Is Canada's Science Minister a creationalist?

[benny]

Freud is here in my living room. He would like you to explain how Goodyear's agnostic response in which his words appear to be carefully chosen could be characterized as a slip or a symptom from a Creationist. Can you not see that they could be a political response from a politician?

I doubt someone eager to choose the best politicians as MPs would react to way you do here.

[WIP]

That position I cannot support. There are many religious people who believe in evolution. There is nothing that says that one cannot believe in science and God at the same time.

People are free to put together whatever they feel like believing in, but one place where I would draw the line is that you can't call yourself a fundamentalist Christian, who believes the Bible is inerrant and also believe in the theory of evolution for a number of reasons....let's see:

according to the sciences of geology and paleontology, the history of life on earth has been a gradual unfolding of naturalistic processes. Animals evolve through a combination of random genetic mutation and the forces of natural selection. There are periods where animal and plant life seems to flourish and diversify, followed by periods of mass extinction where many species are wiped out, without any signs of divine intervention. Evolution is a slow, wasteful process that doesn't seem in keeping with some sort of deliberate design or purpose. Why would a creator create entire ecosystems, to only let them be destroyed by natural forces of volcanism and asteroid impacts?

if the Genesis creation story is allegory instead of literal, the whole doctrine of Sin and death entering the world because of the Fall of Man goes right off the rails because the human race being part of a continuum of life that differentiated because of forces of natural selection, also means that the human race is not a unique creation that began with two people - Adam and Eve. They have to be the literal forebears of the entire human race before the Fall could be understood as a literal event in human history, and the reason for evil and death entering the world.

An acceptance of evolution also means that some other stories, such as a literal global flood, have to be abandoned for the same reason, since there is no geological evidence for a global deluge or a divergence of present day humans and animals from ancestors who lived 4000 years ago, and went on a boat ride for 40 days and 40 nights while the earth was flooded. Religious people can combine evolution -- but it cannot be combined with biblical literalism, and that's why Stephen Harper and his fellow fundies are going to drag it out to the bitter end!

[WIP]

I doubt that he's a creationist.

Even if he's not, he should be able to come right out and state his opinions on his philosophy of science, since applying for the job in charge of the government's scientific policy-making. His claim that no one has the right to ask about his religious beliefs is garbage. Anyone who's in public office should be required to explain all of their beliefs since so many people use their religious traditions to inform their opinions about science and social issues.

Far more troubling is that Harper would make a quack the Minister of Science and Technology. Check out these sites for chiroquackery:

http://www.quackwatch.org/

http://www.chirobase.org/

Creationist or not, why is this quack charged with the task of reducing funding to world-class scientists?

Why not have a Science Minister whose professaion is evidence-based rather than belief-based?

That is the most disturbing part of this story since chiropractic draws its notions of healing from vitalism, and manipulating the spine is supposed to manipulate our lifeforce energy. Many chiropractors also oppose vaccination and water fluoridation policies. Has Goodyear been asked where he stands on these issues?

[Argus]

When asked about his views on evolution, he answered by saying:

"I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate."

Explain please with some context how a question about evolution could ellicit that answer.

Are you seriously going to suggest that he wasn't asked that question specifically because of his religion? You're not that stupid. Asking him about evolution was clearly probing him about his religious beliefs in hopes of working up a mocking story about them.

Edited March 20, 2009 by Argus

[Oleg Bach]

Are you seriously going to suggest that he wasn't asked that question specifically because of his religion? You're not that stupid.

Of course he was asked that question because they suspected what his answer might be and they wanted to embarass him. There was nothing useful or constructive about the question - It was simply mean spirited - what else would motivate the question of creation..? How does this question serve the public -----Are the secularists and the half baked social engineers who are atheistic running about trying to convince the nation that those that believe in God are stupid and THEY are so very very smart? Can't be that smart - it was a dumb and irrelevant question..It had nothing to do with science and I am sure the science minister passed his high school chemistry exam...so lets drop this foolishness.

[eyeball]

I would suggest Gary Goodyear couldn't wait for someone to push his religous button.

He couldn't get it out on the table fast enough. His answer could have just as easily been, "Yes I'm a Christian. What's it to you"?

OTOH its possible he was more worried about being ridiculed for being a chiropractor and the whole creationism/evolution uproar is just a red albeit big herring.

[Oleg Bach]

I would suggest Gary Goodyear couldn't wait for someone to push his religous button.

He couldn't get it out on the table fast enough. His answer could have just as easily been, "Yes I'm a Christian. What's it to you"?

OTOH its possible he was more worried about being ridiculed for being a chiropractor and the whole creationism/evolution uproar is just a red albeit big herring.

Christianity is new testimonial scripture - Creation is old testimonial writing - there are not connected what so ever? There is no mention of the Creation story in the NT.

[Drea]

This is for another thread but.....I depend on Chiropractic care because it works. It's not "quackery"

I used to have hand pain... a stupid GP looked at me and said "you have arthritis, take this pill". As I dislike being "woozy" all the time, I refused the pills. I then went to my Chiro and I no longer have hand pain at all. The pain was caused from my elbows being "out".

But noooooo... it's so much better to just mask the symptom by prescribing some stupid pill right?

Back to the topic...

WIP is correct, one cannot believe in "original sin" (the entire reason for the apparent existence of Jesus as the Christ) and believe in evolution.

If you believe in evolution... you are not a Christian. Accept it. Breathe deeply and move on, you'll be okay. LOL

If you do not believe in "original sin" why do you need Jesus to forgive and save you?

Edited March 20, 2009 by Drea

[Alta4ever]

Back to the topic...

WIP is correct, one cannot believe in "original sin" (the entire reason for the apparent existence of Jesus as the Christ) and believe in evolution.

If you believe in evolution... you are not a Christian. Accept it. Breathe deeply and move on, you'll be okay. LOL

If you do not believe in "original sin" why do you need Jesus to forgive and save you?

So lets get this straight you are smart and the masses of people who beleive in god are stupid. Got it

[ToadBrother]

So how did we get here on earth if you don't believe God created Adam and then Eve from his rib?

Do you NOT believe (as a Christian you should really) that god created the heavens, the earth etc....?

Any Christian I have ever met is certain, absolutley certain that god created this in it's entirety. One said to me one time (I laughed) "Do you think if you put all the parts of a car in a whirlwind that it would randomly create itself into a car?"

She ain't no "evangelical" either, just your run-of-the-mill "Christian" who smokes and drinks and goes to church at Christmas and Easter.

Then you've been hanging around a very narrow set of Christians. Catholicism has never insisted on literal interpretations of Genesis, never. I've already quoted St. Augustine twice now, and he was writing in the 5th century AD.

[ToadBrother]

So you'd be in favour of questioning every potential cabinet minister on their personal religious beliefs, and then rejecting them from cabinet based on what you like or don't like about their religion? Is that seriously what you propose?

Or is only when they're Tory cabinet ministers?

I don't think that's practical or even desirable. However, when a cabinet minister reveals that he or she holds opinions (religious or otherwise) that are so in opposition to his portfolio, they should be removed. I, like Elizabeth I, don't want windows on men's souls, but if men are foolish enough to reveal things of this nature, then they are going to be judged on it.

[Alta4ever]

I don't think that's practical or even desirable. However, when a cabinet minister reveals that he or she holds opinions (religious or otherwise) that are so in opposition to his portfolio, they should be removed. I, like Elizabeth I, don't want windows on men's souls, but if men are foolish enough to reveal things of this nature, then they are going to be judged on it.

MR. goodyear has never stated that he doesn't beleive in science, the creationsit suggestion was added by the author of the story not by Mr. goodyear. This has been one big smear.

[ToadBrother]

MR. goodyear has never stated that he doesn't beleive in science, the creationsit suggestion was added by the author of the story not by Mr. goodyear. This has been one big smear.

I think the Creationist "suggestion" is a reasonable one, considering he seemed to think the question was religious in nature. That's pretty much the default position of Creationists. His attempts to clarify further demonstrated he actually doesn't know what biological evolution is; pointing to acceptance of a very common fallacy that evolution is something that happens to individuals, when, in fact, evolution is something that happens to populations.

At any rate, you've already been assaulting science on your own, bringing up bizarre and ignorant statements about carbon dating. It's amusing to see his defenders switch from "Nothing wrong with Creationism" to "He's not a Creationist".

[Alta4ever]

I think the Creationist "suggestion" is a reasonable one

Yet it has not been proven. It is a smear.

[ToadBrother]

Yet it has not been proven. It is a smear.

It's interesting you cut out the bit where I justify it. No, I can't see 100% that he is a Creationist. I can, however, suggest that there's a high probability that he is, and what's more, I'm 100% sure that he doesn't, in fact, know what biological evolution is, as the examples he gave in his clarification are not examples of biological evolution.

[Alta4ever]

It's interesting you cut out the bit where I justify it. No, I can't see 100% that he is a Creationist. I can, however, suggest that there's a high probability that he is, and what's more, I'm 100% sure that he doesn't, in fact, know what biological evolution is, as the examples he gave in his clarification are not examples of biological evolution.

So you are smearing him, becuase you have no facts. Until you post something that shows he is incabaple of the job you are smearing this man.

[DrGreenthumb]

This is for another thread but.....I depend on Chiropractic care because it works. It's not "quackery"

I used to have hand pain... a stupid GP looked at me and said "you have arthritis, take this pill". As I dislike being "woozy" all the time, I refused the pills. I then went to my Chiro and I no longer have hand pain at all. The pain was caused from my elbows being "out".

But noooooo... it's so much better to just mask the symptom by prescribing some stupid pill right?

Back to the topic...

WIP is correct, one cannot believe in "original sin" (the entire reason for the apparent existence of Jesus as the Christ) and believe in evolution.

If you believe in evolution... you are not a Christian. Accept it. Breathe deeply and move on, you'll be okay. LOL

If you do not believe in "original sin" why do you need Jesus to forgive and save you?

I have to agree that chiropractic works. I have 3 compression fractures in my back, and having the odd adjustment from a chiropractor does a lot more for my pain than any pill has ever accomplished. Also it does not cause my insides to bleed like tylenol does. I don't believe any spiritual crap has anything to do with it, it is simply a musco-skeletal adjustment to put the spine in proper alignment. I would suggest that most chiropractors understand that. The chiro I see certainly doesn't believe in superstitious reasons for chiropracting. Also why write off accupuncture? Accupuncture has been used for centuries to relieve pain, and to do other things as well. Just because it is not some pill that makes pharma companies a lot of money is no reason to ridicule the practice.

Being a Christian does not preclude one from believing in evolution, only a literal intrepretation of the bible would do that, and I do not believe that the bible is meant to be taken literally. I actually believe that a lot of what is in the bible has been heavily edited to make it a more effective as a tool of societal control. But then again I consider myself spiritual, not religious. I do not accept everything religious people tell me about God, or Christ, I have a personal relationship with my creator, and I do not need the bible, or a priest's interpretation of it, to believe that life goes on after death of the body, and that the Father loves and accepts all who accept Him.

The only reason Mr Goodyear is inappropriate for science minister is because he thinks that belief in evolution is a religious question. His religion should have no bearing on his acceptance of scientific theories, and from his answer we can plainly see that it does.

[benny]

It's interesting you cut out the bit where I justify it. No, I can't see 100% that he is a Creationist. I can, however, suggest that there's a high probability that he is, and what's more, I'm 100% sure that he doesn't, in fact, know what biological evolution is, as the examples he gave in his clarification are not examples of biological evolution.

What nobody (including Goodyear himself) seems to understand here is that being a creationist and wanting to believe in the literal words of the Bible are two very different things. I think that wanting to believe in the literal words of the Bible means only that one's believe he doesn't need the mediation of a living community or of a superior authority to benefit from the Bible.

Edited March 20, 2009 by benny

[ToadBrother]

So you are smearing him, becuase you have no facts. Until you post something that shows he is incabaple of the job you are smearing this man.

Smearing him? His examples of the evolution he accepts are not examples of biological evolution. Look, if you have a problem with what he says, take it up with him.

[Oleg Bach]

Smearing him? His examples of the evolution he accepts are not examples of biological evolution. Look, if you have a problem with what he says, take it up with him.

The ministers job will be to toss bones to the egg head acedemics who want to do USEFUL research. He will be a person to okays the funding - correct? So what's the big deal if he thinks the big bang was generated by God? It really does not matter much who created the universe or if it was an accident..seems that those that believe it was an accident are about as sharp as those monkey men that find a Swiss watch in the sand and say it created itself.

[guyser]

Guyser

He wasnt asked if he was a creationist

...and your reply is....

Show me were he was asked if he was a creationist.

I seem to recall he was asked what his veiws on evolution were.

Huh?

[benny]

If Goodyear would have acted like the Christian he said he was, he would have accepted to be humiliated by taking on his shoulders all the good and bad sides of the journalists.

[Oleg Bach]

If Goodyear would have acted like the Christian he said he was, he would have accepted to be humiliated by taking on his shoulders all the good and bad sides of the journalists.

Yah just like the nominal Christian Bushites - they should have forgiven the terrorists and turned the other cheek ONCE then threatened to nuke all suspects - Your point is well taken about taking a bit of humiliation - it passes and it's wise to go with the flow rather than war it out. Christianity is supposed to be a state of mind that is ultimately pragmatic not ego centric....pride got the best of him.

[bjre]

I don't think it is important whether he is creationist or chiropractor.

The important thing is the government should not cut the budget on science and education.

In 1975 Canada was a G7 nation, now Britain consider Canada as a 2nd rate country.

I think that is the failure of Canada's education.

You can not see the effect of education and R&D immediately.

It will take long time for you to see it.

Canada's annul patent application number is much lower than Japan, China, and Korea, that is a result of incorrect policy on education and science and technology.

Now if the government cut budget on these important area, it will make Canada's future worse.

I think it is better for the government cut CAS and jails.

[benny]

I don't think it is important whether he is creationist or chiropractor.

The important thing is the government should not cut the budget on science and education.

In 1975 Canada was a G7 nation, now Britain consider Canada as a 2nd rate country.

I think that is the failure of Canada's education.

You can not see the effect of education and R&D immediately.

It will take long time for you to see it.

Canada's annul patent application number is much lower than Japan, China, and Korea, that is a result of incorrect policy on education and science and technology.

Now if the government cut budget on these important area, it will make Canada's future worse.

I think it is better for the government cut CAS and jails.

Arguably, Japan was more happy and prosperous when it was only copying US innovations than today with its huge investments in R&D.

Edited March 20, 2009 by benny