Ron Paul For President in 2008

[Final-Fan]

A transcription of the gist of the question, and his complete answer: 

Q. "All of the candidates were asked if they believed the theory of evolution to be true, and [muttering] I need to see [muttering] do you think it to be true, or should it be false?

A. "Well, first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided upon a scientific matter. And, uh, I think it’s a theory -- the theory of evolution -- and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory.  And it really doesn't bother me, it's not the most important issue for me to make a difference in my life to understand the exact origin.  I think the creator that I know, you know, created us, each and every one of us and created the universe, and the precise time and manner and uh, and all, I just don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side.  So I just don't, ah, 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 [opinions?] -- if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office."

1.  He doesn't like being called upon as a Presidential candidate to proclaim his agreement or disagreement with scientific consensus.  OK. 

2.  He rejects the theory of evolution.  Nice and direct, I respect that.

3.  "The exact origin", "the precise time and manner" of the origin of the universe and life is not important in his life.  Wait, wait, wait!  What does this have to do with evolution?  The origin of life and its evolution are two entirely different things, let alone the origin of the universe!  Even if God did create life, that doesn't preclude the possibility that God chose to create single-celled organisms hundreds of millions of years ago, instead of Adam and StEve six thousand years ago (or whatever Ron Paul believes, if not that). 

4.  Nobody has absolute proof on either side.  Well, I do wonder what he would consider absolute proof, considering that at this point evolution is so intertwined with various fields of natural science that if it were wrong in a major way almost that whole body of scientific knowledge would come crashing down.  [edit:  And also considering that evolution has been scientifically observed as a phenomenon in real life situations.  Although he did say that he rejects the theory, which could possibly mean he accepts the observable fact but rejects that it validates the theory.]

5.  He thinks it's a theological discussion.  No.  No, actually, it's not.  He said himself that it was a scientific matter just a minute ago.  If anyone thinks it's a theological discussion, it's because the science conflicts with his theology. 

Honestly, though, Ron Paul's beliefs on evolution aren't really extraordinary at all compared to his Republican opponents, and they're not at all what I'm most worried about in him.