When compared to the other Republican presidential candidates, Ron Paul seems almost sane (but then, in that crowd so would L. Ron Hubbard). But before you think he will swoop in and save us from far-right theocrats like Huckabee and Romney, think again. When asked what he thinks about evolution, here was his response:
I will have plenty to say about these guys soon enough — I think they are all quite unfit to command a country in the 21st century, since they seem to believe in the methods of the Middle Ages. But let me make one comment…
On a bulletin board I read, someone posed a question: imagine a candidate with whom you agreed on every issue, but who did not "believe" in evolution (I put it in quotation marks because saying that is like saying you don’t "believe" in gravity). Would you support that candidate?
You might think the answer is contingent; what about the other candidates? How do they compare? But I think that doesn’t matter. If a candidate did not "believe" in evolution, then I 100% guarantee that I will not agree with them on many other issues, and these issues will be of utmost import. The First Amendment, for example. Plus, any candidate who thinks one of the most basic laws of science is wrong would then be prey to any other antiscience huckster who wants to deny global warming, the benefits of stem cell research, and the importance of alternative energy sources… and probably dozens of other things.
Once you deny reality, the door to any and all evil is wide open.
And don’t forget: evolution is not the be-all and end-all of creationists. They want to deny the true age of the Universe, and that touches on literally all divisions of science, from astronomy to zoology. Given their way, the entire endeavor of science would be scrapped, replaced with Biblical teachings, and that would just be the start of the reversion of our society to the pre-Enlightenment. This is no exaggeration. One need only read the Wedge Document to see what these folks want to turn our world into.
And Ron Paul buys into that garbage– or he panders to those who do, which is essentially the same thing. Just so’s you know.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
I’ve known about this before, but I still support him because he geniunely wants to keep his own beliefs, whether they be religious or not, out of the country’s affairs. For example, he doesn’t necessarily agree with homosexual marriage, but he said its not the Government’s place to say it is wrong. It seems to me that he will take a similar stance regarding all things of this matter.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
The difference between Ron Paul and the other candidates is that he won’t force his beliefs on others.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
“I think it was a very inappropriate question for the presidency to be decided on a scienfific matter” !!!!!one!!!!! that’s scary.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Evolution is a theological issue???
why can’t these guys just say they are theistic evolutionists…..they would loose a few right wingnuts but, they would at least appear sane
December 26th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I agree with the other comments here that he has said that it’s not the government’s place to force his beliefs on others.
The other problem is that the Dem side isn’t much better. Hillary can’t even answer a question, she just seems to sidestep everything. And the Obama that spoke at the DNC during the last election is long gone, replaces with a shadow of the previous Obama that’s been overgroomed by his campaign.
You also have to remember that while Ron Paul is running on the Republican ticket, he’s really a Libertarian.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Let me just add that I will most likely vote for Ron Paul, mostly because he’s at least different. The two party system is giving us crappy choices, and as Penn says, a vote for the lesser of two evils is still evil.
I don’t think Ron Paul is evil, I just think he’s a whacko that will mix up the pot a little. It may be a crappy 4 years if he wins, but things will look a LOT different come the next election if he does.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Here we come, the Ron Paul army, to defend our candidate.
Others have said it, but it’s worth repeating.
Just as it is absurd for certain groups to support a candidate for his personal beliefs, it’s also absurd to reject a candidate for them.
Ron Paul has such a following because he knows the difference between his personal beliefs and his government office. His whole platform is that the presidential power and federal government should be limited.
I’ll take a religious nut (which he’s not) who wants LESS power over any other candidate who wants more. PERIOD.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I gotta say, that didn’t scare me away from Ron Paul as much as I expected it to.
It seems like he’s saying he doesn’t believe in it, but he want any laws on the issue, so his opinion doesn’t really matter. He just doesn’t want to make the scientific debate (of which there really is none) into a political debate.
It’s strange that you mention you wouldn’t agree with Ron Paul on the first amendment, because Ron Paul supports the first amendment more than any other candidate I know of, so does that mean you wouldn’t support the first amendment and his right to say something stupid like the fact that he doesn’t believe in evolution?
December 26th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
When did evolution become a “one of the most basic laws of science”? I thought it was still a theory…
December 26th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Representative Pauls’ views on the Theory of Evolution are only a minor issue compared with his association with neonazis. See the attached links.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/12/can_someone_explain_to_me_why.php
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/neonazi_leader_says_paul_is_on.php#more
December 26th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
> because Ron Paul supports the first amendment more than any other candidate I know of
Well, yes, since he apparently thinks Congress doesn’t have the right to pass any laws. But since he voted for defense of marriage why does anyone believe him?
December 26th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Here we go again. Ron Paul stated in his essay “The War on Religion” that, and I quote:
“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. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.”
This is a man, who implies that he is a Libertarian, but, who has, obviously, never read the Constitution. I began by supporting him, but, as I have learned more about him, I can no longer do so. He is no better than any of the folks running for president. None have any interests other than their own aggrandizement. None are interested in the least about improving the Country in any way. There is no evidence of anything but greed from any of them, and, as evidentiary minded folks, we are supposed to be influenced by facts, aren’t we?
December 26th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
>zmeister
Well, so is the theory of gravity.
However, I do think there’s a difference between gravity and evolution (to play the devil’s advocate here). Anyone can readily see the effects of gravity in action, say, and apple falling from the tree. No one, on the other hand, has ever seen the true effects of evolution (or, to be more precise, evolution brought about by natural selection) in action. That is definitely one of the reasons why it’s so much harder to persuade fundamentalists compared to other issues, e.g., heliocentricity, gravity, etc.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Look. Who decided evolution and faith in a creation God are impossible to co-exist? What is time to God? I believe in the triune God and am incredibly excited when I think about the Big Bang being the spark of life. Light was everywhere!
I too am worried about a leader of our country saying evolution does not exist. It’s embarrassing.
I teach 8th grade science in Florida. This year the science standards are being revised and will include the teaching of evolution. Currently they read the “student knows that the fossil record provides evidence that changes in the kinds of plants and animals in the environment have been occurring over time.” Last year, my first year of teaching this content, I was kidding around and reported to my colleagues that “I was using the “E” word.” Surprisingly, some of the other teachers said they had just skipped over that part of the curriculum. I was shocked that this was even an issue.
Let’s keep moving forward. Science is a discovery process. One must look at the evidence. Denying the existance of the evolutionary process does not hurt the scientist. It makes the speaker look ignorant.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
bigjohn… “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Would you be so kind and comment where does Paul’s statement clash with the first amendment?
Let’s take e.g. voluntary prayer at public schools. Can you comment where the constitution allows congress to pass laws to ban it?
Paul is libertarian who believes in decentralization of power (most do, right?). Thus, he wants federal government to pass NO laws regarding religion. What’s wrong with that?
December 26th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Even though I have no proof of it I am SLC’s friend and we both believe in creationism, big foot, and hate Canadians. I say this, as SLCs friend, with the same amount of proof the neo-Nazi’s have that Ron Paul supports their beliefs. SLC may claim I am not his friend and he doesn’t believe in big foot just how Ron Paul has publicly denounced the neo-Nazi’s but I am still SLC’s friend and he still believes in psychics. Now me and SLC will go and drink some homeopathic water and get super powers because that is what we believe in.
It’s nice to see people using reason and fact checking on a skeptic website.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124032.html
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124051.html
December 26th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
“When compared to the other Republican presidential candidates, Ron Paul seems almost sane (but then, in that crowd so would L. Ron Hubbard). ”
Just curious, does this mean if you only had the choice of the Republican candidates and L. Ron Hubbard, that you would cast your vote for Hubbard?
December 26th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
RawheaD: “No one, on the other hand, has ever seen the true effects of evolution (or, to be more precise, evolution brought about by natural selection) in action.”
Never heard of the “super bugs” that are immune to the best antibiotics we have, just as one fer instance? Didn’t happen by magic.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
A candidate who does not believe in evolution is not one that will be able to bring our country safely through the next flu pandemic.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
If Ron Paul had a snowball’s chance of winning the Republican nod, I suppose I’d be more concerned. As it stands now, all I see is a sad and addlepated old man desperately trying to make whatever friends he can.
I’m pretty certain most rational people would have left the country long before that sort of situation became possible.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
@Zmeister:
I would -HIGHLY- recommend watching Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. It’s linked to somewhere in this blog, but it’s also a quick “pbs judgement day” google search away. The problem here is people misinterpreting the meaning of the word “theory”, and this is due in large part to the poor state of science education in the nation. Just as in mathematics a theorem may be regarded as a law and used for proofs, so may a theory of science be regarded as a law, I.E. Gravity or Electromagnetism. A scientific theory is more than just an idea; an idea is simply a hypothesis. A theory has large amounts of repeatable experimental evidence behind it. The advantage of a theory over a plain fact is that while a fact may be disproved with a single counter-example, a theory is much harder to disprove. A single counter-example to a theory will not destroy the theory, rather strengthen it. The counter-example may lead to a more elegant, complete theory that comes closer to the -TRUTH- and -REALITY- than the earlier theory. This is the purpose of the scientific method, which is often confused with being an establishment, while it is in reality a methodology for approaching a question and obtaining an answer.
Having studied, and beginning research in bioinformatics (A fancy word that, while not as fancy as “computational molecular biology”, means using computers to analyze DNA) it’s rather insulting on an almost personal level when someone denies evolution. The physical evidence is there in DNA, and computers are used only because of the truly gargantuan amount of information that is stored in just four chemical compounds. We can do some pretty amazing things with math and computer science (which is honestly just abstract logic), and we can look into the past given a few sequences of DNA. There is simply -so much- overwhelming evidence for evolution that I think many scientists forget how to rationally and simply explain it without resorting to “Well if you don’t trust us you’re just wrong”. The information is there, we just need to be calm in explaining the truth. On the other hand, I am also somewhat cynical and think that there are some people who are just too far-gone for reason.
That being said, I think Judge Jones from the Dover trial is a good example of someone who is honestly willing to learn. Going into the trial, everyone expected him to side with the supporters of Intelligent Design; he was appointed by Bush and confirmed by the neo-cons, but the scientists on the prosecution walked him through the evidence for biology.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
andy, Ron Paul thinks that the Constitution is ‘replete with references to god’. The Constitution makes NO REFERENCE TO GOD WHATSOEVER! Therefore, Ron Paul shows his ignorance of the Constitution.
He says, “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.” That is false, if he knew anything about the Constitution and its history, he would realize that the authors of the document were seriously concerned, maybe even afraid of giving politicians the power to impose their personal views of religion upon the populace through their legislative powers because most of them did not want to be forced to be Christian. (G. W. Bush has created his Christian theocracy through signing statements which the Supreme Court has illogically declared immune from legal action.)
By the same token, Congress cannot impede anyone from practicing their religion as they wish. But, where does it say that, when forced by religious people to use public tax money to proselytize, people of other faiths or no faith at all, cannot “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” to avoid being forced to worship some arbitrary god or other.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
“If a candidate did not “believe” in evolution, then I 100% guarantee that I will not agree with them on many other issues, and these issues will be of utmost import. The First Amendment, for example.”
That’s the craziest statement I’ve seen in a long time, and I sometimes read The Daily Kos!
Hitler believed in evolution, and in fact did his best to help it along in the direction he thought right. Kind of like what Algore wants.
Come to think of it, Algore has about as much problem with the first amendment as Hitler did.
It’s sad to see a rational person slip away in the grip of BDS.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
After reading this, I started perusing Ron Paul’s web site. More distressing, perhaps, than his view of evolution is his view on dietary supplements. He actually doesn’t want the FDA to be allowed to regulate the manufacture and sale of supplements, which are concentrated far more than they would ever appear in nature. He favors the status quo of supplements manufacturers claiming whatever they want about the composition of their products. What makes this even more egregious is that he’s an MD (OB/GYN). Does he seriously advocate that children and pregnant women take what amounts to medications with unknown provenance?
December 26th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
@Jim Howard:
That’s a serious logical flaw. “A then B” does not imply “not A then not B”. I’m sure we’d all find points of agreement with Hitler: “If you drop something, it falls.” I’m 100% certain that anyone who diagrees with this is someone with whom I’ll disagree on other major issues (”fall” is in the context of responding appropriately to the strength of the local gravitational field, of course).
December 26th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
RawheaD, every time a certain type of bacteria becomes resistant to certain antibiotic, you see evolution by natural selection happening. And that’s only one example. There are plenty more.
Just wanted to make that point. You can actually see evolution in action around you.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I really don’t understand why people (and young people in particular) are voting for Ron Paul. Are the Ron Paul voters Republicans who are dissenting from the mainstream Republican position? Or are they completely unaware of his position on the majority of issues? Do they like him because he’s quirky and doesn’t like the Republican-party’s foreign policy? He has a lot of wacky ideas. For example, he’s been advocating that the US should withdraw from the UN for the last 20 years. As far as I can tell, he’s just another social conservative republican + a bunch of his wacky ideas (many of them taken from far right pundits – people on the right have been advocating taking the US out of the UN for a long time).
December 26th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
@Jim Howard
That’s Reducto Ad Hitlerum, it’s flawed logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducto_ad_hitlerum
Furthermore Eugenics is practiced daily in the world of dog breeding. Then again I don’t want this to fall into an ethical debate on eugenics and its sociological effects.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Sorry for this double post but I forgot to add: Why do you say Algore instead of Al Gore, and what’s your problem with him? Has Futurama taught you nothing?
December 26th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Hitler believed in evolution, and in fact did his best to help it along in the direction he thought right. Kind of like what Algore wants.
How well Hitler, who was a great fan of pseudosciences and mysticism, actually understood evolution? His idea of the Aryan race was from Madame Blavatsky, not from Charles Darwin. It is true that in the late 19th century and the early 20th century many of Darwin’s ideas were perverted to serve racist purposes (both intentionally and unintentionally) by colonial powers.
Al Gore, even if he may be somewhat sensationalist and irritating, has based his claims on solid science produced by climatologists.
—
Re: Ron Paul, space-oriented readers should note that he strongly supports dismantling and privatization of NASA. If you can imagine that space sciences and astronomy can thrive without public funding, I congratulate you for having a really good imagination.
Being a citizen of a country that has a good social security system and top-quality public schools, I don’t understand the right-wing libertarian utopia of a low-tax society promoted by RP and others. It can only lead to a catastrophe if there isn’t any mechanism that smooths property differences.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Atheists who would otherwise be inclined to support Ron Paul, theo-nut, ought to consider Libertarian Frontrunner George Phillies, who has clearly stated he will not be sworn in on any religious text.
Disclaimer: he is my former Professor.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
I was one of the 25,000 first time contributors to the Ron Paul presidential campaign on Dec. 16th. I really like Dr. Paul’s adherence to the philosophies of our founding fathers. I especially like the “no entanglements” part. With every pothole that I crash through and every creaky bridge that I survive, I think towards the time when President Paul’s sound domestic/foreign policies have Americans working to repair USA infrastructure instead of destroying and then rebuilding the rest of the world. Why just the cash given to Israel alone would have paid for the “$14 Billion Dollar Big Dig” in just over two (2) years. Next year Israel wants the cash in euros.
So many of Dr. Paul’s young supporters are written off as freaks, flakes or even worse. What I have come to understand is that many of them are the families and friends of all these young people coming back from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They know that they are next to be shipped off to some foreign land to fight and die in these endless wars that only the bankers love. Is that why this government pushes so hard for ever more poverty stricken immigrants? They need the poor for their war! Say, NO MORE!
Our government has admitted that almost 4,000 of our children have been killed so far in this war for Israel. Tens of thousands have been horribly maimed and burned. A literal army of teenagers and twenty-somethings in their wheelchairs. They have been permanently disfigured and they will forever suffer from this insane war for Israel.
I am almost fifty years old and I have always voted. I have already changed my party to Republican for the primary in my state (FL). I will be voting for Dr. Paul.
For the first time in my life, I sent $50 to a politician.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
That still does not address the issues raised in the comments made here or the original blog post. And after reading about his views on the FDA, I have to say this guy is getting scarier and scarier. Couldn’t the republicans find someone who is NOT Senator Palpatine?
December 26th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
@Mike Marsh
I think that you’ll find that Libertarians would opt to keep the government completely out of most things. Stem cell research funding, drug regulation(prescription and street), regulating corporate activities of any kind, etc., etc.. I agree with a lot of this as long as folks had some guaranteed recourse in case of injury. Maybe a few more people would be injured at first, probably not, but soon irresponsible entities would fall by the wayside as their culpability became known. In the meantime, we, the people, would be rid of the cumbersome, inefficient, irresponsible, expensive, government bureaucracies we must tolerate now.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
The reason why Ron Paul doesn’t believe in evolution is simple – he wants to get elected to Congress in a Texas district that’s allergic to evolution. There are some lines you don’t cross in Texas and get elected as a Republican, and that’s one of them. End of story.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
@bigjohn:
Government out of most things, yes, but not everything. Matters of public safety are perfectly reasonable, from the libertarian perspective. Libertarians aren’t anarchists. There’s a compelling public interest in preventing snake-oil salesmen from peddling unknown potions with improbable claims. That’s just what the supplement industry is doing today. Supplements are ingested, but are legally neither food nor medication. There is no standard for their safety nor composition. The current standard is even worse than seeking recourse in the event of damages. The FDA can’t do anything until people die from a particular supplement.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
For Andy-perhaps you should check out the last 150 years of “evolving” constitutional law. While I appreciate the value of state’s rights, I do not believe that states, including agencies run by states, should be able to circumvent the constitution. Should a person have to pray to God to get notarized? For food stamps? To register a car?
Congress and the supreme court have started to recognize that a state with millions of citizens is almost a nation unto itself. So you would rather force hundreds of thousands of people to pray against their will and religion, or else leave a state, rather than just living up to the principles of the United States? As long as schools are public, they are an extension of government. If Indian immigrants became a majority in your state or county, would you send your kids to achieve Brahman in public school, or would you look to the government to protect your rights?
School prayer is just another example of the inherent absurdity and dishonesty of institutional religion in a free country. Time and experience have shown me (and Thomas Jefferson, and anybody else who lives in the real world but still makes time to crack a book now and then) that religious idealogues will make any excuse, twist any law, oppress any minority, just to get their way. There are plenty of religious schools out there which, thanks to the same supreme court that stopped mandatory prayer in public schools, are still recieving some of my tax dollars. If you want prayer in public schools, I want a refund! Just kidding, keep the money. I’m not as easily bought as a libertarian.
Sorry for going so far off-topic, but I will not vote for any presidential candidate who shows complete ignorance of these issues. But hey, I’m a college dropout. Maybe my expectations are too high.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Hopefully someone else has already said this in the above comments, but please don’t fall for the “Ron Paul doesn’t want to force his beliefs on anyone” nonsense. He is an absolute fraud who cares little for the constitution outside of where it serves himself, and he most certainly wants to force his beliefs on everyone else. Against abortion? OK, say its a “state issue” and tell the federal government not to get involved, quite obviously ensuring that a majority of Republican states ban it. Against the rich paying taxes? OK, get rid of income tax and advocate a “fair” national sales tax that “effects everyone equally,” ignoring the fact that the poor are the ones who get screwed. I could go on, but people who vote for Ron Paul aren’t going to change their minds. He is even fraudulent about lowering federal spending, since he has a long history of trying to get federal money for his own Texan constituency, while simultaneously being such a critical of spending anywhere else. Even in principle he’s a lunatic, we can’t get rid of the IRS, hamstring the federal government, etc., even if its fitting with what the founding fathers said. It no longer takes a week to cross a state-line, we don’t live in a world where those laws would work. If you still need proof he’s a loon, just look up how he feels about the Civil War (apparently it was a mistake, and the South should still have slavery).
December 26th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
>>Scriven Taylor
Are you that enamored with Ron Paul??? He is quite obviously denying the fact of evolution in any context because of his overbearing religious views, you give him an absurd amount of credit. Then again, it’s hard to understand someone who would argue that “it is fair to say that much of it does not truly qualify as theory for lack of observation and predictions.”
Newsflash Ron Paul, President Bush, etc.: Evolution isn’t some ivory-tower hypothesis, and hasn’t been for well over a CENTURY.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
I don’t believe in a creator, because that always leads you to the question of who created the creator, but I believe in Ron Paul. Imagine a Great Grandparent, who loved you very much, was a church-goer & believer, but never pressed you to believe what they believed. That’s Ron Paul. Who cares about it anyway? Religion in politics has caused too much war and fighting. Keep it in the home, that’s what Dr. Paul wants to do, make sure we keep our Liberty and Freedom to think/do/have what we want. Give him a chance, he’s a very good shot at getting things right in our world today. Get back on track America, we can be the light of the world again. Lady Liberty needs us all. I have heard from many oppressed people around the world that Dr. Paul’s message would begin to resonate and change our very world we live in. This is our chance. I read Dawkins, Sam Harris, so I know where you are coming from with the science of evolution. But I’m willing to let Ron Paul take the wheels of the ship, to steer us to becoming a more open, peaceful society, based on communication, trade and the rights of the individual. Then there might be a chance that people will open up to new ideas about where we really come from, why we are here and where we are going. The tension must ease first, and Ron Paul can do that for the world. There is too much tension right now, and if we aren’t careful, we could be amidst a very horrible WW3. We can’t do this. We’re running out of money and Paul has serious monetary strength and plans to keep us from all seeing our wealth disappear.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Whether or not he believes in evolution has no bearing on what he wants to do in office. Can you find any part of this platform or policy proposals that depend on religion?
Have you ever heard him justify his economic beliefs on his religious ones?
Can you find one, single, part of his platform that talks about evolution?
Its called “tolerance”, and you know what, I’m an atheist who believes I will turn to dust when I die. But I tolerate those who are religious, those who believe in creation, and even Mormons.
Open your mind just a little crack and imagine extending tolerance towards the religious as you demand they tolerate your atheism.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
The “Theory of Evolution” is not a single theory, but a generally agreed on set of theories. Because there is no definitive model for it, it is an arbitrary model, not a static and defined body. Because of this, what one person would call the Theory of Evolution subjective. Further, it is fair to say that much of it does not truly qualify as theory for lack of observation of predictions.
Nonsense. The Theory of Evolution is that organisms evolve from earlier forms by variation and selection. Do we see variation? Most certainly we do. Is there selection mechanisms that favor more suitable individuals? Certainly. Do we see organisms change over time? Yes, we do. Hence, Theory of Evolution is true.
There is certainly no lack of evidence. Ever heard of paleontology, for example?
Do you want a prediction? When was the last time you got flu? Your immune system stopped the viral attack and the particular strain has no longer any effect on you. Well, it is also true for everyone who were inflected and survived. However, the flu virus is unstable enough that it is able to produce new strains quickly. Peoples’ immune systems no longer recognize the virus and new round of flu starts. Since the old strain is no longer able to reproduce, it disappears and the new one spreads. Mutation and selection, i.e. evolution. I predict, based on the Theory of Evolution that you will catch a flu again.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Re WD
Mr. WDs’ claim that the Iraq war is a war for Israel is a god damn lie, typical of antisemitic Israel bashers. The Iraq war is over oil. Iraq has the worlds’ second largest proven oil reserves and, as peak oil approaches, access to that oil and potential denial of it to China is what the administration, particularly Vice President Cheney, is after. For the information of Mr. WD, the Mossad and the IDF leadership opposed the Iraq adventure, according to a Mr. Wilkerson, who was a top aide to SS Powell.
Re Friend of SLC
I haven’t got the faintest idea who this clown is but he is certainly no friend of mine. As the web site threads I cited have pointed out and the links they provided, Representative Paul has a long history of dalliance with neonazi front organizations such as stormfront. I don’t give a rats ass what he says when he’s running for president. Actions speak louder then words. By the way, as a PhD holder in elementary particle physics, I don’t believe in bigfoot, creationism, homeopathy, ESP, or PK.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Re Scriven Taylor
1. Apparently, Mr. Taylor is somewhat deficient in his reading ability. I provided two links which in turn provide sources for the claim that Representative Paul has past dalliances with neonazi individuals and organization.. I will once again provide the links for Mr. Taylors’ benefit.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/12/can_someone_explain_to_me_why.php
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/neonazi_leader_says_paul_is_on.php#more
2. Mr. Taylor is obviously somewhat deficient in his comments on the Theory of Evolution. In the first place, his claim that all pre-human remains would fit into a small box is total rubbish. The remains of Lucy alone would not fit into such a box. In the second place, the theory of evolution by which is meant common descent and speciation by means of natural selection/genetic drift has more evidence for it then perhaps any other scientific theory. Compare the theory of evolution with the General Theory of Relativity. For some 50 years, the only evidence supporting the latter theory was the calculation of the precession rate of the the orbit of the planet Mercury; i.e. one observation (no, the deflection of light by the Sun as measured during total eclipses was not sufficiently accurate to distinguish General Relativity from the Brans/Dicke theory).
December 26th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Evolution is actually several theories grouped under the one term and some of them are controversial and impossible to settle. Morons, like this author, like to pretend that they have the origins of all of life figured and so they can condescedingly dismiss anyone courteous enough to keep an open mind.
The same kind of morons are pushing the global warming nonsense, which isn’t several debates, it is hundreds of debates. I do believe that morons can be spotted by their love of sounding absolutely sure about everthing and contemptuous of anyone who dares to disagree.
Ron Paul is a gentleman, running for president, not god-scientist of the universe. He is promoting your right to make up your own mind. Hating him because he isn’t pushing your conclusions makes you a moron.
December 26th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Anybody who hasn’t been sleeping for the last 15 years would know that.
And calling any politician a ‘gentlemen’ and believing everything he says, is indicative of having been asleep for the last 5,000 years.
(Today’s blog sure is a hit
December 26th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Re John Reading
Actually, Mr. Reading shows himself to be a moron by conflating the theory of evolution with the origins of life. The fact is that the origins of life and evolution are two entirely separate theories which have nothing to do with each other. Evolution is a description of how life progresses after it originates. With his rejection of the theory of global climate change, Mr. Reading proves himself to be an equal opportunity denialist. How about the holocaust, the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, and the relationship between HIV and AIDS Mr. Reading?
December 26th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Science has been wrong on so many issues its ridiculous.They are constantly rewriting their facts anytime a scientist makes a claim I do not take it for reality.People that gobble up that crap as wrapped up in ther own little dogma called science >It come from the need to be right about everything.and believing they know everything
December 26th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Wow, mention Ron Paul and get a bunch of “true believers” . There seems to be no limit to those willing to speak up for him. He will never get the Republican nomination, end of story. I have some respect for many of the Libertarian ideas, and much reservation about others. The idea that shrinking government is valid, but it can not stand up to corporations, now. Imagine the damage if it became even weaker. We know what will happen, we saw it happen with the robber barrens of the late nineteenth century. The reduction of citizens to near slaves is hardly a thing to strive for. At least we can fire a politician, try to fire a CEO. Especially if you work 14 hrs. a day for just enough money to eat. If they think you are a trouble maker, they will fire you and let you starve. The middle class is endangered enough as it is.
This was once a skeptical site devoted to Astronomy. Soon as a man is insulted for thinking evolution is not true, the wackjobs come here in droves.
Some of the things I read here today,
Evolution is not supported by evidence.
Medical tests are not valid, and supplements are better because they are not tested.
You can run a government without taxes.
The war in Iraq is just for Israel.
The war in Iraq is just about oil.
These are nutjob ideas that any skeptic could easily counter. I would assume that these statements are from trolls. Why would anyone visit Bad Astronomy unless they are a skeptic of some sort, or a troll? I will not waste time playing wack-a-troll. I am just shocked these folks have nothing better to do than make crazy statements.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
I have run for office several times despite being an avowed atheist. As much as I want to serve and am convinced I could do an outstanding job in office, I have to accept that fact that I have essentially no chance to win in most parts of our country unless I somehow get “saved” at some point down the line. (If you ever see my do that, you will know I have sold out.) That is the sad fact though I am working hard to change things.
In the meantime I choose to support religious candidates like Dr. Paul who do not wear it on their sleeves, pander or look to impose their views on others. It is difficult to get Dr. Paul to even disclose his views on religion as he thinks those matters are not relevant to federal politics. (He admits that religion can be relevant at the state and local level, but his preference is to, first and foremost, let everyone practice or not as they so desire.)
As to the FDA, we are fast reaching point where the medical-industrial complex is becoming as dangerous as the military-industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned about so long ago. Dr. Paul is against both and believes that politicizing medicine is dangerous to our health. Consider this little recent dust up where the FDA reportedly denied terminal patients their treatment of choice:
http://www.fdlreporter.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071221/FON06/712210410/1346/FONopinion
Dr. Paul believes that medical regulation can best be provided by organizations that are beyond the beck and call of politicians, big pharma and other major players in the medical industrial complex. That makes sense to me. If we can trust a non-governmental agency like Underwriter’s Laboratories to regulate electrical devices, certainly this country can create and fund one or more trustworthy organizations to provide medical guidance to consumers that are not subject to political and financial manipulations.
Want another example? Go listen to Burt Rutan’s amazing recap of the history of flight and his views on what the future of spaceflight could
become if the government would simply step out of the way.
I like the idea of freedom. I think that smart people, unencumbered by bureaucrats and nanny state laws and in charge of more of their own personal wealth due to significantly lower taxes, can do a great amount of good and almost everyone, especially the middle class and poor, would benefit. You have to see the good in most people in order to trust this path, but I also understand that it also scares many people who are less convinced of the abilities and charitable inclinations of US citizens. If you decide that this path is desirable, Dr. Paul is the only choice available in 2008.
Do I wish we had a candidate that was a little more in tune to science? Sure, but no such candidate is available and, besides, a true scientific thinker with the atheistic views that that almost invariably engenders, is sadly unelectable in today’s political reality.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Scriven Taylor:
Yes it would, and it IS.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
To me, the only 2 logical choices are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. They ONLY take contribution $s from individuals.. All the other candidates are bought and paid for by corporations.
Do you want a country OF the corporations, BY the corporations, and FOR the corporations? That is what we have had for too long! I refuse to vote for any candidate sponsored by corporations period. That includes representative too. That has been why decissions are made and executed for too long.
Elect only candidates that are sponsored by WE THE PEOPLE!
Will non corporate candidates get any real media time? I doubt it. The media is just another cororation that wants the cororations 30 pieces of silver back in ads. They gave the candidates the 30 pieces of silver in the first place. Wake up AMERICA like Toto the dog in the Wizzard Of Oz, who pointed out that pathetic man in the corner behind the curtain.
We the PEOPLE know what we want and don’t want from our government. However, we get the opposite from our corporate government.
Oh by the way, Google “loose change” or “‘911 mysteries” and see what has really become of our government. There is no difference between Dems and Repubs. That is a divide and conquore medium bought, paid, and delivered to us from the corporate powers that run the country.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Well, whatever respect I may had for Ron Paul just evaporated.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Ignore Jim Howard, his childish mangling of Al Gore’s name merely reveals him to be an ignorant dittohead who has to be told what to think by people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. It’s what passes for political debate on the right (and yes, sometimes on the left too) these days.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
So, James, how is it you’re posting on the ‘net? Smoke signals? Bongo drums? Do you drive a car to your job (assuming you have one) or take a flying carpet?
Perhaps you ride a jackass, that would be more appropriate.
Perhaps you are too ignorant to understand the role science has in these products of engineering. Ohm’s law is science, so were Faraday’s various discoveries. Without them, your light bulbs wouldn’t work, let alone your computer.
Your automobile similarly uses those principles, and a lot of organic chemistry and physics in the design of its internal combustion system. It also runs on synthetic rubber tires, a product of seriously heavy science. How much would those tires cost, and how long would they last, if they were made from natural latex or bear skins?
One Ole Roemer determined the speed of light in 1667. His tools were a primitive telescope and a quill pen, so he was off the true figure but not by a lot. His determination has been refined ever since as methods have improved. So our idea of the velocity of light changes; not because Roemer was wrong, but because we can make more precise determinations. That is how science works. Why is this important? We would not know the velocity of light if this kind of process had not been used, since witch doctors and other dogmatic authorities have yet to provide testable figures of their own.
GPS and radar would not work, people would not even know they were possible.
Science works, the proof is all around us. Find out what it is and how it works, then maybe your opinions will be something besides an object of ridicule.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Please take a look at what Barack Obama has said on this subject in a 2006 speech to a religious organization. It was this speech that won me over to him:
http://usliberals.about.com/od/faithinpubliclife/a/ObamaReligion_4.htm
RELIGION IN A DEMOCRACY
“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason.
I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.
Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences.
To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.
We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.
Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God’s test of devotion.
But it’s fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.”
December 26th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Science is important; it affects and defines every part of all of our lives. Science is the observation and understanding of reality. That being said, I am a Christian. I believe that our reality was defined by something outside of reality: ie God. The key word in that sentence is believe. It is something I hold to be true not in spite of the evidence, but because there is a whole in the evidence and something must fill that hole. That the universe is 13.5 billion years old is clear for anyone with eyes and some basic geometry skills to see. Or a canyon to look at. However, we still have no explanation for what was at or before t=0. That’s where God comes in. But belief in God is belief, not science and I make no claim that it is. I believe Phil has made this point before that God can neither be proven nor disproved, but that’s not science
As for Ron Paul, it saddens me that he’s a creationist. However, the difference between how he’s handled the issue. Huckabe wants ID taught in schools as science. Ron Paul (at least in the video) made no mention of this. I imagine he’d treat it as a state’s rights issue (as all education should be in the first place thank you very much Dept. of Ed). At that point it’s up to us as individuals to make sure that reality is taught in science classes. I’ll still be voting for Dr. Paul in the primaries.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Hi There,
I volunteered a bit at Ron Paul headquarters a little while back. My job was primarily to answer emails. From what I gathered speaking with the staff there, the major scientific institutions such as the NIHs, etc., would probably receive about the same level of funding as they do now.
Seriously, scientists have nothing to fear from a Paul Presidency.
Best,
James
December 26th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
After watching this video most people I see on this board assume that he would force the teaching of creationism down peoples throats. This just shows ignorance of Ron Paul and his beliefs.
Ron Paul has shown himself time and time again in his (very)long voting as someone who can keep his personal beliefs from interfering with his core belief that the government shouldn’t stick it’s nose into other people’s private business. Someone mentioned it before me and I’ll re-iterate it: Yes he is a believing Christian and Yes he said on multiple occasions he said he feels homosexuality is very wrong. HOWEVER he voted AGAINST banning homosexual marriage, because his core belief is that peoples private affairs are their private affairs.
Please take a look at his voting record(the true measure of any politician)
here to realise just how deeply he believes in freedom from the nanny state.
When he is elected he will make sure the government does not interfere in education to shove ideas down children’s throats against the wishes of their family. That means that Christian fundamentalists in Florida will not be allowed to dictate teaching creationism to an entire school district. This also means that if Bubba wants Bubba Jr. to learn that the Earth was created in 6 days the G-Man will not show up to force his kid into a public school to learn that.
Maybe Bubba Jr. will not grow up to be a genetic engineer, but you must remember that in the US overall, Public school students < Private School students < Home school students (especially markedly in maths and science) so Big brother in charge of the education system only hinders it hugely.
As for Bubba Jr., I work in IT and I’ve met some programmers who believe in creation, most of them are damn good coders.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Sometimes, I wish we lived in a culture where words actually meant what the dictionary said they did rather than what each one of us seems to think it does. That way we could just look at the dictionary, and say, oops I was confusing the issue. But we know how likely that is to happen.
Just so you know, science doesn’t require belief. I dont “believe” in evolution any more than I “believe” in gravity, just to use your examples. Evolution and gravity are the descriptors we use to explain processes and effects. They exist in any case, if they didn’t we wouldn’t have noticed and recorded them, tested and retested, and finally written up thousands of papers describing them.
But here’s why I don’t and you shouldn’t believe in gravity.
We might be wrong.
Oh we know the effect, drop the apple, Newton pointed that out, but the processes? We’re always finding new insight. That’s why it’s gravitational theory and not gravitational fact. Belief just gets in the way. Just like your little problem with the Milky Way/Sagittarius issue. It doesn’t fit your belief so you reject it. But that’s not science, it explains things nothing yet has been able to, it may not turn out to be true, but its far from impossible, and just the research into determining if it is true could yield all kinds of interesting results don’t you think? Why do you like science in the first place?
I wont be voting for Ron Paul in any case, I’m a rabid liberal, and while I agree with a few of his issues there aren’t many. But if I had to vote for one of the republicans currently running, I would have to vote for Ron Paul. As president he will not have power to do any of the things everyone is so upset about him saying, be it abolish the IRS or the Dept. of Education, or anything else, a president can’t just do that, he’d need the collusion of a super majority in Congress and look at the respect he gets now. He would be the most ineffectual conservative ever to reach office. On the other hand, he might actually convince some folks to roll back some of the nonsense that’s been going on in this country, and I have to applaud his anti-war stance.
Frankly if I were a conservative, the whole stopping killing people would be enough for me to vote for Ron Paul. All of his weirdness he says are States rights issues anyway, though I disagree some of them are personal rights issues… but that just means he’d make the states decide what to do about the things you don’t like him for. So do you vote in your state? I cant believe I’m advocating for Ron Paul, but this kind of propagation of misinformation seems everywhere. He cant do anything about this stuff but try and get congress to make laws that he will then sign. And none of his views seem very popular in Washington…what luck do you think he might have?
December 26th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Sigh…I see I’m going to have to repost my MySpace comments here. I really am chagrined to see so many fellow skeptics–many of whom I respect deeply–go off the deep end here and become just like the creationists they oppose. It’s a very easy and human thing to do, and we all need to be on guard for it. Phil even goes so far as to say he’ll disagree with him on the First Amendment as a result–I CHALLENGE you to find anyone more dedicated to the First Amendment, and the Constitution as a whole, than Ron Paul.
—–
As the old adage goes, “When you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy.”
The enemy, in this case, being creationists/cdesign proponentsists/whatever. They pull out a single quote in the middle of a paragraph or book, and draw all sorts of conclusions about what the person’s saying that directly contradicts what was said in the very sentences around that.
And that is EXACTLY what happens here. Ron Paul says, quite correctly, that it’s a ridiculous question to ask a Presidential candidate, and if that were the biggest issue we had to worry about he wouldn’t bother with running for office and would just go home to be with his family.
Okay, so he doesn’t accept evolution. SO WHAT??? Not everybody’s studied the issue at length the way skeptics have. Most people have lives, and I’d much rather Dr. Paul spend his time fighting unconstitutional legislation and protecting our liberties than studying the intricacies of descent with modification.
Apparently that’s just not good enough for some people. But they are guilty of the same anti-Constitutional, anti-American thinking as the creationists, as George W. Bush: if you’re not with us, you’re against us! If you don’t agree with evolution, then you’re a horrible theocrat who must be stopped, everything else you’ve said and done in your life notwithstanding.
The main question we should ask of a Presidential candidate is, “Does he understand the Constitution, and is he dedicated to upholding it?” If the answer to that is “No,” he shouldn’t be elected UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER. If the answer is “Yes,” then IT DOESN’T MATTER ONE BIT WHETHER OR NOT HE ACCEPTS EVOLUTION.
When did skepticism suddenly become about conformity? Are we HONESTLY going to criticize someone for not being too knowledgeable about an issue he’s not concerned about? The problem with creationists is not that they disbelieve evolution, but that they spread lies and misinformation and try to get them in the schools. Someone who just doesn’t know or care one way or the other isn’t a threat to anybody.
To tell you the truth, I’m MUCH more scared about people who insist that a candidate conform to his or her beliefs–scientific or otherwise. Because that strongly implies to me that they’re not looking for a “live and let live” mentality. They’re not content with letting the marketplace of ideas–the very place where skeptics shine–propagate the things they think are important. No, it’s about government–it’s about FORCE–it’s about MAKING people listen, MAKING people accept what you think is important. And if that’s the case, then these skeptics have ceased to be skeptics at all. They’ve lost their way.
In fact, they’ve now become people we need to fight. Because someone imposing a belief on others IS an enemy to all lovers of freedom and liberty, no matter how much scientific evidence there is to agree with him. Indeed, science itself can only flourish in the absence of such impositions.
So, if I now find myself having to fight my fellow skeptics on this, so be it.
‘Cause y’all ain’t real skeptics anymore, anyway.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
I see the trolls are trolling … who knows what these folks will turn up next about Paul? So far rather unexciting stuff. O.K., so he’s not opposed to “creationism” — big deal. I admit that the only argument against him would be in imagining an intelligent creator who could have created some of the other Candidates. Ah! What? He has opined that 600,000 Americans need not have died in the our Holy Civil War? A most discouraging thought to such “We’re Number One” outfits, such as the fat-cat nationalists in the “Heritage Society”. You know, it is getting a bit boring waiting for the trolls to fish up some bigger and better red herrings. Rather small fry so far.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
At Ohiobuckeye:
“Oh by the way, Google “loose change””
you could also stop in any random basement in the US and see what the kids are doing with their video camera and what vids they are downloading off the net…..that would be an equally valid way to get your information
At Scriven:
“As I implied earlier, that doesn’t mean that the “theory” is wrong, but no positive proof has been found yet.
(”If it was proven to be true… it would not be a theory would it?”)”
nobody is looking for positive proof(math excluded). It is evidence that science seeks
If you do not understand what a theory is…it indicates not only a shortfall in your understanding of science but, also a lack of attention paid to the very evolution debate that you are chiming in on
December 26th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Ha! I’m an idiot! I did just what I complained about in my first paragraph, confused the issue… ah well, I shouldn’t have used the theory of gravity as my example, although I think the point still stands when seen in light of further developments i.e. Einsteins relativity and such.
The point is there will always be new advancements making old theories obsolete, we must suspend belief, becuase it gets in the way.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Hey, BA, I think it’s time you started moderating comments. After having read half of this page, I had lost so many brain cells, I couldn’ read any more, and had to resort to writing.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Oy.
This is what comes from conflating all of the phenomena, the definition of the process, its observed but contingent facts, and the theory that is confirmed by predicting the facts, tangling these separate things together in one large mess.
For comparison take the phenomena of gravitation. The definition of the process it follows, that what we wish to model later in theory, can be minimally defined by:
This is the least definition that can be used to distinguish the process of gravity from all other processes. This is also the least observation that a theory of gravitation must account for.
There are of course several valid theories of gravitation, such as Newton’s theory of gravitation and Einstein’s general relativity, which with increasing precision and coverage describe more and more observations.
Notable is that in the later one must use different energy conditions to describe different phenomena. And we know that it isn’t the last theory of gravitation since it can’t be fully quantized. So as in all of science it is well defined, but not without methodological choices, and definitely not “static”.
In the same way evolution has a minimal definition:
This is the least definition that can be used to distinguish the process of evolution from all other processes. It is also the least observation that a theory of evolution must account for.
Examples of observed heritable changes have been mentioned, for example bacterial resistance, but we also know of such things as several independent cases of evolution of lactose tolerance among different groups of humans.
And again there are several valid theories of evolution, such as adaptation and near neutral evolution, which with increasing precision and coverage describe more and more. Notable is that one must consider different mechanisms to describe different phenomena. Again, it is easy to see that it is well defined, but not without methodological choices, and definitely not a “static” body of knowledge. If it were, it wouldn’t be science but dogma.
Finally, the contingency of processes. If we drop a marble on a knife edge we will have to resort to probability distributions to describe the outcome, even if gravitation itself is fully deterministic. This process is path dependent.
The same goes for evolution which will not play itself out in the same manner even if we could wind time back to the first living population where the theory starts to be applicable according to its definition (”heritable”). This is of course due to the fact that we have to resort to probability distributions to describe the population, the outcome of mutational processes et cetera, even if selection on the distributions itself is fully deterministic.
But again, evolution is path dependent. I recommend the article found in the last link btw, “Evolution as fact, theory, and path”, as it is a biologist that unthreads the tangle.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
@James:
Scientists -BARELY- receive any funding as it is! Compared to the War in Iraq, the Military Industrial Complex, basically everything else except maybe basic infrastructure (which is also a major blunder of the Bush “regime”), Science funding is terrible. I don’t know who is or is not familiar with Dr. Franklin Chang Díaz, but he is a plasma-physics PHd and former astronaut who is now working on plasma-based propulsion systems for use in NASA spacecraft, or other spacecraft, really, in the attempt to reach Mars. He left NASA and, though he is still tied very closely with them, has formed Ad Astra Rocket Company to obtain proper funding. He can gain more money from private investors (who know that the chances of a return on their investment are virtually none within any realistic time frame) than NASA is able to give him. Why is this? Because Bush’s current amount of funding for NASA, and Science in general, sucks.
By the way, Dr. Chang-Díaz is an awesome guy and I’ve had the pleasure of meeting him; I highly suggest that if anyone here has the chance to meet him as well, they should!
December 26th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
“Does he seriously advocate that children and pregnant women take what amounts to medications with unknown provenance?”
Nice strawman. Unfortunately, a lot of people can’t tell this strawman from reality when it comes to freedom ideas. In fact, I doubt you even made it a strawman intentionally.
Ron Paul is not suggesting that nobody should be testing and approving drugs. As a doctor, he can’t help but want to ensure drug safety. However, there is no need for an enforced monopoly to be the one that does it.
If the FDA hasn’t approved something yet, but the European equivalents all have, or a private rating agency (”Consumer Reports for Drugs”) has tested it independently, who are you to say I can’t make the informed choice to trust those particular experts instead of the ones you’ve chosen for me?
December 26th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
CleveDan,
“Oh by the way, Google “loose change””
you could also stop in any random basement in the US and see what the kids are doing with their video camera and what vids they are downloading off the net…..that would be an equally valid way to get your information
Well, all the shots are taken by cnn, abc, fox, cbs, nbc etc not kids in a basement. Based on the 911 comission anyone making a pot of chile will have their stove collaps and the pot melt in about an hour. That happens all the time doesn’t it? Did you know the security company at WTC , one of the airlines, and one of the airports involved the the disaster was run by a brother and a cousin of the president? Yepp a bush and a Walker, as in “W”. Did you know that bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the twin towers that week for the first time since the original bombing at WTC? Did you know the preisidents father was meeting the Bin Laden family at the moment 911 happened. Remember the Bin Ladens were the only ones allowed to fly right after 911? Did you know the twin towers were condemed, but allowed to continue operating , due to asbesstos in the building? Proper demolishon would have cost several billion due to the asbestos. Did you know ownership of WTC changed hands one month before 911? The first payment of $125 million was paid, insurance against terrorist attacks was purchased and since 2 planes hit a double payout of 5-7 billion took place. No money was needed to pay for demolition!
Just a few unknown facts to me before I watched the videos(loose change and 911 mysteries).
Go Brownies. I also live in the Cleveland area..
December 26th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Lets see creationism to supplements to 9/11, anybody throw in JFK and the moon landings.
From an outside but close to the American border, I would guess it is going to be dem. in the white house just because a lot of people are fed up with the current party in power. I personally would like to see the old McCain in charge(before the 2000 election McCain).
December 26th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
“…any candidate who thinks one of the most basic laws of science is wrong would then be prey to any other antiscience huckster who wants to deny global warming…” Surely you are not referring to anthropomorphic GW? At least in any significant sense? If this is not the case, and your devotion to the neo-religion of alarmist environmentalism is showing, I fear my, up to this point, enormous respect for you has taken a plunge. This is particularly bewildering coming from an Astronomer. It is at this point that your own warning should be heeded- “Once you deny reality, the door to any and all evil is wide open.” AGW, as promoted by Gore, the Liberals, the enviro-fanatics, the UN and IPCC, is junk science of the worst kind. It is woo-based theology disguised as science, intended to serve as a neo-religion. One who promotes AGW is in no position to mock “creationism”. Phil, stay out of politics. It is no place for scientists, anymore than celebrities and politicians have a place pushing “science”.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
To SLC and the others spreading the neo-nazi crap around the internet:
Click on my name to see the page where the New York Times retracted the Ron Paul story that was based on the Bill White lies. I hope that you will follow suit as spreading those sorts of vicious slurs (especially when the refutations were so simply found on the internet) is just about as bad in my book as concocting the original bogus story in the first place. Trust me. You don’t want that legacy following you around for the rest of your life.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
[...] Republicans reading, first read The Bad Astronomer, and then consider this rambling nonsense from Ron [...]
December 27th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Ron’s alright. It could be worse for you Americans. Three words: Jeb Bush 2012!
December 27th, 2007 at 1:02 am
Creationism/intelligent design vs. evolution/science/intelligent pursuit of the CREATION. They both seem, to me, to be saying the same thing.
The steps in the creation account from genesis are the same steps that evolutionary thinking expouses. There is one big difference, the timeframe.
How long is a day? on earth it is 24 hours. On the moon a day is about 28 days. on jupiter it is 10 hours I think. How long is a day in the creator’s realm?
I just see different reference points/viewing points. If a person puts a coin on a table headsup and stares at it all they see is heads. Another person puts a coin down tails up, they only see tails. A third person holds up a coin edge-wise and only sees the edge, no heads, no tails.
I feel sorry for people who are afraid to admit their reference/viewpoint is the only valid truth.
Seek ye first the truth, for the truth will set you free. Why cannot evolution BE the tool used by intelligent design? Do not be a slave about your view of the coin, or let it blind you to what the coin really is.
i
December 27th, 2007 at 2:00 am
I think you could probably put an inflatable doll in the oval office after this administration leaves and it would get a higher approval rating.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:28 am
an inflatable doll would do less damage
December 27th, 2007 at 3:02 am
Eh, that’s the only question that I’ve ever heard Ron Paul actively try to avoid. I think it’s pretty clear that he is very much a secularist and has NO desire to increase the federal government’s involvement in anything, much less science education. If he’s a creationist I certainly disagree with him, but he still has my support for being the only fiscal conservative in the race willing to cut our crazy-high spending in the middle east (among other reasons).
December 27th, 2007 at 3:34 am
*sigh*
Evolution is not even close to being similar to gravity. Gravity is verifiable by scientific experiment. Evolution is not. It cannot be observed, nor repeated, as it (theoretically) happens over the course of millions of years.
And if you don’t think it’s a theological matter, you must not have read Genesis before. If many people believe a religious text to be 100% true, and this text talks about the origins of life, then that makes the origins of life a theological matter to those people. Then again, intolerance of religion isn’t exactly new…
December 27th, 2007 at 3:53 am
I hate to say it, but this is exactly correct. Evolution has been established by the available evidence so overwhemlingly that by comparison the hypothesis that the earth is round seems almost tenuous.
Evolution is such a rock-solid well established basic scientific fact
that someone who rejects it rejects observed reality. We don’t need another president who rejects observed reality. We’ve seen where that leads. One is enough.
The big issue with electing someone who rejects observed reality is…what other aspect of observable reality are they likely to deny? Fine, Ron Paul denies evolution — what else is he likely to deny? I mean, there’s less evidence for the hypothesis that slavery is economically inefficient than for the documented scientific fact of evolution. So why wouldn’t Ron Paul enthusiastically support the return of slavery?
This seems like crazy, but it’s actually mild. If someone in a position of power denies as basic a fact of observable reality as evolution, I can’t think of any aspect of everyday tangible reality that they wouldn’t feel free to deny. What we’re talking about here is Lysenkosim. Once you go that route, any crazy belief becomes possible. Why not deny the vote to women on the grounds that women don’t exist? Sounds insane….after all, you can see and hear and smell and touch women — but you can see and hear and smell and touch the overwhelming fossil evidence for evolution, you can hold the fossils right in your hands. If you can ignore the evidence of your sense, you can reach any conclusion, no matter how insane.
Someone who denies evolution seems likely to enthusiastically advocate witch-burning. Sure, there’s massive evidence that witches don’t exist — but there’s also massive evidence against creationism. If someone has no problem ignoring the mountains of evidence against creationism, why would they have any problem believng in rampant lunacy like witchcraft? Wtiches seem almost plausible by comparison with a supernatural being who magically violated all known laws of physics in order to bring the entire universe into existence in 6 days.
The Russians had a saying: “Those who believe absurdities, commit atrocities.” We need to bear that in mind.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:22 am
Woo hoo! Another squabbling politico thread!
(snore)
You *could* have posted the amusing “BA book sighted on Mars” picture I sent, and we all could have had a good chuckle, but nooooooooo…
Anyway, all the candidates for both the Reps and Dems suck dinosaur eggs, and we are fricken’ DOOMED. It’s all just power seekers. The system weeds out anyone else way before the primaries. Seriously, would any sane person seek such a high office?
Those of you wasting your time barking and hissing for or against any of them are nothing more than the proverbial useful idiots.
— “Oh by the way, Google “loose change””
You can post what you like, Phil, but when you start attracting subhumans like this, you really need to question the value. I can toss food on my floor because I own my house, but I need to rethink that behavior when the roaches show up.
Ad for Loose Change, Maddox does the best response:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
Seriously, if you think 9/11 was a conspiracy, you are mentally ill. Don’t even respond to this. You are bat**** insane and I have no interest in anything you say.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:26 am
Evolution is an internally-consistent (for the most part) theory. Intelligent design is another internally-consistent theory. Without internal inconsistencies, neither may be proven false. But no matter what, neither one makes a better candidate than the other as long as they both remain consistent with the evidence.
Evolution maintains consistency with the evidence by evolving as a theory whenever inconsistencies are found.
Intelligent design maintains consistency almost by definition. It is so simple that there are almost no possible contradictions.
Don’t even get me started on aging techniques. They rely on assumptions about consistency in, for example, the rate of generation of C-14, or even the speed of light, of which there is no proof.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:49 am
[...] A person in the White House has the final say on billions of dollars of funding for science, and so should at least have a basic understanding of science, and how it works. Surprise, Ron Paul does not. [...]
December 27th, 2007 at 5:52 am
I lost any residual support I had for Ron Paul when his jackass comments about the Civil War came out. Yes, letting the south peacefully secede would have been non-coercive. But letting the south go on brutalizing black people would have been coercive. For an alleged Libertarian, Paul’s ability to analyze things in terms of ethics seems strangely absent.
As far as I’m concerned, the Civil War was a war between the good guys and the bad guys, and the good guys won. By the way, I was born in Chapel Hill, North Carolina and graduated high school in Charlotte.
I was a Libertarian for many years, but I quit the Party when they came out against Desert Storm in 1990. Since then I’ve come to realize just how insane much of what Libertarians believe is. And yet I can respect a coherent Libertarian. Paul is a Libertarian, but his positions are not ethically or even logically consistent.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:54 am
Rawhead posts:
[[No one, on the other hand, has ever seen the true effects of evolution (or, to be more precise, evolution brought about by natural selection) in action.]]
I’d say Jim Henson saw it in action. Or anyone who has gotten sick with pathogens that have evolved resistance to antibiotics.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:56 am
andy posts:
[[Let’s take e.g. voluntary prayer at public schools. Can you comment where the constitution allows congress to pass laws to ban it?]]
It isn’t banned. Anyone can pray in school at any time. You just can’t have school officials lead it, since in so doing they would clearly be endorsing a specific religion, or at least a group of religions, and the first amendment prohibits government officials from doing that. Public school teachers and administrators are government employees.
December 27th, 2007 at 6:06 am
Scriven writes:
[[There are plenty of examples of adaptation through natural selection that have been observed, but no observation of new species spontaneously appearing.]]
Actually, speciation has been observed in the wild and in the lab several times:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
December 27th, 2007 at 6:08 am
nano
“Intelligent design maintains consistency almost by definition. It is so simple that there are almost no possible contradictions.”
For something to be considered scientific, it needs to be possible to falsify. How would one falsify Intelligent Design according to Intelligent Design uh, “theory” ?
“Don’t even get me started on aging techniques. They rely on assumptions about consistency in, for example, the rate of generation of C-14, or even the speed of light, of which there is no proof.”
You seem to have a problem with a whole host of the sciences in just one post. Are you Ron Paul’s science advisor?
I’d just like to point out to any of our religious friends out there, that yes, it is okay to accept evolution AND still be religious. But evolution is science and religion is religion – which is a TOTALLY separate subject. So please, let’s not try to treat them as one and the same. (sigh)
December 27th, 2007 at 6:18 am
captainkoolaid posts:
[[AGW, as promoted by Gore, the Liberals, the enviro-fanatics, the UN and IPCC, is junk science of the worst kind.]]
Which of the following do you deny, Cap?
1. Mean global annual temperatures have been rising with time.
2. Human energy, industrial and transportation technology emits carbon dioxide.
3. Ambient carbon dioxide is increasing steeply.
4. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Well?
December 27th, 2007 at 6:21 am
mclaren writes:
[[Someone who denies evolution seems likely to enthusiastically advocate witch-burning.]]
What’s more, black people are lazy, Jews are greedy, gay people are after your children, and women don’t know how to drive. Have I missed any ridiculous stereotypes?
December 27th, 2007 at 6:29 am
I thought we had gotten past the Anti-Republican, Anti-Creationism blogs and back onto science and astronomy, but I see that I’m wrong. I was also hoping that maybe I see a few posts about the Democrats, but I was wrong again.
For those of you interested in where at least one Democrat stands of this issue, you can read his words here,
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/04/sitroom.03.html
PSSST, his secret is out – John Edwards believes in Intelligent Design.
December 27th, 2007 at 7:01 am
Re Rock Howard
“To SLC and the others spreading the neo-nazi crap around the internet:
Click on my name to see the page where the New York Times retracted the Ron Paul story that was based on the Bill White lies. I hope that you will follow suit as spreading those sorts of vicious slurs (especially when the refutations were so simply found on the internet) is just about as bad in my book as concocting the original bogus story in the first place. Trust me. You don’t want that legacy following you around for the rest of your life.”
Mr. Howard posted this same claim on Ed Braytons’ blog and it was refuted by Mr. Brayton. As Mr. Brayton stated, “The Times did not “retract” the story (it was not theirs to retract, but Bill White’s). They printed Paul’s denial of the accusations and said they should have gotten them in the original story. That’s hardly a retraction.”
I see that Mr. Howard has subsequently posted a comment on Mr. Braytons’ blog putting his spin on the so-called retraction. I will let the readers go over there and arrive at their own conclusions.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/neonazi_leader_says_paul_is_on.php#commentsArea
Incidentally, Mr. Brayton has promised to post some more information on Representative Pauls’ associations. I will post a link to the thread when it appears over there.
December 27th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Well I wasn’t going to vote for Edwards anyway and I don’t think be seriously has a chance. I just hope he doesn’t steal votes from better candidates. By the way I’d this the first comment posted from an iPod?
I
December 27th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Folks, just a little note from the Admin here: any posts with swearing in them will be marked as spam.
Keep it polite.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:33 am
@Mike Marsh
“That’s a serious logical flaw. “A then B” does not imply “not A then not B”.
I’m glad you caught my point Mike. Evolution and the First Amendment are orthogonal issues. Opinions on one have no logical coupling with the other.
Since in my opinion BA’s post throws logic out the window right away, there’s no real point in trying to convert his religious view that heretics to his way of thinking are pure evil and should be burned. So why not have some fun?
BA is great when he stays on science, but whenever politics come up he throws reason out the window, making all sorts of wild suppositions unsupported by evidence.
As far as Reducto Ad Hitlerum, I figured I’d share some of the fun the moonbats often have by going down the Hitler road. It is kind of fun in a silly sort of way.
Really, it is pretty absurd to compare any present day American political person to Hitler, isn’t it? Fun at times, but absurb. Kind of like saying ‘a person who doesn’t accept The One True Faith also hates the first amendment.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Jim Howard, where did I “throw reason out the window”?
I show a video where Ron Paul says that evolution is just a theory, then makes noises supporting Intelligent Design. I call him on it, because that is antiscience and has led to numerous painful and humiliating episodes for our school systems, which used to be the envy of the world but are now ridiculed.
The First Amendment and evolution are definitely connected, whether you wish they weren’t or not. Many of the same people who deny evolution are trying to ram their own personal brand of religion down our throat. I suggest you take a long hard look at Romney and Huckabee.
And now Ron Paul throw his hat into that antiscience ring.
I find it ironic that as soon as I talk about politics, a lot of commenters assume I am a knee jerk liberal and shut off their own ability for self-inspection. And then they accuse me of being irrational.
Sigh.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:45 am
I like how it only took an hour and a half from the first comment for Godwin’s Law to be invoked. Unfortunately, the discussion didn’t end.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:50 am
@jrkeller: “I thought we had gotten past the Anti-Republican, Anti-Creationism blogs and back onto science and astronomy.”
I don’t see how anti-creationism is anything but science. If John Edwards or any other Democrat espouses support for Intelligent Design, I’d love to see the BA lay into them, too. As far as I’m concerned, I will not support any presidential candidate who says they believe in ID or consider evolution to be an “unproven theory.” Republican or Democrat, being a fool should disqualify you from higher office.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Phil:
“I show a video where Ron Paul says that evolution is just a theory,”
And completely ignore the parts where he talks about how unconcerned he is about it, and how it’s not relevant to the office of President.
“because that is antiscience and has led to numerous painful and humiliating episodes for our school systems,”
Which Ron Paul doesn’t want to interfere with in the slightest bit.
“Many of the same people who deny evolution are trying to ram their own personal brand of religion down our throat.”
Many != all.
And again, I challenge anyone to find anything in Dr. Paul’s record that is of questionable constitutionality. And no, quote-mining from an article where he’s bemoaning school choirs not being allowed to perform Handel’s Messiah doesn’t count–especially as he’s 100% clear as to the difference between what he thinks should happen and what he would do as President. As he clearly told Tim Russert, doing that kind of thing would mean assuming dictatorial powers, which he absolutely wouldn’t do.
But then, it appears people here are quite fine with the President assuming dictatorial powers, as long as it’s THEIR preferred powers being assumed. Otherwise, why make so much noise about the First Amendment and be completely in favor of clear and outright violations of the Tenth?
December 27th, 2007 at 11:55 am
BA and Jason: well put. Choosing a belief over clear evidence is the defining characteristic of a fool, and we should certainly aspire to more from the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet (unless we elect a string of too many fools). Note that being a fool can be a valid personal choice, we do it all the time (a “fool for love” is someone who prefers the sensation of love over the harsh reality of a situation, and someone who says “fool me once, shame on you” is saying that they would prefer to believe in the basic trustworthiness of people until proven otherwise, rather than the more guarded reverse position). But what we do in our personal lives, and what we want from our leader, should not be the same things. We can live with our own choices when we wish to elevate belief over evidence, but our nation cannot.
We just elected a President for 8 years simply because he we felt he would be more pleasant company in our living rooms, easier on our cherished ideals without evidential challenge, and look where that got us. Science is an excellent place to look at how a person thinks, their critical reasoning skills, etc. Not only should an anti-science stance rule out a leader, but we should even ask how deep is any potential leaders grasp of basic critical thinking skills– what could be more important than that, or is all we want a calming confident visage? We can argue about the appropriate priorities and agendas, but basic ability to reason should not be an optional element.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I think this discussion has reached the end of its natural lifecycle. Anything more will probably be a rehashing of ideas already posted or meaningless banter and name-calling. Good points have been made and bad ones as well but I think most of us can agree this discussion has reached its end.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Re Scriven Taylor
1. In response to Mr. Taylors’ last comment, I am linking to a thread in todays’ Dispatches blog where there is further discussion of Representative Paul.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/the_ron_paul_issue.php#more
In the above thread, there is reference to Representative Pauls’ associations with a number of overtly racist organizations. I suggest that Mr. Taylors’ argument is with them, not with me.
2. In response to Mr. Taylors’ response to Mr. Larssons’ comment, in which the former repeats the same old rubbish that all the evolution deniers trumpet, namely that microevolution is OK but macroevolution is unproven. Oddly enough, there is another thread on the Dispatches blog addressing some of these issues.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/debunking_creationist_nonsense.php#more
The fact is that common descent is, perhaps, the most data supported scientific theory in existence; I say that as someone who obtained his PhD in physics and has a bias toward the physical sciences. Yessir Mr. Taylor, you and I and all humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. Don’t like it, tough noogies. I am not going to expend internet storage bytes on this subject; I refer Mr. Taylor to the Talk Origins and Pandas Thumb web sites where the creationist nonsense which he repeats here is completely rebuked.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
@Andy:
I’m not sure where you got the idea that voluntary prayer in school was banned by Congress. Kids can and do pray in school all the time. The restriction is that their teachers and administrators, as authority figured repesenting and employed the by the government, are not allowed to force them to pray or lead them in prayer. Is that what you want? Do you want your kids to be forced to pray in school? What if the teacher was a Muslim or a Scientologist…?
December 27th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
A lot of people read something about his civil war comments, probably suitably edited by his opponents and now think he’s a bona fide KKK member. Again this is ignorance of the argument he made. It is a view held by many historians that the Civil war held back black civil rights in the US by 50 years. At the time of the civil war slavery was already on it’s way out due to technological advancement. Slaves were very expensive ( I read that a slave was on average $100 while a prize bull was $5)and new machines were just being invented to make them obsolete. So pretty soon slaves would have been just too expensive to justify. However after the Civil war and after the Reconstruction was overturned, the economic situation coupled with the bitterness over the Civil war ensured the creation of the convict lease system which was slavery only with very cheap slaves which enabled it to last well into the mechanised 20th century.
Therefore when someone points out that the end result of the Civil War was that it actually set back Black people by quite a bit, he’s not a racist, just thinking clearly.
Btw. the total worth of all the slaves in the South was calculated as +-$1billion dollars in 1860, while the total economic(This is just what the government spent this does not include human death and suffering and does not include all of the damage to propery, burnt farms, loss of productivity etc.) ended up being 10 Billion dollars(that’s 19th century dollars mind you) on the Union Side ALONE!
source
Therefore, just buying up all the slaves in the South and avoiding going to war for that would have been a bargain!
December 27th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
metatron –
You assume that it was morally acceptable to have southerners continue to own slaves while slavery was “dying out.” I don’t think so. Like it or not, wars are sometimes necessary. And for all the people who blather about how “it was about states’ rights, not slavery!” it’s clear to anyone who has studied the period that if slavery had never existed, neither would the Civil War have happened.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Okay, Phil, ‘fess up. You just do it to bait the loons, don’t you?
Clearly, it’s working.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
BBBCCBBC
or RP ?
December 27th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Another stupid post by BAD – First of all, ALL the major candidates DO NOT care nor believe in evolution.
Our president currently does not believe it either – Hilary will believe WHATEVER will give her more votes. She does not give a crap about science any more than the rest.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
— I’m not happy with you all right now.
Yeah, well, your followers are making this in this country really annoying. When fully riot geared SWAT teams are sent in to break up charity poker games at a VFW clubhouse, there’s a serious imposition of someone’s morality onto others who may not agree.
http://reason.tv/video/show/172.html
As far as I’m concerned, vice laws that criminalize behavior between consenting adults are state sanctioned religion, and increasingly enforced at the point of a military style weapon.
— Do NOT make me come down there.
Promises, promises…
Besides, I thought you already had a place in South Park, Colorado?
December 27th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
To those who think that the idea of spontaneous random mutation is scientifically grounded…. Think again:
Remember that our classification of ’scientific’ knowledge as defined in the 20th Century by Karl Popper requires that the theory be falsifiable to be a valid scientific theory.
The notion of spontaneous random mutation is COMPLETELY LACKING IN FALSIFIABILITY. In other words, you cannot test it! (You cannot provide proof positive of it- therefore the Theory of Evolution is based in part on completely unscientific ideas (random spontaneous mutation.) In this sense, random genetic mutations are little different than God planting fake dinosaur bones in rock strata to fool the non believers into thinking the Earth is 6000 years old. They are both self supporting beliefs that cannot be disproven through logic.
Not giving blanket acceptance to the entire body of the T of E is not ‘antiscience’. Quite the contrary since not giving blanket acceptance to a dogma is one condition of scientific thinking.
P.S. I have not said that I think that what the T of E describes is wrong, but it is not scientific and I don’t “believe” in things that cannot be proven.
P.P.S……
There is NO evidence that we evolved from chimps. It certainly appears that we have common ancestry somewhere, but that does not mean that we are descended from them any more than you being descended from your uncle.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
“Jim Howard, where did I “throw reason out the window”?”
When you coupled belief in creationism with the first amendment.
The two concepts are completely unrelated. There is no reliable function a1 = f(ev), such that given a position on evolution/creationism (ev) one could predict with any accuracy a person’s position on some hypothetical first amendment issue (a1).
A strong anti-creationist is just as likely to want to ban or restrict speech about creationism as a creationist is likely to ban or restrict speech on evolution.
I really don’t have a dog in either camp. I find both sides of this creation debate equally comical.
To the extend creationism involves public education, this is just one of about a thousand public school issue that could be solved entirely by giving parents full choice of schools via a voucher program.
If parents, rather than politicians and bureaucrats, get to direct the public dollars used for their kids education then all of the “should schools teach X and/or allow Y” arguments become moot.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Hah! A diner’s feast of juicy convos!
andy -
“Congress shall make no law”
Note the amendment doesn’t apply to the executive branch
“Voluntary prayer at public schools. Can you comment where the constitution allows congress to pass laws to ban it?”
Kids CAN, currently, pray in school, BUT: the Supreme Court recently ruled that the Bill of Rights doesn’t necessarily apply to kids pursuing an education; they give up certain rights when they walk through those doors for that pursuit. Now that this precedent has been established you can’t pull up the BoR when talking schools.
Phil vs. R Paul-
Unlike a decade ago, today we are able to scrutinize every word uttered in a specific campaign. Is it not obvious that Paul was pandering to a specific audience (as abc point out)? That’s what I hear; I don’t hear him say he’s specifically anti-science (slight cheap shot, Phil? Did you ignore anything else he said? Sure he “couched” the answer and has no balls but, play fair. You’re doin’ a little quote mining). I just hear him sidestepping/repositioning the context. I’m in agreement with much of the Libertarian platform and therefore can see that Paul is NOT Republican by default, as some suggest. Yet, if freedom eroded and I was FORCED to vote Republican…
Anti-evolution summed: “I haven’t studied it at length therefore it’s not possible that thousands of lives have been dedicated to one of the most tested facts in all of the biological sciences. I claim it to be “fringe” either because I don’t work in that industry OR because I’ve been indoctrinated into a supernatural mindset through a religion (i.e. the facts aren’t as important as a misreading from the ancient text of a religion that’s dimly related to mine).”
Quiet Desperation – thanks for the link.
Civil War. Slavery may have fed emotions and fueled desires but, indeed, the trigger WAS State’s Rights. You may not like to view it that way but that’s historical fact. It takes little research to learn about the election, Fort Sumter and the lead up.
test viewer-
“Hilary will believe WHATEVER will give her more votes. She does not give a crap about science any more than the rest.”
Is that why she’s made an issue of restoring the office of White House Science Advisor? (No link since it’s ubiquitous information)
December 27th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
“There is NO evidence that we evolved from chimps. It certainly appears that we have common ancestry somewhere, but that does not mean that we are descended from them any more than you being descended from your uncle.”
You’re right, we didn’t evolve from chimps. But if you do accept that humans share common descent with other species, how else did they diverge other than by mutation? What’s your alternative hypothesis?
And since the scientific community as a whole tends to disagree with you, why should we pay attention to your opinion on the subject?
December 27th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Darth,
I don’t presume to know why we diverged, so I keep an open mind. I think that random mutation is a plausible cause for evolution, but not a valid explanation for it.
Also, even if some unspecified chemical or particle damage has triggered evolution in the past, it does not rule out other possibilities.
I would expect that random damage is CERTAINLY a factor in evolution, but it: (A) has not been clearly demonstrated (B) does not mean that other causes don’t exist.
I don’t think that the scientific community can be referred to as a whole. Ask Al Gore about that
December 27th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
“I don’t presume to know why we diverged, so I keep an open mind.”
So there is no reason then.
“Also, even if some unspecified chemical or particle damage has triggered evolution in the past, it does not rule out other possibilities.”
Yet you don’t expand on them. Also “damage” has little to do with it. Random mutations do occur naturally. Some mutations are harmful, some are beneficial, most are neutral. This is where other mechanisms come into play:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechanisms
“I don’t think that the scientific community can be referred to as a whole. Ask Al Gore about that.”
Seperate debate. Evolution is backed up by other sciences, and the only objections I’ve ever seen to it are made by those who are misinformed, not qualified to critique it or who have a fundamentalist agenda.
December 27th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
The best way to describe my believes would be “diest”. on the ronpaulforums, we have people from every walk of life, and a good third or more of supporters i meet at rallys are non-christians- atheists,agnostics, jewish, muslim, buddist, and everything else you can imagine. He’s not perfect by any means as a person of course, and i tend to believe his statement on evolution in that particular instance was a bit of pandering- yes even he panders a little but you have to give him credit for his statement on huckabees “floating cross” christmas ad…
“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” He was quoting what he thought to be Sinclair Lewis, (and whether or not that’s an actual quote, it sums up some of Lewis’s ideas that Paul clearly admires.
I support Paul for a number of reasons. I supported Ventura in 98 as govenor, even though i didn’t agree with all of his less relevent “out there” ideas, he had a solid core ideology and was held in check by the republicans and democrats.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Sorry, Ron Paul may not believe in evolution, but he would never advocate using state power to force that view on anyone. A brief scan of his writings would tell you that. As someone who relies on the power of reason and intellect I find it more unsettling that there are so many Americans out there who would be willing to allow themselves to become single issue voters. Especially when the issue is the origin of the human species. This election is about much bigger and more immediate issues: restoring our civil liberties, ending the neoconservative foreign policy agenda, bringing sanity back to our financial system, ending the drug war, and so on. For god’s sake, man, habeas corpus has been suspended, we have a global system of secret gulags, and we are being spied upon by our own government. Wake up!
December 27th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
“…one of the most basic laws of science…”
When did evolution become a “law”?
I thought it was a theory.
You know what, dude? You’re pretty freakin’ ignorant.
You should probably stick to subjects that you sort of know what you’re talking about.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
…and doesn’t good science require freedom?
December 27th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Let me start by saying I do believe evolution.
That said, Paul merely said that he isn’t sure if the theory of evolution is correct- that is, Darwin’s idea of the origin of species. He did not deny the fact of evolution- that organisms mutate and change- so it’s nothing like denying gravity, more like saying he’s not sure the Big Bang Theory is correct.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Well sometimes, you just have to choose the lesser of two evils. Or nine evils as the case may be.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I think Ron Paul is a very good candidate. His being a doctor and, in politics I think he might have some inside information on the FDA that may not be common knowledge.
I just want to say something about the FDA and how they regulate drugs. There are many drugs approved by the FDA that cause great harm to humans. I mean really how can a drug that one of the side effects is kidney,liver,or, heart failure be approved? Some drugs even claim death to be a side effect do you really think that is safe????The FDA is about making money not saving lives.
I want nothing at all to do with FDA when they allow something like aspartame to be a common, allowable food additive. I have first hand experience with how dangerous it is cause I nearly died twice when I ate it. Especially when there is a much safer alternative that comes from a plant.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
— Repent now! Don’t EVEN make me show up on a burnt piece of toast or side of a barn somewhere. I’ll freakin’ do it.
He did! Man, that was some tasty toast!
Jesus tastes good with butter.
— Quiet Desperation – thanks for the link.
No problem. A reason.com link fit in a Ron Paul thread, I guess.
I like them even though their open borders stance is childish and naive.
I consider the paramilitarization of local police departments to be a couple orders of magnitude greater problem than anything the creationist woo woos represent. It’s in the name of a war on drugs that is even more pointless than the Iraq war. You can google all the cases where SWAT teams attack the wrong house and terrorized innocent people, or even kill them in some cases where the cops failed to announce themselves, and some innocent homeowner came out of a back room armed and expecting robbers.
This why I feel such a disconnect with the skeptical community in general. They spend a lot of time taking cruises and patting themselves on the back, and taking on easy targets while the rest of Rome burns down. Where’s the skeptical outcry on a government out of control? And I don’t just mean Bush. This has been getting steadily worse since before anyone here was born.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:24 am
I think your mighty shallow for the thoughts you portray regarding Dr. Ron Paul’s beliefs. It’s too bad you’d base your entire vote or decision on that one aspect. At least he’s honest and won’t bring ‘church and state’ together, he believes in the CONSTITUTION and does as IT says or surely attempts to against others who don’t. And by the way, although I obviously disagree with your position that won’t keep me from listening to what you have to say on C2CAM tonight.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:22 am
Scriven writes:
[[The notion of spontaneous random mutation is COMPLETELY LACKING IN FALSIFIABILITY. In other words, you cannot test it! ]]
Spontaneous, random mutation has been observed at least since T.H. Morgan’s fruit fly experiments in 1908. They can watch it happen at the nucleic acid level these days. There is a whole peer-reviewed biology journal, Mutation, dedicated to the subject. Denying it is like denying supernovas or geysers — too many people have seen them already.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:27 am
Jeffersonian posts:
[[Civil War. Slavery may have fed emotions and fueled desires but, indeed, the trigger WAS State’s Rights. You may not like to view it that way but that’s historical fact. It takes little research to learn about the election, Fort Sumter and the lead up.]]
It apparently takes more research than you’ve done. The issue for ten years had been whether new states would come into the union free or slave. That’s what the Missouri Compromise was all about. The south had become completely paranoid about slavery; citizens of free states were pulled off trains and whipped if they mentioned abolition, and in South Carolina (which fired the first shots), slaves weren’t permitted to publicly assemble in groups of more than three (3), because they were so afraid of a slave uprising. Without slavery there would not have been a Civil War.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:41 am
In addition to Representative Pauls’ dalliance with racist groups, their is also his association with all manner of medical cranks and quacks. The attached link details many of these associations.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/12/ron_paul_quackery_enabler.php#more
Re Scriven Taylor
Mr. Taylor, as I have previously commented, has a reading comprehension problem. My statement concerning chimpanzees and humans specifically stated that they and we evolved from a common ancestor, which disappeared from the scene 6 million years ago. We did not, repeat did not, evolve from chimpanzees and Mr. Taylors’ claim that I made such a claim is without merit or foundation.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:45 am
The constitution as seen through his reality denying filtered glasses.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Dear badastronomy.com,
It is appalling that you have completely missed the point, since you do not understand who Ron Paul is and what’s going on *inside* the Ron Paul camp. As someone who is an outsider to USA, I feel I am in an unique position to give a perspective here.
Before I do that, please bear with me and read and understand the following statement:
RON PAUL SUPPORTERS DO NOT SUPPORT RON PAUL.
I am an USSR-born Israeli citizen who has never been to United States. I have no voting rights and no vested monetary interest in USA. I fervently oppose religion and morality of the bleeding hearts. I am not a real libertarian because I do not believe in unlimited property rights. I believe in Israel’s unconditional, uncompromising right to exist and defend itself. That being said, I know full well that the day Ron Paul gets elected is the day military aid to Israel ends. Yet, I have donated money to Ron Paul campaign, and I have created my own web site to support Ron Paul for President. Does this make any sense to you?
I am a programmer. When I see in front of me something that I don’t understand, I try my best to figure it out. When Ron Paul articles started appearing on reddit, en masse, I asked why and I paid attention. I, too, thought that this is a bunch of crazy religious spammers trying to pretend that their movement is something other than it really is. However, I took my time to look it up and talk to people. Inevitably, I made certain conclusions that led me to my current position, which is support of Ron Paul. And now, having observed american people making wrong and dangerous conclusions, I invest my time and effort to share.
You are used to corrupt politics and politicians and you are used to choose your candidated based on the talking points they reiterate through media paid by corporate contributions. Nothing of the sort is happening in Ron Paul camp.
There is a wall of separation between individual beliefs of Ron Paul and his supporters, and their short term and long term goals. Not all Ron Paul supporters share the same beliefs Ron Paul has (for instance, I personally believe that in USA abortion should be a protected right that deserves its own constitutional amendment, something which RP personally opposes, and that second amendment should be rewritten to explicitly define an inalienable unconditional right of any person to bear arms, something RP would probably support). Ron Paul’s campaign platform – which is, mind you, a promise to his electorate that his electorate has complete trust he shall fulfill – is restoration of constitutional restraint on the federal government and abolition of new-fangled institutions and ideas that are, whether you like it or not, arbitrary and illegal. It has nothing to do with pandering to corporations or the voters, and it has absolutely nothing to do with any specific favourite pet controversy. It is first and foremost about choking down the federal government and failing initiatives that are forced upon people at their own expense.
The difference between Ron Paul and other candidates is that Ron Paul wants to expand personal liberties of people, and reduce liberties of the federal government. He is a strict constitutionalist, which means that he opposes – and has opposed for years, as demonstrated by his voting history which YOU can PERSONALLY look up and verify – any motion in the federal government that is not authorized by the Constitution. When Ron Paul says that he wants to abolish the ministry of education, he means abolishing federal involvement in education, *not* prohibition of public education everywhere. Same goes for the rest of his positions on issues. The Constitution of the United States of America is a principal constraint on its government to prevent usurpation of power. If you have worked with big production databases, you would understand as much as I do the importance of constraints, both as sagefuards and as defining principles, in any complicated, critical systems.
You have to understand that Ron Paul and Paulites do not think in terms of issues and talking points. We think in terms of principles. You can’t call yourself a vegetarian if you don’t eat meat except on Tuesdays, and you can’t run a society according to the rule of law except when it’s comfortable to break the law. That is hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is unacceptable in the people who are meant to set example for the rest of us.
Ron Paul supporters don’t care a whole lot about Ron Paul’s personal beliefs, because they do not support Ron Paul. Let me say this again aloud, in capital letters:
RON PAUL SUPPORTERS DO NOT SUPPORT RON PAUL.
Ron Paul is not our leader. The idea of liberty – “do unto others” – is our leader. Ron Paul is simply the best positioned person in the whole world to reignite the understanding and compassion to that idea. It just happens so that liberty is Ron Paul’s leader as well, and that he is an honest man, and now we want to put him in the position of power so that we can set an example to the rest of the nations. Ron Paul’s ideas can all be traced back to the same strong and consistent principles. That and nothing else is why we are all behind him. We’re not doing it because we personally believe in all of the things he believes in. We’re doing it because we see him as a long awaited opportunity to deliver the message, and we are desperate for the change. We hope that, when Ron Paul gets elected, eyes and ears will turn to the message, and people would finally realise that they should be outraged about the state of affairs in the world of today.
We support Ron Paul the message. The message to the powers that be, the message to the ignorant masses who are too lazy and well fed to think for themselves, the message to the media who has no more qualms about lying, distorting the truth and hiding away the facts that they know the public deserves to hear about, it is a message to the fascists in the US government, the oil companies, the recording and the movie industry, the banks, and everyone else whom you – the american taxpayers – made very rich and very happy through your ignorance, political correctness, obedience and false piety.
Ron Paul’s political integrity is validated by his long, consistent voting history. You can cherry pick some particular moments of it, but the general rule stays the same: Ron Paul is an uniquely honest man, a person of integrity, a type that does not make it to politics anymore. He is the kind of politician that does it because he believes in the principle. You can argue with his economical theories, and you can argue with his personal beliefs, you can argue about him being too radical or not radical enough on any specific subject. The fact stays the same:
The Ron Paul movement is the first large scale distributed and decentralized international movement that is conceived and executed through the Internet. It is completely independent of Ron Paul the man and Ron Paul the politician. It is currently expanding and will continue to grow whether or not Ron Paul gets elected – or gets shot. The net result of this movement is people admitting that their personal opinions and aspirations matter less than and are limited by the guiding principles of liberty, and they are willing to overlook each other’s – and Ron Paul’s – personal variations and flaws so as to promote those guiding principles. The reason for that is not a pop fad, and not excitement with Ron Paul’s talking points; it is independent thought and independent effort which merely coincides with the same conduct on the side of a political candidate.
By stating that you would not vote for Ron Paul because of a two minute video clip in which he doesn’t even say what you imply he is saying, you are professing ignorance. By ignoring the message and the design principles of the United States in favour of your pet concern, you are directly authorizing the american establishment into meaningless, immoral and vile conduct which you also consent to pay for from your own pocket.
The Ron Paul campaign is having a difficult time. It has to face a wave of smear and outright lies (the Nazi connection story was one, to the point NYT had to retract it), it has to overcome people’s ignorance and apathy, and it has to oppose the fascist establishment while doing so. Nevertheless, it grows continuously. You can ascribe all of that to naivette and ease of amusement in some people, but at some point you will have to stop and wonder why or how did it grow so big. It is already big, and it doesn’t end in United States.
Shame on you! You are perpetuating the mode of thought dictated to you by the media and your clueless peers. Ron Paul’s religious belief (which, again, I find disheartening and objectionable) has nothing to do with the kind of society he seeks to restore. If you keep judging your candidates by the same measure of public lip service, you are most certainly excluding those who are not in it for the money. Only those who are willing to do nothing to serve you will remain.
I urge you to overcome your preconceptions. I urge you to avoid the Ron Paul supporters who are not smart enough and not mature enough to understand the situation in-depth and the importance of what we’re trying to achieve. I urge you to stop treating Ron Paul as another windbag candidate – or a crackpot one for that matter – and dedicate time to actually *listen* to the man himself. The reason we want Ron Paul is completely different from what you imagine.
Discard every single of my words here. Pretend that I am lying in order to get you recruited. Do whatever is it that you need to do – sacrifice a puppy if necessary – but for your own sake, do what a true scientist is supposed to do, investigate impartially an outrageous claim such as the one I am making here, based on evidence laid out in front of you, and then decide if you want Ron Paul to be the President or not.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:17 am
“Intelligent design maintains consistency almost by definition. It is so simple that there are almost no possible contradictions.”
ID is simple because nobody has (to my knowledge) ever attempted to come up with a model of how it actually works. For instance, IDers always say something like “The human eye is far to complex to have come about by accident”; but none of them has ever explained the mechanism that encoded the design for the human eye into DNA.
“God” (or, if you like, “The Designer”) “did it” is not an explanation. HOW did He, She or It do it?
December 28th, 2007 at 9:29 am
I think it’s inappropriate to ask questions as to the personal beliefs of a candidate for any office. In the case of Ron Paul, I’m not concerned about his religious beliefs at all, and if anyone has read his voting record, he tends toward less interference in the private lives of others. And personally, I’m far more concerned about a candidate’s public beliefs as to the proper role of government than about his personal beliefs of whether evolutionary theory is valid or not. The former he can legally decide upon, the latter he has no authority to change.
December 28th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Mike Seth: “Discard every single of my words here. Pretend that I am lying in order to get you recruited. Do whatever is it that you need to do – sacrifice a puppy if necessary – but for your own sake, do what a true scientist is supposed to do, investigate impartially an outrageous claim such as the one I am making here, based on evidence laid out in front of you, and then decide if you want Ron Paul to be the President or not.”
[THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE!!!]
So, of all the people here who are so against Ron Paul solely on his nonacceptance of evolution, and who are on that basis ascribing to him many personal aspects that are not upheld by his record, why is there NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM responding to my points, or to his, or to any of the others pointing this out?
Might it just be because we’re right in our evaluation of them?
December 28th, 2007 at 10:54 am
To: Barton Paul Levenson
It cannot be disproven that spontaneous random mutations occur. By definition, that notion is not scientific in nature. I can propose a mechanism that clearly defines why a mutation occurred, but I cannot prove that it was not a completely random coincidence.
Do you see where I am going with this?
An observation of a random genetic mutation would have to explicitly state a causative link such as a free molecule of h2o2 combining with genome x and causing Y chemical reaction….. therefore, it would NOT be random in nature at all, but rather a electrochemical reaction.
The notion of COMPLETELY RANDOM in nature is EQUIVALENT to saying that the hand of God did it.
SLC: I acknowledge that you did not say we descended from chimps. I also acknowledge that you use unsubstantiated claims from individuals of questionable character to slander a man of unimpeachable character simply because it fits your obvious agenda.
You can keep spouting your kooky filth and rely on kooks for your information…. I am not denying your right to be an intellectual prostitute, but know that you are not taken seriously just as no serious journal or paper will carry such slander without retraction.
Your guilt by association and ad hominem define your own character. You cant sling your poop without getting the smell all over you.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:05 am
As a man of science, I find it very funny that a majority of humans do not truely understand they are an ape walking around on this rock.
I also found Dr. Paul answer to evolution surprising, but alas, I will never find a candidate that is 100% me, but anybody north of 40% these days is a blessing…
December 28th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Re Scriven Taylor
Mr. Taylor claims that I depend on people of dubious character to smear Representative Paul. Is Dr. Orac a man of dubious character? Is Ed Brayton a man of dubious character? Furthermore, relative to the dinner which is the subject of Mr. Whites claim, Mr. Taylor conspicuously fails to respond to a suggestion that testimony from others who were at that dinner to the effect that Representative Paul was not there would be more definitive then Mr. Taylor and Dr. SLC, neither of whom were at the dinner, arguing back and forth. However, lets put the question of Representative Pauls’ alleged racist connections aside. How about responding to the claims made by Dr. Orac relative to Representative Pauls’ associations with medical cranks and quacks like Mike Adams? As I stated in my last comment, these are far more serious in my estimation then his, perhaps, somewhat peripheral association with racist organizations.
December 28th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
[[It cannot be disproven that spontaneous random mutations occur. By definition, that notion is not scientific in nature. I can propose a mechanism that clearly defines why a mutation occurred, but I cannot prove that it was not a completely random coincidence.
Do you see where I am going with this?]]
Yes, you’re hastily making your view untestable to avoid the fact that you were just plain wrong about the existence of mutations and obviously hadn’t done any research on the subject.
December 28th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
By using the minimal definitions in connection with a theory you will get quantifiable predictions that enable testing of the theory, whether gravitation, evolution or any other. (And rejecting falsified ones.)
Those tests have been done for evolution, both in its genomic and phylogenetic character. It isn’t a matter of opinion, as science has a way of validating claims.
And as seen from the link, biology admits to higher precision tests than any other science.
Just because processes are path dependent doesn’t mean they don’t admit repeated tests. It is especially easy for the deterministic parts such as selection. Again, see the link for such tests and their results.
How anyone can seriously entertain the idea that biology isn’t tested science, is something that should not be observed, nor repeated. Unfortunately, against ignorance or malice there is no antidote.
This is confusing empirical science with philosophy. Theories are tested against new data and/or predictions. Your previous comment admitted that this is done (”scientific experiment”).
December 28th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Gadzooks! You have no idea how stabby that makes me. Don’t even joke about “He Who Shall Never Be Named.”
December 28th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
First off this video is edited at the 30 second mark, someone is trying to influence us.
But as per this discussion,
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’!
December 28th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Woah, wait…this video’s only THIRTY SECONDS????
SHAME ON YOU, PHIL!!!
I saw the entire video and assumed his video covered it all. For the benefit of everyone here, let me transcribe what he said AFTER he said he didn’t accept evolution:
“It probably doesn’t bother me…it’s not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life, to understand the exact (inaudible due to audience member coughing). The creator that I know created every one of us and created the universe, and the precise time and manner and all, I just don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute truth on either side. So I just don’t, if that were the only issue for everybody, I would think it’s an interesting discussion, I think it’s a theological discussion and I think it’s fine and we can have our (inaudible due to baby crying), but if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn’t be running for public office.”
Now, that just paints a whole different picture, doesn’t it?
December 28th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Oh, and BTW, if anyone’s interested the video is from a Q&A session with Ron Paul in Spartanburg, SC on 11/01.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Re Evan Martin
1. It really becomes tiresome when commentors like Mr. Martin continue to conflate the theory of evolution with the theory of the origin of life. One more time, the two theories are completely independent of each other and are entirely separate issues. There is no requirement or expectation that the theory of evolution explain the origin of life. Period, end of story.
2. I would like to know when supporters of Representative Paul are going to respond to the charges that he is closely associated with medical quacks and cranks like Mike Adams. So far, all we read are statements about what a wonderful guy Representative Paul is, that all he is interested in is getting the Government off our backs. I have some news for these folks, I don’t want to get the Government off my back when it comes to suppressing medical crankery and quackery. If anything, I want more suppression, not less.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Who said that all mutations are spontaneous? Most are coupled to specific mechanisms. And as always, “random” needs to be defined – many mutations aren’t equi-probable, if that was the intention.
But somehow I think that this was a (failed) intention of description of evolution. As noted, it isn’t without determinism.
Not as long as you don’t define what you are babbling about, no. But real life mutations are observable facts. More specifically, they are facts that the theory of evolution is based on.
Compare with the fact of acceleration by masses for gravitation, newtonian gravitation doesn’t need to explain why they exist to be a falsifiable theory according to its definition. Neither does evolution need to explain why mutations exist.
What you want to do is to test the predictions of the theory, such as when scientists predicted the transitional form, age and habitat (rock formation) of Tiktaalik from evolution.
This isn’t difficult to understand, it isn’t as if it is rocket science. Well, perhaps gravitation then.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
SLC:
“I would like to know when supporters of Representative Paul are going to respond to the charges that he is closely associated with medical quacks and cranks like Mike Adams.”
When you post something worth responding to, we’ll respond. Otherwise, we’ll just file this under his “associations” with 9/11 “Truthers,” Neo-Nazis, and white supremacists.
“If anything, I want more suppression, not less.”
Yes, because government prohibition ALWAYS works, especially at the Federal level…
December 28th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Re Shane Killian
So the comments by Dr. Orac concerning the effect of legislation supported by Representative Paul are just associations. It should be quite clear at this point that Mr. Killian is just another whackjob along with all the other whackjobs who support Representative Paul. He brushes off the accusation that Representative Paul is a quack/crank supporting nutcase by claiming it is of little moment. As for the sarcastic comment about government prohibitions, I trust the government a lot more then quacks like Mike Adams.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
SLC, when I determine whether or not to support a candidate, I go by what the CANDIDATE says, not what OTHER PEOPLE say. Ron Paul’s record speaks for itself.
Truthers, white supremacists, and others have done the same thing. How is any of that Dr. Paul’s doing? How does he have any control over what they say?
Reasonable people know that guilt by association is fallacious. Unreasonable people resort to calling people “whackjobs.” I’m glad you showed us all which one you are.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
I think Scriven is currently testing the theory of “Intelligent Falling”.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
SLC:
You are completely correct regarding evolution vs. origin of life. However, I don’t find this important at all, because the christian right doesn’t know what they’re doing when they promote the “intelligent design”. They’re allowing UFO theories in public schools, and what better way to defuse the religious dogma than encourage people to think that all the bible magic is just alien intervention?
Regarding your other point, who or what exactly is Dr. Orac, and what is it exactly that he said that you think is worth bringing up? I understand that you are mad at RP for being associated with “quack jobs”. I presume this would be the same thing as someone else brought up above, quote:
“The real issue is not whether supplements really work, or whether FDA drugs really are safe. The real issue is: Who decides, the individual or the state? This is the central question in almost every political issue. In free societies, individuals decide what medical treatments or health supplements are appropriate for them.”
Do you understand that the point RP is making here is about whether any principle is being broken by allowing FDA exclusivity and federal funding, and whether is that legal to do at all? It has nothing to do with homeopathy or anything like that, not even with FDA’s conduct lately.
I presume also that by now you’re convinced that Ron Paul’s “nazi connections” are a pile of crock, right?
December 28th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Hey Idon’t have sound onmy home computer so …
… Ron Paul (who the hecks’he?)’s comments :
“I will have plenty to say about these guys soon enough — I think they are all quite unfit to command a country in the 21st century, since they seem to believe in the methods of the Middle Ages.”
Seem fair enough – assuming “these guys” = the creationist / ID mob!
“Unfit to command a Country.. ” – yep, Bush Jr shows all republicans are that esp. their more fundamentalist bethren. The Taliban are livingproof thatwhen youput morons with a tenth cntury mindset inchareg a country’s doomed. Taliban, Creationists – pretty much “same diff.” from a rational POV.
“they seem to believe in the methods of the Middle Ages …” Summarising abit but basically :
Ie. “Listen to Your Priests, listento your Kings & Obey like slaves. Do NOT dare think for yourself! If its in the Bible its true ..Now back to slaving and pray you don’t get the Plague!” (But also kill your cat -they’re the evils animal coz tehy kill rats which carry Plague germs which we stops us threatening people with God-sent plagues!]
Yep that’d be medevial thinking alright just like that modern bumper sticker – a Republican Relig. Wrong fave :
“God said it. I believe it. That settles it.”
Yup. Settles the fact that the person with that sticker is a moron who doesn’t even want to learn anything and would jump off a cliff atpreists command.
SIGH.
How can a nation that has done so much that’s great – landing on the Moon, sending rovers to Mars & spaceprobes throughout the solar system and even beyond be so full of such infernally, wilfully stupid people?
I don’t understand that, I really don’t.
What is wrong with those American peope who follow Evangelical Christianity and vote for demonstrably incompetent and tyrannical leaders like Bush the Lesser and whatever clowns the Retardican party backs next?
Really? What is wrong with them?
December 29th, 2007 at 1:01 am
& what’s with not being able to edit posts so I can’t edit typos & have to resort to corrections like this? :
———————————————-
“they seem to believe in the methods of the Middle Ages …” Summarising these methods / mindsets a bit but basically :
Ie. “Listen to Your Priests, listen to your Kings & Obey like slaves! Do NOT dare think for yourself! If its in the Bible it’s true … Now back to slaving and pray you don’t get the Plague!”
(But also kill your cat – they’re the Devils animal coz they kill rats which carry Plague germs which we stops us threatening people with God-sent plagues!)
——————
Okay, now I’ve heard of Ron Paul – through this website.
I don’t think he’s got a snowballs chance in hell of winning.
Wish I could say the same about Huckabee and Romney.
I’m hoping Guilani gets nominated for the “Retradican” candidate – but still loses to either Hiliary or Barack Obama (if he can get educated on NASA and agree they need the $!) or bestof all Kucinch!
December 29th, 2007 at 1:45 am
Wow! You Americans like to go at each other! I am Canadian, don’t make me come down there and straighten you out! We don’t seem to have insane politicians running the country up here…. O wait…. never mind….. at one point, the current ruling Conservatives were about to be known as the Conservative Reform Alliance Party, until someone happened to tell the leaders that that makes C.R.A.P! Ok, boys, have at it!
December 29th, 2007 at 1:56 am
“SLC, when I determine whether or not to support a candidate, I go by what the CANDIDATE says, not what OTHER PEOPLE say. Ron Paul’s record speaks for itself.”
Yes, it does, doesn’t it? As Orac documented, his record clearly shows that he supports cranks.
Also, it shows that he is against civil rights (same-sex marriages) and the womens’ right to choose. On top of that, it demonstrates that he has no understanding of how economics work (e.g. his stupid idea of going back to the gold standard).
When we also take his statements and associations into consideration, we can see that he is a typical far-right, anti-science, conspiracist politician, who has hidden behind an anti-war stance. And here I should point out that when I talk about associations, I don’t mean people who associate with him, but people he himself associates with. When he choose to give speeches at gatherings of far-right groups, he associates himself with those groups.
December 29th, 2007 at 6:05 am
“As Orac documented, his record clearly shows that he supports cranks.”
Not by any stretch of the imagination. At worst, you can say that the cranks like his position on the FDA–but then, the same could be said for ANYONE WHO UNDERSTANDS THE CONSTITUTION.
Again, why is violating the First Amendment such a horrible thing but violating the Tenth is A-OK?
“Also, it shows that he is against civil rights (same-sex marriages)”
Ron Paul voted AGAINST the Defense of Marriage Act.
“On top of that, it demonstrates that he has no understanding of how economics work (e.g. his stupid idea of going back to the gold standard).”
And you’ve just proven YOUR ignorance of economics with that very statement. In fact, Ron Paul’s even schooled the Fed chairman–both Greenspan and Bernanke–on that very issue, and they both admitted he was right. In fact, do a Google search for Greenspan and the gold standard. I think you’ll be surprised by what you find.
You clearly haven’t even bothered to look into his record. You’re just accepting what you’re being spoon-fed, by people who want to usurp unconstitutional power just as much as the fundamentalists do.
“When he choose to give speeches at gatherings of far-right groups, he associates himself with those groups.”
So, does Phil associate himself with woos every time he appears on Coast to Coast?
December 29th, 2007 at 6:22 am
“In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
“This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.”
–Alan Greenspan
—–
John Stossel: Should gays be allowed to marry?
Ron Paul: Sure.
December 29th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Re Shane Killian
1. I would like to know when Mr. Greenspan made the comment Mr. Killian has quoted here. Just for the information of the readers here, in his younger days, Mr. Greenspan was a disciple of Ayn Rand who Mr. Killian undoubtedly considers to be a fount of knowledge but most people consider to be a nutcase of the first order. Ms. Rands’ views can be summed up very simply, every man for himself and let the devil take the hindmost. I doubt very much that Mr. Greenspan still believes in the gold standard.
2. Mr. Killians’ diatribes against the FDA are quite typical of far right wing whackjobs who apparently believe that cranks and quacks should be allowed to fleece the public without interference with the authorities. Just for the information of Mr. Killian, the average bear is no more competent to evaluate the effectiveness of medical drugs and devices then he/she is to evaluate the General Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics (or the Theory of Evolution for that matter).
Re Seth
Just for the record, in response to Mr. Seths’ query about Dr. Orac, the latter is a research surgical oncologist who specializes in the treatment of breast cancer. If Mr. Seth bothered to go to his blog, he would discover that Dr. Orac is the scourge of medical quacks and cranks and those who enable them by supporting legislation that allows them to fleece the public with their phony medical so called cures. Representative Paul is one of these enablers and has the support of many of the most egregious quacks and cranks, such as Mike Adams. Considering the fact that Representative Paul is a medical doctor, his association and encouragement of such scum is reprehensible.
December 29th, 2007 at 8:17 am
SLC: Your preference for bloviating over answering direct questions is noted.
Since you apparently lack the knowledge of even elementary school children, let me point some things out for you:
We have these things called “states.” These states enforce and punish things called “crimes.” Robbery, fraud, murder, etc. are all crimes enforced by the states.
We also have this thing called the “Constitution.” That’s the document that contains the “First Amendment” that you and others are paying lip service to. This Constitutions specifies what the Federal government is allowed to do. It only allows for three Federal crimes: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting.
Now, is having laws against murder on the state level but not the Federal the same thing as saying that murderers “should be allowed to fleece the public without interference with the authorities”? No, clearly not. So why is it any different with fraud?
Of course, you won’t answer this, but continue to commit ad hominem attacks, fallacious argument by authority, emotional argument, bloviating, and other things that skeptics recognize are not only fallacious, but a clear indication of someone who does not have a valid argument to present.
December 29th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Re Shane Killian
Mr. Killian, like all his fellow right wing/libertarian whackjobs likes to pick and choose his quotations from the Constitution. As I recall, the Constitution says that the Federal Government has the power to regulate interstate commerce. This is, of course, a clause that the
December 29th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Re Shane Killian
Apologies for the burp that caused my previous comment to be sent prematurely. The last sentence should continue with, “right wing/libertarians ignore when they pontificate. If Mr. Killian doesn’t approve of the Federal Government regulating interstate commerce, I say tough noogies.
December 29th, 2007 at 10:50 am
“As I recall, the Constitution says that the Federal Government has the power to regulate interstate commerce”
Once again, you show profound ignorance.
I’ll give you $100 if you can find the phrase “interstate commerce” ANYWHERE in the Constitution.
The Commerce clause is the most misquoted and abused clause in all the Constitution. According to ALL of the framers—on BOTH sides of the issue—the clause is there so that the Federal government can stop the states from restricting commerce with other states, through taxes, duties, restrictions, or other impositions on goods imported from other states.
The Constitution says that they can “regulate” this commerce, and at the time of writing the word “regulate” didn’t have it’s modern abused meaning of “pass whatever laws you want to.” It means, “to make regular.”
This was all confirmed by the courts, such as the Supreme Court determining that New York could not regulate navigation as an excuse to shut down a ferry business competing with their own.
NO ONE “interpreted” the Commerce clause the ridiculous way you’re doing it until the 1930s, when it was just an excuse for Federal intrusion into state matters and the destruction of federalism.
December 29th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Source for my above claim:
Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824. ANYONE who’s studied the Constitution knows this case, and knows how the Commerce Clause was meant and was used.
Marshall specifically said, delivering the majority opinion, that the clause was ”not one which would probably have been selected to indicate the completely interior traffic of a state.” So, if you and your doctor are in the same state, or you and the store you’re buying the product from are in the same state, how can the Commerce Clause possibly apply?
The Commerce Clause was there to prohibit protectionism, mercantilism, and corporatism—exactly the things that result from having an FDA.
So, once again, we see SLC’s blatant hypocrisy. He has a problem with other people misinterpreting the First Amendment, yet he himself has no problem with blatant misinterpretation of Article I Section 8. But if he claims the right to re-interpret the Commerce Clause without a Constitutional amendment (as Article V demands), then he cannot logically or morally fault anyone who re-interprets First Amendment to support theocracy or the suppression of free speech.
The Constitution either means something, or it doesn’t. It’s under threat from both sides. I urge everyone to consider that SLC’s ilk is every bit as dangerous as the creationists in this regard.
December 30th, 2007 at 5:24 am
“And you’ve just proven YOUR ignorance of economics with that very statement. In fact, Ron Paul’s even schooled the Fed chairman–both Greenspan and Bernanke–on that very issue, and they both admitted he was right. In fact, do a Google search for Greenspan and the gold standard. I think you’ll be surprised by what you find.”
Greenspan is not a particular good credibility witness. Note his changes in opinion depending on who were in power (the very policies he warned against under Clinton, he endorsed under George W, Bush). In other words, he is a partisan hack.
Even so, I find it interesting that you have to go back to an essay that was published in Ayn Rand’s Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal in 1967 (he wrote it in 1966). I’ve actually read that book, and it’s absolutely horrible on all levels – something that’s hardly surprising considering the source.
Maybe you have a more contemporary source for somewhere where he agrees with Ron Paul? You know, after Paul apparently schooled him in economics (something I find as likely as Greenspan schooling Paul in medicine).
And now back to the problems with Paul’s economic ideas.
The problem with the gold standard is that it causes deflation in an expanding economy like the US (due to the simple fact that the same amount of gold has to pay for ever more goods). Deflation is really bad in countries where a majority, or even just a very large part, of people are loaners (their loans become higher and higher over time, even if there is no interest rates).
This is a problem even if you go for the gold standard lite version that Ron Paul has somewhat advocated, where the dollar is tied to gold (or whatever other finite good you want to tie it to), rather than using gold as payment.
There is also the problem with international trade – it depends on a large part on trust in reimbursements (if an European like me get paid in dollars, I need to be sure that I’ll be able to exchange those dollars for something that’s actually worth something to me – Euros typically). The only source of reimbursements in the Ron Paul economy would be gold. Considering the massive US trade deficiency, that would cause serious problems, and cause for potential massive recalling of dollars (to keep the dollar relative to gold), or massive inflation (more dollars per ounce of gold).
One can of course hope that the deflation caused by the expanding economy will be equal to the inflation caused by cost of the trade deficiency. Yet that doesn’t sound like a very good plan to me.
There is a reason why international trade has become much more widespread after the gold standard was removed.
Oh, and just for the record; while I am currently working in IT, I do actually have a background in economics (and generally work with financial IT systems), so while my knowledge is a bit rusty at times, I am not exactly ignorant of economics. Unlike Ron Paul and his followers.
December 30th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Kristjan Wager:
“The problem with the gold standard is that it causes deflation”
COMPLETELY incorrect, and perhaps the biggest myth about sound money that there is. Deflation is a contraction of the money supply, like what happened during the Great Depression.
It is true that overall prices tend to drop under sound money, but this ISN’T deflation–it’s economic progress making goods and services cheaper. The difference is, with deflation, prices go down but there’s no extra money; but here, capital is actually being freed up and can be used for other things.
“if an European like me get paid in dollars, I need to be sure that I’ll be able to exchange those dollars for something that’s actually worth something to me – Euros typically”
And you’d still be able to do that! Nothing about the exchange market would be altered in any way, except that the dollar wouldn’t continually be dropping vs. other currencies. I don’t know where you picked up this information from, but it’s bogus scare tactics, nothing more.
“I do actually have a background in economics (and generally work with financial IT systems), so while my knowledge is a bit rusty at times, I am not exactly ignorant of economics. Unlike Ron Paul and his followers.”
Rrrrright, which is why you’re making mistakes that no one who’s read Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson would make…
December 30th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Wow, you Darwinists are pathetic. Someone as thoughtful, intelligent, and sensible as Ron Paul you automatically poo poo because he doesn’t support your goop-to-man theory. I’m not a Paul supporter, by the way.
No, a lot of intelligent people don’t buy in to a crazy theory that is blindly embraced by academia and supported with unswerving loyalty. Ironic that you criticize fundamentalist Christian when most of you, in point of fact, are fundamentalist Darwinists yourselves. It is truly a belief. I don’t *believe* in evolution and I don’t *believe* in Ra, the sun god.
Macroevolution has never been observed and is vaguely implied at best. I can’t explain it, but as of now Evolution fails completely. I don’t have enough faith to believe in it. I suppose since I’m not a Darwinist I should be excommunicated from teaching science and shot to the moon. All I can really do is chuckle at discussions like this where all of you get upon your pseudointellectual high horses and use smarmy condescension as your tool de jour against people like Ron Paul.
As it stands now, with the scientific evidence available, Evolution is false. With an unwaveringly materialistic, atheistic worldview, I suppose your faith tells you it’s true. I’m glad Paul doesn’t buy into it, and I sincerely hope the trend continues.
December 30th, 2007 at 9:49 am
The Controller General (head of the GAO) and Ron Paul about the economic crisis our country is facing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXIufIXPsYs
How ANYONE can blatantly ignore the evidence is just beyond me.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Define “Darwinist” in a meaningful way.
Besides the political discussion, there is a scientific one. You don’t need to be a biologist to discuss biology, merely knowledgeable and rational enough to access it.
You can easily check with you national science council or its equivalent whether biology is an accepted empirical science and evolution an accepted part of biology, the fact is but a phone call away. So you see, when you call these people “intelligent” or imply that an empirical science is a philosophical dogma, most people would see through your description in a blink of an eye.
The rest of your comment is just lies and troll bait like that. It is wasted on you, but of course there is access to scientific source material for the interested bystander that we can get from above phone call or by way of easy introduction from the references here.
Now, go find someone who actually listens to your childish lies.
December 30th, 2007 at 11:55 am
“COMPLETELY incorrect, and perhaps the biggest myth about sound money that there is. Deflation is a contraction of the money supply, like what happened during the Great Depression.”
Deflation is per definition the increased relative worth of the currency (or in other words, the decrease of the general price level). While the term is some times used to describe the decrease of the amount of money, or as you say ‘a contraction of the money supply’, it is not synonymous to this. In other words: Though a contraction of the money supply will cause deflation, all deflations are not caused by this.
To put it in simpler words, deflation is the opposite of inflation. Pure and simple. Even you should be able to understand that.
“It is true that overall prices tend to drop under sound money, but this ISN’T deflation–it’s economic progress making goods and services cheaper.”
No, it’s exactly what deflation is. If you can’t understand the basic economical terms you are spewing nonsense about, you should not try to debate the subject.
“The difference is, with deflation, prices go down but there’s no extra money; but here, capital is actually being freed up and can be used for other things.”
That’s not correct, but even if it was, this would still not take care of the problem. As I said in the original comment on the subject, a gold standard is a major problem in an expanding economy. There are more value out there, but the same amount of gold (or gold-based dollars) to pay for it. That would lead to falling prices, which is all fine and dandy, if you have money. However, in societies where a large portion of people are loaners (e.g. the US), it’s a serious problem, as they will have to produce/work more, to pay back the same amount of money, even if there is no interest rates. That will lead to more foreclosures and bankruptcies – something that certainly won’t free up more money.
It’s simple economics 101.
I said: “if an European like me get paid in dollars, I need to be sure that I’ll be able to exchange those dollars for something that’s actually worth something to me – Euros typically”
Shane Killian answered: “And you’d still be able to do that! Nothing about the exchange market would be altered in any way, except that the dollar wouldn’t continually be dropping vs. other currencies. I don’t know where you picked up this information from, but it’s bogus scare tactics, nothing more.”
You really don’t get how financial economics work, do you? Money are as such worthless, especially across borders. They represent a buying power though, because they are backed up by the country’s federal bank (and through that, the country’s government).
If the US abolishes the Fed, and let banks issues their own gold-backed dollars, then foreigners like me, won’t have any trust in being able to get our money’s worth from those dollars in the future, so we’ll demand gold instead.
It should be pretty simple to figure out why this would be so. And it should also be pretty simple to figure out why this would be bad for the US, given its trade deficiency.
“Rrrrright, which is why you’re making mistakes that no one who’s read Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson would make…”
So far you’ve demonstrated a lack of understanding of the basic definitions and mechanisms of economics, so I don’t think you should try to judge other peoples’ knowledge on the subject.
It would be like trusting “Dr. Cherokee” to evaluate other peoples’ knowledge about biology.
December 30th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
“Deflation is per definition the increased relative worth of the currency (or in other words, the decrease of the general price level)”
No, it isn’t. You need to understand the difference between real price and nominal price. Deflation is when the nominal price drops but the real price stays the same. If the real price drops, this results in a drop in the nominal price, but that is NOT deflation.
“If you can’t understand the basic economical terms you are spewing nonsense about, you should not try to debate the subject.”
I should be saying that to you.
For example, the introduction of computers has ended up reducing real prices across the board. If all other things were equal, prices would be a lot lower today. That clearly would NOT be deflation, since these goods and services can be provided with fewer labor and resources. THAT IS NOT DEFLATION.
“It’s simple economics 101.”
Then why did MY economics classes say otherwise?
You sit there and blather on with things that NO serious economist claims, and then try to get all sanctimonious and act as if I’m the one that’s ignorant.
You probably even thing the trade deficit’s a bad thing…
December 30th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Here’s an article debunking some of the myths of the gold standard: http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=149&sortorder=authorlast
Also, if you can find a copy, I urge everyone to read The Economics of a Pure Gold Standard by Mark Skousen. Murray Rothbard’s The Case Against the Fed is also a good read. And you can also check out Ron Paul’s book (with Lewis Lehrman) The Case for Gold.
December 30th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Dr Cherokee, since you admit you don’t know much about evolution, why should people listen to you?
“As it stands now, with the scientific evidence available, Evolution is false. With an unwaveringly materialistic, atheistic worldview, I suppose your faith tells you it’s true.”
Since that EVERY OTHER scientific theory does not invoke God either, what makes evolution any more “materialistic” or atheistic than any other theory? Also, are you aware that there are plenty of people who accept evolution just fine while also being religious?
December 30th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
“When compared to the other Republican presidential candidates, Ron Paul seems almost sane (but then, in that crowd so would L. Ron Hubbard). ”
I’m reminded of an article Mark Twain wrote on the funny things kids say in school. In particular Twain noted one who obviously confused Publican with Republican when he defined Republican as “a sinner mentioned in the Bible” to which Twain added “also in Democratic newspapers.”
It’s always comforting to have a candidate thinking the same way I do but it really depends upon how those beliefs form a guide for the candidate’s actions. It’s not fair to assume a lack of integrity for holding any given one. (OK, NOT if the belief is “I can do whatever I please”).
The notable thing about elections lately is that both sides seem to tend toward the middle of the road. Likely, that’s proof that democracy really works. In the 2000 election, the least dangerous one won IMO, although after seeing the Bush administration reactions following 9/11 I’m beginning to think maybe cutting off the right foot with pointless economic suicide might not have been so bad after all.
The point is: whatever the choices will be next year, the candidates will be so much alike it won’t make much difference which one wins. It’ll be much the same as trying to decide whose hamburger you really want to buy for lunch. Maybe you really want a steak but — sorry! — the choice du jour will be hamburger.
December 30th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
[...] articulate deconstruction of why Ron Paul is dangerous. He’s a loon, certifiable, and the fact that people take him seriously speaks more to the unmitigated buffoonery of the rest [...]
December 30th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Dark Sapiens: “every time a certain type of bacteria becomes resistant to certain antibiotic, you see evolution by natural selection happening. And that’s only one example. There are plenty more.”
First, allow me to state that I’m not a Creationist; I think Evolution Theory fits the current evidence enough that it is unlikely to be replaced.
Some time ago (and faraway) I exchanged posts with two Seventh Day Adventists. The very basis of SDA is Creationism and Biblical Fundamentalism. One was totally unreasonable. He just blathered on as if no one (other than himself) said anything. The other more or less laid down his beliefs and was up to defending them. IIRC, the SDA’s are willing to allow that the 7 days of Creation really took some 6000-7000 years and are willing to acknowledge things have changed from the start. The basic idea is that minor changes happen but major changes (like the development of eyes) do not.
What that means is that, while you see the changing bacteria as proof, a Creationist would not.
Ultimately though, no amount of evidence will change their minds. The very foundation of Faith is acceptance without evidence — or at least accepting some authority’s statements as evidence. As a result, discussion is futile. You would have a better chance of convincing ants it’s a bad idea to attend your picnic.
If the only thing I know about RP or anyone else is a that a Creationist belief is being held, it might have an unfavorable impact. Unfortunately, that presupposes an image of unfavorable integrity. If I were to act on that unfavorable image then I, too, would be acting on Faith and not on Evidence. I find myself spending more time on candidates that hold opinions opposite of myself to determine how much that opposite opinion matters.
As I said earlier, in the long run, one might as well use eye color as a basis because the choice is going to be about the same as between getting 12 eggs or just a dozen.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
We can assume that he meant something other than what he actually said, or we can take his words at face value.
He said “…I don’t agree with it, as a theory.”
Paul is a doctor, and of course he would be correct in this thought. Scientific theories are conglomerations of disporvable hypotheses. Scientific theories can never be proven, only disproven. And I wouldn’t consider evolution any more or less confimed than our theories of gravitation. After all, Einstien completely changed the paradigms of space, time, and matter less than 100 years ago, and the theory of gravitation is under constant scrutiny by physicists even today.
You may look at his comments as precise to the point of misleading, but that would not be his flaw, but his audience’s of which you are also a member.
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:27 am
“Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God”
Huh?
Has RP been reading the same ones I have, or did he get the Mad-Lib version, where you can make it say whatever you like?
Apart from that “Year of our Lord” bit, the Constitution has none. The Declaration mentions “nature’s God” the “creator” and a hope for “divine providence.” That’s it.
If that qualifies as “replete,” then by the same definition, I am an exceptionally wealthy man due to the five bucks and two cards currently in my wallet.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Really, Ron Paul’s stance on evolution is of no importance to me for two reasons.
1) He’s not going to win the Republican nomination. No chance in hell. We’re more likely to be voting against Huckabee.
2) I disagree with him about things that matter to me more than the Origin of Species.
The Gold Standard.
Federal (Pick One) Funding.
Isolationism.
The Constitution.
Because the thing is that there’s many things that Ron Paul might know and understand, but you would not find listed among them:
Macroeconomics.
Geopolitics.
History.
Constitutional Law.
or, apparently, biology.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
I’ve known plenty of good people who are good at what they do who believe in very crazy things. Maybe it’s a line for you, but it’s not that much different than any other *crazy* disagreeable things others think (politics, religion, astrology, sex, food, general taste in art, movies and music). Do you automatically shut out people in your personal life because of any of the above? Maybe that’s not a fair question, we are talking about the position of President. I don’t think any of the candidates have a good grasp on economics or running a business. For me that trumps belief in evolution. Ron Paul is far from perfect, but I think he’s got some good ideas on cutting needless spending, leaving the Middle East entirely and he’s not opposed to nuclear power (like most Democrats).
If that’s the #1 on your list of things that are important to you — that’s cool, but I think your priorities are a little off.
And I’m sorry you got ganged up on by all the Paul supporters…I check this site monthly since your appearance on Penn Radio and SGU!
January 16th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
What you might not realize is that he is right. It is a theory. Just like the theory of gravity. While he is much more of a personal doubter than I, he makes a very good point. I would personally say that evolution has a 99% of being true.
But no one on either side has 100% proof. No one has a time machine. For all we know, a noodle could’ve come and created the human race, full with it’s memories and everything in existence… 50 years ago.
You don’t know. You just have faith that 200 years ago did exist.
I’m not saying that its anywhere *near* likely… but its still possible. Don’t be so closed minded regarding other options.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:22 am
Compartmentalized rationalism never ceases to amaze me. Ron Paul and evolution has nothing to do with anything. Mr. Astronomer, what tastes better, brownies or cotton candy? How about explaining to me why the universe exists.
How do you know that God didn’t set evolution in motion as one writer stated above. Apparently, you are more intelligent than Plato who at least understood that he knew nothing.
The issue about Ron Paul is about how to make the nation fair, free and equitable for all. Maybe your head spends way too much time in the outer universe rather than down here on the ground. You only talk the fight when it comes to human rights if you vote for anyone other than RP.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
The issue for me with Ron Paul in relation to the video is that he clearly stated that he doesn’t accept the theory of evolution and the implications with that go along with that statement. To clarify, the theory of evolution is not a theory as the word theory is commonly used. Anyone with a decent education should know that and I believe that Ron Paul does… if he doesn’t then I wouldn’t want him as President anyway. This implies along with his statement that he thinks it is a theological discussion that he leans towards using means other than observation when developing opinions and making decision and I adamantly desire the quality of using observation when developing opinions / making decisions in the role of President.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:50 am
[...] die gelooft dat de aarde ruwweg 6000 jaar geleden gecreeerd werd en een gynecoloog-libertarier die al evenzeer geschift en godsdienstmaniakaal blijkt te [...]
February 11th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Who the HELL CARES whether ANYONE believes in evolution or not???? WHAT has that got to do with federal government???? Get your nose “out of space” and back into the business at hand… like surviving the crash of the dollar and tell me what in God’s name difference his views on evolution are going to make there???!!!!
February 14th, 2008 at 4:12 am
Dee, sure… the fact that he doesn’t use observable data and instead resorts to ‘belief’ to make decisions such as whether evolution is true or false. For example, I see his stance on abortion and wanting to give the states the power to decide as his way of rationalizing a way to satisfy his christian beliefs and that going back to the way it was before Roe vs. Wade will just reintroduce the same problems that existed previous to Roe vs. Wade.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I find it interesting that people here say evolution has nothing to do with the federal government. Ron Paul may say it, but I think people need to remember that the citizens determine what the government has to address. Have you people not followed the arguments around teaching evolution in schools? When the people demand it be addressed and the Supreme Court or Congress decides to address it what is Ron Paul going to say? No Comment? And when he is forced to comment, which he would definitely be required at some point, what do you think his response will be?
September 27th, 2008 at 4:07 am
I fing love it! all the talk about Ron Paul… I wish we could make it happen… i hate who we ended up with… everyine fit for your write ins!!!
February 26th, 2009 at 2:18 am
a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for smaller government. I’ll take it. I’m tired of the FEDERAL govt. medling in the smallest of personal affairs. But the thing we have to be mindful of here is the constant endless circle of politics. Every revolution brings about a “libertarian” utopia in which persaonl freedom is valued above all else, this goes on for a while before the people become dependent on the govt. Once the people become dependent on the govt they have relinquished thier personal liberty. This will eventually lead to the downfall of the govt and the society. ROMAN EMPIRE ENGLISH EMPIRE and soon to be AMERICAN EMPIRE, or at least a turn towards a full blown monarchy. At some point the process will begin again. Because the everyday Human Being is a total moron. Im a moron, most of you are morons. We will complain too much about our freedoms (how some people are left behind in a free society). We will complain when the government steps in with regulations to keep those people from falling behind. We will complain when we are taxed, we will complain when the govt cant provide us with basic services that require taxing. I would hate to be a politician representing today’s American. Americans dont know what they want. So Ron Paul does what a politicians primary responsibility is (or should be). To protect your Liberty and leave the state of your own welfare in your own hands.