Seems reasonable enough...if you don't question the nature of "information." Last time I checked, myth is not information.

I suppose we should be happy she is not anti-evolution, just anti-fact, the Republican creed.

What Dan said -- since when does creationism involve teaching "information"?

And in what other classes would she suggest that non-substantiated "information" be taught? I suspect a lot of people would've aced algebra if non-substantiated "information" had been accepted.

Will Alaska history classes also include the theory that the moon landing was staged? That the CIA was involved in the Kennedy assassination? That the World Trade Center was a controlled demolition? The evidence for these are all as good as the evidence for creationism (by which I mean equally poor).

"Teach both and let the kids debate."

There is nothing in creationism that needs Christian beliefs. Maybe it would be good for American students to learn, let's say, 100 creation myths. Navajo, Hindu, Buddhist, Mayan, Mandinka, Voodoo, Hmong, Shinto, Taoist, Norse, Sumerian, Egyptian, Judaic, Zoroastrian, Haida, Incan, Australian aboriginal, etc. Inuit would be a good one since Palin's husband is part Native Yup'ik Eskimo. All of these myths including Christianity need to be taught on an equal basis, of course.

Perhaps approaching creationists with this idea would change their minds about requiring it in schools and highlight that while myths are a vibrant part of human existence for many people they most definitely aren't science. Simply saying that since you don't understand how something came into being it must have been created by a pre-existing being does not identify the being. And where did that being come from, anyway?

The average American doesn't really know how to make a kitchen utensil but they don't necessarily attribute their existence to god(gods?).

oh man...

David, you dont need to scare them with Native American myths. Tell them instead that maybe their kinds should learn about the Islamic creation "science". It's actually a lot like Christianity's. But it will make the fundies' heads explode.

Great. Another brain-dead Republican....

Oh, I don't know. I'm always willing to entertain the idea that today's theory of evolution is merely tomorrow's bible. And for all its current professors in the general public have actually investigated the question, it may as well be.

Cheers, kids.

Egads, she's still the best overall choice and her personal opinion on the matter won't have much affect on where or when "intelligent design" is taught, but I would have preferred she keep religion out of science class.

While I am no "creationist", I do know that many of our most cherished scientific facts from my childhood are now, in many instances, debunked. So it is not about teaching creationism, as in also teaching and informing about doubt. Even as one becomes more familiar with and knowledgeable of scientific facts, there is always one more layer beneath which says: "how in the world did this happen?" Intellectual arrogance is the WRONG thing to teach, no matter what philosophical underpinning asks for it.

Thank you for pointing out Sarah Palin's view of creation and intelligent design. At last we've found someone who isn't afraid that young minds will be corrupted by having more information than evolutionists are willing to teach. I will have to vote for the McCain-Palin team now.

Sorry, Tim, but if the Palin McCain team get in, the country risk sinking into an abyss of darkness. Critical scientific thought will be discouraged and creation myths will be enforced by a regressive Supreme Court. Palin will insure that teh 'appropriate' justices will be appointed. This coule be the return of the dark ages...

Palin's stance on teaching intelligent design could of been a deal-breaker for me, along with her anti-abortion stance. But as I investigate her reasoning behind her views, I have come to respect her even more. I believe that teaching intellient design, as well as other religious Creation myths, along side the preponderance and irrefuatble evidence supporting Evolution Theory, would be a good thing. Children are naturally curious and relatively unindoctrinated in dogma and, as a retired teacher, I feel confident in predicting that in an open debate, even children are more likely to come to the obviously correct conclusion (namely Evolutionary Theory) about the beginnings of Life. Such an open and honest discourse couldn't help but open minds.

As to her anti-abortion stance...well, that's a tough one for me to accept. Even so, Palin is so refreshingly upfront about her opinion and so obviously true to it, as evidenced in the way she's lead her own life, I can't help but admire her even more, while still disagreeing with her about abortion.

Frankly, as someone who's voted Liberal (i.e. Democratic) all of my life, McCain's choice of VP is causing me to seriously consider voting Republican in this, my 10th, presidential election.

There is no "information" in Creationism, nor in its fraudulent repackaging as "Intelligfent Design." None.

There is no "debate" within Science about Evolution by Natural Selection. None. Debate, such as it is, is only in Philsophy of Science, History of Science, Sociology of Science. The pretense of "debate" about Evolution within any Science class in Public Schools is a fundamentalist strategy, and an attack on Science and Civilization.

Intelligent Design advocates in several states have actually tried to supply a new (and brain-dead) refinition of the word "science" in the curriculum.

Warning! This personally attractive woman's malignant beliefs (and as a daughter of a Science teacher!) would throw the USA back to BEFORE the Dark Ages.

It is scary 2 more religious idiots will be in the white house.

ID was already smashed in a Dover court. I wish it would stop. The fact she trumpets the fact her mommy taught in school proves how ignorant religion is.

Religion must not be stopped it must be crushed.

Creationism is NOT like conspiracy theories, which could be in fact proven either way through investigation and science. The key to creationism is that it is faith, and thus by definition unprovable.

Creationism has less place in a science classroom than does a discussion of whether the moon landing was faked/ How could one do a Mythbusters on creationism?

As the daughter of a science professor and a religious person AND a teacher myself, I firmly believe ID/creationism as no place whatsoever in a classroom. While I believe that the teachings in Genesis do not contradict evolution nor does the evidence of evolution exclude divinity in any way, those are discussions for CHURCH not SCHOOL. I want to choose from whom my children learn faith based information. If the fundamentalists want their agenda promoted, they should be met with resistance from all rational thinking people of faith. My father explained the creation of the world to me in a way that embraced both God and science. Most forward thinking scientists throughout history had strong faith AND they opposed government intrusion into church and church intrusion into science. This ONE BELIEVE ALONE makes me know that Sarah Palin is not the person to be a heartbeat away from such power. Of course, I don't like the other side much either so......

As the daughter of a science professor and a religious person AND a teacher myself, I firmly believe ID/creationism as no place whatsoever in a classroom. While I believe that the teachings in Genesis do not contradict evolution nor does the evidence of evolution exclude divinity in any way, those are discussions for CHURCH not SCHOOL. I want to choose from whom my children learn faith based information. If the fundamentalists want their agenda promoted, they should be met with resistance from all rational thinking people of faith. My father explained the creation of the world to me in a way that embraced both God and science. Most forward thinking scientists throughout history had strong faith AND they opposed government intrusion into church and church intrusion into science. This ONE BELIEVE ALONE makes me know that Sarah Palin is not the person to be a heartbeat away from such power. Of course, I don't like the other side much either so......

Will the fundamentalists ever give up? First, they came up with Creation "science", and attempted to force religion into the science classroom. This transparent attempt failed miserably. Then, they re-named Creation "science" to Intelligent Design, and did some revisionist gymnastics to attempt to make the bible harmonize with science, thus being left with some new-age form of Christianity which bears no resemblance whatsoever to the bible. Intelligent Design was ripped to shreds in the Dover court decision in 2005. Yet, the fundamentalist horde pushes on.

Why can't science class just teach science? I am sick and tired of these people trying to force their deluded view on people who want real science taught in their schools. We go to school to learn, not for story-time. Religion has no place in school, period. Religion and science are opposites, and can't co-exist in the same environment, period. Anyone who disagrees is simply living in a fantasy world, and wants to have it both ways. Keep your faith in your church.

If you want us to "teach the alternative" in science class, that "god" created the universe, then why don't you also push the idea that churches should also "preach the alternative", that there are no gods? Yeah, I thought so.

- A free-thinking atheist sick and tired of fundie B.S.

I am a science teacher in nyc. If I was told that I had to teach creationism to my students, then I would argue that I would have to also teach the alternate theories that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth for there is more scientific evidence supporting these two theories (and they are theories, debunked as they are) than there is for creationism (exactly none). To those in favor of teaching creationism, is this acceptable? To be consistent, you would have to say "yes." Now, do I really have to waste this much time in the classroom? Don't our kids deserve better?