Rick Santorum Urges Teaching Of Creationism In Public Schools (VIDEO)

Former Pennsylvania Sen. and GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum says the "left" and "scientific community" have monopolized the public school system's curriculum, only permitting the teaching of evolution and leaving no room for the introduction of creation-based theories in the classroom.

"There are many on the left and in the scientific community, so to speak, who are afraid of that discussion because oh my goodness you might mention the word, God-forbid, 'God' in the classroom, or 'Creator,' that there may be some things that are inexplainable by nature where there may be, where it's actually better explained by a Creator, and of course we can't have that discussion," Santorum said in an editorial interview with the Nashua Telegraph. "It's very interesting that you have a situation where science will only allow things in the classroom that are consistent with a non-Creator idea of how we got here, as if somehow or another that's scientific. Well maybe the science points to the fact that maybe science doesn't explain all these things. And if it does point to that, then why don't you pursue that? But you can't, because it's not science, but if science is pointing you there how can you say it's not science? It's worth the debate."

Santorum has long expressed frustration with -- and tried to combat -- the whole "science only allows science to be taught in science class" scenario. He attempted to append the self-titled "Santorum Amendment" to the No Child Left Behind Act back when he was a senator in 2001. The amendment, which failed, served the dual purposes of promoting the inclusion of intelligent design teachings in classrooms, while simultaneously undercutting the academic merits of evolution.

Intelligent design, the teaching of which was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in 2005, has been pushed by proponents as a "scientific" alternative to evolution that includes a Creator. Critics however, claim that there is simply no scientific evidence to back this theory, and that attempts to get it in the classroom are moves by the religious community to legitimize creationism as a substitute for evolution.

Though Santorum is a social conservative Catholic and well-documented opponent of evolution, when pressed repeatedly by MSNBC host Chris Matthews earlier this year on whether he believed in evolution, Santorum said he did -- in a "micro sense."

On Wednesday, Santorum also talked about his campaign with Glenn Beck on his radio program. Beck, who earlier praised the former senator as "the next George Washington," continued to laud Santorum as someone who is "Churchill, is Washington, is Lincoln." Over the summer, the duo also shared an awkward moment when Beck told Santorum, "I could kiss you in the mouth," following a discussion about the "Cut, Cap and Balance" pledge. Beck later clarified, saying "I was just kidding, I don't want to kiss you in the mouth."

Video above via Right Wing Watch.

Below, more on the rest of the GOP presidential candidates' views on evolution and creationism:

Comments

[connelly]

06:49 AM on 04/25/2012

Rick Santorum seems to reflect the mentality of a mesmerized 12 year old alter boy. He has immersed himself in faith based Catholic indoctrination. What a potentially dangerous leader he could be. His mind in frightfully handicapped and remains entrenched is an unscientific world dependent on adherence to mythology, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. He is on a mission from an imaginary god. He is a crusader from 'above and beyond' to return us to the dark ages of stigmatized minds. How thoughtful could he possibly be? He is a walking example of a closed minded individual. Santorum possesses the entrenched brainwashed mind that we do not need in a leader in today's world, not in our country and any other.

[Wingman-1]

04:46 PM on 12/07/2011

As usual extreme-liberals have spun Sen. Santorum's education policy to nearly the opposite of what it truly is.
Notice these modern-liberals are pushing "How to Think" methods for their warped view of Science, which is tied to their typical-establishment-fanatical-view that the world is severely overpopulated. [e.g. SEE http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365208/Sir-David-Attenborough-insists-tackle-population-growth-contraception.html http://www.lifesitenews.com/war-on-family/nssm200 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jABDBjlSzKE ]
President Reagan tried to rid us of this liberal filth, but now they are back with a vengeance!
Truly great scientists learn to think for themselves, independently, by developing and testing many hypotheses.
Note, Sen. Santorum has NEVER been a proponent of teaching intelligent design alone! Sen. Santorum has two main aims when it comes to education policy;
1) Parents are the primary educators of their children, NOT the state! (as it was for the first 150 years of our successful Republic).
2) All popular hypotheses should be taught in school (not just the single, modern-Liberal-State hypothesis) in subjects such as History, Philosophy and Physical Sciences.
The emphasis should be on "How to Think for Themselves, Independently" (using hypothesis testing of popular views) NOT ---"How to Think" about one, modern-liberal view.
One pedagogical process forms continuously improved, productive scientists and republican citizens, the later forms great, lock-stepped socialists or communists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7LyoAEIskw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[rshrink]

10:39 PM on 12/07/2011

There is no reason to teach it at all. It is not at all on par with evolutionary theory. When you get the evidence, then present it to the scientific community and when they can replicate your research, then come back and make your case. Until then, well, you have no case.

[arkady967]

06:35 AM on 12/19/2011

"replicate your research..." Most of the information passed along as "proof" of evolution couldn't pass muster on the demand you're making. The aspects of the theory pertaining to tranformation from type to type (reptile to fish, for example...) are made primarily by inference. They have never been demonstrated empirically. Those aspects of the theory depend in the main on historical evidence, evidence that it's quite possible to interpret differently.

However, if you can, empirically demonstrate something "simple" like the transition of prokaryote, to a eukaryote - present your evidence to the scientific community. When they can replicate your research.... But, we both know no such demonstration is available - and I doubt, on evidential grounds, that it will be forthcoming.


The case for design is not difficult to make. The sort of evidence you're suggesting exists for evolutionary theory is not so airtight is being suggested, it not even open to the sort of examination you're requiring... Most of Darwinism is historical inference vs empirical demonstration... Much of that inference is determined by a person's starting assumptions.

[rshrink]

12:03 PM on 12/10/2011

Your view is only fueled by your an.ger. Passion about a topic does not equal logic and science. When you have proof, then come back and make a case. Until then, you are just repeating nonsensical political rhetoric.

[arkady967]

08:13 PM on 12/05/2011

Information that should be included within the topic of evolution (It's science, and augments the discussion in an appropriate manner.)

http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

[rshrink]

10:40 PM on 12/07/2011

Evoluation is always being discussed, which is why you find articles about it, but nothing better has turned up yet. When you find something, then let us know. Until then, you have no case.

[arkady967]

07:44 PM on 12/05/2011

This could be demonstrated and discussed in science class...

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4121891/all_well_studied_mutations_reduce_genetic_information_dr_georgia_purdom/

[arkady967]

08:31 PM on 12/05/2011

Just drop the religious references - the details and examples should be part of the information base of anyone studying high-school level evolution....

[mentallag]

02:12 PM on 12/12/2011

do a little research. it's called gene duplication.

i'm not sure why someone with a PhD is preaching from a lectern.

[arkady967]

05:20 AM on 12/19/2011

Gene duplication needs a gene to duplicate in the first place. But, once you've got a duplicated gene then what? Biological systems run as suites of integrated functions. The duplicated gene still has to undergo mutation, and NS - with all the attendant degenerative consequences of randomly changing a functioning protein. Regardless, the contributions are minor, except, perhaps in plants, and no ones demonstrating that they have, or are even remotely capable of, producing the sort of change necessary to producing something like a new body, i.e., the production of new systems or body plans. The role of duplicated genes in the grand scheme of things is speculative at best. The reliance on that mechanism to account for biological diversity is not demonstrable empirically.

"Spontaneous duplication of the mammalian genome occurs in approximately 1% of fertilizations. Although one or more whole genome duplications are believed to have influenced vertebrate evolution, polyploidy of contemporary mammals is generally incompatible with normal development and function of all but a few tissues. Most often, divergence of ploidy from the diploid (2n) norm results in a disease state."

Eakin, G.S. and Behringer, R.R., Tetraploid development in the mouse... Developmental Dynamics 228:751–766, 2003. Return to Text.

[arkady967]

07:40 PM on 12/05/2011

Good stuff...along the lines of "The rest of the story". I'd be happy to see something like this - with no religious references whatsoever, shown as part of the curricula covering evolution. (It would be acceptable to include the the math.)

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023134/the_sheer_lack_of_evidence_for_macro_evolution_william_lane_craig/

[dannywanny]

03:16 PM on 12/04/2011

I have no problem with teaching creationism as religious dogma in public schools, if evolutionary theory is taught as science in Sunday schools and churches.

[rshrink]

05:18 PM on 12/04/2011

Hey, I have to fan you. I said essentially the same thing. I think we have found the fix. Naturally, it will never happen.

[dannywanny]

06:11 PM on 12/04/2011

Two brilliant minds with one thought. LOL.

[rshrink]

10:50 AM on 12/04/2011

The promotion of these repub candidates is due to our dependence on oil. All of these candidates are puppets for fossil fuel technology. The repub party is the dealer for our coal, gas and oil habits. The GOP stands for gas and oil party. It is time to switch to dems and green technology.

[Willard Worsley]

05:50 AM on 12/18/2011

Well, I'm a conservative so hence I support that we should be more conservative with our natural resources, but I people like G.W. Bush are basically democrats.

[arkady967]

07:19 AM on 12/04/2011

Experience tells me that most folks who believe evolutionary theory as it is currently proposed do so dogmatically. The theory's general acceptance as fact depends upon an unwillingness to consider alternatives, and a refusal to admit that the legitimate evidence of science can be interpreted equally well to support elements or creationism, including certain aspects of young earth creationism, and especially the minimalist proposals coming from the Intelligent Design community.

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.
Karl Popper

[rshrink]

10:47 AM on 12/04/2011

The truth is you don't understand evolution and the science behind it, which is quite observable. Your refusal to understand is based on your need to believe and the only way you can assure yourself that your beliefs are correct is to try to defeat science with your rhetoric. Many things have been accomplished in our world due to the understanding of evolution. Your failure to recognize that does you an injustice. It prevents you from understanding the difference between that which is observable and that which is belief.

[arkady967]

09:49 PM on 12/07/2011

Actually I do understand evolution, and am familiar with some of the science behind it.

[rshrink]

10:59 AM on 12/04/2011

You don't understand the way science works. Science is based on evidence. The best evidence we have is what theory is based on. If something comes along that gives us a better understanding and it can be proven, then that becomes the new theory. This isn't "dogma." Dogma does not have to be backed by evidence. That is why it is called dogma. You are saying that ID (creationism) "could" explain things. Then prove it. When you have the proof and can do experiments repeatedly that others can also reproduce and use to predict outcomes, when you have that, then step up and present it. We can all talk about what could be. That is the making of science fiction. The moon could be made up of green cheese in some exotic form.

[rshrink]

05:16 PM on 12/04/2011

As an advocate for freedom in America, I oppose teaching creationism.

[arkady967]

09:55 PM on 12/07/2011

I also have some idea how science works. I'm involved with the process on a daily basis. The last project I was involved in pertained to separating fatty acid methyl esters using silver ion strong cation exchange solid phase extraction columns. We had to figure out why ours weren't separating a couple of isomers. Turned out to be a mechanical issue versus one of chemistry.

[rshrink]

12:55 AM on 12/04/2011

For Rick Perry, the gaps are in his synaptic transmissions in the region where his brain is located. He had to read his comment three times, before he almost got it right.

[rshrink]

12:48 AM on 12/04/2011

When Santorum and those who share his view advocate teaching creationis­m in the schools, they don't seem to realize that they are teaching religion in schools. That is not the purpose of schools. That is the purpose of a church. If you want to learn creationis­m or want to teach it to your children, then do so, but the schools are not there for that purpose. No state should allow this to be done. Religious people often want to push the boundaries for their proselytiz­ing, but the state must prevent this. Having religious freedom depends on maintainin­g clear and distinct lines between the institutio­ns that conduct the general affairs for the citizens and the institutio­ns that teach religion. That is what is unique about America and it is a very valuable characteri­stic of democracy that we must maintain, lest we end up with the same struggles as other parts of the world that have turned into religious battlegrounds.

[arkady967]

07:52 AM on 12/04/2011

Then again, there's the history that supports the idea that those with the strongest inclinations of "Separation" are also persons that maintained gulags and eventually came to imprison persons on much broader grounds...

But, the provisions of the constitution of the United States in the first ammendment are somewhere between extremes of National ecclesiastical establishment and the Doctrine of Separation commonly espoused. (Which is more similar to the article of like nature in the old Sovient constitution than our own http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_anti-religious_legislation.) An examination of early State's constitions make this abundantly
clear to the dicerning observer: http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=69

Regarding the received US tradition prior to this modern conception...

§ 1868. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.
Joseph Story (Supreme court justice and author of an government sacntioned commentary on the US constitution.)

http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm

[rshrink]

10:40 AM on 12/04/2011

You are forgetting that "Christians" have tortured people in the name of Christianity. Some Muslims have become terrorists in recent times. You are talking about human behavior, not what comes from religion or lack of it. The most peaceful religions have been those that were accepting of others, regardless of their beliefs. You keep referring to the constitution. There is a lot of gobble de gook in there. In addition, the makeup of this country has changed enormously since the origin of the constitution. We seriously have to deal with what is going on in the present time. You ignored most of my comments, not really responding to them at all. You want to find a reason to do what you "believe" is best, instead of trying to understand the problem and facing it. That won't work.

[biged59]

03:21 AM on 12/14/2011

Nah, rs. Creationist proponents know well that they are meaning to push their religion into science class. My guess is that everybody (top to bottom, and side to side) knows what's going on. Haven't you ever read the letters to the blogs? There are three half-hearted attempts to make creationism/ID look sorta like science (if you don't pay too much attention), and 700 letters from bible thumpers damning evolutionists to hell.

The concept of evidence itself, is of this world. Do you not listen to them? Things of this world are the handiwork of satan. Evidence is just satan misleading the unwary. How are you going to reason with that??

I don't know whether God created the universe, or not. I can't imagine any way for anyone to find out, in this life. But, most of Genesis is clearly nonsense, and does not belong in science class.

Maybe in a philosophy class. But, try to do that, and guess who'll have you in court til the cows come home. What makes anybody think that religious leaders want their flocks to actually understand their faiths? You Christians, do you want the public schools teaching your kids about Christianity? (Not invite you in to teach it. Teach the actual history and philosophy of your faith.) I didn't think so. I rest my case.

Just my guess.

[ozzbone]

12:27 AM on 12/04/2011

If Rick Santorum had his way in the1950s and 60s, there would be no push to expand science education after Sputnik was launched because it would only further the "theory" that Earth and the planets revolve around the sun instead of "the heavens" revolving around the Earth.

[Willard Worsley]

05:11 AM on 12/18/2011

Not seen any sense here. Most if not all scientist of the last half millennium who creationist. Creationist have nothing against discovery.

[Josh Greenberg]

12:04 AM on 12/04/2011

I bet Santorum wishes he had some intelligent design behind his presidential campaign.

Come to think of it...his massive failure must surely be the Will of God.

[Willard Worsley]

05:17 AM on 12/18/2011

I bet you were one of the gullible creatures who made Obama so successful. And you thought he must be the right candidate.

[wildwitchwoman]

11:08 PM on 12/03/2011

I have a 12-year-old in public school and I definitely do not want him to learn "intelligent design." By whose design are these ideas intelligent or even logical given scientific and not Biblical dogma. If you want your child to learn intelligent design or creativism enroll your child in a religious school. Do not force your views on my child. I can only imagine what the rest of the world is thinking? China and India must be jumping for joy to think that we will not have any scientists or engineers in the coming generations if we enforce this forced religious education on our children. Religion should stay in the church and not interfer in the education of the country's children.

[Willard Worsley]

05:21 AM on 12/18/2011

Well, there should be allowance for not accepting evolution as nothing but a theory.

[Tokie]

09:53 PM on 12/03/2011

Hey Newt... Where are the jobs you keep telling people to go out and get?

[rshrink]

07:35 PM on 12/03/2011

Oh my god, the "left" is bringing "science" into the classroom. What are they thinking? Seems like he has church and school confused. When they start having science teachers going to the church, then the church can start going to the schools. I don't see that happening, in any event.