Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This is hardly a shock, since most Pentecostals are YECs, but a Wasila resident says that Palin has told him she believes the earth is only a few thousand years old and that humans and dinosaurs lived together:
Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. "She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board," said Munger, a music composer and teacher. "I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, 'Sarah, how can you believe in creationism -- your father's a science teacher.' And she said, 'We don't have to agree on everything.'"I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."
A retired minister from the area, who tangled with Palin over many issues, says it's Palin's simplistic mindset of good vs evil that makes her unfit to hold power:
Bess is unnerved by the prospect of Palin -- a woman whose mind is given to dogmatic certitude -- standing one step away from the Oval Office. "It's truly frightening that someone like Sarah has risen to the national level," Bess said. "Like all religious fundamentalists -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim -- she is a dualist. They view life as an ongoing struggle to the finish between good and evil. Their mind-set is that you do not do business with evil -- you destroy it. Talking with the enemy is not part of their plan. That puts someone like Obama on the side of evil."Forget all this chatter about whether or not she knows what the Bush doctrine is. That's trivial. The real disturbing thing about Sarah is her mind-set. It's her underlying belief system that will influence how she responds in an international crisis, if she's ever in that position, and has the full might of the U.S. military in her hands. She gave some indication of that thinking in her ABC interview, when she suggested how willing she would be to go to war with Russia.
"Alaskans liked that certitude when she was dealing with corrupt politicians and the oil industry -- and there is something admirable about it. But when you're dealing with a complex and dangerous world as commander in chief, that's a different story."
Bess said that he and fellow valley residents have long been charmed by the Sarah Palin who is now dazzling the American public. Despite their strong political differences, "she always has a warm greeting for me when we bump into each other. She's the most charming person you'll ever know."
"But," Bess adds, "this person's election would be a disaster for the country and the world."
Not exactly reassuring.
Politics
Comments
Palin scares the heebie-geebies out of me, but I must question the relevance of her belief in YEC for the Presidency.
I think there are many things to criticize her (bad sex ed to teenagers being far more frightening), but the YEC is not one of them. It's not relevant to the market economy, government spending (yes, we know she'll spend, spend, spend), what she would do in Iraq, or other things the president is supposed to do.
Posted by: Royale | September 19, 2008 10:01 AM
In some fairness, I think that Mr. Munger also stated that, in a later conversation with Governor Palin, she indicated that she wasn't so sure about the 7000 year old universe hypothesis any more.
Posted by: SLC | September 19, 2008 10:02 AM
The relevance of being a YEC is that it represents a complete disregard for science.
Posted by: Hypatia | September 19, 2008 10:03 AM
It's not directly relevant to any real issues (economy, foreign policy, etc.), but anyone who subscribes to YEC is under the thumb of religious fundamentalism and that makes them dangerous in a position of power.
I suppose it is possible for a person to believe YEC and still maintain some semblance of rationality when approaching other problems, but I've yet to meet them.
Posted by: Ben | September 19, 2008 10:07 AM
Flipflopper!
Posted by: yoshi | September 19, 2008 10:14 AM
Regardless of her direct influence on the education of our children, it certainly sets a poor example for them by electing a leader with this this level of ignorance. How can we stress the importance of a good science education when the leader of our country demonstrates the irrelevance of this education?
Posted by: Greg Esres | September 19, 2008 10:25 AM
OMG, the Paluxey (sp?) footprints?! I haven't heard anyone refer to those in a while!
Posted by: llDayo | September 19, 2008 10:30 AM
A retired minister from the area, who tangled with Palin over many issues, says it's Palin's simplistic mindset of good vs evil that makes her unfit to hold power
Bush with breasts.
Posted by: Bruce | September 19, 2008 10:32 AM
The relevance is not whether she believes in a 7K yo Earth, but whether she is on a "Mission from God" to destroy evil as she sees it. In the same mold as "I don't do nuance" GWB, such an attitude can and would lead to disastrous relations with various other countries due to their being percieved as instruments of Satan.
After 8 years of GWB, the world is confused about the US, but has hopes we can right ourselves. What happens with another 4 years of fundie influence? When is the tipping point reached and friends turn away from us? Those are the questions.
Posted by: Pineyman | September 19, 2008 10:36 AM
In some fairness, I think that Mr. Munger also stated that, in a later conversation with Governor Palin, she indicated that she wasn't so sure about the 7000 year old universe hypothesis any more.
Well, that's kind of refreshing, since we geoscientists put the last nail of falsification into that hypothesis almost seventy years before I was born.
The relevance of being a YEC is that it represents a complete disregard for science.
Yes, and the ridiculous lack of critical thinking skills that this viewpoint requires. Whereas the disregard for science offends me personally, I think the lack of critical thinking ability is far more important to the world as a whole. I'm sorry, but for the person who is going to be a heartbeat away from being MY fucking Commander-in-Chief, I'm going to insist (with my one little vote) that they be as rational and reasonable as possible (given the candidates to choose from).
OMG, the Paluxey (sp?) footprints?! I haven't heard anyone refer to those in a while!
No kidding. We really don't have to go there, do we?
Posted by: Josh | September 19, 2008 10:54 AM
I could never vote for a YEC. You want your politicians to have good judgment. Being a YEC a strong indicator of someone's judgment.
Posted by: Neural T | September 19, 2008 10:57 AM
A belief in young earth creationism indicates not only a profound lack of scientific knowledge which is crucial in this technological day and age, but also an intrinsic incapacity for rational thinking.
This would affect decisions regarding energy, environment, health, basic research, and commerce, just to name a few.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | September 19, 2008 10:58 AM
The Earth is a youthful 4 billion years or so old. I mean, when you consider the endless bound of time, 4 billion years old is a mere second of nose picking in a long, long life.
As for war with Russia. It isn't going to happen. We are no more going to go to war with the world's other nuclear super power over their neighbor Georgia, than we are going to discover the world truly is 7,000 years old. Even if Russia launched a mass genocide on a newly annointed NATO member Georgia, our military simply isn't going to go into a potential nuclear conflagration over that.
Posted by: soboco | September 19, 2008 11:09 AM
Stating that you would go to war with Russia is the same as stating you'd be willing to destroy the world as we know it. But isn't that exactly what these nuts are hoping for?
Posted by: Deepsix | September 19, 2008 11:12 AM
Yeah - good ol' Baughs fraudulent footprints rear their idiotic head. I'm sure Palin didn't flipflop. More likely, she was just quoted out of context, like every other time.
Not only does this indicate a lack of rationality and critical thinking, it is a denial of reality. We don't need any more head-in-the-sand certainty-no-matter-what-is-real attitudes any more. If we don't knock ourselves back into the middle ages, the rest of the world can certainly take action, even if it is only by ignoring America and American interests.
Posted by: Badger3k | September 19, 2008 11:17 AM
McCain camp writes questions out, hands to Sean Hannity. Hannity asks Palin in "interview", "Do you oppose teaching evolution in schools?"
Palin answers (paraphrased from memory of last night's interview), "My goodness no. My father was a science teacher."
Victory for the GOP!!! Palin avoids the central concerning questions (for public schools only):
1) Do you advocate teaching creationism/ID in science as an alternative "theory"?
2) Should teachers mark student answers "incorrect" if a peer-accepted scientific theory is not provided as an answer by the student but instead a student answers consistent with his religious beliefs?
3) Should teachers be allowed to teach and test students to their personal beliefs as superior to scientific theories or as an alternative "theory" if there is no peer-acceptance from the scientific community for the teacher's notions?
4) What is your understanding of the weaknesses regarding the TOE and how does creationism/ID provide superior answers?
5) Do you think its constitutionally acceptable to teach creationism/ID as its understood and promoted today in public school science classrooms even though these beliefs' adherents have never developed them into scientific theories with supporting evidence like scientists have with TOE?
I continue to be frustrated by the stupidity of the media (not just ignorance, but stupidity) who appear incapable of asking questions on nearly any topic that get to the heart of the matter. Of course, I didn't expect anything from Hannity, but Gibson and ABC should have covered less topics in more depth; which Gibson did successfully do on the foreign affairs and to a lesser extent, the economy. But then Gibson went wide and shallow - he should have stayed narrow and deep. Net affect, we keep hearing shallow questions and shallow answers over and over again. Better to drill down on one issue like I suggest above, and let another interviewer drill down on her absurd position on birth control. In defense of Gibson, it's not his fault Palin is hiding from the media.
Some yahoo substitute on the CBS Sunday Morning press show several weeks ago allowed LA Gov. Bobby Jindal to squirm right out of the same central questions as he supports teaching creationism/ID in LA schools.
We need more informed and smarter journalists with access to these people. People like Ed Brayton. An alternative is at least a demand to raise the standard where journalists get with some functional experts to develop smarter questions in advance of interviews on topics for which they are mundanely ignorant.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 19, 2008 11:21 AM
There's no reason this should be complicated. Someone should just ask Palin if she thinks the earth is thousands of years old, or billions. There's no nuance, no room to wiggle, and no middle ground to take. She can either admit to being a fundamentalist nutjob, or piss off her fundamentalist nutjob constituancy.
Posted by: Science Avenger | September 19, 2008 11:40 AM
Michael, the reason is simple. It's because we now have "News Entertainment". Very similar to "Sports Entertainment"- AKA Professional wrestling.
Posted by: Deepsix | September 19, 2008 11:53 AM
Hypatia said The relevance of being a YEC is that it represents a complete disregard for science.
Not just science, it represents a complete disregard for reality. Royale, the significance of her YEC beliefs is that they are proof she cannot be trusted to make sensible and rational decisions in the face of overwhelming evidence. They are evidence that she is prone to being blinded by ideology, willing to ignore the opinion of experts, and follow the advise of ignorant religious mullahs. They are evidence that Sarah Palin possesses about the worst possible qualities one could have in a leader. If you want to know how this could affect policy, ask yourself what Palin's Middle East policy might resemble when her pastor tells her that Muslims worship a false god and god wants them destroyed. YEC is not a harmless belief, it's end product of a deeply distorted thinking process.
Posted by: H.H. | September 19, 2008 11:59 AM
I suspect her belief that Jesus is going to return during her lifetime (to rapture her up to heaven) is more damaging.
If I believed the earth had forty or fifty years left I wouldn't give a crap about the environment as it would be pointless to try to preserve it for future generations.
Posted by: Sigmund | September 19, 2008 12:18 PM
"Alaskans liked that certitude when she was dealing with corrupt politicians and the oil industry -- and there is something admirable about it. But when you're dealing with a complex and dangerous world as commander in chief, that's a different story."
just want to say this is 100% accurate
[/Alaskan, Republican, Obama-supporter]
Posted by: skyotter | September 19, 2008 12:22 PM
If you believe that Earth less than 10,000 years old and, as YECs also believed, that the Earth's geology and geography was formed during Noah's flood only 4,000 and 4,500 years ago, then you have no choice to categorically deny the fundamental principles of geology, geography, physics, astronomy, biology, and chemistry (and so on).
How do you weigh the importance of funding certain NASA programs when you believe that the vast majority of their scientific findings are hopelessly wrong? How do you reach any kind of policy decision on tackling Global Warming if you believe that any measurement of Earth's climate as it was more than 4,000 years ago is a total crock?
This is not a minor issue. Given the sheer magnitude of the denial YEC beliefs entail, simply declaring "I'm not sure" is not good enough. America cannot afford to take the risk on a President who might reject science in such a fundamental way.
Posted by: tacitus | September 19, 2008 12:35 PM
Wow - a good dozen or so people responded to my comment. OK, points taken and fair enough.
As for this:
"If I believed the earth had forty or fifty years left I wouldn't give a crap about the environment as it would be pointless to try to preserve it for future generations."
I have actually met people who embodied this. One literally said to me, "Why recycle? Jesus will clean up this planet."
Posted by: Royale | September 19, 2008 12:39 PM
I have a hard time imagining that anyone who hunts moose for sport could possibly be charming.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | September 19, 2008 12:40 PM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | September 19, 2008 12:41 PM
Here is another reason this is important beyond her merely being wrong about the science, it informs everything about how she may be digesting information and taking positions. While this Andrew Sullivan reader is making an argument on why he thinks Palin is a serial liar, this helps to understand maybe why that is true. This is also my everyday experience deep in the heart of red state America:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/sarah-palin-and.html
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 19, 2008 12:42 PM
That's until you cross her in some way. Apparently she knows how to hold a grudge, and then some, as many people know at the cost of their careers or reputation.
Posted by: tacitus | September 19, 2008 12:45 PM
tacitus, jumping off from your comment above, the mental gymnastics are even more dramatic when you consider the categorical denial of the disciplines you listed AND the simultaneous embrace of the advantages they provide to modern life.
For example, Sarah Palin has no problem with geologists going out and finding oil. If she's actually a YEC, however, she has to deny as being accurate pretty much the entire subdisciplines of geochronology, structural geology, sedimentology, paleontology, and historical geology, as well as the TOE. All of these disciplines play a part in oil prospecting. The good governor is essentially telling the scientists who practice these disciplines that they are wrong while simultaneously lapping up the direct results of their science.
Posted by: Josh | September 19, 2008 1:00 PM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | September 19, 2008 1:20 PM
Sadie - are you a vegetarian? If not, then I don't believe you have any moral authority to claim it's impossible to be charming if you decide to secure a healthier supply of protein from the wild rather than eat animals who've been raised in a feces-infested stockyard as they're shot up with antibiotics because of how unhealthy the environment they're raised-in is.
I happen to agree with nearly all your posts, which is why I've never replied to you before (especially about mrorberts), but there are people, and my family and I are some of them, that live in the wilds and believe we'd much rather be a deer shot over a bait pile than a cow stewing in its own shit for 13 months until slaughtered.
Hunting is not for everyone, but those of us that live in or near the wild, it's not something to be ashamed of if we're hunting for meat, like Palin does, nor is it just conservatives that hunt, liberals do as well. We can be charming to (maybe not me), we just have a better understanding of how our food gets to the table.
Just because she hunts though doesn't mean I don't perceive the insanity of her being nominated VP.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 19, 2008 1:31 PM
Sorry Micheal it's late here. I read you post, twice, and still read:
"..but there are some people, my family and I ate some of them..". WHAT?
If you really want to understand your meat why not get naked and chase after the animal for three days (armed only with a flint chip stuck and tied to long stick) until the animal is exhausted, before offering a prayer and killing it. You know like real hunters do. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 19, 2008 1:55 PM
Sorry Micheal it's late here. I read you post, twice, and still read:
"..but there are some people, my family and I ate some of them..". WHAT?
If you really want to understand your meat why not get naked and chase after the animal for three days (armed only with a flint chip stuck and tied to long stick) until the animal is exhausted, before offering a prayer and killing it. You know like real hunters do. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 19, 2008 2:11 PM
Sorry about the double post, you see what I mean about lateness.
It's not that I think hunters are intrinsically bad, it's just that using a high powered rifle to kill a herbivore from a safe distance seems...excessive.
I used to know a couple of guys who regularly went hunting feral boar with bows and arrows. They asked me to go once, I declined as I was planning to coating myself with chicken guts and go swimming with the Great Whites, a slightly less insane proposition.
Do you remember MAD magazine? They once had an article titled "So how come..?". It asked the question: if a child who kills defenseless animals is called a SADIST, how come an adult who does the same is called a HUNTER? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 19, 2008 2:23 PM
DJ -
Not that I have had time in recent years, but once upon a time, I was pretty enthusiastic about hunting. And I wasn't sadistic about it - I actually find your notion of hunting far more sadistic than flushing and shooting it in a clean kill. Little fear involved and little pain.
I should note that I have also killed and cleaned domesticated chickens, turkey's and even a cow. I think that it's good to know what you're eating, beyond teh cello-wrapped hunks of flesh you can pick up at the grocers. To me, hunting is merely an extension of that concept. I have never derived "pleasure" from killing an animal. Satisfaction yes, but pleasure, not a bit.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 19, 2008 2:35 PM
If this was an actual question, the answer is "Paluxy". If not, carry on.
Posted by: noncarborundum | September 19, 2008 2:39 PM
Dingojack - yes, I was a Mad Magazine addict. I quit reading Alfred E. Neuman went he quit and got a gig as our current President.
I get enough meat during rifle season since there is now only two of us now (empty nester in marketing demographic terms). I have younger brothers who have more to feed and they bow hunt as well; my dad, whose 70, is out there bow hunting and muzzle-loader hunting in the dead of winter and can still drag a deer a mile out of the woods.
In Michigan right now we actually opened a new rifle season going on right now since we are over-populated with white tail deer. When we get too many we tend to see tuberculosis spread through both the deer and cattle populations, plus deer/car accidents increase. It's hunter license fees that provide the bulk of funds to protect the ecology and the animal populations in this state.
We also have the only wild elk herd population east of the Mississippi River. That population is more carefully culled, the odds of getting a permit to hunt one is about 15,000 to one; when their population gets too high they roam outside their range and run the risk of crossing the interstate highway which can lead to not just elk/car crashes, but human deaths given their immense size.
I can respect some arguments against hunting for mere sport or trophies. Given the fact that Palin grew up in a family that hunts for meat, I think the criticisms of her ability to hunt and process her own meat does not show some causal reason to think less of her. In fact, it hurts liberals when they point that out, her unfitness for the job is not due to hunting. In fact, I believe teaching young people the joys of hunting in a respectful manner is a character-builder; to those that I trained, one hopefully learned to value the cycle of life and how to be responsible about our place at the top of the food chain. For example, I never once wounded a deer I shot at, 80% confidence or you don't pull the trigger - one shot, one kill.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 19, 2008 2:45 PM
If someone is a YEC, doesn't that often mean that they also believe in the apocalyptic end of the world coming soon. This is much more frightening to me than bad science. Also I have read that many christian fundamentalists believe that the sooner we detroy this planet the sooner Jesus will come back...God bless us everyone...
Posted by: mark duran | September 19, 2008 3:14 PM
Yeah, I agree. The fact that Palin hunts is one of the few things I don't hold against her (although it does annoy the hell out of me that the GOP touts this activity as making her more family values or more REAL AMERICAN or whatever). I suspect the evidence falls on the side of hunting being more ecologically sound than pretty much any mass meat production practice we employ in this nation.
Posted by: Josh | September 19, 2008 3:25 PM
mark duran (and others),
This is representative of a tiresome canard. While you can always find an isolated nut that holds any lunatic fringe position imaginable, fundamentalists do not, in general, have an attitude of "let's destroy the planet so that Jesus comes soon" or "who cares about pollution, Jesus will clean up the planet" or "I want to be VP so I can start a war with Russia to initiate the onset of the rapture."
It pisses me off to have to defend fundies and the Left Behinders, because I think their theology is wrong. So for crying out loud, think before you write something so mind numbingly implausible. Going through life assuming everyone who thinks differently from you must be an idiot is, well, idiotic.
Posted by: heddle | September 19, 2008 3:27 PM
Oh come on DJ. If you eat meat from a supermarket then you know an animal was killed so that you could eat it. Does it really absolve you of any moral responsibility that someone else did the killing for you? I've never killed an animal myself but somebody's gotta do it.
I'm sure there are some sadistic hunters running around with bazookas and blowing up rabbits, but then again there are sadistic humans in all walks of life (maybe even vegetarians, although I don't know enough of them to form an opinion). The ones who are actual rural/outdoorsmen type people who hunt for meat are probably just as good/bad as anyone else. Doing it just for sport... is quite morally objectionable though, at least in my view.
As for Palin, well, she's a disaster. Being YEC is just icing on the cake of all her other issues.
Posted by: Coriolis | September 19, 2008 3:43 PM
I agree that the majority of fundamentalists are not rapture-ready Christians who believe that actively bringing about the "End Times" is their personal responsibility, or that people shouldn't do anything to prevent the despoiling of the environment because Jesus is coming back soon anyway. Hell, I'm quite prepared to accept that the vast majority of them are nervously eying up their 401k balances as they wonder about funding their retirement 20 or 30 years down the road.
But, there is reason to think that belief in End Times theology does encourage a laissez-faire attitude to these issues among many fundamentalists. It's not that they are tangibly working toward the End Times, it's that they don't see any reason to get too worked up about the issues because what's happening is all part of God's plan and Jesus will come back soon anyway and set everything to rights.
Over the years I have heard this attitude a lot amongst fundamentalists, especially in opposition to the concerns and actions of environmentalists. It may be a little on the wane these days as environmental problems become more obvious, but it's definitely still there.
Posted by: tacitus | September 19, 2008 3:58 PM
Palin has plenty to criticize without going after her for hunting. If she and/or her family hunted for food, more power to them. What she should be raked over the coals for, over and over again, is her support of brutal policies allowing shooting wolves from planes, a policy none of my hunting associates would support, and one without the slightest ecologically sound science supporting it.
Posted by: Science Avenger | September 19, 2008 4:11 PM
Heddle, I am certainly not saying that all or even most fundies are apocalyptic minded. Are there not many fundamentalists who do believe the end is near? It makes me nervous to think of someone who holds such beliefs in a position to destroy much of the life on this planet.
The stuff about hastening the rapture by destroying nature was from a Bill Moyers article (I believe it was called "The Delusional is No Longer Marginal") that I believe claimed that somewhere close to half of the American public thought the rapture was near and so it didn't matter (and might even be a good thing) if the resources or ecosystems were destroyed.
Posted by: mark duran | September 19, 2008 4:13 PM
I can't remember the source, but I do remember finding a poll that reported about 25% of the American population believed Jesus would return in their lifetime. Twenty-five percent.
Posted by: Narc | September 19, 2008 4:20 PM
"Left Behind" sales are 60 million worldwide.
That is pretty good for a series of books that you can't even own for the span of a normal lifetime.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | September 19, 2008 4:27 PM
"Hunting is not for everyone, but those of us that live in or near the wild, it's not something to be ashamed of if we're hunting for meat, like Palin does"
ummm, blasting 40-50 helpless animals at a time from a helicopter is neither for sport, nor for meat.
and just to be clear, yes i am a vegetarian, yes it is for moral reasons (i am a philosopher of ethics) and no, i don't see the hunting as the issue.
but if you honestly think the earth is thousands of years old, every choice and judgement you have ever or will ever make are suddenly much more open to question than the average Joe's.
Posted by: shen | September 19, 2008 4:29 PM
heddle: funny how there seem to be more of those "isolated nuts" every year, they've all been saying the same thing since the 1970s, and they've been getting more and more central to America's religio-political discourse. The very fact that the loony right handpicked such an "isolated nut" as McCain's running-mate, and "Conservative Christian" voters are suddenly in love with her, is proof that we're dealing with more than "isolated nuts." This isn't just "isolated nuts," it's a concerted movement, and it's dragging America into a looking-glass world of inanity and intolerance.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 19, 2008 4:35 PM
The only problem I have with this whole story is that it is all hearsay. What Palin was quoted as saying fits in with what we know about her, so I would not be the least bit surprised if it was true, but I would feel a lot better if I actually heard those thoughts come from her, not just as someone saying she said it.
Posted by: Ted H. | September 19, 2008 5:01 PM
this needs to be said:
aerial predator control is NOT aerial hunting (which is indeed illegal)
Posted by: skyotter | September 19, 2008 5:12 PM
Yes. Your name is entirely appropriate. Everyone here has seen the (YouTube and vimeo) video on the "Third Wave", I presume?
Worldwide? What world? Have they ever been sold outside the USA? (In Alberta perhaps?)
Posted by: David Marjanović | September 19, 2008 5:41 PM
"Predator control"? Who decides if that is necessary, and by what criteria?
Posted by: David Marjanović | September 19, 2008 5:43 PM
Agreed. She needs to be asked the question, and she needs to give an unequivocal answer.
Posted by: tacitus | September 19, 2008 6:15 PM
Has she said that she's a Pentecostal? I thought there was some uncertainty about that...
That said, the fact that she is on the record for supporting the teaching of ID creationism in public schools is enough for me.
Posted by: Leni | September 19, 2008 6:25 PM
This "dualist" mentality that Palin may have is the same world view that inspired the destruction of the World Trade Center. Osama and his ilk view the West as "pure evil". And they are also creationists...
Posted by: George Arndt | September 19, 2008 7:20 PM
longer answer -- the State of Alaska and, by extension, its citizens (who just voted down a measure that would have banned it)
even longer answer, but off on a tangent -- i find myself in this trap a lot, lately. by trying to clarify a misconception, i make it seem that i'm supporting one side or the other. i am not. in fact i'm agnostic about aerial predator control: i can understand that it *MIGHT* occasionally be necessary, but i'd have no idea how to determine that it *IS* necessary in a given case
Posted by: skyotter | September 19, 2008 7:49 PM
"It's because we now have "News Entertainment". Very similar to "Sports Entertainment"- AKA Professional wrestling."
It's sporadic but on occasion Fox & Friends uses canned laughter or applause.
That's right folks - it's News with a laugh-track.
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 20, 2008 2:03 AM
I don't believe this....
Posted by: yarrrrr | September 20, 2008 2:23 AM
Here's the guy's blog that salon interviewed for the creationism quote...
http://progressivealaska.blogspot.com
Do you trust that? Come fuck on...
Posted by: yarrrrrr | September 20, 2008 2:32 AM
David Marjanović - I'm in the UK, and I have a copy of the first Left Behind book on my shelf. It used to be a tradition with me and my friends to buy each other the worst possible books imaginable at Christmas in the hope of inspiring a long and amusing blog post fulminating about how terrible they were. Left Behind took its place alongside other horrors such as Pamela Anderson's Star, Bill O'Reilly's Those Who Trespass and David Icke's Children of the Matrix, the latter of which was judged to be the runaway 'winner' in terms of worst overall book.
Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | September 20, 2008 6:41 AM
I really don't like this.
Isn't there sufficient undisputable evidence of Sarah Palin's incompetency that one needs to resort to hearsay ?
Posted by: negentropyeater | September 20, 2008 7:24 AM
Skyotter:
"Wolves and bears are very effective and efficient predators on caribou, moose, deer and other wildlife. In most of Alaska, humans also rely on the same species for food. In Alaska's Interior, predators kill more than 80 percent of the moose and caribou that die during an average year, while humans kill less than 10 percent. In most of the state, predation holds prey populations at levels far below what could be supported by the habitat in the area. Predation is an important part of the ecosystem, and all ADF&G wolf management programs, including control programs, are designed to sustain wolf populations in the future."
This sounds like doublespeak (or bullshit) to me. If the wolves were killing too many prey animals they would simply starve themselves to lower numbers. If they eat themselves into oblivion, so be it.
I live in upstate NY where there are no wolves. What we have here are lots of deer and, increasingly, coyotes--who are the beta predators, men with guns and bows being the alpha predators.
I think the ADF&G's primary, if not sole, reason for "predator control" is to guarantee the hunters first dibs on the game and ensure the tourist gunners that they have a shot at bagging that trophy they're spending thousands to travel to Alaska for.
Posted by: democommie | September 20, 2008 8:43 AM
Josh said:
Isn't that what all creationists do?
Posted by: Jeremy | September 20, 2008 2:18 PM
Leni:
Has she said that she's a Pentecostal? I thought there was some uncertainty about that...
According to this Bruce Wilson piece on talk2action.org, she was for years even if she isn't now:
"Sarah Palin was baptized at Wasilla Assembly of God and attended the church for over two and a half decades, and she has been publicly blessed by a number of pastors and religious leaders employed by and associated with that church."
(From http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/13/1538/09770)
I find it really, really difficult to believe that even if she's no longer affiliated with the AoG (I'm not assuming otherwise, given that I haven't seen any real public contradiction of that assertion), her thinking doesn't at least have a strongly Pentecostal-influenced streak in it.
I've always considered the AoG particularly weird as far as fundamentalist churches go; remember John Ashcroft? He was one of them. On top of that, an issue of Reason I scanned through a few years ago pointed out that his occasionally pro-libertarian voting record in the Senate stands in stark contrast to the direction he took as Attorney General. While it's amusing to think that his losing to a dead opponent in the 2000 election was the reason behind this, I also get the sinking feeling that Pentecostal end times thinking might have been one of the reasons he went totally nuts on several constitutional issues as AG.
OTOH, Alberto Gonzalez was just as nuts as he was, so maybe the junta meme running through White House legal staff is just that strong.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | September 20, 2008 3:29 PM
[Originally posted on DailyKOS; same topic]
This quote struck me
This woman's been steeping her mental processes in fundamentalist environments for so long, she can't think straight.
Do you realize what this is? She's mindlessly suckering under to one of the oldest techniques in the snake-oil dealer's bag of Tricks to Fool the Rubes.
The underlying principle can take many forms:
*** Pat Robertson saying, "There's a woman in Ohio; God is healing her arthritis..."
*** The small tent-revivalist says, "God is telling me there's someone here with a check they just received, and He is convicting their heart to sign it over to our ministry..."
*** The person who purportedly channels the dead for the bereaved vaguely gestures to a section of seats and says, "I'm getting a message from a 'Mary'...does anyone in this group know who that is?..."
The pastor was purposefully vague in his expression and Palin interprets his expression as miraculously precise. This is a 180° wrong-way interpretation of simple communication; and that's the heart and soul of the kind of fundamentalism Palin subscribes to, and the core reason why her selection for a national ticket is a disgrace and a profound insult to clear-headed Americans.
The very idea that this ilk of particularly transparently superstitious fool is being offered the Vice-Presidency is utterly beyond satire.
Posted by: Ron A. Zajac | September 20, 2008 5:33 PM
Re Palin's YEC connections and why we should all be concerned: Does no one here remember James Watt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Watt) and his "The Rapture is coming soon, so we don't need to worry about the environment" stance? Mind you, even though he did enough damage, he was merely Secretary of the Interior. Imagine the anti-science, old-testament likes of Watt-- or Palin- with *real* power and influence. She's more "Watt in a skirt" than "Bush with breasts". I wonder how she feels about the Beach Boys?
Re the shooting of moose (or any wildlife) from helicopters, I think it would be much more sporting, more fun, and certainly more of a manly, Alaska-sized challenge for the hunters, if half a dozen shooters were hidden on the ground during the hunt, equipped with Stinger missiles and sniper rifles, attempting to bring the chopper down. Fox could run it as an extreme-reality show perhaps; call it "Fair and Balanced Hunting".
Posted by: gmgw | September 20, 2008 5:41 PM
Just want to add a word: although I was raised Methodist, I've been a member of an Assemblies of God church for a number of years. My faith in God is an important part of my life. I think YECs are terribly deluded and that anyone whose faith relies on believing that the earth is only 7,000 years old doesn't have a very deep faith. I also think that Palin is a bald-faced liar. I'm pro-family, pro-Obama.
Posted by: A Pentecostal | September 20, 2008 6:08 PM
it is my understanding that obama,on multiple occasions has professed to be a born again christian...where does the idea of christianity come from...the bible. where does the idea that God created the earth is seven days and following the bible's timeline we can only figure that the earth is only a mere 6,000 and some odd years old? the bible. why is it ok for obama to believe part of the bible but it is not ok for palin to believe all of it without being called a nut. take the bible or leave it. but dont pick and choose.
Posted by: laura | September 20, 2008 6:44 PM
Laura, God's sense of time is not the same as ours--"with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Who can say that "one day" in creation time equals the 24 hours you consider a day?
It does no honor to God to go about making statements that are easily proven to be factually incorrect, and it makes Christians look foolish to do so. I strongly recommend that you read Galileo's letter to the Grand Duchess, from which this quote comes: "I do not believe it necessary to believe that the same God that gave us our senses, our speech, our intellect, would have us put them aside in discovering the universe He created."
As to your assertion that a person cannot "pick and choose" what parts of the Bible to believe, do you think Palin should send out her rebellious children to be stoned? Or be condemned because she wears clothes made of two types of fabric? For goodness' sake, it denigrates the power of the Gospel to get hung up on some ridiculous "fact" about the earth's age. It seems to me that Christians need to be more proactive in demonstrating that "faith" does not equal "having your brains fall out."
Pro-science. Pro-God. Voting for Obama.
Posted by: A Pentecostal | September 20, 2008 7:37 PM
Mrs. Palin is a doll. Reminds me of a precocious little girl in a school play charming the pants off the entire audience. She is a fast learner too. I just don't want the White House to be her place of learning. It didn't do much for George.
Posted by: Louis Koester | September 21, 2008 7:23 AM
For a musical approach to the Sarah Palin plight, see my "Sarah Palin is Pretty" song on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L1w3UBabrQ
and thanks for all these comments. Many of them are reassuring that a substantial part of America still thinks.
Posted by: William Evenhouse | September 22, 2008 4:54 AM
Isn't that what all creationists do?
YEP. And it shouldn't continue to make me crazy, but it does.
Posted by: Josh | September 22, 2008 8:12 AM
Not surprisingly, this blog is heavily weighted in favor of liberals and Democrats. It's really hard to tell who makes most bloggers here more uncomfortable, simple conservatives or religious conservatives (probably the latter). I feel uncomfortable having biased close-minded people in government who can't seem to respect the opinions of others in the origins debate. They make no effort to understand other points of view, such as the creationists' views and pretend that creationists have NO science on their side and therefore are stupid. This is the truly intolerant viewpoint that should be feared, one that spreads ignorance and fear of other ideas. It's time to open up your mind, in the words of Norman MacBeth, and begin to look at science from a less narrow-minded viewpoint.
Posted by: Carl Barrows | October 20, 2008 10:51 AM
They make no effort to understand other points of view, such as the creationists' views and pretend that creationists have NO science on their side and therefore are stupid.
Yeah, nobody makes an effort to understand other points of view, such as the creationists' views. If only people would make an effort to understand!
Posted by: 386sx | October 20, 2008 11:13 AM
Au contraire.
Since many of us here ARE scientists, we KNOW creationists have no science on their side.
Open up YOUR mind. Do the research (and I don't mean JUST library research; I mean actual science in the labs and in the fields). SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE. Then we can talk.
Posted by: gwangung | October 20, 2008 11:15 AM
Carl Barrows wrote:
This is meaningless twaddle. Opinions are ideas and do not deserve "respect" (whatever that could possibly mean in this context). Some ideas are false. Some ideas are downright ridiculous. Ridiculous ideas should be criticized.
This is a straw man. I have made enormous effort to understand the creationist point of view, having spent the better part of the last 20 years reading virtually everything creationists have written on the subject. I know far more about the creationist point of view than the vast majority of creationists know about it. And in fact, there is no science to support creationism. That does not, however, mean that I think all creationists are stupid. Intelligence does not mean one does not believe bad ideas to be true.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 20, 2008 11:16 AM
...and pretend that creationists have NO science on their side and therefore are stupid.
That's a pretty strong statement, my friend. Assuming that you're not just a drive-by troll, I have to disagree with you on this point. I'm a professional PhD-holding geoscientist and I can tell you that I've never seen anything on the creationist side that is both scientific and valid. There are some testable propositions within classic creationsim (e.g., the idea of a global flood). These have been falsified. So, could you offer up a proposition of creationism that is scientific?
Posted by: Josh | October 20, 2008 1:00 PM
Hey Josh, your are right. If you haven't seen a "Flock of DoDos" which would likely be laughable to a PhD do to it's simplicity, these half-wit YECs should see it. The writer/director states that the ID/creationists can't seem to explore scientifically (or otherwise) past the point of their "intuition" and do some investigation. But it's likely they would just shrug it off as propaganda. Good post.
Posted by: Jack Mehoff | October 25, 2008 6:28 PM
Weak. You quote a guy who is a self admitted democrat and runs a blog: progressive Alaska. This is just he said-she-said gossip.
What about Obama's church, his Pastor is a creationist as well. No posts here about that, why? Because the real point here is electing a specific party.
Any attack on Obama's and the Democrats disregard for science when it comes to Yucca Mountain or nuclear power? Nope. Again, the real point here is not respect for science, but electing a certain political party.
There's nothing wrong with preferring Democrats, just stop doing it under the cloak of defending science impartially. Or even say your number one concern is science, but move on over to DailyKOS, where it will be clear what your political orientation is. Until then, stop posting here, because you leave the distinct impression that "scientists" are merely an extension of the Democratic party and thereby discredit science as an impartial pursuit of the truth, and make it look like just another arm of politics.
Also, the attacks on her for the Alaskan state's common sense policy of predator control is beyond the pale. With attacks like that, you are obviously not concerned with science (in this case, predator control is part of conservation science), and are just resorting to knee jerk emotional ploys. And a few even mentioned that using too large a caliber of gun for hunting is wrong? Are you seriously so clueless and pigheaded? Do you even stop to think that a smaller caliber is going to kill more slowly and result in more pain? People making comments like that can't possibly be scientists, and if they are, I hope for the sake of their profession they are not in life sciences.
Posted by: Bruce | December 19, 2009 3:29 AM
Bruce "Weak. You quote a guy who is a self admitted democrat and runs a blog: progressive Alaska. This is just he said-she-said gossip."
Pay closer attention.
"What about Obama's church, his Pastor is a creationist as well."
Come on, Bruce, we all know that he's a secret Muslim atheist.
"Any attack on Obama's and the Democrats disregard for science when it comes to Yucca Mountain or nuclear power?"
You might have a point on that.
"There's nothing wrong with preferring Democrats, just stop doing it under the cloak of defending science impartially."
It's not a matter of preference. It's like adopting a puppy. One is incontinent. The other has rabies. You know which represents which Party. You do!
"Also, the attacks on her for the Alaskan state's common sense policy of predator control is beyond the pale."
Shooting things from helicopters is, frankly, dishonorable. Do you know what works for predator control? Prey. I hear that moose have knives now. They're some bad mofos.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 19, 2009 3:49 AM
Come on, Bruce, we all know that he's a secret Muslim atheist.
I'll give it to you, you have a lock on the straw men in this debate.
Shooting things from helicopters is, frankly, dishonorable. Do you know what works for predator control? Prey. I hear that moose have knives now. They're some bad mofos.
So, you seriously believe Taxpayers should pay people to drive (walk?, crawl?) around, shooting these animals with small caliber rifles (or bow and arrow, or pocket knife?) so they die a slow and painful death, because doing otherwise would offend your sense of honor? Surely, you can't be serious.
Pay closer attention.
You're confused, personally doubting evolution (I do not doubt evolution by the way) is completely different then young earth creationism. Then again, noting such minor details would require your paying attention.
Posted by: Bruce | December 19, 2009 4:35 AM
Oh, by the way.
I favor UHC (universal health care) and a Public option. I think the bill as it stands is a travesty (but better then no reform).
But this rubbish that one party is particularly guided by science in their policy decisions, or has more nuts then the other - that's absurd. If anything, the Republicans anti-science concerns are mostly window dressing. The Democrats and their disastrous anti-science energy policy is front and center in their whole agenda.
Posted by: Bruce | December 19, 2009 4:42 AM
Bruce states:
Just to be clear, you really want to take the position that the Democratic party is as anti-science as the Republican party? Really?
You really believe that the Democratic party has as many people in it that believe things that aren't true as the Republican party? Let me prode you on a few items to consider where it's easy to break-out beliefs or positions by party: Obama's a Muslim, Birfers, Tea Partiers, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Budgets without numbers, Death Panels, Evolution v. Creationism, Jesus is coming back to earth 'within our life time', Fox News is as honest as any other main-stream media venue, and Anthropogenic Global Warming is a liberal/Hollywood/UN hoax.
You really want to take that position? Yes the Dems have a minority of populists who also take some nutty positions, anti-vaxers,homeopathic remedies, genetically modified food; but guess what? That element of theparty is far smaller than the crazy element within the GOP (who've taken over the party) and the social conservatives are increasingly joining them on those issues, like Orin Hatch's ability to defend Utah's production of woo-related homeopathic products without proving their efficacy or being regulated by the FDA.
In the 2008 campaign season, which party actually used federally funded science projects as examples of what we need to stop spending funds on?
Please explain how the Democrats' energy policy is 'disastrous', especially relative to the Republican energy policies we might not survive. Please do not forget the Republican energy policy was inclusive of avoiding the reality of climate change ('greenwashing'), Bush's 2000 campaign promise to regulate greenhouse gasses, especially CO2, and then reneging almost immediately after assuming office, Bush's Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Iraq War, a failed attempt in 2008 to sell current un-leased reserves dirt cheap, and in 2008 - "Drill Baby, Drill" (as current drillers were laying off given we were swimming in supply), and Palin's 2008 false claim she began a gas pipeline project when in fact that project has not began and might never come to fruition.
Bruce - you appear to want to take rational positions. But for some reason it also appears that 10 years of recent events have escaped your notice.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 19, 2009 7:34 AM
Just to pile more on to Bruce. . .
. . . the new data from Pew are pretty stark:
Also, How scientists see themselves vs. how the public sees scientists.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 19, 2009 8:07 AM
Over 90% of the rhetoric states emphatically that creationism especially Y.E.C. is beyond stupid to the point of retardation. Another comment reads denying ALL of the scientific fields in general...but the greatest scientific minds in world history (pre-Darwin, of course) believed in a creation, not in Jesus Christ, or Yahweh or God/Allah but they saw uniqueness...read their writings.
First on anyone's list is Isaac Newton (he wrote more on religious subjects than science, FACT!)Next Agassiz, Babbage, Bacon, Boyle, Brewster, Cuvier, Davy, Fabre, Faraday, Fleming, Henry, Herschel, Joule, Kelvin, Kepler, Linnaeus, Lister, Maury, Maxwell, Mendel, Morse, Pascal, Pasteur, Ramsey, Ray, Rayleigh, Riemann, Simpson, Stokes & Virchow.
Now Charles Darwin had a THEOLOGY degree, he never earned a science one, by todays standards he would not even be qualified to be a an assistant at a university much less be their demi-god idol. What these afore-mentioned men did for science (what is observed, studied, reproduced in lab analysis)shows that they followed facts/proofs NOT theories that are equal to religions today. If there is ONE critic of Creationsts that has given more to humanity than these men, stand up so we can give you credit.
If not, well, you need to go back & read the biographies of these men & learn a little humility & comprehension of this great planet...maybe one day you too will be in this list of truly GREAT men of science?
Posted by: Curious George | February 27, 2010 4:42 AM
...And the greatest scientific minds (pre-Pasteur) ascribed to the humour and miasma theory of disease. The greatest scientific minds (pre-Newton) believed that the natural state of a body was to be at rest. The greatest scientific minds (pre-Copernicus) believed the earth was the center of the universe.
You've missed the point entirely. We are now post Darwin, post Pasteur, post Newton, and all these ideas they became famous for overturning are now universally known to be completely wrong, and nobody can claim to be scientifically literate who denies that.
Posted by: DaveL | February 27, 2010 8:17 AM
Curious George states @ 84:
Well it would be beyond stupid to believe in young earth creationism if a person was both scientifically literate and cognizant of the empirical evidence and the theory of evolution. However I think most of this forum's encounters with YECs is that they are woefully uninformed, either because they never received a proper science education or because they practice a fierce form of denial. I know I've never encountered a YEC who was scientifically literate and therefore was perfectly impotent in discrediting or falsifying both the fact of evolution and its attendant explanatory model explaining those facts, i.e., the theory of evolution.
What we do encounter from YECs is a fierce dependency on rhetorical or logical fallacies which argues for inability to think critically.
Curious George states @ 84:
And you wonder why you think scientifically literate people call YECs "retards"?
Guess what, prior to the discovery of nearly all scientific theories prior intellectuals didn't accept the currently held theory for an obvious reason; they had no evidence or framework to consider that evidence. In case you didn't know it, your list of people weren't aware of DNA or the mechanism of inheritance and how that mechanism creates genetic diversity within an extant population. They didn't have the set of observations regarding the very non-random distribution of populations by geography that Alfred Wallace and Charles Darwin developed and which has been robustly developed since then, along with millions, perhaps billions of other bits of evidence.
Aruging that Isaac Newton rejected the theory of evolution is equivalent to arguing that Isaac Newton rejected any other peer-accepted theory developed after his life, e.g., the theory explaining the causes of tuberculosis and our ability to successfully immunize for it; which requires knowledge of and using the mechanisms explained by the theory of evolution in order to insure immunization efforts are successful.
It is retarded to think that people prior to a discovery oppose such a theory merely because they weren't exposed to it. So I guess you are an outlier to my first observation, that YECs are merely uninformed. However you do display fealty to a defect in critical thinking and fealty to logical fallacies as predicted and for which you perfectly illuminate. Your argument here sinks well below mere ignorance.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 27, 2010 8:33 AM