Michele Bachmann: Evolution-Only Approach In Schools Amounts To 'Censorship By Government' (VIDEO)

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann said that excluding intelligent design in teaching evolution in schools amounts to "censorship by government" during a stop in Iowa on Wednesday, the Des Moines Register reports.

The conservative congresswoman signaled that her religious beliefs helped to shape her posture toward the scientific theory. She explained that she believes "God created the earth" and issues such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, irreducible complexity and the "the dearth of fossil record" need to be addressed.

Bachmann also stated, "If you look at scientists there is not a unanimity of agreement on the origins of life." She made similar remarks in 2006.

"There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design," she said then.

Last summer, Bachmann said in explaining her stance on intelligent design, "What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide." She added, "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."

Rival presidential contender Rick Perry called evolution "a theory that's out there" and one that's "got some gaps in it" earlier in the campaign. After the Texas governor made headlines with his remarks, GOP candidate Jon Huntsman wrote in a tweet, "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."

ThinkProgress relays a clip of what Bachmann had to say in Iowa on Wednesday.

WATCH:

Below, more on where the rest of the GOP field stands on issues of evolution and creationism:

 

 

Comments

[Carl Mndz]

01:48 PM on 02/21/2012

Not teaching kids that the world sits on the back of a turtle like in Hindu religion is censorship. I support teaching all beliefs in the science classroom because there is reasonable doubt on all sides.

[MLuther]

12:51 PM on 12/30/2011

So Michelle would expect teachers to just "give all sides" of a complex issue to children and let them decide. What of the origins theory that teaches humans are the maggots that formed in the droppings of the gods?

Science deals only with facts that can be measured, tested and reproduced by others.
Faith is a conscious decision to believe something for that cannot be proved of disproved.

People are free to have faith in anything they decided to believe.

Facts and scientific theories that correlate facts are not something people should be free to chose about. Children that are not taught how to recognize facts are severely handicapped. A mistake about the law of gravity kills. You are not free to decide what facts you believe and make governmental policy choices based on faith. Any candidate for high office should be rejected if that person thinks a person is free to decide what is a scientific fact as a matter of faith. Freedom imposes a responsibility to reject stupidity in all things.

In the realm of faith all are equal since none can be proven by definition! The facts are still facts whether you have the wit to believe them or not.

In the natural order the strong eat the weak, end of story.

The natural order is not a good way to run a society of intelligent beings, but that is my article of faith, it remains to be proved!

[ProbeDeeper]

12:21 PM on 12/30/2011

Organic evolution and natural selection are ways to explain how God creates, I think. Intelligent design belongs in religious curriculum, and not in scientific curriculum because you cannot subject this theory to scientific research. I believe most scientists with faith agree with me, and certainly the greatest scientist does. "God does not roll dice" and "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" - Albert Einstein

[Geoulio Fransesco]

12:17 PM on 12/30/2011

I am baffled that creationists are offended by evidence that we share a common ancestor with apes, but they have no problem accepting humans were made from dirt. Go figure.

[Geoulio Fransesco]

12:05 PM on 12/30/2011

Yesterday I was watching the CNN's coverage of Bachmann's campaign. You should see the people she is greeting. With few exceptions, most people looked like they were about to start laughing. Others rolled their eyes behind her back. The few that seemed to genuinely like her had that glazed and empty look in their eyes, just like Michele Bachmann. She doesn't have the support or brains to win. Someone needs to shake her awake and tell her she's dreaming.

[ProbeDeeper]

12:27 PM on 12/30/2011

She's running for the VP spot. Maybe to counter a possible Obama-Clinton ticket.

[ProbeDeeper]

12:01 PM on 12/30/2011

Organic evolution and natural selection (or variations of the theories) are our best explanations of how God created life, in my opinion. I know that seems to be neither here nor there, but this is the position of many scientists with faith, and of the greatest scientist. "God does not play dice" and "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" - Albert Einstein.

[jstrate]

11:50 AM on 12/30/2011

Unfortunately for the proponents of intelligent design, the so called "intelligent" designer is not so intelligent as can be seen from numerous flaws in the design of organisms (e.g., the blind spot in the human eye). If the proponents of intelligent design are thinking of the "Almighty" as the actual designer, aren't they insulting Him by saying that He's only a mediocre engineer at best?

[Panther Joe]

11:39 AM on 12/30/2011

Evolution is a RELIGION that is totally inconsistent with the fossil record. Just saying that evolution is fact doesn't make it so. There are absolutely ZERO fossils that show any mutations from one species to another despite a huge award to anyone that can produce it.

[Daveski69]

12:09 PM on 12/30/2011

the different species are the mutations......everything is always in the state of being an "in between"

[Panther Joe]

02:37 PM on 12/30/2011

There should be evidence of TRANSITIONAL fossils from one species to another. They have never been found and they never will. It is a blind, false religion to hold to that belief in spite of all the contrary evidence.

[Geoulio Fransesco]

12:13 PM on 12/30/2011

You are sorely misinformed. The mutations occur in genes and this is very well documented and has been proved over and over again.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_humanorigins.html

[Panther Joe]

12:46 PM on 12/31/2011

You are the one that is sorely misinformed my friend. All evolutionists have is a story that is DISPROVED by the fossil record. Their defense is to call ID scientists "anti-science" religious zealots. Evolution is a hoax that tries to disprove God. And the defenders of evolution are the ones that are the ZEALOTS.

[Jarrod Putnam]

09:59 PM on 12/21/2011

This woman is absolutely absurd. She seems to show how little she knows every time she speaks. Intelligent Design is simply creationism with an attempt to sprinkle science on it, yet there isn't a single ounce of science behind it.

[pixeloid]

11:09 PM on 12/20/2011

It's appropriate to teach creationism in a class about religion or mythology; not a science class. I guess it's also government censorship that there are no American history lessons in gym class.

[behavingbadly]

04:53 PM on 12/19/2011

Intelligent Design is unintelligent thinking.

[behavingbadly]

02:37 PM on 12/19/2011

The science behind creationism wouldn't fill a post-it note.

[obama20082012]

02:24 PM on 12/19/2011

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

So now she's pro-choice?

[Daveski69]

12:11 PM on 12/30/2011

absolutely... I'm sure she'd have no problem letting students decide whether it's a bunch of cells or a viable human being, right?
Right, Michelle?

[TimJones]

10:10 AM on 12/14/2011

In the future when the computer/robot thinks and functions independently from human interactions. How will it view its origin? Created or evolved. I guess that will depend on if it is educated in a government school.

[Angel1999]

03:20 PM on 12/16/2011

Poor analogy since the robot in the example you used is not capable of having evolved by any process that we know of. Biological organisms, by contrast, are fully explainable by naturalistic processes.

[Sundiszno]

12:48 PM on 12/30/2011

Would a thinking robot become religious? Would it start believing in God? Would it be wrong? Yes.

There is nothing wrong with thinking up a god. There is everything wrong in denying facts and deductive reasoning.

[read matt taibbi]

05:18 PM on 12/11/2011

Next item in Michele's Bag of Wisdom:

"Ban food stamps! Government encroaches upon your right to starve."