Quantcast

«

»

Aug 30 2011

Ron Paul and evolution, the sequal

I thought this was old news, my spin-doctor detection meter is going crazy seeing it hit the headlines again. I suspect someone is trying to make a political hit of some sort. But I have no evidence, and apparently it’s an actual topic of discussion in the media today. So, Ron Paul announces he doesn’t accept evolution, at least as far as humans are concerned:

“Well, first i thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter,” he said. “I think it’s a theory…the theory of evolution and I don’t accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side.”

Face/palm. Huckabee made a similar evasive quip about science not being important to the presidency on one of his debate appearance back in 2008. Which is disturbing: a president of a nation that depends critically on science for basically, everything, should either understand that science doesn’t run on “absolute proof,” or have someone at hand who can explain that to them in as much detail as necessary.

Back to Ron Paul, I’m in Texas, in the heart of what used to be called Bush country, and have a good friend who is a big, big fan of the good Dr Paul. We’ve talked about it a bit, and the thing I try to get across is I love some of the stuff Paul says. He was the first sitting GOP politician who cast doubt on the Iraq War, he’s against drug prohibition and the insane laws and breaches of rights that go along with it. Paul’s view on evolution is more nuanced than the quote above, at least as represented in his writings and statements elsewhere.

But he also seems to believe some bug-fuck crazy shit that forces me to question the man’s judgement, and casting doubt on whether or not humans evolved like every other living thing is just the tip of the iceberg. Moreover, this has gotten worse, not better, with the rise of the know-nothing right. I think Paul has been affected by that; its human nature, he likes the attention, applause and celebrity can be quite seductive. One of the biggest strike against him, in my view, is his son Rand Paul, a full on ignorant anti-government sociopath who seems hell bent on stealing the Social Security and Medicare I’ve paid into for almost 40 years and feeding it to Paris Hilton as tax cuts, and who claims to believe we can really run the world’s greatest super-power on a loosely confederated state government system that doesn’t work anywhere else in the world and didn’t work here for more than a few decades.  Ron Paul the senior has not intervened in that crazy talk, not in any way that I’m aware of. Ron Paul would have to change quite a bit before I would vote for him over a generic democrat, much less volunteer for his campaign. Starting with denouncing his own son’s core beliefs as bat-shit insane.

9 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    vandelay

    Why is he responsible for anything his son says?

  2. 2
    Stephen "DarkSyde" Andrew

    Didn’t say he was. I said he hasn’t as far as I know corrected any of that crazy shit Rand is saying. But now that you bring it up, I’m one of those old fashioned people who thinks parents usually have great influence and thus some ghost of responsibility for the actions of their children.

  3. 3
    vandelay

    Should we jail the parents of criminals?

  4. 4
    Stephen "DarkSyde" Andrew

    LOL! Nice try.

  5. 5
    vandelay

    So when you say “responsibility”, you don’t actually mean responsibility.

    Rand is 48 years old, his father doesn’t need to babysit him.

    I suggest you come up with a less retarded reason to not vote for him. They’re out there.

  6. 6
    Stephen "DarkSyde" Andrew

    Van (Art Vandelay?) I feel I’m at a disadvantage here. My views should be obvious and I’m happy to answer questions about them. But you are a mystery. How about filling us in? Who did you vote for the last couple of elections and why?

  7. 7
    vandelay

    So far I’ve only quibbled with the fact that you strangely require politician A to repudiate politician B as a prerequisite for your support for no other reason than the familial bonds between the two. I oppose that as a point of principle only, so you aren’t really at any disadvantage.

    Be that as it may, I’m Canadian, but if I were American Paul would likely be the only candidate among those in your bi-factional ruling party that I would even consider supporting.

    His views on evolution don’t bother me in the least. The best thing a politician can do for science is to stay out of it, which is exactly what Paul, as a principled libertarian, would do.

    Ironically the two Pauls, as MD’s, probably know significantly more about biology than 99 per cent of politicians who make a show of support for evolution. If they can perform competently as doctors without totally believing in evolution, why should we think that it would negatively affect their ability to perform as civil servants?

    And yes, I import/export fine latex goods

  8. 8
    Stephen "DarkSyde" Andrew

    Thanks Art. In the post I wrote “Ron Paul the senior has not intervened in that crazy talk, not in any way that I’m aware of.” What I’m driving at there isn’t that he’s directly responsible, what bothers me is his principles vanish when it’s his son doing the crazy talk. Which leads me to believe he’s got a big ugly blind spot … or he agrees.

  9. 9
    vandelay

    Why would he have to intervene in it? If you want to divine Ron Paul’s views, just listen to what he himself says. He doesn’t exactly hold back.

Leave a Reply