Ron Paul Doesn’t Believe In Evolution
December 31, 2007
Ron Paul has received a lot of attention on the internet this election season, even though he probably doesn’t even have dial-up. This is due to the tremendous support he has seen by web-savvy libertarians who like his no BS attitude, support of free-markets, and votes against the Iraq War.
However, after seeing Ron Paul explain that he doesn’t believe in EVOLUTION, I wonder if that support will continue. Paul WAS my top choice among Republicans, but if there is one single issue that will make me vote against a candidate, it is a denial of evolution. At this point in time, evolution is backed up by science to pretty the same extent as electricity and magnetism. If you don’t believe in evolution, then I don’t trust you with nuclear warheads. Period.
You could just as easily argue that he doesn’t beleive in creationism either since he says there is no indisputable proof on either side, but did you even hear the question that was asked of him? If you really listen to his answer all he is really saying is that he is not an aethiest or agnostic and that the question about evolution is not really pertinent to what he is trying to accomplish in public office. What you should be asking yourself when considering if you trust someone with nuclear weapons is if they accept the notion of pre-emptive war or aggressive war.
If you don’t believe in evolution, then I don’t trust you with nuclear warheads.
Best quote ever.
This could be just as much the wedge issue in 2008 as gay marriage was in 2004. Saying evolution is a just a theory and this is a theological debate is to turn your back on reality and science. We’ve had enough of that type of ignorance in the White House for a lifetime.
Daniel,
True enough, but the factors that are becoming more and more important are monetary policy, which is being completely ignored by most people in washington, the loss of liberty at an alarming rate and war hawks feeding themselves on fear and corporatism. So the theory of evolution and gay marriage positions are poor litmus tests for choosing a President especially if they are assesed utilizing out of context snippets without an understanding of the underlying reasoning.
Agreed.
I did not hear Ron Paul say what he believed. He simply skirted the issue… and correctly. Obviously, evolution is a theory and even with all of the facts in its favor it must remain one. Ron Paul is an MD and therefore has a strong background in science. As he alludes, to absolutely believe in anything is a religion, not science.
If you listen to Ron Paul carefully he says he does not address the issues of the biological mechanisms at work. He has a doctorate of medicine from Duke University and is probably well versed in the mechanics of modern science.
The question he is addressing is a more existential matter, that is, are we matter or soul? I as an atheist materialist believe the former, but I also believe in “tolerance”, and thus, I believe that I can vote for someone of a different existential persuasion as long as I agree with him about earthly policy.
So I urge you to look into the idea of “tolerance”, and imagine how you could coexist with someone of a different spiritual persuasion in the same government. I, for one, will vote for the man who has the best ideas for America, whatever their personal faith.
jim, jim, jim - please educate yourself regarding the facts on evolution. In Darwin’s day it was a theory. We’re way past that now.
Daniel,
That’s exactly why people shouldn’t rush to judgement on a few sentences. When your audience covers the spectrum of educational levels and creeds, pidgeon holing becomes a propoganda tool.
“jim, jim, jim - please educate yourself regarding the facts on evolution. In Darwin’s day it was a theory. We’re way past that now.” Daniel K
Empirical observation is incapable of moving the scientific theory of evolution away from a disprovable conglomeration of hypotheses into the realm of a-posteriori ‘truth’, as to do so would indicate that the theory of evolution was no longer a scientific theory, but was instead immutable truth.
Even the theory of gravitation, which seemed so sound when Newton addressed it, was completely dismantled by Einstein (less than 100 years ago). And many of the most basic theories of math and physics are constantly challenged - And these are the hardest sciences there are! I am a scientist, and your critique is unfounded.
Rhys - While the theory of gravity may have been “dismantled” by Einstein, basic tenet (objects attract based on mass and distance, rather than God’s pure will) has not, just in the same way that the basic tenet of evolution (the universe is billions of years old and men evolved from lower species, rather than 6,000 years old and men were placed on earth as is) will not.
Additionally, I would argue that belief in evolution is more than just a “wedge” issue. It is about living in a fact-based, empirically driven reality. The idea that the earth could be 6,000 years old is no longer valid, and it is my belief that when you pander to that idea as a politician you are slowing scientific progress in our society as a whole.
Gorak - I would vote for a man or woman or any race or religion as long as their religion did not cause them to reject the scientific process. I think it is deplorable that Mitt Romney has continually had to defend his religious believes.
Tolerance is important, but I would never vote for a member of the Church of Scientology.
Additionally, let me say that as far as Ron Paul goes, REGARDLESS of his uncertainty about evolution, I am still glad that he is a Congressman and glad that he is running for President because he is trying to put a focus back on fiscal responsibility. I just want a President who will stand up and fight for the scientific process.
I understand this is a very hot issue, but while evolution does exist today, its security as an origin theory is much more shaky. Ben Stein is releasing a documovie in February called “Expelled” ( http://expelledthemovie.com ) analyzing this, though I can’t really speak for it because I have only seen the trailer.
Even the head of the Human Genome Project, Francis S Collins, has found in the genome evidence of creation rather than happenstance existance, which he details in his book The Language of God. I’ve read it and his argument is quite sound - I recommend it to anyone wishing to get a better hold on the debate.
Walter Veith is another guy who was a staunch evolutionist and a university professor teaching evolution but could not stop researching evolution until he found that its precepts were much shakier than he’d been led to believe. He details it in his life story, which makes a compelling though long 87-minute retelling: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeuFwlovie4
I have always been an advocate of learning both sides of a debate in their entirety and expecting the truth to leap forth once it is all understood. Thus I welcome any other input you may have.
Also I just noticed I misspelled ‘existence’ in my comment. I really should proofread *before* posting rather than after. Bad habits are hard to get rid of.
Nate -
Ben Stein, an actor, at the very least betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about evolution when he writes:
That is NOT the fundamental precept of evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with hardiness or strength or dominance. Were that the case, species like the mole wouldn’t exist. Poor things can’t even see. Yet somehow, they were fit enough to survive in their particular niche, with particular abilities that allowed them to avoid predators in sufficient numbers to survive.
People who look at genome evidence and “see” creation are only seeing their own ignorance. “I can’t imagine how that could ever happen, therefore it had to be God.” But that reasoning, we’d have never learned to fly, or struggled to understand gravity.
That said, I don’t “believe” in evolution, either. I accept its demonstrable scientific tenets as an accurate reflection of the world around us; i.e., of the truth. I realize that’s a mouthful and maybe that’s what people mean when they say they “believe” in evolution, but “belief” is the essence of religion, not science.
At this point in time, evolution is backed up by science to pretty the same extent as electricity and magnetism
That’s only your wish. Not a fact.