Lew Rockwell posts a message from a reader complaining about the video showing Ron Paul denying evolution. The reader links to an unedited version on YouTube and seems to think that we should find it reassuring. Here's the new video:
I'm sorry. I'm not reassured.
The original video is missing a couple of passages found in the full video,1 but one of them makes Ron Paul look even worse – unless you wouldn't mind having a President of the United States free of influence from evidence and reason.
I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion....
Interesting discussion! Theological discussion! Ron Paul was asked whether he believed the theory of evolution to be true, and he answers that it's an interesting theological discussion. He's asked a question about a scientific issue, and he seems to think it's theological. Granted, his first response was
Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter....
But that only makes matters worse. It appears that Ron Paul not only doesn't accept the overwhelming empirical evidence for evolution, but also that he doesn't know the difference between science and theology.
1Rockwell's reader supplies a transcript that appears to be accurate.
If there's no philosophical fervor behind Evolutionism, why the vehemence?
I think we need to recognize that many Christians bring their theology to this debate just as many atheists bring theirs.
Please tell us what we must think about evolution so we can be scientifically correct.
That it is a complete and thorough explanation of the rise and development of life? That it has answered every question and solved every puzzle? That it can never be questioned?
If so, please assure me that all research into evolution has ceased as being redundant.
True, we have to keep science and religion separate but we also need to avoid turning science into a new religion.
Vehemence? I think it's reasonable to be vehement about demanding evidence for propositions, and I think it's equally reasonable to be vehement about those who ignore the evidence.
Science can never “answer every question and solve every puzzle.” Scientific knowledge is always tentative and provisional. There is always the possibility that new evidence will overturn existing ideas.
But some ideas have been so extensively verified that it's unreasonable to propose alternatives to students. We don't teach flat-earth geography as an alternative in high-school geography, because the evidence that the earth is (approximately) a sphere is so overwhelming that flat-earth ideas are discussed only as a failed hypothesis now purely of historical interest.
Similarly the set of ideas that form the basis of modern evolutionary theory – especially the ideas that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and that all living things are descended from a single common ancestor – have been so extensively verified that it is unreasonable to teach alternatives to them in science courses. There are, of course, many details left to unravel and many disputes about the particular mechanisms responsible for evolutionary change, but the evidence for an ancient earth and common ancestry have been overwhelming for a hundred and fifty years.
Please notice what I did not say. I did not say that evolutionary theory renders belief in God unreasonable or that science has shown that God doesn't exist. Science cannot reach such a conclusion.
Science is a way of knowing based on experiment and observation. It seeks explanations for natural phenomena in terms of natural causes, those that involve matter and energy. If God exists, (s)he lies beyond the natural and therefore beyond the scope of science. Science can neither affirm nor deny her/his existence.
Accepting the overwhelming evidence for evolution is compatible with many varieties of religious faith.
Those who fail to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for evolution “illustrate that [they do] not reach scientific conclusions based on evidence” (source)