Why Scott Walker's Views On Evolution Are Totally Relevant

[The Rabbi]

Are you concerned Walker will somehow order schools to teach Creationism instead of science? You dont even know what Walker's views on evolution are.

Why hasn't Walker clearly outlined his views? Does he want to pander to the knuckle draggers and call for support of Creationism as science? Will he advocate funding to teach mythology rather than science?

What is Walker afraid of? Why not tell us what he thinks?

Or is that too embarrassing to mention in London?

Why is it any business of yours?
Has he ever advocated teaching myths instead of science? See, unlike Obama Walker actually has a track record you can consult
What are you afraid of?

purposely vague answers to perfectly phrased questions.

Irrelevant questions deserve no answers.
The truth is you couldnt give a shit about his views. You're just hoping for something so you can stick a label like "anti science whacko" on him. If some woman comes forward and claims that Walker pinched her ass in junior highschool you'd claim he was unfit for the presidency.

I disagree. the question is relevant and legitimate. We voters deserve to know the positions candidates take on the issues. Because you are frightened by the answers, you shout "Irrelevant". declare victory and clear the field.

Some might be looking for dirt to use against a candidate, but not me specifically. Are you suggesting that finding dirt on a candidate is something no respectable Conservative voter would do? Where's your birth certificate?

Evolution is a campaign issue? WHere?
What is Obama's view of "Black Athena"? WHat are Hillary's iview of Afro centrism? Why arent you questioning those?

 

[The Rabbi]

Irrelevant questions deserve no answers.
The truth is you couldnt give a shit about his views. You're just hoping for something so you can stick a label like "anti science whacko" on him. If some woman comes forward and claims that Walker pinched her ass in junior highschool you'd claim he was unfit for the presidency.

I disagree. the question is relevant and legitimate. We voters deserve to know the positions candidates take on the issues. Because you are frightened by the answers, you shout "Irrelevant". declare victory and clear the field.

Some might be looking for dirt to use against a candidate, but not me specifically. Are you suggesting that finding dirt on a candidate is something no respectable Conservative voter would do? Where's your birth certificate?

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.

Far left propaganda not based on reality!

The far left does not believe n evolution, so what difference does it make?

You would never vote for Walker anyway because it would violate your programming..

It seems this question is only relevant to those that would not vote for Walker, which is the far left drones.

Yet they accept Obama's religious teachings..

So you would think that someone who champions Creatio0nism as science would make a grand President? Backward thinking must be right in your wheelhouse to accept Creationism as acceptable science curricula.

SHow me someone who champions creationism, whatever that means, as science and I'll tell you whether he'd make a grand president.
How about a president who believed in black Athena? Would he make a good president?

 

[The Rabbi]

I disagree. the question is relevant and legitimate. We voters deserve to know the positions candidates take on the issues. Because you are frightened by the answers, you shout "Irrelevant". declare victory and clear the field.

Some might be looking for dirt to use against a candidate, but not me specifically. Are you suggesting that finding dirt on a candidate is something no respectable Conservative voter would do? Where's your birth certificate?

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.

I would support it being offered together with evolution.
Given my druthers, I'd go with intelligent design.

Science itself is not, I believe, the problem. The problem, to me, is the dogmatic fervor with which people attach themselves to a theory, to the point that to even question a single facet of evolution is to risk cries of "heresy".

A scientific theory is different than what most call a theory. And scientists question evolution all the time, and constantly look for more evidence to fill in the blanks. But as to the scientific theory, perhaps we should ask, is the atomic theory now valid or is it still a theory?

It depends on what you mean by atomic theory. When I was n school, the smallest unit of matter were atoms, which were made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
That is completely wrong.

 

[Lakhota]

How would Christian Conservatives like for an Atheist/Agnostic/Secular president to pick future Supreme Court justices? It works both ways! That is why Walker's beliefs are important to many of us.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Show the laws that Walker has implemented to replace evolution with creationism..

Come post them otherwise this just the far left trying to cover the fact that Obama is a failure..

You can tell how good a President someone will be, by measuring:

1.) How loudly and hysterically liberals scream at him;
2.) How many lies they gin up about him;
3.) and how little evidence they present to back up what they say about him.

By the Lib-o-meter of this thread, it looks like Scott Walker is the best candidate Republicans have fielded in a long time.

 

[Lakhota]

Show the laws that Walker has implemented to replace evolution with creationism..

Come post them otherwise this just the far left trying to cover the fact that Obama is a failure..

You can tell how good a President someone will be, by measuring:

1.) How loudly and hysterically liberals scream at him;
2.) How many lies they gin up about him;
3.) and how little evidence they present to back up what they say about him.

By the Lib-o-meter of this thread, it looks like Scott Walker is the best candidate Republicans have fielded in a long time.

Then by all means vote for Scott Walker - and ask all your family and friends to vote for him!

 

[HUGGY]

Obama also claims to be a Christian. How can one be a Christian without beleiving in creationism?

Anyone can believe that there once existed a man named Jesus born of Joseph and Mary without believing a scrap of what was compiled by the Romans to help control the Christians.

The Bible is so full of bullshit and holes and lies that anyone that believes what is written in it is a moron.

What someone with an agenda wrote down using what someone supposedly said that someone heard in an old hand me down several generation word of mouth recreation is about the worst evidence imaginable. That scenario can be applied to every single passage in your bible. You people are foolish at best. Willful purveyors of lies? ...absolutely.

Muslims beleive in Jesus in the way you describe. Christians beleive that Jesus is Son of a God and that God created the universe.

We as human beings have some good evidence about how much of this stuff we are a part of happened. We don't have all the answers..probably many of the questions.

If you believe that stuff we can see feel hear and taste had to come from some one or thing then logically there is no end to that scenario. If a god created everything then where did this god come from and on and on. We don't seem to be wired to understand how this stuff just appeared or how it formed stars and planets and of course eventually us that can contemplate the whole mess. We probably are not the only conscious beings looking up at the sky and asking the same questions. There is good evidence and probability that there are many species that are alive out there among the stars and galaxies.

Hopefully we the human species are getting smarter and we will eventually leave behind the glib answers to everything and just focus our search for knowledge in real science. If there is truly a god then as we investigate deeper into what's there this god will make itself known.

You who need a god may actually find one out there. I doubt it but why rule it out completely. As I said the farther we look if there is a god it won't be hallucinations or ancient chicken scratch that makes that discovery.

If there was a religion that stated as it's title "In Search Of A God" I would have at least a small amount of respect for that religion. What we do have is willfully ignorant scared sheep that don't have a clue or a single real bit of evidence to support a supreme being. That I cannot respect.

 

[Kosh]

Show the laws that Walker has implemented to replace evolution with creationism..

Come post them otherwise this just the far left trying to cover the fact that Obama is a failure..

You can tell how good a President someone will be, by measuring:

1.) How loudly and hysterically liberals scream at him;
2.) How many lies they gin up about him;
3.) and how little evidence they present to back up what they say about him.

By the Lib-o-meter of this thread, it looks like Scott Walker is the best candidate Republicans have fielded in a long time.

Then by all means vote for Scott Walker - and ask all your family and friends to vote for him!

So in other words the far left drones can not post any law where walker has tried to replace evolution with creationism..

So how is posting far left propaganda contributing to a thread?

 

[Kosh]

How would Christian Conservatives like for an Atheist/Agnostic/Secular president to pick future Supreme Court justices? It works both ways! That is why Walker's beliefs are important to many of us.

Once again the far left pushes their propaganda based on hate and fear!

So how does pushing the far left propaganda contribute to a thread?

Got an real world examples of Walker doing this?

 

[Lakhota]

How would Christian Conservatives like for an Atheist/Agnostic/Secular president to pick future Supreme Court justices? It works both ways! That is why Walker's beliefs are important to many of us.

Once again the far left pushes their propaganda based on hate and fear!

So how does pushing the far left propaganda contribute to a thread?

Got an real world examples of Walker doing this?

Being Governor of Wisconsin is one thing - being President of the United States is quite another.

 

[Little-Acorn]

You can tell how good a President someone will be, by measuring:

1.) How loudly and hysterically liberals scream at him;
2.) How many lies they gin up about him;
3.) and how little evidence they present to back up what they say about him.

By the Lib-o-meter of this thread, it looks like Scott Walker is the best candidate Republicans have fielded in a long time.

 

[westwall]

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.

Why? What is OBVIOUS is Scott Walker, that college dropout, political novice, has been THE cause of the renaissance of Wisconsin. All of those college educated, law degree'd experts had driven that State into the ground. Scott Walker saved it, and thrashed the crap out of the unions that tried to get rid of him. Three times.

Scott Walker scares the shit out of you progressives because he showed you to be the failures you are. Well, he especially showed progressivism to be a failure. And that terrifies you even more....

 

[mikegriffith1]

Just curious: Have you ever read a single scholarly critique of the theory of evolution?

If Scott Walker has doubts about the fairy tale of evolution, good for him. It's not "science"--it's dogma cooked up to allow people to reject God and morality.

I'm still waiting for any evolutionist to explain how "natural selection" could have selected components that provided no advantage when selected, that would then have been magically used for a previously non-existent function, and that would be used in such a way that it was assembled with other components in just the right order for the bio-machine to work, e.g., the flagellum, the eye, etc., etc., etc. It's nonsense.

 

[HUGGY]

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

What about the "science" of faith?

What about the faith of atheism.

Militant atheists are as faith promoting as militant evangelicals.

I don't have any faith in atheism. I have faith that I will die sooner that I would prefer. I have faith that people will eventually figure out most of the big unanswered questions although it may take a thousand or more years if then.

I have faith that ignorant people will drag their feet and create obsticals to knowledge and making it possible for human beings to live several hundred years. That is one of my main points of hatred of you silly fucks. I am certain that there is nothing after death and rather enjoy my existence. I won't hate death. There will be nothing. If Bill Gates and people of his resources had any damned sense they would have focused on extending human life. I resent how he has selfishly wasted his time and money. I suppose he wants to be remembered or some such nonsense but he won't be around in any form to enjoy his memory. That's pure stupidity. And selfish.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

Why? What is OBVIOUS is Scott Walker, that college dropout, political novice, has been THE cause of the renaissance of Wisconsin. All of those college educated, law degree'd experts had driven that State into the ground. Scott Walker saved it, and thrashed the crap out of the unions that tried to get rid of him. Three times.

Scott Walker scares the shit out of you progressives because he showed you to be the failures you are. Well, he especially showed progressivism to be a failure. And that terrifies you even more....

Please tell us about Kocksucker Walker's accomplishments as governor - besides union busting.

Scott Walker Watch: Keeping an Eye on This Radical Koch Brothers Extremist

Scott Walker - SourceWatch

 

[HUGGY]

You can tell how good a President someone will be, by measuring:

1.) How loudly and hysterically liberals scream at him;
2.) How many lies they gin up about him;
3.) and how little evidence they present to back up what they say about him.

By the Lib-o-meter of this thread, it looks like Scott Walker is the best candidate Republicans have fielded in a long time.

You seem obsessed with ridiculous trivial crap. I bet you complain about the quality of $1 burgers also...but only if someone else does so first.

 

[westwall]

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.

Why? What is OBVIOUS is Scott Walker, that college dropout, political novice, has been THE cause of the renaissance of Wisconsin. All of those college educated, law degree'd experts had driven that State into the ground. Scott Walker saved it, and thrashed the crap out of the unions that tried to get rid of him. Three times.

Scott Walker scares the shit out of you progressives because he showed you to be the failures you are. Well, he especially showed progressivism to be a failure. And that terrifies you even more....

Please tell us about Kocksucker Walker's accomplishments as governor - besides union busting.

Scott Walker Watch: Keeping an Eye on This Radical Koch Brothers Extremist

Scott Walker - SourceWatch

Well, if you weren't sucking Soros' cock, you would be able to tell us yourself. But this is a brief overview...

When he took office in 2011 he was facing a 800 million dollar shortfall in current bills, and a 3.6 billion dollar deficit over the next 2 years. The economy was crap, the taxpayers were hurting (though the union bosses were doing reeeeal well) and there was negative job growth. In other words, it was a progressives dream.

Walker paid the bills, balanced the budget and did it without raising taxes. Yes, he busted the unions, and the workers are thankful that he did, jobs are increasing since that occurred.

But here are the newspaper reports that detail what has occurred. Papers that were against him. You resort to your Koch borderline disorder and ignore the actual facts of what Walker has accomplished. Exactly like the good little robot you are....


What cuts? Madison schools OK

Editorial Boards Wisconsin State Journal.
(Mar. 29, 2011)
Editorial: What cuts? Madison schools OK
Alarmists in Madison suggest Gov. Scott Walker's state budget proposal will decimate
public education.
But Superintendent Dan Nerad's proposed 2011-
2012 budget for Madison School District tells a different story.
Under Nerad's plan, unveiled late last week, the Madison district would:
• Launch a new 4 year old kindergarten program in the fall.
• Open a charter middle school on the South Side focusing on urban agriculture.
• Avoid any teacher layoffs.
• Continue to offer free health insurance to employees who select the less expensive plan.
• Give teachers small raises based on years of experience and advanced degrees.
• Maintain overall spending.
What cuts Madison schools OK Wsj




Sky isn't falling
Gov. Scott Walker's so-called tools will help at least some local governments deal with cuts in state aid. Tough choices and pain remain, but give the governor some credit.

Editorial Budget - Sky isn t falling

http://www.postcrescent.com/errors/404/

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, militant atheists like militant evangelicals proceedl from faith. Since neither can prove or disprove the existence of God, yet they either believe or disprove without proof, they erog must proceed from faith.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Why? What is OBVIOUS is Scott Walker, that college dropout, political novice, has been THE cause of the renaissance of Wisconsin. All of those college educated, law degree'd experts had driven that State into the ground. Scott Walker saved it, and thrashed the crap out of the unions that tried to get rid of him. Three times.

Scott Walker scares the shit out of you progressives because he showed you to be the failures you are. Well, he especially showed progressivism to be a failure. And that terrifies you even more....

Please tell us about Kocksucker Walker's accomplishments as governor - besides union busting.

Scott Walker Watch: Keeping an Eye on This Radical Koch Brothers Extremist

Scott Walker - SourceWatch

Oh look. Its a new talking point, probably issued by DNC this morning: Walker is really just an agent for tthe Koch Brothers.
Grteat. Now we can spend the next 18 months debunking this piece of shit while libs post it constantly, impervious to truth
The truth here is Libs are terrified of Walker. He is a conservative. He has achievements. He is likeable. He is smart. And the more people see him, the more they like him.
The exact opposite of St Hillary the Inevitable or Lizzy Cheekbones.

 

[sealybobo]

What makes it so wrong is that, well, it is!

Creationism has no place in a science class. It could be taught in an AP philosophy course, but it ain't science.

And if a leader wants to drag us backward by turning a blind eye to evolution in favor of the musings of some long lost Bronze Age philosopher, the American people need to understand this so as to reject his policies for what they are: an attack on knowledge.

What are Walker's views on evolution? Post sources.

Shouldn't he be responsible enough to clarify his own position? if you are firmly on one side or the other, why say 'punt'? Unless you want to later pander to the anti-knowledge cadre of Conservatives.

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?