Michele Bachmann: Public Schools Shou...

Michele Bachmann: Public Schools Should Teach Creationism

There are 621 comments on the Little Green Footballs story from Jun 18, 2011, titled Michele Bachmann: Public Schools Should Teach Creationism. In it, Little Green Footballs reports that:

Michele Bachmann , rising star of the 2012 GOP presidential contest, absolutely epitomizes the anti-science, theocratic wing of today's Republican Party.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Little Green Footballs.

First Prev
of 32
Next Last

Since: Apr 08

Wheaton, IL

#1 Jun 19, 2011
"Michele Bachmann explained her skepticism of evolution on Friday and said students should be taught the theory of intelligent design."

Wait. What? When ID become a theory?

“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.”…

When did ID become science? What scientific doubt is there about ToE?

What is the teabaggers big obsession with finding the most ignorant candidates to run?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seminole, FL

#2 Jun 19, 2011

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#3 Jun 19, 2011
MikeF wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispat ches/2011/06/hs_student_school s_bachmann_on.php
Bachmann ignored Zack.
"Michele Bachmann (R-Mars)"
HGtugh67

AOL

#4 Jun 19, 2011
Science has proved intelligent design, hence ID should be taught.

Since: Apr 08

Wheaton, IL

#5 Jun 19, 2011
HGtugh67 wrote:
Science has proved intelligent design, hence ID should be taught.
WOW! That's amazing! I must have missed it in the journal Science, or Nature, or Cell. Could you post the citation for those of us who missed it? Thanks.

By the way - in science, we don't "prove" things. Proofs are for maths and ethanol. In science, we explain things.

I'll be eagerly awaiting your citations.
john q public

AOL

#6 Jun 19, 2011
What does a Canadian born preidential candidate have anything woth listening to?

“Science is the waytof truth”

Level 1

Since: Aug 10

Earth

#7 Jun 19, 2011
We absolutely should teach all about creationism in school. We should teach why the catholic church rejects it, and a survey of the lies and misrepresentations and outright frauds perpetrated in support of it. And once children see how desperate some churches are to fool justify their belief in iron age fantasy, the jib will be up.

In the process, children will learn what creatards want to keep them from, an understanding of how science works, why we need it, and what it has taught us about the world as it really is.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#8 Jun 20, 2011
HGtugh67 wrote:
Science has proved intelligent design, hence ID should be taught.
Ah... No, it has not.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#9 Jun 20, 2011
HGtugh67 wrote:
Science has proved intelligent design, hence ID should be taught.
Oh kewl! When didz that happens then?

In that case you should be able to tell us exactly what the "scientific theory" of ID is...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10 Jun 20, 2011
HGtugh67 wrote:
Science has proved intelligent design, hence ID should be taught.
LOL. Actually, quite the contrary. EVERY proposed example of 'irreducible complexity' has been shown NOT to be irreducible. Yes, that includes flagella and the immune cascade.
Sick of Stupid

Davenport, IA

#11 Jun 20, 2011
I had an advance copy of " of Pandas and People". The intelligent design textbook. It is a total crock. No usable I formation in it at all.
It's not science.
Evolution may only be a theory, but it has a lot research behind it.
The more we know now about DNA, and genetics the more sense evolution makes.

It is a good theory. Creationism and intelligent design have no place in a science class.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#12 Jun 20, 2011
Sick of Stupid wrote:
I had an advance copy of " of Pandas and People". The intelligent design textbook. It is a total crock. No usable I formation in it at all.
It's not science.
Evolution may only be a theory, but it has a lot research behind it.
The more we know now about DNA, and genetics the more sense evolution makes.
It is a good theory. Creationism and intelligent design have no place in a science class.
SoS, I (and the other rational people on these threads) agree with pretty much every thing you said (above) with the exception of the phrase "Evolution may only be a theory...".

"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."

"A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence."

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

Level 1

Since: Apr 07

Nashville, TN

#13 Jun 20, 2011
Primewonk wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW! That's amazing! I must have missed it in the journal Science, or Nature, or Cell. Could you post the citation for those of us who missed it? Thanks.
By the way - in science, we don't "prove" things. Proofs are for maths and ethanol. In science, we explain things.
I'll be eagerly awaiting your citations.
My father held a Masters Degree in chemical engineering and he would call your form of science JUNK.

That is why you use terms like "we believe", "it takes million of years", "Billions of years ago", etc. It something takes millions or even billions of years to progress then were are the intermediate stages of evolutionary development?

That is why it is called junk science.

My name is Jim Hayden and I AM the next American President
http://www.Jimhayden2012.org

My name is Jim Hayden and I AM the next American President
http://www.Jimhayden2012.org

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#14 Jun 20, 2011
Jim Hayden wrote:
My name is Jim Hayden and I AM the next American President
http://www.Jimhayden2012.org
Anybody want to take bets on this?

(I'm MikeF and I approve this message)
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#15 Jun 20, 2011
HGtugh67 wrote:
Science has proved intelligent design, hence ID should be taught.
This would be a LIE!

The concept of an "intelligent designer" has been around since at least Plato [Timaeus] and Aristotle [Metaphysics] some 2300+ years ago. In that entire time, NO scientific research or empirical evidence has ever been produced that demonstrates the existence of an "intelligent designer".

What supporters of intelligent design merely do is point out that certain aspects of reality are complex and infer that there must be an anthropomorphic "designer" or "architect" or "engineer" responsible for that complexity. This is comparable to saying that they see dragon shapes in clouds and concluding that dragons really do exist.

.
.
.

In contrast, the Theory of Evolution has ONLY been around for 150 years and has a VAST amount of logic, reason, research, empirical evidence and sound science in support. BILLIONS of bits of information, data and empirical evidence, collected over the past 200 years, studied and researched by TENS OF MILLIONS of scientists and technicians, from EVERY scientific discipline, form EVERY religious denomination, in TENS OF THOUSANDS of museums, universities, research laboratories, excavation sites, observatories, research hospitals, etc. all around the world.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#16 Jun 20, 2011
Jim Hayden wrote:
<quoted text>
My father held a Masters Degree in chemical engineering and he would call your form of science JUNK.
That is why you use terms like "we believe", "it takes million of years", "Billions of years ago", etc. It something takes millions or even billions of years to progress then were are the intermediate stages of evolutionary development?
All around you and in TENS OF THOUSANDS of excavation sites, museums, universities, colleges, research laboratories, etc. all around the world.

To bad you choose to IGNORE them all. Most of them, including such transitional organism icons such as Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik roseae, are FASCINATING.
Jim Hayden wrote:
<quoted text>That is why it is called junk science.
Good thing that SCIENCE, and the VAST majority of the world, don't care what you or your chemical engineer dad think about the subject.

.
.
.

BTW, what did your dad call a "science" that "concludes" that the first man was conjured up out of a pile of dirt, that the first woman was conjured up out of a rib taken out of the first man, that trees bearing magic fruit do exist, that snakes can talk, that angels can have sex with mortal women, etc., without a single shred of research or empirical evidence in support of those "conclusions"?

Level 5

Since: Sep 08

Neon City Oh.

#17 Jun 20, 2011
Primewonk wrote:
"Michele Bachmann explained her skepticism of evolution on Friday and said students should be taught the theory of intelligent design."
Wait. What? When ID become a theory?
“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.”…
When did ID become science? What scientific doubt is there about ToE?
What is the teabaggers big obsession with finding the most ignorant candidates to run?
Don't mistake where I am coming from. I believe in creationism.
It seems that the TeaBirchers want to turn America from a republic into a theocracy. And people are dumb enough to vote for them.
Folks, the dark ages were not a fun time.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#18 Jun 20, 2011
WDRussell wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't mistake where I am coming from. I believe in creationism.
It seems that the TeaBirchers want to turn America from a republic into a theocracy. And people are dumb enough to vote for them.
Folks, the dark ages were not a fun time.
Did you mean to say, "I DO NOT believe in creationism" or "I accept the scientific validity of the Theory of Evolution"?

From the rest of your post, you seem to infer that.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#19 Jun 20, 2011
HGtugh67 wrote:
Science has proved intelligent design, hence ID should be taught.
No it has not. ID proponents keep making that claim, but to-date have not managed to support that ID is science, that there is evidence supporting ID as science, or that ID should be taught as anything other than a non-example of how science should be pursued.

If you have information to the contrary, from a valid scientific source, I would be glad to take a look at it.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#20 Jun 20, 2011
HGtugh67 wrote:
Science has proved intelligent design, hence ID should be taught.
There is far more evidence of your profound ignorance in this one post than there is evidence for ID in all of the articles ever written about it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 32
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 hr Richardfs 1,141
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Richardfs 52,022
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Richardfs 157,574
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr It aint necessari... 24,828
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 hr Regolith Based Li... 218,797
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Thu scientia potentia... 98
News Darwin's Doubt: Giving a Case for Intelligent D... Thu scientia potentia... 1
More from around the web