Ron Paul: Just another creationist

godpt3

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/ron_paul_rejects_evolution.php

chopitdown

actually he said he doesn't think we're at the point where anyone has absolute truth on either side. And why does it matter what his views on evolution are if he wants to be president? Evidently not being an evolutionist didnt hurt him in med school, or his time as a physician. He obviously thinks science is important; he wouldn't be in a scientific field if he didn't.

DriftingByTheStorm

You decide

I honestly I could care less.
If he truly doesn't believe in evolution, then i am a little sad, but
HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION,
so its not like he is going to force anyone to study on HIS PERSONAL BELIEFS.

At the end of the day, I still firmly believe that Dr. Pauls POLICY SOLUTIONS are the BEST option America has right now.

Collin

It think it's logical people care about what presidential candidates' personal beliefs are and that includes religion.

jlew24asu

driftin, do you agree that the federal government should have ZERO involvement in education? as much as I am for less government, I think education assistance would be ok. at least on some level.

DriftingByTheStorm

jlew24asu wrote:

driftin, do you agree that the federal government should have ZERO involvement in education? as much as I am for less government, I think education assistance would be ok. at least on some level.

Uh. I dunno.
What do you mean by "education assistance"?
The government being involved in holding states ransom for funds on accountability to "federal standards" bothers the bejezus out of me.

I think it is always hard to make a decision (like with education, or with abortion) where states rights can lead to the promotion of bad policy, but imho, you have to accept that risk because the Federal Government is just too shady to be trusted.

The only 'real' opposition i see to that is slavery, and i think slavery should have been dealt with on constitutional grounds involving "RIGHT TO LIBERTY" and the assertion that africans were PEOPLE, and not property. States rights don't trump god-given natural born rights, and that is all it really took to recognize the illegal nature of slavery.

DriftingByTheStorm

Collin wrote:

It think it's logical people care about what presidential candidates' personal beliefs are and that includes religion.

caring is one thing.
basing your decision for casting your vote based on a personal belief about the creation of humanity is beyond absurd in my book.

I can understand the line of 'logic' that says, "As a christian, i want a MORAL president, so i want a CHRISTIAN president" ... but i absolutely can NOT understand either "I will NOT vote for a president that does NOT believe in creationism" or the converse, "I will not vote for a president that DOES believe in creationism" ...

What the hell does it really matter to the current reality of politics?

Now, if we are talking about a candidate that wants to ENFORCE his\her belief, THAT is a whole different ball game!

tybird

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION,

That statement has great merit....I have met or talked to no teacher who had any positive things to say about "No Child Left Behind."

Collin

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

caring is one thing.
basing your decision for casting your vote based on a personal belief about the creation of humanity is beyond absurd in my book.

I can understand the line of 'logic' that says, "As a christian, i want a MORAL president, so i want a CHRISTIAN president" ... but i absolutely can NOT understand either "I will NOT vote for a president that does NOT believe in creationism" or the converse, "I will not vote for a president that DOES believe in creationism" ...

What the hell does it really matter to the current reality of politics?

Now, if we are talking about a candidate that wants to ENFORCE his\her belief, THAT is a whole different ball game!

I don't know. Would you feel comfortable voting for this guy if he, in his personal life, was a complete racist and sexist?

DriftingByTheStorm

tybird wrote:

That statement has great merit....I have met or talked to no teacher who had any positive things to say about "No Child Left Behind."

agreed.
my aunt, one of my friends, and everyone he knows where he works, all feel the same.

It just forces them to teach MORE OF LESS.
Learn a little about a lot more.
It makes there testing process a pain in the ass, and they all feel like it hurts the student. It also takes away a significant amount of (if not total) discretion from the teacher -- keeping them from going "in depth" on anything or doing tangental discussions ... they must constantly get to "the next subject" because it WILL be on the test!

That is the major gripe.
I could go on, but i'm sure you get it.

No child left behind or not,
i think it is a bad idea for numerous reasons,
the least of which is something like what Ron Paul has currently brought up -- LINCOLN & the CIVIL WAR ...

Please raise your hand if you were taught that the Civil War was fought over SLAVERY?

::ahem::

:( :( :(

lalalalaaaaaaaa

Collin wrote:

I don't know. Would you feel comfortable voting for this guy if he, in his personal life, was a complete racist and sexist?

IMO, this stuff shouldn't factor into voting for a president. Even if Ron Paul is a racist and sexist, there's not much he can do as president to impose those views on anyone. If he tried, he'd be impeached quickly.

DriftingByTheStorm

+1 to Saturnal
and i envoke my right to remove my previous answer.

Collin

My point is, personal views matter whether they're positive or negative. And what is irrelevant to you or me may be crucial to others.

I'd rather vote for someone whose policies and personal views I agree with.


I'll will further clarify in a while...

DriftingByTheStorm

Collin wrote:

My point is, personal views matter whether they're positive or negative. And what is irrelevant to you or me may be crucial to others.

I'd rather vote for someone whose policies and personal views I agree with.


I'll will further clarify in a while...

and i think the point that saturnal and i may actualy be in agreement on is this:

You are voting on someone to set POLICY for the country.
So if you are going to pick someone with the WRONG policy and the RIGHT personal views, then that is FUCKED.

Sure, both right is great, but you rarely get that.

:(

jlew24asu

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Uh. I dunno.
What do you mean by "education assistance"?
The government being involved in holding states ransom for funds on accountability to "federal standards" bothers the bejezus out of me.

I think it is always hard to make a decision (like with education, or with abortion) where states rights can lead to the promotion of bad policy, but imho, you have to accept that risk because the Federal Government is just too shady to be trusted.

The only 'real' opposition i see to that is slavery, and i think slavery should have been dealt with on constitutional grounds involving "RIGHT TO LIBERTY" and the assertion that africans were PEOPLE, and not property. States rights don't trump god-given natural born rights, and that is all it really took to recognize the illegal nature of slavery.

I really dont know what I mean by "education assistance" but I'd like to see tax dollars spent on educating our children, or at least helping those who cant afford it. how I dont know.

Pacomc79

jlew24asu wrote:

driftin, do you agree that the federal government should have ZERO involvement in education? as much as I am for less government, I think education assistance would be ok. at least on some level.

Zero. There is absolutely no reason other than beauacracy the federal government is involved in Education. State and Local governments are far more effective, and if they aren't are more easily held accountable. The FDOE is a big waste of money. Send it back to the states.

Standardized tests are a nice way to determine which curriculum practices are getting through and which need improvement, they are a terrible way of determining knowledge but I guess it would be difficult to grade a few million essay tests.

jlew24asu

Pacomc79 wrote:

Zero. There is absolutely no reason other than beauacracy the federal government is involved in Education. State and Local governments are far more effective, and if they aren't are more easily held accountable. The FDOE is a big waste of money. Send it back to the states.

good idea. I'll go with this

Collin

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

and i think the point that saturnal and i may actualy be in agreement on is this:

You are voting on someone to set POLICY for the country.
So if you are going to pick someone with the WRONG policy and the RIGHT personal views, then that is FUCKED.

Sure, both right is great, but you rarely get that.

:(

I know, and by the way, this whole case is hardly worth mentioning, imo.

I was just saying that I don't agree with people who say the candidates' private life is of no importance, or irrelevant. Especially when we're talking about religion.

I'm not American so I won't have to make that choice and where I live religion isn't an issue at all, there aren't (m)any strongly devouted religious people in politics here, in fact, I doubt I've ever met a strongly devouted, or even a devouted religious person here.

By the way ... both right: Kucinich

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I think he answered this as delicately as possible. In the same breath, if I said I believed in evolution and wanted to start a campaign with hopes to prove
evolution, I don't think it would bother him either.

Certain topics have to be answered with a lot of people in mind. This is one of them.

deadnothingbetter

Collin wrote:

I don't know. Would you feel comfortable voting for this guy if he, in his personal life, was a complete racist and sexist?

racist? sexist? that can't be compared to personal beliefs...

godpt3

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I think he answered this as delicately as possible. In the same breath, if I said I believed in evolution and wanted to start a campaign with hopes to prove
evolution, I don't think it would bother him either.

Well, barring a sudden resurrection, I do believe it would be easier to "prove" evolution than creationism.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

godpt3 wrote:

Well, barring a sudden resurrection, I do believe it would be easier to "prove" evolution than creationism.

Oh no doubt evolution is more apparent. It just seems to me this is probably the best answer given the level of religious faith in the US. I'm betting most agnostics are willing to overlook this shortcoming in RP, however I think it would be more damaging to him the other way around. A lot of religious people vote holding their bibles not their brains as they leave it up to god to decide for them what is right. Agnostics are a bit more out of the box in their thinking so to speak.

Collin

deadnothingbetter wrote:

racist? sexist? that can't be compared to personal beliefs...

Why not?

chopitdown

Collin wrote:

Why not?

racist and sexist have connotations of superiority towards others in them and creationist doesnt.

cornnifer

Collin wrote:

I don't know. Would you feel comfortable voting for this guy if he, in his personal life, was a complete racist and sexist?

C'mon now, Collin. Thats different and you know it. i make this point not as a Ron Paul supporter (i'm not one. at least not in his presidential bid). A person's racist or sexist tendencies would definitely be of regard as it may effect millions of non-white, or female Americans. How can a person believing the world was inteligently designed (or the reciprocal for that matter) truly effect the lives of anyone else? One can not legislate in those terms. You're comparing apples and oranges here, i'm afraid.

gimmesometruth27

chopitdown wrote:

racist and sexist have connotations of superiority towards others in them and creationist doesnt.

creationism absolutely has connotations of superiority. i know plenty of evangelicals who believe that their belief systems is superior to atheists like myself.

creationism is at the core of any religious belief. why has darwin been looked down upon so heavily and demonized through history? and it has mainly been from the conservative religious groups who view it as impossible that we may have branched off from other primates. just as i believe that science has more merit than faith, these people believe faith has more merit than science, and that i can not go along with.

to me, if we elect an creationist, we are going backwards with regard to science, ie no stem cell research, possibly infringing on women's rights, etc. most of the people who are creationists and religious types on this board believe they are superior to people who believe in evolution, although they would never dare to say it. you can just infer it from reading their posts.

when i watched that republican debate and all of those guys raised their hand and responded that they do not believe in evolution i thought, "well that whole group just lost my vote".

cornnifer

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

creationism absolutely has connotations of superiority. i know plenty of evangelicals who believe that their belief systems is superior to atheists like myself.

creationism is at the core of any religious belief. why has darwin been looked down upon so heavily and demonized through history? and it has mainly been from the conservative religious groups who view it as impossible that we may have branched off from other primates. just as i believe that science has more merit than faith, these people believe faith has more merit than science, and that i can not go along with.

to me, if we elect an creationist, we are going backwards with regard to science, ie no stem cell research, possibly infringing on women's rights, etc. most of the people who are creationists and religious types on this board believe they are superior to people who believe in evolution, although they would never dare to say it. you can just infer it from reading their posts.

when i watched that republican debate and all of those guys raised their hand and responded that they do not believe in evolution i thought, "well that whole group just lost my vote".

Bullshit. EVERYONE believes their belief is the correct one or else they wouldn't believe it. Read this board for five minutes and it becaomes very clear that atheists have just as much (if not more) of a superiority complex than any ID theorist. What you're saying is pure bullshit. As far as Ron Paul is concerned (and again, i wont be voting for him), the guy is a doctor for crying out loud. Give me a break. Furthermore, what in the hell does creationism have to do with infringinging on women's rights. Thats just laughable. Absolutely bellyache laughable.
As an ID theorist myself, it would be pretty stupid to vote for someone simply because they believe in ID. It would be equally stupid for a staunch Darwinist to NOT vote for someone for that reason. It is a completely irrelevant belief as far as politics is concerned.

cornnifer

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

when i watched that republican debate and all of those guys raised their hand and responded that they do not believe in evolution i thought, "well that whole group just lost my vote".

When i heard of this portion of the debate, my response was at once similar to and quite different from yours. i was more like "who gives a shit!" i don't believe in evolution as an origin of the species either, yet i still won't be voting for any of these clowns". ITS A NON ISSUE.

chopitdown

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

creationism absolutely has connotations of superiority. i know plenty of evangelicals who believe that their belief systems is superior to atheists like myself.

creationism is at the core of any religious belief. why has darwin been looked down upon so heavily and demonized through history? and it has mainly been from the conservative religious groups who view it as impossible that we may have branched off from other primates. just as i believe that science has more merit than faith, these people believe faith has more merit than science, and that i can not go along with.

There are many christians who believe in God-guided evolution too (francis collins comes to mind...most would say that he's fairly intelligent with that whole human genome project and all) He's a christian, a scientist and he believes that God may have used evolution.
And I have seen many atheists who think there view is better than anyones. With any opinion you'll have that. But the word creationism is not in the same ball park as sexism or racism. The latter 2 are discriminitory to people for soemthing they can't control. Creationism is a philosophy as is atheism.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

to me, if we elect an creationist, we are going backwards with regard to science, ie no stem cell research, possibly infringing on women's rights, etc. most of the people who are creationists and religious types on this board believe they are superior to people who believe in evolution, although they would never dare to say it. you can just infer it from reading their posts.

yes, i'm sure if we elect a creationist we'll lose everything that has been established b/c of their creationist philosophy :rolleyes: not too many christians or creationists have problems with stem cell research, some may have problems with embryonic stem cell research, but stem cells are all over the place. In fact, they were able to now use skin cells and change their behaviors to behave like embryonic cells making the possiblities greater. So science has now found a way to produce those cells w/o using embryos; that's great and research should be continued to find more sources.
And how can you say we'll go backwards in science if someone is a creationist. There are lots of creationists who are scientists (science is much bigger than just evolutionary biology and stem cell research). To me if we elect an atheist we are going backwards b/c we could possibly have an infringement on the religious rights (not religious right)...possibly is a very dangerous word to use, unless you like to promote an agenda with manipulation and play on fears (realistic or unrealistic).

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

when i watched that republican debate and all of those guys raised their hand and responded that they do not believe in evolution i thought, "well that whole group just lost my vote".

were you thinking of voting for a republican to begin with?

chopitdown

cornnifer wrote:

When i heard of this portion of the debate, my response was at once similar to and quite different from yours. i was more like "who gives a shit!" i don't believe in evolution as an origin of the species either, yet i still won't be voting for any of these clowns". ITS A NON ISSUE.

well said

godpt3

OK, ladies and germs... here's how it works:

http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.html