But if the story in today’s Globe and Mail had come out just a few hours earlier, we probably would have paid considerably more attention to what the PM’s pointminister on science and technology had to say to the crowd during the NSERC research awards last night at the Chateau Laurier last night.
Oh, who am I kidding? If Goodyear’s comments – or rather, refusal to comment – on evolution had been reported before last night’s awards ceremony, I suspect that reporters who turned up to cover it would have discovered that it had suddenly become closed to the media. (Maybe that’s why those PMO staffers were in such a rush to hustle us out the door after the presentations were over.)
Anyway, I’m sure that the deeper implications of Goodyear’s refusal to discuss his views on evolution will be analysed in painstaking detail, but at the moment, all substance aside, I’m having trouble getting past how badly the minister managed to botch this interview from a communications perspective.
If he truly sees evolution as a religious issue, and, as a result, is genuinely uncomfortable discussing it in an interview about his role as minister of science and technology, there are any number of ways to avoid addressing the nub of the question without turning a non-response into the headline. If you read the whole story, he did not simply refuse to respond – and that may have been his fatal mistake.
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.
Print
Comment
Dan Gardner is going to have an aneurysm.
Surely there is no obligation on Ministers to discuss their religious views and by not doing so they make a “fatal mistake”. In whos eyes is it “fatal”.
No, there isn’t – which is why it was a fatal mistake, tactically speaking and in this particular context, for the minister to use it as a defence to avoid answering the question. Unless you think that this was precisely the result that he wanted, in which case – well done, minister!
He wasn’t asked about his religious views. He was asked about his science views and he turned it into a religious question. That was the communications mistake.
Not answering a question about evolution is not answering a science question.
If the Minister of Industry said he didn’t want to answer whether he believed in capitalism would that be okay too?
No.
A better question might be this: in a caucus of 143, is this the best Harper can do for “Minister of Science”? Isn’t there anybody in that caucus with a science, technology, or medicine background?
I agree. While I’m reluctant to criticize a minister for his or her religious beliefs, I feel that the job of Minister of Science should be held by someone with some kind of background in science – former MDs, engineers, researchers, etc.
Hear hear. Both in terms of knowing something about the portfolio beforehand, and in terms of personal relationships — being “one of us” — er, “one of them” — can help avoid all the screaming and the pencil-throwing.
.
I must say I’m a bit wary of a category of thought that is immune to discussion, praise, ridicule, etc. You can’t incorporate your apartment as a church to avoid property taxes, so why should you be able to include something as irrelevant to Christianity as Creationism under “religious beliefs”? There are plenty of secular people who believe foolish things about the nature of the world, and we wouldn’t (ceteris paribus) hesitate to call them on it just because they’re secular.
I agree that Creationism is misguided and irrelevant to Christianity, but I still think it qualifies as a legitimate “religious belief”. Creationism is certainly not immune to discussion, praise, or ridicule – in fact, it seems like every other day someone in the media is lampooning a suspected Creationist MP. In Mackenzie King’s day, with evolution firmly established, most MPs probably had religious beliefs that could be described as “Creationist” – yet nobody accused them of being mentally defective.
Good point, but I doubt that in Mackenzie King’s day it would have occurred to anyone to make it an issue: pro-Creationism or anti-. Nowadays it feels, to this atheist, like 4004 BC is a kind of totemic belief for those opposed to a whole slew of other irrational opinions, and as such carried down the street, metaphorically speaking, like the giant phallus of a heathen cult. I think both sides have a bit to answer for by way of making Darwin some kind of cultural litmus test.
Er, I mean “. . . for those opposed to a whole slew of other rational theories . . .” or something like that.
I love the imagery of a giant phallus being carried down the street. :)
Creationism is so incidental to what Christianity is all about it’s a real pity any time gets wasted on it.
CR – I think I checked one time (at a link that Kady had provided) and there have been three MPs *ever* that listed their occupation as scientist. I’m not sure if that makes them underrepresented versus the population.
Ian, good point. Actual scientists are probably too much to hope for – I’d settle for doctors, engineers, or just about anyone with a rigorous quantitative background and some knowledge of hard science. (Memorizing vertebrae in chiropractor college doesn’t count.) Perhaps I’m just jealous of US Energy Secretary Steve Chu.
Ok I promise I wrote my comment below without having seen yours. Nerdy minds think alike :)
nd – LOL. Twins!
“Scientist” is a pretty high bar to clear, though – are we talking reserach scientist? There aren’t too many of those around period, let alone ones that would leave that type of profession to become politicians. That’s why the appointment of Steven Chu as US Secretary of Energy is so impressive, but then of course Chu didn’t have to actually campaign or get elected or anything of the sort.
I’d be pretty happy with “engineer”, or even, say, a medical doctor. Chiropractor, creationist, and university dropout, however, is more than just a few tweaks away from a competent candidate for the post, which reflects less on him, I suppose, then on Harper for choosing such a person for the position.
Definitely reflects poorly on Harper for choosing such a person for the position.
as long as that MD didn’t believe AIDS is transmitted by tears ;-)
Isn’t he a chiropractor? They call themselves Doctors!
Who cares what Goodyear thinks about evolution, or science, for that matter? Scientists and others are getting their funds so what’s the big deal. And I am waiting, probably in vain, for a reporter to ask a Lib or Dipper about how science has shown many of their policies, particularly in education and welfare, to be entirely misguided and harmful.
“Scientists and others are getting their funds so what’s the big deal.”
Ahh, but they’re not. See Paul Wells’ insightful investigations into R&D funding in Canada over the past decade and multiple governments. Between cuts to certain funds, and lack of growth with GDP to others, science in Canada is not exactly swell, unfortunately.
Education and welfare could be seen as more social science areas, I think — maybe not so urgent for the Minister responsible for science, since there are others responsible for education and welfare specifically.
What science is that? There’s a gulf fixed between religious beliefs and political or educational policy, the later are open to empiricism.
Don’t be so cynical kc. Why just the other day Minister Goodyear funded my research project on the alternative theory of gravity, called the theory of intelligent falling.
LOL – i’ve tried that one, i did feel a bit smarter – still hurt though!
kc – For one instance, teachers pretty much refuse to teach how to read phonetically and prefer the whole-word system when it’s been shown in study after study phonetics is way better, particularly for children from poor families. But good luck trying to get teachers to teach reading differently.
So much government policy is based on the belief that people change, are malleable, when science shows that it just isn’t true. It is not only Social Cons who believe in creationism who have issues with science but for some reason they are the only ones who are mocked for their beliefs.
jwl-that question is best left educators to decide – isn’t it? My wife’s an experienced teacher – her complaint is that non-qualified people[ read political] are forever trying to interfere in education policy. Leave it to the professionals in the main. Maybe they don’t like yr studies? Are you an educator? Are you sure you know better? Please show me what science shows that people can’t change? Change from what to what? There are so many variables.
I don’t think it’s best left to the educators to decide if they put their needs/wants ahead of the children, which is what’s happening now. A major reason why teachers prefer whole-words over phonetics is that it’s a more interesting way to teach. Phonetics is boring but way more effective way to learn how to read.
I am not a teacher myself at the moment, tho I have taught in Korea and UK in the past, but I am best friends with 3 teachers who work in Canada. To listen to them, the best interests of teachers and children are exactly the same, which is utter nonsense. Teachers want to make their jobs more interesting while the best way for many/most children to learn is boring rote lessons. There is conflict and I would prefer it if teachers put children’s learning ahead of their desire to entertain.
jwl – just checked with the wife/boss/teacher re: phonetics, she says yr about 30rs too late with yr argument. Basically everthing has changed. Don’t know where you get yr info from, but yr passe baby! :)
By the way she’s a science teacher, says yr no change theory sounds baseless too!
“Who cares what Goodyear thinks about evolution, or science, for that matter? Scientists and others are getting their funds so what’s the big deal.”
Why in the hell should we expect our elected leaders to take the lead, right?
Who cares what the Minister of Science and Technology thinks about science? Seriously? Ok. Me, for one.
Me for two!
Science is a loaded term, people of all political persuasions have trouble with different aspects of ’science’ and what it tells us about the world. I should have finished my thought and said I don’t care what Ministers think because I don’t want them involved in science field and I prefer not to be ruled by technocrats. I like the system as is, provide cash with some oversight, and leave the science to the scientists. Goodyear’s thoughts on evolution are neither here nor there.
Is he afraid of the creationist members of the Conservative party? If that’s the case, someone else, someone who can actually answer questions, (though I have to wonder who would be allowed to do so) should be appointed Minister of Science and Technolgy.
That’s a good question. How much pressure is there to conform within the party?
Based on purely anecdotal evidence over the past few years, approximately 1000 p.s.i.
lol!
I was thinking more specifically about RB’s. But it does pretty much cover the field.
“. . . if he really didn’t want to go down that road . . .”
Isn’t that what Goodyear’s are made for? How much pressure? On average it hovers around30 p.s.i. — not 1000. Although some Goodyear’s are known to bulge in the middle. Carrying that extra pressure must be tiresome.
This really has nothing to do with his belief in a god and quite a lot to do with his belief in the power of religious conservatives who’ll do there very best to unseat him if he says he believes in evolution.
Thank you jwl…are you practicing to take over Pierre Poilievre’s mantle when Harper shuffles him over to the sidelines?
God help you all if I was ever elected to the Commons. :)
Dominus vobiscum!
I suppose if we had a REALLY powerful microscope, we could see tiny people and tiny dinosaurs all frolicking together in time-concurrent microbial glee.
If the microscope was REALLY, REALLY, REALLY powerful, we could probably even see Harper’s human empathy.
- JV
If we could really see down to the atomic level, we would realize that every atom is a galaxy. At least one of those newly visible galaxies would have one sun supporting one planet, and that planet would support life as we know it — right down to a Prime Minister and a Cabinet that believes their one-of-a-kind planet was designed deliberately by an old white guy with a flowing gray beard.
But this means that every time we split an atom we are destroying a whole galaxy! Finally – incontrovertible proof that nuclear fission is evil! This gives a whole new meaning to Oppenheimer’s words: “I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”.
Pedant that I am please allow me to correct the source of the quotation:
.
Oppenheimer famously recalled the Bhagavad Gita: “If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one.” and “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”
.
That’s from Wikipedia, see also:
http://www.faktoider.nu/oppenheimer_eng.html
Thanks for the correction, James! That was an interesting link.
Aren’t we lucky so far? The Oppeheimers of the larger universe beyond ours have been toying with fission for a while, but our particular atomic galaxy is frozen deep inside some polar ice on their own sphere. It won’t last forever though. Their current economic crisis may lead to nuclear “holocaust”. And if that doesn’t do it, global warming surely will.
LOL – Reefer madness in BC?
Goodyear is an experienced chiropractor, in a field often referred to as a pseudoscience. If he ducks like a quack…
That’s clever on a number of levels. My kudos to you madam.
I guess you could call him the archetypal manipulator…..
I once mentioned to my brother, a family physician (by no means a dinosaur) who practiced for many years in the NHS in the UK – that I had visited a chiropractor here in Canada to have a lower back problem attended to – his snorted reply was – you realize that they aren’t insured – don’t you?
Hey, out of curiosity, what religion are you, Kady? But that wouldn’t be any of my business, now would it?
I’m an agnostic, which I believe I’ve mentioned before. Why do you ask?
I ask because your story insinuates that he is not able to objectively do his job because of his religious beliefs. Does being an agnostic affect your ability to do your job as a journalist?
The story insinuates that the Minister responsible for science won’t comment on science because of ‘religious views’. If part of his job is talking about science then he can’t do his job.
Do you go round in vertical circles with passengers on board?
But that wouldn’t be any of my business, now would it?
What is wrong with you people? Is Kady the Minister of Science and Technology? Am I taking crazy pills?
Are you saying I wouldn’t be a fantastic science minister? I’m crushed.
Well, you have an eye for detail and report facts regardless of how they fit in with your personal world view. That’s mostly all you need to do science anyway. So I think you’ll do fine.
According to the OAD you certainly wouldn’t in this govt. Not sure i like that definition however!
I note that there is an online agnostic community, for those so inclined.
What’s it called — “Agnostics Anonymous, Your six step march to enlightenment?”
Archangel – way better, voila:” Welcome to The Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic” I plan on joining retroactively, if i can.
I’m currently clicking away here computing the risk quotient of permitting a habitue of the ‘Berry to be in charge of Science….
Hm – I guess that means funding for speech recognition would go out the window..
and prob’ly enhanced funding for light and effectively extending step ladders would increase….
Kady, an agnostic could make an excellent scientist. To be a fantastic science minister, one would have to first become a successful politician. And, while I have seen some mild streaks via your liveblogging berry, I am not sure you have the necessary treachery in you for that prerequisite. So, be not crushed that someone doubts your future as a science minister.
Don’t we have a separation of church and state in this country, or am I taking crazy pills?
Don’t we have a separation of church and state in this country… or am I taking crazy pills?
Exactly.
“She wasn’t the one who brought up the idea of a ‘more powerful microscope’ that could allow us to see the unseen.”
Or, you know, maybe he was talking about microscopes, and improving technology so that we can discover more interesting and amazing things through science. Like the way scientists actually DID make more powerful microscopes over the years, and better techonology on all kinds of fronts, to discover things like subatomic particles, and far-away galaxies.
And maybe the reporter then made the leap from that to talking about a “creator,” because that was what SHE really wanted to get at, because she had heard “rumours.”
Am I the only one who read that passage of the story that way?
No, it definitely seems to be in response to her question about “rumours” that he may be “suspicious of science” because he’s a creationist:
So he’s the one who brought up knowing the unknowable and seeing the unseen, to which her follow-up question is, in that context, entirely relevant.
In fairness, he didn’t say anything about “knowing the unknowable and seeing the unseen.” He said that not being able to see something NOW doesn’t mean that we wouldn’t be able to see it later, and referred to a microscope. I fail to see how responding to a question about whether he has creationist views with a reference to a scientific instrument and acknowledging that there is much to be discovered in the world must necessarily be equated with him having such views.
If you view his “more powerful microscope” response as a metaphor for faith, then yes, I guess you could say he got into the matter of his religious views himself. But when the reporter pressed further, he said that wasn’t something he wanted to discuss. So is it entirely fair to then just assume that he was speaking metaphorically? Or is sometimes a microscope just a microscope?
You know, if that’s the case, it should be pretty easy for the minister to clarify. I agree that a full transcript would be helpful in determining exactly what he meant, but by shutting down the discussion in mid-conversation when he was asked a direct question that he apparently didn’t feel he should have to answer, he really is largely responsible for any ensuing misunderstanding.
“I agree that a full transcript would be helpful in determining exactly what he meant, but by shutting down the discussion in mid-conversation when he was asked a direct question that he apparently didn’t feel he should have to answer, he really is largely responsible for any ensuing misunderstanding.”
How do you know he shut the discussion down in mid-conversation without seeing the full transcript that you agree would be useful?
“You know, if that’s the case, it should be pretty easy for the minister to clarify.”
Yes. Surely the Globe is reserving the same prominent portion of the front page for his clarification.
Do you really think that this reporter didn’t go into this interview fully prepared to go after Goodyear on the “rumours” she heard about his religious beliefs? Do you really believe that her “followup” question just happened to occur to her after he may have metaphorically opened the door to his personal religious beliefs in response to an entirely unrelated scientific question?
I actaully think these questions were coming one way or the other, and I don’t think it would have mattered what Goodyear said. If he had declared himself an atheist and a lifetime subscrber to Skeptic Magazine, the headline most likely would have read, “Science minister denies rumours he’s a creationist”.
Whether Goodyear believes in evolution or not matters very little to voters in Bull Bays(?), NF or to voters in Sicamous, BC. It is of limited and passing interest to a few political junkies and to journalists. Time to get out of the Ottawa bubble and move on!
Would it concern you if he didn’t believe in the science of DVD players or flight or sterilization? Evolution is BASIC science and the essential foundation on which huge swaths of our modern world depend. It is pretty close to a Justice Minister not wanting to talk about what counts as evidence.
Would it concern you if he didn’t believe in the science of DVD players or flight or sterilization? Evolution is BASIC science and the essential foundation on which huge swaths of our modern world depend. It is pretty close to a Justice Minister not wanting to talk about what counts as evidence.
If you know you don’t know the unknowable, how can you knowingly deny you know the knowable?
Who knows? Perhaps knowbody knows how much knowledge is really knowable.
Rummy is thet yu? I thawt i tolt yu to avoid dis knda minbooglin stuff!
W.
Uh OH! here ome the thought police … No matter how much things change they actually change very little. I can imagine a journalist not that long ago asking a poltician if he belived in evolution and he or she said Yes! .. he would have been fired, banned from public discourse and ex-communicated … good grief folks grow up develop your own mind and ask yourself this what happens if the theory is proved wrong (happens all the time) what if actually little greys from area 54 actually seeded our world of mud with the first enzymes that started the road to us after all as good as an explanation as a comet. If the topic is funding then said journalist should ask about funding not spending their time repeating over and over and over and over again questions where they care nothing about the answer but an opportunity to project their own point of view or worse where they are essentially after any opportunity of a gotcha moment. Frankly I would be ashamed of myslef if I were the reporter and certainly would not last long in the career as I have this problem called ask the real question note the answer and move onto the next.
Wayne
Wayne doesn’t like curiousity in a reporter. Tough one buddy, they’re always going to ask awkward questions – whether we like it or not. I don’t think you’ll be objecting when Iggy has to answer akward queries on where he’s been for 30 odd yrs.
Wayne doesn’t like curious reporters – stick to the facts. Just report the ministers statements eh? Can’t take curiousity out of a good journalist, i trust you wont object when they grill Iggy over where he’s been for the last 30 ys? I think those’re silly q’s, but i don’t want journos to report only what i want to hear!
Can’t subtract curiousity from reporting without nasty consequences to us all Wayne!
Jonathon has gone mad, someone grab him before he posts all our lost ones!
I see you did not think about what I posted -> I said : Ask the real question : if you do not understand what I am talking about I don’t have time to explain it you. And yes I don’t like reporters who are curious about everything that will enable them to get a promotion because they captured a gotcha moment at the expense of someone who in an unattentive moment neglected to answer a question that was immaterial and irrlelevant. It sort of happened to me once so I am sensitve to this issue. A reporter who does not stick to the facts and go after the real question then abrogates all rights of claims of being a journalist and has entered the world of punditry they should go write blogs or advertise they are a pundit else they are hypocrites of the highest degree.
Sorry Wayne there’s a world of difference between a reporter misquoting or misrepresenting yr position as a civilian and asking a cabinet minister questions that may have a bearing on whether he can do his job or not. You should read the aricle again. It appears Goodyear raised the issue of religion himself, and then bailed when he didn’t like the follow-up. No gotcha here – just plain old evasion.
Waayne (maybe not your real name)
Riddle me this, how did Noah (maybe his real name) get 30 million species male and female on his Ark.
Riddle me this, how did Noah (maybe his real name) get 30 million species male and female on his Ark.
Persuasion.
Very carefully, I assume…
Ark is short for Arkansas?
There was no Ark as there was no Global Flood (PS: Noah and Golgamesh were the same person which is that of an even more ancient sumerian legend) therefore your question is obviously an attempt to portray me as something that I am not – so riddle me this – what is the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative answer Liberals Believe Conservatives are Evil and Conservatives Believe Liberals are stupid : Answer = you are obviously not a Conservative.
It pains me to defend Gary Goodyear, but…
Why don’t we get to read the question that Goodyear refused to answer? The article opens with the statement that Goodyear “won’t say if he believes in evolution.” But his answer, which follows immediately, doesn’t specifically mention evolution as the thing he refuses to discuss. Later, the article states, “Asked to clarify if he was talking about the role of a creator, Mr. Goodyear said that the interview was getting off topic.”
One wonders if these two statements are referring to the same exchange. That seems to be the conclusion that Kady has drawn. But I think it’s important to point out that belief in a creator and belief in literal biblical creationism are not the same thing, and that it is only the latter that necessitates disbelief in evolution.
There’s a whole lot we don’t know yet about the origin of the universe. Some of us wait patiently for science to answer our questions, while others choose to fill that gap with unsubstantiated belief in a creator that started it all. The believer need not, however, dismiss the “scientific fact,” as Dr. Atlers put it, of evolution, which only explains the development of life on Earth.
If Canada’s Minister of State for Science and Technology doesn’t believe in evolution, or refuses to state that he does, I think that would be a very legitimate concern to a lot of Canadians. But I suspect that if he merely believes in God, that would not be. The fact that the reader is unable to conclusively determine which situation applies makes this a very poor article.
Actually, it reminds me of the article during the last election campaign about Stephane Dion abandoning the Green Shift: it starts with a questionable conclusion drawn from a quoted response to an unspecified question, then proceeds to focus on opponents’ responses to that conclusion. I didn’t like it then, and I don’t like it now.
Is the full text of the interview available anywhere? I would really like to know what was actually said.
These debates are always silly. The minister should be able to say:” I don’t believe evolution answers all the questions, and no this doesn’t impare my ability to carry out my duties as minister”. As soon as he starts to equivicate, we have problems.
In this country, that is political suicide. Do you not remember what happened to Stockwell Day on this issue?
That’s kind of a silly response, and the obvious follow-up would be, “which questions do you believe evolution doesn’t answer?”
So, answer them, if you can minister? My pt is avoidng controversy often only generates more. Keep yr personal beliefs separate from yr job. Obviously it would help to have a minister that supported evolutionary theory.
I agree that it would be great to see a full transcript of the interview. But to be fair, he could have made it clear that his religious beliefs are not relevant to how he does his job as minister of science and technology. Instead, he suggested to the reporter that the question itself was irrelevant, and given the context, I don’t think it’s unfair to criticize him for that, particularly when he seemed comfortable discussing those beliefs in a broader philosophical context. If he were, say, the transport minister, I think he’d have a lot less trouble drawing a firm line between his personal convictions and his professional responsibilities. But if you were a researcher with a leaning towards evolutionary science, wouldn’t you have a legitimate concern over whether this could have an impact on your ability to solicit funding for future projects? After all, this is supposed to the person who represents you and your colleagues at the cabinet table. Given that, I think it is a legitimate question to ask whether his beliefs – whatever they may be – would play a role in his decision-making process, and I suspect that most Canadians would probably share that view.
Personally, i doubt he realizes he is “supposed to the person who represents you and your colleagues at the cabinet table”.
I suspect he realizes it’s his job to be Harper’s representative to the uppity researcher community.
That would explain the tantrum when meeting with the CAUT …
I wonder if scientists will be able to figure out “The Case of the Disappearing Science Minister”…
I guess we’ll see if he shows up for this scheduled appearance:
http://au.sys-con.com/node/879865
People who are saying that it is not right for him to be asked about his religion and his religious background and faith should not matter are either totally misreading his response or doing so deliberately.
Goodyear wasn’t asked about his religious views. He was asked about his science views and then he turned it into a religious question. He was asked about evolution and responded “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”.
He brought religion into it. He could easily have said “I am a politician and not the scientist here. The scientists do their research and reach their conclusions. It would not be appropriate for me or any politician to tell scientists what conclusions they should reach or impose a conclusion. Next. Yes, over there in the back row…”
Being asked about evolution is a science question not a religious question.
These guys aren’t smart enough. Remember Pierre and” the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation” response! Separate the two, in Trudeau’s case it couldn’t have been so easy, he being catholic.
I recall that during the debate over same-sex marriage, many MPs – including cabinet ministers, and, if I’m not mistaken, the prime minister -were asked whether their religious beliefs would affect their decision on whether to support the bill to extend the definition of marriage, and the majority of those who responded made it clear that it would not.
I thnk you support my belief that personal beliefs should not interfere unduly with yr govt responsibilities, if it’s too much of a conflict, that is legimate of course – then you need to find another line of work.
You should probably clarify here that by prime minister you mean Paul Martin, and by “many MPs” you mean Liberal MPs. Cabinet ministers don’t count so much because their vote was whipped.
If we can be critical of how the Bushites turned back scientific inquiry why aren’t we more concerned when there are so many Creationists and Rapturists in our halls of power?
Is this really all that surprising? Conservatives are not part of the reality-based community.
It’s difficult to draw a line as to where religion is private, and where it might have public political implications, so I wonder, setting aside the Minister’s answer regarding evolution, what if we look at some other hypotheticals?
If the Minister had been asked “Do you believe in gravity” and his response had been ““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”, would we consider that a legitimate answer from the Minister responsible for Science and Technology?
What if he were asked “Do you believe that the Earth revolves around the sun?” Would “I don’t think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate” be an acceptable response?
What if a Minister of the Crown were asked “Do you believe men and women are equal?”, and he answered “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”? Would we say “his private religious beliefs are none of our business”?
He’s a good (crazy) one. What if a Minister were asked if he or she felt that slavery is acceptable, and refused to answer the question because it touched on his or her religious beliefs?
Where does one draw the line exactly?
That should say “HERE’S a good (crazy) one.” above.
Rest assured I’m calling my last hypothetical example crazy (though, I think, useful) not any person crazy.
“I am not here to parade my religious sentiments, but I declare I have too much respect for the faith in which I was born to ever use it as the basis of a political organization.” — Sir Wilfrid Laurier
I like the quote, Chris!
Her’s another:
“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”
– Mark Twain
Here’s another:
“We are evolving, every year, every decade. That’s a fact. Whether it’s to the intensity of the sun, whether it’s to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it’s running shoes or high heels, of course, we are evolving to our environment.”
Gary Goodyear.
Poor man should have quit while he was behind. He’s moved from “doesn’t believe in the theory of evolution” to “doesn’t have even the most basic understanding of what the theory of evolution is”.
I’ll take the religious guy who doesn’t believe in evolution over the guy who thinks humans are currently evolutionarily adapting, year over year, to a state of physical existence more conducive to walking on concrete (and/or in high heels) any day.
I’d love to hear his explanation for how the inefficient concrete walkers are being excluded from the gene pool. Have I been missing the dead bodies on the sidewalk of people who haven’t yet adapted to walking on an unnatural surface? Or, is the Minister suggesting that people who walk more efficiently on paved surfaces are significantly more likely to get laid???
LOL Archangel, Twain was a genius!
too good not to share
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/mr-cranky-pants-has-all-the-answers-41482982.html