Posted by
JCE
***
Okay, it is official. There is not one candidate that I can, in good conscience, support. This little gem of information was brought to my attention by The Huffington Post who in turn picked it up from Dispatches from the Culture Wars and I am bringing it here to continue spreading the information.
Gah!!! What has happened in our society when some of the most well educated people in our country, who are running for one of the most powerful political positions in the world, do not understand or accept the most basic and obvious of scientific theories? Gravity is a theory too. Perhaps if I drop a rock on their heads they will begin to understand what the term "theory" means in science.
{Edit} Thanks to one of our visitors (Jon) for directing me to the entire, unedited version of this clip:
This little post created a ton of commentary and I want to thank everyone for sharing their thoughts. Probably the most relevant comments to me (given what I am looking for in a candidate) referred to the fact that Mr. Paul does stand for smaller government and regardless of his personal view on evolution he does not support federal funding for either scientific research or education. That is fine and it does not in any way change my view of the campaign. I will listen to ALL the candidates and I will vote for the one that supports the change I most want to see.
(Original time and date edited to include new footage. Original post date 12/28/07 at 10:41 a.m.)
***
172 comments:
How interesting.
This post has been up less than 20 minutes and has -6 Reddit votes.
Rather than just voting something down without explanation, it would sure be nice if these folks would leave an intelligent comment expressing why they disagree.
It seems there's a group of folks that just troll around to do this sort of thing.
Why don't these people participate and express their views... or are they not articulate enough?
Yup, the post has been up less than an hour and now it has -15 Reddit points. I gave it a +1 as I'm sure others have, so it's pretty obvious that there's a group trying to vote this down and keep people from seeing it.
It doesn't say much for these folks that they hide behind the anonymity of the Internet.
It is actually a little amusing that people will downvote without commenting. Apparently there is a group out there that will downvote because it has Ron Paul in the title. They do not read it; they just downvote it.
That is okay. The folks on Digg are a bit more vocal - check out the comments!
We need to stop knit-picking about these little issues. Do you really think that anyone who isnt a strict christian will ever be elected president of this country?
Mr. Paul is free to believe what ever he wants about the creation of the human race. It is his views on the state of our country, and our relationship with the rest of the world that I support. These are the big issues, that affect us all.
For the last time - EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY ON THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE.
Mr. Paul can believe whatever he wants. Statements such as his raise red flags for me regarding funding for education and scientific research.
"Mr. Paul can believe whatever he wants. Statements such as his raise red flags for me regarding funding for education and scientific research."
He is for abolishing the Department of Education. He isn't shy about this view. Clearly, you don't even have to worry about his statements. His stances speak volumes enough.
i am sick and tired of hearing people like you complain when someone doesnt believe in "science", evolution is not a fact, maybe you all need to go back and get an education. By the way I am an educated scientist and I DO now the fact about evolution and its a flawed theory.
he also thinks (or at least thought ten years ago) that 95% of black men are criminals....also just his opinion?
Ron Paul is weak on many issues. God created man, but there's no reason to not believe that species adapt to change (evolution). In the long run, it won't matter what Ron Paul thinks. If this is about your favorite presidential candidate, look for someone who's honest about their feelings AND strong on your most important issues.
the real news is that FOX is excluding ron paul from their next forum.
ron is entitled to his opinion on science, but there is no room for opinion about following the constitution. something apparently, that makes you a revolutionary this day and age.
"By the way I am an educated scientist and I DO now the fact about evolution and its a flawed theory."
This is exactly my point! It is the funding for science education that concerns me. Whether or not evolution is a flawed theory, it needs to be researched along with other theories. Without the necessary funding, our understanding will stagnate. Don't you and other scientists deserve the resources to expand your knowledge and in turn bring that knowledge to the rest of us?
If you giving up on Ron Paul because of he belief that the theory of Evolution is just that --- a THEORY. then you are missing the big picture yourself. Our Liberties and our Constitution rights. Saving those is why you should vote Ron Paul. End of story. Personally I like Kucinich for many of the same reasons, but since he answered questions about UFOs he must be a wacko to ---right????? --
Evolution is a LAW of science. It is has passed centuries of tests.
Stop calling it a 'theory' (which tends to highlight the ignorance of what that word means) and call it what it is: the Law of Evolution.
Some of you are ignorant and close minded fools. Creationism is completely possible if you believe in God. If this is a matter of religion, STOP MAKING A A BIG DEAL ABOUT POINTLESS NONSENSE.
If you are an educated scientist then you know that there are no facts in science. There are hypothesis that are tested repeatedly until it becomes a scientific theory. An "accepted" scientific theory in the science community is one that has been substantially tested and peer reviewed. The term theory in popular culture suggests that this is a debatable point. Evolution is an accepted scientific theory that has stood the test of time using the scientific method. If you have proof that evolution is a flawed theory, present it in a peer reviewed article and present your evidence.
That Ron Paul, as a trained physician, does not understand this brings into question his ability to bring rational thought to the decision making process.
If he is making this statement to satisfy the fundamentalists he is just contributing to our countries sad decline.
If you actually listen to comments, he isn't saying anything either way. His statement that we simply don't really know enough "either way" is perfectly legitimate. The only thing certain is that we all die. Everything else is up for interpretation.
Evolution and Christianity are not on opposite sides of the spectrum people. Not all Christians are the brainless morons that take every word of the bible as absolute fact, and deny all scientific research.
Evolution is a small change over time. Fact. Proven.
The theory of man's evolution, cloudy... very possible, although not proven. We're not going to sway anyone's view on this.
This post did a good deed to show that we do not want another Bush on our hands in office who "speaks to god everyday" (aka praying).
Justin -
You are the typical ignorant, uniformed, and close minded fool that would get extremely attached to such a nonsense video.
You know nothing about science and you know nothing about religion. Stop pretending you do.
I'm Canadian and I'M embarrassed by the lack of logic in these Christofascists. Btw, you just made the top of the blogroll on my atheist site - http://www.upwithreality.blogspot.com/. Cheers!
Asking prospective presidents whether or not they believe in evolution is absolutely appropriate, and not inappropriate as the current contenders for the most powerful position in the most powerful country would have you believe.
I absolutely want to know if a prospective president doesn't believe in evolution - because it calls into question their ability to reason, and their willingness to believe those that actually have this ability.
Apparently Dr. Paul doesn't have this ability, nor does he have the willingness to believe those that do, and should be immediately rejected from any consideration for presidency, as should any other candidate who does not have the ability to reason.
Actually, Justin got the point of the post perfectly! The post was not designed to ignite a debate over evolution. It was intended as a warning regarding who we want serving as our next president.
Several others got the point as well (check the comments on digg regarding this post and the evolution video). There are many things Mr. Paul has to say that I agree with - more so than any other candidate. His comments on this issue concern me because I want funding increased for scientific research.
Someone else commented that Creationism is possible if you believe in God. Well, if you believe in something like that, then any explanation is possible. I would like our scientists to have the resources to investigate the possibilities and I do not want them hampered by politicians whose personal beliefs will stifle their intellectual growth.
Unsubscribing from your blog now... completely off base. Paul has logical underpinnings to his ideology - as do you. He would be just to say the same thing regarding your views, wouldn't he?
Then again, I suppose this is why you're a blogger and not serving your country in some manner of attempted public service.
Unsubscribing from your blog now... completely off base. Paul has logical underpinnings to his ideology - as do you. He would be just to say the same thing regarding your views, wouldn't he?
Then again, I suppose this is why you're a blogger and not serving your country in some manner of attempted public service.
Steven -
You may have a hard time understanding this if you're an atheist, but if you're a theist reasoning shows you that you should not believe or disbelieve evolution.
I'd you to tell me how creationism is not possible if there is a God.
*I'd ike you...
People are entitled to their opinions, and it also looks like he was cut off in the middle of his statement. Also, I believe South Park's depiction of Evolution was the most accurate explanation of how we "evolved."
How about you run for President. We'll see how many people share your ideals. If you can't vote for Ron Paul because he is against Evolution, then you have a lot of growing up to do kid.
evolution is such an obvious fallacy, any candidate stupid enough to believe it should be *barred* from public office.
the Bible contains the truth and we are a Christian country - leave the propaganda of the devil to the backward Middle East - just look for far it's got them
There is no "rational thinking" in religion when voices from heaven can direct one to do irrational, hideous crimes repeatedly as in the "good book".
I don't see anything here to raise concern for someone who feels strongly about evolutionary theory. Dr. Paul seems to understand the meaning of the word theory better than you do. Yes, gravity is a theory *that can be verified via experimentation*. Evolution is the current paradigm and the prevailing theory concerning the origin of species, however it is far from proven. Honestly, I'd have more concern about the scientific merit of someone who said they "whole heartedly accept" evolution than someone who seems to have a level of skepticism regarding the theory, as Mr. Paul does.
"I DO now the fact about evolution and its a flawed theory."
Anonymous, if you're so smart how come your spelling and punctuation suck?
The science of evolution predicts accurately as in the recent predicted find of a precursor to the whales. Creationism can't even get its original hypothesis verified.
"Unsubscribing from your blog now... completely off base. Paul has logical underpinnings to his ideology - as do you. He would be just to say the same thing regarding your views, wouldn't he?
Then again, I suppose this is why you're a blogger and not serving your country in some manner of attempted public service."
I would like you to reconsider your statement on the subscription. Please review my comments regarding why I posted this in the first place. My concern is over funding, not Mr. Paul's personal beliefs. He is entitled to think as he pleases. However, if his personal beliefs are going to hinder his ability to aid in the growth of our country, then I have an issue with that.
Since you know absolutely nothing about my personal life, your comments regarding my public service are off base, but I probably would have made the same assumption if I were you regardless of how untrue it is.
Thank you for being a subscriber, btw. All of us here at IP appreciate different points of view and yours is as welcome as any other.
@ Anon above -
You are a typical atheist stereotype and I feel bad for the real atheists who are being represented with such a bigot.
Does it seem to anyone else that he is just trying to appease the obviously Creationist questioner, who sees evolution as an "intrusion"? Dr. Paul is a smart man, and I think he knows that as a Republican presidential candidate he can't very well call bullshit on Creationism. I think he's trying to brush off this issue without offending his Christian base by conceding that evolution is a theory & the jury is still out. Doesn't it seem that he is on the defensive?
above comment is directed at anon 4 comments above
Justin:
You are absolutely right. The only time that a "grand creator" can be proved or disproved is with evidence either way, and such evidence does not yet exist.
For instance:
The laws of nature (gravity, speed of light, etc) are absolute. If any one of them were to change just a tiny bit, life on Earth would be impossible.
So where do these laws come from? What set them in the first place? Was it by intent, and if so, by whom?
Until we can answer these questions by providing hard evidence either way, the intent cannot be proved or disproved, and therefore a "grand creator" must be left as a possibility (or a "hypothesis", in scientific terms).
Evolution, on the other hand, is a theory that is as proven as anything else on the planet. Consider it one of those "laws of nature", if you will.
So there you go - science and divinity living side by side.
Those that choose to disbelieve the presence of intent are just as guilty of lack of reason as those that choose to believe it... for both have no evidence either way.
gravity is a law dumbass
just to be a pedant. gravity is a law, evolution is a theory. "law" and "theory" don't have exactly the same meaning in science as in everyday speech. another example of differing meaning: "fact" does not have the same meaning in law, science, and everyday speech. be the first to drop a rock when you are free from error, too. btw, look up what law and theory mean in science. interesting.
This doesn't surprise me. Why should Dr. Paul go out on a limb and say he believes in evolution? It would, without a doubt, take many votes away from him. This is a campaign. You try to win votes. We are closing in on the primary season, and in all honesty, I think Dr. Paul has a chance to take the republican nomination. He is not a stupid man and will still get my vote.
If you understood Ron Paul's platform, then you would understand that whatever his personal beliefs are, they will not affect his federal political stances.
He will cut funding to scientific programs based on his platform, but he will return the citizens to the money that they earn, allowing you to spend what would be your federal tax dollars or your local government on research into evolution.
This article has no political point other than to cause sensationalism and bring you traffic.
Huhm I heard, "I believe evolution is there, I do not believe in the theory that it explains creation". So where's the issue? Ron Paul believes in evolution, but is not sold on the idea that is how Humans came about. I'm an atheist and I'm not sold on Evolution being the pure way Humans came to earth. There's just not enough evidence. There's this huge part of the puzzle called "the missing link", maybe you've heard of it.
This is a bit of a misleading segment. "The theory of evolution" can imply several different theories. One such implication, typically rejected by theists, like Paul, entails that creationism is false.
Certainly, many of the greatest thinkers of our day and throughout history, would reject a theory that entails that a prime mover created what exits.
There is nothing sensational about that.
Ron Paul's final say about creationism vs evolution. IN YOUR CLIP WHERE YOU OPPOSE HIS VIEWS.
"I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof of either side."
So you must have absolute proof one way or the other? Please share Mr. Nobel Prize candidate.
How about we worry less about whether our leaders personal beliefs and more about their political beliefs - this leaves Ron Paul as the only reasonable candidate.
I am an educated scientist and I DO now the fact about evolution and its a flawed theory.
it is "know" not "now" and "it is" instead of "its" (you claim to be an educated scientist but you spell like a fourth grader)
I think you guys are kinda of missing the point.....Dr.Paul's reglious views have been public since the begining, and this comment coming out now is not a huge surprise. Besides, I don't believe that the Creationsim vs.Evolution debate is the most revelant thing to this campaign. Paul is runing on the princaples of limited Government, which I think he believes in to a great degree. And besides, If Paul were to win, and got his way of limited government, I doubt he would spend much on anything, let alone scientific reserch. It would be wise to stick to the really revelant issues facing the American nation, like your massive fiscal crisis.
Interesting. Don't really care that Ron Paul doesn't accept the theory of evolution, 'cause at least in his case (as opposed to say, Mike Huckabee) that opinion, while narrow-minded IMHO, wouldn't be used to legislate (at the federal levle) the lives of the people of the United States, if he had his way.
It does show, along with his stance on abortion, that he is somewhat divided / inconsistent in the application of the ideas behind his Libertarian politics. So be it, he's far less inconsistent / far more 'thought through' in general than all the other jokers running for President.
To JCE: Ron Paul is quite clear on his stance of education funding, it is not a federal issue. He is in favor of completely demolishing the Department of Education.
Personally I think evolution is the best thing we have going right now to describe the origin of species, but my opinion isn't the only one in the country. When you say those scientists "deserve" funding to explore things like this, you have to think about where that money is coming from. Sure people like me who believe in evolution are funding it with taxes, but so are creationists. It doesn't make any sense for the federal government to take money from everyone in the country and then hand it over to these researchers.
This is the sort of thing that you should look at when considering Ron Paul. Lets leave the petty religious stuff, 15 year old comments, how much makeup they wear in public, their military records, and all the other insignificant things that has been side tracking American politics for decades out of this.
The "facts" you should be concered with are he is a small government candidate, he doesn't believe in federal funding for most of the things we typically accept (without reason) to be federal jobs today. He is the only candidate (on the republican side at least) who won't let his personal ideology determine his policy. His opinions come directly from his interpretation of the Constitution.
Let's clear something up here, firstly Ron Paul clearly stated he was not in favor of either side.
For the record, the blogger posted that since Ron Paul was not in favor of either side, that he's Against Evolution. This is akin to Fox News, not journalism.
Secondly, Ron Paul surprised me yet again by favoring neither side, and the reason why it surprised me is because it proves he actually IS a very well educated person. It might also prove that he's just very careful with choosing sides, but, after examining him for some time now I firmly believe he chose neither side for a very good reason.
Thirdly, it is not a FACT that we Evolved from some species on the planet. It IS a FACT that we are in No Close Relation to our cousin Apes, Cromags, and Neanderthals. It is ALSO a FACT that the closest species we match to in DNA is MICE. If you don't believe me, look it up. I have a hard enough time identifying where in the gene pool we might have evolved overnight from Mice.
Fourthly, our ancestry is truly a strange realm. Any good archaeologist can relate with this problem, because, our ancestors over 300,000 years ago were found unable to reproduce. They were also found in Gold Mines in Africa. What, exactly, is our ancestors, who can't use Gold for any good purpose (because it's malleable, not good for hunting weapons/anything) doing in Gold Mines???
Those who did their homework will know the truth, and it's further reason I can't deny Ron Paul as the better candidate.
It takes a Seriously Open Mind to delve into these things, I'm expecting flames from both sides of the fence here so here's some food to think about before you flame:
Religious Fanatics, go to the following web site to begin un-brainwashing yourselves:
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
For the poor folk who've been embedded with Evolution theory (oh yeah, did you forget it's Still a Theory?) I want you to read about the Sumerian Clay tablets, one of the oldest artifacts of human history, predating 6000 years ago.
Actually, for those with half an open mind, you can pretty much just google our human ancestry and know the truth. Wake up! You're more than you think!
"do not understand or accept the most basic and obvious of scientific theories?"
Evolution is by no means a simple thing. Hence, its status as a theory. Gravity is a law of the universe, provable through mathematics.
This is not a matter of scientific debate. It is entirely within your mind to dictate your philosophy. Creationists don't like evolution because it belittles our existence. The idea that everything is just a gamble or roll of the dice is absurd. But, yet it is true. Evolution is mostly chance and a little natural selection. So, it is entirely reasonable to believe that some greater plan is being carried out. Or how extremely lucky we are to have been born out of this random chaos. Each viewpoint is equally amazing.
TLDR: Smart people choose their own beliefs. Keep yours to yourself and keep your mouth shut about others.
I am Agnostic and I don't consider evolution to be factual. Throughout history there have been many beliefs that were considered factual for their time, many of them have turned out to be false, including many in the last 20 years. Many things that we believe today, some that we will consider to be 100% factual, will be either proven to be wrong 100 years from now, or will no longer be the popular belief.
I am writing to criticize those who complain about people who vote without leaving comments. Has it occured to you that one doesn't have the time to comment on everything? I like to comment on 20 or 30 of the entries I read most every day, but, simply, I don't have the time. So, I choose, maybe one or two, and just vote on the rest. And, by the way, who is going to read through all of the comments? Some entries have hundreds of comments. I have other things to do, and so do most people.
For you to tell me that evolution is a flawed theory, either tells me that you are no scientist or you are a Christian Fundamentalist unwilling to admit the truth.
You people just don't get it. The question is not appropriate because it has nothing to do with Paul's goals once he gets in office. His personal opinions on evolution, abortion, and other matters do not go past his desire to follow the constitution. He doesn't want to fund your science from the federal level anyway, even if he knew it was 100% fact.
A president who actually follows the constitution is what we want from Ron Paul. You should actually be happy there is a guy out there you can disagree with personally, but who won't allow that to cloud their judgement from the White House.
Okay...
To everyone visiting, thanks for coming whether you agree or disagree with the our position on the topics.
To the 4yr old who says he is unsuscribing, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. I read blogs I am subscribed to daily who take a stance on an issue with which I disagree. Do I unsuscribe? No. Because I am adult and I can say, "huh, I don't agree with that", and move on. So, take your ball and go home, it was a shitty ball anyway.
To the evolution debate. It is a scientific theory, Arnold had the assessment of science perfectly correct, and science through this method has supported the evolution hypothesis to the point it became theory. That is a MAJOR level in science. We need not look at the fossil record to support evolution, we could actually toss out every bone ever found and still have more than enough evidence to support evolution through the molecular data, genetic data and real time laboratory studies. Francis Collins an evangelical Christian, geneticist and founder of the Human Genome Project has stated numerous times that there is a mountain of data on the genetic level to support the theory of evolution and one only needs to understand that organisms evolve over time. If you can to believe god gave the 'spark', fine but this does to change the fact that evolutionary theory is supported by a mountain of evidence.
As far as Mr. Paul's views, I agree with him on many civil liberty issues but I have a hard time supporting a candidate that is science ignorant. George Bush is science ignorant and a poor critical thinker and look at what he has 'achieved'. We might as well have voted for a closed minded, stubborn, ignorant, bigoted.... oh, wait, we did. He also acts like a four year old and wants take his ball and go home. We need a rational, reasonable president who will admit when he is wrong. Mr. Paul may be that guy, it is yet to be determined, but having doubts about his stance on evolution does not make anyone a bad citizen, it means they are listening and they are thinking. That's good.
Now, children, play nice.
He never said that 95% of black men are criminals.
Also..interesting that the video is edited part way through his comments here. I'd like to see the entire stream.
Does it matter? I think that evolution is a crock as well. I am a science major. I am educated. I think that people are being unreal in their expectations for our next president. People are looking for perfection, and there isn't such a thing. Ron Paul is a real genuine man, with an amazingly accurate view on life and the world. He is able to remove himself from the situation, and put himself in other people's shoes, to assess the situations our country is facing, and to come up with logical and ethical solutions. Any evidence I have found on him, proves him to be a man with a big heart and big ideas, wanting to help the people of his country. What do his opinions on how humanity came to be, have to do with the here and now? What do they have to do with him wanting to contribute to his country and help fix all the problems that we so need help out of? The point is that IT DOES NOT MATTER! Vote for the right reasons or don't vote at all. It's people like you that cannot accept & appreciate diversity that has made this country what it is, that are making this country a miserable land of discrimination & prejudice.
gravity is not a theory stupid
Out of all the retards vying for the presidency, you pick evolution to disregard the most intelligent of them all?
The man has been studying the constitution and the monetary policies of this country and how they affect everyone one of us, maybe he didn't have the time to go back and study evolution from his old med school text books. My take is, if we are free from the fed and keep our money, those of us who believe in evolution can continue research and development on science and keep proving the religious fanatics wrong. Evolution is a non issue for now, civil liberties, the economy and the War are more pressing issues. Being oppressed and broke won't help evolution and the study of it one bit.
NeoCon = Uber Liberal on Steriods
This video was obviously edited around 30-31 seconds in you could see that. It looks like it was made to support the questionable caption. Show me the video with his unedited response.
Perhaps you should give more attantion to the last line. "I don't think we're at a point where anyone has the absolute truth on either side."
I'm not a particularly huge fan of Paul, but that's the most intelligent thing I've heard him say. The fact that you choose your president based on whether or not they adhere to your dogma shows that you are no more intelligent than those you criticize.
This man is a liar or an idiot. Evolution is not a theory under the general meaning. It is a scientific theory, which is completely different.
Either he is too stupid to understand that a word can have different meanings under different contexts, or, more likely, he knows that the general meaning of "theory" is different from the meaning used in a scientific setting, and is trying to use that ambiguity in an attempt to mislead himself and/or the American public.
I already decided long ago that I'm never voting for a religious candidate. But before, I was sad that I wouldn't get to vote for Ron Paul. Well not anymore. I'll be glad to not vote for Ron Paul.
Religion encourages irrational thinking. It is dangerous and should not be tolerated.
You know, its seems like more often all of the time more and more athiests are just pissing me off. It seems to me Ron Paul is right in what he is saying. Don't get me wrong, I'm an athiest.
Do you people not understand that he is trying to run a country? This is just bullshit that clouds the issues and screws everyone over. Wow, he said evolution is not provable and therefore he doesn't accept it. Forget everything else he stands for because that does it for me. Its just as bad as the gun toters and any other wingnuts. He isn't trying to turn America into Planet Athiesm, or Religious Fundamentalists United. You people should concentrate on real issues in hopes of bettering our tomorrow. Whether he thinks we evolved from a retard mutant fish baby or not is well besides the point. He is trying to win an election. I can understand and appreciate that.
After reading this post I had to laugh to what the writer or poster posted - "most basic and obvious of scientific theories" and the reply's which are many.
Well lets take a look here and see - last I checked -
theory - a proposed explanation whose status is still *conjectural*, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
conjectural (adjective) - based primarily on surmise rather than adequate evidence.
**Isn't it interesting that they call it a theroy.
And all this time you thought it was written law didn't you.
Ron Paul has always believed in not legislating taste. What's great about him is that he can believe whatever he wants and so can you. He's all about protecting that right.
What I find scary is the sheer amount of information evolution has against it. And we're not talking fictional "Jesus made dinosaurs" crap, but real industry acknowledged issues.
For example: Darwin said if they couldn't find evidence of these evolutionary steps he would have failed.
Did you know: That in all human evolution history we have found a little over 60 pieces of bone linking us to early apes. And these aren't skeletons, but chunks of jaw and face. Many are debatable.
This is why in the 70's the popular explanation was to estimate that evolution doesn't move slowly, but in jumps. This would explain the gaps. But doing this slightly goes against the beauty, simplicity, and facts of what we know this theory to be.
In other words, if you were a true scientist you would look at the facts and not public consensus. The facts point to this being the best theory we have, but it has GIANT problems. Many of which most folks are too ignorant to pay attention to.
When playing Devil's Advocate I liken your argument to one that the Earth is the center of the universe. We have data that doesn't etirely make sense. Then this chap called Galileo comes along and states a new idea. Clearly he is a heretic and should be dealt with.
Posts like your remind me that people have now turned Science into a culture cult, and not into the explorative and investigation of this cool little blue place.
Poster is uninformed.
Please look up Newton's Law of Gravitation. This is where we coin gravity from.
Now show me what evolution has?
A couple of bones?
Too completely different fields of studies with completely different facts behind them. Gravitation has been studied for a very long time and the law of gravitation explains the basics behind mass and attraction.
There is nothing close to the above, which has compiled data for centuries, that evolution can compete with.
While this does not discredit evolution, it certainly takes it off the same playing field you are trying to place them on. That is very inaccurate and irresponsible. Especially while only trying to make one of the best options for our country look bad. You should be ashamed.
Noticed there was a cut out from the tape. Interesting edit point about halfway through. Was this intentional to try and splice together what you wanted him to say?
As for faith vs. science, I present the following:
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/images/Science_verses_faith_flowcharts.jpg
Why is it edited at 0:30??
Way to cherry pick blogger.
Only use the statements that support your desired outcome.
Not unlike the many, many posters who followed you.
Some blindly, some with agenda.
I am not a believer in a "higher" power but I do not fault those who are as long as they are tolerant.
On the opposite side of the coin, a non tolerant non believer is even more disturbing to me as according to my "theories" they should be even more tolerant and flexible.
Ths whole blog is nothing more than an attempt for political gain.
It took a peripheral issue and put a spin on it to pander to the target audience.
Shame on you for being more of the same.
You have achieved mainstream media.
Please feel free to pick over my grammar and spelling if the message is too counter for your view.
"I don't think we're at a point where anyone has the absolute truth on either side."- R.P.
I used to be a Ron Paul supporter. Until recently. I actually ignored the hype about *all* the candidates and went through their Congressional records (for those in Congress) via the Washington Post database. For me, the argument of intelligent design vs. evolution is pointless. If God created the universe, then He created evolution. I'll stop there and not bring the Bible into it.
The best Congressional record appears to be the shortest, and that's why I endorsed whom I did on my blog. Ron Paul has no appreciation for democracy in our republic. He wants to sweep everything under the rug of "deregulation" instead of dealing with it. And now it looks as if that style of reasoning is coming to light in Paul's decision to ignore the facts endorse intelligent design.
I think this is a good thing. It allows us the opportunity to see if they "go by their gut" as GW Bush has done, or if they can really reason things through.
The obvious, intelligent, modern and free-thinking solution (as opposed to Paul's antiquated kooky religious ideas) is to pick up where the Soviet Union and China left off: Outlaw religion, declare the government athiest, and slaughter dissenters and objectors by the millions.
Ron Paul's biblical-based ideas of individual freedom and rights are old an antiquated! Bring us modern, shiny, "Atheist Truth" based government that deemphasizes the rights of the individual in favor of the health of the state.
Let the bloodshed and oppression begin to rid the world once and for all of Paul's kind of scientific ignorance and his insistence that each person has transcendental worth and inherent rights gained by merely being a product of Creator.
America doesn't need a return to the Constitution. America needs Soviet and communist China style genocide and oppression of religious expression. Yeah, thst's the solution.
The Bill of Rights originated in Puritan communities in both Britain and America. Silly christians! Tear up the Bill of Rights NOW and restore sanity! Bring me Stalin and Mao! PLEAAASE! =(
Regarding:
theory - a proposed explanation whose status is still *conjectural*, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
- don't forget that in order for a theory to be a "scientific theory" it must be falsifiable,
- and don't forget that even if a scientific theory is still "conjecture", it is _evidence_ that is used to support it or discard it
Personally, I don't care. His views on evolution aren't important since he's so anti-big government that I doubt he'll be pushing to put creationalism in our schools.
That's what makes him such a great candidate. He brings what is important back to the office of the presidency, and gets rid of all of the unneeded trash that gets so much importance placed upon it.
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics . . . even if you win, you're still retarded.
I really could care less about his religious or scientific beliefs. He is still the best candidate out there, in my opinion.
Don't let irrelevant issues confuse your vote. That's exactly what the political snakes out there want you to do. A good politician will not let his personal religious beliefs interfere with his political, social, or economic ideas (Ron Paul's are pretty much all great, by the way).
Regarding:
Poster is uninformed.
Please look up Newton's Law of Gravitation. This is where we coin gravity from.
Now show me what evolution has?
To be fair, remember that Newton's "Law" of Gravitation had to be replaced when it failed to explain phenomena near massive bodies. Newton's "Law" of Gravitation can't explain the precession of (the perihelion of) Mercury around the Sun, whereas Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can explain it. GR also predicted the bending of light around massive bodies, and when the phenomena was observed the theory of GR was bolstered. Experiments continue to this day to try to falsify or bolster GR. Newton's "law" still applies because generally it works "good enough", but I'd be careful with using it in a debate of "law" versus "scientific theory".
Evolution is fake anyways get over it.
Google "Ron Paul 2008"
Donate NOW to Ron Paul 2008!!!
Learn why the corporate media does not want you to know the real political issues that Ron Paul focuses his campaign on!
(Ignore distractions like this story which is irrelevant to the Presidency. We have much bigger things to care about politically, like wars in the Middle East, infringement on the Bill of Rights, torture, pre-emptive war, huge and growing national debt, and many other problems. The LEAST of our problems are the fine points as to whether someone in the goverment fully supports the theory of evolution or not! What a DISTRACTION from the REAL problems in this country!
There are those who think that life
Has nothing left to chance,
A host of holy horrors
To direct our aimless dance
A planet of playthings
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
"The stars aren't aligned -
Or the gods are malign"
Blame is better to give than receive.
You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose free will
There are those who think that
They were dealt a losing hand,
The cards were stacked against them-
They weren't born in Lotus-Land
All pre-ordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate
Kicked in the face
You can pray for a place
In heaven's unearthly estate
Each of us
A cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt
That's far too fleet...
Our Government should have NOTHING to do with religion. Weather you believe in evolution or a god. Separation of Church and State REMEMBER!
Obviously in this country we are never ALL going to believe the SAME thing. It's the things that we must
decide that are in our countries best interests that are important. NOT what a person believes in their heart to be true. I don't believe in God or any religion on earth. But I believe that Ron Paul even if he doesn't embrace evolution does believe in my Civil Right, and the Constitution. Just as I support his right to believe in what is true for him in this area, he supports my right not to believe.
A Ron Paul presidency would pretty much eliminate federal scientific funding, that much is clear. If you think that is a good thing, then hurray for Ron Paul. Personally, I view it as a disaster. When you consider the current state of US science education as well, things don't look bright for science in the US.
It all boils down to this:
Evolution = Theory
Scripture = FACT
Govt. sponsored science is bogus, let the private sector deal it (computer science is a good example). From the negative comments about Ron Paul not believe evolution, it seems once you believe in evolution you are to be considered the smartest person in the world. Where as when it comes to the knowledge of economics where the average joe deals with that isn't intelligent.
The theory of evolution is wonderful, but it is definitely not refined to the point that it can be useful. There is absolutely no way to use the theory of evolution to do any type of prediction(like you can with the theory of gravity, JCE).
And, this clip was purposely cut-off at a time that misrepresents the statement.
Ron Paul basically said that he believes that there was some creator, and that the method of creation is unknown. So evolution could still play into that method, but it's not a very complete theory now.
As a side note, why do you believe in evolution? Have you actually seen proof, or do you just go by what people are telling you?
A digger eloquently commented and I quote:
"You guys need to actually watch the video past the point where here says, "...it's a theory, theory of evolution and I don't accept it." Perhaps maybe if Dr. Paul had more time to clarify his exact personal philosophy on evolution (he is a medical doctor) than it's difficult to understand the exact point he is trying to make, until about 45 seconds in when he makes it clear that "I just don't think we are at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side". Which other candidate in your arsenal of bought-and-paid-for talking-heads would agree with the above quote by Dr. Paul. I think that alone is a profound political statement in-and-of itself considering the current status quo.
So however you look at it, it's still his own personal viewpoint, and the personal views of the execute head of a should-be small federal government should not be overly critical in affecting our public school systems as Dr. Paul has, again, made it very clear (i.e. consistent congressional voting record) that states should decide, period. With that in mind, what really makes you all think he would even try to impose anything on state schools from his office as president?
Get out of fantasy land, we have one good option for the Republican nomination, Dr. Paul. Everybody needs to stop tweaking over semantics and really think about the idea and philosophy of what Dr. Paul stands for, it is one where his personal flaws (that he has admitted too) should, by the rule of law (i.e. the constitution), not affect the individual states freedom to govern themselves freely, ensuring constitutionality at all times."
Speaking of gravity...Newton may have used the word 'law', but in our contemporary view of physics, gravity is the odd man out. Gravity is the force we have the most trouble integrating with the other known forces to formulate G.U.T's. Sure, we take it for granted, but it remains the most mysterious of forces.
Here is a bit of economics from Wikipedia for you:
An externality is an impact (positive or negative) on any party not involved in a given economic transaction.
An externality occurs when a decision causes costs or benefits to third party stakeholders, often, although not necessarily, from the use of a public good. In other words, the participants in an economic transaction do not necessarily bear all of the costs or reap all of the benefits of the transaction.
For example, research not only benefits those who do the actual research, but it also benefits people in society who are not involved with the research. Consequentially, there is a strong positive externality, so more research should be done then the free market outcome leads to. To encourage the efficient outcome, an economist would recommend a subsidy from the federal government. The private sector cannot provide the efficient outcome by itself.
While economists may be believe in the power of the free market, almost none of them go as far as Ron Paul. While the federal government's role should be limited, it definitely has a role to play in ensuring economic outcomes. While one might argue that the state government may be able to do a better job, the federal government ensures that each state does its share to support science and that no states free-ride on the research benefits of others.
Ron Paul fails to recognize that federal government isn't always bad. The federal government definitely has a role to play in supporting science. We shouldn't eliminate federal science funding. While bodies like NASA may need serious reform, federal funding for science research at universities is vitally important.
gravity is a law my friend. you shouldn't let just one issue decide your vote, think a little more holistically than that.
So you won't vote for Ron because you disagree with him on something that is irrelevant to the presidency? Nice. This is why we keep getting shitty candidates to choose from.
First of all he is religious so he believe God created us. I know lots of people who believe this.
The key is there is no proof of either. They both are theories. He said this.
Now if you can't agree with Dr. Paul's truth then I do not know what to tell you. If you want him to say Evolution is a FACT to get your vote then you are voting for the wrong person.
If you think this should be part of your decision making then you need to focus on more important things. Our country is going to hell in a hand basket and your worried about evolution?????
Regarding:
The theory of evolution is wonderful, but it is definitely not refined to the point that it can be useful. There is absolutely no way to use the theory of evolution to do any type of prediction(like you can with the theory of gravity, JCE).
The scientific theory of evolution mightn't have a lot of predictive powers, it depends on the timescales of the experiment one is doing. Pick a life form that goes through several generations in the course of the experiment and one might be able to make some predictions where one is still alive at the end of the experiment. :-)
However, the other aspect of the scientific theory of evolution is its explanatory capabilities. Various forms of evidence date the Earth to 4.5 billion years old (plus or minus). How does one explain what we see today given what we know of solar system formation and the historical evidence we find when we dig into the Earth?
It's hard to appreciate how much change can happen in a million years let alone a billion.
It would be interesting to search the web for "evolution evidence" and actually read through the articles it finds. Sounds like a fun project.
It doesn't matter what a presidential candidates view on religion or science is. The decision for next president should not be based on beliefs in religion or science as they should make their decisions while in office through reason and what is good for the people. If I remember correctly, the Constitution even prohibits a person being denied becoming a candidate based on their religious views.
It is funny how so many in the media and on the Internet are trying desperately to tarnish Ron Paul. Truth is, their attempts are feeble and don't amount to anything.
Ron Paul is definitely the person for the job to get this country in order. We have strayed far from the Constitution and it is time for a President to uphold the basic principals this country was founded upon. Ron Paul!
Frankly, I wouldn't give a rat's ass if he believed in the Easter Bunny. He is the only candidate that will end the Iraq War, repeal the Patriot Act, abolish the IRS and income tax, and restore the Constitution. Even if he doesn't believe in evolution, he certainly isn't going to try to ban the teaching of it... that would go against everything he stands for. This whole debate is about as relevant as his comments about Abe Lincoln, which were 100% on the money BTW (from someone who has studied it).
For those of you that want another Corporate Robot as President in 2008, please vote for anyone other than Ron Paul, then sit back and watch your country and your freedom slip into oblivion over the next four years. It is your choice....now. But having a choice won't last long if We The People don't start electing Statesmen who represent the people of the United States Of America. We are almost there now. Take a look at how Mr. Paul is being suppressed and shunned by the mainstream media, even though he is the lead Republican candidate and has proven this by numerous straw polls and record high donations from American citizens.. Why would anyone suppress an honest and proven Congressional leader who has done everything by the book; our book, The U. S. Constitution. That answer is becoming obvious as this campaign progresses. Remove your blinders and take a good look, for a change!
Just so you're aware, that video had a tiny clip taken out, here's
the full vid (which isn't much longer):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g
where he says "It's not the most important position to me to make a
difference in my life to understand the exact origin." Why would
someone go through the trouble to cut that tiny clip out? It's not
like it's long. I think it gives a fully explanation and that's why
it was cut.
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?
The video's obviously been edited -- one wonders what was cut out.
It Doesnt Matter what he thinks about evolution, We need to get this country on its feet again and that what Ron Paul stands for, the constitution.
Of COURSE it's a theory.
If he doesn't believe it's the origin of our species does it REALLY mean he's going to be a bad president?
I thought that was a personal choice?
You know, to believe what you want?
I think the question of belief in evolution gets confused with belief in the scientific method. People are having knee-jerk reactions these days because of fears Intelligent Design may get taught some day in schools as a scientific theory (it's not).
I think Ron Paul's answer (if you watch the ENTIRE answer) is not unreasonable. It would be interesting to get details on why he doesn't believe evolution is a plausible theory. But thus far his position on the subject isn't a reason I would vote against him.
I think many of you who act intelligent forget this simple FACT, and EVEN THIS article mentions it. "Theory". It may be the most obvious and what not but it is still a "theory". "Theory" is NOT a FACT, and thus is not subject to absolute agreement or acceptance, this is scientific. Using it as a smear on the candidate, I'm not his supporter, is pure bs, and playing on the sentiments of pro-evolution folks. If these pro-evolution people fail to understand the difference between theory and fact, then they are at fault for criticizing someone who does not accept a theory. For a theory is not always correct. Take for example the theory of the atomic model. It was changed so many times, and still today no one has concrete evidence as if our current model of the atom is correct. If only you see the difference between theory and fact, this article is a worthless attempt to discredit him in the eyes of many pro-evolution people. BTW I'm one of them, but I don't see this as logical grounds to be used against a candidate. Why don't you write this about other candidates as well? Surely Huckabee doesn't believe evolution, this goes to show that this is a biased piece far apart from being scientific. So I'd like to say GET A LIFE!
You people on both sides of this non-issue are acting like religious zealots -- yes even the 'supposed' scientists in here.
It's hillarious that with all of you 'scientists' are arguing that gravity is a law, when it is in fact a theory.
The current theory of gravitation is that mass bends the space-time continuum around it and that objects fall into this depression in space time, thus appearing to an observer as an accelerated reference frame. THIS IS STILL A THEORY!
Same with evolution; we can observe the effects, but we have not settled on an absolute cause. I personally believe in the validity of the theories of gravitation and evolution 99% (nothing is absolute), yet I'm not about to get on Ron Paul's case for something he is not versed in.
RON PAUL IS NOT A SCIENTIST AND IS NOT TRYING TO BE!
He's an honest and intelligent man that leaves such matters up to real scientists, unlike know-it-all do-gooders like Al Gore. Do you want your film actors telling you about politics? No?
Why would you want your science sullied by politics then?
For what it's worth, I'm an astrophysics major at Youngstown State -- and support Ron Paul 100% (one thing that is absolute I suppose).
Or would you rather have a President who believes in evolution, but doesn't plan on returning repealing George Bush's illegal, un-Constitutional powers back?
Remember kids, Hitler believed in evolution and was using the theory via eugenics to craft his master race. Keep the science out of politics please!
Evolution is a theory just as much as Creationism is a theory. Unless you could travel back in time, there is no way you can prove 100% either of them.
Ron Paul's views on this matter have nothing to do with his political views, he isn't for public education anyway.
Google the cambrian explosion.
He's an honest and intelligent man that leaves such matters up to real scientists, unlike know-it-all do-gooders like Al Gore. Do you want your film actors telling you about politics? No?
Note: Al Gore was in the House and Senate as well as Vice President of the United States long before he made An Inconvenient Truth. Perhaps you're referring to Ronald Reagan who was a film actor long before becoming President of the United States?
"By the way I am an educated scientist and I DO now the fact about evolution and its a flawed theory."
I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe you are a trained scientist, yet do not know how to spell "know."
I think it's telling that Dr. Paul ended with; "There's no proof on either side."
I don't think you'll get Huckabee or Romney to agree that there is no proof of Creationism.
Most obvious of theories... alls i gotta say is where are the missing links? Ron Paul's beliefs have nothing to do with running a country. Besides , he is all for the constitution so he doesn't care what you believe, and he is not going to shove creationism down your throat if he does become president.
This all sickens me. Does this even matter? Regardless, people need to think a little more about what creationism is and stop pretending like there are no gray areas. From what I heard, he did not elaborate on his specific beliefs other than at some point God created the universe. he did not say it was in seven days, nor did he say things do not "evolve" or "adapt." Saying he believes God created the universe simply means that at one point in time God created the universe. Hell I'm a "creationist" as well in that God created all matter at one point, but guess what, I also believe in the big bang and in "evolution" in the sense that organisms evolve over time. Seriously though, this has no business being an issue in a presidential election anyhow, so let's get off our intellectual high ground here and stop pretending every christian has this narrow minded literal interpretation of the bible, k thanks
For the minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is 1 in 10 to the 119,879 power. It would take 10 to the 119,841 power years on the average to get a se of such proteins. That is 10 to the 119,831 power times the the age of the earth.
Fatal Flaws, Hank Hanegraff
clearly Ron Paul is just lying to please the crazies, anyone who believes in creation is absolutley nuts.
Who the fuck cares if this man believes in evolution or not? The only thing that matters is the fact that he believes in separation of church and state. Mr. Paul is not looking to put his beliefs into our school as he knows this is not his job. I don't see when is became taboo to believe in something different; the only problem i have is when these beliefs affect the job of the president. Before you go and bash Mr. Paul for having his own beliefs, remember there is a difference between science and politics. This man has an unflawed concept of governmental infrastructure, and knows better than to try and tell people what to believe. Here is a man that wants to give you the freedom to live your life without people like this telling you what to believe in and he is criticized due to his religion. So if you think that not supporting Ron Paul during a time like this will make you feel better about your beliefs, you are literally digging your own grave.
"I would like you to reconsider your statement on the subscription. Please review my comments regarding why I posted this in the first place. My concern is over funding, not Mr. Paul's personal beliefs. He is entitled to think as he pleases. However, if his personal beliefs are going to hinder his ability to aid in the growth of our country, then I have an issue with that."
That's his platform not his 'personal religious beliefs'. Don't say you wouldn't endorse him because he doesn't believe in evolution. You don't like his stance on scientific/educational funding at the federal level. I guarantee you that his platform has zero to do with his non-belief in evolution.
"Evolution {bio) - change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. "
mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift are realities and do happen. Evolution is simply stating that these changes can happen over time in a gene pool.
There is no way that evolution doesn't occur. There are endless examples around us to prove it.
The theory behind the origins of all species is however just that - a theory. We don't know for sure where all life started -- we were not there to witness it. None of us were. Even those who wrote the bible were not there to witness it.
Did life start from creation? Maybe life on earth started from aliens? Maybe life started from primordial slime made up of simple RNA.
Slime doesn't really leave behind fossils though. But we can look at our own DNA and those around us, and use clues in it to build theories.
And may I just add, Darwin, in his book on the origin of species, never said man came from monkeys.
That's Dr. Paul to you.
Also, do you really believe that the theory of evolution is incontrovertible? It is called a theory because it is exactly that, a theory. Other theories of our existence include intelligent design. Many scientists have put forth that the theory of evolution may not fit in with observed rates of evolutionary change and the estimated age of the universe. Just throwing that out there as a scientist myself. Of course, you would probably be able to tell me all about the existing evidence and how it might agree/disagree with any present day theory of evolution.
It shocks you that any well educated person running for political office may not believe in your theory of evolution? Then along with this thought process: about 40-50 years ago you would have been shocked by a well-educated person running for political office who didn't believe in eugenics. That you would blindly accept evidence that you have not researched yourself in proposition of a theory whose ramifications you would then be ill-equipped to understand shocks me. The theory of gravity is something we live with everyday, to not believe that physical objects are attracted to each other would not bode well for one's continued existence. As such, it is not a good analogy in the least.
"Gravity is a theory too"
No, gravity is a phenomenon. There are theories that seek to explain gravity.
You're a fucking idiot
"Anonymous said...
You're a fucking idiot"
Awww...if I had a nickel for every time I heard that one! LOL
Just because you have internet access does not necessarily mean you deserve it. I have read many blogs and disagreed with individual standpoints. I have never, ever called someone a fucking idiot without identifying myself and explaining why. Nice manners.
For the record, we as the owners of the blog have the right to edit out comments such as the one above but we choose to post them and let the character of the person making the comment speak for itself.
Why thank you, Mr/Ms. Anonymous - Not only do you have absolutely anything apparently worthy to bring to the table but you clearly don't have the balls to even show yourself. I imagine we probably should thank you for that.
So here we have some little cowardly child who is bent out of shape because the entire world doesn't agree with him/her.
When people disagree, they tend to give each other the courtesy of stating why. Since you clearly lack class and manners, I see no reason why I should extend same to you.
To the anon who says he is a scientist, what kind of scientist? Political science? You don't have a clue about science.
The fact is that Ron Paul is a doctor, who presented with overwhelming evidence proving evolution is a fact as well as a theory, and nothing contradicting evolution, cannot be trusted when it comes to making logical choices. What other things will Paul fall back on faith for, even when provided with overwhelming evidence.
He should not have to power of veto. His judgment to make an informed decision cannot be trusted.
Government spending money on anything means it will first take them from your pocket, then steal 20%, waste 20% and then pass the rest to the destination influencing everything and creating more opportunities to corruption.
If you concerned about education or science why wouldn't you keep your money and drop them directly where you think they should be?
Best inventions were created by individuals or private companies - that's all.
"Gah!!! What has happened in our society when some of the most well educated people in our country, who are running for one of the most powerful political positions in the world, do not understand or accept the most basic and obvious of scientific theories? Gravity is a theory too. Perhaps if I drop a rock on their heads they will begin to understand what the term "theory" means in science."
ROFLMAO, the most basic and obvious scientific theory? You've got to be kidding me. I wish people would actually do their own research about evolution and see how little proof there actually is
I'd rather believe in evolution, something that is time-tested to be true, rather than some made-up religious idea about creationism or other similarly crazy ideas.
The deal with religions is that they always make up things that are impossible to prove or disprove. With this, they call it faith. That way religions can't be revealed as frauds and they can continue to control people through their religious doctrine.
If I can go back 2000 years in time, I too can make up my own religions and surely there will be dopes (as there are today) who are uneducated and hopeless and they will believe in what I say to be the word of God.
Well, the reason this article is getting "dugg down" is because of the author's fallacious notions of science.
Gravity, for one thing, is not a theory. It is a law. A scientific theory attempts to explain a natural phenomena. A law, on the other hand, describes the behavior of it. The Newtonian view of gravity is a law, because it describes the phenomenon of gravity-how it works (quantitatively speaking, i.e. 9.8 meters per second and all that jazz). Newton said himself that no attempt had been made to describe WHY gravity works. Gravity is definitely not a theory- we know for a fact that it exists. An example of a theory might be that gravity works because of subatomic particles.
Secondly, to be honest, America is facing several national crises. People should not be focusing on a politician's personal beliefs unless they truly believe that person's belief will inhibit their performance. With Ron Paul, he is careful to separate every one of his personal views from his policies. Hence his statements on legalizing gay marriage, drug use, and prostitution EVEN THOUGH he is against every single one of them.
Oh, and evolution is not a law (see my above post for a definition of "law"), nor is creationism a scientific theory (it falls short in the evidence department). Christianity is difficult because people these days put value on an idea solely based on how "scientific" it is. A poor choice in my opinion. Science is not omniscient, and religion is not unintellectual or unprepared for the modern world. I have yet to see a scientific fact on which there is a consensus that disproves any of my Christian beliefs. So I will continue them.
Furthermore, am I the only one who remembers Pascal's Wager?
Very correct comment James.
The people here keep referring to 'holes' in the fossil record and Darwin's theory. The thing is, evolutionary theory does not rely on the hypotheses from the Origin Of Species it has been refined and now takes into account genetic evidence as well as biochemical molecular evidence. There is a mountain of data from both these fields to more than support evolutionary theory. Additionally, any claims that predictions cannot be made using evolutionary theory are completely misguided. Please look it up at Talk Origins.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html.
To: Anonymous
"You're a fucking idiot"
That is the quality of writing that wins Pulitzers what are you doing perusing blogs? Shouldn't you be working on your next masterpiece; "I know you are, but what am I?" or "Mr. Doodoo pants has cooties."
Oh yes... additionally, the theory of viral transmission has not been proven, who here has actually ever seen a virus infect a cell? Show me in real time a virus infecting a cell. I think demon possession and evil spiritology are valid hypotheses and should not be counted out.... prove undeniably, 100% otherwise or else your virus theory should be tossed....
Ron paul is a fundamentalist christian and I think that plays a large role in his philosophy of government too. His states rights philosophy matches up perfectly with the philsophy advocated by the religious right. They want to fight the battles over abortion, creationism in science class.... at the state level. They think they can win in many states if they can keep the supreme court out of it. Thats why its so important to them to take control of the supreme court. Ron Paul would nominate judges to the supreme court and to other courts that would give the religious right exactly what they want. And its relevant to this issue becuase in many public schools around the country creationism would be taught in science class and evolution may be banned. That would be perfectly fine with Ron Paul since he doesnt believe in evolution, doesnt believe in the sep of church and state, and doesnt believe the Bill of Rights should be enforced on the whole country. You can be a libertarian and be for limited government and not be for pulic schools being able to teach creationism in science class. And you can also be a libertarian and be for the Bill of Rights (and the 1st Amend) being enforced on the whole cuontry. Thats the kind of libertarian I am, but thats not the kind of one Paul is.
Some one needs to ask him again about evolution though becuase his apologists will continue to try to spin for him until we have a definitive statement. I know what its going to be though. Paul doesnt believe in evolution at all, he doesnt believe humans evolved from primates etc... He likely believes in "Intelligent Design"/creationism that not only did God create life on the planet but he continued to create new forms of life througout the history of it (ie "the God of the gaps"). That there was no macro-evolution because that goes against his religious beliefs. Frankly Im surprised people are so shocked by this. Paul is a fanatic about abortion, and ebing against the sep of church and state.... Those should have been warning signs.
Indeed most have come to known evolution as explained by Darwin's NS, except that Darwin's NS is a bad explanation since the fittest do not always survive. So depending on Ron Paul's knowledge of how evolution was explained, it is moronic to make assumption of Paul's reasoning without these facts. This would show that many of you are not scientists or are bad ones at that.
So, you would rather vote for a candidate that would steal your money (inflation tax), take your house, taser, torture, and throw you and your family to FEMA camps than acknowledge that God created man and the universe. Now, that's an animal's basic instinct and you've got plenty of that. If you want to make yourself so low as an animal, you will continue to behave like an animal, that's fine by me.
But as for me, I was an atheist but I NOW KNOW that I am uniquely created by God. I KNOW He exists because many of my prayers came true. They were miracles. He is my shepherd; I shall not lack!
I don't care to be involved in a creation vs. evolution debate, but what frustrates me is the lack of maturity from people on both sides of this blog and the propaganda-loaded link from DIGG.
Ron Paul is a presidential candidate, period. He's not your mentor, your teacher, your professor, your priest nor your best friend. You have the freedom to believe whatever you choose, why shouldn't he?
To expect ANY candidate to appeal to every aspect of your personal whims, beliefs or intellectual conclusions REGARDLESS of how widespread they are is not only ridiculous, it's irresponsible. There are so many more important issues that a president needs to have an intelligent grip on than this science vs. religion bullshit.
I would love for someone to try and explain to me how his stance on evolution is going to affect his ability to run this country.
Gravity is not fully understood as everyone here seems to think. As we understand masses to attract one another, yes, that is very well accepted. However, as formulated by Newton, that "theory" was not able to predict all instances of observed gravitational effect. It took the "theory" of relativity to fix up gravitation theory so that it could accurately predict things that until that time could not be computed under the Newtonian system (such as the orbit of Mercury due to the warping of space). Today there are many theories regarding how the universe acts, including "dark matter" which is a hypothesis that attempts to explain phenomena which the current formulation of the theory cannot handle.
So there. Get a brain morans. (sic)
Evolution cannot be proven in any capacity. Let's think about what the theory of evolution implies.
#1 a living organism can be spontaneously materialize from nothing.
#2 a single-celled organism as basic and primitive as an amoeba has the potential to "evolve" through mutation, into the most complex living organism on the planet.
#3 All of the earth's ecosystems and the millions of intricacies therein exist entirely by chance.
So please, pseudo-intellectuals, leave the believing in ridiculous notions that cannot ever be proven, with no basis at all in reality to religious extremists, and shut the f**k up with your "theories". You don't know how we got here, nobody does.
JCE,
You wanted to drop the proverbial "rock on their heads" to prove a point.
Pretend I just hit your mother in the face with that rock. Would that be RIGHT or WRONG of me? Your aroused sense of justic betrays your view on God. Take some time to think about this one.
Patrick
Who really gives a shit. This is coming from a evolutionist. in the grand scheme of things it would be better to ignore this and move on. Even coming from an evolutionary stand point, we need a candidate like Paul -to- survive, so fuck it. If you want to get up in arms about something, this isn't it. This guy has said again and again that he -won't- impede his personal beliefs onto the Americans. Sheesh, bastards always trying to bitch about somethin....
"For the minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is 1 in 10 to the 119,879 power...".
To MHO, Jimmy nailed it.
When you go back to the "first day" of evolution, whether this is on earth or anywhere else in the universe, with all the good conditions, no mather how much time you give to the process, the probability of the most simple animal to come to life is zero.
That means: the fundation of the theorie of evolution is not true from a mathematical perspective.
Mathematics don't lie.
From another point of view, it is obvious that species evolve. A dog is a dog, but dogs 5000 yrs ago (and less) were not at all looking like todays dog: this is diversity. Animal size and colors change depending on environmental pressures. Nothing related with classical genetic evolution here.
JCE,
I know I didn't even deal with the content of your post, so for seeming to drop my bomb and leave. My point wasn't to express a desire to hurt your mother, but assuming you're an atheist given some of the links on your site, my hope was to call your attention to one of many things in your heart that betrays your view on the existence of God. If God doesn't exist, neither does ethics. The fact that you would call anything right or wrong is simply ridiculous, and I say this not to antagonize at all.
You're right about one thing, though. Kirk Cameron should've stayed home from work that day. He got smoked in the debate. But the good news is that he's not only man engaged in the debate. Dembski is much more thoughtful than Cameron.
Finally, and then I'm going to bed. None of this should give any of us hypertension. Thanks for opening the door for discussion. Let's leave the one for angry rhetoric closed.
Patrick
I'm not surprised thats his belief - it appears he is consist in his religious beliefs as he is in his political & economical ones.
The important thing to me is that he is not the kind of person to shove his beliefs down other people's throats though - that is golden in todays world. He will not make laws and influence the educational system to propogate his beliefs like other people would.
Evolution has a lot of holes in it.
Species "evolve", but the mutations never add more information to the DNA. Even disease resistance to treatment is because of a loss of information.
None of the textbook examples (eg. moths in Manchester) show evolution - only extinction.
Evolution always reduces the gene pool and has no real mechanism for increasing the gene pool.
2nd law of thermodynamics.
I'm not a biologist, I'm a physicist, but I know this. If people don't believe in a scientific theory, then it is because WE are not telling it right .
Who cares about all the other presidential candidates condoning torture, supporting violations of the Constitution, and voting for the Patriot Act, all that matters is that they believe in evolution!
It's completely irrelevant what his views on scientific matters are, as he's running for President, not State Governor. The President's only job is to protect the Constitution, not manage the economy or science research. If you want a politician that will effectively manage government-funded scientific research programs, then vote for a science-minded State governor.
Okay, a few points for the anti-evolution group.
#1 Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because it is not creating 'new' information. Information from two organisms is being combined through sexual reproduction. The mutation occurs during recombination of DNA and through change in cells.
#2 Evolution says nothing about geologic processes, that is geology. See how they sound similar, that is because one is a school of thought based off natural processes with a similar name.
#3 Evolution says nothing of the origin of life. Evolution deals with the change in organisms over time. Abiogenisis deals with the origin of life and is a separate scientific discipline.
Quit strawmanning evolution because it conflicts with your mythology and discuss the topic at hand.
Should a presidential candidate's position on evolution be a factor when making a voting decision? Is their position on such a topic indicative of how they will or will not handle certain issues?
My thought, as I said before, is that the choice of evolution or intelligent design isn't really a choice: many people who are deeply religious accept that evolution (which has a solid basis in both logic and scientific observation) does not necessarily negate intelligent design (which could still have required evolution as a means of showing progress). The issue then becomes one of semantics.
However, the choice against evolution (and I checked, it *is* Paul's position to be anti-evolutionist) is essentially a nail in the coffin because it shows an incapacity to accept logical argument and reason, and is "going with my gut" (as GW Bush put it). We've had enough of reactive gut-instinct politics as a country. Paul is not what we need.
I don't want to sound like a nut, but has anyone given thought to the fact that our planet is very old, we have many inconsistencies in our interpretation of past events in our planets history.
While evolution makes sense on many levels, there is also a very compelling body of evidence that suggests that something else was at work in the development of humanity as a species.
There are so many archaeological inconsistencies, which are very well documented, that perhaps we need to give some thought to the idea that we may be a bit off-base as to how our species developed.
Issues such as "Evolution" and "intelligent Design" are very polarizing. As such, we tend to regard them as purely black and white. Perhaps the reality, is somewhere in between.
We tend to look at myths and legends as the rambling of primitives which can have little or no scientific validity.
We tend to assume that our ancestors were less intelligent, thus, myths are just that, a story with no factual value. Perhaps the issue is one of us, as individuals and a society, being unable to accept that we may not be the most advanced civilization to inhabit this planet. We may not be the first human civilization to rise to a level of significant advancement. In a period of 100 years, we have gone from powered flight, to limited space travel. If we have been around for even 100,000 years, we have to recognize the possibility, that Humanity has developed previous advanced civilizations, and then through war and natural disaster, been laid-low.
I guess there is so much here I could say, so I will leave it at this. Intelligent design, does not necessarily imply the hand of god.
"Anonymous said...
JCE,
I know I didn't even deal with the content of your post, so for seeming to drop my bomb and leave. My point wasn't to express a desire to hurt your mother, but assuming you're an atheist given some of the links on your site, my hope was to call your attention to one of many things in your heart that betrays your view on the existence of God. If God doesn't exist, neither does ethics. The fact that you would call anything right or wrong is simply ridiculous, and I say this not to antagonize at all."
My original comment was meant as a joke. I am sure you already know that. I am replying because your comment regarding atheism and ethics is patently untrue. Ethics are developed by society, not religion. No, I would never intentionally drop a rock on someone's head because it could hurt them and it would be cruel. However, there are plenty of religious folks that would do that and worse given the opportunity. But, that is not the point of my post and you know that too.
I will say that people such as yourself who seem to possess and intelligent, open mind are what allows our society to move forward. Exploring new ideas and leaving ourselves open to possibilities encourages intellectual growth and THAT is what I most want to see evolve in our society.
One more note to anyone reading all these comments: If you are going to leave a comment, please include a user name. It is very difficult to reply to "Anonymous". Granted, I would not want my name associated with some of these comments either, but if you are typing it at least have the integrity to stand by what you are saying and allow us the opportunity to respond.
We here at Information Paradox appreciate every comment and enjoy open dialog. Opposing points of view are considered just as equally as consenting ones. So, please choose an identity - if you don't have one, it only takes a few moments to set one up.
Thank you!!
Goodbye Ron Paul
He's been getting through solely because he doesn't give clear answers on what he'll do. When asked about abortion he refused to give an answer, this actually got both sides angry (probably the first time I've ever seen pro lifers and choicers wince in agreeance at an answer).
I'm willingly to accept his footwork around that issue, but adamantly trying to say that evolution is inconclusive is just bullshit. God and evolution can exist together. Personally I think god doesn't exist, but Ron Paul is out of the running for me.
How, in any way, has Ron Paul evaded clear answers to any of his policies? Your dead wrong. In every interview I've seen-maybe 6 or 7 spanning from 1986 to present- he has given clear, concise, simple answers to everything.
"I consider abortion an act of violence and violence is something the government has a responsibility to curtail."
His EXACT words.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8
@an earlier comment, no.. his answers are very clear, let the states decide those things. Oh my god..why...why that's YOU!
To this whole thing:
That's a bit of a shock, really...
Good thing he's not running for President of Science.
And to the rest of it all (if you know what i mean) lol, you guys take any chance, both sides, to bring up the big GOD thing and state your stance, good times.
MR. PRESIDENT! KOREA IS ABOUT TO ATTACK, IRAN'S GOT THE BOMB, CHINA'S INVADING EVERYTHING, OUR ECONOMY IS IN A STATE OF NON-EXISTENCE, AND AUSTRALIA HAS JUST DECLARED WAR ON HAPPINESS, WE NEED TO KNOW RIGHT NOW: DO YOU BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION?!?!
lol
If evolution is a theory on the progression of mankind's phenotype, and creationism is a "theory" on the origin of the universe, then what is everyone discussing when they bring up the relevance or truthfulness of either? These are incompatible issues-theories on entirely different subjects.
No one can deny evolution. HOWEVER, that I share a common ancestor with a monkey is, to me, ludicrous. The complexity and intricacy of life is infinite. Even over billions and billions of years, the probability of a rich thriving earth emerging from next to nothing flatlines.
Why are people criticizing logic because it doesn't comply with factions of mainstream science? SCIENCE IS FALLIBLE. It is biased and flawed as is any other area of study. Scientific knowledge is useful to a degree, but there is plenty of science-based information that is plain wrong.
Honesty, it's about time for honesty. Ron Paul represents just that, as for evolution and creationism, who cares!! What the heck does it have to do with our governments out of control spending and rising deficit this country faces. How do these views matter to anyone right now when we all should worry about our economy. The dollar is falling, FAST, the war is out of control, and frankly I am scared as hell to even bring a child into this world as an American citizen. What kind of burdens will they face when they are trying to still pay off the debt from this unconstitutional war years from now. Ron Paul has studied economics a lot of his life, I feel Ron Paul can bring us out of this hole we have dug for future generations. One cannot like everything about any one Presidential Candidate. It's time for Honesty. It's time to return America into a respectable nation again through peace and dialogie.
If people are discussing creationism and evolution, its for a reason: its relevant. So, i guess the answer to your rhetorical question is that we (everyone who has commented thus far on the issue) care. If you dont, there is something deeply wrong with the state of the public.
Yes there are other crises. But this is also one of them.
> Yes there are other crises. But this is also one of them.
I think voters should treat candidates in a holistic manner. Ron Paul's view on evolution simply isn't as important to most people as his views on Iraq, the economy/deficit, and the role of government in our lives. I'd rather see Paul get the nomination than the likes of Huckabee and Romney.
It's funny that Romney, Huckabee, and the current Bush all have the exact same point of view. Yet these are never posted like this and hated upon.
Funny Fox news doesn't have a story about this, ohh thats right the conservative morons think this way.
Maybe he is playing to his constituents.
OOC, has anyone watched this through its entirety? It's Ken Miller's talk on Intelligent Design, the recent court cases, and how creationist folks are trying to morph ID into something else to try yet again.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
I think there are a number of reasons to watch this, either if you're trying to approach the debate absent of Ron Paul, or if you're trying to understand why some folks believe Ron Paul's view's on this matter are not unimportant.
Interesting things I found in it are:
- scientific theory lives at a higher level than fact, as it attempts to explain what we see as fact
- evolution has been observed (bacteria living off of nylon)
- evolution has made testable predictions that have come true (chromosome #2 is fused from two chromosomes and explains why apes have 48 pairs and humans only have 46 pairs)
" Anonymous said...
It's funny that Romney, Huckabee, and the current Bush all have the exact same point of view. Yet these are never posted like this and hated upon.
Funny Fox news doesn't have a story about this, ohh thats right the conservative morons think this way.
Maybe he is playing to his constituents."
Maybe you need to look around a bit more, especially on this blog. Huckabee and Bush are hated on ten times more than any other politician, they are infinitely larger asshats and deserve to be despised.
For me whether or not a candidate believes in evolution isn´t a big issue for me. How about war in Iraq, war on drugs, and government spending anyone? Go RP!
That's 23 vs 24 pairs, for a total of 46 vs 48 chromosomes ...
[bad editing]
WHO CARES?!
Evolution is a non-issue.
Monetary exploitation of the masses is the most important issue.
Oppose central banking like Ron Paul.
Laws must be proven mathematically. (The Law of Gravity isn't just a law because it describes behavior.)
I love how many of you throw the law of Evolution out the window. While modern science, history, geology and physics have failed to convince you of the possiblity that creationisim is a fable. Some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in tongues may be all the evidence you need to prove creationisim.
Wow. So many of you completely seem to be missing the point of this post.
JCE doesn't give a damn if Ron Paul believes in God, Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That's irrelevant. The point here is a complete lack of information on the parts of the people who will be running the country. Evolution is not a "law" and whoever told any of you that is an idiot. Nothing in science is EVER considered 100% true and infallible. It is always open to discussion, debate, re-interpretation, and so on. Evolution, as it currently is understood and observed, can be assumed to have taken place for all currently living species in some regards or another. Natural Selection would see to it that undesired aspects of people would slowly, over time, be weeded out of the gene pool, thus making the race stronger and better as a whole. A good example of this is africans - they "evolved" in such a way to make themselves less susceptible to malaria (a geniune concern in their area), because the people that were MORE susceptible died off without reproducing. That is how it WORKS. Animals in the wild still exist the same way, don't bother to argue this.
This doesn't necessarily mean we evolved from protozoa, or from monkeys, or any of that. If it hurts your pride to imagine that we, as a race, are anything other than the specialestest widdle things that god evaw made awwww awent you PWECIOUSS!!!! then fine, you don't have to think that. Don't bury your head in the sand and scream GOD SAYS EVOLUTION DOESN'T HAPPEN because there is no passage ANYWHERE saying ANYTHING near that.
The REAL problem here is with funding. Ron Paul wants to dissolve the Department of Education which is a terrible terrible terrible terrible idea. Yes, in a way it would be great if each state could cater what they have to teach to the immediate needs of their students. However, what is more likely to happen is that schools will lower their standards and fail to teach useful, real-world things outside of what has immediate and obvious use. This is not a solution.
Unfortunately I have no way to wrap this up or anything like that, so I will basically just wrap it up like so:
lol american politics
Looking back, it doesn't make a lot of sense to be screaming something with your head buried in the sand but WHATEVER
Evolution is a theory.
One of the most widely accepted theories with the least evidence to support it.
In all of science there are no recorded instances of a living creature evolving into a more advanced life form. I don't find it so wierd that someone would not believe in evolution especially if it contradicts their faith.
MOST importantly, you are talking about a US presidential candidate. They ALL proclaim some sort of christian faith and I can not think of anyone who has ever run for the office that has said they support the theory of evolution. I guess this leaves me a little confused by your shock over Paul not supporting evolution.
Paul is the man for 2008 because of his economic genius, not his thoelogy about where we all came from.
We need him to save the dollar not teach science theories.
To all who say or think 'Evolution is just a theory', read this:
Evolution is a fact. The "theory" part is ONLY about how it works.
I repeat, it is not a theory that life on earth evolved, WE KNOW IT DID and still does. The only thing we theorize about is how it works.
This is EXACTLY how the theory of gravity works. Gravity is a fact (jump out the window and prove me wrong), the only "theory" is about how it works.
Please learn and understand the difference between a scientific theory and a common language "idea".
Noah, you're woefully uninformed.
The Theory of Evolution is the most tried and tested theory in the history of science, and is the theory with by far the most evidence to back it up, even more than the theory of gravity.
There are literally billions of pieces of evidence demonstrating instances of living creatures evolving into a more advanced life form.
You seriously need to go to the library.
Evolution is a fact. The "theory" part is ONLY about how it works.
Finally someone says it right!
I'm not a scientist. I'm an artist. This is the truth, very well put!
I support Ron Paul however. I don't care if he believes in God, the easter bunny or fairies in the forest. He knows what he is talking about. I wish people would listen, really listen. I want the America I was raised to believe exists.
It doesn't right now at all.
See him talk candidly with the very well respected Bill Moyers on PBS.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01042008/watch2.html
Whether Ron Paul believes in Santa Claus or subscribes to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics, matters not in the least as for his policies. A limited federal government (the one enacted in that document setting up a "more perfect union" long ago after the first union failed) has no agenda to push promulgating this truth or that. Local communities, states, are free to represent their citizens and foster the societies they see fit.
What Kucinich Saw:
Witnesses Describe
His Close Encounter
Candidate's Pals Recall
Three Throbbing UFOs;
Outed by Shirley MacLaine
By MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS
January 2, 2008; Page A1
The 2008 presidential race has raised many questions about the candidates' personal histories. Will Barack Obama's past drug use preclude a White House future? Will Christian conservatives forgive Rudy Giuliani his two divorces? Will voters forgive Hillary Clinton for forgiving Bill?
And what exactly did Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich see hovering above actress Shirley MacLaine's house 25 years ago?
This fall, Ms. MacLaine revealed in her new book that the Ohio congressman had seen a UFO and felt "a connection in his heart and heard directions in his mind." In a Democratic presidential debate in late October, Mr. Kucinich acknowledged seeing something airborne that he couldn't identify and then defused the issue with a joke about opening a campaign office in Roswell, N.M., the capital of unexplained sightings.
Since then, the long-shot candidate has refused to elaborate on the experience.
Now, after keeping quiet about the incident for a quarter of a century, the two people who say they were at Mr. Kucinich's side that evening have come forward to describe an event which they say left them convinced that there's intelligent life in outer space.
"At no time did I feel afraid, even though I felt very small," says one witness, Paul Costanzo. "I sensed that I was in the presence of a greater technology and intelligence."
The close encounter, says Mr. Costanzo, took place in September 1982 at Ms. MacLaine's former home in Graham, Wash. -- an expansive estate on a ridge above the Puyallup River, with a view of Mount Rainier.
The 61-year-old Mr. Kucinich, who declined several requests to comment for this article, had been the wunderkind mayor of Cleveland in the late 1970s and had met Ms. MacLaine through Bella Abzug, the late New York congresswoman and feminist. The actress says she quickly realized she and Mr. Kucinich were kindred spirits. Years later he asked Ms. MacLaine to be the godmother of his daughter.
"We just thought the same," Ms. MacLaine says in an interview. "We have the same political points of view."
When Cleveland voters ousted Mr. Kucinich after one tumultuous term, Ms. MacLaine offered him her home as a sanctuary where he could write his memoirs. He lived there for the better part of a year.
Also in residence was Mr. Costanzo, a Juilliard-trained trumpet player and jujitsu black belt, who worked as Ms. MacLaine's assistant, personal trainer and bodyguard. He and Mr. Kucinich became good friends, and Mr. Costanzo, now 55 years old, served as deputy campaign director and security chief for the congressman's unsuccessful 2004 presidential run.
Ms. MacLaine -- well-known for her fascination with things mystical and extraterrestrial -- was in Canada that weekend in 1982, performing her one-woman show. But Mr. Costanzo's girlfriend at the time, a model and actress who is now 50 years old, was visiting when the UFO incident took place. She spoke after Mr. Costanzo requested she do so, and on condition that her name not be published.
Here's what happened, according to separate interviews with Mr. Costanzo and his former girlfriend:
The day was strange from the start. For hours, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Costanzo and his companion noticed a high-pitched sound. "There was a sense that something extraordinary was happening all day," says the girlfriend. She and Mr. Costanzo say that none of the three consumed alcohol or took drugs.
As they sat down to a dinner, Mr. Kucinich spotted a light in the distance, to the left of Mount Rainier. Mr. Costanzo thought it was a helicopter.
But Mr. Kucinich walked outside to the deck to look through the telescope that he had bought Ms. MacLaine as a house gift. After a few minutes, Mr. Kucinich summoned the other two: "Guys, come on out here and look at this."
Mr. Costanzo and his girlfriend joined Mr. Kucinich, where they took turns peering through the telescope. What they saw in the far distance, according to both witnesses, was a hovering light, which soon divided into two, and then three.
MORE
• Washington Wire: Updates from the campaign trailAfter a few minutes, the lights moved closer and it became apparent that they were actually three charcoal-gray, triangular craft, flying in a tight wedge. The girlfriend remembers each triangle having red and green lights running down the edges, with a laser-like red light at the tail. Mr. Costanzo recalls white lights, but no tail.
Mr. Costanzo says each triangle was roughly the size of a large van, while his former girlfriend compares it to a "larger Cessna, smaller than a jet certainly." Neither recalls seeing any markings, landing gear, engines, windows or cockpits.
The craft approached to within 200 yards, suspended over the field just beyond the swimming pool. Both witnesses say it emitted a quiet, throbbing sound -- nothing like an airplane engine.
"There was a feeling of wanting to communicate something, but I didn't know what," says Mr. Costanzo.
The craft held steady in midair, for perhaps a minute, then sped away, Mr. Costanzo says. "Nothing had landed," he says. "No strange beings had disembarked. No obvious messages were beamed down. When they were completely out of sight, we all looked at each other disbelieving what we had seen."
At Mr. Kucinich's suggestion, they jotted down their impressions and drew pictures to memorialize the event. Mr. Kucinich kept the notes, according to Ms. MacLaine, who said he promised her recently that he would try to find them.
In an interview with WSJ's Jeffrey Trachtenberg, actress and author Shirley MacLaine discusses the cosmic scope of her new book, "Sage-ing While Age-ing."
"It was proof to me that we're obviously not alone," says the girlfriend.
The next day, the group spotted what they thought to be military helicopters buzzing around the valley where they had made the sighting. And the high-pitched sound remained.
Mr. Kucinich called Ms. MacLaine in Canada to tell her what had happened. "He said it was beautiful, serene, and it moved him," says Ms. MacLaine, who is supporting Mr. Kucinich's candidacy. "He was not afraid of it, let's put it that way. Seeing something that close and sophisticated and gentle."
Ms. MacLaine says she has seen UFOs from a distance in New Mexico and Peru, but never up close. She was envious. "I'm the one who reports them, but they never make close visitation. What am I doing wrong?"
None of the three reported the incident to the authorities. And over the years that followed, they shared the story with very few people. "Unfortunately, people are ridiculed when they say they've had these kinds of experiences, which is why I never came forward with it," says the girlfriend.
Ms. MacLaine says she called Mr. Kucinich before she included his UFO sighting in her book, "Sage-ing while Age-ing," a recounting of her spiritual and professional journeys. "I can handle it," she says he told her.
More recently, Mr. Kucinich has dodged it. Approached by The Wall Street Journal for comment in December -- moments after he voted for a House resolution praising Christmas and Christianity -- Mr. Kucinich looked unblinkingly ahead: "I don't have any comment," he said.
So your pretty much saying all Doctors believe in Evolution?
What a load, I don't think it matters either way what he believes on that subject; perhaps it doesn't really bother him and I don't think it should be the deciding factor in a campaign.
Some Atheist take this too far.
The Agnostic,
What the denial of this scientific theory does display is a fault in reasoning abilities. We already have a president that can ignore evidence and deny facts, I don't think we need a follow up.
i would like to address this comment in particular:
"evolution is such an obvious fallacy, any candidate stupid enough to believe it should be *barred* from public office.
the Bible contains the truth and we are a Christian country - leave the propaganda of the devil to the backward Middle East - just look for far it's got them"
you are a douchebag, church and state should ALWAYS REMAIN SEPERATE, which i think is a huge reason that dr. paul found this question inappropriate.
as to BGH's respons to The Agnostic, he says right in the video that there isn't evidence to prove it either way. why does that mean that he lacks the ability to reason? obviously he's a christian, so he's going to believe the bible. he isn't forcing his opinions on anyone else, though.
i still fail to understand how this is relevant to the presidency. and don't say anything about that reasoning skils BS.
feel free to contact me if any of you feel like discussing this further...
I myself I'm proud to be an atheist and I support Ron Paul. The funny thing about the youtube video is how it seems edited, but even if not the man makes the clearest point of all, "My beliefs on evolution have nothing to do with running this country" (paraphrase). Ask Hillary and Obama that question, they'll sound more like Bush.
It's interesting how a scientific theory so basic and obvious as Evolution can be rejected, considering it was not truly accepted until the modern nineteenth century. Also the Law of Gravity is indeed a scientific law. You must be referring to Gravitation or the concept of Universal Gravity because those are decided theories. And as far as the word "theory" in a scientific context, it has no special attributes outside of the literal translation in the English language. But I suppose this, much like your commentary, is simply semantics.
The video is obviously cut off at mid-point. WHY DOESN'T ANYBODY ELSE NOTICE THIS.
Post a Comment