“Punting” on evolution: Presidential hopeful Scott Walker dodges science
Should reality be flagged for roughing the kicker?
by John Timmer
Ars Technica
Feb 13 2015, 8:00am CST
http://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/02/punting-on-evolution-scott-walker-dodges-science/
Given that February 12 would be Charles Darwin's 206th birthday, having
people spare some thought for the theory of evolution doesn't seem
outrageously out of place this week. But, for a US politician visiting
London, a question on the matter was clearly unwelcome.
Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin and possible presidential candidate,
was obviously hoping for a chance to have a few experiences that would
make him seem more credible on the foreign policy scene. But the host of
a British TV show asked some questions that, for many in the US, touch
on matters of personal belief and the ability to think critically: "Are
you comfortable with the idea of evolution? Do you believe in it? Do you
accept it?" (A video that includes these questions along with extensive
commentary is available here.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwIXKuW-dvs
Walker, rather than oblige his host, literally answered that he was
going to dodge the question, saying, "For me, I'm going to punt on that
one as well. That's a question a politician shouldn't be involved in one
way or another."
"Punting," for those not up on their sports metaphors, is a means of
tactically giving up. When a football team punts, it gives the other
team control of the ball but prevents a variety of many worse situations
from developing.
In some ways, this is an improvement for a politician. When it comes to
climate change, many politicians perform a dodge by saying "I'm not a
scientist" and then proceed to make stupid pronouncements about the
state of science. Here, Walker didn't make any statements whatsoever.
So, that's a step up from excusing stupidity. But is this really a
question that should be punted? To begin with, Walker may not feel it's
a question a politician should be involved with, but plenty of other
politicians clearly do. At a minimum, punting meant Walker passed on an
opportunity to explain why he feels those efforts to interfere in
science education are misguided and why his stand is more principled.
But, much more realistically, Walker is punting not because he feels the
question shouldn't be answered by politicians, but because he sees lots
of political downsides to answering. Politicians had been getting hit
with the evolution question since at least 2007, and our initial
analysis of it still stands. If you agree with over a century of
scientific exploration, you run the risk of alienating a community that
has established itself as a reliable contributor of votes to Republican
politicians such as Walker. We could see why he would want to avoid that.
Saying you refuse to accept evolution raises valid questions about your
willingness to analyze evidence rationally and accept the opinions of
people with expertise in a topic. Either that, or it suggests you're
willing to say anything in order to improve your chances of being
elected. But punting is effectively the same thing—it suggests you'll
avoid saying anything in order to improve your chances of being elected.
Which, personally, I find disappointing. I'm more than willing to
disagree with a politician on a topic if the reasoning behind their
position was clearly enunciated and principled.
But, beyond my disappointment, the analysis above suggests that you can
learn a lot about a politician by answering this question. Because of
this and contra Walker, this is a question politicians should be
involved in, and I'd like to see interviewers continue to ask it. Even
if it means suffering through endless disappointment.
_______________________________________________
Medianews mailing list
[email protected]
http://etskywarn.net/mailman/listinfo/medianews_etskywarn.net
