[Hat Tip: One Good Move, and Thanks Brent!]
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Ron Paul is clearly an idiot. The revolting problem is, we have several similar idiots running for president and a similar idiot who is president.I guess Ron Paul never gets a flu shot, never takes medication that’s been tested on animals, never consults with any number of medical practitioners who base all of their diagnoses on knowledge – although, in Paul’s framework, I suppose it’s mere guesswork, or at best, belief, rather than knowledge – derived from their flimsy “theory” – meaning, in Paul’s usage, conjecture – of evolution. Maybe a witch doctor has more compelling knowledge based on some other more powerful “theory.”
This is depressing. I’ve been an ardent Ron Paul supporter for a long times because he seems to be the only candidate advocating real change in government and a return to liberty. But, his response this question really makes me rethink my support.He’s clearly well educated on economics and monetary policy, but why does he reject evolution? I guess I will have to temper my support for him now, though I still believe he’s one of the better candidates running. So disappointing…
As a libertarian, I would love to have a presidential candidate I felt good about protest-voting on. But the Libertarian party and the libertarian-leaning politicians in the two major parties are (seemingly) all nutjobs. I think there is something in the libertarian philosophy which discourages sane people from running for office…
No, there’s something about running for office that discourages sane people from doing it. The major parties attract the stupid and crazy, and the libertarians attract the educated and crazy. Which, unfortunately, just tends to amplify the crazy. If they were sane enough to hold down a real job, they’d get out of politics.
2 things…First, it isn’t clear what Ron believes, but there is good reason to say he in fact does understand and believe in so called “micro-evolution.” This to me, and others is a silly semantical stance often taken by theists that understand and must admit that change does occur within species.A google search on the matter will show at least 2 counter examples to the video provided that muddy the waters as to what Dr. Paul thinks.The context of Ron Paul’s quote seems to suggest that he rejects the idea that man evolved from nothing/single celled organisms, not that he rejects genetics or variation in species.Some theists think god made the whole world with a fossil record and everything. Ron doesn’t say what he believes exactly on this and it is rude to assume, but he does say in the video provided that he doesn’t know the exact method that man came to be and that he doesn’t presume to tell anyone what that method was…leaving open the possibility that god could have even used evolution as a mechanism to create men from single celled organisms.This would make his stance on the issue comparable to every other candidate in either party (except huckabee)…in that they all believe in a creator and yet at the same time they believe the mechanism of evolution was used by that creator to create man. Dr. Paul says this is a possibility in his answer, and it’s the very possibility that every other candidate clings to.second, and more importantly…it is difficult to conceive of a constitutional issue that also would have to do with evolution that Dr. Paul would come down on the “wrong” side of. It’s not really relevant to the job.An economist wouldn’t need to know anything about evolution to be the best economist in the world.A general wouldn’t need to know anything about evolution in order to be the best general to ever live.A diplomat wouldn’t need to know anything about evolution in order to be the best diplomat ever.The president is a general and a diplomat, and he signs bills, including those dealing with money and budgets, and he makes appointments to vacant seats in various branches of government.Dr. Paul doesn’t want the federal government dictating education standards (because that isn’t constitutional), so he certainly won’t be signing bills to teach creationism in schools.If you think that there are other policy issues related to the evolution of man that will be crossing the president’s desk soon, I’d be interested to hear about them.Even if you can think of some legislation that might cross his desk, go check the constitution. Chances are it isn’t constitutional.Or, perhaps you feel that Paul’s position, which again is very much like that of every other candidate, precludes him from making good decisions having to do with scientific matters. If such a bill can pass constitutional muster and get past congress…only then would Paul’s views matter…and only as long as 2/3 of congress didn’t feel so strongly about the bill that they wouldn’t override a veto.If you truly think this is a common problem or matter of grave importance, I would suggest you read the constitution one more time.In sum: It’s rather presumptuous to assume that a PHD doesn’t understand basic genetics and species variation and science in general; and further, what Paul said in the provided video makes his stance on the matter nearly indistinguishable from that of any candidate other than huckabee.
Who cares what he thinks about evolution? How does it affect anyone in any way whatsoever? He’s running for president, not head of the biology department!
It shows a willingness to deny reality, and an unwillingness to seek out accurate and reliable sources of information. Would you feel comfortable with a presidential candidate who insisted that the “Round Earth” is only a theory?
“If they were sane enough to hold down a real job, they’d get out of politics.”Erm, he’s a doctor (ob-gyn) and owns his own practice.Anyway, did anyone really listen to how he answers the question? He said it’s a scientific matter and it’s not his problem, basically. Which it isn’t. He’s running for president, and science education very clearly is and should not be under his jurisdiction.
Well there goes my hero worship for Ron Paul.If he rejects something so fundamental like evolution how can I put my trust in him in things like monetary change, ie if he can be so wrong about evolution he may be equally as wrong in matters of political and economic importance, and it was his honest and humble manner that converted me into his way of thinking in the first place.Would Austrian economics really work? I am beginning to have my doubts.
You don’t get perfection. You get acceptable for the purpose. Consider the alternatives!
He is still at it:http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-09-11/ron-paul-and-reddit-com/“You know it is a theory, nobody has concrete proof of any of this. But quite frankly I think itâ??s sort of irrelevant, that because we donâ??t know the exact details and we donâ??t have geologic support for evolutionary forms, it is a theory,..””When you have government schools it becomes important. â??Are you fair in teaching that the earth could have been created by a creator or it came out of a pop, out of nowhere?â? In a personal world, we donâ??t have government dictating and ruling all these things; itâ??s not very important. So the problem is the political environment that makes these issues so important in deciding what one believes in.”Ignorant nut. And the Scary thing is that he had MORE than highschool biology. As a physician, he MUST have had one full year of college biology