Why Scott Walker's Views On Evolution Are Totally Relevant

[JoeB131]

Evolution will not go away now

Walker owns the issue

Since 74% of the population agrees with him, it's a good issue to own.

 

[JoeB131]

And yeah, I am poor trailer trash who wants government to leave me alone, quite the sharp wit you have.

Guy, if you honestly think the government is "oppressing" you, you probably have some serious issues that have nothing to do with the government.

Okay. Best shot. What's the government done to you that is just so damned horrible?

 

[rightwinger]

Evolution will not go away now

Walker owns the issue

Since 74% of the population agrees with him, it's a good issue to own.

I hope he does own it

First presidential contender in 100 years to deny evolution

What we call an "education" president

 

[kaz]

Evolution will not go away now

Walker owns the issue

Since 74% of the population agrees with him, it's a good issue to own.

Now you just have to get it to register on the who gives a shit meter

 

[kaz]

And yeah, I am poor trailer trash who wants government to leave me alone, quite the sharp wit you have.

Guy, if you honestly think the government is "oppressing" you, you probably have some serious issues that have nothing to do with the government.

Okay. Best shot. What's the government done to you that is just so damned horrible?

Look dude, you can recite all the liberal BS you want. But when you quote you are saying that was my word, it wasn't, it was yours. Knock it off.

 

[JoeB131]

I hope he does own it

First presidential contender in 100 years to deny evolution

What we call an "education" president

when was the last time evolution was a major debate thing.

Incidentally, Reagan denied evolution.

From 1980.

Reagan Favors Creationism in the Public Schools NCSE

Presidential hopeful Ronald Reagan told a cheering throng of over 10,000 "born-again" Christians in Dallas that the lack of "that old-time religion" in public schools has led to an increase in human suffering. He was addressing a rally of New Right preachers and politicians from more than 41 states who gathered on August 22nd to participate in a "Roundtable National Affairs Briefing." In reference to the theory of evolution Reagan declared, "I have a great many questions about it. It is a theory, it is a scientific theory only. And in recent years it has been challenged in the world of science and is not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was. I think that recent discoveries down through the years have pointed up great flaws in it." He then added that if the theory of evolution is to be taught in public schools, so should the Biblical version of the origin of human life.

This is not the issue you are looking for.

 

[JoeB131]

Look dude, you can recite all the liberal BS you want. But when you quote you are saying that was my word, it wasn't, it was yours. Knock it off.

And once again, we get the Libertarian cray-cray in full force.

 

[hadit]

Care to point out why your original remark was relevant to the OP, which was "Quite the opposite. I'm retired and living the good life."

You got what you dished, west mall cop.

To the OP: yes, voters want to know if a candidate believes in the scientific process.

They certainly didn't have a problem re-electing a candidate who claimed he would stop the oceans from rising.

 

[hadit]

So no far left drone can post where Walker has tried to change the law so that evolution would be replaced with creationism.

Come on not one far left drone can prove their propaganda?

Actually, Walker may believe in evolution - but he won't confirm or deny.

Neither one has anything to do with him being a good president.

 

[hadit]

How is evolution an "issue"?

If Creationism was about to be taught in a science class in your schools by state mandate, would you be concerned about the quality of education offered there? While Conservatives whine and rail about perceived 'indoctrination' at institutions of higher learning, they have no objections to science cirriculae that does not teach science. Modern people want contemporary science taught. Not alchemy, not sorcery and certainly not mythology.

If creationism was taught, I would point out that the school is doing the correct thing in teaching young minds to think critically about everything, and not lock their minds into their own preconceived notions of reality.

Forbidding any subject in a school designed to open the mind of students based solely upon hatred is not what I would call a quality education.

I simply don't understand the unreasonable hatred shown by a tiny sect of this country against religion. What does it matter to anyone what others believe.

To be fair, I have ALWAYS said that teaching Creationism in public schools by mandate is fine, if it is taught in a Philosophy class, but never in a Science class. Science is science and Creatuonism is mythology. We have been able to see the difference since the Enlightenment.

I bear no hatred toward Creationism. Notice I capitalize it out of respect.

But Science is science and Creationism is mythology. We have been seeing the difference since the Enlightenment. The argument is not about forbidding teaching anything. God knows we crave and deserve to think as broadly and as critically as humanly possible.

But Creationism does not rise to the threshold of science and the scientific method. A method that has brought all the wonders of the man made environment we share on this glorious planet. And a method that has given mankind a quantifiable and qualifiable way of understanding this planet with all its wonders.

Creationism is one of many scriptural myths among every culture. Isn't teaching the Judeo-Christian myth as science, while relegating the creation myths of other cultures to their appropriate place in Philosophy, a way of the state establishing a religion, and therefore unconstitional?

So no far left drone can post where Walker has tried to change the law so that evolution would be replaced with creationism.

Who said he did or would make such a change?

What else could be the basis of this irrational fear of his stance? If I recall correctly, you yourself are afraid that he would place justices on the bench that would allow creationism to be taught, something that apparently makes you react hysterically.

 

[hadit]

Scott Walker doesn’t want reporters to ask him about his position on evolution. That’s one more reason why they should.

Walker, the newly re-elected governor of Wisconsin, is a front-runner for the 2016 Republican nomination. This week he was in London to promote his state’s business interests and, undoubtedly, to establish himself as a credible figure on the world stage. But then a reporter asked Walker whether he believed in evolution. Walker said he would “punt” on that question and added “that’s a question a politician shouldn’t be involved in one way or the other.”

Supporters and other conservatives rallied to Walker’s defense, suggesting that the question itself was out of bounds -- or at least another example of the mainstream media ganging up on Republican candidates.

But there’s a reason reporters are curious to learn what Walker thinks about evolution. Some 90 years after the Scopes Trial, the theory of evolution and its place in the schools remain matters of public debate. Two states, Louisiana and Tennessee, now allow public schools to teach “alternatives” to evolution. Several others allow public funding to support such teaching through charter schools or vouchers. At least for the sake of politics, the issue isn't really whether “faith & science are compatible,” as Scott put it; Pope Francis has said he believes in evolution, for example. Rather, the issue is whether discussions of divine intervention belong in the classroom. That raises fundamental questions about the boundaries between religion and science that Walker, as a president appointing federal judges, would have to consider.

Basic respect for, and appreciation of, science is another issue. Put a bunch of evolutionary biologists in a room and you'll get a lively debate over the precise origins of some species, such as the bat, and the extent to which "random processes," rather than the familiar power of natural selection, shaped populations over time. What you won’t get is denial or skepticism of the insights we now associate with Darwin -- the idea that the species on Earth emerged over a very long time, through a process of hereditary, generation-to-generation change. The science on this is just not up for reasonable debate. "You have to be blinkered or ignorant not to know that," saysJerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago and author of the book Why Evolution Is True.

Interrogating Democrats about whether they accept the expert consensus on evolution, or any other scientific issue, is absolutely fair game. But Republicans have given the press, and the public, more reason to ask questions. Walker's silence turns out to be typical of the GOP presidential field, as Salon's Luke Brinker noted this week. And Republicans have shown similar disregard for science on other issues -- most critically, climate change. As with evolution, you can get a spirited, meaningful debate among the experts over precisely how quickly global warming will take place or exactly what consequences it will have. What you won’t find is a significant number of scientists questioning that the planet is warming because of human activity. And yet Republicans routinely deny this, citing supposed uncertainty over the details as reason not to take action on reducing emissions or pursuing alternative energy more aggressively.

It’s possible that Walker believes in evolution and is simply wary of offending voters -- particularly the white evangelical voters who hold enormous sway in the Republican primaries and are more likely than other groups to question the theory’s basic tenets. Walker’s carefully worded tweets, which manage to talk about science without using the word “evolution,” would be consistent with such caution. Of course, this would only render the question more relevant. As president, Walker would surely have those same voters in mind when contemplating decisions about other issues -- reproductive rights, for instance, or same-sex marriage.

More: Why Scott Walker's Views On Evolution Are Totally Relevant

It should be obvious that Walker's views on evolution are totally relevant.

So you were in his camp until you realized he wouldn't answer the evolution question? I'm glad to hear such thoughtful analysis from a true thinker with a critical mind. So if he does come out as an evolution believer, that sews up your vote for him, right?

Apparently, it's the only thing that matters.

 

[hadit]

What are Walker's views on evolution? Why is it even important to know? What are Obama's views on broccoli?

The next questions are do you believe in science do you think non christians are going to hell do you think america is a christian nation do you think a woman should have the right to choose do you believe in stem cell.

It matters very much what his answer is.

Obama doesn't like broccoli.

No, it doesn't matter except to people who fear opinions other than their own.

Fear? We want to know if we agree with the retard before we vote for him.

Why did it matter if Obama was a Muslim to you guys?

Why should it matter to you? You wouldn't consider voting for him, even if he ran against the corpse of Democrat George Wallace. He has an "R" after his name. You just want ammo to pound him with in the press because you know there is no Democrat candidate with his record of success.

If it really is 'ammo to pound him with in the press', why would it be 'ammo'? Holding a Creationist position is a factor to be considered in a leader. Do you think a Walker Creationist position is a safe position? Would you distance yourself from the Creationists or pander to them? Why would Walker elect to 'punt' on the question? If he opposes Creationism as science, why not say so? Is Walkwr keeping his cards close to his vest because he wants Creationism in his back pocket so groups who do support Creationism as science won't turn their backs on him?

Walker reserves credibility when pandering to the Creationists on the campaign trail. A politician with integrity would have honestly answered the question.

Let us know when you find one. Until then, we're stuck with varying degrees of integrity, with very little on the democrat side of things.

 

[hadit]

Eh. While I'm totally aware that evolution is irrefutably true, I have to agree with him that it wasn't really an appropriate question. A politician's private faith shouldn't be considered a public concern. It was nobody's business that JFK was Catholic. It wasn't anyone's business that Romney is Mormon. It's not anyone's business that Walker is a creationist. You might as well be attacking his family, like how liberals attacked Palin's disabled son, or how they attacked McCain's time as a POW. It shows about as much class.

He wasn't asked if he was a creationist. He was asked if he believed in a scientific theory.

No, he was asked if he believed in evolution. Different thing. The reactions from some on this board makes it more of a faith question than anything resembling science. I mean, they're saying that a presidential candidate who even expresses skepticism about the orthodoxy is such a heretic he must be deleted from public life.

 

[hadit]

You could attempt to show where Walker did anything to prevent people from joining a union, but you would fail. But hey, we'll wait while you try, and laugh at you.

 

[sealybobo]

The next questions are do you believe in science do you think non christians are going to hell do you think america is a christian nation do you think a woman should have the right to choose do you believe in stem cell.

It matters very much what his answer is.

Obama doesn't like broccoli.

No, it doesn't matter except to people who fear opinions other than their own.

Fear? We want to know if we agree with the retard before we vote for him.

Why did it matter if Obama was a Muslim to you guys?

Why should it matter to you? You wouldn't consider voting for him, even if he ran against the corpse of Democrat George Wallace. He has an "R" after his name. You just want ammo to pound him with in the press because you know there is no Democrat candidate with his record of success.

If it really is 'ammo to pound him with in the press', why would it be 'ammo'? Holding a Creationist position is a factor to be considered in a leader. Do you think a Walker Creationist position is a safe position? Would you distance yourself from the Creationists or pander to them? Why would Walker elect to 'punt' on the question? If he opposes Creationism as science, why not say so? Is Walkwr keeping his cards close to his vest because he wants Creationism in his back pocket so groups who do support Creationism as science won't turn their backs on him?

Walker reserves credibility when pandering to the Creationists on the campaign trail. A politician with integrity would have honestly answered the question.

Let us know when you find one.

I'm just glad to see walker doesn't really believe in creation science. If he did truly believe he would have said so loud and proud.

He just doesn't want his creationist voters to know.

Glad to see he doesn't have the balls to publically deny evolution.

Its a lot easier to be stupid anonymously on usmb than in public.

Creation science is laughable but the stupid masses of dumb christian right wing voters don't know it just like with global warming.

 

[Lakhota]

You could attempt to show where Walker did anything to prevent people from joining a union, but you would fail. But hey, we'll wait while you try, and laugh at you.

Are you suggesting that Walker champions union rights? Why is he labeled a union-buster?

 

[sealybobo]

Eh. While I'm totally aware that evolution is irrefutably true, I have to agree with him that it wasn't really an appropriate question. A politician's private faith shouldn't be considered a public concern. It was nobody's business that JFK was Catholic. It wasn't anyone's business that Romney is Mormon. It's not anyone's business that Walker is a creationist. You might as well be attacking his family, like how liberals attacked Palin's disabled son, or how they attacked McCain's time as a POW. It shows about as much class.

He wasn't asked if he was a creationist. He was asked if he believed in a scientific theory.

No, he was asked if he believed in evolution. Different thing. The reactions from some on this board makes it more of a faith question than anything resembling science. I mean, they're saying that a presidential candidate who even expresses skepticism about the orthodoxy is such a heretic he must be deleted from public life.

He can run WI but not the free world. We already tried this with religious bush and that didn't work.

Denied global warming birth control stem cell research gay rights and womens rights and science.

This disqualifies him.

 

[hadit]

You could attempt to show where Walker did anything to prevent people from joining a union, but you would fail. But hey, we'll wait while you try, and laugh at you.

Are you suggesting that Walker champions union rights?

I'm suggesting your cartoon is laughably stupid. You're attempting to convey the idea that Walker is trying to prevent people from joining unions. That's laughably stupid.

 

[hadit]

Eh. While I'm totally aware that evolution is irrefutably true, I have to agree with him that it wasn't really an appropriate question. A politician's private faith shouldn't be considered a public concern. It was nobody's business that JFK was Catholic. It wasn't anyone's business that Romney is Mormon. It's not anyone's business that Walker is a creationist. You might as well be attacking his family, like how liberals attacked Palin's disabled son, or how they attacked McCain's time as a POW. It shows about as much class.

He wasn't asked if he was a creationist. He was asked if he believed in a scientific theory.

No, he was asked if he believed in evolution. Different thing. The reactions from some on this board makes it more of a faith question than anything resembling science. I mean, they're saying that a presidential candidate who even expresses skepticism about the orthodoxy is such a heretic he must be deleted from public life.

He can run WI but not the free world. We already tried this with religious bush and that didn't work.

Denied global warming birth control stem cell research gay rights and womens rights and science.

This disqualifies him.

How is expressing skepticism about man-caused global warming less egregious than Obama proclaiming that his election would stop the sea levels from rising? That's one.
Now, please do show us where Bush denied birth control. Oh, please attempt to do that. It will be fun. While you're at it, be sure to line up the men and women who were denied birth control.
Stem cell research? You can't possibly be serious. Bush didn't deny that at all.
Gay rights? It is to laugh.
Womens' rights? Again, what women were denied their rights because of Bush?
Science? You're desperate, aren't you?

I'm laughing already.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Care to point out why your original remark was relevant to the OP, which was "Quite the opposite. I'm retired and living the good life."

You got what you dished, west mall cop.

To the OP: yes, voters want to know if a candidate believes in the scientific process.

They certainly didn't have a problem re-electing a candidate who claimed he would stop the oceans from rising.

One, those are your words, actually, and, Two, Canute was not in the race.