Materialist myths: The flat earth myth ... another go-round

In his review of Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion last January, Nobelist Steven Weinberg opines,

In the early days of Christianity, the Church Fathers Theophilus of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria rejected the knowledge, common since the time of Plato, that the Earth is a sphere. They insisted on the literal truth of the Bible, and from Genesis to Revelation verses could be interpreted to mean that the Earth is flat. But the evidence for a spherical Earth was overwhelming to anyone who had seen a ship's hull disappear below the horizon while its masts were still visible, and in the end the flat Earth did not seem worth a fight. By the high Middle Ages, the spherical Earth was accepted by educated Christians.

Now THERE’s a wheeze that never finally croaks. A friend wrote to wonder why Weinberg had not received the Nobel Prize for Literature (fiction) rather than Physics, drawing my attention to a flyer distributed during Ohio school board hearings in 2002, which reads in part,

THE FLAT EARTH MYTH

... the story is false. It began as fiction, and it was elevated to a historical claim by late-19th century Darwinists who used it as a weapon to ridicule Christians.

The spherical shape of the earth was known to the ancient Greeks, who even made some decent estimates of its circumference. Christian theologians likewise knew that the earth was a sphere. The only two who are known to have advocated a flat earth were a 4th-century heretic, Lactantius, and an obscure 6th-century writer, Cosmas Indicopleustes.

A major promulgator of the flat earth myth was the 19th-century American writer Washington Irving. In his fictional History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828), Irving wrote that flat-earth churchmen had opposed Columbus on the grounds that he would fall off the edge of the earth if he tried to sail across the Atlantic. In actuality, Columbus had been opposed by people who not only knew the earth was a sphere, but also had a pretty good idea of how big it was - but who knew nothing of the Americas and thus thought a voyage to the Far East would take too long and cost too much.

The flat earth remained clearly in the realm of fiction until after Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859. Two of Darwin's followers then elevated it to a historical claim in books defending Darwinism and attacking Christianity: John Draper's The History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874), and Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896).

************
For an objective and very readable account of the flat earth myth, see Jeffrey Burton Russell (Professor of History, University of California at Santa Barbara), Inventing the Flat Earth (New York: Praeger, 1991).

Weinberg’s review is worth reading for a number of reasons, not least for Weinberg’s enthusiastic endorsement of evolutionary psychology as devastating to religious belief,

It became plausible that our love for our mates and children, and, according to the work of modern evolutionary biologists, even more abstract moral principles, such as loyalty, charity and honesty, have an origin in evolution, rather than in a divinely created soul.

Worth keeping in mind when someone reassures you that no reputable scientist really believes in concepts like the Big Bazooms theory of human evolution. The trouble is, some can’t help it. They don’t HAVE anything better to believe in.

Here and here cosmology is more on older cosmologies.

No wonder there are uproars about textbooks!

A friend writes to say that, according to the Texas Education Code, §28.002, Chapter 112, Subchapter C, §112.43, high school biology students are expected to "(C) evaluate the impact of research on scientific thought, society, and the environment," and "(F) research and describe the history of biology and contributions of scientists."

Fine and dandy. One of the books Texas was proposing to adopt in 2003 was Raver's Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life, which is said to have claimed on p. 99:

Until the 1500s, many Europeans believed Earth was flat and the sky was a large dome somehow suspended above it. Adventurous sailors like Columbus and Magellan, and the work of astronomers like Copernicus and Galileo, caused considerable controversy at the time....

My friend notes, citing material supplied by the Discovery Institute (but generally known):

It is not true that most Europeans in the 1500s believed in a flat Earth, or that Columbus caused controversy for believing that the Earth is round. Europeans inherited the ancient Greeks' knowledge not only of the Earth's shape, but also of its approximate circumference. Novelist Washington Irving's fictional 1828 account of how flat-earthers supposedly opposed Columbus was put forward as actual history by the late nineteenth-century anti-Christian authors John W. Draper and Andrew Dickson White, who used the flat Earth myth as a way of discrediting Christians who challenged Darwinian evolution. See the book on this subject by University of California historian Jeffrey Burton Russell, Inventing the Flat Earth (New York: Praeger, 1997). See also James R. Moore, The Post-Darwinian Controversies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).

In any event, as I replied to him, Dante was one of the most popular authors of the mediaeval period (the Middle Ages), and the cosmology of his books (which was generally accepted at the time) makes no sense unless you assume that the Earth is a sphere.

In other words, a mediaeval person who thought the Earth was flat would be unfamiliar not only with the science of the day but with the popular literature based on it (in other words, completely culturally ignorant).

Note the weaselly way Raver refers to "many Europeans" who may have believed that the Earth was flat. Well, who were they then? Wild men in the hills of Ireland? Pagan Lithuanians? Unreached circumpolar peoples? I am sure you could find people in those days, deep in the Black Forest perhaps, who did not know what educated opinion held regarding the Earth. But mediaeval Europe was not a democracy, let alone a post-modern environment, and the opinions of the merely ignorant were considered irrelevant.

Taxpayers should not have to pay for these misrepresentations, nor should students have to endure them.

This is another one for the "Why there is an intelligent design controversy" files.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Materialist myths: David Warren on anti-Christian rubbish taught in science classes

What I find really helpful about the Ottawa Citizen's David Warren is the historical context he kindly provides. We are so often a-swamp in materialist nonsense. For example, the idea that the culture of Christian Europe promoted the idea that the Earth is flat. I've blogged on this before, here, here, and here, (and this last is David again).

Still, David says it so much better:

One of the constants in the long clash between Scientism & Christianity has been the repetition & elaboration by the Scienticists of quite incredible myths & lies, that are still used in our public schools, media, &c, to mock & slander Christians & Christianity. I know about the potency of these myths & lies, for I myself was taught many of them, in school, saw them endlessly repeated in the press, heard them repeated by all liberal adults, & actually believed several of them until I came to riper years, & began to realize that public atheism requires the defence of a "bodyguard of lies." (And you will find them all repeated uncritically in Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris, & all the current bestselling atheist tracts.)

Many of the specific lies descend from old Protestant broadsides against Catholics -- for instance, the lie that the mediaeval scholastics debated how many angels on the head of a pin, lurid & untruthful accounts of proceedings of the Spanish Inquisition, various folk myths about what Catholics do in Mass, the misrepresentation of the trial of Galileo, &c. All except this last were products of virulent anti-Catholic pamphleteering, in the 17th century. (The Galileo myth was invented later, for in the 17th-C the Protestants themselves were opposing the heliocentric theory, & often trying to suppress it as a popish "heresy" -- on grounds that the people propagating it were all Catholics & often monks & were well-received in the Vatican.)

But while Scientism has taken aboard all the old Protestant smears, & turned them into smears against Christians in general, it has also been industriously manufacturing its own myths, lies, & vitriolic sneers, from the philosophes of the Enlightenment, forward. (The Darwinists of the 19th century were even more inventive, in their determination to associate Christian belief with idiocy.)

Among the most universally taught & least subtle, lies taught to this day, is that Christians throughout the Middle Ages believed the world was flat; & that the Church taught this, & defended it as religious doctrine against Copernicus, Kepler, & Galileo. Yet the Church never taught the earth was flat, nor did any educated person, Christian or otherwise, ever believe it.

Indeed, the old Ptolemaic system -- universally accepted by intelligent Christians, Heretics, Atheists, Jews, Muslims, & even Hindus until the age of Copernicus -- was very clear on the fact that the earth was a sphere.

The American scholar Jeffrey Burton Russell wrote an excellent history of the foundation & propagation of the "flat earth myth" in the 19th century, of which I've just become aware. (His earlier series of books on the historical development of doctrine & beliefs about the monotheist personification of the Devil may be familiar to some of you.) Russell is pedestrian in the best sense: a very thorough scholar who walks patiently through a broad range of evidence, insists on consulting original sources, & writes very clearly.

Here, anyway, is his own summary of his findings in his book, Inventing the Flat Earth (1991).

Undead materialist myths: Copernicus “demoted” humans from the center of the universe

Following on the Christians’ flat earth myth, another friend notes that it is likewise untrue that Copernicus somehow “demoted” humans from the center of the universe. University of British Columbia professor Dennis Danielson notes in a 2001 article in the American Journal of Physics, “The Great Copernican Cliche” (69 (2001), p. 1029):

ABSTRACT: For more than three centuries scientists, historians, and popularizers of science have been repeating the claim that Copernicus "dethroned" earth from its "privileged" central position in the universe. However, a survey of pre-Copernican natural philosophy
(which viewed the earth as located in a cosmic sump) and of Copernicans' own account of the axiological meaning of the new heliocentric astronomy (which exalted earth to the dance of the
stars) demonstrates that the cliche about earth's "demotion" is unwarranted and fit to be discarded. %October, no. 10

Here’s a popular piece on the same subject. And yes, Dennis Danielson did appear in The Privileged Planet film.

Who believed in the flat earth? - Nobody?

In response to my post about myths about science and religion, one kind reader asked about older worldviews. I can't post more than this now but, thanks to another kind reader, I have a link to the medieval cosmos, which looked like the illustration linked here.

It was not flat. It could not be flat. It only makes sense as a series of concentric spheres, between which 3-D travel was possible. Any time someone tells you that people back then thought the Earth was flat, you can politely but safely write that person off as an ignoramus.

Be warned: The modern ignoramus is more virulent and pernicious than the older kind, because he is apt to be a materialist or a Darwinist of some sort - so he must be right, and to heck with facts.

Just up at Colliding Universes

(my blog on theories about our universe)

·  Coffee!! Flat earth award

·  Coffee!! I get more mail: Extraterrestrials and the super-rich

·  Philosopher responds to Hawking's "philosophy is dead

·  I get mail: Wallace on Mars's canals

·  2010: Scientists on God: Wit vs. insight

·  From the “What Is Life?” coffee club: What isn’t life?

·  Hawking’s Grand Design: See, one icon is ALLOWED to diss another.

·  Paul Davies on avoiding a hullabaloo when the flying saucer land

Blogging from Minneapolis: Recent ID controversy news of interest

I am in Minneapolis where, courtesy of the McLaurin Institute, I gave a talk last night, co-presenting with Muslim ID proponent, Mustafa Akyol, at the journalism school.

The following won't contain many links, as I am not at my workstation, but here's some stuff to watch:

- Arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins seems to have gotten hammered on Irish radio last week by well-known Irish commentator and journalist David Quinn. One listener remarked, "Dawkins is a formidable debater, but David Quinn absolutely embarrassed him – he had Dawkins on the ropes from the outset. It is a rare moment when Dawkins is left speechless and is well worth listening to." The debate starts at 7min 57 seconds lasts about 18 min. Go here and scroll down to October 9, 2006. Here’sPart II of the transcript.

My own view is that, now that Dawkins has chosen to devote his time to producing anti-religious media instead of providing support for ultra-Darwinism, he is of immeasurable help to the intelligent design guys.

- An activist librarian has succeeded in getting the book of essays by fans and foes centred on the impact of Phillip Johnson, the godfather of the ID guys, reclassified from the life sciences section to the religion section in a library, which she and some others consider a big victory.

I registered a complaint at the reference desk pointing out that ID is thinly veiled creationism and more appropriately belongs in the religion section or social science. (Unfortunately, the Dewey system does not have section for crackpot theories.) I pointed out that neither assertions of a flat earth nor a swiss cheese moon belongs in the science section.

In the inglorious tradition of activist librarians, she thinks she has done her duty by organizing the library according to her own understanding of the world - narrow, but firm. Activist librarians always fail. They used to hide books on sex, but reshuffling ID books is for those who have moved beyond that, I guess.

An ID advocate friend remarked, on hearing of the librarian's breathless escapade,

"This reveals something deeply troubling about our adversaries. They believe that by merely labeling something such and such makes it so. It's as if putting a skirt on a table can turn it into Reese Witherspoon.

This is not surprising. Those who think that something can come from nothing believe they reverse the favor in the direction of any reality they don't find pleasing.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

My U of Toronto talk on why there is an intelligent design controversy.

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

O’Leary’s comments on Francis Beckwith, a Dembski associate, being granted tenure at Baylor after a long struggle - even after helping in a small way to destroy the Baylor Bears' ancient glory - in the opinion of a hyper sportswriter.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudeby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

New Book Notes: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science slams Darwinism

Not yet released, journalist Tom Bethell’s
new book promises to cover

evolution, stem cell research, abortion, HIV/AIDS, global warming, and cloning to help you tune up your baloney detector to expose the liberal, anti-religious propagnada we’re being fed.

Bethell has been the Washington correspondent of the American Spectator for twenty years, so he should know a lot about the making and breaking of myths. Still, that’s a lot of ground for 270 pages.

Anyway, a colleague writes, enthusing,

Right on the cover it says that one of the myths busted in the book is Darwinian evolution. The other myths also look very interesting! The way Regnery is selling these days... it'll be a hit for sure!

The cover lists the following myths as definitely busted:

- Most Christians used to think the Earth was flat*

- Darwinian evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence and is the natural ally of political conservatives

- Capitalist countries are destroying the environment and causing global warming

- Religion is the enemy of science

- Human cloning and embryonic stem cell research hold the key to our future health and happiness

* I’m really surprised by this one. Anyone who has read Dante’s The Divine Comedy will know that mediaeval Christians had a very clear sense of the spherical nature of Earth (Hell was imagined to be inside it!) and also of the positions of the other planets in relation to it at any given time. Before the advent of light pollution, this latter sort of knowledge was much more widespread than it is today, as a matter of fact.

(Note: If this is not the story you were looking for, see the Blog service note below or the stories listed in the sidebar.)

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Blog service note: Did you come here looking for any of the following stories?

- the California Academy of Sciences agreeing to correct potentially libellous statements about attorney Larry Caldwell, who thinks that students should know about weaknesses as well as strengths of Darwinian evolution theory, click on the posted link and check the current daily post for any updates. UPDATED!: The retraction and Caldwell’s response have now been published in California Wild.

- The op-ed by Catholic Cardinal Schonborn in the New York Times? Note also the Times's story on the subject, some interesting quotes from major Darwinists to compare with the Catholic Church's view, as expressed by the Cardinal, and an example of the kind of problem with Darwinian philosophy that the Cardinal is talking about.

- the Privileged Planet film shown at the Smithsonian, go here for an extended review. Please do not raise cain about an "anti-evolution" film without seeing it. If your doctor forbids you to see the film, in case you get too excited, at least read my detailed log of the actual subjects of the film. If you were one of the people who raised cain, ask yourself why you should continue to believe the people who so misled you about the film's actual content ...

- the showing of Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian, go here and here to start, and then this one and this one will bring you up to date.

Blog policy note: This blog does not intentionally accept fully anonymous Comments, Comments with language unsuited to an intellectual discussion, URLs posted without comment, or defamatory statements. Defamatory statement: A statement that would be actionable if anyone took the author seriously. For example, someone may say “O’Leary is a crummy journalist”; that’s a matter of opinion and I don’t know who would care. But if they say, “O’Leary was convicted of grand theft auto in 1983,” well that’s just plain false, and probably actionable, if the author were taken seriously. Also, due to time constraints, the moderator rarely responds to comments, and usually only about blog service issues.

Darwinism and high culture: "Exactly why we do things this way is never a question that is asked"

Commenting on the fact that scientists are typically poorly trained in philosophy of science, one friend remarks,

As a Ph.D. student in biology I was actively discouraged from taking courses in philosophy -- or, for that matter, any courses outside my department, including evolution. My adviser's attitude was that I should focus exclusively on my own specialty.

This wouldn't be a problem except that folklore counts for wisdom among the ignorant. You know, "Europeans in Columbus's day believed the Earth was flat," and all that stuff is retailed as if it were fact.

Probe's Ray Bohlin, pictured here, who has a degree in molecular biology, writes to tell me

I have been saying for years that most of our science PhDs, especially in biology of which I am one, are little more than highly trained technicians. We know how to design an experiment, interpret the results and figure out what the next step is.

Exactly why we do things this way is never a question that is asked. My mind was only trained to design experiments and interpret results. What philosophy I have learned has come from my own amateur study. But I understand far more than just about any evolutionary biologist I have ever had a conversation with. And that's pretty scary. It's also why we don't make much headway in this ID/evolution conversation. Most evolutionists really believe they are interpreting the evidence objectively with no or little bias. They literally can't see the forest for the trees. They see the details but not the bigger picture.

In the DI podcast I was featured in a few weeks ago I elated how over two years my evolutionary biologist supervisor eventually was able to see the data from my perspective and could see how it could fit together for me. He still thought I was wrong, but he could see my view. Several years later he told me as an aside that all the data coming from cell biology as making it harder and harder to see how all that could have come about by chance (around 1984). I believe the reason was because he could now compare and contrast two different philosophical grids when interpreting new data.

Suddenly he could see that some things would be better explained through my lens and not his. Before he only had a naturalistic grid. Everything had to fit. Once another grid was available, even though he thought it was in error, a comparison could now be made.

But it took two years of close contact and working together.

Wow. You are lucky you weren't bounced from the program, Ray, for interpreting data as if evidence mattered, instead of just shoring up the theory.

I wonder if a person in your position would be as safe today. The word I hear on the street is no.

I don't think anything will change in some places until they run out of sand to bury their heads in.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Darwinism best career choice for aspiring influential atheists?

Of the 25 most influential atheists featured at a student homework help site, it’s curious how many are best known or widely known for pushing Darwinism.

(I’m sure Larry Krauss, at #11, is as solid a brass-footed fish as you could hope for, but he is best known for preaching the end of all things, including science, so he’s not in tonight’s lineup.)

How about, instead:

#1 Richard Dawkins (“Darwin’s Rottweiler”, ‘nuff said)

#4 Daniel Dennett (winner of Darwin look-alike contest) and the Darwinist education award: “If you insist on teaching your children falsehoods- that the earth is flat, that "Man" is not a product of evolution by natural selection-then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity.”)*

#7 Michael Shermer (skeptical of everything except Darwinism, I gather, but as Dennett would assure him, Darwin answers all needs)

#12 Edwin O. Wilson, prophet of Social Darwinism, oops, make that sociobiology, no wait, “evolutionary psychology”is the new brand name. To see the reason for continual rebranding, see #4 above.

Read more »

New blogs on the controversy between intelligent design and Darwinism

I am pleased to announce that CreationEvolutionDesign has just joined the list at your right of new blogs relevant to the ID controversy that balance the generally negative (and know-nothing) perspective of major media. Stephen E. Jones of Perth, Australia, is a Darwin doubter who has read more books than anyone I have ever heard of on the subject of evolution. He operated an excellent discussion group at Yahoo for several years. He accepts the evidence for common ancestry but does not think that the evidence really supports the idea that it all happened by natural law acting on chance events. He recently took a biology degree in order to better write his book, Problems of Evolution, which I am really looking forward to. So if you like this blog, and I am not around for some reason, go to that one.

(Note: If this is not the story you were looking for, see the Blog service note below or the stories listed in the sidebar. )


And ... if that is not enough, I have also linked to a couple of other new ones. Notice Darwinian Fundamentalism, featuring blogger Lawrence Selden, who says about himself only this, “I am a macroevolution agnostic. I used to accept evolutionary theory. Then I looked at the evidence. It became clear to me that macroevolutionary theory is built more on a priori philosophical assumptions than on evidence. Microevolution, on the other hand, is supported by the evidence. The distinction between the two is critical and is largely ignored, or not understood, by the media and general public.”

I like his approach. He asks, for example,

When will the mainstream media pick up on the fact that the roles have changed in the current evolution debates? The supporters of Darwinian theory show many of the characteristics of religious fundamentalists, and the critics of the theory are not appealing to scripture or religion, but are basing their arguments on scientific evidence. The Darwinists are lobbying for a "Darwin only" doctrine in public schools and want to ban any consideration of the weaknesses of the theory. The critics are actually lobbying for more teaching on evolution-- exposing students to the evidence for evolution and the evidence against and encouraging them to think critically and analyze the evidence for themselves.

Lawrence, legacy mainstream media do not understand obvious things like that because they have been whacked upside the head by the news revolution created by new media. The legacy media still behave as though 1) they can create truth and therefore 2) facts need their imprimatur in order to be true. Most of the many scandals plaguing the New York Times are rooted in that attitude. Don’t wait for them to change. Go boldly into the future.

And I must also commend to you Real Physics, operated by Meta-Jester, who claims that he aims at Total World Domination, but seems to content himself with great blogging on the ID controversy. For example, he debunks the idea that traditional Europeans assumed that the Earth was flat.

M-J sometimes addresses issues that are not clearly related, but presumably the man who aims at Total World Domination must be a generalist. Speaking for myself, I will settle for dominating the bottom of my intray.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Blog service note: Did you come here looking for any of the following stories?

- The op-ed by Catholic Cardinal Schonborn in the New York Times? Note also the Times's story on the subject, some interesting quotes from major Darwinists to compare with the Catholic Church's view, as expressed by the Cardinal, and an example of the kind of problem with Darwinian philosophy that the Cardinal is talking about.

- the Privileged Planet film shown at the Smithsonian, go here for an extended review. Please do not raise cain about an "anti-evolution" film without seeing it. If your doctor forbids you to see the film, in case you get too excited, at least read my detailed log of the actual subjects of the film. If you were one of the people who raised cain, ask yourself why you should continue to believe the people who so misled you about the film's actual content ...

- the showing of Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian, go here and here to start, and then this one and this one will bring you up to date.

Blog policy note: This blog does not intentionally accept fully anonymous Comments, Comments with language unsuited to an intellectual discussion, URLs posted without comment, or defamatory statements. Defamatory statement: A statement that would be actionable if anyone took the author seriously. For example, someone may say “O’Leary is a crummy journalist”; that’s a matter of opinion and I don’t know who would care. But if they say, “O’Leary was convicted of grand theft auto in 1983,” well that’s just plain false, and probably actionable, if the author were taken seriously. Also, due to time constraints, the moderator rarely responds to comments, and usually only about blog service issues.

Dinosaur attack in Canada!!: No, not science fiction, honest!

The Darwinian evolution mob struck recently, in Canada, against Minister of Science Gary Goodyear, in Stephen Harper's Conservative government.

But it is a confused story, and the motives are unclear.

As the photo caption in 24 Hours (the Toronto subway's biggest free source of litter), put it,

A group calling itself the Disgruntled Dinosaurs held a protest outside the Intercontinental Hotel yesterday to call attention to Science Minister Gary Goodyear's refusal to confirm he believes in evolution. Goodyear - who was at the hotel to deliver a speech - clarified Tuesday that he does believe in evolution and initially refused to answer the question because it was "irrelevant" since his beliefs have nothing to do with government policy.

Fancy that.

A Minister of the Crown who does not believe in treating his office as a personal fiefdom from which he can dictate his beliefs to us serfs?

To the stake with him, right! When a guy becomes Science Minister, he gets to impose his personal beliefs on all the rest of us, regardless of public policy. Right?

Oh, you don't like that? I don't like it either. Neither, it seems, does Gary Goodyear.

So ... what really happened here?

The intelligent design controversy has had little impact in Canada, principally, in my view, because the way the public is divided on the subject is not on political lines.

Mike Strobel for the Toronto Sun had, I think, the right take on the controversy. Some were upset due to funding cuts and refocuses in science and technology:

Scientists roasted Goodyear. Is this why the feds have cut research funding? Does Ottawa figure it's cheaper to read the Bible?

Fumed one: "It's the same as asking the gentleman, 'Do you believe the world is flat?' and he doesn't answer on religious grounds."

No, it's not the same. We can bloody well see the world is round. But I can't look at an ape and see myself. Except some Sunday mornings.

Anyway, at Front and Simcoe, the protest evolves into two college kids in Barney the Dinosaur outfits.

An unsuspecting Goodyear is in the InterContinental Hotel, telling the Economics Club how the Tories are boosting research in these tough times.

Warily, I approach the puff dinos. They identify themselves as the Disgruntled Dinosaurs. Man, I know how you feel, fellas.

They are U of T science students Adam Tempiy, 23, and Yves, uh, Smith, 24.

Hmmmm. Adam and Yves, eh? What a revelation.

You aren't Young Liberals by any chance?

"No, no," says Adam. "We just feel a creationist shouldn't be science minister. It doesn't jibe with his mandate. Does it start to skew his view?"

Wow, a dino-poet. I look around. The hotel swarms with TV trucks, cops and men in black with wires in their ears. For a couple of kids in Barney suits?

Puff dino fashion parade can be viewed here.

Goodyear, deciding to be the adult yesterday, told the Canadian Press (quoted in the CBC, the government broadcaster):

"We're evolving all the time," Goodyear said in an interview. "Of course I believe in evolution."

Wow. Now we know what really caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. Puff Barney suits and wasting time on worthless causes, when you are a science student.

(Presumably, if you have really been accepted as a science student at the University of Toronto these days, you have a heavy course load, no?)

Local media sensed what was happening here, to their credit, and have largely failed to bite.

Some thoughts:

- The intelligent design controversy has not been politicized much in Canada, principally due to the fact that - as a recent Decima poll confirmed - views don't break out on predictable political lines here:

In a trend that also departs very much from the American scene, the people who intend to vote Liberal were much more likely than those who intended to vote either Conservative or NDP (leftist) to choose a "theistic" option - God either created humans or guided the process. Only 22% of Liberals thought God had nothing to do with it, but 31% of Conservatives thought that, as did 31% of leftist voters.

So what does this mean?

It means that if I were the campaign manager of a politician running for any party likely to have a chance at electing a member, I would whack him silly if he suggested politicizing the issue: "It's not an issue we need, and it won't bring us any votes. And I will quit the next time you say another word about it."

Things are quite different in the United States where the Democrat-Republican divide predicts views on this question to some extent. And therefore evolution vs. creation (or design) is politicized. Every important politician will be asked for his or her view.

However, some would doubtless like to politicize the controversy here. The activism business is slow these days. So a brand new controversy would be like the day they first struck oil in Leduc, Alberta, in 1948 ... I am told that a bank branch opened the next day. So if activists could just get the Minister of Science fired over something that doesn't relate to urgent present day concerns, maybe they could screw funds loose for ... who knows what?

- Fortunately, as mentioned above, few seem to be taking the bait. (But then how many people run around Toronto in puff dino suits anyway?) The Canadian Press report explained,

The Globe and Mail had reported that some scientists suspect Goodyear is hostile toward science, "perhaps because he is a creationist."

But Goodyear, a self-described Christian, said religious beliefs — his or anyone else's in government — have no bearing on federal science policy.

"Our decisions on the science and tech file are not based on what one reporter wants to have people believe, which is that religion somehow forms a part of our policy," he said.

He said science policy is developed by "a multitude of people," in consultation with scientific advisory bodies, research granting councils and other stakeholders.

Well, uh yes. That is how we do it here. It's taxpayers' money, after all.

Essentially, thousands upon thousands of people are losing their jobs. In this environment, researchers - in my view - are well advised to aim their research at a clear and obvious public benefit, rather than start rumours about the Minister of Science. Hoping for what? To get him dumped in favour of a wimp who will vote money for whatever anyone happens to want? Grow up guys. It's not gonna happen. Revisit your priorities.

- I don't know who suggested the puff dino suits, but they were actually a political statement because, as the Canadian Press report points out,

Creationist beliefs have caused trouble for the Conservatives and their predecessor parties in the past. In the 2000 election, Stockwell Day, then leader of the Canadian Alliance, was ridiculed for suggesting the Earth was 6,000 years old and that humans once shared the planet with dinosaurs.

During a TV panel, Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella held up a stuffed purple dinosaur and reminded Day that, "The Flintstones was not a documentary."

Kinsella, who will head up the election war room for current Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, used his blog Tuesday to draw parallels between Day and Goodyear. Borrowing from The Flintstones theme song, he referred to Harper's "modern stone-age government" and called Tories "kooks right out of history."

However, the Liberals' official science critic was kinder to Goodyear. While he criticized funding cuts to research granting councils and the government's fixation on commercializing research, Marc Garneau said there doesn't seem to be any religious motivation to the decisions.

"With respect to science policy, I can not honestly say I've seen a direct link - so far," said Garneau, a former astronaut and onetime head of the Canadian Space Agency.

So basically, this was a political move on the part of some individuals that isn't even being seriously supported by the Official Opposition, the Liberal Party of Canada.

- I was supposed to be on the Charles Adler show Tuesday (out of Montreal), but I expressed reservations about what I was sure would turn into a stupid and irrelevant circus. The researcher must have agreed, because she kindly wrote back to say that they had decided to put the show on hold.

So I guess we can all send our puff dino suits back to the costumers now.

(Note: Gary Goodyear is pictured above.)

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy: