Former astronaut Julie Payette to be Canada's next governor general

280 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

Funny. Payette didn't call anyone stupid. She simply said that a well-established scientific fact should not be a matter for debate. Or to use Pope Francis's metaphor, not something that god did with a magic wand.

That some are being called stupid here makes me wonder how much serious concern there is here for their religious beliefs. 

Or should we extrapolate and insist that she also be GG of the racists and the fascists and the woman-haters? There are plenty of people who base those thngs on their beliefs.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/11/06/opinion/science-v-religion-a...

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 Really.  Well they are taking their time saying anything about it, considering that religious authorities have in the past interfered in politics to the point of  denying church participation to Canadian politicians for their support of marriage equality.  

From your link:

numerous Christians and their secular allies rushed forward to scream at the GG that they’re not anti-science, that any number of great scientists are on record as Christians, ....Yes, the new Governor General was rash to say what she said. It also was unfair of her to imply a qualitative comparison of horoscopes and holiness.....Payette was politically naïve. She allowed conservative Christians to appear to have the moral high ground and also gave Tory leader Andrew Scheer the opportunity to play at being reasonable

It seems the writer of your article agrees with me. Payette is just really lucky the media has bigger stories right now.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-with-her-dig-at-religion-ju...

we are still debating and still questioning whether life was a divine intervention or whether it was coming out of a natural process let alone, oh my goodness, a random process.

She should have said something to the effect "we are still debating whether or not mankind developed through evolution" No need to bring the words divine intervention into it.

two-thirds of benighted Canadians who believe in God (per Angus Reid in 2015), and the 53 per cent who believe God is “active in this world.”....As I watched the chattering classes and prominent Liberal politicians storm to Payette’s defence, it occurred to me how indistinguishable the latter group is from the former....To the extent “middle class” means anything, in an electoral sense, it means a large group of people who aren’t rich, who don’t have three university degrees, who have never even visited France let alone failed to properly disclose a chateau they own there, and who are more likely than not to believe in God.

66% of Canadians believe in God. If the cause is to overthrow all religion by all means denounce it. If the goal is to win elections it's stupid. The GG doesn't have to win elections but the Liberals do. They are lucky the media has the Paradise Papers and the latest shootings to obsess over. The Conservatives are definitely going to try to find a way to use the denial of God against the Liberals in 2019.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 She simply said that a well-established scientific fact should not be a matter for debate. Or to use Pope Francis's metaphor, not something that god did with a magic wand. 

Pope Francis didn't say that mankind was not created through divine intervention. You are dreaming in technicolor if you think he did.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  Or should we extrapolate and insist that she also be GG of the racists and the fascists and the woman-haters? There are plenty of people who base those thngs on their beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism

God in Sikhism is known as Ik Onkar, the One Supreme Reality[41] or the all-pervading spirit (which is taken to mean god).[42] This spirit has no gender in Sikhism, though translations may present it as masculine. It is also Akaal Purkh (beyond time and space) and Nirankar (without form). In addition, Nanak wrote that there are many worlds on which it has created life.[43]

JAGMEET SINGH BELIEVES GOD CREATED LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He believes in an imaginary-being! Either that or he's a hypocrite and just wearing the turban to fake being Sikh.

I guess you think Jagmeet is the equivalent of woman-haters, racists and fascists. Surely you can't be a supporter.

6079_Smith_W

Singh hasn't said anything about it at all, unlike the leader of the conservatives. If he does maybe we can have that conversation, rather than making assumptions about him.

I'm not the one bending her words out of shape, is my point. If you think she should not say anything to offend any Canadians, where do you draw the line? At refusing to eat raw seal meat so as not to offend the animal rights lobby?

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/governor-general-applaude...

voice of the damned

Smith wrote:

If you think she should not say anything to offend any Canadians, where do you draw the line? At refusing to eat raw seal meat so as not to offend the animal rights lobby?

As far as I recall, when Jean ate the seal meat, she did so as a normal act of courtesy to someone who offers you a taste of the local food when you're in for a visit. She didn't give an after-snack speech where she said "And can you believe that there are crazy animal-rights people out there who are offended by this?!" Which would have been inappropriate.

So the proper comparison with the current GG would have been if Payette were simply seen taking out a book on evolution from the library, or if it became known that she prefered to play golf on Sundays rather than go to church, without Payette making a big speech about it. Some right-wingers might still attack her, but I don't think you'd see much debate on babble about her actions.

6079_Smith_W

Payette didn't use the word crazy, identify any group, or say anything about offense.

She said she cannot believe some are still debating the point. And it was one sentence, not a big speech.

 

voice of the damned

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Payette didn't use the word crazy, identify any group, or say anything about offense.

She said she cannot believe some are still debating the point. And it was one sentence, not a big speech.

Well, okay, suppose Jean had said "I can't believe that there are people, in learned society, who think that eating seal meat is wrong." That woulda been okay?

6079_Smith_W

Well she didn't, and people freaked out anyway.

Not that much different than all the offense on behalf of others (while calling them stupid)  that we are seeing here.

And while we are getting all hypothetical here, what if  some of these churches actually said they were in any way concerned about Payette's comment? That would be a thing, wouldn't it?

 

Pondering

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Not a single mainstream religious leader agrees with her. Not one. They accept evolution but they still believe God created mankind, just not in seven days.

Buddhism rejects the existence of a creator/deity and Hinduism's Advaita Vedanta (non-dual) branch also rejects the existence of a creator/deity.

I wouldn't call those mainstream in Canada and we are speaking of the Canadian GG not the world GG.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Singh hasn't said anything about it at all, unlike the leader of the conservatives. If he does maybe we can have that conversation, rather than making assumptions about him. 

Are you trying to claim he isn't Sikh? That he wears a turban as a fashion statement? From what I have heard not all Sikhs wear turbans either. I was not claiming he has a problem with the GG. I am saying if you discount all Canadians who believe in a God that is responsible for the existence of mankind we will have to include Jagmeet in that group because that is what he believes or pretends to believe, one or the other.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I'm not the one bending her words out of shape, is my point. If you think she should not say anything to offend any Canadians, where do you draw the line? At refusing to eat raw seal meat so as not to offend the animal rights lobby? 

I never said she shouldn't offend any Canadians. I said she should stick to facts she can prove. Nobody is bending her words out of shape. The words "divine intervention" should never have passed her lips. It was unnescessary. You can defend science without attacking deeply held religious beliefs.

I never said she shouldn't say anything to offend Canadians. It isn't the crime of the century. It was a mistake. It's a good thing other news is dominating the headlines. If it was a quiet week she would be in more trouble over this. This is the opposite of eating seal meat. The grand majority of Canadians are meat eaters who have no problem with seal hunting and eating. Jean could have gotten away with refusing it too but had she declared people shouldn't eat meat she would have been in huge trouble.

6079_Smith_W

No one is discounting all people who believe in god. And if Jagmeet Singh has something to say about this issue he can speak for himself without being used as someone's foil. What on earth are you talking about?

And if she doesn't offend the majority it isn't a problem? Guess that settles it, if that is your measure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/06/believe-in-evolution_n_1861373.html

Rev Pesky

From WWWTT:

If you consider that being a scientist than I guess the term scientist has next to no requirements.

Her resume is a bit thicker than that. I will only include the post-Shuttle stuff, because the rest is just too much to post. Anyone who wants to know more can visit the Wikipedia page. 

Julie Payette

During 2010–2011, she worked at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. and was also a scientific delegate to the United States for the Quebec Government. For the next three years, Payette was CEO of the Montreal Science Centre of the Société du Vieux-Port de Montréal. During that time, she was also a Vice President of the Canada Lands Company.

Payette has served on boards of directors, at Queen's University, Canada's Own the Podium Olympic program, Montréal Science Centre foundation, Robotique FIRST Québec, Drug Free Kids Canada, the Montreal Bach Festival, the National Bank of Canada, Développement Aéroport Saint-Hubert de Longueuil, and others. She was recently appointed to the International Olympic Committee's Women in Sports Commission. She is a member of the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec and a fellow of the International Academy of Astronautics. As well, Payette is a member of the Faculty of Engineering Advisory Board of McGill University.

And as far as that goes, if Scheer and Singh hold the sorts of views that Payette commented on, then they should be embarassed.

 

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

No one is discounting all people who believe in god. And if Jagmeet Singh has something to say about this issue he can speak for himself without being used as someone's foil. What on earth are you talking about?

And if she doesn't offend the majority it isn't a problem? Guess that settles it, if that is your measure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/06/believe-in-evolution_n_1861373.html

You don't seem to understand that people can believe that God created man through evolution.

Believing in God and believing in evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

You can defend science without attacking deeply held religious beliefs.

That was the view of Stephen Jay Gould, holder of the Louis Agassiz chair at Harvard. His position was that religion and science were separate 'magesteria'.

But I think he missed a very important point. That may be because he wasn't raised in a very religious household. I was, and I believe I have the right to comment on the Christian view of science.

The problem religion has with science isn't just a matter of 'facts'. After all, God can make up facts as needed. As I pointed out above, God could have created the world as it is yesterday, complete with all the evidence of great age.

The real problem religion has with science is that science is provisional, and religion is not. The Christians tell us the bible is the 'unerring' word of God, and God doesn't make mistakes nor change his (sorry for the pronoun, but English is bad that way) mind.

Religion requires faith, science requires a lack of it. Never the twain shall meet.

Science unites humanity, religion separates it.

At the most fundamental level, science and religion are incompatible, and those with deeply held religious beliefs understand that a lot better than people who don't hold those beliefs.

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

You don't seem to understand that people can believe that God created man through evolution.

Believing in God and believing in evolution are not mutually exclusive.

I understand that people have the capacity to make their own decisions, and voice their own opinions if it is something they are bothered by.

They don't need help from atheists who claim to be defending their beliefs while calling them stupid at the same time.

WWWTT

Rev Pesky wrote:

From WWWTT:

If you consider that being a scientist than I guess the term scientist has next to no requirements.

Her resume is a bit thicker than that. I will only include the post-Shuttle stuff, because the rest is just too much to post. Anyone who wants to know more can visit the Wikipedia page. 

Julie Payette

During 2010–2011, she worked at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. and was also a scientific delegate to the United States for the Quebec Government. For the next three years, Payette was CEO of the Montreal Science Centre of the Société du Vieux-Port de Montréal. During that time, she was also a Vice President of the Canada Lands Company.

Payette has served on boards of directors, at Queen's University, Canada's Own the Podium Olympic program, Montréal Science Centre foundation, Robotique FIRST Québec, Drug Free Kids Canada, the Montreal Bach Festival, the National Bank of Canada, Développement Aéroport Saint-Hubert de Longueuil, and others. She was recently appointed to the International Olympic Committee's Women in Sports Commission. She is a member of the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec and a fellow of the International Academy of Astronautics. As well, Payette is a member of the Faculty of Engineering Advisory Board of McGill University.

And as far as that goes, if Scheer and Singh hold the sorts of views that Payette commented on, then they should be embarassed.

 

 

Ya I read her alleged resume already. She got lucky and landed a seat on a space shuttle. And yes, she's in way over her head! Scheer and Singh have nothing to be ashamed of for having their own beliefs. If you think they should then it sounds like you would feel more comfortable in a fascist country where people should feel ashamed/uncomfortable for harbouring their own beliefs.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:
And as far as that goes, if Scheer and Singh hold the sorts of views that Payette commented on, then they should be embarassed.

Jagmeet Singh holds the view that divine intervention created mankind unless he wears that turban for show. That is the sort of view that Payette commented on.

Her "views" are not being criticized.

Her declaration that divine intervention did not create mankind as fact is the issue.

Nothing else. Just that alone.

It may blow over. It may grow. Either way it is not something that was appropriate for her to declare in her official capacity as GG. Sometimes mistakes blow over. Sometimes mistakes snowball. Either way they are still mistakes.

cco

Space Shuttle astronauts were not chosen by lottery, and the job of the monarchical representative is not particularly demanding. Moreover, the only ones demanding people shut up and be ashamed of their beliefs are, as usual, religious types.

Andrew Scheer and Jagmeet Singh have the right to believe divine justice requires me to be tortured. They have the right to say it. It's criticism of religion, not saying the planet's 6000 years old, that's restricted by Canadian law. However, for the moment, it is not illegal -- even for the Governor-General -- to state that evolution is a fact.

The only thing shameful on Payette's resumé is her acceptance of the viceregal position, but with every day that passes, hearing the bloviation of the opposition (NDP included, sadly) on how she's posing a threat to creationists by opening her mouth, she's making me support the monarchy a little more. A miracle, indeed.

6079_Smith_W

To repeat again, Jagmeet Singh has not commented on this, or how he observes his faith. He hasn't said anything about torture.

Can we please stop putting words in his mouth? I don't think any of us would appreciate these kind of assumptions being made about us, and tossed around like like a football.

We might want to remember how he responded when someone else made assumptions about him based on his faith. That he should even have to defend himself by saying he rejects all violence is stunning.:

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/8x8wap/jagmeet-singh-called-out-the-c...

And to say that if he doesn't fit some white person's interpretation of his belief he is just doing it for show? Seems to me that is far more of an insult than any presumed slight Payette might have made.

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

You don't seem to understand that people can believe that God created man through evolution.

Believing in God and believing in evolution are not mutually exclusive.

I understand that people have the capacity to make their own decisions, and voice their own opinions if it is something they are bothered by.

They don't need help from atheists who claim to be defending their beliefs while calling them stupid at the same time.

I haven't called anyone stupid. This is a political thread. It is 100% valid to have a political opinion on this issue without being a religious person. You act as though I am condemning Payette or saying she shouldn't be GG. I think she was a great choice as GG. I just don't think public officials should be passing judgement on religious beliefs in their capacity as public servants. That includes not saying "God Bless" at the end of speeches.

It is possible to stand up for gay rights without being gay and women's rights without being a woman. I don't have to be religious to see that it is a bad idea for public officials to pass judgement over religious beliefs unless they lead to illegal behavior.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
To repeat again, Jagmeet Singh has not commented on this, or how he observes his faith. He hasn't said anything about torture.

Can we please stop putting words in his mouth? I don't think any of us would appreciate these kind of assumptions being made about us, and tossed around like like a football.

A) He self-identifies as an observant practicing Sikh. It's not just a random word. It represents a set of core beliefs.

B) Torture is not an accepted tenent of Sikhism so I don't see why you are introducing it into the conversation.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  

We might want to remember how he responded when someone else made assumptions about him based on his faith. That he should even have to defend himself by saying he rejects all violence is stunning.:

">https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/8x8wap/jagmeet-singh-called-out-the-c...

Again, completely unrelated. He was being asked to condemn a man who had not been convicted of any crimes and whose followers believe him to be innocent. It's very old news. He was 5 when it happened. He was asked that question because he is Sikh. That's the racist part.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 And to say that if he doesn't fit some white person's interpretation of his belief he is just doing it for show? Seems to me that is far more of an insult than any presumed slight Payette might have made.

Words are not meaningless. He didn't say he is a practicing gobbeldygooper. I would have no idea what that meant. The word "Sikh" does have meaning. I don't need to make any assumptions about it or interpret it. It has a face value.

Trudeau has been challenged on his Catholicism in relation to abortion law and other politicians have faced questions concerning their faith and abortion law. I don't know if Sikhs have a religious position on abortion but if they do it would absolutely be fair to challenge Jagmeet on it from the perspective of how it informs his political views.

Jagmeet is not shy about his religion. He even did his hair and turban on camera. I assume he is trying to dispell any unease people may have about his turban. I doubt he will be offended by any respectful questions concerning the relationship between his faith and his politics.

I don't think there is an actual clip of Payette saying what she did. If that remains the case it could just blow over but if a clip does surface it will be a problem. I bet the Conservatives are trying to get their hands on one.

6079_Smith_W

I didn't introduce torture into the conversation. cco did.

And no, knowing someone's faith does not have "face value" in telling you everything about their values and world view. And especially not in leaping to assumptions about how they feel about Payette's comment, or that they are just faking their beliefs if they are not as outraged as you think they should be.

WWWTT

cco wrote:

Space Shuttle astronauts were not chosen by lottery, and the job of the monarchical representative is not particularly demanding. Moreover, the only ones demanding people shut up and be ashamed of their beliefs are, as usual, religious types.

Andrew Scheer and Jagmeet Singh have the right to believe divine justice requires me to be tortured. They have the right to say it. It's criticism of religion, not saying the planet's 6000 years old, that's restricted by Canadian law. However, for the moment, it is not illegal -- even for the Governor-General -- to state that evolution is a fact.

Are you saying Julie Payette has realeased scientific papers, journals thesis etc etc??? Isn't that what scientists do??? How can I judge her abilities as a scientist if I can not find any?

And the rest of your comment pretty much attacks anyones right to voice their concerns. 

WWWTT

If this GG was appointed by the conservatives or the NDP, expect the liberal corporate media to be all over this!!!!

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I didn't introduce torture into the conversation. cco did.

And no, knowing someone's faith does not have "face value" in telling you everything about their values and world view. And especially not in leaping to assumptions about how they feel about Payette's comment, or that they are just faking their beliefs if they are not as outraged as you think they should be.

I never suggested anyone should be outraged or that Jagmeet should even comment on the issue. All I have said is it was a mistake for Payette to use the words "divine intervention" in the context that she did because she is stating a fact about religion that she cannot prove. It's not something public officials should get into. It was an mistake on her part.

You're the one who is all outraged and offended because I dared to say the GG shouldn't be passing judgement over religious beliefs and used Jagmeet as an example of someone intelligent who claims to believe in a divine being who created mankind. I can say that because he makes no secret of the fact that he is Sikh just like Justin makes no secret of the fact that he is Catholic.

There is a good chance this will blow over which is a good thing but that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake for her to equate the belief in a divine being with astrology even though there are people who believe in both.

Rev Pesky

From the RealSikhism page:

RealSikhism

"When the body is filled with ego and selfishness, the cycle of birth and death does not end" (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 126). "As long as the tongue does not chant the Name of God, the person continues coming and going in reincarnation, crying out in pain" (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 325).

And the Christian view of life after death:

Hell

Rev. 14:9-11, "And another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand, 10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.  11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."”  See also, Rev. 21:8.

So, yes, I would say it's pretty clear that non-believers are in for eternal pain. Or to put it another way, believers are looking forward to the day when non-believers will endure endless suffering for their crime of failing to believe. Note also that God and the angels will be watching this take place, and enjoying it. Nice people.

Pondering

cco wrote:
Andrew Scheer and Jagmeet Singh have the right to believe divine justice requires me to be tortured. They have the right to say it.  

Yes they can and if they do they will pay a heavy political price for it. It would be a mistake politically to make such a claim no matter how dearly held. Notice I didn't say anything about them being arrested and thrown in prison. In Canada when I speak of political price I mean in votes.

cco wrote:
 It's criticism of religion, not saying the planet's 6000 years old, that's restricted by Canadian law. However, for the moment, it is not illegal -- even for the Governor-General -- to state that evolution is a fact.

Criticism of religion is not restricted by Canadian law. No one has criticized the GG for stating that evolution is fact (or for saying that the age of the Earth is not ,6,000 years) so why do you bring it up?

cco

WWWTT wrote:

Are you saying Julie Payette has realeased scientific papers, journals thesis etc etc??? Isn't that what scientists do??? How can I judge her abilities as a scientist if I can not find any?

I plugged her name into a university database and immediately came up with:

Payette, Julie, Vincent Hayward, Christophe Ramstein, and Dominique Bergeron. 1996. "Evaluation of a force feedback (haptic) computer pointing device in zero gravity." American Society Of Mechanical Engineers, Dynamic Systems And Control Division (Publication) DSC 58, no. Proceedings of the ASME Dynamic Systems and Control Division: 547-553.

Quote:

And the rest of your comment pretty much attacks anyones right to voice their concerns. 

Again, nobody's keeping religious people from saying evolutionary biology is a pack of lies straight from the pit of hell. People are attacking Payette for saying that's not true. This bizarre alternate universe where the overwhelming religious majority are oppressed by the existence of openly atheist people (some of them scientists, the horror!) in public life never ceases to amaze me.

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

...she is stating a fact about religion that she cannot prove. It's not something public officials should get into. It was an mistake on her part.

She was not stating a fact about religion, she was stating a fact about life on earth (and everywhere else, for that matter). All of the evidence we have supports the view that life arose as the result of a random process. What she said was no more than state that. If the religious want to contradict her, that's fine. Let them put forward their evidence.

And by the way, there is no guarantee that if evolution was rewound, started over again from the beginning, the life forms that exist now would reappear. Life on this planet is contingent. For instance, it is widely believed that a strike by an asteroid put paid to the era of the dinosaurs. That may be more or less true, but what is true is that the end of the dinosaurs created the room for small mammals to thrive.

If that asteroid strike had not happened, it is possible that dinosaurs would still be the dominant life form on earth, and mammals would still be small creatures scurrying around in the shrubbery. In which case we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

So which specific religions believe and assert that the earth is hundreds of millions of years old, but was created by God?

And I'll ask again:  if God created humans by creating [some other thing] and allowing it to evolve, what was that some other thing?  Do its bones show up in the fossil record that evidently so many "Evolutionary Creationists" respect and agree is real? 

Is there a paleontologist somewhere who points to a fossil and says "See this little guy right here?  That's what God created to evolve into us!"

Pondering

cco wrote:
 

Again, nobody's keeping religious people from saying evolutionary biology is a pack of lies straight from the pit of hell. People are attacking Payette for saying that's not true.

 I haven't read any objections to her comments on evolution or the age of the Earth. Could you please find a quote of someone doing that?

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

...she is stating a fact about religion that she cannot prove. It's not something public officials should get into. It was an mistake on her part.

She was not stating a fact about religion, she was stating a fact about life on earth (and everywhere else, for that matter).

The words "divine intervention" have nothing to do with the field of science. Science doesn't have a position on the existence of God(s) because there is no test to do, nothing to prove through repetition. Science has yet to explain the existence of the universe. Where did whatever caused the big bang come from?

She should have stuck to the science.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

So which specific religions believe and assert that the earth is hundreds of millions of years old, but was created by God?

And I'll ask again:  if God created humans by creating [some other thing] and allowing it to evolve, what was that some other thing?  Do its bones show up in the fossil record that evidently so many "Evolutionary Creationists" respect and agree is real? 

Is there a paleontologist somewhere who points to a fossil and says "See this little guy right here?  That's what God created to evolve into us!"

I'm an atheist. You are preaching to the converted. That has nothing to do with the wisdom of public officials declaring divine intervention has nothing to do with mankind's existence.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
That has nothing to do with the wisdom of public officials declaring divine intervention has nothing to do with mankind's existence.

But you insist that lots of people believe that God created everything, AND humans evolved from something else.

I'm just asking for some more information about this.  Who is saying this?  Who is believing this?

If there aren't really (m)any people who believe that God created the first strand of RNA and then watched it improve its lot in life then public officials probably aren't really off the mark if they suggest that God didn't create the whole shebang (because all that would be left would be Stockwell Day, the fossil record (falsified by Satan to trick Man) and garden variety Creationists and Young Earthers. 

I guess I'm just asking you who these other people that you speak for are.  I'm not asking for names here.  Just maybe what religion they follow?  And perhaps how you come to know of them?

cco

I will accept that it's "unwise" for a public official to endorse a non-divine view of the origin of humanity on precisely the day that all religious public officials agree it's "unwise" for them to be openly religious. Until that day comes, this is just another in the endless cycle of "Atheists need to shut up. Their public lack of religion is massively disrespectful to my religion. They're unfit for public office."

WWWTT

cco wrote:
WWWTT wrote:

Are you saying Julie Payette has realeased scientific papers, journals thesis etc etc??? Isn't that what scientists do??? How can I judge her abilities as a scientist if I can not find any?

I plugged her name into a university database and immediately came up with:

Payette, Julie, Vincent Hayward, Christophe Ramstein, and Dominique Bergeron. 1996. "Evaluation of a force feedback (haptic) computer pointing device in zero gravity." American Society Of Mechanical Engineers, Dynamic Systems And Control Division (Publication) DSC 58, no. Proceedings of the ASME Dynamic Systems and Control Division: 547-553.

Quote:

And the rest of your comment pretty much attacks anyones right to voice their concerns. 

Again, nobody's keeping religious people from saying evolutionary biology is a pack of lies straight from the pit of hell. People are attacking Payette for saying that's not true. This bizarre alternate universe where the overwhelming religious majority are oppressed by the existence of openly atheist people (some of them scientists, the horror!) in public life never ceases to amaze me.

Ya so she's a computer engineer. I have already stated this! Thanks for supporting my earlier comments. Her background probably helped increase her odds to get on the now OBSOLETE space shuttle program which was only a cover for military testing anyways.

OK now I had to actually watch and listen to her speech she made. In it she adopts a condenscending air throughout her speech. If it was up to me, I'd fire her sorry ass.

WWWTT

Pondering wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

...she is stating a fact about religion that she cannot prove. It's not something public officials should get into. It was an mistake on her part.

She was not stating a fact about religion, she was stating a fact about life on earth (and everywhere else, for that matter).

The words "divine intervention" have nothing to do with the field of science. Science doesn't have a position on the existence of God(s) because there is no test to do, nothing to prove through repetition. Science has yet to explain the existence of the universe. Where did whatever caused the big bang come from?

She should have stuck to the science.

According to "science" , gravity is still a phenomenon with several "theories". Take a look at this link. 

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is "universal".

https://ncse.com/library-resource/gravity-its-only-theory

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is "universal".

6079_Smith_W

cco wrote:

I will accept that it's "unwise" for a public official to endorse a non-divine view of the origin of humanity on precisely the day that all religious public officials agree it's "unwise" for them to be openly religious. Until that day comes, this is just another in the endless cycle of "Atheists need to shut up. Their public lack of religion is massively disrespectful to my religion. They're unfit for public office."

Not to mention going nuts over something she said at a science gathering.

Except in this case the government is solidly behind her, as is a good section of those commenting on this in the media, despite some of the major newspapers taking the ridiculous line they are. Let the critics whine; she isn't going anywhere.

NorthReport

Well said cco and Smith.

6079_Smith_W

You know that gravity link was a joke, right? But in fact they know the constant isn't exactly constant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

 

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But you insist that lots of people believe that God created everything, AND humans evolved from something else.

I'm just asking for some more information about this.  Who is saying this?  Who is believing this?....

I guess I'm just asking you who these other people that you speak for are.  I'm not asking for names here.  Just maybe what religion they follow?  And perhaps how you come to know of them?

As far as I know most religions have some sort of explanation for the existence of all life that credits their God(s). In my opinion that is as common knowledge as the theory of evolution. That you challenge it tells me you are just playing a debating game not having a discussion.

You're reaching.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/julie-payette-climate-divine-interventio...

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-with-her-dig-at-religion-ju...

This detracts from the heart of what she was saying which is important. Her tone has make her words less effective.

WWWTT

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You know that gravity link was a joke, right? But in fact they know the constant isn't exactly constant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

 

is it really? Now I always knew that science has failed to prove any theory for gravity. That is why there are so many! Here’s another interesting one I found!

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/11/gravity-doesnt-exist-is-gravity-an-illusion.html

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
As far as I know most religions have some sort of explanation for the existence of all life that credits their God(s). In my opinion that is as common knowledge as the theory of evolution. That you challenge it tells me you are just playing a debating game not having a discussion.

You're reaching.

Quote:
As far as I know most religions have some sort of explanation for the existence of all life that credits their God(s).

They credit their Gods? 

Duh.

What of the other half of your assertion?  That they also believe that evolution, not design, led to humans?  Can you tell us more about that?

How is it that "God created us in His image" if all God did was make a bacterium and hope it evolved properly?

Pogo Pogo's picture

I am just curious.  Is there anyone on this thread who has changed their view based on an argument presented? I don't see anyone giving an inch (myself included).

Pondering

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_rel...

But what if evolution is God's tool? Darwin never said anything about God. Many scientists—and theologians—maintain that it would be perfectly logical to think that a divine being used evolution as a method to create the world.

ike other scientists of faith, Primack, who is Jewish and reads the Bible regularly, argues that the Bible must not be taken literally, but should be read allegorically.

"One simply cannot read the Bible as a scientific text, because it's often contradictory," Primack said. "For example, in the Bible, Noah takes two animals and puts them on the Ark. But in a later section, he takes seven pairs of animals. If this is the literal word of God, was God confused when He wrote it?".....

"Most scientists like to operate in the context of economy," said Brian Greene, a world-renowned physicist and author of The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. "If you don't need an explanatory principle, don't invoke it."

There is, of course, no way to prove religious faith scientifically. And it's hard to envision a test that could tell the difference between a universe created by God and one that appeared without God.

"There's no way that scientists can ever rule out religion, or even have anything significant to say about the abstract idea of a divine creator," Greene said.

Instead, Greene said, science and religion can operate in different realms. "Science is very good at answering the 'how' questions. How did the universe evolve to the form that we see?" he said. "But it is woefully inadequate in addressing the 'why' questions. Why is there a universe at all? These are the meaning questions, which many people think religion is particularly good at dealing with."...

In a 1997 survey in the science journal Nature, 40 percent of U.S. scientists said they believe in God—not just a creator, but a God to whom one can pray in expectation of an answer. That is the same percentage of scientists who were believers when the survey was taken 80 years earlier.

But the number may have been higher if the question had simply asked about God's existence. While many scientists seem to have no problem with deism—the belief that God set the universe in motion and then walked away—others are more troubled with the concept of an intervening God.

 

WWWTT

Pogo wrote:

I am just curious.  Is there anyone on this thread who has changed their view based on an argument presented? I don't see anyone giving an inch (myself included).

i don’t believe this is a new debate subject for anyone here? This subject of science versus religion I’m going to guess started around the time of Darwin’s  manuscripts of evolution and natural selection. Or at the very least Darwin’s theory started the most debate. So I’m guessing everyone has kicked around this debate for many years, long before babble and it’s highly unlikely something earth shattering evidence will take light soon to be a game changer. 

So back in your corners everyone! We’re going to keep slugging this one out until we fucking die! Lol!

JKR

Religions tend to have both a right-wing literalist branch and a left-wing metaphorical branch. I think Payette was criticizing the right-wing literalist approach to religion, specifically evangelical Christianity, that is antagonistic to science and has no problem with things such as global warming.

6079_Smith_W

@ JKR

Exactly. And not only does the allegorical branch of it have a long history that includes not only many on the left wing, but a good deal in the mainstream, the right wing only started floating this seemingly open-choice "intelligent design" nonsense when courts in the U.S. ruled teaching creationism unconstitutional:

The term "intelligent design" emerged much more recently than the design argument itself. It had been used occasionally during the twentieth century, but was popularized after the aforementioned 1987 legal case of Edwards v. Aguillard, in which "creation science" was ruled to be a religious concept, and therefore unfit to be taught in public schools under American constitutional law. Subsequently, many aspects of creation science were rebranded as "intelligent design," which is ostensibly a non-religious concept since its adherents claim that it leaves open the question of who the designer might be.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

And has been fought in court cases since then.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/education/judge-rejects-teaching-intel...

So this isn't just an theoretical argument or a matter of free choice; it is a conspiracy to drive science out of schools and replace it with religion.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creatio...

 

 

Pondering

JKR wrote:

Religions tend to have both a right-wing literalist branch and a left-wing metaphorical branch. I think Payette was criticizing the right-wing literalist approach to religion, specifically evangelical Christianity, that is antagonistic to science and has no problem with things such as global warming.

That was probably what she meant to say but it isn't what she did say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2o4Q7M5cBY

From 17 seconds to 34 seconds is where she made her mistake in her position as GG.

She says incredulously - we are still questioning whether life was a divine intervention (raised eyebrows) or whether it was coming out of a natural process let alone oh my goodness (eye roll) a random process.

Her mistake was in making her statement too broad and in her tone. The eye-rolling would make a great GIF but was not a good look.

 

Pages