Michele Bachmann, and how to teach both sides when there's reasonable certainty one side is full of loons ...

It being a Sunday, our minds naturally turn to thoughts of science, and when thinking of science, who better for inspiration than Michele Bachmann, Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States:

"I support intelligent design," Bachmann told reporters in New Orleans following her speech to the Republican Leadership Conference. "What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don't think it's a good idea for government to come down on one side of scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides." (Bachmann: Schools should teach intelligent design).

Where to start? Or perhaps, why bother? To which there's only one answer, pourquoi pas ...

How about starting with the notion of supporting intelligent design as if it were a football team? Or supporting the putting of all science on the table, except of course intelligent design isn't science, just a fancy marketing term for creationism? Or supporting the notion that students can decide on what's right and wrong according to their whim?

Like the earth is flat, or the earth is round, Jimbo, there are scientific theories to be found that suit both proposals, and so Jimbo, you can decide which one suits you (and if you pick the right one, you might come to agree the moon landing was a complete fraud, a great result).

As for gravity, it might have something to with mass, or it might be a supreme blessing of the intelligent designer. You decide Jimbo, go on, make a pick, either one can be made to work ...

And what about the notion that government should come down in favour of one side of a scientific issue or another? That elevates creationism nee intelligent design to the level of science. So when Bachmann shoots herself in the foot by coming down in favour of one side, the non-science side, by supporting intelligent design, that's just keeping the debate open ...

And how about the notion that there's reasonable doubt on both sides?

Only if you happen to be a fundamentalist Christian who graduated from the Oral Roberts University with a J.D. (and if you don't know about the charismatic christians at Oral Roberts University, plainly you've led a happy and productive life).

As usual with this kind of caper, Bachmann works the 'teach the controversy', 'teach the issue' angle, which has proved exceptionally handy in relation to climate science, the dangers of smoking, and various other matters where FUD is preferred to a weighing of the evidence.

In the old days French relativists used to get into all sorts of troubles with conservatives for insisting everything was subjective, and there are no objective truths, just lots of debating points. These days Christian fundamentalists speak with the skills of cheese eating relativists:

"I would prefer that students have the ability to learn all aspects of an issue," Bachmann said. "And that's why I believe the federal government should not be involved in local education to the most minimal possible process."

The funniest thing about all this nonsense?

Americans consistently contend that fundamentalist (and even mainstream) Islam has been a drag on the scientific and intellectual and social and cultural and political life of middle eastern and Asian countries where the religion dominates.

Well the day that Bachmann or similar (be it Palin or any other rigorously simple minded fundie Christian tea partier) gets their hands on the United States' federal government, that'll be the date to note on your calendar as the real start of the decline and fall of the American empire.

Lately some attention has been paid to Bachmann's fundamentalist theories - and attention should be paid, as she is presenting herself as a credible candidate for the presidency of the United States, and the American media is taking her as such.

Maybe it was the sight of LaRouche supporters from the CEC turning up on King street in Newtown yesterday to do intellectual battle with the greenies that reminded me just how many loons there are in the world, and many of them as mad as march hares to boot.

At times Bachmann is right out there, if not in company with LaRouche, then in company with the desire to be as mad as a march hare.

There's plenty more to read about Bachmann under the header Michele Bachmann hides religious extremist views and wins CNN GOP debate, but that's about to change, with plenty of links which unveil Bachmann's full range of theologically inspired eccentricities, but the link I most enjoyed took me to Michelle Goldberg's Bachmann's Unrivaled Extremism, which shed a little more light on the Oral Roberts connection:

At Coburn (Law School, Oral Roberts U.), Bachmann studied with John Eidsmoe, who she recently described as "one of the professors who had a great influence on me." Bachmann served as his research assistant on the 1987 book Christianity and the Constitution, which argued that the United States was founded as a Christian theocracy, and that it should become one again. "The church and the state have separate spheres of authority, but both derive authority from God," Eidsmoe wrote. "In that sense America, like [Old Testament] Israel, is a theocracy."

Yep, if it isn't the fundie Islamics preaching about the joys of theocracy, then it's the fundie American Christians.

Reading Eidsmoe, though, some of Bachmann's most widely ridiculed statements begin to make sense. Earlier this year, for example, she was mocked for saying that the Founding Fathers "worked tirelessly" to end slavery. But in books by Eidsmoe and others who approach history from what they call a Christian worldview, this is a truism.

Naturally enough, Andrew Bolt can find a good word for Bachmann as she disposes of the offensive Chris Matthews sweetly, because Bachmann's not offensive in the world of the dolts (here).

Enough already, there are too many dolts in the world who can gush this sort of puppy love about Bachmann or Sarah Palin. Viz the dolt's Palin's lesson: have pride in your side, even if your side believes a theocracy is just what the heavenly mother ordered to prepare us all for the rapture:

No Republican politician is as electrifying as Sarah Palin. None can draw a crowd as she does. Few communicate as effectively.

I guess that's right. It takes enormous skill to communicate stupidity effectively.

More than enough already. On with the Sunday sermons ...

What news from the Pellist heresy? Well George last week scribbled about euthanasia, and showed a wonderful capacity to dodge the bullet in You Shall Not Kill:

It is also morally permissible to alleviate pain even with dosages of medication which may shorten the life of the patient, because the intention is to relieve pain, not to end life. Death is not willed, only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable.

Talk about a course in Jesuitical semantics in a couple of sentences. Next week we look forward to the Pellists explaining why killing in war isn't willed, only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable ...

And what news from the Anglicans? Well dedicated readers will have already noticed Michael Jensen tackling a huge conundrum in Do you have a soul?

The biggest problem that still remains, however, is this: how can there be a continuity between my identity now and my identity at the resurrection? If I am given a new body at the resurrection, then in what sense will it be ‘me’ and not some other being simply implanted with my memories? This is a very good question to which I think there is no easy answer.

Strike me lucky, as Mo used to say to amuse my grandfather, it's a theological X-Files, and the chances of being snatched by an alien at the resurrection and given a memory implant seem high.

(Above: eek, a memory-implanting ice alien, by Greatest Hits, first observed at ACCA).

Perhaps Michael Jensen has been spending too much time reading the science in that wretched rag The Guardian, especially 'We can implant entirely false memories'.

But perhaps we should be grateful, as the deepest and darkest truth is unveiled ...

... god is a mad scientist involved in creating implanted memories.

Please discuss, making sure both sides of the debate are considered. Students who suggest that god is a human construct/a false memory/an alien hiding in a volcano should be sent to clean the toilet block ...

Perhaps the alien false memory riff explains the meanderings of Miranda Devine this weekend. In A land in the remaking (a blog entry she clearly loved so much she posted it twice - this is the working link), wherein she spends an entire column praising Gillard's performance to an "inside the Beltway" crowd - strange how conservatives these days love to ape and use American expressions - only so the Devine can destroy this upstart Caesar, and so arrives at this startling conclusion:

The “opportunity society” that helped drive the nation’s prosperity for a decade is not good enough. The small businesses and enterprising individuals who thrived in the Howard era have been found wanting. If they go to the wall, who cares? There will be compensation and new jobs, protected jobs, union jobs, government-sponsored jobs.

Uh huh. Standard Howard battler era rhetoric, a bit like an acid flashback to the sixties. Do go on:

The cattle producers are the quintessential representatives of the old paradigm. When the government stopped their live export business overnight because of a TV program alleging inhumane practices in Indonesian abattoirs, the last word on the cattlemen’s lips was compensation, because compensation implies a loss and they were focussed on fixing the problem and getting on with business.

It was the media and the government which introduced the c-word, as if it were a panacea.

Uh huh. The media and the government. That's good.

A flat-out bit of dissembling, which in ordinary times would be called a lie, because the first word on the lips of many in the cattle industry was compensation, and twee jokes about c-words can't hide it, especially as Minister Ludwig valiantly tried to duck the c-word, and the Cattle Council sold it to anyone who'd listen - Producers tell Government to foot cattle compo bill.

Next a bit of myth-making:

They failed to understand that the sorts of people who go to the harsh north of this country and manage to create a thriving industry from scratch are not the sorts of people to go on welfare. They are the self-reliant, resourceful entrepreneurs who made this country what it is, but they are now an endangered species.

Northern Australia, especially the Northern Territory, is of course heavily reliant on federal government subsidy - 57% of overall revenue in the NT budget comes from GST, with a lot of that moola from other places (here) and activities are subsidised up the wazoo, making the image of the self-reliant resourceful entrepreneur one of the more stupid manifestations of the Crocodile Dundee routine.

Never mind, let's use this series of fanciful statements to arrive at a massive socialist conspiracy:

The government is taking over. It wants to use the carbon tax and the takings from the mineral boom to remake the country to its own prescription.

“This window in our history means we can reshape how we distribute opportunity in our society,” said Gillard.

Wealth redistribution, pure and simple. A year on, there’s no secret what Gillard stands for. It’s just no one can believe it.

Could it have anything to do with climate science, and the prospects of the planet?

Say what?

Which brings us back in a circle to Michele Bachmann.

Bachmann is a climate science denialist - Pharyngula has some fun with this - and keen to degut socialist government controlling bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency, and over the years the Devine too has been a denialist - see Science cooks the books, driving sensible people to screaming point, or read Why does Miranda Devine hate Science, an oldie but a goodie ...

That's why, when you get a Bachmann or a Devine speaking on science-related matters, all you get is fear, uncertainty and doubt. Wealth redistribution, creeping socialism, the end of he-men in Australia's north, evil atheism, a worldwide conspiracy of scientists in search of grants, and so on and so forth, because when you're a hammer, all you can see and scribble about is a hackneyed set of cliched socialist atheist conspiracy nails.

That's how you can get the Devine writing in valiant defence of Sarah Palin - with a kind of Bachmann-esque level of drivel - in Feminists roll out guns against Palin.

And that's how you can get the likes of Bachmann calling for debate and education on intelligent design, and the Devine calling for debate and education on the errors of scientists in relation to climate change (A debate begging for more light).

Oh enough already, please spare us all these sermons on socialism from the mount, especially from followers of the ultimate socialist with a bone to pick about businessmen and the eyes of needles.

Beam me up Scottie, or at least explain how if intelligent design is the aim, we've ended up with the logical incoherence, fuckwittery and completely unintelligent and unintelligible design of the likes of Sarah Palin, Miranda Devine and Michele Bachmann ...

(Below: and now for a little history).