By Manila Ryce
Published Saturday, December 22nd, 2007, 8:28 am
Filed under: Videos: Political, Videos: Other, Society/Culture: Religion, Science and Technology, Videos, Society/Culture, US Politics

40 Responses to “Just a Theory: Ron Paul Doesn’t “Accept” Evolution”

1. So he refused to answer the question during the debate because he thought it was inappropriate? Hm. Then why is he willing to answer it now? I’ve always admired the good Doctor’s candor, even if I disagreed with his position, but this is kind of hard to reconcile from my perspective.

   Chance
   12/22/07 at 11:23 am
   

2. Liberals=tolerance?!?!!?!?!?!?!?

   jmklein
   12/22/07 at 11:33 am
   

3. Dear Manila,

   Just exactly where is the “science” that gives “evolution” it’s status as theory? And if the “science” exists, why is it still considered “theory” and not hardcore, stone-cold fact?

   I see that the Government Indoctrination Center (aka Public School) has claimed another victory…….er victim.

   I suppose if you were walking on a beach and found a Rolex watch in the sand, you would think it just somehow evolved.

   Stop trying to understand Ron Paul because clearly, you have NO clue!

   PrimaryBomb
   12/22/07 at 12:21 pm
   
4. 

   @Primary Bomb

   “And if the ’science’ exists, why is it still considered ‘theory’ and not hardcore, stone-cold fact?”

   Because scientists don’t dumb-down their terminology for the sake of the ignorant. Gravity is considered theory, yet some of us manage to keep our head out of the clouds despite it not being redefined as a “stone-cold fact”.

   “I see that the Government Indoctrination Center (aka Public School) has claimed another victory…….er victim.”

   Actually, I received a great education in private Catholic school, where we were taught evolution in elementary school. I’m sorry you had that information kept from you. It’s awfully ironic that a Paul fanboy who is threatened by science would lecture me about indoctrination.

   “I suppose if you were walking on a beach and found a Rolex watch in the sand, you would think it just somehow evolved.”

   Hahaha. You’re too precious.

   “Stop trying to understand Ron Paul because clearly, you have NO clue!”

   Thank God. Clearly you do, and clearly you’re an idiot.

   Manila Ryce
   12/22/07 at 2:02 pm
   

5. An evolution-denying obstetrician. Almost as bizarre as an evolution-denying Libertarian.

   There was an article on Mother Jones recently about Ron Paul’s “apostles.” The last line of the article sums it up quite nicely for me: “Libertarianism, [the Ron Paul fan] glowed, ‘is the only place where the answers to all questions have actually been resolved.’” This is the same sentiment you hear from born-again Christians, Marxist-Leninist ideologues, and 9/11 Truthers: Translation: “I’ve figured out the ‘truth,’ so therefore I can suspend critical thinking.”

   Sam
   12/22/07 at 2:53 pm
   

6. I am atheist who believes that the “theory” of evolution is a fact. Just because we call it a theory doesn’t mean that science overwhelmingly supports it. The theory of gravity is also a theory, but it has even more scientific backing. As for Ron Paul, I support him and am dissapointed in his opinion. However, why should I hold Ron Paul to a higher standard than the other candidates? Must I agree with him on everything for me to vote for him and agree with 25% of what the other candidates are saying to vote for them? There is a double-standard.

   First of all, Ron Paul made it clear it bears no relevance to politics as he wouldn’t be legislating on education from the executive branch. Second, if you want to talk about the opinions of the other candidates, I could find 10 things the other candidates say that are completely ridiculous. But we are supposed to ignore those comments and focus on one mistake Ron Paul makes.

   Sorry, but this doesn’t make any difference as far as politics goes. He fails as chief executive scientist, but he isn’t running for that and politically, there is no one even close.

   Timur Rozenfeld
   12/22/07 at 3:52 pm
   

7. There’s no one close to him politically? Sure there are… in fairy tale land rocks are running for President, and I think they might give Ron Paul a run for his money.

   Bwahahaha.

   Ted
   12/22/07 at 4:06 pm
   

8. ALL the evidence I’ve seen for the theory of macro-evolution is woefully deficient in substantiating the process. Perhaps folks like Dr. Paul (and the majority of Americans) are not scientifically illiterate but rather see the evidence and recognize that it doesn’t argue in favor of the theory. To equate the theory of evolution to other viable theories (such as gravity) is misleading. The theory of gravity actually sets forth evidence that confirms the overwhelming likelihood of it’s veracity. In fairness however, I’m willing to listen to your BEST evidence in favor of macro-evolutionary descent of life.

   Thomas Braun
   12/22/07 at 4:34 pm
   

9. […] Manila Ryce The Largest Minority Published Saturday, December 22nd, 2007, 8:28 am Since Brownback and Tancredo are out of the race, […]

   Just a Theory: Ron Paul Doesn’t “Accept” Evolution By Manila Ryce (video) « Dandelion Salad
   12/22/07 at 5:34 pm
   

10. I see where Paul is coming from, though I don’t agree with it. The Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory, and one that I see should be tweaked and revised as we learn more about it.

    However, it’s a theory that also makes far more sense than creationism.

    I long ago gave up trying to understand libertarianism and Ron Paul. Suffice to say I could never support him because I strongly disagree with him on several key points. Although, his viewpoints concern me less than many other GOP candidates running.

    Comrade Kevin
    12/22/07 at 6:12 pm
    

11. The theory of evolution is generally understood to be on par with Einstein’s theory of general relativity. In other words, it is much more than “just a theory”. Any thinking and semi-educated person should know this. And a medical doctor? I have to say I like Ron Paul, but I am dismayed.

    WillySF
    12/22/07 at 6:39 pm
    
12. 

    I find it rather sad that in 2007, some of you are requesting “proof” of evolution. I’m not going to waste my time arguing with fools. Instead, I’ll simply post an excerpt from Stephen Jay Gould concerning the matter in this piece titled Evolution as Fact and Theory.

    In the American vernacular, “theory” often means “imperfect fact”—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is “only” a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can’t even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): “Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was.”

    Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

    If you’re still having trouble understanding, please read the entire thing.

    Manila Ryce
    12/22/07 at 7:04 pm
    

13. Since when is evolution a hot political topic anyway? It’s as debatable and as insignificant as global warming.

    Darren
    12/22/07 at 7:22 pm
    

14. “Since when is evolution a hot political topic anyway? It’s as debatable and as insignificant as global warming.”

    That is one of the most shockingly stupid things I’ve ever heard, and knowing there are so many people out there with such beliefs gives me grave concerns about the state of the world in future generations.

    On another note, I just watched the film “Idiocracy,” and I have to say that’s exactly how I feel most of the time today, whenever I’m unfortunate enough to return to the States for a holiday.

    Andy
    12/22/07 at 7:38 pm
    

15. To follow up on Manila’s comment, here’s an article in Wikipedia that discusses the difference between Evolution in theory, and Evolution in fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

    As you’ll see, it’s both.

    @ Timur Rozenfeld

    Nobody’s telling you to vote against your interests. If Ron Paul best represents your interests, then fine, go ahead and vote for him. What Manila was talking about is supposed leftists and supposed libertarians who support Ron Paul, despite the growing list of issues he stands in opposition with them on. If you want to talk about how other candidates say ridiculous things, great, but I don’t know how that bears any relevance to the content of this post, and I don’t see how it demonstrates any sort of double standard towards other candidates, most of whom haven’t been spared any ounce criticism on this blog (or elsewhere). If you’re wondering why this post singles out Paul: it’s because of the ridiculous cult of personality that Paul’s supporters have generated in the last year, most disturbingly among leftists, the likes of which we don’t see with other candidates.

    And while Paul, as President, may not be legislating on education, the President’s duties as executor of Federal legislation and his power to veto legislation certainly does have an effect on educational policy. As such, his views on something as basic to modern science as evolution are relevant. Not to mention the telling lack of rationality demonstrated by Paul’s position on this issue.

    Sam
    12/23/07 at 12:24 am
    

16. You’ve been picked up by Google news, this should be interesting ;)

    As a stranger to your blog and knowing nothing beyond this entry as well as a Ron Paul supporter I’d like to add my anonymous $0.02.

    I’m an atheist myself and the answer Ron gave was satisfactory. One of my pet hobbies is the whole evo/cr subject and imho it’s never been about the science itself to most of the creationists I debate, they are instead putting forth the argument that “Science” is as much an ideology as “Religion”.

    Which is a question best left to the philosophers… and Politicians of late.

    I have found that it doesn’t matter how hard you push it usually winds up somewhere on middle ground which is evolution does indeed exist but that “God” may still get to be the one that lite the fuse. I always considered the matter settled if whomever I’m debating can to that at least that, agree.

    Merry Christmas!

    Derek
    12/23/07 at 12:33 am
    

17. Manila–and you purposely refused to provide evidence for what reason again? Perhaps you are keenly aware that the broad array of “evidence” at your disposal is nothing more than elements of begging the question (which is what your Gould quote perfectly illustrates–ty for that!). You resort to ad hominem attacks (by suggesting those who disbelieve evolution are fools) when someone requests to see what evidence you have for your theory. Sorry–but you can’t reverse engineer a theory and make it viable. That’s not science. In science, we’re to take facts and let that evidence dictate how our theories come about. It stands that the theory of macro-evolution is no less religious (and no more science) than creationism–they both inherently deal with a metaphysical origin (evolutionists don’t like talking about this) and each resorts to protracted special pleadings in order to make the theory seem viable. If you question the philosophical/religious underpinnings of evolutionary teaching, then please explain to me why EVERY atheist on the planet believes in evolution. It’s not because they’re more intelligent (or enlightened), it’s merely because strong-arming science is the easiest way for an atheist to deny the existence of God. Sorry–this sleight of hand might work on some folks, but many are also awakening to the truth. Maybe you will too someday.

    Thomas Braun
    12/23/07 at 2:00 am
    

18. I’m one of what I assume is a significant portion of Paul’s supporters that is deeply troubled by his stated position on evolution. He’s sided with creationist/ID non-sense on at least three occasions that I’m aware of. There are other issues (abortion rights, church and state issues, net neutrality, etc) that I either all out disagree with or am undecided on.

    I’ve weighed these issues carefully and they quickly take a backseat to Paul’s stances on foreign policy, federal spending, monetary policy, trade, corporate welfare, domestic spying, torture, the war on drugs, the patriot act, income tax, US sovereignty, and education (with the exception of his position on evolution).

    What’s actually more troubling to me about Paul’s stated position on evolution is that I just don’t believe him. I’m more worried that he’s telling the social conservatives what they want to hear because he sees little harm in pandering on this issue since there’s no action the federal government could take under a Paul administration regarding the issue (other than making public schools more free to do as they please). I view this as an issue of integrity more than anything else. I’d much rather disagree with him on evolution than think that he might be pandering. Paul stands out because he does not pander, does not focus group, does not waver on his core principles. You won’t damage Paul by pointing out his positions, you can only hope to discredit his underlying integrity and honesty, which this does to a certain extant. Congratulations!

    But none of the candidates, including/especially Kucinich, come anywhere near to representing my positions as well as Paul. In fact, Paul and Kucinich have almost nothing in common beyond the apparent ability to speak truth to power. They are polar opposites when it comes to the fundamental role of the federal government. Where Kucinich might be described as the perfect New Deal progressive in the mold of FDR, Paul is an Old Right libertarian in the mold of Robert Taft.

    We are not the new, neocon dominated right that has destroyed US political discourse and left us with a broken, splintered country. We do not play dirty tricks. We have a very different set of policy goals when compared to the established left and perhaps even moreso when compared to the established right. What you’re seeing in Ron Paul is a resurgence of the Old Right and Minarchism and we can’t wait for the established left to take us seriously so we can finally start having the debate this country requires to get back on track.

    Ryan
    12/23/07 at 2:39 am
    

19. Ryan,

    You have stated my position brilliantly.

    WillySF
    12/23/07 at 5:47 am
    

20. Yes, Ron Paul is definitely an enigma. Libertarian, my ass! Let’s have minarchy… which we will achieve by adding new restrictions on what women can and can’t do and make sure they know their most important role is to be incubators. After all, Paul’s countless years as a gynecologist make him an expert on the subject. (rolls eyes).

    I find his rejection of evolution especially ironic because he is a social darwinist.

    What an abysmal moron.

    Frankly, I’m very bothered that Kucinich said he’d take him as a running mate. I know they are friends, and I don’t care, he can be friends with whomever, but Paul is his polar opposite in terms of political positions. I really hope he was kidding, but then it’s not a very good joke. I know Kucinich was pro-life until recently, but he has realized the error of his ways. Besides, he was demonstrating consistency in being pro-life per se, not just pro-embryo life; he is also for peace and against capital punishment. Ron Paul is a self-contradictory slippery guy. He just boggles my mind, along most people who claim to be libertarian nowadays. They act as if they all went and got lobotomies together.

    entropy
    12/23/07 at 10:17 am
    

21. Paul’s fans always want you to google him. Well, I googled him some more and look what I found:

    http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749

    The article cites some of his views on racial and international issues, among other things. I’ll let you enjoy his gems on your own, but I’ll share one, just to give you an idea: “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”

    entropy
    12/23/07 at 10:40 am
    

22. Great to see the passion over the two candidates that have the least chance of winning anything…

    Diablo
    12/23/07 at 2:19 pm
    

23. As a Paul supporter coming from a liberal background I’ve encountered this dilemma before, and the simple answer is that Ron Paul is a man, not a collection of political talking points designed to make you feel good. He holds some difficult views, such as his anti abortion stance, but what one has to bear in mind is that he’s not proposing to make his views law; he’s proposing to make these areas a hands-off for the federal government.

    The driving force behind the Paul movement is the idea that the federal government is not Constitutionally or morally authorized, much less competent, to confiscate your money in order to run your life. At this point in time–when we have a fat, sick, indebted, drug addicted, maleducated, morally confused, apathetic, painfully ignorant population as the direct result of a few genrations of aggressive federal intervention in our lives–there is little room to argue with Paul on any of the major issues.

    But there’s no getting around it: the guy’s human. He has personal convictions that contradict popular convictions–especially with his extremely broad following–and he wrestles with that problem and tries not to scare voters off. But they are honest problems for Paul, and they are very minor compared to the obscenely failed and oppressive system he’s proposing to change.

    If you want a political animal with no conscience and no philosophy deeper than what rhetoric will get them elected, you’ll have to go elsewhere.

    HR PAINE
    12/23/07 at 3:06 pm
    

24. I think a pro-abortion stance is most “difficult” on the child!

    Thomas Braun
    12/23/07 at 10:59 pm
    

25. One of Ron Paul’s redeeming features is that he does not tend to speak in absolutes. Given that simplistic, collectivist language is the hallmark of the herd, and given that that kind of language is a defining feature of fascism, I appreciate his undogmatic choice of words.

    “Reason is a narrow system swollen into an ideology.
    With time and power it has become a dogma, devoid of direction and disguised as disinterested inquiry.
    Like most religions, reason presents itself as the solution to the problems it has created.”

    John Ralston Saul

    merry prankster
    12/24/07 at 2:40 pm
    

26. Frustrated former Catholics can be brilliant about biblical literalitsts.

    Bill Hicks has a side-splitting way to start the season (but if you’re offended by foul phrases on this day of all, then one might want to pass on the following material):

    There’s great free audio of Hicks at: http://search.playlist.com/tracks/bill-hicks/2

    The mp3 link for the ‘dinosaurs in the bible’ bit is perhaps among his best:
    http://www.pastpeak.com/clips/Dinosaurs%20Bill%20Hicks.mp3

    There’s also a U-tube, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qmglGWMsdk) but the above is better.

    Someone on a quote-site took the time to write some of it down:

    “You believe the world’s 12 thousand years old? “That’s right.” Okay I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready? “Uh huh.” Dinosaurs.

    “You know the world’s 12 thousand years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you’d think it would have been mentioned in the f**ing Bible at some point. “And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus…with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin’: ‘What a big fucking lizard, Lord!’ But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus’s paw and the big lizard became his friend.”

    “Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith.” Thank God I’m strapped in right now here man. I think God put you here to test my faith, Dude. You believe that? “Uh huh.” Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be…f***in’ with our heads? I have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around: “Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha HA.”

    Happy Soulstice Everyone!

    Natureboy
    12/25/07 at 11:13 am
    
27. 

    I agree that Ron Paul is not correct regarding the modern theory of evolution. It isn’t really “just a theory”. As a matter of science, it isn’t a theory at all. It doesn’t even qualify as a poor hypothesis or, even a good fairytale.

    I challenge Manila Rice and or anyone else on this blog to provide documented verifiable evidence that the pyramids of Egypt, the Taj Mahal or anything else known to human experience, has ever designed itself from the top down.

    According to modern Darwinian theory, the universe is a product of “random occurring”, “self-selecting”, “designerless” processes. These are all terms used by modern proponents of Darwinian theory, I did not invent them.

    Since there is no evidence that the universe is a product of designerless processes, the modern theory of evolution remains a complete fabrication, devoid of sanity, reason and logic, not to mention, common monkey sense.

    Again, I challenge Manila Rice and the liars on this blog to provide documented verifiable evidence that anything known to human experience has ever designed itself from the top down, whether it be the universe itself or, anything smaller known to humanity.

    If you have no evidence for your absurd claims, then you remain bigger liars than George Bush, Dick Cheney and Pat Robertson and/or, Ron Paul, every hoped to be. And, that is no small accomplishment.

    Richard Aberdeen
    FreedomTracks.com

    Richard Aberdeen
    12/26/07 at 8:49 am
    

28. My friend, you’ve put much energy into a failed foundation that is far simpler than it seems.

    I am no scientist, but Evolution is fundamentally based in the laws of particle physics (which even creationists don’t deny, right??)

    So by that definition, to resolve your quest for a “random occurring”, “self-selecting”, “designerless” phenomena, look only as far as your nearest waterfall~

    In fact I’ve heard that the replication of DNA (a phonomenon not even creationsts deny, am I not correct?), is itself patterned on behavior of simpler molecules, such as the splitting and dividing of flakes of slate into clay. (And well you might point out that wasn’t adam made of clay? Or carved from a rib… I forget which, I just remember getting duped into counting my ribs to find the missing one).

    Natureboy
    12/26/07 at 9:54 am
    

29. First off this video is edited at the 30 second mark, someone is trying to influence us.

    But as per this discussion,
    I think Dr. Paul’s response was appropriate, ESPECIALLY considering the Christian Right vote is the main vote he is lacking and which he needs to become President. He already has the anti-war vote, the internet-freedom vote, the anti-drug-war vote, the economic literacy vote, and libertarian vote.

    Paul is also absolutely correct in stating that Darwinian evolution is a theory, just like Einsteinian relativity. The theory of evolution, while logical and true, is incomplete in terms of explaining the existence of life, intelligence and beauty. And while ‘intelligent design’ is a catch-phrase co-opted by Creationists and monotheists, I would bet most scientists have a spiritual side and do not doubt the tremendously mysterious aspects of time and space.
    Speaking of EVOLUTION; we are, after all, when it comes to scientific understanding, infants. We just started a few centuries ago and hopefully we will have many more centuries in which to grow.

    Vote Ron Paul!
    It’s the only ‘natural selection’!

    Evan Martin
    12/28/07 at 2:33 pm
    

30. Did anyone else notice that this is an edited video that cuts out part of what Ron Paul says? This version cuts out part of his response right in the middle and then lops off the end of it where he clarifies his point.

    Here is the full version of his response without the edits which gives the viewer a clearer perspective on what Ron Paul thinks about this issue:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=42n42J-gB_Y

    Why the edited video of Ron Paul’s response?

    And people wonder why Ron Paul supporters think the media treats him unfairly.

    Baube
    01/1/08 at 12:33 am
    

31. How sad,
    You have the greatest glitch in the political Martix happening in America. You have an honest politician with a record second to none. If you do’nt have the sense to nominate and elect this man then you deserve the Patriot Act!
    Dr. Paul: The true minority is the individual. I am sold!

    lulu
    01/1/08 at 7:47 am
    

32. If your vote is decided on fossils then its no wonder you have the current selection of democrat and GOP candidates

    lulu
    01/1/08 at 7:50 am
    

33. Dr.Paul did NOT say he didn’t believe in evolution.

    He said he believes he was created by his creator and doesn’t think there is ABSOLUTE proof for either side.

    By saying you were created by a creator does NOT mean you reject the theory of evolution. This is exactly what he says in the full clip (which was butchered and doctored by many).

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=42n42J-gB_Y

    Ultimately, he says the issue is NOT the reason he is running for office.

    Paul knew this subject would be fodder for smears. He answered in a smart, legitimate manner without lying. Basically, he was a smart politician.

    All this stupidity aside, HE STILL GETS MY VOTE

    cabRon322
    01/1/08 at 1:45 pm
    

34. Some parts of evolution (microevolution) are provable, yes. But it’s a bait-and-switch when you purport that just because PARTS of evolution are scientifically based, then the evolutionary hypothesis for the ORIGINS of life on this planet (which really shouldn’t be considered part of the theory of evolution, but so often is lumped in) is ALSO scientifically based and provable. Has science produced a living organism out of dead matter? (No)

    I find it so unfortunate that evolutionists consistently couple the parts of evolution that are scientific with those parts that are wildly speculative and expect everyone to swallow the whole package, all or nothing. There’s a distinction to be made between origins science (we weren’t alive to observe back then, so this is where a lot of us have trouble with this ) and operational science (observable and testable today).

    Creationism as a theory of origins is no more based on speculation than is the “big bang” hypothesis. You claim there is no evidence for Creation, but there is plenty. You are just unwilling to review it. (Check out answersingenesis.org, icr.org, the book “Refuting Evolution”, Dr. Walter Veith, etc., etc.) It’s called confirmation bias, and both sides are guilty of it.

    There is, for example, more than one way to interpret the fossils and geological record. One way is to presuppose that each strata represents millions of years; the other way is to interpret the various strata as evidence of a world-wide catastrophic flood. Both explanations, I believe, are reasonable — but the one that appears more plausible, of course, depends on your worldview and presuppositions. So how about we let people believe what they want to believe, and refrain from insulting each other’s intelligence (please).

    Ron Paul’s policies are awesome and he deserves your vote, regardless of whether you believe in a naturalistic or a supernatural explanation of our origins. I hope you will not let your disagreement on this one issue overshadow the much more important things about Ron Paul: limited government and upholding the Constitution!

    Vote Ron Paul!
    It’s the only “natural selection”! :)

    Tyler Rick
    01/2/08 at 3:15 pm
    

35. 2 quick corrections, sorry: “(we weren’t alive to observe back then, so this is where a lot of us have trouble with [the claim that it is a scientifically proven theory])” 2. “each strata” => “each stratus”

    Tyler Rick
    01/2/08 at 3:21 pm
    

36. He’s a Christian and a politician rather than a scientist. Surprise surprise. He’ll end the war, end the Federal Reserve & IRS, preserve our civil liberties, restore the Constitution…so what if he’s scientifically illiterate. Most of the greatest leaders in the world were probably clueless of the science of their times. If Ron Paul understood science as well as he understands politics he would be curing cancer or something.

    Amith
    01/3/08 at 6:51 am
    

37. @Amith

    I agree that all of those things are important and I respect Paul for all of them (ending the Fed and IRS, ending the war and restoring the constitution).

    However, we stand on the brink of environmental catastrophe, so it is imperative that our next president at least have a basic understanding of science. I don’t know if Bush is really as stupid as he pretends to be, or if he’s just playing dumb to help his corporate backers. But it is essential, for the very future of our species, that we elect a president who listens to reason and accepts solid science for what it is.

    If the Fed continues to rob us for the next one hundred years, it will suck but at least the species as a whole will survive. If we ignore the impending danger that global warming threatens us with, even for only the next decade, we will face a catastrophe as never seen before and that can never be repaired.

    If Paul rejects evolution he probably will reject the sound science behind global warming as well, putting the very survival of our species in danger.

    Andy
    01/3/08 at 7:23 am
    

38. Transcript of Ron Paul’s FULL response on Evolution

    Here is the full transcript of Congressman Paul’s remarks, the deleted sections in the edited video posted here by Truthdig, courtesy of The Largest Minority, are shown in [brackets].

    “Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it’s a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think [ it probably doesn’t bother me. It’s not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think ] the creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. [So I just don’t . . . if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it’s an interesting discussion, I think it’s a theological discussion, and I think it’s fine, and we can have our . . . if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn’t be running for public office.”]

    Transcript courtesy of Joe Schembrie… Read Joe’s VERY interesting article on this issue here:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/schembrie4.html

    Baube
    01/3/08 at 10:47 am
    

39. There is really not enough information to understand what Ron Paul really believes.
    I believe, also, that if he believes in creationism or evolution is irrelevant so long as he allows for an open education. It appears that Evolutionist are as much of a zealot as the creationist…because evolution, gay marriages and reliigion are secondary to inflation, the economy, war, health cost, and global warming, money management non-congressional individuals. Imagine, the nation money supply is being control by a private institution and people are squirming about evolution.

    In the present state of public ideas regarding origins are two broad ideas……one of evolution and the other of creationism. There are some heated arguments regarding this concept, one is guided by an ancient book, the other by scientific methodology.
    In my view, however, one is a fantasy and the other an exageration.
    One speaks of an old man with a beard existing before time was invented, calculating and manufacturing life out of pure magic. No one knows why this old man with a magical powers decided to create life, or where the idea of creating life came from.
    The other, well, is an exageration. Evolution means one thing. Evolution means change. That is all that evolution really is, change. There are models of evolution. but those models are serious lacking. But lets go back to this idea of change.
    Since ancient time, there are men who understood that change was an essencial part of existance. This idea is at least 2500 year old, quite possibly prehistorical. When you read philosophies from the far east you can see this. Everything change, everything has to change, nothing is immutable. Therefore, not the frequency of allele within a gene pool.
    but evolutionary models are dumb perchance. One coconut hits a man on the other head but not the other, so one survives but not the other. One man mutates and becomes more efficient. All of this by dumb chance. The problem though is that there does not appear to be enough time for this to happen. 160 thousand years something happened to a hominid that allowed it to conquer the world. 160 thousand years ago there appear to be an unprecedented ability to master tools and improve his condition. The first human might have been born.
    The thing is that proponents of evolution tried to explain evolution from the lack of any active volitional involvement, by the organism. everything was dumb luck. Have you ever seen an evolutionist attempt to explain intelligence and its impact on the organism? What exactly is the placebo effect. Why is intelligence so illusive. Materialist look the other way when they discover functionally and intelligent individual with 70% of brain mass missing. Thoughts appear to alter the physiology of the brain. Can thoughts act as mutagens?
    We dont know. Materialist atheist engrossed with the idea that organism change, purely from enviromental circumstamces. They tried to hard to promote the idea that the mind is the result of a physical organ…even though such a point of view is slowly collapsing.

    Antonio Alejandro
    01/8/08 at 7:33 pm
    

40. So if the mind isnt a result of a physical organ, could you cut your entire brain out and be just fine?

    brian
    01/12/08 at 10:24 am
    

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>