New Orleans, Louisiana (CNN) – Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann explained her skepticism of evolution on Friday and said students should be taught the theory of intelligent design.
Bachmann, a congresswoman from Minnesota, also proposed a major overhaul of the nation’s education system and said state administrators should be able to decide how they spend money allocated to them by the federal government.
"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."
Intelligent design suggests that the complexity of the universe cannot be explained by evolution alone, and must also be attributed to a creator or supernatural being.
"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."
Bachmann said educators should be granted the flexibility - and the money - to make curriculum decisions at the local level.
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."
She said her proposal would cut out "billions in dollars of bureaucracy" from the federal government.
From CNN Politics
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
Extremist moron.
Schools should teach facts.
Please Lord, save us from this crusading moron!
Schools should also teach that the earth is flat. You know just in case we are wrong.
Right, because the GOP wants to brainwash kids into being conservatives, not teach them objective facts, historical record and science. Galileo is rolling over in his grave.
I think we should also teach that the sun goes around the earth and let the students decide.
And they should stop teaching gravity and mathmatics too!
Goodbye any chance now! Can't really argue against the laws of science, no matter what party you represent.
"What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. "...so in her administration the tail would wag the dog?
"I support intelligent design." How can she not see the irony in that statement?
And which religion's view shall we teach our kids? hmm? Why not have a class that touches on the more popular religions and thier beliefs as far as creation. This would give our children a perspective on the WORLD that we all live in. Else, keep your personal beliefs to yourself Michele.
Please no reglion in school.
I'm a teacher. Sorry. I will never teach intelligent design in my public classroom. Ever.
So Bachman supports "intelligent design" and not evolution so much? Perhaps she is still scratching her head over the issue of life on planet earth. Even though man has walked this planet for thousands of years, she thinks we're still trying to figure out where we came from? My question is how does someone create such a following with so little intelligence with the same lack there of?
Sad, and really scary.
So when the teachers decide its a good idea to teach children that there are all kinds of people in the world, black white gay straight european and asian.....will she still feel that way or will she return to her book burning days of being a racist herself.
...I think it's funny, not so funny. When people are so anti-science. But when there life is about to end, or they need medical science help. They, are all for it. I personally. believe in evolution. Prayers, and believing, that the Earth is flat. Can only get you so far.................................................
I am ashamed to say I am related to the bimbo Michelle Bachmann.
As usual, GOPs want the government to do everything for them. Anyone who wants to learn this nonsense can go to a church – it is not gov't role to support religion, let alone sheer fantasy which is what I.D. is.
OoooooKaaaaay. She should be taught something. ANYthing. Geeeez -– but then, her voice is not quite as irritating as the quitta from wasilla. IQs are about the same.
Uh -- reasonable -- beiing the key word.
Tooooooooo bad, bimbo.
Of course she's not close to a decision. She's gonna ride this free media publicity and million dollar bonanza gravy-train all the way to the bank. She has absolutely no intention of EVAR running for POTUS. Don't you media morons get it?
Intelligent Design and Creationism should not be taught in a science class. They should be taught in a class on religion. Bachmann's underlying agenda to push conservative Christian beliefs on all American students of all faiths and no faith must be resisted. Her argument that all science issues must be put before students rings hollow because Intelligent Design/Creationism is not science, but a religious belief system that requires faith and not the rigors of scientific proof.
Intelligent design is not a theory. It is an idea or an opinion, but to be called a theory it must pass certain tests. Please correct the article to reflect this.
An I thought Palin was an IDIOT. WOW.
This election cycle is probably her last gravy train, then the gig is over. Either run for office somewhere, or stop spending donations, contributions, and support money from people buying your merchandise for doing nothing by smiling, talking drivel, and waving to the crowds. Seriously...
Epic Fail! I bought some of her arguments, but doubting evolution (despite the overwhelming evidence, by the scientific supermajority) is just ignorant. And intelligent design is not science, it is a religious theory that is based on faith and not science.
Rep Bachmann should learn what science is....It is called "natural science" for a reason, i.e. science does not invoke supernatual explanations...On a scientific level, ALL of the evidence supports the concept of evolution...NONE of the evidence supports the intervention of a supernatural being..."Intelligent Design" proponents do not do well in the judicial system, where this issue has been litigated into oblivion...in courts of law, evidence , logic and truth are paramount..."Intelligent Design" comes out as a poorly disguised religious belief, NOT science...
Furthermore, there are no facts or science supporting I'd, so it is a fallacy to suggest I'd and evolution are even remotely close to each other in terms of factual support.
Here's a thought...if you need Religion in schools, go to a private school. As an educator, I'm not about to preach from the blackboard. Why do Social Conservatives have to be so polarizing?
I think they should also bring students up to date on research about trying to find the Philosopher's Stone, so that we can change lead into gold. And let's teach the geocentric universe ideas too. I suppose medical schools should be extolling the virtues of bloodletting to remove the humours that cause colds...
Just another nail in her presidential aspiration coffin.
I'm all in favor of putting the science on the table. For example, the conjecture that there is an invisible being who can hear everyone's thoughts everywhere all the time, and can intervene in the physical world in response to prayer. Let's show the science for this. Gather up all the results of reproducible experiments and scientific proof, and let students decide if it makes sense. A key problem with ID is that it replaces one unknown with a more complex unknown that ultimately explains nothing because it's all hand-waving.
Great. Show some serious science that supports the Bible's assertion that the earth is only 12,000 years old and I'm all ears. This is obvious pandering to the base – the reason why she is (blessedly) un-electable.
Where do these crackpots come from? All that will happen with putting intelligent design on the cirriculum are lawsuits to stop it, then the money spent for education will be wasted on lawyers, and the courts will prohibit intelligent design on the cirriculum based on the Constitutional separation of church and state. For a bunch that doesn't like taxes for the rich or large corporations, the Repubs don't mind wasting the taxes paid by the middle class.
Intellectual design is not science, but based on opinion, thus should not be taught in science class
This comment goes right along this quote :
"There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, Oct. 2006
813 individuals have received the Nobel prize since 1901, one hundred of them in the area of Physiology and Medicine (which would cover evolution). You do the math.
....which is just a euphemism for 'Judeo-Christian Creation Myth." Fine, they can teach it. In a theology or mythology class. It has no place in the science classroom. But then Bachmann couldn't grasp science if it bit her in the backside.
Maybe someone should inform the republicans and tea bags that if we, the real Americans of this country wanted an extreme religious state like those in the Middle East we would have set it up. THE FOUNDING FATHERS who Bachmann and Palin don't know a darn thing about separated church and state. WHY, because they came to this country because they saw how that worked out for people in England and those countries. But since the republicans and tea bags don't want to admit that they can't force people to do what they want them to do, they lie and try to move the country into extremism.
How do you know that there is any intelligence behind everything or for that matter wether there is any design. It all may have been a coincidence that started the whole thing. Where do we have any right to demand that our interpretation is the only one or even the right one. There are so many unanswered questions to be looked into, and so many things we think and say are one way only to have them disproved some where down the line that maybe the best thing to do is to just be quiet and be grateful we are even here. To push or try to make everyone else live by our own beliefs is the height of stupidity.
I'm willing to think Bachmann knows what intelligent design is. Guess what, I'm willing to bet Sarah Palin doesn't lol
Dear God...as the rest of the world gets more progressive, better educated, and more competitive, these knuckledraggers want to take us back to the dark-ages. She obviously does not understand the basics of the scientific methods. Let's just do away with experimentation, validation, repeatability, and just call everything "science." Sheesh...we are all doomed.
This nation owes Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin a debt of gratitude. Too many times have politicians been elected, only for us to find out later that they're completely nuts. With Michele denying evolution and suggesting school is the place to teach kids about Intel. Design, and Sarah thinking Paul Revere, cavemen and dinosaurs probably all lived together at the same time, they have taken out the guesswork regarding their common sense levels. Bravo, ladies...and thank you.
The title says it all. That's why this woman must never allowed anywhere near the White House.
Michele's IQ and logic is definitive proof against the theory of evolution. But then again, there's nothing "intelligent" about whoever "designed" her....there must be a third theory out there for this to make sense...
The existence of Michelle Bachmann is enough to cast doubt on the validity of intelligent design. (OK, I give her points on design.)
Uh, oh. Here it comes. Republican science.
Bachmann is sucking up to the far right religious fanatics who have not a clue on the universe and it's structure. If they look to the heavens with hands out-stretched, salvation is handed to them. Promise them anything and they will vote.
Intelligent design is not science. It's creationism by any other name.
If this woman is elected President of the United States, it will be a nightmare for the entire education community.
What sides of the issue? There is no debate in the scientific community about evolution. Its just a way to put their religion in schools and that's why it has been rejected by the courts over and over again. If you wanna believe in god, that's fine, but without any evidence (and their isn't any) you cannot say something consciously created life. Science is based on facts, what can be proven, and what is the most probable answer. This is like asking having a brain surgeon being told how to do his job by a hot dog vendor. Bachmann and her friends aren't educated enough to talk about evolution, biologists, astronomers, geologist, palentologists, astrophysicists, etc. are the experts, they understand evolution and then can teach us. Plus they can back it up with proof. God needs to stay out of public schools, stop trying to force your religion down everyone's throats
Weird how TPers are so adamantly pro-constitution except when it doesn't fit their agendas. No, wait, weird is not the word I was looking for. Oh, yeah. Hypocritical. That was it.
And the earth is flat.... and the center of the universe.... men and dinosaurs shared snacks... come on, when will the insanity stop? "Reasonable doubt on both sides"???? There is scientific scrutiny on one side, and brain dead behavior on the other. The only thing reasonable about this is that Bachmann is full of, er I mean, her head is empty.
Students should be taught the theory of intelligent design.
Condition students for the new social and economic order: "German youth must no longer... be confronted ..... must be as swift as a greyhound, as tough as leather.
Intelligent design is not science! It is religion and philosophy.
What a terrifying woman...... " lets teach the science of Giving Up because we don't know!" Thankfully most intelligent people do not think that way or we would have never escaped the dark ages.
Just ..... wow.
NO! Do not teach your religion in my school.
Bachmann is proof that intelligent design isn't feasible. Ignoring hundreds of years of scientific discovery to insist on teaching fairy tales is reason enough that she shouldn't be elected to any office. And letting States determine educational criteria will lead to a mindless electorate and the further division of this country by state into educated and uneducated pockets. Its bad enough that the mindless masses flock to cults (religions). We certainly don't need the pious right establishing their religion for the rest of us to follow – that would be no different than what the Afghans faced under the Taliban.
Bachman is proof, herself, that there is a flaw in the intelligent design theory. Maybe someday there might be a Bachmann 2.0?
that is the point MB!!!!! There IS NO SCIENCE to support intellegent design!!!!! UGHGHGH~ how does she continue to get away w/ spewing this nonsense and her constituents don't challenge her? She looks good, I'll admit. But everytime she opens her jaw, this illogical, twisted nonsense spews out........She continues to bash PRESIDENT (thank you very much) Obama, yet has yet to offer ONE viable alternative solution. It's disturbing that so many seemingly intelligent people listen to her....and want more!!!! I repeat, UGH!
The Republican Party is a good argument refuting intelligent design.
As soon as intelligent design ha one shred of science to back it up then we can teach it in schools. Until then which means forever it will not be taught in public schools and any parent who pushes for it should have their education nullified
The theory of intelligent design is religion not science.
Just because something can't be explained doesn't mean God does it. Nobody could explain how disease worked 200 years ago, According to intelligent design logic, a "scientific" explanation would have been that God or the Devil was causing the disease symptoms. If people just believed that God caused disease, we would never have discovered the theory of infectious disease and viruses.
Since we discovered disease causing bacteria, we invented antibiotics. And for cancer, chemotherapy.
The evidence against intelligent design is overwhelming, from the fossil record to the fact that the universe iis so large .. and stars are so distant. How come the Sun looks like a 4 billion year old star rather than a 6000 year old star (we can see star formation in some parts of the galaxy btw). The light from the stars in galaxies other than out own took millions of years to get here (we can tell by many different factors such as the dimness, the redshift, age based on stellar astrophysics, and lack of parallax shift). Many laws of physics would be completely wrong if the galaxies and stars were not far away - it would be as though God intentionally created many weird things just to fool us. No Nobel prize winning scientist supports young Earth creationism (The Nobel prize winner creationists love to quote .. -> Richard Smalley supported old Earth creationism which dates the earth as being 6 billion years old .. and that evolution did not act alone).
I am a Christian and a science teacher (in MN no less). One requirement of a valid scientific theory is that it is disprovable. As Intelligent Design (ID) is not disprovable (it would require disproving God) it is not a valid scientific theory and therefore cannot be taught. ID is a belief and beliefs are not science, despite what Bachmann might think . . .
“Intelligent Design“? Really?
"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."
Umm...there is no “reasonable doubt“ about this. Intelligent design is not science, never has been, and is not supported by anyone with a real science degree. I suppose we should let local school boards decide whether they believe in gravity? Should we just let students decide whether sunrise is from the rotation of the earth or Apollo pulling the sun across the sky with his chariot?
The more I hear about Michelle Bachmann, the less I'm inclined to believe in intelligent design.
That's a great idea. let's also teach astrology alongside astronomy, and crystal healing should definitely be a part of geology.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN?......REALLY?......Ok, listen up, the world wasn't created in seven days, sorry to bust your bubble but its not true. There is no superior being in charge that created the time & space as we know it....come on now let's exercise some common sense. Schools have no business teaching creationism....what happen to separation of religion & state?. I thought this was America & not Germany in 1941. Stick to the facts & science has a lot of that and sorry to bust your bubble again but evolution does exist & its happening now & global warming is also a fact. Wake up ZOMBIES!!!....do your research & look at the facts!!!!
Unfortunately, Michele Bachmann is a perfect, living, counter example TO intelligent design....
Dear Lord, please protect us from the more idiotic members of your fan club.
Another social conservative intelligent designer. I say keep the social issues off the table - Americans want candidates focusing on the economy/deficit, but glad they are putting their stakes in the ground so I know which bible thumpers not to vote for.
na na na na...na na na na...hey heyyyyehhh..goooodbyeeeee
She supports "unintelligent design". You don't toss things on the table that and let kids decide. You teach science and leave the other stuff to churches. What a true wackjob this woman is! I wish these people were exempt from being able to benefit from medical advances. If it was up to them, there wouldn't be any.
She said her proposal would cut out "billions in dollars of bureaucracy" from the federal government.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
State governments are fully capable of determining their appropriate education programs. Certainly it would result in more creativity in that important endeavor and absolutely reduce the wasted bureaucracy that now permeates American education efforts.
Michelle Bachmann is a very reasonable candidate. I look forward to hearing more of the perspective she has on other things. In my estimate, the more she gets out there the more people will identify with her. This is getting exciting.
"Sarah Bachman" and "Intelligent Design" in the same headline. How funny is that.
I just saw this woman give an interview here is some of what she said. She wants to overturn Roe vs Wade, repeal the Health care reform, DADT and have marriage be defined as between a man and a woman. She does not intend to vote to raise the debt ceiling and she is in favor of the Ryan budget plan.
So from that I assume she wants to overturn womens rights, she is against gays and she wants to enforce her ideas on morality. That tells me that she is an extreme right wing phoney religous zealot. I believe in God but, I do not want this type of self serving person in charge of our Nation. In my heart, I can not believe that the majority of Americans will tolerate someone like this to be President. Our own personal faith, and our own personal beliefs are exactly that and we do not need someone in power to push their beliefs down our throats.
Faith is personal and should not be dictated by any leader. These tea party people are dangerous to our freedom and please remember, you cannot legislate morality.
I am a science teacher and a Christian. The theory of evolution by natural selection and other proposed means is not mutually exclusive with my belief in God. However, how can I teach intelligent design to students who do not believe in God? Moreover, intelligent design is not science. I don't know how you can teach it to college students preparing to be teachers who do not share the belief in a creator. I have no objection to students learning intelligent design at Sunday school or church youth group. I do not force my students to accept the T of E by NS; I only wish that they understand what it is– perhaps so they can debate its validity with some intelligence of their own.
I know it would'nt take her long, before the true basket case came out.
Evolution is a verifiable fact. It is the mechanism through which it occurs - natural selection - that comprises the theory.
People who do not understand how science works seem to think that a "theory" is somehow lacking in power and validity. Scientific theories are our best explanation for an event or phenomenon based on the available evidence, i.e., a theory tells us HOW it happens. Theories have generally been subjected to rigorous testing and represent the consensus of the scientific community, whereas a hypothesis is a possible explanation and has not necessarily been extensively tested.
Calling something a theory does not cheapen or weaken it. On the contrary, the term "theory" gives it legitimacy as something that is scientifically testable and that has been rigorously examined either mathematically or empirically to the point that the available evidence overwhelming supports it.
Theories are based on the best empirical EVIDENCE available, not PROOF. There is an incredible wealth of evidence–both geological and biochemical–to support evolution by natural selection.
Creationism and ID are faith-based concepts. Their "evidence" consists of the allegories provided in the Bible, nothing more.
I actually have no problem with the idea of discussing the merits of Creationism or ID in the public school classroom. It would make a fine topic in a social studies course on Religions in Society. But this topic has no business in a biology classroom, since science is based on verifiable evidence along with empirically and mathematically testable hypotheses, whereas religious beliefs are by definition faith-based.
And this is what is wrong with America. Too many people take lunatics like this seriously. have to tell you, sweetie, the bible isn't science. It's superstition.
How does she know what our kids need to learn?
hmmm, and we wonder why our kids fall behind in science.
Great. Apparently Mrs. Bachmann doesn't realize that there is no scientific theory behind Intelligent Design, no research, no support other than from creationists (which makes ID religion). She also should stop to consider that perhaps the best people to decide if I.D. is science or not are the people with Ph.D.'s and years of field experience, not a bunch of high school students getting a watered-down, simplistic version of evolution that can fit in the reduced time our schools have to teach science. There is no way they could be exposed to enough of the massive amounts of evidence in favor of evolution – and be taught enough biology to understand all of it – to form a truly informed opinion. That's like trying to teach them enough of circuit design to understand and 'build' their own microchips, and if you can't say that we should be teaching "intelligent electricity".
Sigh. News flash
"What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide."
Yes...me too. But ID isn't science. No matter how bad you want it to be taught, it is not science. Its also not a theory. Its a hypothesis.
But why don't we do that with all subjects? "Little Billy says 2 +3 = 9..who am I to say he is wrong?"
Take that thought to church.......and LEAVE IT THERE!
Precisely why no one should be voting for you! We do NOT need to return to the dark ages, in philosophy.
It is scary to think that people running for the leader of the USA would be such religious, anti-science nuts. Intelligent design is a religious believe, not a scientific theory. Teach it in church if you must, but leave Science to schools. Of course, this explains more of her economic beliefs too.. they are based on her "faith", not economic education.
"What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide."
As a dedicated christian...there is definitely no science in intelligent design.