The Volokh Conspiracy

RP lost any hope of getting my vote when I learned that he supports repealing the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of birthright citizenship. That looks even more sinister now that I know of his support for (or at least refusal to distance himself from) this sort of racist bullshit.

oops

Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it's a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don't accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think it probably doesn't bother me. It's not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think the Creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. So I just don't...if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have our...if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office.

The fuller version of the quote posted by R78 is interesting, but in no way contradicts the short version I put in the post. It doesn't change the fact that Paul denies the validity of the theory of evolution. It merely adds the point that he doesn't consider it's validity to be "the most important issue." I agree that it isn't. However, Paul's position on it is still a negative.

The expanded quote only makes mattrs worde for Paul.

"if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office."

Too bad then, you shouldn't have run. Although not the issue inself, evolution is a very significant proxy marker for the issue of the day. The candidate's view on evolution is a near perfect indicator of the cadidate's view of reality as opposed to "magic."

Paul's other "exotic" views only reinforce his distance from reality.

I di as a Libertarian and Live as a Republican

I don't feel like a wacko, I'm not a Paul voter or donor, and I'vebeen liberatrian and atheist long before blogs (ordinarily a preface like this ought not matter in a debate of ideas, but defending Paul is a special case): this listing of creedal nuttiness seems as pointless as a list of "true" libertarian beliefs,a s if the agrregate promotes you into a class and the details don't matter.

Its ludicrous to say that trade agreements do not undermine sovereignty. Anyone who has followed the taxation of US companies' foreign activities knows that Congress has repeatedly had to "fix" its legislation to comply with the WTO and a non-U.S. body has fined teh U.S. government repeatedly. Plus, an international body recently stripped U.S. companies of copyright protection becaus eof our governments protection of domestic gambling interest. NAFTA truckers, etc etc. Bush was right not to sign on to the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto protocol because they would undermine sovereignty. The administrations understands this simpel point.

Similarly, evolutions is just a theory and its a theory that posits a purpose behind natural selection (in favor of species survival or, in Dawkins version, of gene survival). That purpose is more a function of the model (this category is a species, this category has survived, ergo it selected for survival) then any real evidence. These investigations are in their infancy and healthy agnosticism is warranted.

This is not say he’s a good candidate, but trying to tar him as more of a wacko than Hilary, Guliani, Romney or Huckabee seems more personal than well thought out.

Is someone who doesn't believe in macroevolution "anti-science"? I don't think so, because macroevolution isn't really "science," in the sense that it doesn't conform to the scientific method. There aren't any testable hypotheses.

Chalk this up as the most ignorant statement of the day as it displays both a misunderstanding of evolution and the scientific method.

I would not use a candidate's views on evolution as a litmus test for whether they should be president. I would, however, be influenced by their opinion on whether their personal beliefs are relevant to the election.

In my view, this is one litmus test that RP actually passes.

I would have been more impressed if someone had asked RP if he thought the theory of evolution had been proven. One isn't suppose to "believe" in science, just as one cannot "prove" the existence of God (that's why it's called faith).

I don't think so, because macroevolution isn't really "science," in the sense that it doesn't conform to the scientific method. There aren't any testable hypotheses.

Yes there are.

Hypothesis: if macroevolution is ture, there will be transitional fossils.

Test: Search for transitional fossils.

Result: Confirmed.

As for whether this is relevant to Paul's qualifications for the Presidency, I have to say absolutely yeah -- I want someone who's scientifically literate making decisions about stem-cell research.

As for whether this is relevant to Paul's qualifications for the Presidency, I have to say absolutely yeah -- I want someone who's scientifically literate making decisions about stem-cell research.

Right: scientists. Not the government. That's the point.

"I don't know whether I prefer a president who doesn't believe in evolution because it conflicts with his faith or one who believes in evolution because smart people tell him that it's true."

Watch out for those smart people. Some of them may be physicists telling him about the yield of a nuke. Others might be doctors telling him about bird flu precautions. Some others may be informimg him of problems in the sub-prime market. Others may be telling him about famine in Africa, tsunami warning systems, unemployment, ...

Perhaps it's really better to find these answers in the bible? But not from smart bible experts.

"I would have been more impressed if someone had asked RP if he thought the theory of evolution had been proven."

I'd be very interested in hearing about any scientific theory that has been proven. What constitutes proof?

I'd be very interested in hearing about any scientific theory that has been proven.

You first need to understand that scientific theories are not proven. A scientific theory is not a conjecture to be proved (I have a theory that X committed the crime) but rather a model that is a basis for testing observations. Gravity is a theory, things will always fall towards the earth (at least around here they do), but we're still not exactly sure why.

We've gone over this many times.

Ilya --

You made clear in your first post that you don't agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy views. But that is the major thing Paul has gotten traction on, so of course you may think his candidacy has done more harm than good.

But those of us libertarians who broadly support his principled non-interventionist foreign policy can still see his candidacy as a net plus.

No reasonable person who looks at the evidence currently available will conclude that he wrote the offending material. On the other hand he was negligent in letting others use his name without vetting how they used it. How negligent depends on how long it went on, and that is not so clear. One account argued that the worst stuff happened over a few months and others claimed it lasted a decade.

Ron Paul's candidacy is a rare opportunity for getting some libertarian ideas into a public debate. No one else was willing and able to do the job and for all his limitations, I don't forsee someone better stepping up four or eight years from now.

It is unfortunate this has happened. But his run may still make it easier for someone else to run in the future. Thsee newsletters may not matter the next time we get the chance to support a libertarian in the primaries, but lets hope libertarians keep our noses clean.
-------------
And if we condemn Paul for being "willing to associate with the sorts of people who believe these things", lets also condemn those who hang around the incumbent butchers of the Constitution, or those who pander about doubling Git-mo, or who think two million Americans in jail is law and order.

So you think two million convicted criminals back out on the streets would better serve the goal of law and order?

Not speaking for John, but personally, it is my view that nonviolent people convicted of a crime that has been to possess a substance officially frowned upon shouldn't be considered criminals in the first place.

I realize that some believe that even wrong laws should be followed. As a practical matter, I practice that, because I don't wish to be thrown in prison. As a moral matter, however, wrong laws are wrong, and should be opposed. Even from a utilitarian perspective, imprisoning people for consensual activity is perverse - otherwise productive people are taken out of the workforce, and tax dollars are spent to keep them unproductive (unless you're a fan of prison labor... but that's getting even more off-topic).

If the government is going to do some global warming mitigation, science education, disease eradication, etc., then I'd sure prefer a president who has an idea how fast or slow evolution happens. If the president wants no tariffs, no foreign entanglements, and precious little government, I don't see how it matters what he thinks of any results of science.

People who repeatedly commit violent crime need to be locked up, so I don't propose to let all two million out of jail. The point was that two million is too many and many would never have committed a crime but for the failed war on drugs.

Sending them to jail destroys their ability to prosper in legal occupations while putting them in an environment to learn a full range of bad behavior. We have no choice when someone has been violent in society, but sending drug users to jail is a crime. The war on drugs is perpetuating an underclass and wasting lives.

So we have to choose between (several) people who (claim to) understand biology, but have zero understanding of political philospophy and economics, and one whose science seems weak (despite having an MD) but who has a better understanding of how markets work and what the Constitution means. Seems like an imperfect, but easy, choice.

I understand characterizing the newsletters as containing what could be construed as racist sentiment, but where is the justification for anti-semitism charge? Unless one equates an unwillingness to conjoin our national security with that of Israel's as defacto evidence of anti-semitism" I just don't see anything that supports that point. The newsletters were probably written by the Rockwell crowd, who all work for an institute named after a famous Jewish Economist, and Rockwell himself practically worships his late mentor Murray Rothbard. To accuse these folks of anti-semitism seems a bit absurd. I know its a minor point, but if you are going to dredge up these decade old newsletter in an attempt to tar Paul, at least be fair about their contents.

nothing but appeals to authority is really rich, considering that creationism/ID just boils down to nothing but "...and then God did it," which has to be the ultimate empty appeal to authority.

fishbane, you beat me to the punch with that answer to the "appeal to authority" nonsense. You might have taken it somewhat further, though, noting that "creationism" amounts to "hearsay," which is a generally suspect form of evidence; and that there are multiple, conflicting accounts, none with much to support them other than the exhortation to "believe this," and a good deal to rebut them. (Gee, this makes me wonder whether I really am the agnostic I think I am.)

RP lost any hope of getting my vote when I learned that he supports repealing the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of birthright citizenship. That looks even more sinister now that I know of his support for (or at least refusal to distance himself from) this sort of racist bullshit.

I thought he denied supporting that.

When is the last time Somin took his kids to the ER at 2am, only to find 100 mexicans waiting for routine medical treatment, for FREE.

HappyLee, I think the question is:
When was the last time Somin took his kids to the ER at 2am, only to find 100 mexicans waiting for routine medical treatment, for FREE.

What kind of cults don't believe in evolution in the 21st century? I thought even the mainstream religions came around to saying that the 7 days of creation in the Bible could be 7 billion years and God could have done his work through evolution or something like that.

Hm. Apparently I didn't make myself clear.

I'm actually quite familiar with the models for speciation (I have an advanced degree in biochemistry), and think they're okay, but every model gets better over time. The reason that I posed my challenge is not to get links to science websites from lawyers. I posed it as a rhetorical question for those who think themselves smarter than those who don't believe in macroevolution. For the most part you don't understand the science except in the most abstract sense. You haven't examined the primary research. You believe what you believe because you believe what smart people tell you to believe. That takes no intellectual curiosity at all. You happen to be right, but that doesn't make you any smarter than those who don't believe in evolution.

And no, macroevolution isn't science. It's Natural History. You can't reproduce macroevolution in the lab. (Well, you could, given enough time, but as of today no one has.) Until someone demonstrates speciation in laboratory settings, we will no more "prove" macroevolution than we can "prove" that George Washington existed. Go ahead, try to prove, in the lab, that George Washington existed. Or, for that matter, that the universe wasn't created a second ago.

If someone doesn't believe in the results of reproduced scientific experiments, he's dangerous, because he's detatched from present reality. If someone does believe in reproduced scientific experiements, but doesn't believe in untestable Natural History, he's incorrect, but not nearly as dangerous.

Yes there are.

Hypothesis: if macroevolution is ture, there will be transitional fossils.

Test: Search for transitional fossils.

Doesn't explain the mechanism for evolution, which is really what is at issue. Try again.

AK-->>Doesn't explain the mechanism for evolution, which is really what is at issue. Try again.<<

No. That is NOT waht's "really at issue." One was NOT justified in rejecting the theory of universal gravitation just because Newton hadn't a clue HOW it worked. But more to the point: This entire debate has been about evolution, NOT "natural selection." Evolution is the process, natural selection is the mechanism. Even if you were able to refure Darwin's proposed mechanism, we are still left with evolution. (Lamarck predated Darwin, after all.)

Now, I suppose you'll explain why I'm insufficiently sophisticated to understand your arguments. But how can you call natural history "untestable"? Please refer to my previous post regading the predictive capacities of evolutionary theory. Or have a look at some of Thomas Huxley's work. Theories are tested when their explanatory power is applied to new realms. If they explain the newly-observable facts better than any other theory, then they have proved themselves.

Final point: Is paleontology NOT a science? If not, why not?

supposed plan to form a "North American Union,

How out of touch with reality are you?
Google Search
1,230,000 for "North american union"
pick one....read...enjoy fasicm.

Glad to know you don't think scientific illiteracy on this issue is an absolute bar for supporting a presidential candidate. Were it so, America would not have elected a President to date. (OK, maybe Clinton)

Over a decade ago I double majored in Botany and Plant Pathology. Though I went back to school soon after my degrees and went a different path (computers) I find it impossible for a creationist's theories to compete with what I learned. There is deep knowledge in the natural sciences. I remember classes where we would start with the earliest single cells and follow the changes all the way to the flowering plants. Most of my classes had labs too. "God did it" while not a meaningless theory is just not in the same ballpark.

Thoughtful -

So, you seem to be implicitly accepting a Straussian approach - lying to constituents about one's belief, while perhaps distasteful, is needed to achieve office, because the proles need red meat to allow one to later act against their apparent interests and do what Really Needs To Be Done. Is that correct?

I don't really follow the parallel with Clinton there - it is perfectly consistent to want a baseline education for all while also taking advantage of greater opportunities, should you have them. I can think of a couple HLS graduates, several MIT grads, and at least one Yale law grad (but he would, wouldn't he?) whom I've heard explicitly support public education.

Just because you don't eat government cheese every night at the dinner table doesn't mean you're inconsistent for not wishing that people were starving in the streets.

(And I readily admit that was one of the worst sentences I've constructed recently. Rather than fix it, I'm going to paste it into my journal, as an example of what not to write again, and leave here as a cautionary example.)

Alan K.: When you use the referent "evolution", it isn't clear what you're referring to. Could you please indicate if you're disputing speciation, selection, drift, mutation, variance, or some other aspect of biologic change over time?

I have to add that it makes no sense to claim that "evolution" (whatever you're referring to - I'm assuming speciation, because that seems to be what sticks in most creationist's craws) doesn't happen in "real time". We happen to live in real time (as an insomniac, don't I know this right now), and speciation has been observed. If you are actually interested in the biology, and really not trolling, google for "T. mirus T. miscellus", for starters.

Of course, if you simply want to rehash silly, already refuted arguments, then please, carry on, and the rest of us will keep pointing to talk-origins, who have already done the heavy lifting of laboriously refuting all of the variations on the "and then God did it" argument, which is all the creationist/ID crowd seems to have to offer.

It still strikes me as astounding that folks are willing to deny the evil scary evolution theory at the same time they're willing to take drugs for heath benefits that exist because of the evil scary evolution theory. Or who knows. Maybe god invented pyrazinamide, and simply let the devil plant false memories about how it came to be, just like he did with those dinosaur bones, as a test of faith.

Maybe god invented pyrazinamide, and simply let the devil plant false memories about how it came to be, just like he did with those dinosaur bones, as a test of faith.

A vastly improved sentence. :)

Does anyone deny the geologic record of change in life forms?

Does anyone deny the geologic record of change in life forms?

If you mean "does anyone think that the earth is 6000 years old and that Tyrannosaurus Rex was on the Ark with Noah," the answer is apparently yes.

When you use the referent "evolution", it isn't clear what you're referring to. Could you please indicate if you're disputing speciation, selection, drift, mutation, variance, or some other aspect of biologic change over time?

Actually I'm not disputing evolution. I am simply saying that the means for establishing that evolution exists is different from the means for establishing that gravity exists. We can directly observe the effects of gravity. We can watch stuff fall to Earth while it is happening. We cannot observe evolution or any of its components as they are happening. That statement does not prove or disprove evolution; it simply states that the scientific methodology for establishing its existence is diferent than that for establishing the existence of gravity.

The rest of fishbane's post is completely irrelevant, since whether one believes or disbelieves evolution has no bearing on my thesis.

In comments sections I prefer to keep discussion focused on a specific topic. Comments threads have a limited lifespan, and participants have limited Internet time. The evolution vs. creation debate as a whole is just too big for a comments section. There's only so much space and time, so ideally such a debate should limit itself to a tiny slice of it - say, if evolution is falsifiable.

Ilya's article is about Ron Paul more than it is about evolution, so we've kinda strayed off the true topic, which is whether Paul's views on evolution are politically relevant. They are if you insist that the government should mandate them into curricula. Paul does not; he is consistently libertarian on that issue.

That a politician is ignorant of some bit of science, even an important bit, isn't particularly interesting. Science is a hard, specialized field, and not their business. Could any of the candidates make sense out of black holes? And how many scientists could explain the Rule Against Perpetuities?
What's wrong here is that Paul, and all the other candidates who don't "beieve" in evolution, set themselves up as judges of matters where they must, if at all self-aware, know themselves to be incompetent to have an opinion. I don't "believe" in evolution by natural selection. I know that the scientists who have studied the matter are persuaded that it is true, I know, at a very basic level, some of the reasons they are so persuaded, and I see no reason to doubt the scientific consensus. I know that there are some disputed technical issues within the subject, and the experts have their differing reasons for "believing" one side or the other on the disputed issues. But I don't have, and don't consider myself qualified to have, a "belief" on those matters.
If Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee think they have any business having "beliefs" on subjects they know nothing about, and reject the consensus of experts in the process, like evolution, what else do they think they have any business having "beliefs" about, rejecting what real experts know, and, quite possibly, enacting into law? Ignorance of specialized knowledge isn't a problem, assertive ignorance is.

I've just stumbled across this. It appears that the heat is getting to Lew Rockwell, so he's sending his surrogates out to defend him. And, not surprisingly, the man who won't come clean about authoring the Ron Paul newsletters is (through his surrogates) demonstrating that he is ready to throw Paul under the bus:

"The burden of the newsletter content is on Ron Paul, the man whose name graces the covers, and shame on you scoundrel 'libertarians' for automatically drawing the assumption that Lew Rockwell must have, had to be, surely was involved in writing those passages that have you all so horrified. Yet you claim that this man, who has worked so hard - on his own time and dollar - to open peoples' minds to the more radical aspects of freedom and free markets, is 'destroying your movement,' as if this is some juvenile brotherhood of badges, pin pricks, sworn statements, and membership cards."

You can read the entire tiresome screed here:

http://www.karendecoster.com/blog/archives/002714.html

By the way, did anyone else not know that Rockwell was accused some time ago of having an affair with Cindy Sheehan? Google it if you want to read about it. I thought good paleos weren't so morally lax, what with being "traditionalist Catholics" and all that.

Correction: Michael Behe is an evolutionist, albeit a rather unorthodox one:

Unlike William A. Dembski and others in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the common descent of species, including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species.