[fifeboy]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Science minister ends evolution brouhaha

$1:

The Canadian Press

March 17, 2009 at 5:35 PM EDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well thar ya go! A true believer

[ridenrain]

fifeboy fifeboy:

ridenrain ridenrain:

Why should he answer a personal question from a biased media intent only on reaching new heights of "gotcha" journalism?

The minister didn't handle this well but this is just another manufactured scandal by a biased media.

This is strange that all the folks demanding the separation of church and state are now demanding this man be fired because of his religious beliefs.
Crass politics indeed.

Come on ride, if he was minister of highways, or even finance minister his denial of evolution would not make any difference. He is however "science minister." This makes a difference. It would be like having someone in as minister of transport who thought automobiles should be banned.

So you say that he couldn't do his job because of his religious beliefs?
You're suggesting he be fired from that post because of his religious belief?

[roger-roger]

[rawmeat]

ridenrain ridenrain:

I don't like chiropractors either but that's not a reason why he's unqualified either.

Again, when is the press going to break out the "when did you stop beating you're wife" questions?

How does asking a question about science addressed to the science minister relate in anyway to a question about him beating his wife? that digression makes no sense at all.

[ridenrain]

This was a biased media scrabbling for a bigger "get Harper" moment, nothing more.
The reporter had no right to ask that question and the minister had no duty to answer that. Most of all, the media had no right to blow this into another manufactured scandal.

[roger-roger]

I dont see how this was a scandal at all....

[rawmeat]

ridenrain ridenrain:

fifeboy fifeboy:

ridenrain ridenrain:

Why should he answer a personal question from a biased media intent only on reaching new heights of "gotcha" journalism?

The minister didn't handle this well but this is just another manufactured scandal by a biased media.

This is strange that all the folks demanding the separation of church and state are now demanding this man be fired because of his religious beliefs.
Crass politics indeed.

Come on ride, if he was minister of highways, or even finance minister his denial of evolution would not make any difference. He is however "science minister." This makes a difference. It would be like having someone in as minister of transport who thought automobiles should be banned.

So you say that he couldn't do his job because of his religious beliefs?
You're suggesting he be fired from that post because of his religious belief?

If he believes in God or a God of some sort is irrelevant. If he accepts a proven scientific theory is very relevant. This is a moot point now though since the post above shows that he does in fact accept evolution.

[ridenrain]

Now we go back to the problem of discriminating against some one because of their religion.

Perhaps you should draw up a list of religions that you find unacceptable for this job and send that to the Human Rights Comissions.

[rawmeat]

ridenrain ridenrain:

This was a biased media scrabbling for a bigger "get Harper" moment, nothing more.
The reporter had no right to ask that question and the minister had no duty to answer that. Most of all, the media had no right to blow this into another manufactured scandal.

I have voted conservative all my life, I don't see how this is a get Harper question. A science question is relevant when asking the science minister. I still don't understand what this has to do with his faith?

[Bodah]

I wonder what the Koran says about evolution ? From what I've read its pretty muddled.

With that, what if the Science Minister was Islamic, would we be seeing the same press ?

I don't think so.

Hypocrites.

[ridenrain]

It simply has nothing what so ever to do with his ability to do his job and treads very close to discrimination.

Flip it around and insert Hindu, Muslim or Scientologist and tell me that it sounds as fair.

[roger-roger]

I think we would, well the CBC wouldnt touch it but I think the National Post, the Globe and CTV would.

[roger-roger]

ridenrain ridenrain:

It simply has nothing what so ever to do with his ability to do his job and treads very close to discrimination.

Flip it around and insert Hindu, Muslim or Scientologist and tell me that it sounds as fair.

It sounds fair, but I agree as long as it doesnt effect his job it shouldnt have a basis. Now if he was trying to push a creationsim into science thats a different matter...

[ridenrain]

rawmeat rawmeat:

ridenrain ridenrain:

This was a biased media scrabbling for a bigger "get Harper" moment, nothing more.
The reporter had no right to ask that question and the minister had no duty to answer that. Most of all, the media had no right to blow this into another manufactured scandal.

I have voted conservative all my life, I don't see how this is a get Harper question. A science question is relevant when asking the science minister. I still don't understand what this has to do with his faith?

If you voted Conservative all you're life, you would see that this is exactly the same smear that Warren Kinsella used against Stockwell Day during Chretien's 2000 snap election. The main focus of that campaign was the huge straw man that Kinsella made about Day's religion.
This is just a smaller version of that same assault.

[rawmeat]

I can agree with that. As long as he doesn't try to dictate the type of research done. I would hope the same question would be asked of any person of any religion or lack of. From the article it seems that he volunteered what his religion was, the question wasn't " What is your religion?". I am still unclear what the question has to do with his religion in any way? Maybe my Conservative card should be taken away because I see this as a relevant question? at any rate i am done with beating this dead horse.