Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta law

[SirJosephPorter]

SJP,

Your last post about electoral pandering really got me thinking about the differing populations of religious folk throughout Canada. I found this info from StatsCan:

Population by religion, by province and territory (2001 Census)

It seems that your home province has the highest number of fundamentalist Christians based on population as well as % of population.

Interesting in that there is a distinct opportunity (assuming that the vote pandering experience in AB is successful) that we may see the Ontario gvt ape these same policies.... Hope that you're looking forward to it.

Captain, Dexter has done a pretty good job of answering you (thanks, Dexter), but let me also add my two dollars worth (inflation, you know, about time that phrase was updated).

In the statistics, nowhere does it give the population of religious right. If you find such a table, I suspect it will show that Alberta has the highest population of religious right of any province in Canada (% wise).

Religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive concepts; many religious people accept evolution as the method by which life evolved on earth. It is only the conservative Protestants, the religious right, that has a problem with evolution.

So dig up the statistics about the population of religious right (province wise) and we will talk.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

With the above comment in mind, exactly why are you unwilling to consider the Theory of Creationism?

For the simple reason, Captain, that it is not a theory, it is a fact (as you yourself said a while ago), it is a religious fact. Which is another word for superstition.

Thus as far as religious right is concerned, Creation did happen, 5000 years ago in six days, it is a fact, it is not in dispute. So it cannot possibly a scientific theory. Don’t confuse theory with fact.

Let me give you an example. Suppose I am standing in front of you and say I have an apple in my hand. Is that a theory? No, it is a fact (if I have an apple in my hand) or a falsehood (if I don’t).

Same way, creationism is not a theory; it is a fact as far as religious right is concerned. I refuse to take religious fact or superstition seriously or to dignify it by calling it a theory.

If one belongs to religious right, it is a fact, if one doesn’t; it is a religious fact, or superstition. But no way is Creationism a theory.

 

[L Gilbert]

It's not fact either. It's not even hypothesis. It's at best, an uneducated guess.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Why does this debate always have to be between two opposite extremes. Usually, the truth lies between two extremes. I think, in the end, that is where we might find the truth in this debate. As far as I'm concerned both theories are out dated. There is far more to our reality than meets the eye.

Unfortunately, there is n middle ground here, Cliffy. There may be a middle ground if both were scientific theories. But one is a scientific theory and the other is religious superstition (or religious fact, if you will).

Thus, what is the middle ground between evolution and Creation? That man was half created and then he half evolved? Or that God created the earth and life on earth, not 5000 years ago in six days, but 10,000 years ago in 12 days?

There can be no middle ground between science and superstition; there may possibly be a middle ground between two competing scientific theories.

 

[Cannuck]

Indeed, anybody who mixes business, money making with politics is probably not a very good entrepreneur.

Ya, just ask guys like Dick Cheney!

:roll:

 

[captain morgan]

Captain, Dexter has done a pretty good job of answering you (thanks, Dexter), but let me also add my two dollars worth (inflation, you know, about time that phrase was updated).

In the statistics, nowhere does it give the population of religious right. If you find such a table, I suspect it will show that Alberta has the highest population of religious right of any province in Canada (% wise).

Religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive concepts; many religious people accept evolution as the method by which life evolved on earth. It is only the conservative Protestants, the religious right, that has a problem with evolution.

So dig up the statistics about the population of religious right (province wise) and we will talk.

Sorry SJP, unlike yourself, I have offered-up hard numbers to back my claims re: the religious fervor in Ontario.

You, on the other hand, have made specific statements regarding the 'religiosity' observed in Alberta without any proof.

That said, my statements certainly have much greater merit and strength.

You are welcome to challenge my contentions. Perhaps you may even be motivated to provide something to back your claims of the regions that you comment upon.

 

[lone wolf]

Ya, just ask guys like Dick Cheney!

:roll:

You can't pop his delusion.... that's why he stifled us :lol:

 

[Cannuck]

With the above comment in mind, exactly why are you unwilling to consider the Theory of Creationism?

For the simple reason, Captain, that it is not a theory, it is a fact (as you yourself said a while ago), it is a religious fact. Which is another word for superstition.

Thus as far as religious right is concerned, Creation did happen, 5000 years ago in six days, it is a fact, it is not in dispute. So it cannot possibly a scientific theory. Don’t confuse theory with fact.

Let me give you an example. Suppose I am standing in front of you and say I have an apple in my hand. Is that a theory? No, it is a fact (if I have an apple in my hand) or a falsehood (if I don’t).

Same way, creationism is not a theory; it is a fact as far as religious right is concerned. I refuse to take religious fact or superstition seriously or to dignify it by calling it a theory.

If one belongs to religious right, it is a fact, if one doesn’t; it is a religious fact, or superstition. But no way is Creationism a theory.

I see SJP has been nipping at the brandy this morning.

 

[Cannuck]

Theory

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.


I think these discussion would be a little less mind numbing if people didn't make up their own definitions for things. Personally, I think it's indicative of a flawed argument when one needs to reinvent words in order to prove ones point.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Sorry SJP, unlike you, I have offered-up hard numbers to back my claims re: the religious fervor in Ontario.

You have not offered any statistics as to the number of religious right population in various provinces, Captain. What you have put up is meaningless. If you are arguing about evolution, you must put up the statistics about religious right, not about all the religious people in general.

 

[captain morgan]

With the above comment in mind, exactly why are you unwilling to consider the Theory of Creationism?

For the simple reason, Captain, that it is not a theory, it is a fact (as you yourself said a while ago), it is a religious fact. Which is another word for superstition.

You are mistaken SJP. No where have I referenced Creationism as a fact... You're really slipping these days.

Nonetheless, you pose an interesting point about perspective. That said, considering that creationists don't subscribe to evolution, it must qualify as a superstition.

Certainly the science-community would take exception, however from the perspective of anyone that wasn't convinced as to completeness of the theory (due to inability to replicate like you mentioned), it then qualifies as superstition.

Interesting.

Let me give you an example. Suppose I am standing in front of you and say I have an apple in my hand. Is that a theory? No, it is a fact (if I have an apple in my hand) or a falsehood (if I don’t).

How do you define 'apple'. In the context of this discussion, is the 'apple' perfectly replicable (absolute form, function, color pattern, size weight, etc.? If not, this too, via your definition, is also some form of magic or superstition.

If one belongs to religious right, it is a fact, if one doesn’t; it is a religious fact, or superstition. But no way is Creationism a theory.

That's the second time in this post that you've made this point. Perhaps you are not completely confident in making that assertion.

 

[Cannuck]

How do you define 'apple'. In the context of this discussion, is the 'apple' perfectly replicable (absolute form, function, color pattern, size weight, etc.? If not, this too, via your definition, is also some form of magic or superstition.

 

[captain morgan]

Ya, just ask guys like Dick Cheney!

:roll:

... Or any of the Arab's that control the global oil supply.They NEVER mix up religion with business.

 

[captain morgan]

Touche!

But, we all know that SJP is a PC guy.

 

[wulfie68]

In the statistics, nowhere does it give the population of religious right. If you find such a table, I suspect it will show that Alberta has the highest population of religious right of any province in Canada (% wise).

Religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive concepts; many religious people accept evolution as the method by which life evolved on earth. It is only the conservative Protestants, the religious right, that has a problem with evolution.

So dig up the statistics about the population of religious right (province wise) and we will talk.

SirJoseph,you will never find any such table because the way you define the religious right is "anyone that doesn't believe what I do and is farther right than me".

In one respect you are correct: that table doesn't show fundamentalists per se which is what the true religious right is comprised of, it shows number of christians in a somewhat flawed manner (if you want to use big blocks they should be orthodox, catholic and everyone else is by definition protestant, but within protestantism there are huge differences between groups like Pentecostals or Baptists and the United Church). And you also you can't lay fundamentalism at only the feet of the protestants: the Catholic Church, while not as extreme as some other sects is firmly pro-life/anti-abortion, preaches against any type of birth control methods and is opposed to gay marriage. That doesn't mean every catholic is a fundy, nor does it mean every member of any other denomination is one either because of the varying levels of devotion people show to their religions, although some do have higher tendencies based on what they preach.

What that table does show is that Ontario has a higher % of Christians than your "religious right boogeyman", Alberta. 74.5% vs 71.4% you can argue the significance of that but you have no evidence that a higher concentration of those christians in Alberta are fundamentalist: you just have your same old tired speculation on a subject that you have repeatedly shown yourself to be completely ignorant of. If anything that table lends some (albeit slender) support to the hypothesis that Albertans are more secular than Ontarians as only 16.3% of Ontarians have no religious affiliation vs 23.9% of Albertans.

 

[captain morgan]

SJP believes that anyone with even the most miniscule belief in God is a 'fundamentalist'... Excepting those iconic figures of Trudeau and Chretien.

Ironic, isn't it?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

you can argue the significance of that but you have no evidence that a higher concentration of those Christians in Alberta are fundamentalist:

Wulfie, I have empirical evidence to suggest that. I don’t have the statistics (and I have no particular desire to look it up). However, in one of my pervious posts I gave my reasons for my opinion. Some of them are as follows:

Opposition to SSM was strongest in Alberta, both Klein and Harper found it necessary to pander to religious right by promising to put up a firewall around Alberta to keep SSM out.

Stockwell Day, a self professed Fundamentalist and creationist, is originally from Alberta. A leader does not arise in vacuum; usually there is substantial following behind him.

Alberta votes overwhelmingly and consistently conservative, there is no other province in Canada which does that, all the other provinces alternate the parties.

Based upon these (and other) factors, I am of the opinion that religious right is strong in Alberta.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Wulfie, Captain, but why are we arguing about it? It was easier to look up the link than I thought. My intuition was right, there are indeed many more Fundamentalists in Alberta than in Ontario.

Evangelical and Fundamentalist Movements

Alberta – 25%, Ontario – 17%.

Empirical evidence, intuition is usually (but not always) right.

 

[captain morgan]

SJP,

That is possibly the weakest form of logic to support a position that I have ever seen, especially for an individual (that being yourself) that takes the pains to back-up any statement you make.

Really man, all your 'empirical evidence' amounts to only an opinion, and a highly skewed and subjective one at that.

... So how about it? Care to add some substance to the argument other than Stockwell Day spent time in AB and therefore the entire region is rampant with fundies?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Nonetheless, you pose an interesting point about perspective. That said, considering that creationists don't subscribe to evolution, it must qualify as a superstition.

Indeed, you are right, Captain. Anything that is not based upon science, but is based upon a book written 2000 years ago (and not even based upon the book, but based upon one interpretation of the book), I consider as superstition.