From the American Thinker:
Our fair-minded media have decided to make Darwin’s theory of evolution a test of presidential qualifications. Governor Scott Walker refused to answer on the basis that he wasn’t a biologist. Nobody knows if Obama knows anything about science — like climate prediction, solar energy, shale, or Iran’s nuclear bomb program. Or, say, economics.
Media heads are basically filled with straw when it comes to science. Just ask them the pros and cons of solar energy. They can’t tell you. It’s just another superstition they heard from somebody.
So here is a little quiz for your favorite news guy or gal about Darwinian evolution. Any biology student should ace it. More.
Actually, many couldn’t. Don’t forget how much evolutionary biology today operates as a Darwin protection racket, where Darwin’s theory changes with each new finding that contradicts previous expectations.
But that doesn’t matter. What matters is protecting the racket.
It especially doesn’t matter whether media know anything about any theory of evolution at all.
All that Walker stalkers know is that they are on the side of “science” against “anti-science”—which, in the context, just means declaring their political allegiances.
We talked about this earlier: You can tell an American election cycle is gearing up when … … Republican politicians are asked where they stand on “evolution.” Why should anyone care where a politician stands on “evolution”? (Scott Walker edition)
To borrow a phrase from the campus left, Darwinism is used to “otherize” certain people of traditional faith — and the politicians who want their vote. Many of the same people who bleat with fear over the dangers of genetically modified food, fracking, vaccines or nuclear power and coo with childlike awe over the benefits of non-traditional medicines will nonetheless tell you they are for “science” when in fact they are simply against a certain kind of Christian having any say about anything. – Jonah Goldberg
Why don’t the pop science enthusiasts highlight science issues on which legislation or public spending might have an obvious impact instead? Because that would involve work and study, not agenda promotion. Also, there is a risk that people who are not simply barking a pre-approved line might have good ideas …
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Hat tip: David Kitz
Why does anyone listen to this kind of media any more? Gotta lot of free time on your hands?: