- UPDATE 3a: Edited clip here:
This clip was changed to a slightly longer version to make sure RP’s full answer was given. - UPDATE 2: Ron Paul says “It’s a Theory … I don’t accept it.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q (question starts at 2:40) Hat-tip: Ray (from comment 40 below). - Update 1 (written when I still understood Paul to believe in Evolution): Much to my surprise this post remains one of the most active on my site. So, I think it is necessary to clarify that Ron Paul’s views on evolution alone do not disqualify him from receiving my vote. I like many of Ron Paul’s comments concerning the Constitutionality of various things. It’s where Rep Paul and I have strong common ground. But this is a campaign and don’t let debate sound-bites override the facts. Investigate. Start with their voting records. Now, on to my original post:
As I investigate whom I will vote for, I found the list got a lot shorter after the first debate.
After seeing the clip after asking “who does not believe in evolution.” I shot off this email to the Ron Paul campaign:
On 5/4/07, Ron Shank
wrote: Dear Ron Paul team:
Does Ron Paul believe in evolution? I didn’t see his hand raised in the debate when asked “who does not believe in evolution.”
Thanks for your quick reply.
Thank you,
Ron Shank
They quickly replied.
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Didn’t see his hand
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:15:06 -0400
From: Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
To: Ron ShankRon,
Ron Paul did not raise his hand during that question, it was Tancredo, Huckabee & Brownback who raised their hands. Dr. Paul is physician and believes in evolution.
For me, this narrows it down to these three to further investigate.
Your thoughts?
May 5th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Who really cares about this? I think you should look at who’s most qualified to run the country and stick by their oath to the constitution than whether they prefer Chocolate ice cream over vanilla. It’s irrelevent. I’m a Christian and I’ve never given evolution a whole lot of thought b/c it doesn’t matter. Everyone doesn’t care so deeply about whether evolution is real or not to do hours of research to come to their conclusion. I’d bet that most of the candidates have never really studied the issue in dept so they believe what they were brought up to believe. This issue is a waste of time in the grand scheme of things.
May 5th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
What does a person’s thoughts on evolution have to do with him being president?
May 6th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Off the top of my head, here are some reasons to be concerned about a person’s view of origins. Not to compare Ron Paul with the following, but leaders like Hitler and Stalin (and many others like them) justified what they did based on their foundational world view, which was based in evolutionary thinking. Underlying beliefs play out in many forms. Look at America. We appear to be a schizophrenic nation. We try to straddle opposite worldviews, one that says we came from nothing and are going nowhere (this side is the evolutionists, whether religious — i.e. theistic evoultionary nonsense — or not), and one that values life, family, and the original intent of our founding fathers and the Constitutional Republic that was birthed firmly from their world view. Modern secularists use the foundation laid by the Christian world view — our Constitutional governmental framework — and tends to twist the meanings to permit/promote such things as abortion, pornography, homosexuality as “normal”, and other clearly harmful things. Those who hold to God’s revealed truth (which promotes true science), tend to result in value for human life (made in God’s image), God’s plan for man and woman (godly, mutually-submissive marriage for most), pro-creation, and things like the U.S. Constitution. It seems those that straddle the “world view” fence — which is most politicians — wobble around and do little good and a lot of damage. It is very rare to see a modern statesman who stands on the same, clear foundation as many (most?) of our nation’s founding fathers, though lip service to our founding fathers is abundant. Our nation is diminished because of that.
With decades of entrenched evolutionary indoctrination in schools, universities, and media, you’d think more Americans would embrace evolutionary theory and turn from God. But they have not. I think people know inside that the two do not harmonize, and though most cannot express that, they are not willing to give up the God of their founding fathers to a new religion, supposedly clothed in “objective science”. I think most people do not know better when they are told evolution is fact, but they know inside that it does not line up with what they know to be true.
One’s view of our foundations are important. Evolution must be accepted on faith, and is therefore a belief. It falls into the category of a religious philosophy.
Foundations matter.
May 7th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Answer to both your questions are here.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
What does being a physician have to do with his beliefs (”believes” in evolution)? Are they throwing a title to beef up an argument? (Dr. Kevorkian is a physician, too.)
May 17th, 2007 at 7:08 am
It matters because I would not vote for a candidate who is so deeply religious that they do not believe in evolution. This country doesn’t need another Bible Belt President.
May 20th, 2007 at 2:13 am
It’s unfortunate that Dr. Paul, a Christian, believes in evolution. However, he is so spot on in every other issue that I don’t believe this one is enough to discount his candidacy.
Also, I strongly agree with your argument that evolutionary teaching leads to the view that life is expendable. That’s certainly dangerous. But consider Dr. Paul’s record - he is a pro-life, anti-war physician who dedicated his life prior to politics to ensuring the safe delivery of new lives into this world. If that’s not a sign that while he may believe in evolution he lives his life like a Creationist, then I don’t know what is.
A final note: one thing to keep in mind is the possibility, and even likelihood considering Dr. Paul’s faith, that he believes in God-guided evolution - a misguided, but less startling view many Christians hold.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:23 am
Pieter, sorry it’s taken so long to comment on your comments. I agree with your points. And I should say that a belief in evolution probably should not be a litmus on it’s own. Because in Ron Paul’s case, his central interpretive motif is not based on evolutionist concepts (as far as I can tell). In fact, he is a libertarian and his whole song and dance is based on his strong and almost rabid (and i like that) belief in adherence to the constitution and the accurate interpretation of it.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:22 am
I’m against evolution too, but only Dr. Paul is the only candidate who is principled enough not to think of nuking an entire nation off the map because they can’t get their way instead of using diplomacy. He’s the only one who will fight to stop the bankrupting of our nation by special interests and the welfare/warfare state.
I don’t care if they believe in evolution vs. doing what’s best for the country.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:00 am
I agree with Ron Paul’s views on staying out of the Nation Building business (and that’s exactly what this is “business”). I don’t think the president alone has the power to stop special interest. That will have to be done by a will of the people and too many are happy to get their own little special interest share of the pie. It’s a sad fact that most American’s are too short sighted to think long term - it’s one reason why personal consumer debt continues to climb to record levels.
Regarding nukes. I can’t remember who said it at the moment (some radio talk show host) but I agree with this statement, “we shouldn’t go into any war if we are not willing to nuke ‘em.”
Sounds crazy. But think past the shock of the statement. If it’s not worth leveling a nation it’s not worth one American mother’s child. And there may be a time for something like that. And when it comes, America (the people) will be behind you and congress will declare war as outlined in the Constitution.
Another reason it sounds so crazy, is because of our current foreign policy. We are currently putting our sons and daughters in harms way in a lot of places we need not be. The thought of nuking Bosnia, Panama, Somalia, Macedonia, East Timor, Yemen, Georgia (the nation not the state), Djibouti, Haiti, Pakistan, Iraq or any of the other nations we’ve sent troops (and this is only a partial list) over the last 20 year is insane to most.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
I’m afraid if you want to elect someone who doesn’t respect science, you’ll get someone like Bush.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Kevin, I respect science. But Darwin’s Theory left real science many years ago and is now in the realm of belief… That is, unless you have proof of a transitional life-form. Without at least one, you are just following a faith based religion that basically says we just happened to evolve from squirrels; rather than one that says we are created in the image of God and for His glory.
Re: Bush. I didn’t vote for him, and it’s sad to me that so many folks believe his rhetoric. Even if he does believe in creation, there are many other reasons to disqualify him.
August 12th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
[...] Quote by: Jubloz Osborn, you seem pretty knowledgeable about the guy. Do you know anything about his views on evolution? I tried some googling but didn’t come up with much and, given that the politics pertaining to evolution will directly affect my profession after college, it’s a pretty big issue for me. According to the following email sent to a Republican blogger, Paul supports the idea of evolution[...]
August 13th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Hey, I am NOT a Republican blogger (not with a big R anyway). I am more of a a classic conservative, which leads me to vote Republican many times. But the last Republican President I voted for was Bob Dole. And I swore after that sickening experience to NEVER vote for the lesser of two evils again.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
personally, i dont understand how you can consider yourself an intelligent, educated person and NOT believe that evolution exists. There are examples that can be visually seen all around us. The domesticated dog: All dogs were orginally canis lupis, or the wolf, through hundreds of years of ARTIFICIAL EVOLUTION, we now have many different dogs for many different jobs. Look at the Galapagos Islands: you really think that god put 20 types of finches on a small set of islands that wouldnt be discovered for hundreds/thousands/millions of years…? seriously? i could go on and on, and even show examples of noticible evolution in birds over a years time to evolution in the HIV virus over a short time… (which is actually why we’ll never CURE it)
but as an agnostic, i have to put up with ignorant christians all the time…
August 28th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
oh, i’d also like to add:
can we as humans stop being so freaking self centered to think that all of existance was created for us. It’s not about humans coming from monkeys, it’s about as living creatures being more adapted for life. I really wish aliens would show up so we can finally get over ourselves and move on as a civilization
August 29th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Great comments pskumar. What you described first is micro evolution. I’m referring to macro evolution (or species to species) or some sort of proof we and our cousins, the squirrels, evolved from a common life-form. Yes, you do find different variations of dogs to dogs or birds to birds. I don’t think anyone denies that (at least I hope not).
Do you know of any evidence of macro-evolution? If you do you’d be the first and you could help move Darwin’s “theory” from theory to scientific law.
You are right again in your 2nd post; it is extremely self centered to think that all space and time was created for us. It wasn’t. Not according to the Bible. It was created for God and for his Glory. It was also created as a sign and evidence to you that there is a God. You can either see this the grace it is or reject it (Romans 1:19-21). That choice has been left to you. I pray you choose wisely. Because IF IF IF the claims of the Bible are true, you really do need to ask yourself, “Am I good enough to get into Heaven?”
September 6th, 2007 at 8:20 am
[...] Ron Paul: Can’t find anything bona fide, but I did come across this, in which the congressman’s purported staffer says the good doctor accepts the teachings of [...]
September 20th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
@ Patriot
Christianity does not play a part in the creation of the either documents; the constitution and the declaration of ind., please do not mix up my beloved countries federal rights which was founded by ditheists, rather than christrians. Evolution is not a religious philosphical arguement. It is taught as fact, but it’s to best of our knowledge. Unlike religion, it has the ability to be changed and subjected to criticism, something religion cannot do because god is omnipotent
there’s no way I’m going to follow some crazy lunatic who has 1 on 1 chats with god in a speech about iraq explaining “the plan” and obtains all the votes in the bible belt. It makes me sick
September 21st, 2007 at 11:31 am
Patrick,
Please re-check your history. Christianity is all over our founding documents. Our founding fathers were not deisits. They were Christians, if their personal writings are to be believed. And those writings also reveal the original intent of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence is the founding document of our Constitution. It declares that our rights are given by God. The Constitution is the framework built on the foundation of the Declaration, and the Constitution legally prohibits the government from abusing those God-given rights without due process of law.
Evolution may be taught as fact, but that does not mean it is fact. It is a fairy tale for adults, as one evolutionist called the theory. It is a story to try to explain the origin of the universe without God. It is a belief. If the theory of evolution is subject to criticism, then it’s proponents should not be so totalitarian towards scientists and others who question it, or evidence which contradicts the theory.
I have no idea what you are referring to about a lunatic and ” the plan” concerning Iraq. I presume you are talking about Pres. Bush. I am no fan of him, and I think going in to Iraq under United Nations “permission” was wrong, and not obtaining a declaration of war — as the Constitution requires — was also wrong. We should pull out of the UN. We should follow our Constitution. I do see that, in the overall war against militant Muslims (who desire to annihilate us), being in Iraq — next to Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, all threats to the US– is a very strategic move. I don’t know if that is on purpose or not. Time will tell.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:45 pm
For my exclusive interview with Ron Paul, visit, please, TheAmericanView.com. Thank you. John Lofton, Editor.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Happy to link to it John (even if your post looks like spam). Here’s the link.
What I would like to hear (and I’ve just downloaded it) is why his voting record looks so confusing - specifically regarding abortion:
* Embryonic stem cell programs not constitutionally authorized. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
* Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
* Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
* No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Gary wrote:
“It is a story to try to explain the origin of the universe without God. It is a belief. If the theory of evolution is subject to criticism, then it’s proponents should not be so totalitarian towards scientists and others who question it, or evidence which contradicts the theory.”
You, sir, should check *your* facts before attempting to discuss thing for which you obviously do not understand. The theory of evolution does *not* attempt to answer the question: “Does God exist?”. That is a myth. Also, the theory of evolution does *not* attempt to explain the origins of the universe - or even life itself - that would be ‘origin of life theory’. There are many more ‘myths’ as well - like the one where people actually think that the theory of evolution suggests that humans are descended from apes or monkeys! How silly! Apes, chimps, monkees are our CONTEMPORARIES, not our ancestors!! Yet, this type of thinking (because of lies) permeates through so much of the debate…..
So, sadly you have been misinformed (lied to) by people that can’t defend their position on merit alone, and therefore succomb to lies and propaganda. I am sorry this has happened to you - you seem very intelligent. Research what the Theory of Evolution actually suggests (and by the way, the theory of evolution is simply an observation of results - it’s not a *process*) and you may find yourself easily surprised by the data.
Last, but not least, I am profoundly amazed at how closely the story of Genesis actually is similar to what many scientists believe as the timeline of events - maybe not in ‘days’ - but the ‘gist’ of it, if you will. Makes sense since those words were inspired to be written and understood by the audience of that era (God is pretty smart, indeed!). I deeply believe in a brilliant author - God - but never have I found the theory of evolution to be in any shape, form or fashion in conflict with my belief system. If anything, it only supports my belief system, by suggesting, well…brilliant authorship
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:02 am
Jeanne wrote: “Apes, chimps, monkees are our CONTEMPORARIES, not our ancestors!!”
Jeanne, I think most get that confusion from being poorly taught in school what Darwin’s theory of evolution teaches. However, where the source(s) of misinformation come from is a moot point. You are right, Monkeys are not our uncles, rather our cousins, under evolutionary theory.
I will humbly say, that this is where I have the most problem. You are saying that we and apes have a common ancestor, I like to call him Joe. But Evolution teaches that we are also cousins to the squirrels, does it not? And where is the evidence? Darwin believed the fossil evidence would catch up with his theory and it would be proven law. But it hasn’t happened yet. Not that I am aware of — please correct me if I am wrong here.
Lastly, evolution is in conflict with God’s Holy Word. You’ve managed to shove a square peg in a round hole. I don’t mean that as in insult, many folks do that very thing. I only mean that the Bible says “God Said… and it was done.” The “audience of that era” understood the difference between days and years. In fact, science continues to move the years back to accommodate problems people have with the theory. So you hear things like, “yeah, I know it’s hard to believe we are cousins with gerbils but remember.. this took place over billions and billions of years ago.”
The biggest problem with this whole thing, Jeanne, are the limits it places on God Almighty. And THAT WAS Darwin’s underlining assumption in Origin of Species — there is no God. So, where did all this life come from???
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
(Romans 1:18-21 NASB)
The reason you have no conflict is you have not fully denied God’s internal truth. Which is a good thing. But I would really like to see you understand God’s character better and believe what Scripture teaches. If we can’t believe one part - then how can we believe the parts where it says we should love our neighbor? It is a slippery slope, to be sure.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Hello Jeanne,
I don’t think I said evolutionary theory attempted to anwer the question “Does God exist?”. If that is what came across, that is not what I meant. My understanding of the Theory of Eevolution is that it attempts to answer where everything came from using purely naturalistic means, no supernatural involvement. If I am not correct, please let me know.
I read a book when I was a teenager about the ages of time corresponding with the Genesis record of creation. Later, I discovered that it cannot fit. “Theistic Evolution” does not work. For example, plants were created on the third day. The sun was created on the fourth day. If those days are millions of years, plants would not have survived.
As for humans descending from, let’s just say “another species”, isn’t “common ancestry” one of the points Evolution claims? Again, if I do not understand the theory, please let me know.
Apes, etc. are our contemporaries, true, but they are not like us. They are beasts of the field, like cows and beavers, different from mankind. As you are aware in Scripture, man was created in the image of God. That is what makes us different. We are specially created by God, for His purposes. That does not give us the right to be haughty, arrogant, etc., over other living creatures. God told us how to treat them. But it does give me reason to praise and thank God for creating me, fallen though I am, living in a fallen world (which still retains much beauty, though many scars, too).
Without knowing who I have read and studied, how can you make a blanket claim that they are all liars and cannot defend their postions? Many who I have studied used to be devout Evolutionists. You have made a strong charge against their integrity. And mine. You state I seem to be intelligent (thanks, but I can provide evidence to the contrary, ha), yet I cannot detect liars? Should you not first obtain evidence and study it before reaching a conclusion like that? I have years of training to detect fraud, and the side I see as fraudulent is the Evolution side. Certainly not all who believe in the Theory are fraudulent. Many sincerely believe it. But the Theory is wrong.
If some scientific data was discovered which clearly and convincingly contradicted the Theory of Evolution, do you think the proponents of the Theory would reject it?
Concening your point about Scripture being “inspired to be written and understood by the audience of that era”, I would respond that the Word of God is unchanging, and the truth of what He did needs to be understood by people of our era, not warped to try to fit a theory or belief, but taken for what the words actually say and mean, and either believed or rejected. We should seek to know truth.
What I understand is that the Hebrew word “yom”, has several meanings: a 24-hour period (1 earth rotation), a period of time (era), or a coming day (Day of Judgment). When “yom” had a number or other attachment to it (such as “third day”, or “evening and morning were the fourth day”), throughout the Old Testament it always means a 24-hour period of time, just as we understand it. Genesis does not allow for millions of years.
Also, the Theory of Evolution does not accept a perfect original creation. It has death and destruction at the beginning. Scripture teaches that the original creation was perfect, then marred by sin, then death was placed upon it by God as a curse. Death before sin contradicts Scripture. If death was rampant for millions of years before Adam sinned, which would be the case according to the Theory of Evolution, then how could it be a curse placed upon creation by God? If that is the case, then death is normal, not abnormal. It undermines the sacrifical death of Jesus Christ to redeem people from the curse of sin and death.
Perhaps a study needs to be made into the dating methods, and the assumptions underneath them. I have read that there are several reliable dating methods which indicate a young earth.
Is your belief system based on the Bible? If so, do you see those contradictions between God’s Word and men’s Theory of Evolution.
What I would say you are seeing in the “brilliant author” is the handiwork of God. And He should rightly be praised and glorified for all the wonderful variety He has created for His glory.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:35 pm
[...] Ron Paul on Evolution post continues to get a lot of comments. Gary’s latest comment brought up an excellent point I had not thought of before.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:19 pm
I don’t understand how someone on your site can call evolution a fairy tale, something observed in science and deduced by thought, wisdom and knowledge, and yet think that a book written before people thought the world was round, didn’t know what lightning was, thought there were witches and warlocks and magic, didn’t understand chemistry, geology, physics or medicine, and only mentions mystical, fantastic instances that have never been repeated is fact. I guess it is just as easy to ignore that Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world and there were probably dozens of other religions before any Judeo/Christian beliefs. Why is it so convenient to believe in science when it suits you, like driving a car, getting medical treatment, using a microwave, watching tv, running water, sewer systems, airplanes, rocketships, fax machines, optics, computers, but not convenient when it proves some miracle in a book written 2000 years ago wrong or when it describes how the earth and the rocks and land and water are formed. That is fantasy to me.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
“…something observed in science…”
I think that’s the point, Temporalist. It hasn’t been observed.
And the Bible has always called the earth a sphere. Did religion and the church get it wrong? Yes. But scripture did not.
If you have proof of Darwin-like evolution, please correct me.
Thanks!
October 4th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Book, chapter, and verse, please.
October 5th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
(Isaiah 40:22)
Luke 17:34:36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication (to us now) of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.
Hope that helps. Thank for asking, Elsa.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Thank you for your response, Ron, but I don’t find that as convincing evidence that the author of Isaiah actually believed in a spherical earth. How do you know the author meant spherical and not disc-shaped? Did you know that there are actually people alive today who still believe the earth is disc-shaped? You might find this interesting… Google “flat earth society” and check out the FAQ at their forum. In it there is at least one link to some maps, drawn by some of their members, and all of these maps show a flat, disc-shaped earth. I actually thought the site was a joke at first, but after reading many posts there, I think they actually believe that stuff. I guess it shouldn’t have come as a surprise that the new girl on the “The View” is undecided about the shape of our planet as well, lol.
I’m sure you’re aware of all the Bible passages that infer a flat, immovable earth with the sun and moon literally rising and setting… the pillars, something being so tall you can see it from all the kingdoms of the earth, the four corners, the sun standing still, etc. etc… so I’ll skip those quotes unless/until you ask me for them. The point is, with all of those references, it would seem that the author of Isaiah believed in a disc-shaped earth, while other authors believed in a flat square. How, then, can anyone take this “circle” reference and expect it to mean anything other than a “circle”, which, by definition, is a flat disc?
Luke:
Of course, we’re not supposed to know if he’s coming in the daytime or the nighttime (Matthew 24:44), but the verses you referred to specifically say “that night“. Do you think that women can’t be grinding grain in the evening while a married couple down the street are procreating “in bed”? It doesn’t say women are grinding grain in the daytime while others are in bed at night. It seems your beliefs have led to read something like that into it, however.
Further, how can anyone justify the different time zone theory with Matthew 24:16-20?
I look forward to your next response.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Elsa, many did believe it was just a circle. It’s even possible Isaiah may have thought so (although there’s no evidence to support that). That’s not my point. My point was that it turns out scripture was right. I should note here that Isaiah was inspired by the Holy Spirit when those words were written. Therefore, I see no problem with Isaiah not fully comprehending the science behind what he wrote.
Matthew 24 doesn’t reference a dual night/day setting. That’s why i didn’t use it. Those passages don’t contradict, rather one simply provides more detail.
Let me explain how my thinking works here, because I think you are missing something, or I’m not being clear, or both - ha!
Here’s my hierarchy.
1. I believe the original scriptures are the divinely inspired Word of God. Written by men, who were guided by the Spirit of God, and therefore is inerrant and infallible.
2. I believe humans are fallible, therefore may and do interpret scripture wrongly or out of context. That would include myself. Which is why I love these discussions.
3. I do not believe the scriptures contradict themselves (see point 1). When contradictions seem to occur - we are missing something, not scripture.
4. I believe science can prove facts and can prove scripture to be true. Science is not infallible and is sometimes inerrant.
5. I know of no scientific law the refutes the Bible. Rising and setting of the sun are not contradictions. The sun and moon do appear to rise and set. However science has refuted the Koran which says: “When he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it [the sun] setting in a muddy spring…” (Surah 18:86). Incidentally the “flat earth” people are nuts. But some would say that about me too. (wink)
I won’t make you look up all the verses that support someone else position, unless you believe that as well? Which I don’t think you do. If so, sorry about the nuts comment. (grin)
Again, let me say, I can be and am often wrong. I try to be humble and admit that (however that seems to rarely come across in my posts — sorry to all). And I thank you for your points and questions. I do find it helpful to know what and why others believe as they do. Not because I want everyone to belong to “my religion” or anything like that but; because I’ve found real truth, freedom and peace through Jesus Christ. As someone who believes the Bible is true, I also believe there is a hell awaiting for those who are “not good enough” to go to heaven. And I don’t want you are anyone else to go there.
So what’s your story, Elsa? Why are you interested in this discussion? What do you believe and what led you to that belief?
October 6th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Of course you didn’t use it. Matthew 24 basically infers that judgment will come to Israel and nowhere else. How else would one escape it by fleeing to the mountains?
The whole idea of scientific “law” is a fallacy. For instance, the “law” of gravity is merely a very well-founded theory which has not been disproven.
By referring to gravitational theory as “law,” one is thereby placing our current understanding of the mechanisms behind that which we refer to as gravity into the realm of absolutes. By calling it “law,” we are saying that X absolutely causes Y, which could actually be incorrect. What we do know is that Y occurs, and X seems to affect it. However, it’s possible that someday we will discover that Z really affects it, and that both X and Y are merely affected by the cause of Z.
That said, there is much evidence to suggest that many stories which are told in the Bible either didn’t happen, or didn’t happen when/how the stories say they did. Contrary to what some creationists with important-sounding titles may claim, there was no global flood, no one inhabited Jericho at the time when Joshua is said to have conquered it, and dinosaurs did pre-date humans by millions of years. Further, the few sentences which Christian apologists use as “proof” that Jesus even existed were refuted as forgeries hundreds of years ago.
How so? By basically calling the world a disc?
So why didn’t the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to write, It is he that sitteth upon the ball of the earth? Surely people had worked with “balls” of clay back then before they shaped it into pottery.
This we can agree on, lol. But why would “God” allow his creation to be described as an immovable disc or flat square that rests on pillars, with a dome-shaped firmament separating the earth from the heavens, when the real nature of our universe is so much more awe-inspiring? The God character hardened Pharoah’s heart and did all these wonders through Moses, when he could have simply softened Pharoah’s heart so he would let them go. Or, being omnipotent, he could have simply zapped all the Israelites out of Egypt and into the land of milk and honey to begin with. Why did he choose to harden Pharoah’s heart and do things the hard way? Well, the Bible clearly says that it was to display of all his awesome power and glory, so everyone will know that He is the Lord. So why, then, would this God not want people to know the vastness of our amazing universe? As much as this character liked to take credit for things, it seems out of character for Him to describe our planet and universe which He supposedly created in such a two-dimensional way. Again, why a circle (which is flat) and not a ball?
I don’t believe things just because they’re in the Bible. But why do you? And, why do you also not believe other things that are in the Bible? How do you know which parts of the Bible are the inerrant Word of God and which parts are not?
As can I. By acknowledging this, you seem to acknowledge that you are not stuck in your beliefs, and can therefore adjust your understanding of things when you come across new discoveries that don’t fit your current understanding.
You’re welcome, and I thank you for your respectful demeanor here. All too often, I’ve come across someone who gets defensive and starts attacking because they are so set on defending their position, instead of trying to understand the other’s point of view.
It’s interesting, you and I are a lot alike in wanting to understand the opposing opinion. In my own quest, I have read apologetics that claim to disprove evolution by setting up strawman arguments, but have yet to find a refutation that is based on the actual theories. I have also read the Catholic perspective of the first Council of Nicaea, which I have not yet reconciled with the secular accounts of it. Also, I have read many ex-Christian “testimonies” of how they became a Christian and why they stopped believing, and it’s easy to understand the entire progression, based on my understanding of psychology. That said, I have no doubt that your “connection” with a perceived higher power is very real to you. But my experience and understanding tells me that this sense of strength and awe that you have comes from within, not from some external force, except to the extent that you are basing the “reasons” for your feelings on something which other humans who share your religion have defined.
Do you believe God loves all of his creation? Also, do you believe that he will send those who are “not good enough” to hell for all eternity? If you answer yes to both questions, how can you reconcile that, when you yourself, a mere mortal, have enough love inside you to not wish such a horrible fate on anyone?
I don’t “believe,” nor do I consider belief to be evidence of any truths. I observe, acknowledge evidence, and use logic to form my opinions. I also acknowledge that any part of understanding can be flawed, and have no problem adjusting my opinions in light of new evidence and new interpretations, as long as they are well-founded.
I found this page while researching Ron Paul, because I want to be informed about the candidates before I cast my ballot, as I’m sure you do as well. As for this conversation, it’s important to me that people base their opinions on facts, instead of basing them on misinformation, especially when it comes to something as important as choosing the next leader of our country. I’m sure you can see what happens when people do that, as evidenced by our current president, who not only doesn’t believe in evolution, but apparently doesn’t believe in science all together.
If “belief” in evolution is such a deciding factor for who you vote for and who you recommend others to vote for, then please inform yourself about the actual theory. There’s a good reason why a doctor would acknowledge evolution as a fact, and that’s because he understands the real theory behind it, not some strawman argument that creationists set up to “refute.”
Sorry this is long. Thanks for reading.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Thanks for following up and letting me know you had trouble (i deleted those posts) You can email me (my first name at ronshank.com) anytime. Your post was so long it went to spam. Sorry about that, had you not kept trying I would not have seen it.
I’ll try to reply soon, Mondays (and this one in particular) are crazy.
October 8th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Thanks, Ron.
I know I posted quite a bit to respond to, lol, so take your time. 
October 14th, 2007 at 8:40 am
I’ve posted a series of replies to you Elsa. Thanks in advance to any who read them.
http://www.shanktified.com/archives/answering-elsa
October 14th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
That looks pretty in-depth, Ron. Thanks for taking the time. I’ll read it and respond as soon as I can, however I’ve been quite busy for the last few days and don’t expect it to let up for at least a week or two.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Does Ron Paul believe in evolution? Ron, I think that a campaign worker sent you a note saying what he/she thought. Because a creationist e-mailed the campaign and got a different answer and a good explanation of why RP didn’t raise his hand in that famous question. I put Teno’s answer on my blog post Also Ron Paul is repeatedly stating that we have received our rights from our Creator. Thanks, Ron, for listening to a fellow Christian.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Thanks Phillip. That is very helpful and you make good arguments for Ron Paul. I’d encourage my readers to follow the link and read it for themselves and come to their own conclusions.
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:17 pm
For the definitive answer on whether or not Ron Paul “believes in evolution”, I give you the man himself. At the following URL you can watch a 6-part video of a speech he delivered on November 1, 2007 to a group in Spartanburg, S.C. A question and answer session begins in Part 5, in which the matter of his position on evolution comes up in the second question. Dr. Paul states that he does not accept the theory of evolution and that he does believe in the creator.
http://aconservativevoice.blogspot.com/2007/11/videos-of-ron-paul-in-spartanburg.html
November 6th, 2007 at 11:05 am
You creation people are all scary.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Excellent link, Ray. Thanks so much.
And.. “Smart Person, ” what in particular scares you?
November 10th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
It’s very difficult for me to understand how there are still pretty intelligent people who lack the humility to recognize that evolution is a much more plausible explanation for life as we know it. I think you are thinking much more with your hearts than your heads, and I respect your opinions.
I’m glad to confirm that Dr. Paul believes the same. He has my vote.
November 13th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Ron Paul is a little shaky on evolution, but he is not an authoritarian. He is a libertarian who, even if he believed in the spaghetti monster, would not push his beliefs on others as president.
November 13th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Satyrson, I agree. He’s in fact more likely to let you believe whatever you want - as it’s not the federal government’s job to regulate religion.
November 15th, 2007 at 6:25 am
His belief in evolution shows that he is not blindly religious, and accepts modern science. Science represents mans abitilty to learn more and more about our enviroment. This becomes increasingly more important as we move forward as a civilization and use science and technology to solve problems and grow and advance into the future.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:04 am
People here have asked what difference it makes what a candidate believes with regard to evolution. My answer is that it makes a huge difference, because it is an indicator of how the candidate thinks. A person who thinks there’s no such thing as evolution clearly has little command of logic or understanding of science.
I will never vote for any candidate for any office who believes in creationism or intelligent design, any more than I would vote for someone who believes in astrology, crystals, or psychic readings. Such beliefs are an indication of a disease of the mind that attenuates reality-based thinking.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Hey.
Just a disclaimer - I am a Christian, and am not slamming typical Christian views.
First of all, re: your distinction between macro and micro evolution, could you define the word “species”? There are plenty of animals that cannot interbreed that would countermand your argument.
Second, why do you insist on interpreting the Book of Genesis literally? The Bible doesn’t tell you how to field strip a garand - it tells you how to live your life. I don’t think anybody thinks that the Bible is an authoritative view on how you should clean and service your 1911.
How does evolution affect your life, and how does it change the way you minister to the poor and homeless?
November 29th, 2007 at 6:58 am
Dale, what convinced you evolution was true? And how can you prove the Genesis account is false?
November 29th, 2007 at 8:13 am
BTW, numerous examples of transitional life forms can be found here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
November 29th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Thanks, Ian. I love wikipedia. Not always trustworthy, but still very handy sometimes. I specifically liked the part where the little horse with tiger stripes (how’d they know that?) turns into the bigger eh.. horse?
November 29th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Jim, I’ve replied to you with in another post here.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:47 am
“I specifically liked the part where the little horse with tiger stripes (how’d they know that?) turns into the bigger eh.. horse?”
I agree. The transition from Hyracotherium to Orohippus was the beginning of the whole thing. But once the North American grasslands opened up, that’s where we began to see some real change.
It would be interesting to know how far this will go: in a few million years, will horses be even bigger, or do you hit a limit where more size and speed are no longer an advantage in open plains? Would a 15 foot tall horse succeed?
November 29th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I think it depends on global warming
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Hi, I would just like to say that your opinion on evolution (among other things philosophical) is terribly banal and sophomoric, not to mention predictable. You try to come across as a good Christian who is educated on the subject, but it’s conspicuous you don’t know the first thing that you are talking about. It’s almost painful to read as you spit out these falsities about evolution. There is an abundance of evidence that is available in support of evolution. Read some books, look at web pages, it’s all right there. The only thing you have to lose is the truth. If you wish to be dogmatic, go right ahead. But don’t claim your truth is absolute in the process, because you have already disqualified that by ignoring all the possibilities.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:38 am
Dear Nauticus, I’ve run into comments like yours many times. It goes basically like this “You believe in God - you’re a (insert favorite insult). I’m smart because I believe in evolution and have a thesaurus. There’s a ton of evidence, but I won’t site any.”
So let’s drop the insults and why don’t you tell me. What is it? If you had one point that made you say, “here, this is it. evolution is true.” What finally convinced you and keeps you convinced?
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:10 pm
I’m a Christian and I have come to the conclusion that it is hard to refute the evidence for evolution. As far as Dr Paul is concerned I think he shows great courage in saying he believes in evolution while knowing that it will probably cost him many votes he can ill afford to lose. As Christians we should respect his honesty and integrity and recognize that he must have sincere reasons for believing in evolution - after all he has shown great honesty and integrity in every other aspect of his life. Dr Paul rightly has pointed out that Jesus was for peacemaking and forgiveness and for turning the other cheek. Jesus was most certainly not a supporter of war. Nor did he believe that his church should be a forum for making vast sums of money. When I look around our churches and see preachers advocating war and earning huge sums of money fron their work in the church I have to say I see very little that is Christlike.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:28 pm
I’m one of those people who believe in both God and evolution. You’ll never see me espousing atheism or agnosticism for a very simple reason; I strongly defend my First Amendment Right to define God as my heart & reason would dictate. I’m also one of those people who don’t believe in a creation event. Call me a pantheist but to me the most logical conclusion is that the so-called ‘creation’ and ‘creator’ are one and the same and that to try and separate the two is a fallacy. When we look upon the wonder and majesty of the Universe we are looking into God’s very heart & soul and are awed by it. Is God conscious? Most definitely, and the proof of that is yourself.
Regardless, I think that Ron Paul’s is a message we can all unite with despite our differences of opinion.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Dear Dan and Scott. Please see my comment (#24 above).
Dan wrote: “As far as Dr Paul is concerned I think he shows great courage in saying he believes in evolution while knowing that it will probably cost him many votes he can ill afford to lose. As Christians we should respect his honesty and integrity and recognize that he must have sincere reasons for believing in evolution - after all he has shown great honesty and integrity in every other aspect of his life.”
Ron Paul does not Believe in Evolution. See comment #40 (thanks Ray).
December 4th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Dear Ron
Thank you for your comment.
I humbly beg to differ. Ron Paul has specifically said as a physician he accepts the theory of evolution.
As a Christian I was, like you, very resistant to the theory of evolution. But having studied it, correctly explained, I have to say it makes perfect sense.
Remember we are talking about a process that has been under way for tens of millions of years. Look at how dog breeders, over a period of a few hundred years have been able to introduce entirely new types of dog, by selectively breeding. Now imagine what could be achieved in millions of years by natural selection.
Regardless of our divergent views on this, I hope we can agree that Ron Paul is the candidate who most fully represents the spirit of Christ’s teaching. He wishes to end conflict and forgive our enemies and work for peace. He is a humble man and a man of honesty and integrity. He is as far as I am aware untouched by any scandal of any kind.
God bless him and you.
Dan
December 5th, 2007 at 2:53 am
He’s given two very different answers!
What does Ron Paul REALLY believe??
Wishy-washy flip-flopping is a bad sign - can’t he get his beliefs straight?
December 5th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Dear Matt: In all fairness, I think the email reply I originally received was from an uninformed staffer. I wouldn’t consider this a flip-flop until you find a quote from Ron Paul saying he does believe in evolution. Unless you count the original debate, where he didn’t raise his hand. But I think he answered that in the clip.
I’m personally more concerned with Rep. Paul’s stand on legalizing drugs and turning abortion back to the states to decide (which is better than the courts). But that’s not germane to this post.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:00 am
[...] You would never guess that by the comments I get here. [...]
December 5th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I think we should support Ron Paul because of all the candidates he is the most Christian and Christ-like.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
How ya figure, Dan?
You can’t just make statements like that without something to support it (well, i guess you can - but you shouldn’t)
December 7th, 2007 at 4:40 am
You cannot be a Constitutionalist & an evolutionist because the basis for the superiority of the Constitution is the fact that individual rights are given to us by our Creator. The evolutionist believes rights are given by the government. If the Creator gives rights, man cannot take them away, but if government gives them, government can take them. Just think on that!
December 7th, 2007 at 4:56 am
Dan Stanley, as a Christian, evolution can only make sense IF you are ‘walking in the counsel of the ungodly’ (Psalm 1). I say this because under true scrutiny, the case for evolution fails. Remember that Darwin made his case in his book Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin also wrote the Decent of Man in which he goes into great detail to tell us which races are the most evolved. Hitler so liked this idea of favored races, he made his own list based on Darwin’s idea where Hitler thought the Jews were the closest to the ape. Does this sound like godly wisdom? You also find that as a Christian, there is a huge gap in the Gap Theory. IF evolution took place, death occurred BEFORE sin. If that is true, then the entire Bible is a lie because we know that death occurred as a RESULT of sin.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:55 am
Well, to Cato (waaaaay up there at number 2), I don’t want some idiot who doesn’t believe in Evolution delivering my pizza, let alone running my country.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Mike the thought of that made me literally laugh out-loud (as opposed to when we really smirk but type LOL)!
“Hello, Dominoes? Yes, I’d like your 5 for 5 deal - and NO CREATIONISTS!”
Seriously, why do YOU believe in evolution? What’s the single most convincing piece of evidence that keeps you personally grounded in your beliefs?
December 8th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Reply to Ron at 65
Ron
I can say that Ron Paul is a Christian and Christ-like because that’s exactly what he is. He is the only candidate in the Republicans who is totally honest, the only one who isn’t on the take from big corporations, the only one who is in favor of peace (Jesus said “blessed are the peacemakers”), the only one who adopts a modest Christ-like tone. And he has been faithful to his wife for 50 years.
Did you see Huckabee the other day? He was practically annointing himself as God’s chosen candidate. He was all but announcing that Jesus wanted him to win. No candidate has the right to use our Lord’s name in vain like that. Thatwas a disgraceful thing to do. His statement was not only immodest, it was dishonest and cynically manipulative. He was using his faith to win votes.
Ron Paul has never done that.
Bottom line: I don’t trust any of the candidates except Ron Paul. They may have good qualities but alongside a good, decent, modest man like Ron they are very poor alternatives.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Reply to Amy at 67
Amy
With the greatest of respect you are introducing stuff that I never mentioned. When did I say anything about Hitler? I didn’t.
There are some people who say that you can always tell when a person is losing a debate online, because they start to drag Hitler or the Nazis into the discussion.
Amy, we can only be good Christians if we are honest. I hope you will agree with me that Jesus was honest and wants us to be honest with Him and with each other. If a scientific truth is proven to be true - and evolution has undoubtedly been proven to be true - then we do ourselves and our religion a terrible disservice if we are dishonest and pretend it isn’t true.
How can unbelievers take us seriously if we do that? There was a time when Christians believed the Earth was flat, and that if you believed otherwise you were considered to be blasphemous. Many hundreds of years ago we finally accepted that the Earth is round.
Now we have to do the same thing for evolution. It is time for us to know the truth and the truth will set us free. We must learn to stop being in denial about something that is a scientific fact.
IMPORTANT QUESTION TO ANSWER
If you read my earlier post, you will have seen my comments about the dramatic ways in which new breeds of dog develop very quickly through man made selection.
I want you to explain to me how in a few hundred years we can bring about such a big change in dogs through selective breeding, yet you cannot see any change occurring over tens of millions of years through natural selection?
If you want to continue to dismiss evolution then you have to answer that question.
I await your answer with interest.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Dan in #70 your wrote, “He [Ron Paul] is the only candidate in the Republicans who is totally honest, the only one who isn’t on the take from big corporations, the only one who is in favor of peace (Jesus said “blessed are the peacemakers”), the only one who adopts a modest Christ-like tone. And he has been faithful to his wife for 50 years.”
Dan, you are making very broad statements without providing facts. Saying Dr. Paul is the ONLY honest candidate means you have evidence that ALL others are liars or disingenuous. You can’t make unsubstantiated claims like that and expect to be taken seriously. I say that in kindness.
> “…He was using his faith to win votes.”
I didn’t see the Huckabee clip you are referring to. Feel free to post a youtube link. For the record I have many issues with Mike Huckabee. Here’s a good OP-ED highlighting a couple of them.
It should be pointed out, Huckabee and Romney both are heavily courting the faith base of the GOP. I would not be shocked to see a Giuliani/Huckabee ticket (gross) before it’s all over.
Now, on to comment #71. I know you posted to Amy, but I can’t help but chime in here. Not that I think she needs my help.
** I loved the “you can tell… when they bring in hitler” line. **
I am glad we agree we must be honest. But you are not, sir. I don’t think that is because you are intentionally trying to deceive, but rather, just uninformed.
You say, “evolution has undoubtedly been proven to be true…” That’s just not true. If it was the debate would be over. At least for me, anyway. Again, if you have proof, please let us know (I also suggest rereading my many comments because I have answered this train of thought before).
Regarding the round earth vs flat earth, please read comment #28 (and the conversation that follows with Elsa)
My answer to your dog question (if I am understanding it right) is while we do see dramatic changes in dogs; we see no evidence of macro-evolution, as Darwin was proposing. No evidence of hamsters (or some common ancestor) evolving to dogs. Without it, I am afraid I’ll agree with with your man, Ron Paul, who said “It’s a theory.. I reject it.”
Grace and Peace to you, Dan.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Evolution is a natural phenomena, just like gravity. Yes it did happen and the theory of evolution is the best explanation for HOW it happened. Through Natural Selection and other variants such sexual selection, genetic drift, and geographic isolation.
Just because people may interpret it with certain implications doesn’t mean it has them. Evolution is a scientific theory based on occurrences in the natural world and doesn’t have any say on theological or philosophical matters even if you try to make it seem like it does.
We do have evidence for common descent. Some really strong evidence lies within endogenous retroviruses and chromosome #2.
And micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same thing just on different timescales.
Ron Shank, I implore you to please check out Answers in Creation, a site that accepts the Bible as well as (most of) modern science, rather than Answers in Genesis, whose claims have been debunked numerous times.
By the way, I am a Constitutionalist, a libertarian and an “evolutionist” as you would call me (would I also call myself a gravitationist since I believe in gravity?). They are not mutually exclusive. I will support Ron Paul even though he doesn’t accept the theory of evolution because he is what is best for this country right now and that’s what is most important.
December 9th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Gravitationist. ha!
Gravity and evolution are not mutually exclusive? Are you saying gravity is a product of evolution as well? This is an argument I have never heard. I think even rational thinking evolutionist will have a hard time siding with you on that one. More later.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Ron in #72 you made a number of points. Thank you for taking the trouble to reply. I appreciate it.
I don’t have time to answer all your points today, but will try to return to them later (I do know of links which can indeed prove the points I am making about the candidates). But one quick point I would just like to address regarding your comments on evolution.
You talk about macro evolution and say there is no evidence of hamsters (or some common ancestor) evolving to dogs. With the greatest respect you have missed the key point I made in my challenge to Amy.
In that challenge I contrasted a couple of hundred years with tens of millions of years. It is in that huge mathematical difference that the answer lies.
If we compare say 200 years with 200 million years we are talking about a factor of one million.
In other words I am saying look at the significant changes that occur in one species over 200 years (as in the case of new dog breeds) and multiply that by one million.
Therein lies the answer to the question you raise. When you multiply those (200-year dog breed) differences a millionfold you get massive massive changes in species and whole new species emerging.
Why do these changes come about? Because natural selection is constantly at work. Changes in climate, changes in terrain, changes in vegetation, changes in predators, changes in creatures lower down the food chain . . . all have an influence.
All these changes have the effect of:
a) filtering out animals that are ill-equipped for the changes and
b) giving a boost to those who are better equipped.
The ill-equipped die out. The better equipped survive.
The genes of these better-equipped animals are then passed on to future generations who in turn are subject to the filtering process of natural selection.
And so it goes on for tens of millions of years. Enough time to see millions of new species emerge, many of which will subsequently die out, but others of which will indeed survive and reproduce.
So there you have it. If you can accept that significant changes in dogs can occur over 200 years, you must accept that mind-bogglingly huge changes in all animals are possible when you multiply the time span by one million.
I must therefore ask you now with all respect, which part of all that can you not accept?
Kind regards
Dan
December 9th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Hahaha no Ron that wasn’t quite the point I was trying to make.
I was talking about how both evolution and gravity are both theories yet I’m almost positive you don’t deny gravity.
But that was just a lil joke I was making.
I made many other points as well.
And I was referring to how someone can accept evolution while also holding certain political position because someone earlier mentioned how you can’t be a Constitutionalist and an “evolutionist”. I was just saying these views are not mutually exclusive.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Dan, first thanks for the kind spirit with which you are willing to discuss things. In answer to your question, the part I have trouble with is anywhere it contradicts scripture. You are disputing scripture on a number of points there and therefore, as a fellow believer, I really must wonder - what other parts of God’s word do you reject?
To be a “peace maker” is a great thing. But to deny scripture is to say to the ungodly “peace” when there is no peace.
So to directly answer your question. I reject the following implications of your scenrio:
1. That scripture is false or God lied or the Holy Spirit was unable to get his points across.
2. That death entered the world before sin.
3. That we are not created in God’s image.
4. That Christ’s death was in vain.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Billy, I don’t deny gravity because there’s no conflict with Newton’s law (he refused to answer where gravity came from) or even Einstein’s theory and Holy Scripture.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:58 am
In response to #77 Ron
Ron
I’m a little disappointed in your answer. You are not responding to my point but merely accusing me of disputing scripture - which I have not done.
I will ask you again, please respond to my point about dog breeding. I took a lot of time to make that point, but you seem to completely ignore it.
Please tell me which part of the logic you cannot follow.
You accept (as you surely must do) that big changes can occur in dogs over 200 years of breeding. Why can you not accept that when you multiply the time period by one million, the changes that occur will be huge? I mean really really enormous.
Please just answer that point. If my logic is wrong, please correct me, but please - with the greatest of respect - do not ignore my point.
Kind regards and God bless
Dan
PS: I haven’t forgotten about the other points that you made and I hope to address them tomorrow, if I have time. I am still looking for the Huckabee clip, which I have to say is one of the most disgraceful abuses of religion in politics I have ever seen.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Dan, I’m not trying to ignore your question. I agree with your logic. So did Darwin. At the time, his knowledge of the fossil record was a smidgen of what it is known now. He fully expected the fossil record to substantiate his theory. They haven’t. Either we keep looking for evidence that dogs came from fish or we reject his theory.
“The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”
- Charles Darwin (1902 edition).
Again, Dan, with all due respect, how do you not see a difference in scripture and evolution?
Evolution teaches man came via death, mutation and billions of years. Scripture says we were created, as were all living creatures, and before sin there was no death. Because of sin and death, there must be atonement, or reconciliation to a Holy God. Jesus Christ provides that atonement. Therefore if sin came after death, then the curse is false, then the need for atonement is false, therefore Christ died in vain. Pretty easy to see why the lie of evolution is so important to Satan. Incidentally, let me go on record here for all time (or as long as there’s Google) that should evolution be proven - then the Bible is false and untrustworthy. But I’m not worried about that.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Ron
Thanks for your answer. I see the problem.
You have so convinced yourself that the theory of evolution disproves the Bible that you cannot accept it, no matter how overwhelming the evidence in favor of evolution. And believe me it is overwhelming.
I mean no disrespect to you Sir, but it is not possible for me to have a logical disusssion with you on this matter because no matter what I say you will close your eyes to it, because you feel in your gut it must be wrong. Despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Ron I am going to go away from here and pray energetically that you will open your eyes to the truth, so that the truth will set you free. At the moment I fear you are being held back by an incomplete view of God’s power.
Let me put it this way. My God is big enough to have created the whole universe and all the laws and theories within it, including evolution. I do not feel the need to isolate my God from the scientific discoveries that we humans make using the very brains that He Himself created and provided for us to use.
Thank you for listening to me. I wish you all the best in the future and I pray you will come to see the truth as it really is and recognize God’s divine hand in the the whole universe. And that includes the scientific truths within the universe.
God bless you.
Dan
December 10th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Best to you as well, Dan. Please do pray for me. If I am in error anywhere, I’ll pray God will show that to me through scripture, and invite you do the same. By the way, you might try using scripture to show me where I am wrong. I’m quite persuaded by it, when used in context.
But Dan, you made one comment that I feel needs addressing (even if you never read it - someone else may). You said, “My God is big enough … ” It sounds like idolatry to me, Dan. (Don’t answer that here - just ask yourself if it’s true and allow the God to reveal any truth in that statement to you. I can’t make that judgment from here.) While “your God” may be big enough to have used evolution. The God of scripture is big enough to have created everything from nothing and have created man in His own image, just as He said. The “god of evolution” (and Darwin would vomit at that phrase) is a god who lies.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Ron
I have found the clip where Mike Huckabee is saying in effect he is God’s chosen candidate and the power of God is driving his campaign.
Firstly, he has no right to announce this on his own behalf. If church leaders of all denominations get together and present a united front to declare that Huckabee is the candidate of God I might start to take this seriously. But not from his own mouth.
Secondly, using God’s name to promote yourself is the kind of cheap thing that every fake healer, snake oil salesman and shyster evangelist has done since the beginning of time. Genuine men of God do not make such arrogant and presumptious declarations.
Enjoy the clip.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/12/huckabee_god_wants_me_to_be_president/
Dan
December 10th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Dan, here’s a good follow up to that. Provides a little clarification.
December 10th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Thanks for the clip Ron
It was interesting to watch and he seems like a likeable guy with a good sense of humor but I’m getting a red flag about anyone who uses God in the way he does. You notice during your clip he said he would never say that God was supporting him, and yet that’s exactly what he did in my clip. He does that a lot - contradicts himself.
I’m afraid this video confirms my fears about Mike. He’s a cynical guy, who is trying to get those of us who are Christians to see him as God’s choice, when in fact his policy of prolonging the war in Iraq is contrary to what Christ taught us.
That leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
Ron Paul by contrast wants to end the war. Furthermore he is not flashy or slick with his one-liners, but his Christianity shines through loud and clear.
Unlike virtually everyone in the current race (except for Kucinich) Ron has never taken money from corporations (if you don’t believe me do a Google search on it, I promise you it’s true), and he has been a staunch Christian all his life.
In my view candidates who present themselves as God’s chosen candidate should not be taken seriously. If someone was truly God’s candidate they would leave it to others to say it for them or to God to reveal it to the voters.
We all remember how George W Bush in effect presented himself as God’s candidate and look at the shameful lies he told us (about WMD, about 9/11 and Iraq, about the NIE) and the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives he caused to be lost through his unnecessary war in Iraq.
3,000 people died tragically in 9/11. George Bush’s response was to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and leave at least 100,000 (probably more) innocent people dead.
I’ve had enough of the loud mouths in politics who claim to be Christians but preach war. In 2008 I’m looking for a decent, quiet spoken, honest, consistent candidate who is a peacemaker. And of course a devout Christian.
I believe I have found such a person in Ron Paul. His goodness shines thorugh.
God bless
Dan
December 10th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Dan, I’m not supporting Huckabee. He’s wrong on Immigration and he has a record of raising taxes and spending in AR. I’ve seen enough spending from GWB to last my lifetime.
You might want to move the Ron Paul comments over to here
http://www.shanktified.com/archives/does-ron-paul-still-want-to-legalize-drugs/
and you’ll like this old post, I think:
http://www.shanktified.com/archives/who-the-computer-says-i-should-vote-for/
December 10th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
[...] another Ron Paul post I raised some concerns about Ron Paul’s voting record on Abortion related issues. I have yet to find answers about [...]
December 16th, 2007 at 11:45 am
I’d like to reply to all those here who also disbelieve evolution, and to those that commonly assert theism or Christianity is associated with good morals and values, and that atheism (or agreement with evolution, even) is somehow associated with lack of values, people being expendable, etc.
Just because religions such as Christianity use the bible to teach morals and values, and because they claim that our rights our God-given, does not mean that this is the only source of our morals. In my opinion, it is senseless to assert that there is something supernatural that gives us our morals, and that that supernatural being is the only source of our morals.
Humans have always had morals and values. And I would like to assert that if a particular human being is taught to have empathy and to adhere to a set up social values (by parents) that person will behave just as “good” as any other person. It is up to every individual to define their own morals and values, and there is nothing wrong with doing this on the basis that mankind evolved from a more primitive life form millions of years ago.
I’d also like to assert that people who decide on their own morals and values and adhere to them by using self-control and self-discipline are more likely to have great character, and being kind, loving people. My reasoning is that people who do things because they are forced to, (because in the bible God says to) versus doing things because they are the originator of the idea…. are more likely to occasionally abandon their values.
When I was a child, I would obey my parents and do as they said, because I respected them. However, I would occasionally disobey them, and do something inappropriate. This is the characteristic of anyone who follows a teaching.
However, now that I am adult and define my own values myself, and am the originator of many of reasons behind my actions, I almost never deviate. It is much harder to abandon my own reasoning than to abandon someone else’s.
Also, just because someone agrees with the science of evolution does not mean that they are atheist. The word evolution describes many many things, and people need to be more specific when talking about evolution. And if you have not studied evolution (”because it doesn’t matter”) then you cannot make claims as to its validity.
At the least, I hope this helps you to understand that just because someone agrees with the science of evolution, or because they are in fact atheist, does not mean they hold lesser value of human life. And for the people who disagree, I’d like to say that this is why we should have someone in power who is not religious. Because we do not need someone in power who makes leaps in logic because of a fundamental belief in something supernatural. I do not want someone in office who holds biased ideas on issues such as stem cell research, abortion, or homosexuality. I want a president who thinks completely objectively about such matters. And I’d hope that we all want that.
All that said, Ron Paul has my vote…
December 17th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
This person form his campaign just told you what he thought you wanted to hear. Ron Paul is a christian conservative. Thats why he’s for banning abortion, doesnt believe in the seperation of chruch and state,…. You heard his answer from his own mouth on that video. Thats what he really believes.
People need to take their heads out of their asses about this guy. he also doesnt believe in incorporation of the Bill of Rights. That means the BORs would not apply to the states, which means states could censor, ban guns, put creationsim in science class, etc…. and many would.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Eh, I dunno. I’m more of a liberal Ron Paul supporter as well as a believer in evolution and I don’t think it was all that bad. If anything, I’d just like to see him clarify his views at some point to get a better picture of what he believes.
To me, ending the war in Iraq and getting this country out of it’s massive debt are two of the far more important issues at the moment.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Interestingly enough, the Ron Paul site has no search feature; at least not one that is easy to find!
If you do a Google search of his site*, you find 649 results on “taxes”, and no results at all for “evolution”.
* Plug what’s in [the brackets] into Google: [site:www.ronpaul2008.com taxes]
December 17th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
I really don’t want to get involved in another one of these debates, but speciation has been observed in labs:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/artificial_01
Why is it hard to believe that over even longer periods of time, species will diverge even further until you get hawks and blue-jays from an earlier species of bird, especially when environmental factors will favor one species over the other?
December 18th, 2007 at 11:30 am
[...] Originally Posted by Linzyhop wait, seriously? ron paul doesn’t believe in evolution? i was starting to get interested in him, but that just knocked him off the political band wagon for me. Ron Paul Campaign on Evolution [...]
December 18th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Ron - you asked some other people what the “single” convincing piece of evidence for evolution was… Man i’d love to have that discussion with you sometime.
According to what you said earlier, if there is an apparent disagreement between two parts of the Bible, then it is “us” who are missing something, not Scripture — so what if there is an apparent disagreement between the Bible and the plain facts of reality (and here, I mean evolution).. would the same apply? Would you chalk it up to your own misunderstanding rather than an error on the part of science or the Bible - should you learn that you’ve been hoodwinked to believe evolution isnot factual science? If so… then it could be a fruitful discussion and an interesting one for the readers of two blogs I know about.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Smijer, I’m open to that discussion - but let’s wait until the new year. Way too busy right now.
But you realize I already disagree with your premise that evolution is a plain fact of reality. So I’m not sure we would get anywhere.. But I always look forward to our discussions. You keep me on my toes and have actually helped to me correct a couple things. And I’m grateful for that. Merry Christmas. Skype me sometime.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
CT (#90), I agree - there are bigger issues.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Casey (comment 92), I’ll check those thinks out. A bit short on time right now. And I think i answered your time question in #80. if not let me know.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Ron,
I absolutely agree with you about waiting to the new year… as to our disagreement about the notion of whether evolution is a plain fact - well, that is what I hoped to discuss. It wouldn’t be very interesting if we already agreed on that point… Look forward to it,
December 20th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Well, evolution is a fact, pure and simple. Not unlike “germ theory”, or any other overwhelmingly substantiated theory. I’m proud of Ron Paul for not lumping himself in with anti-scientific lunatics by raising his hand. Of course, he’d have my vote even if he was a superstitious lunatic - just based on his sound monetary policy and adherence to the Constitution.
December 21st, 2007 at