Comments on: Rick Santorum's Troubling Views on Science

By: John

John — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:48:37 +0000

@ 28, 29, 30…
No, ID is very much *not* a scientific theory, much less legitimate (see my previous post @24 – a (religious!) judge found that ID was undeniably religious, and not scientific, in nature). ID absolutely has to be religious in nature, because it’s central idea is that of an all-powerful designer, creating animals left and right. That is god, and thus is religion, not science. There is no conflict for the religious in choosing to not believe in ID, because it is not necessary to believe in creationism, or even a literal interpretation in the bible, to believe in god. The problem is not belief in god, it is when people choose belief over empirical, factual reality. Evolution has been proven beyond any doubt. Anyone who says it has not is simply unaware of the proof, or has deliberately ignored/misinterpreted it. Thanks in no small part to the very attacks on it, evolution is currently one of the most well-proven, well-understood scientific theories in the world – we literally have a better understanding of evolution than we do of gravity.

By: This Is Hell!

This Is Hell! — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:24:00 +0000

[...] Chris Mooney, “Rick Santorum’s Troubling Views on Science” [...]

By: Brad

Brad — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 00:11:42 +0000

@29 Ohso:

In response to your question, “Can a scientist convince an ID believer that God = The Big Bang, or vice-versa?”. I would hope so. I actually believe that God could have created the world with a Big Bang because I take the first 11 chapters of Genesis to be allegorical not literal. In other words, I don’t actually think people lived to be over 900 years old, but I believe God created this world and Homo Sapiens.

By: Ohso Anonymous

Ohso Anonymous — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 23:01:42 +0000

@28 Brad:
Precisely, and that is the foundation on which is should be accepted and taught. There will be nothing that changes people’s minds more than being forced to choose their reason over the beliefs. No once can convince someone that they are wrong because they choose to believe in “God” as a package deal; that they then must rationally believe the He created the world and heavens, etc., or vice-versa. However, one can allow them to drink the coolaid of science by co-opting their belief system and replacing it with reason and logic (to a certain degree). If everyone accepted that ID is in the midst of being proven/disproven as a valid *scientific* theory, then the debate of the truth of it is left to the power of the scientific method and the skillful application of those pursuing this truth (that is a little perfect world scenario, of course). And, quite frankly, that is what science is about, isn’t it? Right now the uneducated, uninformed and just plain stupid consider science a dogma, just as the reverse considers their religious beliefs. They have no argument but “God did it!”; and scientists (or the mildly educated) respond with, “That is theoretically impossible based on our theoretical evidence which is mainly accurate, but we still *believe* that the Big Bang was the beginning.” Same difference.

So, the question is: Can a scientist convince an ID believer that God = The Big Bang, or vice-versa? I’d say that the extremes are always going to answer definively yes or no, but the middle is going to be swayed with reason and doubt from *both* sides. If this is true, then why put so much effort into calling people stupid or ignorant?

The job, always, of the “Informed” is to educate the “Uninformed” and that is it. Complaining and calling people names gets you absolutely nowhere. Or, perhaps, that is just our culture and it does. Sad, that. Indeed.

By: Brad

Brad — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:54:42 +0000

Intellectual Design is a legitimate scientific theory and it doesn’t have to be religious. The theory is just that the probablity of all the variables to create a planet that can foster live as we know it is very low. It could support intraspecies evolution because it is caused by natural selection while interspecies evolution has never been documented. Ultimately, both ID and evolution are both scientific theories and both deserve to be taught.

By: candice

candice — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 10:42:54 +0000

Here’s the problem that I have with Santorum and his ilks brand of science: This is why China is beating us. This is why so many other countries are beating us. We are so busy letting the religious right control what is being taught in schools and what is eligible to receive public funding that we are falling behind the rest of the world.

By: ron

ron — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:35:13 +0000

@3 Kristin – No, science hasn’t “proven” that human life begins at conception – there are plenty of different definitions of what constitutes a human. It’s a religious question, not a scientific one. 75% of fertilized human eggs don’t implant and thus ‘die’. Apparently when you get to your heaven you’ll be in the minority – only 25% – of the souls there who actually were born!

By: Chris Mooney

Chris Mooney — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:13:39 +0000

@24 Yes, we who have written articles, books, etc, about ID have documented all of this conclusively, and the judge agreed with it.

So let the argument begin!

By: John

John — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:49:32 +0000

To #7. Matt – The reason so many people consider ID and creationism to be the same thing is because they *are* the same thing. This was proven beyond a reasonable doubt at the Dover, PA trial of 2005, where early drafts of the book “Of Pandas and People”, the primary source of ID itself, were found to refer directly to God. After the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision that prevented Creationism from ever being taught in public schools, the drafts suddenly took all references to God or Creationism and changed them to refer to “intelligent design(er)”. ID is not a scientific theory, or even science at all. It is just Creationism with a different brand name, trying to sneak in the back door after being told to leave.

By: Santorum Officially Enters Presidential Race – Upstaged by Weiner « Political Gum Hockey

Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:31:50 +0000

[...] believes creationism (and its new name, intelligent design) should be taught in schools as science, denies climate change, wants to restrict a woman’s right to abortion, and like everyone else it seems these days, [...]