Does Sarah Palin Home School Her Children? Is She a Creationist?
In a recent Usenet discussion a poster asserted that Palin homeschooled her children in young earth creationism. When I asked him what his source was he retracted the claim, while adding that he still believed it was true, although he didn't have the evidence so support it.
Using Google, I found lots of assertions that Palin home schools, both by posters who approve and by ones who disapprove. But the only evidence I could find was one post to a blog, in which a commenter asserts that "Just a few days ago she came into IDEA, Interior Distance Education of Alaska, where my husband works as a contact teacher, and signed up her high school age daughter!"
The fact that a commenter on a blog says something is only weak evidence that it is true—the web is an unfiltered medium. And even if it is true, the implication is that she has just started to home school one child, not that she has home schooled all of them.
The additional detail, the claim that she home schools in young earth creationism, I haven't yet found anywhere other than the initial post. IDEA, which seems to be the only basis for the home schooling claim, is run by an Alaskan school district; I could find no suggestion on their web page that they are creationists, young earth or otherwise.
The claim that she is a young earth creationist, or alternatively just a creationist, on the other hand, has been made by lots of people online. So far as I can tell, there is no support for it either.
In response to a question from the moderator of a television debate, Palin said
"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information....Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."
In explaining her view later,
Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." (Source here)
She has also been quoted as saying that "“I believe we have a creator” but that “I’m not going to pretend I know how all this came to be.”
All of that could mean that she believes in creationism but doesn't want to say so for political reasons. It could mean that she believes in evolution but doesn't want to say so for political reasons. The most obvious reading, however, and the one most consistent with what she has said, is that she believes in God, assumes he is ultimately responsible for the world as it now exists, and has no strong opinions on how he managed it or how long he took.
Before denouncing that as an intellectually indefensible position, it's worth asking what fraction of those who believe in the theory of evolution could accurately explain it—let alone do a competent job of describing the evidence for it. My impression is that most believers in evolution, like most believers in creationism, base their belief not on their own knowledge and thought but on what they have been told by the authorities they respect.
My interpretation of the whole home school/creationist story is that it is mostly simple bigotry. People who have reasons to oppose Palin start with a stereotypical picture of a fundamentalist conservative. They paste that picture onto Palin with very little evidence,and deduce that she must do and believe various things that there is little or no evidence she does or believes. On the whole, the actual fundamentalists have behaved better in this case than their critics; I found a number of online explanations from their side of the fact that she did not appear to be one of them, unfortunately.
Finally, I should add that I think a lively debate between evolution and creationism in the classroom might be a good thing. Students are more likely to learn to understand ideas in that context, where they are trying to defend or attack them, than when they are simply told by their teacher "this is what is true, believe it," which is in practice what a lot of schooling comes down to. Whether that was Palin's point I don't know, but it is at least consistent with what she said.
---------
Using Google, I found lots of assertions that Palin home schools, both by posters who approve and by ones who disapprove. But the only evidence I could find was one post to a blog, in which a commenter asserts that "Just a few days ago she came into IDEA, Interior Distance Education of Alaska, where my husband works as a contact teacher, and signed up her high school age daughter!"
The fact that a commenter on a blog says something is only weak evidence that it is true—the web is an unfiltered medium. And even if it is true, the implication is that she has just started to home school one child, not that she has home schooled all of them.
The additional detail, the claim that she home schools in young earth creationism, I haven't yet found anywhere other than the initial post. IDEA, which seems to be the only basis for the home schooling claim, is run by an Alaskan school district; I could find no suggestion on their web page that they are creationists, young earth or otherwise.
The claim that she is a young earth creationist, or alternatively just a creationist, on the other hand, has been made by lots of people online. So far as I can tell, there is no support for it either.
In response to a question from the moderator of a television debate, Palin said
"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information....Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."
In explaining her view later,
Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." (Source here)
She has also been quoted as saying that "“I believe we have a creator” but that “I’m not going to pretend I know how all this came to be.”
All of that could mean that she believes in creationism but doesn't want to say so for political reasons. It could mean that she believes in evolution but doesn't want to say so for political reasons. The most obvious reading, however, and the one most consistent with what she has said, is that she believes in God, assumes he is ultimately responsible for the world as it now exists, and has no strong opinions on how he managed it or how long he took.
Before denouncing that as an intellectually indefensible position, it's worth asking what fraction of those who believe in the theory of evolution could accurately explain it—let alone do a competent job of describing the evidence for it. My impression is that most believers in evolution, like most believers in creationism, base their belief not on their own knowledge and thought but on what they have been told by the authorities they respect.
My interpretation of the whole home school/creationist story is that it is mostly simple bigotry. People who have reasons to oppose Palin start with a stereotypical picture of a fundamentalist conservative. They paste that picture onto Palin with very little evidence,and deduce that she must do and believe various things that there is little or no evidence she does or believes. On the whole, the actual fundamentalists have behaved better in this case than their critics; I found a number of online explanations from their side of the fact that she did not appear to be one of them, unfortunately.
Finally, I should add that I think a lively debate between evolution and creationism in the classroom might be a good thing. Students are more likely to learn to understand ideas in that context, where they are trying to defend or attack them, than when they are simply told by their teacher "this is what is true, believe it," which is in practice what a lot of schooling comes down to. Whether that was Palin's point I don't know, but it is at least consistent with what she said.
---------
[Added Later]
Some of my questions have been answered by comments and other sources of information. It seems clear that Palin sent her children to the public schools, probably for all of their schooling. The obvious guess is that her interest in distance learning reflected, not support for home schooling in general, but an attempt to deal with problems raised by her daughter's pregnancy.

22 Comments:
Unfortunately, I don't trust most educators, especially those teaching in government schools, to separate reason from emotion in the creationism/evolution debate. It's an unfortunate circumstance, and I stand firm with you that both should be taught via debate, but I just don't trust the government or religious schools to do it well.
You are so right, David. Schoolkids, especially in science classes, would do well to ponder such issues as:
1. Did the first trees have rings?
2. Did the first rocks have strata?
3. How is it that Adam and Eve have been depicted with belly-buttons?
4. Why is Michelangelo's David not circumcises?
The debate would do them all a world of good.
Like you, I don't see what the fuss is about creationism (or more specifically, Intelligent Design). When I was at Hillsdale I would spend a week dealing with fallacies about international trade, and then the biologists would guffaw at having to waste 10 minutes of class time putting some Bible-thumping IDer in his place...
A lively debate between creationism and evolution? Might as well have a debate between sexual conception and the Stork Theory too...
Jonathan is sceptical of the possibility of a lively debate between evolution and creationism. I suspect he is confusing two quite different questions:
1. Is the evidence for evolution strong?
2. Does the average believer in evolution have strong grounds for his belief?
I think the answer to the first is "yes," to the second "no." My guess is that an intelligent and well prepared creationist could do quite well in a debate with an average K-12 science teacher. And I suspect a bright and involved creationist 12 year old could pretty easily outargue the average 12 year old who believes in evolution.
The issues are complicated enough, and the possible argument numerous enough, so that one can't simply offer a one page proof of evolution that all supporters understand and go home. And I suspect that believers in evolution who had to actually defend their position would end up understanding it a good deal better as a result.
I'm fairly certain she doesn't home school, at least her older children. When the smear that Bristol Palin was Trig Palin's real mother appeared on the Daily Kos this weekend, part of the "evidence" was that Bristol was out of school for a month with mono.
Of course, that itself could be the origin of the rumor -- if Bristol missed that much school, her parents probably arranged for alternate course work at home.
I found that when I tried to engage myself in the creationist v. evolution argument that I learned a great deal about evolution, so I whole-heartedly agree that discussion and argumentation are the best tools for learning.
I am sad to say that I am skeptical that such an open discussion is plausible in most school environments in regards to evolution, but that could be plain cynicism. I find that the majority of people on both sides of the issue are rather unreasonable. I must say that the creationists I have spoken to are more unreasonable in the fact that they often won't even entertain the possibility of evidence to the contrary, although this is rather anecdotal.
I think this also brings up the issue of transparency of religious issues in politics as well. For instance I think that it is perfectly legitimate to wonder and openly discuss Christian eschatology and the prevalence of the rapture in many churches. Pastor Hagee is the most prominent example, but there are many others. Many of these preach very specific beliefs relating to foreign policy and also the nature of dominion over the planet. I don’t think it should be a small footnote when people endorse the beliefs of and imminent apocalypse centered on conflict in Israel or the likelihood of the pope as the loci of the embodiment of evil on earth.
Do I believe in evolution? Yes. Why?
As you point out, David, I have no particular command of the complex science which makes evolution the most probable truth.
I believe in evolution because, frankly, I believe in the people who believe in evolution. They are highly academically qualified. They speak in a calm, rational way. They are scientists.
Science? Yes, I believe in it. I see the fruits of science every day. I am most probably alive today because of science.
Call it an article of faith, if you must. But it's a demonstrable one. Science seems to work for me, as a guide to truth, better than scripture or faith in an unseen being.
Teach both? Depends on what you mean by "teach". Tell kids that both are equally "true"? Tell them that the truth is something they can choose, depending on what they feel like on the day? That, alas, is what the "healthy debate" boils down to.
I would teach creationism no more than I would teach that Saddam Hussein flew planes into the WTC, simply because it's what many people believe.
My interpretation of the whole home school/creationist story is that it is mostly simple bigotry.
I'm sad to see the conflation of home schooling with creation. Creationists are a subset of home schoolers, not their equivalent.
Speaking as the poster who foolishly passed on the rumor referred to in David's post, I am thoroughly embarrassed by finding myself the vector of an unsubstantiated rumor. But there is another issue here as well. As the pro-Obama bloggers worked hard to generate negative material within a newscycle, I found it interesting that the as yet unsubstantiated rumors about her family life proved to receive the greatest media attention, while the apparently now substantiated claim that she was a member of the libertarian/quasi-secessionist Alaska Independence Party before joining the Republican Party has received comparatively little attention. To my knowledge, no one has questioned her or the campaign about whether former membership in a group with the views of the federal government that it has is in any way disqualifying for a bid for high federal office. Though if anything I find that this prior association enhances rather than diminishes my picture of her as someone who can think outside the box, I think it says something about our country's attitude toward women and power that a story about her and her daughter's uteruses has legs (as it were), but a story about her (former? current?) ideas does not.
"I think it says something about our country's attitude toward women and power that a story about her and her daughter's uteruses has legs (as it were), but a story about her (former? current?) ideas does not."
It says something about women and power? Or just about sex?
Alan Greenspan and Objectivism might be a decent parallel to Palin's early ideas. Compare the story about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill (admittedly not as good a parallel, but I'm short of examples involving confirmation hearings for appointive positions). Which story caught people's interest more? It seems to me that regardless of whether a candidate is a man or a woman, strongly-sex-related stories about the candidate tend to catch people's interest more than ideas stories.
This 2006 article says "Her oldest, son Track, is attending high school and playing hockey in Michigan this year. Daughters Bristol, Willow and Piper attend Wasilla public schools."
That's a pretty big age range, all in school.
If the argument is for or against debate on a religious topic it, should not be allowed in schools. How can you debate a belief?
If the validity of the theory of evolution need to be debated, do so. The problem is there is only one fact that addresses any doubt in the theory. Evidence of the "missing link" has been limited. The problem is the genetics still point to evolution. Evolution does not eliminate God, and shouldn't be explained as such. Especially with the definition of intelligent design, but until there is evidence regarding religon it should not be taught in a schools.
NO! We need Washington D.C. bureaucrats forcing every last school district to teach only approved science.
Otherwise 40% of the population will become young-earth creationists and another 40% will have a God-tinkering view of creation.
Wait... That's the status quo.
Personally, I think economic ignorance is a greater problem biological origins ignorance.
If we're going to have the federal government ban crappy science, I want it to ban discussion of "labor" economics and junk-science that views the minimum wage, anti-competitive consumer protection and trade restrictions in a positive light.
Thanks for being one of a very view people who recognize that having central government bureaucrats or judges dictate science curriculum is more dangerous than allowing some wrong ideas to be discussed in schools.
-Mercy
-
As headbang8 points out, most educated people "believe in" a lot of things that they haven't directly investigated or proven. I "believe in" Newtonian physics and (with less confidence) the Einsteinian and quantum corrections to it, but I haven't done the experiments, seen the experiments, even read first-hand accounts of most of the experiments, that led to those theories. I "believe in" evolution, and I've read more on the subject (e.g. Stephen Jay Gould) than most laypeople, but I haven't looked at the primary data, other than seeing some things in rocks that "experts" tell me are fossilized fish from many millions of years ago.
Science is a collective enterprise which would never get anywhere without a certain amount of faith that
(a) the universe operates according to consistent, comprehensible laws, and
(b) most scientists are mostly honest most of the time about what they've observed.
If you accept these two axioms, then having lots of different scientists do lots of experiments and replicating them many times should lead the community to valid conclusions about the way the world works, even though each individual may understand only a tiny fraction of it.
"Country first" seems a fitting motto for the McCain/Palin ticket. Sarah Palin's priority seems to be winning an election. This is at the expense of her children's privacy and education. Her eldest daughter, who reportedly missed several months of school last year due to a case of mono, during which time she became pregnant, is now being paraded in front of the entire world. The decent thing to do is to allow these children to return home with a caring, nurturing adult figure to guide them and protect them. Their parents do not seem to be such caring, nuturing adults. Dontbeleftalone
"I "believe in" evolution, and I've read more on the subject (e.g. Stephen Jay Gould) than most laypeople"
I have a pretty low opinion of Gould--so far as I can tell, he routinely misrepresented the views of people he disagreed with and distorted the contents of his (very readable) essays for ideological reasons. My preferred explanation of evolution is Dawkins' _The Selfish Gene_.
1. Is the evidence for evolution strong?
2. Does the average believer in evolution have strong grounds for his belief?
Wow.
I might offer, in comparison:
1. Is the evidence for the inverse square law of gravity strong?
2. Does the average believer in the inverse square law of gravity have strong grounds for his belief?
I suspect I could just as reasonable label the answers to these questions Yes, and No as well. Does this mean we should start having lively debates with flat earthers?
I've seen references to her children in school, so I don't think they are currently homeschooled. Here is Bristol's high school principal, for example.
And IDEA is run by a public school. I doubt there is any religious anything to the courses through them.
"Science? Yes, I believe in it. I see the fruits of science every day. I am most probably alive today because of science.
"Call it an article of faith, if you must. But it's a demonstrable one. Science seems to work for me, as a guide to truth, better than scripture or faith in an unseen being."
Headbang, this is called "begging the question." Of course science does better than religion at, say, building computers. But, of course, that's not what a religious person believes is really important in life!
What you are saying is "Science does better at meeting scientific criteria for truth than does religion." Thereby offering a good example of how naive most evolutionists faith is!
Wouldn't it be an invasion of the Palin family's privacy for a IDEA teacher to tell anyone that the Palin's daughter has been signed up for school with them? I live in PA and this type of information is kept confidential. I would find out who gave this information and do something about it!
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home