Oh. Oh dear.

Oh crap Bento, what have I done? Ron Paul doesn’t believe in um. . . Evolution.

I mean it is a theory, as he says. Do you think he may have been quoted out of context?

(via Andrew Sullivan)


8 thoughts on “Oh. Oh dear.”

  1. There are still a few North American conservatives with brains left who haven’t adhered to the Eisenhower Republican Party (until ~1978 known as the Democratic Party). You kids have to go somewhere, and the Genghis Khan Was a Freaking Appeaser Party (known until ~1964 as the GOP) just doesn’t cut it.

    Ron Paul, not unlike Leon Trotsky before him, talks a mean game. I sympathize. You want to contribute to something less useless than those who spawned Scalia and Roberts, to say nothing of Thomas and Alito.

    Still, to pick up the Ron Paul banner is to forget that nativism (known until ~Newt Gingrich as racism) is no substitute for policy, not to mention thinking straight.

    Shorter comment: Ron Paul is a @#$%! wacko. I’d rather have another 8 years of George W. ‘I make stroke victims seem coherent and rational’ Bush.

  2. Shame on you baruch. Any cursory investigation of Ron Paul shows him to be in Ross Perot territory. How you could ever confuse him with Spinoza is beyond me.

    So who’s left? How about bloomberg? As a successful mayor of New York, you sort have to be a Spinozist when it comes to tolerance and all that.

  3. Bento, I would have an evolution-denying Ron Paul before any of the other Republican candidates. And as a Spinozist he is still without equal, I am afraid. Just a lot more doctrinaire than you or I would be. What in particular do you object to (pretend you never noticed his evolution remarks) with Dr Paul? How exactly is he similar to Ross Perot and is that bad?

    Mike B is simply not running, so forget about it. However, McCain seems to have ended his faustian pact with the religious whack-jobs, and I find myself drawn more and more to him as I realise the full extent of the Coyote morning I have got myself into with Rom Paul.

    Verc, nice try but Dr Ron’s denial of evolution coupled with his remarks about how he thinks “The Creator” should have done things (see the link) does not make me think he has made the leaps in the articles you link to.

    wcw, I am curious, how is Ron Paul racist? The US constitution I always thought of as a very universalist document, and as far as I can see a lot of his more controversial positions are based on an (entertainingly whacko) fundamentalist reading of that.

  4. He said “[..]theory of evolution, and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory,[..]”.

    Perhaps he said it because his motto is also “caute”; after all, evolution among the 21st century US electorate is just about as popular as Spinozism (a.k.a. atheism) was in 17-18th century Europe. But I do think he could have handled the question better.

    I would (if I were an American, which I am not) still support him, because his main purpose is to liberate people (especially from wars of all kinds, including the one against drugs). Spinoza would certainly approve of him because of this. But by talking in public about ‘our creator’ he has taken a non-Spinozan stand. It seems he is a believer in two substances, therefore a Cartesian. But not an entirely stupid one.

Comments are closed.