Science Minister won't confirm belief in evolution

[Burninator]

Science Minister won't confirm belief in evolution

Canada's science minister, the man at the centre of the controversy over federal funding cuts to researchers, won't say if he believes in evolution.
“I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate,” Gary Goodyear, the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

*face palm*

These comments from scientists hit the nail on the head.

“It is the same as asking the gentleman, ‘Do you believe the world is flat?' and he doesn't answer on religious grounds,” said Dr. Alters. “Or gravity, or plate tectonics, or that the Earth goes around the sun.”

“The traditions of science and the reliance on testable and provable knowledge has served us well for several hundred years and have been the basis for most of our advancement. It is inconceivable that a government would have a minister of science that rejects the basis of scientific discovery and traditions,” he said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home

I'm not sure how this guy got the job. He was a chiropractor which can be pretty dubious toward science depending on the chiropractor. I don't really care about someones personal beliefs, but when you are the science minister and you are basically denying a huge branch of science there is a problem. Maybe it won't impact his minister duties, but we'll have to see.

[Daradon]

If people can't ask him questions like that, then he probably shouldn't have that job.

I understand having your beliefs and keeping them personal, but if your job is in public service and those beliefs contradict your job, perhaps you should find a different job.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Wow. Just.... wow.

It's--quite honestly--a bit of an odd question, just as "do you believe the earth is round?" would be a very weird question to ask him.

But he gave perhaps the worst answer he could have given.

Back to media training for Mr. Goodyear!

[mykalberta]

Hahaha, yes I am sure he is suspicious of science. Those University attending Chiropracters and their non science University.

Maybe he is suspicious of scientists that waste public money on bonehead experiments because they are unable to make it in the private sector without government funding.

[MelBridgeman]

science is the new religion, haven't you heard?

[SportsJunky]

In Soviet Russia we won't confirm our beliefs in you Mr. Minister.

*sorry, started on the green beer too early*

[TheDragon]

Are not confirming and rejecting really the same thing? The article didn't really state that he doesn't understand or refuses to understand the principles of evolution, did it? (Maybe it does. I'm rather loopy on painkillers at the moment.) I can understand the concern if there is speculation he's a creationist, but that's all subjective.

So at the end of the day does it matter what his own beliefs are so long as they don't get in the way of job? If it turns out he really is a creationist, or is trying to undermine Canada's scientific community, then that's a different story.

[Yeah_Baby]

"The jury's still out on science"

[Potty]

Discussed on Full Comment today:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...hristians.aspx

[troutman]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Hahaha, yes I am sure he is suspicious of science. Those University attending Chiropracters and their non science University.

I was curious about your comment, and looked-up where Chiropractic is offered in Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_...practic#Canada

There are currently 2 schools of chiropractic in Canada; Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, in Toronto, Ontario and the Universite du Quebec a Trois Rivieres, in Trois Rivieres, Quebec

The CMCC program is privately funded

Canadian chiropractic schools teach an evidence-based medicine paradigm as opposed to the traditional vertebral subluxation model. The chiropractic schools state that the role of the doctor of chiropractic is primary care for neuromusculoskeletal conditions.

Sorry to de-rail thread.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Wow...welcome to Kan-sas-ada...

...sadly I can't blame that on green beer

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Potty

Discussed on Full Comment today:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...hristians.aspx

Where does the Globe and Mail article "smear Christians"? I missed that part.

[The Ditch]

What does believing in evolution have to do at all with religion. Didn't the pope even come out and say that evolution is ok? Can't you believe in Creationism and evolution? Talk about being defensive about nothing.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Hahaha, yes I am sure he is suspicious of science. Those University attending Chiropracters and their non science University.

Maybe he is suspicious of scientists that waste public money on bonehead experiments because they are unable to make it in the private sector without government funding.

What does this have to do with him not answering the question about whether or not he believes in evolution?

[cyclone3483]

I guess I'm in the minority here, being a Christian myself. I think he has to seperate his job from his beliefs. I personally think he is trying to balance being objective in his role as science minister with his faith. His personal beliefs do not affect his job so he therefore does not comment on them. It is possible to do the job and not let faith impact his decisions. eg. If a funding request came for a study on evolution, he would hopefully decide based on the need, the budget, and the importance (to the general populace) of the study, rather than his own personal feelings on it.

The problem is when you get someone in that kind of position, their personal faith (or lack thereof) needs to take a backseat. The argument has been made (thank you Ben Stein) that having an athiest in that position could restrict (and has) study into intelligent design, when there is just as much reason to study it as there is to study evolution.

The RIGHT thing is for the person in that position to put aside their personal beliefs to keep science objective. Anyone arbitrarily deciding that intelligent design or evolution will not be studied because is contrary to their own personal belief system should be removed from their position.

Science is supposed to be objective. If you want to toss someone out of the science minister's position because he is Christian, then you also need to throw all athiests out of similar positions and only agnostics will hold those positions in the future.

Meh, my two cents.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

What does believing in evolution have to do at all with religion. Didn't the pope even come out and say that evolution is ok? Can't you believe in Creationism and evolution? Talk about being defensive about nothing.

It's ironic, but catholocism is much more liberal and friendly toward science (Papal papers have both said Evolution and the Big Bang are A-Okay) whereas the protestant evangelical Christian movement that is more associated with this in North America is the one that is more recalcitrant and conservative regarding these things. They are much less open minded regarding evolution and take a more literal reading of the Bible. If the Bible says God made man on the 6th day, than we can't have evolved from monkey's etc.

[troutman]

Intelligent design can't be studied scientifically, because it is not science. There is no way to test it.

http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom...ent_design.asp

According to the NAS, intelligent design is not science because it cannot be tested by the scientific method. Intelligent design does “not offer hypotheses that are subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstrations of error.” Rather, the concept makes observable data inferior to doctrine. Intelligent design reverses the scientific process by setting forth an assumed conclusion — an intelligent designer is responsible for the universe — and only seeking evidence in support of this conclusion. In contrast, a scientific theory “always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in light of new knowledge.”

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

The argument has been made (thank you Ben Stein) that having an athiest in that position could restrict (and has) study into intelligent design, when there is just as much reason to study it as there is to study evolution.

Do we need to revisit the Ben Stein thread again? Where's the facepalm icon?
There is absolutely no reason to study intelligent design because there is nothing to study. If you accept that we are intelligently designed, then it believe it purely on your faith and don't foist it upon publicly funded, legitimate education.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

eg. If a funding request came for a study on evolution, he would hopefully decide based on the need, the budget, and the importance (to the general populace) of the study, rather than his own personal feelings on it.

.

I would hope a science minister is never in the position to adjucate the merit of science, or to make funding decisions on a particular project-those should be left to peer review

the Science minister does however have to oversee (and hopefully advocate for) the funding of Science as a whole, and to some extent on funding priorities...and if they are uncomfortable or unwilling to answer some pretty basic questions about basic underpinnings of some of the life sciences, that is potentially worrisome

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

eg. If a funding request came for a study on evolution, he would hopefully decide based on the need, the budget, and the importance (to the general populace) of the study, rather than his own personal feelings on it.

As all our biological sciences are based on an evolutionary model, there is no need for a request to study evolution. By de facto, it is fait accompli.

I totally agree with what you are saying though about separating your beliefs from the responsibilities of your public job. Many U.S. politicians have made this distinction when asked about their views on abortion, etc. and how they should not impose their personal beliefs on others.