Is Canada's Science Minister a creationalist?

ToadBrother · March 19, 2009

He c;ear;y has no gras[p of the mechanics of evolution.

The mechanics? He clearly doesn't even know what biological evolution is in general terms. I mean, my daughter knows more about evolution from a grade 11 biology class than this turkey does. It goes to show Harper's contempt for science that such an intellectual midget was put in charge of science funding.

benny · March 19, 2009

If he gave funding to the Big Valley Creation Science Museum, I would share your opinion. But he hasn't. He made cuts as he was required to do and people who had their funding cut are unhappy. I somehow doubt any of the funding cuts had to do with studies trying to prove evolution. If they did, good. That was proven long ago and there's no need for further study.
Let's look at what was cut before we nail him to a cross. Anyone know if he cut or chose not to cut stem cell research?

I think it’s important to see clearly that all that life science is doing start with some kind of artificial selection. From there, that natural selection may become an endangered process should be studied and discuss publicly. The uneasiness Goodyear has shown about expressing publicly his point of view on evolution signals to me an incapacity for making important decisions.

Visionseeker · March 19, 2009

God is nature . Nature is science and this science proves the existance of God and shows clearly natural life sustaining law.

God is fiction. Nature is the present and science provides us with the ability to understand how the presnet come about as well as some indication as to where it is going. No science supports the existence of god and law is simply a product of nature.

Visionseeker · March 19, 2009

Dog is God spelled backwards.

LOL!

Visionseeker · March 19, 2009

I don't trust devout people from any religion. But at least I'm not two-faced about it. Those Muslims you talk about being okay with don't probably believe in evolution either. Science is virtually dead in the Muslim world. The largest subject studied in every Muslim university is Islam. Do we get to question them on their religious beliefs before an appointment? Or should we just ban them from running for office?

Yet the Islamic world once gave us many innovations - particularly in the areas of mathematics and navigation - only to become insular and anti-scientific. What might explain this transformation?

Visionseeker · March 19, 2009

So then no minister in any governments cabinat has had any credibility?

Hey, he might be on to something!

ToadBrother · March 19, 2009

Yet the Islamic world once gave us many innovations - particularly in the areas of mathematics and navigation - only to become insular and anti-scientific. What might explain this transformation?

There are a number of competing theories, and there is no single answer. I'm sure such horrific events as the sacking of Baghdad marked the decline. I suspect the real answer is much simpler; once the Portugese demonstrated you could sail around Africa and access India and the Orient directly, the traditional trade routes that had made such major powers as Byzantium, the Ottomans and the Persians/Iranians so spectacularly rich faltered. Anatolia and Asia Minor, once the corridor of unimaginable wealth simply dried up. The Ottomans fought damned hard to keep their foothold in Europe, but with restive populations (helped along, of course, by the Great Powers), they too finally faltered.

Remember one thing, no matter what any historical event *seems* to be about, it is almost inevitably a matter of economics. Supporting a civilization that produces mathematicians, astronomers, medical researchers, philosophers, artists, artisans and so forth is very expensive, and an economic collapse essentially means the loss of these groups of people. It happened in Rome, as well, though more to do with the constant debasement of the coinage to fund the massive army expenditures that kept the Empire together. It was a sad testament to the final century of the Western Empire that an Emperor would have to basically rob older monuments to cobble together his own because no artisans could be found.

noahbody · March 19, 2009

The uneasiness Goodyear has shown about expressing publicly his point of view on evolution signals to me an incapacity for making important decisions.

He's already made important decisions. Judge him on those.

Ironically, you've made up your mind on some 'signal' or personal belief. Not very scientific.

benny · March 19, 2009

God is fiction. Nature is the present and science provides us with the ability to understand how the presnet come about as well as some indication as to where it is going. No science supports the existence of god and law is simply a product of nature.

God is the most typical event (but you won’t notice it if you don’t have faith) in a material world which is almost always only in a virtual state.

benny · March 19, 2009

He's already made important decisions. Judge him on those.
Ironically, you've made up your mind on some 'signal' or personal belief. Not very scientific.

I’m not naïve about science, I consider scientists much like artists, lawmakers and priests: they are all playing God’s role.

I think that decision making on the basis of symptoms analysis is how we can avoid the negative outcomes of human hubris.

noahbody · March 19, 2009

I think that decision making on the basis of symptoms analysis is how we can avoid the negative outcomes of human hubris.

I would expect since the Randy White incident that all Tory MPs have been told not to talk about their personal religious beliefs. Have you considered that?

If this is the case, as I'm certain it is, wouldn't you agree that it is a good decision to follow your boss's orders?

benny · March 19, 2009

I would expect since the Randy White incident that all Tory MPs have been told not to talk about their personal religious beliefs. Have you considered that?
If this is the case, as I'm certain it is, wouldn't you agree that it is a good decision to follow your boss's orders?

In psychoanalysis, a symptom is a slip one is committing when s/he tries too hard to follow the rules.

Visionseeker · March 19, 2009

There are a number of competing theories, and there is no single answer. I'm sure such horrific events as the sacking of Baghdad marked the decline. I suspect the real answer is much simpler; once the Portugese demonstrated you could sail around Africa and access India and the Orient directly, the traditional trade routes that had made such major powers as Byzantium, the Ottomans and the Persians/Iranians so spectacularly rich faltered. Anatolia and Asia Minor, once the corridor of unimaginable wealth simply dried up. The Ottomans fought damned hard to keep their foothold in Europe, but with restive populations (helped along, of course, by the Great Powers), they too finally faltered.
Remember one thing, no matter what any historical event *seems* to be about, it is almost inevitably a matter of economics. Supporting a civilization that produces mathematicians, astronomers, medical researchers, philosophers, artists, artisans and so forth is very expensive, and an economic collapse essentially means the loss of these groups of people. It happened in Rome, as well, though more to do with the constant debasement of the coinage to fund the massive army expenditures that kept the Empire together. It was a sad testament to the final century of the Western Empire that an Emperor would have to basically rob older monuments to cobble together his own because no artisans could be found.

Hats off to you ToadBrother! For you pretty much nailed it. Except that you forgot to mention that the economic decline in Islam inspired a religious movement that spurned economic development and demanded adherence to an increasingly restrictive interpretation of scripture. Sound familiar?

benny · March 19, 2009

Hats off to you ToadBrother! For you pretty much nailed it. Except that you forgot to mention that the economic decline in Islam inspired a religious movement that spurned economic development and demanded adherence to an increasingly restrictive interpretation of scripture. Sound familiar?

Economic determinism is part of materialism. Science with its virtual strings is fast turning anti-materialist.

M.Dancer · March 19, 2009

Np doubt science can be po;itical. Marxist meddling made be moscow set soviet science back decades, particulary in biology.

DrGreenthumb · March 19, 2009

I would expect since the Randy White incident that all Tory MPs have been told not to talk about their personal religious beliefs. Have you considered that?
If this is the case, as I'm certain it is, wouldn't you agree that it is a good decision to follow your boss's orders?

Oh brother Randy White is probably the designer of Harper's new drug laws. Randy is probably the dumbest prohibitionist bible thumper in prohibitionist bible-thumper land.

If the science minister had come out and said he believed in unicorns, and elves, and a flat earth conservative hacks like Alta4ever and blueblood would still be defending him as a choice to be in charge of our science dept.

Drea · March 19, 2009

Oh brother Randy White is probably the designer of Harper's new drug laws. Randy is probably the dumbest prohibitionist bible thumper in prohibitionist bible-thumper land.

:lol:

How true.

Religious beliefs always need to be taken into consideration in my opinion. If the man believes that the world was created 6000 years ago, he is obviously the wrong person for the job.

If a person said "Zero does not exist, there is no such thing as zero because zero is nothing, the only true numbers are 1 through 9" -- should that person be hired to manage the finances?

ToadBrother · March 19, 2009

Economic determinism is part of materialism. Science with its virtual strings is fast turning anti-materialist.

Um, what precisely about string theory is anti-materialist? I'll give you that, at the moment, we can't really test the existence of the damned things, and thus, it remains somewhat beyond the fringe of science, but they are mathematical models that do describe a universe. Just maybe not ours.

eyeball · March 19, 2009

How true.

Religious beliefs always need to be taken into consideration in my opinion. If the man believes that the world was created 6000 years ago, he is obviously the wrong person for the job.

If a person said "Zero does not exist, there is no such thing as zero because zero is nothing, the only true numbers are 1 through 9" -- should that person be hired to manage the finances?

Why not? Economists don't seem to believe the environment exists or if it does its not in their department.

benny · March 19, 2009

Um, what precisely about string theory is anti-materialist? I'll give you that, at the moment, we can't really test the existence of the damned things, and thus, it remains somewhat beyond the fringe of science, but they are mathematical models that do describe a universe. Just maybe not ours.

My understanding is that the subjectivity of quantum physicists is determining the objectivity of what they are studying.

eyeball · March 19, 2009

My understanding is that the subjectivity of quantum physicists is determining the objectivity of what they are studying.

What about the morality of what they're studying is even that subjective?

Oh the reality.

Alta4ever · March 19, 2009

How true.

Religious beliefs always need to be taken into consideration in my opinion. If the man believes that the world was created 6000 years ago, he is obviously the wrong person for the job.

Mr. Goodyear actually never said that it was the journalist that suggested that was his beleif.

Edited March 19, 2009 by Alta4ever

benny · March 19, 2009

What about the morality of what they're studying is even that subjective?
Oh the reality.

Following Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Adorno, I would say morality is "transcendental" subjectivity. What it means is that morally is dedication to repeat endlessly what has the appearance of your destiny.

eyeball · March 19, 2009

Following Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Adorno, I would say morality is "transcendental" subjectivity. What it means is that morally is dedication to repeat endlessly what has the appearance of your destiny.

Let me guess, you're a librarian right?