Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » RON PAUL: DISQUALIFIED
  • RON PAUL: DISQUALIFIED

    Filed at 2:21 pm under by dcobranchi

    As, by definition, are all creationists.

    6 Responses to “RON PAUL: DISQUALIFIED”


    Comment by
    Audrey
    January 13th, 2008
    at 2:36 pm

    First, he was doing fine when he said it was an inappropriate question and that “the presidency shouldn’t be decided on a scientific question.” But, then he pulls on his asshat when he says evolution is “just a theory” and he doesn’t accept “that theory.”

    WHY? Darryl, why do these politicians constantly do this? WHY do people call it scientific and then NOT EVEN KNOW the difference between a SCIENTIFIC theory and a matter of philosophical conjecture. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME! They keep screwing it up and it keeps pissing me off.

    To rip Wikipedia’s nicely succinct definition:
    “In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists “theory” and “fact” do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton’s theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

    In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement “It’s not a fact, it’s only a theory.” True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.”

    I’m yelling at the choir, aren’t I? Sorry again.


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    January 13th, 2008
    at 2:56 pm

    I disagree that it was an inappropriate question. I would really like the next administration to be members of the reality-based community. Rejecting evolution in favor of creationism is a pretty good indicator for unreal thinking.


    Comment by
    Heather
    January 13th, 2008
    at 3:43 pm

    Aww, that’s really too bad. I knew he was a religious guy, I just thought he was the normal kind. Bummer.


    Comment by
    Audrey
    January 13th, 2008
    at 4:19 pm

    I was reading the phrase “inappropriate question” as evolution not having anything to do with politics. You’re reading it as a kind of litmus test for the rational thinking abilities of the candidates.

    I do agree that it IS a good indicator of sane and rational capability of the candidates. I just think it’s sad that a test question for sanity even needs asking in the first place.


    Comment by
    Ulrike
    January 13th, 2008
    at 8:50 pm

    I dunno. At least he realizes that evolution/creation has nothing to do with the presidency. As president (and he’s got a snowball’s chance in an Iowan August of getting there) he would do his best to keep the federal government out of public schools, which I think is much more important than what he believes in the privacy of his own head.

    I also noticed he didn’t admit to being a YEC. He could be of the “God triggered the Big Bang” variety.

    Actually, now I’m curious how the democrat candidates would answer the question, “Do you believe that God played a role in the creation of the universe?” I bet most of them would say, “Yes.”


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    January 13th, 2008
    at 10:47 pm

    I think any non-atheist would answer that one in the affirmative. Instead ask them if they believe that all life forms have evolved from simpler forms. Paul would say, “No.”