Angry in the Great White North

Anyone who thinks scientists have some special quality that makes them particularly open-minded is deluding themselves.  Indeed, some scientists are easily the most judgmental and closed-minded members of any community, so convinced of their own superiority that anyone who crosses paths with them is subjected to the nastiest evaluation, one that few pass.

Cambridge MP Gary Goodyear, minister of state for science and technology, is undergoing such a trial right now, because of a Gary Goodyear' religious beliefs:

Canada's science minister, the man at the centre of the controversy over federal funding cuts to researchers, won't say if he believes in evolution.

"I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate," Gary Goodyear, the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

A funding crunch, exacerbated by cuts in the January budget, has left many senior researchers across the county scrambling to find the money to continue their experiments.

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

When asked about those rumours, Mr. Goodyear said such conversations are not worth having.

Rumours?  That's it?  Rumours?

What next?  Drag him and any other potential ministers in front of a self-appointed tribunal of scientists who can intone these questions:

Are you now or have you ever been a believer in Creationism?

Are you now or have you ever been a member of a faith community?

Are you now or have you ever been a skeptic of a global warming?

Because those tolerant open-minded scientists know all about testing, right?

Gary Goodyear ought to hold his ground.  On principle.  It's his actions that matter, not his private beliefs.  Is funding for research being curtailed in some areas?  Yes it is.  Welcome to the recession.

If members of the scientific community think the result would have been any different with any other MP in Gary Goodyear's position, they're deluding themselves.

Funding is not what it used to be, nor is it where many scientists think it ought to be.  They're disappointed.  That's natural.  But in their disappointment, they have reverted to a behaviour we've seen from scientists before: mockery of the rest of us.

David Suzuki call for politicians who expressed skepticism of global warming (or climate change, or whatever it is being called these days) to be jailed is easily the most notorious example of this sort of thing.

Labeling Gary Goodyear an enemy of science in general because of a belief in creationism in particular is just another.

I've seen it myself.  An acquaintance recently showed me a YouTube video of a Sarah Palin parody, targeting her religious beliefs.  He also crowed about a panel discussion in which the panel members demanded that she declare herself a believer in evolution, and suggesting that she would not.  They acted as if they had achieved some sort of coup by ridiculing her faith.

He thought this was high comedy and clever politics.  He just couldn't understand how disturbing and twisted this was.  He couldn't understand why I was not laughing.  And since I didn't laugh, I became a suspect.  He started asking me about my beliefs.

Like Gary Goodyear, I told him to keep his questions to himself, because I'm certainly keeping the answers to myself.  I didn't care if my answers would have satisfied or not.  I was consumed with the need to bite my tongue and refuse to give him the satisfaction of an answer.

I had no intention of implicitly validating his belief that he had the right to ask those questions and to draw conclusions from the answers, or his belief that I had an obligation to provide answers and submit to his judgment.

I'm willing to bet Gary Goodyear is thinking much the same thing.

Good for him.  Keep those scientists off balance:

Jim Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said he was flabbergasted that the minister would invoke his religion when asked about evolution.

Really, Mr Turk?  Why is this so surprising?  A lot of people understand that for many scientists, "evolution" is equivalent to "atheism".  It isn't, of course, but challenging such a person on that subtle distinction will result in getting labeled some sort of Taliban fundamentalist, minus the Koran.

Gary Goodyear is right not to give these people the satisfaction of an answer, but if the pressure proves too much, I'd like to suggest that Gary Goodyear offer this compromise position:

I'll be happy to answer any nosy questions you think you have a right to ask.  Just put the question in writing on a $50 dollar bill (for an answer within 24 hours) or a $20 dollar bill (for an answer in seven to ten days).

In fact, I'll extend the same rules to anyone who is curious about what I think about whatever.  Attach your questions to a PayPal donation.

A question for scientists: Perhaps Jim Turk could answer this question.  If the Minister of State for Science and Technology stood up and declared his unreserved support for the Theory of Evolution, could we continue with the funding cuts with a lot less complaining?  If the answer is "No", then why does it matter who the minister of state is?  If the answer is "Yes", then how will the level of funding be any different?

A lack of clarity: I'm not even certain from the story whether the rumour being discussed here is a a rumour that Gary Goodyear believes in creationism, or whether it is a matter of record that his believes in creationism, and that the rumour is that this is why funding is being cut.  And what sort of flavour of creationism we're talking about?  There is a range of beliefs in the role of God in how the world has come to this state, from Young Earth to Theistic evolution.  Not that any of this matters to the Anti-Faith Brigade.

The best scientists? I sometimes think the best scientists are priests.  Perhaps it's because humility is part of their makeup and their training. 

This was about privacy: It appears that Gary Goodyear accepts evolution as a valid explanation for the variety of forms of life on the planet.  So why didn't he just say so?  I think I understand.  He could have had the same visceral reaction I had when I felt that I was being judged by those who "had it in" for people who expressed even a modicum of faith.  Suddenly I didn't care that my answer might indeed have satisfied this person.  I didn't want to give him the satisfaction in the first place.  He had no business asking the question, and no special right to pass judgment.  I was happy to let him stew against the backdrop of me not caring one jot what he thought. 

It might not have been smart politics, but then sometimes there are things that are more important, even to a politician.

Yeah, I get it.