Bachmann: Schools should teach intelligent design

CNN ^ | June 17, 2011 | Peter Hamby

[RINOs suck]

Bachmann pushing intelligent design and other “extreme” religious right agenda items will ensure that she and whomever she partners with will lose.

EVERY poll shows the majority of Americans believe intelligent design in public schools. Stop bashing her with liberal lies:

http://www.physorg.com/news11504.html

The Zogby poll reportedly showed 69 percent of Americans support the presentation of Intelligent Design, with 21 percent believing only Darwin's theory of evolution should be part of a high school's curriculum.

[USMCPOP]

I dislike the term “Intelligent Design”. We think we’re intelligent and we project that. How about “Omnipotent Design”? Wherein we have no clue how it works and all things, including evolution, are possible. At that level, preordained or random are just the two ends of the spectrum. Too much for our little brains? Can’t get ahold of it or manipulate it? Well, as far as I’m concerned, that’s a good thing.

[Raider Sam]

I agree. In science classes, the only things that should be taught are:

The history of scientific discoveries
Established theories that have been extensively tested
How to think critically and use the scientific method

Since the origin of the universe does not fit into those categories, it should not be taught either way. Instead, students should be taught how to think and apply methods so that one day, someone might actually discover how it began.

[circlecity]

"The science of design detection is already a recognized body of science. ID simply takes that science apples it to understanding the origins of the universe because it better explains the results of numerous experiments and observations."

Absolutely. Information and probability theory certainly provide a "scientific" basis for ID. Otherwise known as the teleological argument for creation.

[freedumb2003]

>>So philosophy should not be taught in school?<<

Of course it should — and that is where ID fits. ID is a bad fit for the natural sciences.

[rob777]

"ID is bad theology dressed up as a philosophy - it is a “god of the gaps” argument."


this is a red herring argument used to ignore the issues brought up by ID.




"It seems to me that if anyone thinks all modern species arose within the last few thousand years from a few “kinds” that could fit on a boat- they believe in “evolution” and “speciation” on a scale much greater than any evolutionary biologist proposes"


Another red herring argument. ID makes no claim about the age of the universe. What you are referring to is "Young Earth Creationism".

[onthelookout777]

http://www.icr.org/resources-for-scientists/

http://deanbible.org/andromeda.php?q=f&f=%2FAudio+Files%2FWHBC+Guest+Speakers+and+Conferences%2FChafer+Theological+Seminary+Pastors+Conferences%2F2010+-+Chafer+Theological+Seminary+Pastors+Conf

[saganite]

Recognized by whom? Not anyone in the scientific establishment. Maybe by fellow travellers. The “science” of phrenology is still extant. That does not make it valid.

[allmendream]

It is the truth, there are no “issues” brought up by ID that are not already old arguments based upon theology - bad theology.

Cdesign proponentists is by for and about Creationism. They suffer under the delusion that they don't believe in a scientific mechanism of speciation and adaptation to the environment - when it is obvious they do - and a lot faster.

[Raider Sam]

If both are not scientific, then neither theory should be taught in school. But throwing a 2nd non-scientific theory at students in science class in order to offset the 1st is the same social engineering that we are mad at the progressives for doing.

Are you saying that any Republican that doesnt want to push a non-scientific idea into science classes is unfit for office? I would argue the opposite.

[RaceBannon]

There IS NO DOUBT about Creation, only people who choose not to believe

There is COMPLETE doubt among evolutionists, and they constantly change their theories to match their doubts

Genesis 1:1

[School of Rational Thought]

Mistake by her. She should be advocating issues everyone can get behind.

[circlecity]

"It is the truth, there are no “issues” brought up by ID that are not already old arguments based upon theology - bad theology."

Bull. Nobody has ever refuted the cosmological or teleological arguments for creation. Opponents of ID merely adapt an arbitrarily narrow and inconsistent definition of science in order to exclude it. We call this begging the question in that they just assume the conclusion they purport to prove.

[RaceBannon]

yes, Gottcha, God Forbid she actually admit she is a CHRISTIAN with CHRISTIAN BELIEFS!

[allmendream]

Science hasn't changed.

Neither has the “god of the gaps” argument.

May as well try to explain the Universe sticking together with Angels or “the Force” instead of proposing a natural cause in “dark matter”.

Dark matter is a unsupported hypothesis - but it is science.

Angels holding it together or “the Force” are not science - and they never will be.

That isn't arbitrary or narrow - it is what it is.

[RINOs suck]

Are you saying that any Republican that doesnt want to push a non-scientific idea into science classes is unfit for office?

What I am saying is that origins of the universe are legitimate topic and will continue to be discussed. Thus, intelligent design as well as the flaws in Darwinism should be discussed.

It isn't realistic to think public schools are going to stop teaching evolution.

Bachmann should not be bashed for standing up for the right thing. Any candidate opposing her on this one Iowa will end up being road kill.

[Lakeshark]

The difference FRiend is that I never attacked.

For the most intrepid PDSer left on the board, that is chutzpah defined.....

You pissed and moaned for a year about the dumbest sh*t on the Palin threads, and you don't see the irony.

Tell me, have you explained why she didn't deal with the Romney care question yet? Have you explained why she hired Rollins of all people?

I'll answer, no you haven't, and the only reason has to be Bachmann worship. I'd like her if it wasn't for her crazy and rabid religion sotted supporters........

:-)

[circlecity]

Neither has the “god of the gaps” argument."

This has nothing to do with a "God of the gaps" agrument. If you claim it does please identify the "scientific" boundries of the "gap" you claim God is being plugged into.

[grumpa]

You say: “Intelligent design is not science and should not be taught as such.”

You are simply ignorant. Intelligent Design is by definition a scientific refutation of the neo-darwinian synthesis. We have two dozen scientific reasons on our site:

http://www.faithfacts.org/evolution-or-creation/evolution-science-or-creation-story

Nowhere in this article is the Bible or any other religious concept given as a reason for Intelligent Design. There are plenty of books out there. Don’t stay ignorant forever.

[ngat]

So what exactly is the problem? All students get exposure to the idea of ID and EVO and everybody should be happy.