Ron Paul: doesn't believe in evolution

[iNow]

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...

 

Hell of an interesting idea for another thread though...

[Pangloss]

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.

 

Sorry guy but that's a total shot in the dark. You're talking about someone who's already made several compromises in his "libertarian views". It's reasonable to suspect there might be more compromises waiting in the wings, and I see no reason to think he might break the other way on an issue he's already stated a belief on -- and it's in the OTHER direction.

 

I get what you're saying, we can't assume we know his opinion on every single issue that could conceivably come up during his presidency. But in my opinion there's actually more reason to be concerned about science funding under Ron Paul then there would be if we were facing eight more years of Bush Jr.

[ecoli]

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

But in medicine, the good solutions tend to be profitable... and you can really only profit from a good solution. Until someone makes a better one, that is.

 

Sorry guy but that's a total shot in the dark. You're talking about someone who's already made several compromises in his "libertarian views". It's reasonable to suspect there might be more compromises waiting in the wings, and I see no reason to think he might break the other way on an issue he's already stated a belief on -- and it's in the OTHER direction.

Yeah, but he's also directly stated that it wouldn't affect his policy. So which is it?

[ParanoiA]

So, is Evolution Fact or Theory?

 

This argument about "denying facts" seems a little disingenuous seeing as how evolution is a theory, not a fact. Yes, he may very well be denying heaps and mounds of evidence to support that theory, OR, he may be trying to force the point that until ANY scientific theory is contemporary fact that it MUST only be treated as such. Such as the earth being round: Has that graduated from theory to fact yet?

 

How do we know this isn't another Jeffersonian demonstration of true objective decision making? Perhaps Ron Paul is the only one being honest about the fact it's a theory. Remember, it's the OTHER republican candidates that are pimping god while dismissing evolution - Paul just dismisses evolution.

 

Just a thought...I throw that out there because repeatedly he has demonstrated a capacity for deeper thought that doesn't get tapped until you look beneath the surface. A 2 minute video doesn't capture his thought process that has led to his statement of disbelief in evolution.

 

I don't expect a good answer from him on this - but you never know, he may be making more of a political statement than a personal one.

[CDarwin]

So, is Evolution Fact or Theory?

 

This argument about "denying facts" seems a little disingenuous seeing as how evolution is a theory, not a fact. Yes, he may very well be denying heaps and mounds of evidence to support that theory, OR, he may be trying to force the point that until ANY scientific theory is contemporary fact that it MUST only be treated as such. Such as the earth being round: Has that graduated from theory to fact yet?[/Quote]

 

Semantic gymnastics I would never expect to see on a science forum.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

"I don't accept it... you know, as a theory."

 

I think that's fairly clear to me.

 

He's basically evolution-agnostic.

[ParanoiA]

Semantic gymnastics I would never expect to see on a science forum.

 

No, you're missing my point. If you make it legislatively "OK" for the government to act on a "theory" then how many other "theories" are you thereby allowing the government to act on? The "theory" of god? The "theory" of creationism?

 

In other words, of course we all agree that evolution is a sound theory. But that doesn't mean we should allow government to throw out objectivity just because our group is so convinced. The scientific method doesn't even state it as fact for a reason. Science regards it as a theory - it has to by its very method.

 

So, back to my point, how do we know this isn't a libertarian demonstration about objectivity in government? There have been other examples that 'ecoli' has provided where he took a position to prove some fundamental point.

 

Somehow I doubt it, but I thought it was interesting enough to consider. I certainly see no reason why government should have anything to say on the matter, so effectively should not endorse evolution as anything more than a theory.

 

Objectivity IS something to expect on a science forum.

[ydoaPs]

No, you're missing my point. If you make it legislatively "OK" for the government to act on a "theory" then how many other "theories" are you thereby allowing the government to act on? The "theory" of god? The "theory" of creationism?

You don't seem to know what theory means. And by the video, neither does Ron Paul.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

To clarify from youdad's point, the word "theory" in science means something like this:

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.

Evolution has been tested by observation and it has passed. What Ron Paul is implying, however, is that evolution is a "theory" in the sense that it is not fact, and that is not what is meant by "theory of evolution."

[john5746]

To clarify from youdad's point, the word "theory" in science means something like this:

 

Evolution has been tested by observation and it has passed. What Ron Paul is implying, however, is that evolution is a "theory" in the sense that it is not fact, and that is not what is meant by "theory of evolution."

 

Unfortunately, this is not an unusual stance in America, although I would hope most educated people - including politicians would have at least this understanding. I can't expect politicians who do not have a technical education to have a vast knowledge of science, but I do expect some basic understanding and respect for science. This does not mean they must go Al Gore with global warming, but they should at least respect the scientific consensus view.

 

That being said, I wouldn't completely rule out a candidate based on that question. Rupaul brings up much more questions in my mind concerning economics and general leadership than anything else. He has no chance, so I am not concerned.

[iNow]

I'm reminded of the NOVA special about the Dover case and teaching of ID in PA.

 

Theories are much better than facts. In science, a testable theory is what matters, facts are rather non-applicable and boring.

[ParanoiA]

It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.

 

Thank you for making my point, Wiki. In the capacity of government and legislation, theory and fact are quite in opposition. Precisely the point. When the country is run by scientists, THEN we change the emphasis.

 

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

 

You don't seem to know what theory means. And by the video, neither does Ron Paul.

 

You mean to tell me that there aren't an army of creationists that want it to be considered a "theory"? Remember, we're talking about government here, not science.

 

I think you all are fighting me on the evolution theory instead of thinking through the implications of validating a theory by government, which is the only point I'm making. If you allow a "theory" to shape legislation, then how far are we from outlawing abortion, banning homosexuality and etc due to some crazy "creationism theory"?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Creationism doesn't count as a "theory" in the same way evolution does. You're equivocating by using two different definitions of "theory."

[ParanoiA]

Unfortunately, this is not an unusual stance in America, although I would hope most educated people - including politicians would have at least this understanding. I can't expect politicians who do not have a technical education to have a vast knowledge of science, but I do expect some basic understanding and respect for science. This does not mean they must go Al Gore with global warming, but they should at least respect the scientific consensus view.

 

What? No consensus on GW? I thought there WAS consensus. I thought you were a quack if you didn't believe in GW - just like evolution. So why do they get a pass if they don't go Al Gore with GW? It's theory backed by mounds of evidence - just like evolution.

 

See what I mean? What is the difference between the THEORY of evolution and the THEORY of GW or the THEORY of the big bang? What is the objective difference - the distinguishing characteristic that would allow government to legislate based off of one theory and not another?

 

Otherwise EVERY theory is valid for the government to believe and legislate conclusions about.

 

Creationism doesn't count as a "theory" in the same way evolution does. You're equivocating by using two different definitions of "theory."

 

It does in politics, which is what my point is about. You don't want Politicians acting like scientists and declaring your theories as valid or not in the form of legislation.

 

You're doing exactly what I said would be done. You, a scientist, will not accept a "creationism theory" - but GWB might. Mitt Romney might. Mike Huckabee might.

 

Are you really sure you want government mixed up in validing scientific ideas? I'm sure that I don't. That's why I like the position of objectivity hinged on the fact it's a "theory". As long as it's not a "fact", then it shouldn't be subject to legislation - for good or bad.

[CDarwin]

No, you're missing my point. If you make it legislatively "OK" for the government to act on a "theory" then how many other "theories" are you thereby allowing the government to act on? The "theory" of god? The "theory" of creationism?

 

In other words, of course we all agree that evolution is a sound theory. But that doesn't mean we should allow government to throw out objectivity just because our group is so convinced. The scientific method doesn't even state it as fact for a reason. Science regards it as a theory - it has to by its very method. [/Quote]

 

I can't believe I'm seeing you making Creationist arguments. If you want to talk about objectivity, step back for a minute and ask if you would really be equating acceptance of evolution with belief in God if it wasn't in the name of someone who you seem to overcome with such a passionate affection for.

 

Government shouldn't be "objective" on science matters by the way you seem to be defining the term. Government, and the rest of us, should honestly approach expert opinion and empirical evidence. If such an honest appraisal leads to a conclusion, like evolution or global warming, government should accept that conclusion.

 

Besides that, evolution is a theory and a fact. The theory is the explanation that links together the observations, the fact is the observable process of organisms changing through time.

 

Somehow I doubt it, but I thought it was interesting enough to consider. I certainly see no reason why government should have anything to say on the matter, so effectively should not endorse evolution as anything more than a theory.

 

Then you gut the entire point of public education and public funding for research. But you might want to do away with those anyway.

 

Although, I wonder if government should be validating things like libertarianism or democracy or any other theories.

[ydoaPs]

See what I mean? What is the difference between the THEORY of evolution and the THEORY of GW or the THEORY of the big bang?

Or the theory of gravity? The difference is you are equivocating....which has been pointed out multiple times already.

 

Watch chapter six.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What? No consensus on GW? I thought there WAS consensus. I thought you were a quack if you didn't believe in GW - just like evolution. So why do they get a pass if they don't go Al Gore with GW? It's theory backed by mounds of evidence - just like evolution.

 

See what I mean? What is the difference between the THEORY of evolution and the THEORY of GW or the THEORY of the big bang? What is the objective difference - the distinguishing characteristic that would allow government to legislate based off of one theory and not another?

 

Otherwise EVERY theory is valid for the government to believe and legislate conclusions about.

Global warming is not a "theory". Global warming is something we have observed. A theory would explain why global warming is occurring and predict that as CO₂ rises, temperature would rise, or something similar.

 

The government should legislate based on the evidence for or against any given theory.

 

Are you really sure you want government mixed up in validing scientific ideas? I'm sure that I don't.

Did I say I do?

[Sisyphus]

Are you really sure you want government mixed up in validing scientific ideas? I'm sure that I don't.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that that is a problem. But consider, also, the problems with the alternatives. Science is expensive. Somebody has to pay for it. Government, at least in theory, is the one institution not guaranteed to be driven by somebody's private interest. Any private institution WILL be, whether that interest is idealogical (like funding "creation science") or economic (like trying to prove that the medication I sell works best, or that the cigarettes I sell aren't addictive, or that the pollution my factories produce isn't really hurting anyone). Even private universities, which for the most part have no inherent biases in their findings, are still biased in the direction of their research towards projects that will make them money (weighing cost of project vs. donor-gathering prestige). The government, therefore, despite its own obvious shortcomings in this regard, nevertheless is the only institution that can fill certain roles. Namely, big, expensive projects that won't make anyone enough money in the short term to justify private investment.

[ecoli]

I agree wholeheartedly that that is a problem. But consider, also, the problems with the alternatives. Science is expensive. Somebody has to pay for it. Government, at least in theory, is the one institution not guaranteed to be driven by somebody's private interest.

 

Unfortunately, that's theory that doesn't work too well in reality.

 

Any private institution WILL be, whether that interest is idealogical (like funding "creation science") or economic (like trying to prove that the medication I sell works best, or that the cigarettes I sell aren't addictive, or that the pollution my factories produce isn't really hurting anyone). Even private universities, which for the most part have no inherent biases in their findings, are still biased in the direction of their research towards projects that will make them money (weighing cost of project vs. donor-gathering prestige). The government, therefore, despite its own obvious shortcomings in this regard, nevertheless is the only institution that can fill certain roles. Namely, big, expensive projects that won't make anyone enough money in the short term to justify private investment.

 

I'm not sure... I find it hard to believe that there aren't investors in the private sector that don't look specifically for long term investments.

[Sisyphus]

I'm not sure... I find it hard to believe that there aren't investors in the private sector that don't look specifically for long term investments.

 

Not that long term they don't. Not with fundamental research, and not where there is no expectation of profit at ANY point. Sorry, it just doesn't happen.

[ParanoiA]

Or the theory of gravity? The difference is you are equivocating....which has been pointed out multiple times already.

 

Watch chapter six.

 

No, you're not understanding my point which is why you interpret it as equivocation. Your link here proves this. I watched this a couple of months ago when it first ran - and I loved it. And it has nothing to do with government legislating morality based on "Theory" (whether or not you agree it's a real "theory" is irrelevant)

 

This is the not the United Scientists of America. So your theory=fact thingy ain't gonna' cut it. Here's the definition of Theory the rest of the world uses:

 

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

6. contemplation or speculation.

7. guess or conjecture.

 

It's not that I don't appreciate your interpretation, but to point to Wiki and act like the rest of the world is supposed to adopt THAT as the true definition and ignore every dictionary that says otherwise is proposterous.

 

Any expert in any field is going to have their lingo and terminology fleshed out far beyond the scope of general laymen, but that doesn't mean you get to re-define the words.

 

The ironic part, is that my point actually serves your interest. At least your aversion to religion, which I share. That's why I don't want an opening for government to use as an excuse to legislate it.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that that is a problem. But consider, also, the problems with the alternatives. Science is expensive. Somebody has to pay for it. Government, at least in theory, is the one institution not guaranteed to be driven by somebody's private interest.

 

I actually agree with you about funding. I don't see a problem with the government funding research and development based on theories and such. My line in the sand has to do with legally endorsing a theory, which could lead to changes in legislating morality, or worse.

 

I actually believe the government has a role in scientific R&D, for many of the reasons you mentioned.

 

I can't believe I'm seeing you making Creationist arguments. If you want to talk about objectivity, step back for a minute and ask if you would really be equating acceptance of evolution with belief in God if it wasn't in the name of someone who you seem to overcome with such a passionate affection for.

 

Creationist arguments? Oh that's right, I'm supposed to treat creationists like whackos and not even validate their presence - because we all know that's a GREAT way to get people to change their views....sorry, I'll run over a couple of church junkies on my home to make up for it.

 

Actually, I was throwing a possibility out there that I thought was interesting since I've seen him do this in the past and I've been defending my premise ever since. I'm sure Dr. Paul really doesn't believe in evolution. I'm also sure that he's earned enough respect from me that I owe him a chance to explain himself - just on the off chance he might be doing a libertarian clinic. But I seriously doubt it.

 

I've already expressed my disagreement with him and fundamentally we're worlds apart on religion - I don't see it like he does, period. Am I supposed to fry him and call him a quack and disappoint myself every four years because there's no candidate that's perfect?

 

I have to thoughtfully weigh out what impact this really has. My differences with ALL of the other candidates are too numerous to compare to the growing list of differences I have with Paul. War, oil, money - all matter more to me than Paul's thoughts on evolution. Sorry, but I don't think an evolution controversy really carries the same import - not even close.

 

Then you gut the entire point of public education and public funding for research. But you might want to do away with those anyway.

 

Although' date=' I wonder if government should be validating things like libertarianism or democracy or any other theories.[/quote']

 

Ouch... I touched on this above, but I don't see any issues with funding research - on ANY theory. I don't want the government endorsing one, however.

[ecoli]

ParanioA - do you mean endorsing a theory through legislation saying "we endorse X theory" or by applying a theory through funding the research of it, granted tax credits for those (individuals or industry) that believe it/study it. What exactly do you mean here?

[ParanoiA]

ParanioA - do you mean endorsing a theory through legislation saying "we endorse X theory" or by applying a theory through funding the research of it, granted tax credits for those (individuals or industry) that believe it/study it. What exactly do you mean here?

 

After giving this some more thought, I think I'm wrong on this one actually. My concern is allowing government to endorse something labelled a "theory", thereby opening the door to anything that one can label a theory. But, as Cap'n, Yourdad and others have pointed out, many things we consider factual are still technically "theory". So, that's a bad partition on my part.

 

Not to mention the ultimate elegance and sensibility of this statement:

 

Government shouldn't be "objective" on science matters by the way you seem to be defining the term. Government, and the rest of us, should honestly approach expert opinion and empirical evidence. If such an honest appraisal leads to a conclusion, like evolution or global warming, government should accept that conclusion.

 

Well said, CDarwin.

[CDarwin]

Well, uhm... thank you.

[Reaper]

Here's a blog spot about him, if you guys are interested:

 

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/12/26/just-in-case-you-thought-ron-paul-wasnt-so-bad/

 

 

You might think the answer is contingent; what about the other candidates? How do they compare? But I think that doesn’t matter. If a candidate did not "believe" in evolution, then I 100% guarantee that I will not agree with them on many other issues, and these issues will be of utmost import. The First Amendment, for example. Plus, any candidate who thinks one of the most basic laws of science is wrong would then be prey to any other antiscience huckster who wants to deny global warming, the benefits of stem cell research, and the importance of alternative energy sources… and probably dozens of other things.

 

Once you deny reality, the door to any and all evil is wide open.