Why Scott Walker's Views On Evolution Are Totally Relevant

[JoeB131]

Walkers views on evolution and religion are only relevant when and if they affect his decisions as Governor. Do you believe atheist should be subject to scrutiny and ridicule for their beliefs when they are in a position of power?

Silly beliefs don't become LESS silly because you dress them up in vestments and call them "Religion".

 

[JoeB131]

If a candidate professed to be a devout Muslim, I'd likely chose him over a militant atheist. Our personal beliefs should not color our political decisions, but our lack of personal beliefs; a moral compass, if you will, affects every action we take.

Horseshit. Atheists are more moral than Christians. When Christians do the right thing, it's becuase they are afraid that their Magic Sky Pixie will punish them. Therefore, eating meat during Lent is just as serious a sin as rape.

An Atheist actually makes moral decisions on reason and logic.

 

[Lakhota]

The God depicted in the Old Testament wasn't smart enough to create the universe. He was just a psycho baby killer.

 

[chikenwing]

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.

This right here is why I departed the Dem party years ago,they claim to be the party of tolerance and acceptance,couldn't be farther from the truth.
The mans faith,or lack there of which ever it is,has no bearing or relevance .

 

[chikenwing]

If a candidate professed to be a devout Muslim, I'd likely chose him over a militant atheist. Our personal beliefs should not color our political decisions, but our lack of personal beliefs; a moral compass, if you will, affects every action we take.

Horseshit. Atheists are more moral than Christians. When Christians do the right thing, it's becuase they are afraid that their Magic Sky Pixie will punish them. Therefore, eating meat during Lent is just as serious a sin as rape.

An Atheist actually makes moral decisions on reason and logic.

You have no idea what your yammering about,just more of the hate bigotry the corner stone of people like this one.

 

[Stephanie]

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.

Another bullshit thread of no importance brought to you by the fake native American Shitting Bull.

Who give a fuck about whether someone believes in evolution or God putting people on the planet?

Since the folks in his State re-elected him guess they could give a shit and neither can anyone with half a brain which Shitting Bull doesn't appear to have.

The lefties tried to get rid of Walker and gues what? They didn't.

Wonder if Ed Shutz has recovered yet??

You think they would have learned after the people kicked their ass out of power for this very garbage? but noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. they are just so much more intelligent than anyone else. don't you know. the people are sick of them so let their dirty games go on. I just hope it carries into 2016 with the people

 

[NYcarbineer]

The God depicted in the Old Testament wasn't smart enough to create the universe. He was just a psycho baby killer.

If God is so smart, and he wrote the Bible, why doesn't he mention cars, or computers?

hey just kidding God.

 

[sealybobo]

If a candidate professed to be a devout Muslim, I'd likely chose him over a militant atheist. Our personal beliefs should not color our political decisions, but our lack of personal beliefs; a moral compass, if you will, affects every action we take.

Horseshit. Atheists are more moral than Christians. When Christians do the right thing, it's becuase they are afraid that their Magic Sky Pixie will punish them. Therefore, eating meat during Lent is just as serious a sin as rape.

An Atheist actually makes moral decisions on reason and logic.

And believing in this god gives them a free pass to break the commandments. For example if a christian woman gets an abortion she'll be forgiven because she is sorry and believes in Jesus. Free pass. How sorry was she she got the procedure.

 

[sealybobo]

That's just how they deal with guilt. Ask Zeus for forgiveness

 

[The Rabbi]

Walkers views on evolution and religion are only relevant when and if they affect his decisions as Governor. Do you believe atheist should be subject to scrutiny and ridicule for their beliefs when they are in a position of power?

Silly beliefs don't become LESS silly because you dress them up in vestments and call them "Religion".

Joe you dont need to prove you're the biggest bigot on this board We believe you. You make McGarrett look like Martin Luther King.

 

[Lakhota]

The God depicted in the Old Testament wasn't smart enough to create the universe. He was just a psycho baby killer.

If God is so smart, and he wrote the Bible, why doesn't he mention cars, or computers?

hey just kidding God.

Exactly. The God depicted in the Bible was a primitive psycho.

 

[whitehall]

Anybody know Barry Hussein's "views on evolution"? They might coincide with the Koran. Hell, we don't even know for sure where he was born.

 

[The Rabbi]

The God depicted in the Old Testament wasn't smart enough to create the universe. He was just a psycho baby killer.

If God is so smart, and he wrote the Bible, why doesn't he mention cars, or computers?

hey just kidding God.

Exactly. The God depicted in the Bible was a primitive psycho.

Men create god in their own image.

 

[Nosmo King]

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

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.

 

[SwimExpert]

It is very relevant if a guy who wants to rule the free world thinks its flat.

Why are you talking about the world being flat?

 

[The Rabbi]

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

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.

 

[sealybobo]

It is very relevant if a guy who wants to rule the free world thinks its flat.

Why are you talking about the world being flat?

Google flat earther. People who dont know the facts because of religion.

 

[Nosmo King]

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

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

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?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

It is obvious that anyone who gives a flying fuck about his views on evolution is a complete moron.