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 ...
So you think a person’s religious beliefs should be scrutinized and laid bare as a qualification of public service?
Also, Dr. Alters analogy is not true. Believing the world is flat and believing in creation are not akin and there’s not controversy in her comparisons, with creation, there is controversy.
Science would be set free if they dropped evo.
On the contrary, he was asked for his views on a scientific topic. The Minister of Science, who (I understand) has a role in the allocation of funding for science research should be accountable to the public for the conduct of his job and this includes answering questions on scientific matters.
That’s interesting.
I smell BULL! Replace Science with Secular Humanism and you’ve got it right. I didn’t think that was a qualification for America Jr’s Science Minister.
[[The scientific evidence is voluminous and growing.]]
You know- I keep hearing htat- but NEVEr see any evidence to support it- ALL I find when I research the claim are charts that link wholly dissimilar species kinds and which claim they are descended from each other- but NO evidence exists to show htis- infact, the evidence which DOES exist show hte two wholly dissimilar species coudl NOT be related- but hte claims persist-
I asked for evidence NOT opinions-
[[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. ]]
Swell- you’ve just described COMMON DESIGN.
[[These are just a couple of examples, numerous books are filled with more.]]
Yep- I’m surem ore books are filled with claims such as kangaroos are related to Carrots or some such nonsense- but let’s not pretend OPINIONS are solid scientific fact or evidences- because they are not. There are VAST caverns and gaps between the ‘land dwelling species’ and hte sea dwellers for which science has NO explanation, yet that apparently doesn’t stop them from claiming the two species are commonly descended one from another- Swell- we have a reponerance of opinions- a priori opinions that just assume everythign has a common anscestor- but I’m afraid hte very biology you pointed to works against htose claims- not for them- You’re welcome to your opinion about hte OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS of scientists- but to claim they amount to hard science is just willful blindenss o nthe issue I’m afraid. It is NOT hard science, it is a religious belief that beleives ‘nature did it’ but they just aren’t sure how!
The more you explain your argument, the worse it sounds. Go on.
[[On the contrary, he was asked for his views on a scientific topic.]]
No- once again, he was asked where he stands on the religious beleif in Macroevolution- Shoudsl he be disqualified because He doesn’t hold to hte religious beleif of Macroevolution? They didn’t ask him scientific quesitons, they asked him what he beleives about the a priori assunmption that man evolved from goo-
If you claim that evidence is all just opinion than everything is opinion. The reality is that the evidence is enormous and growing. I could give you references if you’d like but you’d probably claim that they’re just opinion as well.
I love the way "unstubstituion" gets substituted for "substitution".
Gol-LY what a lot of spite. Should make sure really think about what you’re saying, and where your spite is coming from.
Evolution is not religion. There is no supernatural force involved in evolution. Religion does not depend on the scientific method. Evolution (macro, micro, whatever) is no more a religion than geology or botany.
“Year by year we learn more and more, and the blanks get filled in.”
Are you really going to stand by that statement in light of what you’ve been saying? You’re looking for info to fill in blanks? Isn’t that going to create a bias?
Actually, he was asked about the cardinal doctrine of the religion of Secular Humanism, or the religion of Cain if you prefer.
Laughable hypocrisy.
Actually by blanks I was responding to the way some people claim that evolution makes unprovable claims such as that whales evolved from land animals. One of the "blanks" I was referring to was the fact that up until a couple of decades ago we didn't have a fossil sequence showing the steps in this process and therefore it was claimed that this was impossible. We have this now. Another "blank" filled in, or, if you prefer, another bit of confirming data.
Evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity.
You had a blank, “whales evolved from land mammals.” You searched around for a bone to fill in that blank. You found a bone, or a piece of a bone, or a whale skeleton mixed in with a giraffe skeleton, and despite all the possible explanations for what you found you chose to call it a missing link. I don’t know the specifics of what you’re talking about but I know the dishonesty that’s used to create these mythical beasts.
I’d be surprised if you, or anyone else really saw my screen name and you’re spite, as comparable.
The notion that whales (and other sea mammals) evolved from land mammals is based on skeletal similarities and other reasons. I’m not a paleontologist, just an interested and (I hope) educated layman so I don’t know all the details. Anti-evolutionists liked to mock that notion saying how it was impossible, or drawing pictures of animals that were half-cow, half-fish to try to heap scorn on the notion (it’s amazing how often scorn substitutes for evidence in the anti-evolution argument). Well, in the past two decades a rather complete fossil sequence has been uncovered showing this evolution in a step-wise fashion. So, another blank, if you will, filled in.
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.