I’m told that when he was meeting the recipients of the NSERC’s Steacie Fellowships and the nominees for the Herzberg medal yesterday, the Prime Minister expressed surprise that so many were from outside Canada (one’s American, one is Dutch, and one had returned to Canada after spending most of her career in the UK. I may be missing other cases). I can’t imagine why he would be surprised. One of the main selling points of the invigorated national science effort since 1997 is that it has created a climate that makes smart people want to come to Canada. Thousands of researchers from around the world have made Canada their home or returned home from abroad in the last decade. Somebody might have wanted to brief up the PM before yesterday, but apparently the PMO is a little short on people who feel like telling the boss things he wasn’t expecting to hear. Stephen Harper then went on to talk about his plans for more narrowly targeting new research dollars, and for commercializing the products of research. “But we were maybe a bad audience,” one of the researchers told me. “The Steacie Fellows do pure research.”
I am also pleased to announce, given the unpleasantness on the front page of this morning’s Globe, that they believe in evolution. In fact, one of them is a freaking poster boy for evolutionary theory. From a McGill University news release:
It is somehow appropriate that as we mark in 2009 the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of the Species and the 200th anniversary of Darwin ’s birth, that an evolutionary expert like Andrew Hendry is recognized. Dr. Hendry heads McGill’s Hendry Lab in Eco-Evolutionary Dynamics and is a leading investigator into the interface between ecological and evolutionary processes and their influence on biodiversity. Most recently, he co-authored a much-cited study about a rarely seen pattern of “disruptive natural selection” leading to the creation of new species among the famous finches of the Galapagos Islands, originally studied by Darwin.
So my reaction to the Globe story is conditioned in part by a senior Canadian official I met in Kandahar last fall, and in part by Miles Davis. We asked the Canadian official whether Kandahar was going to get a good guy for governor sometime soon, and the official said, “Ideally it won’t matter.” This person went on to explain that the province and the country need systems in place that can respond to citizens’ needs, regardless of whether a given governor is a standup guy or a scoundrel. As for Miles, he came in for some criticism from African-American colleagues in 1949 when he hired Lee Konitz, who was not only white but very white, to play saxophone. Davis replied: “I don’t care if he’s green with red breath, as long as he can play.”
What I’m taking the long way around to saying is this: Gary Goodyear can believe what he wants, as long as there are systems in place that ensure an Andrew Hendry can get a Steacie Fellowship. And apparently there are. If the junior minister for science (whose influence on science policy in a Harper government, incidentally, should be reckoned as comparable to the intergovernmental affairs minister’s influence on federalism, or the health minister’s influence on anything measurable) wants to pray to the Tooth Fairy or Salma Hayek every night, then godspeed.
And as long as science can rise in this country, then I would really rather stay out of the business of interrogating ministers to see whether they’re planning to stay in line with somebody’s idea of acceptable thought. (Full disclosure: I believe in evolution, though I am quite sure it doesn’t need my help, and I’m agnostic with gusts to atheism.) If Goodyear and Harper ever try to get their claptrap taught in classrooms as equivalent to evolution, I’ll join whatever committee is in the business of stopping them. Until then, I am as uncomfortable quizzing them about how Christian they are as I would be quizzing Jewish or Muslim MPs about the interface between their faith and their policies. This shouldn’t even be hard: what’s the government doing? We have enough work if we concentrate on that. (And if you care about science, rather than belling cats, then you might want to know the Ottawa Citizen whupped the tar out of the Globe this morning.)
But since the subject has come up, if I were a creationist sitting at the Harper cabinet table, here’s something I might want to think about.
It’s not just Andrew Hendry, it’s just about every conceivable recipient of a natural-science or medical research grant whose work will be embarrassing to somebody who insists on a literal reading of the Bible. Astrophysicists and quantum theorists have no place in their equations for an Earth that’s only a few thousand years old and sits in the centre of everything. Most medical research these days is molecular biology; it depends on DNA as a building block of life, and it operates at levels of detail that make it largely indistinguishable from the hard sciences, so it necessarily partakes of their assumptions about the nature and age of the universe.
So if I were all about God’s creation, I’d be a mite sheepish about funding this never-ending stream of contradictions of my faith. Big ups to the Harper Conservatives if any among them are in that situation but willing to fund science anyway. But the funny thing is, there is a branch of human inquiry that doesn’t pose a bunch of hard questions about where we humans came from, but simply studies what we do in all its richness. That’s the social sciences and its humanities. And it’s the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council that’s consistently found itself at the short end of the funding stick, and first in line for humiliating, pointless restrictions on what it can fund with too-rare new research dollars.
My very strong hunch is that it’s because the Harper Government is ashamed of what social scientists poke their noses into. The behaviour and custom of distant lands; literature in funny languages; philosophies whose tenets might not pass the screens erected by the PMO. Questions about the role of women in our society and a thousand others. It’s all so icky. Which is why the Harper government has ensured that this year’s new money for the SSHRC will fund only “business-related” graduate scholarships. And why Harper is so eager to tell visiting scientists about his plans for getting their ideas out of the lab, and so reluctant to ask them what their ideas are. Now, I’m no expert, but I seem to recall that Jesus had the occasional problem with moneychangers. Readers are invited to draw their own conclusions.
Print
Comment
Since when did it become acceptable in Canada to have a science minister who doesn’t believe in evolution? What next? A guy who thinks the second coming is imminent running the country?
Almost all religious people believe in evolution. Didn’t the Pope issue a statement saying that evolution was fine with the church? The US has more religious fundamentalists and even they now have science advisors who appreciate scientific knowledge.
Don’t forget they don’t believe in climate change either.
Or ghosts. Or the tooth fairy.
Since when did it become acceptable in Canada to have a science minister who doesn’t believe in evolution? What next?
Question, which I’ve posed elsewhere, but what the heck: If one believed in the virgin birth of Jesus, or that he rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven, I presume that would DQ that person from the post of science minister, using your standard – after all, neither of those things can be accepted using any sort of scientific standard, right?
First: he’s not being disqualified, his qualifications are being questioned.
Second, his qualifications are not being questioned because of his religious beliefs, they’re being questioned because he doesn’t “believe” in a fundamental principle of modern science.
This isn’t a separation of church and state issue. Mr. Goodyear can believe in whatever he wants. I’m sure he’s a valued member of Cabinet and well liked in his constituency.
This is a separation of the scientifically ignorant from the ranks of those in charge of science funding.
You’re right, he can believe whatever he wants, but please, he’s clearly not qualified for his portfolio. I’m sure the PM could find something more suitable for his talents.
Minister of the Stork theory of reproduction maybe?
Darwin’s work is NOT entitled “The Origin of The Species” it is titled “On the Origin of Species” not THE species. There is a world of difference between those two and I wish that people would take the time to inform themselves. It is not about how life on Earth started, it is about how new species come into being. Yeesh!
(the above was quickly written… apologies for the grammar)
Eloquent commentary, Paul.
Which echoes my continuous eye-rolling over everything Darwin that has infested Parliament Hill lately, both within and beyond the Commons.
I am far more troubled by a CHIROPRACTOR holding the science file than I am by a Christian.
Full disclosure: humanist/atheist with occasional step-down to agnostic.
“I am far more troubled by a CHIROPRACTOR holding the science file than I am by a Christian.”
good point ;-)
Better keep “Dr.” Ruby Dhalla away from the position in the future.
above arguments notwithstanding…i’m for any aof Ruby Dhalla’s positions.
Agree with much of the post (and love the recent focus on research funding).
I do nevertheless think it important to question the notion that having ’systems’ in place ensures that scoundrels running the show aren’t able to muck things up. This simply is not true. It reduces the ability of scoundrels to muck things up; it does not eliminate that possibility. Having pondered this recently due to several personal experiences of the good and bad; I can only conclude how vitally important it is having good people in roles where even the most miniscule amount of authority is exercised. “Ideally it won’t matter”; in reality, it most certainly does.
Also, I am well aware how terribly gauche it is to question another’s theological views (however ‘religulous’). Despite this, shouldn’t we point out when people in positions of authority, particularly elected office, hold extremely silly beliefs that open themselves to ridicule. Why not name and shame those who so righteously deserve it (at least as a corrective…)?
I wouldn’t mind knowing what Omar Alghabra thought his supporter meant who yelled “Islamic power is extending into Canadian politics.”
Mr. Goodyear, when did you stop beating your wife?
Goodyear: I refuse to answer such an irrelevant question.
The GLOBE headline: “Harper Science Minister won’t say if he beats his wife”
In a Nutshell.
No,
It’s, when did you stop believing in science?
Refuse.
Globe:Science Minister won’t say when he stopped believing in science.
next up: a total pacifist defence minister; a health minister who believes only in prayer as treatment; a unilateralist as minister of international cooperation; a unilingual official language minister; a status of women minister who believes women belong in the home and have no right to choose; and a racist as minister for citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism.
The scary thing is that I’m not sure some of these aren’t already in place….
I’ll agree on the strong system being important, but who the minister is and what they believe is far more important than you allow for. Just think of the elation among career foreign service people when Bush et al (Condi, Cheney etc) finally left.
Well lets just thank God that Goodyear doesn’t believe in anything wierd, like transubstantiation. We really dodged a bullet there.
Very good blog – but here are a few points of clarification.
1. Four of the six Steacie winners were born in other countries: USA, Sri Lanka, Egypt, and Denmark. Ditto for one of the three Herzberg Prize nominees: UK.
2. We did discuss funding for basic research with the PM. Although he was a bit surprised by our concern on this topic (perhaps he wasn’t aware of the scope of concerns felt by rank-and-file scientists), he did seem to be interested in what we had to say. Perhaps progress will be made.
Andrew
Netherlands, not Denmark :) Interesting to see your (and Kady’s) take on Monday’s NSERC reception.
Peter
Thank you, gentlemen, for chipping in. Folks, Dr Hendry and Dr Tieleman are two of this year’s Steacie Fellows.
Well then, congratulations, Drs. H & T.
Congratulations
I’m all for a good critique of creationism on your blog, but shouldn’t you at least characterize the opposition correctly? What in creationism requires the earth to be at the centre of the universe, or to be only thousands of years old? Straw men, my friend.
Before a non-scientist starts making sweeping statements about how modern physics is incompatible with creationism, he ought to consider (a) what creationists actually believe, and (b) that modern physics (and astronomy, and chemistry, and biology, and the Jesuit science of seismology, etc.) was largely developed by creationists. Treating the worst version of your opponent’s argument as the only version is weak, as well as either ignorant or intellectually dishonest.
Ok, Gaunilon, I’ll bite: what do creationists actually believe, if they don’t believe in the 4004 scenario? And, in the West, on what basis do they believe it if not the Bible — Aristotelian logic?
Also, what exactly is the “Jesuit science of seismology”?
By definition, creationists believe that the universe was created. Most believe this creator was an uncaused cause who is also omnipotent and omnibenevolent. And yes, these beliefs are based on Thomistic philosophy which is in turn directly based on Aristotelian logic, specifically the arguments laid out in Aristotle’s Physics. Nothing in the Bible refers to the age or relative position of the earth in the universe, and so although the geocentric theory was commonly held prior to the pioneering work of Copernicus (another noted creationist!) this was not due religious belief, but rather due to the excellent (but erroneous) astronomical model published by Ptolemy several thousand years ago.
And as for the Jesuit science, if you google it you will quickly discover that seismology is referred to this way owing to the fact that it was pioneered by Jesuit priests…also creationists.
Actually from talking to my colleagues, I think Wells is probably just ignorant. It seems to be a common misconception that Christianity and creationism require belief in the “young earth” hypothesis and in geocentrism. Wells should probably get out and meet a creationist or two before writing about them; it might open his eyes and his mind a little bit.
Well, OK, but the 4004 BC date is arrived at by patiently toting up all the begat’s. You’re seriously saying that creationists believe in creation & a creator because of Aristotle’s “First Cause” argument, not because of Genesis 1:1?
I don’t quite follow the “Jesuit seismology” line of argument. By that rationale, the truth of Pythagorean theorem would reflect well on the transmigration of souls; architecture would be an endorsement of Egyptian polytheism; economics would be Protestant; etc. The fact that Thomas and Copernicus were creationists (not that the word existed at the time) has nothing to do with creationism in the modern world. Einstein had long eyebrows.
I think it is fundamentalists who call themselves creationists because they insist on forcing themselves to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Most Christians can believe that God created the universe and that evolution seems to be the way She did it, without worrying about the details that much. But most Christians do not call themselves creationists because the fundamentalists have appropriated that term to their own narrow beliefs.
(1) Toting up the begats gets you to 6000-8000 years, first off, if you take into account the lifespans claimed. However this yields only the biblical account of the age of the human race, not the age of the universe, and is therefore irrelevant to Wells’s claims about the equations of physics being incompatible with creationism.
(2) Most creationists believe in a creator because of scripture, yes. However the following points about said creator being omnipotent and omnibenevolent are from Aquinas building on Aristotle. You asked what creationists believe and on what basis. I answered.
(3) The point about seismology and all the other sciences pioneered by creationists was not that these sciences suggest the truth of creationism. Rather, the logical conclusion is that creationism does not preclude one from being a perfectly good sciencist (and hence probably also a perfectly good minister of science) and neither does good science seem to cause problems for those who believe the Bible literally. If anything, the historical record suggests the opposite.
By the same token, as per your examples, geometry does not pose problems for a believer in transmigration of souls, architecture does not give Egyptian polytheists the vapors, and economics is not antithetical to Protestantism. Capische?
@ Gaunilon –
“(1) Toting up the begats gets you to 6000-8000 years, first off, if you take into account the lifespans claimed.”
Um, really? Ussher thought 4004 BC (based on the Hebrew text), and I gather the other date is 1500 years earlier, based on the Septuagint. Have you toted up the begat’s yourself? It’s not true that “this yields only the biblical account of the age of the human race, not the age of the universe,” since, as you know, God created Man on the 6th day. October 28th, to be precise.
(2) Creationists don’t, per se, believe in an omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator, just in a creator. E.g. Zoroastrians believe that the world was created by a bad creator.
(3) No sciences were pioneered by creationists, because the term didn’t exist. Anyway, it’s irrelevant today, because the whole point of science is that it has to be compatible with itself: it develops. I’m sure Stephen Hawking would be a perfectly legitimate creationist if you transported him back to 1650 AD and too away all the things he and we have since learned about reality. The only problem is that he would no longer be Stephen Hawking.
Are we talking about young earth creationism here, based on literal interpretation of the bible? Are we talking about intelligent design, the idea that creatures evolved for a specific purpose and required the direct intervention God to do so? Or are we talking about Theistic Evolution?
Young earth creationism is the belief that all things in the bible are literally true. Intelligent design is based on Aristotle’s notion that all things have a specific purpose, and thus God intervenes in the development of organisms in the physical world. Theistic Evolution is the idea that despite random mutation, natural selection and laws of inheritance explaining the natural causes of life’s origins and development there is ultimately a purpose to creation given by God. It is the WHY of existence, rather than the HOW. What distinguishes theistic evolution from the intelligent design movement is the recognition that it is not science, but merely a hope and a promise, that simply cannot be verified empirically. Theistic evolution therefore has nothing to say on the mechanics of evolution.
I like debate as much as the next excessively verbal guy, but something about the creationism vs. evloution thing inspires me to dig out my old T-shirt that says “I believe I’ll have another beer.”
Paul Wells, the problem is not that some Harper Conservatives are ignorant of science, but that they are hostile to science, just like they are hostile to the idea of women’s equality. And yes, they are promoting their agendas by the decisions they make about funding.
People who oppose funding SSHRC (like me) mostly oppose it because of Sokal’s paper in Social Text. There is NO there there in SSHRC disciplines, unless limited to business. Critical theory has destroyed so many disciplines, and the pernicious pervasiveness of French philosophers is itself sufficient justification for nuking Paris.
People used to do interesting work in the Social Sciences, but now it’s career suicide to do anything that advances actual knowledge or the interests of our society. You will find most empiricists absolutely detest the social “sciences” and don’t think that they should be funded in any way. We shouldn’t give any funding or student loans for arts courses, only for science, engineering, math, and business. When Liberal and Fine Arts want to contribute positiely to society instead of tearing it down, then maybe they should be given support.
I blame Descrartes.
I blame Descartes too.
Yes, those business schools have really been turning out winners lately!
This government’s record speaks (volumes) for itself.
Not only is it afraid of contrary ideas, but it will not hesitate to use the full force of its authority and (public-funded) resources to prevent some ideas from even being made available to others.
By transforming dissenting ideas into “threats to national security” through deliberately contrived labyrinths of semantics, not only do they impose their view (unopposed), but they use our money to put down anything which could even engage public discussion and opinion.
From issues of Darwin, to George Galloway, the conservative-minded leadership has demonstrated more than a minority effect on what remains of Canadian democracy.