Michele Bachmann Talks Evolution, Intelligent Design At Republican Leadership Conference 2011

Michele Bachmann expressed skepticism of evolution at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Friday.

"I support intelligent design," Bachmann told reporters following her speech at the conference, CNN reports. "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."

"I would prefer that students have the ability to learn all aspects of an issue," Bachmann said. "And that's why I believe the federal government should not be involved in local education to the most minimal possible process."

Bachmann, riding high after a strong showing in the GOP debate in New Hampshire Monday night, was received by an adoring crowd at the RLC. According the CBS, she was greeted with a standing ovation and an audience member shouting “Love you!” when she walked onstage.

"Love you too!" she replied.

"You survived Katrina! You survived President Obama's oil moratorium! There is nothing you cannot survive!"

Bachmann used her speech to attack President Barack Obama's economic policies, telling the crowd that Obama "got a big F on his economic report card."

“I feel that my greatest accomplishment has been to bring the voice of the people into the halls of Congress," Bachmann said. She vowed to oppose raising the debt ceiling and cut funding for Planned Parenthood.

"Get ready 2012 -- the Tea Party will be bigger than ever," Bachmann said.

Comments

[palindrom]

11:15 PM on 08/15/2011

Intelligent Design, eh? I imagine she never read the Kitzmiller vs. Dover decision, in which Judge John E. Jones, a conservative Republican appointed by G. W. Bush no less, brilliantly outlined how ID is a stalking horse for religion in the classroom, and then added:

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

[palindrom]

11:33 PM on 08/15/2011

The full text of the Kitzmiller decision -- which is really interesting and entertaining reading, in very plain English for a legal decision -- is available here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html

[moutonnoir]

11:02 PM on 08/15/2011

ID is an insincere book-seller of a topic - not a real issue for the young kids these adults pretend to be looking out for.

i do believe most kids hear the stories of creationism in their religious schooling (sunday school, etC) then in high school (or whateveR) they learn of evolution - and do not have a problem reconciling them, as evolution really has no claim on 'explaining where earth and everything came from"

only people with a problem are those who want to redirect federal education $ into their own 'racket' style 'religious education system'. (shudder)

What blatant quackery and nonsense..

[Mad Dog]

08:37 PM on 08/15/2011

It may be helpful to understand how life formed by testing how it forms today. The scientific method would involve predicting purposeful formation of matter in life. Lets try it:

Researchers go to a third world country where nobody has ever played ping pong. They take a group pf volunteers to play several days of table tennis. At first they struggle, but soon gain dexterity in their hands. Called "muscle memory" this is really chains of neural tissues in their hands. Scientists confirm the presence of the neural pathways and also the absence of these pathways in the control group that did not play. What does this tell us?

a. Random accident caused the physical formation by luck.

b. The matter was formed purposefully by intelligent cause as needed.

c. A genetic code commanded these nerves to form at this time and place.

d. Selection killed all those who were bad at ping pong before they could mate.

e. Neural pathways do not form like this so this isnt a valid result.

f. Other answer. Please elaborate.

Lets see how many of you try it out.

[Maezeppa]

08:53 PM on 08/15/2011

You talk about life's formation and then start babbling about ping pong. Sorry, that's fraudulent. Life formed under conditions that don't exist today. For instance, there was no free oxygen when the first cells formed on primordial earth. Interestingly, albeit unsurprisingly, when scientists looked, they found the predicted traces of that early atmospheric condition remain in our metabolic currency exchange at the molecular level today. This would be expected, as evolution is rather make-do and cobbled together rather than intelligently designed.

[Mad Dog]

10:06 PM on 08/15/2011

I had a feeling you wouldnt have the courage to try it. Does the concept of actual scientific investigation scare you off? So, what is it that is "fraudulent"? It is possible that life forms the same way now as it did then and it is possible that it doesnt. Either way, it cant hurt to know how it forms now.

Dont like ping pong? Pick any activity that will cause neural pathways to form. It is the formation of matter for a functional purpose where there was none before. Isnt that exactly what we would most like to know? Do you not have any scientific inquisitiveness? Pick your best answer.

Far closer to "fraudulent" are those that claim to have answers to an action in a mud puddle 3 and a half billion years ago. You have no idea whether the first life was efficiently put together like cells now, or if they were "cobbled".

Have the guts to answer.

[Maezeppa]

03:09 AM on 08/16/2011

Excerpt: "Two critical needs for life are to create a membrane, which defines a boundary that can contain genetic material, and to replicate. Szostak said it is relatively easy to create a membrane from fatty acids that could have arisen in conditions that mimic early Earth; fatty acids, mixed in water with a little salt, readily create closed structures called vesicles. Simple enough. But it took 10 years, said Szostak, to figure out how such material could grow and divide before the era of genetic machinery. In combination with certain molecules, scientists eventually learned, the once-stable vesicles grow long threadlike “tails.” “They become fragile in this shape,” said Szostak. “With a little disturbance, they divide.” These and other developments, such as how the primitive cells could have begun to acquire additional features that conveyed some advantage, offer a logical pathway to early evolution. " http://bit.ly/pzE48t

[Mad Dog]

05:41 PM on 08/16/2011

The vast majority of scientists clearly state that we have no idea how life sgtarted, although you can quote one exception. The concept of abiogenesis has been so badly defeated that even our activist court system doesnt allow it to be taught in schools.

Was this really a reply to my post that was very specifically about modern day life formation? Gee, you snap at me and insult my honesty for 10 posts when you mistakenly THINK I was refering to biogenesis, even though I wasnt. Double standard much?

[coalman987]

10:15 AM on 08/15/2011

The only form of intelligent design that you can put on the table is that of ancient aliens.

[moutonnoir]

11:03 PM on 08/15/2011

ancient aliens... oh dear......

[coalman987]

08:08 PM on 08/16/2011

For the record I was being sarcastic.

[Tanya OaksBrooks]

09:15 PM on 08/14/2011

If we put "intelligent design" on the table, we also have to pile all the other myths and pseudosciences on that table as well. The flat Earth, the hollow Earth, the existence of Big Foot, astrology, numerology, disease being caused by curses, the geocentric solar system, leprechauns and limbo...none of them have any more basis in fact than ID.

[Mad Dog]

07:35 PM on 08/15/2011

False. There are Nobel Prize winners on both sides of this argument.

ID is the most evidence-supported theory in the history of science.

What we are now teaching in schools (random accident "cause") is a discredited fraud.

[Maezeppa]

07:56 PM on 08/15/2011

That is a complete falsehood. ID has no evidence. None, zero, zilch, nada, zip, necco. . IDers are stuck in the days of dusty parlors, kerosene lanterns, leeches, and horse-drawn carriages. You know it and I know it. They wouldn’t tell so many lies if they didn’t simply believe that lies in the service of their religious mission were justifiable. I have to laugh when IDers go all innocent and doe-eyed when they deny this. They ask with feigned indignation, “Where does ID mention God? Where?” They know very well ID is stealth creationism, so of course mentioning God is to be avoided at all costs. Instead ID puts out self-published vanity mags that sound all sciency to the science-illiterate but are pure old-timey swindle. Hokum and bunkum.

[Maezeppa]

07:57 PM on 08/15/2011

Established and true “beyond reasonable doubt” is how Scientific American terms Darwin’s theory today. No amount of unfounded and untested ID twaddle changes that.

[obama20082012]

08:48 PM on 08/14/2011

If there was any such thing as intelligent design, Michele_Bachmann_ would not exist.

[CabinAgue]

08:42 PM on 08/14/2011

"What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide."

Me, too!  (Gosh, I agree with MB?!)  Which rules out putting ID in any science class.

You can discuss creation myths (all of them) in a comparative religion class.  Which, of course, most evangelical types would abhor as well because it exposes their creation myths as obvious copycats of earlier ones.

[onnozol]

07:11 PM on 08/14/2011

I believe that the universe was created by a supernatural force or being. I also believe in evolution. I believe in the former because of my faith and I believe in the latter because it is scientific fact.

It is because my belief in a supernatural being is based in faith that I KNOW Intelligent Design should not be taught in science class. If you want to teach it, it needs to be where it belongs, in a philosophy class. It is utterly ridiculous to teach something supernatural in science class.

[leebowman]

01:18 AM on 08/15/2011

If you believe in a creator, but accept evolution as currently depicted, that falls within TE, or theistic evolutionary thought, placing any creative actions at the beginning, or possibly excluding them altogether.

But would you consider ID as an adjunct hypothesis to be considered within current evo theory, and perhaps working along side natural selection? Or would you rule it out completely?

And if ID has any relevance whatsoever, need it be unconditionally due to a supernatural cause? What if surrogates, spirit based perhaps, have added to evolutionary input when required. An example might be cetacean evolution (whale/ dolphin from land mammal), where a particular *required* trait stubbornly refused to come about via natural causes.

Surrogates by the way would operate similarly to employees at GM, since the CEO might have better things to do than design/ build tooling/ work on setting up an assembly line. Or is mankind unique in that regard?

I agree, by the way, that ID should not be 'taught' as being established as factual. But need it be manifestly ruled out? No consideration, nicht, nada?,,,

[onnozol]

01:42 AM on 08/15/2011

It doesn't need to be ruled out but I don't think it is expressly appropriate within science class. Maybe a Philosophy in Science class or something to that respect but I think in strict science class it is inappropriate.

As far as the 'surrogate' aspect, if it is 'spirit' based then that still isn't science. Honestly, that would be as science-related as fairies or unicorns, both of which I believe are real. So I am pretty 'far out there' for some. And even if I could prove fairies did exist, why would I want to? I am one of those that believe that certain things should be kept as far away from science as possible. These things can both bastardize and be bastardized by science.

I am also coming from a non-Judeo Christian background. I do not think that any of it should be taught with a specific leaning and it is a good deal of the time.

[Mad Dog]

12:16 PM on 08/15/2011

Lee, you ask the right questions. Could you please elaborate more on the concept of surrogate intelligence?

Although I consider ID to be the most certain scientific fact based on support of the evidence, I agree it is too early to be taught as established fact. However, I do believe it should be presented and explained to students using wording IDists put together, not more Darwinists putting false words in our mouths.

What I do strongly believe we MUST do in science class is to allow criticism of Darwinism just as any other theory is open for discussion. Students should be encouraged to engage in discussions regarding the failures (and any merits if they can find any) of Darwinistic Fallacy. Devising and implementing tests to confirm or falsify any theory should also be encouraged and highly valued. Dont just "teach" the controversy. Debate it in class and inspire future biologists.

[Maezeppa]

03:24 PM on 08/16/2011

Responding here to your post elsewhere: I appreciate your feedback although I was surprised when you commended my patience. I could be more patient. don’t debate these topics with an expectation of changing the other person’s mind. That isn’t going to happen but if the discussion provides food for thought to others, I’m fine with that. I always appreciate your posts and yes, you don’t claim there is evidence to support your belief and that's all I ask. I don’t mind if people believe something like that. I suspect we come hard-wired to want a watcher, to want to belong to a family, group, tribe. I think that inclination is a survival attribute and why we mostly find ostracism painful and why we don’t live in isolation. In any case, a book you might enjoy is “The Sacred Depths of Nature” by biologist Ursula Goodenough. She muses along the lines you do, I think.

[hornedcog]

09:53 AM on 08/14/2011

How will this stimulate the economy or create jobs? It's the theology, stupid.

[MarkInEugene]

04:23 PM on 08/13/2011

Michele Bachmann supports the belief-based fantasy called intelligent design; an oxymoron if there ever was one. In doing so she dismisses over a hundred years of empirical study through a variety of disciplines leading to the scientific Theory of Evolution. Hundreds of thousands of scientists and graduate students over the last century using the scientific method have spent countless hours of research to support or refute the theory which has stood the test of time.

That someone as intellectually barren as Mrs. Bachmann can still be considered as a viable candidate in the Republican Party is extremely disappointing and does not bode well for this country. There are intelligent Republicans of course, many in business and finance. And yes, they hold views that we progressives often disagree with. But their voices can’t be heard above the fundamentalist values crowd that still dominates the Republican Party. This is a huge turn off to progressives and many independents for very obvious reasons.

Somehow half the country missed the lessons of the impassioned civil rights debate of the 60’s, the consciousness raising of the 70’s, the environmental spotlight of the 80’s, the rise of humanist movement, the clear link of terrorism to religion, and the moral imperative of the gay marriage movement. So here we are with Michele Bachmann center stage.

[Mad Dog]

10:30 PM on 08/13/2011

Mark, you are entirely incorrect. Intelligent Design does not oppose evolution. It opposes Darwinistic random accident as a supposed cause of complex functional thinking, animated creatures. A Darwinist when asked for evidence of their theory, will point to evidence of evolution, but evolution is not Darwinism.

Darwin mistakenly believed he had discovered a perpetual creation machine in random accident and what he called selection. Mathematicians the world over have repeatedly debunked his theory as a fallacy, but Darwinists are undeterred. They know random chance can't create life and they admit they havent detected any randomness in life, but they foolishly believe that selection improves theor odds or some other type of magic.

Selection is nothing more than not dying. It is a subtractive filter that can only eliminate the undesired, but it can not add, improve or in any way do anything positive toward evolution. Crediting lack of death for life is like saying "we live because we didnt die"... an empty concept with nothing causal about it. The selection filter can kill, but it can't create or improve. Eliminating the weak does not strengthen the strong.

So we are back to luck and only luck, as a materialist cause of life and evolution. A few billion years and all the luck in the world wont get anythng as complex as a hand-crank canopener. Darwinism is a fraud and students should be allowed to criticize it in class.

[Maezeppa]

09:18 AM on 08/14/2011

Darwin never theorized life occurs by "random chance". If you are going to argue against evolution, learn what it is first instead of inventing a lie and attacking that. "Fittest" doesn't mean "strongest". It means "best adapted to conditions extant". Do you agree that in every species, not all the young live to sexual maturity? Do you? If your answer is "yes", then you have just accepted the very first step in the process of natural selection, which is one component of evolution.

[gunnerfan5]

09:21 AM on 08/14/2011

"Mark, you are entirely incorrect. Intelligen­t Design does not oppose evolution. It opposes Darwinisti­c random accident as a supposed cause of complex functional thinking, animated creatures"

No, it opposes evolution. You are just spinning it. No one has debunked Darwin, that is Creationist propaganda and mathematicians are not qualified to do so anyway.
Your characterisation of Darwin's theory as a perpetual creation machine is just silly. It's nothing of the sort. It's a plausible, well argued account of how speciation occured (The clue was in the title of the book - try reading it sometime). The sheer wealth of detail and the astonishing breadth of Darwin's knowledge about not only the natural world but plant and animal breeding is one of the things which gives the book it's authority.
The spectacle of people utterly ignorant of science like Bachman and you dismissing such as piece of work as a fraud is truly contemptible.

[Mad Dog]

07:32 PM on 08/14/2011

The Darwinists remind me of that silly childhood joke where two farmers are talking over a fence, and one asks "Why do all your chickens have blue heads?" "Simple" replied the other farmer, "All the chickens with no heads died."

Second graders get the joke, but Darwinists are a small breed who really dont get it. To them, it makes perfect sense that elimination of the unfit somehow CAUSES the fit to exist. They honestly believe that they found a magical creation mechanism called selection, which creates the fit by killing the unfit. Of course selection causes absolutely no fitness at all and can only select what was already created and fit by some other cause. The concept of selection is science stopping rhetoric that does nothing positive at all.

[Maezeppa]

08:32 PM on 08/14/2011

"Darwinists" are 99.997% of all scientists. The outliers are religious fanatics with a political agenda. There is not one recognized scientific body, either professional or academic, that eschews Darwin's Theory of Evolution – which is the only operant evolutionary theory in existence. By the way, the "joke" pretty much accurately describes evolution. Let’s say wild chickens can have either blue or red heads. But then, environmental changes bring foxes into their habitat. If blue heads have a superior advantage because, say, red-headed chickens are more vulnerable prey to foxes, the flock will eventually produce only blue-headed chickens because the red-headed ones will have been quickly seen and eaten by their predators. The blue-headed chickens, in that instance, were more fit than red-headed ones. This is a simplistic explanation but one I’m hoping you will be able to absorb.

[Tanya OaksBrooks]

08:54 PM on 08/14/2011

I can't believe you still don't get it.

Those that die out don't CAUSE those that fit the niche to exist. A roll of the genetic dice cause

Say a designer needs someone to model an outfit for her. She sends out her assistant, who grabs the next dozen women who walk by. Eleven try on the dress and it doesn't fit for some reason. One fits the dress and gets the modeling gig.

The eleven who left didn't MAKE the last one fit the dress. Number 12 just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Likewise, the lifeforms who don't fit a niche aren't the CAUSE of those who do.

BTW, what is this "Darwinist" stuff? That's like calling people who believe that gravity exists "Newtonians."

[Ravi Wells]

02:15 PM on 07/26/2011

What Ms Bachmann does not understand (obviously) is that if our/a creator engaged intelligent design, she herself would not exist.

[Mr Crabs]

10:31 PM on 07/20/2011

Should they also be allowed to decide how to speak English? If all education options are on the table, she'd better not be scared when some people choose to speak ebonics.

Or how about if in choosing sociology they're allowed to pick eugenics as a legitimate tool to rise to the top?

Everything has two sides, but rarely are they ever both correct. There is such a thing as being wrong. And in this instance Bachmann is on the wrong side.

[emulsifier]

11:40 AM on 07/08/2011

Bachmann doesn't know that a tail bone is exactly that, a TAIL bone. And that embryos have a tail for a short period of time.

[Mad Dog]

10:35 PM on 08/13/2011

We have a tail bone because we evolved from apes. Intelligent Design does not oppose the well supported fact of evolution. ID opposes random accident as a supposed cause.

[Maezeppa]

09:19 AM on 08/14/2011

ID has no evidence that life arose via an intelligent designer. Evidence, please.

[gunnerfan5]

09:25 AM on 08/14/2011

" ID opposes random accident as a supposed cause"

No it doesn't. Intelligent Design, by definition, proposes an Intelligent Designer for which there is no evidence other than the supposedly Intelligent Design which gives the term it's name. If this thinking were any more circular you could play ball games with it.

[TBJ]

11:33 AM on 07/08/2011

If she wants to put all the science on the table, she had better leave the intelligent design on the floor, or in the trash.

ID/Creationism =/= Science.

[cbk780]

05:19 PM on 07/01/2011

"I support intelligent design," ... "What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide.

What a good idea. How fair. We are a democracy after all.

Let's also let the students decide which medical treatments to approve. Perhaps they should read the articles submitted to scientific journals and vote on which should be published.

I also propose a constitutional amendment to repeal the law of gravity. I wonder how the students will vote on that.

Charlie

[stuoverit]

11:14 AM on 07/08/2011

Hey, I'm all for it as long as we teach the Hindu, Sumerian, Norse,Greek etc., mythological "theories" about how humans came to be.

[kwaut lizard]

11:54 AM on 07/18/2011

Parents generally pay for their children's education. if they want ID as part of that education, they can pay for Sunday School. If you want ID in my school, I'll move to another country .. Oh, wait, I already did.

[Ravi Wells]

02:16 PM on 07/26/2011

he he he! i agree - and am doing the sale!

[Ravi Wells]

02:17 PM on 07/26/2011

fingers type "same"...