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
Ho hum nuttal once again you quote something with which I’ve not the slightest acquaintance, who is this McGrath and what relevance does he have to your admitting that Evolution is not in fact the cast iron theory that its proponents claim it to be?
You are belatedly coming around to accepting my original assertion that for all your anger and righteous indignation Evolution is very far from the perfect solution claimed for it by its die hard adherents, I salute you on your move away from such fundamentalism. You claim that
*All decent scientists are open to the possibility that the theories that they believe are wrong,*
Really? Nuttal let me introduce to you Professor Richard Dawkins, he’s a fine chap but for heaven’s sake don’t mention that there’s any room for doubt that his theory might be wrong.
Anyway I’m glad we eventually came to agreement that the Theory of Evolution is not the perfect answer it’s usually cracked up to be, I find when you talk to Evolutionary fundamentalists quietly and rationally they can usually be relied upon to admit their secret doubts.
It’s a brave first step, you have my best wishes.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 02:55 PMHarry,
i suppose I’ll say it again, and try and spell it out a bit more simply.
I’m all for teaching any alternative scientific theories that can explain life on earth.
But, if we are to explain a belief based theory, why on earth should Christianities theories get precedence. They are no more nor no less valid than those put forward by the Pastafarians or Navaho indians.
And how on earth can you get involved in a creationism - evolutionist debate without being aware of the Pastafarian movement, their origins and their beliefs???!!!! You are showing yourself to be willfully ignorant.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 03:01 PMWillis
Even the great Douglas Adams had Slartibartfast burying pre aged fossils as part of the computer to determine the question of life, universe and everything to which the answer is 42.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 03:09 PMHarry,
if you dont know who he is; don’t be so fucking lazy, go and look him up. (here’s he hint,;he’s a christian apologist who has piggy-backed himself on Dawkins’ success, and styles himself as Christianities answer to Dawkins). Likewise, go and look up some evolution theory.
From my recollections, Dawkins has always been candid about the possibility that evolution may be wrong, and that if someone could put a better model up in front of him, then he would be a believer.
And again, on religion, as far as I remember, he has stated that if some proof could be found, some sort of evidence. Maybe even an appearance by the big man, or some sort of intervention, then he would have no problem believing.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 03:11 PM*...evolutionist debate without being aware of the Pastafarian movement, their origins and their beliefs???!!!!*
Oh dear, multiple use of exclamation and question marks, I see you’re suffering a relapse, ease the blood pressure old son, try calm rational debate, I know it’s hard when you’ve been subjected to cult like brainwashing by the Evolutionists, but I’m here to help, let me explain gently for the umpteenth time, I’m not a creationist, honestly I really am not, I’m here to help, I’m your friend, all I ask is that you accept the possibility of doubt, that’s all, just accept doubt, your theory might not be Holy Writ after all, it might not be sacrosanct, there could even be some flaws in the belief system you hold so dear.
Try scepticism, try free thinking Nuttal, it will help, you’ll be able to see the world from a whole new perspective without the dreadful bogeymen of Pastafarians or Navaho indians always lurking over your shoulder waiting to thrust you into the deepest pits of damnation to be prodded with big hot spikes by the dreadful charlatan McGrath.
Repeat after me, I am Nuttal, I have my own brain, I can think for myself, I will not be indoctrinated.
See, it’s working already.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 03:15 PMA point I’d like to repeat; dictionary definition of Theory:
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
that Evolution is not in fact the cast iron theory that its proponents claim it to be?
The term “cast Iron theory” is an oxymoron. It is the accepted scientific theory for explaining how we came to be here. As such it should be taught in a science class. ID is the religious nutcases version of how we came to be here and as such should be taught in RE.
For an idea of how the worlds scientists view ID check out project Steve:
http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
This illustrates the low regard the world’s scientific community hold ID in.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 03:16 PMWillis
Re the science part about extrapolating theories back in time. It only works based on assumptions that the same conditions on which the theory is based are comparable throughout the extrapolation, or that changes in conditions are known. That is why I have issues with radiocarbon dating - just because C14 is decaying at a specific rate today does not indicate that this was always the case. Could a significant change in atmospheric conditions lead to a change in decay rates? If the rate changed at some point the the calculations are all off. Such an atmospheric altering change could have occurred at the time of the biblical flood, before which the earth was surrounded by a protective layer of water vapour, which was significantly reduced after the event. Just a theory. Just like evolution.
The difference is that I am open to evaluating other options, but can keep my beliefs and scientific explanations compatible ubtil proven otherwise. At the end of the day if christians are wrong and there is no afterlife then what have they lost? If however the christian viewpoint is right then the non chrisians will experience a supernatural selection which will lead to the extinction of the “species”.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 03:19 PMNuttal - evidence .... such as the appearance of the big man.
Didn’t that happen 2000 years ago.
They didn’t believe him then - why do you think the “big man” coming again will make him believe.
If the Christian viewpoint is correct when the big man comes again then everyone will believe.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 03:23 PMHarry,
was there a need to descend into rapid condescension?
My major problem with your arguments is that someone who has repeatedly shown themselves to be devoid of any knowledge (apparently whatsoever) of the theory of evolution can claim to have blown such big holes into an elegant and robust scientific theory.
It’s like a chimpanzee claiming to have blown holes in string theory.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 03:23 PMDelta Omega,
according to a very old book it did.
My problem with that is that Christians are relying on the words, honesty, memory and translation of a small number of people 1900 years ago to direct their lives and beliefs
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 03:51 PMhe hint,;he’s a christian apologist who has piggy-backed himself on Dawkins’ success, and styles himself as Christianities answer to Dawkins
Alister McGrath is the classic example of the Christian scientist (a type of person who a lot of people here doesn’t seem to think exists); his attraction to certainty and precision, he finds in science, or at least the bits he has been involved with, and also in a particular form of precise, formulated, religion. To be fair, his more recent work is better than his early sub-CU twaddle. He’s also from Belfast.
Both he and Dawkins are flip sides of the same coin; they seek certainty in a universe that provides little of it. When one gets back to the really big questions, like, “how did the universe begin, and why?”, neither religion nor science are actually much use. If we accept the Big Bang is by far the best evidenced current scientific theory on the beginning of the unvierse (which I do), there remains the problem not only of our sketchy and purely theoretical understanding of the first fraction of a second of the universe’s existence, but what happened at zero seconds itself and what came before (if the question is meaningful at all). How did that initial element of matter get there in the first place and why did the Big Bang happen?
When it comes to that, my belief in God (or imaginary friend in the sky, if you prefer to sneer), is as credible as believing that it all just sort of happened or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it.
Of course this doesn’t affect how biology is taught in schools (just teach the science) but the universe isn’t as cut and dried and well understood as the Dawkinsites make out it is; and I haven’t even started talking about quantum theory yet. (Read Quantum Theology by Diarmuid O Murchu, great book, along with anything by John Polkinghorne.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 04:05 PM*was there a need to descend into rapid condescension?*
I always dislike the sight of smug, self-righteous group thinkers clapping themselves on the back as they join in a lynch mob against people who happen not to share their currently received wisdom.
The initial sneering responses to Edwin Poots’ presumably genuinely held beliefs is at the root of my initial desire to prick the pompous bubble of all those who just happen to “know” for certain the facts regarding the origin of life on this earth.
I wanted to challenge the absolutism of a theory which, whilst superficially plausible, at root was no more proveable than Poots’ belief that God did it all in six days. I don’t believe Poots has got the answer but I think it only fair to point out that the militant Dawkinistas haven’t exactly come up with anything remotely approaching the certainty that they routinely espouse.
When I point out that the Emperor may not be naked but he sure as hell ain’t dressed in a Brooks Brothers’ three piece suit I am insulted, condescended to, abused and sneered at, you’ll forgive me if I didn’t resist the temptation to hand a little bit of it back to you.
You like the Theory of Evolution, good for you, as it goes it’s not bad but it’s a little bit too trite and simplistic for my tastes. All I ask is a little humility from you and an acceptance that your pet theory is far from perfect and the fact that I have gone through my life blissfully unaware of the Pastifarians, the Navajo creation theory or the charlatan McGrath does not preclude me from having an opinion on how I see the world around me.
You want civil debate, so do I, but it wasn’t me who started the insults on this thread.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 04:11 PMSuch an atmospheric altering change could have occurred at the time of the biblical flood, before which the earth was surrounded by a protective layer of water vapour, which was significantly reduced after the event. Just a theory.
What is your evidence for this protective layer of water vapour.
There is evidence for evolution.
I know of no evidence for your assertion that a protective layer of water vapour disappeared about the time of Noah’s flood according to a conventional creationist timeline - say about 4000 years ago.
Big difference, dude.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 04:12 PMhttp://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-petrified-tree-th.jpg
Why can’t scientists give a credible thoery for the fossilised trees [like in the picture above] which are standing upright and passing through “millions of years” worth of strata?
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 04:20 PMHarry,
If you can blow even one small hole in evolution theory I would be seriously impressed.
According to the Harry Theory, the human eye can’t possibly have evolved. Apparently this blows the evolutionary model out of the water. Sure, why don’t you write an email or even a letter to Nilssen and tell him his theory and model for optic evolution is poppycock.
You have not explained in any instance how the evolutionary model falls apart. You have only maintained that, in your opinion, bat’s radar and the eye are too complex to evolve. You haven’t even attempted to back your opinion with 1 single fact.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 04:50 PMUMH
they have, the trees were burrien in an upright position and were burried and fossilized in that statePosted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 05:21 PMThe scale of ignorance on display here is frightening. It’s not as if it’s difficult to read up the very basic of evolutionary theory, and yet time and time again we get comments about things appearing randomly and demands as to why some things haven’t disappeared.
Shit, even the terminology is alien to the; then don’t even understand what a theory is, in scientific terms.
Let me reiterate.
A theory ought to be supported by the existing evidence.
It ought to be able to stand up to new evidence produced.
It ought to be able to accurately predict what other evidence one is likely to find.
These is the commonly accepted tests for a theory in science.
And that’s why, after having examined the available evidence I am convinced that humans evolved.
It also after examining the complete absence of evidence that I’m convinced their is no case for intelligent design.
Though having said that, one must keep an open mind, I’d be willing to look at any evidence anyone wanted to put forward. However, until that happens, there is no more reason to believe in intelligent design than to believe in Astrology.But harken to this.
I’ll throw you biblical creationists a bone.
Were you to demonstrate to me that any holy text clearly and unambiguously showed evidence of, or talked about the Fibonacci sequence, or the Golden Ratio, found throughout nature, or something along those lines, I’d have to say you might be onto something.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 07:28 PM“It’s not as if it’s difficult to read up the very basic of evolutionary theory, and yet time and time again we get comments about things appearing randomly and demands as to why some things haven’t disappeared.”
I thought that was what the Big Bang was - are you claiming that there was a purpose behind it and the evolutionary process that you believe in had a purpose.
It is also interesting in all of this that the speakers like Matthew Parris, who has his sodomite agenda to protect, calls any Creationist a “nutter.” As someone who has been educated in the USA and the UK, why is it that America is a much more scientifically and economically advanced country than UK yet is much more Pro-Creation?
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 07:54 PM“I thought that was what the Big Bang was - are you claiming that there was a purpose behind it and the evolutionary process that you believe in had a purpose.”
We’re talking about evolution, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. Evolution does not require the Big Bang to be a valid theory. It merely requires the universe to be old enough for evolution to have occurred.
“It is also interesting in all of this that the speakers like Matthew Parris, who has his sodomite agenda to protect, calls any Creationist a “nutter.””
Damn those crazy sodomites! They just jump at you, and have sex in the ass. Another life ruined, those crazy bastards.
“As someone who has been educated in the USA and the UK, why is it that America is a much more scientifically and economically advanced country than UK yet is much more Pro-Creation?”
That’d be one of those them there “non sequiturs”.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 08:16 PMI thought that was what the Big Bang was - are you claiming that there was a purpose behind it and the evolutionary process that you believe in had a purpose.
A common mistake, amongst many common mistakes made by you and others is in trying to apply evolutionary theory to theories about the very origins of the Universe. they’re not the same field of science, I was talking about Evolution and the misconception that things randomly appear.
Evolution has a clear purpose, if you want to use that term, that purpose is the propagation of life.
As for the rest of that bigoted homophobic shite, save it for other blinkered idiots such as yourself.Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 08:16 PMKensei beat me to it.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 08:17 PMSam Hanna,
I think you comment of the Big Bang being random is actually extremely perseptive. Science his fairly good at answering the question How? Evolution is an attempt to answer the question How did x y and z happen.What science is less good at is answering the question Why? In this case Why did the big bang happen.
Delta Omega,
I am no philosopher but I have a similar analysis of religion to your post “ At the end of the day if christians are wrong and there is no afterlife then what have they lost? If however the christian viewpoint is right then the non chrisians will experience a supernatural selection which will lead to the extinction of the “species”.”It is I am told an example of Pascal’s Wager
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 08:24 PM“Professor Shaun Collin, from UQ’s School of Biomedical Sciences, together with colleagues from the Australian National University and the University of Pennsylvania, have identified animals that have eyes that bridge the evolutionary link between those designed to simply differentiate light from dark to those that possess a camera-like eye.” Citation.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 10:02 PMTurgon
The difficulty of Pascal’s wager is it doesn’t describe reality.
Pascal basically suggested if you wager your life on the existance of God, and lose, you lose nothing, because if there is no God, there’s no afterlife anyway. So reason dictates that we strive for faith as the only hope of a profitable outcome.
in short -
I believe, and i’m right - Paradise
I believe, and i’m wrong - Nada
I don’t believe and I’m right - Nada
I don’t beleive and I’m wrong - DamnationSo since the best result of the non-faith option is only equal to the worst result of the faith option, reason dictates faith, with at best paradise and at worst, nothing, is the way to go.
But you clearly do lose something. if you wager your life on God, you lose the freedom to partake of a range of activites that might lead to profit, or pleasure, or both, in this life, because we are told that such a curtailment is the price of the wager - frankly that’s a pretty high price to pay.
in short -
I believe, and i’m right - Curtailed life, followed by Paradise
I believe, and i’m wrong - curtailed life, followed by Nada
I don’t believe and I’m right - ‘full’ life, followed by Nada
I don’t believe and I’m wrong - ‘full’ life, followed by DamnationA rather more even-handed wager
and that doesn’t even include wagering you’re life on God, being right, but having picked the wrong God, or picked Him the ‘wrong’ way - then faith leads to the risk of a ‘curtailed’ life AND Damnation!
Pascal was a fine mathematician, and a fine divine, but i always found this particular soundbite a little too trite.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 10:42 PMI find it instructive that anyone would so willingly forgo believing what is true for some jiggery pokery insurance claim.
Herman Melville’s wonderful short story the Lightning Rod Salesman deals with this notion of hedging one’s bets.Science is, at it’s very core, the pursuit of the truth for truth’s sake, no more, no less.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 10:48 PM
