Now that Sarah Palin is John McCain’s vice presidential pick, the record of all of Sarah Palin’s opinions and judgments will now be carefully vetted by the national media. Palin is on record with two opinions, widely seen as anti-science, that, I’m sure, Palin will be pressed again and again to explain: 1) the cause of global warming and 2) the teaching of creationism is public schools.
Sarah Palin, in a recent interview said she does not believe climate change is caused by human behavior. She said, “A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.”
To believe that human behavior has no impact on climate change, global warming, is a big deal. Such belief has huge policy implications. Palin will need to explain her stand on global warming. Palin seems to the right on McCain on this issue. McCain is on record as stating that human activity is responsible for global warming. Also, Palin wants to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). McCain opposes drilling in ANWR.
The second area of anti-science controversy, coming from previous Palin comments, inevitably, will center on Palin’s statements about teaching the theory of intelligent design in public schools.
The Anchorage Daily News, ran this article, “‘Creation Science’ Enters The Race” two years ago, when Palin was a candidate for the office of governor of Alaska, that indicates that Palin believes that school children should learn both the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design
“The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor’s race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state’s public classrooms.
“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. 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.
“The question has divided local school boards in several places around the country and has come up in Alaska before, including once before the state Board of Education in 1993.
“The teaching of creationism, which relies on the biblical account of the creation of life, has been ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court as an unconstitutional injection of religion into public education. ….
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.
“The Republican Party of Alaska platform says, in its section on education: “We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory.” 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.”
I wrote this in a comment elsewhere and it seems appropriate to re-post here:
“If you walked into a medical exam room and saw a tank labeled ‘leeches’ sitting on the table and a large astrology chart posted on the wall, would you expect quality medical care? Would you even stick around? If not, then why should children be subjected to the academic equivalent in science class?”
If it wasn’t for global warming we wouldn’t even be here.
Here is my two cents on the issues:
1. Global warming – we can’t accurately predict weather more than a week out, so how can anyone put so much faith in all these computer models? Just like the stock market, real estate market, and sun spots, many things go in cycles — cycles of many many years. Who is to say we aren’t in the upswing of a heating cycle that will eventually be followed by decreased temperatures? For all the CO2 alarmists, remember that our atmosphere is ~78% nitogren, ~21% oxygen. Do the math — that leaves less than 1% for other trace gases, including CO2. Have humans increased the levels of CO2? of course, but to what percent?
2. Evolution vs creationism – If anyone believes that evolution explains everything, they are seriously mistaken. Sure scientists have created protiens and some of the ‘building blocks’ of life in a test tube, but that is a far cry from proving evolution. There is a big difference between creating a box full of car engine parts and having an assembled and working car engine. If NASA received a transmission from outerspace that contained information, people across the world would profess that as proof of alien life. However, we’ve been staring down the microscope at DNA (boat loads of nothing but pure information) for years and still people think we came to be and evolved from chance out of some prehistoric soup. In fact, the more we look, the more we find out there are things we still don’t fully understand. I don’t think we should stop teaching evolution. I actually believe in micro evolution (but not macro) I just think evolution should be presented factully in that there are many many things it can’t explain and can’t be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Why should something be taught as fact, when it isn’t?
Do the above positions seem to be anti science? I don’t think so. I am pro science, but even as much as we learn, we humans are a far cry from being masters of fully understanding the science of life or our environment.
Eric,
Sarah Palin is on record with comments about two key science topics — 1) global warming is not man made 2) “intelligent design” should be taught in schools as an alternative theory to evolution — that puts her in opposition to the judgment of the vast majority of scientists.
Understanding global warming is a difficult matter and understanding life on earth, its many forms, is an even more difficult matter. Scientists have been researching and thinking about these topics for many years, and, it is fair to say that, over the years, there has developed an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about these two difficult topics. Of course, there is much much more for science to learn, and in 20 years, science, hopefully, will have a more complete and more profound view of both topics. It is hard to fathom, however, that the current consensus of science will fundamentally change.
You make some thoughtful observations and comments about both topics, but, I’m thinking, in a sense, your comments are out of date. Your doubts and questions seem more appropriate for an earlier time.
What is known about global warming in 2008 is vastly more than what was known about global warming, say, in 1988. And what is known about evolution in 2008 is vastly more than what was known about evolution in 1858, or 1958 or 1988. Science has not stood still and the body of evidence supporting scientific theory about global warming and evolution, over time, has grown dramatically.
One downfall of humanity is our tendency as humans to choose to believe what we want to believe. At one time people wanted to believe that the sun and the entire universe revolved around the earth and they found “scientists” who validated that belief. At one time, cigarette smokers wanted to believe that smoking cigarettes was actual beneficial to their health and the tobacco industry found “scientists” who supported such a belief. At one time people wanted to believe in the superiority of their own race and advanced “eugenicists” to validate such belief.
The issue of global warming, to many people is not an issue of science, but an issue of belief. Protecting the earth, the environment, is costly and inconvenient. Many people want to believe that there is no consequence to human disregard for the planet. We tend to believe what we want to believe. Of course, “scientists” can always to found who will validate such belief. And, often, there is political advantage to be gained by pandering to the false beliefs of voters.
The issue of evolution seems, again, to many people, not an issue of science, but an issue of belief. Religious belief often asserts that humanity is the center of the universe. It was the force of this religious belief in human exceptionalism that threatened Galileo with execution.
The way forward for humanity is through rationality, through thoughtfulness. Humans, throughout history, who have chosen to irrationally believe what they wanted to believe, often did so as an excuse to act out in selfishness, prejudice, and hatred. People wanted to believe that cigarettes were beneficial to their health, because they did not want to give up their addiction to nicotine. People wanted to believe that slavery was OK because they did not want to give up their addiction to their own status and profit. People want to believe that humans are not responsible for global warming because if humans are responsible, then we will need to give up our addiction to the status quo. We are addicted to all sorts of things in America. We are addicted to oil and to the consumerism that defines our daily lives.
More and more, it appears many Americans are becoming addicted to an outdated and dangerous religious view that stresses Biblical literalism. This religious view demands the denial of evolution.
It is disturbing to see someone rise to national political prominence who scoffs at science, in favor of advancing a religious view. I thought Mike Huckabee unqualified to be president because of his antievolution stand. I fully agree with you that, “we humans are a far cry from being masters of fully understanding the science of life or our environment.” At the center of authentic science is a profound humility. It is a humility that is pointedly lacking in the certainty of religious leaders and political demagogues.
In the title this post, I said that Palin’s views “seem” anti-science, because, as the campaign proceeds, I fully expect Palin to seek to explain explain her opinions in a way that supports science. Thankfully, in American in 2008, public opinion respects science, and, when given a chance, rewards thoughtfulness and rationality. I’m thinking Palin will seek to downplay her previous anti-science comments.
Hi Mike,
Eric from the post above is not me. My post on science education has gone unanswered since last year.
If Eric Fingerhut were asked to find expert science eduators who could motivate more Ohioans to study science, do you think any of the usual “experts” (the ones that use science to mock religious minorities) would be on his list.?
Eric