Tim Pawlenty: Full-Blown Creationist

THE last time we comprehensively discussed creationism and presidential politics was here: Which 2012 Presidential Challengers Are Creationists? Since then we’ve added posts about Rick Santorum and Alan Keyes — both of whom are creationists.

Although our comprehensive post mentioned that Tim Pawlenty is a creationist, it’s always useful to have confirmation. Therefore, we call your attention to Tim Pawlenty Gets No Respect, which appears in Newsweek. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

In the run-up to the 2008 Republican convention in the Twin Cities, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty was on just about everybody’s shortlist of potential VP candidates. It wasn’t meant to be. But Pawlenty, a conservative from a rather Blue state, could emerge as a contender for challenging President Obama. He spoke with NEWSWEEK’s Howard Fineman.

We’ll skip most of the interview. Pawlenty is a singularly uninteresting person. But he’s the Republican governor of Minnesota, and that means he’s potentially a player. Let’s read on:

QUESTION: Let me ask you about social issues your party has been dealing with. In her book, Palin claims that McCain’s handlers wanted her to be silent about her belief in creationism. How would you describe your view?

ANSWER: I can tell you how we handle it in Minnesota. We leave it to the local school districts. We don’t mandate a curriculum or an approach. We allow for something called “intelligent design” to be discussed as a comparative theory. It doesn’t have to be in science class.

Yup, he’s still a creationist. The immediate follow-up to that is the only other creationism-related part of the interview:

QUESTION: Where are you personally?

ANSWER: Well, you know I’m an evangelical Christian. I believe that God created everything and that he is who he says he was. The Bible says that he created man and woman; it doesn’t say that he created an amoeba and then they evolved into man and woman. But there are a lot of theologians who say that the ideas of evolution and creationism aren’t necessarily inconsistent; that he could have “created” human beings over time.

It’s embarrassing to watch an idiot try to be clever. Does Pawlenty really imagine that he’s carved out some kind of intellectually respectable, middle-of-the-road position?

That’s all there is to the interview — wait, we have to add this:

QUESTION: How about you? Are you going to run?

ANSWER: I say this genuinely, not to be cute or evade your question, but I’m going to finish up my term as governor under what are going to be difficult economic circumstances. I have a PAC I set up. I’ll just see.

So there you are. Pawlenty is a creationist, and he wants to be President. We’ll say this in his favor — as goofy as he seems to be about science, there are other issues — like the economy and the war. Even Pawlenty can’t be any worse than what we’ve got now. (Oh dear, we hope that didn’t offend anyone.)

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

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

6 responses to “Tim Pawlenty: Full-Blown Creationist

  1. Little Green Footballs has a link to this post. They have their own post on the same interview: Why I Left the Right, Exhibit P for Pawlenty.

  2. The Curmudgeon opined

    Even Pawlenty can’t be any worse than what we’ve got now. (Oh dear, we hope that didn’t offend anyone.)

    Offend? Naw. But I am mindful of Edgar’s observation (King LearIV,i):

    the worst is not
    So long as we can say ‘This is the worst.’

  3. I really wish they had asked the idiot how old he thinks the earth is. Not being a scientist, his answer of “I don’t know, but I’ll ask a scientist” would have been acceptable to me. But, if his response would have been “6,000 years”, I would have cried: “Idiot!!”

  4. waldteufel: “But, if his response would have been “6,000 years”, I would have cried: ‘Idiot!!’”

    Not me. I would have calmly asked if he believes that based on evidence, or in spite of it (evidence is a test of faith, yada yada), as many literalists do. If he said “evidence” I would have asked if he challenged any OECs. If he said “no” I would ask “why the double standard?”

    He seems to be aware that there are theistic evolutionists, but says nothing negative about them, so he may be unaware that they are the least welcome in ID’s big tent.

    From the above letter alone, his position on teaching anti-evolution arguments is not much different than mine. I would specify not science class, and only if a full rebuttal of those misleading arguments is allowed. I’d be curious if he’d agree to those terms.

    Alas, he’s a politician, and apparently clueless of science, thus an ideal candidate to be scammed, or even in on the scam. So I’m unlikely to vote for him.

  5. As pareidolia, visions of Mary and Jesus coming out of the woodwork, increases, as it has recently, it seems to me that creationists are coming out of the woodwork in increasing numbers.

    Is creationism on the rise, or has the take over of the Republicans by the Christian Right just given them the balls to be more open and obvious?

  6. Frank, I think you deserve an upding for your use of ‘alas’.