"Which brings me back to Michele Bachmann. Not only is Bachmann a fan of creationism and its anti-intellectual offshoot, intelligent design, she's made some outlandish claims about the pseudoscientific subject."
Hmm...gases blow up and over billions of years create what we know of as earth. I got it. Somehow, someway matter is eternal...in that for all time it existed. I'm with ya so far Mr. Evolutionist. And this eternal matter caused a whole bunch of things to happen such that not only the world formed life as we know it...but these gases that blew up and created planets somehow also created morals. Morals came from gases that blew up, eh? And it is 'anti-intellectual' to derive from this that gases blowing up can't create morals? How? Please "demolisher", do tell.
In addition to this, there is no 'intent' behind evolution. The gases did not have a 'debate' with each other and say, 'it is a good thing to come together and create life'. From this, it follows that there was no 'intention' behind the 'design' as we know it. As we know as obvious, the designer of anything typically offers their comments on how something ought to function within the design. For example, the designer of the soap says, 'I designed this to function by cleaning the body: when it's cleaning the body, it's functioning properlly'. The designer creates something to function a certain way. That's usually how it goes. So the 'grand design' of evolution not only can't explain morals, but it also cannot explain how something ought to function (rather, it explains how something happens to function). The heart does not beat a certain way because it ought to...(i.e no designer said so)...it functions that way because it 'happens to'. I ought not to have a passionate love for my family because a designer designed me this way...I happen to love my family because it ended up that way.
I happen to think it takes incredible leaps of the intellect to surmise gasses blowing up somehow crates viable morals and determines how something ought to function (all without a designer 'saying so'). It is not 'anti-intellectual' to say, "gasses blowing up and creating morals is a little silly". It is not anti-intellectual to say, "Disagreeing with evolution is a logical position." Evolutionists saying things function because they happen to, not because a designer said they ought seems a little silly especially when it seems obvious that things do function a certain way because the designer said so. I can believe a bar of soap 'ought to function' a certain way because the designer said so, without being an intellectual misfit. Likewise, I can say "my heart beats properly when it is beating at a resting heart rate of 65 bpm". I am no intellectual misfit when I cite the proper function of a heartbeat to a designer (God) who says so. If a bar of soap, a fridge or me loving my family, it is logical to say things function properly when they function according to the design plan. This is simple, basic and logical.
Evolutionists arguing from a 'survival standpoint' is cool...especially in politics. Creationists arguing from a 'truth' standpoint is also cool, especially in politics.
There has yet to be a 'defeating argument' for intelligent design.
Very good author in developing sensible views on creation vs. evolution: here