Mader Blog

Paul Wells and Adam Radwanski have the temerity to be eminently reasonable in their reactions to the Gary Goodyear thing. Wells:

Gary Goodyear can believe what he wants, as long as there are systems in place that ensure an Andrew Hendry can get a Steacie Fellowship. And apparently there are. If the junior minister for science (whose influence on science policy in a Harper government, incidentally, should be reckoned as comparable to the intergovernmental affairs minister’s influence on federalism, or the health minister’s influence on anything measurable) wants to pray to the Tooth Fairy or Salma Hayek every night, then godspeed.

And as long as science can rise in this country, then I would really rather stay out of the business of interrogating ministers to see whether they’re planning to stay in line with somebody’s idea of acceptable thought.

And Radwanski:

[W]e’ve got half the Liberal blogs in the country making Flinstones jokes about a guy who tried – extremely clumsily, but still – to explain his efforts to balance his scientific views with his faith. . . . [I]f the leader of your opposition party is already vulnerable to accusations of elitism, you’ll want to be careful about inadvertently offending voters who may themselves struggle with the conflict between science and religion.”

I spend a lot of time on this blog knocking the commentariat, so it’s only right that I give praise where praise is due. Indeed, Wells and Radwanski are fairer to Goodyear than I was initially inclined to be.

(That being said, I’d be interested to know the basis for Wells’s aside regarding “Goodyear and Harper['s] claptrap.” I take it Wells is referring to Goodyear’s assumed creationist beliefs as “claptrap.” Assuming Goodyear (a) is in fact a creationist and (b) seeks to have creationism taught in schools, is there any evidence that Harper shares those two characteristics?)