Ron Paul Doesn't Accept Evolution?

[Corydoras]

If Ron Paul wants to attract (or keep the support of) scholars, students, techies and scientists, he better prepares a good explanation for this statement.

Nah... his opposition to net neutrality, federal student loans and grants, and the FDA hasn't destroyed his support.

 

[noztnac]

Creationism or Darwinism is a false dichotomy. There is the option of creationism and evolution.

 

[noztnac]

He's a doctor and a graduate of Duke University. He knows a lot more about evolution, its many implications, etc. than 95% of us.

He probably does not accept it as the be all end all, all encompassing explanation of everything.

 

[idiom]

Go look up Punctuated Equilibrium. The current working theory of evolution is not Darwins Theory.

On the other hand, creationism is no longer a hypothesis. People use it as a conclusion rather than as Kepler and Mendel did to direct their exploration. Current Creationism is useless to science because nobody is using it to predict stuff.

Evolution keeps getting things wrong, but the biologists pick themselves up make a new theory and go look where it leads them.

A theory is only useful if it leads you to new ideas and evidence. Whether that evidence is for or against the orignal theory doesn't matter because we have learnt something new.

For example: If God is so creative and cold fusion is theoretically possible then a bacteria or something somewhere is probably using it to get by. Possibly out in space to get by on specks of hydrogen...

 

[Cinci4RP]

Why does it always come down to Creationism vs. Evolutionism? They are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. If one reads the original Hebrew text, it can be interpreted as day or age or era or time. I am a Christian, but I am also very much a naturalist. How is it so hard for people to believe both. In my own personal view, when YHWH breathed life into Adam, that was the implementation of the soul. Anyway sorry for the rant, but, I have this conversation at least once a month.

Remember, NOT MUTAULLY EXCLUSIVE.

God Created Evolution.

 

[Cinci4RP]

Creationism or Darwinism is a false dichotomy

+1 See Rant

 

[bobmurph]

Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.

Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.

When discussing evolution everyone throws around out the "it's only a theory" argument. Guess what...there are tons of "theories" that are generally accpeted as scientific fact...for example Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitaiton...gravity...it's as good as fact. Evolution is the same.

 

[bobmurph]

BTW, Chadd is a fucking troll.

 

[Copernicus]

There is compelling evidence of genetic tinkering
with homo sapiens millions of years ago. This planet has a very long and interesting history that I'm sure would raise a few conservative eyebrows.
Look into forbidden archaeology sometime.
That being said, we all know Ron isn't a bible thumper and we
shouldn't be worried about such trivial matters as belief in evolution.
What matters is NOW!

 

[JohnM]

When John McCain was asked, the question was "Do you believe in evolution?" A one word answer was demanded.

Dr Paul was asked "Do you believe the theory of evolution to be true."

These are actually two different questions. People with extreme views on both sides of the argument may not like to admit it, but the whole issue is pretty complex. One can believe in evolution without believing in "the theory of evolution" (And which theory of evolution would that be, anyway?)

Asking for a one word answer to the question is asking for gross oversimplification.

But more importantly, isn't it really dumb to ask presidential candidates to give a detailed statement of what they believe on a complex scientific issue?

 

[tyler477]

he is a christian, of course he doesn't accept evolution..... but what he does accept is a separation of church and state
so end this conversation and stop your trolling commie

 

[peruvianRP]

Perfect answer....

"nobody is certain of either side" or something in that quote.

 

[FluffyUnbound]

This is truly disturbing to me.

Paul at one of the first debates specifically did not raise his hand as someone who did not accept evolution.

I've been bashing Huckabee up and down the web as unqualified because of his mealy-mouthed "I don't know; I wasn't there" intellectually dishonest answer.

The Paul campaign has emailed people affirming that Paul accepts evolution.

Where the heck is this comment in Spartanburg coming from?

It almost sounds like he tailored his answer here to pander to the questioner, and that's not what Ron is supposed to be about.

 

[Fox McCloud]

his campaign is probably just assuming his views on evolution; often times people will do this for something that's broadly thought to be accepted.

Ron alluded to not answering this at the debate (amongst other things at future debates) because he felt that, as President, it wasn't his decision to decide one way or another; it'd be incriminating himself if he said "yes" or "no" to either one; to him it's a personal matter (and clearly, he accepts Creationism over evolution).

He's not pandering to crowds; he's merely stating what he personally believes and why he answered the way he did at the debates.

 

[Mesogen]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q

The second question he's asked in that video is on Evolution. He says it's 'a theory' and he doesn't accept it. Bit un-nerving, of course his political positions are the most important thing, I doubt he'll be forcing creationism on us... but it is interesting.

Wondering if there are any videos/evidence which runs contrary to this for Paul?

Yeah, there is video evidence of Paul, in effect, saying the opposite.

It's the question from one of the first debates where all candidates were asked to raise their hand if they did not believe in evolution and Paul did not raise his hand.

Actually, it has major gaps. Namely EVERY intermediate species you would expect to find in the fossil record if evolution were true.

You do realize that fossilization is an extremely rare occurence, don't you? There simply will not be a representative fossil for each and every species that ever lived on Earth. We are lucky to get the ones we do.

And when are we going to have an experiment that demonstrates a mutation can result in a new species capable of reproduction? This supposedly was a major force behind evolution and we can't even reproduce it in a controlled experiment?

One mutation will not cause speciation. It takes many many mutations over a long long span of time. What you ask for is impossible. That does not mean that speciation is not observable or deducible.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

you guys are looking at this in the wrong light. You guys should play up his creationist side as much as possible. Why?

Simple! The Christian right will absolutely love it. The more and more we can portray this man as a Christian, and holding Christian beliefs, the more and more they'll be likely to vote for him (especially if they start finding a lot of dirt on Huckabee).

don't look at this in a bad light, look at it in a good light.

Pandering, IMO, is a form of lying.

I don't like it when any politician does it.

 

[nist7]

He believes God created the Heavens and Earth, and evolution took place after that. I believe, he believes BOTH CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTION

...aka intelligent design. Which is what I believe IF there is a supreme being. I'm more of an agnostic.

 

[Mesogen]

There is compelling evidence of genetic tinkering
with homo sapiens millions of years ago.

You mean "tinkering" by an intelligen agent?

I've got to see this evidence. Please link me.

 

[nist7]

You mean "tinkering" by an intelligen agent?

I've got to see this evidence. Please link me.

Intelligent design, which is a perfectly acceptable explanation....for those who believe in a God. However, trying to teach intelligent design in schools as science is idiotic. There is nothing wrong with having a personal belief of intelligent design, as long as it stays out of the schools.

 

[voytechs]

Ok, I listened to the question. It wasn't what I thought it would be, like Huckster's theory that world was created by God 6,000 years ago. He answers it that we don't know how God created the universe going back to big bang. This is exactly my belief, because I'm a Christian, God created the world, but I think he created by setting certain things in motion, like the big bang. Science has no clue what was there before big bang. I believe in God, he had to have his hand into it at some point, exactly when is unknown. What is known its not 6,000 years ago.

 

[nist7]

Ok, I listened to the question. It wasn't what I thought it would be, like Huckster's theory that world was created by God 6,000 years ago. He answers it that we don't know how God created the universe going back to big bang. This is exactly my belief, because I'm a Christian, God created the world, but I think he created by setting certain things in motion, like the big bang. Science has no clue what was there before big bang. I believe in God, he had to have his hand into it at some point, exactly when is unknown. What is known its not 6,000 years ago.

Intelligent design.

There is nothing wrong with believing in intelligent design....in fact it is probably the best explanation for "science" for those who do believe in a God.