Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Canadian Science minister's coyness on evolution worries researchers
by CBC
Thanks to Catalin for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/03/17/tech-090317-gary-goodyear-evolution.html
Federal Science Minister Gary Goodyear's refusal to say whether he believes in evolution has left scientists questioning what that means for Canadian research.
Dolph Schluter, a professor at the University of British Columbia, told CBCNews.ca in an email that he was "first flabbergasted and then embarrassed" when he heard Goodyear's response to a reporter's question about whether he believed in evolution.
"I'm not going to answer that question," Goodyear, federal minister of state for science and technology, told the Globe and Mail in an article published Tuesday. "I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate."
Goodyear, a former chiropractor and member of Parliament for the Ontario riding of Cambridge, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
However, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesman, Kory Teneycke, alleged in an interview with the Canadian Press Tuesday that Goodyear made the remarks after he was ambushed by a reporter who began questioning his religious beliefs during an interview about federal science policy. He added that creationism was not on the government's science agenda.
Schluter, who holds a Canada research chair in evolutionary biology, expressed concern that Goodyear's job as minister of state is to guide the development and administration of science policy in Canada.
He said evolution is the foundation of modern biology, used every day by scientists, and answers about it have nothing to do with religion.
"Anyone who confuses the two ought not to be holding the purse strings," he said.
Steven Carr, a biology professor at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, said he finds it shocking that the minister would duck the question.
However, he criticized the way it was framed as a question of belief.
"None of us who use evolution or do research in evolution 'believe' in evolution," he said. "It's a matter of accepting a vast body of information that's been collected from all fields of human investigation."
Science or religion?
Nevertheless, he said, he has difficulty with the fact that Goodyear apparently considered a question about science to be a question about religion.
That suggests Goodyear doesn't accept evolution, he said.
"I find it difficult to read the response and conclude otherwise," he said. "We can't have people in government who ignore the facts because it doesn't jibe with their personal religious beliefs. To the extent that this is going on with the minister, it raises very serious questions .… Exactly the same attitudes had enormous implications in the States under the previous administration."
Michael Rudnicki, a University of Ottawa professor who does research on stem cells — a type of research that some religious groups oppose — said he would like some clarity on Goodyear's views.
Rudnicki, who is also scientific director of the Sprott Centre for Stem Cell Research at the Ottawa Health Research Institute, said because Canada is exceptionally strong in stem cell research he would think the country's science minister would be an advocate for such work.
"If he has personal issues, perhaps he shouldn't be the minister," Rudnicki said in a telephone interview.
Janet Rossant, chief of research at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, also had concerns about the implications for science leadership in Canada.
"Clearly — since evolution is fundamental to modern biological and medical research — if we're looking to move these areas forward, we need to be absolutely clear that from the very top down, people who are involved in running science in this country understand the process of science and scientific theories and facts today," she said in a telephone interview.
Lori Beaman, a religious studies professor at the University of Ottawa who researches the context of religion in Canada, said she thinks public officials do have the obligation to be clear about their positions on issues such as evolution.
"I don't see this as an issue of religious freedom, as that is usually invoked to protect religious belief [or] action, not to preserve a wish to be silent," said Beaman in an email.
Belief may not affect political actions
However, Beaman, who also holds a Canada Research Chair, said she is also concerned about any assumption that Goodyear's religious beliefs might put into question his belief in science or the scientific method.
"Religion and science are not necessarily incompatible, nor does the holding of religious beliefs negate one's belief in the benefits and wonders of science."
Margaret Somerville, founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law in Montreal, said even if Goodyear's religious beliefs are not compatible with science, as is the case for creationists who believe the world was created directly by God several thousand years ago, it does not mean he will apply them when making political decisions.
"While I believe that politicians should never act contrary to their consciences, when acting in a public — not personal — role, they may need to take decisions that they would not take in a personal context," she said.
She added that Goodyear's obligations to Canada and Canadians include promoting freedom of scientific enquiry and seeking the benefits of science within the limits set by ethics and law.
"Consequently, I would hope that if a worthy research project on evolution were proposed, the minister would agree it should be funded."
While Somerville was surprised by Goodyear's comments in the media, she acknowledged that the situation may have been difficult for him.
"My impression was that the minister was feeling defensive and handled it badly. As a religious person, he might have reason to feel that way, as the media are often not kind to religion or people in the public square with religious beliefs, especially, I find, politicians."
Funding strategy a bigger issue, researchers say
Dr. Jacques Galipeau, professor of medicine and oncology at Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital and McGill University in Montreal, said it isn't necessary to drag Goodyear through the mud because he might be a creationist — as long as he puts money into research funding.
"The core issue that is truly frightening is that Canada could put itself out of the game" with respect to the knowledge-based economy, he said in a telephone interview.
Beaman said she is more concerned that Goodyear says the government is focused on improving Canada's commercialization of research.
"In these comments he seems to be articulating an approach to research that is extremely damaging to our research community, and that is the notion that if we can't sell it, it isn't worth doing."
Carr said he was similarly concerned.
"It should be obvious … that discovery-based research has been the bedrock of all applied sciences," he said, adding that diverting money away from such research toward targeted industrial research is wrong-headed and will seriously damage the Canadian economy.
Reposted from:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/03/17/tech-090317-gary-goodyear-evolution.html
Federal Science Minister Gary Goodyear's refusal to say whether he believes in evolution has left scientists questioning what that means for Canadian research.
Dolph Schluter, a professor at the University of British Columbia, told CBCNews.ca in an email that he was "first flabbergasted and then embarrassed" when he heard Goodyear's response to a reporter's question about whether he believed in evolution.
"I'm not going to answer that question," Goodyear, federal minister of state for science and technology, told the Globe and Mail in an article published Tuesday. "I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate."
Goodyear, a former chiropractor and member of Parliament for the Ontario riding of Cambridge, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
However, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesman, Kory Teneycke, alleged in an interview with the Canadian Press Tuesday that Goodyear made the remarks after he was ambushed by a reporter who began questioning his religious beliefs during an interview about federal science policy. He added that creationism was not on the government's science agenda.
Schluter, who holds a Canada research chair in evolutionary biology, expressed concern that Goodyear's job as minister of state is to guide the development and administration of science policy in Canada.
He said evolution is the foundation of modern biology, used every day by scientists, and answers about it have nothing to do with religion.
"Anyone who confuses the two ought not to be holding the purse strings," he said.
Steven Carr, a biology professor at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, said he finds it shocking that the minister would duck the question.
However, he criticized the way it was framed as a question of belief.
"None of us who use evolution or do research in evolution 'believe' in evolution," he said. "It's a matter of accepting a vast body of information that's been collected from all fields of human investigation."
Science or religion?
Nevertheless, he said, he has difficulty with the fact that Goodyear apparently considered a question about science to be a question about religion.
That suggests Goodyear doesn't accept evolution, he said.
"I find it difficult to read the response and conclude otherwise," he said. "We can't have people in government who ignore the facts because it doesn't jibe with their personal religious beliefs. To the extent that this is going on with the minister, it raises very serious questions .… Exactly the same attitudes had enormous implications in the States under the previous administration."
Michael Rudnicki, a University of Ottawa professor who does research on stem cells — a type of research that some religious groups oppose — said he would like some clarity on Goodyear's views.
Rudnicki, who is also scientific director of the Sprott Centre for Stem Cell Research at the Ottawa Health Research Institute, said because Canada is exceptionally strong in stem cell research he would think the country's science minister would be an advocate for such work.
"If he has personal issues, perhaps he shouldn't be the minister," Rudnicki said in a telephone interview.
Janet Rossant, chief of research at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, also had concerns about the implications for science leadership in Canada.
"Clearly — since evolution is fundamental to modern biological and medical research — if we're looking to move these areas forward, we need to be absolutely clear that from the very top down, people who are involved in running science in this country understand the process of science and scientific theories and facts today," she said in a telephone interview.
Lori Beaman, a religious studies professor at the University of Ottawa who researches the context of religion in Canada, said she thinks public officials do have the obligation to be clear about their positions on issues such as evolution.
"I don't see this as an issue of religious freedom, as that is usually invoked to protect religious belief [or] action, not to preserve a wish to be silent," said Beaman in an email.
Belief may not affect political actions
However, Beaman, who also holds a Canada Research Chair, said she is also concerned about any assumption that Goodyear's religious beliefs might put into question his belief in science or the scientific method.
"Religion and science are not necessarily incompatible, nor does the holding of religious beliefs negate one's belief in the benefits and wonders of science."
Margaret Somerville, founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law in Montreal, said even if Goodyear's religious beliefs are not compatible with science, as is the case for creationists who believe the world was created directly by God several thousand years ago, it does not mean he will apply them when making political decisions.
"While I believe that politicians should never act contrary to their consciences, when acting in a public — not personal — role, they may need to take decisions that they would not take in a personal context," she said.
She added that Goodyear's obligations to Canada and Canadians include promoting freedom of scientific enquiry and seeking the benefits of science within the limits set by ethics and law.
"Consequently, I would hope that if a worthy research project on evolution were proposed, the minister would agree it should be funded."
While Somerville was surprised by Goodyear's comments in the media, she acknowledged that the situation may have been difficult for him.
"My impression was that the minister was feeling defensive and handled it badly. As a religious person, he might have reason to feel that way, as the media are often not kind to religion or people in the public square with religious beliefs, especially, I find, politicians."
Funding strategy a bigger issue, researchers say
Dr. Jacques Galipeau, professor of medicine and oncology at Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital and McGill University in Montreal, said it isn't necessary to drag Goodyear through the mud because he might be a creationist — as long as he puts money into research funding.
"The core issue that is truly frightening is that Canada could put itself out of the game" with respect to the knowledge-based economy, he said in a telephone interview.
Beaman said she is more concerned that Goodyear says the government is focused on improving Canada's commercialization of research.
"In these comments he seems to be articulating an approach to research that is extremely damaging to our research community, and that is the notion that if we can't sell it, it isn't worth doing."
Carr said he was similarly concerned.
"It should be obvious … that discovery-based research has been the bedrock of all applied sciences," he said, adding that diverting money away from such research toward targeted industrial research is wrong-headed and will seriously damage the Canadian economy.
Comments 1 - 50 of 90 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers
3. Comment #353188 by NewEnglandBob on March 18, 2009 at 10:41 am
Time to deflate Goodyear and de-rim him.A former chiropractor - did he do it the holistic method? Was he using laying of hands? crystallography? Fairy dust?
Does he even know what science and technology are?
Other Comments by NewEnglandBob
4. Comment #353190 by WillM on March 18, 2009 at 10:45 am
Although it is right to criticise the way the question was framed (I can't stand the word "belief" used in scientific contexts!), Goodyear's wishy-washy response was awful - better to come out as a raging Cretinist than be so meek, so utterly timid and pathetic. It's tragic that so many people in this world should be afraid of evolution - even more so for a Science Minister.Having said that, I reject Schluter's assertion that answers about evolution have nothing to do with religion. Clearly, Goodyear knows this all too well, hence his reaction.
*Just for Fun*
Mentally replace all references to "evolution" with "gravity", then wallow in despair at how far the human race has to go.
Other Comments by WillM
5. Comment #353191 by AisforAtheist on March 18, 2009 at 10:49 am
Here's my contribution to the CBC blog:Here's some info on Humanism from a Canadian perspective.
Vision
A world where reason and compassion guide public policy and beliefs are respected provided that they are compatible with the rights of others.
Mission
To promote the separation of religion from public policy and foster the development of reason, compassion and critical thinking for all Canadians through secular education and community support.
Value Statements
* Uphold honesty, reason, critical thinking, and cooperation, in every facet of human interdependence.
* Support initiatives and programs that advance secularism.
* Promote the separation of religion and state at all levels of government.
Clearly, public good flows from such values and it is in society's interest to highlight cases like this wherein the separation of church and state is at risk. Worldviews and superstitious beliefs held by elected politicians are fair game and open to public scrutiny. To become a politician in a secular nation whilst subscribing to a baseless dogma, like a creationist religion, is to invite scrutiny - if not ridicule - upon oneself.
Ask yourselves if Mr. Goodyear, and other ex-Reform Party politicians including Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day, would vote to fund scientific research into the emerging field of memes. (A meme - or mind virus - promotes its own survival by erecting an intellectual "firewall" that impedes the infected host from accepting evidence that contradicts their religious dogma).
Ask if they'd act to bolster the separation of church and sate, such as:
- removing the god reference from the Anthem;
- eliminating "chaplain" positions from the Armed Forces.
Other Comments by AisforAtheist
6. Comment #353193 by firstelder_d on March 18, 2009 at 10:56 am
reporter's question about whether he believed in evolution
I really hate that phrase. No one believes in evolution, they either get it, or they don't.
As a religious person, he might have reason to feel that way, as the media are often not kind to religion or people in the public square with religious beliefs, especially, I find, politicians.
When the hell did that happen? I must have been sleeping.
I hate how politicians are put in charge of fields they have no expertise in.
Comment #353190 by WillM
I think he is referring to evolution having nothing to do with religion on its own. Since it conflicts with the bible the fundies have to make it about religion
Other Comments by firstelder_d
7. Comment #353194 by AmericanGodless on March 18, 2009 at 10:58 am
Minister clarifies stand on evolution: 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.”
.. Umm.. Clarifies?
Other Comments by AmericanGodless
8. Comment #353197 by eh-theist on March 18, 2009 at 11:02 am
NewEnglandBob - If you believe that untrustworthy guy, James Randi, Gary Goodyear is also into acupuncture. I suspect nothing but solid science :)
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/309-canada-officially-goes-woo-woo.html
And his clarification makes me think "Microevolution, sure. Macroevolution, no!".
He needs to go.
Other Comments by eh-theist
9. Comment #353199 by br0k3nglass on March 18, 2009 at 11:10 am
Oi! Some of the comments for that article are truly mind-numbing. Other Comments by br0k3nglass
10. Comment #353200 by AmericanGodless on March 18, 2009 at 11:11 am
To be fair to the Minister, the question really does put any politician on the spot (in the US, and apparently in Canada, too). It asks, essentially "are you an evolution denialist, or do you accept the evidence that says that the Holy Creator God is an unnecessary just-so story?" It is just that most politicians have smoother ways of ducking the question, or pretending that there is no conflict, or tailoring a hypocritical answer to a particular audience. Mr. Goodyear needs to evolve a better pair of political running shoes. Other Comments by AmericanGodless
11. Comment #353202 by Eshto on March 18, 2009 at 11:14 am
Our openly religious president was asked if he believes in evolution and he said yes. And Obama's kindofa Jesus freak if you ask me.So I don't think it's that much of a dilemma.
I think it more likely that your Minister just hasn't thought the issue through very much and probably doesn't know anything about evolution, so he floundered.
Which might be even worse considering.
Other Comments by Eshto
12. Comment #353206 by AmericanGodless on March 18, 2009 at 11:20 am
Eshto: I agree, Obama is a very smooth politician. He just affirms both his belief in God and evolution, ignores any conflict, and lets both the religionists and the scientists think that he is on their side. And, when it serves his political purposes, he indeed is on their side. Other Comments by AmericanGodless
13. Comment #353213 by meinsla on March 18, 2009 at 11:30 am
I think Obama's a closet agnostic.Other Comments by meinsla
14. Comment #353214 by Linda on March 18, 2009 at 11:31 am
Goodyear has blown his cover. He has publicly declared Evolution is a fact but is it now too late for his career? He waffled and only after a lot of media attention on the issue 'came out' for Evolution. Which is really true though? If the politician embraced science dismissing Creationism-Intelligent-Design as irrational then he would have answered for it without needing to think about it.http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=bbf6721f-6286-4a73-a2c2-5b1fbf7344f6&p=2">God or evolution: Which is it?
Yesterday's Globe and Mail poll question asked
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/poll/pollResultHub?id=128095&pollid=128095&save=_save&show_vote_always=no&poll=GAMFront&hub=Front&subhub=VoteResult">Do you believe in Evolution?
I am shocked to know that 46% said NO!
Other Comments by Linda
15. Comment #353223 by rod-the-farmer on March 18, 2009 at 11:44 am
His constituency office is not that far from me (2 hours drive) so next time I am on the road in that direction I will drop in. Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
16. Comment #353228 by Contrivanced on March 18, 2009 at 11:49 am
It hurts when this kind of news hits so close to home. We even have a creation museum here in Alberta! I predict Canada will have the reputation of a backwards, super relig(u)lous country in the near future, while the states are seen as enlightened. Other Comments by Contrivanced
17. Comment #353231 by beanson on March 18, 2009 at 11:52 am
Goodyear's response to a reporter's question about whether he believed in evolution.
"I'm not going to answer that question," Goodyear told the Globe and Mail. "I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate."
err... the question was about evolution you foolish twonk
Other Comments by beanson
18. Comment #353233 by kaiserkriss on March 18, 2009 at 11:59 am
Contrivanced:
Don't despair. Even though we have that scherz of a place in Stettler, we Albertans had the second highest percentage of non -religious respondents at 23.1% according to the last census.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta
Linda, your G&M poll link does not work.
While it is a bit worrying that Goodyear could be a closet creationist, the reality is that during tough economic times, there will have to be cut backs on everything, including science projects, and using his supposed religious convictions as an excuse to point a finger at him for cutting funding is nothing better than political gamesmanship. jcw
Other Comments by kaiserkriss
19. Comment #353234 by mlgatheist on March 18, 2009 at 11:59 am
The question was do you ACCEPT that all life on Earth evolved to what we have today, not "believe".
A question about Evolution is in no way a religious question. Most of the xtians that I know will tell you that they accept the "Theory of Evolution" as the only scientific theory on how modern life came to exist.
Goodyear's response implies that he is a fundamentalists who does not accept the FACT that Evolution is how we all came about.
Other Comments by mlgatheist
20. Comment #353236 by PERSON on March 18, 2009 at 12:00 pm
"Consequently, I would hope that if a worthy research project on evolution were proposed, the minister would agree it should be funded."This is pretty embarrassing too, frankly. A research project on evolution? How about one on the colour of the sky?
OTOH, perhaps her words have been misleadingly or inaccurately condensed, or she's just not put the point across well. Perhaps she meant something like "a project based on the principle of evolution" But even then, it's missing the point. The danger is from woo-woo views being imposed by legislators.
Not as brazenly as by the Bush maladministration with outright banning of projects, but e.g. by the support of non-objectionable projects over objectionable ones. Not denial of funds, exactly, just alteration of priority.
It's not enough that he claims to be impartial and his buddies back him up: he needs to be seen to be impartial. Fundie views are evidence against him being so.
Other Comments by PERSON
21. Comment #353237 by pkruger on March 18, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Ok, no more pussyfooting for me. I am going to hit creationists/christers as hard and as often as i can, and I encourage all to do the same. I constantly refer them to YouTube ( the 29-part series 'Why People Laugh at Creationists' ) is excellent, as well as:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k&feature=related
and ( Whenever I hear that 'eye' argument )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k&feature=related
Other Comments by pkruger
22. Comment #353241 by Bonzai on March 18, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Kaiser
While it is a bit worrying that Goodyear could be a closet creationist, the reality is that during tough economic times, there will have to be cut backs on everything, including science projects, and using his supposed religious convictions as an excuse to point a finger at him for cutting funding is nothing better than political gamesmanship.
Have to cut back on everything? That's a nice recipe to shrink the economy even further. When the whole world is pumping money into the economy to counteract a big crunch the con philosophy of cutting back in tough time should be dead in the water by now.
The only way to put money into the economy that the cons know is the magic mantra 'tax break', never mind the unemployed don't even pay taxes to begin with. What do people do with their tax breaks if they manage to get one? They'll spend the money on consumption, probably buying all consumer goods made overseas while driving up trade deficit. Consumption is not an investment to the future, money just got spent and maybe create a few low waged, service sector jobs. Investing in science, education, R&D and productive infrastructure on the other hand will generate return in the future.
Our Alberta Alliance minority government only agreed to spend when the opposition threatened to topple it.
Obama is pouring money into scientific research. Let the trend of 'necessary' cut backs in science continue for a few more years Canada will become a back water country in science and development as our researchers would have moved south, not because they want lower taxes, but because they want to find works that can use their knowledge instead of driving cabs and working in retail,-- jobs created by those wonderful tax breaks.
This kind of conservative economical fundamentalism is even more dangerous than religious fundamentalism. As it happens here if you vote for one you get the other in the same package. Alberta may have a high percentage of non religious (without looking at the details of your numbers) but Albertans always vote for the cons, so what difference does it make whether they are religious or not?
Other Comments by Bonzai
23. Comment #353246 by Linda on March 18, 2009 at 12:19 pm
kaiserkiss - thanks, take 2:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/poll/pollResultHub?id=128095&pollid=128095&save=_save&show_vote_always=no&poll=GAMFront&hub=Front&subhub=VoteResult
Other Comments by Linda
24. Comment #353250 by Ascaphus on March 18, 2009 at 12:26 pm
4. Comment #353190 by WillM
...I reject Schluter's assertion that answers about evolution have nothing to do with religion. Clearly, Goodyear knows this all too well, hence his reaction...
I agree. His reticence to address the issue stems from his realization that his particular brand of religion is indeed incompatible with science.
Actually, I find the appointment of a Chiropractor to a position requiring knowledge of science just as troubling as appointment of a person unwilling to admit religious conflict. Both of these stances require faith understood as maintaining a perspective despite contrary scientific evidence. Not exactly an attitude that inspires confidence.
Matt
Other Comments by Ascaphus
25. Comment #353253 by canatheist on March 18, 2009 at 12:30 pm
As a Canadian, I am appalled at the lack of relevant experience and education of the new Minster of Science, and outraged at his lack of backbone in answering such a basic question.It leaves no doubt in my mind that he is a closet Creationist and is unfit for the job.
Those of you who feel the same can send you comments directly to Prime Minister Harper at this address: pm@pm.gc.ca
Keep your eyes open for a Facebook group to petition for his removal. I am starting one, if someone else has not already beat me to the punch.
This proves once more that Intellect and Stupidity are not mutally exclusive.
Other Comments by canatheist
26. Comment #353254 by Bonzai on March 18, 2009 at 12:33 pm
canatheist
This proves once more that Intellect and Stupidity are not mutally exclusive.
That may be true in general, but what intellect are you seeing in the Harper government?
Other Comments by Bonzai
27. Comment #353256 by kaiserkriss on March 18, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Bonzai... I hate to say it, but we already ARE a scientific backwater despite what the press keeps telling us.
I agree spending money on "necessary" infrastructure is probably the best way to get the economy going. I'm not a fan of big tax breaks either, nor of printing money the way the US currently is, since it is very inflationary, and just passes the bill of over consumption onto the next generations.
The concept of a trade deficit should eventually go the way of the dodo bird in a global economy, so in my books that part of your argument does not wash. The evidence is pointing to the world economies coming closer together into bigger and bigger units such as the EU and NAFTA, just to name a couple.
Don't forget that consumption products require raw materials, many of which are globally sourced, which will also help Canadians for example. However bailing out failing, poorly managed industries, and poorly made products such as the North American auto industry at tax payers expense is foolhardy and an absolute waste of money.
One of the biggest problems we have here is the lack of accreditation of immigrants to Canada, where highly qualified people do drive cabs, because of ridiculous attitudes regarding their qualifications. To me this is job protectionism and elitism, nothing more. Truly disgusting and shameful.It doesn't matter who is in power in Ottawa,all parties are guilty of that crime.
When these overqualified people are let into the workforce at the appropriate level, the cost of research will come down, and the tax payer will get more bang for its buck. So, since you have indicated in the past that you are also an immigrant(if I remember correctly)petition your MP to get rid of these protectionist policies towards immigrants qualifications. jcw
Other Comments by kaiserkriss
28. Comment #353257 by kaiserkriss on March 18, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Canatheist:
If you think the feds are bad, check out the qualifications of the Ministers of the Crown in Alberta on the government website. It is embarrassing. If I recall correctly, only 4 Ministers were University graduates, two in Political Science.
The Finance Minister Hon Irene Evans, is a Piano Teacher, who took a couple of nursing courses at a Hospital. The rest are no better, and in many cases worse.jcw
Other Comments by kaiserkriss
29. Comment #353263 by EnlightenedBlasphemy on March 18, 2009 at 12:58 pm
sigh, it seems its time to start protests in the cambridge riding to get this guy booted out of office. door to door with leaflets explaining that this man values his own religious beliefs over the good of the canadian people.sadly i live about as far from there as one can and still be in canada.
stupid life, needing a job to eat. cant run off and pick up causes where i see the need
Other Comments by EnlightenedBlasphemy
30. Comment #353266 by SamKiddoGordon on March 18, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Comment 16 by Contrivanced.
It is embarrasing the Creation Museum in Big Valley was built to counter the Royal Tyrell Museum just a few miles to the south. We definately need better political candidates both provincially and federally but they have been doing a good job for the most part. We cannot let this slide and we must let them know its not appropriate for any religious opinion to influence policy.
Other Comments by SamKiddoGordon
31. Comment #353282 by ninvirus on March 18, 2009 at 1:55 pm
...continued"Scientists still wary after science minister confirms belief in evolution"
Other Comments by ninvirus
32. Comment #353312 by Naturalist1 on March 18, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Hello everyone. I live in Cambridge, Ontario, Canada. Gary Goodyear is my Member of Parliment. I know Gary Goodyear personally. I have had a beer with him at the local legion after rememberance day ceremonies.
He is truly a young earth creationist. I have heard him on more than one occasion refer to himself as "A Doctor" inspite of the fact he is a chiropractor.
I was shocked when I heard our Prime Minister Stephen Harper had appointed him to this important position. The proof will come as we see which projects he funds and which ones he does not.
Other Comments by Naturalist1
33. Comment #353317 by Linda on March 18, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Naturalist1 - Well, well isn't this interesting. I have suggested this topic for the TVO, The Agenda:Should religious belief interfere in Scientific Research?
http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=401&action=viewthread&forum_Thread_id=7877&forum_id=42
I guess we'll have to work on getting this man another portfolio where he can do no harm.
Other Comments by Linda
34. Comment #353318 by Dhamma on March 18, 2009 at 3:18 pm
This is beyond me. If there's a committee that announces a chair, then WHY THE HELL don't they properly look up the person they're to elect as a science minister? He's a chiropractor and he doesn't accept evolution - how hard could it be to find out that?He said evolution is the foundation of modern biology, used every day by scientists, and answers about it have nothing to do with religion.
"Anyone who confuses the two ought not to be holding the purse strings," he said.
I don't like such comments. Evolution may not interfere with religion per se, but it certainly does interfere with christianity.
Other Comments by Dhamma
35. Comment #353319 by Shobu on March 18, 2009 at 3:23 pm
"Religion and science are not necessarily incompatible, nor does the holding of religious beliefs negate one's belief in the benefits and wonders of science."
Isn't this the moment that the speaker's opinion loses all value?
Other Comments by Shobu
36. Comment #353320 by SmilingAtheist on March 18, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Naturlist1 - I feel for you man, I'm an expat from Ontario here. I never would have thought an Ontario Memeber would be a young earth creationist. Though just going by his answer to the question I wasn't surprised by this revelation.
I'm fortunately living overseas but just the thought of having any creationist nut jobs in parliament is depressing. I guess this is what happens when you have a conservative government in place as only a conservative government would put someone like this in charge of science.
By all means see if you can get this guy out! If not by protest then at least next election. Get the PC government out of there while you're at it! I have never liked the PC.
Other Comments by SmilingAtheist
37. Comment #353324 by Naturalist1 on March 18, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Dhamma, You said:
If there's a committee that announces a chair, then WHY THE HELL don't they properly look up the person they're to elect as a science minister?
Thats just it. There is no such committee in Canadian Politics. The appointment is at the discretion of the prime minister alone. And our PM is an ultra right wing Bush type. Goodyear was picked/annointed because he is from the same mold.
Other Comments by Naturalist1
38. Comment #353326 by Bonzai on March 18, 2009 at 3:40 pm
smilingAtheist
Get the PC government out of there while you're at it! I have never liked the PC.
A correction. These guys are not even PC* ,they are mostly repackaged CRAPers**.
*Progressive Conservatives.
** CRAP stands for the Canadian Reform Alliance Party,--it was their official acronym before they realized the joke. Based in Alberta, it was the party of assorted rightwing crackpots, creationists, religious nuts, immigrant bashers, death penalty enthusiasts and free market fundamentalists. These people thought the Progressive Conservative Party,--the then mainstream conservatives,-- was too 'progressive' for their liking so they formed their own rightwing party. It later merged with the federal Progressive Conservative Party and changed its name to the Canadian Conservative Party. While formally a merger, it was really a take over by CRAP.
Other Comments by Bonzai
39. Comment #353327 by Dhamma on March 18, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Naturalist1,Ok, I just assumed such important positions were appointed by committees. I'm not positive, but to me it would seem more reasonable to have committees assign heavy positions.
Other Comments by Dhamma
40. Comment #353336 by Art Vandelay on March 18, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Not particularly important, but anyone notice (on the original site) Steven Carr quoted as sayingWe can't have people in government who ignore the facts because it doesn't jibe with their personal religious beliefs.
lifted and quoted separately as
We can't have people in government who ignore the facts because it doesn't jive with their personal religious beliefs.
Jibe? jive? Neither make sense to me. I wonder what he actually said.
Back on topic, ironic that a chiropractor gives such a spineless response.
Other Comments by Art Vandelay
41. Comment #353344 by Pilot22A on March 18, 2009 at 4:40 pm
"I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate."I have to agree with him.
Anyone who believes in the xian fantasy story, cannot believe in real science, like evolution.
----------------------------------------------------
The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a Lunatic Asylum."
- Havelock Ellis
Other Comments by Pilot22A
42. Comment #353353 by Greybishop on March 18, 2009 at 5:05 pm
This kind of thing is why I stopped voting Conservative. I'm not a big fan of the Liberal Party, but at least if they're in power there's a good chance that the guy with his hands on the science budget is likely to know that evolution is science, not religion.Embarrassing to be Canadian today.
And I agree with those who HATE hearing the question "Do you BELIEVE in evolution?" The press needs to learn that no one "believes in" a scientific fact.
Other Comments by Greybishop
43. Comment #353363 by HappyPrimate on March 18, 2009 at 5:38 pm
I have for some time now eliminated the words BELIEF and BELIEVE from my vocabulary as they suggest that I accept something on the basis of little or no convincing evidence. Silly words. Would anyone ask a politician if they believed or maintained a belief in physics? Too much can be read into a question or sentence if the terms used are vague or ambiguous. Interviewers misuse words too often - at times possibly on purpose but many times out of ignorance. I think the interviewer in this article does not understand that the use of BELIEVE IN evolution did not convey a proper question on the matter. Mr. Goodyears answer may not have been much different if at all but it may have made more clear what he was asking him and harder to incorporate religion into Mr. Goodyears answer. Other Comments by HappyPrimate
44. Comment #353370 by DeludedNoLonger on March 18, 2009 at 6:15 pm
I am another embarassed Canadian and supporter of the Conservative party.
Much like in the U.S., belief in God seems to be a prerequisite to hold public office in Canada. However wacky that notion may be, it is a delusion shared by millions. The following observation by Simon Blackburn comes to mind:
"I think that intuitively we understand that beliefs are contagious. So if someone goes along with the herd and follows one of the major surrounding religions of their culture, this need not demonstrate much of a defect. But if someone gets taken in by a minority cult, there is less excuse. It might seem more or less wilful, or the result of an unfortunate stage of life at which they were especially at sea. Other things being equal,someone who believes that Jesus walked on water is not, in our culture, so many bricks short of a load as someone who believed that the Hale-Bopp comet was his vehicle to heaven. Holding the first belief is excusable, given that so many people have been repeating it to you since childhood, whereas you have to go out of your way to pick up the second. You have to acquiesce in your own deception, or want to be deluded. It is said that religions are just cults with armies, but they are also cults with a greater number of practitioners and louder voices, and those greater numbers exert more pressure on children and even adults to join in. So joining in is less of a measure of cognitive vice. Quite sensible people get taken in. But it remains true that we cannot both hold that they believe a lot of things that it is perfectly irrational to believe, and respect them on that account."
I hope Gary Goodyear decides to question his faith in the theory of gravity the next time he walks by a cliff in the same way as he appears willing to question the theory of evolution.
Other Comments by DeludedNoLonger
45. Comment #353371 by Bonzai on March 18, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Much like in the U.S., belief in God seems to be a prerequisite to hold public office in Canada.
That is definitely not true. Public flaunting of religiosity is bad for politics in Canada, except maybe in Alberta. Remember Stockwell Day?
Other Comments by Bonzai
46. Comment #353372 by Ascaphus on March 18, 2009 at 6:21 pm
43. Comment #353363 by HappyPrimate
...Would anyone ask a politician if they believed or maintained a belief in physics? Too much can be read into a question or sentence if the terms used are vague or ambiguous...
...I think the interviewer in this article does not understand that the use of BELIEVE IN evolution did not convey a proper question...
I think you're right, but it's interesting to consider what the proper question might be. In the context of science, the question would never have any meaning. In other words, if you know you are talking to a scientist, and the question is about biology, you can just skip to the main point, because evolution is not at issue - it is assumed in the same way that we assume the organism has DNA.
The question only arises when religion enters the picture, since only religious people 'question' the facts pertaining to evolution. Since we don't really care if he/she 'believes' in evolution, just what is the question?
Matt
Other Comments by Ascaphus
47. Comment #353391 by A on March 18, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Trust JesusOther Comments by A
48. Comment #353395 by Dhamma on March 18, 2009 at 7:53 pm
A,Agreed, dat dude iz da shiznitz!
Other Comments by Dhamma
49. Comment #353397 by Daniella on March 18, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Beaman, who also holds a Canada Research Chair, said she is also concerned about any assumption that Goodyear's religious beliefs might put into question his belief in science or the scientific method.
Bearman, for putting science and belief in the same sentence you are a oxyMORON. Step away from that research chair...now!
Unlike god, science does not need anyone to "believe" in it for it to exist.
"...politicians...when acting in a public — not personal — role, they may need to take decisions that they would not take in a personal context,"
I "believe" there is no such animal
Other Comments by Daniella
50. Comment #353403 by Swarty on March 18, 2009 at 8:28 pm
This practice of "taking" decisions intrigues me!As for the use of the term "belief", I agree completely that it should not be coupled with science. "Belief in science" is, indeed, a(n) oxymoron, as science is the pursuit of irrefutible fact and a belief is a conclusion drawing on ADMITTEDLY incomplete data.
People of faith, I suspect, feel they must use this term in reference to science in order to subtly undermine it's legitimacy.
Other Comments by Swarty
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #353183 by glenister_m on March 18, 2009 at 10:35 am
As a Canadian, I am disturbed by this. However since it is an appointed position, and our PM isn't one to change his mind (even when he should), I can't see much happening. Appointments are rarely given for being qualified. They aren't called political appointments for nothing...Other Comments by glenister_m