Scott Walker Says Lawmakers Shouldn’t Be Asked About Evolution, And I Agree (Sort Of) – Here’s Why

Like Salon points out, 97 percent of scientists stand behind the theory of evolution. Even Mitt Romney and the Roman Catholic Church accept it, so what’s Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s problem?

Why won’t he come clean and state outright whether he does or does not believe in evolution?

Instead, U.S. citizens are looking down the barrel of a conservative presidential candidate who won’t even come clean about that simple issue, largely considered fact by a vast swath of the informed public.

When questioned on the subject in the midst of a trade mission in London Wednesday, Walker took the 5th and refused to fess up his answer.

Taking the matter one step further, Walker also insisted that politicians shouldn’t be asked about their beliefs regarding evolution, and perhaps he is right in a certain light.

Scott also stated:

There’s not a play card, if you will, that tells me how to vote or how to act on certain issues. So, it’s not like issue by issue it drives me. But, the larger context, not only the policy decisions I make, but how I make them, how I interact with people, how I treat people. All of those things are, without a doubt, driven by my faith.

Oh, but there is a “play book” from which Walker could make his decisions, if the United States truly had a direct democracy – it’s called the vote.

See, what politicians think about any given issue should be irrelevant beyond their own, personal, singular vote. They are not elected to reign as kings and queens, making all their decisions for the childlike, innocent, and ignorant public. They are no wise men or feminine oracle by a long shot. Nor does the model which currently stands as the accepted protocol for the operations of contemporary American governing reflect a true democracy.

No, politicians are not elected to make decisions for the people, but instead to facilitate the decisions the people make for themselves. That is a true democracy — so yes, Scott Walker is correct: he shouldn’t be asked about his personal beliefs regarding evolution, because they should be irrelevant.

Of course, that’s if government operated as it should, “in a vacuum,” as they often say in the scientific community. That’s the process of a direct democracy, where the people vote on everything and the politicians simply carry out the will of the people.

And frankly, in the Golden Age of the Internet, there is no reason why we shouldn’t have access to local, state and federal political websites where citizens can log in and vote on any number of issues on the agenda at any given time, from home. In such a scenario, as government should certainly start to lean towards running, Scott Walker is absolutely correct. Leave his religion out of it and he can use it to help determine his own private vote. It has no place in his elected position.

But then, one quickly has to reckon with the fact that the way the world (and politics) should run is seldom the way it does run, of course, and that is certainly the case in our current empty shell of a democracy here in the United States.

As things do stand right now, politicians do make decisions for the people, more times often than not. They seldom have such hard data as an official vote from constituents from which to work from in order to facilitate their governing. Instead, they hear a little from all sides of any given issue, leaving them essentially at a stalemate, then typically rest their decision-making on whoever gives them the most money or helps most in keeping their fingers on the driving wheel of power. Tangled up in that is most definitely, one can be sure, their own personal beliefs swaying their perspectives and decisions.

So it is particularly disturbing when one moves beyond how the world and politics should work and listens to what Walker says regarding being questioned about evolution in the face of how the world and politics do work. He’s hiding, cowardly, behind a false assertion as to the myth of America and democracy – how things should be run – all while holding onto the strings of political money and power under the corrupt and broken manner of how things currently do run.

But you can’t have it both ways, Walker. Nope, you can’t, and people notice when you try. Believe it.

People don’t forget Walker’s close ties to his religion. He may not say outright he disagrees with science when it comes to evolution, but people notice that he certainly doesn’t come outright and say he agrees with it, either, while he simultaneously remains publicly outspoken for his faith. For example, Walker stated in a Christian Post article back in 2013:

[Faith] plays a key role in my life in general, not just in politics.

So folks can see right there that Walker’s faith does, in fact, sway his leadership and decision making in office, and in the current operation of our American government (so very far from a direct democracy), when politicians almost always make decisions for themselves, beneficently on behalf of the “public good,” Scott Walker not only does not have a right to deny answering when questioned about his beliefs regarding evolution; he has a responsibility to answer, and answer definitively.

Amen.

H/T: salon.com | Featured image: Flickr

Send to Kindle
  • David Bailey

    I suppose the saddest thing about this fiasco is the likelihood that Scott Walker himself has absolutely NO IDEA just how embarrassing this is for our nation. A (somewhat) prominent US politician (a state governor) ducks a softball question about settled science (evolution), leaving the host audience visibly aghast at such an utterance. Do politicians who pander to the right wing truly think that the other advanced nations of the world are as backward as us when it comes to matters of science?

    • Thom Lee

      Creation and Evolution aren’t compatible in the minds of it’s either black or it’s white thinkers. They actually are compatible for minds that aren’t already made up. Of course theirs always the base. Don’t meant to confuse them or make them think your agin em.

      • Thom Lee

        He doesn’t want to confuse them or make them think he’s agin em. You know, like George. “Your either with us or against us.” They don’t like grey or rainbow.

  • Margaret Kaufman

    What ever way the wind blows, or just punt…wonderful representation of American politics, thanks Walker for confirming the stupidity of the right.

  • Tiffany Miller

    it’s sick to my mind that anyone denies evolution it is scientific fact.

  • ultrawiz

    You mean like putting Michelle Bachmann on the House Intelligence Committee? Seems like the right goes out of it’s way to find people that are absolutely unqualified as possible to handle the positions they are assigned to.

    • Tim Mantyla

      OMG a living oxymoron! Bachmann on the Intelligence Committee! Can’t believe I missed that.

  • Al Cibiades

    I think the question,about how one regards evolution, is quite pertinent to assess the qualities of a leader. Indeed, it is to me almost a “litmus test”. Anyone who rejects evolution as an established scientific fact and theory is not intellectually qualified to serve in any deliberative government capacity. (As an aside, I think we should not use the term “believe in” in the context of science. Scientific theory is not a matter of belief but of accepting the best available knowledge consistent with known data.)

    My reason for being so severe, is that we are a representative democratic Republic in which the representatives and executives are charged with devising solutions and strategies to address practical problems, those confronting our society and communities. It is obvious to anyone with a familiarity with the solving of practical problems that the facts of the matter are crucial to find the solution or solutions most likely to succeed.

    The technology of thought and problem solving which has been developed over the ages and which has made us increasingly successful, is called reason, which includes the application of scientific thinking to the determination of fact and understanding phenomena. Faith has been spectacularly unsuccessful at this, and devotion to biblical literalism as a source of fact is, to me, the sign of a broken, corrupt intellect. Such people cannot be expected to solve problems in ways most likely to achieve the desired results.

    I, therefore, will never vote for a fundamentalist creationist, and certainly not for anyone placing religious thinking above the law or other measures which are shown workable to solve problems.

  • Tim Mantyla

    The headline and initial part of your article makes it sound like you support Scott Walker not answering about evolution. But then you turn around and say he definitely should answer whether he supports or believes in evolution or not. Very misleading. State it outright at the beginning!

  • Tim Mantyla

    BTW, it is absolutely outrageous to let ignorant people who do not believe in science govern an entire state, let alone a small town-or anything other than a church.

    Boot Scott Walker-because he is a moron, a corporatist tool of the evil Koch Bros. , and he makes decisions for people based on false (religious) beliefs, NOT what’s best for all.