[brentashley]

I have to say it's jarring to hear Ron Paul referring to "6000 years of human history" as though that is the totality of human history. While I still support him fully because everything he has to say wrt government and foreign policy is sound and principled, it's really difficult for me to reconcile this one thing.

[jaysonelliot]

Isn't that about how much written history we have?

I don't think he's being a creationist here, at least, that's not how I read it.

[dubfan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw - In this video he claims he does not "accept the theory of evolution as a theory". While he doesn't come straight out and use the tired "just a theory" attack, it sure sounds like it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eiR_U8vhIo - A reading from his book expounds on his answer to that question. He seems to think the question of evolution is "silly" and irrelevant to his campaign. He also attacks public schools and evolution with rather weak and banal rhetoric.

Ron Paul lacks the perspective to be commander-in-chief of this country.

[dantheman]

From his book liberty defined: http://libertydefined.org/issue/17

No one person has perfect knowledge as to man's emergence on this earth. Yet almost everyone has a strong religious, scientific, or emotional opinion he or she considers gospel. 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 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 the evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one's view about God and the universe. This is a debate about science and religion...and should not involve politicians at all.

[dubfan]

For Paul to claim that someone could hold a "scientific opinion as gospel" shows that he has either forgotten his scientific education that he no doubt received during his Ph.D. candidacy, or that his meaning was lost in his sweeping rhetoric. In this age of climate change, resource depletion and environmental degradation the most powerful country in the world needs a Commander-in-Chief that demonstrates the ability to understand and interpret scientific advances. Paul has not shown this ability.

[dantheman]

He's an MD not a PhD, as for showing ability to take science into account, I'd say that the politicization of science has been extremely detrimental to the publics trust in it. I've done a lot of research into the philosophy and history of science, and basing policy on "cutting edge" research seems to be wrought with disaster. In general scientists and engineers are extremely optimistic in the systems we can design, control, and understand. In government, we need a conservative approach that waits for science to be firmly established before acting, though a case be made against it, and in general it's better to directly convince the public to do something than use the threat of violence. Of course counter examples do exist (leaded gasoline and CFCs).

[m3koval]

Nit: Ron Paul has an MD, not a Ph.D. He was a OB/GYN before being elected to congress.