Science Minister won't confirm belief in evolution

[Canada 02]

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

Ladies and Gentlemen, Canada's Science Minister:

On Tuesday, Mr. Goodyear said twice during the CTV interview that he did believe in evolution.

“We are evolving every year, every decade. That's a fact, whether it is to the intensity of the sun, whether it is to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it is running shoes or high heels, of course we are evolving to our environment. But that's not relevant and that is why I refused to answer the question. The interview was about our science and tech strategy, which is strong.”

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm waiting for the lynchings... Come on, saying stuff like that just makes you look ridiculous.

EDIT: Not that the textbook isn't outrageous, but you kind of switched it up.

So Atheists have not been hunted and killed for the last 2000yrs?? To this day in many Islamic nations non belief is worthy of capital punishment.

If for example Saudi Arabia legalized and promoted Slavery the entire world would be outraged, but if they had a law on the books allowing death to non believers the world would.... do nothing..

[photon]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

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

Ladies and Gentlemen, Canada's Science Minister:

That's exactly the kind of answer that I would expect from a creationist who was trying to pretend they believed in evolution.

Either that, or he thinks Lamarckian evolution is correct! That's even worse than not believing in it at all!!

[Hack&Lube]

"“We are evolving every year, every decade. That's a fact, whether it is to the intensity of the sun, whether it is to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it is running shoes or high heels, of course we are evolving to our environment."

-Minister of State for Science and Technology

WHAT A MAROON! He's just blathering about! Looking at this guy's education. He failed to graduate from Waterloo and dropped out. Then he went to the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College and then also learned acupuncture, etc. How is he qualified to be the minister of state for science and technology? What does his answer even mean? If he thinks evolution means that we are adapting to walking on cement and wearing heels...FACEPALM!

[Thor]

So where does the email writing campaign start, who do we contact, this is embarrassing.

[driveway]

Mr. Goodyear's constituency office can be reached at the following:

Phone - (519) 624.7440
Fax - (519) 624.3517
Email - info@garygoodyear.ca

Mr. Goodyear can also be reached in Ottawa:

Phone - (613) 996.1307
Fax - (613) 996.8340
Email - goodyg@parl.gc.ca

[llama64]

Originally Posted by peter12

That is absolutely not true.

The ruling entity of the Conservative Party is a former chief strategist of the Reform Party of Canada. He is also an admitted fundamentalist Christian and strong social conservative (or are we ignoring his statements from before his Prime Ministership?).

Many of the cabinet ministers also have the same background.

The only person in power in the Conservative party that I have any respect for is Peter Mackay.

As a "Tory", I am hoping that the Conservative party will eventually see the rise of the old school PC's back into control of the right side while the social conservatives leave. Until then, the only party that even comes close to my personal political view point are the Liberals (and they are too east oriented to actually represent me as a citizen).

So yes, what I said is true -- what is debateable or not is whether this affects the executive's policy.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Thor

So Atheists have not been hunted and killed for the last 2000yrs?? To this day in many Islamic nations non belief is worthy of capital punishment.

If for example Saudi Arabia legalized and promoted Slavery the entire world would be outraged, but if they had a law on the books allowing death to non believers the world would.... do nothing..

But... not to be a dick, but they kinda do have a law promoting slavery. Have you seen the conditions their women deal with?

[Canada 02]

here is the CTV interview

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...deoLineup/News

despite his wacky view on evolution, the governments Science policy and funding is ok. $5.1B of recurring funds for research is a good amount (assuming that is the annual budget); the additional $2B for science infrastructure, labs and equipment is also pretty good (although I'm not sure how far $2B goes these days)

[OBCT]

Yeah, the policy seems decent enough. I guess. At first glance it looks good. Then again, I do not have anything to compare it to.

Speaking of which, could someone find a detailed outline of the funding allocations of the previous Minister for comparison to Mr. Goodyear's? That might be interesting.


Regarding this...

On Tuesday, Mr. Goodyear said twice during the CTV interview that he did believe in evolution.

“We are evolving every year, every decade. That's a fact, whether it is to the intensity of the sun, whether it is to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it is running shoes or high heels, of course we are evolving to our environment. But that's not relevant and that is why I refused to answer the question. The interview was about our science and tech strategy, which is strong.”

...I'm a bit worried. It is hard to know for sure, but he seems to imply a belief in so-called "microevolution" and disbelief in "macroevolution", which is a fallacy (and arguably problematic for someone of his position) if true. I don't want to speak for him hear and I'm certainly not trying to defame him or put words in his mouth, but what he has said to this point could suggest that this is the case. Even though I'm not an atheist, I found this article quite interesting.

It is difficult to take a purely adaptation-oriented view on this subject. I don't mind if people have difficulty with evolution and all it's ramifications, but I'll be the first to admit that scientifically, it is where we're at. It is where the evidence points.

Everybody comes to their job with biases, so I'm not sure how fair it is to tar and feather Mr. Goodyear for this particular belief even yet (not that anyone has done that either). Give me a policy misstep stemming from a weird stance on an issue such as this, and I'd be for a review and possible dismissal.

[photon]

It's not even macro vs micro evolution. The fact that he says that we are evolving every year, walking on cement vs. anything else, he's under the misconception that individuals evolve.

This is a Lamarckian view of evolution, the idea that an individual will adapt to their environment and then pass those traits on to their progeny.

This is completely false, populations evolve, individuals do not. Children get their DNA from the parent's sex cells.

Creationists typically do not understand this because they have a false construct of evolution in their minds that they attack, ignorant of what evolution really does say. The quote from Strobel is a good example of that.

So this statement by him is MORE worrying to me than his previous one, while his previous statement could have just been a misstatement, while this one is good evidence that he is a creationist and really does not understand evolution in the slightest.

[redforever]

Where specifically did he say that an individual will adapt to their environment and then PASS those traits on to their progeny?

I listened to the whole interview, have read all possible articles on the interview, I see nothing like that whatsoever.

My opinion?

Same as with the so called "abused" children who are being homeschooled in Britain, mass overreaction to what the facts support.

I think too many of you have too much time on your hands and overreact to everything. A letter campaign for this? You have got to be kidding. You have to learn to pick your battles.

Does every person in public office have to be an aetheist before they can perform their job? That is a pretty dim view of mankind in general.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by redforever

Does every person in public office have to be an aetheist before they can perform their job? That is a pretty dim view of mankind in general.

No but I think understanding basic science should be a prerequisite for being a science minister.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by redforever

Where specifically did he say that an individual will adapt to their environment and then PASS those traits on to their progeny?

I listened to the whole interview, have read all possible articles on the interview, I see nothing like that whatsoever.

I doubt he even knows what Lamarckian evolution is - inheritance of acquired characteristics. However, his statement (in bold below) fits Lamarcks outdated view quite well. He clearly has no idea of what modern evolutionary theory is

“We are evolving every year, every decade. That's a fact, whether it is to the intensity of the sun, whether it is to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it is running shoes or high heels, of course we are evolving to our environment

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by redforever

Does every person in public office have to be an aetheist before they can perform their job? That is a pretty dim view of mankind in general.

Once again--this is a completely false dichotomy. Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with it. In fact, most evolutionary biologists in North America are Christians.

But you do have to understand science to be a science minister. I think that much ought to be self-evident. You wouldn't appoint a flat-earth-society member to the post of "astronomy minister."

This actually has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. To claim otherwise is foolish. This is about science. You want to be a science minister? Understand science. If you don't understand science, or don't want to, then perhaps another portfolio would be a better choice, one where your personal beliefs don't conflict with your job.

[photon]

Originally Posted by redforever

Where specifically did he say that an individual will adapt to their environment and then PASS those traits on to their progeny?

"We are evolving every year, every decade. That's a fact, whether it is to the intensity of the sun, whether it is to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it is running shoes or high heels, of course we are evolving to our environment."

How else would you interpret that statement? Walking on cement vs. anything else, as a chiropractor. The whole statement is almost word salad, so we're left to trying to dredge out some kind of meaning. For evolution to occur, something has to die and something has to survive so genes can be passed on or not, for fitness to be selected for. How do his examples look in any way like evolution?

Originally Posted by redforever

I think too many of you have too much time on your hands and overreact to everything. A letter campaign for this? You have got to be kidding. You have to learn to pick your battles.

Because writing a letter takes so much effort? Personally I wouldn't write a letter until there's some indication that poor decisions are being made.. but doesn't a science minister that appears not to understand something as basic as evolution worry you? Evolution is the foundation of modern biology.

Would it worry you if chief Economist didn't understand supply and demand?

Originally Posted by redforever

Does every person in public office have to be an aetheist before they can perform their job? That is a pretty dim view of mankind in general.

Who said anything about being an atheist? Atheism and evolution aren't related to each other.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by ikaris

No but I think understanding basic science should be a prerequisite for being a science minister.

I see nothing in any of his statements to support the fact that he does not have a basic understanding of science or to support the fact that he is unqualified to do his job.

[firebug]

I am all for allowing people to believe whatever they want.

But would you be comfortable with:
A Jehovah's Witness setting health policy (blood transfusions)?
A muslim running the central bank (charging interest)?
A Seventh-Day Adventist as the Defense minister (pacifist)?
A Mormon setting Alcohol and Tobacco policy?
A young-earth creationist directing science funding?

I would contend that despite their best attempts to remain unbiased, that these individuals would be hard pressed to set policy that would truly reflect the public's best interest.

~firebug

[firebug]

Originally Posted by redforever

I see nothing in any of his statements to support the fact that he does not have a basic understanding of science or to support the fact that he is unqualified to do his job.

Many people who have more than a basic understanding of science disagree with you.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by photon

Would it worry you if chief Economist didn't understand supply and demand?

If they were implementing good policy I wouldn't care...having said that a Minister that 'gets it' is more likely to enact sound policy.