Saturday, June 18, 2011

Michele Bachmann, "intelligent design," and the anti-science conservatism of the Republican Party


CNN:

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann explained her skepticism of evolution on Friday and said students should be taught the theory of intelligent design.

*****

"I support intelligent design," Bachmann told reporters in New Orleans following her speech to the Republican Leadership Conference. "What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don't think it's a good idea for government to come down on one side of scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides."

First, "intelligent design" isn't science, it's creationism dressed up to look like something else. And what Bachmann is proposing is not an equal playing field -- because a silly notion like "intelligent design" would lose, as no serious, self-respecting scientist takes it seriously -- but the imposition of Christianist theocracy.

Second, how are students supposed to "decide"? Students need to be taught the truth, which is evolution. But it is not the sort of absolutist truth that a fundamentalist like Bachmann demands, but rather a scientific theory. Indeed, there is disagreement within the scientific community over the details of evolution -- healthy disagreement that furthers the quest for knowledge. But there is no disagreement over evolution vs. "intelligent design." If you want to teach creationism, fine, but it belongs in a religion class alongside other theological matters, taught comparatively, and not in public schools.

Third, this isn't the government taking sides on a "scentific issue," because, again, "intelligent design" is not science.

Fourth, there is no "reasonable doubt on both sides" There is disagreement within the scientific community over specifics, but "intelligent design" is just creationism. Students can be taught that evolution is not a settled matter, that it is not as simple as 2+2=4, but they certainly should not be taught that "intelligent design" is a legitimate alternative theory. Because it is not.

Fifth, while it is quite evident that Bachmann herself is an extremist, this view is prevalent within the Republican Party and on the right generally, which has become a largely anti-science party in recent years. The assault continues.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

2 Comments:

  • Is this part of the rationale for destroying the public school system and pushing for charter schools?

    I can only image what America would look like in 50 years if half of the adult population was never taught basic biology. These online debates would be riotous...more riotous, that is.

    By Blogger Muddy Politics, at 5:42 PM  

  • 40% of Sample A is red.
    40% of Sample A is Green.
    20% of Sample A is various other colors.

    Therefore, Sample A is Red Republicans, because Blue is my favorite color, I hate Red and don't really like Green all that much.

    That is the exact logic you are using to denounce a religious belief you do not hold, tie it in with the political party you do not like, and try to trump it with your ideology you believe in. All while ironically claiming your so-called logic is superior.

    You're no scientist. No philosopher either. Your ideas need to mature and you need to think things through more thoroughly.

    By Anonymous Bones, at 1:53 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home