Darwin’s “Well, Dress Me Up And Call Me Science!” Tour Comes To Canada

In comparison to it’s American release, the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed movie which challenges the dogma of Darwinian evolution has come to Canada with less of a ripple but alongside the symbolic victory of Mark Steyn over the “BC Human Rights’ Tribunal” and its thought crimes division. Using the tried and true methods of decrying anything that deviates from the notion that all life magically appeared on the Earth at some unpredictable point in the past and then morphed into the species we see today, the Darwinian apologists attacked the movie as being too friendly to deism and discussing ideas that *aren’t real science*. The former argument is trivial, overly emotional and frankly not worth discussing and more than saying that Atheists are always going to hate every other religion out there since one of their key beliefs is that their faith is being held back by all the rest, even if they merely exist (the complex behind this is another blog for another day by another blogger).

As for the latter though, wouldn’t it be interesting if we, for one moment, got truly investigative and turned the tables on the all too comfortable Darwinians who have become yet another group to hijack our education system for their own self-preservation and motives? After all, in the noise of bitter reviews, intimidating threats and exhaustive and bewildered requests to anti-Darwinists to just shut up, I think the evolution debate has failed to examine a key component: whether the theory of Charles Darwin is truly something worth wasting time on in the science class to begin with. After all, a physicist who learns anything from F=MA to the hydrogen fusion reaction that is continually taking place at the centre of our sun to even string theory is able to take that knowledge and apply it to the benefit of mankind in a strictly physical sense. Even if the highly controversial string theory proves to be a dead end, what it would tell us about how elementary particles don’t interact would help us to zone in on other understandings and ultimately give us a better way to understand the very microscopic. In turn, that would allow us to apply our knowledge one day to advancements that might, for example, allow for microscopic computers that write data onto quarks, just as F=MA gave us the first building blocks we needed to put a man on the moon. Chemistry need only need mention of companies like DOW or Pfizer to prove its contribution to our modern society and even a late-comer to quantitative analysis, biology, will soon prove invaluable to an entire generation of baby-boomers who are in the midst of retiring from the workforce currently. In fact, the driving force behind science is not just getting to have a better understanding of the world around us, from the very small to the very large, but also being able to apply that knowledge in some fashion.

When it comes to the necessity to teach Darwinian evolution in a grade 7 classroom, or high school, or even university, what is the purpose? I mean, we can keep clubing each other over the head about how detrimental it is to society for the other side to get a voice in on the debate, but as I noted above, the debate always ends up in the realm of the meta-physical; things pertaining to the existence, or lack thereof, of God! Has evolution allowed us to come up with any great invention or advancement? Is it so essential to our understanding of biology or chemistry that twelve year-olds need to understand it if they are going to pass their high school biology or chemistry courses? Or are we all fooling ourselves here, using findings that more properly belong in the hit-or-miss fields of archeology and social science to indoctrinate young minds with what is practically nothing more than a contemporary, social statement?

The fact is that evolution is still very much stuck in in the past, and will continue to be until it can offer actual testifiable evidence of one species giving way to another over the course of two or more generations. It’s all about the findings in the dirt, the rock layers and the pretty pastel pictures that appear in text books. The funny thing about history is that as it becomes more remote, the possibilities of the imagination grow exponentially. It’s also the truth that if evolution was so essential for our children to learn, I should have never graduated from university, nor anyone else who currently walks to Earth and believes that evolution deserves a more skeptical analysis, since the understanding of that knowledge should have been essential in understanding everything from RNA-DNA reactions to the immune system. Evolution should have to be to biology what F=MA is to physics if the official story is to be believed, wherein a student that fails to acknowledge the very foundations cannot comprehend or excel while studying the more advanced topics.

So as Expelled comes out this weekend in a fraction of the theatres it did in the US back in April, you’ll probably see a few fireworks fly as the Darwinians campaign to remain the only kid on the block. What the movie will continue to do though is extend a debate that has lasted for over 150 years and certainly isn’t going away; a debate where a lot of questions could be and should be asked. Ultimately, the most dangerous of those question for Darwinians isn’t “Can you prove it?”, although they certainly hate that one. Rather, if they want to spend valuable class time teaching my son or daughter about their great theory about nothing, the worst thing they could hear back from my kid is “So what?” The runner up might sound something like “Why are you so concerned about us hearing from the competition?”

Honda slacker finally gets fired

The Supreme Court of Canada squashed a half-million dollar punitive damages awarded by a lower court to a lazy employee upon the Honda company. He claimed to have chronic fatigue syndrome. Honda fired him and he sued for wrongful dismissal.

I like this final decision but I am still disturbed. What astonishes me the most is the fact that two separate groups of extremely highly-paid arbitrators — supreme court justices — can arrive at completely opposite rulings over such a trivial dispute all on the public dime.

Dion to Saskatchewan: Down Boy!

Let’s see.  For the first time in decades, Saskatchewan elects a non-leftist government.

Then they win a Grey Cup for the first time in decades.

Strangely coincidentally, their economy begins to ride a wave of prosperity started in Alberta.  For the first time in decades, Saskatchewan experiences positive population growth.

…and then came Stephane Dion.

McCain welcomes high oil prices

It seems like the Republican presidential hopeful needs to use vacuous hyperbole and fear mongering to his advantage:

In recent days, I have set before the American people an energy plan. … And let it begin today with this commitment: In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025.

McCain is just covering up economic reality and using it to create a positive spin. The supply of oil is an international two-way street and it is no longer possible for the U.S. government to steer the traffic. It is only thanks to the high oil prices that independence is commercially viable. Without high oil prices, there would be no talk of independence.

U.S. mayors want to ban Alberta oil

The mayors of some American cities want to shun tar sands oil because it is not clean enough, i.e., too much pollution is created in its refinery. They are being completely stupid — unless the intention of these politicians is to deliberately screw the consumers.

Tar sands oil comes to market because it is offered at a marginally lower rate than the international prices. Therefore, avoiding Albertan oil means paying marginally more for oil of a different source — rarely a concern of politicians. Banning a supplier forces the consumer to burn extra energy in working to pay the extra taxes to fund the extra cost of the “clean” fuel.

The Descent of Man

The world is getting better you say?  Not in some corners of the world. I don’t know why I find it so sad when a formerly prosperous nation descends into hell.

Witness:  Venezuela

Witness: South Africa
The Death of Johannesburg picture blogs. Note the before and after photos especially. 1980’s: Joubert Park

Today: Joubert Park

There are places that are getting more civilized and technological. I should be grateful for those. But it is the loss of civilization that really gets me down.

Julie Couillard was a brothel madame in Montreal

A former immigration councilor insists that Julie Coulliard operated two brothels in Montreal where the prostitutes were young immigrant women. She also stated that Couillard was once a stripper herself.

This is all over the French language news but not a word among English Canada. Maybe Anglophones are bored of this story or maybe they are too prudish? Who knows?

UPDATED: (June24th, 2008 — 9:30AM)
I have not been able to find any written online support of this but the radio broadcast says that these brothels serviced businessmen, diplomats and politicians.

A Pictorial History of Enviro-Mentalism…

Thanks to Celestial Junk for coining the phrase, “Enviro-Mentalism“.

A long time ago in Vancouver, the earth was green.  Except before that, it was denuded at the turn of the century by logging companies - which is why 90% of the massive “old growth” trees in Stanley Park are less than 100 years old, and the forested mountains the give our fair city it’s emerald wreath are all “second growth” which isn’t supposed to happen according to the enviro-mentalists.

But I digress.

In those halcyon days, the evil supermarkets used these harbingers of the apocalypse: the brown paper bag to hold groceries.

Of course, the righteous ecological denizens of Vancouver rallied to fight this plague.  Our groceries were decimating the forests!  The owls, the bears!  They would have no home because of our evil bags!

Enter the plastic bag.  Ah, these little marvels cost us nothing, and they could be recycled into all manner of useful things, like fleece vests and children’s playground equipment!

But sadly, people couldn’t be bothered to recycle.  They used them as trash bags instead of stockpiling them and handing them into the local recycler.  Hence, off to the dreaded landfill, to fill up our world with non-bio-degradeable petrochemically based waste!

Now a new solution arises: the reusable cotton bags!  Now we have to worry about washing our bags, and now we have to pay for our garbage bags - plastic is still going to the landfill with every trash run, but now we can feel better about ourselves as we shop… and pack our own bags… and worry if they are dirty or not… and pay more for both them and for the garbage bags we have to use anyways…

Never mind the otherwise arable land that could be used for foodstuffs instead of growing cotton…

But I digress.

But this history is not just about groceries.  Now the history affects not just the buying of plants, but the discarding of plants.

We used to just load up our trucks, drive out to the sticks, and dump our grass clippings alongside of the road in the ditch.  Same went for sticks, weeds, etc.  We thought it was good - the green waste would just be absorbed by the forest or dirt, naturally compost back into the ground.

But no, in the big city, that is far too messy.  They started fining people for “dumping” leaves twigs and grass in amongst the naturally occurring leaves, twigs and grass.  Then they sent around “green waste” trucks and charging us for the convenience.  They demanded that we put the “green waste” in clear plastic bags.

Now, it seemed silly to put stuff that will ultimately pass into the soil in non-recyclable bags, but we did so because the pickup guys said they had to “see” that we weren’t stashing garbage in with the green waste.

Now however, the environmentalists have finally gotten wind of the evils of plastic bags.  “Cease and desist!  Evil clear petrochemicals!”  Now we must use…

Yes!  The paper bag!  Because they are bio-degradeable!  Where they used to be free at the grocery store, it’s now 5 for $3!

Funny thing is, with the old clear bags, they never cared how much I put in them.  I could stuff them as full as I want.  But now in this brave new world of paper bags and labelled receptacles, I have twice been denied pickup because it was “too heavy”.

With grass clippings.

And the forests will still be chopped down, mercilessly.

And we have to pay.  And pay.  And pay.  And pay.  And pay.

The Value of Reproduction

Captain Capitalism calculates the ROI on a vasectomy.  Sadly, he only bases the calculation on the costs of children but fails to take into account any benefits whatsoever, from societal to individual.

His comments are highly informative to the debate actually.  Some commenters of like mind express their disdain for reproductive outcomes (though they clearly enjoy the process).  It was interesting to read a couple of commenters point out a drawback to pursuing permanent birth control may be an increased likelihood of decreased pleasure - both in the case of the removal of a uterus and in the tying of the vas.

It is common in North American culture to see only the net expense of children, but it shouldn’t be surprising.  Considering only the immediate ramifications of anything is a major downfall of our collective thinking, and is certain to bring about the downfall of our civilization.  Most of the best arguments against the childlessness position are based upon the long term consequences of such decisions.  I will concede that Captain Capitalism’s numbers on the TCO of children are legitimate.  However, there are major rational arguments for childbearing, despite the cost.

Demographics

Steyn makes the point: since we’ve turned to immigration to keep our populations trending upward, we are dealing with higher and higher assimilation costs as the places in the world that have excess populations are more and more foreign to the western style of life.  We are also facing the consequences of cultures and religions that in some cases actively work against the organization of our western free state.  If we don’t have kids, in a few decades our countries will be transformed into states much like where the immigrants are coming from.  It’s not fearmongering - it is just a statement of fact.  We are spending so much time telling people to not change that sooner or later, we will be the ones to change.

A nation is made up of citizens.  If the citizens all (or mostly) opt individually not to reproduce, they sentence themselves to planned obsolescence in 50 or so years.

Services

We live in a socialist state.  We have very expensive social programs that are designed to give everyone the benefits of familial support even if we don’t have any.  Because people don’t need families to help them health-wise, retirement-wise, we aren’t having kids.  We are trusting in government to be there to prop us up and nurse us as we sicken, and we trust government to give us what we need to live out our lives after we cease to be as productive.  Yes, I know most people don’t expect government to literally have the money in the retirement plans once we get old (though if they keep up the immigration and those immigrants don’t change the face and aims of our government there still might be CPP in 40 years), but I have news for even those people: even with a fat RRSP portfolio, you are still trusting in your government to be your sustainer.  The government manages your currency - that which gives value to your RRSP’s.  The government manages your economy - that engine that sustains the value of your RRSP’s.  The government manages the peacefulness of your society - that which keeps you alive and unaccosted by those who would take advantage of you.  If the government fails on any of those fronts (as governments are wont to do), then you have nothing.  All you can hope for is that you can somehow maintain a prescience about impending societal change, and can get out before you lose out.

How likely is the government to let you down?  Well, let’s see.  How many nations in the world have been in existence for more than 50 years?  Now, subtract all those which have faced wars on home soil in the last 50 years.  Now, subtract all those who faced massive natural disasters on a national scale.  Now, subtract all those who have faced massive civil unrest in the last 50 years.  Now subtract all those who have faced massive economic upheaval in the last 50 years.  How many are left?  What are the odds of your country bucking the trend for another 50?  What I am saying is that in the event of any of the above, your investments in paper and banks will avail you next to nothing.  Only human capital will be of any worth in any of those situations.

Genetics

From a strict genetic standpoint, not having kids is stupid.  The lowest rates of reproduction are found in the highest earning, highest educated, highest standard of living brackets.  Therefore the smartest, wealthiest people in society - the ones who contribute most to the society - will not be replaced.  Their children, should they have them, have the greatest statistical chance of success and adding to the value of society.  But they are not.

Increasingly, it is the ones who are least disciplined, the ones who make the most rash choices, or the ones who simply don’t get it are the ones who are reproducing.  Promiscuous sex, young, unwed mothers, young men with no sense of responsibility, dropouts, seem to be the childbearers of today more and more.  I am generalizing - obviously I have a bunch of kids, and I don’t fall into any of the previous, but the percentage of people having kids that do fall into those groups continues to climb societally.  It is a problem that gets worse with each generation - if your mother was an unwed teenager, the odds are much greater that you will be an unwed teenage parent.  Where does that take us societally?  See the Services section above - it will either bankrupt the system or send the country into chaos sooner or later.

Loneliness

Number one on my hit list is still emotional.  It was something my grandfather found out when he moved into a mature living community.  Those gated communities that don’t allow anyone under 65 to live there?  Those ones.  After he moved in, we were over for dinner one night and he told me that despite all the programs and activities organized by senior’s groups and even the residence, the most consistent indicator of happiness in advanced years was kids.  Those with none were sad.  Those with were not.  Those with none had nobody in their lives.  They had fewer visitors.  They had nobody to give to.  They had nobody to receive from.  As society is increasingly mobile, people live farther and farther from siblings - and when you get old they all start dying anyway.  Friends are not as consistent because they move closer to their families and away from you.  In the end, you are alone.  And they uniformly wish they had kids when they were younger.

There are exceptions to the rule, but it is ludicrous to base your future on being the exception.  That’s like taking the financial argument and saying, “well, I don’t need kids because I will win the lottery and I won’t need financial support.”  Yes, you might live out the perfect storm of friendships and retain some into your advanced years.  But the vaast majority won’t.  At the same time, a person with kids may screw them up so bad that they all hate his guts and never want to see him or her again when they are old.  But they most likely won’t.  It takes a lot to alienate family.  A lot.

Ultimately, the way I see it, there’s a lot of things I can’t control.  But one thing I can control is how I raise and treat my kids.  If I love them, they will love me.  Then, no matter what comes, whether new taxes, no taxes, revolution, recession, I’ll have them to count on.  When I focus on giving emotionally to someone else, then I ensure I will have more in the future.  There are only two reasons not to have kids: 1) believing you will fail to raise them properly (and I don’t fault you for thinking that if you come from a rough background, but I would encourage you to believe in yourself - love is really easy to learn); and 2) believing that you will have to give up something for your kids.  It is true - you will.  But if your reason for not having kids is self-interest alone, well, that’s just sad.  A penny clung to does not give you more money.  Emotions wrapped up in yourself never make you happier.  Only investing in others, giving of yourself -  reliably leads to true happiness.  And that’s what kids are really all about.

McCain offers money to the auto sector

John McCain has offered to throw $300 million as a prize to whoever can develop an electric car battery that can reduce our dependence on oil. This is a ridiculous subsidy.

McCain said such a device should deliver power at 30 percent of current costs and have “the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars.”

If the battery actually works, the savings in gasoline should be enough incentive to the customer. This proposed $300 million prize is just a subsidy from the poor, i.e., people who can not afford the car, transferred to the rich, i.e., people who can afford the car plus benefit from the gasoline savings.

The cynic in me tells me that this magical electric battery has already been invented.

Next Page »