Sunday, December 02, 2007
“Good heavens! You’re the culture minister..”
On Radio Ulster’s Sunday Sequence this morning, Will Crawley hosted a discussion [Realplayer file] between Al Hays, an American professor of politics currently working at Queen’s University, Ruth Yeo, the recently appointed Humanist Chaplain at Queen’s University, Times columnist Matthew Parris and the Northern Ireland Culture Minister, the DUP’s Edwin Poots, on the religious views of politicians. Will has blogged a section of the transcript of that discussion where Edwin Poots is, admirably, honest about his religious views - he believes in ArchBishop Ussher’s 17th Century chronology.. as do Lisburn Council.. and Matthew Parris resists, just, the temptation to call NI’s Culture Minister a “nutter”.. Which may help explain the Environment Minister’s official written answer on the age of the Giants’ Causeway.. although it also highlights the concern about what scientific literature will be provided in any Causeway interpretative centre.
That transcript
Edwin Poots: He [Dawkins] wants to indoctrinate everyone with evolution. And whenever people suggest that you can teach something other than evolution, and that there might be others theories about how this earth actually came to be, such as intelligent design, Richard doesn’t want children to have the option of actually hearing those things and making their own minds up. So it’s very interesting that evolutionists are very dictatorial in what they suggest.
William Crawley: Matthew Parris ... you’ve just heard the culture minister in Northern Ireland speak, Matthew. Would a politician in Britain ever use words like that? A minister ingovernment?
Matthew Parris: Absolutely not. No. And I would use the word “nutter”—not of Edwin, obviously. But I do use the word ‘nutter’ of people who think that what informs them religiously entitles them to say that evolution is a form of indoctrination. I mean, there’s absolutely no question where science points, and it can only be some feeling that you’ve got a direct line with revelation with the Almighty that could lead you to stop wanting children to be taught that evolution is the best available explanation of where we are now.
Edwin Poots: Matthew, you’re telling me that cosmic balls of dust gathered and there was an explosion. We’ve had lots of explosions in Northern Ireland and I’ve never seen anything come out of that that was good. And you look at this earth and you tell me that there was a big bang and all of a sudden all tat is good about this earth came out of it?
Matthew Parris: Good heavens! You’re the culture minister and you don’t believe in evolution?
Edwin Poots: Yes, absolutely. And you’re telling me that all of this evolution took place over billions of years, and yet it’s only in the last few thousand years that Man could actually learn to write?
William Crawley: How old is the earth?
Edwin Poots: My view on the earth is that it’s a young earth. My view is 4000 BC.
Somehow I doubt that the Culture Minister is familiar with Francis Bacon’s ‘New Instrument for Rational Thinking’..
One more time then..
“The use of the word ‘theory’ can mislead those not familiar with science..”
Btw.. Where are those Department of Education guidelines?
Pete Baker @ 05:11 PM
This stuff is better left to the pro’s, like Dawkins and Darwin etc...who have spent a lifetime studying it. Kinda getting a bit like a pub conversation now with everyone giving their 2 cents worth about evolution.
Still better off discussing this than nonsense like transubstantiation, infallibility of a certain bloke, divine rights of others and the omnipotence of something that is just unknown and contrived to all.Poots is entitled to believe in what he wants, but let him keep his religious views to himself and not impose them via his ministerial role on the general community. Not that he does BTW!
As we know Bush would have to be the prime example of such a born again religious zealot in the west, and maybe Blair too.Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 11:32 AMBoys, boys, I know there’s nothing more aggravating than having the - and I quote my original post - “Grand Canyon sized holes” in your precious theory pointed out to you but you will have to try a lot harder if you want to convince us that you have it all sewn up, 100%, cast iron guaranteed.
I’ve no problem accepting how life forms can develop over time but not one single Dawkinista has been able to give me an adequate explanation for the origin of life itself that isn’t as far fetched as the creationist loonies or the Young Earthers.
You really can’t have it both ways you know, if you insist that your theory and your theory alone is the only one that can be taught in our schools well you’ll have to try a lot harder than you’re doing so far, because a twelve year old could shoot holes in your thesis and if you believe that you hold the one true, sacred knowledge, you better have something more coherent than your “well ifs, maybes, it could have beens, and perhaps’s” that you’ve come up with so far.
Your choice lads, you claim to know it all, well you haven’t made much of a fist of it so far and we’re already into nearly a hundred and fifty responses.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 11:35 AM“Boys, boys, I know there’s nothing more aggravating than having the - and I quote my original post - “Grand Canyon sized holes” in your precious theory pointed out to you but you will have to try a lot harder if you want to convince us that you have it all sewn up, 100%, cast iron guaranteed.”
No scientist will ever claim it’s 100% guaranteed. A better theory may come along and be adopted because it has better proof. Newtonian physics held sway for a long time, but it was eventually proven to be an incomplete understanding, and wrong in some ways.
Evolutionary theory is testable and allows predictions to made. It has applications in a number of areas, not least medical science.
Creationism / Intelligent design is inherently untestable. There is no way to disprove it. It has no applications. Ergo, it isn’t science. And it has no place in a science class.
Also, as you demonstrably don’t understand even the basics of evolutionary theory, natural selection or the scientific method, you are hardly in a position to complain about “holes”.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 11:45 AMGrĂ©agĂłir O’ FrainclĂn,
Of course Poots is entitled to his views. As are we entitled to ridicule him for holding them.
If i were in public office, or anywhere, and I were to believe in something that flies in the face of rational thought, I would expect to be ridiculed.
Take a look at the Glenn Hoddle affair. He was expressing his beliefs, yet he was hounded out of his job with the likes of Blair and Banks using their influence. So apparently these people, and others, feel it is fine to be publicly criticized for holding “crazy” beliefs.
Those who cling to rational thought should mock the flat earthers, young earthers, creationists, I.D.’ers and all their ilk.
If i believed that there were a troop of pixies living down the bottom of my bottom I would expect to be mocked. And even if lots of other people believed the pixies were real too, it wouldn’t make it any less ridiculous.
Is it ad hominem to mock them? Maybe, but when someone who can so cling so fiercely onto ridiculous beliefs in one facet of their lives, it shows that they have a certain weakness of mind; which for me at least, makes taking them seriously very, very difficult.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 11:56 AMTrue, I agree....and if the good lord wants us to worship and honour him and show how awe inspired we all are about how great he is for making us all and everything around us, then it’s about time he turned up showed his fucking face. Which I somehow think will never happen.
Until then, he’s classfied with Santa as ‘no such thing.’
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 12:08 PMHarry,
come on then. Tell us what your pet theory is?
It’s not creationism?
It’s not evoultion?Is it aliens?
Is it intelligent design?If it is ID, where in the chain does the input come in?
Were there organisms between those with no-eyes and those with “normal” eyes that had non-functional eye organs? Was there a chain of life going back to the first seeds where organs were added in along the way to be of use further down the line?
Or did the “creator” just plonk enough squirrels on the planet to create a fully sustainable population of squirrels?
Please don’t leave us in mystery any more!!
Tell us what the real answer is.I’m fed up with you blowing “GRAND CANYON SIZED HOLES” into other theories.
Oh, and by the way, where were the holes? You can’t really get away with asking a question, having it answered, and then ignoring the answer. IE
“Or to put it another way;
“Frankly we haven’t got a clue, so we’ll just make some stuff up to keep the God botherers off our backs”.
As I suspected.”
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 12:13 PMOn the teaching of “alternative” theories. I firmly believe that if the teachers were properly trained this could be a good thing. The teachers could explain how
a) life developed on earth through a continuous process of mutation and survival.
or
b) the whole world started 6000 years ago, geologists have it wrong. So do biologists. And astronomers.
or
c) some mysterious (and highly improbable) force designed all of creation. Dropping animals and plants onto the planet at specific times in the development of the planet.
or
d) some mysterious (and highly improbable) force designed all of creation, guiding evolution through stages where the animals had organs that weren’t fully functional. Safe in the knowledge that the retina, the brain, the nervous system would all one day hook up.
and lets not forget the
e) the navaho creation myth
and maybe even a bit of theology from
f) the pastafarians
The children could then be allowed to partake in a classroom discussion, discussing the pro’s/con’s and likelihoods of each of the theories.
The children could then be asked which of these they think is true. Ample time should then be set aside for the mocking and public ridicule of the “slow learners”.
Children aren’t as thick as you think. I think I was about 7 when I realised that my sunday-school teacher and the bible were full of shit when they told me that the world was created in 6 days. (I was told to be quiet when asking about when the dinosaurs fitted into the whole story.)
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 12:37 PMNuttal, kensei et al.
I don’t have to come up with a theory because I am not the one insisting that my beliefs are the one true faith.
Unlike the evolutionists it is not I who arrogantly insists that no other truth but my truth be taught in our schools, it is not I who insists that no one else other than me and my fellow believers can be allowed to teach our theory. I am not the one who asserts the infallibility claimed by the Grand Church of Evolutionary Theory.
I am merely a humble sceptic who from my lowly position of unworthy dolt asks the Grand High Inquisitors of the One True Unquestionable Theory whether they’re absolutely certain they’ve got everything worked out 100% in their heads.
Judging by the outraged response to my shameless heresy from the Evolutionist true believers in this thread I’m guessing that I’ve hit a raw nerve and that my scepticism might have some basis in fact.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 12:39 PMHarry,
close, but too late. Please read my 11:37 posting.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 12:46 PMHarry,
I commend you for your scepticism. I actually think it is one of the most important things that children can be taught.
They should be taught to be especially sceptical of theories with no evidence but for an ancient text and heresay.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 01:03 PM“I don’t have to come up with a theory because I am not the one insisting that my beliefs are the one true faith.”
I am not asking for a theory. I am asking you have basic understanding fo some of the things you are discussing.
“Unlike the evolutionists it is not I who arrogantly insists that no other truth but my truth be taught in our schools, it is not I who insists that no one else other than me and my fellow believers can be allowed to teach our theory. I am not the one who asserts the infallibility claimed by the Grand Church of Evolutionary Theory.”
I am happy for any alternative scientific theory to be taught at school, as long as it is made clear where the weight of theory comes down and why. ID, however, is not science. It does not follow the Scientific Method. It can predict nothing, and cannot be disproved. It has no applications. SO that ne is not actually an alternative theory in any scientific sense.
“I am merely a humble sceptic who from my lowly position of unworthy dolt asks the Grand High Inquisitors of the One True Unquestionable Theory whether they’re absolutely certain they’ve got everything worked out 100% in their heads.”
First mistake. No scientist will ever claim 100%. They go with the weight of evidence.
“Judging by the outraged response to my shameless heresy from the Evolutionist true believers in this thread I’m guessing that I’ve hit a raw nerve and that my scepticism might have some basis in fact. “
No, what has hit a raw nerve is that you repeat, mindlessly, crappy psuedo science you’ve heard elsewhere. It’s wrong. Ignoring explanations and the like is also bloody annoying.
When you actually understand (i) the scientific method (ii) natural selection (iii) basic evolutionary theory, maybe we can have a debate. Until then you are just noise.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 01:05 PMThe point is not having everything worked out 100% in our heads - a theory is between a hypothesis and a fact. The point is that one theory is a scientific theory, and as such has a place in the science class. The other theory that so many of us are rabidly opposed to, involves taking a book written by men, and building a theory backwards to fit the book.
Kind of like myself creating a software test, only doing the test first, then creating the plan to fit the result. Not very effective because I can never find any errors this way.
There are millions of theorum out there, some scientific, plenty completely crazy. If we start treating theorum with equality (that is the suggestions by the IDers - your theory gets taught in science class then so should ours) then the kids are goping to have to learn a lot of useless, plain wrong, unscientific theorum in a science class.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 01:08 PMHow long must we wait for the evoultion of feathered people? Surely the ability to fly would be in all our interests? If the Designer was so clever he’d have thought of that.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 01:15 PM“Judging by the outraged response to my shameless heresy from the Evolutionist true believers in this thread I’m guessing that I’ve hit a raw nerve and that my scepticism might have some basis in fact.”
I’m sure there is a name for this rhetorical trick.
Perhaps the problem lies with the Rev Dawkins. Being particularly belligerent towards doubters can sell a lot of books and raise your profile to the heavens.
I’m sure the Doc could give him some tips on rejoining the mainstream.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 01:27 PMI enjoy these evolution threads they almost always run true to form.
First of all some troglodyte of a Free P minister is quoted in a news story, then we have a page and a half of smug self congratulation at how enlightened we all are compared to those mouth breathing disbelievers of evolution, then a little voice perks up:- “er, are you lot sure you’ve got your theory exactly right?”
There then follows another page and a half of howling condemnation of the idea that anyone could possibly question one single iota of the Theory of Evolution. Abuse and straw men arguments are hurled (I’m not a creationist nor an ID believer) at the heretic, then by about page 5 or 6 people like kensei and nmc above come on and admit that well, actually the original questioner was in fact correct and that despite the howls of outrage the Theory of Evolution does have an awful lot of freaking big gaps in the middle of it.
It never changes.
Nuttal
Re your point to me @ 11.13, I did not ignore the answer, because I did not receive an answer I got a half baked theory. “Horizontal gene transfer, friend (e.g. plasmids or via viruses)” is not an answer it’s a suggestion, the clue is in the word “or”, a small word with a huge meaning in this context, it means the person doesn’t actually know, it could be one thing OR it could be a very different thing, or indeed as he goes on in his following sentence it could be something (mutation), entirely different indeed. Like I said;
“Frankly we haven’t got a clue”.
(I’ll pass over the thumping big question of where the plasmids and viruses are supposed to have evolved from).
Kensei
*When you actually understand (i) the scientific method (ii) natural selection (iii) basic evolutionary theory, maybe we can have a debate. Until then you are just noise.*
Must you know the entire history of the Tory party and their manifesto before you can question their theories, can only those who have studied the Koran comment on Islam, are only people who have read Marx and Engels in the original fit to sit in judgement on Communism, is an Irish Republican who has not studied Bagehot and Burke precluded from discussing the failings of the British Constitutional system?
Once more your insulting dismissal tells me all I need to know about the deep insecurity of the Evolutionist mindset.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 01:41 PMHarry,
Quick question. If you only answer one of my questions please answer this one. Are you comfortable with the teaching of the Navaho creation Myth and the Pastafarian creation story as possible creation theories here in our schools?
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 01:43 PMI am amazed every time this type of thread comes up on slugger. Both sides get entrenched in their opposing views and hurl insults across the battlelines. Personally I am both a scientist and a christian and do not have any issues being both. Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive principles. The theeory of evolution falls down right at the start - science is currently investiating what happened in the initial fento and pico seconds after the big bang, but they still not been able to come up with a realistic explanation of the origin of infinitely dense ball of matter which exploded out to create all around us. As to geologists, biologists and astronomers “getting it wrong” all arguments can be explained from a christian perspective. For example in relation to astronomy, a christian who believes in a God that can creat the universe will also believe that the same God could create the light emanating from the star already on route to a point where we can see it. From the other side there is evidence that species change continually depending on their environment and the fitest most often survive. Prehaps God designed it to be that way?
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 02:02 PMOoops forgot to say that the creationist side can’t be proven either - that’s down to belief. Personally I believe that everything was created as a functional system already in motion and so called natural selection has occurred ever since.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 02:06 PMNuttal, I have no idea what those things are to which you refer and they are probably entirely irrelevant to my original simple assertion which is that the Theory of Evolution is not the absolute, be all and end all of any discussion of the origin of life on this planet and in fact despite the hysterical assertions of evolutionists to the contrary their theory, which they assert is infallible, is in fact riddled with more holes than a Swiss cheese on a machine gun firing range.
The shrill, angry denunciations of my simple point make me more and more convinced that I am on to something.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 02:20 PMPersonally I am both a scientist and a Pastafarian and do not have any issues being both. Pastafarianism and evolution are not mutually exclusive principles.
etc etc etc
It’s when people propose that we teach the theory and one belief side by side that gets me.
Why should your religion get precedence over mine in the classrooms?
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 02:24 PMNuttal
May his noodly apendage spread his benevolance to youRamen
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 02:28 PM“Must you know the entire history of the Tory party and their manifesto before you can question their theories, can only those who have studied the Koran comment on Islam, are only people who have read Marx and Engels in the original fit to sit in judgement on Communism, is an Irish Republican who has not studied Bagehot and Burke precluded from discussing the failings of the British Constitutional system?
Once more your insulting dismissal tells me all I need to know about the deep insecurity of the Evolutionist mindset. “
I would say if you want to criticise the British Constitutional system, you would need at least a basic understanding of what that system is. I am not asking for a staggering level of detail, merely a basic understanding. Because otherwise the debate is pointless because you’ll come off with things that are flat out wrong, you’ll argue for “theories” that have nothing to do with science, and you’ll be unable to accept answers because you don’t understand them. Like you have done.
Science requires some technical understanding. Sorry.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 02:28 PMHarry,
Do you even have a point here? What is it do you think should be taught in schools?
At present evolution is THE best theory available.
As such, this is the theory that should be taught as the dominant theory in the field. As I said before pupils should be taught to be sceptical.
All decent scientists are open to the possibility that the theories that they believe are wrong, but so far I have neither seen nor heard of any theory trumping evolutionary development.
Whereas one of your “Swiss Holes” is that you just can’t understand where squirrels come from. Or the eye.
I suggest if you really cared about how the squirrel “hole” or eye “hole” really blow apart the theory of evolution, you would take the time and consideration to read up some theories as to how evolutionary theory addresses these “problems” instead of posing here with your shrill (apparently one of your favourite words) denunciations of a so-far well backed up theory.
My guess is that you’ve been reading too many of the charlatan McGraths books. He too is very fond of using the adjective shrill when discussing his objects of fixation.Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 02:44 PMTypo: object of fixation
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 02:46 PMDelta Omega
Like your approach however I’m not sure about the scientist bit. I presume you believe in pre-aged rocks and fossils.
You do accept or indeed believe in natural selection as it has happened in recorded time and under lab conditions. Is it not reasonable for scientists to construct a theory which reads this Natural Selection back into time?
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 02:48 PM
