Sunday, August 07, 2005

And pigs will fly...

I almost passed out when I read this.

I've always considered Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum to be a serious tool of the religious right that drove me away from the Republican Party. However, going to show something along the lines of the same principle that says a stopped watch is right twice a day (although with ol' Rick it isn't nearly that often that he's right), he went and actually said in an an interview with NPR that he disagreed with President Bush's statement that "intelligent design" creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science classes. Santorum even said:
I think I would probably tailor that a little more than what the president has suggested," Santorum, the third-ranking Republican member of the U.S. Senate, told National Public Radio. "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom."
And later:
As far as intelligent design is concerned, I really don't believe it has risen to the level of a scientific theory at this point that we would want to teach it alongside of evolution.
Amazing. It's almost as though he understands. (Of course, what he probably doesn't understand is that ID is incredibly unlikely ever to rise to the level of a scientific theory.) Indeed, Santorum does undermine his point somewhat in an other statement:
"What we should be teaching are the problems and holes -- and I think there are legitimate problems and holes -- in the theory of evolution. What we need to do is to present those fairly, from a scientific point of view," he said in the interview.
It all sounds fair enough, but I wonder if Santorum is aware that advocating the teaching of the "problems" or "holes" in evolutionary theory tends to be code among "intelligent design" creationists for teaching creationist "alternative explanations" to evolution. Besides, any good science teacher will point out the gaps in the theory and, most importantly, that no scientific theory is ever the "final word." Gaps in scientific theories need to be filled in with evidence and experimentation, something ID advocates never seem to grasp. Unfortunately, I'm beginning to think Kung Fu Monkey may be right about it when he describes how this sort of movement will lead to the disintegration of our economic competitiveness in the biotech sector.

9 example(s) of insolence returned:


At 8/07/2005 2:17 PM, Anonymous Susang said...

Happy Birthday Orac!

 

At 8/07/2005 4:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Between him and Frist supporting stem cells, there may be hope yet for the elephant party.

-Ali

 

At 8/07/2005 10:46 PM, Anonymous juniper said...

Uh-oh...

The cat is out of the bag.

Happy Birthday, Orac!

Hope your day has been a good one.

 

At 8/08/2005 4:45 AM, Blogger OutEast said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 

At 8/08/2005 4:48 AM, Blogger OutEast said...

OT... but via Pharyngula I thought I'd give the confused Michael Ruse a nudge in the direction of the Hitler Zombie...

 

At 8/08/2005 9:54 AM, Anonymous paul said...

Santorum is Catholic, and most ID proponents are fundamentalist Christian. He is extremely conservative on most moral issues, but I'm not surprised on his stance on creationism.

 

At 8/08/2005 9:54 AM, Anonymous paul said...

Oh, and happy birthday.

 

At 8/08/2005 10:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you're misunderstanding Santorum. He doesn't disagree with ID, rather he disagrees with Bush's opinion on the "strategy" of pushing for inclusion in the schools.

Everything he said is in lockstep with most ID advocates at the present time, which is that ID isn't "ready yet".

He advocates the same fallback position as those same ID advocates: Teach the flaws in evolution and wait for ID to get a foothold.

Dembski himself probably wrote that opinion for him.

blogista@yahoo.com

 

At 8/08/2005 10:36 AM, Anonymous Jeff Z said...

One of the reasons that John McCain has become so popular is that the Democrats use him to say, "See, even conservative Republican John McCain says that the Republicans are irresponsible/wrong/immoral to back X." It doesn't matter that JM is very conservative in other areas, or even that he might have said other things about X in the past. What matters is that they can use McCain to give crediblity to their agenda and defeat the agenda of their enemies.

I don't think that our side is so strong that we shouldn't do the same with RS.

 

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Links to this insolence:

Create a Link

<< Home