Oleg Bach Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Indeed, if the minister was an atheist and stated "Evolution shows God does not exist", I'd want him out, as that kind of statement, too, shows a genuine ignorance of science. Soon as you toss in the word God - they hate - why is that? Maybe they are better than God>> if they called them gods I am sure they would jump for joy. Just like the minister of defence is not a defender - but a finacial administrator - this science minister will know about as much as a defence minister knows about military - nothing! The science minister will just be handing out the cash to egg heads - some of whom may actually come up with something useful...and I don't want a million dollars spent on why cockroaches...are so tough - we know they are tough, no need to pay someone to tell us that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Soon as you toss in the word God - they hate - why is that? Maybe they are better than God>> if they called them gods I am sure they would jump for joy. Just like the minister of defence is not a defender - but a finacial administrator - this science minister will know about as much as a defence minister knows about military - nothing! The science minister will just be handing out the cash to egg heads - some of whom may actually come up with something useful...and I don't want a million dollars spent on why cockroaches...are so tough - we know they are tough, no need to pay someone to tell us that. Oleg do you think any of us wouldn't be complaining just as loudly if a self proclaimed pacifist was made defence minister? The minister responsible for defence should have a military background. A science minister should understand science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 I'm reminded of a Monty Python song:All things dull and ugly, All creatures short and squat, All things rude and nasty, The Lord God made the lot. Each little snake that poisons, Each little wasp that stings, He made their brutish venom. He made their horrid wings. All things sick and cancerous, All evil great and small, All things foul and dangerous, The Lord God made them all. Each nasty little hornet, Each beastly little squid-- Who made the spikey urchin? Who made the sharks? He did! All things scabbed and ulcerous, All pox both great and small, Putrid, foul and gangrenous, The Lord God made them all. Amen. ... At any rate, if Goodyear is indeed simply just a theistic evolutionist, then I'm way off base. But I've been debating Creationists for going on two decades now, and his words clearly indicated he thought evolution was a matter of religious principle, which is pretty much the norm for Creationists. Leap of faith comes well before principles when one’s (like Goodyear) is only saying he is a Christian. By the way, Terry Gilliam is the best example you can take of a man that knows how to part absolutely company with the animal inside himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 I started this thread and I am a conservative. Says who? Are you a conservative in the same way as smallc and progressive tory? Goodyear himself is the one who brought religion into this:It was not a religious question. It was a science question and he is the minister of science. Are you kidding me? You are kidding me, right? Do you think the reporter would have asked me that question? Do you think the reporter would have asked anyone that question who she didn't know was a devout Christian? Of course it was a religious question. It was specifically designed with the hopes that this devout Christian would say something the reporter could blow up into a big, national scandal. Since he proved he doesn't know the first thing about science, he should be out of that position. And I would say the exact same thing no matter if he was liberal, ndp, muslim, hindu, jew, or atheist! Canada does not put people into most political positions because they know anything about the subject matter at hand. Our Minster of defence knows NOTHING about the military, and never has and never will. Most of our ministers, in fact, know little or nothing about their portfolios, and that has always been the case. Did you have a problem with "doctor" Ujjal Dosanjh becoming health minister, for example? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck U. Farlie Posted March 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Says who? Are you a conservative in the same way as smallc and progressive tory? I am conservative because I voted conservative and I have fiscally conservative views. Are you kidding me? You are kidding me, right? Do you think the reporter would have asked me that question? Do you think the reporter would have asked anyone that question who she didn't know was a devout Christian? Of course it was a religious question. It was specifically designed with the hopes that this devout Christian would say something the reporter could blow up into a big, national scandal. A person can be devoutly religious and believe in evolution. My parents are both devout Catholics, yet they still believe in evolution. It was a science question to determine how much he understands about rudimentary science. Canada does not put people into most political positions because they know anything about the subject matter at hand. Our Minster of defence knows NOTHING about the military, and never has and never will. Most of our ministers, in fact, know little or nothing about their portfolios, and that has always been the case. Did you have a problem with "doctor" Ujjal Dosanjh becoming health minister, for example? I have never heard about Ujjal Dosanjh, but if they are not a medical doctor then I don't think they should be in that position. The minister of anything should have a background in that subject or they hold absolutely no credibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 I am conservative because I voted conservative and I have fiscally conservative views.A person can be devoutly religious and believe in evolution. My parents are both devout Catholics, yet they still believe in evolution. It was a science question to determine how much he understands about rudimentary science. I have never heard about Ujjal Dosanjh, but if they are not a medical doctor then I don't think they should be in that position. The minister of anything should have a background in that subject or they hold absolutely no credibility. So then no minister in any governments cabinat has had any credibility? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 It's about a Christian, who apparently wasn't quick enough to distance himself from one of the tenets of his religion which the Lefties find open to ridicule. Case in point. Some opposition MPs mocked Goodyear's comment."Our science critic is a former astronaut (Marc Garneau), he can testify from personal experience that the world is round, it's not flat," Liberal MP Ralph Gooddale told Power Play. "I think that distinguishes our decision making processes from the Conservatives." http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...317?hub=QPeriod Gooddale just couldn't help himself but to join the Globe in the gutter to dump on Goodyear. So what does the Liberal science critic Marc Garneau think of this? Here is what he said before Goodyear revealed that he does believe in evolution. Garneau said although he doesn't agree with the Conservatives' approach to funding for science because of their lack of vision.... "...ça ne veut pas dire qu’un créationniste ne pourrait pas faire un bon travail--- Le député de Westmount-Ville-Marie précise toutefois que les politiques conservatrices en matière de sciences ne sont pas influencées par la religion." http://www.ruefrontenac.com/nouvelles-gene...ionnisme-darwin My translation: "This is not to say a creationist could not do a good job....The MP from Westmount-Ville-Marie added that the policies of the Conservatives regarding science are not influenced by religion." Hey, if Garneau, an astronaut no less, doesn't see a problem shouldn't that soothe some of the angst among his critics? I mean if a Liberal says it's OK, it's OK, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 I mean if a Liberal says it's OK, it's OK, right? Ummmm nope. Political stripe changes nothing for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) Ummmm nope. Political stripe changes nothing for me. It is truly a sign of the partisan mind that even reality itself becomes an issue of left vs. right. And anybody who thinks it's just Right only has to look at Lysenkoism in the USSR in the 1930s to see on the left end of the spectrum how governments can ignore real science. Edited March 18, 2009 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Hey, if Garneau, an astronaut no less, doesn't see a problem shouldn't that soothe some of the angst among his critics? I mean if a Liberal says it's OK, it's OK, right? 1. I'm not a Liberal. 2. Garneau is wrong. A Creationist in a position of controlling science funding is not alright, any more than a Fundamentalist Muslim who advocates Shariah Law would be an appropriate choice for heading up the status of women's portfolio. 3. Christianity is not synonymous with Creationism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 That was not directed at you personally Toad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 it is bigoted to claim that Mr. Goodyear isn't science minded becuase of his religious beliefs. I didn't realize that was the claim. I thought ot was implie3d his religious beliefs are in opposition of scoience....I'm sure he is serious in his superstitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 In politics you take people at their words - not at what they may believe - and Goodyear said: "Commercializing research – the focus of the government's science and technology policy – is an area where Canada needs to make improvements. If we are going to be serious about saving lives and improving life around this planet, if we are serious about helping the environment, then we are going to have to get some of these technologies out of the labs onto the factory floors. Made. Produced. Sold. And that is going to fulfill that talk. So yes, we have to do all of it, we have to do discovery … but it can't end there." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 notwithstanding Alta4ever's misunderstandings & "bigot" labeling... or Argus' overwhelming need for a left/right polarization... a refreshing National Post smackdown! Mr. Minister - we're not asking about your religion McIlroy asked Goodyear whether he believes in evolution and he spluttered, “I don’t think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate.” Well and good, Minister, but you weren’t asked about your religion. His panicked answer left listeners with the strong impression that Goodyear must, in fact, hew to some metaphysical belief system that is inherently inconsistent with Darwinian evolution. Late today he tried to clarify matters, giving a garbled explanation that he does indeed believe in some form of “evolution” (though his reference to “running shoes or high heels” leaves confusion over whether he is talking about the biological kind at all). In trying to justify himself, he essentially confirmed that McIlroy’s original inquiry was a fair one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck U. Farlie Posted March 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Great article Waldo. Thanks for finding it and posting it. States what a bunch of us have been saying in numerous posts here, including: Since his position involves promoting Canadian science to the world, promoting science as a career to Canada’s young, and making political decisions about funding for biological and medical research, it cannot be an outrage for anyone to inquire into his scientific beliefs. As a Minister, he exists to serve and nurture a clientele of scientists. What Canadians in general believe about evolution (or Freudian psychoanalysis, or Ptolemaic epicycles) has nothing to do with anything. The belief that Darwin was basically right about the development of life may be a “minority opinion” on the street — though the poll numbers Kay cites actually indicate the opposite — but it commands an overwhelming majority in scientific circles, for the very good reason that no rival account of life’s diversity is equally credible..... Goodyear need not be challenged on his religious beliefs, but there is nothing wrong with interrogating him about his scientific ones. And insofar as his religious beliefs may impinge on his scientific opinions, they obviously become fair game for discussion. (His past career as a chiropractor — i.e., a practitioner and vendor of pseudoscience — seems even more relevant; it is almost certainly a tacit reason for the wariness with which the Minister is regarded by scientific professionals.) Why wouldn’t we prefer to have a Science Minister who accepts a major part of the accepted life-science framework? Aren’t we entitled to at least know whether he does? 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Goodyear said: “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.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/home I would say now that Goodyear religious beliefs impinge badly on his capacity to understand or accept evolution theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 He c;ear;y has no gras[p of the mechanics of evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Yes, if Goodyear would have understood evolution theory, he would have spoken of high heels as a trick to attract mating partners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 He c;ear;y has no gras[p of the mechanics of evolution. Even if he didn't understand evolutionary theory, that would not preclude him from being minister of science, but saying that it is a religious question kind of does. Scientific facts are not subject to religious interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 I don’t want of a Christian science minister who is not able to understand that there is no conflict between evolution theory and a certain kind of creationism compatible with the Christian faith. One definition of Man is certainly that of a primate foetus that has become sexually active but a better definition is I dare say: Man is a (distorted) image of the Creator of symbolism or of God as a Verb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 I don’t want of a Christian science minister who is not able to understand that there is no conflict between evolution theory and a certain kind of creationism compatible with the Christian faith. If he gave funding to the Big Valley Creation Science Museum, I would share your opinion. But he hasn't. He made cuts as he was required to do and people who had their funding cut are unhappy. I somehow doubt any of the funding cuts had to do with studies trying to prove evolution. If they did, good. That was proven long ago and there's no need for further study. Let's look at what was cut before we nail him to a cross. Anyone know if he cut or chose not to cut stem cell research? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Visionseeker Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 What fact is that a researcher that is un happy some proof get bent. It's not A researcher, it's the bulk of them. Mr. Goodyear isn't playing nice with the research community. An apt analogy would be a minister of public security appearing before the RCMP and belittling their concerns with a go F**K yourself attitude. A simple rule of management is to avoid unnecessarily angering stakeholders. Mr. Goodyear has failed that test and can no longer effectively manage his portfolio. Stick a fork in him. He's done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Visionseeker Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/s...html?id=1399884The Globe's front-page witch hunt Jonathan Kay, National Post Published: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 You liberals kool aid spinsters can all go f--- yourselves. If science and innovation confined itself to prevailing conventional wisdom, we'd still be swinging from tree to tree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Visionseeker Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 you said it right there "theory" not fact. The Law of Gravity is but a theory. Why don't you climb on the roof of your house and try to refute it? A properly support theory is to be accepted unless proven otherwise. I eagerly await your properly supported rebuttal to evolutionary theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Visionseeker Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 First of all engineering isn't science. Really? Loads, energy transference, metalurgical stress... Oh forget it. Your talking out of the wrong orfice here. Admit it. Second of all, is there some particular reason I should believe that a tenured engineering professor is being removed simply because of his views on Afghanistan? You shouldn't. Because that's not why he's being removed. Michael Behe, one of the formulators of Intelligent Design, is a tenured microbiologist (and one of only a handful of working scientists in the entire world who accepts ID) at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, who is considered a complete joke by his own department, made a fool of himself in the Dover Trial, hasn't lost his job, and his advocacy is in direct contradiction to every other member of his department. Ain't academic freedom grand? Behe's a boob. A boob who should be given all the rope he needs to continue hanging himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.