« Why shouldn't we punish rich people who renounce their citizenship? | Main | Ron Paul on taxes »
Ron Paul waffles on one thing, at least
28 Dec 2007 11:36 am
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/18305
Comments (64)
That video was edited. You might want to look at the original video which is almost twice as long to hear all the context around what he's saying. It's not nearly as damming as the cut one.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/12/ron_paul_on_evo.html
Well, I'm a Paul supporter and I DO believe in evolution and his seemingly agnostic, "who really gives a damn anyway" position doesn't really bother me since it doesn't affect public policy.
I like the way he dismissed the importance and relevance of the question in light of our public discourse issues. He said if this was the discussion of the day, he wouldn't be running for president.
I like that answer.
Yeah, just like if you listen to the entire Watergate tape, you hear Nixon say "it would be wrong, that's for sure" right after talking about how feasible it would be to cover it up. Totally exonerates him.
his seemingly agnostic, "who really gives a damn anyway" position doesn't really bother me since it doesn't affect public policy.
Oh really? That's news to the religious right, who would hear (in dog-whistle, not detectable to those not attuned) "vote for me, and I won't stand in the way of your agenda because I don't really care one way or the other."
He's a doctor, isn't he? I'm not sure I understand how a physician could be so dismissive about the founding principle of modern biology.
Anyway, it's good he's got no chance.
I agree with his general sentiment that "this issue isn't really a key issue in a President", but even having watched the unedited version, I'm disturbed by his "it's just a theory" and "I reject it as a theory" bit. And the "neither side has absolute proof" argument is also missing the point.
He advocates several extreme positions, which opponents (like Megan) would label nutty, while supporters would say "Of course they're extreme, because the mainstream has strayed so far from the truth. He's just the only one being truly rational here."
I'm sympathetic to the notion that both Republicans and Democrats are far from the rational, truthful, good policies, but I'm skeptical that he arrived at them with such a sketchy understanding of the scientific method and the rational pursuit of knowledge.
Frankly, as a church-goer if he said he did accept evolution without reservation I would be surprised. Then I'd be sad that he's a faker who participates in a religion that he doesn't agree with.
He's also not running for a school board position or anything else that has a legitimate reason to even consider evolution as part of the job. So I agree with him that the question has little to do with what the presidential campaign should be focused on. It's sad that the religious Right and secular Left keep insisting it should be.
southpaw: He's a doctor, isn't he? I'm not sure I understand how a physician could be so dismissive about the founding principle of modern biology.
Maybe -- just a thought here -- evolution isn't as ABSOLUTELY VITAL to performance of all scientific tasks in biology, as some people would like you to think?
But no, people would never exagerate the truth for political reasons, would they?
Two things:
First, Ron Paul is right. Evolution is a theory. Fact. He does not waffle, he clearly states his opinion honestly and frankly. The fact that he doesn't see blind devotion for or against evolution as a litmus test like the extreme left and right is not waffling. He's right that even if it was an important issue for our everyday lives, which it is not, it wouldn't be the President's job to decide matters of science. I might even go way further out on a limb and say that a court has no freaking business deciding matters of science. But I'm just a biomedical engineer, what do I know about science?
Second, Ms. Mcardle, do you try to hatchet jobs on all of the candidates, or just Ron Paul?
Southpaw,
Are you a doctor? If not, what makes you the judge of what it takes to be one? What job do you do that requires you to appreciate evolution as commonly believed.
Although not for really long, I've been working in the biomedical engineering field and I can say that evolution has never helped me out and religious faith has never hampered me. I wonder what job all the evolutionists have that makes it so crucial to their everday lives?
Of all the people who I've talked to who really believe in evolution, they usually don't understand it any more than the people who don't believe it, maybe less. For the most part, they accept it on faith. In fact, these days it's kind of viewed as some kind of rite or symbol. Post-modernist mysticism. They don't even smell the irony.
I'm just so sick of this BS.
"scientific method and the rational pursuit of knowledge"
Forgive them, they know not what the hell they are talking about.
Ron Paul's views are highly rational.
The scientific method involves testing hypotheses.
http://www.makeitsolar.com/images/chartmethod002.jpg
Can someone explain to me what hypothesis could be tested to support what most evolution-believers consider to be acceptable belief in evolution? Or the hypothesis that could be tested to disprove a creator?
I'll be waiting.
Now I know that all the evolution fanatics just use vacant "sure I believe in evolution" statements as some kind of political litmus test. But that is absolutely all it is. It is just as easy to game by pragmatic candidates as "sure I have faith in God" is for those on the right.
Ron Paul is the only one who doesn't buy into that crap. He gives his personal opinion and explains why it doesn't really matter. He also understands that real science doesn't need "help" or hindrance from the government. Just freedom.
I have a PhD in Physics from CalTech and I'm a borderline atheist, but even I think that the "Theory of Evolution" would be more properly called "The Evolution Hypothesis."
It most likely is true, but it has *NOT* been proven to the same level of rigor as, say, Maxwell's Equations or Special Relativity.
And some of the key aspects of Evolution (as popularly presented) are practically non-testable hypotheses, and therefore may not even be legitimately considered as part of Science.
And in any case, what does any of this have to do with the man's fitness to be President? He is running as the Limited Government candidate. Therefore it doesn't matter if he believes in invisible pink unicorns because he's not going to try to use the power of the Government to force his beliefs down anybody else's throat.
>Forgive them, they know not what the hell they are talking about.
>They don't even smell the irony.
Pot, meet kettle.
The "just a theory" line is the weakest possible argument. Whoever uses it is totally unaware of the scientific meaning of the word. Fact of the matter is that theories can only be proven wrong, while supernatural tales (creation, ID) are wholly untestable. They're "not even wrong."
Matt B
I'm still waiting for the hypothesis to test "evolution" as meant by the evolutionists.
Is your piping up you stepping up to the challenge?
I'm still waiting.
The fact is that neither belief system can be proven wrong.
I'm pretty sure finding fossilized human remains mixed in with those of dinosaurs would disprove evolution.
John W. another scientist of credentials (not that credentials "proves" authority, but it helps) appears to agree with my thesis.
The difference between the doctor Paul and all the other lawyer candidates (save Huckabee who is a preacher) is that, yes, Dr. Paul understands science.
And, if I may be so bold to speak for the man, no, unlike lawyers he doesn't believe that science cares about lawyers opinions or legal precedent or even (gasp!) consensus.
the "Theory of Evolution" would be more properly called "The Evolution Hypothesis."It most likely is true, but it has *NOT* been proven to the same level of rigor as, say, Maxwell's Equations or Special Relativity.
And some of the key aspects of Evolution (as popularly presented) are practically non-testable hypotheses, and therefore may not even be legitimately considered as part of Science.
See, now that would have been a reasonable answer for him to give. It would have shut up the guy asking the question, and would demonstrate that Ron Paul has a decent understanding of science, even if there are scientists who disagree with him. But the line "it's just a theory" reveals the speaker as a member of the large group of people who don't understand the process of science.
However, to be even a little bit fair, I'd like to see a similar video of the other candidates being asked the same question. I suspect almost all of them would come out looking just as ill-informed, even if a few of them were on the other team, so to speak.
Ultimately, I guess the best comfort I can get here is that, like you say, he's more likely than all the others to refrain from enforcing his beliefs federally. Though the notion of "Sure, let everyone teach what they want. You don't have to teach evolution if you don't want, it's just a theory, and who are we to force it on you?" doesn't exactly thrill me.
Why?
What facet of evolution necessitates that a prior species has to have died out before a subsequent species enters into existence?
I think you are confusing evolutionary theories with theories on the extinction of dinosaurs.
Besides, does the fact that we haven't found dinosaur bones and human bones mixed together prove or disprove anything? I think not.
Um, those of you who don't think belief in evolution is important to the practice of modern medicine might consider, to just pick one example, what happens when drugs are overprescribed, such as when doctors give in to patients and prescribe antibiotics for influenza sufferers.
The reason that is a really bad idea comes straight out of Darwin.
PS: Andrew, I don't know what you mean by "evolution as meant by evolutionists." Even the example I just gave would not disprove micro-scale evolution, but it would the sort of arrow that adherents to Genesis would love to have in their quiver.
Why?
What facet of evolution necessitates that a prior species has to have died out before a subsequent species enters into existence?
What does theories on the extinction of dinosaurs have to do with evolution as popularly presented (to use John W.'s perfect characterization).
Besides, does the fact that we haven't found dinosaur bones and human bones mixed together prove or disprove anything? I think not.
These are all observations, not testable hypotheses. Therefore, whatever else you want to call it, the scientific method is not relevant.
Andrew,
I don't know what you mean by "evolution as meant by evolutionists." The example I just gave would not disprove micro-scale evolution, but it would the sort of arrow that adherents to Genesis would love to have in their quiver.
As for why, the answer is that at the age of the dinos, there were no mammals anywhere near the size of humans to have descended from. Man could not have instantaneous evolved from nocturnal rodents, or whatever small creatures were scurrying around that the time.
What I mean by "evolution as meant by evolutionists" is that these evolutionary evangelists, the ones I contend treat belief in evolution as a religious catechism bundle a bunch of things into the litmus test question "do you believe in evolution."
I think I probably mean the same thing as John W. when he says "evolution as popularly presented."
What I mean is that to be acceptable to the evolutionary evangelists, you are either one of them or not.
If Ron Paul believes in heredity, if he believes in survival of the fittest, if he even believes in random genetic mutation that results in those two, he's still not acceptable to the keepers of the evolutionary temple if he doesn't quite buy that we all came from the primordial soup. He dare's call this a "theory!"
"Even the example I just gave would not disprove micro-scale evolution, but it would the sort of arrow that adherents to Genesis would love to have in their quiver."
And there we have it. What you are talking about is not science. It is interest group politics. It is perennial conflict because neither position can be proven, only fought over til kingdom come, or global warming, whichever you choose to believe in.
Ron Paul says science and progress isn't solved by power of the vote.
The frequency of Megan's posts on Ron Paul make me believe she is a closet Ron Paul supporter. I mean, what compels her to post about Ron Paul in every-other post? It's like she says, "Hey, it's almost noon and I haven't posted about Ron Paul yet, better get on that." I counted about 14 entries on Ron Paul in the month of December. Do you normally focus this much attention on a single candidate? Will you ever get around to writing about any of the other candidates?
Re: evolution.
Can someone tell me: What does this have to do with the presidential race?
Paul's views on evolution is a non-issue in a presidential election.
Paul's views on whether or not we should have fought the Civil War is a non-issue in a presidential election.
Why should I care about this?
I'm still confused, Andrew.
You appear to suggest that at the granular level (heredity, genetic variation, selection pressure) the theory of evolution is well and good [Part A], but you claim that when the "evolutionists" run the clock all the way back to common ancestors for every species [Part B] they've gone to far (3:13 post), because this cannot be proven or disproven (2:25 post).
I gave an example of one way to falsify the Part B contention, which as I said appears to the part you don't like. But when I did, you accused me of playing special interest group politics.
First of all, this looks like some major goal-post moving to my eyes. What exactly would you like to see disproved?
Second, I reject the claim that I am playing politics. I don't think that the notions of Part A are objectionable to most people. But Part B doesn't represent a substantial challenge to many people's world view, and I reckon that that's the part under contention. So when challenged to state a way to disprove evolution, I honed in on that part.
Summary: You object to treating human evolution [ie Part B] as real science, claiming it cannot be disproved. I gave one example that would do just that. You're still unsatisfied because I'm playing interest group politics. Yes? No?
Matt B.
Go back to my first post on this particular topic. It was specifically in response to a comment about the scientific method. I was objecting to the idea that the "popularly presented" theory of evolution involves the scientific method. Specifically, it does not because the key points that evolutionists hang their hat on are not testable hypotheses. Political evolutionists do not talk about heredity etc. In fact, if you ever nail them down on specifics at all, they usually just bash creationists.
You yourself admitted that your example did not provide the opportunity for proof or a testable hypothesis.
I also stated that finding bones together wouldn't really prove anything either way. Nor does the lack of that observation prove anything.
You added that your justification for putting some weight on such an observation was that the lack of an OBSERVATION somehow undermined the OPINION of THEM. Implying that science is decided either in court, through politics, or by public opinion. It is none of the above.
I am not accusing you of playing politics. You sound quite sincere. But when people think in terms of "hey if we can prove A, that disproves THEM!" I am accusing that of political mindset and not a scientific one. Especially when they can't prove A by the scientific method and accuse THEM of not believing in the scientific method because THEM don't necessarily buy into all the aspects of a good little evolutionist.
The point is that neither side on the extremes is really concerned about how science really works. They just want to control it.
I feel just as sorry for the kids whose parents believe teaching evolution is some kind of panacea as those kids whose parents supposedly don't believe in science because they don't buy all of what evolutionists preach. Evolution will do you little good unless you are some kind of evolutionary biologist or some kind of comparative anthropologist. Even then, the most good it will likely do you is to get past evolutionist professors and to please the evolutionist gatekeepers in the profession.
Ironically, I am goig back and forth to my lab, doing real-live biologically-oriented research for which evolution does me not so much good, except as an interesting paradigm. So, quite literally and figuratively, this debate is distracting from scientific progress.
The most striking reason this matters is that it reflects on his general intelligence. Is this a guy who can intelligently run the United States if some crisis occurs?
Outside of a crisis, I agree that it does not matter given that he is promising to do as little as possible. I worry how he will do, though, if he suddenly needs to really understand science or economics or international relations, none of which he seems very strong on.
In my opinion, the ultimate objective of a scientific education should be the ability to read contemporary scientific literature with a critical eye and to display creativity in experimental design.
"That's hard! Let's not worry about all that. Let's just make sure our schools teach evolution and that our politicians pay it lip service, even if it's none of their business."
Sure that's a strawman. But I think it's pretty close where a lot of people are concerned.
Kyle, we've seen what a president ignorant and disdainful of science can do to affect the country negatively through appointments, funding decisions and even foreign-aid criteria (such as those in place for AIDS prevention programmes). So yeah, a president ignorant of science and what is meant when scientists use the word "theory" is something to avoid.
Hugo wrote, " Who is left of all the candidates, left and right, who does believe in evolution?" Which Democratic presidential candidate doesn't believe in evolution?
"if he suddenly needs to really understand science or economics or international relations, none of which he seems very strong on."
OMG. You've got to be kidding me. Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
This barely deserves a response. But I'm really trying not to lose my cool. I'm just waiting for a time when we can discuss PERTINENT FACTS.
Science: so, you can get through Duke Medical school without being strong on science? Maybe. Not likely. (Liberals should appreciate the appeal to academic authority).
International relations: You can disagree with his positions, but you can't seriously claim that he doesn't have a strong position and backup for his opinions. He didn't just make up his opinion on "blowback." He just happens to believe that international relations doesn't always have to involve guns and bombs. The democratic candidates might even believe the same thing, but apparently they don't have the stones to say it plain and clear.
Economics: Please. So, is it that you think that he's not strong on economics because Ms. Mcardle has been criticising him on the finer points of The Gold standard? All the other candidates think "The Gold Standard" must have something to do with the rule of thumb about two months salary for an engagement ring! What other candidate has an entire school of economics (Austrians) who consider Ron Paul as their torchbearer? Disagree with that school or not, but don't try to claim that any other candidate knows more economics than Dr. Paul. He is one of, if not the only congressman who can speak intelligently to the chairman of the Fed. Clinton sort of got up to speed after taking office. Ron Paul will be one of the first presidents to really understand economics before taking office.
Kyle,
what compels her to post about Ron Paul in every-other post?
Well, she explicitly stated in a recent post that she'd be addressing each candidate's economic policies one at a time, and that she's starting with Ron Paul, because his policies are the most... er... let's call them "interesting".
But beyond that, something libertarian bloggers often lamented is the way that whenever Kerry had a dumb policy, liberals didn't stand up and say "yeah, that's dumb". Ditto for conservatives not calling out Bush's mistakes. Any criticism of "our guy" was rare and mild.
Now, Ron Paul is the closest we've got to a real libertarian candidate, and rather than saying "woo, vote for libertarian guy!", Megan is pointing out his flaws and saying "he may be more libertarian than the other candidates, but I still think he's a nutjob."
I personally like that. I can agree or disagree with her various points, but at least she's not just picking a guy and blindly advocating support of everything he says.
Pon Raul is a nut, and his supporters are nuts. Today's flavor is the anti-evolution brigade. Yesterday was the pro-islamist, anti-american, blame America first crowd. Tomorrow's will be somethign else special.
I do love watching every nut crawl out of the woodwork to defend Pon and explain why their far fringe position is actually legitimate. I can hardly wait till he's off the national stage and his supporters have gone back to their bongs.
Hey Hey,
You won't have to wait long. 8 years is short on an evolutionary scale.
Explaining why a position is legitimate must be something nuts can't help doing.
Those on the far fringe of the opposite side only need resort to name calling.
And yet another coming out of the woodwork who equates evolution with all of science proper. Gawd your kids are going to be gullible.
response to a crisis:
When we are overrun with dinosaurs, we'll need a president who can explain to them that they are extinct and evolutionarily primitive.
"If Ron Paul believes in heredity, if he believes in survival of the fittest, if he even believes in random genetic mutation that results in those two, he's still not acceptable to the keepers of the evolutionary temple if he doesn't quite buy that we all came from the primordial soup. He dare's call this a "theory!""
It sounds like you do not understand what evolution is. Evolution is simply a process that results in heritable changes in a population over generations. It does not require that we all come from primordial soup. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe or of life. It is certainly possible to test and observe evolution in action all around us.
I don't mean to pick on him, I'm just using it as an example. It's a trend I've observed for a long time.
People who confuse observation with the scientific method also vote and think their opinion should influence what kind of science education my kid gets.
Government control of science is wrong whether it is a monarchy, dictatorship, parliament, or majority rule.
If you think that evolution and creation are equivalent theories that deserve equal attention, you don't understand science. The theory of evolution is supported by the evidence to some degree, though perhaps not if stated simplistically by someone who doesn't know much about science. Creation isn't a scientific theory. It's a fairy tale that is used by some who reject scientific explanations for the variety of species, the fossil record, genetic comparisons, etc...
It's one thing to debate the details of the theory of evolution and discuss which parts are well understood, which parts are still incomplete, etc... it's quite another to lump it with a fairy tale and pretend that science and religion are basically the same thing.
If Ron Paul wants to explain how the theory of evolution is incomplete or has some work to do to explain all the evidence, then that's fine. If he's going to act like the story of creation is somehow equivalent, then he's nuts. As a doctor, he should know better.
Also, performing scientific experiments in order to disprove a hypothesis is the ideal way to do science, it's not always possible to do so. You can still be scientific by studying evidence, forming a hypothesis, then looking for more evidence to see if it fits your hypothesis.
EI
Cliff,
I do understand. But it seems you don't understand what the political debate is about.
Ask yourself why this issue keeps coming up in the political sphere?
All science is a constant process of trial and error and controversy. Why is this one so politicized?
One side thinks that proving their argument disproves the other side's worldview.
So, yes, for a great many people, I not among them, evolution does in fact include the concept that "we all come from primordial soup." Has "to do with the origin of the universe or of life" as well as whether humans derived from apes, etc. etc.
Again,
One more time. I hope.
Based on a mashed up video, or maybe just a headline, one commenter stated:
"I'm skeptical that he arrived at them (rational views) with such a sketchy understanding of the scientific method and the rational pursuit of knowledge."
Implying that to reject dogmatic belief in some of the points some people lump in with "evolution" somehow has relevance to the scientific method. You can make conjecture and then look for evidence. But this is not the scientific method. For one thing, you cannot control variables if you cannot test.
Another commenter states that Paul is really trying to send a secret message to the religious;
"vote for me, and I won't stand in the way of your agenda because I don't really care one way or the other."
Ignoring the fact that Paul made it extremely clear that as President it would not be in his purvue. He would neither promote nor hinder either side's goals. For people who don't understand federalism and the proper roles of different levels of government, this probably sounds to both sides like antagonism.
And numerous other commenters join in, voicing ignorant opinions on a discussion they don't need to understand the background of, because anyone who doesn't raise their hand for all that evolution entails must be an idiot.
just a thought ... and a preface that I do lean towards evolution and do not believe at all in creationism or the like ... this debate is of absolutely no existential consequence whatsoever. It amounts to nothing more than ideological demagoguery in a so-called culture war with no real pragmatic goals, unless the particular candidate supports public education, which Paul has stated almost ad nauseum he opposes. So unless one would impose a religious view by means of public policy, the only other argument to make this seem relevant beyond salon banter is that familiar chestnut, "anyone who doesn't believe in evolution must be stupid, and therefor is unfit to lead the country." Pasteur, Wehrner Von Braun, Ernst Chain (Nobel Prize winner for development of Penicillin as a drug) all doubted evolution and would certainly not be what I would label "stupid".
Regardless, this is an arbitrary issue that has as much to do with a healthy republic as whether you believe in string theory, the singularity, parallel universes, homeopathy, or UFO's(Kucinich). They are all equally outlandish positions given the strictures of provable scientific fact, yet we seem only to throw our skirts over our heads because of Darwin. Whatever the reasons for that, as rational people, let's have a little perspective and stop being so reactionary. I'm sure all of us believe in some other pretty unfounded and irrational concepts here, albeit with the lent legitimacy of the Age of Aquarius.
Peter,
I'm sure your opinion will be viewed as quite reasonable considering you are "one of theirs."
"If Ron Paul wants to explain how the theory of evolution is incomplete or has some work to do to explain all the evidence, then that's fine."
No. He doesn't. He wants to focus on topics important and relevent to the issue at hand. The responsibilities of the President.
Maybe some of you should focus more on what the other candidates think is well within Presidential powers rather than what Ron Paul thinks is outside it. He is the only candidate talking about reigning in the out-of-control executive.
Let's say evolution bears on science in general, which it doesn't. But let's just say it does for the sake of argument.
And let's say, again for the sake of argument, that a President should actively participate in scientific debate, which he shouldn't, but again, for the sake of argument.
Which one of you will put up your lawyer candidate against my man the good doctor in a science exam that has more than one yes or no question?
Hey Hey, got something to say?
If you've got something other than ad hominems and strawmen, let's hear it.
Exhibit A:
Hey posted:
"...his supporters are nuts. Today's flavor is the anti-evolution brigade."
Not a single poster, Ron Paul supporter or not, has posted anything that could reasonably be construed as "anti-evolution."
Such is the strange mentality of these people.
I don't think it's just that he came into a discussion he didn't know anything about and made an asinine comment based on stupid assumptions. I think it speaks to a mindset.
They are worse than Dubya. If you ain't fur 'em, yer agin 'em.
This is not conducive to science.
If your going to criticize a candidate, criticize him on something he's going to have a tangible effect on. Here we are dealing with a guy who has introduced multiple constitutional amendments stopping the federal (and I think state as well) government from doing anything involving religion at all (especially with regard to education). Sure, the 1st, 9th and 10th amendments should have covered this, but who reads those old things?
The president has three main functions: Foreign/military policy, the veto, and appointing Supreme Court justices. We basically know what a Paul presidency would be like: He'd veto anything that expanded federal power, he'd disengage the USA's armed forces from the world, and he'd appoint originalist judges. Criticize away.
"They are worse than Dubya. If you ain't fur 'em, yer agin 'em"
I just think it's unfortunate that a lot of people who would otherwise support Paul would sell the ideological (let's face it, he won't win, etc.) farm over an issue whose stakes are about as grave as the import of certain fossils, while they are more than willing to compromise over issues that are directly related to them like fiscal policy and such. Now I know there are many areas where we can debate Ron Paul's fiscal plans - I believe Megan has already pointed out several points of disagreement where libertarians opine, but instead, the most heated debate occurs over EVOLUTION! Once again, Ron Paul has stated policies which would exclude this from ever coming up again during his fantasy football tenure in office.
Peter,
The "he won't win" self-fulfilling prophecy results from people who apparently would prefer a Hilary or Huckabee debacle so they nitpick a candidate who agrees them on a lot of things.
A candidate who actually takes economic positions is easier to criticize for those positions. A two-faced politician who will not be nailed down on anything evades evaluation.
This is odd from me, but I don't really think views on this issue are important to a President in most circumstances.
Also medical doctors tend to have higher percentages of members in religions that reject evolution than is true of scientists. Rejection or skepticism of evolution is really not an issue that comes up in most general practices, surgery, or obstetrics. (That things like bacteria or viruses change is usually accepted by creationists I've known, when they say they reject "evolution" they usually mean the idea species arise through evolution) Look up Ben Carson (http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html), Raymond Vahan Damadian, Cecil Wakeley, and the following website.
http://www.pssiinternational.com/
I meant to add I accept evolution, I'm just saying it seems possible for a politician or medical doctor to do so without it effecting much in his or her life.
Does anyone really think that if all candidates were as candid and open as Paul, they wouldn't seem just as crazy, if not more so? I certainly don't. I've never met anyone who wasn't a little crazy, and I somehow doubt politicians are saner than most.
As Andrew points out, candidates don't take positions on issues for a reason. If they do, they'll always seem "crazy" to everyone in some way.
Does the president have any authority to speak out on scientific theories and religious matters?
Ron knows enough biology to deliver 4,000 babies.
Let's give the candidates a biology exam. I know who would win.
Let's not turn science into a new type of religion. It's just science.
He's not alone in questioning an absolute "belief" in evolution:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/06/do_positions_on.html
Even as an agnostic non-religious person, I fail to see how "believing" in a theory is much different than "believing" in a religious tenet. Belief always has the same meaning and it always requires a leap of "faith".
Typical discussions by people with a lot of opinions who do not know what they are talking about.
Darwin's theory is called "evolution by natural selection". Evolution is a fact which has been discussed and documented since ancient Greece. "Natural Selection" was the theory part. Even that has been modified in the 20th century: The mechanism for evolution is mutation, which is a very thoroughly documented scientific fact.
Evolution in humans is still ocurring: in the last 4 generations Americans have grown 3 inches on average, and the Dutch have grown almost 5. That is also documented fact. I could go on citing facts, but space is at a premium.
I don't want a presidential candidate who makes deciions based on gut beliefs instead of the facts. We just went through 7 years of that, and look where it got us.
I was a Ron Paul supporter until he chose to deny reality and succumbed to the religious right.
I don't think he succumbed to anything. He is church-going and Pro-Life. Many such people accept evolution, as I do, but it's not unusual for them to refuse to do so or do so with discomfort.
As someone said elsewhere he's not running for Presidency of a hospital so his being a doctor is largely irrelevant. He's also not running for head of the Science Council so his scientific opinions are next to meaningless. If you don't want another strongly Pro-Life/Anti-Choice Christian POTUS that's one thing, but as that implies I'd rather people dump him based on the issues rather than largely private beliefs/disbeliefs he may hold.
A president can believe whatever he/she wants to believe. What really matters is whether or not they follow the Constitution.
Ron Paul may not subscribe to the theory of evolution. However, that is irrelevant. He doesn't believe the federal government should be deciding science policy, or energy policy, or education policy, or monetary policy.
The same can be said about his views on abortion. He is pro-life. But that doesn't matter. He believes that abortion is not a federal matter. He's a Christian, but that doesn't matter since he doesn't believe the federal government should support a religion, nor dictate what are acceptable behaviors.
His belief in individual freedom, states rights, and strict following of constitutional principles overrides his personal beliefs.
That's what would make him a great president.
~X~
A president can believe whatever he/she wants to believe.
No Mista.. not if it breaks down like this:
The president or presidential candidate believes in the supernatural but not in evolution. As has been claimed oh so often from commenters here, he does not believe in morals and ethics without god. How should he practice secularism? Why not amend the constitution to include religion (as has happened recently with the addition of the US being a Christian nation)?
It would be constitutional to make amendments - right? After all - nations are not build on pieces of paper and ideas - they are build on what people believe and interpret. Jesus didn't write his testament - we did. God did not create us - we created him.
Sorry - but I do not trust anybody to "interpret" the constitution in citizen's and humanity's best interest who rather believes in the unfounded supernatural, reading cards and astrology rather than science, evidence and peer-reviews. In other words, I do not trust any presidential candidate who talks like the worst Muslim fanatic and who believes in things that otherwise only Muslim fanatics believe in (aka most of the GOP candidates).
The fucking Pope would never dare to utter things that the average GOP members express publicly and without shame, daily.
I would not trust anybody morally, presidential candidate or street bumb, who does not believe in ethics and morals without the unfounded supernatural.
"How should he practice secularism?"
He shouldn't as we're not France. Granted many want us to be a secularist-state like France for whatever reason, but we're not one and there seems no pressing urge to become one.
Understand I'm not denying we have separation of church and state or that that is a good thing in this society. However in the US this does not mean that religion must always be set-off quietly in a little private sphere ala France. Politicians can be ostentatious in their religiosity if it so pleases them. They can claim their idea came from God or a magical elf if they so desire. (I think there was an Alaskan governor who claimed guidance from an elf named "Wally.") What they can't do is ask or demand others agree that's where it came from or that the populace accept any particular religious ideas. However I believe they are still free to get their own ideas from most any source including religion, This is acceptable so long as they are not establishing that religion and the ideas are within Constitutional limits. At least this is how I understand it.
Thomas
Do you understand what it means for the US when a president does not believe that citizens or humans who are not Christians cannot be moral?
Fuck France - this has nothing to do with France - if anything it is about screwing Thomas Jefferson anally!!! When will Americans act and talk American again??? Religion is fine as long as it does not turn into stupidity and fanaticism as with the current GOP! Stop supporting those Muslim fanatics at home and listen to the Pope instead!
Saying that something is permissible is not the same as saying it is good. I objected to you saying no to the statement "A president can believe whatever he/she wants to believe" then asserting they must rule in a secularist manner.
There is no reason or requirement I'm aware of that says US politicians must base their positions on "evidence and fact" rather than charisma or intuition or religion. There is no reason or requirement that states they must accept gravity or germ theory let alone evolution. That said basing their positions on evidence and fact might be more desirable. Likewise it's preferrable they believe in medicine and gravity, not believing in either would make them fringe in the eyes of voters. (If a devoted member of the "Church of Christ, Scientists" ran for President s/he'd might have a worse time than Romney. Christian Scientists are the ones who don't believe in medicine)
In cases where evidence or facts are in dispute, or in matters unimportant to the job of Presidency, it doesn't bother me much where they base themselves. Although generally I think a President in the US should at least claim a belief in God and the afterlife in order to represent/understand the electorate.
Manuel,
You seem to know a bit about evolution, but I don't think you understand the political controversy. You can't just say that everyone who doesn't believe the way you do doesn't know what they are talking about if you don't know what they are talking about.
First, all kinds of people can live their lives perfectly fine without knowing much, or anything about evolution. That is the first point.
Second, because of the first point, making "belief in evolution" a litmus test for president is pretty dumb, especially considering that it costs nothing for those candidates in the "Evolution-Yes" constituency to say "sure" just as it costs nothing for the politicians in the "Evolution-No" constituency to say "No." If you go to the non-mashed up video, and you understand the political issue, you will see that Ron Paul is paying a higher price IN HIS OWN constituency for his honest answer.
Third, although you sound like you know a lot of tidbits about evolution, you haven't enlightened anyone on the salient points. "Evolution" is a dense topic that one needs to unpack, and when someone talks about "evolution" you don't know what they are talking about until they break out all the different parts that people might bundle together into it.
Among other things, "evolution," depending on what one means by it, can hit on one or many of the following: Origin of life, surival of the fittest, the evolution of man, mutation, survival benefit, competition, etc. When a politician says "yes" or "no" to evolution, people read what they want to read into the answer. Ron Paul's non-mashed up video answer tries to parse that out, moreso than any other politician would. He also explains why anyone who is a true believer and thinks it is really important to teach it to the kids has nothing to fear from Ron Paul.
Hope this helps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
"Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy
| 
Shit - yet another one. Who is left of all the candidates, left and right, who does believe in evolution? Why is evolution so scary and unbelievable? Where have all the people of real faith gone? How can we vote for such infidels?
Why is believing so much easier to some when there is absolutely no evidence rather than the other way around?
Posted by Hugo Pottisch | December 28, 2007 11:51 AM