Topic: Constitutional Issues
Evolution and the Ron Paul Revolution Ron Paul Supporters Should Examine Evolution Just as Carefully as Any Other Mainstream Presuppositionby mediator
(libertarian)
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
When Ron Paul expressed reservations about the theory of evolution, some of his supporters suddenly expressed reservations about their continued support for his candidacy.
Ron Paul supporters are known for the depth of their commitment to this principled physician. So what is it about questioning evolution that rattles even some Ron Paul supporters?
One would think Ron Paul supporters especially would be aware that everything the media puts forth as fact "ain't necessarily so!"
It should also be remembered that the individual rights protected by our Constitution are founded on the belief that "all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights."
Read again the opening of the Declaration of Independence:
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which theLaws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Preamble
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
A Constitutionalist should at least consider the implications for the foundation of our individual rights if a random, materialistic, evolutionary scenario of the origin and development of all life is correct.
Also to be considered is the fact that "race" is an evolutionary concept. Remember that the complete title of Darwin's work is On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation ofFavoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (bold added)
Perhaps a Constutionalist determined to preserve individual rights should take some interest in examining the validity of the "group think" that is based on evolutionary thought.
Admittedly, it may seem presumptuous, or worse, to question a "proven fact of modern science." For those who think this is all just too far out, I make what I think will be an entertaining and enlightening suggestion: see a movie!
No, not just any movie. See Expelled, opening nationwide on April 18th. Author, lawyer, economist, Presidential speechwriter, and actor, Ben Stein, takes us around the world in interviews with top scientists examining the evidence for the evolutionary hypothesis. This film will raise the discussion of the origin of life to a new level. It's a must-see.
For those still don't want to risk their money, or their intellectual pride, by appearing to give "flat earthers" a hearing, I'd suggest a visit to the movie's web site, which includes trailers, a press kit, and other information designed to promote intelligent discussion.
Perhaps everyone should see it, even if one's only reason is to be able to give a full and accurate critique of a production that powerfully calls into question a major tenet of the modern scientific establishment.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 17 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of mediator only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. mediator is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: barry dinthot
Date: 2008-04-15 20:14:17
Being an avid supporter of Ron Paul, I confess that I was indeed dissapointed when he said he did not accept evolution. However, I couldn't help but notice his hesitation when he answered the question. This, along with the fact that he did not raise his hand in an early debate when the candidates were asked whether they did not believe evolution, suggests to me that this was one of the few instances when Ron Paul did not say what he truly believed. My assumption is that he judged it was too costly to answer otherwise in running for the Republican nomination.
I personally have a lot of difficulty understanding why it is so hard for some to accept the (extremely probable) objective truth that we have evolved just like any other animal, just as much as why it is so difficult for others to accept the (highly probable) subjective truth of religious texts. The way I see it, both truths contain history - the one of physical evolution, the other of mental evolution (that is, of subjective human consciousness).
Ben Stein is a smart man, but not a libertarian. He is a Centrist Conservative Religious Hack. His new movie does nothing but show a couple of stupid professors with their non peer reviewed wild ideas. Please consider that joining the intelligent design crowd, we libertarians promote the kooky ideas that only they can bring within our party. I would much rather have smarter and more informed libertarians then the dumb ones who will continue to make the reason and science movement look bad and forever shun libertarians. Please remember one thing about Ron Paul: Right Message, Wrong Messenger.
"Also to be considered is the fact that "race" is an evolutionary concept. Remember that the complete title of Darwin's work is On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation ofFavoured Races in the Struggle for Life."
Yes, Darwin was responsible for the massacre of thousands of Jews, thank you for the clarification butthead. That’s a pretty clear connection to me! (Sarcasm) and Ron Paul supporters are just like Hitler youth! (Sarcasm)Why are you trying to pitch such a crappy movie here? The entire thing is filled with condescending mockery. Instead of attacking ideas, characters are attacked.
BTW, the theory of evolution does not describe how life initially came about, but how life......evolved. Only creationists claim to actually know the origins. Thank god for faith.
Also, I interpret "Creator" as whatever natural force brought me into this world. I don’t know if it was a god, but to say that it most definitely is proclaims that those that are not religious have no rights under the constitution.
If you believe that, then **** ***. I think a few founding fathers might disagree with you.
As human beings we experience that everything must have a beginning and an end, as everything in the physical world does. However, how could life have ever begun? And if it did then what was before it? We can't understand that the universe is indefinite, but if it did have an ending then what is on the other side?
The only logical explanation is that life has always been and always will be. Life is eternal. We understand that numbers are indefinite, as we can always increase a number by one. We also understand that we could go round and round the earth indefinitely, because the earth is round. To understand life we have to think beyond our physical experiences. Call it God, call it logic or call it science. They are all components of a greater truth.
Ro 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Anyone who wants to kick creation believing members out of the party or exclude them from power positions is trying to sabotage the party. There are thousands who have left the GOP and are looking to leave who believe in creation.
There is also a large percentage of GOPers who believe in Creation. While many would like to write them off as kooks, it is still a largely accepted opinion that includes vast numbers of voters. To abandon others b/c of personal views that don't jive with yours is narrow minded and opposes liberty. The bottom line is that the Creation-Evolution topic has no place in politics and is a matter of individual liberty.
Posted By: steven orrange
Date: 2008-04-16 08:38:03
There is a very humorous side to this debate: The theory of evolution depends on the FORCE of GOVERNMENT and monetary benefits derived from the TAX PAYER to continue to survive in a world of competition and the free market of ideas. It supporters want to use that same force and funding to prohibit free speech from any opponents. It is very similar to the GLOBAL WARMING argument.....These ideas should NEVER BE subsidized by the state or state universities with grants or public funds NOR should the worthiness of their arguments be dependent on interpretation from our judicial system.
Believers in evolution that support Dr. Paul should understand they can not accept largess from the public feeding hole and then say they believe in the principles of freedom, while trying to silence the opposition. This line of reasoning goes AGAINST EVERYTHING DR. PAUL STANDS FOR!
I am sure that all of us do not agree with each other on many points, however when it comes to what is happening to our country and our constitution we all agree. So let us either support the message about FREEDOM, which is not being addressed here.
What we need to do is look at what he is standing for and stop trying to line up beliefs. The Constitution is not about that. Ron Paul is the candidate standing up for the consitution and a government which should be protecting your individual rights, including the right to believe in The Theory of Evolution. Most folks are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water becuase of a personal belief, this is why the country is so screwed up. Individual rights, not groups of those concerned.
Ron Paul is running for the office of President and is not interested in trying to change your mind or convert you. This is all very pathetic. What I see happening here is what most of us are complaining about. Just support him for wanting to bring back the constitution and stop all this pettiness about whether or not you all agree on some science/religious issue. You are missing the message if you are doing this.
The answer is FREEDOM, your individual freedom! What is the question?
There are no propositions, scientific or otherwise, that have more evidence in their favor than evolution. None. At all.
Saying that you do not accept evolution is exactly as sound as saying that you do not accept gravity.
A major point here is that Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. The issue of acceptance or non-acceptance of evoultion is thus a moot point. Believe whatever the hell you want and be glad that the federal legislation favors none.
Lets keep it that way, shall we? Vote for ron Paul.
There is a very humorous side to this debate: The theory of evolutionInteligent Design depends on the FORCE of GOVERNMENT and monetary benefits derived from the TAX PAYER to continue to survive in a world of competition and the free market of ideas.
Anyone who wants to kick racist propaganda believing members out of the party or exclude them from power positions is trying to sabotage the party. There are thousands who have left the GOP and are looking to leave who believe in racist propaganda.
Posted By: Steven Orrange
Date: 2008-04-16 16:57:58
response to idiot box....I did not realize intelligent design was forced upon students in government schools. Let me clarify: force of government should NOT be used to advance the idea of intellligent design OR the idea of evolution. Private schools should be FREE to teach whatever ideas their supporters choose. The problem is caused when government FORCES its subjects to finance its public system at the expense of the private system and then imposes their belief system on those same subjects it extorts funding from.
I hate government schools, but Church schools teach just as much BS. Where are the for profit atheist private schools? If we had a school voucher system those school might actually exist.
If the government schools should present ID they would also have to present the other ID theories out there like the Flying Spaghetti Monster's and the direct relationship between pirates and global warming.
There's so much bullshit in this whole goddamned PAGE I don't know where to start...
1. to the author. Before you start talking about Darwin's book and bolding pages, at least READ the goddamned thing. His concept of race was more like ours of speciation. At best you can make the argument using evolution that Homo Sapiens was superior to Homo Neanderthalis.
2. "Private schools should be FREE to teach whatever ideas their supporters choose." So, if I start a private school and I get 5000 students who parents believe that all athiests are Satanists, that economics doesn't exist, and that medicine is evil, it should be fine?
Public education should present a minimum educational platform regarding basics. That is, hard math (geometry and algebra at a MINIMUM), chemistry, physics, history of the world and the US and the state, the classics, english, reading comprehension, communications and writing, and critical thinking. Crap discussions like ID vs. Creation vs. Evolution, religous training, and so-called cultural studies (womens' studies, black studies, dildo-in-the-aas studies) and any other frilly , fluffy crap should be left to colleges.
I think EVERYONE could support public education if it was completely neutral, and if the guidelines of what was taught were voted on by the public for a school district. I think the problem with private schools is simple -- education is not an area where competition works. In the competitive world, you can buy the high-end, high dollar luxury product or the midrange product or the cheap knock off.
Do YOU want to buy a cheap knockoff education for your kids?
Posted By: Steven Orrange
Date: 2008-04-17 09:29:54
dear logical premise, if you can find 5000 supporters that believe all atheists are satanists, economics doesn't exist, medicine is evil and other such ideas, go for it. I will NOT try to stop you from exercising stupidity. (i don't mean you, but those that would try it.) The libertarian message in general allows people to assoicate and do what they chose as long as they do not hurt or impose force on others. There is enough track record to learn what happens when the government attempts to force people NOT to do stupid things. We end up with things like a drugwar, terrorism war, poverty war etc. The school you speak of would fail if it ever did get started in the first place.
Why do we care the personal religious beliefs of the President so long as he is a strict Constitutionalist? Would the people having a problem with this have a problem with a Muslim, but strict Constitutionalist, President? Because I wouldn't have a problem with either. The First Amendment protects us from enforcement of any President's religious beliefs on the rest of us, so long as it is actually followed.
Does ANYONE doubt that Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist?
Atheism-God, Evolution-Creation... What does this have to do with politics? Wasn't this country founded on "religious freedom"? This also means the right to not believe. Consider some of these facts:
Creationist viewpoint: Evolutionists are kooks
Evolutionist viewpoint: Creationists are kooks
Atheist: Christians are fools
Christian: Atheists are fools
The truth be told, there is only one truth... There is no way of knowing or proving who is right or who is wrong. I believe in what I believe in and can only hope to be right. If the atheist evolutionist is right, when we die, that's it, game over. If the christian-creatist is right, well, you get the point...
Let's keep these arguments in the atheism section... It looks like a lot of you enjoy this type of bantor. I personally believe that everyone should have the "right" to believe in whatever they want. To mock others for their beliefs without trying to understand is ignorance...
If evolution is a natural law of the universe then, by definition, evolution to infinity equals god. And then God said...
Given the inherent problems of macro evolution with the start of life, some evolutionists now believe a superior alien life form, which they have no theory for where that came from, seeded life on earth. But these same people can not believe in a God designing and directing said life. Even V*Ger knew there was a Creator.
The chances that all the protiens necessary to create life "accidently" came together to create the first living and self replicating bit of life are essentially ZERO. I believe the odds against it, even factoring in the age of the universe, is a bigger number than all the atoms in the known universe. Talk about believing by faith.... At least with God you have a 50/50 chance of being right and the natural universe has a creator's fingerprints all over it helping one to choose wisely.
"I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one?"
For those who haven't figured it out - evolution is well established science. It is foundation of all modern biology. It has no more to do with the constitution than does the theory of gravity. It is regrettable that Paul gave such a poor response when questioned about it. His bone-headed response ranks right up there with his bizarre comments on the Civil War.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
