MSD

globeandmail.com: Minister won't confirm belief in evolution
Evolution is not a question of religion, it's a theory substantiated by mountains of evidence, has no valid competing theories, and as proposed necessitated the discovery of future evidence like the fossil record and genetics to validate it. Scientists don't like speaking in absolutes, which is why you won't hear most saying it's a 100% proven fact, but it's as close to it as you can get. On top of this, he's a chiropractor (practitioner of quack medicine,) and the coil that wraps around the radiator hose to improve fuel economy is an old car scam.

It's refreshing to see that we Americans aren't the only ones with dumbasses in office. I don't think any less of Canada for it (although my Canadian friends sure are going to hear about it!) but I have my doubts about the wisdom they've displayed in selecting officials. I assume that this is the equivalent of a cabinet member or advisor appointed by the US president (maybe parliament does it there?) and not an elected position.

How much power does he have? The article mentions funding to researchers, is this kind of non-science-based thinking a threat to important research programs, maybe similar to the way the US had a ban on stem cell research that set us back a few years?

What do you Canadians think about this? Are you comfortable with this guy serving in your government? Will you demand that he resign?

What does everyone else think about it? I sympathize with the sound-minded neighbors to the north who have probably been laughing at my country for years with its <50% acceptance of evolution and an 8-year war on science by the White House.

genuinegirly

It's an interesting article to bring to discussion.

I am not Canadian, nor do I live in Canada, nor do I know much about Canadian politics.

I'm an American plant physiologist (botanist) who is also a practicing Catholic. I view evolution as a highly likely reality. I do not view the theory as interfering with my religion. A a scientist and a Catholic, I realize that I don't understand all things, nor do I want to. There are some things that I don't bother to test because I agree with the methods that others have used to reach their conclusions. I'd rather run with the dominant theory that allows me to further my research and helps me to make connections that are likely to benefit people. If understanding how a protein or signaling pathway has evolved over time in various plant families will help me to develop a crop that can withstand an environmental extreme, then I'm going to work to understand its evolution.

I do understand how the question might link to religion, and some then would prefer not to discuss the topic. I can see especially how a politician would wish to avoid such questions - they do not wish to make enemies of other Christians in their country if they are to say that they believe in evolution. They do not wish to have scientists disagreeing with them if they say they are a ceationist. If policy is indeed not affected by his beliefs, I do not see that it is a relavent question. Sadly, our biases always shape our decisions, no matter how we try to avoid them.

In my experience, those who do not wish to discuss their belief/disbelief in evolution are closet creationists.

__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq

"violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

Baraka_Guru

The bottom line is that the science minister probably doesn't believe in evolution, but this doesn't really matter as much as the fact that he's a former chiropractor who undervalues lab research and would rather commercialize technology than fund important research. Way to sell out the country's health and science industries.

That said, I'm not comfortable with having a creationist as a science minister and I didn't vote for the Tories, nor will I in the foreseeable future. If he thinks the world is only 10,000 years old and that we're completely unrelated to chimpanzees, he shouldn't be in a position that decides who gets funding for research or other projects across the country.

Basically, we have a creationist in charge of federally funded scientific initiatives. Nice, eh?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

silent_jay

I got a kick out of him saying evolution was us evolving to handle sunburns better or something like that, fuckin guys a bit of an idiot in my opinion.

I'm with Baraka, not comfortable with a creationist as our science minister, also I didn't vote for the tories and never will, ever, it won't happen. I'd like to see him resign his post, or have Canadians protest until he fucks off and resigns, as he has no business deciding who gets funding, if he doesn't believe in it how can he be in charge of it? Also, how does a chiropractor get the portfolio as science minister? I've been to chiropractors, and well they're kind of quacks, whatever they 'fix' I don't know, aside from padding their wallets, surely the tories have someone more qualified for the portfolio than this guy.

Then again I think we can fuck off a lot of the tories, especially the MP in my riding who didn't even bother showing up for the all candidates debates during the lasat election yet the morons in Renfrew-Nippising-Pembroke still voted for the dumb twat. Fuckin mind boggling this country of mine sometimes.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

highthief

Another side effect of the Harper government alas. You should be a scientist to be science minister, be Catholic to be the Pope, etc.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

CandleInTheDark

Um, this is old news. The Science Minister has since stated he believes in evolution. Not that the question had anything to do with any current policy.

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

Willravel

How did he get to be science minister?

Baraka_Guru

He's an elected member of parliament. His Tory party is the leading party and he was appointed by the party leader and prime minister Stephen Harper. Prior to politics, he worked as an advisor to investment firms in the biomedical industry. Maybe Harper liked that.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

So he was a creationist elected by conservatives into a scientific position.

Please, Canada, learn from our mistakes.

CandleInTheDark

This story is dead ... he is not a creationist. On CTV's Power Play, Gary Goodyear has told guest host Jane Taber "of course I believe in evolution."

Something out of nothing...mountain out of a mole hill. Add your own cliche.

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

highthief

I don't consider it "old news" - you don't "believe" in evolution anymore than you "believe" in gravity or the internal combustion engine.

As long as that is the mindset, there is a problem.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

CandleInTheDark

That is a little misleading. The internal combustion engine exists, as does gravity. But theories of thermodynamics, chemical energy and reactivity, the mechanics and cause of gravity, or the mechanisms of evolution are all debateable, updateable (yes I made that up), and refutable theories. Science has to, and does, work that way. One does indeed believe in scientific theory, and while such belief is certainly more logically sound than beliefs in toothfairies and gods, it still requires an analyzation of evidence and comparison with competing theories.

But does anyone expect a Minister (or Secretary as it were in the States) to have knowledge and belief in every theory of science? I would hope not -- I doubt any elected government can exlain super-string theory or quantum gravity or differentiate between mechanisms of evolution or debate the virtues of Clementsian forest succession in forest management. That is what his advisors, the bureaucrats are for. Science requires such specialized knowledge that it would be insane to expect a minister be cable of comparing quantum and Newtonian gravity and still have enough room in his brain to understand the myriad of minor fields in biology, chemistry, engineering etc.

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

highthief

No, evolution exists - it's been proven both in the wild and in controlled conditions. The "how" of evolution does get tweaked now and again as we learn about the different ways populations are affected by different stresses and opportunities, but general evolutionary principles are scientific facts.

"Belief" is simply faith - and there is a role for faith in everyone's lives, whether that is faith in God or gods, faith in your favourite sports team, or any other uncontrollable, undefinable, thing that is not affected by logic or experimentation.

You cannot "believe" in science. You can debate certain theories, you can offer proofs or evidence that may change certain theories or expound upon them but that is a different animal from "belief" or "faith".

I don't require the science minister to be able to explain or debate every scientific theory under the sun, but I'd hope he understand the difference between belief and science, between proveable fact and unproveable faith.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

CandleInTheDark

Yes evolution does exist, it is indeed a scientific face that has been observed -- most notably in the experiments with Darwin's Finches on the Galapagos Islands. But evolutionary principles are not fact: natural selection, kin selection, sexual selection, etc. are mechanisms proposed for by theory as to why evolution exists and how it functions. They can be changed or modified, or as has been done repeatedly through history -- discarded. The phenomenon is different from our explanation; the explanation requires us to review the facts and posit a logical and believable explanation of those facts.


This quite simplification of the concept of belief. Faith is a belief, but not all belief is faith. When we convict a person in court, it is not (usually) an article of faith but a refined examination of facts to come to a conclusion which we believe in.

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

KnifeMissile

Did you see his alleged belief in evolution?

Does this sound like a guy who even understands the theory of biological evolution?

Sadly, I think it's pretty telling when your response to a question on science is “I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate...”

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.

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

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."

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?

__________________
Started talking to yourself I see.
Yes, it's the only way I can be certain of an intelligent conversation.

Black Adder

Leto

He is minister because he was appointed as such by his leader, PM Harper. Typically when the elected party has to put together a cabinet to handle portfolios, he will weigh capabilities, prior experience etc for fit. As Baraka_guru stated earlier, he had experience with industry in this respect and probably seemed to be a good fit to Harper.

As for religion / science, why the dichotomy? Surely religious people, creationist and what have you can support the concept of the framework of the scientific method? I mean, it takes acceptance of the method, and initial step of acceptance, to frame your paradigm of observation of fact around the scientific method. It wasn't always the paradigm of favour, and it may fall out of favour years, centuries hence.

Nor is it unreasonable for scientists to put down creationists as being wacky, simply because the primo facto is not measureable. Our microscope may not be strong enough to measure and prove the existance of a creator, and nor can it be scientifically disproved.

So. the 10,000 year timescale is also should not be preceived in terms of the modern literal concept of years as well. You may as well say 10,000 units of time (as there is great relativistic variability in time/space depending upon location of perception) So the phrase 10,000 yrs is almost meaningless for scientists. The point is, there was an event, a very long time ago that was the genesis of our current universe.


You can be a creationist and a scientist. I have never seen the need for the one to be against the other, unless there is a political agenda.

__________________
You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before
You held my hand and we walked home the long way
You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

KnifeMissile

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 ----------

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...

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...

MSD

I would hope that someone in charge of science funding would understand one of the most fundamental scientific theories. To deny evolution is to deny genetics and the fossil record.
Only if he said yes.
I disagree. You can be religious and a scientist, but to hold the writing in an old book over mountains of evidence and deny one of the most comprehensive theories out there shows a disregard for common sense and acceptance of evidence. Science is the process of testing theories until you find one that adequately explains the results. Evolution is a fact, and if you can't accept that, you are either misinformed or blinded by ideology, and not thinking scientifically.

Speed_Gibson

Precisely right. I do not see how there can be be opposition there, unless you define "science" in a narrow fashion.
As succintly stated in a signature on here "blind faith runs into things"

__________________
Started talking to yourself I see.
Yes, it's the only way I can be certain of an intelligent conversation.

Black Adder

KnifeMissile

Wow, how did I let this post slip by?

There isn't necessarily a dichotomy between religion and science. It depends on the religion. I can engineer a religion that doesn't interfere with science. Hell, if I were to do some research, perhaps I can find one!

Catholicism may come close. For example, they are officially agnostic over the issue of evolution. Past and present popes have said that it is a scientific fact that people should appreciate. However, they haven't made it a part of their doctrine so you're not required to accept it to be catholic. While it seems obvious that a religion needn't attach itself to scientific findings, this hasn't always been true. That's why they're taking this stance now; they've learned from their past mistakes. If your religion makes scientific claims then science can prove your religion wrong!

This is, of course, my point. Religion needn't interfere with science but if your religion makes scientifically testable claims, then the two will conflict! This is the case with Creationism, a very particular brand of one of the Abrahamic religions. In North America, this will be fundamentalist Christianity...

On the contrary! I'd say more but I suspect you may be confused with what is meant by the term "creationist." At the very least, creationism is the very antithesis of science...

Where do I start?

Creationists are using the "modern literal concept of year" so we can use that term to show their error. Years as a measurement of time is not meaningless to scientists. Because we understand spacetime as well as we do, we can make sense of time and space regardless of the reference frames at play. Finally, creationism says a lot more than that there was merely a beginning, hence the conflict...

It's actually rather difficult to be a creationist and a scientist. You'd have to study a field of science far removed from the claims of creationism, like material science or something...

Speed_Gibson

It is not difficult at all to be a scientist and a creationist - there are many respected people out there with PhDs and similar degrees that have done/are doing important work in all fields of science and believe in a young earth. All of creation speaks to God's handiwork and is a testament to to him. Seeing wonders like the USA's Grand Canyon or the great rift in Africa just to name two are countless examples of the great deluge.

__________________
Started talking to yourself I see.
Yes, it's the only way I can be certain of an intelligent conversation.

Black Adder

Strange Famous

I personally do not believe that evolution explains the existance of life, or the soul. In fact, I think it is self evident and very clearly understood that it does not. Certainly adaption to the environment can and has caused dramatic changes in species... and certainly I don't believe the world is 6000 years old. I also do not believe that the origin of humankind is a single cell organism created by a chance mixing of chemicals and a spark of electricity.

Evolution can be a religion certainly.

Some Christians would say that to believe in dinosaurs is a sin.

Some people would say that to believe what I do makes me a superstitious moron.

In my opinion both views are highly dogmatic.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

KnifeMissile

I hope that last part was mere hyperbole 'cause that's seriously not the theory of abiogenesis. Were you serious with that comment?

Actually, there's a lot of strong evidence that common ancestry goes all the way back to single cellular organisms. Before that, the notion of ancestry is not well defined. Out of curiosity, how far do you think it goes back?

While I appreciate that you're not saying that it is a religion, how do you propose that it can be? In what manner have people turned it into a religion? I suspect you're using a very loose definition of religion that is not meaningful...

I don't think dogma is what you think it is. If you're superstitious and I call you a superstitious moron, that's not an example of dogmatic behavior, that'd just be me pointing out your superstitious idiocy. For that to be dogma, you'd have to say something reasonable and I'd need to deny it regardless of what you said because some doctrine says I should. That doctrine is said to be the dogma.

For instance, creationists are dogmatic because they reject evolution, geology and astronomy (among many other fields) because of their adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible. This doesn't apply to someone who merely thinks your superstitions are silly...

Speed_Gibson

Anyone who rejects geology and astronomy is foolish, particularly because of their holy scripture of choice. Proper creationists just interpret the physical evidence we see all through a different framework than the advocates of darwinian evolution. Stuying both of those fields is critical to understanding past events as best we can.

__________________
Started talking to yourself I see.
Yes, it's the only way I can be certain of an intelligent conversation.

Black Adder

Strange Famous

In my opinion, extremists on both side treat the theory they hold as true as an article of faith. Faith in science can be as blind as faith in theology - they both have the characteristics of religious belief and dogma.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

KnifeMissile

Well, it's good to hear your opinion...

It depends on whom you're talking about. Perhaps you can call random yahoos on the internet dogmatic. It depends on why they support evolution. Would you call qualified biologists dogmatic? Would you call me dogmatic for holding fast to the claim that the Earth is round?

Having some of the qualities of something doesn't make for that something. A zeal for a subject may have some qualities of a religion but it's pure hyperbole to say that it is a religion...

Strange Famous

In terms of its own internal logic, the theory of intelligent design is perfect. Because, if for God ALL things are possible - what does it matter what some human dates a piece of rock as? What does it matter what he thinks of some fossil?

Science is the same, it is ruled by an internal logic. A logic which, for example, might say that there is no proof of ghosts when millions of humans have observed them, and yet say there is definite proof of the existence a 45 foot python even though only 500 people have observed it (as an example, you understand)

Science sets its own standards by which to test itself. Science knew that the earth was flat, that black skinned people had smaller brains, that lead could be turned into gold... maybe some of things we know today will prove equally false in the future. Science is limited by the observations that it is capable of making within its limitations and narrow frame of reference.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

KnifeMissile

I don't doubt that intelligent design is internally consistent. That's not relevant to its truth. It's not hard to construct an argument that's logically consistent but false.

What's the point of this argument? Not only was none of your alleged examples determined by science, in the modern sense of the word, but the fact that science has been wrong about certain things in the past does not mean that it's worth believing in anything; as if to think that science could be wrong so why not believe this? In fact, in a sense, nothing in science is ever "true" so the idea of holding out hope in something that has been scientifically shown to be false because some scientific findings have been false is stupid.

The difference between science and religion is that the former is an objective method for determining properties of nature while the latter is an arbitrary doctrinal belief on how to live your life. They are simply not comparable...

MSD

The big bang and evolution are a greater testament to the beauty of God's creation and his omnipotence than to say he simply willed the universe into existence in 6 days. If he could make lightning strike mud and end up with modern humans and other animals a few billion years later, that's pretty impressive.

Nobody important has thought that the earth is flat for thousands of years. Alchemy had nothing to to do with anything that could be considered science in a modern context, and was simply based on . Overwhelming racism did pollute intellect for centuries, but true scientists came to realize that data did not support the prevailing theories, so they discarded them. Science has led to the triumph of evidence-based beliefs over both harmless and harmful falsehoods.

Evolution is a lot more complicated than its commonly known form. Not only did Darwin propose natural selection based on his observations, the theory necessitated future discoveries to confirm it; for example, a genetic mechanism to pass traits on was necessary, and it was discovered. If you accept genetics as fact, you are also accepting that some genes are better than others and will increase an organism's chance of survival to sexual maturity, and that some genes are inferior and will decrease that chance, and that there is a certain non-deterministic chance of genetic mutation. With that established, you can only conclude that over a long enough period of time, organisms will evolve. To deny evolution is to deny genetics.
It's simple. A non-falsifiable argument is internally consistent but may contradict scientific arguments.

KnifeMissile

Creationists don't just interpret evidence differently, they shoehorn them into a preconceived version of history and they have to ignore a lot of evidence to do even that! Instead of looking for what most likely happened, they look for evidence of how their holy scriptures could be plausible and rationalize how the evidence against their stories can be ignored, if they deal with them at all...