More on Michigan’s attempt to move “Intelligent Design” into the classroom.

Ah, I finally have a name on who the dumbass in our state government here in Michigan is that wants to start teaching creationism in our schools. It’s Rep. Ken Bradstreet, a Republican out of Gaylord. No wonder.”> Rep says evolution remains unproven

PETOSKEY – “Intelligent design” – the theory that life on Earth is the result of a creator’s plan – is science, not religion.

So says state Rep. Ken Bradstreet, the lead sponsor of a bill that would mandate adding creationism to the discussion if evolution is taught in Michigan’s public schools.

“Good science is not blocking off all other theories except the one we like,” said Bradstreet, R-Gaylord.

Indeed, I agree with the above statement. Just a shame that “Intelligent Design” is as about as much of a valid theory as I am a valid Pope.

Bradstreet’s House Bill 4946, which has 24 co-sponsors, would amend the state’s core school curriculum. All references to “evolution,” “natural selection” and “how species change through time” would be modified to indicate they are unproven theories. The curriculum would mandate that students “describe how life may be the result of a purposeful, intelligent design of a Creator.”

“Young people need to understand that evolution is a theory, that it has some major weaknesses,” Bradstreet said.

Young people need to understand that evolution has a shitload more evidence backing it up than “Intelligent Design” does. I would seriously love to hear what evidence Mr. Bradstreet feels he has for “Intelligent Design” being a scientifically valid theory that deserves to be taught alongside evolution.

Gravity is an unproven scientific theory, too, said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif. The center defends the teaching of evolution in public schools, monitors the creation-evolution controversy nationwide, and provides information to communities struggling with the issue.

Any government attempt to force attribution of a scientific phenomenon to a creator is mandating a religious belief in a public classroom and would run counter to the well-established judicial principles of the separation of church and state, Scott said.

“If this bill accidentally passes, the state of Michigan will be in for a lawsuit that you’re going to lose,” she said. “If your state is like mine, you probably don’t have a lot of extra money to be throwing away for no good reason.”

It’s not for legislators to say what should be taught in a science classroom, Scott said.

“If a scientific idea has merit, it will be judged so by scientists and trickle down to the high school curriculum,” she said. “To mandate intelligent design before it is accepted by the scientific community is wrong-headed, and bad for science education.”

Damn straight. Couldn’t have said it better myself, though I have said much the same thing on many occasions here.

Bradstreet countered that there is “compelling scientific evidence supporting intelligent design,” and that there are “thousands of scientists who believe exactly” what is proposed in his bill.

Fine, present your evidence for all to see. Funny thing about these politicians, they never seem to have said evidence on hand at the time. Also, thousands of scientists who believe exactly what is proposed in his bill is not proof of “Intelligent Design” as a valid theory. Jesus Christ on a Pogo Stick, these idiot politicians will be the death of me.

UPDATE: If you live in Michigan and are as upset about this pending legislation as I am then it’s time to write your representatives at the State Capitol. Don’t know who they are? That’s OK, we here at SEB are here to help. Just click here and input your Zip Code +4 (9 digit zip code) and it’ll tell you who your Reps are.

5 thoughts on “More on Michigan’s attempt to move “Intelligent Design” into the classroom.

  1. Stuff like this makes me wish I hadn’t given up my permanent address in Michigan. And I only did it last year, for chrissake.

  2. Done. I even preemptively sent one to Governor Granholm asking her to Veto it if it somehow manages to pass.

  3. Next time you meet someone advocating Intelligent Design, enthusiastically agree with them for a while.  Then slowly reveal that you base your arguments on Eric Von Daniken’s “Chariot of the Gods”, and not the Holey Bubble.  The theory clearly allows for the use of both of these interpretations of historic documents and folklore as data.

  4. Thanks for the link to the reps.  I just finished sending out my letters.  It doesn’t surprise me that they are trying to push religion back into the schools.  Lets hope that the bill doesn’t pass.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.