Sarah Palin’s Creationism: Our Final Post?

YOUR CURMUDGEON confidently predicts that the topic of creationism will come up in tonight’s Vice Presidential debate; and we also predict that Sarah will finally put the issue to rest. Meanwhile, the press still seems confused.

In the Lawrence Journal-World, published in Lawrence, Kansas, which says that it’s “the news source for Lawrence and surrounding communities,” we read Palin and Biden on Education.

We have excerpted the article’s discussion of creationism:

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Palin: Palin, the daughter of a science teacher, supports teaching both evolution and creationism. “Teach both,” she said in the Boston Globe. “You know, don’t be afraid of information …Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools.”

Biden: He calls intelligent design “malarkey.” It’s a safe bet he doesn’t want it taught in schools.

The Globe may have reported that as Palin’s position — so has virtually everyone else — but she didn’t make such a statement while speaking to them, or to anyone else since her nomination. As our regular readers know, that was something she said in 2006, from which she swiftly retreated. Sarah doesn’t advocate creationism in the curriculum, and she took no action to interfere with science education in Alaska. She recently said, in an interview with Katie Couric: “Science should be taught in science class.” We assume it takes time for the news to get to Kansas.

The article also says this:

Other education tidbits:

The National Education Association (NEA) rated Biden 91 percent on voting for pro-public education issues.

The NEA gave Palin a favorable review in a recent news release, despite its endorsement of Barack Obama.

The NEA is a union, so their endorsement of Obama is no surprise. Their favorable comment about Palin is quite unexpected, however, and it suggests that they looked but found absolutely nothing negative to say about her. It’s always interesting to be aware of what doesn’t exist.

If tonight’s debate goes as expected, our long series of articles about Sarah Palin and creationism should be coming to an end. But if the debate reveals that she’s a flaming Noah’s Ark nutcase, then we’ll face the facts and join in the criticism.

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

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

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

26 responses to “Sarah Palin’s Creationism: Our Final Post?

  1. mightyfrijoles

    Kansas has a lot of nerve complaining about Palin and Creationism. It wasn’t long ago they were the laughing stock of the scientific community.

  2. One hour into the debate, and nothing on creationism yet. It seems that there are other issues cluttering up this election.

  3. mightyfrijoles

    I only caught a bit of it and no mention of Creationism. I may have missed it, or the MSM may have decided it’s a non-issue, or they’re waiting until later.

  4. retiredsciguy

    I watched or listened to most of the debate; didn’t hear any reference to creationism/intelligent design, “teaching the controversy”, etc. True, I had to go to the john and I may have missed something, but they weren’t talking about such matters. The question didn’t come up. Seems that Biden was more interested in making McCain look like Bush than talking about his own positions, and pretty much ignored Palin’s positions.

    BTW, I think Gwen Ifill did a fair and even-handed job as moderator. In fact, she seemed downright unbiased.

  5. YOUR CURMUDGEON confidently predicts that the topic of creationism will come up in tonight’s Vice Presidential debate

    Even Babe Ruth sometimes swung and missed.

    Our confidence in the Curmudgeon is not seriously dented.

  6. My powers of prognostication have failed me. Nor is this the first time. In fact, I haven’t yet won the lottery. Something is definitely wrong.

    But on the bright side, we’ll still have more “Palin creationism” articles to entertain us.

  7. mightyfrijoles, is your own state/province monolithically pro- or anti-evolution?

    Neither is Kansas. Lawrence KS is often referred to as “Berkeley East” by other Kansans who’ve never actually been to Berkeley.

    Texas, Ohio, New Mexico, parts of California . . . IIRC, challenges to the teaching of evolution have arisen in many states.

    I’m the first to admit Kansas hosts its share of boneheads, but most of them aren’t Real KansansTM.

    Connie Morris wasn’t a Kansan. She was (is!) a carpetbagger from Bumf*ck Kentucky or somesuch.

    Kathy Martin was born/raised in Arkansas.

    Fred Phelps was born/raised in Mississippi. Probably railed against Elvis back in the day.

    Bill Shanahan (the FHSU debate prof, fired for highly unprofessional behavior – google Youtube debate moons) is from the East Coast by way of Chicago.

    [/thinskinnedKansan]

  8. . . . I wasn’t surprised that evo/creo wasn’t mentioned in the debate. Science just isn’t that important to most Americans, especially in the wake of the Wall Street cataclysm. Sad, but true.

    Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and all that.

  9. Cheryl Shepherd-Adams says:

    I wasn’t surprised that evo/creo wasn’t mentioned in the debate. Science just isn’t that important to most Americans …

    Right. Which helps to keep things in perspective, even though some of us — cough, cough — tend to concentrate on this creationism issue. I’ve actually seen people in here claiming that their presidential vote will be decided on that issue.

    If, instead of McCain, we had Kent Hovind or Ken Ham running, that would be different. Very different. But there’s nothing like that in this election, so Sarah’s “let the kiddies debate” remark is relatively unimportant. Good blog material, however.

  10. Name a reason TO vote for her.

  11. Stacy S. says:

    Name a reason TO vote for her.

    She’s not running for President. That race is between McCain and the community organizer. The VP candidates just go along for the ride. My vote will be based on national defense and the economy. There are plenty of good reasons to pick one over the other.

  12. Stacy S. wrote:

    Name a reason TO vote for her.

    (1) To provide much-needed employment to the nation’s satirists. I think she has the potential to rise to the dizzying heights of Dan Quaylian risibility.

    (2) There is a whole new generation of buffoons on the world’s stage (here in the UK, we’re groaning under the regime of Gordon Brown, and the last thing we want is a Mediocrity Gap with the rest of the world. I think it would give us all a lift to see VP Palin wagging a finger at President Putin: “Doggone it, Vladimer, say it ain’t so!”

    (3) Joe Biden is too boring; very difficult for humourists to get a purchase on the chap. Palin could be an inexhaustible hockey-motherloade!

  13. She’s not running for President.

    Then why do you keep doing all of these Palin “creationist” blogs?

  14. Because it titillates me.

  15. Admit it; you are obsessed with Gov. Palin because Lisa Randall and that bodacious British babe are BOTH ignoring your fawning, awkward sexual attraction to them.

  16. Yes, longie, it’s a sad story. First I was spurned by Kathy Martin of Kansas. Then it was Ronda Storms of Florida. Now, as you say, Lisa and Olivia have thus far eluded my grasp. But hey, I’m still in there.

  17. Well – at least you are honest.

  18. I have to ask my conservative friends, did Palin actually answer any questions directly?

    I couldn’t watch that debate nor the Canuck debate because they could potentially anger me way too much and caused a blood vessel to pop. I spent the time over at PZ’s place reading comments, which gave me only one biased view.

  19. They both said the expected things. Probably some were untrue, but it requires work to dig all that out. Neither committed any observable blunders. No real surprises. If you loved or hated one of them in advance, you wouldn’t change your mind.

  20. mightyfrijoles

    Cheryl:
    “mightyfrijoles, is your own state/province monolithically pro- or anti-evolution?”

    I’m in one of the western battlegrounds. My town has a lot of fundies, but they usually keep quiet. We even have our token Atheist Tear Everything Down That Even Has a Hint of Religion in it. Mostly the people here hate or do not trust the government, but then we have our Liberal Bastions in Universityvilles to balance that. At this point in time we’re about as in the Middle as you can get as a state goes.

    So as a state we are not Fundie or Evo, but I certainly am a staunch Defender of Darwin. My personal politics tends to be Libertarian, but I think the LP is mostly a joke, so I feel left out in the cold sometimes.

  21. mightyfrijoles:

    …so I feel left out in the cold sometimes.

    Travel North my friend, travel North.

  22. Where the hell is my elephant dung? (avatar)

  23. The Curmudgeon says, “I’ve actually seen people in here claiming that their presidential vote will be decided on that issue [creationism].”

    Well, all other things being equal, an anti-science attitude would be a deal-breaker for me too.

  24. b_sharp says:

    Where the hell is my elephant dung?

    We ran out of it and had to order more. It’s a very popular item.

  25. Cheryl Shepherd-Adams says:

    Well, all other things being equal, an anti-science attitude would be a deal-breaker for me too.

    Yes, but all other things are never equal. I could live out my life, somehow, even if we had to import our future technology from India and Japan; but I couldn’t live if I had to beg a bureaucrat for permission any time I wanted to do something, or if I had to bow to Mecca five times a day.

  26. moribundhund

    Well, Curmudgeon, given that neither a conversion to Islam nor some sort of police state is part of the Democratic positions, while a deep aversion to scientific progress is clearly part of the Republican mindset, can we confidently predict your vote? Or were you just doing your usual conservative-speak innuendo with no real backing?