Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Sarah Palin, Meet the Darwinbots



I’ve never been a Sarah Palin fan (actually, that’s an understatement). And if you’ll indulge me, I’d like to share a brief story about my prescient analysis of Palin’s impact on the 2008 election: On the day after John McCain announced Palin as his running mate, the chief of staff in our office asked everyone in our staff meeting whether they liked or didn’t like the Palin pick.

Of the 30 or so people in the room, 28 raised their hand and said they liked it.

Only 2 people said they didn’t like it. And I was one of them. And trust me, I took a lot of heat for it.

But anyway, I'm not here to relive the past. No, I want to focus on Palin's new book - and specifically, her disgusting, unacceptable views on Darwinism.

With Palin’s book coming out today, "Terry the Touchy Darwinist” is licking his chops.

First, take a look at this Nov. 16 piece from CBS News

Two of the more enticing excerpts that have been published in advance of the official release of Sarah Palin's Going Rogue involve the former vice presidential candidate's recollections of behind-the-scenes conflicts with top McCain aides on the 2008 campaign trail...

Top McCain aides Mark Salter and Steve Schmidt took turns trying to ensure that Palin was ready for the monumental leap onto the national stage that she was about to take…

Salter was particularly interested in Palin's views on the subject of evolution vs. creationism, and according to an excerpt from "Going Rogue," Palin maintains that the McCain campaign's chief strategist, Steve Schmidt, was dismissive of her point of view on the subject.

Palin writes: "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..."

Two former McCain aides each independently maintained that Palin's recollection of the conversation in Going Rogue, was inaccurate.

"If she had been, 'I am a creationist,' she would not have been the nominee," one former aide said. "McCain wouldn't have gone for that."

I'm confused. So the McCain campaign is saying that Palin's statement above can't be true, because if it was true, it would've have gotten her kicked off the ticket?!

Read Palin's statement again.

"I believe that God created us and also that He can create an evolutionary process that allows species to change and adapt..."

Does it really strike you as so outrageous?

Gosh, who knew the McCain campaign was so full of “Terrys!

In light of this shocking (!) revelation, the usually unbiased political reporter Marc Ambinder chooses to play scientist in this critical blog post

Evolution, the change over time of species by various unguided (but not always random) selection pressures, is as close to a fact of science as there is. It is as much of a historical fact as the Holocaust…

The American people are finicky about their creation/evolution debate…Americans aren't willing to give up God. But they're not willing to ignore at least parts of the evidence. Sarah Palin -- she is.

Whatever dude. Stick to politics; not science.

8 comments:

Justin said...

"As much a fact as the Holocaust"

Now that IS a great analogy, I suppose!

Now, both are taboo subjects, the details of which almost no one knows, but pure and fervent dogmatic agreement, absolutely demanded.

Todd White said...

Ambinder is basically quoting Richard Dawkins verbatim.

In Dawkins' newest book, he says...

"Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust.... Evolution is a theory in the same sense as the heliocentric theory."

http://mustardseednovel.blogspot.com/2009/08/dawkins-raises-rhetorical-stakes.html

Eumaios said...

I came here to say what Justin said.

Justin said...

"as close to a fact of science as there is"

This is just bizarre. The past is not open to scientific control, which is obvious and axiomatic.

As it cannot even be subject to scientific control, how could it possibly be the most factual item in all of science?

Bizarre, just bizarre. I hereby name it Evolution Derangement Syndrome.

Todd White said...

Justin: "I hereby name it Evolution Derangement Syndrome."

TW: I like that.

Todd White said...

This is funny. I've been participating in a comment thread with dozens of Darwinists, and this comment just appeared in my inbox...

Author: Reginald Selkirk

Ha ha ha! This is a display of your ignorance. Evolution is actually better established than current theories of gravity. Newton's "laws of motion" are known to be deficient for very large masses and very large velocities. Einstein's relativity corrects for these, BUT a) there are difficulties reconciling relativity with quantum mechanics under certain conditions and b) Dark Energy is yet to be explained. Moreover, while we may some day find a more accurate formulation for calculating gravity, we still cannot explain why it exists.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=4417#comments

Justin said...

Wow. So, yeah, dark matter and quantum mechanics are huge holes in the supposed "gravitational theory", but evolution, um, no, can't think of any theoretical problems there!

Great example of Evolution Derangement Syndrome at work.

Todd White said...

Yup. I bet Reginald's next email will say....

"Evolution is actually *better established* than the existence of China. After all, our definition of countries is changing all the time!"