Sean Hannity Interviews Sarah Palin: She’s Pro Evolution!

WE WERE just watching the second part of Sean Hannity’s interview of Sarah Palin on the Fox News Network. He asked her about teaching creationism. She said that as the daughter of a science teacher she strongly appreciated science, and wanted evolution taught in science class. She impressed us as being quite definite about this. (That’s how we recall it.)

Not much else was said on the topic. Hannity didn’t probe her about what she said back in 2006, which we reported here: Sarah Palin: Creationist? Nor was Sarah asked about her personal beliefs. It was all about education in science class.

We assume the interview transcript will be posted on the Fox website, perhaps tomorrow. When it’s available, we’ll post the relevant excerpt. For the moment, this is all we can report about it.

Addendum:
The transcript is now at the Fox site: Gov. Palin on ‘Hannity & Colmes,’ Part 2:

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.

It’s not much, but it’s all we have so far. For us, the jury is still out on this one.

[Our related articles are here: Sarah Palin & Creationism.]

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

14 responses to “Sean Hannity Interviews Sarah Palin: She’s Pro Evolution!

  1. Jury’s still out on this one, as far as I’m concerned. Here’s what Fox have published — it was a very brief exchange:

    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.

    Hannity has asked a stupid question — did she want to replace the teaching of evolution with creationism. Not even the Discoveroids are dumb enough to advocate that (at least, openly; that’s Phase 2 of the Wedge, no doubt).

  2. Thanks, Great Claw. Now that I realize the transcript is posted, I’ll add it to the article.

  3. Hey, it’s at least a start that she’s trying to cover up her previous / true position. Of course, you sort of have the choice of:

    (1) She has educated herself greatly in the last year or so since she was previously pretty clearly wanting to ‘teach the controversy,’ and now understands the importance of good science education in American schools.

    (2) She’s a craven politician who will do or say anything to get elected, much like her running mate (and the other side, for that matter).

    Option (2) somehow seems the more likely to me. So really we have:

    (2)(a) She’s a craven politician who will do or say anything to get elected, and once elected will be kept in check by the same forces that constrained Bush.

    (2)(b) She’s a craven politician who will do or say anything to get elected, and once elected will be free to loose her agenda upon a grateful American public (I have no illusions about my peers).

    If you want to take that chance, Curmudgeon, that’s your lookout. But don’t put lipstick on the pig. Ha.

    And you frequently allude to the other issues in this election. I respect your desire to remain focused / on message, but anytime you want to talk about those issues, I’m sure we can find things to rationally disagree on. I think this is what’s really a hoot: there are good conservatives (typically from the libertarian wing) who understand how important teaching the fact and theory of evolution is, but who are nonetheless out in, um, left … no, wait, right field on other issues, at least as far I’m concerned.

  4. moribundhund says:

    And you frequently allude to the other issues in this election. I respect your desire to remain focused / on message, but anytime you want to talk about those issues, I’m sure we can find things to rationally disagree on.

    There are thousands of blogs that discuss the other issues (the war, the economy, taxes, government spending, health care, immigration, etc.), about which I’m reasonably well informed and able to debate, but I want to keep things focused here.

    I have two reasons for the tight focus: (1) there are crazy people who debate about every issue, and I’d like to keep things somewhat under control; and (2) it’s quite enough effort to post new stuff each day on the “evolution/creationism” issue. If things got beyond that I wouldn’t be able to keep up.

    So although it’s tempting to let loose and discuss the whole range of issues, I’ll restrain myself. I’ve described my political views elsewhere (there’s a Page titled “Our Politics”) and that’s my perspective. I’ll leave my specific positions on the other issues to your imagination.

  5. The Curmudgeon wrote:

    I’ll leave my specific positions on the other issues to your imagination.

    Fair enough — except, I think it behooves you to declare on one vital issue:

    Is Certs a breath mint, or is it a candy mint?

    A troubled world longs to know…

  6. False dichotomy. You have offended those who consider it a suppository. (But I’m not among the offended.)

  7. A really troubled world longs to know…is it still usable as a breath/candy mint after its alternative use?

  8. Teach the controversy!

  9. I hate to continue this thread, but I just can’t help myself…
    Were Certs intelligently designed, or did they just evolve from Lifesavers?

  10. I appreciate your curiosity, but you’ll have to carry on your research without me.

  11. I hate to keep bugging you about interpretations oh Great Curmy, but the question asked Palin was the wrong one and her answer left too much room for speculation.

    I wish the hell an humanist could get the opportunity to ask her point blank if she intends to ‘teach the controversy. It would clear up an important question

    Not that I can vote down there, but if I was in a position to vote, I certainly wouldn’t vote for her until she clarifies her position. Her church of choice scares the hell out of me and I’d like to know how much she shares its attitude.

    Perhaps you could arrange an interview.

    You know, I keep wanting to call you by your ‘other’ name.

  12. bsharp55 says:

    I hate to keep bugging you about interpretations oh Great Curmy, but the question asked Palin was the wrong one and her answer left too much room for speculation.

    Tundra boy, I’m quite aware of how shallow the question was, and how unsatisfactory the answer is. As for voting for her, it’s either that, or vote for the community organizer, or don’t vote at all. That last option is gaining momentum.

  13. bsharp55 carelessly wrote:

    “You know, I keep wanting to call you by your ‘other’ name”

    You’re skating on thin ice, Tundra Boy. Let me remind you that, officially, ‘The King’ died 16 August 1977, though he’s happy to have the ‘alien abduction’ story circulating out there as some useful disinformation.

  14. I’m constantly dogged by the persistent rumor that I am the Lindbergh baby.