Sarah Palin, creationist?

From The Boston Globe (and elsewhere).

Earlier this year, she told the newspaper that schools should not fear teaching creationism alongside evolution. 'Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information.'

Does she really think creationism is information? Where did she get that idea? What does she think she means by "information?" If someone thinks that the moon is made of green cheese, should that be taught alongside other theories of the solar system? How is that "information" different from the "information" associated with creationism? How would she decide what gets taught alongside what?

If she disagrees with the universal conclusion of biologists that evolution is the best way we know to explain the evidence we have, then perhaps she should say that biology is still a mystery. I wonder how much of biology and other sciences she does believe. How about DNA? Does she believe it exists and that it works the way the biologists say it works? Does she think the President of the country should know anything about these issues?

But no matter what she thinks of evolution I don't know of any "information" that supports creationism. What is she talking about? Does she take the bible as a source of scientific information? Is that how she will make decisions that depend on scientific judgment? If so, then as the saying goes, Heaven help the country.

I haven't been able to find anything that definitely says that she believes creationism. That should be one of the things the Democrats press her on. If she says she believes it, that would make a good campaign issue. Do we really want a President who is that ill informed about science? Even her current position makes her vulnerable to that charge. But if she actually embraces creationism, it should be all over.

Is that really whom McCain nominated? What does that say about his judgment?

If she says she hasn't made up her mind, that still says she is considering as true something that is demonstrably false. Is that the person we want as president? What other scientific conclusions does she not believe? For example, does she have an opinion about whether the sun goes around the earth? (If so, why does she have an opinion about that and not about evolution?) What is her approach to deciding when to believe scientific results? Certainly we can't all know everything. So how does she decide when to accept the conclusions of presumed experts on a subject?

Apparently she doesn't believe that we don't have an energy problem or that global warming is a result of human activity.

Speaking of energy, how much oil and gas does America really have?

We have billions and billions of barrels of oil and trillions of feet of natural gas. We have so much potential from tapping our resources here in Alaska. And we can do this with minimum environmental impact. We have a very pro-development president in President Bush, and yet he failed to push for opening up parts of Alaska to drilling through Congress — and a Republican-controlled Congress, I might add.

I thought when we hit $100 a barrel for oil it would have been a psychological barrier that would have caused Congress to reconsider, but they didn't. Now we are approaching $200 a barrel. It's nonsense not to tap a safe domestic source of oil. I think Americans need to hold Congress accountable on this one.

What is your take on global warming and how is it affecting our country?

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.

I would like to hear her explain how she arrived at these conclusions. I wonder if she has an opinion about where "those billions and billions of barrels of oil and trillions of feet of natural gas" came from and how it got where it is. Does she think it matters?