Science Minister won't confirm belief in evolution

[MarchHare]

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.

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion." -Carl Sagan

[evman150]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

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

Because what you want to be true has what effect on the truth, exactly?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

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

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

1. Why? Because it makes you feel better? How ego maniacal.

2. Nice cop out.. "Oh gosh guys, didn't you know I was only trying to stir the pot, throw some gas on the fire and then laugh as you all fell for my clever ruse!"

You go from being articulate, if not as well versed in the topics, to that ridiculous statement. Thanks for participating.

[photon]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

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'.

If you ever want to view evolution from a Christian's point of view who accepts evolution, read Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller.

To me, if I was to choose between the idea of a God who sat there at his workbench crafting each animal and plant and bacteria individually, and the idea of a God that created a universe with a few basic laws that would spontaneously give rise to life, the 2nd one seems a lot more powerful and wise.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

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.

I believe that people are inherently good. Seems like a much better thing to 'rally behind' than 'not one of us deserves it (salvation)'.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

"I AM" - God

He just is.

Who is he?

Answer - God

Who is God?

Anyway, Goodyear should not have been appointed Minister of Science and Technology if he can't answer a simple question of his beliefs in the field, spin it anyway you want but true christians do not believe in true evolution. Like the pope, they always spin it back to god starting it.

I'll guarantee that Goodyear cringed inside when he was offered this post, he likely knows little about real science. he knows about sticking needles in nerve endings and cracking backs. Minister of Health might have been a little better fit but at least he's getting his 200 grand salary.

[photon]

Obama appointed a Nobel winning physicist as his secretary of Energy, I'm jealous.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by photon

To me, if I was to choose between the idea of a God who sat there at his workbench crafting each animal and plant and bacteria individually, and the idea of a God that created a universe with a few basic laws that would spontaneously give rise to life, the 2nd one seems a lot more powerful and wise.

For me, I think I would tend to think of God being able to do both of those at the same time.

To me, I think the science minister answered the way he needed to (well, perhaps, he could have articulated it better). Giving his real position on the issue may only have wasted everyone's time.

I would call myself a creationist, but certianly not a "literal creationist." I don't think Religion should try to answer the question of "how?" - at least from a purely religious standpoint. let science do that. I would be glad if religion stuck to answering "why?" - a question that science ultimately cannot answer.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by evman150

Because what you want to be true has what effect on the truth, exactly?

That reminds me of the following anecdote.

During my university days, I was enrolled in an astrophysics course taught by a professor who described himself as "a believer, but not a follower of any particular religion".

In one of his lectures, he discussed the expansion of the universe. He taught us about how the universe has been continually expanding since the Big Bang, but it's unknown if it will continue to expand to infinity, and the expansion forces might eventually be overtaken by gravity.

Depending on the value of the density parameter, it's possible that the universe could continue to expand forever, eventually reach a maximum point of expansion and then begin to contract (possibly the Big Crunch), or reach a point of equilibrium where the universe maintains a constant size.

My professor stated that, as a believer, he really liked that final possibility because it would be a neat way for an intelligent designer to create the universe. He also stated that just because he professed a fondness for that hypothetical sceneria he wasn't giving it any more credence than the other two possibilities, since the jury is most certainly still out on the ultimate fate of the universe.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by John Doe

I believe that people are inherently good. Seems like a much better thing to 'rally behind' than 'not one of us deserves it (salvation)'.

This reminds me of some of those crazy ass Jack Chick comics...

Invariably in each one, an unknowing ignorant non-believing fool will ask "But, if I'm a good person, won't God let me into heaven?"

At which point they will be verbally smacked down by whatever pious person they are conversing with, usually with a "Ha-ha no Billy, you'll burn in eternal hellfire by not accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour!"

[T@T]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I would call myself a creationist, but certianly not a "literal creationist." I don't think Religion should try to answer the question of "how?" - at least from a purely religious standpoint. let science do that.

Being a creationist you wont like the answer.

[Hack&Lube]

A Christian can hold the post of Minister of Science. The problem is that you always hope that ministers given a certain post or portfolio will have some understanding of the issues, how they impact society, how they are relevant to each other, etc.

The problem with the minister not answering the question is that you begin to question and doubt if he really is knowledgeble enough to handle the post with responsibility and execute it intelligently with the requisite knowledge and acceptance of the principles that it deserves.

It's like hearing that you have a finance minister who says that he won't confirm if he believes in banking because lending with interest is against his religious beliefs.

[photon]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

For me, I think I would tend to think of God being able to do both of those at the same time.

I guess, if God did the designing of the living things in such a way that they all look exactly like they're descended from a common ancestor. I don't like that idea because it makes God look deceptive.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by T@T

Being a creationist you wont like the answer.

Why not?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by photon

I guess, if God did the designing of the living things in such a way that they all look exactly like they're descended from a common ancestor. I don't like that idea because it makes God look deceptive.

Haven't you heard? God is being purposely deceptive to test your faith. That's why He put all those dinosaur bones in the ground and made them appear to be millions of years old when in reality He only created the heavens and the earth 6000 years ago.

[Hack&Lube]

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.

We all know what you are trying to say and what Evman is saying too. They are completely different things. You are trying to educate a very simple thing that most people get, and he is trying to challenge the semantics that make this discussion so irritating when the word theory is involved. From past threads, I think Evman is actually the guy who has the credentials to be talking about science...

[troutman]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Depending on the value of the density parameter, it's possible that the universe could continue to expand forever, eventually reach a maximum point of expansion and then begin to contract (possibly the Big Crunch), or reach a point of equilibrium where the universe maintains a constant size.

Wouldn't the constant universe go dark, when all the stars burn out? Can stars continue to be born indefinitely?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by troutman

Wouldn't the constant universe go dark, when all the stars burn out? Can stars continue to be born indefinitely?

No, eventually, all stars will burn out.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by troutman

Wouldn't the constant universe go dark, when all the stars burn out? Can stars continue to be born indefinitely?

From what I've read they cannot unless conditions are perfect. Reminds me of a Steven Baxter novel I read where eventually the human race (or whatever it became) was forced to create stars and energy by mining the deepest black hole type centers of galaxies. And that only extended their time in the universe, eventually everything did decay due to entropy.

Of course, that was based in an ever expanding universe. If the universe stopped expanding might that stop entropy? Are the two linked? Kind of like the expansion of the universe to spread apart is like the tendencies of particles and matter to spread apart after time. I dunno. Basically every particle eventually decays, and on a larger scale all matter eventually decays. But is that because the universe is expanding or is that because of something else. I dunno. I don't think so, but I have no clue.

My guess is that everything would eventually burn out even if the universe wasn't expanding. But maybe the two are mutually exclusive?

[MarchHare]

From past threads, I think Evman is actually the guy who has the credentials to be talking about science...

That sounds like an appeal to authority to me.

Nothing I've stated in this thread is inconsistent with the scientific method. Evman is proposing changing the discourse so that scientists start saying "fact" when they're talking about theories. I countered that there's no reason to change our language, and we'd be better served if we educated laypeople about the nuances of the scientific method and just what a theory means.