The problem is when you get someone in that kind of position, their personal faith (or lack thereof) needs to take a backseat. The argument has been made (thank you Ben Stein) that having an athiest in that position could restrict (and has) study into intelligent design, when there is just as much reason to study it as there is to study evolution.
I agree with your post except for this part. Although it's been discussed ad nauseum on this board, intelligent design is not a science. It's been given it's chance and it's produced nothing in the way of science. Intelligent design has nothing to research. It makes no predictions, has nothing to test, and is not falsifiable. It is religion.
The Following User Says Thank You to Burninator For This Useful Post:
I would hope a science minister is never in the position to adjucate the merit of science, or to make funding decisions on a particular project-those should be left to peer review
the Science minister does however have to oversee (and hopefully advocate for) the funding of Science as a whole, and to some extent on funding priorities...and if they are uncomfortable or unwilling to answer some pretty basic questions about basic underpinnings of some of the life sciences, that is potentially worrisome
On the contrary, it shows to me that he is keeping his personal beliefs out of it. He is attempting to be objective. His personal belief, if he does not let it affect his job, is unimportant. What if he were an athiest in that position and he was asked if he believed in intelligent design, and he refused to answer because he said his personal beliefs were unimportant? Would that be any different? Not at all.
__________________
"...but I'm feeling MUCH better now." -John Astin, Night Court
I agree with your post except for this part. Although it's been discussed ad nauseum on this board, intelligent design is not a science. It's been given it's chance and it's produced nothing in the way of science. Intelligent design has nothing to research. It makes no predictions, has nothing to test, and is not falsifiable. It is religion.
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.
__________________
"...but I'm feeling MUCH better now." -John Astin, Night Court
On the contrary, it shows to me that he is keeping his personal beliefs out of it. He is attempting to be objective. His personal belief, if he does not let it affect his job, is unimportant. What if he were an athiest in that position and he was asked if he believed in intelligent design, and he refused to answer because he said his personal beliefs were unimportant? Would that be any different? Not at all.
Well, in both cases it's a dumb question. Not only because he should "keep his personal beliefs" out of his job, but because his role is not to debate the merits of scientific arguments.
However, it is a problem that he answered it in the way that he did. It creates way more controversy than if he had simply said "I'm not a scientist. I trust scientists to create and test hypotheses in the real world."
Worst of all, he immediately alluded to his religion. If his scientific beliefs are not relevant to his job, what does that say about his religious beliefs. His scientific beliefs should be irrelevant. His religious beliefs should not merit any mention at all, least of all being mentioned by him in response to a question about science.
Sounds like a guy who has difficulty knowing just what his job is. I meant what I said--it was an odd question, but almost any answer would have been better than the one he gave.
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.
This is just nonsense. Until, that is, you can name a prediction that "Intelligent design" makes, or some grounds upon which it is falsifiable.
Intelligent design is not an "unproved theory"--because it's not a theory at all.
The Following User Says Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
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.
This post clearly shows that you fail to understand what the word "theory" means to a scientist. Nothing in science is ever proven, only disproven (falsified). By your definition, gravity, relativity, electromagnetism, genetics, fluid dynamics, etc. are all "unproved theories".
The Following User Says Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
The argument here isn't whether intelligent design or evolution is right, and what qualifies as a science or not (we are going to agree to disagree here or this will never end). The argument is whether or not there is a problem with a Christian holding the position of science minister. And my response is that there is no problem holding that position, no matter your faith (or lack thereof) so long as you seperate your beliefs from the requirements of the job.
If someone wants to argue on that point, have at 'er.
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.
__________________
"...but I'm feeling MUCH better now." -John Astin, Night Court
This post clearly shows that you fail to understand what the word "theory" means to a scientist. Nothing in science is ever proven, only disproven (falsified). By your definition, gravity, relativity, electromagnetism, genetics, fluid dynamics, etc. are all "unproved theories".
I'm an accountant, not a scientist. Thank you for enlightening me.
__________________
"...but I'm feeling MUCH better now." -John Astin, Night Court
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.
Wrong. ID is an UNPROVEN UNTESTABLE SPECULATION. Evolution is a PROVEN THEORY.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to John Doe For This Useful Post:
However, it is a problem that he answered it in the way that he did. It creates way more controversy than if he had simply said "I'm not a scientist. I trust scientists to create and test hypotheses in the real world."
Worst of all, he immediately alluded to his religion. If his scientific beliefs are not relevant to his job, what does that say about his religious beliefs. His scientific beliefs should be irrelevant. His religious beliefs should not merit any mention at all, least of all being mentioned by him in response to a question about science.
Sounds like a guy who has difficulty knowing just what his job is. I meant what I said--it was an odd question, but almost any answer would have been better than the one he gave.
So apparently the guy is bad at P.R. It doesn't mean he can't seperate faith from his job, and his answer clearly lines up with that.
__________________
"...but I'm feeling MUCH better now." -John Astin, Night Court
I'm an accountant, not a scientist. Thank you for enlightening me.
You're welcome.
Lay people (in this context I'm referring to non-scientists) very often have a misunderstanding of the word "theory" because it's used very differently in the scientific community than it is by the general population. Nobody should ever dismiss evolution as being without merit because it's "just a theory" or elevate creationism to that same status.
The Following User Says Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
The argument here isn't whether intelligent design or evolution is right, and what qualifies as a science or not (we are going to agree to disagree here or this will never end). The argument is whether or not there is a problem with a Christian holding the position of science minister. And my response is that there is no problem holding that position, no matter your faith (or lack thereof) so long as you seperate your beliefs from the requirements of the job.
If someone wants to argue on that point, have at 'er.
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.
I don't think most people have a problem with a christian holding the post.
The problem is having the Government's Science & Technology Minister being unable to answer a question about evolution due to his personal 'beliefs.' [Especially since evolution is a key and very proven scientific theory.] Especially since evolution, over a period of over 150 years of scientific rigor, debate and discussion, has never been proven incorrect.
Last edited by firebug; 03-17-2009 at 12:54 PM.
Reason: How do I do strikethrough text?
The argument here isn't whether intelligent design or evolution is right, and what qualifies as a science or not (we are going to agree to disagree here or this will never end). The argument is whether or not there is a problem with a Christian holding the position of science minister. And my response is that there is no problem holding that position, no matter your faith (or lack thereof) so long as you seperate your beliefs from the requirements of the job.
If someone wants to argue on that point, have at 'er.
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.
My problem is not that he is a Christian. My problem is that he has lumped evolution into a religious belief. For some evolution is seen as a religious belief, but it's not, it's a science. In face it's a huge science and a very important science. His job is to be done on the merits of science and the method of science. If he saying that evolution is a personal religious belief he is not doing his job and is doing a disservice to science by doing so.
It would be the equivalent of asking him about astronomy and saying that he won't discuss personal beliefs and he just so happens to believe in astrology. It's a problem for someone doing his job when he doesn't understand a basic tenant of science.
The argument here isn't whether intelligent design or evolution is right, and what qualifies as a science or not (we are going to agree to disagree here or this will never end). The argument is whether or not there is a problem with a Christian holding the position of science minister. And my response is that there is no problem holding that position, no matter your faith (or lack thereof) so long as you seperate your beliefs from the requirements of the job.
If someone wants to argue on that point, have at 'er.
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.
Of course a Christian can hold the position of science minister.
Christian != Creationist.
A Creationist probably can't hold that position--any more than a person who believes the earth is flat can hold that position. Because part of their fundamental belief system holds that science is self-evidently wrong about the nature of the universe--a belief that neither asks for nor benefits from empirical observation, but rests entirely on something that the person chooses to believe in spite of empirical evidence to the contrary.
You wouldn't appoint a flat-earth society member to the post of "astronomy minister," would you?
Hahaha, yes I am sure he is suspicious of science. Those University attending Chiropracters and their non science University.
I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at, but a discussion about chiropractors could almost have it's own thread. There is lots of wishy-washy things that some chiropractors believe in. First of all, they don't go to medical school like every other doctor out there, they are not considered medical doctors either. I would not be surprised that a chiropractor would be completely ignorant of the methods of science.
