>>I like Michele, but I do not agree. Intelligent design is not science and should not be taught as such. <<
It is close to a “middle ground” position as a Conservative candidate can get. I am pretty sure it will never happen but when you get the base, you get the base with all its idiosyncrasies.
We can try to keep this discussion about the wisdom of her position more than fallacies of ID. But we shall see...
I’m more interested in the report this woman received $250,000 in farm subsidies. Is the report true, what are the facts? Is she receiving an ethanol subsidy, wind mill subsidy, solar panel subsidy? If so how much? What other “Federal Funds” is this “conservative” receiving-if any?
I’m with you on that part but I do like this part:
“The federal government, she said, should “block grant all money currently that goes to the states back to the states, so that Louisiana can decide how they want to spend the money, which may in fact be different on how Minnesota spends its money.”
This would be a good start.
Private schools.
Period.
Let each teach what is desired, and let the free market decide.
New concept (for libs).
The laws of logic cannot be proved using the scientific method - thus the scientific method cannot be verified using the scientific method. Empiricisim is a arbitrary starting point which does not comply with human experience.
As as much science as the failed theory of evolution is, which contradicts both the fossil and genetic records.
Thank God for a candidate standing up for what the people want. Any Republican that can't do is unfit for office.
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.
Mistake by her. She should be advocating issues everyone can get behind.
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.
What are you implying? That there are no assumptions (faith) in "science"? Science is riddled to the core with assumptions. What if the speed of light isn't a constant after all? It takes more faith to believe in "science" than God.
It's a scientific model since it cannot be conclusively proven, but there is evidence for it. Evolution, on the other hand, is not science because it has been proven impossible. Saying it is so doesn't make it so.