Is Sarah Palin a Creationist?

I agree with Neil that the "young-earthers" don't have much of a leg to stand on, and my views of
the interplay of God's work, natural selection, and beneficial mutations are probably very similar to his.
On the other hand, I fail to see how the theory of evolution, especially the version one might call
"blind evolution", contributed to the technology that allowed the bone in his neck to be replaced.
Our knowledge of tissue typing and the technical details of spinal surgery do not depend on
any religious explanations, either deistic or materialist, on how the world came to be.

JohnTS, Where do you get that Sarah Palin wants to burn books? More left wing hate speech.

Ellen, I believe she said significant legislation, but I will check the transcript. As a mayor and Governer she was working for certian people. I do think she is a reformer in the sense she went against the good ol boys. I have a hard time believing that socialized medicine like Obama is proposing won't cost me more $ in taxes. (I do not know what the agenda of the Brookings Institute is.) But most important is that I do not think that Obama will protect this country like McCain would. He is an elitist who looks at most of normal people with contempt (because we cling to our guns and religion).

Dear Doc,
I agree with you totally. Do not be surprised if she already has made personal contributions to the welfare of kids with special needs. Evolution is only one of several scientific disciplines.
Dr.S.Raam

Ellen, she said major legislation.

As a mayor and Governor she was representing her constituents. I do know she went after the corruption that she saw in her own party. That takes guts. Did Obama root out any corruption while he was in Chicago? Nope. No guts there.

I do not know what kind of agenda the Brookings Institute has. But I do know Obama is promising carbon taxes (with his buddy algore) and that will make everything more expensive (and Obama's cronies including algore will get very rich). I am sure the BI did not figure that in. At least McCain said he won't do anything like that if China and India don't go along.

So I guess the way I see it, there were no lies.

Michael, please search the topics at hand and read posts more carefully.

What I wrote used the word PERHAPS:

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

Sarah could bring us into the type of world portrayed in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. I have no trust of those that seek to ban books. And I doubt her ability and willingness to ”preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

One source for this information is at Time/CNN:

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837918,00.html

“Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.”

If Baker speaks she certainly will be fired.

Read more & search the topics yourself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/03/uselections2008.republicans20088

So you give links to peoples opinions. I love the part about her husband 22 YEARS AGO had a DUI. If I recall Mr. Obama was doing cocaine at that time.

Fahrenheit 451!!! Please get real.

I wonder why the media is not discussing Obama's link with a terrorist? Or maybe his admiration of algore, who wants to silence everyone who does not follow his alarmist opinions. There is more danger to free speech there than from Sarah Palin.

If you would like to broaden the discussion, that is fine. Are you wearing your lapel pin?

If you feel that the “Patriot Act” is aptly named you must not consider the Constitution to be patriotic. If you accept those that would even suggest that books be banned you must not be much of a supporter of the notion of free speech or a free press. It is obvious why Mary Baker would not be interviewed, she wants to keep her job. If you feel that this is a good sign for our future with Palin then we have vastly different notions of what a brighter future looks like.

I never imagined that something like the “Patriot Act” could pass. Who wrote those 900 pages, why, and when?

The press has become quite lame, major issues are ignored. For example; Phil Gramm was an Enron executive and so was Wendy Gramm. Wendy was also an auditor for Enron. Wendy Gramm was a commissioner of the CFTC when the “Modernization Act of 2000” created the London Dubai loophole, allowing banks and pension funds to participate in futures trading and “investments” outside of existing Federal regulations.

You may not recall McCain’s involvement in the Keating Five scandal, or how Lincoln S&L was responsible for a $2.3 billion taxpayer bailout related to illegal speculative investments. The financial losses that we have seen recently as a Nation have come from places like UBS that bought up the investment arm of Enron. UBS has been involved in mortgages in the US. Phil Gramm had been their lobbyist and economic adviser to McCain. McCain has said that Phil would be a good choice for Secretary of the Treasury due to his experience as an (Enron) executive.

So, pardon me if I am skeptical. But the smell of rotting fish has filled the air. Palin is simply a distraction from the issues that we should be paying attention too.

I am just like anyone else I will cast my vote for who I think will be better for this country.

I do believe that part of the patroit act went too far. And I never much cared for Mr. Gramm. But given what happened on 9/11 I could see why someone would maybe be over zealous about protecting the country.

Obama has his own scandels, so we could go back and forth all day.

back to the topic, "creation science" by whatever name doesn't belong in a scienct class. But by the same token, evolution needs to be taught as a science not a religion.

and no I don't have a pin.
Have a nice day.

I am in the Army National Guard and going to Iraq in January, so I wear a flag on my right shoulder when I am in uniform.
Yes, it is important to teach evolution as science and not religion, but there are not any biologists trying to teach a Godless universe in Sunday School at my Church. Dover made it very clear that there are religious people who want to dictate subject matter in science classrooms.
In America evangelical Christianity is much more a matter of experience than a settled habit of virtue. So it is no wonder those believers gravitate to the ends of the Bible. It is much more fun to speculate about the end of the world or put saddles on dinosaurs than to do the dull stuff in the middle--feed the hungry, care for widows and orphans.
We act as we believe. I do not want to have national science and environmental policy set by someone who thinks the world is going to end within her lifetime or that the science that underpins is wrong and the true "Deep" science is on the Answers in Genesis Web site.

I appreciate your sense of reason and proportion Neal.

To the editors/managers of The Scientist, posts similar to Ellen's serve no purpose on a forum such as this. She is a dissatisfied individual that needs company. Actually, the "Darwinists/evolutionists" are also creationists. They believe that an earth and universe was created sometime out of nothing by nothing.

Does it really matter as it is a personal belief system? Some "scientists" believe in evolution while other "scientists" believe in creation, and the two factions are constantly bickering about who is correct. The fact of the matter is that no one was around when the world began so no one wrote any observations in a laboratory notebook. No one saw how everything began and therefore we make a lot of assumptions...which every one knows the meaning of that word...we make a lot of experiments based on what we see today, some thousands, millions or billions of years AFTER the world was made.
Since no one made any observations, we can not really make any experiments on what DIDN'T get observed...therefore we must take either theory on total faith...either you will believe that we evolved from monkeys and apes, or you're going to believe we were created by a supreme being with a design.
Almost sounds like the same science that has people convinced there is a global warming going on when 30 years ago every one in the science realm was worried about a new ice age.

If you belive that your prayers are answered then you believe that creation is ongoing, and that you are a participant in creation. If you belive in evolution then you believe in an ongoing creation. It is, ultimately, the same sort of thing.

If you belive that we were made in God's image then you might feel that it is your duty to act like it. If you believe that there is no God, but want to live in a better world, then you also would choose to act in a Godly way.

Ultimately, we would all do well to make an effort to rise to the occasion and be who we are, as well as engaging in enlightened self interest. Our thoughts and deeds should embrace others as we would ourselves no matter how we think that we got here. It is all about what we do here.

Sarah's personal issues and beliefs seem like a distraction from the issues that are important to us all. Let's try to keep this issue based.

Okay, Let's keep to the REAL issues...what her personal background and belief system is not the real issue here. The REAL issues are what are going to do with Iraq? How are we going to get out of the recession? How are we going to help the communities affected by the devastating hurricanes...instead of fighting each other on supposed theories of origin. Since I have spent over 30 years studying both theories and have documentation that supports both theories, it must then come down to my belief system, not what Palin's is or how she will impact the scientific world. She can only do what CONGRESS allows her to do, not anyone else.

Regarding John's thoughts, I appreciate what he is saying, and feel that we should stick to issues. With that in mind, is Sarah Palin's creationist views an issue? As a scientist, I would have to say "yes" as they might potentially lead to a dilution of the teaching of science and detract from our scientific competitiveness in the world, both of which are not good for our country.

Something deeper. Science is science. When she, and everyone else, Democrat or Republican, say that our country should develop more alternatives for energy production, this means more scientific and engineering investigations. This is good. But at the same time, with a push towards creationism, she is automatically saying that a major chunk of biological science is bad.

History has shown that advocating some science while repressing other science only leads to disaster...and I'm not talking about funding.

I agree, advocating some science and not others IS not smart scientifically. However, at the same time, it should be sound science that is advocated...that which is demonstrable and can be reproduced. That which provokes thought and further research into the topic at hand AND that which benefits not just one group of people but ALL groups.

Whether a belief of one individual will have a profound affect on science shows that the science was weak to begin with, or the scientists are not secure in their theories and feel they are going to be "under attack". It has been a fact in the scientific community, which is a cutthroat community, that personal bias, jealousy and over protectiveness for Personal theories, no matter how scientifcally sound or how far fetched, will adamantly be protected by the person or people who thought up the ideas in the first place.

I think that we are all on the same page on what the issues are. Matters like abortion are determined by the Supreme Count, not Congress. Creationism in school is a minor issue compared to the global issues at hand. These are red herrings along with moose burgers.

I am inclined to think that beliefs affect policy and issues. Clearly, my point has been taken that we should avoid personal distractions. Funding of science, economic decay, alternate energy, wars for oil, totalitarian government, and the biased editing out of scientific data from government studies are all issues that impacted by concerns. My greatest fears are that if we get four or eight more years of belief over evidence that America can decay to a point of no return. Our economy is being gamed to death, emotion is dominating over reason, tangential non-issues are moving to the forefront. Hate radio is on 24-7.

McCain’s now acts like he is for alternate energy while he has voted against it at every turn for twenty five years. Sarah is not ready to meet the press, let alone Putin. She will only be a heartbeat away from being President. She has not done well with her own family to my taste, but she will be in a position to enact laws that can subserviate us all.

I want representatives that embrace science and sound philosophy as the path to human betterment. I want someone that offers a vision of hope and can come up with the right words all by themselves. I want our brightest and best to work for us to build a better future. McCain and Sarah scare me.

As much as McCann and Palin scare me, Obama and Bidden do just as much...look into the actual history of each. Obama has received money to push the same thing Al Gore has pushed with "bad science" and "scare tactics" as admitted by the person who wrotethe report that influneced the Kyoto Protocol.

Who we need are not available any longer...we need someone with FDR's outlook, Teddy's "in your face" and Kissinger's diplomatic tact.

John, The reason we are falling behind in the sciences rest squarely with the NEA who are all about making sure everyone feels good not about teaching the subjects. I know some good teachers but there are also a lot of bad ones out there that are protected by the union. It is all about dumbing down so everyone passes wheather they deserve to or not.

Obama's associatin with algore, to me, is more of a problem. Global warming has stopped and now the temperature is on a downward trend. But you still hear the politicians call for reduced emissions of CO2. If you look at the science (FYI computer models are not science) CO2 increases after the temperature starts going up.

It is a democrates dream, you can increase taxes while making it appear you are doing something to save the planet. In reality all it will do is to destroy our economy.

My question is, how can someone who believes the world is 6000 years old and takes the Bible literally be taken seriously as a vice presidential candidate? How can we elect someone knowing they have no real belief in scientific evidence? When we have someone like Palin running an office that could take them into a presidency, how can they be fair to the rest of us who believe in things like carbon dating and stem cell research? If a president has personal issues with evolution like Palin because their religious dogma dictates, must they then force their religious ‘beliefs’ upon us via our public schools because they are running the country? Sarah suggests she has no problem with that even though there is supposed to be a clear separation of Church and State.

"separation of Church and State" - Isn't this why the pilgrims left England in the first place?