255 Replies to ““Mr. Minister, Mr. Minister, Do You Believe In Evolution?””
Darrell, I did not claim Einstein was religious…I claimed he wasn’t violently opposed to religion, as some of the contributers here seem to demand of their Ministers of Science and Technology.
The only point here is the relevant one. If you believe in a higher power of any sort, you don’t belong in the liberal party. They made it quite clear. Follow Kinsella’s lead and denounce your god, and you to could get a position in the liberal war room. I think you get to do that denouncing thing three times if you’re catholic, before Jesus strikes you dead.
The Liberal left are a wee bit scared I see, keep spinning it the lies spin spin. Now they are asserting there is nothing wrong with asking the Science Minster if he believes in Science. Hello yesterday the left wanted him drawn and quartered after he is fired for not answering the loaded question. They know how bad they look, thus they are asserting his failure to answer the guestion equates to what and if and possibly that “His faith might effect his job” “His faith could be a problem”. So the left are trying to spin the witch hunt as valid political postering. Like Section 13 is a thought crime they want him punished for the “What if theory”.
Bigots bigots bigots. I thought those hatefest rallies showed the public the truth face of the left but nope they keep slapping on more and more mascara.
Mercy! Iggy must be getting so jealous, that god hater, Kinsella, getting all the press. If the liberals were smart, they would pull a fast one on Iggy, and acclaim Kinsella the one and only godless leader of the Liberal party. Maybe they can get BCL to hand out flyers at the upcoming convention stating they have it on video Iggy going to church.
Jon
“Over the years there have been a number of frauds and blunders perpetrated in an attempt to deceive the general public into believing there are “missing links” to be found in the fossil record. These frauds and blunders have included:
* Eoanthropus dawsoni, popularly know as the “Piltdown Man”
* Arachaeopteryx, sometimes called the “Piltdown Chicken”
* “The Orgueil Fall”
* Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, meaning “Western ape-man”
* Pithecanthropus erectus, meaning “erect ape-man”
* Australopithicines, meaning “Southern Apes.”
The only message that Canadians are getting from this liberal party stunt, is that if you believe in god, especially the christian god, you are stupid.
I can see sermons from the pulpit on this one. You can do lots of things to christians, and they will turn the other cheek, that is what makes them christians. The liberal party openly declaring war on their christian beliefs ….well, there is only so many cheeks you can turn, before you start kicking ass. I have observed that nobody kicks ass like a pissed off christian. Bye, bye liberal party.
I don’t care if he’s christian. He was unable to answer a simple question about science. His answer was “I’m a christian”. That’s incompetence not bigotry.
Posted by: Jon | March 19, 2009 12:23 PM
No, jon, it was the wrong answer to an insulting question calculated solely to embarrass him: in other words, it was a snotty version of “Begging the Question”. Recall a similar type of staged question during the GOP leadership debate when some idiot on Youtube held up the Bible and asked the candidates, completely irrelevantly, “Do you believe everything in this book”. They, too, tried to answer as best as possible, instead of swatting the question aside with contempt.
Let’s try it together, OK, jon? See how you do. So, jon, just answer yes or no: have you stopped beating your wife yet?
I add nothing else to the deserved smackdown Warwick gave you, but I do have one question. As you’re such a stickler for damning politicians who aren’t fast on their feet with “tricky” questions, how was your support for Jean G. Chretien? The “G.”, you will recall, stood for “gaffe”. Using your theory and standards, he should never have moved into 24 Sussex Dr. because he was incapable of answering most questions without botching his reply in both official languages.
Oops… maybe I should cut you some slack in that case.
mhb
Again, should we put in Jack Layton as Finance Minister? A minister that doesn’t believe in scientific process as science minister, and a minister that doesn’t believe in capitalism as finance minister. The analogy is valid.
Posted by: allan at March 19, 2009 1:13 PM
No it’s not valid, it’s a red herring. What is it about Minister of Science/Tech that requires him to believe in the theory of evolution? You know: those requirements where T of E will require daily reflection, reference and guidance to help him do his job as Minister? Now contrast that to having taliban jack as minister of finance and maybe you’ll see the difference.
Or maybe not. Do you also think the Minister of Defence should be nobody but an ex-military person, the Minister of Education must be an ex-teacher, etc. ?
Allan: Think. Before. Posting.
mhb
No he is not required to be a scientist.
But he must believe in science, no?
That would mean he believes in evolution, since it is a pillar of modern science.
So the analogy is valid.
How could he properly apply government spending in an impartial way if he didn’t even believe in science?
allen: “Only idiots see the issue as black and white. It is not a case of “one or the other” and one should not make a religious argument to a scientific question.”
You just called yourself an idiot. From your posts it appears you flatly reject any other theory other than evolution – now that is black and white linear thinking. Atheism is a religion. Atheism is a value and belief system. Atheism is a philosophy.
I see no reason why both theories can not be investigated and funded for research.
What if Intelligent design is true? Think of the discoveries that have been missed in fighting disease for example.
If evolution is true, as it has been asserting – nothing changes.
The fact is, there is a great deal of evidence to support Intelligent Design and when scientists follow where the evidence leads – they are finding the evidence leads to intelligent design in many fields of science.
What are evolutionists afraid of? Mathematically, evolution is astronomically unlikely. True science does not discount any possibilities.
Evolution Theory is just as “religious’ as intelligent design theory. As a matter of fact, evolution is taught because it supports the belief there is no god.
One does not have to be an atheisit to be a scientist. Many of the great scientists in history were Christians btw.
Religion is a function of evolution. Christian Rome grew in favor, not only because of Constantine, but because it provided a greater fitness benefit than Pagan Rome. In other words Christian women produced more children who came of age to reproduce than Pagan women.
“The willingness of Christians to care for others was put on dramatic public display when two great plagues swept the Roman empire, one beginning in 165 and the second in 251. Mortality rates climbed higher than 30 percent. Pagans tried to avoid all contact with the afflicted, often casting the still living into the gutters. Christians, on the other hand, nursed the sick even though some believers died doing so.
The results of these efforts were dramatic. We now know that elementary nursing—simply giving victims food and water without any drugs—will reduce mortality in epidemics by as much as two-thirds. Consequently Christians were more likely than pagans to recover—a visible benefit.”
“Tertullian wrote that while pagan temples spent their donations “on feasts and drinking bouts,” Christians spent theirs “to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined to the house.”
Similarly, in a letter to the bishop of Antioch in 251, the bishop of Rome mentioned that “more than 1,500 widows and distressed persons” were in the care of his congregation. These claims concerning Christian charity were confirmed by pagan observers.
“The impious Galileans support not only their poor,” complained pagan emperor Julian, “but ours as well.”
However, ID, unlike evolutionary theory is not a scientific theory, because it is not falsifiable. If the fossil record, at some future date, reveals skeletal remains of hippos and rabbits (or a Buick) in the pre-Cambrian era, then evolution is toast. However, ID, is not falsifiable, because God is not falsifiable, so it must remain in the realm of metaphysics.
I LOVE the opening comment: Since they discovered the speed of light is not a constant & is actually slowing down. Nothing is out of bounds. Maybe it was 300 times faster 10,000 years ago. frankly we don’t know what happened before us except what we do know is being questioned yet into a new model. By the way find me a transitional bone. Just one please? Not that this effects doctrine for salvation in any way, or even the Bible.
Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics though.
So much stupid in one place actually warps space-time.
“You just called yourself an idiot. From your posts it appears you flatly reject any other theory other than evolution – now that is black and white linear thinking. Atheism is a religion. Atheism is a value and belief system. Atheism is a philosophy.”
You misunderstood what I was saying. Believing one doesn’t mean a complete rejection of the other. That’s all I said. I do reject Intelligent Design, but not christianity. I feel anyone can believe what they want, but they may be wrong, myself included.
“Evolution Theory is just as “religious’ as intelligent design theory. As a matter of fact, evolution is taught because it supports the belief there is no god.”
Absolute hogwash. Evolution is a theory based on observation, facts, and logic. There is no “assault” on religion except in the minds of those in the far right.
“One does not have to be an atheisit to be a scientist. Many of the great scientists in history were Christians btw.”
Again that is not what I’m saying, you completely miss the point. The question was a scientific one, and he answered with an unnecessary religious one.
He didn’t have to bring up his religious beliefs at all. I don’t know why you’re bringing it up either.
I’ll bet every single one of those scientists also believed in the scientific method. The very base of science is the natural explanation for all things.
Intelligent Design flies in the face of that, because it implies there is supernatural. It belongs in the church, not in universities or schools. It is not a theory.
How could he properly apply government spending in an impartial way if he didn’t even believe in science?
End quote:—————————
Oh the ole “What if” tactic stuck on stupid there buttercup?
So you’ve jumped from “He didn’t answer the question” hang him to “Implying he’s anti-Science without a shread of proof” what’s next another drive by smear without evidence. Honestly your argument is circ logic, what if, could be, might be, the facts are out there and he never said he didn’t believe in the Theory of Evolution and for arguments sake if he did so what, science isn’t the sum total of the Theory of Evolution.
When is the Liberal and NDP Party releasing their new improved list stating what jobs we Christians are no longer qualified to hold? Sorta reminds me of pre-WW11, persecuting the man for not anwering a question and moving on to “What if’s” and “Might be’s” without a shread of evidence his faith effects his work. Trial in abstentia, yep a Liberal/NDP witch hunt gone horribly awry.
Again, nothing to do with christianity.
Why cant you thick skulled people get over that?
Nothing.
To.
Do.
With.
Christianity.
“Careful now – you’re starting to sound like a Muslim.”
Actually, no. It was a comment based on the similarities between your reaction to others disagreement with your POV and that of Muslim extremists, amongst others, such as the AGW zealots.
Macro evolution cannot be proven, because it cannot be observed. Unless of course, you’re God.
Micro-evolution on the other hand cannot extrapolate into macro-evolution theory.
As far as certain similar features are concerned – the moon is sometimes yellow. It doesn’t mean that it was once a banana.
Please, I would enjoy nothing better than to be soundly convinced that evolution is a fact. Like the observable effects of gravity.
That would be the end of the story and we can all move on.
Apart from that, the minister was damned either way on a political constituency basis in answering the question.
The comparison that Kate gave in the first place is a good one. And as far as I’m concerned, stands, as proven by this thread.
Question for the believers:
Can one be a christian, but not believe in the literal “creation of the universe” as said in the bible?
ET wrote: Well, I believe in evolution but I certainly don’t believe in neodarwinian evolution, i.e., that random mutations occur and that natural selection ‘decides’ which ones will survive to reproduce. Absolutely not. No. No. And no.
You “believe” in evolution, but not the one that involves mutation, and inherited traits providing the differential fitness and a tendency towards ‘natural selection’ of fitter phenotypes. What interpretation of biological ‘evolution’ DO you agree with?
I should probably have been clued in by the quotes around ‘decides’. Do you understand what natural selection is, and how it comes about? I’m very curious to know what your alternative is.
One doesn’t “believe” in evolution. You either understand it, or you don’t. Having understood it, you either agree with it, or you have an alternative explanation. I’m sure you’re aware of this fact, as you are no doubt aware of the tens of thousands of varying opinions about the minute details of evolutionary mechanisms and dynamics. Even as these varying opinions may exist, the general agreeement about Darwin’s observations (heritable individual variation, and overproduction of offspring + finite resources leading to competition and implying differential fitness) and inferences (unequal reproductive success implying adaptation) is very strong.
Further, Neo-Darwinism was, simply, the recognition of natural selection as the only driver of evolution, and the rejection of Lamarckism. The modern synthesis elaborated on the details by accepting the role of random genetic drift and gene flow, the existence of genes and alleles and the definition of speciation as the gradual accumulation of small variation.
NONE of this stuff is set in stone (especially speciation) and all of it is the subject of a lot of research, but the fact remains: if you deny the primary role of natural selection, then you deny biological evolution at a fundamental level.
allen
Question for unbelievers: Can one be an atheist or unbeliever and believe in creation?
yes, one could be agnostic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
Or, they could believe that something non-supernatural created us(such as aliens).
So, there is nothing supernatural about a “big bang” that produced a single cell by chance that produced a billion different species that has a mathematical probability of 10 to 40,000th of actually occuring. Okay I see – when an atheist states something that is so likely impossible – it is science, but if a believer states something more intlligent than us is likely the source for the billions of different species on earth is just believing in the supernatural.
No-One:
You should just stop now. The world will never understand your brilliance.
“but if a believer states something more intlligent than us is likely the source for the billions of different species on earth is just believing in the supernatural.”
Yes it is just believing in the supernatural, because there is no proof or evidence of this.
You just can’t get it through your head can you No-One? I’m sitting here reading post after post by you and its literally astounding some of the bizarre conclusions you’ve reached in this discussion.
“The sentiment that the earth is billions of years old is also being challenged.”
No, its not. Care to provide some evidence other than, “I saw a big volcano…it moved alot of stuff, so maybe, somehow, everything we’ve ever understood about archeology, chemical dating, and geography is all wrong”?
As to missing links, there’s always people who will mis-represent science (or religion…I could give you pages and pages full of charlatans). It doesn’t reduce the validity of evolution. We are always discovering more “missing links” as we discover more fossils and fill in more and more of the fossil record.
“From your posts it appears you flatly reject any other theory other than evolution”
What other theory is being presented here? The Unicorn Theory? Flatly rejected a fairy tale sounds pretty logical to me. If you had some evidence for me I’d listen to you with open ears, but so far you’ve presented nothing of the sort. I _have_ looked at both sides of the story, and have debated on both sides of the argument regarding evolution. I stand by my convictions regarding evolution.
“The fact is, there is a great deal of evidence to support Intelligent Design and when scientists follow where the evidence leads – they are finding the evidence leads to intelligent design in many fields of science.”
Care to provide that evidence? Or are you just making stuff up again? The whole idea behind ID theory is a bunch of people one day said, “man, this universe is sooooo complicated…obviously Man-Bear-Pig created it”.
“Evolution Theory is just as “religious’ as intelligent design theory.”
That statement is the very reason atheists and pro-evolutionists are so militant, bigoted, angry, and rude towards people like yourself. Evolution isn’t just something someone just dreamed up and now we all accept it 100% like has happened with global warming. It founds the very basis of modern biology. Everything we understand about genomes, genes, mutations, viruses, diseases, etc. are ALL linked to evolution. All you have is one book and TWO independent historians who can verify the veracity of your deity (Jesus, and I’m speaking of Josephus and some other roman historian).
Gord Tulk:
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.
Thats all the important part in a nut shell. I wonder when the CBC, or other MSM will ask Muslim, Hindu, or Orthodox Jews, the same question? Particularly Islamists. Let them, mock them to see the differance.
By the way just because the person is a Muslim does not mean they should be abused either with crimes they have not commited, & slurs with no substance. We still I hope believe in innocent before guilty or are individuals now identified by Collective, not personel behavior?
JMO
226! (227 now.) This is surely the longest. thread. evuh. on SDA.
“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.”
Jack Layton for Finance Minister!
After all, we know he doesn’t believe in capitalism. But that doesn’t matter.
What I am finding most funny is the rabid defense of evolution by the ill informed, unthinking zealots that were they of any other religion considered fundamentalists. They seem incapable of critical thought that questions their belief system. In fact I put them in the same catagory as the snake handlers of the southern US or the suicide bombers of Islamo-fascist fame.
No he is not required to be a scientist. But he must believe in science, no? That would mean he believes in evolution, since it is a pillar of modern science.
Ummm… Not so much… In order to competently perform the “science” function of his portfolio, Goodyear has to believe in the “scientific method”. That is to; theorize/test/ask questions, theorize/test/ask questions, theorize/test/ask questions…
Your way would be stupid. You’re demanding that he simply accept the theory/dogma without the whole “test/ask questions” part that has to go with it.
Like I said earlier, you darwinian cultists are just as bad as the creationist pinheads…
No he is not required to be a scientist. But he must believe in science, no? That would mean he believes in evolution, since it is a pillar of modern science.
Ummm… Not so much… In order to competently perform the “science” function of his portfolio, Goodyear has to believe in the “scientific method”. That is to; theorize/test/ask questions, theorize/test/ask questions, theorize/test/ask questions…
Your way would be stupid. You’re demanding that he simply accept the theory/dogma without the whole “test/ask questions” part that has to go with it.
Like I said earlier, you darwinian cultists are just as bad as the creationist pinheads…
No he is not required to be a scientist. But he must believe in science, no? That would mean he believes in evolution, since it is a pillar of modern science.
Ummm… Not so much… In order to competently perform the “science” function of his portfolio, Goodyear has to believe in the “scientific method”. That is to; theorize/test/ask questions, theorize/test/ask questions, theorize/test/ask questions…
Your way would be stupid. You’re demanding that he simply accept the theory/dogma without the whole “test/ask questions” part that has to go with it.
Like I said earlier, you darwinian cultists are just as bad as the creationist pinheads…
Richard Evans: In order to competently perform the “science” function of his portfolio, Goodyear has to believe in the “scientific method”
I disagree. His job isn’t to DO the science, so his primary requirement isn’t to “believe in the scientific method”, as you put it. His job is to listen to researchers, and understand their research directions and projects enough so that he can make funding and program decisions about them. He needs to have enough knowledge and appreciation of various scientific theories to be capable of weighing their suggestions regarding fields of study and research funding vehicles in order to decide which are the most valuable in terms of various metrics (importance, necessity, uniqueness, expressive of Canadian research, advanced character, etc).
In this regard, he has shown that he is not only underqualified, but also that he may be of a particular ideological bent, making it difficult for him to assess at least SOME areas of research properly.
He also needs to have the respect and trust of researchers, and I would argue that he has lost that as well.
I disagree. His job isn’t to DO the science, so his primary requirement isn’t to “believe in the scientific method”, as you put it. His job is to listen to researchers, and understand their research directions and projects enough so that he can make funding and program decisions…
Are you mental?
How does he understand research directions if he doesn’t understand the scientific model?
Here’s a good article: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=68244ee3-1c51-4458-b745-3f12d78c084c
Charles Darwin received an interesting birthday gift shortly before his 200th year began. Creationists have long noted, correctly, that the fossil record was curiously silent on details concerning turtle evolution.
How does he understand research directions if he doesn’t understand the scientific model?
I didn’t say he didn’t need to understand the scientific model, I said it wasn’t his primary requirement. His primary role is not to DO science, but to have enough experience, general knowledge, background and respect to judge the costs and benefits of various programs and funding vehicles. He has to take in the arguments of the people that advise and inform him and make policy from that, and the scientific model doesn’t come into it on that level.
Drudge:
“A MOMENT OF CREATION IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC…”
…-
“Tongan inspection team heads to undersea volcano”
urlm.in/byay
“What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?”
Psalm 8
Richard Evans: Are you mental?
This is your response?
“His primary role is not to DO science, but to have enough experience, general knowledge, background and respect to judge the costs and benefits of various programs and funding vehicles.”
And how can he do that if he doesn’t understand the scientific model? I’m not saying that he doesn’t understand it, but many posters here seem to be confused about the issue.
That would mean he believes in evolution, since it is a pillar of modern science.
Posted by: allan at March 19, 2009 6:18 PM
Illuminating comment, that. I had no idea that the reflexive embracing of the Theory of Evolution was the linchpin of understanding all modern science & technology! Thanks for pointing that out. Here I’d only thought it a supporting role, and not the main character; I’m certain there are many chemists, astronomers, physicists, geologists and countless others who might disagree with you, if their opinions count for anything. But what if Goodyear didn’t believe or buy into quantum mechanics based on his physics background? Would that disqualify him for the role? Does one have to understand and agree with every facet of modern science and technology to qualify as Minister? That’d be a tall order indeed: even a challenge for the know-it-all liberals bent on humiliating Goodyear with this incident.
Your assumption is – with no supporting evidence – that because Goodyear is a Christian and believes (or may believe) in Creationism, we should give him the boot just in case this may affect his ability to do the Minister’s job. Is that it? There could be no possible scenario whereby the man might fund pro-evolution research because of his religion? It’s not possible for him to be objective in this role because of his religious views on evolution, despite a complete lack of evidence to the contrary?
And you huff and insult those who call you on your bigotry, bleating “It’s not about Christianity!”
Don’t make yourself look dumber than you’ve appeared. What else could it be about, if not the man’s religion? You are twisting yourself into pretzel shapes denying it, but it’s pretty obvious to anybody reading your posts. It might be helpful to Mr. Goodyear if you provided a list of cabinet positions he may aspire to that won’t be undermined by his religion.
Here’s a bit of advice that is neither Evolutionist nor Creationist that might help you, allan: When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging
mhb
“Your assumption is – with no supporting evidence – that because Goodyear is a Christian and believes (or may believe) in Creationism, we should give him the boot just in case this may affect his ability to do the Minister’s job. ”
I really don’t know how many times I have to explain this. It has nothing to do with him being a christian.
How does one have “religious views” on evolution? Evolution isn’t religious. Many people here don’t seem to understand that.
My question was simple:
If he does not believe in scientific process(notice the “IF”), how can he do his job impartially?
Nothing to do with his religion. Get that through your thick skull already.
I had no idea that the reflexive embracing of the Theory of Evolution was the linchpin of understanding all modern science & technology!
That’s not what I said:
“since it is a pillar of modern science.”
*A* pillar. In other words, one of many. I did not say “the” pillar.
Does one have to understand and agree with every facet of modern science and technology to qualify as Minister?
No, but scientific process yes.
“Your assumption is – with no supporting evidence – that because Goodyear is a Christian and believes (or may believe) in Creationism, we should give him the boot just in case this may affect his ability to do the Minister’s job”
Never said that. Nothing to do with religion or creationism, that was not what was asked of him. One can believe in both(since they are faith), yet also believe and understand evolution(since that is science).
Now if he does not believe in scientific process(notice nothing about creationism, or religion, or intelligent design) then there could possibly be a problem.
Again, Jack Layton for Finance Minister?
Layton as Finance Minister is – once again – a red herring, and only makes your argument more ludicrous, if that were possible.
Do you need a bigger shovel, allan?
mhb
mhb,
I would argue that you are the one in the hole, I assume with your fingers in your ears and your eyes closed.
Micro-evolution:
In experiments with bacteria, variation (including beneficial mutations) arises in populations that are grown from a single individual (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Since the population started with just one chromosome, there was no variation in the original population; all variation must have come from mutations.
Furthermore, disease organisms and insect pests have developed resistance to a variety of antibiotics and pesticides, many of them artificial and unlike anything in nature. It is highly improbable that all insects were created with resistance to all pesticides.
Mutation is the only natural process that adds variation to populations. Selection and genetic drift remove variation. If mutations did not create new variation, there would now be little or no variation to select from. In particular, reducing populations to a single pair of individuals, as Noah’s Flood requires, would have removed very nearly all variation from the world’s wildlife in one stroke.
It is true that much microevolution selects from preexisting variation. In animals, that kind of microevolution occurs much faster than waiting for certain mutations to occur, so we often see artificial selection programs stall when they have selected among all the variation that was there to begin with. However, if the selection is maintained, change should continue, albeit at a much slower rate.
Evolution is a religion:
Evolution merely describes part of nature. The fact that that part of nature is important to many people does not make evolution a religion. Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares:
* Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
* Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
* Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
* Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
* Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
* Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
* Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.
How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.
Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.
Evolutionary theory has been used as a basis for studying and speculating about the biological basis for morals and religious attitudes (Sober and Wilson 1998). Studying religion, though, does not make the study a religion. Using evolution to study the origins of religious attitudes does not make evolution a religion any more than using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts makes archaeology a religion.
Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.
The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982).
Everything that you creationists have mentioned as “proof” that evolution is wrong has been disputed in many places, by many people, many times over.
The continued use of talking points such as:
Evolution is a religion
It’s just a theory
There is no evidence of Micro
Those who follow (you do not have to believe in it) the scientific method have answered your questions at talkorigins.org
They cover:
Ethics
Epistemology
Theory of Science
Scientific Method
Theology
Abiogenesis
Genetics
Molecular Biology
Physiology and Anatomy
Behavior and Cognition
Botany
Ecology and Population Biology
Developmental Biology
Systematics
Physical Anthropology
Transitional fossils
Fossil Record
Geochronology
Geological Column
Sedimentation
Evaporation
Glaciation
Second Law of Thermodynamics and Information Theory
There are many scientific articles by people who are routinely checked by others hoping to discredit them. This is how science works, we constantly discredit things that are untrue and as a result move closer to “truth”.
There are 2 debates currently going on:
1. Goodyear fit to be Science Minister?
2. Evolution, is it a sham?
The answer to both is no. Please see my previous posts.
Why?
1. He couldn’t dodge a question which was out of bounds. This shows a lack of political acumen. He is unfit to lead anything.
2. Religion starts with an opinion and justifies it with facts. Science starts out with facts and justifies them with an opinion.
I hope you can see how absurd it is that we’re debating whether or not science (evolution as an element therein) is a giant , especially compared to a story written about a carpenter bastardized by the vatican.
This is all completely besides the point. The reason he’s unqualified to hold that office is because his rejection of verifiable facts shows that he’s either willfully ignorant, or just plain stupid. I don’t care if he justified hes denial with religious dogma or some nutty personal incredulity, the result is the same. I also don’t care if he’s voicing his opinion on evolution, on the heliocentric model, or on the flat-earth theory – if he’s ignorant enough to hold any of those views, he shouldn’t be in ANY public office. Period.
Posted by: Jon at March 20, 2009 4:35 PM
Ahh, predictably, jon arrives to further obfuscate the issue with a windy dialogue that takes us further from the purpose of the thread. Perhaps I’ve been too hard on the Theory of Evolution, jon; it may well be you’ve evolved from the squid: threatened or disturbed you throw up an inky cloud of confusion with which to distract and escape. 1. He couldn’t dodge a question which was out of bounds. This shows a lack of political acumen. He is unfit to lead anything.
You, sir, are truly a judgemental and unimaginative clod. With the current anti-Christian zeitgeist it’s pretty easy to pillory Goodyear for not swatting this entrapment scheme aside, but what then? How would the hounds of the CBC/Torstar allow that strategy to play out? “Minister Sidesteps Key Issue on Religous Grounds”, “Religious Views Allow Minister to Treat Legitimate Questions With Contempt” might well be the result.
As I said earlier, Goodyear was put in a no-win situation by a scheming media slug who knew exactly what he was doing – begging the question, as it were. No answer would have exonerated him, but jon, allan, alex et al see no unreasonableness in that. This is merely an opportunity to publicly embarrass a cabinet minister because of his faith, and no such opportunity must be squandered. The only difference between this and kinsella’s Barney slander is at least kinsella had the guts to admit his strategy of demonizing his target’s religion; you lot haven’t the courage even to admit to that considering the pathetic dodges above. I’d love to see your squirming posts had the Minister of Science answer the same excepting on the basis of his standing as a muslim. That is, if you commented at all.
As your other principle argument regarding Goodyear’s unsuitability to his post centers on a perceived inability to answer loaded questions or a lack of eloquence, please advise your postings of indignation over this individual’s impeccable verbal performances:
1. “Da proof is da proof…”
2. “I don’t know if I’m in north, south, east or west Jerusalem.”
3. “For me, pepper, I put it on my plate”
4. “I don’t know what is marijuana. Perhaps I will try it when it will no longer be criminal. I will have my money for my fine and a joint in the other hand”
5. “We don’t want to get into a big fight over there. We want to spread peace and happiness as much as possible”
6. “It’s like the story of the Hippo and the Zerba. That Hippo, he paint the stripe on him to look like the Zerba. But at the end of that day he still a Hippo.”
… ad infinitum
Please do share your historical outrage. Or is it reserved only for Conservatives, and Christian Conservatives in particular?
mhb
“As I said earlier, Goodyear was put in a no-win situation by a scheming media slug who knew exactly what he was doing – begging the question, as it were.”
How could he lose by saying:
“of course I believe in evolution”
What is there to lose?
Allan,
He would have lost the religious right, but he would have shown competency.
mhb,
I understand the question was out of bounds, and asking someone if they “believe” in evolution shows a fundamental ignorance on the part of the reporter. What I find strange is that Goodyear was unable to come up with any response other than “religion”.
I also understand that you are a narcissist and believe that you are being persecuted for your beliefs. There is some truth to this, ie Richard Warman’s battle against the hard right. However, defending Goodyear’s idiocy doesn’t to anything to solve your real problem, and only serves to eliminate those who understand evolution and the scientific method as potential voters who might also support your freedom of personal expression and of religion.
I haven’t called you a single name, and it’s sad to think that a Christian would resort to ad hominem. If you believe in a creation based world that’s ok, I don’t care. As I said earlier, you can believe anything you want, but when it comes to being science minister, a scientific view and outlook is required, this includes the scientific method through which we have developed the theories of evolution, gravity and limits (calculus).
I hope you find peace in your life, but I don’t think you’ll find it fighting to prove that god exists… that is a personal choice that you should have made when you accepted Jesus into your heart, not a decision to be lorded onto other people.
“What is there to lose?”
The far-FAR-right nutjob vote?
“He would have lost the religious right, but he would have shown competency.”
No he wouldn’t. Only nut jobs think that understanding and accepting evolution somehow tramples on religion.
Darrell, I did not claim Einstein was religious…I claimed he wasn’t violently opposed to religion, as some of the contributers here seem to demand of their Ministers of Science and Technology.
The only point here is the relevant one. If you believe in a higher power of any sort, you don’t belong in the liberal party. They made it quite clear. Follow Kinsella’s lead and denounce your god, and you to could get a position in the liberal war room. I think you get to do that denouncing thing three times if you’re catholic, before Jesus strikes you dead.
The Liberal left are a wee bit scared I see, keep spinning it the lies spin spin. Now they are asserting there is nothing wrong with asking the Science Minster if he believes in Science. Hello yesterday the left wanted him drawn and quartered after he is fired for not answering the loaded question. They know how bad they look, thus they are asserting his failure to answer the guestion equates to what and if and possibly that “His faith might effect his job” “His faith could be a problem”. So the left are trying to spin the witch hunt as valid political postering. Like Section 13 is a thought crime they want him punished for the “What if theory”.
Bigots bigots bigots. I thought those hatefest rallies showed the public the truth face of the left but nope they keep slapping on more and more mascara.
Mercy! Iggy must be getting so jealous, that god hater, Kinsella, getting all the press. If the liberals were smart, they would pull a fast one on Iggy, and acclaim Kinsella the one and only godless leader of the Liberal party. Maybe they can get BCL to hand out flyers at the upcoming convention stating they have it on video Iggy going to church.
Jon
“Over the years there have been a number of frauds and blunders perpetrated in an attempt to deceive the general public into believing there are “missing links” to be found in the fossil record. These frauds and blunders have included:
* Eoanthropus dawsoni, popularly know as the “Piltdown Man”
* Arachaeopteryx, sometimes called the “Piltdown Chicken”
* “The Orgueil Fall”
* Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, meaning “Western ape-man”
* Pithecanthropus erectus, meaning “erect ape-man”
* Australopithicines, meaning “Southern Apes.”
The only message that Canadians are getting from this liberal party stunt, is that if you believe in god, especially the christian god, you are stupid.
I can see sermons from the pulpit on this one. You can do lots of things to christians, and they will turn the other cheek, that is what makes them christians. The liberal party openly declaring war on their christian beliefs ….well, there is only so many cheeks you can turn, before you start kicking ass. I have observed that nobody kicks ass like a pissed off christian. Bye, bye liberal party.
I don’t care if he’s christian. He was unable to answer a simple question about science. His answer was “I’m a christian”. That’s incompetence not bigotry.
Posted by: Jon | March 19, 2009 12:23 PM
No, jon, it was the wrong answer to an insulting question calculated solely to embarrass him: in other words, it was a snotty version of “Begging the Question”. Recall a similar type of staged question during the GOP leadership debate when some idiot on Youtube held up the Bible and asked the candidates, completely irrelevantly, “Do you believe everything in this book”. They, too, tried to answer as best as possible, instead of swatting the question aside with contempt.
Let’s try it together, OK, jon? See how you do.
So, jon, just answer yes or no: have you stopped beating your wife yet?
I add nothing else to the deserved smackdown Warwick gave you, but I do have one question. As you’re such a stickler for damning politicians who aren’t fast on their feet with “tricky” questions, how was your support for Jean G. Chretien? The “G.”, you will recall, stood for “gaffe”. Using your theory and standards, he should never have moved into 24 Sussex Dr. because he was incapable of answering most questions without botching his reply in both official languages.
Oops… maybe I should cut you some slack in that case.
mhb
Again, should we put in Jack Layton as Finance Minister? A minister that doesn’t believe in scientific process as science minister, and a minister that doesn’t believe in capitalism as finance minister.
The analogy is valid.
Posted by: allan at March 19, 2009 1:13 PM
No it’s not valid, it’s a red herring. What is it about Minister of Science/Tech that requires him to believe in the theory of evolution? You know: those requirements where T of E will require daily reflection, reference and guidance to help him do his job as Minister? Now contrast that to having taliban jack as minister of finance and maybe you’ll see the difference.
Or maybe not. Do you also think the Minister of Defence should be nobody but an ex-military person, the Minister of Education must be an ex-teacher, etc. ?
Allan: Think. Before. Posting.
mhb
No he is not required to be a scientist.
But he must believe in science, no?
That would mean he believes in evolution, since it is a pillar of modern science.
So the analogy is valid.
How could he properly apply government spending in an impartial way if he didn’t even believe in science?
allen: “Only idiots see the issue as black and white. It is not a case of “one or the other” and one should not make a religious argument to a scientific question.”
You just called yourself an idiot. From your posts it appears you flatly reject any other theory other than evolution – now that is black and white linear thinking. Atheism is a religion. Atheism is a value and belief system. Atheism is a philosophy.
I see no reason why both theories can not be investigated and funded for research.
What if Intelligent design is true? Think of the discoveries that have been missed in fighting disease for example.
If evolution is true, as it has been asserting – nothing changes.
The fact is, there is a great deal of evidence to support Intelligent Design and when scientists follow where the evidence leads – they are finding the evidence leads to intelligent design in many fields of science.
What are evolutionists afraid of? Mathematically, evolution is astronomically unlikely. True science does not discount any possibilities.
Evolution Theory is just as “religious’ as intelligent design theory. As a matter of fact, evolution is taught because it supports the belief there is no god.
One does not have to be an atheisit to be a scientist. Many of the great scientists in history were Christians btw.
Religion is a function of evolution. Christian Rome grew in favor, not only because of Constantine, but because it provided a greater fitness benefit than Pagan Rome. In other words Christian women produced more children who came of age to reproduce than Pagan women.
“The willingness of Christians to care for others was put on dramatic public display when two great plagues swept the Roman empire, one beginning in 165 and the second in 251. Mortality rates climbed higher than 30 percent. Pagans tried to avoid all contact with the afflicted, often casting the still living into the gutters. Christians, on the other hand, nursed the sick even though some believers died doing so.
The results of these efforts were dramatic. We now know that elementary nursing—simply giving victims food and water without any drugs—will reduce mortality in epidemics by as much as two-thirds. Consequently Christians were more likely than pagans to recover—a visible benefit.”
“Tertullian wrote that while pagan temples spent their donations “on feasts and drinking bouts,” Christians spent theirs “to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined to the house.”
Similarly, in a letter to the bishop of Antioch in 251, the bishop of Rome mentioned that “more than 1,500 widows and distressed persons” were in the care of his congregation. These claims concerning Christian charity were confirmed by pagan observers.
“The impious Galileans support not only their poor,” complained pagan emperor Julian, “but ours as well.”
However, ID, unlike evolutionary theory is not a scientific theory, because it is not falsifiable. If the fossil record, at some future date, reveals skeletal remains of hippos and rabbits (or a Buick) in the pre-Cambrian era, then evolution is toast. However, ID, is not falsifiable, because God is not falsifiable, so it must remain in the realm of metaphysics.
I LOVE the opening comment:
Since they discovered the speed of light is not a constant & is actually slowing down. Nothing is out of bounds. Maybe it was 300 times faster 10,000 years ago. frankly we don’t know what happened before us except what we do know is being questioned yet into a new model. By the way find me a transitional bone. Just one please? Not that this effects doctrine for salvation in any way, or even the Bible.
Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics though.
So much stupid in one place actually warps space-time.
“You just called yourself an idiot. From your posts it appears you flatly reject any other theory other than evolution – now that is black and white linear thinking. Atheism is a religion. Atheism is a value and belief system. Atheism is a philosophy.”
You misunderstood what I was saying. Believing one doesn’t mean a complete rejection of the other. That’s all I said. I do reject Intelligent Design, but not christianity. I feel anyone can believe what they want, but they may be wrong, myself included.
“Evolution Theory is just as “religious’ as intelligent design theory. As a matter of fact, evolution is taught because it supports the belief there is no god.”
Absolute hogwash. Evolution is a theory based on observation, facts, and logic. There is no “assault” on religion except in the minds of those in the far right.
“One does not have to be an atheisit to be a scientist. Many of the great scientists in history were Christians btw.”
Again that is not what I’m saying, you completely miss the point. The question was a scientific one, and he answered with an unnecessary religious one.
He didn’t have to bring up his religious beliefs at all. I don’t know why you’re bringing it up either.
I’ll bet every single one of those scientists also believed in the scientific method. The very base of science is the natural explanation for all things.
Intelligent Design flies in the face of that, because it implies there is supernatural. It belongs in the church, not in universities or schools. It is not a theory.
How could he properly apply government spending in an impartial way if he didn’t even believe in science?
End quote:—————————
Oh the ole “What if” tactic stuck on stupid there buttercup?
So you’ve jumped from “He didn’t answer the question” hang him to “Implying he’s anti-Science without a shread of proof” what’s next another drive by smear without evidence. Honestly your argument is circ logic, what if, could be, might be, the facts are out there and he never said he didn’t believe in the Theory of Evolution and for arguments sake if he did so what, science isn’t the sum total of the Theory of Evolution.
When is the Liberal and NDP Party releasing their new improved list stating what jobs we Christians are no longer qualified to hold? Sorta reminds me of pre-WW11, persecuting the man for not anwering a question and moving on to “What if’s” and “Might be’s” without a shread of evidence his faith effects his work. Trial in abstentia, yep a Liberal/NDP witch hunt gone horribly awry.
Again, nothing to do with christianity.
Why cant you thick skulled people get over that?
Nothing.
To.
Do.
With.
Christianity.
“Careful now – you’re starting to sound like a Muslim.”
Actually, no. It was a comment based on the similarities between your reaction to others disagreement with your POV and that of Muslim extremists, amongst others, such as the AGW zealots.
Macro evolution cannot be proven, because it cannot be observed. Unless of course, you’re God.
Micro-evolution on the other hand cannot extrapolate into macro-evolution theory.
As far as certain similar features are concerned – the moon is sometimes yellow. It doesn’t mean that it was once a banana.
Please, I would enjoy nothing better than to be soundly convinced that evolution is a fact. Like the observable effects of gravity.
That would be the end of the story and we can all move on.
Apart from that, the minister was damned either way on a political constituency basis in answering the question.
The comparison that Kate gave in the first place is a good one. And as far as I’m concerned, stands, as proven by this thread.
Question for the believers:
Can one be a christian, but not believe in the literal “creation of the universe” as said in the bible?
ET wrote:
Well, I believe in evolution but I certainly don’t believe in neodarwinian evolution, i.e., that random mutations occur and that natural selection ‘decides’ which ones will survive to reproduce. Absolutely not. No. No. And no.
You “believe” in evolution, but not the one that involves mutation, and inherited traits providing the differential fitness and a tendency towards ‘natural selection’ of fitter phenotypes. What interpretation of biological ‘evolution’ DO you agree with?
I should probably have been clued in by the quotes around ‘decides’. Do you understand what natural selection is, and how it comes about? I’m very curious to know what your alternative is.
One doesn’t “believe” in evolution. You either understand it, or you don’t. Having understood it, you either agree with it, or you have an alternative explanation. I’m sure you’re aware of this fact, as you are no doubt aware of the tens of thousands of varying opinions about the minute details of evolutionary mechanisms and dynamics. Even as these varying opinions may exist, the general agreeement about Darwin’s observations (heritable individual variation, and overproduction of offspring + finite resources leading to competition and implying differential fitness) and inferences (unequal reproductive success implying adaptation) is very strong.
Further, Neo-Darwinism was, simply, the recognition of natural selection as the only driver of evolution, and the rejection of Lamarckism. The modern synthesis elaborated on the details by accepting the role of random genetic drift and gene flow, the existence of genes and alleles and the definition of speciation as the gradual accumulation of small variation.
NONE of this stuff is set in stone (especially speciation) and all of it is the subject of a lot of research, but the fact remains: if you deny the primary role of natural selection, then you deny biological evolution at a fundamental level.
allen
Question for unbelievers: Can one be an atheist or unbeliever and believe in creation?
yes, one could be agnostic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
Or, they could believe that something non-supernatural created us(such as aliens).
So, there is nothing supernatural about a “big bang” that produced a single cell by chance that produced a billion different species that has a mathematical probability of 10 to 40,000th of actually occuring. Okay I see – when an atheist states something that is so likely impossible – it is science, but if a believer states something more intlligent than us is likely the source for the billions of different species on earth is just believing in the supernatural.
No-One:
You should just stop now. The world will never understand your brilliance.
“but if a believer states something more intlligent than us is likely the source for the billions of different species on earth is just believing in the supernatural.”
Yes it is just believing in the supernatural, because there is no proof or evidence of this.
You just can’t get it through your head can you No-One? I’m sitting here reading post after post by you and its literally astounding some of the bizarre conclusions you’ve reached in this discussion.
“The sentiment that the earth is billions of years old is also being challenged.”
No, its not. Care to provide some evidence other than, “I saw a big volcano…it moved alot of stuff, so maybe, somehow, everything we’ve ever understood about archeology, chemical dating, and geography is all wrong”?
As to missing links, there’s always people who will mis-represent science (or religion…I could give you pages and pages full of charlatans). It doesn’t reduce the validity of evolution. We are always discovering more “missing links” as we discover more fossils and fill in more and more of the fossil record.
“From your posts it appears you flatly reject any other theory other than evolution”
What other theory is being presented here? The Unicorn Theory? Flatly rejected a fairy tale sounds pretty logical to me. If you had some evidence for me I’d listen to you with open ears, but so far you’ve presented nothing of the sort. I _have_ looked at both sides of the story, and have debated on both sides of the argument regarding evolution. I stand by my convictions regarding evolution.
“The fact is, there is a great deal of evidence to support Intelligent Design and when scientists follow where the evidence leads – they are finding the evidence leads to intelligent design in many fields of science.”
Care to provide that evidence? Or are you just making stuff up again? The whole idea behind ID theory is a bunch of people one day said, “man, this universe is sooooo complicated…obviously Man-Bear-Pig created it”.
“Evolution Theory is just as “religious’ as intelligent design theory.”
That statement is the very reason atheists and pro-evolutionists are so militant, bigoted, angry, and rude towards people like yourself. Evolution isn’t just something someone just dreamed up and now we all accept it 100% like has happened with global warming. It founds the very basis of modern biology. Everything we understand about genomes, genes, mutations, viruses, diseases, etc. are ALL linked to evolution. All you have is one book and TWO independent historians who can verify the veracity of your deity (Jesus, and I’m speaking of Josephus and some other roman historian).
Gord Tulk:
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.
Thats all the important part in a nut shell. I wonder when the CBC, or other MSM will ask Muslim, Hindu, or Orthodox Jews, the same question? Particularly Islamists. Let them, mock them to see the differance.
By the way just because the person is a Muslim does not mean they should be abused either with crimes they have not commited, & slurs with no substance. We still I hope believe in innocent before guilty or are individuals now identified by Collective, not personel behavior?
JMO
226! (227 now.) This is surely the longest. thread. evuh. on SDA.
“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.”
Jack Layton for Finance Minister!
After all, we know he doesn’t believe in capitalism. But that doesn’t matter.
What I am finding most funny is the rabid defense of evolution by the ill informed, unthinking zealots that were they of any other religion considered fundamentalists. They seem incapable of critical thought that questions their belief system. In fact I put them in the same catagory as the snake handlers of the southern US or the suicide bombers of Islamo-fascist fame.
No he is not required to be a scientist. But he must believe in science, no? That would mean he believes in evolution, since it is a pillar of modern science.
Ummm… Not so much… In order to competently perform the “science” function of his portfolio, Goodyear has to believe in the “scientific method”. That is to; theorize/test/ask questions, theorize/test/ask questions, theorize/test/ask questions…
Your way would be stupid. You’re demanding that he simply accept the theory/dogma without the whole “test/ask questions” part that has to go with it.
Like I said earlier, you darwinian cultists are just as bad as the creationist pinheads…
No he is not required to be a scientist. But he must believe in science, no? That would mean he believes in evolution, since it is a pillar of modern science.
Ummm… Not so much… In order to competently perform the “science” function of his portfolio, Goodyear has to believe in the “scientific method”. That is to; theorize/test/ask questions, theorize/test/ask questions, theorize/test/ask questions…
Your way would be stupid. You’re demanding that he simply accept the theory/dogma without the whole “test/ask questions” part that has to go with it.
Like I said earlier, you darwinian cultists are just as bad as the creationist pinheads…
No he is not required to be a scientist. But he must believe in science, no? That would mean he believes in evolution, since it is a pillar of modern science.
Ummm… Not so much… In order to competently perform the “science” function of his portfolio, Goodyear has to believe in the “scientific method”. That is to; theorize/test/ask questions, theorize/test/ask questions, theorize/test/ask questions…
Your way would be stupid. You’re demanding that he simply accept the theory/dogma without the whole “test/ask questions” part that has to go with it.
Like I said earlier, you darwinian cultists are just as bad as the creationist pinheads…
Richard Evans:
In order to competently perform the “science” function of his portfolio, Goodyear has to believe in the “scientific method”
I disagree. His job isn’t to DO the science, so his primary requirement isn’t to “believe in the scientific method”, as you put it. His job is to listen to researchers, and understand their research directions and projects enough so that he can make funding and program decisions about them. He needs to have enough knowledge and appreciation of various scientific theories to be capable of weighing their suggestions regarding fields of study and research funding vehicles in order to decide which are the most valuable in terms of various metrics (importance, necessity, uniqueness, expressive of Canadian research, advanced character, etc).
In this regard, he has shown that he is not only underqualified, but also that he may be of a particular ideological bent, making it difficult for him to assess at least SOME areas of research properly.
He also needs to have the respect and trust of researchers, and I would argue that he has lost that as well.
I disagree. His job isn’t to DO the science, so his primary requirement isn’t to “believe in the scientific method”, as you put it. His job is to listen to researchers, and understand their research directions and projects enough so that he can make funding and program decisions…
Are you mental?
How does he understand research directions if he doesn’t understand the scientific model?
Here’s a good article:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=68244ee3-1c51-4458-b745-3f12d78c084c
Charles Darwin received an interesting birthday gift shortly before his 200th year began. Creationists have long noted, correctly, that the fossil record was curiously silent on details concerning turtle evolution.
How does he understand research directions if he doesn’t understand the scientific model?
I didn’t say he didn’t need to understand the scientific model, I said it wasn’t his primary requirement. His primary role is not to DO science, but to have enough experience, general knowledge, background and respect to judge the costs and benefits of various programs and funding vehicles. He has to take in the arguments of the people that advise and inform him and make policy from that, and the scientific model doesn’t come into it on that level.
Drudge:
“A MOMENT OF CREATION IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC…”
…-
“Tongan inspection team heads to undersea volcano”
urlm.in/byay
“What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?”
Psalm 8
Richard Evans: Are you mental?
This is your response?
“His primary role is not to DO science, but to have enough experience, general knowledge, background and respect to judge the costs and benefits of various programs and funding vehicles.”
And how can he do that if he doesn’t understand the scientific model? I’m not saying that he doesn’t understand it, but many posters here seem to be confused about the issue.
That would mean he believes in evolution, since it is a pillar of modern science.
Posted by: allan at March 19, 2009 6:18 PM
Illuminating comment, that. I had no idea that the reflexive embracing of the Theory of Evolution was the linchpin of understanding all modern science & technology! Thanks for pointing that out. Here I’d only thought it a supporting role, and not the main character; I’m certain there are many chemists, astronomers, physicists, geologists and countless others who might disagree with you, if their opinions count for anything. But what if Goodyear didn’t believe or buy into quantum mechanics based on his physics background? Would that disqualify him for the role? Does one have to understand and agree with every facet of modern science and technology to qualify as Minister? That’d be a tall order indeed: even a challenge for the know-it-all liberals bent on humiliating Goodyear with this incident.
Your assumption is – with no supporting evidence – that because Goodyear is a Christian and believes (or may believe) in Creationism, we should give him the boot just in case this may affect his ability to do the Minister’s job. Is that it? There could be no possible scenario whereby the man might fund pro-evolution research because of his religion? It’s not possible for him to be objective in this role because of his religious views on evolution, despite a complete lack of evidence to the contrary?
And you huff and insult those who call you on your bigotry, bleating “It’s not about Christianity!”
Don’t make yourself look dumber than you’ve appeared. What else could it be about, if not the man’s religion? You are twisting yourself into pretzel shapes denying it, but it’s pretty obvious to anybody reading your posts. It might be helpful to Mr. Goodyear if you provided a list of cabinet positions he may aspire to that won’t be undermined by his religion.
Here’s a bit of advice that is neither Evolutionist nor Creationist that might help you, allan:
When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging
mhb
“Your assumption is – with no supporting evidence – that because Goodyear is a Christian and believes (or may believe) in Creationism, we should give him the boot just in case this may affect his ability to do the Minister’s job. ”
I really don’t know how many times I have to explain this. It has nothing to do with him being a christian.
How does one have “religious views” on evolution? Evolution isn’t religious. Many people here don’t seem to understand that.
My question was simple:
If he does not believe in scientific process(notice the “IF”), how can he do his job impartially?
Nothing to do with his religion. Get that through your thick skull already.
I had no idea that the reflexive embracing of the Theory of Evolution was the linchpin of understanding all modern science & technology!
That’s not what I said:
“since it is a pillar of modern science.”
*A* pillar. In other words, one of many. I did not say “the” pillar.
Does one have to understand and agree with every facet of modern science and technology to qualify as Minister?
No, but scientific process yes.
“Your assumption is – with no supporting evidence – that because Goodyear is a Christian and believes (or may believe) in Creationism, we should give him the boot just in case this may affect his ability to do the Minister’s job”
Never said that. Nothing to do with religion or creationism, that was not what was asked of him. One can believe in both(since they are faith), yet also believe and understand evolution(since that is science).
Now if he does not believe in scientific process(notice nothing about creationism, or religion, or intelligent design) then there could possibly be a problem.
Again, Jack Layton for Finance Minister?
Layton as Finance Minister is – once again – a red herring, and only makes your argument more ludicrous, if that were possible.
Do you need a bigger shovel, allan?
mhb
mhb,
I would argue that you are the one in the hole, I assume with your fingers in your ears and your eyes closed.
Micro-evolution:
In experiments with bacteria, variation (including beneficial mutations) arises in populations that are grown from a single individual (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Since the population started with just one chromosome, there was no variation in the original population; all variation must have come from mutations.
Furthermore, disease organisms and insect pests have developed resistance to a variety of antibiotics and pesticides, many of them artificial and unlike anything in nature. It is highly improbable that all insects were created with resistance to all pesticides.
Mutation is the only natural process that adds variation to populations. Selection and genetic drift remove variation. If mutations did not create new variation, there would now be little or no variation to select from. In particular, reducing populations to a single pair of individuals, as Noah’s Flood requires, would have removed very nearly all variation from the world’s wildlife in one stroke.
It is true that much microevolution selects from preexisting variation. In animals, that kind of microevolution occurs much faster than waiting for certain mutations to occur, so we often see artificial selection programs stall when they have selected among all the variation that was there to begin with. However, if the selection is maintained, change should continue, albeit at a much slower rate.
Evolution is a religion:
Evolution merely describes part of nature. The fact that that part of nature is important to many people does not make evolution a religion. Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares:
* Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
* Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
* Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
* Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
* Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
* Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
* Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.
How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.
Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.
Evolutionary theory has been used as a basis for studying and speculating about the biological basis for morals and religious attitudes (Sober and Wilson 1998). Studying religion, though, does not make the study a religion. Using evolution to study the origins of religious attitudes does not make evolution a religion any more than using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts makes archaeology a religion.
Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.
The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982).
Everything that you creationists have mentioned as “proof” that evolution is wrong has been disputed in many places, by many people, many times over.
The continued use of talking points such as:
Evolution is a religion
It’s just a theory
There is no evidence of Micro
Those who follow (you do not have to believe in it) the scientific method have answered your questions at talkorigins.org
They cover:
Ethics
Epistemology
Theory of Science
Scientific Method
Theology
Abiogenesis
Genetics
Molecular Biology
Physiology and Anatomy
Behavior and Cognition
Botany
Ecology and Population Biology
Developmental Biology
Systematics
Physical Anthropology
Transitional fossils
Fossil Record
Geochronology
Geological Column
Sedimentation
Evaporation
Glaciation
Second Law of Thermodynamics and Information Theory
There are many scientific articles by people who are routinely checked by others hoping to discredit them. This is how science works, we constantly discredit things that are untrue and as a result move closer to “truth”.
There are 2 debates currently going on:
1. Goodyear fit to be Science Minister?
2. Evolution, is it a sham?
The answer to both is no. Please see my previous posts.
Why?
1. He couldn’t dodge a question which was out of bounds. This shows a lack of political acumen. He is unfit to lead anything.
2. Religion starts with an opinion and justifies it with facts. Science starts out with facts and justifies them with an opinion.
I hope you can see how absurd it is that we’re debating whether or not science (evolution as an element therein) is a giant , especially compared to a story written about a carpenter bastardized by the vatican.
This is all completely besides the point. The reason he’s unqualified to hold that office is because his rejection of verifiable facts shows that he’s either willfully ignorant, or just plain stupid. I don’t care if he justified hes denial with religious dogma or some nutty personal incredulity, the result is the same. I also don’t care if he’s voicing his opinion on evolution, on the heliocentric model, or on the flat-earth theory – if he’s ignorant enough to hold any of those views, he shouldn’t be in ANY public office. Period.
Posted by: Jon at March 20, 2009 4:35 PM
Ahh, predictably, jon arrives to further obfuscate the issue with a windy dialogue that takes us further from the purpose of the thread. Perhaps I’ve been too hard on the Theory of Evolution, jon; it may well be you’ve evolved from the squid: threatened or disturbed you throw up an inky cloud of confusion with which to distract and escape.
1. He couldn’t dodge a question which was out of bounds. This shows a lack of political acumen. He is unfit to lead anything.
You, sir, are truly a judgemental and unimaginative clod. With the current anti-Christian zeitgeist it’s pretty easy to pillory Goodyear for not swatting this entrapment scheme aside, but what then? How would the hounds of the CBC/Torstar allow that strategy to play out? “Minister Sidesteps Key Issue on Religous Grounds”, “Religious Views Allow Minister to Treat Legitimate Questions With Contempt” might well be the result.
As I said earlier, Goodyear was put in a no-win situation by a scheming media slug who knew exactly what he was doing – begging the question, as it were. No answer would have exonerated him, but jon, allan, alex et al see no unreasonableness in that. This is merely an opportunity to publicly embarrass a cabinet minister because of his faith, and no such opportunity must be squandered. The only difference between this and kinsella’s Barney slander is at least kinsella had the guts to admit his strategy of demonizing his target’s religion; you lot haven’t the courage even to admit to that considering the pathetic dodges above. I’d love to see your squirming posts had the Minister of Science answer the same excepting on the basis of his standing as a muslim. That is, if you commented at all.
As your other principle argument regarding Goodyear’s unsuitability to his post centers on a perceived inability to answer loaded questions or a lack of eloquence, please advise your postings of indignation over this individual’s impeccable verbal performances:
1. “Da proof is da proof…”
2. “I don’t know if I’m in north, south, east or west Jerusalem.”
3. “For me, pepper, I put it on my plate”
4. “I don’t know what is marijuana. Perhaps I will try it when it will no longer be criminal. I will have my money for my fine and a joint in the other hand”
5. “We don’t want to get into a big fight over there. We want to spread peace and happiness as much as possible”
6. “It’s like the story of the Hippo and the Zerba. That Hippo, he paint the stripe on him to look like the Zerba. But at the end of that day he still a Hippo.”
… ad infinitum
Please do share your historical outrage. Or is it reserved only for Conservatives, and Christian Conservatives in particular?
mhb
“As I said earlier, Goodyear was put in a no-win situation by a scheming media slug who knew exactly what he was doing – begging the question, as it were.”
How could he lose by saying:
“of course I believe in evolution”
What is there to lose?
Allan,
He would have lost the religious right, but he would have shown competency.
mhb,
I understand the question was out of bounds, and asking someone if they “believe” in evolution shows a fundamental ignorance on the part of the reporter. What I find strange is that Goodyear was unable to come up with any response other than “religion”.
I also understand that you are a narcissist and believe that you are being persecuted for your beliefs. There is some truth to this, ie Richard Warman’s battle against the hard right. However, defending Goodyear’s idiocy doesn’t to anything to solve your real problem, and only serves to eliminate those who understand evolution and the scientific method as potential voters who might also support your freedom of personal expression and of religion.
I haven’t called you a single name, and it’s sad to think that a Christian would resort to ad hominem. If you believe in a creation based world that’s ok, I don’t care. As I said earlier, you can believe anything you want, but when it comes to being science minister, a scientific view and outlook is required, this includes the scientific method through which we have developed the theories of evolution, gravity and limits (calculus).
I hope you find peace in your life, but I don’t think you’ll find it fighting to prove that god exists… that is a personal choice that you should have made when you accepted Jesus into your heart, not a decision to be lorded onto other people.
“What is there to lose?”
The far-FAR-right nutjob vote?
“He would have lost the religious right, but he would have shown competency.”
No he wouldn’t. Only nut jobs think that understanding and accepting evolution somehow tramples on religion.