Ron Paul Evolution Denial Update
Ronald Bailey | January 2, 2008, 10:29am
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.
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.
David Alan | January 2, 2008, 4:14pm | #
I agree that Ron Paul could have said: the government has no business running schools, in the first place.
There is a connection, however, between Ron Pauls (implied) rejection of Darwinian Evolutionary theory as Fact, and his consistent opposition to the ever expanding Welfare & Warfare 'almighty state'.
May I explain ?
First, I take comfort in the fact he shows his independence from the status quo by questioning the 'theory of evolution', as fact, and identifying it, correctly, as a mere theory.
In fact, it's more accurately described as 'Darwinian Myth', and actually forms the biological basis for the 'Almighty State'.
It's poor philosophy masquerading as sound science.
One should be highly suspicious when you consider that our Declaration & US Constitution both set forth the premise of God given rights, citing the "Laws of Nature, and of Nature's God" (which is both general & special revelation, vis a vis the Founding Fathers).
Then we look at the prevailing "Almighty State" acting the role of God, and, not surprisingly, officially denying His existance.
Gee, I wonder if big government statists (whether explicitly or implicitly) think that if citizens recognize that they're created by God who endows them with essential rights, and has Laws by which he expects man to operate, form a greater force to resist an overreaching tyranny ?
Like, say, for example, America's Founding Fathers, resisting the usurpations King George ?
Simply put:
Creation + God's Law = Unalienable, secure Natural & Constitutional Rights
Evolution + Random Chance = state granted, revocable rights + state tyranny
I simply ask:
Which premise was America founded upon ?
Which premise forms the intellectual & moral basis of the Declaration of Independene & Constitution ?
Which view holds sway today ?
He who set's the premise, wins the debate.
Ron Paul is the man who, wisely, understand the premise of the 'almighty state' - and questions it.
He's thinking deeper than all of his opponnents and many of his supporters are, clearly.
All I can say is: Godspeed Ron Paul Go Get 'Em !
President Paul in 2008 !
www.TheAmericanView.com
www.LewRockwell.com
Jeff | January 2, 2008, 4:20pm | #
Brad: I'm no defender of the status quo by any means, but the gold-standard make no sense at all, and most anti-central bank rhetoric is noting but ideological nonsense.
Monetary theory is quite simple really. For every net unit of value produced in an economy an equal unit of currency should be produced. Thus if I produce $10 worth of new goods today then $10 should be printed up to correspond to those new goods.
Gold has nothing to do with anything, its just arbitrary. The only reason the gold standard worked at all was because there was a massive untapped gold reserve in America that was brought to market during the gold rushes of the 19th century which just happened to be more than enough to handle our monetary needs, and the America economy was relatively small. The economy has now so far outpaced gold supplies that such a standard is nonsense. Furthermore, gold is just another fiat. What makes gold so special? Nothing, just that it doesn't rust, but its value is no different than the value of paper money, it also is really arbitrary. You say its value is market driven, but so is the value of any currency. Yeah, we can print too much, true, and the market value will go down, as the American currency currently is going down for many reasons.
In order to truly back American currency with gold that means you have to have an amount go gold equal to the value of everything else in the economy. This is nonsense. General economic production has nothing to do with gold production, the two are completely unrelated. The gold standard is just a fantasy. Its just appears to make things simpler, but in reality it does nothing of use and hinders economic expansion. Now instead of money being tied to the value of economic production it is tied to the value of a single commodity, which itself can fluctuate based on things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the general economy. I am reminded of what happened in the 1890s when a ship carrying a load of gold from California to the banks in New York sank and the gold was all lost. It caused a depression due to the restrictions on the money supply. I'm reminded of what was it, Black Monday or Black Friday, I forget, in the 1800s, when gold price manipulation damn near ruined the banking system and the nation went into a panic. The current banking system isn't perfect, but the gold standard is ridiculous and so are most of Ron Paul's other ideas.
All Ron Paul has going for his is simplistic propaganda. Its easy to stand up and shot "liberty, freedom, rah, rah, rah!", sure great message. There is a huge difference between rhetoric and application however, and Ron Paul's ideas are just idealistic nonsense which have no practical merit.
Jeff | January 2, 2008, 5:39pm | #
kwais:
Government is not inherently bad, and lower level decision making is not necessarily better. This is the same ideological nonsense as Ron Paul and typical libertarians. Your claims are driven by ideology, not evidence, not practicality, and not reality.
Yeah, someone bad could get into government and screw us all, that's what democracy and guns are for, in the mean time, some stuff is best regulated by government and some stuff is best implemented at the highest levels, even "globally", that big bad boogie man of libertarianism.
Guess what, some parents are idiots, and granting absolute power to parents effectively revokes the rights of children. Society has a role to play in raising every child, not just the parent, and government is the means by which that occurs.
Every child has the right to an honest, factual, and full education. Many parents would deny this right to their children, and have done so throughout history, and no parent has that right. Every decision is not best left up to the states, as standardization has huge beneficial effects for efficiency and this standardization only comes from federal law making. If all decisions were left up to the states we may still have slavery in America for that matter.
Why stop at evolution? Why not let parents in the South decide that they don't want their children to ever learn that Southerners ever owned slaves? Why not let the German parents in Wisconsin avoid teaching their kids about the holocaust? Why not let the fundies in the Bible belt teach their kids that the earth is flat? Why not let parents say that they don't want their kids to learn math? There are some really stupid parents out there, and parents who don't care about their kids, as well as parents who are motivated by ideology to lie to their kids or shield them from many facts about the world. Sorry, parents don't have the right to absolutely control every aspect of their child's life. Society has a right and a duty to ensure that children receive a full and honest education, and no parent, no matter how well meaning, has the right to take that away.
Andrew | January 2, 2008, 6:12pm | #
It's fine to lament that the best choice those who believe in reason and free markets have had in a long time doesn't accept popular notion of the evolution hypothesis and all it's finer points.
It is quite another to claim that reason has anything to do with trying to undermine this best choice based on such a silly litmus test.
And to attempt to do so with a mashed up video is unconscionable. I guess we have to take the author's word for it that this was an oversight. Well, no we don't, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, even though the author isn't.
If you are using total acceptance of evolution as a wholesale proxy for science, then to me, that says you understand neither.
The man is a doctor for God's sake. Does he really not understand science as much as all the lawyers we have as alternatives? Ridiculous.
And that is granting you that this is even a relevant issue. Which it is not.
Even if he, as a worst case scenario, installs judges giving them the sole duty to reinstate Christian education, all we have to do is demand school choice.
If someone can explain how evolution is not a theory, they get a gold star.
If someone can explain why evolution is important for 99.9% or so of the children who do not become anthropologists, comparative biologists, or Democrat politicians, they get a smiley face.
If someone can explain how a Doctor can get through Duke medical school without having more of an appreciation of these things than you do, you get to go to the head of the class.
If you can explain why such a contentious issue of science should be decided for us by politicians, you get the dunce cap.
Andrew | January 2, 2008, 7:00pm | #
And to the "oppressive parents" argument. I've heard that before. I think it's ridiculous. Here is why.
Let's just accept for the sake of argument that evolution is a nice, no, in fact absolutely necessary component of a well-rounded education for absolutely every last child. Let's also accept that "we" have a stake in this. For now, I'll accept that you and society have a right to tell my child what they should learn. I'll set aside my strong belief in un-schooling and allow you the conceit that "the people" through the government can and should decide what is the best way to indoctrinate, excuse me, I mean educate my child.
To further accept that parents are oppressive, one must accept that overall and in general, the State has a greater interest in providing a well-rounded education that will benefit the child in the long run than the parents do.
Now, it is quite possible that some, maybe even a large absolute number of parents have less concern for their child's education well-being than the State bureaucracy. But I think that to accept that for the vast majority percentage of parents and concerning all subjects is downright laughable. How could the majority lack concern and then force concern on the bureaucracy under majority rule? It could not happen.
You place a very high priority on evolution education. Maybe that's fine for you. Now consider the opportunity costs of teaching a subject like evolution, or any subject for that matter. To spend time there requires taking time from something else. Who are you to say that we should take time from anything to teach evolution? Why is your opinion more important than mine? I would say it is, for your kid. You are by default claiming that our opinions are equal, because you want it resolved through the bureaucracy.
You are basically supporting the idea that to fall on the sword of making sure evolution is taught to all children, we parents should be willing to relinquish control over quality, timing, and priority of every other subject available. Not to mention, we should readily accept putting our children in schools that remind me a lot of prisons, where are kids are housed desk-to-desk with other kids who may not have the same interests, or seriousness towards education as they do.
I unequivocally reject your position.
Andrew | January 2, 2008, 7:27pm | #
"It is most definitely a theory."
That's funny, because there are people claiming it's not a theory, and others who attack those who claim it is a theory. You get a gold star, but I guess you can't be President.
More importantly, the people who don't really know what the terminology really means think they are qualified to define the curriculum for my kids.
See here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy#Definitions
"Why is it important that the children who will be ditch diggers be taught how to read, then? Or do math?"
Hmmm, now that's a real discussion. We do not attempt to teach current ditch diggers reading or math. Therefore, it must be that we teach future ditch diggers math and reading because we cannot tell who will be ditch diggers. What if we could? Further, should we teach them even less pertinent topics like evolution at the expense of reading and basic math? Should we take scarce resources away from future Einsteins to teach ditch diggers evolution? These are the useful debates. We are not having them because we are discussing evolution. Maybe interesting, but not very reasonable and rational.
"Also -- how does one decide to be an evolutionary biologist if they are never taught what evolution or biology is?"
There is a difference between providing exposure and making something a core curriculum.
"Doctors have proven that, while they may be capable doctors, they aren't immune from being stupid and illogical."
It's true that doctors on occasion can be stupid and illogical, although this seems laughable to imply generally. And specifically claiming this of Ron Paul is pretty stupid and illogical.
I'm pretty sure scientists have already concluded "Evolution happens".
Now, if we had scientists and engineers, say maybe allowing retired ones, to teach kids science and engineering, I'd be all for that. Again, another real debate. But to get their we have to get out of the evolution debate red herring and the state-controlled monopoly on education that this issue engenders. But, you know what, with YouTube, DVDs, the internet, etc. We will have master teachers sooner or later, and I won't even have to convince you folks. It will happen, and you won't even recognize it. You'll still be debating evolution.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
