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.
JMO

Depends on which 'flavour' of science we are talking about - regular science, political science, or social science.

You know this has Kinsella's fingerprints all over it. Classic boogeyman gutter politics.

Did a post yesterday on this very topic. Might be a fun read.

http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2009/03/here-we-go-again.html

Oh, and our good pal Catmeat gets his just (catmeat-free!) desserts again, as the topic's perfect to let the cat, er, dinosaur out of the bag...

This is far from over!

Does anyone wonder what Obama's Civilian National Security Force(CNSF) will be for? It will be for rounding us up; and, our Liberals will want their own as soon as they can.

The CNSF application form will read something like this:

Do you believe in evolution?

Do you believe in AGW?

Are you a visible minority?

If you answered NO to any of these questions, please stay put, and an officer will be there to "help" you shortly.

and now they are worried that he doesn't understand the theory of evolution. I'd bet 99% of these concerned scientists couldn't accurately describe their pet fund raising AGW theory without looking up which way the feedback loops go.

Hell 99% of them wouldn't even know about the feedback part of the theory.

"By the way find me a transitional bone. "

There is no such thing, since all life is constantly changing. We are all transitional. If you want to find indicators of vestigial organs, wiki explains it well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial

I like the picture of the whale with undeveloped hind legs, satisfy you?

Global warming can be easily distorted with numbers, "statistics" and other BS. Evolution cannot be denied in the same way.

Ezra Levant was on Adler's show today, talking about this subject. Some Leftist dweeb called in, demanding that the Science Minister must recite some statement denying his Christian beliefs. You can listen to it here at 27:15.

Levant and Adler slapped in down, pointing out thatt we don't live in Mao's China or Lenin's USSR.

If there was such a thing as a Confessional in the Church of Secular Leftism, they'd be overflowing for years!!!

What I found interesting is the ministers response:

“I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate,” he said at the time."

As a science minister, he should know evolution isn't a religion. The G&M is well known for distortion however, so I'm more then ready to give the minister benefit of the doubt.

It's a shame others aren't.

revnant dream:

Is it realy true that light is slowing down? It is actually being debated?

I ask because it is the perfect snare with which to catch these ambush journos at their own game.

Please provide us with a link.

Allan, you may very well be right. But so what? Do you realize by implication that you are saying that a person with religious values cannot be and should not be involved with science? To use your phraseology, please don't "deny" this.

Now be a Big Man and send a public letter to the Council on Islamic Relations stating your sentiments that religious people, including devout Muslims, cannot hold jobs related to science.

Or does your bigotry only extend to Christians?!

Who said I was a bigot?

I never said what you implied, or even came close. Nor did I come anywhere near what was said on Chuck's show today.

Just for fun, I wonder if the MSM would like to pose the same question to our Muslim, Sikh, and Aboriginal MP's

Some Muslims allow for belief in theistic evolution. Iqbal Hossain, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Salt Lake said: "If you believe in God and in the Qur'an, you have to believe that everything that was in the universe was created by God. "If there was an evolutionary process, that process was created and put in place by God." However, others totally attack evolution

The Real Sikhism web site states: Sikhs believe that God created the whole universe. Earth while being in the universe is a creation of God and all the life on earth is a creation of God. It does not matter to a Sikh whether earth was created in seven days or it evolved in 4 billion years. If the earth was created then God created the earth and if the earth was evolved then God created the evolution of the earth. In addition, Guru Granth Sahib (The Holy Scripture of Sikhs) states remarkable information about the universe, galaxies, stars, planets and the moons. None of the information written in the scripture contradicts with the scientific facts. Furthermore, nothing in Guru Granth Sahib can be disproved with the help of science. However, scientific facts support the teachings of Guru Granth Sahib.

Many tribes tell a creation story in which their ancient ancestors lived a restricted life in darkness within an underworld, inside their Earth Mother. They emerged through a sacred opening onto the earth, to see the sun for the first time. For example, the Navajo creation story involves insects who inhabited the lowest three of the 6 worlds. They were expelled by the gods upwards to the 4th world where they either became, or helped create, the First Man and First Woman. They and their 10 children climbed up a reed that brought them into the 5th world - the one that they currently occupy. They "created the mountains, weather, plants and animals they had known below. And the brought the gods up to join them."

Interesting

Don Martin was on CFRA discussing with Steve Mateley what this was all about; how the media had got their teeth into something so unimportant.

Well, can one say Liberal Partisan Media Shills? Has it suddenly become wrong to believe in God, or have "nuanced" views of evolution? I personally am atheist philosophically and do not "believe" in evolution but accept it as the way the natural world works. However, belief in deity and evolution is not mutually exclusive.

What the Red Star and Mop & Pail were doing was taking the excuse to decry a non-liberal. "See, he doesn't believe as we do! He is EEEEEVIILLL"

These folks make me puke.

Does anyone know Ralph Goodale's religious affiliation? (Or lack thereof?) I couldn't find the info at his Wiki page, his Commons' page or a Sask. politicians' history site.

"Right from the Left Coast"

To further expand your last comment, I get a kick out of people who confuse evolution with abiogenesis.

Or "big bang theory".

Three different theories folks. Yes you're right, theories are not facts. They're based on facts.

While I don't think that someone's religious affiliation should have any impact on their ability to do their job, I'm sure a lot of the Christians coming out of the woodword to defend his non-answer might have questions about say... a Muslim Minister of Public Security. Just sayin'.

But to be asked if you support the theory of evolution, and respond with "I'm a Christian" is actually a non-answer.

I'm not saying the question was fair, or even if the answer was relevant. But the minister probably should have chosen a little bit more a diplomatic answer.

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.

It was, in my view, completely unacceptable for the reporter to question Goodyear about his religion. There is no validity to the claim that religion and science are incompatible. I'm an atheist - but I don't conclude that one can be 'rational' ONLY IF one rejects religion. Religion and reason are perfectly compatible.

What is irrational is the refusal to reason about religion or the rejection of a requirement for faith in the examining the questions of science.

"But to be asked if you support the theory of evolution, and respond with "I'm a Christian" is actually a non-answer. "

Exactly. And a "science minister" should know that.

I think everyone skipped an important part of the charter of rights...

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

Taken from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#libertes

Revnant Dream,

what's your tailbone for if you don't have a tail?

That's just one.

Please provide links for your crazy theories, the burden of proof is on you as the person moving away from scientific orthodoxy.

Care to explain how evolution contradicts the second law, or is this just another case of misdirection?

Please take time to read this link so I don't have to send it again next time science contradicts your simplistic world view. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

Nullify the Liberal's hate for religion and they loose one of their most effective weapons. (I am not all that found of it myself, besides the point)

WK finger prints ? Could be. He hung Barney on Day. Hung religion in Ontario schools on Tory. (With the help of well staged media "news" events) Both allowed a lot of voters to overlook the obvious flaws in Chretien and McGuinty, IMO. It's how he works.

I missed that one. Since when does conservation of energy physical laws have anything to do with evolution?

I think what Allan is saying is that no-one who is unwilling to follow the methodology of science should be allowed to be in charge of it.

Jesus. Do you guys take pills that make you this stupid, or were you born this way?

He's the science minister. If he rejects evolution, that means he rejects the Scientific Method, the basis for all scientific understanding. That means he's unqualified to do his job.

Evolution has been proven through thousands of experiments over the past 150 years. There is absolutely zero doubt that complex lifeforms emerged from simpler forms. (Present company excepted)

He's cleared things up. Time to move on.

And for the record... it wasn't the CBC who asked him the question in the first place. It was the Globe and Mail. At least try and get part of the story right.

This is all good. There are gullible practising Christians, Muslims, and Jews on the left, and there is no way they are going to be forced to denounce their god for the liberals.

Kinsella, the catholic of convenience, denounced his god, and no doubt the hypocrite sits in the front pew every Sunday to show just what a loser hypocrite he really is.

Sorry people - anyone who doesn't accept evolution as a fundamental part of how we came to be who and what we are has no right to be involved in telling the rest of us how to run the country.

Further, anyone who believes that christianity and appreciation of evolutionary development are incompatible is equally inappropriate for any role in our governance.

Ezra's on the Michael Coran show tonight for those of you that watch the show and I'm sure this topic will be front and center.

Here's the original:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090317.wgoodyear16/BNStory/National/home?cid=al_gam_mostemail

The way it is written is very typical of the mop and pail. The comments are also disgusting.

Creationists believe in science and tend to be pretty good at it (think Isaac Newton). The witch hunt folks chasing Goodyear don't differentiate between observational science and historical science.

Observational science is based on repeatable experiments done in the present - it's the kind that allows us to build computers, fly space shuttles, search for cures to cancer, etc...

Historical science is the kind that lets us make dogmatic statements about things that allegedly happened 4.5 billion years ago based on the unprovable assumption that every natural process has been linear for those 4.5 billion years.

The witch hunt guys also fail to distinguish between the type of evolution that is natural selection within species and the type that involves species changing from one to another.

Creationists have no problem with natural selection, the idea that creatures with preferable traits for survival will prevail over those of the same species who who have less preferable traits for survival (ie longer legs, a longer beak, or shorter legs or a shorter beak depending on the environment, moths that change colours to better hide, etc...). All of these traits are genetically coded into the species and the ones who are born with the preferable traits tend to survive better and over time the genetic information is lost for the less preferable traits, since those animals die out. But a dog is still a dog (be it with longer or shorter legs), a cat is still a cat, a bird is still a bird, a moth is still a moth etc...

Creationists do question species to species evolution, since it is not observable today (ie birds aren't becoming cats, fish aren't becoming dogs, etc..), and after over 100 years of searching the fossil record, the best we have to show for it is a very few debated examples of species in transition. Don't take my word for it. Ask your local evolutionist to show you the millions of transitional fossils that should exist based on evolutionary theory. He won't show you because they don't exist.

I have noticed however, that the witch hunt guys are incredibly good at drive by smear jobs. They don't bother to inform themselves about what creationists actually believe and say, nor do they seriously consider the big problems with evolutionary theory (the statistical impossibility of all the random things happening just right for life to begin, as an example, is less than 1 in a number greater than all the atoms in the universe). They just say that if a guy doesn't believe in evolution, he doesn't believe in science and must be a medieval quack.

It is plain to see for anyone who investigates it, that creationists believe in science and use it all the time. They just question the unprovable, highly speculative, philosophical assumptions that evolutionists make which have little to do with real science and everything to do with their own biases. Of course creationists have biases too, but that makes them no different than evolutionists.

Goodyear may or may not be a good science minister, but his beliefs about origins of the world will not determine his competence for the job.

John:

There is certainly a massive amount of evidence supporting evolution, but very few actual experiments.

It's like astronomy and archeology in that way.

JLC that I completely disagree with. First of all he doesn't "tell the rest of us how to run the country". He's in charge of science, and may or may not be a christian. Many evolutionary biologists are also christian. Ken Miller is a fantastic evolutionary biologist that is also Catholic. Look him up on youtube.

OK a bit incoherent.

Evolution and Christianity are completely compatible. There is no dichotomy, whatsoever.

Evolution works in mysterious ways, but it works to effectively fill all niches available to be filled.

People who refuse to accept the generally understood development of the universe are not Christians. They are philosophical luddites.

The important point to emphasize is that there is no conflict between Christianity and the evolving theory of evolution.

Tim S,

No,

Scientists have to prove their biases in peer reviewed papers. You sound like a 9-11 conspiracy theorist when you assume "scientists" are just confirming each others stories to make sure that liberalism takes the place of theism.

For 150 years scientific journals have confirmed and reconfirmed that species evolve from previous species. Fish do not evolve into birds, but fish do evolve into bigger fish, as dinosaurs evolve into birds and whales evolved from land mammals (as shown by the legs).

Science isn't a religion, but a method of identifying bullshit in someone's argument. That's why we roll our eyes at creationists.

Also, it should be pointed out that nobody, NOBODY believes that CO2 is unnatural. It is blisteringly dishonest to characterize it this way.

Everybody knows this is a natural element. But just because something exists in nature doesn't mean it can't be toxic when you produce too much of the stuff.

You know what else is natural? Ozone. Why don't you go huff some and see what happens?

Keep on screechin'.

jon...a tail?

How about getting your mind around the sodium-potassium pump and very precise movement of ions in the very tiny cells of your heart that cause the electrical activity to be produced in thousands of myocytes 60-100 times each second in order for you to have one common electrical impulse thru your heart to cause it to beat once. That is an absolute science, and it does nothing to support a theory of accidental production of life on earth.

But I digress.

Kinsella is desperate.A belief in evolution or creation has nothing to do with the politics of our country.
Or perhaps it does,
How many lefty policies can be propagandised and promoted if they are based on a theory that life means nothing?...I'm thinking abortion, evolution and religious persecution, to name a few.

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?

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.

The global warming cult has shown us that "peer reviewed" in the most prestigious science journals means nothing more than you if you scratch my back I'll scratch yours. Anyone calling themselves a "scientist" today in my books has less credibility than a used car salesman or ambulance chasing lawyer.

Allan - I am a practicing catholic (mas o menos and what I am trying to say is that there is absolutely no conflict between mainstream christian (i.e, catholic) beliefs and evolutionary theory.

In my view, anyone who rejects (not qualifies or queries) evolution cannot be either a scientist or a christian.

I'm not saying that the tire boy is a nutcase, but he's climbing out on a limb.

I'm saying this as a long time tory. We have enough difficulty getting a common sense message across without providing fodder for the media lunatic fringe.

Tim:

The "lack of transitional species" argument is a load of hogwash. First, the very definition of "transitional species" is vague. Any species which eventually evolved into another species could be labelled as such.

In practise, the way biologists use the term practically guarantees that transitional fossils will be rare compared to other fossils. But although rare, many examples do exist.

"He's in charge of science"..!!
He a minister in charge of the portfolio...do you really think he's going to nosing in to every bunsun burner and engineering experiment ...give your head a shake!
Did Prentice have to become Native for his portfolio?
Did Mckay have to be a soldier?
I don't even want to think about Liberal Ministers.
Do you really believe cabinet ministers are experts in those subjects? They are Members of Parliament.
This is a witch hunt but the media nothing else.

How silly!

Fritz:

Only physics and to a lesser extent chemistry use the term "law". Most other sciences don't. Astronomers don't, for example, refer to the "law of heliocentric orbits", but the earth circles the sun nevertheless.

I don't recall Irwin Cotler being having to deal with this kind of nonsense as Minister of Justice.

Science, Justice, Whatever - if it is a Liberal involved, the MSM will not touch the subject - period.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Global warming can be easily distorted with numbers, "statistics" and other BS. Evolution cannot be denied in the same way.
Posted by: allan at March 18, 2009 6:58 PM

Allan, you're blowing smoke -- evolutionists themselves are divided over how evolution 'works'; there are those who hold to a gradual evolution, and others who hold to punctuated bursts of evolution.

In the end, the statistical improbability that life arose from nothing is not only unscientific (Allan wasn't there to view it) but also illogical. Mutations must work in an upwards fashion, not backwards (as most mutations do) and you would require multiple trillions of them to add information. Evolution cannot work as a mechanism -- so what do evolutionists do? They fear monger, intimidate, and silence their opponents -- just like in the article.

And yet, these are the same folks who hold other preposterous 'scientific' views, some of which contribute to the untold suffering of human beings; the idiotic banning of DDT for instance.

bluetech, obviously not, but they should believe in what their position stands for.

It would be like having Lucien Bouchard as our PM.

Man, is there ever a buttload of ignorance in the comments here, and from both sides of the aisle.

Intelligent Design and/or Biblical literalism is both bad science and bad theology.

Having said that, the witch hunt against Gary Goodyear is nothing but a Lib-Left hatchet job. The question asked of him was "Do you believe in evolution?" or words to that effect. But the key term used was "believe in". Evolution is NOT something you believe in, i.e. accept as a matter of faith. Evolution is an observable fact, and Darwin's theory of Natural Selection (as it is currently understood) is the best available explanation for that observable fact. The question was framed badly, probably on purpose, to put him on the spot.

Frankly, as a person with a science education, and working in a science-based industry, and as an agnostic, I don't give a fat rat's ass what Gary Goodyear believes viv-a-vis evolution, as long as he does his damn job properly, and I have yet to see any credible evidence that he has failed to do so. If it comes to my attention that he is making bad policy in his ministry as a consequence of his beliefs, or for any other reason, for that matter, I will oppose him on that. Not for what he believes in his spiritual life.

In practise, the way biologists use the term practically guarantees that transitional fossils will be rare compared to other fossils. But although rare, many examples do exist.
Posted by: rabbit at March 18, 2009 7:48 PM

This is known as elephant hurling -- what are the 'many' examples rabbit? Do you realize you would require billions of transitions? Stephen J. Gould knew this, which is why he came up with the punctuated equilibrium theory to account for the absence of such fossils.

I should've have mentioned that evolutionists have propped up complete b.s. themselves for years, such as the ridiculous Haeckel embryonic fraud or the equally pernicious peppered moths fraud.

When a government minister responsible for science and technology doesn't believe in something as fundamental as evolution (which is not contrary to Christian believe since it's support by Catholics and most other denominations) then his suitability as a science minister should be questioned.

Intelligent Design and/or Biblical literalism is both bad science and bad theology

This has very little value coming from a confessed agnostic -- you probably haven't read the Bible at all, or read seriously any of the ID proposals.

I would agree that it matters little what you believe in terms of origins science -- you don't need to believe in evolution to promote scientific theories (Galileo, Newton) or to come up with medical breakthroughs (Joseph Lister). It's an militant secularist tact to attack and demonize people who do not ascribe to evolutionary theory.

Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts.

Which means that Fritz needs a new line of reasoning.

Gorden Turk:

Sure theres a whole stack of them. Its all new. If you can increase it than it can happen naturaly as well in enviroments we may no nothing about. It can't be a constant.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060623201434data_trunc_sys.shtml

Please stop with the "It's only a theory" line of reasoning.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

As for "transitional fossils" why not observe the world around you. If we are all descendants of a common ancestor named Adam then why do people have various coloured skins, why do people in different areas of the world have different hair types, average heights etc?

If we are not all descended from the same dude that puts a pretty big whole in your bible.

The Theory of Evolution is one of the strongest theories in the field of science. This debate will poison the centre right from joining the CPC.

"If the "Theory" of Evolution is such a slam dunk proven fact then why isn't it the "Law" of Evolution? Isn't part of the scientific process to question something until it is proven beyond doubt?"

That comment makes me want to slap you, but I can't really blame you for your ignorance - it's a failing of the public education system, really. So I'll explain it:

In science, a "Law" is a description of observations. For instance, the law of gravity tells us that what goes up must come down. That's the dumbed down version, but that's basically what it is. A "Theory", on the other hand, is a description of how the thing which we are observing actually works. So when Einstein came along and gave us relativity, we concluded that gravity is actually a bending of space caused by matter. However, that description is still a theory, and will continue to be a theory no matter how much evidence we gather to support it.

You've shown a misunderstanding which is quite common in our population - the assumption that theories become laws once enough evidence is presented. This is simply not the case. In scientific work, theories are actually better than laws, because they tell us how things work. Laws just tell us that they do work. Theories don't become laws - laws lay the foundation for the development of theories.

When you think of the word "theory", what you're actually thinking of is a "hypothesis". A hypothesis is a preliminary statement for which we have not yet gathered enough evidence. If I were to say that gravity works because angels hold your feet to the ground, that would be a hypothesis. If I could provide enough evidence for my hypothesis, it would then become a theory. But no matter how much evidence I gather, my theory will never become a law. They are two completely different things.

I hope that helps you understand the difference.

Richard Romonow:

You are confusing "transitional species" with "transitional fossils". While there must have been many instances of the first, that doesn't mean there must be many instances of the second compared to "regular" fossils.

Here's a web site that lists hundreds of transitional species:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

"I would agree that it matters little what you believe in terms of origins science -- you don't need to believe in evolution to promote scientific theories (Galileo, Newton) or to come up with medical breakthroughs (Joseph Lister)."

That's idiotic. Galileo was born 300 years before Darwin. Newton a hundred years after that. If those are the best examples you can come up with, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Frankly [snip]I don't give a fat rat's ass what Gary Goodyear believes viv-a-vis evolution, as long as he does his damn job properly, and I have yet to see any credible evidence that he has failed to do so. If it comes to my attention that he is making bad policy in his ministry as a consequence of his beliefs, or for any other reason, for that matter, I will oppose him on that. Not for what he believes in his spiritual life.
Posted by: gordinkneehill at March 18, 2009 8:06 PM

Very good gordinkneehill. Which is more or less what he should have said in his answer. He made a mistake in bringing up his Christianity. Irrelevant.

From some of the comments above, it looks like a lot of people share the fallacy that a minister of the crown must be an expert in the field covered by his cabinet post. Not at all, and in fact such expertise may often be an impediment.

What we're witnessing the "Progressive" Liberal Left and the Big Politically Correct Corporate Media do is nothing short of hounding a Christian for being Christian, Conservative and in charge of a certain portfolio. And demand his firing.

How convenient for the "Progressive" Liberal Left and their Big Media wing to, figuratively, kill two birds with one stone: A Conservative and a Christian. Isn't it their lucky day, getting to throw the proverbial stone, under cover of political correctness and protected by the VLWC, at someone they hate?

Goebbels would be proud of these neo-Nazi Brownshirts who call themselves liberal "progressives" and attack people they don't like just for being a little different.

They're saying that it's ok to harrass Christian Conservative politicians, whereas it wouldn't be ok to harrass Muslim/GLBT Liberals/NDPers, etc.

Hey, if the Hard Left believes that it's ok to say that if one's religion says one thing, then one must be fired from this or that... then we can say that if one practices a certain sexual activity, then one must be fired from some position because of that. We can also say that Muslims can't hold jobs that have anything to do with security and intelligence.

This is what the Hard Left is opening the door to.

The "Progressive" Liberal Left and the Big Politically Correct Media are demonstrating that they're hateful. Oh, and so is Catmeat on his blog. Again. While calling conservative bloggers "hateful". Well, hey, Warrin' Kim Sheila, Grit Girl, Catmeat, Clown, Toilet Man, whatever, YOU and your kind are the true haters, and you're practicing transferrence by calling the non-hateful victims of your hatred "hateful".

Sheesh... they're shooting themselves in the foot. The self-professed "tolerant" are proudly demonstrating their INtolerance with exuberant glee. But it's ok, because it's politically correct to spew hatred, contempt and incite to discriminate against those awful Christians, after all... just as it's politically correct to treat Israelis/Jews the same way...

They'd NEVER dare treat Muslims and "gays" this way. NEVER. Oh, wait; they would... if the Muslims/"gays" were Conservatives!

I'm reminded of the fact that the US Democratic Party is responsible for creating the KKK to persecute and hang both Blacks and Republicans of any color... This is where the "Progressive" Liberal movement, with their subtle, sugarcoated "web of hate" is headed today against conservatives and JudeoChristians. And it's all politicaly correct... just as the Final Solution was politically correct in the Third Reich.

Oh, I'm also reminded of a former Liberal Prime Minister who said of Jewish immigration: "None is too many".

Today's Liberals are more careful with words, but we know full well when they're being hateful and intolerant. Right, Warren? Look in the mirror today?

expert > believe in.

Maybe an anti-christ should be the next pope?

Little extreme I agree, but you get the point.

"Maybe an anti-christ should be the next pope?"

Or a Muslim, maybe? :) Well said!

Evolution does not contradict the second law which holds true only in closed systems. Earth is an open system fueled by the sun.

Jim:

The flaw in the argument that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics is so obvious that I can only conclude that those who put it forward either no nothing about science or don't care if their arguments make no sense.

Either way, its stupidity on the hoof.

For an excellent book on the thermodynamics of open systems (yes, such a field exists) I suggest...

"Into the cool: Energy flow, thermodynamics, and life" by Schneider and Sagan (no relation).

"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."
I would agree....this means that AGW/CO2 "theory"
is not theory at all but fantasy......a statement of faith at best....fraud at worst.

AGW has nothing to do with evolution.

" It's an militant secularist tact to attack and demonize people who do not ascribe to evolutionary theory."
Posted by: Richard Romano at March 18, 2009 8:14 PM

By George! I believe you're getting it! Or getting close, anyway. This whole "debate" about evolution vs intelligent design, is, I contend, a false-flag operation by the Left to sow discord amongst conservatives. First, they are trying to create a false dichotomy between "Christians" and "evolutionists". And second, they are trying to put forward the false notion, as noted by Me No Dhimmi and Sentinel, that a government minister must be some sort of expert in the field under his watch. I guess that means the Minister of National Revenue ought to be a homosexual, as we all know it's Revenue's mission to f*ck us in the arse.

Alex wrote
"AGW has nothing to do with evolution."

And AGW/CO2 has nothing to do with science.

"And AGW/CO2 has nothing to do with science."

Then why the hell are you bringing it up? Do you have a really short attention span, or what?

Al Gore is a Christian fundamentalist . . . does that mean he is anti science ?

Fish
Barrel
Shoot

Jon:

Your mistaking general adaptation with traits already extant in the species, with a complete different animal so to speak. Any Kind of animal that reaches the limit of adaptation becomes sterile.
Geography, diet, isolation, & climate are factors. The truth is the species called Man has been bottlenecked in the past. Killed off like God in the flood said, to the extant everyone on Earth marries their sister six times removed.
The Human race is actually deficient in DNA viability. Where closer than the purest breed of animal.
Race4 is a delusion created in the 16nth century to support the slave trade. They called then sub human. Social Darwinism was used later as a justification. For separating fo0lks by of all things skin color. Even the ancients knew better. By the way evolution is hardly new. Read some Greek authors from 500 BC. Augustine et al.
JMO

Being a well known atheist around here, I would like to add my two cents worth.

Did he tell scientists to stop the study of evolution?

Did he say that science was crap, or that he did not believe in science?

Did he indicate that he was going to cut funding to any project because it clashed with his religious beliefs?

No, no, and NO!

What we have here is another librano tempest, more than likely orchestrated by the great catsmeat himself.

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn

I seem to recall Gary being pretty tough in committees, this could be nothing more than the Liberals finding a reason to get at Goodyear for just that. All the Libs do is sic their minions in the media on him and away they go.

It's so bizarre and outrageous what else could it be with all the pressing matters our government and most of us are concerned with? We have to consider it could be the usual subjects in the backhouse of the Lib party pulling dirty gotcha stunts. Harken back to what they did to Stockwell Day.

Science isn't a religion, but a method of identifying bullsh1t in someone's argument. That's why we roll our eyes at creationists.
Posted by: Jon at March 18, 2009 7:33 PM

You mean, jon, like the "science" behind AGW? That kind of science? You're reading the graph back-to-front, pal: in this case it's a matter of spewing copious bullsh*t and bolstering a false religion to shutdown someone else's argument. There; fixed that for you, but no need to thank me here.

The self-professed "tolerant" are proudly demonstrating their INtolerance with exuberant glee.
Posted by: The Canadian Sentinel at March 18, 2009 8:41 PM

That's only slightly ironic, CS: when did you ever meet anyone more intolerant than those on the left? They are the most ruthlessly intolerant of anybody who doesn't subscribe to their self-proclaimed PC "tolerant" views.

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

"Being a well known atheist around here .. blah blah blah"

If you have to preface your argument with the statement that you're an atheist, you're already on the wrong track.

The problem here isn't with his actions - it's with his qualifications. If you don't understand science well enough to accept the theory of evolution, you have no business holding that position. Just like Obama's lack of experience and knowledge is an impediment to his attempt to lead a nation, so this ignoramuses lack of scientific knowledge is an impediment to his ability to hold his position. You wouldn't put a muslim in the vatican, you wouldn't put a hippie in charge of the defense department, you wouldn't put a flat-earther in charge of NASA, and you certainly wouldn't put a creationist in charge of science.

I think this is smoke. Environmental scientists haven't been doing well lately. They have been getting cuts to the grants. A lot of them are GW advocates. Some of the gov't scientists to be nice are sub-optimal by all standards. On a previous complaint of cuts PMSH stated the science was done and smiled. The CBC is looking bad, the Libs. are looking bad, useless positions are looking dimmer and WK still looks like himself.
There was no outcry when we were represented by friggin lawyers and that was fun.

He was asked about science, and answered with religion. That was stupid on his part. When are we going to get competent people in government? There's no party that's moving in that direction, as far as I can tell.

Science is testable. Religion is not. Religion is not able to be used as an argument against science. The minister responsible for the science and technology portfolio should at least know THAT much.

I'm loving all these conspiracy theories :) You guys are making the 9/11 truthers look sane in comparison.

Lord tunderin jeezus! Go fer yoer guns or ketch cod!

mhb,

I don't know why you've asked me about AGW. I haven't mentioned it in my many posts on this thread and if you'll look back to 2004(ish) I've made many comments questioning that theory based on many observations that I've made... ie sunspot activity, temperature forcing carbon dioxide etc.

The observations that Creation Scientists (sic) and Intelligent Design subscribers claim are not science because they have not been put to hypothesis testing. That's why Creation is not science, nor is model based agw. It's a prediction based on superstition.

You've opened a really funny door. Christians believe certain things that they can't prove, but have faith that they are true. This is analogous to AGW in that Algore believes that the icecaps are going to melt in 10 years. Essentially you've come to your conclusion and you've tried to find snippets of information which confirms your beliefs. This is the same stuff we all criticise gore for...

From LGF:

How would you feel if the head of your federal science department told you he believes the Earth is flat? Or the Sun revolves around the Earth? Or that he thinks the sky is a great crystal sphere, and he lies awake at night worried that the Voyager probes will smash it and let all our air out?

Those beliefs have just as much basis as young Earth creationism: they are faith-based only, and have no evidence for them, and about a billion solid pieces of evidence against them. If your science advisor told you any of those things, you’d think he was crazy and you’d look for a replacement.

Goodyear's critics should back off and let him do his job. I'm sure if he ever makes a decision which clearly demonstrates his faith is getting the way of properly doing his job, there will be plenty of scientists around to denounce him.

Before Goodyear stated he does believe in evolution, Marc Garneau, the Lib science critic, said a creationist can indeed be a good science minister.

By harping on this non story, I think the Libs are trying to change the channel because of some good economic news making some headlines.

"Having said that, the witch hunt against Gary Goodyear is nothing but a Lib-Left hatchet job."

Posted by: gordinkneehill at March 18, 2009 8:06 PM

Exactly!
Driven by the Liberal cheerleaders at GlobeMedia.

CTV 's Giggles Taber "POWERPLAY", a prime agitator for G&Mail.

Rabbit, Jon, Alex thanks for straightening me out on "theory" vs "law". I learned something which is why I come here. I am not a scientist although I have Computing Science degree. My point was not to attack the scientific method but "scientists" who do not live by the scientific method - which seems to be most of them. Scientists are first and foremost people who (like any capitalist businessman) look out for number one. Jobs, status, funding, promotions, keeping the wife happy and the kids fed are all important.

In following the threads at Climate Audit and Watts Up With That it is obvious that much of the so called peer reviewed "science" that makes up the backbone of the global warming case is very weak. Data for the studies is not made available making replication impossible. Reviewers are often in blatant conflicts of interest which are not revealed. Often they are not even qualified to review. When these are pointed out to the prestigious journals that publish the articles these concerns are dismissed.

Any reputable "scientist" should find this situation intolerable, even if you are in favor of the global warming theory. Yet except for a brave few the silence is deafening. Much of the credibility given to the man-made global warming theory comes from Hansen's computer model which has been shown to be flawed in so many ways. Yet "scientists" totally ignorant of computer modeling happily accept its predictions.

Larry Summers, Obama's Director of National Economic Council while president of Harvard in an informal discussion of why there are fewer women in math and engineering talked about the brain differences of the sexes. As far as I can tell the current "scientific understanding" is that mens and womens brains are different which leads to the sexes having generally different strengths and weaknesses. For stating this scientific understanding Summers was hounded out of Harvard for daring to go against political correctness. Only a few "scientists" stood up for him.

If you go back 20, 50, 100, 500 years the situation is always the same. Political correctness usually takes precedence over science because scientists are first and foremost people who want to get along as best as they can. They are not always infallible rational gods.

I have no bone in the fight over Creationism vs Darwinism. What I see is a bunch of a politically correct "scientists" sneeringly dismissing any criticism of Darwinism - the science is settled. Just like they say about global warming.

I doubt it as I believe should any real scientist.

The best frauds, scams, hoaxes are those that cannot be easily proven - right OR wrong. At least initially. Hold the fort long enough to collect the money. Carbon taxes, collection plate.

Given that junk science is the name of the game in Canada, who cares if Goodyear believes in creationism or not? His personal beliefs are not anyone's business, either.

The hounding of the minister by the reporter(and the hounding of fellow conservatives in the comments here) is further proof that the Left will continue to use evolution to drive a wedge into the Right and divide it.

Kate, please don't make the same mistake Charles Johnson at LGF did by welcoming this wedge and obsessing over it again and again.

If you do, the Left will win power repeatedly and succeed in Balkanizing the Right until it splinters into a million factions and become ineffective.

And what good will it do to have "won" one argument, just to become marginalized in the end?

Evolution is not a make or break issue in the struggle for individual liberty and the preservation of democracy. If you think it is, then by all means, enjoy your new overlord, Obama, and the dead end that he and his followers will drive science towards.

Priorities, priorities.

Alex you are assuming that because someone rejects something like the theory of evolution means that they don't understand that theory. I'm sure that Galileo understood the widely held scientific theory that the earth was the centre of the universe. It just so happened that he disagreed with established science. Science like any human endeavour tries to browbeat everyone into into believing just as the proponents believe. The fact remains that the theory of evolution is widely accepted as sound science because it eliminates the need for a Divinity. Personally I reject the theory of evolution because I see a fatal flaw in the theory of Causeless Causation of which the theory of evolution is just one aspect amongst many.

Doug,

It's absurd that you are asking Kate not to reference this. This is a ghost to exorcise from our side of the political divide. If you believe in unicorns, or Jesus' miraculous birth, or Hansen's view of AGW that's your own deal, but don't even try to blame your religion. What Goodyear did was incredibly inept and inexcusable. He should be replaced asap. How can you be the minister of s&t and not prepare for a question like that, even if it was out of bounds?

The Conservative party is not the party of religion. It has no desire to bring up abortion, nor should it try to bring creationism into the fold... all we'll accomplish by doing that is driving off right of centre scientists, atheists and nontheists to the LPC. If we want a government that's rational with our tax dollars we should expect a government that's rational with science. "Jesus said so, according to John and maybe Thomas" isn't an acceptable answer to any question... especially one dealing with evolution.

Don't we want a scientist with a scientific background to be in charge of science?

And what qualifies iggy to be leader of the opposition?

"The fact remains that the theory of evolution is widely accepted as sound science because it eliminates the need for a Divinity."

This is an all-too-common misconception, and one that is actively fostered by those who wish to drive a wedge between people of faith and people of science. Natural science does not require a divinity to explain any phenomenon, neither does it try to dismiss the possible existence of a divinity.
The purview of natural science is the natural physical universe and the physical objects and forces that make it up. Divinity falls within the purview of metaphysics, which is a different discipline altogether. It is just as wrong to try to use science to deny God as it is to use the Bible to deny science.

Do you expect a chef de cuisine to be able to tune up your carburetor?

Jon, read my post again, or should I assume that you are a "believer" in statism ready to sacrifice millions of the weak and the flawed for your "higher" purposes? I can prove that you are a sock puppet, however, just by your next response.....

A simple answer to this, even for fundamentalists, would be

"The world is always changing. For example, in pre-industrial revolution London, moths were predominantly lighter in colour. However, during the period of heavy coal burning, the melanistic phase predominated, as they were less visible to predators.

There are many historical evidences of change - the one above that I quoted took place in less than a generation. Others take longer. So, our world is always changing, or evolving if you will."

Lol this is funny.

The comments are hilarious, the left is all science is absolute, we all come to the same conclusions when looking at the data (see evolution). Debate is over!

That is not science! That is group think.

For a bunch of high brows that put all their trust in science they sure do not understand how science is conducted, advanced and dare I say "evolves".

That Goodyear painted himself into a corner and didn't tell the media to literally go fvck themselves is enough for me to demand his resignation.
This has got to end now folks. Tolerance is wearing as thin as these pukes tell me the arctic ice was tomorrow. And yes, the storm's acomin'.

Well!! It is so good to know that the staffers at the CBC and the Blubb and Wail understand evolution!

Yes indeed! But wait! They are talking about BELIEVING in evolution! They probably also BELIEVE in the tooth fairy, or the socialist version thereof.

I am sufficient of a Protestant, or perhaps sufficient of a follower of W. K. Clifford, to think that unexamined belief is immoral. Do the CBC and Blubb people (perhaps excluding the intelligent Margaret Wente) have the faintest idea of the arguments and evidence for evolution? I see no evidence whatsoever that they do. And Protestant that I may be, and follower of Clifford also that I may be, I find that in the absence of a knowledge of fact, and an understanding of relevant argument, it is as immoral to hold a belief that may be in accordance with reality as to hold one which is based on whim and fancy.

I would much rather deal with an informed Intelligent Designer than with a knee-jerk BELIEVER in evolution.

PS in regard to an earlier poster, there is no evidence whatsoever that the speed of light *in vacuo* has changed. The speed of light in material media is another matter.

LGF already has three posts on this very topic.

Remember how we used t say: "Karl Rove, you magnificent bastard!"

Well, get used to hearing: "Howard Dean, you magnificent bastard!"

And watch while the Right comes apart at the seams over a low priority issue.

Want to see Obama around until 2016 Michael Ingatieff become PM? The just keep up the petty bullshit on evolution.

If that is what you choose to believe gordinkneehill. I stand by what I said. Try asking yourself the question WHY. Why does a natural event occur without Cause. We can see patterns and we can see effects but we can't explain why without a cause beyond what we can see and understand. We can understand that DNA passes along 'information' that causes multiple cells to specialize and work together as one unit but you can't tell me why it works.

"The fact remains that the theory of evolution is widely accepted as sound science because it eliminates the need for a Divinity."

The fact remains that the theory of AGW is widely accepted as sound science because it allows for Socialistic One World Governance.

On the one hand the science is right. On the other it is wrong. Everybody has to know EVERYTHING in order to form a correct opinion. And to vote accordingly.

Journalistic Jounalists do not help the matter one bit. In fact they dumb it down.

I believe this is why our beloved media can swing public opinion with biases, slant and out right lies. It is hard for us to know everything about everything. But blogs sure help.

Doug,

It's a real shame that you can not equate conservatism with anything but your particular view of it. I understand that you may believe anything you want to, but to accept a finance minister who doesn't believe in Economics or a Health Minister who believes in religious exorcism is as ludicrous as having a Science minster who believe in creationism.

I am as far from Statist as possible. You have the freedom to believe whatever you want. If you are representing Canada you have the responsibility to remove yourself from quaint beliefs.

Doug, in this you are wrong. The religious right is trying to leverage their collective weight into forcing religiosity (of any sort) into all conservatism. Social conservatism isn't conservatism... it's social conservatism which is why it needs that moniker.

The world is wider than your personal observation, or whatever you chose to believe about a stranger on the internet. I'm done with you.

"But to be asked if you support the theory of evolution, and respond with "I'm a Christian" is actually a non-answer. "

...and a non-answer is the only appropriate answer to a non question! (But he might have been wiser to have chosen a different non-answer.)
"Do you support the theory of ______?" ??? What the hell kind of bullshit weasel non-question is that?!? Answering it either way demands credulity, which is inappropriate in therms of the dictates of science! "Theory" means there is no equivocal answer!

I wonder, do the reporters believe in Karma? Do they read their horoscopes or check the biorhythm chart occasionally?

I think it is pretty much an absolute certainty that life started from non-living material and from there higher animal forms came to be - either by an evolutionary process or a revolutionary one or both. But no one can say so with 100.00% percent precision. Just as no one can prove for certain that we do not have souls that extend beyond our physical forms.

I also believe that our constitution, such as it is, protects me from being discriminated against because of these beliefs. To hold this minister's feet to the fire and declare him incompetent because of his beliefs rather than his actions is bigotry and discrimination pure and simple.

(I knew a guy in university who was a geologist who said that the fossil record was a test of man's faith in God. He is a geologist today working mining fossils and a very good one at that if one goes by his T4 and dividend statements)

and indeed with the big bang theory, the earth was at the exact centre of the universe. as was Andromeda , the furthest quasar and every damn other thing,

Conservatives evolved from Socialists.

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 fucks 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

"Biologists and chemists would disagree with you... unless of course biology and chemistry aren't hard science for you."

Chemistry? Really? I explicitly called it a hard science. How exactly does Chemistry rely on macro-evolution? Do chemical compounds evolve? Do atomic structures evolve? You're probably thinking bio-chem, specifically abiogenesis (which is not evolution, it's something else entirely).

Elements of biology are hard science, observable, testable, you can run experiments on it, you can apply it. Paleo-biology however again is historical. Evolutionary biology? Still waiting to hear about the latest lab-observed speciation. Or how about solidifying the definition of what speciation is. Or a calculation on rate of evolution for anything. Or how about a prediction on a newly emerged life form. I dunno, if it was a science, I would hope you could DO something with it.

Also from your post:
"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."

To paraphrase, "It's not absolute, we keep working on it, we think it's the best idea thus far, but we're free to change it at any time. We can't test it though. BUT DON'T DARE QUESTION IT."

But don't scientists question it all the time, otherwise it wouldn't keep changing. If it's not absolute and you can't question it, it becomes dogma.

People keep incorrectly using the big *E* evolution, it's too large a catch-all, plus we're not disagreeing on the entirety of all evolutionary thought. People keep shifting definitions and moving the goalposts around when talking about Evolution.
Micro-evolution, no problem, no one disagrees with it or denys it. Natural Selection, again no problem, it's observable. Abiogenesis, it's not evolution. Big bang theory, is not evolution. Age of the earth, is not evolution. They're different questions, but often get bundled under the title "Evolution". The only aspect that is under disagreement with the theory of evolution is the concept of macro-evolution.

Personally I have a hard time with ANY of the sciences that do not utilize the scientific method. And so should you.

bar_jebus:

Should you read my comments more carefully. I said nothing of the kind. I was agreeing with Jim.

Frenchie,

Read what I've written, not what you wish I had written. Find quotes of what I've said that show I'm anti christian and not anti ineptitude. Just because that politician is on your team does not mean he is above criticism.

What made me decide he was incompatible with science was his inability to answer a question dealing with evolution with anything but "I'm a Christian". That's incompetence.

Not all atheists are haters, myself, ET, and Idd for example.

Jon usually we agree, but today you are pompous.

MHB I do agree with you and the liberal atheists desire not to be judged. This is evident in the anger displayed by atheists that get upset when someone has the nerve to say "god bless you" to them. I can only conclude that the anger comes from the atheists desire to not draw gods attention to themselves, I believe they are “closet Christians”. I don't believe in god, so bless away, why would I care?

Actually I do care, I consider it a very kind gesture; and, if I'm wrong about god, perhaps a few blessings in the bank isn't a bad thing.

Chris S,

I didn't include any of those elements in Evolution. I don't know why you're making that strawman.

I just seriously question the ability of a science minister who would say "I'm a christian" to answer any direct question about science. He was not asked what faith he was. He should have answered "My beliefs are not on trial" but he showed a lack of political acumen. In essence he dodged a bullet by jumping into dynamite. That is total incompetence.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
This is how evolution is tested in a lab. I suggest making google your friend. Now is your chance to refute evidence presented in front of your eyes. Otherwise consider this the truth (as far as we know it).

Jon - "....was his inability to answer a question dealing with evolution with anything but "I'm a Christian". That's incompetence."

Well, good for you, we've got this all sorted out.

It is nice to know that you don't find his faith incompatible with his position. That you think he can be science minister even if he has a different view on a theory from you.

It was simply his poorly worded response to a question that was the trigger for you.

Jon, you frigging dope, scientific "theory" is a "best guess". Nothing more, nothing less. It's a prediction of an outcome as yet unproved under controlled conditions. Scientific "law" exists where an outcome has been proven under controlled conditions.

Evolution is a "theory". Creation is a "theory". The fact that you aren't honest about the debate and the terminology involved makes you an a$$.

Richard,

Thanks for the Adhominmem.

As for the substance of what you say:
1. The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
* Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
* Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
* Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
* Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

2. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).

3. Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.

4. If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

5. Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.

Please provide citation for your claims.

Frenchie,

I think we should all agree that incompetence (for example Richard Evans) is unacceptable for any political position, even if that incompetent is on "our" team. We need the best guys on the ice or we'll get beaten by a weaker team.

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.
Posted by: Jon at March 19, 2009 10:41 AM

Ahh, of course. No matter there is no evidence that the man's religious views are "affecting" his ability to do the job, it'd be best to preemptively disqualify him solely on that basis, just to be sure. How tolerant of you, jon. And - to my point above - liberal. Can you explain why you are threatened by his Christianity in this regard? What about Stephen Harper: he, too, is a Christian. Are threatened by that, as well?

I'm sorry to have tweaked a nerve in you, jon; however, rest assured that there is no threat or conspiracy hiding in the possibility of Christians occupying high governmental positions. Doubtless it'd be easier if everyone was an atheist; perhaps in the future we should demand that of our elected officials, and then you'd feel more secure.

mhb

"Why was the question even asked if it wasn't a set up???"

Obviously it was a set up. Nobody is denying that. I even commented about that previously.

What you quoted isn't what I said either. It was what someone else said. But the point was valid.

It was a juvenile question that got a juvenile response. That was blown out of proportion. But the response does bring up valid concerns.

mhb,

Once again. 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.

Please remove your head from your holy.

The problem with leftards is that they don't realize there are two separate groups who accept evolution.

One group is made up of those who seem to "believe" that evolution is a complete belief system not in question and who defend it with all of the fury and hate of a Spanish Conquistador.

The second group is made up of people who are not defensive against religion (cause they don't care,) realize that evolution is an explanation which attempts to explain the mechanisms of how life has progressed from point A to point B using the best guestimates based on the best understanding of science given what we know today. They realize that the theory is incomplete, has holes both in logic and understanding and who hope that the rest will someday be discovered but don't claim it already has. They further know that if we are to "complete" our understanding, the scientific method is the way it will be done. These people are not threatened by other people's beliefs because science doesn't rely on belief. It relies on the scientific method.

To sum, the first group are idiot leftards who know nothing and have replaced religion with their own secular dogma and the second group are people who respect science as a means of seeking truth through understanding of observable fact.

Asking someone if they "believe" in either evolution or religion is not any different than asking if you believe in either evolution OR Shakespeare. The two aren't related, aren't dependant and thus are not binary. They have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. You can "believe" in neither or both simultaneously.

Evolution is a "theory". Creation is a "theory".

Incorrect, evolution is a theory based upon facts, testing, observation, and logic.

Creation is a story, that is not falsifiable. Therefore it is not a theory, or scientific.

"Asking someone if they "believe" in either evolution or religion is not any different than asking if you believe in either evolution OR Shakespeare. The two aren't related, aren't dependant and thus are not binary. They have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. You can "believe" in neither or both simultaneously."

Best comment so far.

Applying this, the question that the mop and pail reporter asked had nothing to do with faith or Goodyear's christian belief.

Jon,

Since you're a retard, I'll explain why he didn't answer the question:

He knew there were bigots like you who are not smart enough to know that what you are doing is wrong.

He knew that the question was not relevant and attempted to stay out of a line of inquiry which was designed specifically as the latest media McCarthy moment. This "reporter" was attempting to continue what Kinsella did to Stockwell Day. Day wasn't astute enough to see what was coming and so was candid in explaining that he was a Christian and was progressively backed into a corner through this inquisition to the point where he felt he had to go all the way to defend his beliefs. The bigot media full of scumbag leftards such as yourself "crucified" him for his belief. Goodyear was attempting to avoid the same treatment. I guess when it comes to a$$holes like you, it really doesn't matter if you keep your religion to yourself or not. You will be persecuted for the "sin" of being conservative who believes in some Christian doctrine or other. Your actual policy or actions are not relevant. The leftard's hypocritical bigotry is the only think that matters in their sick, twisted little minds.

That you don't already know this makes you the dim leftard that you are. That you don't even see the problem is why you will never learn.

I am an atheist and I'd have refused the question as well but I would not have been as kind in the rebuttal.

Warwick, why wouldn't he just say he believes in evolution? He didn't have to talk about his faith at all.

No Allen,

"Applying this, the question that the mop and pail reporter asked had nothing to do with faith or Goodyear's christian belief."

You know damn well the intent of where this "journalist" was going and why. It wasn't about evolution at all. It was about the minister's religious belief. Clearly, the minister knew this and was attempting to dodge the issue.

What he should have said is simply that evolution doesn't depend or require one to believe.

He should have said scummy "gotcha" journalism was unbecoming and that the "journalist's" employer should send a more ethical person to represent them in the future.

"Warwick, why wouldn't he just say he believes in evolution? He didn't have to talk about his faith at all."

to which i reply:

"why didn't they just answer that they're not a communist?"

McCarthyism is wrong cause they asked the question at all.

To so many of the preceding contributers:

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

Many, if not most, of you do not seem to be able to entertain a thought contrary to your own belief system.

As for the topic at hand, would Einstein be a poor Minister of Science?

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

Apparently, Einstein was not violently opposed to religion...therefore, some of you would seem to claim he wouldn't be qualified to be Minister of Science.

I think another quote of his applies here:

"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."

Jon, you're either mental or a liar. The word "theory", as applied to science, does, in fact, imply uncertainty. Where scientists want to express certainty, they use the word "law". I'm citing the American Heritage Dictionary, Websters, the Oxford "Concise Dictionary of Physics" and my son's 6th grade science text.

If you expect to be taken seriously by us "middle of the road" folks, you need to be honest. Trying to change the meaning of words so that it fits your own narrative does you a disservice...

What's so wrong about asking a science minister whether he thinks the theory of evolution is correct or not?

It was a bit dirty, but I would agree with you if the question was different:

"Do you believe in evolution or creationism?"

"Do you believe in the supernatural?"

"Do you believe that god created all?"

Would be disgusting and unnecessary. But that wasn't the question.

Having someone that doesn't believe in evolution in the position of science minister, is like having Jack Layton as Finance Minister.

It has *NOTHING* to do with his faith or beliefs. Why did Goodyear bring it up? Maybe it was out of context I agree, it would be nice to have a complete transcript.

allan

If the reporter asked if there was any changes being made in policy or funding to science and if so what are they and on what basis, that would be a legitimate question.

Asking about a minister (or anyone else's) private beliefs is bigotry.

It really doesn't matter if the minister beleives that JC himself talks to him every night out of a donkey arse so long as it doesn't drive government policy.

You know as well as I do exactly why the question was asked and it had nothing to do with the minister's public role or government policy. It was a witch hunt plain and simple and was ethically wrong for that reason.

What makes me angry is that so few people on the left seem to see it. They'd be the first to screetch about intolerance if it was a muslim being asked the question by a journalist from fox news.

"Apparently, Einstein was not violently opposed to religion...therefore, some of you would seem to claim he wouldn't be qualified to be Minister of Science."

Quite the opposite. I know every few evolution believers that are "violently opposed" to religion. They recognized that faith and science are different parts of our human nature. It tends to be the "hard right" or "hard left" people that confuse this. They tend to think science and religion are mutually exclusive. They are not. One applies to natural law, the other applies to faith and the supernatural.

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.

Let's assume there is a God who created a data bank of knowledge before he created the universe. Let's assume he's smarter than we are. Let's assume we are all mental midgets by comparison, myself included, of course.

If he shows himself to us, it negates our need for faith. Think about that statement. But since he is far more intelligent than the most brilliant theorist of either persuasion posting here, I think I'll stand with the creationists. It's much easier to believe.

It takes a lot more faith to believe the now politically approved evolutionist theory than to simply accept that all things were created by God.

My background was in chemistry, and many of the scientists who look closer at matter become convinced that only intelligent design could explain our world with its laws of matter and energy. It's all far too complicated to have come about by itself, and anyone honest enough can see that.

Warwick, you are correct the reporter was "fishing" and possibly shouldn't have asked the question. Nobody is arguing that. Does he have a right to? Well he's a reporter. Maybe it wasn't a legit question but that doesn't matter.

What matters is now legitimate questions are being raised. Again it has nothing to do with his faith, as many christians believe in evolution. It has everything to do with Goodyear believing in scientific process.

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. Does the science minister believe in scientific process or not?

That *IS* now a valid question.

"All are facts:
* Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
* Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
* Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
* Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well."

And have any of these facts been observed?

I understand that it's the underlaying theory and that people like to use it to explain things. I'm just saying that as a theory we are ALLOWED to question it and our objections cannot be simply dismissed.

Gravity exists we know that, we can test and observe that. Something like macro-evolution though, we can't see or observer or test, so I'm going to continue to question it. So stop equating the two theories. As well, people get fussy about evolutionary theory as opposed to other scientific theories probably because it's more rabid proponents keep trying to push it as proof there is no god.

Also in regards to the observed evolution you linked to, you'll need to note that new scientist article was a bit inaccurate in it's description of E.coli as not being capable of citrate absorbtion. So I looked into the original article by Lenski. "A more likely possibility, in our view, is that an existing transporter has been coopted for citrate transport under oxic conditions. This transporter may previously have transported citrate under anoxic conditions (43) or, alternatively, it may have transported another substrate in the presence of oxygen."

Ie, his lab e coli managed to do what existing e coli can do in slightly different conditions. An adaptation - micro-evolution. My mind has not been blown. Sorry.

Evolution as she is writ by Creation and Chuck. Who can dispute the evidence?
As Shelley said, "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'"
...-

"Undersea Volcanic Eruption In Tonga"

" Smokey (08:05:59) :

Charles Darwin proposed that coral atolls [e.g., Tonga] were formed by extinct undersea volcanoes. As the extinct volcanic cone gradually subsided, coral built on it and formed the atoll: click [scroll to the last paragraph, p. 232.]

There was much dispute among scientists about Darwin’s hypothesis, but eventually Darwin was proved right. So the current volcanic activity may eventually bring about a new coral atoll.

The sea level isn’t currently rising, and when it did rise in the recent past, the increase was simply part of a natural ebb and flow. As can be seen in this picture*, the sea level has not changed much from the mid-1800’s. So the argument that AGW is causing the sea level to rise is falsified."
urlm.in/bxxj
*http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm

Allen,

"Nobody is arguing that"

The problem is that so many people are. Go look at the comment on the G&M story.

Allen,

"That *IS* now a valid question."

The original story (the day before the one which was linked to here) clearly illustrated that not only does the minister advocate the scientific method, he is very enthusiastic about it.

Of course, those facts haven't been seen since and were buried at the very bottom of first story...

I know Warwick, I'm very happy that it didn't degenerate to that on this site. I think almost everyone here recognizes that personal faith has nothing to do with scientific belief.

The comments at the mop and pail are disgusting.

"A minister that doesn't believe in scientific process as science minister."

Except that evolution isn't really "the scientific process". It's a common framework, used by a narrow field and not the only one. And within it there is much dialog.

A person can teach it, expound on it, add to it, peer reviews others work on it, effectively fund it, ect. ALL without beliving in it.

The best answer would have been for him to simply say. "My job doesn't require belief."

People keep saying that politicians should keep their belief to themselves. But it's tricky when people keep asking them what they belive.

"A person can teach it, expound on it, add to it, peer reviews others work on it, effectively fund it, ect. ALL without beliving in it."

What about someone in charge of funding? This isn't just a scientist at a university, this is the science minister.

Again, would anyone want Jack Layton as finance minister?

Some points:

-Why are people couching an argument regard evolution in terms of left or right? Do you honestly believe this debate is divided along ideological lines??? I'm a righty, detest AGW, etc. but am staunchly pro-evolution. The only thing I can surmise from those statements regarding political allegiance is that you're stating that a right leaning political ideology is synonymous with Christianity, which makes me feel very sorry for the Conservative party. I would say that that is largely what holds the Cons back these days is their nutty fundy's, though they've rooted most of those out now.

-Nobody is saying that science and religion are incompatible. What we're saying is that creationism and evolution are not comparable because one relies on empirical science and the other is faith based.

-Can someone try to explain what "macro-evolution" is other than some term coined to make speciation distinct? Micro-evolution are simply gene mutations...macro-evolution is a large number of gene mutations. If you observe the small mutations, how can speciation be called impossible/un-observable? An example would be a computer program. A computer can only add numbers or bit shift if you really want to dumb it down. From that we've built wonderfully complex programs. If we all agree that small changes to the underlying code can make a program behave differently, why must we make that process distinct from when a totally new program is formed? Basically I want someone to try to explain how macro-evolution requires more than what occurs during micro-evolution.

Many scientists are religious. How they square scientific theory with their religious beliefs is their own damned business.

Seems to me that Mr. Goodyear has a strong basis to be making a Canadian Human Rights Commission (as much as I hate them) complaint based upon his religion.

Bar

To extend your computer analogy for micro vs macro evolution.

micro is bit shifting. Your 8 bit number is still 8 bits no matter how much you shift it.

macro is the difference between an 8 bit int and a 16 bit int.

Evolution theory tells us that if you do enough bit shifting your 8 bit int can become a 16 bit int (if you give it enough time).

Eeyore,

Selectively quoting Einstein to support his belief in religion is a bad idea.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilized interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

"I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being."

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."

Yeah, I'd be OK with Einstein as science minister.

Einstein would be a terrible minister! No people skills... lol.

I like your analogy Chris :D However, I believe the Hox gene takes care of those irregularities, allowing for very significant changes to a genome.

Okay, time for some understanding from the Christians. If you can accept that some people do not believe in god, then you can forgive us if we think your belief system is loonie. Were the shoe on the other foot(AGW) you'd think the same.

That being said, I choose to grant you some lee-way, but I expect the same in return. That is respect, and respect is all too often missing in any discussion about religion and politics.

You think we're nuts, we think you're nuts so there. People have the right to decide what issues they feel are important, and if some people feel that a Christian shouldn't be a Science minister then so be it. I could easily make the argument that a man who doesn't believe in god shouldn't be able to be POTUS or PM. Why not? You're going to hell and that makes you a bad person, and we don't need bad people in important positions.

I will stand by Christians, and vote with the ones that share politics and ideals that I think are important; or, find me a Scientologist that can fix the "financial crisis" using conservative ideals and I'll vote for him.

The question "Why are we here?" is irrelevant. The only pertinent question IMO is: We're here, what do we do now?

BTW, I don't think Jon is a leftard, but I did change my screen name last year so as not to get blasted daily for his words. I say enough stupid stuff myself, I couldn't handle both burdens.

bar_jebus

Neither science nor religion are partisan issues.

Where partisanship comes to play is in the treatment of one party vs all others.

No Liberal, Bloc-head or dipper would ever have been subjected to the kind of inquisitional McCarthyism that Goodyear was. THAT is the issue.

Of course,by extension,anyone who believes in the writings of the prophet mohammed should not be allowed near children.

Here's the deal, with all the gyrations the media spins and the contortions politicians assume in order to avoid any semblance of bias against islam, a Christian religous should say whatever the hell he wants because these discussions are always a set up. On the other hand, for a time during TJ's campaign, when Dhimmi's appeared on FoxNews, they'd outshout the Fox commentators. This is what Christian religious and conservatives should begin doing on any network other than Fox. Just start shouting accusations and don't stop until they cut away. The BIG difference will be that most of what we hear from conservatives will be the truth as opposed to the outright lies from the libs. As for rebuttals from Christians, it's a matter of faith which I don't judge. It has served Western culture well with only some minor hiccups along the way. Can't say the same for islam and I won't pretend.

Allen: "I like the picture of the whale with undeveloped hind legs, satisfy you?"

The finding of "one" deformed animal is not proof of evolution or progressive genetic mutation. What about all the humans born with deformities such as no legs, arms, very large heads, bone curvatures, flippers or web feet and hands? Many animals are born with deformities, children of persons with deformities generally do not have deformed children. Small people, formerly called midgets, can be a hereditary condition, but can not be called a mutation and certainly not evolution.

Revnant Dream is correct.

Evolution is losing ground, there are simply too many holes in this theory to hold up to unbiased scrutiny any longer due to the new information coming out of the human genome project and genetic research.

I think in fifty years, the scientific world will be marveling that they actually believed such archaic ideas and a new "theory" will emerge. There are a great many scientists that do not believe evolution is a plausable explanation for the immense diversity of life on our planet. However, to receive funding, evolution must be weaved in to any research. Finally, scientists are beginning to speak out about the lack of scientific objectivity that there could possibly be another explantion for the diversity of species.

How many on this board have actually objectively looked at both theories? Only one explantaion has ever been offered to you, perhaps that is why you hold strongly to these ideas. I challenge you to look at both theories and others that have been brought forward. Evolution will one day be looked at in the same way chemo for cancer will - archaic.

Tail Bone information for you who asked:

My appendix was supposedly a left over organ from evolution, so it was removed despite it being OK-misdiagnosis of appendicitis. I was told by my Dr. a few months ago that since I do not have my appendix any longer, I have a 50% greater chance of developing colon cancer because my bile filter - the appendix is no longer there to remove toxins so I will need to keep a close eye on my bowel movements.

"The concept of vestigial organs even resulted in cases of “evolutionary medical malpractice.” Young children once had their healthy (and helpful, disease-fighting) tonsils removed because of the widespread belief that they were only useless vestiges. That idea actually slowed down scientific research for many years. If you believe something is a useless, non-functional leftover of evolution, then you don’t bother to find out what it does. Fortunately, other scientists didn’t take that view. Sure enough, studies have shown that essentially all 180 organs once listed as evolutionary vestiges have significant functions in human beings"

What about the “tail”? Some of you have heard that man has a “tail bone” (also called the sacrum and coccyx), and that the only reason we have it is to remind us that our ancestors had tails. You can test this idea yourself, although I don’t recommend it. If you think the “tail bone” is useless, fall down the stairs and land on it. (Some of you may have actually done that—unintentionally, I’m sure!) What happens? You can’t stand up; you can’t sit down; you can’t lie down; you can’t roll over. You can hardly move without pain. In one sense, the sacrum and coccyx are among the most important bones in the whole body. They form an important point of muscle attachment required for our distinctive upright posture (and also for defecation, but I’ll say no more about that).

"So again, far from being a useless evolutionary leftover, the “tail bone” is quite important in human development. True, the end of the spine sticks out noticeably in a one-month embryo, but that’s because muscles and limbs don’t develop until stimulated by the spine (Fig. 8). As the legs develop, they surround and envelop the “tail bone,” and it ends up inside the body."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch1-development.asp

If you follow the reasoning of the Globe and it's fellow travellers in this Pythonesque witch-hunt there can only be one solution.
There are lines of responsibility in government just as there are in businesses and major organisations of any stripe. Responsibility starts at the top and is applicable in varying degrees right down to the lowest worker or participant. Therefore, according to many in this debate the Prime Minister cannot fulfill his duties if he is a believing christian nor can his Minister in charge of the department, nor the deputy-minister below him, nor the various and sundry departmental managers, nor the assistant managers, sub-managers, and so on down to the Assistant Second Clerk of the Office In Charge of Paper-Shuffling and Photo-Copies for Whatsitville (East-Side Division).
As we, as a society, have surely evolved since the last Inquisition I'm sure we can devise a quick and painless method of weeding out those are unqualified to hold office.
I would suggest we immediately provide federal funding for research into a reasonably infallible truth serum (although a lie detector would do in a pinch) after which a simple question "Are you now or have you ever been a practicing Christian" and hesto presto...problem solved.

The sentiment that the earth is billions of years old is also being challenged.

Case in point: Tsunami of December 2004 completely changed the geography of Indonesia and Sri Lanka in a matter of minutes. What about Mount St. Helen's?

The park I routinely go to each summer changes dramatically every year. These changes are supposed to occur over millions and billions of years. Really - you do not need to be a rocket scientist to see that evolution is a very poor theory at best.

The consequence of evolutionist thinking are many. Survival of the fittest, abortion, euthanasia, mercy killing to name a few. Really now - how can a lower animal evolve into a higher animal - do persons with downs syndrome slowly become wiser over time - of course not.

Also, our microcondria proves all races came from one female. Genetics is proving evolution is wrong.

What about the frozen mammoths with vegetation in their mouths discovered by explorers which was very well documented?

Critical thinking is essential and must be applied to evolution as well if we are ever going to find the truth.

"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?"

Careful now - you're starting to sound like a Muslim.

Posted by: just-an-ape at March 19, 2009 3:33 PM

You're quoting Answers in Genesis?

REALLY???

You're kidding, right?

"How many on this board have actually objectively looked at both theories? Only one explantaion has ever been offered to you, perhaps that is why you hold strongly to these ideas. I challenge you to look at both theories and others that have been brought forward. Evolution will one day be looked at in the same way chemo for cancer will - archaic."

What other theory is there? "Intelligent Design" is not a theory. It is an idea based upon the misunderstanding of evolution.

Your delusions about evolution losing ground(to what exactly?) is hilarious. Even the catholic church disagrees.

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.

How could he lose by saying:
"of course I believe in evolution"

He would have lost his principles. And to those of faith, or - typically Conservatives - conducting yourself by your principles is more important than by politics or opinion polls. That's why Conservatives tend to fall on their swords or eat their own publicly whenever there is a whiff of scandal or impropriety, and you need a Gomery Commission to root out liberal rot ("Perhaps a few million were stolen"; "I'm entitled to my entitlements"). When the bar that governs your behaviour is allowed to float randomly or with public opinion, there are no expectations, as alex & allan have shown above. Example: liberals voting unanimously that marriage was a unique relationship between man & woman, and then reversing it 4 years later when the opportunity to make political hay arose.

Jon, perhaps you're right, and I shouldn't have let this take a personal turn. My bad. Sometimes my face gets numb from offering alternate cheeks to hit. Maybe I'll agree to disagree with you on this post, and leave it at that.

In other totally unrelated news, another Christian is set up for public pillorying solely because of his faith rather than his actions.

mhb

"In other totally unrelated news, another Christian is set up for public pillorying solely because of his faith rather than his actions."

Awesome. Keep 'em coming. The more bigots and fools we get out of government, the better off we'll be.

So it ends with the fact that alex is a bigot writ large, as proven by his insults and ad hominem attacks throughout this thread.

Rarely have I witnessed such zealotry and fanaticism.

There's no room in any debate for morons like him.

Irwin -

You can't let that stuff annoy you. If he's trolling, that just makes his day. If - shudder - he really means it... it rather makes my point above.

Bigotry and the Left: 2 sides of the same coin.

mhb

Whatever you say, daisy :) I tend to think that pointing out the bigotry of morons like you doesn't make me a bigot. I'd say most of the civilized world would agree. You're entitled to your opinion of course.