0 votes

Ron Paul: I don't accept the theory of evolution

Comment viewing options

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

Again, if Ron Paul's thoughts on this topic is what you are

REALLY interested in, go to:

Liberty Defined, pp.104ff. "Evolution versus Creation" chapter.

and Joη's Liberty Defined web site:

thank you

I felt better after reading that, he does not dismiss evoulution while at the same time does not endorce it.I can live with that.

He needs to explain his view on this better I have noticed people bashing him on comment sections in articles and the talking heads are starting in on this too.

I will admit when I was first confronted with that video clip I was not prepared for it and my first thought was it was because of religion..... I am sure most peopole will take it the same way .

Ron Paul talks of many controvertial things and this topic will be used against him no doubt about it, he needs to aknowledge the science behind it.


he doesn't outright reject evolution in the book.

I think if he could, he'd take back that one sentence in that video saying he doesn't accept it. I don't think he really meant that, though of course I cannot speak for him. I'd be surprised if you ever hear him say he outright rejects like many people here do.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

Who cares wrong or right

I am a non religious person who thinks evolution is how it happened. I do not think Dr.Paul or anyone else is wrong for believing the opposite it is their choice. besides don't we have actual problems to worry about instead of some issue like this that is intended to divide us?

A story about what RP believes...

...is considered "off-topic" by the DP? Too funny. It's almost like you're embarrassed (scared?) to have anybody know this...

yep...and when somebody replies...

it doesn't go into the queue, so nobody sees unless they specifically dig it up.

This is an issue. We don't want to face it because we know it's a 'black eye' for Ron Paul in the view of the voting public.

I think we should discuss it and come up with a good response when confronted with it by articles, etc. There have been some good responses here, hope this thread can be productive in the end. We never agree on everything... can't expect to.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose


How is it a "'black eye' for Ron Paul in the view of the voting public" when less than 40% of Americans believe in evolution?

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

not sure where you got your statistic,

or if it's accurate in the context of the 'voting' public, but to the majority of the educated sector of the population, a rejection of evolution demotes Ron Paul down to the evangelical class of Perry and Bachmann. We know differently, but he'll lose a lot of potential supporters on that issue alone.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

I'm in agreement with you on

I'm in agreement with you on this, BugMan.

thanks Velv...

Looks like another roller coaster ride like in '08. I read a great article like Koerner's at HuffPo, and get all hopeful that maybe it could really happen. Next day, this evolution thing gets exposed and we see RP saying he doesn't accept it (albeit an old clip) ... and so many of his supporters here arguing the same by mostly quoting scriptures and/or making hollow, uneducated statements, and I realize that these folks represent a substantial percentage of his supporters, and what a long shot it is again.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

Because the part of the

Because the part of the population who does not believe in evolution represents the tip of the spear in a frightening future filled with ignorant people.

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot...

make you feel comfy? o_O

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Just "nope"?

No explanations? No rationalizations? :)

And what about the eugenics movements of the 20th century? Eugenics was considered the triumphant ascension of scientific rationalization and darwinism and the beginning of a golden dawn for mankind!

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

I'd be satisfied if people were simply

educated in a manner free from the deadening influence of religion. It would do wonders for our increasingly incompetent population.


and it is inevitable that one day those of similar self-superior self-admirating mindset as you will attempt to make it so at the end of a gun and through a purging of the gene pool... ;)

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Not at all

People are free to decide, but my preference is to leave superstition behind.


there is a boatload of religious folk from all kinds of religions who don't believe in evolution who are ready to fight and die for your freedom to believe whatever you want. Including Ron Paul...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Same goes for the other boat

Same goes for the other boat full of non-religious folks. :)



~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

He does not accept evolution

My guess is, because he does not accept these minor premises:

1) The origin of the universe(Laws, Space/Time, Matter) from nothing without intervention(and the eventual return to nothing)

2)The origin of life from inorganic matter without intervention

3)Common descent of life on earth

So he is right to object, at least until we learn to ask these questions separately.


Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

The same science that Ron Paul studied to be a doctor...

is the same science that is used to explain evolution.

And is the same science that creates the medicines and surgical techniques that might one day save your life. Maybe when the time comes you should also refuse any sort of medical care because it might be predicated on some hokey science stuff. Are we really seriously debating the merits of scientific thought here? If so, you might want to consult the following baloney detection kit: (which science uses to cut through the bullshit)

The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

- Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts

- Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

- Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

- Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

- Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.

- Quantify, wherever possible.

- If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

- "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

- Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

- Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.

- Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:

- Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

- Argument from "authority".

- Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).

- Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

- Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).

- Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).

- Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

- Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

- Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)

- Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").

- Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.

- Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.

- Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).

- Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).

- Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").

- Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).

- Confusion of correlation and causation.

- Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..

- Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

- Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

Humans are an anomoly

Our digestive, circulatory, endocrine, nervouse systems, the complexity of our eyes, the dexterity in our fingers.. our ability to reason.. It does not fit the pattern of other earth life. We're way more complex. Something happened, there was a change. Some chalk it up to randomness, some chalk it up to "God". I have my own belief. But unless we invent a time machine.. the point is rather mute.

But they tried the same thing on Christine O'conner. It worked in the sense that her opponent (some sneaky little twit who you know had to lie cheat and steal to enable his survival) made her look silly for not believing in what he claimed was scientific fact. When it is not. People dont know what happened last week in the news.. you really expect me to believe that they know what happened billions of years ago?

Semper Fortis

We're way more complex. ??? Wait.. WHAT?

Have you ever seen those big apes and chimps? We are less hairy, somewhat more intelligent (debatable) but not THAT different! Our systems are virtually identical, and our DNA is 99% identical.

I don't see it as such a stretch to think we had common ancestors millions of years ago.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

"People dont know what

"People dont know what happened last week in the news.. you really expect me to believe that they know what happened billions of years ago?"

What is your argument? That people are stupid, therefore scientists must be stupid? Or that people are stupid, therefore, how dare one expects O'conner to be not-stupid?

The specifics of evolution, the minutia, how EXACTLY it happened are definitely up for debate. And there are debates about those things. But the governing theory of macroevolution is soundly supported and widely accepted by scientists.

On another note, you can say that YOU don't believe in evolution, or YOU don't believe in global warming. But you can't say scientists are with you in your disbelieve (ie, claiming that evolution was indeed not scientific fact).

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Dr. Paul was right..

Its not a political debate. Itsa scientific/ theological debate. (But it becomes political when this very questionable theory is force taught to us in school)

Your wrong on macroevolution (meaning big drastic changes). Those dont occur. Microevolution occurs.. in botrh short and long spans of time. Human examples of microevolution: people in general getting taller, the extiction of and creation of new phenotypes, REDHEADS, learned behavior, illnesses (changes arent always good)ect ect.. This stuff happens in all species. Thats why some go extict..

Macroevolution just doesnt happen, never happened, impossible to happen. Man coming from.. ape? Ape coming from.. fish? Fish deciding to walk on land? And then turning to lizzards? I remember reading a book as a child telling me that the modern day chicken is a descendent of the the T-rex. Seriously! The illustration showed the striking similarities in their hip-bone structure. The same theory was mention in the jurassic park movie. No.. its nonsense. Im no scientist.. but im not a little kid anymore

Semper Fortis

Man does not come from ape.

Man does not come from ape. Man shares an ancestor with ape.

Think of macroevolution as just a lot of micrevolution pooled together. Succesful, consecutive microevolutions over millions of years gets you macroevolution.


Some fossil evidence of "fish deciding to walk on land".

This childishness in conservative needs to stop, where someone's faith, view of the world, 5th grade education, or life experience trumps facts, science, polling, evidence, research.

Your rationale for disgreeing for thousands of scientists is that "you read a book as a child". Seriously? That is your reasoning!

If you want to argue against evolution, read, study, investigate. Read about evoultion, about what it is. And then read counter-theories, creationism, etc. I think a rationale person will come out of that in support of evolution. But even if you don't, at least you've made the effort to understand something, rather than dismiss it out of hand.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

If you pick up darwins "origin of species"

You'll see pictures of macroevolutions that evolutionists believe in. You'll see an illustration of a mouse, then the next generation of mouse had small wings, then the next generation of mouse had bigger wings, then the next generation of mouse.. wasnt even a mouse anymore.. now itsa bat.

If that were true.. the fossil record would have provided the bones of the mouse generation in transition into a bat; transitional fossils. But there are none! There are no transitional fossils. Zero! Not in any species and certainly not in humans. Fish were always fish, apes were always apes. How humans got here.. theres more to it than evolution, more to it than what is said in the bible.

Semper Fortis

Like I said, the minutia of

Like I said, the minutia of evolution is up for debate. But taking the illustrations depicted in a century+ old book and claiming that is what scientists believe in today is silly....in fact, Darwin himself probably meant them to be characatures of evolution for the common man to understand.

That is what Darwin, armed with little knowledge, theorized. People have refined the specifics of his claim over and over again.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a


Always seems to get the most replies. :)

btw, I am confident RP's medical training has reinforced this position as well.

Nevertheless, freedom brings people together.