Jon Huntsman' big idea

[Akhlut]

Secondly: while one can believe whatever the hell one can, I'm rather averse to idiots trying to wrest education away from people who actually know about the subject.

He's not running for goddamn Education Dictator. What the fuck does his belief or non-belief in Evolution have to do with Education?

You'll note I was speaking in the general there, and was also just calling Ron Paul a moron.

However, I think that someone that would let millions of children get taught patently false and wrong information is horrifically immoral, irresponsible, and moronic to the greatest degree.

You want to change the holy word of the glorious founders of God's favorite country and only source of light and hope on this Earth? Are you crazy?

That's always pissed me off; they're dead, they freely acknowledged they weren't perfect, and Jefferson, at least, wanted the whole thing to be redone on a semi-frequent basis, as I recall.

I also chuckle in irony that a bunch of slaveholders who kept government in the hands of, essentially, landed aristocracy/plutocracy are revered as the heralds of eternal liberty.

[VarrusTheEthical]

You want to change the holy word of the glorious founders of God's favorite country and only source of light and hope on this Earth? Are you crazy?

On a more serious note, it's probably not worth amending the Constitution just to keep idiots from bleating "Unconstitutional!" at every government policy they don't like. And to be fair, the 16th Amendment hasn't stopped Tax Protestors from calling income taxes unconstitutional, so I doubt it any amendment will keep libertarians and their ilk from whining about "big-government".

[Zinegata]

I think it's a theory...the theory of gravity and I don't accept it as a theory.

Do you see what I did there? Aside from the subject matter, both statements are identical. To dismiss evolution as a theory is to be ignorant of what that means. If it isn't ignorance -- and let's face it, for all his misguided bullshit Paul is not an ignorant man -- then I can only think of zealous ideological opposition to explain it.

[/quote]

*ahem*

"I think it's a theory... the theory of gravity and I don't accept it as a theory. I accept it as proven fact"

Or how about...

"I think it's a theory... the theory of gravity and I don't accept it as a theory. Because our understanding of the universe is evolving and we have since looked at other things such as relativity and quantum mechanics which would make the theory wrong."

Or how about what YOU think:

"I think it's a theory... the theory of gravity and I don't accept it as a theory. Because I'm Ron Paul and I'm a dirty conservative who believes science is heresy and you should all burn for it!"

Again, that statement is crazily ambiguous, to the point I can tack on any number of "conclusion" statements at the end of it without contradicting it.

While we're at it, let's have a look at this other gem:

I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side.

So he's willing to take a book of allegories on one hand and give it equal weight with the mountain of evidence on the other, and then demand not only the mountain, but the earth and the moon and the sun and the stars as well? No one asks for proof in science: we ask for evidence. The theory of evolution by means of natural selection is the best theory we have, because all of the evidence supports it, and none of the evidence contradicts it. If there were any evidence falling into that latter category, then we wouldn't have a theory of evolution by means of natural selection, we'd have something else.

First of all, you changed goal posts. The accusation is that Ron Paul "rejects" evolution. You have been forced to downgrade the position to "Ron Paul puts evolution on an equal level as the creation myths in the Bible"

Except that's not what he said. He is not saying that they have equal merit. In fact he is totally silent on which side he believes should have merit. Instead, what he said is that nobody has absolute proof, which strictly speaking is true because he used the word "absolute".

But hey, sure, let's live in a world where we judge people based on how much you want to bash them instead of what they actually said. Let's pretend Ron Paul said Theory of Evolution has equal merit as the Bible, when he said no such thing. FactCheck would easily call this "pants on fire" though.

Because again, as it stands, saying that Paul denies evolution based on his statement is pretty flimsy. And rather than present absolute proof that he's a creationist (by presenting other statements where he says flat-out that he IS one), you're twisting his existing words to support your viewpoint. That's the very definition of spin.

Oh, by the way, here's some other, less ambiguous statements by Paul:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/commen ... nists_and/

The creationists frown on the evolutionists, and the evolutionists dismiss the creationists as kooky and unscientific. Lost in this struggle are those who look objectively at all the scientific evidence for evolution without feeling any need to reject the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one’s view about God and the universe. From my viewpoint, this is a debate about science and religion (and I wish it could be more civil!) and should not involve politicians at all. Why can’t this remain an academic debate and not be made the political issue it has become?

The answer is simple. Both sides want to use the state to enforce their views on others. One side does> n’t mind using force to expose others to prayer and professing their faith. The other side demands that they have the right never to be offended and demands prohibition of any public expression of faith.

Or how about this:

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-09-11/ron-p ... eddit-com/

With regard to evolution, I mean… I just don’t spend a whole lot of time on this, especially in politics. “Do you believe in evolution or don’t you believe in evolution? Yes or no? And then we’ll decide whether you should be President or not.”

You know it is a theory, nobody has concrete proof of any of this. But quite frankly I think it’s sort of irrelevant, that because we don’t know the exact details and we don’t have geologic support for evolutionary forms, it is a theory, even though it’s a pretty logical theory. But my concept of understanding of a creator is not related one bit to whether or not I or anybody has to believe in evolution or not believe in evolution.

The idea that if you don’t [?] believe in evolution means that you don’t believe in a creator is total nonsense. So I think this once again is overly played and we spend too much time on it. And besides, if you’re in politics it shouldn’t be a bother. This is something maybe not dealing with science as much with your own spiritual life, your personal beliefs. The important thing is that you have a political system where you can debate this and make a decision and government rule shouldn’t be based on this. If you have governments basing their rules on this, then it becomes very important. But in a libertarian society these beliefs aren’t nearly as critical.

When you have government schools it becomes important. “Are you fair in teaching that the earth could have been created by a creator or it came out of a pop, out of nowhere?” In a personal world, we don’t have government dictating and ruling all these things; it’s not very important. So the problem is the political environment that makes these issues so important in deciding what one believes in.

Paul's main point on this is seems to be that people should stop bashing one another over this stupid issue and believe what you want. And really, who fucking cares except the Internet purists. I would wager most people live their lives normally without having to care about this issue.

[Zinegata]

Rejoinder: He IS wrong about the theory of evolution having no concrete proof though.

[D.Turtle]

Oh come on, its well known that the whole "Its only a theory" is code speak for not believing it.

Ron Paul explicitly said: Its only a theory (aka code-speak for "they're just guessing/its just a hypothesis" - not the scientific meaning of theory). He doesn't accept that theory (aka the theory is wrong aka evolution is wrong). And then he even say that the universe was created (aka creationism).

[Panzersharkcat]

If I remember one of his books correctly, he pretty much states that he does not believe in evolution. I was very disappointed in him.

[SCRawl]

Again, that statement is crazily ambiguous, to the point I can tack on any number of "conclusion" statements at the end of it without contradicting it.

My point, which apparently sailed over your head, was that the very statement that evolution is "just a theory" betrays profound ignorance of what the term "theory" means.

First of all, you changed goal posts. The accusation is that Ron Paul "rejects" evolution. You have been forced to downgrade the position to "Ron Paul puts evolution on an equal level as the creation myths in the Bible"

Except that's not what he said. He is not saying that they have equal merit. In fact he is totally silent on which side he believes should have merit. Instead, what he said is that nobody has absolute proof, which strictly speaking is true because he used the word "absolute".

That very statement about not having absolute proof on either side does elevate the creation myth side to that of the tried and tested science side. It's the old "Golden Mean" fallacy. You really don't see it? Let's look at that sentence again:

I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side.

So because no one has absolute proof, this sentence seems to be saying, both viewpoints are equally valid. Choosing one side over the other would seem to be equally justifiable, logically speaking. The fact is that both sides aren't equally justifiable; you either believe the one side because that's what the evidence strongly indicates, or you believe the other because you have faith that it's true.

But hey, sure, let's live in a world where we judge people based on how much you want to bash them instead of what they actually said. Let's pretend Ron Paul said Theory of Evolution has equal merit as the Bible, when he said no such thing. FactCheck would easily call this "pants on fire" though.

Because again, as it stands, saying that Paul denies evolution based on his statement is pretty flimsy. And rather than present absolute proof that he's a creationist (by presenting other statements where he says flat-out that he IS one), you're twisting his existing words to support your viewpoint. That's the very definition of spin.

I prefer to call it reading comprehension, but you're free to use whatever term makes you happiest. You'll also note that I suggested that it's possible that Rep. Paul's response was less than fully thought out, and that this isn't precisely indicative of his actual position (or at least his actual public position). But the way I read that actual quote is the way I've been discussing it.

Oh, by the way, here's some other, less ambiguous statements by Paul:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/commen ... nists_and/

The creationists frown on the evolutionists, and the evolutionists dismiss the creationists as kooky and unscientific. Lost in this struggle are those who look objectively at all the scientific evidence for evolution without feeling any need to reject the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one’s view about God and the universe. From my viewpoint, this is a debate about science and religion (and I wish it could be more civil!) and should not involve politicians at all. Why can’t this remain an academic debate and not be made the political issue it has become?

The answer is simple. Both sides want to use the state to enforce their views on others. One side does> n’t mind using force to expose others to prayer and professing their faith. The other side demands that they have the right never to be offended and demands prohibition of any public expression of faith.

Except that this isn't what Creationism is, except for the most watered-down version imaginable. It doesn't just require an omnipotent creator, it requires either a strongly interventionist deity (a la the literal creation myth) or a guiding hand (as in Intelligent Design). The sort of god whose mere existence would be required to validate Creationism would be an unnecessary term, and could be safely ignored. As Laplace put it, “I have had no need of that hypothesis.”

...
When you have government schools it becomes important. “Are you fair in teaching that the earth could have been created by a creator or it came out of a pop, out of nowhere?” In a personal world, we don’t have government dictating and ruling all these things; it’s not very important. So the problem is the political environment that makes these issues so important in deciding what one believes in.

Paul's main point on this is seems to be that people should stop bashing one another over this stupid issue and believe what you want. And really, who fucking cares except the Internet purists. I would wager most people live their lives normally without having to care about this issue.

When you start allowing schools to teach whatever dogma they want, then there's a problem. Don't believe me? Imagine evolution being wiped off the educational map, as some segments of society desperately want to happen (if their actions can be used to judge their intent). Without evolution there can be no understanding of many aspects of medical research, just for one. Do you want to contemplate a world without, say, access to antibiotics? No, this is a fight worth having, because one side is right, and the other side is wrong, and the stakes for losing is a return to the dark ages. You (not you personally, I mean the more generic sense) want to believe in an omnipotent creator? Fine, believe in all the gods you want, it's no skin off my nose. You want to teach that stuff in school, along with other unscientific mumbo-jumbo, no, that's not okay. Dr. Paul's idealized Libertarian society would have us leave that sort of decision in the hands of the wrong people, and that's why this viewpoint is worth proposing.

[Zinegata]

Again, because Scrawl cannot be relied upon to stop changing goalposts, let me remind everyone of what is being argued over:

Does Ron Paul reject the theory of evolution based on the statement he has been quoted?

No, he does not. For the following reasons:

1) You cannot say he is "rejecting" a theory if you are claiming he "does not understand what a theory is". Again, two very different things. And this is before we even get to the fact that you have failed to address that a) It is a highly ambiguous statement, and b) It is the first part of a much larger statement.

2) You have also contradicted yourself by insisting that he puts evolution and creationism on an equal footing in his concluding statement. Again, if you are saying that Ron Paul thinks creationism is valid, and he puts it on an equal footing as evolution, then he must also think that evolution is valid. This is the very opposite of rejecting evolution.

3) You are accusing me of failing reading comprehension, when you have blatantly misrepresented two different positions (Ron Paul does not understand what a theory is, and Ron Paul thinks creationism and evolution are on the same level) as being synonymous with an outright rejection of evolution. He has not done this, at all.

Just because DTurtle thinks it's "code" for "I don't believe in evolution" does not make it so. You need to get an actual quote. If it's out there, fine. But by refusing to actually find some more definitive quotes does not good debating make.

4) You are accusing Ron Paul of wanting to include creationism into the school curriculum, when he in fact said the exact opposite and instead opposes dogmatic religious teaching in schools:

My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one’s view about God and the universe. From my viewpoint, this is a debate about science and religion (and I wish it could be more civil!) and should not involve politicians at all. Why can’t this remain an academic debate and not be made the political issue it has become?

The answer is simple. Both sides want to use the state to enforce their views on others. One side does> n’t mind using force to expose others to prayer and professing their faith.The other side demands that they have the right never to be offended and demands prohibition of any public expression of faith.

Bolded the portion where he calls out the religious extremists because people seem to like to gloss over that part.

It's worth noting that when he talks about the "science" side, he is not talking about "And they want to force evolution down our throats". Again, read what he actually said, instead of what you imagine he said.

Because other candidates, such as Rick Perry and Bachman, do in fact insist on teaching creationism in schools:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inter ... g-science/

These may seem minor distinctions when you blatantly don't care about the candidates because they're all "dirty Republicans!" anyway, but they are pretty damn important distinctions in a race that has been defined by having an utter nutjob field. Paul may not be as sane as Huntsman (the only candidate on the Republican side to deny creationism flat-out), but he is saner than Perry or Bachman on this issue who both advocate teaching creationism in schools.

Believing in creationism (or any religion for that matter) does not mean you reject evolution. You can argue that it's a contradiction. But over half the Catholics and Protestants in America still believe that it's the best explanation for human life on Earth (and much higher for other faiths).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_s ... _evolution

If I remember one of his books correctly, he pretty much states that he does not believe in evolution. I was very disappointed in him.

If you can get a definitive quote, that would be great. As I noted, he's totally wrong about evolution not having hard evidence, and that's an indicator of being much more on the "creationism" side, but still no smoking gun on the rejection of evolution.

Because I'm getting really annoyed of people spinning a pretty ambiguous statement, instead of showing something where Paul just flat-out says "I do not believe in evolution, period."

[SCRawl]

I may address the other points another time -- I have to go to bed now, as I have an 8AM final exam tomorrow -- but these ones are the low-hanging fruit.

4) You are accusing Ron Paul of wanting to include creationism into the school curriculum, when he in fact said the exact opposite and instead opposes dogmatic religious teaching in schools:

I never said that he wanted to mandate the teaching of Creationism in schools. What I said (if you don't care to scroll up) is that there is a segment of society that wants very badly to do this, and further that Ron Paul would prefer to leave this choice up to each individual school board, which is what that segment wants.

Believing in creationism (or any religion for that matter) does not mean you reject evolution. You can argue that it's a contradiction. But over half the Catholics and Protestants in America still believe that it's the best explanation for human life on Earth (and much higher for other faiths).

As I stated (again, scroll up if you like) the only way for Creationism to exist alongside evolution by means of natural selection is to have a deity which is completely on the sidelines, and therefore a useless term. I suppose you could have a deity as the "creator" in the sense that it was responsible for the existence of the universe, and was then completely "hands off" for all time -- that would be compatible with evolution theory. I really don't think that that's what most Creationists have in mind, though.

[Panzersharkcat]

If you can get a definitive quote, that would be great. As I noted, he's totally wrong about evolution not having hard evidence, and that's an indicator of being much more on the "creationism" side, but still no smoking gun on the rejection of evolution.

Because I'm getting really annoyed of people spinning a pretty ambiguous statement, instead of showing something where Paul just flat-out says "I do not believe in evolution, period."

From page 107 of Liberty Defined, hardcover edition, he says,

There is one argument against evolution that deserves considering. If man is progressing and evolving, why is man's involvement in mass killings of one another getting worse and the struggle for peace more difficult? Government wars and exterminations in the twentieth century reached 262 million people killed by their own governments and 44 million killed in wars. I fear that doesn't say much for the evolutionary process.

I found that to be pretty facepalm worthy. When I read that, I imagined Morbo yelling, "EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT." However, he did say earlier in the chapter, page 104, that

My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one's view about God and the universe.

I still think the quote from later in the book indicates that he rejects evolution, though.

[Simon_Jester]

As I stated (again, scroll up if you like) the only way for Creationism to exist alongside evolution by means of natural selection is to have a deity which is completely on the sidelines, and therefore a useless term. I suppose you could have a deity as the "creator" in the sense that it was responsible for the existence of the universe, and was then completely "hands off" for all time -- that would be compatible with evolution theory. I really don't think that that's what most Creationists have in mind, though.

As a practical matter, it is a bad idea to press this issue too hard- since the average person who believes in a creator-deity is apt to get touchy about having someone loudly proclaim that said creator-deity is a myth, or an irrelevancy.

My advice is to stick to the science (where you are fighting on well-known territory and have the high ground) and avoid direct commentary on theology (unless you're trying for a pissing match).

[Zinegata]

I never said that he wanted to mandate the teaching of Creationism in schools.

Your reply was this:

When you start allowing schools to teach whatever dogma they want, then there's a problem. Don't believe me? Imagine evolution being wiped off the educational map, as some segments of society desperately want to happen (if their actions can be used to judge their intent).

As a direct reply to this:

Paul's main point on this is seems to be that people should stop bashing one another over this stupid issue and believe what you want.

That certainly strongly implies that you believe Paul's position will result in "allowing schools to teach whatever dogma they want", and hence he is therefore supporting teaching creationism in schools.

If your intent wasn't to muddle the waters and imply that Paul supports teaching creationism in schools, you picked the wrong statement to respond to.

As I stated (again, scroll up if you like) the only way for Creationism to exist alongside evolution by means of natural selection is to have a deity which is completely on the sidelines, and therefore a useless term. I suppose you could have a deity as the "creator" in the sense that it was responsible for the existence of the universe, and was then completely "hands off" for all time -- that would be compatible with evolution theory. I really don't think that that's what most Creationists have in mind, though.

As already stated 48% of Catholic Americans don't give a fuck about the contradiction because they believe in evolution as the BEST theory to explain human life anyway despite believing in a creator deity. While that's not "most" of the population, note that the survey counts only those who believe that evolution is the BEST answer. The remaining 52% are not religious nuts who want to obliterate the teaching of evolution from schools.

Note that other religious groups don't show much higher or lower rates of evolution beliefs/disbelief either.

So really, you are WAY overstating the problem. If you wanna call out the extremists who DO want to teach creationism alongside evolution like Perry and Bachman, go on ahead.

But so far, no evidence has been shown that Paul belongs in the same camp, which is again the MAIN pointing being argued here despite your valiant attempts to turn it into "Creationists are destroying America!" hysteria.

I found that to be pretty facepalm worthy. When I read that, I imagined Morbo yelling, "EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT." However, he did say earlier in the chapter, page 104, that

To be fair, the "natural selection" part of the theory IS the most muddled part because observers tend to have subjective ideas of what qualities are "most adapted to survive".

It cannot be disputed that we descended from some kind of ape. We've got genetic evidence if it comes down to that. But the exact reasons why Homo Sapiens eventually won out over Neanderthals however is not quite as clear cut.

My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one's view about God and the universe.

Over 40% of Americans already do this, by accepting evolution as the BEST theory to explain human kind's presence on Earth even though they subscribe to some kind of religion.

This is not rejecting evolution. Find the quote.

[Panzersharkcat]

This is not rejecting evolution. Find the quote.

The bit I quoted where he misunderstands natural selection was what I had as far as him rejecting evolution. I don't remember him writing anything else about it in any of his books that I have.

[Zinegata]

This is not rejecting evolution. Find the quote.

The bit I quoted where he misunderstands natural selection was what I had as far as him rejecting evolution. I don't remember him writing anything else about it in any of his books that I have.

If he uses that argument to deny the proven genetic link between humans and our more ape-like ancestors, then you can absolutely make a case that he is denying the whole evolutionary process.

However, if he's just showing concern that one of the qualities that made humans "win" in the natural selection game is apparently our capacity to destroy and kill one another (and nature certainly is often competitive), then he's really just saying "Let's not follow a survival of the fittest paradigm".

[Zinegata]

Ghetto edit:

I got my numbers wrong. I turns out that 48% of all Americans believe that evolution is the BEST way to explain humanity's existence. And for mainline Protestants it's at 51%, and for Catholics it's at 58%.

So for those two denominations, the number of people who believe in evolution is the MAJORITY.

So really, this whole hysteria over the "Creationism is trying to ban evolution from being thought in schools" or "It is trying to be as equally relevant!" is little more than blown-out hysteria that involves Perry and Bachman more. If you want to make fun of them, go right on ahead and waste your time on this minority of idiots.

(Also, another plus point for Huntsman: Mormons are among the lowest believers in evolution, but he states flat-out he believes in evolution and thinks creationism is silly. Good for him!)

[D.Turtle]

Looking further into this topic, Ron Paul seems to belong in the typically large group of wishy-washy "evolution is a theory, which you can't really prove it and there is still a lot of debate about if its true or not, just like global warming."

Blatantly wrong and not supported by science, but also not specifically anti-science/anti-evolution/anti-AGW.

[Zinegata]

Looking further into this topic, Ron Paul seems to belong in the typically large group of wishy-washy "evolution is a theory, which you can't really prove it and there is still a lot of debate about if its true or not, just like global warming."

Blatantly wrong and not supported by science, but also not specifically anti-science/anti-evolution/anti-AGW.

Pretty much, and Paul is also consistent in saying that people should also not try to impose religious dogma on the education system (and on the flip side he only asks that evolution not be used to justify denying religion altogether, not that people stop teaching evolution), which is in contrast to Perry and Bachmann who HAVE said they support teaching creationism alongside evolution.

Not as good as Huntsman, but a much saner position than Bachmann or Perry.

[Thanas]

Zinegata acting like he forgot his pants at home and shitting all over the staff by misusing the report button. Who knew?

Action of said blithering retard split to the HoS. Continue on.