Rick Santorum has always seemed to have a problem with the theory of evolution. In 2001 he tried to promote the teaching of intelligent design in his failed Santorum Amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act, and now he still tries to promote it in his presidential campaign.
But why?! It is par for the course for Republican politicians from certain Protestant denominatons to profess their believe in creationism. However Santorum is Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church has never officially condemned the theory of evolution. In 1950 (8 years before Santorum was born) the Papal encyclical Humani Generis clearly stated that it was permissible for Catholics to believe in evolution. In 1996 (5 years before the Santorum Amendment) Pope John Paul II went even further in his address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and all but endorsed the theory of evolution: "... new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis."
Is Rick Santorum trying to be more Catholic than the Pope?
“Rick Santorum has always seemed to have a problem with the theory of evolution. In 2001 he tried to promote the teaching of intelligent design in his failed Santorum Amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act, and now he still tries to promote it in his presidential campaign.â€
I don’t feel that evolution denial has been his position, just that alternate theories [actually mechanistic hypotheses] are open for consideration. Support of the ID hypothesis is not [by definition] denial of evolution. And if Santorum is a YEC, which might amount to NDE denial, I have yet to see evidence of this.
There are *indeed* problems with the theory however, consisting of empirical verification of mutations and genetic drift as the sole source of novelty. As an engineer, I totally disagree with this premise, as do most ‘rational’ thinkers. And by 'rational', I'm not including FSM touters, who like to compare the likelihood of design with a Celestial orbiting teapot.
A simple analysis of the number of co-dependent biologic systems that work in concert, along with the complexity of protein folding to produce new protein structures, is statistical evidence of the improbability of solely natural [undirected] causation. For these to have developed incrementally, each minor alteration would need to produce a fitness or reproductive advantage, and thus become fixed in that particular population. The current data does not support that prediction.
“Today, ... new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge.â€
But he adds some caveats:
“A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified, it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.â€
Correct.
“Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain *notions* from natural philosophy. And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of *several* theories of evolution.
On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the *mechanism[s]* of evolution, and on the other, with the various *philosophies* on which it is based. “ [Emphasis Mine].
An acknowledgement of *notions*, of *philosophy* as part-and -parcel, and the possibility of *several* theories all are all proposed. The ‘key’ point of contention, ‘mechanisms’ is also brought up, and that its seminal prediction of natural causation is philosophy based.
So does the Pope [and Santorum] accept evolutionary theory in toto? Only to a degree ...
You may disagree with the theory of evolution, but to say that most rational thinkers do as well is misleading at best and at worst an outright lie. The theory of evolution is accepted by something like 97% of scientists and 99% of biologists. I would be pretty comfortable saying that the majority of rational thinkers who actually understand how evolution works don't have a problem with it. Also, genetic drift isn't a source of novelty. It's a mediating mechanism, like natural selection. Again we see that there are no problems with the theory of evolution, there are just problems understanding it.
I'd be willing to bet that you're referring to Axe's work on protein folding, which was a prime example of Intelligent Design creationists doing science badly to call evolution into question. Additionally, your appeal to statistics supposes a knowledge of the variables which doesn't yet exist in sufficient detail to support such a claim.
So no, I do not disagree with evolutionary theory as a viable explanation for taxonomic diversity. I just disagree that purely natural causation has been confirmed by the data.
"You may disagree with the theory of evolution, but to say that most rational thinkers do as well is misleading at best and at worst an outright lie."
Among rational thinkers, I excluded atheists, since to take a hard position on a non-provable philosophical stance is essentially closed minded. In essence, the same goes for 'theism'. From a science perspective, agnosticism is the only position that makes sense.
But regarding your percentages, I strongly disagree. And there is no recent surveys among scientists to confirm them.
And speaking of lies, Brian Alters has stated that 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution as stated [paraphrased]. That would mean that in a packed Ebbets Field in Brooklyn, a mere 32 [less than one row] would dissent.
If it were possible to do a totally anonymous survey of all scientists, the numbers might shock you. Remember, no working scientist or science academic dare express any doubts about evolutionary theory via purely natural causation without career endangerment.
Correct. Here's a recent paper, including the full text:
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1
And another by Michael Behe on the subject of adaptive mutations and loss of function:
http://tinyurl.com/8a9j77o
Are you sure it's "bad science"? Or is that based on an a prior bias? Better to challenge than to sit back and hand wave. If anything, papers of this ilk add to our knowledge base, and will ultimately result in a better understanding of evolutionary processes.
" ... your appeal to statistics supposes a knowledge of the variables which doesn't yet exist in sufficient detail to support such a claim."
Correct. They are largely speculative, but falsifying or confirming proposed probabilities will result from work such as Axe's and Gauger's. Rather than offering my conclusions as fact, I present them as predictions that will ultimately be reinforced or degraded.
But to better understand evolutionary theory, BOTH perspectives need to be explored. And if any harm be done to science, it is the prohibition of such studies. After all, if natural causation is correct, why the extreme backlash from NAS and AAAS?
It smacks of fear mongering, fascism, and is in essence, what I feel has tended to reduce academic enrollments [both profs *and* students], and will continue to do so until mediated.
Creationism can’t be taught in science class, ONLY BECAUSE there is no one in any school system that is qualified to teach Biblical Creation. The doctrines of current Creationism are both false (old earth), and foolish (young Earth). Both creationist views misrepresent the Genesis text, and should not be part of any curriculum. But without offering an opposing view, schools are brainwashing students with the tenets of Atheism, which is both unconstitutional to be state sponsored, and evil.
The correct opposing view to evolution is the “Observations of Mosesâ€. It properly conveys what God was showing Moses, and explains the text of Genesis chapter one.
Herman Cummings
Ephraim7@aol.com
Precisely, but it is presented largely by its detractors:
• Eugenie Scott// “This is neo-creationism, trying to avoid the legal morass of trying to teach creationism overtly and slip it in through the backdoor.â€
• Barbara Forrest// “In short, intelligent design theorists are no different from young earth creationists … “ [pg 46 of Creationism’s Trojan Horse]
• Richard Dawkins// “So where did Intelligent Design spring from? Like a boil on a bum?†[pg 369 of ‘Greatest Show on Earth’]
• Jerry Coyne// “I’ve learned that creationism in like the inflatable roly-poly clown I played with as a child.†pg 61, and “creationism [is] the latest incarnation [of] intelligent design.†[pg 148 ‘Why Evolution is True’]
And given their high profile, many accept their views. But their views are politically [and profit] motivated IMO, rather than logical rational conclusions of the data. Altho in their defense, they may actually believe the failed Darwinist pre/post-dictions. As time progresses, natural causation continues to lose credibility.
Interesting that after the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, Judge Jones gleaned paid speaking engagements, a Time Mag ‘100 Most Influential’ rag chew, and a handful of cracker box science degrees. When will we learn how science *should* be done? Maybe when we complete our conversion to the Metric system of measurement. IOW, never …