Intelligent Design - Stupid Congressman

[UnrepentantSinner]

Or - why a lawyer shouldn't coach you for a speech about science.

I just became aware of a speech delivered on the floor of the House in 2000 by Congressman Mark Souder where he was decrying a letter from professors are Baylor University critical of him for hosting a conference on Intelligent Design.

Transcripts from the Congressional Record cannot be directly linked to, but if you take the following link to search the 106th Congreess and enter "intelligent design is not a science" the link is the first search result "House of Representatives - June 14, 2000".
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r106query.html

The text of the letter was entered and if you read the entire speech, at the bottom he thanks ID advocate Philip Johnson for helping him. From this quote, he probably should have chosen a more scientifically literate advisor or even someone who understands logical fallacies. The last paragraph is the important one, and the part in blue is simply sad.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. CANADY) approached several people, including the Discovery Institute, about plans for such a hearing. The people at Discovery suggested that instead we allow them merely to put on a modest informational briefing on intelligent design . That is exactly what happened, and we regarded the result as very valuable.

Nevertheless, many of us continue to be concerned about the unreasoning viewpoint discrimination in science . This letter dismisses those who do not share the philosophy of science favored by the authors as frauds. It is ironic, however, that the authors do not ever actually get around to answering the substantive arguments put forward by people at the Discovery Institute. The authors support a philosophy of science they call materialistic science . The key phrase in the letter is that we cannot consider God's role in the natural phenomenon we observe. Yet this assumption is merely asserted without any argument.

How can the authors of this letter be so confident that God plays no role in the observable world? Once we acknowledge that God exists, as these professors presumably do since they teach as a Christian university, there is no logical way to rule out the possibility that God may actually do something within the universe He created.

In addition, the philosophy of science the authors talk about is just that, a philosophy. It is not itself science , even according to the definition of science put forward by the authors themselves. They state, for example, that all observations must be explained through empirical observations. I am not sure what that means but I do know this: This statement itself is not verifiable by observation or by methods of scientific inquiry. It is rather a philosophical statement.

The transcript is rather a quick read so I recommend taking the link above, following my directions and reading the whole thing.

 

[Orangutan]

I wouldn't expect anything else from him. The guy is fine upstanding Republican. You can tell by his voting record.

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=CNIP0687

Also he describes himself as an Ultra-Conservative.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week734/interview1.html

Yup this guy and I would not find ourselves agreeing on a lot of things.

I believe [people] can have a propensity to be homosexual. But I believe that it's wrong and it's controllable.

<slaps head>

 

[Cello Man]

...all observations must be explained through empirical observations. I am not sure what that means but I do know this...

Wow. Nothing strengthens your case like coming out and saying, "I have no clue what I'm talking about, but here's my opinion on this subject anyway, which I will assert with no evidence to back up my position."

It's no wonder that "Truthiness" was named word of the year. It's the dominant force in American politics.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Do we have any members who live in this douchebag's district? Joshua?

For anyone who has a nice new irony meter that needs calibrating check out his comments about how it was staff from Baylor University who called him out for giving ID the time of day.

 

[KingMerv00]

I never miss a chance to hate Sen. Rick Santorum for his Intelligent Design policies.

He sucks. That is all.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I never miss a chance to hate Sen. Rick Santorum for his Intelligent Design policies.

He sucks. That is all.

Two words - the smirk...

Sen. Bill Frist on the other hand was an admirable (despite his possibly dubious HMO connections) fellow. He was an MD and seemed to maintain that for the most part until the Terri Shaivo "diagnosis".

 

[fuelair]

I never miss a chance to hate Sen. Rick Santorum for his Intelligent Design policies.

He sucks. That is all.

And that's why his name was chosen as the official term for the aftermath of a round of buggery - by voters from all over the U.S.!!!

 

[Freddy]

Santorum thinks that ID is not science and shoud not be taught in science classes. Give credit where credit is due. This isn't the issue to hate him on.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Santorum thinks that ID is not science and shoud not be taught in science classes. Give credit where credit is due. This isn't the issue to hate him on.

Really?

From the Washington Post, Monday, March 14, 2005

Some evolution opponents are trying to use Bush's No Child Left Behind law, saying it creates an opening for states to set new teaching standards. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a Christian who draws on Discovery Institute material, drafted language accompanying the law that said students should be exposed to "the full range of scientific views that exist."

"Anyone who expresses anything other than the dominant worldview is shunned and booted from the academy," Santorum said in an interview. "My reading of the science is there's a legitimate debate. My feeling is let the debate be had."

And let's not forget the so-called Santorum Amendment Of the No Child Left Behind Act

 

[Freddy]

I guess I could be wrong, but I recall him making the news for saying in an interview that he didn't think ID was science. Perhaps he changed his stance, or perhaps I'm just losing it. I'll do a search and see if I can find the story I'm thinking of.

 

[Freddy]

The reason I was confused is that he was for intelligent design before he was against it:

"'As far as intelligent design is concerned, I really don't believe it has risen to the level of a scientific theory at this point that we would want to teach it alongside of evolution,' the Pennsylvania senator said during an NPR interview in August."

That's August 2005. Sorry, I can't post links yet. I agree that the guy doesn't know his head from his rear, but he appears to have changed his position for the better.