Science Minister won't confirm belief in evolution

[cyclone3483]

Originally Posted by firebug

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.

1-Iowa Flames Fan has a problem with a Christian in that position.

2-He wasn't unable to answer the question, he chose not to. There is a difference. His point is it is unimportant what his views are as they will not interfere with his job.

3-'very proven scientific theory'...I feel for MarchHare. As I have been corrected, it is either disproved or still a theory. And how can something be 'very proven'? Is that like I am 'very male'. Poor MarchHare, I feel your pain.

[cyclone3483]

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--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?

Poor analogy. We can prove the Earth is round by flying or sailing around it.

Firebug and Burninator don't have a problem that he is a Christian. Why do you?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

1-Iowa Flames Fan has a problem with a Christian in that position.

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.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

Firebug and Burninator don't have a problem that he is a Christian. Why do you?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

Poor analogy. We can prove the Earth is round by flying or sailing around it.

Firebug and Burninator don't have a problem that he is a Christian. Why do you?

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.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Potty

Discussed on Full Comment today:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...hristians.aspx

He completely missed the point.

Canadians differ on whether a supernatural entity had a role in the creation of human life. In a 2007 poll, 26% of respondents said they believe in creationism, 29% picked evolution, and 34% said they believe in some combination of the two.

First of all it does not matter what most Canadians think regarding evolution creationism. Science is not an opinion poll, nor is it demographic. The science has to stand up on it's own merit. Evolution does, creationism does not, and intelligent design does not.

But according to militant secularists — given disgracefully prominent play by the Globe & Mail in today's edition — that's not good enough. They want everyone in society — or at least everyone leading this country — to dogmatically subscribe to the minority view that God had no role at all in human creation

Not everyone. But it would be helpful if the SCIENCE MINISTER understood that evolution is the science that is accepted in the scientific community and is not a religious belief.

[octothorp]

Both the Globe piece as well as Mr Kay's response miss the great contradiction in Mr Goodyear's comments. With his 'Bigger microscope' comment, he seems to suggest that the evolutionary debate can be solved to his satisfaction with better scientific tools, something that his government is looking to limit. Surely if creationism or the existence of God could be proved with a more powerful microscope (let's say, a really, really big supercollider), then this would be the most worthwhile scientific endeavour imaginable and something his government would be happy to fund. But when the interviewer presses him for further information, he clamps up, perhaps becoming aware of his own doublespeak.
He was asked a question about one of the world's most well-known scientific theories, and his response was to first say that more science is needed, and then to contradict himself in saying that it's not a question of science but one of faith, which he won't answer. Do you see the doublespeak here?
When asked a question about science, he says he will not answer questions about religion, going on to state his religious beliefs (that he's Christian) while leaving the scientific question unanswered. Both people of science and people of faith (and especially the many, many people who are of both science and faith) should be insulted by Mr Goodyear's comments.

[OBCT]

I'm confused. Why is there debate about ID vs. evolution? Last I checked, the two premises aren't necessarily at odds with each other. It depends how dogmatic and "religious" one becomes about either side, but still.

I'd think Big Bang Theory vs. ID is closer. Even then, there are many aspects of each that can be logically and scientifically interwoven. Very generally ... God set the "Big Bang" in motion, which trigged planet formation, evolution, etc, and got us to where we are today. This person could take the Genesis account figuratively. Some people will take a similar line of events, but insert other instances of supernatural intervention to make it work in their mind. This might not work for you, but I'm saying it is plausible -- and equally falsifiable compared to other hypotheses (we can't go back in time to verify for ourselves... yet!).

The big question people need to answer for themselves is, "what started it all?". Many scientists try to postulate catalysts for the Big Bang. I personally put supernatural creation about on par with a purely natural unfolding of events in terms of rational believability. Neither are a slam dunk. Where does the 'substance' for the catalyst from? In my mind, both options are incredibly difficult to grasp, and holding on to either one without any doubt seems difficult.

I appreciate what scientific discovery brings to our world, and am always interested in hearing of new pursuits and breakthroughs. For me, for now, I am content in my belief in the Bible and the corresponding belief in a supernatural beginning to our cosmos.


On topic:

I'm not worried about Mr. Goodyear's comments yet. I echo others' comments regarding separation of spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof) and one's job - especially when it's Minister of Science. I think it's fair to watch his decision making closely from here on out. Canada deserves a competent, bold, unbiased Science Minister.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Potty

Discussed on Full Comment today:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...hristians.aspx

Ugh, what a cringe-worthy article. I'm so sick of Religious "scientismists" throwing their hat in the ring of science and making all these claims about what it does, what it should do, and what is correct when they quite simply have no f'ing idea about it. There's a great example of it in this thread with cyclone saying that Intelligent Design deserves research time because it, too, is a theory. (Thankfully he's been beaten down on that point.)

They want everyone in society — or at least everyone leading this country — to dogmatically subscribe to the minority view that God had no role at all in human creation.

Ludicrous. He is the SCIENCE MINISTER. He is not the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Religion, or the Minister of What Every Person In This Country Should Think And Feel. This statement is such a blatant strawman it makes me want to pull my hair out.

"I do believe that just because you can't see it under a microscope doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It could mean we don't have a powerful enough microscope yet. So I'm not fussy on this business that we already know everything. … I think we need to recognize that we don't know."

This is the Science Minister, showing flagrant ignorance of the principle and spirit of science. Above that, showing immature, first-year-philosophy-level rationality. It is beyond unscientific to go "well we just don't know, what if it's God?" It's the argument from ignorance and it's terrible. If you want to make an argument that God exists and causally interacts with the observable universe in an unobservable, undetectable way, go right ahead. But you had better f'ing not be my Science Minister. Then to misrepresent the scientific position as "we already know everything" is painfully stupid.

But that sort of intellectual modesty and agnosticism is boring: It too closely approximates the way millions of ordinary Canadians think about the mysteries of the cosmos.

Intellectual modesty. Hilarious. The hypocrisy is astounding. Note the subtle nod to ignorance once again with the choice of word "mysteries", like there are some kind of spooky goings-on that we puny mortals can never understand. It's such intellectual laziness; it's an "I give up! this stuff is complicated", such a scientific copout. This kind of attitude is spreading like herpes in a co-ed dorm. It's dangerous, it's anti-intellectual, and will make all of us more stupid and academically poorer.

[troutman]

ID says much more than "God put the whole thing in motion". It says that a creator designed every cell in every living thing.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

Poor analogy. We can prove the Earth is round by flying or sailing around it.

I think it was a fine analogy. We have the evidence that evolution is true and is happening. It not as easy to show as sailing around the world, but a lot of science isn't that easy to show either doesn't mean it isn't true.

To be honest cyclone I just don't think you know that much about evolution. I hope I'm not being insulting to you, but it just seems that way. If you have learned about evolution from an anti-evolution source I can almost guarantee that the source has not described evolution correct to you or how widely accepted evolution is.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

Poor analogy. We can prove the Earth is round by flying or sailing around it.

Firebug and Burninator don't have a problem that he is a Christian. Why do you?

And we can and have verified evolutionary hypotheses. It's more complicated than seeing a great big sphere and flyin' round it, which is when lazy, anti-intellectual types give up and go "oh well it's just a theory, it's probably God".

[kermitology]

That Kirk Cameron video with the banana is probably the best example of evolution. I mean seriously.. find out what a wild banana looks like.

[MarchHare]

Then to misrepresent the scientific position as "we already know everything" is painfully stupid.

No kidding.

The very basis of science is that we don't know everything, and what we think we know could be wrong and therefore should be continually challenged. Some theories are robust enough to survive the scrutiny of peer review and other aspects of the scientific method. These theories have been tested repeatedly over decades (or even centuries) and considered to hold true in all situations under which we can make controlled observations. Some examples of those robust theories that have withstood the test of time are universal gravitation, heleocentricity, electromagnetism, conservation of mass and energy, atomic theory, cellular biology, relativity...and evolution.

[evman150]

The scientific community continues to shoot itself in the foot by continuing to call evolution a "theory".

1. Evolution is a fact.
2. The germ theory of disease is a fact.
3. Gravity is a fact.
4. The Earth is round is a fact.

Anyone who disputes #2-4 is called a moron. Anyone who disputes #1 is called a Christian (Creationist).

Why the disconnect?

[OBCT]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Both the Globe piece as well as Mr Kay's response miss the great contradiction in Mr Goodyear's comments. With his 'Bigger microscope' comment, he seems to suggest that the evolutionary debate can be solved to his satisfaction with better scientific tools, something that his government is looking to limit. Surely if creationism or the existence of God could be proved with a more powerful microscope (let's say, a really, really big supercollider), then this would be the most worthwhile scientific endeavour imaginable and something his government would be happy to fund. But when the interviewer presses him for further information, he clamps up, perhaps becoming aware of his own doublespeak.
He was asked a question about one of the world's most well-known scientific theories, and his response was to first say that more science is needed, and then to contradict himself in saying that it's not a question of science but one of faith, which he won't answer. Do you see the doublespeak here?
When asked a question about science, he says he will not answer questions about religion, going on to state his religious beliefs (that he's Christian) while leaving the scientific question unanswered. Both people of science and people of faith (and especially the many, many people who are of both science and faith) should be insulted by Mr Goodyear's comments.

I agree there's some double-speak, but I'm not sure his intentions are as ominous as you suspect. I agree with those who think his PR training could use some major work, and disagree with those who imply that PR is a major component of his job. It's a component. One which I hope he improves in, sure.

If his decision making and advocacies show signs of Creationist (or any other major) bias, then I will concede that he should be replaced. People say "interesting" things in the media all the time... often much more offensive than this.

[OBCT]

Originally Posted by troutman

ID says much more than "God put the whole thing in motion". It says that a creator designed every cell in every living thing.

I stand corrected.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by OBCT

I'd think Big Bang Theory vs. ID is closer. Even then, there are many aspects of each that can be logically and scientifically interwoven. Very generally ... God set the "Big Bang" in motion, which trigged planet formation, evolution, etc, and got us to where we are today. This person could take the Genesis account figuratively. Some people will take a similar line of events, but insert other instances of supernatural intervention to make it work in their mind. This might not work for you, but I'm saying it is plausible -- and equally falsifiable compared to other hypotheses (we can't go back in time to verify for ourselves... yet!).

Your argument fails to Occam's razor. You're trying to "explain" something -- that is, make a simplified account of its workings -- by postulating an even more complex unknown -- God -- that you do not explain at all. No matter how much you try to make that sound scientific by throwing around big words and sounding conciliatory, it is not.

It is also not falsifiable, unless I'm missing something. Frankly I think of most religious claims as falsifiable in the sense that we postulate a more rational, provable claim and then verify it, which by extension casts extreme doubt on the "God did it" explanation.

The big question people need to answer for themselves is, "what started it all?". Many scientists try to postulate catalysts for the Big Bang. I personally put supernatural creation about on par with a purely natural unfolding of events in terms of rational believability. Neither are a slam dunk. Where does the 'substance' for the catalyst from? In my mind, both options are incredibly difficult to grasp, and holding on to either one without any doubt seems difficult.

Are you an expert on theoretical physics? No? Shocking. You can "personally put" anything you want on par with anything else you want, but it doesn't make you an expert nor someone that anyone should listen to as an expert. There are people who've devoted their entire lives to the study of these ideas and to denigrate them with your armchair, recreational "well what ifs" is insulting to them and to the real study of science.

Yeah, maybe "God" caused the Big Bang. For that to be a worthwhile explanation to anyone, you have to then explain what God is and what created God. The only argument I ever hear about that is "well he just IS" or "it says it in the Bible", at which point it is no longer scientific and no longer useful in a scientific context. You're free to think what you want but you can't dress it up pseudo-scientific lingo and parade it about as scientific. It is not.

I appreciate what scientific discovery brings to our world, and am always interested in hearing of new pursuits and breakthroughs. For me, for now, I am content in my belief in the Bible and the corresponding belief in a supernatural beginning to our cosmos.

Scientific discovery brings progress to our world via its unyielding principles. It has brought us to where we are because it doesn't compromise and go "well I can't quite get this, must be God". It doesn't posit wishy-washy, feel-good conciliatory theories with no basis in reality. You're free to hold those opinions but it doesn't make you rational or scientific, so stop pretending like you are. You're making Faith-based claims, end of story.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by evman150

The scientific community continues to shoot itself in the foot by continuing to call evolution a "theory".

1. Evolution is a fact.
2. The germ theory of disease is a fact.
3. Gravity is a fact.
4. The Earth is round is a fact.

Anyone who disputes #2-4 is called a moron. Anyone who disputes #1 is called a Christian (Creationist).

Why the disconnect?

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.

[Five-hole]

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.

Well I think you're misinterpreting evman a bit. I think what he's saying, which I agree with, is that science needs to change its language a bit because of this prevailing storm of anti-intellectualism that gains a great deal of ground off the ambiguousness of the word "theory".

Science and its adherents are too nice. They're too diplomatic because as you point out they are happy to say "well we could be wrong!" Unfortunately, their pitted against the truly dogmatic that take any sign of weakness or culpability as "not good enough". If we start calling our "theories" facts it gets rid of this confusion for the laymen.