Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Goodyear and the Scientific Community

In order to be a good minister you have to have the respect of people you serve. I can guarantee that Goodyear does not have the respect of the scientific community. They view him as joke. His ignorance of Darwinian theory is on par with a foreign minister not knowing where Europe is on a map.

Needless to say, Goodyear's ignorance also shows Canada in bad light.

8 comments:

Leeky Sweek said...

"I can guarantee that Goodyear does not have the respect of the scientific community."

Really? That's a pretty large guarantee. Any references to back that up?

Chrystal Ocean said...

"His ignorance of Darwinian theory is on par with a foreign minister not knowing where Europe is on a map."

Good analogy.

Leeky Sweek, a quick Google search will deliver all the references you need and you'll find plenty.

Leeky Sweek said...

"His ignorance of Darwinian theory is on par with a foreign minister not knowing where Europe is on a map."

Pretty astounding that one's lack in knowledge or belief in one component of scientific theory could carry such weight.

The analogy is nonsensical. For good or for bad, evolution is still a theory...Europe is not.

Koby said...

"Pretty astounding that one's lack in knowledge or belief in one component of scientific theory could carry such weight."

A component! No he does not understand the first thing about it.

"Really? That's a pretty large guarantee. Any references to back that up?"

You really do not have a clue.
Anyway, I still busy conducting my poll. In meantime, you will have to make do with this.

"Normally when we send out generic requests for comments to researchers in the scientific community, a fraction of the researchers respond. Those that don't either decline because they aren't comfortable with the subject material, or else are away in the field and unable to respond. But something about this issue touched a nerve, and the response was overwhelming. One researcher even responded to say he wouldn't be able to comment, but only because his wife had just given birth that day."

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/technology-blog/2009/03/scientists_sound_off.html


If word spreads and suspect it will. This is going to affect our ability to attract top scientific talent from outside the country.

Leeky Sweek said...

"A component! No he does not understand the first thing about it."

About what...science? How do you know? By not buying into the evolutionary theory does not mean you can't be scientific. There are people out there, believe it or not, that are scientifically-oriented, yet question the validity of the theory of evolution. Evolution is not the embodiment of all sciences as much as you and many other Liberal and Conservative bloggers would like it to be.

And please don't tell me I don't have a clue. One referral to a CBC article is not a solid reference. As someone who is allegedly conducting their own poll, you would presumably know that.

Koby said...

"And please don't tell me I don't have a clue. One referral to a CBC article is not a solid reference."

Look nim rod, you do not need to take a poll educators and historians to find out whether they would be shocked and dismayed if one of ministers of education confessed that he did not know who Hitler or Stalin was. A basic understanding of subject matter will tip you off as to how they will respond to such a comment.

"There are people out there, believe it or not, that are scientifically-oriented, yet question the validity of the theory of evolution."

I am sure there people with all sorts of degrees that believe any number of crazy things, but does not mean that these views are worth debating. This certainly goes for intelligent design. On that note, you better read up on your intelligent design buddies. The question they put forward is not whether there is evolution; it is whether there is place for an intelligent being in the evolutionary process. Behe, the most well known proponent of intelligent design, thinks there is. He claims that there are certain things such as the bacterial flagellum for example that can not be explained by Darwinian theory; certain biological systems are "irreducibly complex". Needless to say, Behe is on the fringe. It one thing to mount an attack on various adaptionist explanations. Biologists do this all the time. It is quite another to say that no adaptionist explanation could ever account for various biological systems and then to make the wild leap of faith and claim that an intelligent being designed these systems. To make matters worse for Behe his prized flagellum example has recently been blown to pieces.

All that being said, Goodyear is not Behe. At least Behe knows evolutionary theory. It is evident from what Goodyear said that he does not have a clue.

Larry said...

Kobe, you need to get a grip. The guy was having a friendly debate with you. What's weith nimrod? Can't you libs have a friendly debate witbhout name-calling?

Koby said...

I was frustrated. The point was obvious. Still that is an not excuse. Nimrod was uncalled for.