I wake up this afternoon and check the news and my e-mails from my bed on my iPod touch. It has become an enjoyable morning ritual of mine. As I perused the top stories of the day, I find that McCain chose a VP, Sarah Palin. She was an intriguing choice and I started doing some research on her.
I found out that she:
- is the governor of Alaska.
- is a mother of 5.
- is an evangelical Protestant.
- is pro-life and a member of Feminists for Life.
- is a creationist.
- is a creationist who wants creationism taught along with evolution.
I shall let her speak for herself:
In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:
“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.”
(…)
Palin said she thought there was value in discussing alternatives.
“It’s OK to let kids know that there are theories out there,” she said in the interview. “They gain information just by being in a discussion.”
That was how she was brought up, she said. Her father was a public school science teacher.
“My dad did talk a lot about his theories of evolution,” she said. “He would show us fossils and say, ‘How old do you think these are?’ ”
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’m not going to pretend I know how all this came to be,” she said.
From Anchorage Daily News
Again, this is the usual tripe creationists try to push: “Teach both sides!” “Teach the debate!”
There is NO debate. Evolution is fact. I bet you Palin won’t be able to define evolution if you asked her to. In my experience, almost all deniers of evolution do not know what evolution is. It’s rather pathetic that they would deny something without knowing what it actually is.
Wired also had this to say about her:
Palin’s statements track with the official Alaska Republican Party platform, which support creation science and intelligent design by name, and says that “evidence disputing the theory should also be presented.”
According to Fordham Institute science education expert Lawrence Lerner, Palin’s nomination is less worrisome in terms of education than the broad relationship of science and government.
“In the direct sense, vice presidents don’t have much to do with what goes on in classrooms. But a person who’s a creationist doesn’t understand science and technology at all,” said Lerner. “It doesn’t bode well for science, and doesn’t bode well for interaction between science and government.”
From the Wired Website
Personally, if someone believes in creationism, it does not bother me. If their belief does not have negative effects on my life, then I don’t mind it. BUT this is just not the case with regards to Palin and most creationists. Their unscientific demeanor does have negative ramifications. It does affect me negatively. How could they possibly make informed decisions about scientific policies when they are scientifically illiterate? They are dangerous people. Palin is dangerous.
So…who wants to move out of the US with me if McCain gets elected?
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Roy Natian
- Candles, Chock Full of Engineering
- Tauriq on eSkeptic
- This is Why Jesus is Not a Friend of Mine
- Next Time a Creationist Asks for Transitional Fossils…
- Our 1000th Comment
- Center for Inquiry Promo Video
- Russian Spam, Slander, and Hacked Accounts
- Finally, the Video: Secular Coalition for America’s Lori Lippman Brown on the Colbert Report
- McCain’s VP pick is Not Good for Science
- UPDATE: Secularism on the Colbert Report on Friday
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
uhh, i feel sick,
So…who wants to move out of the US with me if McCain gets elected?
If you die in Canada, you die in real life.
I’m extremely happy about this pick. Aside from McCain-Jindal, this is the worst possible VP selection that McCain could have made. It’s a desperate ploy to try to attract the Hillary voters, who by-and-large are socially liberal like their former candidate and hopefully won’t fall for this gimmick.
Palin has far less experience and none of the gravitas of Obama; in an interview one year ago she actually asked a CNBC host what the vice president actually does that is important. Her ‘experience’ consists of being a former PTA member and mayor of a hamlet of 9000 people.
Even conservatives are angry about this pick; Pat Buchanan said that Palin was ‘completely unqualified’ to hold the office of VP. The far-right National Review’s Ranesh Ponnuru came to the same conclusion.
Not that being in Canada helps much – I consider that we are one of the largest group of unenfranchised constituents who will be affected by the outcome of the US election, whichever way it goes.
What a bimbo. Sad.
The Republicans used to scream “DANGEROUSLY INEXPERIENCED!!!!” when talking about Obama.
Now they have suddenly retired that tagline. They are so disingenuous. But then, being disingenuous has pretty much become a core Republican value.
I hear Canada is great, let me know when you’re ready to go. I need a roommate.
She’s also a member of several Dominionist and Christian Nationalist organizations including Eagle Forum, Christian Coalition, and Concerned Women of America.
Roy, have you read Sam Harris’s thoughts on her:
Sam Harris: Sexist Pig and Liberal Shill
I’ve received more than the usual amount of criticism for my recent opinion piece on Sarah Palin, most of it alleging sexism and/or an unseemly infatuation with Barack Obama. For those who care, I’d like to briefly respond:
My alleged sexism: It is true that I used some hackneyed, gender-slanted language in the piece (”get sassy,” “girl-next-door,” etc.). This was deliberate. Clearly, I played this game at my peril. I can say that if Sarah Palin were a man of similar qualifications, I would have used equally slanted language to describe him. I might have called Mr. Palin a “frat-boy” or a “lumberjack.” I would have invoked some silly macho phrasing like,”Watch Cousin Jim flip Putin the bird.” My concern is not that Mrs. Palin is a woman. My concern is that she is a totally unqualified and poorly educated woman who was added to the Republican ticket as a token woman (and Creationist wacko). For what it’s worth, the article was vetted by the two women closest to me (wife and mother) and by two female editors at the LA Times. If anything, the editing at the Times made the piece even more “sexist.”
My alleged Obamamania: Many McCain supporters have written to say that (1) Obama is also unqualified (or even less qualified than Palin) and (2) I have shown myself to be a hypocrite by not objecting to Obama’s religiosity. Briefly: My criticism of Palin should not be construed as uncritical acceptance of Obama. Needless to say, I find Obama’s religious pandering repulsive. The suspicion that he is pandering, out of obvious necessity, and not quite as religious as he makes out, is somewhat comforting, however. But even if Obama were precisely as religious as he appears, he is not a Creationist, Rapture-Ready blockhead. Palin, by all appearances, seems to be one. This is a difference worth noting. Whatever you may think of his politics, Obama is very intelligent and reasonably well educated. Palin thinks the universe is 6000 years old. Unfortunately, I wrote my article before some of the most disturbing signs of her religious extremism came to light.
So, let me simply declare that I would be overjoyed to have a qualified woman in the White House. I would, likewise, be overjoyed to have a qualified African American in the White House. In fact, I would be overjoyed to have a qualified WASP man in the White House. I will be guardedly optimistic to have a very smart (and somewhat qualified) Barack Obama in the White House. And I would be frankly terrified to have a religious bumpkin like Sarah Palin in the White House. I think you should share this last conviction. Hence my latest opinion piece.
Best,
Sam