Factchecking Sarah Palin's record

ExurbanKevin: was that a quote from www.palinfacts.com?

Precisely. This is why it is wrong to rush to judgment, however you end up feeling about Gov. Palin.

Boldface emphasis added in all my reponses.

+ She did not try to ban books in the Wasilla library.

From the cited article: "It's true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla's librarian, on at least two occasions. Emmons flatly stated her opposition both times. But, as the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman (Wasilla's local paper) reported at the time, Palin asked general questions about what Emmons would say if Palin requested that a book be banned. According to Emmons, Palin "was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library." Emmons reported that Palin pressed the issue, asking whether Emmons' position would change if residents were picketing the library. Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny, who was at the meeting, corroborates Emmons' story, telling the Chicago Tribune that "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?'""

I don't know about other posters here, but I never said she did ban books, and I am aware that the list of books supposedly banned is spurious. Palin claims that the questions were "rhetorical", although as the article points out, she probably meant "hypothetical". As the article points out, we can't read her mind, and no books actually were banned. However, behavior like this in a mayor of my town would be a huge red flag for me, and frankly I don't buy the "hypothetical" deal here. Such talk scares me.

Also in the same paragraph the article mentions the "loyalty testing" Palin did with firing and hiring of employees. To me that's not a "loyalty test", that's a mind-f***, and such things do not belong in good governance. Besides, which President is known for putting loyalty over competence? Hmmmm.....

+ She did not support Pat Buchanan in 1996.

I think this whole issue was trivial from the get-go, and was a silly charge to sling.

+ She did not cut funds for special-needs students (in fact, she tripled funding).

Fair enough.

+ She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party.

From the article: "Palin was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party.... But her husband was a member for years, and she attended at least one party convention, as mayor of the town in which it was held."

"There is still some dispute as to whether Sarah Palin also attended the AIP's 1994 convention, held in Wasilla. Clark and another AIP official toldABC News' Jake Tapper that both Palins were there. Palin was elected mayor of Wasilla two years later. The McCain campaign says Sarah Palin went to the 2000 AIP convention, also held in Wasilla, "as a courtesy since she was mayor." As governor, Palin sent a video message to the 2008 convention, which is available on YouTube, and the AIP says she attended in 2006 when she was campaigning."

Maybe the 2000 convention was a courtesy, but it sure sounds like she's a sympathizer or fellow-traveler, if not a formal member.

+ She did not push for creationism to be taught in Alaska schools

From the article: "On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That's true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor."

"Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: 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."

I never said she pushed for it--I took issue (look at the post several threads back) with her being a young-Earth creationist. Her rhetoric is typical of the ID/Creationism community "don't fear information, let there be a debate." But if a flat-earth proponent said the exact same thing, they would be laughed off the stage and out of office. I'm sorry if I'm treading on any toes here, but young-Earth creationism is on a par with flat-earth or geocentric beliefs. She said she's the daughter of a science teache; well, as a science teacher (and Christian) myself, I say shame on whichever parent it was for not teaching Sarah Palin critical thinking skills. And if you want a conservative Evangelical to back me up, read Francis Collins.

Yes, she didn't push for it; Alaskans probably wouldn't have put up with that. Still, as I've said before, electing someone who believes in young-Earth creationism is tantamount to electing someone who believes the Sun goes around the Earth.

Having fact-checked the fact-checking, Rod, I notice you've never done anything of this nature for Obama. Perhaps some of the "far left" policies you think he'd pursue are, shall we say, misrepresented in the media? Or do fact checks apply only to maligned Republicans?

Not mentioned is her signature issue, the Bridge to Nowhere. According to the non-partisan PolitiFact checking service, Palin performed a "full flop" on this issue -- that is, she lied (and continues to lie) about opposing it from the start, when in fact she supported from the start, and turned against it only when the deal went south, and kept the money even after the bridge itself became too controversial to built.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/680/

"But if a flat-earth proponent said the exact same thing, they would be laughed off the stage and out of office."

So, are you suggesting that if one believes that one has good reason to believe that God's existence may be inferred from evidence in the natural universe, that person holds a belief no different from a flat-earther? If that is the case, then we should be teaching kids in public school that to believe that God's existence is rationally defensible is no different than saying a flat-earth is rationally defensible? Are you suggesting that?

As I have noted on numerous occasions (as well as in a forthcoming article in the Santa Clara Law Review) I am not an ID advocate, for a variety of reasons. However, to believe that God created the universe, and to believe that one has good reason to believe it, has a long and noble intellectual pedigree, and has been embraced by a wide variety of thinkers across many different religious traditions.

It seems to me that at minimum a public school should tell its students that the deliverances of the sciences do not exhaust the scope of reason or rational argument and that arguments in other disciplines--such as philosophy or theology--may be strong enough to trump those offered by scientists. That would be an honest and fair presentation of the philosophical picture.

To compare the case for theism to the case of a flat-earth is not honest. Some of the most respected academic publishers in the U.S. have published books defending the rationality of theism, including Oxford, Cambridge, Blackwell, etc. None, to my knowledge, have ever published an apologetic for a flat earth.

I'm sure you've all probably seen this, but here's a blog that does an even more thorough job of debunking various Palin smears:

http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors/

He's up to #71 now.

The same blogger has also started a thread debunking Obama rumors and smears.

Another great list here: http://chrisofrights.blogspot.com/2008/09/vetting-sarah-palin.html

The hysterical Left is journeying farther and farther out into the weeds, and they're coming back from their excursions with increasingly weak material.

Incidentally, I think Andrew Sullivan might have suffered from a nervous breakdown or something. He's had a pretty picture of flowers posted at the top of his blog since yesterday.

"she lied (and continues to lie) about opposing it from the start"

When has she ever said she opposed it from the start?

See this with regard to the bridge to nowhere...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E7D81F3AF931A1575AC0A9619C8B63A04E7D81F3AF931A1575AC0A9619C8B63

Sally: Wow, Turmarion -- a politician was doing things to see about how to court the favor of voters in her state by attending or sending messages to political constituents or calling a librarian about potential protests.

I pointed out that her association with the AIC seemed more than just "courting the favors" of voters. I could, of course, be wrong.

And I think the book-banning questions were more than just asking a librarian about potential protests. I can't imagine any good reason to have even had such conversations.

I pointed out that her association with the AIC seemed more than just "courting the favors" of voters. I could, of course, be wrong.

Of course you are.

And I think the book-banning questions were more than just asking a librarian about potential protests. I can't imagine any good reason to have even had such conversations.

Translation: "I desperately need to slime this woman, and ANY argument I can think of, no matter how absurd is still sufficient for me to keep trashing her with the same accusation. "

What, you don't like people putting words to paper about YOUR motives?
Then what the heck are you doing the same thing for?

Francis Beckwith: So, are you suggesting that if one believes that one has good reason to believe that God's existence may be inferred from evidence in the natural universe, that person holds a belief no different from a flat-earther?

If you read my post on this thread, you'll see that I'm not suggesting any such thing.

Now, as for someone who thinks the universe is no more than 6000 years old and that evolution did not occur: yes, I do think that belief is no different from that of a flat-earther, with all due respect for their religious beliefs. None of this has anything to do with the case for theism, though. I am a theist.

I would say, however, that the science classroom is not the place to discuss the case for theism. That's appropriate for a philosophy class, not a science class. For most ID supporters, though, presenting a "balanced case" is a Trojan Horse for getting religion into the schools. If some teacher presented a truly balanced case by giving not only science and ID, but the creation stories of non-Christian religions, we'd see how much "balance" most supporters of young-Earth creationism really want.

Finally, a shout-out to hysterics, who actually paid attention to and understood what I was saying!

Watcher: Maybe you would be fine with a mayor who keeps bringing up book-banning to the town librarian, but I wouldn't be. As many conservative and sympathetic posters and articles on other blogs have been pointing out of late, there are plenty of concrete, rational reasons for even conservatives and Republicans to have severe reservations about Sarah Palin. If you have been reading the posts for the last couple of days, you should be aware of this. I think my previous posts make it clear that I am not trying to slime anyone, but rather to point out concrete reservations that have been totally overlooked in all the Summer of Love for Palin that's been going on with the Right.

Or maybe you think that I, Dineen, Larison, and anyone who says anything negative at all about Palin, even on substantive issues, are trying to "slime" her. You're entitled to that opinion. In any case, I'm not going to get into something with you over it. This is the kind of thing that made me draw back somewhat from posting of late; I think I may have to do so again.

To compare the case for theism to the case of a flat-earth is not honest. Some of the most respected academic publishers in the U.S. have published books defending the rationality of theism, including Oxford, Cambridge, Blackwell, etc. None, to my knowledge, have ever published an apologetic for a flat earth.

Nice touch there, Mr Beckwith. Attaching creationism to theism and hiding it's voluminous skirts. Please remember this whenever athiests decide that considering the Koreshes, Robertsons, Haggards, and Kalins as examples of Christianity is rational.

lol. Why is everything so binary? True or false. Joel pointed out the ones that have some truth.

Rod some of these make Gov. Palin look a lot better than they should please don't present them as binary.

Yes Rod, please no more binary points unless they back up our assertion that Palin is the anti-Christ.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122098190668515511.html?mod=opinion_journal_political_diary

Seems to me that the biggest effort the Democrats are making is slime generation.

If she's so dumb, so stupid, so bad, it would be easy to just meet her on the ground and have it out.

Nope... armies of dirt diggers... That's the sum of the substance of the DNC.

Houghton
While we're on the subject of fact-checking, I'd like to address a consistently false meme that has come up on these comment threads over the past week. That is, the absolute lie that *only* frothy, crazed left-wing blogs attacked Palin -- and never the mainstream media (I believe that miscreants like Keith Olbermann have also attempted to spread this myth).

Now that we gotten that lie out of the way, how about you actually provide some of these 'frothy, crazed left-wing blogs' promoting stories that aren't true?

Incidentally, while she indeed sold the state jet, she did not sell it on eBay, although I don't think she herself has claimed this, she simply said she place it on eBay, and that she sold it. McCain, however, has said she sold it on eBay, which is factually incorrect.

Yes, it's a stupid, piddling inaccuracy that isn't important at all, but consider it payback for all the imaginary Al Gore fibbing you guys invented.

Meanwhile, she is flat out lying about the bridge to nowhere. She pushed for it, and only shut it down after it became a joke.

And the US Weekly is not the mainstream media in anyone else's universe.

Here is what the authors of the Newsweek piece wrote about Palin and creationism:

"Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to 'debate both sides' of the evolution question, but she also said creationism 'doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.'"

I don't know what the authors of the piece meant by "pushed for," but Palin said that creationism should be taught in the public schools. Here is a link:

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/ele...-8243554c.html

This link isn't working now, but the link has the exact transcript from the debate when Palin said that creationism should be taught in the public schools:

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/102978

That's outrageous. That would be like teaching students the flat-earth theory in the public schools.

No matter how many times Palin claims she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere, it's a lie. Countless media have reported this. Here's the Wall Street Journal on the subject, today:

"Gov. Palin, who John McCain named as his running mate less than two weeks ago, quickly adopted a stump line bragging about her opposition to the pork-barrel project Sen. McCain routinely decries.

But Gov. Palin's claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.

"We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge," Gov. Palin said in August 2006, according to the local newspaper, "and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative." The bridge would have linked Ketchikan to the airport on Gravina Island. Travelers from Ketchikan (pop. 7,500) now rely on ferries.

A year ago, the governor issued a press release that the money for the project was being "redirected."

"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," she said. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

The headline reads: "RECORD CONTRADICTS PALIN'S "BRIDGE TO NOWHERE" CLAIMS"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122090791901411709.html?mod=hps_us_inside_today

Got that?

Susan

As a matter of fact, my own views on the evolution/creation debate are pretty much in agreement with Francis Collins and so I would disagree with Gov. Palin on this.

My comment "True, but she has said she believes in creation, which scares me. I sure wish people like this did not get elected to important positions, which might give them the opportunity to push an agenda that I detest."

was a hypothetical statement of what Joel might actually have said to make it clear that he was offering his opinion on Palin's views rather than a factual statement. He seems to have missed the distinction between holding a viewpoint and enacting it. I was merely pointing out that he assumes Palin will use her position to push her views. The available evidence (from factcheck.org) does not support his conclusion.

I have no problem with people holding opinions--I even have a few myself--what I object to is any move, rhetorical or otherwise, that attempts to claim factual veracity for an opinion about the facts.

I'm curious, Rod, why you listed only the areas on factcheck.org that "cleared" Palin. You could have listed also the following:

Analysis

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was a hit with the party faithful at the GOP convention, but some of her claims were amiss. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee also delivered a few faulty remarks.

A Bridge Too Far

Palin claimed to have stood up to Congress on the subject of the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” the Gravina Island bridge in Ketchikan, Alaska, about which we wrote last November.

Palin: I told the Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that bridge to nowhere.

This is not the first time Palin has cited her choice to kill the bridge in 2007 as an example of her anti-waste stance. It’s true that she did eventually nix the project. But the bridge was nearly dead already – Congress had removed the earmark, giving the requested money to the state but not marking it for any specific use. Palin unplugged its life support, declaring in 2007 that the funds would not be used for the Gravina bridge.

When she was running for governor, however, Palin expressed a different position. In 2006, the Ketchikan Daily News quoted her expressing optimism and support for the bridge at a Ketchikan campaign stop.

Palin, 2006: "People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,” said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth. … Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she “would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.”

Palin also answered "yes" to an Anchorage Daily News poll question about whether she would continue to support state funding for the Gravina Island bridge if elected governor. "The window is now," she wrote, "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." It was only after she won the governorship that Palin shifted her position. And even then, it’s inaccurate to say that she “told the Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks.’” Palin accepted non-earmarked money from Congress that could have been used for the bridge if she so desired. That she opted to use it for other state transportation purposes doesn’t qualify as standing up to Congress.

The bridge reversal is not the only matter throwing doubt on Palin’s credentials as a government waste reformer. Watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense has reported that the small town of Wasilla, Alaska, which had not previously received significant federal funds, hauled in almost $27 million in earmarks while Palin was mayor. (McCain has explicitly criticized several of the Wasilla earmarks in recent years.) To help obtain these earmarks, Palin had hired Steven Silver, the former chief of staff for recently indicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, as Wasilla’s lobbyist.

And Palin continued to solicit federal funds as governor. A request form on Stevens’ Web site shows that she requested $160.5 million in earmarks for the state in 2008, and almost $198 million for 2009.

Tough Grader

Palin disparaged Obama’s legislative record, both in Illinois and in Washington:
Palin: But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the state Senate.

Of course, we can’t say what Palin considers “major.” But if Palin’s own ethics reforms in Alaska were important enough to highlight in her convention address, then it’s only fair to credit Obama’s efforts on that topic. In 1998 in the Illinois Senate, Obama cosponsored an ethics overhaul that bars elected officials from using their campaign funds for personal use and and was called the the first major overhaul of Illinois campaign and ethics laws in 25 years. It also bans fundraisers in the state Capitol during legislative sessions. Obama’s Republican cosponsor Kirk Dillard even appeared in an Obama ad last summer describing Obama’s skills working with members of both parties to get legislation passed.

In Washington, Obama was instrumental in helping to craft the 2007 ethics reform law that ended gifts and meals from lobbyists, cut off subsidized jet travel for members of Congress, required lobbyists to disclose contributions they “bundle” to candidates, and put the brakes on other, similar common practices.

In addition, we already noted in a recent article Obama’s efforts with Republican senators to help detect and secure weapons of mass destruction and to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles around the world, and to create a publicly searchable database on federal spending.

Overburdened?

One area where we note improvement is the way Palin attacked Obama's tax proposals – as a burden "on the American economy" rather than, as McCain has been falsely claiming, a direct tax increase on middle-income workers:
Palin: And let me be specific: The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, and raise payroll taxes, and raise investment income taxes, and raise the death tax, and raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. ... How are you – how are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy?

Her tax remarks still cry out for context. Obama proposes to cut taxes for most individuals (81.3 percent of all households would get a tax cut), while raising them only for a relative few at the top, which she did not mention. But she avoided the false claims that McCain continues to make, most recently in a TV ad that wrongly accuses Obama of planning "painful tax increases on working American families." Instead, Palin spoke of the effect of an overall tax increase on jobs and the economy.

It's quite true that Obama's plan would increase taxes overall, by a total of $627 billion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Economists may debate how large or small an effect such an increase would have on jobs and businesses; it's certainly a topic open for discussion in a political campaign.

Riffing Wrongly

In attacking Obama, Palin reeled off a few statements that had a nice cadence, but were light on facts.

Palin: America needs more energy; our opponent is against producing it. Victory in Iraq is finally in sight, and he wants to forfeit. Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay; he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights.

We have factual problems with three of these statements.
Obama's not against producing more energy. In fact, he's not even against drilling for oil any more, within limits. He has a $150 billion clean energy program and says that he wants to develop clean coal technology, advance the next generation of biofuels, prioritize construction of the Alaska gas pipeline (surely a measure Palin agrees with) and take a host of other steps to both conserve energy and produce it, in various forms.

If Obama's comments about meeting with "terrorist states" are worthy of ridicule, then perhaps so are those of the Bush administration and other Republicans. Obama made his first statement on this in an answer to a video question at a Democratic debate last year, when he said "I would" when asked whether he'd meet "separately, without precondition" in his first year with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Reagan, JFK and other presidents had spoken to the Soviet Union regularly, he noted.
In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in June, Obama elaborated, saying that he would take an aggressive diplomatic approach – carefully preparing for such meetings, setting a clear agenda, coordinating with U.S. allies, and not conducting the meetings at all unless they were clearly in the U.S. interest. He also stressed he would "do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

In recent months, the Bush Administration has been more open to beginning a dialogue with the same nations that it once referred to as the “axis of evil.” In July, the president sent a high-level official to Geneva to sit in on nuclear talks with Iran and authorized Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to speak with North Korean diplomats about ending that country’s nuclear weapons program. Reports in the Washington Post and the New York Times noted the stark contrast between the administration’s current position about meeting with “foes” and its attitude several years ago.

Further, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in May that we should "sit down and talk" with Iran. So did former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in March. As did Sen. Dick Lugar, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as far back as 2006.
Obama isn't worried, as Palin said, "that someone won't read them their rights" when it comes to suspected terrorists who are detained by the U.S. He does, however, support the right of detainees to challenge their imprisonment in federal court. That's the same position the Supreme Court took in June in a case called Boumediene v. Bush.

Cookin' with Gas

Palin talked about standing up to oil companies and oil lobbyists, citing her work on getting a gas pipeline built in Alaska:
Palin: I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.

Actually, construction hasn’t begun on the pipeline, and the project isn't quite a done deal. Palin signed legislation just last week that authorizes the state to give a license in 90 days to TransCanada to start developing the project. The state also can provide $500 million as seed money. She gets credit for moving the pipeline closer to realization after many years of talks. Palin pushed for legislation that would allow a private company to build the 1,715-mile natural gas pipeline, instead of oil companies, which she said were moving too slowly on the issue.

In an Aug. 27 press release, Palin indicated that there was still work to be done before the project would become a reality:
Palin, press release, Aug. 27: After dreaming of a natural gas pipeline for more than 30 years, Alaskans have now created the framework for the project to advance. This legislation brings us closer than we’ve ever been to building a gas pipeline and finally accessing our gas that has been languishing for so many decades on the North Slope.

Washington Post energy correspondent Steven Mufson wrote that the major oil companies have opposed the pipeline project, saying it wasn’t economically feasible. Yet, ConocoPhillips and BP have proposed their own gas pipeline that would compete with the state-backed project. TransCanada estimates it will take 10 years to finish the pipeline, according to its application to the state, and it will cost about $26.5 billion – not $40 billion as Palin said.

As for Palin having “stood up to ... the Big Oil companies,” as she said in her speech, she has on this issue, not on others. Oil is, after all, incredibly important to Alaska’s economy. About 80 percent of the state budget comes from oil and gas taxes and royalties. Palin is in favor of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore areas, a position she shares with oil companies.

First let me be clear that I don't think that the Obama campaign has been condescending to Palin or her supporters. I do agree that such condescension exists and that its a problem for the left in certain quarters. However, it is incredibly difficult for me to take anyone who supports teaching creationism/intelligent design in biology classes seriously.

Intelligent Design as it was promoted in the US recently was a trojan horse designed to introduce biblical literalism. That is a fact.

Of Pandas and People, the school text book promulgate by the Intelligent Design crowd, was originally a work of Christian apologetics, explicitly promoting creationism. The version published now is largely the same, save for the fact that they more or less did a search and replace, substituting Intelligent Design where Creationism once sat in the text.

Scott in PA,
I'd love for you to provide example of Intelligent Design advocates that are not biblical literalists in disguise. Who are these people and what are their criticisms of the theory of evolution?

Turmarion: I don't know about other posters here, but I never said she did ban books, and I am aware that the list of books supposedly banned is spurious. Palin claims that the questions were "rhetorical", although as the article points out, she probably meant "hypothetical". As the article points out, we can't read her mind, and no books actually were banned. However, behavior like this in a mayor of my town would be a huge red flag for me, and frankly I don't buy the "hypothetical" deal here. Such talk scares me.

This is a significant issue for me as well. Yes, the circulating list is fake; just internet "noise." (It is a compendium of many books banned in libraries and schools over the years.)

However, "feeling out" a librarian on whether or not she would tolerate banning books (and bringing protesters into the question?) does to me sound like an attempt to intimidate the librarian into accepting politicized restrictions on library books - even if it was at the "planning stage" and never evolved (oops, can I use that word?) into a full-fledged ban of anything.

Also, sigaliris, I too am dismayed by the bad manners being shown around here. People can find their posts in "moderation time out" for no apparent reason, yet apparently calling people a**holes (for example) causes no problem.

Scott in PA wrote: “The Left categorizes anyone who supports Intelligent Design as ‘creationist.’”

What do you mean by “The Left?” I suspect that some people you mean by “The Left” are themselves creationists.
And what do you mean by “Intelligent Design” and “creationist?”

Scott wrote: “This is one of their most successful brainwashing efforts yet. It used to be that the term ‘creationist’ was reserved for anyone who believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis, who believes that the description of the creation of the Earth and Man as told in Genesis is literally true.”

Could you elaborate on this idea of a “brainwashing effort?”

Scott in PA wrote: “Now, Palin may well be a creationist in this traditional sense of the world.”

What do you mean by “creationist?” I don’t know whether she believes that God poofed the first two humans into existence. I suspect she does. My experience is that most people who want creationism taught in the public schools do believe that that happened.

Scott in PA wrote: “Does anyone have evidence that she wants biblical literalism taught in public schools? (Your links don’t show that, Steve.)”

What do you mean by “biblical literalism?” Here is what 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. 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.”
She said that public schools should teach “creationism and evolution.”

I don’t know what she meant by the word “creationism.” But my experience is that most people who use the word mean that God poofed the first two humans into existence. So, I suspect that is what she meant. And, obviously, that shouldn’t be taught in the public schools, because it didn’t happen.

Scott in PA wrote: “If she does, I think she’s wrong. But I suspect that she just wants criticisms of Darwinism given a hearing in public schools, in which case she’d be right.”

First, that is not what she said. She said that “creationism” should be taught in the public schools. She used the word “creationism.”

Second, I don’t know what you mean by “criticisms of Darwinism.” But there shouldn’t be “criticisms” in the public schools of the idea that self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago evolved through reproduction into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth, because millions of experts know that that happened. Here is a link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Here is a quote from Ernst Mayr’s (one of the greatest biologists to ever live) What Evolution Is:

“Astronomical and geophysical evidence indicate that the Earth originated about 4.6 billion years ago. At first the young Earth was not suitable for life, owing to the heat and exposure to radiation. Astronomers estimate that it became liveable about 3.8 billion years ago, and life apparently originated about that time, but we do not know what the first life looked like. Undoubtedly, it consisted of aggregates of macromolecules able to derive substance and energy from surrounding inanimate molecules and from the sun’s energy. Life may well have originated repeatedly at this early stage, but we know nothing about this. If there have been several origins of life, the other forms have since become extinct. Life as it now exists on Earth, including the simplest bacteria, was obviously derived from a single origin. This is indicated by the genetic code, which is the same for all organisms, including the simplest ones, as well as by many aspects of cells, including microbial cells. The earliest fossil life was found in strata about 3.5 billion years old. These earliest fossils are bacterialike, indeed they are remarkably similar to some blue-green bacteria and other bacteria that are still living” (p. 40).

Second, I don't know what you mean by "criticisms of Darwinism." But there shouldn't be "criticisms" in the public schools of the idea that self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago evolved through reproduction into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth, because millions of experts know that that happened. Here is a link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Second, I don't know what you mean by "criticisms of Darwinism." But there shouldn't be "criticisms" in the public schools of the idea that self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago evolved through reproduction into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth, because millions of experts know that that happened.

You can google "common descent Doug Theobald."

Scott in PA, here is a quote from Ernst Mayr's (one of the greatest biologists to ever live) book What Evolution Is:

"Astronomical and geophysical evidence indicate that the Earth originated about 4.6 billion years ago. At first the young Earth was not suitable for life, owing to the heat and exposure to radiation. Astronomers estimate that it became liveable about 3.8 billion years ago, and life apparently originated about that time, but we do not know what the first life looked like. Undoubtedly, it consisted of aggregates of macromolecules able to derive substance and energy from surrounding inanimate molecules and from the sun’s energy. Life may well have originated repeatedly at this early stage, but we know nothing about this. If there have been several origins of life, the other forms have since become extinct. Life as it now exists on Earth, including the simplest bacteria, was obviously derived from a single origin. This is indicated by the genetic code, which is the same for all organisms, including the simplest ones, as well as by many aspects of cells, including microbial cells. The earliest fossil life was found in strata about 3.5 billion years old. These earliest fossils are bacterialike, indeed they are remarkably similar to some blue-green bacteria and other bacteria that are still living" (p. 40).

Second, I don't know what you mean by "criticisms of Darwinism." But there shouldn't be "criticisms" in the public schools of the idea that self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago evolved through reproduction into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth, because millions of experts know that that happened.

Hmmm... "millions of experts".

All you need to do is let these people have a little time and they hoist themselves upon their own petard of unserious thinking. In no time at all they start blaring utterly absurd nonsense. IF you were the model of reason, sober and careful thought, perhaps you'd make an inroad in people's thoughts. As it is, you simply reveal yourself for the political opportunist you are.

Oh, oh! That was breathtaking, Watcher!

Type slower, please. I'm trying to take notes.

For Shame, Steve. Watcher has never been more lucid in his erudition. You are clearly -- and with a pinch of mercy, perhaps unwittingly -- perpetuating centuries of lies.

Franklin Evans wrote:

"For Shame, Steve. Watcher has never been more lucid in his erudition. You are clearly -- and with a pinch of mercy, perhaps unwittingly -- perpetuating centuries of lies."

Could you elaborate on that? What lies? Please be specific.

Watcher wrote: “Bet you didn't know that there are leading university biology programs that not only teach science, but are fully accepting of creation.”

What are you talking about? That’s false. Or give an example and a link.

Watcher wrote: “Sadly for you, your prejudices have kept you from scientific knowledge that tends to confirm the Biblical history of the world. Science is not hostile to creation or evolution. Science is not hostile to faith or God. Science is merely the discovery of knowledge, and sadly for folks like you, prejudices like you hold will blind you to real knowledge.”

Creationism is false.

Here is a link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Sorry, Steve. I'm too busy with my note taking from the glowing posts of the Master of Civility to get into specifics.

Oh, my stars and garters! Look at the time! Must hit the road. :-)

Tumarion wrote: "The issue is with young-Earth creationism, which essentially assumes the literal accuracy of the first few books of Genesis, and which therefore assumes that the world is under 6000 years old, that a literal Flood five miles deep (if it covered the tallest mountains) actually occured about 4000 BC, that all animals began as they are now, with no evolution, that (according to some) humans and dinosaurs were contemporaries, and so on."

Tumarion, I'm really glad you wrote this, because I think it makes an important distinction. So many times when I see discussions about Intelligent Design, it melts down into conflated and random charges of "creationism" from those who feel it is some sort of threat to discuss such things openly.

Franklin, thank you for making this point a little bit earlier.

Young-earth creationism is one thing and should not be confused with arguments from design. Interestingly, in my discussions with fellow Christians, I have found very few of them who purport to believe in young-earth creationism. In reading Genesis the other day, one of them said to me, "What is one day in the mind of God? A billion years? A trillion?"

Precisely so, and certainly an observation that has been made before.

Franklin, I'm honestly confused about something you and others have written. I am not a scientist, and I make no claims to in-depth knowledge about these things. But I was under the impression that the concept of the anthropic principle was developed by astrophysicists, cosmologists and mathematicians, and thus very much within the realm of science?

Watcher, if you take I Kings 7:23-24 with the same literalness as you apparently take the rest of the OT (and the quoted verse does not say "approximately"), then it follows that pi=3. I guess all those math teachers teaching that pi is 3.14159... are more of those left-wing hate mongers you love to rail about. I'm sure it was people using the same rationale as yours calling for the condemnation of Galileo. I also notice that you give no sources for working scientists who believe young-Earth creationism.

In any case, you are entitled to your belief. I myself am certainly not lying or spewing hate, but it appears that from your perspective all who disagree with you are doing so. If you want to believe that, I can't stop you, but I think it definitely lowers the tone of discussion here. In my opinion, and according to the teachings of my faith, we should not be casting hateful words at each other here, regardless of how vehemently we disagree with each other. Apparently there are those who disagree, but I'm not going to feed them and contribute to further lowering the discussion.

Franklin, I am aware of the differnce between ID properly so-called and young-Earth creationism, and that ID tends to look at YED's as the proverbial red-headed stepchildren. I just didn't have space to go into it. Thanks for pointing that out, though. :)

Did y'all know that Sarah Palin DOES NOT advocate for abstinence only education? The LA Times reported today that she has said when asked that she opposes what she calls "extreme sex education" (probably the sort of lessons on fisting stuff that Focus on the Family gets mileage out of from time to time). However, she says that teaching kids about condoms is "benign" and thinks it should be done.

Of course, you'd never know that from reading slate where one of their feminist bloggers just called Bristol Palin a sl-t. Or from Judith Whatsername who thinks that Repulicans like Palin because we are only comfortable with women who are incompetent and in subordinate positions. Oh, but I forgot, it's not like mainstream media types have come unhinged about Palin - surely this whole thing is just being fanned by right wing types trolling the deep recesses of the blogosphere for red meat quotes to feed the zombies, I mean republican voters.

I don't think there's anything Obama can do now to undo the damage the media has wrought on this one. Kind of a shame, I think.

Tumarion wrote: "In any case, the important thing to remember is that none of the ID advocates is a young-Earth creationist. Behe, Dembski, and company all believe that the universe is many billions of years old; that Earth is at least 4 billion years old; and most importantly, that development of different species by Darwinian evolution did, in fact, occur. Whatever you think about ID, its proponents are 99% similar to run-of-the-mill, non-ID secular scientists, and 1% similar to young-Earth creationism. The only similarity between the latter two at all is that both believe that somebody created the universe!"

First, many people who are proponents of intelligent design are young-earth creationists, for example, Nancy Pearcey, Paul Nelson, Dean Kenyon and John Sanford. Phil Johnson won't take a position on the age of the earth. Moreover, almost every person who publicly advocates the teaching of intelligent design in the public schools believes that God poofed the first two humans into existence. Poof! Poof! Behe is the one confirmed exception that I'm aware of. Behe believes in common descent. He also believes that an intelligent super-being intervened a few times on planet earth -- poof! poof! poof! -- to cause the existence of some parts of some organisms, for instance, the superbeing poofed the very first bacterial flagellum into existence.

Second, what do you mean by "intelligent design?" Please be specific.

Third, we shouldn't teach in biology class that God may have caused the known universe to exist. First, that hypothesis is no more plausible than not. I think they hypothesis is false. I'm an atheist. Second, in biology class, the focus should not be on cosmology or astrophysics, because there are other classes to deal with those issues. And biology is very important. Finally, teaching that hypothesis in biology class might distract some students from the important idea that all humans have ancestors that are bacteria and fish. Some students might have a hard time understanding the causes of the differences of organisms when the focus is on the cause of the existence of the known universe.

Ok. You win. Sarah Palin is the answer to all the problems in America. She will move womens rights to the forefront. She will make it so that american family morals are put back in place. There will be no more war. Taxes will be cut or removed for all americans and the government will be able to function on $100.00 per month. And anyone who does not get on board with her must be crazy... She can part the red sea and save the world from all that is evil. Are we lucky or what?????She will save us all from ourselves...

Turmarion wrote: "What I meant was that most of the original founders of ID were not young-Earthers, at least to my knowledge. I don't think Dembski is either. On the other hand, if ID has come to be dominated by young-Earthers, I think that destroys any scrap of credibility it might ever have had."

Some of the founders of the "intelligent design" movement are young-earth creationists, for instance, Paul Nelson, Dean Kenyon and Nancy Pearcey. The last time I looked Phil Johnson wouldn't take a position on the age of the earth. He is one of the "founders."

However, many proponents of intelligent design believe that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old, for instance, Bill Dembski and Michael Behe.

The problem I have with the "irreducible complexity" argument is that it seems to assume what proponents are trying to prove. Just because we, at our current state of knowledge, can't yet explain how these things developed by evolution, they *must* have deliberately created *in toto*.

For 'intelligent design', read 'unicorn'. And for 'irreducibly complex', read 'in this forest that we haven't explored yet'.

And people have to go and map out the stupid forest, and demonstrate that there are, in fact, no unicorns in that forest either, and by then ID has moved on to another example of 'irreducible complexity'.

Look, there might, in fact, be unicorns. That would violate absolutely no principle of science. Likewise, some entity might have interfered in the evolution of a specific species...we know we've purposefully, and even accidentally, done it a few times.

What is unscientific is just asserting that, simply because no one's ever systematically searched a specific forest, that there are unicorns in it. Likewise, because science has not gotten around to explaining something yet in the rather guesswork field of evolution does not mean some outside force did it.

And, more pragmatically, can I point out that this is as likely to drive children away from religion than towards it, when they find out that they were misinformed and the stuff they were told could not explained by science was, in fact, explained by science? If the 'religious people' are demonstrated as factually wrong...what else, the children will wonder, are they wrong about?(1)

Rather like the effect lying to them about the effects of drugs is having. Like it or not, pot and ecstasy do not have the effects we inform children they have, so they assume we're lying about meth and PCP, too.

Do. Not. Lie. To. Children. for propaganda purposes. Not because it is inherently wrong, but because it always backfires. Teenagers are the most cynical people that have ever existed, and if they find you're lying (or wrong) about one thing, they'll assume you're lying about everything else.

'Wrong' being put in there because many people actually believe certain things are 'irreducibly complex', but the fact is, like I said, almost every example presented so far has failed. Yes, there are still 'good' examples out there, but in ten years, those examples won't be any good, although by then I'm sure we'll have new and exciting examples that are 'finally proof'. There will always be unexplored forests, and no unicorns.

1) This reminds of the 'science can't explain how bumblebees fly' crap I heard in Sunday school two decades ago. Well, guess what? It did. (It's turbulence, if anyone cares.) Good thing that wasn't an aspect of my faith, eh?

David J. White: because we can't quite figure out *exactly* how the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids or raised obelisks, they must have been built by space aliens with technology far advanced of ours.

I saw that movie! And the TV show based on it ... ; )

If Sarah Palin is indeed a young-earth creationist, and if Health and Human Services, the NIH, etc. are part of the executive branch, and (God forbid) if Palin would become president, uh, does anyone see a bit of a problem here? I mean, the vast bulk of funding for HHS, the NIH, CDC, etc. all is predicated on the idea of evolution (whether it is "intelligent" or not - sometimes, looking at stuff like mycoplasma, you've got to wonder...)

stefanie: If Sarah Palin is indeed a young-earth creationist

See, this is how the media has no understanding of issues, since none of the reportage says. However, 99.9999% of Evangelicals and Pentecostals who speak about teaching creation in school or giving it "equal time" are young-Earth creationists. Christians who are not young-Earthers ususally don't think such stuff belongs in science classes at all. Since Palin used the former mode of rhetoric, I think it's safe to assume she's a young-Earther.

(God forbid) if Palin would become president, uh, does anyone see a bit of a problem here?

That's been my exact point--it's an enormous problem. The ultimate root of the problem, as you can see here is that over half of Americans seem to be young-Earthers (or at least, they think humans were created as is) and are OK with teaching creationism along with evolution. Which is like saying teaching flat-earthism alongside spherical-earthism. Which is like teaching that 2+2=4 and 2+2=455. Note especially the difference between Republicans and Democrats on this. Guess who has more young-Earthers?

Anyway, the problem, to a large extent, is the population, and the failure of science education in this country. Like you, I question the intelligence....

Watcher wrote: "This statement, right up front, is so patently absurd it defies all forms of explanation. "MILLIONS" of experts? What millions would these be, and how are there MILLIONS of experts on this relatively obscure topic (as in, it is never discussed outside of academic research settings)?"

There may be millions of experts on evolution in the world. It's a very popular topic, and it's a large world. There are 6.6 billion people in the world. There are 1.3 billion Chinese.

However, for the sake of argument, let's say there are not millions of experts who know that evolution is true. Creationism is false. Evolution is true. Specifically, some of my ancestors are fish. For some of the data that has enabled some of us to determine that some of my ancestors are fish, you can google "evidence for evolution."

Watcher wrote: “But yet, you same people who demand that faith in God and Creationism is patently absurd and false and only for the weak and defectively minded, have NO problem proceeding from this completely unsupportive and microscopic bit of data, and declaring her a book burner or book banner.”

Creationism is false. But most people who believe that creationism is true are not weak or “defectively minded.” They are just wrong about whether creationism is true or false. That's life.

Watcher wrote: “So, while you insist that there's NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of the Biblical account of the world's history, you can find absolutely unshakeable evidence of the most absurd notion within a few words that have absolutely NO proof of any kind.”

I don’t see your point here. Could you elaborate on it? I’d be happy to talk to you about evolution right now.

Watcher wrote: “And you wonder why I laugh at your silliness. I've seen people who have debated the whole creation/evolution thing at much higher levels - though the debate always devolves to the evolutionist declaring the creationist insane, stupid, or intellectually inferior. If this is the level of proof and evidence YOU require for your certainties in life, then you're laughably foolish.”

The overwhelming majority of creationists are not “insane, stupid, or intellectually inferior.” They are just wrong about whether creationism is true. That’s life.

Franklin,

Not patronizing at all. Very thoughtful response, and thank you.

I hadn't jumped back in here until now because I thought the thread got a little off-track talking about irreducible complexity, YEC and the rest of it. That wasn't really my interest, and I find it all beside the point.

To my mind, and admittedly I am on very thin ice here having only begun my own intellectual exploration of these topics a few years ago, the anthropic principle (and I realize it is not *the* accepted theory) renders the rest of these earth-bound debates moot (just as, in many ways, the kalam cosmological argument does).

I find the possibilities of the anthropic principle, as well as attendant ideas such as rare earth (propounded by secular scientists) both logically compelling and thrilling. Others may not, but these ideas a very far cry from believing our ancestors rode around pet dinosaurs. Nor are they creationist nonsense cloaked in a sort of learned patina.

For example, check out this blog, which seems to have some association with Cornell: http://arxivblog.com/?p=568 (As Thommes and friends put it: “All of this leads us to predict that within the diverse ensemble of planetary systems, ones resembling our own are the exception rather than the rule.”)

It's not exactly the province of people arguing that the earth was created in six literal days - nor is it the scientific territory of "stealth creationists." This is why Richard Dawkins' case, for example, is weakest at this point. He does fine when he's confined to earth-bound biology, but gets way out of his depth when it comes to cosmological physics.

This stuff is, in fact, on the cutting edge of scientific discussion. I believe the new video game "Spore" even took some of its inspiration from books about the anthropic principle (interestingly, though part of the intent of "Spore" seems to be to reemphasize evolutionary biology from an educational standpoint, I can attest from having played the free "creature creator" version with my daughter, the unscripted, unprompted impression children probably walk away with is of "designing" life).

But please do not take my mention of these things to mean I am advocating they be taught to 8th graders, or something along those lines. I have had to stumble on this information by myself as an adult.

I do have to say that I have had the strange sensation over the past decade of finding heretofore locked rooms full of knowledge and crying out, "Why didn't anyone ever teach me this?" Reading about the trial and death of Socrates was the first of these experiences. As a ten-year-old boy, when it first aired on PBS I watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos," well, religiously. Sagan seemed supremely confident in the high probability of intelligent life elsewhere and rather close by.

Scientists are now beginning to doubt his confidence, to say the least. Obviously, this is an ongoing conversation, but it is by no means one that can be caricatured as "creationist" nonsense.

One need not believe in a Christian God under the paradigm of arguments like kalam and the anthropic principle. I think this is why Antony Flew decided in essence to become a Deist. Under pressure, Flew has seemed to "recant" from this "heresy" in recent years, yet I know (from my own experiential standpoint) that his initial intuitive inclination to believe in a God was correct.

Perhaps, or perhaps not, tomorrow's Large Hadron Collider experiment will reveal something worth considering. Or a black hole may swallow us all! Cheers and good evening.

Houghton,

Thank you for a thoughtful and thought-provoking exchange.

While only you can confirm if this applies to you personally, I've found your plaintive "Why didn't anyone ever teach me this?" a common refrain any more. Modern US education, with rare exceptions, fails completely at teaching what I (and many) consider the primary topics: logic, critical reasoning (logic applied to ideas), and semantics (logic applied to language and expression). Anyone with these skills can learn anything. All they have to do is be introduced to it. That's oversimplified, to be sure, but at 0130 I'm not about to start yet another lecture-length post.

However, to bring this back to topic, we should expect to see those skills in our leaders, and leaders who fail to apply those skills effectively should expect to be replaced. Whatever the checkable "facts" about Palin might be, I expect her to demonstrate those skills, or be deemed unfit for office. Statements like those she is quoted as making concerning, for example, teaching creationism or ID in our K-12 schools will only hurt her fitness.

Be well.

ergh, I meant to say, "What is the story behind "librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term?" mean?"

no more posting 'till coffee.