Tom Tancredo calls for Paul's Inclusion at the ITR Forum in Iowa

[mikelovesgod]

Tancredo doesn't believe in evolution. Doesn't mean he's a bad guy, but that sort of attachment to religion is unhealthy for a politician who has to lead a nation that has to make scientific advances in the coming century.

Everytime I see such a half-witted statement like that I have to wonder how brain-washed this country is. Denying evolution can be based on scientific grounds, not simply on religious ones. Intelligent design is not a religious belief, but scientific and philosophical.

-How can the greater come from the less
-How can disorganized matter consistently create higher life without reason
-How can the statistical capacity of molecules create the type of life that we have? Time isn't an explanation BTW 100 chickens on typewriters couldn't write one line by Shakespeare even if they had millions of years to do. Probability and possibility are confused
-The 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution with life. The only rebuttal to entropy is inanimate objects, but not living

Einstein said that creation proved and intelligent design. The facts are it's a theory, one that is free to be debated if you know the meaning of theory. Then you dig a politician for disagreeing with a theory.

 

[oldpaths1611]

Tancredo doesn't believe in evolution. Doesn't mean he's a bad guy, but that sort of attachment to religion is unhealthy for a politician who has to lead a nation that has to make scientific advances in the coming century.

That's funny. The founding fathers who gave you this nation in the first place had that very same "unhealthy attachment to religion." I'd say they did a fairly good job of leading the nation. Wouldn't you?

 

[literatim]

The question asked at the debate wasn't very good to begin with considering the fact it didn't ask exactly what evolution. There is micro-evolution, macro-evolution, and speciation.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org

 

[legion]

That's funny. The founding fathers who gave you this nation in the first place had that very same "unhealthy attachment to religion." I'd say they did a fairly good job of leading the nation. Wouldn't you?

i wont waste time proving how wrong you are about the piety of the founding fathers

 

[kylejack]

I will, legion.

That's funny. The founding fathers who gave you this nation in the first place had that very same "unhealthy attachment to religion." I'd say they did a fairly good job of leading the nation. Wouldn't you?

Most of the founding fathers were Deists who didn't believe in the regimented organization and attachment to Christianity.

 

[oldpaths1611]

i wont waste time proving how wrong you are about the piety of the founding fathers

Good, because it definately would be a waste of your time.

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=78

 

[Dary]

Tancredo should drop out of the forum (is he attending?), go on over to the Ron Paul rally, get a free hamburger and education.

 

[dmitchell]

Tancredo should drop out of the forum (is he attending?), go on over to the Ron Paul rally, get a free hamburger and education.

Could Tancredo be hoping for an invitation to appear at Ron's event?

 

[LibertyBelle]

I will, legion.

Most of the founding fathers were Deists who didn't believe in the regimented organization and attachment to Christianity.

Many were deists (like TJ and BF), some were Christians, some were atheists (like Thomas Paine), and some were agnostics.

Deists believe there is a God, and that this God created the universe, but then left it to function on it's own.

From what I have read, they all believed in the Christian principles. Hence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Many of them did not believe in organized religion.

 

[Original_Intent]

Many were deists (like TJ and BF), some were Christians, some were atheists (like Thomas Paine), and some were agnostics.

Deists believe there is a God, and that this God created the universe, but then left it to function on it's own.

From what I have read, they all believed in the Christian principles. Hence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Many of them did not believe in organized religion.

Actually Ben Franklin is one of the most celebrated as a Deist - and yet...

During the debates on getting various issues worked out, Ben Franklin suggested that they resort to prayer, as "Providence" had led them to victory in the War, so it should be also beseeched for Guidance. (that is my paraphrase but he DEFINITLEY suggested they pray). This is not the position of a Deist, who believed that there was a God but that he was an "absentee landlord" and did not concern himself with the dealings of humanity.

So how was Franklin a Deist? Sounds like revisionist history to me.

Regardless,we should not let the issue (evolution OR religion)) divide us, do you even know what Ron Paul's opinion is on evolution? I don't. and I don't care one way or the other, as Huckabee stated when he was asked in the debate, it really is an irrelevant question for a presidential candidate.

edit here is the actual quote, not my lame paraphrase:

“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."

 

[nayjevin]

You can understand the value of prayer on the human soul without believing there is a gray beard somewhere hearing it.

buddhists call it meditation

we have perverted the meaning of prayer to 'asking God for things'

i believe sincere prayer is a calming of the mind, and a connection to the divine -- which is a uniquely individual experience.

someone else 'leading' me in prayer is not conducive to my connection to the divine. it is conducive to me finding out more about what the prayer leader's beliefs are only.

this is why a moment of silence is preferable to prayer.

 

[llamabread]

Maybe Tancredo will come on over after the forum like somebody said. Probably not, but it would be neat.

 

[Brandybuck]

Most of the founding fathers were Deists who didn't believe in the regimented organization and attachment to Christianity.

"Most" is the wrong word. "Many" is more accurate.

 

[torchbearer]

I am a deist, but i don't put that on my campaign fliers because people in today's society don't have a clue what it is...

 

[hells_unicorn]

Tancredo was my second choice for a Republican candidate, although 2nd counts for nothing for me in the primaries, but having him endorse Ron Paul and perhaps even be a running mate would be a positive step. However, I don't want to get ahead of myself.

In regards to the evolution question, to suggest that someone BELIEVES in evolution sounds a lot like BELIEVING something that is unprovable such as God. Believing in evolution is not scientific, it is religion superimposed upon science, studying evolutionary science is a discipline within the theoretical bounds of science. In my Catholic School they taught evolution and we were expected to understand it, along with all of the other scientific studies of the modern world, as handed down by St. Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas Aquinas and the other Dominicans to the Western World vis-a-vis Aristotelian Philosophy. Darwin was a theologian and was quoted by some as saying right before he died "These people have taken what I have said and made a religion of it". We need to have a genuine separation of Church and Science as we do in the case of Government, and that includes the faith of unbelief. Christians need to understand that God is mysterious, the natural world and our ability to perceive it is not. Atheists need to understand that science is not a tool for disproving the unprovable, but gathering knowledge of the provable.

Science today is based upon axiomatic principles that I personally think are a bit flawed, owing mostly to the whimsical constructs of Comte and Popper. Intelligent Design and Evolution are merely modern incarnations of Aristotle's Teleological Argument (with a Christian tone) and Epicurus' Philosophical Naturalism. Both are not proven facts but speculative theories brought about by study of facts. If people better understood the science that they claim to champion, we would live in a much better world.

 

[BenIsForRon]

-How can the greater come from the less

Um... the laws of physics? You know, gravity, electromagnetism, what have you. Otherwise earth would have never coalesced into a giant ball as opposed to a bunch of atoms flying all over the place.

-How can disorganized matter consistently create higher life without reason

It doesn't need a reason, it just happens. Simple RNA molecules replicate themselves, through chemical properties, not magic. Over millions of years, RNA molecules that are better at replicating become more common. Give this process about 3.5 billion more years you get some pretty interesting results.

-How can the statistical capacity of molecules create the type of life that we have? Time isn't an explanation BTW 100 chickens on typewriters couldn't write one line by Shakespeare even if they had millions of years to do. Probability and possibility are confused

Time isn't the explanation, the laws of physics are. You just need a lot of time to get from unicellular organism to humans. It can't happen overnight, or in seven days even.

-The 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution with life. The only rebuttal to entropy is inanimate objects, but not living

No it doesn't, we all still die one day, then we turn into worm dirt, that's entropy. When heat radiates off your body, when you take a piss, that's entropy. Inanimate objects are subject to entropy too, every molecule in them deteriorates slowly over time.


...As for the topic, Tancredo is just trying to salvage some respect from the Iowa voters. If we didn't raise a stink on this he never would have issued the statement.

 

[kylejack]

"Most" is the wrong word. "Many" is more accurate.

Very well, most of the significant founding fathers that are universally recognized by the average citizen.

 

[angelatc]

I am a deist, but i don't put that on my campaign fliers because people in today's society don't have a clue what it is...

I always have to think about it. Secular / non-secular always makes me mentally sort for a minute too.

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

I'm a bit cynical over Tancredo's benevelence. Ron Paul is getting all the fuss and press for being excluded, and it's clearly turned out sunny side up with RP providing food and his own forum, so Tancredo wants a piece of that action. Maybe I'm wrong.

I can't pretend to know everything about Tancredo, but I did hear he supported an anti-flag burning amendment to the Constitution, and that tells me enough. However, it would be lovely of him to support Ron Paul.

 

[Korey Kaczynski]

Everytime I see such a half-witted statement like that I have to wonder how brain-washed this country is. Denying evolution can be based on scientific grounds, not simply on religious ones. Intelligent design is not a religious belief, but scientific and philosophical.

-How can the greater come from the less
-How can disorganized matter consistently create higher life without reason
-How can the statistical capacity of molecules create the type of life that we have? Time isn't an explanation BTW 100 chickens on typewriters couldn't write one line by Shakespeare even if they had millions of years to do. Probability and possibility are confused
-The 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution with life. The only rebuttal to entropy is inanimate objects, but not living

Einstein said that creation proved and intelligent design. The facts are it's a theory, one that is free to be debated if you know the meaning of theory. Then you dig a politician for disagreeing with a theory.

LOL. All of these "disproofs" are wrong but I'll focus on the last one:

1. That's wrong. It's not a matter of greater from less, but more complex from less complex.

2. It doesn't "need" or "have" a reason. Evolution is the opposoite of teleology.

3. First, that's a strawman, and secondly chickens could, possibly but highly unlikely, eventually write a line of Shakespeare given enough time (as enough possiblities are exhausted). Additionally, the earth didn't have a completely randomized environment when the conditions for life arose.

4. The earth is not a closed system, it's powered by the sun.