I have compiled a list of ALL of the 2012 Republican candidates and what they think about climate and evolution. I hope it will prove helpful:

http://www.lukesci.com/2011/09/06/all-of-the-2012-republican-candidates-on-climate-and-evolution/

For some brief comments on the recent climate denialism at the GOP debate a couple of days ago see here:

http://www.lukesci.com/2011/09/09/perry-and-bachmann-press-on-with-climate-denial/

No? Oh well.

However, he does clearly state that he does not accept evolution as a theory, which seems to agree with his other writings on the subject (mostly that it doesn’t matter). If I’m missing something, I’d be happy to look at yet another version.

My problem is Paul’s lack of distinction between the scientific use of the term “theory” and philosophical or colloquial use. The idea that that while “absolute proof” does not exist in science as a concept, any theory must be theoretically disproveable, gets to the heart of what exactly science is. For example, you can’t have a scientific theory of whether God does or does not exist because God is “non-disproveable” as a matter of logic. That’s not to side for or against God, just to note that the question is not scientific.

I do feel it’s relevant to question whether the country needs a president who does not or cannot make this distinction, whether it’s a matter of pandering to the religious right or a lack of understanding as to what science is. I know a number of science-friendly Paul supporters who trust their man not to involve himself in the issue, but it’s not unreasonable to be concerned about having a President who lacks an basic understanding of the meaning of science itself.

Why do people who don’t even know history think they are qualified to talk about science? Scientists knew the earth was round and had measured how big it is, over 2000 years ago. Were you too busy giggling to yourself about your misunderstandings of evolution when this was covered or haven’t you gotten to fifth grade yet?

The second question I would ask is whether they can explain the evidence for evolution; have they personally examined it? Because if a person has not seen and understood the evidence but still believes in it, that would be equally unscientific. Conversely, if a person says they haven’t examined the evidence, or that nobody has shown them it, then saying they were agnostic on the point would be the correct scientific position, and evidence of their scientific worldview.

Which brings up the third question: I would ask whether they think believing in evolution without having seen any evidence for it – besides being told the opinions of “experts” – is scientific? Anyone who thinks science encourages blind belief is misinformed. Nevertheless, a lot of people do.

Although to be honest, if I wanted to test a candidate’s understanding of science, I don’t think I’d ask any question with this sort of cultural baggage – I’d be asking them to list Newton’s laws of motion or to describe the chemistry of the Haber process and why it is important. Or simply ask them what grade they got in their science exams.

Of course, in this case the cultural baggage is the entire point. It’s not about testing whether they understand science – like I say, there are better questions to ask to test that – it’s about determining if they’re one of “us” or one of “them”. It’s not “do you understand” but “are you a believer”.

And taking the question seriously buys in to a worldview in which only approved beliefs are permitted, which is a dangerous road to start down, even in the cause of science education. It’s a lot more important that a President believes in freedom of belief.

My original comment (yesterday) got eaten by the flying spaghetti monster. I put on my pirate hat and am trying again.

Originally, I had pulled the transcript from the above video (from 2007) and pointed out that it showed Paul’s full argument above is that the U.S. president should have no say over whether or not Evolution is taught is schools because schools should be free to teach what is needed. Simply put, public education fails in Paul’s mind.

This video is cut before the entirety of his remarks are made and that should be borne in mind by rational thinkers. I don’t agree with Paul that public education is a mistake, but I certainly think that federal management of public education has been a travesty.

They are permanently unqualified to lead, and they would put at risk anyone unfortunate enough to have to settle for them as a predetermined-to-fail leader. It seems some people didn’t learn the real lesson of George W. Bush.

How can a nation that gets men on the moon also produce nutters? Do you have a large contingent of flat-earthers too? Beyond belief!