The Daily Background
| [Video] Ron Paul: Just another Texas Republican who doesn’t believe in evolution
by Arlen Parsa
Ugh, check this awful exchange out. Ron Paul is asked if he believes in evolution, and he says no (Hat tip- OGM). Transcript:
QUESTIONER: …All of the candidates were asked if they believe the theory of evolution to be true, but I didn’t see [your answer] and I’m wondering, do you believe it to be true or false?
REP PAUL: Well, first I thought it was a very inappropriate question for the presidency to be decided upon a scientific matter. And uh, I uh, I think it’s a theory. The theory of evolution. And I don’t accept it as a theory. [snip] The creator that I know created us, each and every one of us and created the universe, and the precise time and manner and uh, you know, I just don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side.
There you have it, folks. Ron Paul: another Texas Republican who doesn’t believe in evolution.
A few quick notes though. First of all, I don’t think anybody is basing their vote for president solely on whether or not the candidates believe in evolution, but it’s a very legitimate question to ask, because it demonstrates quite a bit about where each potential president would side on conflicts such as public schools trying to allow creationism religion to be taught, and also illustrates a broader point about how comfortable the candidates are with science in general. Obviously Rep Paul is not particularly comfortable with basic science in this case. He also is against expanding funding of embryonic stem cell research (he’s staunchly “pro-life”), and has said global warming is “fear-mongering.”
Second, believing in evolution is not at all mutually exclusive with believing in God or being a devoutly religious person; plenty of people who believe in evolution simply believe that it happened and that God orchestrated it. There’s nothing wrong or inconsistent with believing that (indeed, if polls are to be believed, most Americans who believe in evolution are Christians).
It’s also worth noting, science has never claimed to have “absolute proof” of “the precise time and manner” of how life on earth came about, as Paul suggests. The only people claiming to have that are dyed in the wool creationists. Science, at its very base level, acknowledges that we as human beings don’t know everything about the world that surrounds us, or the circumstances upon which we came to be about– but that we ought to try and use the capabilities that separate us from the world around us (the ability to use reason and logic) to try and find out all we can.
Scientists readily acknowledge that there is a ton of stuff that we don’t understand about the origins of life; it’s only creationists who believe that we know everything there is to know about it (it happened in 6 days, God took the 7th off to rest, it happened precisely 6,000 and however many years ago, dinosaurs coexisted with humans, and so forth).
I would just like to say that Ron Paul believes in the Constitution which doesn’t leave much room for the Executive branch to have any roll in Scientific matters. Congress makes spending law. The President signs it and enforces it.
Where a President would side on teaching creationism doesn’t mean anything in a Ron Paul presidency. He would close down the Dept. of Education and give the schools back to the communities where parents can decide what our children learn.
His number one reason for being against stem cell funding is because it is against the Constitution for the federal government to tax the people by threat of jail to do science experiments.
His stance on the environment is that polluters are liable for damaging others property or health. I would agree with him that there is a lot of fear-mongering. Starting with Gore’s movie. I couldn’t believe some of the numbers they were throwing around and the wild predictions of more wildfires and hurricanes without any regard for the other 1000 influences on these natural phenomena besides carbon. And if you think the world is at threat of irreversible calamity, you’ve watched too many Hollywood movies. The ocean may rise a few feet. Storms could move around the world in a different pattern. Species may be forced to evolve :). Hardly worth the surrender of more liberties. Amazing no body seems to be much riled up here about our dirty skies and no exercise days due to bad air. I care a lot more about that than having to move away from the beach a bit in the next 100 years.
By the way. I do not agree with Ron Paul on evolution. Evolution is quite clear to me. I suspect his position may grow from his age and from his faith. At least he doesn’t try to cram his faith down our throats. And as a Constitutional President he will have no avenues to do so anyways.
[…] [link][more] […]
I think questioning whether or not a candidate believes in evolution is irrelevant. Believing in God, evolution, or the Bible have nothing to do with political views.
The important question you are looking for is “does the candidate allow his/her religious views to interfere with his/her political decisions?” In Paul’s case the answer is obviously no. He is a statesman and as a statesman he wouldn’t pass laws requiring schools to do anything.
I agree with Aaron that his disbelief in evolution is probably due to his age and his upbringing.
so what exactly was the [snip] here cause the video seems to be edited… very fishy to me.
This is a rediculous article, “ahh ha! I finally discovered a good reason to NOT vote for Ron Paul - ‘Evolution.’”
1) I do not believe, as in my mind is not resolutely fixed in belief or pinned to the current view of Evolution. Most modern evolutionary theorists do not agree with Darwin - in all areas. Just as most modern Physicists do not agree 100% with Einstein - both, however made wonderful “attempts” toward “perfect” understanding of man and universe, no one is there yet.
2) The complexities of a unified theory of evolution or physics require a level of mathematical knowledge far far greater than the average college student could conceive. When 99.9% of Atheists say they “believe” in Evolutionary Theory - they are “believing” in the simple summations offered to the populace; they have not studied Genetic Theory, nor do they understand Carbon dating, nor can they tell the difference between “Lucy” or an Orang-u-tan sub-adult skeleton, if asked.
This reminds me of a statement my Comparative Religion instructure postulated, “maybe there is a direct correlation to or a mathematical algorythm that could forecast the blind belief of religionists with the blind belief of evolutionarists — both of whom do not speak the higher languages (mathematics / metaphysics) of Einstein or Christ, so they argue/fight over the generalizational scraps.” Hahahahaahahah.
3) Knowing the above two points will the author still stick to his “no-vote” or will he recant or will he wait until it is too late — will he pick someone else, if so - who? What man/woman running for office now will afford him the greatest liberties to continue blogging, with no regulation. Everyone running for office right now, has been in favor of or is in favor of regulating the internet, taxing it — EXCEPT RON PAUL.
Every serious blogger should be in favor of Ron Paul, as default. You add taxes, war, defecit spending cuts and the answer should be achievable without “blind belief” in any one theory of creation/evolution!
Well that saddens me. But no one is perfect. Dr. Paul is so good on austrian economics and monetary theory, the Constitution and civil rights, so I wondered where I would find disagreement with him. I was hoping that Dr. Paul would be a bit more of a scientist, but no one is perfect. I was thinking Dr. Paul was one of the many people out there that believes in both evolution and Jesus Christ. The future for Jesus Christ does not look good unless those believers come around on the evolution question. It also seems to me that this issue has become a keystone issue to “be” a conservative republican, much like one must believe in public schools, raising the minimum wage, gun control, unions, progressive taxation, welfare spending all to “be” a liberal democrat. Yet we do know that most of Dr. Paul’s thinking is libertarian, that most libertarians are athiest evolutionists, and Dr. Paul comes from this camp intellectually, yet must survive in the political world of republicans…..so I will cut him lots of slack for this.
1. What is taught in public schools is a state issue.
2. Ron Paul is pretty comfortable with science, given his medical degree I’m sure he’s done a bit(read: a lot) of biology.
3. Funding stem cell research is not constitutional.
4. Global warming is real, however whether our society drives it is not agreed upon by the scientific community. (Before you say ‘Yes it is!’, No, it’s not, do some creative googling.)
5. “And I don’t accept it as a theory.” Ok, not accepting something on the basis that it is a theory is not a denial of the possibility that it is fact. For example, let’s say temperature increase predates carbon increases, 95% of greenhouse gases are water, and measurements of the sun seem to correlate in a more direct manner to climate change than measurements of CO2 in ice cores. I might formulate a theory saying, “Hmmm, maybe global warming isn’t real. Wow that really sucks for poor African nations who’s quality of life is greatly reduced by their not being able to generate electricity by affordable means that are available to them due to international pressure.”
One might say, but, that’s only a theory you’ve presented, I lack the knowledge to come to a firm conclusion so my metaphorical jury is not out. And this is perfectly acceptable.
Given that Paul stated he does not believe either side had conclusive proof, he has not really sided against evolution, or for crazy evangelical creationism.
Treg: While many libertarians are non-religious, there are also very many who are religious. The Mises/Austrian crowd that Ron Paul aligns with seems to include a lot more religious-libertarians (Thomas Woods, for example).
My problem with this (as a former very ardent Ron Paul supporter) isn’t what Ron Paul believes re: evolution (that WOULD be a problem for me if I needed his services as an Ob/Gyn, since a lack of belief in evolution by an M.D. speaks volumes about the M.D.’s education and/or intelligence and/or competence — but since the nuclei of my cells do contain Y chromosomes, that would not likely ever come up for me personally).
It’s that he LIED about it on national TV, in the first televised GOP debate. He did NOT raise his hand then. So, he either lied THEN, or he’s lying NOW. One or the other MUST be the case. There are NO other alternatives.
@Coma:
There is a third possibility. He didn’t think a hand-raising question would give him the opportunity to explain the agnosticism he expressed in the video. Or he thought the question was inappropriate and he choose to abstain from saying yes or no. He’ll probably have a chance to address the question again. At least judge him from when he has adequate time to explain.
[…] The Daily Background et onegoodmove (pour la vidéo […]
What disturbs me is the cultish, apologist tendencies of Ron Paul’s followers. Every little bit of information that would otherwise be negative to a liberal voter is being explained away by these people.
* He’s an isolationist — “That just means he wants to pull America out of things that aren’t out business.” (no, it means he want to pull America out of everything that isn’t America.)
* He’s a fundamentalist Christian — “That has nothing to do with his message of freedom!” (Yes it does. Fundamentalist Christian tendencies have a way of making people make biased decisions that hurt non-Christian citizens).
* He’s against abortion — “But he said he want to leave it up to the states!” (That’s right, and he knows exactly how all the southern states will vote on that issue. It’s his GOAL to make abortion illegal in his home state, and others. It’s better for his cause than the states having to follow federal decisions on this issue. It’s a back-door way to get what he and his religious friends want.)
* He doesn’t believe in evolution — “That shouldn’t matter. He’s a doctor. He knows enough science to be smart about this.” (No he doesn’t. If he is a doctor and doesn’t believe in evolution, then his education is clearly flawed. Besides, this just backs up his whole Christian fundamentalist stance.)
* As President, he wouldn’t have support from Congress or the Senate for his radical plans (doing away with the IRS, the Federal Reserve, legalizing drugs, legalizing all guns, etc.) — “The people would see how great he is and vote Libertarians into the legislative branch!” (No, they won’t. Sorry, but there aren’t exactly a ton of Libertarians in the legislative branch now… That won’t change.)
Seriously, this scares me. Always with the excuses. If they can’t come up with an intelligent angle of debate, then a lot of them turn to scare tactics, bullying, hate mail, and vandalism (There’s Ron Paul graffiti all over the college campus here.)
It makes me think that they’d apologize for him if other terrible things came out… Imagine these scenarios:
Ron Paul kills kittens for fun — “That has nothing to do with how he feels about the Constitution and bringing the troops home!”
Ron Paul caught stabbing a hooker to death — “She was probably working for the Rockefellers or some other secret black ops team trying to stop him from ruining their plans!”
Ron Paul caught stealing from graves — “There’s no crime in stealing from the dead. He was probably retrieving a campaign contribution from a recently-dead supporter. It’s all been edited and taken out of context!”
Ron Paul says he wants to build concentration camps for atheists — “That’s totally not true. He wants to leave it up to the states how to treat their stance toward atheism! It’s giving them MORE freedom!”
How much can they apologize for? I mean, it was creepy for me when I saw supposedly liberal college students defending the guy when it was revealed that he made racists comments (”That wasn’t him. It was some staffer who did it in his name.”) and put forth a bill that would make ALL abortions illegal at the federal level (”He was making a point about how ineffective federal laws are.”)
These people are sort of cult-like. It’s scary.
Are we sure he’s not L. Ron Paul ?
COMALite J: Give me a break. If you’re really a former Ron Paul supporter you should know he has well informed answers about things and has a really nuanced way of supporting his views that make complete sense even if at first you don’t agree with them. (No I don’t agree with him about abortion and evolution but his answers are ones I can live with).
These 30 second answers and hand-raising formats are completely silly and are designed for the pop-candidates to go out and say quick sound-bites and make it difficult for people with dissenting views to give a detailed answer as to why the popular opinion is wrong.
Who cares if he believes in evolution or not, it’s not like this will affect any decision he could possibly make. What’s more important is his belief in the constitution, personal freedom, a sane foreign policy, reducing the size and role of government, and a sound monetary policy.
[…] Ron Paul loves to hate immigrants and doesn’t believe in evolution, just like everyone else! But at least he isn’t dumb as […]
[…] commenter named Wilder K Wight summed this up pretty well the other day: What disturbs me is the cultish, apologist tendencies of Ron Paul’s […]
I would submit that this clip is evidence that Ronald Paul understands the difference between theory, fact, hypothesis, knowledge and belief, e.g., he understands the nuances of epistemology as well as the scientific method.
From that, one can seriously doubt that Dr. Paul rejects the *observed facts* that make up the overwhelming basis of the *theory of evolution*, he simply does not accept *without empirical evidence* the remainder of the vague hypothetical mechanisms proposed (the hand waving, as it were)– and neither should you, if you are a scientist.
For, if we understood everything there is to know about the precise mechanisms of evolution, we wouldn’t still be studying microbiology, would we? As it is, we are discovering new microbiological chemistry and genetic and epigenetic mechanisms every day- turning the hand waving in the theory into hard fact about the process, but who is to say that some day we won’t stumble across the remnants of an atomic equivalent of a Schnorr signature?
Personally, I hypothesize that the evolution of intelligence accelerates evolution unless it is impeded by the accidental follow-on evolution of a herd-like collectivist mentality in the proto-intelligent organism. For those of you who believe in evolution or who believe in creationism, e.g., for those of you who believe in something other than the scientific method, please help me falsify this hypothesis. I look forward to being entertained by your premiss.
Whoever wrote this article is mentally handicapped. Why doesnt my lawyer beleive in buddha? Why doesnt my doctor believe in aliens?
In other words… Why the F#### does it matter for a politician to believe in anything?
A politician needs to respect human rights, civil liberties and the right to free speech.