- 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 for whom I will vote, 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 Shankwrote:
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 7:01 am
Clay reread my post (first two lines in bold) He DOES lump him self in with so called anti-scientific lunatics. Incidentally, I’m not anti-science (lunatic, maybe) and evolution moved from the realm of science to mythology years ago.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:18 am
Ron Shank: You want transitional evidence of evolution? Ok, you asked for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html
http://www.fsteiger.com/whales.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227572,00.html
And, if you have time to watch a couple hours about evolution (you know, facts and stuff), go here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/
Remember, Transitional fossils does not mean a monkey fossil with wings. That’s not how it works. Have fun studying.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Uh, thanks Willey. I’ll check them out fully later. But I was shocked to see you include the Nation Geographic link. They ran a retraction long ago.
NatGeo replied: “Xu Xing is one of the scientists who originally examined Archaeoraptor. As we go to press, researchers in the U.S. report that CT scans of the fossil seem to confirm the observations cited in his letter. Results of the Society-funded examination of Archaeoraptor and details of new techniques that revealed anomalies in the fossil’s reconstruction will be published as soon as the studies are completed.”
By the way, composite is a nice way of saying fraud, hoax or forgery. It’s why Archaeoraptor is often called “Piltdown Bird.” I’m not sure why NatGeo would leave the story up there in it’s entirety knowing that.
Remember transitional fossils does not mean dino fossil mixed with bird fossil. That’s not how it works, either.
More later. Merry Christmas!
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:18 pm
From the first article (see post 92) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml :
“In the summer of 1995, at least 15 iguanas survived Hurricane Marilyn on a raft of uprooted trees. They rode the high seas for a month before colonizing the Caribbean island, Anguilla. These few individuals were perhaps the first of their species, Iguana iguana, to reach the island.” That sounds very similar to a theory I read in a creation article a long time ago, attempting to explain how some isolated areas could have unique animals that were not located anywhere else nearby.
“We could be watching the first steps of an allopatric speciation event, but in such a short time we can’t be sure.” ‘We can’t be sure’ doesn’t stop the writer from using speculation as fact.
“We have several plausible models of how speciation occurs but of course, it’s hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of these events happened in the distant past.” Yes, they require an unfathomable length of time to make that model of origins plausible. Yet, back during that time, what of the effects of gravity (reverse the documented weakening rate), and of the moon eventually becoming attached to the earth (again, reverse the known rate it moves further away from earth, a couple of inches a year)? Just two examples.
“Allopatric speciation — speciation that depends on an external barrier to gene flow (such as geographic isolation) to begin or complete the process of speciation.”
“If allopatric speciation happens….” If.
What I read of the first article sounds like what I expect from an environment under the Curse of sin. Animals move somewhere, the environment there affects them, they adapt, and genetic info from adapting is passed down to their offspring. What they don’t use from their ORIGINAL genetic make-up is also affected. They LOSE information.
>From the second article http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/artificial_01 :
Natural selection, microevolution (change within a species), is observed fact, and does not contradict Scripture, as far as I know. The guppies did not cease being guppies, nor did they change into some other creature. The predator could more easily see certain ones, which became food. I don’t know enough about the sexual selection deal to answer.
I have read where some believers in evolution tend to use microevolution to prove macroevolution, as well as to use modern scientific “evolution” (change, such as the Wright brothers’ plane to modern aircraft, etc.) to bolster Darwinian claims. If so, I humbly and sincerely don’t see the connection.
December 24th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Thanks Patriot. There is also a ton of stuff on speciation here.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/
I also see I failed to answer Casey’s question. His question was, “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?”
Probably the best way to quickly answer that is to say, what you are explaining speciation within the ‘kind’ and involves no new genetic information. I personally know of no transitions that increased the genetic makeup. If I am wrong, I’m sure someone will provide a link.
And that leads to what is personally my biggest problem with evolution. While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show **numerous transitional fossils**, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples (see Willey’s post #101).
December 25th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
The common view of “theory” is equal to “scientific hypothesis”; in science to advance a hypothesis to a sound “theory” means that all experiments and natural observations support the idea. Scientists usual way to test an idea is to try to find a case to disprove it and research that – if it holds up among multitudes of attempts to disprove it than the “hypothesis” becomes a “theory”. To the commoner a natural law than is equivalent to a “scientific theory”. No scientist wants to call something a “natural law” because they want to be open to tweaking theories. Kepler’s laws of motion are now called classical physics, but we discovered on the scale of the stars and galaxies that Kepler’s laws had to be tweaked a bit by Einstein’s “Special Relativity”, “General Relativity” and Energy equals Mass times the square of the speed of light (C). These cosmological ideas lead to the atomic and hydrogen bomb. The new ideas are various “string theories” in trying to come up with one theory that resolves all the properties of electromagnetic radiation, matter, gravity, space and time.
The various space telescopes have detected an evolving universe that started with a “Big Bang” that occurred about 13.7 billion years ago. In the visible universe there are about 100,000,000,000 galaxies with about 200,000,000,000 stars in each. That is a big place for “God” to keep track of or play in – but there are many facts of the “Big Bang” and the density of the Universe and the improbable events of earth, a large moon, the GHZ (Galactic Habitable Zone), the solar habitable zone and the lack of earth destroying events that make man’s presence on earth MAGICAL – many astrophysicists do believe in God as a result, and all see evolution in the heavens! When light travels for billions of years to reach earth you can look back at the history of the universe in the sky – the earliest events are further away. The universe shows a clear evolution.
The scientific evidence in the cosmological, geological, genetic, structural commonalities and species changes through time concurs in evolution. Physicians and natural scientists believe in evolution; I have met one Animal Scientist in my life who believed in the seven-day creation – he was also the only PhD I knew who demanded that you always call him “Doctor”.
Ron Paul based on his knowledge, as a Medical Doctor, believes in evolution!
Over a thousand years ago man had only his senses and mind to come up with ideas of creation and various tribes had their own creation story. Now we have space telescopes, electron microscopes, genetic maps, super computers and laboratories that investigate nature – if the masses want to turn to ancient ideas for comfort than so be it.
That a potential president would believe in a seven-day creation in my mind means his logic is blinded to the advancing knowledge of the natural World, and another religious crusade in a nuclear age maybe the end of man!
Ron Paul believes in evolution and our God given liberties!
December 25th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Whoops, saw the video in which Ron Paul says he doesn’t accept evolution as a theory – a surprise to me. Well the second scientist/physician I have heard in my life in science that doesn’t accept evolution. I’m in shock.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
RJ wrote, “The scientific evidence in the cosmological, geological, genetic, structural commonalities and species changes through time concurs in evolution.”
I’m skipping the big-bang theory part of your post for now. 1. Because it’s not relevant to this post and 2. I’ve got enough to talk about with why I believe Creation vs Evolution and don’t have time to go down my list of why I don’t agree with the Big-Bang theory. Other than to say, it doesn’t match the Biblical
account of creation.
But let’s be careful (and honest) that their remains plenty of debate over the universe’s “clear” signs of evolution.
In fact, it’s at “the beginning” that we both have to have faith. Creationists believe at the beginning was God. Evolutionists believe it was soup. Neither can explain how God or the soup got there in the first place.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Ron,
I have read your posts and exchanges and liked the spirit, if not always the conclusions, of the discussions on here.
A few thoughts from a non-scientist who has, at some level attempted to grapple with the question of creationism vs. evolution.
First things first. Several key points:
(1) Should we be engaged in a logical discussion, then both sides are obligated to create a logical construct for their position. So, for example, arguments that challenge the validity of a creator are not “proof” of evolution nor vice versa. To establish your position, you must do more than provide challenges to your opponents position — you must construct your own.
(2) Evolution is not a theory that explains the origins of life. It explains the development of life. A person who believes in Evolution is entitled to believe whatever they want when it comes the big bang or the process of abiogenesis (organic/living matter from non-living matter) — this proof requires an entirely different construct.
(3) Cartesian (or Absolute) Proof is unachievable on either side of this discussion. Why? Science rarely, and I would posit, never deals in “absolute proof”; of course, it may deal in truth beyond any rational disagreement, but it would not be “absolute” — it’s just part of the scientific experience and method; the same too is true of faith in general and Christianity in particular; there is no absolute proof of God, Jesus’ rising, etc (save if we were disciples for the rising — and almost not even that for Thomas), the Trinity, etc. If there was, it would require no FAITH to believe in it. Yet Faith, belief in that which we either cannot see or cannot fully understand (no Christian fully understands in His entirety, the Divine Trinity), is essential to a spiritual or Christian side. So let us not bandy around presumed victories of “logic” by demonstrating that the other side has not “absolutely” proven its argument.
(4) As mentioned above, the word theory in the scientific realm is not simply a hypothesis. Rather a theory is a broad explanation which provides the mechanism for harmonizing those “known facts” (as best as we can know them) which science has uncovered through the scientific method, which you yourself seem to view at valid at least as it pertains to, say, gravity. A theory, of course, is subject to refinement, development and even at some point, contradiction. However, the more facts that a theory explains — the more accepted the theory becomes. So, whereas a fact (i.e. the car is red) may be provable by several tests, a theory is supported and established by hundreds, thousands, even millions of facts. Thus, theories are both (1) more difficult to discuss for laypersons especially because they encompass so many practice areas; and (2) may be even more supported (in core principles) then “facts”. Evolution is a well-accepted and tested theory — this should, at least, give any thinking person significant pause before its dismissal.
(5) Macro vs. Micro Evolution. This is a fascinating concept and I think its not disputed that “micro evolution” has much more evidentiary support, at least to a lay person. That said, a few points. One, there is a dispute whether there is actually any true difference between micro and macro evolution, or whether this is a false dichotomy. A man created separation that simply does not reflect the reality of evolutionary development. This is mainly because macro evolution is thought to be interspecies evolution while micro evolution is intra-species. Yet, the definition of species is a disputed concept within in the scientific community — i.e. is it simply that two creatures can no longer mate successfully, if so, how do we treat organisms that reproduce asexually? So, at least as a starting point, those who oppose evolution may be establishing a false construct, and then using this faulty construct to discredit evolution. Two, evolution of microorganisms is well-observed. We see it all the time — as mentioned though, this is asexual reproduction so you may simply view it as micro not macro — but, as noted, this may just be the result of a faulty definition. To be fair, this definition is disputed by professionals and lay persons alike. Two, there is evidence for evolution in several different scientific fields — evolution is not only evidenced by bone structure. Genetic research on DNA, and especially Mitochondrial DNA, are indicators that living creatures are intimately related to one another, and that certain members of species dominate the reproduction process (i.e. survival of the fittest). Chemistry demonstrates the proteins and chemical structures that are common to both men, apes and most basic protozoa. Archaelogy uncovers — and I will address what you consider a lacking record in a bit — structures in different animals that are identical, or closely related, despite the fact that (i) the structure is used (if still used) for very different purposes; and (2) the animals exist in dramatically different environments. i.e. the human hand and whale fins…whale fins have finger bones. These features — and I forget the technical name for them — have been observed over and over and over again.
Now, here is a question — well observed. Well why don’t we see more macro evolution in the fossil record. And lets take a fair definition of macro evolution — speciation. And let’s say speciation means that animals that once could procreate are, now, due to evolution changes unable to procreate. The problem here is that how would an archaeologist demonstrate that two animals with similar structures (horse and specie akin to horse) were unable to create viable offspring. That is hard because there may not be sufficient evidence in merely the fossils to demonstrate such a conclusion — all the soft tissue is GONE. So, the very definition of macro evolution may be antithetical to uncovering evidence in support of it — the false (or incomplete) dichotomy of reproduction as the species barrier may be the issue.
(6) The Bible. Well now, the question arises — how can I believe in Evolution (or something akin to it) and believe in the Bible. One, I have never met a Christian who takes the entire Bible literally. Now, people purport to but I have never met a Christian who does. If we take our brief gander at Leviticus: it would seem the literal Christian would be hard-pressed not to stone to death: those who have cursed their father in mother, people who have committed adultery and homosexuals. Many Christians also believe in consubstantiation not transubstantiation (Eucharist is literally Christ’s body)– yet the Bible literally says “this is my body” — if it be his body, how can a literalist argue that it is not his body or it is “metaphorical”. This can go on and on. I myself am not a literalist.
Why? Jesus himself spoke in parables. Was there really a Prodigal Son? I’m sure there have been many, but Jesus spoke in story. By doing so, he gave his stories greater depth and greater meaning, especially to those willing to listen to him.
At some level, I think you see it as perverse to “read into” Scripture metaphor and allegory. Yet, metaphor and allegory is what Jesus himself gave us..how he himself taught us how a Christian should act. And given the glory of the Word, I shudder to think that it is just some flat writing to which no thought or further depth applies or can even be given. God gave us his Word, but his Word is both accessible yet infinitely informative and complex. Not complex in a negative way, but complex in a way that repeated study gives way to greater understanding, greater subtlety. This to me provides me with the belief that metaphor and allegory are essential parts of the Bible — they are not “untrue” – they are descriptive of a greater, Infinite truth.
You ask the question of death — appropriately so because sin is the wages of death. Let me be fanciful. Physical death is that to which a flawed physical creation can most understand. Yet, the most important of deaths — the death caused by the sins of Adam and Eve — were the death of our eternal life in God. We were cast out into the wilderness and it required Christ’s redemption (his physical death and resurrection) to conquer the spiritual death (not the death of our souls but the death of our “entitlement” to be with the Divine Trinity) that man had brought upon himself and the world. It was this spiritual death — this break from our divine relation to God that cast evil upon the world. Not surprisingly, the Bible is couched with the term death — which we understand as physical death — because this death is so immediately and innately understood and feared — thus we taste only the barest consequence of this separation with God. Why is this believable according to the Bible? We still die…we (Christians, et al) still die our physical death despite the fact that our sin has been paid for in Christ. It was not physical death Christ conquered…it was our spiritual death that he conquered. But beautifully — even metaphorically — he did it while conquering our basest fear as humans, physical death.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Here’s DNA evidence human evolution:
science & religion can be compatible.. evolution can just be the mechanism of life..god just set the ball rolling to see what evolves as a giant scientific experiment
Ken Miller on Apes and Humans
Y’all should see Ken Miller’s lecture on this. Very good and provides some good bits that are hard for creationists (ok, impossible) to explain in any sensible manner.
Ken Miller on Apes and Humans
The video is from a biologist who explains how apes have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs, numbered #1 to #24) & humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs, numbered #1 to number #23) .. recently, both the entire human & ape DNA/genome was mapped .. evolutionary theory can be verified/tested in that if humans evolved from apes, humans are missing the 1 ape chromosome pair (2 chromosomes) because the 2 chromosomes(1 pair) fused into another chromosome. Chromosomes have a beginning & an end marked by telomeres. After mapping the entire DNA of both apes & humans, lo & behold, humans have the entire missing ape chromosome fused into chromosome #2 (we know they”e fused because there is a telomere in the MIDDLE of the chromosome in addition to normal telomere the end/beginning of chromosome #2 –such an anomaly can only be explained by the fusion of the missing chromosome with chromosome #2 –not only that, but the fused portion of the chromosome matches the “missing” chromosome of the apes!).
Further DNA testing showed that human chromosome #2 MATCHES ape chromosome #12 & #13, proving that human chromosome #2 is a fusion of ape chromosom #12 & #13
===
Here’s a transcript from Ken Miller (professor of bio at Brown University from a NOVA documentary):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-ev.html
Q: One of the lines of evidence that you pointed out at the Dover trial is the organization of our own chromosomes. How is that evidence for common ancestry?
Miller: We’ve known for a long time that we humans share common ancestry with the other great apes—gorillas, orangs, chimps, and bonobos. But there’s an interesting problem here. We humans have 46 chromosomes; all the other great apes have 48. In a sense, we’re missing a pair of chromosomes, two chromosomes. How did that happen?
Well, is it possible that in the line that led to us, a pair of chromosomes was simply lost, dropping us from 24 pairs to 23? Well, the answer to that is no. The loss of both members of a pair would actually be fatal in any primate. There is only one possibility, and that is that two chromosomes that were separate became fused to form a single chromosome. If that happened, it would drop us from 24 pairs to 23, and it would explain the data.
“The closer we look at our own DNA, the more powerful the evidence becomes for our common ancestry with other species.”
Here’s the interesting point, and this is why evolution is a science. That possibility is testable. If we indeed were formed that way, then somewhere in our genome there has to be a chromosome that was formed by the fusion of two other chromosomes. Now, how would we find that? It’s easier than you might think.
Every chromosome has a special DNA sequence at both ends called the telomere sequence. Near the middle it has another special sequence called the centromere. If one of our chromosomes was formed by the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, what we should be able to see is that we possess a chromosome in which telomere DNA is found in the center where it actually doesn’t belong, and that the chromosome has two centromeres. So all we have to do is to look at our own genome, look at our own DNA, and see, do we have a chromosome that fits these features?
We do. It’s human chromosome number 2, and the evidence is unmistakable. We have two centromeres, we have telomere DNA near the center, and the genes even line up corresponding to primate chromosome numbers 12 and 13.
Is there any way that intelligent design or special creation could explain why we have a chromosome like this? The only way that I can think of is if you’re willing to say that the intelligent designer rigged chromosome number 2 to fool us into thinking that we had evolved. The closer we look at our own DNA, the more detailed a glimpse we get of our own genome, the more powerful the evidence becomes for our common ancestry with other species.
The process of evolution
Q: What do gaps in the fossil record represent vis a vis evolution? Why are such gaps not a problem for evolutionary theory?
Miller: It’s important to appreciate that all historical records are necessarily incomplete. We don’t have complete data for any historical process. I’ve tried to trace my own ancestry, and after about four generations, we lose bits and pieces of it. I don’t think that means I don’t have any ancestry. I think it means that some of the evidence is missing.
The same is true for the study of history. We know, for example, when and where the Battle of Gettysburg took place in the Civil War. We know the opposing generals on both sides. But we don’t know exactly what every soldier, by name, was doing at every moment during the Battle of Gettysburg. That doesn’t mean Gettysburg didn’t take place. It doesn’t mean that the Union forces didn’t win. It simply means we have more to learn about that battle.
The same is true for the fossil record. We have an enormous amount of information as to what life was like in the past. That information tells us that life changed, that it changed in a particular pattern, and that the history of change is complete, with one example after another of descent with modification, an ancestor-descendant relationship between organisms. And in a few lucky cases, we can trace almost step by step the evolution of key organisms in the history of life. [See Fossil Evidence.]
Q: What about the claim that no one’s ever seen a new species form?
Miller: Right now new species are literally in the process of forming in the state of California. For years David Wake of the University of California at Berkeley has studied different species of salamander that surround the Central Valley in California. When you look at the range of these species, what you discover is that the local variations at the very ends of the range are now so different from each other that if you capture them both and you put them side by side in a cage, any biologist would agree that they are distinct and separate species. Nonetheless, they have been produced in recent times simply by the spreading of salamanders over a geographic range.
Many opponents of evolution will sort of retreat and say, “Well, okay, but those species are really similar to each other. Show us a species that is dramatically different.” But that initial splitting, that’s the phenomenon that actually drives evolution. You shouldn’t expect to see a cat suddenly give birth to a dog or something along those lines. At the moment when one species splits into two, you should see two distinctly different species that still show the similarities that previously united them within a single classification. We see this happen all the time.
The people who say that macroevolution, by which they mean really big evolution, has never been observed, inevitably cannot give you a strict and rigorous definition of what macroevolution is. They’ll simply say it’s the formation of new categories or evolutionary novelties. They’re loath to put specifics on that idea, to tell you what percentage of the genes or how many base pairs of DNA have to change, because I think they know very well that once they make specific what they mean by macroevolution, some darn biologist is going to go out into the field or into the lab and follow exactly that rate of change and show that macroevolution really does occur.
Q: Another criticism often made is that all this couldn’t just have happened by random chance.
Miller: One of the great mischaracterizations of evolution is that it’s driven by random chance, that things just happen. People like to say, “I don’t like to believe that I’m just an accident.” Well, you’re not. What evolution says is that the variation that crops up in a species is indeed unpredictable. We can’t be sure what will happen next. But that doesn’t mean it’s random.
To me, the word “random” means anything can happen. But the reality is that evolutionary change is restricted. It’s restricted by the laws of physics and chemistry. It’s restricted by the nature of molecular biology. It’s restricted by the constraints of developmental biology during development. Most importantly, evolutionary change is governed by natural selection, and natural selection is not a random process at all. Natural selection selects for successful phenotypes, for successful combinations of characteristics that actually work, and that’s not random at all.
“Any theory that can stand up to 150 years of continuous testing is a pretty darn good theory.”
Q: I have heard critics say that mutation doesn’t create information, it destroys it.
Miller: That notion is at variance with the facts. Four or five million years ago, for example, the Antarctic Ocean, which was warm at the time, froze over as a result of a kind of climate change on this planet. Well, to this day, there are fish that swim in the oceans of Antarctica. One of the interesting things about those fish is that even though the saltwater is actually below the freezing point—our own blood would freeze solid in that cold water—these fish don’t. The reason they don’t freeze solid is because their blood contains an antifreeze protein, sort of the biological equivalent of ethylene glycol in antifreeze.
Well, how did they get it? It turns out that the antifreeze protein that is found in the blood of Antarctic fishes was the result of a digestive enzyme that was mutated, retargeted to the bloodstream, and then mutated again and again to enhance its antifreeze properties. All of these changes were the result of mutation.
Now, that Antarctic fish has a kind of biological information that its ancestors didn’t have. It has the ability to make a completely new protein that enables it to survive in very cold waters by preventing its blood from freezing. That’s novel information, and it’s information that was produced by the process of mutation.
The test of time
Q: How do you answer the charge that evolution has never been tested?
Miller: Evolution is tested every day in the laboratory, and it’s tested every day in the field. I can’t think of a single scientific theory that has been more controversial than evolution, and when theories are controversial, people devise tests to see if they’re right. Evolution has been tested continuously for almost 150 years and not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution.
Any theory that can stand up to 150 years of continuous testing is a pretty darn good theory. We use evolution to develop drugs. We use evolution to develop vaccines. We use evolution to manage wildlife. We use evolution to interpret our own genome. Every one of these uses of evolution is a test, because if the use turns out to be inadequate, we would then go back and question the very idea of evolution itself. But evolution has turned out to be such a powerful, productive, and hardworking theory that it’s survived that test of time.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Ken Miller is covered really well here:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1826
He’s not trustworthy.
Human/chimp DNA similarity continues to decrease: counting indels
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4653/
Your post is so long I’ll have to try and answer more later.. If those links don’t send you in the right direction.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Don’t know if you saw this yet: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/ron_paul_rejects_evolution.php
December 29th, 2007 at 11:57 am
[...] post is an answer to a comment by JP on the ever popular Ron Paul on Evolution post. His post was so long the reply needs it’s [...]
December 29th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Thanks R.M. I’ll embed that.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
“Belief” in Evolution is a misnomer. One no more believes in the irrefutable fact of Evolution than they believe in automobiles. Evolution is a fact that is overwhelmingly supported by all numerous fields of science including but not limited to: genetics, biology, chemistry, geology, anthropology and even physics.
People either accept Evolution or they deny it, there is no belief.
Evolution is today what the Sun being at the center of the solar system was hundreds of years ago. Even though it was irrefutably proved that the Earth revolved around the Sun religious maniacs refused to accept it for hundreds of years. The same is true now of Evolution. It is a fact that religious maniacs will continue to deny until such time as the general public becomes educated enough to move on.
How does acceptance of Evolution contribute to a candidate’s ability to lead? Obviously, we don’t want ignorant fools running our country. Oopps too late that’s already happened. Well, let’s say we don’t want to continue letting ignorant fools run our country.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
That tape was edited to embarass Dr. Paul. Here is the full version.
http://www.paulunteer.com/videos/answers-ron-paul-evolution-and-the-origin-of-life/
Dr. Paul is a scientist. He has published medical research.
http://www.greenjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/2/235
Obstetrics & Gynecology 1969;34:235-241
© 1969 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by PAUL, R. E.
Articles by FISHER, E. R.
Evaluation of Renal Biopsy in Pregnancy Toxemia
RONALD E. PAUL, MD, T TERRY HAYASHI, MD, FACOG, VICTORIANO PARDO, MD and EDWIN R. FISHER, MD
From the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Abstract
Percutaneous renal biopsies obtained during the immediate postpartum period from 57 subjects who had been hypertensive during pregnancy were studied by pathologists who had no knowledge of the clinical data. Although the degree of glomerular endotheliosis, mesangiosis, and basement membrane deposits showed some correlation with the clinical severity of the hypertension and toxemia, there was a wide range of observed tissue changes. It is concluded that such renal alterations are suggestive but not pathognomonic of preeclampsiaeclampsia.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:07 am
1140, I’ve updated the link. You are right it did cut it short. But I’m not sure it will help your cause. Seems the die-hard evolutionists have a new phrase. “There’s no Revolution without Evolution”
See it here: http://alsotequila.com/?p=38
December 31st, 2007 at 10:22 am
Michael Davis wrote: “‘Belief’ in Evolution is a misnomer. One no more believes in the irrefutable fact of Evolution than they believe in automobiles.”
Oh, Michael. You know I am talking about evolution adding information. That is, particles-to-people evolution. (Never mind how you thought the particles got there.)
There is NO proof, therefore NO FACT, showing the required changes that increase genetic information.
All current evolutionary “proofs” are observations of sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I posted a reply about the addition of information to the separate, “response to LP” thread, so I’ll leave that be here. Just for the sake of clarification though:
- “Law”, in science, usually refers to a consistent pattern or process which can be observed repeatedly, and appears to always occur for the given system. The “Law of Gravity” for example, is the observation that gravity happens.
- “Theory”, in science, is an explanatory model for a given pattern, based on repeated observations and accumulated evidence. Because it has an explanatory component, a Theory can never be “proven” in absolute terms, but only supported beyond reasonable doubt. “Gravitational Theory” would be an example; it is the model that explains how gravity works. Theories are, in fact, more powerful than Laws because they have an explanatory component, and can be used to make predictions about future patterns and processes in the physical world.
Applying the same to biological evolution, the observation that evolution occurs is factual, and could be called a “Law”, because all populations that we have tracked and measured do change over time. Evolutionary Theory, by contrast, is the model that explains how evolution occurs, and further posits that the modern processes we measure account for the generation of biodiversity through time (note that this does not refer to the initial generation of the first biological units).
Here’s a challenge: Using what is known of how biological systems work, demonstrate how biological evolution could fail to happen.
(Hint: The solution set for non-evolving populations was generated by the neutral model of the Hardy-Weinberg equations, and the conditions required for a non-evolving population are never met in any real biological systems.)
Cheers,
–MBH
December 31st, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Thanks for the Clarification MBH. My reply to your other comment is here.
I found this line of your’s interesting:
“note that this does not refer to the initial generation of the first biological units”
And I hate to sing this song again, but again the observed “evolution” you refer to contains no new information. I explained that in more detail here as well.
Thanks for coming by! You’re obviously very intelligent and I hope you use that intelligence to examine the claims of scripture. Because smart (thankfully for me) won’t get you in heaven.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Thanks for the kind words. I am not certain what you consider to be “new information”, but I cannot think of any workable definition of the term that does not include permutation and duplication as examples of new information. More to the point, since different genomes code for differing products we know that the information differs between genomes. Since there is a time context, new information exists by definition.
Take the example of binary code: 0110 and 0011 contain different information. By changing the sequence of numbers from the first to the second set, I have altered the expression, and indicated new information. Biological information, like binary code, relies on combinations and sequences, and so new permutations are new information by default. In fact, the reason that duplications add information is because they produce new permutations; the sheer size of the genome is rather less informative. In fact, if we consider “new information” only to be an expansion of total genome size (which is a silly definition, but seems to get used sometimes), then evolution doesn’t require new information at all.
The paper you linked in response was an interesting read. I’m afraid that it is rife with errors, however. Two of the most glaring are the assumption that biological systems are irreducibly complex (this can shown to be false, and has been, rather simply) and the idea that humans and other mammals are somehow “more complex” than plants or amphibians. They further make an error in thinking that genome size is the main predictor of information content, and make the additional mistake of leaving out any sort of phylogenetic (evolutionary tree) patterning from their “complexity” versus genome size comparsion. This is critical, because if you actually plot genome sizes on an evolutionary tree, it is apparent that genome size has both reduced and expanded throughout numerous lineages. They fall into the trap of thin-strand causality and historical interpretation, which does not apply to biological systems.
Not everything in the paper is incorrect, of course. Much of the stated information is accurate, though it (ironically) more contradicts their own thesis than supports it, because many of the examples they given are implicitly cases of evolutionary change, as well as information expansion. The overarching conclusions are not well supported, but I give them credit for doing some serious reading.
Of course, you don’t have to take my word for it. There is a vast literature reporting the importance of gene duplication and repeated sequence information to evolutionary mechanisms. For examples, see Bridges (1936), Stephens (1951), Ohno (1967), Nei (1969), Ohno, S. (1970), Wolfe (2001), Friedman Hughes (2001), Lynch and Conery (2000), Li (2001), Gu, et al. (2002), Lespinet (2002), Long (2001), Samonte and Eichler (2002), Walsh (1995), Lynch et al. (2001), Ota and Nei (1995) Trabesinger-Ruef, et al. (1996). The list goes on rather longer, in fact, as I have another 60 or so references on the subject at hand. All are published in major, peer-reviewed journals.
Given the audience here, though, I’d imagine that I could ramble at length and probably do little good. So, here’s something to chew on: Speaking as a scientist, the most important items in my replies are undoubtedly the definitions of Theory and Law, and the point that physical evidence must be the framework of scientific work. Quite frankly, a detailed, working knowledge of biological evolution is not critical for most of the occupations in the world. Much more critical is a general understanding of how physical evidence is used. If more people had a general grasp of that process, then I, for one, would be quite happy. In science we accept what the evidence shows to be most likely, and not what we’d prefer to be true. That is, I think, the critical issue.
Cheers,
–MBH
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
What Ron Paul doesn’t seem to realize is that the term “theory” is used in science to refer to a huge body of knowledge used to explain an observation. Thus, there is a theory of gravity, a theory of light, and a theory of evolution. A theory is much stronger than a hypothesis, in that a theory is based on a great deal of data. The phenomena explained by a theory are facts. Thus, gravity is a fact, light is a fact, and evolution is a fact. The only exception might be mathematical theories, which are often abstract and may have no observable phenomena associated with them.
In case anyone asks, here is a very brief summary of evolution. The theory of evolution seeks to explain observations such as the fossil record, in which different fossilized species are seen to occupy different layers of rock, with the less-complex species at the bottom and the more complex species at the top. There are also fossils showing the development over time of particular species, such as man, the horse, etc., with the more ancient forms appearing deeper in the earth.
Radioactive dating shows that the various layers represent different geological epochs, with the oldest ones at the bottom and the youngest at the top.
There is also genetic evidence that shows which species are closely related and which are more distantly related. In addition, “silent” genes have been found in all organisms studied. These are genes that don’t work. The theory of evolution proposes that these genes used to work, but because they aren’t needed anymore, they don’t confer any evolutionary advantage to individuals carrying them. Thus, there is no natural selection against mutations in these genes, and they consequently accumulate mutations. Sometimes a mutation turns out to be beneficial, and that mutation becomes favored by natural selection, and can develop into a new feature of the organism.
A fascinating example of silent genes has been found in the chicken. Chickens have no teeth, but they do have the genes that encode teeth. These genes are no longer active, presumably (according to the theory of evolution) because chickens no longer need teeth. Therefore their tooth genes have accumulated mutations over time that have inactivated them. Teeth have actually been grown from chicken gum tissue in the petri dish under conditions that activated the tooth genes. The chicken teeth turned out to be peg-like, as in reptiles. Creationists have a difficult time explaining the existence of tooth genes in chickens. Why would god make a chicken with silent genes?
In summary, for someone to say that they don’t believe in evolution is like saying they don’t believe in gravity. Evolution is a fact. And if they say that they don’t believe the theory of evolution (meaning that they accept the fact of evolution but not the explanation supported by a mountain of evidence), then that must mean they have found specific flaws in the evidence supporting the theory. If disbelievers want legitimacy, they must state the specific flaws that they have found. Maybe the chicken is actually a reptile and the teeth are microscopic? Even that is probably not enough to overturn the theory, though it would certainly require some modification of the theory. Anyone seeking to invalidate the theory of evolution has a huge amount of data to overcome. But one can no more “not believe in evolution” than he/she can “not believe in gravity.”
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
PS: In the clip above, Ron Paul says that this issue is not that important to the election, but I disagree. I see the issue of evolution is an indicator telling us how likely a person is to accept facts that are contrary to his/her opinions. We’ve seen the devastating impact resulting from a president who is able to disbelieve facts.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:46 am
Dear Geoffrey. So Chickens with teeth became… Chickens without teeth.. and therefore you believe humans came from soup?
Re: 122. I don’t think you’ll find anyone running who doesn’t have some ideology that shapes their thinking. For Ron Paul, it seems to be the Constitution. But don’t kid yourself. We all have presuppositions. I’ll admit, I come to the table of this discussion believing the scripture to be true. That doesn’t make that presupposition wrong, but I should be aware of it and at least be willing to admit that it is the foundation of my thinking.
There are those that believe science to be true … no, infallible. And they come to scripture with those presuppositions. They read Gen 1 and can’t figure out how this jives with their understanding of Darwinism (which they presume to be true and beyond question) – therefore they reject scripture. It’s part of the appeal of Evolution. People see it as a way to say, “oh the Bible’s not true.” and feel good about it – as they ignore their own God given conscience.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Ron Shank: First, you missed the point. Chickens with tooth genes are only a small part of the evidence favoring current evolutionary theory. It is this fact combined with the sum total of all other evidence that strongly supports the theory that humans came from soup, as you sneeringly put it. If you disagree with the mountain of evidence supporting this explanation, then you must cite specific evidence that is wrong. You have to study evolution, look at the data, and say, “This experiment was not done properly,” or “This experiment was not interpreted properly.” You can even suggest further experiments. If you end up being correct, then theory will change. That’s what makes science so powerful.
The only presupposition a true scientist should have is that the strength of belief is proportional to the strength of the evidence. The stronger the evidence, the stronger the belief. If evidence changes, then belief should follow.
You refer to “those that believe science to be …infallible.” Such people are not true scientists, so you can just toss the whole straw-man argument you’re trying to set up. Anyone who looks at the history of science can see that scientific theory is constantly changing and evolving in response to stronger evidence this way or that. Consequently, incorrect ideas are constantly being revised or discarded. Religious leaders are the only ones I know of who have claimed to be infallible. And based on what? Nothing but an old fairy tale dreamed up to explain the puzzles of the world before science developed the more rational alternatives that we have today.
Religious leaders are aware that their beliefs, and therefore their power over their unquestioning “sheep,” are threatened by science, which encourages questioning. This is why they demand that their sheep accept “on faith” everything they tell them. And their sheep must do so, lest they be cast out and despised as “nonbelievers.” The capacity of “good” religious people to hate, based on nothing more than a fairy tale, is quite amazing.
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Wasn’t trying to “sneer,” Geoffrey. Just trying to be a little lighter in my points. Smile.
My point was its still chicken to chicken “evolution”. Genesis clearly teaches creatures multiplied “after their kind.” That doesn’t mean changes can’t occur. In fact, science has proven changes occur. But they are not showing any new (or added) information. What is observed is merely a turning on and off of switches.
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
oh and regarding my so-called “straw-man” argument. My point remains that many people (not honest scientists) believe science and faith are at odds and that science is the infallible one. I seem to have angered you some how in my comment, that was not my intent. And if my argument was straw-manish (hey, i made a new word) it’s no-more-so than you’re argument that “religious leaders are … threatened by science … ” I really am not sure you understand what scripture teaches. That is not an insult – I really just think you are misunderstood. Are there religious people that hate and use their religion to justify it – sure. But they are wrong and scripture clearly reveals that. Further to the point, scripture shows I am often wrong, and sinful, in need of repentance. Because, just like you, I will one day stand before God and need to be forgiven. But the question is — how can we be forgiven??? Darwinism offers no answers to that question.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Yes, I was somewhat angry. Thanks for not escalating it. I find it frustrating when people disbelieve facts, like gravity or evolution. One can freely disbelieve things that have not been proven, such as the Bible. But to disbelieve things that have been proven is lunacy, and it is harmful to teach lunacy to our children.
How can an atheist be forgiven? You are correct, Darwinism offers no answers to that question, as it offers no answers to questions in quantum physics. It answers evolutionary questions quite well. The Bible, on the other hand, does not answer questions of evolution, quantum physics, molecular biology, gravity, air, water, earth, fire, or anything else about the natural world. Instead it posits the necessity for an imaginary god to forgive the imaginary guilt inborn in every person. None of this has been proven in the slightest, yet religionists place more credibility in that than in things like evolution that HAVE been proven! This is the lunacy that they teach their children. It also explains George Bush’s monumental failures.
How can an atheist be forgiven? Here’s how: By asking any PERSON he’s wronged to forgive him! We don’t go into the shadows, ask an imaginary being to forgive us, and then emerge under the illusion that all has been made right. Though that would be far easier, it doesn’t force the person who has done wrong to face up to, and make amends for, his bad deeds.
If you want revelation, study the natural world. It really is fascinating. You wouldn’t believe the facts that have been discovered out there!
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:08 pm
For me this is a big stumbling block. I trust Ron Paul to say what he means without the typical pandering to anyone. Evolution is a fact. The science and evidence is inescapable. Macro evolution most certainly has taken place. The genetic evidence alone is overwhelming on that point. I would expect any competent, honest and intelligent person who looks and isn’t to wed to a conflicting belief to know that. So this is a very real problem. In the 21st century we cannot have a scientific illiterate or willful bender of scientific truth as US president, again. That he says how the entire subject area is a matter of theology is a stake through the heart. I had to check to make sure I wasn’t listening to Huckabee.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Samantha, I won’t rehash the “evolution is fact” claim, as I’ve already done that in previous replies. However, concerning Ron Paul, unless he does really well in NH or SC, or is going to make a 3rd Party run (which I think he said he wouldn’t do) he’s quickly turning into a non-issue. Fox has already (wrongly, in my opinion) cut him from this weekend’s debate.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Geoffrey, your offense is ultimately against God. Your own conscience is witness to that. When we lied, we knew it was wrong. Same with stealing, etc. The Bible says, God’s law is written on our hearts. Honest scientists admit there is no proof showing where life began… let’s go beyond evolution here. As a self proclaimed atheist, you can’t know there is no God; not for sure (making you at best an agnostic). The natural world all around points to evidence of a creator. The prophetic nature of scripture has and is more than sufficient to settle the minds of any open minded skeptic. If you have other questions, please feel free to contact me. I’d love to discuss them rationally with you; and explain why I believe. But there’s no point in us debating it or getting angry about it here. And that seems to be all I am doing; is making you angry. That is not my intent. I pray you’ll find the truth.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Samantha, well-said. I agree 100%.
Ron, I would be happy to debate it here or by e-mail. Doing it here would be my preference, because the debate needs to be publicly aired, but it’s your web site. But understand that the debate is not making me angry; I was already angry, as I said above, because religionists are portraying unfounded beliefs as facts and forcing them on our children. The debate above actually makes me happy
(<–see?) because it allows me to air my grievances.
Getting back to the offense that needs your god’s forgiveness: If there is no god, then there is no need for his forgiveness. You assume by reading a fairy tale that your god exists. Yet there is no evidence for the existence of any god. You state, “The natural world all around points to evidence of a creator.” Like what, for example? Have you studied the natural world? There are many amazing things happening out there that may seem to be miracles until one understands the NATURAL principles at work. I advise you and all religionists to learn about natural laws and how they work, rather than wishing them all away and substituting the word “miracle” in their place.
“Atheist” means one who does not believe in any gods. That’s me. Of course, I cannot prove that there are no gods. But if there were gods, I would expect proof before believing in them. Since you believe in at least one god, and since you claim certainty, then kindly enlighten humanity by sharing the proof you have.
The “prophetic nature of scripture” is fiction. Read the history of the Bible and learn how it has been written and modified over time. Then tell me one prophecy that has been proven true, which is to say that it must be proven to have been made prior to the event, and the event must be proven to have actually occurred.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Not knowing there is a god makes you an agnostic. Congrats, you’re making progress already
Seriously, you are not ever going to agree with anything I say, until you study or I show you – the accuracy of the current translations.
Which leads to a good first question. Is the bible we have today accurate with what was written originally? [you can deal with the sanity of the authors later] Because without knowing that, you’ll never believe the scriptures. I’ll try to answer this this weekend if as I have more time. Back to work! Have a great day!
January 4th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Check your definitions; you have a common misconception: An agnostic is not someone who is unsure of the existence of gods. Rather it is someone who believes that it is impossible to know for sure if there are or aren’t gods. Thus it is possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist. Take me for instance. Frankly, I am inclined to agree with the agnostic belief that it is impossible to know for sure. But, until I do know for sure, I have a belief: I believe they don’t exist. Therefore, I am definitely an atheist, and possibly an agnostic as well. If that makes you happy, feel free to congratulate me again.
I look forward to your view on the accuracy of the Bible.
January 5th, 2008 at 6:26 am
Not sure if anybody addressed this or not but a scientific theory does not become a law, they are both different. Also when the word Theory is used in science it is not the same as when used in everday conversation. Here is a good definition of the difference
“The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists “theory” and “fact” do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton’s theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement “It’s not a fact, it’s only a theory.” True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.”
Hope that clears things up a bit
January 5th, 2008 at 6:37 am
“Not sure if anybody addressed this or not… “
A few times Jason. Thank you, anyway.
January 5th, 2008 at 6:39 am
Geoffrey wrote: “But, until I do know for sure, I have a belief:”
And that’s why atheism is a religion.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Call it whatever you want. When I use the term religion, I mean to convey belief in a supernatural, intelligent being capable of working miracles, which I define as acts defying natural laws. Apparently your definition of religion is “any belief.” So if I believe that the apple I drop will fall to the ground, to you that’s a religion.
If you want to explore what we each mean by “religion” and a “belief,” I’m happy to do so.
January 5th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Mr. Shank,
After reading your comments here, I am somewhat perplexed on several fronts.
You repeatedly ask people to cite a single piece of evidence, a “single point”, to justify the theory of evolution. It’s a silly and disingenuous request for you to make, for a few reasons.
In the first place, NO theory can be verified by one instance, one observation, or one piece of evidence. It is the WHOLE PICTURE which gives rise to a theory in the first place and, over time, lends it weight. (The ‘whole picture’ means: the entire body of empirical observations & scientific tests providing cohesive support for the theory IN ADDITION TO any evidence which conflicts with the theory.) A failure to examine a theory as a cohesive whole is to ignore context, to do so eschews logic.
Secondly, you have stated that scripture is the “inerrant and infallible”(32) word of god and also that “evolution is in conflict with god’s holy word”(24). What this implies is that NO AMOUNT of evidence (let alone a single fact) would be sufficient to convince you of the soundness of the theory of evolution. This is especially interesting, since you seem keen on providing evidence against evolution/for creation, AND you hold that “science can prove facts”(32). So: science proves, but only when such “proof” conflates with the dictates of scripture? Evidence which supports scripture is relevant, and that which conflicts with it can be rejected without further consideration? It seems that we’ve run into an issue of circularity. Further, to reject a scientific proof on a non-scientific basis eschews logic (and is rather telling of your actual opinion of science).
As somewhat of an aside, I am curious–in light of the infallibility of scripture and the fallibility of human beings, two things:
1) How do you know when you’re understanding scripture correctly?
2) How do you know when science has “proven” something, and when it has not?
Last, let’s consider these three statements:
“the original scriptures are the divinely inspired Word of God [and are] inerrant and infallible”(32)
“evolution is in conflict with god’s holy word”(24)
“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.”(80)
Of course you’re not worried. You haven’t given evolution a fair shake, and you never will. So long as you accept that scripture is truth, and that evolution conflicts with that truth–evolution is necessarily wrong. False. End of story. Notice that there is zero science involved in this rejection of evolution… yet you claim to “respect science”(12) and hold that science is capable of proving things. Is this coherent?
Again: HOW do you know science proves things? How can you be sure when science HAS proven something that it doesn’t conflict with scripture–or–that an apparent conflict is not a result of your own failure in understanding scripture?
January 6th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Atheism is more simply defined simply as the lack of a particular belief: a belief in god. If one is asked “do you believe in god” the atheist will answer, “no.” But this answer is not a statement of belief: it is simply a self-description. It isn’t even a real characteristic of the person, because it isn’t an affirmative characteristic.
If not holding a particular belief is a religion, then not going to the bank is a type of going to the bank.
January 6th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
The more you find out about Ron Paul, the more nutty and silly he becomes. For instance, he doesn’t believe in evolution, even though you can literally SEE EVOLUTION occurring with your own eyes, such as in the case of the flu virus constantly evolving so that new vaccines need to be created each year, or entirely new species of microorganisms evolving into existence within labs over the course of just months.
Paul has the same backward beliefs of right-wing nuts like George W Bush and G Gordon Liddy, he just happens to be for smaller government as well. A person with that kind of warped view of reality isn’t fit to lead the country.
January 7th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Dear Good Twin. I think it’s funny how the RPeeps were all — what does this matter! — until they found out he was a creationist (or at least leans that way) and now he’s GWB 3.
January 7th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Geoffrey, I’m answering you on the other thread.
http://www.shanktified.com/archives/good-enough
Dagny and Bad: Welcome.
Dagny, I’m very impressed you appear to have taken the time to read most of the comments here. I don’t think I would have ever done that. Your comment is worthy of a post of it’s own and I’ll do that as soon as time permits. But as a very short answer, I see no problem making scripture my ultimate authority. We’ll see if we can’t work out what that is a little later.
Bad, your bank analogy is not accurate. More accurate would be to say “I don’t believe in banks, so I keep my money at that the ‘non-bank’. They give me interest and loans and even lollipops in drive through. They just are not a bank, because banks don’t really exist. I know this because I’ve never been in one.”
Atheism has all the workings of a religion or belief system, but because the primary tenet is “non-belief” then we are to ignore all that.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Dear all religious pundits:
Please do some research in to what you are discussing. The United States wasn’t founded on “Christian Moral Values”. I don’t know where you people come up with this stuff. Most of the founding fathers were Deists. Look it up. Read about it. Stop pretending Jesus was an American because Reverend Billy Bob on TV told you so. I’m not knocking your beliefs, but please stop trying to pass off made up stories as the truth. You’re embarrassing yourselves.
As for evolution, before you start whining about it, maybe you should understand it first. I love how creationist people always bring up the “It’s a theory!” argument. Hey, ELECTRICITY is a theory too. Better stop believing in that as well and turn off your computer now if you want to play that card.
Look. Evolution is just changes taking place over time. Nowhere does it say a monkey magically turned in to a person. Maybe that’s actually why you don’t like it.
I just wish that people would actually get informed about things before they start talking about them.
January 14th, 2008 at 6:41 am
Dear Dave.
1. We hear that deist claim a lot on the web. When you say “most” which ones are you talking about?
In short, if you are talking about “downward evolution” – the loss of genetic information. We agree with that theory. Where we disagree is on a layman’s understanding where man evolved from fish.
2. No one here (or anywhere else I know of) claimed Christ was an American.
3. We’ve discussed the “it’s not a theory” claim. Please reread the comments – yeah, I know there are a ton. Thank you Ron Paul.
4. re: “..changes over time” argument see comment 80 above for a great quote by Darwin.
January 18th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Hey there… I’m still eagerly awaiting your reconciliation of faith and science. I know my post was long, but I’d be willing to narrow it down to a few specific questions/statements that I’d especially like a response to.
And just since I’m herel: Atheism does NOT have “all the workings of a religion or belief system”. It is merely a statement of what one DOES NOT believe in. It is a pretty useless term for determining what a person’s beliefs actually ARE. While it may rule a few things out, the “atheist” label is consistent with many belief systems (eg communist, secular humanist, objectivist…).
January 20th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Ron,
As a scientist (Ph.D. in physics from Stanford), I am quite certain that there is proof beyond any sane doubt that evolution is true – the fossil record, radiometric dating, DNA evidence, vestigial organs, embryology, population genetics, and all the other stuff you can find in any decent textbook on the subject.
I am also quite, quite certain that I cannot prove to you that evolution is true, and for a very simple reason.
I hold patents on various techniques used in computer and communication systems. There are rigorous mathematical proofs that these methods work.
However, I cannot prove to most people that these methods work, for a very good reason: a pre-requisite to understand the mathematical proofs is that you have a very broad understanding of certain areas of mathematics (e.g., Galois field theory) that most people have never even heard of.
There is the same problem with proving evolution: the problem is not too little knowledge but too much. There is so much evidence for evolution that neither I nor anyone else can give you one single cute soundbite or one conclusive piece of evidence that simply nails it.
I have never met a single human being who has carefully perused and gone to the trouble to understand all of the relevant scientific evidence and who has concluded that evolution is not true.
But I cannot force anyone to go to the trouble to learn the relevant science. I certainly cannot present that science in a few postings in the comments section of your blog.
A similar point holds for the theory of relativity, Maxwell’s equations, statistical mechanics, and almost everything else in physics (or higher math). Give me a whole semester with a bright, attentive, properly prepared student and I can explain how we know that any of this stuff is true. But I cannot do that in a thousand words or less or in an hour conversation
To give a relevant concrete example, you, and many creationists, keep insisting that genetic change cannot increase information. My patents involve the application of information theory to engineering systems: I know this stuff. The common creationist claim here is not true: it involves a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics and of basic principles of information theory. I’ve tried to explain to creationists that their belief as to what the second law says is simply in error, as they will find out if they go to any decent textbook on the subject. Every single one I have mentioned this to has refused to actually go to a university library and bother to learn this stuff. But, of course, they keep insisting that we physicists are saying something about entropy and information that we are not saying.
I know that 1,534,789 is a prime number. But I cannot prove this to someone who refuses to learn the meaning of the term “prime number” or how to do long division.
I know this comment is very elitist, un-American, and all that. I’m sorry. But that is the situation we scientists are actually in. Some stuff really is sufficiently complicated that you can only learn it by learning it.
No one would go to a “brain surgeon” who had “learned” brain surgery by reading a few blogs on the Web. But the egalitarian ethos is so strong in the United States that many Americans (and it is overwhelmingly Americans) actually do take that attitude on many issues of science (not just evolution).
This is one of many reasons I consider egalitarianism to be evil.
Dave M. in Sacramento
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Hello. I would like to clarify something. The scientific theory of evolution does not promote its followers to have a reduced appreciation for the value of life, or that life is “expendable” as some of you think. This is a Religiously-centric point of view. I assume you are referring to movements such as Eugenics in Nazi Germany for example. A horrible mistreatment of scientific theory maybe, however lets not forget all the people Christianity has persecuted during its tenure here on earth. Ideas can be used to manipulate populations of people in a variety of ways, this is called “Rhetoric”, “Dogma”, etc.
The world evolution is used to designate two things in science, theory and fact. The FACT is that species CHANGE OVER TIME. The THEORY of evolution by NATURAL SELECTION, GENE DRIFT, and GENETIC FLOW, the currently accepted scientific model is simply an explanatory framework that BEST fits the phenomena we ALL experience from day to day. Surely one would agree with the fact that “creatures” (organisms) change; do you own DOGS or CATS? Well guess what? At one time they were wild animals and there was much, much less variety amongst them. Now, thanks to breeding (which is a controlled evolutionary process) we have lots and lots of breeds and they are making new ones every day. Even early Greek physics, such as that studied by Thales, Anaximander, and later Aristotle (who’s ideas the Catholic church Ironically accepted as their own ), OBSERVED that creatures changed over time, which by the way, predates the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
As a theoretical framework, evolution is simply the most accurate explanation science has for explaining certain phenomena. It is yes, one most dire, as it points to ORIGINS and that scares people b/c it asks that one often time challenge their beliefs and assumptions. However it IS the best theory for science to use. The Christian Creationist-Model CANNOT be taught AS SCIENCE because it does NOT provide an accurate framework for the changes we experience.
Does this however, mean that Creationism should not be taught? NO. Creationism and religious VALUE SHOULD be taught, for a plurality of different viewpoints are CRUCIAL to an individuals ability to critically and personally decide what is right and wrong for themselves. I’m sorry to say this, but the bible was written by a variety of politically devious individuals; people who were, at various periods of political unrest, MOTIVATED TO ALTER THE BELIEFS of people through dogma, that is unchallenged belief structure. Just take a look at all the versions of the bible out there and you’ll realize that. What makes a particular Christian partial to a particular version? I can’t answer that. That would be beyond my knowledge and presumptuous of me. Everyone derives their values differently.
It is important to promote understanding by introducing people to a variety of different learning styles, however CREATION-SCIENCE is NOT science, it is a sloppy importation of Christian dogma into science. In order to be scientific it must undergo rigorous testing, which it has and the conclusions are absurd. This does not mean Christianity is absurd Nor believing in God and Jesus. One should be reserved for Science, the other a religious studies class, philosophy, or Sunday school. Thank you.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Dave – I agree with you 100%. There’s another thread going on that deals with evolution that you might want to check out at http://www.shanktified.com/archives/good-enough/#comment-39094 . I cited a web page where UC-Berkeley has an intro to evolution. Ron seems open to reading that. Something like that may help you explain things also, if you could find one.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Geoffrey,
Thanks, I’ll check it out. As you’ve probably guessed, I’ve had extensive experience discussing this issue with creationists, and I’m getting a bit weary of people who pontificate about what science says but who are too lazy to get off their duff and actually learn what science says.
Although I am an atheist/agnostic (like most top-flight scientists of course), I would not presume to tell Christians what their faith teaches if I had not done extensive reading in the Christian holy book. I do not expect Christians to simply spoon-feed me the Bible on some online discussion thread. However, too many Christians do demand that we professional scientists “prove” to them evolution in a thread like this instead of their actually reading the requisite scientific books and taking the needed classes for themselves.
Laziness.
That so many Christians are so certain of themselves in complex technical subjects such as information theory, about which they know nothing, I find quite remarkable.
Dave
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
PhysicistDave, I’m not sure why you posted? It’s clear you can’t (by your own words) prove anything about evolution. Why don’t you submit some links to get us started, as GK has done?
January 25th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
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.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
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.
June 1st, 2008 at 8:13 am
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.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
So Yellownumberfive (and anyone else), what are you thoughts on Bob Barr?
June 15th, 2008 at 3:44 am
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.
September 21st, 2008 at 3:42 am
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.
April 24th, 2010 at 11:37 am
This is pandering to a vocal majority in the GOP. Ron Paul may believe in evolution and scientific fact–he is doctor–but he is forced to deny it due to political expediency. His anti-abortion record makes him suspect in my eyes due to his being an obstetrician who serves women. His social libertarianism would take a backseat if were he to become President to the economic libertarianism of the GOP.
I do not blame Ron Paul for pandering. All politicians do it and it is a part of politics whether we like it or not. But I do blame his supporters who think he is an independent mind transcending left and right wing ideology. As President he would not be able to put in effect his social libertarian policies. Like Obama there are powerful members of his own party that would block his own initiatives–like Lieberman with the public option. Any attempt to decriminalize marijuana or prostitution would be blocked and filibustered by social conservatives in his own party.
The truth of the matter is that Objectivists need Christian conservatives like Romney and Palin to put in place their economic agenda. Which means their social agenda has to be scrapped.
August 21st, 2011 at 2:39 pm
[...] for a man with a B.S. in biology and a medical degree from Duke not to believe in evolution. Here is full explanation of Paul's position in regards to evolution. [...]
August 29th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
The question was, “Do you believe the theory to be true?”
That is a very specific question, wihich reaches beyond believing it is a valid theory.
Ron Paul correctly stated, as any reasonable person would, that he can’t know for sure whether or not it is true.
I believe these comments are taken out of the context of the very specific question that was asked of him.
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:07 pm
An example of microevolution (a.k.a the precursor to macroevolution/speciation if the conditions are right):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_01.html I
I am honestly surprised that the work done by the Grants on the Galapagos Islands in never mentioned in these debates. They have made some truly powerful discoveries that will likely go on being ignored by the masses (but they are stars in the biology community). There are, of course, plenty of other examples, such as plants adapting to live in serpentine soils, but the finches are just plain cool.
That said, comments like this: “Also, I strongly agree with your argument that evolutionary teaching leads to the view that life is expendable” makes me very sad and a tad bit angry. I am a student of evolution and do not find life expendable for any living being, let alone humans.
That said, having my character attacked because I find the evidence for evolution irrefutable is, in my humblest opinion, completely inappropriate and illogical. The Theory of Evolution doesn’t involve any kind of moral component, good or bad. Morality is a construct of culture and theology. What is does involve in an explanation for how organisms adapt to their environment (via natural selection) and, potentially, speciate due to reproductive isolation (behavioral, genetic or geographic to name a few situations).
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:16 pm
From the link you referenced: “Now the next step: evolution. The Grants found that the offspring of the birds that survived the 1977 drought tended to be larger, with bigger beaks. So the adaptation to a changed environment led to a larger-beaked finch population in the following generation. ”
That is microevolution (or adaptation). No one here argues that. What you don’t see are birds becoming fish or vice-versa. Macro-evolution. The finches remained finches the entire time. They didn’t even become ducks.
October 24th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
That would be because evolution doesn’t operate that way nor does the theory evolution claim that. Microevolution (adaptation) is evolution. Microevolution is the primary way that species evolve over time (usually thousands if not millions of years). Macroevolution can occur if, say, two populations of the same species become reproductively isolated from one another for a few thousand years. After that time, you may not even be able to tell that they came from the same parent population due to physical differences. Obviously the finches remained finches… a duck (or a a finch that has more of a bill to compare apples to apples) would be selected against because bills are not very useful in cracking open seeds. What I am trying to get at is instant speciation (such as the example of a finch producing a duck) is incredibly rare. If that was, in fact, what evolutionary theory claimed, then I would be inclined to agree with you that evolution is a load of bunk. But, again, that is not what Darwin or Wallace wrote and is not what evolutionary biologist assert.
Another example is snakes (commonly constrictors such as boas) that still have vestigial hipbone remnants that call back to when snakes evolved from a lizard like ancestor. Additionally, fossils of snakes in an intermediary stage of evolution have been discovered. These snakes still had leg remnants. A similar story plays out for whales going from land animals to sea creatures.
(boa hip structure: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_14 and snake with legs discovery: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7339508.stm ).
But, I guess I got sidetracked in my original post and I have to ask: What about any of this leads you to believe that I,or anyone with similar beliefs as me, do not value life as much as those that do not believe in evolutionary theory?
Some notes:
I use the term “you” loosely and do not intend to direct such a comment at any single person anybody. Also, the picture comparing the snake hip structure to humans is not implying that humans come from snakes. It is simply trying to demonstrate that the snake has a vestigial hipbone structure.
October 24th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
To keep from digressing down the snake rabbit trail. I’ll refer you to this page. Scroll down to the legless lizard section. But I have to concur with that site, “Loss of information cannot explain how evolution ‘from amoeba to man’ could occur.”
Back to your main point: “What about any of this leads you to believe that I,or anyone with similar beliefs as me, do not value life as much as those that do not believe in evolutionary theory?” I’d like to change the question just a bit to clarify my position. “What about any of this leads you to believe that I,or anyone with similar beliefs as me, do not value life as much as those that [believe man is created by the God of the Bible]” That question would more accurately project my position.
First neither of us can truly know the thoughts of another man and the depth to that which he cares for someone else. However we can make some good assumptions based on logic.
The Bible teaches that man is created in the image of God.
Evolution teaches survival of the fittest.
It’s really easy to see why someone true to your beliefs would see life as less valuable.
October 24th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
None of the sources supporting what that article has to say are peer reviewed (or that the “classic examples” have been disproved). It may be narrow minded of me, but I cannot base any facts off of it.
I see you assume that I am of the same belief system as you, for which I am not.
Survival of the fittest is not a term used by evolutionary biologists. It was a term coined by an economist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest). Evolution, in its most basic terms, simply says that those who have more offspring will pass on more of their genes (I don’t know if you could even argue that). Therefore, those genes (adaptations) that result in the most offspring should be more present in subsequent generations. Sometimes these genes are visible in a phenotype (physical appearance) sometimes they are not. So, another way of looking at it is: A lion that lives to be 20 but has no offspring is less fit (his genes will not be passed on) than a lion that lives to 10 but has 100 offspring. I’m not really sure how that makes me value life less than the next person. I do remember a particular line in the bible that commends those who kill the babies of their enemies. I do know that is not the greater message of the Bible or the New Testament, but it is by far worse than anything you will find in “On the Origin of Species.”
I will refrain any further from commenting on the Bible as I have not read it cover to cover and likely never will. Therefore, I do not have the understanding required to rightly judge, comment or otherwise use it in defense or against a scientific theory. Clearly, from the amount of reading I have been doing lately, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution from the creationist side, probably a result from those who have never stepped foot in a classroom teaching evolution or read an evolution text book (please note that I am not saying anyone in particular because, in reality I don’t know anyone’s background).
October 25th, 2011 at 1:46 am
I apologize and recant my first sentence to a point, as some of the articles were peer reviewed in that the experimentation was flawed (insert foot in mouth). The article does have some flawed definitions/understandings in regards to vestigial organs, however.
Anyway, this is my last post… I should be spending more time on my thesis. Take care!
October 25th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
I wish you the best on your thesis. I can see you are very concerned about truth. Which is refreshing. I’d encourage you to read the Bible. IF it’s claims are true (and I believe they are – I only say if to make my point) IF they are true, then they worth investigating. We will all face the judgment one day when we die. Even if there is a remote chance this might be true, you need to be prepared. So I implore you to read the Bible (at least the book of John) and know what is expected. If you have questions, I’m happy to help answer them. Again, I wish you the best on your thesis. Take care.
December 25th, 2011 at 2:29 am
Dear Ron,
It’s refreshing to read a cordial, professional, but lively discussion over the theory of evolution, one that doesn’t come to ad hominem attacks. You are obviously one who has read widely, and I thank you for your attempts to understand beliefs outside of those you may have inherited through your cultural identity. This alone is noteworthy, as all too many adherents to certain systems of beliefs (yes, scientists included–from personal experience, some scientists can be surprisingly narrow-minded about interpretations of empirical evidence, especially when it contradicts their own work) are unwilling to even look at other lines of reasoning to explain why we see the world as we do. For the record, while I understand PhysicistDave’s point about formal scientific training being essential for understanding how to determine the validity of and how to interpret real-world evidence (in the form of data), I don’t subscribe to the idea that science shouldn’t be made accessible to non-scientists. Science is just a profession that seeks to listen to what the world is trying to tell us. Every rock, every gene sequence, every disease, has a story to tell; we’re just trying to translate what they’re saying into English, if you will.
That being said, I wish to point out a minor, but perhaps significant, premise that I think you may have incorrectly applied to this discussion. You note that there is no evidence pointing to an increase in genetic information through the ages, only a decrease (I have not read enough of the literature to be able to draw my own conclusions on this, so I’ll leave this point be). I think there is a major, and unjustified, premise that you have not explicitly stated when you brought up that point. The premise is this: That humans (and dogs, iguanas, jellyfish, and so on) are more information-dense (and more sophisticated?) than for example, a single-celled phytoplankter. By accepting this linear increase in information-richness from unicellular organisms to “higher” species implicitly, you then are able to question whether there is an increase in “information” through the phylogenetic tree up to humans. I think this is a misguided view of biological information. I can’t particularly think of why humans are more sophisticated than the smaller critters that share our Earth. Sure, we’re able to manipulate our landscape and bend natural resources to our will (to an extent–we still haven’t managed to conquer natural disasters yet), but from a biochemical standpoint, we’re actually pretty simple organisms. We lack many of the basic metabolisms that allow “primitive” organisms to live in different environments. For example, we can’t perform nitrogen fixation. All of the nitrogen we require (as nitrates and ammonium) comes from consumption of other organisms (which have obtained nitrogen from their prey or symbionts), and so on until we arrive at the nitrogen fixers–fungi and bacteria, for the most part–that fuel our nitrogen economy at high energetic cost to themselves. We’re lacking a nitrogen-fixing metabolism for good reason–we don’t need it. Animals have evolved (for over 500 million years) to essentially be big storage tanks of nitrogen (in proteins) (that’s why meat has a lot of protein!), because (most) animals are mobile and can extract nitrogen from their prey. However, if you look at the biomolecular composition of plants, which are not mobile are thus often stressed for nitrogen (which is why we provide N through fertilizers … see the connection?), plants contain far less protein (as a percentage of total biomass) than animals (like humans). This is because many of the structural functions that are provided by proteins in animals (e.g., keratin in your hair and collagen in your cartilage) are replaced by carbohydrates (which do not contain nitrogen) in plants. In this way, plants can conserve their scarce nitrogen reserves for use in the most essential functions, e.g., for catalysis (building protein-based enzymes). It’s through exercises in logic and data analysis like the example I’ve just outlined that I believe that humans and other animals are not especially sophisticated or information-rich; we just have an ecological niche that allows us to take advantage of organisms at other trophic levels. (By the way, eukaryotic genomes may be big, but they’re also very redundant–there are multiple copies of many genes in the genome, a feature that’s not seen in most all prokaryotes–again, a matter of energetic trade-offs (time vs. energy reserves).)
Just looking at the illogical patchwork of genes, regulatory networks, catalytic biomolecular machines, and information flow within a cell (and within the human body), I’m inclined to believe that life was not designed by an intelligent, logical Creator. If we compare computer systems–which I hope we can agree are designed to be functionally efficient and to have minimal redundancy & internal conflicts–to any biological system (pick your favorite scale–ecosystem-level, organ-level, cellular, or signalling cascade-level), we can pretty easily see that biological systems are very much dynamic and fundamentally imperfect. I’d go as far as saying that it looks very much like a careless cosmic experimenter went through a pile of biomolecular parts and cobbled together whatever seemed to work. Needed a source of energy? Use the Sun! Need electricity to power cellular processes? Let’s strip electrons out of water and dump them into carbon dioxide to make biomass (and spitting out oxygen as a waste product in the meantime). If we look at all closely at any of the reactions and enzymes involved in this metabolic sequence (just one of many thousands known (see the KEGG atlas if you’re interested)), we’ll immediately see that many of these reactions are downright terrible in terms of design. These enzymes are not something a bioengineer would intentionally design today, because they’re just so inefficient. (RuBisCO is a well-studied example, if you’re interested in reading about its poisoning by molecular oxygen.) That’s what our current understanding of what biology is–it’s a mess. That is why we spend so much time trying to understand it and predict the responses to external perturbations of biological systems (e.g., the human body).
Cheers,
Kevin
P.S. Also, keep in mind that just because it’s published, doesn’t mean it’s true! This goes for Youtube videos and Bibles as well as articles in the scientific literature. It takes many years of training in a particular field and closely following the conversations of a particular community of scholars to really understand what findings are scientifically sound, and what is just bogus.
December 25th, 2011 at 2:52 am
Oh, forgot to mention, the degree of difference between species is entirely arbitrary and operationally defined. The community of researchers currently defines bacterial species (by gene sequences) differently from eukaryotic species (the ability to interbreed sexually). If you’d like, you could expand or restrict the scope of what qualifies as a species to your liking. I’d be equally happy to say that we (every living thing on this planet) are all one big (happy?) species/family, or that every individual human (excepting identical twins) are different species. All this is to say that what qualifies as a species is irrelevant. The idea of a “species” is just a convenient construct for understanding the divergence of populations of organisms (and over time (we’re talking millions or billions of years here–try putting >10^5 zeroes after your average human lifespan)) as an abstract concept. Whether or not there is a physical manifestation for the basis of species boundaries (there isn’t) is not really important at all.
Cheerio!
Kevin
December 30th, 2011 at 10:54 am
I believe in evolution and I support Ron Paul. Ron Paul doesn’t believe religion is a federal issue!
January 11th, 2012 at 3:42 am
If God did not create the universe, who, or what did? Did it create itself? Out of what? Nothing? If God did not create man, but man evolved from a molecule of animate slime that God did create in a universe that God did create, then, how does that lessen God? If it does not lessen God, then perhaps a book should be written about it. One that people would read part of for over 7,000 years and another part for over 2,000 years. Oh, wait a minute. The Book is there, already. It’s bottom line is that there is but one God, He created everything and He wants each of us to be with Him forever. How he did it is irrelevant, unless you are a recipient of a fat, government or private enterprise research grant. And when you start to put the puzzle pieces together, all you can do is attribute it to chance. Don’t bother to rip my rant apart, because, I don’t give a hoot what you think. I’ve got it all figured out.
January 24th, 2012 at 6:18 pm
I think Ron Paul needs to start showing him self in contrast with Obama if he wants to win. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAKsxfDMYAA
May 21st, 2012 at 5:25 pm
“As I investigate whom I will vote for”
**For whom I will vote
May 26th, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Thanks John. I need all the help I can get.
And I’m not being sarcastic. I really do need help in the grammar and proof-reading departments. Hit me up anytime. However, I should warn you, it could become a full time job.