Can anyone rise to a position of power or influence within the Republican Party without first avowing opposition to basic science in the name of religious ideology and anti-intellectual superstition? That seems unlikely and Sarah Palin, vice-presidential nominee chosen by John McCain, reinforces this impression through her defense of creationism against evolution. Although Palin never had much of a chance to put her desires into practice, we have clear evidence of what she wanted.
When running for governor of Alaska in 2006, Sarah Palin made it abundantly clear that she supported teaching religious ideology in public schools where they should be teaching science and fact:
Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "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."
Her main opponents, Democrat Tony Knowles and Independent Andrew Halcro, said such alternatives to evolution should be kept out of science classrooms. Halcro called such lessons "religious-based" and said the place for them might be a philosophy or sociology class.
Source: Anchorage Daily News
This wasn't the first time Sarah Palin expressed her support for creationism, According to Philip Munger, Palin was part of efforts to get an evangelical, creationist school board in Mat-Su Borough: "I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."
The religious origins and foundation of creationism are undeniable, not just generally but also in the case of Sarah Palin. We can trace Palin's views directly to one of her churches. In an April 27, 2008 sermon Mike Rose, senior pastor of the Juneau Christian Center where she and her family have worshipped since 2006, said: “If you really want to know where you came from and happen to believe the word of God that you are not a descendant of a chimpanzee, this is what the word of God says. I believe this version.”
Anti-science sells well in some religious quarters, but it can quickly become a focus of derision among others. This may be why Sarah Palin tried to backtrack a little from the comments recorded above:
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."
She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature. "I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said. ...
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.
If Sarah Palin really wasn't going to use her power to promote the religious agenda behind creationism, it probably would have been a first. It also probably wouldn’t have happened; even if Palin had never specifically used creationism as a "litmus test," the chances are very good the people appointed by her would have shared her overall religious beliefs, including creationism. She wouldn't need to use creationism as a litmus test simply because anyone opposed to creationism would probably fail to fit in with enough of the rest of the Christian Nationalist ideology to be acceptable anyway.
Sarah Palin is not the least bit unusual in her views, at least among conservative evangelicals and in the Republican Party. John McCain is hardly a staunch supporter of science over superstition and it's unlikely that he chose Palin as his running mate without taking into her account her appeal to the "base" of voters who put their religious ideology ahead of sound science. Any politician who denied or even seriously questioned that our planet it spherical or that it orbits the sun would not only have no chance of being elected to national office but would probably be laughed at. Politicians who deny evolutionary biology in a similar manner, though, have their election chances enhanced among conservative Christians.
