Ron Paul, Creationist
Dr. Ron Paul apparently rejects the "theory" of evolution. Given that he's an MD and all, I wonder if he also believes in "germ theory", or feels that the Creator endowed some people with bad humours.
Starting around 2:45 is the relevant Q&A, where an audience member asks Ron Paul whether he believes "the theory of evolution" to be true:
I think that there, it's a theory. It's 'the theory of evolution.' And I don't accept it, you know, as a theory. But I think, it probably doesn't bother me, it's not the most important issue for me, to make a difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think that the Creator that I know created us and every one of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner. And, you know, I just don't think that we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side ... I think it's a theological discussion.
I agree it's not a directly relevant issue, but — especially in Paul's case — such irrational thinking is reason for concern.
update Reason mag has an analysis of the candidates' positions on evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design.
I sick of people saying "the theory of evolution."
Evolution *is* a fact. The mechanisms behind it are what are theoretical.
Posted by: *dell on December 17, 2007 8:21 PM | permalinkAnd he's a doctor. Creationist doctors are very worrisome.
Posted by: Justin on December 18, 2007 10:09 AM | permalinkJustin:
That's such a good point, I edited my post.
Is it inconceivable that this God character created the world in such a way that evolution would take hold and humans would evolve as the dominant species as part of that plan?
Posted by: ChuckJerry on December 18, 2007 2:45 PM | permalinkChuckJerry:
Yes, that's conceivable. It's just not *science*.
And it's also definitely not consistent with what the Torah, Bible and Koran say.
In any case, creation-then-evolution is not the view Ron Paul is supporting. He says he disagrees with the "theory" of evolution, despite mountains of scientific evidence supporting it.
Do we really want another president, who governs by faith, instead of reason?
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on December 18, 2007 3:42 PM | permalinkWoah, hold on there. Don't go dragging the Koran into this. There is nothing in any Islamic holy text that would lead any sane person to believe that Evolution is somehow anti-God or not possible. The only evidence of an anti-Evolution crowd I can find in the Islamic world is clearly influenced by the not-so-bright or possibly the Wahabis (if there is any difference there).
I find it hard to believe that a Muslim wouldn't believe in Evolution especially since one of the glorified names for God is "The Evolver" (#13 http://www.jannah.org/articles/names.html).
I can't speak for the Torah, but I've always been under the impression that the only ones who take issue with "evilution" are the Christians that believe every single world of the English Bible should be taken as 100% literal.
Posted by: Kearns on December 18, 2007 4:18 PM | permalinkYou are correct. I should have specified "literalists" in those religions.
And, even then, I'm conflating creationism with being anti-evolution, even though they aren't synonymous.
I'm really not familiar enough with Islam to speak on how specific it is regarding how Adam and Eve ended up in the Garden of Eden.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on December 18, 2007 6:45 PM | permalinkron paul struck me as reasonable and rational. Creationists are neither. there is a good chance he is just playing the crowd as religious people (typically dimwitted and from fantasy land) make an easy extra few votes. many religious extremists will vote for whoever falls in line with thier beliefs subscription, so they can get brownie points for the after life. if only they would focus more on this life. why do americans reffer to it as the "the theory of evolution.", it is a 100% fact, no belief necessary, its simply called "evolution". similar to "the theory of grass is green."
Posted by: meadows on December 24, 2007 12:15 PM | permalinkIt gets better --
Ron Paul and his strong ties to White Nationalism:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-pauls-friends-in-black-and-white.html
rslux:
The anti-Black remark was ghost-written 20 years ago, and he has since apologized (lame excuse, I realize).
As far as the "White Nationalist" connection, I am skeptical. Just because they support him doesn't mean he supports them.
I remain unconvinced that his ties to White Nationalism go in both directions, and that they're not just piggybacking on a candidate who happens to support a few items of their agenda.
Plus, let's be frank -- hardcore white nationalists are a tiny nuisance; Christian fundamentalists are a real influence on our political world.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on December 28, 2007 8:17 AM | permalinkI agree it's disconcerting that Dr. Paul does the "evolution, it's a theory" thing, and consequently I certainly wouldn't want him as my doctor. It would disqualify him in my eyes for president too if he were a typical big-government politician.
But given his strict interpretation of the limited powers of the federal government, combined with his non-interventionist foreign policy, I don't think his scientific knowledge or faith is an issue, as is appropriate.
Posted by: bergeo on January 5, 2008 8:50 AM | permalinkbergeo:
I agree. It's upsetting, but not like the idea of spending a trillion dollars more in Iraq.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on January 5, 2008 10:01 AM | permalinkdo you do ANY work all day? between your 15 twitter posts on company time, contant iming, blog posts...
Posted by: nobody on January 6, 2008 8:24 PM | permalinkLOL .. I have posted six times in the past 60 days. If that's so much distraction that it would derail your productivity, I don't know what to say. Clearly you don't understand how programmers work.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on January 6, 2008 10:36 PM | permalinkDoes the picture ever change? I think it started out as a lemon and has been the same each time.
Happy New Year, Joe!
Posted by: Steven Klassen on January 6, 2008 10:40 PM | permalinkInfinitely more than I am accountable to you for.
Don't you have a life of your own? It's really sad if you don't have anything better to do than anonymously nitpick mine.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on January 7, 2008 11:01 PM | permalinkNope. Nor do any of my bosses live in Rockville (where the IP resolves to). So I really don't give a shit what they think.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on January 8, 2008 10:07 PM | permalinkPlease keep it on-topic. Don't spam or advertise. Don't pretend to be someone else. Anonymity is OK, but less credible.
HTML tags are automatically stripped out of your comments for security reasons. If you want to put a link to something, just enter the URL. We'll figure it out.
