Michele Bachmann Confirms Her Lunacy

At the website Iowa Caucuses, maintained by the DesMoinesRegister, we found this article: Michele Bachmann reflects on early life in Iowa, takes education questions in Cedar Falls. It confirms what we’ve written about this crazy woman before (see Michele Bachmann in New Orleans: Insanity!). We’ll skip everything in today’s article but the creationism, and the bold font was added by us:

Among the issues that came up – and which Bachmann said her administration would push to the local level – were K-12 programming and funding, early childhood education, higher-education funding, arts and music education and decisions over teaching evolution and so-called “intelligent design” theories on the origin of life.

Go, Michelle, go! The madness continues:

Bachmann’s position on intelligent design was tested in a series of questions from the audience.

While emphasizing that she didn’t have a platform position on the issue – since she believed it wasn’t something the federal government and president should be involved in – Bachmann said her religious beliefs informed her scientific views and that sufficient questions have been raised concerning evolution to justify alternative theories to be discussed in science classes.

Religion prevails over science. Brilliant! The woman is probably also a flat-earther. Let’s read on:

“I do believe that God created the earth and I believe that there are issues that need to be addressed – the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the issue of irreducible complexity, the dearth of fossil record,” she said. “Those are all very real issues that should be addressed in science classes.”

Classic idiocy! Absolutely classic. The woman is insane! Here’s the last of it:

Not allowing ideas like intelligent design to be discussed in science classes amounted to government censorship, she said. “I think the one thing we do not want to have is censorship by government,” she said. “Government shouldn’t be dictating what information goes on the table.”

There’s a lot we could say, but why bother? It’s obvious that Michele Bachmann is one of the most ignorant humans alive.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

28 responses to “Michele Bachmann Confirms Her Lunacy

  1. It’s just about enough to send an educated, sane person running out of the house, arms flailing in the air, screaming in a hysterical frenzy.

  2. It’s clearly incorrect thinking, but it’s the same thing that millions of others believe. That’s why she has any supporters at all.

  3. The sad thing is, this kind of talk gets votes in the Republican primaries, whereas a sane, intelligent candidate like Huntsman can’t buy a vote.
    Yet, the Republicans need to nominate a rational candidate that the “majority in the middle” can be comfortable with if they hope to prevail in 2012.

    The more you talk, Michele Bachmann, the more likely that Obama wins. Hell, I’ll bet you’re getting money from George Soros.

  4. What is scarier about Bachmann is that she buys into the whole alternate right-wing christian history, believes that laws should be bible based, believes in doing away with the common public education system, and on and on.

    Her espousal of ID is completely congruent with those lunacies, of course.

  5. What is scarier about Bachmann is that she believes the crazy right-wing laws in her head apply to everybody except her. She’s special. That’s the whole Christo-fascist mentality right out of 1984: some pigs are more equal than others.

    Fortunately, at the moment, there is more sanity than insanity in the country and she and Cain and Perry and Santorum don’t stand a chance.

  6. Dear evolution scientist,
    I couldn’t find other page for my question, so I just upload my personal fundamental(?) inquiry. I just hope that I could receive many insights on this.
    1) What are the best 3 evidences(or 1~3) for evolution that lead us to conclude it as a fact scientificaily as of now?
    2) If the answer to 1) is not available until now, what is the best possible explanation of evolution? Is the evolution theory is still within the level of best suggestion in explaining the life on the earth?
    I am not creationist nor evolutionist, and not in any other cult thing.
    I am just looking for an answer which fully convince my reasoning.
    Many thanks for.

  7. Dear Anonymous: If you truly wish to understand the reasoning leading to the acceptance of evolution by natural selection as the best explanation of biological reality, read Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”.

    If you then still have questions, enroll in a course or two of biology at any community college. I’m sure the instructors will be happy to engage your informed questions.

  8. Sir,many thanks indeed for your feedback.
    Actually, clearly I wasn’t a good student in biology post-graduate course, becasue I couldn’t finish that.
    With all my respect, up until recent many papers on evolution theory, there is none truly strong evidence that enlighten the normal and ordinary person like me? Does that require power of insight beyond average people to be able to understand the evolution as a fact?
    Simple, plain explanation is not available, yet? I’m truly puzzled.

  9. @Anonymous:I’m truly puzzled.

    No, you aren’t, you’re trolling. If you want information that’s easy to read, there are any number of popular books, theres talk.origins, and failing that there’s the Wikipedia article.

    It’s not like you don’t have Google and can’t find these things. You just aren’t bothering.

    You COULD have tried clicking on the links here —->

    Try “Lessons of Tiktaalik” and “Where’s the Proof?” both are good.

    But you won’t. You’re only trolling, not actually interested in the answers to your questions. Because if you want to know the answers it is so easy to find them with almost no effort.

    [The clouds part and a Curmudgeonly Hand descends from above]
    The Lessons of Tiktaalik
    Where’s the Proof — Evolution’s “Smoking Gun”?
    List-O-Links

  10. Thank you Gabriel,
    Well, sadly I’d rather prefer to stay in center for a while, a while even it’s longer than my life time. I think it’s still too much doubtable.

  11. Curmudgeon: “Classic idiocy! Absolutely classic. The woman is insane!”

    You put that in the wrong place. What she said before that is not at all insane. Those topics ought to be addressed in science, and often are. What they must not be is misrepresented, as the propagandists have done to her (unless she’s in on the scam like Perry). And would certainly do to students.

    What she said after your comment – the obnoxious “censorship” accusation – is worse than insane. Yet what drives me even more nuts than that lie is the usual “Darwinis” response to merely deny the charge without showing who is really promoting censorship.

  12. RetiredSciGuy, I agree with you that if Michelle Bachmann gets the Republican nomination that President Obama will win hands down. Thankfully, she’s far behind in the polls.

    John Huntsman would be my choice, but he has no chance in hell of getting the nomination. Where I live, many people wouldn’t even consider him (or Romney for that matter), simply because he is Mormon. That’s one step removed from Satan in their eyes.

    I sincerely hope Cain, Perry, and Bachmann all fail in their attempts to get the Republican nomination. If that happens, maybe there’s still hope for the future of the Republican party.

  13. Ceteris Paribus

    @Anonymous,

    Creationists hold the idea of a hierarchy of animals, with some select human males designated to be in a special place on top of, and in dominion of, the entire heap. All in accordance with the specifications of a mysterious male being that no one you know has ever personally seen with their own eyes.

    Darwin showed in his work on barnacles that in some species the male has greatly degenerated over time. They have lost all identity with their original form and now exist parasitically as a mere bag of sperm with a penis, and exist only to propagate the species.

    This fact is better explained by evolution than by intelligent design. It is also a proof that hierarchies are only a mental construct. And, it can easily be personally verified today by any one with a microscope, and who has not yet lost a brain think with, or the curiosity to take a look.

    Michele Bachman is certainly devoid of curiosity, and is merely trolling for political notice rather than actual election. On that lame note this post is at least minimally connected to the original thread and its parasitical appendage.

  14. Bachmann is probably dumber than Santorum on evolution. IIRC, Santorum backed off and backpedaled a bit on ID in the classrooms after Dover. Bachmann, OTOH, is pressing the pedal to the metal on The Controversy.

    Not only is Bachmann ignorant and untruthful about science, but she has other problems in the honesty department. Her claim that Newt is calling for amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens — after he said he would not support deporting a grandfather who illegally entered the country 25 years ago, who has children and grandchildren here who are citizens, who has been gainfully employed all that time, who has paid taxes, and who had been an overall asset to the community for 25 years — is a blatantly obvious misrepresentation of Newt’s position. I’d go so far as to call it a lie.

    Fortunately, Bachmann’s chances of getting the nomination are little better than Santorum’s. Also, her rantings and attacks have probably torpedoed any chance she might have had for a cabinet appointment in either a Gingrich or Romney administration.

  15. Jack Hogan: “Bachmann is probably dumber than Santorum on evolution.”

    On this issue probably more than any other we need to distinguish between lacking knowledge and misinformed. Bachman is probably more of both than the average person-on-the street. But I would argue that most politicians – Dem or Rep – know more facts about evolution than the average person-on-the street, but also have more misconceptions about it due to being exposed to more propaganda. I would also argue that Santorum and Perry, by virtue of long involvement in the scam, are among the minority of politicians who not only know more facts than the average person, but also know that the propaganda are lies – though lies that they would consider “little white” ones that need to be told to keep the peace. But they are committed to saying things that make them look clueless. That’s why I never accuse these people of not understanding evolution. They certainly don’t understand it as well as scientists, but neither do ~99% of the people on the street. Most of whom, including most who accept evolution tend to say “what’s the harm, let them believe.” But they might think twice if they suspect that the politician is deliberately acting dumber than they really are, just to pander to voters.

  16. @Jack Hogan:

    I may be a bit too cynical on this one, but Santorum seems to have backed off because he’s a consummate opportunist, and doesn’t want to be on a losing team. IIRC he severed ties with the TMLC when they blew it at Dover. But he later wrote a glowing preface in a DI book, which suggests that he’s still sympathetic to the movement. But even before Dover, he let out a few vague hints that suggests that he doesn’t find their “science” convincing. But he can’t unequivocally side with science because that would lose most of his core following, which would not be replenished by pr0-science people, because most either disagree, or find him too radical, on non-science issues.

  17. @Never over-estimate what Perry knows, outside of how to get power and keep it. I honestly don’t think he knows, or wants to know, anything about science, or could understand it if it were explained to him. He is a true believer – if it isn’t in the bible, it’s not important, and if it disagrees with the bible, it’s not true.

  18. @Frank J

    When politicians like Santorum, Bachmann, and Perry attack evolution I have trouble determining what combination of simple ignorance, stupidity, disingenuous pandering, and true believer crusading is behind it, much less determining the level of hands over eyes and fingers in ears willful ignorance is behind it. I have to try to translate the talking points and run it though my BS filter.

    For example, based on his statements and actions as governor I think Perry may be the worst of the three. I strongly suspect he is a YEC and a willfully ignorant and stupid one. I doubt there is little difference between Perry and Huckabee on the age of the earth. I do not thank Santorum and Bachmann are YECs and I suspect there is some disingenuous pandering in their rhetoric, but I also think they are full blown anti-evolution creationists who buy into almost all of the propaganda the DI generates. In my mind’s eye I can easily see them nodding in silent agreement when reading most of the less hyperbolic nonsense Luskin and Klinghoffer write.

    That all said, because of other much more critically urgent and important issues I’d vote for any of them over Obama if it came to that. Fortunately it won’t come to that. Whatever their faults Newt and Romney are not ignoramuses on evolution and they will not slobberingly pander on the issue. Out of political expediency that may at the worst, in the primaries, throw the militant creationists a small milk bone by vaguely and briefly saying state and local school boards should have a right to determine their curriculum, but that’s about it. They would say this knowing full well the courts will strike down attempts to proselytize in public school science classes, à la Dover. They are smart enough to know this is a losing issue in the general election.

  19. Literature fail: The reference to some pigs being more equal than others is from Animal Farm, not 1984. My bad.

    Back to Bachmann: Second law of thermo – she has no earthly idea what that means; she just says the phrase. Just because I can pronounce phonetically “an yahn ha say oh” and get a smile and a nod in return does not mean I speak Korean or even know what that phrase means.

    Same with Perry: the theory of evolution has holes – what holes, Rick? He couldn’t name a “hole” if his life depended on it because he has no idea whatsoever what he’s talking about.

    That’s why these fools make so many “gaffes.” It’s ignorance, not errors.

    Having said that, Perry did indeed commit a true gaffe the other day when he said that he couldn’t fire federal workers but he could send them to some “God awful place.” Where is that “God awful place” in America, Rick? Do you think the people who live there are sad about having to live in a “God awful place?” Just where were you thinking? North Dakota, Louisiana, West Virginia? Come on, Perry, inquiring minds want to know!

  20. “…I believe that there are issues that need to be addressed – the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the issue of irreducible complexity, the dearth of fossil record,” she said. “Those are all very real issues that should be addressed in science classes.”
    First of all, these issues HAVE been addressed- they’ve been done to death, that horse is dust. Does Michele really not know this? If she doesn’t, she’s willfully ignorant, in light of the ease with which this information can be found, as shown by Gabe to our anonymous friend above. If she does know, but, as with our anonymous friend, chooses to continue puzzled in service of her religious convictions, and thinks it’s proper to propagate that uncertainty in order to propagate the religion, then she’s a liar- maybe a principled liar, but is there a worse kind?
    Second, even if these issues had never been addressed- does she really think elementary and high-school science classes are the proper places to address (and presumably resolve) them? They’re students, for gosh sakes- ignorant by definition, there to learn the science, not debate or decide it. Can you imagine a history class addressing the “issue” of whether the Twin Towers were brought down by Islamic terrorists, or by our own government using Death-Star beam weapons or thermite (or whatever idiocy those loons have come up with lately)? That kind of nonsense is for them to entertain themselves with on their own time and dime, not mine.

  21. Doc Bill – that was Animal Farm, not 1984. Just mental slip, I’m sure. :)

    I would personally say that the discovery of a common DNA code is the strongest evidence for common descent via evolution. Go back before Darwin, and anyone would have thought you were insane for suggesting such a thing existed. Flies and people basically the same? It seems to fly (heh) in the face of not only religious teaching, but basic common sense.
    There is simply no good reason, and many very very bad consequences, to designing a wide variety of organisms using the same basic code. Last argument for why this is the strongest proof: because if we found an organism using a radically different mechanism today, we’d consider it pretty good evidence that life arose more than once and we aren’t in fact related to that organism via descent.

  22. @eric:I would personally say that the discovery of a common DNA code is the strongest evidence for common descent via evolution.

    Klinghoffer thinks that the DNA code is Hebrew: they both have twenty letters, can’t be coincidence. If this view is widespread among creationists, that DNA is God’s language, then finding non-DNA based life would be a refutation of that view, or else it would be life that God didn’t create.

    Of course they can ad-hoc it away, but like life on other planets they are going to go ahead and stake out a position on this anyway, proved incontrovertibly from Pure Reason, and then when the empirical evidence disproves it they’ll make up something else about how anyone could see it was all God’s Plan all along.

  23. Klinghoffer thinks that the DNA code is Hebrew: they both have twenty letters, can’t be coincidence.

    Yep, and Doug Axe the DI’s “chief scientist” thinks that and has written that the shadows models of proteins make look like Chinese characters and that could not be a coincidence nor an illusion. If you think that’s a totally crazy notion, then you haven’t been around intelligent design creationists very long.

  24. @Gabriel

    …DNA is God’s language.

    Looks like they’ll need to add another book to the Bible — The Book of DNA. I wonder how it will explain all the nasty DNA out there. Does the Devil distort DNA?

  25. Tomato Addict

    @ Jack: Maybe that book got thrown out at the Council of Nicaea?

    Re: Romney vs Huntsman: My sources tell me the Mormons have been instructed to vote for Romney.

  26. Jack Hogan: “I strongly suspect [Perry] is a YEC .”

    That is my by biggest problem with ~99% of fellow “Darwinists.” And what I increasingly think is doing us a bigger disservice than the anti-evolution activists do. Whenever in doubt they always ass-u-me a default “helicocentric YEC” position. Interstingly, strongly worded polls suggest that only ~20% of the public, or only 1/2 who think that “humans were created in their present form in the last 10,000 years” are YECs. Perry has surely learned that there is no evidence for YEC or OEC (independent origin of “kinds” over billions of years), no mattrer how much he rejects – or wants to reject – the Darwinian mechanism of species change. If he truly believed YEC he would not have played dumb when the woman asked his opinion on the age of the Earth. Remember that he appointed Don McLeroy, who obviously knows that YEC is nonsense, and even admitted that we should not ask “age” questions to keep peace in the big tent. Ironically I have more respect for people like Ken Ham who have the guts to say that OECs and IDers are wrong too about the science.

    Probably the worst I have seen is accusations that Dembski is a YEC, based only on his militant sympathy to the big tent. Dembski has clearly stated an old-Earth and Old-life position, and has not even unequivocally denied common descent. He certainly has never challenged Behe who explicitly accepts it.

    I realize that I have to defend the minority “Darwinist” position, if only because very few others (TomS is another rare exception) ever do. And that I have no more hard evidence than the ass-u-mers, but I really wish people would at least consider the possibility that these people are hiding is not belief in fairy tales, but a deep-down fear that they are false. I could be wrong, but I think that, without that, we’ll never win over the “swing vote” – those who say things like “what’s the harm, let them believe.”

  27. @Frank J

    If he truly believed YEC he would not have played dumb when the woman asked his opinion on the age of the Earth.

    That’s actually one of the reasons I suspect Perry is a YEC. “I don’t know” is the same answer Huckabee gave. It is the answer I would expect any YEC politician who hopes to advance in politics to give. At a minimum it indicates he is either pandering to YECs or sympathetic to YEC and believes the earth “might” be much, much younger than science says it is. At a minimum it indicates he is willfully ignorant of the science supporting an old earth, and that is a lot of well established science.

    As to making knee-jerk assumptions that a creationist is a YEC until proven otherwise, some may do that but I don’t. My assumption is that even among creationists only a minority of people are stupid enough, nutty enough, and willfully ignorant enough to be YECs. However, I do look for the code phrases and terms YECs use because many try to hide their belief in when in the company of the sane. The “I don’t know” answer to the age of the earth question is one of them.

    Also, note I do not think Santorum, Bachmann, or Ron Paul are YECs. Though they are creationists they’ve said nothing to prompt me to think they might be.

  28. The thing that disappoints me about Bachmann is that she graduated from Marshall-Wythe Law School (William and Mary Law School). Who else went to W&M? Well other than me, enlightened thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Monroe, among other luminaries, all graduated from W&M. Mr Washington got his surveyors license there. How can someone who learned law at that school have such crazy ideas.