Ron Paul: Just another creationist

baraka · December 2007

Chopitdown & cornnifer, are you guys aware of a lawyer named Philip Johnson, an icon of the intelligent design creationist movement (himself a young earth creationist)? According to him, evolution is the major source of many of the 'evils' of todays society, including homosexuality, abortion, pornography, divorce and genocide. According to Johnson, the attack on evolution is the first step in attempting to replace the so called 'scientific materialism' with 'theistic realism'. This is an attack on science, something that can have a major impact on our education and society. Again, the current ID movement indirectly tells students that they have to turn their back on their faith to accept scientific mainstream, or they have to reject science to embrace their faith. What a false choice, IMO.

I do want to note that there have been plenty of harsh attacks against intelligent design creationism by devout theists, such as Kenneth Miller (Finding Darwin's God), Francis Collins (The Language of God), Joan Roughgarden (Evolution and Christian Faith), Michael Dowd (Thank God For Evolution), Fransisco Ayala (Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion), Keith B. Miller (Perspectives on an Evolving Creation), Gordon Glover (Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation) etc, etc.

Edit: Something of interest.........ever heard of the ID movement's 'The Wedge'? http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2006/02/Wedge.pdf

chopitdown · December 2007

baraka wrote:

Chopitdown & cornnifer, are you guys aware of a lawyer named Philip Johnson, an icon of the intelligent design creationist movement (himself a young earth creationist)? According to him, evolution is the major source of many of the 'evils' of todays society, including homosexuality, abortion, pornography, divorce and genocide. According to Johnson, the attack on evolution is the first step in attempting to replace the so called 'scientific materialism' with 'theistic realism'. This is an attack on science, something that can have a major impact on our education and society. Again, the current ID movement indirectly tells students that they have to turn their back on their faith to accept scientific mainstream, or they have to reject science to embrace their faith. What a false choice, IMO.

While I agree that Johnson is overstepping his bounds and making outlandish statements; i stand firmly by my comment that belief or unbelief in evolution doesn't really have a bearing on our scientific understanding or scientific ability around the world. Sure, there are people who say you have to choose science or choose religion. Which on some level you do, if you're a fundamentalist. There are many people who say I believe in creation, but the best science can show is evolution. My point and frustration with the threads that deal with ID/evolution is that people tend to have this idea that if you're a christian or someone who doesn't believe in evolution as the prime mode of advancement of species that you're somehow incapable of being good at science; that is simply not true. I took a great course on evolutionary biology / zoology at a christian school from a faculty member who earned his phd at tOSU in biology and didn't believe in evolution. He could still perform research, earn the respect of his peers and educate students and taught evolution from a scientific view b/c his pet peeve was just what you describe. There are many many christians who are involved with AND suceeding in the sciences. So blaming an attack on evolution as teh reason for our failing grades is trying to find a scapegoat that isn't appropriate. Until we look in the mirror and realize we care more about the high score on Halo, warcraft, britney spears, what social club we'll belong to next etc... we'll never measure up to other countries academically. I notice the list you included below and I didn't want to put words in your mouth re: your stance on theists and science, but there are many who hold the view of if your religious you can't be good at science or if you dont' believe in evolution you can't be good at science. at some point i started rambling..i'm going to bed.

baraka wrote:

I do want to note that there have been plenty of harsh attacks against intelligent design creationism by devout theists, such as Kenneth Miller (Finding Darwin's God), Francis Collins (The Language of God), Joan Roughgarden (Evolution and Christian Faith), Michael Dowd (Thank God For Evolution), Fransisco Ayala (Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion), Keith B. Miller (Perspectives on an Evolving Creation), Gordon Glover (Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation) etc, etc.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · December 2007

Any dinosaurs in the bible? I believe they exist.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/172/431306643_528c65a6b3.jpg

baraka · December 2007

chopitdown wrote:

While I agree that Johnson is overstepping his bounds and making outlandish statements; i stand firmly by my comment that belief or unbelief in evolution doesn't really have a bearing on our scientific understanding or scientific ability around the world. Sure, there are people who say you have to choose science or choose religion. Which on some level you do, if you're a fundamentalist. There are many people who say I believe in creation, but the best science can show is evolution. My point and frustration with the threads that deal with ID/evolution is that people tend to have this idea that if you're a christian or someone who doesn't believe in evolution as the prime mode of advancement of species that you're somehow incapable of being good at science; that is simply not true. I took a great course on evolutionary biology / zoology at a christian school from a faculty member who earned his phd at tOSU in biology and didn't believe in evolution. He could still perform research, earn the respect of his peers and educate students and taught evolution from a scientific view b/c his pet peeve was just what you describe. There are many many christians who are involved with AND suceeding in the sciences. So blaming an attack on evolution as teh reason for our failing grades is trying to find a scapegoat that isn't appropriate. Until we look in the mirror and realize we care more about the high score on Halo, warcraft, britney spears, what social club we'll belong to next etc... we'll never measure up to other countries academically. I notice the list you included below and I didn't want to put words in your mouth re: your stance on theists and science, but there are many who hold the view of if your religious you can't be good at science or if you dont' believe in evolution you can't be good at science. at some point i started rambling..i'm going to bed.

I agree with you when you say there are many Christians that are involved and succeeding in science. I gave you a list of several of them in my prior post. But, they accept the empirical evidence and understand evolution. The scientific community have no doubts about the validity of evolution. As we have learned more, it has only unfolded more evidence for evolution. We have a half century of biochemistry and molecular biology that shows all living organisms, no matter how diverse they are, share certain common features, and those common features include the way in which they store and transmit and evolve information. Now the mechanisms of evolution is where it gets really interesting.

I guess what I keep trying to say, is the current ID movement is intellectually dishonest. They know what they are trying to push in the science class room is not science. Their goal is what I posted a link to earlier, The Wedge, the return to the dark ages through dogma and control. This is dangerous and a perversion of religion. They are also trying to tell folks that one has to turn their back on scientific mainstream in order to accept their faith. That is a false choice and no fool is going to take faith away from me. They are doing a great disservice to religion and science.

Collin · December 2007

cornnifer wrote:

Nor would i vote for a known racist or sexist. My point is that racism (apples), and a belief in ID (oranges) are not comparable. The former is a definite factor with potential disastrous consequenses when it comes to civil rights legislation and human rights protection. The latter, not so much. In fact, the latter is a complete non-factor. What legislation or domestic policy could possibly stem from a president's position in design versus complete accident debate? That, friend, is what i meant by "apples and oranges".

I understand what you're saying. But ID is usually linked to religion and religion is a factor that matters, I think.

I cannot feel the same way about it as you do, not because I'm an atheist but because we have a different cultural background. Where I live people aren't as religious as in the States, in fact, I don't know anyone (and I know a lot of people) under 35 who goes to church, and even the people older than 35 hardly ever go to church.
And if people are religious it's something personal, they don't show it with a bumper sticker... When I watch American presidential debates, speeches by politicians chances are huge they'll mention god at one point. You'll never hear that here. And that makes it a non-issue to me, because religion is a non-issue here. But in the States religion has a more important role in society and it becomes an issue, at least to me.

And creationism doesn't really exist here. There are some people who believe in it, but it's a very very small minority. People would laugh at creationists here, however sad that may be, but it's true.

So I guess to me creationism is more an extreme point of view while to you and to more than half of America it's just a reality, an generally accepted view albeit not by the scientific world.

And a person's belief would also matter to me because Americans are so much more extreme in their beliefs that the believers in my country.

I hope this makes some sense.

searchlightsoul · December 2007

deadnothingbetter wrote:

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

Evolution is not a belief system its a testable scientific theory. NO belief required. And I guess it doesn't matter, unless you would prefer not to elect ignorant people to the presidency.

searchlightsoul · December 2007

baraka wrote:

I agree with you when you say there are many Christians that are involved and succeeding in science. I gave you a list of several of them in my prior post. But, they accept the empirical evidence and understand evolution. The scientific community have no doubts about the validity of evolution. As we have learned more, it has only unfolded more evidence for evolution. We have a half century of biochemistry and molecular biology that shows all living organisms, no matter how diverse they are, share certain common features, and those common features include the way in which they store and transmit and evolve information. Now the mechanisms of evolution is where it gets really interesting.

I guess what I keep trying to say, is the current ID movement is intellectually dishonest. They know what they are trying to push in the science class room is not science. Their goal is what I posted a link to earlier, The Wedge, the return to the dark ages through dogma and control. This is dangerous and a perversion of religion. They are also trying to tell folks that one has to turn their back on scientific mainstream in order to accept their faith. That is a false choice and no fool is going to take faith away from me. They are doing a great disservice to religion and science.

Nice post.

searchlightsoul · December 2007

ClimberInOz wrote:

Small technical point...

Evolution is not guided, nor does it have any direction or final goal. It operates as a result of several different processes- some random and some selecting.

So the theological theory of 'god guided evolution', bears absolutely no resemblance to the scientific theory of evolution as first presented by Charles Darwin. 'God guided evolution' is essentially intelligent design.

As far as Ron Paul is concerned- It would appear to me that at the very least he has demonstrated that he has a limited understanding of science (even if he is a doctor). In a world that is increasingly affected by science, I would think that this would be a concern, especially if I was considering voting for this person to head the most powerful nation on earth, (but of course, I will not be voting in your election)

Either that, or as somebody else pointed out he is not a creationist and is overly concerned about losing a large number of voted by supporting evolution.

It would be refreshing to see some balls from these politicians (Hillary included haha). Now of course that will probably never happen. But would'nt it be nice to see these guys lead the popular position rather than follow it?

cornnifer · December 2007

baraka wrote:

Chopitdown & cornnifer, are you guys aware of a lawyer named Philip Johnson, an icon of the intelligent design creationist movement (himself a young earth creationist)? According to him, evolution is the major source of many of the 'evils' of todays society, including homosexuality, abortion, pornography, divorce and genocide. According to Johnson, the attack on evolution is the first step in attempting to replace the so called 'scientific materialism' with 'theistic realism'. This is an attack on science, something that can have a major impact on our education and society. Again, the current ID movement indirectly tells students that they have to turn their back on their faith to accept scientific mainstream, or they have to reject science to embrace their faith. What a false choice, IMO.

I do want to note that there have been plenty of harsh attacks against intelligent design creationism by devout theists, such as Kenneth Miller (Finding Darwin's God), Francis Collins (The Language of God), Joan Roughgarden (Evolution and Christian Faith), Michael Dowd (Thank God For Evolution), Fransisco Ayala (Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion), Keith B. Miller (Perspectives on an Evolving Creation), Gordon Glover (Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation) etc, etc.

Edit: Something of interest.........ever heard of the ID movement's 'The Wedge'? http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2006/02/Wedge.pdf

baraka, my point was never to enter into a debate on the validity of ID theory, or theism. i've had enough of thay here to last a few lifetimes. Nor was my it intentention to argue the extent of the varrying degres of ID theory ranging from strict "young earth" creationists to "God guided evolution" theorists. (As far as Philip Johnson is concerned, no, i've never heard of him. Not many people, for that matter, have, i'm guessing, which is a point i feel worth mentioning).
My point was, and is, simply, speaking not as a scientist or a trained clergyman but rather as an educator, to say that blaming America's lag behind much of the world in the area of scientific literacy on ID theory is, to be blunt but respectful, ridiculous. We are behind much of the world in many critical academic areas and there is no way to blame ID theory for America's sub-standard proficiency in, for example, mathematics or geography. It therefore, becomes shortsighted, in both my professional and amateur opinions, to blame our science literacy deficiencies on ID theory as well. As you, i'm sure, know, there are very many ID theorists who are extremely scientifically literate. Furthermore, a large minority of those American students falling behind the rest of the world in science care fuck all about ID, evolution, Darwin, Philip Johnson or any other damned thing related to the topic at hand. THAT is the root of the problem. All of this applies to my original point in this thread that one's position on the Darwin/ID continuum should be a relative non-issue in determining one's support of a presidential candidate. i roll my eyes at the fact that it is even mentioned in serious political debate.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · December 2007

I believe when they asked who believes in evolution at one of the early debates Ron Paul raised his hand. Can anyone else confirm this?

DriftingByTheStorm · December 2007

WMA wrote:

It does get scary when someone tries to pass their religious beliefs into law.

From the "We the People" Act which Ron Paul introduced:
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

In other words, regardless of the constitutionality of a law passed by a state regarding these subjects, the Judiciary would not have the right to hear the case and rule the law

In other words, regardless of the constitutionality of a law passed by a state regarding these subjects, the Judiciary would not have the right to hear the case and rule the law unconstitutional.

Many legal scholars believe the law itself would be unconstitutional.

Wow.
That is a "good" one.
I just took the good Dr. down a peg on that one.
The only real issue i take with it is the bit in clause (B) ...

everything else i think IS the perrogative of the state.
Look, i'm not saying states banning gay marriage or abortion, or what have you is a great idea ... but i do think there needs to be reinforcement of the right of states to decide such things, otherwise it just sets bad precedent.

Now, when it comes to your right to privacy, and right to practice sexual acts of your choice ... i take some exception ... i don't see how ANY government has a say in that, so long as that it is between conscenting adults and doesn't involve the breaking of any OTHER laws (animal abuse, or ???) ...

but abortion, gay marriage ... sure ... those should be state issues ... delicate and controversial as "hell" though they may be.

Uncle Leo · December 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I believe when they asked who believes in evolution at one of the early debates Ron Paul raised his hand. Can anyone else confirm this?

It cannot be confirmed or denied as the camera operators were instructed to to never point their cameras at Paul* and the reporters obviously flat ignored him.

* Edit: Unless he picks his nose.

sweetpotato · December 2007

Uncle Leo wrote:

It cannot be confirmed or denied as the camera operators were instructed to to never point their cameras at Paul* and the reporters obviously flat ignored him.

* Edit: Unless he picks his nose.

maybe he would be invisible if they did.

in that same vein, has anyone ever witnessed him seeing his own reflection in a mirror? hmmmm.

WMA · December 2007

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Wow.
That is a "good" one.
I just took the good Dr. down a peg on that one.
The only real issue i take with it is the bit in clause (B) ...

everything else i think IS the perrogative of the state.
Look, i'm not saying states banning gay marriage or abortion, or what have you is a great idea ... but i do think there needs to be reinforcement of the right of states to decide such things, otherwise it just sets bad precedent.

Now, when it comes to your right to privacy, and right to practice sexual acts of your choice ... i take some exception ... i don't see how ANY government has a say in that, so long as that it is between conscenting adults and doesn't involve the breaking of any OTHER laws (animal abuse, or ???) ...

but abortion, gay marriage ... sure ... those should be state issues ... delicate and controversial as "hell" though they may be.

Not if they are ruled as constitutionally protected rights.

All 3 could lead to very oppressive laws outside of of his obvious goal to allow states to support religion and to ban gay marriage and abortion.

Only those 3 things though? Why not the right to bear arms or protection against search and seizure also? Why not let the states take all of our constitutional rights away with no way for a citizen to appeal the ruling?

Yoyoyo · December 2007

WMA wrote:

It does get scary when someone tries to pass their religious beliefs into law.

From the "We the People" Act which Ron Paul introduced:

In other words, regardless of the constitutionality of a law passed by a state regarding these subjects, the Judiciary would not have the right to hear the case and rule the law unconstitutional.

Many legal scholars believe the law itself would be unconstitutional.

Why shouldn't these laws be determined by the states? When you allow the federal government to rule on such things as lifestyle and religion, you end up with a homogenous population. It is absurd to hope that every single person share the same ethical standard.

WMA · December 2007

Mestophar wrote:

Why shouldn't these laws be determined by the states? When you allow the federal government to rule on such things as lifestyle and religion, you end up with a homogenous population. It is absurd to hope that every single person share the same ethical standard.

They generally rule that states can't control things like lifestyle and religion, which means people can have differing ethical standards. On an individual level.

What this bill would do is give the states the right to take away the rights of the individual by not letting the higher courts determine the constitutionality of forcing people to follow your moral viewpoint.

Right now nobody is forced to get abortions, be gay, or pray in schools/be religious to hold public office etc. Though there are those who want to force everybody into the same mold...and like you said it is absurd to hope that every single person shares the same ethical standard.

I'll take personal freedom to have my views anywhere over trying to find a state that my views will be accepted in.

Yoyoyo · January 2008

WMA wrote:

I'll take personal freedom to have my views anywhere over trying to find a state that my views will be accepted in.

What if the federal government makes a law that that is not acceptable to your ethical standards?

Yoyoyo · January 2008

WMA wrote:

What this bill would do is give the states the right to take away the rights of the individual by not letting the higher courts determine the constitutionality of forcing people to follow your moral viewpoint.

What individual rights would the states be allowed to take away if this law passed?

DriftingByTheStorm · January 2008

WMA wrote:

Only those 3 things though? Why not the right to bear arms or protection against search and seizure also? Why not let the states take all of our constitutional rights away with no way for a citizen to appeal the ruling?

I'm not sure i understand the argument you are pressing.

the "right to an abortion" and the "right to gay mariage" are not things that exist in the constitution, explicitly or by implication. Abortion involves what is arguably another LIFE, and therefore something (someone) ELSE that is protected by the constitution. Gay marriage is a RELIGIOUS issue that, in theory is something SEPERATE from government in total ... if it is seperate from the law, at the very least it should be outside of the perogative of the FEDERAL government ... i'm not sure about if it is something up to the state or not (ok, i personaly don't think it is) ... IMHO, it should be left up to the church ... but i certainly agree that it shouldn't be left to the Federal Government to decide ...

as far as your "right" to sodomy in the bedroom, or whatever it is you please ... well, that is where i draw a line with Dr. Pauls proposed legislation, because that is personal choice, and a "pursuit of happiness" issue, as far as i can tell ... because i'm not sure where in the law one is to interpret any perogative of government PERIOD to regulate.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND where you are going off about the constitution and giving away rights explicit within it to the state to destroy? I never said ANYTHING about that. If you can show me where in my arguments i have suggested that the state has the right to trample your constitutional rights, then by all means continue. As far as i understand it, the 10th ammendment expressly attributes ALL rights not SPECIFICALY assigned to FEDERAL government to the people themselves, and the state governments they form.

???
Let me know how you want to further this debate.
I am WAY drunk. HAPPY NEW YEARS ALL!

WMA · January 2008

Mestophar wrote:

What if the federal government makes a law that that is not acceptable to your ethical standards?

Hopefully the Supreme court would strike down any law down that infringes on constitutional rights.

The same question applies to states also.

What individual rights would the states be allowed to take away if this law passed?

There could be many.

Part of the 1st and 14th amendment wouldn't be enforcable anymore. As well as "any claim based upon the right of privacy".

I could come up with thousands of hypothetical laws having to do with privacy or religion that could take individual rights away.

Ron Paul: Just another creationist

Comments

Categories