From the Des Moines Register:
Bachmann’s position on intelligent design was tested in a series of questions from the audience.Crooks and Liars has some more:
While emphasizing that she didn’t have a platform position on the issue – since she believed it wasn’t something the federal government and president should be involved in – Bachmann said her religious beliefs informed her scientific views and that sufficient questions have been raised concerning evolution to justify alternative theories to be discussed in science classes.
“I do believe that God created the earth and I believe that there are issues that need to be addressed – the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the issue of irreducible complexity, the dearth of fossil record,” she said. “Those are all very real issues that should be addressed in science classes.”
Not allowing ideas like intelligent design to be discussed in science classes amounted to government censorship, she said.
“I think the one thing we do not want to have is censorship by government,” she said. “Government shouldn’t be dictating what information goes on the table.” [emphasis added.]
Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann says schools should teach children about evolution and intelligent design because "the best thing to do is to allow all scientific facts on the table."Couple problems with this argument.
During a question-and-answer session at the University of Northern Iowa Wednesday, Bachmann was asked if intelligent design should be taught as science in public schools.
"I think that all science should be on the table," the candidate explained. "I think the one thing we do not want to have is censorship by government."
"I do believe that God created the Earth," she continued. "And I believe there are issues that need to be addressed -- the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the issue of irreducible complexity, the dearth of fossil record."
First it assumes that there are indeed facts swirling within the intelligent design "theory" so therefore it is somehow a "science." And second, all three reasons Bachmann listed to doubt evolution (Second Law of Thermodynamics, irreducible complexity and the fossil record) in no way conflict with evolution.
Let's take a look at the most general outline of ID (Intelligent Design). It asserts that an intelligent designer designed the universe - a designer, by definition, who is outside of the universe. But science can only deal with the stuff inside the universe. Once one has injected an intelligent designer into the argument one has effectively left science.
On Bachmann's other arguments, Crooks and Liars has some science/rational thinking in response:
According to many scientists, all three issues Bachmann mentioned do not discount the theory of evolution.None of this, of course, will matter to the anti-science crowd.
Scientific American's Steve Mirsky wrote in 2005 that arguing irreducible complexity as evidence against evolution was a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy."
While Charles Darwin cited a lack of fossil records as "the most obvious and serious objection that can be urged against the theory," University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne believes the objection is no longer valid.
"Since 1859, paleontologists have turned up Darwin's missing evidence: fossils in profusion, with many sequences showing evolutionary change," Coyne explained in a 2005 article.
And University of Minnesota, Morris associate professor PZ Myers says the claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution false is "one of the oldest canards in the creationists' book."
Teh Crazie - evolutionary style.
