Bachmann urges schools to violate the Constitution
MNCR hits upon the true concern surrounding the candidacy of Michelle Bachmann:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…..” Do you really think Michele Bachmann would pay attention to that?
Really?
Voters need not theorize on the answer. While most blogs and MSM devoting space to the “church endorsement” controversy, another video of Bachmann that provides important context to the debate is being overlooked:
[video]http://www.youtube.com/v/Damah0KH-Co[/video]
Bachmann is at most endorsing intelligent design and at least putting intelligent design (ID) at equal footing with evolution. Teaching ID as an alternative to evolution is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005). Bachmann again on ID: (emphasis added)
Q5: Should “Intelligent Design” be taught (along with Darwinian Theory) in the p science curriculum in public schools?
Bachmann: “We need to trust teachers and the local school boards in what they want to teach. The federal government has no business in moving toward censorship. Bachmann stated that Darwinian theory was by no means ironclad, and to be able to question its tenets (i.e., the secondary law of thermodynamics, the fossil record) is a move toward academic freedom. She stated that it should be up to faculty, students and parents to draw their own conclusions.
Bachmann is trying to use scientific terms to justify her untenable position - not unlike how ID pretends to be science but merely puts on the outer appearance of science.
The court decision left no room for debate in this regard - teaching ID as an alternative to evolution is a violation of the Constitution.
I have no issue with those who believe in creationism over evolution. In fact, I even agree with Bachmann up to a point. Students should “draw their own conclusions” in the inherent battle between science and faith. Creationism should be taught in schools - in World Religions class. Teaching ID in Biology would destroy both faith and science.
Remember, ID is not an incorrect theory - it’s not a theory at all. There can’t be any debate between ID and evolution because they live in different epistemologies. No one can prove or disprove ID because it makes no claims on who the “designer” is or how they designed all life on Earth.
This is a bipartisan issue, in four directions. Secularists should be against ID because of the harm it does to scientific principles. Theists need to be against ID because it erodes the very concept of faith (belief without physical proof). Both Republicans and Democrats should be against ID (and the politicians that enable it) because it betrays a willingness to support irrational and anti-Constitutional policy.
Hat tips to Dump Bachmann and Pharyngula for source links.
October 18th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
dude, uuuhhh, you use big wurds and stuff, cool
but really, nice post!
October 22nd, 2006 at 12:02 pm
The beauty of the Dover ruling lies in two (2) things:
1) While it’s not a High Court ruling, it’s one hell of a strong precedent and VERY tightly worded. If the creationists try hijacking any other school systems, the automatic legal challenge will cite Dover — and win.
2) It’s written to prevent the creationists from using the rebranding strategy, which was their ace in the hole. See, the whole reason the creationists dumped the term “creationism” in favor of “intelligent design” was to get around previous legal rulings that stated that creationism was a religious belief and NOT a science and therefore couldn’t be taught as science; old creationist textbook were rewritten to refer to “intelligent design” instead. But the judge in Dover made sure that his ruling wasn’t just directed at something named “intelligent design”, but at anything that had the form and content of creationist/ID theology. That means that the creationists can’t just go out and junk the ID name in favor of, say, “guided development” or some other pseudo-scientific label in order to get around the ruling.