Subscription Center
Oct 1, 2008 01:10 PM | 29
Public fascination with Republican vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, extends to her views on the environment, evolution and abortion, and that curiosity has only grown since media access to her has tightened in the month since Sen. John McCain picked the Alaska governor as his running mate.
We have a bit more clarity now, after CBS Evening News anchor, Katie Couric, grilled Palin on last night's broadcast. Although Couric wasn't able to nail down Palin's positions as concretely as she (and voters) may have liked, she brought out some of the candidate's reasoning on controversial science topics.
Palin has advocated opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling—something McCain has said he opposes. The Arizona senator (who sat in on some of the interview) brushed off their difference of opinion before Palin downplayed ANWR's potential as an energy source: "ANWR is a 2,000-acre plot that's in the midst of 21 million acres," she said, according to an unedited transcript of the interview. "That's not where the supply of domestic energy sources is, though, necessarily. I mean, that's not the be-all, end-all. Offshore is where the supply of energy is. And we'll tap into that."
Palin added that she was "on board with the alternative fuel" and "tapping into the nuclear, the clean coal to biomass, geothermal, tides, waves—all those things that we have as alternative energy sources." McCain has called for caps on carbon dioxide emissions, which are linked to global warming, but he's wavered on whether they should be mandatory or voluntary; Palin wouldn't say which kind of cap she supported.
Palin acknowledged that climate change is "real, we need to do something about it." But she stopped short of attributing global warming to human activities, a point that gets at how society should address the problem. "I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate, because the world's weather patterns…are cyclical," Palin said. "Human beings certainly are contributing to pollution today. And to some adverse effects on the environment."
Palin has come under criticism for suggesting that creationism be taught alongside evolution in schools, and she didn't back away from that position last night, exactly. Noting that she's the daughter of a science teacher, Palin said that evolution "should be taught as an accepted principle." But curricula "are best left to the local school districts," she said. "[I] don’t have a problem at all with kids debating all sides of theories," she added.
Palin leans conservative on issues of reproductive health: She has said she backs legal abortion only if a woman's life is in danger, and that she supports abstinence-only education in schools.
Last night, Couric asked Palin why abortion should be illegal for a teen rape victim. Palin didn't directly address the legality of the procedure itself; rather, she said a woman shouldn’t be punished for getting an abortion. "If you're asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anyone end up in jail for having an…abortion, absolutely not," Palin said. "That's nothing I would ever support."
"Life starts at the moment of conception," Palin added later. And while she said she's "all for contraception. And I'm all for any preventative measures that are legal and safe and should be taken," she also said that one of them, the morning-after pill, wasn't for her.
On that point, we may have gotten a little too much information: "Personally, I would not choose to participate in that kind of contraception," Palin said.
Tags:
creationism,
John McCain,
Sarah Palin,
climate change,
ANWR,
contraception,
evolution,
abortion
More News Blog:
Next: Who will win the Nobel Prize? Cast your vote
Previous: The white stuff: Falling snow spotted above Mars
See what we're tweeting about
dbiello me too! MT @jason_pontin: About conspiracy theories, I always think: if only someone *were* in charge. http://t.co/0RoZNnsaIu
JenLucPiquant "[Smolin] made me question my opinions, and though I came out holding on to them, I learned something on the way." http://t.co/6cBwIoDB5O dbiello and he's off! RT @ErnestMoniz: Honored to be back here at @energy. Looking forward to hitting the ground running. http://t.co/KVIQs4H6wU
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
29 Comments
Add CommentBimbo.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAllegedly, during her term as mayor, she told students that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. When a teacher tried to correct her, she said she had seen a dinosaur track with a human footprint inside it. And she can see Russia from her bedroom window!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFour more years!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishotblack, you should not talk about katie couric like that. She's just doing her job.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKJeroH the footprint in question has been carbon dated and verified and was found in the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. This find is discounted by "peer review" as it MIGHT possibly be an eroded set of prints from a differant dinosaur. I dont buy that since the other set of prints doesn't have anywhere near that kind of erosion is is dated at the same time. Peer review only works when scientist look at all the evidence and not just the pieces that fit in with thier idiology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause national politics are on such a huge scale, a lot of what happens is theater and a lot of people sucumb to first impressions and knee jerk reactions. Whether Ms. Palin makes a positive or a negative first impression, she is surely not alone in trying to make sense of integrating faith, ethics and science. To scoff at her openness to evolution being discussed as an accepted theory, but only a theory which can be debated and contested, seems exactly opposite of the scientific method.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If you're asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anyone end up in jail for having an…abortion, absolutely not,"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder how she feels about anyone performing an abortion.
Sarah Palin is grossly guilty of not knowing exactly what constitutes the definition and meaning of life. What a blithering fool. Then she has the unmitigated audacity to express a guarded opinion about aborting a rape victim's fetus. She must be some kind of right-wing fanatical freak who can't possibly hold an intellectual candle to the enlightened editors and readers of this scientifically unbiased and completely balanced journal. Spare me. The human footprints next to the dinosaur's? -- Those belonged to Jordon Lite.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShe talks but what does she say? When in public she tries to make everybody happy by not saying anything at all. Very unreliable and risky.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat was her father thinking to not instill in his child an appreciation of the elegance of the scientific method? Creationism is not based in science, but in belief and guesses."A creator is necesssary because life is complex." Idiotic. You can't debate scientific facts with religious beliefs. And if abortion is murder, why shouldn't the woman who gets one go to jail?Palin has no logic, her mind is a muddle of beliefs and emotions, no thinking going on there. Since when is it a bad thing to be intelligent, knowledgeable and educated? We are in a huge, nasty mess and we need our brightest people to get us out of it. She might make a decent Senator in 20 years but now she isn't even qualified to be a governor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSarah Palin does not support abstinence-only education in schools. This is a smear and it's just not true. Here is her exact quote...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that."
Shame on all of you who simply pass along the abstinence-only myth. Whether you intend to vote for McCain-Palin or Obama-Biden, apply some intellectual honesty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA full analysis of the Paluxy tracks can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA complete scientific discussion of the Paluxy tracks can be found here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
This interview, and the commentary by SciAm softened my stance on Govenor Palin considerably. I'm ashamed to say I had fallen for a lot of the hype. Things like "Pray away the gay" and "teaching creationism in the classroom alongside Evolution", which now certainly seem like outright lies, had colored my perception of her. I'm much more comfortable with her as a vice presidential candidate. She's not perfect by any means, but better than I thought.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBetter than what?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is this a subject in a scientific publication?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNobody believes in scientific theories. If they did, those who believed in one theory would be driven to kill any who held opposing views. That's the way belief works.
Palin knows whatever Jesus whispers in her ear.
What does a former teenage beauty queen whose daughter gets pregnant by practicing abstinence have to say about that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWas it immaculate conception or poor parenting?
The GOP wouldn't mind Palin being president, she'd keep you all distracted while they kept robbing the country blind.
Problem is an IQ of 100 is the median point.....and for some reason the common folk feel better if someone doesn't make them feel stupid...go figure. "W" is pretty much the same thing Palin is keeping everyone distracted, and vetoing only when it helps out the "common man," but since they've all got the attention span of a fruit fly....they never put two and two together...
go figure.
.
Jesus' work was conscripted by the Romans to support the Holy Roman Empire.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrue christianity doesn't exist except as a tool of power....ask the protest tants...
Judaism is a monolateralist religion, not mono theist....the Jews chose one of many gods....they didn't believe that there was _just_ one....and the Deuteronomist fabricated that there was a need for Jews to live in Israel....it's a fact look it up.
Islam sprang Juadism, and from a dream Mohammed had. Gabriel told him how things should be done, funny thing is Gabriel ideas echoed General Mohammed's view of the world.....Mohammed was a military man, not a holy man....it's a fact.
All three religions are dualistic...primitive, desert tribal dogma...thinking not allowed.
We will be told anything to get ANWR started. I wonder if other issues are clouded with such ridiculous non-truths, such as:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 2,000-acre limitation is the only acreage destroyed.
In truth, it would not include gravel mines, airstrips, drilling pads, production pads or roads.
TRUTH: The House bill would open the entire 1.5-million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge to oil and gas leasing and exploration. The 2,000 acre area is the surface area under the supports for the pipeline, the "surface acreage covered by production and support facilities." and is compared to Dulles Airport. It sure does not include the many miles of gravel roads and airstrips.
It is the roads that open access that will destroy ANWR just
as the roads into the rain forest of South America open the virgin
forest.
TRUTH: Development will engulf all of ANWR in small parcels just as the other North Slope development has been. The estimated area covered in the more than 30 small deposits is 1.5-million-acres of coastal plain. The roads to connect them together will require hundreds of miles of roads.
If you feel that way about the ANWR, then you have not looked at the development of the North Slope. Lots of different areas are developed and producing and there are no roads. The wait until the tundra freezes and then spray ice roads. People and supplies are moved in and out by planes or helicopter when the ice roads are unavailable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are ways to lessen the impact, and Alaska is very good at getting the oil companies to comply. I've been there, and it is purposely and effectively very low impact.
It's not realistic to stop the effort out of fear. Set reasonable goals and limits and make the producers comply.
i hate her. i hate her so much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSarah Paling, is lipstick on a pigs behind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe pigs behind is all this country sees of the people that are stealing from them, by the time the sheeple figure it out, the sheep is already heading away from the pig trough.
Keeping you watching Sarah, keeps you from thinking about the pigs behind.
Since the average man can't really think anyway...all it takes is a fantasy and they're satisfied. The average woman supports the average man and asks that he help her think....believe it or not. We've had thousands of years of patriarchy, and the black man has had the vote longer than the woman... Sarah is the lipstick on the pigs behind.
She keeps you all distracted, and you don't talk about the pig as much.
.
This country was founded on the basis of religious freedom, keeping separation of church and state. Sarah Palin would be only too happy to force her religious beliefs(by way of overturning Roe v. Wade), which infringes on my beliefs. Our founding fathers were not so overtly religious and "under god" was not in the pledge of allegiance originally, but was added with the Red Scare in the 1950's. Believe what you want, don't elect someone that would force theirs on you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need a fact finder here some people really dont know much about anything and present their 'theories' as fact. Go back to the roman period and find the writer who ' made christianity '. Seriously, tell us should we convert to the eastern religions? Science be our new religion? If you grew up in a western nation you have so much monotheism in you you cant even begin to discover where 'it' ends and the real 'you' begins.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you make ridiculous claims like 'the romans made this religion, and there is no true jewish heritage and all the philosophies derived from the monotheistic teachings of western culture are 'simple minded' or ' obsolete' then I challenge you to go find an alternative and share please. Be philosophically consistent. We in the west are all products of an early monotheistic tradition. Reject it if it pleases you but it is your heritage. You cant change where you came from. I wonder how many of you liberal athiest have seriously sat down and come to grips with the consquences of your philosophy? Let me lay it out for you....no true God means all we have to go on as a model for our society is what nature teaches us about how the world works. This is what nature says...Do whatever you need to do to survive and pass on yoru genetic information. Kill others if needed, eliminate other species if they are in your way, show no mercy or compasion for other memebers of the species for they are in competetion for your resources. Do whatever it takes to survive and reproduce because in the end nature really doesnt care if you live or die or if the entire human race lives or dies or if the polar bear lives or dies. Nature is amoral and any law derived from nature would be the same. Do anything. So I have to ask where does the liberal atheistic left side find policies like the welfare state? Health care? who cares? Save the polar bear? Protect the environment? None of these liberal views fits anywhere into the amoral philosophy derived from nature. Be atheist if that is what you believe is the reality of this situation we all live in, but be consistent.
Demian, sounds a little paranoid to me (actually, way more than a little). Just how much power do you think a vice president has?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApparently you don't understand the definition of a Theory. It cannot be amended by anything other than a new Theory that also withstood the rigors of the scientific method. It is not contested by religious or theological conjecture, and it is unforgivable to remain ignorant of these simple definitions. Religion has no place in any science curriculum, NONE! Palin is ignorant, painfully so, and now represents the intellectual frailty that we will no longer tolerate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs Obama any more literate? Free-minded everything doesnt mean you understand evoltuion and science, you just dont care either way. Religion does not belong in the class room unless you attend a religious school. Science is a fact finder, not a platform for developing a new government.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the question I ask of the atheist left side, please explain how you can say to fully understand what evolution teachs us about the nature of our reality and then support a political party which endorses policies completely at odds with those teaching? How does protection of endagered speicies fit any where any way into evolution? If they can survive they will, not if we protect them from their inevitable extinction they will survive.
Where does environmentalism fit into what evoltuion teaches us about the nature of this reality? If we make the world unsuitable for humans we die off and nature doesnt care either way.
Where do you derive a system of welfare from what evolution teaches us about the nature of this reality? If a human or a dog or a polar bear is down on its luck it simply dies and doesnt get to pass on it genetic material and thats that.
I have to admitt being confused by the athiest left side and also the religious left side.
The catholic church has denounced abortion so can you take what you like from the religion and over look the rest? Pretty sure thats not how it works.
There are strong views held by both politcial parties but I am confused by the strong proponants of evolution siding with the left when everything evolution teaches us about how this world works is presented by the right. The strong,resourceful, adapting tend to survive and succeed and produce the next generation and the weak, frail , lazy tend to not succeed and according to evolution they should not succeed and evolution is a filter for weeding out such organisms. The cold hearted ruthless greedy ceo's we all hate are evolutions winners. I honestly think we are lucky in america to have either canidate as president. I just wish we could get the philosophical views consistent. If you are at odds with Palin because of religion and evoltuion, why support a party with ideals completely at odds with evolution itself? I am thankful the conservative party embraces religion because if they ever abandoned it then the full force of evoltuionary philosophy may reign down on us and the cold hearted greeedy ceo's we all hate may become even worse.
Hi PEG, I think your logic is interesting; however....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA platform for developing new government should be based on facts, when available. Science, being a fact-finder of tangible truths, should generate facts that new governmental policies should incorporate, particularly when those facts reveal how the populace is affected and how the populace affects itself.
I fully understand what evolution has taught us, to the extent it has taught anything, yet I support a party that cares about environmental and ecological concerns. Do you fully understand what evolution has taught? If you read up, you will find that altruism is a product of evolution, along with selfishness. Cooperation, zero sum games, are products of evolution. Evolution has not singly taught selfishness.
No one is saying that protecting endangered species directly "fits" into evolution. One of the MANY reasons to protect endangered species is parallel to the many reasons people help each other survive illness, which also doesn't "fit" into evolution. Environmentalism and evolution are two different topics, which don't necessary need to fit. Although, evolution is actually a great inspiration of environmentalism for many people, other than you.
And welfare or altruism is not derived from what evolution has taught us, but one could say that they are products of evolution itself. Cooperation, emotional well-being, etc. enhance fitness. You're obviously correct that a being that dies before reproducing doesn't pass on it's genetic material. "That's that." Yes, and that's the scary part. Environmentalist want to keep that genetic material diversified and well-maintained, perhaps for some selfish reasons that may "fit" with evolutionary teachings from your point of view.
It's your political views I find most interesting. I think you're confused why more people don't side with those parties and ceo's which do very well to crush the weak. Because people like me, and likely you, aren't helped by siding with them. We are actually often the weak. You side with those who would crush you. The reason people support a party that seems at odds with evolution is 2-fold: 1) they're not at odds with evolution, because cooperation, culture, altruism are also products of evolution, even molecularly speaking. I won't go into detail here. 2) Because to enhance my fitness so that my own genes are in the evolving pool, I need to vote for those who protect my interests; because I am a smart, hard-working, honest person, altruistic, and I want MY kind to prevail.