For someone who calls himself "unintimidated", Scott Walker is acting like he's very intimidated as a likely candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.
First, Walker was intimidated by Martha Raddatz in an interview on ABC's This Week earlier this month, in which Walker managed to expose himself as a war hawk and waffle through an interview all at once.
Now, Walker has been intimidated by Charles Darwin, a British naturalist has been dead for nearly 133 years. That's because Walker refused to give a straight answer to a question that Walker was asked by the media while on a "trade mission" (which is actually more like a publicity mission) in Darwin's home country of the United Kingdom whether or not he believed in evolution, the change in traits of various living animals, plants, and other types of organisms over a period of time. Here's how Walker responded to media questions about his views on evolution:
I'm going to punt on that one as well.
I love the evolution of trade in Wisconsin.
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has repeatedly been proven to be true time and time again by scientific researchers, and yet Scott Walker won't say whether or not he believes in evolution. Americans simply cannot trust Scott Walker...after all, if he can't give a straight answer to a question on evolution of species, the American people can't trust Walker on the big issues, such as the economy.
On an slightly related note, I'm not sure if "punting" is a British political metaphor for refusing to give a straight answer to a hardball question, but it's worth noting that, in rugby, a sport that has a large fan base in the British Isles and is the ancestor sport to American football, punting is often utilized in a similar manner to how punting is utilized in American football (i.e., in an attempt to pin the opposing team deep in its own territory).