Let me begin with the obvious. On so many levels, it is absolutely irrelevant what either Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum has to say about virtually anything. With that in mind, we shouldn't care that both again weighed in on the relationship between religion and science this past week in their egotistical self-promotion in search of primary votes.
But the fact is, they both made outrageous statements and it's troubling that they believe that the extreme positions they've staked out will resonate with voters. Even more troubling is that those outrageous statements will, in fact, likely resonate with some voters.
To be fair, though, Bachman and Santorum deserve credit for what they've said. Yes, their statements are completely and totally false, but, each of them, in single, largely incoherent utterances, managed to accomplish a perfect trifecta. Their positions are fully at odds with the well-articulated opinions of America's judiciary as regularly expressed over the past 45 years, they are completely out of synch with the findings of the world's scientific community and they are remarkably disrespectful to a majority of religious individuals around the globe. Not bad for a couple of minutes of work!
Let's start with Rick Santorum's position on the teaching of creationism in public schools. In an interview with the editorial board of the Nashua Telegraph, he criticized scientists for wanting science taught in the science curriculum. Yes, you read that correctly!
Since it's all but impossible to meaningfully paraphrase his rambling position, I'll quote it in its entirety so you can form your own opinion:
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. 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.
Bachmann's position, as expressed in a visit to the University of Northern Iowa, while far clearer than Santorum's, is no less absurd. She complained that not teaching intelligent design in public school science classes represented governmental censorship. She made it clear that her views on the subject were shaped by her religious beliefs"
I do believe that God created the earth and I believe that there are issues that need to be addressed -- the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the issue of irreducible complexity, the dearth of fossil record. Those are all very real issues that should be addressed in science classes.
It's quite amazing that Bachmann would bring up the Second Law of Thermodynamics since even the most hard-core creationists have largely let that one go! The idea never gained ground in the scientific community because it was so absurd and it was completely demolished for the educated lay person 30 years ago.
What's truly troubling is that both Santorum and Bachmann imply that evolution and religion are in conflict and that students should be exposed to religion in their science classes. Santorum, at least, should know better since he claims to be a devout Roman Catholic. The Catholic Church is comfortable with evolutionary theory and as I've pointed out in the past, Santorum's decision to ignore the teachings of his own church is an act of unbridled hubris on his part.
But the issue runs deeper than that. Like all creationists, when Santorum and Bachmann promote their anti-science agenda, they are also promoting one very narrow religious agenda. And that narrow agenda marginalizes members of all other religions. It is for that reason that so many mainstream religions have taken positions diametrically opposed to what Santorum and Bachmann are promoting.
Finally, in a delicious irony, the strongest and clearest judicial ruling against intelligent design was handed down in 2005 by Judge John E. Jones III in the landmark Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board case. In ruling that intelligent design had no business being taught in public school science classes, Judge Jones referred to the "breathtaking inanity" of the Dover Area School Board. As he so forcefully explained, his decision was solidly based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and had absolutely nothing to do with governmental censorship. What makes this so wonderfully ironic is that Judge Jones, a conservative Republican, was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush upon the recommendation of none other than then-Senator Rick Santorum.
It is terribly sad that people in leadership positions like Santorum and Bachmann are willing to play politics with education rather than accepting three obvious points:
These are not complex points. And they are not controversial points. Let's accept them and move on. In fact, I suspect that enough of us have done just that and that might, in part, explain why Santorum and Bachmann are languishing at the unpopular end of an undistinguished Republican field.
Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter
Jim Wallis: The Disappearance of the Compassionate Conservatives
Reminds me of Nigel Tufnel stating, with a perplexed look on his face, "But these go to 11."
― Stephen Colbert
That is completely false. The theory of the evolution of homo sapiens obviously undermines the whole story of Adam and Eve and the theology of original sin related to it. Suffering in nature is an obvious challenge to belief in a loving god that is easily addressed by atheistic evolution. And evolution itself in no way entails god having anything to do with the origins of the species, not without someone adding something additional beyond the science, and thus evolution undermines beliefs about god creating the world. (Yes, if you accept evolution as how God did things, you are also a creationist and that is contrary to the science.) It is so clear from the fact that biologists like Coyne and Dawkins argue against religion on the grounds of evolution and that religion is a hurdle to accepting evolution that evolution does say something about religion. Denying this is blatant political pandering and is either lying or ignorance.
Also, did you ever consider that maybe these candidates are not anti-evolution (well, I suspect Bachmann genuinely is), but rather they are pandering to people who might vote for them. And that someone votes for these fools. Maybe we need to address the people who vote for such clowns in addition to going after these clowns, the politicians. The public opposition to evolution, primarily due to religion, is the real problem.
Evolution IS...religion ISN'T
Facts could care less what effect they have on superstitious religious nonsense.
I just so happen to think the fact of evolution shows some reasons why certain religions are nonsense.
In the creation, where did God come from?
In the big bang where did the energy come from?
Something from nothing? Now is that possible?
The Big Bang theory strictly speaking only says that the universe is expanding and in particular expanding from a point in the past when the universe had an infinitesimally small diameter. This theory of course is based on General Relativity and it is known that at the very small scale General Relativity breaks down and Quantum Mechanics is the better theory to use. As such it isn't clear that something did come from nothing, that the age of the universe is finite. It is clear that the Big Bang happened and when it happened, but that's about it. The Big Bang introduces a whole bunch of very technical questions about the geometry of the universe and quantum mechanics and such.
Intelligent Design has just as much been co-opted by fundamentalists as has Christianity. So, for that matter, has Creation.
Belief in a Creator (the deist position) who caused the Big Bang and started physical reality on its way is a far cry from the Fundamentalist idea of creation. The J writer was more sensible in the second chapter of Genesis than the P writer was in the first chapter. P was a kind of paleo-gnostic who could not resist adding details to a simple story (and even that story - which assumes a flat earth floating on an ocean - was wrong).
But, as noted, their ears are closed and they cannot hear.
But that's really the problem. ID is not an alternative to standard theory, because it's not a theory, it's an hypothesis. For an hypothesis to become a theory it has to include some way to test it, do science on it, find out whether it's right or wrong. Until someone figures out how to do that with ID, it's just a statement of someone's belief or speculation, which is not how science is done.
This is false. The Catholic Church rejects evolutionary theory, which posits no role for a supernatural being of any kind, in favor of "theistic evolution".
And while your at it, feel free to cite where biologists and geneticists agree that modern humans descended from a single pair of individuals, namely, Adam and Eve, as the Catholic Church maintains.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution
If the Catholic Church really does accepts scientific findings "without reservation," it would dismiss the above myths.
it does not matter to me if every biologist in the world agrees with it, which they dont.
as far as religion it has no place in public schools as much is religious dogma that will do more harm than good to a child's mind. ie guilt, culpablity, hell, favoritism, punishing god, devil out to get ya, the list is long.
love and compassion and kindness and caring for others can be taught without religion.
we are a religious nation compared to other industrialized nations and our prisons are overflowing.
since science has become a religion of sorts evolutionary theory of the physical must be taught as beliefs and theories not facts.
materialists agreeing upon a material reality is more about cherished beliefs and paradigms than reality. if you are a materialist this went way over your head for you are following authority not evidence.
scientists agreeing does not make it so. keep working on the chance thing that will keep you busy and off the religion sections. :-)
And that is how it taught. Same as the theories of gravitation. Both Newton's and Einstein's.
"it does not matter to me if every biologist in the world agrees with it, which they dont."
That's OK, they don't care about you, and that is being generous to assume that they even know you exist.
"since science has become a religion of sorts evolutionaÂry theory of the physical must be taught as beliefs and theories not facts."
Too many errors in that one. Science is not a religion. Evolutionary theories contains facts, and they are taught in conjunction with the theory
"scientists agreeing does not make it so."
Correct, it being so makes it so. Scientist only figure how it is, and let anyone who care to verify objectively can do so.
"materialisÂts agreeing upon a material reality is more about cherished beliefs and paradigms than reality. if you are a materialisÂt this went way over your head for you are following authority not evidence."
Blue triangle milks BenGay
Was he the barefoot savior? What about athelete's foot? Did Jesus get it? Are Gods susceptible to man's diseases?
So many questions, so much religious foolishness...
You mentioned particular events, structures or lifeforms that do not conform to evolutionary theory, but you don't actually provide any examples to go off of. So far the only things that fit this category in any way are things that are simply not understood by those who don't understand evolution in general. For example, many people claim that evolution does not explain the bacterial flagellum or the eye. This is simply incorrect as evolutionary theory has a perfectly good explanation for both those things.
As to why it is not permitted, this is a misunderstanding as well. You and anybody else are perfectly free to examine the concept of intelligent agent all you want, but why should we replace a theory that has some of the answers with the a theory that has none of the answers, that has no evidence in its support at all?
Study it all you want, but supernatural agencies are not susceptible to study by the scientific method, so when you study it, it won't be science. If you cannot subject your intelligent entity to the control of a laboratory setting so that you can determine whether that entity is affecting the outcome of your experiments, then you won't be able to make *scientific* claims about it.
It's like saying "You broke a piece of pottery my child made for me." and the response is "Oh your child made this? Well I'm sorry but it's broken now. Do you want me to fix it?"
Except in most cases no one is really stepping up and asking the last question.
So that we can learn about them, find ways to live on them, and escape since you think people are racing to destroy this one.
'It's like saying "You broke a piece of pottery my child made for me." and the response is "Oh your child made this? Well I'm sorry but it's broken now. Do you want me to fix it?"'
What's like saying that?