One of the big moments in the otherwise lackluster federal campaign in 2000 was when Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella went on Canada AM and, in typical fashion for those who defend the Charter’s freedoms like that of, say, religion, did a drive-by on Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day’s personal religious beliefs regarding the origins of our planet. This had nothing at all to do with the campaign when you think about it rationally: a Prime Minister Day couldn’t amend school curriculum to teach creation science. It just made for very effective political theatre since Kinsella brought on a stuffed Barney (the PBS dinosaur) and suggested that Day thought that Barney was really alive and that The Flintstones was a documentary.
Well it’s funny how cyclical history can be after all as Kinsella is involved in another Liberal campaign (provincially this time) that is attacking, of all things, a Red Tory (some would say a red liberal…) who had the nerve to suggest that some groups be allowed to teach their kids their own version of history instead of the version we crafted just a few decades ago. In reading the comments on my previous post dealing with Tory’s flip-flop over creation’s place in society, it’s obvious that some objectionalist Tories, Liberals who faun over “public education” and the agnostic/atheist crowd just don’t get religion after all. So, as this new week begins, let me offer a few simple observations before Monday’s writ drops and we move on to real non-issues like which party can spend more of our money in four years or how a party can suck as much pollution out of Ontario to combat climate change while blowing as much cash on keeping manufacturing jobs secure in the province…:
1)A Blogging Tory upset with yours truly among others pointed out that our Catholic school system already teaches evolution in science and creationism in religion class. As one who has gone through the system I can attest that this isn’t true; rather evolution is taught in both classes.
2)As a follow up, many of us Catholics (you know, the ones actually accept the club’s rules) know that the Separate System is hardly Catholic…
3)For those of you who like pointing out that science should teach one thing and beliefs should be kept in religion class, are you actually trying to torment these kids with confusion?
4)Science, real science was never about absolutes. If you look at applied science, it is all based on measurements and calculations but those rely on models; for example, the atomic orbital theory isn’t proven or absolute — it just works pretty well for explaining most chemical reactions. Make the situation more complex though, like in organic chemistry, and the whole thing leaves scientists clueless. Another great example is Newtonian mechanics, which has actually been rendered obsolete by Einstein’s work almost four hundred years later. I have a strong hunch that a model like evolution won’t be so lucky as to stick around that long… This is real science!
5)Creation science is a real scientific theory — if you want to challenge it, please don’t insult us by just offering a fancy and long-winded “nuh-huh”. I find it funny that Wikipedia attempts this too, but I’ve seen this movie before; it’s called the Consensus on Climate Change (and we all know how that one will end!).
6)Someone still has to address for me how teaching an alternative view on the origin of species will forever ruin students’ lives and deny them jobs, houses and weekends up at the cottage. They’re not your kids so what do you care what they learn if it doesn’t affect you?
7)John Tory might just be brilliant after all: run as a PC candidate, do a horrible job representing religious values and guarantee that no leader will touch the subject for the next 20 years — Mr. Secularist gets his way. I still don’t think he’s that crafty though…
8)Regarding the Freedom of Religion — just what do secularists think this means. Am I supposed to suspend all religious activities and identities unless I’m in the privacy of my room (or closet)? I thought this was the land of the strong and free, or was I gravely mistaken and is only naked gay men that can display their, um, distinctiveness out in public?
9)Ala the Flintstones comment, blindly believing in evolution is like believing Star Trek is a documentary about the future. Reality is though that we’re not eliminating all wars, humanity isn’t evolving past its character flaws and evil tendencies and no matter how much some in our society might like it, we’re not going to grow beyond religious faith. Even the television series outlived this optimistic faith in the human will by DS9. Evolution might be wonderful science fiction with things spontaneously mutating everywhere, but we shouldn’t be confusing it with a scientific principle. Maybe we should also be keeping it in it’s proper place too — media class!
Jim Pettit wrote:
I think you will find that Newtonian mechanics has not been overturned as you say but has been found to be merely a special case (low speed, average sized masses) of physics now enlarged by high speed and large and small mass physics.
I am not sure whay you mean by calling Creationism a theory. It makes no predictions and relies on no evidence. It is equivalent of saying the toothfairy did it.
Posted on 09-Sep-07 at 4:19 am | Permalink
Progressive wrote:
One ridiculous assertion after the other. What an embarrassing post. This blog is god-awful.
Posted on 09-Sep-07 at 6:22 am | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
Jim - please see point 5
Posted on 09-Sep-07 at 6:39 am | Permalink
Progressive wrote:
Creation “science” is not a scientific theory. Why do you keep asserting that? It’s not to up to everyone else to constantly re-explain what the term “scientific theory” means. It’s up to you to produce actual science (through reliable observation and measurement) to propose a mechanism by which Creationism occurs.
That’s it. End of story.
Posted on 09-Sep-07 at 6:58 am | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
“For those of you who like pointing out that science should teach one thing and beliefs should be kept in religion class, are you actually trying to torment these kids with confusion?”
Do you actually think your children and THAT stupid?
Posted on 09-Sep-07 at 7:15 am | Permalink
dalton wrote:
I’ll be happy to respond to the questions I addressed in the preceding thread, although I can only pick up the discussion at the points where you stopped responding last time.
“the agnostic/atheist crowd just don’t get religion after all.”
I can’t speak for any “crowd”, but I believe I “get” religion. You’ll find that many, if not most, agnostic/atheists were formerly religious adherents, as I was.
“3)For those of you who like pointing out that science should teach one thing and beliefs should be kept in religion class, are you actually trying to torment these kids with confusion?”
Well, most of the folks in the world grow up with the capacity to distinguish scientific fact from faith. My son learned to read fiction, but understands that literary fiction, myth, religion and science represent different categories of narrative. In fact, it’s essential that a person do so, and the ability to distinguish between them begins as soon as a pre-schooler realizes that there, in fact, no dog named “Spot”. It’s really not that big a stretch.
“4)Science, real science was never about absolutes. If you look at applied science, it is all based on measurements and calculations but those rely on models; for example, the atomic orbital theory isn’t proven or absolute — it just works pretty well for explaining most chemical reactions. Make the situation more complex though, like in organic chemistry, and the whole thing leaves scientists clueless. Another great example is Newtonian mechanics, which has actually been rendered obsolete by Einstein’s work almost four hundred years later.”
I think what you’re saying here is that Science changes its models in response to new input, and that’s quite right. That’s one of its strengths.
Many apologists for “creation science” don’t (as you put it above) “get” science. Science isn’t a static set of beliefs. It’s a way of analyzing and understanding experience, based on observation and experiment. Of course it changes as we learn more. By contrast, religion is based on divine authority, which is absolute, eternal, and invariant.
By the way, Newtonian models still work wonderfully well in predicting the behaviour of bodies at all but the sub-atomic level: it was calculations based on Newtonian models that mapped out our solar system, a wonderful example of the predictive power of science.
“I have a strong hunch that a model like evolution won’t be so lucky as to stick around that long.”
I doubt that very much. The evidence FOR evolution has gotten stronger since Darwin’s work, the evidence against it is pretty much non existent, and the discovery of DNA has provided the mechanism by which evolution operates. You’re aware, I assume, that the Vatican has endorsed evolution?
“5)Creation science is a real scientific theory.”
No, it is not. I thought I addressed this in the preceding thread, but the simple form of the objection is this: Creation “science” does not present testable and falsifiable hypotheses. Any hypothesis which requires the action of a supernatural being, and in particular an omnipotent one, is not falsifiable.
I hope that wasn’t too “fancy” or “long-winded”…I tried to be brief.
“6)Someone still has to address for me how teaching an alternative view on the origin of species will forever ruin students’ lives and deny them jobs, houses and weekends up at the cottage.”
I don’t recall anyone making a silly claim like that. What I do remember saying is that there are NO leading creationist doctors, biologists, or research scientists in the life sciences.
“They’re not your kids so what do you care what they learn if it doesn’t affect you?”
Even atheists have children in school, you know. And to many of us, it’s essential that those children NOT be taught that there is no qualitative difference between science and religion. I want my kids to be able to distinguish between the two.
I have not comment on your other points. Not sure what naked gay men have to do with it.
Posted on 09-Sep-07 at 7:30 am | Permalink
dalton wrote:
Sorry, I had one further comment on this point:
““6)Someone still has to address for me how teaching an alternative view on the origin of species will forever ruin students’ lives”
As noted previously, I have no problem with all kinds of creation accounts being taught.
The ones that involve the application of the laws of physics and biology, as we understand them, should be taught in science classes.
The ones that involve the action of supernatural beings and forces NOT susceptible to scientific analysis should be taught in religion classes.
Posted on 09-Sep-07 at 8:08 am | Permalink
Red Tory: September 2007 wrote:
[…] Flowâ€â€¦ what a dumb idea, I hear you saying. Well perhaps, but then I’ve heard an awful lot of patently silly ideas floating around […]
Posted on 09-Sep-07 at 11:05 am | Permalink
Aaron Unruh wrote:
I see that Canadian Cynic and Red Tory have linked to this post. We wouldn’t expect mere technicians to know anything about the philosophy of science, now would we?
Posted on 09-Sep-07 at 2:35 pm | Permalink
Aaron Unruh wrote:
“Science, real science was never about absolutes. If you look at applied science, it is all based on measurements and calculations but those rely on models; for example, the atomic orbital theory isn’t proven or absolute — it just works pretty well for explaining most chemical reactions. Make the situation more complex though, like in organic chemistry, and the whole thing leaves scientists clueless. Another great example is Newtonian mechanics, which has actually been rendered obsolete by Einstein’s work almost four hundred years later. I have a strong hunch that a model like evolution won’t be so lucky as to stick around that long… This is real science!”
Well said. Of course, these people aren’t interested in testing and refining existing theories. They want to pretend that the ideas, currently evolution, they’re in love with (mostly because they just think religion is icky) are “proven” and that criticism of them is therefore beyond the pale. As though any theory can be proven - is it too much to ask these technicians that they pick up a book on the philosophy of science before spouting off on it in public forums?
Have you ever actually heard Dawkins speak? He sounds more like an ideologue and a politician than a scientist. But when you’ve invested your faith in science for ideological reasons, I guess that’s the sort of deficient intellect you would choose to follow.
Posted on 09-Sep-07 at 2:42 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
No theory is ever “proven”, you are quite correct. That’s why requests for conclusive, definitive “proof” of any scientific model simply illustrates that the speaker doesn’t understand science.
“Well said. Of course, these people aren’t interested in testing and refining existing theories.”
Can’t really agree with that. Darwin’s model of natural selection has evolved (har har) considerably since the publication of the Origin of Species. All subsequent iterations retain the core principle of evolution, which is about as well established as the notion of gravity.
“They want to pretend that the ideas, currently evolution, they’re in love with (mostly because they just think religion is icky)…”
Would that include the Vatican, which has endorsed the theory of evolution?
Would it include the legions of medical practitioners, biologists, geneticists, teachers, and plain folks who (a) accept the notion of evolution and (b) are Christian?
Posted on 09-Sep-07 at 3:08 pm | Permalink
C wrote:
On the basis of the scientific evidence available, would it be better to teach a version of creation science based on one creator, or several working concurrently?
Posted on 09-Sep-07 at 3:29 pm | Permalink
anon wrote:
Guys, you’ve been had. This writeup is a ‘troll blog’, or as I like to call it, a ‘trog’. It’s only purpose is to suck visitors so that it can over-exaggerate its own importance via ‘number of visitors’ statistics.
Clearly, this is just a joke. The degree of intellectual bankruptcy and ridiculous semantic ambiguities should have tipped you off. I believe there’s a webpage that will automatically generate random blog writeups like this; you just set the ‘ignorance’ and ‘predictability’ slider all the way up to maximum.
Posted on 09-Sep-07 at 4:30 pm | Permalink
anon wrote:
Oops..I forgot to mention that to select the ‘hyperbolic straw men’ option, otherwise you won’t get the level of silliness we see here.
Posted on 09-Sep-07 at 4:42 pm | Permalink
Canadian Cynic: Self-destruction, Blogging Tory style. wrote:
[…] believe the phrase you’re looking for here is “self-immolation”:4)Science, real science was never about absolutes. If you look at applied science, it is all based […]
Posted on 09-Sep-07 at 6:00 pm | Permalink
Red Tory wrote:
The “philosophy of science”… Heh. Is that what you call this execrable drivel?
Posted on 09-Sep-07 at 6:54 pm | Permalink
Aaron Unruh wrote:
Yes, it’s what I call it. I just made the term up all by myself.
Or not. Here you go. It’s not too late, even for you: http://web.uvic.ca/philosophy/.....ourses.php
“220 - Introduction to Philosophy of Science
This course will introduce both the epistemological and ethical issues concerning science as a method of gaining knowledge about the world. Epistemological issues may include the distinction between science and non-science, the logic of explanation, and the logic of confirmation. Ethical issues may include the ethics of experimentation with humans, animals, or the environment; the social consequences of scientific knowledge or technology; and the community control of research.”
Posted on 09-Sep-07 at 8:13 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
Aaron and Matthew: I am trying to discuss this issue with you both in good faith, but you don’t seem to be responding.
Are you interested in discussing this issue?
Posted on 09-Sep-07 at 8:15 pm | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
This is exactly the reason I became a disinterested agnostic. Talk about a futile discussion. The answer to the question of (g)od’s existence will be made known to us upon our death (or it won’t, if there is nothing, in which case we will never know). So until then, I would rather spend my time on something productive, since either way, it isn’t up to me.
Posted on 10-Sep-07 at 6:26 am | Permalink
Dalton wrote:
I think the issue matters, and there is certainly a lot to talk about. I am assuming since Matthew has raised the subject twice that he thinks so too. So, as I said, this is an attempt in good faith to have a productive discussion.
Posted on 10-Sep-07 at 6:29 am | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
Sorry Dalton,
I’m not ignoring you, it’s just that I have a very important transition that I’m in the process of going through. I appreciate you taking the time to offer proper arguments for your side though. I will have more to say about this (probably in the form of another post though since I have some links) but it will be a bit delayed…
Posted on 10-Sep-07 at 7:32 am | Permalink
Ryan wrote:
“I will have more to say about this (probably in the form of another post though since I have some links) but it will be a bit delayed…”
Yay! Links!
Posted on 10-Sep-07 at 7:39 am | Permalink
Dalton wrote:
Thanks, Matthew. I’ll stay tuned.
Posted on 10-Sep-07 at 7:46 am | Permalink
K wrote:
“9)Ala the Flintstones comment, blindly believing in evolution is like believing Star Trek is a documentary about the future. Reality is though that we’re not eliminating all wars, humanity isn’t evolving past its character flaws and evil tendencies and no matter how much some in our society might like it, we’re not going to grow beyond religious faith. Even the television series outlived this optimistic faith in the human will by DS9.”
I don’t think you understand what evolution is. There is no pre-defined outcome for evolution. We are not evolving towards anything, as if there was a final goal. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that requires the elimination of wars or flaws in people.
Posted on 10-Sep-07 at 9:53 am | Permalink
Tomorrows Trust - A Review of Catholic Education » 11Se07 Blogs Comment on Faith-based Schools Proposal wrote:
[…] Warren Kinsella’s Documentary Sequel By Matthew 1)A Blogging Tory upset with yours truly among others pointed out that our Catholic school system already teaches evolution in science and creationism in religion class. As one who has gone through the system I can attest that this … ThePolitic.com - http://www.thepolitic.com […]
Posted on 11-Sep-07 at 8:30 am | Permalink
Matt wrote:
1)A Blogging Tory upset with yours truly among others pointed out that our Catholic school system already teaches evolution in science and creationism in religion class. As one who has gone through the system I can attest that this isn’t true; rather evolution is taught in both classes./I>
Sorry to be late to the party, just noticed this link today. Anyway, “as one who has gone through the system”, I can tell you this was the case in my education. It’s also in the provincial curriculum. If your school doesn’t teach as I had described, then grab a megaphone and start raising a stink, because implying I’m a liar isn’t going to do anything.
Posted on 09-Mar-08 at 3:40 pm | Permalink