Why Scott Walker's Views On Evolution Are Totally Relevant

[HUGGY]

There is no proof of Creationism...or God.

Plenty of proof...but you have to be high enough up the evolutionary ladder to understand it.

Please indulge me and give us some proof. BTW, carbon dating disproves Creationism.

It only disproves it if you accept the word of a minor sect as the gospel for everyone. Since they don't, your little talking point is laughable.

You indulge Me. What proof will you accept? Since I already know that if God appeared before you and proclaimed your destruction, you'd still disbelieve, tell Me. What proof does the baboon require that will convince him that the pretty colors on a painting truly is art?

I won't wait for an intelligent reply and since I have to go now....good luck with your own personal evolution...

I know from the Old Testament and from living 68 years that if God exists - he is a vicious, narcissistic psychopath.

Nobody's perfect !!!!

 

[blackhawk]

If you feel knowing Scott Walkers views on evolution are important and need to know them then you must also feel that knowing Hillary Clinton's views on creationism are important as well. For the record I have no need or interest in knowing Walkers views on evolution or Hilary's on creationism as things like this are only important to the most extreme of partisan hacks.

 

[Lakhota]

If you feel knowing Scott Walkers views on evolution are important and need to know them then you must also feel that knowing Hillary Clinton's views on creationism are important as well. For the record I have no need or interest in knowing Walkers views on evolution or Hilary's on creationism as things like this are only important to the most extreme of partisan hacks.

If I thought Hillary believed in Creationism - she would be dead political meat in my eyes.

 

[regent]

There is no proof of Creationism...or God.

Correct. That's why it takes faith. Pretty much the definition of it. By the way. Why do they call it the "theory" of evolution instead of the "fact" of evolution? Just curious. And before you get your thong in a knot over this, I am of the Christian FAITH (there's that word again) and I also believe in evolution.

Scientific theory is different from a lay person's use of theory. All the parts of evolution are all not in the bag and some of the missing pieces may never be found. Still, enough is there to keep mankind looking, and science to accept it as a scientific theory or a fact.

 

[blackhawk]

If you feel knowing Scott Walkers views on evolution are important and need to know them then you must also feel that knowing Hillary Clinton's views on creationism are important as well. For the record I have no need or interest in knowing Walkers views on evolution or Hilary's on creationism as things like this are only important to the most extreme of partisan hacks.

If I thought Hillary believed in Creationism - she would be dead political meat in my eyes.

I think we both know that's bullshit.

 

[Lakhota]

If you feel knowing Scott Walkers views on evolution are important and need to know them then you must also feel that knowing Hillary Clinton's views on creationism are important as well. For the record I have no need or interest in knowing Walkers views on evolution or Hilary's on creationism as things like this are only important to the most extreme of partisan hacks.

If I thought Hillary believed in Creationism - she would be dead political meat in my eyes.

I think we both know that's bullshit.

I promise you that is a FACT. I really detest religious nuts - regardless of their party.

 

[Stephanie]

Keep focused folks. don't let them DISTRACT you with nonsense GARBAGE.

snip:
Media Go Collectively Insane over GOP Positions on Evolution

REUTERS
by Ben Shapiro12 Feb 20152777


On Thursday, the media went collectively insane over Governor Scott Walker’s failure to answer a question about his beliefs on the theory of evolution. A questioner asked Walker earlier this week in London, “Are you comfortable with the idea of evolution? Do you believe in it?” Walker said he would “punt” on the issue, adding, “That’s a question politicians shouldn’t be involved in one way or another. I am going to leave that up to you. I’m here to talk about trade, not to pontificate about evolution.”

This led to blaring headlines throughout the media. Huffington Post said Walker “dodged” the question. The Daily Beast accused Walker of being “bland,” “stupid,” and “moronic.” Talking Points Memo reported that Walker would “rather talk about cheese than foreign policy or evolution.” Bloomberg ran a thorough piece about all the 2016 GOP candidates’ positions on evolution, headlined “Punt, Fumble, or Touchdown? These GOP Candidates Won’t Endorse Evolution.”

Welcome to the 2016 presidential cycle. While ISIS burns Jordanian pilots and beheads American journalists, while the economy teeters on the brink, while Obamacare rolls out, while racial divisions plague America, the media have focused, laserlike, on the issue that matters most: opinions on Charles Darwin.

Just as in 2012, when opinions about condoms trumped opinions about the national debt, so in 2016, Democrat-supporting media will attempt to paint Republicans as religious rubes still fighting the trumped-up Scopes Monkey Trial. Americans will be informed that Scott Walker’s position on the Cambrian explosion matters more than Hillary Clinton’s celebration of more than a million abortions per year in the United States, including 11,000 late-term abortions. Scott Walker and company will be lectured on geology, but nobody will ask Hillary Clinton to take a look at an ultrasound.



However, there is little doubt that the media are now playing a “gotcha” game, in which Republicans are asked questions that have no bearing on public policy to drive wedges into the conservative base, while Democrats are allowed to ignore serious scientific questions that have real public policy consequences. For example, in 2008, Jim Vandehei of Politico asked Republican candidates if they believed in evolution. That question has no impact on public policy. None. You can believe in evolution and still believe that local communities have a right to decide educational standards; you can believe in fundamentalist creationism and believe that the Department of Education should set broad national policy. But that’s not the point. The point is that Republicans and their supporters are dolts.

At no time during the 2008 Democratic presidential debates were Democrats asked if partial birth abortion extinguishes a human life. Hillary Clinton was asked when she believed life begins and was allowed to get away with this vague line: “I believe that the potential for life begins at conception.” But she wasn’t asked about her position on late-term abortion. When Pastor Rick Warren asked then-Senator Obama in 2008 at what point a baby receives “human rights,” Obama “punted” by stating, “Whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.” There was precisely zero articles in the mainstream media ripping Obama as anti-science.

The left seeks to seize the moral high ground regarding science versus religion – and the media hope to help them along. Republicans should fight back with both science and morality.

all of it here:

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.
http://launch.newsinc.com/?type=Vid...ely-insane-over-gop-positions-on-evolution%2F

 

[KingOfCars]

There is no proof of Creationism...or God.

Correct. That's why it takes faith. Pretty much the definition of it. By the way. Why do they call it the "theory" of evolution instead of the "fact" of evolution? Just curious. And before you get your thong in a knot over this, I am of the Christian FAITH (there's that word again) and I also believe in evolution.

You do know that a "scientific theory" is different from a "theory" - right?

Indeed. Curious. Why do they call it, scientific or otherwise, the "theory" of evolution? Either way, they've not connected all the dots. Therefore, it is still unproven. That's why they are searching for that ever-elusive missing link.

 

[Nyvin]

I find it hilarious there are still people out there that hopelessly believe that evolution is a myth...

 

[KingOfCars]

Lahkota,

If you detest people of faith, you must really hate Native Americans.

 

[Nutz]

WHO CARES. you people just don't give up do you?
His views aren't yours so that MAKES HIM WRONG?

JUST how uppity snobbish and INTOLERANT is that folks

You kicked them out of power for stuff like this and them telling YOU THAT YOUR views are wrong and not worthy.

plus it's already been posted and it was was dude also

Is there any situation where you would vote for Scott Walker? I assume the answer is no. So why do you care about this non-issue. Do you think it will dissuade people that are polar opposite of you...even moderates...given your argument only appeals to a faction of your party?

 

[regent]

Keep focused folks. don't let them DISTRACT you with nonsense GARBAGE.

snip:
Media Go Collectively Insane over GOP Positions on Evolution

REUTERS
by Ben Shapiro12 Feb 20152777


On Thursday, the media went collectively insane over Governor Scott Walker’s failure to answer a question about his beliefs on the theory of evolution. A questioner asked Walker earlier this week in London, “Are you comfortable with the idea of evolution? Do you believe in it?” Walker said he would “punt” on the issue, adding, “That’s a question politicians shouldn’t be involved in one way or another. I am going to leave that up to you. I’m here to talk about trade, not to pontificate about evolution.”

This led to blaring headlines throughout the media. Huffington Post said Walker “dodged” the question. The Daily Beast accused Walker of being “bland,” “stupid,” and “moronic.” Talking Points Memo reported that Walker would “rather talk about cheese than foreign policy or evolution.” Bloomberg ran a thorough piece about all the 2016 GOP candidates’ positions on evolution, headlined “Punt, Fumble, or Touchdown? These GOP Candidates Won’t Endorse Evolution.”

Welcome to the 2016 presidential cycle. While ISIS burns Jordanian pilots and beheads American journalists, while the economy teeters on the brink, while Obamacare rolls out, while racial divisions plague America, the media have focused, laserlike, on the issue that matters most: opinions on Charles Darwin.

Just as in 2012, when opinions about condoms trumped opinions about the national debt, so in 2016, Democrat-supporting media will attempt to paint Republicans as religious rubes still fighting the trumped-up Scopes Monkey Trial. Americans will be informed that Scott Walker’s position on the Cambrian explosion matters more than Hillary Clinton’s celebration of more than a million abortions per year in the United States, including 11,000 late-term abortions. Scott Walker and company will be lectured on geology, but nobody will ask Hillary Clinton to take a look at an ultrasound.



However, there is little doubt that the media are now playing a “gotcha” game, in which Republicans are asked questions that have no bearing on public policy to drive wedges into the conservative base, while Democrats are allowed to ignore serious scientific questions that have real public policy consequences. For example, in 2008, Jim Vandehei of Politico asked Republican candidates if they believed in evolution. That question has no impact on public policy. None. You can believe in evolution and still believe that local communities have a right to decide educational standards; you can believe in fundamentalist creationism and believe that the Department of Education should set broad national policy. But that’s not the point. The point is that Republicans and their supporters are dolts.

At no time during the 2008 Democratic presidential debates were Democrats asked if partial birth abortion extinguishes a human life. Hillary Clinton was asked when she believed life begins and was allowed to get away with this vague line: “I believe that the potential for life begins at conception.” But she wasn’t asked about her position on late-term abortion. When Pastor Rick Warren asked then-Senator Obama in 2008 at what point a baby receives “human rights,” Obama “punted” by stating, “Whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.” There was precisely zero articles in the mainstream media ripping Obama as anti-science.

The left seeks to seize the moral high ground regarding science versus religion – and the media hope to help them along. Republicans should fight back with both science and morality.

all of it here:

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

So why didn't Walker fight back immediately? Was it because of his personal beliefs or the loss of some of his followers?

 

[Stephanie]

I find it hilarious there are still people out there that hopelessly believe that evolution is a myth...

whatever. should we put you down for what you BELIEVE? or are you a Scientist that has published your proof ?

 

[Stephanie]

Keep focused folks. don't let them DISTRACT you with nonsense GARBAGE.

snip:
Media Go Collectively Insane over GOP Positions on Evolution

REUTERS
by Ben Shapiro12 Feb 20152777


On Thursday, the media went collectively insane over Governor Scott Walker’s failure to answer a question about his beliefs on the theory of evolution. A questioner asked Walker earlier this week in London, “Are you comfortable with the idea of evolution? Do you believe in it?” Walker said he would “punt” on the issue, adding, “That’s a question politicians shouldn’t be involved in one way or another. I am going to leave that up to you. I’m here to talk about trade, not to pontificate about evolution.”

This led to blaring headlines throughout the media. Huffington Post said Walker “dodged” the question. The Daily Beast accused Walker of being “bland,” “stupid,” and “moronic.” Talking Points Memo reported that Walker would “rather talk about cheese than foreign policy or evolution.” Bloomberg ran a thorough piece about all the 2016 GOP candidates’ positions on evolution, headlined “Punt, Fumble, or Touchdown? These GOP Candidates Won’t Endorse Evolution.”

Welcome to the 2016 presidential cycle. While ISIS burns Jordanian pilots and beheads American journalists, while the economy teeters on the brink, while Obamacare rolls out, while racial divisions plague America, the media have focused, laserlike, on the issue that matters most: opinions on Charles Darwin.

Just as in 2012, when opinions about condoms trumped opinions about the national debt, so in 2016, Democrat-supporting media will attempt to paint Republicans as religious rubes still fighting the trumped-up Scopes Monkey Trial. Americans will be informed that Scott Walker’s position on the Cambrian explosion matters more than Hillary Clinton’s celebration of more than a million abortions per year in the United States, including 11,000 late-term abortions. Scott Walker and company will be lectured on geology, but nobody will ask Hillary Clinton to take a look at an ultrasound.



However, there is little doubt that the media are now playing a “gotcha” game, in which Republicans are asked questions that have no bearing on public policy to drive wedges into the conservative base, while Democrats are allowed to ignore serious scientific questions that have real public policy consequences. For example, in 2008, Jim Vandehei of Politico asked Republican candidates if they believed in evolution. That question has no impact on public policy. None. You can believe in evolution and still believe that local communities have a right to decide educational standards; you can believe in fundamentalist creationism and believe that the Department of Education should set broad national policy. But that’s not the point. The point is that Republicans and their supporters are dolts.

At no time during the 2008 Democratic presidential debates were Democrats asked if partial birth abortion extinguishes a human life. Hillary Clinton was asked when she believed life begins and was allowed to get away with this vague line: “I believe that the potential for life begins at conception.” But she wasn’t asked about her position on late-term abortion. When Pastor Rick Warren asked then-Senator Obama in 2008 at what point a baby receives “human rights,” Obama “punted” by stating, “Whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.” There was precisely zero articles in the mainstream media ripping Obama as anti-science.

The left seeks to seize the moral high ground regarding science versus religion – and the media hope to help them along. Republicans should fight back with both science and morality.

all of it here:

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

So why didn't Walker fight back immediately? Was it because of his personal beliefs or the loss of some of his followers?

why the hell should they bow down to these "gotcha questions"? they did this with Mrs. Palin on what she reads. why haven't you all DEMANDED Obama release all his records? the media can go to hell with their bullshit and so can the Democrats

 

[Lakhota]

Lahkota,

If you detest people of faith, you must really hate Native Americans.

I view faith and religion quite differently.

 

[JoeMoma]

If you feel knowing Scott Walkers views on evolution are important and need to know them then you must also feel that knowing Hillary Clinton's views on creationism are important as well. For the record I have no need or interest in knowing Walkers views on evolution or Hilary's on creationism as things like this are only important to the most extreme of partisan hacks.

If I thought Hillary believed in Creationism - she would be dead political meat in my eyes.

So if she claims to be a Christian, you will not vote for her?

 

[Lakhota]

As the OP states:

"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."

 

[Lakhota]

If you feel knowing Scott Walkers views on evolution are important and need to know them then you must also feel that knowing Hillary Clinton's views on creationism are important as well. For the record I have no need or interest in knowing Walkers views on evolution or Hilary's on creationism as things like this are only important to the most extreme of partisan hacks.

If I thought Hillary believed in Creationism - she would be dead political meat in my eyes.

So if she claims to be a Christian, you will not vote for her?

Not if she doesn't believe in EVOLUTION!!!!!

 

[blackhawk]

If you feel knowing Scott Walkers views on evolution are important and need to know them then you must also feel that knowing Hillary Clinton's views on creationism are important as well. For the record I have no need or interest in knowing Walkers views on evolution or Hilary's on creationism as things like this are only important to the most extreme of partisan hacks.

If I thought Hillary believed in Creationism - she would be dead political meat in my eyes.

I think we both know that's bullshit.

I promise you that is a FACT. I really detest religious nuts - regardless of their party.

First believing in creationism does not make one a religious nut and second that claim would actually hold water If had ever seen you gripe about religious liberals.

 

[Nyvin]

Yes he's afraid of offending voters. How else do you think he's managed not to piss off the establishment "or" the tea party? He dodges pretty much all questions on almost every issue. Even on immigration he'll only go as far as to say "I don't like the bill in Congress" but then "We need a healthy solution to the problem"

He side steps pretty much everything except for union busting. Someone asks him a wedge issue and you get him saying "Umm...errr...uhh...hmmm...well...." and just dance around the issue.