Ron Paul on evolution

rob enderle

Paul is by far the only truly refreshing politician in the US right now. Show me ONE other politician we have here that comes close to breaking the mold of corporate politics. Id say Kucinich too but not as much as Paul. In Canada, the 125 year old Proggressive Conservative party was dismantled because a farmer had threathened the reliability of the party to serve the interests of the business world instead of the voters. He is also Canada's most reknowned anti-war activist as well as on GMO's. Those people scare old farts, fat cats and parasites whoo benefit from the status quo. Amongst them: the mainstream press.

markc

Er, qualified much to remark upon this, Stephen? I have no time for Creationist pseudoscience, but no self-respecting scientist does presently claim absolute proof either way. Paul is technically correct: the same words could have come from the mouth of the late, great Stephen Jay Gould, though he came down on Darwin's side.

Ron Paul is a dweeb for many other reasons. But cool it on the pointless nastiness. Did Santa skip your house, or something? (Hoho... ho).

Fran

"Just like relativity, eh Ron?" And your proof - as opposed to strong evidence - Stephen, is ......

Ray

It is important to define what we mean by 'evolution' and 'creation'. True, many Creationists insist the world was made in six days - however, many more have no problem reconciling their faith with scientific evidence that suggests the creation process has been strung out over millions of years (believing the 'days' mentioned in Genesis should more correctly be interpreted as meaning 'epochs'). Likewise, many evolutionists have no trouble believing that an intelligent deity is probably the force behind the wondrous world we behold today. However, if by 'evolution' you mean the kind of dogmatic Atheistic Darwinism that is peddled by the likes of Richard Dawkins (and which is, it has to be said, swallowed unthinkingly by most of the media), then it is a theory so shot full of holes in terms of mathematical improbability, lack of fossil evidence, irreducible complexity, etc as to require even more faith to accept than even the humblest Christian could ever muster.

Joshua

"Did Santa skip your house, or something? (Hoho... ho)." -- The National Front quite obviously did not skip yours.

Joshua

"Those people scare old farts, fat cats and parasites whoo benefit from the status quo" - They primarily appeal to Jew-haters, anti-Zionists and ne'er-do-wells.

Stuart A

Still pursuing the paranoid monomania then, Joshua? Maybe you could find time, amid your ongoing hair trigger search for anti-Semitism, to explain why, given your Jewish background, you apparently morphed into a Christian Creationist during a debate on Stephen's old site. It would seem relevant to the subject in hand (the subject Stephen raised, that is -- not the one that permanently occupies you).

palmer

How did Pollard get this job? The once great Spectator has really gone downhill. Shame.

edmund

isn't this a bit rich from a man who was fool enough to beoive tony blair. i'm not a secular jew and disagree with it but i woudln call all secular jews "nutcases" any more than i would hte quarter of the UK population who disbelieve in evolution and rject mine and your view on the subject

Andrew Milner

"I'm an atheist, and I'm going to be your next president."
The sooner that happens the better, but don't hold your breath.

Stefan Böck

show us at least ONE verified missing link, and IŽll be with you. by the way: yes. relativity. light is NO certain object that traverses throughout space ...