Ron Paul: Just another creationist

RolandTD20Kdrummer · December 2007

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 · December 2007

deadnothingbetter wrote:

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

Why not?

chopitdown · December 2007

Collin wrote:

Why not?

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

cornnifer · December 2007

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 · December 2007

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 · December 2007

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 · December 2007

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 · December 2007

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 · December 2007

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 · December 2007

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

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

ClimberInOz · December 2007

chopitdown wrote:

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.

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.

sweetpotato · December 2007

Saturnal wrote:

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.

so then clinton's personal indescretions shouldn't have mattered to anyone, either- right? we all see how well that turned out.

all of these things speak to the person's character. and while i don't think getting a bj from an intern weighs quite as heavily- or reveals as much about a person's ability (or INability) to reason- as, say, believing the world was created in seven days days, i think all of these issues affect voter's choices.

cornnifer · December 2007

sweetpotato wrote:

so then clinton's personal indescretions shouldn't have mattered to anyone, either- right? we all see how well that turned out.

all of these things speak to the person's character. and while i don't think getting a bj from an intern weighs quite as heavily- or reveals as much about a person's ability (or INability) to reason- as, say, believing the world was created in seven days days, i think all of these issues affect voter's choices.

Actually, no. Clinton's hummer shouldn't have mattered to anyone. In fact, no one should have even KNOWN about it, Whereas i think its dispicable, its really none of my business who was sucking him off. It didn't effect his ability perform his presidential responsibilities. Much the same as one's stance in the Darwin vs. ID debate. NON FACTOR.

Collin · December 2007

chopitdown wrote:

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

Of course I realize this but racism, sexism, creationism, atheism ... are all personal beliefs.

And as I said before I believe all those things matter, the good and the bad. If a presidential candidate was a great philanthropist and has been a philanthropist for the last 30 years, it tells me something about that person. If he's a member of a neo-nazi organisation it tells me something as well... you cannot deny that.

Even if their personal views are not their policies, I think it's interesting to know how they see the world personally. Their beliefs, in the end, is what motivates them, whether those things are good or bad.

I never said creationism was comparable with racism or sexism, in fact I said this case was hardly worth mentioning. I think the religious people here are a bit overprotecting. If he had said ' I believe there is no god and religion is foolish" would you also say that his personal beliefs in no way affect your choice?

cornnifer wrote:

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.

Even if a candidate decides not to act upon his personal beliefs while in office, I wouldn't vote for that candidate if his personal beliefs were of a racist or sexist nature. I don't want to support a racist or sexist in any way, not even tacitly.
So to me it's not comparing apples and oranges, I'm not saying I'd change my mind over something like this, I'd take it into account, that's all.

And I also said it's subjective. To some people this may be a crucial point and to some it won't.

Cosmo · December 2007

'Creationism' as a belief system... or 'Creationism' as a science?
There a big difference between those two. As part of a belief system... I think no one has a problem with that. But, trying to pass it off as a science?
No. Guess again.

WMA · December 2007

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 unconstitutional.

Many legal scholars believe the law itself would be unconstitutional.

baraka · December 2007

Cosmo wrote:

'Creationism' as a belief system... or 'Creationism' as a science?
There a big difference between those two. As part of a belief system... I think no one has a problem with that. But, trying to pass it off as a science?
No. Guess again.

I agree. The belief in of itself is not the problem. There are scientists that believe evolution has a divine guidance. But they also understand that that belief is a philosophy, not science. Saying that something has a supernatural cause is always possible, but saying that the supernatural can be investigated & proven by science, which always has to work with natural tools and mechanisms, is just wrong. Science investigates the natural and material world around us. It does not answer questions such as the meaning, value, and purpose of things. If scientists simply defaulted with 'well, it's so complex, God must have done it', scientific research & investigation would cease there and we would have no progress. Where would we be today if that was the case? Science is the study and investigation of the NATURAL world. If we redefine science and allow supernatural causes then it is no longer science.

I'm so tired of the ID folks falsely casting evolution in the light of an inherently atheistic idea. These folks indirectly tell students that you have to turn your back on your faith to accept scientific mainstream, or you have to reject science to embrace your faith. That is so wrong and utterly false. This is a disservice to religion as well as science!

I will also note that the theory of evolution is one of the strongest theories we have. Darwin's theories have been confirmed over and over through out the last 150 years. Fields of science that came into fruition after his theory such as genetics and molecular biology have only shown proof of his theory. We use evolution everyday to interpret genomes, to develop drugs, to prolong the useful lifetime of antibiotics, etc, etc. Evidence that supports Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection can be found in many scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, biochemistry, genetics, & molecular biology.

Ok, I'll get off my soapbox, but I'll leave you guys with something to think about. A report released recently by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development which measures student performance among 15 year-olds shows that the United States ranks 29th among developed countries in scientific literacy, behind countries like Croatia, Estonia, and Liechtenstein. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1205/p02s01-usgn.html

chopitdown · December 2007

baraka wrote:

Ok, I'll get off my soapbox, but I'll leave you guys with something to think about. A report released recently by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development which measures student performance among 15 year-olds shows that the United States ranks 29th among developed countries in scientific literacy, behind countries like Croatia, Estonia, and Liechtenstein. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1205/p02s01-usgn.html

My guess is that the factors that contribute to that are education (pedagogy and lack of a philosophy of education in the US), society (video games, SES, computer use) have more to do with those than a countries belief or lack of belief in evolution. I'd like to see the test that was used to compare the students. Additionally, the article points out some obvious problems with interpreting international test scores. (testing not in first language, not including all test scores...it would seem it could be very easy to pad these scores). I'm not saying the US is doing all it can for education of its youth, but i'm sure the issue is certainly multifactorial (Not saying that you area saying it's not).

cornnifer · December 2007

Collin wrote:

Even if a candidate decides not to act upon his personal beliefs while in office, I wouldn't vote for that candidate if his personal beliefs were of a racist or sexist nature. I don't want to support a racist or sexist in any way, not even tacitly.
So to me it's not comparing apples and oranges, I'm not saying I'd change my mind over something like this, I'd take it into account, that's all.

And I also said it's subjective. To some people this may be a crucial point and to some it won't.

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".

cornnifer · December 2007

chopitdown wrote:

My guess is that the factors that contribute to that are education (pedagogy and lack of a philosophy of education in the US), society (video games, SES, computer use) have more to do with those than a countries belief or lack of belief in evolution. I'd like to see the test that was used to compare the students. Additionally, the article points out some obvious problems with interpreting international test scores. (testing not in first language, not including all test scores...it would seem it could be very easy to pad these scores). I'm not saying the US is doing all it can for education of its youth, but i'm sure the issue is certainly multifactorial (Not saying that you area saying it's not).

Yeah. i might add to this the fact that it isn't just science. We are floundering behind the rest of the world in math and georaphy as well. Should we blame this on ID theory also? The truth of the matter, as you say, is that we as a collective culture spend to much time in front of our personal idiot box of choice and have lost any sense of appreciation for academia and its worth. ID theory has zilch to do with it.

Ron Paul: Just another creationist

Comments

Categories