Posted on 02/12/2015 12:29:02 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
The amazing muroid hind anatomy of Rattus norvegicus may be the product of eons of mind-bendingly complex Darwinian refinement, but I still don’t give a rat’s ass what Scott Walker thinks about evolution.
And neither does anybody else. Not really.
Governor Walker, making the rounds in London as part of his plan to relocate from Madison to Washington — the presidency is a roundabout affair — was asked whether he “believes in” evolution. “Believes in” is key language — nobody ever asks a politician whether he knows anything about evolution. It is a safe bet that Walker, famously a college dropout, has not been undertaking graduate-level studies of evolution in his spare time, assuming he has any time at all left over from knocking the stuffing out of Wisconsin’s thuggish Democrat-run public-sector unions and triumphing over the Gestapo-style “John Doe” inquisition launched against him by an unethical Democrat-run prosecutor’s office — and winning three elections in four years. Between kicking ass and taking names, Scott Walker probably does not have a great deal of time left over for biology.
When someone asks a politician whether he “believes in” evolution, he is not asking for a scientific opinion. If you want a scientific opinion, you ask a scientist, not a politician. What is instead being sought with that question is one of two things: 1) a profession of faith, not in science but in the half-informed worldview of the “I F******g Love Science,” Neil deGrasse Tyson–meme-affirming, enjoying-scientific-prestige-by-proxy crowd, or 2) a shameful public confession that one is a knuckle-dragging science “denier” who believes that the fossil record is a conspiracy of archeologists who get up in the morning and go to bed at night fuming about how much they hate the Baby Jesus. It is a purely political and rhetorical exercise.
The relevant scholars in the field do not “believe in” evolution, any more than a physicist “believes in” the proposition that objects subject to earth’s gravity accelerate toward the pavement at 9.8 meters per second squared — they know. As an intellectual matter, Scott Walker’s proclaiming that he “believes in” evolution would be precisely as meaningful as his proclaiming that he doesn’t “believe in” evolution — he has little or no relevant knowledge about the subject, and his choosing the right answer would be as intellectually significant as a chicken playing tic-tac-toe or infinite monkeys banging out Shakespearean sonnets on infinite typewriters. This is obvious if you ask a similar question about a field that doesn’t carry a similar pop-culture charge: Does Harry Reid believe that Ezra Pound’s contributions to The Waste-Land were in fact so profound and meaningful that he should be considered something like the coauthor of the poem? Who knows? I’d be surprised if he’d read The Waste-Land.
There are some boobs out there — some of them in the Republican party — who would, if entrusted with the awesome powers of the presidency, attempt to use those powers to strong-arm high-school biology teachers in Poughkeepsie into including the Genesis account of creation as part of their science curricula. If you want to know whether Scott Walker is one of them — or whether as president he’d insist that NASA use a pre-Copernican model of the solar system the next time it launches a Mars probe — then ask that question. Walker hasn’t given any indication that he is in fact such a politician, but if it sets anxious minds at ease, then, by all means, make the relevant inquiry.
I have made the point here a dozen times — and you’d think that one of these big-on-science guys like Neil deGrasse Tyson or Bill Nye would take up the cause — that there is in reality an important federal project under way giving rank pseudoscience and pure hokum the force of law: Obamacare, which, thanks to the efforts of Senator Tom Harkin (D., Iowa), will oblige taxpayers to subsidize all manner of scientifically illegitimate “alternative medicine.” Everybody wants to know what Scott Walker and Sarah Palin think about evolution, but almost nobody is asking what Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama think about homeopathy, acupuncture, aromatherapy, and the like. The same people who are scandalized that Walker doesn’t want to talk about something that he doesn’t know the first thing about celebrate as the most important health-care advance in a generation a law that treats as legitimate sundry species of quackery based in pure mysticism.
Why?
As usual, it comes down to aesthetics: If you’re a coastal progressive type, people who believe that every word of the Bible is literally true in a natural-history sense are creepy and weird, but when Dr. Moonbeam McEarthgoddess promises to manipulate your mystical energy pathways so that your qi cures your osteoarthritis — then, bring on the federal subsidies.
Strange that nobody has asked Scott Walker whether he believes the federal government should be subsidizing Reiki. I suspect he’d have a ready answer for that question.
Unless he doesn’t know what Reiki is, in which case, he has my vote.
actually there are lots of creos that being single issuers will not vote for a known evo...... it’s a principle thing
.
Anyone stupid enough to actually believe that evolution happens is too stupid to be trusted with guiding this country.
Evolution isn’t ‘science,’ its leftist propaganda to dumb down our children and give the middle finger at Yehova for not being ‘inclusive,’ and ‘tolerant.’
.
>
>> “ it’s a principle thing” <<
.
No , its a moral thing and a commonsense thing.
.
As Twitchy reported, lefties are weirdly giddy over Gov. Scott Walker’s refusal to state flat-out whether or not he subscribes to the theory of evolution. Members of the media are beside themselves with delight at what they see as a golden opportunity to paint Walker — and the entire GOP — as anti-science.But when push comes to shove, are these “real journalists” actually in any position to claim intellectual superiority? The Federalist’s Sean Davis sure as hell doesn't think so, so he decided to give them a much-needed taste of their own medicine:
Just once, I'd like a politician to answer the reporter's evolution question with "Why don't you tell me what *you* think that means first."
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) February 11, 2015Because I can guarantee the reporters playing that game couldn't come close to accurately describing the current "scientific consensus."
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) February 11, 2015"Are you asking if I believe in punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism? What do you mean 'I don't know those words?'"
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) February 11, 2015Textbook example of what I'm talking about right here. https://t.co/rYPMX5gnXE
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) February 11, 2015
.
So political agitprop is now a theory?
.
I think you're 100% wrong. They never evolved.
Will there be Darwin questions at the Presidential Debates ? LOL
Scott Walker handled it the right way. What he believes about EVOLUTION has nothing to do with what a President does. This and all “gotcha” questions should be ignored.
Do you believe in Evolution?
“Thanks for the question. I can’t judge if you are truly sincere in asking it OR if you are just throwing out a “gotcha” question. Anyway, I have to be honest and say that Evolution is not something I really spend a lot of time considering. Let the experts with opposing views on the topic continue to debate it. My interests are more about the here and now. What can we do to improve the lives of Wisconsin residents and US citizens NOW. What can we focus on TODAY to see every American has the best opportunity for the best life possible.”
But, but, but you haven’t answered the question.
“I did. Next question.”
“Darwinism serves the left not as a scientific theory actually informing how they understand the world, but as a shibboleth for anti-Christianity.”
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
Exactly! I really don’t care how we got here. The point is moot anyway. I personally believe in creationism but I’m not gonna argue with an atheist who thinks mankind is an accident. We have too many problems to solve TODAY to debate how we got here and when it happened. Besides, it’s called the “theory” of evolution for a reason.
Like who?
Never mind, I should have just read the comment below yours :)
Thats excellent.
The issue I have with Walker here is that he wasn’t prepped with a forceful general response to gotcha questions. He responded, but should have really put the questioner in his place for cheapening the political debate.
But we’re a little under a year out from the primaries and a year and a half from the general election really cooking off. This will be remembered (and cared about) a much as the 2013 shutdown was in 2014. But its a good lesson for Walker to learn directly, and other potential nominees like Cruz indirectly, about how the other side is playing the game.
it is neither a moral nor commonsense thing you are delusional to think that
actually the left DOES care what he believes, and they do give a rat’s #$#$ what he believes because IF He says evolution is impossible, then they get to campaign against him as being ‘anti-science’ because the left believes evolution is possible DESPITE the many ways in which it is impossible- Scott’s answer should have been “I believe what the scientific community at the 1966 Wistar Symposium concluded- and there has been no scientifically credible arguments/evidence since then to change my mind- Next question?
Keep telling yourself that; its all that you’re going to have going ahead through the consequences of foolish gullibility.
.
balderdash...... you need to read to be enlightened
.
You need to stop worrying about ‘enlightenment,’ and other humanistic wheel spinning, and get into reality.
.
ahh...you got to say it humanistic........ the catch all derogatory pejorative
I’m reduced to trash while you maintain your sanctimonious fig leaf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.