Is Ron Paul an Evolution Denier? Apparently Yes.

Remember when three Republican presidential hopefuls raised their hands to declare their disbelief in biological evolution? Well, we can now add a fourth--Ron Paul. Republicans seem anxious to prove they are the party of scientific ignoramuses. Say it ain't so Dr. No! 

One cautionary note: There is a glitch in the video which might be an edit, but it doesn't appear to change what Paul is saying.

Comments

VM | December 28, 2007, 3:29pm | #

*gets some popcorn*
HAY WARREN! WHATCHA DRINKIN?

JasonL | December 28, 2007, 3:29pm | #

Is there no end to this stupidity? Oh well, at least he isn't interested in creating public policy based on his ignorant beliefs.

Ron Paul Groupie | December 28, 2007, 3:30pm | #

D'oh!

sage | December 28, 2007, 3:31pm | #

Perhaps he is a Pastafarian. They are a noodly bunch. And if you are against the spaghetti monster you are anti-pasta.

the chad | December 28, 2007, 3:32pm | #

thanks for posting it. He does kinda weasel out of the full answer, and we all know the federalist line. still, it comes off as a bad headline

Ska | December 28, 2007, 3:32pm | #

Silver lining = Republican cred.

Episiarch | December 28, 2007, 3:34pm | #

And now I get to get hammered by people who know I think Paul is the best candidate, even though I'll explain to them that his views on this are irrelevant as he wouldn't impose them on anyone.

Fun. I guess the other possibility is that he said it to get the support of Hucksters, but that would be even worse.

Beth | December 28, 2007, 3:36pm | #

I'll explain to them that his views on this are irrelevant as he wouldn't impose them on anyone.

Of course it's relevant; it tells us that he's stupid. That's an important factor in choosing a president.

drawnasunder | December 28, 2007, 3:36pm | #

Good thing he's not applying for a position as a biology teacher, otherwise this would be a problem.

TJ | December 28, 2007, 3:37pm | #

It is just a 'theory', and not proven. The reality is that GOD created the earth in 7 days. That is fact, NOT theory. It is in the bible, that is ALL the proof that is needed. Period, end of discussion.

I don't think schools should teach nonsense. They should be required by law to teach the scientific fact of creationism and NOT the 'theory' of evolution.

Ben | December 28, 2007, 3:39pm | #

If that comment gains a few more votes from people that otherwise wouldn't vote for Ron then I'm ok with it. After all, he wants the government out of schools and text books.

thoreau | December 28, 2007, 3:40pm | #

I still think Ron Paul is the best option among the candidates running.

That's a sad comment on the other candidates.

sage | December 28, 2007, 3:42pm | #

Of course it's relevant; it tells us that he's stupid. That's an important factor in choosing a president.

Funny, when I hear him talking about his views on the economy and free markets and our role in world affairs, 'stupid' is not the word that comes to mind.

This obviously won't help him too much, but as another poster said he's not running for science teacher. He still has my vote.

Another way to look at it: We all knew America was screwed before Paul came along. Now we can take comfort in going back to what we know.

jimmydageek | December 28, 2007, 3:43pm | #

I agree, Dr. T. Knee jerk reaction was a slight cringe - then wrote it off because there's no way I'm voting for any of the other candidates.

Episiarch | December 28, 2007, 3:44pm | #

Of course it's relevant; it tells us that he's stupid. That's an important factor in choosing a president.

Not for a candidate who would still be light years better than anyone else out there. If he's smart enough to veto things and attempt to disband certain government departments, he's smart enough for me.

VM | December 28, 2007, 3:44pm | #

Thoreau -

all of 'em are below the Mendoza line. This hopefully should demonstrate that a little more.

Nick | December 28, 2007, 3:45pm | #

The unedited version of the video can be seen here in Quick Time format. It doesn't change that he believes in evolution, but I think it adds good context, and makes the video far less damning then people want to make it.

Fluffy | December 28, 2007, 3:45pm | #

Bailey, WTF. Pick up the phone and call the campaign and get confirmation one way or the other if you think there's some sort of ambiguity or confusion here.

Or get Weigel to do it.

Specifically, establish if Paul is a young Earth creationist, or if he accepts the physics and biology standard to science but just thinks "God" was behind it all.

Geoff Nathan | December 28, 2007, 3:46pm | #

I realize this is making gigantic assumptions, but generally disbelief in evolution goes along with creationism in general, which includes a rejection of deep time. This requires a rejection of all of physics (speed of light, size of the universe, etc. etc.) I don't care whether someone doesn't think that the Federal government should be involved in teaching it, but I am a little concerned having someone as commander in chief who doesn't believe in the science behind the hydrogen bomb. Especially once he has his hand on the 'button'....

VM | December 28, 2007, 3:47pm | #

It makes it more damning.

tendency towards theocrat.

TJ | December 28, 2007, 3:48pm | #

Specifically, establish if Paul is a young Earth creationist

The only true science.

tolerance | December 28, 2007, 3:48pm | #

As an atheist I extend the same tolerance to those who believe in divine creation as I would hope the religious would give to me. I thought it was one of the hallmarks of this country that people could differ on spiritual matters yet come together in common government.

As for his knowledge of science, the man has a doctorate in medicine from Duke University and performed expertly in his practice. His decision to believe in creation is probably not from an examination of his technical knowledge, but an existential belief in a Creator.

robc | December 28, 2007, 3:48pm | #

Ive said many times in the past that all politicians are corrupt, lying scumbags and I fully expect any libertarians ever elected will be corrupt, lying scumbags too. Just that they will be corrupt and lying in a more positive direction.

I dont think "good government" is possible. RP is helping prove me right. He is still the best candidate running. Have you noticed how he often tries to deflect from talking about his religious beliefs? Maybe its because he knows it will turn off some of his voters.

robc | December 28, 2007, 3:49pm | #

Specifically, establish if Paul is a young Earth creationist

I think he has specifically denied it twice.

Egosumabbas | December 28, 2007, 3:49pm | #

I think the important point to get here isn't that he's skeptical of evolution, but that he really just doesn't care, isn't an absolutist on the matter, and doesn't want to push his views on the school system. I *used* to be in that camp, and I consider myself well educated. Of course, I've been pushed into the evolution camp due to the overwhelming genetic evidence that's come out recently and better evolutionary experiments (for a fun one, search for tame silver fox on google and youtube - sign of convergent evolution within a human lifetime)

Episiarch | December 28, 2007, 3:50pm | #

The only true science.

Yes, Scientology. Can I tell you about the e-meter?

Warty | December 28, 2007, 3:50pm | #

You mean to say he's not perfect? Well then, fuck it. I'm voting for Hilary now.

de stijl | December 28, 2007, 3:50pm | #

Silver lining = Republican cred.

At the margins. And it won't convince a Romney or a Huckabee voter to switch.

Peter | December 28, 2007, 3:51pm | #

I'm at work and thus was only able to read the transcript, and it really seemed from that alone that he had his foot in his mouth trying to appeal to ambiguity on this one, which is no virtue by any token I suppose, however pragmatic, which is sad, given the fact that the Republican candidates are now made to feel like they must address THIS of all things as though it's some litmus test.

He says on one hand that he does not accept it as a theory and believes the creator made us as we are, then says he thinks there is insufficient data on both sides to make any definitive judgment. More than making me lose affection for Paul (which it certainly does, though I could have sworn he raised his hand when asked if he believed in evolution in May) it makes me more disgusted that evolution has become a political issue period, and I blame the religious right for that.

I still support Paul though, and am reminded of a quote from Ayn Rand regarding Barry Goldwater,

"If he advocates the right political principles for the wrong metaphysical reasons, the contradiction is his problem, not ours."

jimmydageek | December 28, 2007, 3:52pm | #

Well, Geoff Nathan, there's Science, and then there's science as it pertains to certain religious beliefs. I don't think that Ron doesn't know the difference. Also, I think I'd rather someone with some sense of morals have his hand on that button than someone with no morals and ready to go all guns-of-the-navarone on any country that irks him / her.

de stijl | December 28, 2007, 3:52pm | #

I think he has specifically denied it twice.

If he does it one more time before the rooster crows, does that make Huckabee Jesus?

Episiarch | December 28, 2007, 3:54pm | #

Ive said many times in the past that all politicians are corrupt, lying scumbags and I fully expect any libertarians ever elected will be corrupt, lying scumbags too. Just that they will be corrupt and lying in a more positive direction.

I can see the variation on The Dead Zone now: wildly popular, supposedly libertarian politician wins presidency, while hiding his hyper-religosity. Upon gaining the nuclear football he starts WW_END in order to produce The Rapture.

Wrtten by Joe Eszterhas.

Tbone | December 28, 2007, 3:54pm | #

I've never grasped how anyone trained in the sciences turns around and chucks it out the window when it comes to supernatural causation.

For him to NOT pander on this really makes me start thinking twice about Paul.

The proper response was "I am a Christian, but my faith and beliefs are irrelevant - I support the clear line of separation established in the Constitution."

Fluffy | December 28, 2007, 3:55pm | #

ROBC, that's why I think clarification should be sought.

It seems to me like Paul figured he was in SC and talking to rednecks, so he would weasel his answer and focus on the fact that he's not a total materialist.

If he was tailoring the parsing of his answer to his rube audience, that's not a particularly attractive thing either - but it's better than thinking the Earth is 6000 years old.

It just doesn't make sense that he would answer one way in the debate and another way in a forum in SC, unless the real answer is "Well everyone knows the universe is immensely old and natural selection drove biology on Earth, but I think that was God's plan the whole time so I can say I don't totally accept evolution and these hicks won't know the difference." It's how he answers NAFTA questions, after all. Maybe this is the same thing.

jimmydageek | December 28, 2007, 3:56pm | #

Also, I think I'd rather someone with some sense of morals have his hand on that button than someone with no morals and ready to go all guns-of-the-navarone on any country that irks him / her.

Er..can I take that back? I don't mean that people who don't believe in creation don't have morals... :)

Foot, Mouth...bleh...

markh | December 28, 2007, 3:56pm | #

Gosh, why do the creationists and the evolutionists argue like the fate of the free world hinges upon one theory or the other being correct? One thing that (almost?) everyone can agree upon is that the universe had a beginning. First it was not, and then it became. Nobody was around in the beginning, so in the absence of any eyewitness accounts then, we will just have to offer up theories based upon the best evidence that we have available to explain how everything came to be. Quick question to both sides; could not the Creator of the universe and of the laws of nature have operated from within these very laws in order to create the physical world? Seems plausible to me, a Believer in the risen Jesus Christ. He says he created it and I believe him. I am just grateful that he gave man an inquisitive mind that enables us to discover some of the "how" of it all. That to me is the real miracle of creation.

Meanwhile, back to the campaign...

ed | December 28, 2007, 3:56pm | #

Rule #1: The most qualified, philosophically consistent individuals do not run for public office.
Rule #2: We are always, always left with a choice of lesser evils.
Rule #3: Don't vote, or hold your nose, pull the lever (in backward states) and hope for the best.

Mitt Romney | December 28, 2007, 3:58pm | #

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 3:59pm | #

Asking a brilliant man like Ron Paul his opinion about evolution is like asking a nuclear physicist his opinion about piano tuning.
Remember that Paul, unlike the rest of the field, would do everything in his power to bring competition and choice in education.
The only creationist who is a danger is one who believes wholly in the myth of public education.
Besides, Hillary believes in that phantom called "universal health care," and she intends to implement it.
Go Ron Paul!

Jay D | December 28, 2007, 4:03pm | #

"Evolution" is itself a pretty ambiguous term. It can mean simply that species change over time or it can mean specifically that species develop exclusively through the forces of natural selection and sexual selection.

Science doesn't even pretend to have a coherent explanation for the very beginnings of life (the abiogenesis). I don't see how anyone can truthfully say that "evolution explains life on earth" without that key piece of the puzzle--especially since there should be a little more clarity as to what is meant by "evolution."

Egosumabbas | December 28, 2007, 4:06pm | #

It just doesn't make sense that he would answer one way in the debate and another way in a forum in SC, unless the real answer is "Well everyone knows the universe is immensely old and natural selection drove biology on Earth, but I think that was God's plan the whole time so I can say I don't totally accept evolution and these hicks won't know the difference." It's how he answers NAFTA questions, after all. Maybe this is the same thing.

And then he can claim he's a deist, just like the founding fathers! win-win!

Rimfax | December 28, 2007, 4:06pm | #

Beth,

I used to be a big fan of stupid for president. After all, the biggest smarties, Nixon and Carter, were pretty easy picks for two of the worst ever. Yep, I used to be a big fan of stupid for president,...until W came along.

Francisco Torres | December 28, 2007, 4:08pm | #

As a person who trusts Natural Selection as the theory that best explains the evolution phenomenon, I can tell you that Ron Paul's views on the subject are totally irrelevant. He is the only pro-freedom candidate out there, the only one that advocates less government intrusion. Such a person is better for education than an interventionist who also believes in the Special Creation theory. I do not think that his belief in Special Creation makes him a dangerous person or even stupid - just wrong on that issue.

robc | December 28, 2007, 4:09pm | #

Fluffy,

the real answer is "Well everyone knows the universe is immensely old and natural selection drove biology on Earth, but I think that was God's plan the whole time so I can say I don't totally accept evolution and these hicks won't know the difference." It's how he answers NAFTA questions, after all. Maybe this is the same thing.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Interestingly enough, mine and his thoughts on evolution/NAFTA are the same. Including the part about the hicks not knowing the difference.

Brandybuck | December 28, 2007, 4:10pm | #

OMG! This is horrible! Do I vote for evolution-denier Paul, or the liberty-denier Giuliani? Oh, if only it all didn't hinge on their opinions of irrelevant matters...

Sob.

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 4:10pm | #

The intelligent question that the reporter didn't ask:
"Given your beliefs about creationism vs. evolution, would you require that America's children learn your favored theory to the exclusion of the other?"
And Ron Paul's answer would have been:
"I would give parents the choice what curricula their children learn."
Paul's views on evolution qua evolution are totally irrelevant.

markh | December 28, 2007, 4:14pm | #

The silver foxes search was very interesting Egosumabbas. Thanks for the information.

Ken Shultz | December 28, 2007, 4:14pm | #

I could care less what Ron Paul thinks about the origin of life.

Peter | December 28, 2007, 4:16pm | #

"Oh my Science!"

NavyWeatherMan | December 28, 2007, 4:16pm | #

I agree wholeheartedly with markh ... there are two problems with this being a big issue. If,as Beth says, Paul is "stupid", then it throws into question everything that he espouses. Does that suddenly mean that we of libertarian bent are supposed to throw out the baby with the bath-water? On one single issue upon which reasonable people disagree?
The other problem is this: Who the f*** cares what Paul or anyone believes about the creation and/or evolution of the universe? I mean really, come on people ... unless he is suggesting that his personal scientific/religious views be imposed upon others by legal mandate, this is simply a non-issue writ large. I wouldn't give one damn if he or any other other candidates believed that Barney created the universe in seven hours - so long as he advocated lower taxes, smaller government and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Get a life people.

Assistant Village Idiot | December 28, 2007, 4:19pm | #

"Stupid" isn't the right word for young-earth creationists, by and large. It is a pig-headedness, or a refusal to face uncomfortable information. Willful nescience is not poor reasoning, an inability to think - but an unwillingness to.

As everyone does that more than they would like to admit, picking on the creationists as a particularly bad example has some flavor of "your refusals to confront reality are worse than mine." The other stray comments that critics drop when skewering the creationists betray that they have additional fish to fry in this discussion. Prejudices tangential to the political discussion are leaking out all over here.

So much for patting yourselves on the back for being so much more enlightened than they.

Kwix | December 28, 2007, 4:20pm | #

Ken Shultz | December 28, 2007, 4:14pm | #
I could care less what Ron Paul thinks about the origin of life.

I am with you there. So long as he doesn't attempt to force his opinion on me by legal mandate, I don't give a fuck if the president thinks the earth was shat out by an angel.

There are many sticking points for me with regard to RP being the "perfect libertarian president", this just isn't one of them. Though I understand how his religious beliefs have affected his judgment of libertarian stances (eg. life at conception, abortion, etc.) I just can't get worked up about a man admitting to what he believes in.

I'd rather a honest man be the president than one who lies to get in the office.

Fluffy | December 28, 2007, 4:21pm | #

It is not an irrelevant issue.

If I thought Paul believed in a 6000 year old Earth, or that fossil evidence was planted by the devil to test our faith, I would have to seriously consider not voting for him.

Some things are just too stupid to be accepted.

He's not running for biology teacher, but in order to be a Young Earth creationist you have to be able to wilfully ignore evidence that does not fit your world-construct, and you have to do it in a host of different areas.

I can also acknowledge that ideologues [like myself, and like Paul] are particularly vulnerable to the character flaw of wilful blindness to evidence when it doesn't "fit", and have to guard against it constantly. That means that any evidence that Paul suffers from it has to give you a lot of pause.

I can accept a candidate who is a deist. I can even accept a candidate who thinks, "The Judeo-Christian God created the universe, and later on intervened in evolution to give us souls." But it's real, real hard to accept a candidate who thinks "Cavemen used to ride around on triceratops and joust each other". Whether that has any direct impact on governance or not.

joe | December 28, 2007, 4:21pm | #

I would vote for a Creationist over a "skeptic" like Paul. The former doesn't tell me a thing about how he would behave on science questions, and the latter does.

If you ask me how the wine turns into the blood of Christ but still has the attributes of wine, I'm not going to give you some bullshit about scientists not really being able to prove that it's wine.

I don't mind if someone believes in something other than objective physical reality. I do. I just don't like people being dishonest with themselves or others about it.

I believe that the eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ, and that the outward manifestations remain the same, but not the basic nature. I'm not going to go after scientists to support this belief, or misstate the science. It's two different things. Science is about objective physical reality. The Bible can't pull rank on scientific questions.

This fake, self-serving, selective skepticism about science coming from the right is no good good for anything.

MCW | December 28, 2007, 4:23pm | #

This proves once again that Ron Paul is a wingnut.

An anti-choice, anti-civil rights, evolution-denying wingnut.

Ali | December 28, 2007, 4:23pm | #

Serious question: Did Mitt evolve (read flip-flop) from believing in evolution to not believing in evolution? Anyone?

Chris | December 28, 2007, 4:24pm | #

---"Specifically, establish if Paul is a young Earth creationist, or if he accepts the physics and biology standard to science but just thinks "God" was behind it all."---

Exactly.

Tim | December 28, 2007, 4:24pm | #

Stupid? Not necessarily. I have a degree in engineering, and there is no way I would use the theory of evolution as the basis for any work involving real life calculations. It is just too freaking full of holes and circular logic.

I believe in laws. I believe in trigonometry and geometry and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which, by the way, pretty well refutes evolution and is the reason a large number of engineers don't believe in evolution.

I don't believe in "young earth" creationism because it is easily disprovable (the earth on opposite sides of the sun is 180,000,000 million miles apart, with this base we can easily PROVE (as opposed to theorize) that we can see stars that are more than 6000 light years away. Therefore, the light has been traveling more than 6000 years. Hubble seems to have found galaxies 14 billion light years away, and if we can see them, they at least were 14 billion years old (they may well be gone now, but if so, we will never know it).

And we will never know how life originated, or how species were differeniated, because evolution doesn't explain anything. The more we learn about DNA, the less likely evolution becomes. I do not claim to have the answers, but the evolutionists are worse to me than the young earthers.

I would say science has failed the creationists, and they have quite naturally turned to literal intrepretations of the Bible as they have discovered the line of bullshit they were taught in school is just that, bullshit.

TLB | December 28, 2007, 4:25pm | #

The first thing I did when I saw this linked from the HuffPost is a) notice the edit, b) try to find an unedited version.

Apparently Ronald Bailey figured that only the first was necessary.

(This post is only to suggest running a tigher ship around here.)

x,y | December 28, 2007, 4:25pm | #

Why is this news to anyone? He's been an open theist as far as I can remember. Even if this lowered my opinion of Ron Paul, he's still infinitely better than all the other candidates and is close enough to being right on the important issues. IOW, he still has my vote.

Captain Chaos | December 28, 2007, 4:26pm | #

I was going to write a lengthy post on this, but Fluffy already said everything I want to say.

mk | December 28, 2007, 4:29pm | #

"Cavemen used to ride around on triceratops and joust each other"

I'd like to believe that, because it sounds AWESOME.

NavyWeather|Man | December 28, 2007, 4:33pm | #

Fluffy . . . you are entitled to your opinion, and I even understand a tiny
bit of where you are coming from. But it is undeniably snooty and sickeningly elitist. If this is reason enough to disqualify someone, then I fear that you are subject to a somewhat unbalanced view of the world. You were the snotty smart kid that everyone hated in school because he felt he had the corner on all truth and acted like a total d**k to anyone who didn't buy into his world-view. Once again ... get a life!

Captain Chaos | December 28, 2007, 4:33pm | #

x,y: Theist=/= young earth creationist.

rho | December 28, 2007, 4:35pm | #

The rest of you are monkeys walking erect, but I am the motherfucking special creation of God. That's my opinion of evolution.

Captain Chaos | December 28, 2007, 4:35pm | #

One other comment: the ad hominem crap that gets thrown around here is really tiresome. It contributes nothing to the discussion, and really ought to be embarrassing to the person posting it. This isn't junior high, and there's no need to add "you idiot!" to any statement of one's views.

stoneymonster | December 28, 2007, 4:36pm | #

Tim,

There's a lot wrong with what you are saying. First of all scientific "laws" are a misnomer. Anything that is a "law" is really a scientific theory under a quaint name. I.e. a really well tested notion that predicts reality extremely well. A scientific theory in the formal sense is a very strong framework which people usually confuse with the colloquial usage of "theory" to mean "hypothesis" or "conjecture". The phrase "just a theory" when applied to scientific theories conflates these connotations in order to discredit real work.
Quantum theory is "just a theory" but everything you do with a computer depends on it .

Second, the statement that the 2nd law of thermo precludes evolution. The 2nd law refers to a tendency of an overall closed system over time. It says nothing about local decreases in entropy or about systems with inputs. So sure, the overall entropy may tend inexorably toward infinity in the overall universe, but that does not prevent local regions from having decreased entropy. If that were the case you'd have no stars, solar systems, etc.


"The more we learn about DNA, the less likely evolution becomes". And why is that exactly? You must be reading different papers then I am.

de stijl | December 28, 2007, 4:37pm | #

"Cavemen used to ride around on triceratops and joust each other"

I'd like to believe that, because it sounds AWESOME.

mk,

Let me introduce you to Jack Chick.

x,y | December 28, 2007, 4:37pm | #

CC,

I'm new to these Internets. Do you mean "not equal to"? If so, I agree. All I mean is that Paul, for as long as I and probably anyone else can remember, believes in the existence of a creator of sorts. This is not news.

Also, I'm troubled by the false dichotomy set-up and willingly followed by so many: evolution or creationism. There are too many variants on each, some so much that the original words may not have much meaning left.

Jerry | December 28, 2007, 4:37pm | #

Watching them presidential candidates, I can see where Ron Paul has become an evolution denier.

prolefeed | December 28, 2007, 4:37pm | #

This obviously won't help him too much, but as another poster said he's not running for science teacher. He still has my vote.

Ummm, he said it because he thought it would help him in the Southern states, and specifically in the one with the upcoming primary. If Ron Paul had said this in Massachusetts before a crowd of biology teachers, then it wouldn't be pandering. He's deliberately pissing off some of his core libertarian rationalist voters to reach out to the broader audience of Republican primary voters.

As I pointed out in an earlier thread, listen carefully to how Ron Paul winds up this clip with some weasel words that would allow him to recast this statement to mean lots of things. He's basically trying to straddle several mutually irreconciliable worldviews via strategic vagueness.

Don't care for this, but it's a sight better than to pull a Huckabee and remove all doubt that you're an ignorant science-denier who intends to impose that view upon legislation.

God | December 28, 2007, 4:39pm | #

STFU creation deniers.

jeffb | December 28, 2007, 4:39pm | #

People who claim evolution is some flakey "theory" need to go back to 3rd grade (and maybe attend a school with an actual science curriculum) and look up the difference between

1) Common Theory
2) Scientific Theory
3) Scientific Law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Because there is a huge difference between the "theory" of common language and that of a "scientific theory". Every time I hear someone decry evolution as some whacky "theory" I wonder how such an uninformed person is able to survive in the modern world. I sure hope they don't use any antibiotics, nor any of the other benefits of modern biology (of which evolution is the basis).

Egosumabbas | December 28, 2007, 4:42pm | #

The more we learn about DNA, the less likely evolution becomes.

Interesting, I'm an engineer, and it's BECAUSE of DNA research that I've become firmly entrenched in the evolution camp. The fact that decades of evolutionary research based only on fossils has been supported by recent DNA studies sealed the deal for me. Now whether or not DNA spontaneously came into existence due to a divine force is another question entirely. Until they can come up with an experiment that can create DNA out of a chemical soup, or that RNA somehow became DNA, I'm on the fence on this one.

Remember, evolution simply describes evolution or progression, not prime causes.

Also, we have to draw a distinction between Evolution and Natural Selection. Evolution is a testable phenomenon, whereas Natural Selection is the theory that explains why it happens. There are other competing scientific theories as to why it happens, and you can invoke the Flying Spaghetti Monster if you'd like. There's a difference between how and why.

x,y | December 28, 2007, 4:42pm | #

One other comment: the ad hominem crap that gets thrown around here is really tiresome. It contributes nothing to the discussion, and really ought to be embarrassing to the person posting it. This isn't junior high, and there's no need to add "you idiot!" to any statement of one's views.

Agreed, but the trolls can get annoying. There's only so much idiocy a man can take.

Evan Martin | December 28, 2007, 4:44pm | #

I think Dr. Paul's response was appropriate, ESPECIALLY considering the Christian Right vote is the main vote he is lacking and which he needs to become President. He already has the anti-war vote, the internet-freedom vote, the anti-drug-war vote, the economic literacy vote, and libertarian vote.

Paul is also absolutely correct in stating that Darwinian evolution is a theory, just like Einsteinian relativity. The theory of evolution, while logical and true, is incomplete in terms of explaining the existence of life, intelligence and beauty. And while 'intelligent design' is a catch-phrase co-opted by Creationists and monotheists, I would bet most scientists have a spiritual side and do not doubt the tremendously mysterious aspects of time and space.
Speaking of EVOLUTION; we are, after all, when it comes to scientific understanding, infants. We just started a few centuries ago and hopefully we will have many more centuries in which to grow.

Vote Ron Paul!
It's the only 'natural selection'!

mk | December 28, 2007, 4:44pm | #

De Stijl,

I used to collect Jack Chick tracts and other Christian prostelyzing paraphernalia as a teen.

One of my favorite bits were a collection of cards that people used to hand out to kids at Heavy Metal concerts. They were printed with great Christian screeds that incorporated the names of the songs of the band you were seeing.

prolefeed | December 28, 2007, 4:45pm | #

Of course it's relevant; it tells us that he's stupid.

Ummm, it tells us either:

1) He's ignorant on this one topic, which is NOT the same as stupid on all topics

OR (the far more likely answer)

2) He's a far slicker and more calculating politician than most Reasonoids have assumed in their first blush of infatuation, and is pandering to Southern voters because he thinks he has a chance of actually winning this damn race, but has the foresight to use weasel words so he can tack back to the center for the general election.

I.e., he's pulling a Romney.

M. Simon | December 28, 2007, 4:49pm | #

Funny, when I hear him talking about his views on the economy and free markets and our role in world affairs, 'stupid' is not the word that comes to mind.

I'll go with clueless.

First Little Pig | December 28, 2007, 4:50pm | #

We really don't know his complete views on the subject... it could well be that he believes -- as do most pro-evolutionist Americans -- that God was responsible for evolution itself. The problem is that the fundy base cannot begin to consider such an explanation as in any way satisfactory. A "yes" is tantamount to disbelief in God. The only answer for a Repub Politician is a "no" even if his honest answer is very much qualified.

Full disclosure. I am a pro-evolution, there is no God, human secularist, libertarian-anarchist, pro-Ron Paul individual. And I'll vote.

Dangerman | December 28, 2007, 4:51pm | #

I dont think "good government" is possible. RP is helping prove me right. He is still the best candidate running. Have you noticed how he often tries to deflect from talking about his religious beliefs? Maybe its because he knows it will turn off some of his voters.

I really wish he would have said, "Is this any of your business?"

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 4:52pm | #

I'll go with clueless.

But what how would you describe Ron Paul's views?

Fluffy | December 28, 2007, 4:52pm | #

Prolefeed:

If that's the case, hey - I can live with that.

But the campaign has to throw us a bone. A wink and a nudge. Something.

Paul obviously knows that his libertarian base skews less fundamentalist than the general population and you can't fuck with your base like that.

ClubMedSux | December 28, 2007, 4:54pm | #

I'm still unclear on why I should be skeptical of scientists telling me the earth is undergoing anthropogenic warming but fully accepting of scientists telling me Darwin was right. (I'll acknowledge that I know very little about biology, but I do have a master's degree in atmospheric science, for what it's worth...)

Sam Grove | December 28, 2007, 4:54pm | #

Ron Paul is not a 'young earth creationist', he would've said so.

Check his position on stem cell research.

The BIG question for all:

Do you think we should permit our government to keep on killing people in other countries in maintenance of the U.S. empire? (Not to mention its real threat to the fate of OUR future)

Well, do you?

If you answer is a definite NO, then your easiest action to tell the elitist oligarchy running this country to stop is to support Ron Paul.

If you think other issues stack up to this one, please explain why.

If you have a better solution at hand, please tell us about it.

jimmydageek | December 28, 2007, 4:54pm | #

All your base are belong to Paul.

Captain Chaos | December 28, 2007, 4:55pm | #

x,y: You're right, of course, about the non-binary nature of beliefs about role of of god (or lack thereof) in the creation of man and the universe. It does seem as though a lot of people assume that anyone who believes in any sort of god is a young-earth creationist. I assumed that was what you were getting at. Clearly, I was wrong. Sorry about that.
Personally, I don't care whether or not Paul is a theist. But if he is a creationist, I would have a harder time voting for him.

Brandybuck | December 28, 2007, 4:56pm | #

There's a reason I don't believe chance led to the evolution of homo sapiens, and that's because at the extremes improbability is indistinguishable with impossibility. If you think several trillion monkeys at typewriters could eventually type out Hamlet, or that chance alone accounts our origins, you need to check out the math: The Mathematics of Monkeys and Shakespeare.

M. Simon | December 28, 2007, 4:56pm | #

Second, the statement that the 2nd law of thermo precludes evolution. The 2nd law refers to a tendency of an overall closed system over time. It says nothing about local decreases in entropy or about systems with inputs. So sure, the overall entropy may tend inexorably toward infinity in the overall universe, but that does not prevent local regions from having decreased entropy. If that were the case you'd have no stars, solar systems, etc.

The creationists like the tornado in a junk yard analogy when it is really a tornado in a magnet factory.

James | December 28, 2007, 4:57pm | #

Hmm...don't know how to respond to this one...I am a left winger who hates creationists but likes Ron Paul...Whatever??!!

M. Simon | December 28, 2007, 4:58pm | #

As I pointed out in an earlier thread, listen carefully to how Ron Paul winds up this clip with some weasel words that would allow him to recast this statement to mean lots of things. He's basically trying to straddle several mutually irreconciliable worldviews via strategic vagueness.

So Ron is just another weasel. Yep.

Robbins Mitchell | December 28, 2007, 4:58pm | #

Well,I'm the only one on this board who has ever run as a fellow GOP Congressional nominee with Ron Paul (1974).....and I can say without fear of contradiction,that as a practicing gynecologist,Ron Paul never laid down on the job

M. Simon | December 28, 2007, 5:00pm | #

Ron Just lost some of the Catholic vote on that one. The Church is in the evolution camp.

R C Dean | December 28, 2007, 5:03pm | #

Of course it's relevant; it tells us that he's stupid.

One thing I've learned is that information is not really relevant to making a decision unless it creates a distinction. In the Presidential primary, being "stupid" is a universal condition; ergo, Ron Paul is not distinctive in his stupidity, so this won't change anybody's mind.

Guy Montag | December 28, 2007, 5:04pm | #

Wait, he does not believe in evolution but he is for the gold standard?

Now, more than ever, NOBODY needs to make up stuff, like that Nazi crap, about Dr. Paul. The truth will work just fine. There is already a word for this: Fairbanksing.

James | December 28, 2007, 5:04pm | #

In a country of religious idiocy I doubt this will hurt Paul much...in some sense I wish I was wrong.

Sam Grove | December 28, 2007, 5:06pm | #

Darwin was a devout Christian. He saw in evolution the order created by God. I think in, the end, we'll find Ron Paul THERE.

And yes, Ron Paul was elected to congress 10X, to accomplish this, you have to, at the very least, express yourself with nuance from time to time.

Reminds me of the joke:

Did you hear abut the agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac?

rpu28 | December 28, 2007, 5:12pm | #

Can someone explain to me the relevance of the evolution - creation debate in the presidential race? Come to think of it, can anyone explain to me the relevance of the evolution - creation debate, period? I.e. if one or the other were suddenly proven true, would anything of significance in the world change?

Brian24 | December 28, 2007, 5:15pm | #

There's a reason I don't believe chance led to the evolution of homo sapiens, and that's because at the extremes improbability is indistinguishable with impossibility.

This is a strange argument to make regarding the character of our universe, as it is the only universe we have direct experience of. There are bound to be some very low-probability things that occur in any individual universe; hey, if you roll a die that has 1,000,000,000 sides, one of the sides is going to come up, even though the odds of it doing so were a billion to one against.

Now if you could show me that there were a thousand universes, and that in every one of those universes the same nearly-impossible event had occurred, THAT would make me think about the possibility of a divine hand.

Shayrah | December 28, 2007, 5:15pm | #

You are all forgetting one important point. He is going to try to get rid of the NEA and and the US Department of Education. This means he believes in the separation of education and state. Why do his beliefs matter?

But, just in case you still think his beliefs matter let's clear something else up...

A "theory" in science is an explanation of the observations. They have proven evolution to be "fact" through this line of reasoning...

Fruit flies changing generation to generation is an observation of generational organism change.

Organisms changing generation to generation is called evolution.

Evolution is a "fact".

Therefore, evolution is both "theory" and "fact". This is the same logic used for the Theory of Gravity and Ron Paul agrees with this.

What Dr. Paul is REALLY talking about is how this universe came to be. This is a totally different subject and has yet to be proven through "theory" or "fact". I don't even think we CAN prove it. Therefore, believing in "God" creating the universe or the universe popping out of nowhere is blind faith.

We haven't even decided if the universe began. Is it Big Bang, Steady State, or Pulsating? We're still studying String Theory and the Theory of Everything. No one knows the origins of the universe or how DNA came to be or how everything works. Many have theories that have not been proven as fact.

This does not mean you are stupid for believing in one of these theories, although, you are stupid if you believe one of these theories is a "fact".

stoneymonster | December 28, 2007, 5:17pm | #

Brandybuck,

But producing Shakespeare at random is far different from a physical chemical process with a competitive, selection based flow. And in microscopic processes there are an awful lot of monkeys.

Comparing physical processes to a monkey at a typewriter is a bit silly. How about I start with 1000000 monkeys and keep shooting all the dumbest ones and letting the smartest ones breed. Wanna bet after 1000000 years I'll at least have a Dan Brown in the bunch? No, how about 1000000000 years?

Jay D | December 28, 2007, 5:20pm | #

How about I start with 1000000 monkeys and keep shooting all the dumbest ones and letting the smartest ones breed.
stoneymonster

That would not be natural selection. That would be stoneymonster selection (you selected the survivors).

Daniel Reeves | December 28, 2007, 5:28pm | #

Einstein was a bad with politics (he was a socialist) yet good with science. Why can't the opposite be true? If in any way his science would get in the way of his politics, well then that's a part of his politics. For example, a person who wants nothing but to teach creationism and remove evolution from schools is not a good policy maker! In Paul's case, the chances of this are diminutive.

Jay D | December 28, 2007, 5:28pm | #

...That would not be natural selection. That would be stoneymonster selection (you selected the survivors).


That is a form of intelligent design actually. Assuming stoneymonster is intelligent.

joshua corning | December 28, 2007, 5:29pm | #

I don't know to be happy or sad...sad in which i like to think everyone thinks what i think...but happy to know that this will probably help him get elected.

NavyWeatherMan | December 28, 2007, 5:30pm | #

"Paul is dead man ... miss him, miss him."

The Beatles - White Album - the Ringo/John gibberish backwards masking at the end of "I'm So Tired".

Gene Trosper | December 28, 2007, 5:32pm | #

So what? I am an atheist and obviously a non-believer in creationism. His personal belief does not affect me.

Thing is: there are issues much more important facing us than creationism/evolution. People like myself who may disagree with Ron Paul on things like this basically approach the campaign from a "triage" standpoint. Things like war and the economy are more critical than evolution.

It's a non issue to me.

Brad | December 28, 2007, 5:41pm | #

"Comparing physical processes to a monkey at a typewriter is a bit silly. How about I start with 1000000 monkeys and keep shooting all the dumbest ones and letting the smartest ones breed. Wanna bet after 1000000 years I'll at least have a Dan Brown in the bunch? No, how about 1000000000 years?"

To insert a little literary snark, I suspect that zoos around the country already have monkeys of Dan Brown writing ability. No need to wait on any selective breeding or natural selection for that to happen.

Tim | December 28, 2007, 5:46pm | #

Dear M. Simon,

I am happy to hear you believe that local decreases in entropy are possible. I happen to have a perpetual motion machine for sale, I think you might be interested.......

Stoneymonster,

Um, no laws are LAWS, which are provable using mathematical proofs. Trig is based on such laws, and deriving the proofs is part of a real education, as opposed to what most people get over in the education or liberal arts departments. All the rest is theory, and in many cases is very probable, but still theory. In some cases, you can treat the theory as fact and get away with it (when working out chemical reactions, atoms can be treated as indivisible without screwing up the results, until the day you manage to chemically separate out 5 or 6 kgs of U235 and store it all in one place. At that point, the old indivisible atom theory is going meet reality rather painfully.

As far as DNA, I really don't see how anyone could believe you could get the billions of bits of information necessary to get a human being without some sort of guidance.

Brad | December 28, 2007, 5:51pm | #

Why do a President's views on evolution matter? Because even the most self-declared libertarian President at some point WILL be required to invoke the authority of government to respond to a matter of urgent importance to the country. And when that time comes, we NEED to have a President who is able to review the evidence of the situation and come to the best possible conclusion based on clear-minded and rational reason.

Anybody who rejects evolution in favor of creation myths of any kind prove themselves to be incapable to reaching good conclusions based on the evidence presented to them, and they show serious signs of placing "faith" over evidence in their general decision-making process. Bush has already shown us how badly a guy who relies on "beliefs" more than he "evidence" to reach a conclusion can really muck things up.

If I was certain that Paul was perfectly rational on every topic EXCEPT for evolution, then I would give him a pass. However, I have no way of knowing that, so I can't. As such, he goes into the "wacko bin" category on my ballot, and that's a group that I will never vote for ... even if they are more libertarian on the surface than their opponents.

I'm not against people having religion -- that's cool. I'm just against people using religion in place of reason to make important decisions that impact ME. I ain't in the mood to roll the dice on getting a President who's itchin' to initiate The Rapture anytime soon ... and as soon as we get rid of the current President (who is still making me nervous on that front), I want to upgrade in that respect.

Brian24 | December 28, 2007, 5:51pm | #

As far as DNA, I really don't see how anyone could believe you could get the billions of bits of information necessary to get a human being without some sort of guidance.

Hey, if you can show me some evidence of this "guidance," I'm totally with you.

Egosumabbas | December 28, 2007, 5:52pm | #

As far as DNA, I really don't see how anyone could believe you could get the billions of bits of information necessary to get a human being without some sort of guidance.

Will 5 billion years of patience do?

anomdebus | December 28, 2007, 5:55pm | #

Tim,
For this experiment, you start with a sugar solution in a jar with a string suspended in the middle of the sugar solution. As the experiment proceeds, the sugar crystallizes onto the string and clarifies the water. Within the confines of the jar during the duration of the experiment, which do you have?:
a) local decrease in entropy
b) no change in entropy
c) increase in entropy
d) all of the above

SIV | December 28, 2007, 6:01pm | #

You people are nuts.

Hiscross | December 28, 2007, 6:10pm | #

I believe GOD created the heavens and earth in 6 24 hour days. I believe he is our creator, and no one or nothing else. I am not part of some lie that I evolved from something other than GOD creation. If people have a problem with that, so be it. I don’t have a problem with them believing any lie that want. For proof, just read and study the Bible. It’s all in there, if people want to believe it or not. I just happen to have read and studied the Bible for 20 years and can not find one mistake or error in the great book. Jesus lives, that isn’t something you can say about Darwin.

Atavist | December 28, 2007, 6:12pm | #

If that comment gains a few more votes from people that otherwise wouldn't vote for Ron then I'm ok with it.

I think these people are too busy copulating with their own sisters to bother voting much.

Tim | December 28, 2007, 6:15pm | #

Anomdebus,

Sorry, you failed to provide enough information to answer the question.
What is the starting and ending temperature of the fluid the sugar is in solution in?
Is the medium the sugar is in solution in water or some other fluid?
Is solution the right term for what you are describing, keeping in mind that "solution" has a very specific meaning when we are talking about chemistry?
Is the solution in a state of supersaturation, and if so, how did you get it to the state of supersaturation?
How are you isolating the contents of the jar, and is the isolation perfect?

When you provide answers to the above questions, I can provide answers to your questions. Uh, be careful not to include any impossbiblities.

The Wine Commonsewer | December 28, 2007, 6:16pm | #

I had planned to take issue with the Stupid remark but it's been done and done well.

So, Brad, what rational presidential candidate will you vote for instead of that wingnut Ron Paul? Which candidate has proved that he/she is able to review the evidence of the situation and come to the best possible conclusion based on clear-minded and rational reaon.

Who, exactly, would that be? Mitt Romney? Ghouliani? St Hill?

Get outta town.

Franklin Harris | December 28, 2007, 6:18pm | #

There's no getting around the fact that I find this all embarrassing, especially for someone who gets spontaneous order as it relates to economics but not, apparently, as it relates to biology. Fortunately, I'm not voting for Biologist In Chief. And fortunately for Ron Paul, this doesn't fit into a larger narrative for him in the way it does for Huckabee, who is basing his entire campaign on his interpretation of Southern Baptist theology. Paul, meanwhile, bases his campaign on his interpretation of the Constitution, which, from my reading, doesn't address biology at all.

Edward | December 28, 2007, 6:27pm | #

Kudos to Reason for reporting this.

Brandybuck | December 28, 2007, 6:34pm | #

hey, if you roll a die that has 1,000,000,000 sides, one of the sides is going to come up, even though the odds of it doing so were a billion to one against.

A billion to one odds is nothing. When it comes to monkeys and Shakespeare, however, you're going to need more than a billion of those billions. The odds are so incredibly enormously against it that the number won't fit in your calculator. Did you read the paper I linked to? It's not religous in the least, so don't be afraid of it. But it does have some heavy duty math in it.

Don't get me wrong, I do not believe the Earth is less than a million years old. But neither do I believe that a sufficiently large number of monkeys can type out Hamlet. At the extremes, some statistics are so mind bogglingly improbable that they are impossible. Talking about the number of monkeys necessary to produce Hamlet is like talking about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

crackerjaxon | December 28, 2007, 6:40pm | #

Apparently, you like to put your own spin on Paul's words. Yes, that seems apparent to me. Do they pay you to do this?

Brad | December 28, 2007, 6:41pm | #

TWC: Whoever rises to the top of the folks who have not yet declared that they don't "believe in" evolution. I haven't made a final selection yet, but Paul is pretty much removed from consideration, along with Huckabee.

Shayrah | December 28, 2007, 6:47pm | #

Brad,

There is SO much wrong with your comment...

#1 - I ain't in the mood to roll the dice on getting a President who's itchin' to initiate The Rapture anytime soon...

First of all, "I ain't"? Second, how the hell would he "initiate" the rapture and what does that have to do with the origins of the universe?

#2 - Anybody who rejects evolution in favor of creation myths of any kind prove themselves to be incapable TO reaching good conclusions...

There is no such thing as bad conclusions. There is only conclusions, saying good is pointless.

He did not "reject evolution" he simply said he believed God created the universe and the origin of the universe is questionable. Only .3% of America is atheist, so expecting a candidate to not believe in God is ridiculous. Even if an atheist ran, they more than likely would not be elected.

#3 - I'm not against people having religion...

People do not "have religion" but, obviously you are against a president "having religion". You are saying that ANY candidate who believes that "God" created the universe is incapable of being a good president and lacks the ability to separate their beliefs from The Constitution. There is no logic behind this line of reasoning.

This is the silliest reason to NOT vote for Paul. ALL the candidates believe in God creating the universe. ALL the candidates read the old testament and go to church. What are you proposing we do? Not vote until an agnostic or atheist runs under the libertarian ticket? I'm sorry, but I can't wait that long for freedom to come back to America and to be perfectly honest, I think Ron Paul would open up the door to the possibility of an Atheist-Libertarian being president.

This story is just another failed attempt to make Ron Paul look bad to the Ron Paul supporters.

Brad | December 28, 2007, 6:49pm | #

And for those who keep saying that it doesn't matter what he think about evolution, because he's so disciplined by his Constitutional beliefs that it wouldn't impact us, have you read this blurb that he wrote:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Is anybody ready to sign up with a guy who states that "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."

Sure, he adheres to HIS interpretation of the Constitution. No shit. So does everybody else. The devil is in HOW he interprets the Constitution. And a guy who doesn't care for that whole Jeffersonian church/state separation thing is not much of a libertarian in my book.

Fluffy | December 28, 2007, 6:50pm | #

Tim:

The Earth is not a closed system, so if temperature change invalidates the jar as a test of entropy, the Earth can't be such a test either. The sun adds energy to the system in massive amounts every day.

Also, evolution isn't really comparable to mathematics - it's more comparable to history. I can't give you a mathematical proof like those in geometry or trigonometry that Ronald Reagan was once President of the United States - but anyone who says that it's not "proven" that Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States is a moron.

The obtuse positivism of some math types is really annoying.

You may not think that the historical evidence of evolution is on a par with the historical evidence that Ronald Reagan was President of the United States - but as these things are measured it's not really that far off. Certainly the age of the universe and the general tectonic history of the Earth is as well attested as any individual event in US history, including the ones we have photographic evidence for.

Warren | December 28, 2007, 6:56pm | #

Awwwwwwww crap.




I'm still voting for him. But I think he just lost $1,250

Brad | December 28, 2007, 7:00pm | #

Shayrah: Excellent response to my post. You correctly caught one intentional use of the word "ain't" as well as identified my use of "good conclusion" and "bad conclusion" in ways that could probably be better worded as "conclusions based on rational thought" and "conclusions based on belief in magic."

However, neither of those detracts from the points I made, nor do they indicate any "wrong" with my post other than some minor semantics that don't impact the content of the post.

Please explain the logic behind your assertion that a guy who publicly refutes evolution AND speaks against the separation of church and state is somehow a conduit to the potential of one day having an openly agnostic President? How does that make any sense at all?

Yes, yes, I know that Paul has a cult following of people who see him as some of visionary of change, but I'm just not seeing it.

My first requirement in a President is that they can make good decisions (better semantics for you there?) and reach conclusions that make sense based on reason and rational thought. Policies (which generally don't get implemented anyway) come after that. Paul fails the first test for me.

hale | December 28, 2007, 7:00pm | #

Tim,

As far as DNA, I really don't see how anyone could believe you could get the billions of bits of information necessary to get a human being without some sort of guidance.

What you've said here is: "I'm an engineer and [standard Intelligent Design argument]." Until you explain the actual reason for your claim that knowledge about DNA produces evidence against the theory of evolution, that's just a fallacious appeal plus something we've all seen before.

John C. Randolph | December 28, 2007, 7:02pm | #

"Can someone explain to me the relevance of the evolution - creation debate in the presidential race? "

Well, if Ron Paul were to succeed in his stated intention to remove the federal government's involvement in schools, then it would of course be moot.

The real issue is that as long as there's a monopoly schooling cartel, just what's going to be taught at the taxpayer's expense is going to be something for people to fight over. The solution is trivial: 100% tax credits for private school tuition.

-jcr

Shayrah | December 28, 2007, 7:05pm | #

Brad,

The separation of church and state put forth in the constitution has to do with making laws against a religion. The public display of religious parifanalia and prayer in certain places is an entirely different subject.

For example:

President "Separation of Church and State" (Thomas Jefferson) himself said before Congress...

"I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations."

The Wine Commonsewer | December 28, 2007, 7:05pm | #

Will 5 billion years of patience do?

Maybe. But your asking me to accept that somehow, out of nothing, a few stray amino acids washed up on the beach out of some primordal stew and during the ensuing five billion years acquired the knowledge and taste to create great wine.

OTOH, I'm watching five kids this afternoon (ages 2-11) and I'm pretty sure at least two of them offer hard evidence that evolution is fact (even though they haven't evolved very dam far).

anomdebus | December 28, 2007, 7:05pm | #

Tim,
I hope you are not just trying to be annoyingly precise in order to throw me. I believe you could have answered the question with what you believe to be a reasonable assumptions. If you chose different assumptions, then it would be incumbent upon me to clarify what my assumptions were.

I am talking about an experiment conducted in your kitchen, and so you can assume you will have the sort of things most people have in their kitchens: air, gravity, heat, etc..
Regarding temperature, lets say that the ingredients have come to an equilibrium temperature with the surroundings.
I would assume that for a time, the solution would increase in temperature due to the sugar moving toward a less energetic state. The heat to eventually transfer from the liquid to the surroundings and re-equilibrates.
I said the water becomes clearer, so I'll go with water.
Solution n 1a A homogeneous mixture of two or more substances, which may be solids, liquids, gases, or a combination of these.
I think you are familiar with the experiment I am talking about. I don't believe supersaturation is required, though it may take a long time.
The jar is not at all isolated. The point isn't about isolation, its about how to show that everything must not exclusively increase in entropy, only as a whole will entropy increase.

If you want a simpler example. You buy a bag of legos and dump them on the floor. Even before dumping them, they were out of order. You take the time to order them in a straight line. The legos have had their entropy decreased at the cost of increased entropy in yourself (lower energy level). Overall, entropy increased, but the legos don't reflect this.

You have a genesis problem no matter what. God either always existed, in which case so might have some form of life. Or God didn't always exist and you have the same problem as abiogenesis.

John C. Randolph | December 28, 2007, 7:05pm | #

" It is in the bible, that is ALL the proof that is needed. Period, end of discussion."

Thanks for illustrating so clearly the fact that you bible-thumpers are incapable of reason.

-jcr

rpu28 | December 28, 2007, 7:06pm | #

"Anybody who rejects evolution in favor of creation myths of any kind prove themselves to be incapable to reaching good conclusions based on the evidence presented to them, and they show serious signs of placing "faith" over evidence in their general decision-making process."

Brad, that would mean that all non-evolutionists are unfit for the presidency, a difficult proposition to buy into. Further, it does not exclude any evolutionists that happen to be legitimately unfit for the presidency, meaning that somebody has to dream up additional qualifying rules. I still maintain that the evolution - creation question is not relevant to the presidential race.

YEC | December 28, 2007, 7:06pm | #

How do we know how old something we find in the ground is? We check the layer in which it was found.

How do we know how what era a layer in the ground is? We check to see what items have been found in it.

SIV | December 28, 2007, 7:07pm | #

Has any Presidential candidate stated his or her belief in the "theory of evolution" as indisputable scientific fact?

I'm betting No.

AlmigthyJB | December 28, 2007, 7:09pm | #

I don’t believe in God. I believe that evolution is the most probable theory we have on the origin of the species. We may find evidence in the future that there are other things in play as well, especially considering all of the unanswered questions the theory raises. Paul said evolution is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Real science deals in probabilities not absolutes. When someone says something is an absolute truth (like evolution) and there can’t possibly be any other explanations or contributing factors and that any who is skeptical is an idiot, that viewpoint is not scientific in nature, it is dogmatic (religious). Additionally, I really fail to see how his opinion on this would impact his presidency, especially given the fact that he’s the only candidate that believes the federal government should stay out of the classroom. Also, 95% of the people on the planet believe in some sort of creation story. While it would be nice if one of the 5% of the smarter people would run for president, it hasn’t happened before, and I wouldn’t look for it to happen anytime soon. I have my issues with Paul, but this certainly isn’t one of them. It’s a nice media gotcha question for the GOP candidates though. I don’t see to many of those gotcha questions being asked of the democrats.

prolefeed | December 28, 2007, 7:11pm | #

If I was certain that Paul was perfectly rational on every topic EXCEPT for evolution, then I would give him a pass. However, I have no way of knowing that, so I can't. As such, he goes into the "wacko bin" category on my ballot, and that's a group that I will never vote for ... even if they are more libertarian on the surface than their opponents.

I personally consider the following to be "whacko bin" material: "Stealing from some people to give a portion to others while systematically r