Ron Paul Evolution Denial Update

Last week, I posted a link to a video clip in which Ron Paul appeared to reject biological evolution as merely a "theory." I noted at the time that there was a glitch that could be an edit. Before I blogged it, I searched through at least a score of youtube postings to see if I could find an unedited version and did not. Happily several reason.tv commenters found one and sent it along to me. My reason.tv update is below. So go over to reason.tv for a link to the full video.

Update: The video glitch that I noted in my original post was indeed an edit. Many reason.tv commenters have kindly (some not so kindly) now pointed me in the direction of the unedited video. That link is here.

Some reason.tv commenters have also suggested that the full video somehow vindicates Paul, but he undeniably still says, "I think it's a theory, the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory." In addition, Paul says that he thought it was an inappropriate question. I disagree. Teaching intelligent design in public school science classes is a political issue; one that was decided by a federal judge in one famous case. Keep in mind that the president nominates federal judges.

As a principled libertarian, Paul could have answered the question by saying that he would allow school choice. That way some parents could decide to send their children to schools that teach superstition and others could opt to send their kids to schools that teach science. Instead Paul expressed his disbelief in biological evolution. Of course, there are no perfect candidates and reasonable people can certainly decide that all of Paul's other positions and qualities outweigh this unfortunate bit of ignorance.

Comments

jj | January 2, 2008, 10:49am | #

For heaven's freaking sake! I don't care the fuck what you think the origins of the universe are. I do care whether you are going to force those views on me. Ron Paul has made clear he won't. So no, Mr Bailey, *it does not matter* from a libertarian standpoint that he believes in intelligent design.

Since the evolution view --sans opposing questions-- is being taught with my taxpayer money, I have no problems with opposing views being elucidated too.

This is a silly, silly distraction, and you have in no way made clear how it relates to politics or libertarianism. Until Ron Paul adovcates ID, evolution, or any other theory or dogma as public policy, it should not matter.

Taktix® | January 2, 2008, 10:49am | #

I'd rather have Paul reject evolution yet not force it on me, rather than a Romney or a Giuliani who jerk off to the idea of forcing their opinions on people...

Pro Libertate | January 2, 2008, 10:50am | #

I don't like that Paul appears to be a Creationist (presumably of the Young Earth/Universe variety), but, given that he doesn't want government in education in the first place, that position causes me no undue distress.

jj | January 2, 2008, 10:52am | #

unless you are living on the moon you do realize that, a. the majority of the people in this country believe in some form of Intelligent Design, and b. their tax money is being extracted from them to teach something to which they are opposed. As an anarchist that profoundly disturbs my little soul, and if you have any, any libertarian inklings, it should yours too.

Reinmoose | January 2, 2008, 10:54am | #

ditto PL

Taktix® | January 2, 2008, 10:55am | #

Since the evolution view --sans opposing questions-- is being taught with my taxpayer money, I have no problems with opposing views being elucidated too

Whoa there! You act like there are any other scientific theories competing with evolution, and as far as science class goes, there aren't.

"Opposing views" might be relevant in a religious studies class or some other elective, but to say taxes should go to teaching these bullshit evolution alternatives, I say fie upon you sir. Fie!

And as Bailey points out, this issue came down to federal judges who are appointed by the Prez. If it isn't any more relevant, than what is?

Taktix® | January 2, 2008, 10:56am | #

Duh-o! Failing to close the People's Tag strikes again!

kwais | January 2, 2008, 10:56am | #

Dude, I really could give a damn about evolution.

If he gets rid of the IRS, I go along with that the earth is as old as anyone wants it to be.

I would agree to donate to a Satan worshiping school if it would get school choice.

Taktix® | January 2, 2008, 10:58am | #

their tax money is being extracted from them to teach something to which they are opposed.

So if I decide to stop believing in gravity, should I be taught in school that I'm held to the Earth by a big, underground Jesus magnet?

LarryA | January 2, 2008, 11:00am | #

It does really tick me off, though, when a candidate dodges an awkward question by declaring it "inappropriate." If it's really inappropriate, say why.

Lamar | January 2, 2008, 11:00am | #

The biggest problem with the Ron Paul's candidacy is that he would probably appoint big time Jesuser judges. He would look for strict constructionists who, surprise!, are mostly Jesus freaks. There wouldn't be any judges to stop hick towns from using government money to push the gospels. Big problem.

penxv | January 2, 2008, 11:01am | #

I think that he displays a much greater interest in where we are headed rather than where we came from.

He said it was an inappropriate question and to him... it was. Because he didn't want to talk about it.

I think that if he put his mind to it, he'd probably come to a more reasonable conclusion... but he has better things to do right now.

Reinmoose | January 2, 2008, 11:02am | #

So if I decide to stop believing in gravity, should I be taught in school that I'm held to the Earth by a big, underground Jesus magnet?

At the federal level, if Mike Huckabee were president and agreed that you were held to Earth by a big, underground Jesus magnet, you would most definitely be taught that in school. If Ron Paul were president and he agreed that you were held to Earth by a big, underground Jesus magnet, you would be subject to your state's opinion on the matter, but would not necessarily be taught that in school. How you could go about picking a supreme court judge who would mandate that such a thing be taught I don't know.

DrEast | January 2, 2008, 11:04am | #

Considering our views of gravity are not very advanced at the moment, does a Jesus-magnet theory account for more phenomena than the weights-in-space Einsteinian view? If so, we may have a scientific breakthrough on our hands.

On a more serious note, the point that federal judges engaged in legal regulation at all raises some tricky constitutional points. I can let that slide, as under our legal system precedent is very important, but the simple fact is that in doing so the courts increased the power of the federal government at the cost of the local, which no matter what the intentions or the results (think about that for a second) is inherently going to lead to a more powerful federal government at the expense of us all.

JasonL | January 2, 2008, 11:04am | #

No one should cast a vote with the expectation that the IRS is actually going anywhere ...

Episiarch | January 2, 2008, 11:04am | #

I would agree to donate to a Satan worshiping school if it would get school choice.

I would donate to Satan himself if he promised to abolish the IRS, DHS, and more. Thank you, Satan!

robc | January 2, 2008, 11:04am | #

Pro Lib,

Im pretty sure Paul's other comments (from previous debates) on the issue makes it clear he is not a young Earther.

Then again, what does it matter. Here is what we clearly know:

1. Paul is running for president, not governor
2. Paul wants to end the dept of education
3. At that point, as president, he will have no say in what is taught in public schools.
4. Outside of schools, this issue affects nothing policy-wise that I can think of.

joe | January 2, 2008, 11:05am | #

Commenters say Ron Paul doesn't want the government involved in schools, so it doesn't matter what he thinks about evolution.

Ron Paul doesn't want Congress to hand out earmarks, either, but he's shown himself to be quite the pragmatist on that matter, willing to work within the system until the state withers away.

News Flash: we're going to have public schools throughout the 2-term Paul presidency.

crimethink | January 2, 2008, 11:05am | #

Teaching intelligent design in public school science classes is a political issue; one that was decided by a federal judge in one famous case. Keep in mind that the president nominates federal judges.

Do you seriously believe Ron Paul would appoint federal judges based on whether they thought evolution should be taught in public schools?

Mr. Nice Guy | January 2, 2008, 11:05am | #

"So if I decide to stop believing in gravity, should I be taught in school that I'm held to the Earth by a big, underground Jesus magnet?"

Holy shit that was funny! It's premature for a thread that is bound to get 300+ posts (Ron Paul AND evolution by Jove), but what the hell, Taktix takes the thread!

CFisher | January 2, 2008, 11:06am | #

The question is inappropriate unless the candidate believes in Federal control over education.

Ali | January 2, 2008, 11:06am | #

For heaven's freaking sake! I don't care the fuck what you think the origins of the universe are. I do care whether you are going to force those views on me. Ron Paul has made clear he won't. So no, Mr Bailey, *it does not matter* from a libertarian standpoint that he believes in intelligent design.

Ditto!

Evolution or no evolution, can libertarians evolve into a bunch of people who can actually vote for a winner (or one closely so) for once? Will they remain like the apes that they seem to be?

joe | January 2, 2008, 11:07am | #

Do you seriously believe Ron Paul would appoint federal judges based on whether they thought evolution should be taught in public schools?

I seriously think Ron Paul would appoint judges based on their willingness to "respect local autonomy" and on their traditionalist orientation on culture war matters.

Taktix® | January 2, 2008, 11:08am | #

Reinmoose,

You just wanted to type big, underground Jesus magnet a bunch of times, huh?

It's OK. It's fun...

Big, underground Jesus magnet!

Artus Register | January 2, 2008, 11:08am | #

I don't think anyone cares that Dr. Paul does not accept evolutionary theory. I think people are shocked that he manned up and admitted this, despite the ridicule he might endure.
People love it when Ron Paul speaks his mind and takes their side in a debate displaying character and honesty not seen in 200 years...but when he acts the same about something they don't agree with, the names come a flyin'. You can't have it both ways, people.

And as has been said, why does anyone give a damn about his reply as he likely wouldn't even staff the DOE if elected. No subsidies for any schools, or any researchers of any stripe--sounds great!

Anyone willing to leave me alone and abolish our horribly abusive tax system will get my money, support and vote, regardless of their religious or scientific views.

robc | January 2, 2008, 11:09am | #

Considering our views of gravity are not very advanced at the moment

Ive thought we are taking a lot on faith in the current views of gravity. I may be a bit out of date, so if any physicists would like to correct me, feel free.

We have these, as yet undetected, particles, "gravitons", that are exchanged between every body in the universe and move at, as far as we can tell, infinite speeds. Putting one big body in between two others, doesnt seem to affect the interaction of the outside bodies in any way, the gravitions arent blocked.

Have I got my "theory of gravity" roughly right? I may be switching to the Jesus magnet side.

jimmy smith | January 2, 2008, 11:09am | #

I think I believe whatever the Chinese believe. Do I make myself clear?

crimethink | January 2, 2008, 11:10am | #

Also, Bailey, the question wasn't "Do you think ID or evolution should be taught in public schools", it was "Do you believe in evolution?" They are clearly NOT the same question, as it's conceivable that a person could answer yes/yes, yes/no, no/yes, or no/no (ie, the questions are independent of each other).

So, the question he was actually asked was inappropriate, regardless of whether the question he wasn't asked was appropriate.

kwais | January 2, 2008, 11:11am | #

So if I decide to stop believing in gravity, should I be taught in school that I'm held to the Earth by a big, underground Jesus magnet?

Personally I would like for the parents to decide what their kids are taught in school, not some bureaucrat.

If I personally had kids, and were picking where to send them, I would consider sending them to a catholic school, even though I am not a catholic, as long as critical thinking is taught.

I would not like to send them to a school where some judge decides that evolution is real and all the modern science is real, but after graduation my kids will not know how to read,

I would also like to not send them to a school that teaches the statist bullshit that I was taught.

Mr. Nice Guy | January 2, 2008, 11:11am | #

Epi
The Devil may promise to get rid of the IRS, but since, according to the SNL skit with Will Ferrell and Garth Brooks, he can't even write a decent song he certainly will not be able to deliver on such a promise...

http://www.unquality.com/?p=234

Reinmoose | January 2, 2008, 11:12am | #

Taktix -
looks like you have me figured out ;)

Mr. Nice Guy | January 2, 2008, 11:13am | #

"I would also like to not send them to a school that teaches the statist bullshit that I was taught."

Yeah, no bullshit in Catholic schools!

Bullshit comes in many non-Statist varieties...

TJ | January 2, 2008, 11:14am | #

Who gives a shit? I don't give a damn whether Paul believes Clowns dropped us out of their spaceship 4 eons ago. Look at the man's track record to know how he would govern. To make this a big deal in regard to Ron Paul is laughable. If Edwards or McCain were addressing this topic then it would be of concern b/c we don't know how they would handle something like this. But Paul follows the constitution better than anyone in all of congress. Again, the people making a big deal of this in regards to Paul shows they don't know a damn thing about the man's record.

Mr. Nice Guy | January 2, 2008, 11:15am | #

"I think people are shocked that he manned up and admitted this, despite the ridicule he might endure."

Yeah, he'll get ridicule from most intelligent folks, but remember the guy is running in a REPUBLICAN contest. You play to your audience.

DrEast | January 2, 2008, 11:15am | #

"Bullshit comes in many non-Statist varieties..."

Yes, but Statist Bullshit (SBS) doesn't.

Hmmm... SBS... sounds like an exotic disease.

Lamar | January 2, 2008, 11:16am | #

Home schooling should be for religious wackos, not people who think science is properly taught separately from religion.

Taktix® | January 2, 2008, 11:16am | #

crimethink,

Technically, yes, the question was inappropriate in the strictest sense of definition.

However, in the context of a campaign, any question takes on a "what's your policy" implication, even questions regarding ice cream flavor preference.

OK, maybe Ice Cream is neutral, but you get the idea...

kwais | January 2, 2008, 11:17am | #

Paul is so much more wrong on the immigration thing that he is on this, no matter what his belief on this really is.

Joe, I know you are specially in love with public sort of statism, but haven't the last few years taught you that your like minded guys might not always be in charge?

The choice is not between forcing education that you see fit, and freedom of education. The choice may well be between forcing education that is abominable to you and free choice.

You might want to go with freedom, even if it means some hick in rednecksville will chose wrong.

R C Dean | January 2, 2008, 11:18am | #

Lets try a hypothetical:

Even if RP said he would push to have ID taught in the schools, how much does that really weigh in the scale of all the issues?

I mean, geez, people, get some perspective.

I seriously think Ron Paul would appoint judges based on their willingness to "respect local autonomy" and on their traditionalist orientation on culture war matters.

Sounds like a feature, not a bug, to me. Howsabout you, joe?

crimethink | January 2, 2008, 11:18am | #

robc,

Gravitons don't travel at infinite speed according to general relativity; they are bound by the 186,000 mi/s speed limit everything else is. Thus, if the sun somehow vanished, the Earth would continue its orbit for eight minutes afterward, before heading off in a straight line! I'm not sure if this particular prediction of gen rel has been confirmed by experiment, though, and that's always the ultimate arbiter in physics.

It doesn't help that individual gravitons have never been detected, but this might be due to the fact that when you're looking at a small enough scale to detect individual particles, everything is so "light" that there wouldn't be that many gravitons around anyway. The best place to look for them would be near a black hole, I presume, but that presents its own difficulties...

Brian Middleton | January 2, 2008, 11:18am | #

uhmm this category falls under "who gives a crap"

The biggest issue I have is that somehow because evolution has been taught to most of us, millions of dollars pounded into this theory, majority of scientists depend on this theory (or they look silly), reputations depend on this theory, political and religious motivations depends on this theory, we will not geta reasonable discussion on it or even get to challenge it.

I personally reject both biblical creationism and evolution the way is has been set forth. But again, who gives a crap.

DrEast | January 2, 2008, 11:18am | #

"Home schooling should be for religious wackos, not people who think science is properly taught separately from religion."

Or... for people who want to actually teach their kids, instead of letting them go to school to learn how to do well on SOL tests.

"No Child Left Behind" has destroyed the modern educational curriculum, at least at the middle school level. I know! I live with a teacher! I hear about this all the time!

So, whether your pro-evolution or anti-evolution, you should most definitely be anti-DoE. When all you care about are test returns, all you get are students who can test. You don't get critical thinkers, you don't get innovators, and you sure as heck don't get decent leaders.

You DO get a whoooole lotta bureaucrats-in-training.

Reinmoose | January 2, 2008, 11:20am | #

Yeah, he'll get ridicule from most intelligent folks, but remember the guy is running in a REPUBLICAN contest. You play to your audience.

ZING!

Actually, I would amend this to include most Americans. It reminds me of this quote:

"Senator, you'll have the vote of every thinking person in America!" - Woman in crowd
"That's not enough, madam, we need a majority." -Adlai Stevenson

Sam Grove | January 2, 2008, 11:20am | #

Do you think Ron Paul would support the appointment of Napolitano to the SCotUS?

Mr. Nice Guy | January 2, 2008, 11:20am | #

While we are talking, what do the following handles refer to:
Taktix
Reinmoose
Episiarch
?
I've always wondered.

I've also been confused by "joe" but my hunch is it refers to a fellow named "joe" or to one of the throngs of faceless mankind crying out against inevitable non-existence and an affirmation of individuality while recognizing its denial, in an existential sense...

My handle refers to a guy who acts in a kind fashion...

kwais | January 2, 2008, 11:21am | #

Bullshit comes in many non-Statist varieties...

Undoubtedly, but as capitalism has taught us, individual free choice produces the best product over time.

I am not endorsing Catholic school, I just used that as an example. I would rather not send my kids to Catholic schools. I would rather send them to a school without any religion theme. But I would rather it be my choice where to send them.

DrEast | January 2, 2008, 11:21am | #

@crimethink:

Aren't black holes a theoretical construct put in place to balance the mathematical side of gravitational equations? Isn't "dark matter" essentially the same thing? So, if we have a black hole around, are we leaning away from the existence of dark matter, or am I behind on these developments?

Mr. Nice Guy | January 2, 2008, 11:22am | #

Reinmoose
That has always been one of my favorite political quotes!

crimethink | January 2, 2008, 11:22am | #

I seriously think Ron Paul would appoint judges based on their willingness to "respect local autonomy" and on their traditionalist orientation on culture war matters.

Something tells me that if the shoe were on the other foot, and you had a federal judiciary forcing Massachusetts schools to teach ID instead of evolution, joe would be in love with local autonomy.

Sam Grove | January 2, 2008, 11:22am | #

I can't see RP using a religious litmus test for supreme court nominees. IAC, how many current justices are up for death in the next four years anyhow?

sixstring | January 2, 2008, 11:22am | #

should I be taught in school that I'm held to the Earth by a big, underground Jesus magnet?


IT"S A FREAKING Satan magnet for crying out loud! If it weren't for Satan holding onto our worldly bodies, our souls would be free to fly up to Heaven.

Episiarch | January 2, 2008, 11:22am | #

MNG, click my handle to see what it is.

joe is indeed joe's name, seeing as his link is his email address. Can't speak for the rest.

joe | January 2, 2008, 11:24am | #

kwais,

Students sitting in "Science class" while being lectured on religion in Warren G. Harding Middle School are not "free" to choose anything whatsoever.

You and Ron Paul wishing there were no public schools doesn't change this fact. Kids are going to be taught science in public schools.

jtuf | January 2, 2008, 11:24am | #

Ron Paul lost my support, because he opposes birth right citizenship. I also believe in evolution. However, I have no problem with his response to the evolution question. He said right out that it is not something the president should decide. He would probably nominate federal judges that let the states decide. After all, he doesn't think education is with in federal jurisdiction. If ID is wrong, states that teach ID will have less technological advances, leading to a slower economy, leading to fewer people choosing to live in those states. If ID is right, states that don't teach ID will face the designer's rath, leading to fewer people choosing to live in those states. Which ever belief is right will prevail. Any application of force is not only morally indefensible, but also pointless.

Kool | January 2, 2008, 11:24am | #

It concerns me only becasue I enjoy philosphical consistancy, however... I agree that he won't force his view upon the people, and I wholeheartedly agree that Taktix's comment is hilarious and I simply cannot wait to steal it and use it against someone. It almost makes me want to Troll around some random religious forum... but then I'd have to read and read and read about how Jesus saves and whatnot... Man, my eyes are bleeding already.

Mr. Nice Guy | January 2, 2008, 11:24am | #

kwais
I agree that statist bullshit can be worse because you sometimes can't walk away from it...I just point out that not all bullshit is statist, and when it comes to Catholic Schools, I would advise you to walk away from that (and for centuries the Catholic Church worked to make sure that you could not walk away btw [not so much more than any other religion that gets a modicum of state power I guess]).

Shadow Government Operative | January 2, 2008, 11:26am | #

IAC, how many current justices are up for death in the next four years anyhow?

Nine, and much sooner than that, probably around January 19, 2009.

jtuf | January 2, 2008, 11:26am | #

I just pictured the designer's rath. It was horrible. Day glow orange and fuschia everywhere.

Ethan | January 2, 2008, 11:26am | #

For heaven's freaking sake! I don't care the fuck what you think the origins of the universe are. I do care whether you are going to force those views on me. Ron Paul has made clear he won't. So no, Mr Bailey, *it does not matter* from a libertarian standpoint that he believes in intelligent design.

I am not sure what biological evolution has to do with the "origins of the universe," but I would say that Paul's answer shows a disturbing habit of mind: a willingness to ignore mountains of evidence.

It certainly explains his take on immigration.

Steve | January 2, 2008, 11:26am | #

I disagree with the article's presumption that a libertarian-minded politician SHOULDN'T believe in alternatives to evolution. It's true that most Americans DO believe in alternatives (to Evolution with a big E, as in full-blown Darwinian Macro-Evolution) even though most do understand Micro-evolution (changes within a species). The point is that it should always be a parent's choice, not the government's choice. That is fully libertarian.

robc | January 2, 2008, 11:26am | #

Kids are going to be taught science in public schools.

Really? Why start now?

Anthony | January 2, 2008, 11:27am | #

Oh come on, not again. Are you seriously that hung up on this? Why?

I would have hoped that at Reason the marketplace of ideas would be more open than anywhere, but apparently all answers to the origins of the universe, origins of life, and origins and development of species have been answered with such brutal and simple finality that there can be no room for any dissent, even here. How dogmatic.

I'm really surprised that after just 27 responses Dr. Paul has yet to be called 'stupid.'

VM | January 2, 2008, 11:28am | #

"a willingness to ignore mountains of evidence."

that's why, Anthony.

crimethink | January 2, 2008, 11:30am | #

Ethan,

Maybe some day Ron Paul will be as smart and clear-minded as you. I'm sure it's his lifelong ambition. ;-)

I think Lovecraft was right about this much: if we weren't in the habit of ignoring evidence, we'd either go insane or lie down and starve to death.

DrEast | January 2, 2008, 11:30am | #

Some of the irony of all this is that the basic theory of the theory of evolution keeps, well, evolving as new evidence is discovered. If Dr. Paul had believed the version that first came out, clinging to it as the final answer, we'd be calling him a dinosaur, hopelessly retrograde, right now. And if he took the theory in its current form, whatever that happens to be (I'm not a scientist, so it isn't cutting-edge for me) and held onto it against all comers as his opponents apparently hope for him to do, he'd be ridiculously obsolete in ten years, maybe less.

MB | January 2, 2008, 11:32am | #

Why not find a real issue to debate? One that matters??

joe | January 2, 2008, 11:33am | #

The fact that the theory of evolution keeps being refined as more evidence come is how we know it is real science.

And Paul didn't just reject some version of evoution, but the "theory of evolution" itself.

robc | January 2, 2008, 11:33am | #

jtuf

Ron Paul lost my support, because he opposes birth right citizenship.

Really? Is birth right citizenship that important an issue to you? I dont understand the pro-war paleo-cons who wont support RP just because of Iraq either. I dont think there is any one issue important enough to keep me from voting for someone. (There may be, but there has never been a candidate who help that view that didnt also hold 100 other things that I opposed - its hard to be a socialist in just one area, for example).

Thomist Physicist | January 2, 2008, 11:34am | #

if I decide to stop believing in gravity, should I be taught in school that I'm held to the Earth by a big, underground Jesus magnet?

It's just a question of terminology. Gravity is the "how"; the divine magnet is the "what" - Sheesh!

crimethink | January 2, 2008, 11:36am | #

DrEast,

The theories of the basic driving forces of evolution -- that is, mutation and natural selection -- have remained unchanged for more than a century and have been borne out by experiment countless times. The "updates" to the theory have pretty much involved sanding off a couple of rough edges, not massive paradigm shifts.

Keep in mind, ID denies the existence or efficacy of natural selection, so it contradicts experimental results.

Mr. Nice Guy | January 2, 2008, 11:36am | #

Epi
Cool. Sounds like an interesting series...I stopped reading Sci Fi a while back, but a winner of both the Hugo and Nebula is nothing to sneeze at...

"I would have hoped that at Reason the marketplace of ideas would be more open than anywhere, but apparently all answers to the origins of the universe, origins of life, and origins and development of species have been answered with such brutal and simple finality that there can be no room for any dissent, even here. How dogmatic."

Anthony
What I think is often missed by evolution critics is that evolution was not only not the accepted dogma in the scientific community say, a century or two ago, it was in fact intelligent design and creationism that was. Your career and social life could be in serious jeopardy for questioning it (in fact in the US you could be arrested for that in some states if you were a teacher). ID and creationism had the mass of institutional power behind it. However, slowly but surely, that institutional position gave way to mountains of evidence for evolution and the increasing obviousness of the theory. It was a hard struggle because the bias in favor of ID/creationism came from religion which notoriously is slow to accept that it is wrong about something, but by modern times there were few disinterested honest scientists who had much doubts.

It's not that evolutionists are yelling "you can't question this" it's that they spend hundreds of years coming to the consensus we have reached (and that consensus is by no means what you may think it is, an officially imposed "line") and they've heard all the opposing arguments, and seen them refuted, over and over and over. They realize that if there was not a religious value involved there would in fact be about as much discussion about this as there is about whether the earth is really old...

Lost_In_Translation | January 2, 2008, 11:36am | #

how many current justices are up for death in the next four years anyhow?


...the liberal ones...gins

In order of age (oldest to youngest)
Stevens (87)
Ginsberg(74)
Scalia (71)
Kennedy (71)
Breyer (69)
Souter (68)
Thomas (59)
Alito (57)
Roberts (52)

Chris | January 2, 2008, 11:36am | #

c[_]

Chris | January 2, 2008, 11:36am | #

Wow, I must've missed it. Was the missing-link apeman finally found so that the theory can be validated?

Chris | January 2, 2008, 11:36am | #

Care Cup is empty.

Srsly, who cares?

Bingo | January 2, 2008, 11:36am | #

Calling it right now, longest thread today.

iowan | January 2, 2008, 11:39am | #

I keep thinking back to the comment from Tucker Carlson's article on Ron. (paraphrasing because I'm too lazy to look it up) Ron is as square as he can possibly be, but he fully supports your right to be as unsquare as you want.

Ron seems to be a walking contradiction in that he clearly is a old-time, southern christian conservative, yet he also has devoted his career to maximizing personal freedom from government intrusion.

I really cringe every time I hear one of his anti-immigration commercials. And I don't understand how a doctor can reject evolution. But I am still a precinct caption for Ron, and I will definitely be caucusing for him tomorrow night.

crimethink | January 2, 2008, 11:39am | #

Bingo,

Only if there are no abortion threads, or Doneric Dero-ay threads later on.

Andrew | January 2, 2008, 11:40am | #

I would have hoped that at Reason the marketplace of ideas would be more open than anywhere,

Drink!

DrEast | January 2, 2008, 11:41am | #

"The fact that the theory of evolution keeps being refined as more evidence come is how we know it is real science."

So, the fact that it's demonstrably not true makes it science? A complete turn-around from the standard version of the American mind, which believes Science to be the arbiter of absolute truth.

Doesn't mean I disagree with you, of course. Just that people have made a religion of science, which is just as bad as making a science of religion.

"And Paul didn't just reject some version of evoution, but the "theory of evolution" itself."

My own personal view is that the entire theory of Darwinian (or semi-Darwinian, as I guess it would be called today) evolution is contained in Genesis 1:2, where "the waters," "the void" are words used by the ancients to describe a chaotic state (such as is necessary at all for the theory to exist), and the "spirit of God" hovering over them is describing an intelligent directive (God's) governing the chaotic process. (By that logic, the following commands for each God-ordained species to "reproduce after its own kind" are specific commands ending the evolutionary process, and it makes the man-naming-animals job make a heck of a lot more sense.)

All that is to say that I, too, disagree with Paul, but I don't find that to matter much at all, since I'm pretty sure that mine is not the common view.

M | January 2, 2008, 11:43am | #

Episiarch | January 2, 2008, 11:22am | #
MNG, click my handle to see what it is.

But you are aware of what it means, aren't you?

Episiarch | January 2, 2008, 11:44am | #

Wow, I must've missed it. Was the missing-link apeman finally found so that the theory can be validated?

Ever heard of Australopithecus afarensis?

M | January 2, 2008, 11:44am | #

Hint: It gives another meaning to "click my handle."

joe | January 2, 2008, 11:44am | #

refined = "demonstrably not true?"

Quite the handle on the scientific method you've got there.

Mr. Nice Guy | January 2, 2008, 11:46am | #

I hear this "religion of science" stuff all the time and am puzzled. I've always though religion referred to a system of thought that allowed or encouraged supernatural explanations and ideas. I'm guessing most of the people you refer to as in a "religion of science" are people who explicitly rule out supernatural explanations and ideas, so I don't see the two as being easily analogized...

Episiarch | January 2, 2008, 11:46am | #

But you are aware of what it means, aren't you?

Are you referring to the force of will part or the probability part?

DrEast | January 2, 2008, 11:47am | #

"refined = "demonstrably not true?"

Quite the handle on the scientific method you've got there."

By such refinements as how long the process took, under what methods it spontaneously arose, and the ordering of the appearance and extinction of various species? In other words... fundamental changes to the entire theory?

The only thing that seems to have remained the same is "sometimes animals have changed to different animals." Not exactly the pinnacle of human achievement, that.

Mr. Nice Guy | January 2, 2008, 11:48am | #

If by "religion of science" you envision masses of people insisting, amybe even fanatically, that explanations for phenomena refer to empirical, verifiable data, then I can say "Halleluia, Praise Science!"

Episiarch | January 2, 2008, 11:48am | #

DrEast,

You're knocking evolutionary theory, but not putting anything up for a replacement. Unless that stuff about Genesis was your replacement.

M | January 2, 2008, 11:49am | #

I gotta run, so I'll spill the, uh, beans:

epision is Greek for "pubic region," and arkhon is Greek for "ruler," so episiarch would be...

Parke | January 2, 2008, 11:49am | #

Im with JJ.. who really gives a shit?

Episiarch | January 2, 2008, 11:50am | #

epision is Greek for "pubic region," and arkhon is Greek for "ruler," so episiarch would be...

You're too late; joe cracked that joke some time back, or a variant of it.

Bingo | January 2, 2008, 11:50am | #

DrEast:

As a libertarian, surely you understand the concept of an emergent system where simple rules can result in complex and diverse behavior.

SD82 | January 2, 2008, 11:50am | #

I realize libertarians these days don't care if nuns who believe in a flat earth are the only people available to teach our children, but I for one think we can at least have a president who believes in science. No more faith-based policymaking. That means no more blind faith in the free market.

Drakt | January 2, 2008, 11:51am | #

Taktix technically evolution and gravity are both theories. A "fact" in science is an observation. A "theory" in science is an explanation of the observations. Since it has gotten down to arguing semantics.

Lamar | January 2, 2008, 11:51am | #

"The standard version of the American mind, which believes Science to be the arbiter of absolute truth."

Science is the "arbiter of truth"? I thought it was just the best explanation given the evidence we have, but hey, why nitpick?

Seriously, "truth" is what you get when you ask a Jesus freak to lick his bobo tea. Well, not so seriously.

DrEast | January 2, 2008, 11:51am | #

"I hear this "religion of science" stuff all the time and am puzzled. I've always though religion referred to a system of thought that allowed or encouraged supernatural explanations and ideas. I'm guessing most of the people you refer to as in a "religion of science" are people who explicitly rule out supernatural explanations and ideas, so I don't see the two as being easily analogized..."

The supernatural is not necessary for a religion... in fact, people who make a science of religion are guilty of this side of the problem. The "God of the gap", in which someone attempts to prove the existence of God by the absence of scientific knowledge of a phenomenon, is a lazy religious answer to serious epistemological questions.

But no, the supernatural is not required for a religion. Ask any Unitarian.

A religion, in my knee-jerk definition, is a body of thought that holds to an absolute truth. Science can't hold to absolute truths, but a lot of people don't understand this. Now, make of that what you will.

Pro Libertate | January 2, 2008, 11:54am | #

joe,

While a President Paul would indeed inherit a government-run education system, given his past behavior in government, I doubt seriously that he'd do anything to impose his Creationist views on the country. He'd likely spend his political energies on getting the federal government out of local education, not on continuing to play the curriculum game.

Of course, if he read my Libertarian Top 100, then he'd purge the Cabinet via Thunderdome.

To return to bashing Young Earthiers, just remember that, in addition to biology, cosmology, geology, physics, and a host of other sciences and sub-sciences are wrong if the universe isn't aged in the billions--not thousands--of years. If you want to posit that the universe is designed to deceive us or that we are brains in vats/men in caves, well, that's fine, but that line of reasoning begs the question of how you got your information. Incidentally, I don't have a problem with people wanting God to be in the process--as prime mover unmoved or in a more active role--but if we can't use observation and science to prove it, it doesn't extend beyond faith.

Lamar | January 2, 2008, 11:56am | #

If a scientific theory were demonstrated false (e.g., its conclusions are negated by its facts), then it would cease to be a theory or would be refined to account for such facts. What is this "demonstrably false" garbage?

M | January 2, 2008, 11:56am | #

Epi, not being versed in science fiction, I genuinely believed that was your intended denotation, and am glad for the enlightenment. I will confess to being a tad disappointed, though in greater measure I'm relieved, since the world seems sufficiently populated by men whose episioi think, let alone rule, for them. And at a magazine called "reason"... :-)

joe | January 2, 2008, 11:57am | #

None of those are fundamental challenges to the basic elements of evolutionary theory.

A theory you don't seem to know very well, if you think it deals only with "animals" and limits itself to observing that they change.

DavidG | January 2, 2008, 11:58am | #

What I care is if Ron's belief is going to affect school policy. Since Ron wants to eliminate the Dept. of Education, the answer is a RESOUNDING NO. That's what the media and people who don't understand Ron Paul don't get.

A Huckabee type candidate would advocate federal govt money to school districts who would offer both sides of the "argument".

That's how Ron Paul differs. Ron's beliefs do not enter into forcing anyone to teach anything.

Reinmoose | January 2, 2008, 11:59am | #

MNG -
I don't really know. It's a word my sister used one day and I just kinda liked it. I've had this handle since about the 2nd year of free web-based email on the Internet, but I'm just about ready to give it up for a new one.

DrEast | January 2, 2008, 11:59am | #

Replies to a couple people:

I'm not knocking evolutionary theory at all. For a theory, it is exactly what it should be. I will take a moment to bash the public school system's method of teaching it, however, since they tend to a) lag behind actual science by a few decades and b) teach their version as "this is what happened," even when it is already known that this is not, in fact, the case, which leads to a generally warped view of science in general. My explanation of my own personal views shows me to be a theistic evolutionist (and, as a plus in my mind, it doesn't make me interpret "day" as millions of years, which is just silly).

More than as a libertarian, as a mathematician I'm well aware that simple systems can lead to complex (and, to humans, unpredictable) behavior. I would hold that God is a higher order being than humanity, of course, so laws that apply well to our own perception and ordering of events wouldn't apply equally well to His.

Now, it should be fairly evident that Ron Paul's views on evolutionary theory are important, at least to Ron Paul. But the fundamental question here is: Are they going to actually effect his decision-making process as president negatively enough to make him a worse candidate than, say, Huckabee? Or Giuliani? Or Romney? A quick look at these fellow's bios would have me accuse myself of setting up straw-men, here, except that these are actually the top-tier candidates on the Republican side.

Reinmoose | January 2, 2008, 12:01pm | #

Oh, now I remember. It had something to do with a flying moose

Episiarch | January 2, 2008, 12:01pm | #

since the world seems sufficiently populated by men whose episioi think, let alone rule, for them

Well, mine does rule, just not over me ;-)

joe | January 2, 2008, 12:02pm | #

Pro Libertate,

I agree that Paul wouldn't "impose" his views on evolution on students.

What he would do is allow local tyrants to impose their religion on those students in science class.

One of the geniuses of our system of government is the way it uses competing levels and types of government to check each other. Local school boards who would abuse their power by lying about science in order to push a religious agenda are in violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, and Ron Paul's statements about evolution and local control add up to a statement that he will decline to check this particular abuse of government power.

cirmethink | January 2, 2008, 12:02pm | #

What DrEast said about scientific theories being "demonstrably false" is actually true. The idea, of course, is that they get less and less false as time goes on. I think what he's talking about with the "religion of science" is when people take an incomplete theory and set it in stone (the early 20th century is replete with examples of physicists refusing to believe relativity and quantum mechanics even after they were confirmed by experiment). Not that that's what's preventing ID from gaining acceptance -- that has more to do with the fact that the few testable predictions made by IDers which differ from those made by evolution have been contradicted by experiment time and time again.

. | January 2, 2008, 12:04pm | #

Gravitons don't travel at infinite speed according to general relativity; they are bound by the 186,000 mi/s speed limit everything else is. Thus, if the sun somehow vanished, the Earth would continue its orbit for eight minutes afterward, before heading off in a straight line! I'm not sure if this particular prediction of gen rel has been confirmed by experiment, though, and that's always the ultimate arbiter in physics.

It has been confirmed -- I am not going to be able to explain the details -- I'm sure its on the internet somewhere, actually, here it is:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3232-first-speed-of-gravity-measurement-revealed.html

Difference between Relativity and the Jesus Magnet? Relativity can be used to make accurate predictions about a fact of nature that we don't know -- IE the speed of the propagation of gravity. A Jesus Magnet theory would likely be shaped around facts that we already know -- not able to predict things we do not know -- and will be adjusted when proven wrong. That's why it should be taught in religion class and gravity should be taught in science class.

brotherben | January 2, 2008, 12:05pm | #

(with tongue firmly in cheek)

Titus 2:7
...in doctrine uncorruptness, gravity,sincerity.
1timothy 3:4
...having his children in subjection, with all gravity.

There's your giant jesus magnet proof!

BakedPenguin | January 2, 2008, 12:06pm | #

Reinmoose - I always thought it was a play on reindeer.

Anthony | January 2, 2008, 12:09pm | #

"That means no more blind faith in the free market."

As opposed to blind faith in the time-tested and historically proven effectiveness of government manipulation?

This illustrates something that always strikes me odd, when people rail against the "free market." You *want* some one from the government to *force* you to buy and sell things in a certain manner (or conversely, not buy and sell things in a certain manner)? Do you really want that?

I mean, the choices are clear...an economy can become either more free or less free. On one end of a spectrum we have a complete command economy, everything that is produced and consumed is done so at the direction of government. On the other end of the spectrum we have an economy completely free of all government intrusion (note, there would be no legal corporations, partnerships, LLCs, etc, as those are all creatures of government creation). In reality, all economies fall somewhere in between those two extreme examples.

Today, in the US, we have a pretext of a 'free market' economy, but it is by no means an accurate description. The US government has made massive intrusions into the workings of the economy through the Fed Reserve and the money supply, laws, industry regulations, etc.. The current volatile housing market can to a great extent be labelled as a result of such government interference in an otherwise "free" market.

But make no mistake, I don't support "free markets" because they are more efficient (which incidentally is supported by both the mathematical theories and the hisorical record), but because they are, in fact, MORE FREE. If the free market were horribly inefficient, I would still support it, because humans have the inalienable right to live their lives as they see fit, and one of the most fundamental rights is to interact with other humans in a manner to which they both consent. And at its core this includes buying, selling or trading each others property and labor.

DrEast | January 2, 2008, 12:09pm | #

Haven't they had a theory of sub-atomic particles exchanging information faster than the speed of light for a while now? Something to do with matched pairs, if I remember correctly.

iowan | January 2, 2008, 12:10pm | #

One of the geniuses of our system of government is the way it uses competing levels and types of government to check each other. Local school boards who would abuse their power by lying about science in order to push a religious agenda are in violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, and Ron Paul's statements about evolution and local control add up to a statement that he will decline to check this particular abuse of government power.

I think that religious conservatives who push Intelligent Design are idiots. That being said, I don't want the federal government involved in the matter. It can and should be sorted out at the local level (school boards), hopefully, without judicial intervention.

crimethink | January 2, 2008, 12:11pm | #

My own personal view is that the entire theory of Darwinian (or semi-Darwinian, as I guess it would be called today) evolution is contained in Genesis 1:2, where "the waters," "the void" are words used by the ancients to describe a chaotic state (such as is necessary at all for the theory to exist), and the "spirit of God" hovering over them is describing an intelligent directive (God's) governing the chaotic process.

I really, really hate it when people try to contort biblical passages to fit scientific observations that were plainly not known to the person who wrote that passage. As a believing Christian myself, I paraphrase St Augustine: the Bible is intended to teach Christianity, not biology.

(By that logic, the following commands for each God-ordained species to "reproduce after its own kind" are specific commands ending the evolutionary process, and it makes the man-naming-animals job make a heck of a lot more sense.)

The evolutionary process has not ended; it's still observable in microorganisms like bacteria and viruses, which mutate far more frequently and thus evolve far more quickly. The reason we don't see macroscopic creatures evolving is because of the relative rareness of significant mutations in those creatures, which causes them to evolve much more slowly.

Lost_In_Translation | January 2, 2008, 12:12pm | #

Local school boards who would abuse their power by lying about science in order to push a religious agenda are in violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause,

...and what about the argument that forcing a teaching of evolution amounts to establishment of a secular religion.

R C Dean | January 2, 2008, 12:13pm | #

Big, underground Jesus magnet!

In interweb shorthand, that becomes BUJM.

Pronounced "boojum".

The fun never stops.

Pro Libertate | January 2, 2008, 12:14pm | #

joe,

But that's not his decision to make. The federal courts can still rule on First Amendment issues. It's not the Department of Education that prevents Creationism from being taught, after all. Paul might like to roll back that sort of thing, too--I don't really know--but that's the situation right now. I suppose he could appoint a bunch of religious-minded judges and justices, but I don't think that's likely, nor would such appointees get far in the Senate.

M | January 2, 2008, 12:15pm | #

mine does rule, just not over me ;-)

I unsuccessfully try to, uh, conceive that, and fail, Gunga Din.

And now I really gotta go.

DrEast | January 2, 2008, 12:15pm | #

"I really, really hate it when people try to contort biblical passages to fit scientific observations that were plainly not known to the person who wrote that passage. As a believing Christian myself, I paraphrase St Augustine: the Bible is intended to teach Christianity, not biology."

I would challenge you to come up with the Darwinian theory from Genesis 1:2. I'm simply saying that there's a lot of room in there to allow for more than one ("ex nihilo") interpretation of the creation of the species.

crimetink | January 2, 2008, 12:16pm | #

The BUJM is doubly spectacular in that, unlike every other known magnet, it attracts everything, not just metallic objects!

I think I must apply for a federal grant to conduct further research into the BUJM. $10 million ought to be enough to start up.

iowan | January 2, 2008, 12:18pm | #

...and what about the argument that forcing a teaching of evolution amounts to establishment of a secular religion.

How I address people that push ID:

The Pope said the evolution was a true description of the way the world works. Since the Pope said, it must be true. And I really wish you protestant heretics would stop trying to push the devil's agenda into the public school system.

This generally results in an extended pause in the discussion.

crimethink | January 2, 2008, 12:21pm | #

I would challenge you to come up with the Darwinian theory from Genesis 1:2.

I'm not going to try, since, as I said above, I don't think Genesis 1 is intended to be a biology textbook, just like I don't think that passage in 1 Kings about the circular pot measuring "30 cubits around and 10 cubits across" forces me to believe that pi = 3.00.

The fact that God created the universe is important to the Faith, as is the story of the Fall. How exactly the current diversity of life came to be, not so much.

DrEast | January 2, 2008, 12:24pm | #

"The fact that God created the universe is important to the Faith, as is the story of the Fall. How exactly the current diversity of life came to be, not so much."

Um... exactly. But it might matter, in fact, to teachers who are trying to teach it and students who are trying to learn it according to the scientific theory of the day, which happens to be Darwinian.

And there ain't much actual learning going on when the entire purpose of the educational process is doing well on a single multiple-choice test every year.

Taktix® | January 2, 2008, 12:25pm | #

While we are talking, what do the following handles refer to:

Mine is a dumbed-down spelling of "tactics" which I had used a DJ name when I thought I was going to be the next bug Drum N Bass artist.

Those tables are just collecting dust now, but the name has stuck for internet/gaming handles.

The trademark? I did that because I can...

crimethink | January 2, 2008, 12:25pm | #

Haven't they had a theory of sub-atomic particles exchanging information faster than the speed of light for a while now? Something to do with matched pairs, if I remember correctly.

You're referring to quantum entanglement, and it is very weird. But this doesn't contradict the theory of relativity, it just shows that the entanglement can't be due to "communication" between the particles, which can travel no faster than light speed.

joe | January 2, 2008, 12:26pm | #

iowan,

Should the federal government, which is bound by the 14th Amendment to defend the rights of persons against violations of their rights by state and local governments, do nothing if a school board directs its biology teachers to explain that Jesus is Lord, and all other gods are false?

L-I-T,

The word "religion" has an actual meaning, and "the best explaination of natural phenomena based on experimentation and observation" is not included therein. If schools were actually teaching a "religion of secularism," I would object to that, too, but accurately describing the science of evolution is doing no such thing.

Pro Lib, as I said, it's the appointment of the federal judiciary where I am concerned Paul's anti-science religious traditionalism would show itself.

Taktix® | January 2, 2008, 12:26pm | #

...next big Drum...

They should add a preview button.

. | January 2, 2008, 12:26pm | #

Does the sun also have an even larger Jesus magnet? Or perhaps other gods are at work? The Giant Inter-sol Ra Magnet (GISAM, pronounced GEE-SAM) maybe?

stuartl | January 2, 2008, 12:27pm | #

The BUJM is doubly spectacular in that, unlike every other known magnet, it attracts everything, not just metallic objects!

Sounds like dark matter. I guess since dark energy is pushing everything apart it is caused by Satan. And Satan is winning!

I think I must apply for a federal grant to conduct further research into the BUJM. $10 million ought to be enough to start up.

Not nearly enough, they won't take you seriously. I suggest at least $500 million to start. I'll help you spend it.

Reinmoose | January 2, 2008, 12:28pm | #

I always thought it was a play on reindeer

That's precisely it, BP. But exactly what the play was or what the reference is I don't really recall.

jon | January 2, 2008, 12:28pm | #

A major point that is often forgotten in the evolution vs intelligent design debate is that those of us who oppose the teaching of intelligent design in Science classrooms oppose it not because it is false, but because it is not science. The idea being that subjects taught in a science class must be a product of the scientific method, which the theory of evolution is and intelligent design is not. This is not a judgment of right verses wrong, it is a judgment of science vs. not science.

Understanding the debate in this light strengthens the position which many people here have already stated: that which explanation a candidate favors should have little influence on whether or not we think he or she is a good candidate. What is important is whether or not the candidate will let personal beliefs such as this dictate policy. Any candidate who uses personal beliefs to dictate policy is a poor choice. And Ron Paul is the only candidate who I think will truly follow the rule of law rather than bend to subject beliefs or influences.

Pro Libertate | January 2, 2008, 12:28pm | #

I seem to recall that quantum entanglement does not allow information to be transmitted at FTL speeds. I'm sure that can be stated more correctly by our local physicists.

iowan | January 2, 2008, 12:30pm | #

. . . do nothing if a school board directs its biology teachers to explain that Jesus is Lord, and all other gods are false?

That clearly crosses the line.

ID is really, really, really bad science. But, it does not directly promote any specific religion.

crimethink | January 2, 2008, 12:30pm | #

Should the federal government, which is bound by the 14th Amendment to defend the rights of persons against violations of their rights by state and local governments, do nothing if a school board directs its biology teachers to explain that Jesus is Lord, and all other gods are false?

joe, I think your comment here evolved from a straw-ape.

Pro Libertate | January 2, 2008, 12:31pm | #

Reinmoose,

I recommend the cognomen "Techno Viking". It would continue the possible confusion between you and the Viking Moose, as well as being cool, in a Nordic kind of way.

BakedPenguin | January 2, 2008, 12:32pm | #

Had to do an item on Taktix®'s discovery of the Big Underground Jesus Magnet, along with visual proof of it.

stoneymonster | January 2, 2008, 12:35pm | #

And there ain't much actual learning going on when the entire purpose of the educational process is doing well on a single multiple-choice test every year.

I think you've made that abundantly clear.

By the way, a cursory search of Wikipedia would answer most of your misconceptions and misremeberings of physical phenomena and theories. Just what sort of Dr. are you anyway?

Just what

joe | January 2, 2008, 12:37pm | #

iowan, crimethink,

OK, good. I wanted to get to the point where we were all acknowledging that the federal government is, in fact, required by the Constitution to bring the hammer down on local governments that violate the Establishment Clause by teaching religious doctrine in biology class.

The question then becomes, does teaching ID in biology class count as "teaching religious doctrine?"

The judge in the recent case - a federal judge - ruled that it was, that ID was not just an alternate scientific theory but a Trojan Horse for religion. If you read through the record, including the statements the IDers made in and out of court, it is pretty clear that even those who claim to view it as science admit, in their more honest moments, that it is not.

crimethink | January 2, 2008, 12:41pm | #

Pro Lib,

The idea is that you separate the entangled particles by a long distance (say 30 meters) without measuring their spin states, and then measure them "simultaneously", forcing them to "decide" which state they were in all along. If you know that the measurements must have been made no more than 0.00000001 seconds apart, then any communication from one to the other in between measurements must have been traveling at ten times the speed of light, which is a no-no.

Yet, when these experiments are done, the entangled particles appear to "know" which state the other particle "chose".

iowan | January 2, 2008, 12:43pm | #

The judge in the recent case - a federal judge - ruled that it was, that ID was not just an alternate scientific theory but a Trojan Horse for religion. If you read through the record, including the statements the IDers made in and out of court, it is pretty clear that even those who claim to view it as science admit, in their more honest moments, that it is not.

I said "handled at the local level, preferably without judicial action".

No doubt that ID is a trojan horse for a fundamentalist christian view of the world. However, that trojan horse can easily be torched in an academic setting without actually worrying about what is inside it.

Pro Libertate | January 2, 2008, 12:43pm | #

crimethink,

Fortunately, I communicate faster than light through mental telepathy, which obeys no physical laws.

Jeff | January 2, 2008, 12:47pm | #

Its just more evidence that Ron Paul is not an evidence-based thinker and is an absurd choice for president. We didn't need his comments on evolution to tell us that, but it does fit a longstanding pattern of views held by Ron Paul. All of his views are completely ideologically driven and bear no consideration of reality and no semblance of pragmatism. He is simply an ideologue and a day dreamer.

crimethink | January 2, 2008, 12:47pm | #

joe,

I guess where we disagree is the question of how bald-faced a religious doctrine has to be in order for its teaching to violate the Establishment Clause. For instance, the idea that rape is wrong is a doctrine promoted by many religions, but does that mean that it cannot be taught in public schools? No, so long as the teaching of this idea is done in a nonreligious context (ie, you don't use the story of Dinah from Genesis to back it up). If ID can be taught in a nonreligious context, I don't see where it violates the Establishment Clause, however much it might violate truth-in-labeling to call it a science class.

thoreau | January 2, 2008, 12:48pm | #

Wow, lots of comments here. No time to reply to them all, but just let me say that the absence of experimental evidence for gravitons does not invalidate most aspects of gravitational theory. We have a gravitational theory that says (in a nutshell) that if you've got some objects in space you can calculate the forces between them (and even the way that they bend the propagation of light, in general relativity). The calculations match up with experiment pretty well. In that sense, gravitational theory is already very well-supported by experiment.

Now, if you add quantum mechanics to gravity you get the prediction of gravitons, and that prediction hasn't been validated. So that is still an unsupported hypothesis. However, the basic phenomenon of gravity, and most of the main theories describing it, is well-supported by experimental data.

joe | January 2, 2008, 12:48pm | #

iowan,

I don't think the school board members in question are going to care very much about how ID fares "in an academic setting," and I don't think the power- and knowledge- differential between the school board and the biology teacher, or the biology teacher and the students, is going to allow for the instruction going on in that classroom to benefit from rigorous scientific challenge.

joe | January 2, 2008, 12:50pm | #

crimethink,

I agree, it's more complicated than "nothing mentioned in the Bible can be taught in school."

crimethink | January 2, 2008, 12:50pm | #

Jeff,

I dunno, he seems pretty evidence-based on his opinions of the causes of 9/11, the wisdom of staying in Iraq, etc.

Of course, continuing to argue with trolls makes it look like I'm not very evidence-based myself.

crimethink | January 2, 2008, 12:51pm | #

joe,

OK, so on what basis do you criticize Paul for his remarks?

Pro Libertate | January 2, 2008, 12:52pm | #

thoreau,

So, you deny the validity of the Taktixian/Penguinian BUJM Theory?

. | January 2, 2008, 12:54pm | #

Pro Liberate -- explain how the magnet works (ie, how it pulls more than just metals & I am sold). Actually, at that point the only difference between "giant magnet" and "gravitons" is the visualization. Neither has been confirmed true thus far.

brotherben | January 2, 2008, 12:55pm | #

Pro Libertate | January 2, 2008, 12:52pm | #

thoreau,

So, you deny the validity of the Taktixian/Penguinian BUJM Theory?

I saw it in this here computer! So it gots to be true.

brotherben | January 2, 2008, 12:57pm | #

May I suggest the opinion of many that post here as an explanation of the BUJM attracting everything?

Religion sucks?