Skip to main content

Enemies of Reason: Michele Bachmann

After an inexcusably long absence, I've returned today to my occasional series highlighting those people and organizations whose stances are not only in contradiction to reality but are so counter-factual as to be absurd. However, becoming an "Enemy of Reason", joining the ranks of such notables as Ken Ham, Conservapedia and Creation Moments, requires more than just the average brand of crazy. Being listed as an "Enemy of Reason" requires holding and promoting positions that are hopelessly irrational. Congresswoman Bachmann meets both of these qualifications.

Sometimes an Enemy of Reason is a one-issue person, someone who may otherwise be reasonable except on that one topic that, as soon as they open their mouth and talk about it, makes them seem crazy. Others are crazy on a number of different positions, and it is into this category that Bachmann falls.

The first position Michele Bachmann holds is support for the unscientific notion of Intelligent Design, thoroughly debunked by notable scientists like Ken Miller and embarrassed in court in the 2005 Dover Intelligent Design Trial with its prime spokesman Michael Behe reduced to incoherence on the witness stand. She rather famously declared that evolution was still a matter of "controversy" within the scientific community with "hundreds and hundreds of scientists", including some with Nobel Prizes, supporting Intelligent Design. Aside from the fact that this is a hideous lie, and the "scientists" who support I.D. are mostly those few "fellows" of the Discovery Institute, Bachmann hasn't even the decency to say a few names of scientists who do support Intelligent Design. A young man from Louisiana named Zack Kopplin, involved in fighting the Lousiana Science Education Act, has called Bachmann's bluff. Having over forty Nobel Prize winners signed up in support of his efforts to repeal the LSEA, Kopplin called for Bachmann to match his Nobels. He has forty-four Prize winners in support of evolution, and now he wants to know where her Nobel Prize winners who support I.D. are. So far, the reaction from Bachmann has been absolute silence. Worse, while a State Senator, Bachmann authored a bill similar to the LSEA, one that would have helped let creationism into the science classrooms of Minnesota.

If her opposition to evolution, in the face of all the good evidence for it, wasn't enough, Bachmann doesn't disappoint on climate change either. During the debate on the cap-and-trade bill in the House, Bachmann called the choice before them not one of saving the climate but a choice between liberty and "tyranny" while also making clear that she thinks global warming is a "hoax." She further rallied opposition to the bill outside the halls of Congress, calling on a radio show for the public to be "armed and dangerous" on the issue. In the same interview, she peddled the nonsense that the true cause of global warming isn't man-made but rather "solar flares, etc."As a candidate for U.S. President, Bachman has pledged to stop the EPA taking any action to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, a last-ditch effort by the Obama Administration to get anything done to prevent catastrophic climate change in the face of GOP intransigence on the issue. All this in spite of the fact that the scientific community, especially those who deal with climatology, is largely in agreement that human activity is driving global warming.

As if all of this weren't bad enough, Bachmann continually promotes hatred and bigotry against homosexuals, saying that homosexuality is a "disorder", that gays are in "bondage" and that efforts to promote tolerance of gays in school are "child abuse." These and other quotes can be found here. Calling homosexuality a "choice", and an immoral one at that, completely ignores the reality. There is no substance to the idea that being gay is a choice, and for Bachmann to continue to push this line of ignorant bigotry is hateful and wrong. And while the Congresswoman has been off campaigning, spreading hatred against the LGBT community, nine teenagers have committed suicide in her district within the past two years, bullied for either being gay or simply being suspected of homosexuality. Her discourse on the topic, giving courage to anti-gay bullies everywhere, isn't just uninformed, it is deadly.

For using her national platform to promote the bad science of Intelligent Design and oppose the good science behind both evolution and climate change, for promoting hatred against the LGBT community through a constant stream of anti-gay rhetoric, Michele Bachmann is an Enemy of Reason. She not only needs a good education in science but also some lessons about being a Christian, for I'm told that being a Christian means exemplifying the love of Christ, and Bachmann hardly can claim to have done that. On a scale of one to ten, because of the fact that she is an enemy of reason on a number of fronts rather than one and because she has a national platform, Bachmann ranks an eight (ten being the highest possible score).

Comments

  1. You should look up "decision matrix" on google. You might find it a useful system for objectively placing people.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

What Creationists Don't Understand

There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...