I ripped Ron Paul (in a footnote) because of his rejection of evolution. It seemed pretty obvious, although I didn’t note it, that the clip was edited. From Lew Rockwell, here’s a transcript of the unedited version:
“‘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.’]
To me that isn’t substantially different than the edited clip. The message is still the same. Rep. Paul accepts faith-based explanation with no evidence to support it and rejects evidence-based science with reams of evidence to demonstrate that the commonly offered story Rep. Paul accepts instead is a fairy tale. I don’t understand how so many libertarians are willing to defend this. Rejecting the evidence-based fact of Rep. Paul’s positions in favor of a preferred explanation is no less faith-based.
To the defense of Rep. Paul offered at Lew Rockwell, I already didn’t believe that Rep. Paul wants to put creationism at the front of the campaign. Some of his non-libertarian “libertarian” ideas (i.e., opposition to same-sex civil marriage) seem centered on religion, but one must extrapolate to argue that he’s pushing fully religious positions ahead of all other claims. I oppose Rep. Paul’s campaign, but I’m not willing to do that.
The basic problem remains. Not believing in the evidence-based truth of evolution demonstrates a mind willing to reject fact when it’s inconsistent with a preferred opinion. I think we’ve already had more than enough of that in the last seven years. I will not vote for another term of such irrationality.
Link via Andrew Sullivan.
Given his recent anti-immigration ad, how Rep. Paul is anything more than a pandering politician? If you support Rep. Paul, defend this. Explain to me how this is the mark of a change in our political discourse. Rationalize how this is a libertarian stance.
One thought on “Shouldn’t an obstetrician believe in evidence-based decisions?”
What Paul personally believes is less important to me than his belief that states and school districts should have an unlimited power to force creationism (or prayer, for that matter) upon public school students and that “activist judges” should have no ability to stop them.
Comments are closed.