03.31.2015 03:59 PM

If you are Stephen Harper

…you know you couldn’t pay for coverage this helpful. Wow.


  1. James Smith says:

    Yeah, but Gary Goodyear is still in cabinet; so no.

    BTW, I’m surprised you had no comment on the sudden death of Max Kahn? Max was an amazing Oakville councillor and was the candidate who was going win Oakville North Burlington.

  2. Lance says:

    …you know you couldn’t pay for coverage this helpful.M/i>

    Or this


  3. Torontonian says:

    I don’t think this helps Harper. The people who hate Harper are determined to do what they can to turf him, and they aren’t going to decide all of a sudden that he’s a great guy just because an unhappy so-con quit the caucus. If anything, it might cause a bit of grumbling in the base.

    • GFMD says:

      I think the idea is that you don’t need a lot, just a few that wouldn’t have voted for CPC before because they were too,well, anti-evolution. Although I don’t think there are very many people who haven’t voted for Harper in the past who would ever consider it in the future – peak Harper was probably 2011.

  4. Marcel says:

    One needn’t have to be a creationist or an evangelical christian to not believe in the theory of evolution. There are many flaws in Darwin’s theory that he himself acknowledged. Evolution is merely a theory that has not and likely will never be proven.

    • Ridiculosity says:


      I suppose ‘climate change’ is merely a theory as well?

      • Howard Moon says:

        Dont forget the Theory of Gravity. For all we know you have to tie yourself to a handle so you dont float away when you visit Marcel.

      • Al in Cranbrook says:

        Get this straight:

        “Climate change” is a fact. Always has changed, always will, and there’s not one GD thing anyone can do about it.

        “Anthropological Global Warming” is a theory…and a damned flimsy one at best.

        Any so-called “scientist” pumping consensus as somehow legitimizing fact over theory, is, IMHO, a bloody fraud and a disgrace to his profession.

    • Al in Cranbrook says:

      Evolution, I’m inclined to conclude, crashes and burns in any discussion about the probability of DNA randomly forming in some pool of primordial muck.

      Quick Google turned up this, which illustrates in convincing form the virtual impossibility of such…


      That said, I don’t do religion. If I knew the answers to this, I wouldn’t be wasting my time on politics.


      • Howard Moon says:

        A little more googling on the url you cited as “convincing”

        Lets look at the author

        He has degrees in Theology and Biblical Languages two schools associated with Liberty University … Pacific Union College and Andrews University. Now, I should be careful to add that this is not enough to disqualify him. What really matters is the quality of his writing, not his degrees. But it should be something you take into account before you start believing everything he offers as “facts”.

        Second, since he does not have any science qualifications, does he at least show some signs of having had this book reviewed by actual scientists in the fields he talks about, before publishing? I couldn’t find any. Could you?

        So let’s just start reading.

        Chapter 1a:

        “Introduction: Stellar evolution is based on the concept that nothing can explode and produce all the stars and worlds.”

        Ouch. That’s completely wrong. He is confusing ‘stellar evolution’ with the Big Bang theory. Stellar evolution (look it up) is about how stars can form from clouds of *existing matter* (dust and gas) … not “nothing”.

        Yes, we do have to examine where the gas and dust that formed the first stars came from … but that’s not part of “stellar evolution” any more than the origins of life are part of “life evolution” … which brings us to his second sentence.

        >”Life evolution is founded on the twin theories of spontaneous generation and Lamarckism (the inheritance of acquired characteristics);—yet, although they remain the basis of biological evolution, both were debunked by scientists over a century ago.”

        Wrong again. The theory of evolution is not based on *either* spontaneous generation, nor Lamarkism in any way whatsoever.

        So he’s only two sentences in, and he has uttered two HUGE falsehoods about what evolution is.

        Not a very “reliable” start.

        2nd paragraph:
        >”Science is the study of the natural world. We are thankful for the many dedicated scientists who are hard at work, improving life for us. But we will learn, in this book, that their discoveries have provided no worthwhile evidence supporting evolutionary theory.”

        That’s very kind of him. “Thank you, scientists, for improving our lives … but the fact that you scientists almost unanimously accept evolutionary theory despite ‘no worthwhile evidence supporting’ it, means that you all must be either utter morons, or complete traitors to your profession.”

        Now that’s the way to start a science book!

        >”Premises are important. These are the concepts by which scientific facts are interpreted.”

        Absolutely! Remember those two sentences as we proceed with him outlining the “premises” of evolution. Because it is important to express them accurately if we want to have an honest discussion.

        >”For over a century, efforts have been made to explain scientific discoveries by a mid-19th century theory, known as “evolution.” It has formed the foundation for many other theories, which also are not founded on scientific facts!”

        … Can’t wait for those “premises” …

        >”Restating them again, here are the two premises on which the various theories of evolution are based:

        “1 – This is the evolutionary formula for making a universe:
        Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.

        “2 – This is the evolutionary formula for making life:
        Dirt + water + time = living creatures.”

        … Hello? What?

        Not only are both of those completely wrong … but NEITHER one of them has anything to do with *evolution*.

        Statement 1 is a misstatement of the Big Bang theory … which is not part of evolution. The Big Bang theory says absolutely ZERO about “nothing + nothing = etc.” The Big Bang does not specify the prerequisites for the known universe because we simply do not know. All it says is that, based on the current rate of expansion, the universe cannot be infinitely old, and about 14 billion years ago must have been infinitesimally small. What “causes” that Big Bang, is not known … but it is certainly NOT a fundamentally “premise” that it was “nothing + nothing”.

        So either Ferrell is lying … or he is clueless … about #1.

        #2 is even worse.

        Does he really think that the theory of biological evolution is all based on the “premise” that
        “Dirt + water + time = living creatures.” ?

        Really? Do YOU think that’s what evolution is about?

        So that’s within a half-page into the first chapter. And trust me, it gets worse. Much worse.

        Do YOU consider this “reliable”?

        • Al in Cranbrook says:

          I could have posted any of dozens of links, pretty much all saying the same thing: The mathematical odds against DNA randomly forming in nature are beyond possibility.

          Yes, the author is a Christian, I assumed as much. So was Darwin, and many thousands since. So what.

          Believers in the theory of evolution scoff at creationists’ notions of how the universe and our little planet came together, and in the next breath offer up that all life, in all its variations, in the history of the planet emerged from a single cell randomly composed of amino acids and proteins and a grocery list of other components in a pool of primordial muck.

          Yet the problem remains: For that single cell critter to replicate required DNA.

          If you don’t think both religion and science operate on massive leaps of faith, you don’t understand much about human nature.

          (Evidence: See exhibit a – global warming/climate change)

          • Howard Moon says:

            So you could have posted a bunch of links from more whack-a-loon sites but you wont. How magnanimous of you.

            The point isnt that the author is a Christian. Its that he didnt consult anyone related to science before his manuscript. In fact, he grossly misrepresents the terms he plans to debunk. I can understand how you jumped to your conclusions. You’re entire style of writing is a series of cliches and metaphors ripped out of a Kijiji used car ad.

            No I scoff more that you believe a bearded man in a white robe waved his hand over nothingness and life spontaneously appeared. Come on… At least you can do tests to validate scientific theories.

            You’ve claimed you arent religious and you’re barely an armchair historian. I wouldnt consider adding scientist to your resume if you can’t grasp asexual reproduction. Come on Al, that’s grade nine science!

            I seriously wonder about your grasp of science. I find hypothetical theory that can be tested isnt remotely similar to a massive leap of faith.

            As for human nature, you really cant grasp how human nature operates when you live so far from the majority of us… humans. East Kootenays is pretty remote. You understand the nature of you, your family, friends and customers. Not much more. Sorry you arent an Anthropologist either.

            Yes climate change is your favourite straw man. Why feed the troll?

          • Al in Cranbrook says:

            One other interesting thing about DNA: Science considers, so far, about 93% of a strand as wasted.

            I don’t know, but I have my doubts about that. Nature doesn’t do a lot of “waste”.

            More likely, just haven’t figured out what it’s for yet…and the implications/possibilities are fascinating. What if that 93% is a road map of a life yet lived? You know?


            Grand design and all that stuff, eh?

          • doconnor says:

            It is generally believed early life was based on RNA which can both replicate and act as an enzyme. There may have been other mechanisms at existed before RNA.

            Every drop of water with organic compounds mixed could hold billions of potential cells (doubled layered lipid membranes form spontaneously). With trillions of liters water and tens of millions of years of time is plenty of opportunity for unlikely combinations to occur.

          • Al in Cranbrook says:


            Asexual reproduction requires DNA.

            For all your words, you still haven’t addressed my point: The odds, by any calculation you want to submit, from whomever you want to cite, against the formation from a stew of whatever you want to include, are inconceivable, and improbable to the point of literally impossible.

            That is, I’m merely suggesting, the wall science is up against.

            At some point, too, in all this remains the definition as to what exactly constitutes “life”? IOW, even if all the right things happen, no matter how astronomically improbable or impossible, when does that single cell become “life”?

            I don’t know the answer to that, neither do you, and I submit that nobody else does, either…and that it will a long time yet, if ever, before anyone does.

            In the meantime, let go of your compulsion to defend your personal beliefs; I don’t particularly care what they are.

          • Howard Moon says:

            In the meantime, let go of your compulsion to defend your personal beliefs; I don’t particularly care what they are.

            Back at ya Al. Put a sock in it and let someone else talk. Apparently there are rules here about dominating the conversation

            But hey if you want to cop out and buy into junk science go ahead. Thankfully cranbrook is near nothing where you can have influence

  5. Joe says:

    I believe that ‘evolution’ in politics is simply a dog whistle for the progressive set. Personally I don’t make my choice for MP based on whether he believes in evolution of creation. In the past two weeks I’ve had two candidates, one male and one female, knock on my door. I never asked them about their thoughts on evolution or creationism. I didn’t ask them about their beliefs regarding Sasquatch either. I haven’t decided yet on which candidate would be best as they both came across as grounded and intelligent people.

    • doconnor says:

      Perhaps you should have asked then about evolution. It is a good way of seperating people who seem grounded and intelligent and those who actually are.

      • Joe says:

        Well the point I am making is that good people on either side can be eliminated by a test that in itself is invalid. Science changes all the time thus to base my choice on something as faith based as evolution or creation and yes they are both faith based and anyone who says different fits in the fundamentalist group reserved for loons. If you don’t believe in creation fine keep your opinions to yourself and lets get on with life. If you don’t believe in causeless causation (evolution) please do likewise. In the public realm it truly doesn’t matter except for the bigots amonst us who seem to think anyone who doesn’t agree with them is narrow minded and not worthy of consideration. Yeah that’s the “you can’t come into my country because you tie a rag to your head” kind of bigotry.

        • doconnor says:

          “Science changes all the time thus to base my choice on something as faith based as evolution or creation”

          The fact that science changes when new evidence is found is a reason it is no faith based.

          Evolution isn’t causeless. It is caused by imperfect self-replication.

          There are many other issues in the public realm where the acceptance of the logic and evidence of science can be very important.

          • debs says:

            amen….this is what astounds me, that people who says stuff like evolution doesnt matter, well yah Im sorry, but I want a politician grounded in reality. But meh these days we can barely get any of the harper govt to accept science, and its definitely having an impact on canada.

    • Al in Cranbrook says:

      Sasquatch! Hilarious! Good one!

      Probably what grinds so many self-proclaimed “progressives” is the reality that much of what western civilization has become/achieved is premised upon Christian principles by Christians over the last several centuries. Democracy, human rights, ideals of freedom and liberty, even economics, all very much rooted in ideals inspired by Christian religion with its notions of morality and ethics.

      You know, credit where credit is due and all that stuff, eh?

      Science and religion go hand in hand, opposite sides of the same coin. Historically, one not balanced with the other very often leads to chaos, if not outright hell on earth. Science, all on its own, tends to dehumanize mankind. Religion, all on its own, overly humanizes nature and the universe. Together, they keep each other in check…if allowed.

      The Inquisitions were, for the most part, a battle against science, as are the current conflicts…at its core…waged by ISIS and the like.

      On the other hand, left with no counter balancing, science tends to wage its own battles against the human spirit, suggesting their is no real meaning to anything, all is chance, and little more than chemical reactions in some abstract grand petri dish.

      Somewhere in the middle probably lies the truth.

      But then, like the guy said: You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!

      And therein lies the challenge.

      • Howard Moon says:

        By that guy you mean Jack Nicholson? Im pretty sure that truth isnt something in your realm often. Or reality

        Where on earth did you get that definition of science? Have you been hanging at the communes in the Kootenays again?

  6. Africon says:

    The guy sounds like a dinosaur, evolution or adaptation – who really knows the difference?

    Ever notice how we often find oil patches in the same areas as dinosaur museums.
    All those cute and cuddly creatures that became extinct, oh the horror.

  7. Tiger says:

    People get that back benches have a few nutters.

    They want to know that the leadership will smush them like bugs.

    This helps reassure them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *