The Creationist Candidate.

[busterdog]

Not exactly.

Sarah Palin and Creationism

Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 1:15:58 pm PST
LGF readers are probably aware that I am no creationist; in fact, I am strongly opposed to the teaching of “intelligent design” or “creation science,” or any other name the advocates for creationism concoct in their relentless quest to promote pseudo-science.
So I was disturbed to learn of Sarah Palin’s apparent support for creationism. However, as I posted in a comment earlier, she does not appear to be the fanatical type who wants to force or sneak the teaching of creationism into public school science classrooms.
But this is going to be a point of attack for the left, as Wired Magazine’s Brandon Keim demonstrates in this article: McCain’s VP Wants Creationism Taught in School.

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin wants creationism taught in science classes.
In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska trotted out the usual creationist education canard: “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”
Teaching evolution and creationism in a scientifically balanced way is simply impossible. Evolution is accepted by scientists as driving the development of life on Earth. Creationism, which puts a (Christian) God in the engine room of life, is unsupported by science. Its arguments have been roundly dismissed by scientists — many of whom, it should be noted, believe in God. They’re just sensible enough to understand where science ends and religion begins.
​

This is all true as far as it goes, but it’s a bit dishonest of Keim not to quote the rest of Palin’s statements in the article he linked: ‘Creation science’ enters the race.

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise 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 added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.
Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.
“I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said.
​

Looks like Palin made an off-the-cuff statement during a debate on a hot topic, didn’t really expect the criticism she’d get, and then softened her position considerably in a follow-up interview. But to quote just the first part of her statements on creationism and ignore the second is misleading; because in the clarification she’s describing a position that doesn’t cause me (a staunch anti-creationist) any discomfort.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31088_Sarah_Palin_and_Creationism

You are going to see Palin attacked on such grounds. If you are interested in the debate, you probably want to be prepared to deal with the deception.

 

[crawfish]

Meh. Politics. Conservatives do essentially the same thing.

I'm not much for her origins view, but I do like a woman that can handle a gun.

 

[artybloke]

If she lies about that, what else would she lie about?

 

[busterdog]

Meh. Politics. Conservatives do essentially the same thing.

Mehhhhh is right.

I'm not much for her origins view, but I do like a woman that can handle a gun.

Good point. I also like a woman who will go to work to keep her man in snowmobiles!

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

nice to see someone stick by their views for a change, instead of being a 'closet creationist' for fear of the black shirts...

 

[Assyrian]

Does "black shirts" qualify for Godwin's law?

 

[mark kennedy]

Not exactly.



http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31088_Sarah_Palin_and_Creationism

You are going to see Palin attacked on such grounds. If you are interested in the debate, you probably want to be prepared to deal with the deception.

I don't think this is anything more the rhetoric, she is in favor of teaching both alongside one another but I don't think she has some kind of a agenda to teach religion. The GOP has had to court the right on pro-life issues and abstinence based sex education and to some extent a skeptical view of TOE. That does not mean that they are actually favoring a YEC view.

When Intelligent Design became a big deal I was hopeful that some of the issues I hold near and dear would come out, they never did. What I found bizarre was that the scientific community confused it with Biblical Creationism. Human evolution remains untouched by ID and I have no clue what Palin actually believes about it, that remains my primary if not my single issue.

I have to agree that if you pursue the subject you will have to deal with deception. That is a sad but true fact whenever you deal with this subject.

 

[busterdog]

I don't think this is anything more the rhetoric, she is in favor of teaching both alongside one another but I don't think she has some kind of a agenda to teach religion. The GOP has had to court the right on pro-life issues and abstinence based sex education and to some extent a skeptical view of TOE. That does not mean that they are actually favoring a YEC view.

When Intelligent Design became a big deal I was hopeful that some of the issues I hold near and dear would come out, they never did. What I found bizarre was that the scientific community confused it with Biblical Creationism. Human evolution remains untouched by ID and I have no clue what Palin actually believes about it, that remains my primary if not my single issue.

I have to agree that if you pursue the subject you will have to deal with deception. That is a sad but true fact whenever you deal with this subject.

I guess this is just politics as usual, but its a good lesson in hermeneutics.

Palin is also attacked on the grounds that she is "associated with" a Pastor in Africa who is "associated with" a large body of Christians in a Town in Africa who are "associated with" a mob that attacked a witch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4R-DuIffwE

Some of the latter comments basically tell you you need to know about how the thought process works. Essentially, Palin seems to accept an Assemblies of God demonology, is a Christian, has some creationist "associations", which effectively puts the onus upon her to prove she has stopped beating witches and is no longer anti-woman.

I agree with you, that ID was tarred and feathered for its associations, more than anything else.

Now, YECs do it too. A cautionary note all around.

Thus, the two phrases I scorn above all others: "associated with" and "linked to."

 

[Assyrian]

When Intelligent Design became a big deal I was hopeful that some of the issues I hold near and dear would come out, they never did. What I found bizarre was that the scientific community confused it with Biblical Creationism. Human evolution remains untouched by ID and I have no clue what Palin actually believes about it, that remains my primary if not my single issue.

I agree with you, that ID was tarred and feathered for its associations, more than anything else.

You might have had more of an argument there if there weren't transitional forms between the two species.

creationists
.
.
cdesign proponentsists
.
.
design proponents​

 

[shernren]

All you've done is show that there are two missing links instead of one, Assyrian. Evolution loses.

 

[Assyrian]

Why would God make cdesign proponentsists?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People#Pandas_and_.22cdesign_proponentsists.22

 

[shernren]

I don't know. But creationists, cdesign proponentsists, and design proponents must obviously be in different baramins, because they couldn't possibly have evolved from each other. We all have the same evidence. Evolutionists just choose to see continuity wherever they can while divinely-inspired creationists know that the real information lies in the discontinuities.

Ok, satire aside.

How much power does the President of the US actually have to make people teach creationism? Like, suppose I got elected as the President, and suppose I had an epiphany that I must make every child in the US learn YECism. Even if that were to happen:

- isn't education under each individual state anyway? How much say does the Federal Government have?
- wouldn't every other senator / member of parliament (whatever you have there) shoot it down?
- wouldn't previous court decisions uphold the illegality of state / government-enforced guidelines explicitly supporting the teaching of creationism or something?

I'm pretty curious.

 

[busterdog]

I don't know. But creationists, cdesign proponentsists, and design proponents must obviously be in different baramins, because they couldn't possibly have evolved from each other. We all have the same evidence. Evolutionists just choose to see continuity wherever they can while divinely-inspired creationists know that the real information lies in the discontinuities.

Ok, satire aside.

How much power does the President of the US actually have to make people teach creationism? Like, suppose I got elected as the President, and suppose I had an epiphany that I must make every child in the US learn YECism. Even if that were to happen:

- isn't education under each individual state anyway? How much say does the Federal Government have?
- wouldn't every other senator / member of parliament (whatever you have there) shoot it down?
- wouldn't previous court decisions uphold the illegality of state / government-enforced guidelines explicitly supporting the teaching of creationism or something?

I'm pretty curious.

There is influence at the Federal level, assuming that a President or Vice President wants to lead (and wouldn't that be grand). As First Lady, Hillary wrote an educational policy known as Goals 2000 (despised by homeschooles nationwide). It has to be accepted on a State by State basis by State govenments to be effective -- except for ties possibly to Federal money (funding or bribes). But, generally, there is no law that really makes it happen by Federal fiat.

So, you are quite correct.

There is a related attack on Palin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igFiyyFTF88

This is the Pentacostal Pastor Muthee prayer warfare angle. My homeschool class on legal process is looking at this and whether there is really evidence to convict Palin or Muthee for any culpability in mob violence that resulted in some fortune teller's snake being shot in Kenya. If you watch the Olberman video above, it is pretty clear to me that the real problems are 1. no politician should take demons seriously; 2. oddly enough, though there is no God intervening in human affairs, it is still horribly offensive to pray as if there were a God that could remove witches from your town; 3 believing that Alaska would be a safe zone for Christians in the tribulation or end times is evidence of insanity, probably really because noone should ever believe in the end times at all; 4. those who wage spiritual warfare by prayer are responsible for any mob violence with the slightest common goal, but mere fortune tellers who cursed bones outside a Church are just the victims of mysogyny when they are asked to convert or peddle their spells elsewhere.

WHen I hear the shrill, impassioned pleas of Keith Olberman, I am reminded of lots of other agnostic/atheists who complain about such innocuous things as public prayer. I start to imagine that maybe I really do have magic powers to project my thoughts into skulls of other to torment them. I feel like one of those big brained aliens in Star Trek that could make a make scream in pain by simply nodding silently at him.

In short, the associations with real violence are so tenuous, that what is really happening is that the faith itself of Palin is what is being tried and determined to be dangerous. While one has the right to that belief and to vote accordingly, I also have the right to say that a newscaster heaping scorn on Pentacostal Christian doctrine is itself contemptible. I also hear the anticipation of the wholesale persecution of Christians. This video makes it pretty clear that the violence iangle is a (thin) cover used to bash the faith.