Gary Goodyear, Canada's science minister, refuses to answer Globe and Mail science report Anne McIlroy when Anne asks Gary 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,” Goodyear, the Minister of State for Science and Technology told McIlroy.
Gary might want to ask Steve about evolution. That is to say, any one of the 700 Steves on this list. They're all scientists. And I'll bet many of them are Christians. And they all say evolution is an undisputed scientific fact.
Here's what those Steves say:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
I'll betcha he can see Alaska across the flat earth in his back yard.
I'll refer to the most satisfactory answer I've heard yet from another Steve:
So what is the big deal?
What does that have to do with anything?
Here's an argument for you: What if the Creationism position included and accepted that one day we'd be having the theoretical argument about origins and development and included evidence of a logical and scientific past just so that we could get beyond this sticky detail and move on to more important matters?
The fact that the question was even asked indicates a serious problem with the appointment of Goodyear as Science Minister.
Given your evident glee at the smackdown Mr. Goodyear is receiving over his religous beliefs I am curious how often you, as a journalist, have asked politicians about their religous beliefs vis a vis their political actions. In particular how often have you asked a pro choice Roman Catholic politician about his or her belief in the sancity of life? Or do you only consider certain religous beliefs held by certain classes of politicians to be infra dig?
I'm like Gary: I'm a Christian. Anglican, to be precise. This ain't about religion. It's about science. He was asked a question about science and declined to answer because he thought it was a question about religion and he didn't want to talk about religion. The report didn't want to talk about religion, either. She wanted to talk about science. And evolution is a question for scientists, not theologians.
Millions — billions, even — of Christians believe in evolution — and God. I'm one of them. And when a Christian is asked if they believe in evolution, they usually answer: “What a silly question. Of course!” They generally don't say: “I refuse to answer on religious grounds.” The journalist here didn't bring up religion; the politician did.
I beg to differ.
1. You are assuming that every Christian believes what you believe.
«they usually answer: “What a silly question. Of course!”»
That is a mighty large generalization. Who and how many people does your “they” comprise?
2. If the question of accepting the theory of evolution is not connected to religion, why did the Vatican recently deem it necessary to hold a conference on Charles Darwin?
Check a March 7, 2009 article here: heraldnet.com
“Cardinal William Levada, head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the Catholic Church doesn't stand in the way of scientific realities like evolution, saying there was a “wide spectrum of room” for belief in both the scientific basis for evolution and faith in God the creator.”
3. Whereas some Christians still believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, the CC has now softened its stance on evolution, as evidenced by the statement above.
4. The question was indeed related to religion. Notice the various interpretations that one’s acceptance or rejection of the theory of evolution can have: http://www.newadvent.org
“We must carefully distinguish between the different meanings of the words theory of evolution in order to give a clear and correct answer to this question. We must distinguish (1) between the theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis and as a philosophical speculation; (2) between the theory of evolution as based on theistic principles and as based on a materialistic and atheistic foundation; (3) between the theory of evolution and Darwinism; (4) between the theory of evolution as applied to the vegetable and animal kingdoms and as applied to man.”
Was the reporter's question that specific and clear? I think not. It was the same kind of irrelevant question as was asked of Harper during the 2004 or 2006 campaign: “Do you love Canada?”
The Barney doll has been brought out of moth-balls.
It was not a science question. It was a gotcha question.
The reporter brought up religion not Mr. Goodyear. In her own words: “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.”
Albertasaurous
She went hunting and bagged what she was looking for.
Funny how when they want to talk science reporters always bring up evolution and never dark matter or the big bang theory.