Michele Bachmann demonstrates her inability to separate science from superstition.

This argument drives me crazy!

Creationism is NOT science, period!  It offers no data to examine, nor theories to discuss.  All that it does is attempt to poke holes in evolution by making up terms like irreducible complexity, or misstating the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and then, knowing full well that their target audience is too ignorant and uninterested to double check their "facts," use these deceptions to "prove" that Evolution is not good science.

By the way, the same scientific criteria applied to every other scientific discipline is also applied to evolution, but oddly enough you NEVER hear about those scientific disciplines being challenged as often, and as relentlessly, as evolution.

And the reason why is simple. Because their research does not seem to directly challenge the Christian faith. (Though to be fair, many of them actually do, but the average person of faith is not aware that Anthropology, Cosmology, Archeology, and many others are also problematic as it relates to their view of reality.)

By the way Bachamnn did not get away with this BS unscathed, and in fact was challenged during her Q and A by a student.

Courtesy of Crooks and Liars:

A student from Bancroft, Iowa, who identified himself as a Catholic, explained to Bachmann that there was big difference between a "theory" like intelligence design and a "scientific theory" like evolution. 


"The idea of creationism by an intelligent designer is not scientific," he said. "It is pseudo-science. There is no hard evidence that says that God created Earth. There is nothing like that. Whereas, we have physicists, chemists, biologists, many other people in the science field that say this is how the Earth was created, this is how the universe was created. ... How can you say that creationism can be taught in a public school where this would actually increase the combining of church and state?" 


 And Bachmann's response to this very bright young man?

"I think what you are advocating for is censorship on the part of government," Bachmann replied. "I want all facts on the table. ... Why would we forestall any particular theory? Because I don't think that evolutionists, by and large, say that evolution is a proven fact. They say that this is a theory as well as intelligent design." "So I think intellectually, the best thing to do is to allow all scientific facts on the table and let students decide."

Censorship?  Bachmann believes that if  her particular superstitious belief is not included in the science classroom, that indicates that the government is utilizing censorship?

What this imbecile fails to recognize is that this is NOT just a question of evolution vs creationism.  There are numerous creation myths, WHY should only the Christian version be introduced into public schools?

How about the Japanese creation story? Or the Egyptian creation story? Or one of the numerous African creation stories?

Once you open the door to placing unscientific mythologies in the same category as well documented, peer reviewed science, where does it stop?

Should Astrology be taught in the same classroom as Astronomy? Should Dianetics be taught alongside Psychology? How about teaching stork based childbirth alongside human procreation?

To borrow a line from Keith Olbermann, that was usually directed at another anti-education female politician, "That woman is an idiot!"