Connect with us

Santorum: Americans Must Challenge Science — With Biblical Dogma

Published

on

Rick Santorum says that Americans should — but don’t — feel comfortable challenging science, and instead rely on biblical dogma and teachings. Santorum takes two of the most scientifically-settled concepts known to man: evolution and climate change, and says that just because ninety-something percent of the world agrees that both concepts are true and correct, there’s no reason to accept them as fact because here in America, we have our bibles and our faith.

In a Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed titled “The Elephant in the Room: Challenging science dogma,” Santorum writes:

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

First, Rick, point to me where the scientific “community” has claimed there is no controversy, and that debate should be banned. You can’t can you?

Of course, when it comes to science, well, why should we use science? Why trust scientists? We should look to God and religious leaders — not to scientists and those trained, often for decades, in scientific exploration and the pursuit of knowledge and truth, right, Senator?

This reminds me of bible-thumping Senator James Inhofe, who last week told Rachel Maddow he was angered that his grandchildren are being taught in public schools “nonsense” climate change information provided by the EPA. Inhofe stated that people should trust elected officials — not lifetime civil servants — when it comes to important matters like knowledge and science.

Of course we should trust lawmakers who have to pander to millions of Americans — often uneducated or undereducated – to get elected and re-elected, as opposed to, say, scientists at the EPA whose jobs are dependent upon how well they do at their jobs — just like you and me.

Seriously, this is where Santorum is taking America: facts are not important. Proof is not important. What’s important? God’s word, and how much you believe in something. It’s the anti-reality of George W. Bush all over again. Or, if you will, the faith-based community vs. the reality-based community war Santorum is fighting daily.

And what are we really talking about?

Via Wikipedia on “Reality-based community“:

The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove):

The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Scary?

You betcha.

Now, remember, Santorum was a U.S. Senator for Pennsylvania, until he lost his seat by a huge margin. One commenter — probably a former constituent — writes on Santorum’s anti-science op-ed:

Just because one “believes” or “doesn’t believe” doesn’t make something true. Science isn’t conducted by opinion polls. It is painful to realize this man once represented Pennsylania in the U.S. senate.

Another:

OMG. The consistent ridiculousness by Santorum in his weekly column justifies every bit of criticism he gets. This particular column comes from an ideology based in denial of facts. Something the extremists on the right, like him, seem to embrace more and more as the party shrinks and becomes politically marginalized. It is why no one takes them seriously. They appear in the media because they are freak shows, not serious or credible contributors.

And still another:

It is hard for me to improve on some of the educated comments above. I will add, however, that Mr. Santorum uses a common ruse of language where he places all criticism of objective truth in the same box as conjecture and “belief”. He uses all the following vocabulary in reference to science that signals religious faith: dogma, heresy, High Priests of DarwinISM. recant, vow, ideology, Pharisees. And what does he use for his main argument for supporting objections to evolution and climate change science: POLLS of what Americans believe. His anti-intellectual attack on science is breathtaking. Science does not depend on “believing” anything. It depends only on concrete, empirical evidence. If new evidence clearly disproves or illuminates former conclusions, then science accepts that. That is how scientific inquiry works. Only religion uses terms like “heresy” when discussing disputed positions. Santorum is comparing apples and fire plugs. He cannot be taken seriously when critiquing science.

Remember, these are likely his former constituents. What does that say about how Americans might feel about a President Santorum?

Writing, “I refer, of course, to the latest scientific non-controversy, man-made global warming,” Santorum then attacks reality and ignores facts all over again:

Climate change’s Pharisees reassure us that the global-warming science is still settled. Never mind recent revelations of gross misconduct on the part of Britain’s Climatic Research Unit. Never mind its repeated refusal to release vital climate data. And never mind the legitimate questions that climate-change skeptics have been asking for some time. There’s nothing to see here; move along.

Um, actually, Rick, those “revelations of gross misconduct”? Totally disproved. Twice. At least. Maybe more.

And talk about living in a bubble, Santorum adds:

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

Yep. It’s that whole “liberal elite” that Santorum hates so much. You know those elites. Who wants them? Like the elite Seal Team Six who took out Osama bin Laden, right?

Closing with, “In some respects, the case for evolution is improving: We may indeed have evolved to the point where we can detect hot air of a different kind,” Santorum actually states:

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

Yes, Rick, we can detect hot air — and where it’s coming from.

Your God, Rick, cannot trump my science. And our Constitution demands you accept this fact.

Image

Hat tip: Little Green Footballs

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Targeted by Trump Senator Scorches President’s Pet Project

Published

6 hours ago

on

May 19, 2026

By

A GOP senator Trump successfully ousted is now costing him a vote for his ballroom.

U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who just days ago lost his primary race to a Trump-endorsed Republican, says he’s a no on the $1 billion the administration is asking for security upgrades to the $400 million ballroom.

Cassidy had voted to convict Trump in his 2021 impeachment trial, and the president responded by endorsing his opponent.

“I just know where I am on the ballroom,” Cassidy said Tuesday afternoon, according to Semafor congressional bureau chief Burgess Everett.

The two-term Republican challenged the administration’s building process.

“They’ve not put out a bid, they’ve not done architectural, they’ve not done engineering, they’ve not done environmental, they haven’t done any of that, they’ve not done historic, which I’m sure they’re meant to do,” he said. “And so they don’t know how much money they should ask for, but they picked a number.”

“That’s not the way to run the government,” Cassidy added. “So they just want a pot of money, and I think they need to give us more detail.”

The Senate is expected to vote on Wednesday on reconciliation legislation that originally was slated to include the $1 billion funding for the Secret Service, which includes the security enhancements.

Cassidy is “noncommittal” on the reconciliation bill itself as well, Everett noted.

Senate Republicans, Politico’s Jordain Carney reports, are “currently short of the votes to include East Wing/ballroom security funding in their reconciliation bill.”

Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune, when asked about funding the $1 billion, appeared to focus his attention on the main aspects of the legislation.

“The principal objective in this reconciliation bill is to ensure that ICE and CBP are funded,” he said.

The president took time on Tuesday to share specific details about the ballroom and the security construction with reporters.

“All of these columns, they go directly right to the roof of the building,” Trump said of the ballroom in remarks to the press pool. “And again, we call it a drone port. It’s set up for unlimited numbers of drones.”

“When this is finished,” he said, “my term ends shortly after that. This is really for other presidents, this is not for me. This is my gift to the United States of America. I’m going to be able to use it very little.”

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Trump Finally Found a CNN Analyst He Likes

Published

8 hours ago

on

May 19, 2026

By

President Donald Trump praised a CNN analyst who has repeatedly highlighted his sinking poll numbers — a striking turn given his long battle with the network.

On the same day that CNN data analyst Harry Enten asked of the president’s poll numbers, “How low can you go?” Trump called him an “honorable guy” who gives “the good and the bad,” as The Daily Beast reported.

“Mr. President,” a reporter asked on Tuesday, “why is the establishment media claiming so desperately that MAGA is divided?”

“Well, I think it’s the strongest it’s ever been,” Trump replied. “I think MAGA’s never been more together, actually.”

Noting that Enten has called Trump’s poll numbers “downright atrocious” and some of “the ugliest numbers” he has ever seen, The Daily Beast reported that Trump “proceeded to launch into a rave review of Enten.”

“I mean, I appreciate the question because even CNN, they did a poll two, three weeks ago,” Trump continued. “They said Trump is at 100 percent.”

“That’s Harry Enten,” Trump said. “I like Harry Enten. You know, he’s got a lot of energy. I like him. But he did a poll and he’s a good pro. And he gives the good and the bad, but I think he’s an honorable guy. He did a lot of good.”

Back in March, Enten had declared Trump had unanimous approval among his MAGA base — even if he was falling among some conservatives.

“You don’t have to be a mathematical genius to know you can’t go higher than 100 percent,” Enten said. “The bottom line is this: if you are a member of MAGA, you approve of Donald Trump.”

Clearly that had stuck with the president.

“MAGA is most of the Republican Party,” Trump said on Tuesday. “The RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) are gone to a large extent.”

Last week, Enten also had bad news for the president.

“The bottom has completely fallen out when it comes to Donald Trump and Latino voters,” he said on Friday. Latino voters from 2024 “have abandoned him with the utmost, just, dislike of what he is doing so far — just 28 percent, a drop of 18 points.”

“Again, the bottom has just completely fallen out, and, of course, when you look across that political map, there are so many races that will be involving a lot of Latino voters, and when you see numbers like this, I just go, ‘Uh oh,’ if I am a Republican running for Congress,” he said.

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

‘Supremely Disappointed’: Republicans Furious Over Latest Trump Endorsement

Published

10 hours ago

on

May 19, 2026

By

President Donald Trump’s 11th-hour endorsement in the Texas GOP primary went to far-right Attorney General Ken Paxton over establishment Republican U.S. Senator John Cornyn, dealing an severe blow to the lawmaker’s chances, angering some prominent GOP lawmakers, and likely boosting the chances of underdog Democrat James Talarico winning the seat in the red Lone Star State.

“Ton of concern among GOP [senators] about Trump’s endorsement of Paxton,” CNN’s Manu Raju reported. “Fear it will cost them a lot more money to save a seat in a red state.”

U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said that Trump’s Paxton endorsement “puts that seat in jeopardy” and asked, “how does that help strengthen the president’s hand when we lose a state like Texas?”

“Supremely disappointed,” is how she characterized her reaction.

U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) declared Paxton is “an ethically challenged individual,” reports Semafor congressional bureau chief Burgess Everett.

“John Cornyn is an outstanding senator and deserved, in my judgment, the president’s support,” she said. “Obviously, it’s the president’s call, but I’m disappointed that he did it.”

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a top Trump ally, said, “I think Paxton can win. I think it’d be three times more expensive.”

U.S. Senator Ron Johnson said he was “speechless” and added, “really have no comment.”

Described as “not happy looking,” Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who has supported Senator Cornyn, acknowledged it was President Trump’s decision to make.

Punchbowl News’ Andrew Desiderio reported that Thune was “stone-faced” after the endorsement, and appeared “pretty deep” in anger.

“Most GOP senators really want him to endorse Cornyn,” Everett had reported about 90 minutes before the Trump-Paxton endorsement dropped.

U.S. Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) had said, “I would like to see him support John Cornyn in Texas. I’ve made that clear.”

U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) had said, “I am hopeful that he backs Sen. Cornyn. John has been a steadfast ally of the president and I hope the president sees that.”

Congressional reporter Jamie Dupree described U.S. Senator Roger Wicker’s (R-MS) response as “stone cold silent.”

Professor Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, called Trump’s endorsement of Paxton “Great News for Talarico,” “Bad News for GOP money reserves,” and declared, “If ever there’s a year when a D can win statewide in TX, it’s 2026.”

Talarico responded to the Trump endorsement: “As I said on primary night, it doesn’t matter who wins this runoff. We already know who we’re running against: the billionaire mega-donors and their corrupt political system.”

 

Image via Reuters 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.