-
Website
http://dmiessler.com/ -
Original page
http://dmiessler.com/blog/ron-paul-thinks-evolution-is-just-a-theory-and-doesnt-believe-in-it-with-quote -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
That's what actually makes Ron Paul great. Yeah he might not believe in evolution and he may be pro-life, he might even be crazy enough to believe that the earth is only 5000 years old, but he will never purpose legislation that will force his opinion on every American.
I hear you, and I see what you're saying, but at the same time you have to wonder what would happen if he were to suddenly change his mind. I mean, if God wants certain things, but the constitution wants something else...how long can the constitution win?
We're basically banking on him never interpreting God's will to go against his previously held policies of separation. It's just not a good position to be in.
Daniel, how can someone like you who I assume has some kind of knowledge of the English language have been so thrown by his statements?
It is called the "theory of evolution" because that is exactly what it is...A THEORY! You are an idiot. If you believe that evolution is the answer, than you are more ignorant than people that continue reading your rubbish. I'm not even concerned about the belief itself, but the way you overlook the FACT that it is a Theory. The reason why it is NOT called the LAW of Evolution is because it hasn't been proven to be law. There are other instances and scientific findings that continue to be un-proven by the THEORY of evolution. Take the LAW of Physics...basically there is a law that says that no matter can be created or destroyed, you can just change its present existence. The theory of evolution is shot down by this LAW. Look it up on the internet, I am sure you can find it in wikipedia. Next look at the new studies about how we are evolving faster than previously predicted. This would also upset the basic premise of evolution and the time with which it takes for an organism to evolve. Thats why its a THEORY. Look that word up in the dictionary. Ron Paul is correct.....it is still a theory. You know it used to be a theory that the world was flat...............what a kook you would have been to think otherwise.
By the way, I would be more worried about a President who had NO belief in a supreme being. He has no one to answer to. He could swing further out of control if he decided that he was just going to be worm food when he died, so he might as well be the most powerful person on Earth while he has a chance.
@RUKIDDEN
It's not the fact that he called it a theory; it's the fact that he doesn't believe in it. As for your "proof" against evolution using the conservation of matter...please read more. You're confused about closed vs. open systems.
"He will never purpose legislation that will force his opinion on every American"????!!!!
No not every American - only half of ALL Americans.
He may not force it on a man, but he sure as hell will force it on a woman.
He is trying to CHANGE the constitution to bend to his religious beliefs:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02597
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h....>
What else will he corrupt the constitution for?
I'm saddened by the fact that the general public doesn't understand the word theory as used by scientists. We have a theory of gravity. That's right, Rukidden, gravity is a scientific theory. So is evolution.
For the record, LAWS of Physics are also theories. They are things that seem to be true and are used in drawing conclusions about the world. The law you refer to is the law of conservation of matter. It is no longer stated in that form of course since matter is created and destroyed all the time (it's what E=Mc^2 is all about). For the record, that law has absolutely nothing to say about evolution. (Evolution doesn't claim that matter is created!) Perhaps you're thinking of the law that says that the universe moves from order to disorder (this is called the Law of Entropy .. or the second law of thermodynamics). But this only says that a system with no external energy source will move in the direction of greater entropy (essentially the less ordered state). It does not say anything about systems with external energy sources (like that big ball of fusion we call the sun).
@Dan: Long ago you listed a bunch of beliefs of Ron Paul (ones that concerned you if I recall correctly). As I recall, several of them were deal breakers to me.
@Ruddiken: The current US administration has been quite power hungry and has even stepped on the constitution when it interfered with their power. This doesn't have anything to do with whether the president is or is not religious.
@RUDIKKEN
I am strongly bending to the notion that there is nothing else after death, not a 100% belief, but I am strongly turning that way more and more as I think about it. BUT, that doesn't mean I have nothing to answer to, that I have gone completely insane and have no worries about consequences.
There are the people that come after me to answer to. Just because a person doesn't believe that they are going to burn in Hell or ascend to Heaven if they don't behave morally in life, doesn't mean they feel that they can do whatever they want.
@Daniel
I have been in the same boat with this for candidates all my voting life. I have taken crap all my life for being non-christian in htis country.
But, can a candidate seriously run in the USA without being christian?
Sorry I should have been more to the point when saying that matter cannot be created or destroyed, I was refering to the "big Bang" theory and the idea of creationism. But here are some credible examples of information dealing with the theory of evolution and the problems with the theory. Michael Denton’s "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and a book called "Darwins Black Box" by Behe, are good places to start.
All presidents are bending policy towards their beliefs, it amazes me that those who are concerned about Pauls beleifs have no qualms about any of the other candidates beleifs. Do you truly think that known womanizers, thiefs, tax evaders and liars would be less worriesome than someone who believes in a good that preaches peace and understanding, and non-violence. Sure there are always extremeists that go off the deep-end, but Ron Paul preaches no war, and non- interventionalism, why is this worse that liars and thieves who want to continue killing and spending more on killing.
"...it's the fact that he doesn't believe in it."
So basically, you agree that the 'theory' of evolution isn't worthy enough based on scientific principle to be considered a 'law' but still have a lowered opinion of the good doctor because he doesn't have the same belief concerning origins as you do?
There is essentially two belief systems regarding origins, why should you be so critical and dismissive of him simply because he doesn't accept the version you do?
One of Doctor Paul's greatest convictions is personal liberty. Is he not able to believe what he wants regarding origins? Even as he is so outspoken in protecting your right to believe in the origin theory of your choice?
A mature and free people do not need to impose their belief system on others. I say the Doctor is free to believe whatever he wants. I do not judge him according to his understanding but according to his actions. In this way, Ron Paul is the only candidate I will vote for.
BTW, I happen to agree with him ;)
I should say that most believers in evolution, by the idea of evolution, believe in some basic "big Bang" type theory. I understand what you are saying about the Law of Conservation of Matter. You have to understand I am typeing 100 words a minute inbetween the boss walking back and forth, and I am trying to put as much in as possible, in as little space as possible, while still expanding on the basic principles I am going for.
@carlm: If several of Ron Pauls beliefs were deal breakers for you.....who are you inclined to vote for, and....are you their fraternal twin?
@eamon: Exactly, so why would Ron Paul do something drastic just because he believes in god?
This is coming from somebody that thinks religion is mostly a crock so keep that in mind when you read my response. The thing that makes science great Daniel, is that scientists are always open to new explanations. A theory in science is basically the simplest explanation based on the evidence one has to try to explain something. If the theory adequately explains the phenomena, it is generally accepted. My personal field is in chemistry so I will use a chemistry example. One of the simplest examples in chemistry is the idea of what makes up an atom. There have been many theories like everything being centralized together in the nucleus to electrons following a circular path around a nucleus that contains protons and neutrons. However, the newest theory on the atom is that you have a central nucleus and electrons don't exist in a finite area but merely "clouds" of probability where we think the electron may be. The reason it has changed so much over the years is because when new experiments are performed it is necessary to change theory because the old theory is incapable of explaining new phenomena.
With that in mind, the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. Can you ever unquestioningly prove that evolution happened? No, not realistically because it wasn't ever directly observed. Right now the theory of evolution is the simplest model that stands up to most of the observed phenomena so it is the one that is accepted as a reasonable theory. Is it absolute? No, because speaking in absolutes goes against the main idea of science. I think you are exaggerating Dr. Paul's comments. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that through Dr. Paul's collegiate career that he understands more about biology and anatomy than you likely do which is part of the reason that he realizes that it is simply a theory. In closing, that is what makes science different from relgion, its ability to change and evolve. Once science stops asking questions, we no longer have science but a blind dogma that is too set in its ways to accept reason and change.
Does his opinion on Evolution Vs. Creationism change anything else he's said? As he stated at the beginning of where you quote, this isn't of concern for him in the light of him being or not being the next president since the president doesn't proside over any scientific bodies. There are two possible things he could do:
1. Use his power to enforce evolution being taught in schools. Since this directly conflicts with his position on national education (that it should be run locally, not nationally) this is an unlikely scenerio.
2. He will withold governmental funding for evolution-based research. I would be willing to bet (but can't say for sure) that he is against federal funding for any scientific research dealing with evolution, creationism, or any other theories on the origins of man, regardless of his beliefs.
@RUDIKKEN
I was just responding to comment number 4, I don't think that believing in a supreme being would necessarily make a person less likely to do something drastic.
Look at our current president, who thinks he's some kind of prophet, put in charge by HIS supreme being to make a "War against Evil"
WTF? If he was an atheist or less of a devote follower of a religion he might be reacting with less loony-toons ardor. Zealots don't make for good leaders of an open society.
In a nutshell (pun not intended)...Ron Pauls beleif in a minimal Federal Government makes this conversation a moot point. He as president would not have, or want the authority to tell the individual what they should or shouldn't believe in. In Pauls form of government, the Fed has no say in individual beliefs that do not harm or invade other indvividuals rights. Whereas you have other politicians that want to decide whether abortion should be legal or not, or whether you should be able to own guns, or whether you should be allowed to pray in schools, he wants to stay out of those decisions. He still has his own individual beliefs, but he doesn't want to impose those on you. He would rather your local governments and their particular beliefs and customs to determine those laws governing those citizens living in that area. I'm sure if you want legal abortion, prostitution, drugs, no prayer in schools, gay marriage and the like...Las Vegas or maybe even San Diego's local government will make all those LEGAL!!
I think the main point is that a belief system is a very large part of who a person is, can someone really be expected keep from being influenced by their own belief system, no matter how hard they try?
It is scary to those of us who are not part of that belief system.
Hi --
Your complaint illustrates why Paul is so necessary at this point in time.
Let me first state that I am an atheist and have no use for intelligent design, so I am not defending that view.
The frustration you feel comes from the hyper-centralization of power in the US today. Today's president is exptected to forge (or force) a consensus on everything from defense to abortion to speed limits to Barry Bonds's urine. Any one person other than yourself is going to disagree with you on something important and have the power to act on it.
Ron Paul's appeal is based on REMOVING the president's power to act on this broad range of issues, de-fanging the implied threat of the disagreement.
What are you going to do if want candidate wants the Department of Education to force kids to learn intelligent design, while the other major candidate wants war with Iran? Instead of continually impaling ourselves on these dilemmas, let's decentralize decision making and bring the power as close to ourselves as possible.
If the Department of Education forces schools to teach intelligent design, what are you going to do about it? I suggest that in a country of 300 million, your input into their decision is zero. You can go to Washington, get arrested, pin the citation on the wall and say oh-what-a-good-boy-am-I. If your local scoolboard does it, you can knock on doors, get in their faces, bang the table and get things changed.
What you want and I want and the Christians want is for there to be some far-off power to which we give tithes and honor in exchange for containing our local institutions within the bounds of justice. Unfortunately, we live in a democracy and the far off power you set up to secure your rights gets voted out of your hands and now the other hand holds the hammer.
It's time to stop beating each other with it.
Vote Ron Paul.
I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here, thinking the confusion is due to the typical conflation of evolution (fact) and natural selection (theory). When some folks say evolution is a theory, they actually mean natural selection is a theory.
So I give him a pass. And I don't think it would affect his presidency in the slightest, even if I'm wrong.
@ Mike G.: His statement wasn't about natural selection. It was about creationism vs. evolution. But, it is true that he downplayed the importance. (I happen to disagree that it isn't an important reflection on his ability to serve as president in the 21st century.)
@RUKIDDEN: You are correct in implying that I do not agree 100 percent with any of the candidates. But, we are in the midst of an administration that is incredibly anti-science (by which I mean they ignore the advice of the scientific community at almost every turn). In the 21st century, I do not believe that we can afford to have a president who is unwilling to use the best science possible -- and one who allows his personal religious beliefs to trump scientific consensus is not one I could possibly support. As I am not a member of a political party, and as this means I cannot vote in the primary in Georgia, I have not made a decision about who to support. I have not followed the candidates well enough to know who has the most sensible plans (and in any case, I have no idea who will be left when I vote in November).
I will say this. When Republicans accuse Democrats of being the "Tax and Spend" party and offer themselves as the "Spend" party, I am offended. It is in fact the JOB of government to tax and spend. In the most basic terms, this is what governments do. One can certainly argue about how much they should spend and on what, but as for taxing .. it seems to me that the level of taxation ought to be determined by the level of spending. That is: Don't spend more than you take in from taxation. There have at certain times in the history of the US been valid arguments for deficit spending. I don't believe that this is such a time. People argue about small government vs large government without realizing the absurd fraction of the budget that goes to commitments that the government must keep. In 2002, Social Security, Medicare, and Interest on the debt together accounted for over 40 percent of the spending. National Defense was another 17 percent or so. There's only so much we can shrink the government (in dollar terms).
I will also say this. I'm OK with education being controlled locally ONLY if there is oversight. We need REAL standards in this country and in too many places we do not have them now. This is leading to a frightening future.
Look at the preface to his comment here. He says it's an inappopriate question - that the president shouldn't be deciding on scientific matters.
I think when questions regarding evolution are asked, that it's a proxy for asking about religion. We want secular presidents but we can't find any presidents who are secular. Asking about evolution is asking whether a candidate will subordinate their beliefs to a secular authority. Candidates generally don't shy from questions about evolution in the way they would from directly questioning their religiousity. Hence this makes a useful 'litmus' for those who want a secular president but realizes that all the candidates are religious.
Ron Paul has adequately proved that he will subordinate his beliefs to a secular authority by his devotion to the Constitution. He's 72. He's been consistent so far. It's pretty clear he'll remain so. The litmus which usually works so well to test whether a candidate will be satisfactorily secular doesn't work very well on him because his personal beliefs have been proven irrelevant - a fact that he comments on with his saying the question is inappropriate.
Daniel,
I think I've decided to continue supporting him, since his core beliefs about government seem to be trustworthy, and unrelated to the issue of evolution.
Though I am extremely disappointed and somewhat less supportive of him.
Carl M --
Again, the problem: Oversight is great, but you don't get to choose who does the overseeing. If you have a secret plan to keep crazies out of office for all time, why didn't you use it in 2004? What is your plan for when they are the overseer and you the overseen?
Also, you have a Department of Education now. Like the results?
"If you have a secret plan to keep crazies out of office for all time, why didn’t you use it in 2004?"
All I can do is try not to vote for the crazies, and to learn from history. I realize that Paul said that this is not an issue that he's concerned with .. and it was clear that he was trying to find the right way to express this. I suppose I don't see how someone who has a religious belief that "A" is true can make a decision that follows logically only if the scientific claim "B" is true (when B contradicts A). I know that sentence could have been phrased better, but I'll trust you all to be able to parse it.
"Also, you have a Department of Education now. Like the results?"
No. The state of education in the US is pathetic. "No Child Left Behind" should mean something that it doesn't. It should mean that no 4th grader exists who can't read, no 7th grader exists who can't handle fractions, etc. There is actually a VERY simple implementation. Until a child can read, they do not enter the 4th grade. In general: until a child has an appropriate mastery of the Nth grade curriculum, they do not move to grade (N+1). THIS is how we leave no child behind. THIS is how we get parents more interested in their children's education. The general public has NO CLUE how poor the education of their children is. It's not a huge secret, but people turn a deaf ear to things they don't want to hear. And, school systems that promote students who are not ready to move forward enable these deaf ears. But, the solution is not to abolish the Department of Education (as I'm sure someone named Captain Obvious must know).
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
United States Constitution, Article VI
(emphasis mine)
Ron Paul's view on the origin of the universe is pretty mainstream for Christiandom. Seriously, how do you people think this will affect his presidency? He wants to eliminate the federal education debacle and quit forcing government propogranda on students, so I imagine that schools would be able to teach whatever they wanted in the classrooms -- evolution, creationism, flying-spaghetti-monster-ism... -- that's what freedom is about.
For the record, I am an Atheist and do not share Ron Paul's religious views, but I believe his voting record is sufficient evidence to establish his qualification to lead this country. All the other candidates are, frankly, full of bullshit and will continue to strangle the last vestiges of liberty that we have.
"I imagine that schools would be able to teach whatever they wanted in the classrooms — evolution, creationism, flying-spaghetti-monster-ism… — that’s what freedom is about."
I'm all for freedom. But, IF we believe that an education is something we want to make available to our children .. for their good and for the good of the country, then we SHOULD believe that it should be a quality education. Requiring schools to have high standards and even to teach particular things is NOT anti-freedom. A candidate who believes that it is cannot get my vote.
"...IF we believe that an education is something we want to make available to our children .. for their good and for the good of the country..."
I do not share this sentiment. I do not believe that people will become hopeless, uneducated zombies if the government does not control education. The high availability of information in this country is taking a toll on brick-and-mortar schools. Alternative forms of education like homeschooling are becoming very popular. This is the market stretching itself because "public education" is a colossal failure. The only legitimate role of the government is to use law (which is force verbalized) to protect the life and property of the citizens who created it. Defense is the only proper use of force -- education by force is something we call brainwashing. And if you doubt that this country educates by force, take your children out of grade school for a few days without "properly justifying" your actions to the authorities, and you will feel the full wrath of the education police.
Carl M --
It's not a question of Paul being concerned or unconcerned with it. I'll keep saying it. The value of a Paul presidency is structure, not policy. Please reread my post 18. I don't want to live in a country where a President's views on evolution matter.
Yes, the solution IS to abolish the Department of Education. Eventually, you have to look at what is happening rather than what you imagine should happen. Particularly as you congratulate yourself on being a rationalist in a world of superstition. The situation you describe is precisely what one would expect when people have pushed responsibility for a problem a thousand miles away and diluted their influence over the solution to zero.
In technology, business, even the military, the watchword is decentralization. In government, people crow over the collapse of the Soviet Union and its hidebound central planning. And yet, nearly 20 years later, here sits Carl M stamping his foot and telling Captain Obvious that only Washington can get parents to care about their children's education.
Think about it.
I seriously doubt anyone will agree with every view of Dr Paul's. What is important is his political views and not his personal views. I believe he is one of only a hand full of elected officials who truly understand what the rules of the game are. The rest just say what the popular views are to raise money. Dr Paul has always voted correctly instead of what is popular. We need him now more than ever. I am not voting for him to be my best friend. I am voting for him because he has always done the right thing in the past. I am willing to bet he will continue to do the correct things in the future.
Hmmm. Once again, words are being put into my mouth.
First, I have never congratulated myself on being a rationalist in a world of superstition. It is true that I think that science ought to be the basis of policy and that I could not possibly vote for anyone who felt otherwise. But, this isn't the same thing at all.
Second, I have never even REMOTELY suggested that ONLY Washington can get parents to care about their children's education. I thought I was pretty clear, but let me quote myself:
"In general: until a child has an appropriate mastery of the Nth grade curriculum, they do not move to grade (N+1). THIS is how we leave no child behind. THIS is how we get parents more interested in their children’s education. The general public has NO CLUE how poor the education of their children is. It’s not a huge secret, but people turn a deaf ear to things they don’t want to hear. And, school systems that promote students who are not ready to move forward enable these deaf ears."
I blame the local school districts and it is ONLY in the local school districts that real change can happen. However, I do not trust local school districts to do this on their own. It's really that simple. Do I claim that the Department of Education has gotten it done? No. Obviously not.
More to say .. but need to go.
Carl M --
Your quote: "Requiring schools to have high standards and even to teach particular things is NOT anti-freedom. A candidate who believes that it is cannot get my vote." Are you now saying you meant a candidate for the local school board and not president? You clearly believe direction from Washington is essential.
I am not asking you to trust local school boards. The difference between trusting local school boards and trusting the Department of Education is that when the local school board screws up, you can actually do something about it. By subdividing into smaller regional groups, your leverage over decision makers increases hundreds-fold, and ideologically unbundling eduction from other issues increases it even more. Nobody has to choose between the teachers' union package on eduction and a war with Iran.
As for your first paragraph, it obviously is the same thing beyond the mere rhetorical difference. I'm not asking you to forgo rationalism -- I'm asking you to use it. At some point, you are going to have to stop dreaming and rationally examine the results of establishing a Department of Education and honestly ask yourself why it has not done what you hoped. Year after year, administration after administration, the Department of Education has become nothing more than a faith-based program for do-gooders, sucking money and initiative from concerned parents. You say that "it is ONLY in local school districts that real change can happen", but it can't happen if their policies are set in Washington or their funding is cut off.
Your fear that some schoolboard somewhere might continue to fail is no reason to keep going down the same path.
Some schoolboard SOMEWHERE? If only it was only SOME schoolboard somewhere. You're quite right that the existence of a Department of Education has not meant widespread success in education. It doesn't follow that getting rid of it will result in a better situation. I think that oversight is essential. But, I NEVER said that direction from Washington is essential. It's a structure that is already in place and it seems to me a good place for the oversight. Nor did I say (or even HINT) that we should keep going down the same path.
What I said is that I don't trust local school boards to do the TOUGH things. Things like admitting that their local schools are failures .. like telling parents that their children are not ready for the Nth grade .. like telling taxpayers that they're going to need to pay more for the education of the children of their community .. like finding ways to solve these problems.
You say that when a local school board screws up, you can actually do something about it. Really? Well, I suppose that if MY local school board screws up, I can try to vote out someone on the board .. or even run to serve on the board. This might work in a community in which the citizens were educated and appropriately concerned about education. Things aren't so easy in most of the real world. There are many adults who vote for lower school taxes as soon as their children are out of the school system. They don't see the bigger picture. There are many adults who are concerned ONLY with their local school system and don't care if the ones in neighboring communities are failing. They don't see the bigger picture. There are many adults who are not educated themselves and do not have the ability to judge whether their local school system is failing their children or not .. and wouldn't know how to fix things if there was a problem.
How local should education be? County or City based? Entirely? Funding too? If funding is entirely local, then families in rural or poor counties are screwed. If funding is NOT entirely local, then the sources of the external funding have the right to know that their money is being used wisely. The schools need to be accountable. Suppose a local school doesn't have a good teacher of some subject (math, biology, English, French, ... whatever). The solution? Hire one. Well, sure .. if there is one to hire. What if there are not enough math (or whatever) teachers to go around? What if no French teachers want to teach in a small rural community when they can live in a city with more cultural activities? These issues are not easy to solve locally.
Education begins at home .. and in the local community, but it is too big an issue, too important an issue to handle (or at least to handle effectively) entirely at that level.
while I'm here ...
@ncloud: "The only legitimate role of the government is to use law (which is force verbalized) to protect the life and property of the citizens who created it." It is probably clear already, but I disagree. I think that there are MANY issues that fall reasonably in the role of government.
I hear you, and I see what you’re saying, but at the same time you have to wonder what would happen if he were to suddenly change his mind. I mean, if God wants certain things, but the constitution wants something else…how long can the constitution win?
We’re basically banking on him never interpreting God’s will to go against his previously held policies of separation. It’s just not a good position to be in.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 12/17/2007 @ 8:33 pm
It's simple... He never has yet. Rather he has a 100% positive voting record. Get over your yourself, please. This coming from an Atheist, me, secular fundamentalism is just as bad as the religious fundamentalists...
Quit requiring people think like you. Allow them to be who they are. When you finally find one so principled with such high integrity and an unmatched voting record, for the sake of liberty please don't allow your own intolerance to get in the way of my freedom.
Tofu
I liked it so much I just wanted to repost it.
Quit requiring people think like you. Allow them to be who they are. When you finally find one so principled with such high integrity and an unmatched voting record, for the sake of liberty please don’t allow your own intolerance to get in the way of my freedom.
Look at the so called Christian we have in office now. Is it possible to do worse?
Outcome based learning has never worked. Will never work. Is structured to fail and cost a lot of money in the process.
@Tofu and Steve
You consider the non-belief in evolution to be a minor issue that's inconsequential to whether or not someone can be a good president. Going with that I would agree with your statement that I should stop requiring people to think like me as a standard.
But I don't think it's a minor issue. Not at all.
Why is it that nearly every other person in public life that I respect believes in evolution? Why is it that nearly the entire scientific community believes in it? This is not a strange position. It's not special for people to agree with me on this. It's not a litmus test. It's a simple matter of a default for a thinking person in today's world.
In other words, when someone doesn't believe in certain core concepts it shows a MAJOR gap between them and the vast majority of logical people I know and respect. It's not a minor thing. It's not some peripheral opinion that doesn't matter.
You say I shouldn't get in the way of your freedom. I'm saying that you should be careful what you're wishing for because you may find that the things you thought were minor become very major in the future.
Carl M --
I'd love to continue this discussion, but you keep contradicting yourself: "But, I NEVER said that direction from Washington is essential", yet "A candidate who believes that [a central education policy] is ["anti-freedom"] cannot get my vote". If direction from Washington is not essential, why is it that a candidate for president with no education policy will never get your vote? This seems to define essential, at least in terms of choosing presidents.
As for your other points, sure. With no drive from local citizens, schools will suck. Just like now, with a Department of Education. What centralization does is shoehorn successful districts into a single policy and stifle their innovation in exchange for helping failing school districts which then fail to improve. All cost, no benefit. You mention the steps you could take if your local school board goes wrong. What steps could you take if the wrong turn comes from Washington? If you think it's hard to get people to pay for school taxes when there's no alternative, how hard do you think it'll be to convince people to give up the free money from Washington that they'll lose in order to maintain an independent course? How do you resolve the competing values questions that arise when putting so many different functions into one vote? The answer is that you can't resolve it.
Your summary shows you are my polar opposite: education is not too important to keep at the local level, it is too important not to.
Dan --
The rise of creedal science is not a good thing.
@ Captain:
What you claim I said: “A candidate who believes that [a central education policy] is [”anti-freedom”] cannot get my vote”.
What I actually said: "Requiring schools to have high standards and even to teach particular things is NOT anti-freedom. A candidate who believes that it is cannot get my vote." I believe that oversight is critical to the establishment and maintenance of high standards. There are some who believe that taking any education decisions out of local hands is anti-freedom. I disagree with them and cannot support a candidate with those views.
When you put words in my mouth, you can indeed make it appear that I am contradicting myself.
It boils down to this. The education of the children of America is too important to leave entirely in local hands. If we believe in the American Dream, then I believe that it is important to give EVERYONE the opportunity to succeed. I believe that this requires that they have the opportunity to get a solid educational foundation. This is not happening now. (I think this is the one thing we agree on.) If education was left entirely to the local level, some school districts might improve. I think that many would get worse. I believe that a disproportionate number in impoverished areas and areas with parents who have relatively low levels of education (these are mostly the same areas) would find their school systems get worse, not better. So, the American Dream of "If you work hard, you can accomplish anything you put your mind to" would move even more from the ideal of applying to everyone (this is the ideal ... not reality at this point) to applying only to those fortunate enough to be born into an educated and/or relatively wealthy family. This is what I'm worried about. Without outside help, there are many parts of this country that do not have the resources to offer strong educational foundations to their children. And, once again, without oversight I don't trust school districts to make the tough decisions they need to make. It isn't enough that SOME school districts are willing to make them. They ALL must.
For a brief analysis (by a public school teacher who won New York's "Teacher of the Year" award three times) of the government school system, I refer you to John Taylor Gatto's book "The Underground History of American Education" (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm). He retired from teaching after almost 30 years by priting a letter in the Wall Street Journal in which he stated that he no longer wished to hurt children through compulsory government education.
Education is very important. That is why we need to get government out of it. The government forces teachers and student to conform to standers. Conformity kills creativity. History shows the majority of successful people are people who were not willing to conform. Each county should set their own standards and schools should have to compete for students. That would be ideal. However no matter what we can never make every school equal. One last note look how the government runs the DMV and the Post Office. Those are places most people dread to go to.
"Believes" in evolution is appropriate because it's a religious belief. I'm kind of befuddled, Daniel, that you would support someone who has such honest, logical thinking...and when he logically looks at the goop-to-man theory called Darwinian evolution, and honestly pegs it for the nonsense that it is, you suddenly become one of the lemmings who looks at Ron Paul as some sort of extremist. Are you THAT afraid he believes God created man as opposed to chaotic processes creating man?
I'm not a Ron Paul supporter per se, but I am a physician and someone who does not believe in Darwinian evolution. I think God explains origins a lot better than science. I love science but it's often very capricious and sometimes strangely religiously dogmatic.
The entire "scientific community" is composed of leftist academicians. I don't believe there is any sort of conspiracy, but rather a tendency to espouse certain presuppositions or philosophies when interpreting science. While belief in evolution is not a strange position, the other way isn't strange, either. It warms the cockles of my heart to know that up to 50+% of Americans aren't buying what Dr. Leftist Humanist Ph.D. feeds to them vis-a-vis evolution.