Science Minister won't confirm belief in evolution

[Kybosh]

I am a scientist and I want this guys job if he drops out. I'll just flash my CV and I'll be in. Having a CV and applying for this job might be like having a resume and applying for McDonalds.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by firebug

I am all for allowing people to believe whatever they want.

But would you be comfortable with:
A Jehovah's Witness setting health policy (blood transfusions)?
A muslim running the central bank (charging interest)?
A Seventh-Day Adventist as the Defense minister (pacifist)?
A Mormon setting Alcohol and Tobacco policy?
A young-earth creationist directing science funding?

I would contend that despite their best attempts to remain unbiased, that these individuals would be hard pressed to set policy that would truly reflect the public's best interest.

~firebug

You are assuming he does not believe in evolution, which he has stated he does, and you are assuming he is incompetent in his job, which no one has stated facts to support. If either of those were true, certainly I would not support him in that department. And if future facts prove that is the case, I will retract my present position, that as to date, this is pure and simple overreaction.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

I am a scientist and I want this guys job if he drops out. I'll just flash my CV and I'll be in. Having a CV and applying for this job might be like having a resume and applying for McDonalds.

Maybe they'll say you're overqualified.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

I am a scientist and I want this guys job if he drops out. I'll just flash my CV and I'll be in. Having a CV and applying for this job might be like having a resume and applying for McDonalds.

I'm pretty sure you have to get elected to office first.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I'm pretty sure you have to kiss alot of ass and ride the coattails of people smarter than you first.

Fixed.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I'm pretty sure you have to get elected to office first.

Details.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by redforever

You are assuming he does not believe in evolution, which he has stated he does, and you are assuming he is incompetent in his job, which no one has stated facts to support. If either of those were true, certainly I would not support him in that department. And if future facts prove that is the case, I will retract my present position, that as to date, this is pure and simple overreaction.

Actually, by the statement Goodyear makes (i.e. the examples of "evolution" that he uses) it appears that he doesn't know what evolution is (see the last few pages of this thread for clarification).

The post that you were replying to did not say anything of what you argued against in your post. It brought up a few possible instances where someone in a cabinet post could possibly be put in a position where their beliefs are in conflict with what the experts think is an acceptable position. Nobody is saying that he will automatically be making bad decisions if he doesn't believe in evolution. What many concerned people are saying is that there is a definite possibility that his beliefs (again, assuming he doesn't believe in a fundamental scientific theory) have the potential to steer him in a way that is harmful to the Canadian scientific community that he has significant influence over.

[Hack&Lube]

This is why I sometimes prefer the American system. Obama can appoint various people who are actually qualified (perhaps the best in the nation or even the world) to be secretaries of various departments.

When you have a Parliamentary system, you all too often just get average joe-chiropractor or realtor or lawyer, etc. running for office in their neigborhood and then when they divy up cabinet posts, it's a lot of political appointments not neccesarily based on merit, etc. and you get ministers who have no real credentials to handle what they are doing like minister of environment, defense, finance, science & tech, etc.

[Azure]

Its not like the people Obama has appointed have degrees in business/science/foreign policy, etc, etc.

He made that mistake too.

[photon]

Actually as I said earlier, the secretary of energy is a Nobel Prize winning physicist, that's pretty cool.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

Actually as I said earlier, the secretary of energy is a Nobel Prize winning physicist, that's pretty cool.

Yeah, that is.

I read an article a couple weeks ago criticizing a lot of Obama's cabinet members. The article pointed out that while 'some' of them have actual experience in the position they were nominated for, a lot of them were jumping into a field they knew nothing about.

I believe Obama has 'one' business executive on his economic team. One.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah, that is.

I read an article a couple weeks ago criticizing a lot of Obama's cabinet members. The article pointed out that while 'some' of them have actual experience in the position they were nominated for, a lot of them were jumping into a field they knew nothing about.

I believe Obama has 'one' business executive on his economic team. One.

I don't have the list, but you did see Obama's financial advisory team, if you list those people and their qualifications you'd be fully erect.

Not to suggest he's perfect, but come on, compared to Bush this is about the most amazing turn around in politics in a long time.

But we'll see how it all works 4 yrs from now, that's when it counts.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

I believe Obama has 'one' business executive on his economic team. One.

I don't know if the chairman of the Federal Reserve counts as a member of the "economic team", but that Bernanke dude seems to be pretty clever.

I know I know, he's an academic type and not a "business executive", but as the world turns I'm not so sure that the business executives are really the guys we/they want calling the shots down there.

[Thor]

Update:

James Lunney MP vs Evolution

Mr. Speaker, recently we saw an attempt to ridicule the presumed beliefs of a member of this House and the belief of millions of Canadians in a creator. Certain individuals in the media and the scientific community have exposed their own arrogance and intolerance of beliefs contrary to their own. Any scientist who declares that the theory of evolution is a fact has already abandoned the foundations of science. For science establishes fact through the study of things observable and reproducible. Since origins can neither be reproduced nor observed, they remain the realm of hypothesis.
In science, it is perfectly acceptable to make assumptions when we do not have all the facts, but it is never acceptable to forget our assumptions. Given the modern evidence unavailable to Darwin, advanced models of plate techtonics, polonium radiohalos, polystratic fossils, I am prepared to believe that Darwin would be willing to re-examine his assumptions.

The evolutionists may disagree, but neither can produce Darwin as a witness to prove his point. The evolutionists may genuinely see his ancestor in a monkey, but many modern scientists interpret the same evidence in favour of creation and a creator.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/02/j...ney-v-science/

[troutman]

Mr. Lunney is another chiropractor

[Thor]

lol I noticed that, a trend me thinks?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Article Posted by Thor

The evolutionists may disagree, but neither can produce Darwin as a witness to prove his point. The evolutionists may genuinely see his ancestor in a monkey, but many modern scientists interpret the same evidence in favour of creation and a creator.

That's a common misperception about evolution. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. Monkeys, apes and humans evolved from from the same ancestor species (which wasn't a monkey) - we just branched off at different points.

People seem to think that evolution has some kind of goal and that species are always "improving", but really, they are just adapting to their environment. There is no perfection. The idea that monkeys are less "perfect" or less evolved, is not true. They are no more or less evolved than humans.

[photon]

The other stuff he lists in his statement are boilerplate creationist nonsense too.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That's a common misperception about evolution. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. Monkeys, apes and humans evolved from from the same ancestor species (which wasn't a monkey) - we just

Or in layman's terms? Curious George ain't your dad, you're just brothers from the same mother! (who lived 6-25 million years ago)

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by troutman

Mr. Lunney is another chiropractor

Early chiropractors believed that all disease was caused by interruptions in the flow of innate intelligence, a vital nervous energy or life force that represented God's presence in man; chiropractic leaders often invoked religious imagery and moral traditions. D.D. and B.J. both seriously considered declaring chiropractic a religion, which might have provided legal protection under the U.S. constitution, but decided against it partly to avoid confusion with Christian Science.

Although this is not 100% the case any longer, religion plays a prominent role in many Chiros practice and behaviours. I have a good friend who became quite the fundy after returning from training. He also espouses the creation theory to anyone who will listen.