Minister of Science Doesn't Believe In Science

[Prometheus The Supremo]

The fact that he personally does not believe in evolution should not necessarily preclude him from being the Minister of Science. That would be discrimination when the bar we should be setting is competence.

i'm not sure about that. these government positions should be held by people who are competent in the role they are appointed to have. if you don't "believe" in evolution than you are not competent to be a minister of science.

For example, we often have Catholic politicians who do support a woman's right to have an abortion and the rights of homosexuals to marry. They are able to separate their religious beliefs from their political beliefs.

the difference with this is that these are general politicians. if an anti-abortionist, anti gay marriage politician were the minister of (that's just say for the heck of it) women's issues or gay issues, it wouldn't make any sense. now such a minister might be able to separate personal beliefs from their political position but why be appointed minister to something that seriously conflicts with your views?

to put it into perspective, imagine me being appointed to minister of faith & spirituality if such a position existed!

if this minister rejects evolution because it conflicts with his religious beliefs, this means by extension that he probably rejects any other area of science that conflicts with his religious beliefs. there could be lots of things of reality that this man rejects. evolution could just be the tip of the ice berg.

he could very well come out and say tomorrow that he doesn't believe in geological science or plate tectonic theory because it conflicts with his creationist views.

 

[Whoaccio]

This was short...

The Canadian Press

March 17, 2009 at 5:35 PM EDT

OTTAWA — Canada's Science Minister has cut short a brewing controversy over his views on evolution.

Gary Goodyear raised eyebrows when he refused to tell The Globe and Mail newspaper if he believes in the science of evolution.

But the Minister of State for Science and Technology flatly said today that he does indeed believe in evolution.

Mr. Goodyear said he refused to answer Tthe Globe question because it was “irrelevant†and his beliefs have nothing to do with government policy.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper stressed that creationism is not part of the federal science agenda.

Mr. Goodyear has been under fire lately over budget cuts that have left researchers across the county scrambling to find the money to continue their experiments

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

but wasn't he asked if he believes in evolution to which 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,†Gary Goodyear, the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

???

 

[Hydrogen]

If someone claims not to "believe" in evolution they may as well doubt the physical basis for things like the dating of the geological and biological past. It's not like evolution is a proposition that stands on its own. It's very existence as a theory is directly related to the success of a large number of other scientific processes.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

If someone claims not to "believe" in evolution they may as well doubt the physical basis for things like the dating of the geological and biological past. It's not like evolution is a proposition that stands on its own. It's very existence as a theory is directly related to the success of a large number of other scientific processes.

everything is pretty much intertwined.




p.s, apart from the evolution thing, doesn't anybody find it odd that a chiropractor was appointed the minister of science? someone who works in such a pseudo-scientific field has no right to decide what scientific sectors should or should not get funding IMO.

 

[Brian69]

i'm not sure about that. these government positions should be held by people who are competent in the role they are appointed to have. if you don't "believe" in evolution than you are not competent to be a minister of science.

Reminds me of Snobelin being minister of education under Harris in the '90s Never know what you might get, but in principle I think it would be nice.

At least Goodyear clarified things...sorta. Perhaps it was the pragmatist talking, the one who wants to keep his job amid this mild uproar.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

At least Goodyear clarified things...sorta. Perhaps it was the pragmatist talking, the one who wants to keep his job amid this mild uproar.

and if he's got a personal agenda, he can't get it done if he doesn't have the position.

he says "yes, i believe in evolution" as he tents his fingers and gives off a conspiring grin.

he then proceeds grind his axe, you know, the one he will use to chop funding and simultaneously do the lord's work. the axe got a little worn from its last use. gotta keep that thing in tip top condition!

 

[Hydrogen]

p.s, apart from the evolution thing, doesn't anybody find it odd that a chiropractor was appointed the minister of science? someone who works in such a pseudo-scientific field has no right to decide what scientific sectors should or should not get funding IMO.

Speaking of religions, there are the followers of chiropractic.

 

[kEiThZ]

Prometheus.

While I get what you are saying, I think there's a fine line on issues like this. Would we be permitted to ask say the person who evaluates scientific grants what their religious beliefs are with regards to evolution during a job interview? As a society we consider such questions discriminatory and rightly so. They have no bearing on the individual's ability to do the job. He is entitled to his personal views on evolution as long as that does not affect his decision-making process when it comes to policy making. That's the standard that's applied to the civil service. I don't see why it should be any different here. I think it's quite a slippery slope to say that here on in, Christian evangelists, or any other individual who's faith does not accept evolution, should not work in our scientific establishment. That's essentially the view of anybody who supports sacking a Science Minister who might not accept evolution.

That being said, you are right that it can be absurd. Why place an individual in a situation where their values might be in conflict with their work? That's poor management.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Prometheus.

While I get what you are saying, I think there's a fine line on issues like this. Would we be permitted to ask say the person who evaluates scientific grants what their religious beliefs are with regards to evolution during a job interview? As a society we consider such questions discriminatory and rightly so. They have no bearing on the individual's ability to do the job. He is entitled to his personal views on evolution as long as that does not affect his decision-making process when it comes to policy making. That's the standard that's applied to the civil service. I don't see why it should be any different here. I think it's quite a slippery slope to say that here on in, Christian evangelists, or any other individual who's faith does not accept evolution, should not work in our scientific establishment. That's essentially the view of anybody who supports sacking a Science Minister who might not accept evolution.

That being said, you are right that it can be absurd. Why place an individual in a situation where their values might be in conflict with their work? That's poor management.

a person can be religious and a scientist (or accept scientific discovery, theories, etc.) at the same time. for example, there is a famous scientist by the name of kenneth r. miller who defends evolutionary theory from creationist proponents who is a catholic. the problem is if someone rejects a scientific theory because it conflicts with with their personal belief, they shouldn't be a minister of science because they choose to reject knowledge. science is about knowledge, not about ignoring something because it doesn't agree with your beliefs. there is a huge conflict here with a potential for bad things/decisions to happen.


if someone is appointed to oversee and make decisions how science is conducted in this country, they sure as hell better understand the subject and not ignore a whole chunk of it because it conflicts with personal belief.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

imagine:

• a Minister of National Defence who doesn't believe in using weapons, ever.
  
• a Minister of the Environment or a Minister of Natural Resources who believes the rapture will happen in 2 years.
  
• a Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or a Minister of Foreign Affairs who believes jews are trying to take over the world.
  
• a Minister of Health who doesn't believe in germ theory but believes that epidemics are divine punishment.

now it's possible that these people could conduct their jobs without letting their personal bias get in the way of their work but COME ON!

 

[kEiThZ]

a person can be religious and a scientist (or accept scientific discovery, theories, etc.) at the same time. for example, there is a famous scientist (can't remember his name right now) who defends evolutionary theory from creationist proponents who is a catholic.

That's an easy one though. The Catholic Church does not dispute evolution.

 

[kEiThZ]

imagine:

• a Minister of National Defence who doesn't believe in using weapons, ever.
  
• a Minister of the Environment or a Minister of Natural Resources who believes the rapture will happen in 2 years.
  
• a Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or a Minister of Foreign Affairs who believes jews are trying to take over the world.
  
• a Minister of Health who doesn't believe in germ theory but believes that epidemics are divine punishment.

now it's possible that these people could conduct their jobs without letting their personal bias get in the way of their work but COME ON!

Point taken. But like I said, it's a very slippery slope to go down. We could well have folks with those views working at those very ministries right now. We don't ask them their religious views when the seek employment with the Government of Canada. That would be discrimination. All I am saying is that it's a dangerous precedent to start assessing an individual's suitability for a job based on that person's closely held religious views.

Your position is reasonable only if you are suggesting that we should be allowed discriminate for some jobs and screen out people based on their personal religious views. Although, our laws don't allow for that kind of discrimination, the political vetting process does allow for that. Perhaps, our political parties should actively discriminate when picking ministers. Some fairly blanket restrictions come to mind: No religious Christians should be Science Ministers, Muslims should not become Public Safety Ministers, and to avoid perpetuating the stereotypes we should try and keep Jews out of the Finance or Revenue portfolios, and Whites need not apply to become Immigration or Heritage Ministers. I think you get the picture of where discriminating on fairly scant evidence and based on somebody's personal religious views could lead us.

 

[afransen]

Prometheus.

While I get what you are saying, I think there's a fine line on issues like this. Would we be permitted to ask say the person who evaluates scientific grants what their religious beliefs are with regards to evolution during a job interview? As a society we consider such questions discriminatory and rightly so. They have no bearing on the individual's ability to do the job. He is entitled to his personal views on evolution as long as that does not affect his decision-making process when it comes to policy making. That's the standard that's applied to the civil service. I don't see why it should be any different here. I think it's quite a slippery slope to say that here on in, Christian evangelists, or any other individual who's faith does not accept evolution, should not work in our scientific establishment. That's essentially the view of anybody who supports sacking a Science Minister who might not accept evolution.

That being said, you are right that it can be absurd. Why place an individual in a situation where their values might be in conflict with their work? That's poor management.

This is politics and fair doesn't enter into it. Goodyear doesn't have a right to a ministerial portfolio, and he might well be dismissed for having religious beliefs inconsistent with contemporary scientific knowledge. Canadians 'fired' Dion because he had a funny accent and was a nerd, and Palin was ridiculed because she was a woman, not very sophisticated. McCain lost in part because he was old and had a high probability of dying in office. All unfair and discriminatory. Too bad. He should be resigned.

He also has shown breathtaking lack of professionalism. He literally shouted representatives of the Canadian Association of University Teachers out of his office for daring to critique the budget, to the point where one of the minister's aides had to go and fetch the coats they had left behind.

 

[kEiThZ]

^Again. Not defending his performance his office. In fact, I am bothered by the potential conflict between his religious views and the portfolio he has. However, I do have a problem with folks who are quick to judge someone and assume they are unfit for a job simply because of the religious views they hold. I'd like to think that there are folks out there who can separate their religious and professional views.