Ron Paul disappoints on evolution
When evolution comes up, fundamentalists and “everybody else” hear two different questions. Fundamentalist hear “Do you believe that we are the product of semi-random biochemical interactions, meaning there is no creator or God?”
“Everybody else” hears, “Do you believe that, although we don’t know how life started, once organisms appeared, evolution explains the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next?”
When “everybody else” hears a person answer “no” to the second question, they know they’ve encountered a person blinded by ideology, and “everybody else” is uncertain and wary of how big that blind spot really is, and how it will affect other judgments.
Are you aware that clip is an edited version of the original, with about 40 seconds missing? Is it really necessary for Paul’s detractors to stoop to these tactics to make their point?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g
And the word evolution is not all inclusive in its meaning to one particular segment of the population or other. Without context and discussion regarding the theory itself, the meaning encapsulated in the word evolution is not a universal constant.
Most intelligent people, religious or not, agree that organic material changes with each generation, which is the result of proven evolutionary processes.
Societies evolve, species evolve, systems evolve, and none of that can be disputed by anyone.
However, the theory of evolution has also been used to explain the origins of life and individual species, and that context of the word is used as the gotcha phrase in divisive politics. But this form of politics too will evolve to make room for distinctions in the various contexts in the discussion of evolution.
Asking someone whether they believe in evolution or not is akin to asking someone if they love their neighbor. Most will say no because of all the different inferences of such “relationship”, despite Jesus’s explicit commandment to do so. However, those that answer in the affirmative usually follow with a disclaimer intended to clarify their intentions. That’s exactly what we need in the evolution debate.
“Dirty Tricksters”
http://tinyurl.com/3dxaq9
I’ve posted this before, but all must have missed it as I never get any comments.
Why does it matter what Paul believes or doesn’t believe? What matters is what does the constitution say about evolution?
Chris
I think you hit the nail on the head with your comments. Many issues with race, religion and culture are considered by myself (and many others) as side issues in the political arena and MAJOR IRRITANTS. And of course we are forced to “chime in” on these subjects before we can get on to bigger and better things. And the divisive nature of these debates are MAGNIFIED by the power brokers to DIVIDE people. Why don’t we focus on CRIMES AND RIPOFFS FROM DC?
Chris: I watched your unedited version but didn’t see a meaningful difference. Did you?
And it sure DOES matter what Paul does or doesn’t believe. Wouldn’t you be concerned if he insisted the earth was flat?
Something that might be more important to taxpayers: Just Google “trillions missing”.
Left: strawman much? Paul DOESN’T insist that either theory (evolution or creationism) is fact. He clearly admits that nobody can know for certain in either case.
And in re the video edits, why was it necessary to edit out one sentence from the middle and chop off the remaining remarks at the end to distribute as alleged proof that Paul doesn’t believe in the theory of evolution? As you say, both versions essentially say the same thing, so why did someone extract one sentence from the middle and chop off the end to make their point? The content that was eliminated clearly shows that he believes BOTH theories are just that, theories. And in the case of the actual origins of life, it will never be proven definitively, regardless of what the theory is.
Chris: “Most intelligent people, religious or not, agree that organic material changes with each generation, which is the result of proven evolutionary processes.”
But not Ron Paul.
Wrong again. Ron Paul does not believe all life originated at random from one single-celled organism.
Strawman argument all the way around.
When evolution comes up, the distinction must be made between the FACT of evolution vs. the THEORY of evolution (wiki). That distinction emerges when one is asked to state whether they believe in evolution. At that point they are automatically steered into the THEORY paradigm and challenged to accept or deny the current explanations for the occurence of the FACT.
No intelligent person has cause to ask whether someone believes a fact. Therefore when evolution comes up in the context of one’s beliefs, the conversation is firmly planted in THEORY territory.