So Canadas Science Minister Is A Christian

[pezeveng 207]

Can you be a Christian and believe in evolution at the same time? Can the 2 be mutually inclusive?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."Asked to clarify if he was talking about the role of a creator, Mr. Goodyear said that the interview was getting off topic.Brian Alters, founder and director of the Evolution Education Research Centre at McGill University in Montreal, was shocked by the minister's comments.Evolution is a scientific fact, Dr. Alters said, and the foundation of modern biology, genetics and paleontology. It is taught at universities and accepted by many of the world's major religions, he said."It is the same as asking the gentleman, 'Do you believe the world is flat?' and he doesn't answer on religious grounds," said Dr. Alters. "Or gravity, or plate tectonics, or that the Earth goes around the sun."Jim Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said he was flabbergasted that the minister would invoke his religion when asked about evolution."The traditions of science and the reliance on testable and provable knowledge has served us well for several hundred years and have been the basis for most of our advancement. It is inconceivable that a government would have a minister of science that rejects the basis of scientific discovery and traditions," he said.Mr. Goodyear's evasive answers on evolution are unlikely to reassure the scientists who are skeptical about him, and they bolster the notion that there is a divide between the minister and the research community.Many scientists fear 10 years of gains will be wiped out by a government that doesn't understand the importance of basic, curiosity-driven research, which history shows leads to the big discoveries. They worry Canada's best will decamp for the United States, where President Barack Obama has put $10-billion (U.S) into medical research as part of his plan to stimulate economic growth.But in the interview, Mr. Goodyear defended his government's approach and the January budget, and said it stacks up well when compared to what Mr. Obama is doing.He also talked about how passionate he is about science and technology - including basic research - and how his life before politics shaped his views.Now 51, Mr. Goodyear grew up in Cambridge. His parents divorced when he was young. His father was a labourer, his mother a seamstress who worked three jobs to the support her three children.His first summer job was laying asphalt when he was 12. At 13, he got a part-time job at a garage, pumping gas. At 17, the young entrepreneur started his own company selling asphalt and sealants.He was in the technical stream at high school, taking welding and automotive mechanics. No one in has family had ever gone to university, but he secretly started taking academic credits at night school so he could get admitted to the University of Waterloo. He didn't want his family to know.He took chemistry, physics, statistics and kinesiology, and was fascinated by the mechanics of human joints. After three years of university, he was admitted to the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, where he was class president and valedictorian.He had his own practice in Cambridge, where he settled down with his wife Valerie. He worked as chiropractor for two decades, and set up private clinics to treat people who had been injured in car accidents, sometimes using devices that he invented to help them rebuild their strength and range of motion.He had sold that business when, before the 2004 federal election, a friend approached him about running for the Conservative nomination in Cambridge. His two children were then in their late teens, so he agreed. He took the nomination and won the seat. He was re-elected in 2006, and again in 2008, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper named him science minister."Now I have got a portfolio that I am absolutely passionate about and frankly connected to," he said, adding that his days of experimenting with engines in high school automotive class gave him an appreciation for what it feels like to come up with something new."When I was in high school, we were already tweaking with a coil that would wrap around the upper [radiator] hose and it got an extra five miles to the gallon. ... So I've been there on this discovery stuff."Commercializing research - the focus of the government's science and technology policy - is an area where Canada needs to make improvements, he says."If we are going to be serious about saving lives and improving life around this planet, if we are serious about helping the environment, then we are going to have to get some of these technologies out of the labs onto the factory floors. Made. Produced. Sold. And that is going to fulfill that talk. So yes, we have to do all of it, we have to do discovery ... but it can't end there."

[navybuttons 15]

kid A: a godless government? then who will be in charge of denying all advances in science?kid B: the secretary of BOO-YA!

[Sal Paradise 57]

kid A

I agree.

[aucu 3]

National research grants.Thats what they are called in Canada and every grad student is out to get them, they have always been the subject of fads.If you are studying the mating habits of bed bugs and want a grant just make up a tie in to with global warming and presto you get funded. If you want to keep your funding make conclutions that are PC to the National research council.It can and does distort the bulk and direction of research.

[crowTrobot 2]

[timwakefield 68]

WOWWWW your science minister is retarded. It's almost like in 1984 when the war cabinet was called like the Ministry of Peace and the torture building was the Ministry of Love or whatever. In Canada the most backward, naive, anti-scientific person in the country is called the Minister of Science.

[coesillian 0]

That article blows me away."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,"this is a notion that our society has to move past. Yes you have a religion, and you are entitled to practice it, but we do have a right to question it. Just because he is Christian he acts as if he should not be questioned, but you are the Minister of SCIENCE and you're refusing to answer question about fundamental science that is taught to children in the name of religion? This is absolutely unacceptable. If he can't prioritize his functions as cabinet Minister above his personal beliefs then he shouldn't hold the position he has. We live in a secular state, your religion should not have any effect on the way you govern. His beliefs are preventing him from acknowledging FACTS. He is rejecting science because of his personal beliefs, I respect that choice for regular people, but as a society how can let a man with these ideologies be our minister of science?

[Loismustdie 0]

That article blows me away."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,"this is a notion that our society has to move past. Yes you have a religion, and you are entitled to practice it, but we do have a right to question it. Just because he is Christian he acts as if he should not be questioned, but you are the Minister of SCIENCE and you're refusing to answer question about fundamental science that is taught to children in the name of religion? This is absolutely unacceptable. If he can't prioritize his functions as cabinet Minister above his personal beliefs then he shouldn't hold the position he has. We live in a secular state, your religion should not have any effect on the way you govern. His beliefs are preventing him from acknowledging FACTS. He is rejecting science because of his personal beliefs, I respect that choice for regular people, but as a society how can let a man with these ideologies be our minister of science?

I like your lose interpetation of facts. It's literally how a guy like Obama gets elected.

[vbnautilus 48]

I like your lose interpetation of facts. It's literally how a guy like Obama gets elected.

This kind of thinking is exactly why there is a traffic problem in L.A.

[Loismustdie 0]

This kind of thinking is exactly why there is a traffic problem in L.A.

Not to mention that kind of spelling is what's wrong with public schooling. Why would anybody be all up in arms because someone in government is not qualified? Our president is not qualified, and nearly everyone he chooses. People not being qualified for damn near anything is a huge prob in government. That being said, this gentleman evidently believes in creation and a God of some sort. Big deal- most of you generally argue that evolution does not disprove God, anyway, so why whine about it? At some point you guys just come out looking prejudiced against anyone who doesn't follow your tune, which is it's own problem, is it not?

[coesillian 0]

Not to mention that kind of spelling is what's wrong with public schooling. Why would anybody be all up in arms because someone in government is not qualified? Our president is not qualified, and nearly everyone he chooses. People not being qualified for damn near anything is a huge prob in government. That being said, this gentleman evidently believes in creation and a God of some sort. Big deal- most of you generally argue that evolution does not disprove God, anyway, so why whine about it? At some point you guys just come out looking prejudiced against anyone who doesn't follow your tune, which is it's own problem, is it not?

you answer your own question there.I'm not prejudice against believers, I respect their choice. But just because their beliefs are religious their is a taboo about questioning them. I have a problem with that, especially when his beliefs directly interfere with him doing his job properly, and even more so when his job is directly related to the growth and development of our society.Too much leeway is given to people in the name of religion. We should not accept that the science minister avoids answering questions about evolution because it directly interferes with his religious beliefs. His job is too important, his personal beliefs have to come 2nd.

[vbnautilus 48]

Not to mention that kind of spelling is what's wrong with public schooling. Why would anybody be all up in arms because someone in government is not qualified? Our president is not qualified, and nearly everyone he chooses. People not being qualified for damn near anything is a huge prob in government. That being said, this gentleman evidently believes in creation and a God of some sort. Big deal- most of you generally argue that evolution does not disprove God, anyway, so why whine about it? At some point you guys just come out looking prejudiced against anyone who doesn't follow your tune, which is it's own problem, is it not?

I do think it is a problem if the person in charge of implementing the scientific progress of an entire country does not accept the methods of science himself. This guy is supposed to be championing science -- that role is not compatible with shrugging off one of the most thoroughly supported scientific theories in favor of a religious idea. It would be kind of like having a pope who didn't really think the bible was the word of god. Not really the guy for the job.

[bigkg 0]

Some have expressed concern that Mr. Goodyear, a chiropractor from Cambridge, Ont., is suspicious of science, perhaps because he is a creationist.

lol

[speedz99 145]

"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,"this is a notion that our society has to move past. Yes you have a religion, and you are entitled to practice it, but we do have a right to question it.

I don't think we have a right to question it unless it directly interferes with his duties...which it's now doing.

Our president is not qualified, and nearly everyone he chooses.

The vast majority of his appointments are far more qualified than their predecessors.

this gentleman evidently believes in creation and a God of some sort. Big deal- most of you generally argue that evolution does not disprove God, anyway, so why whine about it?

Nobody is whining about his believing in god. Hell, nobody is whining about some random guy not believing in evolution. We're flabbergasted that the SCIENCE MINISTER doesn't believe in evolution. To try and put yourself in our shoes for a minute...think about how you would react if we had a Surgeon General who believed in faith healing over modern medicine. It's fine for him to think that, but just plain silly for him to be appointed to that position. Not the end of the world, just kind of roll-your-eyes stupid.

[MemBirdman 0]

I'm relatively new, feel free to skewer... What I have a problem with is how the (apparent) majority posting can't see that the methodology of science is different from the conclusions that are based on the methods used. And in the scientific process, there is a rule that states (paraphrased), "The truth is the truth....until we find something else out, then we'll figure out the new truth." So in that degree of ambiguity, why is there a problem with someone thinking, "What God has said will be found to have been right all along. I'll do what I can to catch up."? And for that matter, how is that any different from a scientist completely disregarding the Bible, basically saying, "There is no truth to be found in this, so whatever conclusions I'll have cannot coincide with what is in there."? It's the two bias sides of the same coin. So if you are going to allow one, it is reasonable to be able to allow the other. Niether changes the METHOD and the concern should be how the individual's expectations influence processing the observations and data. Not just from the one side, but from BOTH.

[crowTrobot 2]

What I have a problem with is how the (apparent) majority posting can't see that the methodology of science is different from the conclusions that are based on the methods used. And in the scientific process, there is a rule that states (paraphrased), "The truth is the truth....until we find something else out, then we'll figure out the new truth."

that's a mischaracterization. science deals with truth in terms of probability, and the probability of something being objectively true has to be extremely high (so close to 100% that it effectively is 100%) for anything to be considered practical fact. anything less and science doesn't consider it "truth" in the sense you mean.

So in that degree of ambiguity, why is there a problem with someone thinking, "What God has said will be found to have been right all along. I'll do what I can to catch up."?

the trouble is many empirical claims in the bible have been shown to be objectively false - that is the probability of them being true is low enough to effectively be zero. this dude (i assume) believes in things that don't just contradict the current "best guess" science has for things we don't fully understand. he believes in things that are unambiguously false. that's why he's being attacked.

And for that matter, how is that any different from a scientist completely disregarding the Bible, basically saying, "There is no truth to be found in this, so whatever conclusions I'll have cannot coincide with what is in there."? It's the two bias sides of the same coin. So if you are going to allow one, it is reasonable to be able to allow the other. Niether changes the METHOD and the concern should be how the individual's expectations influence processing the observations and data. Not just from the one side, but from BOTH.

multiple straw men there. non-christians do not say there is "no" truth to be found in the bible, and non-christians do not base their worldview specifically to contradict the bible.

[MemBirdman 0]

that's a mischaracterization. science deals with truth in terms of probability, and the probability of something being objectively true has to be extremely high (so close to 100% that it effectively is 100%) for anything to be considered practical fact. anything less and science doesn't consider it "truth" in the sense you mean.

It was a bit of a mischaracterization, but doesn't change that there is a degree of error, where the very definitions used in the scientific process acknowledge that the use of such will never be able to determine something as absolute. It's a positive in that things are always being learned, but a negative in this discussion because it is butting heads with something that says that there is an absolute. Science can't prove it, but it can't disprove it either. Which leads to...

the trouble is many empirical claims in the bible have been shown to be objectively false - that is the probability of them being true is low enough to effectively be zero. this dude (i assume) believes in things that don't just contradict the current "best guess" science has for things we don't fully understand. he believes in things that are unambiguously false. that's why he's being attacked.

Unambiguously false based on the observations that scientists have made to effectively guess about unobserved history. I would be willing to get into those things that are supposedly unambiguously false. Just don't unload your entire argument at once, because that shows me you're more interested in making your points than having a dialogue and I won't make time for that. I'm inviting the discussion, but don't think for a second I'll respond to malice.

multiple straw men there. non-christians do not say there is "no" truth to be found in the bible, and non-christians do not base their worldview specifically to contradict the bible.

Consider it the end of the spectrum. I do think there are scientists who do think that because the Bible is garbage, any conclusion that gets close to agreeing with what the Bible says should be disregarded. Just like I think that there are Christian scientists who think "Science" and the Bible are not at odds and that they will naturally gravitate to conclusions that coincide with what the Bible says. Do I think that all scientists fall into those two categories? No. But I do think that those two points are the two ends of the spectrum that, for the sake of this conversation, all scientists fall somewhere into.

[MemBirdman 0]

Sorry...double post

[KramitDaToad 0]

Just don't unload your entire argument at once, because that shows me you're more interested in making your points than having a dialogue and I won't make time for that. I'm inviting the discussion, but don't think for a second I'll respond to malice.

Crow is probably one of the most non-malicious posters in the religion forum. I don't think your in any danger of being called names

I do think there are scientists who do think that because the Bible is garbage, any conclusion that gets close to agreeing with what the Bible says should be disregarded.

Any examples of this?

[crowTrobot 2]

It was a bit of a mischaracterization, but doesn't change that there is a degree of error, where the very definitions used in the scientific process acknowledge that the use of such will never be able to determine something as absolute. It's a positive in that things are always being learned, but a negative in this discussion because it is butting heads with something that says that there is an absolute. Science can't prove it, but it can't disprove it either.

the direction you're going with this argument is no different than saying it's valid for someone to believe that the earth doesn't revolve around the sun because science can't prove it does in terms of philosophical absolutes. scientific truths ARE absolute truths for practical purposes. when the "degree of error" is vanishingly small using it as an argument to validate belief in something contradictory is just being impractical - it's nothing more than a lame excuse to circumvent reason and believe something because you want to believe it, regardless of the probabililty of it being true. religious fundamentalists do this all the time, and it's really just a form of self-delusion

Unambiguously false based on the observations that scientists have made to effectively guess about unobserved history. I would be willing to get into those things that are supposedly unambiguously false.

for something to be considered unambiguously false by science there has to be mountains of contradictory evidence and zero supporting evidence. a "young" earth, a truly global flood, and literal creationism as an alternative to speciation by descent with modification are examples of things that qualify, where there is no guessing required at all. if this guy is being attacked it's for belief in this type of empirically disproved stuff. i doubt this is a matter of someone believing in christianity or god just in general.

Consider it the end of the spectrum. I do think there are scientists who do think that because the Bible is garbage, any conclusion that gets close to agreeing with what the Bible says should be disregarded.

false. there is no specific bias against the bible anywhere in science. by nature of the current pattern of evidence of how the universe operates science has to take the default position that ANY metaphysical claim is garbage until evidence indicates otherwise, paricularly if it's a claim made by primitive superstitious humans who had no understanding of the universe. that's a general principal that has nothing specifically to do with the bible. otherwise obviously a lot of evidence supports much of the bible as being based in actual historical events, and no scientist would tell you nothing in the bible can be true by default.

Just like I think that there are Christian scientists who think "Science" and the Bible are not at odds and that they will naturally gravitate to conclusions that coincide with what the Bible says. Do I think that all scientists fall into those two categories? No. But I do think that those two points are the two ends of the spectrum that, for the sake of this conversation, all scientists fall somewhere into.

no real scientist gravitates anywhere without objective evidence. you must be referring to the charlatans who write pseudo-science creationist propaganda for money/fame.

[vbnautilus 48]

What I have a problem with is how the (apparent) majority posting can't see that the methodology of science is different from the conclusions that are based on the methods used. And in the scientific process, there is a rule that states (paraphrased), "The truth is the truth....until we find something else out, then we'll figure out the new truth." So in that degree of ambiguity, why is there a problem with someone thinking, "What God has said will be found to have been right all along. I'll do what I can to catch up."?

Welcome. I have some serious issues with the way you phrased this 'rule', but I think what you are trying to get at is that science always maintains some degree of uncertainty. However, the last sentence seems to make a huge leap from that to something like 'and therefore all theories are equally plausible'. That is not the point of science at all. Using the method of science you would describe your theory in a way that the evidence could confirm or disconfirm it, and gather the appropriate evidence. If your starting hypothesis is that everything in the Bible is true, you would then look at the evidence and decide if that hypothesis is supported. Virtually everyone who employs this method with regards to the Bible comes to the conclusion that the evidence does not support the complete truth of what is written. Those who believe in the Bible generally do not do so based on an objective review of the evidence.

[Balloon guy 158]

no real scientist gravitates anywhere without objective evidence. you must be referring to the charlatans who write pseudo-science creationist propaganda for money/fame.

Or he could have meant the ones who helped Algore get his Nobel

[Balloon guy 158]

Virtually everyone who employs this method with regards to the Bible comes to the conclusion that the evidence does not support the complete truth of what is written. Those who believe in the Bible generally do not do so based on an objective review of the evidence.

This is about as wrong as two left feet.But it's based on your feelings and not facts so I can understand how you came to this conclusion.

[vbnautilus 48]

This is about as wrong as two left feet.

That is sooo sinistrophobic.

[Balloon guy 158]

That is sooo sinistrophobic.

I am sooo going to google that