Is Canada's Science Minister a creationalist?

[benny]

I likely missed a lot of things in this clip! It would have helped if this guy could speak clearer english, because I thought he was building a case against bioengineering until he makes statements near the end of the piece that criticize notions that nature is perfect and returns to state of balance without human interference.....but then he talks in favour of environmentalism.....and I guess this is why I avoid philosophy that cannot be directly applied to science or the natural world. These guys can spin yarns and make every stupid idea sound profound.

BTW what does he have to say about Christianity? Did I lose it somewhere in some of the garbled words that I couldn't understand? After three listens, I couldn't find a presentation of Christianity, especially as an argument against materialism.

Zizek says in the clip that nature doesn't exist and also that catastrophes, not evolution, are what matters. In his books (the parallax view, 2006, MIT press, in particular) he develops these points. I can summarize his thesis by taking human sexuality as an example. For humans to appear as a life form, what is needed is a total negation of sexual selection. Humans are born out of a movement away from sexuality and sexual selection. Our consciousness is the consequence of being upset about sex. For humans, sexuality is a dead-end. Sex is for humans what artificial pleasures are for the laboratory rats: a compulsive behavior that is killing them. Christianity is not saying anything else.

Edited March 28, 2009 by benny

[DrGreenthumb]

Zizek says in the clip that nature doesn't exist and also that catastrophes, not evolution, are what matters. In his books (the parallax view, 2006, MIT press, in particular) he develops these points. I can summarize his thesis by taking human sexuality as an example. For humans to appear as a life form, what is needed is a total negation of sexual selection. Humans are born out of a movement away from sexuality and sexual selection. Our consciousness is the consequence of being upset about sex. For humans, sexuality is a dead-end. Sex is for humans what artificial pleasures are for the laboratory rats: a compulsive behavior that is killing them. Christianity is not saying anything else.

I can't understand why sex makes so many people so uptight. There is nothing "dirty" or "evil" about enjoying sex, just because it feels good. Of course we don't want people starting too young before their minds are mature enough to understand the consequences and have developed enough emotionally to handle all the "feelings" that come from a sexual relationship. I think it is far better to teach our kids that sex is a profoundly wonderful experience that is worth waiting for, so they don't spoil the experience for themselves in the long run by starting too young. If your kids know that you love them and only want the best for them, they will take your opinion very seriously.

I think that people do their kids a disservice when they teach them that such a natural desire is sinful or dirty. It sets them up for a life of self-hatred, and guilt. It is better to tell them that they will have a fuller more satisfying sex life in the long term if they wait till they are an adult to make those kind of decisions, and decide to trust another person that much with their emotions.

[benny]

I can't understand why sex makes so many people so uptight.

If you want to understand read this page (p.250) of this e-book (The Parallax View):

http://books.google.com/books?id=je702bo2P...t#PRA2-PA250,M1

Edited March 28, 2009 by benny

[DrGreenthumb]

If you want to understand read this page (p.250) of this e-book (The Parallax View):

http://books.google.com/books?id=je702bo2P...t#PRA2-PA250,M1

that doesn't really shed much light. I think the real reason people are so uptight about is because religions through the ages have taught us since childhood that these urges are dirty and sinful and must be repressed.

[benny]

that doesn't really shed much light. I think the real reason people are so uptight about is because religions through the ages have taught us since childhood that these urges are dirty and sinful and must be repressed.

With or without religions, sexual drives are directed not towards a "whole person" but towards part-objects. There is therefore no such thing as a sexual relationship between two subjects, only between a subject and a (partial) object. For the man, this object occupies the place of the missing partner, which produces fantasies; in other words, the Woman does not exist for the man as a real subject, but only as a fantasy object, the cause of his desire.

[DrGreenthumb]

With or without religions, sexual drives are directed not towards a "whole person" but towards part-objects. There is therefore no such thing as a sexual relationship between two subjects, only between a subject and a (partial) object. For the man, this object occupies the place of the missing partner, which produces fantasies; in other words, the Woman does not exist for the man as a real subject, but only as a fantasy object, the cause of his desire.

i don't buy that logic, I am married to a whole person, not just tna. Maybe some men are like that but not all or even most.

[WIP]

Zizek says in the clip that nature doesn't exist and also that catastrophes, not evolution, are what matters. In his books (the parallax view, 2006, MIT press, in particular) he develops these points. I can summarize his thesis by taking human sexuality as an example. For humans to appear as a life form, what is needed is a total negation of sexual selection. Humans are born out of a movement away from sexuality and sexual selection. Our consciousness is the consequence of being upset about sex. For humans, sexuality is a dead-end. Sex is for humans what artificial pleasures are for the laboratory rats: a compulsive behavior that is killing them. Christianity is not saying anything else.

Does any of this have any basis in reality? What is meant by "negation of sexual selection?" The natural selection process in human evolution has been shaped just as much by selecting sexually appealing features that are not always functional. Blue eyes are a popular trait originally the product of genetic mutation, that has remained in the population because it is considered an attractive feature by many, even though it also indicates someone prone to many eye diseases as they get older.....and this is no different than the female peacocks wanting to mate with the guy with the biggest and most colourful tail......even though their larger tailed offspring will be more vulnerable to predators because of that big, expensive tail. Sexual selection is one of the reasons why the process of evolution is not necessarily a refining process leading to better, more highly developed animals.

He tosses in a reference to evolutionary psychologist Stephen Pinker, so he seems aware that there are psychologists trying to incorporate scientific discoveries from biology and neuroscience, but he sounds like he is still doing some sort of Freudian analysis or such, from the time when psychology was not even interested in learning about brain function.

From what I read of Zizek's writing, I still don't know whether he is making any real, useful points or just creating overcomplicated nonsense with his tossing in of sporadic modern cultural references with what are now considered largely outdated philosphies like Dialectical Materialism.....but I'm still not sure if he's following Hegel's version or Marx's.......but I can't see either version being relevant after the failure of applied Marxism.

[benny]

Does any of this have any basis in reality? What is meant by "negation of sexual selection?" The natural selection process in human evolution has been shaped just as much by selecting sexually appealing features that are not always functional. Blue eyes are a popular trait originally the product of genetic mutation, that has remained in the population because it is considered an attractive feature by many, even though it also indicates someone prone to many eye diseases as they get older.....and this is no different than the female peacocks wanting to mate with the guy with the biggest and most colourful tail......even though their larger tailed offspring will be more vulnerable to predators because of that big, expensive tail. Sexual selection is one of the reasons why the process of evolution is not necessarily a refining process leading to better, more highly developed animals.

He tosses in a reference to evolutionary psychologist Stephen Pinker, so he seems aware that there are psychologists trying to incorporate scientific discoveries from biology and neuroscience, but he sounds like he is still doing some sort of Freudian analysis or such, from the time when psychology was not even interested in learning about brain function.

From what I read of Zizek's writing, I still don't know whether he is making any real, useful points or just creating overcomplicated nonsense with his tossing in of sporadic modern cultural references with what are now considered largely outdated philosphies like Dialectical Materialism.....but I'm still not sure if he's following Hegel's version or Marx's.......but I can't see either version being relevant after the failure of applied Marxism.

Here is quickly a reason why dialectic (i.e. reflexivity) is very important: blue eyes are not at all like colourful tails because eyes are like a mirror. Under the heading of the mirror stage, psychoanalysts following Jacques Lacan are the researchers who have the most to say on this.

Edited March 29, 2009 by benny

[WIP]

I didn't forget about this thread, I just lost track of its location.

Here is quickly a reason why dialectic (i.e. reflexivity) is very important: blue eyes are not at all like colourful tails because eyes are like a mirror.

How do we know this is an apt analogy? I am not concerned about the importance of the eyes, as opposed to a bird's tail -- my point is that both the male peacock's tail and the fashion model with blue eyes have features that are inferior on a purely functional basis, but have become prominent in the respective gene pools because they are regarded as sexually attractive by prospective mates.

These features are not universally appreciated -- blue eyes do nothing for me personally, but a geneticist who isolated the gene responsible for this trait a couple of years ago, noted that it first appeared by means of genetic mutation about 11,000 years ago in Ice Age Europe, and theorized that the reason for its survival is that the mutated gene which causes blue eyes, caught the fancy of some neolithic cavemen who were looking for a little variety, so blue eyed girls became the in thing for cave dwellers. The male peacock with the big colorful tail is in a similar situation of having a feature which puts him at greater personal risk, but stays in the gene pool because his tail attracts the interest of all the girls......the bird version of a brand new corvette.

Under the heading of the mirror stage, psychoanalysts following Jacques Lacan are the researchers who have the most to say on this.

I took a quick look at the Jacques Lacan wikipedia page since I am unfamiliar with him. The paragraph about the "Mirror Stage" presents this imitative stage that begins in infancy on a psychoanalytic basis, and I am left asking if his treatment is just another example of excessive analysis that the field of psychology was stuck with in the days when they knew nothing about the inner workings of the brain, without the need to construct complex theories that are subject to dispute.

Many behavioural psychologists that followed after Freud, Jung, Victor Frankl, and Jacques Lacan also, took no interest in the crude beginnings of neuroscience when guys like Wilder Penfield took time during brain surgeries to apply electrode stimulation and ask conscious patients to describe their experiences. Penfield was able to make a rough map of basic brain functions this way, yet the behaviourists insisted that all you need to do to study the mind is study the outward behaviour of the subject. Now, about this mirror stage -- does the description really need to be cluttered with Freudian terminology after the discovery of Mirror Neurons which fire the same way when a subject is performing a task as when he is just watching someone else do it? The workings of mirror neurons scattered around the Cortex, have solved a lot of previous mysteries about learning, imitation and even the capacity for feelings of empathy. Right now, it's worth asking if psychoanalytic theory has outlived its usefulness in studying the mind and helping people with mental illnesses.

[benny]

How do we know this is an apt analogy? I am not concerned about the importance of the eyes, as opposed to a bird's tail -- my point is that both the male peacock's tail and the fashion model with blue eyes have features that are inferior on a purely functional basis, but have become prominent in the respective gene pools because they are regarded as sexually attractive by prospective mates.

These features are not universally appreciated -- blue eyes do nothing for me personally, but a geneticist who isolated the gene responsible for this trait a couple of years ago, noted that it first appeared by means of genetic mutation about 11,000 years ago in Ice Age Europe, and theorized that the reason for its survival is that the mutated gene which causes blue eyes, caught the fancy of some neolithic cavemen who were looking for a little variety, so blue eyed girls became the in thing for cave dwellers. The male peacock with the big colorful tail is in a similar situation of having a feature which puts him at greater personal risk, but stays in the gene pool because his tail attracts the interest of all the girls......the bird version of a brand new corvette.

...

I took a quick look at the Jacques Lacan wikipedia page since I am unfamiliar with him. The paragraph about the "Mirror Stage" presents this imitative stage that begins in infancy on a psychoanalytic basis, and I am left asking if his treatment is just another example of excessive analysis that the field of psychology was stuck with in the days when they knew nothing about the inner workings of the brain, without the need to construct complex theories that are subject to dispute.

Many behavioural psychologists that followed after Freud, Jung, Victor Frankl, and Jacques Lacan also, took no interest in the crude beginnings of neuroscience when guys like Wilder Penfield took time during brain surgeries to apply electrode stimulation and ask conscious patients to describe their experiences. Penfield was able to make a rough map of basic brain functions this way, yet the behaviourists insisted that all you need to do to study the mind is study the outward behaviour of the subject. Now, about this mirror stage -- does the description really need to be cluttered with Freudian terminology after the discovery of Mirror Neurons which fire the same way when a subject is performing a task as when he is just watching someone else do it? The workings of mirror neurons scattered around the Cortex, have solved a lot of previous mysteries about learning, imitation and even the capacity for feelings of empathy. Right now, it's worth asking if psychoanalytic theory has outlived its usefulness in studying the mind and helping people with mental illnesses.

Signaling game easily explains the tails but not at all the eyes.

...

Slavoj Zizek is a psychoanalyst very critical of neurosciences.

[WIP]

Signaling game easily explains the tails but not at all the eyes....

Slavoj Zizek is a psychoanalyst very critical of neurosciences.

Of course he is critical of neuroscience, and likely very critical of philosophers such as Daniel Dennett, Paul and Patricia Churchland, who are trying to incorporate the latest findings on brain research into developing theory of mind. Certainly he would be critical of evolutionary psychologists like Stephen Pinker for looking at other animal behaviour for clues on the development of human social ethics.

But, that is likely because he sees the neuroscientist in much the same way as the astrologer saw the astronomer, and the alchemist saw the chemist -- people who may find evidence to settle debates about issues like free will, dreaming, consciousness, mental disorders, the learning process and memory. These are subjects that Freudians and others have felt free to let their imaginations run wild, making up answers to tell their patients and colleagues; so I doubt that Zizek is the only psychoanalyst who feels hostile towards those who approach the subject of mind from studying the brain.

[normanchateau]

Slavoj Zizek is a psychoanalyst very critical of neurosciences.

Unlike other forms of psychotherapy such as CBT, psychoanalysis has never been empirically validated.

[benny]

Science has a very naïve and dangerous conception of the relationship between theories (symbols) and facts (the "emptiness" of matter). By sticking to the letters (symbols) written in the Genesis, Goodyear is offering a good way to cope with the dangers science creates carelessly.

[WIP]

Science has a very naïve and dangerous conception of the relationship between theories (symbols) and facts (the "emptiness" of matter). By sticking to the letters (symbols) written in the Genesis, Goodyear is offering a good way to cope with the dangers science creates carelessly.

Gibberish and nonsense! The scientific method of starting from scratch and using experiments, empirical evidence to advance knowledge and understanding about the world, is only a couple of centuries old, at most, and it is counter-intuitive according to the way people understand the world. The reason why it is so powerful, is because it has been so successful in advancing the growth of knowledge and understanding about the world; filling in gaps with plausible scientific theories.

The natural way of understanding the world around us is based on filling in the gaps of understanding with mythical stories that can provide plausible answers -- at least for the time being. Religion has been around for thousands of years, and gets its strength from our reluctance to leave mysteries unsolved. Because religion takes a top-down approach to knowledge (making claims to possessing all relevant knowledge by revelation), there is no way to avoid a collision with the modern scientific approach to information-gathering -- working from the bottom up to try to develop plausible working theories to explain experimental data or natural phenomena. And for 150 years, evolution has been right on the battleline. Some religions have given ground by re-interpreting their revealed truth to harmonize with new scientific understanding, but some religions see giving ground as a continued retreat, until they lose all credibility (and they may be right).

Where this relates to Stephen Harper's new creationist science minister, is that he has refused to answer a straightforward question on science: do you or do you not accept the theory of evolution by natural selection? By claiming religious priviledge to dodge the question, and avoid the embarassment suffered by Stockwell Day some years back, when he did respond that evolution conflicted with his biblically-based understanding of the natural world, Goodyear has signaled to all that he values religious belief more highly than scientific evidence, and that's why there is a call for his removal! No one who is opposed to the basic scientific theories that are universally accepted in fields like biology, should have any governing authority over scientific funding and policy.

[benny]

Gibberish and nonsense! The scientific method of starting from scratch and using experiments, empirical evidence to advance knowledge and understanding about the world, is only a couple of centuries old, at most, and it is counter-intuitive according to the way people understand the world. The reason why it is so powerful, is because it has been so successful in advancing the growth of knowledge and understanding about the world; filling in gaps with plausible scientific theories.

The natural way of understanding the world around us is based on filling in the gaps of understanding with mythical stories that can provide plausible answers -- at least for the time being. Religion has been around for thousands of years, and gets its strength from our reluctance to leave mysteries unsolved. Because religion takes a top-down approach to knowledge (making claims to possessing all relevant knowledge by revelation), there is no way to avoid a collision with the modern scientific approach to information-gathering -- working from the bottom up to try to develop plausible working theories to explain experimental data or natural phenomena. And for 150 years, evolution has been right on the battleline. Some religions have given ground by re-interpreting their revealed truth to harmonize with new scientific understanding, but some religions see giving ground as a continued retreat, until they lose all credibility (and they may be right).

Where this relates to Stephen Harper's new creationist science minister, is that he has refused to answer a straightforward question on science: do you or do you not accept the theory of evolution by natural selection? By claiming religious priviledge to dodge the question, and avoid the embarassment suffered by Stockwell Day some years back, when he did respond that evolution conflicted with his biblically-based understanding of the natural world, Goodyear has signaled to all that he values religious belief more highly than scientific evidence, and that's why there is a call for his removal! No one who is opposed to the basic scientific theories that are universally accepted in fields like biology, should have any governing authority over scientific funding and policy.

It is difficult to find a man more involuntarily truthful and meaningful than Goodyear mentioning uneasily high heels relatively to the question he was asked. High heels essentially demonstrate how insignificant evolution and natural selection are. High heel are artificial objects that can transform men into fetishists to a point where they cannot have erections if mates don't wear them.

Edited April 2, 2009 by benny

[waldo]

Conservative Chiropractors... the gift that keeps giving!

oh my! From today's HofC proceedings - James Lunney, Conservative member from Nanaimo—Alberni... who also happens to be a Chiropractor:

James Lunney v. Evolution

Mr. Speaker, recently we saw an attempt to ridicule the presumed beliefs of a member of this House and the belief of millions of Canadians in a creator. Certain individuals in the media and the scientific community have exposed their own arrogance and intolerance of beliefs contrary to their own. Any scientist who declares that the theory of evolution is a fact has already abandoned the foundations of science. For science establishes fact through the study of things observable and reproducible. Since origins can neither be reproduced nor observed, they remain the realm of hypothesis.

In science, it is perfectly acceptable to make assumptions when we do not have all the facts, but it is never acceptable to forget our assumptions. Given the modern evidence unavailable to Darwin, advanced models of plate techtonics, polonium radiohalos, polystratic fossils, I am prepared to believe that Darwin would be willing to re-examine his assumptions.

The evolutionists may disagree, but neither can produce Darwin as a witness to prove his point. The evolutionists may genuinely see his ancestor in a monkey, but many modern scientists interpret the same evidence in favour of creation and a creator.

why, I do believe I like TJ Cooks' response to Lunney the best:

Oh for the love of god…

“Mr. Speaker, recently we saw an attempt to ridicule the presumed beliefs of a member of this House”

Nobody ridiculed Goodyear’s religion, we ridiculed the *Science Minister* for rejecting the foundation of modern biology. Nobody plays the victim like the religious right.

“Any scientist who declares that the theory of evolution is a fact has already abandoned the foundations of science. ”

Ok, not true. On the other hand, we have Goodyear playing up his credentials as a Scientician and Chiropractor declaring his belief in so-called “microevolution” while dodging the question of actual evolution… well, he hasn’t abandoned modern science, he’s simply never accepted it.

“For science establishes fact through the study of things observable and reproducible. Since origins can neither be reproduced nor observed, they remain the realm of hypothesis.”

Evolution is about the *process*. It doesn’t claim to explain origins. This is Grade 10 science here, Mr. Lunney.

“Given the modern evidence unavailable to Darwin, advanced models of plate techtonics, polonium radiohalos, polystratic fossils…”

Given the modern evidence unavailable to Darwin, he would be awestruck at the prescience of his theory. He nailed it, and modern biotechnology has backed him up all the way. As for plate tectonics, polonium radiohalos and polystratic fossils, it’s safe to assume that Mr Lunney, another frickin’ chiropractor, has no idea what these things are. He sounds like every other religious nut reading texts prepared for gullible creationists by their religious leaders.

“The evolutionists may disagree…”

The word he’s looking for is “scientists” or possibly “biologists”. Until creationism is supported by repeatable evidence, it’s religion and not to be confused with science. Calling biologists “evolutionists” is an attempt to drag science into religion’s realm of faith and holy declaration. Kinda like asking if our Minister of Science and Technology “believes” in evolution - absolutely the wrong question.

“The evolutionists may genuinely see his ancestor in a monkey, but many modern scientists interpret the same evidence in favour of creation and a creator.”

Yup - the same “scientists” or, more likely, scientitians who wrote the tract about “polonium radiohalos and polystratic fossils.”

Honestly, first our Prime Minister misses the G20 photo event to take a dump, now we have a chorus line of chiropractors declaring their lack of belief in science IN the House of Parliament. We look like backwater hicks, but that’s what happens when the right wing takes power.

[Visionseeker]

Wow! This thread is persistent. And dare I say, evolving…

[WIP]

Conservative Chiropractors... the gift that keeps giving!

oh my! From today's HofC proceedings - James Lunney, Conservative member from Nanaimo—Alberni... who also happens to be a Chiropractor:

James Lunney v. Evolution

Mr. Speaker, recently we saw an attempt to ridicule the presumed beliefs of a member of this House and the belief of millions of Canadians in a creator. Certain individuals in the media and the scientific community have exposed their own arrogance and intolerance of beliefs contrary to their own. Any scientist who declares that the theory of evolution is a fact has already abandoned the foundations of science. For science establishes fact through the study of things observable and reproducible. Since origins can neither be reproduced nor observed, they remain the realm of hypothesis.

Another one! I've read that Stephen Harper started forging close ties with U.S. Republican strategists, and so far, he seems to be following the Reagan/Bush strategy of building a base of support among the religious right.

So, how many more Conservative MP's are going to pop up that believe in a 6,000 year old world? Not surprising that this one has no more respect for the scientific process than Goodyear does -- science is no different than religion in their eyes, so Lunney declares that he should be able to promote creationism if that's his belief.....maybe in church, but neither of these jokers should have anything to say about science policy issues. Can you imagine if Goodyear decides that he is not going to allow funding for biomedical research using applied evolution to find new cures for disease.

[Molly]

.....groooo-o-oan....

Clueless... freaking.... idiots. Putting ignorance on display. And when it is vividly pointed out that they've done the equivalent of sneezing on the birthday cake... do it again.

If that inability to differentiate between science and religion was not enough basis on which to condemn them, then the fact that they are such sluggish learners certainly should be.

[benny]

Can you imagine if Goodyear decides that he is not going to allow funding for biomedical research using applied evolution to find new cures for disease.

If the first forms of life would have been eager like you to find new cures for their diseases, natural selection would have never produced any changes.

[waldo]

If that inability to differentiate between science and religion was not enough basis on which to condemn them, then the fact that they are such sluggish learners certainly should be.

Where's Lunney?

Calls to Lunney went unanswered Thursday. On Friday, staff members at his Ottawa office said he was unavailable. When asked where Lunney was, Dale Wolley, his administrative assistant, said: "He's not available to your beck and call," and refused to answer.

perhaps he's undergoing a rigorous, albeit sluggish, processing from the creator

[benny]

Where's Lunney?

Calls to Lunney went unanswered Thursday. On Friday, staff members at his Ottawa office said he was unavailable. When asked where Lunney was, Dale Wolley, his administrative assistant, said: "He's not available to your beck and call," and refused to answer.

perhaps he's undergoing a rigorous, albeit sluggish, processing from the creator

Everyone should get ready for the next class warfare opposing the genetically-manipulated individuals and the non-genetically-manipulated ones.