He said that Palin’s comments about teaching creationism were “appropriate,” then said it’s up to local school boards to decide, then added that he personally supports creationism.

Pawlenty’s record on creationism was fairly empty until Sunday, when NBC’s Tom Brokaw pressed him on the issue. The closest he had previously come to addressing the issue was the appointment of intelligent design advocate Cheri Pierson Yecke as the state’s commissioner of education in 2003. Her support for the controversial science classroom curriculum led, in part, to the Minnesota Senate refusing to confirm her. Yecke was forced to step down in 2004.

A transcript of the Pawlenty interview is below the jump.

MR. BROKAW: Okay. In the governor’s race, she refused to be specific about her views on Creationism versus evolution. But, as I understand it, she did say that she thought that the two subjects should be taught side-by-side in public schools. Do you think that’s a good idea?

GOV. PAWLENTY: I saw her comments on it yesterday, and I thought they were appropriate, which is, you know, let’s — if there are competing theories, and they are credible, her view of it was, according to the comments in the newspaper, allow them all to be presented or allow them both to be presented so students could be exposed to both or more and have a chance to be exposed to the various theories and make up their own minds.

MR. BROKAW: In the vast scientific community, do you think that Creationism has the same weight as evolution, and at a time in American education when we are in a crisis when it comes to science, that there ought to be parallel tracks for Creationism versus evolution in the teaching?

GOV. PAWLENTY: In the scientific community, it seems like intelligent design is dismissed — not entirely, there are a lot of scientists who would make the case that it is appropriate to be taught and appropriate to be demonstrated, but in terms of the curriculum in the schools in Minnesota, we’ve taken the approach that that’s a local decision. I know Senator Palin — or Governor Palin — has said intelligent design is something that she thinks should be taught along with evolution in the schools, and I think that’s appropriate. My personal view is that’s a local decision –

MR. BROKAW: Given equal weight.

GOV. PAWLENTY: — of the local school board.

MR. BROKAW: And you would recommend it be given equal weight?

GOV. PAWLENTY: We’ve said in Minnesota, in my view, this is a local decision. Intelligent design is something that, in my view, is plausible and credible and something that I personally believe in but, more importantly, from an educational and scientific standpoint, it should be decided by local school boards at the local school district level.

While in the Minnesota House Paulsen earned high marks from the Minnesota Family Council for his yes-vote on science standards that teach students to doubt evolutionary theory. The Family Council vote required “that state-mandated science standards include an explanation of how new scientific evidence can challenge scientific theories such as evolution.” Certainly, new scientific evidence challenges thinking about how evolution works. The only challenges to the theory of evolution itself come from proponents of intelligent design and straightforward Biblical creationism (aka “creation science”).

In his home district, Senate District 42, which encompasses Eden Prairie and southern Minnetonka, Republicans are looking to change the state party platform to include intelligent design: “We support protecting educators from disciplinary action for including discussion of creation science intelligent design, and adopting science standards that acknowledge the scientific controversies pertaining to the theory of evolution.”

I asked the Paulsen campaign if he was a supporter of intelligent design and if he supported his party’s proposed platform on science curriculum. The campaign offered this response:

Curriculum decisions should be made by local school boards.  As you may know, school boards are required to appoint parents and educators to local curriculum committees.  These local curriculum committees are responsible for selecting nonsectarian curriculum and supplemental materials taught to students.  The curriculum selected must ultimately align to state academic standards adopted by the Minnesota Legislature.

I strongly believe that state legislatures and Congress should not act as `super school boards.’  School boards should have the flexibility to make education decisions and states should be responsible for holding school boards accountable for results.  Local school boards should actively engage parents in all education decisions, including local curriculum selection decisions.

Based on that response, it is unclear whether Paulsen supports his Senate district’s push for intelligent design. Also left unclear is the reasoning behind his vote in the Minnesota House to open the door for the teaching of intelligent design.

Intelligent design has been labeled pseudoscience by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In fact, the term “intelligent design” came about because court cases found the phrase “creation science” to be in violation of church and state due to its focus on one viewpoint of the origin of life — the Judeo-Christian viewpoint.

Recent polling suggests that the majority of Americans want evolution taught in the schools. An American Physical Society survey found that 53 percent of Americans support teaching evolution. However, the American public remains divided, especially when it comes to whether or not creationism or intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution. The same poll found that 27 percent favor teaching intelligent design, and 36 percent favor teaching creationism.