Why Scott Walker's Views On Evolution Are Totally Relevant

[Ernie S.]

I don't want to neg you. I want to ridicule you but you do a fine job of that all by yourself.

 

[Lakhota]

Actually, I attacked McCain's time as a POW - many times!

Yeah, but you are kind of an embarrassment to progressives. And liberals. and Americans. And, well, let's be honest, homo sapiens as a species.

Your assessment has been duly noted. BTW, why are you on my thread?

Oh, was this your Thread, Chief Running Bullshit?

Oh, so you're also a racist.

Nobody really thinks you are native american, Ward Churchill.

Should I give a shit what you think? You may be a black lesbian Jew for all I know. Who cares?

 

[deltex1]

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.

If he claimed you evolved from a pot of bullshit...that would be relevant.

 

[kaz]

My favorite part his how with his deep seeded anger and hostility issues he constantly calls people angry and hostile. Well either that or when he talks about people being crazy. That's a hard one

Well, you kn ow what, maybe you should take your crazy Libertarian thoughts out among real people and see how they start treating you like the homeless person on a street corner.

Its easy to be a libertarian. Every solution is the same. What should we do about fillintheblank? Nothing. What should we do? Deregulate. What went wrong for bush? He didn't deregulate enough.

And a libertarian can never be wrong because to them we'll never deregulate enough.

I use to chat with the head of the michigan libertarian party all the time. Anarchy is what they'd cause.

LOL, the do nothings are liberals. Who is responsible? What say you?

liberals - you are

libertarians - I am

And you say we are the do nothings? When you do nothing...

 

[Lakhota]

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Bullshit. It's nobody's business what he believes. Totally irrelevant. Libs just stirring shit with faux outrage because Walker is perceived to be the front runner.

No he isn't a front runner. He's one of the first who will be knocked off your list of hopefuls. You're saving the best for last. Remember this is the same thing that happened to perry bachmann and Cain last time. We do your vetting for you

He isnt the front runner so far? Really?
BBC News - Scott Walker A little-known 2016 frontrunner
Walker is among the most vetted pols in the GOP. Unlike Obama he has a long career in politics, with lots of hostile opposition. The fact that libs are glomming on to this stupid piece of shit incident shows just how scared they are of Walker and how little they have to use against him.

First of all this was walker going to england to pad his resume of foreign experiences. The europeans made fun of him not us americans who believe in evolution. The rest of the world thinks a bafoon now.

Please go ahead and run him against Hillary. I dare you.

You'll support every republican as we vet them one at a time.

Who is this "we" shit? You dont vet anyone. You pst stupid shit on a message board.
Walker is a "bafoon" (whatever that is)? Really? And Obama?

 

[The Rabbi]

"Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim."

Francis Beckett

Yanked that out of your ass, did you?

It's true. Charity has proven a failure in adequately helping the needy. Turning to government as a more satisfactory solution is logical.

Charity works very well. Government fucks up. Government has fucked up charity.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Stephanie]

The left is desperate if this is all they come up with to crucify Walker and if they really believe this is going to turn the people in country away from him so that they would go vote for the old lady Democrat, Shrillary.

omg he didn't finish college and all you out there should (just ignore the fact he's a governor of state)

and then the biggie: evolution- I mean really? who gives a crap

GO WALKER. GO WALKER

 

[kaz]

That doesn't even make sense. I respect the right of others to their life, liberty and property and I expect them to respect my right to life, liberty and property. If I chose, I will give a homeless person on the street a meal. I often do that, BTW. I won't give them money, but if I have the time I buy them a meal. I've lived most of my adult life in NYC and other cities, so I've had many occasions to do that.

Now if you live your ideology, the homeless man will take your wallet and throw you a $20 back and keep the rest, tell you this is your fault for being so fucking greedy, kick you in the gut and walk away.

Guy, let's get real here.

1% of the population controls 43% of the wealth. the top 20% controls 87% of the wealth. The hypothetical homeless dude you just talked about is amongst the bottom 40% who control less than 1% of the wealth. There has been wealth redistribution in this country, and it's gone towards the top, not the bottom.

Right, when 1% of the population pay 40% of the taxes, you are doing nothing but handing us money. And that doesn't even count redundant taxes like business taxes and the death tax.

And you are a liar. Money is controlling government, so you want MORE government? If you actually believed that, you would want less. Liberals pick an action you want, an end you want and then claim the action will lead to the end. If you thought it through, you would not be liberals...

 

[The Rabbi]

Cartoons and photoshopping--it's all the Left has.

 

[kaz]

Government unions and private unions are entirely different things. With private unions, the ones footing the bill are on the other side of the table.

 

[The Rabbi]

That doesn't even make sense. I respect the right of others to their life, liberty and property and I expect them to respect my right to life, liberty and property. If I chose, I will give a homeless person on the street a meal. I often do that, BTW. I won't give them money, but if I have the time I buy them a meal. I've lived most of my adult life in NYC and other cities, so I've had many occasions to do that.

Now if you live your ideology, the homeless man will take your wallet and throw you a $20 back and keep the rest, tell you this is your fault for being so fucking greedy, kick you in the gut and walk away.

Guy, let's get real here.

1% of the population controls 43% of the wealth. the top 20% controls 87% of the wealth. The hypothetical homeless dude you just talked about is amongst the bottom 40% who control less than 1% of the wealth. There has been wealth redistribution in this country, and it's gone towards the top, not the bottom.

Right, when 1% of the population pay 40% of the taxes, you are doing nothing but handing us money. And that doesn't even count redundant taxes like business taxes and the death tax.

And you are a liar. Money is controlling government, so you want MORE government? If you actually believed that, you would want less. Liberals pick an action you want, an end you want and then claim the action will lead to the end. If you thought it through, you would not be liberals...

You'll have to excuse Joe. Joe is bitter because he fucked up at work, got fired, bought a house at the top of the market that he couldn't afford, invested his retirement money in high risk crap and lost it. And he thinks it's George Bush's fault that all that happened.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[kaz]

That doesn't even make sense. I respect the right of others to their life, liberty and property and I expect them to respect my right to life, liberty and property. If I chose, I will give a homeless person on the street a meal. I often do that, BTW. I won't give them money, but if I have the time I buy them a meal. I've lived most of my adult life in NYC and other cities, so I've had many occasions to do that.

Now if you live your ideology, the homeless man will take your wallet and throw you a $20 back and keep the rest, tell you this is your fault for being so fucking greedy, kick you in the gut and walk away.

Guy, let's get real here.

1% of the population controls 43% of the wealth. the top 20% controls 87% of the wealth. The hypothetical homeless dude you just talked about is amongst the bottom 40% who control less than 1% of the wealth. There has been wealth redistribution in this country, and it's gone towards the top, not the bottom.

Right, when 1% of the population pay 40% of the taxes, you are doing nothing but handing us money. And that doesn't even count redundant taxes like business taxes and the death tax.

And you are a liar. Money is controlling government, so you want MORE government? If you actually believed that, you would want less. Liberals pick an action you want, an end you want and then claim the action will lead to the end. If you thought it through, you would not be liberals...

You'll have to excuse Joe. Joe is bitter because he fucked up at work, got fired, bought a house at the top of the market that he couldn't afford, invested his retirement money in high risk crap and lost it. And he thinks it's George Bush's fault that all that happened.

Yes, and the Mormons. And the Jews. And his boss who shit canned him for sucking. He blames everyone but himself...

 

[Ernie S.]

A bullshit meme from Democrat underground? Really?

 

[The Rabbi]

He stated his belief. It isnt a question for politicians. Why would anyone think it matters? WHy dont you ask him his opinion on how he's going to fix all the problems Obama and the Democrats have created?

 

[Ernie S.]

That doesn't even make sense. I respect the right of others to their life, liberty and property and I expect them to respect my right to life, liberty and property. If I chose, I will give a homeless person on the street a meal. I often do that, BTW. I won't give them money, but if I have the time I buy them a meal. I've lived most of my adult life in NYC and other cities, so I've had many occasions to do that.

Now if you live your ideology, the homeless man will take your wallet and throw you a $20 back and keep the rest, tell you this is your fault for being so fucking greedy, kick you in the gut and walk away.

Guy, let's get real here.

1% of the population controls 43% of the wealth. the top 20% controls 87% of the wealth. The hypothetical homeless dude you just talked about is amongst the bottom 40% who control less than 1% of the wealth. There has been wealth redistribution in this country, and it's gone towards the top, not the bottom.

Right, when 1% of the population pay 40% of the taxes, you are doing nothing but handing us money. And that doesn't even count redundant taxes like business taxes and the death tax.

And you are a liar. Money is controlling government, so you want MORE government? If you actually believed that, you would want less. Liberals pick an action you want, an end you want and then claim the action will lead to the end. If you thought it through, you would not be liberals...

You'll have to excuse Joe. Joe is bitter because he fucked up at work, got fired, bought a house at the top of the market that he couldn't afford, invested his retirement money in high risk crap and lost it. And he thinks it's George Bush's fault that all that happened.

You forgot to mention the meth addiction and the fact that his ex boss was Mormon.

 

[Iceweasel]

Republicans elect political leaders. Democrats elect priests for the religion of Liberalism. Good for Walker for not falling for the leftist slime machine. This ain't his first rodeo.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.