Santorum Continues to Crusade Against Evolution

Rick Santorum spewed his usual nonsense about evolution during an interview with the editorial board of the Nashua Telegraph in New Hampshire. Here’s the transcript:

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,” or that there may be some things that are inexplainable by nature where there may be, where it’s better explained by a Creator, of course we can’t have that discussion. It’s very interesting that you have a situation that 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, 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.

But the science doesn’t point to god, plain and simple, and that’s why it isn’t taught in schools.

httpv://youtu.be/GLo_jfru8jA

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Aquaria

    There are many on the left and in the scientific community, so to speak, who are afraid of that discussion

    Rick, Rick, Rick…

    We’re not afraid of that discussion. We just don’t think we have to argue the points with illiterate lying scumbags like you every time you piss on the floor for attention.

    Big difference, shit-and-lube for brains.

  • doktorzoom

    Science is biased toward being scientific, which is really unfair.

  • d cwilson

    Well maybe the science points to the fact that maybe science doesn’t explain all these things. And if it does point to that, 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?

    No Rick, we can have that discussion. The problem is, you have to produce the evidence that points to a creator first before the discussion can begin. Making up shit and calling it science isn’t evidence.

  • The Lorax

    Many scientists HAVE argued the point, over the last, oh, I don’t know, 500 years? And they have always been persecuted, or worse, killed so that religious beliefs can propagate.

    And yet, scientists are still ready, willing, and able to pursue this. But only from a scientific standpoint. They are scientists, after all. Science is what they do. Bring the argument properly to the floor of science, and you will be properly considered.

    … The problem is, even though some have gone that route, they have always been soundly defeated using, hey presto, science.

  • http://www.rodlamkey.net reverendrodney

    Now who is he trying to woo? I thought Santorum was a Roman Catholic. According to Roman Catholics I know, the church has stated that evolution is a valid theory and all part of God’s plan, or scheme, or whatever that is.

    So I think Santorum asked: “Am I right-wing enough?” and somebody said: “No, ya gotta be a creationist too.”

  • D. C. Sessions

    I tried to parse that word salad, and kept having to reboot my brain.

  • Chiroptera

    …where it’s better explained by a Creator….

    Ya know, everything example that comes to my mind that can be better explained by a creator can be even better explained by “just because.”

    Just sayin’, is all.

  • cafink

    “If science says it’s not science, how can you say it’s not science?”

  • peterh

    The Parade of Stooopid never stops.

  • Gregory

    Help spread the Santorum. If we want to keep this as the first item on Google, we need to keep it linked!

  • eric

    rev @5: I think he’s legitimately creationist. He’s been riding this horse far longer than just his presidential run.

    Plug for FL citizens for science, via Panda’s Thumb: there’s a discussion of the GOP candidates’ views on evolution/creationism going on right now.

  • MikeMa

    A stopped clock is correct more often than Santorum. How can one man idiot be so wrong, so completely, so often and with such pride?

  • daveau

    It’s very interesting that you have a situation that science will only allow things in the classroom that are consistent with a non-Creator idea of how we got here…

    Maybe that’s because the non-Creator idea is the only one that there’s any actual evidence for, Rick. I’d call him a moron, but that would be degrading to actual morons.

  • http://cheapsignals.blogspot.com Gretchen

    or that there may be some things that are inexplainable by nature where there may be, where it’s better explained by a Creator

    Whereas the suggestion that there may be some things that are inexplicable by a Creator always goes over really well.

  • Skip White

    Hmm… “Santorum” is roughly defined as an oozey substance. And there’s the old term “primordial ooze,” from whence we came. Holy cripes on toast! Rick Santorum travelled back in time, created the primordial ooze by simply being! So that’s why he says he doesn’t believe in evolotion! He started it all! Or something. Anyway, he’s a weapons-grade fool.

  • peterh

    @# 12:

    The “stopped clock” thing is tempting, but how does one even know without a functioning timepiece when the non-functioning by chance indicates the correct time? By extension, how would someone make a meaningful examination of the present Santorum without a fully-functioning model for reference? I shudder to think that anyone would regard this as other than an exercise in word-play.

  • michaelgibb

    “…or that there may be some things that are inexplainable by nature where there may be, where it’s better explained by a Creator, of course we can’t have that discussion.”

    The ‘God hypothesis’ is never a better explanation than anything else, it is nothing more than a cop-out. It does not add any new information; it does not improve our knowledge and understanding of anything. It is simply a scapegoat for one’s ignorance.

  • Ichthyic

    There are many on the left and in the scientific community, so to speak</i.

    so to speak?

    huh?

  • Reginald Selkirk

    reverendrodney #5: According to Roman Catholics I know, the church has stated that evolution is a valid theory and all part of God’s plan, or scheme, or whatever that is.

    1) The Holy Roman Catholic Church is a top-down authoritarian outfit. It doesn’t matter what “Roman Catholics you know” think, they do not set church doctrine.

    2) The last two popes occasionally make statements to the effect that evolution is “more than a hypothesis.” But Pope Benny also sometimes makes speeches referring to the universe as an “intelligent project.” The Holy Roman Catholic Church is the ultimate big tent. At one of the tent you have the sophisticated products of Jesuit education, at the other you have people who see Jesus in tortillas and Mary sewer pipes. His Ryoal Popeness obviously doesn’t want to offend any of his flock. I like to think that if I were gifted with the power to speak infallibly (only on matters of faith & morals, while speaking ex cathedara, etc), that I wouldn’t hedge my bets so much.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    There are scientists who think the evidence points to God. They are free to do research on this, and to write books. So this is not at all a forbidden idea in science. What Santorum wants is something different: he wants Creationism taught in the public school classrooms, as though the science had already been done. Cart. Horse.