Ron Paul Thinks Evolution is Just a “Theory”, and Doesn’t Believe In It [With Quote]

That’s what actually makes Ron Paul great. Yeah he might not believe in evolution and he may be pro-life, he might even be crazy enough to believe that the earth is only 5000 years old, but he will never purpose legislation that will force his opinion on every American.

I hear you, and I see what you’re saying, but at the same time you have to wonder what would happen if he were to suddenly change his mind. I mean, if God wants certain things, but the constitution wants something else…how long can the constitution win?

We’re basically banking on him never interpreting God’s will to go against his previously held policies of separation. It’s just not a good position to be in.

Daniel, how can someone like you who I assume has some kind of knowledge of the English language have been so thrown by his statements?

It is called the “theory of evolution” because that is exactly what it is…A THEORY! You are an idiot. If you believe that evolution is the answer, than you are more ignorant than people that continue reading your rubbish. I’m not even concerned about the belief itself, but the way you overlook the FACT that it is a Theory. The reason why it is NOT called the LAW of Evolution is because it hasn’t been proven to be law. There are other instances and scientific findings that continue to be un-proven by the THEORY of evolution. Take the LAW of Physics…basically there is a law that says that no matter can be created or destroyed, you can just change its present existence. The theory of evolution is shot down by this LAW. Look it up on the internet, I am sure you can find it in wikipedia. Next look at the new studies about how we are evolving faster than previously predicted. This would also upset the basic premise of evolution and the time with which it takes for an organism to evolve. Thats why its a THEORY. Look that word up in the dictionary. Ron Paul is correct…..it is still a theory. You know it used to be a theory that the world was flat……………what a kook you would have been to think otherwise.

By the way, I would be more worried about a President who had NO belief in a supreme being. He has no one to answer to. He could swing further out of control if he decided that he was just going to be worm food when he died, so he might as well be the most powerful person on Earth while he has a chance.

@RUKIDDEN

It’s not the fact that he called it a theory; it’s the fact that he doesn’t believe in it. As for your “proof” against evolution using the conservation of matter…please read more. You’re confused about closed vs. open systems.

“He will never purpose legislation that will force his opinion on every American”????!!!!

No not every American – only half of ALL Americans. He may not force it on a man, but he sure as hell will force it on a woman.

He is trying to CHANGE the constitution to bend to his religious beliefs:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02597 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01095

What else will he corrupt the constitution for?

I’m saddened by the fact that the general public doesn’t understand the word theory as used by scientists. We have a theory of gravity. That’s right, Rukidden, gravity is a scientific theory. So is evolution.

For the record, LAWS of Physics are also theories. They are things that seem to be true and are used in drawing conclusions about the world. The law you refer to is the law of conservation of matter. It is no longer stated in that form of course since matter is created and destroyed all the time (it’s what E=Mc^2 is all about). For the record, that law has absolutely nothing to say about evolution. (Evolution doesn’t claim that matter is created!) Perhaps you’re thinking of the law that says that the universe moves from order to disorder (this is called the Law of Entropy .. or the second law of thermodynamics). But this only says that a system with no external energy source will move in the direction of greater entropy (essentially the less ordered state). It does not say anything about systems with external energy sources (like that big ball of fusion we call the sun).

@Dan: Long ago you listed a bunch of beliefs of Ron Paul (ones that concerned you if I recall correctly). As I recall, several of them were deal breakers to me.

@Ruddiken: The current US administration has been quite power hungry and has even stepped on the constitution when it interfered with their power. This doesn’t have anything to do with whether the president is or is not religious.

@RUDIKKEN

I am strongly bending to the notion that there is nothing else after death, not a 100% belief, but I am strongly turning that way more and more as I think about it. BUT, that doesn’t mean I have nothing to answer to, that I have gone completely insane and have no worries about consequences.

There are the people that come after me to answer to. Just because a person doesn’t believe that they are going to burn in Hell or ascend to Heaven if they don’t behave morally in life, doesn’t mean they feel that they can do whatever they want.

@Daniel

I have been in the same boat with this for candidates all my voting life. I have taken crap all my life for being non-christian in htis country.

But, can a candidate seriously run in the USA without being christian?

Sorry I should have been more to the point when saying that matter cannot be created or destroyed, I was refering to the “big Bang” theory and the idea of creationism. But here are some credible examples of information dealing with the theory of evolution and the problems with the theory. Michael Denton’s “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” and a book called “Darwins Black Box” by Behe, are good places to start.

All presidents are bending policy towards their beliefs, it amazes me that those who are concerned about Pauls beleifs have no qualms about any of the other candidates beleifs. Do you truly think that known womanizers, thiefs, tax evaders and liars would be less worriesome than someone who believes in a good that preaches peace and understanding, and non-violence. Sure there are always extremeists that go off the deep-end, but Ron Paul preaches no war, and non- interventionalism, why is this worse that liars and thieves who want to continue killing and spending more on killing.

“…it’s the fact that he doesn’t believe in it.”

So basically, you agree that the ‘theory’ of evolution isn’t worthy enough based on scientific principle to be considered a ‘law’ but still have a lowered opinion of the good doctor because he doesn’t have the same belief concerning origins as you do?

There is essentially two belief systems regarding origins, why should you be so critical and dismissive of him simply because he doesn’t accept the version you do?

One of Doctor Paul’s greatest convictions is personal liberty. Is he not able to believe what he wants regarding origins? Even as he is so outspoken in protecting your right to believe in the origin theory of your choice?

A mature and free people do not need to impose their belief system on others. I say the Doctor is free to believe whatever he wants. I do not judge him according to his understanding but according to his actions. In this way, Ron Paul is the only candidate I will vote for.

BTW, I happen to agree with him ;)

I should say that most believers in evolution, by the idea of evolution, believe in some basic “big Bang” type theory. I understand what you are saying about the Law of Conservation of Matter. You have to understand I am typeing 100 words a minute inbetween the boss walking back and forth, and I am trying to put as much in as possible, in as little space as possible, while still expanding on the basic principles I am going for.

@carlm: If several of Ron Pauls beliefs were deal breakers for you…..who are you inclined to vote for, and….are you their fraternal twin?

@eamon: Exactly, so why would Ron Paul do something drastic just because he believes in god?

This is coming from somebody that thinks religion is mostly a crock so keep that in mind when you read my response. The thing that makes science great Daniel, is that scientists are always open to new explanations. A theory in science is basically the simplest explanation based on the evidence one has to try to explain something. If the theory adequately explains the phenomena, it is generally accepted. My personal field is in chemistry so I will use a chemistry example. One of the simplest examples in chemistry is the idea of what makes up an atom. There have been many theories like everything being centralized together in the nucleus to electrons following a circular path around a nucleus that contains protons and neutrons. However, the newest theory on the atom is that you have a central nucleus and electrons don’t exist in a finite area but merely “clouds” of probability where we think the electron may be. The reason it has changed so much over the years is because when new experiments are performed it is necessary to change theory because the old theory is incapable of explaining new phenomena. With that in mind, the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. Can you ever unquestioningly prove that evolution happened? No, not realistically because it wasn’t ever directly observed. Right now the theory of evolution is the simplest model that stands up to most of the observed phenomena so it is the one that is accepted as a reasonable theory. Is it absolute? No, because speaking in absolutes goes against the main idea of science. I think you are exaggerating Dr. Paul’s comments. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that through Dr. Paul’s collegiate career that he understands more about biology and anatomy than you likely do which is part of the reason that he realizes that it is simply a theory. In closing, that is what makes science different from relgion, its ability to change and evolve. Once science stops asking questions, we no longer have science but a blind dogma that is too set in its ways to accept reason and change.

Does his opinion on Evolution Vs. Creationism change anything else he’s said? As he stated at the beginning of where you quote, this isn’t of concern for him in the light of him being or not being the next president since the president doesn’t proside over any scientific bodies. There are two possible things he could do: 1. Use his power to enforce evolution being taught in schools. Since this directly conflicts with his position on national education (that it should be run locally, not nationally) this is an unlikely scenerio. 2. He will withold governmental funding for evolution-based research. I would be willing to bet (but can’t say for sure) that he is against federal funding for any scientific research dealing with evolution, creationism, or any other theories on the origins of man, regardless of his beliefs.

Does his opinion on Evolution Vs. Creationism change anything else he’s said? As he stated at the beginning of where you quote, this isn’t of concern for him in the light of him being or not being the next president since the president doesn’t proside over any scientific bodies. There are two possible things he could do: 1. Use his power to enforce evolution being taught in schools. Since this directly conflicts with his position on national education (that it should be run locally, not nationally) this is an unlikely scenerio. 2. He will withold governmental funding for evolution-based research. I would be willing to bet (but can’t say for sure) that he is against federal funding for any scientific research dealing with evolution, creationism, or any other theories on the origins of man, regardless of his beliefs.

In a nutshell (pun not intended)…Ron Pauls beleif in a minimal Federal Government makes this conversation a moot point. He as president would not have, or want the authority to tell the individual what they should or shouldn’t believe in. In Pauls form of government, the Fed has no say in individual beliefs that do not harm or invade other indvividuals rights. Whereas you have other politicians that want to decide whether abortion should be legal or not, or whether you should be able to own guns, or whether you should be allowed to pray in schools, he wants to stay out of those decisions. He still has his own individual beliefs, but he doesn’t want to impose those on you. He would rather your local governments and their particular beliefs and customs to determine those laws governing those citizens living in that area. I’m sure if you want legal abortion, prostitution, drugs, no prayer in schools, gay marriage and the like…Las Vegas or maybe even San Diego’s local government will make all those LEGAL!!

I think the main point is that a belief system is a very large part of who a person is, can someone really be expected keep from being influenced by their own belief system, no matter how hard they try?

It is scary to those of us who are not part of that belief system.

Hi —

Your complaint illustrates why Paul is so necessary at this point in time.

Let me first state that I am an atheist and have no use for intelligent design, so I am not defending that view.

The frustration you feel comes from the hyper-centralization of power in the US today. Today’s president is exptected to forge (or force) a consensus on everything from defense to abortion to speed limits to Barry Bonds’s urine. Any one person other than yourself is going to disagree with you on something important and have the power to act on it.

Ron Paul’s appeal is based on REMOVING the president’s power to act on this broad range of issues, de-fanging the implied threat of the disagreement.

What are you going to do if want candidate wants the Department of Education to force kids to learn intelligent design, while the other major candidate wants war with Iran? Instead of continually impaling ourselves on these dilemmas, let’s decentralize decision making and bring the power as close to ourselves as possible.

If the Department of Education forces schools to teach intelligent design, what are you going to do about it? I suggest that in a country of 300 million, your input into their decision is zero. You can go to Washington, get arrested, pin the citation on the wall and say oh-what-a-good-boy-am-I. If your local scoolboard does it, you can knock on doors, get in their faces, bang the table and get things changed.

What you want and I want and the Christians want is for there to be some far-off power to which we give tithes and honor in exchange for containing our local institutions within the bounds of justice. Unfortunately, we live in a democracy and the far off power you set up to secure your rights gets voted out of your hands and now the other hand holds the hammer.

It’s time to stop beating each other with it.

Vote Ron Paul.

I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here, thinking the confusion is due to the typical conflation of evolution (fact) and natural selection (theory). When some folks say evolution is a theory, they actually mean natural selection is a theory.

So I give him a pass. And I don’t think it would affect his presidency in the slightest, even if I’m wrong.

@ Mike G.: His statement wasn’t about natural selection. It was about creationism vs. evolution. But, it is true that he downplayed the importance. (I happen to disagree that it isn’t an important reflection on his ability to serve as president in the 21st century.)

@RUKIDDEN: You are correct in implying that I do not agree 100 percent with any of the candidates. But, we are in the midst of an administration that is incredibly anti-science (by which I mean they ignore the advice of the scientific community at almost every turn). In the 21st century, I do not believe that we can afford to have a president who is unwilling to use the best science possible — and one who allows his personal religious beliefs to trump scientific consensus is not one I could possibly support. As I am not a member of a political party, and as this means I cannot vote in the primary in Georgia, I have not made a decision about who to support. I have not followed the candidates well enough to know who has the most sensible plans (and in any case, I have no idea who will be left when I vote in November).

I will say this. When Republicans accuse Democrats of being the “Tax and Spend” party and offer themselves as the “Spend” party, I am offended. It is in fact the JOB of government to tax and spend. In the most basic terms, this is what governments do. One can certainly argue about how much they should spend and on what, but as for taxing .. it seems to me that the level of taxation ought to be determined by the level of spending. That is: Don’t spend more than you take in from taxation. There have at certain times in the history of the US been valid arguments for deficit spending. I don’t believe that this is such a time. People argue about small government vs large government without realizing the absurd fraction of the budget that goes to commitments that the government must keep. In 2002, Social Security, Medicare, and Interest on the debt together accounted for over 40 percent of the spending. National Defense was another 17 percent or so. There’s only so much we can shrink the government (in dollar terms).

I will also say this. I’m OK with education being controlled locally ONLY if there is oversight. We need REAL standards in this country and in too many places we do not have them now. This is leading to a frightening future.

Look at the preface to his comment here. He says it’s an inappopriate question – that the president shouldn’t be deciding on scientific matters.

I think when questions regarding evolution are asked, that it’s a proxy for asking about religion. We want secular presidents but we can’t find any presidents who are secular. Asking about evolution is asking whether a candidate will subordinate their beliefs to a secular authority. Candidates generally don’t shy from questions about evolution in the way they would from directly questioning their religiousity. Hence this makes a useful ‘litmus’ for those who want a secular president but realizes that all the candidates are religious.

Ron Paul has adequately proved that he will subordinate his beliefs to a secular authority by his devotion to the Constitution. He’s 72. He’s been consistent so far. It’s pretty clear he’ll remain so. The litmus which usually works so well to test whether a candidate will be satisfactorily secular doesn’t work very well on him because his personal beliefs have been proven irrelevant – a fact that he comments on with his saying the question is inappropriate.

Daniel,

I think I’ve decided to continue supporting him, since his core beliefs about government seem to be trustworthy, and unrelated to the issue of evolution.

Though I am extremely disappointed and somewhat less supportive of him.

Carl M –

Again, the problem: Oversight is great, but you don’t get to choose who does the overseeing. If you have a secret plan to keep crazies out of office for all time, why didn’t you use it in 2004? What is your plan for when they are the overseer and you the overseen?

Also, you have a Department of Education now. Like the results?

“If you have a secret plan to keep crazies out of office for all time, why didn’t you use it in 2004?”

All I can do is try not to vote for the crazies, and to learn from history. I realize that Paul said that this is not an issue that he’s concerned with .. and it was clear that he was trying to find the right way to express this. I suppose I don’t see how someone who has a religious belief that “A” is true can make a decision that follows logically only if the scientific claim “B” is true (when B contradicts A). I know that sentence could have been phrased better, but I’ll trust you all to be able to parse it.

“Also, you have a Department of Education now. Like the results?”

No. The state of education in the US is pathetic. “No Child Left Behind” should mean something that it doesn’t. It should mean that no 4th grader exists who can’t read, no 7th grader exists who can’t handle fractions, etc. There is actually a VERY simple implementation. Until a child can read, they do not enter the 4th grade. In general: until a child has an appropriate mastery of the Nth grade curriculum, they do not move to grade (N+1). THIS is how we leave no child behind. THIS is how we get parents more interested in their children’s education. The general public has NO CLUE how poor the education of their children is. It’s not a huge secret, but people turn a deaf ear to things they don’t want to hear. And, school systems that promote students who are not ready to move forward enable these deaf ears. But, the solution is not to abolish the Department of Education (as I’m sure someone named Captain Obvious must know).

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.“

United States Constitution, Article VI (emphasis mine)

Ron Paul’s view on the origin of the universe is pretty mainstream for Christiandom. Seriously, how do you people think this will affect his presidency? He wants to eliminate the federal education debacle and quit forcing government propogranda on students, so I imagine that schools would be able to teach whatever they wanted in the classrooms — evolution, creationism, flying-spaghetti-monster-ism… — that’s what freedom is about.

For the record, I am an Atheist and do not share Ron Paul’s religious views, but I believe his voting record is sufficient evidence to establish his qualification to lead this country. All the other candidates are, frankly, full of bullshit and will continue to strangle the last vestiges of liberty that we have.