Apparently Dr. Ron Paul doesn't accept the theory of evolution. Boo.
http://www.reason.tv/roughcut/show/215.html

This is not as bad as it would be for other candidates (Huckabee, for example), as Dr Paul is unlikely to establish any federal "faith-based" agencies, or dictate via the Department of Education how science should be taught in classrooms, etc. However, it's unfortunate that he turns out to be anti-intellectual regarding science.

It's true, as he says, that it's not the case that "anybody has absolute proof", however, science isn't based on absolute proof. That's a bad standard. Science is based on the best theory available at the time. An idea is considered "scientific" only if it is possible to disprove it. Science as a discipline seeks better and better explanations for physical phenomena over time, revising and discarding theories as necessary. A religion already has a set explanation of the universe and revises or discards facts to fit that explanation. Truly, if the universe is God's creation, then studying that creation scientifically is a way to better know "the mind of God" and poses no threat to religion. It may pose a threat to particular dogmas or political power structures, but not to religion itself.

It would have been nice for Dr. Paul to have given an explanation like the above, perhaps even mentioning that the Vatican recognizes evolution, rather than saying "I don't accept it" and giving a muddled endorsement of Creationism.