I would like to respond to Donald J. St. Pierre factually deficient diatribe (Post Feb. 29) against reason, science and evolution.

Anyone who has conducted biology experiments with fruit flies has seen evolution in motion. However, it is not necessary to turn to the laboratory to see evolution occurring when Abbotsford sits surrounded by the ongoing many experiments and experimental results in evolution that is agriculture.

Evolution does not require a new species as an outcome as can be seen in the definition of evolution at www.dictionary.com: “Biology: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift”. Evolution is change in the gene pool.

Milk production, beef cattle, crops all have been and continue to be genetically changed by the efforts of mankind. In fact one of the major driving forces of evolution today is the actions of mankind either deliberately or as a side effect of those actions.

Given the babbled mumbo jumbo that Mr. St Pierre ties to pass off as a scientific argument, it is not surprising he has such a poor grasp of what the theory, science and underlying principles of evolution are and/or about.

Yes mass is a manifestation of energy but its conversion to energy is governed by Einstein’s famous E=mc2 not the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Thermodynamics is the study of the inter-relation between heat, work and internal energy of a system. In simplest terms, the Laws of Thermodynamics dictate the specifics for the movement of heat and work. The Laws of Thermodynamics are actually specific manifestations of the law of conservation of mass-energy as it relates to thermodynamic processes.

The Laws of Thermodynamics are not the set of Laws that govern the Universe. They are a subset of a subset of the Laws of Physics (motion, gravity, relativity, conservation of mass-energy etc) and until such time as a grand unifying theory for the Laws of Physics emerges and survives testing, there is not a “Law” that can be said to govern the Universe.

As to Mr. St. Pierre’s claims of what evolution contradicts.

I will concede that if you use the narrow meaning of the term Biogenesis that is the basis of Creation biology, then within that limited definition, evolution clashes with biogenesis. However if one does not misuse the term biogenisis by limiting it in this manner, there is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

A cursory study of the Laws of Thermodynamics reveals that the Fourth Law is about biological systems and encompasses evolution.

As to Laws of cause and effect or probability, I cannot comment further until Mr. St. Pierre provides examples of what he means as it appears to this observer that not only do these laws not contradict evolution, these laws suggest and support evolution.

While I would commend Mr. St. Pierre for his statement about debate without the rantings of emotional philosophical bias, I am left wondering when he plans to begin or join such a debate?

“Grant’s Law” is inconvenient but what else would government do if it was not filling our lives with inconvenience? Surely one would not expect them to address such issues as poverty, affordable housing, homelessness, addiction or mental illness? No, that would require thought, hard work and leadership. It is so much easier to pander to the public with “Grant’s Law”, than to tackle pressing social issues.

The Liberal government pays lip service to capitalism and letting the markets decide – until it is politically convenient for legislation or to avoid enforcing the laws protecting workers. All the government had to do was use the existing labour standards to prevent employers from deducting the cost of stolen gas from employees or from firing them because they were intelligent enough to do the smart thing – nothing.

But enforcing labour standards in this instance would have set a precedent and the government could have found itself under pressure to enforce all the labour standards, areas such as farm workers. Or even worse, find their selves under pressure to deal with issues such as keeping employees as “part time” to avoid the rights and benefits that accrue to full time employees.

My sympathies may go out to Grant’s parents, but this law still exasperates me. Not because I resent being treated like a criminal and inconvenienced every time I purchase gasoline, but because at its core it is a law legislating about human stupidity.

With apologies to Mr. De Patie, rushing out to confront a criminal armed with a high powered weapon weighing hundreds of kilograms is not an intelligent action. And a car, despite the way the laws deal with drivers who kill people (drunk or sober drivers), is a lethal weapon. A criminal or an idiot armed with a car is as deadly lethal as if armed with an AK-47 and confronting them, whether armed with a car or AK-47, is less than intelligent behaviour that is likely to prove fatal.

What this law is about, besides inconveniencing and treating as criminals the pubic, is preventing people from behaving stupidly.

If government is going down that path, it better get right on legislation governing the use of ladders; since in North America nearly a person a day dies and there are 100,000 injures from falling from ladders. Legislation is obviously needed, even though research shows that 100% of ladder accidents might be eliminated with proper attention to the application of equipment.

If we are going to legislate about human stupidity where do we stop? After all, as Albert Einstein noted “Only two things are infinite, the Universe and Human Stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”