Theory of Evolution

[zcopley]

Here's an argument I keep running into (note! this is not my argument; this is not a troll! I want to hear alternate opinions on this):

a) Ron Paul doesn't "accept" the theory of evolution (although he sees evidence for it).

see: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018118.html
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2008/01/30/72165243

b) The attitude is not rational. Important decisions should be kept
out of the hands of the irrational when they have the potential to fuck over
hundreds of millions or even billions of other people.

c) therefore, Ron Paul is irrational and not fit to be President.

I'm having a hard time with this one... I have to admit I'm a little surprised that being a medical doctor w/scientific training Ron Paul objects in any way to the current theory of Evolution. A lot of people see this as a litmus test of rational thought and basic understanding of science.

 

[ErikBlack]

Ron Paul is a rational man. Anyone who has listened to him speak or read his writing can clearly recognize this. Rationality is reflected in a person's thought process, not their beliefs. The test for rationality is that they arrived at their conclusions via deductive reasoning as opposed to blind faith. Ironically, many hardcore atheists and evolutionists are more dogmatic and irrational than religious people. They bow down at the alter of science and worship it as if it were infallible. Anyone who dares question their beliefs is labeled a heretic. Its the same old story wrapped up in a different package. Man trying desperately to explain the mysteries of the universe, failing, and then making something up.

 

[SuMuKong]

Here's an argument I keep running into (note! this is not my argument; this is not a troll! I want to hear alternate opinions on this):

a) Ron Paul doesn't "accept" the theory of evolution (although he sees evidence for it).

see: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018118.html
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2008/01/30/72165243

b) The attitude is not rational. Important decisions should be kept
out of the hands of the irrational when they have the potential to fuck over
hundreds of millions or even billions of other people.

c) therefore, Ron Paul is irrational and not fit to be President.

I'm having a hard time with this one... I have to admit I'm a little surprised that being a medical doctor w/scientific training Ron Paul objects in any way to the current theory of Evolution. A lot of people see this as a litmus test of rational thought and basic understanding of science.

The thing is, though, that many people have irrational beliefs. The question that should be posed, IMHO, is whether these irrational beliefs are relevant to other decisions that that person will make in the future.

If RP was going in for a job interview as a biology teacher or professor, then his beliefs in evolutionary theories would be highly relevant to his ability to teach his students. However, as a President, you have many other factors to consider. For example, does RP have irrational beliefs about foreign policy or the economy, or has he demonstrated that he has carefully researched available evidence and come to a sound conclusion about which course of action to take? If so, then you can probably write off his beliefs about evolution as an article of personal faith.

 

[nate895]

I'm having a hard time with this one... I have to admit I'm a little surprised that being a medical doctor w/scientific training Ron Paul objects in any way to the current theory of Evolution. A lot of people see this as a litmus test of rational thought and basic understanding of science.

That's weird, most of the doctors I talk to (my mom had kidney failure, so I've talked to a lot) are opposed to the theory. Then again, most of the ones I talk to practice at an Episcopal Hospital (or at least they have Episcopalian stuff everywhere).

 

[RustyBrewster]

It's irrational to accept the theory of evolution as an absolute fact and truth. Paul doesn't discredit the theory of evolution. It's much more rational to say it's possible or likely and that ultimately you're not certain.

Most People believe in a greater power. Given that belief it's perfectly rational to believe that the earth was created by that creator in some manner which we can not be certain. Evolution could be the means.

 

[Iowa4Paul]

I believe this entire issue is irrelevant.

 

[RSLudlum]

I had a genetics professor that was a devout christian and would state that he didn't know how "it all began". Now what does that say!


There's a book by Greg Graffin (of Bad Religion fame) that he put together as his PhD dissertation entitled "Evolution, Monism, Atheism and the Naturalist World-View" ie evolution and conflict with religion.


Interviewed many evolutionary biologist about their views on their studies and their religious beliefs (or lack there of).


Just found a link to his project online: http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/

 

[zcopley]

Here was my reply...

You don't seem to understand the distinction between unscientific and irrational.

In Medieval times they believed the Earth was flat despite the fact that the best minds of the time, even in ancient times, realized that the Earth was round. Sailors were loathe to sail too close the edge of the Earth because they didn't want to fall off into the Great Void. Similarly the Catholic church persecuted scientists, such as Copernicus and Galileo, who tried to argue that the Earth revolved around the Sun and not visa versa.

Were the sailors krazy (irrational) because they didn't want to sail off into the Great Void? The Catholic Church took the viewpoint that a belief in heliocentrism was contrary to scripture. Did that make the Catholic hierarchy crazy or merely narrow-minded? It's possible to hold an "unscientific" attitude without that implying any kind of irrationality as long as the belief is internally consistent. Ron Paul is consistent in all of his beliefs.

Bush invaded Iraq after talking to God who told him to go ahead and do it. Dick Cheney agreed with God's opinion... Ron Paul wants to get us out of Iraq. Does that make him a heretic or irrational? One person's truth is another's Big Lie...

Don't condemn someone just because you don't understand the basis for his belief. When you boil it down, your line of argumentation is just a personal attack on Ron Paul.

 

[QWE]

Although I find it hard to believe anyone is stupid enough to target the theory of evolution, of all things, as something to "not accept", it really doesn't matter. Paul's not saying it because he wants to appeal to illogical voters. I think believing in something false isn't as bad as claiming to believe in something false just to get votes!

 

[abruzz0]

I believe this entire issue is irrelevant.

I agree. Ron Paul could believe anything, but as long as he doesn't use that belief to violate the Constitution, who cares?

Americans like to get caught up in these petty debates

I don't need to hear any of this evolution/creationism shit coming from politicians

I believe the earth was created by God. Great. Who cares? Mix in some reading of the first fuckin' amendment.

 

[Seanmc30]

Here's an argument I keep running into (note! this is not my argument; this is not a troll! I want to hear alternate opinions on this):

a) Ron Paul doesn't "accept" the theory of evolution (although he sees evidence for it).

see: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018118.html
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2008/01/30/72165243

b) The attitude is not rational. Important decisions should be kept
out of the hands of the irrational when they have the potential to fuck over
hundreds of millions or even billions of other people.

c) therefore, Ron Paul is irrational and not fit to be President.

I'm having a hard time with this one... I have to admit I'm a little surprised that being a medical doctor w/scientific training Ron Paul objects in any way to the current theory of Evolution. A lot of people see this as a litmus test of rational thought and basic understanding of science.

I think it might be a little politics mixed in with a little of his frustrations. He is trying to marginalize the debate because he does not believe doing the right thing as a legislator has anything to do with how he personally feels about God, Evolution, homosexuals, etc.

I believe there is a great deal of evidence for evolution, but as the good Dr. Said, theres not a damn one of us who can really prove it without a time machine...same with god. Sounds like a safe statement to me...but not to a REALLY religious fanatic, nor for an athiest.

RP is the first and may be the last politician I ever trust to set aside any/all personal opinions, not legislate TASTE, and do his job based on what is written in the Constitution.

 

[Truth Warrior]

<YAWN!> Hasn't this already been beaten to death here ................. several times?

 

[Mini-Me]

Here's an argument I keep running into (note! this is not my argument; this is not a troll! I want to hear alternate opinions on this):

a) Ron Paul doesn't "accept" the theory of evolution (although he sees evidence for it).

see: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018118.html
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2008/01/30/72165243

b) The attitude is not rational. Important decisions should be kept
out of the hands of the irrational when they have the potential to fuck over
hundreds of millions or even billions of other people.

c) therefore, Ron Paul is irrational and not fit to be President.

I'm having a hard time with this one... I have to admit I'm a little surprised that being a medical doctor w/scientific training Ron Paul objects in any way to the current theory of Evolution. A lot of people see this as a litmus test of rational thought and basic understanding of science.

Good thing Ron Paul thinks that the states (not the federal government, and not the President) should decide school curriculums then, right? This attitude he takes towards many things makes him the only candidate who will not fuck over hundreds of millions of people with irrational decisions. If there's any man in the world that would not try to turn his personal religious views into law, it's Ron Paul.

While I obviously disagree with Ron Paul on evolution*, he doesn't seem to place much importance on the issue - to him, it's not a political issue at all (and he's right, it shouldn't be - it's not the federal government's business), and it's more of a philosophical curiosity. The important thing is that his beliefs on all important issues are far more rational than any other candidate any of us have probably ever seen in our lifetimes.

*That said, Ron Paul is a very curious and well-read individual; none of us have heard him speak at length on his views of evolutionary theory, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if he actually has a very nuanced opinion and is merely skeptical of a particular detail of the theory (rather than the overall idea that evolution occurs). Either that or he's spent too much time studying economics to bother with evolution

 

[WilliamC]

Do you believe in the theory of gravity?

What exactly does that mean to you?

Most people are as ignorant of the scientific theory of evolution as they are of the scientific theory of gravity.

The only reason they have a negative reaction to the one and not the other is because gravity doesn't contradict their religious beliefs.

 

[Sandy]

Do you believe in the theory of gravity?

What exactly does that mean to you?

Most people are as ignorant of the scientific theory of evolution as they are of the scientific theory of gravity.

The only reason they have a negative reaction to the one and not the other is because gravity doesn't contradict their religious beliefs.[/QUOTE]

Not for me, I know how scientists are infallible, have lied and obfuscated to get things to fit what they want to believe or what they want you to believe plenty of times. There is such thing as the Darwinian police, like the Global Warming police....being taught in schools without any contrary criticism being presented which is direct indoctrination. They have and continue to use inductive/deductive reasoning to try and make their theory equal a fact. It takes blind faith for people to believe evolution is fact, just like believing global warming is fact.

How about the evolution believers who believe in it because certain scientists say it is so, and because teachers/professors taught it to be so? Plenty of evolutionists have a negative reaction to creationism because creationism contradicts what they were taught, and the materialistic/humanistic view of things has become their religion. It's dogmatic, but they don't want to see it that way. What about the empirical evidence they say? Once again, taking information and using deductive/inductive reasoning and then presenting their 'reasoning' as facts.

I have read plenty of stuff from both sides, and newest book I found out about is the following:

'The Design of Life', by Jonathan Wells and William Dembski

http://thedesignoflife.net/

If people basically refuse to read/hear other research and information than what they were taught or heard, yet automatically call other people ignorant, then they are being dogmatic and think scientists are infallible beings who would never lie, deceive, or make things fit their preconceived beliefs, or maybe even have an agenda.... Evolution being taught in schools without criticism of the theory. Same as what they are doing with presenting global warming as fact and there definitely is an agenda there that involves the globalists.

 

[Xenophage]

Here's an argument I keep running into (note! this is not my argument; this is not a troll! I want to hear alternate opinions on this):

a) Ron Paul doesn't "accept" the theory of evolution (although he sees evidence for it).

see: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018118.html
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2008/01/30/72165243

b) The attitude is not rational. Important decisions should be kept
out of the hands of the irrational when they have the potential to fuck over
hundreds of millions or even billions of other people.

c) therefore, Ron Paul is irrational and not fit to be President.

I'm having a hard time with this one... I have to admit I'm a little surprised that being a medical doctor w/scientific training Ron Paul objects in any way to the current theory of Evolution. A lot of people see this as a litmus test of rational thought and basic understanding of science.

I wish Paul didn't have this obvious philosophic dilemma. However, his politics are what I'm concerned with, and those are the only concerns I have for choosing a political candidate.

 

[paulite2008]

I'm a biologist and a medical doctor and I know evolution as a theory to be sound but I've never questioned Ron Paul's rationality. By saying he sees evidence for evolution but doesn't want to rule out alternatives it seems Paul is trying to appeal to all his supporters and assure them that as a candidate he will not involve himself in questions of faith. Paul is too principled to pander to any given faith when he's running on a platform of liberty and equality for all, and his hesitancy to affirm or deny evolution likely reflects the doctor's respect for many potential supporters who might find such definitive opinions voiced by a presidential candidate as offensive. It is however rather unfortunate that some choose to pit their faith against science and then force politicians to choose sides.

 

[WilliamC]

Do you believe in the theory of gravity?

What exactly does that mean to you?

Most people are as ignorant of the scientific theory of evolution as they are of the scientific theory of gravity.

The only reason they have a negative reaction to the one and not the other is because gravity doesn't contradict their religious beliefs.[/QUOTE]

Not for me, I know how scientists are infallible, have lied and obfuscated to get things to fit what they want to believe or what they want you to believe plenty of times. There is such thing as the Darwinian police, like the Global Warming police....being taught in schools without any contrary criticism being presented which is direct indoctrination. They have and continue to use inductive/deductive reasoning to try and make their theory equal a fact. It takes blind faith for people to believe evolution is fact, just like believing global warming is fact.

How about the evolution believers who believe in it because certain scientists say it is so, and because teachers/professors taught it to be so? Plenty of evolutionists have a negative reaction to creationism because creationism contradicts what they were taught, and the materialistic/humanistic view of things has become their religion. It's dogmatic, but they don't want to see it that way. What about the empirical evidence they say? Once again, taking information and using deductive/inductive reasoning and then presenting their 'reasoning' as facts.

I have read plenty of stuff from both sides, and newest book I found out about is the following:

'The Design of Life', by Jonathan Wells and William Dembski

http://thedesignoflife.net/

If people basically refuse to read/hear other research and information than what they were taught or heard, yet automatically call other people ignorant, then they are being dogmatic and think scientists are infallible beings who would never lie, deceive, or make things fit their preconceived beliefs, or maybe even have an agenda.... Evolution being taught in schools without criticism of the theory. Same as what they are doing with presenting global warming as fact and there definitely is an agenda there that involves the globalists.

Of course some scientist lie to advance their agendas. But the difference between science as a knowledge system and religion as a belief system is that every scientific theory is, in principle, falsifiable.

Evolution can be easily falsified. Let's say human fossils were found on Mars for instance. There goes the scientific theory that humans evolved on Earth from primate ancestors.

So what does the scientific theory of gravity mean to you?

 

[QWE]

Of course some scientist lie to advance their agendas. But the difference between science as a knowledge system and religion as a belief system is that every scientific theory is, in principle, falsifiable.

Evolution can be easily falsified. Let's say human fossils were found on Mars for instance. There goes the scientific theory that humans evolved on Earth from primate ancestors.

So what does the scientific theory of gravity mean to you?

Yes, William knows what he is talking about.
The fact that I always hear "anti-evolutionists" and "creationists" you the same false arguments over and over and assert the same crazy conspiracy stuff about scientists so broadly makes THEM sound indoctrinated. The reason most scientists don't disbelieve in evolution is because it is a pretty sound theory now - it has been refined many times. It is falsifiable, and it is always being tested against. Seriously, pick up a book, take some classes, actually understand what you're arguing against before throwing a fit and making conspiracy theories.
Also, the previous poster was right, 99% of the time when someone says they don't "believe in evolution" it is because it is in conflict with their holy texts and that is the only reason they refuse to believe it. If you think evolution is "just a theory" and believe in creationism (as though the two are mutually exclusive... hint: they're not. At all.) then you are not a rational human being. You are relying on baseless, factless belief structures. Please, please do continue questioning evolution - only good can come of that. But don't feed us bullshit that somehow creationism is a more sound theory when there is no scientific evidence to back that up.

Also, I hear the claim all the time "people believe in science! It's just like religion!" - which is as utter bullshit as saying "people put blind faith in facts!"

 

[Kade]

The rejection of evolution is inexcusably ignorant and utterly irrational. Perhaps an agnostic stance... I don't want to be unfairly critical of someone's religious beliefs, but as an educated man, Ron Paul should know better.

Please, for those of you are who so uninformed to consider that we don't know what we are talking about... just read through this: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

It's fun and interactive, and you might learn something. It's a start.