Gary Goodyear won't say whether he believes in evolution

42 posts / 0 new

Tue, 2009-03-17 10:54

Snuckles

Quote:
ANNE MCILROY

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

March 17, 2009 at 2:00 AM EDT

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.

A funding crunch, exacerbated by cuts in the January budget, has left many senior researchers across the county scrambling to find the money to continue their experiments.

Some have expressed concern that Mr. Goodyear, a chiropractor from Cambridge, Ont., is suspicious of science, perhaps because he is a creationist.

Read it [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090317.wgoodyear16/....

Tue, 2009-03-17 10:59

Star Spangled C...

The fact that he's a chiropractor is more of a tip off that he's anti-science than the fact that he's a creationist!

Tue, 2009-03-17 11:32

NorthReport

Thanks prime minister for making Canada the laughing stock of the scientific community by appointing such an idiot.

Tue, 2009-03-17 12:31

Michelle

Haha! My thoughts exactly, SSC! The first thing I said was, "Oh my aching back, they couldn't even appoint a REAL scientist? They put a CHIROPRACTOR in the position? No wonder."

Tue, 2009-03-17 12:35

Sven

Goodyear is Canada’s “science minister”? Given his “religious view” of the creation of life, isn’t that a bit akin to electing an atheist as Pope?

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Tue, 2009-03-17 12:41

Snuckles

[url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/03/17/... at the National Pest[/url], J. Kay is outraged, outraged I say! That a reporter would dare ask a minister of [b]science[/b] for his views on a scientific theory.

Tue, 2009-03-17 12:53

Sven

Snuckles wrote:
[url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/03/17/... at the National Pest[/url], J. Kay is outraged, outraged I say! That a reporter would dare ask a minister of [b]science[/b] for his views on a scientific theory.

That is a pathetic screed from the National Post.

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Tue, 2009-03-17 16:11

Snert

I think this guy's feet need to be held to the fire. Certainly he's under no obligation to tell us what he thinks about various omnipotent ghosts, but he should be able to say "I believe in Evolution" out loud.

For added fun, I'd love someone to remind him that God is listening. Somehow the really committed religious types treat that like a lie detector. Remind him that God is listening and he's liable to blurt out "NO! God made us 6000 years ago. Thank you Oh Lord of everlasting mercy!" Denying your faith is bad mojo, even if it's just in the interest of shutting people up.

Tue, 2009-03-17 16:52

Unionist

This is diversionary. A Science Minister doesn't have to "believe in" anything, whether science or religion. His beliefs are his own business. If he said he didn't "believe in" quantum mechanics, I wouldn't care.

This scumbag, however, is de-funding legitimate scientific research and commercializing it. For that, he should burn in the hell of his free choosing. That's what should not get lost in this scandal.

Tue, 2009-03-17 18:59

#10

Unionist

Unionist wrote:
This is diversionary.

Gee, I hate to quote myself, but guess what? Mr. Goodyear just announced that I was right:

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090317.wevol0317/BN... says he does believe in evolution after all[/color][/url]

That was easy, wasn't it? Now he and Harper can continue to fuck scientists and scientific research.

People shouldn't get sucked in by secondary issues, while guns are being pointed at their heads.

Tue, 2009-03-17 19:05

#11

Naci_Sey

Not so fast.

Tue, 2009-03-17 19:09

#12

Unionist

Naci_Sey, I appreciate your post, but it [i]doesn't matter what he believes in[/i]. I don't know whether Paul Martin really "believed" in equal marriage or not, but it was his job to introduce and pass the legislation, even in the face of Catholic bishops threatening him with hell. It's a total diversion. We should demand elected representatives who do the right thing. We should not ask what they "believe". You know why? Because the skillful ones will lie.

Tue, 2009-03-17 20:59

#13

jacki-mo

I have an uncle in Cairo- he's a Cairopractor (Curley Howard)

Tue, 2009-03-17 21:48

#14

Snuckles

Colby Cosh By Gosh [url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/03/17/... with J. Kay[/url].

Quote:
And if important practitioners like the ones cited in McIlroy’s story are sincerely concerned that Goodyear won’t answer a simple, direct question about science, why shouldn’t they be allowed to say so? Kay’s complaint is not directed against a genuine example of secularist propagandizing; the quotes in the story were within quotation marks, where they belong. His complaint appears to be that a journalistic inquiry was made by a journalist. Which is just weird.

Wed, 2009-03-18 09:50

#15

Snuckles

Goodyear says he now believes in evolution. And if you can figure out what on earth he is trying to say here, then I'll tip my hat to you:

Quote:
“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.”

What a word salad. Enough to make Sarah Palin cringe.

Wed, 2009-03-18 20:15

#16

Doug

He's making less sense than Jean Chretien, and that takes some doing!

Thu, 2009-03-19 12:43

#17

Stockholm

I for one thing that believing in God is anti-scientific and every bit as ridiculous as believing in creationism.

Why are people so upset about Goodyear possibly not believing in evolution when probably 95% of all MPs believe all various other ludicrous anti-scientific stuff like the idea that there is a God or that some woman named Mary supposedly got knocked up 2,000 years ago without having been fucked first - which any scientist knows is IMPOSSIBLE.

So why are all these people going berserk over Gary Goodyear when no one cared in the past when we probably had a Catholic as minister of science and technology who almost certainly believed in things that are every bit as ludicrous as creationism - if not more so.

Thu, 2009-03-19 13:29

#18

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

You're really just hanging around to play the contrarian these days, aren't you, Stock?

Thu, 2009-03-19 14:11

#19

Stockholm

You can call it contrarian if you want. I think its a legitimate question. Why do we turn a blind eye to all the ludicrous stuff that "theists" invariably believe - and then freak out about whether or not someone believe in evolution.

Unionist is right - the issue is whether programs are being funded and what actual government policy is. Would people feel any better if Goodyear was an atheist libertarian who believed in evolution thought that government should spend NOTHING on scientific research? Apparently, Paul Martin went to Mass every single Sunday - why didn't he ever get asked about whether he believed in the immaculate conception?

Thu, 2009-03-19 14:19

#20

Unionist

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:
You're really just hanging around to play the contrarian these days, aren't you, Stock?

No, I think Stockholm is right. Would you want a Science Minister who swears that he believes in all the latest science, but slashes research funding and ties what's left to commercial partnerships?

Conversely, what about an atheist prime minister who swears that he personally supports equal marriage, but refuses to legalize it to please his so-con constituents?

Or, how about two Catholic prime ministers in a row who face down screaming wacko bishops and hellfire, and legalize equal marriage? Do we really care what their personal beliefs are? I don't. I judge by deeds.

As I said before, what the Science Minister believes in (or what he says he believes in) is [b]irrelevant[/b]. What matters is how much damage he does to the scientific community. And that's what is getting lost in the media scandal over this issue.

ETA: Oh my God, Stock and I crossposted, and each of us said the other was right. I'm going to go get baptized or something.

Thu, 2009-03-19 14:26

#21

500_Apples

Unionist wrote:

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:
You're really just hanging around to play the contrarian these days, aren't you, Stock?

No, I think Stockholm is right. Would you want a Science Minister who swears that he believes in all the latest science, but slashes research funding and ties what's left to commercial partnerships?

Conversely, what about an atheist prime minister who swears that he personally supports equal marriage, but refuses to legalize it to please his so-con constituents?

Or, how about two Catholic prime ministers in a row who face down screaming wacko bishops and hellfire, and legalize equal marriage? Do we really care what their personal beliefs are? I don't. I judge by deeds.

As I said before, what the Science Minister believes in (or what he says he believes in) is [b]irrelevant[/b]. What matters is how much damage he does to the scientific community. And that's what is getting lost in the media scandal over this issue.

ETA: Oh my God, Stock and I crossposted, and each of us said the other was right. I'm going to go get baptized or something.

I agree with you in principle,

but,

We can't always be sure of what a candidate will do, but what he or she says and what we think he or she believes is a decent diagnostic.

Thu, 2009-03-19 14:37

#22

Stockholm

That's true - but i still want to know why we never grill nominally Catholic politicians about whether they believe in the virgin birth etc...

Thu, 2009-03-19 15:32

#23

melovesproles

Regardless of whether its fair or not this is a damaging scandal for the Cons. It highlights their perceived weaknesses and damages their credibility amongst 'centrist' Canadians. These kind of issues never play well for the Tories.

Thu, 2009-03-19 17:15

#24

Stockholm

I wouldn't call is a "scandal". "Gaffe" is a better word for it.

Thu, 2009-03-19 19:31

#25

Policywonk

It would seem to me that if one doesn't believe in evolution one rejects most of biological if not physical science. That is bound to affect your approach to scientific funding. Actions do speak louder than words, but Canada's record on funding for scientific research in general has never been particularly good under any government.

Thu, 2009-03-19 19:43

#26

Catchfire

This is what is wrong with party politics. Who cares what the policy is, let's just exploit gaffes for pollster points. I wrote a letter to MP Michael Ignatieff (among others) over a month ago protesting the proposed ideological targetting of SSHRC, the arms-length funding body that funds research in the humanities and social sciences. The latest Conservative budget wants to give money only to 'business-related degrees'. In the humanities. I guess that means English literature doctorate students better bone up on Ayn Rand.

Anyway, I got a response from Iggy--Rhodes Scholar, ex-Harvard prof--thanking me for my concern about scientific research and assuring me that the Liberal party would do its utmost to protect science research and scientists in Canada. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for scientific research. But all this showed was that the LPC didn't give a fin for research, they just wanted to direct the tide of popular comic relief that issued from this idiot who won't admit in evolution. Would I have got a response at all if Iggy's cohort didn't think they could turn a buck from it? Don't answer that...

Gary Goodyear belongs in a side show. Because that's what he's putting over.

Thu, 2009-03-19 21:09

#27

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

It seems that even at the National Post they aren't entirely comfortable with lining up on the side of Mr. Goodyear and ignorance...

Fri, 2009-03-20 09:17

#28

Stockholm

Now that we have cut Goodyear down to size, let's keep the momentum going and encourage journalists to grill any Catholic politicians about whether they believe in all the ludicrous unscientific claptrap that Catholics are supposed to believe in. This could be a great opportunity to make all "theists" objects of ridicule.

Fri, 2009-03-20 10:44

#29

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Quote:
That's true - but i still want to know why we never grill nominally Catholic politicians about whether they believe in the virgin birth etc...

Because it is not the same question. No asked the Science Minsiter if he believes in the holy trinity, he was asked his position on evolution - a scientific theory. Would you want to know if he believed the world was flat? What if believes the earth orbits the sun?

It does matter becuase he is the Science Minister just as much as it matters that a one-time and failed environment minister never bothered to read the science on climate change.

Unionist makes the valid complaint that the science minister is slashing and privatizing science programs and I would counter that a science minister who recognized and supported the importance of science would not take such reckless steps. Only a science minister with a complete disrespect and lack of knowledge of the value of his/her portfolio would be so stupid. Yes, stupid.

Fri, 2009-03-20 11:54

#30

Stockholm

Its also a scientific fact that in order for a woman to get pregnant - a penis must enter a vagina and sperm must fertilize an egg. If you believe that some dame named Mary got pregnant without any of that happening than you reject science.

Fri, 2009-03-20 12:00

#31

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Why say anything just twice when the same thing can be said ten different ways, eh?

Fri, 2009-03-20 12:16

#32

Maysie

Quote:
“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.”

Um, this quote show that Goodyear doesn't actually know what evolution is. Which is kinda funny. And then, not so much. I agree with Unionist re. behaviours and actions being more important than beliefs.

Stockholm wrote:
Its also a scientific fact that in order for a woman to get pregnant - a penis must enter a vagina and sperm must fertilize an egg.

Stockholm, you need to get out more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_insemination

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_reproductive_technology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IVF

Fri, 2009-03-20 12:38

#33

Policywonk

Even without such help it is possible (but rather improbable) for pregnancy to occur without penetration (only the sperm needs to enter the vagina, not the penis). Thus virgin births are not particularly miraculous.

Fri, 2009-03-20 16:59

#34

Stockholm

Are you suggesting that Mary and Joseph used a turkey baster??Is that how someone can reconcile being Catholic with basic human biology?

...and how pray tell can you believe in basic science and also think that when you munch on a dry tasteless wafer in a Catholic church you are actually eating the body of a man who died 2000 years ago??

I think that anyone who believes in any of the following things (among others) should be barred from public office:

*creationism

*trans-substantiation

*immaculate conception not involving a turkey baster

Fri, 2009-03-20 18:20

#35

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Stockholm wrote:
Its also a scientific fact that in order for a woman to get pregnant - a penis must enter a vagina and sperm must fertilize an egg. If you believe that some dame named Mary got pregnant without any of that happening than you reject science.

You remain a dolt. Asking a politicuan if he believes in tge immaculate concption is a religious question and is perhaps out of bounds. Asking a Minister of Science if he acknowledges that humans reproduce through a sperm entering an egg is a question of fact and is fair.

Fri, 2009-03-20 18:35

#36

Policywonk

Stockholm wrote:

Are you suggesting that Mary and Joseph used a turkey baster??Is that how someone can reconcile being Catholic with basic human biology?

...and how pray tell can you believe in basic science and also think that when you munch on a dry tasteless wafer in a Catholic church you are actually eating the body of a man who died 2000 years ago??

I think that anyone who believes in any of the following things (among others) should be barred from public office:

*creationism

*trans-substantiation

*immaculate conception not involving a turkey baster

I'm not suggesting anything, just pointing out that a virgin birth is scientifically possible. Why are you attacking Catholics? They aren't the only ones who believe in a virgin birth (there are also other historical and quasi-historical (possibly mythical) people who reputedly had a virgin birth) or transubstantiation, and lots of other people believe in rather strange things. One can look at a lot of religious belief as metaphoric as well.

Fri, 2009-03-20 18:47

#37

Unionist

I'm not Catholic, and I believe in virgin birth.

We're all virgins at birth.

Fri, 2009-03-20 22:40

#38

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Unionist, you can do better than that ... I know. I've read it.

Fri, 2009-03-20 22:44

#39

Unionist

You mean, the pessimistic view of the world - that we're all f***ed before we're even born?

Fri, 2009-03-20 23:30

#40

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Nah, I'm into that. I mean the groaner. You have such wonderful wit, but that one ... I dunno, just not quite up to your usual standards.

Tue, 2009-03-24 21:33

#41

DrConway

How on Earth did this moron manage to escape the radar of every working scientist in this country? I'm going to forward this to the science student groups at uni and see about some letter-writin'.

Tue, 2009-03-24 21:50

#42

quantum

Stockholm wrote:
Its also a scientific fact that in order for a woman to get pregnant - a penis must enter a vagina and sperm must fertilize an egg. If you believe that some dame named Mary got pregnant without any of that happening than you reject science.

This isn't true because religion involves belief in the supernatural be it catholicism, satan worship or something inbetween. Science explains how the physical world that we exerience through our senses works but not the realm of the supernatural or other dimensional worlds, assuming one believes these realms exist.