Is Sarah Palin a Creationist?

Sarah Palin, John McCain's choice for Vice President should he win the November elections, is a worrisome character from the point of view of science education. It is hard to tell whether Palin herself is a creationist or not and, frankly, that's far less important than the policy positions she holds in the matter. (Though, of course, having a Vice President who is deluded about basic aspects of reality would not be exactly reassuring. Oh, right, we already have had something along those lines for the past eight years, though Dick Cheney's most dangerous delusions were not about who created the world.)

An article in the Anchorage Daily News dating back to when Palin was running for governor of that state (hmm, a mere two years ago, talk about experience and being fit to be commander in chief), reports her response to a question during a debate about teaching creationism. Here is the full quote:

"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."

Now this is disingenuous at best. Education is not about having "kids debate both sides," since most kids would probably conclude that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe (after all, the sensorial evidence is overwhelming in favor of the flat-earth, Ptolemaic system). Education is, at its core, about two things: a) We want our students to have access to the best of what humanity has produced, be that in science, philosophy, literature, economics or what have you. b) We want to provide students with the necessary tools to engage in critical thinking and serious analysis of whatever claim comes under their scrutiny.

According to criterion (a), "teaching both" isn't going to cut it, because creationism is simply not even in the ballpark of the best ideas ever produced by humanity. On the contrary, it is superstitious nonsense that harks back to an earlier era of ignorance about how the world works. But things aren't much rosier for creationists under criterion (b) either, despite all the talk about "teaching the controversy." Learning critical thinking is not a matter of being exposed to a "fair and balanced" view of everything and be told "you decide." Rather, it proceeds through learning about logic, about assessing evidence, and about the many ways in which human senses and reasoning abilities can fail us if we are not on guard. If students really do assimilate all of that, just one look at creationist claims would make it painfully clear that they don't need to be further entertained.

Unlike Mike Huckabee (who is also now campaigning for McCain), Palin was at least smart enough not to outright claim that she does not accept evolution. The former governor of Arkansas plainly stated that "I believe god created the heavens and the earth," and that he "wasn't there when he did it, so how he did it, I don't know." These are lines straight out of the Institute for Creation Research talk book, which explains why "Left Behind" author Tim LaHaye said during the Republican primaries that Huckabee was "the most electable candidate who shares our commitment."

And therein lies the problem: exactly what are Republicans committed to when it comes to science and education? To raise a nation of ignorant bigots whose understanding of the world is no better than that of a tribe of ancient middle eastern people wandering around the desert thousands of years ago? To allow individual states to decide just how misinformed about science their citizens can be? That way if you are from Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi or a variety of other places along the Ignorance Belt you can keep falling behind in quality of life and ability to compete in a world where science plays an increasingly central role in our lives. Now, there's a platform worthy of LaHaye and his readers.

These are questions that Mrs. Palin and Mr. McCain have to answer to voters before the November election. But considering that they disagree about some of those answers, perhaps the two should first get better acquainted and straighten things out a bit. They've got two months to do it.

http://www.livescience.com/culture/080901-sb-palin-creationist.html

People reading the post should have been told at the very beginning that it was not original, but a direct quote from a blog cited at the bottom.

Gary is correct. It should have been edited beforehand.

Although the author is entitled to his opinion and I agree with several of his points,
I am disappointed that he chose this
forum to characterize a group of states as the "Ignorance Belt". Such bigoted comments
have no place in a forum of scientific discussion, and I'm disappointed that "The Scientist"
choose to include such comments on its front page.

I don't think the Republicans care one way or the other about science or creationism; they'll say and do whatever it takes to keep them in power. As for "teaching the controversy": If we're forced to include creationism in science classes, we need to be prepared to use it as an opportunity to teach how science works. Rational scientific thinkers should prepare teaching materials that introduce the scientific method and the concepts of reproducibility and falsifiability, making clear that in science, it is understood that a hypothesis/theory may need to be modified to incorporate new data and that disagreement about the details of a theory does not invalidate the theory's basic premise. Have the students perform experiments or make observations of some aspect of nature (not necessarily evolution- or biology-related), formulate hypotheses, come up with ideas for and perform additional studies to verify/disprove/modify their hypotheses, and decide upon a theory; then ask what they would have concluded had their results differed in particular ways. Then bring on evolution and the creation myths! Do not limit this aspect of the subject to Genesis; include an assortment of beliefs about how the world came into being gleaned from various religions and cultures. Introduce the concept of evolution historically, beginning with Charles Darwin's initial observations on the Galapagos Islands and building on his hypothesis by describing others' observations and having the students consider how each might fit into or modify the original version. Include the Piltdown Man fraud to demonstrate how science weeds out bad data. At some point, have them carefully read the part of Genesis dealing with creation and write down the order in which things came into being; they probably will be surprised to discover that there are two separate and mutually incompatible versions of events. This is a good point at which to introduce other creation myths for comparison (and so we don't appear to be singling out the Bible). We need to consider the material being published by the "intelligent design" supporters and demonstrate the ways in which it violates the scientific method. Our point must be that science and religion have different ways of looking at the world and that any belief based on religious faith is unlikely to be amenable to scientific analysis because, by definition, such analysis cannot be applied to something for which there is no physical evidence, no data that can be either reproduced or falsified. Telling them directly that their beliefs are wrong isn't necessary or, arguably, ethical in dealing with minor children. But if the "intelligent design" community wants them to debate the "controversy", teach them the rules of debate, assign them a stance to support (evolution, Biblical creation or another creation myth), have them collect information in support of their position and in contradiction to the opposition, and let them have at it. The point of the debate should be to demonstrate which position(s) are supportable scientifically. I would avoid bringing "truth" or "falsehood" into it except in reference to physical facts.

Paul - I quoted the article and added a link to it at the bottom.

Note: Items on the community are not approved by The Scientist before being posted. I admit that I work for the Scientist (as director of Web Development), but as with anyone in the community - you can post any items of interest.

On the basis of the scientific evidence I would have to disagree with the idea that "the ignorance belt" is inaccurate. Its inaccuracy is that it does not include enough of the country, but in general, the states mentioned are the worst in terms of fundamentalist idiocy. We live in a country where nearly half the population thinks the world is less then 10,000 years old and evolution is false. In the developed world, only Turkey is worse, and Turkey is arguably not fully part of the developed nations club.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2680/nearly-half-the-u-s-population-believes-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old

I absolutely do not accept the proposal above that an ignorant idiot serving up pious horsemanure should be coddled for his or her blithering idiot beliefs. Contempt is the only appropriate communication to such people, and I totally support this blog entry in "The Scientist". The USA is a laughing stock outside our borders now when we aren't looked at as frightening.

Sarah Palin is a dangerous demagogic woman who I am quite sure was hired on with the idea that she would the hatchetman to attack Obama because a pretty woman with a nice smile learns very young that she can tell the most outrageous lies and get away with it. I have watched this fundamental primate behavior from the beauty queen fraction of my sex for many years. Sarah's views on science are between scary and mind boggling. She deserves to be publicly humiliated for her ignorant stands. The problem with so-called liberals, and with most scientists today is that we don't scream at the top of our lungs in response to such ourtageous rubbish.

Scott - It wasn't until I got to the end of the post that I asked myself, "Gee, I wonder what that link goes to.", and read it that I then figured out what that big quotation mark really meant. Without having a certain amount of curiousity, along with a very slow work day, was I able to recognize the reality of the situation. Apparently, Gary didn't see this, and I have a feeling that others might not too.

So, to prevent any miscommunications in the future, may it be suggested that for everyone wishing to provide already published material, it would be best to provide a short introduction with the link at the beginning.

My comment about editing still holds, however.

Maybe the term "Ignorance Belt" is accurate; maybe it isn't. If you want to throw that term
around when you are out drinking with your friends, then that's one thing. However, if you are
participating in a discussion about scientific education policy, you can state that most people
in Mississippi believe in a young earth, lament the situation, but refrain from name-calling.

It is rather amusing that one of the last acceptable forms of bigoted name-calling among our enlighted fellow scientific readers is that directed toward Evangelical Christians, especially those in the Southern states. I would imagine that if Scott had shared a blog entry characterizing Muslim or Hindu lands as "belts of ignorance", his employers at The Scientist would have packed him off to a
sensitivity training course.

Ellen, Yikes, why do you hate her so? Of course you must be an Obama supporter. I am guessing that you also believe in global warming. If so, now who's the dumb one (CO2 keeps going up but the temp keeps going down).

Beverly, politicans of every party will pander to whomever to stay in power. But I do like your other ideas. To many children these days are not taught to think.

FYI, I consider myself a Christian, who thinks the world is about 4.5 billion years old and the universe much longer. I don't have a problem with evolution.

Actually Michael, I was a McCain supporter. I contributed to his campaign.

But I am quite sure my analysis of you will be much more accurate. You are about half my age, which I can determine by the fact that you are as functionally illiterate as 80% of the students in my freshman science classes. Your generation has grown up on sound bites and the drivel you send to each other on your text messages. This has resulted in your being unable to comprehend English when it is composed of more than two sentences. I come to this conclusion because you asked me "Why do you hate her so?" And yet, exactly why I am appalled by her nomination was written in the post.

My dear boy, a nation such as ours will not survive with analytical abilities such as you displayed.

Further, Michael, I will deduce from your whining paen that you are a person with Christian identity. But I am certain that you have never studied Christian history and theological development. Have you even so much as read Pagels on the Gnostic Gospels? Have you so much as the slightest clue about where certain so-called Christian ideas even came from?

But let me clarify my position for you Michael. I consider Sarah's nomination for the vice presidency appalling because she is a professional liar and anti-science. If she wants to be "Christian" that's her business. I do not hate her personally. I simply think she is less qualified to lead this nation than my gardener. Now, is that clear enough for you? Or is the sentence structure too complicated?

If you feel a little singed, good. Your generation has far too many fools in it who actually think that their near brain damaged reading abilities are just fine. Hopefully, you might actually pick up a few thousand books and educate yourself a little.

Ellen, that would make you about 116 years old. I wonder, is she a liar because she is a politiican or because she is a politician she is a liar?

But yes your royal highness I am just a stupid pumbkin who lives in the rust belt, I should know enough to question my betters.

In fact we should make you queen of the world, and all would love you and despair.

You must be brilliant to see me so well from just a few words. Amazing.

Well, I'm sorry then Michael, we are roughly age peers if you are telling the truth, and you are one of those who has just never put himself to school but gets his information from sources you like because you like them. A bit of advice - if it makes you feel better that doesn't mean it's right. Most of the time when that happens it means you are wrong. I think that is one of the reasons science isn't more popular. It makes scientists snappish.

Try going to a library and learn a few things. If you dare to, start in the section on global warming. Read up on it.

Look, Michael, I am not evil, but I have developed a razor for stupid baloney that comes my way. You would too if you had to deal with the incredible stuff that comes across my desk, some of it from PhDs who want to publish things that are just not supported by their work. Other stuff is from freshmen who literally cannot string more than 5 words together.

I am curious now how you could ask me that question when I had explained precisely?

Regarding Sarah and her lies, I watched the speech and every statement she made about Obama was a lie. I may not agree with Obama on everything, but I cannot abide lies.

Ellen, you are correct, I was reading between the lines and I ASSumed to much. My apologies. As my first wife would say sometimes "how can someone so smart be so stupid?"
Maybe its a guy thing.

I am well aware of the origins of many Christian traditions, and if I am wrong then I won't even realize it.

I do read a lot about global warming, like "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. It is my opinion (for what it is worth) that a temp increase of about 0.7C over the last 100 years is not significant. Besides CO2 is plant food (see www.co2science.org).

I looked over Palin's speech, and there may have been some streaching of the truth, but I did not see any outright lies.

Sorry you have to deal with stupid people. One of Murphy's laws states "there are two things univeral on earth, hydrogen and stupidity." Sometimes I think the latter is more abundant than the former.

I won't vote for Obama because he will want to raise my taxes because I am part of "the rich" meaning I have a full time job. But that is my take on things, right or wrong.

As far as being wrong about things, science or otherwise, Dr Harold Eggerton said that the failures (of an experiment) are more important because you know not to do it that way again.
Isn't that what makes science fun?

FYI. I have a MS in biology. My favorites are diatoms, but I work as a Microbiologist.

Religion has historically been a poor basis for political action and rational decision making. This is because deep questioning has been excluded from the process. “Truths” and beliefs are simply accepted and acted upon. This does not resemble science or good politics. It is a poor scientist that does not question and revise their models as an ongoing process. Naturally, scientists have a basis for distrust of anyone seeking political power with no appreciation of science and yet have control over its funding. We would do very well to be concerned about how irrational decisions impact our lives.

They can certainly teach creationism in church if they like. It may be a good approach to allow for the possibility of a larger pattern that we are a part of, even if we don’t give it a name (which name would we use?). This may help some people appreciate the forces of nature without “pulling the rug out from under” their core values. But let me be clear; public schools are not religious institutions. Religion and ethics are college courses. Social sciences and civil behavior may be interesting topics, but only marginally manageable to teach in public schools without even more conflict.

Evolution shows us that creation is ongoing, and science is one way that we get to participate. Social and cultural evolution should be of concern to scientists. Our employment futures and the advancement of sciences and health are at risk

Worst of all, Sarah would like to ban many books, and perhaps burn them after they are banned. Where does that stop?

How did Sarah lie in that speech Michael?

- She claimed to be a reformer against earmarks.
Reality - She hired a lobbyist to get earmarked funds. She did this as mayor of Wasilla and again as governor, obtaining for Alaskans the highest per capita such spending of any state in the nation.

- She claimed that Obama had never authored any legislation.
Reality - Obama got 4 major pieces of legislation into law. Obama's contributions on a per year basis are more than most legislators.

- She claimed Obama's tax proposal would raise taxes by $100's of billions of dollars.
Reality - The Brooking's institution evaluated Obama's and McCain's tax proposals for impact on the middle class:
Obama: Increase of 5% in net income (i.e. less taxation)
McCain: Increase of 3% in net income. (.e. less taxation)

Net? A pack of lies for the gullible, but delivered with that beauty queen smile of gracious insincerity.

John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate changed the presidential campaign in a moment. Issues like abortion and gun rights which had receded will now be in the front of the debate. On science the Barack Obama and McCain hold different positions, but both accept the dangers of climate change as real and both know that science and science education is critical to our economy and our future. Joe Biden agrees. But Palin has said, “Teach the controversy” referring to the Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism. To be fair, she has not pushed creationism in Alaska schools, but like the current President she sees a controversy where there is none. The high technology that underpins the best of our economy is based on science as practiced by scientists, not untested science dreamed up in Seattle or on display in the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

It amuses me to see everyone so scared of the creationists. I myself
am an observant Catholic, so I believe what my Church teaches
(it's easy to look up for those who are interested; the Catechism is
online). But in the very improbable event that we all found out that
the Earth is only 6,000 years old, how would it change the way we do
science? Probably not much; proteins, genes, and cells would still
work the same way, and the same drugs and medical devices would still
be invented. The reason many scientists are so scared, and people like
Ellen are practically foaming at the mouth, is that Creationism is a direct
spit in the face of the hallowed religion of Philosophical Materialism.
Like any religion, this one also requires a certain amount of faith,
which is why its adherants tend to get very defensive when challenged.

I am an orthodox Christian believer. On matters of faith, I am closer to Sarah Palin than any of the other candidates. But I also work at a library and museum of the history of science. We keep the records of the people who pursued truth through the study of nature for more than two millennia. Those records show how ardently these men and women pursued truth. Their work has given us modern medicine, clean water, safe food and longer, healthier lives. In my case I have three times escaped death, paralysis and blindness through modern medical care. It is crazy to think that the science that lead to replacing the 7th vertebra in my neck with a cadaver bone (DNA bone matching—evolutionary biology) is false while saving my life and thousands of others, but the rubbish that decorates the Creation Museum and saves no lives is true.

Like Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome project, and author of the book “The Language of God” I believe that God created the universe in a way that neither atheists nor creationists can force their opponents to believe. Creation is complicated, beautiful and beyond the full comprehension of any of us. What we do know of the mechanics of creation, we know from the work of scientists—pursuing truth whether they are believers or not.

I am for teaching both sides of the evolutionary theory in schools. Scientists have seen inadequacies and these should be presented.In other words, let us present a balanced critical view of the evolutionary theory. Let children grow up to think for themselves. I am confident they will find ways to either plug the holes or to widen them as they learn and understand. This approach to teaching any controversial topic is the best for science. Teaching creationism does not belong in schools.

Do not knock Sara Palin. As a politician, she has all the qualities required for being a great leader of our country. Remember the world is not an isolated place , not an island with scientists alone living in it. Remember she has children who get sick, who need to get vaccinated; she faces challenges just like every body, challenges that only good science can solve. Stop considering Republicans as enemies of science. It is childish, imbecile! They are a part and parcel of our great democratic political system.

Dear author,

There is more science than evolutionary biology, you know? Probably Palin will increase the attention for research in developmental disabilities.

Maarten Otter, psychiatrist with interest in sepcial needs kids.