MICHAEL70870 wrote:Just because she is a Christian does not mean that she thinks the world is only 6000 years old (although some do). That is not from the bible. Has she said that she believes that and that she is going to "force" her beliefs on us all? I consider myself a Christian and still think the earth is 4.5 billion years old and have no problem with evolution.

As usual a lot of stuff on both sides are taken out of context.

Sarah Palin - creationism, God and Country: separating fact from fiction. Just what does sarah palin believe and if elected, how will those beliefs impact America and its citizens.

First of all, does she wants creationism taught in public schools. TRUE

As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools. But after Alaska voters elected her, Palin, now Republican John McCain’s presidential running mate, kept her campaign pledge to not push the idea in the schools.

She’s in favor of teaching both creationism and evolution in the public schools. "Teach both," she said in a 2006 gubernatorial debate. "Don’t be afraid of information." McCain believes the issue should be decided by individual school districts.

It will be interesting to see what position they ultimately take should they be elected. Palin is called “the Barracuda” in Alaskan politics because she fights for what she believes and does not back down easily.

As for her personal views on evolution, Palin has said, "I believe we have a creator." But she has not made clear whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact.

The one thing to note is that a fact is a fact what Sarah Palin believes. One primary distinction between the theory of evolution and the concept of creationism or Intelligent Design is the former is science and the latter is a belief!

"I’m not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she has been quoted as saying.

McCain said during a debate last year that he believed in evolution when it came to the origin of life.

When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "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."

The Lang Report concurs but is firm on the need to make the distinction that all information is not created equal as there is a difference between science, science fiction, folk lore and religious beliefs, etc.

"It’s OK to let kids know that there are theories out there. They gain information just by being in a discussion."

In other words, I have no problem in reading the “Wizard of Oz” as long as it is made clear that there is no such thing as flying monkeys!

In a subsequent interview with the Daily News, Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms. "I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum," she said.

Creationism is the belief that the Earth and its creatures were created by a deity. It’s an alternative to the origin of life explanation taught in public schools under the theory of evolution, which puts forth that all living organisms descended from a common ancestral gene pool.

Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members.

At a GOP presidential debate in May 2007 in Simi Valley, Calif., McCain said he believed in evolution.

"But," he added, "I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also."

I repeat….evolution has been scientifically accepted while the elation of witnessing a beautiful sunset is a feeling. And FEELINGS ARE NOT FACTS!

Palin’s children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them.

Neither have Palin’s socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska’s chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans.

"She has basically ignored social issues, period," said Gregg Erickson, an economist and columnist for the Alaska Budget Report.

She called the Iraq war "a task from God." TRUE

Palin told congregants at her evangelical church in Wasilla in June that the Iraq war is "a task that is from God" and part of "God’s plan." She also urged congregants to pray for a $30 billion natural gas pipeline project she wants to build.

She opposes abortion in all cases. FALSE

Palin makes one exception - if the life of the mother is threatened. But she opposes abortion in cases of rape. Asked at the 2006 debate what she’d do if her daughter were raped and became pregnant, she said, "I would choose life." McCain supports a rape exception.

Much controversy has been generated over Sarah Palin’s beliefs and their relevance to the election and her ability to fulfill her duties as Vice President of the United States. Actually, as per our Founding Fathers, one should have no bearing on the other.

And that is as it should be!

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.