Sarah Palin, who is John McCain’s Vice president pick, is an interesting case. To say the least.
I need not go into details since there is a torrent of them on the web. My concern here is with her knowledge of science… or lack thereof.
She has stated on record that she is for teaching "both sides" of the evolution "controversy". Some people think this is only fair, but that’s baloney. First of all, for the hundredth time, there is no controversy, and there aren’t two sides. Unless you count one side as being right — science — and the other side being wrong — creationism. Also, the "both sides" nonsense has long been used as creationist code for getting it taught in school. Teaching religion in a science classroom is not only unconstitutional, it’s ridiculous. Which creation myth do you teach, and where do you stop? Odin, the Enuma Elish, Marvel Comics? There are thousands. But when she says "Teach both", she means teach evolution, and teach fundamentalist Christian creationism.
So have no doubt at all: she wants creationism taught in school. It’s really just that simple.
And then we have this very disturbing story from the L.A. Times. Philip Munger, a music teacher in Palin’s home town of Wasilla, asked her about her beliefs. Her response is frightening:
Palin told him that “dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time,” Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said “she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks,” recalled Munger.
I don’t think she means Komodo Dragons and birds. No, she’s talking about the Paluxy Tracks, a well-known and long, long debunked piece of "evidence" creationists still use sometimes, despite being utterly wrong. Of course, if creationists stuck with actual facts, they’d have very little to talk about.
Now, to be fair, this is a single source claim, and Munger runs an anti-Palin blog in Alaska. However, we know Palin is a creationist, so this story comes as no surprise, and is not needed to confirm her stance. What’s frightening to me is that we have someone who, if her team is elected, has a pretty decent chance of being President of the United States of America.
People have joked that her foreign policy experience is being able to see Russia from her house, but it seems her science experience comes from thinking humans and dinosaurs happily walked mud flats together. Maybe Alan Grant will be her science advisor.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I realise this is unrelated, but I found this at work and can’t email (don’t ask, let’s just say it’s a retarded system). I thought you’d be interested to know that Australia has just named a new chief scientist, and she’s an astronomer.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2008/09/30/2378442.htm
September 30th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I’ll bet she thinks the Moon-Mars idea is pretty swift, though! ;^}
September 30th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
The Stupid, it BURNSSSSSS!!!!!!!!
September 30th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Hey Phil, long time reader, big fan of the blog.
Recently I’ve noticed a zeal in your talk about science and creationism and what not. It’s almost like the zealous Christians, except saying religion is wrong and science is write. It’s a tad off putting to say the least. I’ll explain.
I’m a science person myself, but I’ve got ideas about religion. Whether it be a human creation, a half true fable stretched by imagination, or entirely false, I don’t know. Point is we can allow people to make their own judgment. I’m all about peoples freedom to choose. want to kill yourself, go ahead. want to believe in god, that’s fine. drugs, sure take as many as you want. As long as these people don’t interfere with others, it shouldn’t really matter. If they do affect people then they get reprimanded. If someone wants to kill himself in his own house, he should be allowed to. as long as he doesn’t plan to harm others in the process… same for religion. If someone wants to waste their time with praying and worship and all that, as long as they don’t force me to do it, i don’t care.
Schools could probably just solve this whole nonsense by offering a religion class.
Science needs to be taught regardless because it’s full of useful knowledge about everything we do. Religion doesn’t need to be forced on anyone so it could be a voluntary class when you get to high school. wouldn’t that make sense. let them pick whether to take and whether ot believe the class if they do take it.
Some people just NEED religion to be able to function, far be it for us to tell them what to do.
Keep up the great blog Phil!
September 30th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Regardless of ideology, this woman is a very dangerous addition to our political structure. She should be enough to completely tank the McCain campaign, but scarily enough she seems to be enhancing it. I talk to far too many women who are happen to vote for her solely because she has a vagina, but the fact of the matter is her stance on science isn’t as scary as her hatred of women. We are doomed that she’s even a choice, let alone if she gets into office.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I don’t think this is a good way for us to explain the problem to folks like Palin. For one thing, telling people bluntly that they are wrong just makes them defensive. It’s better to show them. For another thing, they *believe* they are right because of their faith, and you really can’t argue faith away. Not easily. Traditionally, arguing faith away has involved sharp implements. It’s ugly business.
But most importantly, it perpetuates the false dichotomy promoted by the Discovery Institute. It is not that we are right and they are wrong. It’s that we are teaching science, and they are teaching religion. Apples and oranges.
We cannot prove them wrong; religion isn’t based on science, it’s based on scripture, and the scripture is pretty unequivocal (if one is a literalist, that is). Argued within a fundamentalist religious framework, it comes down to a controversy between Young Earth Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents. Argued within a scientific framework, there’s not really much controversy at all — just between some of the specific niggly details of evolution and taxonomy and so forth.
We need to emphasize NOT that the Creationists are wrong (even though from a scientific standpoint they are) but rather we need to emphasize that what they are teaching is religion, and what we are teaching is science. They are not incompatible, any more than teaching American Literature is with either of those subjects. It is not about who is right and who is wrong. It’s about teaching science in science class, and letting religion take care of itself.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
“People have joked that her foreign policy experience is being able to see Russia from her house …”
People have joked because not only has SHE said it, the McCain campaign have as well!
September 30th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Calli, while that is a wonderful sentiment, and would work if these people are reasonable, you are putting attributes on them that that would imply they are rational, sane, and thoughtful. Sadly, none of those adjectives apply to them. They are overzealous crusaders intent on forcing their views as the One True view, and damn the contradicting evidence.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
IMHO, if we do not destroy the conservative movement, teaching religion in science classes will become “normal”. It’s what they want. Hordes of “moderate” Republican voters have shown time and again that they don’t care about this stuff and will gladly keep voting for that party, no matter how insane they become.
The conservative movement itself is a danger to science.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Unconstitutional? Which article or amendment might you be referring to? Note, “separation of church and state” is *not* a phrase from the constitution, but “In God We Trust” on our money and the Pledge of Allegiance have been around for a long time.
Nobody’s going to prove creationism or evolution as being the ultimate truth any time soon (unless you know a lot more than you let on), so why not explain both belief systems and where they came from? Part of education is understanding what others think, e.g. where Islam came from and how it affects the mindset of the middle-eastern cultures. We don’t have to teach Islam (or Christianity or Buddhism) as being *the* truth in our schools, but pretending they don’t exist seems equally “ridiculous”.
Also note that the position of believing that God doesn’t exist merely because the universe appears to be billions of years old is downright foolish. Steady-state systems can be created in steady-state, not too hard for such a being, if he does exist. I’m not saying you have to believe that he does, only that your ongoing arguments against his existence are shamelessly spurious.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
All I want is a fiscal conservative for smaller government that isn’t a religious zealot or a crackpot. Is that too much to ask?
September 30th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
While she did make the comment to “teach both sides”, in an interview following those comments, she was asked to clarify what she meant. Her response was to say that she didn’t think it needed to be in the curriculum, just that teachers should be allowed to have the discussion in class of both sides.
I’m not very happy about some of her views, but this one doesn’t bother me. In fact, if all biology teachers were allowed to have the discussion, they could bring up all the problems with the creationist argument, specifically that it is not science in any way, and that is why it is not taught.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Well said Calli Arcale.
Rob, while some conservatives and some members of the Republican party may be a danger to science, I’m not aware of any of the conservatives I know being out to destroy science. Haven’t even heard any of them talk about teaching religion in science class. But I’m sure if there’s some secret plan they wouldn’t tell me anyway.
Sometimes there’s way too much generalization on this blog.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Calli,
I believe Dover did just that. The judge saw this was simply a way of sneaking religion into science class and he said no. More directly, the Constitution said no.
Larian may be right about trying to teach people like Sarah Palin the difference–though I don’t think that is utterly hopeless–but more importantly it’s the courts that matter. At the moment, Democrats are more scientifically inclined, especially when it comes to policy, sooo… vote!
September 30th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Calli made the same point i wanted to make, just more relevant and understandable. Good comment Calli!
I have to strongly agree with the part about disproving religion. Being based on “non sense” makes it impossible for us to disprove. People believe it and thats not gonna change any time soon. Despite any evidence we give them to the contrary. Some of my friends are Christians and no matter what argument you give them, as long as they can base their defense in fantasy, they’ll continue to believe.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Bryan,
At least do a little research. 1864 is the origin of the phrase on our money. As for the pledge, that didn’t appear until 1952. Given the treaty of Tripoli, 1798, article 11; Thomas Jefferson’s words; the words of Article 1; it is quite evident that teaching of religion (exclusive of other religions) is unconstitutional. As Dr Plait said, it would bog down the entire system if we needed to teach everything from Pastafarianism, Hinduism, and the other thousands of religions as “another view”. Those subjects belong in an entirely different class.
As for explaining both belief systems (or should it be ALL?), there is a basic flaw in that one is a belief, while another is supported by scientific fact. Don’t think that theory means a “guess” or some other uneducated stance. http://wilstar.com/theories.htm That just makes it all the harder to separate the rhetoric from fact.
As for Dr Plait being a skeptic, I don’t recall any blog of his saying god(s) don’t exist. People may infer that he holds that position, but I don’t think it has been outright stated. And creating a steady state system? Huh? All observations point to nothing of the sort. What criteria are you using and what evidence do you cite for it? Did you mean to create this dynamically changing universe?
My PERSONAL view on this: Nothing in this universe indicates a god, except those anthropomorphic characteristics we give it. The argument for a god goes something like this:
- We are here
- Wow, this universe is quite suited to us
- Therefore it was made for us
- something made it, let’s call it god.
It’s as if a puddle formed in a hole in the ground and was caught off guard that the puddle conformed exactly to the shape of the water. Basically, the entire idea of a god is totally backwards reasoning.
Just my 2 cents.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
It does seem a lot of the readers of this blog have some fear of opposing opinions. If you feel your position is based on solid ground what is wrong with opposing views being voiced, or even taught. I’m not religious in the least and don’t believe in a god, but being raised catholic, being sent to catholic school, and having to go to church every Sunday is what made me realize that it wasn’t for me.
I am amazed at how often something that doesn’t fall into someone’s definition of scientific is so loudly shouted down here. It’s almost like you’re afraid if someone looks too closely they might find some small fractures forming in your arguments. I’m no fan of Sarah Palin, not by a long shot, but this is a non-issue in the big picture of things and shouldn’t be of any concern unless you’re just looking for something to gripe about.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Oh let’s be fair, Palin wouldn’t be the first creationist in the white house.
In fact, haven’t we had one for the last eight years?
Last, Phil, you can’t prove that there weren’t dinosaurs around 4,000 years ago. They’re probably all hiding in Iraq, holed up in a cave with all those WMD’s we couldn’t find.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Just a thought about diction…I think that the anti-evolution movement would suffer more if we change language like this:
Unless you count one side as being right — science — and the other side being wrong — creationism.
With something like this:
Unless you count one side as supported by- evidence- and the other side supported by myth and desire- creationism.
There are alot of people out there who simply do not know much about either science OR creationism/ID. Theses are the swing voters, and we need to be a little more rational with out sentiments than the slobbering elitist fanatics we are made out to be.
Yes, people like PZ Myers are fun, and even needed, but by and large the majority of voices need to be a little more mature and rational, even friendly. I think Phil in this arena that can be your voice, and I think you better serve the rationalist movement that way…
September 30th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Nick…
This is not meant to be snarky, I swear. But do you know anything about Creationism? Intelligent Design?
There really is no science there. None. Just like there is no science in astrology. Would you want your science teachers having to teach that “controversy”?
September 30th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
IRRELEVANT. That’s what this blather about Creationist views with a politician is. Totally irrelevant.
The Vice President sits in the Senate, and IF necessary, breaks ties with their vote. The President signs or vetos laws, bill, funding, etc. forwarded by Congress. Neither initiates much of anything that affect the issues discussed in this blog.
They may use thier influence to persuade, but when it comes to routine matters they vote or sign the final law into being.
Of course, that’s a bit of an oversimplification…but not much. And its far more accurate than that fervor associated with rejecting Palin due to her Creationist viewpoint — which convey a value & perception that clearly presumes that the President & Vice President have the authority & capability to change matters in goverment to a degree associated with Royalty (or one’s daddy & mommy — which seems to be the Democratic blogger’s primary underlying perception). The offices of the President & Vice President don’t have anything close to that kind of power & authority.
Which highlights just how ignorant the average citizen is when it comes to even a rudimentary understanding of how the USA’s Executive & Legislative branches of government really work.
One can find good reasons to reject Palin…but her Creationist viewpoints are totally, completely, utterly irrelevant to the job she’d do if elected.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
@BILL
Yes, yes it is.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
@ Ken
I agree with you. I am far more concerned that she apparently cannot name one Supreme Court case beyond Roe v. Wade.
The creationist thing for me just adds another tiny facet to the question of why they ever chose her in the first place.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Well said Phil.
Creationism is a nice fairy tale but is nonsense as a theory (whether scientific or not) - there’s no nice way of ’showing’ that to people who still believe in it 149 years after the publication of “On the Origin of Species”.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Bryan, please. What is printed on our currency and a pledge written after the Civil War is hardly relevant to what is taught in schools funded primarily by tax dollars.
And what the First Ammendment says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Seems pretty clear. Not only can the government interfere with a law abiding religious practice(or perhaps you would argue the Constitution protects the rights of Mayan High Priests to sacrifice virgins?)But it also protects from establishing a State sponsered religion.
So yes, teaching a myth as if it is as well supported by evidence as the theory of evolution is, would be in fact promoting a specific religious belief in a public school.
Of course I am sure you already knew that, right?
September 30th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Also, if anyone was wondering how ludicrous the “see Alaska from my house” SNL joke was that is getting repeated by the media over and over again. Here’s a very Plait-like explanation: Can Sarah Palin really see Alaska from her house?
September 30th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I know, a copy paste job, but actually a good read. Highlights what makes people in the US (a minority, but people none the less). It’s just an accepted form of discrimination due to the large number of people who happen to agree with a particular view:
Myth:
You have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Response:
This claim is common, but it rests on a misunderstanding of what real freedom of religion entails. The most important thing to remember is that freedom of religion, if it is going to apply to everyone, also requires freedom from religion. Why is that? You do not truly have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs if you are also required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions.
As an obvious example, could we really say that Jews and Muslims would have freedom of religion if they were required to show same respect to images of Jesus that Christians have? Would Christians and Muslims really have freedom of their religion if they were required to wear yarmulkes? Would Christians and Jews have freedom of religion if they were required to adhere to Muslim dietary restrictions?
Simply pointing out that people have the freedom to pray however they wish is not enough. Forcing people to accept some particular idea or adhere to behavioral standards from someone else’s religion means that their religious freedom is being infringed upon.
Freedom from religion does not mean, as some mistakenly seem to claim, being free from seeing religion in society. No one has the right not to see churches, religious expression, and other examples of religious belief in our nation — and those who advocate freedom of religion do not claim otherwise.
What freedom from religion does mean, however, is the freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that we can be free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. Thus, we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion because they are two sides of the same coin.
Interestingly, the misunderstandings here can be found in many other myths, misconceptions and misunderstandings as well. Many people don’t realize — or don’t care — that real religious liberty must exist for everyone, not just for themselves. It’s no coincidence that people who object to the principle of “freedom from religion” are adherents of religious groups whose doctrines or standards would be the ones enforced by the state.
Since they already voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards, they don’t expect to experience any conflicts with state enforcement or endorsement. What we have, then, is a failure of moral imagination: these people are unable to really imagine themselves in the shoes of religious minorities who don’t voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards and, hence, experience an infringement on their religious liberties through state enforcement or endorsement.
That, or they simply don’t care what religious minorities experience because they think they have the One True Religion.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Actually Ken, it is relevant. In this day and age someone whose beliefs are as antiquated and rediculous as Palin’s should be kept far away from any important roles in governement.
The President and VP are far more influential and powerful than you let on in your post. For one thing, the President nominates or appoints people into very impactful positions. I am sure you know this. I am sure you also know that we the People need to factor in the “backup”, or Side B if you will, should the President somehow become unfit.
I don’t want anyone who thinks the relationship between Fred and Dino is realistic anywhere near those offices…
September 30th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Bryan…
The words “Fair Trial” do not appear in the constitution either. What should we make of that?
September 30th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
@Drew
I think we both would agree that you can’t teach religion as if it were supported by empirical evidence. But we *should* explain what other people believe as background for why people do what they do (but not in science class).
I will emphasize, evolution is a theory, and a very weak one at that, and should not be taught as absolute truth. We should teach our kids what we’ve observed. Biasing their views toward weak theories like this one will prevent them from seeking out new truths that you and I can’t even imagine.
Our country was founded on religious principles, mostly by folks who wanted to worship as they pleased and not as dictated by their governments. It does *not* say that the government cannot sponsor religious activities, though we both agree it’s not a good idea. Too many (including you) are extrapolating on what’s written.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Grrrr, I have a reply to Bryan about the word theory, but it’s awaiting moderation. Not sure why…
Anyway, I’d like to hear the convincing argument as to why you cite evolutionary theory as a weak theory? 150+ years of observation and experimentation has vindicated this theory. I guess you mean it’s a weak theory in the same way that gravity is a weak theory? We know, see and predict the effects, but there are small details we don’t have a total understanding of yet?
September 30th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
RE Palin, Creationist views, and their irrelevancy:
What matters relative to any politician is what they do. The courts in many states, when forced to address the issue, have ruled that Creationism/Intel.Design is religion in camoflauge. So far, none of those rulings have come close to the US Supreme Court (& the Judicial Branch is the third part of government that is independent from the other two). The constitution mandates the separation of church & state & the Courts rule on precedent & constitional foundations. The precedents are very clear on this.
Items like, “in God we trust” on coins/currency, do not advocate any particular body of faith…and one can interpret “god” to be “science” (some evangelicals argue this exactly, for example), but that’s a bit of a digression. Many Christian groups (and probably others) endorse creationism in a variety of conflicting forms, or even outright reject creationism/young-Earth theology-as-fact.
So, for “Creationism” to become a fixture of some government-endorsed policy position such an act could not occur without violating some other religious belief system & religion — and would immediately cause a lot of strife, etc. of the sort the Constitional prohibition was consciously designed to pre-empt (with the experience of the Puritans & the Catholic/Protestant conflicts in England being among the examples cited as issues to be constitutionally pre-empted).
A politician’s views on this topic just do not matter.
And sure, they can make a lot of appointments, some important — but all those are subject to ratification by Congress. That’s a lot of obstacles to overcome & the idea that a politician’s (including the appointees) religious views could be so inconsistent with the public’s AND still get thru the vetting process is remote. If it occurs, the elected representatives are representing the majority, which is what our form of government is supposed to be about.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
You know the ol’ saying. Nobody ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Phil, how long have you had that headline in waiting? :-)=
September 30th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I’m pretty religious, and easygoing, but to teach creationism in a science class makes me crazy. I don’t foist my beliefs on anyone. Teach all the creationism and religion you want just keep it in a philosophy or humanities class. This is one of the stupidest arguments I’ve seen. This is me screaming at the computer screen.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
“I will emphasize, evolution is a theory, and a very weak one at that, and should not be taught as absolute truth.”
First, no scientist ever claims to have ‘absolute truth’ about anything. Ever.
Second, do you know what the word theory means in a science?
Third, can you please enlighten us on the many weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory? I’m sure the many biologists who read this blog would love to know.
Or are you just another person playing the ‘reasonable moderate’ without having a single clue what you’re actually talking about?
September 30th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
what is wrong with the possibility that a God (no, not little green men…a Divinity) used evolution and science to get humans to where we are? the truth might lie in the middle.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Daniel said: “what is wrong with the possibility that a God (no, not little green men…a Divinity) used evolution and science to get humans to where we are? the truth might lie in the middle.”
There’s not wrong with it per se, but it is not testable and not scientific - such an idea would not belong in a science class but in a church (or religious education).
September 30th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
@Bryan:
Teaching religion in a science classroom violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. See Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688.
Also, the goal of science is not “ultimate truth.” Evolution is NOT a belief system or a “very weak theory” and is not taught as “absolute truth.” Absolute truth is the claim of dogmas. Scientific theories are not dogmatic… they change based on the available evidence.
Evolution has been overwhelmingly validated by 150 years of accumulated evidence (the fossil record, comparative morphology, molecular biology, etc.). To believe otherwise is simply ignorant. If evolution is just a “very weak theory” then why do you have endogenous retro-viral insertions at the same exact place in your DNA as a chimpanzee? Why does your human chromosome 2 contain the fused genetic sequences of primate chromosomes 12 and 13?
The answer is heredity. You have these because your mom and dad had them… and their parents before them… and on and on for thousands of millennia… all the way back to when that primate ancestor was infected by the virus or when those two primate chromosomes fused into one.
@Daniel:
There’s nothing wrong with it… except that it is scientifically unverifiable and an unneeded (from the point of view of science) and unnecessary complication. Science can explain how we got to where we are without a Divine interloper.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Calli:
I agree that it is better to “show” people. but you are still showing them that they are wrong.
In any case, people like Palin, just like the anti-vaccine crowd, are simply going to ignore or deny any evidence that runs counter to their beliefs. Few of them have a background that might give them an appreciation of how science works, so they think scientists are messing around in labs making things up. E.g., try to explain what a theory really is.
Creationists are wrong from every point of view, not just a scientific point of view. We should not coddle them. If their faith cannot hold up against reality, that’s their problem.
Finally, creationists and Christianists do not want “religion” taught in the public schools. That might mean their kids might Hinduism or Islam or Shintoism or something else they consider satanic. The religion they want in the schools is fundamentalist Christianity.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
@Justin & PP
I now see the error in that thinking…thank you
September 30th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Palin’s views are far from irrelevant. If she were to replace McCain as president she would have the power to appoint justices to the Supreme Court should, which is a rather frightening possibility should any of the current justices retire during her term(s) in office. That congress must first approve the president’s pick doesn’t change the fact that she’d have the power to significantly shape the long-term future of the Supreme Court. That she believes in creationism and is generally opposed to abortion makes her a dangerous choice for VP in light of her power to appoint future members of the Supreme Court.
By the way… the notion that “elected representatives are representing the majority” does nothing to ensure that the choices they make on the people’s behalf are any good, and the idea that this “is what our form of government is supposed to be about” does not jive with the fact that sometimes the majority’s wishes are harmful to society (that’s why we have the Bill of Rights to protect us all against our democratic government).
September 30th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Ken:
I’d have agreed with you if it weren’t for the drastic changes that the current administration’s world-view has inflicted on a wide range of policies. maybe in theory the president and VP aren’t supposed to have that much power, but somehow they do, and somehow their worldview has now become “the official U.S. worldview”. that’s a bit of hyperbole maybe, but look at the gag-orders to NASA and NOAA, the “exporting” of American democracy at gunpoint, etc.
I’d rather have a VP with a reality-based worldview than a apocalypse-soon, creationist one. especially with a president as likely to croak as McCain (and I find McCain scary, too )
And “In God We Trust” is clearly monotheistic favoritism, at least.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Pulse: when religion encroaches on science, then stands on its throat, I will speak up. AAnd I will continue to do so.
Calli, the point of this post is not to educate people about science, nor to point out the flaws in creationism. There are legions of sites that do that. I am sending out a rallying cry here. The ammunition can be found elsewhere.
Also, Calli, you can prove religion wrong, when that religion makes testable claims. Creationism makes a passel of them, and they are almost always wr0ng (and when they are right it doesn’t support creationism over an old Universe). I cannot prove God doesn’t exist, any more than anyone can prove God does exist. But I can sure show you that the Universe is older than 6000 years, by a factor of 2 million.
Ken, you may have forgotten that the primary reason we have a Vice President is to step up if the President becomes incapacitated. McCain may live for another 20 years, but statistically the odds are very much against it. He’d be the oldest incoming President in history. It’s a stressful job, too, and his medical history is in doubt. If elected, she’d be one 72-year-old heartbeat away from running the country.
Bryan, your comment has so many flaws it’s hard to know where to begin. Religion in the classroom has a very well-known history. Note that in Dover, the case was ruled against the IDists because it was clearly creationism, which cannot be taught in the classroom.
I never said God doesn’t exist. That is a strawman argument on your part. What I said is that creationism is wrong. That is a fact. Religious arguments aside, that’s a good enough reason not to teach it in the classroom.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Bryan says
“Unconstitutional? Which article or amendment might you be referring to? Note, “separation of church and state” is *not* a phrase from the constitution, but “In God We Trust” on our money and the Pledge of Allegiance have been around for a long time.”
Both of those references to god where added (to our money and pledge respectively) in the 1950s, so while the pledge has been around for quite some time, over 100 years, it did not originally include any references to a deity–and it was written by a Baptist minister. People used to understand what seperation of church and state meant.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
ROAD TRIP!
http://www.legorobotcomics.com/?id=78
Sorry if it offended your sensibilities….
September 30th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Of course the “both sides” argument is (another) one of the false dichotomies that the creationists use to bolster their side. There are many creation stories: why shouldn’t they given equal billing along with the Biblical one?
September 30th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Palin was interviewed by Katie Couric tonight and was specifically asked about evolution and she sounded like a theistic evolutionist, to be honest.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/30/eveningnews/main4490618.shtml
Palin: Oh, I think it should be taught as an accepted principle. And, as you know, I say that also as the daughter of a school teacher, a science teacher, who has really instilled in me a respect for science. It should be taught in our schools. And I won’t deny that I see the hand of God in this beautiful creation that is Earth. But that is not part of the state policy or a local curriculum in a school district. Science should be taught it science class.
Or how about this in an interview by Sean Hannity:
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/sean-hannity-interviews-sarah-palin-shes-pro-evolution/
HANNITY: Did you only want to teach creationism in school and not evolution?
PALIN: No. In fact, growing up in a school teacher’s house with a science teacher as a dad, you know, I have great respect for science being taught in our science classes and evolution to be taught in our science classes.
By all means criticise her for other things, but I don’t think you can get away with calling her an outright creationist any more.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Others have already pointed out the Pres. and VP’s power to appoint justices (and not just Supreme Court justices) as a means of shaping public policy and legal interpretation. (On a side note, currently sitting justices appointed by Republicans rather significantly outnumber those appointed by Democrats.) And, yes, they cannot themselves get laws passed without Congress.
However, they can appoint people to head up quite a large number of Federal agencies that touch on every aspect of life. These heads can publish regulations that can have a significant impact on the law and the shape and feel of our society, without going through Congress, so long as those regulations don’t go outside the bounds of the administrative powers delegated to the agencies.
The Pres. and VP also shape public policy through their speeches. Do not underestimate the power of words to alter people’s opinions.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Dave, of course she’s a creationist. That’s clear from the evidence.
Her saying we should teach evolution in the classroom doesn’t negate that. And as I pointed out, with more than one link to citations, she does want creationism taught in the classroom. I can’t make this any more clear.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Oh come on, she has now said specifically that she wants evolution taught in schools, not creationism.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Maybe she is one the dreaded things to a republican “a flip-flopper”.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
@Ken:
It isn’t so much for me that she could get her religious views forced into law. But they can, and have in the past, caused politicians or appointed officials to make some really bad decisions. Reagan’s Secretary of Interior was quoted saying:
‘We don’t have to protect the environment — the Second Coming is at hand.”
Kind of scarey what kind of things such people can do with little oversight, at least until it is too late.
Also, Palin belives Iraq is a mission from God, or some such. She may make Foreign policy decisions not only on her vast binocularian experience, but on what God tells her to do.
Being a creationist, she certainly has some issues dealing with reality, and all her decisions are suspect on that account. In a position of power, she is dangerous, even if she can’t get her education agenda passed.
@Dave:
All creationists want evolution taught, they just want their religion taught right along side of it.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
That Secretary was James Watt….sorry for excluding..
September 30th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
AH…atheism. The religion of no religion. Or is it just the religion of no Christianity? It has its own set of dogmas and “Bibles” - I mean handbooks. 600 years ago, people were put to death for teaching science. Go to Afghanistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia and try to preach the doctrine of evolution and see where it takes you today. I find it funny to see Christian conservatives being described as the Anti-Christs of “Science”! If Palin was a Scientologist, would there be such objectives. I do not BELIEVE in Divine Intervention. I do believe in evolution. My wife is a Christian. How can I deny that to her when it supplies answers that science alone can’t give her. Why ARE we here? Haven’t a lot of really intelligent people over the centuries pondered this question. Philosophy proves that I exist so therefore I am, but I cannot prove that anything else is real (even though I observe it and so many other people tell me too!). Adrian Lopez is worried that Palin may one day be allowed to make a Supreme Court nomination if she had to succeed McCain as President. I am a Democrat that worries that if Obama wins, he could nominate Hillary as a Supreme Court justice.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
@ Pulse, 4th poster:
Do you think it would be “fair” if science classes focused on the “controversy” between NASA and the Flat Earth Society? Would you want your tax dollars being spent teaching your child this stuff? Or would you rather have your child’s high school science class spend time teaching actual science?
Didn’t think so — science classes are for teaching actual science.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Santoki:
>>>”Oh let’s be fair, Palin wouldn’t be the first creationist in the white house.
In fact, haven’t we had one for the last eight years?”
Not quite, I’d say. While an idiotic, the current administration has never let the fundies completely take over. They just use them for their votes. Palin on the other hand seems much more accommodating.
And Dave, she IS a creationsist. She thinks the Flinstones is a documentary. Here’s another link to her views on creationism:
http://www.livescience.com/culture/080901-sb-palin-creationist.html
However, I do think her language (in the election run-up) may well have changed. She doesn’t want to come right out and say “evolution is wrong”, so she’s giving it the political “both sides” approach. Problem is, there AREN’T “two” sides. Creationism has nothing - NOTHING to offer. And even IF she’s advocating creationism for a “classroom discussion” although “it doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum”, it’s STILL counter-productive, still against the Fist Amendment (unless ALL other religions are also discussed), still unscientific, still WRONG. Her political views do seem like the stereo-typical right-wing fundie views, and I find it hard to believe that her religious views won’t affect her policy-making decisions.
And um, Bryan, please stop talking about evolution. This so called “weak theory” is stronger than the theory of gravity. Or instead of gravity, would you prefer to teach ‘Intelligent Falling’?
September 30th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Speaking of the “Paluxy man-tracks,” the keynote speaker at the Alaska Governor’s Prayer Breakfast in 2006 was none other than Carl Baugh. Did his whole tapdance routine.
This was before Sarah Palin was governor, and I don’t recall if she was present for the breakfast. Her predecessor had the good sense to leave the room just as Baugh began speaking — probably the most sensible thing Frank Murkowski ever did as governor.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
I do appreciate all the thoughtful responses.
@Larian — I won’t debate Jefferson’s views on religion, but he was certainly on one end of the spectrum. Note, you didn’t read my post, I didn’t say what you think I did. All said, I was only contending with Phil’s curt reference to the issue’s constitutionality, which in reality is far from settled.
Those downplaying the role of religion in the lives of the Founding Fathers ought re-read the first and second sentences of the Declaration of Independence.
@Phil — without belief in an intelligent creation, what does your god do? If your oft-stated stand on creationism does not imply a disbelief in god, you have a very unique belief structure! (You make inflammatory statements all the time, I won’t hesitate to make a few too. =)
To others: you see “endogenous retro-viral insertions at the same exact place in your DNA as a chimpanzee”, and think “Oh, we must have common ancestors.” Probably because you’ve heard it since you were little kids in school. But I see two very similar physical structures, and it makes sense that the building blocks of life for both should be very similar. We build apartment buildings and houses with wood and drywall and nails, why would a creator use different building blocks for no reason?
I believe for reasons you won’t believe, I’m okay with that. I love this country because everyone can believe what they like. And as an engineer I honor and respect the understanding that science brings. But I’m not always proud of the conclusions drawn by those who look at the world and universe through a soda-straw.
So let me end with a simple concession: (1) Phil does not know everything. (2) My God lies beyond Phil’s knowledge, easily created everything Phil (and the rest of us) can or ever will experience, and did it for a very good set of reasons, a select few of which I know — and only for those I am most grateful.
Warmest regards.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
“AH…atheism. The religion of no religion.”
Atheism is not religious, nor is it even dogmatic, for it is simply a lack of belief in deities. Not believing in God is no more “religious” than not believing in Santa Claus is religious.
“How can I deny that to her when it supplies answers that science alone can’t give her.”
Atheists don’t want to force their lack of belief upon your wife, or anybody else. If your wife finds comfort in the “answers” religion provides, that’s really none of our business. To the degree people wish to teach those “answers” as fact through publicly-funded channels, however, it is essential that those answers be grounded in fact rather than in spirit.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Phil,
Once again, really, sloppy work. She has said, before and after she was governor, that she didn’t think it belonged in the actual curriculum. You’re just plain wrong. You wonder why you take flack when you get political, it’s because you’re sloppy and just repeat talking points. Why don’t you actually put some effort into your political posts?
September 30th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
@Dave
Oh come on, she has now said specifically that she wants evolution taught in schools, not creationism.
Not quite. In the first quote, all she says is that evolution is part of the current science curriculum, and that science should be taught in science class. She says nothing about whether or not creationism should be taught as well.
In the second quote all she says is that creationism isn’t the only thing that should be taught in school.
To my knowledge, she’s never said that creationism should not be taught in school. And if she does believe this, why won’t she just say it?
September 30th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Bryan:
>>>”Those downplaying the role of religion in the lives of the Founding Fathers ought re-read the first and second sentences of the Declaration of Independence.”
Uh, the Declaration Of Independence had little to do with the Founding of the Constitution and everything to do with declaring independence from the British. The role of religion personally for the Founding Fathers not withstanding, it’s pretty clear they wanted to make sure that no one religion held sway over Government than any other.
>>>”@Phil — without belief in an intelligent creation, what does your god do? If your oft-stated stand on creationism does not imply a disbelief in god, you have a very unique belief structure! (You make inflammatory statements all the time, I won’t hesitate to make a few too.”
Well, not to speak for Phil, but my guess he’s an atheist (Phil, jump in if I’m out of turn here). I on the other hand consider myself agnostic. I doubt our “belief structures” (or rather philosophical outlooks) are unique. Intelligent Design is not only unscientific, but unnecessary for theology. For those who are religious but who accept science, that’s okay too. Problems only arise when one takes religious scripture too literally (to the point where it conflicts with science).
>>>”To others: you see “endogenous retro-viral insertions at the same exact place in your DNA as a chimpanzee”, and think “Oh, we must have common ancestors.” Probably because you’ve heard it since you were little kids in school. But I see two very similar physical structures, and it makes sense that the building blocks of life for both should be very similar. We build apartment buildings and houses with wood and drywall and nails, why would a creator use different building blocks for no reason?”
A “creator” could use different building blocks or the same building blocks (or in fact, anything it likes) for ANY reason it wishes. See the problem? It’s called FALSIFIABILITY. There is NO WAY to falsify a potential “god” or “creator”. What is wrong with believing in a god AND accepting evolution? Nothing (as long as one recognises the limits of supernatural explanations within the scientific realm). Unless one places limits on this “creator”. Which to me seems to be a very stupid thing to do. (shrug)
>>>”So let me end with a simple concession: (1) Phil does not know everything. (2) My God lies beyond Phil’s knowledge, easily created everything Phil (and the rest of us) can or ever will experience, and did it for a very good set of reasons, a select few of which I know — and only for those I am most grateful.”
So let me end with a simple concession: (1) Bryan does not know everything about biology. (2) Everyone’s God lies beyond EVERYONE’S knowledge, MAY or MAY NOT have easily created everything Phil, Bryan, Darth Robo (and the rest of us) can or ever will experience, and MAY or MAY NOT have did it for a very good set of reasons, a select few of which Bryan thinks he knows. Because quite simply, an unobservable, undetectable and invisible god that no-one has ever seen cannot have a single shred of information assertained about it in any way whatsoever. By ANYONE. That’s a fairly simple concept to grasp. Unless one happens to be a creationist.
We exist, whether by “creator” or not, I am most grateful.
Thanks mom and dad.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
I prefer Douglas Adams view of the creation of the universe:
In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
There is a theory which states that if anybody ever discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
@ Dave,
You’re wasting your time. Phil’s bias is clearly carved in stone. I can’t imagine him accepting such “facts” regarding Obama. Accepting dubious links, sole-sourced biased reports and then ignoring further evidence and statements are not what I would have expected but are clearly the norm on this site now.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
@ibugeye
If Palin was a Scientologist, would there be such objectives.
Yes. In fact the objections would probably be greater.
My wife is a Christian. How can I deny that to her when it supplies answers that science alone can’t give her. Why ARE we here?
You don’t have to deny her that. But we’re talking about something science defiantly can answer. We’re not talking about why we are here.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
@Bryan
So let me end with a simple concession: (1) Phil does not know everything. (2) My God lies beyond Phil’s knowledge, easily created everything Phil (and the rest of us) can or ever will experience, and did it for a very good set of reasons, a select few of which I know — and only for those I am most grateful.
That is perfectly fine, and you are well within your rights to believe as you wish. We obviously choose to not believe that, and the specific religious laws you choose to live by should not be forced on others.
These discussions are here for us to identify politicians who may well be the type to force their beliefs on others. Many religious people would like nothing more than to bring civilization back to the Dark Ages.
And please bear in mind that your views on evolution are not supported by evidence, but those of the theory you disagree with are. I think most reasonable people would agree, we need to live our lives in the real world. Praying does not cause cancer to go into remission, but chemotherapy can.
We need to focus on what matters here, since that is where we live, and the only dimensions we can prove.
Any other beliefs are personal and should remain as such.
I think I can speak for all of the science leaning people in the world who are fighting religion when I say that we would ALL rather focus on teh natural world as it is, and leave religion to those who are interested.
We rise up only in the face of evangalism. And it sucks. I wish they would all just shut up and then we could all get along just fine.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
There seems to be substantial confusion here about truth and proof in science. In science, there is no such thing as absolute truth and there is no such thing as proof. Scientific theories are subject to evidence and falsification, not proof. In this regard, science differs from mathematics in which there are axioms and postulates and theorems that can be proved from them (example: in plane geometry, two triangles are congruent if an angle and the adjoining sides are equal). Thus, one does not “prove” evolution; one only finds evidence supporting it or evidence falsifying it. So far, the falsifiers have utterly failed.
Re Bryan
The notion that evolution is a weak theory is absolute crap. The evidence supporting evolution, namely common descent, is overwhelming. In fact, there is probably no scientific theory with as much supporting evidence. For instance, there is far more evidence supporting common descent then supports the General Theory of Relativity. Furthermore, not a single observation has been made that has falsified common descent. In fact, common descent is now so well established that biologists consider it a fact.
On the other hand, the mechanism driving evolution is still being debated. Although natural selection is generally considered the most important mechanism by the majority of the biological community, there are a few holdouts, such as Prof. Larry Moran who argue that genetic drift is at least equally important. Not being a biologist, I am in no position to render an opinion on that controversy.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
@RL
You’re wasting your time. Phil’s bias is clearly carved in stone.
Once again, all she needs to do is say she’s not a creationist and that she doesn’t support teaching creationism in school. It’s that easy. Instead, all we have are statements supporting teaching both sides, and statements which would look fine sitting next to “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
@ Justin Olson
“Teaching religion in a science classroom violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. See Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688.”
The Kitzmiller v Dover decision said that the attempt to include Intelligent Design and its tenants in the classroom was introducing creationism in the classroom. The Dover decision was a district court decision and only has force in that district. It will likely be referenced in the future, but it sets no precedent that other courts are obliged to follow.
However the Supreme Court has ruled on creationism in the classroom in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). That found the Louisiana “Creationism Act” violated the “Establishment Clause”. That is the pertinent case to cite because it does set precedent. The Intelligent Design movement essentially sprang from that decission.
George
September 30th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Well, you can and you can’t. On the one hand, you can refute testable claims made by a religious entity. On the other hand, religion isn’t really the same sort of beast as science. To the majority of born-again fundamentalist Christians it’s all about *believing* in one central thing, everything else be damned. You cannot refute that central thing, not in a way that will matter to those who believe it. Complicating the matter enormously is the fact that many of these extremists believe not only in God but in the Devil as well, and particularly in the notion of the Devil as a wicked creature who lays traps to tempt people away from God. That sort of thinking makes it very hard for them to listen to evidence which seems to contradict their beliefs.
My point is that it is the Creationists who want us to think that it’s “us versus them”. Well, really they aren’t aiming at us. They’re aiming at the many spiritual people in this country who don’t understand science very well and who may be swayed by fearmongering assertions that science is in opposition to religion. They are creating a controversy where none exists. By saying “Unless you count one side as being right — science — and the other side being wrong — creationism,” your rallying cry plays right into their hands. It makes us appear as the anti-religious folks the Creationists claim we are.
The point is that Creationism doesn’t belong in science class *period*, not because it is wrong but because it isn’t even science. If you say it doesn’t belong because it’s wrong, then you give them hope — they think all they have to do is to prove it right, and then it will fit! Or, from the more cynical members of the movement, all they have to do is prove to the voting public that some doubt exists, and voila — the manufactured controversy. But it can’t be proven right (scientifically speaking, anyway), and that’s because it isn’t scientific in the first place. And that is the *real* reason why it doesn’t belong in science class.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Palin is the female Huckabee
September 30th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I am absolutely disgusted by your terrible misconceptions and incomplete views about Palin.
As your wrote on 04/29/2007
“cherry picking”; selectively picking out data that support your argument and ignoring contrary evidence. Why not do a hit piece on Obama. I can think of 20000 things you could write about.
Via
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l6zwOqAD92V3VQG0
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.
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.
Palin’s children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them.
Phil you say you KNOW she is a creationist? Actually that is complete nonsense. You don’t know that! She does not believe that dinosaurs walked with humans.
Just because extreme left wing bloggers repeat lies does not make them true.
You are citing a HUGE Obama supporter as evidence of your claims. Talk about cherry picking and doing your research. Give me a break!
No offense because I love your astronomy posts but you should stick to those more. You obviously have not been paying attention for the last 17 months.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Geography and foreign policy lesson - Canada is closer to Palin’s home town than is Russia.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Right now I am within a kilometer of Usa-Canada border so therefore I am expert in international affairs.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
A poll was released a couple of days ago that said if you Americans were to let us, Australians, vote for you nearly three quarters of all Australians would vote for Obama.
www.smh.com.au/news/national/obama-wins-by-a-landslide–in-australia/2008/09/29/1222650989574.html
There was a SF story I read years ago where the idea was that the science of demographics and polling had got so precise that the election would come down to one elector/person chosen by a computer. Sorry I can’t remember who wrote it or what the story was called.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
I flew over Russia once so that makes me an expert on high level strategic relations with the Russians. I spent time on a Russian ship once. The Russian crew were very friendly - good people. They ate lots of cabbage, sour cream, garlic and smelly fish. They showed us videos of home in Vladivostok. In the videos they went on picnics where they drank lots of vodka got drunk, pulled out guns and started shooting bottles. That makes me an expert in Russian diplomacy, cultural affairs and international arms talks. Not to mention the entertainment industry.
Spasiba.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I guess the links I provided where she has said she thinks both sides should be taught were totally missed by some commenters. That was before this campaign, certainly. And even if I agree that she pledged not to let that affect her decisions while Governor, has she made similar pledges since? She hasn’t said much of anything.
I find it funny that many of you are accusing me of being closed minded. I have read up on her positions — what little we know of them — and it’s clear where she’s coming from. If you don’t think she’s a creationist, or at the very very least has serious creationist leanings, then you are fooling yourself.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Phil you’re absolutely correct. In the recent interviews she is very careful in what she says. In typical poli speak it is what she doesn’t say that is important. This is a good example:
“But that is not part of the state policy or a local curriculum in a school district. Science should be taught it science class.”
Nothing there about what she believes or doesn’t.She is just stating the current policy. We call that lying by omission. Doubleplusgood doublespeak.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
I don’t believe in god but I will say that the copy of the US Constitution I have doesn’t say anything about the seperation of church and state, it just says the state can not create a religion or pick one religion over another and run with it. Super religious people are scary and creepy, but so are super scientist geek types. I for one am voting the Republican ticket because the Democrats have done zippy for us in the past 20 years and if that means somebody who is religious (super or not) as the VP then fine. Remember congress has control over the budget and the Federal Reserve has control over the money. The president doesn’t control either of those. In short when the economy is good or bad its because of the Congress and the Fed. When Science is good or bad its because of the quality of the data.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Pulse, it’s not a matter of picking on religious people. Christian religious extremists want to use their beliefs to change the foundations of our society. It is our duty as Americans to oppose that. If they would keep their religious views in church that would be one thing…but they don’t.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Limbaugh should have said, “we have the babe in the woods on our ticket.”
October 1st, 2008 at 12:10 am
@Beacon
I am absolutely disgusted by your terrible misconceptions and incomplete views about Palin.
Then why can’t she take 3 seconds and clear up these terrible misconceptions instead of talking around the issue. You should be disgusted with Palin. All she has to do is say “I don’t think creationism should be taught in science class”. If people have terrible misconceptions about her views, she has only herself to blame.
Why not do a hit piece on Obama.
That’s an easy one. Because he’s clearly stated that creationism has no place in the classroom.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:48 am
I agree with Phil. While she has not gone on the record to say if she is or is not a creationist, the circumstantial evidence is strong. First, she has been quoted as saying two things:
1) That she is a “bible-believing” Christian. This is instantly recognizable as a phrase used by Christians who believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, from beginning to end. The vast majority of “bible-believing” Christians are creationists. There is a small minority of inerrantists who will argue that you have to look beyond the plain meaning of the text to bring the Bible into harmony with science, but they are very few, and it is a strand of inerrancy that is far beyond the norms of creationism that is taught at the Assemblies of God congregations she attends.
2) That she would prefer schools to “teach the controversy”. Again, instantly recognizable as coded language used by creationists of all stripes who want to gain a foothold in the science education of our children. She may have had to back off that stance as governor and now as VP candidate because, after Dover, it is a legally perilous position to take, but as others have already said, she really has equivocated when it comes to repudiating her previous statements. Either way, her retraction is likely driven by political reasons and not personal.
3) Not really objective evidence, but compelling nonetheless — the fundamentalist religious right is absolutely orgasmic about Sarah Palin. If they thought she believed in evolution or would do everything she could to keep creationism out of the school system, they would disown her in a heartbeat, in the same way they really don’t like McCain.
4) As I mentioned above, she has belonged to three different fundamentalist (”bible-believing”) churches in her adult life. Their pastors teach inerrancy and the literal truth of the Bible — from Genesis to Revelation and all that entails. What’s more, in digging into what those churches believe, it appears that all of them are members of the “Third Way” movement, which adheres to Dominionist theology. If you don’t know what that means, you should — they essentially believe that a nation (i.e. this nation) should be governed based on the laws and principles laid down in the Old Testament (and I don’t just mean the Ten Commandments). One famous Dominionist declared that he was looking forward to the day when the Bible verse “at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow” was taken as law.
Now I don’t believe a President Palin would come close to succeeding in turning this country into a theocracy (she will never have the political chops to do it anyway, even if she want to) but she is most definitely the most extreme religious figure to have a chance at gaining the White House in my lifetime. (I don’t believe that Bush is anywhere near close to taking his religion seriously — he never pushed DOMA much, for instance and was overheard as saying he couldn’t get worked up about the gay marriage issue).
Anyway, to sum up, I have little doubt that she is personally a creationist, I also have little doubt that if McCain is elected, given his age, she has a good chance of becoming our President (yikes!) before two terms are up (experts put it as high as 1 in 4). While she will likely be unable to overtly foist her fundamentalist religious beliefs or creationism on the country, as we have seen from the Bush administration, there are many covert and subtle ways to move in the same direction — promoting abstinence-based sex education, allowing hospitals and pharmacies “moral exemptions” for medical abortions or emergency birth control (Palin believes the morning after pill is abortion, for example), deliberately suppressing or watering down scientific reports that conflict with your agenda (done by Bush numerous times), installing unqualified party operatives in key propaganda positions (again, Bush did this in the NASA public relations office and the Justice Dept) and so on.
There are many reasons to object to Palin — that she is a creationist is not at the top of the list. Basically she is proving herself to be woefully out of her depth as a VP nominee. She seems to go into a panic whenever she’s asked a question about the most basic of policy issues and starts babbling, not making any sense at all. Republicans keep harping on about how her experience is the same as Obama’s but even if that was true, that’s not the important issue. It’s an issue of competence and vetting.
Obama has prevailed through one of the toughest primary seasons in history and beaten the odds-on favorite establishment candidate in Hillary Clinton. He has attended countless debates, unscripted press conferences, in-depth serious policy based interviews on the Sunday morning talk shows and national newspapers, and has been grilled over his religious beliefs, his relationship with his longtime pastor, old colleagues and friends, even his birth certificate, for goodness-sakes! In the past two years, the public has had ample chance to get to know him and his views and to make a decision as to his fitness for office. Judging from the reaction of the undecideds after the first debate, he is making that case.
Contrast that with Sarah Palin. One month on the national stage, no press conferences, no unscripted questions (well, apart from the Pakistan one where she agreed with Obama by mistake!), and two, just two, meaningful interviews so far. (Hannity puff pieces don’t count). We’re not allowed to ask about her religious beliefs, she’s stonewalling the Troopergate investigation using a horde of lawyers from the campaign, and when she does finally get the chance to answer a few questions, her answers are almost nonsensical babbling full of confused talking points the McCain camp has crammed into her.
Really, it would be funny if it wasn’t so scary. By picking Palin, McCain decided to put his election victory before his country–something he had sworn repeatedly he would never do.
October 1st, 2008 at 2:30 am
[…] vice…) dia il via a un’ulteriore avanzata delle truppe neocreazioniste e han ragione (qua uno per […]
October 1st, 2008 at 3:01 am
Dear Phil, you also seem to be moving on the science fanatical path by time and gain making comments that ’science is the only thing that is right and creationism is wrong’. Its purely the scientists perspective that science is the only truth. Half the world believes in something else. Let people choose what they want to believe. Lets work for science and crack the mysteries of the universe. Don’t think we need to thump our chests for this and ridicule everything else.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:08 am
Deepak,
I say yet again (and will keep saying it), the religious extremists want to take over the country. By ignoring them, you help to make that happen.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:27 am
Deepak, people are allowed to believe in whatever lunacy they like. Unfortunately the problem is they won’t keep that lunacy to themselves. They believe they have the right and the duty to impose that lunacy on the rest of us and in the process restrict honest to goodness scientific investigation and that is wrong.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:45 am
Bryan said:
This is a common canard, Bryan. The separation of church and state, while not expressed in these exact words, is part of the First Amendment. Congress is prohibited from passing any law that favours one religion above any other. State-funded schools may not teach a religious viewpoint because it will favour one religion above all others. Note that some of the more free-thinking students are re-wording the Pledge of Allegiance for themselves.
No, but your phrasing is back-to-front. Creationism (in all of its forms except the least extreme types such as theistic evolution) contravenes reality as we have found it, so is quite clearly disproved. OTOH, evolutionary theory is so well-supported by evidence that we can state with certainty that it is at the very least a good approximation of reality.
Which particular form of creationism would you choose to teach? There are at least 5 or 6 broad types in Christianity alone. And why should anyone waste the time of science teachers by requiring them to teach and then debunk antiscience claptrap?
OK, first off, all forms of Creationism require an absence of thought - they demand the person being taught to accept the authority of the teacher without question. Second, some kind of comparative religion class would probably be of benefit, but how would it be taught, who is to decide what should be included, or what should be excluded, and how the hell will you get Islam and Buddhism a fair hearing in the deepest, darkest Bible Belt?
October 1st, 2008 at 4:28 am
There are two reasons why Palin is on the ticket in the first place:
1. She is a woman;
2. she appeals to fundamentalists.
Therefore, Sarah Palin will never disown creationism during this campaign, regardless of what she believes, because she is needed to bring in the fundamentalist vote. If the McCain/Palin ticket looks too secular, these people will stay home on 4 November.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:33 am
Deepak, is your last name Chopra?
October 1st, 2008 at 5:19 am
Dear Deepak, you also seem to be taking things too personally by time and gain making comments that ’science is the not the only thing that is right because my beliefs are of value to me’. Well that’s nice. Half the world believes in something else. Well that’s nice. Half the world believes in many something elses. But that does not make any of it “truth”. As has already being explained, science is not about “truth” either. It’s about discovering facts and trying to explain them. People can choose what they want to believe. But you miss the point that is being made, which is that there are those who wish to impose their VERSION of “truth” onto others, those who have power to affect politics in order to do so. This is wrong, and this is what’s being fought here.
Religion is fine, for those who want to believe it. I have never seen this blog rail against religion for the sake of it, only against poor thinking when influenced by religion.
And at the risk of anyone being offended, creationism taken literally in any way is dumb. That’s not the same as calling religion dumb.
So there.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:43 am
Deepak said:
Wow! What a plastic definition of “truth” you have there. The world must be a terrifying place for you, if what was true yesterday might cease to be true tomorrow.
Truth is not shaped by opinion. The universe is what it is, and no amount of wishful thinking (aka praying) can change that.
Science is the best method we have for discovering how the universe works. It is the only such method with a successful track record.
Creationism is wrong for the simple reason that all of the many forms of creationism (with the possible exception of some versions of theistic evolution) are at variance with reality. Look at YEC. The Earth is old, the Universe older, therefore YEC is wrong. Look at OEC or DAC. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence shows that all life is related, and descended from a common ancestor population. Therefore, OEC is wrong. And so on.
So, actually, when you complain that Phil is crusading with the “science is right and creationism is wrong” shtick, you are actually complaining that the world does not work the way you want it to. Get over yourself.
October 1st, 2008 at 6:48 am
um…one thing to keep in mind here is that there can definitely be a difference between one’s personal beliefs, and what actions one takes when in an elected office.
sarah palin may well be a dyed-in-the-wool creationist, but that does NOT automatically mean that she would push this as an agenda. in fact, her tenure as governor of alaska seems to support that. she may believe that humans walked with dinosaurs and may like to see it taught in the public schools, but that does not mean that acting as governor, or vice president, she would push through those personal beliefs in her policies, or try to subvert the law of the land.
here in virginia, we have another example of this. our governor (a democrat, and obama ally) is a devout catholic. he is personally opposed to the death penalty, because of his personal religious beliefs. yet, he has not stood in the way of executions in the state of virginia, because he feels that it is his duty to enforce the laws of the state of virginia, even though he could easily subvert those laws, in spirit anyway, by commuting all death sentences.
now, i have no problem with anyone who wants to withhold their vote from mccain/palin - or from obama/biden for that matter. in my mind, choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. but i do think it’s unfair to say that just because palin may have kooky beliefs that she will necessarily try to force those kooky beliefs down everyone’s throats, when there is no evidence of that. after all, i believe that obama has made great pains to show that he is a very christian man, why would you think that palin’s beliefs will turn her into some sort of theocrat, but obama’s won’t?
October 1st, 2008 at 6:52 am
Now, to be fair, this is a single source claim, and Munger runs an anti-Palin blog in Alaska
Then why on earth would you even publish this? Stop pushing the rhetoric. This whole story about Palin wanting to teach this and that has already been answered; even the Democrats have dropped it because they found out it was a false story. The truth: She doesn’t believe creation should be part of the curriculum, but if the topic is brought up in the classroom it shouldn’t be prohibited from discussion. STick with things which are actually part of “THE PUBLICH RECORD”, and not from 3rd party gibberish.
I expect more from someone who has a PhD and knows the difference between research and looking up the research of others and re-printing the information (which some people wrongly consider research).
Talk about lack of “objective thinking”.
If I would convince enough people to print a story saying dark matter is actually dust and tiny fragments from black holes and possibly white dwarfs… would you instantly believe it, print it and call it gospel? OR…would you actually do your own research?
For someone who is educated, you should know better.
BTW, I don’t belong to either party. They are both equally stupid on many things, and anyone who makes their decision based on one particular subject is selfish and foolish.
…and although how “science” is funded by the government affects my paycheck directly, I believe there are items far more important. It isn’t like either candidate is going to drop all funding for science. Don’t you think it would be rather idiotic to have someone who fully supports huge funding for science, yet doesn’t have the knowledge to handle the critical details of running the Executive Branch, military, economic, etc. problems?
One candidate has never dealt with budgets at all… do you actually think something like science (which is in the middle of the priority ladder) is going to be properly funded by this person? …laughable.
October 1st, 2008 at 6:53 am
I’m not trying to throw weight behind Palin, but like any good Skeptic, one should check the sources. As Nathan said in his comment, Palin’s comments are a bit exaggerated. From the article you cited:
“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. … I’m not going to pretend I know how all this came to be,” she said.
Which points to two crucial facts: (1) She is *not* “supporting” “teaching” creationism; she is merely against the idea of “banning” such “debate” from the (publicly funded) classroom. (2) She is not pretending to know what she doesn’t know. Isn’t that an improvement on the current administration?
October 1st, 2008 at 7:08 am
>>>”The truth: She doesn’t believe creation should be part of the curriculum, but if the topic is brought up in the classroom it shouldn’t be prohibited from discussion.”
And the reason it shouldn’t be prohibited is… ?
October 1st, 2008 at 7:48 am
@Darth Robo–
“And the reason it shouldn’t be prohibited is… ?”
Exactly what are you going to prohibit kids from talking about? This is NOT the same as teaching both sides, or teaching creationism. If kids start discussing some topic–ID, Iraq war, whatever–are you somehow going to stifle their speech?
WOW.
It is disappointing that Phil’s razor-sharp mind turns to mush when it comes to politics. Hey–it’s his blog.
October 1st, 2008 at 8:00 am
I don’t think that Sarah Palin is worthy of discussion. She’s not ready for prime time. Hell, she’s not even ready for the small time. I find it astonishing that anybody takes her seriously: she can’t name a newspaper or magazine that she reads, she can’t name more than one Supreme Court decision, despite the fact that she was a journalism major and in J-school (at least the reputable ones) you have to learn about the Court decisions that impacted free speech and freedom of the press.
She seems incurious, cocky, snide, and not at all accomplished or even apt to do a good job. If she were my student, I’d fail her for any number of reasons. Cramming to run for vice president of the U.S. is just as stupid (and short-sighted) as cramming for a big final that yu haven’t studied for in a class you forgot to attend for most of the semester.
If any of the rest of us ran on such a thin resume as hers, we’d be laughed out of the race. If she were a Democrat, the Republicans would be all over her like a cheap suit. But instead they don’t want us to ask her “hard” questions… cuz then we’d be beating up on her. Well, I’m sorry–but for those of us who have been asking and answering hard questions all our lives (and that includes a wide range of people from all walks of life), that just is silly.
For what it’s worth, I grew up going to Catholic school, with religion in class every day. It only made me respect the separation of church and state even more than the fundie “thinkers” who feel it is their right and duty to force the rest of us to worship as they do (or else).
October 1st, 2008 at 8:04 am
yu=you (danged typos)
October 1st, 2008 at 8:07 am
Free speech, critical thinking process, etc… which should be present in all levels of academe.
I would think a reason would need to be provided if it was prohibited. Religion is a touchy subject, but there is more than one side. Therefore all sides should at least be heard. Just because you hear it doesn’t mean you believe it (at least I hope not). This is for any subject.
I don’t believe in a diety/God/creator. However, I’m not going to hold it against someone if they do. Nor do I believe they should be silenced. To me it is just another subject with multiple sides and views. As a scientist I encourage all views to be objectively looked at; which is also why I don’t have a problem if my children are exposed to religion. I don’t expect my kids to believe everything I do on all subjects… why should this be different? Witholding any information is censorship. Hard to find the truth when censorship is involved, or only ONE SIDE is presented with selective facts.
October 1st, 2008 at 8:09 am
Sorry, Dave D, I thought we were talking about public school science classes. Kid asks about creationism? Tell ‘em it’s nothing to do with science. If the kid pushes, show ‘em why. Not hard to debunk creationism.
Now, if they wanna talk about religion or ID in a humanities/social studies/philosophy or comparitive religious studies class, that’s not so bad. As long as the teacher makes sure that it doesn’t turn into some big preach-fest for whatever religion the kid happens to bring up.
Way to blame Phil for