I like his answer, and you'll feel more comfortable with it if you consider his idea of government.

Ron Paul's views on religion or evolution aren't relevant because as President he would follow the Constitution and not any set of scientific paradigms. It doesn't matter whether he accepts the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, or evolution, or general relativity.

The whole libertarian platform defends that the federal government should let people govern their own lives because it recognizes that politicians and bureaucrats aren't experts in most subjects, and are thus unqualified to make expert decisions. The federal government can't adequately regulate education, healthcare or scientific research on a nationwide level, and should delegate this responsability to local governments.

Limited government is designed to prevent prejudices or special interests from interfering with our lives. This applies to beliefs regarding evolution, or religious beliefs. If you watch the Candidates@Google interview you'll see that Ron Paul defends legalizing prostitution and drugs. He doesn't approve of them, but he thinks it's not the federal government's responsibility to interfere, and that these decisions should be made locally (if that).

Its a really good answer in a political view. It really has nothing to do with politics but i understand people wouldnt vote for a republican if they didnt belive in the the religious point of view which makes no sence when it comes to what a republican really stands for... But ohh well
I am REALLY sick of people being stuck on the work "Theory" as if it isnt backed my all kinds of FACTS!
Do religious people not belive in the theory of gravity because it a "Therory"?

That's bs. this question was loaded with the subtle intentions for Mr. Paul to expose his true rationale. In my book, he just failed. He did try to dance around it a bit, but that just shows that he's as equal of a bullshitter as the rest of the candidates when it comes to a touchy issue.

It is really obnoxious that candidates have to pander to such idiotic questions. Ron Paul is a doctor, he spend 4 years studying evolutionary biology in premed. New medicine, such as gene therapy, is based on evolutionary biology. He dodges the question pretty well. He knows if he isolates the religious right he doesn't stand a chance.

Theory in scientific terms doesn't mean the same thing as theory in general use. Not even close to it.

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

What we've got is a testable model which if false could be falsified, one of many angles which creationism can't fulfill. It isn't based on trusting Darwin, it's based on everything from the fossil record to DNA matching and backed up more and more the deeper we look. The fossil record was good, the first look at the DNA better, then on closer examination we share common encounters with retrovirus which left their marks on our genes in the same places and ways. In too many cases and ways for it to mean anything other than a common ancestor.

I've got no problem with someone who wants to claim God works in mysterious ways, or it was a simple explanation to a simple people, such like that. I don't believe it but they are welcome to. I do have a problem with being lead by someone, anyone, who can't recognize reality when it's kicking them in the teeth. The last 8 years of it was more than enough.

Denial of reality is an issue when you are talking about the leader of the free world. Ron Paul has some screwed up views on some issues, his hard-line constitution touting for example, is suddenly not so hard-line when it comes to the separation of church and state:

"The 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. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."

http://www.eaglesnesthome.com/creation.htm
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html

The odds that evolution is true is astronomically low and getting lower all the time. "Unregenerate men cling to their belief in evolution because of their hostility toward God. There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution. Yet millions accept it because they have been brainwashed into thinking it is true."--Dr. D. James Kennedy

I don't know about you, but I am certainly not a random mishap from the plasma pool. Remember; evolution is a THEORY - it has not been proven scientifically. My prayer is that all will look at the universe as a clear flag that God is in control and created you to love and be loved.

Don't spend too much time trying to figure out what is right here. It is so very unimportant in contrast to how you live your life.

I don't know about you, but I am certainly not a random mishap from the plasma pool. Remember; evolution is a THEORY

No, it's not. Not in the terms you want to use, just a theory is pretty much the same as just a demonstrable fact in scientific terms. Test the idea of scientific theory for yourself, gravitational theory will do. Jump up and see what happens. Came down again? But it's just the theory of gravity, isn't it? Same with atomic theory, or relativity, or evolution. It's a set of rules to explain how observable, testable and demonstrable phenomena work.

A theory in common use is NOT the same as in scientific use. Read the link I posted above for a decent explanation of the difference.

I think some people are making a bigger deal out of this then is really needed. If Dr Paul had a history of pushing his religious and personal beliefs via the federal government that would be one thing. But that is not the case...he is the only one fighting for "freedom of choice" which means there will be differences in what we choose to believe or not believe and that is fine.

Last I checked none of the candidates (republican or democrat) are atheist which means if they do believe in evolution they still believe it was at the hand of God and they still believe all the other fantastical tales that are in the Bible.

One thing that I think is funny about intelligent design and creation "science" is that it didn't exist 3 decades ago. It is all a desperate reaction to the elegant simplicity of evolutionary biology.

^ "The odds that evolution is true is astronomically low and getting lower all the time."

That couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, as time goes on the evidence for evolution just keeps stacking.

http://genomebiology.com/2001/3/1/research/0006
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=140308
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Every time there is new evidence, every time evolutionary biology is able to make a correct PERDICTION, creationist teem a new illogical god-based reaction in a pathetic attempt debunk the mounting evidence.

And FLIBOI, I don’t know why you listed D. James Kennedy as a doctor, while he techically has his docotrate, it was in religious studies from New York University, he got his masters in Chicago in Theology, and a became a Master of Divinity from Columbia Thological Seminary. That all sounds a little biased to me.

Grimm, if I seemed to it wasn't intended. I have a problem with the vast majority of politicians when it comes to the drug war in part because of statistics like http://www.prisonsucks.com/

In a lot of respects, wanting to end the drug war being a big one, Paul is better than most. In other areas I do have concerns. Like most elections I'd guess this one will come down to picking whoever seems the least worrying when we get to it rather than the choice I love.

I guess it's kind of obvious that if he wants a shot at Republican candicacy, he will need the support of creationists.

Also.. is this the only Western nation where evolution is a political issue, or even a question at all?

This man wants to be in control of the direction that the american people - a large representation of the human race - takes in future. He thinks it's inappropriate and unfair for THAT position - control of the future of a large portion of the human race - be decided on a scientific matter.

Let's forget that the question was regarding education, and whether or not the subject be taught in schools for just a moment. The man is virtually poo-pooing the quest to find some substance to our existence.

Where exactly are we going as a human race? In 10000 years time, will we still be working and reproducing until we retire, whereupon we appreciate what our money has earned us when our arthritis isn't acting up, waiting to die? Doesn't that strike anyone as a little sad?

So yeah, it's fucking important what this ass thinks about evolution when he's going to be the first in line to all the strings that are pulled that could lead to our glory or downfall.

"God exists everyone, don't worry, trust me on it. So everyone keep on working your life away, retire, eventually die, and then you'll get to heaven and can chill a little!" Come on people, where are we heading? I want more work into science and technology. I want more space exploration. Calling space exploration off because people might die - where's the pioneering spirit? Thousands died exploring the earth and a lot of them weren't willing travellers.

If we find some proof that god doesn't exist thanks to science and technology, then maybe we'll end up living a fulfilling utopian lifestyle, where no one has to suffer stress and high blood pressure working in an office on the 30th floor of a building.

Get your fucking priorities in order - what ever happened to the bigger fucking picture?

Not fair and inappropriate? You want to fucking lead people, people need to know you have your shit together. I couldn't care less if you believe in god, but i could care less that you think this shit isn't important.

Now how about it being taught in schools? It contradicts the Bible, so are you going to deny it being taught? What about other stuff that contradicts the bible? Are you going to make gay people illegal? Stop space exploration, stop the search for extra terrestrial life, it all contradicts the bible.

God these people are too stupid to run the damn country.

The people best suited to running countries and leading men don't want to, and the people who want to are always least suited.

Semi-offtopic rant over.

harry - speaking for england/britain and what i know of it, it isn't an issue to us. We accept that evolution is extremely likely to have been true, and move on with it. We don't even seem to have archaic and vehement christians shaking their crucifixes at us and telling us that we're wicked for believing in evolution. Most of the christians i know believe in evolution, and if i said to them "what about it contradicting the bible?" they'd just say something like "well god may have put it there to test us for all you know, but i admit that based on the evidence we have evolution is highly likely."

They'd also probably say something about the bible having been written by humans, and it having been subject to translation and manipulation over the years, but the core of it is what's important and true.

We just don't have it. No big fat psychopaths who scream about "TEH DARK SIDE!!1111" or whatever it was. I forget cos i watched Star Wars straight afterwards.

If one refers to evolution as a purely "random event", they clearly do not understand the "theory" and need to go back and do some more studying or keep quiet on the subject lest they look the fools they are...

"Remember; evolution is a THEORY - it has not been proven scientifically."

Nothing has ever been proven scientifically. You're thinking of math. The scientific method doesn't prove, it fails to disprove.

In nearly 150 years, despite thousands of people trying, nobody has been able to disprove evolution. Sure it's been refined as a result of experimentation and observation, but not disproven. That's as close to scientific proof as you can get.

Questioning the status-quo is to be encouraged, but you should at least learn what the status-quo is before making foolish claims about it.

What's curiously absent from most discussions about the validity of natural selection and subsequent evolution is the common use of "artificial" selection. The most obvious example is dog breeding. Something like 75% of the current recognized breeds of dogs have been "created" in the last 200 years. All of these are from a common wolf ancestor of perhaps 10,000 years ago. Does a chihuahua look like a wolf? Morphology changes rapidly when the odds are tilted a bit and mutations, (most of which would have been lethal without human support of the poor creature), are perpetuated.
That being said, evolution is not a creationist theory. In a universe of entropy, how molecules initially start replicating (and become "life") is entirely unknown. I'm both a creationist and an evolutionist. Life in this universe is a miracle, but once it starts, it definitely evolves and the driving force is mutation and environment.

@harry: I can attest that here in Canada, evolution doesn't even get mentioned by politicians.

Thanks for posting this, TomStall. With all the mashnotes being sifted about Ron Paul these days on VS, this is a most welcome relief.

YOU ARE a random mishap FLIBOI. Is that a problem for your ego? Here's a nice logical fact to wrap your small head around: Not believing in a God doesn't destroy the potential of one. That's the beauty and curse of faith. Denying reality can actually destroy reality... and then where will you keep all your stuff?

It is very important for me to know the rationale behind the decisions and beliefs of a leader. They might tell me something I don't know. I already know politicians pander transparently, though.

I think this is consistent with my fear that this is not a good candidate for science.

I would love to be able to ask him if he would still fund something that he personally doesn't believe in. My guess is he would support major cutbacks in the DOC bill which covers a lot of granting institution, as Bush had up until this year if you account for inflation. And I think he would want to get the private sector more involved in research. Unfortunately, in my experience the private sector has stifled research when it is invited to the table. They want to be the sole users of the information they help to discover. I don't think that is good for fundamental science like biology and physics where short term gains are not the priority.

That's just my opinion though.

I think of evolution more as adaptation than anything else.

In the bible it says God created us from the dust of the earth. I think that whole creative process (dividing cells, natural selection, etc.) could have taken a while, you know, more than the fundamentalistic "one day".

Good example on the breeding snoozedoctor. Though I don't see the problem of entropy in evolution. It's not a closed system and energy is added by the sun or certain chemicals in the case of chemosynthesis.

evolution doesn't explain creation.

repeat as necessary. (i.e. every fucking thread about evolution).

I upvoted FLIBOI's comment because it doesn't rise to the level of inappropriateness required in the FAQ to deem a downvote. His view is important in this conversation. Making his comment disappear isn't going to win the argument. Silencing dissenting or unpopular voices by drowning them out is anathema to freedom of speech.

"Yet millions accept it because they have been brainwashed into thinking it is true." -- Fliboi quoting Dr. D. James Kennedy.

That is absolutely absurd. We are presented with facts and offered a method by which to understand them. Most logical thinking people then accept the fact. We are influenced by thousands of intelligent renowned people also accepting the fact.

YOU are a christian for one of the following reasons:
You were brought up in a christian family.
You live in a predominantly christian area.
You went to a christian church in search of help.
et cetera

Why does each country and/or area have their OWN specific dominant religion?

I'm sorry to say it, but scientifically, YOU are brainwashed into being christian. If you were a christian living in the middle of iraq, having never visited a church, left the country, or spoken to a christian, then i would say "wow, you really weren't brainwashed! that's rare for a religious person!"

But i wouldn't believe you, because it doesn't happen.

Why did christianity even get to places like india? BECAUSE WE TOOK IT THERE AND BRAINWASHED PEOPLE.

"Are you poor, hungry and lost? Do you feel empty and alone? Do you have no possessions? Do you fight every day for food and water?"
"Yes, yes, yes!"
"Fear not my child, God watches over you and protects you. You will go to heaven for your good qualities as a person."
"PRAISE THE LORD FOR I AM TO BE SAVED!"

Dr. D James Kennedy is an abject moron. So's anyone who takes that quote seriously.

1. Since everyone is being so specific:
The psychological definition of MORON is one with a mental age between 8 and 12 years old.
Even if Dr. K. is a theology doctorate, i think that he knows more than a 12 year old child(at least about God, God's, and Jebus(5 point for whomever gets the quote)), therefore he is not a moron.
2. Are chinese christians (living in a non-religious state) as compelled as american christians by their surroundings? First, there are no missionaries, second, religion is discouraged and punishable, and third, the only outside influence would be parents, as public gatherings are non-existant and private gatherings are few and far-between.
I believe that this is not as black/white as people make it to be, and resentment between facets is immature and close-minded.

This seems to have devolved (pun intended) into a discussion about heliocentrism, or some other not scientificly contested observation.

Lets get back to the vid:

Does it matter that a man who wants to be in charge of the largest military/economy in the world does not have a scientific world view? Or, that assuming he does, that he is willing to pander to an anti-scientific religious constituency?

If he said "nobody has conclusively proven that the earth does or does not orbit the sun" would that be grounds not to elect him, is there a differance?

hahaha FLIBOI created an account 12-27-2007, that means he made an account JUST to put in those two cents HAHAHAHA!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585125669588896670&q=illustra+media&total=362&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Also, check out "Evolution - a theory in crisis" by Michael Denton.

Be sure to watch the whole thing. Even Darwin refutes the idea that natural selection can make the leaps in species that we in modern times want natural selection to explain. By the way; if your qualifications to speak to this outweigh the qualifications of these people, let me know. I pray you won't continue to be brainwashed in to believing evolution is THE explanation for the origin of species.

I think evolution is taught because it's a default. Even the professor in the above linked video was angry because he went on to get his Phd in biology and had never heard the idea of intelligent design. If you want to be fair, you should allow the teaching of ALL theories rather than just one and let people make up their own minds.

Your frustrations above tell me you are in conflict with the seeking of truth. If you're right, then why must you attack instead of just arguing your point? I know the answer to that question, but you have to ask yourself that.

May God richly bless you in your search for truth!

rgroom1, you did yourself in with your own definition of moron. It is "mental age" like you said, not physical age like you later said. Plus any twelve year old can read the bible and find scary things to mark with a highlighter. But either way Dr. K is not a moron because he is a manipulative shyster. A moron can’t do that.

It funny that you mention Chinese Christians because in China the philosophy of Christianity is completely different than it is here. As a majority, they view Christianity as Westerners view Buddhism. It’s more about a strange mysticism. Buddhism seems new and interesting to Westerners, but to the Chinese, it the same old bag; that’s why they turn to Christianity. So, as vapid as it sounds, it sounds kind of sheik to call yourself a Christian in China. It’s kind of like how here in the late 90’s it was cool to say you were a Taoist, or that you voted for the green party.

Also, yes, some religions and types of mediation, such as Falun Dafa, are punishable in China, but Christianity certainly is not one of them. It is encouraged because they believe it makes them seems more western cosmopolitan, therefore easier to do business with.

well you see, FLIBOI. You do have the opportunity to learn all "theories" in fact. There's nothing stopping anybody from going to church, or borrowing a book from the library, or buying one, or reading online documentation. But an institution that teaches what we have found through scientific process and YEARS of scientific research, trial and error, must report the collection conclusions and findings to date. Now, intelligent design does NOTHING more than throw a god into the background, which is of no importance or relevance in a country devoted to separating any church and said state funded institutions.

may your god be blue-balled by little boys' booty holes.

Don't feed the troll.

FLIBOI -

What you seem to be missing is the idea that a scientific theory is constantly undergoing assault and revision - it is never "complete". This is suggested to me by your comment that "even Darwin" stated that natural selection couldn't make large, rapid changes in organisms. But the fact is that evolution as a theory continues to be honed and tweaked (for nearly 150 years now) to account for findings in the fossil record (hence the Punctuated Equilibrium school of evolutionary theory). These tweaks don't mean that the entire theory is fundamentally flawed, only that as new findings accrue, the concept must be revised to account for them.

This is what separates actual science from mere dogma - the latter states "The Truth" and that's it. No more debate, no tweaking, and any contrary evidence must be twisted or ignored to fit The Truth as revealed.

What happens to "intelligent design" as more discoveries are made, more insights gained, and evolutionary theory gains greater explanatory power? It retreats into the shadows of ignorance. This has been the story of religion since the rise of science. I mean, everything was "irreducibly complex" at some earlier time. Until you investigate it, probe it, develop theory and test it. Once you understand it, you see that the "irreducible" nature of the complexity was simply a byproduct of ignorance. This is why I see ID as an anti-intellectual, anti-inquiry movement.

ID is clearly based on the argument from ignorance - that is, the other side can't explain X, therefore it's wrong. But it fails on an even greater scale in my mind in that it really has nothing to offer - it provides no true insight into the nature of things (beyond a "wow that's really complicated!") and provides absolutely no predictive power whatsoever - if I'm wrong on this I'd love to see an example. Evolution, on the other hand, does allow one to make predictions regarding experimental findings and gives insight (albeit incomplete and imperfect) into the nature of life on this planet.

dgandhi, I don't think he's a troll. Just someone who has listened a lot to one side and little to the other, he doesn't understand the issue as well as he thinks he does. I run into the same problem all the time in the drug war debates, people with strong opinions who have never even looked at the statistics and results of what they so strongly support.

FLIBOI, you say "If you want to be fair, you should allow the teaching of ALL theories rather than just one and let people make up their own minds."

Test that theory for a moment and see if you really believe it. Visit the following page and look at the arguments and letters from people in the scientific community who see roughly equal validity between intelligent design and the alternate theory they propose.

http://www.venganza.org/

Start with the open letter to the school board, then read the section called Evidence, academic endorsements.

Yes, it's all pretty silly and most who support the group recognize that. BUT, and this is the key part, it is every bit as scientific as claiming we don't know so magic man must have done it. Intelligent design or creationism is NOT science, that's the problem. In philosophy, fine. Comparative religion classes, fine. In science, no. Nobody is even trying to deny you or anyone else your beliefs. We're just telling you that it isn't science. It's personal philosophy. For every expert you can toss up to support ID or creationism there's got to be three that'll support the FSM as equally valid. Interesting ideas, but not science.

When you people wanted to have the right to your own beliefs we all defended and supported you in that, but when it started being pushed into our schools and our national policy it was no longer a question of your rights but of our nations survival. Modern medicine is based in large part on genetics, everything from how that pill you take works to genetic modification to fight inherited conditions is based on it, and more. Start inserting personal belief in one part of science and none is safe, we're seeing it in the global warming debate too now, and in stem cells. We can't be crippled as a people just to satisfy the confusion of some about the difference between science and personal belief. When you guys pushed that hard you left no choice but for others to push back.

You and your beliefs aren't under attack, just the urge to insert those beliefs into our schools and public policy is. Given the last few years we've got reason for concern.

I'd vote up twice for the above if I could...

to completely accept the theory as fact would be pure belief, not science.

Here is a link to a brief article on the complementary aspects of science and religion. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html
I like the lead quote, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein
I agree with the characterization that science is about the "how" and religion is about the "why." A reporter once asked Richard Feynman why magnets attract and repulse each other. He said, "I have no idea. I can tell you how it happens, but I can't tell you why."

A good answer, but this man has a Ph.D. No excuse to deny it, especially denying it "as a theory."

I agree. Medicine without evidence of benefit is, at least, wasteful if not harmful. I trust that when Dr. Paul was practicing medicine he was doing so in an "evidence-based" manner.

His other ideas out weigh his attitude on this subject, no one is perfect I guess. If I could vote in a US election I would overlook this and still vote Ron Paul.

I do like Paul but I have to say this is a disappointing answer. Now I feel unbalanced after giving Huckabee so much grief. I have read a lot of the comments in support of his answers and the definition of "theory" in scientific terms and such and how it makes "sense" following the constitution (as if he were some emotionless robot) but really i think its a little FUBAR and weak. You are playing a game of semantics, analyzing words to either support or attack a claim and i dont like that for obvious reasons (its not torture its enhanced interrogation. I still like Paul but I can admit when I disagree with him completely on this one

*religion

Adding video to channels (Religion) - requested by Zonbie.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, December 27th, 2007 9:40am PST - promote requested by rottenseed.

Compare comments in here to comments on Huckabee saying more or less the same thing.

"On this question, "yes" or "no" is all I'll ever need to hear. There is no possible rationale for believing in creationism that will ever assuage my instant judgement of you as a fucking lunatic and likely moron."

Just a reminder that the right wing religious crowd doesn't have a monopoly on hypocrisy and selective criticism.

^
Christians don't believe in 'yes' or 'no'.