255 Replies to ““Mr. Minister, Mr. Minister, Do You Believe In Evolution?””
Please stop with the “It’s only a theory” line of reasoning.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain ‘why’.
As for “transitional fossils” why not observe the world around you. If we are all descendants of a common ancestor named Adam then why do people have various coloured skins, why do people in different areas of the world have different hair types, average heights etc?
If we are not all descended from the same dude that puts a pretty big whole in your bible.
The Theory of Evolution is one of the strongest theories in the field of science. This debate will poison the centre right from joining the CPC.
“If the “Theory” of Evolution is such a slam dunk proven fact then why isn’t it the “Law” of Evolution? Isn’t part of the scientific process to question something until it is proven beyond doubt?”
That comment makes me want to slap you, but I can’t really blame you for your ignorance – it’s a failing of the public education system, really. So I’ll explain it:
In science, a “Law” is a description of observations. For instance, the law of gravity tells us that what goes up must come down. That’s the dumbed down version, but that’s basically what it is. A “Theory”, on the other hand, is a description of how the thing which we are observing actually works. So when Einstein came along and gave us relativity, we concluded that gravity is actually a bending of space caused by matter. However, that description is still a theory, and will continue to be a theory no matter how much evidence we gather to support it.
You’ve shown a misunderstanding which is quite common in our population – the assumption that theories become laws once enough evidence is presented. This is simply not the case. In scientific work, theories are actually better than laws, because they tell us how things work. Laws just tell us that they do work. Theories don’t become laws – laws lay the foundation for the development of theories.
When you think of the word “theory”, what you’re actually thinking of is a “hypothesis”. A hypothesis is a preliminary statement for which we have not yet gathered enough evidence. If I were to say that gravity works because angels hold your feet to the ground, that would be a hypothesis. If I could provide enough evidence for my hypothesis, it would then become a theory. But no matter how much evidence I gather, my theory will never become a law. They are two completely different things.
I hope that helps you understand the difference.
Richard Romonow:
You are confusing “transitional species” with “transitional fossils”. While there must have been many instances of the first, that doesn’t mean there must be many instances of the second compared to “regular” fossils.
Here’s a web site that lists hundreds of transitional species: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
“I would agree that it matters little what you believe in terms of origins science — you don’t need to believe in evolution to promote scientific theories (Galileo, Newton) or to come up with medical breakthroughs (Joseph Lister).”
That’s idiotic. Galileo was born 300 years before Darwin. Newton a hundred years after that. If those are the best examples you can come up with, you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Frankly [snip]I don’t give a fat rat’s ass what Gary Goodyear believes viv-a-vis evolution, as long as he does his damn job properly, and I have yet to see any credible evidence that he has failed to do so. If it comes to my attention that he is making bad policy in his ministry as a consequence of his beliefs, or for any other reason, for that matter, I will oppose him on that. Not for what he believes in his spiritual life.
Posted by: gordinkneehill at March 18, 2009 8:06 PM
Very good gordinkneehill. Which is more or less what he should have said in his answer. He made a mistake in bringing up his Christianity. Irrelevant.
From some of the comments above, it looks like a lot of people share the fallacy that a minister of the crown must be an expert in the field covered by his cabinet post. Not at all, and in fact such expertise may often be an impediment.
What we’re witnessing the “Progressive” Liberal Left and the Big Politically Correct Corporate Media do is nothing short of hounding a Christian for being Christian, Conservative and in charge of a certain portfolio. And demand his firing.
How convenient for the “Progressive” Liberal Left and their Big Media wing to, figuratively, kill two birds with one stone: A Conservative and a Christian. Isn’t it their lucky day, getting to throw the proverbial stone, under cover of political correctness and protected by the VLWC, at someone they hate?
Goebbels would be proud of these neo-Nazi Brownshirts who call themselves liberal “progressives” and attack people they don’t like just for being a little different.
They’re saying that it’s ok to harrass Christian Conservative politicians, whereas it wouldn’t be ok to harrass Muslim/GLBT Liberals/NDPers, etc.
Hey, if the Hard Left believes that it’s ok to say that if one’s religion says one thing, then one must be fired from this or that… then we can say that if one practices a certain sexual activity, then one must be fired from some position because of that. We can also say that Muslims can’t hold jobs that have anything to do with security and intelligence.
This is what the Hard Left is opening the door to.
The “Progressive” Liberal Left and the Big Politically Correct Media are demonstrating that they’re hateful. Oh, and so is Catmeat on his blog. Again. While calling conservative bloggers “hateful”. Well, hey, Warrin’ Kim Sheila, Grit Girl, Catmeat, Clown, Toilet Man, whatever, YOU and your kind are the true haters, and you’re practicing transferrence by calling the non-hateful victims of your hatred “hateful”.
Sheesh… they’re shooting themselves in the foot. The self-professed “tolerant” are proudly demonstrating their INtolerance with exuberant glee. But it’s ok, because it’s politically correct to spew hatred, contempt and incite to discriminate against those awful Christians, after all… just as it’s politically correct to treat Israelis/Jews the same way…
They’d NEVER dare treat Muslims and “gays” this way. NEVER. Oh, wait; they would… if the Muslims/”gays” were Conservatives!
I’m reminded of the fact that the US Democratic Party is responsible for creating the KKK to persecute and hang both Blacks and Republicans of any color… This is where the “Progressive” Liberal movement, with their subtle, sugarcoated “web of hate” is headed today against conservatives and JudeoChristians. And it’s all politicaly correct… just as the Final Solution was politically correct in the Third Reich.
Oh, I’m also reminded of a former Liberal Prime Minister who said of Jewish immigration: “None is too many”.
Today’s Liberals are more careful with words, but we know full well when they’re being hateful and intolerant. Right, Warren? Look in the mirror today?
expert > believe in.
Maybe an anti-christ should be the next pope?
Little extreme I agree, but you get the point.
“Maybe an anti-christ should be the next pope?”
Or a Muslim, maybe? 🙂 Well said!
Evolution does not contradict the second law which holds true only in closed systems. Earth is an open system fueled by the sun.
Jim:
The flaw in the argument that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics is so obvious that I can only conclude that those who put it forward either no nothing about science or don’t care if their arguments make no sense.
Either way, its stupidity on the hoof.
For an excellent book on the thermodynamics of open systems (yes, such a field exists) I suggest…
“Into the cool: Energy flow, thermodynamics, and life” by Schneider and Sagan (no relation).
“As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.”
I would agree….this means that AGW/CO2 “theory”
is not theory at all but fantasy……a statement of faith at best….fraud at worst.
AGW has nothing to do with evolution.
” It’s an militant secularist tact to attack and demonize people who do not ascribe to evolutionary theory.”
Posted by: Richard Romano at March 18, 2009 8:14 PM
By George! I believe you’re getting it! Or getting close, anyway. This whole “debate” about evolution vs intelligent design, is, I contend, a false-flag operation by the Left to sow discord amongst conservatives. First, they are trying to create a false dichotomy between “Christians” and “evolutionists”. And second, they are trying to put forward the false notion, as noted by Me No Dhimmi and Sentinel, that a government minister must be some sort of expert in the field under his watch. I guess that means the Minister of National Revenue ought to be a homosexual, as we all know it’s Revenue’s mission to f*ck us in the arse.
Alex wrote
“AGW has nothing to do with evolution.”
And AGW/CO2 has nothing to do with science.
“And AGW/CO2 has nothing to do with science.”
Then why the hell are you bringing it up? Do you have a really short attention span, or what?
Al Gore is a Christian fundamentalist . . . does that mean he is anti science ?
Fish
Barrel
Shoot
Jon:
Your mistaking general adaptation with traits already extant in the species, with a complete different animal so to speak. Any Kind of animal that reaches the limit of adaptation becomes sterile.
Geography, diet, isolation, & climate are factors. The truth is the species called Man has been bottlenecked in the past. Killed off like God in the flood said, to the extant everyone on Earth marries their sister six times removed.
The Human race is actually deficient in DNA viability. Where closer than the purest breed of animal.
Race4 is a delusion created in the 16nth century to support the slave trade. They called then sub human. Social Darwinism was used later as a justification. For separating fo0lks by of all things skin color. Even the ancients knew better. By the way evolution is hardly new. Read some Greek authors from 500 BC. Augustine et al.
JMO
Being a well known atheist around here, I would like to add my two cents worth.
Did he tell scientists to stop the study of evolution?
Did he say that science was crap, or that he did not believe in science?
Did he indicate that he was going to cut funding to any project because it clashed with his religious beliefs?
No, no, and NO!
What we have here is another librano tempest, more than likely orchestrated by the great catsmeat himself.
yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn
I seem to recall Gary being pretty tough in committees, this could be nothing more than the Liberals finding a reason to get at Goodyear for just that. All the Libs do is sic their minions in the media on him and away they go.
It’s so bizarre and outrageous what else could it be with all the pressing matters our government and most of us are concerned with? We have to consider it could be the usual subjects in the backhouse of the Lib party pulling dirty gotcha stunts. Harken back to what they did to Stockwell Day.
Science isn’t a religion, but a method of identifying bullsh1t in someone’s argument. That’s why we roll our eyes at creationists.
Posted by: Jon at March 18, 2009 7:33 PM
You mean, jon, like the “science” behind AGW? That kind of science? You’re reading the graph back-to-front, pal: in this case it’s a matter of spewing copious bullsh*t and bolstering a false religion to shutdown someone else’s argument. There; fixed that for you, but no need to thank me here. The self-professed “tolerant” are proudly demonstrating their INtolerance with exuberant glee.
Posted by: The Canadian Sentinel at March 18, 2009 8:41 PM
That’s only slightly ironic, CS: when did you ever meet anyone more intolerant than those on the left? They are the most ruthlessly intolerant of anybody who doesn’t subscribe to their self-proclaimed PC “tolerant” views.
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
“Being a well known atheist around here .. blah blah blah”
If you have to preface your argument with the statement that you’re an atheist, you’re already on the wrong track.
The problem here isn’t with his actions – it’s with his qualifications. If you don’t understand science well enough to accept the theory of evolution, you have no business holding that position. Just like Obama’s lack of experience and knowledge is an impediment to his attempt to lead a nation, so this ignoramuses lack of scientific knowledge is an impediment to his ability to hold his position. You wouldn’t put a muslim in the vatican, you wouldn’t put a hippie in charge of the defense department, you wouldn’t put a flat-earther in charge of NASA, and you certainly wouldn’t put a creationist in charge of science.
I think this is smoke. Environmental scientists haven’t been doing well lately. They have been getting cuts to the grants. A lot of them are GW advocates. Some of the gov’t scientists to be nice are sub-optimal by all standards. On a previous complaint of cuts PMSH stated the science was done and smiled. The CBC is looking bad, the Libs. are looking bad, useless positions are looking dimmer and WK still looks like himself.
There was no outcry when we were represented by friggin lawyers and that was fun.
He was asked about science, and answered with religion. That was stupid on his part. When are we going to get competent people in government? There’s no party that’s moving in that direction, as far as I can tell.
Science is testable. Religion is not. Religion is not able to be used as an argument against science. The minister responsible for the science and technology portfolio should at least know THAT much.
I’m loving all these conspiracy theories 🙂 You guys are making the 9/11 truthers look sane in comparison.
Lord tunderin jeezus! Go fer yoer guns or ketch cod!
mhb,
I don’t know why you’ve asked me about AGW. I haven’t mentioned it in my many posts on this thread and if you’ll look back to 2004(ish) I’ve made many comments questioning that theory based on many observations that I’ve made… ie sunspot activity, temperature forcing carbon dioxide etc.
The observations that Creation Scientists (sic) and Intelligent Design subscribers claim are not science because they have not been put to hypothesis testing. That’s why Creation is not science, nor is model based agw. It’s a prediction based on superstition.
You’ve opened a really funny door. Christians believe certain things that they can’t prove, but have faith that they are true. This is analogous to AGW in that Algore believes that the icecaps are going to melt in 10 years. Essentially you’ve come to your conclusion and you’ve tried to find snippets of information which confirms your beliefs. This is the same stuff we all criticise gore for…
From LGF:
How would you feel if the head of your federal science department told you he believes the Earth is flat? Or the Sun revolves around the Earth? Or that he thinks the sky is a great crystal sphere, and he lies awake at night worried that the Voyager probes will smash it and let all our air out?
Those beliefs have just as much basis as young Earth creationism: they are faith-based only, and have no evidence for them, and about a billion solid pieces of evidence against them. If your science advisor told you any of those things, you’d think he was crazy and you’d look for a replacement.
Goodyear’s critics should back off and let him do his job. I’m sure if he ever makes a decision which clearly demonstrates his faith is getting the way of properly doing his job, there will be plenty of scientists around to denounce him.
Before Goodyear stated he does believe in evolution, Marc Garneau, the Lib science critic, said a creationist can indeed be a good science minister.
By harping on this non story, I think the Libs are trying to change the channel because of some good economic news making some headlines.
“Having said that, the witch hunt against Gary Goodyear is nothing but a Lib-Left hatchet job.”
Posted by: gordinkneehill at March 18, 2009 8:06 PM
Exactly!
Driven by the Liberal cheerleaders at GlobeMedia.
CTV ‘s Giggles Taber “POWERPLAY”, a prime agitator for G&Mail.
Rabbit, Jon, Alex thanks for straightening me out on “theory” vs “law”. I learned something which is why I come here. I am not a scientist although I have Computing Science degree. My point was not to attack the scientific method but “scientists” who do not live by the scientific method – which seems to be most of them. Scientists are first and foremost people who (like any capitalist businessman) look out for number one. Jobs, status, funding, promotions, keeping the wife happy and the kids fed are all important.
In following the threads at Climate Audit and Watts Up With That it is obvious that much of the so called peer reviewed “science” that makes up the backbone of the global warming case is very weak. Data for the studies is not made available making replication impossible. Reviewers are often in blatant conflicts of interest which are not revealed. Often they are not even qualified to review. When these are pointed out to the prestigious journals that publish the articles these concerns are dismissed.
Any reputable “scientist” should find this situation intolerable, even if you are in favor of the global warming theory. Yet except for a brave few the silence is deafening. Much of the credibility given to the man-made global warming theory comes from Hansen’s computer model which has been shown to be flawed in so many ways. Yet “scientists” totally ignorant of computer modeling happily accept its predictions.
Larry Summers, Obama’s Director of National Economic Council while president of Harvard in an informal discussion of why there are fewer women in math and engineering talked about the brain differences of the sexes. As far as I can tell the current “scientific understanding” is that mens and womens brains are different which leads to the sexes having generally different strengths and weaknesses. For stating this scientific understanding Summers was hounded out of Harvard for daring to go against political correctness. Only a few “scientists” stood up for him.
If you go back 20, 50, 100, 500 years the situation is always the same. Political correctness usually takes precedence over science because scientists are first and foremost people who want to get along as best as they can. They are not always infallible rational gods.
I have no bone in the fight over Creationism vs Darwinism. What I see is a bunch of a politically correct “scientists” sneeringly dismissing any criticism of Darwinism – the science is settled. Just like they say about global warming.
I doubt it as I believe should any real scientist.
The best frauds, scams, hoaxes are those that cannot be easily proven – right OR wrong. At least initially. Hold the fort long enough to collect the money. Carbon taxes, collection plate.
Given that junk science is the name of the game in Canada, who cares if Goodyear believes in creationism or not? His personal beliefs are not anyone’s business, either.
The hounding of the minister by the reporter(and the hounding of fellow conservatives in the comments here) is further proof that the Left will continue to use evolution to drive a wedge into the Right and divide it.
Kate, please don’t make the same mistake Charles Johnson at LGF did by welcoming this wedge and obsessing over it again and again.
If you do, the Left will win power repeatedly and succeed in Balkanizing the Right until it splinters into a million factions and become ineffective.
And what good will it do to have “won” one argument, just to become marginalized in the end?
Evolution is not a make or break issue in the struggle for individual liberty and the preservation of democracy. If you think it is, then by all means, enjoy your new overlord, Obama, and the dead end that he and his followers will drive science towards.
Priorities, priorities.
Alex you are assuming that because someone rejects something like the theory of evolution means that they don’t understand that theory. I’m sure that Galileo understood the widely held scientific theory that the earth was the centre of the universe. It just so happened that he disagreed with established science. Science like any human endeavour tries to browbeat everyone into into believing just as the proponents believe. The fact remains that the theory of evolution is widely accepted as sound science because it eliminates the need for a Divinity. Personally I reject the theory of evolution because I see a fatal flaw in the theory of Causeless Causation of which the theory of evolution is just one aspect amongst many.
Doug,
It’s absurd that you are asking Kate not to reference this. This is a ghost to exorcise from our side of the political divide. If you believe in unicorns, or Jesus’ miraculous birth, or Hansen’s view of AGW that’s your own deal, but don’t even try to blame your religion. What Goodyear did was incredibly inept and inexcusable. He should be replaced asap. How can you be the minister of s&t and not prepare for a question like that, even if it was out of bounds?
The Conservative party is not the party of religion. It has no desire to bring up abortion, nor should it try to bring creationism into the fold… all we’ll accomplish by doing that is driving off right of centre scientists, atheists and nontheists to the LPC. If we want a government that’s rational with our tax dollars we should expect a government that’s rational with science. “Jesus said so, according to John and maybe Thomas” isn’t an acceptable answer to any question… especially one dealing with evolution.
Don’t we want a scientist with a scientific background to be in charge of science?
And what qualifies iggy to be leader of the opposition?
“The fact remains that the theory of evolution is widely accepted as sound science because it eliminates the need for a Divinity.”
This is an all-too-common misconception, and one that is actively fostered by those who wish to drive a wedge between people of faith and people of science. Natural science does not require a divinity to explain any phenomenon, neither does it try to dismiss the possible existence of a divinity.
The purview of natural science is the natural physical universe and the physical objects and forces that make it up. Divinity falls within the purview of metaphysics, which is a different discipline altogether. It is just as wrong to try to use science to deny God as it is to use the Bible to deny science.
Do you expect a chef de cuisine to be able to tune up your carburetor?
Jon, read my post again, or should I assume that you are a “believer” in statism ready to sacrifice millions of the weak and the flawed for your “higher” purposes? I can prove that you are a sock puppet, however, just by your next response…..
A simple answer to this, even for fundamentalists, would be
“The world is always changing. For example, in pre-industrial revolution London, moths were predominantly lighter in colour. However, during the period of heavy coal burning, the melanistic phase predominated, as they were less visible to predators.
There are many historical evidences of change – the one above that I quoted took place in less than a generation. Others take longer. So, our world is always changing, or evolving if you will.”
Lol this is funny.
The comments are hilarious, the left is all science is absolute, we all come to the same conclusions when looking at the data (see evolution). Debate is over!
That is not science! That is group think.
For a bunch of high brows that put all their trust in science they sure do not understand how science is conducted, advanced and dare I say “evolves”.
That Goodyear painted himself into a corner and didn’t tell the media to literally go fvck themselves is enough for me to demand his resignation.
This has got to end now folks. Tolerance is wearing as thin as these pukes tell me the arctic ice was tomorrow. And yes, the storm’s acomin’.
Well!! It is so good to know that the staffers at the CBC and the Blubb and Wail understand evolution!
Yes indeed! But wait! They are talking about BELIEVING in evolution! They probably also BELIEVE in the tooth fairy, or the socialist version thereof.
I am sufficient of a Protestant, or perhaps sufficient of a follower of W. K. Clifford, to think that unexamined belief is immoral. Do the CBC and Blubb people (perhaps excluding the intelligent Margaret Wente) have the faintest idea of the arguments and evidence for evolution? I see no evidence whatsoever that they do. And Protestant that I may be, and follower of Clifford also that I may be, I find that in the absence of a knowledge of fact, and an understanding of relevant argument, it is as immoral to hold a belief that may be in accordance with reality as to hold one which is based on whim and fancy.
I would much rather deal with an informed Intelligent Designer than with a knee-jerk BELIEVER in evolution.
PS in regard to an earlier poster, there is no evidence whatsoever that the speed of light *in vacuo* has changed. The speed of light in material media is another matter.
LGF already has three posts on this very topic.
Remember how we used t say: “Karl Rove, you magnificent bastard!”
Well, get used to hearing: “Howard Dean, you magnificent bastard!”
And watch while the Right comes apart at the seams over a low priority issue.
Want to see Obama around until 2016 Michael Ingatieff become PM? The just keep up the petty bullshit on evolution.
If that is what you choose to believe gordinkneehill. I stand by what I said. Try asking yourself the question WHY. Why does a natural event occur without Cause. We can see patterns and we can see effects but we can’t explain why without a cause beyond what we can see and understand. We can understand that DNA passes along ‘information’ that causes multiple cells to specialize and work together as one unit but you can’t tell me why it works.
“The fact remains that the theory of evolution is widely accepted as sound science because it eliminates the need for a Divinity.”
The fact remains that the theory of AGW is widely accepted as sound science because it allows for Socialistic One World Governance.
On the one hand the science is right. On the other it is wrong. Everybody has to know EVERYTHING in order to form a correct opinion. And to vote accordingly.
Journalistic Jounalists do not help the matter one bit. In fact they dumb it down.
I believe this is why our beloved media can swing public opinion with biases, slant and out right lies. It is hard for us to know everything about everything. But blogs sure help.
Doug,
It’s a real shame that you can not equate conservatism with anything but your particular view of it. I understand that you may believe anything you want to, but to accept a finance minister who doesn’t believe in Economics or a Health Minister who believes in religious exorcism is as ludicrous as having a Science minster who believe in creationism.
I am as far from Statist as possible. You have the freedom to believe whatever you want. If you are representing Canada you have the responsibility to remove yourself from quaint beliefs.
Doug, in this you are wrong. The religious right is trying to leverage their collective weight into forcing religiosity (of any sort) into all conservatism. Social conservatism isn’t conservatism… it’s social conservatism which is why it needs that moniker.
The world is wider than your personal observation, or whatever you chose to believe about a stranger on the internet. I’m done with you.
“But to be asked if you support the theory of evolution, and respond with “I’m a Christian” is actually a non-answer. “
…and a non-answer is the only appropriate answer to a non question! (But he might have been wiser to have chosen a different non-answer.) “Do you support the theory of ______?” ??? What the hell kind of bullshit weasel non-question is that?!? Answering it either way demands credulity, which is inappropriate in therms of the dictates of science! “Theory” means there is no equivocal answer!
I wonder, do the reporters believe in Karma? Do they read their horoscopes or check the biorhythm chart occasionally?
I think it is pretty much an absolute certainty that life started from non-living material and from there higher animal forms came to be – either by an evolutionary process or a revolutionary one or both. But no one can say so with 100.00% percent precision. Just as no one can prove for certain that we do not have souls that extend beyond our physical forms.
I also believe that our constitution, such as it is, protects me from being discriminated against because of these beliefs. To hold this minister’s feet to the fire and declare him incompetent because of his beliefs rather than his actions is bigotry and discrimination pure and simple.
(I knew a guy in university who was a geologist who said that the fossil record was a test of man’s faith in God. He is a geologist today working mining fossils and a very good one at that if one goes by his T4 and dividend statements)
and indeed with the big bang theory, the earth was at the exact centre of the universe. as was Andromeda , the furthest quasar and every damn other thing,
Please stop with the “It’s only a theory” line of reasoning.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain ‘why’.
As for “transitional fossils” why not observe the world around you. If we are all descendants of a common ancestor named Adam then why do people have various coloured skins, why do people in different areas of the world have different hair types, average heights etc?
If we are not all descended from the same dude that puts a pretty big whole in your bible.
The Theory of Evolution is one of the strongest theories in the field of science. This debate will poison the centre right from joining the CPC.
“If the “Theory” of Evolution is such a slam dunk proven fact then why isn’t it the “Law” of Evolution? Isn’t part of the scientific process to question something until it is proven beyond doubt?”
That comment makes me want to slap you, but I can’t really blame you for your ignorance – it’s a failing of the public education system, really. So I’ll explain it:
In science, a “Law” is a description of observations. For instance, the law of gravity tells us that what goes up must come down. That’s the dumbed down version, but that’s basically what it is. A “Theory”, on the other hand, is a description of how the thing which we are observing actually works. So when Einstein came along and gave us relativity, we concluded that gravity is actually a bending of space caused by matter. However, that description is still a theory, and will continue to be a theory no matter how much evidence we gather to support it.
You’ve shown a misunderstanding which is quite common in our population – the assumption that theories become laws once enough evidence is presented. This is simply not the case. In scientific work, theories are actually better than laws, because they tell us how things work. Laws just tell us that they do work. Theories don’t become laws – laws lay the foundation for the development of theories.
When you think of the word “theory”, what you’re actually thinking of is a “hypothesis”. A hypothesis is a preliminary statement for which we have not yet gathered enough evidence. If I were to say that gravity works because angels hold your feet to the ground, that would be a hypothesis. If I could provide enough evidence for my hypothesis, it would then become a theory. But no matter how much evidence I gather, my theory will never become a law. They are two completely different things.
I hope that helps you understand the difference.
Richard Romonow:
You are confusing “transitional species” with “transitional fossils”. While there must have been many instances of the first, that doesn’t mean there must be many instances of the second compared to “regular” fossils.
Here’s a web site that lists hundreds of transitional species:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
“I would agree that it matters little what you believe in terms of origins science — you don’t need to believe in evolution to promote scientific theories (Galileo, Newton) or to come up with medical breakthroughs (Joseph Lister).”
That’s idiotic. Galileo was born 300 years before Darwin. Newton a hundred years after that. If those are the best examples you can come up with, you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Frankly [snip]I don’t give a fat rat’s ass what Gary Goodyear believes viv-a-vis evolution, as long as he does his damn job properly, and I have yet to see any credible evidence that he has failed to do so. If it comes to my attention that he is making bad policy in his ministry as a consequence of his beliefs, or for any other reason, for that matter, I will oppose him on that. Not for what he believes in his spiritual life.
Posted by: gordinkneehill at March 18, 2009 8:06 PM
Very good gordinkneehill. Which is more or less what he should have said in his answer. He made a mistake in bringing up his Christianity. Irrelevant.
From some of the comments above, it looks like a lot of people share the fallacy that a minister of the crown must be an expert in the field covered by his cabinet post. Not at all, and in fact such expertise may often be an impediment.
What we’re witnessing the “Progressive” Liberal Left and the Big Politically Correct Corporate Media do is nothing short of hounding a Christian for being Christian, Conservative and in charge of a certain portfolio. And demand his firing.
How convenient for the “Progressive” Liberal Left and their Big Media wing to, figuratively, kill two birds with one stone: A Conservative and a Christian. Isn’t it their lucky day, getting to throw the proverbial stone, under cover of political correctness and protected by the VLWC, at someone they hate?
Goebbels would be proud of these neo-Nazi Brownshirts who call themselves liberal “progressives” and attack people they don’t like just for being a little different.
They’re saying that it’s ok to harrass Christian Conservative politicians, whereas it wouldn’t be ok to harrass Muslim/GLBT Liberals/NDPers, etc.
Hey, if the Hard Left believes that it’s ok to say that if one’s religion says one thing, then one must be fired from this or that… then we can say that if one practices a certain sexual activity, then one must be fired from some position because of that. We can also say that Muslims can’t hold jobs that have anything to do with security and intelligence.
This is what the Hard Left is opening the door to.
The “Progressive” Liberal Left and the Big Politically Correct Media are demonstrating that they’re hateful. Oh, and so is Catmeat on his blog. Again. While calling conservative bloggers “hateful”. Well, hey, Warrin’ Kim Sheila, Grit Girl, Catmeat, Clown, Toilet Man, whatever, YOU and your kind are the true haters, and you’re practicing transferrence by calling the non-hateful victims of your hatred “hateful”.
Sheesh… they’re shooting themselves in the foot. The self-professed “tolerant” are proudly demonstrating their INtolerance with exuberant glee. But it’s ok, because it’s politically correct to spew hatred, contempt and incite to discriminate against those awful Christians, after all… just as it’s politically correct to treat Israelis/Jews the same way…
They’d NEVER dare treat Muslims and “gays” this way. NEVER. Oh, wait; they would… if the Muslims/”gays” were Conservatives!
I’m reminded of the fact that the US Democratic Party is responsible for creating the KKK to persecute and hang both Blacks and Republicans of any color… This is where the “Progressive” Liberal movement, with their subtle, sugarcoated “web of hate” is headed today against conservatives and JudeoChristians. And it’s all politicaly correct… just as the Final Solution was politically correct in the Third Reich.
Oh, I’m also reminded of a former Liberal Prime Minister who said of Jewish immigration: “None is too many”.
Today’s Liberals are more careful with words, but we know full well when they’re being hateful and intolerant. Right, Warren? Look in the mirror today?
expert > believe in.
Maybe an anti-christ should be the next pope?
Little extreme I agree, but you get the point.
“Maybe an anti-christ should be the next pope?”
Or a Muslim, maybe? 🙂 Well said!
Evolution does not contradict the second law which holds true only in closed systems. Earth is an open system fueled by the sun.
Jim:
The flaw in the argument that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics is so obvious that I can only conclude that those who put it forward either no nothing about science or don’t care if their arguments make no sense.
Either way, its stupidity on the hoof.
For an excellent book on the thermodynamics of open systems (yes, such a field exists) I suggest…
“Into the cool: Energy flow, thermodynamics, and life” by Schneider and Sagan (no relation).
“As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.”
I would agree….this means that AGW/CO2 “theory”
is not theory at all but fantasy……a statement of faith at best….fraud at worst.
AGW has nothing to do with evolution.
” It’s an militant secularist tact to attack and demonize people who do not ascribe to evolutionary theory.”
Posted by: Richard Romano at March 18, 2009 8:14 PM
By George! I believe you’re getting it! Or getting close, anyway. This whole “debate” about evolution vs intelligent design, is, I contend, a false-flag operation by the Left to sow discord amongst conservatives. First, they are trying to create a false dichotomy between “Christians” and “evolutionists”. And second, they are trying to put forward the false notion, as noted by Me No Dhimmi and Sentinel, that a government minister must be some sort of expert in the field under his watch. I guess that means the Minister of National Revenue ought to be a homosexual, as we all know it’s Revenue’s mission to f*ck us in the arse.
Alex wrote
“AGW has nothing to do with evolution.”
And AGW/CO2 has nothing to do with science.
“And AGW/CO2 has nothing to do with science.”
Then why the hell are you bringing it up? Do you have a really short attention span, or what?
Al Gore is a Christian fundamentalist . . . does that mean he is anti science ?
Fish
Barrel
Shoot
Jon:
Your mistaking general adaptation with traits already extant in the species, with a complete different animal so to speak. Any Kind of animal that reaches the limit of adaptation becomes sterile.
Geography, diet, isolation, & climate are factors. The truth is the species called Man has been bottlenecked in the past. Killed off like God in the flood said, to the extant everyone on Earth marries their sister six times removed.
The Human race is actually deficient in DNA viability. Where closer than the purest breed of animal.
Race4 is a delusion created in the 16nth century to support the slave trade. They called then sub human. Social Darwinism was used later as a justification. For separating fo0lks by of all things skin color. Even the ancients knew better. By the way evolution is hardly new. Read some Greek authors from 500 BC. Augustine et al.
JMO
Being a well known atheist around here, I would like to add my two cents worth.
Did he tell scientists to stop the study of evolution?
Did he say that science was crap, or that he did not believe in science?
Did he indicate that he was going to cut funding to any project because it clashed with his religious beliefs?
No, no, and NO!
What we have here is another librano tempest, more than likely orchestrated by the great catsmeat himself.
yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn
I seem to recall Gary being pretty tough in committees, this could be nothing more than the Liberals finding a reason to get at Goodyear for just that. All the Libs do is sic their minions in the media on him and away they go.
It’s so bizarre and outrageous what else could it be with all the pressing matters our government and most of us are concerned with? We have to consider it could be the usual subjects in the backhouse of the Lib party pulling dirty gotcha stunts. Harken back to what they did to Stockwell Day.
Science isn’t a religion, but a method of identifying bullsh1t in someone’s argument. That’s why we roll our eyes at creationists.
Posted by: Jon at March 18, 2009 7:33 PM
You mean, jon, like the “science” behind AGW? That kind of science? You’re reading the graph back-to-front, pal: in this case it’s a matter of spewing copious bullsh*t and bolstering a false religion to shutdown someone else’s argument. There; fixed that for you, but no need to thank me here.
The self-professed “tolerant” are proudly demonstrating their INtolerance with exuberant glee.
Posted by: The Canadian Sentinel at March 18, 2009 8:41 PM
That’s only slightly ironic, CS: when did you ever meet anyone more intolerant than those on the left? They are the most ruthlessly intolerant of anybody who doesn’t subscribe to their self-proclaimed PC “tolerant” views.
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
“Being a well known atheist around here .. blah blah blah”
If you have to preface your argument with the statement that you’re an atheist, you’re already on the wrong track.
The problem here isn’t with his actions – it’s with his qualifications. If you don’t understand science well enough to accept the theory of evolution, you have no business holding that position. Just like Obama’s lack of experience and knowledge is an impediment to his attempt to lead a nation, so this ignoramuses lack of scientific knowledge is an impediment to his ability to hold his position. You wouldn’t put a muslim in the vatican, you wouldn’t put a hippie in charge of the defense department, you wouldn’t put a flat-earther in charge of NASA, and you certainly wouldn’t put a creationist in charge of science.
I think this is smoke. Environmental scientists haven’t been doing well lately. They have been getting cuts to the grants. A lot of them are GW advocates. Some of the gov’t scientists to be nice are sub-optimal by all standards. On a previous complaint of cuts PMSH stated the science was done and smiled. The CBC is looking bad, the Libs. are looking bad, useless positions are looking dimmer and WK still looks like himself.
There was no outcry when we were represented by friggin lawyers and that was fun.
He was asked about science, and answered with religion. That was stupid on his part. When are we going to get competent people in government? There’s no party that’s moving in that direction, as far as I can tell.
Science is testable. Religion is not. Religion is not able to be used as an argument against science. The minister responsible for the science and technology portfolio should at least know THAT much.
I’m loving all these conspiracy theories 🙂 You guys are making the 9/11 truthers look sane in comparison.
Lord tunderin jeezus! Go fer yoer guns or ketch cod!
mhb,
I don’t know why you’ve asked me about AGW. I haven’t mentioned it in my many posts on this thread and if you’ll look back to 2004(ish) I’ve made many comments questioning that theory based on many observations that I’ve made… ie sunspot activity, temperature forcing carbon dioxide etc.
The observations that Creation Scientists (sic) and Intelligent Design subscribers claim are not science because they have not been put to hypothesis testing. That’s why Creation is not science, nor is model based agw. It’s a prediction based on superstition.
You’ve opened a really funny door. Christians believe certain things that they can’t prove, but have faith that they are true. This is analogous to AGW in that Algore believes that the icecaps are going to melt in 10 years. Essentially you’ve come to your conclusion and you’ve tried to find snippets of information which confirms your beliefs. This is the same stuff we all criticise gore for…
From LGF:
How would you feel if the head of your federal science department told you he believes the Earth is flat? Or the Sun revolves around the Earth? Or that he thinks the sky is a great crystal sphere, and he lies awake at night worried that the Voyager probes will smash it and let all our air out?
Those beliefs have just as much basis as young Earth creationism: they are faith-based only, and have no evidence for them, and about a billion solid pieces of evidence against them. If your science advisor told you any of those things, you’d think he was crazy and you’d look for a replacement.
Goodyear’s critics should back off and let him do his job. I’m sure if he ever makes a decision which clearly demonstrates his faith is getting the way of properly doing his job, there will be plenty of scientists around to denounce him.
Before Goodyear stated he does believe in evolution, Marc Garneau, the Lib science critic, said a creationist can indeed be a good science minister.
By harping on this non story, I think the Libs are trying to change the channel because of some good economic news making some headlines.
“Having said that, the witch hunt against Gary Goodyear is nothing but a Lib-Left hatchet job.”
Posted by: gordinkneehill at March 18, 2009 8:06 PM
Exactly!
Driven by the Liberal cheerleaders at GlobeMedia.
CTV ‘s Giggles Taber “POWERPLAY”, a prime agitator for G&Mail.
Rabbit, Jon, Alex thanks for straightening me out on “theory” vs “law”. I learned something which is why I come here. I am not a scientist although I have Computing Science degree. My point was not to attack the scientific method but “scientists” who do not live by the scientific method – which seems to be most of them. Scientists are first and foremost people who (like any capitalist businessman) look out for number one. Jobs, status, funding, promotions, keeping the wife happy and the kids fed are all important.
In following the threads at Climate Audit and Watts Up With That it is obvious that much of the so called peer reviewed “science” that makes up the backbone of the global warming case is very weak. Data for the studies is not made available making replication impossible. Reviewers are often in blatant conflicts of interest which are not revealed. Often they are not even qualified to review. When these are pointed out to the prestigious journals that publish the articles these concerns are dismissed.
Any reputable “scientist” should find this situation intolerable, even if you are in favor of the global warming theory. Yet except for a brave few the silence is deafening. Much of the credibility given to the man-made global warming theory comes from Hansen’s computer model which has been shown to be flawed in so many ways. Yet “scientists” totally ignorant of computer modeling happily accept its predictions.
Larry Summers, Obama’s Director of National Economic Council while president of Harvard in an informal discussion of why there are fewer women in math and engineering talked about the brain differences of the sexes. As far as I can tell the current “scientific understanding” is that mens and womens brains are different which leads to the sexes having generally different strengths and weaknesses. For stating this scientific understanding Summers was hounded out of Harvard for daring to go against political correctness. Only a few “scientists” stood up for him.
If you go back 20, 50, 100, 500 years the situation is always the same. Political correctness usually takes precedence over science because scientists are first and foremost people who want to get along as best as they can. They are not always infallible rational gods.
I have no bone in the fight over Creationism vs Darwinism. What I see is a bunch of a politically correct “scientists” sneeringly dismissing any criticism of Darwinism – the science is settled. Just like they say about global warming.
I doubt it as I believe should any real scientist.
The best frauds, scams, hoaxes are those that cannot be easily proven – right OR wrong. At least initially. Hold the fort long enough to collect the money. Carbon taxes, collection plate.
Given that junk science is the name of the game in Canada, who cares if Goodyear believes in creationism or not? His personal beliefs are not anyone’s business, either.
The hounding of the minister by the reporter(and the hounding of fellow conservatives in the comments here) is further proof that the Left will continue to use evolution to drive a wedge into the Right and divide it.
Kate, please don’t make the same mistake Charles Johnson at LGF did by welcoming this wedge and obsessing over it again and again.
If you do, the Left will win power repeatedly and succeed in Balkanizing the Right until it splinters into a million factions and become ineffective.
And what good will it do to have “won” one argument, just to become marginalized in the end?
Evolution is not a make or break issue in the struggle for individual liberty and the preservation of democracy. If you think it is, then by all means, enjoy your new overlord, Obama, and the dead end that he and his followers will drive science towards.
Priorities, priorities.
Alex you are assuming that because someone rejects something like the theory of evolution means that they don’t understand that theory. I’m sure that Galileo understood the widely held scientific theory that the earth was the centre of the universe. It just so happened that he disagreed with established science. Science like any human endeavour tries to browbeat everyone into into believing just as the proponents believe. The fact remains that the theory of evolution is widely accepted as sound science because it eliminates the need for a Divinity. Personally I reject the theory of evolution because I see a fatal flaw in the theory of Causeless Causation of which the theory of evolution is just one aspect amongst many.
Doug,
It’s absurd that you are asking Kate not to reference this. This is a ghost to exorcise from our side of the political divide. If you believe in unicorns, or Jesus’ miraculous birth, or Hansen’s view of AGW that’s your own deal, but don’t even try to blame your religion. What Goodyear did was incredibly inept and inexcusable. He should be replaced asap. How can you be the minister of s&t and not prepare for a question like that, even if it was out of bounds?
The Conservative party is not the party of religion. It has no desire to bring up abortion, nor should it try to bring creationism into the fold… all we’ll accomplish by doing that is driving off right of centre scientists, atheists and nontheists to the LPC. If we want a government that’s rational with our tax dollars we should expect a government that’s rational with science. “Jesus said so, according to John and maybe Thomas” isn’t an acceptable answer to any question… especially one dealing with evolution.
Don’t we want a scientist with a scientific background to be in charge of science?
And what qualifies iggy to be leader of the opposition?
“The fact remains that the theory of evolution is widely accepted as sound science because it eliminates the need for a Divinity.”
This is an all-too-common misconception, and one that is actively fostered by those who wish to drive a wedge between people of faith and people of science. Natural science does not require a divinity to explain any phenomenon, neither does it try to dismiss the possible existence of a divinity.
The purview of natural science is the natural physical universe and the physical objects and forces that make it up. Divinity falls within the purview of metaphysics, which is a different discipline altogether. It is just as wrong to try to use science to deny God as it is to use the Bible to deny science.
Do you expect a chef de cuisine to be able to tune up your carburetor?
Jon, read my post again, or should I assume that you are a “believer” in statism ready to sacrifice millions of the weak and the flawed for your “higher” purposes? I can prove that you are a sock puppet, however, just by your next response…..
A simple answer to this, even for fundamentalists, would be
“The world is always changing. For example, in pre-industrial revolution London, moths were predominantly lighter in colour. However, during the period of heavy coal burning, the melanistic phase predominated, as they were less visible to predators.
There are many historical evidences of change – the one above that I quoted took place in less than a generation. Others take longer. So, our world is always changing, or evolving if you will.”
Lol this is funny.
The comments are hilarious, the left is all science is absolute, we all come to the same conclusions when looking at the data (see evolution). Debate is over!
That is not science! That is group think.
For a bunch of high brows that put all their trust in science they sure do not understand how science is conducted, advanced and dare I say “evolves”.
That Goodyear painted himself into a corner and didn’t tell the media to literally go fvck themselves is enough for me to demand his resignation.
This has got to end now folks. Tolerance is wearing as thin as these pukes tell me the arctic ice was tomorrow. And yes, the storm’s acomin’.
Well!! It is so good to know that the staffers at the CBC and the Blubb and Wail understand evolution!
Yes indeed! But wait! They are talking about BELIEVING in evolution! They probably also BELIEVE in the tooth fairy, or the socialist version thereof.
I am sufficient of a Protestant, or perhaps sufficient of a follower of W. K. Clifford, to think that unexamined belief is immoral. Do the CBC and Blubb people (perhaps excluding the intelligent Margaret Wente) have the faintest idea of the arguments and evidence for evolution? I see no evidence whatsoever that they do. And Protestant that I may be, and follower of Clifford also that I may be, I find that in the absence of a knowledge of fact, and an understanding of relevant argument, it is as immoral to hold a belief that may be in accordance with reality as to hold one which is based on whim and fancy.
I would much rather deal with an informed Intelligent Designer than with a knee-jerk BELIEVER in evolution.
PS in regard to an earlier poster, there is no evidence whatsoever that the speed of light *in vacuo* has changed. The speed of light in material media is another matter.
LGF already has three posts on this very topic.
Remember how we used t say: “Karl Rove, you magnificent bastard!”
Well, get used to hearing: “Howard Dean, you magnificent bastard!”
And watch while the Right comes apart at the seams over a low priority issue.
Want to see Obama around until 2016 Michael Ingatieff become PM? The just keep up the petty bullshit on evolution.
If that is what you choose to believe gordinkneehill. I stand by what I said. Try asking yourself the question WHY. Why does a natural event occur without Cause. We can see patterns and we can see effects but we can’t explain why without a cause beyond what we can see and understand. We can understand that DNA passes along ‘information’ that causes multiple cells to specialize and work together as one unit but you can’t tell me why it works.
“The fact remains that the theory of evolution is widely accepted as sound science because it eliminates the need for a Divinity.”
The fact remains that the theory of AGW is widely accepted as sound science because it allows for Socialistic One World Governance.
On the one hand the science is right. On the other it is wrong. Everybody has to know EVERYTHING in order to form a correct opinion. And to vote accordingly.
Journalistic Jounalists do not help the matter one bit. In fact they dumb it down.
I believe this is why our beloved media can swing public opinion with biases, slant and out right lies. It is hard for us to know everything about everything. But blogs sure help.
Doug,
It’s a real shame that you can not equate conservatism with anything but your particular view of it. I understand that you may believe anything you want to, but to accept a finance minister who doesn’t believe in Economics or a Health Minister who believes in religious exorcism is as ludicrous as having a Science minster who believe in creationism.
I am as far from Statist as possible. You have the freedom to believe whatever you want. If you are representing Canada you have the responsibility to remove yourself from quaint beliefs.
Doug, in this you are wrong. The religious right is trying to leverage their collective weight into forcing religiosity (of any sort) into all conservatism. Social conservatism isn’t conservatism… it’s social conservatism which is why it needs that moniker.
The world is wider than your personal observation, or whatever you chose to believe about a stranger on the internet. I’m done with you.
“But to be asked if you support the theory of evolution, and respond with “I’m a Christian” is actually a non-answer. “
…and a non-answer is the only appropriate answer to a non question! (But he might have been wiser to have chosen a different non-answer.)
“Do you support the theory of ______?” ??? What the hell kind of bullshit weasel non-question is that?!? Answering it either way demands credulity, which is inappropriate in therms of the dictates of science! “Theory” means there is no equivocal answer!
I wonder, do the reporters believe in Karma? Do they read their horoscopes or check the biorhythm chart occasionally?
I think it is pretty much an absolute certainty that life started from non-living material and from there higher animal forms came to be – either by an evolutionary process or a revolutionary one or both. But no one can say so with 100.00% percent precision. Just as no one can prove for certain that we do not have souls that extend beyond our physical forms.
I also believe that our constitution, such as it is, protects me from being discriminated against because of these beliefs. To hold this minister’s feet to the fire and declare him incompetent because of his beliefs rather than his actions is bigotry and discrimination pure and simple.
(I knew a guy in university who was a geologist who said that the fossil record was a test of man’s faith in God. He is a geologist today working mining fossils and a very good one at that if one goes by his T4 and dividend statements)
and indeed with the big bang theory, the earth was at the exact centre of the universe. as was Andromeda , the furthest quasar and every damn other thing,
Conservatives evolved from Socialists.