Ron Paul: doesn't believe in evolution

[ydoaPs]

Is Ron Paul's denial of evolutionary theory relevant to the election?

[bascule]

Yes, I consider science immensely important from a public policy perspective. I'm afraid candidates who decide to cherrypick their scientific facts will not do a good job applying science to public policy.

[Pangloss]

We discussed this on the mod board and got permission to reopen this, we just have to make sure we keep the discussion focused on the political angle and not stray into religious discussion. I will be monitoring the thread closely. Thanks.

[Realitycheck]

Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

[ecoli]

For Huckabee, I think it might be relevant. I don't think a libertarian like Paul will use executive powers to affect us.

 

However, learning that still bothered me, personally.

[CDarwin]

For Huckabee, I think it might be relevant. I don't think a libertarian like Paul will use executive powers to affect us.

 

However, learning that still bothered me, personally.

 

The role that Presidents actually have in affecting the evolution education issue is over-estimated. After all, the judge in the Dover case was a Bush appointee, and Federal appointments are about the only place where Presidents have real influence. From a pure policy angle, it really is, as Huckabee describes it, a non-issue.

 

However, for someone with the level of education Dr. Paul has, denial of evolution shows a willingness to abuse and ignore science. That is legitimately disturbing.

 

Ron Paul really scares me, to be honest. He's as bad an ideologue as Bush, except he replaces neoconservativism with libertarianism and xenophobia. What I've seen of Creationism is that it tends to consist of one part faith, two parts ignorance, and seven parts arrogance (it's a drink mixed on the decimal system, ok?). If Ron Paul can convince himself he knows better than science about evolution, that he can convince himself he knows more than any person about any issue. That's the attitude that screwed up Iraq.

 

Darwin, I'm feeling verbose today.

[ecoli]

Ron Paul really scares me, to be honest. He's as bad an ideologue as Bush, except he replaces neoconservativism with libertarianism and xenophobia.

 

Non-interventionism is xenophobia? Or were you referring to the illegal immigration issue?

 

I don't mind strong ideology... especially if its not given to a candidate by big oil, like Bush. Anyway, candidates have to promote strong ideology to get elected. That doesn't mean they won't work to get things done.

 

If Ron Paul can convince himself he knows better than science about evolution, that he can convince himself he knows more than any person about any issue.

 

Well, if you watch Paul's actual speech, I believe he says a lot about not knowing universal truths, etc. If anything, that tells me he's not interesting in convincing himself that he knows more about the issue than anyone else... rather he argues that we know less about the issue than we should.

I disagree with him, but I'm comfortable with him position.

[ParanoiA]

Is Ron Paul's denial of evolutionary theory relevant to the election?

 

Absolutely not. His agenda is theologically neutral and poses no attack on science. He's a religious dude. And, a perfect example of limiting personal beliefs to the person, not to extend his christianity in legislation. It's about time.

 

The rest of the presidential crop fail to convince me they'll keep their theological components out of government.

 

It's annoying to accept his denial, but I hardly think it compares to war in Iraq, the destruction of the dollar, the security of our borders, our high maintenance empirical infrastructure...etc.

 

I can't imagine how impacting his position on evolution is supposed to be...is there some big multi-billion dollar science bill being drafted right now that hinges on the belief in evolution?

[ydoaPs]

[bascule]

For Huckabee, I think it might be relevant. I don't think a libertarian like Paul will use executive powers to affect us.

 

I guess Paul gets a bye on stem cell funding because he doesn't want to fund anything

[ParanoiA]

I guess Paul gets a bye on stem cell funding because he doesn't want to fund anything

 

Exactly. You're libertarian skills are sharpening up here. See, the people you elect for office don't really have to believe the same things you do - you can disagree on all kinds of stuff as long as you agree that none of you have a right to force your beliefs on each other. The constitution is quite a secular document and doesn't require an atheist to interpret it.

 

His denial of evolution is about as relevant as belief in ghosts. How much do you want to bet of the "evolution believers" in the democrat candidacy that there are some who believe in psychics? Ghosts? Wicca?

 

Interesting how no one asked any of them that question in the debates...

[ecoli]

His denial of evolution is about as relevant as belief in ghosts. How much do you want to bet of the "evolution believers" in the democrat candidacy that there are some who believe in psychics? Ghosts? Wicca?

 

Well, Kucinich swears he's seen a UFO and John Edwards claims that he can talk to dead people (). I think either candidate would make a decent president though.

[Pangloss]

And yet that's okay because they're Democrats. People "feel more comfortable" with Democrats expressing those kind of illogical, anti-scientific beliefs. But when Republicans express them, even with the same caveats, watch out! Doom and gloom!

 

I think the Bush administration has given people valid cause to be concerned about the advancement of science under government tutelage. I just don't think they have a valid reason for being concerned about its advancement under Republicans, per se. That's Hollywood talking, not reality. All those bad guys in the movies, you know.

[Sisyphus]

 

His denial of evolution is about as relevant as belief in ghosts. How much do you want to bet of the "evolution believers" in the democrat candidacy that there are some who believe in psychics? Ghosts? Wicca?

 

Interesting how no one asked any of them that question in the debates...

 

Is there any indication that any of them do? Is there any indication that those are more heavily "Democratic" beliefs? After all, Reagan claimed to see a UFO, too, and he also believed in astrology.

 

BTW, for the record, it matters less to me whether Ron Paul believes in evolution than any of the other candidates, because I don't believe he'll push his view on anyone. It still matters, though, because it demonstrates a capacity for ignoring scientific fact. I wouldn't give anyone a pass for believing in psychics, astrology, etc. for the same reason.

[ecoli]

Well, I'm not a proponent of the idea that science has to be funded by the government. (in fact a good argument against public funding for science is that it can largely escape from the politics behind these issues).

 

However, you can't deny pangloss, that public funding for non-military research is not faring as well under this republican administration then it did during the last democrat one.

 

I'm for returning science research into the hands of the private sector, if it can be done effectively and productively... but that didn't really happen either, did it?

[iNow]

For me, it comes down to trust in one's rationality. HOW can one NOT see the applicability and relevance of evolution in today's society? If something so fundamental is not a part of your being, it calls into question what else in your "being" is missing or misguided.

 

 

And Pangloss... for the record... I think those democrats are idiots too, so please don't paint me with your broad brush strokes of "it's only because they're republicans that you attack them!" rhetoric. You too often miss key details when you do that.

[ParanoiA]

Is there any indication that any of them do? Is there any indication that those are more heavily "Democratic" beliefs? After all, Reagan claimed to see a UFO, too, and he also believed in astrology.

 

Precisely. I was just pointing out that Ron Paul's disbelief in the theory of evolution only seems like a valid negative when you don't consider the same unsubstantiated belief systems prevelant in candidates of either party.

 

If someone is going to make the case that Ron Paul's marbles are in question due to an unsubstantiated belief then that case should be good for all unsubstantiated beliefs by all candidates, regardless of their party affiliation. However, I don't know that these silly belief anomolies are more important, nor impacting on anything government should be involved in.

 

The insinuation is that by denying scientific evidence to the theory, that establishes a precedence of ignoring facts in favor of religious conviction. I tend to agree with that as I have a big problem with the leader of my country allowing his moral obligation to his countrymen to be trumped by his moral obligation to god. However, Ron Paul, clearly does not think that way. He clearly believes in god, but always refers to him as "our creator" - purposely avoiding religious endorsement of any flavor. That sounds like a moral obligation to the countrymen trumping any obligation to god.

 

BTW, for the record, it matters less to me whether Ron Paul believes in evolution than any of the other candidates, because I don't believe he'll push his view on anyone. It still matters, though, because it demonstrates a capacity for ignoring scientific fact. [i']I wouldn't give anyone a pass for believing in psychics, astrology, etc. for the same reason[/i]

 

Only the Sith speak in absolutes, Sisyphus. Pangloss pointed out the Sith Fallacy in another thread.

 

Seriously though, it's a valid point and ultimately I agree. It's a negative on my list of Paul stuff. The saving grace, for me, is the lack of pushing these views.

 

I'm for returning science research into the hands of the private sector, if it can be done effectively and productively... but that didn't really happen either, did it?

 

Oddly enough, this is one area I think government has an obligation to invest in. A case for national security, alone, can be made I think.

[Pangloss]

However, you can't deny pangloss, that public funding for non-military research is not faring as well under this republican administration then it did during the last democrat one.

 

Didn't I just say that?

 

I think the Bush administration has given people valid cause to be concerned about the advancement of science under government tutelage.

 

Full stop, man. I agree.

 

 

I'm for returning science research into the hands of the private sector, if it can be done effectively and productively... but that didn't really happen either, did it?

 

I can't agree with you here, though. I think we need heavy government involvement in scientific research because of the cost and scope involved, and because so many projects would be otherwise overlooked.

 

 

And Pangloss... for the record... I think those democrats are idiots too, so please don't paint me with your broad brush strokes of "it's only because they're republicans that you attack them!" rhetoric.

 

I know you do.

[ecoli]

Oddly enough, this is one area I think government has an obligation to invest in. A case for national security, alone, can be made I think.

I don't think it would unconstitutional, but I don't think it's necessary, for example, that the left demands that the government funds studies about stem cell research and evolution.

 

This leads to problems of course, because these subjects become poorly funded by the government, based on a ideological basis. Changing the source of funding away from government would remove ideology-based political pressure.

 

Of course, it leads to a whole new set of problems where pure science is not funded, due to a lack of immediate profit for companies. Or is there a way around this too?

 

Didn't I just say that?

My apologies... I misread that post.

 

I can't agree with you here, though. I think we need heavy government involvement in scientific research because of the cost and scope involved, and because so many projects would be otherwise overlooked.

I don't think that government shouldn't be involved in funding for research, just that there are unavoidable consequences of it, that I would like to avoid. Relinquishing research back to corporations, like in the old days, would theoretically deal with some of these problems.

though, it would admittedly cause some new ones.

 

But, I think, for things like stem cell research, which have obvious financial returns, should be well embraced and funded by the private sector. We don't necessarily need government in order to make headway into such research. The potential return on holding patents for such technology should be obvious.

[iNow]

But, I think, for things like stem cell research, which have obvious financial returns, should be well embraced and funded by the private sector. We don't necessarily need government in order to make headway into such research. The potential return on holding patents for such technology should be obvious.

 

We do, however, need the government to get out of the way for such research to be fruitful and potentially prosperous. Regulation in an attempt to keep your populace safe is good. Regulation in an attempt to force your (religiously motivated) morality on others, not so good.

[CDarwin]

The insinuation is that by denying scientific evidence to the theory, that establishes a precedence of ignoring facts in favor of religious conviction. I tend to agree with that as I have a big problem with the leader of my country allowing his moral obligation to his countrymen to be trumped by his moral obligation to god. However, Ron Paul, clearly does not think that way. He clearly believes in god, but always refers to him as "our creator" - purposely avoiding religious endorsement of any flavor. That sounds like a moral obligation to the countrymen trumping any obligation to god.

 

You have the point right there, and then you drop it. The fear isn't that Paul will force his moral agenda on everyone else. It is what his adherence to Creationism in what he calls a "scientific debate" (implying his conviction is on what he believes to be scientific grounds) suggests about Paul's willingness to honestly approach expert opinion and empirical evidence (which as an OB-GYN, he should be familiar with).

 

That has implications far beyond science policy, and it is a valid reason for pause.

 

 

 

Here's a relevant commentary by Lawrence Krauss from the New Scientist, if anyone is interested: A Science-Literate President Please

 

But, I think, for things like stem cell research, which have obvious financial returns, should be well embraced and funded by the private sector. We don't necessarily need government in order to make headway into such research. The potential return on holding patents for such technology should be obvious.

 

If it isn't embraced and well-funded by the private sector, that's none of the governments fault. Either the private-sector doesn't see it to be economical to fund such research, or is just doesn't realize it is. Make your pitch to Merck, not the US voters.

 

There are many instances when research has to be undertaken for the public welfare but isn't necessarily profitable for companies. I personally think there should not only more government funding for research, but actually more government control in the form of grant-based incentives to drug companies. If it was realistic, I don't think it would be a terrible idea to decouple drug development from the market entirely, and reward companies with grants for the development of drugs based on their worth.

[Dak]

Is this ron paul showing any signs that he'll try to stop the teaching of evolution, stem cell research, etc?

 

iow, does he (presumably) allow religion to trump science in his private life only, or will he allow it to flow over into his political life aswell?

[ecoli]

If it isn't embraced and well-funded by the private sector, that's none of the governments fault. Either the private-sector doesn't see it to be economical to fund such research, or is just doesn't realize it is. Make your pitch to Merck, not the US voters.

Yep, I agree... but a free market does tend to come up with good solutions, doesn't it? I wonder why no major companies have tackled this yet. Or maybe I just haven't heard about it.

 

 

There are many instances when research has to be undertaken for the public welfare but isn't necessarily profitable for companies. I personally think there should not only more government funding for research, but actually more government control in the form of grant-based incentives to drug companies. If it was realistic, I don't think it would be a terrible idea to decouple drug development from the market entirely, and reward companies with grants for the development of drugs based on their worth.

 

I disagree... who gets to determine the worth of a drug? That's a system ripe for corruption.

 

Is this ron paul showing any signs that he'll try to stop the teaching of evolution, stem cell research, etc?

nope. He doesn't believe the federal government should have a say in most of those things.

iow, does he (presumably) allow religion to trump science in his private life only, or will he allow it to flow over into his political life as well?

again, his libertarian views will most likely prevent this. If anything, I would expect him to veto such legislation if it ever made it through congress.

[iNow]

Yep, I agree... but a free market does tend to come up with good solutions, doesn't it? I wonder why no major companies have tackled this yet. Or maybe I just haven't heard about it.

 

Remember... any market regulated by government is far from free, and companies in free market seek profit. If profit is hindered by policy, then cost/benefit will generally lead companies elsewhere.

[CDarwin]

Yep, I agree... but a free market does tend to come up with good solutions, doesn't it? I wonder why no major companies have tackled this yet. Or maybe I just haven't heard about it.[/Quote]

 

The free market tends to come up with profitable solutions. Not necessarily "good" solutions.

 

I disagree... who gets to determine the worth of a drug? That's a system ripe for corruption.

 

Probably. But the current system is fundamentally geared away from the public welfare. The incentives are for drug companies to develop medications that treat the symptoms of long-term illness which are far from necessarily those society needs the most.

 

A case in point is the current lack of new antibiotic classes that are leading to the drug-resistant bacteria crisis. Antibiotics are expensive to create and generate low returns.

 

I'd rather a few companies get over payed occasionally than risk a second plague because of my faith in free-market capitalism.

 

But this isn't really on topic...