David Bruggeman has a sharp comment on my last post you should check out. For now I’d like to respond to this:
Now, if a politician is a creationist, I want to know if he or she wants to make that part of the science curriculum. And if they don’t, I would be skeptical that they are really a creationist. Because why make a point – as a politician – of advertising being a creationist if you didn’t want to spread that philosophy through education policy?
Good question. I don’t think Walker’s belief in evolution or creationism is relevant to his candidacy, and I’d be perfectly happy if these topics were never raised. But since reporters are already asking him about it, we should consider what the best response would be. Given that Walker is a politician, we have to evaluate which response would best help him politically. That’s the primary criteria that matters. My main point is that I think it’s possible that an aggressive response would help him politically more than punting/down-playing the issue. I may be wrong of course. But it’s not completely obvious IMHO.
Scott Walker may understand what the New Testament says in Hebrews 11:3. That is that those who do not believe in God cannot understand creation. Since it is obviously impossible to make faith in God a prerequisite for a science class, why would he see the teaching of creation in public education a sensible proposal. As for the teaching of evolution, many things have been taught in science classes that turned out not to be true. It is the responsibility of scientists, not politicians, to decide, based on continuing study, what is true and what is not true in any realm of physical knowledge. And in any field of knowledge any understanding that acquires an “ism” after its name has a low prospect of being open to a new and better knowledge and understanding.