[TriammaMade]

Someone on this forum has accused me of being critical of Roman Catholics, but I love today’s article in The Philadelphia Inquirer. It’s by Rick Santorum—and I think he’s a Roman Catholic. I believe Ted Kennedy was also a Roman Catholic. I do not normally applaud Ted, but I applaud even him—for his first actions in this (below) referred-to Santorum’s article!

The Elephant in the Room: Challenging science dogma
As with evolution, the 'consensus' on climate change has become an ideology.12/17/09, This is from The Elephant in the Room: Challenging science dogma | Philadelphia Inquirer | 12/17/2009

First paragraph of article: Questioning the scientific consensus in pursuit of the truth is an important part of how science has advanced through the centuries. But what happens when the scientific consensus becomes an ideology that trumps the pursuit of truth? Answer: Those making legitimate inquiries are ostracized, the careers of dissenters are destroyed, and debate is stifled.

2nd: Unfortunately, I am referring not only to the current proponents of the theory of man-made global warming. In 2001, I offered a legislative amendment about teaching the subject of evolution. I caught more flak for this simple amendment than for almost anything else I championed in the Senate. What heresy did I propose? Here is the full text: "Good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject."

Next paragraph: It was so radical a concept that, less than an hour after it's unveiling, liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy signed on to it. He said during the debate that my amendment's language was "completely consistent with what represents the central values of this body. We want children to be able to speak and examine various scientific theories on the basis of all of the information that is available to them."

Next: My amendment passed 91-8. The next day, the High Priests of Darwinism went berserk. How dare the Senate suggest there is any controversy surrounding evolution? The amendment, they argued, was an attempt to bring God into the classroom.

Skipping...: A recent Gallup poll found that only 14 percent of Americans agreed that "humans developed over millions of years" and "God had no part." A Zogby poll this year found that 78 percent of Americans agreed that schoolteachers "should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it." The same poll also found that 86 percent of self-identified liberals agreed that "teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory." But the scientific "community" claims there is no controversy, and that debate should be banned.

Last three paragraphs: Given this uncertainty, I think most Americans find the experts' cocksureness unsettling. Despite the bravado and billions of dollars in media hype supporting the climate alarmists, only 37 percent of respondents agreed that man is causing global warming in a recent Rasmussen poll.

Why? Well, maybe because Americans don't like being told what to believe. Maybe because we have learned to be skeptical of "scientific" claims, particularly those at war with our common sense - like the Darwinists' telling us for decades that we are just a slightly higher form of life than a bacterium that is here purely by chance, or the Environmental Protection Agency's informing us last week that man-made carbon dioxide - a gas that humans exhale and plants need to live, a gas that represents less than 0.1 percent of the atmosphere - is a dangerous pollutant threatening to overheat the world.

In some respects, the case for evolution is improving: We may indeed have evolved to the point where we can detect hot air of a different kind.

[lYVgWWcP]

Someone on this forum has accused me of being critical of Roman Catholics, but I love today’s article in The Philadelphia Inquirer. It’s by Rick Santorum—and I think he’s a Roman Catholic.

So you should have no problem answering two simple questions. Are Catholics Christians? Do you consider Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI to be Christians? Liking an article by a Catholic in no way answers either of those.

2nd: Unfortunately, I am referring not only to the current proponents of the theory of man-made global warming. In 2001, I offered a legislative amendment about teaching the subject of evolution. I caught more flak for this simple amendment than for almost anything else I championed in the Senate. What heresy did I propose? Here is the full text: "Good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject." I agree wholeheartedly. Students should be taught that evolution continues to be controversial because of idiots like you who spread lies and misinformation about it. It continues to be controversial because idiots like you keep trying to disguise their religion and junk science as legitimate science, and ram it down students throats.

[lollypop]

Someone on this forum has accused me of being critical of Roman Catholics, but I love today’s article in The Philadelphia Inquirer. It’s by Rick Santorum—and I think he’s a Roman Catholic. I believe Ted Kennedy was also a Roman Catholic. I do not normally applaud Ted, but I applaud even him—for his first actions in this (below) referred-to Santorum’s article!

This is even better than the "but I have black friends" excuse. You've elevating the backwards, left-handed apologia to an art form.

Bravo!

[textarchive]

Creationist's approach to science.

[Ad0i89Od]

Rick Santorum's list of public gaffs is long & smelly. No surprise Humbug thinks he's quote-worthy -- he was working for the law office that defended at the Dover trial, trying to get ID taught in schools, which was defeated soundly.

He also said that gays shouldn't have sex, yet defended preists who diddle children as products of a sick culture.

[romalama]

And who really cares what religion he is, or Kennedy was ? You were surprised, huh ?

[mp3 free]

Santorum

[altosburg]

See, Paul, even a heretic can do the Lord's Work on occasion.

Of course, he'll burn in Hell anyway.

[wmtravelservice]

Oops, I figured a thread referring to anything that Santorum said or wrote as "fabulous" would be a joke!

[onelovemp]

See, Paul, even a heretic can do the Lord's Work on occasion. Of course, he'll burn in Hell anyway.

Sean, are you judging him a heretic on his way to hell?

I’m not.

[beloveds]

Santorum did a great deed in the Dover trial -- now its is known thru-out the land that ID is not science and it is illegal to teach children it is such!!! I thank Jesus.

[Imampaictjg]

Ah, the sweet smell of Satanorum.

Don't miss him. Guess there's a reason why he no longer represents us in the Senate...

Continuing. Someone on this forum (he knows who he is, but I'll be goddamned if I'll dignify him by mentioning his name) once accused me of being critical of creationists.

I am. And idiocy from clowns like Little Ricky Satanorum is one reason why.

Just one example from the material quoted by Paul Humber (and if its a selective misquote, you know who to blame).

The Elephant in the Room: Challenging science dogma
As with evolution, the 'consensus' on climate change has become an ideology.

How dare the Senate suggest there is any controversy surrounding evolution?...But the scientific "community" claims there is no controversy, and that debate should be banned.

...Why? Well, maybe because Americans don't like being told what to believe.

Maybe because we have learned to be skeptical of "scientific" claims, particularly those at war with our common sense - like the Darwinists' telling us for decades that we are just a slightly higher form of life than a bacterium that is here purely by chance...

There is no "controversy" over evolution. On one side there is overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of biological evolution, on the other, there is the Bible, and a lot of front-loaded wishful thinking. On one side there are scientists, who over the last 800 years have evolved extremely sophisticated procedures for evaluating truth claims. On the other side are a group of "professional whiners," who can't brook the thought of anything being taught in school that disagrees with their personal religious beliefs.

Among scientists (you know, the people who have actually studied up the facts of the issue), there is more than a "consensus" [Humber's quotes]. It would better be described as a "unanimity," if such a word exists.

Skipping. Sure, the creationists can dredge up a couple of hundred "scientists" who will claim that there is evidence against evolution. But how many are there really? Once you weed out of their lists all of the scientists who died before 1859, when the Origin of Species was published, you then have to weed out all of the guys (and unlike real science, they do seem to be all guys) with degrees in metaphysics, philosophy, philosophy of science, physical therapy, sports medicine, faith healing, and home economics. What does that leave you?

A mere handful. Then you have to weed out the intelligent design guys, because, remember, they're "not creationists." Even Humber's big hero, Michael Behe, admits that there's overwhelming evidence for biologicqal evolution and descent from common species. He sees us as genetically and evolutionarily close to chimpanzees!

If there is going to be debate, let it happen. But to date the creationists have yet to produce a shred of scientific evidence in favor of the Biblical account of creation. They have had ample opportunity to present the evidence. But they can't, and the reason is that there is simply no evidence for it, whatsoever. Scientists will not debate people who cannot provide verifiable evidence to back up their claims.

How can biologists take a group of people seriously who don't even understand or use the concept of "species?" What's next? Are astrophysicists going to have to teach that the Earth is flat because someone believes it?

Satanorum's strawman at the end notwithstanding, evolution holds the cards. That's because evolutionary scientists did the real work, the hard work of gathering and assessing real evidence, while the creationists...what?...waved their Bibles around and prayed.

Little Ricky is an embarrassment. He WAS an embarrassment to Pennsylvania; now he's just an albatross around the neck of the Inquirer. Every little pearl of wisdom he drops further convinces me that children who are home-schooled have idiots for teachers.

.

[viawbambutt]

And who really cares what religion he is, or Kennedy was ? You were surprised, huh ?

I was please with Santorum but actually disappointed with Kennedy. After sharing, “My amendment passed 91-8. The next day, the High Priests of Darwinism went berserk. How dare the Senate suggest there is any controversy surrounding evolution? The amendment, they argued, was an attempt to bring God into the classroom, the next short paragraph (which I previously omitted) was as follows: “Kennedy quickly recanted and vowed to have the amendment stricken from the reported language of the final bill. It wasn't.”

How can a person affirm language one day and recant as soon as political pressure comes on him? It seems he was a man-pleaser.

[RokgroofeTeme]

Kennedys are not known for being man-pleasers.

Quite the opposite.

[Attaniuri]

Kennedys are not known for being man-pleasers.

Quite the opposite.

I think Humber's mixed up Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank.

Easy mistake.

[YTmWSOA5]

Kennedys are not known for being man-pleasers. Quite the opposite.

It must almost be a qualification for elected office that you be a “man-pleaser”. Why else do you think Ted changed his mind?

[LottiFurmann]

O cheezity! hahahhaah

[skupaemauto]

Once again throwing out science instead of utilizing it. Gee, how are babies safely born today? Due to science. How does Santorum get to travel from place to place to spout his crap? Scientific innovations like cars and planes. How was ink adhered to paper to create a newspaper to include his dribble? Science! Give me a friggin' break.