- 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?
Popularity: 15% [?]
I think Dave makes a great point, Ron. Religionists tell atheists to read the Bible and re-read it until they agree with religionists. Way too many religionists have ignored the vast amount of knowledge that has been painstakingly gleaned from nature through hard work and patient observation. Religionists usually just toss this information out and substitute the far easier-to-grasp “faith” in its place. Anyone who wishes to espouse ideas about nature and origins MUST learn what we already know about these things if they want to arrive at an intelligent conclusion. These days it is not necessary for someone like Dave to find a web site for us; it’s very easy for anyone to find good web sites hosted by good universities that you can trust, such as the one I posted on the other thread. One only has to have an interest in learning.
Patriot: Evolution must be accepted on faith, and is therefore a belief. It falls into the category of a religious philosophy.
No, evolution is a theory, based on repeated observation of the natural world. After a small number of observations are made, a scientific hypothesis is created that attempts to account for them After a sufficient number of observations are made that agree with the originals and support the hypothesis, a general scientific theory may be constructed. If the observations are so irrefutable as to suggest they will never be contradicted, a scientific law may be postulated (such as the “law of gravity”). Anyone can make such observations, or research those previously made. It is, as PhysicistDave notes above, laziness that precludes such observation. However, relying on the observations of others does not make these scientific ideas “faith”.
Items of faith cannot be observed by anyone. They are only to be believed. Like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, God, and Creationism.
This is a deal breaker for me, and I hate to say that.
I’ve been a libertarian for most of my voting life, and I do like a lot of what Paul has to say. I think his positions on economics and the war are very well thought out and realistic.
But to drop the ball on a matter like this, as a scientist first and a voter second, it sends me running for the hills.
His misunderstanding and denial of evolution lead me to question his ability and even more importantly his willingness to research topics that may be outside of his expertise. That is not the sort of person I want as a President.
So Yellownumberfive (and anyone else), what are you thoughts on Bob Barr?
I’m excited to see how Barr fares in November, mostly because I was a big Paul supporter for the primaries (even though we had disagreements). I think Barr looks a little sketchy though — it’s definitely the mustache
I wonder if Paul will back him after the RNC?
But anyway,
@Ron, I wanted to help answer #150 since Dave seems to have fallen asleep at the wheel after getting off to a great start. Give this serious consideration if you’re interested in getting a good idea of the case for evolution.
(Offensive names alert) Two great YouTube series:
“Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?” by Thunderf00t
“Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism” by AronRa
You can definitely extract a load of useful information from these (you might want to ignore some of the witty comments).
Otherwise, making an informed decision requires at least year each of university-level physics, chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, and biology.
I’ll go ahead and assume that YouTube videos are not enough to convince you (and they shouldn’t be!). Majoring in evolutionary biology at a university _will_ convince you, however at the expense of time. Years and years.
The scientific method does not require ‘faith.’ Topics like evolution, abiogenesis and creation of the universe are based on hundreds of years of questioning, research, revision, and _evidence_. The latter two (abiogenesis and ‘big bang’) have a ways to go yet. However, evolution is (nearly) unanimously agreed upon. If evolution was a falsehood, it would have been eviscerated by the scientific community a long time ago.
Also, accepting evolution does not necessitate disbelief in a god. Even the last 3 popes (for the Catholics out there) support evolution. But this is a whole other topic.
Let me know what you think.
Lets define some terms here.
Gravity is a fact. We can observe it, therefore it exists. The *theory* of gravity is an attempt to explain it. First we had newton’s laws and gallileo, then came einstein’s theory of relativity. Einstein’s theory isn’t completely provable, as there may be factors not taken into account, but it’s the most accurate theory we have.
The process of evolution is fact. It is beyond all doubt that animals are evolving, and this process is what explains genetic diversity. The *theory* of evolution is what tries to explain it, and it is incomplete. Natural selection is listed as an obvious factor. Further research has gone into genetics and environmental factors. It will never be possible to prove the theory of evolution, but it is without any doubt that evolution has, is, and will continue to shape the earth’s species. There’s vast mountains of evidence for it.