Sarah Palin Discusses Creationism with Katie Couric

THERE ARE are endless news reports about Sarah Palin’s creationism. Virtually everything is based on a remark she made while running for Governor of Alaska, from which she receded the next day. That hasn’t stopped the world of journalism and punditry from publishing the most outrageous claims. We’ve tried to keep up with what the press has to say, while ignoring blogs and columns that are only reporting third-hand hearsay.

This is from the CBS News website, at a page called Katie Couric Reports, where we read Palin Opens Up On Controversial Issues. It appears to be a transcript of Couric’s interview. The article’s subtitle says: “VP Candidate Speaks Frankly With Katie Couric About Feminism, Homosexuality, Abortion And The Environment.”

We’re copying only the part that pertains to the creationism issue:

Couric: Do you believe evolution should be taught as an accepted scientific principle or as one of several theories?

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.

So there you are.

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

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

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

17 responses to “Sarah Palin Discusses Creationism with Katie Couric

  1. I would have been more impressed if she could talk about science education without invoking her magic fairy.

  2. This is a huge improvement on her disingenuous answer to Hannity’s softball question (her reply there merely denied a desire to replace evolution with creationism in the classroom.

    But I confess to continuing discomfort with the candidate. At best, and with a bit of contortion, I can allow that, though she may have some bizarre personal beliefs, they may be discounted as such beliefs will not (she assures us) inform her policy calls: that’s a chunk to take on trust, but that’s always a dilemma when dealing with politicians.

    Where I struggle is finding a positive reason to endorse this candidate. Sorry, but at best she seems a mediocrity, and I can’t get over the sense that she was put on the ticket for no other reason than as a sop and lure to the very same ‘Evangelical’/social conservative wing that has (in my view) pulled my once-admirable GOP into idiotic stances. I do not want to see President McCain indebted to those folks, who keep dragging in irrational issues into political discourse and government policy.

    If by chance McCain does not win in November, I will take some comfort in the opportunity for the GOP in opposition to rid itself of the SoCons who have done, IMHO, great harm to the party and the country.

    But your mileage may vary. 🙂

  3. megalonyx says:

    Where I struggle is finding a positive reason to endorse this candidate.

    No need to do that. The choice is McCain vs the community organizer. All else is trivia — perhaps the VP will important one day, but for now we must focus on the principal candidates.

    One might point out that Obama’s church affiliation is far more bizarre and disturbing than Sarah’s, and if he wins, he’ll be the President. Ponder that.

  4. I’d still like an absolute and guaranteed campaign pledge from President McCain to not, under any circumstances, die in office…

  5. moribundhund

    Hey, I’m good. I’m now willing to see this portion of it as a non-issue, even if she’s lying through her teeth (as I suspect).

    That doesn’t mean she’s not a complete idiot (as other aspects of the interview would indicate), or that it’s more likely than not that she’d have to take the helm due to McCain’s age / health (a fact that the Curmudgeon seems to studiously ignore with his “pay no attention to that woman behind the ancient President” stance), or that it turns out she’s even more craven than the other candidates in her ability to turn on what she obviously believed in previously in order to get elected. Hey, that’s Sarah for you.

    And we can get down and dirty on the legacy of the Keating Five versus the ‘community organizer’ anytime you desire. Or on the Presidential candidate who not only claims we have ‘strong fundamentals’ when the economy is cratering, but apparently can’t understand the relative sizes of earmarks and budget deficits. Or on the blatantly anti-science attitudes that McCain has previously spouted, and that I continue to bring to your attention in the comments. Or on McCain’s ‘trusted spiritual adviser’ who is essentially a Neo-Nazi. We make these arguments in cameo, neither of us willing to sully the blog with the full up versions. But as long as you have your little digs, I’ll keep throwing in mine.

  6. Calm down, gentlemen. If we’re going to vote according to the church of the candidate, I don’t think the community organizer looks very good.

    If we’re going to base our vote on the likelihood of death in office, bear in mind that McCain’s mother is still rather spry; and there’s the unpleasant possibility that some racist nutcase might assassinate Obama, which would put Joe Biden in charge of things.

    It’s difficult to quantify, but maybe it’s equally likely that Palin or Biden could become President. Neither is anyone’s first choice for President, so the two “death in office” scenarios cancel each other out.

    We’re left with choosing between McCain and the community organizer. Everyone knows how he’ll decide that one, but it’s not what this humble blog is all about.

  7. When Obama talks about science education, he does not invoke Mr. God for anything. There can be no misunderstanding about what Obama thinks about magical creation in science classrooms. He’s against it and he can be trusted to speak out against it when necessary.

    I noticed the Discovery Institute creationists strongly support McCain, which in my opinion makes McCain totally unqualified to be in any government position.

    By the way, if can be trusted, Obama will win the election easily.

  8. “That’s nearly a million every day, every working day he’s been in Congress,” McCain said. “And when you look at some of the planetariums and other foolishness that he asked for, he shouldn’t be saying anything about Governor Palin.”;_ylt=AlV.hNqJ1jkP7oMb8cqRtHas0NUE

  9. I approve of planetariums, Stacy, but I don’t know why Congress should pay for them.

  10. They are tools for education – kind of like the ‘Smithsonian’ (sp?) which, I believe, like all of the memorials and such are supported with gov’t revenue.

    The planetarium in question-if I am remembering correctly-is the oldest in our country and needed some major repairs.

    My point is though, that McCain’s examples of ‘pork’ spending- are anti-science (bear dna, etc..). And tonight he voted yes on an extra 150 billion dollars to bail out repair/reform our economy.

    Obama voted ‘yes’ as well but he hasn’t been campaigning on voting against pork barrel spending.

    (SEE ? 😉 I didn’t even bring up Sarah Palin)

  11. bobcu wrote:

    I noticed the Discovery Institute creationists strongly support McCain, which in my opinion makes McCain totally unqualified to be in any government position.

    If I had to choose either my candidates or my friends by their other associates or enthusiasts, I would be a non-voting and very lonely chap indeed.

    I’m not crazy about some of the cases the ACLU has taken on at various times, but that gave me no trouble whatsoever in the Dover trial.

    There are some (maybe most) ‘fellows’ at the DI who think the earth is 6,000 years old, which is idiotic. But they also acknowledge the earth is a sphere; should I, therefore, believe the earth is flat because the idiotic DI think it round?

    Each case on its merits, associations and proponents be damned

  12. McCain is a friend of the Discovery Institute, an organization that is trying to destroy America’s science education. The Discovery Institute creationists should be put in prison for treason, but McCain actually gave a speech for them on February 23, 2007.

    Both McCain and Palin can’t talk about science education without invoking their magic fairy. That’s just plain childish and stupid. I want a grownup to lead this country instead of a couple of god-soaked idiots.

  13. Stacy S. says:

    They [planetariums] are tools for education – kind of like the ‘Smithsonian’ (sp?) which, I believe, like all of the memorials and such are supported with gov’t revenue.

    Smithson donated the funds to the US to start that institution, but it’s probably run with taxpayer money now. I don’t have a problem with national archives, and then using them for educational purposes.

    However, you can’t find a reference to “education” in the Constitution. I guess it’s inferred regarding the military, and probably Indian tribes, but otherwise education is, and (until Jimmy Carter) always was a state issue. Now we have a cabinet post for that subject — or rather, for the teachers union. Another vast topic beyond this blog’s mission, but everything gets me going these days.

  14. bobcu says:

    I want a grownup to lead this country instead of a couple of god-soaked idiots.

    I assume you’ll be voting for Mr. Obama, whose closest friend and adviser for 20 years was Rev. Jeremiah Wright. If you’re happy, I’m happy. But please, this isn’t the blog for such comments.

    However, if you have a link to a reliable source about McCain and the Discovery Institute, I’d like to see it.

  15. Details of Senator McCain’s address of February 2007 to the DI are still available at the
    DI’s own site, which states:

    Discovery Institute is pleased to co-present with CityClub of Seattle and the Seattle World Affairs Council a luncheon featuring U.S. Senator John McCain.

    What is the role of the U.S. in the global community? How should the U.S. position itself over the next decade? What are the challenges, and how should they be addressed? What are the future global impacts on Washington State? United States Senator John McCain will address these topics of global relevance and their relation to the Puget Sound region at the Westin Hotel in Seattle on Friday, February 23 from 12:00 to 1:30 p.m.

    IOW, it wasn’t a Creationist Cabal, nor was it solely a DI event.

    Much as I despise the DI for it’s quasi-Creationist and theocratic agenda, I don’t see anything sinister in this particular address by Senator McCain.

  16. My entire point was that McCains public’examples’ of pork spending are anti-science.

  17. megalonyx says:

    IOW, it wasn’t a Creationist Cabal, nor was it solely a DI event.

    Agreed. That’s nothing at all.