Sarah Palin and Creationism

I have been waiting since Sunday for NBC to post it's "Meet the Press" transcript from Tom Brokaw's interview with Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, in which they discussed Sarah Palin's support for the teaching of creationism/intelligent design in public school science classes.

So that there is no confusion over my position on this issue, let me state it clearly: Creationism is an utterly insane belief that flies in the face of mountains of scientific evidence collected since Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859. To claim that evolution is a theory, and therefore not scientifically sound, is to not understand what the word "theory" means. From its page in Wikipedia:

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation...and the general theory of relativity.

Visit this article in Wikipedia to see Evolution explained in this context.

Every single argument in support of creationism, and against evolution, falls apart under scientific scrutiny. Let's be clear: The only reason any person would believe in creationism is because they are a biblical literalist, and lacking any logical way to reconcile the Book of Genesis with science, they choose to dismiss scientific evidence. "The sky is blue? I just don't believe it."

Not that any definition of God could be considered logical, but I would propose that the most logical definition would be that God created the laws of science, and everything else happened as a consequence. This would include evolution.

So how does this relate to politics? It relates to the power of politicians to determine what your children are taught in public school. What is taught in science class should be based on the most current consensus of the scientific community. We don't teach that the Earth is flat, even though - believe it or not - some people still believe this. (You don't believe me? See this blog entry.) If creationism is taught at all, it should be in the context of "religious studies," an objective review of what people of different faiths believe. Frankly, this is probably better suited to the college level anyway. Creationism absolutely does not belong in a science classroom. Any politician who promotes this is demonstrating that their capacity for sound decision-making is compromised by their religious beliefs. Is this the kind of person you want with their finger anywhere near the nuclear trigger?

Here is the part of the "Meet the Press" transcript that I was referring to:

MR. BROKAW: In the governor's race, (Sarah Palin) refused to be specific about her views on creationism vs. evolution, but as I understand it, she did say that she thought that the two subjects should be taught side by side in public schools. Do you think that's a good idea?

GOV. PAWLENTY: I saw her comments on it yesterday, and I thought they were appropriate, which is, you know, let's--if there are competing theories, and they are credible, her view of it was, according to comments in the newspaper, allow them all to be presented, or allow them both to be presented so students could be exposed to both, and--or more, and have a chance to be exposed to the, to the various theories and make up their own minds.

MR. BROKAW: In the vast scientific community, do you think that creationism has the same weight as evolution, and at a time in American education when we are in a crisis when it comes to science that there ought to be parallel tracks for creationism vs. evolution in the teaching?

GOV. PAWLENTY: In the scientific community, it seems like intelligent design is dismissed. Not entirely, there are a lot of scientists who would make the case that it is appropriate to be taught and appropriate to be demonstrated. But in terms of the curriculum in the schools, in Minnesota we've taken the approach that that's a local decision, but I know Senator Palin, or Governor Palin, has said intelligent design is something she thinks should be taught along with evolution in the schools, and I think that's appropriate from my standpoint.

MR. BROKAW: Given, given...

GOV. PAWLENTY: But I believe--my personal view is that's a local decision.

MR. BROKAW: Given equal weight.

GOV. PAWLENTY: At the local school board.

MR. BROKAW: And you would recommend it be given equal weight.

GOV. PAWLENTY: We've said in Minnesota, in my view this is a local decision. Intelligent design is something that in my view is a plausible and credible and something that I personally believe in; but more importantly, from an educational and scientific standpoint, it should be decided by local school boards, by--at the local school district level.