When Goodyear became Science Minister, I think I almost started a thread on it, but thought I might as well wait to see what comes of it.
His statement isn't encouraging, but it's not necessarily bad either. As long as he can separate his beliefs from his job and take the input from his subordinates about making good decisions, it should be ok. He never actually said he was a creationist. And Chiropractors in Canada are usually a bit different than the ones in the US, though Canada still has its fair share of quack chiros that will tell you not to give vaccines to your infants while they do neck manipulation on them (grrr...).
Something to keep an eye on though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyclone3483
Intelligent design is an unproved theory, evolution is an unproved theory. There are people that believe either one or the other and argue back and forth, but without either being proved or disproved, there is still room for study.
|
I like what Canada 02 posted, especially this part:
In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."
In this respect, the theory of evolution is as well supported and understood as any other theory in science, better than most probably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyclone3483
And I understand now that evolution is a cause, something to be fought for, something to rally behind...I didn't know that 'facts' needed a rallying cry.
Learn something new every day.
|
If people had formed organizations to try and use the legal system and every other avenue at their disposal to try and change the education system to include the "science" of a flat earth into the science class based on their interpretation of scripture, then yes a round earth might need to be a rallying cry.
Evolution is also a natural point of discussion between people who accept a scientific view where it may lead, and people who view their scripture as 100% inerrant and to be read literally.
As you said, evolution vs. creationism isn't atheist vs. theist and shouldn't be framed as such (though the creationists want it that way), it's more evolution vs. one specific interpretation of scripture.