Canadian Minister won't confirm belief in evolution - MSM reaction? KILL HIM!!

[PoliCon]

Posted: March 17, 2009, 10:57 AM by Jonathan Kay
Jonathan Kay

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.

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.

In a Tuesday front-page article — "Minister won't confirm belief in evolution: Researchers aghast that key figure in funding controversy invokes religion in science discussion" — Globe science writer Anne McIlroy breathlessly reports that "Canada's science minister [Gary Goodyear], the man at the centre of the controversy over federal funding cuts to researchers, won't say if he believes in evolution"; that "some have expressed concern that Mr. Goodyear, a chiropractor from Cambridge, Ont., is suspicious of science, perhaps because he is a creationist"; and that "Mr. Goodyear's evasive answers on evolution are unlikely to reassure the scientists who are skeptical about him."

In fact, Goodyear's remarks (delivered in a private interview with MccIlroy) seem to have been carefully considered words from a man trying conscientiously to balance his personal faith with his public responsibilities. To wit: "Obviously, I have a background that supports the fact I have read the science on muscle physiology and neural chemistry … 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."

CONTINUED (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/03/17/jonathan-kay-on-the-globe-amp-mail-s-appalling-front-page-smear-on-religious-christians.aspx) NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED! NO DISAGREEMENT PERMITTED!! :rolleyes:

[Gingersnap]

How is this different from a political purity test? How is it different from demanding that public figures affirm the Apostles' Creed? :confused:

[PoliCon]

How is this different from a political purity test? How is it different from demanding that public figures affirm the Apostles' Creed? :confused:

simple - Global warming and Darwinism are state sponsored religions. :rolleyes:

[The Night Owl]

simple - Global warming and Darwinism are state sponsored religions. :rolleyes:

Yeah... and add that silly theory of gravitation to the list of state sponsored religions. We should be teaching our kids real science... like Intelligent Falling. :rolleyes:

[Gingersnap]

Yeah... and add that silly theory of gravitation to the list of state sponsored religions. We should be teaching our kids real science... like Intelligent Falling. :rolleyes:

There doesn't need to be a requirement for policy makers to subscribe to particular specific points of view in science. In fact, speaking as someone who deals with policy-makers in science, it's a real impediment. Various fads and fashions in science can push policy in the wrong direction for years before the problem is untangled.

This happened with breast feeding, cholesterol production mechanisms, carb control in diabetes management, invasive species introduction, inter-regional pollutant transport impacts and many, many other issues. Policy-makers jumped on scientific propositions that sure seemed logical at the time and years later we are stuck with the ill-effects of that popularity.

I'd prefer policy-makers who were willing to consider the unintended consequences of politically popular issues and who used caution when considering all sides of the argument.

[PoliCon]

Yeah... and add that silly theory of gravitation to the list of state sponsored religions. We should be teaching our kids real science... like Intelligent Falling. :rolleyes:

Spoken like a true believer. :rolleyes: We can't allow conversation on any other theories. It's darwinism or nothing. :rolleyes:

[The Night Owl]

There doesn't need to be a requirement for policy makers to subscribe to particular specific points of view in science. In fact, speaking as someone who deals with policy-makers in science, it's a real impediment. Various fads and fashions in science can push policy in the wrong direction for years before the problem is untangled.

Agreed. Don't confuse my lack of respect for Mr. Goodyear with intolerance.

[The Night Owl]

Spoken like a true believer. :rolleyes: We can't allow conversation on any other theories. It's darwinism or nothing. :rolleyes:

Correct. The theory of evolution is currently the only scientific explantion for organic diversity on Earth. When a better explanation comes along, let me know about it. Claiming that a god did it is not a scientific explantion.

[PoliCon]

Correct. The theory of evolution is currently the only scientific explantion for organic diversity on Earth.

Go back and read my post again owl. I said DARWINISM. Not evolution. Two different things. :p

You guys are all the same. You assume that darwinism= evolution and that intelligent design = creationism.