More Tales From Teh Tea Party Crazie

This time it's Rand Paul.

Via the Huffingtonpost, we find this from a blog called Barefoot and Progressive:


From Huffingtonpost:

Is Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul a creationist?

Last week, Paul spoke at a conference for the Christian Home Educators of Kentucky at a Louisville church where he dodged a question about the age of the earth and expressed skepticism about faith-based programs.

The first question during the Q&A was from a man who asked a two-part question, including how old Paul believed the world was.

"I forgot to say I was only taking easy questions," Paul joked, adding: "I'm going to pass on the age of the Earth. I'm just going to have to pass."

Barefoot and Progressive tracks down the Christian Home Educators of Kentucky and finds that one of the group's objectives is to:

Protect children from mental physical, emotional, and sexual abuse by secular humanists in a socialist society or governmental system.

Though they never actually get around (as far as I could see) to describing exactly all that means.

Back to Huffington:

Andrew Willis of Elizabethtown, who teaches his four children at home, said he hoped Paul's answer would jive with his own belief that the earth is about 6,000 years old.

"I'm not at all surprised that he didn't want to answer that question," Willis said shortly after posing it. "I know that is hugely controversial."

How is it controversial? Either you accept the science of radiometric dating or you don't. If you don't then the burden is on you to explain how the data points to an Earth 4 billion years old but the truth is something else.

Fun fact about Rand Paul. He was named after Ayn Rand. Rand Paul is pro-life.

Ayn Rand was not. From the Ayn Rand lexicon:

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

Now that's a surprise, isn't it?