The Consensus?
September 5, 2007 · By Matthew
Wow, I never knew that so many conservatives, including those who just finished a year of pointing out the obvious flaws and inconclusions in climate sciences, are now abandoning John Tory because he has the audacity to allow private schools in Ontario to teach the creation of the universe/world however they like. Instead of railing about the hypocracy or closed-mindedness of this, I’ll simply ask this:
Who created the matter/energy that created the big bang? Nothing plus nothing can’t equal something remember (well, presuming that we’re voiding God here). If an above-mentioned critic out there can explain this one, maybe then I’ll begin to respect your point of view…
I don’t want to abandon Tory, and it’s not really about religion persay. It’s about the pandora’s box of government authorized religious segregation. We should be forcing Muslims to integrate, not encouraging them to study Allah next to Canadian geography.
There are two ways of approaching Tory’s plan; one is yours, viewing it as opening a “Pandora’s box”. The other is about giving the government insight and the ability to control the curricullum within these schools. Right now, they’re privately operated and funded, and the government can’t interfere with what is being taught. Think about it: if the Ministry of Education can look into what’s being taught in those Muslim schools, couldn’t that go a long way to stamping out religious extremism before it begins?
Frank, we can cut it off by not allowing Muslim schools to operate.
Also, maybe you explain who created whatever created the universe?
The problem with that assumption Raphael is that you’re assuming the children of immigrants don’t play organized sports. Have you looked at any peewee soccer teams in Ottawa or Toronto lately? Even the hockey teams are becoming more multicultural.
There are only 53,000 students in faith based schools in Ontario. How many hundreds hundreds of thousands of immigrants did the Liberal Parties at both levels dump into ghettos in those two cities while ignoring massive problems with the immigration system?
If you want to argue that this is segregation, fine, but let’s keep it in context of other segregations that are much worse. I didn’t find myself segregated attending a publicly funded Catholic school and reject that notion entirely.
“Why is there something rather than nothing?”
That’s your question? Do your own research lazy-ass. This question has been addressed thousands of times.
“I didn’t find myself segregated attending a publicly funded Catholic school and reject that notion entirely.”
Matt, of course not. Catholics are already integrated into Canadian culture. Christianity is already fairly entrenched into the Canadian secular identity already. You think just because I’m an atheist that I don’t celebrate Christmas, know the Lord’s prayer by heart, or am unable to say grace?
It’s not the Catholics I am concerned about.
To Atheist Jew: That’s my point — eventually you have to acknowledge that something wasn’t created. You have your faith planted in that being a bunch of atoms, phontons, etc., I have it in a divine God who is beyond the laws of physics. To quote Trey Parker (co-creator of South Park), “Basically…out of all the ridiculous religion stories—which are greatly, wonderfully ridiculous—the silliest one I’ve ever heard is…”yeah…there’s this big giant universe and it’s expanding, it’s all gonna collapse on itself and we’re all just here ‘just ’cause…just ’cause”. That, to me, is the most ridiculous explanation ever.”
Personally, I’ll throw in my chips with the God/creation crowd!
Not at all. I think that because you’re an atheist, you don’t recite the Lord’s prayer or practice saying grace, and if you do I think that’s unique.
But you missed the point I made. First, if you’re really worried about segregation, your attention should be directed at social housing and immigration policies. Secondly, curriculum is mandated, and Muslims (from both public and private FB schools) are appearing more and more in all aspects of society, from organized sports to politics to music and everything else.
No, I think that because you’re an atheist that you don’t recite the Lord’s prayer or practice saying grace.
But you missed my point. First, if you’re really worried about segregation, your attention should be directed at both social housing and immigration policies. Second, the curriculum is mandated. People in any FB school will be taught the exact same things you are, + they will have a religion class.
“I don’t want to abandon Tory, and it’s not really about religion persay. It’s about the pandora’s box of government authorized religious segregation.”
Is this really a bigger issue than McGuinty’s caving to the teachers’ unions or his lie-and-tax $2.5 billion scam or the stuff that Steve Janke has dug up on Michael Bryant? Is modified school funding the single most important issue facing Ontarians , so huge that all other issues aren’t worthy of consideration?
The questions are rhetorical. I have seen this movie before in 2004-06, when a large number of Canadians claimed gay marriage was the single most important issue, bigger than national defense and healthcare and taxes. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
John Fucking Tory for Premier, and I don’t want to hear any backtalk from you crypto-Liberals.
If you require someone or something to create the universe, then who created that someone or something? Your argument leads to an infinite regression and is obvious nonsense.
Tory’s position that we can treat Creationism as a fact to be taught along with evolution shows he doesn’t understand the nature of evidence either.
Everybody here is losing sight of the problem with John Tory. And that problem is that Tory is letting himself (and therefore the Conservative Party) get sucked into playing McGuintys’ game. Tory will lose us the election because he isn’t hammering on McGuintys record.
Does anybody here think working people in Ontario have forgotten the health tax? And the fact that instead of being spent on health care, the tax is going into general revenue? How about the delisting of chiropractic services? And eye exams? The last time I looked around in my chiropractors waiting room I saw NDP and Liberal supporters waiting alongside me…
I could design a really neat election ad series about how McGuinty defunded eye exams so Ontario voters couldn’t watch the Liberals shenanigans.
Tory should take a lesson from Harper. Listen to the question, think about it, count to ten, think about it again, then answer in a way that can’t be twisted or taken out of context. Or simply don’t answer that particular question.
“Who created the matter/energy that created the big bang?”
There are a few possibilities (generally of the “what” or “how” variety, rather than the “who”. But because there isn’t a single model more compelling than others at this point, it’s generally not taught in science classes.
Various culture-specific answers to that question are usually taught in classes called “religion”, and that’s great. But don’t mix it up with science.
Atheist Jew/Dalton: I think you have missed my point. Yes, we can argue about semantics, but at the end of the day it’s far more rational for a “who” to create the universe, rather than a “what”; I’d put my money on an intelligent creator God actually bringing those particles into existence than just saying they um, happened. Trey Parker sums it up nicely: “Basically…out of all the ridiculous religion stories—which are greatly, wonderfully ridiculous—the silliest one I’ve ever heard is…”yeah…there’s this big giant universe and it’s expanding, it’s all gonna collapse on itself and we’re all just here ‘just ’cause…just ’cause”. That, to me, is the most ridiculous explanation ever.” Science has to contend with these obvious intersections with a God of creation here, when you get into the smallest areas of biology and, according to Einstein, when dealing with time. Let’s also remember as well that “intelligent design” isn’t creation as taught by the Bible, but rather a scientific theory that can accommodate the Bible’s creation story, the Natives’ creation story or anything else where a Creator actually put the pieces together.
I am an atheist. I’m not Jewish. Not sure what you’re talking about.
“I think you have missed my point.”
In your original post, you asked a question which I tried to answer.
There’s a rather large gap between creation models supported by scientific evidence, and creation models handed down by our ancestors based on their understanding of how things are created which, in turn, is based on what they understood of the physical world in that era.
Folks are free to believe anything they want, of course. But if it’s not “science”, let’s not teach it in “science” class.
Intelligent design isn’t a scientific theory.
Exactly. It’s based on a hypothesis that can never, never be falsified.
Yes it can — if the universe was proven to be a series of random events like some here have suggested. Modern science has been unable to do so though since there are those gapping questions like the one about where all this matter/energy originally came from out there. I still await an answer…
That’s not quite what “falsifiability” means, Matthew. It is impossible to disprove that your hypothetical series of random events were not, in fact, set in motion by an omnipotent entity.
If it can’t be falsified - in other words, if there is no conceivable finding, observation, or experiment that could disprove a hypothesis - then you have moved out of the realm of science and into the realm of faith.
I have all the respect in the world for faith: I just don’t want my children to be taught that faith-based belief is the same as scientific knowledge.
‘I still await an answer…”
To which question? To “where all this matter and energy original came from”?
Would you like me to provide you with an overview of some of the current hypotheses? It would be easier for you to review a couple of basic Wiki articles on cosmology, but I can try, if you insist.
[...] in religion class alongside the provincially mandated theory of evolution, some Blogging Tories threw very public cyber fits. Well, I’ve got news for all you. In publicly funded Catholic [...]
“I still await an answer…”
Give me a break! Demanding an answer to a metaphysical question is quite simply the most ridiculous thing I have heard all day!
Here is a question for you. Why does it matter? As the answer changes nothing for our day to day lives, and certainly should have nothing to do with the policy decisions of governments.
Then what do you care Ezra if some parents send their kids to a school where creation science is taught in biology class? It doesn’t affect you one iota!
“Then what do you care … if some parents send their kids to a school where creation science is taught in biology class?”
Well, it does, actually. In two important ways.
a) We all need to be able to distinguish between knowledge derived from faith and knowledge derived from observation, experimentation and reason. Both forms of knowledge matter, and have their proponents, but it is absolutely essential that we understand the difference between them.
b) “Creation science” is not science (for the reasons discussed above, and, incidentally, upheld by the US Supreme Court). A grounding in actual science is an essential precursor to studies (and careers) in most areas of science.
I missed your response, Matthew. Would you like me to provide you with summaries of some of the current hypotheses relating to cosmic origins?
Then what do you care Ezra if some parents send their kids to a school where creation science is taught in biology class?
That isn’t a metaphysical question, the one to which I referred, or which you demanded an answer.
Your second question is quite different, as it is a policy related question, that has vast implications on the taxes I will pay.
Sadly, you cannot seperate these two very different questions. One has an answer with real implications, the other does not.
“Who created the matter/energy that created the big bang? Nothing plus nothing can’t equal something remember (well, presuming that we’re voiding God here). If an above-mentioned critic out there can explain this one, maybe then I’ll begin to respect your point of view…”
Considering that this question has stumped theologians and philosophers for centuries, you must not respect anyone, including yourself, since you don’t seem to have the answer either.
Guys, I have my own strongly-believed answers to these questions. I’m simply playing devil’s advocate to make a point. Science seems VERY interested in the origin of the universe though since, as many science class movies point out, understanding that would allow us a greater understanding in the areas of astronomy, chemistry and numerous other fields of science. Let’s be fair though: you don’t want to pay for creation science, I don’t want to pay for evolution. If we’re going to tax though to pay for education, I still have far more faith in parents making the choice on where they send their kids to than I do the government. Most parents won’t purposely screw their kids over. As for evolution being an essential subject, I highly doubt and contest that (the same way to contest creation science; let’s agree to disagree with that one by the way since I already made a point addressing that). Sure, anthropology, archeology and a half-dozen other areas see evolution as essential, but those area all areas of study in university; why does the topic need mentioning in high school? It’s not going to make our graduates uncompetitive. I’ve taken university science course in five different disciplines, including the three covered in high school, and none of them required an understanding of evolution theory. The money these days is in application, not postulation! If you wish to go into the later area of expertise, simply take the *specialized* courses you need in university for it.
Evolution says nothing about the origin of the universe. You are thinking of something like cosmology or maybe abiogenesis. You say you don’t want to pay for it to be taught in high school, but would you make the same statement about atomic ‘theory’ (aka CHEMISTRY), which is just as established and valid a scientific theory? Like it or not, evolution isn’t the product of guess work and postulation, but real evidence and repeatable experiments.
As for evolution being an essential subject, it is the fundamental basis for all of biology. Eliminate evolution from biology class and you might as well omit the teaching of electricity in a circuits class.
Intelligent design is a philosophical subject at best, and religious indoctrination at worst.
“Let’s be fair though: you don’t want to pay for creation science, I don’t want to pay for evolution.”
Not quite. The issue isn’t “payment” or taxation, for me. The issue is that I want my children, and all our children, to understand the difference between faith based thinking and scientific thinking. “Creation science” is a form of faith-based thinking, not science.
“As for evolution being an essential subject, I highly doubt and contest that.”
You are mistaken in two ways, I think.
1) You will not find ANY leading practicing biologist or medical practitioner on the planet who does not accept the principle of evolution as a key element of science.
2) You CANNOT be a scientist in ANY field unless you can distinguish between faith-based thinking and scientific thought.
Evolution and cosmic origins are irrelevent. This thread is filled with nonsense: “conservatives” fighting about how much government interference they want in the education market!
The only morally valid stance is complete and utter privatization of the entire education market. Deny tax-payer funding to ANY and ALL schools regardless of what they teach.
“Evolution and cosmic origins are irrelevent.”
Unless you happen to be talking about evolution and cosmic origins. In which case, they’re kind of interesting.
“I don’t want to pay for evolution”
You might as well say I don’t want to pay for gravity or newtons law. You could get thought many careers without understanding newtons laws but studying them has value from a scientific education perspective.
“you don’t want to pay for creation science, I don’t want to pay for evolution”
This equivilence is silly. Biblical creation is not a science. Really one needs to be delusional to think that the biblical description of the existance of man is anywhere close to true.
“Unless you happen to be talking about evolution and cosmic origins. In which case, they’re kind of interesting.”
Fine. Let me be less subtle: you guys are wasting bandwidth.
Is that clear enough??
Best not participate, then, I should think.
Matthew, any luck with that list of leading biologists and medical practitioners who don’t accept evolution as the basis of all biological sciences?
Why do you anti-Tory activists support terrorism? I refer to the terrorism in Caledonia and Deseronto that McGuinty actively encourages and supports.
Good luck getting a security clearance or travelling to the States.
Your posts don’t live up to the reputation your name claims.
That’s three messages telling us you don’t like the discussion. We get it. You don’t like the discussion. Point taken. Thanks.
Matthew, in discussing this thread with a friend, an important point emerged.
My point here is that we really need people to understand the difference between faith based and science based thought.
Now, our country is full of people who are trying, as engaged, active citizens, to make sense of a number of scientific questions - not as Nobel contenders or graduate students, but as people in a democracy who have an obligation to try to understand issues and make their views known to their governnment.
This doesn’t require that we all get doctorates. It does require that we develop and exercise basic critical thinking skills, and at least a rudimentary understanding of what valid scientific thinking and process is. We have make decisions about issues like climate change, economic patterns, nuclear power, social trends, polls, studies, and a whole welter of data. We, and our kids, need to be able to distinguish good thinking, and good science, from crap.
Faith based knowledge is about the primacy of unsubstantiated belief, based on authority. People who accept what Al Gore says about global warming on faith are idiots, and they are betraying their obligation to be informed citizens. People who accept what George Bush says about political development in Iraq on faith re idiots, and they are betraying their obligation to be informed citizens. We cannot simply believe: we have an obligation to learn critical thought.
There is a place in our lives for faith. But it is absolutely essential that we, and our kids, learn to distinguish between “believe” and “science-based knowledge”.
So yeah, it does matter. A lot.