When compared to the other Republican presidential candidates, Ron Paul seems almost sane (but then, in that crowd so would L. Ron Hubbard). But before you think he will swoop in and save us from far-right theocrats like Huckabee and Romney, think again. When asked what he thinks about evolution, here was his response:
I will have plenty to say about these guys soon enough — I think they are all quite unfit to command a country in the 21st century, since they seem to believe in the methods of the Middle Ages. But let me make one comment…
On a bulletin board I read, someone posed a question: imagine a candidate with whom you agreed on every issue, but who did not "believe" in evolution (I put it in quotation marks because saying that is like saying you don’t "believe" in gravity). Would you support that candidate?
You might think the answer is contingent; what about the other candidates? How do they compare? But I think that doesn’t matter. If a candidate did not "believe" in evolution, then I 100% guarantee that I will not agree with them on many other issues, and these issues will be of utmost import. The First Amendment, for example. Plus, any candidate who thinks one of the most basic laws of science is wrong would then be prey to any other antiscience huckster who wants to deny global warming, the benefits of stem cell research, and the importance of alternative energy sources… and probably dozens of other things.
Once you deny reality, the door to any and all evil is wide open.
And don’t forget: evolution is not the be-all and end-all of creationists. They want to deny the true age of the Universe, and that touches on literally all divisions of science, from astronomy to zoology. Given their way, the entire endeavor of science would be scrapped, replaced with Biblical teachings, and that would just be the start of the reversion of our society to the pre-Enlightenment. This is no exaggeration. One need only read the Wedge Document to see what these folks want to turn our world into.
And Ron Paul buys into that garbage– or he panders to those who do, which is essentially the same thing. Just so’s you know.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
I’ve known about this before, but I still support him because he geniunely wants to keep his own beliefs, whether they be religious or not, out of the country’s affairs. For example, he doesn’t necessarily agree with homosexual marriage, but he said its not the Government’s place to say it is wrong. It seems to me that he will take a similar stance regarding all things of this matter.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
The difference between Ron Paul and the other candidates is that he won’t force his beliefs on others.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
“I think it was a very inappropriate question for the presidency to be decided on a scienfific matter” !!!!!one!!!!! that’s scary.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Evolution is a theological issue???
why can’t these guys just say they are theistic evolutionists…..they would loose a few right wingnuts but, they would at least appear sane
December 26th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I agree with the other comments here that he has said that it’s not the government’s place to force his beliefs on others.
The other problem is that the Dem side isn’t much better. Hillary can’t even answer a question, she just seems to sidestep everything. And the Obama that spoke at the DNC during the last election is long gone, replaces with a shadow of the previous Obama that’s been overgroomed by his campaign.
You also have to remember that while Ron Paul is running on the Republican ticket, he’s really a Libertarian.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Let me just add that I will most likely vote for Ron Paul, mostly because he’s at least different. The two party system is giving us crappy choices, and as Penn says, a vote for the lesser of two evils is still evil.
I don’t think Ron Paul is evil, I just think he’s a whacko that will mix up the pot a little. It may be a crappy 4 years if he wins, but things will look a LOT different come the next election if he does.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Here we come, the Ron Paul army, to defend our candidate.
Others have said it, but it’s worth repeating.
Just as it is absurd for certain groups to support a candidate for his personal beliefs, it’s also absurd to reject a candidate for them.
Ron Paul has such a following because he knows the difference between his personal beliefs and his government office. His whole platform is that the presidential power and federal government should be limited.
I’ll take a religious nut (which he’s not) who wants LESS power over any other candidate who wants more. PERIOD.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I gotta say, that didn’t scare me away from Ron Paul as much as I expected it to.
It seems like he’s saying he doesn’t believe in it, but he want any laws on the issue, so his opinion doesn’t really matter. He just doesn’t want to make the scientific debate (of which there really is none) into a political debate.
It’s strange that you mention you wouldn’t agree with Ron Paul on the first amendment, because Ron Paul supports the first amendment more than any other candidate I know of, so does that mean you wouldn’t support the first amendment and his right to say something stupid like the fact that he doesn’t believe in evolution?
December 26th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
When did evolution become a “one of the most basic laws of science”? I thought it was still a theory…
December 26th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Representative Pauls’ views on the Theory of Evolution are only a minor issue compared with his association with neonazis. See the attached links.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/12/can_someone_explain_to_me_why.php
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/neonazi_leader_says_paul_is_on.php#more
December 26th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
> because Ron Paul supports the first amendment more than any other candidate I know of
Well, yes, since he apparently thinks Congress doesn’t have the right to pass any laws. But since he voted for defense of marriage why does anyone believe him?
December 26th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Here we go again. Ron Paul stated in his essay “The War on Religion” that, and I quote:
“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.”
This is a man, who implies that he is a Libertarian, but, who has, obviously, never read the Constitution. I began by supporting him, but, as I have learned more about him, I can no longer do so. He is no better than any of the folks running for president. None have any interests other than their own aggrandizement. None are interested in the least about improving the Country in any way. There is no evidence of anything but greed from any of them, and, as evidentiary minded folks, we are supposed to be influenced by facts, aren’t we?
December 26th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
>zmeister
Well, so is the theory of gravity.
However, I do think there’s a difference between gravity and evolution (to play the devil’s advocate here). Anyone can readily see the effects of gravity in action, say, and apple falling from the tree. No one, on the other hand, has ever seen the true effects of evolution (or, to be more precise, evolution brought about by natural selection) in action. That is definitely one of the reasons why it’s so much harder to persuade fundamentalists compared to other issues, e.g., heliocentricity, gravity, etc.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Look. Who decided evolution and faith in a creation God are impossible to co-exist? What is time to God? I believe in the triune God and am incredibly excited when I think about the Big Bang being the spark of life. Light was everywhere!
I too am worried about a leader of our country saying evolution does not exist. It’s embarrassing.
I teach 8th grade science in Florida. This year the science standards are being revised and will include the teaching of evolution. Currently they read the “student knows that the fossil record provides evidence that changes in the kinds of plants and animals in the environment have been occurring over time.” Last year, my first year of teaching this content, I was kidding around and reported to my colleagues that “I was using the “E” word.” Surprisingly, some of the other teachers said they had just skipped over that part of the curriculum. I was shocked that this was even an issue.
Let’s keep moving forward. Science is a discovery process. One must look at the evidence. Denying the existance of the evolutionary process does not hurt the scientist. It makes the speaker look ignorant.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
bigjohn… “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Would you be so kind and comment where does Paul’s statement clash with the first amendment?
Let’s take e.g. voluntary prayer at public schools. Can you comment where the constitution allows congress to pass laws to ban it?
Paul is libertarian who believes in decentralization of power (most do, right?). Thus, he wants federal government to pass NO laws regarding religion. What’s wrong with that?
December 26th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Even though I have no proof of it I am SLC’s friend and we both believe in creationism, big foot, and hate Canadians. I say this, as SLCs friend, with the same amount of proof the neo-Nazi’s have that Ron Paul supports their beliefs. SLC may claim I am not his friend and he doesn’t believe in big foot just how Ron Paul has publicly denounced the neo-Nazi’s but I am still SLC’s friend and he still believes in psychics. Now me and SLC will go and drink some homeopathic water and get super powers because that is what we believe in.
It’s nice to see people using reason and fact checking on a skeptic website.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124032.html
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124051.html
December 26th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
“When compared to the other Republican presidential candidates, Ron Paul seems almost sane (but then, in that crowd so would L. Ron Hubbard). ”
Just curious, does this mean if you only had the choice of the Republican candidates and L. Ron Hubbard, that you would cast your vote for Hubbard?
December 26th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
RawheaD: “No one, on the other hand, has ever seen the true effects of evolution (or, to be more precise, evolution brought about by natural selection) in action.”
Never heard of the “super bugs” that are immune to the best antibiotics we have, just as one fer instance? Didn’t happen by magic.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
A candidate who does not believe in evolution is not one that will be able to bring our country safely through the next flu pandemic.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
If Ron Paul had a snowball’s chance of winning the Republican nod, I suppose I’d be more concerned. As it stands now, all I see is a sad and addlepated old man desperately trying to make whatever friends he can.
I’m pretty certain most rational people would have left the country long before that sort of situation became possible.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
@Zmeister:
I would -HIGHLY- recommend watching Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. It’s linked to somewhere in this blog, but it’s also a quick “pbs judgement day” google search away. The problem here is people misinterpreting the meaning of the word “theory”, and this is due in large part to the poor state of science education in the nation. Just as in mathematics a theorem may be regarded as a law and used for proofs, so may a theory of science be regarded as a law, I.E. Gravity or Electromagnetism. A scientific theory is more than just an idea; an idea is simply a hypothesis. A theory has large amounts of repeatable experimental evidence behind it. The advantage of a theory over a plain fact is that while a fact may be disproved with a single counter-example, a theory is much harder to disprove. A single counter-example to a theory will not destroy the theory, rather strengthen it. The counter-example may lead to a more elegant, complete theory that comes closer to the -TRUTH- and -REALITY- than the earlier theory. This is the purpose of the scientific method, which is often confused with being an establishment, while it is in reality a methodology for approaching a question and obtaining an answer.
Having studied, and beginning research in bioinformatics (A fancy word that, while not as fancy as “computational molecular biology”, means using computers to analyze DNA) it’s rather insulting on an almost personal level when someone denies evolution. The physical evidence is there in DNA, and computers are used only because of the truly gargantuan amount of information that is stored in just four chemical compounds. We can do some pretty amazing things with math and computer science (which is honestly just abstract logic), and we can look into the past given a few sequences of DNA. There is simply -so much- overwhelming evidence for evolution that I think many scientists forget how to rationally and simply explain it without resorting to “Well if you don’t trust us you’re just wrong”. The information is there, we just need to be calm in explaining the truth. On the other hand, I am also somewhat cynical and think that there are some people who are just too far-gone for reason.
That being said, I think Judge Jones from the Dover trial is a good example of someone who is honestly willing to learn. Going into the trial, everyone expected him to side with the supporters of Intelligent Design; he was appointed by Bush and confirmed by the neo-cons, but the scientists on the prosecution walked him through the evidence for biology.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
andy, Ron Paul thinks that the Constitution is ‘replete with references to god’. The Constitution makes NO REFERENCE TO GOD WHATSOEVER! Therefore, Ron Paul shows his ignorance of the Constitution.
He says, “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.” That is false, if he knew anything about the Constitution and its history, he would realize that the authors of the document were seriously concerned, maybe even afraid of giving politicians the power to impose their personal views of religion upon the populace through their legislative powers because most of them did not want to be forced to be Christian. (G. W. Bush has created his Christian theocracy through signing statements which the Supreme Court has illogically declared immune from legal action.)
By the same token, Congress cannot impede anyone from practicing their religion as they wish. But, where does it say that, when forced by religious people to use public tax money to proselytize, people of other faiths or no faith at all, cannot “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” to avoid being forced to worship some arbitrary god or other.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
“If a candidate did not “believe” in evolution, then I 100% guarantee that I will not agree with them on many other issues, and these issues will be of utmost import. The First Amendment, for example.”
That’s the craziest statement I’ve seen in a long time, and I sometimes read The Daily Kos!
Hitler believed in evolution, and in fact did his best to help it along in the direction he thought right. Kind of like what Algore wants.
Come to think of it, Algore has about as much problem with the first amendment as Hitler did.
It’s sad to see a rational person slip away in the grip of BDS.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
After reading this, I started perusing Ron Paul’s web site. More distressing, perhaps, than his view of evolution is his view on dietary supplements. He actually doesn’t want the FDA to be allowed to regulate the manufacture and sale of supplements, which are concentrated far more than they would ever appear in nature. He favors the status quo of supplements manufacturers claiming whatever they want about the composition of their products. What makes this even more egregious is that he’s an MD (OB/GYN). Does he seriously advocate that children and pregnant women take what amounts to medications with unknown provenance?
December 26th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
@Jim Howard:
That’s a serious logical flaw. “A then B” does not imply “not A then not B”. I’m sure we’d all find points of agreement with Hitler: “If you drop something, it falls.” I’m 100% certain that anyone who diagrees with this is someone with whom I’ll disagree on other major issues (”fall” is in the context of responding appropriately to the strength of the local gravitational field, of course).
December 26th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
RawheaD, every time a certain type of bacteria becomes resistant to certain antibiotic, you see evolution by natural selection happening. And that’s only one example. There are plenty more.
Just wanted to make that point. You can actually see evolution in action around you.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I really don’t understand why people (and young people in particular) are voting for Ron Paul. Are the Ron Paul voters Republicans who are dissenting from the mainstream Republican position? Or are they completely unaware of his position on the majority of issues? Do they like him because he’s quirky and doesn’t like the Republican-party’s foreign policy? He has a lot of wacky ideas. For example, he’s been advocating that the US should withdraw from the UN for the last 20 years. As far as I can tell, he’s just another social conservative republican + a bunch of his wacky ideas (many of them taken from far right pundits - people on the right have been advocating taking the US out of the UN for a long time).
December 26th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
@Jim Howard
That’s Reducto Ad Hitlerum, it’s flawed logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducto_ad_hitlerum
Furthermore Eugenics is practiced daily in the world of dog breeding. Then again I don’t want this to fall into an ethical debate on eugenics and its sociological effects.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Sorry for this double post but I forgot to add: Why do you say Algore instead of Al Gore, and what’s your problem with him? Has Futurama taught you nothing?
December 26th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Hitler believed in evolution, and in fact did his best to help it along in the direction he thought right. Kind of like what Algore wants.
How well Hitler, who was a great fan of pseudosciences and mysticism, actually understood evolution? His idea of the Aryan race was from Madame Blavatsky, not from Charles Darwin. It is true that in the late 19th century and the early 20th century many of Darwin’s ideas were perverted to serve racist purposes (both intentionally and unintentionally) by colonial powers.
Al Gore, even if he may be somewhat sensationalist and irritating, has based his claims on solid science produced by climatologists.
—
Re: Ron Paul, space-oriented readers should note that he strongly supports dismantling and privatization of NASA. If you can imagine that space sciences and astronomy can thrive without public funding, I congratulate you for having a really good imagination.
Being a citizen of a country that has a good social security system and top-quality public schools, I don’t understand the right-wing libertarian utopia of a low-tax society promoted by RP and others. It can only lead to a catastrophe if there isn’t any mechanism that smooths property differences.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Atheists who would otherwise be inclined to support Ron Paul, theo-nut, ought to consider Libertarian Frontrunner George Phillies, who has clearly stated he will not be sworn in on any religious text.
Disclaimer: he is my former Professor.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
I was one of the 25,000 first time contributors to the Ron Paul presidential campaign on Dec. 16th. I really like Dr. Paul’s adherence to the philosophies of our founding fathers. I especially like the “no entanglements” part. With every pothole that I crash through and every creaky bridge that I survive, I think towards the time when President Paul’s sound domestic/foreign policies have Americans working to repair USA infrastructure instead of destroying and then rebuilding the rest of the world. Why just the cash given to Israel alone would have paid for the “$14 Billion Dollar Big Dig” in just over two (2) years. Next year Israel wants the cash in euros.
So many of Dr. Paul’s young supporters are written off as freaks, flakes or even worse. What I have come to understand is that many of them are the families and friends of all these young people coming back from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They know that they are next to be shipped off to some foreign land to fight and die in these endless wars that only the bankers love. Is that why this government pushes so hard for ever more poverty stricken immigrants? They need the poor for their war! Say, NO MORE!
Our government has admitted that almost 4,000 of our children have been killed so far in this war for Israel. Tens of thousands have been horribly maimed and burned. A literal army of teenagers and twenty-somethings in their wheelchairs. They have been permanently disfigured and they will forever suffer from this insane war for Israel.
I am almost fifty years old and I have always voted. I have already changed my party to Republican for the primary in my state (FL). I will be voting for Dr. Paul.
For the first time in my life, I sent $50 to a politician.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
That still does not address the issues raised in the comments made here or the original blog post. And after reading about his views on the FDA, I have to say this guy is getting scarier and scarier. Couldn’t the republicans find someone who is NOT Senator Palpatine?
December 26th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
@Mike Marsh
I think that you’ll find that Libertarians would opt to keep the government completely out of most things. Stem cell research funding, drug regulation(prescription and street), regulating corporate activities of any kind, etc., etc.. I agree with a lot of this as long as folks had some guaranteed recourse in case of injury. Maybe a few more people would be injured at first, probably not, but soon irresponsible entities would fall by the wayside as their culpability became known. In the meantime, we, the people, would be rid of the cumbersome, inefficient, irresponsible, expensive, government bureaucracies we must tolerate now.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
The reason why Ron Paul doesn’t believe in evolution is simple - he wants to get elected to Congress in a Texas district that’s allergic to evolution. There are some lines you don’t cross in Texas and get elected as a Republican, and that’s one of them. End of story.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
@bigjohn:
Government out of most things, yes, but not everything. Matters of public safety are perfectly reasonable, from the libertarian perspective. Libertarians aren’t anarchists. There’s a compelling public interest in preventing snake-oil salesmen from peddling unknown potions with improbable claims. That’s just what the supplement industry is doing today. Supplements are ingested, but are legally neither food nor medication. There is no standard for their safety nor composition. The current standard is even worse than seeking recourse in the event of damages. The FDA can’t do anything until people die from a particular supplement.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
For Andy-perhaps you should check out the last 150 years of “evolving” constitutional law. While I appreciate the value of state’s rights, I do not believe that states, including agencies run by states, should be able to circumvent the constitution. Should a person have to pray to God to get notarized? For food stamps? To register a car?
Congress and the supreme court have started to recognize that a state with millions of citizens is almost a nation unto itself. So you would rather force hundreds of thousands of people to pray against their will and religion, or else leave a state, rather than just living up to the principles of the United States? As long as schools are public, they are an extension of government. If Indian immigrants became a majority in your state or county, would you send your kids to achieve Brahman in public school, or would you look to the government to protect your rights?
School prayer is just another example of the inherent absurdity and dishonesty of institutional religion in a free country. Time and experience have shown me (and Thomas Jefferson, and anybody else who lives in the real world but still makes time to crack a book now and then) that religious idealogues will make any excuse, twist any law, oppress any minority, just to get their way. There are plenty of religious schools out there which, thanks to the same supreme court that stopped mandatory prayer in public schools, are still recieving some of my tax dollars. If you want prayer in public schools, I want a refund! Just kidding, keep the money. I’m not as easily bought as a libertarian.
Sorry for going so far off-topic, but I will not vote for any presidential candidate who shows complete ignorance of these issues. But hey, I’m a college dropout. Maybe my expectations are too high.
December 26th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Hopefully someone else has already said this in the above comments, but please don’t fall for the “Ron Paul doesn’t want to force his beliefs on anyone” nonsense. He is an absolute fraud who cares little for the constitution outside of where it serves himself, and he most certainly wants to force his beliefs on everyone else. Against abortion? OK, say its a “state issue” and tell the federal government not to get involved, quite obviously ensuring that a majority of Republican states ban it. Against the rich paying taxes? OK, get rid of income tax and advocate a “fair” national sales tax that “effects everyone equally,” ignoring the fact that the poor are the ones who get screwed. I could go on, but people who vote for Ron Paul aren’t going to change their minds. He is even fraudulent about lowering federal spending, since he has a long history of trying to get federal money for his own Texan constituency, while simultaneously being such a critical of spending anywhere else. Even in principle he’s a lunatic, we can’t get rid of the IRS, hamstring the federal government, etc., even if its fitting with what the founding fathers said. It no longer takes a week to cross a state-line, we don’t live in a world where those laws would work. If you still need proof he’s a loon, just look up how he feels about the Civil War (apparently it was a mistake, and the South should still have slavery).
December 26th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
>>Scriven Taylor
Are you that enamored with Ron Paul??? He is quite obviously denying the fact of evolution in any context because of his overbearing religious views, you give him an absurd amount of credit. Then again, it’s hard to understand someone who would argue that “it is fair to say that much of it does not truly qualify as theory for lack of observation and predictions.”
Newsflash Ron Paul, President Bush, etc.: Evolution isn’t some ivory-tower hypothesis, and hasn’t been for well over a CENTURY.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
I don’t believe in a creator, because that always leads you to the question of who created the creator, but I believe in Ron Paul. Imagine a Great Grandparent, who loved you very much, was a church-goer & believer, but never pressed you to believe what they believed. That’s Ron Paul. Who cares about it anyway? Religion in politics has caused too much war and fighting. Keep it in the home, that’s what Dr. Paul wants to do, make sure we keep our Liberty and Freedom to think/do/have what we want. Give him a chance, he’s a very good shot at getting things right in our world today. Get back on track America, we can be the light of the world again. Lady Liberty needs us all. I have heard from many oppressed people around the world that Dr. Paul’s message would begin to resonate and change our very world we live in. This is our chance. I read Dawkins, Sam Harris, so I know where you are coming from with the science of evolution. But I’m willing to let Ron Paul take the wheels of the ship, to steer us to becoming a more open, peaceful society, based on communication, trade and the rights of the individual. Then there might be a chance that people will open up to new ideas about where we really come from, why we are here and where we are going. The tension must ease first, and Ron Paul can do that for the world. There is too much tension right now, and if we aren’t careful, we could be amidst a very horrible WW3. We can’t do this. We’re running out of money and Paul has serious monetary strength and plans to keep us from all seeing our wealth disappear.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Whether or not he believes in evolution has no bearing on what he wants to do in office. Can you find any part of this platform or policy proposals that depend on religion?
Have you ever heard him justify his economic beliefs on his religious ones?
Can you find one, single, part of his platform that talks about evolution?
Its called “tolerance”, and you know what, I’m an atheist who believes I will turn to dust when I die. But I tolerate those who are religious, those who believe in creation, and even Mormons.
Open your mind just a little crack and imagine extending tolerance towards the religious as you demand they tolerate your atheism.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
The “Theory of Evolution” is not a single theory, but a generally agreed on set of theories. Because there is no definitive model for it, it is an arbitrary model, not a static and defined body. Because of this, what one person would call the Theory of Evolution subjective. Further, it is fair to say that much of it does not truly qualify as theory for lack of observation of predictions.
Nonsense. The Theory of Evolution is that organisms evolve from earlier forms by variation and selection. Do we see variation? Most certainly we do. Is there selection mechanisms that favor more suitable individuals? Certainly. Do we see organisms change over time? Yes, we do. Hence, Theory of Evolution is true.
There is certainly no lack of evidence. Ever heard of paleontology, for example?
Do you want a prediction? When was the last time you got flu? Your immune system stopped the viral attack and the particular strain has no longer any effect on you. Well, it is also true for everyone who were inflected and survived. However, the flu virus is unstable enough that it is able to produce new strains quickly. Peoples’ immune systems no longer recognize the virus and new round of flu starts. Since the old strain is no longer able to reproduce, it disappears and the new one spreads. Mutation and selection, i.e. evolution. I predict, based on the Theory of Evolution that you will catch a flu again.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Re WD
Mr. WDs’ claim that the Iraq war is a war for Israel is a god damn lie, typical of antisemitic Israel bashers. The Iraq war is over oil. Iraq has the worlds’ second largest proven oil reserves and, as peak oil approaches, access to that oil and potential denial of it to China is what the administration, particularly Vice President Cheney, is after. For the information of Mr. WD, the Mossad and the IDF leadership opposed the Iraq adventure, according to a Mr. Wilkerson, who was a top aide to SS Powell.
Re Friend of SLC
I haven’t got the faintest idea who this clown is but he is certainly no friend of mine. As the web site threads I cited have pointed out and the links they provided, Representative Paul has a long history of dalliance with neonazi front organizations such as stormfront. I don’t give a rats ass what he says when he’s running for president. Actions speak louder then words. By the way, as a PhD holder in elementary particle physics, I don’t believe in bigfoot, creationism, homeopathy, ESP, or PK.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Re Scriven Taylor
1. Apparently, Mr. Taylor is somewhat deficient in his reading ability. I provided two links which in turn provide sources for the claim that Representative Paul has past dalliances with neonazi individuals and organization.. I will once again provide the links for Mr. Taylors’ benefit.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/12/can_someone_explain_to_me_why.php
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/neonazi_leader_says_paul_is_on.php#more
2. Mr. Taylor is obviously somewhat deficient in his comments on the Theory of Evolution. In the first place, his claim that all pre-human remains would fit into a small box is total rubbish. The remains of Lucy alone would not fit into such a box. In the second place, the theory of evolution by which is meant common descent and speciation by means of natural selection/genetic drift has more evidence for it then perhaps any other scientific theory. Compare the theory of evolution with the General Theory of Relativity. For some 50 years, the only evidence supporting the latter theory was the calculation of the precession rate of the the orbit of the planet Mercury; i.e. one observation (no, the deflection of light by the Sun as measured during total eclipses was not sufficiently accurate to distinguish General Relativity from the Brans/Dicke theory).
December 26th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Evolution is actually several theories grouped under the one term and some of them are controversial and impossible to settle. Morons, like this author, like to pretend that they have the origins of all of life figured and so they can condescedingly dismiss anyone courteous enough to keep an open mind.
The same kind of morons are pushing the global warming nonsense, which isn’t several debates, it is hundreds of debates. I do believe that morons can be spotted by their love of sounding absolutely sure about everthing and contemptuous of anyone who dares to disagree.
Ron Paul is a gentleman, running for president, not god-scientist of the universe. He is promoting your right to make up your own mind. Hating him because he isn’t pushing your conclusions makes you a moron.
December 26th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Anybody who hasn’t been sleeping for the last 15 years would know that.
And calling any politician a ‘gentlemen’ and believing everything he says, is indicative of having been asleep for the last 5,000 years.
(Today’s blog sure is a hit
December 26th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Re John Reading
Actually, Mr. Reading shows himself to be a moron by conflating the theory of evolution with the origins of life. The fact is that the origins of life and evolution are two entirely separate theories which have nothing to do with each other. Evolution is a description of how life progresses after it originates. With his rejection of the theory of global climate change, Mr. Reading proves himself to be an equal opportunity denialist. How about the holocaust, the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, and the relationship between HIV and AIDS Mr. Reading?
December 26th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Science has been wrong on so many issues its ridiculous.They are constantly rewriting their facts anytime a scientist makes a claim I do not take it for reality.People that gobble up that crap as wrapped up in ther own little dogma called science >It come from the need to be right about everything.and believing they know everything
December 26th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Wow, mention Ron Paul and get a bunch of “true believers” . There seems to be no limit to those willing to speak up for him. He will never get the Republican nomination, end of story. I have some respect for many of the Libertarian ideas, and much reservation about others. The idea that shrinking government is valid, but it can not stand up to corporations, now. Imagine the damage if it became even weaker. We know what will happen, we saw it happen with the robber barrens of the late nineteenth century. The reduction of citizens to near slaves is hardly a thing to strive for. At least we can fire a politician, try to fire a CEO. Especially if you work 14 hrs. a day for just enough money to eat. If they think you are a trouble maker, they will fire you and let you starve. The middle class is endangered enough as it is.
This was once a skeptical site devoted to Astronomy. Soon as a man is insulted for thinking evolution is not true, the wackjobs come here in droves.
Some of the things I read here today,
Evolution is not supported by evidence.
Medical tests are not valid, and supplements are better because they are not tested.
You can run a government without taxes.
The war in Iraq is just for Israel.
The war in Iraq is just about oil.
These are nutjob ideas that any skeptic could easily counter. I would assume that these statements are from trolls. Why would anyone visit Bad Astronomy unless they are a skeptic of some sort, or a troll? I will not waste time playing wack-a-troll. I am just shocked these folks have nothing better to do than make crazy statements.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
I have run for office several times despite being an avowed atheist. As much as I want to serve and am convinced I could do an outstanding job in office, I have to accept that fact that I have essentially no chance to win in most parts of our country unless I somehow get “saved” at some point down the line. (If you ever see my do that, you will know I have sold out.) That is the sad fact though I am working hard to change things.
In the meantime I choose to support religious candidates like Dr. Paul who do not wear it on their sleeves, pander or look to impose their views on others. It is difficult to get Dr. Paul to even disclose his views on religion as he thinks those matters are not relevant to federal politics. (He admits that religion can be relevant at the state and local level, but his preference is to, first and foremost, let everyone practice or not as they so desire.)
As to the FDA, we are fast reaching point where the medical-industrial complex is becoming as dangerous as the military-industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned about so long ago. Dr. Paul is against both and believes that politicizing medicine is dangerous to our health. Consider this little recent dust up where the FDA reportedly denied terminal patients their treatment of choice:
http://www.fdlreporter.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071221/FON06/712210410/1346/FONopinion
Dr. Paul believes that medical regulation can best be provided by organizations that are beyond the beck and call of politicians, big pharma and other major players in the medical industrial complex. That makes sense to me. If we can trust a non-governmental agency like Underwriter’s Laboratories to regulate electrical devices, certainly this country can create and fund one or more trustworthy organizations to provide medical guidance to consumers that are not subject to political and financial manipulations.
Want another example? Go listen to Burt Rutan’s amazing recap of the history of flight and his views on what the future of spaceflight could
become if the government would simply step out of the way.
I like the idea of freedom. I think that smart people, unencumbered by bureaucrats and nanny state laws and in charge of more of their own personal wealth due to significantly lower taxes, can do a great amount of good and almost everyone, especially the middle class and poor, would benefit. You have to see the good in most people in order to trust this path, but I also understand that it also scares many people who are less convinced of the abilities and charitable inclinations of US citizens. If you decide that this path is desirable, Dr. Paul is the only choice available in 2008.
Do I wish we had a candidate that was a little more in tune to science? Sure, but no such candidate is available and, besides, a true scientific thinker with the atheistic views that that almost invariably engenders, is sadly unelectable in today’s political reality.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Scriven Taylor:
Yes it would, and it IS.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
To me, the only 2 logical choices are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. They ONLY take contribution $s from individuals.. All the other candidates are bought and paid for by corporations.
Do you want a country OF the corporations, BY the corporations, and FOR the corporations? That is what we have had for too long! I refuse to vote for any candidate sponsored by corporations period. That includes representative too. That has been why decissions are made and executed for too long.
Elect only candidates that are sponsored by WE THE PEOPLE!
Will non corporate candidates get any real media time? I doubt it. The media is just another cororation that wants the cororations 30 pieces of silver back in ads. They gave the candidates the 30 pieces of silver in the first place. Wake up AMERICA like Toto the dog in the Wizzard Of Oz, who pointed out that pathetic man in the corner behind the curtain.
We the PEOPLE know what we want and don’t want from our government. However, we get the opposite from our corporate government.
Oh by the way, Google “loose change” or “‘911 mysteries” and see what has really become of our government. There is no difference between Dems and Repubs. That is a divide and conquore medium bought, paid, and delivered to us from the corporate powers that run the country.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Well, whatever respect I may had for Ron Paul just evaporated.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Ignore Jim Howard, his childish mangling of Al Gore’s name merely reveals him to be an ignorant dittohead who has to be told what to think by people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. It’s what passes for political debate on the right (and yes, sometimes on the left too) these days.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
So, James, how is it you’re posting on the ‘net? Smoke signals? Bongo drums? Do you drive a car to your job (assuming you have one) or take a flying carpet?
Perhaps you ride a jackass, that would be more appropriate.
Perhaps you are too ignorant to understand the role science has in these products of engineering. Ohm’s law is science, so were Faraday’s various discoveries. Without them, your light bulbs wouldn’t work, let alone your computer.
Your automobile similarly uses those principles, and a lot of organic chemistry and physics in the design of its internal combustion system. It also runs on synthetic rubber tires, a product of seriously heavy science. How much would those tires cost, and how long would they last, if they were made from natural latex or bear skins?
One Ole Roemer determined the speed of light in 1667. His tools were a primitive telescope and a quill pen, so he was off the true figure but not by a lot. His determination has been refined ever since as methods have improved. So our idea of the velocity of light changes; not because Roemer was wrong, but because we can make more precise determinations. That is how science works. Why is this important? We would not know the velocity of light if this kind of process had not been used, since witch doctors and other dogmatic authorities have yet to provide testable figures of their own.
GPS and radar would not work, people would not even know they were possible.
Science works, the proof is all around us. Find out what it is and how it works, then maybe your opinions will be something besides an object of ridicule.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Please take a look at what Barack Obama has said on this subject in a 2006 speech to a religious organization. It was this speech that won me over to him:
http://usliberals.about.com/od/faithinpubliclife/a/ObamaReligion_4.htm
RELIGION IN A DEMOCRACY
“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason.
I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.
Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences.
To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.
We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.
Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God’s test of devotion.
But it’s fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.”
December 26th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Science is important; it affects and defines every part of all of our lives. Science is the observation and understanding of reality. That being said, I am a Christian. I believe that our reality was defined by something outside of reality: ie God. The key word in that sentence is believe. It is something I hold to be true not in spite of the evidence, but because there is a whole in the evidence and something must fill that hole. That the universe is 13.5 billion years old is clear for anyone with eyes and some basic geometry skills to see. Or a canyon to look at. However, we still have no explanation for what was at or before t=0. That’s where God comes in. But belief in God is belief, not science and I make no claim that it is. I believe Phil has made this point before that God can neither be proven nor disproved, but that’s not science
As for Ron Paul, it saddens me that he’s a creationist. However, the difference between how he’s handled the issue. Huckabe wants ID taught in schools as science. Ron Paul (at least in the video) made no mention of this. I imagine he’d treat it as a state’s rights issue (as all education should be in the first place thank you very much Dept. of Ed). At that point it’s up to us as individuals to make sure that reality is taught in science classes. I’ll still be voting for Dr. Paul in the primaries.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Hi There,
I volunteered a bit at Ron Paul headquarters a little while back. My job was primarily to answer emails. From what I gathered speaking with the staff there, the major scientific institutions such as the NIHs, etc., would probably receive about the same level of funding as they do now.
Seriously, scientists have nothing to fear from a Paul Presidency.
Best,
James
December 26th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
After watching this video most people I see on this board assume that he would force the teaching of creationism down peoples throats. This just shows ignorance of Ron Paul and his beliefs.
Ron Paul has shown himself time and time again in his (very)long voting as someone who can keep his personal beliefs from interfering with his core belief that the government shouldn’t stick it’s nose into other people’s private business. Someone mentioned it before me and I’ll re-iterate it: Yes he is a believing Christian and Yes he said on multiple occasions he said he feels homosexuality is very wrong. HOWEVER he voted AGAINST banning homosexual marriage, because his core belief is that peoples private affairs are their private affairs.
Please take a look at his voting record(the true measure of any politician)
here to realise just how deeply he believes in freedom from the nanny state.
When he is elected he will make sure the government does not interfere in education to shove ideas down children’s throats against the wishes of their family. That means that Christian fundamentalists in Florida will not be allowed to dictate teaching creationism to an entire school district. This also means that if Bubba wants Bubba Jr. to learn that the Earth was created in 6 days the G-Man will not show up to force his kid into a public school to learn that.
Maybe Bubba Jr. will not grow up to be a genetic engineer, but you must remember that in the US overall, Public school students < Private School students < Home school students (especially markedly in maths and science) so Big brother in charge of the education system only hinders it hugely.
As for Bubba Jr., I work in IT and I’ve met some programmers who believe in creation, most of them are damn good coders.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Sometimes, I wish we lived in a culture where words actually meant what the dictionary said they did rather than what each one of us seems to think it does. That way we could just look at the dictionary, and say, oops I was confusing the issue. But we know how likely that is to happen.
Just so you know, science doesn’t require belief. I dont “believe” in evolution any more than I “believe” in gravity, just to use your examples. Evolution and gravity are the descriptors we use to explain processes and effects. They exist in any case, if they didn’t we wouldn’t have noticed and recorded them, tested and retested, and finally written up thousands of papers describing them.
But here’s why I don’t and you shouldn’t believe in gravity.
We might be wrong.
Oh we know the effect, drop the apple, Newton pointed that out, but the processes? We’re always finding new insight. That’s why it’s gravitational theory and not gravitational fact. Belief just gets in the way. Just like your little problem with the Milky Way/Sagittarius issue. It doesn’t fit your belief so you reject it. But that’s not science, it explains things nothing yet has been able to, it may not turn out to be true, but its far from impossible, and just the research into determining if it is true could yield all kinds of interesting results don’t you think? Why do you like science in the first place?
I wont be voting for Ron Paul in any case, I’m a rabid liberal, and while I agree with a few of his issues there aren’t many. But if I had to vote for one of the republicans currently running, I would have to vote for Ron Paul. As president he will not have power to do any of the things everyone is so upset about him saying, be it abolish the IRS or the Dept. of Education, or anything else, a president can’t just do that, he’d need the collusion of a super majority in Congress and look at the respect he gets now. He would be the most ineffectual conservative ever to reach office. On the other hand, he might actually convince some folks to roll back some of the nonsense that’s been going on in this country, and I have to applaud his anti-war stance.
Frankly if I were a conservative, the whole stopping killing people would be enough for me to vote for Ron Paul. All of his weirdness he says are States rights issues anyway, though I disagree some of them are personal rights issues… but that just means he’d make the states decide what to do about the things you don’t like him for. So do you vote in your state? I cant believe I’m advocating for Ron Paul, but this kind of propagation of misinformation seems everywhere. He cant do anything about this stuff but try and get congress to make laws that he will then sign. And none of his views seem very popular in Washington…what luck do you think he might have?
December 26th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Sigh…I see I’m going to have to repost my MySpace comments here. I really am chagrined to see so many fellow skeptics–many of whom I respect deeply–go off the deep end here and become just like the creationists they oppose. It’s a very easy and human thing to do, and we all need to be on guard for it. Phil even goes so far as to say he’ll disagree with him on the First Amendment as a result–I CHALLENGE you to find anyone more dedicated to the First Amendment, and the Constitution as a whole, than Ron Paul.
—–
As the old adage goes, “When you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy.”
The enemy, in this case, being creationists/cdesign proponentsists/whatever. They pull out a single quote in the middle of a paragraph or book, and draw all sorts of conclusions about what the person’s saying that directly contradicts what was said in the very sentences around that.
And that is EXACTLY what happens here. Ron Paul says, quite correctly, that it’s a ridiculous question to ask a Presidential candidate, and if that were the biggest issue we had to worry about he wouldn’t bother with running for office and would just go home to be with his family.
Okay, so he doesn’t accept evolution. SO WHAT??? Not everybody’s studied the issue at length the way skeptics have. Most people have lives, and I’d much rather Dr. Paul spend his time fighting unconstitutional legislation and protecting our liberties than studying the intricacies of descent with modification.
Apparently that’s just not good enough for some people. But they are guilty of the same anti-Constitutional, anti-American thinking as the creationists, as George W. Bush: if you’re not with us, you’re against us! If you don’t agree with evolution, then you’re a horrible theocrat who must be stopped, everything else you’ve said and done in your life notwithstanding.
The main question we should ask of a Presidential candidate is, “Does he understand the Constitution, and is he dedicated to upholding it?” If the answer to that is “No,” he shouldn’t be elected UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER. If the answer is “Yes,” then IT DOESN’T MATTER ONE BIT WHETHER OR NOT HE ACCEPTS EVOLUTION.
When did skepticism suddenly become about conformity? Are we HONESTLY going to criticize someone for not being too knowledgeable about an issue he’s not concerned about? The problem with creationists is not that they disbelieve evolution, but that they spread lies and misinformation and try to get them in the schools. Someone who just doesn’t know or care one way or the other isn’t a threat to anybody.
To tell you the truth, I’m MUCH more scared about people who insist that a candidate conform to his or her beliefs–scientific or otherwise. Because that strongly implies to me that they’re not looking for a “live and let live” mentality. They’re not content with letting the marketplace of ideas–the very place where skeptics shine–propagate the things they think are important. No, it’s about government–it’s about FORCE–it’s about MAKING people listen, MAKING people accept what you think is important. And if that’s the case, then these skeptics have ceased to be skeptics at all. They’ve lost their way.
In fact, they’ve now become people we need to fight. Because someone imposing a belief on others IS an enemy to all lovers of freedom and liberty, no matter how much scientific evidence there is to agree with him. Indeed, science itself can only flourish in the absence of such impositions.
So, if I now find myself having to fight my fellow skeptics on this, so be it.
‘Cause y’all ain’t real skeptics anymore, anyway.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
I see the trolls are trolling … who knows what these folks will turn up next about Paul? So far rather unexciting stuff. O.K., so he’s not opposed to “creationism” — big deal. I admit that the only argument against him would be in imagining an intelligent creator who could have created some of the other Candidates. Ah! What? He has opined that 600,000 Americans need not have died in the our Holy Civil War? A most discouraging thought to such “We’re Number One” outfits, such as the fat-cat nationalists in the “Heritage Society”. You know, it is getting a bit boring waiting for the trolls to fish up some bigger and better red herrings. Rather small fry so far.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
At Ohiobuckeye:
“Oh by the way, Google “loose change””
you could also stop in any random basement in the US and see what the kids are doing with their video camera and what vids they are downloading off the net…..that would be an equally valid way to get your information
At Scriven:
“As I implied earlier, that doesn’t mean that the “theory” is wrong, but no positive proof has been found yet.
(”If it was proven to be true… it would not be a theory would it?”)”
nobody is looking for positive proof(math excluded). It is evidence that science seeks
If you do not understand what a theory is…it indicates not only a shortfall in your understanding of science but, also a lack of attention paid to the very evolution debate that you are chiming in on
December 26th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Ha! I’m an idiot! I did just what I complained about in my first paragraph, confused the issue… ah well, I shouldn’t have used the theory of gravity as my example, although I think the point still stands when seen in light of further developments i.e. Einsteins relativity and such.
The point is there will always be new advancements making old theories obsolete, we must suspend belief, becuase it gets in the way.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Hey, BA, I think it’s time you started moderating comments. After having read half of this page, I had lost so many brain cells, I couldn’ read any more, and had to resort to writing.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Oy.
This is what comes from conflating all of the phenomena, the definition of the process, its observed but contingent facts, and the theory that is confirmed by predicting the facts, tangling these separate things together in one large mess.
For comparison take the phenomena of gravitation. The definition of the process it follows, that what we wish to model later in theory, can be minimally defined by:
This is the least definition that can be used to distinguish the process of gravity from all other processes. This is also the least observation that a theory of gravitation must account for.
There are of course several valid theories of gravitation, such as Newton’s theory of gravitation and Einstein’s general relativity, which with increasing precision and coverage describe more and more observations.
Notable is that in the later one must use different energy conditions to describe different phenomena. And we know that it isn’t the last theory of gravitation since it can’t be fully quantized. So as in all of science it is well defined, but not without methodological choices, and definitely not “static”.
In the same way evolution has a minimal definition:
This is the least definition that can be used to distinguish the process of evolution from all other processes. It is also the least observation that a theory of evolution must account for.
Examples of observed heritable changes have been mentioned, for example bacterial resistance, but we also know of such things as several independent cases of evolution of lactose tolerance among different groups of humans.
And again there are several valid theories of evolution, such as adaptation and near neutral evolution, which with increasing precision and coverage describe more and more. Notable is that one must consider different mechanisms to describe different phenomena. Again, it is easy to see that it is well defined, but not without methodological choices, and definitely not a “static” body of knowledge. If it were, it wouldn’t be science but dogma.
Finally, the contingency of processes. If we drop a marble on a knife edge we will have to resort to probability distributions to describe the outcome, even if gravitation itself is fully deterministic. This process is path dependent.
The same goes for evolution which will not play itself out in the same manner even if we could wind time back to the first living population where the theory starts to be applicable according to its definition (”heritable”). This is of course due to the fact that we have to resort to probability distributions to describe the population, the outcome of mutational processes et cetera, even if selection on the distributions itself is fully deterministic.
But again, evolution is path dependent. I recommend the article found in the last link btw, “Evolution as fact, theory, and path”, as it is a biologist that unthreads the tangle.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
@James:
Scientists -BARELY- receive any funding as it is! Compared to the War in Iraq, the Military Industrial Complex, basically everything else except maybe basic infrastructure (which is also a major blunder of the Bush “regime”), Science funding is terrible. I don’t know who is or is not familiar with Dr. Franklin Chang Díaz, but he is a plasma-physics PHd and former astronaut who is now working on plasma-based propulsion systems for use in NASA spacecraft, or other spacecraft, really, in the attempt to reach Mars. He left NASA and, though he is still tied very closely with them, has formed Ad Astra Rocket Company to obtain proper funding. He can gain more money from private investors (who know that the chances of a return on their investment are virtually none within any realistic time frame) than NASA is able to give him. Why is this? Because Bush’s current amount of funding for NASA, and Science in general, sucks.
By the way, Dr. Chang-Díaz is an awesome guy and I’ve had the pleasure of meeting him; I highly suggest that if anyone here has the chance to meet him as well, they should!
December 26th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
“Does he seriously advocate that children and pregnant women take what amounts to medications with unknown provenance?”
Nice strawman. Unfortunately, a lot of people can’t tell this strawman from reality when it comes to freedom ideas. In fact, I doubt you even made it a strawman intentionally.
Ron Paul is not suggesting that nobody should be testing and approving drugs. As a doctor, he can’t help but want to ensure drug safety. However, there is no need for an enforced monopoly to be the one that does it.
If the FDA hasn’t approved something yet, but the European equivalents all have, or a private rating agency (”Consumer Reports for Drugs”) has tested it independently, who are you to say I can’t make the informed choice to trust those particular experts instead of the ones you’ve chosen for me?
December 26th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
CleveDan,
“Oh by the way, Google “loose change””
you could also stop in any random basement in the US and see what the kids are doing with their video camera and what vids they are downloading off the net…..that would be an equally valid way to get your information
Well, all the shots are taken by cnn, abc, fox, cbs, nbc etc not kids in a basement. Based on the 911 comission anyone making a pot of chile will have their stove collaps and the pot melt in about an hour. That happens all the time doesn’t it? Did you know the security company at WTC , one of the airlines, and one of the airports involved the the disaster was run by a brother and a cousin of the president? Yepp a bush and a Walker, as in “W”. Did you know that bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the twin towers that week for the first time since the original bombing at WTC? Did you know the preisidents father was meeting the Bin Laden family at the moment 911 happened. Remember the Bin Ladens were the only ones allowed to fly right after 911? Did you know the twin towers were condemed, but allowed to continue operating , due to asbesstos in the building? Proper demolishon would have cost several billion due to the asbestos. Did you know ownership of WTC changed hands one month before 911? The first payment of $125 million was paid, insurance against terrorist attacks was purchased and since 2 planes hit a double payout of 5-7 billion took place. No money was needed to pay for demolition!
Just a few unknown facts to me before I watched the videos(loose change and 911 mysteries).
Go Brownies. I also live in the Cleveland area..
December 26th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Lets see creationism to supplements to 9/11, anybody throw in JFK and the moon landings.
From an outside but close to the American border, I would guess it is going to be dem. in the white house just because a lot of people are fed up with the current party in power. I personally would like to see the old McCain in charge(before the 2000 election McCain).
December 26th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
“…any candidate who thinks one of the most basic laws of science is wrong would then be prey to any other antiscience huckster who wants to deny global warming…” Surely you are not referring to anthropomorphic GW? At least in any significant sense? If this is not the case, and your devotion to the neo-religion of alarmist environmentalism is showing, I fear my, up to this point, enormous respect for you has taken a plunge. This is particularly bewildering coming from an Astronomer. It is at this point that your own warning should be heeded- “Once you deny reality, the door to any and all evil is wide open.” AGW, as promoted by Gore, the Liberals, the enviro-fanatics, the UN and IPCC, is junk science of the worst kind. It is woo-based theology disguised as science, intended to serve as a neo-religion. One who promotes AGW is in no position to mock “creationism”. Phil, stay out of politics. It is no place for scientists, anymore than celebrities and politicians have a place pushing “science”.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
To SLC and the others spreading the neo-nazi crap around the internet:
Click on my name to see the page where the New York Times retracted the Ron Paul story that was based on the Bill White lies. I hope that you will follow suit as spreading those sorts of vicious slurs (especially when the refutations were so simply found on the internet) is just about as bad in my book as concocting the original bogus story in the first place. Trust me. You don’t want that legacy following you around for the rest of your life.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
[…] Republicans reading, first read The Bad Astronomer, and then consider this rambling nonsense from Ron […]
December 27th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Ron’s alright. It could be worse for you Americans. Three words: Jeb Bush 2012!
December 27th, 2007 at 1:02 am
Creationism/intelligent design vs. evolution/science/intelligent pursuit of the CREATION. They both seem, to me, to be saying the same thing.
The steps in the creation account from genesis are the same steps that evolutionary thinking expouses. There is one big difference, the timeframe.
How long is a day? on earth it is 24 hours. On the moon a day is about 28 days. on jupiter it is 10 hours I think. How long is a day in the creator’s realm?
I just see different reference points/viewing points. If a person puts a coin on a table headsup and stares at it all they see is heads. Another person puts a coin down tails up, they only see tails. A third person holds up a coin edge-wise and only sees the edge, no heads, no tails.
I feel sorry for people who are afraid to admit their reference/viewpoint is the only valid truth.
Seek ye first the truth, for the truth will set you free. Why cannot evolution BE the tool used by intelligent design? Do not be a slave about your view of the coin, or let it blind you to what the coin really is.
i
December 27th, 2007 at 2:00 am
I think you could probably put an inflatable doll in the oval office after this administration leaves and it would get a higher approval rating.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:28 am
an inflatable doll would do less damage
December 27th, 2007 at 3:02 am
Eh, that’s the only question that I’ve ever heard Ron Paul actively try to avoid. I think it’s pretty clear that he is very much a secularist and has NO desire to increase the federal government’s involvement in anything, much less science education. If he’s a creationist I certainly disagree with him, but he still has my support for being the only fiscal conservative in the race willing to cut our crazy-high spending in the middle east (among other reasons).
December 27th, 2007 at 3:34 am
*sigh*
Evolution is not even close to being similar to gravity. Gravity is verifiable by scientific experiment. Evolution is not. It cannot be observed, nor repeated, as it (theoretically) happens over the course of millions of years.
And if you don’t think it’s a theological matter, you must not have read Genesis before. If many people believe a religious text to be 100% true, and this text talks about the origins of life, then that makes the origins of life a theological matter to those people. Then again, intolerance of religion isn’t exactly new…
December 27th, 2007 at 3:53 am
I hate to say it, but this is exactly correct. Evolution has been established by the available evidence so overwhemlingly that by comparison the hypothesis that the earth is round seems almost tenuous.
Evolution is such a rock-solid well established basic scientific fact
that someone who rejects it rejects observed reality. We don’t need another president who rejects observed reality. We’ve seen where that leads. One is enough.
The big issue with electing someone who rejects observed reality is…what other aspect of observable reality are they likely to deny? Fine, Ron Paul denies evolution — what else is he likely to deny? I mean, there’s less evidence for the hypothesis that slavery is economically inefficient than for the documented scientific fact of evolution. So why wouldn’t Ron Paul enthusiastically support the return of slavery?
This seems like crazy, but it’s actually mild. If someone in a position of power denies as basic a fact of observable reality as evolution, I can’t think of any aspect of everyday tangible reality that they wouldn’t feel free to deny. What we’re talking about here is Lysenkosim. Once you go that route, any crazy belief becomes possible. Why not deny the vote to women on the grounds that women don’t exist? Sounds insane….after all, you can see and hear and smell and touch women — but you can see and hear and smell and touch the overwhelming fossil evidence for evolution, you can hold the fossils right in your hands. If you can ignore the evidence of your sense, you can reach any conclusion, no matter how insane.
Someone who denies evolution seems likely to enthusiastically advocate witch-burning. Sure, there’s massive evidence that witches don’t exist — but there’s also massive evidence against creationism. If someone has no problem ignoring the mountains of evidence against creationism, why would they have any problem believng in rampant lunacy like witchcraft? Wtiches seem almost plausible by comparison with a supernatural being who magically violated all known laws of physics in order to bring the entire universe into existence in 6 days.
The Russians had a saying: “Those who believe absurdities, commit atrocities.” We need to bear that in mind.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:22 am
Woo hoo! Another squabbling politico thread!
(snore)
You *could* have posted the amusing “BA book sighted on Mars” picture I sent, and we all could have had a good chuckle, but nooooooooo…
Anyway, all the candidates for both the Reps and Dems suck dinosaur eggs, and we are fricken’ DOOMED. It’s all just power seekers. The system weeds out anyone else way before the primaries. Seriously, would any sane person seek such a high office?
Those of you wasting your time barking and hissing for or against any of them are nothing more than the proverbial useful idiots.
— “Oh by the way, Google “loose change””
You can post what you like, Phil, but when you start attracting subhumans like this, you really need to question the value. I can toss food on my floor because I own my house, but I need to rethink that behavior when the roaches show up.
Ad for Loose Change, Maddox does the best response:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
Seriously, if you think 9/11 was a conspiracy, you are mentally ill. Don’t even respond to this. You are bat**** insane and I have no interest in anything you say.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:26 am
Evolution is an internally-consistent (for the most part) theory. Intelligent design is another internally-consistent theory. Without internal inconsistencies, neither may be proven false. But no matter what, neither one makes a better candidate than the other as long as they both remain consistent with the evidence.
Evolution maintains consistency with the evidence by evolving as a theory whenever inconsistencies are found.
Intelligent design maintains consistency almost by definition. It is so simple that there are almost no possible contradictions.
Don’t even get me started on aging techniques. They rely on assumptions about consistency in, for example, the rate of generation of C-14, or even the speed of light, of which there is no proof.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:49 am
[…] A person in the White House has the final say on billions of dollars of funding for science, and so should at least have a basic understanding of science, and how it works. Surprise, Ron Paul does not. […]
December 27th, 2007 at 5:52 am
I lost any residual support I had for Ron Paul when his jackass comments about the Civil War came out. Yes, letting the south peacefully secede would have been non-coercive. But letting the south go on brutalizing black people would have been coercive. For an alleged Libertarian, Paul’s ability to analyze things in terms of ethics seems strangely absent.
As far as I’m concerned, the Civil War was a war between the good guys and the bad guys, and the good guys won. By the way, I was born in Chapel Hill, North Carolina and graduated high school in Charlotte.
I was a Libertarian for many years, but I quit the Party when they came out against Desert Storm in 1990. Since then I’ve come to realize just how insane much of what Libertarians believe is. And yet I can respect a coherent Libertarian. Paul is a Libertarian, but his positions are not ethically or even logically consistent.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:54 am
Rawhead posts:
[[No one, on the other hand, has ever seen the true effects of evolution (or, to be more precise, evolution brought about by natural selection) in action.]]
I’d say Jim Henson saw it in action. Or anyone who has gotten sick with pathogens that have evolved resistance to antibiotics.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:56 am
andy posts:
[[Let’s take e.g. voluntary prayer at public schools. Can you comment where the constitution allows congress to pass laws to ban it?]]
It isn’t banned. Anyone can pray in school at any time. You just can’t have school officials lead it, since in so doing they would clearly be endorsing a specific religion, or at least a group of religions, and the first amendment prohibits government officials from doing that. Public school teachers and administrators are government employees.
December 27th, 2007 at 6:06 am
Scriven writes:
[[There are plenty of examples of adaptation through natural selection that have been observed, but no observation of new species spontaneously appearing.]]
Actually, speciation has been observed in the wild and in the lab several times:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
December 27th, 2007 at 6:08 am
nano
“Intelligent design maintains consistency almost by definition. It is so simple that there are almost no possible contradictions.”
For something to be considered scientific, it needs to be possible to falsify. How would one falsify Intelligent Design according to Intelligent Design uh, “theory” ?
“Don’t even get me started on aging techniques. They rely on assumptions about consistency in, for example, the rate of generation of C-14, or even the speed of light, of which there is no proof.”
You seem to have a problem with a whole host of the sciences in just one post. Are you Ron Paul’s science advisor?
I’d just like to point out to any of our religious friends out there, that yes, it is okay to accept evolution AND still be religious. But evolution is science and religion is religion - which is a TOTALLY separate subject. So please, let’s not try to treat them as one and the same. (sigh)
December 27th, 2007 at 6:18 am
captainkoolaid posts:
[[AGW, as promoted by Gore, the Liberals, the enviro-fanatics, the UN and IPCC, is junk science of the worst kind.]]
Which of the following do you deny, Cap?
1. Mean global annual temperatures have been rising with time.
2. Human energy, industrial and transportation technology emits carbon dioxide.
3. Ambient carbon dioxide is increasing steeply.
4. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Well?
December 27th, 2007 at 6:21 am
mclaren writes:
[[Someone who denies evolution seems likely to enthusiastically advocate witch-burning.]]
What’s more, black people are lazy, Jews are greedy, gay people are after your children, and women don’t know how to drive. Have I missed any ridiculous stereotypes?
December 27th, 2007 at 6:29 am
I thought we had gotten past the Anti-Republican, Anti-Creationism blogs and back onto science and astronomy, but I see that I’m wrong. I was also hoping that maybe I see a few posts about the Democrats, but I was wrong again.
For those of you interested in where at least one Democrat stands of this issue, you can read his words here,
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/04/sitroom.03.html
PSSST, his secret is out - John Edwards believes in Intelligent Design.
December 27th, 2007 at 7:01 am
Re Rock Howard
“To SLC and the others spreading the neo-nazi crap around the internet:
Click on my name to see the page where the New York Times retracted the Ron Paul story that was based on the Bill White lies. I hope that you will follow suit as spreading those sorts of vicious slurs (especially when the refutations were so simply found on the internet) is just about as bad in my book as concocting the original bogus story in the first place. Trust me. You don’t want that legacy following you around for the rest of your life.”
Mr. Howard posted this same claim on Ed Braytons’ blog and it was refuted by Mr. Brayton. As Mr. Brayton stated, “The Times did not “retract” the story (it was not theirs to retract, but Bill White’s). They printed Paul’s denial of the accusations and said they should have gotten them in the original story. That’s hardly a retraction.”
I see that Mr. Howard has subsequently posted a comment on Mr. Braytons’ blog putting his spin on the so-called retraction. I will let the readers go over there and arrive at their own conclusions.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/neonazi_leader_says_paul_is_on.php#commentsArea
Incidentally, Mr. Brayton has promised to post some more information on Representative Pauls’ associations. I will post a link to the thread when it appears over there.
December 27th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Well I wasn’t going to vote for Edwards anyway and I don’t think be seriously has a chance. I just hope he doesn’t steal votes from better candidates. By the way I’d this the first comment posted from an iPod?
I
December 27th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Folks, just a little note from the Admin here: any posts with swearing in them will be marked as spam.
Keep it polite.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:33 am
@Mike Marsh
“That’s a serious logical flaw. “A then B” does not imply “not A then not B”.
I’m glad you caught my point Mike. Evolution and the First Amendment are orthogonal issues. Opinions on one have no logical coupling with the other.
Since in my opinion BA’s post throws logic out the window right away, there’s no real point in trying to convert his religious view that heretics to his way of thinking are pure evil and should be burned. So why not have some fun?
BA is great when he stays on science, but whenever politics come up he throws reason out the window, making all sorts of wild suppositions unsupported by evidence.
As far as Reducto Ad Hitlerum, I figured I’d share some of the fun the moonbats often have by going down the Hitler road. It is kind of fun in a silly sort of way.
Really, it is pretty absurd to compare any present day American political person to Hitler, isn’t it? Fun at times, but absurb. Kind of like saying ‘a person who doesn’t accept The One True Faith also hates the first amendment.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Jim Howard, where did I “throw reason out the window”?
I show a video where Ron Paul says that evolution is just a theory, then makes noises supporting Intelligent Design. I call him on it, because that is antiscience and has led to numerous painful and humiliating episodes for our school systems, which used to be the envy of the world but are now ridiculed.
The First Amendment and evolution are definitely connected, whether you wish they weren’t or not. Many of the same people who deny evolution are trying to ram their own personal brand of religion down our throat. I suggest you take a long hard look at Romney and Huckabee.
And now Ron Paul throw his hat into that antiscience ring.
I find it ironic that as soon as I talk about politics, a lot of commenters assume I am a knee jerk liberal and shut off their own ability for self-inspection. And then they accuse me of being irrational.
Sigh.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:45 am
I like how it only took an hour and a half from the first comment for Godwin’s Law to be invoked. Unfortunately, the discussion didn’t end.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:50 am
@jrkeller: “I thought we had gotten past the Anti-Republican, Anti-Creationism blogs and back onto science and astronomy.”
I don’t see how anti-creationism is anything but science. If John Edwards or any other Democrat espouses support for Intelligent Design, I’d love to see the BA lay into them, too. As far as I’m concerned, I will not support any presidential candidate who says they believe in ID or consider evolution to be an “unproven theory.” Republican or Democrat, being a fool should disqualify you from higher office.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Phil:
“I show a video where Ron Paul says that evolution is just a theory,”
And completely ignore the parts where he talks about how unconcerned he is about it, and how it’s not relevant to the office of President.
“because that is antiscience and has led to numerous painful and humiliating episodes for our school systems,”
Which Ron Paul doesn’t want to interfere with in the slightest bit.
“Many of the same people who deny evolution are trying to ram their own personal brand of religion down our throat.”
Many != all.
And again, I challenge anyone to find anything in Dr. Paul’s record that is of questionable constitutionality. And no, quote-mining from an article where he’s bemoaning school choirs not being allowed to perform Handel’s Messiah doesn’t count–especially as he’s 100% clear as to the difference between what he thinks should happen and what he would do as President. As he clearly told Tim Russert, doing that kind of thing would