In an opinion piece from January 2005, here's what Rick Santorum said about the Dover Area School Board and intelligent design:
Recently, the Dover Area School District in York County updated their biology curriculum in an attempt to create a more balanced approach to teaching evolution. A statement regarding the status of evolutionary theory and the existence of alternative theories will be read to all students during the time evolution is studied in the high school biology course. Additionally, students will be able to voluntarily view reference books in the library that present a variety of cutting-edge scientific views both supporting and opposing Darwinian theory. The Dover Area School District has taken a step in the right direction by engaging in the debate and attempting to teach the controversy of evolution. (emphasis ours)
Yesterday, one day after the Dover Area School District was told by a federal judge that their new "more balanced approach to teaching evolution" was unconstitutional, Rick's point of view seems to have, um, grown an opposable thumb. Here's how today's
Philadelphia Inquirer describes it:
And, he (Santorum) said in an interview, he disagreed with the board for mandating the teaching of intelligent design, rather than just the controversy surrounding evolution.
Santorum - who sits on the advisory board of the Thomas More Law Center, which defended the school board in court - said the case offered "a bad set of facts" to test the concept that theories other than evolution should be taught in science classrooms.
"I thought the Thomas More Law Center made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did," Santorum said.
...Santorum said his statements are not contradictory, nor has his position changed.
As you may have
previously read on our blog, Santorum's view on intelligent design began to evolve in August 2005 when he told NPR that he wasn't "comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom."
Click here to listen to the NPR interview.
That was especially interesting in light of the fact that, in 2002, Rick wrote an op-ed in the Washington Times in which he claimed: "intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."
Well, it's no wonder Rick is starting to question intelligent design. His changing opinion of it over the past few years is clear evidence that evolution occurs.
Perception is the only reality, after all!
Marty
SANTORUM IS A FLIP FLOPPER
FLIP FLOPPER FLIP FLOPPER FLIP FLOPPER FLIP FLOPPER FLIP FLOPPER FLIP FLOPPER FLIP FLOPPER FLIP FLOPPER FLIP FLOPPER FLIP FLOPPER FLIP FLOPPER FLIP FLOPPER FLIP FLOPPER FLIP FLOPPER FLIP FLOPPER FLIP FLOPPER FLIP FLOPPER FLIP FLOPPER
1.Isn't legitimate- If believing in god creating the world isnt a legitimate argument when the grand majority of the worlds population believe something along those lines, than i dont know what legitimate is.
2.Isn't scientific- This is somewhat true. But it doesnt mean that a teacher should not be able to say that a these series of events may have had a greater power at work behind them. Deeper reflection on this issue should be offered in a religious studies class.
3.Isn't a theory- I dont understand what you mean by this... But your statement can be seen in two opposing ways. Either it isnt a theory because people of the faith would acknowledge this as a fact, or you mean that this isn't a theory so much as a religious ideology, but that is very wrong as it is simply stating that some greater being may have had a hand in the events that caused evolution.
1. It isn't legitimate.
2. It isn't scientific.
3. It isn't a theory.
Then they with their wisdom and intelligent design close you up with their charm and then you are swept up into their philosophy of control.
THE new world order of control and order
puberty!
no one who is intelligent would have designed puberty! Have you ever been with a bunch of junior high students? They're totally out of their minds and don't even know it because of the raging hormones.
Think about it...
Feigning piety or righteousness: “a solemn, unsmiling, sanctimonious old iceberg that looked like he was waiting for a vacancy in the Trinity” (Mark Twain).
This man is truly one of the most dangerous men in America today.
But I think we can solve it. How about this: we portray Rick Santorum as dangerously conservative and eager to hide it during an election year.
"Neo-Darwinism should be critically analyzed
Since my op-ed piece of Jan. 23, several letters to the editor have accused me of advocating teaching religion in the classroom.
Let me repeat: It is not and will never be appropriate to teach biblical creationism in a science classroom. I am also not a proponent of teaching intelligent design in the science classroom. Intelligent design is an emerging scientific theory and should not be required learning in high school biology classes. What I do believe should occur in the science classroom is a discussion of the scientific controversies regarding neo-Darwinian evolution.
There is a growing scientific controversy surrounding neo-Darwinism. However, many scientists and science educators refuse to look at important scientific evidence and engage in a factual debate. Instead, they immediately erect the straw man of creationism and proceed to burn him to the ground. I find this astonishing.
I am pleased that people have engaged in this debate in The Morning Call and on a national scale, and I look forward to further factual and rational discussion of these issues. Our children deserve the best education possible, and it is important that they have the opportunity to engage in a critical analysis of debatable theories in the science classroom, something that the defenders of neo-Darwinism have not done in The Morning Call."
Rick Santorum