Comments for The Shy Minister at http://www.randi.org/site , comment 1 to 27 out of 20 comments http://www.randi.org/site Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:41:20 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/477-the-shy-ministger.html#comment-4713 [quote]Radio works without gravity, as do computers. For that matter, there's a simple machine that works without gravity. It's called a lever.[/quote] Wow, ok. Let's see you make a radio or a computer without gravity. and a lever, well without gravity you wouldn't NEED a lever... - Steel Rat Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:43:50 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/477-the-shy-ministger.html#comment-4209 Knitwit wrote: "I'm going to talk to a good scientist I know and see if I can come up with an example of technological development related to evolution because something is rattling around in my head but it's very late and I can't think of it. " The development of new antibiotics is driven by the evolution of drug resistant bacteria. I believe the manufacture of monoclonal antibodies uses techniques derived from the study of evolution. [quote][/quote] - Marlinspike Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:01:03 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/477-the-shy-ministger.html#comment-4133 re. danieljref ... It's disappointing that so many will down-vote a post because it does not jive with the mantra. - pxatkins Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:38:50 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/477-the-shy-ministger.html#comment-4086 One does not 'use' evolution as a tool, nor does one use most scientific laws that way either. It's interesting you mention radio as something you use- that technology works without evolution. Consider vacuum tubes and how the evolution of semiconductors has changed all that. You don't 'use' gravity, but you're held to it's constraints and behavior for your entire existence. Same follows for evolution. - SalzVR6 Sun, 22 Mar 2009 05:04:16 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/477-the-shy-ministger.html#comment-4075 Technology may WORK without evolution, but the science behind technology is part and parcel to evolution. You cannot separate out evolution from the rest of science. I'm going to talk to a good scientist I know and see if I can come up with an example of technological development related to evolution because something is rattling around in my head but it's very late and I can't think of it. - knitwit Sat, 21 Mar 2009 19:16:06 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/477-the-shy-ministger.html#comment-4063 Kuroyume wrote: [quote]Evolution is as much an underpinning pillar of science as gravity, electromagnetics, and chemistry. Very little of our technology would work without them either.[/quote] Perhaps you'd like to rephrase. How often do you use evolution in daily life? Thinking about it and feeling good about being superior to people who believe in nonsense doesn't count. You're verging on worshipping evolution. ALL of our technology works without evolution. Radio works without gravity, as do computers. For that matter, there's a simple machine that works without gravity. It's called a lever. I would tell you screw, too, but there's some debate about that. - Caller X Sat, 21 Mar 2009 08:52:52 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/477-the-shy-ministger.html#comment-4053 I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with Daniel. While I believe the evidence supporting evolution is significant, if not almost overwhelming, it is still not a fact - it is a "theory", as compared to a "law". The fact that it is still a theory is one of the great aspects of science. I do know that I have pressured my local MP to have the conservative party reconsider Mr. Goodyear as the Minister of State for Science & Technology, as he is not worthy of the position. A little too much woo for me. (I have traditionally supported the conservative party, in its various forms, in Canada). (for reference, I consider the "right wing" of Canada to be more aligned with the American Democrats than the Rebulicans). - brucea Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:14:04 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/477-the-shy-ministger.html#comment-4038 Sad. If you don't understand how science works you shouldn't be the minister of science and technology. You can't deny that evolution is fact (in the same sense gravity is) and be able to do your job properly. I support the conservatives in Canada, but they do a lot of sad things and this is one of them. I repeat, evolution is fact. What is not clear is the mechinisms of how evolution works. Intelligent educated people accept that gravity, chemistry, geology and evolution are all fields based on facts, and they are explained by theories that are continually being refined. The world may be 7 billion years old, or 8. This is debatable. It is not 10 years old, or 6500 years old or even 10 million years old. The evidence is overwhelming. It is also not a trillion years old. Period. - Bill Henry Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:30:04 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/477-the-shy-ministger.html#comment-4016 @danieljref: So you really think evolution theory was arrived at in the same manner as, say creationism, christianity or any religious belief? - Bruno Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:54:07 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/477-the-shy-ministger.html#comment-4011 I have no inside-track on what the Minister does or does not believe, I'm left to speculate with the rest of the world. If one views it from a political point of view, there is no win to answer a "belief" question. If someone asks me if I "believe" in Evolution, I might assume they're asking a religious question, or setting me up for a follow-up religious question. IMHO, don't ask about beliefs if you want to discuss science... Neither do I confess belief in Evolution, I do accept evolution as the best (only) explanation to fit the currently available evidence. I think we need some perspective on the whole issue. Adherence to Scientism (unrelated to Scientology) does not automatically confer immunity from crackpot theories... There is a lunatic wandering around who is credited with co-discovering DNA. While I'd prefer the portfolio be held by an individual strongly able to advocate for Science, I'm not yet prepared to hang the guy for avoiding what he saw as a potential Kobayashi Maru... He is after all doing what a politician does, prevaricating.... While I'm not a big fan of NOMA because I think it grants religions too much, it is an elegant policy which I'm surprised more politicians don't embrace. Cheers, Arkayik - Arkayik Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:55:41 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/477-the-shy-ministger.html#comment-4002 Firstly, I would guess that a government "science and technology" minister would be oriented towards practical application of the physical sciences such as agricultural innovations, synthetic paving materials and environmental protection and the like. Although it is laughable that such a figure would be a creationist it wouldn't really affect his job performance. Secondly, the presumption that Canada is somehow inherently more rational or scientific than the US seems to me to be chauvinistic posturing and pretense more than anything else. Sure, the science dweebs in high school were boring, but boring does not necessarily equal smart. - bosshog Thu, 19 Mar 2009 03:34:18 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/477-the-shy-ministger.html#comment-3984 Given that his first response was to equate evolution with religion, it is right to doubt his understanding and acceptance of the science. As for his later admission that he believes, does he really? Creationists accept microevolution - change within "kinds" - but not the macroevolution that forms the basis of the biological sciences. Goodyear's comment about humans "evolving" to adapt to their environment isn't a strong statement in favour of macroevolution. IF he is a creationist, then perhaps he was coached on how to over a response that seemed supportive without undermining his religious beliefs. It might just be, as others have said, that he was playing politician and trying not to put creationists offside by defending religion. If so, it appears to have been a poor strategy. The question remains open as far as I can tell. The only way to close it is for Goodyear to unequivocally state his support for science in the classroom. If Canada is "enjoying" the same push to get God into the science class as other places are then he needs to go further and state that God has no place there. Until then, skeptics are right to harbour doubts about his position. - AndyD Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:50:22 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/477-the-shy-ministger.html#comment-3983 What's up with politicians who live on the north? Apparently Mr. Goodyear of Canada shares with Mrs. Palin of Alaska a lack of intelligence and a lack of knowledge. They seem to demonstrate this with every utterance about the state of scientific knowledge. IMHO they both are idiots when it comes to politics, why would a politician knowingly alienate the majority of the electorate just to please a angry, vocal minority? If they want power, money and blindly loyal sycophants all they need to do is start a church in an affluent area. ;) - Willy K Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:49:49 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/477-the-shy-ministger.html#comment-3982 [quote] As if that wasn't enough, we are shown Mr. Goodyear's total qualifications, emphasizing chiropractor and student of kinesiology. For all of you that don't understand, this is a scientific method called ad hominem attack. [/quote] Ah, no danieljref. An ad hominem attack is not a "scientific method". It is rhetorical technique that is based on a logical fallacy. It consists of trying to discredit a claim made by one's opponent by attacking a characteristic of that opponent that is irrelevant to his claim. If you wish to claim that an ad hominem attack has been made, please identify the claim that Mr. Goodyear had made. Then please identify the attack that has been made upon a characteristic that he possesses. Then please demonstrate how that characteristic is not relevant to the claim Mr. Goodyear has made. Or, alternatively. Stop using terms you don't understand. - MJG Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:28:48 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/477-the-shy-ministger.html#comment-3976 It's really disappointing. This post looks like nothing more than pure bashing. What all this has to do with a person being ahead of a Science and Techonology office? Randi does not believe in psychics but still puts up a Contest to prove him wrong. Sagan did not believe in Aliens/UFOs but still created a program to search for them. Why would anyone be wrong for that office just because he/she is a Christian or a Creationist? And does that apply to Randi, Sagan and all other (so called) skeptics as well? Since there is a [b][u]suspicion[/u][/b] that Mr. Goodyear is [b][u]suspicious[/u][/b] of a particular aspect of science, the only reason for that is that [b][u]perhaps[/u][/b] he's a CREATIONIST (a well established scientific position apparently). That's just good reasoning. And then, it is said that "such conversations are worth having" (knowing if he is a creationist or not) while (by quoting Mr. Alters) thinking that his (Goodyear's) refusal to answer is unfounded because it has nothing to do with religion. Yeah, right. As if that wasn't enough, we are shown Mr. Goodyear's [i]total qualifications[/i], emphasizing [u]chiropractor[/u] and student of [u]kinesiology[/u]. For all of you that don't understand, this is a scientific method called [i]ad hominem[/i] attack. So if you don't believe in evolution, you cannot be a decent supporter of, let's say, physics (which studies evolution apparently - and Mr. Goodyear studied, by the way), chemistry (which supposedly would be nothing without evolution - and Mr. Goodyear studied as well), astronomy (this one sure is linked to evolution because Dawkins already said that aliens brought life to Earth), computer technology (come on, this one is totally related to Evolution. What would happen to Dawkins' theories if it wasn't for computers?), geology, meteorology, sysmology... is that enough? It all comes down to: If a person does not [u]believe[/u] in our dogmas (such as Evolution and asking questions - the right ones that is) then that person cannot occupy a place with the label of "Science and Technology". And for that matter we shall put that person's credibility in doubt. But in the end, as Randi well put it, we have to know if Mr. Goodyear [u]believes[/u] in Evolution. Do you [u]BELIEVE[/u] in Evolution Mr. Goodyear? We demand an answer! You may have some doubts (lack of faith) or commit some mistakes (sins) and even say some atrocious things (heresy), but as long as you accept that Evolution is real, ethernal, omnipresent and the foundation of all that exists today, brought to us by our lord and saviour Charles Darwin and spread to the world by its eminent representative The Amazing, that removed us from darkness and brought us the light needed to guide us to the truth and full understanding (paradise, nirvana, etc.), it will be all okay. Word of salvation. Amencadabra. - danieljref Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:04:55 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/477-the-shy-ministger.html#comment-3974 [quote]Isn't it interesting that after he refused to answer the question, all the blogs blew up with assumptions that Goodyear is a creationist. I thought we were supposed to skeptical?[/quote] It is the most reasonable explanation of his behaviour. Someone who thinks that evolution is a religious position is unlikely to be a scientist. - Bruno Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:09:22 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/477-the-shy-ministger.html#comment-3973 "Isn't it interesting that after he refused to answer the question, all the blogs blew up with assumptions that Goodyear is a creationist. I thought we were supposed to skeptical?" Yes, but his response about evolution was that he was a Christian and didn't discuss his religion. What does evolution have to do with Christianity? His answer was evasive and had no relevance to the question unless you were a creationist that denied evolution. I find it interesting that he waited to answer the question and gave an answer that does not directly conflict with religion like he suggested with his first answer. Maybe he was pandering to the creationists, he is a politician, or maybe he didn't realize the implications of what he was saying at the time, he could be covering his tracks now after the negative backlash, or there is just something else I can't think of right now. I just find his first response evasive and interesting. It is good that he has come back and finally answered the question. - Beamstalk Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:43:31 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/477-the-shy-ministger.html#comment-3972 [quote]Unfortunately if you kicked out all the woo believers in any government, hardly anyone would be around to ruin run things including the dogcatcher.[/quote] While I agree with your statement fully, this is the Minister of State for [b]Science[/b]and Technology that we're talking about. How can he be 'iffy' about Evolutionary Theory and evolution and be the minister for 'Science'? It's like making James Randi the Pope of the RCC. Evolution is as much an underpinning pillar of science as gravity, electromagnetics, and chemistry. Very little of our technology would work without them either. - Kuroyume Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:16:35 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/477-the-shy-ministger.html#comment-3971 Goodyear has admitted that he DOES believe in evolution. Seems he just didn't want to answer the question. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090318.GOODYEAR18/TPStory/National Isn't it interesting that after he refused to answer the question, all the blogs blew up with assumptions that Goodyear is a creationist. I thought we were supposed to skeptical? - WendyL Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:13:45 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/477-the-shy-ministger.html#comment-3968 Looking at Wikipedia for Gary Goodyear leads you to the following:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_and_Out_scandal Seems Mr Goodyear is so good at filibuster and delaying actual debate that he was thrown out as chair of the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs by a vote of no confidence. Hmmm - RobbieD Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:57:48 +0100