Monday, December 05, 2011

Earth to Rick: The Debate Is Over and You Lost!

 
Rick Santorum is a former United States Senator. He is running for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. In this video he is explaining why creationism should be taught in schools.

The Discover Institute blog, Evolution News & Views, posted this video [Santorum on Evolution: "It's Worth a Debate." Yeah, It is]. It obvious that the IDiots consider Santorum to be a credible supporter of Intelligent Design Creationism.

I suppose that's understandable given the quality of their other supportersl




15 comments :

  1. Rick, just because we don't currently know everything by the dawn of the 21st century is not justification for you or anybody else to swing in like Zorro and carve "GOD" on the walls of science classes, any more than it was in the 16th century when we couldn't yet explain rainbows or the 17th century when we couldn't yet explain lightning or the 18th century when we couldn't yet explain cholera or the 19th century when we couldn't yet explain the mechanism of heredity, the structure of the atom, or why the east coast of South American and west coast of Africa matched so closely. "God" was supplied as the answer in every case, until we figured it out and kicked that false support away.

    Do what you want on Sunday. But Monday to Friday, quick trying to restuff this old, never-changing material into the ever-improving science that kids need to learn.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Whatever you do, don't google "Santorum"

    ReplyDelete
  3. I got the impression that they first made the video without the guy typing in every word into the laptop and realised that it looked like a madman ranting on and on. Now it looks like the typer is a devout follower and the words are very important. I see no other reason why someone should type every word into a laptop given that the whole is filmed at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The most obvious mistake Santorum is making is to confuse what is allowable in scientific research with what is allowable in classroom instruction. If a scientist thinks the evidence points to a creator, he/she is free to pursue that in experiments, and to publish about it. I don't see how such an effort would have any trouble getting funding, considering all the money that gets wasted on belief tanks like the Discovery Institute.

    This is different from what goes on in public school classrooms, which are obligated to teach actual science, not what Santorum wishes science to be.

    If Santorum and the DI think it is "worth a debate," perhaps they should remember that a debate already took place in a courtroom in Pennsylvania in 2005.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The debate hasn't even begun.

    The theory of evolution is in rapid decline. Just go to any evolution conference - macroevolution is barely ever mentioned. The latest quest or synthesis, evo-devo, is regarded as a joke by many scientists. As an explanation for the diversity of the forms of life, Darwinism is just not credible. Most people, except Dr. Moran, realize this.

    Santorum is an idiot in every sense, but he is right on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "The debate hasn't even begun."

    If you're going to pretend to be an atheist, lines like "The theory of evolution is in rapid decline. Just go to any evolution conference - macroevolution is barely ever mentioned." and quoting "darwinism" isn't helping you come off as anything but a Christian tool.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Atheistoclast

    The debate hasn't even begun - that could be because it's over.

    Just go to any evolution conference - name one that you've attended (and I mean invited, not working for the catering company).

    is regarded as a joke by many scientists - name one credible scientist (i.e. published in a peer reviewed top tier journal which certainly leaves you out).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh steve, googling his nickname shows that he's an absolute nutter, spewing this excreta all over other sites.

    Thanks for the laughs, Atheistoclast.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @cw

    It's like picking at a scab, sometime you just can't stop yourself.

    My favourite Athieclast/Bozorgmehr "paper":

    Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr

    The Genetic code and the Latin language

    The genetic code and the biological information it makes possible are a profound engima for scientists studying the origin of life. However, a link to natural human language, in this case Latin, is found when the frequency distribution of characters is analyzed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve,

    It's a darn good paper. I present lots of data. There is definitely a correlation between amino acid sentences (proteins) and Latin sentences.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hahahah, great. Creationist AND gematria-obsessive nutter!

    Obviously he's sure to find useful data with his home-office "research" any day now.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Atheistoclastway, orrelatecay isthay ithway ouryay avouritefay
    oteinpray equencesay.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Atheistoclast said...

    Just go to any evolution conference - macroevolution is barely ever mentioned.

    That's because the only time the word is ever used is in relation to people who need to split evolution into two branches... one that they can't deny that they conceded as "microevolution", and one that they refuse to acknowledge (despite the fact that it's the same mechanism) they term "macroevolution" and replace with a theory about an invisible man outside the universe whose apparent principal preoccupation is a prurient obsession about what members of a particular species of apes do with their genitals.

    Obviously real evolutionary biologists have no need to make such a distinction, hence the corresponding lack of a need to discuss "macroevolution" in particular.

    ReplyDelete
  14. After Pennsylvanians had gotten a bellyful of having Santorum represent them, they turned him out by a margin of nearly 20%, which is probably near some sort of record margin of defeat for an incumbent Senator not under the cloud of some scandal or other.

    ReplyDelete
  15. barefoot hiker says,

    That's because the only time the word is ever used is in relation to people who need to split evolution into two branches... one that they can't deny that they conceded as "microevolution", and one that they refuse to acknowledge (despite the fact that it's the same mechanism) they term "macroevolution" and replace with a theory about an invisible man outside the universe whose apparent principal preoccupation is a prurient obsession about what members of a particular species of apes do with their genitals.

    Obviously real evolutionary biologists have no need to make such a distinction, hence the corresponding lack of a need to discuss "macroevolution" in particular.


    Sorry but that's not correct.

    Evolutionary biologists use the term "macroevolution" all the time

    Macroevolution
    Macroevolution

    We even have a course at the University of Toronto called "Introduction to Macroevolution." I can assure you that it isn't taught by creationists.

    It's also not true that the mechanisms of microevolution are sufficient to explain macroevolution. You might want to read a short little book by Stephen Jay Gould that discusses this point (The Structure of Evolutionary Theory).

    ReplyDelete