Rick Santorum Is STILL Pushing For Creationism In Science Classes

Today, I was reading an article about how presidential candidate Rick Santorum is claiming that: "the "left" and "scientific community" have monopolized the public school system's curriculum, only permitting the teaching and evolution and leaving no room for the introduction of creation-based theories in the classroom." He goes on to say that they are "afraid of that discussion" because they are afraid to "mention 'God' in the classroom, or 'Creator', that there maybe somethings that are in-explainable by nature...where it's better explained by a Creator, and of course we can't have that discussion." For a political party that eerily loves the constitution, you would think they would come up with a better argument to advance that idea. Oh, and yes we have had that discussion. Intelligent design was considered unconstitutional in 2005 by violating the separation of church and state. But, before I destroy this guy's argument, which I kind of did already, let me quote another part of the article :

"It's very interesting that you have a situation where 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, then 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."

Where do I start?

Well, the non-Creator idea of how we got here IS scientific! Science is the system of acquiring knowledge through study and research. That system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomenon. Science is admittedly flawed and can't explain everything but, it explains a lot and is that best tool that we have to describe and explain natural phenomenon. The idea that just because you don't want to except what science can explain because of an ideology you hold, that has always tried to stiffle human curiosity, doesn't mean that it's wrong and doesn't mean you have to also teach children something that isn't actually science!

Aside from the fact that I had to read that quote at least 10 times to even understand what he was trying to say, this shows you why evolution and the big bang theory is taught in school! It's called thinking outside of the box and using empirical evidence to prove your theories, which in that case of evolution, has been done. That theory will stand as fact until a better, more logical explaination has been done through, that's right, you guess it, study and research. Intelligent design, to me and probably the "scientific community", is lazy man's science. It's like saying: "Daddy, what are clouds made of?" "I don't know son, god put them there!" I'm sorry figurative father, but no, God did not put them there. They are water droplets, vapors and ice particles that are suspended in the atmosphere. Want to know where I learned that from? That's right, you guessed it again, 2nd grade science class!

What I can never understand from religiously zealous people is how and why you have to push aside study and research that has been done for hundreds of years, to prove your theology, which is based on myths and legends passed down from generation to generation. I don't want to get into a religious rant, yet, but I can (and probably will) do a whole podcast about the things that various churches have forced their followers to believe through the ages, namely how gay people are heathens who are going to hell and deserve no rights in a "free" country but, catholic priests who molest children are just lost sheep who need our support and prayers. Enough said!

The basis for the argument that Rick brings up is not all for naught.Though his subject has already been deemed unconstitutional, the method in which we should teach our children is a pretty good one. The idea that two sides of a topic should be taught to present different views is actually a pretty good idea and one that I would get sent to detention for in almost all of my history classes. If you knew the Native American side of how this country was taken from them you would maybe view Thanksgiving slightly differently. If slavery was taught from the true slave perspective, then I'm pretty sure you may view our economic roots slightly differently. The list goes on and on. The view that our children need to be presented with a range of ideas in order to promote learning and debates is a really good one, but don't take the minds of children for granted. They and we are capable of making up our own minds, especially when given facts and proof. 

In a time period where we have access to an immeasurable amount of information in the palm of our hands (literally), it's sad and telling that we have presidential candidates who don't understand history, science and one of the most used and debated parts of the constitution. In a country where we are supposed to be free, how can we seriously put money and media attention on aspiring politicians that will take us back to a time and mental state that forcefully and repressively kept us on the ground. I don't know if Rick Santorum knows or not but we landed on the moon, that took science, not intelligent design. But I guess if Rick Santorum or his religious ideology can't explain it, it must be debated!