The question is, why didn't he raise his hand in the May 3rd event when everyone of the Republican candidates were asked whether they believe in evolution.

Posted by: Chris | December 25, 2007 10:50 AM

"It's a theory... anybody has absolute proof on either side."

BUZZZ

Wrong f'n answer.

Posted by: dogmeatib | December 25, 2007 12:17 PM

So what does this mean, Ed?

Posted by: steven | December 25, 2007 4:43 PM

As far as I can tell as an outsider to US politics this doesn't make any significant difference since Mr Paul was never going to get a serious number of votes anyway.

At best it will shut up all the "Vote for Ron Paul for a 'new kind of politics'" people that have shown up on so many forums recently.

Posted by: David Durant | December 25, 2007 6:06 PM

Ron Paul is an M.D. There is no excuse for this type of stupidity. This is one topic where he is supposed to know something, as opposed to his opinion on, say, monetary policy, where he wouldn't know what a currency was if one came up and bit him on the butt.

Posted by: kehrsam | December 25, 2007 9:33 PM

I find some of the above comments somewhat disheartening. I agree that "it's just a theory" is not a valid answer and that he obviously is not educated on this subject. I would like to bring up an important point though: it shouldn't matter. If you check out Paul's record of public statements and his voting record, he tends to keep his religious views out of his political decisions very well. I have heard him talk about his religion far less than any of the other candidates that I've seen coverage on.

Posted by: Trey | December 26, 2007 12:11 AM

Thank you for the link, Calton. I wish information like that was widely accessible by the voting public regarding all presidential candidates.

There are many ideas presented by Paul here that are objectionable on scientific, philosophical, and ethical grounds. Many of these came before 1980, which may as well be ancient history after two 'wars' in the middle east and 27 years of supreme court rulings, developmental biology and atmospheric and oceanic studies. Yet we cannot discount the fact that Paul has not changed his mind concerning many important issues. Perhaps the most ridiculous legislation (as is relevant to our discussion of science and society) proposed by Paul regards defining life at the moment of conception, which he has attempted to put through congress multiple times in recent years, which is a threat to both abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research.

That being said, I submit that simply withholding FEDERAL funding for abortions(wtf!), birth control(wtf!!!!), etc. is much better for the country than indisputable nationwide bans (on abortion) being proposed by other candidates like Thompson and Huckabee. The notion of removing the jurisdiction of federal courts from cases regarding abortion seems to be consistent with his idea that states should decide whether or not to permit abortions, which is again, a much more humanist integration of religious beliefs into politics than a nationwide ban.

In conclusion: Ron Paul was and is crazier than I initially thought. Nonetheless, he is IMO the most appealing of any GOP candidate due to his stance on the war and relative 'minimal' integration of religion into politics. Not that I'd ever vote for any of them anyway.

Posted by: Evan Henke | December 26, 2007 6:11 AM

Thank you, Carlton. I simply do not understand how anyone who is non-Christian can support this man and can only conclude that they have never taken more than a cursory glance at his campaign promises -- and we all know about campaign promises at this point in our history as a nation.

Evan, you kidding me? What good is it if he gets us out of the war if he helps oppress us here at home? As an Atheist woman who may well be partially dependent on my Social Security in my old age, I'm damned glad he's got little to no chance of winning.

I think because all the candidates are so into jumping on the Christian nation bandwagon, we non-Christians are getting too apt to try and opt for the least offensive. Fact is, this is not a good time to be non-Christian in America. Fact is, we also need to open our eyes and our mouths and speak up and say no that's not good enough when a candidate hides behind state's rights or some other such nonsense.

It should be okay to oppress non-Christians in any one of the States that says it is? What are you kidding me? And if you give issues like abortion to the states to control, that's exactly what you are doing. If some 16 year old can't abort her baby in Georgia say, that's not alright because one in New York can. I concede that I'm not real huge on state's rights. At least not on major issues. I think I also just explained why.

Yeah, you may be lucky enough to live in a state less oppressive but does that really make it okay with you that fellow Americans are being oppressed simply because they were born in the wrong place? It's bad enough that made in the USA label means nothing because our terrotories can use them while employing horrific labor conditions.

OK, stepping down from my soap box now. For the moment at least.

Posted by: Donna | December 26, 2007 7:12 AM

I am very disappointed to learn that Ron Paul does not accept the theory of evolution. I was also disappointed to read an article published under his name (I don't think he wrote it) that buys into the "war on Christmas" crap. I am disappointed that he believes it is either practical or ethical to attempt to stop the flow of immigrants from Mexico. Most of all, I am disappointed that he sponsors a bill to strip federal courts of jurisdiction in church-state cases (Ron Paul's conception of federalism is not my conception). Nevertheless, I am heartened to know that a President Paul would . . .

* Veto any legislation that outlawed abortion at the federal level
* Veto any federal legislation that required the teaching of creation

Ron Paul is not my utopian candidate. I never expect to have the chance to vote for such a candidate, because I never expect to run for office. Meanwhile, in the real world, I find that I agree with Ron Paul 98% of the time, while agreeing with the other Democratic and Republican candidates only 2% of the time. The choice is easy. Go Ron Paul!

Perry

Posted by: Perry Willis | December 26, 2007 10:01 AM

I would like to bring up an important point though: it shouldn't matter.

Um. Wrong. It should matter. Anyone who is as educated as Paul should know better. Him sticking with this utterly moronic stance says a lot about his decision making and ability to process information. Information that is easily available and widely supported.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 26, 2007 10:04 AM

I think I saw a little glich in the video where someone edited out something. It's easy to make Ron Paul sound worse on a subject than he actually his- he isn't a sound byte candidate. We already know he believes in God, so belief in evolution will be moderated by that belief. It doesn't sound like he totally rejects evolution as a process though.

Posted by: August | December 26, 2007 12:59 PM

Pierce R. Butler-

Stopes and Sanger were clearly both abortionists; they ran abortion clinics (the Stopes Clinics are still running here in Ukay) and actively promoted abortion. In what way were they not abortionists?

Sanger's magazine promoted eugenics. Stopes was a member of the British Eugenics Society and bequeathed part of her estate to it.

I'd suggest that instead of parotting conspiracy theories and presuming everyone is part of a partisan right/left camp just because you are (the use of "Fox News" here is a clue), you actually go out and read some history books. You may be surprised by what you find. I write as a "pro science" kinda guy who, seeking to understand how the world got the way it is, actively decided to go out and find out, and what I found out saddened me because nobody had told me about the sins of my own team. I at one point for instance had believed that some of science had become distorted by government intervention and money, but gradually had to accept that in fact the opposite was true; academia had decided to go out and inveigle itself in government, in particular promoting supposedly "science based" social control theories, of which eugenics was a major part (though now scrubbed largely from the official narrative) and which interventionist liberalism is the result of.

Scientists and academics need to take a damned hard look at their own history and stop pretending that they were all sitting quietly and innocently in the universities until they were subject to an unprovoked attack by "the right". It simply ain't true.

It's amazing once you start digging up stuff about eugenics what you find. Maynard Keynes, architect of the interventionist liberal post WWII economics that were so disastrous, was a member of the Cambridge Eugenics Society. Lord Beveridge, architect of the British welfare state- lifelong eugenicist. And then there was Huxley. And on and on.

The BES still exists, now rebranded The Galton Institute. Still toddling along promoting its social planning agenda. Sigh.

Anyway, getting off the point a bit. Point is, it's pretty much anavoidable that the rise of creationism was a reaction against fears that Darwinism would be used against ordinary people. Which it was. It was a short step from realising that people had evolved to realising that people could be bred like cattle. It's hard to find a scientist of the time who spoke out against it; those people who did tended to be religion based figures like William Jennings Bryan.

I'm an atheist by the way, before you accuse me of being some kind of fundamentalist. I'm also pro-abortion. And British. And I don't own a TV. But don't let that stop you thinking I'm a Fox News propagandised zombie.

Posted by: Ian B | December 26, 2007 3:33 PM

I'm extremely disheartened in Ron Paul's rejection of Evolution. He seemed the most grounded of all of the presidential candidates on both sides of the political spectrum. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on immigration, but with his acceptance of a mythical being and illogical rationale, I guess I'm not going to vote. The rest just pander to the special interests and perpetuate our pseudo-democracy, while the only one who seemed like he had some substance is now in the same steaming pile of manure. Oh well, so much for political hope.

Posted by: Helioprogenus | December 26, 2007 4:29 PM

science is not the job of government.
Unfortunately, this is wrong.

Posted by: Dude | December 26, 2007 5:58 PM

science is not the job of government.

Unfortunately, this is wrong.

Do you have some support for that view, or is it faith-based?

Posted by: Ian B | December 26, 2007 6:42 PM

No army of nutjobs was trying to get labels put on physics books stating that those were "just theories" and hence simply alternatives to creation "theory" - as is well-known by any reasonably aware person to be currently the case with evolution.

As I said before, the science lobby could do with standing back for a moment and wonder how much of that is motivated by their own intereference in government, especially regarding social policy. Creationism was a reaction against scientists promoting spurious "science based" social policies (which continues to this day). Scientists face an understandable reaction against technocracy.

And the point in any event is, of course, not whether candidates are knowledgeable in some specialized area but whether they accept scientific consensus as the current best bet on an issue.

Hmm, that ol' scientific consensus. Science doesn't work that way, does it? What's a consensus? 90/10? 60/40? Show of hands? This is a central problem. Science is always provisional. It doesn't deal in certainty. Within the scientific world "the best bet" is good enough, because the only people it affects is scientists. If the Big Bang turned out to be wrong well, there'd be some red faces and some careers down the U-bend, but in the outside world wouldn't matter very much.

But when science steps into the political ring to "advise" (pressure) governments into particular policies, then it matters. The scientist who does that isn't saying "best bet" he's asserting that his theory is absolutely, certainly right. And if on that basis people have been sterilised, babies aborted, the "feeble minded" locked up in asylums or laws against miscegenation enacted, or taxes raised to punitive levels or entire industries ruined or the economy wrecked well, it matters a lot.

See, what they're reacting against isn't the theory per se, it's the attitudes it engenders and seems to justify. They're well aware that scientists are wildly keen to run public policy (look at that recent barmfest in Bali) and they're scared of that, and that's a pretty wise reaction. The problem started, as I said before, with scientists stepping outside what they're good at (science) and declaring an interest in public policy (which they're not any good at)- in particular the immediate excitement that "applied Darwinism" would be able to breed ubermenschen and, as to the untermenschen well, omelettes, eggs, y'know.

We see this same thing occurring today. Climatologists et al (experts in climate) are very loudly demanding political, social and economic policies which they know nothing about (or, at least, nothing more than a road sweeper).

When one particular group make a visible grab for power at the expense of everybody else, they're likely to find opposition groups arising, which is why you have Evolutionists vs. Creationists (and abortionists vs. anti-abortionists). The reaction against Darwinism came about through fear of what philosophies and resultant policies based on the theory would mean (and rightly too, we saw it in Nazi Germany, and also in other countries where eugenics based policies were enacted. Sweden didn't stop their eugenics programme until 1975!) This extends to why there's opposition to stem cell research, cloning etc, which of course could be a great boon used wisely. They fear they would not be used wisely and, hey, that might be an entirely valid fear.

"To repeat a mantra, haven't we learned anything about the hazards of having a functional illiterate as president?"

That's just silly. I don't think I've agreed with anything the man has ever said or done, but "functionally illiterate"? Come on. Do I detect just a hint of arrogance there? Just a teeny bit?

Consider this; repeated surveys have shown that a significant majority of academics/scientists support socialism, a demonstrably failed paradigm which has caused tens of millions of deaths. That doesn't inspire much confidence either, does it?

Posted by: Ian B | December 26, 2007 7:14 PM

Exactly my point Ian, there would be no money for NASA. As bureaucratic as NASA is, they do a great deal of good that the free market will not be able to achieve for quite some time. Besides, a big government does not necessarily lead to fascism because it all depends on accountability. How willing are we to hold our elected officials accountable for their spending? Plus, with the state of education that we have in this country, we're a democracy of ignorant people. That's why political candidates must pander to the religious, since they constitute the irrational majority of this nation. A true democracy can only work when the public is informed.

As for political views, people have encyclopedias arguing the difference between libertarian "free marketeers", anarcho capitalists, socialists, social libertarians, etc. I'm not going to delve into the exact category Ron Paul falls under because I honestly don't care. What matters to me is can we maintain our scientific and technological progress against countries that are catching up in some ways and surpassing us in others. By completely and drastically reducing our government, there's a lot that we can't accomplish. A limited goverment in some ways is important, but what matters most is accountability and checks and balances. My solution would be to standardize education across the country, also making science and math a priority in primary education. Further, we should aim to reduce the influence that corporations and the military/industrial complex (such as pharamaceutical companies) have on politics. Remove religion and faith completely, and instill some knowledge of scientific and technological theory. Furthermore, we should stop paying Congress and the Presidency. They would have the simple necessities of the military, such as dorm like shelter (when they're legistlating), food, transportation to and from the capitol by subway tokens, and perhaps a stipend for miscellaneous items like shaving cream, etc. Why should they receive a salary when they're doing work that represents the people? No private jets, no vacations to resorts, and we should definitely audit the IRS, Homeland Security, etc.

Some of this is in fact fantasy, but the relevant point is that a large government is not necessarily evil, when properly maintained and monitored. They should be the one's being monitored, not us. As for science, an entire department should be created to advise the public and the presidency of the proper course to take.

Posted by: Helioprogenus | December 26, 2007 8:45 PM

"Within the scientific world "the best bet" is good enough, because the only people it affects is scientists."

And you call suggesting that someone who often has difficulty formulating a coherent sentence "functionally illiterate" is "silly" and "arrogant"? Hi, pot.

Your description of the world of science bears no relationship to anything I've experienced or even heard of. Same for your description of the motivation of creationists - which doesn't even gibe with their own frequent rhetoric.

I have no idea how your anti-government, anti-science diatribe relates to my quite simple assertion that a contemporary presidential candidate who is serious should have a ready response to questions (on current controversies, scientific or otherwise) the answers to which are easily obtainable and understandable. Maybe less ideology and more focus would help.

- Charles

Posted by: ctw | December 26, 2007 10:56 PM

"Sincere congratulations on your tv-free status"

Are you suggesting that it's possible to survive without Law and Order reruns? No way.

- Charles

Posted by: ctw | December 27, 2007 9:55 AM

First off, what he said was: "I don't think we're at a point where anybody has the absolute truth on either side." For a "science blog" this site has a tendency to jump to conclusions a lot.

Second, none of this is relevant to his campaign anyway. Ron Paul intends to abolish the US Department of Education, letting state and local government decide what they choose to teach their children. Remind yourselves that the United States is a UNION of STATES -- many people of many backgrounds and beliefs -- not a socialist state where the federal level standardizes everybody's education despite their faith. The founders are rolling in their graves while all of these superfluous agencies are running at the federal level. So Ron Paul's beliefs on evolution as the President of the United States should be irrelevant at best, which is why he thought the question was inappropriate.

I wish you guys would do some kind of research on this guy before making snap judgments. Even reading his Wikipedia article or something would make you better informed. All of you sound like you're getting your news from CNN and Fox.

On that note: Helioprogenus, clearly Ron Paul isn't the candidate for you. Go vote for a democrat so they can inflate the role of government in your life a little more. Or better, because you obviously like paying insane tax rates to support poorly managed federal programs, you can move to some socialist state in Scandinavia instead. You're clearly looking for a homogenous population in which everybody is governed under the same faith.

Posted by: Andrew | December 27, 2007 6:51 PM

Then pray tell, what was your point?

For example,

  Ron Paul is an M.D. There is no excuse for this type of stupidity.

I inferred from this comment and others[1], perhaps incorrectly, that a medical doctor would necessarily believe that evolution is true since he/she must have a basic understanding of biology. Conversely, if they didn't believe evolution was true, they are incompetent doctors (and would likely be incompetent as president). To the extent this inference was correct, my point was:

"...providing quality care to human beings suffering from any disease I can think of is not predicated on the belief that evolution is true."

...

[1] Some comments which led me to infer this don't appear here; evidently I read them elsewhere in the comments section of posts related to this article. One that I found particularly preposterous - and for the life of me I can't recall now where I read it - stated that if Paul didn't believe evolution was true he must've lied on his medical board exam!

Posted by: RKN | December 28, 2007 9:11 AM

According to the campaign, Paul's position on evolution has gotten a little jumbled out there in the blogosphere based on the extraordinary awkwardness of the answer in this video.

They have indicated that Paul accepts the general evolutionist model regarding the age of the Earth and the origin of species, but believes that the entire process was set in motion by God, and that at some point in the process the species "Man" was endowed with a soul.

Pretty much the Vatican position.

He doesn't accept the full materialist theory because like most religious people he's a dualist.

Posted by: Brian S | December 28, 2007 10:37 AM

Einstein was a religious man. Balance people, Balance

Posted by: Robin K. Dicken | December 28, 2007 10:50 AM

Funny to see all the christian hating atheists (CHAS!) coming out of the wood work. I'm an atheist too and i could care less what he thinks about evolution, just as long as he's not a young-earth creationist. That's where I draw the line.

Posted by: Eddie Wood | December 28, 2007 11:05 AM

A fact? Do tell, what medical treatments "rely" on evolution?

Treatment protocols for instance regarding treatment of infections. Another area elucidated by evolution is cancer research.

For instance, will the statin I'm taking become suddenly ineffective if evolution were proven false tomorrow?!

Given that the statin you are taking is effective today, then it will presumably be just as effective tomorrow.

Posted by: Dave S. | December 28, 2007 11:33 AM

So Ron Paul is a skeptic on matters scientific, and here makes a qualified assessment of the theory of evolution, basically taking the entirely sensible position that no one can say for sure how creation commenced and progressed. From a human standpoint, its basically a humble perspective, and so out of step with liberal, rational, scientific orthodoxy which says through empiral data humans can decipher anything. The mystery of life is just hocus-pocus. What I like about Ron Paul is that in the current cultural climate he is proving to be an extraordinary contrarian, calling into question a whole raft of reifications in thought that have built up around our godawful federal government and politics, and around assumptions that drive our collective culture. It is really fascinating that so many people claiming to be thinking individuals, right or left, are so agitated by this guy. To me that says that this guy is touching some nerves that are making a lot of folks mighty uncomfortable, and not because he's a dingbat but because he's saying some profound things about where our country has traveled during the last 50 years at least, and its not as pretty a mythalogical picture of our "national greatness" as many people like to cherish. Good thing Ron Paul is hanging around to question stale conventional wisdom...

Posted by: timothy silva | December 28, 2007 12:06 PM

Where is the missing section of video? It is quite obvious that there was editing that took place at 31 seconds into the video. It is audibly apparent, and you can also see a sudden jump in the position of the heads of some of the audience members.

If this was a damning as people want it to be, then why was something edited out?

Posted by: Nick | December 28, 2007 12:24 PM

(shrug) Americans love being stupid, and they love voting for stupid people. Bonus points if they're racist.

Posted by: sherifffruitfly | December 28, 2007 12:36 PM

You know, Paul has such a following because some of the things he says make absolute sense. Then he goes all wacky. Being in the medical field myself, I've had hours and hours of science, anatomy and physiology education. How much more must he have had to become an MD? But the Evo vs Creat debate was really put into perspective in this AWESOME documentary about the clash on PBS. It will really take the wind out of any creationists sails without bashing their faith. Scientific Theory is testable, therefore it is "scientific". Creationism is not testable, therefore it is philosophy. Check out PBS it is really a hmmmm moment.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

Posted by: Mary | December 28, 2007 12:38 PM

It's obvious that there was some sort of break in the video at the 30 second mark. It would be nice to know what else he said. But hey, don't let me get in the way of a good Paul-bashing.

Posted by: Libertarian | December 28, 2007 12:45 PM

Einstein wrote the forward to the book :"Man and his gods" Homer W. Smith
..Einstein was not religious.His warning was about Exaggerated Nationalism
that would end man kind.

Posted by: whiteyward | December 28, 2007 1:03 PM

"Americans love being stupid, and they love voting for stupid people. Bonus points if they're racist."

Spoken like a true, grammar-challenged American!

F*cktard.

Posted by: deputygalapagostortoise | December 28, 2007 1:21 PM

First off, what he said was: "I don't think we're at a point where anybody has the absolute truth on either side."

This is true but misleading. It proves that Paul doesn't know how science works, and that he doesn't know that he doesn't know how science works. (Unless of course he's lying to pander to people whom the description fits.)

Consider this; repeated surveys have shown that a significant majority of academics/scientists support socialism, a demonstrably failed paradigm which has caused tens of millions of deaths. That doesn't inspire much confidence either, does it?

No, it demonstrates that -- unlike you and a large number of Americans -- they don't fall for the Soviet Union's propaganda of calling communism "socialism". That said, the policies of today's Social Democratic parties over most of the world -- and this is what, I suppose, most academics support -- would, for the most part, not even be recognized as socialism by 19th-century socialists.

Perhaps naively, I expect that Roosevelt, JFK and Truman would have said "I'm not an expert on this" or "huh?". There's nothing wrong with knowing nothing, as long as you know that you know nothing. Paul evidently doesn't know that he knows nothing -- and this, ladies and gentlemen, is stupidity.

With the enormous, massive, inexplicable gaps in the fossil record, who here can absolutely defend evolution?

Not one of them is inexplicable, and all of them are much smaller than you believe. See above on knowing that you know nothing.

Furthermore, we should stop paying Congress and the Presidency. They would have the simple necessities of the military, such as dorm like shelter (when they're legistlating), food, transportation to and from the capitol by subway tokens, and perhaps a stipend for miscellaneous items like shaving cream, etc. Why should they receive a salary when they're doing work that represents the people? No private jets, no vacations to resorts, and we should definitely audit the IRS, Homeland Security, etc.

This sounds great, till you consider corruption...

Paul is right, evolution is just a theory.

It is impossible to be "just a theory" because "just" and "theory" contradict each other. If you knew what the technical term "theory" means, you would have noticed.

But you don't even know that you don't know what "theory" means. See above.

When you ask -do you believe in evolution? The answer depends a lot on what you mean by evolution.

No, it depends on what you mean by "believe". If you mean it in the sense of religious/ideological faith, "to hold that something is true even though no evidence supports it", then I don't think anyone who understands the theory of evolution -- or the theories of gravity, of relativity, of quantum electrodynamics -- believes in it.

Perhaps the Book of Mormon says it best:

Alma 32:17-18 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe. Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.

(For the record, I have seen evolution on a petri dish full of bacteria and bacteriophages, and so did everyone else in that first-year molecular biology course. Not quite a sign from heaven, perhaps, but you know what I mean.)

Darwin himself stated that his theory would be greatly compromised if the fossil record did not show evidence of such a transition. In fact the fossil record does not show any evidence of this gradual evolution. Instead it shows rapid changes of speciation over short periods of time.

You have way overestimated the bygone controversy over punctuated equilibrium. Firstly, the "rapid changes" are much smaller than you seem to think; secondly, punk eek is compatible with the majority of the few cases where the fossil record has the incredibly high resolution required to see speciation, but not all of them. Read this paper (pdf format).

There are many scientists who point out the incredible complexity of even the most simple of living organisms and have counted the chances for the random banging around of molecules being able to produce this complexity as being practically zero.

So, what the question - do you believe in evolution - boils down to is - do you believe that life was created by random processes

"Random", "random", "random"... Ignorance strikes again. Mutation is random. Selection is not. Selection is determined by the environment.

To have an informed opinion on evolution you need to read up on the subject. I judge from the ignorant and arrogant responses to Ron Paul's statement by many of the preceding comments that they are from people who simply have little or no idea what they are talking about.

How true.

So Ron Paul is a skeptic on matters scientific,

I wish! Honestly, I wish. But he doesn't qualify as a skeptic. As shown above, he simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

and here makes a qualified assessment of the theory of evolution

Nope.

Posted by: David Marjanović |