255 Replies to ““Mr. Minister, Mr. Minister, Do You Believe In Evolution?””
A challenge for both sides of the argument.
for Atheists, prove that there is no god.
For believers, prove that there is.
I rest my case.
It is Carbon MONoxide that is a pollutant dumbshit! No wonder our children are slipping through the cracks, our children’s educators have trogdolytes like you to contend with.
I have just lightly perused the comments and wonder how many of you enlightened types have actually had any experience with life. When there is a genetic mutation there is only one possible future for the beast; death. I hatched a 4 legged chicken once. Should run twice as fast as the regular variety. Nope. Died. 2 headed calves should be twice as smart as the regular bovine. Nope, premature death. I shake my head at all the posturing of the evolutionists
Why do progressives wish to clearly and obviously violate the ministers basic rights and freedoms?
Why is it that a group of learned progressives happily deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics while blindly accepting the theory of evolution?
wingwalker…what exactly was the setting for the media to be facing Goodyear in the first place? How is it that the media just happenned to come up with such a question?
Tell us again that Goodyear painted himself into the corner.
Those quaint beliefs you refer to jon are very personal and important to some people. You would like all the Members of Parliament to shun their ‘quaint beliefs’ in order to meet your reqirements before they serve the public?
Or only Christian ‘quaint beliefs’?
That is the system in place in many other countries, but for now in Canada we have freedom to worship and believe what we want, and still serve in public office.
I will re-iterate…science proves Intelligent Design.
The Theory of evolution has been disproven by science.
Let’s appoint David Suzuki the Minister of Defense and see if some of you get irritated when the CBC asks his position on the military and armed conflict.
“His personal beliefs are not anyone’s business, either.”
laugh.
“Just for fun, I wonder if the MSM would like to pose the same question to our Muslim, Sikh, and Aboriginal MP’s”
Yeah, what a conspiracy. As usual, the media’s targeting the poor old WASP who just happens to be the science minister.
Why would anyone be asking whether or not someone believes in evolution? Is belief what we really want?
I would question the value of a specialist in the field “believing” in biology. Belief suggests inertia, a resistance to change, which is the complete wrong kind of thinking that a good scientist needs.
But for a layman? Even if Goodyear could, without reservation, express belief in evolution, what good would that be? Belief is not going to magically endow him with a PhD-level understanding of the field. Chances are Goodyear has a pretty poor understanding of evolution (the latter half of the cbc article suggests this) assembled from 20 year old high school biology learned from a teacher with a mediocre understanding of the subject plus recent discoveries filtered through clueless journalists.
Consider the implications of expecting a science minister to have a solid understanding of every field of research the Canadian government funds. Perhaps there’s a polymath out there somewhere who could keep up, but I doubt it. This standard for Science is unreasonable and idiotic.
The problem with secularists and atheists is not that they don’t believe in a God but that they live such vindictive petty and deviant lives that their only hope is that God does not exist, otherwise they would just snicker and walk away the same way we do when someone claims CO2 will destroy the planet and points to the IPCC wish list as proof.
“I am not religious and do not go to church but frankly I find very little difference between the modern scientist and priest. Both are driven by greed and will spew forth anything to keep the money rolling in.”
Have you met any ministers or priests? Most of them are very good people.
Being cynical ensures that whenever someone f*cks up, you can say you were right, and whenever someone does something of note, you can quietly stay in the shadows. You might be a happier person if you didn’t think the world was out to get you, though.
Ezra Levant dealt with this on Michael Coren tonight.
Marilyn Churley was there to provide the leftist so-called open-minded tolerant view.
“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. – Rabbit”
…thats hilarious that you’re suggesting Jim doesn’t know the law in question when you yourself can’t even get it right. Let me give you a loose quotation of it:
“The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.”
Key words here are, isolated system, and equilibrium. The universe isn’t getting “more random”. Things don’t just “get more random”. If a system is in equilibrium, entropy does not increase or decrease on the _whole_. Rather, it may change in isolated areas of the system, but for every decrease in entropy in one area, there must be an equal an opposite increase in entropy in another area of the closed system.
So if the earth was a closed system, and entropy decreased in one area, then there must be an increase in entropy in another area. The second law has to do with heat, pressure, and motive power, not the organization of molecules unless that organization is dependent upon temperature, pressure, etc.
As to those silly people who state that the probability of life being spontaneous is far too large (i.e. impossible) you’re ignoring your basic premise. You are saying that given a finite amount of time, an event will occur. In the case of the Universe, we have an infinite amount of time…making all probabilities possible, and in fact sure to occur.
As to macro-evolution (species to species evolution)…ugh. How many times have I heard this? The whole idea that “macro-evolution” is distinct from micro-evolution is facetious. They are one and the same but have been distorted and have been co-opted into the arsenal of the vigilant creationist. If you accept that incremental change creates biodiversity within a specific genus then you must also accept that those changes can in fact fundamentally alter the entire genus into a completely distinct one given enough time.
To claim that it hasn’t been “observed” is equally silly. Lets take tectonic plates for example. They move a few inches a year. They are incremental. If you summed up the distance the worlds continents have shifted since the whole idea of tectonic plates was even dreamt up, you would find that it only amounts to a few feet. So are we to say the Pangaea couldn’t have existed because we haven’t “observed” the continents shift halfway around the world? Is there macro-shifting and micro-shifting of continents? The entire proposition behind evolution is incremental change to a living beings genome…and that is what makes species distinct; their genome.
“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? -Fritz”
Your ignorance knows no bounds. We still don’t understand quantum physics (which actually violate your “laws” of physics), and yet we don’t just scream at the top of our lungs, plug our ears, and close our eyes and pretend that quantum interactions don’t exist. A scientific theory is one that attempts to explain a phenomenon in nature. Science accepts change, and embraces it as we discover more information about how nature evolves, changes, etc…
bar jebus: since we have an infinite amount of time, how old is the universe? Be careful with your answer because the instant you set a start date you cease to have an “infinite” amount of time.
Sure, name the finite amount of a few billion years. You’re talking about the probability of a few molecules interacting with each other and blah blah blah life happens. Look up Abiogenesis if you’re curious.
Now, if the probability of that happening is 10^40,000 or whatever number is out there, that is the roll of the dice that many times for that molecule. What about the millions of other molecules trying to do the exact same thing? This would reduce your probability significantly. Throw on top of that the fact that a statistical probability doesn’t mean that after x number of rolls of the dice, an event will happen. It could happen the first time, or it could take far more tries than your stated probability.
I personally find the probability idea behind it stupid. If we can’t create life that way today in a laboratory, how can we possible come up with a reasonable probability of it happening? The only reason I subscribe to it is that its the best we’ve got. In the same way that I completely expect our species to comprehend the mysteries of quantum physics some day, I also have confidence that science will one day be able to confidently assert the beginning of life. We’ve come so far with scientific discoveries in the last half a century that I look forward eagerly to the first half of this century.
bar jebus you are making the silly assumption that life is simply a bunch of amino acids bumping into each other. Since you don’t understand life I won’t ask you if you understand death.
Enlighten me oh great one…since you obviously have nothing to add to a scientific discussion, I’d like to hear your stories about how your ancestors rode dinosaurs to work.
Minister of Defense Paul Hellyer believed in God…
Well bar jebus you’re the one running around saying that your great grandfather was a piece of granite so I wouldn’t be quick to boast about the depth of ‘science’ you believe you know. Now please enlighten me how the complex world/life that we witness, fully knowing the infinite complexity of all space/matter/life and tell me how it all came into being. Now keep in mind that you believe in causeless causation so there can be no why. Why does energy exist? Why is some energy in the form of matter and other energy remain as pure energy? Why does matter form itself into such complex forms. Why does life have a WILL to live if there is no WILL behind the workings of the universe. I’m sure your grade 5 science diploma will come to your immediate aid.
“Why is it that a group of learned progressives happily deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics while blindly accepting the theory of evolution?”
What does thermodynamics have to do with evolution?
Agree’d Allan.
As to Joe, its readily avaliable to you in the form of THOUSANDS of books written by folks who are experts on the subject. What I can’t stand is the absolute hubris of theists like yourself Joe. You assume that its the worlds duty to go out of their way and prove to you in the most explicit terms possible that life evolved on this planet.
Well, thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people have laboured towards that goal for years and there are libraries full of information for you to enlighten yourself with but you would rather remain ignorant, which is your choice of course. What really gets me though is that the scientific community goes to enormous pains to attempt to explain the origins of the universe while theists like yourself sit back smugly and DEMAND evidence (as if you deserve it) that would prove your little religions wrong.
Science has done its homework, and come up with what it believes to be many possible theories of evolution. Lets hear yours? Do you have anything even approaching a scientific method? Do you have any decent theories other than feeble attempts to poke holes in evolution?
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.
Posted by: Gord Tulk at March 18, 2009 11:12 PM
Gord, thank you. You win the thread. You captured the essence of this issue in one short, concise statement.
So going back more what was there before the big bang? Are there infinite numbers of univeres.Because if it happed once it must have happed again and will it happen again in the future,big bang that is?
bar-jebus wrote: What really gets me though is that the scientific community goes to enormous pains to attempt to explain the origins of the universe while theists like yourself sit back smugly and DEMAND evidence (as if you deserve it) that would prove your little religions wrong.
Aren’t you doing the same thing? I could say that the people who penned the Bible went through enormous pains, even death, to prove the existence of God, but then you would say nope, not enough proof.
“I could say that the people who penned the Bible went through enormous pains, even death, to prove the existence of God”
And you’d be wrong. Jeebus didn’t pen the bible. It was slapped together by a committee of priests who voted on which stories to include in it. None of them risked death – the worst they risked was getting booted out of the committee for disagreeing with their peers (and some of them did get booted).
This is another sign of Liberal’s last refuge. It’s definitely a case of religious bigotry for starters. It’s going down the same path Kinsella went down when he made fun of Stockwell Day’s religion using a stuffed dinosaur toy to make a point.
This is not fair game and cannot be tolerated.
Mr Goodyear may have to take action of the sort Kinsella uses and sue their asses off. Making a fool of a decent MP for something that has no bearing on his ability to do the job should have consequences.
sarge here In the beginning there was darkness And the darkness was without form and void And in addition to the darkness there was also me the sarge And I moved upon the face of the darkness and I saw that I was alone let there be light
sarge here In the beginning there was darkness And the darkness was without form and void And in addition to the darkness there was also me the sarge And I moved upon the face of the darkness and I saw that I was alone let there be light
Why is it that whenever this issue is discussed, the pro-evolutionists (not all), like Alex, Bar Jebus, John, etc., aren’t merely insulting, but outrageously so? Throwing ad hominems around like nobody’s business?
Why is that?
Could it be that underneath it all they aren’t defending a sound ‘theory?’ That there may be some doubt on their part, so therefore they become overly defensive?
Odd.
Crick, amongst other notable scientists, rejected the theory. Which, of course, says a lot.
Hopefully, knowledge will evolve.
Hey sarge, Now that you have the light turned on, look around. One would assume you are still alone.
bar_jebus, you’ve totally MISSED the inferences I was making. Typical though to dismiss them out of hand. So I’ll help you out, Kate’s original post makes 2 references, 1 is to the Theory of Evolution, (remember THEORY) the 2nd is to Global Warming, now if you’ve been following that debate at all (and I doubt it) you’ve heard that there’s a scientist questioning the entire global warming / cooling theories since in his opinion those theories violate the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics.
And I thought the parallel inferences were so obvious, but I should have know who I was dealing with. MY BAD.
No bar jebus I am simply holding you to the same standard to which you want to hold me.
Yes there have been thousands of books written. Yawn. I love to read science books but I don’t disconnect my brain and assume because a guy has an alphabet soup behind his name that he actually knows what he is talking about. Think AGW, Y2K etc. Science by its very nature, human observation/speculation is meant to be questioned not simply accepted. Just as my theism is to be questioned. As the old adage says, “If everyone is thinking the same, no one is thinking at all”. The fact of the matter remains, that the theory of evolution and the theory of Divine origin are both plausible explanations of how we came to exist. However the more theoretical sciences such as math and physics seem to indicate that there is something more than just random chance occurring. Due to chosen belief systems many of the advanced thinkers don’t allow themselves to accept the possibility of the Divine but that is prejudice on their part and until they get over it they will not know the whole truth. As for evolution a Living Being in whom we live and breath and have our being is fully capable of allowing His creation to change and evolve as He so chooses. That still doesn’t prove that ‘evolution’ was the source of it all. An eternal Creator could well have made infinite numbers of worlds and in His eternal time created and destroyed innumerable numbers of living beings such as dinosaurs. Did humans walk with the dinosaurs? I don’t know I wasn’t there. Yet all ancient cultures have legends of dragons… Do all living beings have common DNA? Yes which goes to show that when you have created a good thing you keep using it over and over with slight variations to bring about the desired effect. Please think of computer programs. Using the same building blocks in different ways different effects are brought about. Excel and Word use the same language, does that mean that Excel evolved from Word by random chance? Each program is evolving but are they doing by happenstance? Should a bit of error on the hard drive occur will I wind up with a completely new program? Maybe the new program will eat Word for breakfast. I hope Word has lots of little Words before variant Excel eats them all. In conclusion before you run off at the mouth again please do at least a bit of thinking. You’re beginning to sound like a bit of a bigot.
where author = expert else = stupid
I am coming in late with this question to Allan regarding this comment
“But to be asked if you support the theory of evolution, and respond with “I’m a Christian” is actually a non-answer. ”
Why was the question even asked if it wasn’t a set up???
Anti-Christian bigotry is alive and well…and just in its infancy. I just need to read some of the ludicrous comments by lefties here to see how much farther down the road this bigotry can be extended.
While some may think that such a basic scientific theory of evolution is sufficient criteria for choosing a science minister, I would put forward that a better criteria is someone who can understand the scientific challenges facing the country and prioritise the limited spending available. This doesn’t need agreement with, or understanding of, any particular theory. What it needs is someone to discriminate sound research proposals that deserve public financing from the mess of useless proposals out there. Evolution has nothing to do with the discerning the merits of a fusion research project!!
Please someone tell me how evolution is so damn important to 21st century Canada that we need to select our science minister’s based on whether they believe it or not? Do you think Goodyear believes in quantum theory (that’s a rather basic theory too)? What about dark matter or chaos theory? Just how many theories should he have checked off as “believing in”?
There is only one reason why Darwin is so important to the anti-christian lefty/secularist brigade: it allows a “perceived” moral grandstanding on their part to demonise christians as intellectual simpletons not worthy of respect and thus with no right to speak!
The Bear,
If you chose to ignore the data and posts at the top of the thread you are likely to be dismissed at the bottom.
The 2nd law of Thermodynamics does not apply because the earth is not a closed system. Furthermore, a “theory” is like the theory of gravity, or the theory that the sun is the centre of the universe.
Once again, you may chose whatever you would like, but if you are ignorant about some of the basics of science perhaps you are not the best person to be opining on the subject of Science and Technology… which is the point of this tread right?
“Aren’t you doing the same thing? I could say that the people who penned the Bible went through enormous pains, even death, to prove the existence of God, but then you would say nope, not enough proof. -A storm is coming”
No, I’m not. I’ve tried to explain myself thoroughly and clearly regarding my stance on evolution and the claims it makes. I’m not going to go through the entire theory for you on the SDA forum. If you believe this is evidence that I don’t know what I’m talking about then you’re clearly not even worth discussing this with.
So you’re saying the authors of the bible risked death in publishing their work…so have Hindu’s, Muslims, Jews, etc…is their work suddenly valid since they risked their lives? Not a chance. Your argument is ridiculous.
“sarge here In the beginning there was darkness And the darkness was without form and void And in addition to the darkness there was also me the sarge And I moved upon the face of the darkness and I saw that I was alone let there be light”
I guess I’ll just throw all scientific research regarding evolution under the bus just because you quoted me a fairly tale as to how the earth was created…
“Why is it that whenever this issue is discussed, the pro-evolutionists (not all), like Alex, Bar Jebus, John, etc., aren’t merely insulting, but outrageously so? Throwing ad hominems around like nobody’s business?”
We’re so sick and tired of people who have just a passing knowledge regarding evolution come along and loudly proclaim, “evolution is wrong because it violates the second law of thermodynamics!”. I find it so laughable that creationists rarely take the time to become informed enough to even understand what fools they’re making of themselves when they use one scientific which they don’t understand to try to disprove another scientific theory which they don’t understand. I find the hubris of those people to be insulting to the scientific community and all the work its done in trying to understand the origins of life.
Imagine if you will that someone comes along and tells you gravity doesn’t exist. Its actually God in the center of the earth pulling everything towards him. You ask him for proof of this and they really have no evidence for you other than to attempt to find weak holes in your theory of gravity. They might quote quantum mechanics as breaking the laws of gravity, therefore the ENTIRE idea of gravity is flawed.
Now imagine millions of these people walking the earth, constantly scoffing at the idea of gravity being a physical law of the universe…obviously evolution isn’t a law, its a theory, but its the best we’ve got for understanding where we come from an the vast majority of its foundation are solidly empirical. That is why many pro-evolutions get frustrated; its rather annoying to have people without a clue tell you that you’re wrong, “just because”.
“Yes there have been thousands of books written. Yawn. I love to read science books but I don’t disconnect my brain and assume because a guy has an alphabet soup behind his name that he actually knows what he is talking about. -Joe”
Global warming and Evolution are such completely different topics that its nearly a crime to compare them. I personally don’t believe in AGW since our data set is ridiculously small that its far too early to start predicting the future. Evolution on the other hand has been researched for over a hundred years and is INTEGRAL to all biological science…its not just some crack-pot theory, ALL biology is finds its basis in evolution. Theists just like to conveniently claim that they only believe in the small incremental changes and label it micro-evolution and claim its distinct that macro-evolution is somehow different and impossible.
As to evolution and religion, I think they’re completely compatible. I think its completely reasonable to believe that perhaps God created all matter and set the properties of the universe in place and start the big bang to begin this universe, knowing that down the line, billions of years away, life would form on earth.
Instead though, theism has sought to discredit science, to belittle it, to shove it under a rug in the vast majority of cases. Frankly I’m sick of it, and if that makes me a bigot, then I apologize for my manners. I’m just tired of bad science, like the global warming scientists, the theists who try to use it for their purposes, etc. etc.
Frenchie77,
As a former Christian I feel for you… however this is why evolution is important for the minister of science:
Evolution is a theory (see definitions above) which has been derived using the scientific method. All other explanations which “explain” the nature of life are faith based. To reject something determined by science, based on your faith is unscientific.
There is nothing anti Christian about this. You cannot accept the scientific method that saves our lives in hospitals and makes sure our buildings don’t fall, but reject it in this case because it doesn’t fit with the Bible.
People tend to be insulting to christians during the debate about evolution because we hear the same tired arguments each time…
“it’s only a theory” – Only if you don’t know what theory means in science.
“But what about the second law of Thermo?” – only applies to a closed system. The earth is not encased.
“There are no transitional fossils” – See the moths, whales and human examples above.
I understand that the bible has a specific story (actually 2) about the origins of life, but they are analogues. The bible is a prolonged allegory which is a SOCIETAL guide on how to treat other man. It is not a literal guide on how to treat science.
Why is it that whenever this issue is discussed, the pro-evolutionists (not all), like Alex, Bar Jebus, John, etc., aren’t merely insulting, but outrageously so?
I think for many of them it has to do with liberalism. Liberals don’t like the idea of having their actions or beliefs judged; after all, they are the ones that equate all cultures and claim no particular culture is superior to others. This is how you had the ontario liberals torn at the thought of denying sharia-based family law but allowing Catholic and Jewish family law. To keep constant, they nuked everything.
Thus, many liberals tend to hate the idea of any Supreme Being that could possibly sit in judgement of them or their actions. This applies equally to people of faith that disagree with liberal views on abortion, gay marriage, etc. So they get very fearful and defensive of anything that smacks of religion: Christmas is a threatening season for them with its “religious overtones”, prayer in schools was evil, religious freedom of speech must be curtailed or denied (Bishop Fred Phelps ring a bell?), and in this case, the pillorying of a cabinet minister for having religious views is mandatory to furthermore trash Christianity.
These people can be as bigoted as anybody else, and their comments are what you’d expect from bigots: bar_jebus asking about someone’s ancestors riding on dinosaurs, kinsella’s disgusting Barney sideshow, insulting blog references to God as “sky king”. Gord Tulk definitely identified the rub of the matter at 11:12 PM. Question for the religious bigots out there: what part of having a person of faith as a minister of science threatens you, when his actions haven’t supported any of the vitriol you spew? It would seem they believe people have the right to their religion as long as it’s keep hidden away from the light of day, in some Holy Closet, perhaps. It’s both venomous and bigoted, and says more about its proponents than those whom they target.
For the record, I’m humble enough to admit when I’m not sure. My background is engineering (applied science), not theoretical physics or paleo-biology. Personally, I disagree with the Church’s teachings about Adam and Eve, but a spiritual part of me – not even the Christian part – has difficulties reconciling the beauty and marvel that is the human being with the tadpole-frog-amphibian-etc. evolution model. The theory of evolution may make the scientists and religion-haters happy, but – inside – does it really answer their questions about who they are, or why they are here? And here’s a thought: at the end of one’s life, which questions truly become more important?
I think there may be room for both teams on this particular playing field, and both can have their say. Example: the “Big Bang Theory”. Maybe it’s correct, who knows? But… what or Whom caused it?
My 50¢.
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
Ok, well, frig me for not paying attention but I seem to have missed the part where “evolution” went from being a “theory” to become a full blown proven law c/w oaths of allegiance that need to be recited by our “science officers”…
You darwinian cultists are just as bad as the creationist pinheads…
Alex and bar-jebus, you can insult me all you want. The fact is I am a Christian and not a scientist. I don’t particularly find the two imcompatible. I actually enjoy science.
And Alex I was referring to the actual people who penned the Bible not the priests who put the whole thing together. Every apostle except John died for the faith, but I am done debating my beliefs with you. You see we have free will and I believe you can think what you want, but don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining. You believe in evolution, go for it I don’t a crap, but don’t try to explain the Bible to me. I’ve read it more than once, have you?
So much for debate with the tolerant left.
Goodyears only mistake was a badly answered gotcha question. The only valid response should have been to ask the reporter what they mean by evolution. It’s such a loaded word these days that it really has lost any specific meaning. Are you talking micro, macro evolution, TENS, Darwinism, tree of life, abiogenesis, etc? You can’t even say you accept all of them as some of those elements are actually contractictory, or have nothing to do with evolution theory proper. The reporter was talking about big ‘E’ Evolution, the kind of catch-all phrase for anything having to do with that area of thought.
No one debates that micro evolution occurs. That’s the “we see evolution all the time, why do you hate science?” trope that people use when folks disagree with some aspect of evolutionary theory.
It’s the macro-evolution that’s up for debate, and it’s a valid debate. It’s non-observable/non-testable (ie not examinable using the scientific method). So being anti-macro-evolution doesn’t mean your against the science or the scientific method. Far from it, it means you hold the method to be a high standard. For that simple fact alone, anyone who calls themself a real scientist should be saying, “we can’t observe it, we can’t test it, so we can’t *know* it to be true or false”. Anyone who rabidly holds to Evolution as truth isn’t being honest. It’s like the difference between being agnostic and an athiest. One says “I don’t/can’t know”, the other proclaims “I’m an a$$”.
Evolutionary theory has almost no overlap with the hard sciences. Chemistry, physics, geology, etc. or any of the social or applied sciences either. It’s not a foundation of science, it’s a niche element of biology. Tim S had it at the beginning, it’s historical science like archeology, essentially. You sift through the bits and pieces you have and try to come up with a narrative that fits. There is no “Truth” there, especially when the narrative keeps changing with every new piece that comes along.
Questioning Evolution doesn’t make one unfit as science/technology minister. It makes you reasonable.
Also, think about the second part of Goodyears portfolio, as science and technology minister. Please note that evolution has nothing at all to do with technology. Zero overlap.
mhb,
You found our strawman. Congrats. You’ve solved the conspiracy of liberalism. *rolls eyes*
I too am an engineer, and as such i have been through lab after lab, and job after job that requires me to do the rational thing. The rational case for evolution is the scientific one.
If you need to believe that there’s a higher power, good for you, but it should not affect your ability to be MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY!!!!! This. is. why. we. think. gary. goodyear. is. unfit.
Chris S,
Biologists and chemists would disagree with you… unless of course biology and chemistry aren’t hard science for you.
Richard Evans,
Please see above. If you will not understand the difference between the scientific definition of theory and the layperson definition you have no place in a conversation of this caliber. See multiple posts above.
All,
Evolution isn’t an absolute, but the best description of what we think has happened based on our (all peer reviewed scientists around the world) observations. Questioning evolution is like questioning gravity. You might as well tilt at windmills.
Please read the top of the thread before repeating the same tripe at the bottom.
MSM and the loopy left never pass on a chance to espouse Anti-Christian bigotry. The reporter asked him a loaded question with the intent to smear him, my opinion only. Nothing surprises me regarding intolerance and bigotry emitting from the left, they remind me of the white hood crowd. I guess this faux scandal deflects a real one, you know the Liberal Party embracing people who had a hand in adscam back into their bosum.
I can just picture the loopy left dragging the mattress off it’s cinder blocks in anticipation of a good witch drowning don’t forget your rope lads and lasses.
EXACTLY DOUG.
WHO F’N CARES WHERE WE COME FROM? IT MATTERS NOT!
YOU WANT TO IMPRESS ME, FILL OUT MY NCAA B-BALL BRACKET SO i WIN. tHAT WOULD BE USEFUL!
Rose,
It’s not an anti christian smear… it’s an anti politician smear. He should have had the political acumen not to blow the answer. He didn’t. That’s why he’s unfit.
This has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with politics. If someone asked what Obama thought of economics and he answered with Marx we’d be all over that.
You are not a victim, stop acting like Warren K.
Jon @ 10:09 “….You cannot accept the scientific method that saves our lives in hospitals and makes sure our buildings don’t fall, but reject it in this case because it doesn’t fit with the Bible…”
I believe that this is the heart of your argument and let me re-summarise: He is unfit because he doesn’t follow the scientific method, we know he doesn’t follow the scientific method because he is Christian and doesn’t believe in evolution (or at least, in the idea that it is pure randomness driving it). Thus, he also won’t follow proper scientific method in defining medical research or civil engineering research, etc.
Now, do you actually know this about him, i.e. that he refuses to follow (or provide fund to others) scientific method on things that actually affect the day-to-day life of Canadians? If so, please specify where exactly he has shown/done this.
If not, then you are letting your biases and bigotry guide your judgment on him. Besides, who are you to judge him in his capacity to follow scientific method, particularly based on such scant evidence. Where exactly is the scientific method in that??
More to the point – why is evolution being held up here as the gold standard to determine whether someone would follow the scientific method? Why not other theories?
Why does this matter to a minister who is a politician and NOT a scientist? How does his belief or not in evolution actually affect the research needed by Canada to improve Canada. Give me a definitive case for this or shut up!
You also say “…People tend to be insulting to christians during the debate about evolution because we hear the same tired arguments each time…” Oh that’s nice to know, I am sure the Christians will feel the hurt less that way!!!
You go on
“…The bible is a prolonged allegory which is a SOCIETAL guide on how to treat other man….”
Do you have a scientific study proving this, or is it just your belief.
“…It is not a literal guide on how to treat science…”
Is this what you thought when you were a Christian, no wonder you aren’t anymore. I think you missed the point.
Jon – I just saw your reply to Rose.
Is it politics or religion that drives you here? Is he unfit because he “stumbled” on a question or because of his religious beliefs?
If politics, then I hope you crucify every poltician out there cause they all drop the ball once in a while.
If not, then see my previous post
A challenge for both sides of the argument.
for Atheists, prove that there is no god.
For believers, prove that there is.
I rest my case.
It is Carbon MONoxide that is a pollutant dumbshit! No wonder our children are slipping through the cracks, our children’s educators have trogdolytes like you to contend with.
I have just lightly perused the comments and wonder how many of you enlightened types have actually had any experience with life. When there is a genetic mutation there is only one possible future for the beast; death. I hatched a 4 legged chicken once. Should run twice as fast as the regular variety. Nope. Died. 2 headed calves should be twice as smart as the regular bovine. Nope, premature death. I shake my head at all the posturing of the evolutionists
Why do progressives wish to clearly and obviously violate the ministers basic rights and freedoms?
Why is it that a group of learned progressives happily deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics while blindly accepting the theory of evolution?
wingwalker…what exactly was the setting for the media to be facing Goodyear in the first place? How is it that the media just happenned to come up with such a question?
Tell us again that Goodyear painted himself into the corner.
Those quaint beliefs you refer to jon are very personal and important to some people. You would like all the Members of Parliament to shun their ‘quaint beliefs’ in order to meet your reqirements before they serve the public?
Or only Christian ‘quaint beliefs’?
That is the system in place in many other countries, but for now in Canada we have freedom to worship and believe what we want, and still serve in public office.
I will re-iterate…science proves Intelligent Design.
The Theory of evolution has been disproven by science.
Let’s appoint David Suzuki the Minister of Defense and see if some of you get irritated when the CBC asks his position on the military and armed conflict.
“His personal beliefs are not anyone’s business, either.”
laugh.
“Just for fun, I wonder if the MSM would like to pose the same question to our Muslim, Sikh, and Aboriginal MP’s”
Yeah, what a conspiracy. As usual, the media’s targeting the poor old WASP who just happens to be the science minister.
Why would anyone be asking whether or not someone believes in evolution? Is belief what we really want?
I would question the value of a specialist in the field “believing” in biology. Belief suggests inertia, a resistance to change, which is the complete wrong kind of thinking that a good scientist needs.
But for a layman? Even if Goodyear could, without reservation, express belief in evolution, what good would that be? Belief is not going to magically endow him with a PhD-level understanding of the field. Chances are Goodyear has a pretty poor understanding of evolution (the latter half of the cbc article suggests this) assembled from 20 year old high school biology learned from a teacher with a mediocre understanding of the subject plus recent discoveries filtered through clueless journalists.
Consider the implications of expecting a science minister to have a solid understanding of every field of research the Canadian government funds. Perhaps there’s a polymath out there somewhere who could keep up, but I doubt it. This standard for Science is unreasonable and idiotic.
The problem with secularists and atheists is not that they don’t believe in a God but that they live such vindictive petty and deviant lives that their only hope is that God does not exist, otherwise they would just snicker and walk away the same way we do when someone claims CO2 will destroy the planet and points to the IPCC wish list as proof.
“I am not religious and do not go to church but frankly I find very little difference between the modern scientist and priest. Both are driven by greed and will spew forth anything to keep the money rolling in.”
Have you met any ministers or priests? Most of them are very good people.
Being cynical ensures that whenever someone f*cks up, you can say you were right, and whenever someone does something of note, you can quietly stay in the shadows. You might be a happier person if you didn’t think the world was out to get you, though.
Ezra Levant dealt with this on Michael Coren tonight.
Marilyn Churley was there to provide the leftist so-called open-minded tolerant view.
Also, for those of you unfamiliar with what a scientific hypothesis, law, and theory are, observe the following:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v456/masterbate/theory1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v456/masterbate/theory2.jpg
“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?”
“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. – Rabbit”
…thats hilarious that you’re suggesting Jim doesn’t know the law in question when you yourself can’t even get it right. Let me give you a loose quotation of it:
“The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.”
Key words here are, isolated system, and equilibrium. The universe isn’t getting “more random”. Things don’t just “get more random”. If a system is in equilibrium, entropy does not increase or decrease on the _whole_. Rather, it may change in isolated areas of the system, but for every decrease in entropy in one area, there must be an equal an opposite increase in entropy in another area of the closed system.
So if the earth was a closed system, and entropy decreased in one area, then there must be an increase in entropy in another area. The second law has to do with heat, pressure, and motive power, not the organization of molecules unless that organization is dependent upon temperature, pressure, etc.
As to those silly people who state that the probability of life being spontaneous is far too large (i.e. impossible) you’re ignoring your basic premise. You are saying that given a finite amount of time, an event will occur. In the case of the Universe, we have an infinite amount of time…making all probabilities possible, and in fact sure to occur.
As to macro-evolution (species to species evolution)…ugh. How many times have I heard this? The whole idea that “macro-evolution” is distinct from micro-evolution is facetious. They are one and the same but have been distorted and have been co-opted into the arsenal of the vigilant creationist. If you accept that incremental change creates biodiversity within a specific genus then you must also accept that those changes can in fact fundamentally alter the entire genus into a completely distinct one given enough time.
To claim that it hasn’t been “observed” is equally silly. Lets take tectonic plates for example. They move a few inches a year. They are incremental. If you summed up the distance the worlds continents have shifted since the whole idea of tectonic plates was even dreamt up, you would find that it only amounts to a few feet. So are we to say the Pangaea couldn’t have existed because we haven’t “observed” the continents shift halfway around the world? Is there macro-shifting and micro-shifting of continents? The entire proposition behind evolution is incremental change to a living beings genome…and that is what makes species distinct; their genome.
“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? -Fritz”
Your ignorance knows no bounds. We still don’t understand quantum physics (which actually violate your “laws” of physics), and yet we don’t just scream at the top of our lungs, plug our ears, and close our eyes and pretend that quantum interactions don’t exist. A scientific theory is one that attempts to explain a phenomenon in nature. Science accepts change, and embraces it as we discover more information about how nature evolves, changes, etc…
bar jebus: since we have an infinite amount of time, how old is the universe? Be careful with your answer because the instant you set a start date you cease to have an “infinite” amount of time.
Sure, name the finite amount of a few billion years. You’re talking about the probability of a few molecules interacting with each other and blah blah blah life happens. Look up Abiogenesis if you’re curious.
Now, if the probability of that happening is 10^40,000 or whatever number is out there, that is the roll of the dice that many times for that molecule. What about the millions of other molecules trying to do the exact same thing? This would reduce your probability significantly. Throw on top of that the fact that a statistical probability doesn’t mean that after x number of rolls of the dice, an event will happen. It could happen the first time, or it could take far more tries than your stated probability.
I personally find the probability idea behind it stupid. If we can’t create life that way today in a laboratory, how can we possible come up with a reasonable probability of it happening? The only reason I subscribe to it is that its the best we’ve got. In the same way that I completely expect our species to comprehend the mysteries of quantum physics some day, I also have confidence that science will one day be able to confidently assert the beginning of life. We’ve come so far with scientific discoveries in the last half a century that I look forward eagerly to the first half of this century.
bar jebus you are making the silly assumption that life is simply a bunch of amino acids bumping into each other. Since you don’t understand life I won’t ask you if you understand death.
Enlighten me oh great one…since you obviously have nothing to add to a scientific discussion, I’d like to hear your stories about how your ancestors rode dinosaurs to work.
Minister of Defense Paul Hellyer believed in God…
Well bar jebus you’re the one running around saying that your great grandfather was a piece of granite so I wouldn’t be quick to boast about the depth of ‘science’ you believe you know. Now please enlighten me how the complex world/life that we witness, fully knowing the infinite complexity of all space/matter/life and tell me how it all came into being. Now keep in mind that you believe in causeless causation so there can be no why. Why does energy exist? Why is some energy in the form of matter and other energy remain as pure energy? Why does matter form itself into such complex forms. Why does life have a WILL to live if there is no WILL behind the workings of the universe. I’m sure your grade 5 science diploma will come to your immediate aid.
“Why is it that a group of learned progressives happily deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics while blindly accepting the theory of evolution?”
What does thermodynamics have to do with evolution?
Agree’d Allan.
As to Joe, its readily avaliable to you in the form of THOUSANDS of books written by folks who are experts on the subject. What I can’t stand is the absolute hubris of theists like yourself Joe. You assume that its the worlds duty to go out of their way and prove to you in the most explicit terms possible that life evolved on this planet.
Well, thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people have laboured towards that goal for years and there are libraries full of information for you to enlighten yourself with but you would rather remain ignorant, which is your choice of course. What really gets me though is that the scientific community goes to enormous pains to attempt to explain the origins of the universe while theists like yourself sit back smugly and DEMAND evidence (as if you deserve it) that would prove your little religions wrong.
Science has done its homework, and come up with what it believes to be many possible theories of evolution. Lets hear yours? Do you have anything even approaching a scientific method? Do you have any decent theories other than feeble attempts to poke holes in evolution?
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.
Posted by: Gord Tulk at March 18, 2009 11:12 PM
Gord, thank you. You win the thread. You captured the essence of this issue in one short, concise statement.
So going back more what was there before the big bang? Are there infinite numbers of univeres.Because if it happed once it must have happed again and will it happen again in the future,big bang that is?
bar-jebus wrote: What really gets me though is that the scientific community goes to enormous pains to attempt to explain the origins of the universe while theists like yourself sit back smugly and DEMAND evidence (as if you deserve it) that would prove your little religions wrong.
Aren’t you doing the same thing? I could say that the people who penned the Bible went through enormous pains, even death, to prove the existence of God, but then you would say nope, not enough proof.
“I could say that the people who penned the Bible went through enormous pains, even death, to prove the existence of God”
And you’d be wrong. Jeebus didn’t pen the bible. It was slapped together by a committee of priests who voted on which stories to include in it. None of them risked death – the worst they risked was getting booted out of the committee for disagreeing with their peers (and some of them did get booted).
This is another sign of Liberal’s last refuge. It’s definitely a case of religious bigotry for starters. It’s going down the same path Kinsella went down when he made fun of Stockwell Day’s religion using a stuffed dinosaur toy to make a point.
This is not fair game and cannot be tolerated.
Mr Goodyear may have to take action of the sort Kinsella uses and sue their asses off. Making a fool of a decent MP for something that has no bearing on his ability to do the job should have consequences.
sarge here In the beginning there was darkness And the darkness was without form and void And in addition to the darkness there was also me the sarge And I moved upon the face of the darkness and I saw that I was alone let there be light
sarge here In the beginning there was darkness And the darkness was without form and void And in addition to the darkness there was also me the sarge And I moved upon the face of the darkness and I saw that I was alone let there be light
Why is it that whenever this issue is discussed, the pro-evolutionists (not all), like Alex, Bar Jebus, John, etc., aren’t merely insulting, but outrageously so? Throwing ad hominems around like nobody’s business?
Why is that?
Could it be that underneath it all they aren’t defending a sound ‘theory?’ That there may be some doubt on their part, so therefore they become overly defensive?
Odd.
Crick, amongst other notable scientists, rejected the theory. Which, of course, says a lot.
Hopefully, knowledge will evolve.
Hey sarge, Now that you have the light turned on, look around. One would assume you are still alone.
bar_jebus, you’ve totally MISSED the inferences I was making. Typical though to dismiss them out of hand. So I’ll help you out, Kate’s original post makes 2 references, 1 is to the Theory of Evolution, (remember THEORY) the 2nd is to Global Warming, now if you’ve been following that debate at all (and I doubt it) you’ve heard that there’s a scientist questioning the entire global warming / cooling theories since in his opinion those theories violate the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics.
And I thought the parallel inferences were so obvious, but I should have know who I was dealing with. MY BAD.
No bar jebus I am simply holding you to the same standard to which you want to hold me.
Yes there have been thousands of books written. Yawn. I love to read science books but I don’t disconnect my brain and assume because a guy has an alphabet soup behind his name that he actually knows what he is talking about. Think AGW, Y2K etc. Science by its very nature, human observation/speculation is meant to be questioned not simply accepted. Just as my theism is to be questioned. As the old adage says, “If everyone is thinking the same, no one is thinking at all”. The fact of the matter remains, that the theory of evolution and the theory of Divine origin are both plausible explanations of how we came to exist. However the more theoretical sciences such as math and physics seem to indicate that there is something more than just random chance occurring. Due to chosen belief systems many of the advanced thinkers don’t allow themselves to accept the possibility of the Divine but that is prejudice on their part and until they get over it they will not know the whole truth. As for evolution a Living Being in whom we live and breath and have our being is fully capable of allowing His creation to change and evolve as He so chooses. That still doesn’t prove that ‘evolution’ was the source of it all. An eternal Creator could well have made infinite numbers of worlds and in His eternal time created and destroyed innumerable numbers of living beings such as dinosaurs. Did humans walk with the dinosaurs? I don’t know I wasn’t there. Yet all ancient cultures have legends of dragons… Do all living beings have common DNA? Yes which goes to show that when you have created a good thing you keep using it over and over with slight variations to bring about the desired effect. Please think of computer programs. Using the same building blocks in different ways different effects are brought about. Excel and Word use the same language, does that mean that Excel evolved from Word by random chance? Each program is evolving but are they doing by happenstance? Should a bit of error on the hard drive occur will I wind up with a completely new program? Maybe the new program will eat Word for breakfast. I hope Word has lots of little Words before variant Excel eats them all. In conclusion before you run off at the mouth again please do at least a bit of thinking. You’re beginning to sound like a bit of a bigot.
where author = expert else = stupid
I am coming in late with this question to Allan regarding this comment
“But to be asked if you support the theory of evolution, and respond with “I’m a Christian” is actually a non-answer. ”
Why was the question even asked if it wasn’t a set up???
Anti-Christian bigotry is alive and well…and just in its infancy. I just need to read some of the ludicrous comments by lefties here to see how much farther down the road this bigotry can be extended.
While some may think that such a basic scientific theory of evolution is sufficient criteria for choosing a science minister, I would put forward that a better criteria is someone who can understand the scientific challenges facing the country and prioritise the limited spending available. This doesn’t need agreement with, or understanding of, any particular theory. What it needs is someone to discriminate sound research proposals that deserve public financing from the mess of useless proposals out there. Evolution has nothing to do with the discerning the merits of a fusion research project!!
Please someone tell me how evolution is so damn important to 21st century Canada that we need to select our science minister’s based on whether they believe it or not? Do you think Goodyear believes in quantum theory (that’s a rather basic theory too)? What about dark matter or chaos theory? Just how many theories should he have checked off as “believing in”?
There is only one reason why Darwin is so important to the anti-christian lefty/secularist brigade: it allows a “perceived” moral grandstanding on their part to demonise christians as intellectual simpletons not worthy of respect and thus with no right to speak!
The Bear,
If you chose to ignore the data and posts at the top of the thread you are likely to be dismissed at the bottom.
The 2nd law of Thermodynamics does not apply because the earth is not a closed system. Furthermore, a “theory” is like the theory of gravity, or the theory that the sun is the centre of the universe.
Once again, you may chose whatever you would like, but if you are ignorant about some of the basics of science perhaps you are not the best person to be opining on the subject of Science and Technology… which is the point of this tread right?
“Aren’t you doing the same thing? I could say that the people who penned the Bible went through enormous pains, even death, to prove the existence of God, but then you would say nope, not enough proof. -A storm is coming”
No, I’m not. I’ve tried to explain myself thoroughly and clearly regarding my stance on evolution and the claims it makes. I’m not going to go through the entire theory for you on the SDA forum. If you believe this is evidence that I don’t know what I’m talking about then you’re clearly not even worth discussing this with.
So you’re saying the authors of the bible risked death in publishing their work…so have Hindu’s, Muslims, Jews, etc…is their work suddenly valid since they risked their lives? Not a chance. Your argument is ridiculous.
“sarge here In the beginning there was darkness And the darkness was without form and void And in addition to the darkness there was also me the sarge And I moved upon the face of the darkness and I saw that I was alone let there be light”
I guess I’ll just throw all scientific research regarding evolution under the bus just because you quoted me a fairly tale as to how the earth was created…
“Why is it that whenever this issue is discussed, the pro-evolutionists (not all), like Alex, Bar Jebus, John, etc., aren’t merely insulting, but outrageously so? Throwing ad hominems around like nobody’s business?”
We’re so sick and tired of people who have just a passing knowledge regarding evolution come along and loudly proclaim, “evolution is wrong because it violates the second law of thermodynamics!”. I find it so laughable that creationists rarely take the time to become informed enough to even understand what fools they’re making of themselves when they use one scientific which they don’t understand to try to disprove another scientific theory which they don’t understand. I find the hubris of those people to be insulting to the scientific community and all the work its done in trying to understand the origins of life.
Imagine if you will that someone comes along and tells you gravity doesn’t exist. Its actually God in the center of the earth pulling everything towards him. You ask him for proof of this and they really have no evidence for you other than to attempt to find weak holes in your theory of gravity. They might quote quantum mechanics as breaking the laws of gravity, therefore the ENTIRE idea of gravity is flawed.
Now imagine millions of these people walking the earth, constantly scoffing at the idea of gravity being a physical law of the universe…obviously evolution isn’t a law, its a theory, but its the best we’ve got for understanding where we come from an the vast majority of its foundation are solidly empirical. That is why many pro-evolutions get frustrated; its rather annoying to have people without a clue tell you that you’re wrong, “just because”.
“Yes there have been thousands of books written. Yawn. I love to read science books but I don’t disconnect my brain and assume because a guy has an alphabet soup behind his name that he actually knows what he is talking about. -Joe”
Global warming and Evolution are such completely different topics that its nearly a crime to compare them. I personally don’t believe in AGW since our data set is ridiculously small that its far too early to start predicting the future. Evolution on the other hand has been researched for over a hundred years and is INTEGRAL to all biological science…its not just some crack-pot theory, ALL biology is finds its basis in evolution. Theists just like to conveniently claim that they only believe in the small incremental changes and label it micro-evolution and claim its distinct that macro-evolution is somehow different and impossible.
As to evolution and religion, I think they’re completely compatible. I think its completely reasonable to believe that perhaps God created all matter and set the properties of the universe in place and start the big bang to begin this universe, knowing that down the line, billions of years away, life would form on earth.
Instead though, theism has sought to discredit science, to belittle it, to shove it under a rug in the vast majority of cases. Frankly I’m sick of it, and if that makes me a bigot, then I apologize for my manners. I’m just tired of bad science, like the global warming scientists, the theists who try to use it for their purposes, etc. etc.
Frenchie77,
As a former Christian I feel for you… however this is why evolution is important for the minister of science:
Evolution is a theory (see definitions above) which has been derived using the scientific method. All other explanations which “explain” the nature of life are faith based. To reject something determined by science, based on your faith is unscientific.
There is nothing anti Christian about this. You cannot accept the scientific method that saves our lives in hospitals and makes sure our buildings don’t fall, but reject it in this case because it doesn’t fit with the Bible.
People tend to be insulting to christians during the debate about evolution because we hear the same tired arguments each time…
“it’s only a theory” – Only if you don’t know what theory means in science.
“But what about the second law of Thermo?” – only applies to a closed system. The earth is not encased.
“There are no transitional fossils” – See the moths, whales and human examples above.
I understand that the bible has a specific story (actually 2) about the origins of life, but they are analogues. The bible is a prolonged allegory which is a SOCIETAL guide on how to treat other man. It is not a literal guide on how to treat science.
Why is it that whenever this issue is discussed, the pro-evolutionists (not all), like Alex, Bar Jebus, John, etc., aren’t merely insulting, but outrageously so?
I think for many of them it has to do with liberalism. Liberals don’t like the idea of having their actions or beliefs judged; after all, they are the ones that equate all cultures and claim no particular culture is superior to others. This is how you had the ontario liberals torn at the thought of denying sharia-based family law but allowing Catholic and Jewish family law. To keep constant, they nuked everything.
Thus, many liberals tend to hate the idea of any Supreme Being that could possibly sit in judgement of them or their actions. This applies equally to people of faith that disagree with liberal views on abortion, gay marriage, etc. So they get very fearful and defensive of anything that smacks of religion: Christmas is a threatening season for them with its “religious overtones”, prayer in schools was evil, religious freedom of speech must be curtailed or denied (Bishop Fred Phelps ring a bell?), and in this case, the pillorying of a cabinet minister for having religious views is mandatory to furthermore trash Christianity.
These people can be as bigoted as anybody else, and their comments are what you’d expect from bigots: bar_jebus asking about someone’s ancestors riding on dinosaurs, kinsella’s disgusting Barney sideshow, insulting blog references to God as “sky king”. Gord Tulk definitely identified the rub of the matter at 11:12 PM. Question for the religious bigots out there: what part of having a person of faith as a minister of science threatens you, when his actions haven’t supported any of the vitriol you spew? It would seem they believe people have the right to their religion as long as it’s keep hidden away from the light of day, in some Holy Closet, perhaps. It’s both venomous and bigoted, and says more about its proponents than those whom they target.
For the record, I’m humble enough to admit when I’m not sure. My background is engineering (applied science), not theoretical physics or paleo-biology. Personally, I disagree with the Church’s teachings about Adam and Eve, but a spiritual part of me – not even the Christian part – has difficulties reconciling the beauty and marvel that is the human being with the tadpole-frog-amphibian-etc. evolution model. The theory of evolution may make the scientists and religion-haters happy, but – inside – does it really answer their questions about who they are, or why they are here? And here’s a thought: at the end of one’s life, which questions truly become more important?
I think there may be room for both teams on this particular playing field, and both can have their say. Example: the “Big Bang Theory”. Maybe it’s correct, who knows? But… what or Whom caused it?
My 50¢.
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
Ok, well, frig me for not paying attention but I seem to have missed the part where “evolution” went from being a “theory” to become a full blown proven law c/w oaths of allegiance that need to be recited by our “science officers”…
You darwinian cultists are just as bad as the creationist pinheads…
Alex and bar-jebus, you can insult me all you want. The fact is I am a Christian and not a scientist. I don’t particularly find the two imcompatible. I actually enjoy science.
And Alex I was referring to the actual people who penned the Bible not the priests who put the whole thing together. Every apostle except John died for the faith, but I am done debating my beliefs with you. You see we have free will and I believe you can think what you want, but don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining. You believe in evolution, go for it I don’t a crap, but don’t try to explain the Bible to me. I’ve read it more than once, have you?
So much for debate with the tolerant left.
Goodyears only mistake was a badly answered gotcha question. The only valid response should have been to ask the reporter what they mean by evolution. It’s such a loaded word these days that it really has lost any specific meaning. Are you talking micro, macro evolution, TENS, Darwinism, tree of life, abiogenesis, etc? You can’t even say you accept all of them as some of those elements are actually contractictory, or have nothing to do with evolution theory proper. The reporter was talking about big ‘E’ Evolution, the kind of catch-all phrase for anything having to do with that area of thought.
No one debates that micro evolution occurs. That’s the “we see evolution all the time, why do you hate science?” trope that people use when folks disagree with some aspect of evolutionary theory.
It’s the macro-evolution that’s up for debate, and it’s a valid debate. It’s non-observable/non-testable (ie not examinable using the scientific method). So being anti-macro-evolution doesn’t mean your against the science or the scientific method. Far from it, it means you hold the method to be a high standard. For that simple fact alone, anyone who calls themself a real scientist should be saying, “we can’t observe it, we can’t test it, so we can’t *know* it to be true or false”. Anyone who rabidly holds to Evolution as truth isn’t being honest. It’s like the difference between being agnostic and an athiest. One says “I don’t/can’t know”, the other proclaims “I’m an a$$”.
Evolutionary theory has almost no overlap with the hard sciences. Chemistry, physics, geology, etc. or any of the social or applied sciences either. It’s not a foundation of science, it’s a niche element of biology. Tim S had it at the beginning, it’s historical science like archeology, essentially. You sift through the bits and pieces you have and try to come up with a narrative that fits. There is no “Truth” there, especially when the narrative keeps changing with every new piece that comes along.
Questioning Evolution doesn’t make one unfit as science/technology minister. It makes you reasonable.
Also, think about the second part of Goodyears portfolio, as science and technology minister. Please note that evolution has nothing at all to do with technology. Zero overlap.
mhb,
You found our strawman. Congrats. You’ve solved the conspiracy of liberalism. *rolls eyes*
I too am an engineer, and as such i have been through lab after lab, and job after job that requires me to do the rational thing. The rational case for evolution is the scientific one.
If you need to believe that there’s a higher power, good for you, but it should not affect your ability to be MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY!!!!! This. is. why. we. think. gary. goodyear. is. unfit.
Chris S,
Biologists and chemists would disagree with you… unless of course biology and chemistry aren’t hard science for you.
Richard Evans,
Please see above. If you will not understand the difference between the scientific definition of theory and the layperson definition you have no place in a conversation of this caliber. See multiple posts above.
All,
Evolution isn’t an absolute, but the best description of what we think has happened based on our (all peer reviewed scientists around the world) observations. Questioning evolution is like questioning gravity. You might as well tilt at windmills.
Please read the top of the thread before repeating the same tripe at the bottom.
MSM and the loopy left never pass on a chance to espouse Anti-Christian bigotry. The reporter asked him a loaded question with the intent to smear him, my opinion only. Nothing surprises me regarding intolerance and bigotry emitting from the left, they remind me of the white hood crowd. I guess this faux scandal deflects a real one, you know the Liberal Party embracing people who had a hand in adscam back into their bosum.
I can just picture the loopy left dragging the mattress off it’s cinder blocks in anticipation of a good witch drowning don’t forget your rope lads and lasses.
EXACTLY DOUG.
WHO F’N CARES WHERE WE COME FROM? IT MATTERS NOT!
YOU WANT TO IMPRESS ME, FILL OUT MY NCAA B-BALL BRACKET SO i WIN. tHAT WOULD BE USEFUL!
Rose,
It’s not an anti christian smear… it’s an anti politician smear. He should have had the political acumen not to blow the answer. He didn’t. That’s why he’s unfit.
This has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with politics. If someone asked what Obama thought of economics and he answered with Marx we’d be all over that.
You are not a victim, stop acting like Warren K.
Jon @ 10:09 “….You cannot accept the scientific method that saves our lives in hospitals and makes sure our buildings don’t fall, but reject it in this case because it doesn’t fit with the Bible…”
I believe that this is the heart of your argument and let me re-summarise: He is unfit because he doesn’t follow the scientific method, we know he doesn’t follow the scientific method because he is Christian and doesn’t believe in evolution (or at least, in the idea that it is pure randomness driving it). Thus, he also won’t follow proper scientific method in defining medical research or civil engineering research, etc.
Now, do you actually know this about him, i.e. that he refuses to follow (or provide fund to others) scientific method on things that actually affect the day-to-day life of Canadians? If so, please specify where exactly he has shown/done this.
If not, then you are letting your biases and bigotry guide your judgment on him. Besides, who are you to judge him in his capacity to follow scientific method, particularly based on such scant evidence. Where exactly is the scientific method in that??
More to the point – why is evolution being held up here as the gold standard to determine whether someone would follow the scientific method? Why not other theories?
Why does this matter to a minister who is a politician and NOT a scientist? How does his belief or not in evolution actually affect the research needed by Canada to improve Canada. Give me a definitive case for this or shut up!
You also say “…People tend to be insulting to christians during the debate about evolution because we hear the same tired arguments each time…” Oh that’s nice to know, I am sure the Christians will feel the hurt less that way!!!
You go on
“…The bible is a prolonged allegory which is a SOCIETAL guide on how to treat other man….”
Do you have a scientific study proving this, or is it just your belief.
“…It is not a literal guide on how to treat science…”
Is this what you thought when you were a Christian, no wonder you aren’t anymore. I think you missed the point.
Jon – I just saw your reply to Rose.
Is it politics or religion that drives you here? Is he unfit because he “stumbled” on a question or because of his religious beliefs?
If politics, then I hope you crucify every poltician out there cause they all drop the ball once in a while.
If not, then see my previous post