EDIT- Could we get the whole ID vs Natural Selection thing its own thread? Unless someone can show me evidence that Ron Paul intends to force public schools to teach it, I fail to see its relavenceI concur.It's actually very relevant. It speaks to his inability to understand fairly basic science or how his personal religious views overrule his common sense. This either speaks to someone who's not mentally fit to sit in that position or who might have his personal religious beliefs overrule his common sense in other areas.
Either case is very troubling to quite a lot of people I would wager.Also, if you don't think it matters because you share those same religious beliefs, then think of it like this: What if his religious beliefs were different from yours (could be Muslim, Hindu, Scientology etc.) - would you still think it didn't matter?
As I said up thread I tend to be more interested in policy issues than personal issue. If a candidates belief in any kind if ID disqualifies him for some voters that's their choice. No amount of discussion is likely to change that, so I don't want to see this thread turn into an ID debate.
The religious views of libertarian candidates tend not to interest me whether they believe in Jesus or the flying spaghetti monster specifically because the don't want to use force to impose their religious views.
I'm not saying character and personal beliefs are irrelevant. I'm sure everyone has their disqualifiers, but I would prefer to focus on policy.
I don't own the thread so my preferences aren't terribly important, but it seems to me that there are other threads to rehash the ID debate in.
EDIT: ninja'd
pretty much what Whiteknife said.
Allow me to clarify this ID issue somewhat by quoting part of a chapter specifically on Evolution vs. Creationism from Ron Paul's new book Liberty Defined.
"The creationists frown on the evolutionists, and the evolutionists dismiss the creationists as kooky or unscientific. Lost in this struggle are those who look objectively at all the scientific evidence for evolution without feeling any need to reject the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one's view about God in the universe.
"From my viewpoint, this is a debate about science and religion (and I wish it could be more civil!) and should not involve politicians at all. Why can't this remain an academic debate and not be made the political issue it has become?
"The answer is simple. Both sides want to use the state to enforce their views on others."
Later in the chapter he mentions the very same debate question and answer session that seems to have sparked most of the discussion in this thread.
"One of the silliest questions posed to the Republican presidential candidates in 2008 dealt with evolution. Why should an individual running for the presidency in the United States be quizzed as to whether or not he or she believes in evolution? The question was designed in an attempt for the supporters of evolution to embarrass a candidate who supports creationism, or, if the candidate backs away, to drive a wedge between the candidate and the religious right.
"The way the question was asked made it even sillier. It occurred May 3, 2007, in the first presidential debate in Simi Valley, California. The debate was moderated by Chris Matthews and John Harris. One of the moderators called for all the candidates who believed in evolution to raise their hands. At the time, my first impression was that this sounded like a third-grade class exercise. I interpreted raising one's hand as an all-or-nothing answer and as in insult and didn't bother to answer the question; nor was I called upon to discuss my views."
Paul states quite clearly that belief in God and belief in evolution are not polar opposites, and it is quite possible for open minded individuals to accept both as he implies above.
More importantly, he recognizes that there is no constitutional authority in Article 1 Section 8 for the federal government to play any role in education. Far from attempting to impose any sort of theory for or against evolution, Paul understands the role of the 10th Amendment in retaining this power for the States and the People.
I must ask, Did you find it distasteful when the media attacked President Obama's worship at the Trinity United Church of Christ? I did.
How about whenever they bring up the fact that Romney is a Mormon? I do.
Cmon people, I thought we got past this with JFK.
Edit- Thanks Toxy. Ive been looking for that. My search-fu is weak.
Let's see: PATRIOT ACT was given to congress on a late Friday night/early Saturday morning and passed first thing on Monday.
And in the last election, WI voted out the only Senator who dared to vote against it (Russ Feingold). America elects the government it deserves.
Is it possible for someone to understand something and yet not agree with its fundamental premises? Or is the measure of understanding only based on acceptance of it?EDIT- Could we get the whole ID vs Natural Selection thing its own thread? Unless someone can show me evidence that Ron Paul intends to force public schools to teach it, I fail to see its relavenceI concur.It's actually very relevant. It speaks to his inability to understand fairly basic science or how his personal religious views overrule his common sense. This either speaks to someone who's not mentally fit to sit in that position or who might have his personal religious beliefs overrule his common sense in other areas.
Either case is very troubling to quite a lot of people I would wager.Also, if you don't think it matters because you share those same religious beliefs, then think of it like this: What if his religious beliefs were different from yours (could be Muslim, Hindu, Scientology etc.) - would you still think it didn't matter?
If it where understanding of a non-empirical subject, or if their was very little evidence supporting a hypothesis and their where other hypothesis which would be supported by the available evidence then it would be entirely reasonable to both understand the subject and not accept it.
Evolution by natural selection isn't like that. The evidence for it, can fill libraries, their is after 150 years of very rigorous testing not a single piece of evidence that contradicts it,the theory of evolution by natural selection as very strong predictive capability and their isn't a single alternative working hypothesis out their that fits the evidence available.
He might as well try to say that the sun doesn't exist. People who understand evolution, have no reasonable choice but to accept it(because it is an undeniable fact that evolution occurs, and their is no other working explanation for it.)
Made a thread for the off topic ID debate
Please continue there.
EDIT- Just in case you may think it's not off topic, please read Toxicyclin's post above wherein RP discusses his view of ID, (he thinks what I thought it meant. God made some stuff and they evolved from there) as well as his views on whether the Federal Government should force schools to teach it. (he doesnt)
Made a thread for the off topic ID debate
Please continue there.EDIT- Just in case you may think it's not off topic, please read Toxicyclin's post above wherein RP discusses his view of ID, (he thinks what I thought it meant. God made some stuff and they evolved from there) as well as his views on whether the Federal Government should force schools to teach it. (he doesnt)
No dice.
Firstly, the passages quoted are not Ron Paul's only comments on said quest. He as elsewhere expressly said that he does not except evolution.
He has also spoken positively about "Academic freedom", which is a ephiemism for political interferance in academia, to support ideas which have failed in the free market of ideas.
Even if he took no actions based upon his apparent belief in ID, it would still be an issue because it calls into question his ability to make rational decisions. Since, this is a man who wishes to be the commander in chief of a nation with nuclier arsonal, rationality os a fairly major concern. Atomic warfare tactics are built upon rational and informed decision making.
Made a thread for the off topic ID debate
Please continue there.EDIT- Just in case you may think it's not off topic, please read Toxicyclin's post above wherein RP discusses his view of ID, (he thinks what I thought it meant. God made some stuff and they evolved from there) as well as his views on whether the Federal Government should force schools to teach it. (he doesnt)
If you (in the general sense) are running for any political office, then everything that comes out of your mouth is fair grist for the mill.
Is it possible for someone to understand something and yet not agree with its fundamental premises?
Sure -- but on this issue, the disagreement is based in not understanding it (or, more commonly, in willfully misunderstanding it). Random uninformed (or misinformed) opinions are not equally valid to the results of rigorous testing.
"I understand gravity perfectly well! I'm just saying that I don't see why yogis can't levitate, because the invisible imps that hold them to the ground can easily be bribed with saffron cupcakes to let go. Duh!"
I asked the Council of Village Elders, and they unanimously agreed that I should extend an invitation to one and all, regardless of species or monster type, to debate Intelligent Design over in Troll Town!
We've got punch, comfy pillows and the collected works of Stephen Jay Gould!
|
My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one's view about God in the universe.
Thanks for this. If Dr. Paul does not deny the validity of the evolutionary process, then he's not personally a proponent of Intelligent Design, but rather of Theistic Evolution. Perhaps he doesn't realize there's a difference. The problem in our Origin sciences is that eventually there comes a point where the scientists have no direct knowledge of how origination came about. This, I feel, is where the main conflict lies. Those who see life as beautiful and organized have difficulty accepting an origin from randomness. The theistic evolutionist believes that the process of evolution is directed by (or as Tielhard believes, an inherent part of) the source of all things.
I am opposed to the creationists who deny natural selection. However, genetic drift (which I'm sure is still currently being studied) as a science of randomness sounds a little insincere to me. It almost sounds like the layman is asking the scientist. "Why does this happen?", and the scientist says, "It's random." and drops it at that. When scientists rely on randomness, they're really saying they don't know. (At least that has been my opinion thus far.) So, if scientists don't know, is it possible that genetic drift is a result of divine (or intelligent) intervention? Now, of course atheists will start screaming at me here. But I don't believe that evolution and deity should be completely separated from one another. It is, after all, a beautiful process. As life itself is a beautiful process. And to many mystics, God is a beautiful process. But if I were to speak up and say that the randomness inherent in genetic drift must be intelligent design, I would rightly be criticized by scientists everywhere. There is no specific way that such can be proven or disproven, and for this reason intelligent design must be refuted by the scientific community. But it does not prevent people (and yes, intelligent and rational people) from believing it. Evolution does not refute the principles, intelligence, or rational beliefs of religious people. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said both ways, except by the theistic evolutionist.
Genetic mutation and gene flow are both strongly observed realities, but the direct causation of which is sometimes difficult to rationalize. There is no harm, in placing God where science falters, although I would not personally use such an entity. Rather, I would personally say Universal Intelligence (and I think this is more akin to Tielhard's principles anyway).
I personally do not refute any of the Evolutionary principles, but I cringe when Evolutionists use their theories to refute the existence of God, or an Intelligence within the universe, or an Intelligence within themselves, or an Intelligence within their students. I am frightened by the evolutionist which claims that "There is no intelligence, only random firings of electrons in the brain which lead us to believe that we are intelligent." It is when science attempts to diminish our achievements and our self-worth that I become agitated, and unabashed to speak my mind, though I am not an inherent fighter or arguer. It was not until my college years that I realized that it was not the science that had so insulted my principles, but rather how that science was taught. The problem lies not with Evolution in itself, but how it is communicated to others, and what is done with the knowledge to help or harm the human condition.
This is mostly a personal experience. I do not attempt to infringe the rights or privacies or beliefs of others. You have a right to not believe in God, or yourself, or that you have a dignified place in the worldly scheme of things. You can believe, if you wish, that you are only a bit of plasmic goo struck by random lightning. But please, please, do not attempt to push this belief on others. There is no telling what harm it can do. It took me three years of self debate, internal conflict and turmoil, and yes even a suicide attempt before I finally stumbled on Pierre Tielhard de Chardin's works and was able to bring some semblance of order back into my life.
I realize now that it was not the Theory of Evolution that I had conflicts with, but how the Theory was taught to me was profoundly disruptive and painful. I personally believe that young minds should be shielded from this type of experience, but I really have no say in the matter. I believe in order, founding principles, and intelligence. I know they are within myself, and for me, personally, they are in all the processes of life. Beyond that, I make no claims, but if I have comforted anyone who has experienced the same, I am glad.
Personally, I think there should be more intelectualism (sp?) regarding science, and a merging of science and scientific philosophies, where not only is science recognized as an important field, but also the understanding of how and why science relates to the human condition. This is likely a belief that has been colored in by my own experiences.
I fear that I am not very good at argument. I am too much an emotional person. I will not say that I concede, but I will drop out so that more intellectual folk than I, those capable and willing to take on such an argument, may do so. I have not the stomach for it.
There is no harm, in placing God where science falters
Good post, with a lot of stuff I agree with, but this one phrase bugs me. Because most people (not you), by placing God into every area where scientists currently say "we don't know yet," are really saying "you're not allowed to learn anything about this because We Have Spoken." God is rarely used as a possible explanation, but rather as a prohibitive one intended to prevent further inquiry.
An example: when Franklin invented the lightning rod, people told him he was "trying to play God" and argued that he wasn't allowed to do that, because lightning was explained by God and therefore off-limits to science. Never mind that the invention saved any number of houses from destruction.
When that sort of thing is done, there can indeed be great harm in it.
|
|
Would you feel better if I said. "There is no harm in placing the possibility of God where science falters." Although, classically speaking, I think God is somewhere defined as Infinite Possibility.
I also, do not necessarily agree with the Christian ideas of divinity, though like Ron Paul, I do believe that Christ's message was one of peace and love in the face of all adversity, and that it is through peace and love that we best experience the greatness of humanity.
In some ways, my theistic principles are based on Hellenistic/Ptolemaic ideas of deity. God as a philosophical conundrum of perfection, rather than any anthropomorphised divinity of wrath and judgment.
I believe in doing right, not because it is part of the social contract, which may (as some evolutionists proclaim) be a result of evolutionary principles, but because there is inherent rightness and wrongness in certain actions and principles. To me, the Universe is made more beautiful by this belief. But, before others attack this principle, it is not an arbitrary practice. I hold first and foremost, Life itself, as the generator of all human possibilities: mental, emotional, and physical. Then Liberty, through which possibilities are made manifest. And then Property, by which human manifested possibilities are held, grown, and expanded upon. This might explain, to some extent, why I hold the Declaration of Independence to be such a sacred document, and my arguments for its inception, and defense of its applicability, were predominately flawed due to an emotional (dare I say spiritual) investment.
I apologize to the Original Poster for hijacking the thread away from the discussion of Ron Paul's policies and discussion of electability. But I did feel that I needed to explain these principles and why I am opposed to some things which 'rational' persons advocate sometimes without comprehending (through no fault of their own) the full effect of their rationalities on the human condition.
Because of my religious (or more likely spiritual, as they are not tied to any specific religion) beliefs, I have learned to place the human condition first and rationality second. For this reason, I can understand, to some extent, the philosophical or spiritual drive behind Intelligent Design. I will not advocate it, or defend it, or uphold it, but I do think I understand its importance. I believe the fear of dehumanized sciences is reflected in its defense, and this I can relate to, having experienced it. What should be done about it, I do not think I have the wisdom or recourse to answer.
Apologies again to original poster. Let's continue on to the discussion of Ron Paul's other issues.
Where are you hiding The Creator you filthy carbon units?
Apologies again to original poster. Let's continue on to the discussion of Ron Paul's other issues.
What I like most about Ron Paul is that his overarching philosophy isn't based around the artificial Left vs Right divide on issues, but rather a solid adherence to the constitution and liberty.
Issues that are actually going to be relevant in the 2012 election (sorry evolution, you aren't one of them) will be along the lines of the War on Terrorism, loss of civil liberties, the crushing debt and yearly trillion dollar deficits, monetary policy, the Federal Reserve, and the economy. I think Paul is right on all these issues.
Let's end the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya.
Let's end the misnamed Patriot Act and honor civil liberties again.
Draw down our military from around the world where it is no longer needed and stop spending a trillion dollars a year on maintaining 1,000 military bases around the world like we're playing a real life game of Risk.
Obey the constitution and make gold and silver available as money again. Allow other free market currencies to compete with Federal Reserve Notes so that we can end their monopoly over the money supply.
Undo the moral hazard created by having a lender of last resort. Don't bail out failed businesses. End bad regulations that drive businesses out of this country. Allow capital formation to come from a stable money supply and minimize the boom bust business cycle.
These are the issues that Ron Paul is actually running on.
Hmmm that leads me to an interesting question to some of the other posters on here. Would you support a candidate who was running on a platform of: continuing our 3 current wars (5 if you count the War on Terror and War on Drugs), increasing the debt ceiling yearly, continuing the Patriot Act, who personally believed that ID is kooky.
Is ID without the possibility of natural selection kooky? you betcha.
Know what else I think is kooky and irrational? The Patriot Act, The War on Terror, The War on Drugs, The erosion of our civil rights, The nearly 70 (!)times that our debt ceiling has been raised since 1946. Yet know one has questioned evry other president's rationality.
Let's continue on to the discussion of Ron Paul's other issues.
In due time, I'm sure.
Speaking only for myself, I care not at all what citizen Paul's personal beliefs might be on the Evolution vs. Creationism/Intelligent Design matter.
But...
He is an elected representative; while not for my state, he works on and influences federal Congressional legislation. And he has once again thrown his hat in the ring for PotUS. That means I should consider all his opinions and positions, including this one.
What bothers me is that Dr. Paul seems to not fully grasp the scientific method. Evolution has a mountain of evidence to support it and has withstood rigorous testing. Creationism/ID has not and cannot. Scientifically, there is "no waiting on the jury;" it's been in for decades. People should feel free to teach their children whatever theological explanations for the Way the Universe Works, either in home or in a religious institution. It has no place in a science classroom.
If Dr. Paul cannot make that distinction, then it makes me seriously doubt his ability to help lead this country toward regaining leadership in science -- and by extension -- world industry and business. It makes me doubt his understanding of the education process and the knowledge he should possess.
It makes me seriously doubt his ability to understand the science behind Man-made global climate change, the collapse of beehives, the need for alternative energy sources, the ongoing destruction of the Gulf ecosystem and the resulting devastating loss of employment, etc.
This, plus his positions on states rights/strict Constitutionalism, makes me seriously doubt his understanding of how state and local school boards actually work -- and that lacking a federal mandate -- basic science and education in general will too often lose to control-seeking demagogues.
It all makes me seriously doubt his understanding of how state and local governments actually work -- and that lacking a federal mandate -- equality for ALL (all ethnicities, sexual orientations, genders, and sexes) either is too long in being recognized or is in perpetual danger of being rolled back. It makes me reconsider that he even understands the struggle for equality in America and all the bloody loses that were suffered for the gains achieved. It gives me little hope that he will be able to empathize and connect to non-WASP non-Hetero citizens and people of the world.
It makes me seriously doubt his understanding that without government regulations, corporations will grow even more blatant in their disregard for citizens' liberties, working conditions, clean air and water, etc.
(I could continue ad nauseum.)
It makes me seriously doubt too many of his positions, his qualifications, and even his basic abilities to observe and learn. And in my opinion, that makes him definitely not the best candidate for President.
Made a thread for the off topic ID debate
Please continue there.EDIT- Just in case you may think it's not off topic, please read Toxicyclin's post above wherein RP discusses his view of ID, (he thinks what I thought it meant. God made some stuff and they evolved from there) as well as his views on whether the Federal Government should force schools to teach it. (he doesnt)
No dice.
Firstly, the passages quoted are not Ron Paul's only comments on said quest. He as elsewhere expressly said that he does not except evolution.
He has also spoken positively about "Academic freedom", which is a ephiemism for political interferance in academia, to support ideas which have failed in the free market of ideas.
Even if he took no actions based upon his apparent belief in ID, it would still be an issue because it calls into question his ability to make rational decisions. Since, this is a man who wishes to be the commander in chief of a nation with nuclier arsonal, rationality os a fairly major concern. Atomic warfare tactics are built upon rational and informed decision making.
Then I will happily invite you to provide quotes and or links wherein Ron Paul mentions his secret ID agenda. Also I would really like to know how Federal non involvement in schooling is equal to political interference. Im curious.
Hmmm that leads me to an interesting question to some of the other posters on here. Would you support a candidate...
...Yet know one has questioned evry other president's rationality.
As has been done before, perhaps another thread is best for that topic? This thread is about candidate Ron Paul.
Hmmm that leads me to an interesting question to some of the other posters on here. Would you support a candidate who was running on a platform of:
1. continuing our 3 current wars (5 if you count the War on Terror and War on Drugs)
2. increasing the debt ceiling yearly
3. continuing the Patriot Act
4. who personally believed that ID is kooky.
1. HELL NO! To 4 of 5 wars listed (I think fundamentalist violent jihad-based Islam has declared war on the whole post-Enlightenment world, whether we like it or not).
2. No!
3. No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4. If it's a personal "belief," then no. If it's a position based on some understanding of the issue, that's a different matter.
---
The thing is, as you correctly pointed out, Obama claimed he was not running on a policy of 1 - 3, and yet those are exactly the things he did. Why should we believe Ron Paul any more than Obama? They'll both say anything to get elected.
|
My problem with the "libertarians" here in Texas is that they tend to mouth the words "Small government, individual liberty," but act towards "corporate overlords, authoritarian theocracy."
Find me one (1) "libertarian" who believes that public nudity, marijuana, and atheism should be legal, and I'll change my views immediately. Until then, "personal freedom" seems to mean strictly the ones they want to grant, that don't conflict with some sort of Biblical mandate.
Hi, I believe that marijuana and athiesm should be legal, I'll have to give you that I'm anti-public nudity, well not completely, I'm all for having designated areas where public nudity is okay, I'm also completely for people being able to say that it's allowed inside their establishments as long as they legally own it (that includes restaurants and bars, if you want to own a clothing optional bar, more power too you) but 100% anywhere you go public nudity, sorry, I can't get behind that, I'm to grossed out by lots of different body types.
The thing is, as you correctly pointed out, Obama claimed he was not running on a policy of 1 - 3, and yet those are exactly the things he did. Why should we believe Ron Paul any more than Obama? They'll both say anything to get elected.
Paul has a decades long track record of voting exactly the way he says he will, always in accordance with the constitution. The positions he has taken haven't changed a bit since he first took office in the 70's. In fact it's quite a trip when I stumble upon the occasional video clip of a younger Ron Paul from 20 years ago or so talking about the exact same things that he does today.
Both John McCain and Chuck Norris call him the "most honest man in politics". Type "most honest politician" in a Google web search and Ron Paul's name pops up in the auto-complete search results.
In fact, it's this honesty that is his greatest stumbling block in seeking the white house. Cable news hosts love to ambush him over the Civil Rights Act, drug laws, and unconstitutional programs that people love because they know he's not going to dodge the question, or compromise his position. He tells the truth and probably ends up marginalizing himself from those who don't understand the legal nuances in his opposition to things that are conventionally popular.
Both John McCain and Chuck Norris call him the "most honest man in politics".
This is a very strange sentence.
Both John McCain and Chuck Norris call him the "most honest man in politics".
McCain's endorsement of Palin didn't make me trust her any more than Norris' endorsement of Huckabee made me want to vote for him -- which is to say, not at all.
How about if I said, "Both Nancy Pelosi and Sean Penn call Cardidate Q the greatest thing since sliced cheese!" I suggest that neither you nor I would find that a particularly ringing endorsement.
|
|
I'm rooting for Ron Paul, of the current list of candidates, he's #1. I'm Also Routing for Herman Caine, he's a close #2. If either of them is chosen for the republican nomination. I'll gladly vote for them. Any other of the current GOP hopefuls gets the nomination and I'll either vote for the libertarian candidate, or Obama who although I disagree with philosophically, I think as a democratic president he's governed well and gotten a bad wrap, If I do vote for Obama though, I'll be voting republican down the line for house and senate.
|
|
I find it remarkable that people can still debate over whether intelligent design will be taught in schools or that would be a deciding issue in a Presidential election.
Here in California they are talking about chopping a month off the school year. States around the country are in danger of bankruptcy and are slashing budgets everywhere.
The major issue facing schools today is that we will be going back to 40 kids in a classroom in the future, like we had in the 1950s. This is going to create a massive discipline problem. Teachers are going to be hard pressed to even make it to the chapter on evolution during the shortened school year.
+1 with all of our real substantive issues, oh he believes in something that he's not going to force on anyone, I"m not voting for him based on that, seem ludicrous.
The major issue facing schools today is that we will be going back to 40 kids in a classroom in the future, like we had in the 1950s.
I had 35-40 in a class when I taught Earth Science from 1995-2001, at least 30% with special needs, and somehow handled it. Smaller classes would have been better, yes, but if I had a choice between that or fewer kids in a superstition-based, science-free curriculum, I'd have stuck with the larger classes.
I'm not saying that a faith-based anti-science stance is the ONLY factor to consider, but I am saying that it IS a factor, and efforts at sweeping it under the rug as "unimportant" reflect only the opinion of the people making that suggestion, not the opinion of everyone else.
On the economy, I'm VERY glad he wants to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Realistically, though, I doubt if he'll be able to do it. I'm also very glad that he likes states rights, but I doubt he'll somehow singlehandedly shrink the federal government to a reasonable size. I'm glad he's pro-business, but I don't share his belief that a regulation-free economy is automatically self-correcting to some sort of ideal utopia. What am I left with?
Then I will happily invite you to provide quotes and or links wherein Ron Paul mentions his secret ID agenda. Also I would really like to know how Federal non involvement in schooling is equal to political interference. Im curious.Made a thread for the off topic ID debate
Please continue there.EDIT- Just in case you may think it's not off topic, please read Toxicyclin's post above wherein RP discusses his view of ID, (he thinks what I thought it meant. God made some stuff and they evolved from there) as well as his views on whether the Federal Government should force schools to teach it. (he doesnt)
No dice.
Firstly, the passages quoted are not Ron Paul's only comments on said quest. He as elsewhere expressly said that he does not except evolution.
He has also spoken positively about "Academic freedom", which is a ephiemism for political interferance in academia, to support ideas which have failed in the free market of ideas.
Even if he took no actions based upon his apparent belief in ID, it would still be an issue because it calls into question his ability to make rational decisions. Since, this is a man who wishes to be the commander in chief of a nation with nuclier arsonal, rationality os a fairly major concern. Atomic warfare tactics are built upon rational and informed decision making.
‘Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it’s a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think [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 origin. I think] the Creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. [So I just don't...if that were the only issue, quite frankly, 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...if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office.']
Transcript from Ron Paul friendly source Here
Admittedly chopped down video of said speech. [Silly rabbit, let the man damn himself with his own words]
He specifically states that he does not believe in evolution in his answer, which runs contrary to his statements as listed by toxycycline.
As stated before, his willingness to make laws based upon this belief is irrelevant to one of may major objections. His apparent non-acceptance of reality makes him a poor choice, and that remains the case, regardless of how stringently he chooses not to make laws based upon that belief.
Ron Paul has made other decisions which would appear influenced by his position(See stem cell research,gay right ect.) Agreement with questions like the one to follow (in the context of academic freedom bills), also provide reasons for concern.
Q: Academic freedom is threatened when questioning the theory of evolution. An Iowa State astronomer was denied tenure because of his work in intelligent design in May 2007. Censoring alternative theories--dogmatic indoctrination--has replaced scientific inquiry. Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?
The thing is, as you correctly pointed out, Obama claimed he was not running on a policy of 1 - 3, and yet those are exactly the things he did. Why should we believe Ron Paul any more than Obama? They'll both say anything to get elected.Paul has a decades long track record of voting exactly the way he says he will, always in accordance with the constitution. The positions he has taken haven't changed a bit since he first took office in the 70's. In fact it's quite a trip when I stumble upon the occasional video clip of a younger Ron Paul from 20 years ago or so talking about the exact same things that he does today.
Both John McCain and Chuck Norris call him the "most honest man in politics". Type "most honest politician" in a Google web search and Ron Paul's name pops up in the auto-complete search results.
In fact, it's this honesty that is his greatest stumbling block in seeking the white house. Cable news hosts love to ambush him over the Civil Rights Act, drug laws, and unconstitutional programs that people love because they know he's not going to dodge the question, or compromise his position. He tells the truth and probably ends up marginalizing himself from those who don't understand the legal nuances in his opposition to things that are conventionally popular.
Ah Chuck Norris...the way i make all my decisions...
I'm rooting for Ron Paul, of the current list of candidates, he's #1. I'm Also Routing for Herman Caine, he's a close #2.
Looks like the Democrats are out of the question for me in 2012 -- I most definitely don't want a 4th term of Bush Jr.
I'm rooting for Ron Paul, of the current list of candidates, he's #1. I'm Also Routing for Herman Caine, he's a close #2.Looks like the Democrats are out for me in 2012 -- I most definitely don't want a 4th term of Bush Jr.
On the Republican side, Buddy Roumer would be my top choice -- he's socially liberal as a minor point, but mostly looks only at fiscal reform, and has the record to back it.
Ron Paul talks about a lot of stuff I'd like to see, but don't think I ever will in my lifetime. I like a lot of his stances, but think he operates on nothing but hope and faith rather than on actual nuts-and-bolts, on-the-ground work.
Herman Cain focuses too much on socially conservative issues, which I not only disagree with, but find a major distraction from the economy. Economically, he seems to be in favor of bailing out the failures and meanwhile encouraging our Big Oil overlords to annex the U.S.
I like McMillan, but he seems to think that what's good for New York City is good for everyone, and I'm not sure I agree.
Gary Johnson, as near as I can tell, wants to abolish all taxes and then abolish the federal government, putting himself out of a job. I'm not sure that's the route to take just yet.
Santorum is a straight-up loon. I'm not kidding. I think the guy is bonkers. His whole identity is wrapped up in controlling other people's bodies.
Romney might still be O.K. -- I had no strong objections in 2008, and still don't.
Unfortunate that we disagree on this, but we have rarely agreed on politics outside of a few areas of general good taste and common sense.
Unfortunate that we disagree on this, but we have rarely agreed on politics outside of a few areas of general good taste and common sense.
Heh, true enough. I'd still rather throw back some beers and throw down some dice with you than with a lot of other people, though.
PAPA SMURF IN 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Smurffffffffffff.....?
|
I'm gonna vote for John Bolton's mustache!
There is a new TV series with the majesty of the 'stash as its primary premise. I could easily see it as Cosmo's new favorite must watch show. Whisker Wars Sadly Cosmo will have to grow his out a bit to compete.
As has been done before, perhaps another thread is best for that topic? This thread is about candidate Ron Paul.Hmmm that leads me to an interesting question to some of the other posters on here. Would you support a candidate...
...Yet know one has questioned evry other president's rationality.
While I appreciate your attempt to keep the thread on topic, I do believe that the topic is Ron Paul's presidential bid. I'm assuming that there will be opponents.
Edit-If this was snark, Id just like to point out that I have no problems discussing RP's view on ID and Natural selection. But 2 posters debating their own personal views on ID vs Natural selection deserves its own thread, I think.
alot of stuff
OK. I understand better where you coming from. I will admit I didnt watch the video Its 340 am here and I dont want to wake up my daughter, but I did read the transcripts. Just reading, (and I'll be the first to admit that the written word leaves alot to be desired) It seems that RP is either unsure of his own position regarding evolution or just doesnt give a darn regarding it or is just trying to be political and get the question over with as soon as possible without actually saying anything. I, (and only just I) do not really care about his position regarding ID. ID without natural selection just seems loony to me and I can see how it could be a deal breaker to you. I do not agree that one personality quirk makes one irrational and loony, especially given his full body of work. (Most of which seems very sane and rational to me) To each their own, I guess.
I would also like to add that starting of additional forum was not intended as a "trap" or an effort to "ghetto-ise" anyone's thoughts. Just trying to stay organized and on topic. Imagine that you had organized a debate regarding gasoline taxation rates, and 2 of the debaters started arguing between which brand was better: Ford or Chevy. Would you not wish that the Ford or Chevy people would have saved their arguement for another time?
The thing is, as you correctly pointed out, Obama claimed he was not running on a policy of 1 - 3, and yet those are exactly the things he did. Why should we believe Ron Paul any more than Obama? They'll both say anything to get elected.
That is true. They all lie, but their promises and past actions are all that you have to go on.
Even Ron Paul lies. Kirth, are you from RP's district? If so, I betcha dollars to doughnuts that during the last election he promised something along the lines of: "For the next two years I promise to fight for your freedoms and etc etc etc" and not "For the next two years I promise to not even be in the state because I'll be out campaigning for president."
So yes it is tough. Presidential elections do not seem to be about finding the best candidate, they are more like finding the best candidate available.
I hope some of that made any sort of sense. Its been a long night at work.
Edit- and you are correct about Santorum. I remember his senate campaigns from when I was in high school, wherein he admitted that he believed that no one has a Constitutional right to privacy. Straight up crazy ( as I think most neocons are)
great stuff
great stuff
This is good.
What bothers me is that Dr. Paul seems to not fully grasp the scientific method.
He's a physician, not a researcher. Physicians, frankly, do not have a great record of being strict about the scientific method (and I am thinking about their standards of vetting pharmaceutical studies... any drug rep will tell you that a lot of doctors out there are pretty gullible).
Precisely speaking, it's a researcher's job to understand the nuances of the scientific method, I don't think the rest of us know it as well as we think, frankly.
Anyway, I don't see where anyone has shown that Ron Paul does not grasp the scientific method at a level commensurate with his profession, and I'm in with toxycycline regarding the relevance of RP's take on ID and evolution.
What Kruelaid said is why the ID stuff is not a deal-breaker to me. Personally I do not believe in Creationism (Dinosaurs and all that jazz kinda blow that out of the water) I just cannot forsee any scenario wherein someone says: "Mr President, sir! The Chinese have called and are threatening to launch unless we explain the scientific process, now!" Once again, I can understand why it would be a deal-breaker to some, but I think there are far more important and immediate concerns facing our nation wherein I agree with Ron Paul, than this. Do I disagree with him, if he believes in ID exclusively? You betcha. But I agree with him o far more important things.
As has been done before, perhaps another thread is best for that topic? This thread is about candidate Ron Paul.While I appreciate your attempt to keep the thread on topic, I do believe that the topic is Ron Paul's presidential bid. I'm assuming that there will be opponents.
Edit-If this was snark, Id just like to point out that I have no problems discussing RP's view on ID and Natural selection. But 2 posters debating their own personal views on ID vs Natural selection deserves its own thread, I think.
I did mean it as an honest attempt to keep the thread on it's current Ron Paul-centric focus. Of course Paul will have opponents for the PotUS race; I was just hoping this thread could properly air out many of Paul's positions without devolving into the typical meandering state of most (all?) OTF threads about politics.
And I'm not exactly subtle when it comes to snark. :)
I wonder if Ron Paul has ever given someone a prostate exam. Surely everyone can agree that this fact is pertinent to our discussion.
Obey the constitution and make gold and silver available as money again. Allow other free market currencies to compete with Federal Reserve Notes so that we can end their monopoly over the money supply.
I've been trying to figure out what this means? Are we talking about a Gold Standard? Or something else?
I mean Gold and Silver are units of value now. I can go and buy some Gold Jewelry or some such and I will have an object that I can trade in later and, chances are, it'll still be really valuable - maybe more valuable or less valuable then when I bought it but valuable.