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
Plainly what we need is an act that tests ministers for the correctness of their private belief systems before they are allowed by the majority to hold public office; very possibly, since Poots’s opinions are so outrageously at variance with majority sentiment, we need an act that ensures conformity with the evolutionary mainstream - anything else is clearly madness; indeed, I’d suggest, having read the entirely reasonable reactions of Slugger’s obviously representative readers, it’s time for an act which ensures the supremacy of evolutionary teaching by requiring public disavowal of all other theories by those who enjoy a devolved office of profit under the Crown. Swift solutions like this are needed to the self-evident danger of a man like Poots.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 11:40 AMWhat religion is Edwin Poots? And, for that matter, the unionist councillors on Lisburn “City” Council? Are they all Free Ps or similar fundamentalists, because I was never aware before that any mainstream Christian churches were Biblical literalists. As a member of the Church of Ireland I have always understood that the mainstream Christian view was that Genesis was not to be taken literally. Similarly, in non-denominational RE classes in school, I don’t recall “creationism” or “intelligent design” being discussed and neither do I recall either teachers or pupils expounding “creationism”.
My understanding, therefore, is that mainstream churches are all comfortable with evolution. Is that correct? If not, why is this “creationism” stuff coming to the fore – because of DUP ascendancy and the preponderance of fundamentalists within that party?
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 11:45 AMGreat debate, loved the show. Our politicians are nothing if not entertaining. I suggest that Will Crawley interviews them all to find out how many of them are young earthers!
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 11:47 AMComrade Stalin,
The decline in red squirrel pop. is to do with natural selection and NOT macroevolution. Macroevolution is a more far-reaching concept.
Try and keep up.
Macroevoltion is a nonsense. Plain and simple. It is an atheist religion, as it takes faith to believe it - there is not one shred of scientific evidence.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 11:48 AMHarry F
“I’m not a believer in creationsim, I’m not a believer in Intelligent Design” Maybe you’re one of the famous “cdesign proponentsists” from the Discovery Institute. Bats radar? evolution of the of the eye? all we need is bacterial flagellum for a full house in ID bingo.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 12:05 PMHarry,
further to Comrade Stalins input. Let’s just take the dodo as an example of an evolutionary dead end. The bird had evolved to lose it’s flight response; as it was not subject to predators. When it’s environment changed, it was no longer fit for the environment. Thus, it died out. Hardly what i’d call perfectly evolved.
The extinction of a species is an example of a major dead end. Every member of a species that doesn’t transmit it’s genetic information is an example of an evolutionary dead end. Every gene that doesn’t propagate or replicate is an example of a dead end.
For every species, there is not one species specific blueprint. Each member (in general) has it’s own unique genetic make-up. Looking at the bats, not every bat’s radar is as good as its brothers or its cousins. There are variations within the species. The bat’s with the slightly better radar would do slightly better than their rivals.
If all of a sudden (hypothetically), the radar of bats were to be rendered ineffective (say for example that all their prey acquired stealth technology) then the bats that relied more on their hearing would be at a disadvantage to the bats with slightly better eyesight. Maybe, the bats with bigger ears might even be slowed down by poor aerodynamics. In this case, the bats that tended to have slightly better eyesight than their relatives will tend to be slightly more successful, and therefore more likely to reproduce. Their children will be more likely to inherit the slightly improved eyesight. Among the offspring, those with the slightly better eyesight than their siblings will again be more successful in catching prey, and therefore more likely to reproduce. And so on....
The bats that expend their energy and biological resources on continuing to support a radar function will be less likely to be successful than their competitors whose energies have gone to supporting improved visual capabilities.
It’s a cumulative effect. In no single generation will a bat suddenly develop 20/20 vision, but over the generations, the bats with the slightly better vision will tend to do slightly better than their rivals.
On the challenge of developing radar for humans, that’s easy. Every generation, all you would have to do is cull say the 50% of people with the worst hearing. For instance, those that were least able to find a mcchicken sandwich swinging on a rope in a dark room. Whilst enuring that there were enough resources that people could reproduce enough offspring to sustain the population. I.e. that the non-culled were having on average 4 children per couple.
Even better; for every 10 men, only let the man who was best at catching his mcchicken sandwich in the dark reproduce. Let them sire as many children as is required to sustain the population.
In this case, mankind would get pretty damn good at catching mcchicken sandwiches in the dark. After 10,000 years, I’d be pretty sure something approximating the functions of a radar system would have evolved.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 12:07 PMHarry Flashman: “multifarious life forms that exist on the planet today simply emerged by random chance over the eons is utter twaddle”
you’re right it is twaddle, it wasn’t chance it happened for a reason. some people call it chance when they can’t explain the reasoning. Evolution is never about chance it’s about refinment and slow development. Well I say slow because in the context or our lives 1 million years is slow, in the context of the universe however its a drop in the ocean.
Harry Flashman: “Why has this evolution stopped?
It hasn’t, who said it has? Your appendix (or possible lack thereof) is a testament to it.Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 12:26 PMCS, who is my designer of whom you speak? I don’t recall mentioning such an entity, indeed I specifically said that I hold no brief for intelligent design.
I merely pointed out in my original post that the Theory of Evolution is not the cast iron, 100% proven explanation of the origin of life that its proponents often proclaim. Thank you for conceding that my initial point is indeed correct and that the shrill denunciations of evolutionists against anyone who points out the flaws in their argument masks a profound insecurity about the soundness of their precious theory.
Nuttal, both you and CS explain how species die off, a point that I referred to in changing environments however that doesn’t explain how we came by the red squirrels or dodos in the first place.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 12:27 PMJust to throw in my experience from attending a Catholic Grammar.
We were told NOT to take genisis literally but warned that it COULD be perfectly true, the universe could be Billions and billions of years old, it could be 4000 years old, it could also be 4 minutes old because God is the supreme being and is the universe - God is not subject to the laws of physics, God is the law of physics.
God could have created the universive in seven days but God is not suject to the contraints of space time so he could have made his creation travell forwards as well as backwards in time.
And of course, God being the supreme being, it would be perfectly possible for God to create a universe without a beginning or an end.
God gave us science to try and understand the nature of the universe but to attempt to understand the nature of God is not possible.
We were also told that we evolved from other ape like creatures but warned that Adam and Eve may refer to the point that God gave us a soul, but then again God also created the rest of the apes.
I thought it was made at the time, then I went to queens and met some people of a pretty radically different opinion and got quite frightened!!
CofI it seems to me are very similar to Catholics on this issue.
If it was revealed that one of our ministers beleived that the world was flat, could they deal with ‘global’ matters?
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 12:35 PMWere you taught that in Science or in RE, Mark?
Can anyone clarify the views of other mainstream churches?
I’m still assuming it’s only the fundoes who believe in “creationism”.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 12:38 PM“I thought it was made at the time, then I went to queens and met some people of a pretty radically different opinion and got quite frightened!!”
I mean’t to say I thought it was all strange at the time ..
Were you taught that in Science or in RE, Mark?
Science was completely religion free except for maybe a teacher throwing in a remark or two that God could have created everything ‘of course’.
RE only mentioned ‘evolution’ in a kind of remark too, like ‘look at that God, evolution, wonderful! evolution is evidence of God etc.’
But fundamentally, 99% of the time,it is/was kept completly separate.
RE is also multi-denominational in Catholic schools, following the national ciriculum, of course assembly and weekly school masses etc were Catholic, apart from students from other religons, who still had to go to mass but were allowed not to believe in that version of religon.
It was always just hebrew folktales to me but.
I can believe in a creator easily enough but, convinced about evolution but not entirely about the beginnings of life - perhaps space exploration, which I find immoral at this stage will provide evidence.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 12:48 PMHarry,
As noted by qubol, it’s about incremental refinement and adaption.
Sometimes a whole species will drift towards a variation. Sometimes, due to circumstances, the species will branch and proceed in two independent paths.
I would hazard that the squirrels evolved through incremental variation from an early primitive mammal of the rodent order. The variations included features that allowed the squirrel to be more competitive in it’s environment (temperate woodlands), such as an ability to climb trees and a predilection for hiding nuts.
The squirrel ancestors that were less able to climb trees and to remember where it hid it’s nuts were less competitive, and therefore less likely to reproduce and propagate their genetic material.
I would then reason that the family split into differing lines evolving into grey and red squirrels among others. I would guess that there was a feature of their environments that allowed the individuals with genes that promoted a tendency for red colouring (or grey) in their coats to be more competitive and therefore more likely to reproduce successfully.
On dodos, it seems they evolved from the pigeon family. Isolated from any significant predators, they were able to evolve into a larger species without the need for an evasive flight instinct.
Had the change in their environment been more gradual, I daresay that the dodo may have evolved an evasive instinct, and may not have become extinct quite so abruptly.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 01:10 PMSo it’s agreed then, Poots’ religious beliefs should disqualify him from public office? Jolly good.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 01:12 PMWhy do people believe in noumena, things imagined and things they have never seen. And are so willing to go to such extreme lengths to defend their hocus pocus. Psychology and human nature plays a big part in such processes.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 01:33 PMHarry: CS, who is my designer of whom you speak? I don’t recall mentioning such an entity
Yes you did, you used “the perfectly designed elephant” as an example of something that simply could not have evolved by chance.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 01:48 PMcan any of the people that dont believe in God explain what it is they think people who believe the bible will do thats so bad? i mean, is a Christian going to do something terrible to their department at stormont if they try to live by the 10 commandments? what is it exactly you are so afraid of?
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 01:50 PMYes Joe indeed I did, I shouldn’t have used the word “designed”, if it led you to conclude I believe in some great designer, it was careless of me but please don’t read more into such a slip than I intended.
Nuttal you again point out that within species certain traits and attribute evolve according to the local environment, something with which I am in agreement, you further point out that species who are not well adapted to an environment do not fare so well, again we are in agreement. However that is not where the dispute lies.
Darwin did not write “The Extinction of Species”, he wrote about the origin of the species, and how a red squirrel succumbs to a grey one does not explain how the blinking squirrel came about in the first place. It really doesn’t and just keeping repeating that it does isn’t proof.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 02:03 PMJust a few comments:
Science is successful, that’s why we trust it. It works.Evolutionary science is more theoretical, less successful at providing things that work. It is vulnerable to attacks.
Surely we don’t need to waste our time arguing about the age of the planet or the general proposition that species evolve over time. Harry is right, in that the more subtle (and dangerous? :) ) arguments are about the nature of our scientific knowledge.
Ever since Kuhn and others, falsificationist science had been critiqued by those who point to the emergence of scientific paradigms, where potentially damaging evidence against a scientific theory is literally unrecognisable, until it bites you in the ass, so to speak. Thus, it might be claimed that established theories like Evolution are typically unfalsifyable, until some kind of paradigm shift. This could be a genuine problem for some scientific theories, and requires a robust and sceptical scientific community, free from coercion and financial inducements ( fat chance!)I do believe for the reason that physical extinction seems unbearably harsh to many of us, those of a mind to attack evolutionary science do so with some of the philisophical weaponry of the scientific relativists.
Just a thought.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 02:04 PMEranu
Its not that we begrudge them living their lives according to their own precepts, its that we object to them attempting to make us live our lives by their precepts.If creationism is what the accepted sciences were teaching, like it did for so many centuries, then we would be the nutters for believing in evolution. But creationism is not a science its a belief system and no one should be forced into some one elses beliefs.
the second great question is if you believe in creationism, who’s creation myth should you use and why? What makes the creatiuon myth of the christians any more tenable than the navaho’s creation myth? Or any religions creation myth?
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 02:07 PMHarry,
When you speak of a “perfectly designed elephant”, what theory do you propose for how elephants came to be the way they are?
And considering the elephant species like other species of animal has genetic variance, which elephant is it that is perfectly designed. Likewise, if humans are perfectly designed, then what explanation for people born “deformed”, or with genetic illnesses or deficiencies. Are they perfectly designed too?
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 02:11 PMPoots’s religion should no more disqualify him from office than Juniors homophobic comments should disqualify him from his office. However people should take note of his beliefs and opinion and vote accordingly in future. I am a liberal and though I strongly disagree with the comments and opinions of Poots I fully support his right to believe and say what he wants.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 02:14 PMshawn, it seemed to me that the issue in this thread was that people had a problem with someone with Christian beliefs running a stormont department. or basically in any decision making position. if thats the case then id honestly like to hear what they fear could happen? can someone outline a scenario?
if people dont have a problem then thats great :)
if you do have a problem, then do you also have a problem with someone who believes the universe just popped into existence one day, and that life just popped into existence a few years later, then over a few more years a couple of cells decided to combine all by themselves and grow arms and eyes and radar systems and wings? :)
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 02:21 PMHarry,
I’m not really sure which part of evolution you don’t believe in then? If you accept that incrmental variation has allowed primitive rodents to adapt to suit their environment? Is it the first primitive rodents that you have a problem with?
Do you think that these primitive rodents through adaption and greater success of the more competitive members of the species could not eventually have evolved into squirrels?
Do you think evolution has ended for squirrels?
As long as there is competition for resources, it will be the most able members who will be the most successful, and therefore the most likely to reproduce.
“However that is not where the dispute lies.”
Where exactly does the dispute lie?“It really doesn’t and just keeping repeating that it does isn’t proof.”
WTF does this mean? You asked where squirrels came from, I said that I would guess they evolved from primitive rodents and you accuse me of repeating something. Where do you think they came from? Is it the primitive rodents you have a problem with? I would guess then that they evolved from some even more primitive mammal. Regressing back further, I would guess that these evolved from a more primitive animal that wouldn’t be classified as a mammal. And maybe if you’d been around in those days you would have thought that they were “perfectly designed” too.Of course this isn’t proof, but maybe you could enlighten us all here by sharing your theory of where squirrels came from? If there was no “designer”, and they didnt evolve from “primitive” ancestors. What is your proposed alternative hypothesis?
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 02:42 PMOh dear, a voice of reason from Punder there. And I was so hoping we could establish a consensus that people with Poots’ private beliefs should be barred from holding political office. Think where we could have gone from there!
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 02:49 PMthe universe did not just pop into existence it became a mathematical certainty at some point
Life in all its infinate and peculiar forms did spontaineously appear and that is a bit of an odd thing but how many times did life apear in its protoplasmic form before it became a tenable and lasting form? No one can say life appeared just once and it has always evolved from that point. Life is a mathematical uncertainty and as long as life exists we are simply beating the odds.
As for why Poots is unacceptable? Its because its obvious that he intends to try and infuse his faith into the political decisions, whether that is the 6,000 year old earth or not meeting those nasty caflicks and their leprechaun language
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 02:49 PM
