tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post7311511740686975435..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Did Scott Walker Really Answer That Question About Evolution?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-83716168052425568502015-05-12T15:21:33.052-04:002015-05-12T15:21:33.052-04:00Mr. Prince,
One does not believe in evolution. On...Mr. Prince,<br />One does not believe in evolution. One either accepts the observable data upon which the science of evolution is based, or one rejects those observations. Those observations have taken place over a period of time during which many keen observers of the biological world have contributed their own assessments of such observations and the facts that make it possible to develop the ideas upon which the science of evolution is built. <br /><br />Creationism, being a sub-category of religious belief, relies on no such observations of the environment. Creationism jumps from dogma to what is described as an "intelligent design" of the biological world. The facts are fitted to the concepts rather than the concepts being a result of the facts.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12971442888151627894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-12753978911852624822015-05-12T12:19:33.412-04:002015-05-12T12:19:33.412-04:00Mr. Prince,
You seem to have over looked the fact ...Mr. Prince,<br />You seem to have over looked the fact that creationism, like all aspects of religion, is based on faith. Nothing need be tangible and observation is secondary to dogma. Evolution, if not a law of science, is based on observations of the environment, a search for facts that can be reasonably established and do not require mere faith in one's beliefs.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12971442888151627894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-63893643681835123762015-05-12T09:36:25.752-04:002015-05-12T09:36:25.752-04:00Guys, not to be a kill-joy but you do know that ev...Guys, not to be a kill-joy but you do know that evolution is the equivalent of proclaiming Pinocchio to be a true story? Therefore if someone says they are a 'creationist' we should be able to understand why as it is just as hard to believe in evolution which puts us into an inescapable dilemma! accept God and he will accept us into the kingdom or continue to deny him and we may just find out the hardway that he was the real theory all alongAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-63930652178163567242015-02-17T14:43:57.049-05:002015-02-17T14:43:57.049-05:00What worries me is that this is a stupid man makin...What worries me is that this is a stupid man making a political appeal to stupid people that being stupid is a good thing. "Let's stop funding those liberal elites in the universities" (because, hey, bread and circuses, we need to fund the Milwaukee Bucks arena instead).<br /><br />Even in the days of Joe McCarthy, they did not go after the UW that much. And, in a sign of what was coming, the minute Walker walked in the door as gov he promptly turned down money to build high speed rail between Madison and Milwaukee, something supported by two previous GOP governors, with the high speed rail between Milwaukee and Chicago a reasonably successful operation from what I hear. But, hey, that was something that Obama wanted, and so... let us hear it for stupidity!rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-24921972462054018352015-02-17T11:31:01.904-05:002015-02-17T11:31:01.904-05:00The best Scott Walker critique is Scott himself ta...The best Scott Walker critique is Scott himself talking to The Other David Koch, as played by Ian Murphy. A scam on Walker it is, but it highlights his sycophantic character and his stupidity all in one 20 minute phone conversation.<br /><br />http://scottwalkerwatch.com/koch-brothers/walkers-punked-phone-call/Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12971442888151627894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-75478645376629838892015-02-17T02:35:31.860-05:002015-02-17T02:35:31.860-05:00Barkley, you mean the Bible had the goods on the N...Barkley, you mean the Bible had the goods on the Neanderthals?Peter Dormanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00093399591393648071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-1048000335326942602015-02-16T20:17:15.205-05:002015-02-16T20:17:15.205-05:00ad101867,
Well, while indeed Darwin argued that a...ad101867,<br /><br />Well, while indeed Darwin argued that and most evolutionists accept it, that is really a trivial and secondary part of the theory of evolution, which involves species emerging over time through natural selection with mutations occurring. As near as I can tell, this core would not at all be remotely threatened if somehow it turns out that life started separately in several places. Natural selection and mutation would still operate.<br /><br />The alternative being posed to Walker, particularly by GOP anti-evolutionary activists, is creationism, whether of the sneaky "intelligent" variety or just plain old out and out Biblical fundamentalism with "what happened is what is in Genesis, and that is that." This, or some variation of it, is what Walker was really being asked about, and he, um, punted.<br /><br />Just in case you are inclined to such stuff, I note that Genesis has two separate accounts of how humans were created. One version has man and woman being created simultaneousliy and equally on the sixth day "in the image of God." Then, God takes a nap on the seventh day, only then later to up and create Adam and then Eve from his rib, all inferior her. What happened to those earlier people? Well, maybe they became the Giants in the Earth, or provided Cain a wife, or...rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-14491180511579018042015-02-16T15:18:33.353-05:002015-02-16T15:18:33.353-05:00Walker should've just told the truth: there...Walker should've just told the truth: there's no empirical data logically requiring the conclusion that all life-forms descended from an original common ancestor.ajderxsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04977619864669702067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-64023822974233799852015-02-15T15:20:10.108-05:002015-02-15T15:20:10.108-05:00I see no inconsistency. Just because humans evolve...I see no inconsistency. Just because humans evolved doesn't mean Scott Walker has to.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.com