Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Who Will Be Michele Bachmann’s Science Advisers?

Categories
Darwinism
Evolution
Intelligent Design
Science
science education
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Michele BachmannAn earlier post yesterday underscored Michele Bachmann’s support of ID. That she supports ID is fine and well. Back in 2005 George W. Bush supported ID in the same terms as Bachmann. But Bush also had as his science adviser “company man” John Marburger (the “company” being Darwinian naturalists).

Like a lackey wiping drool from his master’s mouth, Marburger quickly let the press know that regardless of what his boss had said for public consumption, the fact was that ID wasn’t science and needed to be kept out of the schools. And good servant that he was to his master, Marburger ensured that any policies that Bush would ever enact relevant to ID would keep Darwinian evolution squarely in the driver’s seat and keep ID from endangering the materialism that passes for science in our public schools. Bush never called Marburger on his opposition of ID.

So, far from commending Michele Bachmann for making some favorable remarks about ID (which plays to her natural constituency and can be read simply as a political move), I want to know who her science advisers will be, what concretely she would do as president to advance ID, and just how serious she is about taking on the bureaucrats and administrators (at the NSF? NIH?) who ensure that nothing but Darwinian materialist bilge gets funded. Is she willing to put her neck on the chopping block, and how could we know prior to the election?

Comments
Elizabeth: Don’t act as though it’s a deep ineffable mystery what projects ID researchers would propose to the NSF. Compare the work of Michigan State’s DIGITAL EVOLUTION LAB (which receives plenty of gov’t funding) with that of the (formerly at Baylor until forcibly removed) EVOLUTIONARY INFORMATICS LAB. The latter’s research has been published in standard engineering venues, and the work that’s there presently admits many further applications that could, in a different climate less hostile to ID, easily receive gov’t funding. If you want more straight-up biological research on ID, I refer you to THE BIOLOGIC INSTITUTE.
Indeed I was not acting as you suggest I was. That's why I prefaced my post by saying that it was a serious question. I'm interested in what would be top of your wish list. That's why I asked. I did not mean to imply (and specifically clarified that I did not mean to imply!) that I thought it was an "ineffable mystery"). It was a serious question, as I said, not a rhetorical one. It still is :) Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle
June 23, 2011
June
06
Jun
23
23
2011
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PST
Leenibus said: "Bill Dembski seems to recognize that Michelle Bachmann’s support for ID may be largely a political move." In the context that any move by any politician might be a political one; we don't know until we know more. Leenibus said: "I doubt that she has even the slightest comprehension of ID concepts – for her ID is simply a useful cosmetic term for promoting her bible-centered viewpoint in schools." And what factual information coming from Bachman do you base such this opinion on?William J. Murray
June 23, 2011
June
06
Jun
23
23
2011
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PST
..come to think of it I'd be interested in hearding everyones suggestions for advisors ciphertext- is it safe to say you trust Bachmann more than Chris Christie?RodW
June 23, 2011
June
06
Jun
23
23
2011
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PST
I follow a simple rule of thumb when dealing with politicians (both elected and appointed). That rule is this: They are to be trusted only as far as you can throw them.The reason being for my cynical view is quite simply. They (politicians) are seeking office for a myriad of reasons, but the one most likely is for the power it carries. It is possible that their reasons are purely altruistic, but I doubt that among career politicians. Career politicians will peddle whatever "ideas" or "speech" is necessary to obtain the required consent (votes for elected officials, appropriation for appointed) for them to obtain or continue in their position. It's, in my mind, an extension of the human condition.It is because of this personal view, when paired with my studies of the U.S.A.'s founding fathers, that I would insist that the federal government have no role in establishing science policy beyond coordinating the work of states. Perhaps acting as a clearinghouse for result sets and storage for "national measurement standards". The states really should be more autonomous, in my view.ciphertext
June 23, 2011
June
06
Jun
23
23
2011
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PST
My guess is Kent Hovind, after a presidential pardon, of course.jurassicmac
June 23, 2011
June
06
Jun
23
23
2011
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PST
Dr Dembski, I'd be very interested to hear some serious suggestions by you for science advisor(s)..and your reasons for choosing them. RWRodW
June 23, 2011
June
06
Jun
23
23
2011
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PST
It will be sad if Uncommon Descent is increasingly diverted into the quagmire of United States politics in the run-up to the presidential election – there is a risk that comments will become less than civil. Bill Dembski seems to recognize that Michelle Bachmann’s support for ID may be largely a political move. I doubt that she has even the slightest comprehension of ID concepts – for her ID is simply a useful cosmetic term for promoting her bible-centered viewpoint in schools. However, I think Bill Dembski’s article suggests an interesting direction for discussion. What actions and policies would you like to see advocated by an ID-friendly science advisor in any future administration?leenibus
June 23, 2011
June
06
Jun
23
23
2011
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PST
Elizabeth: Don't act as though it's a deep ineffable mystery what projects ID researchers would propose to the NSF. Compare the work of Michigan State's DIGITAL EVOLUTION LAB (which receives plenty of gov't funding) with that of the (formerly at Baylor until forcibly removed) EVOLUTIONARY INFORMATICS LAB. The latter's research has been published in standard engineering venues, and the work that's there presently admits many further applications that could, in a different climate less hostile to ID, easily receive gov't funding. If you want more straight-up biological research on ID, I refer you to THE BIOLOGIC INSTITUTE.William Dembski
June 23, 2011
June
06
Jun
23
23
2011
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PST
Elizabeth (2), Great question. I think the first submission has to be a proposal for a review that would identify all (or as many as possible) of the design events throughout biological history. In progress, the review would also discard non-design events (i.e. where evolution had occurred) from further consideration, because we already know the nechanisms for those. This would be a first step towards identifying the what, when and how (i.e. mechanisms) that ID needs to do if it is to be a scientific endeavour.Grunty
June 23, 2011
June
06
Jun
23
23
2011
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PST
Serious question: If there was a change in science funding policy so that ID project proposals were welcomed, what would you have at the top of your wishlist for an ID investigation? What would be the (draft)abstract for your first submission for funding?Elizabeth Liddle
June 23, 2011
June
06
Jun
23
23
2011
01:46 AM
1
01
46
AM
PST
Good question, Bill. Here's the problem: On some subjects, the atheist elite want one policy and the public another, so the politician's job is finding a way to toss the public a scrap of rhetoric while enacting policies the atheist elite want. For the sake of the good life on the Beltway that follows. I've seen it on so many issues now, it's a bore. Voters are desperate for their face-saving rhetoric fix, so they can just forget public responsibilities and go back to private enjoyments. If they are Christians, having dispensed with their responsibilities in this way, they can yay-hoo for Jay-hoo in peace, while basic civil liberties and tolerance of dissent are slowly strangled. (Anyone remember Frank Turek? Used to be a friend of ours, but ... pffftt!! And who cares? Who sells their shares in Cisco? This is the US version of what's happening in Canada and Europe.) Meanwhile, Christianity Today is fronting the simian-like Adam and Eve, and one of their exalted editors is writing me an aggrieved note because I took the risk of not standing for it. (Whoooaaa!! Christian journalists should be too stupid for resistance, right?) This is a terrible thing to say, but: The freedom that matters comes at a price, and one price is a demand for accountability, of oneself and others. I don't vote in US elections (whew! a flower drops, unexpected, onto my path). So just this further: No one can responsibly support a candidate who yaks up a storm about something they personally care about and then appoints people who oppose it to murder it in the cradle. Demand that the woman show some accountability or ask her to stand aside on the issue. PS: Great news: Geert Wilders has just been acquitted in the Netherlands. Holland, welcome back to the society of free nations. It IS okay in Holland, hereafter, for a politician standing for office to give his honest opinion. O'Leary
June 23, 2011
June
06
Jun
23
23
2011
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PST
1 2