Is Canada's Science Minister a creationalist?

[Alta4ever]

Harper can appoint whoever he damn well wants and whoever he thinks can do the job without the government paying the price. Right now the guy is doing an adequate job beliefs or no beliefs. Those are facts, deal with it.

I have an issue that you are perfectly fine discriminating somebody because they believe in something, yet I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that if a minority were to be discriminated against for believing in something you would yell that conservatives are racist until your blue in the face. You sir are a hypocrite.

Like i said way earlier in the thread, toadbrother and the others that seem to have a problem with this are religious bigots. Many many "christian" scientists are doing great work.

This is just another smear campaign by the liberals and the left throw as much sh.. as possible hoping something will stick.

[Alta4ever]

As disturbing as it is to be aware of such a collossal conflict of interest for one of our seniour staffers, it is double disturbing that he refuses to clarify the nature and degree of that conflict, preferring instead to pussyfoot, tapdance, and double-shuffle around it-- hiding behind freedom of concience and of religion to avoid what? Embarrassment?

If he is embarrassed by his faith, shame on him.

If his conflict of interest was based in personal financial matters, or family matters or what-have-you, we would demand, and recieve, a detailed explanation of the nature of the conflict, so as to judge whether we could accept the risk, or the priorities that someone in such a position would apply. We have the same right to know in this situation.

Will funding for projects at the Royal Tyrell recieve fair hearing? Will funding for the U of S biology labs recieve fair consideration? Exactly which scientific 'truths' does his faith demand that he reject, and what impact will they have on his priorities, and his decision-making? We, as the people paying both his salary, and for the projects he approves (as well as suffering the cost of not funding the projects he rejects) have the right to know, in full.

Not discussing it-- playing games of semantics, and dismissing the concerns as irrelevant-- is just plain not on.

Their is no conflict f interest just conflic from the left looking for anything they can to smear a man, now you are using religious bigotry.

Will funding for the projects you listed stop, I highly doubt it, quit talking to the taoster, its giving you bad info.

[Alta4ever]

Wait a minute here. I thought God was infinite; the Alpha and the Omega; the first and last, existing outside of time. Now, suddenly God is some finite being who gets bored?

At any rate, your private musings on God are rather irrelevant. Since I've already established that being a Christian is not incompatible with accepting evolution, we can move past your own theological leanings to discuss the issue of how someone who in fact appears to disagree with a theory that the overwhelming majority of working scientists simply accept as reality being in charge of scientific funding.

You have established, since when are you any athority bigot.

[Alta4ever]

Well, there are other facts in play:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12931207/Goodyear-Goof-

But beyond that, discriminating against stupidity is survival, not bigotry.

What fact is that a researcher that is un happy some proof get bent.

[kimmy]

If the job description for "Minister of State for Science and Technology" is to help grow the science and technology industry in Canada, that is not a job requiring a scientific background, it is a job requiring a business management background.

To me it sounds like this job would involve allocating funds to ventures most likely to succeed, withdrawing funds from ventures doomed to fail, creating an environment that could promote investment, advocating for tax breaks for R&D companies, and so on. I would be very surprised if this minister would make funding decisions on a case by case basis. Business analysts and auditors (again, probably people from a business background rather than a science background) are probably the ones who investigate whether individual businesses should receive funding.

At any rate I would be very surprised if anyone in the technology industry in Canada is doing research into the origin of life on earth... having an opinion on that issue is probably of no significance at all to the job. It's quite possible that a creationist could be very effective in the role, if he had an appropriate enthusiasm for boosting the technology industry in Canada.

There would be an issue if the minister were to take an interventional approach to deciding who gets funding and who doesn't, however.

From the Ottawa Citizen today.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/fp/F...6029/story.html

The article will make you cry.

The program started in 2002 to make research a priority has dropped since the Tories got into power.

Perhaps if they were not giving so much to a UFO museum and more to research, we'd be doing better economically.

Biotechnology is a special case. The development time for products is so long in the biotechnology industry that it's impossible for small companies to sustain it on their own. Proving the safety and effectiveness of a product can take 10 years or more to get the product onto the market, and that's only half the battle. Once you have a product on the market, it's market is minimal until you can get medical insurance (particularly the American private medical insurance industry) to fund your product for patients.

The time frame and risk involved is simply unacceptable for private investors... and probably sends up red flags to government programs as well. The best hope is to develop your idea to the point of a successful demo, then sell it to a giant conglomerate that can afford to take a long view and speculate on such risky ventures.

-k

[Alta4ever]

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/s...html?id=1399884

The Globe's front-page witch hunt

Jonathan Kay, National Post

Published: Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Canadians differ on whether a supernatural entity had a role in the creation of human life. In a 2007 Canadian Press-Decima Research poll, 26% of respondents said they believe in creationism, 29% picked evolution and 34% said they believe in some combination of the two.

But according to militant secularists -- given disgracefully prominent play by The Globe and Mail on the front page of yesterday's edition -- that's not good enough. They want everyone in society, or at least everyone leading this country, to dogmatically subscribe to the minority view that God had no role at all in human creation.

You liberals kool aid spinsters can all go f--- yourselves.

[Alta4ever]

If the job description for "Minister of State for Science and Technology" is to help grow the science and technology industry in Canada, that is not a job requiring a scientific background, it is a job requiring a business management background.

To me it sounds like this job would involve allocating funds to ventures most likely to succeed, withdrawing funds from ventures doomed to fail, creating an environment that could promote investment, advocating for tax breaks for R&D companies, and so on. I would be very surprised if this minister would make funding decisions on a case by case basis. Business analysts and auditors (again, probably people from a business background rather than a science background) are probably the ones who investigate whether individual businesses should receive funding.

At any rate I would be very surprised if anyone in the technology industry in Canada is doing research into the origin of life on earth... having an opinion on that issue is probably of no significance at all to the job. It's quite possible that a creationist could be very effective in the role, if he had an appropriate enthusiasm for boosting the technology industry in Canada.

There would be an issue if the minister were to take an interventional approach to deciding who gets funding and who doesn't, however.

Biotechnology is a special case. The development time for products is so long in the biotechnology industry that it's impossible for small companies to sustain it on their own. Proving the safety and effectiveness of a product can take 10 years or more to get the product onto the market, and that's only half the battle. Once you have a product on the market, it's market is minimal until you can get medical insurance (particularly the American private medical insurance industry) to fund your product for patients.

The time frame and risk involved is simply unacceptable for private investors... and probably sends up red flags to government programs as well. The best hope is to develop your idea to the point of a successful demo, then sell it to a giant conglomerate that can afford to take a long view and speculate on such risky ventures.

-k

ypu beat me to that one Kimmy.

[DrGreenthumb]

You have established, since when are you any athority bigot.

Its not bigoted to say that the science minister should be scientific minded any more than it is bigoted against blind people to deny them a driver's liscence.

[ToadBrother]

Like i said way earlier in the thread, toadbrother and the others that seem to have a problem with this are religious bigots. Many many "christian" scientists are doing great work.

This is just another smear campaign by the liberals and the left throw as much sh.. as possible hoping something will stick.

Stating someone whose beliefs were pretty much falsified in their entirety by the middle of the 19th century isn't appropriate as science minister is not bigotry. This attempt to define this is a religious debate is something Goodyear did.

[Alta4ever]

Its not bigoted to say that the science minister should be scientific minded any more than it is bigoted against blind people to deny them a driver's liscence.

it is bigoted to claim that Mr. Goodyear isn't science minded becuase of his religious beliefs.

[Alta4ever]

Stating someone whose beliefs were pretty much falsified in their entirety by the middle of the 19th century isn't appropriate as science minister is not bigotry. This attempt to define this is a religious debate is something Goodyear did.

Science has yet to falsfy any religion. You sir are a religious bigot.

Every christian church beleifs that god created the earth and all life on it, they just debate on how god did it.

[ToadBrother]

it is bigoted to claim that Mr. Goodyear isn't science minded becuase of his religious beliefs.

He isn't science-minded because he rejects evolutionary theory, which virtually every scientist out there accepts. His religion is irrelevant, as I have pointed out several times, many Christians accept evolution.

[jdobbin]

There would be an issue if the minister were to take an interventional approach to deciding who gets funding and who doesn't, however.

Some scientists belive that there is a bias against certain types of research. It is understandable that people ask what the minister believes and why.

[Alta4ever]

Stating someone whose beliefs were pretty much falsified in their entirety by the middle of the 19th century isn't appropriate as science minister is not bigotry. This attempt to define this is a religious debate is something Goodyear did.

you are a real intolerant prick, you are using the debate on evolution to smaer this man with being some kind of zealot that doesn't believe in any and all science because of his political leanings.

[ToadBrother]

Science has yet to falsfy any religion. You sir are a religious bigot.

So you think Thor causes thunder and lightning?

As it is, science doesn't delve into the realm of the supernatural. That's not its purpose.

Every christian church beleifs that god created the earth and all life on it, they just debate on how god did it.

Every Christian church does not insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis. That's the difference. At any rate, evolution has nothing at all to say on God. No scientific theory does. No one complains that quantum chromodynamics doesn't mention God, no one complains that climatology doesn't mention God, no one complains that industrial chemistry doesn't mention God, and yet evolution time and time again is railed against for this.

[Alta4ever]

He isn't science-minded because he rejects evolutionary theory, which virtually every scientist out there accepts. His religion is irrelevant, as I have pointed out several times, many Christians accept evolution.

you said it right there "theory" not fact.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

26% of respondents said they believe in creationism,

I had no idea so many Canadians were so openly ignorant and just plain stupid. Unbelievable.

I suppose I too was ignorant for somehow thinking that this uneducated, ignorant, and delusional belief in creationism was somehow concentrated in the American South.

I am making no comment what-so-ever towards Christianity, that is another story. I am talking about creationism. Anyone who believes in creationism is so far out of touch with reality that I believe they should hold absolutely zero power as they have no sense of logic, no education, and no clue!

(By the way Alta4ever... before labeling me a left-wing koolaid drinker... note that I am actually a (fiscally) conservative atheist.

[ToadBrother]

you are a real intolerant prick, you are using the debate on evolution to smaer this man with being some kind of zealot that doesn't believe in any and all science because of his political leanings.

Look, we already know you're a Creationist, so this "He's being picked on for his beliefs" crap is expected. I don't give a damn what his religion is, I do give a damn that a Creationist has been put in a cabinet position responsible for science funding. Since science long ago dispensed with Creationism, he is therefore an inappropriate choice, just as a convicted felon would be an inappropriate choice in the justice portfolio or a Muslim who wants Shariah courts would be inappropriate in the women's portfolio.

[Alta4ever]

So you think Thor causes thunder and lightning?

As it is, science doesn't delve into the realm of the supernatural. That's not its purpose.

Every Christian church does not insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis. That's the difference. At any rate, evolution has nothing at all to say on God. No scientific theory does. No one complains that quantum chromodynamics doesn't mention God, no one complains that climatology doesn't mention God, no one complains that industrial chemistry doesn't mention God, and yet evolution time and time again is railed against for this.

did I say the literal intriptation?

[ToadBrother]

you said it right there "theory" not fact.

That is simply an invokation of the etymological fallacy. A scientific theory is not simply a guess. The word has a specific meaning, and either you're being dishonest or just being an idiot, but either way, you're commiting a logical fallacy.

[Alta4ever]

Look, we already know you're a Creationist, so this "He's being picked on for his beliefs" crap is expected. I

Really I am a creationist? you think so becauseI defend this man it paints me with that brush?

I have no idea what started life on earth, I do beleive that god had a hand in it, I beleive that life has changed over time, but that it has had a guiding hand of god...Apperently that is creationism...get bent.

You are a bigot because you are intolerant of him and his religous views. If you tried this crap with any minority relgion in this country they would haul your ass infront of the facist human rights commision, thank you luck stars that those commisions don't ever site with christianity and that conservatives beleive in free speech other wise you would have to face that fascist tribunal crted by the liberals and the left of this country.

[Alta4ever]

That is simply an invokation of the etymological fallacy. A scientific theory is not simply a guess. The word has a specific meaning, and either you're being dishonest or just being an idiot, but either way, you're commiting a logical fallacy.

Its a theory an educated guess by process of observation.....it has a specific meaning that it solves part of the arguement for the scientific community, but can be changed as more facts come to light.

[ToadBrother]

Really I am a creationist? you think so becauseI defend this man it paints me with that brush?

You said you believe in ID. Unless you mean something else, that pretty much paints you as a Creationist.

I have no idea what started life on earth, I do beleive that god had a hand in it, I beleive that life has changed over time, but that it has had a guiding hand of god...Apperently that is creationism...get bent.

Since you used a term "Intelligent Design" which was invented by the likes of William Dembski (actually, he is one of the major formulators) and is a Creationist, the fault is yours. On the spectrum, it's more likely you would be a Theistic Evolutionist.

You are a bigot because you are intolerant of him and his religous views. If you tried this crap with any minority relgion in this country they would haul your ass infront of the facist human rights commision, thank you luck stars that those commisions don't ever site with christianity and that conservatives beleive in free speech other wise you would have to face that fascist tribunal crted by the liberals and the left of this country.

I don't give a shit what his religious views are. I care that a minister responsible for science funding apparently doesn't accept one of the major scientific theories. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY, AS THE LARGEST CHRISTIAN CHURCHES DO NOT REJECT EVOLUTION.

Goodyear framed this as a religious debate, not I or anyone else.

[Argus]

I had no idea so many Canadians were so openly ignorant and just plain stupid. Unbelievable.

S'funny. I've been thinking the same thing since I started reading this thread.

It's a grandstand show of ignorance and bigotry by the lefties!

[ToadBrother]

Its a theory an educated guess by process of observation.....it has a specific meaning that it solves part of the arguement for the scientific community, but can be changed as more facts come to light.

It is significantly more than an educated guess. You're simply digging yourself in deeper here. A theory has to be backed up by a significant body of evidence, has to be able to explain that evidence and make predictions as to what other kinds of observations can be found. Theories change, yes, but not in the way you seem to describe. The last major alteration in evolutionary theory was the combining of Darwinian selection and genetics back in the 1920s and 1930s, which not only supplied the missing system of heredity that Darwin didn't have, but also revealed other forms of evolution such as neutral drift, which may be as much responsible for evolution as natural selection. Evolution makes predictions which can be tested, and have been tested, repeatedly. It is one of the most successful scientific theories in history.