Says political theorist John West here: Earlier this summer, Perry’s education commissioner recommended for use supplementary science curricula that fail to offer any critical analysis of Darwinian claims, contrary to the state’s own science standards. At the same time, Perry’s education commissioner allowed his staff to spike the one proposed curriculum that did try to follow the Texas science standards. Presumably, he thinks everyone who supports him is dumb as a post. More on him here. West thinks Bachmann is sincere, by contrast, based on her record in Minnesota. More on her here.

Here , re Perry and Bachmann. The “Dominionist” cult slander spread to ID-friendly philosopher Nancy Pearcey, as well. Five Feet of Fury, a Canadian blogger, says she got through a long career writing religion news and never heard of “Dominionism.” Incidentally, that reminds: In Canada (aka “Dominion of Canada”), a Dominionist would just be a patriot, probably a lover of all things British. The food, of course, is terrible, but otherwise, they’re Not Scary. Actually, it isn’t “Dominionism” that’s scary. It’s scary is that some people need this garbage to be true. Because they can’t address real problems, they make up stuff they can deal with? Follow UD News at Twitter!

From Leonard Krishtalka (July 19, 2011) at LJWORLD (Lawrence, Kansas), we hear the grim news, “Science takes a beating in early presidential campaign”: Referring to candidate Michelle Bachmann’s comments,

“I support intelligent design,” she said, reported CNN. “What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide.”

Krishtalka disagrees, saying,

… knowledge of evolution is an economic necessity. It underpins U.S. and global R&D on the production of the world’s food, fiber, fuel and pharmaceuticals.

How, exactly does it do that?, a friend of Uncommon Descent writes to ask: “Do you have a paper or quote that refutes the ‘teaching more evolution increases the state’s economy” myth? Read More ›

In “Answering the Dreaded ‘Evolution’ Question” (The American Spectator 6.24.11), Jay Richards and David Klinghoffer explain how politicians can avoid the “speed trap” of the “evolution” question:

Though a president doesn’t have much influence over state and local science education policy, reporters lie in wait for the unwary candidate, ready to pounce with a question he’s poorly prepared to answer yet that is important to millions of voters. Fortunately, there’s a reply that not only avoids the trap but helps advance public understanding.

Oh yes? They suggest:  Read More ›

check her ID: On Friday, Michele Bachmann (R-MN) — incredibly, a Presidential front-runner for the Republicans — said this: I support intelligent design […] 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. Why is that incredible? Most Americans, in poll after poll, find Darwinism unbelievable. So they should fund it? Sponsor persecutions on its behalf? Note: UD News can’t help the fact that an entire field in science is having a collective nervous breakdown about the idea that anyone would question their total devotion to Read More ›

According to a report by CNN political correspondent, Peter Hamby, US Presidential Candidate Michele Bachmann recently went on record as saying:

“I support intelligent design”  . . .  “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” . . .  “I would prefer that students have the ability to learn all aspects of an issue”  . . . “And that’s why I believe the federal government should not be involved in local education to the most minimal possible process.”

This is in itself interesting, as it means that significant numbers of policy makers are increasingly aware of the problem of Lewontinian-Saganian, NAS, NSTA style a priori imposition of evolutionary materialism on science education.

But, this is not the main issue for this post.

That comes up when Mr Hamby provides a “definition” of ID:

Intelligent design suggests that the complexity of the universe cannot be explained by evolution alone, and must also be attributed to a creator or supernatural being.

By now, surely, CNN’s reporters and editors — never mind that artful wriggle-room word, “suggests” — know they could easily find a reasonable, non-loaded, accurate definition of ID, such as is provided by New World Encyclopedia:

Read More ›