Really. I was going to leave this story alone because it already received so much attention, but having just seen Goodyear on Power Play, well I'm a bit confused.At the outset what bothered me the most about the story was the fact that Goodyear thought a science question was really a question about his religion. The question after all wasn't, do you believe in God?
“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 said at the time.
That he defensively made that leap, is disturbing. It speaks to his character and that temper we heard about recently. It also speaks to his judgement and confirms to me, once again, that the Conservatives really are not well equipped to be in the position of power. In that context I say thank gawd for the civil service experience.
It's now being reported that he does indeed believe in evolution...but listen to this clip. He says he didn't answer the question initially because it's not relevant to the portfolio. Huh? Is the Theory of Evolution relevant to the Science portfolio? Me thinks his effort to clear things up may have backfired. In fact, in a progressive country like Canada, in 2009, the fact that we have a Minister of the government having to clarify this is really disturbing isn't it?
Goodyear goes on to say that he does believe that we are evolving to our environment every day. Okay? Does that mean he believes in the Theory or has he given himself a cute little out here?
I heard a scientist interviewed tonight who was greatly disturbed. He had hundreds of e-mails from colleagues asking him if this was really true?
Dr. Brian Alters explained that it was and made no secret of being astonished. He actually said that had he been asked if this was possible in Canada he would have bet big money that it wasn't.
Maybe that's an example of how little people really know about this government. Draw your own conclusions as to why.
The PMO is trying to make this go away of course, but in my opinion, Tenycke is just making things worse.
Harper spokesman Kory Teneycke says creationism is not part of the federal science agenda.
No...you see guys, no one was asking that. They were asking if the Minister of Science, actually believed in science. Geesh.
If ever there was an example of that crazy paranoia that this group is accused of, this is it. In there minds someone is always out to get them, so they are always on the defensive. That's no way to run a government and there is nothing steady about it. That is knee jerk reacting.
Goodyear of course is entitled to his religious beliefs. He just shouldn't confuse them with his job. Imagine if the Minister of Heritage didn't believe in the Arts...oh wait. I mean, what if the Minister of the Environment didn't believe in Climate change...ah, no, that doesn't work. I know, what if the Minister of Justice believed in capital punishment and left Canadians on death row?...sigh.
I guess the real question is, what if the Prime Minister supported all of these positions and put these people in power for that reason?
18 comments:
Add to that a Minister of Immigration who doesn't believe in Immigration...
Indeed, the list is long but my head started hurting just thinking about it.
lol...
We seem to be comfortable getting all Old Testament about Israel so does this criticism really lie in the mouth of any Ignatieff Liberal? It's bad enough they're such shameless hypocrites. It would be terrific if we understood the importance to Liberals of not following suit.
That was delightfully catty, KNB. I hope Harper's had his shots!
Ah, yes, Mound of Sound taking every opportunity to bash Ignatieff, even though the topic has nothing to do with him.
Pathetic.
ADD there MoS - the discussion is about evolution - duh
He didn't clarify whether he believed in it or not - he just said we're evolving all the time. Evasive answer. Why evasive? Because he scared that if he said no he didn't believe in evolution/science there would be a backlash. Harper's orders probably.
MoS, aside from finding some reason for bashing Ignatieff...I'm really not following you.
You're calling me a hypocrite? Over this post? Really?
Well Sir Francis, the man left me no choice, ;).
I'm harmless though. No scientifically developed shots required.
Sandi, I can't say what Goodyear's motives for changing his story were and why he was still evasive.
I can say that this is not the first time I've heard a creationist play semantics with the whole concept.
In what way does this story really matter? Why should anyone care? I have a bucketful of reasons to oppose the Cons, the last thing I need is to invent wafer thin ones. Why should I or anyone else give a rat's sphincter about this clown? Why should anyone get even vaguely exorcised about him? With everything else vexing our society, our nation, our planet right now - overpopulation, pollution, global warming, resource depletion and species extinction, terrorism and global security - who gives a damn about somebody's looney notions of creationism? Move along, there's nothing to see here.
This was nothing but a failed attempt to embarrass the Minister (and, through him, the Conservative government). An offensive, bigotted and loaded question that served no other purpose than an attempt at "gotcha" journalism. Goodyear was too clever to fall for it, and too kind to respond the way he should have...by letting the questioner know how utterly offensive the question was and demanding an immediate apology.
Of course, anything that might possibly reflect badly on Prime Minister Stephen Harper is quite all right with you and your kind, isn't it? No matter how deceitful, underhanded, unethical, immoral or just plain low-class an action might be, it's all good with you, right?
MoS, well now. In my opinion, it's unlike you to live in such a narrow space let alone apply moral relativism.
I touched on a story that to me, somewhat illustrated the ineptitude of the people who lead this country and I tried to do it with a little levity.
Geesh.
I know you are unhappy with Ignatieff leading this party, but turning that anger against every Liberal is a little misplaced don't you think?
If as you say, (and I believe you), you are so incensed with Harper and co., wouldn't your anger be better directed toward them?
I find this whole 'fratricide' mentality being practiced by some more than counterproductive. It's tiresome.
Fred, immoral, unethical?
Lol. The guy was asked a question about science and he answered a non question about religion.
He's too polite? You obviously haven't watched him very much. Polite is not a word that comes to mind when you see him in action.
Get a grip Fred. Even you can't really believe what you're saying here.
Since when has it been established that knowledge of the theory of evolution is the embodiment of all sciences?? People can exhibit solid scientific knowledge without having a strong background in evolutionary theory... or even believe in it.
Pathetic partisan attack.
No one said it was the embodiment of all sciences.
It is however disingenuous to suggest that someone has a firm grasp in this field if they do not view the Theory with certitude.
That said, it's not imperative that Minister have that same certitude, however it certainly would go a long way toward his credibility.
I'd say a petty partisan attack would be something like, oh I don't know, mocking someone for having a French accent?
"No one said it was the embodiment of all sciences."
I disgree...many blogs, Liberal and Conservative, are suggesting that Goodyear's lack of commitment to evolutionary theory makes him unfit and that by extension he must be scientifically illiterate or uncommitted to science. Everyone seems to be focusing on evolution and not the other sciences, so what other conclusion can one make? I maintain, you can be eminently scientific and not necessarily subscribe to evolution.
It is however disingenuous to suggest that someone has a firm grasp in this field if they do not view the Theory with certitude.
That said, it's not imperative that Minister have that same certitude, however it certainly would go a long way toward his credibility.
"Credibility" in who's eyes? As I've always maintained science goes beyond the myopic stance that evolution is the be-all and end-all of science. It is merely one small part. To repeat, you can be scientific and not necessarily subscribe to the notions of evolution.
Again, without any real forethought on most contributor's minds, this seems to be a partisan attack.
"I find this whole 'fratricide' mentality being practiced by some more than counterproductive. It's tiresome."
And, when they get 10 dippers voting up any bash post, they think it's a sign they're on to something. One guy thinks 50 people reading his blog, half of which are they to see what the latest turd is, out of amusement, is indicative of a "boiling" on the water. The disconnect from reality is staggering, people take themselves WAY to seriously. We're all just nobody's with a typewriter, and it's pure folly to extrapolate your little world onto the bigger picture. I learned this in 2004, when the blogosphere had me convinced that Dean was ready to sweep Wisconsin, his comeback complete. He got CREAMED :)
Post a Comment