Okay. so I just happened to be watching post-vote Points of Order, and who should pop up but Bloc Quebecois MP Pierre Paquette with a motion to have the House recognize the birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the first publication of On the Origin of Species. Does he have unanimous consent? Sadly, he does not — and since I wasn’t actually in the Chamber, I can’t tell y’all who denied it, but hopefully someone who was there was paying attention and will be able to fill me in. I’ll keep you posted. It just seems so petty, somehow.
The text of Paquette’s motion:
M. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Monsieur le Président, je demande le consentement unanime de la Chambre pour l’adoption de la motion suivante, et je vous la lis:
Que cette Chambre souligne le 200e anniversaire de naissance de Charles Darwin et le 150e anniversaire de la publication De l’origine des espèces par sélection naturelle ou des lois de transformation des êtres organisés, livre qui a initié la théorie de l’évolution, seule explication scientifiquement avérée et reconnue à l’origine de l’être humain.
Je pense que vous aurez le consentement unanime pour adopter cette motion.
UPDATE: An English translation, courtesy of Colleague Gohier of Deux Maudits Anglais:
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mister Speaker, I request the unanimous consent
of the House for the adoption of the following motion, which I will read to you:
That this House recognizes the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the publication of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, the book which initiated the theory of evolution, the only scientifically-proven and recognized explanation of the origins of the human being.
I think you will obtain unanimous consent to adopt this motion.
UPDATE: Followup post now up! Turns out it wasn’t a sinister anti-science plot after all. This time.
Print
Comment
Wild-assed guess: Stockwell Day in the ‘nay’ camp.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the person who denied unanimous consent was S. Day. No, that’s too obvious. Stockwell D. I believe Minister of State Flinstone-Kenney also denied unanimous consent.
The member from Drumheller?
Could be Cheryl Gallant, Maurice Vellacott — oh cripes the hill is teeming with them.
Yes Kady
I watched it too and of course we never get to see who objects – unless ITQ is there. Kinda of petty, in a ever so predictable way, even in the SH world of governing.
Gosh have you ever wondered what they would say about Galileo; that heretic?
“Eppur si muove” , perhaps?
ITQ feels very, very guilty about not being in the House; in her defence, she had no idea such a motion was going to be tabled.
Obviously, Kady, your MP minions let you down.
Even though I don’t have much patience for Creationists, I respect the fact that they have the religious freedom to believe what they want to believe.
I find it more than a little sketchy that everyone loves to make fun of the tiny group of Christian fundamentalist MPs, but few would dare mock the religious beliefs of Muslim or Sikh MPs who also have religiously motivated doubts about evolution.
Is there a single example of somebody saying creationist advocacy is unacceptable from Christians buta cceptable in muslims? Because certain types just love to make this kind of stuff up.
Tell you what, Mike, why don’t you produce an example of people mocking Stockwell for his silly beliefs also singling out Muslim or Sikh MPs for their silly beliefs.
Didn’t think so.
SPECIAL TREATMENT!!!!!! THEY’RE TAKING OVER!!!! HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS WILL EAT YOUR BABIES!! BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YAP YAP zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Keep punishing that straw man, Mike! It sure beats actual thought.
Keep race-baiting. Looks good on the right!
“Race baiting”??? Get a life, Mike. You’re better than this.
I dunno dude, you brought up the barely relevant comments that imply a special status for muslims. I stand by it.
I dunno dude, you brought up the barely relevant comments that imply a special status for muslims.
Why don’t you read what I actually wrote, instead of projecting your confused inner narrative onto my words.
I never implied any sort of special status for Muslims. What I implied was that people like you are inconsistent and pathetically self-serving in your mockery of other people’s religious beliefs. You seem like the type who experiences a surge of endorphins whenever you think of old Stock Day and his silly faith, because it makes you feel so smart and sophisticated and warm inside.
Never mind that you couldn’t pass a rudimentary science class. Never mind that your reading comprehension sucks. You feel like a genius in comparison to those religious schmucks, because you think you know something they don’t. It reminds me of the comical superiority that little kids often feel when they find out the truth about Santa Claus before their friends.
Now, I don’t really know you, so I apologize in advance if I was projecting a bit there. You did it to me, so I thought I’d return the favour.
Even though I don’t have much patience for Creationists, I respect the fact that they have the religious freedom to believe what they want to believe.
That not the problem. It’s the degree of dishonesty they engage in to mount challenges to their beliefs. How can you respect people who lie so blithely?
That not the problem. It’s the degree of dishonesty they engage in to mount challenges to their beliefs. How can you respect people who lie so blithely?
Some are despicable liars; most are decent, good, ordinary people. Just like most other subsections of humanity.
I will have to apply for refugee status in the States.
this country is a shithole of stupidity.
This is fun, I got one too!
Que cette Chambre souligne le 2000e — oui, M. le Président, je l’ai dit, le 2000e anniversaire de l’exil du poète romain Ovide à Costanza, l’ancien Tomi, par l’empereur Auguste, ce qui fut aussi le 2000e anniversaire de la publication de l’Ibis par le même auteur, livre qui a brisé les frontières de la vitupération poétique ad hominem et qui reste hors pair jusqu’à nos jours.
That this House recognise the 2000th — yes, Mr. Speaker, that’s right, the 2000th — anniversary of the exile of the Roman poet Ovid to Tomi, modern Costanta, by the emperor Augustus, and likewise the 2000th anniversary of the publication of the Ibis by the same author, a book which broke new ground in poetical vituperation in the ad hominem style and which remains unsurpassed up to our own time.
I think it’s safe to say that ITQ would pay similar attention to such a motion, and would be just as curious as to who opposed it.
Surely anyone opposed to arts galas.
Some anonymous Virgilian. They’re so petty.
Social conservatives have problems with evolution but readily accept biology.
Libs/progressives like evolution but have problems with biology (specifically tabula rasa is wrong).
And both sides claim to accept science.
Libs/progressives like evolution but have problems with biology (specifically tabula rasa is wrong).
Well, the science isn’t quite settled on that and the mechanics have only recently been better understood, so that comparison is erroneous and just a desperate attempt on your part establish an equivalence where none exists.
I keep hoping for a revival of the Albigensian heresy and the subsequent Crusade.
Life was good in the Languedoc in those days.
Oops. I probably shouldn’t make a declarative statement like that. CR will be along to yell Prove It !
Prove it!
Montaillou
But… but… the recession! Shouldn’t we be thinking of the economy!!! Somebody do something NOW!!! If Pierre Paquette wasn’t wasting everyone’s time with this, surely we’d have fixed this whole mess by now!!! If the Bloc really cared about the people losing their jobs and all their savings and donning one-sleeved leather jackets and spiked shoulderpads to engage in mortal combat for scarce foodstuffs on the streets of Toronto on motorcycleback, they’d be talking about the economy! Look out!!! ZOMBIES!!!
Sorry, but this is the obligatory reaction to anything non-economic-y. I’m disappointed no one beat me to it.
I think a little reminder about natural selection will do our politicians a little good while focussing on the economy. Maybe they’ll stop and think about why GM and Chrysler are failing in the first place.
So that the survivors will be naturally selected for their thorn-like shape and thus able to escape the attention of their predators?
natural selection is good until it happens to you (in the royal sense). then it’s not so natural right? sorry but this natural selection business always makes me laugh.
the world is slanted in our favour; nothing natural about it. nothing analogue about DNA either.
I would just like to inform all commenter that Olaf has, indeed, won the internet. Govern yourselves accordingly.
Bout time, I’m exhausted. Now, I rest. No, wait. As my first official pronouncement, I hereby decree that the commenter known heretofore as “Ti-guy” shall henceforth only comment under the name “Ti-girl” Tee hee! That’s right folks. Your new overlord is Just. That. Mature.
Also, I do of course realize that the only reason Kady bestowed this high honour upon me is because I managed to properly use her patented and esoteric “word+-y” construction. But I’m keeping the honour anyway.
Now, I rest.
Adding the idiotic statement “the only scientifically-proven and recognized explanation of the origins of the human being” opened the door for everybody to vote down the motion. Even those who believe every minute detail of evolution need not believe that it’s the be-all and end-all of human origins.
need not believe that it’s the be-all and end-all of human origins.
Why not? What else is there?
I wouldn’t have used scientifically-proven….explanation, but merely scientific, but I seriously doubt anyone cares about that nuance.
Geez, I dunno, are there other scientific theories dealing with human origins?
Geez, I dunno, like maybe evolution is slightly lacking when it comes to explaining the beginnings of DNA? What does evolution say about mitochondria and energy production? How does evolution explain the formation of proteins? It doesn’t.
How does evolution explain geological and geographic factors influencing the migration of early humans, which had a lot to do with human origins? It doesn’t – evolution does not talk about geology or geography! What does evolution tell us about the competition between neanderthals and early humans? Nothing.
I mean, c’mon, Darwin did not explain everything, there are still a few things we don’t know about human origins!
Geez, I dunno, are there other scientific theories dealing with human origins?
Well, I’m not an evolutionary biologist, but I did come across something recently that suggested early molecular organisation proceeded along principles similar to natural selection.
But that’s really not my point. It really is high time that so-called “skeptics” stop profoundly irritating everyone with their denialism and raging ignorance and simply go away and read some more. And the deception and the lying simply have to stop.
thank you for showing us all how religion is a virus destroying civilization.
guess what it is the only EVIDENCE based reason we exist.
I don’t understand what on earth you are talking about.
Who would have stayed in the House after an hour of votes??
Either way, it must have been Day, or perhaps Gallant or Vellacott, or wait, Rob Anders!
Stanford University has posted a 10 part lecture series on Darwin’s Legacy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fysSblKjjvA&feature=channel_page
Evolutionary science (that’s science, as in a self-correcting system of knowledge on the basis of empirical observation & feedback) has been tested and proven. This is a body of knowledge, not some untested hypothesis and not some belief based on a book or two.
“tested and proven” or “shaped to fit”? who says the correctors are correct? empirical like the blind men who didn’t realize they were describing an elephant? the amount of faith required to accept this imo materialistic “relgion” is too much for me.
since i believe that Darwin’s anti-spiritual theory is also a religion, albeit a materialistic one, i don’t want any more religion in politics from either extreme; neither respects their own tenets anyway; the basis comes from a very racist pt of view. his is a mishmash religion; for example, he borrowed his “long period of time” idea from Hinduism; and i believe the Greeks gave him the idea that the Universe always existed. scientists resisted the Big Bang because they thought it might prove there was a G-d.
Darwin’s original title actually paraphrases as survival of the “most deserving” not the “fittest” as it has been massaged to say to make it palatable to the masses today. why the title change? if it came to be unacceptable because of the obivous racism at the heart of it why should it still be embraced today?
so, who are the most deserving? why the caucasian race.
his hierarchy of human races:
[]5. gorillas, 4. aborigines (Australians), 3. negroes, 2. asians, 1. caucasians.
this theory was used by Hitler against those 11 million exterminated since they were inferior; and of course it was used by the “most deserving” race against Africans to justify slavery; and let’s not forget the “3/5 man” modifier for ppl of African descent (African slaves) in the US constitution; where do you think the African as human-”monkey” idea stems from?. i cannot accept a theory that is so superficial and self-serving; and Darwin’s IQ was supposed to be 140?
Christianity has the same disease of misrepresentation of the colour-caste system unfortunately.
saying that the theory has evolved is not acceptable since his racist view is the basis on which he formed that theorem. even Leakey (sp?), on the cover of “National Geographic”, used a so-called “black” African to portray his idea of what evolutionary early man looked like; why didn’t he don the mask himself? defend evolution if you like; i can’t.
Darwin was anything but anti-spiritual. Watch the 20 hours of video from Stanford University with lectures from a wide variety of experts from around the world. Evolution has shown that we all come from the same roots and that any “racial” differences are adaptations over time. Pale skin and the ability to digest animal milk (Vitamin D) were adaptations for northern climates. All humans share the same genetic background, therefore we are all related. There is no racism at the heart of evolutionary science, but rather the opposite.
One can believe what one wants, but science requires data, facts, and tests. Evolutionary science has withstood solid scientific criticism. The foundation is strong and any real arguments (not ad hominem attacks) take place on the fringes as the body of knowledge continues to grow.
If anyone’s looking for a great book on this subject, they should check out The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief . It’s written by Dr. Francis Collins, the lead scientist on the Human Genome Project, who is also Christian. I think it should be required reading for anyone who believes that the Earth was created in 6 days, 6,000 years ago, and cling desperately to that belief because they think that evolution = atheism. God and science can go hand in hand if you’re looking for a reconciliation of the two. It doesn’t need to be some crazy stupid divisive fight to the death.