Minister won't confirm belief in evolution

Globe and Mail ^ | March 17, 2009 | ANNE MCILROY

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Canada's science minister, the man at the centre of the controversy over federal funding cuts to researchers, won't say if he believes in evolution.

“I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate,” Gary Goodyear, the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

A funding crunch, exacerbated by cuts in the January budget, has left many senior researchers across the county scrambling to find the money to continue their experiments.

Some have expressed concern that Mr. Goodyear, a chiropractor from Cambridge, Ont., is suspicious of science, perhaps because he is a creationist.

When asked about those rumours, Mr. Goodyear said such conversations are not worth having.

Brian Alters, founder and director of the Evolution Education Research Centre at McGill University in Montreal, was shocked by the minister's comments

“It is the same as asking the gentleman, ‘Do you believe the world is flat?' and he doesn't answer on religious grounds,” said Dr. Alters. “Or gravity, or plate tectonics, or that the Earth goes around the sun.”

[tacticalogic]

So the presence of C-14 in coal and diamonds conventionally thought to be hundreds of millions of years old is strong evidence they are not that old at all.

It is evidence. On what criteria is the evidence being qualified as "strong" or "weak"?

[tacticalogic]

C-14 has a half-life of only ~5.7 KYA. At this rate after 10 half-lives (c. 57,000 years) less than 1/1000 of the original portion of C-14 would remain. After a million years a mass of C-14 the size of the earth would have completely decayed, not even a single atom of C-14 remaining. So the presence of C-14 in coal and diamonds conventionally thought to be hundreds of millions of years old is strong evidence they are not that old at all.

Are you disputing the physicist's claims that trace amounts of C-14 are being constantly created in the atmosphere by cosmic rays colliding with Nitrogen atoms?

[gracesdad]

“I became convinced of a young earth because of the scientific evidence and the fact that the creation model explained it far better than old-earth models.”

Creationism, that’s some really solid science. Not.

[editor-surveyor]

My reasoning was that his answer proved that he objected to the religious bias, and thus posessed the proper attitude for objectivity.

[tacticalogic]

My reasoning was that his answer proved that he objected to the religious bias, and thus posessed the proper attitude for objectivity.

People arrive at "correct" opinions all the time through reasoning that is of highly questionable objectivity.

[editor-surveyor]

Yes Dr.Science.

[editor-surveyor]

"People arrive at "correct" opinions all the time through reasoning that is of highly questionable objectivity."

A bigger pile of barbara streisand has never been laid! - Did you mean "once in a blue moon?"

[tacticalogic]

I meant what I said, and the process of determing that he arrived at the correct answer doesn’t appear to be within cruise missile range of objectivity to start with.

[editor-surveyor]

You haven’t the slightest idea what science is.

[CottShop]

[[Actually, it’s more likely that his opinions DO jive with the masses. Just not the self-appointed elite.]]

Lol- tis true-

[tacticalogic]

You can think so if you want to.

[MrB]

Someone’s reply to my sarcastic post was that

biology without Darwinism is just a collection of “random facts” with no cohesiveness.

First of all, that’s nonsense, as you’ve pointed out.

Second of all, I would challenge anyone that tries to hold this position to give me an example of a discovery that couldn’t have been made if approached from the mindset of “let’s try to figure out how & why God created this structure or system in this manner”
as opposed to “let’s see how/why natural selection produced this system or structure”.

I doubt that I could get an honest analysis out of a Darwinist, however, just like you can’t ask a cultist to logically analyze his cult beliefs.

[RoadTest]

“Saul of Tarsus didn’t hold a sensitive political position, where his espression of his religious beliefs would divert debate into irrelevent areas.”

In other words, he wasn’t a spineless jellyfish or politician.

[gracesdad]

“Yes Dr.Science.”

Look who’s talking.

[Mr Rogers]

So without using evolution, I can’t discuss or understand exercise physiology? I can’t understand dog behavior? I can’t understand cellular biology? Anatomy?

I didn’t realize so much depended on evolution!

Here’s a hint - Biology doesn’t need a unifying principle.

[Liberty1970]

Are you disputing the physicist's claims that trace amounts of C-14 are being constantly created in the atmosphere by cosmic rays colliding with Nitrogen atoms?

Good grief, of course not.

[Tribune7]

“It is the same as asking the gentleman, ‘Do you believe the world is flat?' and he doesn't answer on religious grounds,” said Dr. Alters. “Or gravity, or plate tectonics, or that the Earth goes around the sun.”

So why doesn't anybody ask those questions?

[jalisco555]

So without using evolution, I can’t discuss or understand exercise physiology? I can’t understand dog behavior? I can’t understand cellular biology? Anatomy?

You can understand dog behavior better if you understand where dogs came from. You can understand anatomy better if you understand changes over time. You can understand cellular biology better if you understand the molecular changes that drive evolution, such as random mutation.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[tacticalogic]

Then the fact that new C-14 is being created makes the argument that the existence of C-14 is evidence of a young earth rather tenuous. There will always be C-14, no matter how old it is.