Is Canada's Science Minister a creationalist?

[normanchateau]

Some of the brighter and more enlightened theologians are evidence based also

Agreed. In fact, the healing power of prayer has been studied through rigorous controlled experiments and some of the evidence indicates that prayer works whereas other evidence indicates that it does not:

http://jimbtucker.blogspot.com/2006/08/pra...ve-results.html

One thing is certain. You will never find a bright and enlightened evidence-based theologian in a Harper cabinet. Approximately half of the MPs in Harper's caucus are religious conservatives:

http://www.dennisgruending.ca/pulpitandpolitics/?p=72

[benny]

Agreed. In fact, the healing power of prayer has been studied through rigorous controlled experiments and some of the evidence indicates that prayer works whereas other evidence indicates that it does not

Acting on evidence is like acting on appearance. Evidence is only a type of appearance. If reality would be whole, nothing would appear. This crack in the reality is best explainable by a loving and suffering God.

[normanchateau]

Acting on evidence is like acting on appearance. Evidence is only a type of appearance. If reality would be whole, nothing would appear. This crack in the reality is best explainable by a loving and suffering God.

Another candidate for a Harper cabinet position...

[benny]

Another candidate for a Harper cabinet position...

Why are you so eager to fill the void?

[normanchateau]

Why are you so eager to fill the void?

That's a question I'd rather (a)void.

[WIP]

Agreed. In fact, the healing power of prayer has been studied through rigorous controlled experiments and some of the evidence indicates that prayer works whereas other evidence indicates that it does not:

http://jimbtucker.blogspot.com/2006/08/pra...ve-results.html

Actually the only honest studies of intercessory prayer have proven that praying for others is as effective as clairvoyance, telekenesis and foretelling the future........in other words, it doesn't exist!

I think the nail in the coffin for this belief should have been the Templeton Fund-financed studies that were done a couple of years ago, with the intention of proving the efficacy of prayer. But, unfortunately, just like the people looking for evidence of astral projection, Templeton and others will keep on funding research until they get the results they want.

Under controlled conditions, not only didn't the prayers help the sick, but people who knew they were being prayed for actually did worse; maybe they figured they must be really in bad shape if people are praying for them:

In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.

Researchers emphasized that their work can't address whether God exists or answers prayers made on another's behalf. The study can only look for an effect from prayers offered as part of the research, they said.

They also said they had no explanation for the higher complication rate in patients who knew they were being prayed for, in comparison to patients who only knew it was possible prayers were being said for them. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/

[normanchateau]

Actually the only honest studies of intercessory prayer have proven that praying for others is as effective as clairvoyance, telekenesis and foretelling the future........in other words, it doesn't exist!

No argument there. I never claimed that praying for others has been shown to be effective. However, some studies have shown that praying for oneself sometimes works. This is no surprise since placebos also sometimes works.

[benny]

I think that there is some truth to the common idea that Darwin's natural selection is a transposition in nature of the Malthusian conception of the English economy. When you add epistemology to science, it is not hard to understand how Darwin may have naturalized the English society of his time in our brains.

[WIP]

No argument there. I never claimed that praying for others has been shown to be effective. However, some studies have shown that praying for oneself sometimes works. This is no surprise since placebos also sometimes works.

I have nothing against people believing that prayer will help them, after all, there are situations where nothing else seems to work! It may be placebo effect, and the Placebo Effect should not be denigrated since there is actually a mountain of evidence showing real physical effects caused by believing that a certain pill or some other medicine will cure an ailment. It shows how much mind and body are connected. A personal prayer cannot be scientifically evaluated, and that's why people who spend money to prove religious and supernatural claims like the Templeton Foundation, studied intercessory prayer. Because if praying for others could be proven to have a physical effect on the person, it could potentially be used as a scientific proof for the supernatural............so, they will likely keep funding tests until they get the results the desired results.

[WIP]

I think that there is some truth to the common idea that Darwin's natural selection is a transposition in nature of the Malthusian conception of the English economy. When you add epistemology to science, it is not hard to understand how Darwin may have naturalized the English society of his time in our brains.

Huh! Sounds like you threw a lot of big words together to try to claim that the dog-eat-dog struggle between the rich and the poor in England was the real inspiration for Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Read Darwin's "On the Origin of the Species," where he explains the reasons why he developed a theory of common descent of life. It needs to be emphasized that Charles Darwin did not invent the theory of evolution -- the first person to propose that present-day animals evolved and became more diverse over time, was the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. Darwin's contribution was to provide a method (natural selection) for how evolution takes place.

And if all that gobbledy gook about Malthus and the struggle for survival in 19th century England is a reference to Social Darwinism, Thomas Malthus and Herbert Spencer were the ones who tried to adapt Darwin's theory to human society, no doubt as a means to excuse the greed of the upper classes and lack of consideration for those on the margins of society. Maybe Sir Frances Galton can get an honourable mention as well, since he used natural selection to promote eugenics. Galton argued that social institutions such as welfare and insane asylums were allowing inferior humans to survive and reproduce........he could have fit right in with today's conservatives.

[WIP]

Science can be traumatic because it so easily opens possibilities that force us to question what the meaning of a human life is.

That all depends on where you derive meaning from. Right now, at a time when we live in a world that has thousands of nuclear warheads that can wipe us all out, and are charging headlong into an ecological disaster, fueled by overpopulation, overexploitation of the planet's resources, I'd say it would be a good time to start questioning a lot of things that have been taken for granted.

But a truth that doesn't make sense to us is yet another definition of God.

So, God is every mystery in nature? Does that mean God disappears, or shrinks as we learn more about the world around us?

[WIP]

He hasn't demonstrated an "antithetical-to-science" attitude.

Oh yes he has! For the simple fact that when asked about his views on evolution, he responded that he was a Christian, and no one has the right to question his religion. Personally, no topic should be off limits, and that includes religious beliefs, but this idiot was asked for his opinion on a scientific theory, not about his stupid religion, and that should disqualify him immediately from having anything to do with decision-making in regards to scientific issues.

[benny]

And if all that gobbledy gook about Malthus and the struggle for survival in 19th century England is a reference to Social Darwinism, Thomas Malthus and Herbert Spencer were the ones who tried to adapt Darwin's theory to human society, no doubt as a means to excuse the greed of the upper classes and lack of consideration for those on the margins of society.

Thomas Malthus : 1766-1834

Charles Darwin : 1809-1882

[benny]

That all depends on where you derive meaning from.

Bottom line, you cannot find the meaning of something like the Matrix (see the movie) if you are inside it.

[scribblet]

So?

They can believe the moon is made out of freaking cheese if they want to. There is nothing wrong with having personal beliefs and being able to do your job. The funny thing among leftists is that discrimination is bad, but we're allowed to discriminate against Christians.

There are laws that are in place that combat discrimination against religion. Christianity is also a religion, they get the same perks as all the rest.

Another stupid thread created by a leftist tinfoil hatist.

Exactly.. heck we have many Roman Catholic politicians who don't let their religious believes re: abortion get in the way of their legislative processes.

[benny]

Exactly.. heck we have many Roman Catholic politicians who don't let their religious believes re: abortion get in the way of their legislative processes.

- MPs and ministers are not doing a job, they are filling public functions.

- In the case of Goodyear, we have a Christian that doesn't quite understand the flexibility allowed by his own religion.

- You will not find a Catholics politician who is uneasy about saying that abortion is not a good thing.

[normanchateau]

It may be placebo effect, and the Placebo Effect should not be denigrated since there is actually a mountain of evidence showing real physical effects caused by believing that a certain pill or some other medicine will cure an ailment.

Absolutely, the placebo effect should not be denigrated, particularly since it's physiological mechanisms of action have been demonstrated in numerous laboratory studies. For example, placebos release central nervous system endorphins in quantities sufficient to enhance positive emotions and produce a "natural high". Prayer and even singing in church may function in very well the same manner in believers.

[benny]

Maybe Goodyear unease comes from a perception that the evolution theory is too much geared toward competition and he is simply trying to make cooperation more recognized.

[Oleg Bach]

Maybe Goodyear unease comes from a perception that the evolution theory is too much geared toward competition and he is simply trying to make cooperation more recognized.

Yah - maybe being evolutionist like our selves and thinking that red ants eating the black ants for supremecy---is a higher state of mindedness - that mutual survial and co-operation and care of our fellow human beings is much to civilized and civilized people who are religious have no place in our brutal pagan evolutionist state?

[benny]

My very first impression in this incident was that Goodyear was the prey to a pack of journalists acting like hyenas.

[WIP]

Maybe Goodyear unease comes from a perception that the evolution theory is too much geared toward competition and he is simply trying to make cooperation more recognized.

And who are the people who present evolution as competition? It is the same creationists who write the books he has likely been reading at his own church. Evolutionary theory recognizes that there is cooperation between species for mutual advantage; a good example of the principle of symbiosis was provided by biologist Lynn Margulis who demonstrated that power plant of all eukaryote cells - the mitochondria, actually began as a separate organism, and the two cells joined together as one organism for mutual advantage.

[benny]

And who are the people who present evolution as competition? It is the same creationists who write the books he has likely been reading at his own church. Evolutionary theory recognizes that there is cooperation between species for mutual advantage; a good example of the principle of symbiosis was provided by biologist Lynn Margulis who demonstrated that power plant of all eukaryote cells - the mitochondria, actually began as a separate organism, and the two cells joined together as one organism for mutual advantage.

The selfish gene thesis (Richard Dawkins) is still well accepted by biologists. One thing biologists find harder to explain is how come such genes stick together.

[WIP]

The selfish gene thesis (Richard Dawkins) is still well accepted by biologists. One thing biologists find harder to explain is how come such genes stick together.

Read what Dawkins actually had to say in the Selfish Gene first. Here's a short synopsis from Wikipedia. Dawkins's point was to change the emphasis from species level to gene level evolution by natural selection. He started to develop his theory when he noticed that some creatures have genes that are still replicating (coding new proteins), even though they are doing harm to the organism. It seemed to him that the gene is a "selfish replicant" trying to make as many copies of itself even in situations where it could harm or even kill the organism it is part of. This does not say that there is always a power struggle between a species and its genetic replicants, so it does not conflict with the theory that a lot of evolutionary change can occur at a species level, either through competition or cooperation, as in Lyn Margulis's example of how simple eukaryote cells got the mitochondria.

Dawkins has been criticized for being overzealous in trying to claim that genes are almost the sole agents of change, and trying to refute claims by biologists such as E.O. Wilson and David Sloan Wilson - who did major research on social insects like ants and bees - that there must be some group level mechanism of evolutionary change as well as species and gene level evolution. But Dawkins's theory has held up in light of what has been discovered in the last 20 years of mapping human and animal genomes -- most creatures, including us, are loaded with junk DNA that serves no purpose other than making more copies of itself in the DNA molecule. The only benefit it serves the host is that it makes mutations less lethal, since they are less likely to occur in genes that actually code proteins and make things in the body.

[benny]

Here is why I think the evolution theory contains less meaning and truth than Christianity (listen from 4:45 up to the end of the 5th part of this presentation by my favorite philosopher):

[WIP]

Here is why I think the evolution theory contains less meaning and truth than Christianity (listen from 4:45 up to the end of the 5th part of this presentation by my favorite philosopher):

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.