Does someone have a creditable source that says that Sarah Palin is a creationist?
Asked by
Rotwang (
296
)
September 11th, 2008
anyone with a URL or something…
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
52 Answers
I’ve read that but it doesn’t actually say she’s a creationist. Only that she wants it to be allowed in schools.
“Palin has occasionally discussed her lifelong Christian faith during the governor’s race but said teaching creationism is nothing she has campaigned about or even given much thought to.”
“Asked for her personal views on evolution, Palin said, “I believe we have a creator.”
She would not say whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact.”
I am ready to hear what Palin has in mind for the economic crisis we are facing, how to solve some of the education problems we have, what she thinks about health care, how she might deal with international crisis, and what she might do about our financial collapse. I want her to be asked some hard questions, and want to hear what she has to say. She could be in a very critical position in our lives, and we know little about her other than that some people like her and that she is attractive, and that she has done a questionable job as a parent.
I can’t imagine someone who was NOT a creationist would
1. Place creationism/intelligent design at the same level as other sciences
2. State that they would want it [creationism] taught in schools “alongside real, actual science”
A person just doesn’t do the above unless they hold some aspect of creationism close to their heart. In this case, I feel actions do speak louder than words, or lack thereof.
@Rotwang: You say schools teach actual science. Does this have to be proven science, or just something discovered through the act of performing something scientific? I believe it was Darwin himself that said if we could simplify life down to a single celled organism that his whole theory would be disproven, and even close examination from present day science says that the science behind Darwinism is virtually absent of any empirical scientific data. The complexity associated with just a simple single cell organism is of staggering proportion and not scientifically proven. It involves non-redundant, exquisitely related processes to support it of which science has yet to find. Statistically/Logically Darwinism doesn’t provide any better answers than does creationism or intelligent design. Darwinism seems to only be a theory because in the eyes of many scientists it is the only alternative to “creationism”. So to say that Palin wants it taught in schools alongside “real science” is not necessarily accurate.
Sarah Palin has identified herself as a born again Christian, therefore believing in Jesus Christ as her Savior. Many Christians including myself believe that public schools should be teaching Creationism because the current system only identifies our creation and existence through a single non-proven ideology lacking in scientific data. I personally understand why it is not taught in science class as creationism is not scientific but I personally believe it should be taught as an elective beside Darwinism so students can decide for themselves.
@sacaver: George Bush said that both should be taught. And he’s not a creationist.
@critter1982:
“You say schools teach actual science. Does this have to be proven science, or just something discovered through the act of performing something scientific?”
It has to be an actual scientific theory. And further, a creditable one.
“Close examination from present day science” says that Darwin is most likely correct. That’s what “Close examination from present day science” says.
You did a great job saying, in too many words, that not all of darwin is proven. Fine, lets teach other credible SCIENTIFIC theories along side it.
Creationism isn’t a scientific theory. Nor is intelligent design. Intelligent design is refuted in 99 out of 100 peer reviews. Usually in the first sentence. Peer reviews are the basis of credibility.
And to the legal question- if you’re going to teach creationism in public schools then you must necessarily also teach all other religion’s creation stories as well, because America has no official religion. There is no such thing as “both”. There is, instead, “many”. You’d have to teach the Islamic version, the Buddhists, the Zorathustrians (sp). That was the whole point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which has just as much scientific basis as creationism. If you have an elective for creationism then you must also have one for the FSM.
It was my belief that “creationism” encompassed no religion just the simple fact that there could be a creator. I don’t believe you would need to encompass all religions into a classroom.
Do you have any credible resources to show that close examination says that Darwin was correct? To the best of my knowledge it was still a non proven ideology with many missing links.
The reason evolution is considered a scientific theory and creationism is not is because evolution can be falsified. The theory of evolution and the thoughts that surround it can be used to make predictions about what is likely to happen in a given circumstance. Over time, those predictions have often been true, and when they have not, the theory has been refined. This is what makes it science.
Creationism, while it may be true, cannot be tested and falsified this way. It has no predictive power; we cannot say “If creationism is true, we should expect to see these things in this situation,” and then consider the theory partially confirmed when we see them, or refine the theory when we do not see them.
This means that creationism, while it may or may not be true, is certainly not science, and should not be taught as a valid scientific theory in a science classroom.
it would be something to work into history class, if anything.
is there a raging debate amont conservatives as the whether or not the earth is flat? I hear conservatives want to teach “anti-gravity theory” along with the theory of gravity….just to be fair we need to teach both sides…
@allen. Not quite sure why you feel it is necessary to be so condascending. You have your beliefs and other people have theirs. You should learn to respect that. If everyone thought as you did, the whole world would be a boring place. The earth is round, science has proven that. Anti-gravity is something that shows up in relativity classes in college, because it is a theory. To me a ridiculous theory but I don’t argue the fact that it shouldn’t be taught.
“It was my belief that “creationism” encompassed no religion just the simple fact that there could be a creator. I don’t believe you would need to encompass all religions into a classroom.”
No- you’ve conflated “intelligent design” with creationism. Creationism refers to the christian story of creation. That’s why the religious leaders came up with “intelligent design”- as a way to shoehorn it into science classes.
“Do you have any credible resources to show that close examination says that Darwin was correct? To the best of my knowledge it was still a non proven ideology with many missing links.”
Yes it’s called the fossil record. Do you have any credible resources to indicate that the bible is correct?
And speaking of non proven ideologies- remember, molecules are technically a “theory”. The existence of molecules has never been proven. The periodic table, material science, drugs, rocket fuel- all of that is based on the “UNPROVEN THEORY” of molecules.
Molecular science has been rapidly revised and corrected over the years, and the basic concept is widely accepted. In the previous sentence, replace “molecular science” with “Darwin’s theory.”
Good thing the bible never talked about elements, or we’d have people like you telling us how flawed molecular science is and demanding proof.
I apologize then as I may have misconstrued the actual meaning of creationism as a universe created by some higher deity, and I don’t believe that Christianity should be taught in schools as a requirement. I do however believe that public schools should teach about all possibilities of our existence. Since the basic concept of intelligent design is also accepted around the world, based on your argument it should be taught as well. I wasn’t aware that fossil records have been able to prove or disprove Darwinism. I understand that Darwin came up with his theory based on transitional fossils but to the best of my knowledge the fossil record is incomplete. I am also not advocating teaching “intelligent design” in our science classes, as I realize it is not scientific, but it could be taught in a different class.
Teach Creationism in Church or whatever you are calling it today (flavor of the month), and teach Science in school.
Do not set up some Straw Man arguement that you are a victim because you cannot now use tax dollars to propagate your 11th century beliefs.
Rot—“The existence of molecules has never been proven. The periodic table, material science, drugs, rocket fuel- all of that is based on the “UNPROVEN THEORY” of molecules.”—-can you get me some of whatever it is you may be smoking?
—so God spoke the universe into existance in 7 days, right? (Excuse me, gotta go, objects are floating off my desk, I’ve gotta tie down my keyboard and cpu then I will continue)
@allen: I’m happy you have all the answers, perhaps you should share with everyone the beginning of times when you get a chance. And church has always been called church. In fact church is one thing that hasn’t changed in the past 2000 years with the “flavor of the month”. IN FACT my wonderful country (USA) was founded on Christian beliefs, therefore I see Christianity more a part of the high school curriculum than something that has yet to be even close to proven. Even Darwin disproved his theory. Oh and the missing link, maybe you’ll find it when you find your keyboard that floated away.
Fortunately science does change through the years, so you’re right lets continue to teach students something that is more than likely going to be incorrect in 20 years until the new thing comes along and then we’ll teach them something else that’s wrong.
@critter: don’t forget that the “church” has been wrong before when it comes to science. The Earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around. But people were persecuted for looking into the matter, observing the world around, formulating theories, testing the theories, and coming up with an answer. And all of this just to prove what the Greeks had pretty much figured out before them. So even though church has kept the same name for some 2,000 years, it doesn’t have that good of a record when it comes to science.
I prefer my faith to be away from science. And I prefer my science to keep away from my faith. They can be friends, but let’s not have them get cozy. Bad things tend to happen.
@sac: Yes I know this but I never considered my bible to be my science book. There are several scientific shortcomings in the bible. The reason for these scientific shortcomings is because that is what was currently held as scientific truth or “truthatudes” (sorry had to say it, from SNL if nobody got it). People argue that the bible is falsified because of scientific inaccuracies within it, when the actual inaccuracy was science itself.
Therefore sacaver I agree with you, I prefer my faith to be away from science. But I also believe that public schools should be teaching all possibilities of human existence not just certain philosophies.
Why does the Bible have to be a book of science? I don’t see anything in it that deals with science. Unless you count the dimensions for the Ark or the Temple, you don’t even have math. No calculus. No physics. So why can’t the Bible just be a book about faith?
And as rotwang wrote above, what philosophies get taught? This discussion is pretty much based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. There are other beliefs, some which predate Christianity, that would hold different views. We would have to toss those in to the mix as well.
So if society wants to put these teachings into a classroom, then it should be done as a different class, with a curriculum. But it should stay out of the science class.
@sac: I absolutely agree with you. Reference some of my comments above. I don’t believe intelligent design belongs in a science classroom, but if Darwinism is considered worthy to be taught in public schools I feel all possibilities should be examined. Perhaps in a class called “Life”. Maybe they could even incorporate the floating keyboards “allen” was talking about.
@critter1982—The Lakota Indians refer to God as “the great unknowable”, and they make this reference with humility and deference. They believed things relating to the Almighty were too big for a human being to get their heads around. I m so finite and limited as a human being that I may never know for sure the mysteries of the universe, and I teach my girls that they must find and decide on these answers for themselves.
Contrast the current Christian Philosophy, you people think you know everything. Not only do you know everything (not you, but the church) but you think that ONLY you have the truth. And you wish to impose your symbols on public space, in public school, in the freakin library for Pete’s sake. You want to put nativity scenes everywhere, crosses, images of a dude hanging on a cross bleeding and shit, trying to freak out the kids with your hell fire and brimstone bullshit, want 10% of one’s income, want to pry into every crevasse of ones life to monitor and make sure the subject gets and stays “saved”.
If you think the church has not changed in 2000 years you do not know your own history, and it is not my job to teach history of the pagan, I mean, Christian church. And also, school does not need a class called “Life”—kids need parents to teach them “Life”.
And if that wasn’t arrogant enough, you all teach that anyone that does not believe in your major points is dammed to hell——now what kind of used car salesman God IS THIS?
@sac—“I prefer my faith to be away from science. And I prefer my science to keep away from my faith. They can be friends, but let’s not have them get cozy. Bad things tend to happen.” BAD THINGS HAPPEN WHEN CHURCH AND STATE GET TOGETHER, WHEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION GET TOGETHER RELIGION GETS DISPROVED.
@allen: I agree with you. But I also think that a healthy society needs both components. A wholly (no pun) religious society without science leads to ignorance of the world around us. A totally scientific society without religion… i’d be afraid to live in such a thing as I don’t know that there would be any boundaries on how the science gets done. So, that’s why I put it as the two “being friends” but not being cozy.
And, yes, when science and religion get together, religion gets disproved. That’s true up to a point. In fact, I wrote about this very thing last night in one of the sibling topics for this question (here). This process of science “disproving” religion has happened throughout history. Is it a bad thing? I don’t think so as there’s still that final aspect of faith where science can’t go.
@ critter: that’s what churches are for: to teach the alternative to those pesky “facts.”
Pupn—Facts are liberal, don’t you know? So when you witness something that conflicts with the church or Republicans, you can thank your liberal eyes for deceiving you….
@allen: The more science continues to look for the beginning of times the further away they get, the more theories they disprove, the more it seems to sanction that we did come from some creator. I disagree because science has yet to disprove religion. In what aspect has science come to disprove religion do you believe? Just give me one example where science disproved Christianity? They are separate entities and until we actually find where we came from science will not disprove religion.
I find your thinking to be somewhat scary. You complain about a Christian nativity scene in a library. Do you not celebrate Christmas? The nativity scene is more about Christmas than Santa Claus, and I see his face posted everywhere during Christmas. You seem to be worried about a nativity scene when the world all around you is becoming increasingly immoral (ie. Grand Theft Auto, Sexist pop stars, internet porn, pathetic day time tv), and your worried about a nativity scene which has everything to do with a holiday that most in the US celebrate. Everybody gets so offended about everything. American’s need to get over themselves and deal with the fact that people have freedom of speech and that at some point in their lives somebody may offend them. Second, the Christian denomination does not hang Jesus on the cross (yes they do put out nativity scenes out though). You have your denominations somewhat mixed up. Catholics which do believe in the Old Testament hang Jesus on a cross to worship, not Christians. Yes the bible does say to tithe (which most believe to be 10% of your income). Not really sure why you have an issue with this as much of this money goes out into society trying to make it a better place. Speaking for my church in particular spent over $1 million to help hurricane Katrina victims.
And no, Church has not changed in the past 2000 years. We happen to use the same exact bible since 98 CE. We believe the same thing we did back then.
Liberals complain that they don’t want Christians telling them what their children can learn in school (ie contraception). Well I don’t want you telling me what my children can learn in school.
@pup: Facts? Show me the missing link and I’ll climb a tree for you.
I’ll address this one: “I disagree because science has yet to disprove religion.”
One cannot disprove a negative. I cannot prove that the Easter Bunny does not exist, or Santa Claus for that matter.
However Science can prove that the world is older than 5000 yrs, ect ect.
“the same exact bible since 98 CE”—-you don’t understand how the Christian church was put together do you? Get a book on the history of the Christian Church—it was basically paganism renamed. The Christian story has been told and retold for thousands of hears with different players. Check out the move online at Google Zietgiest——I don’t agree with it 100% but the History part of the movie will ENLIGHTEN YOU.
Enlighten your self my friend! Do it for your self——there is another web movie “The God Who Wasn’t There”—-this will help you see things through a different perspective——are you afraid to see things in a different perspective?
@Critter: to say that the Church has not changed in the past 2,000 years is looking over some stark differences to how faith has been interpreted. A major change were those brought about by Martin Luther. These changes broke Christianity away from a pure Catholic understanding. Second, worship takes place within the context of the local language. Mass/worship is no longer given out in a language that few people even speak (Latin), rather it takes place as English, Spanish, German, Italian, etc. Third, most everyone within a congregation can read. You can now interpret the Bible on your own. You don’t have to have someone else tell you what the meaning is, just because you have no idea what the squiggles mean. At least you have the opportunity to do so.
So over the past 2,000 years, the Christian faith has gone through tremendous change. And to further think that the Bible has remained unchanged over all this time… I’d argue that point, too. The Bible as most of us have come to know it, has undergone change over time. There are some writings which have been rejected by various aspects of the faith. As an example, the Gnostics created a number of writings which were later removed/burned/banned based upon the dominant views within the Christian Church at that time.
But I’m sure both of you celebrate christmas…...
@cheebdragon: Why wouldn’t I? Are you assuming I am not a Christian? And what does celebrating Christmas have to do with this question?
Actually, most of this conversation has drifted away from the original question…
@allen: You mentioned up above that “WHEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION GET TOGETHER RELIGION GETS DISPROVED.” But then you said in your next statement, “One cannot disprove a negative. I cannot prove that the Easter Bunny does not exist, or Santa Claus for that matter.” Which one is it?
Additionally the “fact?” that says the earth is older than 5000 years is based on carbon dating. Carbon dating is based on a bunch of false assumptions and not accurate. The main faulty assumption is that it assumes that carbon-14 has remained constant on this earth since the beginning of times (whenever that was). There are others and plenty of information on the internet and chemistry books to research.
@sacaver: I agree and should have been more specific when I say religion hasn’t changed. The basis and principles rarely change and are MORE constant than that of science and the search for the beginning of the earth through science. Obviously, the teachings and methods have changed throughout the years to make it easier for humans to learn.
we celebrate christmas as the pagan holiday it is…..
@critter: Yes, science has not been consistent, but that is the very nature of science. Everything is always open to a new interpretation once the old way of thinking has been rigorously tested and found lacking. But this process must take place under the strict guidance of the scientific method. A new hypothesis is developed and then tested. The test results must be repeatable. The testing must be objective.
And, true, faith has been more consistent throughout time. At least the basics of it. The interpretation and application, well that’s another story. But yes. The basics and principles rarely change. And I think that’s the way it should be. I wouldn’t want to go to bed one night knowing that it’s not OK to steal but then wake up the next and find out it’s peachy keen.
It’s this difference between science and religion which underscores the difference between a scientific theory such as evolution or geologic time and a faith such as creationism or intelligent design. Scientific principles do apply for evolution and geologic time. These same methods do not apply for creationism or intelligent design. You would eventually arrive at a point whereby you have to make that leap of faith and just explain, “God did it.” Perhaps you never get to that point as “God did it” pretty much suffices for any explanation.
But how sterile a world would we perceive if we didn’t endeavor to understand the why’s and how’s of the universe? Consider this: for some, merely looking at the Mona Lisa is fine. But others find great satisfaction in studying the brush strokes, the chemistry of the paints, and the techniques used to create such a painting. Does knowing such things make the work any less than a masterpiece? I don’t think so. But those that just want to look shouldn’t stop those that want to understand. As long as understanding doesn’t destroy the work outright.
Hey guys I have a question. Does someone have a creditable source that says that Sarah Palin is a creationist? anyone with a URL or something…
@rotwang: haha!
And I can’t find anywhere where she is quoted as saying she is a creationist. It’s all very ambiguous and gray.
Earlier this year, she told the Anchorage Daily News that schools should not fear teaching creationism alongside evolution.
“Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information…. Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as a daughter of a science teacher.”
Source: Boston Globe, “A valentine to evangelical base”, p. A12 Aug 30, 2008
shall we debate gravity and roundness of the Earth while we are at it?
@cheebdragon
Yes, we know she wants it taught in schools, what we want to know is if she’s a creationist herself. RTFQ.
Rot—if she want’s it taught, is that not enough for you? Do you want her to be to the Right of Attilla the Hun?
@Rot: Like I said earlier she is a Christian. RTFA’s. Google the question and you’ll get plenty of sources.
@allengreen
No, it’s obvously not “enough” for me, hence the reason I asked the question. I want to know if she actually believes the earth is 6000 years old. It’s one thing to be christian, it’s another to be creationist.
@critter1982
RTFA? How about you RTF answer number 6.
Creationism refers to a wide range of beliefs. Christianity being one of them. What in particular do you want to know?
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
