I read that at another site. Not sure what this clown is other than being unable to take and unambiguous stand.

So yeah, you’re darn tootin’ this is a relevant question. And for him to say otherwise is a denial of reality both politically and, well, realistically.

The question of accepting evolution gets to the heart of the matter. Creationists reject science, so how can they serve in a position whose purpose is to promote it?

There's no question it's relevant. I can't believe someone would argue it's not. OK, I can believe it.

OT: Obama compares AIG to a suicide bomber:

[Link: www.powerlineblog.com...]

I think it's on purpose. Class warfare, ho!

Religious faith has no place in science, although many great scientists have been men/women of faith of some kind. Either keep you religious beliefs to yourself or proclaim them from the rooftops.

Literally serving in bad faith.

But tell me, how would you feel if the head of your federal science department told you he believes the Earth is flat? Or the Sun revolves around the Earth?

Actually nothing would surprise me anymore. Especially if its "federal".

re: #2 Sharmuta

The question of accepting evolution gets to the heart of the matter. Creationists reject science, so how can they serve in a position whose purpose is to promote it?

I need a word. Creationism is out.
A word for someone who believes in the Bible and it's creation story as the spiritual and metaphysical explanation. But also knows and understands the physical evidence that the universe presents us.

A principled person would not accept such a job as Science Minister if they didn't accept science.

The guy came out and said he "believes". How come that doesn't settle the matter?

re: #8 Sharmuta

A principled person would not accept such a job as Science Minister if they didn't accept science.

Or a corollary: A principled person would elucidate his position when the job was offered.

re: #9 kansas

The guy came out and said he "believes". How come that doesn't settle the matter?

Poorly worded question.
One believes in God and Creation, a matter of faith.
One knows the evidence and science of evolution.

Even the Bible makes the distinction. Two trees remember?

According to what I've read, Goodyear refused to answer if he was creationist in his beliefs or not, which is prudent given that his personal beliefs are irrelevant for maintaining a job and the extraordinary wariness in which religion is held in Canada. None of this matters. Canadians are religion-phobes. No one with a modicum of religious values would be able to hold on or keep a job if he was motivated by religious beliefs. Look no further than the House of Commons or the brain-trusts who teach in Catholic schools.

The Canadian system of government is so different from the US that the personal feelings or beliefs of the minister are of little consequence. It's the Prime Minister and the caucus that make the rules, and in the minority parliament that we have, even that is regulated by the opposition in the House.
Everyone in cabinet is an MP, including the Prime Minister and all are subject to our famed national blood-letting sport, "Question Period" where any and all topics may be attempted.
What he tried to say, as I read it, was that it didn't matter what his personal beliefs are, it's the policy of the government that matters. And he's right.

Then there is Paul Hellyer the former Canadian Minister of Defence who was on the circuit in 2005 speaking about his belief in UFO's and warning the world of the intergalactic war Bush/Cheney were preparing to launch against space aliens from a base on the dark side of the moon.

Creationism dismissed as 'a kind of paganism' by Vatican's astronomer:
[Link: news.scotsman.com...]

Brother Consolmagno, who works in a Vatican observatory in Arizona and as curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy, said a "destructive myth" had developed in modern society that religion and science were competing ideologies.

He described creationism, whose supporters want it taught in schools alongside evolution, as a "kind of paganism" because it harked back to the days of "nature gods" who were responsible for natural events.

[...]

"Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god. And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do."

Those beliefs have just as much basis as young Earth creationism: they are faith-based only, and have no evidence for them, and about a billion solid pieces of evidence against them.

The weasel slips in the YEC phrase - as if noone would notice.
Of course we at LGF know the difference between young and old.
What a dishonest tool.

re: #15 Basho

He described creationism, whose supporters want it taught in schools alongside evolution, as a "kind of paganism" because it harked back to the days of "nature gods" who were responsible for natural events.

Dang. Tell us what ya really think!

As an agnostic I am quite frankly more surprised by the overly defensive rhetoric of the non-believers than by the pigheadedness of the religious zealots.

He said YEC because believing a god created a multibillion year old universe and used evolution to diversify life on Earth isn't as dead wrong as those other irrational beliefs he was equating YEC to.

re: #11 jcm

Poorly worded question.
One believes in God and Creation, a matter of faith.
One knows the evidence and science of evolution.

Even the Bible makes the distinction. Two trees remember?

So yesterday I asked if Gary Goodyear, the Canadian Minister for Science and Technology — the highest science official in Canada — was a creationist, because he was being pretty dodgy about his answer to the question, "Do you believe in evolution?"

That's what he was asked. So I'm wondering if he is perhaps not the idiot he is being made out to be? Usually, however, I am wrong about these things.

This issue is addressed in today's National Post by Jonathan Kay. The money quote: "...there was no gaffe here - just a journo-concocted pseudo-scandal aimed at the one group in society that is fair game for abuse in the mainstream Canadian media: white, male, English Christians. ... If it becomes a real scandal, it will be solely due to the Toronto media's own echo chamber - not anything Goodyear actually said."

This is just a case of a left-leaning journalist writing for a left-leaning paper (think NY Times) twisting the words of a right of centre politician. Sound familiar?

re: #9 kansas

The guy came out and said he "believes". How come that doesn't settle the matter?

Because creationists tend to lie.

re: #17 Mich-again

Dang. Tell us what ya really think!

I'm sure he's a controversial figure even among his colleagues, but hearing someone speak so bluntly to the press is music to the ears. Sad that it is so rare.

re: #21 JamesR

This issue is addressed in today's National Post by Jonathan Kay. The money quote: "...there was no gaffe here - just a journo-concocted pseudo-scandal aimed at the one group in society that is fair game for abuse in the mainstream Canadian media: white, male, English Christians. ... If it becomes a real scandal, it will be solely due to the Toronto media's own echo chamber - not anything Goodyear actually said."

This is just a case of a left-leaning journalist writing for a left-leaning paper (think NY Times) twisting the words of a right of centre politician. Sound familiar?

Kay's article is absolutely full of ridiculous distortions. It reads like a press release from the Discovery Institute.

re: #21 JamesR

This issue is addressed in today's National Post by Jonathan Kay. The money quote: "...there was no gaffe here - just a journo-concocted pseudo-scandal aimed at the one group in society that is fair game for abuse in the mainstream Canadian media: white, male, English Christians. ... If it becomes a real scandal, it will be solely due to the Toronto media's own echo chamber - not anything Goodyear actually said."

This is just a case of a left-leaning journalist writing for a left-leaning paper (think NY Times) twisting the words of a right of centre politician. Sound familiar?

No- this is a case of a political hack twisting and obfuscating his answers. The left doesn't have a monopoly on such things.

re: #12 Joan Not of Arc

According to what I've read, Goodyear refused to answer if he was creationist in his beliefs or not, which is prudent given that his personal beliefs are irrelevant for maintaining a job and the extraordinary wariness in which religion is held in Canada. None of this matters. Canadians are religion-phobes. No one with a modicum of religious values would be able to hold on or keep a job if he was motivated by religious beliefs. Look no further than the House of Commons or the brain-trusts who teach in Catholic schools.

What Goodyear did was to claim that the question of whether he accepted evolution or not was a religious rather than a scientific question (as if evolution was a matter of faith rather than science and belief rather than empirical knowledge), then haul out that tired old creationist argument from ignorance canard. And then the next day clumsily attempted to walk his answer back, but ended up proffering Lamarckianism, a historical alternative to Darwinian evolution that has been discredited and debunked for more than a century.

And seeing as how he has zeroed out the 2009 budget for genomic research in Canada, something he did to none of the other programs under his purview, one can only conclude that whether he is anti-evolution evolutioparily illiterate or both, his personal position has had dire and drastic consequences for Canadian bioscience funding.

Perhaps some people don't understand how things are viewed in Canada. Even if Goodyear was a creationist, it wouldn't matter because he could never implement what some people fear he might. Furthermore, religion isn't viewed with skepticism here; it's viewed with outright contempt. And do you know what passes for science in Canada? People still think the Kyoto Accord is "environmentally sound" and should be public policy worldwide.

For example:

But according to militant secularists -- given disgracefully prominent play by The Globe and Mail on the front page of yesterday's edition -- that's not good enough. They want everyone in society, or at least everyone leading this country, to dogmatically subscribe to the minority view that God had no role at all in human creation.

This is nothing but overheated ad hominem rhetoric. Not a single person in this controversy has said they want Canada's politicians to "dogmatically subscribe" to anything. What crap.

re: #26 Salamantis

That about explains it best :D

re: #27 Joan Not of Arc

Perhaps some people don't understand how things are viewed in Canada. Even if Goodyear was a creationist, it wouldn't matter because he could never implement what some people fear he might.

He could "zero[] out the 2009 budget for genomic research in Canada."*

* Sal's quote.

And Kay even equates belief in God with creationism:

The 1992 decision, which upheld the broad constitutional right to abortion, was slammed by conservatives for the touchy-feely way it conceived human morality and metaphysics. Yet those same words should reverberate in our minds as noisy activists, and their journalistic allies, try to convince us that a person's private belief in God disqualifies him from a leadership role in Canadian politics.

Deceptive articles like this convince me even more that Goodyear is a closet creationist.

[Link: network.nationalpost.com...]

Some quotes:

Canadians differ on whether a supernatural entity had a role in the creation of human life. In a 2007 poll, 26% of respondents said they believe in creationism, 29% picked evolution, and 34% said they believe in some combination of the two.

But according to militant secularists — given disgracefully prominent play by the Globe & Mail in today's edition — that's not good enough. They want everyone in society — or at least everyone leading this country — to dogmatically subscribe to the minority view that God had no role at all in human creation.

As if accepting evolution and accepting theism are mutually contradictory, and as if the truth of a matter were some popularity contest. And Jonathan Kay is too much of an ignorant dumbass to recognize that what Goodyear later endorsed was not genetic evolution, but quack Lamarckianism.

People have a right to expect that their ministers of government understand and accept the basic principles and tenets of that which is placed under their purview.

re: #9 kansas

The guy came out and said he "believes". How come that doesn't settle the matter?

It's kind of like the bishop who has been a Holocaust denier. He's been told that in order to get back into Pope Benedict's good graces, he needs to recant this view.

OK, so what would that mean? "I used to believe the Holocaust was a hoax, but now I think it really happened"? What are we supposed to believe changed? I'd want a much more detailed accounting of his beliefs, and how he arrived at them before I accept any such "recantation" at face value.

In the case of Goodyear, is this a real recantation? Is it a recantation strictly on the basis of saying what he needs to say to get the job? Or, if he's been misunderstood, what quotes of his have been taken out of context, and what was the real context that makes everything OK?

One concern I have with his statements supporting evolution is that Creationists make a big point of drawing a distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution". Micro-evolution is supposedly evolution "within kinds", and in practice, is evolution so well established even Creationists can't deny it. Macro-evolution is evolution "between kinds", and which Creationists continue to obfuscate. (It helps that no one has ever defined "kind")

When he stands up and says, "All right, I believe in evolution", I'd want his answers to some specific questions. For example, does he accept that humans and lobsters have a common ancestor? How about the notion that living things evolve according to well-defined, discoverable, and mechanistic rules?

re: #27 Joan Not of Arc

Perhaps some people don't understand how things are viewed in Canada. Even if Goodyear was a creationist, it wouldn't matter because he could never implement what some people fear he might. Furthermore, religion isn't viewed with skepticism here; it's viewed with outright contempt. And do you know what passes for science in Canada? People still think the Kyoto Accord is "environmentally sound" and should be public policy worldwide.

What the hell do you call zeroing out the 2009 funding for Genome Canada, while leaving other programs largely untouched? Sure looks like a catastrophic implementation of personal prejudices against evolutionary bioscience to me.

Colby Cosh responds to Jonathan Kay's ridiculous article:

[Link: www.nationalpost.com...]

re: #13 intrrnet

The Canadian system of government is so different from the US that the personal feelings or beliefs of the minister are of little consequence. It's the Prime Minister and the caucus that make the rules, and in the minority parliament that we have, even that is regulated by the opposition in the House.
Everyone in cabinet is an MP, including the Prime Minister and all are subject to our famed national blood-letting sport, "Question Period" where any and all topics may be attempted.
What he tried to say, as I read it, was that it didn't matter what his personal beliefs are, it's the policy of the government that matters. And he's right.

What matters a shitload is when he morphs his personal beliefs into public policy, by selectively zeroing out genetic bioscience funding.

re: #35 Charles

Hehe. What a coincidence... I just discovered Colby Cosh today. He's great.

In simple terms, there's no problem believing in evolution and religion, but it's impossible to believe in creationism and science.

re: #11 jcm

re: #9 kansas

The guy came out and said he "believes". How come that doesn't settle the matter?

Poorly worded question.
One believes in God and Creation, a matter of faith.
One knows the evidence and science of evolution.

Even the Bible makes the distinction. Two trees remember?

Among many good points that have been raised above, this one shouldn't be lost. Someone who holds a position entitled "Science Minister," unless the title itself is a joke, should know enough to respond to such a question that evolution is not a "belief" but a scientifically proven theory (in the scientific sense of that word) and that he accepts the overwhelming evidence that supports it. Goodyear's attempts at walking this back only dig him in deeper.

re: #35 Charles

From that article:

Goodyear need not be challenged on his religious beliefs, but there is nothing wrong with interrogating him about his scientific ones. And insofar as his religious beliefs may impinge on his scientific opinions, they obviously become fair game for discussion.

Having read the other thread too, I'm a little surprised by some of the reactions from Canadians. This quote seems fairly reasonable, and I'm not sure why it's so difficult to grasp.

Nonsense. Goodyear's views would have no bearing if he was entirely secularist. Creationism and evolution are secondary here. Someone just has a problem with Goodyear, something they would would hesitate to bring up with less qualified people.
Whatever funding is granted to scientists in Canada has been woefully lacking for years, with some exceptions. I doubt whatever fears people may have about Goodyear may be realised.
I am neither supporting or condemning this man. I just find this quibble incredibly curious as it wouldn't be raised at any other time.

re: #35 Charles

Colby Cosh responds to Jonathan Kay's ridiculous article:

[Link: www.nationalpost.com...]

Charles, I think it might be a good idea to add a link to this to your post.

/please don't thwack me!

re: #41 Joan Not of Arc

Nonsense. Goodyear's views would have no bearing if he was entirely secularist. Creationism and evolution are secondary here. Someone just has a problem with Goodyear, something they would would hesitate to bring up with less qualified people.
Whatever funding is granted to scientists in Canada has been woefully lacking for years, with some exceptions. I doubt whatever fears people may have about Goodyear may be realised.
I am neither supporting or condemning this man. I just find this quibble incredibly curious as it wouldn't be raised at any other time.

WTF?!? You actually can attempt to straight-facedly maintain that someone who doesn't accept basic scientific tenets is qualified to make fiscal discisions for funding scientific research for a whole damn first world country?

Maybe you'd also like to place someone who can't read as head of the Ministry of Education, or nominate Typhoid Mary to head the Ministry of Health, or maybe Gandhi to head the War Department.

re: #41 Joan Not of Arc

Nonsense. Goodyear's views would have no bearing if he was entirely secularist. Creationism and evolution are secondary here. Someone just has a problem with Goodyear, something they would would hesitate to bring up with less qualified people.
Whatever funding is granted to scientists in Canada has been woefully lacking for years, with some exceptions. I doubt whatever fears people may have about Goodyear may be realised.
I am neither supporting or condemning this man. I just find this quibble incredibly curious as it wouldn't be raised at any other time.

If he was entirely secularist or even rationally religious, he wouldn't have responded to a question as to whether he "believed" in evolution by saying that questions about his religion are inappropriate. That would have been a total non sequitur. He's the one who brought his religious views into this.

re: #41 Joan Not of Arc

Nonsense. Goodyear's views would have no bearing if he was entirely secularist. Creationism and evolution are secondary here. Someone just has a problem with Goodyear, something they would would hesitate to bring up with less qualified people.
Whatever funding is granted to scientists in Canada has been woefully lacking for years, with some exceptions. I doubt whatever fears people may have about Goodyear may be realised.
I am neither supporting or condemning this man. I just find this quibble incredibly curious as it wouldn't be raised at any other time.

And as far as Goodyear's qualifications are concerned, they are spotty at best. He dropped out of regular college, then got a degree in chiropractics. He has never taken a single course having anything to do with bioscience or evolution.

re: #45 Salamantis

This sounds like of some of obambis' appointments. People spectacularly unqualified for the jobs they've been assigned.

re: #7 jcm

I need a word. Creationism is out.
A word for someone who believes in the Bible and it's creation story as the spiritual and metaphysical explanation. But also knows and understands the physical evidence that the universe presents us.

Christian Scientist? No, wait, that's taken.

Biblical Metaphysicist?

re: #15 Basho

Creationism dismissed as 'a kind of paganism' by Vatican's astronomer:
[Link: news.scotsman.com...]

What a super job. The Pope's Astonomer.

re: #47 SanFranciscoZionist

Christian Scientist? No, wait, that's taken.

Biblical Metaphysicist?

Teleologist?

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Or is that too design-ey?

re: #7 jcm

Literalist.

re: #41 Joan Not of Arc

Creationism and evolution are secondary here.

You cannot believe in creationism without denying science. That alone makes him unqualified for the position of science minister.

On the contrary, he was pressed in answering. Why was he asked what his views are? And who would be better suited for this position if not him? Has everyone forgotten how Chretien made Kyoto a byword (not that Canada has lived up to that bogus set of standards), or David Suzuki's irrational statements on jailing politicians who "ignore climate change"?
As I said before, I don't believe creationism or evolution enter into this. I truly believe Goodyear's personal views are being made into grounds for dismissing him. If the personal views of any Canadian politician are relevant, then apply that to all politicians whose personal views and interests are completely contrary to the benefit of their constituents.

re #22 Charles
"Because creationists tend to lie."

Unlike the honest evolutionist who gave us java man, nebraska man(from 1 pigs tooth), Piltdown man (used as evidence in scopes monkey trial), Java Man: Discovered by Dutch scientist Eugene Dubois on an Indonesian island in 1891. Regarded by evolutionists as a link between apes and humans. All that was actually found was a skullcap, a femur, three teeth and a big imagination. lol Femur was later found not to belong with the skullcap.(uh oh) Sir Arthur Keith, a Cambridge University anatomist, declared the skullcap to fall well within the range of modern day humans. A 342 page report from prominent evolutionists also demolished any possibility of Java Man being a transitional form.
Time Magazine still listed Java Man as an ancestor to humans as recently as 1994!
Nebraska Man: Discovered by Harold Cook (rancher/geologist) in 1917.
Illustrations were made in 1922 by Henry Fairfield Osborn who taught at Columbia University. Osborn was a Eugenicist who wrote a racist book: Man Rises to Pamassus. Used as evidence in Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 (TskTsk)
Proven to be a false reconstruction from one tooth that was proven later to have come from and extinct pig!
Wow one tooth huh? At least the transitional evidence is abundant just as Darwin thought it would be ...lol one tooth
We all remember the excitement over Lucy, surely this is the missing link right? French geologist Maurice Taieb discovered Lucy in Ethiopia in 1974. Scientists have declared it to be a missing link primarily because it is a bipedal. Problem: Lucy’s hip is not consistent with a bipedal hip. Problem: Video exists of workers sawing Lucy’s hip and gluing pieces on to appear human!
Still cited by evolutionists as a missing link. (Creationist tend to lie)lol
I could go on but longer post tend to discourage people from reading.
My only point is that youre being intellectually dishonest to paint creationist as prone to lying and not mentioning the abuses in your own camp charles.
something about glass houses and throwing rocks ...lol

re: #52 Joan Not of Arc

On the contrary, he was pressed in answering. Why was he asked what his views are?

Why SHOULDN'T a country's Science Minister be asked what his views on evolution are right after he selectively zeroed out the funding for genetic bioscience?

And who would be better suited for this position if not him? Has everyone forgotten how Chretien made Kyoto a byword (not that Canada has lived up to that bogus set of standards), or David Suzuki's irrational statements on jailing politicians who "ignore climate change"?

Someone who understands basic scientific tenets. Hauling in AGW is irrelevant to Goodyear's evolutionary illiteracy.

As I said before, I don't believe creationism or evolution enter into this. I truly believe Goodyear's personal views are being made into grounds for dismissing him. If the personal views of any Canadian politician are relevant, then apply that to all politicians whose personal views and interests are completely contrary to the benefit of their constituents.

What matters is what GOODYEAR believes, and whether he is willing to morph his personal anti-evolution or evolution-illiterate beliefs into public policy. Since he selectively zeroed out the fiscal year 2009 funding for Genome Canada, preventing new genetic bioscience projects from being undertaken however worthy or necessary they might be, it would certainly indicate that he is all too willing to do just that.

Here we go again.

re: #53 Charlie R

re #22 Charles
"Because creationists tend to lie."

Unlike the honest evolutionist who gave us java man, nebraska man(from 1 pigs tooth), Piltdown man (used as evidence in scopes monkey trial), Java Man: Discovered by Dutch scientist Eugene Dubois on an Indonesian island in 1891. Regarded by evolutionists as a link between apes and humans. All that was actually found was a skullcap, a femur, three teeth and a big imagination. lol Femur was later found not to belong with the skullcap.(uh oh) Sir Arthur Keith, a Cambridge University anatomist, declared the skullcap to fall well within the range of modern day humans. A 342 page report from prominent evolutionists also demolished any possibility of Java Man being a transitional form.
Time Magazine still listed Java Man as an ancestor to humans as recently as 1994!
Nebraska Man: Discovered by Harold Cook (rancher/geologist) in 1917.
Illustrations were made in 1922 by Henry Fairfield Osborn who taught at Columbia University. Osborn was a Eugenicist who wrote a racist book: Man Rises to Pamassus. Used as evidence in Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 (TskTsk)
Proven to be a false reconstruction from one tooth that was proven later to have come from and extinct pig!
Wow one tooth huh? At least the transitional evidence is abundant just as Darwin thought it would be ...lol one tooth
We all remember the excitement over Lucy, surely this is the missing link right? French geologist Maurice Taieb discovered Lucy in Ethiopia in 1974. Scientists have declared it to be a missing link primarily because it is a bipedal. Problem: Lucy’s hip is not consistent with a bipedal hip. Problem: Video exists of workers sawing Lucy’s hip and gluing pieces on to appear human!
Still cited by evolutionists as a missing link. (Creationist tend to lie)lol
I could go on but longer post tend to discourage people from reading.
My only point is that youre being intellectually dishonest to paint creationist as prone to lying and not mentioning the abuses in your own camp charles.
something about glass houses and throwing rocks ...lol

And who exposed the hoaxes and corrected the mistakes? Why, EMPIRICAL SCIENTISTS DID!

And please link this purported Lucy video. You of course know that several different fossil skeletons of the same species have been found in Kenya so far; right?

re: #55 Charles

Apparently, the fact that these frauds were found out by science has escaped attention!
Haven't heard of the BS being spewed about Lucy before.

re: #53 Charlie R

You're simply dumping talking points from some creationist website, without any understanding of the actual issues. It's a waste of time, I know, but if you really care to learn the facts:

Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man

Java Man

They were NOT fakes, and no "evolutionist" lied about them. All you're doing is revealing your ignorance.

re: #53 Charlie R

Hoaxes from any quarter have been revealed for what they are by real science.

re: #60 Sharmuta

Hoaxes from any quarter have been revealed for what they are by real science.

Ask him about those human footprints that were Dremeled into Texas sediment slabs containing dino tracks.

re: #61 Salamantis

The Puloxi river bed?

re: #62 BatGuano

The Puloxi river bed?

Yep. Charles has posted on the scam.

re: #64 Joe Six Pack

Get off my website.

re: #53 Charlie R

There have been frauds in science, of course, but they have been discovered by scientists, not by creationists who can do nothing but reference frauds, and manufacture some as well, as you do.

re: #62 BatGuano

Exposed over 30 years ago. Creationists need to update their data base.

Wow. There must be more constructive things to do than stalk a blog.

That one had six sock puppets registered.

re: #69 Charles

That one had six sock puppets registered.

Damn, Sam! What were their names?

Yumm! It's like Doublemint!

Seven Trolls
Seven Trolls
Seven Trolls In One!

re: #68 Sharmuta

I missed it! 6 sock puppets is crazy.

re: #67 BatGuano

Exposed over 30 years ago. Creationists need to update their data base.

No need.

What is the difference between a wrong interpretation and a wrong interpretation?

re: #71 Salamantis

Yumm! It's like Doublemint!

Seven Trolls
Seven Trolls
Seven Trolls In One!

I love trolls! I read about them in The Hobbit and the Ring Trilogy.
At least those trolls were honest about what they are.

re: #73 Naso Tang

I am sitting here beside myself shrugging.

re: #71 Salamantis

Yumm! It's like Doublemint!

Seven Trolls
Seven Trolls
Seven Trolls In One!

Seven iwith one blow!

And with that, I bid you adieu.

Sorry, you don't get to leave your dramatic goodbye message.

Whoa... I saw 77 deleted before my eyes. This is a once of a lifetime experience!

Holy crap! We haven't even got to 100 posts yet and that's 2 gone!

re: #75 BatGuano

I am sitting here beside myself shrugging.

Am I being too clever for my own good? If they updated their books with that they would have to update something else, and who knows where that would end? What's the point?

re: #54 Salamantis

This has never been a problem before. Why bring it up now? What criteria is acceptable where merit doesn't matter? There may be several reasons why Goodyear is or isn't good for the job. If the pressure is too much, Harper might just move him somewhere else. That should give one a clue as to how people are appointed or shuffled.
This current government has included five billion dollars Canadian for scientific research but some believe it could give more. I doubt Goodyear had much- if anything- to do with that. There is always someone begging for funding and not getting it.
Keep in mind your president is ever clueless in a number of respects, including science. I'm not too worried about Goodyear, who might just end up somewhere else next shuffle. You have for the next four years a president who embraces the junk science of embryonic stem cell research in order to get brownie points.

re: #79 Basho

These threads tend to bring out vociferous insanity.

It's either feast or famine in Lizardland!

/yummy gamy buttock steaks! Barbequed and basted and turned on the spit!

Is it my imagination or have many now thrown the distinction between YEC's and old earthers under the bus, and decided that belief in any creationism is incompatible with belief in evolution?
Or is the distinction only available for GOP politicians?

Wow- I thought we were perhaps past the meltdowns, but I guess there's a whole new crop as the border shifts?

re: #80 pingjockey

Holy crap! We haven't even got to 100 posts yet and that's 2 gone!

Eight.

re: #85 Spare O'Lake

Is it my imagination or have many now thrown the distinction between YEC's and old earthers under the bus, and decided that belief in any creationism is incompatible with belief in evolution?
Or is the distinction only available for GOP politicians?

Why don't you explain your imagination instead of asking questions?

re: #87 Naso Tang

You counting 6 sock puppets? Or did I miss a bunch up above?

re: #85 Spare O'Lake

Is it my imagination or have many now thrown the distinction between YEC's and old earthers under the bus, and decided that belief in any creationism is incompatible with belief in evolution?
Or is the distinction only available for GOP politicians?

I can only speak for myself. For me, a creationist is a person who rejects evolution.

If one wants to believe God created the universe, including evolution as a mechanism, I don't see that as a "creationist".

re: #82 Joan Not of Arc

This has never been a problem before. Why bring it up now? What criteria is acceptable where merit doesn't matter? There may be several reasons why Goodyear is or isn't good for the job. If the pressure is too much, Harper might just move him somewhere else. That should give one a clue as to how people are appointed or shuffled.

Apparently merit HASN'T mattered, as far as Goodyear is concerned; he is eminently educationally and experientially unqualified for his post.

This current government has included five billion dollars Canadian for scientific research but some believe it could give more. I doubt Goodyear had much- if anything- to do with that. There is always someone begging for funding and not getting it.

But selectively zeroing out genetic bioscience funding while leaving the other projects untouched smacks of a gratuitous and illegitimate ideological vendetta.

Keep in mind your president is ever clueless in a number of respects, including science. I'm not too worried about Goodyear, who might just end up somewhere else next shuffle. You have for the next four years a president who embraces the junk science of embryonic stem cell research in order to get brownie points.

Once again, to attempt to slander evolution or defend creationism by invoking AGW is like attempting to slander Lincoln or defend Dougles by invoking Ron Paul.

re: #81 Naso Tang

You are too clever for me.re: #81 Naso Tang

Ahhh...,

Oh, yes. Why does it matter what theories a science minister (or any working scientist, for that matter) believes? Bad theories kill people.

re: #91 Salamantis

Are you accusing me of having some kind of vendetta? Of spreading some kind of lie or having an agenda as opposed to just wondering what the fuss is about?
Not touching this one...

re: #85 Spare O'Lake

Is it my imagination or have many now thrown the distinction between YEC's and old earthers under the bus, and decided that belief in any creationism is incompatible with belief in evolution?
Or is the distinction only available for GOP politicians?

It's not the belief in some form of creationism that's the problem in a Science Minister; it's the blatant and abject ignorance concerning evolution, and what seems to be an utter antipathy to it, for what appear from his own words to be religious rather than scientific reasons.

re: #82 Joan Not of Arc

You have for the next four years a president who embraces the junk science of embryonic stem cell research in order to get brownie points

You let your mask slip there, I think.

Where does the article, from a columnist (who I like), not a scientist, talk about "junk science"?

Why be coy? Express yourself without putting words in the mouths of your betters.

re: #89 pingjockey

You counting 6 sock puppets? Or did I miss a bunch up above?

I figured 6 soxs and two live ones, but why quibble.

re: #94 Joan Not of Arc

Are you accusing me of having some kind of vendetta? Of spreading some kind of lie or having an agenda as opposed to just wondering what the fuss is about?
Not touching this one...

No, I'm accusing GOODYEAR, based upon his own words and actions, of having some kind of vendetta against evolutionary bioscience - a vendetta which you seem determined to minimize, dismiss or conceal.

re: #97 Naso Tang

S' alright, 6 one way, half a dozen the other!

There has been a lot of heat generated here, but precious little light.

First off, the initial question asked of Mr. Goodyear, the one that started this whole charade rolling, was clearly formulated as a "gotcha" question: "Do you believe in evolution?" Forgive me if those are not the exact words of the entire sentence, but the key verb is right, "believe."

It's been stated many times here. Evolution is not something one "believes in" as a matter of faith; it's a body of observable facts. Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is currently the best available scientific explanation for how those observable facts came to be. Intelligent Design is a deceptive, pseudo-scientific "theory" which purports to be an alternative explanation for those facts, but which is really only a smokescreen for Genesis literalism.

Had the question been properly (honestly?) posed, it would have gone, "Do you accept the observable evidence of organic evolution, and do you support some form form of the theory of "Natural Selection?"

You have to remember who was asking this question, a member of Canada's mainstream media, media which are every bit, if not more partisan for the Left as they are in the USA. This is nothing more than a partisan political hatchet job. The reporter asked this question in a deliberate attempt to put Gary Goodyear on the spot, and she succeeded.

I have a science degree, and I work in a science-based industry. I wouldn't presume to call myself a practicing scientist, because I don't have an advanced degree, nor am I doing any research. Neither do I have a problem with the performance of Mr. Goodyear in his job, nor with the government as a whole. There are some conservative issues on which I'd like to see them move faster, but they are a minority Government, and they do have a Senate that is stacked against them. I'm a realist, and I'm not willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

If you read the link, and some of the comments appended thereto, you will note that Goodyear is "Minister of State for Science and Technology." It's basically a junior ministry, and like other ministries "of state" it exists primarily as a "good doggie" reward that the PM can bestow upon supporters within his caucus.

I really don't care what Gary Goodyear's personal beliefs are, when it comes to matters of religion and/or evolution, as long as he doesn't attempt to use his position to act upon those beliefs in a manner detrimental to the country.

I find it passing strange that some people here seem to give Sarah Palin a pass for her Creationist beliefs, based on the fact that she has stated that she will not attempt, and has so far not attempted, to use her position to impose them on the people of Alaska. Why can we not show the same courtesy to Gary Goodyear?

Here is a link from (surprisingly enough) the Toronto Globe and Mail which speaks to this issue.

re: #90 Sharmuta

I can only speak for myself. For me, a creationist is a person who rejects evolution.

If one wants to believe God created the universe, including evolution as a mechanism, I don't see that as a "creationist".

OK then, so you seem to agree with me that the lingo has definitely been fundamentally changed.

re: #98 Salamantis

If you say so...

re: #101 Spare O'Lake

OK then, so you seem to agree with me that the lingo has definitely been fundamentally changed.

Huh?

Charles, we have possible stealth dinger here with a nic of DrCruel. He's updinging the pro-creationist posts.

re: #45 Salamantis

And as far as Goodyear's qualifications are concerned, they are spotty at best. He dropped out of regular college, then got a degree in chiropractics. He has never taken a single course having anything to do with bioscience or evolution.

You realize, of course, don't you, Salamantis, that you are making the "chicken-hawk" argument? It's basically a logical fallacy.

re: #7 jcm

I need a word. Creationism is out.
A word for someone who believes in the Bible and its creation story as the spiritual and metaphysical explanation. But also knows and understands the physical evidence that the universe presents us.

What's wrong with "Theistic evolution(ist)"?

re: #104 Dark_Falcon

That is SOP for these threads, We have folks registered who never post and run around down dinging posts they don't like. Chicken shits they are.

re: #100 Alberta Oil Peon

Sorry, AOP, but when Goodyear's reply to the question is first to claim that it is religious and not scientific, and then to haul out the hoary old creationist argument-from-ignorance canard, and later, when he tries to backwalk, to proffer long-debunked Lamarckianism as if it were actual evolution, I find him to be entirely credibility-bereft on the subject.

And I'm not prepared to give him a free pass just because he was appointed by a prime minister that some Lizards like. Especially when he zeroed out the fiscal year 2009 funding for Genome Canada.

re: #101 Spare O'Lake

OK then, so you seem to agree with me that the lingo has definitely been fundamentally changed.

I blame the Discovery Institute et al for the obfuscation of the language to the point where we've had to yet again discuss exactly what is meant by "a creationist" on one of these threads. You have always struck me as a well intentioned Lizard, so I'm not sure if you've just not noticed this trend of deceptive language on the part of creationists. It's been well documented here that the entire ID movement was designed to obfuscate and play on people's natural tendencies in order to promote itself.

re: #7 jcm

I need a word. Creationism is out.
A word for someone who believes in the Bible and it's creation story as the spiritual and metaphysical explanation. But also knows and understands the physical evidence that the universe presents us.

Catholic? (Just don't bring up condoms)

re: #105 Alberta Oil Peon

You realize, of course, don't you, Salamantis, that you are making the "chicken-hawk" argument? It's basically a logical fallacy.

No, I'm not. He apparently doesn't even understand what evolution IS. At least so-called chicken-hawks have an idea what mlitary action is.

Gotta go sleep.

Goodnight.

re: #85 Spare O'Lake

Is it my imagination or have many now thrown the distinction between YEC's and old earthers under the bus, and decided that belief in any creationism is incompatible with belief in evolution?

Note that Harun Yahya, the Turkish creationist, is radically Old-Earth. He accepts that life has existed on Earth for at least a billion years, but insists that every species that has ever existed was created at more or less the same time. Thus, humans and dinosaurs and trilobites originally co-existed when the Earth was very young, though the latter two groups went extinct. In his view, a species exists unchanged until it goes extinct -- never evolving into one or more "daughter" species that are genetically incompatible with the "parent" species.

What I'm saying, in other words, is that some forms of OEC are just as egregiously unscientific as YEC.

Admittedly, however, there are variants of OEC that sort of segue into "theistic evolution," and it can be difficult to distinguish the two with a concise definition that everyone will agree on. (I stress: the problem is not that OEC and theistic evolution can't be distinguished at all, but rather that it's tricky to do so in a relatively concise way that will immediately make sense to the average person.)

re: #95 Salamantis

It's not the belief in some form of creationism that's the problem in a Science Minister; it's the blatant and abject ignorance concerning evolution, and what seems to be an utter antipathy to it, for what appear from his own words to be religious rather than scientific reasons.

Yet for Charles, as I understood it from the posts, the question is whether Goodyear is a "creationist" - which I took to mean what I had come to call a "young earther".

What is an old earth creationist now called? And does everyone except you agree that if Goodyear is what we used to call an old earther then his religious beliefs are irrelevant?

Yet there is something nagging at me, causing me to wonder whether the blurring of the distinction signals something more.

You on the other hand seem to saying something different, in that you purport to avoid the issue of creationism.

To me the discussion has become rather difficult by virtue of the blurring of the distinction between young and old earthers, and moreso again by your own position.

re: #108 Salamantis

Sorry, AOP, but when Goodyear's reply to the question is first to claim that it is religious and not scientific, and then to haul out the hoary old creationist argument-from-ignorance canard, and later, when he tries to backwalk, to proffer long-debunked Lamarckianism as if it were actual evolution, I find him to be entirely credibility-bereft on the subject.

And I'm not prepared to give him a free pass just because he was appointed by a prime minister that some Lizards like. Especially when he zeroed out the fiscal year 2009 funding for Genome Canada.

Can you show me a link to prove that it was Goodyear himself zeroed out that funding, and not the Cabinet in committee? I have never even heard of Genome Canada before now, so it obviously isn't very high on the radar screen in this country. Has it actually done any useful work, or is it just a slab of pork left over from the previous Liberal government?

What I want to impress upon you is this whole affair is all about partisan politics, and very little about the individual's fitness for the job. There are plenty of checks and balances in Canada. Believe, if I thought that Gary Goodyear (or any other Cabinet minister) was trying to use his position to advance Intelligent Design, I'd be on him like white on rice. Let's not let ourselves be played like a fiddle by the Left.

re: #114 Spare O'Lake

Yet for Charles, as I understood it from the posts, the question is whether Goodyear is a "creationist" - which I took to mean what I had come to call a "young earther".

What is an old earth creationist now called? And does everyone except you agree that if Goodyear is what we used to call an old earther then his religious beliefs are irrelevant?

Yet there is something nagging at me, causing me to wonder whether the blurring of the distinction signals something more.

You on the other hand seem to saying something different, in that you purport to avoid the issue of creationism.

To me the discussion has become rather difficult by virtue of the blurring of the distinction between young and old earthers, and moreso again by your own position.

For me the crucial factor is whether or not empirical science is being rejected on dogmatic grounds.

But as we have seen over the past 8 years in the US, religion does indeed have a tendency to affect people’s decisions

Shocking!

re: #111 Salamantis

What field of science would you like Goodyear to master? If he believed wholeheartedly in the theory of evolution would he magically be transformed into a governmental official you could trust? I've argued his personal beliefs- which would not be asked of anyone else- are a problem for some people. I've argued merit is hardly a concern in the House of Commons which is populated with some very questionable characters. I've pointed out that in an article by the noteworthy Charles Krauthammer that Mr. Obama believes in the junk science of embryonic stem cell research (as I'm sure would have been mentioned in other articles) in some effort to make himself seem relevant in the science world.
I'll say this again- creationism and evolution are not the issues here. It's not even Goodyear's fitness for office. His views- which can't really effect anything people think might be effected- are the big issue. If Goodyear must be disqualified from office, it better be something meatier than "oh, evolution might be true".
Just saying.

Hi
Haven't posted in a while. But here I go. I unequivocal believe in evolution. Its good science. It will evolve and change, move forward two steps move back one just like any scientific theory. It is clear that Darwin's theory is fundamentally sound.

I however am also a Christian. I believe in the Bible. I do not know how Genesis reconciles with Darwin's theory. I doubt I ever will. know and am secure with the fact that it is in the nature of a finite being not to understand an infinite number of things.
I do not think this makes me the enemy of science. Gary Goodyear's beliefs are the same as mine. Does this disqualify me from servicing in government? Am I an evil person? Maybe I am a moron for believing in Christ? Doesn't the Jewish religion also believe in genesis? Why is our belief so offensive to so many.
Seriously, please explain this to me?

re: #115 Alberta Oil Peon

Can you show me a link to prove that it was Goodyear himself zeroed out that funding, and not the Cabinet in committee? I have never even heard of Genome Canada before now, so it obviously isn't very high on the radar screen in this country. Has it actually done any useful work, or is it just a slab of pork left over from the previous Liberal government?

What I want to impress upon you is this whole affair is all about partisan politics, and very little about the individual's fitness for the job. There are plenty of checks and balances in Canada. Believe, if I thought that Gary Goodyear (or any other Cabinet minister) was trying to use his position to advance Intelligent Design, I'd be on him like white on rice. Let's not let ourselves be played like a fiddle by the Left.

It is surpassingly difficult for me to entertain the idea that the head of a ministry had nothing to do with the selective defunding of evolutionary bioscience in his own ministry.

As for whether or not Genome Canada has been doing good work, judge for yourself:

[Link: www.cbc.ca...]

Genome Canada research aims to improve forests, crops, the environment, health and new technology development.

Dewar is working on sequencing strains of C. difficile bacteria that have been plaguing hospitals.

He pointed to a project to sequence the genomes of 50 different types of cancer, led by Ontario Institute of Cancer Research scientific director Tom Hudson, as one project that would be short of funding without further federal support.

Hudson is participating in a worldwide effort to study the genetics of cancer. The Ontario government is funding a $25 million project on pancreatic cancer, and researchers were hoping the federal government would commit to studying other forms of cancer, said Rhea Cohen, a spokeswoman for the Ontario institute.

[Link: www.globecampus.ca...]

While the United States took steps to add billions to research budgets, Adrian Tsang, a molecular geneticist at Concordia University in Montreal, worried that his long-time effort to find a biofuel alternative will be compromised with Genome Canada — the only agency in the country that regularly funds large-scale science — receiving no new money in 2009.

Dr. Tsang, who collaborates with Dutch researchers and the U.S. Department of Energy, is developing enzymes from fungi to generate a clean energy source, as well as enzymes that can reduce energy consumption in the manufacturing of pulp and paper.

Dr. Hayden, whose own discoveries, which include the genes behind Huntington's disease and pain, have led to spin-off companies, has also received support from Genome Canada.

One project now in doubt, for example, is the so-called Regulome Consortium, a massive international effort to map the genetic circuitry of stem cells. Canada was to lead the $84-million venture, which involves 64 investigators in 12 countries and is considered crucial to programming stem cells for future treatments.

re: #113 Throbert McGee

Thus, humans and dinosaurs and trilobites originally co-existed when the Earth was very young, though the latter two groups went extinct.

As a corollary to this, Harun Yahya gleefully throws mainstream archeology and anthrology under the bus -- claiming, for example, that the Egyptian pyramids were built with steel machines roughly similar to 20th-century construction equipment. Which makes sense if you think, as he does, that our species Homo sapiens sapiens has been around for hundreds of million years, and that many high-tech civilizations have arisen and collapsed during that timespan. Needless to say, he's also happy to endorse the idea that ancient Sumerians and Meso-Americans flew around the world in airplanes, when they weren't riding on dinosaurs.

And anyone who says otherwise is a propagandist for atheism, of course.

re: #113 Throbert McGee

re: #114 Spare O'Lake

To me these are both examples of why I focus on the science instead of the theism. I draw the line at accepting the veracity of the empirical data supporting evolution. I don't care how a person jives it with their spiritual beliefs, but you can't kinda accept evolution. You either do or you don't. If you don't, that's fine, but I would think the position of Science Minster to not be appropriate. Just like I don't think a tax cheat should be at the Treasury.

If he was serving in another position unrelated to science, I wouldn't care at all what his position on evolution was, but in this case it's relevant. It's not that he's a Creationist that's the issue, but that he's a Creationist in a position to affect science.

re: #118 Joan Not of Arc

You're erecting a strawman, Joan. Sal would like government officials who deal with science, to be acquainted with the basics of the science. An Official who believes in creationism is fundamentally (pun intended) in denial about large areas of science.

re: #119 fortescue

Hi
Haven't posted in a while. But here I go. I unequivocal believe in evolution. Its good science. It will evolve and change, move forward two steps move back one just like any scientific theory. It is clear that Darwin's theory is fundamentally sound.

I however am also a Christian. I believe in the Bible. I do not know how Genesis reconciles with Darwin's theory. I doubt I ever will. know and am secure with the fact that it is in the nature of a finite being not to understand an infinite number of things.
I do not think this makes me the enemy of science. Gary Goodyear's beliefs are the same as mine. Does this disqualify me from servicing in government? Am I an evil person? Maybe I am a moron for believing in Christ? Doesn't the Jewish religion also believe in genesis? Why is our belief so offensive to so many.
Seriously, please explain this to me?

Wait- you accept the veracity of evolution, or you agree with Mr Goodyear? These are exclusive positions.

re: #118 Joan Not of Arc

What field of science would you like Goodyear to master? If he believed wholeheartedly in the theory of evolution would he magically be transformed into a governmental official you could trust? I've argued his personal beliefs- which would not be asked of anyone else- are a problem for some people. I've argued merit is hardly a concern in the House of Commons which is populated with some very questionable characters. I've pointed out that in an article by the noteworthy Charles Krauthammer that Mr. Obama believes in the junk science of embryonic stem cell research (as I'm sure would have been mentioned in other articles) in some effort to make himself seem relevant in the science world.

Fist of all, embryonic stem cell research is no more junk science than adult stem cell research is; it just raises the hackles of antiabortionists, who would apparently prefer that superfluous embryos from in vitro fertilizations be shitcanned rather than used to help humanity.

But I would like Mr. Goodyear to at least know what he is doing, and how the science being pursued by the organization he is defunding works. You know; basic tenets like random genetic mutation, nonrandom environmental selection, and DNA as the physical substrate.

I'll say this again- creationism and evolution are not the issues here. It's not even Goodyear's fitness for office. His views- which can't really effect anything people think might be effected- are the big issue. If Goodyear must be disqualified from office, it better be something meatier than "oh, evolution might be true".
Just saying.

And I am saying that if his creationist belief leads him to selectively defund evolutionary bioscience, then he does the scientific enterprise which he is supposed to shepherd and steward a grave disservice, and should be replaced by someone who either does not share his personal biases, or else is able to keep them from affecting public policy decisions.

A chiropractor who dropped out of college as Canada's Science Minister? Puh-LEEEZE!

re: #109 Sharmuta

I blame the Discovery Institute et al for the obfuscation of the language to the point where we've had to yet again discuss exactly what is meant by "a creationist" on one of these threads. You have always struck me as a well intentioned Lizard, so I'm not sure if you've just not noticed this trend of deceptive language on the part of creationists. It's been well documented here that the entire ID movement was designed to obfuscate and play on people's natural tendencies in order to promote itself.

Yet if you look at Phil Plait's use of the terms in his article you will notice that he carefully shifts to the use of the YEC terminology in order to maximize his position.
Regardless of by whom or why the terms of reference have been altered, the fact remains that clarity has been reduced, at least for me.
And that is unfortunate.

re: #125 apocolypse yesterday

Wow, 16 posts. I doubt you've been enjoying the blog all that much. And Charles has said not snipe about evolution threads. Enjoy your martyr cookies.

GAZE

re: #119 fortescue

Hi
Haven't posted in a while. But here I go. I unequivocal believe in evolution. Its good science. It will evolve and change, move forward two steps move back one just like any scientific theory. It is clear that Darwin's theory is fundamentally sound.

I however am also a Christian. I believe in the Bible. I do not know how Genesis reconciles with Darwin's theory. I doubt I ever will. know and am secure with the fact that it is in the nature of a finite being not to understand an infinite number of things.
I do not think this makes me the enemy of science. Gary Goodyear's beliefs are the same as mine. Does this disqualify me from servicing in government? Am I an evil person? Maybe I am a moron for believing in Christ? Doesn't the Jewish religion also believe in genesis? Why is our belief so offensive to so many.
Seriously, please explain this to me?

If you would not utterly and selectively defund Genome Canada for the current fiscal year, then it can at least be stated that your ACTIONS would differ from Minister Goodyear's.

re: #124 Sharmuta
Evolution is fact. Darwin was right. I am a Christian. I have no internal conflict with these positions. Is this okay, can i be a politician?

re: #123 Dark_Falcon

I believe Salamantis has no clue how politics work in Canada. That is what is at issue, not science or ability. Funding depends on interest and ability to provide. Federal funding could be granted to an area of science that serves no practical purpose. Is that a good use of taxpayers' money?
Let's assume Harper replaces Goodyear. Who with? Is there an individual the press would not harangue with certain questions? This is the crux of it.

re: #132 Joan Not of Arc

I believe Salamantis has no clue how politics work in Canada. That is what is at issue, not science or ability. Funding depends on interest and ability to provide. Federal funding could be granted to an area of science that serves no practical purpose. Is that a good use of taxpayers' money?
Let's assume Harper replaces Goodyear. Who with? Is there an individual the press would not harangue with certain questions? This is the crux of it.

I'll give you some room on that point. Please explain the politics further.

re: #124 Sharmuta

Wait- you accept the veracity of evolution, or you agree with Mr Goodyear? These are exclusive positions.

Goodyear clarified his initial position and affirmed his acceptance of evolution.
If you simply dismiss the clarification and choose to nail him down to his initial stupid statement, you sound highly judgemental, and I really didn't think you were like that.

re: #128 Spare O'Lake

Yet if you look at Phil Plait's use of the terms in his article you will notice that he carefully shifts to the use of the YEC terminology in order to maximize his position.
Regardless of by whom or why the terms of reference have been altered, the fact remains that clarity has been reduced, at least for me.
And that is unfortunate.

And the lack of clarity is intentional and serves the interests of those pushing the anti-science agenda. It's straight out of the Wedge Document.

re: #127 DrCruel

The man has claimed to believe in evolution, and has openly stated that he is not a creationist. This is discounted, because it is claimed that "creationists lie".

He at first claimed that whether or not he accepted evolution ws a religious rather than scientific question, then he hauled out the tired old creationist argument-from-ignorance canard, then when he attempted to walk back from it, he profferred the long-discredited theory of Lamarckianism as if it had damned thing to do with genetic evolution.

This sounds much like the sort of libel Jews receive from Left-wing supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah. It is likewise claimed that "Jews lie" when contrary evidence is presented, and similarly qualifications of this othrwise clear and apparent anti-Semitism are made by dutifully substituting the word "Zionists" for "Jews".

When people come on this blog and claim not to be creationist, then deluge us with creationist talking points, and claim to be scientists, then get basic scientific tenets horridly wrong, and when Texas creationists Dremel human footprints into sediment slabs contaning dino tracks, 'honest' is not the first word that comes to mind.

Not trying to upset the paradigm here - if people who hate Christians want to get together in their free time and bash us, it's their perogative. But I do not buy the argument that this is about "creationism" because it's not - because outside of empirical evidence to the contrary, the person who has a defitintive say as to what Mr. Gary Goodyear does and does not believe is Mr. Gary Goodyear. He hasn't claimed to be a creationist, in fact he's calimed otherwise, and from what I've seen on this thread there's no proof that he is a creationist or anything similar (other than the feminist argument - "I can see it in his eyes" or somesuch).

But don't mind me. Carry on.

PS: If you must object to Mr. Goodyear, you might be better served to remark on his "qualifications" - as a politician, chiropracter and "acupuncturist":

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

You illegitimately confuse and conflate creationism with Christianity. Expresing dismay at an evolutionarily illiterate creationist as a government's Science Minister is quite different from tossing Christians to lions in the Circus Maximus.

And yes, politicians also lie. But you are correct that Minister Goodyear eminently lacks the scientific crdentials to properly perform the dutie of his office. His lack of understanding of what constitutes evolution is a telling symptom of this wider inadequacy.

re: #120 Salamantis

From the CBC link:
"During question period on Thursday, Garneau questioned the government on whether the lack of funds was an oversight."

(Marc Garneau is the opposition Liberal party's science critic. It's his job to try to make the government look bad. That's how the Parliamentary system works.)

Minister of State for Science and Technology Gary Goodyear disputed that funding was cut, saying Genome Canada was still receiving funds from the two previous budget announcements, and that these funds amounted to $106 million this year and $108 million next year.

"This government has in place two five-year contracts with Genome Canada retaining almost a quarter of a billion dollars for science research," said Goodyear. "We're doing that, Mr. Speaker, because we know Genome Canada is good for Canada and the good work they do is good for Canadians' health."

But Garneau disputed that claim, arguing the government was counting money that was previously committed in its calculations."

In other words, no new money for Genome Canada, but it's existing funding is maintained. In case you hadn't noticed, we are in a recession. Government revenues are down. Our government is trying to be fiscally responsible, and on the whole, they are doing a lot better job than yours is. Hard choices have to be made. I'd say it's likely the government looked at all the alternatives, and decided that money invested in Genome Canada will at best, show a return only many years down the road, and in a time of straitened financial circumstances, what money there is would be better spent on projects with a more immediate tangible return.

Genome Canada has not been cut off or shut down completely. They just cannot expand as much as they'd like to. Can you show me any entity, worthy or otherwise, subsisting on the government teat, that would not like to get more money?

I hate to belabor this, but once again, partisan politics.

re: #134 apocolypse yesterday

Please get your own blog so we can come over and tell you what topics to focus on.

re: #128 Spare O'Lake

Yet if you look at Phil Plait's use of the terms in his article you will notice that he carefully shifts to the use of the YEC terminology in order to maximize his position.
Regardless of by whom or why the terms of reference have been altered, the fact remains that clarity has been reduced, at least for me.
And that is unfortunate.

It may well be because some old earth creationists indeed accept that evolution could very well be the manner in whch God went about species creation (although others, such as Harun Yahya, do not, instead believing, despite the DNA evidence, that all species were crerted independently and as is in some distant past), but ALL YECers reject evolution - and not only evolution, but much of physics, (radiometric dating, big bang echo radiation red shift coefficient, old light from distant stars) geology (plate tectonics), and much other empirical science.

re: #139 Alberta Oil Peon

From the CBC link:
"During question period on Thursday, Garneau questioned the government on whether the lack of funds was an oversight."

(Marc Garneau is the opposition Liberal party's science critic. It's his job to try to make the government look bad. That's how the Parliamentary system works.)

Minister of State for Science and Technology Gary Goodyear disputed that funding was cut, saying Genome Canada was still receiving funds from the two previous budget announcements, and that these funds amounted to $106 million this year and $108 million next year.

"This government has in place two five-year contracts with Genome Canada retaining almost a quarter of a billion dollars for science research," said Goodyear. "We're doing that, Mr. Speaker, because we know Genome Canada is good for Canada and the good work they do is good for Canadians' health."

But Garneau disputed that claim, arguing the government was counting money that was previously committed in its calculations."

In other words, no new money for Genome Canada, but it's existing funding is maintained. In case you hadn't noticed, we are in a recession. Government revenues are down. Our government is trying to be fiscally responsible, and on the whole, they are doing a lot better job than yours is. Hard choices have to be made. I'd say it's likely the government looked at all the alternatives, and decided that money invested in Genome Canada will at best, show a return only many years down the road, and in a time of straitened financial circumstances, what money there is would be better spent on projects with a more immediate tangible return.

Genome Canada has not been cut off or shut down completely. They just cannot expand as much as they'd like to. Can you show me any entity, worthy or otherwise, subsisting on the government teat, that would not like to get more money?

I hate to belabor this, but once again, partisan politics.

All you are doping is engaging in ad hominem argumentation; that is, arguing that anything that the government you favor has done must be right because the government you favor has done it, and any criticisms of what they have done must be false and malicious, because they originate from a political party of which you disapprove.

But Clinton could still do the right thing in Bosnia. And Reagan could still leave Lebanon when he shouldn't have.

And Genome Canada cannot undertake any new projects AT ALL, no matter how deserving, as the budget with which to do so is ZERO. Name me another science department with a zero budget for the current fiscal year.

re: #127 DrCruel

Not trying to upset the paradigm here - if people who hate Christians want to get together in their free time and bash us, it's their perogative.

No Christian bashing going on here - creationism is a pagan cult that simply denies and wishes to deny to others the evidence shown it by science. You think the Pope bashes Christians?

BiJ.

re: #135 Spare O'Lake

Goodyear clarified his initial position and affirmed his acceptance of evolution.
If you simply dismiss the clarification and choose to nail him down to his initial stupid statement, you sound highly judgemental, and I really didn't think you were like that.

He clarified it by saying, "But it is an irrelevant question." I strongly disagree- it's not only relevant, it's the heart of the matter. I do not find his "clarification" to be convincing, quite the opposite. It's the same thing Al Gore did, and I don't find Al Gore's clarification any more convincing than this fellow's.

re: #142 apocolypse yesterday

"YAWN" Goodnight.

Just providing my honest feedback.

Heh. From the DI playbook:

10. The utter surrender.
“Well, I have to go take the giraffe for a walk now (etc).”
Counterplay: You win. Reset for the next evolution thread.

BiJ.

re: #136 fortescue

No I agree. While I think ID is a big concern and understand why people have issues with it, it does not keep me up at night. Pakistan does, Obama does, Polosi does. I will let others fight the ID fight. I just get concerned that sometimes all Christians get painted with the ID brush?

I can't count the times it has been mentioned on this blog that 1.6 billion Roman Catholics accept evolutionary theory as solid, sound and valid empirical science.

re: #133 Dark_Falcon

I thought I had in previous posts.
Would the Liberals or NDP (hardly science giants themselves) be asked what Goodyear was asked? No. The NDP was quick to jump on Goodyear. Why? To make Goodyear and- by extention, the Conservatives (Tories)- look bad (I'm sure Goodyear could look bad on his own). As has been stated, Goodyear has at best a minimal science background. The position could have been better staffed or not. And funding isn't solely Goodyear's to grant or not. There can be any number of reasons why certain areas of science are not funded but rest assured come election time someone will get the bacon.
What bothers me is the double standard. No one else, I believe, would be hassled this way. Yes, Goodyear should have a solid background in some scientific field in order to effectively do his job and his opinion would be very much the issue if he was pushing an agenda. However, I doubt he would ever get away with that, unless he was much higher up on the food chain (RE: Chretien), and whatever his beliefs may be will not endow him with the ability to do his job or not.

re: #135 Spare O'Lake

Goodyear clarified his initial position and affirmed his acceptance of evolution.
If you simply dismiss the clarification and choose to nail him down to his initial stupid statement, you sound highly judgemental, and I really didn't think you were like that.

Here is Minister Goodyear's attempt at a walkback:

“We are evolving every year, every decade. That’s a fact, whether it is to the intensity of the sun, whether it is to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it is running shoes or high heels, of course we are evolving to our environment. But that’s not relevant and that is why I refused to answer the question. The interview was about our science and tech strategy, which is strong.”

If you think that this sounds like genetic evolution instead of long-discredited Lamarckian quackery, then you are as ignorant concerning what constitutes evolution as is Minister Goodyear.

re: #145 Sharmuta

He clarified it by saying, "But it is an irrelevant question." I strongly disagree- it's not only relevant, it's the heart of the matter. I do not find his "clarification" to be convincing, quite the opposite. It's the same thing Al Gore did, and I don't find Al Gore's clarification any more convincing than this fellow's.

Yes, if he had used different words I might have thought he was caught by a "gotchya" question on the first occasion; (something like; "Do you think your religion is important to your job regarding things lilke evolution?"), particularly with the political-leaning of the paper in question.

However, by trying to obfuscate his follow-up non-denial-denial, he actually put further doubt in my mind.

BiJ

re: #147 Salamantis

I can't count the times it has been mentioned on this blog that 1.6 billion Roman Catholics accept evolutionary theory as solid, sound and valid empirical science.

They are just recycling back to the first play again - "stop bashing Christians". Prepare for "you are evil like Hitler if you believe in evolution" coming soon, followed by "global warming is wrong".

BiJ.

re: #148 Joan Not of Arc

The reason Conservative parties catch flak on the issue is because they have creationists in them. Yes the MSM is biased and singles them out. However, the solution is not found in carping about it. The problem can only be fully solved in getting the creationists to see reason, or by keeping them firmly away from any science-related positions.

re: #148 Joan Not of Arc

I thought I had in previous posts.
Would the Liberals or NDP (hardly science giants themselves) be asked what Goodyear was asked? No. The NDP was quick to jump on Goodyear. Why? To make Goodyear and- by extention, the Conservatives (Tories)- look bad (I'm sure Goodyear could look bad on his own). As has been stated, Goodyear has at best a minimal science background. The position could have been better staffed or not. And funding isn't solely Goodyear's to grant or not. There can be any number of reasons why certain areas of science are not funded but rest assured come election time someone will get the bacon.
What bothers me is the double standard. No one else, I believe, would be hassled this way. Yes, Goodyear should have a solid background in some scientific field in order to effectively do his job and his opinion would be very much the issue if he was pushing an agenda. However, I doubt he would ever get away with that, unless he was much higher up on the food chain (RE: Chretien), and whatever his beliefs may be will not endow him with the ability to do his job or not.

Genome Canada was entirely defunded for fiscal year 09 under Science Minister Goodyear. No other project under that ministry's purview was zeroed out. Show me how it could possibly be that the head of a ministry has no imput into its fiscal funding decisions.

To me the evidence is that Minister Goodyear has ALREADY pushed (at least part of) his agenda. Or maybe he was too clueless to realize exactly how valuable and lifesaving the reserch done by Genome Canad is. But he could have frigging looked; there's no excuse whatsoever for failing to do that sufficiently to understand its great value to the lives of human beings.

re: #148 Joan Not of Arc

What bothers me is the double standard. No one else, I believe, would be hassled this way.

This form of argument is called 'tu quo que', or "you too". It doesn't matter about a double standard- this is a form of deflection. Goodyear's position on empirically supported science in light of the fact he's the Science Minister is what's relevant. His statements are laced with so many red flags for those of us who've studied the tactics of the Discovery Institute, that it's not even funny.

re: #148 Joan Not of Arc

I thought I had in previous posts.
Would the Liberals or NDP (hardly science giants themselves) be asked what Goodyear was asked? No. The NDP was quick to jump on Goodyear. Why? To make Goodyear and- by extention, the Conservatives (Tories)- look bad (I'm sure Goodyear could look bad on his own). As has been stated, Goodyear has at best a minimal science background. The position could have been better staffed or not. And funding isn't solely Goodyear's to grant or not. There can be any number of reasons why certain areas of science are not funded but rest assured come election time someone will get the bacon.
What bothers me is the double standard. No one else, I believe, would be hassled this way. Yes, Goodyear should have a solid background in some scientific field in order to effectively do his job and his opinion would be very much the issue if he was pushing an agenda. However, I doubt he would ever get away with that, unless he was much higher up on the food chain (RE: Chretien), and whatever his beliefs may be will not endow him with the ability to do his job or not.

You might be right that other pols wouldn't get asked the question, but he was, and he gave the wrong answer for a "science" minister. The fact it makes the Tories look bad is why it is so important that it was exposed and is being talked about now! Don't you hope the Tories will do something about it?

The fact that genetics research funding has been cut under this man might be purely incidental, but do you really think there is no connection?

BiJ.

re: #5 Sharmuta

Literally serving in bad faith.

Heh. I love it when you do that. Beautiful but accurate in 5 words.

BiJ.

re: #143 Salamantis

All you are doping is engaging in ad hominem argumentation; that is, arguing that anything that the government you favor has done must be right because the government you favor has done it, and any criticisms of what they have done must be false and malicious, because they originate from a political party of which you disapprove.

But Clinton could still do the right thing in Bosnia. And Reagan could still leave Lebanon when he shouldn't have.

And Genome Canada cannot undertake any new projects AT ALL, no matter how deserving, as the budget with which to do so is ZERO. Name me another science department with a zero budget for the current fiscal year.

Genome Canada can undertake whatever they want. It's non-governmental body. They can cut funding to some project that is under-performing and redirect it to a promising new one, or they could go the private sector to raise money. Or they could spin off a well-advanced project to the private sector, and use the proceeds to fund new projects. You are falling into the leftist trap of assuming that the government is the only source of money. Heck, if they wanted, they could probably incorporate and do an IPO on the TSX Ventures Exchange. I might even buy some of it, if they did.

You simply haven't made any kind of case that Genome Canada is being shorted money because of Goodyear's religious beliefs. Understand this: it's very much in the Left's (i.e. Liberal Party of Canada) interest that you believe this. That's why I say, let us not let ourselves be played like fiddles by the Left.

If the day comes that any government in Canada, at any level, tries to jam "Creation Science" into the classroom, I will be ready to fight it. Conservatives in Canada tend to be more secular than than those in the USA, and even less likely to give that sort of BS a pass.

re: #154 Sharmuta

This form of argument is called 'tu quo que', or "you too". It doesn't matter about a double standard- this is a form of deflection. Goodyear's position on empirically supported science in light of the fact he's the Science Minister is what's relevant. His statements are laced with so many red flags for those of us who've studied the tactics of the Discovery Institute, that it's not even funny.

Yep. Just becaus B is wrong, too, doesn't make A any less wrong.

Or, in the words of my late sinted mother, "If your friends jumped off a cliff, would you think it would be okay for you to do it, too?"

So this thread is about a politician who does not believe in evolution, except that he says he believes in evolution, but he is probably lying, because creationists lie.

This politician somehow managed to single-handedly defund Genome Canada, though it receives funding from a wide variety of sources (you could look it up), and he obviously did this because he is a creationist -- isn't that usually the reason that conservatives try to reduce government expenditures?

I think Charles's anti-creationist threads perform a valuable service, but come on. Save the ammunition for better targets.

re: #157 Alberta Oil Peon

Genome Canada can undertake whatever they want. It's non-governmental body. They can cut funding to some project that is under-performing and redirect it to a promising new one, or they could go the private sector to raise money. Or they could spin off a well-advanced project to the private sector, and use the proceeds to fund new projects. You are falling into the leftist trap of assuming that the government is the only source of money. Heck, if they wanted, they could probably incorporate and do an IPO on the TSX Ventures Exchange. I might even buy some of it, if they did.

You simply haven't made any kind of case that Genome Canada is being shorted money because of Goodyear's religious beliefs. Understand this: it's very much in the Left's (i.e. Liberal Party of Canada) interest that you believe this. That's why I say, let us not let ourselves be played like fiddles by the Left.

If the day comes that any government in Canada, at any level, tries to jam "Creation Science" into the classroom, I will be ready to fight it. Conservatives in Canada tend to be more secular than than those in the USA, and even less likely to give that sort of BS a pass.

You realise commenters from the USA on this blog have been saying exactly that for the past few years, and now anti-science bills are getting passed in several places in the USA? Closing your eyes and burying your head in the ground and saying; "It'll never happen here" is the one thing most likely to make it happen!

This guy is head of the dept that cut science research into genetics, and also happens to hold an anti-science cultist view. Are you not demanding to know why and how this happened in your country?

BiJ.

re: #157 Alberta Oil Peon

Genome Canada can undertake whatever they want. It's non-governmental body. They can cut funding to some project that is under-performing and redirect it to a promising new one, or they could go the private sector to raise money. Or they could spin off a well-advanced project to the private sector, and use the proceeds to fund new projects. You are falling into the leftist trap of assuming that the government is the only source of money. Heck, if they wanted, they could probably incorporate and do an IPO on the TSX Ventures Exchange. I might even buy some of it, if they did.

You simply haven't made any kind of case that Genome Canada is being shorted money because of Goodyear's religious beliefs. Understand this: it's very much in the Left's (i.e. Liberal Party of Canada) interest that you believe this. That's why I say, let us not let ourselves be played like fiddles by the Left.

If the day comes that any government in Canada, at any level, tries to jam "Creation Science" into the classroom, I will be ready to fight it. Conservatives in Canada tend to be more secular than than those in the USA, and even less likely to give that sort of BS a pass.

Your entire argument is based upon the notion that correlation does not necessarily entail causation, so just because Goodyear seems to be ignorant of and religiously antipathetic to evolution doesn't mean that he necessarily selectively zeroed out government funds for evolutionary bioscience because of it.

But just because correlation doesn't necessarily entail causation doesn't mean that correlation doesn't very frequently accompany causation, and far less frequently accompanie causation's absence. And in fact, that there can be no causation in the absence of the possibility of correlation.

re: #159 tchad

So this thread is about a politician who does not believe in evolution, except that he says he believes in evolution, but he is probably lying, because creationists lie.

This politician somehow managed to single-handedly defund Genome Canada, though it receives funding from a wide variety of sources (you could look it up), and he obviously did this because he is a creationist -- isn't that usually the reason that conservatives try to reduce government expenditures?

I think Charles's anti-creationist threads perform a valuable service, but come on. Save the ammunition for better targets.

We're not short of ammo here. The problem with his decision is that it fits a pattern of creations moving against science projects they disagree with. Goodyear needs to state his reasons for defunding this project, fully and openly.

re: #159 tchad

So this thread is about a politician who does not believe in evolution, except that he says he believes in evolution, but he is probably lying, because creationists lie.

No. He's probably lying because his words reek of duplicity. And yes, creationists do lie. Frequently.

re: #159 tchad

A wide array of targets are offered daily at this blog. Why should this one be ignored?

re: #159 tchad

So this thread is about a politician who does not believe in evolution, except that he says he believes in evolution, but he is probably lying, because creationists lie.

This politician somehow managed to single-handedly defund Genome Canada, though it receives funding from a wide variety of sources (you could look it up), and he obviously did this because he is a creationist -- isn't that usually the reason that conservatives try to reduce government expenditures?

I think Charles's anti-creationist threads perform a valuable service, but come on. Save the ammunition for better targets.

This clueless chiropractor belongs at the head of Canada's Science Ministry about as much as a creationist dentist belongs at the head of Texas' science textbook selection committee.

re: #159 tchad

So this thread is about a politician who does not believe in evolution, except that he says he believes in evolution, but he is probably lying, because creationists lie.

This politician somehow managed to single-handedly defund Genome Canada, though it receives funding from a wide variety of sources (you could look it up), and he obviously did this because he is a creationist -- isn't that usually the reason that conservatives try to reduce government expenditures?

I think Charles's anti-creationist threads perform a valuable service, but come on. Save the ammunition for better targets.

So... your argument is there are worse creationists out there so let's ignore this one?

BiJ.

re: #108 Salamantis

And I'm not prepared to give him a free pass just because he was appointed by a prime minister that some Lizards like. Especially when he zeroed out the fiscal year 2009 funding for Genome Canada.

It seems that many have the impression that Genome Canada will be getting $0.00 from the gov't this year. Not so. As promised in previous budgets it'll receive $106 million this year and $108 million next year, down from 2008 but up from previous years. What some are objecting to is that they were hoping for an increase in funding, which wasn't given. I hate to keep bringing it up but the left-leaning Canadian media, through omission and obfuscation, give the impression that the funding itself has been cut to zero. Those eager to believe the worst about the current gov't just lap it up and fail to even try to dig a little deeper to find the truth.

For the record, I believe that those that believe in creationism or intelligent design to the exclusion of evolution are more than a few bricks short of a full load and that those that try to force the teaching of those beliefs in schools are insidious bastards. But I also have a healthy (I hope) distrust of reporters, second only to my distrust of politicians. No one here knows what was asked of the minister before the evolution question. We're not even sure how the question was phrased. I've seen too many statements taken out of context or purposely manipulated to trust the original article.

RE: 166 continued/.

... and he is the minister for science... but that doesn't matter? That's your contribution here?

BiJ.

re: #167 JamesR

It seems that many have the impression that Genome Canada will be getting $0.00 from the gov't this year. Not so. As promised in previous budgets it'll receive $106 million this year and $108 million next year, down from 2008 but up from previous years. What some are objecting to is that they were hoping for an increase in funding, which wasn't given. I hate to keep bringing it up but the left-leaning Canadian media, through omission and obfuscation, give the impression that the funding itself has been cut to zero. Those eager to believe the worst about the current gov't just lap it up and fail to even try to dig a little deeper to find the truth.

For the record, I believe that those that believe in creationism or intelligent design to the exclusion of evolution are more than a few bricks short of a full load and that those that try to force the teaching of those beliefs in schools are insidious bastards. But I also have a healthy (I hope) distrust of reporters, second only to my distrust of politicians. No one here knows what was asked of the minister before the evolution question. We're not even sure how the question was phrased. I've seen too many statements taken out of context or purposely manipulated to trust the original article.

You might be right about the original question... but the follow-up "denial" looked even more suspicious to me.

BiJ.

re: #145 Sharmuta

He clarified it by saying, "But it is an irrelevant question." I strongly disagree- it's not only relevant, it's the heart of the matter. I do not find his "clarification" to be convincing, quite the opposite. It's the same thing Al Gore did, and I don't find Al Gore's clarification any more convincing than this fellow's.

Fair enough, you can believe whatever you want. Others will choose to give him the benefit of the doubt.

By the way, you might want to keep in mind a couple of basic differences between the US and Canadian systems of government.
In Canada, all government departments are officially headed up by Cabinet Ministers, who must all be elected Members of Parliament and who are all chosen by the Prime Minister. Goodyear is therefore an ordinary elected MP who was appointed to his Cabinet position of Minister of Science.

The Government policies for each Department are set by the entire Cabinet, which meets regularly and is headed by the PM. The Cabinet decides on government policies and priorities, and the Ministers are each accountable for carrying out those policies within their own Departments.

So when it comes to qualifications, it is not uncommon for a Minister of Science not to be an academic or a career scientist. Ministers are just ordinary elected politicians. The Minister's qualifications are as an Administrator/CEO, and not as an expert in any particular field.

The practical expertise in the running of each Deparment is provided in practice by career civil servants who are called Deputy Ministers, and by their staffs. The Ministers generally depend on the Deputy Ministers to implement the government policies.

Also, on a fairly regular basis the Prime Minister "shuffles" his/her Cabinet by moving Ministers from one Department (Portfolio) to a different one, or by replacing some Ministers with other MP's from the back benches of the governing party. This means that someone like Goodyear might be moved next month from Science Minister to Environment Minister.

As you may have gathered by now, people who look to the Ministers to be experts in their respective Departments are dreaming in technicolour. These Ministers are politicians plain and simple.

I hope this helps.

re: #167 JamesR

I would perhaps be swayed by this comment were it not for the fact I've read plenty of creationist talking points, and the examples I'm seeing here are too precise to be invented or parodied. And I see a politician using the same defense 0bama used in defending himself from involvement with bill ayers- complete dismissal of the point out of hand.

Well- what's done is done. He now says he accepts evolution, but I would continue to watch his deeds.

re: #115 Alberta Oil Peon

Can you show me a link to prove that it was Goodyear himself zeroed out that funding, and not the Cabinet in committee? I have never even heard of Genome Canada before now, so it obviously isn't very high on the radar screen in this country. Has it actually done any useful work, or is it just a slab of pork left over from the previous Liberal government?

What I want to impress upon you is this whole affair is all about partisan politics, and very little about the individual's fitness for the job. There are plenty of checks and balances in Canada. Believe, if I thought that Gary Goodyear (or any other Cabinet minister) was trying to use his position to advance Intelligent Design, I'd be on him like white on rice. Let's not let ourselves be played like a fiddle by the Left.

He didn't zero out the whole year. He said they wouldn't fund any new projects starting this year. It's a HUGE difference.

As I stated on an earlier thread, genome projects are even controversial among scientists because they are enormously expensive. Perhaps there were other areas that had gone wanting for the last few years. Perhaps this guy is a serious nutcase.

As a trained scientist I have to say that there isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion yet.

re: #167 JamesR

That's the great thing about LGF evolution threads. Charles tends to research them quite thoroughly, so if he is bringing it up, it's highly improbable the story's off base. Moreover, it could be argued you are trying to change the issue to media bias.

re: #170 Spare O'Lake

It did help, thanks.

re: #167 JamesR

It seems that many have the impression that Genome Canada will be getting $0.00 from the gov't this year. Not so. As promised in previous budgets it'll receive $106 million this year and $108 million next year, down from 2008 but up from previous years. What some are objecting to is that they were hoping for an increase in funding, which wasn't given. I hate to keep bringing it up but the left-leaning Canadian media, through omission and obfuscation, give the impression that the funding itself has been cut to zero. Those eager to believe the worst about the current gov't just lap it up and fail to even try to dig a little deeper to find the truth.

Wrong. Those funds were allocated and designated for multi-year projects in past years. No monies are being allocated in the current fiscal year. None. Not for ANY projects.

For the record, I believe that those that believe in creationism or intelligent design to the exclusion of evolution are more than a few bricks short of a full load and that those that try to force the teaching of those beliefs in schools are insidious bastards. But I also have a healthy (I hope) distrust of reporters, second only to my distrust of politicians. No one here knows what was asked of the minister before the evolution question. We're not even sure how the question was phrased. I've seen too many statements taken out of context or purposely manipulated to trust the original article.

Here's the original article:

[Link: www.theglobeandmail.com...]

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.

Sal: I consider the answer to the question to consist of a clueless conflation and confusion of religion and science. Evolution is not religion, any more than creationism is science, and a frigging Science Minister for a first-world country should know both these things.

In other words, no new money for Genome Canada, but its existing funding is maintained. In case you hadn't noticed, we are in a recession. Government revenues are down. Our government is trying to be fiscally responsible, and on the whole, they are doing a lot better job than yours is. Hard choices have to be made. I'd say it's likely the government looked at all the alternatives, and decided that money invested in Genome Canada will at best, show a return only many years down the road, and in a time of straitened financial circumstances, what money there is would be better spent on projects with a more immediate tangible return.

Genome Canada has not been cut off or shut down completely. They just cannot expand as much as they'd like to. Can you show me any entity, worthy or otherwise, subsisting on the government teat, that would not like to get more money?

I hate to belabor this, but once again, partisan politics.

Amen, Alberta Oil Peon.

re: #163 Charles
And yes, creationists do lie. Frequently.
I am well aware of it, and I thank you for your campaign to expose their lies. I just think it is risky to label someone who says that he believes in evolution a creationist without better evidence than I saw in the links.

re: #170 Spare O'Lake

Fair enough, you can believe whatever you want. Others will choose to give him the benefit of the doubt.

By the way, you might want to keep in mind a couple of basic differences between the US and Canadian systems of government.
In Canada, all government departments are officially headed up by Cabinet Ministers, who must all be elected Members of Parliament and who are all chosen by the Prime Minister. Goodyear is therefore an ordinary elected MP who was appointed to his Cabinet position of Minister of Science.

The Government policies for each Department are set by the entire Cabinet, which meets regularly and is headed by the PM. The Cabinet decides on government policies and priorities, and the Ministers are each accountable for carrying out those policies within their own Departments.

So when it comes to qualifications, it is not uncommon for a Minister of Science not to be an academic or a career scientist. Ministers are just ordinary elected politicians. The Minister's qualifications are as an Administrator/CEO, and not as an expert in any particular field.

The practical expertise in the running of each Deparment is provided in practice by career civil servants who are called Deputy Ministers, and by their staffs. The Ministers generally depend on the Deputy Ministers to implement the government policies.

Also, on a fairly regular basis the Prime Minister "shuffles" his/her Cabinet by moving Ministers from one Department (Portfolio) to a different one, or by replacing some Ministers with other MP's from the back benches of the governing party. This means that someone like Goodyear might be moved next month from Science Minister to Environment Minister.

As you may have gathered by now, people who look to the Ministers to be experts in their respective Departments are dreaming in technicolour. These Ministers are politicians plain and simple.

I hope this helps.

I understand what you mean, Spare, it works the same way in the UK, but the PM can't overview every single decision, which is why the depts have ministers looking after them! And though the civil servants advise, in the end the ministers set policy.

Maybe he got caught by a gotchya question.
Maybe he is a YEC but doesn't let it affect policy.
But it deserves scrutiny.

The day we say; "We don't need to check this out because no-one would ever get away with it," is the day people start getting away with it!

BiJ.

re: #177 tchad

And yes, creationists do lie. Frequently.
I am well aware of it, and I thank you for your campaign to expose their lies. I just think it is risky to label someone who says that he believes in evolution a creationist without better evidence than I saw in the links.

What he described as evolution when he walked back his original statement, though, doesn't even bear a passing resemblance to what evolution actually is. So apparently, he's a politician trying to cool some public heat by claiming to accept something he can't even correctly describe.

re: #175 Salamantis

Here's the original article:

[Link: www.theglobeandmail.com...]

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.

Sal: I consider the answer to the question to consist of a clueless conflation and confusion of religion and science. Evolution is not religion, any more than creationism is science, and a frigging Science Minister for a first-world country should know both these things.

Agreed. With all due respect, Spare, I must say that I do tend to expect the people assigned to head departments to not possess attitudes hostile to the mission of the department. Goodyear appears to be a case of such a hostility, and that hostility is grounds for removal in my eyes.

re: #178 Brit in Japan

I understand what you mean, Spare, it works the same way in the UK, but the PM can't overview every single decision, which is why the depts have ministers looking after them! And though the civil servants advise, in the end the ministers set policy.

Maybe he got caught by a gotchya question.
Maybe he is a YEC but doesn't let it affect policy.
But it deserves scrutiny.

The day we say; "We don't need to check this out because no-one would ever get away with it," is the day people start getting away with it!

BiJ.

Yes, he deserves scrutiny. I suggested on an earlier thread that folks adopt a watchful waiting kind of attitude. The guy may be OK. There's just not enough evidence to call for his head yet.

Would he be better at a patent division because of his skill in invention and tinkering? Probably, but you probably want an attorney overseeing that work.

watchful waiting

Hmm- I'm not sure why some of the Canadians I've seen defend science in the past are defending Goodyear's comments and actions. Maybe they thought this was more of an American phenomenon? It's rising in europe now too, the Canadians shouldn't be surprised this has sprung up. I understand that America and Canada are different, but I think the larger point might be for Canadians to start paying attention for creationist influences harming science that will be harmful to Canadian interests.

re: #178 Brit in Japan

I understand what you mean, Spare, it works the same way in the UK, but the PM can't overview every single decision, which is why the depts have ministers looking after them! And though the civil servants advise, in the end the ministers set policy.

Maybe he got caught by a gotchya question.
Maybe he is a YEC but doesn't let it affect policy.
But it deserves scrutiny.

The day we say; "We don't need to check this out because no-one would ever get away with it," is the day people start getting away with it!

BiJ.

I think he already HAS gotten away with it.

re: #180 Dark_Falcon

Agreed. With all due respect, Spare, I must say that I do tend to expect the people assigned to head departments to not possess attitudes hostile to the mission of the department. Goodyear appears to be a case of such a hostility, and that hostility is grounds for removal in my eyes.

You might want to ask whether antipathy to Science is government policy in Canada. I don't think so and I see no evidence of it.
And even if you are right about Goodyear being a drooling science-hater, which I think is total baloney, he will get his ass kicked at the next Cabinet meeting and will either get in line with government policy or he will be replaced.

re: #164 Sharmuta

A wide array of targets are offered daily at this blog. Why should this one be ignored?

Perhaps it should be ignored because it has been offered up to us by the leftist mainstream media, working in concert with the leftist Liberal Party of Canada in an attempt to assassinate the character of a Conservative government minister?

Give your head a shake, people! This exactly the same smear that was used against Sarah Palin in last Fall's election campaign. And it seems to me that Lizards had successfully refuted the notion that she was injecting her personal religious beliefs into Alaska's State administration. All we have to go on here is assertions made by the Liberal Party, and repeated by some who should know better, that the freezing of Genome Canada's budget was done solely by Gary Goodyear, and solely on ideological grounds. If you go to Genome Canada's own Web site (thanks, tschad!) you will see that they have other sources of funding. Did it ever occur to you that, given that spending cuts must be made, that Genome Canada, having alternative funding sources available, just might be better able to withstand a (government) funding freeze better than an entity which was wholly government-funded?

Listen, the CBC is an entrenched bureaucracy, sucking off the taxpayer teat, and as moonbatty as all get-out. We're talking Naomi Klein grade moonbatty here. CTV is a private broadcaster, about as impartial as CNN on a bad day. The Toronto Globe and Mail never met a Liberal they didn't like. Whatever you hear from those outlets, you have to filter.

Look, I'd be happier if Goodyear was an actual working scientist, but how many of those do you see ever going into politics? In politics, you work with what you can get. He was able to raise money; he was able to get elected, and he is apparently held in sufficient regard by the PM, that he got rewarded with a junior ministry. If he performs badly, he will be out in the next Cabinet shuffle, it's that simple.

re: #180 Dark_Falcon

Agreed. With all due respect, Spare, I must say that I do tend to expect the people assigned to head departments to not possess attitudes hostile to the mission of the department. Goodyear appears to be a case of such a hostility, and that hostility is grounds for removal in my eyes.

To tell you the truth, evolution ain't that big of a deal. I am ABD (all but dissertation) in biochem, and never took an evolutionary biology class. Evolutionary biology is BORING, IMHO. It's possible that Goodyear just doesn't know much about the topic or care much about it one way or the other.

I'd be interested to see what his attitudes are towards geology projects, etc.

re: #182 Sharmuta

Hmm- I'm not sure why some of the Canadians I've seen defend science in the past are defending Goodyear's comments and actions. Maybe they thought this was more of an American phenomenon? It's rising in europe now too, the Canadians shouldn't be surprised this has sprung up. I understand that America and Canada are different, but I think the larger point might be for Canadians to start paying attention for creationist influences harming science that will be harmful to Canadian interests.

Maybe it's a double standard; Canadians don't mind joining in when we Americans complain about American creationists affecting public policy in detrimental ways, but they do not welcome Americans complaining about Canadian creationists doing the very same thing.

re: #184 Spare O'Lake

You might want to ask whether antipathy to Science is government policy in Canada. I don't think so and I see no evidence of it.
And even if you are right about Goodyear being a drooling science-hater, which I think is total baloney, he will get his ass kicked at the next Cabinet meeting and will either get in line with government policy or he will be replaced.

Let us fervently hope. For the sake of Canadian bioscience.

re: #186 funky chicken

To tell you the truth, evolution ain't that big of a deal. I am ABD (all but dissertation) in biochem, and never took an evolutionary biology class. Evolutionary biology is BORING, IMHO. It's possible that Goodyear just doesn't know much about the topic or care much about it one way or the other.

I'd be interested to see what his attitudes are towards geology projects, etc.

You may consider evolutionary theory to be boring, but understanding and implementing it is essential to genetic research and the development of beneficial altered strains.

re: #185 Alberta Oil Peon

Fair enough, AOP. I do think the anti-science agenda is now international, and you fine folks up there should be vigilant. I do appreciate the lessons in Canadian government, tho. :)

re: #188 Salamantis

Let us fervently hope. For the sake of Canadian bioscience.

Agreed.

re: #179 Salamantis

So apparently, he's a politician trying to cool some public heat by claiming to accept something he can't even correctly describe.

You may well be right, I just want to see better substantiation of the charges against him before I attack him. This is all too speculative.

re: #182 Sharmuta

Hmm- I'm not sure why some of the Canadians I've seen defend science in the past are defending Goodyear's comments and actions. Maybe they thought this was more of an American phenomenon? It's rising in europe now too, the Canadians shouldn't be surprised this has sprung up. I understand that America and Canada are different, but I think the larger point might be for Canadians to start paying attention for creationist influences harming science that will be harmful to Canadian interests.

You are correct, but the differences between Canada and the US on this and other issues have historically been huge. It's not that Canadians are any better - they aren't - it's just that we are much less into religious fundamentalism up here, probably because it's so damn cold./

re: #185 Alberta Oil Peon

Perhaps it should be ignored because it has been offered up to us by the leftist mainstream media, working in concert with the leftist Liberal Party of Canada in an attempt to assassinate the character of a Conservative government minister?

It's a fair point, but Palin did an effective and clear job of stating that her views would not affect her policy. And she has proof as her time in Alaska.

Goodyear did not. I don't know the man, but if we judge by words and deeds of his department, the media might actually have found something this time.

BiJ.

re: #189 Salamantis

You may consider evolutionary theory to be boring, but understanding and implementing it is essential to genetic research and the development of beneficial altered strains.

Did you do this work? I did. I wrote grants, and I guarantee you, the words "evolutionary theory" never appeared, ever. I sat in on research seminars for years as an undergrad and then grad and then PhD candidate, and nobody talked about evolution or Darwin.

We did all talk about the idiots in the KS gvmt/board of education, and I've written before about how the actions of the evangelical creationists and Operation Rescue freaks turned off pretty much everybody in the building to the GOP. I'm no friend of creationists, and I lost a job because I wouldn't teach "intelligent design" to secondary ed students.

I simply don't see enough evidence to call for Mr. Goodyear's head...yet.

If he proves to be a nutter, yeah, I'll agree that he should go.

re: #169 Brit in Japan

You might be right about the original question... but the follow-up "denial" looked even more suspicious to me.

BiJ.

I honestly think it was more a case of him being confused and flustered about being probed on what he thought was a personal matter.

Clearly, he doesn't have a real good understanding of evolution. Too few people do, unfortunately. But I am not going to slag the poor guy unless I see clear evidence that he is actually letting his religious beliefs, whatever they may be, adversely affect government issues under his control.

This isn't a Bobby Jindal here, not even close.

And now I'm off to bed. Good night.

re: #192 tchad

So apparently, he's a politician trying to cool some public heat by claiming to accept something he can't even correctly describe.

You may well be right, I just want to see better substantiation of the charges against him before I attack him. This is all too speculative.

You will have to agree, though, that neither his public responses nor his ministry's funding actions have been remotely comforting in that regard.

re: #186 funky chicken

To tell you the truth, evolution ain't that big of a deal. I am ABD (all but dissertation) in biochem, and never took an evolutionary biology class. Evolutionary biology is BORING, IMHO. It's possible that Goodyear just doesn't know much about the topic or care much about it one way or the other.

I'd be interested to see what his attitudes are towards geology projects, etc.

I don't know you at all, funky, and I want to stress that I'm not accusing you of anything here, but I just want you to know that in the past DI operatives on this blog have used something along the "I am a biochem major and evolution is not important" line.

I'm sure it is more important in some areas than others, but to blindly deny that evolution exists, or even worse to say that this is a question of religion, as Goodyear did, is pretty worrying for scientists, and ALL of us, no?

BiJ.

re: #195 funky chicken

Did you do this work? I did. I wrote grants, and I guarantee you, the words "evolutionary theory" never appeared, ever. I sat in on research seminars for years as an undergrad and then grad and then PhD candidate, and nobody talked about evolution or Darwin.

We did all talk about the idiots in the KS gvmt/board of education, and I've written before about how the actions of the evangelical creationists and Operation Rescue freaks turned off pretty much everybody in the building to the GOP. I'm no friend of creationists, and I lost a job because I wouldn't teach "intelligent design" to secondary ed students.

I simply don't see enough evidence to call for Mr. Goodyear's head...yet.

If he proves to be a nutter, yeah, I'll agree that he should go.

Fish don't have to explicitly mention the water in which they all swim; they all know that it is there. Neither do bioscientists have to say the word 'evolution' in order to be employing the theory.

re: #182 Sharmuta

Hmm- I'm not sure why some of the Canadians I've seen defend science in the past are defending Goodyear's comments and actions. Maybe they thought this was more of an American phenomenon? It's rising in europe now too, the Canadians shouldn't be surprised this has sprung up. I understand that America and Canada are different, but I think the larger point might be for Canadians to start paying attention for creationist influences harming science that will be harmful to Canadian interests.

Sharmuta, this isn't anywhere near the same thing as Bobby Jindal's stealth creation bill, or similar bills on the docket in other states, or the ongoing dustup in Texas. Goodyear's actual powers here are pretty small; any major policy changes he wants to put through would have to be vetted by the entire Cabinet. Furthermore, we have a minority Government, which means that unless sufficient members of the opposition parties vote with the Government on a money bill, the Government falls. Also, any Government bill has to be approved by the Senate before it becomes law, and the opposition Liberal party owns the majority of seats in that body.

I think the chances of him being a Discovery Institute deep cover agent are slim and none. At worst, he's a lone Creationist that managed to get elected, who, if he becomes enough of a nuisance to the government, will be relegated to the limbo of the back benches. At best, he's a little out of his depth, but basically harmless.

Can't you see that we are being played by the Liberal Party and their mainstream media allies? Somebody presumably discovered that this guy belongs to some church denomination that adheres to Biblical literalism, and then they set about ambushing them with a gotcha question. And being pretty much of a greenhorn. Goodyear bobbled it. And now they have half of us convinced that the poor sap is a cross between Elmer Gantry and Harun Yahya. Sheesh!

re: #194 Brit in Japan

It's a fair point, but Palin did an effective and clear job of stating that her views would not affect her policy. And she has proof as her time in Alaska.

Goodyear did not. I don't know the man, but if we judge by words and deeds of his department, the media might actually have found something this time.

BiJ.

He has scarcely had the opportunity. AFAIK, he has only been in the job since last Fall's Federal election, so there is scarcely any track record upon which to base a judgment. As far as Genome Canada funding goes, it's very much in the interests of the Left to make us all believe that it was the result of ideological impurity on Goodyear's part, whatever the truth may be, so that it the meme that's being peddled.

re: #202 Alberta Oil Peon

He has scarcely had the opportunity. AFAIK, he has only been in the job since last Fall's Federal election, so there is scarcely any track record upon which to base a judgment. As far as Genome Canada funding goes, it's very much in the interests of the Left to make us all believe that it was the result of ideological impurity on Goodyear's part, whatever the truth may be, so that it the meme that's being peddled.

Genome Canada's fiscal year 2009 government funding WAS zeroed out on Goodyear's watch...

re: #195 funky chicken

"I simply don't see enough evidence to call for Mr. Goodyear's head...yet.

If he proves to be a nutter, yeah, I'll agree that he should go."

I'll second that. And proof has to be his own words, or documents from Cabinet or his own Ministry that malfeasance on his part. Not simply assertions from political opponents who are simply seeking a lever, any lever, with which to bring down the Government and force an election.

re: #201 Alberta Oil Peon

Sharmuta, this isn't anywhere near the same thing as Bobby Jindal's stealth creation bill, or similar bills on the docket in other states, or the ongoing dustup in Texas. Goodyear's actual powers here are pretty small; any major policy changes he wants to put through would have to be vetted by the entire Cabinet. Furthermore, we have a minority Government, which means that unless sufficient members of the opposition parties vote with the Government on a money bill, the Government falls. Also, any Government bill has to be approved by the Senate before it becomes law, and the opposition Liberal party owns the majority of seats in that body.

I think the chances of him being a Discovery Institute deep cover agent are slim and none. At worst, he's a lone Creationist that managed to get elected, who, if he becomes enough of a nuisance to the government, will be relegated to the limbo of the back benches. At best, he's a little out of his depth, but basically harmless.

Can't you see that we are being played by the Liberal Party and their mainstream media allies? Somebody presumably discovered that this guy belongs to some church denomination that adheres to Biblical literalism, and then they set about ambushing them with a gotcha question. And being pretty much of a greenhorn. Goodyear bobbled it. And now they have half of us convinced that the poor sap is a cross between Elmer Gantry and Harun Yahya. Sheesh!

When Florida governor Jeb Bush rammed through a bill giving him the power to decide over Terri Schiavo's husband's objections the power to keep her feeding tube installed, the liberal media here jumped all over it. And they were right to do so; the law was subsequently and properly ruled an unwarranted and unconstitutional abrogation of a husband's right to privacy and to make medical decisions for his long-brain-dead wife unhindered by ideologically motivated governmental intrusion. Sometimes, when media loyal to the other side criticizes our side's guys, they are regrettably but indisputably right.

re: #203 Salamantis

Genome Canada's fiscal year 2009 government funding WAS zeroed out on Goodyear's watch...

So? You fail to understand how a parliamentary government operates. This isn't the death knell to genomic science in Canada. Something had to be cut, and perhaps this was deemed (by the entire Cabinet) to be the least worst place to cut. Be assured that these spending cuts were thrashed out in Cabinet. Perhaps Goodyear was simply too weak of a minister to make a case for Genome Canada in Cabinet. I don't know, and we may never know, because Cabinet deliberations are traditionally secret in a Westminster system. That allows ministers to speak their minds amongst their peers, without having to frame every word to look good in the Press, thus preserving the illusion of Government unity. (heh)

Well, I have to log off now.

After the initial meltdowns I guess we can agree that this is important, and it is a very bad thing to have an anti-science flat-earther as a science minister, but that the guy merits a chance to clear things up.

Good day/night, Lizards!

BiJ.

re: #204 Alberta Oil Peon

"I simply don't see enough evidence to call for Mr. Goodyear's head...yet.

If he proves to be a nutter, yeah, I'll agree that he should go."

I'll second that. And proof has to be his own words, or documents from Cabinet or his own Ministry that malfeasance on his part. Not simply assertions from political opponents who are simply seeking a lever, any lever, with which to bring down the Government and force an election.

I gather that he'll be under your microscope as well as under scrutiny by the rest of us henceforth, then? And that if such malfeasance does turn up, and it is undeniable by reasonable people, that you'll have no problem with him losing his post...

re: #206 Alberta Oil Peon

So? You fail to understand how a parliamentary government operates. This isn't the death knell to genomic science in Canada. Something had to be cut, and perhaps this was deemed (by the entire Cabinet) to be the least worst place to cut. Be assured that these spending cuts were thrashed out in Cabinet. Perhaps Goodyear was simply too weak of a minister to make a case for Genome Canada in Cabinet. I don't know, and we may never know, because Cabinet deliberations are traditionally secret in a Westminster system. That allows ministers to speak their minds amongst their peers, without having to frame every word to look good in the Press, thus preserving the illusion of Government unity. (heh)

I still think they could have cut other programs a little more, and avoided zeroing them out totally, and that such a course would have been far preferable to the course that was taken. One thing that I found out when I was a student senator at university is that once a program gets totally defunded, it can be holy hell to get it funded again.

re: #208 Salamantis

I gather that he'll be under your microscope as well as under scrutiny by the rest of us henceforth, then? And that if such malfeasance does turn up, and it is undeniable by reasonable people, that you'll have no problem with him losing his post...

Absolutely!
I have zero use for the whole Intelligent Design scam, but I also have a great deal of suspicion about seeing good people unfairly tarred with that brush.

I'm familiar with partisan politics in Canada, and believe me it's a blood sport. We conservatives, and I'm using the lower-case "c" here to draw a distinction between my personal beliefs and the policy of the Conservative Party of Canada, are fighting an uphill battle to turn Canada off the leftist track that it's been careening down since the '60s. We don't need distractions like this to trip over. Needless to say, the Left is eager to provide them.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, but I'm not speaking here tonight as a spokesman for the party, nor do I hold any kind of office within the party. I just contribute money. But if Gary Goodyear, or any member of the government, tries to use his public office to ram I.D. down the public's throat, I will communicate with my M.P. and with the Prime Minister, and let them know that they will lose my support if they allow that nonsense to continue.

re: #182 Sharmuta

Hmm- I think the larger point might be for Canadians to start paying attention for creationist influences harming science that will be harmful to Canadian interests.

Can you give any examples of when a scientist who believed in creation caused harm (not hypothetical, pls).

re: #211 srmoss

Can you give any examples of when a scientist who believed in creation caused harm (not hypothetical, pls).

I don't know of any real "scientists" who believe in 6,000-year-old, humans-lived-with-the-dinosaurs creation.

The fraudsters called the DI have put up bogus "scientists" to ram the scam known as ID into American classrooms and already cost thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money in needless lawsuits. That is concrete harm - and the news archives are searchable on this very website.

In addition, the harm of teaching children to ignore the evidence all around them in favour of a cultish, un-Christian, religious dogma, in a science classroom of all places, should be patently obvious.

BiJ.

Warren Kinsella works for Liberal leader Micheal Ignatieff's campaign team. He is usually introduced on T.V. as a strategist. Most on the right up here in Canada call him a hatchetman.

He is also a principal in a firm specializing in political ads called Daisy, named after LBJ's (in)famous Daisy ad. He chose that name because he admires that ad.

Kinsella's spin on this story.

Note that he's using it to smear the entire Conservative caucus with it.

We don't know,yet, what Minister Goodyear's views on evolution are, other than he was unusually defensive about it, when the question was asked. But in this climate, I can't blame him.

Then it colors everything they do, including trying to overthrow the Constitution.

This type of hyperbole is nonsensical and detracts from the persuasiveness of whatever point this author was trying to make. I don't agree with teaching creationism or intelligent design in science classes. But the idea that every creationist is a zealot seeking to overthrow the Constitution is simply absurd.

re: #211 srmoss

Can you give any examples of when a scientist who believed in creation caused harm (not hypothetical, pls).

John Freshwater comes to mind.

Okay I am going to break my embargo on commenting on the subject.

No, it doesn’t matter, Charles. And there are two reasons why.

First, its Canada. Nothing Cannuckistan does matters.

Second, he acknowledged evolution as a current and present reality, which is undeniable, and its all we need. There are really two parts to the evolutionary theory: 1) evolution as a theory of origin, and 2) evolution as a present reality.

Evolutions as an origin is largely an academic issue, and since by definition none of were here back then, we really can never settle that debate, except to say that ruling out the divine, evolution is the best explanation. And, by the way, nothing this guy has said has contradicted that stand (as far as I know).

Evolution as a present reality, however, is the one that really matters for the purposes of advancing science. If you want to create new and better antibiotics, and so forth and so on, then you only need to believe that evolution is presently happening and he does.

I challenge you or anyone to explain to me how you have to believe that evolution is not only a present reality but the exclusive explanation for how we got here, in order to advance our science.

Looking back at Goodyear's position, I haven't seen any posts regarding what he actually said (apologies if I missed any). He said:

“We are evolving every year, every decade. That's a fact, whether it is to the intensity of the sun, whether it is to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it is running shoes or high heels, of course we are evolving to our environment."

This has nothing whatsoever to do with biological evolution. All he did was use the word "evolution" in a different context, and "voila" he is taken to have said that he believes in evolution.

He also says:

“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.”

This is a classic creationist/ID mindset. On the one hand the reference to having to physically "see" something to believe it, or understand it; and on the other hand the "recognition that we don't know".

The latter illogic is often used by creationists, ignoring the fact that the very fundamental of science is the recognition that everything is not known. What does he think science is, if not investigating the unknown? Creationists turn this around by claiming that when something is known, science pretends that all is known. Classic "god of the gaps" thinking.

re: #216 A.W.

Okay I am going to break my embargo on commenting on the subject.

You were doing better under the embargo.

Did Darwin invent science? It would seem that science never truly existed before Darwin. Praise be to you El ShadDarwin, our Abba...

naso

Well, thank you for that substantive response. *rolls eyes*

re: #216 A.W.

I challenge you or anyone to explain to me how you have to believe that evolution is not only a present reality but the exclusive explanation for how we got here, in order to advance our science.

First of all- you've confused evolutionary theory with origin of life theory, but I'll try to answer you anyways: Evolutionary theory is supported by mountains of evidence- hard, empirical data from the genome to the fossil record. There is no other theory of speciation that brings the veracity of evolution into question- none whatsoever.

Now, we defend and advance our science by defending the philosophy of science and the scientific method- that there are natural causations for natural phenomenon and we test the hypothesis, and based on the findings of these tests we reject, refine or accept the hypothesis. Supernatural explanations are not testable, therefore they're not science.

None of the above comments mentioned the NSERC or the CIHR.

In Canada, as in other Western democracies, science funding is controlled by non-governmental councils made up of scientists. Depending on the type of research, Canadian researchers apply to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), or the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). The minister decides only on the total money available to these councils, not on the research project they will fund. I can assure you, from knowing personally several individuals sitting on these councils, that if the Minister attempted to control research, he would be publicly crucified and be forced to quit.

GOODYEAR IS RIGHT, HIS PERSONAL BELIEFS ARE IRRELEVANT. WE IN CANADA HAVE BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURES TO ENSURE IT REMAINS SO. I cannot believe the crap all of you write here. You are no better than the idiot journalists writing about this lately. I hope none of you is a career scientist.

re: #222 mannygo

I hope none of you is a career scientist.

Amen!

re: #216 A.W.

Since you seem to want to know.

No, it doesn’t matter, Charles. And there are two reasons why.

First, its Canada. Nothing Cannuckistan does matters.

Silly comment

Second, he acknowledged evolution as a current and present reality, which is undeniable, and its all we need.

No he doesn't, and in addition he dismisses the issue as an irrelevance to science in general, which it is not.

There are really two parts to the evolutionary theory: 1) evolution as a theory of origin, and 2) evolution as a present reality.

Evolutionary theory does not address nor prove ultimate origins.

Evolutions as an origin is largely an academic issue, and since by definition none of were here back then, we really can never settle that debate, except to say that ruling out the divine, evolution is the best explanation. And, by the way, nothing this guy has said has contradicted that stand (as far as I know).

I don't know if he was asked that question. As to origins being an academic issue and having to "be there" to prove it; you are sounding a little bit like a creationists with that logic. It is quite conceivable that it will be possible to demonstrate in a lab, the unaided combination of chemicals known to exist in nature so as to create self replicating molecules of RNA, or DNA. How that could happen is well known; the only part that cannot be known is which of the many possible conditions was the dominant precursor.

I challenge you or anyone to explain to me how you have to believe that evolution is not only a present reality but the exclusive explanation for how we got here, in order to advance our science.

What does origins have to do with evolution as a present reality? Which of the two issues are you wanting to discuss?

Shar

> First of all- you've confused evolutionary theory with origin of life theory,

Au contraire, I was separating the two. Maybe at most you feel there should be a different label slapped on the two concepts and well, arguments about the meaning of words is boring.

And you utterly failed my challenge. There is no one way in which applied science depends on the belief that the earth is billions of years old, etc.

And indeed, he hasn’t defined what he believes. There are basically 3 camps on this subject.

First, there are creationists who believe the scientific evidence supports the bible or something like that.

Second, there are the pure evolutionists who believe that the only explanation is evolution.

And third, there are the people who acknowledge that the scientific evidence supports only evolution but comes up with various theories by which an omnipotent God is still more or less our creator. Some argue that the God is the original cause, that he created the big-bang. Some argue that creation happened just like it says in the bible, but God set it up to look like evolution and the big bang happened.

The important thing to grasp is that the third category has a natural detente with the second. They aren’t disagreeing on facts or even the scientific method, just how to apply it to theology.

So suppose he said, “I believe that God created the Earth in 7 days about 4 thousand years ago on a Tuesday.” Okay, but does that put him in the third category or the first? The key is the word "believe" which is different than "the scientific evidence shows..." and thus you can't actually say which column he belongs in.

I have seen nothing that says he is not in the third category and he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

re: #225 A.W.

arguments about the meaning of words is boring.

I don't really care if you find it boring or not, words mean things. If you're going to intentionally obfuscate the language then there can be no discussion. Please go back to your embargo.

re: #222 mannygo

GOODYEAR IS RIGHT, HIS PERSONAL BELIEFS ARE IRRELEVANT. WE IN CANADA HAVE BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURES TO ENSURE IT REMAINS SO. I cannot believe the crap all of you write here. You are no better than the idiot journalists writing about this lately. I hope none of you is a career scientist.

You could be right, that Goodyear is just a paper pushing office manager without any influence on policy, in which case his opinion would be irrelevant.

Since you are the expert, if that is the case what is the point of anyone interviewing him at all and why would he have the title of "Science Minister" instead of, say, "Chief gopher to the real scientists"?

re: #225 A.W.

I have seen nothing that says he is not in the third category and he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

That is probably because you are ignoring any opinions that dispute what you want to see.

Naso

> Silly comment

Yeah, a little. But true.

> No he doesn't

Um, yes he does.

> in addition he dismisses the issue as an irrelevance to science in general, which it is not.

So you are mad that he hasn’t placed evolution as being the keystone of all scientific inquiry. Oooo-kaaay. Its not enough for him to agree that evolution is presently occurred but he has to think its really, really important, too.

> Evolutionary theory does not address nor prove ultimate origins.

Right, and what was the book that started this whole controversy called again? “The Origin of Species.” But if you merely mean that a person can believe evolution is presently happening, but still believe in young earth creationism or something like that, um, yes, absolutely.

> As to origins being an academic issue and having to "be there" to prove it; you are sounding a little bit like a creationists with that logic.

First, I didn’t say you had to “be there” to prove it, only that because no one was there, you can’t settle the debate. And as far as that “logic” sounding creationist, it is based on the “unique” premise that belief that an omnipotent God created the earth recently is unfalsifiable. I am sure you find that pedestrian and indeed undeniable argument to extremely threatening.

And as for it being an academic issue, well that is what my challenge is about. Show how believing dinosaurs once ruled the earth well help us develop a vaccine. Because I don’t see it.

> What does origins have to do with evolution as a present reality?

That’s my question. What does it have to do with it? why should you have to you have to believe in evolution as an origin in order to help advance science. Clearly you have to believe in evolution as a present reality, but as an origin? I don’t see it.

re: #229 A.W.

Please use blockquotes and so on for readability.

Shar

You’re the one playing games with words. Evolution has always, right from the beginning, addressed how we got here. Which is not to say you can’t separate the two issues: how we got here v. whether evolution is happening now. But for God’s sake, the book was called THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. To pretend that evolution has nothing to do with origins is bullshit and an abuse of language and history. It touches on both issues.

I tried to avoid reaming you out for your bullshit by dismissing the issue as boring. And it is that, too. But don’t accuse me of the word games. That was your tactic, not mine.

re: #231 A.W.

You are ignorant. The name of the book is On the Origin of Species. Evolution is the theory of speciation, not origin of life. Evolution assumes life is already present. You can't grasp that there is a distinction, nor do you want to.

Another tempest in a teapot. Plaits point are poorly made and presumptuous, and fail in the important understanding that the post is primarily political rather than scientific.

I'd be willing to bet that most scientists have one belief or another that isn't consistent with empirical science ... why the witch-hunt on creationists?

Here are a few of my guesses:

1) The desire to marginalize Christianity and Christian authority in the public dialog. This "movement" is most popular among homosexual and women's groups who resent Christianity for interfering in their lives.

2) An overweening faith in science as the answer to human issues. These people are typically 2-dimensional thinkers - the rational materialists whose attitudes are not unlike those of religious fanatics.

3) The intellectually insecure. Because the belief in evolution is evidence that you are not one of the mindless followers of idiotic religious belief, making an uncompromising stand for it is proof of your intelligence.

4) The lackeys of any of the above.

The Truth is infinite which means that not one of us will ever corner the market, it is often layered and subtle meaning that even lies or delusion reveal truth. When comparing your particular collection of truths to those of another, the only important question is: What are you going to do will all that? And, assuming creationism is delusion, it ranks among the most harmless delusions around.

I would suspect that each and everyone of us holds dear a foolish delusion, despite the evidence, that is at least as damaging as that of the creationists. Oh, that brings a new category to mind:

5) Those who are annoyed that their preferred delusion isn't taken more seriously (aliens, bigfoot, troofers, et. al.).

BTW, I once believed I was witnessing an alien craft approaching my home in downtown Minneapolis. I watched in awe and wonder, only to find that the hovering light bank was a furled night-time advertisement banner being pulled behind a light aircraft - it was hovering because the plane was turning around.

After this I concluded that belief in aliens on our planet is simply wishful or paranoid delusion. It took me years to realize that, in fact, there's just no way to be absolutely sure one way or another.

As for creationists, I say give 'em a break, these are people who lost a war without ever firing a shot - the culture war. Now their children must grow up in the rank and fetid narcissism of Liberal self-satisfaction, exposed daily to the decay of hundreds of years of successful social evolution.

And please, try to refrain from knee-jerk ad-hominem responses - and if you want to address my position don't just pull out one or two points that you think you can defeat - either address it entirely or not at all.

re: #229 A.W.

Please read my #217

Re Origin of the Species. That term means what it says, it does not mean Origin of Self Replication.

As to your grand challenge on dinosaurs, are you being facetious? There is a large tapestry describing evolution and dinosaurs are only a popular part of it. I'm not sure what your point is. Do you think evolutionary theory has no relevance to biological science, like vaccines?

Coming back to origins again, once one understands evolution and biochemistry it does not take a genius to make plausible speculations about origins of life and, given that it started billions of years ago, under the right conditions it would seem to be a "natural" course of chemistry. How it evolves from there is another story, told by evolution. There is no obvious need to credit aliens or deities with doing so.

Any empirical data or even a testable, falsifiable hypothesis that would refute evolution? Anyone?

re: #233 arcatan

And please, try to refrain from knee-jerk ad-hominem responses - and if you want to address my position don't just pull out one or two points that you think you can defeat - either address it entirely or not at all.

You don't really make points that can be debated. You simply express your opinions on a wide ranging number of issues, with little connection to each other except by a thread of smug cynicism.

The issue is, as you would know if you didn't just pop in and out like a jack in the box, that creationism is an antiscience philosophy attempting to control school education. That is why it is important.

Make a coherent argument and you will get at least attempts at coherent replies. Tell someone what you want them to tell you and you will be taken for an ass (ad-hominem and all).

re: #236 metronil

Im not a religious person but i think militant atheists are just as annoying as militant theists.
imho

As are militant feminists, militant homosexuals, militant liberals, militant neoconservatives and people who don't say anything in their posts.

re: #107 pingjockey

That is SOP for these threads, We have folks registered who never post and run around down dinging posts they don't like. Chicken shits they are.

Yeah. JustaHousewife hasn't posted on this entire fucking thred, and yet she's downdinged me at least a dozen times on it.

re: #210 Alberta Oil Peon

Absolutely!
I have zero use for the whole Intelligent Design scam, but I also have a great deal of suspicion about seeing good people unfairly tarred with that brush.

I'm familiar with partisan politics in Canada, and believe me it's a blood sport. We conservatives, and I'm using the lower-case "c" here to draw a distinction between my personal beliefs and the policy of the Conservative Party of Canada, are fighting an uphill battle to turn Canada off the leftist track that it's been careening down since the '60s. We don't need distractions like this to trip over. Needless to say, the Left is eager to provide them.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, but I'm not speaking here tonight as a spokesman for the party, nor do I hold any kind of office within the party. I just contribute money. But if Gary Goodyear, or any member of the government, tries to use his public office to ram I.D. down the public's throat, I will communicate with my M.P. and with the Prime Minister, and let them know that they will lose my support if they allow that nonsense to continue.

What if he just establishes a trend of defunding bioscience research, or defunding anything that has to do with evolution? After all, since he's science minister, and not education minister; that's what the fuck he can do.

re: #211 srmoss

Can you give any examples of when a scientist who believed in creation caused harm (not hypothetical, pls).

You mean a competent practicing bioscientist born after Darwin's theory became widely known who believes that terrestrial species were created independently and as is in the span of a few thousand years ago?

It would be hard to find one; those creatures are rarer than hens' teeth.

Intelligent design believers are dangerous because young earth creationsists are dangerous. Young earth creationists are dangerous because flat earthers are dangerous. The proof? "the past 8 years in the US..." I thought the Scopes trial was about opening up the classroom to different POVs, but it was just to change the uniforms on the lock-steppers.

Keep fighting the good fight re: shutting out opposing viewpoints. You're, like, heroes, or something.

*eyerolly*

I see the belligerent creationists have shown up now.

re: #118 Joan Not of Arc

What field of science would you like Goodyear to master? If he believed wholeheartedly in the theory of evolution would he magically be transformed into a governmental official you could trust? I've argued his personal beliefs- which would not be asked of anyone else- are a problem for some people. I've argued merit is hardly a concern in the House of Commons which is populated with some very questionable characters. I've pointed out that in an article by the noteworthy Charles Krauthammer that Mr. Obama believes in the junk science of embryonic stem cell research (as I'm sure would have been mentioned in other articles) in some effort to make himself seem relevant in the science world.
I'll say this again- creationism and evolution are not the issues here. It's not even Goodyear's fitness for office. His views- which can't really effect anything people think might be effected- are the big issue. If Goodyear must be disqualified from office, it better be something meatier than "oh, evolution might be true".
Just saying.

Is there any particular reason you are ignoring the numerous posts that have pointed out exactly why it matters?

Creationism is not, in any shape or form, compatible with science. To believe it requires dismissing the entire scientific method, over 100 years of research, and verifiable scientific data.

re: #242 pants

Do you have any idea how childish you sound? If you have facts to show that there is any merit to creationism, share them.

re: #216 A.W.

Okay I am going to break my embargo on commenting on the subject.

No, it doesn’t matter, Charles. And there are two reasons why.

First, its Canada. Nothing Cannuckistan does matters.

Second, he acknowledged evolution as a current and present reality, which is undeniable, and its all we need. There are really two parts to the evolutionary theory: 1) evolution as a theory of origin, and 2) evolution as a present reality.

What he described as evolution, however, bears no resemblance whatsoever to what genetic evolution actually IS; it instead resemboles the long-discredited doctrine of Lamarkianism.

Evolutions as an origin is largely an academic issue, and since by definition none of were here back then, we really can never settle that debate, except to say that ruling out the divine, evolution is the best explanation. And, by the way, nothing this guy has said has contradicted that stand (as far as I know).

Yes we CAN know what happened in the past, by means of something called EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Past events leave it behind, and we find it. In the soil, and in the genes. And this guy blatantly stated that the question of whether or not he accepted evolution was a religious rather than a scientific question. Well, it isn't; evolution is no more religion than creationism is science; and a frigging science minister for a first world country should damn well know that.

Evolution as a present reality, however, is the one that really matters for the purposes of advancing science. If you want to create new and better antibiotics, and so forth and so on, then you only need to believe that evolution is presently happening and he does.

As remarked before, what he described as evolution doesn't even remotely resemble it.

I challenge you or anyone to explain to me how you have to believe that evolution is not only a present reality but the exclusive explanation for how we got here, in order to advance our science.

One has to be willing to accept empirical evidence in order to act upon it and innovate on the basis of research. The artifactual retroviral DNA evidence conclusively demonstrates beyong rational statistical doubt that terrestrial lifeforms in general evolved from a small set of ancient (as far back as billions of years ago) common ancestors, and that humans and great apes evolutionarily diverged from much more recent (a few million years ago) hominid common ancestors.

I'd like to hear Science Minister Goodyear asked whether or not he accepts the common ancestry of humans and great apes; that would conclusively reveal whether he accepted evolution or not.

re: #242 pants

Intelligent design believers are dangerous because young earth creationsists are dangerous. Young earth creationists are dangerous because flat earthers are dangerous. The proof? "the past 8 years in the US..." I thought the Scopes trial was about opening up the classroom to different POVs, but it was just to change the uniforms on the lock-steppers.

Keep fighting the good fight re: shutting out opposing viewpoints. You're, like, heroes, or something.

*eyerolly*

If you're too damn dumb to understand the difference between empirical science and religious dogma, and too dense and obtuse to grok the fact that only the first of the two belongs in public high school science class, then you're beyond receiving an online IQ injection.

re: #242 pants

The Scopes trial was about having science taught in science class, not religion taught in science class. It's amazing to find that, after so many years, the battle is still going on. For the Discovery Institute/ID movement to deceitfully and intentionally attempt to install a religious dogma into public school science classes time after time is disturbing to say the very least. As people of faith, we must see that TRUTH, wherever it takes us, is our cause.

The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.
~Saint Thomas Aquinas

re: #245 Emerald

Creationism is not science, and attacking it as such is a strawman way bolstering overloaded::(evolution)...

I have no problems with microevolution, I question speciation, there is no empirical evidence for speciation, only subjective or speculative conclusions based on the model of speciation, yet it is taken as fact. So far everyone I've tried to engage on the merits of evolution ends up attacking creationism...not impressed...

re: #219 jimc

Did Darwin invent science? It would seem that science never truly existed before Darwin. Praise be to you El ShadDarwin, our Abba...

Nope. But he invented one of the three most pivotal presently functional scientific theories (Einsteinian relativity theory and Feynmannian quantum mechanics theory being the other two).

re: #249 jimc

Creationism is not science, and attacking it as such is a strawman way bolstering overloaded::(evolution)...

I have no problems with microevolution, I question speciation, there is no empirical evidence for speciation, only subjective or speculative conclusions based on the model of speciation, yet it is taken as fact. So far everyone I've tried to engage on the merits of evolution ends up attacking creationism...not impressed...

HERE is your empirical evidence for speciation! And it is conclusive beyond rational statistical doubt. You know of course, that if different species share common ancestors, then they must have speciated - i.e. evolutionarily diverged - from them; right?

[Link: www.newyorker.com...]

Excerpt:

“If Charles Darwin reappeared today, he might be surprised to learn that humans are descended from viruses as well as from apes,” Weiss wrote.

Darwin’s surprise almost certainly would be mixed with delight: when he suggested, in “The Descent of Man” (1871), that humans and apes shared a common ancestor, it was a revolutionary idea, and it remains one today. Yet nothing provides more convincing evidence for the “theory” of evolution than the viruses contained within our DNA. Until recently, the earliest available information about the history and the course of human diseases, like smallpox and typhus, came from mummies no more than four thousand years old. Evolution cannot be measured in a time span that short. Endogenous retroviruses provide a trail of molecular bread crumbs leading millions of years into the past.

Darwin’s theory makes sense, though, only if humans share most of those viral fragments with relatives like chimpanzees and monkeys. And we do, in thousands of places throughout our genome. If that were a coincidence, humans and chimpanzees would have had to endure an incalculable number of identical viral infections in the course of millions of years, and then, somehow, those infections would have had to end up in exactly the same place within each genome. The rungs of the ladder of human DNA consist of three billion pairs of nucleotides spread across forty-six chromosomes. The sequences of those nucleotides determine how each person differs from another, and from all other living things. The only way that humans, in thousands of seemingly random locations, could possess the exact retroviral DNA found in another species is by inheriting it from a common ancestor.

Molecular biology has made precise knowledge about the nature of that inheritance possible. With extensive databases of genetic sequences, reconstructing ancestral genomes has become common, and retroviruses have been found in the genome of every vertebrate species that has been studied. Anthropologists and biologists have used them to investigate not only the lineage of primates but the relationships among animals—dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes, for example—and also to test whether similar organisms may in fact be unrelated.

Sal: Put that in your cap and think on it!

re: #249 jimc

Nonsense! There's plenty of evidence for speciation.