Ron Paul and Evolution?

[Duckman]

You are asking candidates to publicly denounce the beliefs of their religion.

It's sickening, as you're basically making atheism the litmus test for voting for a candidate. It's no better than the evangelicals that won't vote for a mormon.

I'm not making it a litmus test, else I wouldn't be supporting Ron Paul. I am merely explaining why I believe it is relevant. Atheism is not necessary, just non-fundamentalist belief. I define creationism as a fundamentalist belief because I think the overwhelming objective evidence says that creationism did not occur.

 

[jmdrake]

I find it funny that some of those who wholeheartedly believe in a creator (a supernatural being that just creates things out of nothing and can't be proven or demonstrated) don't believe in evolution because it's "just a theory."

It's funny that people who pretend to be scientific can't honestly debate without resorting to straw men arguments and ad hominems. Those of us who don't believe that we evolved from primordial muck do not believe as we do because evolution is "just a theory". The point is that those who try to claim evolution is a "fact" overplay their hand.

Gravity is also a theory, by the way.

The original theory that "what goes up must come down" has been proven wrong. Now people realize that gravity is based on universal attraction. Anyway non sequitor. Care to elaboration on relativity versus quantum mechanics? Since these are "theories" that are contradictory yet can both make accurate predictions what's your explanation for how they fit into the "theory" of science? Of course nobody on your side of the argument has dared address this. I wonder why?

Are you aware of a legislation he proposed, that would make life officially be considered to start at conception?

What's that got to do with evolution? Anyway what is your scientific definition of "life"? Is a fetus only alive once it leaves its mothers woman? Obviously that can't be true. Really I don't think anyone can honestly say that a fertilized embryo isn't "alive". Even skin cells are "alive". Here is an article talking about keeping skin cells "alive" in a petri dish. The honest question is whether or not an embryo is a "person". The fact that someone might argue against embryos being "alive" is more proof of science being subjugated to politics.

Further even the question of when in the course of pregnancy an embryo becomes a "human" is and should be open to scientific debate. People have different "theories" and so far to my knowledge none have been proven.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[jmdrake]

dood, because two scientist argue over the best theory doesn't mean those two theories aren't steeped in facts and proven knowledge.

that's just absurd.

you're trying to argue semantics and not getting the gist of the meaning.

"Dood" just because something is "steeped in fact" does not make it a fact! You are the one who's playing semantics and your deceit is transparent! If you want to argue "Evolution is based on facts" I won't dispute that. But that is FAR DIFFERENT from claiming EVOLUTION IS A FACT! Hey, the Bush claim that there were WMDs in Iraq was based on facts also. The problem is the counter facts were ignored.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[jmdrake]

There has only been one confirmed hoax, and that was way back in the 1920's.

That's an easily disproven lie. http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter9.php

Since then, there have been groundbreaking finds like the Lucy skeleton in Africa and some other ones discovered just this year. I think to dismiss these requires active ignorance.

Uh huh. They find a handful of skeletons, ignore the possibility that they might represent birth defects, and assume they've found the "missing link". So where are the rest of the Lucy's? Seriously, you find a bunch of fossils at lower levels, but the "transition fossils" are always mysteriously rare.

When I was young, my parents sent me to a Christian private school.

So did I. I knew a family of inbreeds from the backwoods of TN. Not to be mean, but I'm certain if their bones were dug up thousands of years ago someone would declare "We have found the missing link".

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[newrealization]

I hate it when people like you falsely assume that people who truthfully say that the theory of evolution is a "theory" are uneducated! I'm not talking about people who claim it's about their "favorite beer"! I'm talking about people who run around calling evolution a "fact". Why do you have to raise a straw man argument when none exists? Are you unable to deal with the "fact" that some of your fellow evolutionists are overselling the theory of evolution?

Regards,

John M. Drake

It is a theory in the most technical scientific sense. A scientific theory does not mean "guess." It is the fact of evolution that is not a law, and thus a theory.

 

[DRV45N05]

I think we would have to ask him to address the topic in context.

As a theory explaining how species change over time, obviously evolution is pretty beyond rapproach. And I think the idea that homo sapien sapien evolved from previous species is pretty bullet proof. (BTW, I don't really see how this would contradict religious definition of man; perhaps the previous species could still be considered "man," and we just evolved to a higher being over time.)

However, as a theory that explains how all species came about, I think it has some flaws. There are some jumps in the evolutionary chain that seem to be pretty darned big. For instance: how in the world did fish all of the sudden gain the ability to breathe out of the water and live on land? That's a pretty huge jump, and I haven't heard someone who adheres to evolution be able to explain that.

 

[ifthenwouldi]

There's absolutely no way for science to prove that this universe was or was not created instantly with the appearance of age. There's also no way for science to explain how life started from non-life.

 

[newrealization]

I am scientifically literate, and thus understand that there is no god, evolution is a fact, religion is silly superstition, etc... I will cry myself to sleep over this nonsense, but will say that it does not have any relevance on the job of the presidency. It is troubling, but I will try and put it out of my mind.

 

[VoluntaryMan]

Who Cares???

I'm not making it a litmus test, else I wouldn't be supporting Ron Paul. I am merely explaining why I believe it is relevant. Atheism is not necessary, just non-fundamentalist belief. I define creationism as a fundamentalist belief because I think the overwhelming objective evidence says that creationism did not occur.

Oh man, anyone who makes evolution the litmus test for whether or not he supports a candidate is completely lost. I keep hearing this nonsense, and it occurs to me that someone must be pulling my leg. It MIGHT be an issue, if you were voting for supreme chancellor, but this is a man who believes what he believes, and doesn't want to dictate to you what you should believe. This is such a non-issue that I become highly skeptical every time it comes up.

 

[AlexK]

It's funny that people who pretend to be scientific can't honestly debate without resorting to straw men arguments and ad hominems. Those of us who don't believe that we evolved from primordial muck do not believe as we do because evolution is "just a theory". The point is that those who try to claim evolution is a "fact" overplay their hand.

Again, it's as much of a "fact" as a lot of other scientific theories that have proven themselves to be pretty damn reliable over decades. If you dismiss it as "just a theory", you don't understand how science works.

What's that got to do with evolution?

Nothing. I was just replying to the other guy who said that Ron Paul thinks abortion issues should be left to the states.

Anyway what is your scientific definition of "life"? Is a fetus only alive once it leaves its mothers woman? Obviously that can't be true. Really I don't think anyone can honestly say that a fertilized embryo isn't "alive". Even skin cells are "alive".

Sperm is also alive. Let's make sex and masturbation illegal!

 

[Air420]

Gravity is also a theory, so is the round earth theory, and E=mc2 to name a few. There is a difference between hypothesis and theory.

 

[silverlegacy]

This doesn't really matter, and if you listen you hear Ron talking about how there should be discussion on the matter and he doesn't rule out that "intelligent design" could be the case as well. I personally am an atheist that believes in evolution, but I don't and won't force my ideas and opinions down the throats of others. When it comes to teaching science, evolution has to be taught. It is the current scientific answer to the question. The purpose of scientists is to disprove, refine, and create new theories on matters such as these. Up until today, evolution holds the most water. That being said I also believe that evolution, creationism, and any other idea should be taught in philosophy classes in high school from a philosophical perspective.

 

[Duckman]

Oh man, anyone who makes evolution the litmus test for whether or not he supports a candidate is completely lost. I keep hearing this nonsense, and it occurs to me that someone must be pulling my leg. It MIGHT be an issue, if you were voting for supreme chancellor, but this is a man who believes what he believes, and doesn't want to dictate to you what you should believe. This is such a non-issue that I become highly skeptical every time it comes up.

I agree. This is not an issue when it is Ron Paul. But it certainly could be an issue if it were a different candidate who is not so committed to making his religious beliefs core to what he would do as President.

 

[SeanEdwards]

There's also no way for science to explain how life started from non-life.

There are all kinds of examples of order arising from disorder. Disparate elements bond together to form complex molecules. Crystals grow without the need of a designer.

There are certainly gaps in the current scientific understanding of how life originated, but that's probably a temporary condition. Science at least is receptive to the possibility of new understanding. Religion denies new knowledge out of a misguided belief that all the truth that matters has already been divinely revealed.

 

[paulgirl]

It doesn't matter whether he believes the earth is 6 million, 6 thousand, or 600 years old. Because he doesn't believe in legislating what you have to believe, and he doesn't believe that the government's job is to tell the schools what they can and cannot teach. It must be done on the local level, by the local school board.

He rightly believes that God created all men with a conscience, and it is not one person's right to bind another's conscience. That is the classic, true Christian teaching.

 

[ifthenwouldi]

There are all kinds of examples of order arising from disorder.

Order is NOT life.

Show me matter or energy creating itself from nothingness, and I'll gladly renounce my belief in a Creator. Unfortunately for you, science itself doesn't allow for that.

This is not a new argument. Theists have been waiting for atheists to explain the universe's origin without a First Cause for millenia.

We're still waiting...

 

[hypnagogue]

Yes... we must first explain the entirety of the Universe. Otherwise you must be correct by default...

 

[Mike S.]

Ron Paul will stand up for your right to believe what you want. And he wants the Federal Govt out of education. In that respect, his own personal beliefs are somewhat irrelevant.

 

[ErikBlack]

Science and Religion are BOTH B.S.!

There is little difference between science and religion when viewed from from an objective viewpoint. They are both manufactured, theoretical constructs, invented by us to attempt to explain the unexplainable. They are both largely based on faith. Religious people put a lot of faith in the word of God as written in their religious texts. Scientific people put a lot of faith in the scientific method. If you try to refute the positions held by either of these groups they will simply refer to the word of God or the scientific method as "proof".

Personally I do not believe in religion or science. Theistic religion is far easier to refute in this day and age because it is so old and people have had the opportunity to logically tear it down for thousands of years. Science, on the other hand, is relatively new, and people are still excited about the prospect that it might be real so they defend it viciously! Atheists hold the same desperate, unshakable faith in science that religious people once had in God. Their faith is so firm that they will not even consider the possibility that science is incorrect and they label anyone who doesn't believe in science crazy!

I find this funny because one of the oldest complaints of atheists, when trying to reason with religious people, is that they were so stubborn and would not open their minds at all. Talking to a deeply religious person is like talking to brick wall. Well, so is talking to someone who believes in science! Ironically, scientists themselves are much more open minded. They have far less faith in their theories than the masses of ignorant sheep who get their "scientific facts" from second or third hand sources.

When you have performed your own experiments and gathered first hand evidence to support your conclusions then you might have a foot to stand on when using science to back your arguments. Short of that your argument is only as strong as your faith in the scientists who performed the experiments, the media who reported it to you and the scientific method itself. This faith is no more founded than the faith the religious man puts in his priest who interprets the bible for him and tells him how to apply it to his life.