Posted on 03/18/2009 7:31:56 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
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.
When asked about those rumours, Mr. Goodyear said such conversations are not worth having.
Brian Alters, founder and director of the Evolution Education Research Centre at McGill University in Montreal, was shocked by the minister's comments
“It is the same as asking the gentleman, ‘Do you believe the world is flat?' and he doesn't answer on religious grounds,” said Dr. Alters. “Or gravity, or plate tectonics, or that the Earth goes around the sun.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theglobeandmail.com ...
No, what it means is that biology is just a bunch of random facts otherwise. Evolution is the framework that makes it all make sense.
Thinking evolution is a basic cornerstone of science = "F", and a D-hall.
Yes, the fact that the Minister of Science says that important scientific questions are off limits for discussion. It's the antithesis of what science stands for.
Yes, the ever present "Some" ...
C'mon, no one is suspicious of science ('Having knowledge'). Suspicious about speculations and extrapolations presented as fact - sure...
That's a dishonest assertion, because he didn't say that. He said that his personal views are off-limits for discussion, which is his business, not yours, mine, or anyone elses.
Frankly, what we see here is some budget tightening by Harper's conservative government. As a result of the belt-tightening, some of the state funded welfare-scientists are losing some funding that they thought they were entitled to, and are trying to find a way to pressure goodyear into restoring the funding, probably specifically to their pet areas of research (which we're not told what these are, they may very well have nothing to do with biology, much less "evolution").
Sorry, but welfare queens, even when they wear white lab coats, don't get any sympathy from me.
It's the antithesis of what science stands for.
Oh really? And what is it that you think science "stands for"? Science is a methodology, not a social justice flavour of the day.
That’s like accusing someone who expresses concern over the misuse and fraud in the welfare system of “hating poor kids”.
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.
It's not just about his personal belief, it's about how Canadian taxpayer money will be spent. Now, we can argue about whether there should be such a job as Minister of Science. Frankly, I'm not comfortable with government getting too involved in scientific matters, there's too much risk of politicization. But given that such a job does exist he can't merely hide behind a shield of privacy when public funds are at stake.
[[Minister won’t confirm belief in evolution]]
Translation: Minister won’t sacrifice a virgin at the alter of Darwin, therefore, the hyena’s of hell will rip him apart with ad hominem attacks every chance they get. They’ll dumpy ihm in the gutter, spit on him, and declare him unfit simpyl because he chooses not to beleive the a priori assumptions that defy the very scientific principles of life, biology, chemistry, and natural laws. Be cause the good minister refuses to bleet the mantra of Macroevolution, he’ll be thrown to hte wolves.
Yay ‘science’
[[This propaganda about “being opposed to science” is getting so old.]]
Yup- in an effort to belittle and malign htose hwo are sceptical of the wild assumptions about common descent, the bloviating briggade of the church of Darwin try to make it out that we’re ‘rejecting science’ altogether- it’s nothign but a silly immature ad hominem attack that can’t focus on the actual issues being discussed, and must try to divert attention away from the fact that those maligning Creationists don’t have any ammo with wwhich to defend their positions with:
“p(A) = “I am skeptical of Darwinism.”
A = “Darwinism”
Since here A = “Darwinism”, we must substitute something sensible to acheive the contrast, so choose A’ = “science”, and make some minor modifications to p,
p’(A’) = “Oh, so you are skeptical of science. You sound like a
Luddite. Why do you hate science?”
That ECG- This perfectly describes the silly tactics of a good majority of Macroevos on this site- Apparently, Creationists and ID proponents ‘oppose science’ because we aren’t willing to unquestioningly accept biological impossibilities. Evidently, we’re ‘psuedoscientists’ because we dare question the validity of the claims that defy scientific principles.
So they ask this nut job with a science post about a scientific subject (evolution) and he responds by talking about his religion?
What a whack job nut ball.
nope- they asked him about a RELIGIOUS subject (Macroevolution), and he responded by talking about his own preferred Religious belief- plain and simple.
Chiropractors are to Science...
As a back massage is to a cure for cancer.
Well, I didn't want to bring that part up but as long as you mentioned it, well, yeah.
Evolution is not a religious subject, any more than geology or astrophysics is.
‘Nature did it’ isn’t exactly science- especially when you CAN’T show HOW ‘Nature did it’
Year by year we learn more and more, and the blanks get filled in.
[[Year by year we learn more and more, and the blanks get filled in.]]
Really? Mind givign examples of htese ‘blanks’ being filled in? Because it’s been 150 years of Darwinism, and we STILL haven’t the foggiest idea how ‘nature did it’- just a bunch of unsupported assumptions about past events for which we haven’t a clue. No- I’m sorry- they are no closer today to explaining how nature could have seriously violated biological, chemical, natural, and mathematical laws. Th4ey do however have more elaborate, yet still blank filled hypothesis’- but no- no solid scientific evidence.
The scientific evidence is voluminous and growing. The fossil record is much more complete than it was a few decades ago. For example, the sequence of evolutionary steps which led from the return of land animals to the sea to the modern whale is quite well understood now, unlike a couple of decades ago. Whole new avenues of research have opened up in the past few decades. For example, the molecular biology revolution now allows scientists to trace the evolution of specific traits such as color vision and olfaction at the molecular level across species. These are just a couple of examples, numerous books are filled with more.
Thanks for the ping. I’m sure this will cause quite a stir in Canada and on FR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.