in Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God"

The complexity that leads scientifically challenged people to accept "Intelligent Design" actually reflects lack of knowledge of "Third Year College Science" - especially physics, chemistry, biology, and probability/statistics.

All of these "complex little engines" that demand or prove "intelligent design" are straight forward and simple when approached with a little bit of "physical chemistry" (thermodynamics of amino acid reactions) and biology (especially the "ATP Pathway" of cells)

[DrGonzoLives]

48. I got some science for you

Santorum = Idiot

Yes, I can prove it.

[accipiter]

50. Santorum doesn't know jack shit about evolution or science

It's a deep shame on our nation that such an idiot is even in the Senate. Santorum is pure right wing scum.

[deadparrot]

51. This isn't about exploring other possibilities.

I believe in the theory of evolution, as 99% of scientists do, but I'm all for exploring the other possibilities (other than evolution) of how we came to be. SCIENTIFIC possiblities.

This is an excuse to teach Creationism in the classroom and it's sick.

[retread]

58. At first I thought your headline meant Ricky endorsed a permanent id

chip for anyone who took science!! Maybe that is next.

[FM Arouet666]

59. Santorum a symptom of the disease

I used to live in Pennsylvania and have a first hand look at Santorum or is that insantorum? Just another small mind in politics, but that is the problem we are facing. The GOP is stacked with small minds. The GOP fights science on two fronts, in support of religious groups and in support of corporate greed. With the "Right" in power we are seeing a dumbing down of America. I am quite sure that history will paint our current time as the American dark age. I only hope I live long enough to see the renaissance.

[rman]

60. Failed predictions of theory of evolution?

Such as?

And when they start teaching ID in science class, which succesfull predictions of that so called theory can be cited?

Would they present ID as "a theory subject to significant limitations, failed predictions and important criticisms"?

Also, of what value is Intelligent Design 'theory' if it doesn't include who or what the designer is?

[LostInAnomie]

61. No shit, how are you supposed to empirically test the untestable?

Why do these dip shits want to throw up roadblocks into scientific inquery? All it does is seriously harm science in American?

[drhilarius]

63. Because scientific inquiry is a threat to religion...

apparently their all powerful God is scared shitless of a few scientists.

[ignatzmouse]

62. Evangelical Aliens

The way to shut up these zealots is to make yourself heard on the "theory" of "intelligent design." ID not only mocks science, it makes a mockery of religion. In considering the potential creator of life, it equates a God-creator with planet-seeding aliens. That isn't science -- it's science fiction. That isn't religion -- it's fantasy bordering on the occult. If the Evangelical Right Wing wants so badly to be associated with that ridiculous invention, their Intelligent Design concoction needs to be exposed -- and they need to be labeled occultists trying to poison the minds of children. Let them deal with that. In their blind soldiered zeal to impose Christianity onto others, they have trivialized their own God and turned God into a joke.

Evolution is a fact. Darwin's studied conclusion of the facts of evolution became his Theory of Natural Selection. Natural Selection is open to debate and refinement as is any good scientific theory, but the fact of evolution is not seriously debatable. Evolution and Natural Selection say nothing about God one way or the other. Nor should they -- they are science and not religion. Many Christians accept evolution simply as the process through which their God acts. No conflict. No evil assault on their beliefs. For an evangelical to stand up and be outraged over evolution is to mock the very creator they purport to defend. They seem to believe their God is so weak that he can be threatened by man's knowledge and requires their intervention to save him from the fossil record, vestigial organs, and God forbid the satanic conspiracy called DNA (that lurks in their every cell). It's sad that they have polluted the powerful mythology of their religion with rigid literalism and killed it. All that seems left for them is political enforcement of literalist claims to take the place of where once resided spiritual transformation.

[LostInAnomie]

64. Gay Space Monkey!

I got in an argument with some fundie the other day who couldn't see why I had a problem with ID because it doesn't make mention of God. So to piss them off I started referring to their theoretical "creator" as a gay space monkey. Let's just say that it worked VERY well.

What pisses me off is how dishonest they are about ID. They know damn good and well that they are trying to sneak their God into the science room through devious methods.