http://www.santorumexposed.com/serendipity/archives/53-Not-Intelligent,-By-Design........html
Thursday, August 4. 2005
Not Intelligent, By Design...
Due to some activity by those nutty bloggers over at (of all places)
redstate.org, an item from Jon Hurdle at Reuters came to our attention
earlier today about how Rick Santorum "differed Thursday with
President Bush's support for teaching an alternative to the theory of
evolution known as 'intelligent design.'"
The article claims Rick told National Public Radio that intelligent
design lacked scientific credibility and should not be taught in
science classes.
This kind of surprised us -- Rick being known in the "intelligent
design" community as an ally and all that.
But we listened to the NPR interview and he did, in fact, say it.
Click here to listen to it yourself
http://santorumexposed.com/video/NPR-ID.mp3
"I think I would probably tailor that a little more than what the
president has suggested...I'm not comfortable with intelligent design
being taught in the science classroom."
I guess Rick doesn't care that this is a 180-degree turn from what he
said in The Washington Times back on March 14, 2002 --
http://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/washtimes_santorum031402.htm
"Research has shown that the odds that even one small protein molecule
has been created by chance is 1 in a billion. Thus, some larger force
or intelligence, or what some call agent causation, seems like a
viable cause for creating information systems such as the coding of
DNA. A number of scientists contend that alternate theories regarding
the origins of the human species -- including that of a greater
intelligence -- are possible.
"Therefore, intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that
should be taught in science classes.
"Yet, opponents of intelligent design contend that by including the
theory in the new teaching standards, the separation of church and
state will be weakened. This is false. Proponents of intelligent
design are not trying to teach religion via science, but are trying to
establish the validity of their theory as a scientific alternative to
Darwinism."
That's an article he wrote, by the way, not some reporter misquoting
him out of context.
He either doesn't care about this incredible flip-flop, or he hasn't
yet heard of the Internet, where just about anyone can find stuff he
wrote three years ago in about 30 seconds.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
.
|
