Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorp
Both the Globe piece as well as Mr Kay's response miss the great contradiction in Mr Goodyear's comments. With his 'Bigger microscope' comment, he seems to suggest that the evolutionary debate can be solved to his satisfaction with better scientific tools, something that his government is looking to limit. Surely if creationism or the existence of God could be proved with a more powerful microscope (let's say, a really, really big supercollider), then this would be the most worthwhile scientific endeavour imaginable and something his government would be happy to fund. But when the interviewer presses him for further information, he clamps up, perhaps becoming aware of his own doublespeak.
He was asked a question about one of the world's most well-known scientific theories, and his response was to first say that more science is needed, and then to contradict himself in saying that it's not a question of science but one of faith, which he won't answer. Do you see the doublespeak here?
When asked a question about science, he says he will not answer questions about religion, going on to state his religious beliefs (that he's Christian) while leaving the scientific question unanswered. Both people of science and people of faith (and especially the many, many people who are of both science and faith) should be insulted by Mr Goodyear's comments.
|
I agree there's some double-speak, but I'm not sure his intentions are as ominous as you suspect. I agree with those who think his PR training could use some major work, and disagree with those who imply that PR is a major component of his job. It's
a component. One which I hope he improves in, sure.
If his decision making and advocacies show signs of Creationist (or any other major) bias, then I will concede that he should be replaced. People say "interesting" things in the media all the time... often much more offensive than this.