Today, when I met my fiancé for lunch as I do most weekdays, she greeted me with an impish grin.

I was preparing my (completely true) excuse that the high winds had caught the screen door and had caused the little metal-slider-thingy to become stuck. With the wind, it was difficult to fix, as the door was beginning to resemble the hang glider that I had nearly lost control of during my first hang gliding experience last fall. At last, though, with a great heave worthy of any period/sailor romance novel, I was able to reel in the door and get it to snap shut, the house saved, my loose open-chested cotton shirt billowing in the wind. With the door back under control, I proceeded to meet my fiancé, five minutes late... again.

It was this tardiness that I thought at first was the cause of her smug expression. But she had other, much more dangerous intentions. I hadn’t even begun to use my excuse (which I can’t stress enough was absolutely true) when she said, excitedly: “I found you a magazine today!”

A list of possible magazines quickly flashed through my head. Was it a magazine about how a musician could be guaranteed a huge record deal? Maybe an article about a major publisher that was searching for a novel written like a ‘40s radio show about a folk band who find themselves stranded in the middle of a resurgent Korean war while on tour? (Because I have exactly what you’re looking for if that’s you) Or maybe a nerdy article about some new science or technology? (Yes, I have been known to read Popular Science from time to time)

And then my mind went south... Maybe Cosmo is extolling some new sex tips on their young impressionable female readership? Maybe that long lost issue of Playboy with Ginger Spice had surfaced that my friends and I had found back in grade 8? But no, the sinister look in her eye suggested otherwise.

Already opened to the most offensive page, the magazine said in big, bold letters: Creation or Evolution: Which is More Believable? And there it was, the whole can of worms opened and spilling out onto the floor. I just groaned as my face began to turn red, but my fiancé giggled with glee. You see, my fiancé, gets a huge kick out of getting my blood pressure up. She thinks it’s “cute” when I get angry about things, and she is very good at pushing the right buttons to get me going, as she proves handily when my mother comes over for her weekly visits while taking my sister to dance class. The two of them delight in discussing everything embarrassing about me dating from infancy to just last week.

In any case, few topics are better than ridiculous religious beliefs to turn me into a raging; debating hulk (except sort of a bloodshot red hulk rather than green, and without any muscle definition or tearing off of clothes, though maybe there would be more of that if I had any muscle definition).

A cursory glance through the magazine (which is called “The Good News” for those who are interested) revealed a table of contents that caused me to seizure and nearly explode with frustration.
• Creation or Evolution: Which is More Believable?
(This is followed up by a quick little blurb about how biblical quotes don’t line up with Darwin’s theories... I guess it’s assumed that we’ll just take the bible’s word for it)
• 10 Ways Darwin Got it Wrong
(Uh oh! “Darwin’s theories are doomed by major flaws!”)
• How Darwin’s Theory Changed the World
(It follows this up to tell how Darwin contradicts creationism, changing the world’s thinking in dangerous ways... The same was true of the belief in Heliocentrism – the earth revolving around the sun rather than vice versa a couple centuries ago, which at one time was a belief punishable by death.)
• How Can You Talk To Your Children About Evolution?
“Everyday” says the magazine, “Children are being exposed to the “facts” about evolution... rather than the flaws... what can you do to properly educate them?” The article seems to stop just short of urging “believers” to take over their schools and hold book burnings on the soccer fields

...And the list continues. I could rage on for pages about each one of these hilariously frustrating statements, but I promised myself that I’d just stick to the article about which “theory” if creationism can be called that, is more believable, since the debate between evolution aka “fact based on actual scientific evidence” and creationism aka “hokey improvable belief in ancient traditions stemming from unknown prehistoric sources” can often become a battleground reminiscent of the trench warfare of the first world war.

But, heck, let’s get a little muddy. Ready? Here we go!

The preface accuses scientists of forming their “big picture” of the universe and the formation of the planet without giving proper credence to the “word of the creator.” Apparently the major argument against evolution is that a book of old myths and legends says something different.

The other argument that is first raised against evolution is that in New Scientist magazine, someone admits that “there is much about planet earth that remains frustratingly unknown.” Yes, I and every scientific minded person in the world will readily admit that there are many unknowns in the universe. In fact, I would argue that there are more unknowns than knowns. This proves nothing except that science just hasn’t advanced far enough... yet. The twentieth century saw the single fastest and greatest advancement in science and technology that has ever occurred in human history. The twenty first century is on track to far exceed the twentieth. It is highly likely that we will see the answers to more unknowns than we even imagined there could be in our own life time, and of course, many more unknowns will crop up with everything we learn. This is the nature of science.

In the ninth century, Norse cultures believed that Thor, the god of thunder and war caused thunder and lightning with his giant hammer as he rode around doing battle in the clouds. It would be easy enough to quote a whole bunch of Viking literature and “prove” that lightning is not, in fact, the result of differently charged particles and the release of electrons to correct charge imbalances, but is in fact, the work of Thor and his hammer, but as far as I know, no one is crazy enough to argue this.

Unfortunately, so much of the article is just that: little snippets of scripture that “prove” merely through the fact that they exist that science is wrong and Christianity is correct. For example, the article argues that because the bible says “My hand laid the foundations of the earth” that science simply must be wrong and scripture must be right. It’s hard to argue against that kind of unquestioning, unreasoning and irrational belief.

It is even argued that a passage stating that God “sits above the circle of the earth” reveals that the bible knew long before man that the world was round. The author either has forgotten or ignored the fact that for countless centuries, it was believed that the earth was just that: a circle. A flat circle. In fact, up until just a few hundred years ago, it was punishable by death (a measure instigated by the church to eliminate heresy) if one even mentioned the possibility of the earth being spherical. In this case, the article has contradicted its own efforts of presuming that all biblical writings must be literally and entirely true. In this case, because it’s convenient, they choose rather to interpret the passage to mean something different than exactly what it says.

Oh dear... it looks like I’m getting dangerously close to my self imposed word limit.

I will draw your attention to three more cute little passages that make me want to tear my own hair out. The nice things about these arguments are that they are not based on scripture and so are both more rational and easier to argue against.

The magazine takes aim at Darwin’s assertion that human beings evolved from apes stating that “when you look closely, you can see an enormous amount of difference between chimpanzees and man.” Ya don’t say... When I stop roflcoptering (I’ve always wanted to say roflcopter) I’ll deal with this gem of an argument.

I think the most obvious flaw here is that they seem to be missing the most fundamental aspect of evolution. The reason species are different from one another is that they have branched off and evolved in different directions, or not evolved much at all. Darwin said that we evolved from a chimp-like ape, so the fact that there are any chimp-like apes around mean he was wrong? The fact that there are undeniable similarities only proves that he was right. Our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, who evolved along the same tracks as we did show the ongoing living process in action today. Nice try intellect-of-a-five-year-old man, but at least it didn’t involve a biblical quote as proof.

The next little irony I got a kick out of was a piece of evidence dating from fifty million years ago. Yes, this magazine, which takes the bible so literally that it denies that the world is more than a few thousand years old, points to a fifty million year old fossil of a gingko leaf that bears resemblance to a modern gingko leaf. Sorry guys, if you can’t find evidence to back up your whole story, it is not ok to casually ignore one major detail of your theory just so that you can steal a piece of evidence from our side.

This next quote isn’t even funny. It’s just grotesque and sad. The magazine argues that Darwin, single handed, caused Hitler and the Nazi party to take power in Germany. Apparently there was a “degeneration in appreciating the value of human life” that Darwin caused. In fact, Darwin is blamed for the onset of Marxism, pacifism (wait.. what? Pacifists are evil too?), feminism (we wouldn’t want Darwin telling women they are equal), birth control advocates (Trojan Man is Darwin’s great great great grandson), and homosexual rights advocates (Darwin wrote the screenplay for “Milk”). Pretty scary stuff, eh?

For those of you who are religious, I want you to know... I’m not against you. I have never discounted the possibility that there is a God, I’m just waiting on the proof. The problem is, why can’t God exist within the context of our physical reality as we know it to be. There are plenty of unknowns for God to inhabit, and we’ll never get to the point where everything is explained. For crying out loud, just use rational thinking! If you’re so inclined, God clearly intended us to have both rational thinking and scientific minds. Why are you putting what God gave you, if you believe that, to waste? Let the bible remain what it is: a book of early human history and wisdom. Much of it is outdated, some is not. Take the good and leave the bad.

And for the creationists out there: I’d be happy if you would present me some evidence that evolution is wrong. Give me the evidence and I’ll happily consider the possibility, but I can’t stress enough: If your evidence contradicts your own arguments, it isn’t evidence you can use. I also must impress upon you: scripture is NOT evidence. It’s a millennia old document of what people believed long before modern science. Until the physical world begins to resemble the biblical fantasy world, it will remain just that: an elaborate fantasy. Hell, Lord of the Rings is one of the best written books of all time in my opinion. Maybe in a few thousand years we’ll all worship Aragorn and celebrate the day Sauron was defeated.

Well... as I said, I could go on about this for days. I’d better stop now and initiate some breathing exercises to calm myself down.
Thanks for reading

The recent Conservative proposal drops the value of Canadian votes from $1.95 to $0 and removes more than 50% of every political party's finances EXCEPT the Conservative party, damaging democratic competition in Canada.

PERCENT OF PARTY REVENUE FROM SUBSIDY

Conservative: 37%
Liberal: 64%
NDP: 57%
Green: 65%
Bloc: 86%



My Note:

Please take the time out of your busy lives to read and think about this as I have.

Hi everyone, recently, the Conservative Party announced a plan to cut expenditures as a way of dealing with the current economic crisis and the forecast budget deficit. However, included in this plan, is the proposal to cut public financing to political parties. As the current plan exists, parties recieve $1.95 for every vote cast for their party. Under the new system, Canadian votes would be essentially worthless. If you are like me, and you generally don't vote for the leading party in your riding, you would no longer have any reason to vote.

More importantly, this would severely damage party finances for every Canadian party except the Conservative Party. The reason for this is that the Conservative Party recieves the majority of it's funding from large corporations where as the other parties recieve funding from private donations and from the money they get from each vote that is cast in their favour.

The result is that the Liberals, NDP, Green Party and even the Bloc will be seriously crippled by the new proposal and may even be unable to compete in future elections due to lack of funding. This would very seriously cripple Canadian democracy. No matter which party you support, even if you are conservative, we must maintain the health of Canadian democracy at all costs. I urge you all to CARE about this issue and to write to your member of parliament. Look up the facts and encourage Canadians not to allow such a blow to democracy.

Here is the letter I wrote to Mr. Harper:



Dear Mr. Harper,



Today you encouraged constituents to inform their representatives about their position on the upcoming confidence motion. Hence, I write to you now. Just weeks ago, in your acceptance speech, you pledged to maintain a spirit of cooperation in the House of Commons and work together with opposition parties in Canada's interest. Do not loose sight of that cooperation just for partisan political gain.



As I write to you tonight, I am taking time and energy out of writing the 2 fifteen page research papers that I should be working on and am taking time out of studying for the 4 final exams I have in the coming weeks. The reason I am doing this is because I feel that the Canadian political system and indeed, the health of Canada's democracy is more seriously threatened then it has been in my memory.



As both prime-minister and my member of parliament for Calgary South-West, I urge you to reconsider your party's and your own position on the upcoming motion. As a political science student at the U of C, I have studied Canada's political system and as recent voter turn-out rates seem to indicate, the health of Canada's democracy is severely limited. With an increase in voter apathy, it is your responsibility as prime-minister and as a member of parliament to do all you can to maintain and improve Canada's democratic health. It seems clear that the current parliamentary and first past the post system in Canada is not adequately meeting the needs of Canadians. I urge you to consider the proposal of alternative electoral systems such as proportional representation, mixed proportional representation and single transferable vote systems.



My immediate concern, however is with your proposal to cut public subsidy of political parties. It is clear that the only party which stands to gain from such an action is your own Conservative Party. Such an action is opportunism at its worst. All other parties in the Canadian political system stand to be severely damaged or even destroyed by such a policy. This does not serve the interest of Canadians. As the health of our democracy declines it is important to have more healthy debate, more choice and more representation from parties, not less. Such an action would only remove competition from an already unappealing Canadian political landscape. Moreover, the opposition parties have been given no option but to oppose the bill in its entirety. Were they to support this bill, they would not only be commiting political suicide, but they would threaten their own ability to participate in any further elections. For this reason, your policy is entirely undemocratic and unreasonable. We do not desire a one party system in Canada. We do not wish for large corporations to be the only substantial contributer to party finances. This leaves the Canadian democracy open to large levels of corruption, unethical conflicts of interest and a deeper, more serious democratic deficit than exists already.



As voters, we are happy to know that even if our vote does not always count for much in many ridings where a conclusion is foregone, it is comforting that at least our vote contributed financially to our party of choice. The average Canadian in the current economic environment, and particularly the average student do not have the financial means to contribute to their party of choice and the casting of ballots is essentially our only way of contributing to those who we support. This action will decrease voter turnout and make Canadians' votes count for even less than they do currently. Although I feel that my vote should be worth more than $1.95, however I am happy to know that at least my chosen party will recieve even such small ammount as that from my support. If this subsidy is cut, my vote would not be worth the cost of the printing, or paper it was printed on, as would countless other Canadian votes.



Although, as I'm sure you have guessed, I have not supported the Conservative Party, I have respected you as an intelligent and capable leader. I urge you to put aside partisan politics and seek to do what is best for the Canadian people and for Canada as a nation. With our democratic health so damaged already, with voter turnout so low and voter apathy so high, I urge you to step back from this policy and co-operate with the opposition parties, as you pledged to do in your acceptance speech just weeks ago. I feel it is not in the interest of Canadians to increase our democratic deficit by removing the only stimulus that many voters have to vote. I also feel that a shaky coalition of political parties, the most powerful of whom is in a period of restructuring and vulnerability will not be able to lead the country as it ought to be led. However, if the alternative is the impairment of democracy in Canada, I feel most Canadians would have no alternative but to support this coalition, and the removal of the Conservative Party from its possition of leadership.



Mr. Harper, do not further the damage to Canadian Democracy, do not force the hand of the opposition, do not take away much of the publics' only ability and motivation to participate in the Canadian political system. I urge you to reconsider and negotiate on the upcoming confidence motion. Do not remove the voter subsidy to political parties. In this time of uncertainty and hardship, look to the best interest of all Canadians, not to the best interest of the Conservative Party. Look to better the health of Canadian democracy.



I truly hope that you will consider this matter carefully and listen to the voices of the citizens of Canada



Sincerely,



Sean Softley

Well, I recently got an A- on a paper I submitted this semester! I was pretty happy about that. Here are a few excerpts for a brief overview of it, (it was 15 pages originally, no one is reading my little posts, so I doubt they’ll sit through a 15 page one.. haha)

Given the recent turn out rates in our elections, I think it’s very important for us all to consider how we can become more involved in our electoral system. If you can, please take the time to read this post. Hopefully I can persuade even a couple of you to vote next time and advocate a new electoral system.

Welcome to my first blog! Hopefully it will get you thinking.. 

I heard that old saying again the other day: “there are two things you never talk about with people and they’re politics and religion.” I remember the first time I heard that –I don’t remember when or where- and thought “why?” 

I still can’t figure it out. I’ve been told many answers by those who quote the saying. “Because people can’t agree. It starts conflict. People don’t want to talk about it. People aren’t interested. It makes people uncomfortable...” All true, in a way, I suppose. In years of both accidentally and purposefully breaking this social faux pas, however, I’ve become convinced that people do in fact want to talk about it. And how can one not? These two concepts have been the driving –and shaping- force of societies throughout human history. They are all encompassing and affect every aspect of our lives. All humans, I would argue, are political and religious beings. That is not to say that all humans have religious faith or political partisanship, but rather that all humans have an opinion on religion and on politics. 

In my experience, those who have avoided the subjects of politics and religion have been the ones who are both the least secure and the least knowledgeable of the subjects and of their own opinions on them. Moreover, these people are not in the majority. By and large, if one starts a conversation about something deep, important and all encompassing like politics or religion, the conversation will be longer, more interesting and more meaningful than any conversation on frivolous, superficial topics like the weather, movies, TV or even their own -or your own- life. All people can relate to politics and religion. Disagreements only make the conversation more interesting. 

The importance of both subjects is such that they have both shaped human history, present and future more completely than any other. To be blind to politics or religion, I would argue, is to be blind to one of our senses. We are born with a natural affinity and interest in such things. It is important not only for society, but for ourselves that we learn, discuss, inform and be informed about the forces that shape our world and by default, we learn about each other. It is important that we inform ourselves, build opinions and allow those opinions to evolve, be broken down, rebuilt and grow stronger as we move through life amongst all the thousands of other people we interact with each day. To impart your beliefs and oppinions on someone and to recieve theirs in return -whether we agree with each other or not- is one of the most important things we can do to make our lives meaningful. It helps us grow as people as we help others grow.