Posted on 03/18/2009 7:31:56 AM PDT by 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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theglobeandmail.com ...
Yes, I have spite for ignorance.
Ignorance like appointing a glorified masseuse to a science post.
Ignorance like this tool being asked a question about science and responds by talking about his religion.
Besides, most Creationists don’t actually disbelieve in evolution, they are just too dumb to realize what it is they believe.
Creationists believe human evolution over the last 100,000 or so years was all crammed into 6,000 years, a rate of evolution some 17 times as fast.
Creationists also believe that all species were descended from a few primordial “kinds” dropped off from a boat of known dimensions a few thousand years ago; a belief in a rate of evolution much faster than any that could be supported by observation.
So most Creationists do believe in evolution, they are just too ignorant to know it.
Darwinists today rely almost exclusively on government, media and academic control and philosophical/religious arguments
_________
Which of your categories does carbon dating techniques fall under?
You know- I keep hearing htat- but NEVEr see any evidence to support it-
_____
What specific scientific journals are you reading?
So they ask this nut job with a science post about a scientific subject (evolution) and he responds by talking about his religion?
What a whack job nut ball.
You are the one who believes that there is nothing about the mind that cannot be explained by chemistry but you also have a soul? What is the makeup of this soul? Does it interact with the brain?
Likewise, man made global warming is a fundamental cornerstone of atmospheric sciences. You cannot study or predict the weather without a deep belief in the need to fund more global warming research. I hereby declare anyone who doesn't want a massive carbon tax to be anti science.
Our physical cognition is absolutely dependent upon a physical brain and that is subject to scientific analysis.
But as a christian I also believe we have a spiritual consciousness that is not changed by any physical damage to the brain, the soul is not subject to scientific analysis as nobody can measure the soul.
What is the makeup of the soul? Spirit. It is not made of physical substance. That which is of this world is as dust, and to dust it will return. Our soul is eternal and immortal, as nothing composed of earthly things can be.
Do you think the soul is made up of physical things? Do smarter people have a bigger soul?
On the contrary, when you declare a field of inquiry off limits like the AGW fanatics try to do then science is only damaged and bad public policy is the result.
You claimed that everything about the brain can be explained using naturalistic science and that there is nothing mysterious about it. How do you reconcile this with your belief in a soul?
You are inconsistent.
You are incoherent, and apparently unable to answer my simple questions.
What do you think the soul is composed of?
If someones physical Brain is damaged, is their soul damaged?
Does someone with greater physical cognition have a larger soul?
Richard Dawkins admitted that it is possible that aliens seeded life on earth but that they must have evolved themselves. This tells me that Dawkins knows that the scientific proof that life evolved on earth is questionable.
Unless you think someone without a brain but with a soul would be capable of physical cognition; there is no contradiction in believing in a physical intelligence that is absolutely distinct from the soul.
You are incoherent, and apparently unable to answer my simple questions.
What do you think the soul is composed of?
If someones physical Brain is damaged, is their soul damaged?
Does someone with greater physical cognition have a larger soul?
Your questions are irrelevant but I'll answer them to humor you.
1. I don't know.
2. No.
3. No.
I am not the one claiming that there is nothing about the human brain that cannot be immediately explained by naturalistic science, that was you. If there is any interaction between a person's soul and their brain it wouldn't be explained by naturalistic science.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2202955/posts?page=102#102
No. I have a soul given to me by God. That is the “driver” that directs the machine.
Notice that I said that a “physical consciousness” necessitates a physical brain. I have faith that there is also a spiritual consciousness that is immortal and separate. The brain damaged may have trouble with consciousness, creativity, compassion, etc here on Earth; but the soul would not be impaired because it is immortal and separate and distinct from the physical brain.
And my argument was not just about brain activity, but all the elements that make the human brain a superior machine to less elaborate brains, a high performance machine that consumes significant resources in comparison to many other less cerebral animals.
How can the soul be the driver if every aspect of the brain can be explained with naturalistic science? I don't understand how you can reconcile your two religions.
You are not familiar that C-14 dating is now a solidly young-earth dating technique?
The presence of C-14 throughout the geologic record is solid evidence that it is only thousands, not millions of years old. It is unreasonable to say we are wallowing in contamination with every measurement. The labs are not that sloppy. And it would have decayed away entirely in less than a million years otherwise, so the ubiquitous presence of C-14 in coal, diamonds, etc. is good evidence for their youth.
As for general dating, it relied on the unsound notion that C-14 production/decay ratios are constant and have been for a long time. Yet measurements of the rate of production and decay of C-14 in the atmosphere have always shown an imbalance going back to Dr. Libby's original work.
Once you realize that there was much more C-12 in the biosphere before the Flood (thus diluting C-14 at that point and yielding inflated 'ages' using old-earth assumptions) the C-14 data fits perfectly with young-earth interpretations.
After the flood most C-12 was buried while C-14 has continued to accumulate, leading to a telescoping effect such that there is little variance in the dates under 2500-3000 years between old and young-earth models.
What part feature or capability of the brain do you think that mystical or magical or spiritual forces need to be invoked to explain?
Our brains are wondrous machines, but they are mechanical in nature, and like any machine, some perform better than others, and all eventually break down.
No aspect of the soul could be explained or described by science. The soul is not of this world, where all things are as dust.
If he takes any position but the hardline evo natural materialism, no God, random selection, must not mention God in public schools at all costs, position, he’s screwed as far as his job is concerned.
He’s wise to keep his mouth shut.
No, it's not the same. The ToE is not even in the same league as those other areas.
The macroevolution is based on the interpretation of the forensic evidence found in the fossil record. The kind of species to species change that is claimed by evos have never been observed but only assumed based on the fossil record.
I figured that the evos would want his head on a platter for not comforming to their world view, just like others whose careers have been ruined by the *scientific* community for not purporting the correct doctrinal position.
I’d say that the misister has proven his qualifications for the job with that statement.
Those that wrap themselves in the naturalist religion of evolution are prone to ignoring the abundant evidence that refutes their religious beliefs, thus crippling much of biology by diverting funds for research into dead end projects.
Saul of Tarsus didn’t hold a sensitive political position, where his espression of his religious beliefs would divert debate into irrelevent areas.
Sure, like no progress in biology was ever made until Darwin out forth his theory, which wasn't even widely accepted for some time.
I guess Mendel and Pasteur just didn't know what they were doing, did they?
Now really.....
What's his actual performance in his job got to do with ANYTHING?
You can't be serious that his job performance is more important than his belief system.
Evolution is definately not a fundamental principle of modern biology; its a deviant religious tennet that has diverted biological research money into propaganda mills, rather than the laboratory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.