Michele Bachmann, as virtually everyone knows, is currently deciding whether she's going to make a run for the Tea Party, oops, I meant to say, Republican, nomination for president. What most don't know, though, is that her educational policies are being challenged by an amazing high school student from Baton Rouge, La. You should get to know this student, Zack Kopplin, and his efforts because he's likely to make a difference.
I've written about Zack previously because both his story and his commitment are incredibly impressive. As I first noted, he recently began an effort to repeal an atrocious stealth-creationism law in Louisiana. The law, the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008, encourages attacks on evolution to be taught in Louisiana's public schools under the banner of critical thinking. This is the only state law of its sort in the country and, as Zack so well points out, Louisiana students interested in science are being done a huge disservice by its very existence.
Zack hasn't been content to simply complain about an educationally irresponsible law, however. His organizational skills have been nothing short of phenomenal and he's gathered a collection of supporters second to none. His repeal effort has been endorsed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest general science organization in the world with over 10 million members; the National Association of Biology Teachers, the country's main organization for biological educators; The Clergy Letter Project, an organization of more than 14,000 clergy and scientists recognizing that religion and science need not be in conflict; as well as a host of other scientific groups including the American Institute for Biological Sciences, The American Society for Cell Biology, the Society for the Study of Evolution, The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Additionally, the New Orleans City Council voted unanimously to support the repeal.
Zack's work didn't stop there. He wrote a petition that was adopted as Change.org's featured one of the week where it has amassed more than 65,000 supporters. And, as I reported in April, in his most extraordinary effort, he collected the endorsement of 43 individuals who won a Nobel Prize in science.
Which brings me back to Michele Bachmann. Not only is Bachmann a fan of creationism and its anti-intellectual offshoot, intelligent design, she's made some outlandish claims about the pseudoscientific subject. For example, she's asserted, "there is a controversy among scientists about whether evolution is a fact ... hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel prizes, believe in intelligent design."
Zack has now challenged Bachmann on her claims. Using a poker analogy and the huge number of scientists who have endorsed evolution, in general, and his repeal effort, in particular, Zack has written, "Congresswoman Bachmann, I see your 'hundreds' of scientists, and raise you millions of scientists."
Given the strength of the hand he has, he doesn't stop there.
For the next hand, I raise you 43 Nobel Laureate scientists. That's right: 43 Nobel Laureate scientists have endorsed our effort to repeal Louisiana's creationism law. ... Congresswoman Bachmann, you claim that Nobel Laureates support creationism. Show me your hand. If you want to be taken seriously by voters while you run for President, back up your claims with facts. Can you match 43 Nobel Laureates, or do you fold?
It would be difficult for someone with a sincere interest in science education not to take Zack Kopplin's challenge seriously. Having said that, I fully expect that Michele Bachmann will completely ignore Zack, the voice of the scientific community, the combined pleas of 43 Nobel scientists and thousands of religious leaders.
All of this reminds me of a Sunday afternoon a couple of years ago when I was in Lambeau Field with my two sons watching the Packers play the Bears. After a controversial and costly penalty was called against the Packers, the referee began to give a convoluted explanation of his ruling. The entire crowd of 73,000 plus was completely silent while the odd explanation was being delivered over the PA system. Then, all of a sudden, one fan with a booming voice that could be heard throughout the entire stadium shouted, "Stop making shit up!"
Representative Bachmann, I urge you to pay attention to that fan.
Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter
Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.: Peace Breaks Out in the War Between Religion and Science
Michele Bachmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
YouTube - Michele Bachmann on intelligent design
Michele Bachmann: Evolution Of A 'Cultural Warrior' : NPR
For Michele Bachmann, a pattern of getting facts wrong - Jonathan ...
Ricky Neross: Michelle Bachmann is a creationist and graduated law ...
Neither the journals you have listed are scientific journals.
You are a Christian and you believe in the bible...right? Why yes I do. Than if you believe in the Bible you must believe in the process of evolution.
Noah and his family were on the ARK and everyone else on Earth died.....so how did we end up with Asians, Latino's Europeans, Africans etc, etc, etc......How? Man EVOLVED, making small changes over long periods of time to adapt to the environment that there were in. The very same way that Darwin saw small changes in Animals from one species on one island to changes within that very same species on another island. The animals, in this case finch's, made minute changes to adapt to the present environment.
http://becominghuman.org/
"No one you cited is an actual historian - they're all apologistsÂ... believers with an agenda. And worse, Greenleaf is a 19th century father of modern Christian apologeticÂs. No historian worth his/her salt would attest to the historicitÂy of the resurrectiÂon - because there is no real historical evidence to support it."
Your bigoted assertion about historians shows that you are not really looking for evidence- you are looking for people to confirm your beliefs. Greenleaf and McDowell both set out to disprove the resurrection because they were tired of hearing about it. Their research led them to a different conclusion.
It also doesn't matter whether you believe in gravity. You're still going to get pulled towards the center of the Earth.
It also doesn't matter whether you think microbes cause disease. You'll still get sick despite your absence of belief.
The problem with the illustration used by Richard Dawkins is that all the evidence we have shows that rabbits always produce rabbits. He hopes that enough time will produce the result he wants. The same with your DNA example. You assume that our chromosome was the result of a fusion of two chimp chromosomes. You can try to reproduce that experiment and see if the result is what you expect. But more to the point, why would your DNA example not be a result of God using building blocks ? I maintain that all the evidence you produce can be explained by God intervening in our world.
I don't assume anything relating to Chromosome 2 - it's just science, bigotboy. There's actual evidence to support it - you should look it up.
"I maintain that all the evidence you produce can be explained by God intervening in our world." Well, now that's a funny thing to say. You're admitting that there is no evidence that anyone could show you that would dissuade you from your presuppositions? Well, Ok - The problem is, saying "Well, that just proves that God done it!" isn't an explanation for anything at all... it's a stop sign to honest inquiry - a scientific and philosophical dead-end with no foundation to support it.
The same applies to your chromosome 2. It sure appears they are related, but it is not known that the one came from the two. In 1960 an uninformed person could have looked at a Volkswagen Beetle and a Porsche and concluded that the Beetle found itself on the autobahn and evolved the necessary upgrades to perform at high speeds. You draw the same conclusions based upon your belief in origins. You don't know if the two combined by accident or were combined on purpose. There is currently in the works an article that will detail the more close examination of the DNA junction, and the authors are skeptical of the view you hold.
Just because I believe God did things does not rule out scientific inquiry at all. In fact, it is the basis for good science because I believe things have an order to them, and order can be deciphered.
.
This is the first time I've heard of "non-creationists".
You believe in creationism because that is what your religious leaders, who are reading from a book that is 2000+ years old, who's authors had no scientific background, who came up with a nice story about Adam & Eve & other parables because they couldn't explain scientifically why things are the way they are. Your take on the beginning of life on the planet is based on faith, not fact.
Intelligent, thoughtful, respecful, discussion between civil adults -- what a treat!
Would that all discussions could follow suit...and that politicians would lead the way in being polite after having read this primer on *how* to participate in civil discourse.
Thanks, posters, for restoring my faith that, even though the issue(s) is contentious and the views on it (them) are equally so, there IS civility still to be had if we are adults about it.
Will somebody give this kid a bunch of money to follow the Bachman campaign around? He could give his own presentations about the value of science and education in the parking lots of her venues. (I would but I'm broke.)