"I support intelligent design," Bachmann told reporters following her speech at the conference, CNN reports. "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."On behalf of all educated and sensible Minnesotans, I would like to apologize for Mrs. Bachmann's continuing presence in the political arena.
"I would prefer that students have the ability to learn all aspects of an issue," Bachmann said. "And that's why I believe the federal government should not be involved in local education to the most minimal possible process."
Why only apologize to Minnesotans? I'd apologize to the US and the maybe the world...
ReplyDeleteI'm apologizing ON BEHALF of Minnesotans...
ReplyDeleteDon't feel so bad. I felt the need to apologize to the rest of the country for Donald Trump on my blog.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem are people calling stuff like intelligent design science. Idiocies like that have _nothing_ to do with science.
ReplyDeleteThe only problem with this type of thinking is the that religion is not science, intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design should be taught in religious studies and not in biology. Science searches to find answers in how the physical world works with experimentation, data and observation. God cannot be experimented on, observed or have data collected on it/him/her.
ReplyDeleteShe personally supports the God Religion thing but is prepared to let students decide for themselves in open debate.
ReplyDelete"I don't think it's a good idea for government to come down on one side of scientific issues or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides."
Now if that worries those of you who believe in God and creation, then you need to look deep within yourselves.
If you truly believe then you have nothing to worry about.
Why waste your time decrying fools when you could be out their in your neighbourhood helping the sick and the poor and giving to others as if they were your brothers.
You have a spare room then take in a homeless person and prove that God's love can rebuild them.
Personally I think that Junkies do more for each other than Goddies ever will.
Just a wee amplification.
ReplyDeleteWhen I say "GODDIES" I mean all the different people that believe in a single all powerful entity that created the entire universe and time and space be they Christian Jewish Moslem Hindu(don't give me grief, they are all manifestations of a supreme being and when was the last time you invited a beggar into your home anyway) not to mention lost tribes we don't even know about.
Wasn't me God did it.
God is peace but my God is more peaceful than yours so I'm going to wipe out your civilization.
As I understand it, the debate is not simply whether schools should provide information on creationism; it is whether state mandated education should inculcate children with information that many find farcical, and some find destructive.
ReplyDeleteUntil people can fully choose how, when, and to what ends to educate their children, or even to define for themselves and their children what education is and means, this is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Like Casey, I have my own state's shame: Sharron Angle.
ReplyDeleteImagine what it's like being from Texas: LBJ, two George Bushes, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, etc., etc., ad nauseam. You guys have it easy.
ReplyDeleteMessed with in Texas
Minnesotastan,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoy reading this blog in spite of its liberal leanings; however, I am deeply saddened to see you mocking the truth of the Bible. (Genesis 1:1)"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." It's as simple as that. I sincerely hope you and your readers will accept the truth before it's too late. Some are in for quite a surprise when they reach eternity. With all my heart I hope that you will read God's Word and give a chance to speak to you.
No need to apologize, she's not your fault.
ReplyDeleteTimothy,
ReplyDeleteBelief in religion and science aren't exclusive, but religion (I.D.) is not science. Nice faux-outrage though, and gross patronizing lecture on being "saved".
Thanks for your apology. Now could you please make her stay at home, where a good Christian woman belongs?
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteWhy the hostility? I somehow knew that, no matter how pleasant and non-confrontational that I tried to be, someone would have a snarky comment.
First, of course science and the Bible are not exclusive. True science and the Bible will always agree.
Second, evolution is not science either. Science involves observation, and not one human was present to observe the origins of our universe. Evolution is nothing but a theory. It takes at least as much faith to believe in the theory of evolution as it does to believe in ID.
Third, I'm a little confused by the "faux outrage" comment. There was no outrage, "faux" or otherwise. I simply expressed genuine sadness.
Fourth, if patronizing means expressing sincere concern for others, then I guess I'm guilty. However, I believe that "patronize" means acting in a condescending way. In other words, acting superior. I guess we all have a natural pride issue, but I know that I am a human being with sinful tendencies just like every other human on the planet. Ironically, "patronizing" is exactly the way that evolutionists generally (but not always) tend to act towards those who believe in creation/ID. There tends to be a strong implication many times that those who believe the Bible or ID are nothing more than ignorant hillbillies who just aren't as educated or intellectual as those who believe in evolution. Actually, I read this blog because I am challenged, stretched, and educated many times by Minnesotastan and many of the commenters. The author of this blog is very intelligent and some things he posts are beyond my ability to quickly comprehend. However, we cannot make our minds into gods. Our minds can be deceived and often come to faulty conclusions.
Lastly, I don't believe the word "saved" was anywhere in my comment. I simply asked people to give the Bible a chance to speak to them. I'm not sure how that qualifies as a "gross patronizing lecture".
I don't mind discussing controversial issues with people who don't agree with me. I do believe it ought to be based on some mutual respect. If all you have are insults, then this will be my final comment on this post.
Respectfully,
Timothy Benefield
"And that's why I believe the federal government should not be involved in local education to the most minimal possible process."
ReplyDeleteIf the gov't should not be involved in the education of children, then neither should the church.
Timothy,
ReplyDeleteThe hostility towards Bachmann, you or any other ID proponent comes from the fact that treating evolution and science in general with such disdain is somewhat offensive.
And saying, as you did in your first comment, that you hold the truth and that people should accept it is patronizing by your own definition. I'll skim over the use of the term "true science", which I guess is a clever way to ignore opposing views, since they must be "fake science".
Anyway, with that out of the way, there is the point: evolution is not a controversial subject. The vatican recognizes that, and sees ID as a disgrace.
You say "evolution is not science either. Science involves observation, and not one human was present to observe the origins of our universe. Evolution is nothing but a theory. It takes at least as much faith to believe in the theory of evolution as it does to believe in ID."
Well, at least you recognize that ID is not science, which is good. Evolution is, however. Yes it is based on observations, which can readily by made at any time. The theory doesn't deal with "the origin of the universe", or even with the apparition of life for that matter.
Evolution says: mutations occur randomly (which we know is true since the discovery of genetics), and beneficial mutations are likely to get passed on to the next generations. From this principle you can trace the history of all life on Earth back quite a long way, with a huge amount of fossil evidence to back it up. How the first primordial bacteria came into being? Not in the scope of the theory.
Aack. I'm in favor of the federal government butting out of education as much as it reasonably can, but for the purpose of putting intelligent design in the same class with evolution?
ReplyDeleteI find it bizarre that the modern Western church has taken our culture's equation of 'truth' and 'scientific fact' to the extreme that in the effort to proclaim the Bible's truth we treat it like a history and biology textbook. It's not. The Old Testament is ancient Hebrew literature, which could hardly be more different if it tried.
Galileo understood that (and he actually got it from Augustine), and spent most of his life trying to explain that orbital mechanics doesn't mean the Bible's wrong about God making the sun rise and set, it just means we need to take it as poetry proclaiming God's fundamental role in the continuing existence of our universe. I guess paradigm shifts are tough, but it's pretty obvious at least to me that understanding the interrelatedness and flexibility of life is not a challenge to God's sovereignty or status as the ultimate Creator.
All that said, religion doesn't belong in science class, and science must not step into territory that belongs to religion. The distinction isn't that difficult or scary, really.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteWhy the hostility? I somehow knew that, no matter how pleasant and non-confrontational that I tried to be, someone would have a snarky comment.
If there is a petty and vengeful God than you'll surely be in trouble with this amazing bit of dishonesty. In your post you accused people who believe in science of "mocking the bible" and went on to condemn all human beings who aren't Christians to hell. What a patronizing bunch of bull. The only thing missing from the post was a sarcastic "well bless your hearts"
I will whole-heartedly support Michelle's desire to teach I.D. in the schools as soon as she whole-heartedly supports teaching of contraception and true sex education along side of abstinence-only. After all, shouldn't we let the childrewn decide for themselves?
ReplyDelete@Old Geezer
ReplyDeleteThat's inspired! Don't know why I never connected the two in my head before.
(I'd like to apologize on behalf of Kansas and all our *ahem* monkey business).
One of the best nova programs ever made. It is about a trial that occurred in Dover, Pennsylvania which pitted intelligent design against Darwin's theory.
ReplyDeletehttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-404729062613200911#
Looks good. Thanks for the link, Jerome.
ReplyDelete@Timothy:
ReplyDeleteAlso, the big bang is totally unrelated to evolution. That is, if new information were to prove that the big bang didn't take place, evolution as an explanation for natural complexity would not be affected. If evolution were proved to be wrong, it would have no effect on cosmological explanations of the origin of the universe.