Quote:
Originally Posted by CandleInTheDark
Yes I did see his response. I have said before but I will reiterate -- I do not expect a Minister or Secretary of Science to be able understand every, or even most, scientific theories because that knowledge is extremely specialized.
If we were to ask him if he believe in Super String Theory would we ridicule his answer? Would he (or any minister) have any clue what was being asked? He had given a clear, scientific answer would you expect the reporter to be able to understand it?
It is only the controversial nature of evolution that is bringing this to question, but that does not mean the minister should be expected to understand evolution as we would not expect him to understand the intricacies of other controversial science: nuclear power; cell biology of cloning; global warming; the merits of testing on animals; etc. That is the role of advisors to minister: if he needs to understand a subject, it will be the public servants who educate him.
|
It was the controversial nature of evolution that brought the question up but it was the controversial nature of his beliefs that caused him to give a stupid answer.
We're not talking about some esoteric field of science. We're talking about something that is routinely taught to highschool students. His science undestanding doesn't exceed that of highschool and he's the Minister of Science? That's embarrassing...
---------- Post added at 05:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed_Gibson
WTF? What creationist has ever been "suspicious" of science? That makes no sense at all. Does this mean that none of the great scientists in the past that did not believe in evolution were wrong somehow? 
to quote this page:
"Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, were believers in a recently created earth. The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history." |
Oh my god! That sounds reasonable to you?!
Ken Ham of the very organization of which you link is suspicious of science 'cause modern science doesn't allow for the viewing of phenomena through "biblical glasses."
It also doesn't follow that scientists who happen to be creationists did their science because of creationism. It also doesn't really make sense to call these people "creationists." There's a modern context to the term that doesn't apply to such a time. It's sort of like saying that Jesus was a Republican...
I also like how the most recent of the list of "creationist" scientists died in 1727. Way to stay up-to-date! Back then, they had no way of knowing the age of the Earth so why not believe it was young? There was no competing theory so they weren't "creationists" in the same sense we have creationists now. If they were alive today, I'm sure they wouldn't have denied an old Earth given all the facts...
Quote:
both evolutionists and creationists apply the same scientific prinicples to the same physical evidence/environments, just with different presuppositions.
edit: my bigger question here is how is a chiropractor a minister of science?
|
Actually, no they don't. Creationists don't test their theories at all. Instead, they evangelize them and say it must be true 'cause it supports the Bible. They won't even criticize each other, even when they make different claims. It's simply religion...
Another major difference is that if a scientist (the people you call "evolutionists") finds one of their presuppositions to be false, they're willing to change them! Creationists simply will not...
I'd answer the last part but it appears someone else has done this and did it well...