ROTFLMAO!!!

the fact that someone can be asked about a scientific theory, and answer the question with 'i don't want to talk about my religion' shows that he has no concept of what science really is.

and the fact that this doofus is our minister of science!?!?!?   WHAT A RUBE!!!

I guess it just goes to show when a particular Tribe's population gets below a certain size...that is when the really bizarre things start happening.

Extrenching evangelicals,

Inannawhimsey

It is insane that we have a Minister of Science who invokes his religion so he doesn't have to answer whether he believes in evolution.  Religion should have no part of government policy. If religion had not been as influential,  humankind would have been much further ahead in science and medical fields.

It is thought that our Minister is a creationist - which is even more alarming and frightening. One Stockwell Day in cabinet is one too many. Questioning evolution is like questioning gravity. Mr Goodyear shows that he is not qualified to head such an important portfolio.

Is this why science and research funding is so low for Canada? Why are we losing our top scientists?  This is an insult to our dedicated researchers. Shame on our Government.

Hi RevMatt,

It's no fun when you don't have to work at being outraged.

But then what do you expect?  This is a PM who doesn't appear to understand how our Parliament works and sacrificed a minority government for a minority government.

Brainwave probably only applies to his EEG.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I have to admit that it does raise some questions about impartiality. I'm not really surprised though, considering the roots of the Reform and Harper's own profile. If you come from a party that believes evolution is not science, then you won't have a problem appointing a minister of science who doesn't believe that evolution is a fact.

Still,  to be fair, as long as he can be impartial, despite his beliefs, I don't particularly see it as a problem. The minister of science doesn't have to be a scientist. Ministers really just sign off the accounts payable. We have had many successful Ministers of defence, for example, that were not soldiers.

I aam a little skeptical though, I must confess

I am not sure that he has denied evolution but he is certainly playing coy about it. If he rejects evolution then he is certainly in the wrong position.

He has absolute say on a number of funding decisions.  Given the record of his party and many (but not all) people who share his beliefs, I would think he should never have been put into that position in the first place.

I'm thinking that Peter Sellers died way too soon. 

All on the same day that the Pope declared that condoms won't prevent the spread of AIDS.

It feels like an episode of the twilight zone today.

Just to be clear ,his job is Federal Minister of State for Science and Technology.

Odd report in the globe for sure but I dont' think he needs to be a scientist of be up on technology either.  just needs to have good civil servants around him and listen to advice.

Another gem from the mouth of a Harper MP.  Surprising much?

Oh, and if you're looking for more insults,  I think twit fits well ...

ROTFLMAO!!!

ROTFLMAOAPMP!!

whatever else it was, it was a great day for comedy, thats for sure!!!

reading more about it today I think it was instead a sad but typical day for journalism.

when discussing his policies a reporter with an agenda asks a guy about his personal views.  I think he rightly said it wasn't pertinent to the discussion what he thought.

reporters love to take things out of context.  Just like our bible quoters here love to take things out of context

The "personal views" and "what he thought" were not "pertinent" to his position as a cabinet minister?  "out of context" ? !  Are you joking???

I know you're not joking, so you're likely ignorant of the damage this minister has the potential to inflict.

The guy is a politician with decision-making power.  His personal views and what and how he thinks are absolutely relevant.  The reportage is doing exactly what it should be doing. Protecting us all from idiots by exposing them.

LL&P

Spock

Stupid git.

Minister of Science = authority for scientific programs & spending

If this guy can't say plain & simple he believes in evolution then what is he doing there? 

-a so appropriate line from Monty Python

Sir Bedevere: ...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped.
King Arthur: This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

Please, please let this be an error.  Could someone phone PMHarper and ask him directly if he believes in evolution....and then only tell me if he says yes.  **ducks back into rabbit hole**

Well said Witch. I too am a little (or rather quite) skeptical, but for now I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he can be impartial.

Thank You.

Of course I'm only being this reasonable because I've been recommended as Dean of Christian Studies at brighton University.

I promise I won't let my personal beliefs interfere....

I am glad he is not practicing as a chiropractor anymore, if this is his view of science!

I would also wonder about bias in this appointment.

GET THE HECK OUTTA HERE!!!  WOW!!

are you serious??  thats awesome!!  fatboy slim went to brighton!!  can you get me his autograph??

No, I'm not serious....

Surely you don't think I could actually pull that off? You overestimate me, my dear.

there is a whole Christian Chiropractor make-tons-of-money scheme going around - like you're "committing suicide" (yes direct quote) if you dont' have a chiropractor keep your God-given body going - and yes, they also said we are supposed to live to 120 or more because the bible says so.  The sales pitch is horrendous.

Honest.  I've listened to the schpiel.  It was GOD -AWFUL!

**plugs ears to birthstone's disturbing news**

Witch!  I totally bought it...

I agree 100%

I am not opposed to the minister of science believing in creationism, anymore than I am concerned with his beliving in the boggyman.  Until he is offering grants to people to study his bedroom closet to look for said boogyman, everything can go just fine. 

My only worry is that to him things may appear quite the opposite, and he may well see research on evolution as bedroom closet searching. I hope the people around him see the merits in evolutionary research enough to ensure funding gets to the right places.  

His bias isn't really worse than anyone else's would likely be.  Someone coming from industry might be more likely to fund applied research over exploratory research.  Someone from a University might be more willing to find research with certain types of institutional backing.  A medical Doctor would likey fund all kinds of terribly designed research with a ton of holes in it, just like most of the research they do on anything but drug testing.   

oh. 

well, i guess i'll have to break the news to my friend that the fatboy slim autograph thing is on hold, then...

I have to say I really wouldn't care if he stopped all public funding to the research of evolution.  There's many topics of research that are waaaaaay more important: Cancer, aids, diabetes, environment, agriculture (a topic near and dear to my heart), MS, etc.  Now that I think about it, I wouldn't even care why he would block funding to evolution research.  Is there any public funding going to evolution research?  If so, why?  Could I get funding to prove the Earth is round?  How about if I could prove the existence of clouds? 

Evolutionary science is crucial to the research topics you just listed.

Interesting that most on this site would say that there are many ways to find God and that Jesus is not necessary, but if you want to know science you must believe in evolution and it is the only way.

This is not a personal remark about my own beliefs but rather that we should consider that others can approach science by travelling another path.

So, we should allow people to build bridges based on their own unsupported "paths" to statics, materials, stresses, etc?  I don't think the analogy fits, waterfall.

There may be philosophical discussions surrounding evolutionary theory that can be agreed or disagreed with, but you really can't approach biology in a meaningful, coherent manner without evolutionary theory.

Oh I think it fits very well. Sometimes other viewpoints allow for "creative thinking".  The temporary moratorium on stem cell research produced alternatives.(and bought time for ethical discussions) I am not endorsing total banning of research. I'm just saying there's room for alternative thinking too. 

Sometimes everyone "graduating from the same university" produces cookie cutter ideas that lack imagination.

If he purposely and maliciously withheld funding for the advancement of science because of any evolutionary leanings, then I would also join in the outrage. But my fist inclination is that it's due more to the recession than his personal viewpoints.

[quote=nighthawk]

So, we should allow people to build bridges based on their own unsupported "paths" to statics, materials, stresses, etc? 

The history of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco should answer that. A bridge that challenged many theories.

I'm confused by your reference. The GGB wasn't thought possible given a multitude of natural environmental obstacles... yet creative thinking grounded in existing scientific theories prevailed in conjunction with discoveries and advancements in metallurgy... and the bridge was built.

The only theory the bridge challenged was the "theory" that it couldn't be built.

Your point that we should permit "other paths" to explore science without using the theory of evolution requires some clarification. Science is a broad term. You certainly don't need any understanding of evolution to pursue a career in physics... engineering... etc... but the theory of evolution is to biology as the theory of gravity is to physics... do you see how your analogy doesn't fit? 

I am not a scientist. Does revisiting the theory of Lamarckism shake up some beliefs about biology and evolution abit?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926641.500-rewriting-darwin-the-new-nongenetic-inheritance.html

 http://www.newsweek.com/id/180103?gt1=43002

I think if you have read more than the original piece , where a reported while asking questions about something else, tossed this question into the mix.

A reporter trying to create a scandal.

I don't expect him to be a scientist, just like I don't expect the aboriginal minister to be aboriginal, or the transport minister to be a pilot or the infrastructure minister to be an engineer or the health minister to be a nurse.

I do expect that the ministries have lots of experts and qualified people and I expect all employees to do the job.

At the end of the day, evolutionary theory is just that; a theory.  It cannot be proven, nor disproven (untill someone invents a time machine anyway).

The Golden Gate bridge was not built by "creative thinking grounded in existing scientific theories".  It was built by creative thinking grounded in existing scientific laws.  Close, but completely different.  Mass multiplied by velocity equals force.  That is a scientific law.  It can be proven; it has been proven.  Evolution is still a theory.

BTW I do not beleive that evolution plays much of a part, if any, in cancer research.

As far as the title of thread is concerned, I still say "so what?"

It's about as big a deal to me as if I found out the minister of health likes Big Macs.

That is incorrect.

How so?

The question was undoubtedly an attempt to stir up trouble.  It shouldn't have been asked without a good reason to suspect Mr. Goodyear would have difficulty keeping his private beliefs as separate as possible from his public duties.  But the question was asked.

What annoys me is that he played coy.  Bringing up his Christian beliefs and attempting to make the question appear to be about his faith sets off alarm bells.

No, we don't require our minister of science to be a practicing (or even former) scientist.  I would hope we would have difficulty accepting as minister of health someone who did not believe in the germ theory of disease.

The main reasons (off the top of my head, and as a non-expert) are the close similarities between the progression of a cancer in its victim and the evolutionary process, and the hereditary factors that influence cancer development.

To the defence of Mr Goodyear - my MP -  he said that it was inappropriate to ask a politician about his religious beliefs. He felt that the question was too personal. The reporter interpreted that response to mean he believed in creation rather than evolution. The reporter was wrong on several levels. Goodyear's later clarification is a matter of public record.

I support Goodyear on that point, but I detest the man personally and politically.

Over the years Goodyear has sent several "petitions" to the local churches soliciting support for many causes of the Religious Right. These included his opposition to abortion, private school funding, and homosexual marriage. He tried to stir up indignation over prayer in schools. These "petitions" are really a ruse to get names for the Conservative mailing list. I had to make a submission to the vestry council to have them stopped at my (Anglican) church. I later left that church because the priest was a gay hater.

As an addendum, I don't believe there is much of a connection between Chiropractic and legitimate science.

If anyone could bring to the table a credible alternative to evolution, something with some objective evidence to support it, he would be recieved in the scientific community with enthusiasm.

He would likely win the NOBEL prize

The fact is, there simply is no credibel alternative yet discovered or postulated that has any objective evidence to support it.

Evolution is a fact, just like gravity is a fact, and electricity are facts, and for exactly the same reasons.

Here is a smattering of articles that show you are incorrect.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=23697

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061117114616.htm

http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/cancer/cancer_evolution.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/071001_cancer

Unfortunately you are misunderstanding the direction of those articles, and you are missing that they actually do not support your contention. Lamarckism is not a starter at all, but these new ideas, that a parent organism's experiences can be passed down to the offspring, are called "new Lamarckism", probably because sceintists have bad senses of humor.

This is not even being considered as competeing theory to evolution. None of these scientists are suggesting that this process happens instead of evolution. What it is is a possible source of a small degree of diversity that may contribute, along with evolution. It's a radical idea that even the proponents admit is a long shot at best.

However, it sshould be noted that even though it is a long shot, and not likely to be succesfully shown, it is still the scientific community that is pursueing this idea with zeal and excitement. That should be sufficient to quash any notion that the scientific community is incapable of considering any alternative.

It also shows how lame the Creationist and "Intelligent design" position is, if the "stretchy giraffe necks" can get some support... and they cannot.

Unfortunately Harper's Government is full of these guys.  Remember Stockwell Day is a young earth Creationist, he believes that the world is 3,000 or so years old.  The best we could do is dump the lot and be done with them.

Well, it is more than theroy and less than proven.  The specifics have yet to be worked out, but it has long ago passed from the realm of something that is at all likely to be disproven entirely.  Creationism on the other hand has been handily disproven by every test it has been put through.  I could care less who chooses to believe in creationism, and I think the evolutionary model we have now will look so backwards to future generations as to be practically creationism itself, but the idea of evolution cannot rightly be called a theory given the connotations that go along with that word.  It's like questioning gravity.  Sure, we've seen that gravity is too simplistic, but no one thinks when they drop something on Earth tommorow it will fall upwards. 

Again, this has nothing to do with our minister of science, provided he doesn't take any 3000 year old Earth legends into his office with him.  That'd be like appointing a minister of finance who doesn't understand sound economics.  Oh wait....

I did read the articles. I did not get the impression that supporting the theory of Lamarckism was the same as supporting "Creationism or Intelligent Design". Did you? In fact I gathered that it offered some possibilities when evolution theory gets stymied by certain areas that don't quite add up.