Is Canada's Science Minister a creationalist?

[Alta4ever]

That's an outright lie. There are plenty of Christians who accept evolution. Having someone who clearly does not responsible for science funding in this country is inappropriate.

So unless they share your opinions on matters of faith and how the world came into existance they are unqualified? Looks like capricorn naile dyou on this one.

[Alta4ever]

The quote is clear enough, as is your dishonestly attempting to cast into doubt what they guy actually said.

You are dishonestly tring to put words in his mouth.

[M.Dancer]

So until you have some proof that he will stop all scintific research you have nothing to say about hi appointment.

I'm more concerned with an agenda of increasing unscientific research....like moderm myth rationalizations like intelligent design...

[Smallc]

It's looking like only the appointment of an atheist to this job would satisfy the critics.

No, but the appointment of someone who believes in one of the fundamental ideas of science would.

[Alta4ever]

No, but the appointment of someone who believes in one of the fundamental ideas of science would.

Evolution does not explain how life was started their is a theory but it doesn't have any research that conclusively supports it, as is with intellegent design, both are a leap of faith.

[Alta4ever]

I'm more concerned with an agenda of increasing unscientific research....like moderm myth rationalizations like intelligent design...

So i take you are atheist?

[guyser]

So you know how life started on this planet you of course have scientific experiments to back this up that have been duplicated by other scientists.

I do? Cool. Did I ever let slip I knew, I kinda need to know.

Science and theories are continually evovling, and what was accepted as scientific facts (held by consensus) have been disproven continuously throughout history, what makes you think that all the theroies that the main stream holds are correct?

Dont recall saying that they were.

But heres the rub, which of these two have had their theories tested by the scientific community and had it put to the test ?The science ones, or the religious ones?

So until you have some proof that he will stop all scintific research you have nothing to say about hi appointment.

You seem to have a habit of putting peoples words in their mouths.

I never said he will stop all research.

Actually I have lots to say about his appt. Like how utterly stupid it was, like what a message it sends , you know along those lines.

I suspect Harper wont be stupid enough to keep him in this position.

[ToadBrother]

So you know how life started on this planet you of course have scientific experiments to back this up that have been duplicated by other scientists.

Have you ever seen an electron? Ever met your great-great-great grandparents? Plenty of things in this universe occur which cannot be directly observed.

Science and theories are continually evovling, and what was accepted as scientific facts (held by consensus) have been disproven continuously throughout history, what makes you think that all the theroies that the main stream holds are correct?

Theories evolve, but the supplanting of a theory is sufficiently rare that I can only think of a small handful of cases; pre-plate tectonic theories of continental formation and pre-Big Bang theories of the the evolution of the Universe. These various theories were replaced by better evidence.

The norm of theories is to be enlarged and refined. In some cases, they are sublimated into a larger theory; as Newtonian Mechanics was not so much supplanted by General Relativity as made into a reasonable approximation good enough to launch ships into orbit or put probes on Mars, but not good enough to explain, for instance, the large scale structure of the Universe.

Evolution and common descent have been confirmed and reconfirmed for a century and a half. The number of actual working scientists who reject in whole or in part is so exceedingly small as to be irrelevant. Evolution is the grand unifying theory of biolgoy, or as the great Theodosius Dobzhansky once said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".

If evolution were to be replaced, one would still have to produce a theory that explains the observations; that the genetic makeup of populations changes over time and that all living organisms fit within a twin-nest hierarchy (to name the major features of modern evolutionary theory). Inserting "God did it" is not an explanation, though in and of itself, providing it isn't used to actually deny the evidence, is not necessarily incompatible with the science.

So until you have some proof that he will stop all scintific research you have nothing to say about hi appointment.

It's as much the laughingstock of the international scientific community that our researchers have to get funding from a Creationist. Still, you wouldn't put Al Capone in charge of the police, would you?

At any rate, it only goes to show you that the nutbars are still ruling the roost of the Conservative party. Maybe you can defend this, but then again, since you seem to be one of the nutbars, it's little wonder that you do.

[guyser]

In other news.... there are no old order Amish aspiring to be ministers of technology...

dont be so sure, like the muslims, they will quietly reach critical mass and then we will be overun by buggies in the street. At least thats what an old order Amish said to me . He wasnt kidding.

[M.Dancer]

So i take you are atheist?

Not in the least. I'm a big believer in the 12th commandment: Worship God with all your heart and all your mind.

[Smallc]

Evolution does not explain how life was started

Actually, other parts of science explain that. None of the things in science are mutually exclusive with God or Christianity. I happen to be a Christian of sorts. The only way that science and Christianity are mutually exclusive is if you take a rigid view.

[M.Dancer]

Evolution does not explain how life was started their is a theory but it doesn't have any research that conclusively supports it, as is with intellegent design, both are a leap of faith.

Correct. It's biology that attempts to explain the origin of life.

[ToadBrother]

But heres the rub, which of these two have had their theories tested by the scientific community and had it put to the test ?The science ones, or the religious ones?

How would one test such things? The whole point of science is methodological (note to Creationists around here and in Ottawa, *not* philosophical naturalism) is that any theory, to meet the rigor of a science, must be testable. How would you go about testing a statement like "God made life?" Since God, or at least the god of the Abrahamic religions, is an infinite, omnipotent being capable of any act, there would be no way to disprove the claim. That applies to all branches of science, by the way. Take the statement "God killed JFK". God very well could have, and since He has absolute freedom and unlimited capabilities, making it look like Oswald killed him would be trivial. You could not falsify the statement, but what you can do is create a more parsimonious statement, that, though more complex explanations (like God, angels or Communists killed JFK), the most parsimonious statement is that a guy named Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated him.

[ToadBrother]

Actually, other parts of science explain that. None of the things in science are mutually exclusive with God or Christianity. I happen to be a Christian of sorts. The only way that science and Christianity are mutually exclusive is if you take a rigid view.

St. Augustine had very apt words for those who invoke Biblical interpretations in the manner we're seeing:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

[scorpio]

Is he a creationist or a beleiver of intellegent design?

Same thing.

[Molly]

This appointment far, far exceeds just this mans inappropriateness.

It says paragraphs of unspeakable epithets about anyone who could consider him a rational choice!

[guyser]

Still, you wouldn't put Al Capone in charge of the police, would you?

Al ran everything, including the Police....couldnt resist a lil levity.

[ToadBrother]

This appointment far, far exceeds just this mans inappropriateness.

It says paragraphs of unspeakable epithets about anyone who could consider him a rational choice!

Well, his defenders seem rather typical. If not Creationists, then crypto-Creationists like ID-supporter Alta4ever. Since it's practically habitual to reject any science that flies in the faith of narrow beliefs, they think Goodyear's statements perfectly reasonable.

Hopefully the Opposition will take this opportunity to hold Harper's political testicles in the air and get this guy put in charge of doughnut stands or something else where Canada's international reputation can't be harmed even further.

[DrGreenthumb]

Well, his defenders seem rather typical. If not Creationists, then crypto-Creationists like ID-supporter Alta4ever. Since it's practically habitual to reject any science that flies in the faith of narrow beliefs, they think Goodyear's statements perfectly reasonable.

Hopefully the Opposition will take this opportunity to hold Harper's political testicles in the air and get this guy put in charge of doughnut stands or something else where Canada's international reputation can't be harmed even further.

Yeah and the funniest part about that will be how much it pisses off the freedom, family , and faith crowd, lol.

Harper and his party and drowning and in need of a big life raft.....maybe God will tell Goodyear to fund some research on the science of building an Ark.

[Molly]

It must go beyond that, Toadbrother...

Forgive me. Words just fail me in light of this.... this archaic redneck idiocy.

I've been pretty smug over the last couple of years, watching the US destroy it's science chops and replace it with 19th century theology. I believed that it couldn't happen here- that we are far too rational a bunch to grant more than benevolent tolerance to the pathologically ignorant.

Obviously, I was wrong.

I'm about 14 steps past dismayed, well beyond horrified, and a good way into damned angry.

These guys are some kind of horrible joke. They have to go.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Unfortunately and perhaps naively I voted conservative last time. Not that I am socially conservative at all - I am not, but I am fiscally conservative.

Now that the 'conservatives' have abandoned any sense of fiscal conservatism while at the same time appointing creationalists as the Minister of Science, I think I am done with the conservatives.

The problem is, now who do I vote for? There is absolutely no party that represents my ideals.

[Wilber]

Creationism is part of Jewish, Sikh, Muslim and Hindu religions to name a few. Would that disqualify all of them as well. Chretien is a practicing Catholic, is he a creationist or evolutionist? Did anyone ever ask him? Ujjal Dosange is a Sikh, would anyone dare ask him that question if he was made science minister in a Liberal cabinet? I doubt it. Would anyone have asked Herb Dahliwal that question if he had been science minister in a Chretien cabinet? I doubt it. People need to be judged on their actions, not their religious beliefs otherwise few of us are qualified to do anything. I am an evolutionist because so far it has met every scientific test possible but it is not absolutely provable and as such, still a theory. The best theory IMO, but still a theory.

[Molly]

.........Wilbur... did you read the question and answer?

HE, not we, interpreted a question about the validity of the theory of evolution as a religious question, and in so doing proposed that his religios views were incompatible with accepted science.

The journalist was most certainly trying to hand him a grenade-- but HE grabbed it, and HE pulled the pin.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Evolution isn't a theory, it's observable fact. Thus, to say that you don't "believe" in it means you're quite simply ignorant.

The method or system by which evolution works is still theorized (ie, evolution through natural selection), but whether or not living organisms evolve is not up for discussion, it happens and it's a fact.

Anyway, we are talking about a theory in the scientific sense here... already observed many hundreds of thousands of times... not the common English definition of theory.

If this minister of science refuses accept something such as evolution, what are the chances that he is going to understand or approve of the investigation of the genetic code, for example?

The danger is what he might not allow funding to go to simply because his ignorance and religious belief stand in the way. His not believing evolution of itself is not a big deal, but is evidence of his overall ignorance and his lack of qualifications for the job.

[ToadBrother]

Creationism is part of Jewish, Sikh, Muslim and Hindu religions to name a few. Would that disqualify all of them as well. Chretien is a practicing Catholic, is he a creationist or evolutionist? Did anyone ever ask him? Ujjal Dosange is a Sikh, would anyone dare ask him that question if he was made science minister in a Liberal cabinet? I doubt it. Would anyone have asked Herb Dahliwal that question if he had been science minister in a Chretien cabinet? I doubt it. People need to be judged on their actions, not their religious beliefs otherwise few of us are qualified to do anything. I am an evolutionist because so far it has met every scientific test possible but it is not absolutely provable and as such, still a theory. The best theory IMO, but still a theory.

I can't speak to the Sikh faith, but it most certainly is not inherent in Judaism or Islam, nor even in Hinduism (whose Creation myths or so wildly different in most important respects from the Abrahamic religions that I can't imagine why you mention it). Literalism has not been part of the Jewish faith since at least the Hellenic Period.

Catholicism long ago learned the hard way that defying science in favor of its own traditional views can do enormous harm. The Church is still trying to shirk off the Galileo affair. The Church has made over the last half century several very clear statements that evolution is not in defiance of faith, that Christianity and evolution are compatible, and that the Bible cannot be interpreted in such a way as to be in direct defiance of nature (this dates all the way back to St. Augustine).

So the other fallacy you're committing is stating that because some members of a particular religion are Creationists (for some value of "Creationist") therefore these are Creationist religions. Creationism, at least the variety we're talking about here, is not some ancient belief, but rather a product of 19th century American Revivalism. Few people, or at least few educated people, prior to this, demanded that Genesis be interpreted in a strictly literal sense, since doing so often invoked absurdities like a flat Earth with a dome over top of it (since the Genesis cosmography was pretty much lifted from the Sumero-Akkadian mythos). I refer back to my statement about Judaism. Saying Judaism is a Creationist religion is as idiotic as saying that it is a geocentric or flat-Earth religion.