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.

The World Economic Forum has just recently published its annual rankings of countries in terms of gender equality and gender participation. In preparing the rankings it obtains comparable data from every country, ranks the countries from best to worst, scores each in terms of inequality, and compares each to the average score for all countries in terms of inequality. It makes interesting and for Canada discouraging reading. Canada for all its wealth, believe in equality, and highly developed civil institutions, does not do very well.

Country rankings, in order from one to ten, are Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, South Africa, Denmark, Ireland, Philippines and Lesotho. Canada ranks an embarrassing 25th. Five of the countries which out-rank Canada are lower income developing countries- including countries like Lesotho and South Africa, which as indicated are in the top 10. So much for Canada’s ability to capitalize on its progressive views and high level of economic development to become a truly modern country. Clearly it takes more than an advanced developed economy to achieve equality.

The rankings are also broken down by sub-categories of participation and inequality. Our ranking compared to other countries in terms of income equality is 28th, pay for equal work 21st, labour force participation 22nd, enrollment in high school 87th, healthy life expectancy 67th, and women in ministerial positions in government 69th. These results are embarrassing and disturbing. How is that Canada is so far behind so much of the world when it comes to equality for women?

The Economic Forum understand what all of this means, stating: “From a values and social justice perspective, empowering women and providing them with equal rights and opportunities for fulfilling their potential is long overdue. From a business, economic and competitiveness viewpoint, targeting gender parity is a necessary condition for progress”. This is not coming from some bleeding heart social NGO. The World Economic Forum is the top big business organization in the world. It is the world equivalent of the BC Business Council in BC and the Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) representing the CEOs of Canada’s leading enterprises. It is not known for radical positions. And of course gender equality is no longer radical anywhere else except Canada. Can anyone imagine the C.D. Howe Institute, another Canadian pillar of business thought, even contemplating producing a report like this? The worthies there probably believe that lower pay, employment and opportunities generally for women are simply the result of the market at work, proving in fact that women are less capable, productive and deservng.

How is it that Canada remains so far behind the rest of the world on gender issues? The reasons are not hard to find. We still have a third world child care policy, no federal women’s equality agenda, weak employment laws, and continuing cuts to women’s programs that do exist. Neither the public nor private sectors here take promotion of women seriously. Our corporations still have a cowboy frontier mind set, valuing manly aggressiveness and macho behavior in the work place and the boardroom. Women are still treated as second class by our political parties. The BC Campbell government, always happy to claim it is progressive and forward looking, has virtually abandoned any semblance of support for action on women’s equality. Most other provinces are no better. And of course Harper is still holds 19th century views on women. For more on all of this go to http://www.policycentre.ca/2009/09/06/failing-women-at-work-unfair.

In 1998, Canada had a per capita GDP of $39,300 (US). The average for the Northern hemisphere was $17,950, and for the Southern hemisphere $6,835. We are by no means a poor country unable to afford basic programs and commitments. The time has long passed to put this off any longer. Shame on us. Shame on our leaders.

Last week, Canada’s Supreme Court struck down Bill 104, a Quebec law that clarified the status of immigrants and non-English speaking children who attend early grade English language schools. There was understandable disappointment and anger from Quebec politicians.  The unanimous Supreme Court ruling called Bill 104 “excessive”, saying it unjustifiably infringed on minority language rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.  In fact the decision itself infringes on the legitimate role of government.  The government’s policy was perfectly consistent with the Constitution, which guarantees children from English speaking families or who have attended English speaking schools the right to go to English speaking publicly financed schools throughout their schooling.

Bill 104 was passed in to 2002 close a loophole that some non-English educated families had been using to get their very young children into an English language school and thus “earn” the right to attend publicly funded English language schools.  The right belongs to the English speaking minority in Quebec, and not to those who attend private English schools set up to provide non-English speaking children their first year of school solely in order to qualify them for publicly funded English language schooling for the remainder of their education.

Before Bill 104 was passed in 2002, students not eligible for English language schooling  were enrolling in these private English language elementary schools for up to a year solely to  become eligible to transfer to a publicly funded English language school.   Once the child qualified for a public English language school, the same qualification was transferred to his or her siblings.  Private schools were set up solely for the purpose of getting this kind of bogus qualification.

This was never intended or contemplated when the provisions of the constitution were passed.  And logically enough the Supreme Court agreed that the ability to make such a transfer can be interfered in these circumstances.   Such an interference is a legitimate and justifiable infringement of the right to attend English schools, since these schools there simply to create a loophole.  Preventing the exploitation of this loophole, the court agreed, is sufficiently important and legitimate to justify the government’s infringement of a generally guaranteed right.

It stated in its decision: “When schools are established primarily to bring about the transfer of ineligible students to the publicly funded English‑language system, and the instruction they give in fact serves that end, it cannot be said that the resulting educational pathway is genuine.  A short period of attendance at a minority language school is not indicative of a genuine commitment and cannot on its own be enough for a child’s parent to obtain the status of a rights holder under the Canadian Charter.”

However, according to the court, the Quebec Government failed to calibrate the policy in the correct way.  The judges said that rather than setting an administrative rule, “it is necessary to review the situation of each institution (school), as well as the nature of its clientele and the conduct of individual clients”.

This is ridiculous.  It should not be up the courts to decide how much bureaucracy is needed to make a legitimate policy workable.  It should be up to the legislature of the province to decide policy details of this sort. If  the government judges that generally applicable rules are preferable, as opposed to a case by case review of each school and student, that should be its choice.  The courts should leave these matters to legitimate policy makers who know something about the running of schools.  If they do not, they are guilty as charged, of taking on the role of administrative policy makers and thus of judicial activism.

There have been many nonsense complaints about judicial activism since 1982.  When the courts direct legislators to correct laws inconsistent with the 1982 constitution, they are doing their job.  In this case the court has taken on a different role – it has substituted its policy for the legitimate policy of the legislature and the government.  This kind of interference just adds to unnecessary tension and conflict.   The law will have to be re-written, with lots of political turmoil in Quebec, for nothing but trivial reasons. Nobody will be happy.  Please justices, exercise a little restraint.  Let governments do their job, and you do yours.