Today, November 24, 2009 marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin. This now notorious book is perhaps more than any other both the most reviled and the most admired book in the history of science. Darwin set off a stormy debate and protest that has resonated through generations and continues to this day. And the world remains almost as divided today as it did 150 year ago on the book.

It is perhaps risky for a non scientist like myself to speak to a scientific subject. However Darwin’s theory has suffered from attacks most frequently from non-scientists, most often in relation to educational policy. Non-scientists involved in policy making and politics have an obligation to understand and appreciate what Darwin had to say.

Resistance to Darwin is based on two sets of arguments, the first dating back to when he first published and the other having more modern origins. The first are rooted in his fundamental observation that animal (and plant) forms, or species, change in their basic make up over time. This runs counter to the fundamental Christian belief that all life was created by God and remains immutable in keeping with God’s design. He made things worse by suggesting that these changes result in evolution, and that over time species adapt to their environment. This he said can lead over much longer periods of time to the creation of new species that are related to but fundamentally different from existing ones. All of this was and is seen as radical challenge to the notion of God the Creator. As such, it has been the centre piece of Christian objections to Darwin ever since the publication of the Origin of the Species .

The second set of arguments, more recent in origin, relate to the argument for intelligent design. This argues that the theory of evolution contains no convincing mechanism that can explain the amazing detail and complexity of functioning organisms. In fact, it is argued, the complexity, sophistication and functionality of organisms can only be explained by the existence of an intelligent designer. Since this designer cannot be observed at work, it is not much of a stretch to name her God. Whether this is the same God as that of Christians is often glossed over, but it is at least plausible that it is.

A problem for those who object to evolution is that any reasonable person can observe from the historical record that, through generations, life forms do change, and often in a way that suggests survivability of some and extinction for others.

At one time some argued that the fundamental changes that take place occur during the life time of single individuals, sometimes in response to their environment. This is now accepted as false with respect to the basic characteristics or traits of species. In simple terms, the traits of individuals are immutable during one’s lifetime (nature), even though behavior of individuals may respond to environment (nurture). It is now agreed that change in basic characteristics has its source in an inter-generational process.

Darwin’s description of this process of change has largely survived intellectual and scientific challenge. He said that individual members of species have different traits, (variability), these traits are transmitted by parents to offspring and that offspring assume a mix of traits of parents, (heritability), some of the (different) offspring are better than others at competing for scarce resources (scarcity) and thus some survive the competition for scarce resources while others die out (natural selection). As a result, over time, some traits dominate the make up of members of species while others die out and disappear.

Some things are left unexplained by this. It took the development of genetics and gene theory to fill the blanks. There are still questions about how to explain the source of all of the variability among individuals, although it would be generally accepted that random mutations are part of the explanation.

Darwin’s genius was to set an overall framework of change and survival of life forms based on scientific observation. If we did not have Darwinism, we would have to invent it. His book is a remarkable work that has weathered 150 years of criticism intact.

His findings are nevertheless the subject of continuing debate in educational policy. Anyone who has been a Minister of Education or a member of a public school board knows that anti-Darwinism is very much alive and well. Alberta recently made a concession to these views in its curriculum. Other school boards are less than clear in their handling of the teaching of evolution.

It is important that the case for the science of evolution be supported. We cannot expect to have first class educated young people who respect and understand science if we waffle on evolution. And pretty much everyone agrees that educated people are fundamental to maintaining a modern, knowledge based, high value added, high productivity economy.

The scientific case for evolution is unassailable. Everyone in public life and education should celebrate Darwin’s findings, in recognition of good science and the importance of defending its findings.

A few days ago I argued that the sole reason the BC Campbell government ordered BC Hydro to take the Burrard Thermal gas generating station off its base supply is to make room for newly rich private owners of high cost hydro plants to make piles of money at our expense. Campbell claims it is to reduce the production of green house gases. This needs to be sorted out.

Under his plan, expensive private suppliers will supposedly make up the energy supply gap that BC Hydro is legally required to fill as a result of the government’s order to pull Burrard Thermal . Who cares that the gap was created by a stroke of Campbell’s pen? Not being able to count Burrard Thermal means that BC Hydro, whom the government will not permit to invest in cheap plants for expansion, must take power generated by the expensive and environmentally destructive private hydro plants being developed all over the province. Worse, this power won’t be there when it is most needed. Burrard Thermal produces cheap and efficient energy during the parts of the year when BC water levels are low and BC Hydro water generated power is available in limited amounts. Private hydro producers supported by government guarantees to buy their electricity can’t produce much energy during these parts of the year, for the same reasons. They can’t fill the gap. So now BC Hydro will have to go to expensive private suppliers elsewhere who also burn gas or coal during these periods. Ironically the net affect will be more greenhouse gases.

I was attacked by more than one defender of the government for suggesting that the motive for Campbell’s policy was profit for his friends in the private power sector at the expense of BC Hydro customers. They said I was wrong, and that Campbell’s real motivation is, as he claims, to cut back on the amount of BC natural gas burned. In so doing, they claim, he intends to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases created from burning BC gas.

I tried to confirm that the gas burned at Burrard Thermal would be held back rather than burned elsewhere. I was told quite the opposite. His own Ministry said that there are no plans to take that gas off the market. Rather it will be sold to be burned elsewhere, adding as much or more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Further eroding the credibility of Campbell’s claim, we have the announcement that Nexen Inc. will spend $200 million on the government’s Horn River shale gas field over the next year to quadruple its current output of gas to be sold and burned, pumping a huge amount of additional carbon into the atmosphere. Nexen added in its statement that the company plans to triple its gas capacity from the area again in the following 12 months. All of this thanks to the policy of this government.

The company will drill eight 1,800-metre horizontal wells this winter and use 18 fracture stimulations in each well to destroy the rock and drain and waste vast amounts of scarce water, just to allow the gas to be recovered. In last year’s program, the company was using only 10 fractures per well. Which means more damage to the environment from this government’s Alice in Wonderland energy policies, where nothing is what it seems.

The government’s electricity plan makes no sense in terms of green energy. It only makes sense if the intention is to use us, the consumers, to line the pockets of the high cost private power producers. That is not the role of government. This whole policy needs to be opened up to public scrutiny. But the government has directed the BC Utilities Commission to accept it without review, which is in fact to rob it of its role. Don’t you wonder what’s going on here?

The CBC reports that PQ culture critic Pierre Curzi is calling on the Quebec government to invoke the notwithstanding clause. The Parti Québécois is urging the Quebec government to use the ‘notwithstanding clause’ to limit access to private English schools after the Supreme Court quashed Bill 104, part of the province’s language legislation.

Bill 104 had closed a loophole allowing children not eligible for the English-language public school system to gain access by first spending time in a private English school. Rights in the constitution guarantee the right of tuition free attendance at English publicly financed schools if children’s parents have received most of their education in Canadian English schools or the children have had an English language education.

But the Supreme Court struck down Bill 104 in a ruling recently. It said in its decision that Bill 104’s purposes were acceptable in that the parents involved were exploiting an administrative loophole, However it said that the approach to closing the loophole should have been different. Rather than setting a general rule blocking the right of continuing attendance at English publicly financed schools if a student attend a private English school solely to gain admittance to the English public system, the Court said the government should rule on a case by case basis for each school and each student based on their motives for operating or attending the school.

I wrote a few days ago that the Supreme Court was in error in its ruling. (see http://www.policycentre.ca/2009/10/27/934/). The Court should not tell provinces how to administer education policy that is justified. This is meddling in administrative policy which is well beyond the competence of the Court. The solution that the Court suggests is an administrative nightmare and frankly stupid. Bill 104 is a much better approach and should have been left alone.

It is hard not to be sympathetic to the PQ case. If the Court insists on this kind of activist stance, resulting in silly interventions in policy, it may be time for governments to use the clause, as much as it is disliked. This might have a sobering affect on the Supreme Court when it is tempted to step into policy matters beyond its competence.