Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Ron Paul, go sit in the corner with Dinesh.

What a buffoon.

Posted by: waldteufel | December 25, 2007 10:58 AM

And people actually cheered for this response?

Posted by: Saint Gasoline | December 25, 2007 12:41 PM

The first priority of a politician is to get elected, they will say anything which they think might help. Once elected they will go the way they like, without regard to anything they might have said to get elected. So he is just another politician.

Posted by: Eric Bloodaxe | December 25, 2007 5:46 PM

Sad. Very, very sad. I don't think I would mind if he simply said, "You know, I just am not well enough educated to say, so I'm going to refrain from commenting on the matter." I would actually respect that more than a candidate who said he did believe in evolution without actually having a clue about it, just because he wanted to present a good image. A candidate who says "yes" to the "Do you believe in evolution" question might be every bit as scientifically illiterate as one who says "no," but just be pandering to a different audience. I'm not assuming that any of the current presidential candidates necessarily has a good understanding of exactly what evolution entails. But no, he had to pull the "It's just a theory" card, acting as if he has a clue what he's talking about, is somehow qualified to evaluate the theory, and has come to the conclusion that it's not true. Maybe not surprising, but still depressing.

Posted by: Gretchen | December 25, 2007 8:52 PM

I am somewhat disappointed in Ron Paul, this is somewhat shocking.

However, as a confident atheist, liberal, and philosopher of science in training (undergrad senior), I give Ron Paul some credit in that even in the event that he is elected (an extreme longshot) he seems to be consistent in his dedication to leaving his monotheistic religion outside of political decision making. Even if he were elected, he seems unlikely to become a die-hard anti-gay rights, anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research, overall anti-humanist conservative. It could be argued that his policies on reducing the size of the government have these effects, but at least these are not active, direct measures against an agnostic 'worldview'.

Objections are welcome.

Posted by: Evan Henke | December 25, 2007 9:53 PM

Even if he were elected, he seems unlikely to become a die-hard anti-gay rights, anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research, overall anti-humanist conservative.

Say what? Do you even have the slightest notion of this guy's Congressional record? He's INTRODUCED exactly such legislation, multiple times. For a rundown, see here:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

Posted by: Calton Bolick | December 26, 2007 2:45 AM

"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."

There's no particular reason why an MD (a practitioner rather than a researcher, anyway) would have a particularly deep understanding of evoultion, beyond taking some science courses at university. It would be better for all of us if they did, but it's not the case at present.

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | December 26, 2007 6:52 AM

He's such a frigging baffoon.

PaulTards like Trey and Evan above never fail to show up on the intertubes to rationalize this sort of moronic nonsense; having hitched their wagons to someone who is certifiable crazy they don't have the 'tools' needed to disengage from impending doom. Which makes Ron Paul look even worse.

And the vicious cycle continues.

Posted by: me | December 26, 2007 9:51 AM

Paul's popularity is that a small number of his views stand in stark contrast to the rest of the field. The problem comes that many only focus on those few positions and ignore the rest. That or they don't care. He's really no different that the rest of the Republican's that are running on many issues.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 26, 2007 10:01 AM

Well, it's very disappointing, though I'm a bit deaf and having listend a few times to the bad audio I'm not sure if he actually said "It's not a theory I accept" or I misheard that. OTOH, as pointed out, Paul doesn't believe it's the president's job to tell people what scientific views to hold. He wouldn't use his position to impose his own views. That's a key point. You're so used to authoritarianism that you think it's a politician's job to force the winning group's views on everybody else. Paul doesn't stand for that. He wants to take back America to its consitutional roots based on freedom of citizens.

On abortion- I'm pro abortion, but it's clearly insane to deny that a foetus isn't alive until it has been born with the consent of the mother. Of course it's alive, and conception is as good a point to declare that life's start than any other. The issue is whether the owner of the womb has greater rights than the resident, who the owner must surely bear some responsibility for placing in residence in the first place. To use an analogy, if I get drunk and let somebody else rent my basement, I have some moral responsibility for that, and if I later regret the decision that doesn't mean I can just fling them out immediately. For instance, it can be reasonably argued that the mother may have the right to evict the foetus, but not have it killed. If it could live independently under medical supervision, does it have no right to that?

Central to the antagonism regarding abortion is the overlooked historical fact that many of the early abortionists (Stopes, Sanger etc) where shrill eugenicists who saw one role of abortion to be control of the population. We must remember that the term "Family planning" means not so much individuals planning their families as wise progressives planning their families for them. The powerful reaction against both evolution and abortion is a direct consequence of that struggle in the early 20th century against the eugenics policies so beloved of the liberal intelligentsia, who saw sterilisation and abortion as powerful weapons against the poor, the feeble minded and the racially different who they despised as an unruly mob breeding like flies and who would overwhelm the better bred.

We wouldn't be in this mess with Creationism etc had not the powerful elite been so enamoured of the eugenics policies based on Darwin's theory with which the "progressive" intelligentsia were obsessed and of which, one suspects, many of them still quietly fantasise. Eugenics was only discredited after 50 million died in a terrible war. Even after that, in 1948, Julian Huxley (founder of the WWF and UNESCO) is on record discussing his dismay at the discrediting of eugenics, and a cynic would note much of the same philosophy permeating the modern environmentalist and transnationalist movements with which we are accursed.

What I'm getting at here is that the issues are much more involved than people credit. Paul is at least a man of honesty and conviction who believes people should live in a free society and make their own decisions, which is more than can be said for his statist opponents in both his own party and the Democrats who, like Donna's comment, fear relinquishing power to the states and citizens because then they'd lose that power to impose their will on everyone.

Posted by: Ian B | December 26, 2007 12:45 PM

Ian B: Stopes & Sanger were not "abortionists" (they promoted contraception, itself an extreme position in their day), and they weren't really eugenicists (though Sanger in particular tried to use that as a vehicle for contraceptionist arguments).

For that matter, the "liberal intelligentsia" (some of) who(m) supported eugenics were joined by many moderate and conservative voices as well.

In short: stop parroting Fox-level right-wing propaganda, willya?

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 26, 2007 2:49 PM

Sorry for being so British in my last comment. By way of balance, here's a disturbing little tale about Harvard-

http://www.wymaninstitute.org/articles/2004-11-harvard.php

Posted by: Ian B | December 26, 2007 3:47 PM

Helioprogenus:

His view on evolution shouldn't matter to you. Biological science is not a competence of the presidency. Was Roosevelt a Big Bang supporter, was JFK a believer in Relativity, what did Truman think of the Copenhagen Interpretation? It doesn't matter. You don't vote for scientific theories, and science is not the job of government.

The one thing you can say about a Paul presidency is that he wouldn't involve the state with either science or religion, whatever his personal views on those matters. It's clear that he wants to return the USA to the constitutional position in which the federal government just does those few things it was originally intended to do, and leaves the rest to the states and the people.

If on the other hand you want a big authoritarian central government that has policies on scientific issues- well, you can hardly complain when those you disagree with fight to get their views imposed as policy. The issue isn't whether evolution is right or wrong; it's about whether governments should be involved *at all*.

Posted by: Ian B | December 26, 2007 4:50 PM

"Was Roosevelt a Big Bang supporter, was JFK a believer in Relativity, what did Truman think of the Copenhagen Interpretation?"

These are, of course, irrelevant to the issue at hand. 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.

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. I disagree with Ginger Yellow that it's unreasonable for a (current or past) practicing MD to have a "particularly deep understanding of evolution" - my understanding, deep enough to answer the question at issue with even some minimal elaboration, is based on about 100 pages each of Ancestor's Tale and Selfish Gene and nothing else since HS biology half a century ago. But even giving a candidate the benefit of the doubt on that score, at the very least the candidate should have a ready answer to that perfectly predictable question - and the answer should be informed by some sound scientific advice.

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

- Charles

Posted by: ctw | December 26, 2007 6:06 PM

I beg to differ Ian B. What Ron Paul's view of evolution tells me is that even though he has a medical degree, and seems reasonably intelligent, his critical thinking skills need much improvement. Certainly, out of all these would be presidential candidates, he's the lesser evil, but not enough for me. Roosevelt and JFK do not matter here, because what we've recently learned is that critical thinking is of prime importance in analyzing various situations. Should Ron Paul be placed in a scenario where critical thinking is most important, I'm not convinced he'll follow through. Will he fund science, research and development? How will his decentralized policies effect education and science based funding? Will he allow the market do alone decide on how to fund space programs, alternative energy, biofuels, etc?

I do agree with him on a number of isses, particulary the reduction of the military/industrial process and his insistence of a return to constitutional rights and mandates. We were established as a Federal Republic, with the states having more power then the central government. I also believe that he will not interfere with the checks and balances, but yet, his stance on evolution, abortion, and immigration are a major cause for concern.

Posted by: Helioprogenus | December 26, 2007 7:02 PM

I'm not convinced he'll follow through. Will he fund science, research and development?

I wouldn't have thought so. He's a libertarian and doesn't see those as the government's job.

How will his decentralized policies effect education and science based funding? Will he allow the market do alone decide on how to fund space programs, alternative energy, biofuels, etc?

Yes, he's a libertarian economically, a fellow of the Mises Institute. I'm not entirely sure how anarcho-capitalist he is but broadly speaking he would AFAICT think those things are not the government's job. The government should have nothing to do with industry. Once the government starts throwing money and patronage around, you end up with a corporate state (fascism) which is what you pretty much have (indeed the entire western world does). I think his general view would be that anything the govermnent gets involved in, it screws up.

Look at biofuels; they're an environmental disaster! Forests are getting chopped down to grow plants for fuel! Land is being taken out of food production to grow them and we actually face food shortages as a result! Madness! So why the push for them? Because corporations can get money from government for growing them, that's why. Sigh.

Paul's a true free marketeer libertarian. That's a philosophy that's neither socialist nor corporate. So sadly there'd be no money for NASA (but on a positive note there'd be no gubmint health bureaucracy either, so no more "carrots cause toenail cancer" rubbish) but on a positive note, no Haliburton suckling at state funding either.

Posted by: Ian B | December 26, 2007 7:25 PM

I'm afraid it's gotten to the point where I would not vote for anybody stupid enough to run for office.

There was one intelligent statement in that video. A baby cooed towards the end.

Posted by: BaldApe | December 26, 2007 9:57 PM

Ian B: Dunno where you "actively decided to go out and find out", but it seems you fell into a rightist rabbit hole on the way. Sanger was against abortion, and promoted contraception as a means of reducing it. Her magazine discussed eugenics, and she was published in eugenics mags, but this was essentially opportunism (compare to a contemporary atheist getting media time in context of a church pedophilia scandal, though atheism isn't centrally concerned with child rape).

... some of science had become distorted by government intervention and money, but ... the opposite was true

Oh? Just when was science politically pure, and who led it astray?

To repeat what I said in (I hope) even clearer terms: the eugenics movement was supported by intellectuals across the political spectrum, on both sides of the Atlantic. If you think it was just a "liberal" thing, that strongly suggests your information has come from biased sources.

It was a short step from realising that people had evolved to realising that people could be bred like cattle.

Except that you have it exactly backward: treating humans as livestock was business as usual in US slave-holding states generations before Darwin published, and the idea goes back at least to ancient Sparta (or maybe just Athenian anti-Spartan propaganda, as that's what survives from that period).

I'm also pro-abortion.

Funny thing: most of those of us active on the pro-choice side describe ourselves as pro-abortion rights - it's not like we're saying there just aren't enough abortions. "Pro abortion" is a phrase used mostly by anti-abortion crusaders - and (sigh) trolls...

And British. And I don't own a TV. But don't let that stop you thinking I'm a Fox News propagandised zombie.

Ah, you get your information from some other Murdoch media, then? And have you noticed how socialism hasn't "demonstrably failed" among so many of your northern European neighbors?

Sincere congratulations on your tv-free status, btw: we have that in common, anyway.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 26, 2007 11:25 PM

Big surprise...people defend Ron Paul on a philosophical basis and people get mad and start throwing around phrases like "PaulTard" and "Are you kidding?!" Well, I wasn't kidding.

I think we are all smart enough to realize that everybody has different background knowledge on evolution. Everyone values faith differently. When people are presented with the theory of Evolution, it is framed differently and discussed differently.

Right or wrong, Ron Paul ought to have the right to believe whatever he wants regarding evolution, and so should every commentator on this blog. People who fail to see how atheists could defend Ron Paul show about as much critical thinking ability as Ron Paul himself. Not everyone gets the picture like we do, so don't be a bigot.

Posted by: Evan Henke | December 27, 2007 5:36 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.

Your vote (or not) will not affect the outcome of the national election. Guaranteed. The rational man stays home.

...

I find the comments here expressing dismay at how an M.D. could possibly deny evolution, amusing. I personally know a number of fine medical doctors who attend church regularly and believe - to one extent or another - in a supernatural God. I'm confident there are many, many more. This may come as a surprise to y'all, but providing quality care to human beings suffering from any disease I can think of is not predicated on the belief that evolution is true.

Posted by: RKN | December 27, 2007 10:03 PM

One has nothing to do with the other. I personally know a number of evolutionary biologists who attend church regularly and believe in God. That has nothing at all to do with whether they reject evolution.

Their belief in a supernatural God very well might inform their belief, or disbelief, in evolution. I suppose that would vary from one individual to another. In any case, that wasn't specifically my point.

Posted by: RKN | December 28, 2007 7:10 AM

Its a fact there are indeed many MD's who don't have a clue about evolution and many who reject it for whatever reasons. Its also a fact that many of treatments they use, albeit sometimes unbeknownst to them, do rely on evolution.

You don't have to know how your engine works to be a good driver. Even if you really really think there must be fairies in there, you can still drive that car. That of course does nothing to invalidate how the engine actually works.

Posted by: Dave S. | December 28, 2007 8:45 AM

Its also a fact that many of treatments they use, albeit sometimes unbeknownst to them, do rely on evolution.

A fact? Do tell, what medical treatments "rely" on evolution? For instance, will the statin I'm taking become suddenly ineffective if evolution were proven false tomorrow?!

You don't have to know how your engine works to be a good driver. Even if you really really think there must be fairies in there, you can still drive that car. That of course does nothing to invalidate how the engine actually works.

The analogy would be more useful stated this way:

"You don't need to know where cars come from to capably repair them. Likewise, medical doctors need not know (or care) where human beings came from to properly care for them. Each merely needs to understand how they work."

Posted by: RKN | December 28, 2007 9:26 AM

Mr. Paul says "...it's a theory, and I don't accept it as a theory." He goes on to elaborate: "...the creator that I know...created us, every one of us...created the universe, and the precise time and manner...I just don't think we're at a the point where anyone has absolute proof on either side..." and then he's clipped.

I'm not sure what you evolutionadvocates are looking for the guy to say. Paul believes in a creator. Okay. Fine. I do too. So do a lot of other sane, rational, educated people who actually got good grades in biology classes at modern, all-electric, secular universities, where we learned about evolutionary theory. Does evolutionary theory even speak credibly to creation? Does it say "There is no God?" No, it does not. Paul believes that that creator made everything. Does evolutionary theory speak to that? I don't think it does. Why would it? HOW could it?

Darwin's work picks up in the middle of life. Paul's talking about origins. Yeah, he says he rejects the theory of evolution, and his message is pretty sloppy. I'm not sure what he means, and I suspect that he just got soundbitten.

I'm not sure how you can globally reject all of evolutionary theory. I just don't know. But I don't think that's what Paul says here. He doesn't come out and say that there's no evolutionary process at work in the world he believes to have been created by "the creator [he] know[s]." In fact, he says there's "no absolute proof on either side" of the argument. Is this statement false? If it is not, why does making it qualify Paul for lunacy?

I dunno. I have no dog in this political fight. I wouldn't vote for Paul if you paid me. But his position hardly seems like the crazy blathering some of the above commentors make it out to be, at least not as he clumsily presents it in this video.

Posted by: AI | December 28, 2007 10:47 AM

Paul is right, evolution is just a theory. Anyone who knows Paul would already know his stands on evolution. It's not a secret. Die-hard Evolutionists should vote for Mike Gravel.

Posted by: Olaf | December 28, 2007 11:01 AM

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

Posted by: TJ's Anti-contrarian blog | December 28, 2007 11:29 AM

When you ask -do you believe in evolution? The answer depends a lot on what you mean by evolution. In the sense that Darwin himself believed in his theory it meant the gradual transition over millions of years of one species into another. 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. 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 not brought about by a creator or do you believe that in some way the universe was designed for life and shows every evidence that there is a creator behind it all.
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.

Posted by: barrie sellers | December 28, 2007 11:34 AM

Who cares? At least he's honest....
Do you have a better candidate?

Do something positive for this stupid election instead of trying to get on the smear bandwagon for blog hits...

One will never have 100% belief in a candidate's positions, but this is trivial....He still is the only honest contender, no wonder he is dissected (unlike EVERY other candidate)

Posted by: dean | December 28, 2007 12:20 PM

Excuse me, but did NOBODY else notice that at the 30 second, mark, this video has been altered? Obviously, we're not hearing his FULL answer. And that's very important because...

Remember that there are TWO aspects of "Evolution". The name of Darwin's book was "Origin of the SPECIES". It was not "The Origins of LIFE". There's a huge distinction between ackowledging the mechanism of evolution in the ADAPTATION of existent Life, and claiming it provides a supportable theory explaining the ORIGINS of Life.

NO ONE, I repeat no one, has ever succeeded in generating Life out of the pure inorganic elements from the periodic tables. There is ZERO scientific evidence to support the theory of self-organization of inorganic elements into organic Life.

Evolution is an excellent model of the Adaptation of existent Life. It is not a viable theory for the Origins of Life. So before everyone starts claiming Paul's a nut for not accepting the "theory of evolution", based on an obviously edited video... get the facts straight. And the fact that he didn't raise his hand at the debate over this suggests that as a medical doctor, of course he acknowledges the presense of evolution in Adaptation. He just doesn't accept that it is a viable theory explaining the Origins of Life.

Posted by: Quantumystic | December 28, 2007 12:29 PM

Espying the mug of Brayton I am inclined to accept the theory of devolution, sorry to say. OOK....

Posted by: James Pollock | December 28, 2007 12:37 PM

You People realize the Laws of Thermodynamics

have yet to be reconciled with Evolution.

Posted by: Bring it On Home | December 28, 2007 12:42 PM

Ron Paul, from my perspective, gave a sophomoric answer. too bad.

Posted by: Paul Revere | December 28, 2007 12:52 PM

You People realize the Laws of Thermodynamics have yet to be reconciled with Evolution.

This is one of creationism's oldest talking-points, and it's already been refuted so conclusively that even most creationists have abandoned it. Looks like someone here didn't get the memo...

Posted by: Raging Bee | December 28, 2007 1:16 PM

The great economic challenge for this country in this century will be maintaining our very high relative standard of living. This can only be done by having a high level of education. How can we possibly compete in the long run with highly-trained people in China, India and Europe when we abandon rational thought. It's slow-motion suicide.

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

"A fact? Do tell, what medical treatments "rely" on evolution? For instance, will the statin I'm taking become suddenly ineffective if evolution were proven false tomorrow?!"

I would hope that a doctor treating TB or a Staph infection have an understanding of how drug resistant bacteria develop. An understanding of evolutionary principles would certainly help.

Posted by: yellowdog | December 28, 2007 1:35 PM

Evolution is no longer a theory and has not been for a very long time it is a " Law " much like the law of gravity as an example. The only reason it is not treated as such is that Americans would have a snit fit. Anyone with half a brain that actually believes some mythical entity named god came down to earth grabbed a handful of clay and made a human being needs to join the flat earth society and move into the mountains.

Posted by: Wayne | December 28, 2007 1:42 PM

Uh oh. Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution. Now all us atheists should go back to where we belong in the Communist Party. Ahh stupid Amerikans!!! That's it I'm going to move to Putin's Russia. He knows how to put the yodels in their place.

Posted by: Phil in USA | December 28, 2007 1:57 PM

Who cares if Ron believes in evolution or not? How exactly does that effect national policy? It doesn't. He runs on a campaign where he doesn't care what anyone believes in.
Since he wants to eliminate the dept of education, this shouldn't be an issue.

Posted by: DavidG | December 28, 2007 2:03 PM

>>Who cares if Ron believes in evolution or not? How exactly does that effect national policy? It doesn't. He runs on a campaign where he doesn't care what anyone believes in.
Since he wants to eliminate the dept of education, this shouldn't be an issue

Spot on the mark. The President of these United States nor the Congress was not intended to have influence on the educational system. I don't care if Dr. Paul believes in the Great Pumpkin, compared to the simpletons running against him who continue to forward a rework of the ponzi scheme (Social Security), never ending crusades overseas, and money based on nothing but the 'good graces' of the government, belief in the Great Pumpkin would be refreshing.

Posted by: William | December 28, 2007 2:21 PM

"Who cares if Ron believes in evolution or not? How exactly does that effect national policy? It doesn't. He runs on a campaign where he doesn't care what anyone believes in."

Well, it doesn't matter unless he starts pandering to the creationists - which is what he appears to do here. If he truly didn't care as you suggest he would have answered the question straight up or said it doesn't matter so he isn't going to answer it. But he muddles around in a downright embarrassing way. If he is willing to pander to knuckle dragging creationists what other compromises is he ready to make?

Posted by: yellowdog | December 28, 2007 2:28 PM

I forgot to say, I'm a german scientist, chemistry and mathmatics, so please don't beat me because my analogy with german caused holocaust. I'm fit in the bad german history, I know the bad propaganda about the ideological aryan race... don't kidding about. That's a real consequence in believing in "evolution theory" as a natural law.
And of course please don't beat me of my poor skills in english language.

Posted by: stephan | December 28, 2007 2:32 PM

As our children fall behind those of other developed nations in math and hard science, we actually have at least two candidates for president that don't believe in evolution...truly sad and embarrassing. It may not matter that much as far as policy, but this is a litmus test for me.

I love to ask truly devout religious people who argue about this to take a step back and look at the bible objectively...do they take every word in the bible literally? Is one supposed to? If they say they do, then I ask them to explain some of the contradictions in the book...if they say no, some things are meant to taken literally and some are just allegorical, then I ask how they know the difference...do they rely on your preacher? (who is equally human and subject to human failings)

There are those enlightened few who allow that the bible is a great blueprint for how to live a virtuous life, not a historical record...and these folks realize that evolution and God CAN co-exist...science and religion are NOT mutually exclusive.

Natural selection is an observable phenomenon, and mitochondrial DNA, primate genetic studies, and the fossil record provide incontrovertible evidence that the theory of evolution is accurate.

Posted by: SeanH from ATL | December 28, 2007 2:35 PM

I am a strong supporter of Ron Paul. When he did not raise his hand on the evolution question that is being referred to, I, like the questioner, wondered why. This answer reassures me.

In modern terms, as this site amply illustrates, evolution does not just mean a theory of common descent, survival of the fittest, etc. It means that you uncritically accept the whole naturalistic, materialistic, world view. Ron Paul is a Christian. I am a Christian. Authentic Christianity does not allow for the wholesale acceptance of naturalism and materialism. There is no naturalistic and materialistic explanation for the Virgin Birth. There is no naturalistic and materialistic explanation for the Incarnation. Those are Supernatural events. On what grounds do you then insist that everyone must accept that there is a wholly naturalistic explanation of origins? A Christian can not be a rigorous naturalist and materialist on all questions. He can not be on the question of origins because the Bible clearly says "In the beginning God created..." That is not naturalistic. That is Supernatural. To accept that is to reject "evolution" as it has come to be understood. That it is now understood to mean more than simply Darwin's theory is the fault of all the militant naturalists.

I too am a MD, and the suggestion that as a doctor Ron Paul should uncritically accept your naturalistic and materialistic dogmatism reeks of arrogance and/or ignorance. The suggestion that Paul is scientifically illiterate or lacks critical thinking skills is your scientific elitism rearing its ugly head. Paul went to Duke Medical School. I think his intellect is just fine. His very broad fund of knowledge on multiple subjects suggests he is quite intelligent.

Posted by: Red Phillips MD | December 28, 2007 2:37 PM

RKN,
If a doctor were to accept that bacteria mutate and then not accept that those mutations would sometimes confer a benefit or weakness to that bacteria's progeny (evolutionary pressure)then I would seriously question that doctor's judgment.

Posted by: Michael | December 28, 2007 2:45 PM

"In modern terms, as this site amply illustrates, evolution does not just mean a theory of common descent, survival of the fittest, etc. It means that you uncritically accept the whole naturalistic, materialistic, world view."

Sorry, but no it doesn't. That's the parody of evolution that creationists love to use in order to scare people away from it. There are loads of people who believe in both God and evolution.

Yeah but Red Phillips MD says after that: "Authentic Christianity does not allow for the wholesale acceptance of naturalism and materialism."

Get it? Anybody who uncritically accepts the whole naturalistic, materialistic, world view is not an "Authentic" something or other. Or something!!

Posted by: 386sx | December 28, 2007 2:55 PM

Who cares what his beliefs are on creation, evolution, UFOs, ghosts or the tooth fairy. We're interested in him because of his voting record and political philosophy. The country was built built by generations of people who believed everything biblical and they did a pretty good job of it. If Ron Paul will at least TRY to reduce government and be fiscally responsible then I will vote for him. All the others are simply political party mannequins who won't change a damn thing.

Lower taxes, less government, less spending. Everything else is irrelevant to me.

Posted by: Dave | December 28, 2007 3:04 PM

Just wanted to jump in...
Evan Henke:
"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."

For the record, Thompson, as a Federalist, merely wants to overturn Roe V. Wade and take it to the states, not create a nationwide ban. Understandable, if distasteful to the pro-choice position.

One of my problems with Paul is that some of his positions seem to indicate that he slept through high school (and perhaps college). For example, during his interview with Russert on Meet the Press, he talked about how other countries were able to end slavery without a civil war that killed 618,000 men. Never mind that he needs the qualification "WEST EUROPEAN countries", nor that slavery was only one facet of the Civil War. That's middle-school thinking. Then there's this "I don't believe in the evolutionary theory" nonsense on top of it.

Red Phillips MD:
"In modern terms, as this site amply illustrates, evolution does not just mean a theory of common descent, survival of the fittest, etc. It means that you uncritically accept the whole naturalistic, materialistic, world view. Ron Paul is a Christian. I am a Christian. Authentic Christianity does not allow for the wholesale acceptance of naturalism and materialism."

Tell it to the teachers at my Jesuit school, many of whom accept evolution while remaining devout Catholics. Evolution, to a Christian, might merely mean that the Days of Creation were billions of years long. Or it might mean that God set the rules in motion and left everything alone for most of a "week". It does NOT have to mean that you "uncritically accept the whole naturalistic, materialistic viewpoint."

SeanH:
"There are those enlightened few who allow that the bible is a great blueprint for how to live a virtuous life, not a historical record...and these folks realize that evolution and God CAN co-exist...science and religion are NOT mutually exclusive."

Exactly.

Posted by: Math_Mage | December 28, 2007 3:12 PM

No that video wasn't edited or taken out of context at all. Nope.

Posted by: Icall BS | December 28, 2007 3:16 PM

Evolution can't become a "law" because a scientific law is a just a formal, usually mathematical, statement about the way nature behaves across a set of conditions. It's primarily descriptive. Theories are explanatory. Laws can be inaccurate and still be laws. Look at Newton's Laws, for instance. There's a debate in the philosophy of biology about whether anything in evolutionary theory can be described as law-like, but evolution itself isn't the sort of concept that can be described as a law. It's an explanatory concept.

Posted by: Jason S. | December 28, 2007 3:19 PM

Ron Paul supporter here, all I can say is..... what's your point? Are there any decent candidates out there that are Evolutionaries?.........

Exactly!

Do I agree with every little thing he agrees with? NO, but, any of those other candidates in there will just bring the same old crap..... been there, done that.

It's time to get all of the politicians together and "stir the pot", Ron Paul will make a great "spoon"...........

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7493899900883927358

Posted by: JT | December 28, 2007 3:24 PM

Original video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g&e

No pauses or cuts, the above video removes how this POV is not relevant to his current campaign.

Please don't pick up videos that are obviously cut up.

Posted by: Joshua Routin | December 28, 2007 3:27 PM

Posted by: Gretchen
No, he's saying that they do-- that evolution is an entirely separate issue from the origins of life, and therefore a theory about the origins of life is not properly called "evolution" anything.

But in that case the question is misleading. As I showed Evolution through breeding and selective planting is as old as civilization itself. So if he was asked does he think that its possible for plants and animals DNA to modify itself, he would have a different question to answer then do you believe in evolution.

Like it or not, the question was vague. And with the current context of evolution it is often used to imply origin of species. Its an implicit question not an explicit one. But for people to spout about how cant he see that there is evolution ignores the current context of that question and the implicit meaning behind it.

That said one can not believe in Darwinian evolution with out the origin of life that was put forward by Darwin. They are a packaged theory. There is a explicit difference between evolution of humanity from inorganic matter, and the fact that breeding a lot of big dogs together got us a Great Dane, and a lot of little dogs got us a Chihuahua. Linnaeus described the relation of species enough that you could call his taxonomy the Fact of Evolution. Darwin is a package, in modern context the theory of evolution includes all his works.

Blame the question and the world we live in, not the answer.

Posted by: Mike | December 28, 2007 3:37 PM

"Please don't pick up videos that are obviously cut up."

-------

The longer version doesn't change the point drawn from his talk discussed here. Ron Paul does not believe in evolution. That Ron Paul also makes a case that this isn't relevant does not change the truth of this.

Posted by: Jason S. | December 28, 2007 3:39 PM

"If you look at the cultivation of corn wheat and cattle, you will realize our ancestors modified their food sources long before Darwin. What is different and even Darwin needed to devote time and effort to, was the creation of life from inorganic matter. Something which is still not proven. Not proven = theory. If Darwin's theory only spoke of the genetic modifications in life it would have been laughed at by the average English farmer who's ancestors have been experts in the art of evolution for centuries."

Ye gads, where to start?

First of all, you are confusing artifical selection and natural selection with evolution. They are not the same thing. Yes Darwin studied artificial selection in order to understand natural selection, which is a MECHANISM of evolution, not the same thing as evolution. And you repeat the creationist canard that 'evolution is "not proven" therefore it is "just" a theory', thus demonstrating ignorance of the scientific meaning of "theory". Theory does NOT mean "not proven". Proof is a mathematical term, not a scientific term. A scientific theory is the set of hypotheses which best explain the available data. It is never "proven", it can only be supplanted by a more complete theory which does a better job of explaining the data.

Posted by: yellowdog | December 28, 2007 3:45 PM

Their hostility to traditional Christianity is palpable.

Many of them ARE Christians. And their hostility and condescension is toward stupidity and dishonesty, not toward Christianity.

Posted by: Raging Bee | December 28, 2007 3:50 PM

Ed,

You are completely wrong. A LAW is the highest form of scientific certainty. Trust me its been pounded into my head enough. Its Newtons LAWs not Newtons Theories. And OHMs law.
The ladder is:
Law
Theory
Hypothesis

Hope you can admit that your wrong there.:)

Secondly as Ive pointed out, the current context of that statement in the world we live in implicitly refers to the origin of life. Thats the divided culture we live in. The question was overly vague.

If we concern ourselves only with the fact that species can diversify at the very least with in the species then it is the science of genetics, not evolution.
If we speak of the ability to cross to a new species then we speak of the theory of evolution which is still very un-proven, and therefor a theory.

I do admit that Darwin spent very little time hypothesizing the origin of life, except to hypothesize that it was the product of a warm pond somewhere (in greater detail).

Though I do wish to warn you that the study of the chemical properties needed for spontaneous life is referred to as "Chemical Evolution"

So we can argue for 5 years over the proper terminology and categorization of evolution phases and types. Or we can agree the question was massively vague, and you'd need at least a degree or 2 in chemistry and biology to properly sort out an answer rather then referring to the colloquial meaning of theory of evolution.

Posted by: Mike | December 28, 2007 3:54 PM

Raging Bee, if they accept miracles then they do not accept materialistic naturalism "wholesale" now do they? They accept that some supernatural explanations exist for some phenomenon. Why must one of those phenomenons not be origins? Thanks for proving my point.

I recognize that there are plenty of Christians who accept naturalism within its appropriate sphere. But you are kidding yourself if you think that the evolutionary, scientific establishment is not committed to dogmatic philosophical as well as scientific naturalism and is hostile to traditional Christianity. The honest ones will admit as much. Dawkins was brought up. Dawkins is exhibit A. He insists on a naturalistic explanation for the origins of life as well as a naturalistic explanation for evolution.

Like I said, peruse the evolutionist/anti-creationist websites. Protest all you want, the proof is there in all its ugly condescending glory.

Posted by: Red Phillips | December 28, 2007 3:57 PM

"Their (Evolutionists) hostility to traditional Christianity is palpable."

Huh, depends what you mean by "traditional" I suppose. If you mean evangelical fundamentalist and young earth creationist, yes, there is hostility there, for good reason. The fundamentalists and the YECers blame evolutionists for everything from teenage pregnancy to Adolf Hitler, so why would they not be hostile to them? I am a Christian and I am hostile to that baloney.

However I don't see them as hostile to the Catholic Church, about as "traditional" as one gets - if by "traditional" one means orthodox. Maybe it is because the Catholic Church has abandoned their "God of the Gaps" approach since things worked out so badly with Galileo?

Posted by: yellowdog | December 28, 2007 4:00 PM

Ed
One of his 1871 letters to English botanist J.D. Hooker

the wrote that life may have started in

"warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a proteine compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes."

Posted by: Mike | December 28, 2007 4:04 PM

http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml

A law is something thats a proven observation. Its often very specific. Its repeatable in experimentation. The law of gravity is quite repeatable.

Posted by: Mike | December 28, 2007 4:10 PM

Well that's weird. The link you offered Mike gets it right. That you use it to support an opposing view is humorous.

Posted by: Jason S. | December 28, 2007 4:14 PM

"The naturalists have been purging anyone with a nonnaturalist thought for decades."

More creationist claptrap. It is not the naturalists who purge people. I have yet to hear of an Inquisition designed to root out creationist thought. Yes, evolutionists are going to protest if creationists attempt to teach sectarian religious ideas as SCIENCE in public schools but if religious parents want to implant those ideas in their unsuspecting children at home or in a parochial school, so be it. And stop kidding yourself, intelligent design is a stalking horse for creationism. Who is this intelligent designer supposed to be if not the creator God? It just is not a credible position to take.

Posted by: yellowdog | December 28, 2007 4:24 PM

Hey Jason,
Did you read the original discussion?
Please no last minute comments when you dont understand what were talking about, it really makes you look foolish.

The statement was that theories are the highest level of certainty in science.

Fact is a law is. Very very basic there chief. Laws are repeatable laws describe a single situation. Ohms law is a law. You don't break Ohms law. 1+1= 2, they are the most certain portion and smallest portion of scientific results.

Please don't be an idiot. Newtons Laws work for the realm of Newtonian Physics. Non Newtonian Physics involves a random effect. Laws are only good in the cases they are stated for.

I'm an Electrical Engineer, Laws are how things work. Its repeatable in experimentation. Models are abstracts that show you how to solve things. Theories are the basis for models. If you've ever studied the flow of electrons at the sub atomic level you realize that most models work but are very very inaccurate in how they describe the actual physics.

Ohms law works all the time it works for hydraulic pressure and electricity. Just like mathematics. Postulates and theorems.

Evolution itself as far as drastic additions to the Genetic code is unobservable If your pet dog had a little of frogs thats observable. That would then be a law. You can complain about how the laws of science work. But its a classification system thats worked well. If you don't like it make your own.

Top of the charts is Law.

Posted by: Mike | December 28, 2007 4:36 PM

Mike, the full quote from that Darwin letter is:

"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could have ever been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."

He was speculating - this was not a hypothesis, it was not part of the Theory of Evolution - it was speculation, labeled as such.

Darwin also separately wrote:
"It is pure rubbish, thinking at the present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." And in The Origin itself, his famous "there is grandeur in this view of life" quote spoke of the first life forms having been 'breathed' into existence.

The Theory of Evolution, as first formed by Darwin, and in its magnificent elucidation since then, does not require one to know anything of biogenesis - in essence, it STARTS with reproducing life forms.

Posted by: Lee | December 28, 2007 4:47 PM

Lee,
I agree its more speculation then hypothesis, I only quoted that in relation to Eds request for anything on Darwin hypothesizing on the origin of life.

One slight point, My intent all along has been to show that there is a colloquial meaning to evolution (which includes the origin of life) and a very hard to nail down scientific meaning which depending on how its described can mean several things. With people spouting about how germs become immune to penicillin, it is quite misleading to the scientific theory and its scope.

The question does not specify in detail the desired scope of evolution asked.

Posted by: Mike | December 28, 2007 4:57 PM

If a doctor were to accept that bacteria mutate and then not accept that those mutations would sometimes confer a benefit or weakness to that bacteria's progeny (evolutionary pressure)then I would seriously question that doctor's judgment.

I expect any clear thinking doctor would accept "resistant" and "conferment of benefit" as synonymous, yes. I certainly would. It is quite another matter to accept, sans exception, all the overarching "explanations of evolution," and to claim that if a doctor didn't, his judgment as a physician would necessarily be impaired, or that the treatment regime he prescribes "relies on evolution". As far as I'm concerned, that's just ridiculous.

Btw, just something for you to consider: did you know that there are bacteria which, when exhumed from certain soils and cultured in the lab, are resistant to certain antibiotics without ever having been exposed to them. Clearly, even the mechanism of "evolved resistance" is only poorly understood.

Posted by: RKN | December 28, 2007 4:58 PM

Why do avowed atheists like Dawkins and Harris use evolution as the foundation of their arguments? Because they recognize the link between philosophical and scientific naturalism that you are trying to deny. I'm not sure why you want to deny it. Why not wear it on your sleeve like Dawkins, Harris, et al. I think you deny it for the sake of being able to deny it in arguments like this.

So if Ed or anyone else doesn't agree with Dawkins and Harris that evolution "equals" atheism, they're hiding something? Has it occurred to you that people can agree that evolution is true, but reach different conclusions about what it means theologically-- or whether it means anything, theologically?

Ron Paul was doing nothing more than attempting to say that he accepts a Divine explanation for origins and the world we see around us today. And for that he is attacked. I rest my case.

If that's what he was saying, then he's just as confused about the difference between origins and evolution as you are.

Posted by: Gretchen | December 28, 2007 5:05 PM

Yellowdog,

"I have yet to hear of an Inquisition designed to root out creationist thought."

Oh really? What about the Smithsonian Journal controversy? What about the original denial of tenure to Francis Beckwith? What about the public calls that he be removed from his position at the Dawson Institute because his advocacy of Intelligent Design violated the "separation of church and state," a patently absurd proposition. What about Dembski getting hounded out of his job? Why does Behe's department have a disclaimer on its website that he only speaks for himself and not the university or biology department? Is there a similar disclaimer on the social science department's websites separating themselves from all the Marxist who inhabit social science departments? Note the reaction to Paul's statement here, and Huckabee's statement in an earlier debate.

No Inquisition you say?

Posted by: Red Phillips | December 28, 2007 5:12 PM

Ron Paul is right about Bush like Trotsky was right about Stalin.

Being right about Stalin's tyranny did not make Communism a good system of government.

Being right about Bush's tyranny does not make Republicanism a good system of government.

If Paul was elected the Repugs and the blue dogs would block his constitutional stance while approving his pro-corporate economics. In other words the last 7 years times 1000.

Posted by: feckless | December 28, 2007 5:18 PM

"...did you know that there are bacteria which, when exhumed from certain soils and cultured in the lab, are resistant to certain antibiotics without ever having been exposed to them...."

Well yes. Certain antibiotics do not work on certain bacteria. This example actually says nothing new about our understanding of the evolution of antibiotic resistance. Two points:

The fact that humans have never deliberately exposed bacteria to an antibiotic does not mean there has been no exposure - either naturally (most antibiotics are naturally occuring) or accidentially through the release of antibiotics into the environment in people or animal feces

Secondly:
A bacteria may develop resistance to one antibiotic (naturally occuring or otherwise) and have cross resistance to another because the antibiotic mechanism is similar. And in fact, some of our most effective antibiotics have come from soil microorganisms so it is not surprising that soils would contain bacteria with resistance to some of them.

Posted by: yellowdog | December 28, 2007 5:22 PM

Mike,

(1) You should have bothered actually reading the link you posted. If you did, it appears that Ed's description of the understanding of a law is far more on point given your own link.

(2) The only time I have seen Horizontal/Vertical Evolution distinction is where people are referencing changes within a species (horizontal) to speciation (vertical). I have not seen it described in the manner that you described it (i.e. Vertical Evolution being descriptive of abiogenic processes).

Honestly on the Evolution question, I am shocked how so many believers in God can simultaneously reject an apparent truth -- evolution. For me, this discord is serious because a person of any faith should always be concerned with discovering and honoring the truth.

Red Phillips,

I think you are establishing a false dichotomy between believing in scientific theory (which certainly corresponds with a naturalist philosophy) and believing in God (which corresponds with a theistic philosophy). Merely because I, as a theist, do not embrace wholesale the naturalist philosophy does not mean that I must therefore reject any conclusion or set of conclusions reached by a scientist who may (or may not) adopt a naturalist viewpoint. Much like anything else, I must take each point and each position upon its merits and evaluate it. Taking evolution on its merit, I find it plausible and the evidence appears over-whelming.

And merely because you have found others on the other side of the debate who are unable to make such a distinction does not mean you are duty-bound to duplicate their error.
Of course, nor are you bound to accept their unwarranted extrapolations or the philosophical musings from persons such as Dawkings, which IMHO (at least as set forth in the God Delusion) are surprisingly vacuous at times.

Red, this battle that you are fighting began long ago with Thomas Aquinas. Faith and reason (reason now, as here, personified in scientific inquiry) are not necessarily contradictory. While faith must ultimately move beyond reason, it must also accord with reason.

As to the question above about believing in a Christian God, once again, a Christian must be both honest and demanding. Honest in that reason is not sufficient to establish our entire belief system - thus, we require faith, and demanding in that our reason should accord with our faith -- this is a good way to ferret out the Christian path especially where one receives conflicting messages about Scripture or God's message to us.

Great theologians have sought to prove that a god (or god-like entity/cause/force, etc.) exists and assert that such a "god" possesses certain attributes (omnipotence, eternal being etc.) that religions in general commonly associate with god. Depending on your logical disposition, these proofs range from weak to fairly strong. From here on out, a Christian relies on revelation -- as we must, the supernatural is inexplicable (in its totality) by the laws of the natural world.

Posted by: JP | December 28, 2007 5:45 PM

The term evolution in common parlance does mean something other than the purely technical meaning you and others are claiming it means. In common parlance it means a naturalistic explanation of the current world we see around us as well as a naturalistic origin of life. It means a whole world view that is in opposition to the Christian worldview which is not naturalistic.

Only in the common parlance of people who are entirely ignorant about what evolution actually means. Sorry, but those people don't get to define the term.

Because it means this, I, a very enthusiastic Ron Paul supporter, was disheartened when Ron Paul failed to raise his hand in the early debate that is being referred to in the video. "Surely Ron Paul, a self-described believing Baptist, has not succumbed to the naturalistic dogma," I thought to myself. I even remember thinking "He needs to explain himself." He has, and I am satisfied. Ron Paul believes that "God created the heavens and the earth" regardless of how he did it.

Well, bully for him. If he had a better understanding of evolution, perhaps he (and you) would comprehend that it's entirely possible to be both Christian and believe in evolution. For that matter, he may well understand that already-- that may be why he didn't raise his hand to say that he disagreed with evolution, but made these nebulous statements later about the creator and origins. Perhaps he understands the difference, but you don't.

No amount of protesting on your part will change the fact that "evolution" has come to mean something beyond common descent.

Evolution means something other than common descent in many people's minds (many people, for example, operate under the mistaken assumption that evolution has goals, or that later organisms are somehow "better" than earlier ones), but that doesn't mean that it means total commitment to naturalism for them. If it did, how exactly would you explain the masses of evolution-believing theists? I don't need to protest-- what you are saying is simply and obviously false.

Posted by: Gretchen | December 28, 2007 5:54 PM

"They are the ones who have insisted on stamping out any appeal to the supernatural"
Uhhh - no. Appeals to the supernatural can't be part of SCIENCE (and ONLY that area), because they are untestable. Evolution is a science - but many people use evolution as science, do science, and also believe in God, Christian or otherwise.

I have no objection whatsoever to you appealing to the supernatural in your life. I routinely worship with christians of several denominations, with jews, with buddhists, and have spent time in spiritual discussion and exploration with a sufi. Many of these people are scientists or technologists of some kind.

I find spiritual exploration personally to be powerful and illuminating. I do have very strong objections to you or anyone else trying to include YOUR version of theology in MY non-christian kids science classes, under the guise of a deceitful appeal to some disguised version of creationism, my making creationism over to carry some superficial labels vaguely reminiscent of science. I have very strong objections to you trying to make YOUR version of theology into a preferred policy position of the state I and MY kids live in. But I have no objection whatsoever to you including your own brand of appeal to supernatural into YOUR life.

"Christianity, the cornerstone of Western Civilization" Uhhh, dude. Our civilization is built on trade and technology, much of which derived from science.

Posted by: Lee | December 28, 2007 5:57 PM

Lee,
See if you can read this article to the end: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Michael_Langan

He is, afterall, the smartest man in the world.
And so, perhaps you should not be adulterating the education of my Christian children with your theoretical piffle.

Posted by: TJ's Anti-contrarian blog | December 28, 2007 6:08 PM

JD,

"Merely because I, as a theist, do not embrace wholesale the naturalist philosophy does not mean that I must therefore reject any conclusion or set of conclusions reached by a scientist who may (or may not) adopt a naturalist viewpoint. Much like anything else, I must take each point and each position upon its merits and evaluate it."

Of course. No one is suggesting that everything a scientist says based on the scientific method is suspect. Scientists absolutley should use the scientific method and confine themselves to naturalistic explanations, within the proper realm. It is when they venture outside that realm (origins) and dismiss out of hand alternative sources of knowledge (Revelation) and alternative explanations (design) that they get in trouble.

Posted by: Red Phillips | December 28, 2007 6:21 PM

TJ,

Someone can be very intelligent, but still be uneducated in many different areas. So does intelligence equate expertise? Of course not.

Posted by: doctorgoo | December 28, 2007 6:31 PM

Ed,

Baylor is a liberal (by Baptist standards) Baptist University that is trying too hard to gain "respectability" in a biased secular academic world. They ran off Sloan who dared to introduce some small measure of Christianity. You would think that at a Baptist University that would go without saying. The whole hysteria over the Michael Polanyi Center perfectly illustrates my point. Claim compatability all you want. The rabid evolutionists are hostile to Christianity. Period.

And your snide use of the term "crackpot ideas" helps make my case, not yours. Dogmatic foot stomping and condescention does not an argument make. Keep it up. You are making my case.

Posted by: Red Phillips | December 28, 2007 6:54 PM

Ed your really really loosing any sense of impartiality.
You seem to not know the English language, for the sentence I keep quoting is you stating theories are facts. :)

Thats really all I needed to hear was that that statement of yours was incorrect. I'm quite happy now though it took you a couple posts and me blatantly spelling it out for you to realize what I was driving at.

But that aside now that we've stated neither one of us has ever claimed evolution to be a fact, how does it matter if someone accepts something that may or not be true.

But one further point, in math and physics theories do become fact. Just look at the field of differential equations. Theories get proved quite a few times a year.

I assume your a Biology professor? We have very different fields.

Posted by: Mike | December 28, 2007 6:56 PM

"This just keeps getting dumber and dumber. Why is the origin of life on earth outside the realm of science? It is an empirical question that deals with arrangements of matter. Why do you think science can't answer that question? The problem is that you are making a standard god of the gaps argument and those kinds of arguments have a pretty piss poor record in history. "Science hasn't explained X yet, so God must have done X" is a useless position that tells us absolutely nothing. The only possible thing it can do is prevent us from doing the work that leads to explanations. God of the gaps arguments have been used throughout human history. Can you think of a single time it has turned out to be true? Neither can anyone else."

I submit the above as evidence of my assertion that scientific naturalism often leads to philosophical naturalism.

Posted by: Red Phillips | December 28, 2007 7:06 PM

Listen. There are two possibilities - either he is pandering or he actually disbelieves it. If he is pandering then that is shameful. If he disbelieves it he's pathetic. Yes, M.D.s can be given a little more "intellectual" leeway than Ph.D.s, but he should know how to look things up as a physician - which he should have done if we'd (not unreasonably) expected him to be prepared for the question. Any physician who has a problem w/evolution needs to go back to the prerequisite courses in biology, the cellular basis of life, the central dogma of Watson & Crick and be publicly chided for ever having to prescribe broader spectrum antibiotics than they did before in treating the same kind of infection. They need to disavow themselves of the fields of medical genetics that often have to treat consequences of the kind of random mutations that no "intelligent designer" would want to admit to. Yes, this calls his judgment into question and Lord (the one that he intimately "knows", even while the finer details of such abstractions as evolution are apparently a little more distant to his heart) help us on what stances we could expect from him when it comes to the supposed sanctity of the zygotes and all sorts of other loony Republican positions. But I won't need the infinitely more know-able Lord on this one. Paul would have never stood a chance; for many reasons, of course. But not least of all is the fact that faint traces of lunacy often have a method of being detected in different ways to many different people.

Posted by: Not Supporting Paul | December 28, 2007 7:26 PM

"Actually as long as we accept that we use different postulates, your facts are no more invalid then mine. The key is not to "push" your "facts" on other people as globally true."

Holy POMO relativist claptrap, Batman! Sorry, but "facts" are by definition globally true. Complaining, as Jason does, that "facts" are only those things that can be analytically deduced from a set of axioms is nonsense on multiple levels. In that case "facts" are only valid in an axiomatic framework, i.e., "the set of integers forms a group under multiplication", which is only true given definitions of sets, numbers, and algebraic structures. However, "a tree is in my front yard" relies on no axiomatic framework. It is intrinsically true.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 28, 2007 7:45 PM

Mike:
"Theories vary from field to field, In math a theory is not an explanation. Its an equation. In Physics its often a formula. Chemistry its often a formula. I really dont know what your background is sir. I admit that Im not fully educated in Biology if that is your profession. But I do know theories in many fields I do work with. Math Physics Chemistry, Those fields, theories can be proven."

Math, yes. Physics and Chemistry, no. Biology, definitely not. Mathematics is a system of abstract logic that takes a certain set of axioms and derives conclusions known as "theorems", which are provably true. Physics, Chemistry and Biology all attempt to describe the real world. But the real world defies perfect description because it is so complex. Furthermore, we can't put the real world in an axiomatic box the way we do mathematics, and thus cannot be sure that the axioms we've got are the right ones, let alone the conclusions we draw. The only facts are observations. "In experiment X, Y happened." THAT is an observation. If you do experiment X many, many times and Y happens every time, it becomes a Law. You then concoct a Theory to explain that Law. Neither the Theory nor the Law are Fact. NEITHER THE THEORY NOR THE LAW ARE FACT. And theories and laws and facts are not interchangeable. You can't apply some sort of transformation to a theory or a fact to make it a law, or vice versa.

At the same time, some theories build up a tremendous amount of supporting evidence, building complexity as they adjust according to new experimentation. Furthermore, these theories are able to predict the results of further experimentation - that is, the hypotheses one derives from a theory turn out to occur in experimentation. When this happens on a regular basis, the theory can become, in ordinary parlance, fact. A scientific fact - this is a phrase you will hear in the media all the time. All that phrase refers to is a well-established theory or some specific branch thereof.

This is what happened with evolution. And though there may be modification according to the dynamics of certain conditions, as Einstein showed that Newton's theories needed adjustment for velocities approaching lightspeed, the basics of evolution is well nigh unquestionable. And for Dr. Paul (or the ID folk) to set aside hundreds of years of work (going back to before Darwin and Wallace) on evolution to say that they don't BELIEVE in evolution (like it was some kind of religion), well, that makes me wonder about the intelligence of that candidate.

Red Phillips:
"I submit the above as evidence of my assertion that scientific naturalism often leads to philosophical naturalism."

No, I just think he's p***ed that you're pretending the origin of life is definitely not explainable by science. It may be explainable by science, it may not, but either way it's within science's jurisdiction as well as religion's. Stick to better examples (like whether or not a God exists) to make your points.

Posted by: Math_Mage | December 28, 2007 7:56 PM

So much for the live and let live of modern civilization, progressivism and liberalism

Um, dude...letting folks live and let live does NOT mean we can't call 'em idiots if they're being idiots...

Posted by: gwangung | December 28, 2007 7:57 PM

Considering the question and the fact that your calling someone pathetic over a theory, I find that your quite dogmatic. Thank God your not the Pope or the inquisition would start up again.

Yes, because thinking somebody is pathetic is just like wanting to torture and kill thousands of people for their beliefs. If people who believe in evolution only had the power, they would slaughter all deniers, and the streets would run with their blood.

Posted by: Gretchen | December 28, 2007 8:00 PM

Gretchen,
You mean Stalin Mao and Pol Pot, not to mention Hitler?
Thinking of someone as lower then you was a part of training for the Nazis.

Posted by: Mike | December 28, 2007 8:04 PM

"I hate to break it to you but ohms law is both a law and a definition, and it was a theory at one point."

If I'm not mistaken, Ohm's law is part of the general outline of electrodynamic theory. That illustrates Ed's contention, that a theory is not a fact but an explanatory framework that assimilates facts.

"Chemical Models are laws. Bondings and matrix structure forms. They can be theorized and then experimented on. How do you think we get synthetic materials?"

In this case you're confusing math as a descriptive syntax with math as an internally consistent form of analytical reasoning. Consider the sentence "there are no married bechelors". Analytically true. But applying the concepts to physical objects is more messy.

"I'm pretty sure your turning things around now."

This is a result of your apparent inability to follow Ed's reasoning, which is not Ed's fault but your's alone.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 28, 2007 8:11 PM

"Thinking of someone as lower then you was a part of training for the Nazis."

The Hitler zombie strikes again...

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 28, 2007 8:13 PM

You mean Stalin Mao and Pol Pot, not to mention Hitler? Thinking of someone as lower then you was a part of training for the Nazis.

Exactly. In fact, we'd better outlaw saying anything negative about anyone altogether, since it can only lead straight to fascism and genocide.

You really don't have much of a grip on reality, do you Mike?

Posted by: Gretchen | December 28, 2007 8:16 PM

tyler

Actually you are mistaken, its a law that is applied in electrodynamic theory as well as many other things. Including Hydraulics!

Your really misusing the term electrodynamic theory there. Its a couple fields.

In chemical theory, and metallurgy you often need properties of a certain material. A theory is formed, with a way to test it. Its based on several chemical models and results from other experiments. If it works, YAY you might get a raise. If it don't oh well. But same difference. Carbon nanotubes are a pretty cutting edge section of theoretical chemistry and physics.

Actually its not that I dont understand him, Its just I understand the way laws and theories works in physics and Chemistry to well. I admit if hes a Biology professor I might be wrong. Thats not my field. If theories are really that lax in the testing field then I will admit that I lack knowledge in that area.

Posted by: Mike | December 28, 2007 8:25 PM

"In chemical theory, and metallurgy you often need properties of a certain material. A theory is formed, with a way to test it."

What you're describing here is more properly called a hypothesis, which also does not in itself constitute a theory. In fact, you yourself give a pretty good example of this:

"Your really misusing the term electrodynamic theory there. Its a couple fields."

So is evolutionary theory. Population genetics, genomics, developmental biology are all tied in to the overarching theory.

I'm not a physicist, but I can take an example from computer science. "Computational complexity theory" is probably the most crisp analogue to "evolutionary theory" in biology. In it we have a whole assortment of notions for quantifying the notions of temporal and spatial complexity of algorithms, as well as other properties such as randomness, efficiency, etc. But computational complexity theory isn't in itself a fact. It is a framework that unifies facts, as well as tested hypotheses, laws and inferences from all of the preceding.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 28, 2007 8:34 PM

Gretchen
Sarcasm? Saying hes the pope? Seriously if I'm bringing up Nazis and the Pope I'm being sarcastic. If I'm talking about Laws and theories in physics I know what I'm talking about. How many people here I wonder have a B.A. Degree instead of a B.S. Degree. I mean every Physics 101 or 111 course goes over everything we've been debating here. This isn't new stuff people. Ive never had to debate the definitions of Theories vs Law vs Hypothesis before. Its always been a given. When IEEE Publications comes in each month I never have to sit there and say well to bad this theory will never be proven, Ironic how some University or Company is throwing Millions of $ into ultraviolet diodes.

Take Physics 101. If anyone here has a Biology degree and tells me its different then ok Ill trust you.
If you got a degree in math or physics or engineering then what college did you go to cause wow they taught you different.

Posted by: Mike | December 28, 2007 8:37 PM

Mike, science classes usually don't go into details about philosophy of science. Google the definition of the National Academy of Sciences uses for "theory", you may be surprised at what you find.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 28, 2007 8:41 PM

"Tyler By the time your project gets funded for actual use it better be a theory."

Actually most of my academic resources are geared toward theory. My extracurricular interest is in an applied field, graphics if anyone cares.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 28, 2007 8:44 PM

His first response cuts to the core of the issue, the question is a very inappropriate one for the presidency to be decided on.

In the words of Diderot: "It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God"

If his belief in God overrides accepting the theory of evolution, so be it. Would it make a difference for his presidency? I doubt it. We're talking about a candidate who wants to eliminate the Department of Education. It's pretty hard to press an anti-science agenda after you've done that. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with his policies.

Posted by: Xyz | December 28, 2007 8:54 PM

Mike,

That is wrong on so many levels that it's difficult to know where to begin.

First of all, coputational complexity theory is not a "design feature". It is an independent field of scientific study in and of itself, with its own set of outstanding problems. Does P = NP? Do one-way functions exist? Can the Church-Turing thesis be axiomatized and proven? Do efficient quantum algorithms for, e.g., factoring integers falsify the extended Church-Turing thesis? These are all scientific questions independent of any engineering application.

Second of all, computational complexity doesn't "test" the theoretical limits of feasible computation, it defines them. They are tested concretely in various ways, though we still lack an experimental discipline as well formed as they have in physics.

Not only does CCT do exactly what you claim, it is in fact one of the most impressive accomplishments of CCT. That is, proving that algorithms have invariant properties across various equivalent models of computation. Whether you implement sieve factorization on a Mac 55 or Deep Blue, it has those same properties. Granted, it doesn't take into account physical differences in relay speeds, etc., but the properties it describes are real and can be rigorously investigated.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 28, 2007 9:06 PM

But it seems theres a difference between what the more physics oriented fields determine as a theory and what the biology fields determine is a theory is totally different.

Then your understanding of "theory" in physics is also mistaken. The Theory of Evolution is a "theory" in exactly the same way the Theory of Relativity or Quantum Theory is a "theory." Each is a coherent set of explanations for observed facts. And, if anything, the ToE is more solid, in that we know ToR and QT are currently irreconcilable as far as our understanding goes.

Posted by: Davis | December 28, 2007 9:16 PM

Mike:

Yea I know trying to answer to many people here, Its obvious everyone here has made up their mind on Evolution.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I've made up my mind on evolution because I've taken the time to learn what it means, and have judged for myself the likelihood of it's validity.

Is your main objection to evolution that it's goes against your interpretation of the Bible, or that evolution will lead to immorality?

If this is the case, then I honestly think you're looking at this from the wrong angle. Being an engineer, I didn't learn evolutionary biology in college (besides maybe a couple of lectures a semester in some of the intro level classes).

But one of the personal issues that's important to me is science education in America, and how the religious right is destroying it. This lead me to want to learn more about evolution.

I don't mean this to be condensending, but the truth is that you apparently uneducated on the science of evolution. If you're interested in learning more, I recommend this website. It's easy to follow, (in fact, you might zoom through some of the early stuff), but it covers a lot of great info.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

Posted by: doctorgoo | December 28, 2007 9:22 PM

Goo.

Actually my aversion to evolution comes because I'm an engineer (Electrical). I personally only have a problem with 2 things (yes I know one isnt Evolution) Origin of life, Atheism does a terrible job of even hypothesizing how life could begin. Secondly I fully admit that evolution is quite possible, but I do think it is a unproven theory. From a factual standpoint I assume all unproven theories can be true or false.

The electrical model itself convinced me of that. (How electricity runs backwards and in fact doesn't run at all.)
But even though the model is completely wrong it still works perfectly.

So I myself am convinced of 2 things.
1. Something created life from inorganic matter or nothing (I've looked long and hard at all explanations. Its Impossible to me that it just came about. So whatever it was is by definition GOD)

2. I obviously don't know shit about how things work and neither does anyone else.

Therefor I will insist that Evolution is just a theory (unproven) and I will insist that anything that is a theory never be treated as fact over any other theory. The world has a history of widely accepted theories being utterly false, and theres no reason to close your mind about anything.

Thats where I come from.

Posted by: Mike | December 28, 2007 9:43 PM

By the way, this whole time people kept trying to drag me into a fight over evolution I really only had a problem with eds stupid statement about how
"Theory is the highest level of certainty in science, not an indication of a lack of certainty."

Goo, you know how both facts and laws take precedence over theories. The statement was at the very least highly misleading and terribly wrong.

My original point was that the questioner never did define any type of version of evolution. At which Ed started swearing, and we went from there.

The lack of an ability to take all points and theories civilly is definitely a weakness of his.

Personally based on observable data one must form postulates, things that aren't proved that one believes in.

Some people would prefer to think of evolution as a fact, and thats their right as long as they don't insist upon others forming the same postulate as they do.

Posted by: Mike | December 28, 2007 9:57 PM

If you listen to the very last thing he says (Which is really the crux of his statement) ...
"I don't think anyone has enough proof on either side" right before the video is cut. That's exactly where I stand. EVERYTHING is theory. Just because someone tells you there is a God, doesn't mean there is one. Just because someone tells you that evolution is true, doesn't make it so. Sure, evolution is more likely, because there is more tangible and verifiable evidence to support that conclusion. But honestly, it wouldn't be a theory if it were 100% proven, would it?
Don't get me wrong, I don't side with religious nuts either. There is no 100% proof in God's existence either ... in fact you're lucky to call it 10% proof. It's one of the reasons there are so many Agnostics around these days. People want more than hearsay and superstition and "Faith" in the intangible. They want answers and to not be forced to agree to something based on fear. Paul is still in good with me. My only problem with him is that he is on the Republican ticket.

Posted by: D H | December 28, 2007 10:05 PM

Someone named "Mike" made this comment, which I find really funny:

notsupportingpaul

Considering the question and the fact that your calling someone pathetic over a theory, I find that your quite dogmatic. Thank God your not the Pope or the inquisition would start up again. So much for the live and let live of modern civilization, progressivism and liberalism. Good for you, you tell those round worlders that your the @$@% Pope and they can all burn in hell. God forbid people can actually think for themselves, with out you saying whats kosher.

Well, he's already been rightly called to task by others for the many theocratic tropes in here that have nothing to do with what I said (and thanks to Gretchen, gwangung and observer for pointing that out - don't know where he got them, either - must be a personal fixation), but again, we're left with the implication that there are no competing theories to evolution. None. I mean, none that require or make use of empirical evidence. I don't know how boring electrical engineering must be, but in biology it is not unenlightened to point out that there are no facts to support a certain idea - especially when there are numerous facts to support a different idea, against which popular culture (and apparently others), falsely frame the two to be in competition with each other. In any event, seeing as how this is a science blog and the number of people still commenting on a Friday night remains high (I'm not feeling well, myself - that's my excuse!) I suspect I'll have to check in again to see how these other very basic reminders might have taken to being shot down again! In which case, I'll have to thank anyone in advance for reminding us of the caveats regarding what makes for valid criticism and what doesn't. But a hint to anyone ahem else: If you're going to comment in cyberspace, the Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy is really unbecoming and makes one look quite foolish, regardless of whether you take Godwin's Law to be "just a theory" or something more! And I never really cared what the pope (regardless of the historical era in reference) would say (or do) about any of this anyway! ;-) (Oh, wait - I think that means I find him to be beneath me. Oh dear...)

Posted by: Not Supporting Paul | December 28, 2007 10:09 PM

. Sure, evolution is more likely, because there is more tangible and verifiable evidence to support that conclusion. But honestly, it wouldn't be a theory if it were 100% proven, would it?

Well, I think that's because the word "theory" does not mean what you think it does....

Honestly, your understanding of the word and how you apply it simply doesn't match up with how others on the board are using it (nor how it's used by working scientists in the lab....)

Posted by: gwangung | December 28, 2007 10:19 PM

Mike, perhaps this little article will explain what we are attempting to describe. If you still do not understand, I have to agree with our host. The discussion will simply be "is not, is to, is not, etc."

Posted by: Michael Cook | December 28, 2007 10:36 PM

For the record, I am not arguing for a "god of the gaps." The god of the gaps is an emasculated god that requires science to prove his existence. It is more accurate to say that I am arguing that the existence of a Creator is self-evident. That the Creator is the Trinitarian God of the Bible is not necessarily self-evident. We know that from Revelation.

The Bible does not argue for the existence of God. It asserts it. "In the beginning God..." Romans 1:19-20 says that the existence of God is "plain" and men are "without excuse."(19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools)

That the existence of a Creator is self evident is why the default assumption of man throughout all of recorded history has been theistic. Naturalistic explanations that try and do away with the necessity for a Creator are actually quite novel in historical terms, and they did not arise because the evidence demanded it. They arose because sinful man wanted to rebel against that pesky God that actually expected certain moral norms. It is because the existence of a Creator is self-evident that that pesky belief in Him continues widely on despite all the "enlightened" naturalists who are trying their best to stamp it out.

If you look back at my posts, I am not primarily arguing science. I am primarily arguing epistemology, how we know what we know.

I certainly can not attest to the theological beliefs of your laundry list. If they are indeed orthodox (small o) Christians, meaning they accept the historic fundamentals of the Faith as for example those beliefs summarized in the common creeds, then they can not be across the board naturalists. As I noted in my first post, there is no naturalistic explanation for the Virgin Birth or the Incarnation. Why then, must a Christian accept a totally naturalistic explanation for origins when the Bible clearly speaks of a nonnaturalistic explanation? "In the beginning God created..." You are asking Christians to practice cognitive dissonance. My hunch is that many of those you listed do not literally accept the Creeds, but I don't know that for sure.

Beckwith's academic credentials are impeccable. That he was denied tenure was clearly politically motivated. It is fair to assume that one of those political motives had to do with ID since that was such a hot topic (such an "embarrassment") at Baylor. I realize that his conflict with the Dawson family had to do with "separation" issues, but one of those issues had to do with the teaching of ID.

Behe recently wrote a book. Does that not count for anything to you?

Posted by: Red Phillips | December 28, 2007 10:45 PM

"Theory is the highest level of certainty in science, not an indication of a lack of certainty." Goo, you know how both facts and laws take precedence over theories. The statement was at the very least highly misleading and terribly wrong.

Sorry, but I understand what Ed means by this and he's fully correct in his statement.

Here's the definition of a "scientific theory" that demonstrates how it differs from "facts", and in fact takes precedent over it. Also, be sure to follow the LINKS listed on that page for even more discussion:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

Posted by: doctorgoo | December 28, 2007 10:58 PM

I agree with the link that Cook referenced... it's a good one. I just realized, in fact, that the website I listed references it too!

Posted by: doctorgoo | December 28, 2007 11:03 PM

I would also add that the ranking of law > theory > hypothesis is also something I have never encountered in some 40 years of science going back to high school science. If anything it is the theoretical physicists who are the "top dogs" in science; their discussions are so complex that mere mortals cannot comprehend. It is laughable to suggest that Newton's Laws are to be ranked higher than string theory, the theory of relativity, or quantum mechanics, for example.

Posted by: yellowdog | December 28, 2007 11:07 PM

"It would be a national catastrophe to elect a man who would free us from our chains but disputes the theory of evolution. It's too scary."

Nice job of sarcasm but you are missing the point. No one cares what Ron Paul believes about the TOE. Well, the fundies do, I suppose. And that is the point. I for sure do care if Ron Paul is willing to pander to the fundies. Because they ARE scary and anybody who would pander to them does not have the political courage or character to "free us from our chains."

Posted by: yellowdog | December 28, 2007 11:14 PM

Well the arguments are long so my thoughts on the matter may not contribute much, but regarding the role government should have in the advancement of scientific discovery, I wonder how much government money and influence was used to invent the light bulb, the television, the automobile, the cotton gin, the refrigerator, and most other amenities that civilized our society.

I'm certainly no expert on history, but my gut is telling me that government had very little to do with those advancements. I seem to recall that it was necessity that led to those inventions, not government.

Posted by: Chris | December 28, 2007 11:18 PM

Hey, Ed. Don't I know you from a chat room several years ago?
Drop me a line, eh!

Posted by: Eric Blade | December 28, 2007 11:25 PM

It's really scary when someone proposes to stop the federal government from controlling our lives.

Posted by: Andrew Panken | December 28, 2007 11:35 PM

While writing a previous response, I missed this one directed to me from Mike:

The reason cowpox works is because the human body then becomes resistant to smallpox. Same idea, are you really saying that we wouldn't have been studying DNA if it hadn't been for Darwin? I don't see how not believing in evolution would slightly matter to determining which animals have the best DNA match to ours.

Actually, I'm curious why you're putting so much emphasis on Darwin to begin with. Afterall, he didn't invent evolution, he was just the first one to describe it.

'Believing in evolution' sounds just as ridiculous too... If I don't believe in gravity, does it mean that the apple really didn't fall to the ground?

But to answer the point you intended... it isn't as simple as comparing DNA as you suggest it is. If that were the case, we'd probably always use our closest genetic relatives. This simply isn't the case.

And how do we figure out which species to use? By using our knowledge of how their biological differences evolved, and determining which species are likely to match ours the best.

Posted by: doctorgoo | December 28, 2007 11:49 PM

Without the advancements in agriculture that got most of the population off the farm there would not have been as many advancements in other areas.

Was it really such a positive thing to get most of the population off the farm? Seems those jobs are now jobs that Americans won't do, so we need a steady stream of illegals to handle those jobs because Americans are too _____ (you fill in the blank).

Posted by: Chris | December 28, 2007 11:54 PM

Many mathematical theories...

Hey Mike, you're just as ignorant of math as you are of science. "Theory" in math is used to describe a field of study (e.g., "Galois theory", "graph theory", "number theory"); anything unproven in math is a "hypothesis" (e.g., "the Riemann Hypothesis") anything proven is a "theorem" (e.g., "the Riemann-Roch Theorem"). And math is the only realm where anything is "proven".

Posted by: Davis | December 29, 2007 12:07 AM

Here's the original unedited version.

Posted by: Chris | December 29, 2007 12:16 AM

'For the record, I am not arguing for a "god of the gaps."'

You have fooled me then. I think you are.

"there is no naturalistic explanation for the Virgin Birth"

Correct. And only someone who subscribes to a "god of the gaps" would be concerned about that.

"You are asking Christians to practice cognitive dissonance."

No. Not unless the Christian subscribes to a "god of the gaps" We do not ask God to perform miracles to explain the inexplicable so there is no cognitive dissonance. I don't "need" a virgin birth so I have no problem believing that Jesus had a mother and father who conceived him in the same way every other human was conceived. You have the cognitive dissonance. You want Jesus to be fully human yet you want him to have only half the normal number of human chromosomes. Now that is cognitive dissonance. I don't ask God to speed up evolution to fit all the "kinds" of animals into the ark and get a tiger from a kitty cat in 4000 years. I also don't ask God to suspend the laws of physics and make it rain simultaneously over the whole earth for 40 days and 40 nights after NEVER HAVING RAINED BEFORE or to suspend the laws of biology that puts predators and prey into the ark for over a year and somehow the predators do not eat the prey as soon as they get out of the ark and before they can make their thousands of mile treks back to their native habitats over mountains and across oceans, evolving all the way in 4000 years to give us the many species we have today. I don't ask God to "stop the sun" for a whole day so Joshua can get in another whole day of killing Amorites. "Cognitive dissonance" is exactly why I abandoned reading the Bible literally when my mind was blown by all the contradictions as a college sophomore. And that was before I knew anything about "higher criticism" or any of the other theological interpretations that would have told me that reading the Bible that way was unnecessary in the first place. For example there is little evidence that born of a "virgin" is any more of a correct reading than born of a "young woman".

Posted by: yellowdog | December 29, 2007 12:28 AM

I am a layman to science (Finance is my degree) but I am fascinated by this conversation. I am just flabbergasted that Mike fails to admit that he is wrong about his "ladder" (i.e. his belief that a law is a step above a theory) despite being told exactly what the problem with that thinking is (Mike, use the Google). I am also amazed that he admits evolution "could very well be true"...despite the fact (yep, fact) that he has twisted and distorted what evolution actually is. He acts as if he is profoundly dense and obtuse until Ed gets angry at his intentional ignorance and gloats as if he has won some type of prize. The fact is, Mike, there is a whole lot of evidence supporting evolution and not one shred of evidence supporting creation or its Trojan Horse, "Intelligent Design". You can believe what you want but to believe in something that has only the word of 2000 year old dead patriarchs over the entire scientific world does not make sense for an engineer.

Posted by: JPark | December 29, 2007 12:52 AM

D H:
"If you listen to the very last thing he says (Which is really the crux of his statement) ...
"I don't think anyone has enough proof on either side" right before the video is cut. That's exactly where I stand. EVERYTHING is theory. Just because someone tells you there is a God, doesn't mean there is one. Just because someone tells you that evolution is true, doesn't make it so. Sure, evolution is more likely, because there is more tangible and verifiable evidence to support that conclusion. But honestly, it wouldn't be a theory if it were 100% proven, would it?"

"because there is more tangible and verifiable evidence to support that conclusion."

Ok, D H, you just won the Understatement of the Year award! Want a prize? How about knowing that there are MOUNTAINS AND MOUNTAINS of evidence for evolution, and a feather on the other side.

Don't try to justify what Paul says by saying "well, it's not proven, therefore it's a theory." This is true. The probability is only 99.9999999999999% that this theory is true. It isn't 100%. But for Paul to throw in with the remaining 10^-14% shows just how much he doesn't want to accept evolution. When he says "I don't accept it [evolution]", he's saying that he doesn't think it has sufficient evidence on its side. WHAT EVIDENCE DOES HE NEED? THE WORD OF GOD? [sorry]

Mike:
"Actually my aversion to evolution comes because I'm an engineer (Electrical). I personally only have a problem with 2 things (yes I know one isnt Evolution) Origin of life, Atheism does a terrible job of even hypothesizing how life could begin. Secondly I fully admit that evolution is quite possible, but I do think it is a unproven theory. From a factual standpoint I assume all unproven theories can be true or false.

The electrical model itself convinced me of that. (How electricity runs backwards and in fact doesn't run at all.)
But even though the model is completely wrong it still works perfectly.

So I myself am convinced of 2 things.
1. Something created life from inorganic matter or nothing (I've looked long and hard at all explanations. Its Impossible to me that it just came about. So whatever it was is by definition GOD)

2. I obviously don't know shit about how things work and neither does anyone else.

Therefor I will insist that Evolution is just a theory (unproven) and I will insist that anything that is a theory never be treated as fact over any other theory. The world has a history of widely accepted theories being utterly false, and theres no reason to close your mind about anything.

Thats where I come from."

Good, finally your viewpoint is out to see. Unfortunately for you, this is a viewpoint ready to be ripped to shreds. I don't think I can do a proper rant, but I'll go for it.

1. EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABIOGENESIS!!! Why the h*** are you still conflating the two?! Evolution has to do with the DIVERSIFICATION of life. Abiogenesis has to do with the ORIGINS of life. Evolution does NOT require any form of abiogenesis. If you can't accept this, there is no hope for you.

But you say you DO accept this. Well and good. Then WHY THE H*** ARE YOU EVEN BRINGING IT UP?! If it has NOTHING to do with evolution, why does it have ANYTHING to do with whether or not you accept the evolutionary theory?

Finally, why do you say it's so totally impossible for abiogenesis to occur? Give me more than "but it's impossible that it just came about!" Given the spontaneous synthesis of macromolecules, phospholipid bilayers, and RNA that can pass down heritable variation, how can you say it's absolutely impossible for life to spontaneously arise?

2. WHY do you say all theories are equal? Evolution, as I have pointed out, has MOUNTAINS of evidence for it, and a hair of evidence against it (I'm playing it safe here - I haven't actually heard of any such evidence on the other side). There is no possible way to "prove" evolution, or any other scientific theory (no, not in your precious physics either). But at some point the evidence becomes so strong that the theory is teachable as though it were fact. If evolution is not at that point, then what is?

Next quote from you:
"Theories that have become facts:
Tectonic Plates
Earth moving around the Sun.
Many mathematical theories"

Wrong. I'll dispose of the mathematical ones first. Mathematics IS NOT SCIENCE. Theorems are NOT theories. Mathematics, because it has simple axioms, can have logical proofs. The real world has no such axioms, and therefore science can have no logical proofs. Davis says this best - mathematics has "theories" or "fields" of study, "hypotheses" that aren't proved, and "theorems" that are proved. Fermat's Last Theorem didn't technically become a theorem until it was proved in the last couple decades. Science is merely a descriptive tool to analyze the real world, and because we can't know everything that exists in the real world, we can't definitively say that this or that theory is necessarily true.

Now let's move on to the scientific ones. The existence of tectonic plates is a fact. It was hypothesized that they existed based on some geologic theory (to be appropriately general, I'm no geology expert). Similarly, the Earth moving around the Sun was a fact which Copernicus predicted based on astronomical theory.

"If you have enough data you can prove a theory.
The earth revolves around the sun = Fact
Just because you cant prove it doesn't mean no theories can become fact."

Except, as I said above, the Earth revolving around the sun was never a theory. And if you could describe the process by which evolution becomes fact, that'd be ever so nice, but I'm not seeing it.

Posted by: Math_Mage | December 29, 2007 1:14 AM

Not a Paul Supporter,

On a political topic, not evolution. Please point out to me the Article and section of the Constitution that authorizes the funding of medical research. I will be glad to debate you on whether or not it is a wise policy, after you have shown me where it is authorized in the Constitution. Good luck.

Yellowdog

You may not "need" a Virgin Birth, but it is a nonnegotiable aspect of orthodox Christianity. The fact that you think you can decide what it is reasonable for Christians to believe based on your own dogmatic commitment to naturalism illustrates my point that strident naturalism and scientism are hostile to Christianity. "Believers" who subjugate the tenets of their faith to scientific naturalism are tolerable, but those who do not aren't. Perfect illustration of where you go wrong and can't shake your naturalism. Why would Jesus only have half the normal number of chromosomes if he was supernaturally conceived? He would have a full complement, and that would be what we call a miracle.

More later. It's late and I'm tired.

Posted by: Red Phillips | December 29, 2007 1:46 AM

HONESTLY, who cares? Is this some significant issue facing the fate of our republic? Does it matter if my nieces and nephews still believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus? Do you know for sure that ALIENS are not living among us and perhaps look exactly like humans? Do you know whether DICK CHENEY is another FALLEN ANGEL who stopped off in AMERICA before descending to HELL? Is this supposed to be some incredible effort at Journalism? Ron Paul is too smart for you. He simply stated that there is no way to know for sure.I LIKE THAT RON PAUL QUESTIONS DOCTRINE & DOGMA. Now if you know for SURE how this Universe was started let us in on it please. There is so much intellectual excrement masquerading as SCIENCE. I think a better starting point is that I do not believe shit, prove it to me or if I am not satisfied I will live my life with UNCERTAIN but OPEN VIEWS.

Posted by: Christopher London | December 29, 2007 2:15 AM

,At this time I really think the evolution thing should be put in the back burner for now. I believe evolution, so one has ever successfully debunked it with facts (there you Kansas Board of Education). My main concern now is my civil liberties without these the study of evolution will be null and void thus accepting what the govt. will pushing down our throats. The Govt or the President doesn't have the right to tell me (or any individual) what to believe or not to believe. So the evolution thing isn't an issue for me at the moment. So what Ron Paul believes is inconsequential, my liberties are more important at this time.

Posted by: dekinono | December 29, 2007 2:48 AM

Unless there is a God and He made us, Paul is wrong. I can see where delivering 4,000 babies could make you think about it, though.

Posted by: Joe Shea | December 29, 2007 3:00 AM

"Listen... This is stupid.. Ron Paul has not denied evolution. He just said that there is no way to know for sure how we came to be. This is absurd that people have come to this conclusion."

Ron Paul: "It's a theory, the theory of evolution, and I don't accept it."

What more do you want? A signed statement saying "I believe evolutionary theory is in all respects false, untrue, and unfounded"?

"And secondly, it is not the President's job to decide if Evolution is true or not. Let scientists continue to debate. It means nothing. I can't say for sure that anytihng has happened before I was born. And who cares anyway? Stop trying to make a big deal of of noting. Wake up and stop believing everything you hear!"

I don't see that anyone changed their vote over this, so why do you think anyone's changing their opinion of Ron Paul's candidacy over it?

However, this combined with his statement to Tim Russert on Meet the Press that Lincoln shouldn't have declared war on the South because there were better ways of getting rid of slavery makes me think that Paul might have slept through high school (and perhaps college). At the very least he slept through biology (doesn't accept evolution) and history (thinks Lincoln could have prevented the Civil War and that it was only about slavery). Which makes me doubtful about his capability in office.

Posted by: Math_Mage | December 29, 2007 3:29 AM

"HONESTLY, who cares? Is this some significant issue facing the fate of our republic?"

I do. Not about whether Paul believes in the TOE - I could care less. But he has now demonstrated that he will pander to the fundies. That is a significant issue facing the fate of our republic, yes, because as a group, the fundamentalist evangelicals are probably the largest group in our country that harbors significant undemocratic ideals. So yes, it matters. Paul's libertarian credentials are suspect, imo, not only because of this but also his idea of letting states decide on abortion rights is akin to denying abortion rights to many poor women - hardly a libertarian stance. He also supports the "Don't Ask, don't tell" gay policy for the military - again, not a libertarian stance. He supports mandating school prayer and teaching "scientific facts that support creationism" in schools (there are none, so what is he talking about?). These are not libertarian stances. His is a "squishy" libertarianism.

Posted by: yellowdog | December 29, 2007 3:42 AM

BTW, Paul strongly supports legalizing all forms of stem cell research, including embryonic stem cells from aborted fetuses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRJKbEs5HgE&NR=1 starts at 7:10 into the clip.

Posted by: Chris | December 29, 2007 4:40 AM

Pardon - I meant to type: Crazy Guys -> Bad Science -> BAD NEWS. My emotion overcame my typing fingers.

BTW - the Thirty Years War (which stared as a theological argument) is estimated to have killed 30% of the urban population and 50% of the rural population in Germany.

Posted by: DingoJack | December 29, 2007 4:50 AM

"When I use a word" Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone,"It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less"

Posted by: DingoJack | December 29, 2007 8:13 AM

"Impenetrability - thats what i say!"

Posted by: DingoJack | December 29, 2007 9:22 AM

So what? Hillary, Obama, and the rest continue to believe in a primitive religion with no scientific substantiation whatsoever. What's the difference?

Posted by: cj | December 29, 2007 9:31 AM

Wow Red Phillips. I'd consult a lawyer if I were you. This notion of yours that "if the Constitution doesn't say the government can do a specific action, it's not legal to do" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Let's disband the U.S. code and make sure that legislation can only occur by amending the constitution. Libertarians make themselves look no better, intellectually, than any other crackpot ideologue when they spout off nonsense like this. Plus, it's a science blog. Take that stuff to Volokh or Althouse or something. Debate the finer points of constitutional law with the evolution-doubting physicians there and let me know once they've come around to your conclusion that government's discretion over budgeting matters are forbidden by the All-Powerful Natural Law that was codified Once and For All on Holy Stone Constitutional Tablets- I mean, Parchment, and will cause the Mighty Republic to fall immediately.

Oh, and I never made a statement favoring funding for research by the government or private sector, either way. Don't confuse yourself by misidentifying your debate opponents and propping up straw men.

Posted by: Not Supporting Paul | December 29, 2007 10:07 AM

I've been an atheist who has been debating (on a non formal basis) religion and evolution for over 20 years. I've enjoyed reading scienceblogs for about a year now, but I'm rather shocked by the approach that many here have taken with this video and their politics.

"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"

I'll tell you how I can support this man, because he's the only one capable of stopping th war. Not only that, he'll also reduce the power of the presidency and make future wars difficult to initiate. No other candidate is calling for the reduction in the ability of the president to wage war. none.

As for the video itself, its disappointing that so many people have selective hearing. Are the people that read this blog so myopic to what he actually said? He clearly states that it was a question that had no bearing on political office and was inappropriate to even ask. He then finished by saying that if this question was important he wouldn't be running for office.

What do you people want, perfection? Are the beliefs of one individual worth the death and destruction caused by war? Some of you need to reflect on what you value in life a bit more.

Posted by: aletoledo | December 29, 2007 10:53 AM

You complain about others having selective hearing, and you then go on to claim that Ron Paul is the only person who can stop the war. That makes you a complete fool. There are several candidates who are committed to ending the war. Clean out your ears, and start listening to more than your Far Right Wing Republican Texas darling.

Posted by: Liam | December 29, 2007 11:15 AM

"Evolution" is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next (from Wikipedia). This is the literal defintion, but that is not the way it is defined in popular and political terms. Most Americans, when asked whether they believe in evolution, will interpret the question in human-centric terms, somewhere along the lines of "did humans evolve from monkeys?" On this question, the science is a lot less concrete.

Posted by: G. | December 29, 2007 11:35 AM

Not Supporting Paul,

"Wow Red Phillips. I'd consult a lawyer if I were you. This notion of yours that "if the Constitution doesn't say the government can do a specific action, it's not legal to do" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard."

Sorry if I misidentified you. This thread is getting long you know. I think it might have been yellowdog who argued that. Anyway, this is not a matter primarily for lawyers. It is a matter primarily for historians. If you have never heard such a thing then perhaps you need to do a little research. May I suggest The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.

I am a conservative and therefore I believe in ORIGINAL INTENT. That the government was supposed to be limited only to those specific things outline in the Constitution was not debated by the Founders. That was the position of both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalists feared (and were correct in hindsight) that the Federal government would not limit itself to those few listed things. The Federalists reassured them that their fears were unwarranted because the Feds could not do anything not specifically authorized. This is not really a debatable point. It is clearly a matter of historical record. There was no faction that argued the Federal Government could do things not authorized by the Constitution, not even the arch-Federalists. Please provide me with quotes from significant Founders from the time of the ratification of the Constitution that supports your view that the Feds can do things not specifically authorized.

yellowdog,

"Most modern liberal theologians have generally rejected the virgin birth."

DING, DING, DING! Key words there are modern and liberal. The Virgin Birth is theologically essential because if Jesus had two natural parents he would have had a sin nature like every other human, and he would not have lived a sinless life. No sinless life and he couldn't have served as a sacrifice for man.

Posted by: Red Phillips | December 29, 2007 12:39 PM

I'm a Democrat, but when I first heard news of Ron Paul's campaign, he sounded like the most sensible Republican to me. He was all for liberty, against the Iraq war, etc. But the more I learn about him - whether it be wanting to kill government agencies like the Department of Education and returning to the pre-New Deal area, or now his stated disbelief in fundamental scientific theories - the less I like him. There are now a couple Republican candidates I like more than him.

Posted by: Cyde Weys | December 29, 2007 1:21 PM

Look, its just plain and simple: IT IS ELECTION SEASON. Everyone that is running will say anything to please a certain section of the population, BUT the voter must find the person who does it the LEAST: the most honest liar.

Posted by: alex v | December 29, 2007 2:47 PM

So what! He is welcome to believe his majikal thinking as long as he doesn't try to apply it to the ongoing rage to print money based on thin air and voodoo like the currant morons in the current American government!

Posted by: kungfublood | December 29, 2007 3:25 PM

Why was the video edited? Why was part of his response cut out? What is the agenda of person who edited this video?

I am an atheist, and frankly I don't care if Dr Paul believed in Santa Claus, he would still be head and shoulders above any of the other candidates running.

He has my vote irrespective of his views on evolution (that apparently aren't fully expressed in this edited video clip).

Posted by: Rolland | December 29, 2007 3:38 PM

This is a deliberately edited piece. A 1:29 minute version on YouTube displays the full exchange
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42n42J-gB_Y
It shows that Paul's position is far more subtle and withholding.

Posted by: Hank | December 29, 2007 3:46 PM

I dont understand why someone can make so much out of one issue to not vote for a candidate. Personal, religious beliefs are not the same as positions on foreign and domestic policy. I'm an agnostic, leaning more towards atheism, and based on Ron Paul's view of what liberty means I could care less if he doesn't outright accept the theory of evolution. I find it more disheartening that people will put this issue above foreign policy, monetary reform, and domestic issues like immigration. Please, people, GET SOME PERSPECTIVE! It's not that big of a deal, and from this video he doesnt outright deny evolution, he just doesnt accept it as fact. It is, though most likely to be true, the THEORY of evolution.

Posted by: jason | December 29, 2007 3:58 PM

"he doesnt outright deny evolution, he just doesnt accept it as fact."

Sorry, no. He says he "doesn't accept it as a theory". And it is important because it goes to the question of how much he is willing to pander to fundamentalist Christians. Apparently a lot - too much for me, anyway.

Posted by: yellowdog | December 29, 2007 4:23 PM

Surprise, Surprise this is an equivocal statement, this is like seeing one body, two people with bloody hands and one knife, what it all means is no ones business.

Posted by: anonymous | December 29, 2007 4:27 PM

Mr. Brayton,
Is there a specific reason why you posted the edited version of this video and not the complete video? The unedited version contains this statement, right between Congressman Paul stating that he doesn't accept evolution as a theory and speaking of his personal beliefs:

"It's not the most important issue for me, to make the difference in my life, to understand the exact origins."

In addition, the unedited version ends with Congressman Paul saying that he thinks it is an interesting discussion to have, but that he doesn't believe that it is a defining issue of the day, and if he thought it was he wouldn't be running for public office.

I had a geology professor in college who said that on every theory scientists are divided. There are scientists who don't believe the theory of evolution is correct. To say Dr. Paul is unscientific because of his personal views on evolution is utter crap and just another lame attempt to sway the masses towards the "chosen" ones. (Btw, the late, good professor I mentioned was a Mormon who believed in both creationism and evolution.)

I think the people posting here who say this changes their minds, etc., about Dr. Paul, wouldn't have voted for a Republican in the first place if not for Paul. Would these anti-Paul posters really vote for one of the other Republican candidates, such as Huckabee or Romney, who use religion in an attempt to snag the evangelical vote? I don't think so.

Aren't the rest of you people sick of this type of dishonest, misinformation tactic used by the media? Are we really lemmings, ready to jump off a cliff because all the other lemmings are plummeting to their deaths? Or can we actually think for ourselves? I think the support Congressman Paul has received shows there are still Americans who can and will use the brains given to them by whoever or whatever.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/12/ron_paul_on_evo.html

Posted by: Katie | December 29, 2007 4:53 PM

Katie:
""It's not the most important issue for me, to make the difference in my life, to understand the exact origins."

In addition, the unedited version ends with Congressman Paul saying that he thinks it is an interesting discussion to have, but that he doesn't believe that it is a defining issue of the day, and if he thought it was he wouldn't be running for public office."

Ok, so first he misunderstands evolution by saying it has something to do with "origins", which is wrong. Then, as I noted in my last comment, he tries to dismiss it as "a theological issue", which is wrong. Since he doesn't think it's important, he shouldn't have made a minute-long speech and made all those verbal gaffes - he should have just said the issue was irrelevant/unimportant to him and left it at that.

I get that it's not important. For one thing, I wasn't planning on voting for Paul to begin with. As I've noted in earlier comments, the only reason I care is because it and his thoughts on the Civil War make me question his education, given his fundamental misunderstanding of those two areas.

Posted by: Math_Mage | December 29, 2007 5:01 PM

Yellowdog: You're right, sorry, that should be directed at Not Supporting Paul.

Posted by: Math_Mage | December 29, 2007 5:08 PM

Math Mage,
"I get that it's not important. For one thing, I wasn't planning on voting for Paul to begin with. As I've noted in earlier comments, the only reason I care is because it and his thoughts on the Civil War make me question his education, given his fundamental misunderstanding of those two areas."

I understand. However, on many issues, two being The War Between the States and evolution, educated people are divided. All historians do not agree with each other. All scientists do not agree with other. Are you saying that because you oppose the views of some historians and scientists that they are not educated? Is this what we have come to as a people, nothing but ad hominem arguments to support are views?

Posted by: Katie | December 29, 2007 5:25 PM

Evolution may or may not be true, but if there's one thing I always have strong doubts about, it's 'overwhelming evidence.'

Posted by: imp | December 29, 2007 5:51 PM

Mr. Brayton,
Thank you for responding. I appreciate that you respond to the comments, rather than just tossing something out there and observing the ensuing dogfight from a distance.

My problem with you posting the edited version is that the unedited version was not difficult to find. I found it on my own, not by following the links provided in the comments. In addition, I came to this page from another page where you highlighted a reader's anti-Paul response to the video. Your intro above the video of "Surprise, surprise..." is certainly not an endorsement of Congressman Paul. Considering all of the above, I think it is clear to me where you stand on this issue, whether you directly state it or not.

Posted by: Katie | December 29, 2007 6:08 PM

The video was edited by a fool ... end of story

Posted by: TommyG | December 29, 2007 6:20 PM

David Marjanovic wrote: Ed, please introduce comment numbering, like many of your SciBlings have already done.

Second the motion!

Posted by: tomh | December 29, 2007 6:28 PM

DING, DING, DING! Key words there are modern and liberal. The Virgin Birth is theologically essential because if Jesus had two natural parents he would have had a sin nature like every other human, and he would not have lived a sinless life.

Except if a miracle happened.

As it happens, it is Catholic dogma that such a miracle indeed happened: despite having two natural parents, Mary was conceived immaculately = without original sin.

Once you've abandoned Ockham's Razor, why not assume one more miracle?

--------------

I also don't understand this American phenomenon of "original intent". Unlike any sacred text I know of, the big-C Constitution contains an explicit procedure for how to amend it. What stops you from arguing that unclear articles should be amended to make them unambiguous?

And if the Constitution really forbids the people as a whole (by means of the government) to fund research, even though research is an investment that pays off for everyone, then maybe it should be amended, don't you think?

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 29, 2007 6:41 PM

It's pretty obvious from the way he answers this that Paul knows full well that the theory of evolution is solid science. He's weaseling out of this by saying, "we don't know anything for certain," which is, of course, the FOUNDATION of scientific thought. He's trying to sound like a creationist to dupe the knuckle-scraper Baptists into voting for him. So the real lesson here is: Ron Paul is no more forthright than any other politician.

Posted by: Olaf | December 29, 2007 6:46 PM

OK now...
I don't know if this has already been mentioned because I haven't taken time to read more than a few responses...but, once again, I see nothing but another attempt to smear a good - probably the best - candidate running. I watched the video. I didn't see him "reject evolution." I saw him reject an absolute position either for or against, which is consistent with his previous statement to Tim Russert about "being allowed a little wiggle now and then." He said he personally doesn't fully accept the theory - not his exact words I know, but his explanation made that clear to me.

Ron Paul is not a fanatic for religion, but he is a man of faith. He is human, and has his doubts, but his faith leads him to believe evolution is not an infallible theory, which any scientist worth his salt will tell you is absolute truth. Science is a pursuit of physically observable fact, but being a creation of man, is no more infallible than man's interpretations of God. No one of us knows all the answers to life's mysteries & I certainly trust someone who displays this truth in their personality, over someone who is so dead-sure of the correctness of his faith that they'll heat themselves to a boil over it, or even hurt people or themselves. We have far too many people of faith all over the world already that have this problem.

It's a conflict in this day for ANY person of strong faith, to say they absolutely accept evolution, unless they can reconcile their faith with the possibility that evolution is the hand of God in action. Only absolutist fanatics hold so strongly to human interpretations of the Bible they believe the earth is only 6000 years old & that God is just giving us something to keep us busy by leaving scientific evidence of a much older Earth. This much faith in my opinion is nearly as dangerous as Islamic fundamentalists that blow themselves up in the name of Allah & jihad. It's just more subtle, and destroys good sense in ways other than personal/physical direct murder suicide. It's the same kind of blinding faith that can lead people to do the most horrible of things.

Ron Paul does not appear to be fanatical about religion, only about the Constution, and sound money.

-James Moore
Off the cuff. I don't have strong faith, yet I believe if there is a God, he wouldn't necessarily do things in a way we could or could not trace his steps. We can't have a clue whether or not the accummulated-millions-of-years-theory of evolution isn't just the 7-day time period in which God created all things. (How long was a day before God made it? How long is a God-day?)
I'm supporting Ron Paul, for his positions on foriegn policy, economics, upholding the Constitution, and reducing the size of the Federal behemoth...uh,Government. I believe his vision is closer to the view of the Founding Fathers than any other candidate. I do not support him for his religious views, I'm pretty much agnostic. I don't necessarily support his personal views on abortion, but I don't believe the Feds have any business helping or hindering the practice. It should be up to the women & possibly their family, & their doctor to make such an unsavory choice as to end a life in the womb at any point from conception on. If such a choice has to be made, it should be very, very early & avoided if at all possible, but until that life is potentially viable outside the womb, it should be an option as bad an option as it is.

Sorry for rambling...but thought such a post should have some personal info attached to point out that I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, but I agree with him on more of what I find important than any other candidate.

Posted by: James Moore | December 29, 2007 7:04 PM

I am as strong a believer in evolution as they come. All you need to do is look at a screaming toddler then go to the zoo and look at the chimps when they spaz out. It's obvious that we're cut from the same cloth. But Ron Paul's views on evolution are about as relevant as his views on Paris Hilton. What effect is it going to have on his ability to be president? Absolutely none... There are far more important issues than this. Especially since Ron Paul wants the federal government out of the educational system.

Posted by: Iconoclast421 | December 29, 2007 7:12 PM

This video was edited at 30 seconds in - this is a very poor hit job.

People mean different things when they say theory of evolution. Scientifically it's one thing, but many use the term to include theories about the creation of the universe, which has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution.

He's clearly addressing the inclusive version of the term when he states he believes the creator created the universe, and neither side has absolute proof about the details at this point in time.

To bluntly assert here that Ron Paul rejects evolution is disingenous.

Posted by: Tim | December 29, 2007 7:28 PM

I don't care if you read my long rant or not, tomh. It was just an observation that I at that time hadn't taken the time to read more than the first 5 responses.

Here's a news flash for you. Scientific theories are adjusted as better natural evidence becomes available. Evidence often points to an answer without being infallible proof. That disproves theory based on absolutism right fro the outset.

Faith may do the same, depending on the flavor of your religion, but takes about 100 years longer to make half as much adjustment in it's dogma, compared to scientific theory.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. ;)

Posted by: James Moore | December 29, 2007 7:42 PM

Same to you, tomh...same to you. Keep the faith, hope it doesn't blow you up in the end.

Posted by: James Moore | December 29, 2007 7:52 PM

All,

Sorry I don't know who to address this to in particular. The thread is long, but this issue has been brought up several times.

The fact that we can observe "evolution" such as drug resistance in bacteria, DOES NOT prove molecule to man evolution. That is a common canard of evolutionists. That is an extrapolation and an extreme leap. Nice rhetorical ploy though. Take an easily observable phenomenon and one that no one objects to and claim it as proof of the whole theory.

Nice try.

Billy Bob

Posted by: William Robert Outlaw | December 29, 2007 8:16 PM

Katie:
"I understand. However, on many issues, two being The War Between the States and evolution, educated people are divided. All historians do not agree with each other. All scientists do not agree with other. Are you saying that because you oppose the views of some historians and scientists that they are not educated? Is this what we have come to as a people, nothing but ad hominem arguments to support are views?"

Yes, there is educated debate about the causes of the Civil War and about evolution. However, Ron Paul doesn't get anywhere near those debates with his words.

I'll start with the Civil War issue. In his interview with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press", Paul said that Lincoln shouldn't have started the Civil War because there were better ways to end slavery. This is simply ridiculous. Lincoln couldn't do anything to prevent the Civil War if he wanted to keep the Union together - hell, the South seceded as a consequence of his election. And slavery is only one of many issues that had a role in causing the Civil War - others, for example, were the debate over states' rights vs. federal authority and the cultural divide between the industrial North and the agrarian South. Both of these are facts, and although historians debate about how much weight to give the many factors, Ron Paul passes most of them right by to cast the Civil War as a war Lincoln could have stopped by doing something better to end slavery. This is simply historically ignorant.

Now, to evolution. The scientific debate has moved beyond whether evolutionary theory is true or false - it's that well grounded. The scientific debate is over how evolution explains little pockets of evidence that don't fit with known mechanisms. Historical examples include punctuated equilibrium (long periods with little change punctuated by short periods of rapid speciation/change) and coevolution (where two species with a mutually beneficial relationship evolve together, like some kinds of flower that can only be pollinated by a certain single species of insect). Evolutionary theory as a whole has been substantiated by a century and a half of experimentation and theory, and Paul tosses it all aside by saying "It's a theory, the theory of evolution, and I don't accept it." So either he considers his personal beliefs more important than the mountains of evidence, or he simply doesn't know about the mountains of evidence. OF COURSE evolution isn't 100% certain. But it's several orders of magnitude more likely to be true than any other theory we've got.

If other comments are to be believed, he also mentioned that he thinks income taxation is unconstitutional. I hope that's not true, as that would mean he rejects amendments to the constitution after the Bill of Rights (you know, amendments like emancipation, national precedence, women's suffrage, and the income tax), as well as the segment of the Constitution that allows for amendments to it.

What I have here is not an ad hominem argument. That would be insulting Paul without anything to back me up in the hopes that that would discredit him. But I'm sitting here thinking to myself...he's ignorant about evolution (willfully or not)...he's ignorant about the Civil War...he may be ignorant about the Constitution...(by the way, I just looked this last up...he apparently said this in a 2002 speech, I looked at the transcript)...what else is he ignorant about, and do I want to vote for someone who doesn't take the trouble to properly inform himself on these issues?

Link to the Paul speech in question:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/ron_paul_speaks_out.htm

Your quote again:
"I think the edited parts (not part) are important. They underscore Congressman Paul's personal beliefs and highlight that this is not an issue for the presidential race."

I looked at the uncut video. Several times. Each time I saw Ron Paul doing a little extra talking about how unimportant the whole issue is to him, and underscoring it by calling it a "theological issue", which is once again a fundamental misunderstanding of the evolutionary debate. Obviously he doesn't care about it - if he cared, he might get it right. But one would think he would care a little more about our country's history and about the particulars of the Constitution, as a politician involved in making that history and debating about that Constitution. That he gets those wrong as well makes me wonder if he gets ANYTHING right.

Tim:
"People mean different things when they say theory of evolution. Scientifically it's one thing, but many use the term to include theories about the creation of the universe, which has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution."

Great. So the scientifically ignorant call evolution something it's not, and creationists take that up to show how evolution (the scientific one, they think) doesn't explain everything it says it does.

"He's clearly addressing the inclusive version of the term when he states he believes the creator created the universe, and neither side has absolute proof about the details at this point in time."

If Paul can't be bothered to use the proper terms, I won't be bothered to insert them for him. If he's talking about the origins of life, let him say so.

"To bluntly assert here that Ron Paul rejects evolution is disingenous."

He says "It's a theory, the theory of evolution, and I don't accept it." How much plainer do you want him to get?

James Moore:
"Here's a news flash for you. Scientific theories are adjusted as better natural evidence becomes available. Evidence often points to an answer without being infallible proof. That disproves theory based on absolutism right fro the outset."

Yes. It's impossible to "prove" a scientific theory. It's also completely meaningless to say that because you can't prove evolution that people can be justified in not believing it. As I've noted above, evolution is "only" a few thousand times more likely to be true than any other theory we've got to explain a century and a half of experimentation. There's also a vanishingly small chance that 9/11 was an inside job, an alternative theory to the usual one that Al Qaeda and OBL did it. We ridicule those who believe that, and rightly so. What, then, for the people who don't "accept" evolution because there's a vanishingly small chance one of the other theories might be correct?

Billy Bob:
"The fact that we can observe "evolution" such as drug resistance in bacteria, DOES NOT prove molecule to man evolution. That is a common canard of evolutionists. That is an extrapolation and an extreme leap. Nice rhetorical ploy though. Take an easily observable phenomenon and one that no one objects to and claim it as proof of the whole theory."

No, of course it doesn't. NOTHING proves molecule to man evolution. That's a foundational principle of science - theories are NOT provable. If you're talking to people who make this claim, you're talking to people who don't know what they're talking about. But people who do so at least have a reason - that is, that there's far too much evidence for evolution to point to ALL of it. If shown all that evidence, would you still claim that it's merely a rhetorical ploy, using observable phenomena as evidence for evolution?

Ed: I third the motion to number comments here. =)

Posted by: Math_Mage | December 29, 2007 8:29 PM

If other comments are to be believed, he also mentioned that he thinks income taxation is unconstitutional. I hope that's not true, as that would mean he rejects amendments to the constitution after the Bill of Rights (you know, amendments like emancipation, national precedence, women's suffrage, and the income tax), as well as the segment of the Constitution that allows for amendments to it.

Ron Paul is not against amending the Constitution, nor is he against repealing amendments. Both actions are provided for in the document.

Ron Paul IS against the 16th amendment, because it was never properly ratified. (I think data to support this argument is out there, personally I don't have it though.)

Ron Paul IS against repealing Roe v Wade, because he personally is very pro-life AND because the Federal Government mandating anything to do with abortion is not something we should desire as a Republic, based on his interpretation of the system the Founding Fathers worked out.

Posted by: James Moore | December 29, 2007 8:42 PM

Ron Paul believes in an intelligent design Creator - GOD. It makes much more sense to me and is much more logical than believing in evolutionary random chance as an explanation of our existance. It is less logical to believe in evolution and it takes MUCH bigger FAITH!

Posted by: Marek Wawrzyniak | December 29, 2007 8:59 PM

James Moore:
"Ron Paul IS against the 16th amendment, because it was never properly ratified. (I think data to support this argument is out there, personally I don't have it though.)"

According to Wikipedia, 42 states (of the 36 required) have ratified it. There were wording/spelling/punctuation errors in all but 4 of the ratifications, but that argument was considered at the time, rejected, and rejected since by the Supreme Court several times. So if Paul is going to say the income tax is unconstitutional on those grounds, he's going to have to get the Supremes to overturn it or Congress to re-amend the Constitution, otherwise he'd be radically expanding executive power by overturning a Supreme Court decision from the Oval Office. There may be other disputes, but I don't know about them.

Marek Wawrzyniak:
"Ron Paul believes in an intelligent design Creator - GOD. It makes much more sense to me and is much more logical than believing in evolutionary random chance as an explanation of our existance. It is less logical to believe in evolution and it takes MUCH bigger FAITH!"

Of course it takes more faith to accept evolution if you don't bother to acquire a basic understanding of it first. I'd refer you to Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker", but his political idiocy has alienated people to the point where they ignore the good science in his early work.

Posted by: Math_Mage | December 29, 2007 9:18 PM

Math_Mage, thanks for looking that up. I'd surely like to see the discussion between you as someone who looked up these facts, and Ron Paul himself.

NOW I'm done for the night! Thanks for the entertaining and thought-provoking discussions folks.

Posted by: James Moore | December 29, 2007 9:22 PM

Only the professionally ignorant would fail to recognize teh pointlessness of saying there's no "absolute" proof of evolution. There's no "absolute" proof of anything in science. There are two possible reasons he would say it that way: either he doesn't understand how pointless it is to say it, or he's pandering to those who don't understand how pointless it is to say it (like you).

Ever hear of Michael Ruse? I'm guessing, No. Fundamentalism is more disturbing in science than in any other field because the veneer of absolutism is thicker in the scientific thickhead. Believing the dialogue to be at its end even when the searching is in its earliest infancy shows an infantile need for certainty.

Posted by: Charlotte | December 29, 2007 9:30 PM

There are not "mountains" of evidence that molecule to man evolution happened in a purely random, unguided, naturalistic manner. That is an assumption. And it is not an assumption evolutionists make because the evidence demands it. They make it because they want to make it. They want to believe that no God was required. That something as complex as man or even a simple cell arose by random chance is absurd on its face. It is a ridiculous fairy story. Sorry boys, but it just didn't happen. You can sprinkle all the time and chance fairy dust on your little fantasy that you want and it will still be a fantasy.

Posted by: William Robert Outlaw | December 29, 2007 9:46 PM

This good stuff.
First time I've been here, I'll be back.
Any and all of you science minded folks here should be aware of resource depletion and global warming. Resource depletion will be realized in as little as four years and as scarcity of energy approaches I'd like to have our constitution a wee bit stronger. Hold yer nose, vote for states rights.
Best wishes

Posted by: dyslexic blogger | December 29, 2007 10:03 PM

Tomdawg, here's a link to a good, easy to read book that offers examples of transitional fossils, including hominid fossils, and explains why you're asking the wrong question.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624

Posted by: observer | December 29, 2007 10:13 PM

Billy Bob,

Just because you haven't read the evidence doesn't mean it's not there. Here's a link that can point you in the right direction: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/

It's a good place to start. Additionally, just phone a decent university's biology department and ask them what textbook they use to teach evolution. Buy that book, read it, then follow up on its citations. It's a great way to start self-educating, and it's not that hard.

Posted by: observer | December 29, 2007 10:20 PM

Paul did not say "I don't believe in evolution." He said "I don't accept it AS A THEORY ... I just don't think we're at a point where anybody has the absolute truth on any side."

Thus he properly and admirably avoids the arrogance of BOTH extreme sides - those who say that Origin of the Species is completely infallible gospel, and those who say that every aspect of Darwin's theory is false. He takes the humble position of a reasonable person who rejects both sides of the same fraudulent dogmatic coin.

He simply does not accept evolution as a theory, as fanatical adherents do, in the materialistic totality that denies the possibility of divine intervention in the process, which is not the same as denying every aspect of that theory.

This is just another example of his power as a uniter. He allows that people are free to believe what they want to on Constitution neutral issues without the government, through its most powerful spokesman, the President, respecting one kind of belief and disrespecting another. He stated his position in such a way as to respect both.

Every time I hear this man I stand more incredibly in awe of his fearless consistency.

Posted by: Richard Brodie | December 29, 2007 10:48 PM

Scott Frost:
"I'm an atheist, but seriously, folks, what difference does it make what Ron Paul's personal religious views are? He has no intention of forcing his views on anyone else. Quite the opposite. This man is no Mike Huckabee. He doesn't want creationism taught in public schools or anything like that."

Let's see, I've replied to this question how many times now? At least three...

The fact that he doesn't accept evolution, by itself, doesn't bother me. The only reason this would have any political significance to me is that combined with his thoughts on the Civil War and the Sixteenth Amendment it makes me wonder if he paid attention in high school when he was supposed to be learning about this stuff. See some of my earlier posts (just do ctrl-f and type in my handle to make it easier).

Now, Nick Sayer. Where to begin? Well, let's just follow your post point by point.

"Basically there are 6 types of evolution, 5 are theory and one is fact."

No, you did NOT just put facts in the same category as theories again. If you didn't read the freaking comment thread, why are you commenting?

"1.- Chemical evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
2.- Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space, and matter. Big Bang.
3.- Stellar and planetary evolution - origin of stars and planets.
4.- Organic evolution - origin of life from inanimate matter.
5.- Macro-evolution - origin of major kinds.
6.- Micro-evolution - variations within kinds. Only this one has been observed and is accepted by both Creationists and evolutionists."

Only the last two are actually part of evolutionary theory. Parts 1-3 aren't even BIOLOGY, and evolution is a BIOLOGICAL theory. Part 4 has a name. It's "abiogenesis." Evolution does NOT deal with the origins of life.

Moving on to your specific points...your first part has evidence for it too. It's called the fusion bomb. Also, if it's daytime where you are, go outside and look up. See that bright thing in the sky? It's a giant fusion reactor called the Sun. Now, this doesn't prove that this is actually what happened in the beginning. You'll have to go to an actual astrophysicist for a good explanation of that one.

Part 2 has evidence for it too. You know, the whole "expanding universe" thing. There's a lot of scientific debate over interpretation of the various bits of evidence - again, go see an astrophysicist. But to pretend that the scientists are just making up theories out of whole cloth is ridiculous.

Part 3 - I must once again refer you to an astrophysicist. I don't have the background to answer you on this one.

Part 4 - Abiogenesis is a controversial theory, and there's a lot that hasn't been explained. But as I've said in earlier posts, pretending that the spontaneous synthesis of macromolecules, phospholipid bilayers and what could have been the primitive mechanism of heritable variation isn't evidence is nuts. Science hasn't made this into a comprehensive theory (...yet...), of course. But since it doesn't have to do with evolution, I don't have to show that it's 99% probable, just that there's evidence to back up the theory.

Part 5 - I refer you to the fossil record. What, you think it only provided evidence for microevolution? We have fossils going back over 2 billion years. Note especially the "Cambrian Explosion" about 500 million years ago.

Part 6 - I agree.

"The first five meanings are believed BY FAITH and ARE RELIGIOUS because they are basically theories and not facts."

The sixth one is a theory, too. But you seem to think "theory" means "hasn't been proven", and that theories somehow become "fact" when they are "proved". STOP DOING THAT. There IS no proof for theories in science. Only evidence. The real world is infinitely complex (bounded but infinite), and one good counterexample will topple any theory. We can't make an example of every single thing in the universe. It's simply not possible. Thus there is no proof. Not even for microevolution.

"Let's see if what evolutionists believe requires faith:"

Yes. Duh. That is the NATURE of science. To believe ANY theory is true requires faith. But in many cases (as with evolution), it's faith backed up by a lot of EVIDENCE.

"1.- To believe that the whole periodic table formed from hydrogen is a theory."

Backed up by observation of the Sun. But you don't seem to think we can do that.

"2.- To believe that before the Big Bang, time, space, and matter were non existent is a theory.
3.- To believe that all the stars and galaxies formed from a bang or explosion is a theory.
4.- To believe life came from non life is a theory."

Damn straight. But now you're acting as if "theory" means "wishful thinking." Go look it up in a scientific dictionary/encyclopedia. You'll get a shock.

"5.- To believe different kinds of animal came from other kinds i.e. a dog from a cat, is a theory."

Substantiated by the fossil record.

"6.- To believe that a kind of animal, like a dog or bird, can adapt to its environment and have variations is proven science and accepted by both evolutionists and creationists."

No, it's not PROVEN. Leave your proofs for mathematics. THEORIES CANNOT BE PROVEN.

"Many who claim to be evolutionists only look at point 6 and call that 'evolution.' Then they cannot understand why creationists cannot believe it, or see clear science, not understanding that the whole evolution package includes the other 5 theories."

Except that you're wrong. Here's what actually happened: CREATIONISTS came along and saw that scientists call points 5 and 6 "evolution". They then attempted to redefine the term to include the first four so they could cast doubt on the latter two. In your head, they succeeded.

"Obviously Ron Paul understands that there is more to evolution than just a simple yes or no answer that Fox demanded in the Republican debate. Ron Paul is a very learned man. If YOU go through each of the 5 theories above, can you honestly claim with absolute certainty that evolution is correct? Would you put your hand up or down?"

Nobody can claim with absolute certainty that the theory of evolution is correct, but they CAN claim with absolute certainty that your definition of evolution is garbage.

And Paul's answer was not "I believe in some parts of evolution but not others." Paul's answer was "it's a theory, the theory of evolution, and I don't accept it." He then misclassified it as a theological issue while trying to tell us how unimportant it is to him.

"So to claim that life came from non life (proven by Louis Pasteur as an impossibility), or that all complex chemicals came from hydrogen, to some, like Dr Paul, requires just as much faith as it does to say there is a God. Go through the 5 theories and gather hard scientific proof and you will see what I mean."

I'm curious. Where did you hear that Louis Pasteur proved abiogenesis was an impossibility? Wikipedia tells me only that he showed that "the growth of microorganisms in nutrient broths is not due to spontaneous generation." Which is because those microorganisms came from elsewhere, not because God made them or something.

And once more, "hard scientific proof" DOES NOT EXIST. Only hard scientific EVIDENCE exists.

Ok, I'm done with you. Moving on to Richard Brodie...
"Paul did not say "I don't believe in evolution." He said "I don't accept it AS A THEORY ... I just don't think we're at a point where anybody has the absolute truth on any side.""

I'm sorry, this is a misquote. What Paul says is "It's a theory, the theory of evolution, and I DON'T ACCEPT IT." (emphasis mine) The heading at the top of the post is "Ron Paul Doesn't ACCEPT Evolution." (emphasis mine) That's the same as saying he doesn't believe in evolution, which has nothing to do with how much of evolution he rejects. I don't believe in Christianity, but I believe some parts of the Bible and Christianity are true. Just not certain key factors like Jesus being Christ and the existence of God. Some people who believe in Christianity accept those key factors while throwing out other bits of the Bible like God creating the world in 6 days. Some scientists who accept the theory of evolution dispute various bits of it (like, historically, punctuated equilibrium and coevolution - but I repeat an earlier post). For Paul to say he doesn't accept evolution means he rejects, at the least, certain key factors in evolution, all of which have loads of evidence behind them. You know, like natural selection, heritable variation and so on.

"Thus he properly and admirably avoids the arrogance of BOTH extreme sides - those who say that Origin of the Species is completely infallible gospel, and those who say that every aspect of Darwin's theory is false. He takes the humble position of a reasonable person who rejects both sides of the same fraudulent dogmatic coin."

Ironic that you equate evolution with gospel for certain fundamental evolutionists. Evolution, at least, has far more evidence behind it than the Gospel ever did. Nonetheless, he's right to say that evolution isn't absolutely true. He just doesn't know (or perhaps doesn't care) how meaningless that statement is, since it applies to all scientific theories.

"He simply does not accept evolution as a theory, as fanatical adherents do, in the materialistic totality that denies the possibility of divine intervention in the process, which is not the same as denying every aspect of that theory."

Nice. Way to equate people who accept evolution as a theory with fanatical adherents. And nobody rational is denying the possibility of divine intervention in the process, including those who accept evolution as a theory. They're merely denying that it's reasonable to treat that possibility as a scientific one.

"This is just another example of his power as a uniter. He allows that people are free to believe what they want to on Constitution neutral issues without the government, through its most powerful spokesman, the President, respecting one kind of belief and disrespecting another. He stated his position in such a way as to respect both."

Should the President, at his next speech, talk about 9/11 in such a way as to respect both the "Al Qaeda did it" and 9/11 Truther theories?

But, of course, this is irrelevant because Ron Paul didn't respect evolution to the point of studying it and realizing that it can coexist with religious beliefs, or that there's a bit more than spit and a prayer holding the theory up.

Posted by: Math_Mage | December 29, 2007 11:33 PM

I'd rather he just said "I don't have an opinion about it." Oh well. Who cares? I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster created fossils to mess with us. Does it really make a difference?

I just want fiat currency and foreign wars to go away.

Posted by: Stick Boy | December 29, 2007 11:49 PM

Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. Stupid that some of you folks would choose a president based on whether or not he/she believed in evolution. It was pointed out way, way, WAY back in the comments that Ron Paul does not totally reject evolution, but still you folks yammer on and on, as if by doing so you can convince people not to vote for Ron Paul. This blog is BS and a waste of time.

Ed, hope you enjoyed your 15mins of fame. I'm outta here.

Posted by: TheObserver | December 30, 2007 12:15 AM

Oh, and that's the last I want to have to say or respond to on that topic!

Posted by: Not Supporting Paul | December 30, 2007 12:35 AM

When did believing in a theory become a platform for once credibility as a president? How can a theory become a fact when it remains a theory? How can anyone criticize a belief in a theory as fact is a mystery. Sometimes you can be over-educated to your intellectual capacities and be so thoroughly brain-washed to think you understand what's going on. 1st It's a theory, not a fact 2nd It has no influence on one's politics particularly if you are a Libertarian who wants the Federal gov't out of education (which again shows the vast ignorance of the replies) and left to the states 3rd and lastly Paul makes no mention that this is a political platform and feels dishonored to even make this an issue at all for the Presidency. This is a non-issue beefed up by atheists who need some emotional, not rational, understanding of the issues at stake when there is no issue at all.

Posted by: Mike who is supporting Paul | December 30, 2007 1:23 AM

Gee. I didn't realize one had to be an Atheist to be President. Besides he did not say he does not believe things have evolved, He answered the question with reference to whether or not he believed he was the product of materialistic evolution. He, as billions of other human beings believe they are somehow greater than the sum of material processes. That folks has not been proven by science. It is as yet a mystery.

Posted by: Dell | December 30, 2007 1:29 AM

How can a theory become a fact when it remains a theory?

This has been explained many times in the thread above. For a concise discussion, please read this, including the LINKS it provides at the bottom:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

Also look at the FURTHER READINGS, where the major creationist website also agrees that your whole 'fact/theory' discussion is nothing but a red herring:

What people usually mean when they say this is "Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically." Therefore people should say that! The problem with using the word "theory" in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known theories such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Newton's Theory of Gravity, as well as lesser-known ones such as the Debye-Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

Posted by: doctorgoo | December 30, 2007 1:44 AM

"Dare I ask why you think foreign wars will go away if the US adopts an isolationist stance?"

Clearly an "isolationist" stance will not cause foreign nations to cease warring WITH EACH OTHER (or with themselves.) It will just prevent US from having to participate in such wars! And by using the trillions saved by disentangling ourselves from other countries' affairs, we will be in a position to create a defensive position so formidable as to preclude any nation from so much as thinking about attacking us.

Posted by: Richard Brodie | December 30, 2007 2:06 AM

Dave S Wrote: That a large majority doesn't understand a concept is unfortunate, but that just means they are wrong and need more education
Actually, it doesn't mean that they're wrong (though I do think that the general public could use more education), just that the word has two different meanings, based on the context (both social and textual) in which it is used.

It would be absurd if I for example defined a particular term in a paper I'm writing, only to have two others 'refute' me by redefining my term. Hey, they outnumber me 2 to one, right?
You're right, it would be completely absurd, in the context of the paper that you're writing. However, in general discussion with laymen, it's just as absurd to insist that the specialist field's definition of a word is the only acceptable one without first making it clear - your audience is simply not going to interpret it that way without the clarification.

It doesn't matter that he is not addressing scientists. He is referring to the scientific theory here. That he is apparently cluless about it, as is probably most of his audience, doesn't justify him.
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here, but I'll attempt to respond to the point - let me know if I've misunderstood.
It completely matters who is is talking to here, as that affects how he will use the word (though, in all likelihood, he will use the word the same way in other circumstances, as he is not a specialist).
Don't get me wrong, I think it's completely inappropriate that he's clueless about the theory when he has to know that it's something that many Americans will be and have been debating politically and he's running for president. I'm glad that there wasn't all this religion vs science business in our recent elections (Australian here).

Posted by: Rael | December 30, 2007 2:38 AM

Looks like math mage is getting personal. he/she/it didn't even know that the whole conversation was about funding research. he/she/it is verbose, quotes wiki for points of law (which tells me that he/she/it almost surely an amateur in this field) takes my generous point to them about the commerce clause (seeing as how THEY friggin mentioned it) and warps it around to being (uh, erroneously) in the realm of state law, uses that retarded error to question my ability to distinguish between that and the same federal law that he/she/it obviously doesn't know encompasses the commerce clause - umm, it's called INTER-STATE commerce for a reason, dipshit - doesn't seem to understand that funding of research is usually accomplished through AGENCIES, (oh dear, how do THOSE things figure into the constitution? which branch are THEY in? Heavens to Betsy! I am still being lectured on the difference between the executive and legislative branches of government), and other than all that, as if that wasn't enough... well, I guess that is enough. The National Cancer Institute is illegal. You heard it from the Math Mage. Can't wait to hear what Eugene Volokh has to say about that cause apparently I'm just too insignificant a challenge for such a legal wunderkind as the aforementioned, no matter how much he/she/it poses as someone actually interested in discussing Ron Paul's disinterest in empricism. why would someone who is so right about everything (um, except when they're, uh DEAD WRONG) descend into that?

Posted by: Not Supporting Paul | December 30, 2007 3:01 AM

Mage, just so that everyone here (that's interested, I doubt many are, understandably) are clear - it's obvious that you are completely clueless on all this. You brought up the commerce clause in the context of implied powers of the government, and then told me that drug laws are "handled at the state level". Actually, to quote you in full, you said that they "are handled at the state level and are obviously not mentioned in the federal Constitution, nor do they need to be. I hope you aren't trying to lecture me on law if you can't distinguish between federal and state law." But the problem with this is that you would have to be absolutely full of it to say so. See, since you like Wikipedia so much, I'll link to the most recent S.C. ruling in the drug wars, Gonzales v. Raich, which ruled that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which allows the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce... among the several States," Congress may ban the use of cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

This was a direct quote from the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

If you were a decent or intellectually honest person, I think you would understandably forward me an apology about this, but seeing how adamantly and arrogantly you went on about things that you've been so obviously way off base about, I fully expect that you won't. You can have your ideological zeal and fervor all you want, but the facts are right here for all to see. Good luck pursuing your view of them this way in the future.

Posted by: Not Supporting Paul | December 30, 2007 3:15 AM

Must I go point by point again?
"Looks like math mage is getting personal. he/she/it didn't even know that the whole conversation was about funding research."

I replied to a specific point you made regarding whether or not the government can "do a specific action" that isn't mentioned in the Constitution. If you're construing that as a reply to your whole point about federal funding for research...well, what can I say?

"he/she/it is verbose, quotes wiki for points of law (which tells me that he/she/it almost surely an amateur in this field)"

Oh, gee, sorry for quoting the wrong source. Are you going to admit you were wrong to say the government can do more than the Constitution permits it to or aren't you?

"takes my generous point to them about the commerce clause (seeing as how THEY friggin mentioned it) and warps it around to being (uh, erroneously) in the realm of state law,"

I was referring to the law you mentioned about imprisoning cancer patients for smoking. Which is quite obviously not a federal law. And since you were using it in the context of making a point about the Constitution, I found it rather absurd that you were using a state law (which has nothing to do with the Constitution) to do so.

"uses that retarded error to question my ability to distinguish between that and the same federal law that he/she/it obviously doesn't know encompasses the commerce clause - umm, it's called INTER-STATE commerce for a reason, dipshit - "

Except I wasn't referring to the Commerce Clause when questioning your ability to distinguish between state and federal law. As mentioned above, I was referring to what was obviously a state or local law that you referred to in a federal context. I should have made it plainer, but I didn't think you would make this mistake.

"doesn't seem to understand that funding of research is usually accomplished through AGENCIES, (oh dear, how do THOSE things figure into the constitution? which branch are THEY in? Heavens to Betsy! I am still being lectured on the difference between the executive and legislative branches of government)"

Federal Agencies are part of the executive branch, created by Congressional statute, probably under the General Welfare Clause or otherwise justified. Like I said, I don't know much about the particulars of federal funding for research.

"and other than all that, as if that wasn't enough... well, I guess that is enough. The National Cancer Institute is illegal. You heard it from the Math Mage."

I said nothing about the National Cancer Institute. Prior to your continuance of a rant about federal agencies funding research, I didn't mention them at all. I was talking about the capacity of federal government to go beyond the Constitution (which is nil, according to the Constitution itself), because you mentioned it.

"Can't wait to hear what Eugene Volokh has to say about that cause apparently I'm just too insignificant a challenge for such a legal wunderkind as the aforementioned, no matter how much he/she/it poses as someone actually interested in discussing Ron Paul's disinterest in empricism. why would someone who is so right about everything (um, except when they're, uh DEAD WRONG) descend into that?"

I've been to Mr (Dr?) Volokh's blog, and enjoyed it there. So many people who know so much more than I do...no, I only have a high-schooler's understanding of law and government. My interests are primarily in math and the "hard" sciences. I don't generally post on subjects I'm not interested in or know nothing about, though. Did I give you that impression?

Posted by: Math_Mage | December 30, 2007 3:28 AM

Mage, this is going in circles. I'm glad to hear you admit that this isn't your specialty. I really feel I've answered to every challenge you've posed within the scope of a non-law blog and I fully welcome any interest you might have in re-posting this whole thing for Eugene, aka Dr. Volokh (yes, in the United States a degree to practice law is a Juris Doctor). In any event, what I learn from lawyers is the importance of definitions. You are are talking past me, haven't apologized - which is fine, but more importantly, seem more interested in posing ridiculous challenges that rest more on ignoring the similarities and differences between definitions of things than resolving a simple lack of congruence in the way you're phrasing these ideas. I can see it won't go anywhere, but my specific pet peeve is this clear example where you say:

I said nothing about the National Cancer Institute. Prior to your continuance of a rant about federal agencies funding research, I didn't mention them at all. I was talking about the capacity of federal government to go beyond the Constitution (which is nil, according to the Constitution itself), because you mentioned it.

The whole point, need I remind anyone was exactly this issue - of funding research, and how it was supposedly unconstitutional to do so. If you've now retracted, or never meant that statement then kindly say so. If not, then you can continue pretending this is an infinite math (or hard science) game, but I promise you it won't go anywhere constructive. There's no point being made and nothing being said. Learn where agreements start and disagreements end, if you can.

Posted by: Not Supporting Paul | December 30, 2007 3:41 AM

Math_mage wrote: When one talks about evolution, there may be instances of popular usage differing from the technical definition. But when one talks about "the theory of evolution" specifically, and especially when one is saying whether or not he accepts this theory, properly defining the bounds of the theory is essential. And the only clear bounds for that theory are where scientists place them.

Maybe I derailed my own argument somewhere along the line, but I'm not taking issue with the bounds of defining what the term "theory of evolution" means, I was trying to point out that Gretchen's assumption that the general public don't get to define the term "evolution" is a false one. Because, while the scientific community may have first coined the term (though I don't know if even that is true, or, given that it is true, that it meant the same thing even within science as it does now), once it becomes used by the public at large, the definition of the term is no longer solely in the hands of scientists and (apart from specialist contexts) will be defined through the way that it's used.
Also, bear in mind that I'm not making any call on whether things should be this way or if they'd be better another way, simply pointing out that this word, like every other word we use, is defined by how it's used.

Posted by: Rael | December 30, 2007 4:07 AM

Saying 'I could never vote for anyone who doesn't believe in evolution' is about as intelligent as saying 'I could never vote for someone who doesn't believe in Jesus.'

Both are bigoted positions and don't reflect an honest evaluation of a candidate. People have a right to believe what they want, as long as they don't impose their beliefs on others.

Posted by: dblee | December 30, 2007 5:32 AM

Rael writes:

Actually, it doesn't mean that they're wrong (though I do think that the general public could use more education), just that the word has two different meanings, based on the context (both social and textual) in which it is used.

I would agree that there is two different meanings for a word like 'theory', which to the casual public at large means 'a guess' but in the technical scientific sence means 'a supported and testable explanation'. In this sense there are two definitions. But where the public goes awry is in assuming that their definition also applies in the scientific sense. And this is where they go wrong.

You're right, it would be completely absurd, in the context of the paper that you're writing. However, in general discussion with laymen, it's just as absurd to insist that the specialist field's definition of a word is the only acceptable one without first making it clear - your audience is simply not going to interpret it that way without the clarification.

Unfortuneately such clarification tends to make little difference, as the issue comes up repeatedly. And even explicit elucidation of the differences may make little impression, as evidenced by the poster Mike.

It completely matters who is is talking to here, as that affects how he will use the word (though, in all likelihood, he will use the word the same way in other circumstances, as he is not a specialist).

I think it matters not who he is talking to, but what he is talking about. If he wants to talk about the scientific theory of evolution, then it is encumbent on him to talk about the actual scientific context of that. Pandering to the ignorance of the audience, probably because of his own ignorance, is irresponsible.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's completely inappropriate that he's clueless about the theory when he has to know that it's something that many Americans will be and have been debating politically and he's running for president. I'm glad that there wasn't all this religion vs science business in our recent elections (Australian here).

Well, you guys have your own Answers in Genesis branch, just like Kentucky does. I've had many tangles with your Jonathan Sarfati. Maybe its only a matter of time. :)

Posted by: Dave S. | December 30, 2007 8:28 AM

I can't believe I am reading posts by grown up adults. We have a political campaign, with specific political issues and goals, Ron Paul addresses those issues, he has specific goals ... and then someone asks a side question and most participants here forget about the pressing issues of the day and are very disappointing that the Good Doctor doesn't believe 100% what they personally believe about a theory! You guys must be diagnosed with ADD.

"Man, I'm sooo disappointed with the man. I know, he will abolish the Fed, he upholds the Constitution, he is honest and his integrity is unusual for a politician, he will bring the troops home ... but he doesn't believe I evolved from a monkey!!! Can I trust such a man??? Of course not! How can I trust someone who questions the official biological religion of the Federal Government! What laws is he going to enact if he believes man is actually created different from the animals, can you imagine? He will value my human life like it is unique, and not just a product of slime and time? We can't afford that, can we..." And so on.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved out of slime, programmed in their biochemical body processes with certain inalienable rights...

Reading the posts above, I can certainly believe some people descended from monkeys.

Well, I guess you need to vote for someone who is a die-hard believer in evolution. Hitlery Clinton, for instance. She is a war-monger, true, but that I guess is fully in agreement with evolution. We sent troops to Iraq to speed up the process of natural selection. Isn't that the process that brought us from amoebas to monkeys and to humans? The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle of Life.

Well, go ahead, bash the only honest politician we have just because he doesn't agree with you a hundred percent. Your ancestors - you know who I mean - will be proud of you.

Posted by: BoMar | December 30, 2007 10:33 AM

Saying 'I could never vote for anyone who doesn't believe in evolution' is about as intelligent as saying 'I could never vote for someone who doesn't believe in Jesus.'

Both are bigoted positions and don't reflect an honest evaluation of a candidate.

Well,, that''s naive.. Substantial parts of what a president does depends on an honest evaluation of science and major portions of the US economy relies on a solid knowledge of biologoy---i.e., evolution.. Ignorance of evolution or dishonesty there is going to extremely harmful..

I think this demonstrates YOUR ignorance of vital issues.

Posted by: gwangung | December 30, 2007 11:37 AM

Baloo,

Unlike most other RonBots, I have known this disheartening fact about Dr. Paul for a while. The reason that I continue to support Dr. Paul for president is because he advocates the removal of the federal government from scientific research altogether. Essentially, while I find his opinion laughably ignorant on this issue, he's advocating a form of government where that opinion will not matter.

Many folks in the scientific community covet their NSF grants and other federal government subsidies that the scientific community has become dependent on. But let's reflect on this dependence. Just as scientists beholden to the Pioneer Fund tend to do research and find conclusions preferred by the PF, institutional scientists have become increasingly accomodating to the federal government's agenda.

Just look at what happened to Dr. Watson when he stepped out of bounds. I believe that a major reason why he was betrayed so rapidly and expelled so swiftly was because he jeopardized their government funding. It's not much different from how scientists were largely dependent on papal patronage during the Dark Ages. "Scientists" discovered stuff palatable to the pope and the ones who didn't get the memo were dismissed (or worse).

Posted by: Wikitopian | December 30, 2007 12:03 PM

Look, if you accept evolution it's impossible to believe the Bible. If you don't believe in the Bible, people are not going to elect you, EVEN IF THEY SUPPORT EVERYTHING YOU STAND FOR. They will make your atheism the issue.

I wish it were not so, but it is. Ron Paul remains the only sane choice. For me to demand an atheist candidate now is like asking for Barack Obama to run against George Washington 200 years ago. It may be RIGHT, but it's right TOO EARLY in our, dare I say it, evolution.

Posted by: Dale Holmgren | December 30, 2007 12:27 PM

For all the foaming-at-the-mouth Ron Paul supporters like BoMar, I would like to reassure you that his view on evolution is not even close to being one of many, many reasons I won't support him. For a quick view of just one of the many, look in the mirror.

Posted by: observer | December 30, 2007 12:34 PM

I humbly submit, with every fiber of my "protoplasm", that intellectual honesty might just be an important qualification in a presidential candidate, however.

I am glad to hear that. I'd also be glad to hear what else is biochemically coded in your protoplasm as "important qualifications." Fitness in the Struggle for Life, I guess. Survival. Ability to snatch scarce resources from the other species - voters, Iraqis, etc. Mastering superior weapons - teeth, claws, B-52's, H-bombs. All evolutionary virtues.

Posted by: BoMar | December 30, 2007 12:39 PM

We sent troops to Iraq to speed up the process of natural selection. Isn't that the process that brought us from amoebas to monkeys and to humans? The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle of Life.

Posted by: G. Shelley | December 30, 2007 12:54 PM

You people are all brainwashed from your indoctrination at school. You just parrot what the so-called "experts" tell you. You are sheep.

Why do you hate the free market of ideas? Why are you clinging to ideas that lost out long ago?

Posted by: gwangung | December 30, 2007 1:16 PM

Why do you hate the free market of ideas? Why are you clinging to ideas that lost out long ago?

Absolutely. Government schools are a "free market of ideas"? Education "experts" on government payroll who ban teaching of any alternative to evolution in schools are proponents of "free market of ideas"? Government sponsored evolutionary scientists are probably the epitome of libertarians?

"Ideas that lost out long ago"??? Lost to whom? To coercive government regulation in schools that prohibits any alternative views? Well, in the Soviet Union the ideas of free market had "lost out long ago": No one taught them, no one believed in them, and all who defended them chose to either die or emigrate.

Very coherent. I guess you learned that intelelctual consistency from your...er..."ancestors"?

Posted by: BoMar | December 30, 2007 1:43 PM

observer, even before your post I was absolutely convinced you didn't know what the ___ I was talking about regarding the logical consequences of evolutionary theory. Given that, there is no way for you to know whether my conclusions are twisted or not, or accurate or not. And if you know nothing about what I am talking about, and still express your opinion on it, it demonstrates not mine, but your utter inability to use logic.

If today's schools didn't produce your blissful ignorance, where did you get it?

The question is loaded. I just don't have blissful ignorance. I didn't go to school. I can see you did, and that's why you can't even begin to understand what I am talking about regarding logical consequences.

Posted by: BoMar | December 30, 2007 2:00 PM

I am doing a terrible job explaining myself. But I am doing a darn good job explaining the logical consequences of the evolution. If it wasn't so, I would get some response from someone who would tell me how in the world an evolved biochemical mass came up with ideas about life, liberty, happiness, good and bad, fallacy and truth and so on. Is there a biochemical formula for these ideas? If no, where do we take them from? If yes, what is it, so that we know if Dr. Paul is right or not? May be we haven't discovered it yet? If we haven't, how do we know right from wrong, truth from falsehood?

C'mon, guys, you're enlightened by the evolution, you must have an answer. You can't criticize Dr. Paul's position without having at least something. Where do you find your standard for right and wrong?

Posted by: BoMar | December 30, 2007 3:08 PM

Right Bo, evolution is exactly about the "Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle of Life". Except for the part that's it's not. In your non-education were you taught about history? You're projecting. Racism is bad does not = genes don't exist or genotypes do not change over generations. It's complicated, I know. But then again, so is the world. You can't make the world as simple as the terms that your mind forces itself to think in. Sorry.

I would also like to know how exactly your protoplasm created notions like "liberty," "freedom," "fallacy," etc. Is there a biochemical formula for these notions?

Bo, if you've got a problem with neurotransmission, which I didn't even realize was sufficiently powerful - yet simultaneously not obvious - in its explanatory power to acquire the tag "theory", let alone radical enough to be deemed nothing more than a way to enable a theory as radical (and as well-evidenced) as evolution, then you've got a bigger challenge ahead of you than you realize.

Sigh.

I would have preferred not responding to Bo and just letting those comments speak for themselves, but unfortunately there are so many, and so vocal a number of fools out there with this problem that they require engaging if the parts of knowledge, from which they've already quite obviously detached themselves, are to be asserted for all that they're worth.

Posted by: Not Supporting Paul | December 30, 2007 3:08 PM

But, observer, how do you decide which point is "correct" or not? Both your point and my point are only biochemical processes, right? How is a biochemical process "correct" or "incorrect"? How is a biochemical process a "fallacy" or not?

You are right, no particular behavior can be considered "logical consequence" of evolutionary theory. Because according to the evolutionary theory itself, any behavior is a dialectical product of chance and biochemical processes, not a logical action by a logically thinking free human being. Opposition or support for war, freedom or anything is just product of either random combination of atoms in your body, or strictly determined cause-and-effect chain of biochemical processes. You are right, we can't even talk about "logical consequence" when we talk about evolution and behavior. Or logic, for that matter.

I am giving actual arguments, but your protoplasm doesn't seem to see them. My arguments are exactly this: On evolutionary basis no one can tell whether Dr. Paul is right or wrong or right in rejecting evolutionary theory, or whether evolutionary theory is a fact or not, for that matter.

Posted by: BoMar | December 30, 2007 3:21 PM

NotSupportingPaul at 10:07 wrote:

Wow Red Phillips. I'd consult a lawyer if I were you. This notion of yours that "if the Constitution doesn't say the government can do a specific action, it's not legal to do" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

bills of rights.. are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

I think it's too restrictive an argument myself (and Hamilton almost certainly didn't believe it, either), but the point is that the argument is not as ridiculous as you claim. There's a very fundamental conflict between those who believe the government has all powers not explicitly denied it, and those who believe the government has no powers not explicitly granted it, and since the Constitution itself does not clearly resolve the issue, either side is a reasonable claim, not a bullshit one.

I'm also not supporting Ron Paul, but as a political science prof, who regularly teaches American Government, I felt the need to point out that your constitutional interpretation is neither more nor less legitimate than the Ron Paul supporters' interpretation.

And as a political economist (my real specialty), I'd love to have a more substantive discussion of the value of government funding of scientific research, which is not as simplistic as either side here has portrayed.

Posted by: James Hanley | December 30, 2007 3:40 PM

Humans, being the only species that can consider such things on a rational level rather than acting out of instinct, can make rational choices about such things. That alone eliminates the notion that evolution somehow tells us that we should conquer and destroy other people to help ourselves.

Ed, how do you define "rational level" vs. "instinct"? At the very bottom, they are just product of biochemical processes, aren't they?

And, by the way, how did you manage to create a big collective of all humans as a species and create rules for what's good for their survival and what's not? Isn't that the favourite job for social engineers: tell us what is good for us as a collective as over against what is good for us as individuals?

I like the part about "altruism." There must be some chemical formula for "altruism," I guess, since you are using the word so freely. If not, are we allowed to use some transcendent definition for "altruism"?

Posted by: BoMar | December 30, 2007 3:43 PM

Ah, the old "without god we can't make any statements about what is true and false" argument. Utterly idiotic.

Is it? Ummm...aren't you missing something in your post? For example, why is it "idiotic"? What's "idiotic" in an evolutionary framework? What are the alternatives? How do you define truth and false without God? Can we ascribe truth and false to biochemical processes?

I guess, evolution is a simple truth. You just say everything else is "idiotic," and you have established its validity.

Posted by: BoMar | December 30, 2007 3:49 PM

Well, Gretchen, you haven't explained anything with your post. You can't explain human consciousness just with the chemical processes, we just need to add ... what? Environment, hormones, pressures. But, wait, according to the evolution, what do those things create in you? Reactions. And what are reactions? Chemical processes, aren't they! So, we are back to our "choices" and "values" being just biochemical reactions to our environment.

Oh, wait. We have evolved "mental equipment," which I guess is different from biochemical processes. I wonder what that "equipment" would be. It must be something immaterial, if it can not be explained just with biochemical processes. Immaterial??? Doesn't this bring us back to that religious view of man having an immaterial soul? We can't afford that, can we?

In short, Gretchen, you haven't answered my questions. You just tried to cover the evolutionary nakedness with a lace of elaborated philosophizing that means nothing in an evolutionary framework. Nice try.

Posted by: BoMar | December 30, 2007 4:01 PM

You're moving into an epistemological question that is not addressed by theory of evolution.

Of course not. Not only this epistemological question is not addressed by theory of evolution, but all epistemology is utterly destroyed by it. "Knowledge" means nothing in a world of randomly evolved biochemical machines. May be we could define it as "highly organised biochemical process in the human brain" ... if we could define "organised," of course.

Posted by: BoMar | December 30, 2007 4:07 PM

Thank you for your contribution, James. I agree that the ideas of expressed versus implied powers, what Hamilton et al had to say about these matters, etc. are interesting, as is whether or not it is a good idea or policy in and of itself to have government funding research, but I think that between Red, Mage and the others I made it a point to decisively resolve that as a legal matter, that particular idea is resolved and not worth debating on the grounds of Paul's "pro-constitution" brou-ha-ha. Could they be revisited in the future? Sure. Pending a case. And as I've already made clear in my comments to Ed, who rightfully points out the ethical problems with the jurisprudence on the matter - especially going back to Wickard v. Filburn - that this is where this will all have to stand in the meantime. Paul-"istas", Paul-"onians", Paul supporters, whatever you call them, need to get over this idea that changing our interpretation of the constitution is something that you snap your fingers and say, presto, there you have it. There are centuries of jurisprudence to account for, and, if they or I were to have our way, overcome, and if they are going to accept the idea of legal precedent at all, they will have to look into the legal arguments behind our interpretations. But they are never sophisticated enough to do that and that is precisely my point. A revolution that utterly disregards the entire concept of legal precedent is bound to have consequences as illiberal in its implementation as the Libertarians' worst nightmares could conceive. Perhaps I'm exaggerating the case or making too much a metaphor of it, but these guys do strike me as intellectualized projections of their own little Maximilien Robespierres, with the safe caveat that they're just a little more politically naive or less ambitious. But that's not saying much.

Posted by: Not Supporting Paul | December 30, 2007 4:18 PM

I think many of you are over interpreting Dr. Paul's statement. He said he was a creationist but didn't know or think anyone truly knows everything about the time and mechanisms of creation. All political candidates in America are creationists of some form. (well they could be lying, and really be agnostic or atheists, but if they are lying to their voters about being creationists to secure their political offices, then they are coward sell-outs. The same goes for creationist non-evolutionists who lie and say they believe fully in naturalistic evolution.)When Dr. Paul said he rejected evolution he was speaking in the context of rejecting evolutionary naturalism, or the theory that Nature and Nature alone has been the only thing ever at work in biological history. He was stating an agnostic position. There is no way to know whether he thinks God used secondary laws to create life, designed evolution, or whether he is a fiat creationist.

Though he is the most honest straight talker in the race, as a politician speaking in Iowa, this is a tough question to answer. Regardless, he is the only candidate who wants to end the neo-conservative war-mongering that is bleeding this country dry.

and BTW, he is a libertarian, he will not halt the cause of good science or evolution education in this country. He'll just make sure you continue to possess the liberties and freedom that was the original intent of the founding fathers. Presidents are elected to uphold and defend the constitution and lead the country into greater peace and prosperity, not legislate scientific and philosophical ideas. (Though, of course, under libertarianism, Science would tend to shift from being a government supported institution to a state supported and free market driven enterprise. That might concern some people.)

But the man has got my vote on the sole fact that he is the only candidate (except for Kucinich?) who voted against the Iraq invasion in the first place and has vowed to bring the troops home immediately from this endless unjust war with an abstract noun. (terror)

Posted by: T. Russell Hunter | December 30, 2007 4:22 PM

FWIW, the Raich decision is nothing special. It's pretty much dictated by precedent. Two New Deal-era cases, Wickard v. Filburn and U.S. v. Darby--which basically upheld the legality of the New Deal regulatory structure--clearly allow the regulations and laws at issue in Raich.

Posted by: Chuck | December 30, 2007 4:25 PM

BoMar,

"Knowledge" means nothing in a world of randomly evolved biochemical machines. May be we could define it as "highly organised biochemical process in the human brain" ... if we could define "organised," of course.

Now you're on the right track. The physical structure of the human brain, with its chemical, electrical, etc. components, allows it to do something quite interesting: create abstract patterns. We've discovered that some of those patterns can be used as guides to behaviors that increase our likelihood of getting something we want.

So the map I used two weeks ago to get from my town to the town where my daughter's college graduation was held is a pattern, transferred to paper, which doesn't contain my town or the college or my daughter. But it worked as an abstract guide. I used it to direct my driving, and voila! There was my daughter in her graduation gown.

Logic works in somewhat the same way. It's a pattern, a guide, for thinking steps, a guide that we have found increases the probability that we will get where we want to go. A fallacy (which you asked about in an earlier post) is an identified error in the logic-thinking process, a error that reduces the probability of figuring out how to get what we want.

Various societies have figured out that maintaining a level of group equality and fairness, as well as protection for individuals, is helpful in getting people what they want: food, shelter, and safety for themselves and their offspring.

One of the mental patterns we have been able to build with our brains is a model of what it feels like to have certain experiences. When we recognize another as being like ourselves in some key fashion, we can use that model to, to soome extent, share the feelings the other is experiences. This empathy is a powerful motivation to morality/altruism as it reduces our own pain to perceive a reduction in the pain of others.

I too am a Christian. (I say "too" because I have the impression you are a Christian.) But God is powerful enough to create any way He wishes. And the scientific theory of evolution (a pattern some scientists have built in their brains using its chamistry, etc., and then explained to the rest of us) is so well supported with evidence and so useful as a map of our history and physical relationships with other creatures that it seems to me a pretty good description of the method that God apparently chose to use to make us.

And I remain convinced that any creation method chosen by God can, and does, lead us toward morality.

Posted by: JuliaL | December 30, 2007 4:34 PM

BoMar, I'm trying to think of a way to make you actually understand. For some reason, you seem convinced that the way evolution built us, and the materials it used, should have some comment on the way that it's appropriate for us to behave. Why?

Gretchen, I would suggest that you try to think of a way to make yourself actually understand. If you read my posts, you will see that I am not "convinced that the way evolution built us, and the materials it used, should have some comment on the way that it's appropriate for us to behave." I obviously don't focus on the moral prescriptions of the evolutionary theory, but on the very impossibility for a consistent evolutionist to define morality, truth or falsehood, right or wrong, etc. Accept evolutionary theory, and there is no way for anyone here to say whether Dr. Paul is right or wrong, or whether freedom is good or bad, or whether killing Iraqis is good or bad.

Since you missed my point, your other comments are totally irrelevant:

If you were made of something other than atoms, would that make it okay to rape or murder? If your brain functioned in some other way than neurons firing to each other, would that mean that you shouldn't love your children?

These questions totally miss my position. My questions would be:

If we are only atoms, just like the evolutionary theory claims, why wouldn't it be okay to rape or murder? Because of some rational argument concerning the "preservation of the race"? What is "rational" in a world of atoms? If your brain is only neurons firing at each other, why love your children? What is "love" in a world of neurons firing at each other?

Give it a better try, Gretchen.

Posted by: BoMar | December 30, 2007 4:37 PM

Mr. (Dr.?) Brayton,

"I like it when the rank ignorant make bold declarations about a subject they don't know a goddamn thing about."

You don't have the slightest idea what I do or don't know about the subject. I reject your naturalistic presuppositions. Complex life did not evolve by chance any more than the Complete Works of Shakespeare wrote themselves. But you keep believing that fairy tale if you like.

Nice use of profanity there also. That should really endear the Christians you are trying to dialog with to you.

Billy Bob

Posted by: William Robert Outlaw | December 30, 2007 4:46 PM

BoMar--

First of all, evolutionary theory does not claim that we are only atoms. Physicists and chemists claim-- know, actually-- that we are only atoms. Your problem is not with evolution; it's with atomic theory, which says that all matter, including us, is made of atoms. This is true whether we evolved or not. We knew about atoms long, long before we knew about evolution. You should be arguing with Democritus, 'round about the 5th century BCE.

Secondly, I would like to know why "If you were made of something other than atoms, would that make it okay to rape or murder?" is a fundamentally different question than "If we are only atoms, why wouldn't it be okay to rape or murder?" What exactly does our physical make-up have to do with morality?

Thirdly, I would like to know why you continually refuse to countenance the idea that atoms make up much bigger things, and those bigger things interact with each other, and that interaction creates things like morality and society and culture. If you don't expect a bolt to be drivable, I don't understand why you expect an atom to be rational. And the same goes for whatever you think our minds are made of other than atoms.

I have not been trying to answer your questions because your questions are nonsensical and fallacious. What I have been doing is trying to get you to understand why. But frankly, I'm pretty fed up with it at this point.

Posted by: Gretchen | December 30, 2007 4:50 PM

Yes, I've heard of Michael Ruse. In fact, I know Michael Ruse. What on earth that has to do with anything I said is a mystery and you don't bother to even attempt to make an actual argument here. Care to try again?

Posted by: Charlotte | December 30, 2007 4:56 PM

I like how the video skips a part RIGHT after the controversial part. Gives me a lot of faith that we're getting the full story here, pun intended.

Posted by: Alex | December 30, 2007 5:14 PM

BoMar said: "Not only this epistemological question is not addressed by theory of evolution, but all epistemology is utterly destroyed by it. "Knowledge" means nothing in a world of randomly evolved biochemical machines."

Again, no. There are a number of philosophers who have addressed the issue of atheistic epistemology. If you want to continue this non-sequitur, buy their books and bring up the issue with them. I have no desire to argue their points for them because the issue isn't relevant to this thread. Your assumption that the theory of evolution is necessarily atheistic is not correct. There are plenty of theistic evolutionists, and at minimum the theory of evolution is consistent with a deistic worldview. If we go with only the deistic assumption, your epistemological objections are moot.

Furthermore, if you are going to insist that evolutionary scientists defend an atheistic epistemology, you should be required to give a similar defense of a theistic one. But, you have to do it without begging the question or affirming the consequent. You'll be on your own though, because this entire line of discussion is just fog, and really has precious little to do with the process of formulating a scientific theory from epirical observations

Posted by: observer | December 30, 2007 5:22 PM

observer, how did you transform my argument against evolutionary epistemology in an argument against atheistic epistemology? And where did I suggest that theory of evolution is necessarily atheistic?

Posted by: BoMar | December 30, 2007 5:29 PM

So, Julia, there are biochemical and electrical patterns that are good, and also bad. How do we decide which are good and which are bad? I mean, if we know the answer, we can just create perfect people, right?

I am glad we will have a physician for President. He is in a much better position than a lawyer to study the good and the bad patterns, and then re-create people according to the better patterns. Frankenstein, I mean.

Posted by: BoMar | December 30, 2007 5:35 PM

James, my evidence is this discussion here. And of course, the crowning evidence is your own post:

I will agree that we have not yet conclusively explained the link between our evolutionary history and our moral sentiments. "Not yet" does not mean that we necessarily ever will, but it also does not mean that we cannot and will not.

Well, that's what I've been saying all along: No evolutionist can claim that he/she can give moral definitions based on the evolutionary theory. You are only trying to save your face by adding: "not yet."

Well, I agree with you. "Not yet." Except that you all act so arrogantly as if you already have those conclusive evolution-based definitions, and you are trying to judge other people views as if you have any firm epistemological ground to stand on.

Since you never went to school (which somehow makes you more intelligent than the rest of us?),

I know. It's so humiliating for you all, isn't it?

you may not be aware of the number of psychologists and philosophers who are working to understand the very problem you've posed.

I am. And I would suggest you guys think twice before you so arrogantly defend a position that the smartest of your philosophers are still not able to understand.

Some of my own published research deals directly with this, so it's an issue I'm pretty well versed in.

Very good. Now, if I was you, I would tell the other believers in evolution to quit talking about things that even you still don't completely understand.

Posted by: BoMar | December 30, 2007 5:53 PM

BoMar,

So, Julia, there are biochemical and electrical patterns that are good, and also bad.

And toes that are morally good, and toes that are immoral? And fingernails that are wicked, and fingernails that are decent and loving?

No. All these things are part of our physical bodies. God gave us, apparently through the process of evolution, bodies that can do good things or bad things, and brains that can reason and create models of the physical world as maps to guide our conscious behavior in doing what we have chosen to do.

You seem to be very attached to the notion that science has something, one way or the other, to say about God. Or perhaps the notion that God is too incompetent to use certain physical methods to build creatures capable of communing with Him. I think both those notions are mistaken.

Perhaps we must leave our conversation there with this disagreement:

1. I think God could/can use absolutely any method He chose/chooses to construct this physical world.

2. I think that through some process or other God gave us physical brains able to create the abstract patterns necessary for reasoning and the building of concepual patterns/maps as models of the physical world around us.

3. I think God expects us to use that reason to understand as much as we can of the physical world.

4. I think that so far the scientific theory of evolution is by far the best, indeed the only, useful and extensively supported explanation we have of what that physical process of creation is.

You appear to disagree with some or all of my four opinions. OK.

I responded to you because you originally asked how it is possible for a physical brain to identify logic and fallacies and choose between behaviors. I've answered that. And so has Gretchen, in somewhat different but compatible terms. If you and I disagree on the nature and power of God, that's probably beyond the focus of this particular blog discussion.

Posted by: JuliaL | December 30, 2007 6:03 PM

I also don't know why the answer to this question is my ticket to your help. I have a slight suspicion that you believe I said somewhere that "our physical make up has anything to do with whether we can justly evaluate the morality or immorality of our actions." Well, if it is so, I haven't.

Apparently you don't read your own posts, then:

If we are only atoms, just like the evolutionary theory claims, why wouldn't it be okay to rape or murder? Because of some rational argument concerning the "preservation of the race"? What is "rational" in a world of atoms? If your brain is only neurons firing at each other, why love your children? What is "love" in a world of neurons firing at each other?

Of course. That's what I've been saying all along. Not only this, I've been saying that on the basis of evolutionary theory you can't even define "behavior" as such, let alone "good" or "bad" behavior. And that therefore no evolutionist can legitimately judge Ron Paul for what he believes or not.

If evolutionary theory has nothing whatsoever to do with what is moral and what isn't, and you recognize that, then I'm surprised that you haven't discovered the answer for yourself-- we don't define morality by it. We define it by the various other means that humans do. There are believers in evolution who define morality in exactly the same way you do-- whatever way that is.

Posted by: Gretchen | December 30, 2007 6:09 PM

I've been saying that on the basis of evolutionary theory you can't even define "behavior" as such, let alone "good" or "bad" behavior. And that therefore no evolutionist can legitimately judge Ron Paul for what he believes or not.

Oh, dear. I'm going to add that of course one can define behavior without reference to God. And of course one can create patterns and models of reasoning and behavior and predictive explanations all without reference to God. Both Gretchen and I have explained that.

The difference between Gretchen and me is simply that I add my belief that God probably using a process of evolution, planned/desired/created our physical bodies with those abilities. Gretchen doesn't add that.

And I will add that, from a purely religious standpoint, your persistence in declaring God too weak, stupid, and incompetent to create physical brains with those abilities is . . . very different from my view of God.

Posted by: JuliaL | December 30, 2007 6:11 PM

Well, I probably won't keep this up much longer, because I need to get supper on the table for my kids (by the way, evolution explains perfectly why I love and care for my kids), but...

BoMar wrote:

James, my evidence is this discussion here.

And of course, the crowning evidence is your own post:

." "Not yet" does not mean that we necessarily ever will, but it also does not mean that we cannot and will not."

Well, that's what I've been saying all along: No evolutionist can claim that he/she can give moral definitions based on the evolutionary theory. You are only trying to save your face by adding: "not yet."

Do you really not understand the difference between not presently and not yet? Has God taken you up into Heaven? "Not yet." Oh, I guess that means he never will! Or, to go back a few decades, Have we proven that smoking causes cancer? "Not yet." Oh, that means we never will.

See, I don't claim I can make moral definitions based on evolutionary theory. I've done research, as have others, that supports the hypothesis that evolutionary pressures gave rise to moral sentiments, but actually defining moral terms based on that is a dubious step both because the research isn't that well developed yet, and because--depending on how I interpret your phrase--it may simply run into the is/ought problem.

So listen closely right now: Rebut my argument. You haven't done that--you've just claimed I'm wrong, and taken your own claim as evidence. Right here, right now, I challenge you to logically demolish the general outline I gave for the link between evolution and moral sentiments. Tell me where the logic is wrong.

'you may not be aware of the number of psychologists and philosophers who are working to understand the very problem you've posed." I am.

You are? Name three. I challenge you again--name three.

Very good. Now, if I was you, I would tell the other believers in evolution to quit talking about things that even you still don't completely understand.

Second, that would mean neither you nor anyone else could talk about God. Because you don't fully understand God. Trust me, I go to church and read my Bible--if you claim to fully understand God I'll call you a blasphemer. So either retract that claim or commit to not talking about God again.

Then again, maybe you should just take your own advice and quit talking about evolutionary theory, since you understand it less fully than most of us here do.

But don't forget my challenge! Respond to my challenge! Tell me why the forces of natural selection operating on a social species wouldn't/couldn't create a sense or moral sentiments.

Posted by: James Hanley | December 30, 2007 6:19 PM

Oh, Julia, I did misunderstand you. I thought we were talking about human behavior, not about parts of the human body.

You are the one who talked about parts of the human body (i.e. biochemical structures in the brain) being good or bad. I was objecting to that.

In fact, if you want to be consistent with the evolution, you should say:

"My brain have evolved with the bio-chemo-electrical patterns that react by far the most positively to the theory of evolution..."

Add to it the fact that those patterns were constructed in interaction with my environment, including what I've read about science, brains, and the theory of evolution, and I can agree. So often you get so close to accuracy, and then stop or contradict yourself.

Please do focus on the comments from James. I think it could clarify a lot for you if you respond thoughtfully, not flippantly, to him.

Good night. God bless.

Posted by: JuliaL | December 30, 2007 6:32 PM

JuliaL wrote: God is not a physical thing, or law, or whatever, that can be analyzed by scientific methods.

How do you know this with such certainty?

Posted by: tomh | December 30, 2007 6:39 PM

I perfectly agree with you that you guys don't have any basis for moral judgments, not yet. You are still working on it, right? And one day you will find that mysterious "missing link" that transforms biochemical processes into moral sentiments.

It must be terrible to be such a slave to the naturalistic fallacy and not even realize it.

Posted by: Gretchen | December 30, 2007 6:51 PM

If you want to know how morality evolved, sorry-- that's a question still very much in the works. There are a variety of different opinions, but at this point we don't know a lot.

Thank you, Gretchen. (Thank you, James, too.) That's my point: You don't know. The only difference is that I can see you will never know, unless you invent some mystical missing link between biochemical processes and morality - which is what some of you are trying to do here with "interaction," "environment," etc. And you claim that one day you will know. But concerning the present, we are on the same page: YOU DON'T KNOW.

Now, humble yourselves, admit you don't know, and quit making arrogant judgments about things you don't know a lot about. That's all.

Of course, you can be the ambitious fools who are eager to parade their ignorance before the world. It's your choice.

Oh, the books. I've read them, with the exception of Minds and Morals. The best I can say for them is that the authors carefully avoid mentioning philosophers that disagree with them. So much for your beloved philosophers.

Posted by: BoMar | December 30, 2007 6:59 PM

the most important part of the clip is what RP says initially ie. it is an inapproriate question for the presidency to be decided upon. he is allowed to have his own personal (religious ) views but he is able to separate them from politics. Go RP

Posted by: ben | December 30, 2007 7:01 PM

Just to throw this out there, here's a good starting point that discusses the current direction of studies involved with the evolution of morality:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB411.html

Posted by: doctorgoo | December 30, 2007 7:15 PM

The fact that we do not fully understand the biological mechanisms behind human morality does not mean that we do not understand human morality.

Wow, you understand morality without understanding the basis for morality? Isn't that a miraculous ability?

Humans did not have to evolve morality, they merely had to evolve the capacity for culture: As the evolution of culture is potentially much faster than biological evolution, the biological side of things could have come to a complete stop and we would still have evolved morality, only the substrate would be purely cultural, rather than genetic.

There you go, we discovered the mystical missing link: "capacity for culture." Now, that "capacity for culture" must have some definition on the basis of evolution, right? And when that "capacity for culture" appeared, we are not talking about biological evolution anymore, it is now "cultural evolution."

Now, how can we define that? The Preservation of the Favored Cultures in the Struggle for World Dominion? And how dose morality "evolve" in the cultural evolution? In the biological evolution, we know, evolution is supposedly based on mutations within DNA. But what about the cultural evolution? And, by the way, when that morality evolves, does it have any material carrier, or we have given up on naturalistic explanations whatsoever? I mean, whatever happened to the good old biochemical processes? You don't want to resort to some spiritual explanations, do you all?

Posted by: BoMar | December 30, 2007 7:23 PM

Tiktaalik was sooo good! LOLROF!

Actually, pretty much same happen with the Piltdown Man. They were so sure they found the missing link.

Posted by: BoMar | December 30, 2007 7:27 PM

Ron Paul isn't a libertarian

The libertarians in Houston TX believe otherwise.

Posted by: BoMar | December 30, 2007 7:43 PM

Ah, come on Ed. *grin*

You know how much I love the little absurdities of playing around with the trolls around here!

First you take away Cooler from me at the Ron Paul/Neo-Nazi thread, and now BoMar?

Actually... I'm kind of disappointed in BoMar... (s)he was on quite a roll with the comments, but one could never tell for sure if (s)he was a true troll or just a poor communicator or his/her ideas.

But it just took two comments for me to get him to expose him/herself as a troll. lol

Posted by: doctorgoo | December 30, 2007 8:04 PM

By the way, doctorgoo, did you ever actually try to answer my questions, or were you just watching out for trolls? I never got an answer, and you guys were pretty much on track admitting that you didn't have answers, but hopefully you'll have them in the future.

Gretchen et al already answered your questions. And if your questions didn't make sense or were formed on false premises, then they gave good reasons for why they didn't answer them. So there was nothing more for me to add, other than to point out that studies on evolution/morality were and are being performed.

But it became apparent after a while that you didn't care about responding to their answers, just repeating your poorly formed and/or premised questions.

Really, BoMar, what do you expect? You handwave away an important missing link like Tiktaalik by implying it was a hoax... and you expect people to take you seriously?

Sorry, I'm sure you're a decent person, but you've got only yourself to blame for this.

Posted by: doctorgoo | December 30, 2007 8:21 PM

If BoMar had just come right out and said that he wants an explanation for how to think about morality in light of what science says about how we actually think morally-- you know, using our biochemical reactions and such-- perhaps this might've been helpful.

But again, that's not a question about evolution, or a challenge to evolution. As kehrsam pointed out, it's not even necessarily the case that morality did evolve. It might just be that we have evolved the capacity for and necessity of living in social groups, and morality arose merely out of that necessity-- and keeps arising, with every successive generation.

It's certainly not fallacious to say that there should be some kind of connection between what is and what ought to be. In fact, that's what the last book I suggested (Mind and Morals: Essays on Ethics and Cognitive Science) is all about...how to derive an ethics informed by what we know of the brain and how it works. But again, it's certainly not a refutation of evolution, or evolution's importance, if such a standard has not yet been derived.

Posted by: Gretchen | December 30, 2007 8:43 PM

BoMar:
"Of course. That's what I've been saying all along. Not only this, I've been saying that on the basis of evolutionary theory you can't even define "behavior" as such, let alone "good" or "bad" behavior. And that therefore no evolutionist can legitimately judge Ron Paul for what he believes or not."

So, if this is what you've been saying all along, can I make a judgment on this statement and expect you to accept that it applies to what you've been saying? Good. Ok.

You say that "on the basis of evolutionary theory you can't even define "behavior" as such, let alone "good" or "bad" behavior." Well, obviously. Biology is based on more than evolution. If you accept only evolution as your basis for theorizing, of course you aren't going to learn anything about "good" or "bad" behavior.

You then go on to say that because this is true (it is; so what?), evolutionists can't judge Ron Paul for not believing in evolution. This is an absurd statement. Evolutionists don't only think about evolution, 100% of the time. Nor is it the basis for everything they think. They developed their moral sense and their judgment independently of their acceptance of evolution. However, their moral sense and their judgment (primarily the latter) lead them to accept evolution when confronted with the piles and piles of evidence for it (and why do you say this didn't convert a majority of parents? Links, please). That Ron Paul's judgment didn't lead him to accept evolution when confronted with the piles and piles of evidence allows us to infer certain things about his judgment regarding scientific matters (namely, that his judgment is poor in those areas by our standards).

Posted by: Math_Mage | December 30, 2007 9:33 PM

Of course Damian is right. Now when BoMar is banished and can not defend his position, we can't come to another conclusion.

I wonder if you realize TAG wasn't around 10 years ago, and today is so influential. Have you thought why it is so? Damian's points are a little too simplistic attempt to deal with it. I doubt it is going to have any success. TAG-ers seem to have good answers to his points.

Posted by: Monet | December 30, 2007 10:19 PM

I'm a very educated man.

I was educated about the facts of evolutionary theory and belief from the most fervent evolution-believing scientist/biologist at Michigan State University and he did not convince me that science you cannot observe, test, or repeat in present day real-time is stuff that can stand up to become a "law" let alone an unchallengeable fact.

The moment we start pushing people around because we fail to believe what you believe... hey look! Half the people here are guilty of an esoteric form of religious persecution!!!

Posted by: Chris Arndt | December 30, 2007 11:02 PM

It's the usual problem.

After a lifetime of loving and compassionate telepathic communications -- mostly on a personal level with purely personal applicability -- from their Creator, there's not much you can say to a long-time Christian about whether God exists. They see every argument as a pointless hypothetical exercise: "Yes, yes, that'd be a very convincing argument against God's existence, if He hadn't personally read me the riot act over [fill in some sin here] just this morning."

This dynamic spills over to the evolution discussion. Christians by-and-large don't evaluate anything that touches on spiritual matters on the basis of the latest science, and that can be frustrating to a pro-science guy like me.

But it's not (as is often caricatured by secularists) because they regard "faith" as being a justification for belief equivalent to reason. I used to think that; now I wonder why non-Theists get that wrong so often.

It's actually because of the Inter-Personal dynamic. They have a **relationship** with God as they understand Him. To cede any ground to someone whose sole purpose in "debunking Genesis" is as a warm-up for "debunking God entirely" just seems like a personal betrayal of their Closest Friend.

An Analogy: Someone you know starts talking about your wife (or daughter, or mother; someone you love, anyway), criticizing her driving, saying she's got a "lead foot." He's being obnoxious about it. He has a habit of criticizing your her about various things; you're not sure why. And just last week, you happen to know she got pulled over for speeding. What do you do? What do you feel?

If it's me, I'll have a mix of emotions. In the back of my mind, I may know he's got a point. But my instinct is going to be to defend the **person**. To do otherwise feels like a personal betrayal.

This comes closer to the meaning of the word "faith" as the Christians themselves define it...if I understand them. Apparently, the word "faith" didn't get the meaning of "belief sans evidence" until the 18th century, anyway: It was an intentional insult by the Voltaire crowd to use the word in that way.

The Bible apparently talks about a person's "faithfulness" in a relational way; i.e., the way a dog can be "faithful" or a wife can be "faithful." I can sort of buy that; what purpose did a pre-scientific culture have for defining the word "faith" the way we define it today? None. But being *loyal* is a different matter. The whole "faith" thing between God and man in the Bible is relational, then: God says, "You can rely on Me. But can I rely on you?"

So, I wouldn't give Ron Paul too much grief. I'm sure he's a perfectly competent doctor, and sufficiently well-educated. It's just that when you insult the people he cares about the most, his instincts tell him to use his "loyalty" neurons more quickly than his "book-learnin'" neurons.

You may think it silly, but perhaps that'll allow you to view his (and other Christians') resistance on this issue in a more charitable way. They're not stupid or irrational. But they go to excessive lengths to show loyalty to the best friend they ever knew.

Posted by: R.C. | December 30, 2007 11:39 PM

I've banged my head against that wall enough times that I simply don't bother anymore. They can spew their bullshit somewhere else.

And that's the sad part of it. They do spew it, and very successfully at that. It's about time for us to understand how serious the situation is. TAG is much more appealing to uneducated people than we care to admit.

Unfortunately, you did a poor job with BoMar. He did ask good questions, and you did not care to answer them. Guess who will look like the winner for the undecided. And it is the undecided that you want to convince. Good luck in your endeavors.

Posted by: Monet | December 30, 2007 11:56 PM

"BoMar ... did ask good questions"

While I tend to agree, I think Mr. Hanley was on the right track:

"You've claimed absolute knowledge about ..."

BoMar seemed to be challenging relativism - a perfectly legitimate tack - but injecting occasional absolutist statements while doing so. And such blatant inconsistency is confusing to the logical mind.

Since we are all effectively required to be absolutists in casual conversation (otherwise a relativist would have to preface every single statement with "IMO"), it leaves us open to the kind of arguments BoMar was making. But once one notices what's going on, a committed relativist should submit to the consequences of relativism (as BoMar suggested) and simply say "IMO, you are right - we are basically "making it all up". And IMO, so are you. So what? IMO, that's the best we all can do. IMO, we will inevitably "make up" different things and just have to accommodate those differences. Have a good life".

Several commenters (Julia and Gretchen, eg) went most of the way down this path but for one reason or another stopped short along the way.

- Charles

Posted by: ctw | December 31, 2007 10:55 AM

How could any person have gradutated from a decent medical school and fail to accept the theory of evolution in the 21st century? Bush has already made the US the laughingstock of the First World with his anti-scientific policies. This just proves that Ron Paul deserves to hold no higher office than he already does as a representative from Texas. In fact, the "Peter Principle" is already in effect in his case.

Posted by: ron powell | December 31, 2007 4:29 PM

"I bring this up because you've entitled this post "Ron Paul Rejects Evolution," but in the short, truncated video clip, Paul simply says that neither science nor religion offers absolute answers."

Ron Paul: "It's a theory, the theory of evolution, and I DON'T ACCEPT IT." (emphasis mine)

At least a dozen people have tried to say this, but I'm not sure they heard this sentence.

Posted by: Math_Mage | December 31, 2007 5:04 PM

As demonstrated by previous wartime movements against civil liberties, this "evolution" as you put it is unnatural.

i think my phrasing was bad there, it is 'natural' for any organization to change in ways it thinks are necessary to survive. i should have said; "is this adaptation good or bad?" (good for the vast majority). I think it is good only for a small very rich segment of the population. whatever my cute turn on the theme, it is a fete accompli unless a popular backlash begins promptly. the more time given for the apparatus to be installed makes it more difficult, exponentially. it is already legally feasible to jail someone advocating a dismantling of the federal govt, without notice or trial. and now it is also legal for the President to muster troops to put down any situation deemed a threat - with an open interpretation of 'threat', which pretty much seals the final obstacle to suspension of all other 'rights'. the only thing that has allowed these major blows to the Constitution is the belief that our benevolent leaders wouldn't use such power unwisely!

i think a strong showing for Paul at the very least would provide some measure of the temperature of the populace. his recent success is a surprise to me as i had pretty much assumed my Libertarianisms were very fringe and that most people genuinely weren't worried about it, but i think that may be more a phenomenon of the also-in-bed major media. we can't even trust the published polling results, being bought and paid for by the same institutions.

and btw, things still are pretty nice by world standards, clean running water, shelter, heat and food for practically everyone and it goes way up from there. though you are right, we've recently been mortgaged to the hilt and have lost untold stature, WE will pay for their Empire building.

Posted by: bstender | December 31, 2007 7:00 PM

such movements go against the grain of American politics and are generally reversible

a fair point, and the recent groundswell for RP seems to support your contention. i'd like to hear more about what forces did cause the reversals, were there popular uprisings or did the good senators take it upon themselves to reverse things?

i hope it will happen again, but doubt it will absent any significant complaints from the public.

Posted by: bstender | December 31, 2007 9:22 PM

While we don't know his actual views, his rejection of the current theory as being imperfect would not be "wacko."

Really? I call that dishonest, then.

You DO know what theories in science are for, right?

Posted by: gwangung | December 31, 2007 10:00 PM

I don't really think so, since that would require us to actually know what it is Ron Paul or his movement stands for

agreed, rich fodder for research, but the mere act of choosing an outside candidate would be momentous. sad commentary, to be sure.

Posted by: bstender | January 1, 2008 4:29 AM

"The question is not did evolution happen, but is it totally random or is there some intelligence involved in pushing it along the way. While we don't know his actual views, his rejection of the current theory as being imperfect would not be "wacko.""

Evolution is NOT totally random (random mutations lead to nonrandom selection leads to change in population - the only random component is the mutation). Nor does it depend on "some intelligence" pushing it along. That's a different theory.

If Ron Paul rejected "the current theory" because it's not perfect, he's scientifically ignorant. No theory is perfect. No theory is perfectable. If he rejected it because he prefers the theory that "some intelligence" is pushing species along genetic pathways, he can do that, but there's no evidence for that add-on to evolutionary theory.

Posted by: Math_Mage | January 1, 2008 8:05 AM

"Not too hard to make an experiment to demonstrate natural selection. Tie an immunity gene to a glow-in-the-dark gene and recombine it into a population of bacteria, then expose it to the relevant destructive agent. By changing its environment, you influence natural selection to select for bacteria that have the immunity gene (remember, not all the bacteria get it when you do the recombination). After a little while, you'll have a population composed completely of bacteria with the immunity gene (and since they have the glow-in-the-dark gene as well, you'll get a nice pretty bacterial colony). I remember that one from sophomore year in high school. That is a real-time experiment that provides significant evidence for evolutionary theory."

Which doesn't prove the course of history that dogmatic otherwise-scientists suggested.

For Pete's sake: I swear some of you are missing the point of the gol-danged argument. It's the stuff that cannot be tested I'm pissed about. Why don't some people get that? You cannot prove or test a phenomena that happened purportedly in ages past by replicating the supposed conditions in a modern day setting, simply for the reason that you cannot prove that those conditions existed in the time being purported.

Posted by: Chris Arndt | January 1, 2008 11:01 AM

For Pete's sake: I swear some of you are missing the point of the gol-danged argument. It's the stuff that cannot be tested I'm pissed about. Why don't some people get that? You cannot prove or test a phenomena that happened purportedly in ages past by replicating the supposed conditions in a modern day setting, simply for the reason that you cannot prove that those conditions existed in the time being purported.

This seems unnecessarily ignorant of both science and the reason for doing the work in the first place. It dismisses all historical sciences...and would naturally exclude criminal forensics (which differs only in detail, not in principle).

Posted by: gwangung | January 1, 2008 11:10 AM

Actually Monet, I thought that you were BoMar, using a different pseudonym... considering the fact that you appeared only after BoMar left, and that you kept insisting about how devastating his claims were.

Perhaps you are, perhaps not, but all that I know is that he kept avoiding the arguments made by others (to the point of being extremely annoying), and then he made the absurd claim that Tiktaalik was faked.

Sorry... A devastating argument that does not make.... Only the scientifically uneducated and the already-believers would find it credible.

I can guarantee that the science behind evolution can stand on it's own against such a challenge.

Posted by: doctorgoo | January 1, 2008 11:52 AM

First, let me say that I am not only a creationist skeptic, but also I am a skeptic of the current brand of faith that evolutionists adhere to in this country. Ron Paul actually expressed a far healthier skepticism when he stated: "I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. [So I just don't...if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have ours...if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office.]", than the lack of skepticism that is often witnessed on this and other forums for their own apparently faith-based religion of evolution.

I am not a Christian and hold it to be as equally superstitious as serpent and egg worship however, the faith required for evolution is just as convoluted as any other belief system. It appears that, in many cases, people have simply exchanged one set of faith-based tenants for another. I happen to believe there is far more to learn about such matters by looking at the loopholes, the missing parts of a theory potential than was is commonly held has true scientific law.

1. Do we absolutely have evidence that life began in a primordial soup [by official definition: a solution rich in organic compounds in the primitive oceans of the earth, from which life is hypothesized [by definition: to put something forward as a hypothesis] to have originated and do we know what that primordial soup consisted of? Can anyone on this forum tell me? So, the basis of the process is a complete assumption, a theory, not an absolute or provable fact, correct? It is an unknown factor in the equation of evolution and yet we tend to take the later parts of evolution granted as factual based upon a primordial progenitor theory.

2. Can the creation of a living cell be replicated in a controlled laboratory atmosphere? No, therefore we have no scientific evidence concerning the conditions necessary to bring about life. In other words, it is just theory.

3. Is it possible to show a mathematical probability that any known given conditions would result in the formation of a viable living cell capable of reproducing? No, therefore it is just a theory, correct?

4. If evolution were a principle science, instead of a theory, it would provide the consistent application of law throughout the entire process. If therefore, evolution is based on laws that normally govern science why does accepted process of evolution not consistently follow such laws? There are a multitude of examples where it appears that there is no consistent law that governs the evolutionary process. Speculation tends to substitute science within the evolutionist religion more times than not.

To work, a theory should be both internally and externally consistent throughout its application. It must also consistently map throughout the reality of the world in which we live and it must absolutely follow known classical mechanics instead of extremely vague faith and speculation that passes as sound and complete science that follows such classical known mechanics. One of the things I have noted about evolutionists is that they tend to switch their opinions when it comes to the mechanics of the evolutionary transformation process when it is applied to different species. What is true for one species may not apply to another species when the evidence is contradictory. There is the altar of traditional evolutionary theory that expresses itself in a gradual process and then there is the altar "punctuate equilibrium" to explain extremely rapid life-burst of accelerated evolution. It is not that any of the theories that form the basis for evolution are necessarily without merit, but they remain, for the most part, as unestablished as their religious counterparts.

In my book, it is far more reasonable to question everything than to simply accept anything, especially based on a hypothesis that is widely accepted as "truth".

As Ron Paul stated, we are not at the point to definitively say one way or the other. He happens to believe in a creator, I don't, but he has every right to believe anything he wants. I happen to be of the opinion, based upon his political stance, that he would not be overly influenced by his religious beliefs while in office.

Posted by: Republicae | January 1, 2008 12:11 PM

"This seems unnecessarily ignorant of both science and the reason for doing the work in the first place. It dismisses all historical sciences...and would naturally exclude criminal forensics (which differs only in detail, not in principle)."

Yes but almost all of those have human witnesses at some point.
I don't dismiss events that may be observable.

Although I am skeptical of historical sciences.

Ultimately that's the basis of my reason and criticism. If we can't see it it is a religious argument, not a scientific argument, and I resent that a whole lot of bastards take shots at people's right to be skeptical. Especially someone who is not a scientist, as I am not a scientist, should never be condemned of being skeptical of actual scientists who claim stuff that sounds funny to me.

Posted by: Chris Arndt | January 1, 2008 12:27 PM

Failing to accept science is not a personal belief. It is a personal bullhead-itude, a personal pandering to the basest of bases, a personal mental block, and/or a personal sack'o'crap. If we are to take him at his word, what would President Paul do with NASA? Would he support the use of antibiotics? Would he fund science education?

Belief has nothing to do with science. Science has nothing to do with belief. I don't "believe" in evolution, I accept it as fact because I keep my head in places other than my own poopchute.

Posted by: Laurel | January 1, 2008 1:27 PM

No, I am not BoMar, and you don't have to build conspiracy theories around my participation. I just read many sites and blogs and follow the development of their arguments. And I notice that we keep telling ourselves how illogical TAG is, in the face of growing presence of TAG-gers on the web and in the public and political discourse.

I wrote not to argue but to point to the fact that there is more than what meets the eye. It makes no sense to only tell ourselves how stupid, illogical, and absurd BoMar or TAG-gers are. Makes no sense to banish them and return to our convenient company where no one challenges us. He expected to be banished, and I believe that was his goal. And we don't seem to give this possibility a thought.

Posted by: Monet | January 1, 2008 2:49 PM

Monet,

Here, apparently, is another TAG-ger, iamso910. Would you respond to him, please? You may be right that the responses to BoMar were not the most helpful possible, and I'd like to see modelled a more useful set of responses. I look forward to reading a conversation between the two of you. (No, there is no sarcasm intended in this comment. I'm always eager to learn better communication techniques.)

Posted by: JuliaL | January 1, 2008 4:13 PM

Thank God this comment thread will never die.

Monet: How, precisely, should we have responded to BoMar other than the manner in which Gretchen, Julia, and myself (and others) did so? Are you saying it is counterproductive to show how each of his arguments was fallacious and that he has no real understanding of logic, epistemology, history or science?

I'm not sure there was a better answer for his contention that we are incapable of believing what we tell him we in fact believe. And for that we are called arrogant. I guess I'm arrogant.

Which does not change the fact that TAG is nothing but word salad.

Posted by: kehrsam | January 1, 2008 4:46 PM

Everyone should look at Ron Paul's actual answer before leaping to any conclusions about his intellectual fitness for the white house. The edited propaganda version designed to instill fear in the "intellectually curious" is not worthy of a website dedicated to the impartial search for "truth". See both versions of Paul's response here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018118.html

Posted by: Manny | January 1, 2008 6:15 PM

"I am afraid the discussion is becoming too heated for me to enjoy it"

whoa, monet. I wasn't intending to be heated - I'm a milk-toast who appreciated your comments and thought they were valuable. Otherwise, I wouldn't have responded.

As for the distressing (and surprising) infusion of religion into the political arena, I agree entirely. I just don't see the situation being quite so bleak. So far, the courts seem to be doing a pretty credible job on our behalf. Of course, that may very well change with this new SCOTUS crew.

- Charles

Posted by: ctw | January 1, 2008 7:57 PM

Yes but almost all of those have human witnesses at some point.

Um, no. That is not correct.

You obviously have no grasp on the historical sciences or what are involved in them (You could also say that you're...ahem...soft on crime, but I disgress....). You may want to reexamine what's involved and try again.

Posted by: gwangung | January 1, 2008 10:13 PM

Just check out Ron Paul's Website people. The man is a Christian theocrat plain and simple. We already live in a modified Christian theocracy. If Paul came to power he would do his best to further that cause by doing away with abortion, stem cell research, etc.

Posted by: Mark L in Houston | January 2, 2008 7:06 AM

Do we absolutely have evidence that life began in a primordial soup [by official definition: a solution rich in organic compounds in the primitive oceans of the earth, from which life is hypothesized [by definition: to put something forward as a hypothesis] to have originated and do we know what that primordial soup consisted of?

Can anyone on this forum tell me? So, the basis of the process is a complete assumption, a theory, not an absolute or provable fact, correct? It is an unknown factor in the equation of evolution and yet we tend to take the later parts of evolution granted as factual based upon a primordial progenitor theory.

Can the creation of a living cell be replicated in a controlled laboratory atmosphere? No, therefore we have no scientific evidence concerning the conditions necessary to bring about life. this is totally irrelevant. Even if it were somehow demonstrated that this could not have happened, it would not change any of the evidence that evolution happened

Is it possible to show a mathematical probability that any known given conditions would result in the formation of a viable living cell capable of reproducing?

No, therefore it is just a theory, correct?

If evolution were a principle science, instead of a theory, it would provide the consistent application of law throughout the entire process. If therefore, evolution is based on laws that normally govern science why does accepted process of evolution not consistently follow such laws? There are a multitude of examples where it appears that there is no consistent law that governs the evolutionary process. Speculation tends to substitute science within the evolutionist religion more times than not.

Posted by: G. Shelley | January 2, 2008 9:56 AM

Republicae:
" 1. Do we absolutely have evidence that life began in a primordial soup [by official definition: a solution rich in organic compounds in the primitive oceans of the earth, from which life is hypothesized [by definition: to put something forward as a hypothesis] to have originated and do we know what that primordial soup consisted of? Can anyone on this forum tell me? So, the basis of the process is a complete assumption, a theory, not an absolute or provable fact, correct? It is an unknown factor in the equation of evolution and yet we tend to take the later parts of evolution granted as factual based upon a primordial progenitor theory."

Except that you're talking about the origin of life, which has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution doesn't care whether God created bacteria or they formed without assistance over long periods of time; evolution only cares whether those bacteria follow the principles of natural selection, heritable variation, etc. So your argument here is irrelevant.

"2. Can the creation of a living cell be replicated in a controlled laboratory atmosphere? No, therefore we have no scientific evidence concerning the conditions necessary to bring about life. In other words, it is just theory."

Irrelevant to evolution, but I will go a little further than that. Scientists have shown that in hypothetical early-Earth conditions, the building blocks of macromolecules (carbs, lipids, proteins, nucleic acids) or things resembling those building blocks will spontaneously arise; that given those building blocks, macromolecules can spontaneously arise; that given those macromolecules, phospholipid bilayers (cell barriers) will spontaneously form; and that given all of this, one can see the beginnings of heritable variation through RNA. This was well-known to the point that it was in my AP Biology textbook (Campbell and Reece, 7th Ed). So no, we haven't made life from abiotic components. Doesn't mean we can't, or won't, given all the progress that HAS been made.

"3. Is it possible to show a mathematical probability that any known given conditions would result in the formation of a viable living cell capable of reproducing? No, therefore it is just a theory, correct?"

Once again, this deals only with abiogenesis and has nothing to do with evolution. Furthermore, you act as if theories can become something more, which is categorically untrue, as has been explained several times on this comment thread.

"4. If evolution were a principle science, instead of a theory, it would provide the consistent application of law throughout the entire process. If therefore, evolution is based on laws that normally govern science why does accepted process of evolution not consistently follow such laws? There are a multitude of examples where it appears that there is no consistent law that governs the evolutionary process. Speculation tends to substitute science within the evolutionist religion more times than not. "

Are you going to provide some examples of these "accepted" processes that don't "consistently follow such laws"? Are they going to be more persuasive than evidence of punctuated equilibrium (explained by scientists already) or coevolution (explained by scientists already) or evolved complexity (explained by scientists already)?

"To work, a theory should be both internally and externally consistent throughout its application. It must also consistently map throughout the reality of the world in which we live and it must absolutely follow known classical mechanics instead of extremely vague faith and speculation that passes as sound and complete science that follows such classical known mechanics."

Er...yes. So?

"One of the things I have noted about evolutionists is that they tend to switch their opinions when it comes to the mechanics of the evolutionary transformation process when it is applied to different species. What is true for one species may not apply to another species when the evidence is contradictory."

You mean different species follow different parts of evolutionary theory? NOWAI! *gasp* *faint*

Of course different rules apply to different species in different situations. Animals that have symbiotic relationships have different evolutionary constraints than animals that have parasitic relationships have different evolutionary constraints than animals that have neither. That evolution attempts to explain all three is not evidence that it is inconsistent.

"There is the altar of traditional evolutionary theory that expresses itself in a gradual process and then there is the altar "punctuate equilibrium" to explain extremely rapid life-burst of accelerated evolution. It is not that any of the theories that form the basis for evolution are necessarily without merit, but they remain, for the most part, as unestablished as their religious counterparts."

You mean religions have the same level of evidence backing them up as evolution does? News to me...

Posted by: Math_Mage | January 2, 2008 7:49 PM

Too bad BoMar was banished. I was really enjoying the back and forth. I would have asked BoMar/others to do Leibniz's thought experiment. Make the human brain a large factory in which we can drive around and look at everything. Nowhere would we see anything we could call a "thought", much less anything like "truth", "love" or "good". Or you can ask, "Do extremely advanced AI computers "know" they know or can they?" This is the problem that BoMar was getting at. It's a legitimate problem and Monet is absolutely right about dealing with it properly. I would have liked to see the argument elaborated with BoMar.

Posted by: Manny | January 6, 2008 6:00 PM

Could someone point me to an something that refutes this?

http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode.htm

Thanks...

Posted by: Doug | January 15, 2008 7:01 PM

I'm always fascinated whenever somebody suggests that evolution is false, particularly if they are scientists themselves. Evolutionists have gotten so dogmatic about their beliefs that they allow no room for questioning. Observe what happens when a professor at a major university presents anything that contradicts the accepted tenets of evolution. Evolution might have contained some semblance of science at one time, but today it seems to be more about politics than science.

Posted by: mroberts | February 15, 2008 6:57 PM

I'm always fascinated whenever somebody suggests that evolution is false, particularly if they are scientists themselves. Evolutionists have gotten so dogmatic about their beliefs that they allow no room for questioning. Observe what happens when a professor at a major university presents anything that contradicts the accepted tenets of evolution. Evolution might have contained some semblance of science at one time, but today it seems to be more about politics than science.

Actually, "evolutionists" allow plenty of room for questioning. Their JOB is to question various bits of evolution. The difference is, instead of throwing up their hands and saying "well, God must be doing it!" they develop new theories to explain the occurrences from a naturalistic perspective. When someone presents a rant that contradicts evolution, he gets laughed out of the room. When someone presents evidence that contradicts accepted evolutionary theory, new theories are developed that explain both the older science and the new phenomenon. This is called "the scientific method." Maybe you've heard of it.

Posted by: Math_Mage | March 16, 2008 4:57 PM

What ever happened to Ron Paul, anyway?

Posted by: trademark lawyers | October 12, 2008 1:58 AM

...sez the guy who posted his comment more than a year after the post went up.

Posted by: Raging Bee | January 27, 2009 11:36 PM

And Creationism* is sooooo SMART, right sport33? {rolls eyes] -DJ
*or 'Creation Science', or 'Teach the Contraversy', or 'Academic Freedom' or... whatever it's deluded disciples are calling it this week.

Posted by: DingoUack | January 27, 2009 11:46 PM

Good for you, Sport33! I like your spirit! You and I are birds of a feather, because I think heliocentrism is just dumb. And, I've got my issues with cell theory the smartness of cell theory. And you can't prove it, either! If all cells arise from pre-existing cells, then why do we still have cells? Huh? Answer that, evilutionists.

*rolls eyes*

Posted by: Josh | January 28, 2009 6:16 AM