Just a Theory: Ron Paul Doesn’t “Accept” Evolution By Manila Ryce (video) (updated)

Dandelion Salad

By Manila Ryce
The Largest Minority
Published Saturday, December 22nd, 2007, 8:28 am

Since Brownback and Tancredo are out of the race, I guess Paul decided to keep Huckabee company amongst the presidential candidates who think the Flintstones was a documentary. Denying scientific evidence is an awfully peculiar thing for a doctor to do, but then again, Ron Paul is a paradox. He voted for the border fence with Mexico, yet claims to be a libertarian. He voted against the resolution to impeach Cheney, yet claims to be a strict constitutionalist. He’s against the occupation of Iraq, yet claims to be from Texas. Understanding Paul is like trying to nail Jello to a tree, and yet that doesn’t seem to matter to the majority of his supporters who still don’t have a full picture of their savior.

Despite eyebrow-raising revelations that continue to surface, such as about Paul not believing in the separation between church and state or the donations he accepts from white supremacist groups, nothing is stronger than the love a Paul fanboy has for his golden idol. Ask a left-leaning Paul supporter why they don’t just support a better candidate like Dennis Kucinich and they’ll put forth the anti-democratic group-think argument of electability having precedence over platform. Irony anyone? Why not just support Hillary and get it over with?

Ron Paul: I don’t believe in evolution


December 21, 2007

It’s actually pretty shocking that Paul would use the “evolution is just a theory” argument to justify his nonacceptance of it. In science, a Theory is not merely an opinion, but a well-supported and testable explanation of how nature works. Doctor Paul must surely know the error in putting something like the geological theory of plate tectonics and my cousin’s theory that Alf is really an alien and not a muppet on equal footing. Paul has shown how extremely misinformed he is on matters of science with his solution to environmental degradation already. Perhaps we should exercise a bit of intelligent design ourselves by electing a president with at least an elementary school understanding of what constitutes scientific evidence this time around, and not someone who thinks “both sides” are equally credible.


Updated: 12.26.07


Audience member: “I saw you in one of the earlier debates, all of the candidates were asked if they believe the theory of evolution to be true and they had a show of hands, but I didn’t see which way you voted, and I was wondering if you believe it to be true, and should it be taught in our schools.”

Paul: “First, I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And I, um, I think it’s a theory, theory of evolution, and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory…. I just don’t think we’re at a point where anybody has absolute proof, on either side.”

h/t: Hugo Chavez


Ron Paul uses essentially the same kind of reasoning as Creationists regarding evolution vs creationism.

With the theory of evolution it’s like any other theory in science: it is a “theory” exactly -because- it is supported by evidence and because there is no evidence to the contrary. “Proof” is a mathematical concept that has very little to do with theories.

Nor is any scientific theory “fact”. With scientific theories it is verifiable observations (aka “facts”) that matter.

Creationism aka Intelligent Design on the other hand is not even a theory; it is at nothing but an idea.

This and everything else you need to know about this ‘controversy’ – among which is the fact that Creationism and Intelligent Design are in fact one and the same – is in this PBS/NOVA docu about the trial of “Kitzmiller v. Dover” in Dover, Pennsylvania:

Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial


Video link

“In 2004, the Dover, Pennsylvania school board established a policy that science teachers would have to read a statement to biology students suggesting that there is an alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution called intelligent design. Intelligent design, or ID, claims that certain features of life are too complex to have evolved naturally, and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent agent. The Dover high school science teachers refused to comply with the policy, refused to read the statement. And parents opposed to the school board’s actions filed a lawsuit in federal court.

The trial that followed was fascinating. It was like a primer, like a biology textbook. Some of the nation’s best biologists testified. When I began delving into the case, it was clear that both the trial and the issue were perfect subjects for NOVA.”

h/t: Hugo Chavez


On The Issues: Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul by Lo

Why Did Ron Paul Vote Against Impeachment? By Manila Ryce

20 thoughts on “Just a Theory: Ron Paul Doesn’t “Accept” Evolution By Manila Ryce (video) (updated)

  1. Pingback: Teaching Creation or Evolution? Or Both? By Roland Michel Tremblay « Dandelion Salad

  2. hmmm. It’s the usual case of for or against evolutionary theory, which evolutionists make…you’re either for or against. This is how we are taught. Actually it’s not one coherent theory. Evolution of species is one aspect, the one we’re led to believe, but about which there is no evidence whatsoever..it’s a theory, that’s all.
    A distinction between theory and idea is not useful here.
    ANother aspect of evolution is Darwin’s predecessor, Lamark, who proposed the inheritance of acquired characteristics, and so we evolve or adapt. In fact , most evolutionary theory could be re=named theory of adaptation – not merely species but also families or communities. And, adaptation makes good sense, even in the case of a pianist bring up a child to plat the piano, who acquires the characteristics necessary for skilful playing. ANd so, we can marvel at the power of adaptation, or the body in general, including healing itself through ..diet – food! You can call it medicine, but all plants are medicinal. I don’t think theory of speciation through evolution can broach that subject of adaptation – i.e through competition for food light and shelter! And so, we begin to see how limited the theory is of speciation, and yet it cannot be separate from observation of adaptation. WHat adaptation shows is that theory of evolutionary speciation is narrow and rather facile: It cannot account for the adaption and survival occurring at the time. The there’s sociobiological theory, and even giving one’s life for others. SO ow do these adaptions get encoded? According to speciation theory , by ‘random’ mutation. Excellent – herre we have the hub of the real confusion: WHat the hell is random , then – if not the opposite of design? WHat the hell is random, anyway? And, yet we know small organisms mutate in according to their chemical environment. This points to inheritance of acquired characteristics. BAsically, alll the evidence oints at this thoery of adaptaiton- yet we are taught the opposite, with a magic word ‘random’. Yet so many ‘scientists’, without question adhere to this notion, and could never handle being questioned about the word. SO, you see, the theory is lame, and depends upon a word. A magic.
    The real proof is always around the corner – like through genetic decoding…incvisible ot ordinary people’s eyes. Yes but also invisibleto the sceintists…they have no grasp of the theory itsef – rooted in language…yet plod in with a ‘snapshot’ view in a collaborative effort to produce the proof, and tell us it’s here now…QUOTE “genetic variation and resultant species modification and adaptation is entirely derailed by the decoding of genomes just in these last years, in which the entire process of evolution is now shown to be catalogued in molecular form within chromosomes and DNA…” sounds grand: ‘entire process’. The whole statement is a ridiculous hopeful suggestion. A conclusion without valid observation, or theory-testing. My own points about adaptation should show that the sentence is meaningless in terms of adaptation, at least. ANy one working on their phd in that department would of course swallow it whole, or flunk the ‘privilige’. A scientist is not necessarily a free and bright thinker. Most scientists are weak when it comes to theory, and merely continue with their research, as directed. They simply lack rigour in philosophy and language. In fact it is that general or of scientist (the usual kind) that is dogmatic in their approach.
    QUOTE ” even Stephen Hawking..” WHat, he is god? It doesn’t matter what is said. Look, the big bang is just another vain effort by materialist s to explain the theory of the universe. FOr one thing, there was no one around to HEAR the bang. I think they mean ‘explosion’..a moving outward. So it tells us nothing, it’s a description of nothing becoming space and matter all of a sudden. The fact remains, matter cannot beget matter, and so material scientists cannot explain the universe. Why is that? Perhaps because, as child could tell you , at root there has to be something other than merely matter. It’s no use substituting the word matter with energy manifest as matter. We know of no energy by scientific instrumentation or eye that is separate from matter. Likewise, material considerations cannot explain speciation, let alone life.

    The sad thing is the arrogance ands stupidity of materialist scientists who scoff at intelligent people who merely present the alternative design theory for their children’s consideration. Which leave s me cold, at such manners.

    Doctor Paul was correct to in what he said, and shows himself to be exceptionally bright and knowledgeable.

  3. Thanks for those, Lo. You clearly do have an amazingly talented literary mind (but if you can do numbers too? Well that just ain’t fair! ;~) I for one found I like to write at length (obviously, lol) as long-winded lyrics help those of us with a little less ram in our hard-drive to coalesce our thoughts longhand (and some like me could clearly use an editor!). But I’m busy trying to get my mental ship up to speed, people like y’all instead find a way to ‘fold space-time’ and get there with few words, without even having to think about it!

    Rocket’s got the right answer, until we find a few more facts about the big bang. But I seriously blew my cover once when I got up the gumption to ask a physicist on-air (might’ve been Michio Kaku? who was tying my brain in knots with super-strings and dark matter) if the universe weren’t indeed a very big clock, and if once the laws of physics were coalesced, were not all these ‘chance molecular encounters’ ever since, in fact pre-ordained (relegating the future to the past’s trajectory)?

    Needless to say he fairly laughed me off the air, talking about Niels Bohr and uncertainty principles, etc. my mind has remained in a befuddled torpor ever since!

    Hicks is another highly pithy person at least twice as far ahead of me at any particular moment on most topics– A side-splitting way to start this particular holiday if you have any frustration over biblical literalists (but if this is indeed an ‘f’-free day, especially about biblical themes, then those who might be offended would do well to pass over the material below):

    I did that search on Projectplaylist again (try this link, it’s about midway on the second page at: http://search.playlist.com/tracks/bill-hicks/2), and found this mp3 link for the ‘dinosaurs in the bible’ bit, (hope it’ll pup-up a player for folks, but I do seem to get a little loopy over links, lol!)

    [audio src="http://www.pastpeak.com/clips/Dinosaurs%20Bill%20Hicks.mp3" /]

    There’s a U-Tube of this bit, but a slightly less well-timed version thant the audio on, perhaps (what am I saying! could I ever even remember an act, let alone create it, and actually perform it? George Carlin always amazes me that way— another frustrated former Catholic like Hicks who drops serious science about the ‘Ten Commandments’):


    Someone on a quote-site took the time to write some of it down:
    “You believe the world’s 12 thousand years old? “That’s right.” Okay I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready? “Uh huh.” Dinosaurs. You know the world’s 12 thousand years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you’d think it would have been mentioned in the f**ing Bible at some point. “And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus…with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin’: ‘What a big fucking lizard, Lord!’ But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus’s paw and the big lizard became his friend.”

    “Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith.” Thank God I’m strapped in right now here man. I think God put you here to test my faith, Dude. You believe that? “Uh huh.” Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be…f***in’ with our heads? I have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around: “Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha HA.”

  4. Yes, I do, Power to the Voices. I’m more of a numbers-person, and am certainly not a writer. I keep things short, sweet and to the point for the most part.

    I do enjoy reading others’ great writing, though. Thank you for all your comments, my friend. I edited your link by adding two that at least go to Bill Hicks on sacredcow, not sure if that’s exactly where you wanted to take us or not.

    Evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive either, although the fundamentalist Christians would like that to be so. “God created the world… very slowly.” From my friend, Rocket.

  5. Aha! You do boil things down dontcha Lo?

    That’s a sure sign of a brilliant mind (what’s simple to you ‘phenomenon’-types has the rest of us searching for syntax~).

    I dunno if this link will get you to the extremely brilliant ‘Dinosaurs In The Bible’ by Bill Hicks, but I found him via the Project Palylist mp3 search engine. and hold him close to my heart ever since:



  6. Hope,
    Your point about counterproductive conflict notwithstanding, this conflating of bible-based evolution-underminers and Dennis’s ‘phone home’ moment is hardly fair.

    The skepticism about genetic variation and resultant species modification and adaptation is entirely derailed by the decoding of genomes just in these last years, in which the entire process of evolution is now shown to be catalogued in molecular form within chromosomes and DNA.

    A ‘UFO’, on the other hand. could be any number of things, provided it was ‘unidentified’ and ‘flying’.

    Anyone familiar with plastics or polymers in any form must acknowledge the existence of molecular manipulation. ‘Survival of the fittest’ is a matter of logic as much as theory, but is proven in species by the fossil record as well as observation and morphology.

    The proven reality of genetic mutation and resultant modified form, combined with Gregor Mendel’s old observations about the variability of traits and dominant/recessive probability should be more than enough to settle the question of the existence of evolution. The ‘divine forefinger’ myth should have long ago been relegated to the permanently obsolete.

    What people should be instead concerned about is the right-wing’s muddling of ‘survival of the fittest’ into this concept of ‘social Darwinism’, which is a bastardization of biology of mengele-like proportions. I’d be interested in the position die-hard capitalists and racists like Ron Paul who debunk biological evolution have on ‘social Darwinism’, and how many such minds espouse that corrupt social theory while claiming they eschew the biology of natural selection.

    But in all fairness to the ‘divine design’ people, even Stephen Hawking reminds us that if we knew the reason for the Big Bang, we’d know “the mind of god”.

    But that’s the only really religious question remaining at present. This fabricated kindergarten controversy about Darwinian evolution is thoroughly resolved by scientific observation. Indeed evolution is proved, and Paul is just apparently too old, or old-fashioned and behind the times to flex his mind with the new math (or he’s daft, or he’s got supporters to appease, but in any case, he’s wrong, and therefore untrustworthy regardless of his motives).

    As Christians once tried so hard to gag Galileo, their popes will be likewise apologizing to Charles Darwin soon enough. This failure by fundamentalists to learn from embarrassing past blunders is no reason for them to align with a far-out political campaign (more like a reason to get counseling and drive the demons of biblical superstitious indoctrination from their logical faculties).

    Evolutionary ‘theory’ is as we speak, now being proven to be natural law in our very era, and we are fortunate for the clarification of the nature of matter. We need not be nostalgic for an old myth that can no longer prevail (thought the Cistine ceiling will always be one of the great works of all time). Evolution is not ersatz science (like the ‘Bell Curve’, for example).

    But bear in mind, Paul also attempts to debunk Global Climate change (Hmmm, fundamentalist christian extremist biblical literalism and bogus environmental ‘science’ in support of lobbyist smokestacks… sounds sorta familiar, like a new ‘brave neo-world order’, some revolution indeed!)

    But It happens that paul is a senior citizen, and in his era much science has transpired. Genetics is one of those fields on the fast track, and unfortunately even an MD like Paul can’t apparently keep up with the findings (Of course pro-business corprocrats will be happy to exploit the marketable aspects of biotech, but ask them to admit that the existence of biotech can’t help but prove evolution? That’s just gotta be commie propaganda!).

    By all means, keep asking why we’re here, why the big bang happened, and why the indelible laws of particle physics that coalesced within seconds after the Universe was born are as they are, perpetuating like clockwork this astronomical machine that in fact, resulted in our EVOLUTION into our present, self-aware form.

    But creationism, in any form as described in any religious superstition invented thus far, is just backward and misinformed myth, and by now intentionally obtuse.

    It’s long since time to give up the biblical myths of creation. This is the generation in which that old myth is entirely, categorically, and irretrievably disproved.

  7. Pingback: Ron Paul on Meet The Press 12-23-07 (videos) « Dandelion Salad

  8. Pingback: Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul « Dandelion Salad

  9. Ron Paul said that evolution was a theory and that he did not believe that anyone had absolute truth on either side of the question. He also said it was not an appropriate question for a presidential candidate.

    He also quoted Sinclair Lewis that if facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. He has also, on many occasions, made the point that politics should be free of religion and he does not like discussing his personal religious views as a candidate.

    What part of this is the auther of this article not able to understand?

  10. “Democracy” means majority rule, which means that “might makes right”.

    Those who champion “democracy” are usually the ones who want to vote themselves a living out of someone else’s pocket. There is no principled difference between democracy and communism. They both mean that the group will sacrifice the liberty and property of the individual when they choose.

    By contrast, we have (or had) a republic that guards the individual against the group and this is why Ron Paul speaks of the individual and property rights so often. It is why he and his supporters are so hated by the collectivists who aren’t about to give up robbing their neighbors to get free stuff from the government in the name of “democracy”.

    The author of this article may not know anything, but he sure has mastered snide, and that’s all democracy needs. Facts and reason shouldn’t stand in the way of the “people”.

    He even apparently wants Ron Paul to send money to white supremisists. But as an individualist who understands that racism is a particularly ugly form of collectivism, Ron Paul will ignore the morons and use the money to fight for their liberty to be morons.

    As for evolution, it is actually a group of theories, some of which are untestable, unprovable and quite controversial, even among scientists. Demanding that everyone accept them because the collective has decided they are true is far more ignorant and intolerant than courteously leaving room for questions, as Ron Paul does.

  11. Yea who cares what he thinks of evolution? This guy is the best leader hands down. Just look at what these people try to smear him with in spite of the level of leadership he exudes. They actually call themselves out. I love it.


  12. Really, John Doe? Last I checked, the more democracy you have, the more likely you are to wind up a totalitarian, impoverished, police state. That’s why the Constitution was written to dampen the destructive effects of pure democracy. Why does it matter whether a tyrannical government appoints itself directly or uses a system of democracy in which mindless parasitic voters elect it? Either way, freedom is not a high priority. The only real solution is to devise ways to limit as fully as possible the power government has and thus the damage it can do.

  13. I could care less about whether he believes in evolution or not. What people should be concerned about is Paul’s opposition to Democracy and support of minority rule. We shouldn’t support someone who supports anti-democratic government.

  14. Yeah, let’s elect a scientist this time around. It’s what this country desperately needs, as our dollar collapses, and an undeclared war rages on.

  15. My theory is that Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are the only two decent presidential candidates. And the corollary is that it is extremely foolish and counterproductive for Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul supporters to be attacking each other.

    You should know all too well about how the media is just playing dirty when they attack Dennis and Ron on petty flying saucer type issues while ignoring the important critical issues like our loss of civil liberties and never ending wars.

  16. He simply does not impose his “beliefs” on others. His record shows it. I don’t understand the point of this article. What’s this is supposed to “prove”? That he believes in creation? Who cares? Educating the young is a State/Local level government function. Not a federal level function. His platform clearly states removing the Department of Education, because it’s NOT supposed to be a national issue. Foreign Policy, national defense… those are national. Could we stick to the REAL national issues please? It sounds like some want the national government to control everything. I’d rather be free to think what I want, without the feds imposing either as a solution. That’s why the constitution exists.

  17. Yeah. thats not what he said. he said “its a theory…there is evolution”. – He recognized that is a theory, that evolution occurs and thats its a point of contention. He’s not a religious ideologue.

  18. Not that what someone thinks about evolution actually amounts to a hill of beans


    it is interesting that you claim evolution is testable…really?

    You have actually observed one species changing into another? (mutations don’t really count, I am looking for an example of species transformation)

Comments are closed.