Science Minister won't confirm belief in evolution - Page 4 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

evman150 · 03-17-2009, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarchHare

SIGH...

Have you even read the rest of this thread? Do you understand the scientific method, the concept of falsifiability, what the word "theory" means to a scientist, or the basic idea that there is no such thing as an indisputable scientific fact?

I'm ostensibly "on your side" in the evolution vs. creationism debate, but you're not helping our cause by making ill-informed comments like in your post above.

I read the whole thread. I know what you're trying to say. I understand the scientific method, most likely more fully than you do.

My point is that it is people like you who are not "helping the cause" by pandering to these moronic creationists.

Evolution is FACT, saying any less to a layperson audience is irresponsible.

Edit: Thanks five-hole.

Canada 02 · 03-17-2009, 12:32 PM

biological evolution is a fact

the mechanism of how evolution occurs is bound by several theories

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

cyclone3483 · 03-17-2009, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Of course a Christian can hold the position of science minister.

Christian != Creationist.

A Creationist probably can't hold that position--

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Wow.... mangle what people say much?

I never said that. In fact, I said the exact opposite of that. If you can't or won't understand that, then there's really no point in this discussion.

Christian = Creationist
Creationist = person that can't hold that position
therefore
Christian = person that can't hold that position

don't argue against yourself, one of you will lose

Five-hole · 03-17-2009, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

Christian = Creationist
Creationist = person that can't hold that position
therefore
Christian = person that can't hold that position

don't argue against yourself, one of you will lose

!= is a computer language operator for "does not equal".

Fozzie_DeBear · 03-17-2009, 12:57 PM

IMO What matters is the policies that this Minister supports to further the scientific and technological capabilities of the Canadian system.

FWIW I'd rather have Kirk Cameron making good policy than Richard Dawkins making poor policy.

I think there is an assumption that because this guy won't confirm his belief in gravity...errrr evolution then he will make bad policy, that isn't necessarily so.

That being said...he wouldn't make my A-list as science minister.

cyclone3483 · 03-17-2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kermitology

Are you having trouble reading?

Christian != Creationist.

IFF stated that.

And I'd agree with that position. Creationist beliefs are at a major conflict with modern science. If his convictions prevent him from making unbiased decisions at the post of science minister, then he's simply the wrong man for the job.

On your second point, I agree with part of it...if his convictions prevent him from making unbiased decisions, he is the wrong man for the job. That is what I have been saying all along. Just like if an athiest's convictions prevented him from making unbiased decisions, he is the wrong man for the job. Same thing.

There, we agree.

cyclone3483 · 03-17-2009, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Five-hole

!= is a computer language operator for "does not equal".

Thank you.

Again, accountant, not IT guy.

troutman · 03-17-2009, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

If you want to argue on evolution vs. intelligent design, God vs. no God, then I will not get drawn into that argument because I will never convince you and you will never convince me.

The scientist could be convinced otherwise with just a little reliable evidence. The faithful can never be convinced otherwise, despite a whole universe of evidence.

kermitology · 03-17-2009, 01:00 PM

Wow... I figure an accountant might understand that nomenclature, it's got to be used in excel.

Assignment "="
Comparison "=="
Comparison (is not) "!="

Raekwon · 03-17-2009, 01:01 PM

He never said he was a good accountant

Quote:

Originally Posted by kermitology

Wow... I figure an accountant might understand that nomenclature, it's got to be used in excel.

Assignment "="
Comparison "=="
Comparison (is not) "!="

cyclone3483 · 03-17-2009, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evman150

I read the whole thread. I know what you're trying to say. I understand the scientific method, most likely more fully than you do.

My point is that it is people like you who are not "helping the cause" by pandering to these moronic creationists.

Evolution is FACT, saying any less to a layperson audience is irresponsible.

Edit: Thanks five-hole.

I didn't think MarchHare was pandering. In fact, he's been the most logical non-believer of the bunch. 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.

troutman · 03-17-2009, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

I didn't know that 'facts' needed a rallying cry.

Sure they do, ex. The Flames are factually better than the Canucks.

cyclone3483 · 03-17-2009, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

The scientist could be convinced otherwise with just a little reliable evidence. The faithful can never be convinced otherwise, despite a whole universe of evidence.

So evman just said that evolution is a cause, a faith perhaps? So treat the faithful as those that support evolution and you've got that completely correct. Thanks, PR!

troutman · 03-17-2009, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

So evman just said that evolution is a cause, a faith perhaps?

It's not a cause, it's not a faith, it just IS.

cyclone3483 · 03-17-2009, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

It's not a cause, it's not a faith, it just IS.

"I AM" - God

He just is.

evman150 · 03-17-2009, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

I didn't think MarchHare was pandering. In fact, he's been the most logical non-believer of the bunch. 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.

Only insofar as mass ignorance of the "facts" negatively affects my life, and society in general.

It's like the AIDS thread going on right now. What you are saying is akin to saying "geez, if condoms helping to prevent the spread of HIV is a fact, why does is need to be fought for, rallied behind?"

It often amuses me that the same people who believe what you believe are also the people who are most likely to pose false dichotomies, present straw-man arguments, pose non-sequiturs, red herrings, meaningless questions etc.

I wonder if there is a connection somewhere in there?

troutman · 03-17-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

"I AM" - God

He just is.

Prove it.

MarchHare · 03-17-2009, 01:17 PM

Quote:

If we start calling our "theories" facts it gets rid of this confusion for the laymen.

Maybe, but it would be intellectually dishonest.

I wouldn't expect computer programmers to change the != operator just because it confuses laypeople (see earlier in this thread), so why should scientists be expected to start using the word "fact" when what they really mean is "theory"? A better course of action would be to educate the layperson about the scientific definition of the word theory and point out the fallaciousness of their arguments when they try to dismiss the relative certainty of evolution by describing it as "just a theory, not fact".

cyclone3483 · 03-17-2009, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evman150

Only insofar as mass ignorance of the "facts" negatively affects my life, and society in general.

It's like the AIDS thread going on right now. What you are saying is akin to saying "geez, if condoms helping to prevent the spread of HIV is a fact, why does is need to be fought for, rallied behind?"

It often amuses me that the same people who believe what you believe are also the people who are most likely to pose false dichotomies, present straw-man arguments, pose non-sequiturs, red herrings, meaningless questions etc.

I wonder if there is a connection somewhere in there?

And what is it I believe? I believe that God created it all. He is, was, and ever will be. That He sent His son to die so that everyone reading this thread can have salvation even though not one of us deserves it.

Seems like a much better thing to 'rally behind' than 'people evolved from primordial scum'.

You don't have to like it, but it is what it is. You can keep ranting, I'll keep praising. Let God sort us all out in the end.

BTW, do you folks not know when someone is just pushing buttons for amusement?? This has been fun, thanks for the memories.

photon · 03-17-2009, 01:21 PM

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.