RP on Evolution

[andrew96]

Hello, I'm new here, I'm from Richmond, VA and study in the field of conservation ecology where I'm working on my Doctorate. I can't seem to find any information on RP's position on evolution. All I could find was the fuzzy Youtube video with him explaining his opinion and I'd like him to elaborate on what he said for a number of reasons.

First, he states that he thinks it's a "theory"; As a Medical Doctor I'm sure he knows "theory" has two meanings, it's scientific meaning and it's colloquial meaning. Colloquially it means an unproven hypothesis but scientifically unless something is proven mathematically it can not become of a higher level than theory. Such as cell theory, we all know it's a fact but it's still refereed too as a theory. Secondly, any Doctor needs to understand micro-evolution as many modern treatments are based on it, no competent Doctor could deny that.

[pcosmar]

Are you here to support Dr.Paul as the next President or not?

Since the theory of Evolution has NO Relevance to the office of President or to the Constitution of the US, what is your point?

[TER]

I believe in a recent debate, the candidates where asked to show by a raise of hands if they did not believe in evolution and Ron Paul did not raise his hand. Can anyone confirm this?

[mczerone]

Are you here to support Dr.Paul as the next President or not?

Since the theory of Evolution has NO Relevance to the office of President or to the Constitution of the US, what is your point?

Whether someone's been divorced has no relevance to serving as the president. One's religion has no (direct) relevance to serving as the president. What one thinks about the behavior of the Israeli govt has no relevance to serving as the president. Whether one has, or even actively does, smoke cigarettes has no relevance to being president.

That doesn't mean that these questions have no relevance in winning a popularity contest. RP is trying to win a popularity contest, and his thoughts about evolution are relevant to potential voters who see it as an important issue, and one that is an indicator of his other views which may factor into how he serves as president.

[specsaregood]

Hello, I'm new here, I'm from Richmond, VA and study in the field of conservation ecology where I'm working on my Doctorate. I can't seem to find any information on RP's position on evolution. All I could find was the fuzzy Youtube video with him explaining his opinion and I'd like him to elaborate on what he said for a number of reasons.

First, he states that he thinks it's a "theory"; As a Medical Doctor I'm sure he knows "theory" has two meanings, it's scientific meaning and it's colloquial meaning. Colloquially it means an unproven hypothesis but scientifically unless something is proven mathematically it can not become of a higher level than theory. Such as cell theory, we all know it's a fact but it's still refereed too as a theory. Secondly, any Doctor needs to understand micro-evolution as many modern treatments are based on it, no competent Doctor could deny that.

You should read his book, "Liberty Defined"; he has a whole chapter devoted to the subject. After that, you can move onto more relevent topics.

[mczerone]

Hello, I'm new here, I'm from Richmond, VA and study in the field of conservation ecology where I'm working on my Doctorate. I can't seem to find any information on RP's position on evolution. All I could find was the fuzzy Youtube video with him explaining his opinion and I'd like him to elaborate on what he said for a number of reasons.

First, he states that he thinks it's a "theory"; As a Medical Doctor I'm sure he knows "theory" has two meanings, it's scientific meaning and it's colloquial meaning. Colloquially it means an unproven hypothesis but scientifically unless something is proven mathematically it can not become of a higher level than theory. Such as cell theory, we all know it's a fact but it's still refereed too as a theory. Secondly, any Doctor needs to understand micro-evolution as many modern treatments are based on it, no competent Doctor could deny that.

Welcome to the Forums!

Just like "theory" has a colloquial and scientific jargon meaning, so too does "Evolution".

RP mentioned evolution in his new book, "Liberty Defined." It's worth a read.

I can't say I know for sure what RP believes about natural/biological history and the origins of man, but I'd say that he's walked a fine line of trying not to contradict either the science of evolution as far as its mechanisms have been proven, nor the teachings of his church.

So I guess the question to you is: What if he is strict, young-Earth, Creationist, and believes word-for-word the account in Genesis? Would you not support his candidacy based on that? Is there some line of beliefs that, to you, makes him unsupportable if he crosses? What is that line, and why?

And, in light of who'll get the GOP nomination if RP doesn't, do you think his (publicly stated) views on evolution, even if radical, are any different than the other choices?

[heavenlyboy34]

I believe in a recent debate, the candidates where asked to show by a raise of hands if they did not believe in evolution and Ron Paul did not raise his hand. Can anyone confirm this?
Wasn't that in one of the '08 debates?

[dannno]

Scientists don't know exactly how we evolved. They are always changing their theory on what we evolved from and there have been fraudulent pieces of evidence used to show how our species evolved.

The problem is that general theory that life evolves is too interconnected to the ideas of creationism vs. evolution (why do they need to be enemies? many believe they don't. also consider the difference between the general theory of evolution vs. how and what scientists believe we evolved from.)

This is why Ron Paul takes a middle of the road position. He doesn't say it's wrong, he doesn't claim it's right. He just believes in God, that the complexities of God and his creation cannot be completely conceived by man, and most importantly he believes in freedom.

[andrew96]

Are you here to support Dr.Paul as the next President or not?

Since the theory of Evolution has NO Relevance to the office of President or to the Constitution of the US, what is your point?


I want a reasonable and scientific man to run the country, evolution is one of the most basic concepts in biology and is as well accepted as cell theory and can be seen every day of our lives in action. There is literally nearly no limit on the scientific as well as public literature on evolution, I don't need to write on it as well. I write on invasive species not evolution, there are plenty of writers on evolution. Would you want a president that denies cell theory? How about a homeopath? What is he thought that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. When we are disagreed with the part of our brain that conrols reason is shut down, what being a reasonable person means is that you suppress that, and that is what no creationist can do.
I am a supporter of Dr. Paul, I do however think it is necessary to question those who you follow, otherwise you're blind. That is called religion, and religions are just popular cults.


Whether someone's been divorced has no relevance to serving as the president. One's religion has no (direct) relevance to serving as the president. What one thinks about the behavior of the Israeli govt has no relevance to serving as the president. Whether one has, or even actively does, smoke cigarettes has no relevance to being president.

That doesn't mean that these questions have no relevance in winning a popularity contest. RP is trying to win a popularity contest, and his thoughts about evolution are relevant to potential voters who see it as an important issue, and one that is an indicator of his other views which may factor into how he serves as president.


It has no direct effect, but it may clue you in to what type of person you are. I don't want to trust a person like that with nuclear weapons, listen to George Will.


You should read his book, "Liberty Defined"; he has a whole chapter devoted to the subject. After that, you can move onto more relevent topics.

Thanks, I'll pick up a copy.



Scientists don't know exactly how we evolved. They are always changing their theory on what we evolved from and there have been fraudulent pieces of evidence used to show how our species evolved.

The problem is that general theory that life evolves is too interconnected to the ideas of creationism vs. evolution (why do they need to be enemies? many believe they don't. also consider the difference between the general theory of evolution vs. how and what scientists believe we evolved from.)

This is why Ron Paul takes a middle of the road position. He doesn't say it's wrong, he doesn't claim it's right. He just believes in God, that the complexities of God and his creation cannot be completely conceived by man, and most importantly he believes in freedom.

We evolved, there is no debate. There is only debate among evolutionary biologists on specific hypothesized and theorized mechanisms and effects of evolution, such as Group Selection VS. Kin Selection. Natural selection by the survival of the fittest is an observable fact that is undoubtedly responsible for the creation of the vast diversity of life on earth. We need enemies because creationists are trying to blind our children and indoctrinate them into their religion with public funds in public schools. Walk into any hospital or university in the world and ask any professor or doctor if evolution occurred and is occurring, they will invariably answer the same way. It doesn't matter if you're in the mathematics department or the biology department. What creationists are doing to this country is disgusting and even though Dr. Paul would cut the Department of Education he would still have indirect influence on it whether he wanted it or not. The President of The United States has more influence that any other man in the world, directly through the exercise of power or indirectly though his expressions.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I believe in a recent debate, the candidates where asked to show by a raise of hands if they did not believe in evolution and Ron Paul did not raise his hand. Can anyone confirm this?

This is true. He explains his answer in Liberty Defined and states that believing in evolution does not hamper one's ability to believe in God, nor does not believing in evolution preclude you from not believing.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I want a reasonable and scientific man to run the country, evolution is one of the most basic concepts in biology and is as well accepted as cell theory and can be seen every day of our lives in action. There is literally nearly no limit on the scientific as well as public literature on evolution, I don't need to write on it as well. I write on invasive species not evolution, there are plenty of writers on evolution. Would you want a president that denies cell theory? How about a homeopath? What is he thought that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. When we are disagreed with the part of our brain that conrols reason is shut down, what being a reasonable person means is that you suppress that, and that is what no creationist can do.
I am a supporter of Dr. Paul, I do however think it is necessary to question those who you follow, otherwise you're blind. That is called religion, and religions are just popular cults.




It has no direct effect, but it may clue you in to what type of person you are. I don't want to trust a person like that with nuclear weapons, listen to George Will.



Thanks, I'll pick up a copy.




We evolved, there is no debate. There is only debate among evolutionary biologists on different parts of evolution. For example Group Selection VS. Kin Selection.

In Liberty Defined, he states that believing in evolution does not contradict believing in God, if that answers your concerns any.

[Sweman]

He thinks evolution is a pretty logical theory, although he's not convinced. Check out these videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKAaps6mFYk 3:55 (and brace yourself for 5:35 :))
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiVy2NbWcgo 3:50

[LibertyEagle]

I frankly don't give a shit. I want someone who will uphold the Constitution.

[dannno]

We evolved, there is no debate. There is only debate among evolutionary biologists on specific hypothesized and theorized mechanisms and effects of evolution, such as Group Selection VS. Kin Selection. Natural selection by the survival of the fittest is an observable fact that is undoubtedly responsible for the creation of the vast diversity of life on earth. We need enemies because creationists are trying to blind our children and indoctrinate them into their religion with public funds in public schools. Walk into any hospital or university in the world and ask any professor or doctor if evolution occurred and is occurring, they will invariably answer the same way. It doesn't matter if you're in the mathematics department or the biology department. What creationists are doing to this country is disgusting and even though Dr. Paul would cut the Department of Education he would still have indirect influence on it whether he wanted it or not. The President of The United States has more influence that any other man in the world, directly through the exercise of power or indirectly though his expressions.

A lot of people are using the Department of Education and public education to push their own viewpoint. Especially when it comes to Keynesian economics vs. free markets. That is why the majority of us would like to see education privatized so that people can choose the type of school they go to rather than be forced to pay for schools that teach things which they disagree with.

However you kinda missed my point. What I'm trying to say is that Ron Paul doesn't NOT believe in evolution either, and that there is a lot of inconsistency as to what people think when they hear somebody say that they believe or don't believe in evolution or creationism and what that means exactly. Ron Paul understands the theory of evolution, but he's not going to stand behind something that is not 100% certain when we don't know all of the mechanisms behind it. Especially when it is a controversial issue over which many of his supporters or potential supporters may have disagreement.

I'm still not sure as to why you are arguing that we need a President who is a scientist. The government's job is not science, the government's only job is to protect our liberty so that scientists can be free to do their own work and come to their own conclusions and society can decide which scientists have the best ideas. As soon as you involve government, then agendas come into play. You force people to pay for things that they don't agree with, and that's wrong.

[NewRightLibertarian]

We're not electing head scientist, we're electing a President. Talk about a non-issue. How can people be concerned with bullshit like this when the country is falling apart?

[mczerone]

We evolved, there is no debate. There is only debate among evolutionary biologists on specific hypothesized and theorized mechanisms and effects of evolution, such as Group Selection VS. Kin Selection. Natural selection by the survival of the fittest is an observable fact that is undoubtedly responsible for the creation of the vast diversity of life on earth. We need enemies because creationists are trying to blind our children and indoctrinate them into their religion with public funds in public schools. Walk into any hospital or university in the world and ask any professor or doctor if evolution occurred and is occurring, they will invariably answer the same way. It doesn't matter if you're in the mathematics department or the biology department. What creationists are doing to this country is disgusting and even though Dr. Paul would cut the Department of Education he would still have indirect influence on it whether he wanted it or not. The President of The United States has more influence that any other man in the world, directly through the exercise of power or indirectly though his expressions.

Some people would still disagree with you that there is "no debate" whether we evolved from a family of primates. I'm not saying I think that they're right, but there is still debate amongst people not privy to the ivory tower.

"We need enemies because creationists are trying to blind our children..." What? Who is we, and why does what follows prove that "we need enemies"?

And whose children are being indoctrinated? "Ours"? If you mean that the creationists OWN children might be being taught something wrong, where do you get off taking a claim in the upbringing of their children?

I bet you could find quite a few science professors who would equivocate if asked about the origin of man, and not give a 100% "evolution did it" answer, from the Mathematics department straight into the evolutionary biology labs. You're the one sounding like he's in a cult, spewing hatred and judging people based solely on whether they agree or disagree with the tenets of your beliefs.

If RP were elected president, you could make sure that your state Dept. of Ed. was ran by whoever you thought would indoctrinate "your children" according to your values. RP wouldn't stand in your way.

[Sweman]

A lot of people are using the Department of Education and public education to push their own viewpoint. Especially when it comes to Keynesian economics vs. free markets. That is why the majority of us would like to see education privatized so that people can choose the type of school they go to rather than be forced to pay for schools that teach things which they disagree with.

However you kinda missed my point. What I'm trying to say is that Ron Paul doesn't NOT believe in evolution either, and that there is a lot of inconsistency as to what people think when they hear somebody say that they believe or don't believe in evolution or creationism and what that means exactly. Ron Paul understands the theory of evolution, but he's not going to stand behind something that is not 100% certain when we don't know all of the mechanisms behind it. Especially when it is a controversial issue over which many of his supporters or potential supporters may have disagreement.

I'm still not sure as to why you are arguing that we need a President who is a scientist. The government's job is not science, the government's only job is to protect our liberty so that scientists can be free to do their own work and come to their own conclusions and society can decide which scientists have the best ideas. As soon as you involve government, then agendas come into play. You force people to pay for things that they don't agree with, and that's wrong.
+rep

[andrew96]

A lot of people are using the Department of Education and public education to push their own viewpoint. Especially when it comes to Keynesian economics vs. free markets. That is why the majority of us would like to see education privatized so that people can choose the type of school they go to rather than be forced to pay for schools that teach things which they disagree with.

However you kinda missed my point. What I'm trying to say is that Ron Paul doesn't NOT believe in evolution either, and that there is a lot of inconsistency as to what people think when they hear somebody say that they believe or don't believe in evolution or creationism and what that means exactly. Ron Paul understands the theory of evolution, but he's not going to stand behind something that is not 100% certain when we don't know all of the mechanisms behind it. Especially when it is a controversial issue over which many of his supporters or potential supporters may have disagreement.

I'm still not sure as to why you are arguing that we need a President who is a scientist. The government's job is not science, the government's only job is to protect our liberty so that scientists can be free to do their own work and come to their own conclusions and society can decide which scientists have the best ideas. As soon as you involve government, then agendas come into play. You force people to pay for things that they don't agree with, and that's wrong.


Some people would still disagree with you that there is "no debate" whether we evolved from a family of primates. I'm not saying I think that they're right, but there is still debate amongst people not privy to the ivory tower.

"We need enemies because creationists are trying to blind our children..." What? Who is we, and why does what follows prove that "we need enemies"?

And whose children are being indoctrinated? "Ours"? If you mean that the creationists OWN children might be being taught something wrong, where do you get off taking a claim in the upbringing of their children?

I bet you could find quite a few science professors who would equivocate if asked about the origin of man, and not give a 100% "evolution did it" answer, from the Mathematics department straight into the evolutionary biology labs. You're the one sounding like he's in a cult, spewing hatred and judging people based solely on whether they agree or disagree with the tenets of your beliefs.

If RP were elected president, you could make sure that your state Dept. of Ed. was ran by whoever you thought would indoctrinate "your children" according to your values. RP wouldn't stand in your way.




Thank you for all the replies. I have gathered one thing, and that is that he's ignorant of the facts. Which is okay, there's a difference between being ignorant of the facts and being presented them and denying them in the face of enormous evidence. The proof is at point 5:08 in the second video for reddit.com. That is completely false. Also, I'm not the one in the cult, because if someone came up with one piece of evidence against evolution I would question my knowledge but for 151 years none has been found yet a vast amount of evidence for evolution has been found. I'm sure if I were to sit down with the Doctor he would agree with me after I presented a few facts and their sources. I didn't say we're electing a head scientist, I said that the president should be reasonable. It isn't reasonable to deny evolution if you're familiar with the facts, which he should have been taught in Med school but apparently not.

[dannno]

Thank you for all the replies. I have gathered one thing, and that is that he's ignorant of the facts. Which is okay, there's a difference between being ignorant of the facts and being presented them and denying them in the face of enormous evidence. The proof is at point 5:08 in the second video for reddit.com. That is completely false. Also, I'm not the one in the cult, because if someone came up with one piece of evidence against evolution I would question my knowledge but for 151 years none has been found yet a vast amount of evidence for evolution has been found. I'm sure if I were to sit down with the Doctor he would agree with me after I presented a few facts and their sources. I didn't say we're electing a head scientist, I said that the president should be reasonable. It isn't reasonable to deny evolution if you're familiar with the facts, which he should have been taught in Med school but apparently not.

I think it was brought up recently that for several decades evolutionary scientists were relying on a human skull glued to an ape's jaw, thinking that it came from the same creature.

Facts are a slippery thing. It's not good, especially for scientists, to treat their subject matter as doctrine like you seem to be.

I'm an atheist leaning agnostic, I don't believe the Bible is the word of God. I just know facts are slippery, and with some more experience I think you will see the same.

I applaud scientists who attempt to understand our environment and where we came from. I think many scientists do in fact have a good understanding of our bodies, minds and surroundings, but there is not much that I take as indisputable fact when I can't see it happening before my eyes. Too many alternative possible explanations. I'm not a big fan of having a central authority which establishes what are 'facts' and what everyone should be taught. It leads to agendas, corruption and ultimately violence against those who have different opinions.

We're talking about a government that doesn't recognize ANY medical use for cannabis.. a substance that benefits those with AIDS, cancer, epilepsy, diabetes, multiple sclerosis and is great at helping to relieve symptoms of pain, nausea and sleeplessness for those with hundreds of other conditions. It has anti-cancer, anti-inflammatory and anti-Alzheimer properties. It is probably the greatest single medicine on earth, yet we decided to give up our rights to use what medicines we wanted by giving the government the power to regulate them and look what they did.