Remarkable words from Canada''s Parliament Hill:
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.
"Obviously, I have a background that supports the fact I have read the science on muscle physiology and neural chemistry," said the minister, who took chemistry and physics courses as an undergraduate at the University of Waterloo.
"I do believe that just because you can't see it under a microscope doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It could mean we don't have a powerful enough microscope yet. So I'm not fussy on this business that we already know everything. ... I think we need to recognize that we don't know."
The Globe and Mail, in an odd bit of what might be irony, has based today's online poll on the story. No doubt there will be some objections from rational readers. After all, the reason why this is a story is that reasonable people don't see belief in evolution as a religious issue. But I'm hoping the Globe editors are just having some fun. When last I checked, only 2% chose the third option.
Meanwhile, Kady O'Malley at Maclean's (Canada's version of Time or Newsweek) opines thusly:
Before rejecting the question as inappropriate, the minister was apparently willing to put forward his belief that "just because you can't see it under a microscope doesn't mean it doesn't exist" and suggest that "we need to recognize" that not everything is known. Only then does he chide the reporter for asking the obvious follow-up question -- specifically, whether he was referring to a "creator". She wasn't the one who brought up the idea of a "more powerful microscope" that could allow us to see the unseen -- he did, and if he really didn't want to go down that road, as far as his religious views, he shouldn't have opened the door to a more philosophical line of questioning.
Instead, he all but guaranteed that his remarks would overshadow everything else that he might have to say about science and technology in Canada in an interview that his office likely agreed to specifically to undo some of the political damage incurred the last time the Globe reported on the decision to cut research funding. Nice going, minister.
Indeed
- Log in to post comments
So much for hoping to flee north of the border if the whackaloons take over.
He isn't Canada's "science minister." He is a "Minister of State" for science and technology. The Minister of State position is a junior administrative position attached to a ministry, but with no significant duties or responsibilities. The position comes with a car and a bigger office on Parliament Hill, but no actual power or influence. It's basically a bone thrown by the Prime Minister to a supporter during the election. Gary Goodyear doesn't actually have any siginificant input into Canadian science policy.
Don't worry, he "clarified" everything today:
"We are evolving, every year, every decade. Thatâs a fact. Whether itâs to the intensity of the sun, whether itâs to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether itâs running shoes or high heels, of course, we are evolving to our environment. But thatâs not relevant. And thatâs why I refused to answer the question. The interview was about our science and tech strategy, which is strongâ¦"
Uhhh... What?
It would be interesting to learn just how religious views of science have evolved over the few centuries.
The Catholic Church seems to have moderated it's views considerably since Galileo, and the Pope himself doesn't seem to have too many problems with evolution or extra-terrestrial life.
Darwin himself trained as a priest at Cambridge.
The "Scottish Enlightenment" led to some great advances in science without causing the Calvinistic Protestants to have too many kittens - in fact the Church was fundamental in educational reform in Scotland. Many of those educated Calvinists ended up in America and helped form the churches and educational institutions over there.
I get the impression that up until a few decades ago many (possibly most) scientists had a faith, but had little trouble reconciling it with science. At the same time many Christians had little trouble accepting science (at least well established science, such as evolution).
The schism seems to have developed in North America but it does seem to be showing signs of spreading, sadly.
Well he now says that he accepts evolution. Unfortunately his clarification is borderline incoherent:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090317.wevol0317/B…
"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."
This looks to me like this may be a really poorly attempted go at the "I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution" gambit.
Not true. Liberal party of Canada propoganda
Not true. Liberal party of Canada propaganda
@Paul: As someone who worked on Parliament Hill for four years covering the inner workings of Parliament, I can out-pendant you on this one.
Like all Ministers of State, Goodyear is formally a Minister, in this case of Science. The term "junior minister" is not a formal title. The official distinction is that Ministers of State are not technically members of the cabinet, although they may regularly join full cabinet members at cabinet meetings.
So yes, we can call him Minister of Science. But if we want to follow proper protocol, we shouldn't call him a cabinet minister.
There's a reason why reporters regularly use phrases like "minister of science." It's the most concise and accurate way to describe them.
aa
James, my comment was more about his relative lack of influence, and less about his title.
Sandwalk has several posts on this, if people want more.