Santorum 2002 on intelligent design

[Leweman]

So what you're really saying is that Religion is a THEORY in scientific terms ... why can't it be disproved? If there were evidence to disprove it then it COULD be disproved.

LOL hardly. How can you find proof that (for example) God does not exist? Or the human soul? Or life after death? It's not just that we lack evidence, we can't even say what evidence proving these nonexistences would even look like.

And that's why none of these ideas constitutes science.

How can you prove evolution doesn't exist?

 

[GuyPinestra]

You must've missed this earlier.

I miss the relevance of the quote now. Probably because it has none.

It is VERY relevant. It's the words of the FATHER of 'evolution', admitting that his 'theory' went beyond anything scientific, and had holes in it big enough to drive a truck through.

That is your 'science'?

 

[Leweman]

Nope. You're confusing evolution with cosmology and the Big Bang, which is a completely different subject.

The origin of life also has nothing to do with evolution, another common confusion.

can't separate the two, as the two build on each other.

Nonsense, of course the two can be separated, and in science they ARE separated. The origin of energy and matter isn't even part of the same general field of science as evolution. The origin of the universe is part of speculative cosmological physics, while evolution is part of biology.

Nor is evolution in any way logically dependent on the idea of the Big Bang. However matter and energy began, it has the nature we observe it to have, and evolution flows (in part) from that. But if the idea of the Big Bang turns out to be false, that won't have any impact on evolution at all.

Well that doesn't say much about the theory of evolution then. It makes absolutely no sense. So when did evolution begin?

 

[chikenwing]

There are multitudes of people that believe in evolution and intelligent design. There is plenty of room for both and nether is exclusive of the other.

Well, of course -- you're free to believe any kind of crap you want, and thanks to the First Amendment, you're even free to try to get others to believe it. However, what we're discussing is proper curriculum for a science class in school. Anything taught in science class must be science. No matter how many people believe in it, intelligent design isn't science and should never be taught in a science class, period.

Looking at it pragmatically,what are the odds that life could just on its own by chance ,be created

Please note what I said above about the origin of life having nothing to do with evolution. It doesn't. Really, I don't see how you can have an informed opinion on the subject at all if you don't know what evolution even IS, and clearly you don't.

Your opinion run with it,a rather narrow one but its all yours.

Never said we should teach ID is science class,but thanks for agreeing with me

What are the odds?? what would the mathematicians say the numbers would be?? I would like to Know. Take a logical approach and see if some real numbers can be had,you know scientifically!

 

[Inthemiddle]

If the Education Board of Ohio does not include intelligent design in the new teaching standards, many students will be denied a first-rate science education.

Illiberal Education in Ohio Schools




Have to laugh to stop from crying as the anti-science wing of the GOP hands four more years to Obama.

I would be scared of Santorum, if it weren't for the fact that I have so much faith in the American people and our system of elected government, which I know will make it completely impossible for Santorum to become President. The same person who says that it's snobbery to want all Americans to have higher education, also opines that intelligent design is necessary for a first rate science education. Maybe we should also teach students the flat earth theory, and then we can REALLY become first in the world in education.

 

[Dragon]

So what you're really saying is that Religion is a THEORY in scientific terms ... why can't it be disproved? If there were evidence to disprove it then it COULD be disproved.

LOL hardly. How can you find proof that (for example) God does not exist? Or the human soul? Or life after death? It's not just that we lack evidence, we can't even say what evidence proving these nonexistences would even look like.

And that's why none of these ideas constitutes science.

How can you prove evolution doesn't exist?

First of all, I should explain that "the theory of evolution" is not the idea that living things evolve but rather a concept of how they do. The theory is that evolution takes place through natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and the exchange of DNA through plasmids.

To show that this theory is false, or at least incomplete, one can show other factors at work in evolution which current theory does not take into account. (In fact, that's how several of the features of current evolution theory were incorporated; the theory at present is more complex than Darwin's original.) More radically, you could show a dramatic change in characteristics from one generation to the next that can't be accounted for in this fashion -- say if a crocodile were to lay an egg and it hatched a bear, or if a human were to bear a fish for a child.

 

[Leweman]

I have to admit, right now, that I am more or less playing devils advocate in response to the OP. I am not a religious person as I only attend church on Christmas Eve and that's not necessarily an annual thing. For me this is a Philosophical debate more than it is a religious or scientific one. And I am very open to both sides of the argument.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

can't separate the two, as the two build on each other.

Nonsense, of course the two can be separated, and in science they ARE separated. The origin of energy and matter isn't even part of the same general field of science as evolution. The origin of the universe is part of speculative cosmological physics, while evolution is part of biology.

Nor is evolution in any way logically dependent on the idea of the Big Bang. However matter and energy began, it has the nature we observe it to have, and evolution flows (in part) from that. But if the idea of the Big Bang turns out to be false, that won't have any impact on evolution at all.

Well that doesn't say much about the theory of evolution then. It makes absolutely no sense. So when did evolution begin?

Evolution "began" after life "began". Evolution says nothing about how life "began".

People who argue against evolution generally seem to look at it as "Evolution" being some overall term that includes all biology. It's not.

Evolution is a theory of how life on this planet changed over time. It's not about how life began, or anything else.

 

[Dragon]

You must've missed this earlier.

I miss the relevance of the quote now. Probably because it has none.

It is VERY relevant. It's the words of the FATHER of 'evolution', admitting that his 'theory' went beyond anything scientific, and had holes in it big enough to drive a truck through.

Even if that were true, and not a complete misinterpretation, it would still not have anything to do with what I said.

Suffice it to say that if Darwin had meant what you seem to think he meant, he would have disavowed his own theory, and that never happened.

 

[Dragon]

can't separate the two, as the two build on each other.

Nonsense, of course the two can be separated, and in science they ARE separated. The origin of energy and matter isn't even part of the same general field of science as evolution. The origin of the universe is part of speculative cosmological physics, while evolution is part of biology.

Nor is evolution in any way logically dependent on the idea of the Big Bang. However matter and energy began, it has the nature we observe it to have, and evolution flows (in part) from that. But if the idea of the Big Bang turns out to be false, that won't have any impact on evolution at all.

Well that doesn't say much about the theory of evolution then. It makes absolutely no sense. So when did evolution begin?

AFTER the origin of life (however life originated). Evolution is a theory about how life changes over the generations and how new species emerge. It doesn't deal with how life itself began, but merely begins with life as an assumed (and also observed, since we know life DOES exist) condition.

 

[Leweman]

LOL hardly. How can you find proof that (for example) God does not exist? Or the human soul? Or life after death? It's not just that we lack evidence, we can't even say what evidence proving these nonexistences would even look like.

And that's why none of these ideas constitutes science.

How can you prove evolution doesn't exist?

First of all, I should explain that "the theory of evolution" is not the idea that living things evolve but rather a concept of how they do. The theory is that evolution takes place through natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and the exchange of DNA through plasmids.

To show that this theory is false, or at least incomplete, one can show other factors at work in evolution which current theory does not take into account. (In fact, that's how several of the features of current evolution theory were incorporated; the theory at present is more complex than Darwin's original.) More radically, you could show a dramatic change in characteristics from one generation to the next that can't be accounted for in this fashion -- say if a crocodile were to lay an egg and it hatched a bear, or if a human were to bear a fish for a child.

So this just means that evolution and intelligent design can exist together.

 

[Inthemiddle]

the theory at present is more complex than Darwin's original.

What many people fail to understand is that Darwin did not come up with the theory of evolution. The idea was already there when Darwin came onto the scene. He came up with the idea of natural selection, which proved to be pivotal in explaining evolutionary phenomena, and the continued development of evolutionary theory.

 

[Inthemiddle]

So this just means that evolution and intelligent design can exist together.

No it doesn't. Evolution is a scientific explanation of observed phenomena. Intelligent design is a weak attempt to preserve religious doctrine in the face of scientific evidence that rejects those doctrines.

 

[Dragon]

How can you prove evolution doesn't exist?

First of all, I should explain that "the theory of evolution" is not the idea that living things evolve but rather a concept of how they do. The theory is that evolution takes place through natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and the exchange of DNA through plasmids.

To show that this theory is false, or at least incomplete, one can show other factors at work in evolution which current theory does not take into account. (In fact, that's how several of the features of current evolution theory were incorporated; the theory at present is more complex than Darwin's original.) More radically, you could show a dramatic change in characteristics from one generation to the next that can't be accounted for in this fashion -- say if a crocodile were to lay an egg and it hatched a bear, or if a human were to bear a fish for a child.

So this just means that evolution and intelligent design can exist together.

The theory of evolution does not preclude some sort of divine guidance. It does, however, preclude many of the specific ideas that are incorporated into "intelligent design," such as irreducible complexity.

 

[chikenwing]

Nonsense, of course the two can be separated, and in science they ARE separated. The origin of energy and matter isn't even part of the same general field of science as evolution. The origin of the universe is part of speculative cosmological physics, while evolution is part of biology.

Nor is evolution in any way logically dependent on the idea of the Big Bang. However matter and energy began, it has the nature we observe it to have, and evolution flows (in part) from that. But if the idea of the Big Bang turns out to be false, that won't have any impact on evolution at all.

Well that doesn't say much about the theory of evolution then. It makes absolutely no sense. So when did evolution begin?

Evolution "began" after life "began". Evolution says nothing about how life "began".

People who argue against evolution generally seem to look at it as "Evolution" being some overall term that includes all biology. It's not.

Evolution is a theory of how life on this planet changed over time. It's not about how life began, or anything else.

If one runs with just evolution and disavows intelligent design,the the big bang is the start of said evolution there for evolution and the beginning of life are inclusive of each other and can't be separated.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Well that doesn't say much about the theory of evolution then. It makes absolutely no sense. So when did evolution begin?

Evolution "began" after life "began". Evolution says nothing about how life "began".

People who argue against evolution generally seem to look at it as "Evolution" being some overall term that includes all biology. It's not.

Evolution is a theory of how life on this planet changed over time. It's not about how life began, or anything else.

If one runs with just evolution and disavows intelligent design,the the big bang is the start of said evolution there for evolution and the beginning of life are inclusive of each other and can't be separated.

They certainly can be separated - they are separate fields of study.

The only "connection" between them is that they both go against "intelligent design".

 

[BluePhantom]

So this just means that evolution and intelligent design can exist together.

No it doesn't. Evolution is a scientific explanation of observed phenomena. Intelligent design is a weak attempt to preserve religious doctrine in the face of scientific evidence that rejects those doctrines.

Please correct me if I am in error as this is not one of my areas of specialty, but to a large degree that is correct but it's not absolute. Darwin's theory goes beyond just observed phenomena and attempts to speculate. To my understanding there are many facets of evolution that are scientifically observable and irrefutable yet some other are not. By comparison intelligent design has very little that meets the same criteria but that does not eliminate the possibility of a "creator" by whatever name you wish to call Him/Her/It.

 

[konradv]

Evolution is as much a theory as intelligent design, NEITHER has been scientifically proven...

*YAWN* People who say that are usually unwilling to accept any evidence. What is proof? What would be sufficient? Everytime new evidence is added the IDers and creationists just ask for more. What's would be enough? I'm tired.

 

[Leweman]

So this just means that evolution and intelligent design can exist together.

No it doesn't. Evolution is a scientific explanation of observed phenomena. Intelligent design is a weak attempt to preserve religious doctrine in the face of scientific evidence that rejects those doctrines.

So evolution just omits the obvious flaws that occur if you try to trace it back too far so we just say it starts after that point? Gotcha. Way to go science.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So this just means that evolution and intelligent design can exist together.

No it doesn't. Evolution is a scientific explanation of observed phenomena. Intelligent design is a weak attempt to preserve religious doctrine in the face of scientific evidence that rejects those doctrines.

Wow... you have scientific evidence that God did not create the unviverse or worse, does not exist? Do share!!!