Scott Walker On Evolution: 'I Am Going To Punt On That One'

[Kosh]

1. You're trying to move the goalposts. Don't make this about what the so-called dastardly motives of what you want to call creationist groups are. You made a sweeping statement that an individual who believe in creationism is not qualified to be president. That's your bigoted standard for individuals. The groups isn't even a factor in that bottom line you presented.

No sir, I am not moving any goalposts. Creationists are not qualified to be president for the simple fact that they have repeatedly stated that they stated intend is to destroy our education system, which will also destroy our economy. anyone who believes they have a right to force their religious beliefs on others is not fit to govern in a free society. This has nothing to do with bigotry. Obviously you don't even know what the word means.

2. Creationism is not a denial of science. Your logic in that regard is fallacious. And your sweeping statement that those who believe in creationism is bigoted and offensive. If you had 'common sense' or rather if you drained yourself of your hateful bigotry, you'd not being spouting your dogma.

Absolutely, it is a denial of science. Don't be naive. Anyone who believes the universe is 6,000 years old is not fit to govern an advanced technological society such as ours. Anyone who believes that the Flintstones is a documentary is not fit to govern. Period.

3. I don't think that a history of the presidents' religions and beliefs in creationism are a serious topic of dispute. If anyone has anything to prove on that front it would be you.

You are the one who claimed that most of our presidents are creationists. It's your claim to prove. have at it.

Just because people believe in Creationism does not mean that they believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Very few Christians who believe in Creation believe that.

Then they don't believe in creationism. I don't know where you people have been living these past 30 years, but it is clear that many creationists hold to a silly notion of very young Earth. We've been fighting them, actually, since Darwin published Origin of Species.

Most the people that I know don't believe in your version of creationism. Most of those that I know don't believe in creationism is a denial of science, nor do they state that they want to destroy the education system. I'm not sure,where you are getting your info but I believe it is wrong.

Belief in creationism is a belief that has no scientific support whatsoever, so whatever creationism is, it's not science.

Look another far left drone that does not believe in evolution shows up to preach the words of the far left religious propaganda.

AGW is not science either, it is a religious cult, like the far left religion..

 

[NYcarbineer]

No sir, I am not moving any goalposts. Creationists are not qualified to be president for the simple fact that they have repeatedly stated that they stated intend is to destroy our education system, which will also destroy our economy. anyone who believes they have a right to force their religious beliefs on others is not fit to govern in a free society. This has nothing to do with bigotry. Obviously you don't even know what the word means.

Absolutely, it is a denial of science. Don't be naive. Anyone who believes the universe is 6,000 years old is not fit to govern an advanced technological society such as ours. Anyone who believes that the Flintstones is a documentary is not fit to govern. Period.

You are the one who claimed that most of our presidents are creationists. It's your claim to prove. have at it.

Just because people believe in Creationism does not mean that they believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Very few Christians who believe in Creation believe that.

Then they don't believe in creationism. I don't know where you people have been living these past 30 years, but it is clear that many creationists hold to a silly notion of very young Earth. We've been fighting them, actually, since Darwin published Origin of Species.

Most the people that I know don't believe in your version of creationism. Most of those that I know don't believe in creationism is a denial of science, nor do they state that they want to destroy the education system. I'm not sure,where you are getting your info but I believe it is wrong.

Belief in creationism is a belief that has no scientific support whatsoever, so whatever creationism is, it's not science.

Look another far left drone that does not believe in evolution shows up to preach the words of the far left religious propaganda.

AGW is not science either, it is a religious cult, like the far left religion..

What is the scientific evidence for creationism. Please post it. Or quit making a fool of yourself.

 

[Lakhota]

Scott Walker is a puke!

 

[Papageorgio]

Scott Walker is a puke!

So are you.

 

[Lakhota]

If Scotty wants to be president - he'll have to answer many of these important questions during debates.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Scott Walker Humiliates Himself On The World Stage By Dodging A Question About Evolution

Scott Walker's 2016 presidential hopes were dealt another blow when the Wisconsin Republican refused to answer a BBC reporter's question about evolution while addressing a think tank in…

 

[Kosh]

Just because people believe in Creationism does not mean that they believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Very few Christians who believe in Creation believe that.

Then they don't believe in creationism. I don't know where you people have been living these past 30 years, but it is clear that many creationists hold to a silly notion of very young Earth. We've been fighting them, actually, since Darwin published Origin of Species.

Most the people that I know don't believe in your version of creationism. Most of those that I know don't believe in creationism is a denial of science, nor do they state that they want to destroy the education system. I'm not sure,where you are getting your info but I believe it is wrong.

Belief in creationism is a belief that has no scientific support whatsoever, so whatever creationism is, it's not science.

Look another far left drone that does not believe in evolution shows up to preach the words of the far left religious propaganda.

AGW is not science either, it is a religious cult, like the far left religion..

What is the scientific evidence for creationism. Please post it. Or quit making a fool of yourself.

Oh look another far left attack ploy to cover the fact they do not believe in evolution.

However maybe this far lef blog site will show that your far left religious mantra does not fit.

Is creationism compatible with science The evidence says yes.

More proof why the far left religion is the most dangerous religion on the planet..

 

[Kosh]

Scott Walker Humiliates Himself On The World Stage By Dodging A Question About Evolution

Scott Walker's 2016 presidential hopes were dealt another blow when the Wisconsin Republican refused to answer a BBC reporter's question about evolution while addressing a think tank in…

Look a far left drone pushing far left religious dogma from a far left blog site.

Go figure that one.

 

[Lakhota]

Is Creationism compatible with carbon dating?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

OMG! You are willfully ignorant and don't even know it.

THIS is creationism in all its shameful glory:

www.creationism.org

I don't care that someone created a website, and you somehow think that it's an all encapsulating view of creationism. Probably 99.9 percent of creationists haven't even been to that website. Creationism is simply a traditional view that God created life. It doesn't mean that God isn't beholden to scientific concepts. It doesn't even mean that evolution isn't a valid concept. People like you want it to be a litmus test for enlightened vs. unenlightened because it soothes your bigotry.

 

[blackhawk]

What does evolution have to do with trade and investment which is what he was there to promote? You might note the article states he dodged questions on Americas foreign policy claiming respect for President Obama and saying American politicians should not criticize a sitting president while abroad I bet the left was fine with him ducking those questions.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

So if Scott Walker is a Christian, the same religion that you lefties assured the birther movement that President Obama shares, then that alone disqualifies him? Why the double standard?

Also, the fact that you arrogantly call him a science denier as though you know for a fact that Darwin's evolution theory is correct is beyond laughable. I'm willing to bet that most of you big smart science gurus haven't actually seen the physical evidence backing the theory. I'll bet even more that none of you hold the knowledge or PHD's in biology, paleontology, archaeology, etc that would even begin to qualify you to analyze that evidence with even a modicum of accuracy. Hell, half you arrogant motherfuckers have probably never even read a book on the topic, but for the sake of argument I'll go on as though you have.

Basically, some scientists (people) you never met put together a theory based on evidence you've never seen and wouldn't know what to do with if you had, and popular cultural influences have told you that it's a "scientific concensus" (I'm guessing nobody on this post ever set up a scientific survey polling an accurate cross section of the scientific community at large?) so now you've taken at the word of these men you've never even met that Darwin's evolution is gospel. You all believe in evolution based on faith in the words of humans you've never met based on evidence you've never seen, and then you call it science and say that anyone who doesn't share your faith is intellectually inferior and unqualified to lead. Hahahaha!

Ignorant, arrogant bigots doesn't even begin to do you kids justice.

 

[Lakhota]

Why Scott Walker's Views On Evolution Are Totally Relevant

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.

 

[Dreadnaught1968]

If this is the stuff that gets people's panties in a wad about Governor Walker, it's obvious that they are scared that he could win. By the way, scientists aren't always right. Just do a little research on DDT...

 

[Papageorgio]

If Scotty wants to be president - he'll have to answer many of these important questions during debates.

No shit, that's what I have been saying, the format in London was not the time or the place.

 

[orogenicman]

1. You're trying to move the goalposts. Don't make this about what the so-called dastardly motives of what you want to call creationist groups are. You made a sweeping statement that an individual who believe in creationism is not qualified to be president. That's your bigoted standard for individuals. The groups isn't even a factor in that bottom line you presented.

No sir, I am not moving any goalposts. Creationists are not qualified to be president for the simple fact that they have repeatedly stated that they stated intend is to destroy our education system, which will also destroy our economy. anyone who believes they have a right to force their religious beliefs on others is not fit to govern in a free society. This has nothing to do with bigotry. Obviously you don't even know what the word means.

2. Creationism is not a denial of science. Your logic in that regard is fallacious. And your sweeping statement that those who believe in creationism is bigoted and offensive. If you had 'common sense' or rather if you drained yourself of your hateful bigotry, you'd not being spouting your dogma.

Absolutely, it is a denial of science. Don't be naive. Anyone who believes the universe is 6,000 years old is not fit to govern an advanced technological society such as ours. Anyone who believes that the Flintstones is a documentary is not fit to govern. Period.

3. I don't think that a history of the presidents' religions and beliefs in creationism are a serious topic of dispute. If anyone has anything to prove on that front it would be you.

You are the one who claimed that most of our presidents are creationists. It's your claim to prove. have at it.

Just because people believe in Creationism does not mean that they believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Very few Christians who believe in Creation believe that.

Then they don't believe in creationism. I don't know where you people have been living these past 30 years, but it is clear that many creationists hold to a silly notion of very young Earth. We've been fighting them, actually, since Darwin published Origin of Species.

Most the people that I know don't believe in your version of creationism. Most of those that I know don't believe in creationism is a denial of science, nor do they state that they want to destroy the education system. I'm not sure,where you are getting your info but I believe it is wrong.

Then you don't know many creationists. Creationists don't believe in the biological theory of evolution, nor do they believe in an old Earth (~4.57 bya). They have argued that creationism should be taught as science in the science classes in our schools. Some of them, like Ken Ham, believe that Dinosaurs and Humans co-existed (they believe that the Flintstones is a documentary, apparently). And sir, it is not MY version of creationism. I am a geologist, and so fully subscribe to the biological theory of evolution. I am also an amateur astronomer, and so fully subscribe to the Big Bang theory of cosmology. Maybe you have come to the table after everyone has sat down, but this is the way it is and has been for decades.

 

[orogenicman]

My question from post 158:

If you owned a business and someone applied for a job and during the application process, they said evolution is a lie, climate change a conspiracy, science is a faith and education is for snobs and they dropped out of school, would you hire them? For what?

From these posts, it seems if you are right leaning, the answer would be either CEO or political leadership position. But if you are left leaning, the answer would be "start by emptying that".

If the job entailed scientific work or making policy decisions regarding science, you bet your sweet ass I would not hire him

But doesn't every job require some kind of decision making? Being able to reason a decision based on facts?
People who believe science is a faith have no reason. There is no reason in magical creation. It's based on a "feeling" with zero credible information or fact.
And anyone who believes education is for snobs, like Rick Santorum, is a fool.
I would have no problem with insisting all my employees have their children vaccinated. It is certainly a reasonable question when hiring. If your children aren't vaccinated, you won't want to work here.

With all the scientific evidence available for evolution and someone comes to the conclusion that we were shimmered into being from a pile of dirt by a man looking spirit in wizard robes and sandals is someone I would never trust with anything. Certainly no decisions more important than picking out the pattern for my toilet paper. And even then............

The president of the U.S. makes significant policy decisions regarding science in this country, and regarding science education, both of which are significant issues impacting our future. The country can ill afford a president who is clueless about what is essentially basic science.

Bush did. And top notch scientists fled. These types are jobs are not filled overnight.

Scientists Say Bush Stifles Science and Lets Global Leadership Slip

Remember when McCain and Palin made fun of the Honeybee's dying off? How stupid can you get? How many right wingernuts on this site say scientists live off their degrees and add nothing to the country? That scientists are stupid and are over educated and can't take care of themselves and have no common sense. I've heard it all here at the USMB. The most ignorant are the ones who say they have scientist friends or co workers and are constantly correcting them because they really don't know that much after all.

Yes I am fully aware of the disaster Bush and his ilk wrought on the scientific community. We are still recovering from it. We don't need more scientifically preliterate leaders.

 

[orogenicman]

1. You're trying to move the goalposts. Don't make this about what the so-called dastardly motives of what you want to call creationist groups are. You made a sweeping statement that an individual who believe in creationism is not qualified to be president. That's your bigoted standard for individuals. The groups isn't even a factor in that bottom line you presented.

No sir, I am not moving any goalposts. Creationists are not qualified to be president for the simple fact that they have repeatedly stated that they stated intend is to destroy our education system, which will also destroy our economy. anyone who believes they have a right to force their religious beliefs on others is not fit to govern in a free society. This has nothing to do with bigotry. Obviously you don't even know what the word means.

2. Creationism is not a denial of science. Your logic in that regard is fallacious. And your sweeping statement that those who believe in creationism is bigoted and offensive. If you had 'common sense' or rather if you drained yourself of your hateful bigotry, you'd not being spouting your dogma.

Absolutely, it is a denial of science. Don't be naive. Anyone who believes the universe is 6,000 years old is not fit to govern an advanced technological society such as ours. Anyone who believes that the Flintstones is a documentary is not fit to govern. Period.

3. I don't think that a history of the presidents' religions and beliefs in creationism are a serious topic of dispute. If anyone has anything to prove on that front it would be you.

You are the one who claimed that most of our presidents are creationists. It's your claim to prove. have at it.

Just because people believe in Creationism does not mean that they believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Very few Christians who believe in Creation believe that.

Then they don't believe in creationism. I don't know where you people have been living these past 30 years, but it is clear that many creationists hold to a silly notion of very young Earth. We've been fighting them, actually, since Darwin published Origin of Species.

Yes we do believe in Creation.
There is a difference in the belief of Creation and Creationists ( who are a small number of people that believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old)

http://ncse.com/rncse/30/3/americans-scientific-knowledge-beliefs-human-evolution-year-

The earth is less than 10,000 years old. 18%- True 69% - False

You have a broken link. I never said there wasn't a difference between creation and creationists. I am talking about creationists/creationism. Did you not notice?

 

[Papageorgio]

1. You're trying to move the goalposts. Don't make this about what the so-called dastardly motives of what you want to call creationist groups are. You made a sweeping statement that an individual who believe in creationism is not qualified to be president. That's your bigoted standard for individuals. The groups isn't even a factor in that bottom line you presented.

No sir, I am not moving any goalposts. Creationists are not qualified to be president for the simple fact that they have repeatedly stated that they stated intend is to destroy our education system, which will also destroy our economy. anyone who believes they have a right to force their religious beliefs on others is not fit to govern in a free society. This has nothing to do with bigotry. Obviously you don't even know what the word means.

2. Creationism is not a denial of science. Your logic in that regard is fallacious. And your sweeping statement that those who believe in creationism is bigoted and offensive. If you had 'common sense' or rather if you drained yourself of your hateful bigotry, you'd not being spouting your dogma.

Absolutely, it is a denial of science. Don't be naive. Anyone who believes the universe is 6,000 years old is not fit to govern an advanced technological society such as ours. Anyone who believes that the Flintstones is a documentary is not fit to govern. Period.

3. I don't think that a history of the presidents' religions and beliefs in creationism are a serious topic of dispute. If anyone has anything to prove on that front it would be you.

You are the one who claimed that most of our presidents are creationists. It's your claim to prove. have at it.

Just because people believe in Creationism does not mean that they believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Very few Christians who believe in Creation believe that.

Then they don't believe in creationism. I don't know where you people have been living these past 30 years, but it is clear that many creationists hold to a silly notion of very young Earth. We've been fighting them, actually, since Darwin published Origin of Species.

Most the people that I know don't believe in your version of creationism. Most of those that I know don't believe in creationism is a denial of science, nor do they state that they want to destroy the education system. I'm not sure,where you are getting your info but I believe it is wrong.

Then you don't know many creationists. Creationists don't believe in the biological theory of evolution, nor do they believe in an old Earth (~4.57 bya). They have argued that creationism should be taught as science in the science classes in our schools. Some of them, like Ken Ham, believe that Dinosaurs and Humans co-existed (they believe that the Flintstones is a documentary, apparently). And sir, it is not MY version of creationism. I am a geologist, and so fully subscribe to the biological theory of evolution. I am also an amateur astronomer, and so fully subscribe to the Big Bang theory of cosmology. Maybe you have come to the table after everyone has sat down, but this is the way it is and has been for decades.

I know many creationists most are very reasonable. Sort of the Muslim thing, you only hear about the radicals.

But that doesn't stop you from lumping everyone into one.

 

[orogenicman]

If this is the stuff that gets people's panties in a wad about Governor Walker, it's obvious that they are scared that he could win. By the way, scientists aren't always right. Just do a little research on DDT...

I for one don't believe he has a chance in hell. Whether or not scientists are always right is irrelevant to the issue of Walker tucking tail when asked it he subscribed to the most powerful scientific theory ever discovered. We are not wrong on THAT issue.