Sarah Palin - Creationist
Creationism advocates for a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and believes the universe is 6,000 years old. Creationism not only fosters fundamentalism, it fosters the same bias and hate that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament promotes against people of different faiths, sexual orientations and gender. Let us not forget that the Old Testament condoned slavery, genocite and stoning.
Plain said about creationism and 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 the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject — creationism and evolution. It’s been a healthy foundation for me. But don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.”
Gee, I didn’t know that “kids” were debating scientific concepts that require at least a college degree to understand.
How ironic. In 2004 when she ran for Lt. Gov, and again in 2006 in the GOP primaries against the Frank Murkoski social conservatives, Sarah Palin was viewed as far “too moderate” on social issues. In fact, there was a whisper campaign that she was a “closet libertarian.” Palin had attended a few Libertarian Party meetings in Anchorage back then, and was viewed with some suspicion by the GOP old guard.
Now here we are in 2008, and the Liberals are slamming her for being a social conservative.
Perhaps they’re confused as to what libertarian Republican means.
scientific concepts that require at least a college degree to understand???
Gimme a break. If sorry if you can’t understand the basic concepts involved. Have you ever picked up an elementary textbook? Give kids the benefit of the doubt. They’re smart enough to grasps the concepts and the arguments on either side. There are some excellent textbooks that handle both sides of the argument very well.
weak thought process & argument U have. seems U timid of letting people discuss. I & class mates decided that issue in the 5 th grade, & still hold to it. oops I wuz just a kid, guess it don’t count. btw creationism = largely a crock & so is u’r above statement
Joe Consumer: Learn how to spell before attempting to make an intelligent argument for creationism :-) Most children in the 5th grade still believe in Santa Claus. No wonder you “decided the issue” in the 5th grade.
Steve: Excuse me, but kids are not “smart enough to grasp the concepts” of a scientifically complex theory that requires a college education to understand. That is one of the problems with people who dismiss evolution; they don’t know the science behind the theory. Most kids believe in Santa Claus, pee the bed and need to be protected and guided because their judgment tends to be heavily influenced by sweets, cartoons, fantasies and fear.
o4u,
You must have gone to a public school. My kids have a firm grasp of the issue and the arguments on both sides and they’re in middle school. Are there subtleties and more info that will help to explain both sides that comes at a higher grade level? Sure. This is standard democrat theology: assume everyone is an idiot and tell them what you think they need.
It’s interesting that when people are younger, they tend to be more liberal, but when they grow up (and get a job, get married, get a mortgage), they tend to become conservative. It’s called growth, personal, rational and emotional.
In your glib attempt to denigrate those you don’t understand, you missed Joe Consumer’s statement that he finds creationism “largely a crock”. Slow down, take a breath, and read the comments before you respond. You’re both wrong about creationism, but that’s another discussion.
Steve, I am sure you wish to believe your children have a “firm grasp” of evolution and creationism as “middle-schoolers”. However, I am more than certain once removed from your presence, they would not be able to spell “prokaryotes” or “australopithecus” or give us a basic and adequate scientific definition for adaptation, genetic drift, genetic flow, speciation, etc. True believers see what they want to see; especially in the children they mould with their beliefs.
Yet you think it should be taught at all levels. Which is it? You can’t have it both ways.
Steve, just as math is taught in gradations, so is biology and earth science. Just because someone has mastered addition and subtraction does not mean they have a firm grasp on calculus. So it is with evolution. Needless to say, this blog was not intended for debating these issues. You take difference with my viewpoint and I with yours. I am not going to argue with you any longer. Have the last word if you like :-)
“Creationism not only fosters fundamentalism, it fosters the same bias and hate that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament promotes against people of different faiths, sexual orientations and gender.”
That statement is absurd and making false accusations against a person who you disagree with. Palin doesn’t believe in slavery. And Palin should not be required to believe in all faiths as absolute truths. Palin is not for outlawing people’s faiths in which she disagrees with.
A literal interpretation of the OT says the NT superceded the OT. Since Palin is Pentecostal so she doesn’t take the whole Bible literally…For example, she believes in baptism of the holy spirit…Romans 8:9, says when one is converted to Christ they receive the Holy Spirit at the moment. So she is not taking Romans 8:9 literally…
thebibleistheotherside, for starters, I did not say that Palin believes in slavery. I said that Christian Creationism (which is what is being discussed here) advocates for some type of literal interpretation of the Old Testament. The Old Testament (from which the creation story originates) has been used for centuries to justify slavery, holy wars, hate, etc. Needless to say, the New Testament does not have a creation story. The Old Testament does and it from the Old Testament that Christian Creationism is argued.
Are you in favor of having Hindu Creationism, Native American Creationism, Aboriginal Creationism, Mythology Creationism, Islamic Creationism and Jewish Creationism taught in addition to Christian Creationism? I say if one wants to include the discussion of creationism in public schools, it should include all forms, not just Christian Creationism. As Sarah Palin would say, “You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools.”.
Ok, I’m certainly not a creationist (see my blog), but I feel the need to respond anyway.
“Creationism advocates for a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and believes the universe is 6,000 years old.”
Creationism doesn’t advocate a literal interpretation of the entire Old Testament, although many of its followers may indeed read the OT in that light. It does advocate a literal reading of the creation account as told in Genesis. Also, not all creationists believe the universe is 6000 years old. There are different “flavors”, so to speak, of creationists, the two major groups being the young earth creationists and the old earth creationists.
“Creationism not only fosters fundamentalism, it fosters the same bias and hate that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament promotes against people of different faiths, sexual orientations and gender. Let us not forget that the Old Testament condoned slavery, genocite and stoning.”
Like anything else in the bible, such things need to be taken in context–both in context of the actua writing and the cultural and historical context of the time it was written. To lump creationists as all being fundamentalist and biased and hateful toward people of different persuasions is as silly as the creationists who claim evolutionists are Nazis.
“Gee, I didn’t know that “kids” were debating scientific concepts that require at least a college degree to understand.”
A college degree certainly helps, but many of my high school students get a good grasp of the topic in my class. That is one of the national standards, after all.
And let us not get too superior with creationists. All of the candidates are Christians and therefore, by definition, believe that a virgin gave birth to a boy that later resurrected to save the world. Along the way he turned water to wine, raised the dead, etc. etc. etc. All of these acts are scientific impossibilities that Christians accept as truth. And it’s all in the same book.