This day in history - July 21, 1925: High school teacher John T. Scopes is found guilty of teaching evolution

By Richard K. Barry

In Dayton, Tennessee on this date a high school teacher was found guilty of teaching evolution. Yes, John T. Scopes was found guilty of teaching science. (That's Darwin to the left, by the way, not Scopes).

So, where do the current crop of declared and potential GOP presidential hopefuls stand on teaching science in our schools?

Michele Bachmann has said that evolution is a theory that has never been proven one way or the other and that schools should teach intelligent design as an alternate explanation for the origins of life.

Tim Pawlenty thinks that creationism should be taught alongside evolution, which is Sarah Palin's view.

Rick Perry supports teaching creationism in Texas public schools.

Rick Santorum is a creationist, obviously.

To his credit, Newt Gingrich seems to have a more nuanced view (hell, let's give him credit for something).

Mitt Romney, also to his credit, once said that while he "believed that God designed the universe and created the universe," he also believed that "evolution is most likely the process he used to create human beings."

Even those who want to support science see the need to equivocate in order to keep a large segment of the conservative base happy.

All in all, things really haven't changed that much.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Michele Bachmann, "intelligent design," and the anti-science conservatism of the Republican Party

By Michael J.W. Stickings

CNN:

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann explained her skepticism of evolution on Friday and said students should be taught the theory of intelligent design.

*****

"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."

First, "intelligent design" isn't science, it's creationism dressed up to look like something else. And what Bachmann is proposing is not an equal playing field -- because a silly notion like "intelligent design" would lose, as no serious, self-respecting scientist takes it seriously -- but the imposition of Christianist theocracy.

Second, how are students supposed to "decide"? Students need to be taught the truth, which is evolution. But it is not the sort of absolutist truth that a fundamentalist like Bachmann demands, but rather a scientific theory. Indeed, there is disagreement within the scientific community over the details of evolution -- healthy disagreement that furthers the quest for knowledge. But there is no disagreement over evolution vs. "intelligent design." If you want to teach creationism, fine, but it belongs in a religion class alongside other theological matters, taught comparatively, and not in public schools.

Third, this isn't the government taking sides on a "scentific issue," because, again, "intelligent design" is not science.

Fourth, there is no "reasonable doubt on both sides" There is disagreement within the scientific community over specifics, but "intelligent design" is just creationism. Students can be taught that evolution is not a settled matter, that it is not as simple as 2+2=4, but they certainly should not be taught that "intelligent design" is a legitimate alternative theory. Because it is not.

Fifth, while it is quite evident that Bachmann herself is an extremist, this view is prevalent within the Republican Party and on the right generally, which has become a largely anti-science party in recent years. The assault continues.