Uh-oh: Ron Paul Doesn’t Agree With Evolution ‘Theory’
Let the man speak for himself:
Worse, some of the secular libertarians who support him need to deal with the fact that he’s not big on that silly old church/state separation thing, either — or at least he wasn’t back in 2003 when he wrote a Limbaugh-like screed titled The War on Religion. And a few extra-astute Paul followers may even note, to their dismay, that Rep. Paul isn’t talking about religion in general here, just Christianity.
Oh, well. A number of religions (including Christianity) warn about idols with feet of clay. It looks like Ron Paul falls into that category. Sorry, Ron Paul supporters. I’d hoped he was different, too.
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Rob –
You have it backwards. The point of a Paul presidency is not the hope that you’ll find someone who agrees with you on everything, it’s finding a person who will pull power out of the office until it doesn’t matter if he disagrees with you on most things. That is what makes him different.
Also, I am shamed to admit I find “Merry Christmas” and nativity scenes deeply non-threatening. Am I to be excommunicated from the Church of Atheism?
You revel in the vaporous pearl-clutching of the born agains while imagining yourself superior. Pathetic.
December 28th, 2007 at 2:35 am
Robin, I don’t understand. Or more likely, you don’t understand.
Science does not tell us that all life that exists today is the result of the process of evolution, and if you believe that, then you do so not because of science. The real reason why you would believe that is what science attempts to free us from: our human tendency to see patterns where perhaps none exist.
We see that the process of evolution does work, we see that it has worked, and seeing no other scientific alternative, we say, hey! That must be how it ALWAYS works, with ALL species! But that’s not science. That’s anti-science.
It’s sad to me that so many people are so willing to disregard science in the name of science, whether it is pretending that an absence of alternative explanations means the one we know best is absolutely true, or whether it is pretending that the way to scientific knowledge is something other than empirical observation of controlled experiments, rather than in a courtroom or legislative body. Many of those who foolishly believe themselves to “pro-science” have fallen into both traps in regards to discussions of global warming and evolution.
The fact is, we don’t know. We can run experiments that seem to work, but we are very far from actually knowing, because we don’t have enough creativity and imagination to think of other possibilities. Someday we will. For centuries Newtonian physics seemed right. Evolution of species will, I suspect, someday go the way of Newtonian physics. Anthropogenic global warming, on the other hand, is shaping up such that it will be very lucky to have anything close to the same fate.