- UPDATE 3a: Edited clip here:
This clip was changed to a slightly longer version to make sure RP’s full answer was given. - UPDATE 2: Ron Paul says “It’s a Theory … I don’t accept it.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q (question starts at 2:40) Hat-tip: Ray (from comment 40 below). - Update 1 (written when I still understood Paul to believe in Evolution): Much to my surprise this post remains one of the most active on my site. So, I think it is necessary to clarify that Ron Paul’s views on evolution alone do not disqualify him from receiving my vote. I like many of Ron Paul’s comments concerning the Constitutionality of various things. It’s where Rep Paul and I have strong common ground. But this is a campaign and don’t let debate sound-bites override the facts. Investigate. Start with their voting records. Now, on to my original post:
As I investigate whom I will vote for, I found the list got a lot shorter after the first debate.
After seeing the clip after asking “who does not believe in evolution.” I shot off this email to the Ron Paul campaign:
On 5/4/07, Ron Shank
wrote: Dear Ron Paul team:
Does Ron Paul believe in evolution? I didn’t see his hand raised in the debate when asked “who does not believe in evolution.”
Thanks for your quick reply.
Thank you,
Ron Shank
They quickly replied.
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Didn’t see his hand
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:15:06 -0400
From: Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
To: Ron ShankRon,
Ron Paul did not raise his hand during that question, it was Tancredo, Huckabee & Brownback who raised their hands. Dr. Paul is physician and believes in evolution.
For me, this narrows it down to these three to further investigate.
Your thoughts?
Popularity: 24% [?]
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.
What does a person’s thoughts on evolution have to do with him being president?
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.
Answer to both your questions are here.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m afraid if you want to elect someone who doesn’t respect science, you’ll get someone like Bush.
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.
[...] 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[...]
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.
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…
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
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?”
[...] 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 [...]
@ 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
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.
For my exclusive interview with Ron Paul, visit, please, TheAmericanView.com. Thank you. John Lofton, Editor.
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
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
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.
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.
[...] 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.
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.
“…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!
Book, chapter, and verse, please.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Thanks, Ron.
I know I posted quite a bit to respond to, lol, so take your time. 
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
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.
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.
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.
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
You creation people are all scary.
Excellent link, Ray. Thanks so much.
And.. “Smart Person, ” what in particular scares you?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Dale, what convinced you evolution was true? And how can you prove the Genesis account is false?
BTW, numerous examples of transitional life forms can be found here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil