Skip to main content

It's difficult to take Rick Santorum seriously. It always has been, and adding "campaigning for president" to his resume did nothing to help. The man has no gravitas and even less charisma, but comports himself as if he did. The effect is of a whiny adolescent know-it-all who is eternally peeved that society isn't recognizing his obvious superiority. Add to this a devout narrow-mindedness, a stubborn refusal to even acknowledge others might have opinions or experiences different from his own, and you get the perfect Conservative Religious Whiny Emo Teenage Mutant Candidate.

If he had the smallest chance in hell of becoming president, we would have to take him more seriously, but he doesn't, and so we can freely use his various pronouncements not as telling threats of what a Santorum presidency might entail, but as mere object lessons in how stubborn ignorance is often considered, by ignorant people, to be the same thing as religious conviction.

In this instance, we have Rick Santorum explaining the outrage of public schools teaching evolution while conspicuously neglecting to teach Santorum's preferred Magic Bean theory of creation:

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.

The short version of that gibberish is that Rick Santorum has no understanding of what science actually is. In any situation where "the science points to the fact that maybe science doesn’t explain all these things," the proper scientific response is to question why currently known science does not explain the something-in-question. The proper response never turns out to be "well, we don't understand this part, so let's say it's because magic." That is the very definition of scientific pursuit. Our understanding of the world may be incomplete, or even wrong, but science tasks itself with quantifying and qualifying all those things that we do know for certain.

There was once a time when all of Europe thought the sun revolved around the earth. The logic behind this was ego, and nothing else: Hey, we rock so much here on earth it's just not possible for the universe to not literally revolve around us. The Santorum approach to "science" would be, when the question was first asked, to simply say "God did it" and leave it at that. That would be the "scientific" answer to everything, in fact: Don't understand gravity? God did it. Don't understand prismatic reflection? God. Don't understand how ice turns back into water when heat is applied? Well don't knock yourself out over it, just say blah-blah-God-did-it-blah and be done with it.

When "maybe the science points to the fact that maybe science doesn't explain all these things," to continue to use Santorum's lovely phrasing, that is when science advances. Somebody, somewhere sits themselves down and tries to explain the unexplainable bits. It either proves plausible or it doesn't. A bunch of other somebodies eventually either prove the point or discard it as yet another failed attempt. There is no scientific point, however, where "hell if I know" gets chiseled down as the permanent, legitimate final answer to a question.

Santorum's critique of classroom science is that he perceives some conspiracy by which "science", as entity, will "only allow things in the classroom that are consistent with a non-Creator idea of how we got there." Well, no: That is not strictly true. Science disallows all unproven speculations about scientific facts, hence the "science" part. It is not isolated to Santorum's Christianity: We also do not allow textbooks to teach that electrons are in fact tiny little go-carts being raced around by aliens. We do not teach that pandas have magical superpowers that only manifest themselves when nobody is looking, or that one of the organs you will find in a dissected frog is a tiny Taco Bell. It has nothing to do with anti-religious bigotry. We simply wish to teach, in science classes, actual science. The stuff we know, not all of the other stuff that someone, somewhere suspects.

This is an important point, for what we are teaching in classrooms (hopefully, though heaven knows it is always a battle on multiple fronts) is not the individual bits of science per se, but the methodology of logical thinking. The difference between what we know and what we suspect is an important one, as is the difference between proof and hypothesis. These are basic, foundational tools of knowledge, or at least should be. Remove them and you end up with people like Santorum, who lack the ability to tell the difference. Five plus five is not "whatever I say it is," regardless of what modern conservative budget-minders might assert. Learning to read a graph, and learning when to be suspicious of one; learning how to properly cite experts, and what might constitute "expertise"; even if you never actually need to know what a pancreas does or what the various layers of the atmosphere are, being able to competently find out if and when the need arises is more important still.

School-age science is intended to teach just enough of the fundamentals to allow a rough intuition of how important things work; the rest must be left to individual initiative, but at the dismal least we can explain to the next generation why sticking a fork into an electrical outlet might be bad, or why you should not mix certain chemicals under your sink, and give them the tools to extrapolate those lessons further.

We have all heard (and made) various arguments against the teaching of creationism in schools as substitute for evolutionary science. Which version of creationism? Why not the creation myths of other cultures? Why not have the teacher make other stuff up off the top of their head, and teach that? What of the religious objections of all those who object to your particular version of the Magic Beans Theory? If we are supposed to teach religion in faith in science class, why are we not expected to teach science in churches?

The most fundamental aspect, though, is honoring—no, scratch that, merely understanding—the very premise of science, which is to methodically map out that which is known, that which is unknown, and how expand the former category at the expense of the latter. Throwing up your hands whenever someone describes how a light bulb works, or why mice and humans are made up of such astonishingly similar substances and structures, with the simple answer "because God did it!" is the opposite of that.


There is no particular reason why science and faith cannot coexist. Discovering that the sun did not revolve around the earth did not deal a death blow to the world's religions. Learning that illnesses are often caused by bacteria or viruses, instead of possession by wayward demons or the like, similarly did not cause all the mosques and temples and churches to close up shop. Upon learning any scientific fact, there can be at least two possible reactions from those with true faith: You can either erupt in a fury that someone dared dabble in God's domain, or you can say "huh, so that's how God made that happen" and happily get on with your life. There is nothing that says the first group is somehow more "holy" than the second group. On the contrary, members of the "how dare you meddle" group are, universally, consigned to history's dustbin as zealots and ignoramuses. Few doubt the existence of bacteria at this point. Nobody over the age of, what, six or so truly believes the sun goes away when it sets in the west, or that it is hauled through the daytime sky by a team of celestial space-ponies or the like.

Those battles are won, and have extracted nothing from true faith. It is the rare cult indeed that condemns people for believing in bacteria or gravity. Color me skeptical that religion will crumble once it becomes thoroughly uncontroversial that man and monkey is made from the same stuff. And if you were to ask me which story sounded like a more gripping tale of God creating the universe, the story of Adam and Eve certainly pales in comparison to the tale of an all-encompassing God creating all of existence from a single, colossal spark, knowing in advance exactly how it would bring about everything from nebulae to gazelles to the waffle cone.

Creationism isn't a defining element of religious faith. It is a defining element of a lazy mind, one for whom even the greatest mysteries of the universe hold no particular luster. If your faith would be lost upon discovery that Adam and Eve were allegorical figures rather than factual ones, that faith hardly seems to run very deep. If you believe the Earth to be 6,000 years old, and believe all other answers to be heresy, that is mere faith by rote.

That is why the insistence that evolution is objectionable because it is insufficiently God-imbued is so irritating. It has nothing to do with science, and precious little to do with true faith. It merely seeks an avenue of religious indoctrination be stamped with supposed "scientific approval" merely because a collection of not-very-bright people who distrust knowledge above some certain, arbitrary level demand it. We teach the God version of no other phenomenon, not in electromagnetism, or physics, or chemistry. Debating whether Pluto should be classed as a planet or as something else raises hackles, but there is no large contingent demanding we teach that Pluto might merely be an illusion caused by the Devil.

If a person cannot count to one hundred, should they simply count "98, 99, God"? If a person does not understand how magnets work, is "angels hugging" an acceptable answer? What, then, requires evolutionary thought to be couched in similar suppositions of magic? It is mere ego, of the same sort that declared the sun revolved around the earth simply because God himself would never do anything that was not centered around the gigantic, pompous heads of humanity. It is ignorance disguised as piety, and intellectual dullness masquerading as religious fervor.

Individuals like Rick Santorum have existed throughout history. Every time, they are passed by. It was once taboo to even suppose at how the internals of the human body functioned: Hearts and lungs and livers were the stuff of God, not to be meddled with. Now fossils and gene sequences play the same role. Denying evolutionary biology gains no knowledge; it instead asks that we disavow inconvenient knowledge. It is disheartening, but not surprising. Most to the point, however, it is not "science."

Nor, it must be pointed out, is it faith.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't understand (46+ / 0-)

    how he thinks he can be nominated. I really don't. It's like he's running solely because he can't stand not being in politics, and this is the only way to deal with those (forced by PA voters) withdrawal symptoms.

    •  His thought process goes like this: (13+ / 0-)

      1) Spew nonsense.

      2) ???????*

      3) Get nomination.

      *??????? = God.  That's not me saying that, it's science.

      ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

      by TFinSF on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:20:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Perhaps he is putting himself out (0+ / 0-)

      there to get picked for VP.  {({(shudder)})}

      I was wise enough to never grow up while fooling most people into believing I had. - Margaret Mead

      by fayea on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:05:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Santorum the Republican (8+ / 0-)

      If I may borrow from Howard Dean, Santorum represents the Republican wing of the Republican Party.  I think he is the most representitive of Republican ideology and values of any of them.  

      The GOP has turned into some kind of Christian/American version of Hamas (loves religion, loves guns) and Santorum is their perfect leader.  To him, religion represents truth and science represents some interesting theories (as long as they don't wrinkle his trousers).  

      Gingrich is just a preening wannabe scholar, Romney is a completely user-friendly candidate (he will be whatever you want him to be), Perry is simply thick, Bachmann is batshit crazy and the rest don't matter.  If the GOP were really honest with the rest of us, they would nominate Santorum and let the chip fall where they may.

    •  He Could Try to be a Preacher (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      msmacgyver, Matt Z

      Even then he'd probably end up in some backwater fundamentalist church.

      He surely needs to get out of politics and, at least, pretending to run for president of the US.

      "OCCUPY WALL STREET and its allied movements around the country are more than a walk in the park. They are most likely the start of a new era in America." Jeffrey Sachs

      by wild hair on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:51:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Santorum is a Roman Catholic so (6+ / 0-)

        backwater fundie church isn't an option.

        Somehow, he did manage to become a lawyer...

        Wiki entry:

        Santorum earned a B.A. in political science from The Pennsylvania State University in 1980 and a Masters of Business Administration from the University of Pittsburgh in 1981; during his time at Penn State, he joined the Tau Epsilon Phi fraternity. Five years later, Santorum received a law degree from the Dickinson School of Law, was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar, and began practicing in Pittsburgh. During his time at the law firm Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, he represented the World Wrestling Federation, arguing that professional wrestling should be exempt from federal anabolic steroid regulations because it was not a sport. Santorum left private practice after being elected to the House in 1990.

        May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. George Carlin

        by msmacgyver on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 12:12:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't want to make him an altar boy (0+ / 0-)

          fundie church actually was a step up.

          "OCCUPY WALL STREET and its allied movements around the country are more than a walk in the park. They are most likely the start of a new era in America." Jeffrey Sachs

          by wild hair on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 12:21:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  A shill for corporate religion (10+ / 0-)

      Currently, a lot of money and energy is being spent in Pennsylvania and other states, to get voucher programs through the legislature. In particular, the voucher programs will be eligible for use at religious schools.

      Also remember that Pennsylvania was the focal point of argument over creationism being taught in public schools.

      The religion business wants access to children before they learn to think critically and question sources and support decisions with knowledge. They want to teach children to use belief instead of knowledge.

      Once you teach a child or adult to ignore knowledge and use belief, you can tell them what to believe, what decisions to make, even make decisions for them.

      The process is all too simple and specially easy with a child or a grossly under developed adult. Imagine this. Believe this. Do this. Do not seek knowledge.

      But, the process can only begin with a person who will let the business use their imagination.

      Deal With It When You Die Steven R. Brungard 1 E Manor Ave Rear Enola, PA, 17025 US 717 732 7222 steve@religion-of-one.org

      by stevenb on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 12:08:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks (6+ / 0-)

      Hunter - thanks for this very informative article.  You've given us some very useful arguments to use against the "Creationism" zealots we encounter in our day to day lives.

      There are a lot of ways to succeed, but one sure way to fail is to quit.

      by jedennis on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 01:51:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Santorum will be the nominee (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, samddobermann

      He's campaigned in every county in Iowa.  The Republican base loves him as much as you hate him.  If Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich can win, why not Rick Santorum?  I absolutely see no reason for your blithe dismissal of his chances.

      Also, when Hunter wrote, "The effect is of a whiny adolescent know-it-all who is eternally peeved that society isn't recognizing his obvious superiority," I just knew I had to comment.  Something about that sentence spoke to me.  My ears were burning.  :-)

      Agree? Disagree? Feel like throwing a pie at me? Give a buck to wikipedia and let 'er fly! I'm game! :-P

      by Tommy Allen on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:46:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Consider... (0+ / 0-)

        "My ears were burning."

        The Republican play would be to use either gasoline or a stick of dynamite to stop your ears from burning.

        The Democratic play would be to hold a weeks worth of committee meetings about the burning ears, then give in to the Republicans with a light suggestion to use the dynamite because it's quicker.

  •  Did you say (12+ / 0-)

    Santorum?

    Jihad!

    Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.

    by Horace Boothroyd III on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:04:02 AM PST

  •  He is just SUCH a (7+ / 0-)

    Dumbass.

    Santorm.  Google it!

    Three be the things I shall never attain: Envy, Content, and sufficient champagne. --Dorothy Parker

    by M Sullivan on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:06:02 AM PST

  •  He has a 3-year old daughter (44+ / 0-)

    with a terminal illness. He acknowledges that she will die young, but when asked why he continues to be on the road 24/7 campaigning for president as opposed to spending time with her, his answer is that he owes it to her to lead America, something like that. Just disgusting.

    •  He could always postpone his leadership efforts (11+ / 0-)

      ... on her behalf.  As a parent, just saying that's what comes to my mind.

      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:21:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It might be that his faith tells him (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DrJohnB, Matt Z, lovelylight

      he will meet her the next perfect life and so her time here, though short and difficult, is nothing compared to the service of his faith which will allow them to rejoin in his faith's eternal paradise. It's very sad for her in this life though. And since we've yet to prove there is an afterlife of any sort (faith, belief, and wishful thinking aside), she's missing out on his love and attention here and now. He may also be avoiding the pain of eventually losing her by hiding in his campaign and his faith.

      No so disgusting as sad... very sad no matter how you slice it.

      •  We've actually proven that there is (0+ / 0-)

        no afterlife. Scientifically, consciousness is rooted (somehow) in the brain. When the brain dies, consciousness is forever lost. Any counter to this is rooted in mysticism, or in the least non-scientific wishful thinking.  

        •  Einstein... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TofG

          ...believed in an afterlife.  He stated that energy can be neither created nor destroyed.  It can only change forms.

          •  No, he never said he believed in (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            skrekk, samddobermann

            an afterlife. Not in anything I've ever read. He believed in some supreme being. Possibly. He never went to any organized religious services, and certainly believed in no religion. If you think he believed in an afterlife, provide a link.

            And the conservation of energy existed before Einstein was even born, and like all physicists he subscribed to it. It has nothing to do with an afterlife, of course.

            •  Besides for the most part Jews (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              doc2

              don't believe in an afterlife. It would not have been part of his upbringing.

              I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

              by samddobermann on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 07:30:05 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  what?! Are you serious? He's got a dying 3 year (16+ / 0-)

      old?

      OMG.

      Wow. So...wife is at home watching their child die while he's out miserably losing a bid for the GOP nomination?

      Wow. I'm speechless.

      I've become re-radicalized. Thanks a lot you bunch of oligarchical fascist sons-of-bitches. But once again, I have no choice. Bring it the fuck on.

      by mdmslle on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:48:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Look up the concession speech pic from 2006. (5+ / 0-)

        He trotted his whole sorry brood up on stage. The kids look horrified, and one little girl is crying her eyes out. That's family values, tm, right there.

        How many divisions does OWS have?

        by Diebold Hacker on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:25:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Even more f**ked up (11+ / 0-)

          is when his wife had a miscarriage (or the baby died shortly after being born). They brought the dead child home with them and let the other kids hold it & play with it. I can understand having a religious service or a wake but bringing it home for the kids to play with? That's just fucking creepy!

          A village can not reorganize village life to suit the village idiot.

          by METAL TREK on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:34:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What!?!?!!! nt (6+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            msmacgyver, mon, wxorknot, Matt Z, BluejayRN, Debby

            I've become re-radicalized. Thanks a lot you bunch of oligarchical fascist sons-of-bitches. But once again, I have no choice. Bring it the fuck on.

            by mdmslle on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 12:23:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Karen Santorum describes the incident (7+ / 0-)

              in her book.  IMO, this entire family is in desperate need of professional help.

              Wiki entry:

              In 1996, their son Gabriel Michael was born prematurely and lived for only two hours (a sonogram taken before Gabriel was born revealed that his posterior urethral valve was closed and that the prognosis for his survival was therefore poor). While pregnant, Karen Santorum developed a life-threatening intrauterine infection and a fever that reached nearly 105 degrees. She went into labor when she was 20 weeks pregnant and allowed doctors to give her Oxytocin to speed the birth.

              Karen Santorum wrote a book about the experience: Letters to Gabriel: The True Story of Gabriel Michael Santorum. In it, she writes that the couple brought the deceased infant home from the hospital and introduced the dead child to their living children as "your brother Gabriel" and slept with the body overnight before returning it to the hospital. The anecdote was also written about by Michael Sokolove in a 2005 New York Times Magazine story on Santorum.

              May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. George Carlin

              by msmacgyver on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 12:28:49 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Jeezus-fucking-shit. nt (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                msmacgyver, Matt Z

                I've become re-radicalized. Thanks a lot you bunch of oligarchical fascist sons-of-bitches. But once again, I have no choice. Bring it the fuck on.

                by mdmslle on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:00:58 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Those kids are fucked for life. (5+ / 0-)

                Im wondering: just fucking what they said to those other young children when they carted the dead baby home? I can only imagine the sickening shit they said. And how those kids must now feel about god, their own life, the future. Jesus fuck this is sick.

                Then, what, they slept with the baby too? Seriously this is just beyond imaginable. Just inconceivable. Who could even think up something so bizarre? Jeezus.

                I've become re-radicalized. Thanks a lot you bunch of oligarchical fascist sons-of-bitches. But once again, I have no choice. Bring it the fuck on.

                by mdmslle on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:07:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  And yet, Santorum continues to hit the (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mdmslle, wxorknot, samddobermann

                  road with his doomed presidential campaign.

                  Wiki entry:

                  Santorum and his wife, Karen Garver Santorum, have seven children: Elizabeth Anne (born 1991); Richard John ("Johnny"), Jr. (born 1993); Daniel James (born 1995); Sarah Maria (born 1998); Peter Kenneth (born 1999); Patrick Francis (born 2001); and Isabella "Bella" Maria (born 2008). Bella was subsequently diagnosed with Trisomy 18, a serious genetic disorder which is fatal before birth in 90 per cent of cases.

                  Santorum is not only a dangerous zealot, he is also, IMO, an abusive and negligent parent.

                  May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. George Carlin

                  by msmacgyver on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:17:21 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Difficult to comprehend (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    msmacgyver, GDbot, samddobermann

                    what this was like for the children.

                    Damn, forget for a moment, they (Rick & Karen Santorum) brought home a deceased baby. This baby was premature. Right?
                    In fact, nearly 20 weeks premature as Karen Santorum had  labor induced at the 20th week.

                    A deceased baby that had only 20 weeks to develop is brought home and introduced to your children. Then, if all that was not enough, they kept the dead baby home overnight and returned it the next day to the hospital.

                    Morbid is the first thing that comes to mind when I think what was pepetrated on these kids.

                    Although more than a few years have passed since this horror; the one thing that should not pass is the act of cruelty subjected on the children.

                    I do not subscribe to any religion and do not pray. Perhaps I should at the very least start paraying for Jesus to protect my family and fellow humans from Christian zealots like Santorum.

                    "We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Louis Brandeis

                    by wxorknot on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 03:56:58 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm not a religious person either and (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      wxorknot

                      certainly not a Bible scholar, but I doubt that there is a religious/Catholic precedent for this bizarre and gruesome act.

                      I also agree that the children in this family were subjected to emotional abuse and a kind of cruelty which is hard to put in words.

                      If Santorum had not been in a position to commit this potentially unlawful act of removing the remains from the hospital, my guess is that hospital administrators would have called the cops and/or a social worker.

                      May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. George Carlin

                      by msmacgyver on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 04:21:02 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  unfortunately fertile. n/t (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

                    by samddobermann on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 07:33:00 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Idiosyncrasies? (6+ / 0-)

                Hell, we all have them. Some more so than others, it's a given.

                In it, she writes that the couple brought the deceased infant home from the hospital and introduced the dead child to their living children as "your brother Gabriel" and slept with the body overnight before returning it to the hospital.
                This, on the other hand crosses into a territory so alien, the script reads like a scene from a horror film.

                Something is way wrong here. A genuine WTF moment to be sure.

                "We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Louis Brandeis

                by wxorknot on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:12:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, so very wrong... (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mdmslle, wxorknot, Laconic Lib, Matt Z

                  The first time I read this some time ago, I wondered how in the hell they were permitted to leave the hospital with the remains of their son.

                  As I said, this entire family needs professional help and Rick Santorum needs to take responsibility for the welfare of his family.

                  May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. George Carlin

                  by msmacgyver on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:21:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I have always wondered about the ages of the (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    msmacgyver

                    children that were exposed to that.  It is hard enough for parents (most adults) to come to grips with a premature birth and death, but to impose that burden on your other young children is something that just shouldn't be done.  Little kids just don't understand.

                    This whole thing just makes me ill.

                    "If you're in trouble, or hurt or need - go to the poor people. They're the only ones that'll help - the only ones." John Steinbeck

                    by BluejayRN on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 05:21:07 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The Santorums have a young (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      BluejayRN, samddobermann

                      daugher with a terminal illness and Santorum has made comments about his decision to run for president at this time.

                      This is a link (reposted) to today's interview (vid) with Amanpour about the issue:

                      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

                      The linked article also includes an excerpt from a WaPo story about his appearance in October at a RW event where he says that he wants to run for president because he believes that socialized medicine would not cover the medical expenses of the daughter who is now dying.

                      Santorum is a truly disturbed man who appears to be unable to face his responsibilities as a parent.

                      May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. George Carlin

                      by msmacgyver on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 07:18:59 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Exactly! That's it! Horror film. Bingo! nt (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  wxorknot, msmacgyver, Matt Z

                  I've become re-radicalized. Thanks a lot you bunch of oligarchical fascist sons-of-bitches. But once again, I have no choice. Bring it the fuck on.

                  by mdmslle on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:30:01 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  He and his wife slept with it. n/t (0+ / 0-)

            I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

            by samddobermann on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 07:31:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  He may need the money. I'm guessing he's not (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      msmacgyver

      really qualified for an actual job, so he's got to go out and give speeches, etc.
      I don't suppose he could steer political donations to her care, but he can get paid to give speeches.

      •  Yes, it could be for the money, but (0+ / 0-)

        he is a lawyer which last time I checked, is a fairly lucrative profession.

        May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. George Carlin

        by msmacgyver on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 04:40:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lucrative? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          msmacgyver

          Only if you're competent. I suspect he may be as incompetent in that as he appears to be in anything else.

          FOSI: Full Of Shit Information - Both my sister and I are trivia freaks...

          by Spoc42 on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 06:34:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You could be right but he does appear (0+ / 0-)

            to have a day job and will probably go back to Fox.

            Wiki entry:

            In March 2007, Santorum joined the law firm Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. He practiced law in the firm’s Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C., offices, where he provided business and strategic counseling services to the firm's clients. In addition to his work with the firm, Santorum has served as a Senior Fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., and was a contributor to Fox News Channel.

            His wife, Karen, is also a practicing attorney with an office in Herndon, VA.

            May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. George Carlin

            by msmacgyver on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 07:12:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  You are shitting me (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      msmacgyver, Matt Z, doc2

      I am very sorry for the family on many levels.

      Social media consultant for small and local business MoLoSo

      by Bionic on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:50:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Vid from today's interview with (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doc2

      Amanpour:

      Rick Santorum talks about his Daughter, Bella

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      There is also an excerpt from Washington Post article re his October appearance at a RW event.  He is quoted as justifying his campaign because of...the possibility of socialized medicine/Obamacare which would not provide medical care for his daughter.

      There really is no limit to this man's disgusting self promotion.

      May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. George Carlin

      by msmacgyver on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 04:38:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  But see, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Spoc42, samddobermann

      that child has already been born so it doesn't merit the attention a fetus would get.

      Twenty years from now, you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. Throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. --Mark Twain

      by Debby on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 08:20:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  BWAHAHAHAHA! (24+ / 0-)
    the perfect Conservative Religious Whiny Emo Teenage Mutant Candidate

    Good thing I'd just swallowed my drink before I read that, or my screen and keyboard would be wearing Diet Coke right now.

    "When gratitude replaces judgment, peace spreads through your body, gentleness embraces your soul, wisdom fills your mind." - Neale Donald Walsch

    by Cinnamon on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:09:00 AM PST

  •  Here's the funniest thing about Santorum: (49+ / 0-)

    He's Catholic.  The Catholic  Church accepts evolution and teaches it in parochial schools.  The Church (unlike other Christian sects) does not endorse creationsim.  So.  You want to get this dick-wad in REAL trouble?  Call the vatican on him!  Oh God, wouldn't THAT irony be delicious.

    "You can't make up bullshit and call that a law. This isn't Texas."--Sid Hatfield

    by Ron Ebest on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:09:09 AM PST

  •  Is the guy next to him (7+ / 0-)

    actually writing all this down? If so, what a stupendous waste of time!  I hope he's catching up on his email and just nodding to make Mr. Frothy think that he's taking it down.

  •  Jeebus (35+ / 0-)

    Okay. I'm a bit hungover this morning so maybe I'm way off base here but....

    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.

    Does this make anyone else dizzy? Get a little headache?

    Again, it could be the hangover talking. I know it's English. I recognize the words. But try as I might to make sense of that, I'm just dizzy.

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:10:50 AM PST

  •  I'm devastated! How dare you try to (14+ / 0-)

    debunk the myth that pandas have magical superpowers that only manifest themselves when nobody is looking!

  •  Creationism should be taught in all its forms (13+ / 0-)

    in a comparative religions course. Or just go out and buy Joseph Campbell's The Power of Myth. Scientic theories like evolution should be taught in science courses. Santorum and those of his ilk notwithstanding, these two things cannot be conflated.

    •  I think we should teach religion in science (0+ / 0-)

      After all, science is about putting testable hypotheses out there and then rejecting those without support.  I think it would be lovely to do that with creationism.  For example, if god designed everything, then the. We've from you brain to your larynx should run straight down you neck.  Evidence shows that it actually runs around the aorta (because both are modified gill arches).  Ergo creationism and the religion rode in on are demonstrated to be false.  

      Intelligent, passionate, perceptive people will always disagree, but we should not let that disagreement, however heartfelt, lead us to become deaf to those better angels of our nature.

      by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 01:39:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  And this is why our education system sucks (16+ / 0-)
    We do not teach... that one of the organs you will find in a dissected frog is a tiny Taco Bell.
  •  I like 98, 99, "God." Also "angels hugging" (9+ / 0-)

    as the alternative to what can only be called "magnetic theory." And I personally have found tiny Taco Bells inside of dissected frogs. Tiny aliens riding around in go-carts is certainly more understandable to my pea-sized brain than this "electrons" hogwash.

    And quit googling my name! It DOES NOT mean something dirty.

    A keeper of the faith,
    R. Santorum

  •  People (8+ / 0-)

    who want us ruled over by kings, witch-doctors, prophets, sages, reincarnated deities, religious or ancient texts don't know what science is either, and would rather no one knew.

    Empathy without ethics is a hole.

    by Maori on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:21:07 AM PST

  •  So much intellectual dishonesty (18+ / 0-)
    Well maybe the science points to the fact that maybe science doesn’t explain all these things.
    underlies this statement.

    Whenever fundamentalists say something like this, you just know they are talking about the "fact" that a missing link has not been discovered in the fossil record, or the "fact" that the eye could not possibly have evolved without an intelligent designer, or the "fact" that many scientists disagree with some of Darwin's hypotheses.

    They reach back 50, 80, 100 years or more to find controversy, and bring that forward as evidence for their beliefs. They think it is somehow BREAKING NEWS because they just read it in one of their favorite publications, or heard it on FOX or some AM Radio squawker.

    Santorum couldn't name a current issue where "science doesn't explain" some particular thing because he is not up to date. His idea of scientific controversy is whether choleric humour is ameliorated by leeching or not.

    "The problems of incompetent, corrupt, corporatist government are incompetence, corruption and corporatism, not government." Jerome a Paris

    by Orinoco on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:21:43 AM PST

    •  But can there be intellectual dishonesty in the (17+ / 0-)

      absence of intellect?

      That's actually not just a snarky question, it's a real one. Listening to Santorum, one gets the impression that he is not being cynically dishonest (although that of course is always more than possible), but rather that this is a profoundly small-minded individual, in the literal sense of the word. His brain is utterly incapable of wrapping itself around formulations that require anything other than simplistic, magical explanations that provide a world view that an average salamander could understand.

      "But there is so much more to do." - Barack Obama, Nov. 4, 2008

      by flitedocnm on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:27:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  As hunter said, intellectual laziness. . . (9+ / 0-)

        and a lack of intellectual curiousity.

        Scientists can easily admit it when they don't know. That leads to setting up a series of hypotheses and testing them.

        Fundamentalists on the other hand cop out when they bump up against something that they don't know. They then say because it's unknown and hard to figure out, it's proof of God. They also have trouble acknowledging that they don't know something. They have to have a ready answer for eveything. Again as hunter said, adolescent know-it-alls.

        •  Science minded folk don't mind (12+ / 0-)

          not knowing something.  It's perfectly ok to admit that we don't know the answers to the "big" questions like what happens after we die.  
          Fundamentalists are so fear ridden that they can't live with that type of uncertainty.  They must have an answer.  They can't deal with anxiety.  They failed the developmental milestone of "self-soothing" that the rest of us got as infants.  

          I was wise enough to never grow up while fooling most people into believing I had. - Margaret Mead

          by fayea on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:18:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I honestly believe a 'God' gene exists (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fayea, GDbot, Matt Z

            and I don't have it.  I'm waiting for science to prove it one way or another.  But I still BELIEVE it and that's enough for me.  Aptly and succinctly summed up by the bumper sticker I see around here...'God said it, I believe it, that ends it'.

        •  Exactly: (9+ / 0-)
          Scientists can easily admit it when they don't know. That leads to setting up a series of hypotheses and testing them.

          Science says, "We don't know, so let's watch and see what happens." Religion says, "We already know, and anyone who says otherwise is a threat to our power structure."

          "A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself." - Joseph Pulitzer

          by CFAmick on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 12:55:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Can we reclaim the word hypothesis, please? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WiddieDawg

          What Santorum is advocating, if he could express a thought clearly, is that we put guessing into the science class.  

          There is a difference between a guess and a hypothesis.  If I'm out in nature and I look at a flower, I can guess that it comes from God, or I can guess that if has something to do with the plants reproduction.  It's totally okay to make either guess.  Guessing may lead to science, but it's not yet part of the Scientific Method.  Until I am able to design an experiment to test my guess, it may not be called a hypothesis.  

          I would think that framing the conversation around these semantics would save some time in explaining to the Santorums of the world why faith is not part of science.

          •  Yes, we should reclaim the language. (0+ / 0-)

            It is really tiresome to have to deal with all of the ways that words have been co-opted.

            But testing hypotheses takes thought and time. It's easier to just give it all to God.

            I've always been puzzled by fundamentalists' sense of peace. But I think that is the beauty of it for them - they don't have to think, or puzzle, or wonder, or figure anything out. Hunter had a recent diary in which he bemoaned the laziness.

            Reminds me of that wonderful Tom Stoppard dialogue in Shakespeare in Love,

            Philip Henslowe: Mr. Fennyman, allow me to explain about the theatre business. The natural condition is one of insurmountable obstacles on the road to imminent disaster.
             Hugh Fennyman: So what do we do?
            Philip Henslowe: Nothing. Strangely enough, it all turns out well.
            Hugh Fennyman: How?
            Philip Henslowe: I don't know. It's a mystery.
      •  Dishonesty doesn't imply cynicism (6+ / 0-)

        I assume Santorum is more than sound bites and YouTube clips. That he has a life outside the public eye, and that life proceeds pretty much like anyone's. He puts his pants on one leg at a time, he reads the morning paper, and so on.  

        Santorum has not got a cognitive development deficiency, so his intellect is not questioned. His profound small mindedness has, at some point in his life, been challenged by someone providing actual facts.

        His brain is capable of wrapping itself around complex thought, but he chooses to reject such thought for his simple "god did it and that's good enough for me" explanations for everything he didn't understand when he was six years old.  

        His rejection of thought is what I call dishonest. An honest but intellectually lazy person would say, "oh, I can't be bothered to think about that," and an honest but intellectually incurious one would say, "I don't think that is worth questioning." Santorum says neither of these things, so I rule them out.

        Intellectual dishonesty remains.

        "The problems of incompetent, corrupt, corporatist government are incompetence, corruption and corporatism, not government." Jerome a Paris

        by Orinoco on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:59:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  God in the gaps (9+ / 0-)

      Fundamentalists love to point to unexplained, or unexplored phenomena and claim that as proof that God did it. A hole in the fossil record? Great, it means that God did it. Wait you found a linking fossil between two previously known ones? Even better that means that now we've got two gaps.

      200 years ago mental illness was attributed to "demons" or "possession" because we didn't have the tools to figure out what was going on. Now if someone is behaving erratically we can perform actual tests, compare those tests to known baselines and come up with an actual diagnosis. We don't have to rely on emotive rationalism to fix what is essentially an empirical problem.

      This forward momentum scares the crap out of fundamentalists because it flies in the face of their argument which is essentially; stop finding stuff out, you're ruining our racket.

      •  Each discovered missing link (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        Actually creates two new missing links as transition s to the new discovery

        Intelligent, passionate, perceptive people will always disagree, but we should not let that disagreement, however heartfelt, lead us to become deaf to those better angels of our nature.

        by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 01:41:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I don't like it either (18+ / 0-)

    But Rick Santorum's contempt for science is more popular with the US electorate than the position that most Kossacks hold.

    We are a profoundly ignorant country.

  •  several years ago (33+ / 0-)

    reviewing santorum's book, the philly inquirer perfectly summarized him: "one of the great minds of the thirteenth century."

    48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam (The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers)

    by Laurence Lewis on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:23:36 AM PST

  •  he's so ignorant & dishonest (12+ / 0-)

    seems to be totally unaware of how corrupted he is by this pernicious "science stuff." he eats it, breathes it & wears it every day.
    thing is; science does not claim to explain that which it doesn't understand. it tries to understand it. whereas religion claims to explain everything, especially that which it doesn't understand.

    Who cares what banks may fail in Yonkers. Long as you've got a kiss that conquers.

    by rasbobbo on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:24:14 AM PST

  •  And why bother to try to solve the problems that (8+ / 0-)

    face the country if it's all the way God wants it.  When he makes promises during his run for office, he's either saying he's going to change the way things are, which is the way God made them... that's got to be bad.

    Or maybe God wants the change to come, in which case it doesn't matter if Santorum or Louis CK is running the country - it's going to happen because that's what God wants, not because that's what the president declares.

    What a simple minded twit.

  •  There's a valid reason to deny science ! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, DrJohnB, GDbot, Matt Z, Spoc42

    the wacko right-wingnuts are fearful scientists will discover the "Republican Gene" and modify it to produce progeny with left-leaning political thought processes and ... worst of all, to include triple digit IQs. ;)

    *Austerity is the opposite of Prosperity*

    by josmndsn on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:25:59 AM PST

    •  Worse than that (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mdmslle, josmndsn, myboo, Matt Z

      people who understand science and and deductive process might turn that harsh light on the practices of the witch doctors. Those feeble minds keep the lights on and the bank accounts full at the mega-churches.

      Fewer sops, fewer donors. If that happens these hucksters might have to go be actual productive members of society.

    •  well that might not help (0+ / 0-)

      Because then scientists will just be vilified as tools of the 1% instead of being the servants of Satan

      Intelligent, passionate, perceptive people will always disagree, but we should not let that disagreement, however heartfelt, lead us to become deaf to those better angels of our nature.

      by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:17:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  religion in schools (7+ / 0-)

    This is one of the major drawbacks of not teaching about religion in public schools. It leaves this huge gap in people's brains where critical thinking about faith and practice should be. The irony is, of course, that if a school district did decide to offer a "world religions" curriculum, the various religious groups in the country could never come to agreement about what should be taught in the classes!
    I would love to see a true "religion" curriculum offered in middle and high schools across the country. If we teach ancient history without discussion of religion, then we're missing hugely important features of those societies. If we teach the Renaissance without religion, we are not actually teaching viable history. If we discuss the 20th century Middle East without religion, we can't make a reasonable analysis. (Of course, if we discuss the Middle East and ONLY put it in the context of religion, then we're misleading ourselves and our students as well.)
    If we teach European colonialism or the US in the 19th century, or the political history of the 20th century without discussing religion, then we're only teaching part of the picture.
    Why is it that there are huge numbers of people in the US who don't have a clue about Islam (let alone Hinduism or State Shinto or Santeria or the many other religions that are practiced around the world)?
    It's because we're afraid to mention the word religion in a public school.
    Hunter is, of course, correct that religion is not science and should not be taught in biology classes. But we are making a huge mistake by not teaching about religion to the general public.

    •  My very best teacher in high school, on his own, (10+ / 0-)

      in his ninth grade "social studies" class, developed a superb mini-course on comparative religions. It was, for me at the time, absolutely fascinating and eye-opening. And not in any of the textbooks we were given. Without his ever having to say as much, it gave us as very young students a basis for understanding how humans have developed religion as a way of dealing with the often complex and frightening realities of existence, and providing a sometimes inflexible framework for our societies.

      Of course, that was many decades ago. That teacher would likely be summarily fired today.

      Hunter -- you always write superb and thoughtful essays. This was another of them. Always much appreciated.

      "But there is so much more to do." - Barack Obama, Nov. 4, 2008

      by flitedocnm on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:46:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We got part of it in Latin classes. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      msmacgyver, Matt Z

      Nothing motivates a kid more to learn Latin than getting to read about giant phallic statues in gardens, lares and penates, and Vestal Virgins...

    •  Many on the religious right hate comp. relig. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bionic, PSzymeczek, lurkyloo, Debby

      Because it suggests that one can be neutral in discussing the various organized belief systems.  Santorum and his ilk does not want children to learn about Buddhist reincarnation or Islamic political thought.

      As General Boykin (ret., thankfully) said, "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."  The religious right doesn't care for instruction on the ins and outs of idol worship.  There really is no kumbayah meeting point here.

    •  Let the religions compete (0+ / 0-)

      I agree on principle. But religion is a business. It must be taught as a business and not as what belief choices a person has that can resolve the yet unknown with belief.

      Teaching a child about all the businesses that were formed to take advantage of the fact that many things about this universe and even about ourselves are not yet known and that some things might remain unknowable; that would be the correct approach.

      The point being that belief cannot be used to supplant knowledge and that acting under someone else's belief makes you a subordinate of that person. Ordinary, albeit cunning, persons invented all these belief systems. Each person is equally qualified to build their own.

      This is a roundabout way of teaching the importance of supporting a decision with knowledge. But many want to teach children to ignore knowledge and use belief instead. I want children to learn that imagination and belief are tools that can be used to acquire knowledge and that they should not allow another person to use them. Entertainment, maybe okay. Education, test the material. Candy from a stranger...

      Deal With It When You Die Steven R. Brungard 1 E Manor Ave Rear Enola, PA, 17025 US 717 732 7222 steve@religion-of-one.org

      by stevenb on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 12:45:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I teach religion to seventh-graders. (0+ / 0-)

      It's even in their social studies textbook.  There is no ban on teaching religion in school.  Teachers, as agents of the government, must avoid condemning or condoning a religion.  Otherwise we're good to go.  

      What's more, students have almost all their first amendment rights regarding discussing religion in school.  

      It should be noted that I'm now teaching at a school with many right wing families, and many of them thought they weren't allowed to talk about religion in school.  Frankly, I think that saying we aren't allowed to talk about religion in school is a right-wing talking point.  

  •  Science teacher AND Christian, here. Oh, (21+ / 0-)

    and I live in the same district as the Creation Museum.  :)

    I really don't understand how other Christians can't see that science is a way to further appreciate the wonder of God's creation.  

    This whole bit about the Bible having to be literal fact in every word OR it's all a lie ... is just symptomatic of the larger, massive either - or mindset that seems to have taken hold of a significant portion of our nation. IMO

    My favorite part of your post:

    Creationism isn't a defining element of religious faith. It is a defining element of a lazy mind, one for whom even the greatest mysteries of the universe hold no particular luster. If your faith would be lost upon discovery that Adam and Eve were allegorical figures rather than factual ones, that faith hardly seems to run very deep. If you believe the Earth to be 6,000 years old, and believe all other answers to be heresy, that is mere faith by rote.

    Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

    by bkamr on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:29:07 AM PST

  •  Really nice diary. (8+ / 0-)

    An excellent analysis of a type of thinking whose mascot is Santorum. Even to people of faith, Santorum is an embarrassment. The ideology he represents reduces God to the status of a carnival trickster. To those who hold faith and science in equal esteem, to try to understand the universe is to enter into a miracle in a far more majestic and inspiring way than scripture could ever hope to match.

  •  NOW I understand. "Santorum" is Latin for ... (4+ / 0-)
    "Our ignorance is our strength."

    Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

    by TRPChicago on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:33:43 AM PST

  •  He should google it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fayea, Matt Z

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:33:48 AM PST

  •  What's that I hear about the Earth... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TFinSF, PSzymeczek, Nowhere Man, Matt Z

    doing big loops around the sun?

    Sounds silly.

    Don'tcha think? Geocentrism!

    H/T to PZ.

    Dear Ayn Rand fans: Please, would each of you just go all John Galt, immediately? Thank you.

    by CitizenJoe on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:35:44 AM PST

    •  I had an elementary school teacher once (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      who was so bad that she hadn't even made it to the sun-goes-around-the-earth stage.

      If she were alive today, she'd think Sarah Palin is a Communist.

      The thing about quotes on the internet is you cannot confirm their validity. ~Abraham Lincoln

      by raboof on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:44:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Anyone know a good oral/maxillofacial surgeon? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pwn3rship society, Matt Z, Debby

      My jaw just broke.

      Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

      by Nowhere Man on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 12:17:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You think you've got it bad? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nowhere Man

        My head exploded!

        Twenty years from now, you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. Throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. --Mark Twain

        by Debby on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 08:49:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Amazing, isn't it? (0+ / 0-)

        And it's no Poe.

        I honestly believe that, if you got the chance, you'd find that some of the current Republican candidates are ignorant of this little factoid about how the world is arranged.

        Joe

        Dear Ayn Rand fans: Please, would each of you just go all John Galt, immediately? Thank you.

        by CitizenJoe on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 06:34:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Er, wot? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib
    There is no particular reason why science and faith cannot coexist.

    Yes, god will always be able to hide in the gaps, no matter how small they get, because there will always be gaps.

    So what? There is very little for god to do, since she/he/it didn't create you, me or anything else on the planet. Or the Galaxy. Or Universe.

    Also, god doesn't do anything now because: "fee will."

    What's left?

    ----
    Q. Why is Obama like a stalagmite?
    A. One is always in a cave and the other always caves in.

    by Simolean on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:37:53 AM PST

  •  man, fuck these people. (11+ / 0-)

    I am SICK of these people.

    We don't teach Creationism BECAUSE IT ISN'T SCIENCE.

    Creationism belongs in CHURCH (or Mosque or temple, since all three religions share the same damn creation myth! But Muslims and Jews are not trying to force their religious teaching into our public schools and frankly, most of them are not literalists. Idiot fundamentalist Christians are and they poison everything they touch.)

    I really have to ask, do their churches suck THAT BAD that they have to teach this shit everywhere? It's NOT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PROBLEM if students don't attend church.

    [insert pithy sigline here]

    by terrypinder on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:39:57 AM PST

  •  This is the same guy that wanted to gut the NWS (11+ / 0-)

    Keep in mind that this is the same Rick Santorum who, while a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, wanted to privatize the National Weather Service back in 2005, but failed to get a single co-sponsor after it was exposed that Joel Myers, the founder and CEO of AccuWeather, a for-profit corporation that would have benefited from the National Weather Service Duties Act, was one of Santorum's campaign contributors.

    The National Weather Service Duties Act died in committee, and Santorum lost his Senate re-election bid in 2006.

  •  Yes he does. He clearly knows what science is. (0+ / 0-)

    The enemy of his religion. At least deep within his tiny tinny, rusted, smoldering hunk of junk that resides where most others have a functioning brain.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:45:24 AM PST

    •  There is absolutely no reason that people (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lurkyloo, GDbot, Matt Z, Debby

      of faith can't believe in science unless, as you say, they have a "tiny tinny, rusted, smoldering hunk of junk that resides where most others have a functioning brain."

      I know many believers (obviously), but none of them reject science.

      The two aren't related in any way.

      One guides them on how to be the best person they can be.

      The other informs them of the physical world.

      Only complete idiots are incapable of separating the two.

      P.S. I am not a crackpot.

      by BoiseBlue on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:56:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your comment is very rational (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        myboo, GDbot, Matt Z, Debby

        and I agree.  

        Small arguable flaw, the premise, "One Guides them on how to be the best person they can be."  That is what it should be, but the "Santorums" won't see it that way.  They are more interested in how to reform you.

        CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. A. Bierce
        The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell
        "I always distrust people who know so much about what God wants them to do to their fellows." - Susan B. Anthony
        "You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." Anne Lamott

        I think that Republicanism is revealing itself as a personality disorder, not so much an ideology." -- Naomi Klein

        by AllanTBG on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:42:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yup (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AllanTBG, Matt Z, Debby

          Which is why the Santorums of the world are so disgusting.

          I'm an atheist but I don't hate religion. Indeed, some of the people I've admired most in my life truly use religion as a guide on how to live their lives and how to treat other people.

          Sadly, the part about how they treat other people applies to good and bad Christians.

          Some use it to love. Others use it to hate.

          Me? I don't need any spiritual justification for whether I love or hate any particular person or thing. I just do or don't based on the merits.

          I think it's sad that people use religion to justify hate. I think it's equally sad that people need religion to justify love.

          P.S. I am not a crackpot.

          by BoiseBlue on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 12:00:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ambrose is like ambrosia to me... (0+ / 0-)

          Excellent comment, thank you very much...

  •  Hunter, you made my day.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Black Max, BoiseBlue, Matt Z

    Your thinking, analysis and writing are priceless.

    Most of the Republican bench pays lip service to this distorted view of science and scientific method; I guess their assessment of their loyal base is that they're mostly happily and stridently ignorant.  (I can't disagree.) But in private moments, they don't actually believe this tripe, nor do they consider it very important personally.  They only see it as a means to an end. (They are as always willing to take any means to the only end they have interest in, winning elections and fleecing the government (ie, the rest of us in the 0.99 section.))

    But Santorum, more than any other, (OK, only slightly more that Palin or Bachmann) actually believes this shit.  He buys into this abject stupidity and prides himself in it. The others basically have to lie to themselves to go along where Santorum hasn't a clue that he hasn't a clue.

    Reading your piece makes me laugh.

    Thanks !!!

    I think that Republicanism is revealing itself as a personality disorder, not so much an ideology." -- Naomi Klein

    by AllanTBG on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:46:16 AM PST

  •  Huntsman & Romney will never be nominated (8+ / 0-)

    The Mormon church is not against evolution.

    In fact, one of their beliefs is that man will "evolve" into a God and take over his own planet.  Women don't get their own planets.  I think they get their own Nordstrom's Platinum Card or something like that.

    Some rich Mormons that run ski areas actually believe in global warming.  They are subsidizing public transportation, putting up energy-efficient buildings, etc so that the ski areas they own can be open for more than 2 days a year.

    Huntsman, a former resident of very-polluted Beijing, also believes that global warming is real.

  •  It works in math, too. (7+ / 0-)

    2+2=Jesus!

    And you mean to tell me that when I mix bleach and ammonia, it's not God who wreaths my head in chloramine vapor?

    Occupy Wall Street. Occupy Main Street. Occupy everything. Force a tsunami of change on the nation.

    by Black Max on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:48:01 AM PST

  •  A nice diary but, (0+ / 0-)

    you ignore an essential point which is that science and religion share their core motive, understanding the human role in the universe.  When nothing more was known, it was a hypothesis quite in line with Occam's razor that the jerk killed by a lightening bolt had pissed off some supernatural being.  Now such speculations seem pretty ridiculous.

    Here is a very balanced approach to creation science:

    Reporting from Tea Bagger occupied America

    by DrJohnB on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:50:14 AM PST

  •  I'd like to remind (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, GDbot

    Rick Santorum that gravity is also a theory -- so he should go jump off a cliff.

    Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes (modified)

    by Cali Scribe on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:51:38 AM PST

    •  Theory or (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fayea, Cali Scribe, GDbot

      physical law? I thought gravity was a "law", but I have invited people to "float for me" if they don't believe that theory has merit.

      Although I share your dismay at those that say "just" a theory.

      As if theory was not based in scientific principles, with repetitive results.

      lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl) adj. 1. a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

      by Patriot4peace on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:03:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  First, DAYAM Hunter! (6+ / 0-)

    You really rocked this - great diary!

    Second, I love this comment:

    There is no scientific point, however, where "hell if I know" gets chiseled down as the permanent, legitimate final answer to a question.

    Thank you!

    As for Mr. Frothy, he only recognizes his own humanity, and no one else's. I hope he goes back under the rock he crawled out from under very soon. He is a blight on us all.

    Equality. It ain't complicated!

    by SueM1121 on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:51:45 AM PST

  •  I had to hotlist this magnificent post. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BoiseBlue, antboy

    Truly a keeper.

  •  Basic Fascist Framing As Existential Threat (6+ / 0-)

    That's how fascism works - take trivial issues and frame them as existential threats to your supporters. So they have to declare that evolution is the root of all evil and may destroy the world itself. It's not just enough that political opponents are supposedly weak cowardly stupid degenerates, their wrong ideas can destroy the world. It's very dry drunk.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:52:57 AM PST

  •  Santorum is just another ignorance poster child (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries

    of the right like Palin and Bachman.

  •  He must have been asleep,, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fayea

    during his father's "this is shit, this is shinola" speech.

    ",,, the Political whorehouse that is Fox News." Keith Olbermann

    by irate on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:56:18 AM PST

  •  I'll grant this devil his due (0+ / 0-)

    unlike Mitt, who seems to think he can completely erase everything back to Republican hegemony of 2001 - 2006 on his first day, Frothy did say yesterday that there'd be a limit as to what he could do directly as president, deflecting to "setting the tone" instead.

  •  Gonna have to change my screen name (5+ / 0-)

    After reading this article, I need to change my screen name to holyCr_pThatArticleWasImpressive.

    Best ever article on why creationism shouldn't be taught in schools. I'm bookmarking and sharing!

  •  Where the religionists are right (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries

    With regards to evolution, they'll say that science doesn't have the entire answer, that there's gaps in the evidence record, and that there's other possible theories that could be a good fit.

    Sure.  Science is obliged to consider and reconsider itself endlessly.  Take gravity, for instance - it was literally re-invented by Albert Einstein in the beginning of the 20th century, after having remained unchanged for centuries.

    So back to evolution . . . this is what science should do . . .

    Compile all competing viewpoints and consider them on their merits.  Go with the theories that have the best evidence first, and evaluate them exhaustively.

    What is there about this process which Creationists wouldn't like?  I'll tell you what.  Out of some 20-30 schools of world thought, Creationism would be in obvious dead last place with virtually zero evidence.

    The free market is a great thing - we should try it some time. - J. Hightower

    by thenekkidtruth on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:04:02 AM PST

  •  it was not just ego (0+ / 0-)

    I'm sorry but it was very hard to accept that we are moving at many miles per second. It is not obvious at all, and requires insight into inertia and the laws of motion.

  •  A cartoon from a few years ago (6+ / 0-)

    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

    by dhonig on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:08:35 AM PST

  •  Bravo! Bravo! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries

    Clapping my hands till they hurt here. Magnificent and to the point. I'd rec it a thousand times if I could. You said everything that needed to be said.

    When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained. - Mark Twain

    by Late Again on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:15:44 AM PST

  •  Perhaps (6+ / 0-)

    the 'true believers' need further education.  "Theory" does not imply unsubstantiated speculation.

    Theories come about during a scientific process that is both repetitive and demonstrable. (demonstrate-able?)

    Theories unify observations, a theory is not a wild ass guess.

    lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl) adj. 1. a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

    by Patriot4peace on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:15:58 AM PST

  •  I love your characterization of Santobum (3+ / 0-)

    perfect Conservative Religious Whiny Emo Teenage Mutant Candidate.

    Good laugh of the day

    Fear is the Mind Killer

    by boophus on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:16:21 AM PST

  •  We actually don't know how magnets work (4+ / 0-)

    We just know how to model the forces, so maybe it is angel's hugging :).

    •  magnets (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laconic Lib, Va1kyrie

      Electrons orbiting their nuclei are moving charge.  So a magnetic field arises from them.  How strong a field depends on how coupled the orbits are.

      Also, I think one can argue that a magnetic field is an Electric field altered by Relativistic effects:  moving charge vs. stationary charge.

      •  Not terribly helpful TBH (0+ / 0-)

        This in no way explains how object A knows the presence of object B but rather heps to understand why the field exists.  If you built an electromagnet and then turned it on, we could calculate the force exerted on an object in the field but we do not know why the force exists.

        Does a particle pass from A to B?  Is the universe somehow curved by the field?  We truly do not understand it.  People continue to develop and test theories on the topic.  This is very different from heat transfer which is virtually 100% fully understood.

  •  Spectacular (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GDbot, antboy, Debby

    Should be required reading in all science and Saturday/Sunday school classes

    It's amazing what people will do to others in the name of themselves.

    by ABlueKansas on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:21:05 AM PST

  •  I hope he's elected (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries, Matt Z

    Pope Of America.

    It's The SCOTUS, Stupid!

    by kitebro on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:22:47 AM PST

  •  We tried it your way once... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fayea, Matt Z

    Centuries ago we tried it Santorum's way. People were taught to believe that the Earth was the center of the solar system. And God made it such. Along came people like Copernicus who used science to prove that the Sun was at the center of the solar system. And Galileo, lets play him as a school teacher in all this, passed on this scientific theory.

    From Wikipedia..

    In March 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair, the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be "corrected," on the grounds that the supposedly Pythagorean doctrine[97] that the Earth moves and the Sun does not was "false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture."[98] The same decree also prohibited any work that defended the mobility of the Earth or the immobility of the Sun, or that attempted to reconcile these assertions with Scripture.

    On the orders of Pope Paul V, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine ...warned (Galileo) that he could not "hold or defend" the Copernican doctrine.

    In 1633 Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture,"[101] and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.

    I think it is fitting to bring this up to Santorum. That we tried it his way and religion silenced science as heresy. But in today's world of science, we don't silence religion with arrest when it teaches Creationism. But maybe we should just to be fair.

    "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

    by Wynter on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:27:51 AM PST

  •  A well written diary about Science, but.... (5+ / 0-)

    I am not really sure really it captures what people like Rick Santorum think like. While it's very clear that Rick Santorum doesn't understand what science is, I think that nuanced differences between science and religion are lost on him just like the differences in meaning between the words "believe" and "know."  People who believe as devoutly as Rick, "know" that God created the Earth as described literally in bible. While it's a completely delusional point of view, it does explain the twisted logic behind their position. If one considers science is a religion as they do because it teaches kids what to "believe" in, then they demand equal time for their "facts."

    Of course, this is just a hypothesis.  

  •  Wait a second (5+ / 0-)

    Santorum is saying that science proves that science is wrong and therefore God exists? WTF?

    Reminds me of a line from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

    Dear God, I've just proved that you exist. Therefore, I've proven you don't exist.

    15 years old and a proud progressive and Phillies phan.

    by vidanto on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:31:21 AM PST

  •  Gödel (0+ / 0-)

    In a way, his statement evokes Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, which found that in any formal system there are true statements that cannot be proven true within that system. So that's roughly "science points to the fact that maybe science doesn’t explain all these things."

    So a question is are we willing to say that whatever these inaccessible truths are, should we just forget about them because they can't be proven by scientific experiment, or perhaps accept that some other formal system (call it religion) might allow access to those truths?

    •  But science does not rely on "proof" the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sngmama, GDbot

      way that concept is used in mathematics and logic (which is what Gödel was analyzing). In science, all conclusions are provisional, being based on what best explains the currently-known observations in a particular area of study. Technically, it's based on inductive rather than deductive reasoning and the object isn't to discover tautologies; it's to create models that best fit the data. Questions of logical completeness aren't really meaningful here.

      If we (sloppily) say that some scientific conclusion is "proven" what we really mean is that the evidence in favor of that conclusion is so overwhelming that it would take truly extraordinary new findings to make us reject it.

      Banksters are harmful for the same reason neutrinos are harmless: neither are inclined to share what they've got (wealth and energy, respectively)

      by ebohlman on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 03:23:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Look at it this way (0+ / 0-)

        It's said that string theory can't be proven one way or another because there's no possible experiment to adequately test it. But it may be true.

        It's criticized by many as science crossing over into metaphysics.

        Gödel for his part developed a proof of the existence of God, expressed in symbolic logic.

    •  That's not how science works. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tim DeLaney

      Science does not attempt to prove anything true. It attempts to falsify. You start with a null hypothesis. For example, New Drug has no effect on all-cause mortality compared to Old Drug when used to treat Dread Disease.

      You accept the null if the drug trial indeed turns up no discernible difference. You reject the null if data indicate that all-cause mortality is lower (or higher ... adverse effects happen) with New Drug than with Old Drug.

      It's not just semantics. When you reject the null, you are not claiming absolute proof that there is a difference.

      I work in public health. We almost never speak of causes as settled fact. Only as accepted theory, based on extensive data, that is subject to modification if justified by new data.

      Just because you're not a drummer doesn't mean that you don't have to keep time. -- T. Monk

      by susanala on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 06:15:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, particularly in the statistical fields (0+ / 0-)

        ...but consider the experiment that was conducted in 1919 as the first observational test of general relativity:

        The first observational proof of General Relativity   

        “This first observational proof of General Relativity sent shockwaves through the scientific establishment,” said Professor Ferreira. “It changed the goalposts for physics.”

        There is no statistical analysis there. The result wan't that the null hypothesis was rejected at p < .05. They simply looked for the predicted effect and measured it, within the limits of their instruments.

    •  That's fine. But that other formal (0+ / 0-)

      system needs its own place of teaching. It should not be in science classes.

      I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

      by samddobermann on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 08:10:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Geez, Hunter, stop writing articles like these (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mayfly, Matt Z, antboy

    My Hotlist is filling up faster than you can say "Dang, Hunter's good."

    15 years old and a proud progressive and Phillies phan.

    by vidanto on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:37:20 AM PST

  •  Hate to nitpick, but (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mayfly, Laconic Lib

    this is not true:

    There was once a time when all of Europe thought the sun revolved around the earth. The logic behind this was ego, and nothing else: Hey, we rock so much here on earth it's just not possible for the universe to not literally revolve around us.

    The evidence of people's own eyes supported this view.  (You see the sun come up in the east and "move" across the sky.)  Until Kepler came along with his idea of elliptical orbits, the astronomical record did not support the heliocentric model either. (They had to posit epicycles--little circles sprouting off circles.)

    "I don't want to blame anyone. I just want to know how lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs" --Informed citizen at Congressional town hall

    by Time Waits for no Woman on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:37:32 AM PST

    •  In fact, the sun does revolve around the earth (2+ / 0-)

      it just depends on your point of view. And it was difficult for people to imagine any point of view other than the direct evidence of their senses. It just turned out that it is easier to set up equations if you work from the point of view that you are in the middle of the sun. But nowadays, that wouldn't be good enough: you have to also include galactic rotation and the whole expanding universe thing and other stuff that I have no idea how it works.

      •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

        The Sun, the Earth, and the rest of the Solar System revolve around the system's center of mass.  It's just that the Sun is so very massive compared to the rest of the solar system that the center of mass is close to the Sun's center.

    •  It went beyond the sun and the earth, though (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, GDbot

      It was thought that the entire universe revolved around the earth.  Even if observation suggested it, there was obviously also a degree of hubris involved.  The inability of the church to have a reasonable discussion about the topic also indicates that this went far beyond a simple hypothesis based on observation.

  •  Santorum speaks for the really, really annoying (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries, Matt Z, GDbot

    wing of the GOP.

  •  Western Pennsylvania Conservatism (4+ / 0-)

    The area including southern western Pennsylvania and the lands around Pittsburg and from there to Harrisburg keep electing medieval thinkers.

    Conservatism maps to lower-educated voters.  Liberal thought needs to reach them, for they are not intrinsically bad people, but they are easily manipulated through fear of [educated] others.  Being poor should mean being liberal, but the Republicans long ago figured out how to subvert that, and they need them to stay poor so they can be manipulated.

  •  It is the access to the children. (3+ / 0-)

    The business of religion has been passed down across hundreds of generations because religion has always had access to pre-critical children that are easily inculcated and taught not to seek knowledge but use belief instead.

    Business leaders have always established their own schools so that current inculcates can be encouraged to entrust their children to the business, let the business inculcate their children as they were themselves, being good parents by supporting the business.

    But religion is threatened by public schools. All those pre-critical children being taught to think critically, learning how science goes about working with current knowledge to acquire more knowledge, learning the importance of knowledge, learning not to make a decision without sufficient knowledge to support it. All of those pre-critical children slipping beyond the grasp of the business, all the money and power to be lost.

    In every place and station, wherever a person might be vulnerable to the business of religion, religion will be found. Hospitals, day care centers, schools, false pregnancy clinics, drug rehabilitation programs, addiction programs, homeless shelters, aids programs, sex abstinence programs, all types of human services, social services, charities; every touch point with a human who might be under developed enough, confused enough, hurt enough, forlorn enough, dismayed distressed, depressed, frightened enough to be vulnerable to a seduction by a business recruiter in helpful guise with practiced guile.

    Santorum might seem to be a fumbler but he is fumbling in the right direction so the religion corporations that sponsor him will support him until he is no longer useful..

    Deal With It When You Die Steven R. Brungard 1 E Manor Ave Rear Enola, PA, 17025 US 717 732 7222 steve@religion-of-one.org

    by stevenb on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:53:23 AM PST

  •  While we all may laugh at Santorum... (4+ / 0-)

    ...and despise his ignorance, it would be a mistake to assume that Americans, including Americans on the left have views that are much better than the creationist outlook Santorum evinces.

    On the left we have many similar equivalents in contempt for science, including but not limited to, anti-vaccine types, anti-molecular biology types, and my personal least favorite, anti-nukes.

    These people are often just as faith based as is Santorum.

    People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.  

    There are some real whoppers floating around right here at DailyKos.

    The American contempt for science, right and left is a sure sign of our immanent collapse as a force in the world.

    •  Yeah, anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant (0+ / 0-)

      That includes most international and national energy commissions, most energy experts, etc., etc., etc. -- all those people and institutions that look at all forms of energy as a mix of costs and benefits and conclude that the energy future will therefore be a mix of energy sources with a growing amount of renewables.

      There is only, in fact, one non-ignorant person on the planet, because he and only he, realizes that the world's energy future consists of all nuclear power and absolutely no other form of power (because, eg, wind spews uncountably massive amounts of harmful emissions and collapsing wind turbines kill millions of people a year).

      ROFL!

      •  This is precisely that to which I refer. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bryfry

        We have here all the time people who are completely ignorant of even what constitutes expertise in the energy field representing what people who do know something about the field think.

        QED.

        It is precisely this sort of ignorance, agressive and rude ignorance, coupled with wild assumptions and extreme interpretations that is responsible for - among other things - the concentration of dangerous fossil fuel now approaching 400 ppm in the planetary atmosphere.

        Thanks for reminding me about the depth, breadth and arrogance of ignorance.

        Have a great day.

  •  Logical Thinking... (0+ / 0-)

    ...is rare in this one, I think.

  •  Conservatism relies on belief over facts... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries, Matt Z

    and it relies on people willing to ignore realities, facts, history, or opinions that conflict with what they so firmly believe. What Santorum says about creationism or science reflects what is typical about the republican base: if he believes it then it is not only valid but superior.

    IMHO, the great divide in this country today is between those who rely on their beliefs and those who rely on reason.  Those who rely on beliefs rely on on sources they trust more so than the information.  

    So understand this: various polling shows that between 30% and 40% of American adults BELIEVE in creation science.  Now, not all of them are conservative, but the overwhelming majority of them are.  And Santorum is reinforcing exactly what they want to hear.  

    In this country conservatives have been willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to lie about, obfuscate, and misrepresent facts.  They are willing to manipulate their belivers to generate mistrust, animosity, and hate against those who present facts that are contray to what they want their followers to believe.  And they do it openly as there is little that stands in the way of their messaging, and they are willing to say and do anything to win.  And thanks to Citizens United they are preparing to spend billions more.

  •  God gave us brains, and hearts (4+ / 0-)

    The Santorums of this world don't use either one, and don't want us to use ours.

  •  He says so much yet nothing at all! ? = god? (0+ / 0-)

    I've rarely heard such round about conclusions and that's being mild. I think he needs a good stiff drink a sit by the fire and a New Year's resolution to just shelve the shit, for awhile or Gods please, forever!

  •  Hunter's writing (4+ / 0-)

    I'm not sure if Hunter is the best writer on the site, but he's certainly one of them and certainly the funniest.

    The ending here is instructive and funny: "If he had the smallest chance in hell of becoming president, we would have to take him more seriously, but he doesn't, and so we can freely use his various pronouncements not as telling threats of what a Santorum presidency might entail, but as mere object lessons in how stubborn ignorance is often considered, by ignorant people, to be the same thing as religious conviction."

    And loved "waffle cones."

    Great stuff.  

    •  Agreed, Hunter is one reason I come here (0+ / 0-)

      Hunter's writing is compelling, perfectly paced, and cuts to the quick with wit and aplomb. I'm definitely another fan.

      I don't know if he's done so already, but he really should be writing for a bigger audience (even as big as this site has gotten).

  •  Golly, is that what Rick Santorum looks like? (0+ / 0-)

    I don't think I'd look at him twice if I passed him on the street.

    I am so, so glad I sent my TeeVee mashine to the recyclers. I have enough garbage in my life already. Feh!

    Don't let millionaires steal Social Security.
    I said, "Don't let millionaires steal Social Security!"

    by Leo in NJ on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 12:56:59 PM PST

  •  I always, enjoy reading you, Hunter. You are (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    antboy

    one of the best writers anywhere IMO.  Thank you.

  •  I think you're being a little harsh (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, GDbot, Debby

    on the ancients.  I don't think it was ego that caused them to come up with the idea that the sun revolves around the Earth, but mere observation.  After all, if you follow the path of the sun across the sky (ignoring all other things), that's the obvious explanation.  Also, if one were to attempt to explain the apparent motion of the sun as being due to the rotation of the Earth, one has to explain why we don't feel the Earth moving.  However, the "obvious explanation" reveals its flaws when one tries to fit the motions of the planets.

    Ego entered into the equation when religion took the supposition that the Earth was the center of the universe, and used it to justify the assumption that we are all that God cares about.  The creation of the geocentric theory of the universe did not involve ego, but resistance to letting go of that theory once Copernicus published his heliocentric theory most certainly did involve ego.  Also, the fact that the Church was wrong about the structure of the universe could cause the faithful to wonder what else the Church might be wrong about.  Centuries of Christian dogma were threatened.

    Also, one of the original religious objections to Darwin's idea of evolution by natural selection was to question how a benevolent God could pursue creation by such a brutal process.  An example of an insect laying eggs on a host, and paralyzing the host, so as to allow the emerging larvae to eat the host while it was still alive, horrified Victorians.  How could God tolerate such cruelty in the natural world?  So the crisis in faith caused by the theory of evolution operated on multiple fronts:  First, it contradicted a literal interpretation of Genesis.  Second, it dethroned humans as being some sort of special creation--instead, we're just the result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution, just like every other living thing on the planet.  Third, it threatened the more enlightened religious conception of God as ultimate love and benevolence, since the operation of natural selection was a pitiless and brutal process.

    -5.13,-5.64; Conviction is a greater enemy to truth than lies. -- Nietzsche

    by gizmo59 on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 01:34:12 PM PST

    •  They would rather believe (0+ / 0-)

      that their "God as ultimate love and benevolence" would create "an insect laying eggs on a host, and paralyzing the host, so as to allow the emerging larvae to eat the host while it was still alive?"

      To me that would impel the  religious to accept Darwinian evolution, albeit with special favoritism towards humans.  

      I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

      by samddobermann on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 06:08:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "How church schools brainwash children" (UK, 2004) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    terrypinder, GDbot
    Of all the religious slogans that pushed European liberals into anti-clericalism, the Jesuit boast "Give me the child until the age of seven and I will give you the man" was the most provocative. The impressionable young were to be brain-washed. Superstitions were to be buried so deeply in their minds that they would be beyond the reach of reason when they grew up. What could be sicker than this declaration of intent to engage in intellectual child abuse?
    http://www.newstatesman.com/...

    48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

    by lotlizard on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 01:37:54 PM PST

    •  The Jesuits were the more (0+ / 0-)

      intellectual and appreciative of science than the rest. I doubt that slogan came from them. I do remember hearing it. But the evangelicals sure picked up on it then pushed up the age bar.

      I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

      by samddobermann on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 06:16:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Since the Catholic Church also supports climate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, Debby

    warming research work. It would be interesting (obviously impossible with Donald Trump) to have some debate moderator ask Santorum about this, as the 95% plus scientists convinced of climate change and ridicule of the Kentucky Creationist Museum.

  •  just more evidence that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, GDbot

    Rick Santorum is just too frothy a guy to be POTUS.

    IMO, the only good reason for bothering to diary about  Santorum  is to add to the millions of site links which forever tie his name to the byproduct of anal sex.

    It would be worth it to see him get the GOP nomination (which isn't going to happen) to see what happens when millions of kids in social studies classes all over America are assigned to do reports on  Santorum  and discover a word that hasn't gotten into their sex-ed textbooks yet.

    Peak Oil is NOW! Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

    by alizard on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:37:36 PM PST

  •  Rick, I hate to be the one to break this to you (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GDbot

    but, uh, yeah, there is no Santa Claus. It's just a story that parents tell their kids to trick them into behaving even when there are no parents around to make them.

    Yeah, I know there are presents around the tree on Christmas morning and you can't figure out how to explain how they got there, but um...

    oh forget it. Yes. Santa's elves made that iphone for you.

    I would not be just a nuffin'. My head all full of stuffin'. My heart all full of pain. I would dance and be merry. Life would be a ding-a-derry. If I only had a brain. - Scarecrow

    by Anton Bursch on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:55:59 PM PST

  •  Theory of really stupid design (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GDbot, Debby

    Consider the screwups existing in the natural world, such as the human knee joint. Such stupidities couldn't have just happened. There must have been an incompetent designer, or maybe an incompetent trinity such as the 3 Stooges.

  •  as much fun as it is to (0+ / 0-)

    bash  Santorum  on the basis that he is indeed a fucking idiot, I am not convinced that there are a significant number of politicians in either major political party that could pass a basic science quiz.

    Peak Oil is NOW! Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

    by alizard on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 03:11:16 PM PST

  •  best.anti-creationist.rant.ever (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, GDbot, antboy

    may the Lord baby Jesus bless and keep our Hunter

  •  To this I must add Stephen Greenblatt's new book (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Debby

    'The Swerve - How the World Became Modern'. In it, Greenblatt discusses how the rediscovery of Lucretius' poem DE RERUM NATURA made things modern!

    Check it out.

    Ugh. --UB.

    "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of East Somalia!"

    by unclebucky on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 04:29:44 PM PST

  •  SCIENCE & god (0+ / 0-)

    I've yet to read and enjoy a better explanation and argument as to why we mustinsistthat god be left at the church house and SCIENCE be taught encouragingly and freely!  BEAUTIFUL, Hunter!

  •  WE should not be complacent (0+ / 0-)

    While creationists and Intelligent Design proponents (IDiots for short) have lost every single court battle, they have been quite effective in preventing the teaching of evolutionary science in K-12.

    The reason is that teachers are frequently not willing to put up with the direct and indirect harrassment by parents and community. So they downplay evolutionary theory, or omit it entirely, in their course material.

    The IDiots have quite an effective array of tactics. Dealing with them is much like playing Whack-a-Mole.

    For example, they will get a large state like Texas to pressure their textbook providers to downplay evolution. These watered down textbooke will become the norm, not only for Texas, but for everybody else as well. No textbook company wants to have a Texas edition, a Utah edition, a Minnesota edition, etc.

    So even though they have lost every court battle and every scientific confrontation, the IDiots have had a great deal of practical success. The Santorums of the country have a following of roughly 40% of the country.  25% of the voters will vote for a candidate based on religious fervor alone.

    You won't find a Republican candidate who doesn't pander to the IDiots. At best, they will try to soothe both sides with platitudes and doubletalk. Gingrich is especially good at this; watch him dance through this minefield with nary a scratch, and lock up 25% of the vote doing it.

    And yes, Hunter has done a wonderful job with this diary, but he's preaching to the choir.

    So, don't be complacent. This is going to be tough sledding.

    Occupy is the symptom. Fundamental reform is the cure.

    by Tim DeLaney on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 06:07:23 PM PST

  •  Actually, it's simpler than you think... (0+ / 0-)

    Maybe.. just maybe... 'God did it' has always been one of the hypotheses that were tested in every major scientific advance in the last 200 years, but that particular hypotheses has always been discarded in favor of a more logical, fact-based theory or statement of fact once the scientific method is complete.

    Shorter version - maybe no one is refusing to consider 'God did it' as a valid theory for anything, as Santorum suggests... but maybe it simply fails to pass muster once the experiments and data are collected.

    •  Creationism is especially foolish since evolution (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Debby

      is easily reconciled with religious beliefs. God chose evolution as a mechanism for life to evolve. The only "credible" counter argument would be some Fundamentalists arguing for a literal interpretation of the Bible (Bishop Ussher version).
      Catholics have no problem, as do the majority of Protestant denominations, with science, evolution, etc.

  •  His "reasoning" could have been used at any time (0+ / 0-)

    in history.

    At one time, we didn't understand what lightning was, or what the stars were, or how inheritance (of characteristics) works, or why people get sick, and you can go on and on.

    At any time, we could have just said that the fact that science doesn't know, means science points towards  "god is the answer" and left it at that. If we had, you'd be typing your response to me by candlelight, har har.  

    It is a contemptible, bitterly stupid approach.  

    "The only thing we have to fear - is fear itself." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

    by orrg1 on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 07:29:28 PM PST

  •  Fantastic framing, one alternative idea (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG

    This is what always gets me about the whole evolution-creationist "debate", that there has to be any reason that the two are incompatible for the vast majority of believers out there. Even most fundamentalists draw the line at some things appearing in the Bible as not being literally true (even if they don't admit it publicly).

    One alternative reason for why many of the creationists are so fervent in their efforts to undermine the science: the more that science explains, the less religion is able to stake claim on, making it tougher to pull in believers. The power of being able to say that this religious deity is the reason for so many different specific events in people's lives makes it easier to pull people into a state of belief. Once those things become demystified, then it's one less avenue for the fundamentalists to bring people in. The origins of humans has particular importance for this reason.

    I think many people of faith are not duped, but rather end up at a place of deeper understanding that does not require ignorance of how nature works. But many others do not, and the "miracles" of everyday have a powerful effect on them (and make them more vulnerable to the snake-oil salesmen that prey on the religious).

    Compelling writing Hunter!

  •  This man doesn't even know (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Debby

    his own faith.  The Catholic Church has come to accept evolution with no real quibble.  Conservative Catholic philosophers would take this man apart simply for taking a view more akin to Evangelical or Protestant fundamentalism over the actual views of his own church.  In point of fact, I hope they do.  I would love to see this man trip over phrases like final causality and teleology.  It would be just as entertaining to see the frustration of the people trying to explain it to him.

  •  Let's Make a Deal (0+ / 0-)

    You can come into the classroom and talk about God and creation to the degree that teachers can go into churches and teach about evolution.

    What happened? I didn't know you were such a strong believer in separation of church and state.

  •  And an even simpler refutation of Santorum.... (0+ / 0-)

    Mathematics is, of course, heavily used in the scientific realm but we don't teach math in science classes. That's a separate class, Rick. You see, it is extremely common to break things out into separate categories when we are trying to gain knowledge about something. So when you say you want to have a discussion about whether or not it makes sense that there might be a Creator, well, that is, as you say, a good discussion to have, but a science class isn't the place for it.

  •  Typical Rick Santorum Debate Answer: (0+ / 0-)

    "That would be better explained by a Creator, of course we can’t have that discussion."

  •  Republicans continue to amaze me. (0+ / 0-)

    why they revel so in ignorance and actually take such tremendous pride in it is beyond me----in fact---it's beyond everything.

    "Power is a fleeting thing. One day your souls will be required of you." Bishop Peter Storey---Central Methodist Mission, Johannesburg, June 1981

    by lyvwyr101 on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 09:16:46 AM PST

  •  I know I'm late to this party, Hunter, (0+ / 0-)

    but I feel I have to point out to you that evolution is not, in fact, the only theory, or biology the only branch of science, that the religionists reject. They also reject, at a minimum, various proven tenets of geology and physics.  They have to do this in order to "explain" a 6000 year old Earth/universe.  The 6000 year old earth can't be consistent with geologists' acceptance of Uranium-lead dating (and other similar forms of dating for more recent time periods, the most famous of which is C-14), or physicists' acceptance of Einstein's theory of special relativity (they have to explain away the red-shift observed in distant galaxies, you see).

    This is our time. We can do this. We can change the world.

    by Simian on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 03:46:55 PM PST

Liberal Thinking, greenbird, celdd, elfling, Matilda, Mr Teem, 88kathy, samddobermann, pedrito, sngmama, mollyd, evelette, Redfire, houyhnhnm, samoashark, rlharry, alizard, Black Max, lyvwyr101, Gowrie Gal, Jersey Joe, historys mysteries, BluejayRN, paytheline, david78209, Spoc42, PSzymeczek, Mikado, cfk, rverboat, lotlizard, skrekk, sunbro, murasaki, JanF, Land of Enchantment, Mother Mags, bluestatesam, Orinoco, myboo, profundo, kestrel9000, Patriot4peace, sleipner, greenearth, wild hair, agnostic, unclebucky, antboy, SingerInTheChoir, Friend of the court, AllanTBG, donnamarie, Captain Furious, jeanette0605, Matt Z, deepeco, davehouck, jedennis, ABlueKansas, M Sullivan, on the cusp, TX Freethinker, Dancing Frog, madame damnable, palantir, Mayfly, fayea, lostboyjim, wcrockett, LeftOfYou, maryabein, Remediator, followyourbliss, citisven, collardgreens, smileycreek, TFinSF, clutch1, kjoftherock, Oh Mary Oh, stevenaxelrod, the autonomist, DrJohnB, Bob Duck, Mr MadAsHell, baybelletrist, boophus, pwn3rship society, BarackStarObama, SueM1121, OnePingOnly, bakeneko, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, Porterhouse, Mathazar, Monsieur Georges, Farmer Labor, jacey, nominalize, fallsgus72, Cornbread Maxi, Mindful Nature, ahumbleopinion, Eric Nelson, David54, oldcrow, S F Hippie, investorb, kait, belinda ridgewood, Had Enough Right Wing BS, notdarkyet, wxorknot, Vote4Obamain2012, wasatch, Windowpane, pandaman, Candide08, Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, Illinois IRV, Late Again, sixeight120bpm, Pickwick, Tim DeLaney, Setsuna Mudo, SanFernandoValleyMom, shockratees, darlalalala

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site