Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 21, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Loss of Rainforests Is Double Whammy Threat to Climate






Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
A/V Booth

Ron Paul Doesn’t Accept Evolution

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Dec 22, 2007
ron paul

The one and only anti-war Republican presidential candidate didn’t raise his hand when asked who doesn’t believe in evolution, but it turns out he may have wanted to. In this clip, Paul responds to a question about the incident by saying that it was an “inappropriate question,” but that “I think it’s a theory—theory of evolution—and I don’t accept it.”

Paul hasn’t been hiding his religious convictions. He wrote back in 2003 that the “secular Left” has been waging a war on religion and Christmas and that “[t]he notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.”

And in case you think Truthdig has nothing nice to say about Ron Paul, read our own voice from the “secular Left,” Truthdig Editor Robert Scheer—who believes in the separation of church and state, it’s true—cheering for the libertarian from Texas.

Hat tip for the clip and the war-on-religion article goes to The Largest Minority.

Watch it:

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By dwhite, December 24, 2007 at 3:30 pm Link to this comment

Nomascerdo:

I think I’m going to let you handle it from now on, you seem to be doing a great job. I think I’m going to turn notification off now, since I’m getting an email every three minutes.

Dwhite

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 24, 2007 at 3:25 pm Link to this comment

“Now Ron Paul is allegedly a physician, though that’s hard to comprehend, seeing as he’s obviously not a PRACTICING OR TEACHING ONE.”

Yet another statement that is entirely devoid of logic, reason, or truth. “Allegedly a physician”? 

How about some empirical evidence to the contrary: MD from Duke Medical school. Flight surgeon in the US Air Force.  Practiced OB/GYN and delivered 4000+ babies over his career.

You wrote in a prior post that you would want literally anyone to deliver your baby and give you pre-natal care as long as they believed entirely in the theory of evolution.  You said a janitor would be your preference over a well qualified and experienced MD.  Are you a rational person? The evidence suggests otherwise.  You also like to insult people quite a bit which does not make you sound intelligent besides all of your claims otherwise.

Report this

By dwhite, December 24, 2007 at 3:19 pm Link to this comment

#122291

And your choice for president is…...??

Report this

By cyrena, December 24, 2007 at 3:10 pm Link to this comment

#122275 by Nomascerdo

•  It fits the pattern of virtually all of your hyperbole regarding Ron Paul.

Noma,

You’re such a nitwit…” fits the pattern”….Why don’t you stop with the “wanna-be dr. philistine routine?” Yes, my statements are CONSISTENT with everything else that I say and KNOW about Ron Paul as well as the Constitution. That’s what LOGICAL and REASONED people do!!

And, when one uses REASON and LOGIC and SCIENCE, the results can and will be reproduced, over and over again.

Here’s your problem, and it’s foundational,

•  Regarding the Constitution, his argument is very simple…..

That’s the point. YOU are ‘very simple’ and so is HE! The Constitution is NOT!! And, if you live another million years, you’re NEVER gonna get it all. People study the Constitution all of their lives, and they continue to study it, because it is NOT simple, and we’re not just talking about ‘ratified amendments’ when we talk about the Constitution – MORON!

Every time a legal decision is made at any federal court level, it STANDS AS LAW, unless it is overturned at some higher court level. It stands as law, and as a part of that SAME CONSTITUTION. This is the part you don’t get moron.

Now Ron Paul is allegedly a physician, though that’s hard to comprehend, seeing as he’s obviously not a PRACTICING OR TEACHING ONE.

So in reality, he’s just another 2-bit politician whose been around for decades, and has these goofy ideas of life back in the days of the wild, wild west. What he is NOT, is a Constitutional Legal Scholar, and I’m sick of telling you this.

So, despite what you claim about him ‘following’ the Constitution, he has proven on multiple occasions, VIA his CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, that he’s determined to UNDO many portions of the Constitution (codified law) WITHOUT going through the necessary process. And, I have given you multiple examples of this in the past. Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, and the all of the framework of the Establishment Clause, that provides for the Separation of Church and State. Lists of these things have been posted, on this very site, by others who have taken the time to do the research, instead of just spewing ideological HYPERBOLE, like YOU do.

You aren’t doing your favorite buddy any favors when you post this stuff, because you show your OWN ignorance, which therefore brings attention to HIS. (as well as his underhanded attempts to change codified law, or otherwise get around it)

So, you should probably just STFU, and go back to sleep, instead of bringing attention to him. Because I WILL continue to bring attention to his many attempts to undo much of the Constitution that has been built on the law, in the way that the Constitution intended it. And for the moment, AMENDMENTS per se, are the LEAST of my concerns, because I already KNOW he can’t change any of those, without a legislative process.

Of course, who KNOWS what he would try to do if he actually became president. We’d be looking at another GW, only scarier, since GW doesn’t know enough about anything to do much more than follow orders, and keep bullying money out of the people.

So NO, he is NOT a Constitutionalist, because he can’t possibly even KNOW enough of case law to be one. He only knows what he doesn’t like, and goes about violating those laws in underhanded fashion. 

All he is – is part of the same rebellion against the neoconners who pretended they were gonna bow to all of the perverted wishes of the radical religious right, and then stole all of your money, and sent your jobs overseas, (and your kids into war) and failed to educate your children, or provide for a way for you to get out of small time suburbia to see that real life exists outside the little ignorant bubble that you’re in.

And, any supposed dr. that has such a distain for science is a complete fraud, as are you. The only difference is he’s a lot smarter than you, so he’s able to hide it his real intentions a whole lot better.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 24, 2007 at 3:04 pm Link to this comment

I failed to mention State, municipal, and county taxes which the Federal government has zero influence over and most certainly are not going away (and actually provide for the VAST MAJORITY of the services that most Americans associate with government and taxes in their daily lives including education, police/fire protection, local social services, state universities, etc etc) Worry not, you will be taxed!

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 24, 2007 at 3:03 pm Link to this comment

RE: #122189 by MannyP on 12/24

Quote: “If there is no God then all things are permissible.

There is no REASON not to:
engage in eugenics
concern oneself only with amassing stuff in this world
be selfish
appear moral, yet be immoral.”

**This is rhetoric and seriously devoid of proof.  This is a teaching of religion yet hasn’t any basis.  RELIGION TRAINS its followers to BELIEVE this however this has NEVER been proven.  Quite the opposite HAS been proven.  That is, that religions are the causes and underlying causes of a myriad of immoralities.  THERE IS CONCRETE PROOF OF THIS.

Religion doesn’t have a monopoly on morals. Although this is taught by many religions it hasn’t any basis in fact and isn’t even included in the definition of the word moral from Merriam and Webster’s online dictionary.

1 a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b: a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct bplural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4: moral conduct : virtue

http://www.webster.com/dictionary/morality

#122191 by MannyP on 12/24
“Actually, there are no constitutional laws to prevent anyone from espousing any sort of belief publicly.

Let’s see, if I were not a strong supporter of individual and state’s rights, I would ban public mention of the following modern concepts: justice, progressive, equitable, socialism, etc.
All of these have been misused to push a religion of non-secular humanism that has no foundation in anything but a liberal’s belief in forcing people to be “nice” (as they define it) to each other.”

**Again Manny, there are separation of church and state laws, while this has been interpreted and interpreted and interpreted, and YOUR interpretation of it may be different than what has transpired in our courts. The courts have ruled to protect people FROM religion as well as to protect their RIGHT to worship freely.  While there isn’t a law against proclaiming your beliefs publicly, there most certainly are those that prevent religion from holding THE WHOLE SOCIETY to its supposed standards and rhetoric.

Report this

By dwhite, December 24, 2007 at 2:59 pm Link to this comment

“I will agree that our current tax policy is out of control and unfair but that doesn’t mean that we can do away with it ENTIRELY as Paul claims.”

Why are you so misinformed? Have you been watching main stream media again? Go sit in the corner. Where have you ever come up with the idea that Ron Paul wants to ‘do away with taxes entirely’? Did you get that idea because he would like to see no tax on our labor?

Do you buy gas? Do you have a license plate on your car? Well that takes care of the roads. Do you have a telephone? Do you buy tires for your vehicle? Do you own property? Is there a school district where you live? If so, then you are paying taxes out the wazoo. Getting rid of the income tax is not the end of the world, in fact, we would be better off, since most of it goes to interest on the bankers loans anyway. It does us no good, or very little.

Sheesh….I give up!

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 24, 2007 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment

Outraged - Paul never said we could get rid of taxes entirely.  That is simply inaccurate.  He has said repeatedly, if you only cared to actually listen to what he says and writes, that he wants to get rid of the Federal income tax which accounts for roughly 40% of federal revenues.  There are still corporate taxes, use taxes, tariffs, etc.  Furthermore, he always prefaces the statement that the only way to eliminate the income tax is by a reduction in government spending and a change in the expectation and role of the Federal government.  It is very simple and straightforward and would require a consensus in Congress to undertake.  Either we decide to cut spending or the bankruptcy of this country will decide for us.  In the latter we are dealing with a crisis and in a crisis guess who gets hurt the most.  The very people liberals claim to want to help, the poor and middle class (what is left of it).  I will also point out that Ron Paul wants to cut spending OVERSEAS and not the domestic programs that Americans have become dependent on and paid so much of their income into.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 24, 2007 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment

Logician - your entire rant, as it relates to Ron Paul, has no supporting evidence.  He did get his MD from Duke Medical school so to try and paint him as some anti-empiricist is ridiculous.  If he had a theology degree and claimed some special understanding of divinity (as Huckabee does and as Bush does but without the degree) then you would have some logic to support the claim.  Ron Paul doesn’t (and hasn’t) and therefore, your argument is false.  Furthermore, your inability to accept the co-existence of empiricism and spirituality does not make you sound particularly reasonable either.  While you may personally choose not to have spirituality play a role in your own life your unwillingness to accept that others can and do simply makes you just the opposite extreme.  Ron Paul will fight for your right to not believe just as he will fight for the right of another to believe.

Report this

By dwhite, December 24, 2007 at 2:41 pm Link to this comment

“That’s what you’ll get with Paul: just another neurotic with delusions of grandeur.  Of course, this is supposing Paul is telling the truth.  And if ANY of us believe THAT, we really ARE gullible!”

I don’t really think so, I think he would govern from a strictly Constitutional viewpoint, but that’s just my opinion, he seems more honest than any other ‘politician’ I’ve heard.

Your comparing George Bush to Ron Paul is probably the most absurd comparison I’ve ever heard. On a Constitutional scale of 1 to 10 Bush is a -2 and Paul is an 11. Wasn’t is Bush that said, “The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper”?

WHETHER OR NOT Ron Paul is a religious man makes no difference if he’s able to separate that religion from governing, and I believe he will do a better job of it than anyone we’ve had in my lifetime. George Bush certainly does not, and not only that, he doesn’t respect, in fact, totally disrespects, the Constitution.

Should this be our future presidential oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will unfaithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, tear down, usurp and destroy the Constitution of the United States, so help me nothing.

That’s exactly what we have today.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 24, 2007 at 2:33 pm Link to this comment

RE: #122171 by Taxman on 12/24

Taxman,
I listed where I pulled the information directly below it, but if it helps here’s the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_tea_party

Also, these acts WERE taxes and they were imposed BEFORE the revolution.  My point was that there has ALWAYS been some sort of payment to governments throughout history (I don’t care how far back you want to go) whether it be with baskets of wheat or corn or TAXES.  I will agree that our current tax policy is out of control and unfair but that doesn’t mean that we can do away with it ENTIRELY as Paul claims.

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, December 24, 2007 at 1:57 pm Link to this comment

RE: #122219 by MannyP on 12/24 at 7:32 am
(14 comments total)

“If “true atheists” didn’t care what we believed, they would not fear being exposed to ideas about religion.”

Actually, athiests have looked at the rationale for religious belief, then rejected it not out of fear, but the same insanity as belief in the tooth fairy, or that paragon of the juxtaposition between Christian myth & commerce…the Easter Bunny.


And you also stated: “Atheism is an excuse to live as if there were no certain consequences.”

Alright, so you are telling us that it is ok for people who believe in the ‘rupture…err…rapture’ to speed up distruction of this world because their ‘consequence’ is eternal bliss? Well I’ve got something for your evolved brain to munch on for awhile: By what is written in your manual of questionable origin & authorship, the so-called ‘word’, murder & suicide are ultimate sins. If you are an accomplice to mass murder & suicide by willfully, intentionally, or even glorified ignorance speeding up the arrival of Armageddon, what kind of God would ever consider letting you through the Pearly Gates?

Report this

By Logician, December 24, 2007 at 1:56 pm Link to this comment

RE#122275 by Nomascerdo on 12/24 at 12:02 pm:

The inestimable Cyrena needs no defense from me, she will easily hand you your empty head.

But I do take exception with your poorly written belief that Paul’s personal view on evolution is irrelevant.  His denying evolution and believing in “my creator” as he calls this fictional being, is MOST relevant.

It shows us that he DENIES the primacy of evidence and choses instead to use a FAIRY TALE as his personal guide.  Why is this important?  Read slowly, okay? 

We use the senses we are born with to learn about and navigate the world on which we exist.  These senses are all we have for the interpretation of the data we daily receive.  To state that there is a being from another dimension who cannot EVER be detected by ANY of our senses (how convenient…)that SUPERCEDES our senses and MUST BE OBEYED means one must DENY all of his own senses and those of every other human’s on this planet.

Stick with me, I know it’s tough, but you can do it.  To walk around in the real world and claim that NOTHING in the real world matters and that ONLY your IMAGINED world matters is termed INSANITY.  Paul CANNOT correctly interpret ANYTHING, let alone the Constitution.  The Constitution is REAL, it EXISTS.  Paul states he DOES NOT BELIEVE in what EXISTS, he BELIEVES in what DOES NOT EXIST.

I know that’s tough for you to get your empty head around, so I’ll give you an EXISTING example of how that kind of person works:  George W. Bush.  HE believes in a fairy tale too, so he does just EXACTLY whatever the hell he believes his GOD has told him.  He violates the constitution on a DAILY basis because to him it DOESN’T MATTER.  Only GOD MATTERS, and since GOD placed him in office, he doesn’t have to obey ANY LAWS OF ANY MAN.  He has to obey only GOD’S LAW as HE interprets it.  And guess what?  GOD APPROVES of torture!  Didn’t you know that?  George does.  Cause George knows GOD.  So George can torture people because George knows GOD approves.

Stupid, isn’t it?  That’s what you’ll get with Paul: just another neurotic with delusions of grandeur.  Of course, this is supposing Paul is telling the truth.  And if ANY of us believe THAT, we really ARE gullible!

Merry Christmyth!

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, December 24, 2007 at 1:31 pm Link to this comment

Manny P,
In your defence of religions being able to proselytize you seem to be missing a couple key points. While I am tolerant of anyone’s right to do as they wish within a framework of ethical behavior, I strongly object to organized religions in general , especially since they have a propensity to project their particular beliefs on populations.

jbart touches on the issue when he states,

“You feel the need to have others believe as you do. It provides you with a sense of comfort and unity.”

This seems to be the issue. People need something in their lives to believe in (even if it is only themselves). Unfortunately, organized religions have a tendency toward domination & control of people rather than freeing them, and politics is part of the process.

Especially of late we have seen the bully pulpit on more levels than just presidential attempts at intimidation. Preachers are citizens of the world & various countries, too, and have been using their ‘supposed’ moral integrity to influence their flocks within the politiocal arena, even if it is on a personal level rather than outright public statements to their congregations, which IS illegal.

So I say, fine, freedom of speech is a Constitutional right, but not when it is being done on the public dole (if the dime churches do not pay means I must pay more taxes then churches ARE receiving a welfare subsidy from taxpayers). If churches expect to retain a tax-exempt status they should stay out of politics entirely. Frankly, I think they should pay taxes, because they have abused the privilege.

Government has a role to play in society, just as does religion, but the combination of the two only pours gasoline on an already raging fire. (How many deaths, historically, are attributable to the influence of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or especially the non-sectarian though primarily Jewish Zionism?)

“Values” arguments, especially when based on religious dogma rather than accepted man formulated law, is the refuge of scoundrels. 
—————————————————————————-
I am just making comments as I scroll down this lengthy thread, so please accept my apology if someone has already refuted this statement :

“For the record; evolution is still a theory, not a fact.  And it is so stated”

Yes, it is known as the ‘theory’ of evolution, but how has anyone ever conclusively proven the ‘theory’ of gravity. In keeping with the basic theme of this discussion, has anyone ever proven that the concept of god is more than ‘theoretical’?

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 24, 2007 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena writes to dwhite: “You’re myopic. Ron Paul is NOT a Constitutionalist if he makes attempts to OVERTURN parts of the very same. So, your statement that he is a “Constitutionalist” can most CERTAINLY be denied!!

You have to read the whole thing, not just the part that was written in 1787.”

This is yet another false assertion by Cyrena regarding Ron Paul.  Ron Paul is most certainly a Constitutionalist and has no desire to overturn all of the ratified amendments to it returning it to 1787. Cyrena your statement is quite simply an ignorant misinterpretation of Ron Paul.  It fits the pattern of virtually all of your hyperbole regarding Ron Paul.

Regarding the Constitution, his argument is very simple.  We must FOLLOW the Constitution as it is written today (including the amendments). If we find that a part of it no longer applies or a new amendment makes sense than we must go through the well established, intentionally deliberate process of amending it.  It is called upholding the oath of office and preserving our Constitutional REPUBLIC and restraining the power of the government (and protecting individual liberty). 

Ron Paul’s personal view on the theory of evolution is irrelevant because the role of the federal government (in particular the executive branch) has zero to do with scientific theory or the advancement of it.  Scientific theory and research is very simply the domain of the private sector or in each individual state at publicly funded universities.  If we make the mistake of continuing to allow the Federal government to get involved with science then there is actually a risk of whomever the President is at the time having an influence on/over science. I saw some liberal commentator arguing that we need a ‘Minister of the Future’.  How terrifyingly Orwellian is that? Ron Paul is very simply opposed to the federal government’s involvement and intervention in scientific funding (and hence theory) quite simply because it is not the role of the federal government to do so.  You can make the same argument regarding Federal involvement with education.  Now we can obviously point to some benefits of government involvement in science but it is a pandora’s box.  Be careful what you wish for. The same thing can be said regarding regulation of the internet.  While Net Neutrality sounds like a good idea, it is still regulation. The pattern is well established. All regulation starts with good intentions but then it is the special interests that come in and use their power and influence over government to bend regulation to benefit their interests over those of the people.  How this is not seen for what it truly is astounds me.  This pattern has repeated itself thousands of times.

Those of you that think that government sponsored Universal Healthcare is going to bring better, cheaper healthcare to the people and knock down the major healthcare companies and pharma companies etc are kidding yourselves.  If you still contend that government ISN’T big corporate interests you are naive.  They are one and the same and have been for decades.  More government power in the current system means more corporate special interest power (and you get screwed).  This is not a Democrat or Republican issue.  More corporate money has been given to Democrats this election cycle than Republicans!

Wake up.

Report this

By GrammaConcept, December 24, 2007 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment

.........The Evolution Of Consciousness is the “real” issue…...

Report this

By dwhite, December 24, 2007 at 11:37 am Link to this comment

His ‘religious’ convictions about natural selection ALSO lead him to conclusions like, ‘black people, (at least black men) are more likely to indulge in crime.” This is simply based on –whatever- and has nothing to do with the conditions that create crime, anywhere. It’s just God’s natural selection.

Ron Paul never wrote or said this. One of his staffers wrote it, is the story, and Dr. Paul denies having ever said such. Don’t believe everything you read on the internet, without researching both sides.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 24, 2007 at 11:20 am Link to this comment

Rage,

Agree with you on science, keep the blind faith for the ignorant, faith is called bind for a reason.

Report this

By Matt, December 24, 2007 at 11:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Logician proves that you cannot argue with liberals/socialists/atheists. When you point out flaws in their arguments, they just start chanting insults.”

You’re generalizing.  I’m a liberal (though not a socialist nor atheist.)  I’d like to think that I am reasonable; ad hominem attacks merely open oneself up to charges like the one above.

I think that mythic (e.g. religious) imagination is a vital aspect of the human experience.  The problem is there is too much information impinging on our brains to make sense of.  Reason (e.g. science) is imperfect because 1) our information is incomplete, 2) even so, there’s too much information to process in a reasonable amount of time, and 3) human created systems (political, economic, etc) are social systems and therefor are more easily intelligible to a social ‘epistemology’.  I think the best candidate for a functioning social epistemology is mythic imagination.  Much the same way that the vast amounts of information contained in markets are compressed into the price of commodities, the vast amounts of information contained in the social structures we’ve created over millenia is often compressed into units that can be accessed via mythic imagination.

Problems occur when people make pronouncements, using the language of either reason or myth, that have no basis in reason or myth (i.e. “God told me to invade Iraq, so I did.”)  The reason we insist on separation of church and state is not because religion has nothing useful to say about statecraft, but because we (rightly) fear concentration of power, and because we (as a hallmark of liberal societies since the ratification of the American Constitution) value pluralism.  Paul’s (and Huckabee’s) statements about evolution betray a both a nascent hostility to pluralism, a (familiar) lack of intellectual curiosity and rigor, and a refusal to use all the tools humans have at our disposal to understand the world.

Report this

By eljay, December 24, 2007 at 10:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You can equate this to a McDonald’s worker being asked weather or not he believes wearing blue t-shirts on Mondays would make you a heretic.

Report this

By rage, December 24, 2007 at 10:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“His ‘religious’ convictions about natural selection ALSO lead him to conclusions like, ‘black people, (at least black men) are more likely to indulge in crime.” This is simply based on –whatever- and has nothing to do with the conditions that create crime, anywhere. It’s just God’s natural selection….............  When it’s about God’s Law over the rule of law as created by a democracy; well, you see where that’s taken us.” #122122 by cyrena on 12/23 at 5:58 pm

It’s not as if Ron Paul has a snowball’s chance in a tropical July of getting elected to the Presidency of the United States of America. Besides, the very same public discourse trumpeting the detrimental sexist racist results of all things humanly spiritual or remotely religious can be similarly used to demonstrate how Darwinism has been twisted to poison science, jutifying the perpetuation through civil institutionalization of the most horrific social atrocities wrought by obscene eugenecists and criminal xenophobes. Recall Hitler? National Socialism was more about human control than all about God.

For a change, I want to see science and faith both utilized to benefit us, rather than manipulated by the most powerful a$$holes in our society to control and supress us.

Right now, hypocritical America is neither faithful nor scientific. Think about it: why, beyond posing a very divisive wedge in the discourse, is chatter of evolution important, particularly to the party that still burns witches and considers stem cell research to be against the will of God? This crap is just one more diversion to take our minds off real issues we need to be discussing, like the restoration of Habeas Corpus, the Bill of Rights, and the CONSTITUTION. However, the Jesus vote has yet to be counted. And, the Repugnant Party of God no longer boasts the beneficial craftiness of the little turdblossom, as Rove’s tied up these days covering his hind-quarters with really good lawyers. You think that could be why there is suddendly more howling about Darwin now than during the Monkey Trials?

Report this

By reason, December 24, 2007 at 10:46 am Link to this comment

It seems to me that we confuse the words “belief” and “faith”. We all have minds and as individuals we form opinions according to a logic generally based on our experiences.
Ron Paul is entitled to his perceptions of life and they are as valid as anyone elses.
My personal view is that “the theory of evolution” is not an attack an on God however, it upsets religous views that are based on perceptions too narrow to allow for any new idea causing anyone to question them.
My only concern with the religous view is that it does not allow any disagreement with it’s view and, it perpetuates the idea that faith and belief are the same word.

Report this

By dwhite, December 24, 2007 at 10:30 am Link to this comment

“when it is the believers who want everyone to believe what they believe?  Prove to me the Easter Bunny does not exist, or santa claus, maybe even the tooth fairy is not real, the question is the same? The burden is on the theist, not the non believer.”

As said, I don’t care what you (in the plural sense) believe, or don’t believe, as long as you do no harm to others and don’t force your beliefs or lack thereof upon others. And no I can’t prove the easter bunny does not exist, nor can you prove it does. But if you’d like to believe the easter bunny exists, I can’t prove it doesn’t. So as long as you don’t declare war on me, because I may not believe as you, then I’m fine with you believing in the easter bunny, or whatever.

Report this

By Logician, December 24, 2007 at 10:19 am Link to this comment

RE#122216 by MannyP on 12/24 at 7:21 am:

Ah, the mouth breathers sure come out during Christmyth, don’t they?

Have someone read my earlier post to you.  Here in America, Jesus is portrayed as a white man with a Clairol quality hairdo.  How quick you are to accuse ME of racism when a picture of Jesus as white is the ULTIMATE racist statement.  Crap, no WONDER you believe pederasts!

When you come out to play with the big dogs, MannyP, try to come up with your own argument.  The old “prove my grandpappy exists” is such an old, stupid argument.  It is so stupid it needs no reply. And if you truly doubt everything you see, hear, and experience, well, so sorry, sucks to be you.

And I’m cranky because no matter how many times I ask (and I’ve been asking for over 45 years) NO ONE has EVER given me even ONE piece of evidence for any claim in that stupid piece of poorly plagarized filth you call your bible.  Yet, for some idiotic reason you think you can trot out your fantastically stupid superstitions and expect to be treated with the same respect as someone who deals with the real world.

I do not have to prove your superstitions are wrong. YOU are making the claims. You do so love to talk of logic, here’s your chance to prove you know of what you speak.  As you know (or claim to, anyway) when you make a claim about reality, you need PROOF.  THEN we can talk of it’s legitimacy.  THEN we can talk about falsifying it.  THEN we can treat your claim with any respect. 

As for now, your claims defy all known laws of nature, cannot be reproduced, cannot be falsified, and once again, NO evidence is provided.  You deserve no respect, only derision.  As for now, you are NO better than a dirt covered savage in the jungle worshipping a wooden totem.  He has just as much evidence for his superstition as you do for yours.  I would not give such a savage any respect if he tried to debate issues of importance with me based on his totem’s ‘opinion’ for he would not deserve it. 

And neither do you.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 24, 2007 at 10:11 am Link to this comment

dwhite,

To prove that something does not exist is not quite the same as the opposite.  Proving that something does not exist, in this case god, why would an atheist have to prove anything, when it is the believers who want everyone to believe what they believe?  Prove to me the Easter Bunny does not exist, or santa claus, maybe even the tooth fairy is not real, the question is the same? The burden is on the theist, not the non believer.

Report this

By Logician, December 24, 2007 at 9:51 am Link to this comment

No, Expat, I am not the last word about this “debate” because there is NO debate.  You see, extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary EVIDENCE.  I’ll wait a minute while you look those words up.  (Out for some coffee…..) 

Ah, back?  Good!  As I have told many other mouth breathers, NO ONE has EVER given me, or anyone else, ANY evidence for ANY miraculous claim in ANY bible.  ZIP. NADA. ZERO. NONE.  EVER.  And yet, when this obvious FACT is mentioned, you all scurry around calling ME arrogant!

I am making NO claims that CANNOT be proven. ZIP. NADA. ZERO. NONE.  I am NOT telling you that you are born ‘unworthy’ and MUST therefore believe a poorly plagarized story or you will suffer horribly for eternity. I am NOT telling you that I have a personal relationship with a being that exists outside this dimension and that this other dimensional being has told me what is good for you and if you don’t believe me you’re just amoral.

That, my cranky little friend, is REAL arrogance.  To suppose that you can believe in something so incredibley stupid, (and with NO supporting evidence whatsoever, even) and then try to “debate” real issues with real consequences like an idiot who can’t accept facts wanting to run this country right back into the stone age is, well, insane.  There just isn’t any other way to put it. 

Once again, if you (or any other person on this planet) can produce even ONE piece of evidence that ANY miraculous claim in ANY bible is true, I will listen. 

In the meantime, keep your idiot beliefs to yourself. And keep them the hell away from politics.  To paraphrase a bumper sticker: When religion ruled the world they called it the Dark Ages.

Report this

By dwhite, December 24, 2007 at 9:25 am Link to this comment

Quote: “But your freedom of religious expression should not be QUELLED by the government.”

**dwhite, Give me an example of the government “quelling” religious expression. Is it because YOU want the right to shove YOUR erroneous teaching down someone else’s throat, accost them on the street and bang on their doors that you feel you are being “quelled”?  There are laws to protect EVERY AMERICAN citizen from this harassment from ANY religion.  Would it be okay with you if Atheists used these same tactics?

I don’t know who said this to me, but it couldn’t be further from the truth. I am not particularly religious. I was just paraphrasing the first amendment.

I think everyone should be free to believe what they want to believe, or not believe, as long as it is not harming others, or trying to force one’s beliefs on others.

Dr. Paul said, “I don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side”. I cannot disagree with that. Atheists cannot PROVE God doesn’t exist, and religion cannot PROVE God does exist. Both sides can point to facts, theories, and history for their conclusions, but neither has ABSOLUTE proof.

Evolution does not explain the beginning of the universe, it assumes something was there to evolve, but doesn’t explain where that “something” came from to begin with. Religion explains that, but totally without science, or anything but ‘faith’ to back it up. I simply say this: There are aspects of the universe that the human mind cannot comprehend, at least for now. And I’ll leave it at that.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 24, 2007 at 9:15 am Link to this comment

Manny P

“Atheism is an excuse to live as if there were no certain consequences. That is why a chunk of people who went to college have invented a system where everything is ok because it is relative.”

It is nice to know that you have it all figured out Manny P.  Two thousand years of ignorance, supported by enlightened goat herders.  Living life under those guidelines, has been great, from the consequences of the inquisition to the witch burnings and of course the Christian Wars.

Religion is great, serves ignorance well, your assumptions are just that.

Report this

By jbart, December 24, 2007 at 8:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

122219 by MannyP on 12/24 at 7:32 am
The operative word you use is “were”. History has shown that religion monopolized education and what the people “should” think. Social-Psycholical theory holds that in order to truly love, one must truly hate first. In that vein, in order to truly be an atheist, one must first be very religious.  That would be me, MannyP. Almost became a RC priest (Dad really wanted that to happen). You don’t need religious dogma to be moral, or considerate. or willing to sacrifice for your fellow man.  We only need the understanding that we all have a right to be here and respect each other’s place on earth. Having a GOD to revere as Omniscient and Omnipotent leaves us with the dispair of good people dying needlessly and bad people thriving. If there is no afterlife….maybe people would do something about this situation.  Like bad people dying and good people living/thriving. What a concept, huh?  A belief system that includes a “better place” after we die allows for people to allow good people to die needlessly and bad people to enjoy life on earth.  Try it out, it feels much better.  At least to me, it does.  Have a nice Xmas MannyP.

Report this

By Expat, December 24, 2007 at 8:44 am Link to this comment

#122185 by Logician on 12/24 at 4:19 am
(93 comments total)

RE# 122173 and 122174 by Expat:

Perhaps it’s time to lock yourself up, eh?

Report this

By Expat, December 24, 2007 at 8:39 am Link to this comment

#122185 by Logician on 12/24 at 4:19 am
(93 comments total)

RE# 122173 and 122174 by Expat:

Your astounding ignorance of science proves what is being said here.

Your incredible arrogance and ignorance defies understanding.  It is obvious you have no understanding of the life around you.  I love the art of debate but you love to attack and destroy!  Logician?  I think not.  Find another moniker.  You dishonor the name of logic.  Do you really think you are the last word in this debate because you are so convinced of your rightness?  Is your mind so closed and narrow?  This will be the last dialogue between us because you are not interested in dialogue; only dominance and I will have none of it!

Report this

By MannyP, December 24, 2007 at 8:32 am Link to this comment

Jbart-
The universe is such that x. We have beliefs about the universe that are rendered objectively true or false because of X.
If “true atheists” didn’t care what we believed, they would not fear being exposed to ideas about religion. I frankly could not care if everyone disagreed with me. The Truth is not subject to a vote.

Of these supposedly smarter people who are atheists, can you name a few who are recognized as geniuses. As far as I am aware, most if not all geniuses inside and out of science were theists.

Atheism is an excuse to live as if there were no certain consequences. That is why a chunk of people who went to college have invented a system where everything is ok because it is relative.

Report this

By MannyP, December 24, 2007 at 8:21 am Link to this comment

Logician proves that you cannot argue with liberals/socialists/atheists. When you point out flaws in their arguments, they just start chanting insults.

I have no idea what Jesus’ race has to do with anything, but I would say that since he was ethnicly a Jew, he would most likely have been of a darker complexion. However, if Jesus had been Black, what would that show? Are you projecting some racism onto our conversation?

Ok, try this out for size. try to prove that my great grandfather existed. I can dig up writings of people who met him. But, if what people witnessed and wrote about doesn’t count what would be the point? I can see if the stories about him match the historical events of the time. I can see that I exist. I can conclude that I am not unreasonable to believe that he existed OR maybe I was grown in a test tube in “The Matrix” and all these things are false. As I readily admitted, all things except I think therefore my mind exists are to be doubted.

Logician, I’m sorry that your mommy didn’t hug you enough or something. There must be a better argument that you can find than the human equivalent of throwing feces. Try going back to college and taking a course in logic, critical thinking or preferrable both. Then come back and try to construct a syllogism, analogy or some other way of creating a logical argument.

Report this

By jbart, December 24, 2007 at 8:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Did you ever notice that true atheists don’t “care” what you believe.  Did you ever have atheists out wlaking your streets “spreading the word”? No, I didn’t think so. You wanna know why they/we don’t attempt to “spread the word”? It’s because we are totally confident in our position and don’t need anyone else to believe as we do to feel comfortable, and confident, in our position. Not so with you “Bible-thumpers”. You feel the need to have othersbelieve as you do. It provides you with a sense of comfort and unity. But, if you werre truly “comfortable” in you beliefs, you would just “keep” your thoughts to yourself (and find solace in those thoughts). Just another example of the “herd” mentality at work. Also, try a little experiment. Look to the correlation between intellinge and religion. Atheists, as a group, are significantly of higher intellect than people of religion. Coincidence?  Noy.

Report this

By MannyP, December 24, 2007 at 8:05 am Link to this comment

Troublesum-
There are legitimate uses of a federal government. National defense, international relations, infrastructure, coining money, and regulating trade between the states and other countries to name a few. All are explicitly authorized by the Constitution. Unlike Ron Paul, I think that protecting the environment cannot be left to the market and lawsuits. But, we can work on that later. I am not going to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I think that unions are a good idea to equalize bargaining position between workers and owners. However, it would probably be mostly unneccessary if we couldn’t have the slave labor of the world to exploit. Scarcity controls economic value. Without much immigration our population should decline and then stabilize i.e. reach an equilibrium point. Labor would then be scarce, hence valuable. Who knows where the future could lead us.

Report this

By Logician, December 24, 2007 at 7:36 am Link to this comment

To MannyP:

Merely citing that “Hey! there’s a Jerusulam in the bible, just like now!” doesn’t validate ANYTHING.  By your laughbly spurious logic, EVERYTHING John Grisham wrote is also the gospel, cause he uses REAL LOCATIONS as his plot backdrops. Doesn’t work.

Give me your head, I’ll plant some electrodes on it and I GUARANTEE you will see ‘god’.  Curious thing, though, when that is done, no one EVER sees the ‘god’ of other cultures.  East Indians see Ganesha or any number of freaky little visions, American trailer trash see a white Jesus, etc.  Which brings us to another point, if Jesus HAD existed, which there is absolutely NO evidence he did (freaks being ‘filled’ with ‘god’s’ spirit notwithstanding) he would have likely been black or at the very least very dark brown with oily, kinky black hair.  Get your fricking myths straight, mouth breathers.

NO ONE, ANYWHERE, has EVER produced the ‘Ten Commandments’. No evidence exists.  (Remember, Indiana Jones is a fictional story, not a documentary) How many freaking times do I have to yell that at you?  No one has EVER walked on water.  No rotting corpse has ever ‘come back to life’.  Good grief, did your mamma suck crack while you were gestating?

As for ‘the gospels’, here’s one for you: One God, the father, causes a virgin woman to give birth to his only son and this birth is trumpeted by angels to shepherds.  At various times this son is called, “The Way,” “The Word,” etc.  This son is crucified on a cross of wood for the sins of mankind, is dead for three days during which he fights the forces of darkness and rises triumphant.

Cool, huh?  Is it Jesus?  No, meth-child, it is any number of local cults predating the Jesus myth by hundreds if not thousands of years.  NOTHING is original in the Jesus myth but the names Jesus, Joseph and Mary.  How pathetic.  You morons can’t even follow an original myth. 

As for your complete inability to understand evolution, that’s okay.  We need toilet scrubbers.  You can leave the big thoughts to those who can handle them. Whenever you run into a big idea you can’t understand, just do what the mouth-breathers do: say “God did it!” That’s why we have TVs, to keep you busy between cleaning the toilets for those who shape the world of technology you use. The technology created using the science you deny.  I’d say that’s ironic, but you’d just have to have it explained to you, so never mind.

Report this

By troublesum, December 24, 2007 at 6:47 am Link to this comment

#122145
I see.  The best way to have a government of, by, and for the people is to abolish the government and all agencies thereof.

Report this

By MannyP, December 24, 2007 at 6:03 am Link to this comment

To answer the illogical logician:
Actually, there have been many historical digs of biblical sites and findings that show consistency with events recorded in the bible. Even though the Catholic church only acknowledges four gospels i.e. witness acounts of the life of Jesus, there were apparently many gospels. I would say that stigmatists like Father Pio count as evidence.  Jews would probably say that the Ten Commandments secreted into the Ark of the Covenant were evidence. The faithful would say that they have felt God’s spirit fill them. These are all ways to say that man has perceived and continues to perceive God. All things subject to perception may be false. i.e. the only certain truth is that I think therefore my mind exixts.

BTW: The Jewish, Muslim and Christian God is one and the same. We have been killing each other over who is a recent prophet and whether the messiah has arrived or not but most of the world believes in the same God even though acccording to Logician this is an unfit characteristic. This is why survival of the fittest is such tripe. Headline: “Unfit Multiply, Prove Logician Wrong”

Report this

By MannyP, December 24, 2007 at 5:49 am Link to this comment

Matt has the best answer to us theists on evolution based in science(See below quoted material). However, where are the steps? The model you present is the same as I learned at Purdue University in Anthropology. However, there should be skulls in between each of those “evolutionary” steps. Did everyone mutate at once and in the same direction? What does “incremental phenotype change” mean? To me it takes a great deal more faith to believe that 1) there are random events in nature and 2) that a statistically improbable number of random mutations gave rise to all the biodiversity on our planet.

It is not so much that I disbelieve evolution per se. I disbelieve random atheistic evolution and see no likelihood of it having happened. Personally, I think that directed evolution is more likely.
It is sort of like with the Big Bang. Scientists tell us there was no time before the Big Bang. Some try to tell that there was a quantum flux which caused the Big Bang. However, if you unpack quantum flux, it means “some stuff happened that we have no idea why or how.” God is therefore a better answer than “quantum flux,” which is just a variable.


“Untrue.  You’re ignoring evidence.  See, for example, this progression of hominid skulls from something close to our common ancestor with chimpanzees to modern homo sapiens:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

Mutations refer to transcription errors in the genetic code.  Most of the time, these errors are of no consequence, since large portions of the code are not used for anything.  Occasionally, something really strange happens, like fruit flies with legs on their heads (instead of antennas).  These gross mutations typically are either infertile or don’t survive at all. Occasionally a mutation causes an incremental phenotype change which confers an advantage.  What type of evidence are you looking for in the fossil record?  Advantageous mutations look very nearly like others of the same species.  However, if you look at the code, at DNA, the evidence for mutation, multiple transcription, the relationship of all living things, all of it, is right there.  Our DNA contains junk sections, useless duplication, sections that have been copied in the wrong place, etc etc, exactly what you’d expect given Darwin’s theory. ”

Report this

By MannyP, December 24, 2007 at 5:29 am Link to this comment

“one can quite safely conclude that those who believe in myths and deny reality are not only not fit to lead, they aren’t even fit to breed. “

Q: Why do people that believe in “myths” breed more than the other kind?
A (by the atheist evolutionist): There must be a fittest component to believing in delusions

See, everything proves evolution.

Survival of the fittest is a tautology. Who survive? The fittest. Who are the fittest? The ones that survive. This is meaningless.

Report this

By MannyP, December 24, 2007 at 5:25 am Link to this comment

If there is no God then all things are permissible.

There is no REASON not to:
engage in eugenics
concern oneself only with amassing stuff in this world
be selfish
appear moral, yet be immoral.

Actually, if there is no God, there are no morals but only conventions. Things are wrong if enough people think there are. This means that killing Jews for no reason is not moral because we happened to win WWII.
From a theists perspective, it was, is and will be immoral.

Report this

By MannyP, December 24, 2007 at 5:20 am Link to this comment

#122157 by Outraged on 12/23 at 11:34 pm
There were heroin addicts back then, the Nazi’s were taking control of Europe, there was corruption in government and people had abortions.  It was just “hush..hush” however it WAS happening.

I just bet that there were over a million served each year by abortionists when your mother was younger. There are bad people all the time, but at least we the people used to be ashamed and try to fight it. Corruption in government prior to the 30’s mostly was at the city level. The federal government lacked the authority or power to do what lobbyists want them to do nowadays. That’s why we have so many felonious congressmen.

Report this

By Logician, December 24, 2007 at 5:19 am Link to this comment

RE# 122173 and 122174 by Expat:

Your astounding ignorance of science proves what is being said here.

It is obvious you weren’t paying attention in junior high science classes, so go to a book store and look up: 1) the scientific method 2) the scientific context of the word theory 3) the definition of cretinism.

In the words of men whose soles you aren’t fit to lick: “It’s perfectly okay to keep an open mind as long as it’s not so open your brain falls out.”  Understanding evolution is an admittedly tough subject to handle.  It requires: intelligence, study, education.  It can’t be done during a commercial break, during a Sunday sermon by a pederast, or even by misusing the concept “ethoncentrism” when one actually means “anthropocentrism”.

No matter how fervently you may hope, science is still the best method we have for understanding the world on which we live.  Because literally tons of evidence has been found for evolution and to date not ONE atom of evidence has been produced by anyone ANYWHERE for any of the myths in any bible, one can quite safely conclude that those who believe in myths and deny reality are not only not fit to lead, they aren’t even fit to breed.

Contrary to your opinion, religion is most appropriate to politics.  When one believes that one has been chosen by ‘god’ to be president, there can be no politics involved.  It is called monarchy.  You can look that up in the bookstore, also.  Romney, Huckabee, Paul, in fact NO ONE who claims to believe in myths is fit to lead. 

One cannot lead one’s life by a set of beliefs that absolutely contradict EVERY known law of nature and be mentally healthy.  I should know, I lock people up for that very thing.  In the medical field it is known as insanity. Yet in this constantly growing dumber country, we let these people run for political office.  And we wonder why every other country in the world laughs at us…

Report this

By MannyP, December 24, 2007 at 5:15 am Link to this comment

There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution or its amendments and stating that a liberal court found one over a hundred years after its ratification doesn’t make it so.

Report this

By MannyP, December 24, 2007 at 5:13 am Link to this comment

Quote: “But your freedom of religious expression should not be QUELLED by the government.”

**dwhite, Give me an example of the government “quelling” religious expression. Is it because YOU want the right to shove YOUR erroneous teaching down someone else’s throat, accost them on the street and bang on their doors that you feel you are being “quelled”?  There are laws to protect EVERY AMERICAN citizen from this harassment from ANY religion.  Would it be okay with you if Atheists used these same tactics?


Actually, there are no constitutional laws to prevent anyone from espousing any sort of belief publicly.

Let’s see, if I were not a strong supporter of individual and state’s rights, I would ban public mention of the following modern concepts: justice, progressive, equitable, socialism, etc.
All of these have been misused to push a religion of non-secular humanism that has no foundation in anything but a liberal’s belief in forcing people to be “nice” (as they define it) to each other.

Report this

By Expat, December 24, 2007 at 4:06 am Link to this comment

Addendum:

I’m not particularly disturbed by Paul’s answer because I consider the question inappropriate also.  Who cares what his religious “beliefs” are as long as he is forthright in his answers to policy questions and those answers are what a constituency is looking for.  Get religion out of politics, there is no place for it in our government!

Report this

By Expat, December 24, 2007 at 3:55 am Link to this comment

#122155 by Logician on 12/23 at 11:06 pm
(91 comments total)

For the record; evolution is still a theory, not a fact.  And it is so stated.

I’m a non-Christian so I am not blinded by the dogma of their form of creationism.  Therefore I am not a creationist, however I also do not ascribe to the present “theory” of evolution.  There are just too many holes in it.  There are still things we don’t know.  The west (aka U.S.), still hangs onto the Clovis timeline for human habitation in North and South America.  There is much evidence from respected Archeologists that push that timeline back a further 40,000 years and more.  There has been conjecture that we have possibly been looking in the wrong places.  Evolution?  Maybe, but not as we think of it now.  I don’t have the answers, but, I am leaving my mind open to many possibilities that presently escape our human ethnocentrism.
Modern humans erupted into existence according to the present theories.  I would be curious as to how that happened.  My fervent, optimistic hope, is that existence is far more than we know or realize now.

Report this

By Taxman, December 24, 2007 at 3:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Outrage spoke thusly:
“**When has this ever happened in the history of this or any other nation or era!  What you’re espousing is an idealism which has NEVER EXISTED.  If it has existed, show me when and where.  What you’re talking about is simply wishful thinking.  When.?.where.?.in what century has this EVER existed?  Remember, the Boston Tea Party happened because of a TAX BREAK in England for the East India Company.  America HAD ITS OWN TAXES at that time, in 1773”

Outrage—fees and levies were not part of a
Federal Tax structure. They were fees, sometimes legitimate, to carry out the functions of a very small Central Government, including such services as it provided to the States. Aside from the temporary Civil War Tax, the Feds did not get their hooks into us till 1913 with the 16th Amendment. But even then, citizens at least had a solid currency backed up by gold.

Where are you getting your information?

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 24, 2007 at 12:34 am Link to this comment

dwhite:
“It is amazing, simply amazing how dependent our society has become on the federal government. And how ignorant most of them are. I’m not saying stupid, just ignorant of the facts.”

**Frankly dwhite, I’d have to see you give EVIDENCE of this, simply stating it without anything to back it up is meaningless.  You as well as Manny also make the erroneous implication that “all liberals love big government” which BTW isn’t true.  The both of you also imply “getting rid of the federal government is going to cure the country’s ills”, another statement without merit.

You also said: “but it did seem to be a better time back then as far as respect, individuality, and freedom goes.”

** I’d like to see some evidence of this also.  I have had this discussion with my mother who is in her 80’s since she was saying something similar.  It was easy to disqualify her perspective.  First because it may have just “seemed” that way for her because of the place and situation she was in in her life at that moment.  There were heroin addicts back then, the Nazi’s were taking control of Europe, there was corruption in government and people had abortions.  It was just “hush..hush” however it WAS happening.  The general public was less informed then and propaganda was common.  Some of this was due to access, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t or didn’t HAPPEN.  Also note that it is very nostalgic to think about the “old times” when things were “different”.  There is a great degree of relativity in statements to that effect and while it could have been true for her, it doesn’t hold water when included in the larger picture of the world at that time.

Your quote: “Think of how much better off you’d be if you got to keep all your money (or most of it), and didn’t have to bow down to the government to even OWN YOUR LAND. Or own your self (income tax).”

**When has this ever happened in the history of this or any other nation or era!  What you’re espousing is an idealism which has NEVER EXISTED.  If it has existed, show me when and where.  What you’re talking about is simply wishful thinking.  When.?.where.?.in what century has this EVER existed?  Remember, the Boston Tea Party happened because of a TAX BREAK in England for the East India Company.  America HAD ITS OWN TAXES at that time, in 1773.

From Wikipedia:” By 1773, the company had large debts, huge stocks of tea in its warehouses and no prospect of selling it because smugglers, such as Hancock, were importing tea from Holland without paying import taxes. The British government passed the Tea Act, which allowed the East India Company to sell tea to the colonies directly and without “payment of any customs or duties whatsoever” in Britain, instead paying the much lower American duty. This tax break allowed the East India Company to sell tea for half the old price and cheaper than the price of tea in England, enabling them to undercut the prices offered by the colonial merchants and smugglers.”

Did you notice they weren’t paying “IMPORT TAXES” (the smugglers) and it also says “INSTEAD OF PAYING THE MUCH LOWER AMERICAN DUTY” (the East India Company).

Quote: “But your freedom of religious expression should not be QUELLED by the government.”

**dwhite,  Give me an example of the government “quelling” religious expression. Is it because YOU want the right to shove YOUR erroneous teaching down someone else’s throat, accost them on the street and bang on their doors that you feel you are being “quelled”?  There are laws to protect EVERY AMERICAN citizen from this harassment from ANY religion.  Would it be okay with you if Atheists used these same tactics?

Report this

By Logician, December 24, 2007 at 12:06 am Link to this comment

For the record:

One cannot ‘believe’ in evolution any more than he can ‘believe’ in the chair in which he is sitting. The chair his butt is in is a fact, just like evolution.  One does not ‘believe’ in facts, one knows the facts.  For those posters who do not know this, please, do NOT breed.  We have enough child molesting bible thumpers already. 

When a man who proposes to lead a country states he doesn’t ‘believe’ in facts, it gives one serious pause as to this man’s abilities to deal with the complex issues he must face as a leader. 

For those who still can’t understand that idea, I will give you a very simple way to grasp it:

Defecate in your right hand, pray in the other.  Observe which one fills up faster.  If you do not ‘believe’ in facts and do believe in prayer, it’s obvious you shoved the contents of that right hand into your previously empty heads.

Report this

By odlid, December 23, 2007 at 11:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think Dr. Paul is looking at the theory of evolution with the skepticism of a scientist (physician), not with religious advocacy in mind. Evolution probably does account for most bio alterations but has nothing to do with religion or the God debate, unless one is a literal Jewish or Christian Old Testament type. And, for what it’s worth, God has nothing to do with the man-made industry called religion.

Survival of the fittest, a required component of Darwinism, is observable and testable, evolution is not. Since the genetic codes of all lifeforms on earth are extremely close, it’s not a simple matter to draw a line of causality over a half-billion years of flux.

Spot mutations, though rarely successful, can cause near-spontaneous change in a species..soon followed by a change in the overall local environment(~power hierarchy). This is species change minus evolution. I believe this is testable at this point through manipulating genes of simple organisms. Rapid species change also takes place with survivors of mass extinctions. I don’t think a twenty-year-long mass transformation qualifies as evolution.

Just this sort of jump in species dominance is soon to take place as the new fast-switching computer processors find a place in the market. It won’t be long before my new computer will be able to read my Truthdig posts and order my car’s computer to steer me into a tree.

Report this

By dwhite, December 23, 2007 at 9:39 pm Link to this comment

troublesum :

Very simple. If the people elected him, it would be a mandate, and it wouldn’t be long before the current congresscritters were thrown out on their heads in favor of ones who support liberty and the Constitution.

Not only that, but the president’s power of the bully pulpit would continue the trend in that direction.

It’s not gonna happen overnight for sure, it will take probably generations, but the trend needs to be started, or else the great experiment of a government for the people, by the people and of the people will perish. It is 90% perished already.

Report this

By troublesum, December 23, 2007 at 9:29 pm Link to this comment

Ron Paul supporters keep saying “the president all by himself can’t abolish this or that…”  In other words we would need congress to stop Ron Paul from doing what he wants to do; in which case why are they supporting him?

Report this

By dwhite, December 23, 2007 at 9:21 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena:

Well, if I had my way the public schools would not be ‘government schools’. I don’t think Ron Paul INSISTS that there be prayer in public schools. I just think he wants to leave it up to the local communities as how to run their schools. Evidently you have no idea what is WAS like. I remember going to school, and each morning the first thing we did, was put our hand over our hearts and say the pledge of allegiance. Then, a different student each day would pick a bible verse to read out loud in front of the class. Then we could get on with the learning business.

I’m not saying we should go that far, but it did seem to be a better time back then as far as respect, individuality, and freedom goes. If kids got into a fight, groups made SURE that only the two fighting fought. Now, it’s whoever has the most people on their side. Gang mentality. We have let this government brainwash us of freedom and individuality.

Religion has nothing to do with freedom as the Constitution espouses. And you say look at it as amended not just from 1797. 

Well, I don’t hold that view. I hold the view of the ORIGINAL Constitution that the founders wrote and intended the country to be obliged by.

Myopic…maybe. But I don’t think there was ever a better document written to base a government for the people and by the people on. It’s not hard to understand either, if you’ve got a 5th grade education.

It’s not a ‘perfect’ document, as mankind is not perfect, but I’ll take it in it’s original form, instead of crap like the 16th amendment or the 14th.

I’m tired of globalism, I’m tired of federalism. I’m tired of the government butting into my business and taking all my money just because there’s more of them and they have bigger guns than I do. It’s no different than Vito down the street collecting his extortion money.

We may not all agree with everything Ron Paul stands for, hell *I* don’t even agree with EVERYTHING he says, but it is our last best hope to regain some freedom in this country. THINK! What can you do without asking the government’s permission or getting some sort of ‘permit’ these days? Not much.  And think where it will end if it keeps up this way.

Think of how much better off you’d be if you got to keep all your money (or most of it), and didn’t have to bow down to the government to even OWN YOUR LAND. Or own your self (income tax).

I’ve said enough…if you don’t get it, then there’s no hope.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, December 23, 2007 at 8:52 pm Link to this comment

Actually Ron Paul wants to return the responsibility of schooling back to our states and communities and he has a growing number of Americans nationwide agreeing with him.

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=207908

Report this

By cyrena, December 23, 2007 at 8:45 pm Link to this comment

#122124 by dwhite

Dwhite,

You’re myopic. Ron Paul is NOT a Constitutionalist if he makes attempts to OVERTURN parts of the very same. So, your statement that he is a “Constitutionalist” can most CERTAINLY be denied!!

You have to read the whole thing, not just the part that was written in 1787.

So, unless you’re a Constitutional Legal Scholar, you should hold with the rhetoric, until you’ve had an opportunity to consult one.

I TOO have examined his record, as have many other posters on this site. So, it’s worth you checking around. Why does Ron Paul need to have prayer in public schools, if he’s so determined to be Constitutional? Why can he and his folks do their praying in church?

You’ve only got one part of the argument on this, (typical) but it works both ways. No person can be denied their right to exercise their religious faith, NOR should some other person’s faith be FORCED upon another. The guarantee goes both ways.

So, lets get back to the rest of the Constitution, and ALL of the Amendments. That should keep you busy for a while.

Report this

By Matt, December 23, 2007 at 8:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Bacteria which mutates into ...bacteria and finches with longer or shorter beaks that remain finches. Millions of fossils which do not show fine gradations of change into a new species. Furthermore, aparently there are not many unsuccessful “random” mutations since these have not fossilized either. Yep, all of the evidence is in and evolution certainly has a lock.”

Untrue.  You’re ignoring evidence.  See, for example, this progression of hominid skulls from something close to our common ancestor with chimpanzees to modern homo sapiens:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

Mutations refer to transcription errors in the genetic code.  Most of the time, these errors are of no consequence, since large portions of the code are not used for anything.  Occasionally, something really strange happens, like fruit flies with legs on their heads (instead of antennas).  These gross mutations typically are either infertile or don’t survive at all. Occasionally a mutation causes an incremental phenotype change which confers an advantage.  What type of evidence are you looking for in the fossil record?  Advantageous mutations look very nearly like others of the same species.  However, if you look at the code, at DNA, the evidence for mutation, multiple transcription, the relationship of all living things, all of it, is right there.  Our DNA contains junk sections, useless duplication, sections that have been copied in the wrong place, etc etc, exactly what you’d expect given Darwin’s theory.

Report this

By dwhite, December 23, 2007 at 8:06 pm Link to this comment

Mannyp:

You are preaching to the choir. With me anyway. I’ve noticed none of the other big government liberals have responded. It is amazing, simply amazing how dependent our society has become on the federal government. And how ignorant most of them are. I’m not saying stupid, just ignorant of the facts. As my favorite FF said:

“All experience hath shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

I wonder how long it will take to “right” ourselves.

Report this

By MannyP, December 23, 2007 at 7:55 pm Link to this comment

“Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem.” RR

Report this

By dwhite, December 23, 2007 at 7:22 pm Link to this comment

It no longer becomes a matter of ‘to each his own’ in that respect, if his religion is guiding him on policy.

First and foremost, Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist. That much cannot be denied, looking at his record for the last 30 years. The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...”

The man seriously believes that religion has no place in government, and government has no place in religion, as an institution. But your freedom of religious expression should not be QUELLED by the government. We could bicker on whether or not “In God We Trust” should be on our currency or not, but to me that’s trivial.

There seems to be no adult supervision here. I’d much rather regain my freedom, and do away with the IRS than worry about Ron Paul’s personal religious beliefs. I have no doubt, no doubt whatsoever, that he would carry on from a Constitutional point of view, not a religious point of view.

Report this

By MannyP, December 23, 2007 at 7:10 pm Link to this comment

Please re-read the First Amendment. In very plain English it says that CONGRESS shall not ESTABLISH a national religion. Furthermore, that CONGRESS shall not interfere with anyone’s practice thereof. How does that mean that no one can espouse religious beliefs publicly? Maybe the answer is the lunacy of the Warren Court.

Abortion is only a “religious only” issue dealing with privacy if you have preassumed the answer to the question.

Finally, we are not a democracy. Thank God we are a Republic.

Thanks,
Manny

Report this

By cyrena, December 23, 2007 at 6:58 pm Link to this comment

#122099 by rage

•  I care more about the intent of the next President to actually champion peace, prosperity, a better economy, a cleaner environment, better foreign relations, better educational opportunities, outstanding healthcare, a more equitable justice system, social protections for the rights and liberties of citizens, food for the hungry, clothes for the naked, homes for the homeless, jobs for the jobless, relief for the beleaguered, and care for our seniors


Rage,

Superb, superb. I very much appreciate your post, since at the bottom line, it really doesn’t matter a whit if the chicken or the egg came first, if we cannot afford either. (I’m going to remember that one).

I don’t know if the hoopla over evolution is actually a ‘wedge’ issue, but it could be that I don’t fully understand the term. I DO know that it’s a distraction, and a typical sort of question that comes out in these campaigns.

OTOH, there IS a connection, to ALL of the things that you said you wanted in a presidential leader, (which is what I suspect most of us want – at least you articulated it well enough for me) and that is his fundamentalist religious ideology, because it is not (in his case) isolated from his overall ideology on how policy should be carried out. 

Because, religion and ideology are basically one and the same. And, a leader’s ideology, (whatever it might be) is going to have a tremendous affect on how they set all of the policies, for all of the things that you mentioned above. That comes very much to the forefront, when one considers that the ideology of Ron Paul is based on his interpretation of the Bible. That’s fine, except that we know there are billions of interpretations. In his case, he ‘interprets’ the Constitution in a like manner. Specifically, he doesn’t really ‘accept’ the concept of the Separation of Church and State. (ie, the Establishment Clause).

So, whether or not he believes in ‘evolution’ (which is scientifically proven BTW) is NOT the real issue. Rather it is one of many ‘clues’ to his ideology. The ideology is one that does and will put GOD’S LAW, before MAN’S Law. Therein lies the problem.

It no longer becomes a matter of ‘to each his own’ in that respect, if his religion is guiding him on policy. To paraphrase another poster on this site, (who was venting rage at Al Gore for winning the Nobel Peace Prize and blaming him for trying to ‘control the weather’, he said this: “Christians leave it up to GOD to control the environment, (and he put ‘weather’ parentheses, indicating that they are, in his mind, one and the same), NOT Al Gore!

Now, all of us know that yes, to an extent, Nature does control the ‘weather’ and did in fact ‘create’ the environment. (Nature can = God in this case). We ALSO know that the behavior of humankind, has taken a dastardly toll on it. No doubt RP feels that is just a ‘theory’ as well. It isn’t. These things are important.

His ‘religious’ convictions about natural selection ALSO lead him to conclusions like, ‘black people, (at least black men) are more likely to indulge in crime.” This is simply based on –whatever- and has nothing to do with the conditions that create crime, anywhere. It’s just God’s natural selection.

Same thing with his opinion on abortion. Now if ever there were an issue that should have ZIP to do with politics, because it’s ONLY about religion and ideology, that would be it. Yet, look what it’s become? (privacy be damned) RP has stated his religious conviction on the issue, which is to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Those are just a few of the ‘religious’ convictions that very much affect his duties as president. If it was ONLY about evolution, it wouldn’t matter. When it’s about God’s Law over the rule of law as created by a democracy; well, you see where that’s taken us.

RP isn’t going to fix any of the above. He’ll work the socio-economic thing for his selected base, and leave the rest of us to God. (literally, the ‘afterlife’) I’m not ready yet.

Report this

By MannyP, December 23, 2007 at 6:50 pm Link to this comment

Actually, all enforcement power lies with the executive so in theory a President could constitutionally refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws.

Report this

By MannyP, December 23, 2007 at 6:46 pm Link to this comment

I would say that non enforcement of labor laws is better than non existence of American labor. Besides, if the US were to not protect economic interests militarily, globalism would die. Globalism is not probable between nations if there is no UN, NATO and other assorted treaty making organizations.

Report this

By dwhite, December 23, 2007 at 6:40 pm Link to this comment

Paul says he wants to abolish the labor department amoung others.  This means there will be no enforcement of labor laws.  Think of what this means.

You know, I hear this kind of stuff all the time..OMG! abolish the FBI abolish the FCC abolish the IRS!! Paul admits that this would be true under a TRUE Constitutional government, but is not practical currently. Besides, a president could never do all that by himself, not even dictator George Bush with all his executive powers. Take the FBI for example. They are the federal bureau of INVESTIGATION, not the federal bureau of kick your door down in the middle of the night and steal everything you have. There IS no federal police force (legally), so if the FBI wanted someone arrested, they should call a cop.

Just doing away with the IRS in itself would save the 250 billion dollars a year it takes to run it, and we don’t really need it, if we slow down trying to take over the world.

Congratulations on being brainwashed if you think we need the federal government in any aspect of our personal lives. They’ve done a really good job of it in the last 100 years. So good, that you beg for their interference.

Labor could be handled by the states. As with most everything else the federal government does unconstitutionally.  It is much easier to control local politicians than it is a federal government edict.

The federal government should stick to doing what the Constitution allows the federal government to do, and nothing more. It’s unfortunate that we wouldn’t know how to act if we were truly Constitutionally free, so therefore to prevent utter chaos, there would need to be a transitional period.

Report this

By troublesum, December 23, 2007 at 5:42 pm Link to this comment

Paul says he wants to abolish the labor department amoung others.  This means there will be no enforcement of labor laws.  Think of what this means.

Report this

By Laurence, December 23, 2007 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

While evolution is fact in one sense (it can clearly be observed among fast-reproducing bacteria), in another sense it is not at all clear exactly how selection and mutation among bacteria eventually produced human beings.  As I understand it, we do share certain DNA sequences with ALL other animal life on earth.  It’s even claimed that human and chimpansie DNA are nearly 99% the same - only 1% of the “code” accounting for the difference between man and monkey.
But,there are still controversies regarding the precise mechanism of mutations in evolution, and there are said to be unexplained “gaps” in the progression of the hominid fossil record - gaps or so-called “missing links” that are still debated among educated people.  Creationism on the other hand, has almost NO support at all among scientists, and it should properly be considered as a purely religous belief, and as such: “to each his own”.
The main point is that this issue has very little to do with the duties of a U.S. President.

Report this

By Manny Paulet, December 23, 2007 at 4:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bacteria which mutates into ...bacteria and finches with longer or shorter beaks that remain finches. Millions of fossils which do not show fine gradations of change into a new species. Furthermore, aparently there are not many unsuccessful “random” mutations since these have not fossilized either. Yep, all of the evidence is in and evolution certainly has a lock.
I am not a physicist, but I remember reading that a “quantum flux” started the big bang. However, when I looked into the meaning of quantum flux, it means that something happened that we have no idea why it happened.
I get nervous whenever scientists state categorically that X is not true. After all scientists have been right so many times before:
The Sun revolves around the Earth.
We must bleed people to get the bad stuff out of them.
Man will never fly.
Man will never break the sound barrier.
Man will never get to the moon.

The best any science can hope for is a timid statement like: For all we know/have observed so far, X is/is not true.

Apparently, the random mutations involved to developed complpex organisms are statistically impossible. The completely unscientific multiverse “theory” to answer this challenge is a joke.

I am almost positive that the atheistic random mutation theory of evolution is untrue and it is definitely unproven.

Manny

Report this

By rage, December 23, 2007 at 3:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Evolution versus creationism, like gay marriage and abortion, is another USELESS wedge issue which matters little to a constituency whose homes are being foreclosed on by unregulated finance institutions. Who cares whether you came from dust or a slime pit at a moment when our best, brightest, and strongest are needlessly dying in the dessert for a lie in an illegal act of hostile international aggression for oil? Who gives a rip about what these candidates worship when our best jobs are outsourced, our rights and liberties are taken from us in the guise of protecting us, and so little is grown or manufactured by us for us right here? Screw institutionalized religion and Charles Darwin too! I don’t care whether the chicken or the egg came first when I can no longer afford either one.

Look, I love the Lord, for He heard my cry and pitied my every moan. But, I couldn’t care less whether my next President shares that belief. And, I am sick and tired of these lying politicians giving Christendom a bad name just to get the Jesus vote. I care more about the intent of the next President to actually champion peace, prosperity, a better economy, a cleaner environment, better foreign relations, better educational opportunities, outstanding healthcare, a more equitable justice system, social protections for the rights and liberties of citizens, food for the hungry, clothes for the naked, homes for the homeless, jobs for the jobless, relief for the beleaguered, and care for our seniors. I also want the next President to support pork projects in science that save America from the current strangleholds of Pig Pharma, Pig Agra, and other pigs in the avaricious corporate military industrial complex currently bent on draining what’s left of the Middle Eastern oil reserves.

In short, I couldn’t care less about the theories about from whence we came, since we have no idea where we’re headed. We seriously need to check all this drama. Our health and environment are going straight to hell while we pit our faith against our science in this futile vexing argument over a belief in God versus a knowledge of science. The balance between faith and reason does not boil gingerly down to a simple either/or choice between God and science.

America was predicated on freedom to believe what you want to believe. Here, under the influence of the knowledge of both evil and good, faith and reason have and will continue to bear us as many benefits as calamities. So, really, who cares that one man questions the relativity of one theory of human origin?

Report this

By Cornithia, December 23, 2007 at 3:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

theory of evolution

Evolution is a theory just like gravity is a theory.
In science a theory, is that which has so much over whelming evidence, that it is unlikely to be over turned or changed.  Only items that meet that definition are called theories in science.

Evolution, gravity, relativity…. these are scientific theories, which is another way of saying a fact. They are the basic building blocks of all science.  They are the reason that things made by engineering on scientific principles work.  Medicine, planes, your power… these work based on the theories of science.  If the theory of evolution was wrong, we’d have no new medicines, no mutating virus, there’d never be new or changing illness, like aids, or the common cold. 

Then perhaps folks don’t believe in virus?

If you don’t believe in gravity, float away, if you don’t believe in relativity don’t fly planes, conservation of energy, don’t us power or any modern device, and if you don’t believe in evolution - then modern medicine is off limits to you—since you shouldn’t use items that couldn’t exist with out the theories you choose not to believe in.

Report this

By congressive, December 23, 2007 at 3:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who flunked science and those who understand evolution.  Science is not a “belief”.  Science embraces solid contradictory proof, while religious “believers” belittle and deny anything that proves they are idiots who “know” the truth lies with a God suffering from a 2000 year old case of writer’s block.

Ron Paul foolishly says it’s “theory” and he doesn’t accept it, like it’s a theory that your boyfriend might be cheating on you or something.

“Scientific theory is like the automobile - components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

Scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing.”

Ron Paul does science a disservice with his remark.

Report this

By dwhite, December 23, 2007 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment

“I just don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has ABSOLUTE proof on either side”. What is wrong with that answer? Because evolution exists, or can be observed, does NOT mean there may not be more to the universe than our widdle minds can comprehend. What is the CAUSE of evolution? Why are they able to adapt, instead of just dying out? If you accept evolution as all there is, then you probably accept the “big bang” theory of the universe also. No problem. But WHERE did the original matter for the “bang” come from to begin with? Creationism and evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  Dr. Paul is right….we just don’t know what fuels the universe.

Report this

By troublesum, December 23, 2007 at 2:03 pm Link to this comment

Go to http//www.msnbc.msn.com/  for another look at the real Ron Paul.  His record does not bear close scrutiny well.

Report this

By sad old german, December 23, 2007 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Reading some of these comments,  I am reminded of the old quote: “you are certainly entitled to have your own opinions, but you are most certainly not entitled to your own facts.”  I hesitate to point out that the term “theory” has a very different meaning within the context of the scientific method then it does within the context of our everyday language games, as in “that’s my theory and I am sticking to it.”  Science as such is never a religion, but a method, like logic - nothing more, nothing less.  Forgetting this can lead to ‘scientism,’ which can be akin to a religion.  Barzun’s definition of “scientism” is as good as any: “the fallacy that the method of science must be used on all forms of experience and, given time, will settle every issue.”
With respect to the good doctor, beware!  The more I learn about him, the more I suspect that he is probably a most dangerous creature: a sheep in wolf’s clothes.

Report this
RAE's avatar

By RAE, December 23, 2007 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment

I have no problem with anyone just “entertaining the possibilities” re evolution vs creationism.

I have a BIG problem with anyone who has DECIDED that one theory is true and the other isn’t because there simply isn’t enough LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE that I’ve ever read/seen/heard to support such a decision.

I want my political representatives/governments/authorities to think, reason, decide and vote BASED ON EVIDENCE only, and NOT for any other reason, especially conditioned/religious/wishful thinking.

An HONEST person, when addressing this issue, will state publicly “I DO NOT KNOW.” Everyone else (those who do claim to “know”) CLEARLY CANNOT BE TRUSTED to make judgment calls based on evidence.

That’s my opinion, anyway, and I’m unanimous in that.

Report this

By Matt, December 23, 2007 at 11:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Like there are only two choices. Please.  I don’t accept creationism nor evolution.  Both are unproven ridiculous theories.  The answer lies in between.”

Evolution through natural selection is extremely well supported through three different trajectories.  There is a huge amount of archaeological evidence, all of which supports Darwinian evolution.  We can see natural selection at work on a small scale in the evolution of drug resistant strains of bacteria, and even on such gross morphologies as the beak length of Galapagos finches in response to changes in the food supply over a period of decades.  And, perhaps most convincingly, our own genetic code contains all the artifacts, copying errors, junk sections, and similarities to other genetic codes that you would expect from a long history of Darwinian evolution.

Any one of the three trajectories contains more than enough evidence to provide very firm support for the theory; together they are virtually incontrovertible.  Darwinian evolution is as well supported a theory as the theory of gravitation, perhaps even more so.  In 150 years, during which vast amounts of information have been discovered and sifted through, and despite the attempts of people during that whole time to discredit Darwin, not a single datum has ever been discovered that does not fit into the Darwinian framework.

The so-called changes to the theory since Darwin are all refinements.  For instance, Darwin new nothing about genetics, though he did posit that such a thing must exist.  The discovery of genetics by Mendel and of the genome itself by Watson refine and fulfill Darwin’s theory, and fit very nicely into his framework.

I am a recovering creationist; once you start to really look at the evidence, the truth is undeniable.

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, December 23, 2007 at 11:55 am Link to this comment

I don’t have a problem with the way Dr. Paul answered this question. First, he pointed out that it’s not exactly the role of presidential candidates to issue edicts on scientific matters (true). Then, he said he doesn’t agree with the theory of evolution (that’s his right, as a libertarian, so long as he doesn’t force his views on others), then he says that the Founders didn’t call for an absolute wall of separation between Church and State (also true—note that the First Amendment states that CONGRESS shall make no law establishing a religion, but puts no such restrictions on state and local governments). In fact, at the time the Constitution was written, there were many explicitly religious local governments (Quakers, Methodists, and later, Mormons, for example).

I don’t like the idea of even state and local governments “establishing” a religion, but the question is whether the Constitution forbids it. I don’t think it does.

Regarding evolution, I take the agnostic position that we still have a lot to learn. Clearly, species change over time, but the exact mechanism as to how this is accomplished is unknown. Of course, we don’t solve any problems by just saying “well, God did it.” But as a libertarian, I don’t feel it’s my place to tell anyone what to believe or not believe. Science has its domain, and so does religion. 

There are many problems with evolution, as commonly understood, to which we don’t have even approximately satisfactory answers.

Report this

By CLS, December 23, 2007 at 11:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why do some people spout off about theories without understanding what it means. That something is called a theory in science doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been “proven true”. We still speak of the theory of gravity. That gravity is called a theory doesn’t mean that the fantasy that tiny elves are holding everything done is on equal footing. Obviously Paul, and some commenters here, have absolutely njo idea what they are talking about when they use the word theory. They are not using it in the scientific context at all. But it doesn’t surprise me that someone into the lunatic theories of the John Birch Society about North American Union, the Amero and the NAFTA Superhighway would also believe something as stupid as creationism.

Report this

By Scotch Moose, December 23, 2007 at 11:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’d be concerned if Ron Paul was a typical big government politician who wanted to control our lives. But in a Ron Paul administration the opinions of the President would not find their way into the public school curriculum.

Report this

By Scott, December 23, 2007 at 11:28 am Link to this comment

MM states;

Evolution is based on the assumption nothing outside of our limited view of nature intervened

Did Darwin actually say that?

Report this

By GW=MCHammered, December 23, 2007 at 11:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

That’s alright, Dr. Paul. I still can’t believe where babies come from!

And though I am no Republican (or Democrat), I do believe in your philosophy of ‘America for Americans’ first, in upholding the Constitution, and that federal government does not exist to stick its paws in the lives of the citizens of planet earth no matter how we came into existence here.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, December 23, 2007 at 11:09 am Link to this comment

Theories are exactly that, the jury is out and as modern science evolves so does the theory.

Polarizing questions are nothing new in presidential elections in trying to corner a candidate and create division amongst would be supporters.  I’m glad Dr. Paul answered the question directly and did not tap dance around it.

Here’s another statistical theory that I hope is correct.

http://truthmason.com/articles/view/56

Report this

By shemp333, December 23, 2007 at 11:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The comments on this sight are pretty frightening.  The theory of evolution is profoundly well supported by evidence from all forms of life, including our own DNA.  Anyone not getting informed on this should check out “Intelligent Design on Trial.”  It gives a great breakdown of the evidence for both.  It’s just that ID has no evidence in its favor.  Here’s the link to watch it.  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
It’s about the trial from Dover, PA when a local school board decided to give equal time to ID in science class.  Great info comes up during the trial.  The end is well worth checking out all 12 parts.

Report this

By DennisD, December 23, 2007 at 8:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Just as Kuchinch was trashed for his UFO comment, Ron Paul is now the target du jour. Gravel was pushed out prior for his failure to go along with the bullsh*t. He actually had the nerve to question how all the wonderful new programs your favorite front runners promise could actually be funded with the country currently 9 trillion in debt and increasing exponentially daily. No room for a realist in a Presidential race.

People, you’d better look very closely at what the MSM is doing including you’re very own truthdig. Any candidate that stands for real change in this country, regardless of party, is being marginalized by making them look ridiculous or getting no coverage of their positions at all.

Few if any of us are going to agree with everything a particular candidate says or believes but you’d better look and think a little deeper than that.
Just what does the lineup of the usual Dim/Rep suspects offer you or this country by comparison. Are they going to make real changes to what’s in place. I think not. Most if not all of your front runners got us in the f**king mess we’re in now and they’re going to fix it? How? Why? Just how naive is anyone to believe that.

Ron Paul isn’t beholding to the lobbyists/corporate interests who control this country. That’s what worries them and should give us hope for real change. If change doesn’t happen with Paul as President it never will without a full scale revolution. I don’t think very many of you would be ready for that so use your heads instead. 

I personally don’t give a sh*t if Ron Paul thinks everyone transported down to earth from Venus if he can start to truly change the direction of this country, I’d be more than satisfied. Save the how many angels can fit on the head of a pin question for your next debate team meeting and start thinking about who will actually begin to solve the real issues facing this country. It will take years and more than one Ron Paul to do it. Now is everyone’s chance to get it started - if you give a crap about this country at all get out and vote for him.

Report this

By Blaine, December 23, 2007 at 8:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Who cares? If this guy doesn’t want to accept a fact… fine by me. Alot of people don’t. Maybe it’s because it’s described by the word “theory.” But the theory is what we use to describe FACTS, and there are plenty of facts from plenty of different scientific perspectives these days that all point to… EVOLUTION. (And yes, I know there are “holes”... but only holes in a sense of, we have yet to understand everything about the world, the “theory” itself stands up just find).

Either way, I don’t see why people want to vote for this man. He talks a good game, and yeah… he was one of the handful of people of that didn’t support the war and didn’t vote “yes” on the Patriot Act… but his views are a little, how shall we say it… Nuts? No separation of church and state?... And you guys want to vote for this guy? On top of that, even with the stances of his that I agree on… how much do you think he would be able to accomplish? Nothing. Unfortunately for us, this country is a two party system country and that basically leaves no room for someone like Ron Paul.

Report this

By MM, December 23, 2007 at 8:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I agree completely with the first commenter, Both the theory of Evolution and Creationism are are pretty ridiculous from what I’ve seen of them.  Evolution is based on the assumption nothing outside of our limited view of nature intervened, whereas Creationism assumes a literal translation of the Bible.  They both hold the same weight for me (which is little) as they are based on assumptions 100%, and we all know what they say about assumptions.  Why this is an issue just goes to show how narrow-minded some people are.

And jbart, I’ve done just fine in life with my beliefs, I hope you do just fine in yours.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 23, 2007 at 7:56 am Link to this comment

For what is worth, I do not believe in evolution, especially after Bush became president.  Those of you who do not believe in Santa Claus need to get a dose of reality.  How about the Easter Bunny?

Report this

By jbart, December 23, 2007 at 7:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’d like to inform you all, at least those of you that DON’T quite “get it”.  Thetre is NO FRIGGIN’ GOD !!!! Your only chance to survive this world we live in is to accept this “FACT” !!  But, don’t dispare.  There is, however a GOD that lives. He/she/it is “within” you. Don’t depend on any external source to find solace and guidance in your lives. You, and you alone, can be the “God” that you are convinced that you need.  Not my idea, it was Frederich Nietsche (sic) who esposed this truth.  Just try and “handle” life’s requirements of morality and ethical behaviour on your own. It’s not that hard guys.  You can do it. I swear/promise. Please focus your energies away from the religious crap and look to maintain our existance without “falling into the trap” of religion. We, as Americans need you to stop the idiocy of being “sheeple” and becoming “thoughtful” human beings.

Report this

By antonio, December 23, 2007 at 7:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

cyrena,

I don’t cut and paste.  I infere from your most recent comment that you are philosophical and looking for a group of people to surround yourself with your comfortable philosophy.  Do you really believe that Ron Paul should not be elected on his thoughts on evolution or pro life views??  You even state that human kind is in trouble.  Here is a guy who wants to fix foreign policy and improve economic health of this country which is rumbling into the greatest depression since the 1930’s. 
Hurricane Katrina “victims”(I’d rather say affected people) were helped more by private agencies like the red cross than our own federal government.  Every huge disaster in history (i.e. fires of chicago or san francisco) were helped not by government rebuilding but by private money.  Humankind in our nation has always been to help your neighbor.
I am a medical doctor and I believe in evolution but some of my medical school classmates surely did not.  I don’t label them “crazy” like you suggest in your DSM.  In fact, I am pretty sure the word CRAZY IS NOT IN THE DSM.
My final thoughts are that even with some of his extreme ideas, he cannot change alot of things about our federal government because congress won’t let him and vice-versa.  What he will do is bring about a philosophical change in the direction our government has been going for the last 30 years. None of the current democratic or republican candidates are anything but government as usual with special interests running this country.  WHEN IS IT GOING TO STOP?

Report this

By Jeanette Doney, December 23, 2007 at 6:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ron Paul is not running for president to run our lives and make our choices.  He is running to provide us the freedom to run our own lives and make our own choices.  So what if he believes evolution is a theory he doesn’t accept, or so what if he takes money from White Supremists, he’s not standing for creationism or racism, he’s standing for the freedom of people to make mistakes.  The Honorable Senator from West Virginia Robert Byrd admits he was a KKK member.  Ron Paul is saying, “As President, I will back the feds off your states enabling citizens to establish laws that work for them, not the federal government”.  For example…look at Katrina..the success stories are not coming from the White House, they are coming from citizens who are not dependent on the govt to make choices.

Report this

By cyrena, December 23, 2007 at 6:28 am Link to this comment

#122000 by i,Q
i.Q,
Thank you for the above post, as well as the several others that you have offered. I am very grateful to know that people of reason have not deserted us entirely, and that there remain among us, those who can articulate this reason in a way that the average person can digest, regardless of their variety of ideological views. This is a critical thing in my opinion, when it would appear that such a large portion of the population has been so neglected in the teaching of basic logic, and/or has become so desperate as to simply believe in ANYTHING that might save them for the disaster, no matter how totally unconnected it might be to the reality that can be seen/heard/touched.
Thanks also for the post that explains this phenomena.
•  #121998 by i,Q : In mental health facilities all over the world, a person who denies overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of a five-thousand-year-old fairy-tale is considered delusional
Actually, this is in the DSM. I won’t quote from it now, because I think that the average person (even one unfamiliar with psychiatry and such) has enough sense to recognize a crazy person when they start talking this stuff.
Meantime
•  #121999 by Owen :Accepting evolution is often a religious matter. Evolution has a lot of wholes in it and some of us us prefer to accept what we believe God has revealed over what man thinks he knows about something that exceeds the inductive power of the scientific method. Please allow those of us who disagree with a theory our right to disagree without questioning our intelligence.
This simply proves you to be one of the crazies. Yes, you must certainly be allowed to disagree with a theory. By all means. And yes, we accept your human RIGHT to disagree. To ask us to do so without questioning your intelligence or your sanity, is infringing upon the rights of others.
With all due respect, such imbalance cannot be considered in light of any person selected to be the leader of a 21st Century nation.
The Constitution guarantees your right to believe anything you wish. If you choose to call it your ‘religion’, that’s fine. If we choose to question your sanity, that’s the way it is. It’s our right. Please respect it.
I should also add that this isn’t the same as questioning your intelligence. I know and love a number of very intelligent people, who are simply delusional and living in a different reality. It’s OK. The thing is that at the end of the day, we have to select our leadership and government from those who can accept and adjust to the realities that the majority of us must recognize, in order to survive on this planet. That would be those things that we can feel/touch/see/hear/reason through physical evidence, and the connecting of all of those dots.
That doesn’t mean that we should ‘dismiss’ those things that CANNOT be seen/heard/felt/reasoned, through PROVEN science and physical matter. We should always be aware that there are still many things that we do not “KNOW” or that have yet to be ‘explained’. Knowledge is infinite.
But, if we are to SURVIVE the only existence that we DO know, that HAS been proven, we simply must consider that primarily.
Anything else keeps us on the path to destruction, as evidenced by the current leadership who ALSO appears to lead by his instructions from an unproven entity, combined with the ‘science’ of his gastrointestinal system.

That combo has proven to be quite deadly for us and the rest of the planet – most importantly – HUMANKIND.

Report this

By troublesum, December 23, 2007 at 6:26 am Link to this comment

The theory of evolution is a Zionist plot devised by AIPAC.

Report this

By troublesum, December 23, 2007 at 6:18 am Link to this comment

Stick a fork in him.

Report this

By antonio, December 23, 2007 at 5:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

what does evolution have to do with living free and protecting the constitution for what it was intended.  almost everyone will agree that our current government in the last 30 years has completely abdandoned what the constitution represents. It is so ridiculous to judge a presidential candidate on evolution vs. creationism.  The most important issue people should be taking away from Ron Paul’s views are that he believes in the separation of church and state.
  He wants to do away with the department of education.  Since its inception americans are actually more poorly educated.  Education and evolution is a state issue to be resolved in your own community and NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO GOVERN OR COMMENT ON!!  GET A GRIP FOR WHAT THE MAN REPRESENTS.

Report this

By cyrena, December 23, 2007 at 5:52 am Link to this comment

See what I mean?

He doesn’t ‘accept’ evolution. No surprises here. Now if he was female, ya’ll would call him a witch and burn him at the stake. Instead, you just say he has some ‘fundamentalist’ ideas that might be at odds with a progressive agenda. No kidding!! 

So, we’ve got a medical doctor who doesn’t believe in science, and he wants to be the POTUS. That’s just flippin’ great. This is why he doesn’t accept Roe v. Wade, or Brown v. Board of Education, or anything else that happened with the constitution since 1787.

So, listen up, if you decide to elect him, and then get pregnant, you better mark it on your tax returns or the census report as an “immaculate conception.” That’s the ONLY way you MIGHT get some $help$ on birthing, feeding, housing, and clothing the little darlings. Even with that, there’s no guarantee of any ‘‘room at the inn”. (or a hospital room for that matter) And forget the doc too. Whatever you do, don’t call him! (Dr. Ron Paul POTUS). He probably hasn’t delivered a baby in over 20 years. (How many women give birth in session on the Floor of the House? Or would allow him to take part in the process?)

I’m telling ya’ll, if HE was the only help, I’d just as soon call on a janitor or a cafeteria worker. Do they still have elevator operators? They would be fine as well. No? How about a taxi driver, or a horse jockey, or an absent-minded professor? A bookie? A drug dealer? (with an epidural maybe?) A pilot? My EX-SPOUSE??

Doesn’t matter. I’ll just take ANYBODY that ‘accepts’ evolution.

Report this

By i,Q, December 23, 2007 at 5:32 am Link to this comment

i was just going to stick with my short little comment, but i think that this is important to consider, and here’s why this question of evolution might be more important than you think:

Given the improved ability to measure the universe which we have developed in the millennia since Genesis was authored, it disturbs me greatly to think that a vast number of voters (enough for Paul to be pandering to anyway) may be considering it an admirable quality to willfully disregard the data and biological study conducted in the 119 years since Darwin published Origin of Species. Those who have read up on the current state of biological science know that the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin has itself evolved and major modifications and revisions have been necessary as more is studied and more is known. The data says nothing about whether a magic hand is at work gently manipulating the souls of mortal creatures from somewhere behind the veil of space-time, but it strongly suggests that living things are the way they are now because they have a specific and measurable history — regardless of what caused them to come into being.

Evolutionary theory is anathema to literalists because it erodes the foundation of their autocratic stranglehold over their congregations, children, and highly constructed world-views. This literalist perspective results in a rigid pattern of thinking with little to offer when faced with realities contrary to its expectations. Scientific thinking on the other hand is adaptive and generally responsive to the context of the consideration it is analyzing. This creates a strong advantage over a more rigid mindset, especially when applied to something like the ever-changing landscape of high stakes global politics. It is literally insane to expect that one who might deny the best evidence available in favor of dogmatic pre-conditioned beliefs will make decisions that will be in all of our best interests.

Report this

By Owen, December 23, 2007 at 5:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Accepting evolution is often a religious matter. Evolution has a lot of wholes in it and some of us us prefer to accept what we believe God has revealed over what man thinks he knows about something that exceeds the inductive power of the scientific method. Please allow those of us who disagree with a theory our right to disagree without questioning our intelligence.

Report this

By i,Q, December 23, 2007 at 4:56 am Link to this comment

In mental health facilities all over the world, a person who denies overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of a five-thousand-year-old fairy-tale is considered delusional, but in the insane realm of Republican politics, the same delusion is considered a qualification!?

Report this

By RK, December 23, 2007 at 4:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As a Ron Paul supporter this was more disturbing to me than his position on global warming.

I didn’t think I would ever consider someone who doesn’t believe in evolution, but I believe that they both stem from the same logic for Dr. Paul and that is: don’t just believe it because the consensus says it’s so.  I don’t mind a skeptic, I just wish he were more skeptical about religion although I think he does believe that the results and practice of his religion are peace and love for humanity.

I know he is religious but he never discusses it because I think he believes it is irrelevant much like he thinks the same about the evolution issue in that the President and federal government have no say about anything in science or education where this would apply.  Dr. Paul is not espousing some religious dogma he just believes what he believes and will serve our country by following the constitution as best as he knows how.

The alternative to that is, as Logician stated above, something much more sinister.  I do not see that.  I do not see a Huckboob in Dr. Paul, someone who wants power through religion and for Religion.  I do hope I’m right on that but I’m wagering my vote for him because I strongly believe that I am.

The only other option is to pick part of the same bad medicine Americans have been getting for decades through a different candidate.  I can’t or won’t do that.

Report this

By Formersocialistanddidn'tknowit, December 23, 2007 at 4:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Leave it to the now socialist Democrats/Greens that not only take the Rovian Hypothesis of making NON issues, ISSUES, but enticing others to fund it in the name “socialized medicine”
this is a recipe for DISASTER.

Report this

Page 3 of 4 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook