Calgary's long antipathy toward Toronto is not much different from similar sentiments held in, say, Halifax or Vancouver. Its roots are in the weariness of trudging to a distant and detached head office in a narcissistic city that assumes people from "out West" reside in Mississauga. From this perspective, Toronto's reputation as the city that unites Canadians in a spirit of shared disaffection is well deserved. Toronto, in turn, sniffs, tosses its head and confidently refuses to respond to such obvious peasant envy. This is what big cities do. Rural and mid-sized America feels the same about New York as middle Canada feels about Toronto. London has a similar impact on the Midlands and Yorkshire, as does Paris on the Bretons. Call it envy. Call it resentment. Whatever, these phenomena have always existed; no doubt, the Neapolitans felt the same about Rome. In Calgary, money isn't buying happiness these days. There is deep anxiety about the federal government's ideological DNA and lingering resentment over Premier Ed Stelmach's defeat of its favoured son, Jim Dinning, in last fall's Tory leadership campaign. The very idea that after 15 years of rule by a former Calgary mayor, Ralph Klein, Albertans might think it was time for someone else to have "a turn" is still viewed as preposterous. Edmonton's turn? Who says Edmonton gets a turn? Calgary's Liberal Mayor, Dave Bronconnier, is in a verbal war with Mr. Stelmach's Tory government over the latter's insistence on attaching accountability to a portion of its grants to the city. It would be easy to get the impression the city is in a state of crisis, were it not for the fact, pointed to by the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, that since 1996 total federal and provincial grants to Calgary have increased from $43.4-million to $330.1-million. That's a 664-per-cent increase over a period of time during which the city's population grew by 28.7 per cent. Facts can be awkward things but in this case they don't seem to be getting in the way of a good story. Local commentators still bay in dismay over allegations of funding imbalances between the University of Calgary and Edmonton's University of Alberta, as if both should be treated equally within a socialist collective and not on traditionally valued Alberta criteria, such as need and merit. There is grumbling about the cutback in Calgary representation in the provincial cabinet. For a city enjoying one of the most prosperous moments in human history, there is certainly a lot being said about what Calgary "isn't getting." This appearance of brattiness doesn't go unnoticed elsewhere in Alberta; the resentment is, in turn, treated with a sniff, a toss of Calgary's head and a confident refusal to respond to such obvious peasant envy. It is becoming increasingly clear to Calgarians, or so the line goes, that these rural hicks in charge of the province simply don't understand how "special" are the needs of a big, modern, sophisticated, cosmopolitan city. No one seems to truly appreciate the depth of Calgary's genius and its "needs." Sound familiar? Calgary is now viewed by middle Alberta as Toronto is viewed by middle Canada - a narcissistic city. Outside the city walls, people can be heard referring to "Calgreedians" - a mocking reference to those too soon rich and too late gracious. Calgary is not the brash, pimply faced, testosterone-driven adolescent of yore. It is now an adult, albeit a young one that has grown faster than even it can comprehend. It has sophistication, culture and freedom. It has affluence, influence, power and independence. It is attractive and at the height of its sensuality. But being a grownup isn't just about the fun stuff. It also means being responsible. Being a leader, even at a young age, means bearing a burden with grace and finesse. Calgary is not lacking those traits. She can be a pretty city. She just needs to make sure she looks that way. PETER MENZIES Past publisher of the Calgary Herald and a senior fellow with the Work Research Foundation Work Research Foundation

Michael Zwiep of Christian Renewal covers Senior Fellow, Peter Menzies inaugural address on building a culture of aspiration. CALGARY - Peter Menzies, former editor and publisher of the Calgary Herald, was the keynote speaker at a public policy forum hosted by the Hamilton-based Work Research Foundation, Wednesday, April 11. Held in the coach house of historic Dundurn Castle, Menzies, a Senior Fellow with the Work Research Foundation, focused on the importance of civic aspiration in contemporary society, arguing for a return to the enduring Judea-Christian values that anchor Western culture. A number of key people were present at the forum, induding David Sweet, a local member of Parliament, broadcaster and columnist Lorna Dueck and Work Research Foundation President Michael Van Pelt and Vice-President of Research Ray Pennings. The Work Research Foundation is based on a Reformational understanding of labour, economics and public life. Menzies began his address by showing three photos on an overhead screen. The first, a photo of Alberta's 'Big Sky Country' with the Canadian Rockies in the background, reaching and yearning, Menzies noted, almost to be the sky itself. The second, a photo of the New York City skyline taken from the observation deck of the Empire State Building. "The sky is not as big as on the Alberta plains," Menzies remarked, "but the office towers, like the Rockies, nevertheless seem to stretch toward the clouds with a similar sense of yearning." The third, a photo of Ground Zero, now a construction site and memorial inscribed with the motto "Look back - move forward." Menzies pointed out St. Paul's Chapel in the background, a historic church rising from the ruins of Ground Zero. The house of worship contains the pew where George Washington prayed following his inauguration on April 30, 1789. Built in 1766, the Episcopalian church is Manhattan's oldest public building in continuous use. A haven for volunteers during the rescue efforts and cleanup following 9/1,. remarkably not one of the chapel's stained glass windows was broken. Called heaven's outpost, Menzies explained how St. Paul's served as a powerful illustration of the enduring foundation of Western culture - "The much maligned and incredibly unfashionable, and yet remarkably durable Christian faith." Menzies pointed out how all three photos depict aspiration. "The Canadian Rockies, the New York City skyline, and St. Paul's Chapel illustrate our collective yearning for the transcendent and hope for a better future," the well-spoken newspaper editor and publisher noted. A yearning and aspiration for something higher, argued Menzies, that not only infuses culture with a sense of optimism, but drives technological advance and rapid societal change. "Buffeted by the most rapid period of social change in history, humanity is at the vanguard of unimaginable technological revolution," Menzies observed. But at the same time, an advance that comes with a sense of anxiety and uncertainty. "The possibilities for change today occur more rapidly than our capacity to contemplate their meaning," Menzies noted. "We don't know, for example, if longstanding values such as kindness, hard work and ingenuity - values that have created the most prosperous society in human history - will survive the pace of change or what will replace them." Menzies pointed to a poignant example in Canadian history when cultural survival was pitted against rapid societal change. In 1877 Chief Crowfoot stood at Blackfoot Crossing in Central Alberta and said: "We all see that the day is coming when the buffalo will all be killed and we shall have nothing more to live on." Less than twenty years before, few of Crowfoot's people had seen a white European - and yet, a mere 20 years after Crowfoot's pronouncement, the Canadian National Railway and barbed wire fences crisscrossed the Prairies. Crowfoot's people survived. But their source of survival and culture were all but destroyed in less than a blink of history's eye. The Winchester and steam engine killed the buffalo. Today we see the day of the buffalo again as technology radically alters our culture, Menzies remarked, asking his audience if they were not standing in Chief Crowfoot's moccasins. From the cell phone to the Internet to the discovery of the genome to genetic engineering, our culture is experiencing a revolution of change. The key question we need to ask. argued Menzies, is whether culture's foundational values will survive the most rapid rate of technological change in human history. But the successful newspaper editor and publisher stopped short of blaming technological advance for destroying culture. 'Technology is just stuff," Menzies maintained, quoting fellow Albertan, David Goa, Director of the Chester Ronning Centre for the Study of Religion and Public Life at the University of Alberta: "Science has never claimed to be anything more than a method. It doesn't give you the tools of judgment - it doesn't have a worldview." Blaming technology for humanity's errors, Menzies argued, is akin to blaming the apple for Adam and Eve's eviction from the Garden of Eden. More importantly, Menzies added, blaming technology denies human responsibility. Instead of blaming technological advance for the destruction of culture, Menzies explained, we need to go beyond the realm of the physical. "We need to believe that culture is not temporary, that it doesn't die when the buffalo are gone. Life has an eternal dimension. And if human existence has an eternal dimension, then there is more to life than survival and reproduction. Life becomes a rare and precious gift with the potential for something of inconceivable wonder and beauty. Life will be filled with aspiration." Menzies defined the term "aspiration" by pointing to its Latin root "aspirare", which means "to instill or infuse an emotion or quality into a person or thing." In other words, he noted, "it means to breathe." Menzies recalled how the pioneers who built Canada, whether on the Alberta plains in big sky country or across Ontario's forests, rivers and lakes, could see the stars at night once the sun had set. 'They breathed in the natural wonder of creation and were filled with a yearning for the transcendent, for something greater than themselves," Menzies stressed. "In today's urban culture, we deny ourselves those natural moments of fear and wonder inspired by constantly coming face to face with the enormous reality of infinity." Menzies quoted Oxford University Professor of Historical Theology Alister McGrath: "The stars may evoke an unspeakable sense of yearning for something that seems unattainable - a sense of longing for something significant, which the night sky can heighten, yet not satisfy. Maybe the stars point to something mysterious, something unfathomable, which somehow lies beyond them. Something seems to lie beyond the whispering orbs of the night. But what? And how is it to be known?" Stargazing has always intrigued humanity, Menzies explained. "Maybe these are the musings of people who cannot cope with the sobering thought of mortality and meaninglessness," Menzies remarked. "Yet maybe we are meant to think such thoughts." Menzies pointed out how the brightness of progress and technological advance today hides the nightly reminder of eternity. 'The 21st century urban world cannot see the Light for the light. We cannot clearly hear the voice of aspiration. There is just too much noise." Menzies urged his audience to go beyond the city lights and noise. "Those of you who truly aspire - who seek something higher; who understand the need for spiritual and philosophical meaning in our existence - must find the light through the mask. You must listen for the voice amid the noise. And, because cultures are built and sustained from the top of the sociological order, you must lead." Cultural aspiration is not about thinking bigger, Menzies explained, but about reaching higher. Menzies argued that this aspiration is only found in the Judeo-Christian values that lie at the foundation of Western culture. "Todays society - the most prosperous in human history - was built for better or worse on a certain set of values that evolved in Western culture from a Christian worldview - something many, if not most Canadians have completely forgotten." The challenge for citizens and leaders is to build something higher than a sense of shared ambitions and understandings, Menzies stressed. "The challenge for our citizens and leaders is to aspire." Leaders may and do aspire, the former editor and publisher explained, pointing to a recent Calgary speech by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Canada's role in the world and a 1905 speech by Liberal Prime Minister Sir Wilfred Laurier on the occasion of Alberta's entry into Confederation. "Prime Minister Harper noted that Canada wasn't built by the services we use, but by the sacrifices we made," Menzies explained. "Canada, as a nation, is urged to aspire for the higher ethic of sacrifice instead of consumption" Menzies pointed out how Laurier, in his speech, issued a call for new immigrants to settle Canada's west. "We do not anticipate and we do not want that any individual should forget the land of their origin or their ancestors," Laurier said. "Let them look to the past, but let them also look to the future: let them look to the land of their ancestors but let them also look to the land of their children" Menzies pointed out how Laurier urged immigrants to not only honour their past, but more importantly, aspire for a greater future. The aspirations of both Prime Ministers are rooted in the best of what the Judeo-Christian tradition has to offer, Menzies argued - sacrifice and optimism for the future. The speaker concluded by referring back to St. Paul's Chapel at Ground Zero in the wake of 9/11. "While the release of hate and madness on 9/11 turned the symbols of our commerce quite literally into dust on one side of the street, this humble little church, a symbol of our culture's roots, survived," Menzies noted. "For the next eight months, while workers struggled through the horror of Ground Zero, St. Paul's Chapel became a haven. For 24 hours a day, seven days a week, St. Paul's doors were open to those who needed food, those who needed rest and those who needed comfort. People still seek comfort there. What happened at St. Paul's is that the very best of Christian values were released. People were being loved and cared for with wild abandon. A site of tragedy, pain and despair was turned into a place of hope and aspiration. It renewed the souls of broken people. This, then, is the challenge for citizens and leaders who understand the failure of relativism and how it pales against the beauty of the absolute when it is freely understood and released." Such an aspiration, Menzies explained, is for those who, like the mountains and skyscrapers, yearn for something higher - those who truly aspire. An aspiration rooted in the elevated virtues of the Christian faith. The event at the coach house ended with a stimulating question and answer period and the hope that those present would engage contemporary culture with only the highest aspirations of truth and virtue. Michael Zwiep is a Researcher for Crossroads Television's 'The Michael Coren Show', aired every weeknight at 8:00 PM, and a confessing member of the Vineland Free Reformed Church.

David Suzuki and Dennis DesRosiers have made the case in these pages for the imposition of an environmentally motivated tax on gasoline in Canada. The silence in response is remarkable. This could be due to the stunningly successful public relations campaign that has turned Al Gore into a rock star, heightened Mr. Suzuki's reverence and sent those who would take issue with them into hiding. No matter the reason, their proposal requires a second look. Their argument was accurately portrayed by the headline "It's time to think the unthinkable: Put a tax on gas." Yet, what is meant by "think the unthinkable" and put "a" tax on gas? Not only do Canadians already have "a" tax on gas, we've got lots of them. The Canadian Automobile Association reports that the average total of taxes on gasoline is 43 per cent. This includes a federal excise tax, provincial tax, GST, provincial sales tax and, in Montreal and Vancouver, a transit tax. Consider that the average oil company profit on the sale of gasoline equals 3 per cent of the pump price and it becomes clear that the greatest beneficiary from the purchase and sale of gas at the pump is not Big Oil but Big Government. And while the argument is made that Canadians have come a long way from the day when Joe Clark's government fell partly on its attempt to impose an 18-cent-a-gallon gas tax, there is considerable evidence that taxing Canadians on their gas consumption has done little to affect their consumption. Environment Canada, for instance, points out that, during the current era of 43-per-cent taxation on gasoline, this country's total transportation-related greenhouse-gas emissions grew by 27 per cent between 1990 and 2004. Further, while several European countries have imposed environmental taxes on gas in recent years, the European Union's record on the growth of transportation-related gas emissions appears to be significantly worse than Canada's. According to the EU's website, transportation-related greenhouse-gas emissions account for 28 per cent of the European total and are on track to increase by 40 per cent compared with 1990 levels. Europe's Kyoto commitment is to reduce emissions of six greenhouse gases by 8 per cent of 1990 levels by 2008-2012. So, despite the fact that Europeans have imposed environmental gas taxes and pay two to three times as much for gas as do Canadians, growth in transport-related emissions in Europe is at 40 per cent since 1990 compared to Canada's 27 per cent. Taxation doesn't stop people from doing things they need to do, such as heating their homes. If the purpose of taxation were to modify behaviour, then Canadians would have stopped earning income long ago (or never sought to earn any more once they hit the marginal rate) or investing. What excessive taxation does do is make people poorer by raising the cost of, and hence lowering, their standard of living. Employees suddenly faced with paying, say, $50 more a month in gas prices will look first to their employers for an additional $90 a month in income that, after taxes, will give them the $50 they need to keep level with the hike in gas prices. Those companies, in turn, will increase their pricing to consumers to maintain profitability. And so it goes. If the environmental movement is to find success in moderating the behaviour of Canadians, it needs to create 21st-century solutions to 21st-century problems. Looking back for discredited central planning solutions such as tax hikes is not the answer. If it were, the problem would have already been solved. PETER MENZIES Past publisher of the Calgary Herald and a senior fellow with the Work Research Foundation

Democracy, particularly as expressed through city councils, is an awkward, messy thing. Councils at the top of their game can display the collective wisdom typical of directors of a multibillion-dollar corporation. At their worst, they produce the frenetic philosophical inconsistency of an anarcho-syndicalist collective. Calgary City Council, for example, unblushingly produced a smoking bylaw a couple of years ago that banned smoking outdoors on pub patios but allowed it indoors. Puzzling even to council itself, this made Canada's second most powerful city the only one in the country, perhaps the world, in which people could be told, "Excuse me sir, I'm going to have to ask you to take that cigar indoors." Fairness demands clarity. These observations concern the actions and decisions produced collectively, not individually. Calgary's council is not much different from those that represent most big cities. It is comprised of hard-working people with inclinations that vary from conservative to socialist. Herding these cats is Mayor Dave Bronconnier, a capable leader who has built a solid reputation as a spirited fighter for more provincial money to bolster a transportation infrastructure overwhelmed by the boom. Still, this is the council that collectively decided, by an 8-7 margin, to proceed with implementing a curbside recycling program that involves a mandatory $8 (or so) monthly user fee for all property owners. Apartment and condo dwellers are for the time being exempt from this mandatory user fee that interestingly enough is applied regardless of whether you actually use it or not which makes it, well, a tax. Forcing Calgarians to do something that has come naturally seems unnecessary. We may well have a soft spot for rugged individualism, but have always had a healthy approach to the environment. Yes, the air above the city can have that rancid, yellowy-brown look with which Torontonians are all too familiar, but our commuter trains run on wind power and we have recycled our papers, bottles, milk cartons, cardboard, flyers, magazines, cans, glass, tires, etc., for a very long time. A strong sense of environmental stewardship has preserved the Eastern Slopes from resort development, ranchers pine for the preservation of open range and, yes, we have dutifully toted our stuff to community recycling depots for decades. Curbside/blue box recycling service, for shut-ins and those who prefer it, is handled by private operators for $10 or $11 a month. The only thing new about recycling in Calgary, despite expressions of delight that our "embarrassment" had finally ended, is that instead of it being executed by combining city resources with the volunteer labour of citizens and the entrepreneurship of the private sector, it will now be done exclusively by the public sector. The merit of this decision, according to the Sierra Club, is that the coercive power of the state, enforced by a market monopoly and tax, is required to get Calgarians who do not currently recycle to do so. Perhaps, although choosing to suppress Calgary's vaunted civic volunteerism rather than taking advantage of and further encouraging it is certainly a fresh twist on city-building. Another popular argument is that the city will do a better job than the private sector. Maybe, but not only is this inconsistent with a culture prone to frenetic fits of free-market breast-thumping at the first hint of government intervention, very little evidence exists that the public sector is inherently better than the private sector at just about anything. This is a market in which even $16.50 an hour may not be enough to recruit unskilled outdoor labour, so there's always a chance the city might decide -- despite opposition from public-sector unions -- to contract private curbside recyclers to achieve its ends. As it stands, however, the City of Calgary's collective wisdom, albeit narrowly reached, is poised to "nationalize" the curbside recycling business, raising taxes to wipe out businesses and suppress volunteerism in this, the once swaggering city of entrepreneurs. It doesn't seem like a very "Calgary" thing to do. Unless of course, you think smoking is something better done inside than outside. Then it all makes sense -- in an awkward, messy kind of way.

Download the 2007 Budget Analysis Following is the Work Research Foundation's analysis of the Government of Canada's Budget for fiscal year 2007-2008, released by the Hon. Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, on Monday, March 19th 2007. We do not address all matters raised in the federal budget. The Work Research Foundation is particularly concerned with the impacts of budgetary policy on the institutions and associations between the individual and government (the state). In addition to matters that touch upon these, we will pay some attention to macroeconomic matters that affect all Canadians. Two Lenses There are two lenses through which the Work Research Foundation looks at and analyzes the federal budget: 1.The task of government is neither minimalist (that is, only a narrow focus on essential duties such as security, safety, and core government services) nor expansionist (where government is prepared to jump in and solve every problem for which there is political advantage in addressing). The state is a guardian of the public good but should defer to the other institutions of civil society who are often better placed to deal with particular issues. 2. Economic thinking has been plagued by a "short-termism," the correction of which requires significant rethinking in the markets, what we measure and value as a society, and in government's approach to political economy. We acknowledge that the Government of Canada went through a paradigmatic shift from short-termism to long-termism in its management of the federal treasury and the demands upon it with the 1995 federal budget, more than twelve years ago. This was achieved by cutting up to 70% from federal departments (Transport Canada), by shrinking the federal public service overall, the Canadian Health and Social Transfer, the implementation of a clawback to OAS for high-income senior citizens, and by keeping the GST in place. Later, the Government of Canada announced and implemented a rise in Unemployment Insurance (now, Employment Insurance) premiums and a gradual rise in contributions to the Canada Pension Plan. As a result, by 2000, the Government of Canada was running with a balanced budget. The present government is keeping the federal treasury on a policy of long-termism. In November, 2006, Finance Minister Flaherty announced Advantage Canada as "a strategic long-term economic plan designed to improve our country's economic prosperity both today and in the future." Building on this framework, the budget proposes concrete actions in each of these categories which the government believes will provide the tools to compete globally. The Advantage Canada Framework The Advantage Canada framework focuses on creating five Canadian advantages as pillars for improving Canadian quality of life. A. Tax Advantage Advantage Canada argued the need for both general and business tax relief. There are various measures which take strides toward this including a child tax credit, changes to age and limit amounts which will particularly assist small business owners, farmers and fishermen, and older workers. On the business side, overall reductions in tax rates, incentives for new business investment and changes to the treatment of capital costs allowances will provide assistance to many firms. However, tax competitiveness is not achieved only on favourable macro-economic numbers. Government also has a responsibility create a framework in support of institutions and associations' carrying out their respective responsibilities in society. In the 2006 budget, the elimination of tax on capital gains on securities donated to charities was a significant positive step in giving the charitable sector additional tools to raise support. The Child Tax Credit announced also provided valuable support for a vital social institution “the family“ to continue playing a positive role. By giving income splitting to senior citizens, the government has recognized that most Canadians live in households with shared expense burdens. This recognition needs to be extended to all Canadians and our tax system needs to be further reformed to allow for income splitting and better address the realities of families across the income and age spectrum. B. Fiscal Advantage Advantage Canada called for the elimination of Canada's net debt in less than a generation. This laudable goal was to be achieved with spending discipline, resolving the fiscal imbalance so that provincial governments had the resources to address their responsibilities, and committing to passing the interest savings on to Canadians through tax cuts. A centerpiece of this budget is the addressing of the fiscal imbalance over the next seven years. The aim of changing the complex array of inter-governmental transfers to a more principled approach in which the roles and responsibilities, together with the fiscal resources, for each level of government is better understood is a welcome step. There is a caution, however, in that overall federal expenditures are projected to increase by $10.3 billion in 2007-2008 and an additional $6.9 billion in 2008-2009. Although the bottom line numbers reflected as percentages of GDP are presented favourably in the budget documents, the net result remains that government is growing at a faster rate than inflation. Canada's new social architecture requires a focus on the other institutions of society and less reliance on government. C. Entrepreneurial Advantage At the Work Research Foundation, we believe markets to be the best way “no, the only sane way”to structure interactions in economic life. As such, steps to remove red tape and provide incentive for investment and entrepreneurship are welcome, including the proposal to consider a single market regulator. We do caution, however, that entrepreneurialism is about more than dollars. A successful business is as much a product of intellectual capital, social capital, human capital and spiritual capital as it is about physical capital. Further, entrepreneurialism entails a myriad of relationships, networks, and associations among people. From decisions taken on the basis of handshake or a telephone conversation to those involving formal, contractual agreements, people “human beings“ are involved. Their relationships to each other, from informal networks to more formal associations and organizations, are the basis of a healthy entrepreneurial culture of trust, fairness, and the creation of "win-win" situations for all concerned. D. Knowledge Advantage Advantage Canada targets the creation of the best-educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce in the world. This will entail investment in advanced education, research and development, and spending on high technology, but it also requires attention to investments in training in the skilled trades and assisting entry into the work force. Too many secondary and high school teachers and guidance counselors know too little about the opportunities in the skilled trades or they are prejudicial in encouraging students into the professions over the skilled trades. Unfortunately, all too many Canadians have not acquired basic job skills necessary to acquiring and holding a job. Canada needs investment in broadest spectrum of jobs and skills and to assist more Canadians to enter the work force with incentives for training and on-the-job learning to becoming contributing members of Canadian society. The best social program is gainful employment. Canada presently suffers from a severe shortage of skilled workers in the construction trades, especially in industrial construction with industrial construction projects already announced for the next ten years valued at well over $100 billion. This demand for and shortage of skilled workers requires tax incentives to entice journeypersons and apprentices to travel to projects away from home, and huge investments in training apprentices. Canada skilled work force is ageing, and it is incumbent on government and industry to assist and facilitate a transfer of knowledge from a generation of skilled workers nearing the end of their careers to a generation beginning theirs. The increase of the expense deduction for long haul truckers' meals is a welcome move for that industry, but there are various measures that would equalize the tax benefits for mobile workers that would be beneficial to the construction industry. While the steps announced for the recognition of foreign worker credentials may provide some immediate relief, there are longer term issues facing workers in the skilled trades which remain outstanding. E. Infrastructure Advantage The Work Research Foundation issued a study of Canada-U.S. trade, the significance of the metaphor of "trade corridors" for understanding of that trade, and included recommendations in respect of the physical infrastructure of trade corridors as well as the statutory-regulatory and business infrastructure of trade (Greenlighting Trade: A Trade Corridors Atlas. Found here ). The provision of more stable predictable funding for other levels of government, the investment in border crossings, and the $1 billion funding designated the Asia-Pacific and Corridor Initiative are all positive contributions in this areas. Key Spheres and the Budget    Work In last year's federal budget, the Government announced that workers in the skilled trades would have the ability to claim a deduction on their tax return. This deduction has been left in place, thus recognizing the contribution that the skilled trades make in building and maintaining Canada's physical infrastructure, as well as their contributions in raising families and building communities. The announcement of an additional $500 million for training and the Working Income Tax Benefit to help people over the "welfare wall" and strengthen incentives to work for lower income Canadians are both significant and welcome steps that will assist Canadians in acquiring the skills and jobs they need. Families A number of policy changes were announced that will support families: For the first time, senior citizens will have the opportunity to engage in "income splitting" in order to reduce their overall income tax payable as a household; The increase of spousal and other amounts will result in more equity among families and eliminate the "marriage penalty" that has long existed in the system. The Government did not announce similar income splitting for Canadians who are not yet senior citizens. We hope that in future the Government will extend income splitting to all Canadians, therefore assisting households who opt to have one parent stay home and to live on one income; A new Child Tax Credit of $2,000 will provide up to $310 per child of tax relief to more than 3 million Canadian families. The Government has also kept in place the refundable tax credit for child care of $100 per month for each child under the age of six years. These policies recognize the importance of supporting parents as they raise the next generation of Canadians; Communities The addressing of the fiscal imbalance and changes to the Gas Fund will provide both provincial and municipal governments with additional resources to address important issues of concern in their communities. Trade Associations and Worker Organizations The investment of $500 million additional per year for workplace training and the initiative to create a new labour market program provide an opportunity for industry groups and labour unions to help shape programs that are more responsive to the current needs of their sector. Charities Last year, the Government announced the elimination of taxation of capital gains on private securities donated to charities. This year the elimination of the capital gains tax for charitable donations of publicly listed companies to private foundations will be of benefit to the charitable sector. Conclusion Many will dice the numbers and slice the politics of this budget. The long-term question is how this budget will contribute to the shaping of Canadian society. Our social architecture is changing. Resources and responsibilities are being transferred to institutions and organizations between government and the individual. By giving income splitting to senior citizens, the government has recognized that most Canadians live in households with shared expense burdens. This is a start, but we should go much further down this road. Families, businesses, sectoral councils, charitable organizations, and others must be provided with resources and be able to carry out an even greater role in shaping society. This is a good thing for long-term prosperity and human flourishing in Canada.

CALGARY -- David Goa is waiting at the bar. His countenance, enormous beard and long white hair create a likeness to Gandalf that is modified, but not entirely dismissed, by the post-Lord of the Rings-era beret on his head and the glass of red wine in his hand. David Goa, 62, is director of the University of Alberta's Chester Ronning Centre for the Study of Religion and Public Life -- a title that makes one wonder at the fact such a role still exists. Were it not for men of his intellect, perhaps it wouldn't. A renowned scholar and author, Mr. Goa is former curator of Anno Domini: Jesus Through the Centuries -- a Royal Alberta Museum exhibit many believe was second to none in its celebration of the great figure of the past 2,000 years. Our discussion over lunch ranges from the ontological impact of the French Revolution to the current (sigh) state of the world and its future. What lingers is Mr. Goa's view of how we are about to be so far stretched by our scientific ability to manipulate genetic structure that we will be forced to revisit the very nature of that which we understand ourselves to be. "The mapping of the human genome is widely considered to be the most important scientific discovery -- ever," he said in a follow-up interview. "The 21st century is going to be the age of biology." Born in Camrose, Alta., of Norwegian immigrant parents, Mr. Goa describes science as "an enormous gift." It can, however, only determine what we can do -- not whether we should do it. "Science has never claimed to be anything other than a method," he said. "It doesn't give you tools of judgment -- it doesn't have a world view." In the 20th century, physicists exploring the subatomic world gave us the ability to destroy ourselves. Having opted for survival -- a relatively straightforward decision -- the 21st century's ability to manipulate our essence will demand a rather more complex group of arguments. "Clearly, we will be faced with an enormous set of judgments based on our understanding of what it is to be human," said Mr. Goa. "What does it mean to live? What does it mean to die? What does it mean to suffer? These can only be answered by what it is you think it means to be a human being." That journey of wonder, which he described as "the course of science and the central language of religion," requires understanding of, if neither approval nor a shared belief in, Canada's cultural foundations. "The Christian church has been the centre of culture and learning in Western society and we have an extraordinary amnesia about that. When we forget those dimensions -- for better or worse -- of our culture, we become less capable of thinking through the great issues that face us." "When we view secular society as some sort of neutral ideology, we really diminish our capacity to think with depth and texture. My point isn't the restoration of something that is no longer possible -- it's that religion is better at [handling] complex ideas as opposed to ideology which is a narrow set of ideas." In a world in which technology has enriched and yet robbed us of the time and space it once promised, it is difficult to imagine how postmodern Canada will obtain the intellectual capabilities required for the enormous decisions awaiting us. Should we, for instance, be selecting/designing our babies as is already occurring in China? Reproductive surprise is, after all, fairly passe. Certainly, increasing numbers of middle-class moms-to-be already know the gender of their offspring and sooner rather than later will be able to describe their unborn child's genetic makeup at the baby shower. ("She'll look just like me, but she's predisposed to her dad's temper -- we chose looks over personality." Ha ha.) Mr. Goa said there are hints of a renaissance that could lead to a century of not just scientific advancement but intense philosophical energy. Unlike the baby boom and echo generations who confused their mistrust and suspicion of religion with freedom, a third wave is emerging that has no consciousness of theological depth and texture. That, in turn, is allowing them room to wonder at and be romanced by the world of ideas. "There is no Christian capital any more -- it's gone," Mr. Goa said. "I see in my students that they no longer have prejudices against religion or against Christianity. They don't know who Moses is -- Jesus is just a swear word to [many of] them. "So now they are open to trying to figure out 'what the hell is going on?' and we can give them the beginning of being able to think. In a sense, we've stepped into a kind of renaissance. "It isn't vivid yet, but it is happening." Just in time, one hopes. Peter Menzies is a senior fellow with the Work Research Foundation.

Ray Pennings, WRF Vice-President of Research, argued before a House Committee that "the legislation before you is an unwise bill. In the name of balance, its passage will lead to perceptions of imbalance. It will expend political good will and energy toward defining the rules of war at a time when we need to steward our political capital to build positive infrastructure and to develop a democratic and respectful industrial policy that positions Canada for tomorrow's present and future challenges."  Read the full memorandum

The former publisher of the Calgary Herald wrestles with the consequences of escalating diversity and the diminishing influence of mainstream media A couple of years ago, the diversity committee at my newspaper assigned itself the task of determining just how many "ethnic" and "niche" publications were operating within our market. The exact count has escaped my files and my memory, but I recall being surprised at the size of the final total. More than a dozen—close to and maybe more than 15 is my best guess—reasonably healthy looking "ethnic" and "niche" papers were on the go. And these were actually publications, not "new media" websites. Some papers, such as Sing Tao, were corporate dailies and while most were weeklies it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the depth of the challenge for Canada's "mainstream" media. The mirror that once reflected Canada's image back at its citizens has fragmented into hundreds of pieces. And those pieces vary from the demographic to the psychographic; from publications such as ChristianWeek and the Jewish Free Press that specialize in a readership with a faith foundation, to those catering to new Canadians from India, Vietnam, Britain—you name it.    Fractured common ground Most Canadians celebrate Canada's diversity, but it is clear that most of its mainstream media—once a powerful and influential force—is groaning under the pressure of an increasingly fractured common marketplace. The diversification of Canada's population has combined with the reduced costs of technological advancement to spawn an exciting new era for "independents" in both traditional and new media formats. These forces have in turn exposed the lack of innovation that is the soft underbelly of many mainstream media struggling to display the necessary core skill—adaptation—that will save them from the fate of the dinosaurs, history's lumbering poster boys of evolutionary rigidity. The situation for most major print properties (there are enlightened exceptions, but that is a discussion for another day) is unlikely to improve. Free dailies such as Metro and 24 Hours have grown their readership among commuter populations in cities such as Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver despite being filled with assembly line editorial content primarily notable for its cost efficiency. It remains an open question whether these publications are actually "attractive" to readers or whether they are simply a convenient way to pass the time of day (sort of like an airline movie) when there is nothing else to do on commuter bus or train. There is no question, however, that these products are attractive to advertisers. Their agents look for ways to buy their way around traditional media that are clearly not drawing the audiences of which they were once capable. The financial marketplace will eventually determine the economic fates of these various players—particularly in the broadcast world where the proliferation and fragmentation of media is most obvious to the average consumer.    Retreat into silos What remains equally unknown and even less frequently discussed, however, is the impact of this social fragmentation on our community at large. Let me explain. Thirty or so years ago, major local papers were read on a daily basis by close to three quarters of the citizens in their communities. Their pages were the common ground where almost all citizens—Jews, Muslims and Christians, Protestants and Catholics, English and French, Ukrainian, Italian and Chinese—crossed paths on a daily basis. It was where they encountered each other's opinions and perspectives. Today, those same major local papers are typically read on a daily basis by about one-third of their citizens. And the number is dropping almost every year—a phenomena that has many in the industry either frozen like deer in the headlights of a Peterbilt or further homogenizing the homogenous content that lost readers in the first place. Nevertheless, the common philosophical ground that mainstream media once represented in our society is now about half the size—and shrinking—that it was a generation or two ago. And without a common ground, we are increasingly left only with the ethnic, religious and psychological silos to which we typically retreat and find comfort. Christians, in other words, are going to get more and more of their information from specifically Christian sources, whether in print or online. Ditto for Muslims (the Muslim Free Press was launched in 2006), Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and others. As each of these societal segments retreats onto its own holy ground, the common ground provided by mainstream media where societies exchange and debate ideas will continue to shrink. Christians will live within the walls of Christendom and their debates—although most assuredly vigorous—will be internal to the Christian community. There will be less and less ground upon which Christians can debate large issues of community with fellow Sikh and Muslim citizens and vice versa. This, despite the proliferation of media sources, threatens to increase levels of civic ignorance and misunderstanding due to the lack of exposure to different views and perspectives. Indeed, the retreat of faith communities into silos leaves the common ground defenseless against the forces of secular fundamentalism. And the greater the dominance of secular fundamentalism on the common ground, the more likely it is that faith communities will continue to retreat within the walls of their own psychological fortresses. An endlessly reinforcing cycle that encourages further fragmentation in our society is on the rise.    Challenges the Great Commission Herein lies the challenge for Christians who, after all, are instructed to carry Christ's message to the far corners of the world. How can this Great Commission possibly remain a goal—indeed, a duty—when in our own comfortable North American lives we huddle inside the warm confines of psychologically comfortable company and retreat from the challenges of secular fundamentalism? It seems absurd that Christians across Canada are proudly supporting missions and the spreading of The Word in Uganda and Nicaragua while simultaneously withdrawing their voice from, for instance, the public school system and civic political debates. I am sympathetic to the fear of stepping into the rhetorical crosshairs of secular fundamentalists. The appalling attacks on Darrell Reid when he was appointed chief of staff in the federal Ministry of the Environment did, after all, expose the anti—Christian bigotry that has become so fashionable in 21st Century Canada. And, according to University of Lethbridge sociologist Reginald Bibby and his recent book, The Boomer Factor: What Canada's most Famous Generation is Leaving Behind, it gets worse. One of Bibby's more recent studies found 31 per cent of respondents saying they felt uneasy just being around a born—again Christian, compared to 18 per cent in the case of a Muslim and five per cent in the case of a Jew. In other words, Christians—at least those of the born again persuasion—are not really welcome in today's public square. And to be fair, it's equally appalling that one in five Canadians feels uncomfortable in the presence of a Muslim and one in 20 doesn't like hanging around Jews. There is undoubtedly some cross over in the numbers, but if these intolerance ratings are used in straight combination, they show that 54 per cent of Canadians prefer not to share the public square with a Christian, Muslim or Jew. This sort of prejudgment—aka prejudice—is the product of ignorance. Ignorance occurs when people don't get to know each other and can therefore more easily fall prey to the falsehoods that create the fear that fuels bigotry. As our mainstream—or shared—media continues to decline under the domination of secular fundamentalism, Christians and citizens of all faiths need not to retreat into silos but to sally forth with courage. They and their media will need to find new ways for holy ground to become common ground where they can present, challenge and defend ideas. The alternative is a social incoherence incapable of serving of any of the nation's secular or faith communities.    Peter Menzies is past publisher of the Calgary Herald and a Senior Fellow at the Work Research Foundation (www.wrf.ca).

Published in The Journal for Christian Scholarship/Tydskrif vir Christelike Wetenskap1 Abstract Each discipline has its area of expertise, its, if you will, jurisdiction, within which the kind of questions proper to that discipline may be investigated and taught. Dispute may exist at the margins as to whether a particular subject is properly one within the discipline or is something that should be taught in another area. Within the teaching of biology in schools, a debate has existed for some years with respect to what sorts of approaches to the teaching of the theory of evolution are appropriate for public school classrooms. This is important because, for some parents, the "theory of evolution" has assumed dogmatic aspects in which theology and science are inappropriately mixed. Or, again, theories of origins believed in by some sorts of belief, whether religious or non, can raise conflicts if taught as "scientific fact" when, it is argued, evidence exists sufficient to present alternative theories. What should happen when the differing viewpoints conflict? Part I of the article sets out some of the theoretical issues involved in this area and suggests that attention to the proper jurisdiction of science assists in placing the "evolution debate" in a context which should allow for greater discussion of alternative theories to those of random chance and ateleological development. In particular, the idea of "intelligent design" is discussed as a subject that might well be suitable for a science classroom if taught as a theory in competition with other theories—what one commentator has termed "teaching the conflicts."2 Part II of the article chooses an actual example from a dispute relating to the curriculum of upper level school biology courses in British Columbia Canada. This dispute is analyzed since the various positions taken by school administrators, teachers, community groups and the Ministry of Education itself show the widespread perspectives that have informed debates elsewhere. It concludes by arguing that how the matter was "resolved" in British Columbia, is an inappropriate response to the conflicts and that banning any teaching about "intelligent design theory" in the biology curriculum amounts to an ideological restriction on matters that are appropriate to high-school education. Introduction The title "the Jurisdiction of Science: what the Evolution/Creation Debate is Not About" was chosen for this article because it seems to me that one of the most critical questions facing us in terms of what many call the "evolution versus creation" debate is often overlooked. In short, neither "chance" nor "design" can be proven by science. We may hypothesize about both theories but we cannot prove either design or chance by scientific means. This simple fact requires us, therefore, to insist that both chance and design be presented as aspects of the discussion. The current domination of what might be called "the assumption of an ateleological chance" is improper and amounts, often, to little more than an anti-religious dogma because it is assumed that if "design" is excluded from consideration, then so is teleology, purpose and, by inference, God. None of these assumptions, for or against chance or for and against design are accurate and it is the burden of this article to make this argument. I have chosen to do so by way of discussing the jurisdiction of science in order to understand better what sorts of questions are properly scientific questions and what are not. A failure to examine this point can lead to errors. Part I: Theoretical Aspects of the Relevance of Chance or Design in Biology Courses Though it is often overlooked, a larger question than the false dualism "evolution" or "creation" lays behind the debate about evolution as it is often formulated. Should we include consideration of both "design" and "chance" in our biology teaching because, simply, we do not know which idea is actually behind "how it all works?" Because we operate on the basis of "what things we take on faith" (and there are both religious and non-religious faith commitments), both "chance" and "design"- based explanations are, strictly speaking, faith-based since neither can be empirically proven. The question is then one of assessing the evidence to see, over time, which approach best comports with the scientific and other evidence. But it is a mistake to assume that choosing to believe in chance is a denial of design or somehow more scientific. In short, both the atheist, committed (unscientifically) to their being no God is in the same position as the theist committed (also unscientifically) to the claim that there is a God. Science cannot help either of them since the key questions are non-empirical. In fact, it is logically possible that "chance" operates within a system of overall design. So the fact that many religiously committed people might see "chance" as the enemy of God (or design) or non-religiously committed people might see "design" as the enemy of free scientific inquiry (or what have you) does not lead to a pre-emptive exclusion of either "chance" or "design" as outside the broadest scientific discussion. But the adoption of one side to the exclusion of the other is simply bias and not in the spirit of free inquiry or within the proper jurisdiction of science. Much of the contemporary discussion of the roles of science and technology as they relate to faith and society has to do with the scope or the competency of science and philosophy. Science cannot tell us either why something exists or what its ultimate purpose is. The question of ultimate causes or ends is the province of philosophy and religion. But it is a serious mistake to assume that only the religiously committed person has faith or beliefs. To live as a human being is to be a believer, the question is "in what do we believe?" not whether we believe. Similarly, to make assumptions is to have faith of some sort. I use the word "faith" here, in relation to society, to include both the more organized and defined "religious" faiths as well as the natural faith everyone has whether or not they know it. People often make the mistake of assuming that only religious people have faith (that is they trust things that they do not or cannot empirically prove to themselves in the manner in which they live). A scientist trusting in the accuracy of his or her instruments and observations relies upon faith just as much as, but in a different sense, the person trusting that the sidewalk he or she walks upon is actually there; that the world around them will perform in predictable ways; that the sun will rise tomorrow; or that they will continue to live beyond the moment so as to undertake projects of a variety of sorts (including experiments). Religious people just have a different basis to describe what (or whom) they believe and trust in than those who operate with a less developed theory based on "natural faith." So the question at all times, contrary to the current confusion of secularists language, is not whether we have faith or not but what kind of faith or faiths we have and operate out of? And "faith" for many people is something they do not think about; but it is faith nonetheless. It is, when not considered, implicit rather than explicit faith that they base their lives upon.3 The term "Jurisdiction" is usually used for legal matters but the second root of the word in addition to jus for law is dicere for "speak." So the question of the jurisdiction of science is an invitation to consider what is the area of the proper authority of science. Every age has its strengths and weaknesses, those areas it more naturally focuses upon and those towards which it tends to have blind spots. An era that is aware of the world of spirit and religion might focus too much on these to the detriment of science and the material order or might bend science to conform its conclusions to over-reaching religious claims. Another era, focused, perhaps rather more on the material than the spiritual, the physical rather than the metaphysical might focus too much on what are perceived as "material facts" and not enough on how these physical facts relate to other questions of life. In such a condition, science might be bent to conform its conclusions or methods so as to over-reach to the detriment of what is properly the territory of metaphysics and religion. At all times the areas of overlap must be carefully and sensitively handled. This question of overlap poses a particular difficulty when disciplines are not in proper communication with each other as in the contemporary age. Many philosophers today lament the fragmentation of learning as universities have become multi-versities and inter-disciplinary perspectives can all too easily be driven out of sight by a variety of competing pressures.4 In a profound study entitled, Science, Faith and Society, and that has aged little since it was first published in 1946, Michael Polanyi commented on the importance of science staying in close contact with what he termed "spiritual reality" and the need for commitment to "emergent meaning and truth."5 Polanyi, in words that have relevance for every area of our lives in western countries, wrote: . . . if citizens are dedicated to certain transcendent obligations and particularly to such general ideals as truth, justice, charity and these are embodied in the tradition of the community to which allegiance is maintained, a great many issues between citizens, and all to some extent , can be left—and are necessarily left—for individual consciences to decide. The moment, however, a community ceases to be dedicated through its members to transcendent ideals, it can continue to exist undisrupted only by submission to a single centre of unlimited secular power.6 We ignore the importance of this question of the jurisdiction of science at our peril. For the consequences of defining science in such a way that the moral ramifications of the actions of scientists are viewed as outside some supposedly "pure" realm of research is unwise because who has the knowledge of the new thing but the scientist working on it? As Denis De Rougement once asked, "if science rules the world, who is to rule science?"7 The idea that any area of human endeavor operates outside moral evaluation is just wishful thinking by those who do not want to make the effort to do the moral work required or who wish others to do their thinking for them or who simply "don't care" what the implications of their theoretical work are on the practical level. We are surrounded now by area after area of culture deceived by those who claim that their area operates free from morality: business, law and science, for example all have proponents that suggest the discipline functions according to the "laws of the market place" or the "laws of science" or the some other law than a human moral law. For no amount of knowledge about how things work will tell us either why they exist nor whether what they may do is good or not. Science cannot tell us the answer to the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" Science itself cannot tell us if a discovery will work for the good or ill of people. And no-one is so naive as to say that the question about how or whether to apply scientific discoveries, is an irrelevant one. The idea that we can simply focus upon the fact of discovery and avoid the questions of why or whither—is dangerous. Interestingly this positivism, of the separation of an area of insight from moral analysis, has parallels in other areas of human learning. To take law for example, it is the debate between legal positivists and natural law theorists about whether laws are formal things separate from whether they are good or bad laws, that provides a significant portion of the fodder for philosophy of law classes. Do not ask about the goodness or badness of laws says the legal positivist, if this law satisfies the formal requirements for law then that is all we can properly say about it.8 Isn't this just the kind of debate that is involved between "pure" science and the questions of how the science is to be used? No amount of fathoming the material constituents of bodies will tell us about the soul. And the importance of the soul, of that immeasurable part of humankind, has been the preoccupation of philosophy and theology for thousands of years. So critical is this contemplation of the soul, in fact, that Aristotle in the Ethics says that "the true student of politics must study virtue above all things and must study the soul. . ." And, further, Aristotle noted that classification of which questions belong to disciplines is important: For it is the mark of the educated mind to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is equally unreasonable to accept merely probable conclusions from a mathematician and to demand scientific proofs from an orator.9 Now neither virtue nor the soul can be measured, quantified or described by science and yet what we are as human persons and communities, what the moral laws are or may be that govern our lives together would seem to be an issue that is fundamental to our communities. To view the matter from another angle, the pure scientist might be very impure person. So to focus on only the purity of science at the possible expense of the kind of person we are training to be scientists would seem to be a highly relevant matter that we ought not to avoid in all our analysis about whatever technique we are discussing — whether it be the scientific method or some other discipline that is being discussed. Science, at the least should not foreclose matters it cannot comprehend. Morals are said to be, in that hideous language of the modern era "personal values" and judges do not wish to get involved in "moral questions." Yet the fact that we are not trained in this area or are not comfortable with an area such as morality or the interface between religions and morals in a pluralistic society, does not mean that we can avoid moral questions: the moral character of a society is a fact. To not discuss or teach about morals is to be taught by that silence. There is no neutral space to occupy since so-called neutrality is filled with morals of whatever sort. And one of the most potentially dangerous statements of the modern world is often seen as one of its greatest affirmations. I refer to the statement that "you have your values and I have mine." When applied to aesthetic determinations such as what kind of food or clothing or music one likes, there is a certain undeniable truth to this statement and "values" as an economic term have a certain private dimension to them. But when "values" are the language we use to discuss moral choices themselves —like respect for life or what used to be called "virtues" then we have taken an objective criterion and made it relative. And it is the relativism of modern life that is so dangerous for our pursuit of shared goods together. The late English judge Lord Denning, one of the most influential and learned judges of the twentieth century, began a talk at Cambridge University in 1982 by quoting the scriptures and asking "what profiteth a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" Now this was a startling thing to hear from a judge in that setting. But Lord Denning knew that law as a technique is not the same thing as understanding the purpose of law or human communities and was urging those of us in the audience to consider a wider context for legal techniques. He was right to do so. And as it goes for the law of society, so it is for the laws of science. They can tell us how things work but they cannot tell us "why" they work nor what their purposes are. They can tell us how such and such a thing might have come about but they cannot thereby inform us whether or not such and such a thing ought to occur. For the minute the word "ought" is introduced, or raised, we are then in the realm or jurisdiction of morals, not science. In an interesting book dealing with the trial of accused former Nazi's in England, one can read the letters back and forth between top- ranked officials in the German government of the day and the executives of the I.G. Farben company.10 The discussion was very scientific. . ..how many "units" could be processed through the particular machinery involving thermal energy and certain human actions in a particular time after another process that involved exposure to a certain chemical pellet. Yet, the thermal energy was the gas ovens and the human actions involved the disposal of large numbers of human beings after they had been exposed to Zyklon B. and gassed. And all this science and business happened only a few years ago. Those letters seemed shocking because the techniques of the corporate world and science seemed so adept at simply avoiding the moral questions. Technique had become entirely separated from moral questions. Have things changed appreciably since that time? How well are we doing culturally in integrating moral with technical questions? At the invitation of a school principal some years ago, I gave a series of talks to a small group of Grade 9 students about the arguments for and against belief in God. What intrigued me at that time was how confident some of the students were that science could explain everything. The students had, without knowing the source, decided that they simply had no need of the God hypothesis or of informing themselves about wider philosophical or theological questions. Somewhere in their training at school or at home (including exposure to television and computers) these students had got the idea that science is the new explanation for everything and has simply replaced religion as an explanatory framework. They did not state this as an observation, or tentative hypothesis, but as a necessary fact. They believed that science is simply a better explanation than religion. Science, being newer, being current, was seen by them as a replacement theory, as being correct, as offering a new explanation for which religion was, in a sense, the old explanation. To the credit of the school principal, he, though not a religious adherent himself, recognized that this matter called for some discussion with his students and that was how I came to be invited to address the class. It was a fascinating and chastening experience and led to the realization that in the contemporary world, perhaps it would be useful to examine in a wider context what opportunities there should be, within teaching of science itself, to raise the questions of the relationship between science and other disciplines including those questions that make us uncomfortable because they raise the borderline questions that are most likely to keep technique and purpose before us. One area in which such issues could be raised is the one that is the subject of this article —what Gifford Lecturer Stanley Jaki has called "the Science of Origins." How well are we doing in keeping context with theory in science? Part II: Case Study of the 1995 Abbotsford School District Dispute over the Curriculum of Biology Courses in High School It may assist our analysis of context and theory to consider a practical example for our discussion of the jurisdiction of science. A good example exists if we take, as a case study, a situation that occurred in the province of British Columbia, on the west coast of Canada between the Spring and Fall of 1995 at a School District in the town of Abbotsford. This debate usefully frames some of the key questions and issues. What occurred was described publicly as a debate about the teaching of creation science in public education alongside theories of evolution. When the facts are analyzed, however, it was actually not about this simple a conflict. And what eventually resulted in the public school Guidelines province-wide was not only the complete exclusion on any teaching of creationism but any teaching or discussion of "creative evolution" or "design theories" as well as a prohibition of adding anything to the curriculum whatever. The Abbotsford situation is a worthy case-study for our topic because as it unfolded it became clear that the role of science in education is one that has widespread implications for political, philosophical and theological disciplines as well, as we saw in Part I of this article. In any case, I would like to first describe a general overview of what occurred in the Abbotsford School District in 1995, what followed from it and then raise what seem to be a few questions that should be addressed.11 This article will not evaluate the situation of science education in other provinces, nor will it deal with the scientific debate at the root of the dispute in Abbotsford. For the purposes of our discussion I would like to see if we can parse out the principles that were operative in British Columbia and see whether they reflect an accurate assessment of the role of science in contemporary culture and, if so, whether that role is one that is proper to science and culture or one that will, over time, cause problems for our common life in community. I will argue that the issue is not, in fact, evolution or creation but something more fundamental than either and that can only be addressed if we look at what sort of questions are properly scientific and what are not. Abbotsford is a largely rural area in the Fraser Valley near Vancouver in British Columbia's lower mainland on the west coast of Canada. The Abbotsford School District, in 1983, drafted a policy regarding the teaching of biology (and specifically the teaching of the theory of evolution) in the high schools in its District. The original policy was drafted in response to the beliefs of many parents and school trustees that alternative theories to evolution and chance origins ought to be available.12 The 1983 permitted the exposure of students to alternative explanations in addition to the theory of evolution in biology classes. The original 1983 Abbotsford School District Policy on the Teaching of the Origin of Life, and which was consistent with the curriculum guide then in place, reads: In view of the fact that neither Divine creation nor the evolutionary concepts of the origin of life are capable of verification by means of scientific experimentation, all teachers, when discussing and/or teaching the origin of life in the classrooms, are requested to expose students in as objective a manner as possible to both Divine creation and the evolutionary concepts of life's origins, with the evidence that is presented in support of each view, and to refrain from any assertions that would set forth either view as absolute. All proceeded quietly until a complaint was made to the Ministry of Education in British Columbia in 1995. Other groups in the Province were concerned about the need for students to be exposed to competing theories. In 1995, the British Columbia Association of Parents Advisory Councils voted on a Members' Resolution dealing with the teaching of science in schools. The Motion was carried and read as follows: Be it resolved that the British Columbia Association of Parents Advisory Councils request the Ministry of Education to ensure the opportunity for students to be: 1. taught the most commonly held theories on the origins of our universe and life on our planet, or at least be given a list of resources to explore these on their own; 2. encouraged to discuss the pros and cons of these theories without being criticized for their opinions, in order to promote critical thinking skills; 3. taught evolution as a theory, not fact. (Minutes of the 1995 BCCPAC AGM.) No doubt the successful passage of this motion concerned those who had reason to wish origin/evolutionary theories and assumptions unchallenged and alternative (religious and other?) theories excluded from the province-wide public school biology courses. Two months later, in April 1995, the province's Minister of Education wrote to the School District indicating that concerns had been expressed about "the teaching of 'creationism' in the science curriculum." The Minister noted in his letter to the Chair of the School Trustees that the Grade 11 (next to final year of school) Biology Curriculum included a component on "Adaptation and Evolution" and that the Curriculum Guide accompanying the course materials "does not contain a component or learning outcomes on 'creationism' as this is not considered a scientific theory but, rather, a religious theory." It was also pointed out that: Teachers may explain to students that science is only one way of learning about life, and that other explanations have been put forth besides that of biological science. However, as these viewpoints, including 'creationism', are not derived from the discipline of biological science, they are not part of the Biology 11 curriculum. . ..While teachers are encouraged to be aware of, and to respect, the personal beliefs of their students, they should do so without providing instruction any one belief system. It was also pointed out by the Minister that the Provincial School Act provides that "no religious dogma or creed shall be taught in a public school." The Minister then sought assurances that the policies and practices of the School District were in conformance with the learning guidelines. This letter was answered by the School Board which pointed out that they had, in fact, surveyed the teachers in the district and determined that "creationism" was not, in fact, being taught in the schools.13 The Minister responded to the Board by saying that ". . .it is inappropriate to add onto, delete from, or replace a unit or topic in the Biology 11/12 Curriculum Guide." The Minister then demanded that the Board's policy be rescinded and replaced with the following policy: In view of the fact that concerns may be expressed by some students and parents respecting the teaching of the topic "Adaptation and Evolution" in the Biology 11/12 Curriculum Guide; and, that the evolutionary perspective of modern biology may conflict with personal beliefs, teachers, when teaching this topic in the classroom, should explain to students that science is only one way of learning about life, and that other explanations have been put forth besides that of biological science. As Divine creation and other viewpoints are not derived from the discipline of biological science and are not part of the curriculum, teachers will refrain from providing instruction in Divine creation, in any single belief system or viewpoint, or adding any other topics or units not already set out in the Biology 11/12 Curriculum Guide. In all cases, teachers are encouraged to be aware of, and to respect, the personal beliefs of their students without providing instruction in any one belief system (underlining additional). Obviously it was assumed that by "any single belief or viewpoint" did not apply to the sole teaching of evolution and chance origins (and what particular form was never addressed). Significantly, "no other topics" could be added. Meanwhile, at the same time, other groups in the community became involved and both the local Teacher's Association (union) President and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association wrote letters to the Minister to express their concerns about the School District's Policy. According to the union President the teaching of alternative explanations for origins offended the School Act requirement that schools shall be conducted on "strictly secular and non-sectarian principles" and that "no religious dogma or creed shall be taught in the school." In addition, the union President said that the ramifications of the policy could be "devastating" for the community because "few teachers will want to get into the politics of the creation vs. evolution matter" and there is a possibility that some will not teach evolution at all. Moreover, since the Board Policy allows for the teaching of creation, a "most difficult "problem" arises because parents may "push teachers to include Divine creationism in their classes." In one instance, the President alleged that a parent discovered that a teacher was not including any materials on Divine creationism and so the parent wished to have some materials included and gave the teacher a 20 minute video he could show in his class —"this I find extremely dangerous" wrote the union President. While this issue was heating up, the Press was uniformly hostile to the School District and portrayed them at every turn as "fundamentalist creationists." Despite the Board Chairman's assurances that the bible creation story is not preached but that "creation and evolution are presented as theories about how life began and [we] let the students decide for themselves" the critics focused on the provision of materials about creation as imposition against, presumably, the neutrality or fact of purposeless evolution. The assumption was that matters held as "natural faith" but identified as "facts" are to be accorded greater value than views that may be based on alternative explanations whether or not grounded in religious faith. This kind of distinction (that discussion of "design" or other teleological approaches, for example, need not be framed as necessarily "religious") was never raised and Board chairman Sutherland expressed frequently his frustration with the way the media covered the issue.14 It is interesting to note that media coverage failed to point out that science classes are provided in every school province- wide but there is no provision for so-called "religions classes" as the editorial suggests. The dominance of non-design or "chance based" scientific approaches is therefore effectively guaranteed by this approach and was not seen, itself, to be an imposition or "indoctrination" of a view. Quoted in a column in the national article the Globe and Mail (Friday, May 26, 1995), then Minister of Education Art Charbonneau (himself an engineer) stated: To try to construe creationism as science is false and not acceptable to me. . .evolutionary theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of quantum mechanics are all subjects on which one can do objective tests and present evidence. You cannot present tests of religious dogma. Either you believe it or you don't. The School Act specifies that religious teaching will not occur in the public system, and I have instructed the Abbotsford board to correct this problem. [underlining added] Note how "alternative theories" are considered "religious dogma" and nothing may be added to the curriculum. But here, again, no one turned his attention to the possibility that consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of all positions (of whatever sort, evolution, creation, chance and design) would benefit the greater understanding of students and might not as likely lead to the prejudices that a so-called "pure science" approach more readily admits. In addition to the media, other local groups weighed in. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association wrote to the Board on May 31, 1995 and urged that the Board comply with the Minister's request saying that ". . .the Genesis account of creation should be taught in [the non-existent] religious studies classes, together with the creation accounts of other world religions." The Association stated that the materials used to teach "creation science" "are part and parcel of a fundamentalist Christian perspective" and to that extent the policy of the School Board was, in the Association's opinion, in breach of the School Act provision requiring "non-sectarian" education. The Civil Liberties Association alleged that some of the materials in the District came from the Institute for Creation Research in California and that these materials make it clear that the dissemination of the materials is part of a wider evangelical purpose. Finally, the Association stated that the present School Act "properly attempts to ensure neutrality with respect to religious views in our public schools. . .." The School Board policy would lead to students being ". . .disadvantaged without any understanding of evolutionary theories as they compete for post secondary positions and jobs." Here again, even if (and there was never any evidence of this) the materials being used in classes came from a "fundamentalist" or "Creation Research" perspective, there is nothing to say that the arguments within them could not be usefully critiqued in a program for students in the higher grades. Moreover, even if true, to suggest that these sorts of materials are the only alternative materials available to challenge certain forms of evolution, is simply wrong and testifies more to an overly defensive protectionism than a free discussion of academically respectful ideas. The Civil Liberties Association made no reference at all to intelligent design or teleological theories constituting "dogma" or "indoctrination". This dimension of the discussion was simply ignored. No mention was made that, perhaps, entire confidence in "chance" as the operative cause of everything might not be its own sort of dogma nor that "chance" could well be seen within or as part of an overall system the parameters for which might be established by some teleological framework outside the bounds of measurable science itself. In short, chance could just as much be a part of design as could evolution. The question of ultimate purpose is not "defeated" by introduction of chance or evolution operating within science. As has already been stated, neither "chance" nor "design" can be proven scientifically so to categorize one or either as scientific fact is just bad science. Both ought to be presented theoretically with the "gaps" and implications of both spelled out for students to consider. Fundamentalism, as an attitude, is just as present in false scientific claims as it is in inappropriate religious claims. The issue is not, therefore, evolution versus creation or chance versus design. Why these false dichotomies are the meat and substance of these debates is an interesting aspect of our current disputes. In June of 1995 the Abbotsford Board re-crafted its policy ". . .to promote critical thinking skills, students shall be encouraged to discuss the scientific pros and cons of evolutionary theories and alternative theories. . ."15 The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association remained unsatisfied and said that no "faith-based accounts of the origin of human life. . ." could be tolerated in a public school.16 Note what is implicit in this letter. "Faith based accounts" are for religious studies. The writer, and presumably the Civil Liberties Association itself, considers that belief in evolution or "chance" origins are not "faith based" or equally as "hypothetical" as teleologically based explanations. Chance as the only operative principle is assumed to be, erroneously, entirely factually demonstrable. The literature within science is rife with dispute and counter-dispute about all manner of theories. A "science of the gaps" is just a materialistic analogue to a "god of the gaps." The failure to identify and acknowledge gaps is a mark of ideological brittleness not genuine inquiry. Leading scientists of all stripes have pronounced the notions of chance origin or certain naturalistic assumptions indefensible on this or that front. I was present, for example, at Cambridge University in 1982 when cosmologist and professor of astronomy Professor Fred Hoyle announced to a crowded Senate House containing most of the biology faculty, that the theories underlying the official biological orthodoxies of the day with respect to the origin of life and evolution were, in his view, largely untenable and contained levels of probability that would never be accepted for other theories. Far from being hooted down, many of the people present agreed that there were serious difficulties with the current theories.17 So, to say the least, overconfidence in the entire structure of evolution, without mentioning the serious challenges to its various theories would seem to be misleading and arrogant, if not dishonest. Science and technology need to be informed by moral analysis found outside scientific method itself. At the very least, therefore, the kind of strident exclusion of alternative explanations and corresponding implicit denial of the content of those descriptions leads in the direction of an alienation of science rather than an integration with disciplines that could inform it. The British Columbia curriculum materials make no effort to link the study of science with any philosophy or moral/ethical analysis of any kind. The only formal linkage is to "gender studies" and "multiculturalism" neither of which contain any epistemological rigor in the moral area. In short, it seems that the approach this debate in Abbotsford shows is a bias against alternative explanations for which there might well be valid scientific support and important implications for science to consider. Following the re-drafting of its policy in an attempt to find a midway between the Scylla of Education Ministry criticisms and the Charybdis of maintaining openness to alternative theories, the Board again entered into the odyssey of seeking a legal opinion. The opinion they received from learned counsel noted that the revised policy provided for a balanced approach to the teaching of evolution and other alternative theories but "that is not in accordance with the curriculum." The legal opinion suggested that the policy "must acknowledge that the concept of evolution as set out in the curriculum guide will be taught as a stand alone concept. Neither the policy nor its application provide that evolution is taught as one of two main theories." [underlining added] While policy-making was recognized to reside with the Board it was noted that the Minister had the power, under the School Act, to appoint an official trustee and terminate the employment of Board Trustees were they to be found in "substantial non-compliance" with the School Act or Regulations or Orders under it. While the legal opinion did not consider the policy on the Origin of Life to constitute "substantial non-compliance" it was noted that the Minister "may choose to exercise that option." One might call this the exercise of scientific "neutrality" with a vengeance. It was also pointed out that a school district might develop and offer local programs for use in schools and that such a program could be a program on Origins of Life. Such a program would only be optional and must not be considered religious indoctrination. Further deliberation became a moot point on September 5, 1995 when the Minister of Education issued Ministerial Orders and a revised Biology 11/12 Curriculum Guide to ensure the complete exclusion of "religious beliefs or religious viewpoints" from the biology curriculum (these exclusions continue to the present day —2007) Relying upon the "non-sectarian" provision of the School Act and the constitutional provision in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteeing "freedom of conscience and religion" the three ministerial orders replaced the province's curriculum guide and learning outcomes. The original 1995 amendments provided: Concern may be expressed by some students and parents because the evolutionary perspective of modern biology conflicts with personal religious beliefs. Teachers should respect these religious beliefs; however, because religious beliefs and views flowing from religious beliefs on these matters are not derived from the discipline of biological science, teachers should refrain from providing instruction in or requiring discussions on these beliefs. Under no circumstances may a teacher as part of a science course, provide instruction in a religious dogma or religious belief system. While respecting the personal beliefs of students, teachers are only to provide instruction in classroom activities in accordance with the scientific purpose and scope of the learning outcomes set out in this curriculum guide. These learning outcomes do not include any religious instruction based totally or partially on an interpretation of religious scriptures or writings nor on beliefs or viewpoints commonly characterized as creationism, theory of divine creation, intelligent design theory, or other theories based on religious beliefs. Similarly, in the choice and use of learning resources to support the learning outcomes of the science curriculum, school boards, administrative officers and teachers should ensure that no religious dogma or religious belief system is advocated or presented as part of the discipline of science. [underlining added]18 Much turns, of course, on how "faith" or "religion" is defined in this schema. It is clear from the approach the ministry has taken that only expressly "religious" positions are religious. But this is contentious and avoids entirely any thought of other "faith" positions whether animated by religion or not. After all, all human beings are believers of some sort, the question is not whether they believe, but what they believe in. Of course, contemporary society begins in its definition of "secular" by assuming that it is "neutral" and in any relevant respects "non-religious" or "non-faith." Secularism then urges upon culture a strongly dualistic conception in which only religious beliefs are outside the supposedly neutral "secular." In fact, all citizens being believers, the only beliefs left inside the "secular" by this kind of characterization, are those beliefs that emanate from atheistic or agnostic presuppositions. When the matter is argued this way it is clear that an unfair exclusion of religious beliefs has occurred. In a case that went to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2002, the nine judges of the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a united three justice division of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in finding that "secular" should be interpreted to be religiously inclusive rather than religiously exclusive. The implications of this paradigm shift is in its infancy but it has vast implications.19 The shift has not been applied to the biology curriculum issue in British Columbia. What occurs frequently is that the expressly religious aspects ("creationism") are lumped in with other conceptions ("intelligent design as a possibility or theory") that are not necessarily religious. The Ministry of Education Press Release (September 7, 1995) that accompanied the Guideline Revisions stated that the revisions ". . .have been revised to make it clear to school boards that teaching creationism as part of a science course is not permissible in B.C. schools." But much more than "creationism" was excluded. The Press Release quoted the Minister in the following terms: The science classroom is not the place to provide instruction or require discussions of religious dogma or religious belief systems" said [the then Education Minister]. "It is my expectation that all school boards will comply with the law and ensure that biology courses are offered in accordance with the curriculum guide and ministerial orders. The only place where instruction on religious belief systems may occur is in a locally developed comparative religions course. In a letter to the chair of the Abbotsford school board, the minister required the board to provide a new policy that complies with the revised curriculum guide and ministerial orders by Sept. 15 [1995]. . .. The curriculum guide—which outlines curriculum and learning outcomes for biology 11/12 courses—was changed to clearly specify that, despite the personal beliefs of some students and parents, the unit on adaptation and evolution must be taught. . .. . . . The changes provide that creationism, or any religious belief or dogma, are clearly outside the material that can be taught to meet biology 11/12 learning outcomes or the learning outcomes of any provincially mandated course. (emphasis added) One wonders where "design" or purpose/teleology and the possibility of them or even the nature of the debate itself, such as the implications of assuming a universe based upon chance or design, will fit in to any part of the science curriculum or if it will remain preemptively excluded as "dogma" or "religious belief?" There are various leading scientists for whom an acceptance of "design" is separate from both dogma and religious belief. For example, some have suggested that the extreme improbability of life originating "out of nothing" must lead to the suggestion that "life" was introduced from somewhere else.20 Yet the possibility of admitting, even for discussion purposes, the notion that design, or some other operative principle other than (or, in fact, utilizing) chance (such as a version of the anthropic principle 21) is the guiding force behind the universe seems to be foreign to the powers that be in British Columbia and many other places. Faced with the directives and orders, the Board decided that its refusal to comply would likely result in termination of the Board and appointment of a government trustee. The Board decided it would not serve the interests of the community for this to occur and stayed on and complied with the new directives. In light of the entire dispute it is an irony that one of the officially listed "resource materials" that accompanied the "revised curriculum" was a short video showing "the life and theory of Charles Darwin. . .depicted in light-hearted animation." Its title: "Hallelujah Darwin." Conclusion: The Importance of the "Abbotsford Over-Reach" for Contemporary Society Historian of Science, physicist, theologian and Gifford Lecturer, Stanley Jaki has pointed out that: Although nothing is more needed for making a discourse than the air we breathe, nothing is proportionately less reflected upon than the air itself, be it the climate of opinion or the temper of the age, religious or secular.22 It is, indeed, difficult to transcend the climate of opinion of the times and we were, after all, formed within that very climate of opinion so sometimes seeing its assumptions proves difficult but may be essential to evaluating our own assumptions. Arnold Toynbee, in his monumental study of history and human societies made some important observations about the relationship between science and religion. He noted that: The truth is that the command over non-human nature, which Science has in its gift, is of almost infinitely less importance to Man than his relations with himself, with his fellow men, and with God... Man's intellectual and technological achievements have been important to him, not in themselves, but only in so far as they have forced him to face, and grapple with, moral [100] issues which otherwise he might have managed to go on shirking. Modern Science has thus raised moral issues of profound importance, but is has not and could not have, made any contribution towards solving them. The most important questions Man must answer are questions on which Science has nothing to say.23 Recognition and description of the proper jurisdiction of science from within science as well as from outside it, will enable a better recognition of the jurisdictions of other subject areas as well. Given the importance of these issues to the necessarily moral enterprise of citizenship and culture, much hinges on how these questions will be answered. In the surrounding culture, questions of purpose and meaning are important to us as persons. They are said to be key for mental well-being.24 In this setting, confident and strictly unscientific assertions (implicit or explicit) that "the universe is based on chance" or that "we know that there is no purpose behind the universe" such as are present (implicitly) in the curriculum Guideline under review in this article, need urgent reexamination. As they stand they contribute to a growing problem and add unnecessarily to a stance of purposeless materialism. In a article entitled "Science and Dogma" given at a world Congress on Science and Freedom in 1953, then rector of Hamburg University, Bruno Snell, pointed out that science must be dogmatic in one area: . . .tolerance cannot extend to the enemies of freedom. It is true that the liberal mind is at a disadvantage in the conflict with illiberal opponents, since the fight cannot be pursued by means consistent with the convictions of the liberal outlook. It is all the more important that all those who value the preservation of science—and here I would include not only the scientists themselves, but also the communities in which they live, and which benefit from the achievements of science — should lend their unstinted support to the struggle for the preservation of freedom of the intellect. If we allow science to be lowered to the status of mere technical service, whose functioning is restricted to the discovery of means for the achievement of prescribed ends, we shall sink back beyond the beginnings of European civilization.25 This article began with a quotation from Michael Polanyi in which the specter of "unlimited secular power" is held up as the result if commitment to key metaphysical truths is abandoned by citizens. It would be fitting here to close my article with a quotation by his son, Nobel Prize laureate chemist from the University of Toronto, John Polanyi who, in an article written in 1994, notes that mankind can be dazzled by the technological successes of science and fall victim to "perverted science." Such perverted science, he writes is: . . .the invoking of the authority of science to justify inhuman behaviour. For it is this that truly characterizes the century that is coming to a close. . .the central perversion in all this [misuse of science] is the proposition that science operates in isolation from the remainder of human experience. When, for example, the scientist narrows his field of view to one molecule, he is regarded as doing science. In fact, this describes only an aspect of science. The scientist is in the situation of a swimmer who, holding his breath, plunges deeply to examine the sea- bed. Such activities, though necessary, must be temporary. Before long the scientist must resurface in order to integrate his experience with all that he knows of the world through every avenue open to him—including his experience of life, literature, religion and art. It is only then that his findings can illuminate thinking. . .Far from being mechanical and unassailable, science is redefined in the furnace of criticism. Tolerance of dissenting views, and open debate, are the very stuff of science.26 What occurred in British Columbia in the Spring and Summer of 1995 and what persists to this day, in the Ministry of Education's express exclusion of certain matters from mention in the biology curriculum in the public schools, is an example of ideology under the guise of science; an example of what Lois Sweet has called "overzealous secular fundamentalism."27 The wish to dominate alternative explanations is a common trait and there is nothing that exempts scientists from this human failing. If our culture, like all cultures dominated by technology, is to remain free and flourishing, then our science must be appropriately tempered by questions that come from beyond science. Humans are free to err but do so to their cost. Just as religion or philosophy can over-reach and infringe upon the proper place of science, so can science over-reach and infringe upon the proper places of philosophy and religion. It is essential, therefore, if we are to maintain a proper concern for humanity and the humane (as John Polanyi urges, above) that contemporary scientists in fact identify and reject antireligious or anti-transcendent biases where they appear and seek to inform science both internally and externally with lines of thought and other disciplines that will humanize science. When scientism28 seeks to include or exclude what it can neither prove nor disprove under the guise of science it must be corrected by other disciplines and within itself by a deeper conception of the richness and limitations of science and scientific method. Civilized society requires that techniques, whether they be scientific or otherwise, are circumscribed by moral boundaries. These moral frameworks have both an internal and an external aspect. The "pure" scientist, in selecting areas for research or in carrying out certain research, must, on occasion, ask moral questions to ensure that the techniques are, themselves, morally appropriate. These questions require both internally and externally a notion of what are the proper ends for human endeavors —and that, in the broadest sense, raises the questions about what purposes (or "designs") exist for human beings. Design, like the existence of God, love, human dignity or justice might well be beyond the proofs of science. But like justice and love, human dignity and God, or even the idea of chance itself, design cannot be disproven by science. We should introduce discussion about the possibility of "design" alongside "chance." Failure to note that there are competing theories for key notions such as origins, evolution, design, chance or intelligence show that a certain kind of arrogance, prejudice or fear are dominant and that scientism has trumped proper science. In this regard, it is important to note a certain kind of scientific fundamentalism that is the counterpoint to a certain kind of religious fundamentalism. An earmark of this scientific fundamentalism is that it fears informing science internally or externally by philosophical or theological questions as much as the religious fundamentalist fears informing theology or philosophy by scientific insight. Both fundamentalisms are culturally destructive and to deal with them both we must deal almost as much with the psychological barriers of the personalities involved as with the theoretical arguments.29 Science and law must not be the unwitting tools of a so-called "secular" (better termed "secularistic") ideology. We must reconsider the proper jurisdictions of science, philosophy and religion and learn that humility and proper tolerance are excellent companions for those committed to honest scientific investigation and the intelligent design and execution of science courses.30 Only this sort of approach enables science to maintain its right and proper place in a society and offer what benefits it can. It seems obvious in light of the arguments, above, that we cannot ultimately answer the question of the role of science from only a scientific perspective. Nor would it seem wise for us to view disciplines as hermetically sealed-off from other areas. In fact, it seems that many of our current problems in the academy and in life are caused by a fragmentation of unitary knowledge or approaches and an all but complete failure to ask questions about how all the disciplines together form a unified whole that must be kept together for the good of society itself. This has long been recognized as a problem and great historians such as Toynbee and scholars of science and history such as Michael Polanyi and Stanley Jaki have noted the importance of keeping science related to metaphysics (philosophy and religion). If this is not consciously understood to be necessary, the technical domain of science will not be informed by the moral questions of the day since morality is not internal to the science quest itself. At certain points in history scientists have had to ask themselves whether either the means they are to employ or the ends they seek are morally acceptable. When this step is circumvented or overlooked grave consequences can result. In a more recent and extremely useful overview of evolutionary theory and some of the attempts made to explain human life in relation to it, the former Director of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, Professor Anthony O'Hear has written: What we have to realize is that the Darwinian world is not just a nasty world, as Dawkins, among others, is ready to concede. It is a world which bears very little relation to any human world or society, in which we do not find nothing other than genes and their bearers striving and struggling for reproduction.... Human social life, then, is not Darwinian life. It involves behaviour and habits which go beyond that. The question, then, arises as to the origin and status of the traditions in which our non-Darwinian inheritance is embodied.31 To teach a "Darwinian" world without being critical of it is, therefore, a serious error. Yet where are such criticisms to come from if not from the sorts of arguments and approaches argued for in this article? O'Hear shows convincingly that evolutionary theory cannot give a satisfactory account of such distinctive facets of human life as the quest for knowledge, moral sense, and the appreciation of beauty, all of which transcend our biological origins. In fact, "... from a Darwinian perspective, truth, goodness and beauty and our care for them are very hard to explain."32 He concludes his important study with these words: ...one moral to be drawn from this study is that Darwinism, if applied to our forms of intellectual, moral and aesthetic life, is indeed a dangerous idea, as Dennett at least recognizes. For even though we and our capacities may have evolved in Darwinian ways, once evolved we and our capacities take off in quite un-Darwinian ways. It is not just that Darwinian analyses strike at the basis of our sense of self and at our self-respect, though they do that. It is rather that the account that they give of ourselves and our capacities involves a radical and unsustainable re-description of what we are and what we do.33 The experience in British Columbia certainly offers guidance for other jurisdictions wrestling with these problems. The current "resolution" in place in British Columbia high schools is not one that could be considered a proper conclusion for science, philosophy, religion or society.34 It remains for more enlightened educators, and better scientific thinkers and politicians, to make the necessary changes and for those in other jurisdictions to learn from the mistakes continued over the last decade in Canada's westernmost province. Dr. Peter Hodgson's Response to Iain Benson's Paper Toronto, July 9, 1999 I have taught physics and mathematics at the University of Oxford for over forty years, and no one has ever told me what to teach. It is taken for granted that I will teach the truth to the best of my ability. If I were a biologist I would teach the evolution of plants and animals as part of that whole stupendous process going back to the Big Bang, and possibly before that. The development of our understanding follows its own internal criteria, independent of external influences. If a student were to ask me where God comes into all this, I would say that as a Christian and a Catholic I believe that God created the universe out of nothing and continually holds it in being. The task of science is to study that universe in all its details. These theological beliefs leave me totally free to study the universe by the methods of science. If someone tells me that I must also teach that evolution is a chance process, that the universe came into existence by chance, and that there is no God, I would reject this as a series of atheistic beliefs that are in no way entailed by the scientific data. If someone says that he is a Creationist and congratulates me on my belief in Creation but says that I have made a mistake about the timescale, that in fact the universe was created 6000 years ago because the Bible says so, I would be obliged to say that this is contrary to the scientific evidence. It is not acceptable either scientifically or theologically to say that God created rocks with fossils already inside them. This is rank anti-science. I would add that I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, but that if it seems to say something that is definitely disproved by science, then this means that we have misinterpreted the Bible and must think again. This position is fully consistent with the teaching of the Church. If anyone then tells me that as a result of some law I must teach biology in this way or that, I would regard this as an assault on my professional integrity. The only possible response that I could make is to tell him, as politely as possible, to get lost. Dr. Peter Hodgson is the former Head, Nuclear Physics Theoretical Group of the Nuclear and Particle Physics Laboratory of the University of Oxford. He received his M.A. from Oxford, a D.Sc. and Ph.D. from London. His professional memberships include: A.R.C.S., D.I.C., C.Phys. F.Inst.P. His research is in theoretical nuclear physics. He has also written on theology and science, and on nuclear power. Dr. Hodgson's book Nuclear Power, Energy and the Environment has recently been published by Imperial College, London. Notes 1 The views expressed in this article reflect those of the author and not necessarily those of the Centre for Cultural Renewal for which he is executive director. The author gratefully acknowledges those who invited him to address the Toronto Workshop on the Design of Academic Courses in Science and Religion. In particular he would like to acknowledge Professors Trenn and O'Malley and Gordon Baker as it was in conversation with them some time ago that the idea for the article first arose and their invitation to address the workshop materialized ex nihilo. He also acknowledges helpful conversations with Logan Craft, Peter Hodgson, Denis Lamoureux, Brad Miller, John Patrick, Margaret Somerville, John Sutherland and Brian Bix (the latter on questions related to jurisprudence). 2 The phrase comes from Dr. Denis Lamoureux in personal conversation with the author. 3 The author has profited greatly from Professor Thomas Langan's insights on "natural faith" in his book Being and Truth (Missouri: Missouri University Press, 1996) and from discussions with him over several years. Earlier recognition of the reliance of science upon "natural faith" and the risk of science inappropriately assuming a religious function in culture thereby excluding the questions that are properly religious is found in the "The Tamworth Reading Room" essays of John Henry Cardinal Newman. Discussions and Arguments on Various Subjects (London: Longmans, 1899) p.p. 254—305 and, in particular, "Secular Knowledge without Personal Religion Tends to Unbelief" at p.p. 298—305. The importance of "natural faith" in relation to the understanding of law and what we mean by the term "secular", also in relation to "natural faith" has been examined elsewhere; see: Iain T. Benson, "Notes Towards a (Re) Definition of the 'Secular'" (2000) 33 University of British Columbia