What a wonderful response to a baiting question. The fact of the matter is, the question of evolution is not central in any way to the proper and constitutional obligations and duties of the President of the United States. As a second year law student, with a limited comprehension of constitutional law, I have noticed that the constitution only mandates that the president, and all officers of the government take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Why is a man's religion, or lack thereof, an issue to browbeat him. You should be ashamed of your attempt to establish an extraconstitutional litmus test.

Yeah, this is pretty weak but last time I checked all the major democratic candidates considered themselves Christian too. A belief in Creationism shouldn't a giant leap of faith when one already believes in a flying omnipotent Hebrew wizard, a meany devil w/ horns, etc.

We have entered into a time when religious ideology, law, and politics have sadly become synthesized; it is naive to believe that this does not go on, or that it does not effect one's ability to reason on their feet, as our current administration admittedly consults an empirically unverifiable deity every morning, in a round table, where the constituents hold hands, in a circle.

Regarding evolution, which is as much a principle of science as the germ theory of disease; for a candidate to not believe in it, is a testament to their level of education. This assertion has caused me to not even consider voting for Ron Paul, or even voting at all, in the next election.

Whether Ron Paul believes in evolution is not a religious litmus test, it's a test of his sanity. Not believing in evolution is like not believing that we landed on the moon. Or not believing that the earth is spherical. Someone who is not capable of understanding that should NOT be elected to be in charge of anything, much less President of the United States.

Evolution is a scientific fact. Try opening a text book on molecular biology. I recommend Lodish 6th edition.

Evolution, just for the record, is a scientific "theory," and does not even come close to being a "fact." It is by far the best way of explaining - or, more precisely: describing - what happened.

Please explain to us what aspect of being president will be impacted positively or negatively upon whether he believes we evolved or not? And here's a hint: the answer has already been posted in the comments here.

And in regards to the post and comments -- for someone to say that this indicates level of education and that they won't vote for him because of it, is unbelievable. What a sad, sad way to measure presidential ability. No wonder the country is so screwed up.

Tests of sanity have cultural biases.
He believs in the market as a converging factor pushing development into the future. Scientific knowledge of the universe seems to imply that intellectual life is an inevitability. What is time? Paul believes in life. What's the difference between that and evolution?
The theory of evolution requires supplying meaning to the arbitrary groupings of matter at at given time instances. So when he is saying that he doesn't believe in evolution he means that he doesn't conform to the paradigm that that doesn't view morality as a moral end to the universe.
Crazy? maybe..
Better than saying that "we" started as bacteria, become monkeys and are now humans? Possibly.

This is pretty lame. Ron Paul is fighting for your INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY and your right to believe whatever the heck you want to believe. And as long as you don't try to force or impose that belief on unwilling people, then that's fine. Calling him nuts over his personal beliefs? Please. The man is sane enough to understand the core concept of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY and the rights that this affords. In America, we were once free to think and believe what we wanted - no matter how outrageous. Dr. Paul knows that you can't legislate morality or belief systems via the government. That is preposterous and flies in the face of what a free and open society is all about. What he thinks in private is his business and what you think in private is yours. And he is not going to tell you what you "should" think. And he knows that the gov't shouldn't tell you what to think either. He gets it - I just hope you do before it's too late! Remember what Jefferson said: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

Evolution is a theory. Even scientific laws are really just very very well observed theory and are subject to change upon further testing and observations. That is because they are scientific, not religious. Although it seams the line between the two is blurred for many creationists and evolutionists.

check your facts freewill. he doesnt want to ban abortion. he simply believes it is an issue that shouldnt be dictated by the federal government, and wants to leave it up to each state.

pretty damn different from what you claimed.

Not only this, can we agree that that crazy succubus Hillary already has the dems nomination cinched. Paul is THE ONLY republican who can beat her.

I just lost a lot of respect for this blog

As Doctor Phil would say: " you are an idiot!".
What would happen if Ron Paul stated that he use to believe in Santa Clause when he was a boy? Let me guess, he doesn't qualify for the presidency?! This is along the same lines as Billary using Barak's childhood as a weapon to discredit him. Nice try, but the THEORY of evolution isn't as important as the REALITY of free speach.

Does anyone commenting on this video understand what a Scientific Theory is? It's something heavily supported by facts, a completely PROVEN idea. Theories merely leave open the possibility of new ideas to be added to the idea. This is much different than our everyday usage of the word "theory", which suggests something akin to a "guess".

You know, it's still called the Theory of Relativity, but without it we wouldn't have satellite communications or many other modern day necessities. I don't see any Creationists balking at the idea of satellites in orbit.

I find it admirable that Ron Paul is a strong enough man to stand up for what he believes in, even in the face of adversity. Any person that can stand in front of any crowd and state that they believe in God and creationism instead of what 'man' has stated is so in a textbook as the facts is very brave. It should be lauded as commendable and certainly not insane. Also, no person should be judged as sane or insane on their religious or nonreligious beliefs. In fact, no one should be judged.

Jesus Christ... This is disappointing. I can stomach a lot of Pauls more extreme viewpoints because ultimately his vision of government will be forced on us anyway due to the destruction of the currency, government insolvency peak oil etc... but I have a STRONG distaste for religious fundamentalism and I think it's dangerous, and just ignorant. Evolution is not a theory in the way these jeebus fundies think. They (and here Paul) make it as though it was just some wild marijuana inspired speculation that some morally craven pinkohomo came up with slouching in his lz boy.

Paul is playing a dangerous game putting his religious beliefs ahead of facts. What a bummer!

In his defense, RP does end the statement by saying "if that was the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office."

Benjamin, understanding the intellectual qualifications of someone who will have authority to launch nuclear weapons is - I would argue - ESSENTIAL to your vote. Where in the constitution is that discussed?

Someone who cannot comprehend scientific discourse simply should not be allowed anywhere near the US Presidency. Again. We cannot afford it. We are talking about survival as a species here.

Ron Paul is a doctor. You don't think he understands scientific discourse?