Ron Paul: I don’t accept the theory of evolution

By | November 11, 2011

Well, first i thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter,” he said. “I think it’s a theory…the theory of evolution and I don’t accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side.”

via Ron Paul: I don’t accept the theory of evolution – CBS News.

People just don’t get it. The word “theory” in science does not mean a wild guess with no evidence.

In science a “theory” is a tool to predict and explain observable and observed facts. The theory of evolution (theory of common descent) is the best explanation for the observed facts about life on earth. The facts include transitional fossils, observation of new species being created, breeding experiments, molecular genetics, molecular biology, chemistry, morphology changes in relation to geographic location, etc.

If bank tellers and customers all identify a particular man as a bank robber and he is captured by police while he is holding a gun inside the bank, the THEORY is that he robbed the bank. It is a theory until the trial, and then he is convicted after the evidence is presented. A jury would not find the robber innocent because scientists could not PROVE how fast his heart was beating while he was conducting the robbery. There are always more details to fill in, sometimes big ones, but the jury looks at the most significant evidence.

Someone should obviously take time to show Ron Paul the evidence: like begets like, offspring are slightly different from parents due to genetic mutations and environmental pressures AND over huge amounts of time this results in different species.

What is so hard about that? You are surrounded by evidence.  You aren’t going to find a sudden jump from a single celled organism to a walrus because change is gradual. But you can observe radical change in biology from one form to another:  The little clump of cells you started as, for example, looked NOTHING like you look today. No head, no arms, no legs, nothing! Yet, it grew and divided in a few short years, it evolved from a ball of cells into a full human being.



If you don’t believe in evolution, explain how this microscopic ball of cells becomes a recognizable human being using only your own theory of life. The theory of evolution includes facts about cells and DNA which DO explain how these cells take on a human form and more detail is being added every day.

I can’t find an explanation of this observed fact anywhere in the bible, however. Is there some lost Book of Ron or something that says, “And lo, the Holy Spirit divides the holy blastula into several tiny angels. The two Angels of Arms, the two Angels of Legs, and the Angel of the Head …. ” I think not.


6 thoughts on “Ron Paul: I don’t accept the theory of evolution

  1. Sakura Maichiru

    Playing devil’s advocate here~!

    I think it should be remembered that the people who deny evolution are the same people who were taught at a young age that evolution is bogus. It is simply the way of the world, in their minds. Many religious people have, upon leaving their religion, gravitated towards another religion, because, despite thinking that ____ belief system was false, they still believe(d) in deity at the core of their being. Perhaps not a specific deity, but some deity. This might be because they were taught so early that there was deity.

    In other words, Ron Paul probably feels that creationism is a) incompatible with the theory of evolution (which it doesn’t have to be), and b) as solid as the laws of physics.

    I don’t think I explained that very well…. I’m basically trying to give what I think is the reason Ron Paul doesn’t believe in evolution.

    1. Ann

      Huh? “I think it should be remembered that the people who deny evolution are the same people who were taught at a young age that evolution is bogus.”

      How old do you think Ron Paul is? The Scopes Monkey Trial was in 1925!

      Ron Paul is merely displaying, once again, his ignorance about science, not mention what scientists know about evolution. He’s done the very same thing when asked about the medical crisis in the United States. To answer that question, he again dismissed a ton of scientific literature on the subject and referred to his own personal experience as a physician, saying something to the effect, “we never turn away people who come to our hospital.” … Only if life was so simple, Mr. Paul.

      1. Sakura Maichiru

        Allow me to clarify. Certain people heard about the theory of evolution and decided that it couldn’t possibly be true, and those people taught their children that evolution was a pack of lies. These children taught it to -their- children, etc. So Ron Paul isn’t entirely to blame for clinging to his belief that evolution is absurd; he would belong to one of the later generations, as opposed to the first one that decided evolution wasn’t real. 🙂

      2. Ann

        Hmmm … Perhaps you’re correct. We have too many people running for public office basing their better judgment not by reading, but on personal or family background. Disappointing, I think. …. We even vote for actors, beginning perhaps with Ronald Reagan, whose primary job was making us, the audience (which translates into a constituency once elected), believe that a make-believe-world is real! They’ve done a pretty good job at it, unfortunately.

  2. Mados

    @ Sakura Maichiru, I think you said that very well. And that is why Internet discussions about religion vs science are always pointless. People pretend that it is an intellectual discussion, but it never is.

  3. Michael

    Bearing in mind that that the majority of anti-science protesters are either Christian or Muslim creationism advocates, the main source of conflict between religion and science through those particular veins of thinking resides in the fact that both cultures misappropriated writings that they did not understand and then proceeded to apply logic and their own interpretations of said writings without actually reading the traditional interpretations from the people who actually wrote them. This would be akin to westerners going to India, obtaining copies of the four Vedas, translating them let’s say into French, adding on some writings, interpreting the Vedas in French, then proceeding to return to India to tell Hindus that they do not know what the hell they are talking about regarding their own religion. Ever wonder why the world’s funniest novel, Cervante’s “Don Quixote”, is merely ironic in English? That is because you lose all the Spanish idiom, cultural references and deeply funny jokes in the translation. In Judaism, from which derive the source-texts upon which both the above western religions are based, we have never had conflicts with science except in cases where science is wrong (e.g., spontaneous generation, heliocentric universe, etc.). According to Torah, the universe is a little over 15.3 billion years old, the foundations of life were *created* (yes, I am in fact, a creationist) on the 5th divine day (which began 2.5 billion years ago), and the creation date in the Torah that everyone misinterprets as the creation date for everything under the sun was the date when Adam was created. Were there other people before Adam? You bet. Torah is very forthright in that Cain, when banished and force to wander, is afraid of dying were he to cross foreign tribal lands. So, did God create the universe?: Absolutely! Did He do it yesterday or only 6000-8000 years ago?: Absolutely not! You’d have to be an idiot to believe such things. Even the great sage RAMBAM (Moshe ibn Maimon, a.k.a. Maimonides) stated that only children and fools read the Torah literally and think that the world is only 6000 years old.

Leave a Reply