Science minister won't confirm belief in evolution

[Born_again]

Apologist's sentiments aside, Jonathan Kay asked the question:

....(Can anyone imagine the Globe pulling the same stunt against, say, a devout Muslim, or a Sikh, or a Québécois Catholic, or an aboriginal who believes the earth was given to us by a "Creator"?)

I bloody well hope so!!
Can you imagine the scandal if Richard Dawkins was elected to the board of directors at pastor Dave's Kelowna Christian Centre, with the portfolio of allocating a budget for biblical "discovery stuff"?

[Glacier]

I've modified your sentence a bit, Glacier...

I guess every single Prime Minister was unfit for office.

Nor arguments here.

I think this is one time where the moderators have no problem with you editing someone's quote.

[JonyDarko]

Apologist's sentiments aside, Jonathan Kay asked the question:

....(Can anyone imagine the Globe pulling the same stunt against, say, a devout Muslim, or a Sikh, or a Québécois Catholic, or an aboriginal who believes the earth was given to us by a "Creator"?)

I bloody well hope so!!
Can you imagine the scandal if Richard Dawkins was elected to the board of directors at pastor Dave's Kelowna Christian Centre, with the portfolio of allocating a budget for biblical "discovery stuff"?

*bleep*!

[JonyDarko]

My wife told me today that she heard on the radio the science minister does not think evolutionary theory to be false, but that he still thought the question was irrelevant. I think it is as relevant as it gets for a man in his position.

[FunkyBunch]

But would you condemn the man if believed in Supergravity Theory instead of String Theory? It really doesn't matter to me whether he believes evolution or not. At least until it's the Law of Evolution. As long as he doesn't interfere with science and gives funding to research that advances understanding or society who cares? It doesn't take a Theoretical Physicist to hand out funding to the sciences.

[JonyDarko]

No I wouldn't because both of those are at the very least sound, and have and will continue to go under peer review. See that is the magic right there funky, PEER REVIEW. You see religious folks who buy into creationism or what ever repacked name its being called today think that the opposition are against it because it tries"poorly" to include god into science and they are absolutely wrong. Its because BS hypothesis made by BS scientists with BS degrees don't tend to come under peer review.

On another slightly different note you may want to look into why Evolution will never be a law, and why that made me chuckle a bit.

[FunkyBunch]

I was just being facetious...
I just thought people were making too big a deal out of it. If he denied funding to scientists because they believed in evolution and he didn't, that would be unacceptable and rage worthy. As long he does his job correctly, I don't care if he believes the earth is still flat. It just seems that people get worked up over almost nothing these days.

[JonyDarko]

I see what you are saying, and think it is absurd. Call me crazy but if the surgeon general was asked if he thought smoking was dangerous and he said no and then went on to say that the question was irrelevant, i am guessing you along with many others would be shocked.

[steven lloyd]

I see what you are saying, and think it is absurd. Call me crazy but if the surgeon general was asked if he thought smoking was dangerous and he said no and then went on to say that the question was irrelevant, i am guessing you along with many others would be shocked.

Not quite the same thing as saying “I believe in the scientific theories of evolution, but the fact I don’t believe evolution was fluke random chance while you do is irrelevant to my position as Science Minister as it is an untestable personal belief which has no influence on my wish for for the continuation of unbiased, objective and critical scientific research”.

[JonyDarko]

No one believes evolution was fluke random chance...you must have missed the natural selection part, you know "survival of the fittest".

[steven lloyd]

No one believes evolution was fluke random chance...you must have missed the natural selection part, you know "survival of the fittest".

That one possible theory still doesn't necessarily contradict an additional unexplainable and untestable influence. You must be unable to grasp that part (not that it matters).

[sooperphreek]

who cares what his beliefs are? you have a 50/50 chance of being right in the debate. where does it say that you have to be a believer in evolution to be compitent in science?

[JonyDarko]

Where does it say you HAVE to believe in aerodynamics to be a pilot?

It is a relevant question.

[zzontar]

Where does it say you HAVE to believe in aerodynamics to be a pilot?

It is a relevant question.

Aerodynamics can be proven conclusivly, all life evolving from a primeval soup cannot... that's the difference.

[Mr Danksworth]

all life evolving from a primeval soup cannot... that's the difference.

'Has not' or 'can not?' Big difference. I'm fairly sure it will be figured out, and 'goddidit' will not be the answer.