She Say Teaching Only Evolution Is Censorship

[Quartermass]

At an education forum at the University of Northern Iowa this afternoon, GOP presidential hopeful Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said she favored the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in schools, saying that just teaching the science of evolution would be “censorship by government.” Asked by a Catholic student why it’s not a violation of the separation of church and state for a public school to teach the religiously-tinged theories, Bachmann said evolution is just a “theory” that even “evolutionists” are not sure of:

BACHMANN: I think what you’re advocating for is censorship on the part of government. So the government would prohibit intelligent design from even the possibility of being taught in questioning the issueof evolution. And if you look at scientists there is not a unanimity of agreement on the origins of life. … Why would we forstall any particular theory? Becuase I don’t think that even evolutionists, by and large, would say that this is proven fact. They say that this is a theory, as well as intelligent design. So I think the best thing to do is to let all scientific facts on the table, and let students decide.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/11/30/379125/bachmann-evolution-censorship/

Any dishonest trick to get a foothold to a captive audience.

Religion needs to be kept out of schools.

[Ohio Joe]

1. I don't think religion needs to be kept out of schools

I think it needs to be kept out of science class. Something like a comparative religion class, I have no problem with.

[cleanhippie]

3. Agreed.

[Avalux]

7. If so, it needs to be an elective. No one should be forced to take a religion class. n/t

[Ohio Joe]

12. Agreed

Something like that would definitely fall into the elective category.

[Angry Dragon]

8. To study something you have to have facts, so let them put all their facts

on the table

[Ohio Joe]

14. I'm not sure I understand you

I'm not sure that a single class on anything can present all the facts and a class that would run through a fair number of different religions would certainly not be able to present all of the facts about all of them.

[msongs]

16. you don't get it - these people want to teach ONLY the jesus cult - no "fair number of religions" nt

[Ohio Joe]

17. I understand that just fine

What I don't understand is what that has to do with my post.

[Angry Dragon]

20. I was talking about Christianity

She has no desire to talk about or give any credence to any other religion

One could say that one theory is that god created everything
and then they would have to prove this theory and at that point it falls apart

Not explaining myself real well .......... I have a huge problem with religions
that tell me how to live and think and I have a huge problem with bachmann

[Ohio Joe]

21. I agree, she is a complete loony toon

Holding office, that makes her dangerous. Being considered a serious presidential candidate.... Thats just fucked up. The problem with people like her is not that they do not give credence to any other religion (as an atheist, I don't give credence to any of them), the problem is that she wants to force her religion on others... And that is a major problem.

[Warpy]

2. These people just don't get the fact that anything they have to point to the bible

to "prove" is religious in nature and is therefore illegal to teach as part of a public school curriculum. Despite their Orwellian attempts at nomenclature, it's also not science in any sense of the word.

But don't expect any stupid zealot to understand that. They are incapable of doing so.

Our job is to keep them out of office whenever we can.

[cleanhippie]

6. But Warpy, what about all those "other ways of knowing"?

:shrug:

[MarkCharles]

10. I'm sure Michelle "knows". She already told us all she "knows"

How does she "know"? It's GOT to be those "other ways of knowing"!

[dtexdem]

4. Yeah, teaching only science in science class is censorship.

And then there's that other horrible example of censorship: teaching only mathematics in math class.

;-)

[MarkCharles]

11. And teaching only French in French class. etc.

Really, are these people that stupid, or just more lying con-artists like so many of the Christian leadership turn out to be?

[Avalux]

5. Hearing this from the lunatics is getting so very tiresome.

Once again - a scientific theory is the best explanation for all the facts available. There's a reason why evolution has been the best explanation of the facts for over 150 years.

I can't decide if Bachmann and her ilk just don't understand that or intentionally obfuscate to confuse people. There are no "scientific facts" that support intelligent design or creationism.

[MarkCharles]

9. I see that the Creatards have finally found their most intelligent spokesperson.

Dishonest, of course, bat shit crazy, of course, but brighter than most of them, and really a skilled public speaker.

This kind of thinking is a major twentieth century by-product of Christianity and Christian evangelical dogma: so much for that religion to be PROUD of?

Meanwhile, the science-believing members of the same major faith group simply point at themselves with the same kind of self pride, and refuse to engage in a battle to eliminate this kind of Cancerous growth from the thinking of their fellow Christian religionists, they prefer to stay silent.

Bat shit Bachmann and her closet case anti-gay crusading husband preach homophobia, Christian supremacy, and creationist baloney, and the rest of the more rational, science- endorsing Christian faiths choose to say silent against these people?

[HereSince1628]

13. Creation myths and various arguments from design

are included in most undergraduate courses in evolution...they are just included as failed ideas. It's my experience that most creationist students took greater offense at my pointing out their positions failings than they objected to being asked to be able to explain the position of evolutionary scientists.

The interesting thing about Intelligent Design is that it's as much a social/political agenda as it is an actual explanation. What creationist can't win within science, they attempt to achieve in an arena where scientific rules don't apply, namely the arena of law and pubic governance. Their advocates twist scientific dismissal of failed ideas, such as Intelligent Design (which is actually not much different from Paley's Argument from Design but introduces claims of "irreducible complexity") into notions of fairness and censorship which are better suited to considerations of public conduct under the law and rules of governance.

Bachmann is actually doing a very mainstream thing for folks who belong to the intelligent design movement...seeking to change the venue in which creation is considered from one of science to one in which vernacular appeals to fairness have traction.

[MarkCharles]

15. It may well be a "social/political agenda" but toward what end?

I agree, it is attempting to use the more amorphous democratic principles of "censorship" or "fairness", but what is their ultimate goal here? Obviously, it's an attempt to convert more people to their brand of rigid Christianity.

In the end, this is sneaky underhanded evangelism and prosthelytizing, pure and simple, so typical of Christianity and religion in general, make people feel guilty and fearful, and then get your hooks in them.

[HereSince1628]

27. I think it's several things that are inter-related...

The primary thing is preservation of their belief system. I think that's more overt than sneaky and underhanded.

Creationists are conservative within their religious thinking. As conservatives they are highly motivated by fear. And although their fear of their creation myth being discarded is intense, it is probably secondary to the greater fear that the credibility of their fundamental authority--the bible--would be crushed.

Their social agenda is the protection of their religious beliefs within our society. They are doing that through enactment of political agendas that construct rules and regulations for society that are consistent with their fundamentalists beliefs. Insisting that their belief system be incorporated into science classes in public schools is just one of many of their objectives. Insisting that their definition of god given sexual roles and marriage are other political agendas.

Of course, preservation and perpetuation of their belief system depends upon the continuance of that belief across space and time. That is consistent with acquiring new fellow believers in every generation.

[exboyfil]

18. She should come for Darwin Week at Northern Iowa

It is an excellent week with a variety of wonderful speakers both from the university and outside the university. I took my then 7th grade daughter to it. She enjoyed it very much. Looking forward to it again next year.

My daughter is doing evolution for her Honors project presentation. She does have a few of the Darwin was an old fool folks in her class. I guess it is in the water around here. I tried to fight off the forces of darkness for "The Truth Project" which libeled Darwin to an incredible degree (Darwin a racist whose theory led to the Nazi Holocaust???). Not sure I changed any minds.

[Blue Owl]

19. Crying wolf is also censorship

:wtf:

:sarcasm:

[Goblinmonger]

22. It's turtles all the way down, bitches. n/t

[struggle4progress]

23. Whenever she opens her mouth on national TV, most people conclude she's batshizz-in-the-belfry

[MarkCharles]

24. She's not alone, even Rick Santorum is in her camp...isn't he a Catholic?

Santorum on video


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLo_jfru8jA&feature=related

[struggle4progress]

26. He is Catholic. But his position isn't the church's position. Plus he's running at 4%.

[Rob H.]

25. "So I think the best thing to do is to let all scientific facts on the table...."

Well, that rules out "intelligent design," then.

[NMMNG]

28. She's right

They really should teach both theories and let the kids decide.





I think what you’re advocating for is censorship on the part of government. So the government would prohibit intelligent design from even the possibility of being taught in questioning the issue of evolution.

Ironically this claim is coming from the same nitwit who says gay people are not being denied anything because they have the same right as straight people do--to marry someone of the opposite sex. No hypocrisy in her, eh?