As far as my vote in the upcoming election goes, John McCain's selection of Alaska governor Sarah Palin makes no difference to me. I'm voting for Barack Obama. What everyone is all a-twitter about on the science blogosphere, however, is the fact that during a debate in 2006 Palin said that if the issue of creationism came up in the classroom it should be discussed alongside evolution. Here's the actual quote from the debate;
Teach both [evolution and creationism]. 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.
Alas, the "Teach the Controversy!" nonsense claimed another science-illiterate victim. (Speaking of which, I'm wearing one of those nifty satirical "teach the controversy" shirts right now. You can pick up your own here.) But does Palin want to actually push schools to teach creationism? According to what she said in a 2006 interview following the debate, she did not want to make creationism a part of school standards;
"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
She added that, if elected, she would not push the [Alaska] Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.
Does Palin's stance on evolution/creationism matter in the presidential race? If there ever is a ScienceDebate the question would certainly get more attention, but I have my doubts about whether it will be significant otherwise. We're concerned about it because it involves science policy, but I don't think a two-year-old quote from Palin is going to change very much for the public at large.
McCain has gone back and forth on the evolution issue, trying to have it both ways, but I think that the continuing battles over creationism in the classroom are going to be the result of local efforts in towns. If McCain and Palin wind up in the White House they may turn a blind eye to when creationism pops up in the classroom and not give a whit for science standards (which definitely isn't good), but the main push to get creationist nonsense into schools appears to chiefly come from smaller, local initiatives. What is going to come up in the presidential race, I think, is Palin's denial that anthropogenic global climate change is a reality. Maybe her stance on creationism in the classroom will come up in connection with that, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
- Log in to post comments
Why would you label Palin as a "victim" of teach the controversy, rather than a perpetrator?
Probably since she has no knowledge of the subject either way. As a politician, she thinks that would please people. A perpetrator would be someone from Answers in Genesis or the Disco Institute who are knowingly deceiving in order to push their deviant agenda. At least, that's what I assume from Brian's usage of victim.
Kalia's little brother;
Bob already summed up my reasoning. Palin is a politician, not a Disco Institute talking head, and "teach the controversy" sounds like a reasonable position to science illiterate folks. I'm not trying to say that Palin is in no way responsible for the policies she supports or enacts, but in this case I think it is more reasonable to assume that she sipped the creationist Kool Ade out of ignorance. As well, the subject last came up two years ago. What would she say now (particularly now that she's McCain's VP pick)? I don't know, but it doesn't seem that she's intent on actively pushing creationism into schools.
Bob; You beat me to it by a minute, but you got it right. Thank you.
If all we have is a two-year-old quote, then we might as well interpret it kindly. (I'm not a nice person by temperament, but I'm trying to learn, or at least teach myself how to fake it.) If someone puts her on the spot now, and she comes out railing against the demon Darwinists and their Stalinist agenda, then we can lay the rhetorical smack down, for all the good it'll do.
Bob, would you be so tolerant of Palin's idiocy if she heeded David Irving's calls to "Teach the Controversy." As a politician, she has an obligation to be somewhat informed about the issues she's expected to deal with.
Now, I didn't say I was tolerant of it. Creation, ID, and all other forums of unscientific BS should be omitted from the biology class curriculum. I just said that there was a distinction between being (to use black and white terms) an ignorant people-pleaser and a master manipulator. You'd think politicians would have to be somewhat informed on what they're talking about; this, of course, is not always the case. However, making informed decisions is tempered with the need to be re-elected, which means maintenance of popular support. People support what they believe is equal time for equal theories - despite this not being the case - and so that's what she goes with. It does not have the people's best interests in mind, but it seems to have what the people think their best interest is in mind, which would allow her to continue her govenorship. In short, I do not believe in "teaching the controversy," though those not versed in the issue may advocate it based on its appeal to the American sense of equality.
Blake; That's pretty much how I'm thinking of it. It's something that will get kicked around here and among people who are already fairly sure they weren't going to go with McCain anyway, but putting creationism in the classroom doesn't appear that it's a major part of what she and McCain are going for. It's not a good sign, definitely, but there just isn't much to go on at the moment. I'm not trying to "be kind" to creationists, just fair based upon what has been said.
I am so wise; In a perfect world Palin, as well as other politicians, would be well-informed about scientific issues. At present, however, I have my doubts about how well-informed any of the presidential and vice presidential nominees know about science. They might toe their party lines when it comes to alternative energy sources, stem cell research, etc., but I don't think that any of them really have a good grasp of what is really going on. Ultimately they are more reliant on what other people tell them and what authorities they trust, and it would appear that top-level Republicans and Democrats are trusting different sources for different reasons (the Republicans having a great tendency to just believe whatever they like). That's the just the sad reality of how things are in the current race.
As I noted in the post, as well, presidents (i.e. Reagan and Bush Jr.) and presidential candidates (i.e. Huckabee) have supported creationism to one degree or another, but what they think of it seems to have little import on the legal cases actually being fought in school districts. The general apathy of an administration to science is a major problem, but the active pushing of creationism into the classroom seems to be more of a ground up issue than something coming from the White House down.
Despite her iffy stance on evolution and global warming, Sarah has done our little northern state well during her time as governor. I like her! However, I don't think she's going to help McCain at all. If you start saying that Obama is too young and inexperienced, then you automatically have to look at Palin.
it isn't her one time view, it is in her DNA, folks.
This is where she is from:
Wasilla is the heart of the Alaska Bible belt and Sarah was raised amongst the tribe that believes creationism should be taught in our public schools, homosexuality is a sin, and life begins at conception.
More here from folks who know about it...
http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/what-is-mccain-thinking-one-al…
Actually, in 102 we DO teach the controversy...sort of. We spend an entire lecture period talking about what is science, what is a hypothesis, etc. And going over creationism and intelligent design, and explaining that these are alternative explanations, but are NOT science (and therefore, we won't be talking about them anymore since Intro to human evolution is a science class). Given how many people don't understand why we don't want to teach creationism alongside evolution, I think this is the right approach; it addresses the controversy, and explains things to the students.
I'm not a scientist, even though to me is logical the evolution process in nature, but is as equally ignorant to think that all forms of evolution does not come from any form of creation.
To me, is not a controversy, they are complementary. However, Public schools need to teach facts.
And put a polititian's point of view in this? Even more nonsense. Sarah Palin is not a victim here, she is in this topic, as many others, a perpetrator. Be careful folks, don't let be fooled for a cute hockey mom-turn-polititian face.
She 'may be the devil' for your agendas.
As far as I can tell, there is not one blogger at science blogs who is not voting for Barack Obama, except perhaps a few who might be voting for those who want to gamble by voting for Brian Moore of the socialist party.
Pardon me.
That should have read:
Now, I didn't say I was tolerant of it. Creation, ID, and all other forums of unscientific BS should be omitted from the biology class curriculum. I just said that there was a distinction between being (to use black and white terms) an ignorant people-pleaser and a master manipulator. You'd think politicians would have to be somewhat informed on what they're talking about; this, of course, is not always the case. However, making informed decisions is tempered with the need to be re-elected, which means maintenance of popular support. People support what they believe is equal time for equal theories - despite this not being the case - and so that's what she goes with. It does not have the people's best interests in mind, but it seems to have what the people think their best interest is in mind, which would allow her to continue her govenorship. In short, I do not believe in "teaching the controversy," though those not versed in the issue may advocate it based on its appeal to the American sense of equality.
Probably since she has no knowledge of the subject either way. As a politician, she thinks that would please people. A perpetrator would be someone from Answers in Genesis or the Disco Institute who are knowingly deceiving in order to push their deviant agenda. At least, that's what I assume from Brian's usage of victim.