Michele Bachmann, "intelligent design," and the anti-science conservatism of the Republican Party

By Michael J.W. Stickings

CNN:

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann explained her skepticism of evolution on Friday and said students should be taught the theory of intelligent design.

*****

"I support intelligent design," Bachmann told reporters in New Orleans following her speech to the Republican Leadership Conference. "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."

First, "intelligent design" isn't science, it's creationism dressed up to look like something else. And what Bachmann is proposing is not an equal playing field -- because a silly notion like "intelligent design" would lose, as no serious, self-respecting scientist takes it seriously -- but the imposition of Christianist theocracy.

Second, how are students supposed to "decide"? Students need to be taught the truth, which is evolution. But it is not the sort of absolutist truth that a fundamentalist like Bachmann demands, but rather a scientific theory. Indeed, there is disagreement within the scientific community over the details of evolution -- healthy disagreement that furthers the quest for knowledge. But there is no disagreement over evolution vs. "intelligent design." If you want to teach creationism, fine, but it belongs in a religion class alongside other theological matters, taught comparatively, and not in public schools.

Third, this isn't the government taking sides on a "scentific issue," because, again, "intelligent design" is not science.

Fourth, there is no "reasonable doubt on both sides" There is disagreement within the scientific community over specifics, but "intelligent design" is just creationism. Students can be taught that evolution is not a settled matter, that it is not as simple as 2+2=4, but they certainly should not be taught that "intelligent design" is a legitimate alternative theory. Because it is not.

Fifth, while it is quite evident that Bachmann herself is an extremist, this view is prevalent within the Republican Party and on the right generally, which has become a largely anti-science party in recent years. The assault continues.

Attacks on evolution again -- some things never get old

By R.K. Barry 

Think Progress had a piece yesterday on pending legislation in Tennessee that would open the door to curtailing the teaching of evolution by prohibiting administrators, according to the bill's summary, from:

prohibiting any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught, such as evolution and global warming.

It will also apparently allow teaching religious and pseudo-scientific ideas -- such as creationism or intelligent design -- as legitimate scientific theories comparable to evolution.

In essence, this means that teachers are to be allowed to help students question the scientific validity of evolution while presenting creationism as a legitimate alternative theory.

Of course, there is no question among scientists that evolution is one of the most widely accepted principles of modern science. But this is the approach of the pro-creationist types who like to suggest that one theory is as good as the next, and what is science anyway? Just a bunch of people addicted to facts.

As for myself, the matter was settled years ago by Spencer Tracy in Inherit the Wind, the famous movie about the Scopes Trial. You can access a wonderful clip from the movie here.

Spencer Tracy said it; I believe it; and that settles it (for me). 

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Craziest Republican of the Day: Jack Kingston

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Republican Party is indeed the anti-science party, and Steve Benen today offers yet more evidence of that:

"Real Time" host Bill Maher asked Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) a fairly straightforward question: "Do you believe in evolution?" Kingston not only said rejects the foundation of modern biology, he explained it this way: "I believe I came from God, not from a monkey." He added, "If it happened over millions and millions of years, there should be lots of fossil evidence."

Seriously, that's what he said.

Let's pause to appreciate the fact that it's the 21st century -- and Jack Kingston is a 10-term congressman who helps oversee federal funding on the Food and Drug Administration.

*****

In the larger context, there's a renewed push underway for the United States to value and appreciate science in the 21st century -- our future depends on it. And while this push is underway, Republican leaders are more comfortable walking a bridge to the 18th century.

What an embarrassment.

It's an embarrassment, yes, but Steve is actually being too kind. They're not walking a bridge to the 18th century, a century of Enlightenment, but so, oh, say, the 14th, before even the Renaissance got underway.

Of course, when it comes to evolution, and the denial thereof, we've heard all this before (including from Christine O'Donnell last year). But that's only because such views are commonplace among conservatives and widespread within the GOP, where creationism is almost as big as voodoo economics.

And, again, what's concerning is not so much that these views exist but that they are very much a part of the Republican mainstream. It would be one thing if such willful ignorance, rooted in Christian fundamentalism, were merely to be found on the distant far-right fringe. It's another thing entirely that such crazy extremism dominates the majority party in the House.

Here's the clip: