Ron Paul on Creation and Evolution

SpyridonOCA · Dec 19, 2007

2007.11.01 Ron Paul Spartanburg GOP Executive Meeting Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q&eurl=http://forums.netphoria.org/showthread.php?t=154114

Dr. Paul does not believe in evolution, but neither does he believe that it is the responsibility of the federal government to sanction creationism in the classroom. Rather, he believes that, under the 10th Amendment, state and local governments have the right to determine their own curriculums.

MacCoyle · Dec 19, 2007

I dont think it really matters, he would press any Creationist stuff in office.

Gravel or Paul for president!

SpyridonOCA · Dec 19, 2007

We need a president who will restore power to the individual states and to the people. Big government needs to get out of our schools and out of our lives.

Lucretius · Dec 19, 2007

Yeah thats a good idea.. let states decide curricula. Worked out so well for Kansas.

SpyridonOCA · Dec 19, 2007

Lucretius said:
Yeah thats a good idea.. let states decide curricula. Worked out so well for Kansas.

Please elaborate.

français · Dec 19, 2007

We need states to teach accurate information. Creationism is not accurate!

SpyridonOCA · Dec 19, 2007

français;41745634 said:
We need states to teach accurate information. Creationism is not accurate!

If we were to follow the Constitution, the federal government wouldn't have the right to tell local schools whether creationism is accurate. If you have a problem with the teaching of creationism, take it up with your local school board.

MacCoyle · Dec 19, 2007

SpyridonOCA said:
If we were to follow the Constitution, the federal government wouldn't have the right to tell local schools whether creationism is accurate. If you have a problem with the teaching of creationism, take it up with your local school board.

But, there is also the Establishment clause. The Supreme court should decide which amendment this should go under.

Lucretius · Dec 19, 2007

SpyridonOCA said:
Please elaborate.

Heh, I was being sarcastic. Kansas wanted to teach Creationism.

AtheistPerson · Dec 19, 2007

States rights? Sounds like a confederation... WOOOH!

MacCoyle · Dec 19, 2007

AtheistPerson said:
States rights? Sounds like a confederation... WOOOH!

The Confederates were against states rights for Northern States. They wanted bigger government when it came to slavery issues. They were not for states rights.

français · Dec 19, 2007

SpyridonOCA said:
If we were to follow the Constitution, the federal government wouldn't have the right to tell local schools whether creationism is accurate. If you have a problem with the teaching of creationism, take it up with your local school board.

Correct me if I am wrong, but did not the constitution of USA once have slavery in it?

If we let schools teach whatever they want, then how can we have a prestigious school system when schools are not teaching the same curriculum?

SpyridonOCA · Dec 19, 2007

MacCoyle said:
But, there is also the Establishment clause. The Supreme court should decide which amendment this should go under.

The Supreme Court doesn't create the law, the legislative branch does. The establishment clause states that Congress shall make no establishment of religion (a state church), not that alternatives to evolution can't be taught in public schools.

MacCoyle · Dec 19, 2007

SpyridonOCA said:
The Supreme Court doesn't create the law, the legislative branch does. The establishment clause states that Congress shall make no establishment of religion (a state church), not that alternatives to evolution can't be taught in public schools.

You are missing the point. The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and what is not.

SpyridonOCA · Dec 19, 2007

MacCoyle said:
You are missing the point. The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and what is not.

Maybe activists judges who hold little respect for the original intent of the framers.

The Nihilist · Dec 19, 2007

SpyridonOCA said:
The Supreme Court doesn't create the law, the legislative branch does. The establishment clause states that Congress shall make no establishment of religion (a state church), not that alternatives to evolution can't be taught in public schools.

Let me introduce you to my friend, the Fourteenth Amendment. It extends a citizen's protections from the federal government to include state and local governments as well. You might want to update your copy of the constitution to include it. Because the teaching of Intelligent Design serves no secular purpose, it violates the Lemon Test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test), and therefore, under the 1st Amendment, is illegal via the 14th Amendment.

KhlulHloo · Dec 20, 2007

SpyridonOCA said:
Maybe activists judges ....

Activist Judges=Judges one doesn't agree with.
Happens to coincide on both sides of the Lib/Con fence.

Mortals are so predictable :sigh:

SpyridonOCA · Dec 20, 2007

RecoveringPhilosopher said:
Let me introduce you to my friend, the Fourteenth Amendment. It extends a citizen's protections from the federal government to include state and local governments as well. You might want to update your copy of the constitution to include it. Because the teaching of Intelligent Design serves no secular purpose, it violates the Lemon Test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test), and therefore, under the 1st Amendment, is illegal via the 14th Amendment.

Again, the teaching of alternatives to evolution does not violate the establishment clause, which prevents Congress from forming a state church. Presenting evidence against evolution, if such evidence does exist, would not constitute the establishment of a state church.

The Nihilist · Dec 20, 2007

SpyridonOCA said:
Again, the teaching of alternatives to evolution does not violate the establishment clause, which prevents Congress from forming a state church. Presenting evidence against evolution, if such evidence does exist, would not constitute the establishment of a state church.

Oh, granted. Just so we're clear, though, nothing about creationism or so called intelligent design has an applicable secular purpose. If you have any questions about that, see that link to the Lemon Test above.

SpyridonOCA · Dec 20, 2007

RecoveringPhilosopher said:
Oh, granted. Just so we're clear, though, nothing about creationism or so called intelligent design has an applicable secular purpose. If you have any questions about that, see that link to the Lemon Test above.

Presenting evidence against evolution would not require the mention of an intelligent designer.

Ron Paul on Creation and Evolution

Well-Known Member

Non-Partisan

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Atheist/CA-Bloc Québécois/US-Democrat

Well-Known Member

Non-Partisan

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Non-Partisan

Atheist/CA-Bloc Québécois/US-Democrat

Well-Known Member

Non-Partisan

Well-Known Member

Contributor

It's not pronounced Kuh-THOO-loo

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Similar threads