-14 votes

Ron Paul and the "evolution is a theory" albatross

As Ron Paul is taken more seriously, his position on evolution is going to become an impediment to making progress among the educated masses:


Evolution is scientific fact. Anyone who has spent a serious 15 minutes reading about it on Wikipedia knows this.

Wikipedia evolution article

Ron Paul obviously has obviously not spent 15 minutes reading that yet.

This is a political impediment because it can appear that he is willing to put belief ahead of scientific fact, or he's not interested in getting the facts straight before choosing a position. Either way, these are traits that many people, particularly the educated, will find to be deal-breakers in terms of selecting someone to be president. I mean, this is 2011. Evolution is just a theory? Give me a break.

And please don't waste time and space by defending Creationism or ID without reading the Wikipedia article.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Lies and more lies from Minarchist

1) Gotta love the creative editing on the linked video. You can plainly tell there is a break in the answer Paul is giving.

2) Regardless of his personal belief that it's a theory is his clear belief in The Constitution. He will put that belief ahead of anything political.

3) From your beloved wiki article "Highly energetic chemistry is believed to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed" See the key word "believed". Your basing your "fact" on a belief. The article continues to use "consensus"....as we've seen used with climate change...and see where that got us. There are large and gaping holes as well as evidence that this consensus was contrived on crap scientific method and experiments.

4) "The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[7]" There is still scientific debate on many key issues in evolution. Until it can be proven without a doubt, it is still very much a theory! http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

5) When you boil it down....everyone is basing their beliefs based on someone elses belief...wrap your head around that big guy.


has been a destructive troll since day one.
How minarchist has escaped banning, considering the massive amount of trolling on various divisive subjects, I really don't now.
But now, I think would be a good time for it, before even more destructive trolling occurs closer to election time.

here, read this article I wrote..it helps create shades of grey


A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

Ha, encouraging absolutism with absolutism...

from mythology to ecology...nothing is absolute.

This is the nature of the beast economists call socialism, ecologists call Darwinism and some call social Darwinism… it is the belly up stigma which has caused fear to reign over spirituality.

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.


Is this the same post you had going three years ago in the last campaign and you only have 50 comments. Do you ever talk about anything else besides evolution. I bet you go crazy if no one comments for a couple days. If they dont do you just set here and watch for someone to post. So in three years how many christians have you converted? lol


Just who is he trying to save?

Scientific Method

It's as simple as this...

If you can reproduce the test and obtain the SAME test results as before, you can prove a theory.

If you can't, you can't.

Since it would take God to reproduce several billion years of evolution, we can't.

Which makes evolution an unprovable theory.

That's called the "scientific method".

Any other assertion that is made to appear or sound scientific, it is not. It is scientism, no different from any other religious faith.

There is no science that is not based in logic and the scientific method. NONE.

A fact?

Really? So the "fact" that the Chinese have been around for 6,000 years and are just now learning how to "create" a more free society is what, evolution?
6,000 years to evolve.

Those who believe in that b/s are the same people who think that socialism is more humane. Most of these types have never been anywhere.

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution

6,000 years is just a blink

6,000 years is just a blink for biological evolution.

However, 6,000 years is a very long time for memetics, and the elements of free societies are learned by memetics, not biological evolution.

"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."


Read scientific evidence

for macro-evolution being a weak scientific theory and not a scientific law. Evolution within a species can be supported.

Here is a good website that deals with the creation aspect using solid science: http://www.icr.org/

It has "Creation" in the title...I hope that doesn't stop you from checking it out.

Here is an article example: New Human-Chimp Chromosome 2 Data Challenge Common Ancestry Claims http://www.icr.org/article/6044/

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

Evolution "within" a species is correct.

It has been demonstrated. But that can also be called mutation which is not NECESSARILY evolution, though mutation is a requirement of evolution.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Look at your parents. Look at their parents. Look at you. Look at your siblings. That's evolution. One step at a time. Now imagine 5 generations back - about 100 years. Now 50 generations... about 1,000 years. Now 500 generations... about 10,000 years. Now 5,000 generations... about 100,000 years... and, yes, 50,000 generations or 1,000,000 years ago.

So, take the obvious changes that you see between generations in your very family, and apply them over and over, 50,000 times! You don't see changes in species? Really?

Do you realize that even with "species" -- including humans -- there is so much genetic variation that some male/female pairs are already sexually incompatible - incapable of successfully producing offspring? Take a man A and woman B, and man C and woman D, such that A-B and C-D are genetically compatible, but A-D and C-B are not. Do you realize that if the offspring of A-B never mate with individuals who are compatible with C-D, and the offspring of C-D never mate with individuals who are compatible with A-B, that the respective lines will become more and more distinctive until they are clearly separate species?

Are you aware of ring species in which a whole chain of populations each have individuals genetically/sexually compatible with neighboring populations, but individuals at one end population are not compatible (are separate species) with those at the other end? How do you explain that?

"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."


You can BELIEVE what you want....

"Look at your parents. Look at their parents. Look at you. Look at your siblings. That's evolution. "

"Everyone knows" is not scientific method.

Perhaps it fits into the religious belief called "scientism".

However, SCIENCE must follow the scientific method or its not science. Simple as that.

Either you can reproduce the test and test results to prove the theory or it remains an UNPROVEN theory.

If you assert unproven theory as fact or science, then you are a religionist like any other religionist.

Joη's picture

why are you even arguing this?

I don't understand.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

I think it's interesting that....

...many atheists do not realize that they are, in fact, religionists just like any other religionist.

On the flip side, I find it disturbing that among folks in our rational movement that there are so many who are unable to tell the difference between SCIENCE vs. SCIENTISM.

Among the genpop, I'd expect that. It's really unfortunate to find it here.

Anyway, we're in the off-topic forum. So, when I'm bored... :)

Joη's picture


you have to admit evolution is an omnipresent process.

I'm pretty sure before you were saying evolution "within" a species is ok, but evolution "from one pre-existing species to a new, previously non-existent species" can't be proven. But that's like saying "gravity only works when balls are rolling down hills". Whenever code is copied, errors are possible. Some errors affect reproduction. That's it. If it happens in the small scale, it happens in the large scale.

You base this "ok-ness" on its observability, when observations from indirectly-related processes can explain each other.

Just because we haven't in real-time observed planets form, enough is still known to simulate how it happens, with a reasonable expectation that it's worth building upon the understanding gained. If you really want, it can remain a "theory" that best matches with all known evidence thus far.

I don't get the point. Everything in science is a model (or theory) that is improved upon as more data is made available. But scientists tend not to phrase it like that to the general public for exactly the confusing reason you're injecting: it colloquially suggests it can be completely wrong, when it's more a relativity of wrong.


If I've misinterpreted you, sorry. I'm all for building on facts, too.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?


The scientific method doesn't say anything about opinions about "omnipresent processes".

The scientific method is cut and dry, black and white, no exceptions.

Either you follow the scientific method and produce science or you dont.

The scientific method REQUIRES reproducible tests and reproducible test results from those tests.

There is no other science. Period. This is unarguable. To argue anything else means you are trying to prove a faith based process. That is not science, I'm sorry, regardless of how strongly you feel it's "omnipresence."

It doesn't DISPROVE the theory of evolution either.

However, to state that evolution is proven fact is a religious assertion based on scienTISM, not science, unless you have reproducible tests with reproducible test results.

You can test gravity. That's why it's called the LAW of Gravity, because it is demonstrable in test after test with the same results each time.

Joη's picture

but what you're saying isn't helping anything

it's just words at this point.

Neither of us are saying evolution is disproven.
We both rely upon tangible evidence to support our conclusions.

It sounds like you're just unwilling to consider how one can test processes that span beyond the duration of human civilization.

I'm surprised you didn't bring up that gravity is only a theory, it's just so easily observable that we call it a law.

Just because evolution is harder to observe—though still observable—doesn't make it any less of a valid explanation, arguably more valid than gravity because we do fundamentally know how evolution works, whereas we fundamentally don't with gravity. But that's a tangent.

Why disparage a logical explanation of a colossal trove of evidence as "scientism" just because it's hard to demonstrate in a human lifetime?

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

Gravity is NOT only a theory.

It's called the LAW of Gravity because it can be demonstrated in reproducible tests yielding reproducible test results.

The THEORY of evolution cannot be demonstrated via the scientific method. Therefore, it remains a scientifically UNPROVEN THEORY, UNLIKE the Law of Gravity.

Sorry you are wrong again, Jon.

Gravity and Evolution are both theory and fact.

The observable fact things fall down (and never up, or sideways, except as explainable by application of another force) is the fact of gravity, and is beyond dispute. There are also actually several theories of gravity, which aim to explain that observable fact. Newton, Einstein, and Bohrs for instance all had different theories of gravity, and new work will certainly continue to change our understanding of the theory of gravity in the future, but no sane person could dispute the *fact* of gravity.

Evolution is isomorphic. The observable fact that biological populations change over time is the fact of evolution, and just as beyond dispute as the fact of gravity. Theories to explain it go very far back indeed, even Lamarck built on a millenia of theorising when he advanced his own theory of evolution. Darwin came up with a better theory based on his own experiences, and a number of scientists since him have built on his work, adjusting it in light of Mendel's experiments, fossil evidence, and so on. No doubt the theory will continue to be fine-tuned over time, but the fact is still beyond dispute.

The difference between the two is that no one has a religious or political reason to want to dispute gravity, while a lot of people have vested interests in confusing the heck out of people on evolution. As a result the level of disinformation and ignorance on the subject is appalling. I have reviewed a great number of anti-evolution tracts personally and so far I havent found a single one that wasnt arguing against a straw man from beginning to end - arguing not against anything a biologist would recognise as evolutionary theory at all, but rather against some insane jumble of nonsense incorrectly labeled as evolution.


There is a "Law of Gravity". There is no "Law" of Evolution. There is only a "Theory of Evolution".

Why? Because Evolution cannot be scientifically proven via scientific method, where as Gravity can.

It's as simple as that.

Your feelings and beliefs regarding the above are irrelevant.

Either something is proven via scientific method or it is not.

Gravity is. Evolution is not. Simple as that.

Newtons Universal Law of Gravitation?

You really should try to keep up, science has advanced quite a bit in the last 327 years. Newtons law was provably incorrect even at the time of publication, and has been superceded long ago, though it is still useful as it provides a quick approximation that is accurate enough for most practical purposes, under the circumstances we typically use it in.

You also appear to have fallen prey to the common misconception that "good theories grow up to be facts and that the really good ones finally become laws." This isnt even close to the truth. To use gravity as our example again, the fact that things fall down is pretty fundamental. It says nothing about why, and it doesnt give us any sort of formula to predict the delta of a falling object, but it is a fact that no one could dispute. The fact of evolution is just the same (and in fact creationist literature, as I noticed earlier, doesnt really dispute the fact so much as avoid it through fallacious reasoning and false assertions.)

The "law of gravity" on the other hand, is a succinct formula that actually predicts the exertion of gravitational force and thus the delta a falling object will exhibit. It's factually incorrect, been known to be factually incorrect for centuries, but it still remains widely used because it is as accurate as it needs to be for most purposes, under the circumstances we normally need to use it under. There are numerous analogues that we could refer to as laws of evolution that are used to predict biological change in specific circumstances.

When we go further than that and actually try to answer the question of *why* in relation to a given fact, such as gravity or evolution, what we produce is called a hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable and thus must have implications that can be tested - whether these implications are formulated as 'laws' or not. Only after a hypothesis has withstood a great deal of testing and held up do we start to think of it as a theory rather than a mere hypothesis.

Properly speaking, scientific hypotheses are *never* proven in the way that you are using the word. The outcome of any test is only "no" or "maybe." When you get a long enough strings of "maybe" results with no "false" results we can upgrade it from a hypothesis to a theory, but we must always remain ready to accept a single "false" result as disproving it.

"Your feelings and beliefs regarding the above are irrelevant."

Exactly right.

And since you cannot "test" evolution...

...and produce reproducible test results from the same test each time, therefore, evolution will remain a theory and never be scientifically proven.

That doesn't mean it didn't happen. It may have. It means using scientific method, you can't prove it did.

Period end of story.

Except we can and do test it

Every single day.

Please attempt to learn something about scientific method before presuming to lecture others.

not quite

When ALL the available and relevant evidence supports one theory, none of it contradicts that theory, while no evidence supports any other competing theory, that's as close to proving it is accurate as we'll ever get.

"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."



Your opinion on scientific method is irrelevant.

Either a theory is proven via scientific method or it is not.

Evolution is not and cannot be unless you have repeatable test results yielding the same results each time.

It's binary and not subject to opinion.

Anything that is not demonstrated via scientific theory lies in the realm of beliefs, religionism and scientism, but not science.

Joη's picture

so are random number generators scientism?

(ignoring their necessarily pseudorandom nature)

because their purpose is to yield different results each time?

Inexplicable according to the scientific method?

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

Stop being silly....

If the hypothesis you are testing is, for example, "this random number generator will generate a '1' each time," then your hypothesis will 99.9999999999999999999999999999% be not proven and if you continue to reiterate your theory, then your theory will continue to be unproven, yes.

Additionally, your question demonstrates a profound ignorance in what the scientific method is. It is the HYPHOTHESIS or THEORY which is proven or not, not the object under analysis. Further, in your example, "random number generator", you provided an axiomatic question. In other words, no proof is needed that 1+1=2, because 1+1=2 each time, 100% of the time with no deviations in test results.

The "hardness" of observations.

Jon, your assertion is utter and unscientific nonsense.

The "hardness" of observations is irrelevant.

Your statements and observations do not rely on tangible evidence.

The ONLY "tangible evidence" that demonstrates something is scientific or not is reproducible test results from a reproducible test.

There is no other "tangible evidence". PERIOD. None.

To assert otherwise is to assert a religious position.

So, if you assert that evolution is factual or scientific or scientifically proven, then you are asserting a religious principle of FAITH, for your assertions cannot be scientifically proven.