The "Ron Paul is a Creationist" talking point.

[JohnEngland]

Yes. That is why he is a creationist.

And then there are those people who believe any bullshit that is shoveled at them. All the time thinking that they are more intelligent than everyone else, because they did so. I mean, the people had so many letters after their names, after all.

Well let me start by saying that this revelation in no way changes my opinion of Ron. I still greatly admire him and think he's one of the greatest politicians of all time - one who can stand among greats like Thomas Jefferson.

And I don't mean to get into any arguments with anyone about this issue, since there's so much more that unites us - fundamentally, Liberty.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Which would meant that person really doesn't think on the issue. That implies that God created humanity through a few billion years of death and destruction.

No, actually it means one can believe an entity created the universe, and within the universe also created evolution. Ergo, both humans and evolution came from the same entity. Besides, we are after-all made of the same elements that come from the universe. Why is it so unfathomably to believe in both? Why can God in your esteemed view create man, but cannot create evolution? Why is one mutually exclusive of the other?

Personally, I don't think God created man per se (As in directly), but created the Universe, which the laws governing the Universe allowed for life to come about. Scientific evidence points to this being the truth. We can easily observe these facts.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You are creating a dichotomy between two different beliefs. Are not your political beliefs "personal?" Does not your personal beliefs include your political and religious beliefs? You are making it like there are these two separate worlds that have nothing to do with each other, which is a totally arbitrary belief.

My political beliefs are inter-personal, while my religious beliefs are personal. My political beliefs directly effect other individuals, while my religious beliefs do not. It is an easy distinction to make.

I am quite personally conservative (I don't do drugs, I don't drink much, etc.), but politically I am libertarian. According to you, I should be conservative.

 

[JohnEngland]

Boy, and we wonder why England is going down the toilet.

Actually, the establishment science profs in the Commonwealth Realms (the article mentioned the UK, Australia, and New Zealand) are afraid because they believe over half of their students are creationists, accordin to a report I read about a year ago. I can't find it right now, but I'm looking.

No argument about Britain going down the drain!

And indeed, I believe England's main problem is that it's not only lost God, but also any concept of natural law and liberty - which I believe are both connected to the Creator.

But evolution isn't the reason England and Europe are doomed. I'm a devout Catholic who believes whatever the science tells us because science is simply the pursuit of understanding God's creation. If science tells us that the universe is 14 billions years old, that's fine. That doesn't, in any way, deny God. In fact, the Big Bang theory came from a Catholic priest!

Personally, I don't care if most Americans are creationists. Ron Paul is still a legend. It isn't an issue that has any impact on government policy.

And at the end of the day, whenever I've visited America, I've found the people to be the warmest, most generous and decent people I've met. I believe this is, in large part, due to America's strong Christian heritage.

 

[nate895]

No, actually it means one can believe an entity created the universe, and within the universe also created evolution. Ergo, both humans and evolution came from the same entity. Besides, we are after-all made of the same elements that come from the universe. Why is it so unfathomably to believe in both? Why can God in your esteemed view create man, but cannot create evolution? Why is one mutually exclusive of the other?

Personally, I don't think God created man per se (As in directly), but created the Universe, which the laws governing the Universe allowed for life to come about. Scientific evidence points to this being the truth. We can easily observe these facts.

That's because you're a Deist. If you advocated this view as a self-professed Christian in a non-liberal Christian church, you would be excommunicated. Any sort of evolutionism that would be accepted in any sort of orthodox Christian community would involve God using death and destruction to create man, in a sort of guided process.

My political beliefs are inter-personal, while my religious beliefs are personal. My political beliefs directly effect other individuals, while my religious beliefs do not. It is an easy distinction to make.

I am quite personally conservative (I don't do drugs, I don't drink much, etc.), but politically I am libertarian. According to you, I should be conservative.

Your religious beliefs affect what you believe about other people's eternal fate. Furthermore, you can be a libertarian politically and live a conservative life because there is no contradiction between saying "government should only protect liberties" and doing whatever in your personal life. However, both are personal beliefs. Other people do not subscribe to them, and that makes them personal. They are your beliefs, not the beliefs of some collective consciousness. Just because other people do not subscribe to them does not make them false, though.

 

[emazur]

People who say this are/were almost certainly Obama supporters. Ask them why they ignore the religious left's influence that makes him a "you are your brother's keeper" Christian politician?
YouTube - Obama, religion, and government

It may devolve into this argument:
A: Yeah well Obama may be a Christian but at least he believes in the science of evolution. Ron Paul doesn't so he's a kook.
B: So Ron Paul is a kook for believing God created man, then I guess you think Obama is a kook for believing god created the universe?

 

[TXcarlosTX]

Does it matter and why do you bring it up?

Dont hate! HBO RULES!!!!

 

[klamath]

RP is NOT a creationist. He believes in evolution. You can tell by the way he moves his arms when he answers questions about the subject.

 

[LibertyEagle]

And I don't mean to get into any arguments with anyone about this issue, since there's so much more that unites us - fundamentally, Liberty.

Yes, I agree.

I apologize to you. I've just about had a bellyfull of people bashing Christianity around here. I shouldn't have blasted you so hard. Sorry.

 

[Chieppa1]

They aren't an idiot, it is just irrelevant. His personal beliefs would have no effect on that person. It is easy to see why people would be concerned in todays world considering that we are controlled by personal whims of politicians. They don't like such and such so they make it illegal. They like such and such so they subsidize it. Ron believes as I do in Austrian Economics which is value-free. It places no personal values on facts. Only value-free politicial philosophies will end the reign of authoritarianism. If that person values any choices he makes, then he will see the wisdom in liberty. If he wishes to place what choices he can make up to other persons (E.g. a form of slavery), then don't support Ron's message.

It is pretty simple. Whatever you do, do not get into a debate on the merits of the position, or that one is valued more highly concering politics. If you argue in favor of liberty, you will win the debate.

I only ever argue the irrelevance of the whole thing. Its the issue of one person be able to derail an entire discussion because, well, the major of my audience hears that someone might have different personal beliefs and don't listen from then on.

That's my issue. Showing the rest of the mob that the idiot screaming how "crazy" Dr. Paul is, is completely misinformed and irrational.

 

[JohnEngland]

Yes, I agree.

I apologize to you. I've just about had a bellyfull of people bashing Christianity around here. I shouldn't have blasted you so hard. Sorry.

It's ok

Besides, we're not supporters of Ron because of whatever his stance is on the creation of the universe. We're supporters of Ron because he ROCKS!! And, clearly, has international appeal

As Thomas Paine once said, "The cause of America is, in a great measure, the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers of mankind are affected."

 

[reillym]

Nobody is perfect. If he believes in mythology (be it Greek gods/Scientology/Christianity, etc), that doesn't change his support for freedom and small government.

Woot woot.

 

[fisharmor]

That's because you're a Deist. If you advocated this view as a self-professed Christian in a non-liberal Christian church, you would be excommunicated. Any sort of evolutionism that would be accepted in any sort of orthodox Christian community would involve God using death and destruction to create man, in a sort of guided process.

Actually Nate, I wouldn't have said it so open-endedly. I am usually pretty careful not to say "evolution does not exist". (Though I have yet to see real evidence, as natural selection is not evolution.)
I agree with AED insofar as evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive. There may yet someday be evidence that it happens - today. But the exact theological point I suspect we'd agree on is that Christianity and anthropogenesis very much are mutually exclusive, and that people who believe in anthropogenesis may not correctly call themselves Christian.

Besides, we're not supporters of Ron because of whatever his stance is on the creation of the universe. We're supporters of Ron because he ROCKS!! And, clearly, has international appeal

True, but as LE implied, the creationism helps. Just as we have come to expect that he will support the constitution, including the bits he doesn't like, so also would I expect a man professing to be Christian to accept the parts of Christianity that some find distasteful. If he rejected Christianity and was an evolutoinist, but maintained his political ideology, I'd still support him - but if he claimed to be Christian and also an evolutionist, that would be a dealbreaker.

I'd be truly interested in hearing if there's a RC rationale for supporting anthropogenesis. I come from a Sola Scriptura background, so for me, anything which directly contradicts Scripture (even part of it) directly contradicts Christ. And Christianity without Christ is by definition no longer Christianity.

 

[Theocrat]

Creationism or Bust

You may be right, and even being a creationist myself, I agree that it should play no part; but the truth is that there are many repubs that do. Personally whether they believe in creationism or not has no outcome on my vote but at least he has that card to play for the Christian base if he needs it.

Actually, his being a creationist is a major factor for judging his political philosophy and integrity. Underlying creationism is the belief that all men were created in the image of God, and therefore, we derive our rights and liberties as blessings from our Creator, not the civil government nor other creatures in nature.

An evolutionary worldview cannot justify rights, in the first place, nor can it even make sense of how human beings have dignity and worth above other living creatures to even afford the necessity of rights. If all we are are just natural blobs of blood, blubber, and bone (as evolution teaches), then there is no sense in appealing to rights nor liberty. Nature just does what it does in the struggle for life, whether it's the strongest in society enslaving the weak through legislation (biochemically-caused, of course) or evolved beasts holding up signs to promote another beast.

That is why creationism is important to one's political views. The alternative is humanity subject to and controlled by impersonal forces and random processes of an evolutionary worldview.

 

[jsu718]

He is indeed a creationist... but that doesn't affect his policy making. He also opposes abortions but refuses to vote for a ban at the federal level. This is the perfect opportunity to use such a disagreement with someone and Ron Paul to point out that he votes on the principles of small government and a strict constitutional reading and not on his personal beliefs. Don't let things like this get the debate sidetracked.

 

[klamath]

He is indeed a creationist... but that doesn't affect his policy making. He also opposes abortions but refuses to vote for a ban at the federal level. This is the perfect opportunity to use such a disagreement with someone and Ron Paul to point out that he votes on the principles of small government and a strict constitutional reading and not on his personal beliefs. Don't let things like this get the debate sidetracked.

Wrong. Look up his vote on partial birth abortions.

 

[jsu718]

Wrong. Look up his vote on partial birth abortions.

I am aware of the votes on "partial birth abortion bans". They are not outright bans on abortion like the far right pushes for, but they also aren't strictly about partial birth abortions. You have to look at the entire text of the bills and not just whatever source says the bill is simply a partial birth abortion bill.

 

[klamath]

I am aware of the votes on "partial birth abortion bans". They are not outright bans on abortion like the far right pushes for, but they also aren't strictly about partial birth abortions. You have to look at the entire text of the bills and not just whatever source says the bill is simply a partial birth abortion bill.

If I read your post right in that he voted for it for some other reason other than abortion, no.
His statement on it specifically says he would perfer it a state level but partial birth abortion was so abhorrent he was forced to vote for it to save lives.

 

[Carl Corey]

Ron Paul is a pro-choice creationist opposed to gay marriages, though not at the federal level.

I guess Paul is entitled to his opinions as long as it's clear he supports the separation between church and state.

 

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Congressman Paul's opinions on creationism/evolution are expressed in the reddit.com interview Ron Paul (Part 1 of 5):

YouTube - reddit.com Interviews Ron Paul (Part 1 of 5)

The question comes up from the first three minutes. The evolution question may reappear elsewhere, within the five parts of the interview.