Big fan of your work, love the space stuff, and the skeptic stuff.

However, I gotta take issue with your thoughts on religion, mate. You said ‘…religion does indeed have a tendency to affect people’s decisions, especially, critically, if they are a creationist.’ What the?!? Seriously mate, I lost a whole lot of respect for you there. You’re implying that a person in power, or a scientific person, should not have beliefs, as those beliefs may cloud his decision. That’s not true, and you know it.

Now, I’m not condoning what this fella has done, he has clearly shown that he struggles to seperate his religion from his science, but until he does something obviously anti-science, then you have no right (and I mean NO right) to imply that his religious beliefs are clouding his judgement.

You should be more careful what you say on such a public, popular blog.

I will continue reading your blog (as I have for years now), but rest assured that if you continue spurting anti-religious propaganda, then, well, you’ll lose me. And I want to keep reading about astronomy, and skepticism, I really do! So please, turn the FUD down a notch.

Sincerely,

Mark

PS You’re more than welcome to continue this discussion via email, if you’re interested.

Information and knowledge is power.

Religion is not science and the bible (or Koran etc.) should not be used as the basis for the search of scientific truths (unless perhaps you are researching some aspect of biblical archaeology or historical reference, which is then fine, go ahead).

Religion when used by an individual to get them through their day (or lives)is nobody’s business but their own.

Religion, when imposed on others, used to influence science or used to support ignorance should be fought tooth and nail and is truely a burden on society.

Just a few general thoughts.

Paul

@Michael K:
Thanks. That was superlative. I just emailed Moore to give him a thumbs up.

And Bush didn’t decide which projects would be funded by the NSF, but it’s still worrying when he spouts anti-scientific nonsense. The Minister was asked about evolution and HE brought up Christianity. If his beliefs (about science) are irrelevant to his position (as a government official related to the governance of science) then

1) his response should have been roughly what you said: “I don’t get to decide who gets funded, so my views on that are irrelevant. We have scientific panels to decide funding; as I understand it, the scientific consensus is that the Theory of Evolution is the fundamental underpinning of the biological sciences, so I expect that research proposals will be funded accordingly.”

2) why have any government officials? Seems like a massive waste of money: “here, wear this silly hat that says ‘sciencey guy’ and we’ll pay you. Just don’t actually DO anything. Don’t have any influence. Don’t try to dictate policy at any level. Just wear the damn hat and keep quiet.”

I get very upset every time ID’ers or Creationists claim that Science refuses to listen to them or refuse to admit when they are wrong. Plenty of theories have changed or been discarded over the years – they just don’t do it on a whim.

The whole reason we have a scientific process is to hold those ideas & theories to a higher standard – to provide proof, facts, and data to support their conclusions. On a daily basis, Scientists constantly test new ideas against old ones, and when new information or data is brought to light, the Scientific community takes notice & tries to replicate the same results.

For ID’ers & Creationists – there are no tests, no results, etc – they are the ones that refuse to change or accept the fact they might be wrong. A Scientist is not going to admit he was wrong without any proof or evidence submitted that points to an alternate conclusion. “Because the Bible says So” is not scientifically proveable.

And yes, Scientists do admit, quite often, that there is plenty they don’t know. Just because Science doesn’t have an answer today does not automatically mean “God Did It.”

Just because we didn’t understand the nature of Lightning – doesn’t mean “God Did It.” Just as today, gaps in our scientific knowledge do not mean “God Did It,” it just means that technology needs to advance, our understanding needs to advance, and we need to continue to test, test, test to figure out what it is exactly that we don’t know.

Science is a process – not a belief system.

Religion doesn’t change (it can’t – because God is infallible, right?) – Science change & expand, contract, revise, and help understand. Did praying to God put a man on the Moon? I don’t think so.

Sorry – just a little ticked off this morning.

Ignorance is not a civil right
John Moore

When asked by a Globe and Mail science reporter, Canada’s Minister of State for Science and Technology wouldn’t say if he believed in evolution. Was that a problem, or just a niggling matter of personal conscience?

Let’s put it this way: If Finance Minister Jim Flaherty were to say he didn’t understand how the money supply works but he prays daily for an end to the current economic turmoil, I believe we would all think we had a problem.

Jonathan Kay — who columnized on this issue in Tuesday’s Post — thinks that religion is a private matter, and that those pesky secularists with all their logic and proven science are merely engaging in a “witch hunt.” With all due respect to him, this represents a forever mind-numbing failure to properly frame the place of science in our society.

Science is not what we believe, it is what we know. It is based on observation, reason, fact and proof. Faith, on the other hand, is all those things we cannot test, document or prove. That’s why it’s called faith; we believe in the absence of proof.

Some insist this makes science the enemy of religion. They are wrong.

Here’s the syllogism that evolution’s faith-driven critics never seem to be able to master: Evolution is established science. The religious are free to think that God guided evolution; but since there is no proof of God, science remains agnostic on His role. This doesn’t mean scientists don’t believe in God. It means they can’t document His existence. What science cannot document, science leaves out of the record.

Science Minister Gary Goodyear says he believes in things we cannot see. “Maybe,” he says, “we don’t have a powerful enough microscope yet.” This is a false logic that permeates the creationist community: the idea that because there is much to be revealed in the world, we can’t count on what we have already seen. Are creationists willing to apply this logic to medicine, and forgo Penicillin pending what we still don’t know about bacteriology? Do they reject what we already know about the world’s geography because we haven’t fully mapped the sea beds?

Of course it matters whether the Science Minister acknowledges or contests evolution. This isn’t a case of a politician who likes to read the Bible and pray — it’s a Cabinet Minister who holds philosophical beliefs that are antithetical to his portfolio. Jonathan Kay insists Christian-hating lefties would never raise similar alarm over a Cabinet minister of another faith. Well this leftie, who holds faith in considerably high regard, would have very serious concerns about an aboriginal justice minister who declined to comment on the efficacy of Western legal systems, and would be even more up in arms if a Scientologist health minister refused to discuss mental illness. And I’m pretty sure the National Post editorial board would have some pretty pointed questions for a Muslim MP given the status of women portfolio.

The first problem with Goodyear is that he fronts the science portfolio in a government that has demonstrated through its most recent budget that it doesn’t value the sector. The man delegated to argue the vital importance of science at the Cabinet table doesn’t actually know what it is. More significantly, Goodyear’s insistence that religion should come to bear on science provides comfort to those who teach their children the falsehood that to follow God you must reject science.

This is the willful dissemination of scientific illiteracy. More frankly put, it is the promotion of stupidity.

John.moore@cfrb.com
John Moore is host of the drive home show on NewsTalk 1010 CFRB.
Outside of Southern Ontario he can be heard at http://www.cfrb.com.

Creationism isn’t a bad idea

Yes, it is. It’s a load of pseudoscientific bollocks.