Time Magazine quizzes Scott Walker’s high school science teacher on his evolution views

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 19, 2015

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Time magazine found Walker’s old science teacher–Ann Serpe–from high school to solve the evolution puzzle surrounding him. He was said to be accepting of all the lessons taught to him, according to Serpe (via Time):

Huh? There is no evolution puzzle surrounding Walker. He has no more information than the average well-read person, and in the age of ISIS, evolution is really only of interest to those of us who were already interested years or decades ago.

By contrast, as Trotsky put it, you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

Vespa again,

All I can say is that some news outlets are really obsessing over this evolution business that has little to do with someone’s qualifications as president. There are so many more issues of importance that the next president needs to address; rehashing the Scopes Monkey Trial isn’t one of them–and Scott Walker, were he to become president, wouldn’t dabble with making the creationism-evolution debate his primary action item as the leader of the free world. It’s absurd. If the media is willing to ask old high school faculty about Walker, we should be prepared for more of this nonsense.

Indeed.

I’m way behind keeping up with all the science media releases that demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that what the pop media dimwits understand to be “evolution” is currently a shambles, frequently detonated by new findings.

Yes, a clearer picture of evolution will emerge, but not the one the dimwits expect—and it really has nothing to do with Scott Walker, who did not go into science for a living.

I just hope the fellow has enough sense not to get sucker punched like so many before him. They will only use whatever he, a lay person, says to spread misinformation about him, in addition to the misinformation they spread about evolution.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Like we said before: Why does anyone listen to this kind of media any more? Gotta lot of free time on your hands? A note in your file? Laid off? Sidelined for promotion? Put out to pasture?

See also: 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)

Comments

@rvb8 - Perhaps this question is naive, but how many scientists were murdered by the atheist regime of Stalin? How does the number of what were comparably merely inconvenienced scientists by the Christian Church compare? The worst I think the Church did was put one scientist under house arrest, and that didn't stop his research.bb_{February 20, 2015
February
02
Feb
20
20
2015
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

rvb8- You are either lying or deluded as unguided evolution doesn't have anything and you cannot reference any details for it. So as opposed to just running your mouth perhaps you should actually reference what you spew or shut it.Joe_{February 20, 2015
February
02
Feb
20
20
2015
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

RVB8, Sadly, you underscore that you neither understand nor care. (And BTW, were I you I would look to how emotions colour evaluations.) Which, as you exemplify an ilk, should serve as a major wake-up call to those concerned to avoid or avert marches of folly. What I will do is clip from a revealing remark by Lewontin, that shows just how off-track and dangerous a priori evolutionary materialist scientism is:
. . . the problem is to get them [hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]. . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [Billions and Billions of Demons, NYRB 1997. If you have been led to imagine this is "quote-mined," kindly cf the wider cite here.]
Science taken ideological captive then used to give a false air of truth to grand question-begging. All, dressed up in the lab coat. Never mind that it is multiply self-referentially incoherent by way of implying grand delusion. No wonder, several months later Philip Johnson replied in First Things:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
And on the self-refuting nature of such, let me note from noted evolutionary theorist J B S Haldane in a cautionary note:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
Such, you would do well to ponder. Finally, given the power to manipulate and the amorality and ruthlessness of such factions, Walker was right to set the matter to one side as irrelevant. KF PS: On rights, a right is a binding expectation that we will be respected in certain ways as outlined e.g. life, liberty, property, innocent reputation, that is my right entails your duty. If this is an objective status [and the alternative opens the door to might and manipulation make 'right' . . . ], we are under government of OUGHT, requiring a world-foundational IS capable of grounding such. Foundational, as post the valid part of Hume's guillotine, that is the only level that can bridge the two. On assessing comparative difficulties across major worldview alternatives, the only serious candidate will be found to be what one sees in say the US DoI of 1776: the inherently good Creator-God, a necessary and maximally great being and root of reality.kairosfocus_{February 20, 2015
February
02
Feb
20
20
2015
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PDT}

"But then, I suppose I have a bit of a different perspective,with a thousand years of history and martyr's blood literally written into my name." When you write appalling twaddle such as this am I right in assuming you misinterpret it as profundity? "Martyr's blood?" Do you check what you've written before posting or do you let your emotions guide you, and the Lord's presence to shield you? Either way much of what you write is embarassing at best, and cringeworthy at worst. One thousand years you say, that's nothing. My lineage extends into the hundreds of millions of years, billions if you accept that we are, 'the stuff of stars'. How you plunge from 8 to 9 above is without any material evidence. 'We have rights therefore God'? I've never understood this religious nonsense and your endless spiels don't clarify matters. Evolution is not a theological or philosophical debate, it's science.rvb8_{February 20, 2015
February
02
Feb
20
20
2015
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT}

PS: Pearcey on Christianity as Science-starter not Science-stopper: https://uncommondescent.com/education/she-said-it-nancey-pearceys-thoughtful-article-on-how-%E2%80%9Cchristianity-is-a-science-starter-not-a-science-stopper%E2%80%9D/kairosfocus_{February 20, 2015
February
02
Feb
20
20
2015
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT}

RVB8: I suggest you revisit and revise the long since past sell-by date warfare thesis view on the rise of modern science. Beyond, the evolutionary materialist vision of origins is patently not equal to the idea that the world is round not flat; an explanatory construct is NEVER to be equated with a directly observed fact . . . which already undermines your credibility decisively. FYFI, c 300 BC, the circumference was measured and that the world was round was a commonplace of the middle ages. Columbus' challengers were of the view that his estimate for distance around was way too small, and guess what: they were right . . . there was a Pacific Ocean worth of distance to go beyond Columbus' estimates. (But, CC had evidence in hand as to something in reach, they just did not expect an undiscovered continent.) Now, let me put on my strategic change consultant hat for a moment: 1 --> Per the doctrines of bounded rationality and unintended consequences, you would be well advised to revise thought on leaders mastering "details." (That is, it is easy to become intoxicated with an ideology that leads one to imagine a far higher mastery of reality than is actually warranted. With some potentially very destructive consequences . . . never forget Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns.) 2 --> Instead, if change is to be sought, a fair review and preferably significant pilot testing regarding material factors and possible consequences will be well advised. 3 --> But that is exactly the opposite of the agendas being pushed here; there is a determination to dress a priori ideological materialist scientism in a lab coat and impose it through classic agit-prop and domineering techniques. 4 --> But in fact, the very appeal to scientism is self-refuting: the notion that science delimits knowledge, reliable kbowledge or important knowledge or has privileged access to knowledge and trumps other approaches critically depends on philosophy and so refutes itself by providing an inherent material counter-example. 5 --> Also material is that such evo mat is patently and inescapably self-refuting by implying general lack of credibility to reason, warrant, thought and knowledge, i.e. general delusion: http://iose-gen.blogspot.com/2010/06/origin-of-mind-man-morals-etc.html#slf_ref 6 --> As ethical constraints on decisions is a critical matter it is even more material that such evolutionary materialism can have in it no IS that can ground OUGHT, revealing it to be utterly amoral and as opening the door to outright destructive nihilism: http://iose-gen.blogspot.com/2010/06/origin-of-mind-man-morals-etc.html#is_oght 7 --> Therefore, one would be well advised to eschew evolutionary materialism and to beware of the agendas, hobby-horses, gotcha rhetoric and manipulations of its enthusiasts. Such as, patently, in this case. 8 --> Indeed, one would be well-advised to instead hold that we genuinely have inalienable core rights connected to our dignity as humans, from the womb to natural end of life; thus, that we owe duties of care to respect life, liberty, property, innocent reputation etc, i.e. OUGHT is real and binding . . . we are under moral government. 9 --> This immediately points to a world-foundational IS that grounds OUGHT; for which, after centuries of debate, there is but one serious candidate: the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, cf. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-reasonableness-and-importance-of-the-inherently-good-creator-god-a-necessary-and-maximally-great-being/ 10 --> Obviously, one may hold these things while accepting universal common descent and an old earth & cosmos, but they are incompatible with evolutionary materialist scientism. But then, that stumbled coming out the start-gates to begin with, as was outlined and linked. 11 --> I would be far more concerned on foundations of mind, reason and ethics than on views on common descent; noting the implied self referentially incoherent and self-refuting consequences of a priori, lab coat clad evolutionary materialism. 12 --> In that light, I would be wary indeed about things like distracting attention from a Middle East that is going into nuke chaos as we speak, and ill advised experimentation with core identity and family structure. But then, my current prognosis for our civilisation is pretty grim. I guess, most of all I would be interested in the depth and balance of understanding on lessons of history and linked geo-strategic, political, legal and economic policy issues held by a serious political candidate for a leading state. For, the lessons of sound history were bought with blood and tears, and those who willfully ignore them or distort them are liable to cost us much the same awful price over and over again in their folly. But then, I believe that the determined march of folly has more to do with history and government than we like to admit. But then, I suppose I have a bit of a different perspective, with a thousand years of history and martyr's blood literally written into my name. Here is one of those too often neglected lessons of history, from Plato in The Laws Bk X:
Ath. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin")], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions[ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse], and not in legal subjection to them.
Let's see if you can step up to the plate to address this, with the ghosts of Socrates, Plato and Alcibiades standing by. (As a first point, ponder why this little snippet and its context are not taught to every 3rd former in our civilisation. That should open a few eyes.) KF PS: Here is another motherlode, on the dangers of the march of folly in democracy, from a source that is liable to set some a-frothing at the mouth: http://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/2013/01/acts-27-test-1-on-celebrating-new-year.htmlkairosfocus_{February 20, 2015
February
02
Feb
20
20
2015
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT}

So it's basically a modern day inquisition.HD_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT}

Joe, the detail is in the publications, research, graduate study, field work, seminars, meetings, announcements, blogs etc etc. The fact that you have missed these is truly the only miracle I am willing to credence. Oh yeah, and the detailed court testimony,(which you can peruse if you have a web connection, and an inkling of honesty) where William Dembsky refused to front to defend his side. You know the Dembsky whose name is whispered in hushed awe here, and beyond here roundly ignored. Although his quotes prior to Dover still bring a chuckle. You know, 'give us a court case and subpoened witnesses and we'll make them Darwinists squirm; then he promptly ran away, ooops!rvb8_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

rvb8:
It is important that leaders understand details.
Unguided evolution is devoid of details.Joe_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

It is important that leaders understand details. Not all (as if anybody could), but as a starter they should know the world is not flat, that the sun does not rise or go down, the earth rotates. They should know what causes the flux of the oceans, and that gravity depends on mass, and vice versa. And then they should switch off their brain, pander to the squawking masses, and negate clear thinking for bumpkin ville. Please understand that getting the first things on my above list accepted, took brave men fighting against the 81% and the Church, hundreds of years. It appears the bumpkins are looking for redress. P.S. Scott Walker, like Sarah Palin and Reagan frighten the rest of the world, for good reason. I know this will add to their appeal amongst the baffoons here, but it might just bare a little thought. Not much mind, don't go over board.rvb8_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

The left is scared of Scott Walker. They tried the "did not graduate from college" meme and it apparently failed. They want to attack him on education as unfriendly to it. So I believe we will see a lot of mud thrown his way. He may eventually crash and burn but right now he is poised to take it if he can get enough financing and stay out of trouble.jerry_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

BartM #1
Next, answer that you are in the mainstream of the 81% who have doubts about “evolution”.
He may be actually be a evolutionist, and is just courting the remaining 81% by saying what they want to hear. That seems to be a popular way of getting elected these days.awstar_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

I'd be flattered if my High School teachers remembered my class participation. I can barely remember myself. I do remember getting whacked on the butt with a paddle/bat by Mr Zid once, but I can't remember why. Hopefully he forgot too:)ppolish_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

OT: Problem 10: Neo-Darwinism's Long History of Inaccurate Predictions about Junk Organs and Junk DNA (Part 10 of 10 with links to the other nine problems) - Casey Luskin February 19, 2015 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/problem_10_neo-091191.htmlbornagain77_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

It seems that the best response to the evolution question is to define "evolution" as specifically meaning Darwinian evolution. Then simply point out that according to Gallup only 19% believe in Darwinian evolution. Next, answer that you are in the mainstream of the 81% who have doubts about "evolution". http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspxBartM_{February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply