Is Canada's Science Minister a creationalist?

[Alta4ever]

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.

So what, because he doesn't sight the right example of evolution for you, means that he doesn't understand science. Thats a stretch, wait no an excuse to smear.

[noahbody]

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

I challenged your crackerjack analysis because it was flawed. This is a debate forum. What did you expect?

I'm not eager to choose the best positions as MPs, but I do believe in choosing competent MPs as Cabinet Ministers. There is a difference.

Edited March 20, 2009 by noahbody

[ToadBrother]

So what, because he doesn't sight the right example of evolution for you, means that he doesn't understand science. Thats a stretch, wait no an excuse to smear.

The examples he gave, which were in the context of "Of course I accept evolution" are not examples of evolution. Why would he try to show he accepted evolution by giving examples of what are not evolutionary processes? If your mechanic told you "I understand internal combustion engines" and then proceeds to try to prove it with a bicycle and a water wheel, would you think "Yeah, he seems to have that done pretty pat."

[benny]

I challenged your crackerjack analysis because it was flawed. This is a debate forum. What did you expect?

I'm not eager to choose the best positions as MPs, but I do believe in choosing competent MPs as Cabinet Ministers. There is a difference.

To me, Goodyear is not a competent MP because he is not open enough about his difficulties to reconcile science and his religion.

[Alta4ever]

The examples he gave, which were in the context of "Of course I accept evolution" are not examples of evolution. Why would he try to show he accepted evolution by giving examples of what are not evolutionary processes? If your mechanic told you "I understand internal combustion engines" and then proceeds to try to prove it with a bicycle and a water wheel, would you think "Yeah, he seems to have that done pretty pat."

You are arguing symantics, and yet you fail to adress how this means he will do a bad job. It is a smear.

[ToadBrother]

You are arguing symantics, and yet you fail to adress how this means he will do a bad job. It is a smear.

I'm not arguing semantics at all. He said things that heavily suggest he is a) a Creationist and has no understanding of what biological evolution is. And yes, I think having a Creationist as a minister responsible for science funding is a bad idea. You've already conceded that having a Fundamentalist Muslim in a womens' portfolio would be a wrong fit (actually, you seem to think that having them in cabinet at all is bad). You have never bothered to explain how your position actually is different than mine.

[Alta4ever]

I'm not arguing semantics at all. He said things that heavily suggest he is a) a Creationist and has no understanding of what biological evolution is. And yes, I think having a Creationist as a minister responsible for science funding is a bad idea. You've already conceded that having a Fundamentalist Muslim in a womens' portfolio would be a wrong fit (actually, you seem to think that having them in cabinet at all is bad). You have never bothered to explain how your position actually is different than mine.

Again you ahve proven nothing you have just extraplated out you own opinion to suit the smear

[bjre]

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

Today's unhappiness of Japan is more due to economic crisis and US force Japan to raise the JPY exchange rate.

Even US itself unable to win against the powerful interest groups: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...he_big_takeover

After 10 years of unhappiness, Japan's economy is still much larger than Canada, I believe the education and R&D has played a very important role for this.

[ToadBrother]

Again you ahve proven nothing you have just extraplated out you own opinion to suit the smear

Endlessly repeating yourself doesn't really seem to be much help. If he wasn't a Creationist, then why would Goodyear have thought evolution was a religious question? If he was aware of what evolution was, why did not a single example in his "clarification" not describe evolution? What's more, you've already demonstrated your own ignorance of evolution, and of science in general, so it's not as if your defense of the guy seems all that rousing to me.

[Alta4ever]

Endlessly repeating yourself doesn't really seem to be much help. If he wasn't a Creationist, then why would Goodyear have thought evolution was a religious question? If he was aware of what evolution was, why did not a single example in his "clarification" not describe evolution? What's more, you've already demonstrated your own ignorance of evolution, and of science in general, so it's not as if your defense of the guy seems all that rousing to me.

So becuase I am ignorant of all the current research on evolution means I don't beleive in it, that is a rather ignorant comment. Does that mean I don't understand the importance of scintific research, of course not. It is a smear of Mr. Goodyear that you are trying justify with absolutly no facts, just a reporters narrative.

[benny]

Today's unhappiness of Japan is more due to economic crisis and US force Japan to raise the JPY exchange rate.

Even US itself unable to win against the powerful interest groups: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...he_big_takeover

After 10 years of unhappiness, Japan's economy is still much larger than Canada, I believe the education and R&D has played a very important role for this.

To me R&D is a very expensive race in which the winner can only hope to be relatively better off from all the losers for a brief moment.

[Argus]

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

So it's not practical or desirable, but if someone does it anyway and we can impute from his non-answer that he might have religious beliefs we don't approve of - then he has go to. Right? That seems to be the position of all the left wing bigots on this thread.

Can anyone remember a time any non-Christian politician in this country had such questions posed to him or her, or when their religion has ever been raised to suggest they are not fit to hold the position they are in? Ever?

[scorpio]

Two different things

At best ID is "form" of creationism.

source1

source2

source3

[ToadBrother]

So becuase I am ignorant of all the current research on evolution means I don't beleive in it, that is a rather ignorant comment. Does that mean I don't understand the importance of scintific research, of course not. It is a smear of Mr. Goodyear that you are trying justify with absolutly no facts, just a reporters narrative.

Current research? Come on, the basic principles were laid out a century and a half ago. Goodyear's "clarification" doesn't just jive with current research, it doesn't jive with evolution, even as first described by Darwin. Goodyear's "clarification" hints at his mistaking Lamarckism with evolution, something that Darwin put some effort into debunking.

[ToadBrother]

So it's not practical or desirable, but if someone does it anyway and we can impute from his non-answer that he might have religious beliefs we don't approve of - then he has go to. Right? That seems to be the position of all the left wing bigots on this thread.

Can anyone remember a time any non-Christian politician in this country had such questions posed to him or her, or when their religion has ever been raised to suggest they are not fit to hold the position they are in? Ever?

Um, Goodyear's the one who made it a religious issue.

[Alta4ever]

At best ID is "form" of creationism.

source1

source2

source3

Oh goody the courts, such a science based forum. Got something better?

[Molly]

Argus... if religious opinions don't interfere with the attitudes to SCIENCE of the Minister of State for SCIENCE and Technology, then they are irrelevant.

If his religion compromises/cripples his ability to grasp SCIENCE, to understand it, or to grant it appropriate respect, then it becomes a major issue.

Was it Dobbin? who pointed out that we'd be screamingt every bit as hard if he happenned to espouse old order Mennonite perspectives on technology. It was an apt analogy- the most apt of the whole collection.

However, I don't believe analogies are necessary. An antithetical-to-science attitude , regardless of its source, from a science minister, is asinine on its face, and requires no analogy to illustrate it's absurdity.

I'm struggling to believe anyone could be a sufficiently partisan pawn to defend it!

Edited March 20, 2009 by Molly

[scorpio]

Oh goody the courts, such a science based forum. Got something better?

Come on Alta, the religious folks couldn't teach their religion in school (as per ruling by Supreme Court) so they "changed" the name of their teaching to Intelligent Design hoping it would fall under some kind of science program. Check out the Nova program for more info. Some of the manscripts in preparing the Panda books simply replace Creationism with Intelligent Design in order to deceive.

[noahbody]

To me, Goodyear is not a competent MP because he is not open enough about his difficulties to reconcile science and his religion.

Do you consider Michaelle Jean to be a competent GG?

[Molly]

revision: On second thought, perhaps the best analogy was an atheist Pope.

[WIP]

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?

I didn't mean that chiropractors can't help people with back or joint pains. When I had a serious back injury 20 years ago, all my doctor gave me was two prescriptions - one for tylenol 3's and one for a muscle relaxant to relieve back spasms. I went to a chiropractor, and felt better after each session, but I realized after a few visits that I would be visiting the chiropractor every day, for the rest of my life. Fortunately my doctor also gave me a referral to a physiotherapist; I had to wait a few weeks for the first appointment, but when it started, the therapist let me know up front that my degree of recovery would depend on how much work I was willing to do on my own. She taught me exercises to relieve spasms and strengthen abdominal muscles without reinjuring my back. Over time I was able to completely recover, and I don't think the chiropractor would have been interested in my recovering to the point where I no longer needed his services.

But again, what makes me leery of chiropractic is that even if a modern practitioner is one of the ones who claims to use evidence-based techniques, he has built his foundation on a false belief in energy forces in the body. There are also many chiropractors who openly advocate other quack alternative medicines like homeopathy, and are against vaccination of children.

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?

Well, I didn't exactly say you couldn't be a Christian and believe in evolution, since there seem to be thousands of different versions of Christianity out there, and it's impossible to figure out how some of them put together their theology. Also, there are some theologies like Universalism, taught by Unitarians/Universalists which teach universal reconciliation, so it doesn't matter what your professed beliefs are, nobody goes to hell.....and that's probably why Christian fundamentalists find their teaching more horrifying than atheism, Islam, Buddhism, witchcraft and everything else. Fundamentalist preachers gain their money and their power and influence over the congregation, by essentially having people try to purchase their way into heaven by sending tithes (10% of income) to the church, and agreeing with every stupid idea the preacher comes up with!

I found it fascinating that during a period when I used to post on the C.A.R.M. discussion forums run by funamentalist preacher Matt Slick, that they had subforums for atheists, Buddhists, New Age, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons.....everything imaginable for the fundamentalist Christian to argue with, except for Unitarian/Universalists! That was the one and only group that was not allowed on CARM, and one of the forum rules was that anyone caught teaching or promoting universal salvation or other universalist doctrines would be immediately banned!

Why would a fundamentalist Christian be willing to debate atheists, Muslims and other Christian sects that they consider non-Christian, and yet be unwilling to even talk to a small group of Christians who think everyone goes to heaven? Doesn't sound like they could be very threatening! Except for the fact that the fundamentalists are more concerned with punishing people they consider wicked and having the wrong beliefs, and having power and influence over people motivated by a fear of hell.

[WIP]

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.

The Original Sin doctrine may not be as crucial in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox churches, since they teach that a person can work towards their own salvation, and can move towards being reconciled with God. But if Old Testament stories of creation, the flood are allegories, what about Moses and the Conquest of the Holy Land, or the story of the Sin of Onan, which I was surprised to discover that it is the source of this crazy dogma of semen being sacred and only intended for procreation, and thus making abortion, birth control, using condoms etc. all sins since they interfere with the sperm having the opportunity to fertilize the egg cell.

The Protestant fundamentalist understanding of Original Sin like the ones found in Lutheranism and the churches that sprung from Calvinism are the ones who really lean on a doctrine of Original Sin representing the total depravity of the human race and our inability to redeem ourselves, and therefore justifying sending everyone to hell who doesn't meet with whatever proscribed conditions are given for salvation. It is used to get around the problem of how a just and benevolent God can send people to hell, since they teach that all descendents of Adam and Eve are totally depraved and deserving of death, and would all be in hell without the undeserved act of benevolence provided by the Son of God acting as the scapegoat for the sins of the world etc. etc. So take away a literal Adam and Eve, and you take away the idea that we have inherited sin from an unfortunate couple that lived 6000 years ago.

[Drea]

So take away a literal Adam and Eve, and you take away the idea that we have inherited sin from an unfortunate couple that lived 6000 years ago.

BINGO!

Christians believe that we need to ask Jesus to be our saviour because he died for the sins of Adam and Eve (and all of us as we are all apparently children of this couple).

No Adam and Eve means no original sin which means no reason to have Jesus as a savior.

Straight forward isn't it?

[ToadBrother]

Oh goody the courts, such a science based forum. Got something better?

Well, if you're going to use the term Intelligent Design, then it's going to be automatically assumed that you refer to the claims of a number of folks, usually associated with the Discovery Institute down in the United States; in particular, it's two chief formulators; Michael Behe and William Dembski. Since they are, essentially, the coiners of the term, if you mean something else, then I suggest you find a more appropriate name for what you believe, or you will continue to create this confusion.

Mind you, I don't think you are creating unintentional confusion. Your claiming that Ben Stein's movie is some sort of meaningful attack on evolutionary theory suggests that you do know something about the real Intelligent Design.

I don't think you're merely a Tory cheerleader here. I think you're a Creationist trying to look clever by hiding clearly anti-science views in the most sophisticated anti-science scam to date; Intelligent Design. But perhaps you should review the Dover case, as it shows the deep immorality and confusion of ID advocates, how they lie about their intentions, how they lie about what they claim are the problems of evolutionary theory (Behe's frequent attack on bacterial flagellum and the vertebrate immune system were mercilessly shown to be false, though as a microbiologist, he must certainly have already known that).

It's up to you. If you wish to associate your own beliefs with Intelligent Design, then you, like Goodyear, put yourself firmly in the anti-science corner. Much worse, I'll wager you compartmentalize, accepting those areas of science that you're either too ignorant to know challenge your world view, or which you assume won't challenge it.

Believe me, evolution isn't the only scientific theory that causes serious problems for Biblical literalism. It's just the one that pisses literalists off the most because it says "Humans descended from apes".

Edited March 20, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Alta4ever]

Well, if you're going to use the term Intelligent Design, then it's going to be automatically assumed that you refer to the claims of a number of folks, usually associated with the Discovery Institute down in the United States; in particular, it's two chief formulators; Michael Behe and William Dembski. Since they are, essentially, the coiners of the term, if you mean something else, then I suggest you find a more appropriate name for what you believe, or you will continue to create this confusion.

Mind you, I don't think you are creating unintentional confusion. Your claiming that Ben Stein's movie is some sort of meaningful attack on evolutionary theory suggests that you do know something about the real Intelligent Design.

I don't think you're merely a Tory cheerleader here. I think you're a Creationist trying to look clever by hiding clearly anti-science views in the most sophisticated anti-science scam to date; Intelligent Design. But perhaps you should review the Dover case, as it shows the deep immorality and confusion of ID advocates, how they lie about their intentions, how they lie about what they claim are the problems of evolutionary theory (Behe's frequent attack on bacterial flagellum and the vertebrate immune system were mercilessly shown to be false, though as a microbiologist, he must certainly have already known that).

It's up to you. If you wish to associate your own beliefs with Intelligent Design, then you, like Goodyear, put yourself firmly in the anti-science corner. Much worse, I'll wager you compartmentalize, accepting those areas of science that you're either too ignorant to know challenge your world view, or which you assume won't challenge it.

Believe me, evolution isn't the only scientific theory that causes serious problems for Biblical literalism. It's just the one that pisses literalists off the most because it says "Humans descended from apes".

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong with this post.

As I have in the post before I am not a "creationist" I don't beleive that the universe, and life just popped into existance about 6000 years ago.

I have no problem with the idea that apes and humans shared/share a common link in evolution.

But I do beleive that every evolutionary step that life has taken has gods hand in it. (for some reason you have a problem with this)

I was an atheist, it 15 years for me to find god.

You are merely looking to smear people of faith.

I am not anti science, it is you who are anti religion and have trouble accepting that people can beleive and follow both.

Edited March 20, 2009 by Alta4ever