Michele Bachmann: Excluding ID from schools is “censorship”

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 1, 2011

Culture, Darwinism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From “Michele Bachmann: Evolution-Only Approach In Schools Amounts To ‘Censorship By Government’” (Huffington Post, December 1, 2011), we learn:

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann said that excluding intelligent design in teaching evolution in schools amounts to “censorship by government” during a stop in Iowa on Wednesday, the Des Moines Register reports.

The conservative congresswoman signaled that her religious beliefs helped to shape her posture toward the scientific theory. She explained that she believes “God created the earth” and issues such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, irreducible complexity and the “the dearth of fossil record” need to be addressed.

It will be most interesting to see how bringing the question up again affects her chances.

The stridency sounds somewhat odd because ID theorists have not asked for their theories to be taught in school. It’s all grad seminar stuff.

What many people want is the right to bring up facts about nature that do not help cement the Darwin lobby’s position or reward its pressure groups.

Struggling to restore truthfulness in these matters to the school system is somewhat like struggling with a vast education sector union with a vested interest in getting well paid for not really doing the job.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

She is right on. It is censorship by government on conclusions. if its censored because these conclusions touch on religion then the gov't is censoring religious conclusions and in effect saying they are wrong since truth is the object in these subjects. Its censorship plain and simple. Yes scholls must be freed and a target for equal time from creationism(s). She should be president over the African for sure for this reason alone.Robert Byers_{December 5, 2011
December
12
Dec
5
05
2011
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT}

Yes that is correct.The main stream scientists are saying the world and life came to be in 'this way'. That is a religious point of view. Just as a religious person explains the same question ,as creation by a God. Neither should be in the schools. If you want the truth said in schools , then the scientists should just say they don't know, the answer to that. And it is really up to individual families, what they teach in their own homes. That also goes for religious holidays. What place does school have with that? So that means Christmas, Easter, Halloween. The other thing is holidays, or memorials on war. Many people believe that people killing each other, is not something that should be condoned. Now the veterans are paraded around as heroes. All that does is instill in a young mind, that even though people say it is wrong, you get to be hero if your good at it. Or die. How is that different than a young person blowing themselves up. School is not the place for these topics. 'Evolution' tell us that we are not accountable to anything. So anything goes, as long as you don't get caught.MrDunsapy_{December 3, 2011
December
12
Dec
3
03
2011
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

I think not enough attention is payed to the fact that the darwinist worldview is religious. It was religious when Mesopotamians held it. It was religious when the ancient Greeks held it. It was religious when Erasmus held it. It is still religious today and it has power to effect change in religious thought. If text books are going to over extrapolate into the area of metaphysical thought then this is religion. It should not be taught in schools.Mytheos_{December 2, 2011
December
12
Dec
2
02
2011
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

First, the question asked [ref thinkprogress.org], and paraphrased, was “Why it’s not a violation of the separation of church and state … to teach religiously-tinged theories.” The First Amendment merely states that religion not be established by government dictate. While ID may be ‘inferred’ as being religious, it is NOT. Evidence of design in nature entails no dogma or rituals, and is thus not religion per se. And Judge Jones’ contrived opinion didn’t make it so. But the questioner’s inference might well have been that it was government’s 'duty' to prohibit ID on such a basis. Bachmann, assuming that was the point raised stated, “I think what you are advocating is censorship on the part of government.” She then came out against just such a collusionary dictate. Actually, just such a prohibition is now in place, decreed by the foremost science regulatory organization, AAAS, which in a Board Resolution states in part: “ … Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education.” and " … AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "intelligent design theory" as subject matter for science education." http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml So was she right to term it ‘censorship’? You bet. And was she correct in allowing ID in as valid coursework? Indeed. ID as a causative hypothesis within evolutionary theory is perfectly valid science, and remains on the table [or lab bench] as investigative. If there is an enemy of science, it's [ ... ]. You fill in the blank.leebowman_{December 2, 2011
December
12
Dec
2
02
2011
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply