A controversy was recently sparked when federal Science Minister of State Gary Goodyear recently refused to answer a question about whether or not he believed 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," Goodyear explained."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," Goodyear later added -- a comment that some individuals have jumped upon as apparent proof that Goodyear believes in creationism.
Yet in a later interview, Goodyear further explained his refusal to answer the question.
"I didn't answer the question because it's not relevant to the portfolio, it's not relevant to what we have to do, [to] what Canadians are worried about," Goodyear explained on CTV. "It's unfortunate a reporter has chosen to take this as something of interest when in fact the focus should be on ...creating jobs and securing our economic future."
"The interview was about our science and tech strategy, which is strong," Goodyear added.
When asked in that interview whether or not he believes in evolution, Goodyear confirmed his belief.
"Of course, I do," he said. "We are evolving every year, every decade. That's a fact, whether it's to the intensity of the sun ...or to the effects of walking on concrete. Of course, we are evolving to our environment. But that's not relevant."
Many of the most intellectually dishonest among those who are out for Goodyear's head are insisting that Goodyear's latter comments reflect an understanding of adaptation, not evolution.
The fact that they're ignoring is that, as a fundamental principle of the theory of natural selection, adaptation is also a fundamental principle of the theory of evolution.
It's very interesting that PZ Myers, a blogging biologist who has helped spread this controversy, has yet to acknowledge Goodyear's comments or correct any of his followers who are twisting evolutionary theory in order to preserve the controversy.
Unshockingly, the usual suspects think they have a real winner on their hands.
As usual, they'll ignore facts -- and apparently even bastardize the theory of evolution -- in order to enjoy a hollow triumph.
Canadians who aren't indulging themselves in willful ignorance will recognize Goodyear's comments for precisely what they are: affirmation of his belief in evolution.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
Larry Moran - "Gary Goodyear 'Clarifies' His Stance on Evolution"
Pearce Richards - "Gary Goodyear - National Embarrassment"
Ian Bushfield - "I'm Not Buying It Gary"
Basically every thinking human being accepts some notion of evolution. But which notion matters.
ReplyDeleteThere were basically two biggies. Lamarckian evolution held that evolution occurs within the organism, as a direct response to the environment. Giraffes stretch their necks to reach leaves on the highest branches of the tree, and that adapatation is passed along to their descendants. That model is incorrect, but is still widely held among the biologically illiterate.
The Darwinian model says that that one out of a million giraffes will have a slightly longer neck. And in a specific environment, if that longer neck confers a breeding advantage on that specific organism, it will probably survive longer and breed more frequently, and for longer, than its short-necked colleagues. Its offspring, the long necks, will be similarly advantaged, and gradually the long-neck mutation will become the dominant strain.
The Minister's response is more evocative of the Lamarckian than the Darwinian model.
The commotion was one of Goodyear's making. Conflation of a question regarding scientific theory with "asking a question about [his] religion" was something he chose to do, an rightly generated some concerns regarding his competency for the position he's be put in.
ReplyDeleteGoodyear's subsequent comments aren't much better, as his comments really don't clarify whether he believes in the scientific theory of evolution or whether organisms merely have the capability of adapting to their environment. The latter might be a component of the former, but could also be a component of divine intervention, ID, literal creationism or all sorts of non-scientific mechanisms for being responsible for that change.
No one is ignoring that adaptation plays a part in the scientific theory of evolution or "bastardizing the theory". Mere adaptation alone is not evolution as the construct is scientifically understood or expressed, and Mr. Goodyear's continued avoidance of addressing the question is legitimate cause for concern. The last thing Canada needs influencing decisions about science funding is pseudo-science like intelligent design or religious belief.
Balbulican,
ReplyDeleteI've always considered these two views to be largely synergistic, representing two interacting functions of evolution -- following the example you've provided, some organisisms adapt to their environment and enjoy a breeding advantage over their competitors.
I've never accepted the notion that a giraffe was born with a longer neck overnight. The logic has never seemed to be there.
If you knew of some research that decisively disproves this Lamarckian model of evolution (I confess I've never studied biology closely enough to know it had a name), I'm unaware of it. I'd scratch my head at it, but I'd be eager to see it.
Audrey,
I have my fair share of suspicions regarding the Globe and Mail interview itself.
I'd remind anyone that when reading the typical newspaper interview a person doesn't get to see the questions -- they merely get to see the answers.
A flat-out question of "are you a creationist" is a question soundly rejected under the rationale Goodyear offers. I think we would all agree that creationism is a religious view, not a scientific view. Asking him if he's a creationist is asking him about his religious views.
It would also be out of place in an interview about the government's science and technology strategy, as Goodyear insisted.
Did he provoke this controversy by refusing to answer the question? I disagree. Someone's been spreading these rumours, and whoever that may be is responsible for the controversy. I would agree that he added fuel to it, and he would have been better off to both answer the question of whether or not he believes in evolution, and better articulate his answer.
At the same time, that isn't what I'm doing here. I'm not going to absolve Goodyear for questionable judgement in matters regarding the media. I'm discussing a number of people's disregard for the theory of natural selection -- something I believe to be a fundamental principle of evolution, and the reasearch I put into verifying it prior to this post seems to confirm that -- in crawling all over themselves attempting to label Gary Goodyear a creationist.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"If you knew of some research that decisively disproves this Lamarckian model of evolution (I confess I've never studied biology closely enough to know it had a name), I'm unaware of it. I'd scratch my head at it, but I'd be eager to see it."
ReplyDeleteThe best example I can think of is the case of Trofim Lysenko, a Russian biologist who believed firmly that acquired characteristics were transferred from generation to generation. His views harmonized nicely with certain aspects of Marxist theory, and Stalin elevated him to the leadership of Soviet agriculture, where he was invited to apply his theories to increasing wheat yield. Criticism of Lysenko's science were forbidden, and several more conventional biologists were tried and killed for expressing their doubts.
His attempt to reform Soviet agriculture failed completely, with disastrous social and economic results, because he was wrong - acquired characteristics are NOT transmittable to subsequent generations. It was a lab, Patrick, and several million human lab rats perished to prove the point.
Lots of learnings in that story, actually. The biggest one for me has been the disastrous results of allowing blind ideology of ANY stripe to trump science, whether it's in Stalin's Russia or the Catholic Church.
OK, so let's get this straight, Mr. Ross. You admit that you do not really know much of anything about evolutionary theory, but you accuse others, including an biology professor, of distorting evolutionary theory? To me, this seems rude.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, this minister does not seem to understand something very important to his portfolio. This is especially dire as he supposedly works in a health care industry. If his knowledge of biology is so poor, then I fear not only for his service as a science minister but also for his patients.
Balbulican, that isn't really sufficient support for entirely disregarding Lamarckian theory.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, not all characteristics are genetically transmittable across generations. Science accounts for this, and doesn't even consider them to be adaptations -- although I'd argue over the semantics here and argue that they aren't successful adaptations.
Secondly, we know that evolutionary process rarely occurs over a single generation. Thus, attempting to track successful adaptation over a single generation and using the absence of such adaptation to attempt to disprove Lamarckian theory is folly.
Now, as for Mr Gualt,
Minnesota State University confirms that adaptation, via the law of natural selection, is a fundamental principle of evolutionary theory.
The "adaptation not evolution" thesis by forwarded by individuals such as yourself doesn't hold water.
I haven't studied the matter closely enough to be considered a biologist. Regardless, I evidently understand the theory much, much better than you do.
Let me put it this way. There is no evidence at all for notion that a physical characteristic acquired environmentally can be transferred between generations. None.
ReplyDeleteUnless I'm misunderstanding your point. What kind of thing were you thinking of? Got an example?
Actually, I'm thinking about the example of blind cave fish.
ReplyDeleteHere's an interesting little nugget I found, if you're in to this kind of thing.
However, I also found an example that these fish can create sighted offspring within a single generation.
As this source notes, however, the non-functioning eyes are considered a vestigial structure, and not really considered an adaptation in the biological parlance.
The loss of pigment however, it seems may not be vestigial -- it's optimizing protein consumption.
“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.”
ReplyDeleteDoes that strike you as a comment made by someone who understands the theory of evolution? Besides the issue isn't really whether he "believes" it or not... the issue is that he even characterized it as a question of belief! He was asked a question about science, and he responded with an answer about religion... does that strike you as appropriate behaviour for a Minister of Science?
"We are evolving every year, every decade. That’s a fact, whether it is to the intensity of the sun... ...Does that strike you as a comment made by someone who understands the theory of evolution?"
ReplyDeleteYeah. Really, it does.
Yes, precisely. Notice the part where it says thousands of years? Not "every year, every decade". Minister Goodyear seems to have a seriously skewed perception of what evolution means - what on earth is that garbage about "running shoes or high heels"?!
ReplyDeleteAnd you're still ignoring the central point of this whole controversy - the fact that he replied to a question about science with a response about religion.
And how is this a "witchunt". What if we had a Health Minister who didn't believe in the effectiveness of vaccines, or the existence of AIDS? Would that controversy be a "witchunt", or would you agree that ministers have a responsibility to understand the content of their portfolio?
"Not "every year, every decade". Minister Goodyear seems to have a seriously skewed perception of what evolution means - what on earth is that garbage about "running shoes or high heels"?!"
ReplyDeleteSo then, do you believe that evolution happens in one massive jump every thousand years, or do you believe that the evolution of a single trait happens slowly over a period of hundreds or thousands of years.
Frankly, I would imagine that the talk about "walking on concrete" and "running shoes or high heels" has to do with changing bone and cartilage structures in the human foot.
I've been told about studies that confirm this, but I'm having trouble finding corroborative sources.
"And you're still ignoring the central point of this whole controversy - the fact that he replied to a question about science with a response about religion."
You aren't paying attention. As I told Audrey, we don't know precisely how that question was phrased.
If it was asked as "are you a creationist?" Goodyear's rationale is very defensible.
He's answered the question. You're the one trying to prolong the controversy.
"And how is this a 'witchunt'. What if we had a Health Minister who didn't believe in the effectiveness of vaccines, or the existence of AIDS? Would that controversy be a "witchunt", or would you agree that ministers have a responsibility to understand the content of their portfolio?"
You people continue to try and twist Gary Goodyear's comments into evidence of being a creationist, and won't relent even after he's affirmed his belief in evolution.
When he said "of course I believe in evolution" and you people persisted is when it became a witch hunt.
"and won't relent even after he's affirmed his belief in evolution."
ReplyDeleteThat non-logic would have rabid young earth creationist Kent Hovind in agreement with modern evolutionary theory, as Hovind often expresses the same "agreement" with adaptation.
"Now, as for Mr Gualt,
ReplyDeleteMinnesota State University confirms that adaptation, via the law of natural selection, is a fundamental principle of evolutionary theory.
The "adaptation not evolution" thesis by forwarded by individuals such as yourself doesn't hold water."
I am putting forward no such thesis.
I do believe, as pretty much everyone knowledgeable in the field of biology seems to, that the science minister felt that the veracity of evolution is a religious issue, not a scientific issue, and that when questioned further, he brought up standard creationist issue-dodging tactics.
"I haven't studied the matter closely enough to be considered a biologist. Regardless, I evidently understand the theory much, much better than you do."
Well, if you are going to simply declare yourself to have enough knowledge by fiat, then that is a great thing for everyone who reads your blog to know.
"Minnesota State University confirms that adaptation, via the law of natural selection, is a fundamental principle of evolutionary theory"
ReplyDeleteWhich illustrates that Minnesota State University understands something about contemporary evolutionary theory that you and Mr. Goodyear do not: the mechanism behind adaptation is of scientific import. Contemporary evolutionary theory != "adaptation to environment", and your insistence on conflating the two necessarily implies that extremist young-earth-creationists like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind could (by virtue of their agreement with "adaptation" be claimed to be in agreement with modern evolutionary theory.
Please do keep posting links that contradict your own argument, as your apparent inability to recognize that you're doing so and your predictable descent into bluster when this is pointed out to you are gifts that keep on giving.
"I do believe, as pretty much everyone knowledgeable in the field of biology seems to, that the science minister felt that the veracity of evolution is a religious issue, not a scientific issue, and that when questioned further, he brought up standard creationist issue-dodging tactics."
ReplyDeleteYep. That's where the "bound and determined to find a creationist, no matter what" deal comes in.
Just like the Inquisition was bound to find a witch, no matter what.
It's all the same.
"Which illustrates that Minnesota State University understands something about contemporary evolutionary theory that you and Mr. Goodyear do not: the mechanism behind adaptation is of scientific import."
Excuse me? I'm not among the people arguing that Goodyear stopped talking about evolution as soon as he started talking about adaptation.
I've bee the one having to force-feed you idiots knowledge regarding adaptation's role in evolution.
It's nice to see that you're finally starting to grasp the subject.
"Please do keep posting links that contradict your own argument, as your apparent inability to recognize that you're doing so and your predictable descent into bluster when this is pointed out to you are gifts that keep on giving."
Please continue to be as dishonest as you can personally manage in regard to this manner. I mean, it doesn't surprise me but at the very least all the honest people will see you for what you are.
Sorry, I was away.
ReplyDeleteYour cave fish example is interesting, but I'm afraid it's just another example of natural selection - as the links you provided actually suggest.
IF sight confers a reproductive advantage, then natural selection suggests that sighted fish will breed more often than blind ones. And that's what happens. Take away that advantage, and natural selection suggests that over the long term, organisms in which the metabolic resources previously used to maintain a now useless system are now redirected will reproduce more successfully.
Since we're talking feet, here's a horrible but useful example. Imagine a culture like that of old China, where tiny feet were thought to be attractive. You could bind the feet of a hundred successive generations of people, and from a genotype perspective, it wouldn't matter - babies would have precisely the same foot structure when born as their great great great X 100 grandmothers. Lamarck was wrong.
BUT - if having small feet conferred a reproductive advantage, then women born with small feet would presumably be more widely sought as mates, and would be more likely to produce children. And at that point, over enough successive generations, you might begin to see a change in the genotype.
Well, regarding the fish, yes, this particular adaptation is a natural selection. That was the point.
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised how quickly they can produce sighted offspring again, but it does make sense to me.
Regarding the example of Chinese women and feet, I'm certainly not going to argue that particular one with you. I don't imagine a forced adaptation -- which is really what someone's doing when they bind their feet -- can be passed on as a genetic trait. My understanding is that it doesn't work that way.
Hm. So what's an example of the kind of evolution you were talking about?
ReplyDeleteI think we've lost track of the conversation here. (Sorry, I've had a busy day today.)
ReplyDeleteWe were talking about adaptations that are natural selections, right?
The cave fish were my example.
I think I'm the one getting lost. Mea culpa.
ReplyDeleteMy point was that Goodyear's statement about his belief in evolution suggests that he doesn't understand how evolution works.
If Goodyear were a creationist, how much effect would it have on his portfolio? Would his religious views influence his behaviour regarding anything having to do with this particular question?
ReplyDeleteI think it's quite alright to ask politicians about any views they have on any major subject.
Asking a politician on their beliefs on evolution is fair game.
But then, what is the point of all this?
Is this just another attempt by the liberal media to smear an Evangelical Christian?
That seems to me what this is about. It's a fishing trip to dig up some dirt (sorry about the mixed metaphor) about the minister.
This is really a non-story in my eyes.
Balbulican,
ReplyDeleteI'd respond to that by pointing out that Goodyear affirmed his belief in evolution, then continued to elaborate by explaining evolution as an ongoing process.
He would have to talk about adaptation in order to make that explanation.
That's how I see his comments, and I find it hard to see how someone could see them otherwise unless they were really bound and determined to identify Goodyear as a creationist.
That's my view. I've enjoyed this conversation, though.