• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Ron Paul rejects evolutionary theory

Oct 27, 2007
17,019
1
0
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q

At the Spartanburg Executive Committee Meeting Ron Paul was asked during a Q&A to clarify his position on evolutionary theory. He claims that he does not accept it as it is "just a theory" and claims that it's a theological question (when clearly it's a scientific question). What sort of effect will this have on Paul's public profile? Will this harm his already very slim chances of getting a nomination or being elected? Does this change your opinion of him?
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Hmm, interesting. RP would potentially be a great candidate if he didn't have a leg in the 19th century.


 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
If the only thing he isn't educated about is evolution, he'll be an awesome president.

Doesn't change my mind for two reasons.

One, the truth is that evolution and creationism don't conflict. Evolution is a scientific theory that studies the changing of life, where creationism is theological theory that tries to explain the creation of life. They are very different.

Secondly, politicians like to make this a front-page problem to take peoples' minds off the real problems in this country. And I'm sure this matter is at the very bottom of Paul's priorities because he's busy tackling the real problems we face.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
Originally posted by: GrGr
Hmm, interesting. RP would potentially be a great candidate if he didn't have a leg in the 19th century.
Some things don't change. He has made very valid and strong arguments showing that most of the problems we have today are due to our ignoring of the constitution and warnings from our founding fathers.

And no other candidates are talking about monetary policy, which is an extremely important issue. Perhaps they don't understand it.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,394
3,035
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: GrGr
Hmm, interesting. RP would potentially be a great candidate if he didn't have a leg in the 19th century.
Some things don't change. He has made very valid and strong arguments showing that most of the problems we have today are due to our ignoring of the constitution and warnings from our founding fathers.

And no other candidates are talking about monetary policy, which is an extremely important issue. Perhaps they don't understand it.
so Bamacre how much do you get paid to defend this Ron guy??
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: GrGr
Hmm, interesting. RP would potentially be a great candidate if he didn't have a leg in the 19th century.
Some things don't change. He has made very valid and strong arguments showing that most of the problems we have today are due to our ignoring of the constitution and warnings from our founding fathers.

And no other candidates are talking about monetary policy, which is an extremely important issue. Perhaps they don't understand it.
so Bamacre how much do you get paid to defend this Ron guy??
Ron Paul does not need defending.
 

NaughtyGeek

Golden Member
May 3, 2005
1,065
0
71
I can't see how anyone can buy the theory of evolution. Isn't one of it's primary tenants "survival of the fittest?" I don't know about you, but looking at the way our society has evolved, survival of the fittest is not what drives it. We continuously want to help "the less fortunate" and continue to allow morons to breed. If this is human nature, we surely didn't evolve to get where we are. We are the most self destructive species on the planet. So no, his lack of acceptance of a commonly accepted THEORY does not change how I feel about Dr. Paul.

All that aside, it's the fact that he isn't afraid to state his beliefs that garner the most respect and support from me. He knows full well that there are those who will take issue with his beliefs yet stands behind them anyway. He does not pander to people to gain their support. He speaks his beliefs and allows you to decide weather or not his message rings true for you. More people in Washington should have such courage and commitment to their own beliefs.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,378
17
81
GWB rejects it too and he's the president.

Isn't it a prerequisite of sorts to reject evolution if you want to be president? I've never heard of anyone being elected without intense scrutiny of their faith.

I can't see this affecting RP in a negative way.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
Evolution does not conflict with Christianity. Only a bunch of silly, uneducated Christians and anti-Christians would like to think so.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,378
17
81
Originally posted by: bamacre
Evolution does not conflict with Christianity. Only a bunch of silly, uneducated Christians and anti-Christians would like to think so.
If you take the Bible literally, it says the world is 6,000 years old and that it was created in a matter of days. Some say that the word for "day" could represent eons, so who knows. What I do know is that most Christians reject the notion that we evolved from apes, and make it a point to note our elevated consciousness compared to the rest of the animal world.

No Christian that I know would turn their back on the book of Genesis in order to fully embrace the theory of evolution. IMO as a Christian you can embrace certain aspects of the theory, but certainly not all of it. Please correct me if I'm wrong. :)
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,793
3,309
126
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
I can't see how anyone can buy the theory of evolution. Isn't one of it's primary tenants "survival of the fittest?" I don't know about you, but looking at the way our society has evolved, survival of the fittest is not what drives it.
I disagree. Although we do our best to advert survival of the fittest, this is through an extremely strong society that sacrifices heavily into this. Perhaps one day our sacrifices will catch up to us and collapse society as a whole and thus plunge us back to square one.

At saving individuals we have done well, for a while. Yet have we done so towards the peril of us all? Only time will tell if society can withstand this burden we place on it, to advent nature. I already see the cracks and fragments forming that are signs of very rough times ahead. Our programs were not built for those, they would not survive rough times.

Yet I digress, this is about Ron Paul and evolution, and frankly when has he worn this on his sleeve? With the issues we face, it makes a good attack ad but matters very little. That is, unless, people want to be petty and ignore all other issues.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: bamacre
Evolution does not conflict with Christianity. Only a bunch of silly, uneducated Christians and anti-Christians would like to think so.
If you take the Bible literally, it says the world is 6,000 years old and that it was created in a matter of days. Some say that the word for "day" could represent eons, so who knows. What I do know is that most Christians reject the notion that we evolved from apes, and make it a point to note our elevated consciousness compared to the rest of the animal world.

No Christian that I know would turn their back on the book of Genesis in order to fully embrace the theory of evolution. IMO as a Christian you can embrace certain aspects of the theory, but certainly not all of it. Please correct me if I'm wrong. :)
Yeah, if you take it literally, so like I said, silly Christians. ;)

There is still a LOT we don't know about evolution, and Genesis is open to interpretation.

But I just think it is ignorant to try use one to disprove the other. Science is NOT out to try to disprove religion, and certainly religion cannot even attempt to disprove science.

I say again, this whole conflict has entered political discussion only to divide the people. And in the political arena, it should be irrelevent. We have much bigger problems.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Originally posted by: bamacre
Evolution does not conflict with Christianity. Only a bunch of silly, uneducated Christians and anti-Christians would like to think so.
As a Muslim I can also state that evolution and Islam do not conflict at all. Only those who want to force their own opinion of religious texts are the ones that conflict with evolution.

Anyways so as long as it doesn't conflict with his judgment as a president I'm fine with it. It may sound like a double standard but here is why I'm not worried about RP and I am about others: RP will not force it on us. He isn't going to expand government to force religious teaching on us.

nice quote:
"Its not the most important issue to me to understand the exact origin..."

That said remember that I doubt most RP supporters agree with him 100% of the way...I sure as hell don't, but I still donated twice to his campaign.
 
Oct 27, 2007
17,019
1
0
The fact that this doesn't concern people disturbs me. You're nearing the end of the second term of a president who was ignorant of science, and it's fair to say it hasn't been America's greatest years. Scientific ignorance reaches so far beyond the ability or willingness of the candidate to speculate on the origins of life and species, it shows a deeply rooted philosophy of arrogance, ignorance and pig-headedness that will show itself in the way he runs a country. The fact that people of above-average intelligence (which is what I would consider much of AT) would consider this unimportant astounds and shocks me.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
The fact that this doesn't concern people disturbs me. You're nearing the end of the second term of a president who was ignorant of science, and it's fair to say it hasn't been America's greatest years. Scientific ignorance reaches so far beyond the ability or willingness of the candidate to speculate on the origins of life and species, it shows a deeply rooted philosophy of arrogance, ignorance and pig-headedness that will show itself in the way he runs a country. The fact that people of above-average intelligence (which is what I would consider much of AT) would consider this unimportant astounds and shocks me.
First of all, Ron Paul is far more accomplish than our current president. I would think his academic track record is pretty damned good if he was a doctor - perhaps back then was not as difficult as now, but I don't see how he could have drunk his way through college and med school.

Also - he ultimately doesn't have all the details in this topic, and neither do we. The only ones that really understand evolutionary theory are those actually studying it. As a doctor he learned a skill and I can't see why a gynecologist needs to descend into evolutionary or genetic theory. As a politician he learned...whatever politicians learn ;)

When we ask a question like "do you, or do you not believe in evolution" to prospective presidential candidates I think we are ultimately doing a dis service to what we COULD be asking instead that is potentially more relevant for this country. Remember- do we expect politicians to really understand it? Hell - again - do we expect ourselves to fully understand it? If anything most of us probably have a few facts about evolution wrong even if we do support it.

Once many moons ago I cared a lot about this, but now I realize that it is a polarized issue like any other that hacks want to push in order to muddle the relevant issues.

The day RP starts to advocating banishing teaching evolution, or the teaching of creation in a public classroom by the federal govt will be the day that I am truly disturbed and will not longer support him. But until then, I don't particularly put his belief on this matter as a priority, and nor do I particularly care if Romney believes he is wearing magic underwear.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
271
136
This is pretty sad, definitely lose respect for him based on this. I'd like to hear a more in-depth explanation, but being that misinformed about evolution really makes me think twice about voting for him. I guess it's better that he's misinformed on something not terribly relevant to contemporary domestic issues than on something like Iraq.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,353
1
81
I'll pose a question here that all of you know the answer to, but I'll pose it just to make you think about it a little.

Consider the following two hypotheses:
1. The universe was formed from the Big Bang billions of years ago. Life formed spontaneously and evolved to what we know today.

2. The universe was formed 6,000 years ago. Every bit of matter was positioned just so such that it matched the position and velocity of the Big Bang model (i.e. its initial condition exactly matches that predicted by Big Bang theory). Life was formed and microevolution occurred.

Can anyone suggest a scientific method to discern between the two hypotheses?
 

imported_hscorpio

Golden Member
Sep 1, 2004
1,617
0
0
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
This is pretty sad, definitely lose respect for him based on this. I'd like to hear a more in-depth explanation, but being that misinformed about evolution really makes me think twice about voting for him. I guess it's better that he's misinformed on something not terribly relevant to contemporary domestic issues than on something like Iraq.
I feared I would feel that way before I watched the video, but I actually think he answered the question honestly and have lost no respect for him even though I disagree with what he said. I also remember he did not raise his hand in the first debate to indicate that he did not believe in evolution (as did Huckabee, Tancredo, and Brownback...)

I am curious as to whether he was answering the question with the understanding that the questioner was asking if he believes life had no creator (abiogenesis) or if he was saying he doesn't believe in the true definition of evolution (natural selection, etc...) that does not even deal with how life was created. I did like how he said he thinks this, (our origin) is not something anyone really knows for sure and that he doesn't like the fact that this is even a debate worthy question. If we actually stuck to the constitution and still had separation of church and state this would be an irrelevant issue.
 

imported_hscorpio

Golden Member
Sep 1, 2004
1,617
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'll pose a question here that all of you know the answer to, but I'll pose it just to make you think about it a little.

Consider the following two hypotheses:
1. The universe was formed from the Big Bang billions of years ago. Life formed spontaneously and evolved to what we know today.

2. The universe was formed 6,000 years ago. Every bit of matter was positioned just so such that it matched the position and velocity of the Big Bang model (i.e. its initial condition exactly matches that predicted by Big Bang theory). Life was formed and microevolution occurred.

Can anyone suggest a scientific method to discern between the two hypotheses?
That sounds like a good topic to start a new thread with...
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,353
1
81
Originally posted by: hscorpio
That sounds like a good topic to start a new thread with...
Yeah, probably... I started the thread to prevent creating too much diversion here.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,719
3,528
126
Well RP is probably right about Republicans. I see no evidence they evolve at all.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,483
1
81
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q

At the Spartanburg Executive Committee Meeting Ron Paul was asked during a Q&A to clarify his position on evolutionary theory. He claims that he does not accept it as it is "just a theory" and claims that it's a theological question (when clearly it's a scientific question). What sort of effect will this have on Paul's public profile? Will this harm his already very slim chances of getting a nomination or being elected? Does this change your opinion of him?
I don't see this issue as relevant at all. As long as church and stat remain separate, as they would under paul, is it an issue? How could it be?
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,483
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well RP is probably right about Republicans. I see no evidence they evolve at all.
You need to be more consistent moon. Both repubs and dems show no evidence of evolving. Myopic thinking at its worst.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,214
2
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
Hmm, interesting. RP would potentially be a great candidate if he didn't have a leg in the 19th century.
If you could bring back to life some of the 19th century presidents, you'd see a better situation than the one you see now.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,604
17
81
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
I can't see how anyone can buy the theory of evolution. Isn't one of it's primary tenants "survival of the fittest?" I don't know about you, but looking at the way our society has evolved, survival of the fittest is not what drives it. We continuously want to help "the less fortunate" and continue to allow morons to breed. If this is human nature, we surely didn't evolve to get where we are. We are the most self destructive species on the planet. So no, his lack of acceptance of a commonly accepted THEORY does not change how I feel about Dr. Paul.

All that aside, it's the fact that he isn't afraid to state his beliefs that garner the most respect and support from me. He knows full well that there are those who will take issue with his beliefs yet stands behind them anyway. He does not pander to people to gain their support. He speaks his beliefs and allows you to decide weather or not his message rings true for you. More people in Washington should have such courage and commitment to their own beliefs.
Societal evolution differs from biological evolution. We have some things nature lacks - self awareness and self-determination. Nature doesn't "choose" for the weak to die out. They just do, because by their nature, they're easier to pick off by predators, or less likely to find adequate food.

And in either case, you're being too impatient, and thinking in terms of your own lifespan. These processes take time, far more than a human lifetime can show.


Concerning Ron Paul, while I don't like hearing this sort of stuff from him, if he will not allow this personal belief to dictate his policy, then that's fine. It's a big "if" though.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY