Custom Search

Sunday, August 31, 2008

So is Sarah Palin, McCain's US Republican veep choice, a creationist?

Here's the gen I am hearing:

Shock waves:

Among other things, she has backed the teaching of “intelligent design” as an alternative to evolution. “I am a proponent of teaching both [evolution and intelligent design," Palin said in a debate during her run for the governor’s office. "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."
Rats! The hassle for me is that I was going to write a formal essay rehabbing the term "creationist" but didn't want to link it to the US election. But I don't care. If I get time, I will write the short essay anyway ...

Many of my Canadian colleagues love her to pieces already. One of them said simply "God loves America."

Another said,
I've heard both American and Canadian commentators pan Mrs. Palin as too Conservative, too much of a 'mum' , and too 'young'. These are same pundits who are made comments about Mrs. Clinton being too old, too unfeminine and too radical. As a Canadian, it is not my place to make comments about who Americans elect to office. (Nor is the business of most of those pundits I heard on the CBC and the CTV.) But what gives? Having a woman with her background in politics seems like a breakthrough to me.
Another friend notes,
... the liberal bloggers are indeed going nuts over Palin. Just do a Google News search for "creationism" (August 31, 2008) and then sort it by date. The hits coming back on the issue of Palin are quite numerous and their making a big deal about it ...

Here's the view from Answers in Genesis, the young earth creationists. They are not sure where she stands with respect to their quarrel with NASA o nteh age of the Earth, but they say,
, it should be noted that there is no such position as a “neutral” or “non-religious” stance in this debate. Public school biology textbooks and many teachers explain the origin of the universe and life through “natural” processes, defining science as explaining things by “natural” processes. They are indoctrinating students in an atheistic religious belief—that no god is or has been involved; thus, naturalism—in essence, atheism—is now the religion taught in public schools. Parents need to wake up to the fact that public education is not non-religious. Even the Bible affirms that one is either for Christ or against—clearly teaching that there is no such “neutral” position.
Another friend notes,
What we should keep in mind is that she is reported to be wildly popular in Alaska—and they have known her stance on teaching both sides since before she was elected, (her stance is a little more nuanced than the libs are afraid of). In spite of her stance (or perhaps in part because of it?), she’s reported to have an 80% approval rating in Alaska.

Here's what I wrote recently to a friend:
... what I find remarkable is the cluelessness of legacy Canadian media.

They think Palin a big risk.


Why is it a big risk to choose as a running mate a woman who showed that she really believes what she fronts to the public, so to speak (I mean Trig*, of course. Who else could I mean?)

It's my experience that most people who are ambivalent about the pro-life message fear that it is, er, fronted by men who don't know what pregnancy means.

Now, people have a chance to say whether they accept the message from someone who has been there five times and - last time - under the most difficult circumstances.

The American election outcome will help us determine a lot of things, including the people's convictions about the nature of life itself.

*[her son, who copes with Down syndrome, whom she did not abort]

As it happens, I dedicated By Design or by Chance? to my childhood friend Johnny, who had Down syndrome.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy here:


Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Who links to me?