Wednesday
Yes, I know I wrote an article tentatively supporting Ron Paul, but please, someone, tell me this clip in which Dr. Ron Paul rejects the theory of evolution has been edited to remove the full context of the remark.
I've watched it. (1) there is a very very large amount of background interfenrecne and you canot really hear what he says, and (2) it's cut off where he says he doesn't think we're at a point where "there is absolute proof on either side".
Don't worry; he's just covering his arse against the pre-barbarian creationists. I, as a scientist, believe absolutely in God and the reality of His creation, in which we yet today take part and which is unfolding, for God exists in All Time and everywhere. but rhe creationist myth of 6 days and 600 years ago or whatever is just bunk.
Posted by David Davis at December 26, 2007 06:04 PM
Some parts of the video are cut off. Why, if not to give a certain impression that is not true?
And even if it is really what ron paul means, so what? Does it suddenly make all of what he thinks wrong?
Posted by Raph at December 26, 2007 06:09 PM
*Sigh*
The it's just a theory line has been tremendously popular with people who don't actually know what a 'theory' is.
The guy still comes across to me as almost trustworthy (I know horrible word to use about a politician) but terribly naive.
I'd like him more if he could just concede his own ignorance on this (and other) issues.
On the other hand when it comes to actual policy on this, as with most everything else I expect he'd advocate local control.
Posted by Andy at December 26, 2007 06:09 PM
Or as David suggested he could just be covering his arse, I somewhat suspect him of this on the immigration issue.
Posted by Andy at December 26, 2007 06:13 PM
The central issue anyway is perhaps that Paul doesn't believe science is anything to do with the presidency (the first thing he says). Yes, if he's a creationist that's sad from a pro-science perspective, but we have to remember he specifically rebuts the statist idea that getting the presidency is just a reason to hand out patronage to your friends, as all his republican and all his democratic opponents basically believe. Considering the abject mess the scientific/academic community have made of western society and politics since they decided about a century ago they should tell everbody how to run society on a "scientific" basis, a creationist libertarian is small potatoes by comparison.
As an obvious example, if the "science based" global warming fanatics win, our grandchildren will sit in their unlit, unheated hovels surveying their whithering fields of turnips and wish to Gaia they'd elected the goddamned creationist.
Posted by Ian B at December 26, 2007 06:31 PM
-should be "wish to Gaia that their grandparents had elected the goddamned creationist".
Posted by Ian B at December 26, 2007 06:33 PM
All one needs to know about Ron Paul is that he believes that radical Islamism is a product of American foreign policy decisions.
Fruitcake's not just for Christmas anymore...
Posted by fooltomery at December 26, 2007 07:16 PM
Since when is Evolution (meaning, the Darwinian theory of it) an irrefutable truth that one HAS to believe in?
Knee jerk reaction to positions on this topic are utterly ridiculous, and show how far we've moved from a society where it was possible to hold a variety of complex opinions to one where it is not possible to articulate a complex case. sad really.
Posted by Enoch at December 26, 2007 07:44 PM
I don't think there's any point speculating on this matter until we know what's in the part of the clip that's been cut out. There's a huge middle ground between evolutionary absolutism and creationist literalism (something the extremists on both sides misunderstand), and in all likelihood Paul lies somewhere in that middle ground. But we have no way of knowing where without knowing what was clipped from his answer.
Posted by Tedd McHenry at December 26, 2007 08:07 PM
What! Has a slight sliver of doubt manifested itself in the midst of this budding romance? Begone, say I. Who with good conscience would thwart the course of love in this unhappy age?
Posted by chuck at December 26, 2007 08:09 PM
Well as I've often said, I have trouble with the whole chemistry turning into biology thing myself.
No, my problems with Ron Paul are not with his religious or philosophical beliefs, but with a few points in his campaign.
For me, the major problem is with his failure to totally repudiate the 'trooferism' that has become associated with his run.
By not standing up on a very public platform and stating unequivocally that the US goverment was not involved in the 9/11 atrocity and that the US government knew nothing about that specific incident and did not stand by and let it happen for nefarious reasons of its own, he disqualifies himself from any government office. (As does any other politician or aspiring politician who plays along with the troofers.)
In the unlikely event that Mr Paul becomes president, he will have to work with the FBI, the intelligence community, the judiciary and the legislature, all of whom have conducted extensive inquiries into 9/11, and none of which has produced the slightest evidence that the Executive either connived in, encouraged, or ignored the plot.
I'll repeat myself. By encouraging this level of distrust between the people and their govenment, any politician rules him/herself unsuitable for office.
A healthy distrust of government is one thing. Believing ones government capable of murder on this scale - without a shred of proof - is another, and pandering to a paranoid minority in order to secure cash and votes is a whole other kettle of stinking fish.
Posted by Kevin B at December 26, 2007 08:19 PM
Believing ones government capable of murder on this scale - without a shred of proof - is another, and pandering to a paranoid minority in order to secure cash and votes is a whole other kettle of stinking fish.
Goodness gracious! Let's not indict the whole Democrat establishment. Next thing you know, politicians who voted for the removal of Saddam Hussein will be condemning "George Bush's War" and trying to cut off funds for troops in combat. That really would create a high "level of distrust between the people and their govenment".
Posted by Alice at December 26, 2007 09:04 PM
Does it suddenly make all of what he thinks wrong?
No, but I already think his approach to foreign policy is entirely wrong and I am onlu holding my nose and supporting him because... ah screw it, if you really want to know, just read this rather than me lay it all out again.
Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 26, 2007 09:16 PM
Kevin B-
Evolution isn't "chemistry turning into biology". Evolution has nothing to say about that. It's a theory about what happens over time when you already have some biology.
The book was called On The Origin of Species not On The Origin Of Life
Perry-
If I were USAian I too would be considering voting for him despite his military policy. I said on a USAian conservative blog the other day, where they were all discusisng the candidates, that it's the devil and the deep blue sea; he's the only chance to pull America back from the statist brink, but militarily (from a hawkish POV) he's a moonbat. The other candidates are satisfyingly hawkish, but their home policies are a disastrous continuation of the Statist lemming march, flinging patronage left and right as they stride towards the abyss waving their pissy little flags.
I agreed with your article on the subject. I think it'd better for America to have a Paul presidency then pick up the pieces beyond their shores, than e.g. the Putinesque Giulani or demented Huckabee, for instance, let alone comrade Shrillary.
But I'd be wishing there were a libertarian with more militarily proactive views to vote for, TBH.
Posted by Ian B at December 26, 2007 09:34 PM
Evolution isn't "chemistry turning into biology".
Why shouldn't chemicals evolve? You just need variation, selection, and replication to have evolution. I would guess the first step is selection for replication, and it is all downhill from there.
Posted by chuck at December 26, 2007 09:55 PM
"Yes, I know I wrote an article tentatively supporting Ron Paul"
When are you going to write about the Paul blimp? Or is that Dale Amon's area of expertise?
Posted by dre at December 26, 2007 11:34 PM
This is, unfortunately, the worst possible answer he could have given. Tars him, as the poster points out, with the typical Christian-Republican tag, ignorant of science and a theological dogmatist.
He should have stuck with his gut instincts - this is an inappropriate question. The gradual nature of evolutionary change is such that it is wholly irrelevant to suitability for public office - one can hardly imagine his being publicly hounded for refusing to enter into scientific debate in which he has no formal training. This will, no doubt, distract people from the principles of his campaign in the same way that the white-supremacist donation and his stupidly public comments on the Civil War with Tim Russert allows him to be dubbed a conspiracy theorist, much as described by Kevin B above:
In the unlikely event that Mr Paul becomes president, he will have to work with the FBI, the intelligence community, the judiciary and the legislature, all of whom have conducted extensive inquiries into 9/11, and none of which has produced the slightest evidence that the Executive either connived in, encouraged, or ignored the plot.I'll repeat myself. By encouraging this level of distrust between the people and their govenment, any politician rules him/herself unsuitable for office.
A healthy distrust of government is one thing. Believing ones government capable of murder on this scale - without a shred of proof - is another, and pandering to a paranoid minority in order to secure cash and votes is a whole other kettle of stinking fish.
This impression is, of course, totally false. For further evidence, see here, here (2:20) and here.
The final, concise, word on this subject is emerged in an interview with Reason(Link):
"Reason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that?
Paul: I'd say there's no evidence of that."
The idea that Ron Paul is a 9/11 truther is utter bullshit, but, as you can see from these resources, something which the mainstream media insists on trying to associate him with, along with a host of other irrational ideologies.
When, however, he makes such stupid faux-pas as pontificating on ethereal design, he essentially does their job for them. A grassroots campaign can only go so far; now he has the money, it's time to get some professional PR to start refuting the smears and advising him how to dodge questions which make him look crazy.
Posted by Andrew Roocroft at December 26, 2007 11:46 PM
Paul states
1. The theory of evolution is just a theory
2. That conclusive proof one way or the other does not exist
Of course the theory of evolution is just a theory, that is why it is called the theory of evolution! And of course if conclusive proof (one way or the other) had been found it would no longer be a theory.
Posted by kevin at December 27, 2007 12:08 AM
Paul states
1. The theory of evolution is just a theory
2. That conclusive proof one way or the other does not exist
Of course the theory of evolution is just a theory, that is why it is called the theory of evolution! And of course if conclusive proof (one way or the other) had been found it would no longer be a theory.
Posted by kevin at December 27, 2007 12:09 AM
It's a theory about what happens over time when you already have some biology.
No it isn't. It is a theory about what happens with self-replicating (systems, entities) over time.
Even non-biological systems are capable of being selected on a Darwinian basis. How do you think biological systems arose in the first place? Chance? God? [snigger] Intelligent Design? [/snigger]
See Graham Cairns-Smith's excellent book - "Genetic Takeover".
Posted by countingcats at December 27, 2007 12:20 AM
So the fact that he's a barking moonbat who fraternises with Nazis, draws much of his operational support from the radical Left, refuses to dissociate himself from 9/11 conspiracy theorists, regurgitates Chomsky and makes regular weird noises about the youknowwho lobby does not render him unsuitable for the presidency, but his views on the origin of the species do?
Why, what difference does it make how life developed, who gives a shit?
Posted by Gabriel at December 27, 2007 12:21 AM
Smitten!!!!
A comment in support of Darwinism, and I am smitted.
Oh, woe, oh woe.
I shall indulge in the lamentations of Job.
Posted by countingcats at December 27, 2007 12:23 AM
And of course if conclusive proof (one way or the other) had been found it would no longer be a theory.
Sigh, I know this is getting off topic, but do they teach any science in schools these days?
Are students taught what evidence needs to presented before a hypothesis gets elevated to the lofty heights of theorydom?
Kevni - Go read a book, find out what constitutes a theory in scientific parlance, compare this with the use of the word in general speech, then look up the word 'hypothesis'.
Posted by countingcats at December 27, 2007 12:32 AM
So the fact that he's a barking moonbat who fraternises with Nazis, draws much of his operational support from the radical Left,
Bit of a contradiction in the mudslinging there isn't there?
to dissociate himself from 9/11 conspiracy theorists
He went on Alex Jones' radio show. I listened to it, nothing about conspiracies was discussed. They discussed small government, the constitution etc. When Paul has been asked about the Conspiracy Theories, he has stated he doesn't agree with them and his criticisms regarding 9/11 are that the intelligence services and government were incompetent (just as e.g. he's argued that FEMA's response to Katrina was incompetent).
regurgitates Chomsky
Has he quoted Chomsky? Chomsky's lunatic leftism has a certain libertarian flavour on occasion (standin' up for th' little guy) so may it not be that Paul has sometimes expressed views which Chomsky may also have expressed, e.g. regarding the corporate state? I dunno. Got an example?
regular weird noises about the youknowwho lobby
Who are the youknowwho lobby?
Posted by Ian B at December 27, 2007 12:34 AM
I didn't say it made him unsuitable for the presidency, Gabriel (barking moonbats in the White House are hardly anything new).
Just so long as he gives it his damnedest to move the Republican party towards the position of cutting back the size of the state, I do not care if he is a flat earther who believes in the tooth fairy, but it certainly increases the existential angst I feel supporting him.
Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 27, 2007 12:35 AM
If he were a statist I'd be more upset. I am somewhat annoyed by it, but he did start off "It is not the job of a president to decide a scientific issue". A Hillary or a Rudy wants power so they can expend our money to bring us around to their opinion. A Paul presidency would eliminate the Department of Education and pretty much all Federal influence on education.
So in that sense I do not much care about his personal beliefs as I would in other cases. Ron doesn't wish to ram his beliefs down my throat using my money. The others do.
Posted by Dale Amon at December 27, 2007 02:06 AM
Bit of a contradiction in the mudslinging there isn't there?No, a bit of a contradiction in Ron Paul's behaviour, perhaps, but only if you assume him to be a halfway reputable human being.
He went on Alex Jones' radio show. I listened to itOh, good for you. What he should have said to Alex Jones is "After appearing on your radio show the first time I looked at your website and discovered you to be seriously deranged, consequently I must decline your invitation to come on again (and again and again and again). Also, don't touch me, I already showered today."
Has he quoted Chomsky? Chomsky's lunatic leftism has a certain libertarian flavour on occasion (standin' up for th' little guy) so may it not be that Paul has sometimes expressed views which Chomsky may also have expressed, e.g. regarding the corporate state? I dunno. Got an example?Statements such as "we gave him the gas" and claims that Ahmedinejab is angry about the overthrow of Mossadeq are classic Chomsky. Next week he'll probably be mouthing off about Allende or the United Fruit Company. Perhaps he got his junk straight from Chomsky's works, or perhaps from some other thinkers of the New Left, I'm not sure that it matters. The point is that Ron Pauls' pronouncements on America's role in the world sound a lot more like Chomksy than, say, Senator Taft.
Who are the youknowwho lobby?Ohyou know. I mean, as the man says, it's hardly a top secret.
Posted by Gabriel at December 27, 2007 02:17 AM
So in that sense I do not much care about his personal beliefs as I would in other cases. Ron doesn't wish to ram his beliefs down my throat using my money. The others do.
Good in bed trumps sane, eh. Now if only he was good in bed.
I don't mind libertarian ideas getting out there, but I sure as H*ll don't want a crazy uncle in the oval office.
Posted by chuck at December 27, 2007 03:05 AM
Gabriel - so they're not actually quotes? I don't disagree with Chomsky on EVERY position he takes - does that mean that when I - quite innocently - happen to agree with Chomsky on something, I'm quoting him? Perhaps chatting with loons like Alex Jones doesn't do much for Paul's credibility. By the same token, claiming that the man's quoting Chomsky when he clearly isn't doesn't do much for yours.
Incidentally, I'm not a big fan of the Jewish lobby (or any powerful lobby group that currently exists on Capitol Hill). And I gather that Paul isn't, either.
Posted by James Waterton at December 27, 2007 03:32 AM
What a bunch of tossers most of you are!
A copy of Popper's 'Open society...' at the top of the blog and you complain Ron Paul said evolution is 'a theory'. Why don't you try reading the book, you might learn something.
If you want big government don't vote for him. If you are Libertarians, and believe in the US Constitution, then support him. His view of God and evolution is just that - his personal view. It's irrelevant to a President who wants to follow the Constitution.
Ron Paul associates with nazis? No, you are a liar.
Posted by Trooper Thompson at December 27, 2007 03:52 AM
Gabriel:
Criticising the ridiculously ill-considered overthrow of Mossadegh isn't "Chomsky", it's just about everybody. That one really *was* all about oil. If we hadn't put the odious Shah back into absolute power, there'd have been no revolution and no Khomeini. What there would have been, we don't know. But there wouldn't have been that.
The West acting in its own selfish interest is one thing. The West acting idiotically to no useful purpose out of sheer hissiness (see also Suez) is quite another.
Posted by Ian B at December 27, 2007 04:28 AM
Maybe it's also worth mentioning that evolution isn't really a theory. It's an observed process which is explained by some theories (Natural Selection, Sexual Selection etc).
Similar to: the earth orbits the sun. That's not a theory. Newton's Laws, Relativity, they're theories that explain the preceding fact.
We could also add in another distinction: often things which are called theories, or hypotheses, are just predictions; indeed much of science these days is really in the ball-gazing business. Example: in evolution, might be "in the future, polar bears will evolve to become aquatic". Another good example would be that the theory of Quantum Mechanics explains the observed fact that carbon dioxide has a particular absorption/emission spectrum leading to a prediction that large quantities in the atmosphere may make the Earth warmer. And yet scientists seem to talk about Global Warming as a theory. Which it clearly isn't :)
Posted by Ian B at December 27, 2007 04:42 AM
That one really *was* all about oil.
Iran was divided between the USSR and Britain during WWII in order to insure a supply line into Russia. Naturally, at the end of the war Russia tried to leverage its occupation, as it did in China when I armed Mao's communists during the withdrawal.
At the war's end Britain withdrew but Soviet troops stationed in northwestern Iran not only refused to withdraw but backed revolts that established short-lived, pro-Soviet separatist regimes in the northern provinces of Iran Iranian Azerbaijan, the People's Republic of Azerbaijan and the Kurdish People's Republic in late 1945, both effective Soviet puppet states. Soviet troops did not withdraw from Iran proper until May, 1946 after receiving a promise of oil concessions. The Soviet republics in the north were soon overthrown and the oil concessions were revoked.
Emphasis mine. It wasn't just Britain who found the oil attractive. As to the rest of the details, I am no scholar of Iran, but Mossadegh wasn't exactly a democratic saint, and his rule ended in a power grab in what had been a constitutional monarchy. Nor was the institution of collective farming any more successful or popular in Iran than elsewhere.
I knew a number of Iranian students at the time of the 1979 revolution. They were pretty evenly split between the parties, as the Iranian people seem to have been when Mossadegh was brought down, and there were fist fights and campus demonstrations. The young left wing idealists were soon disappointed, but we did gain a number of good people who stayed here and have given us the benefit of their talents. My own feeling is that if the Embassy hadn't been taken over, no one would have cared about Iran. BTW, the fundamentalist unrest in Iran goes back before 1953.
Posted by chuck at December 27, 2007 05:11 AM
Doesn't really alter the fact that Iran's constitutional affairs were no business of Britain. Paul's view, as with many libertarians, is to simply not get involved. If Mossadegh was crap, fine, let the Iranians deal with their own leaders.
I'm not an isolationist. I think the situation as is now needs active policy. I also think that the history of the region suggests that we'd probably be facing an Islamic threat now anyway, since the Muslim Brotherhood etc goes back before WWII. But we really don't know that.
One could argue that had we not meddled, the Islamists would have at least had less of a pretext, and the pro-muslim left in the west would have less of a pretext for their agitations too.
We should also remember that the Muslim Brotherhood were actively supported by the Attlee administration as an attempt to prevent an Israeli state. Western dealings in the region have been murky, to say the least.
Posted by Ian B at December 27, 2007 05:32 AM
Doesn't really alter the fact that Iran's constitutional affairs were no business of Britain.
At the time, pretty much everyone was the business of Britain, Russia, and the US. Such was the cold war. Such times don't leave too much room for the play of international libertarian ideals. But who knows, Mossadegh had had a falling out with the Islamists and perhaps it should have been left to them to remove him rather than the Persian Army. Such a situation would probably have brought in the Russians as Mossadegh sought outside support, and the whole bloody mess would have been fought to a conclusion long ago.
Posted by chuck at December 27, 2007 05:45 AM
Laughing my ass off here, Boss.
And to think: this is one of Ron Paul's more considered statements...
You libertarians ought to lose the blinders, and quit supporting a fruitcake just because he's a libertarian (in some respects).
Save the respect for a decent, qualified libertarian candidate... just don't hold your breath waiting for one to come along.
Posted by Kim du Toit at December 27, 2007 06:38 AM
To me Andrew Roocroft comment makes the most sense. Paul may not be holding all of these nutty views he is accused of, but if so, he is doing a very poor job of making his real views known. This is not a good sign in itself, as being able to articulate one's views is very important for a president. And call me crazy, but I also expect a president to have clear opinions on some issues other than the size of government.
Posted by Alisa at December 27, 2007 06:57 AM
Trooper Thompson wrote, while quoting Popper:
His view of God and evolution is just that - his personal view. It's irrelevant to a President who wants to follow the Constitution.
The singular for "God and evolution" is interesting. Personally I find these are two substantially independent issues.
Though I've only read another Popper ("The Logic of Scientific Discovery", the later revised English version), I feel that TT has it wrong; that is if he is relying on Popper's theory of falsifiability. That says nothing on the existence or not of God, beyond viewing the question as unanswerable by said theory. However, the theory of evolution does fall within the remit of falsifiability.
It seems it is also worth restating here that, according to Popper, no theory is ever proved right. At best it is found applicable in all cases seen during diligent search for falsifying evidence, and hence is believed to apply to unseen cases of adequate similarity. Thus it is useful for systematic prediction of what should happen (or is most likely to happen) in certain circumstances and also for general understanding of the applicable scientific field.
Returning to Ron Paul, I see that his religion should be no bar to his being an acceptable USA President, providing he is tolerant of the religious beliefs of others and sticks by the Constitution. However, if he goes against the (so far) unfalsified theory of evolution and acts on that, he is likely to make mistakes of judgement in the governance of the USA (especially with respect to healthcare and science in general, and perhaps on social policy). This would make him a less worthy candidate for the Presidency.
Best regards
Posted by Nigel Sedgwick at December 27, 2007 10:07 AM
At least Paul is consistent in letting wishful thinking trump science. Lots of people outside the US (and quite a few in the comments thread above) cringe at creationism then use the same arguments to reject scientific evidence on global warming, simply because they don't like its poltiical implications. Whenever we get an anti-AGW zealot turning up at Wikipedia, it's odds on that they're politically libertarian (not that many orthodox Republicans edit Wikipedia I guess).
Posted by John Quiggin at December 27, 2007 11:37 AM
Except creationism is not a scientific theory, it is religion. And when someone can explain why the Martian polar icecaps are melting, I will consider stopping thinking AGW is also not just religion.
Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 27, 2007 11:49 AM
then use the same arguments to reject scientific evidence on global warmingAnd what arguments would those be, John?
Posted by James Waterton at December 27, 2007 11:51 AM
Perry, I'd be very cautious of attributing a common cause to any observed Martian changes.
However, if we are really, really lucky, the asteroid which has a 1:75 chance of hitting Mars in a couple months will be full of volatiles and smack the pole. Then you would see some real climate change!
Posted by Dale Amon at December 27, 2007 12:38 PM
Incidentally, I'm not a big fan of the Jewish lobbyGood for you. Perry: this is the kind of people you're attracting here.
Ron Paul associates with nazis? No, you are a liar.No, you are a liar.
Criticising the ridiculously ill-considered overthrow of Mossadegh isn't "Chomsky", it's just about everybody. That one really *was* all about oil.Yes specifically, it was about Mossadeq stealing oil refineries that belonged to American and British companies and citizens. The intervention was 100% justified as was Suez (the biggest mistake the U.S. ever made bar none.). In any case, Paul did not argue that it was a mistake, but that it was the case of Islamic hatred of the west, which is a) complete BS b) an argument first made by Chomsky.
One could argue that had we not meddled, the Islamists would have at least had less of a pretext, and the pro-muslim left in the west would have less of a pretext for their agitations too.But that is not what Paul is arguing because for all intents and purposes he has become part of the pro Muslim Left.
Posted by Gabriel at December 27, 2007 12:46 PM
And to think, we know all these bad things about Ron Paul despite the fact that the MSM are covering up for him because they think he is a useful tool to damage the Republican Party (plus his views on foreign policy are just a more extreme version of their's ).
Of course, despite the easy ride Paul's been given (just compare him to Tancredo) by everyone except Fox, the delusional Paulians still have an underdog complex.
Posted by Gabriel at December 27, 2007 12:51 PM
"Yes specifically, it was about Mossadeq stealing oil refineries that belonged to American and British companies and citizens"
By a British Government who had stolen its coal industry, steel industry, railways, electricity, gas, water, telephones, telegraph, car manufacturing... from their private owners. Nationalisation was all the rage back then. And by an American government who had not so long before stolen all its citizens' gold...
"The intervention was 100% justified as was Suez (the biggest mistake the U.S. ever made bar none.)"
Yes, it was so justified the British, French and Israelis had to concoct a bizarre pretend invasion to justify it.
In any case, Paul did not argue that it was a mistake, but that it was the case of Islamic hatred of the west, which is a) complete BS b) an argument first made by Chomsky
You seem to be giving an awful lot of credit to Chomsky here. Had nobody else considered that intervention a bad idea before Chomsky? Really?
But that is not what Paul is arguing because for all intents and purposes he has become part of the pro Muslim Left.
I think you'll find Libertarians in general oppose use of military force in such a situation. Check out the platform of the Libertarian Party candidate, who apparently would order the US army to run from the battlefield dropping their weapons behind them like little girls. That doesn't mean libertarians are "part of the pro muslim left".
Posted by Ian B at December 27, 2007 01:14 PM
Whenever we get an anti-AGW zealot turning up at Wikipedia, it's odds on that they're politically libertarian (not that many orthodox Republicans edit Wikipedia I guess)
Hmm. It depends on what you see as the default rational position. As such you can characterise it as "only libertarians and conservatives deny it" or as "only internationalist socialists believe in it".
It's probably fair to say that libertarians are less likely to follow "the consensus" on it, because libertarians tend to be very politically aware (a self selecting group, basically, because they have had to do enough thinking about and have enough interest in politics to have rejected the mainstream left/right consensus already) and are thus more alert to a blatant power grab by a particular political class when they see one.
You can say "only the right deny it" or you can say "only the left believe in it". There's a pretty strong correlation between how internationalist socialist a person is, and how fanatical they are about global warming and environmentalism. There's also a strong correlation between belief in global warming and belief in homeopathy, feng shui, herbalism, "earth energies", rectal jetwashing etc and global warming, which doesn't inspire much confidence either.
Posted by Ian B at December 27, 2007 01:24 PM
Save the respect for a decent, qualified libertarian candidate... just don't hold your breath waiting for one to come along.
That's the rub. Paul isn't the last, best hope for a libertarian surge, but unforunately someone spun three lemons and he's the only hope for the time being. The LP has been somewhat ineffective at getting the message out. The best chance for more pull in national politics seems to be a libertarian-minded Republican sabotaging his party's chances for election victory - i.e. exactly what's happening. We don't need Paul to win the presidency, we just need him to (a) help the libertarian wing of the Republican party realize it has bargaining chips and (b) help the RNC understand that same point. In some ways it almost helps if Paul is a loon: the longer libertarians are content to wait around for the perfect candidate, the longer the major parties know they can ignore them.
Posted by Joshua at December 27, 2007 01:28 PM
Yes, it was so justified the British, French and Israelis had to concoct a bizarre pretend invasion to justify it.The buzarre pusilaninimity of the respective governments is not at issue.
You seem to be giving an awful lot of credit to Chomsky here. Had nobody else considered that intervention a bad idea before Chomsky? Really?Lot's of people did. No-one, to my knowledge, has tried to explain Islamic fundamentalism and its hatred of the west by it before him.
I think you'll find Libertarians in general oppose use of military force in such a situation. Check out the platform of the Libertarian Party candidate, who apparently would order the US army to run from the battlefield dropping their weapons behind them like little girls. That doesn't mean libertarians are "part of the pro muslim left".Let's be clear. I'm not arguing that isolationists or anti-war-libertarians of paleo-cons are part of the Left, objectively or otherwise. Nor am I arguing that their position is untenable (though it is wrong). I am arguing that over the course of the past few years Ron Paul has moved from a paleo-con anti-interventionist stance, akin to that of a Taft, to a very different ideological viewpoint more in keeping with the Left. (The same thing happened, as is well known, to many Libertarians in the 1960s.)
If you can't tell the differnece between "screw the world" and "screw America" and you can't recognise that Paul used to say one and now says the other, then you are a fool. If Ron Paul was merely an isolationist, I would support him, though disagreeing with him. However, now that he sings out of the ANSWER hymsheet, I oppose him more strongly than any candidate except Kucinich.
Posted by Gabriel Martindale at December 27, 2007 01:34 PM
as someone else said here its not so much Ron Pauls belief in creationism that bothers me than it is the fact that he is a jew hating, blame America first moonbat.
I would chhose a dem over a lunatic like RP and thats saying something
Posted by ragingnick at December 27, 2007 01:37 PM
Sorry to bang on about this but, regarding the issue of whether arab governments had the right to nationalise assets such as oil fields or canals, and whether this is such an affront to British and American values, we must remember the state of our own countries. As a British subject (but the same apples all over the western world) the guvmint has absolute power to compel me to hand over any of the property I may naively view as my own. It takes my money, under threat of imprisonment. If the government wants my land for their own purposes, or to award to a friend, they can simply take it. In America, "land of the free", there's an exciting new idea that if old people can't afford to pay tribute to the government for the land they supposedly own, they can be forced to work for the government under threat of their property's confiscation.
Paul would seek to end such things. All the other presidential candidates would support them; indeed they're all falling over each other right now to brag about how much they'd steal from private owners of health care industry, or how much they'd cartelise it, etc. Apparently property ownership is only supported if it's foreigners taking the property. And let's face it here, British Petroleum could better cope with losing their Iranian oil concessions than an old lady can cope with having her house confiscated.
Where's the consistency?
Posted by Ian B at December 27, 2007 01:44 PM
However, if he goes against the (so far) unfalsified theory of evolution and acts on that, he is likely to make mistakes of judgement in the governance of the USA (especially with respect to healthcare and science in general, and perhaps on social policy).
"Unfalsified" isn't the criterion of believability in science, "predictive power" is. To the best of my knowledge, no one has taken the trouble to falsify tarot cards, and yet I don't believe in them. That a theory can be falsified (i.e. we know under which circumstances it would prove false) is one of Popper's prerequisites for calling it "scientific," but that isn't at all the same thing as making a practice of accepting all theories that have yet to be falsified.
What makes us believe in a theory is that it squares well with the present evidence and, more importantly, that it is consistently able to explain new evidence that has come to light since it was proposed.
I find Dr. Paul's religious views offputting, but then I find the whole "do-you-believe-in-evolution" test for the presidency offputting. No policy decisions that I can see will depend on a president's acceptance of that particular scientific framework - except possibly what to put in textbooks. But since Paul advocates eliminating the Department of Education and fully returning curriculum creation to the states, it's a fair bet he isn't going to be imposing his wilful rejection of this framework on anyone else.
As for whether this says anything about Dr. Paul's ability to respect scientific evidence, I don't think he's doing any worse than any of the other candidates there. Certainly he's not as goofy as Huckabee or Romney on religion, and the major Democratic candidates have scientific faith issues of their own. Hillary Clinton, for example, believes that video games reliably turn people into cold-blooded killers despite the (to her) mysterious fact that this doesn't happen in the overwhelming majority of cases of people who play them. She also believes that homosexuality is all nature no nurture, even though this is a long way from having been decided scientifically. If a candidate is going to get a science issue "wrong," in other words, then evolution is far from the worst they could do, especially if, as Dr. Paul does, the candidate in question believes government has no business meddling in science or the school system to begin with.
Posted by Joshua at December 27, 2007 01:49 PM
Assuming Ron Paul, or any other candidate were a creationist, then I wouldn't have a problem with voting for him PROVIDED he did not propose to use the power of the state to advocate creationism or impose it on anyone's curriculum. Has he?
My problem is with candidates who ride popular prejudice and make policies out of it (e.g. Giuliani) and technocrats who think they know better than other people how those other people should live for their own good (e.g. Clinton II). In a democracy which is more dangerous is not constant.
Posted by guy herbert at December 27, 2007 01:49 PM
Guy Herbert:
Assuming Ron Paul, or any other candidate were a creationist, then I wouldn't have a problem with voting for him PROVIDED he did not propose to use the power of the state to advocate creationism or impose it on anyone's curriculum. Has he?
Paul wants to abolish the only federal institution which could ever have the power to impose universal curricula across the states, the Department of Education. Far from wanting to impose any particular educational viewpoint, he is wholly in favour of home schooling and "will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students." Similarly, he believes that the "federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools."
Joshua;
If a candidate is going to get a science issue "wrong," in other words, then evolution is far from the worst they could do, especially if, as Dr. Paul does, the candidate in question believes government has no business meddling in science or the school system to begin with.
Agree entirely.
And on the subject of "getting science wrong," Paul is a perfect advocate of the synthesis of libertarianism and science in a relevant scientific concern - that of stem cell research. See this, from Lew Rockwell's site;
While I certainly sympathize with those who understandably hope such research will lead to cures for terrible diseases, I object to forcing taxpayers who believe harvesting embryos is immoral to pay for it...Medical advancements often result from radical ideas and approaches that are scoffed at initially by the establishment. When scientists become dependent on government funds, however, they quickly learn not to rock the boat and stick to accepted areas of inquiry. Federal funds thus distort the natural market for scientific research.
Answering scientific questions thusly is much better than pronouncing God-given dictates like Mike Huckabee, and much more in line with a political strategy for the revival of libertarianism which needn't alienate people based on irrelevant differences on non-political issues.
Posted by Andrew Roocroft at December 27, 2007 02:40 PM
Perry, I'd be very cautious of attributing a common cause to any observed Martian changes.
At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious: solar activity?
Posted by Albion at December 27, 2007 03:04 PM
I am an erstwhile computational astrophysical fluid dynamicist (I therefore have form in the field) and I can tell ya that AGW is hooey.
Evolution is a theory. That's the whole sodding point. That's what science does - produce theories. If you want hard "facts" then I advise you to consult the book of Genesis. That evolution by natural selection is more defensible than 6-dayism is beside the point. There is no way whatsoever the ID or Creation "Science" ought to be taught in science lessons anywhere because whilst I'm prepared to entertain the idea that the Beardy Guy made the whole shooting match in six days I am not prepared to consider that as being science and I'm sorry but the only donkey in the (science) paddock is Darwinism (possibly modified - see Lynn Margullis) and whilst it is coherent to say "that's all bollocks, God did it in a week" it is bat-shit mentalist to regard that as a scientific insight. Science is not an established body of facts, it's a process. I have known (sometimes Biblically) a great many biologists and the idea that Darwinism is some sort of conspiracy between them is absurd. There is nothing that builds a career in science like iconoclasm. Just ask the shade of Einstein. There is not a single student of the biological sciences that hasn't dreamed of standing in front of a bunch of the emminent and refuting Darwin and sodding well proving it!
Well, there is an error in the preceeding paragraph. It isn't that I only knew semi-Biblically a Biophysicst (that was mere rhetorical hyperbole) but the conspiracy idea... There does, within science exist one and it's AGW. Some truly believe, some are sceptics but their job hangs on it and others... Well others just know that they'll get a grant vastly more easily if they stick "Global Warming" into the title. "Changes in the migration patterns of squirrels" - Rejected. "Changes in the migration patterns of squirrels caused by global warming" - Accepted. It is that simple.
Our civilization is fragile (our planet isn't) and for the majority of my life the one thing keeping the Fenris Wolf at bay has been science. I am terrified that that could change and I feel the AGW mob are doing that. They have perversified science beyond comprehension. They have put ethics into science ("ethical" living), they have portrayed computer models as the real thing (I was a computational astrophysicist and I didn't do that) and have declared the debate prematurely "over".
So forget Ron Paul, forget the ID crowd, forget Young Earth creationists who say that the Grand Canyon was carved out in a fortnight if you want a real enemy of science because our little camp has been infiltrated for the best part of two decades. Our real enemy is within and when the walls come tumbling and science dies then it's time to run to the hills with a shotgun because there is only a sliver between us and chaos.
Do you remember a couple of years ago there was a big earthquake in Pakistan? Well, Brits and Yanks and the usual suspects pitched in and got to work rebuilding primary schools and such. The BBC interviewed a tribal elder (a twinkly old bugger with a beard you could lose a badger in) and he was saying it was great all these folks were coming over to help and as a good muslim he would be an accomadating host. All fine, so far... Then he said that they'd best rebuild the school along Islamic lines (just for boys and only what they need to know - the Qu'ran - and none of that mathematics and science) otherwise these Western helpers would be killed and the school burnt down. Note: it wasn't evolution he objected to, just science in general.
He's the same sex and species as me. He is a contemporary of me (though somewhat older) and he reminds me that we are all just apes (with slightly less hair than normal - though not in his case) and that this brief, precious, wonderful period called the Enlightenment could just wink off and it's back to the cave. Greens, religious loons, Polly Toynbee* and all the rest could end it all. This whole glorious experiment in freedom and progress (I'm stealing that one back) and science could just end.
*Who at least is so consistently wrong she's useful.
Posted by Nick M at December 27, 2007 03:06 PM
Joshua wrote (WRT by comment of Dec 27 at 10:07 AM):
... but that isn't at all the same thing as making a practice of accepting all theories that have yet to be falsified.
Quite right; as was I when I wrote "At best [a hypothesised theory] is found applicable in all cases seen during diligent search for falsifying evidence, and hence is believed to apply to unseen cases of adequate similarity."
And Joshua wrote:
No policy decisions that I can see will depend on a president's acceptance of that particular scientific framework - except possibly what to put in textbooks.
Though it is not my technical field, I understand that some infectious diseases (eg MRSA and Clostridium difficile) are likely to have been caused by evolution in an environment heavy with conventional antibiotics. Denying the theory of evolution presumably denies this cause of these sorts of disease, thus ruling out potential benefit from restraint in prescription of antibiotics. Likewise, there are implications for cross-species infections arising through mutation (eg new strains of human flu from mutation of bird flu, which itself arises from mutation of existing types of bird flu). Here a major implication is the need to prevent or reduce the chances of species jump of the infection, or at least delay it until a sufficiency of vaccinations have been given. There are, I suspect, other and perhaps better examples.
So not believing in evolution does, perhaps (as with refutation of each and every useful scientific explanation), have potential to cause problems in government.
Best regards
Posted by Nigel Sedgwick at December 27, 2007 03:08 PM
You libertarians ought to lose the blinders, and quit supporting a fruitcake just because he's a libertarian (in some respects).
Yeah Kim! Libbos should support statist big government tax and spend candidates instead, because that would be more coherent, right?
Posted by Albion at December 27, 2007 03:09 PM
"A grassroots campaign can only go so far; now he has the money, it's time to get some professional PR to start refuting the smears and advising him how to dodge questions which make him look crazy."
Doesn't this assume that he is crazy? Reminds me of one of the best lines in Miracle on 34th Street. To paraphrase "Maybe he's just a little crazy, like artists, painters or those men in Washington."
At least when he answers truthfully we can spot the loon. Now its just a question of weeding out the other crackpots and I can think of nothing better than how they handle questions like this and attempt to explain the thinking behind how they arrived at their personal views. You can't assume that the nonsense most of them are spouting regarding policy positions just spontaneously generated.
Posted by JohnnyL at December 27, 2007 03:23 PM
Of course the theory of evolution is just a theory, that is why it is called the theory of evolution!
"X is a theory" is not identical in meaning to "X is just a theory." Compare, oh, "Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a woman" and "Ayaan Hirsi Ali is just a woman": the second has a denigratory overtone that the first lacks. Treating the two phrasings as equivalent misrepresents the issue.
Moreover, the people who say that "evolution is just a theory" are almost always doing so with a specific intent: to invite the inference "and therefore there is no solid epistemological basis for accepting or rejecting it." Which is not a sound inference. Not just in the case of evolution; by the time any scientific idea is called a "theory" there is a mass of evidence for it that makes accepting it the way to bet, at a minimum.
I mean, for example, if an atheist were to say, "the existence of God is just a theory," I suspect a lot of Christians would be seriously bothered by it, even though God's existence is certainly at least as debatable on rational grounds as evolution by natural selection.
Posted by William H. Stoddard at December 27, 2007 03:32 PM
Albion,
Apart from being simplistic, your argument presupposes that Libertarians in general (and Ron Paul in this particular case) have a monopoly on "small government" desires and, for that matter, credentials.
Not so. The difference between Libertarians and small "r" republicans like myself is that Libertarians start off with "If only we could [insert choice] abolish all income taxes / eliminate all government control / blahblahblah, then we'd all be happy."
Small "r" republicans start off with actual reality, ie. "This has gone far enough; it's time to rein in government here, and there, and there...."
Sure, gradualism is tough, and sometimes it looks like its only likely outcome is failure -- but revolution doesn't have that wonderful a track record either, lest we forget.
So while libertairians (and Libertarians) are bleating their mantras from their ivory towers and wasting time on a fucking loony like Ron Paul, the rest of us are trying to undo the most egregious excesses by the State, without the support of the Idealists, who don't want to get their hands dirty, and who eschew any kind of meaningful participation lest they be tarred as "supporting statism" by simplistic arguments such as yours.
And while the Idealists are bleating, the baleful legions of socialists keep advancing their poxy agenda.
Posted by Kim du Toit at December 27, 2007 03:52 PM
"I am terrified that that could change and I feel the AGW mob are doing that. They have perversified science beyond comprehension."
Nick M, while I agree with you I think your analysis is too narrow. I'd argue that the AGW mob are the shock troops of a much broader perversion of science and academia in general; a very broad movement who seek to create a (hmm, what terminology to use here?) collectivist/statist technocracy. We see the same in medicine for instance, in the "soclal medicine" movement who are now gaining enormous success. It's not just AGW; although if AGW can somehow be successfully defeated it may expose the rest of this movement for what they are.
I think science, and western society, are genuinely on the brink of a most terrible disaster. We're beyond the stage now of simply a debate between different ideologies (classical liberalism/socialism/conservatism) etc. The collectivists are not winning; to all intents and purposes they have won, while their opponents (classical liberals or libertarians and even conservatives) are hanging around outside the tend shouting complaints while those inside just jam their fingers in their ears and la la la. It's not a question of whether science is being subverted; it's about the fact that it already has been and whether there is anything at all that can be done to get it back.
Posted by Ian B at December 27, 2007 03:59 PM
Kim, not all libertarians are "abolish the state" purists, in fact many "libertarians" I know are pragmatists who just want more freedom, not infinite amounts of it.
But the problem with the gradualist approach is that it doesn't work either. If you creep into government and try to just shut down, or reduce, or trim down, one department, it'll just pop up somewhere else. It's like a manic game of whack-a-mole. You're up against an opponent who is extremely well organised; every attempt to reduce government faces a fierce well organised backlash and campaign "babies and puppies will die!" You may get to reduce one bit of government but somewhere else it'll be more than compensated by some whole new bureaucracy springing up.
"Small government conservatives" have not, in the past century, achieved a single step towards reduce governmental size or power. The trend is entirely upwards. You may say "oh, we abolished these price controls" or "we got rid of this regulation" but the truth is the size of western governments over the past century is a, heh, hockey stick.
So maybe libertarians are unrealistic; but small government pragmatists are unrealistic too. You strategy does not work.
It may be too late for the non-left to fight back, to get anywhere at all. We may be gripped by an historical tide that is simply unstoppable. But if we're going to at least try, we need to be entirely pragmatic and realistic and try to think of some strategies that will actually work and perhaps the first on the agenda must be to get the entire non-left into some kind of rainbow coalition which synergises on what we all agree on, as the collectivists have been so successful at doing.
Posted by Ian B at December 27, 2007 04:08 PM
Though it is not my technical field, I understand that some infectious diseases (eg MRSA and Clostridium difficile) are likely to have been caused by evolution in an environment heavy with conventional antibiotics. Denying the theory of evolution presumably denies this cause of these sorts of disease, thus ruling out potential benefit from restraint in prescription of antibiotics. Likewise, there are implications for cross-species infections arising through mutation (eg new strains of human flu from mutation of bird flu, which itself arises from mutation of existing types of bird flu). Here a major implication is the need to prevent or reduce the chances of species jump of the infection, or at least delay it until a sufficiency of vaccinations have been given.
Good example, and point taken.
However, as a political issue evolution is usually not concerned with these kinds of things (certainly the people asking the "Do you believe in evolution?" question are not) - usually it's about religious types being hypersensitive about what they see as "teaching atheism" in school.
Paul's answer to the question on video includes bits about how the Bible doesn't get specific about the method behind God's Creation - and that indicates to me that he can separate out issues of overprescribing antibiotics from philosophical questions of where man comes from. He's an MD, after all - he didn't get where he is today by wholesale denial of science. So I am not too personally worried that his (admittedly goofy) belief that evolution is "just" a theory will get in the way of making scientifically-founded public heath decisions. I can, however, see why other people might.
My question to them would be - what makes you think that any of the other candidates are any more devoted to scientific orthodoxy on issues where their personal beliefs get in the way of what science actually says?
Posted by Joshua at December 27, 2007 04:08 PM
William H. Stoddard wrote:
... even though God's existence is certainly at least as debatable on rational grounds as evolution by natural selection.
Oh dear. Still, I suppose one must allow at least a little rope on this:
(i) What is meant by "rational grounds"? [Some brevity might be appropriate.]
(ii) Is "evolution by natural selection" standing by itself as a special case, or as proxy for each and every scientific theory?
And I am arguing this one as I do think it matters.
Best regards
Posted by Nigel Sedgwick at December 27, 2007 04:11 PM
Ian B, you have it right. The true gradualists are the extremists: Ask for the moon and settle for a small rock. Do that enough times and that's a pretty sizable pile of rocks you have before too long. The gradualists ask for a small rock, and then turn around to see their property has been turned into a quarry.
The gradualists are on a date with the statists and believe them when they say they'll "only put it in a little bit". I say kick em in the nuts and send em home crying.
Posted by Dr No at December 27, 2007 04:31 PM
The discussion about MRSA or C. Difficile doesn't really apply here anyway since creationists accept "microevolution" within "kinds" so accept mutation of diseases and their vectors. They accept that a single-celled organism can evolve resistance. They just don't believe it can evolve into a siberian tiger.
Posted by Ian B at December 27, 2007 04:42 PM
The thing to remember is that Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should do anything whatsoever based on the status of the theory of evolution.
He gets asked this in part because his district is chock full of hardcore fundamentalists. This is just his rather innocuous way of not pissing them off over an issue that is entirely irrelevant to his vision of what needs to be done by either (a) the Congress or (b) the Presidency.
As you suspect, Perry, this is "gotcha" politics that has nothing to do with the merits of the candidate.
Posted by R C Dean at December 27, 2007 05:13 PM
Ian B wrote:
... since creationists accept "microevolution" within "kinds" so accept mutation of diseases and their vectors. They accept that a single-celled organism can evolve resistance. They just don't believe it can evolve into a siberian tiger.
Ian is obviously closer to the thought processes of creationists than I am. And I'll admit to doubts about MRSA evolving into Siberian Tiger: there are at least 2 reasons why (but let's not get bogged down in too many side issues).
Anyway, it seems creationists accept mutation. Perhaps as it has been observed, they also accept that the beak size of birds can change through natural selection. Combine a few of things together (mutation, selection, repetition, eons) ...
Is not the stated creationist view rather like accepting that arithmetic works for numbers small enough to be written on a piece of paper and manipulated by hand, but not that it works for bigger numbers or longer calculations?
My case here remains that there is a difference between (moderate) religious belief and refuting or rejecting well-established science (and its teaching). I believe that the latter is far less tolerable in our political leaders than is the former.
[Note: I also commented at 16:11, and was smitten. That comment has now appeared, with that time stamp.]
Best regards
Posted by Nigel Sedgwick at December 27, 2007 05:33 PM
Apart from being simplistic, your argument presupposes that Libertarians in general (and Ron Paul in this particular case) have a monopoly on "small government" desires and, for that matter, credentials.
Trouble is you "small r republicans" eventually end up still supporting for the likes of Bush or whoever else ends up wearing the Republican mantle, while claiming to want a smaller state and that's why the mainstream politicians know they can safely ignore you.
So it seems to me that when it comes to demanding "ideological purity" (a change so often levelled at supporters on non-mainstream people), it's folks like you who actually are the problem in expecting too much. It's people like Perry who are being pragmatic in supporting Ron Paul (clearly he does not like the man) whereas you seem to require a perfect candidate before you will support anyone who is actually serious about shrinking the state.
Posted by Albion at December 27, 2007 05:41 PM
Nigel, I'm just the messenger. You can lower that gun :D
I agree that the distinction between micro and macro-evolution perceived by creationists is nonsensical. But that's what most of them believe, so even a zealous statist creationist in the Whitehouse wouldn't feel obligated to deny the observed reality of the evolution of antibiotic resistance, so even in that case the medical example given earlier wouldn't be an issue.
I'm not in any way defending creationism. If I understand something about what they believe, it's because I've had quite a lot of arguments with creationists over the years on the internets.
Posted by Ian B at December 27, 2007 05:51 PM
the distinction between micro and macro-evolution perceived by creationists is nonsensical.
That is a bit of a straw-man argument. We all (at least, I hope we all) accept that natural selection within a population can affect the population average. That should be uncontroversial, because it is what farmers have been doing for thousands of years with "unnatural selection" -- selective breeding. But no matter how assiduously the breeder works, he is not going to turn a cow into an elephant, let alone a sequoia.
Darwin's insight about natural selection was important, but it is not a complete theory of evolution. There is clearly more to come, and the missing pieces are likely to come from a serious effort to address the sorts of questions raised by those who are skeptical about "natural selection as simplistic evolution" (whatever the reason for their skepticism).
The broader issue though is the one raised by Ian B -- "The collectivists are not winning; to all intents and purposes they have won".
It is a small step from confusing natural selection with a complete theory of evolution to treating a rather poor correlation between dubious temperature data and selected CO2 data as proof positive of anthropogenic global warming. We in the West are under-educated -- and therefore easy prey for neo-Stalinists and their useful idiots.
But don't worry about the future of the human race. The modern liberal touting AGW is in the same position as the Plains indian dancing the ghost dance in the late 1800s -- there are other people competing assiduously to replace them. Natural selection applies to civilizations with as much vigor as it does to species.
Posted by Alice at December 27, 2007 08:06 PM
There's also the distinction between evolution as a process and evolution as a historical fact.
This is an important distinction. It's possible to agree to disagree on the latter whilst the former can still be used by all sides if it can be accepted that it provides a sufficiently accurate model of the real world (the goal of science).
After all, an omnipotent god could just have easily created the world last Tuesday after Eastenders and appears to be quite happy to allow other scientifically modelable processes to present evidence that the universe may be a lot older than (may be) suggested in scriptural record. It's not a huge leap from accepting that to accepting that evolution provides an acceptable description of how God wants us to view the world. If it wasn't important, he wouldn't have left it there for us to find after all.
On a related note, if you ever get the chance, take a visit to the Creation Science Museum in Portsmouth. But try not to laugh too loud.
Posted by Dr No at December 27, 2007 08:23 PM
But no matter how assiduously the breeder works, he is not going to turn a cow into an elephant, let alone a sequoia.
Cow--> sequoia would be grossly unlikely as they diverged from their common ancestor a very long way back and, in particular, their cellular chemistry is entirely different, so even if we accept the thought experiment of trying to turn one species into another by selection, there's no easily conceivable chain of intermediary forms I can imagine to get from cow to sequoia.
I can however quite easily imagine how, given sufficient time, cows could evolve into a form similar to elephants. They're broadly the same, with the same organs in slightly different configurations, and a few extra muscles and so on. Assiduous selection over a long period of time, combined with some fortuitous mutations (there's a considerable random element to evolution, remember) could well get us a very large cow with a trunk and big ears.
There are lots of examples of convergent evolution producing similar forms from different beginnings. There was a marsupial wolf-like creature for instance, and a marsupial saber-toothed cat type creature. They're extinct now, but they did evolve. Evolution can only work with what it's got. The chances of a flying horse with eight legs are remote, but it'd be possible for cows to get a trunk and big ears*.
*If they can sneak past Noddy.
Posted by Ian B at December 27, 2007 08:44 PM
I can however quite easily imagine how, given sufficient time, cows could evolve into a form similar to elephants.
Science begins in the human mind, with imagination. Then it proceeds to observation & evidence & quantitative theories. Imagining a cow evolving into an elephant does not make it so. And try not to be so literal!
Selective breeding, which is an accelerated form of natural selection, has been successful in developing distinct breeds within an existing species, but has failed totally at developing new species. Therefore, evolution is more than natural selection -- and Darwin did not tell us what that "more" is.
There is no logical distinction between "believing" in simplistic evolution and "believing" in a Deity. None!
If we persist in unchallengeable "beliefs" such as simplistic evolution or anthropogenic global warming, we are throwing away the basis of modern civilization and replacing it with mere superstitions. But that, unfortunately, is what is happening. Thank goodness that natural selection will ultimately eliminate those civilizations that fall prey to political correctness.
Posted by Alice at December 27, 2007 09:00 PM
Selective breeding, which is an accelerated form of natural selection, has been successful in developing distinct breeds within an existing species, but has failed totally at developing new species.
It hasn't failed to do so, it hasn't tried to do so. Farmers are interested in better cows, not elephant cows.
If you consider dogs, however, even that becomes questionable. You may say "all breeds of dog are still dogs" and indeed they are, but that's for two reasons. Firstly, because you already know they are all dogs in the first place, and secondly because they're not reproductively isolated (one wonders about that with a great dane and a chihuahua...). But look at the range of dogs. If a naive alien scientist arrived on earth and saw a great dane and a chihuahua, she'd probably think they're different species. The differences are *immense*. If they had evolved to those different forms in the wild, one would at least think they were well on their way to speciation.
Put a population of great danes in one place, a population of chihuahas in another, and over time they'd develop different prey, different hunting strategies, different social structures, there'd be pressure on them to evolve into quite different niches. For instance the great danes might choose large prey brought down by pack cooperation, whereas the chihuahuas would exclusively hunt ankles.
Currently, those dogs aren't under real selective pressures, since they don't have to survive unaided. In the wild, their divergence would probably be quite rapid.
Therefore, evolution is more than natural selection -- and Darwin did not tell us what that "more" is.
The "therefore" doesn't follow. That humans haven't forcibly evolved different species in their limited selective breeding, it doesn't have any bearing on what can occur over vast time spans in natural circumstances.
Posted by Ian B at December 27, 2007 09:27 PM
... he's the only chance to pull America back from the statist brink, ...
Every time I see something like this, I wonder "is this person under 30 and therefore has only been politically aware since the Clinton administration, or is this person more or less completely ignorant of the political history of the late 20th century?"
The answer, generally, is "yes".
Look, you want "statist brink", go read up on FDR, J Edgar Hoover, Truman's attempt to nationalize the steel industry, Nixon's wage and price controls, Comstock and Hayes, and read Hayek's Road to Serfdom. We have to be on guard against statism at all times, but the notion that we're at a particularly more statist stage now is just stoooopid.
Posted by Charlie (Colorado) at December 27, 2007 09:34 PM
Speciation occurs when breeds cease to be genetically able to "breed". The examples I've seen given tend to occur when physical barriers to breeding occur leading to genetic drift. The genetic drift can lead to further physical barriers (physiological differences) or social barriers which both keep the gene pools separate and allow the split to increase. Eventually enough drift can occur that the recombination leads to no or unviable offspring.
The mechanisms are there. I find it hard to understand how anyone can really argue that we don't at least have a broad sketch of what's going on with evolution.
Posted by Dr No at December 27, 2007 09:34 PM
Currently, those dogs aren't under real selective pressures
Ian B, not quite. Great Danes and Chihuahuas are under intense selective pressure to not diverge much from what they are right now. I believe the Kennel Club has quite exacting standards and any divergence which might otherwise be a useful adaptation to the local environment will actually be frowned upon and artificially removed by either not allowing the subject to breed or, in many cases, not allowing the subject to live.
Posted by Dr No at December 27, 2007 09:44 PM
Charlie, maybe "statist brink" was the wrong term as of course the west is far beyond the brink now, perhaps "reverse the statist trend" would be a better term. But I'm quite aware of US history. Statism is a directionality.
We're in a crucial historical period now because of the immense pressure for not just national statism but international statism; the abandonment of national sovereignty to transnational statist bodies (trade blocs, the UN, etc). Paul is the only candidate with any desire to avoid that. That's the point I was making.
Dr No-
I meant that dogs aren't under natural selective pressures for survival. The pressures upon their evolution are arbitrary based on human tastes.
Posted by Ian B at December 27, 2007 10:07 PM
Ian B, I know. I was merely pointing out that instead of selective pressure to diverge, rather than there being no selective pressure, there is actually selective pressure not to diverge in the case of pedigree dogs. This, of course, makes dogs an even worse place to look for speciation. Hard to get a fork in an evolutionary tree when someone is trimming the offshoots.
Posted by Dr No at December 27, 2007 10:15 PM
I am disappointedly surprised at the number of samizdatarians who are ready to cast abuse at Ron Paul, who is the only candidate in the race for the US presidency who will reduce the government, cut taxes, and stop armed meddling in the affairs of other countries. And for this he is called 'crazy' by people who would, presumably, prefer Giuliani in the White House [shakes head].
Paul is not insane, he is a lot more normal than any of his rivals, having earned his living dealing with ordinary people every day and even undergone conscription into the military.
Paul is not a troofer, he actually cites the CIA's reports that state that US interventions over decades in the Middle East have 'blowback'.
Paul is not ignorant of science. He is a doctor, and while doctoring is not science per se, it owes its efficacy to a century or two of scientific work, and every doctor knows this.
You can disagree with his policy of pulling US troops out of foreign countries, but it's definitely arguable that the US military presence in Germany, or Britain, or South Korea, or Japan, or [list another 100 countries] is a burden rather than a boon to both the US and the host countries.
And finally, Paul is not so much a libertarian as a constitutionalist, which means that he accepts there should be a US government, but he demands that it obeys the basic law, and if that law has defects, that it is amended by due process, rather than openly flouted by officeholders who have sworn to uphold it.
If all that makes him crazy, its a far better kind of crazy than the others in the race is all I can say
[rant ends]
Posted by steve_roberts at December 27, 2007 10:20 PM
Steve_roberts
I am disappointedly surprised at the number of samizdatarians who are ready to cast abuse at Ron Paul, who is the only candidate in the race for the US presidency who will reduce the government, cut taxes, and stop armed meddling in the affairs of other countries
He also said "we gave them the gas." His exact words.
WHY DID HE LIE?
Posted by Sunfish at December 28, 2007 03:53 AM
For Ron Paul wouldnt matter that communist would have taken all Europe, in the current times the problem is that Islamists will take Arab Governments and what he will do in case China threatens Taiwan? Do he thinks that loosing allies doesnt affect the wealth and freedom in USA? How he thinks to fight al-qaeda? Outside borders or inside borders? he doesnt thinks that 5-10 terror attacks in USA soil will damage much more freedoms in a Ron Paul administration than 911 in Bush one.
I am not confortable with nukes in his hands because the shock of reality and pressure will make him react. I am even less with what will be his team...
Posted by lucklucky at December 28, 2007 05:15 AM</