- 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% [?]
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?
Jim, I’ve replied to you with in another post here.
“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?
I think it depends on global warming
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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
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?
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.
[...] You would never guess that by the comments I get here. [...]
I think we should support Ron Paul because of all the candidates he is the most Christian and Christ-like.
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)
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Dan, here’s a good follow up to that. Provides a little clarification.
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
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/
[...] 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 [...]
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…
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.
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.
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]
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?
[...] 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 [...]
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.
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.
CT (#90), I agree – there are bigger issues.
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.
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,
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.
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.