Rick Santorum is someone who is often thought of as an ally to the radical right-wingers who push for the teaching of "intelligent design" in publicly funded schools. But Thursday, Santorum disagreed with President Bush's call for the teaching of the alternative to evolution, saying intelligent design lacked credibility in the scientific community. Click here to listen for yourself:
"I think I would probably tailor that a little more than what the president has suggested...I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom."
Granted, Santorum says teachers should focus on holes and flaws in evolutionary theory, but he doesn't say intelligent design is a viable alternative. This is almost a 180-degree turn from what he wrote in a 2002 Washington Times column:
"Research has shown that the odds that even one small protein molecule has been created by chance is 1 in a billion. Thus, some larger force or intelligence, or what some call agent causation, seems like a viable cause for creating information systems such as the coding of DNA. A number of scientists contend that alternate theories regarding the origins of the human species — including that of a greater intelligence — are possible."Therefore, intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes.
"Yet, opponents of intelligent design contend that by including the theory in the new teaching standards, the separation of church and state will be weakened. This is false. 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."
If you were a cynical political pundit, you could point out that Santorum has flip-flopped, and you could even say he was for intelligent design before he was against it. But I don't want to play partisan games. Republicans are entitled to change their minds, as a Democrats, without it being held against them.
But as this is my second "intelligent design" post for the day, I have to take issue with the name of this alternative theory. Maybe life in the universe is too complex to have been creatively. But if the designer provided more than just an initial spark, if It really, purposefully designed the human race, one has to wonder: With all the suffering, death, destruction, war, prospect of global warming, prospect of nuclear destruction, and reality television... how intelligent was this designer?
Not to be pessimistic, but maybe he/she/it fu**ed up.
Like this post? Get updates via|
Comments (5)
I gotta weigh in with a bit of defense. I understand you aren't making an attack per se but I want to add my 2 cents.
You know me and know I'm not a bible thumper but I have to say that I disagree with the suggestion that He fu**ed it up. As I see it, part of creation was to give humans free will so that we might choose our own path. As such we are free to fu** things or do the right thing, but that power lay solely within ourselves.
Posted by theoverlord | August 6, 2005 3:04 PM
As I see it, part of creation was to give humans free will so that we might choose our own path. As such we are free to fu** things or do the right thing, but that power lay solely within ourselves.
Maybe that was the fu** up itself. I guess what I'm questioning is the notion that, if the world was in fact created by a divine creator, it was created with any structure or purpose. Maybe the initial atoms or lifeforms were created, and after that evolution took over. Not to offend anyone, but I have a hard time believing the world was created solely for humans, or that the designer resembles or favors humans in any way.
A scientist can spark the growth of a bacteria culture or even a human embryo, but he/she cannot control every aspect of life after that point, and certainly shouldn't be worshiped by their creation.
I guess what I had in mind with the divine fu** up is the last scene in Douglas Adams So Long and Thanks for all the Fish, where the main characters travel across the galaxy to find God's final message to the Universe. And when they get there, carved into the side of a mountain, is a huge sign reading: We apologize for the inconvenience.
Posted by Elyas | August 6, 2005 3:58 PM
Very interesting. keep the good work! http://www.dontevercallmyname.com , http://www.dontevercallmyname2.com
Posted by Kelly Ronald | August 9, 2005 12:09 AM
I don't think anyone f'd up personally, as I don't think there is a creator at all. If God is omnipotent then why does he allow suffering?
Here's some of the reasons for my reasoning: (I chose the word reasoning over belief for a purpose)
"Why would anyone be an atheist? The answer varies. For some, they can’t accept the idea of an invisible God. It just raises too many questions, from the metaphysical to the historical: If God created the universe, who or what created God? If God “just exists,” then why can’t the universe just exist? Of the thousands and thousands of different gods that have been claimed to exist throughout human history, what are the odds that it’s one particular God? Isn’t it more likely that gods were invented to explain the mysteries of the world before we developed rational methods of looking at it?"
Great article again by the way!
Posted by Eightyford | August 9, 2005 5:16 AM
oops, I meant to quote the author in the above post, as it's not my words originally but I agree 100% with them. The original text is from: waggoner.com
Posted by Eightyford | August 9, 2005 5:19 AM