Palin Suggests Evolution Not Real In "Going Rogue"

Sarah Palin suggests in her memoir, "Going Rogue" that she doesn't believe in evolution.

The New York Times reports in its review:

Elsewhere in this volume she talks about creationism, saying she "didn't believe in the theory that human beings -- thinking, loving beings -- originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea" or from "monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees."

In another section she recounts a debate John McCain's campaign manager, Steve Schmidt, on the issue:

"But your dad's a science teacher," Schmidt objected. "Yes." "Then you know that science proves evolution," added Schmidt. "Parts of evolution," I said. "But I believe that God created us and also that He can create an evolutionary process that allows species to change and adapt." Schmidt winced and raised his eyebrows. In the dim light, his sunglasses shifted atop his hear. I had just dared to mention the C-word: creationism. But I felt I was on solid factual ground.

In 2006, Palin said that both evolution and creationism should be taught in public schools.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[pkafin]

03:59 PM on 12/04/2009

"didn't believe in the theory that human beings -- ...originated from ....monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees."

She doesn't even understand what evolution has postulated. Nobody ever said we evolved from monkeys. The well founded (and well tested) theories suggests that we and monkeys have a close common ancestor.

[PackyJ]

02:01 PM on 11/22/2009

Apparently, "The Flintstones" was simply an enjoyable documentary.

[yogandclimber]

04:15 PM on 11/21/2009

I'm not sure why I defend 'teaching' creationism. I don't believe in it myself. I think I do it because I believe in God and Jesus and spirituality... I'm Catholic, but I can't be because Catholics believe in creationism. So I'm spiritual without a religion. I think there are a lot like me who believe in evolution but are hesitant to accept evolution because it would deny their belief in God or even spirituality. I would rather deny the theory of evolution than deny my belief in God. I don't need proof of God to believe and neither do the other 90% of people who believe in God.

Someone earlier compared the belief of creationism with the belief of the world being flat. They are comparable and maybe we can learn from that. Religious leaders thought that the world was flat and taught it. So back then you couldn't be religious if you thought the world was round. Eventually religious will accept evolution theory and then I and everyone will accept it also. So why do religious leaders opinion matter so much when it seems so obvious to that evolution happened? Well because most 90% believe in a higher power and spirituality. That number won't change even when religious leaders accept evolution.
There is a theory of spirituality and maybe if that gets proven then scientists and atheists can believe in spirituality too.

[ljkar13]

07:13 PM on 11/19/2009

tongue firmly stuck in cheek

[ljkar13]

07:11 PM on 11/19/2009

yes the earth and everything on it was formed in 7 days and carbon dating only goes back 5000 years

[gocatholic]

10:54 PM on 11/18/2009

The text of the article doesn't jive with the headline. She says she believes in evolution within a species but not that one species evolved into a separate species. The headline is, therefore, completely false. She believes in evolution within species, so it's in error to say she suggests she doesn't believe in evolution. Science hasn't revealed data showing that one species has ever evolved into another species. If she wants to believe that they didn't, that is her right. There's nothing within science to prove her wrong. I grow weary of the press misleading people about who this woman is. Thankfully, I can figure out who she is by ignoring the headline and the first sentence of the article and reading her actual words. I wonder how many other people reading things about her on this site would do the same. I suggest a correction of the headline and first sentence is very much in order.

[ancientmarinader]

12:54 AM on 11/19/2009

Yes, the theory of evolution is very much about speciation. You may personally object to the theory of evolution, but don't lie about it. Just say you don't agree with it for whatever reason.

[Texas Aggie]

12:53 AM on 11/18/2009

I have to admit that SP has it right. Both creationism and evolution should be taught in all high schools. Creationism comes in the class on myths and legends in the English literature section and evolution comes in biology class in the science curriculum.

I've often wondered why people are so adamant about giving creationism some sort of legitimacy by teaching it in a science class, but if someone had the temerity to suggest that Marxism should be taught in economics, all heck would break loose. Why is that the case?

[ladyfractal]

09:08 AM on 11/18/2009

Well, see, Jesus LIKES Creationism and he *hates* Marxism. Or something like that.

It's interesting that if someone suggested that we teach, say, the Hindu creation myth alongside evolution ('teach the controversy, right?') that would also go over like a lead balloon and yet we're supposed to believe there's no religious motivation behind wanting to see creationism taught in a science class.

Cheers
LF

[fireW]

11:05 AM on 11/18/2009

Isn't it a remarkable coincidence that their imaginary friend in the sky both likes/hates exactly the same people that they do? Throughout history, peaceful cultures have had peaceful deities; violent cultures have had violent deities (just like they were). Yet they continue to stick to the story that god created humanity in "his" image. . Obviously it's the other way around . . .

[yogandclimber]

12:51 PM on 11/18/2009

You keep calling these other religions a myth well prove it. Jesus existed 2009 years ago... disprove that.

If creationism and evolution is going to be taught then they should be separate. Neither should be taught as fact but they should teach the facts and basis behind the religion and the theory.

[yogandclimber]

01:01 PM on 11/18/2009

No one is trying to give it legitimacy by teaching it in science class. It is a religious study. There are scientific findings that support the existence of Jesus and that can be shown in class and then students can decide for themselves if they want to look more into religious studies. Then they can also teach the facts behind evolution in science class. When I was a kid they taught evolution which has changed an aweful lot since I was taught about it, and will change even more, for something that you think is taught as a fact.

Who really cares where Marxism is taught?

[ladyfractal]

01:23 PM on 11/18/2009

Yoga:

I'll address your questions about the other great apes in this post (it may take a few, unlike religious explanations, scientific ones require a bit more depth).

We do not "come from" apes in the same way and for the same reason that you do not "come from" your aunt. You share a common ancestor (your grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.) with your aunt but you do not come from her. That clarifies the first issue.

Secondly, we share a common ancestor with the other great apes but keep in mind that the ape line is not *inevitably* evolving toward us. We, chimps, bonobos and gorillas all share a common ancestor. About 8 or 9 million years ago (I don't have the figure memorized but it's in that range) gorillas split off on their own. About 2.5 million years later, the line leading to humans and the line leading to chimps and bonobos split off.

(cont)

[ladyfractal]

01:53 PM on 11/18/2009

Lastly, why are there still gorillas and chimps?

Well, the simple answer is that until VERY recently being a gorilla or a chimp was a great way to make a living. Humans were largely living on the African savannah and not encroaching on the jungle from which we had originally come. After we left Africa and radiated out, we *still* were not encroaching on the gorilla or chimp territories.

So why did we break off from chimps? At some point, the climate of Africa began to change, becoming dryer and more arid. Jungle gave way to grasslands. Suddenly, an arboreal existence wasn't such a great way to make a living but our ancestors still had to eat. Where once they could travel branch-to-branch to get to where the fruit was, now they might have to cross expanses of open grassland. Being able to stand would do two things: it would allow us to see above the top of the grass and it would free our forelimbs for carrying things. If we had stayed in the jungle (or, more accurately, if the jungle had stayed around us) we would not be homo sapiens. We'd be something very chimp-like. However, the environment changed and an arboreal lifestyle became a great way to starve but not a great way to live.

Chimps and gorillas stayed in their areas deeper in the jungle and thus did not have the same selection pressures on them.

Cheers
LF

[Mr C]

11:08 PM on 11/17/2009

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Mr C]

10:47 PM on 11/17/2009

So how does a primitive cell work????????????

[ladyfractal]

12:07 AM on 11/18/2009

When you address my questions regarding genetic distance and how we can tell whether or not you are closely related to any two given people based upon how many genes you share with them, I'll address your question regarding cells. Until then, I'm not going to answer your question.

Cheers
LF

[yogandclimber]

01:11 PM on 11/18/2009

I have a question about the theory of evolution and it's one I've always had and when it wasn't answered as a kid it was confusing and made me think maybe it's science mixed with a higher power that got us here. My science teacher could not answer it.

If we evolved from apes then where did the modern apes evolve from? Did they just evolve slower or stop evolving and maybe in the future will also evolve into humans and we will all be human?

At what point did an animal evolve and where did it come from? Did we all come from a single cell organism?

[mikesw]

12:14 AM on 11/18/2009

Didn't you learn about prokaryotes in High School? Probably something like them.

[Mr C]

09:49 PM on 11/17/2009

The silence is extremely loud.

[iskra]

12:21 PM on 11/18/2009

Silence is the best response to nonsensical questions. Your assertion that "We don't understand a primitive cell" is baseless. Even if we didn't understand some mechanism of biology how could this possibly indicate evolution is wrong?

We don't understand how gravity works, does that mean evolution is wrong?

Nonsense

[Mr C]

09:20 PM on 11/17/2009

If ladyfractal has all these facts of evolution then why is it that he still doesn't understand how a 'so called" primitive cell works. He should have a pretty good idea as to the incredible complexity of the "so called" primitive cell. I don't believe he will say he understands how it works. We have all these proofs and facts of evolution but don't understand how this "so called" primitive cell works. How can this be???????

[ladyfractal]

10:06 PM on 11/17/2009

Sweet Jesus! Is it so difficult for you to believe that a woman is a scientist? Is it REALLY that difficult?

And you have STILL not responded to my questions about genetics. Why is it that I am obliged to answer your questions, sir, but you are not obliged to answer mine?

Cheers
LF

[Mr C]

10:37 PM on 11/17/2009

I quote you:

"This seems to support an idea I floated past my wife this morning"

So I don't understand your response at all.

[Mr C]

10:39 PM on 11/17/2009

You seem a bit touchy.

[Texas Aggie]

12:56 AM on 11/18/2009

"...should have a pretty good idea as to the incredible complexity of the "so called" primitive cell. "

Why? That you even ask the question reveals a marked lack of knowledge and understanding on your own part.

[Mr C]

09:00 PM on 11/17/2009

So I'm to believe that evolution can go against all the other fields of science where we have order going to chaos. A scientific fact observable everyday everywhere that we have order moving to chaos. Except for evolution. Now how is that scientific?

[ladyfractal]

12:04 AM on 11/18/2009

OH for the love of GOD! The Second Law of Thermodynamics gambit? Really?

Okay, here's the problem with that argument:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system, the overall entropy of a system will tend to increase over time. However, neither the Earth nor are living systems closed systems. A closed system is one where there are no energy input is possible. However, every time a living thing eats, it takes in energy. The Earth has a constant energy input from the Sun.

"Probability, as used in thermodynamics, means the probability that some specific change will occur. Probability is related to the thermodynamic concept of irreversibility. An irreversible physical or chemical change is a change that will not spontaneously reverse itself without some change in the surrounding conditions. Irreversible changes have a high degree of probability. The probability of an irreversible change spontaneously reversing itself without outside interference is zero.

When we say that a change is irreversible (in the thermodynamics sense) it means only that the change will not spontaneously reverse itself without some change in the surrounding conditions. It does not mean that it cannot be reversed by any means at all!"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

Sorry, Mr C, but your argument fails on its face.

Cheers
LF

[ancientmarinader]

03:21 AM on 11/18/2009

Second law as used by creationists is nonsense. It's just babble to confuse the church minded.

You can have order arise, which is obvious, as long as you borrow energy from somewhere to do it. Think stars being born, plant growth, etc.

[Mr C]

08:55 PM on 11/17/2009

So how can evolution go against all that has been observed scientifically elsewhere? Order to chaos. Now that's a real scientific fact everywhere you look except for evolution. Now how can that be? What so special about evolution that it can go against everything else that been observed. That alone makes the idea of order coming from inorganic material very unscientific compared everything scientifically observable. I don't have to answer any od

[fireW]

08:54 AM on 11/18/2009

"So how can evolution go against all that has been observed scientifically elsewhere?" You might as well ask the question "So why doesn't the sky appear red, because it's been observed on Mars?". The simplest first-order answer is because it DOESN'T.

Beyond that, there are a number of reasons both why it doesn't follow non-organic models of entropy & a number of ways in which it does mirror these principles.

Why do you NOT look like your next door neighbor? Of course there are ways you do & ways that you don't. By your argument, one of you is not human because you're not the same in "all observed" aspects. Nonsense.

[Texas Aggie]

10:26 AM on 11/18/2009

By this same argument, you are now less complex than you were as a zygote. I suspect that you would disagree with your own conclusion. When your hypothesis leads to a ridiculous conclusion, it is time to change your hypothesis.

[ladyfractal]

08:11 PM on 11/17/2009

One more observation:

I have put a number of very serious and genuine questions to the people here who deny evolutionary biology. I have YET to see an honest attempt at an answer to a single one of those questions except for Timny who punted to "we can't know the mind of god". Every other person, Mr. C, yoga, and I'm sure that VeryFairMOR will be joining soon, has pretended the questions were not asked and have simply not answered them.

This seems to support an idea I floated past my wife this morning as we were driving to work: namely that people who deny evolution don't really give a damn about the science of biology. If they did, they would think through these questions would have ALREADY thought through them and would have passable answers.

I'm not going to get an answer from yoga about the operational definition of theory. S/he will make more posts about faith in science but there won't ben an answer to my question.

Mr. C won't answer my questions about genetics.

I doubt that VeryFAIR will answer my questions about speciation.

Cheers
LF

[Mr C]

08:15 PM on 11/17/2009

You never showed me a mechanism ongoing today that would make great deposits of oil in the future.

[ladyfractal]

08:17 PM on 11/17/2009

You never responded to my questions about genetics. Ah, but that's different isn't it? Once it became clear that I was wasting my energy going to the effort to explain my point in an accessible manner, I realized that you were just going to sit back and laugh at me for my efforts. Why bother since I KNOW that no matter how comprehensive my argument, you're not going to respond in kind?

Cheers
LF

[Texas Aggie]

01:02 AM on 11/18/2009

And??? You never explained why the Hubble picture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't prove that Genesis is false.

[Mr C]

08:17 PM on 11/17/2009

You haven't told me what an electron is either. Only how it behaves.

[mikesw]

12:17 AM on 11/18/2009

You clearly didn't do your homework in middle school. Why should ladyfractal do it for you now?

[ancientmarinader]

03:03 AM on 11/18/2009

Define all of the words you just used, I dont understand. Until you teach me basic english, god is false.

[ladyfractal]

07:46 PM on 11/17/2009

It appears that when the subject is biology people who have NO idea about the state of play in the literature feel completely qualified to say "I reject this idea, whatever it might be".

To put it in context. If I proclaimed, for instance, that I rejected the outcome of the 2009 Superbowl because the losing team hit more home runs there is not a SINGLE person here who would argue that I knew the first thing about football. What's more, any commentary I offered on the quality of play would be immediately and summarily dismissed because there ARE no home runs in football and my statement about the losing team hitting more home runs would demonstrate my manifest and glaring ignorance of even the most rudimentary elements of the game. Yet, when the subject becomes biology we are supposed to, for reasons that completely mystify me, accept as being MORE valid people who state glaring howlers.

People who state that "evolution is only a theory" show their absolute and manifest ignorance of the most rudimentary elements of philosophy of science. Yet, again, we are supposed to take them seriously. Why?

Is there a single one of you lot arguing against evolution that can offer me one GOOD reason why we should take your word for it even when you demonstrate a near total level of ignorance of the subject matter in question?

Cheers
LF

[Mr C]

07:51 PM on 11/17/2009

You sure got it bad!

[yogandclimber]

12:20 AM on 11/18/2009

I don't reject any ideas. I just know they are theories. There are facts and evidence of evolution but those do not add up to evolution being a fact because there are a lot of guesses and missing pieces and unanswered questions. There are even mysteries and yet people still believe in it. That sounds a lot like faith. I guarantee their theories now will be different in 10 years.

[ladyfractal]

12:28 AM on 11/18/2009

I'm sorry, Yoga, but this is not an answer to my question. Again, my question is:

Please give an operational definition of 'theory' as that word is used in science. I will tell you this to save you time in case you were leaning this way: theory does not mean 'guess' in science.

Cheers
LF