Answers: Ron Paul, Evolution, and the Origin of Life
Editorial
Somebody took the time and effort to delete 40 seconds of this clip and promoted it under the headline ‘Ron Paul Does Not Accept Evolution‘.
What might have been the motive for doing so? I will leave that for you to decide.
Let’s look at the 40 seconds of material that was edited out. At the 30 second mark in the clip you will see that the video skips. Here is a transcript of what was skipped, which you can see in the unedited video below:
“But I think…it 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.”
Paul was speaking in a relatively casual environment and was clearly not speaking in a scientifically or philosophically rigorous manner. Anyone who has heard the man speak or read anything he has written knows that he is typically much more thorough in his answers to important questions. This time there was some ambiguity and a segment of the internet population jumped all over it. (If only those who jumped on this did the same when other candidates make ridiculous mistakes which pertain directly to that candidate’s ability to wield executive power in our government, such as authorizing unnecessary pre-emptive wars, recommending nuclear first strikes against Iran, ignoring the value crisis surrounding the U.S. dollar, supporting the suspension of habeas corpus, acquiescing to the use of torture, or voting for sweeping measures that violate our civil liberties, to name but a few.)
I think that with some reasonable effort we can see that what Paul said and/or implied is that he believes that God was responsible for the origin of life, that evolution is a theory and not a law, and that he personally does not believe the question is pertinent to the political discussion.
There was a second piece of video deleted from the first video which speaks to this. Paul says:
“So, I just don’t, uh… if that were the only issue, quite frankly, uh, 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.”
Where is the problem here? Paul claims that he does not know the origin of life. He says, “I just don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute truth on either side.”
If we give these statements honest consideration how can anyone have such problems with them as have been conveyed on so many websites recently?
I myself am a devout atheist and a staunch Ron Paul supporter. I see no irreconcilable conflict between these positions presented in the full video, the questionably edited version, or any other statement Paul has previously made.
Brian Bailey
Editor, The Paulunteer
Loading ...
[…] Answers: Ron Paul, Evolution, and the Origin of Life […]
Bravo good sir. Huzzahs for “RESPONSIBLE journalism” (err…”blogging”…) You arent MSM so you’re CLEARLY not a journalist.
Happy New Years from NY
Brian,
What I like about RP is he wants to stay focused on the Constitution and stay within his jurisdiction as president. It would be great if we had men like this in every political office. Also, that he sees each person as having the same rights endowed to us by our “Creator”. I don’t want, nor does the Constitution allow for, a pres to tell us we have to be Christians nor that we can’t be. That would be disaster either way. One way would be persecution of Christians the other persecution of atheists. Both are evil. I am a devout believer in Jesus Christ, I am a creationist though I have also studied evolution. Cool though, that we have this in common. We both want freedom, a president that obeys the Constitution and sees each of us as equal in the eyes of the law of this land and of God. We may not agree in our beliefs but, we stand shoulder to shoulder as Americans. RON PAUL 2008!!
Many Blessings, Brian!
Kelly
William and Kelly,
Thanks for your comments and encouragement.
I hope that we can all continue to promote those things that unite us and discuss those that divide us.
We, the members of this freedom movement, are working vigorously to improve this country of ours while others are still stuck in the past mode of attacking each other over every conceivable difference we might have as Americans.
I too am a non-believer (in the current theologies being marketed) but do subscribe to the science and the scientific method. I have no problem with Ron Paul ultimately subscribing creation to his God. That would only make sense if he truly believes in his God. None the less; I am totaly confident that Ron Paul is the ONLY GOP candidate that will not dismantle the separation of church and state as has been done in the current administration. He is a true-believer (as am I) in the timeless wisdom of the founding fathers and the sanctity of our Consitution; the ultimate rEVOLUTION of mankind! Knowledge=Truth=Justice=Freedom
Go Ron Paul!
AF
I don’t believe in God, and have many views of my own on the Bible and the story of how we got here.
I also don’t believe in Evolution entirely, although I have more faith in it than Creationism.
I choose Ron Paul for his views and opinions and issues that clearly effect us all. The fact that I agree with mostly all he says is the reason I plan to vote for him. I acknoledge he believes in God, and yet this has zero influence on my decision for voting for him.
Even if there were a candidate that openly said he did not believe in God, it would serve no reason for me to vote for him. It would depend on the person’s views and opinons, because those are what will really count in our real life.
And another thing. For anyone out there that has planned to vote for Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney because you share the same religion as they openly expose to us all, then your privlige to vote should be reconsidered. I absolutely stand against anyone basing their vote on a candidates religious beliefs. I believe that Romney AND Huckabee have played the “religion card” to suck in votes for the primarys, and I think that is taking advantage of someone’s religious beliefs.
The real question is why he denied evolution here, but failed to do so in the debate when it was asked.
Silus,
I think the answer is that in this clip he did not mean to deny evolution as the mechanism of the development of life but to deny evolution as the origin of life. I personally disagree with that outlook but it still makes a heck of a lot more sense than others have given it credit for.
The people who cried wolf on this need to Wikipedia “skepticism” in my opinion.
Since the origin of life can not be proven scientifically (what I mean by that is, we can’t go back and recreate the exact situation and see it happen over and over to confirm it scientifically) we have to be honest and say no one will ever be able to prove evolution or creation scientifically. Essentially we take evolution or creation by faith. I think this is an important issue though. For example, if one believes in evolution there will be a “survival of the fittest” decision point in cases such as race, abortion, euthanasia, etc. As a creationist you have to believe “all people are created equal by the Creator who gives them life and only He is God over them. Or the “all life is sacred” view. The reason the issue of the origin of life doesn’t matter with Ron Paul is, regardless of his view, he is willing, and does, uphold his oath of office and will stay within his jurisdiction as president. As a matter of argument I would love to see abortion end nationwide. However, I understand that for a president of the United States to abolish abortion he would have to go outside his Constitutional jurisdiction to do it, and by doing so, would thereby become a tyrant. Now, if I adopt an ends justifies the means attitude it may work out well for me now but, what standard can I appeal to when a president goes against my personal beliefs? Can I then say “Oh, you can’t do that it’s unconstitutional!” and if I did why should anyone listen. The time is now for just law, for checks and balances, for caring about each other as Americans, for seeing each other as equal under God and the law of this land. The time is now for Ron Paul!
I agree with Martin on not voting for the Huckster or Romney for religious reasons. I know a lot of people that, as of now, are (I’m working on them). I am a serious believer in the Bible and Jesus Christ But, frankly, I despise status quo politics and religion. The idea that the Huckster has the endorsement of both the NEA and HSLDA proves it’s politics as usual. Unfortunately, a lot of Christians go along to get along. I suppose the same could be said for most any group of people. The beauty of all this is that under an RP administration all of us whether we agree or disagree would be viewed as equal, would not be stepped on by the federal government, would be free from the tyranny of the patriot act (as if there is anything patriotic about it) and executive orders like it. We would rejoice in freedom, enjoy the fruits of our labors, would rest in some semblance of peace and appreciate each other for who we are. Right now, by coming together like this we have become the living revolution. RP 2008!
Happy New Year,
Kelly
What Ron Paul doesn’t seem to realize is that the term “theory” is used in science to refer to a huge body of knowledge used to explain an observation. Thus, there is a theory of gravity, a theory of light, and a theory of evolution. A theory is much stronger than a hypothesis, in that a theory is based on a great deal of data. The phenomena explained by a theory are facts. Thus, gravity is a fact, light is a fact, and evolution is a fact. The only exception might be mathematical theories, which are often abstract and may have no observable phenomena associated with them.
In case anyone asks, here is a brief summary of evolution. The theory of evolution seeks to explain observations such as the fossil record, in which different fossilized species are seen to occupy different layers of rock, with the less-complex species at the bottom and the more complex species at the top. There are also fossils showing the development over time of particular species, such as man, the horse, etc., with the more ancient forms appearing deeper in the earth.
Radioactive dating shows that the various layers represent different geological epochs, with the oldest ones at the bottom and the youngest at the top.
There is also genetic evidence that shows which species are closely related and which are more distantly related. In addition, “silent” genes have been found in all organisms studied. These are genes that don’t work. The theory of evolution proposes that these genes used to work, but because they aren’t needed anymore, they don’t confer any evolutionary advantage to individuals carrying them. Thus, there is no natural selection against mutations in these genes, and they consequently accumulate mutations. Sometimes a mutation turns out to be beneficial, and that mutation becomes favored by natural selection, and can develop into a new feature of the organism.
A fascinating example of silent genes has been found in the chicken. Chickens have no teeth, but they do have the genes that encode teeth. These genes are no longer active, presumably (according to the theory of evolution) because chickens no longer need teeth. Therefore their tooth genes have accumulated mutations over time that have inactivated them. Teeth have actually been grown from chicken gum tissue in the petri dish under conditions that activated the tooth genes. The chicken teeth turned out to be peg-like, as in reptiles. Creationists have a difficult time explaining the existence of tooth genes in chickens. Why would god make a chicken with silent genes?
In summary, for someone to say that they don’t believe in evolution is like saying they don’t believe in gravity. Evolution is a fact. And if they say that they don’t believe the theory of evolution (meaning that they accept the fact of evolution but not the explanation supported by a mountain of evidence), then that must mean they have found specific flaws in the evidence supporting the theory. If disbelievers want legitimacy, they must state the specific flaws that they have found. Maybe the chicken is actually a reptile and the teeth are microscopic? Even that is probably not enough to overturn the theory, though it would certainly require some modification of the theory. Anyone seeking to invalidate the theory of evolution has a huge amount of data to overcome. But one can no more “not believe in evolution” than he/she can “not believe in gravity.”
In the clip mentioned above, Ron Paul says that this issue is not that important to the election, but I disagree. I see the issue of evolution is an indicator telling us how likely a person is to accept facts that are contrary to his/her opinions. We’ve seen the devastating impact resulting from a president who is able to disbelieve facts.
I’ve been following Mr. Paul for a while and have heard him say that he does not like to talk about his faith in the political arena, which is evident in this clip. He seems to be dancing around this question a little although I’ve seen other videos in which he more candidly speaks of his faith in God.
I do agree with Brian’s assessment of Paul’s comments, that Paul believes that God was responsible for the origin of life, and that evolution is a theory and not a law. However I do think that the question is pertinent to the political discussion. One’s beliefs have great bearing on a fundamental level in the reasoning behind decisions that an individual will make.
Since the question at hand was the origin of life, lets sample two perspectives, an evolutionary and creationist view. The evolutionist believes that life came about from purely naturalistic causes. It rained on rocks and slime, then with a zap of electricity life came about in a flash of random chance. Organisms progressed until they became human and now here we are. In this view, the value system of each person has nothing to base it’s standard on, which thus makes a value system arbitrary. Each is left to his or her own standard of right and wrong.
In a creationist’s view, God created everything, met with his people and gave them His value system, the bible, which is the standard of right and wrong.
God’s standard, external to man, is mirrored by the Constitutional legal system such as we have in the U.S.
Our Constitution and the current political landscape exemplifies the point I’m trying to make. We have in America, a standard, the Constitution. The politicians are ignoring the Constitutional standard, and each of them is doing what is right in his own eyes, making laws which happen to contradict the true law of the land. This has robbed you and I of freedom.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that will uphold the standard and restore our freedom!
May the best man win!
Harold, we are not dependent upon your god for our values. Tribal communities who have never heard of the Bible do have values and moral standards. I would not consider their value systems any more arbitrary than ours. It works for their respective societies. It requires no instruction from the Bible. Even a five-year-old is capable of feeling sorry for someone on the street and wanting to help them. It’s the nature of man, probably due to an inherently communal psyche that we’ve evolved (my guess). I see no need to invoke anything supernatural about it.
If the Bible is to be used as our standard of morality, then I guess it’s OK to invade towns, kill all their inhabitants, and take over, just as Joshua did. Or how about lets have daughters rape their fathers, just as Lot’s daughters did. No sin mentioned there, is there?
Geoffrey,
Just laws are God’s laws.
If you are not dependent upon God for your values or “laws” but, instead get your laws from man then the “man” or men that give you laws can also change them since he is the master of them. You will either be governed by God or man. There is no other choice. If you choose to be just then you have chosen God’s law.
The Constitution is an example of just law.
Further, “feeling sorry” for someone and helping them is NOT a government function.
Also, The Bible is the history of God in relationship to His creation. God never condoned unjust acts (ie: In the case of Lot’s daughters, they paid a high price for their sins. etc).
You may want to look up “theory” and “fact” in the dictionary. They are not the same word. I don’t mind discussing the creation/evolution debate. However, this website is for discussion of Ron Paul specifically. Out of respect for Mr. Bailey and his excellent work on behalf of Dr. Paul, I will not continue these comments here.
Many Blessings,
Kelly
I strongly agree. This article has similar sentiments. http://tinysubmit.com/viewpost.php?id=189480 : )