At first, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin seemed to be an inspired vice presidential choice by Sen. John McCain, the soon-to-be Republican nominee for president. Reformer, female, bright, outdoors woman, young, winning personality and Washington D.C. outsider. A gamble, but a good one.
But then news emerges that Palin wants creationism taught in public schools. Here’s what she said during a debate in 2006:
“Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information….Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject — creationism and evolution. It’s been a healthy foundation for me. But don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.”
Don’t be afraid of information? In public schools, you should be very afraid when anyone who tries to inject his or her religious doctrine into the curriculum. When it comes to science, let’s stick with facts and not Scripture. Imagine teaching the Mormon theory on how human beings are created in a science class: that human souls begin as a pre-human spiritual — but also physical — presence on a crystal orb in outer space. These spiritual children are made by God the Father and His wife procreating and eventually make their way to Earth.
One person’s religious beliefs can be laughable or offensive to someone else. It’s why our country doesn’t allow any endorsement of beliefs in the public square. We should have a vice president of the United States who is bright enough to know this.
The Latest on Faith and Doubt
14 responses so far ↓
1 David Buckna // Sep 1, 2008 at 1:20 pm
FYI…
Sarah Palin and Creationism
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31088_Sarah_Palin_and_Creationism
Teaching Evolution - Is There a Better Way?
http://www.creationmoments.net/articles/article.php?a=21
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
http://www.rae.org/critanl.html
Should Evolution be Immune from Critical Analysis in the Science Classroom?
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=411
Teaching Origins in Public Schools
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/teach.htm
2 Brian // Sep 1, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Wow Bill. As a friend I wonder if you let your emotions get away from you on this post. I looked up the debate in 2006. Palin is not a creationist as you claim, she was pushing for intelligent design to be allowed in the debate. That is not even close to a creationist view point. Creationism is the idea that the christian biblical account of creation is the explanation for the orgins of the earth. Intelligent design only states that there appears to be a type of design to the universe both at a molecular and universal scope. The fact is, it can be argued that intelligent design could have been space aliens! I’m very surprised that you would equate the two in order to critique Gov. Palin.
3 Brian // Sep 1, 2008 at 11:13 pm
BTW. I totally agree with you that creationism should not be taught any more then the Mormon view of creation in Public schools.
Intelligent Design should be taught because it is a serious theory based on observations of both the micro and macro universe.
4 Brian // Sep 1, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Oh and one more thing.
Is it me…or is she totally hot?
Like Dennis Miller said she is a ‘Trophy VP’
5 Drew // Sep 2, 2008 at 8:29 pm
First of all Brian, ID is the same thing as Creationism, just with God removed and Designer put in. Of Pandas and People has only has specific God refrences redacted. And the courts agree. You know, those that believe in evidence.
Secondly, Bill, she is not only ignorant of science, but also US history. From a questionaire as she ran for govenor
http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html
…Number 11.
11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.
_________
I am sorry, but the “Founding Fathers” didn’t write the Pledge, and were all dead before it was penned in like the 1890s or so. After the Civil War at any rate. And “UNder God” is a new addition to the pledge also.
She is one heartbeat away from the Presidency should McCain get the nod. Do we REALLY want 4 mroe years of stupid Christian in office?
BTW her views on education are that parents should have the say over what their children are taught in schools. With her knowledge of science and history, I bet her kids are all destined to be Rhodes Scholars… or not.
6 Iron Pol // Sep 2, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Here’s one where I bet Thranil and I might agree.
Creationism doesn’t belong in science class. Nor do intelligent design, the Mother Creator, Zeus, or any other religious based creation story, regardless of how it is couched. The closest thing that should come from a science teacher’s mouth on any such subject is, “At that point, science is unable to explain…” For example, science can explain the genesis of the universe as far back as a few seconds after the “big bang.” Further back than that, they concede science can’t answer the questions (yet).
Even if the Christian God created the universe, He did so in a manner that precludes science proving that fact. It is taken on faith. While I don’t agree with a complete separation of church and state, I do believe in separation of religion and science. They are nearly mutually exclusive.
If we want kids to understand alternatives to science based genesis stories, they should be taught in their totality, but in world religion or world philosophy courses.
Drew, I’m unsure of her exact beliefs about the source of the Pledge of Allegiance, and it may be as you said. Then again, she may have been referencing (as I have frequently done in that past), that those who founded this country were people of deep faith. Most of them disagreed with the state run religions and/or religiously run states of the world.
The first sentence of the Declaration of Independence refers to “nature’s God.” The preamble states all men are “endowed by their Creator…” In the final section, they appeal to “the Supreme Judge of the world.” Given those, it is reasonable to question whether they founding fathers would approve or disapprove of “under God” in the pledge.
And Bill, I would say that her views on religious teaching will be pretty irrelevant as even conservative jurists (constructionists) are pretty well in agreement that teaching anything that smacks of religion as “science” is unacceptable within the public school system, regardless of what parents want.
7 Jerry // Sep 2, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Drunk and Knocked up
Mmmm, drunk and knocked up! awesome work and job well done! Shows what the “no condom or Johnny Walker Red left behind” is working! hope you can do as well with our country.
Every parent’s dream is to pull their child out of school due to a pregnancy and lie and tell them she has “mono” then.. move them all into the white house to raise the many babies that have popped out of that family recently!!
I love this country, we tolerate idiots better than any other country and even elect them to lead us!
8 Drew // Sep 3, 2008 at 3:28 am
Iron Pol,
I am not at all sure that the Founding Fathers would approve of the Pledge to begin with. To be honest it seems a little, Iron Curtainish to me.
I agree that none of the Creationist myths as currently written have any place in a science class room. As soon as someone can come up with a scientific theory, testable and with supporting evidence, that passes peer review process etc, then it can, and should, be taught.
I am curious (and a little frightened) when you say you do not advocate a complete seperation of Church and State. To my knowledge there is no example of such a union that did not devolve into torture and strife. And given the public statements of prominant Christians, and the actions of those of other faiths, I dare say even in 2008 and religion that gains enough power to be part of government will continue to act barbarically. Hell look no further than the Taliban to see it…still.
I am sorry but in order for all people to flourish, religion needs to be kept in check…
9 Iron Pol // Sep 3, 2008 at 3:36 am
I can give you a very good example of a country that has a government influenced by religion (not ruled, controlled, dominated by) that has done very well. The United States.
The state doesn’t control politics. Religion, regardless of how important to the people, does not dominate government. But they are inseparably linked. Nobody of religion can truly act without their religious views guiding their actions. Guide, not control.
Your last comment states my view exactly. Religion needs to be kept in check. That is different from banished from the halls of government.
10 Iron Pol // Sep 3, 2008 at 3:41 am
Jerry, if perez hilton is your best source of information, I’d consider a change in research techniques.
The title itself shows how they are begging the question. Who is to say the Palin’s did anything “wrong.” I would contend everything, as reported, is completely in agreement with their values. They taught their daughter, their daughter made decisions (perhaps some the parents wouldn’t have made, and would prefer she hadn’t), they are moving forward true to their values.
Unless someone mentions the words “shotgun” and “marriage” in the same sentence, I don’t know how or why this would negatively affect anyone’s perception of Sarah Palin.
11 Drew // Sep 3, 2008 at 8:50 pm
IP,
I agree with your assesment on Palin’s daughter. That should have no bearing on anything. In fact it distresses me. It distracts from the more important things like what kind of leader she would be and what kind of decisions she would make.
Kind of like Clinton really. All the discussion was on the fact he got a bj from Monica, as oppossed to whether he lied in court or not.
As for your other response, of course you cannot totally seperate someone from their religious views. BUT you can ask, and we should demand, that their decisions and policies be for the good of the people and not for the good of their personal religious beliefs.
And to show how that might look, check out the Scandanavian countries. There religion has been deminished in government, and in most all ways we can measure (quality of life, poverty, etc) they lead us.
That is not to say that religious influence is the sole reason for that, but I do think when you put the people first and your person god second, this world is a better place. And since nobody with a religious belief can prove that their belief is anything other than fiction, we should concentrate on what we know is real, this life we live. We should all strive to to help each other out because it is the right thing to do, not because your god might be watching.
If we stop funding stem cell research it should be based on the effectiveness of the results, not because of someone’s god. The same for abortion and whatever else crops up.
And so help me I might just explode if I learn my brothers and sisters in arms are killing and dieing because God told Bush to invade Iraq.
12 Iron Pol // Sep 3, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Drew, everyone has a moral fabric that comes from somewhere. And for the most part, it doesn’t come from science. One thing is certain, science is a poor basis for ethical decisions.
That said, anyone who is put into any office will make decisions they feel are best. And what is “best for the people” will always be tempered with those ethical and philosophical beliefs.
And that goes for either side of any debate. Abortion, drugs, war, whatever. Barack Obama will base his decisions about what is justified on his beliefs just as John McCain will do. Both claim to be Christians, yet they come to different conclusions. Remove God from the equation, and people will still have to make decisions based on their ethical views. And you’ll have the same outcome.
13 Drew // Sep 4, 2008 at 3:12 am
IP,
Agreed, however so is the Bible. I have read it and I have to say some of the things in there are downright offensive in the context that this book is supposed to be the source of morality. As humans we are reliant upon our social structure for species survival. Without cooperation we would have been eaten out on the plains long ago. That is where our “morals” come from.
While science doesn’t teach us ethics, it does teach us pretty much everything else, and has made our lives longer, healthier, and filled our minds with more knowledge than even the most intelligent among us can fully assimilate in 100 lifetimes. We should never stop asking questions for fear of the answers.
And (trying to be brief for once lol) since my last post on the other thread was so darned long winded, here is what I consider an important facter often overlooked by today’s politicians. It was at the end of that post…
“…if you get elected to a political office, you need to remember that not all your constituents believe the same way you do.
And as Governor, or President, or V.P. your responsibility is to ALL the people, not just the ones who voted for you or go to your church.”
14 Thranil // Sep 5, 2008 at 1:27 am
Iron Pol,
Yes I do agree with you on what should be taught in the science classroom and even the ‘why’.
Leave a Comment