Ron Paul on Evolution: The Last Straw

Until and unless someone proves that this clip has been edited or doctored to make it sound like he’s saying something he isn’t, this will have to be considered the end of the Ron Paul “Revolution.”

My longstanding respect and admiration for the man has already been steadily eroded by his Presidential campaign (most especially by his NAU conspiracy mongering, statist opposition to free trade, and fondness for pork for his own district). This is just too much.

Via Samizdata

UPDATE: A commenter provides a link to Paul’s unedited response (the question begins at about 2:45). As it’s clear that the excised comments in no way alter the substance of his rejection of the Theory of Evolution, the contingency in the first sentence above is clearly inoperative.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2008, Religion, Science & Technology, , , ,
Dodd Harris
About Dodd Harris
Dodd, who used to run a blog named ipse dixit, is an attorney, a veteran of the United States Navy, and a fairly good poker player. He contributed over 650 pieces to OTB between May 2007 and September 2013. Follow him on Twitter @Amuk3.

Comments

  1. independent says:

    Yeah, its absolutely insane for him to suggest that the presidency should NOT be decided on opinions of scientific theory. How silly of Mr. Paul, he should know that the U.S. president is also the pope of science.

    /s

  2. Hal says:

    How silly of Mr. Paul, he should know that the U.S. president is also the pope of science.

    hahahahahaha.

    This is kind of the standard form of a comeback of the R.Paul techno-libertarians for pretty much any criticism of the guy. Sorry, but the issue isn’t whether the guy believes in Evolution, and he obviously doesn’t. He’s welcome to the opinion, but it’s clear that he doesn’t believe in scientific evidence.

    Sorry, but for a lot of people – well, people who understand science anyways – that’s pretty much like putting a big fat “L” on his forehead.

  3. Tlaloc says:

    I think the point is that there are three possible conclusions to reach when someone says they don’t believe in evolution:

    1) the person is quite stupid
    2) the person is unbelievably uneducated
    3) the person is pandering to those who meet criteria #1 or 2 above.

    The first two critera should be, and generally is, a disqualifying offenses for presidency, even in the GOP. The last criteria is probably a disqualifier for many who think of Paul as a sort of anti-politician.

  4. Hal says:

    Well put, Tlaloc. Thanks.

  5. Scotch Moose says:

    Huckabee you should worry about.
    Paul has his opinions, but is not interested in forcing them on others.

  6. shm224 says:

    If you don’t understand the underlying principles on NAU, free-trade or earmarks, you really never supported his campaign in the first place. I wouldn’t be surprised if you are a Huckabee supporter pretending to be a ex-Paul supporter.

  7. Nathan says:

    Every time I watch that there is a glitch at 0:31, and things shift position. It looks like something has been clipped out, or two statements are strung together.

  8. Bob C says:

    I think what’s most important is Ron Paul realizes there is and ought to be a separation of church and state. For instance if you believe in evolution he will protect your right to do so.
    That is more important than his personal belief.

    I believe in evolution. I support Ron Paul.
    I support his right to his religious
    belief.

    We’re not electing a pope here…it’s for the Presidency. Ron Paul is for your right to choose to use Marijuana, but I don’t think he’s ever used it or advocates the use…

    Nice try though at trying to down him.
    Ron Paul gets it…you don’t. We all should have the right to make our own choices.

    If you want to vote for a candidate that believes
    in evolution, but thinks torture, spying, deficits
    and being the world police is just fine…what have we gained?
    Google Ron Paul for President 2008

  9. Bill Kalles says:

    Ron Paul’s Christian beliefs and his thoughts on evolution are not as important as his grasp of economics and why the dollar is failing to retain value. Ron Paul is more familiar with the constitution and how it is suppose to limit the federal government than any other candidate. He has shown himself to be man of integrity. It’s been a long time since we elected one of those to be president.

  10. chad says:

    as someone with several university degress in
    science, i would say that anyone that “believes”
    in evolution is lacking in knowledge/understanding.

    for a new species to occur via evolution would
    require that a male and female both mutate at the
    same time, in the same way, in the same proximity,
    and then engage in sex to produce offspring. to
    think that this impossible chance is the source of
    all species on earth is completely absurd.

    almost all, if not all, mutations have a negative
    impact upon survival. furthermore, i cannot imagine
    how man would have evolved in any game of survival
    of the fittest – our skin is not adapted to take
    the sun, nor is it adapted to take the cold. we
    are the weakest, slowest, and most defenseless.
    our feet are not adapted to walk on much else but
    cool sand, and we cannot drink hardly any water
    in the wild without getting very ill.

    i could go on and on, but suffice it to say,
    if Ron Paul doesn’t “believe” in evolution, i
    can only respect it as a sign of great intelligence.

  11. Todd Schuller says:

    I am not sure what the reference is here but the answer appears to be similar to Jefferson’s. No problem how I view this. RP08

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

    Unitarians sum up their faith as “the religion of Jesus, not a religion about Jesus.” Historically, they have encouraged non-dogmatic views of God, Jesus, the world and purpose of life as revealed through reason, scholarship, science, philosophy, scripture and other prophets and religions. They believe that reason and belief are complementary and that religion and science can co-exist and guide them in their understanding of nature and God. They also do not enforce belief in creeds or dogmatic formulas. Although there is flexibility in the nuances of belief or basic truths for the individual Unitarian Christian, general principles of faith have been recognized as a way to bind the group in some commonality. Adherents generally accept religious pluralism and find value in all teachings, but remain committed to their core belief in Christ’s teachings. Liberal Unitarians value a secular society in which government stays out of religious affairs.

  12. DrEast says:

    YAY! Another smear campaign!

    I love smear campaigns on the internet. You can track a meme for months and get nothing, and then suddenly sixteen different news/blog sites are talking about it, all within the space of an hour!

    I’m surprised the Ron-Paul-is-a-nazi meme died so fast. I guess the NY Times retraction counts as a discreditization. And I haven’t heard near enough of the Ron-Paul-is-a-racist-from-his-newsletter meme… are people saving this one up for more widespread coverage if needed?

    I mean, the racist meme is a beautiful dichotomy. Either he doesn’t reveal the aide’s identity, and is therefore a liar, or he does, and is a traitor.

  13. Justin says:

    I whole-heartedly disagree on your so-called North American Union conspiracy. You can call it whatever you want, but there is plenty of evidence supporting a north american alliance that would reduce sovereignty for any one nation. I would urge you to review the Trans-Texas Corridor: (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50451) or the SPP: (http://www.spp.gov/). We already have NAFTA and CAFTA. It is not as big of a conspiracy when you understand the concept of pulling walls down to increase trade. You can call them alliances, treaties, or unions, but in the end, they move to the same concept of few boundaries dividing the countries.

    Congressman Paul can agree or disagree with the theory of evolution as he chooses. Evolution is still considered a “theory”, which means the door is open to other thoughts of order.

  14. Joe says:

    Yeah. I obviously prefer a candidate who supports higher taxes and bigger government over someone who supports more freedom. (rolling eyes)

    Let’s not discuss the issues that affect our wallets and our rights. Let’s instead get bogged down in petty wedge issues. It’s these types of petty irrelevant issues that are my litmus test for choosing a President.

    My Presidential Candidate of choice must love the color blue, know how to tie a tie correctly, be 6 foot tall, and be able to answer questions without really answering them. That’s what I’m looking for.

  15. Paul says:

    As a recent de-convert from Christianity to atheism, and having recently accepted evolution, I can understand your concern and complaints. But are you going to vote for a candidate simply because they give lip service to evolution? The majority of the candidates are politicians. They will say whatever they think you want to hear in order to get a vote. One day in the pulpit, the next day at a freethinkers meet. Blah blah.

    Given Ron Paul’s voting record and statements over the years, it is clear that he is as honest and straightfoward as a politician can be. Couple that with his religious stances in policy. He is against abortion but feels the Federal gov should have no say so in the matter, one way or the other. Good. I am sure that he will apply this in other areas too. I believe he will keep his religion out of the Oval Office.

  16. Matt says:

    What does it mean to “believe” the theory of evolution? I think what religious people like Dr. Paul are concerned with is whether or not a scientific theory can do justice to the implications that the universe has an origin. So this isn’t about the possible mechanisms involved in biological adaptation, it’s about something far more important: What does it mean that human beings are here today? Many reductionistic atheists say Darwin’s theory proves that there is no reason we are here other than the blind mechanisms of random gene mutation and natural selection. I think religious people are outraged by this assertion because it seems to empty human life of any real purpose. Whether a person “believes” in evolution or in God has nothing to do with how smart they are. It has to do with something existential, with the essence of human life itself. And certainly there is no reason why someone cannot be a believer in both the idea that all life has a common ancestor and the idea that the universe has a transcendent origin.

  17. Paul says:

    Chad,

    If you do have serval university degrees, then you have received a rather poor education for your post demonstrates that you know nothing of evolutionary theory. Nothing. You wouldn’t happen to believe that a supernatural diety created everything, would you? Nah, of course not.

    Anyway, as a person already commented, this is a silly issue. I think the fate of our nation is much more important than our President’s views on the origin of life. He already believes in an imaginary being (God), so what the hell. Moot point. Let’s get this man in office!

  18. tc says:

    Very clear the tape was edited – complete tape is here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q Took me ten seconds to get it. You should be ashamed of yourself. I do not believe in the theory of evolution in its entirety as well. I believe in natural selection and I believe all life is related, but I also believe in karma and a higher power. Doesn’t make me stupid and the point the good doctor was making was that he believes in God. Anywho – for good measure – Your beat, you monkey.

  19. Hal says:

    <hehe>

    2008 is going to be a blast.

    Nothing stops you guys! It’s going to be so frickin’ cool to watch the effect on the GOP that R.P. and the Huckster have…

    R.P and H in 2008!!!!11!!!

  20. LeightonW says:

    The limit of both science and religion:

    Something has either always existed, or something came from nothing. Think about that, and see if you can come up with any other possible origin of the universe. We are all living in a miracle.

    I don’t expect anyone to be an expert on everything. Ron Paul probably doesn’t think that debating the origins of the universe should be high on his priority list, and I tend to agree with him. Being a creationist is his personal right, and most importantly, he defends your right to disagree with him. I am more interested in how he interprets evidence regarding presidental issues such as foreign policy (military, treaties, and trade), judicial and other official appointments, budget choices, and limits on executive power.

    I am a fan of Al Gore as well, so you can imagine that I am concerned about Ron Paul’s views on the environment and global warming. If you want to attack him on ignoring scientific evidence on an issue that really matters, maybe you should start there.

  21. Keith says:

    The tape was clearly edited you moron. Besides that, anyone who believes completely in the theory of evolution would be just as much of a nut job as someone that did not believe in it at all. Stick to issues and you may garner some modicum of respect.

  22. Justin says:

    Someone deciding upon a candidate based on the candidate’s views on evolution has a pretty myoptic view of the world. We have bigger fish to fry than evolution. How about inflation? Illegal immigration? Evolution is not even an issue for the other candidates, yet you want to make it one for Ron Paul? The other candidates are too busy taking pot shots at each other and playing politics to talk about the issues. Heck, you can’t even decide what they believe because they flop so much.

  23. gorak says:

    I am an atheist who believes in evolution. Yet I “tolerate” those who believe in divine creation. The question of evolution goes beyond a technical scientific question and dwells in spiritual understandings of the meaning of existence. And as a “tolerant” person, I accept that different beings will have differing spiritual perspectives on their origins, and that could include materialists like myself or creationists such as Ron Paul.

    I hope that a “tolerance” America could have political discourse between people of all spiritual beliefs and put aside those differences for the very earthly business of Constitutional government.

  24. Will says:

    WOW this is BS. I heard this a few weeks ago and although I cant remember his exact words, I do remember that more than that was said. Why dont you try posting the entire video?

  25. John Brown says:

    Look between 0:30 and 0:32. There is a definite discontinuity in the clip. I don’t know if there is something left out or not

    Despite his nuanced answer in the forum, he clearly indicates he believes in evolution by not raising his hand in the first GOP debate.

    Meanwhile, a campaign spokesman has indicated that Dr. Paul believes in evolution, as noted below.
    Perhaps he misspoke? Or he (as a religious man) was simply talking about how he rejected the secular (meaning, god played no role) nature of evolutionists? This seems to be the context. Further the theory of evolution means alot of different things to different people, Of course, natural selection is proven, does he mean the idea of spontaneous generation of life from inert compounds ? This is truly a theory, as nobody is quite sure how this happened.

    Regardless, He is not a creationist.

  26. gorak says:

    And “statist opposition to free trade”??!?!?!?!?!

    He wants to abolish all tariffs with every country in the world. How is this “statist” or “opposition to free trade”?

  27. Fill From Filly says:

    Someone who doesn’t believe in evolution is not stupid or uneducated. The truly uneducated are those who take the theory of it as fact. Dr. Paul said in the video that no side can truly be certain. I personally believe in evolution but I won’t discredit someone who doesn’t. I don’t believe in God either nor do I think people who do are stupid.

    By the way I just want to note that the Big Bang theory was originally proposed by a catholic monk not a scientist. He said the Big Bang was the exact moment God created the universe. Scientist later took this idea and used it to explain our origins. It’s funny how the closer you get to the beginning the more science and religion come together.

  28. John says:

    Sounds very reasonable. I do not believe in it as a theory. There are many scientists who do not believe in the whole of evolution. You would have to believe there is no intelligence behind the design of the universe. This brings up intelligent design.

    I don’t think it matters anyway. RP was asked if he believed in the theory, which is exactly what it is, a theory.

    Further, RP does not wear his religion on his sleeve like some and he is principled and it would be very unlikely and uncharacteristic if him to confuse his Christian believes from which he draws strength with running the country and being moved to decision by Gods hand so to speak. I just cant see that ever happening with him. Huckabee on the other hand, I am quite sure can;t wait to usher in “the second coming”. lol.

  29. chad says:

    to further clarify:

    i don’t have space or time to fully expand upon
    my points, as that could easily fill a book. but
    i want to add that Ron Paul is not a blind “believer”,
    he knows much more the creation of life than most
    as an OB/GYN. knowledge comes in 3 forms: the
    known, the unknown, and the unknowable – and it is
    admirable, and a sign of intelligence, that he can
    place the topic of “the source of all life” in the
    appropriate category. too many people accept
    evolution as science – but there is very little,
    if any, science to back it up. people just think
    evolution is “real” because they see progressions
    of some species in fossil records – but there really
    isn’t any science to explain it.

  30. None says:

    Nothing more than a generational difference. The theory of evolution was only introduced into the schools in the ’70s and only as a theory. People of his age group are going to be less likely to accept evolution. People in their 40s will be split and younger people who have been taught evolution is a fact will believe in evolution.

  31. ARD says:

    I really wish I had a dollar for every time some “journalist” said “I agree with him on so many issues but his personal opinion on _______ just makes me want to go vote for the guy’s who are lying to me…”

    Beyond considering all of Dr Paul’s good points if you can’t tolerate someone having different opinions than those you hold then my guess is you weren’t really interested in Dr. Paul’s brand of freedom anyway.

    Funny how the biggest problem facing a politician who answers honestly rather than with positions concocted by his advisers is that people don’t really want honesty, lies and omissions are much more palatable to the masses.

  32. Mike Moon says:

    Stop treating science as religion.

    It is rediculous to demean someone for not “believing” in evolution. To blindly believe in ANYTHING without actually understanding it is stupid whether it be christianity or evolution.

    I consider myself an atheist, but I don’t treat it like a religion. As long as I can’t prove that there isn’t a god, than I have no business touting my disbelief as the truth.

    Open your minds christians and science-minded folk alike. We know evolution exists, it’s been proven on a small scale. However, we cannot undoubtedly show that macro-evolution is responsible for the world as we know it.

    If someone decides that there are simply too many holes in the theory to blindly follow it and instead seeks another answer, praise them for thinking for themselves.

    I am unconvinced of the existence of god, evolution, global warming and neutrinos. But what I do know is that we have a war of fear going on right now and our economy is tanking with the value of our dollar. We need a leader that acknowleges this and will do his or her best to pull us out of the mess. Right now, our best choice is Ron Paul.

    There are many Ron Paul supporters that support teaching evolution, support a woman’s right to choose and support a stronger seperation of church and state. There are even Ron Paul supporters that support a North American Union and the “war on terror” (albeit likely a minority of them). There is one strong uniting thread among us all though: a passion for Liberty.

    Vote for freedom, vote for change, vote for prosperity. Vote Ron Paul president in 2008.

  33. Tlaloc says:

    Someone who doesn’t believe in evolution is not stupid or uneducated.

    No, actually they are, just as people who believe in a flat earth are either stupid or poorly educated. There are things which are quite simply established.

    Gravity exists. There may be some fiddly bits about how it works, particularly on the microscopic scale, but we know it exists and how it works in everyday life.

    Similarly Evolution exists. We not only have an enormous fossil record but we have examples of evolution occuring in everyday life around us. We can literally see microevolution in action. Look closely enough and you see signs of macroevolution as well. Furthermore evolutionary principles are used in engineering and work very well (genetic algorithms, self designing circuits, and so on).

    To disbelieve in evolution is to practice the fine art of “self-beclowning.”

  34. Jeff says:

    Ron Paul is a quack, and so are is fans. The reason that “his message” is so “appealing” to people it because its idealistic nonsense that is detached from all reality, just like he is. For heaven’s sake, the guy advocates the gold standard. He’s basically the best friend of everyone who wears tin-foil hats and believes in every conspiracy theory under the sun. What makes Ron Paul appealing is that his message it allows people to believe that everything is the government’s fault, and the reason that they aren’t personally successful is because of a host of evil forces that are conspiring against them. In reality, however, these people are just losers who are unsuccessful because of their own faults.

  35. Jeff says:

    Nothing more than a generational difference. The theory of evolution was only introduced into the schools in the ’70s and only as a theory.

    No it wasn’t. It was introduced to public schools in the late 1800s. In fact high school textbooks spent more time on evolution in the 1920s than they do now. Why do you think the Scopes Trial took place in the 1902s, it was trial over teaching evolution in public schools! Boy, and this guy sis a voter….

  36. Yup, this post is certainly mis-informed.

    Free-trade means free, not government managed trade.

    He has never voted for an earmark for his own district. He puts them in because that’s the only way to get the fruits of his districts’ labor BACK.

    And his beliefs on evolution are irrelevant to my liberty and freedom. His views on monetary policy and the disease of the existing political system do, which is why he has my vote, my hard-earned money, and every last second of free-time.

  37. Derek says:

    Evolution exists…there is no doubt of that…now, whether that means that man evolved from a single celled protozoan, or has slowly made minor evolutionary improvements/adaptations since creation remains up for debate.

  38. It looks like the authors of the comments have sufficiently lambasted the author of this dimwitted smear piece.

  39. Parke says:

    (most especially by his NAU conspiracy mongering, statist opposition to free trade, and fondness for pork for his own district).

    Here is where the line is drawn folks. People who are either in reality or not.

    Google: North American Union 46.8M hits. Sure.. there is no NAU.. are you living in la la land?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H65f3q_Lm9U

    Just because the ‘official’ language says it aint so.. common sense says otherwise. Its kinda how social security started at 4% and is now 15%. A bunch of people looted it.. and now the people paying into it wont get it. The ‘official’ language is.. everything is OK. Reality is something a little different.

    Deal with it. Ron Paul is speaking the truth. We are broke and on borrowed time. Iraq is draining us financially and if we dont change it our country is screwed. Add that to the fact all of our rights are gone and tell me if it paints a pretty little picture for you.

    I want to make this clear. Our civil liberties are gone, we are at war endlessly with a ‘tactic’, we are borrowing 3B a day from China, were are 9T in debt and every ‘mainstream’ candidate wont take nuking Iran off the table.

    If that doesnt startle you, then how can I defend my arguement?

    *statist opposition to free trade

    Managed trade is much different. Do you really want a world government/body deciding whether your doctor has to prescribe vitamins in the USA? Free trade is free trade. WTO trade is not free trade.

    *and fondness for pork for his own district

    He gets his representatives money back. You know, the tax money they put into the pot. He votes against it on PRINCIPLE. He doesnt like the system and wants to CHANGE it.

    My god.. I think Ive realized the only way you are going to see the truth is if you actually look for it. Dont depend to see it on the nightly news. Ive been paying attention and havent seen it yet!

  40. Jeff says:

    Being a creationist is his personal right, and most importantly, he defends your right to disagree with him.

    Agree, and its my right to deem anyone who doesn’t accept basic principles of reality as not worthy of my vote. Not understanding and accepting biological evolution is a sign of a quality of thinking that is not acceptable for someone who will make such complex decisions as a president. He has every right to believe in creationism, and I have every right to ridicule him for it and not to vote for him for it. I don’t see anyone advocating putting him in jail over his beliefs… oh, yeah, that’s what the church used to do…

    P.S. sorry for the typos in the prior post.

  41. chad says:

    as i read many posts relating to Dr. Paul, it is
    fairly evident that the people that support Ron
    Paul tend to be people of character, principle,
    and knowledge; those understanding of the values
    that support freedom (Declaration of Independence),
    the rules of govt (Constitution). those that
    bash Ron Paul appear to have either control issues,
    or are in service to a baseless NWO/anti-Paul agenda.

    Chisholm v. Georgia 2 U.S. 419 (1793):
    “at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”

    Go Ron Paul!

  42. Matt says:

    Tlaloc,

    I too think we all evolved from a common biological ancestor. However I am not convinced that the theory of evolution (Darwin’s theory of natural selection) fully explains our origins. The theory doesn’t even account for all the diversity we find in the biological kingdom, much less for our origins in a more cosmic sense (ie, how did the universe begin? How did matter become life? How did life become conscious?). There is much scientific work left to be done before we fully understand all the mechanisms involved in biological adaptation here on Earth, and certainly we are far from understanding the evolution and development of the cosmos as a whole. Where knowledge is lacking or incapable, we are compelled to fill in the gaps with myth. Myths aren’t lies, they are metaphors we live by, stories we tell in order to make sense of our existence when logic and empiricism are found lacking. I think Dr. Paul is among those who think science steps beyond its bounds when it tries to account for the origins of the cosmos or the purpose (or lack thereof) of human life. Science does a great job revealing practical truths, but it can easily devolve into materialist fundamentalism. Dr. Paul seems to be disagreeing with that kind of scientism. I can’t blame him.

  43. million says:

    clip doctored, post de-bunked.

    nothing to see here.

  44. Pliny says:

    Just a few corrections:
    Ron Paul isn’t opposed to free trade. He is opposed to the managed trade system of NAFTA, etc. He would replace those systems with true free trade that respected American sovereignty rather than bowing down at some alter of foreign business interests.

    Ron Paul’s use of earmarks is wholly consistent with his position if you just think about it for a minute. He is against earmarks and against the taxes that are used to fund them. However, until he is able to stop the taxation he has little choice but to engage in earmarking because if he does not then the people he represents will lose their money. I’m against many government programs too, but as long as I’m being taxed to fund them then I’m going to partake in them insofar as I’m entitled to by law. You can play by the rules and still believe that the rules ought to be changed.

    As for the issue of evolution; I don’t think you have to be uneducated to not believe that humans evolved from lower lifeforms. I think we can observe micro evolution, but merely observing micro evolution does not preclude other religious beliefs that contradict macro evolution. You’ll also note that Ron Paul supports parent’s rights to control their children’s education so if you disagree with his religious beliefs or scientific beliefs then feel free to education your children differently. Ron Paul isn’t going to use the national government to impose a scientific or religious orthodoxy on America. You can’t say that about most other candidates.

  45. RPV says:

    Oh GROW UP.

    It’s an unproven theory that is seriously IN CRISIS and has held back medicinal science for a century. You need to pull your head in. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

    You evolutionists are FAR more narrow minded bigots than the religious folk who claims a 6000 year old earth. Darwinism is a RELIGION.

  46. James Orleans says:

    Posting a doctored clip is probably the cheapest shot on Ron Paul I’ve seen yet.

    31 sec.

  47. RPV says:

    “We not only have an enormous fossil record”

    HILLARIOUS… You’re VERY out of date aren’t you. It’s funny how all the rabid Darwin evangelists always spout old knowledge and have no idea hat science has move on since you were in high school.

    Evolutionists today are VERY afraid of the fossil record. The fossil record has swung right around in recent years and is being used as evidence AGAINST evolution. Fossil beds in China are showing the exact opposite to Darwin’s tree of life. It features higher life forms thinning out to less life forms, NOT the other way around. And then of course, there is the CAMBRIAN explosion, we 95% of all life forms suddenly appear instantly in the same era. So much for slow, gradual, slight, successive, and all those other words you love to use.

    Do some CURRENT research! Read CURRENTLY published books. Basically, pull your head out of the sand, science has ALAYS questioned it’s own theories and very often moved on. Exactly what we ate seeing today with evolution.

    Anyone who is a die-hard evolutionists in this day and age of our knowledge of biology and genetics, simply has a religious motivation. Scientists question, they do not evangelize!

  48. Victoria says:

    Wow! Now I respect this man even more! I strongly oppose the “theory of evolution” and believe that God created all things, including humans and animals. You didn’t disuade me, you made me a stronger supporter!!

  49. Jeff says:

    as someone with several university degress in
    science, i would say that anyone that “believes”
    in evolution is lacking in knowledge/understanding.

    for a new species to occur via evolution would
    require that a male and female both mutate at the
    same time, in the same way, in the same proximity,
    and then engage in sex to produce offspring. to
    think that this impossible chance is the source of
    all species on earth is completely absurd.

    You may as well throw all of your degree in the garbage then, because nothing in your post was even remotely accurate. You say you have “science degrees”, in what? Certianly not biology.

    Clearly you have absolutely no understanding of genetics, biology, or evolution whatsoever. What you just described sounds like something that your Sunday school teacher told you….

  50. Dr. Angry says:

    I refuse to believe that Ron Paul would make such a ludicrous claim, even for a short-term political gain. If this is true, it more likely shows that he’s a panderer.

    Why? Ron Paul, aside from coming across as a pretty smart guy, is a physician; such a lack of understanding of basic science is hard to find in a practicing physician.

    To wit:

    People who say they don’t ‘believe’ in the ‘theory’ of Evolution don’t understand either science or the definition of the word ‘theory.

    As anyone with scientific training should know, evolution is not a belief system; anyone who thinks it is has likely been sold a bill of goods by those who profit from ignorance, and Dr. Paul does not seem to be a likely customer for those people.

    Some basic facts:

    Evolution is the result of a methodical process of inquiry into the natural world, also known as ‘Science’, using something called the ‘scientific method’. The scientific method has given us the basis for most of our modern technology–some of it, admittedly, is initially discovered by accident, but the science explaining it usually follows. If not, scientists have new career opportunities ahead of them. See ‘bumblebee, flight’ for a recent example.

    Evolution is the basis of modern biology; its everyday use, in the lab and in nature, is readily observable to anyone who cares to look. To not ‘believe’ in evolution is to not believe in the basis by which every pill put on the market in the last twenty years was invented.

    Evolution is employed as both an experimental technique and a method of understanding in virtually every biological laboratory in the world–one that can reproduce its results, that is. Evolution is responsible, directly or indirectly (through experimental technique) for most of our current medical discoveries. Some, as mentioned above, are initially found by accident (like the smallPox vaccine), and only later understood…using evolutionary arguments. BTW, if you don’t believe in evolution, you don’t believe in the SmallPox vaccine either

    There is, by the way, no such thing as ‘micro evolution’. This is a made-up term used by ‘anti-evolution’ people as a form of retreat in the face of irrefutable evidence. Evolution is what it is, be it an explanation for how humans are related to apes, or why humans and bacteria have virtually the same DNA code.

    Evolution is also the reason why perfectly healthy people are now dying of MRSA (look it up, non-‘believers’) and other antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

    And, like the theory of Gravity, there are gaps. All theories have gaps, since a theory IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN EXPLANATION OF EVERY PREVIOUS, TESTABLE OBSERVATION on record. In the case of the Theory of Evolution, that amounts to literally billions of hours of experimental observation.

    To obtain a complete explanation of how life forms evolve would likely require near-infinite time and energy, and for that reason the gaps in evolution are as interesting as the vast amount of Biology that it does explain. In the meantime, evolution has yet to be experimentally dis-proven as the sole mechanism of biological diversity in the world. If it was disproven, with a repeatable, provable experiment, the responsible scientist would instantly become as famous as Einstein (who disproved Newton’s THEORIES of motion, still used to put satellites in space, after 400 years).

    Someone so ignorant of all of this should not be running for President, much less practicing medicine. So I don’t think Ron Paul said as much. And if he did, he’s fishing for Huckabee votes.

    And please, if you’re going to make an argument, do yourselves a favor and stop posting ridiculous and grossly inaccurate public comments like:

    “The theory of evolution was only introduced into the schools in the ’70s and only as a theory”. The Scopes Monkey Trial took place in 1925. Don’t you have Wikipedia, people?

    Finally, PLEASE, all of you, stop mindlessly repeating what you hear and start thinking for yourselves. The country will be a much better place when we can examine this ‘evolution’ debate for what it is–a wedge issue between thinking people–and start trying to solve real problems (like how to stop MRSA before it eats us all).

    And in the meantime, take a basic biology class before speaking up in a public forum (one taught by an actual scientist, that is).

    No charge for lesson 1.

    Dr. Angry

    P.S.

    As an aside, for most people evolution in no way takes God out of the creation of the universe, although it does make a literal interpretation of Genesis hard, although not impossible, to justify.

    And for those who DO cite literal Genesis as the basis of the wrongness of Evolution, I would ask them to show me where, in the Bible, does it tell us to take the words of Genesis literally. Logic is a double-edged sword, my friends, and if you want to use the Bible as a logical tool to refute millions of man-years of scientific observations, it needs to logically complete.

    P.P.S. Based on past experience, this is usually the point when a few people calling themselves Christians start sending death threats to my InBox. Kindly think twice before doing so–it doesn’t help your argument, and it makes you look a lot less Christian. Plus, you automatically lose the argument.

  51. Michael says:

    Yeah, its absolutely insane for him to suggest that the presidency should NOT be decided on opinions of scientific theory.

    He is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts. Disregard for facts that don’t match your opinions is what got us into Iraq, which you all supposedly think was a bad move.

    How silly of Mr. Paul, he should know that the U.S. president is also the pope of science.

    It’s worse, the President is largely the banker of science. As our current president has shown, he can significantly curtail the education and growth of science.

    as someone with several university degress in science

    I’m guessing that they are more the “political” and less of the “biological” variety, am I right?

    I consider myself an atheist, but I don’t treat it like a religion. As long as I can’t prove that there isn’t a god, than I have no business touting my disbelief as the truth.

    But you _can_ prove that evolution happens, that is the difference. If Ron Paul is either ignorant of that fact, or disregards that fact, then it speaks volumes about the man.

    I too think we all evolved from a common biological ancestor. However I am not convinced that the theory of evolution (Darwin’s theory of natural selection) fully explains our origins.

    Newton didn’t fully explain gravity, but that doesn’t mean his theories of gravity where wrong, does it? I’m okay with saying that natural selection doesn’t explain everything, but that’s a far cry from saying that natural selection doesn’t happen.

  52. Jeff says:

    That Ron Paul doesn’t “believe in” evolution is really no surprise. He is clearly not an evidence based thinker at all, nor are his followers. His policy ideas are all totally guided by ideology and idealism. He has no concept of pragmatics or reality at all. He is ideologically opposed to federal government, damn the consequences. He is ideologically opposed to taxation, damn the consequences. He is ideologically opposed to abortion, damn the consequences. He is ideologically opposed to immigration, damn the consequences. He is ideologically opposed to global governance, damn the consequences, etc.

    He advocates the gold standard, which anyone with a lick of economic knowledge knows is just plain nonsense. That anyone would even claim to be in favor of the gold standard can only demonstrate their pure reliance on ideology and historical fantasy. The American banking system was a total disaster prior to the Federal Reserve. Tying currency to an arbitrary limited resource like gold or anything else makes absolutely no sense at all. It only worked for a short time because during that time there were huge gold rushes in America that provided the amount of gold needed and the economy was relatively small. As the economy grew and the god dried up, this policy became impossible to maintain, and would be impossible to use today. There is no relationship at all between some randomly chosen metal in the ground and the economic output and wealth of the country. None whatsoever.

    Ideological opposition to federal and global government is retarded. Some laws work best at a local level, other work best at a federal level, yet others work best at a global level. For example laws on pollution really require global governance because pollution is a global problem and pollution created in one place can still affect other places. Federal laws make laws easier to abide by and easier to enforce. They also prevent things like one state leaching off another state by introducing competitive laws designed to undercut other states. Indeed this is already a problem and we need actually a stronger federal system, not a weaker one. For example, Delaware is able to host very pro-corporate laws that make it possible for corporations to file there and skirt the laws of other states, thereby this gives Delaware the power to undermine all law making authority governing corporations of every other state.

    If basic safety regulation were done on a state by state level, that would make business almost impossible, because every state would have different laws, thereby possibly malign it impossible to produce any product that could meet the requirements of all states.

    But Libertarians, and Paulites aren’t concerned with reality or practicality or the real world, they are too busy dreaming of idealisitic fantasy worlds and worshiping idealized images of the Founders to bother looking at the facts or the evidence, hence why it makes perfect sense that Paul and his follwoers don’t “believe in” evolution (or anything else that makes any sense).

  53. Andrew says:

    More typical anti Ron Paul propoganda, not focusing on anything important.

    I am not a christian. I am a firm believer in evolution, and the science that backs it up. That being said, who cares if Dr. Paul believes in evolution or not. Most christians don’t. The important thing is that he would never try to force his religious beliefs on us.

    I also agree with the earlier posts, that the author of this article was never a Ron Paul supporter.

    Ron Paul supporters support him because of his tolerance of others beliefs.

    To the Author,
    Since you obviously support a different candidate, you would be better served pushing that candidate than bashing a man with integrity.

  54. Tlaloc says:

    I too think we all evolved from a common biological ancestor. However I am not convinced that the theory of evolution (Darwin’s theory of natural selection) fully explains our origins.

    Well I guess it depends on what you mean by that. If you mean “I believe that God/Yahweh/Allah/whatever created human beings and did so through the mechanism of evolution” then I have no problem with that. That’s a faith based position that is not in conflict with the physical evidence. I can’t say it’s right or wrong because it deals with matters that are simply unknowable.

    The theory doesn’t even account for all the diversity we find in the biological kingdom,

    Example?

    much less for our origins in a more cosmic sense (ie, how did the universe begin? How did matter become life? How did life become conscious?).

    Of course the theory of evolution doesn’t address any of those things- it was never intended to. That’s like saying “well television doesn’t transmit smells.” yeah, no duh. Nobody ever said it did.

    Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe began. It isn’t even in the right field. Evolution is matter of biology, the origins of the universe lay squarely in the land of physics.

    There is much scientific work left to be done before we fully understand all the mechanisms involved in biological adaptation here on Earth, and certainly we are far from understanding the evolution and development of the cosmos as a whole.

    Let’s be crystal clear about one thing- evolutions says nothing at all, *AT ALL*, about the development of the cosmos. NOTHING AT ALL. Anyone who says differently falls into one of the three categories I outlined above.

    There is certainly work to be done in understanding the details, just as with the gravity example I gave above. Gravity is. We understand it for the most part, although there are details left to work out. You can make the same statement and substitute evolution for gravity with no loss of accuracy.

    Where knowledge is lacking or incapable, we are compelled to fill in the gaps with myth. Myths aren’t lies, they are metaphors we live by, stories we tell in order to make sense of our existence when logic and empiricism are found lacking.

    We are NOT required to fill in gaps with myths, but we often choose to. And yes a myth is a lie when it is taken as literally true, rather than parable. If I really claim that man got fire from the titan Prometheus then I believe in, and promote, a lie.

    I think Dr. Paul is among those who think science steps beyond its bounds when it tries to account for the origins of the cosmos or the purpose (or lack thereof) of human life. Science does a great job revealing practical truths, but it can easily devolve into materialist fundamentalism. Dr. Paul seems to be disagreeing with that kind of scientism. I can’t blame him.

    No he’s not doing anything of the kind, he is disputing a central established theory of biology. That theory has nothing to do with accounting for the origins of the universe or the purpose of life. It says only how various biological forms develop over time.

    Now if we choose to interpret that theory as having significance to the purpose of human life that’s fine, but then WE are the ones engaging in philosophy, not evolution.

  55. Perplexed says:

    Ron Paul is right that creation and evolution are theories. The scientific community constantly tries to present evolution as fact.

    There are reams of made up scientific data out there to support evolution, except the needed evidence of fossil data. Where is the missing link???? In order for evolution to be true it would have to be proved. Then it would be the law of evolution! No one has done that. We have sheeple scientists all following each other.

    Look at Columbus and how the scientific community mostly thought that the earth was flat, or some other bone-headed idea. True innovation it the scientific community comes from the ones not in the mainstream pack. They are labeled insane, and maybe so! Their insane genius handed us some of the most wonderful designs of our time.

    So if most of the secular scientific community is going towards evolution then head the other way.

  56. Michael says:

    I am not a christian. I am a firm believer in evolution, and the science that backs it up. That being said, who cares if Dr. Paul believes in evolution or not. Most christians don’t. The important thing is that he would never try to force his religious beliefs on us.

    If there were an epidemic, and someone came to him with a treatment and said “if Evolution is true, this will cure everyone”, and another person had a treatment that would cure 25% of the population regardless of evolution, and he could only fund the distribution of one, which would he choose?

  57. M1EK says:

    Good lord. We’re doomed as a nation if people who are too stupid to understand evolution (and what a ‘theory’ is in SCIENTIFIC terms) can also get jobs or other access to computers that allow them to post to the internet.

    And, frankly, graduating with a degree in any kind of science and posting this claptrap that chad and others have done is akin to me, a computer scientist, insisting that computers actually run by means of electronic demons that do my bidding when I invoke certain incantations upon them.

    Moderate Republicans, this is what you bought us by allying with the religious right. Think about the impact on the long-term competitiveness of our country when our citizens have become this stupid.

  58. Michael says:

    Where is the missing link????

    Oh sweet Jesus, are you still failing to understand that?

    Look at Columbus and how the scientific community mostly thought that the earth was flat, or some other bone-headed idea.

    By the time Columbus proposed his journey, the scientific community was in agreement that the earth was round, and they even had pretty good estimates of it’s diameter. What they didn’t believe was that there was a landmass between Europe and Asia. Columbus was the one who disregarded the scientific community, thinking the earth was smaller than they suggested, and that he could sail from Europe to Asia across the Atlantic.

  59. Charles says:

    This is insane. Once again, it goes to show that very few people understand his positions. It doesn’t matter if he thinks evolution is true or not. He is correct though, that it is just a theory. Granted, there is an ever growing pile of evidence for it – but still a theory. I personally think evolution is correct…

    However, none of this matters. The man is smart enough to know that everyone has different opinions and it is not up to the federal government to decide what you should believe or be taught. Call him dumb for not believing in evolution – but at least give him credit for not
    forcing it down your throat through the department
    of education.

    I personally don’t care what he believes in his personal life as long as he adheres to the constitution and promotes freedom ( including to believe whatever idea you choose – not limited to evolution ) – now that is something we can all agree on.

  60. Michael says:

    The man is smart enough to know that everyone has different opinions and it is not up to the federal government to decide what you should believe or be taught.

    I’m amazed that you people can be okay with _not_ teaching a fact because it is different than someone else’s opinion. I don’t care what Ron Paul’s opinions are, but I _do_ care about whether or not he recognizes facts as facts.

  61. Michael says:

    To put it another way, it is okay for you to believe in anything that you want. It is _not_ ok for you to _not_ believe is something that has been proven.

    You can believe in unicorns if you want to, that’s fine by me. But you can’t say that you don’t believe in horses, that just makes you an idiot.

  62. DenisL says:

    Evolution IS a theory; I believe that it is likely true. I think God set up the rules to allow evolution. The religious point of view & the scientific perspective on evolution differ. Both viewpoints will likely be shown to be wrong someday. Because of Ron Paul’s Constitutional approach, evolution will not affect Ron Paul’s ability to act on Iraq and the Federal Reserve. Additionally he does NOT want the Federal government involved in education or teaching evolution. That is a state decision.

    There are a lot of litmus tests (like abortion & evolution teaching or prayer in the schools) being used to judge candidates. Ron Paul does not want to impose his viewpoint on these issues. He will send them back to the states like the Constitution requires. With other candidates who want these litmus tests to be federal issues, I would have trouble voting for them (like Huckabee). Ron Paul would not be deciding them, the states are supposed to deal with these particular litmus issues.

    Science only supports hypotheses and theories. It does NOT prove anything. It does DISPROVE things. Evolution is a theory. A very strong theory. I would not bet against it. But I would bet in the LONG run that the theory will be substantially different in 100 years. How life started or was created is even more controversial. However, Ron Paul is not trying to compel the teaching of evolution or creationism/intelligent design. Constitutionally that is for the states to do. Or not.

  63. Hal says:

    Myself, what I always fascinating about these types is that they believe there is only one interpretation of the constitution and they’re incredibly clear as to what’s constitutional and what’s not. Clarity is perfect in this regard and anyone who says differently is pounced upon and torn to virtual shreds. However, bring up evolution and suddenly everything is an opinion and everything is up for grabs – there are no “facts”.

    Fascinating.

    M1EK, I feel your pain, but consider that many of the virulent techno-libertarians create software and have computer science degrees. From my time in the valley, this strain of thought appears to be quite common amongst those embedded in this form of technology. As R.P’s record breaking fundraising on the internet shows, this is hardly a random correlation.

    Just because you’re educated doesn’t mean you’re smart. You might want to read “Why Smart People Believe Weird Things”, which is as good an explanation as I’ve found to date. My favorite phrase is

    Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.

    Something that is quite perfectly illustrated in this thread.

  64. Dr. Angry says:

    Tlaloc: I admire your patience and clarity in attempting to refute the flat-earthers on this site. In my experience, such reasoned argumentation usually ends up being received in the same fashion as that classic Far Side cartoon: ‘blah blah blah Evolution. Blah, blah blah, evolution’.

    I usually start by asking someone like RPV or Victoria from the ‘just a theory’ camp to define ‘theory’. They are usually wrong.

  65. Matt says:

    Tlaloc-
    My point is that Darwin’s theory of natural selection offers us one mechanism that is undeniably involved in the development of biological organisms. But there are most certainly other mechanism involved beyond just random genetic mutation and environmental selection (if we assert that Darwin’s theory is the only mechanism involved, we are making more than just a scientific statement, we are making an ethical as well as a metaphysical statement).

    Obviously, Darwin’s theory was never meant to completely explain our origins, and I think Dr. Paul was responding to the misguided notion that it could. The popular “evolution v. creationism” debate that gets so much play in the media would leave the avg. person thinking that either side offers a full explanation of our origins. Creationism may purport to, but it only convinces people with no imagination who are ideologically tied to literally interpreting the Bible. Evolution as it is known by scientists does not purport to explain anything but a facet of the changes in biological form recorded over time. In the context of Dr. Paul’s statements (addressing a crowd of non-scientists), I think he was trying to dispel the naive idea that evolutionary theory is the new gospel. He is a medical doctor and as such obviously committed to the use of rationality and experimental evidence when treating his patients. But he said he isn’t concerned with the exact mechanism involved in creation as much as he is concerned with a creator being responsible for it. I would need to hear a more detailed response from Dr. Paul before I can say whether or not I find his position silly.

  66. Tlaloc says:

    Look at Columbus and how the scientific community mostly thought that the earth was flat, or some other bone-headed idea.

    Combinging historical and scientific illiteracy in one sentence. Kudos.

    Way before Columbus people knew the earth was round. In fact a couple hundred years before Christ, Eratosthenes used the shadow caused by a stick in the ground to estimate the circumference of the earth, and he was pretty close (he estimated 46k km, and the real value is 40k, did I mention his aparatus was a stick?).

    It wasn’t the “scientific community” (although no such thing existed then) that thought the earth was flat, nor that the earth was center of the universe, nor that the sun revolved the earth. That was all thanks to our friends the christians insisting that they knew better than those dirty empiricists.

    And they were wrong, time and again, and again, and again, and again. And here they are even today still trying to argue that science is wrong and they’r right.

    The surprising thing is that Paul, who otherwise seems reasonably intelligent and independent feels the need to pander to them by pretending that he doesn’t believe what he almost surely really does know.

  67. Liberty in Law says:

    Research “the big lie.” Evolution is a big lie. It is not a “theory” but rather an unsupported hypothesis (a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth). A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation. The principles of evolution have not been tested and have not been verified.

    According to the father of modern psychology, if something is repeated over and over most people will believe it without question. Isn’t it funny how we vehemently defend things that we’ve consistently “heard” to be true, but haven’t actually looked into it ourselves? A simple scientific and historical analysis (the science of genetics which was not a science yet during Darwin’s life as well as the absence of transitional species in the fossil record) shows the asserted science of evolution to be unsupported.

    But our culture has become so separated from wisdom and discernment opting instead to follow what has been deemed politically correct and ostracizing those that dare question or test the accepted opinion. Remember the fable of the Emperor’s New Clothes? This is an example of the natural state of societies. An unchanging truth.

    So this is what you are contributing to with your post. You are ostracizing someone (a medical doctor no less) that challenges the accepted assertion that evolution is a scientifically sound theory as though this matter is already settled and only a whack job would dare question it. The pervasiveness of a lie does not make it true.

    You did not refute Ron Paul’s statement that evolution is not a theory, you simply ridiculed it. If you are committed to the truth you will always test those assertions that challenge your conviction. If you can’t be bothered to test it yourself (ie., go and research it — learn the science, read the information that refutes it…etc. until you are able to defend your conviction or change your conviction) then you really should not comment or judge and certainly not ridicule someone else’s assertions.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate who is wise about human nature and the corrupting nature of government. He is the only candidate pointing to history and logic which elevates the intelect over emotion in his platform. He is the only candidate speaking the truth about the cause of our nation’s ills — turning away from the wisdom and discernment that our founding fathers put into forming our Constitutional Republic. He is the only candidate warning of the inevitability of our nation’s decline into despotism morally and economically because of our interventionist foreign policy and embracing socialism at home and internationalism or globalism abroad.

    Every other candidate is recycling the same garbage because they are beholden to interests that benefit from the status quo corporatism. The moral character of our representatives from both major political parties are in deep decline as the citizenry is kept busy and righteously indignant with a great seemingly ideological divide. The pendulum swings back and forth and there is never any profound shift in policy. Democrats move us closer to socialism with the welfare state, Republicans move us closer to internationalism with highly regulated (so-called free) trade. Either way, the establishment elite slowly become the ruling class of America selling out the best interests of her nation’s citizenry to increase their own wealth and power.

    Ron Paul is an outsider because he seeks to restore the federal government to its Constitutional limitations. Of course that doesn’t make him popular with the insider political, media and industry elites who have their own horses in the race.

    To address your side concerns, the NAU is not a conspiracy theory, but there you go again dismissing something with ridicule. It is the progression toward regionalized government. Study the formation of the EU and you will see this very clearly happening in North America. Ron Paul consistently reveals that he is for free trade. What he is against is as stated above highly regulated trade that favors big business and big agribusiness which has shut down smaller companies and family farms and caused massive migration of major industry overseas and an influx of foreign labor into the United States. All of this weakens the economy.

    You are using the fact that Ron Paul passes off appropriations requests from his district to the appropriations committee as a way of likening him to other representatives who vote for more and more pork for their districts and special interests. This is another area that you didn’t quantify which can only lead me to believe that you truly don’t understand the system but are just repeating smears that you have “heard.” Go and study up on this subject, because there is a great deal to it. In short, as Ron Paul said the system is corrupt. Passing off appropriations requests from your district then voting against the spending bill is not a contradiction.

    Against a corrupt system, it is a clever way of protecting your constituents while sticking to Constitutional principle. It truly is like making sure we take all the tax deductions that we are legally “allowed” to take because we don’t consent to or endorse the theft of our wages and we don’t want the federal government to get more than what we are forced to give them. He is saving his district money, not “giving” the district money.

    The tone of your post reveals that you and Ron Paul have a different ideology in regards to the nature and role of government as well as wisdom and discernment. The great divide that exists in these opposing ideologies is the commitment to truth. Do we contribute by repeating what is commonly accepted or do we commit to truth and test our convictions.

    This is born out in the response sought after from your post. Most people haven’t heard of the NAU and don’t understand or see the progressive regionalism. Without this information it is easy to dismiss the notion of a merger of North America as incomprehensible drivel. Those who are committed to discernment will research and find out the truth. The same for free trade agreements. The same for appropriations. The same for evolution.

  68. Andrew Markovic says:

    Ha! This question was asked in Spartanburg, South Carolina a month or so ago during the open quesiton period at the end of his speech to the Spartanburg GOP. (How many Candidates are brave enough to have open quesitons?) Trust me! I know, because I was personally there listening to him speak! Me and a few friends from our local meetup group made the somewhat long drive from Boone, NC to see him speak and meet him in person. I was there, in the flesh.

    It is true that this clip is doctored, and a bit of material has been lost in translation. But as i remember: not in a way that would adversely effect the overall message of the statement. Dr. Paul did indeed tell that person that he thinks that his question wasn’t appropriate for executive members of the government to have an exectutive or forcefull oppinion on. Here is what i know:

    His voting record and philosophy throughout all his speeches (to congress and beyond) all strongly reinforce my belief that Dr. Paul fervently believes that it is not the governments job to legislate virtue or push their personal beliefs on the country. Its pretty straightforward, read into his philosophy and record. You will see this same theme throughout.

    As a STRONG supporter of Dr. Paul, and also as a STRONG believer in the theory of evolution, I can easily say that i am not bothered in any way, shape, or form by the statement i heard him deliver to the Spartanburg GOP. Why? Because i know that by his logic, his personal opinion is irrelevant since the record prooves that he wont use that belief to persecute or alienate others.

    I have alot of friends that are supporters of evolution, and they feel the exact same way as i do. I might offer that my roommate is a whiz-bang physics and astronomy major, and I am convinced that he is one of the biggest Paul supporters out there! Don’t be discouraged that Ron Paul doesnt wholeheartedly accept evolution, in fact, have courage and understanding that he will protect our right to think and say what we want to.

  69. Jim says:

    I am a scientist and I believe in evolution, and I also think that, even though there are zillions of evidence support the theory, it is not an easy subject to proove it exactly.

    However I will still continue to support Ron Paul, because the other issues like war and IRS (taxes) and obeying the rule of law, are very very very very improtant comparing to the issue of evolution. I think that Ron Paul is the only one leave poeple free to believe whatever they want to believe.

    I should point out that it looks like that there is only one solution to the problem of a corrupt, misguided, media and corporation entagngled goverment, just make it smaller in safe limits.

  70. Anderson says:

    Quick! Someone ask “Dr. Paul” about his views on the Second Law of Thermodynamics!

  71. Michael says:

    Well, Dodd, its sad to loose a Ron Paul supporter. I just hope there is enough of us ignorant fools left to get this guy elected.

  72. Dodd says:

    I wouldn’t be surprised if you are a Huckabee supporter pretending to be a ex-Paul supporter.

    Nothing in my remarks even suggests that I have ever supported Paul’s presidential campaign. However, unlike most Paulbots I’ve encountered, I’ve actually voted Libertarian in a Presidential campaign. And I have indeed long admired Paul for his consistent adherence to principle while in office. But he’s actively undermined that admiration with the things he’s said and done in this campaign. That’s all I said. And, no, I would sooner vote for Obama than Huckabee.

    Very clear the tape was edited – complete tape is here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q Took me ten seconds to get it. You should be ashamed of yourself. I do not believe in the theory of evolution in its entirety as well. I believe in natural selection and I believe all life is related, but I also believe in karma and a higher power. Doesn’t make me stupid and the point the good doctor was making was that he believes in God. Anywho – for good measure – Your beat, you monkey.

    It’s entirely unclear what I should be ashamed of. I found the question (it begins right around 2:45 in the longer video) and nothing excised for the short version I posted changes the meaning at all. As such, Tlaloc nailed it at 1:20 PM.

    The tape was clearly edited you moron.

    See above. Insults without substance to back them up harm the target not at all. The person making them? Quite a lot.

    Someone deciding upon a candidate based on the candidate’s views on evolution has a pretty myoptic view of the world.

    Read my post again. The plain meaning of my words completely nullifies this response.

    He has never voted for an earmark for his own district. He puts them in because that’s the only way to get the fruits of his districts’ labor BACK.

    Self-annihilate much?

  73. scott says:

    appalled to see yet another dishonest author. free trade (lol), NAU (lol). go take a long walk off a short pier and make like a tree & leave.

  74. Tommyboy0111 says:

    Allow me to interrupt this humanist revival session. Since when is it a federal crime to join over half of all Americans in disbelieving a theory that is more fantasy than science? It stands that evolutionary teaching is no more scientific (and no less religious) than creationism. They BOTH inherently rely on a metaphysical origin and construct elaborate special pleadings to make each seem scientifically plausible. If you deny the philosophical underpinnings of E, please explain to me why EVERY atheist on the planet believes in the theory. It’s not that they’re more intelligent/enlightened than others–it’s merely because strong-arming science is the easiest way for them to deny the existence of God. Some folks will be mesmerized by your arguments but many more are awakening to the sleight of hand. Anyhow, I suspect that most who are raising this issue up the flagpole are committed anti-Paulites who are just scrambling for yet another way to wipe truth off the map.

  75. wendy mclean says:

    The light is god in a very literal sense…light is what makes everything exist on this planet so in knowing that and knowing that we are made up of that same light called tachyon energy..it is our spirit light that manifested it’s self here on earth,from out in the universe. evolution is partially true I.If you haven,t realized that fact yet then give it time to sink in. meditate and concentrate on getting your brain quiet and at total peace in a place that makes you the most happy. focus on your breathing and soon you will see a deep bluish purple light when you stay in the light for ten minutes or so you will understand that it is true, there is a god !And each of us has a part of that god (the light) living in each of us ..I used to be atheist and it was a very empty hollow feeling . now I see the world very differently and it is an incredible feeling to just know!! so look it up tachyon energy in the body… it’s all there seek and ye shall find . that’s funny I cant believe it but that statement works for this, ha.

  76. Tlaloc says:

    Allow me to interrupt this humanist revival session. Since when is it a federal crime to join over half of all Americans in disbelieving a theory that is more fantasy than science?

    Who said anything about arresting him?

    It stands that evolutionary teaching is no more scientific (and no less religious) than creationism. They BOTH inherently rely on a metaphysical origin and construct elaborate special pleadings to make each seem scientifically plausible.

    No, tht doesn’t even remotely stand.

    If you deny the philosophical underpinnings of E, please explain to me why EVERY atheist on the planet believes in the theory.

    My god, you are so right! Atheists tend to accept evolution which means that evolution is religious argument of.. um… atheists… even though it is widely accepted by people who aren’t atheists, like christians, buddhists, hindus, Muslims…

    Never mind, I think when you guys reach this level of inanity/idiocy I will choose to let you wallow in your own filth.

  77. ARD says:

    WGAF what Dr. Paul’s personal religious beliefs are, Ron Paul’s life’s work is based on getting the federal government out of our lives. Consider that if you were ever looking for a man who would refrain from pushing his personal beliefs on others Ron Paul would be him, how many other candidates can you say that about? If he was running for your local school board and stated he would teach creationism or intelligent design while refusing to teach evolution you may have a valid point but this has nothing to do with how he would handle his presidency.

    Regarding the NAU you would have to be blind to miss the trend towards uniting Mexico, Canada, and America, no amount of sticking your thumbs in ears an holding your fingers over your eyes while yelling “NA NA NA NA NA” will make it go away.

    Earmarks are not pork they happen to be one of the few legal methods of bringing some of the money pilfered from his constituents back to their community.

    In the end vote for who you like you may be able to find a candidate with packaging you find more appealing but I doubt you can find a more honest man or a better choice for a Constitutional America.

  78. Tommyboy0111 says:

    Tlaloc–dispute the fact that every atheist believes in evolution. If you can’t, then perhaps with an open mind you’d sense the prospect that our “science” is deluded/diluted (your pick) with philosophy. Speaking of wallowing–I hope for your sake evolution is true..it’s time for you to stop wading around the shallow end of the pool of reason.

  79. Tom Mathers says:

    Who cares who believes what theory as long as they don’t try to shove it down your throat? And not shoving things down peoples’ throats, not coercing adherence to another’s wishes, or not compelling compliance without due process is really what the Ron Paul revolution is all about. The rejection by our leader of the theory of evolution seems a pitifully small price to pay for our freedom from government oppression.

  80. Hal says:

    This has got to be, hands down, the most awesome OTB comment thread. Evolution denial, gold standard, “Ron Paul is all about the love, man”… It’s got it all.

    As they say in the old country: “Bitchin’!”.

  81. TheOneLaw says:

    Caveat:
    Science progresses one funeral at a time.

    The theory of evolution is merely a very plausible theory. Creationism is merely a carnival sideshow.
    Neither belief system is indisputably proven.

    Any prudent leader does not surrender his faith to theory but rather indulge in suspended disbelief in order not to be suckered into ideological blindness.

  82. xtrabiggg says:

    No one in their right mind ‘believes’ ANY scientific theory. By it’s nature, science is open to new information, change and disprovature. One ‘believes’ in a religious doctrine or dogma. Absolutism exists in religion, but not in science. Scientists (and those that adhere to the scientific method) ADVOCATE theories, POSTUILATE theorems and continueally TEST those theories and postulations.

    As far as Dr. Paul, his refusal to BELIEVE in the theory of evolution has less to do with his religious beliefs and more to do with his adherence to the scientific method.

    Bottom line: ‘belief’ in religious dogma should not have any bearing on politics, unless you intend to impose your religious beliefs on others. Unlike other candidates, Ron Paul believes Religious beliefs are a private matter, so this ‘debate’ about evolution is a moot point as far as the Ron Paul campaign is concerned, as it rightly should have nothing to do with Presidential Politics.

    xtrabiggg
    +++++++++++++++

  83. Michael says:

    appalled to see yet another dishonest author. free trade (lol), NAU (lol). go take a long walk off a short pier and make like a tree & leave.

    You make a very persuasive argument, tell us more about these piers and leaves you speak of.

  84. William d'Inger says:

    I don’t remember the last time that a non-issue about a nobody generated so much heat and so little light.

  85. brad says:

    Question about evolution

    seems like some smart people on both sides so I thought I’d ask. since life began on earth I would think there have been trillions upon trillions of mutations. Why hasn’t a life form evolved that would be so toxic to every other organism it would take over a island, Continent or maybe the earth. Seems like something would take over given enough time and that survival is the cornerstone to evolution. I have always wondered why more plants and animals are not more deadly to each other. Thank you for any answers.

    Vote Ron Paul Please

  86. Michael says:

    seems like some smart people on both sides so I thought I’d ask. since life began on earth I would think there have been trillions upon trillions of mutations. Why hasn’t a life form evolved that would be so toxic to every other organism it would take over a island, Continent or maybe the earth. Seems like something would take over given enough time and that survival is the cornerstone to evolution. I have always wondered why more plants and animals are not more deadly to each other. Thank you for any answers.

    Since this is the first sincere question I’ve seen asked, I’ll make an attempt at answering.

    First off, due to natural diversity, it is very very hard for a bacteria or virus to kill off 100% of a species. Even if it managed to kill off 90% of a population, that remaining 10% that is can’t kill will be the ones making a whole new generation that it can’t kill, so the faster a bacteria or virus kills off those it can, the faster it is rendered benign to the following generation. As for killing all other species, geographic separation would make this difficult even for a pathogen that killed 100% of what it infected. Also remember that the virus and bacteria themselves are at the mercy of their environment, one that thrives in the tropics may not last long in the artic.

    Due to natural codependencies, a predatory species would be hard pressed to kill off all of it’s prey before the lack of prey would start starving the predators. Even herbivores can’t eat all their available food before they start starving in large numbers. It only takes a small amount of survivors to repopulate, but it takes a large number of them to sustain a predatory species.

    Finally, I would say that history shows that sometimes this exact thing very nearly happened. From the earliest days of cyanobacteria literally changing our atmosphere, to the dinosaurs dominating mammal live, to modern day humans driving species after species into extinction.

    In the end, however, life is hardy. We find life in extremes of temperature, pressure, acidity and radiation. It turns out that life is actually very hard to kill specifically because of evolution. It would take a long time to kill off all life on earth, but only a few generations for that life to evolve a way of protecting itself from the threat. Someone mentioned MRSA earlier as a perfect example, our human attempts at trying to kill off certain bacteria has resulted in that bacteria being much harder to kill.

  87. floyd says:

    The “Scientific Method” is a recently developed, and very effective, approach to understanding the NATURAL world. Much has been accomplished through it’s use.

    To date, mankind has accumulated what appears to be a vast storehouse of knowledge, when in fact we have advanced only to a level of arrogance.
    Like children playing with toys,we are still a LOT closer to knowing NOTHING than we are to knowing EVERYTHING.

    The intense study of the natural world yields an ever increasing understanding of “the natural world” and nothing of the spirit.

    Science is only the study of CLOCKWORK,it can not reveal what TIME it is.

  88. brad says:

    Thank you for the response Michael. I do believe in evolution, but I do find it difficult to understand how life can be so diverse but your answer makes sense. If you have time, why do you think plants are not toxic to animals. Most plants do not need animals, so you would think eventually all plants would be deadly to them.

  89. Tim says:

    Evolution is to simple a term. There is micro-evolution with is a well documented theory. Then there is macro-evolution, which I’m taking this discussion to be talking about. Macro-evolution is simply an unconfirmed hypothesis. Frogs dating 150 million years old are still frogs, as are clams, lobsters, etc. Then there is also no such thing as “millions of years”. There are countless evidences with are not opinions with absolutely prove the earth is less than 10,000 yrs old. One is the rate at which Jupiter and Saturn are losing heat at a ratio of 2-1, if the universe were millions or billions of years old they should have reached equilibrium by now.

  90. Tlaloc says:

    Thank you for the response Michael. I do believe in evolution, but I do find it difficult to understand how life can be so diverse but your answer makes sense. If you have time, why do you think plants are not toxic to animals. Most plants do not need animals, so you would think eventually all plants would be deadly to them.

    Some plants are certainly poisonous but in general the development of a widely lethal toxin requires a great deal of effort on the part of the organism. Notice that poison is not all that common among the various animals. Snakes, a few lizards and various arthropods are pretty much the only venomous critters out there. Notice no poisonous birds, or mammals.

    For most plants it has turned out better to either try to discourage animal predation through physical means (i.e. like thorns) or to simply out grow their predators. Grass is a perfect example of a plant that is nearly indestructible to normal predation and grows back marvelously, hence why it is capable of supporting so many huge herbivores.

    The most successful plants however have learned to make use of animals. Flowering plants evolved much later than conifers and ferns but they have come to dominate many ecological niches. Why? Because they made very effective use of animals. Insects spread the pollen allowing for much better fertilization of gametes. Larger animals consume fruits and pass the seeds some distance away from the mother plant, which far better than trying to grow in the shadow (literally and figuratively) of the mother.

  91. Tlaloc says:

    Want an obvious example of macro-evolution happening right before our eyes? Look no further than “man’s best friend.” Yeah, the dog.

    Lots of types of dogs, aren’t there? In fact it is fair to say that dogs show an astounding amount of variation for a single species. Everything from tiny chihuahuas up to great danes that can look me in the eye (I’m 6’2). Now so far these various subspecies are all part of the same species. That said physically the largest and smallest dogs are already incapable of procreating naturally because the parts just don’t fit. Were it not for our interference (by continually mixing hte various species of dogs together and intentionally crossbreeding them) it is likely they might have already diverged enough to constitute different species. It is hardly difficult to imagine this happening in nature. We can see right in front of us direct evidence of how a single species can exhibit startling amounts of genetic drift so that they are almost unrecognizable as the same species.

    It is right there, if you choose to open your eyes and look.

  92. Tlaloc says:

    There are countless evidences with are not opinions with absolutely prove the earth is less than 10,000 yrs old. One is the rate at which Jupiter and Saturn are losing heat at a ratio of 2-1, if the universe were millions or billions of years old they should have reached equilibrium by now.

    I’m sorry, how exactly would the rate of heat loss of Jupiter or Saturn prove anything about the age of the Earth? Oh, were you assuming they formed at the same time? You mean you are using a consequence of modern cosmological models (in this case solar system development) as a supporting piece for your creationist nonsense?

    Well isn’t that interesting…

  93. Owen Adams says:

    I,too, do not accept evolution and believe that many of the early proponents of this wacky theory were intentionally disingenuous about their own belief in it, even Darwin’s bulldog wavered on it. However, let’s focus on the political realm, and here is something to consider:

    “Darwin stated candidly that his theory aimed to destroy literal belief in the Bible’s Book of Genesis. His family, starting with an uncle whose published work challenged Christian orthodoxy, were somewhat notorious agnostics. In the original version of his autobiography, Darwin wrote that he was opposed to “the damnable doctrine” of Christianity and the Bible.”

    “Our Constitution, which is based entirely upon natural-law concepts that the Declaration of Independence calls “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” is diametrically opposed to the views inherent in Darwinian evolution. The two are based on completely different ideas about human nature and the source of legitimacy for political order. Present-day American liberals gloss over this point, but their Darwinian grandparents quite openly called for abolishing our Constitutional government and replacing it with socialism. Needless to say, Darwin’s doctrine opposing natural law has been a comfort to tyrants, from Napoleon and Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, to Mao.”

    “Evolution, therefore, cannot be a subject of rational discussion. Liberals must fight to prevent teaching anything that supports Western civilization’s traditions of human nature and personal morality, rooted in the natural-law understanding of a God-given universe. Students must be catechized to accept Darwin’s theory unquestioningly as an article of blind religious faith.”

    Source: http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/2004/03/

    Trust me, no one would really want to live in a Post-Christian world although many folks will be getting that opportunity.

  94. Tlaloc says:

    Trust me, no one would really want to live in a Post-Christian world although many folks will be getting that opportunity.

    Let us suppose for a moment that everything you said before this statement was not utter BS. What exactly is so horrifying about the idea of a post-christian world?

    It seems that things have only gotten better the more we have pushed christianity from it’s perch. There was a time when the church ruled all of western civilization- we call that period “the dark ages” and with good reason. it was a time of terrible hardship, much of it brought on by the enforced ignorance that the church demanded. it was a time of mass slaughter of innocents. It was a time of terrible racism and sexism. The church was not the root of all of those things but it sure seemed to enjoy encouraging them.

    So tell me, what exactly will be so awful about a future that is less dominated by 2000 year old superstitions?

  95. Ludwig says:

    “evolution has yet to be experimentally dis-proven”

    this kind of thing reveals the dogma behind the anti-anti-evolution camp. The great irony is that you believe because you were told to believe.

    the ‘scientific method’ itself can never be ‘proved’, we accept it on faith and utility; the axioms of logic are, by definition, never proved, and are just taken as true because our minds can’t grasp what would make them true. When science is delving into the origin of everything it is inevitable that at some point all you can do is take what you’ve found as a _given_ (like the child that keeps asking “why?” – the child really is on to something..) – this is the fundamental limit of the scientific method, that it in fact can never ‘explain’ everything – because it always requires something ‘before’, something assumed.

    if you say you see a lot of evidence for evolution, and because of this you therefore believe in the theory of evolution, this would be quite reasonable and I not only agree with you but I take it further and believe in various ‘extreme’ and not well accepted extensions of evolution.

    but the ammunition that you think you have to spit on the people that don’t believe in evolution just isn’t there. The irony in bringing up ‘flat earth believers’ is that it’s actually you that’s behaving like them and cursing the other side for not believing in the ‘orthodoxy’ for no other reason than because it is the orthodoxy.

    an honest scientist debating an honest theologian about the existence of God can’t do anything other than shrug and say that science has nothing to say about God (anymore than the theologian can cite science and logic in support of the existence of God.. even though I’ve seen some try this).

    the depth and sophistication of Ron Paul astounds me. Ron Paul’s support of gold/silver as money isn’t some back water position (notice I don’t say “the gold standard”.. because that’s actually not what he’s for, his position is closer to free banking, while giving gold/silver some publicity since that was what the market choose as money when it was free to choose its own money). Friedrich Hayek won the 1974 nobel prize in economics for his continuation of the monetary theory of the business cycle… this is the school of thought that Ron Paul is coming from, and why Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve.

  96. Ludwig says:

    “Jupiter and Saturn are losing heat at a ratio of 2-1”

    actually.. this would be evidence of a changing Sun.. evidence against Man-Made Global Warming.

  97. Andrew G says:

    I’ll take a candidate who believes we all are all descendants of donald duck provided the rest of his/her platform makes sense.

  98. Michael says:

    I’ll take a candidate who believes we all are all descendants of donald duck provided the rest of his/her platform makes sense.

    Why stop there? Would you vote for a candidate who _still_ believes that Iraq had WMDs, so long as his economic platform made sense?

    A candidate’s ability to recognize facts, and make informed decisions based on those facts, is much more important than their ideology on paper money.

  99. Owen Adams says:

    RE: So tell me, what exactly will be so awful about a future that is less dominated by 2000 year old superstitions?

    Well, let’s start by saying that we can expect more of the same of what America has become: A land of selfish opportunists looking for a new angle on how to separate one another from whatever one has that another wants. It will mean the rise of a new religion (one that is already here) that teaches our next stage of evolution is to realize our own godhood. If one is a god, can that one be held responsible for what harm he causes another while in pursuit of proclaiming his own godhood? Doesn’t a god have the right to establish his own rules? In a sense, we will return to a time in the history of mankind where every man did what was right in his own eyes. In other words, expect pure chaos and unparalleled violence as there are so many humans on the globe this time around. Expect death and suffering like has never occurred before.

    The ones that are behind our current sorry state of affairs are pushing hard for a Post-Christian era and what Ron Paul has recognized is that if we will return to a new found respect for the principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence then the rule of law will hold down the threat of tyranny and despotism that is even now overwhelming our world.

  100. Grampagravy says:

    Brad,
    We have a life form so toxic it may eventually kill off every other life form on the planet and itself in the process. We call it “human.”

  101. Ed says:

    WHO CARES!!! I’m not looking for a president to tell me whether to believe in evolution, creationism, or ID. I’ll decide that on my own!

    Of all the issues that effects ALL citizens of this country, this ranks pretty damn close to the bottom. This is almost as intelligent as asking Dr. Paul about the American Civil War.

  102. lamja00 says:

    Go Ron Paul!

  103. Maverick says:

    Interesting how Pat Robertson, the grand poohbah of the Christian Right, endorsed the crossdressing Giuliani, yet you have a conniption when Paul says he disbelieves in something he can’t see, and can only believe in it by putting his faith in the opinions of a few obscure “men of science” whose theories are ever changing. Now, who are the dogmatists?

  104. Michael says:

    Well, let’s start by saying that we can expect more of the same of what America has become: A land of selfish opportunists looking for a new angle on how to separate one another from whatever one has that another wants.

    Oh my God! We’ll be capitalists?!?!

    It will mean the rise of a new religion (one that is already here) that teaches our next stage of evolution is to realize our own godhood.

    What the hell religion is that?

    you have a conniption when Paul says he disbelieves in something he can’t see, and can only believe in it by putting his faith in the opinions of a few obscure “men of science” whose theories are ever changing.

    Why can’t he see it? I’ve seen it, first hand, with my own two eyes, what is Ron Paul’s problem? And what is wrong with science improving? Or would you claim that current computers are worthless because they’re different from the original computers? Scientific theories rarely actually change, they are just given more detail. Einstein didn’t change Newton’s theories, he added on to them.

  105. floyd says:

    I guess the”brave new world” of the “post Christian era” crowd has no prohibition on prevarication, as is clearly and persistently demonstrated here!
    The writing of Aldous Huxley more accurately exposes the true motives of this misinformed menagerie than does any Scientific affiliation.
    Ironically, claiming the “scientific method” for agenda driven goals, belies the very principles espoused.

  106. LeightonW says:

    Quotes from Jeff: “Ron Paul is a quack, and so are is fans. ..idealistic nonsense …best friend of everyone who wears tin-foil hats …allows people to believe that everything is the government’s fault, and the reason that they aren’t personally successful is because of a host of evil forces…these people are just losers…”

    I am a successful young professional with a stellar academic record in math and science. I am currently the elected leader of my local professional organization, which has over 100 members. I am not a quack, conspiracy theorist, or loser. I am a libertarian because I believe in individual responsibility, so I find it ironic that you believe we blame others for our failures. Isn’t that victim mentality more of a socialist thing?

    “He has every right to believe in creationism, and I have every right to ridicule him for it and not to vote for him for it.”

    Yes, you do.

  107. mildred simpson says:

    I could care less if he believes we come from june bugs and were created by a giant purple toad! I can trut him based on his past voting record. I live in Brazoria county and he never pushed creation based education. He is the ONLY republican candidate that truly believes in serperation of church and state.

  108. Rhys says:

    When was evolution discovered? Did the founders believe in it? Just curious. If I’m gonna vote for the Scientist in Chief, I need to know.

  109. Rhys says:

    Also, if you believe in only evolution as the way in which the universe and life came about, then you remove the necessity for our “certain unalienable rights granted to us by our Creator.” In fact, you make the opposite true, and create a necessity for survival of the fittest… for the weak humans to sink to the bottom of a hierarchical greed pattern. This would be the goal of the species because the “fittest” and most able to survive would ‘progress’ the species. is the the ‘progressive’ agenda?

  110. George Dance says:

    ‘Until and unless someone proves that this clip has been edited or doctored to make it sound like he’s saying something he isn’t, this will have to be considered the end of the Ron Paul “Revolution.”’

    But editing it to make it sound like he’s not saying something that he did say – that it’s not an issue of any kind – will do the trick?

    I don’t think so. Because, as it turns out, he’s right; his opinions about biology, whether you or I like them, have nothing to do with this campaign. They’re not an issue for him, they won’t be an issue for his supporters, and frankly I don’t see why they’d be an issue for anyone.

  111. Alan Kellogg says:

    What bothers me about the last three commentators is how they can’t be bothered to rouse enough interest in the topic to be apathetic.

  112. Brad says:

    I would pose this question to those who have some intelligence.

    Why Must Evolution Rule Out Creationism; Or Vice Versa.

    This is a Fools Paradox. Why couldn’t both coexist.

    There is Just as much circumstantial evidence for both. In the end it is a leap of faith either way.

    Neither can be proven using the scientific method. However, Both show circumstantial evidence that could lead to either conclusion.

    This is not a topic for consideration of a Presidency. War, Economy, And Civil Liberties are the only topics that should be considered.

    Do Not Get Hung Up On Details That No One Can Prove.

  113. RG says:

    Evolution is a theory of Charles Darwin used to explain changes in the species over time. As a theory it is fairly simplistic and there are many flaws in the details. I don’t think Ron Paul denies that species evolve which would be irrational based on overwhelming evidence but instead doesn’t hold that Darwin’s theory is the whole answer. Of course he didn’t expound on this. Maybe he should. But then again the majority of people in this nation believe in an invisible God, the resurrection, etc. Religion, etc,. I guess you should just listen to his political points.

  114. Michael says:

    When was evolution discovered? Did the founders believe in it? Just curious. If I’m gonna vote for the Scientist in Chief, I need to know.

    Theories and descriptions of evolution have been around in one form or another since before the birth of Christ. While Darwin’s theory of natural selection came well after the founding of the United States, it is very likely that the founding fathers were familiar with and accepted the theories of common descent that existed at that time.

    if you believe in only evolution as the way in which the universe and life came about, then you remove the necessity for our “certain unalienable rights granted to us by our Creator.” In fact, you make the opposite true, and create a necessity for survival of the fittest… for the weak humans to sink to the bottom of a hierarchical greed pattern

    And yet there exist millions of Atheists who manage to not indiscriminately kill people each and every day. Some of us don’t need the fear of God to make us do what is right.

    Why Must Evolution Rule Out Creationism; Or Vice Versa.

    It doesn’t, so long as each keeps to it’s own purpose, Evolution to science and Creationism to theology. It’s when one tries to become the other that we have problems.

    There is Just as much circumstantial evidence for both. In the end it is a leap of faith either way.

    That is categorically wrong. There are volumes of empirical evidences for Evolution, which is growing on a near daily basis. To my knowledge, none of the scientific predictions of Creationism have been verified.

    Neither can be proven using the scientific method.

    Evolution, specifically natural selection, has been absolutely proven scientifically many times over. My own high school’s biology classes reproduced an evolutionary change in fruit flies every single year. Evolution is an undeniable fact.

  115. floyd says:

    Michael;
    At least you recognize the birth of Christ! There is hope for you yet!

  116. Tlaloc says:

    Also, if you believe in only evolution as the way in which the universe and life came about,

    Rhys, stop there. You didn’t even get one sentence out and you already proved you don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

    HINT: Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with how the universe came about. Nor does it have to do with the origin of life. It has ONLY to do with how life changed over time. That’s it. You can stop making a fool of yourself now.

    You’re welcome.

  117. George Dance says:

    Alan Kellogg: “What bothers me about the last three commentators is how they can’t be bothered to rouse enough interest in the topic to be apathetic.”

    I think you might have misunderstood my point. Maybe, after so many posts, there’s been some topic drift; I was replying to the original topic, whether this video was going to bring about “the end of the Ron Paul ‘Revolution'”. I said it wouldn’t, because there’s no reason for anyone to care whether Ron Paul believes in evolution. (No more than there is to care whether he or she believes in string theory, for example.) There’s no way it could conceivably affect either his campaign or his performance as president. Paul may lose a couple of supporters over this, but the campaign appears to be growing at such a rate that they may not even be missed. Most of his supporters won’t even see it as relevant.

  118. Me says:

    Our Founding Fathers believed in creationism, even though their beliefs existed in the absence of this theory. I suppose they are ignorant as well as almost every other person who was born before this theory was established. At least according to you.

  119. Tom says:

    I have news for you christians: evolution isn’t for you to “buy” or “accept” just like gravity isn’t for anyone to buy or accept. it’s a fact. you wanna think the world is 6,000 years old and basically dumb-down society with your fanatical nonsense, fine, just don’t go into public with it.

  120. Tom says:

    oh, and floyd i hope you get mauled by lions.

  121. floyd says:

    tom;
    I have news for you,whether there is a grain of truth to evolution or not, your ill-mannered threats and childish attempts at intimidation are uncalled for in polite company.
    I am sure I speak for most of those on both sides when I say that this sort of behavior benefits neither argument.
    I shall continue to “go into public” with my ideas without considering whether you approve!
    BTW; The fact that “God is” is not contingent on whether you “buy” or “accept” Him.

  122. floyd says:

    tom;
    Like Daniel, I will be safe and warm in a den full.
    My hope for you is that you have your own road to Damascus experience.

  123. Red says:

    I think your comments on Ron Paul and evolution are a bit overblown. Your take is a rather simplistic one and you are not accounting for the nuance that Paul gives. Are all “smart” people supposed to believe and accept a “THEORY” 100% before it has been proved (whether that theory is the Theory of Evolution OR the Theory of Creationism)? In the clip Paul clearly states that no one has clear proof on either side. Do you have proof of either of these? NO, you don’t and no one else does either. You have to be a BELIEVER of either side. Or do you?

    If you have studied Paul enough you would know he is not usually on either side of these either/or debates, but takes a different, more thoughtful approach. That way would be to state the obvious – we don’t know exactly one way or the other. But you can’t compare Paul’s approach to those of Huckabee or Pat Robertson who would likely be (or claim to be) 100% believers of Creationism. Sure there are a lot of plausible things explained by evolution, but there are no finite or “scientific” answers.

    Fred Reed has described it well:

    “…evolution seemed more a metaphysics or ideology than a science. The sciences, as I knew them, gave clear answers. Evolution involved intense faith in fuzzy principles. You demonstrated chemistry, but believed evolution. If you have ever debated a Marxist, or a serious liberal or conservative, or a feminist or Christian, you will have noticed that, although they can be exceedingly bright and well informed, they display a maddening imprecision. You never get a straight answer if it is one they do not want to give. Nothing is ever firmly established. Crucial assertions do not to tie to observable reality.”

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html

    You have to understand there is a difference between Ron Paul’s position as a skeptic or purist (in the scientific sense) and those true believers of either evolution or creationism. To take this clip and assume Paul disputes everything about evolution is a major leap.

    As for your comments about Free Trade, I think the U.S. government is already working more along Paul’s lines by doing bilateral agreements with different countries (rather than taking a multi-lateral approach that includes the creation multi-lateral organizations that can demand changes in U.S. law – as has happened with the WTO.)

  124. riunite says:

    Three other GOP presidential candidates publicly said the same thing, even Huckabee. I bet there are a lot of people with similar beliefs in America.

    I happen to believe in evolution, but I’m still interested in arguments to the contrary 🙂 How does this issue matter?

    I also disagree with some more of Dr. Paul’s ideas, but looking at the entire picture, I still strongly support him. I always know where he is coming from. And he will do the most important things that he says. That is more important to me.

    I mean, come on, look at the other candidates- there’s really no competition for Ron Paul, man! Be fair and use this same nitpicking standard on who you’re gonna vote, I bet you won’t find anyone else out there to your liking, either.

    Mike Scheuer says it better:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/scheuer7.html

    “Of course one need not agree with all of Dr. Paul’s views to recognize the chance he presents for Americans to begin to alter the disastrous status quo policies — foreign and domestic — being advocated by the other presidential candidates..”

  125. riunite says:

    BTW, although I believe in it, evolution is still a THEORY, it is not a LAW, nor a FACT. Heck, even Newton’s Laws got a shakeup when Einstein and the THEORY of Relativity came into the picture. If you are truly a man of science, you will easily see this distinction.

    But I still urge you to see the bigger picture:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/scheuer7.html

    “..a person need not agree with Dr. Paul on each and every issue, but only on the most important issue: America’s future economic viability and its sovereign independence as a nation. On this issue, Dr. Paul puts U.S. economic, constitutional, and national security interests first, and he does so in a frank, clear, and unflinching manner.”

  126. McGehee says:

    I wouldn’t have expected the clip to be “the last straw” for Pon Farr, even before seeing the enormous body of evidence in this thread that his supporters won’t abandon him, and indeed would defend him even if he were caught claiming that up is down, war is peace, and Firefox is Internet Explorer.

    Maybe that’s why my blog never has 100-plus comments on any one thread…

  127. Michael says:

    evolution is still a THEORY, it is not a LAW, nor a FACT. Heck, even Newton’s Laws got a shakeup when Einstein and the THEORY of Relativity came into the picture. If you are truly a man of science, you will easily see this distinction.

    A LAW and a THEORY are two very different things, not degrees of the same thing. A theory will never become a law, no matter how much evidence it has, and a law was never ever a theory. A law is an absolute description of what happens, a theory is an explanation for why it happens.

    With gravity we have:
    1. The FACT that it happens
    2. The LAWS of how it will happen
    3. The THEORY of what makes it happen

    Similarly, with Evolution we have:
    1. The FACT that it happens (based on observation)
    2. The LAWS of how it will happen (thanks Mendel)
    3. The THEORY of what makes in happen (this is all Darwin contributed)

  128. Alan Kellogg says:

    Back at 12:36 am PST George Dance did say to me…

    I think you might have misunderstood my point.

    Mr Dance, your problem is not that I misunderstand you, your problem is that I understand you all too well.

    I don’t believe in evolution, I accept that the phenomenon we call evolution occurs and has occurred ever since life arose all those billions of year ago, and that the Theory of Evolution is the best description we have at this time of that phenomenon.

    Using the Biblical measure of a human generation that means there are 25 generations per millennium. Which means that in 6,000 years there have been 150 generations. Think about that. Now go to a time scale of millions of years. Twenty-five thousand human generations over a span of one million years. This in a universe where things change, where persistence in conditions is remarkable not for its ubiquity but for its rarity. What is remarkable about life is that it evolved a mechanism that does a very good job of keeping things from falling apart.

    The big mistake people make about evolution is thinking that it is totally random. Evolution is not totally random; there are physical, chemical, and historical constraints. How the universe works and what has happened before limits what can result. Life does not evolve to fill any available niche, life only evolves to fill an available niche when changes occur that allow life to so evolve. The necessary changes, the necessary mutations don’t occur, that niche remains unfilled. Tree kangaroos don’t fill the monkey niche in New Guinea, tree kangaroos fill the same environmental niche in New Guinea as monkeys do outside of New Guinea, and do so very poorly. If monkeys ever established themselves on the island of New Guinea, the tree kangaroos of New Guinea would be doomed to extinction.

    But, do we really need a President who knows what he’s talking about?

    No, Mr. Dance, I understand you very well indeed.

  129. George Dance says:

    Alan Kellogg writes:

    “Back at 12:36 am PST George Dance did say to me…
    ” “I think you might have misunderstood my point.
    “Mr Dance, your problem is not that I misunderstand you, your problem is that I understand you all too well.”

    Well, if you understood my point, then please address it: Tell me what you think belief in a scientific theory has to do with the question of whom to choose for President?

    “I don’t believe in evolution, I accept that the phenomenon we call evolution occurs and has occurred ever since life arose all those billions of year ago, and that the Theory of Evolution is the best description we have at this time of that phenomenon.

    “Using the Biblical measure of a human generation that means there are 25 generations per millennium. Which means that in 6,000 years there have been 150 generations. Think about that. Now go to a time scale of millions of years. Twenty-five thousand human generations over a span of one million years. This in a universe where things change, where persistence in conditions is remarkable not for its ubiquity but for its rarity. What is remarkable about life is that it evolved a mechanism that does a very good job of keeping things from falling apart.

    ” The big mistake people make about evolution is thinking that it is totally random. Evolution is not totally random; there are physical, chemical, and historical constraints. How the universe works and what has happened before limits what can result. Life does not evolve to fill any available niche, life only evolves to fill an available niche when changes occur that allow life to so evolve. The necessary changes, the necessary mutations don’t occur, that niche remains unfilled. Tree kangaroos don’t fill the monkey niche in New Guinea, tree kangaroos fill the same environmental niche in New Guinea as monkeys do outside of New Guinea, and do so very poorly. If monkeys ever established themselves on the island of New Guinea, the tree kangaroos of New Guinea would be doomed to extinction.”

    Thanks for your views. I’d be keenly interested in them, say, you were my daughter’s science teacher. Similarly, I’d be keenly interested in Dr. Paul’s views on the subject if he were my daughter’s science teacher. But he’s not: He’s running for President, a job in which his beliefs about evolution will play no role whatsoever.

    “But, do we really need a President who knows what he’s talking about?”

    We need a President who knows what he’s talking about on foreign policy, fiscal policy, defense, immigration – in every area tht falls under the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the federal government. Neither science nor education do so – the Constitution gives the President, and the entire federal government, no authority respecting either one. On both, the President should be doing nothing; and so long as he respects the Constitution and does nothing, what he has to say on either topic is irrelevant.

    “No, Mr. Dance, I understand you very well indeed.”

  130. Mr. Knight says:

    The words evolution and creationism need to be qualified. Dr. Paul seems to be rejecting materialist evolution and he clearly is not a young earth creationist.

    Many Christians are theistic evolutionist including Dr. Francis S. Collins, Director of the Genome Project. For a good read on this view, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” by Francis S. Collins.

    Dr. Paul answered in an appropriate way–not dogmatic. If he were as confident in having it all figured out like many here, then we should be concerned. Go Ron Paul

  131. Jim says:

    I am a scientist and I believe in evolution, and I also think that, even though there are zillions of evidence support the theory, it is not an easy subject to proove it exactly.

    However I will still continue to support Ron Paul, because the other issues like war and IRS (taxes) and obeying the rule of law, are very very very very improtant comparing to the issue of evolution. I think that Ron Paul is the only one leave poeple free to believe what they want to believe.

    I should point out that it looks like that there is only one solution to the problem of a corrupt, misguided, media and corporation entagngled goverment, just make it smaller in safe limits.

  132. George Dance says:

    Jim wrote on Dec. 31:
    “I am a scientist and I believe in evolution, and I also think that, even though there are zillions of evidence support the theory, it is not an easy subject to proove it exactly.

    “However I will still continue to support Ron Paul, because the other issues like war and IRS (taxes) and obeying the rule of law, are very very very very improtant comparing to the issue of evolution.”

    True. Anyone who thinks a candidate’s beliefs about evolution are more important than his beliefs about starting wars ought to have his head examined.

    WRT Paul, evolution isn’t an issue, period.

    “I think that Ron Paul is the only one leave people free to believe what they want to believe.”

    Well, that’s why whether Paul believes in evolution or not isn’t an issue. That Mike Huckabee, for example, denies evolution is or should be an issue, since as a socon Huckabee cannot be trusted to keep his private beliefs out of his public office. However, Ron Paul is a strict libertarian and constitutionalist, who can be trusted to keep his private beliefs private; so the fact that he ‘doesn’t accept the theory’ but ‘doesn’t worry about it’ is only an interesting bit of trivia, nothing else.

    “I should point out that it looks like that there is only one solution to the problem of a corrupt, misguided, media and corporation entagngled goverment, just make it smaller in safe limits.”

    A thoughtful perspective.

  133. Dave says:

    HA! Now we find out that the second video was also edited. Do some youtube digging people.