Science Minister won't confirm belief in evolution

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

He was an atheist who set out to prove Christianity wrong - he went REALLY deep into all the facts, perhaps deeper than all but few have gone

I'm really sorry. I don't mean to make fun of your post or Strobel (I have one of his books someone gave me that I never bothered to read) but when I read this post I was laughing like crazy on the floor and just had to do this

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

I found this website online, it deals with whether there are any gods or not....

THE OFFICIAL GOD FAQ

edit: I am an agnostic, but I am bordering on atheism because I think religious zealots need to be shown that they are wrong. I have nothing against people who are moderates.

Hah, that's funny. I'd only change one word in the FAQ.

[You Need a Thneed]

Certainly his education doesn't mean he's an expert in every field, of course not. But neither does it mean that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about in other areas.

I'll just say this, whether he's an expert in the field or not, he's likely put more research into the area then all of us on here combined. (provided that none of us on here have a doctorate in the field.)

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by troutman

We can get in a plane and feel safe, even though most of us don't understand all the science about how a plane works. You still have to have "faith" in people - ie that the pilot knows what he is doing.

As photon said above, this is yet again another example of trusting the process.

In order to obtain a job flying for an airline, I know that the captain and first officer are licensed commercial pilots, have completed extensive training, have passed comprehensive medical exams within the last six months, are not flying while drunk or fatigued, receive routine emergency training in a simulator, and have literally thousands of hours of flying experience. I don't need to ask to see the pilot's license and logbook when I board the plane, because I know that to even get to that position he must already be an expert in his field.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I'm really sorry. I don't mean to make fun of your post or Strobel (I have one of his books someone gave me that I never bothered to read) but when I read this post I was laughing like crazy on the floor and just had to do this

LOL, really funny!

[troutman]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

As photon said above, this is yet again another example of trusting the process.

In order to obtain a job flying for an airline, I know that the captain and first officer are licensed commercial pilots, have completed extensive training, have passed comprehensive medical exams within the last six months, are not flying while drunk or fatigued, receive routine emergency training in a simulator, and have literally thousands of hours of flying experience. I don't need to ask to see the pilot's license and logbook when I board the plane, because I know that to even get to that position he must already be an expert in his field.

I agree with what you both are saying (my first sentence). In an emergency, you want a human pilot, not an auto-pilot. You are saying the pilot is entirely a product of the process, and that's why we can trust him(her). Isn't it more than that? We also have an understanding of human nature and what humans can do. I'm splitting hairs.

[OBCT]

Originally Posted by photon

Well actually I would disagree, those who believe what science says aren't having faith on what science says, they're accepting the strength of science itself.. science doesn't say things lightly or without support, so if something has passed through peer review and attained the status of a theory, I know that it has explanatory power, has made predictions that have been confirmed, etc.. So there's no faith involved.

True. It isn't just an individual or individuals. It is the strength of the group, the process, the method. Since it is generally understood what these are, then no, I suppose ... acceptance of that wouldn't require faith. Absolute acceptance might require a little faith that the individuals involved within the scientific group adhere to their own standards, but I realize that's trivial. Good points.

Originally Posted by photon

No theory is ever proven, proof is for mathematics, not science.

That was actually my point. I expect Five-hole knows the same.

Originally Posted by photon

Big Bang Theory is VERY well supported.

The common misconception though is that the big bang is about the origin of the universe; it isn't it's about the history of the universe from very early in time to now. We don't have any good theory about the origin of the universe (lots of hypothesis), and we probably won't until we have a good theory that incorporates both quantum theory and gravity.

I erroneously grouped it all together as one big theory. I see now that they're totally separate.

But this is fair. Scientists haven't come up with a good theory for this yet. They've come up with some incredible ones in the past, so who knows, one day it might happen. Or, it might not. Hopefully if it does, it will be understandable for laypeople like myself. I'd like to compare my faith in the Creator God to a plausible natural theory of our universe's origin.

Until then... lets get back to Mr. Goodyear. He said what!?!

[photon]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Again, the quote is just a brief summary of a much in depth book. Is the quote simplistic or maybe a little bit of hyberbole? Sure. That doesn't mean he's uninformed in the area.

Not hyperbole. Either he has a fundumental misunderstanding of the issues or he's grossly misrepresenting them to appeal to his audience for a soundbite (textbite?).

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Certainly his education doesn't mean he's an expert in every field, of course not. But neither does it mean that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about in other areas.

I'll just say this, whether he's an expert in the field or not, he's likely put more research into the area then all of us on here combined. (provided that none of us on here have a doctorate in the field.)

He may have a clue, and he may not have a clue. Fortunately there is a process to weed out those who do from those who don't, it's called peer review.

So if Strobel has something to contribute to science, biblical scholarship, or what have you then he should be submitting papers for publication to advance science.

From what I've seen though he doesn't actually contribute anything new, just more of the common arguments.

If you have something specific though that he says that you find compelling, bring it up and it can be discussed.

[photon]

Originally Posted by OBCT

True. It isn't just an individual or individuals. It is the strength of the group, the process, the method. Since it is generally understood what these are, then no, I suppose ... acceptance of that wouldn't require faith. Absolute acceptance might require a little faith that the individuals involved within the scientific group adhere to their own standards, but I realize that's trivial. Good points.

True, you do have to accept a few axioms on faith, like reality exists, etc.. And you have to believe that there isn't some grand atheist conspiracy, and even then science has show that in cases where scientists have been dishonest or sloppy, eventually it gets found out and removed from the body of scientific knowledge. This has happened many times.

Originally Posted by OBCT

That was actually my point. I expect Five-hole knows the same.

Ah ok, that's what I get for jumping in the middle

Originally Posted by OBCT

But this is fair. Scientists haven't come up with a good theory for this yet. They've come up with some incredible ones in the past, so who knows, one day it might happen. Or, it might not.

Yup hard to say.. One problem is it appears the universe is larger (possibly much larger or infinitely larger) than our Hubble horizon, so we are forever isolated from part of the universe. So some assumptions we make (like the universe being homogeneous and isotropic, based on observation) might in fact be incorrect, but we might never know it because it's beyond our ability to ever see (given the speed of light).

Plus we know our theory of gravity is incorrect, and our theories break down when we hit singularities (a singularity means undefined) so we don't have the necessary tools yet to construct a theory. Yet.

Originally Posted by OBCT

Hopefully if it does, it will be understandable for laypeople like myself. I'd like to compare my faith in the Creator God to a plausible natural theory of our universe's origin.

I dunno, I have enough trouble understanding the full implications of relativity as it is, let alone quantum theory.

Or it'll just push things back another notch.. we'll find out our universe is a result of a collision of 2 branes in whatever realm branes live, but who created the branes?

Mmmm... branes...

[Azure]

Strobel is a journalist. Not a scientist, or anything of that ilk, unless he recently got a degree I haven't read about.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Daradon

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

FWIW, there is considerable evidence that looks as though the universe will never stop expanding, as the dark energy powering the expansion is sufficient to overcome gravity, and that eventually the structure of space itself may decay into nothingness; the universe will be a huge empty place for a long while, and then disintegrate into non-being.

The Ultimate State of the Universe is a good summary of the possibilities.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by jammies

FWIW, there is considerable evidence that looks as though the universe will never stop expanding, as the dark energy powering the expansion is sufficient to overcome gravity, and that eventually the structure of space itself may decay into nothingness; the universe will be a huge empty place for a long while, and then disintegrate into non-being.

The Ultimate State of the Universe is a good summary of the possibilities.

That I did know, i was just responding to what might be if the universe did start to contract and then find an equilibrium (and a specific question that was asked therein).

And again, it was all just based on stuff I read and my loose grasp of some concepts. I'm no physicist.

[ShaolinFlame]

Does anybody else find it a little funny that many people are presenting theories as to why Mr. Goodyear having these beliefs is bad for Canada, but not a single post has had any facts or data of studies that have or have not been canceled by his department?

I just find it ironic (I think) that the debate about The Minister himself has been little more than empty rhetoric. Not very scientific if you ask me... (Double Standard?)

Until I see all of the evolution studies he has canceled, and Christian Colleges he has funded, I am not going to pass any judgment. Talk about derailed thread.

[photon]

Everyone is throwing out theories about why this is bad for Canada?

I don't think everyone is. I didn't for one.

With stuff like the chair of the Texas State Board of Education recommending board members read a book called Sowing Atheism: The National Academy of Sciences' Sinister Scheme to Teach Our Children They're Descended from Reptiles., it's understandable to be a little bit on guard.

[Thor]

Neil Degrasse Tyson should go visit our Science minister and teach him about 'stupid design:'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1cKD93W3yg 5mins

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by ShaolinFlame

Does anybody else find it a little funny that many people are presenting theories as to why Mr. Goodyear having these beliefs is bad for Canada, but not a single post has had any facts or data of studies that have or have not been canceled by his department?

I just find it ironic (I think) that the debate about The Minister himself has been little more than empty rhetoric. Not very scientific if you ask me... (Double Standard?)

Until I see all of the evolution studies he has canceled, and Christian Colleges he has funded, I am not going to pass any judgment. Talk about derailed thread.

I think it's a legitimate concern that the minister of science doesn't want to talk about his scientific beliefs because they interfere with his religious beliefs.

I know what you're saying, but as it's been said, it makes it hard to put ones faith in the guy. (Not sure if the pun was intended) Yes nothing has happened YET, but it's still cause for concern.

Besides debate doesn't adhere to (nor does it need to) the same rules as science. Political decisions affect our lives and we would hope the positions that are filled are filled by people who are well suited to the task. Both in ability and belief. If they are not, we have a right to know.

You wouldn't put a holocaust denier in a foreign position or a draft dodger in a military affairs position would you? (generic terms I know) Even if they hadn't done anything in their political careers for or against those beliefs.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by photon

Everyone is throwing out theories about why this is bad for Canada?

I don't think everyone is. I didn't for one.

With stuff like the chair of the Texas State Board of Education recommending board members read a book called Sowing Atheism: The National Academy of Sciences' Sinister Scheme to Teach Our Children They're Descended from Reptiles., it's understandable to be a little bit on guard.

Wow thats truly scary, its almost like the type of books being read by politicians in the racist parts of US history about black inferiority, blacks likelyhood for crime, etc..

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

Wow thats truly scary, its almost like the type of books being read by politicians in the racist parts of US history about black inferiority, blacks likelyhood for crime, etc..

HAHA, Thor, it's not even close. Oh the melodrama...

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

HAHA, Thor, it's not even close. Oh the melodrama...

Right:

SowingRace: The National Academy of Liberals Sinister Scheme to Teach Our Children They're Descended from Blacks.

As long as you don't see how the hatred and outright bigotry towards Atheists isn't comparable to anything in history, you are correct.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

Right:

As long as you don't see how the hatred and outright bigotry towards Atheists isn't comparable to anything in history, you are correct.

I'm waiting for the lynchings... Come on, saying stuff like that just makes you look ridiculous.

EDIT: Not that the textbook isn't outrageous, but you kind of switched it up.