Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The Other Bubble | Main | Forced unionization hurts the economy »

Friday, September 10, 2010

Sun TV News not Fox News North

Heather Mallick writes that having a “Fox News North” is a “rancid idea.” She describes her personal, professional, and political dislike for Fox News in a long ranting column for the Toronto Star. She then uses her negative personal experiences with Fox News to demonstrate why the new station being introduced by Quebcor is such a horrifying idea.

The problem with her logic is that it is called Sun TV News and not “Fox News North.” This new station has absolutely nothing to do with Fox News or Fox News’ parent company. So on what basis does Ms. Mallick assume that they are going to be exactly the same?

I think it is reasonable that we all wait to actually see the product before we judge it.

Ms. Mallick may be right, it could be rancid. But it could also introduce a new and valid voice to public debate in Canada. I do not understand how any fair minded person could view that as a bad thing.

Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on September 10, 2010 | Permalink


It's also worth noting, that while Michael Behe's irreducible complexity notion has been thoroughly discredited within the scientific community, as well as his study on protein structures which alledgedly supported it, he receives significant sums of money from pro-religious, anti-evolution groups such as the Discovery Institute, which represents a conflict of interest and brings his scientific objectivity into disrepute in my opinion.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-14 9:19:47 PM

It's also worth noting, that while Michael Behe's irreducible complexity notion has been thoroughly discredited within the scientific community.....
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-14 9:19:47 PM

Untrue. Several prominent NAS members, including Lynch, Nei, and Skell, all of whom are PHd's in molecular biology or genetics, have stated that Behe's work needs further research. All have produced work that shows Darwinism to be severely / fatally flawed. And would you kindly tell us what your scientific qualifications are.

Posted by: The Stig | 2010-09-14 10:25:57 PM

All have produced work that shows Darwinism to be severely / fatally flawed.

What are YOUR scientific qualifications to take preference for Behe's work?

But I'll let the world's most articulate Biker have the last word on Behe's work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85nMa9ONDVc

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-15 9:29:16 AM

What are YOUR scientific qualifications to take preference for Behe's work?
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-15 9:29:16 AM

I don't take preference with Behe's work. Unlike you I have an open mind to the various sides of the debate.

Posted by: The Stig | 2010-09-15 10:33:00 AM

The Stig,

What do you understand about both sides of the debate? Did you watch the video?

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-15 10:59:18 AM

By the way, I'm fully familiar with Michael Behe's work on irreducible complexity. I've even read his book The Edge of Evolution. The fact that you don't think I'm aware of the arguments against evolution is laughable.

It is clearly you who are unfamiliar with both sides of the debate. Since, Behe's statements on irreducible complexity have been discredited, shown to be wrong, demonstrably and conclusively.

And others who've attempted to use the irreducible complexity argument in other ways, such as on the human eye -- falsely believing and misquoting Charle's Darwin for sharing the position -- is irreducibly complex, have been thoroughly and utterly refuted.

You present it as if both sides of the argument have an equal amount of facts behind them. But they don't.

Intelligent design does not meet one, single, piece of criteria for actually qualifying as a scientific theory. Where-as, evolution by natural selection meets all the criteria, has survived scrutiny and evidentiary discovery for over a century.

Michael Behe's entire theory boils down to one simple ignorant position: "Life is so complex, it would have been impossible for it to evolve."

In fact, Behe even concedes that evolution occurs. He doesn't deny the unmistakable evidence for allele variance and genetic drift. Rather he just goes, "well, there's no way this stuff could have led to something as complex as a human being".

But how can you say that? That's not evidence against evolution. It's an unsubstantiated supposition. It casts no doubt on the theory of evolution by natural selection at all. Especially when evolutionary biology and genetics actually can and do explain how complex lifeforms can emerge through the process of natural selection.

During cross-examination at an ACLU lawsuit in the United States, Behe was forced to admit that he had not read over 50 peer-reviewed articles that provided evidence for things for which he claimed there was no evidence.

When pressed, his attitude was simply: "well, I don't need to read it, because I know it's wrong".

Yes. Mr. Behe. Scientific honesty.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-15 11:07:34 AM

"I conclude that Darwinian processes account for little of the machinery of life, and that most positive evolution must be nonrandom." -- Michael Behe

Shorter Michael Behe: "Evolution isn't wrong. It just isn't right enough."

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-15 11:12:31 AM

Evolution is not proven. It is a scientific theory. Scientific theories are differentiated from faith by the fact they are falsifiable.

Darwin's doubt:

"But then arises the doubt, can the mind of a man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? ....... Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind".

Balance, per Aristotle, does not imply a demand for all views to be heard but "the desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency. For example courage, a virtue, if taken to excess would manifest as recklessness and if deficient as cowardice."

Posted by: Jim | 2010-09-15 5:51:35 PM

Evolution is proven. Read about it. Because something is a theory does not mean it hasn't been proven.

Germ Theory is proven. Nobody says that "viruses are just a theory". Show me where Germ Theory is referred to as "Germ Law" and I'll concede the argument.

You wont. Because scientific theories are still called theories even after they've been proven. And evolution has been proven.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-15 6:36:58 PM

Richard Dawkins... "If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. ..."

Evolution can be disproved. It is falsifiable and it is that fact that separates it from religious belief.

Posted by: DJ | 2010-09-15 10:50:55 PM

Just think.

If any woman was silly enough to breed with Mike Brock, the resulting offspring would evolve into the Master Race.

Us Homer Simpsons just cannot match the intellectual capacity of such a superior being.

All we depend on is proveable scientific fact.

We have all heard about how ‘the science is settled' on different matters.

Bottom line is, we all have the right to our opinions (I respect Mike Brock's right to have his), but we are not entitied to our own facts (which Mike Brock insists are the purview of superiors like him).

Oh, well. Have fun finding a girlfriend.

Posted by: set you free | 2010-09-16 11:59:53 AM

set you free,

Here's a picture of my wife: http://mikebrock.smugmug.com/Other/Sarah/IMG0371/745901023_WScm9-L.jpg

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-16 12:11:10 PM

Send along my sympathies.

Posted by: set you free | 2010-09-16 12:19:18 PM

How's the Master Race project going?

Posted by: set you free | 2010-09-16 12:21:16 PM

On an aside, I love how you show you're lack of intelligence through equating accepting the scientific evidence for evolution with supporting Nazi-style eugenics.

You would benefit from a course in logical thinking.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-16 12:21:17 PM

I love how you show your lack of grammatical skills when you uses ‘you're' instead of ‘your.'

Karl Marx himself wanted Darwin to write the foreword to one of his book. A letter from Marx to Darwin articulated that the contents of Darwin's book could be applied seamlessly to his political theory.

The rest is the history of the bloody 20th century, whereby a ruling elite believed themselves to be more evolved.

Also, look up Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Part of her intent was to control the population of the blacks, whom she considered inferior. Her ideas evolved into eugenics and was adopted.

BTW the complete title to Darwin's book was: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

On balance, it seems to me, Darwinism is more than just a theory but was used as a blunt instrument by totalitarians who fancied themselves as superior.

Mien Kampf = My Struggle.

While Marxism viewed political evolution in social justice terms and attempted to achieve their goals through pitting different economic classes against each other, the National Socialist Party used race as their divide and conquer method.

The leaders of both movements acknowledged they were inspired by the writings of Darwin.

Admittedly, that's not Darwin's responsibility, but it does prove the vacuousness of blind faith in an unprovable theory.

How's that for logic, O Wiser Than All?

Posted by: set you free | 2010-09-16 1:08:05 PM

good post: set you free

Evolution cannot make sense because in a nutshell the theory of evolution can only be summed up as “Nobody times nothing equals everything.” That is what evolutionists want us to believe. But reality is that nothing only produces nothing and out of nothing, nothing comes.

Mike Brock is surprised that why there are people who refuse to think that everything we see simply emerged and evolved by pure chance from nothing, from a total void without any reason.

Evolution goes against all logic and reason because it is the belief that our universe was formed by chance. How can chance cause any thing? Chance is not a force. Chance is nothing, so therefore it has no power to do anything. How can you have any cause to cause everything else if that cause came by chance and from nothing out of thin air?

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-16 6:50:29 PM

Evolutionists say follow the scientific facts. We've incessantly heard that from the Global warming alarmists like Suzuki, Gore, Elizabeth May, the UN and company. Follow the facts that are causing the earth to fry they scream, for the "science is settled". Many including me never believed it, but now we have smoking gun, we have Climategate. Hackers hacked into the computers of the Climate Research Unit, the UN source for "proof" of global warming. Hackers obtained emails by these scientists who were in discussions of how to twist and change the global weather data they collected. If we cannot believe global warming alarmists who are scientists, should we believe evolutionists?

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-16 6:52:29 PM

Shorter SYF,

Because many scientists believe they should have the power to attempt to run our lives, their science is wrong. Great logic SYF. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-09-17 8:20:15 AM

Actually, SYF, your whole proof of Darwinism leading to Hitler is illogical. You are saying A, then B. Therefore B, then A. This is a classic logical fallacy.

And Hitler was not a Darwininist. He rejected Darwin, in favor of Lamarck. And this rejection of Darwin is in Mein Kempf. So basically what you're saying, is you don't know your history.

Stalin also rejected Darwin, in favor of Lamarckiam evolution.

The fact that religious people think that they can point to these things as "facts" that belief in evolution leads to tyranny shows how blantantly dishonest religious people are. And the stupid lengths they'll go to, in order to make themselves feel more comfortable.

The fact that Christians think their religion is self-evident proof of it's own greatness is attenuated, in any serious way, by the fact that the vast majority of it's history was violent, cruel and oppressive.

The whole basis of the idiotic claim by people like yourself that evolution leads to these things, is the belief that evolution is an ideology. And as such, a person should "believe" that only the fittest should be allowed to survive.

The fact that you can point to a few Lamarckians who believed such things does not prove that Darwin's theory is endemic of these things.

The fact that you make the gross error that Hitler embraced Darwin compounds on your logical fallacy and shows that you are willing to believe anything that backs up your position. It shows that you are intellectually dishonest to the core.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-17 8:36:14 AM

Mike Brock you believe in evolution. You believe in the endless chain of random events.
If this universe was caused into being by chance and accident then man's intellect is a random accident of evolution.
If man's intellect is a evolutionary accident because it entirely came by random accident then logically man's intellect is worthless and is of no substance. Since its accidental evolution then reason and logic means nothing.
Your descriptive terms to describe an opponent's intellect
is meaningless if our existence is from random accident and chance.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-17 6:22:20 PM


I don't follow.

"If man's intellect is a evolutionary accident because it entirely came by random accident then logically man's intellect is worthless and is of no substance."

This makes no sense. The value of logic is subjective. And not superlatively contingent on any religious notion of sanctity, which is where I think you're going with this.

I can be created by random chance, and choose to value whatever the hell I want. You can't say: "because you don't believe that you were created by a God, you can't claim value in anything it all".

What you're saying, by extension, is that only a God can be the basis of a valuable life. This is a trait of your own insecurity. Not a failing of my logic.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-17 6:38:36 PM

Mike Brock how can you come up with moral descriptions like “cruel and oppressive” if you are an evolutionist who believes there is no God? What basis do you have to get indignant over anybody's behaviour if everything is a random accident of evolution? Behaviour is meaningless in a universe of never ending chain of events, random accidents, chance and shear happenstance. If everything is evolved by pure chance there is no moral standard.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-17 6:40:04 PM

"If everything is evolved by pure chance there is no moral standard."

Why? I love my wife, my daughter. I enjoy the company of my friends, and as such value their lives. I can appreciate the logic of valuing all human life on the very basis that is is advantageous for me, using the principle of reciprocity, to do so.

Because you are incapable of understanding how an atheist could have a moral compass does not mean an atheist does not have one. That's simply your projection.

But it's curious, that religious people make the claim that atheists must be less moral. Especially considering that atheists have among the lowest crime rates of all belief system groups. And countries that have lower rates of belief in God have lower crime rates.

The United States, which has the highest belief in God among Western countries. Sweden, which has amongst the lower belief, has amongst the lowest.

Within the United States, the states with less religious belief: such as the New England states, have much lower murder rates and violent crime rates than states with higher degrees of religiosity -- such as the bible belt states.

Atheists represent about 12% of the US population. But only 1% of the US prison population is atheist. That means that atheists are more than 10 times less likely to commit criminal offenses than religious persons.

Clearly, your concept of the need for a belief in God to inform moral clarity doesn't have evidence on it's side.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-17 7:35:45 PM

The human mind is capable of great logic, reason and intelligence, so its bizarre and thoroughly illogical to believe it is being maintained by a continuous endless chain of random chance and accidents. Irrational forces (cosmic evolution) cannot fuel and maintain rational forces (human mind).
If our universe is only random accidents and chance, you cannot exempt anything in this universe from that rule, like human thought. If everything is chance and accident, so is our minute by minute human thinking. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a brain to think rationally with logic in a universe run entirely of chaotic chance. A universe of chaotic chance will never produce the reality of humans thinking intelligently. Chaotic chance at best produces nothing because chance is not a force.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-17 11:19:25 PM

Mike Brock I did not say or imply in my post about morality that you lacked morals or belong to a demographic or ideological group with less morals.
I merely asked why should you be concerned about morals. My prime emphasis was not that you do not believe in God or a deity. My prime emphasis was deliberately upon your belief in a universe run strictly by chance and random accidents and shear happenstance because of evolution. If everything is accidental chaos which is essence of evolution why get indignant when that accidental chaos runs the way you do not like (I mean behaviour oops)?

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-17 11:55:14 PM

You cannot have a brain to think rationally with logic in a universe run entirely of chaotic chance.

Even if the universe and humans were created by random chance, what you are saying makes no sense. You cannot prove this statement.

You're basically saying for life to be capable of intelligence it must be created by intelligence.

You are asserting a necessary pre-condition that fails it's own test. If humans require an intelligent god to inherit the capability for intelligence, then what intelligence created god to satisfy the precondition for him?

The statement fails the most simple of logical tests.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-18 7:54:40 AM

There is a limit to knowledge.

There are no limits to imagination.

— Winston Churchill

Posted by: set you free | 2010-09-18 11:18:46 AM

You are accusing me of failing the the test of logic. Evolution cannot make sense because in a nutshell the theory of evolution can only be summed up as “Nobody times nothing equals everything.” But reality is that nothing only produces nothing and out of nothing, nothing comes.How can chance cause any thing? Chance is not a force. Chance is nothing, so therefore it has no power to do anything. How can you have any cause to cause everything else if that cause came by chance and from nothing out of thin air?
So evolutionists explain this logic?

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-18 11:47:06 AM

Evolution cannot be summed up that way.

But you dodged my question. You presented an axiom: that, for intelligence to develop it cannot happen randomly. Hence, an intelligent creator is a precondition for any intelligent life.

I asked you, if this is true, who is the intelligent creator of the creator? If your axiom holds, then it must certainly explain this discrepancy.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-18 4:01:26 PM

"You presented an axiom: that, for intelligence to develop it cannot happen randomly. Hence, an intelligent creator is a precondition for any intelligent life. "
I argue against evolution in two ways. I am proud to say I am a Christian who believes literally in the Genesis creation account. I believe in an eternal God who was never created.
So your question about that is an intelligent creator a precondition for any intelligent life? I most certainly think so.
My other argument is what I think is the fallacy of the logic of evolution summed up entirely in my last immediate post which you insist it cannot be summed up that way.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-18 9:21:25 PM

To say there is no God is to say you have enough knowledge to know there is no God. But an atheist can never have enough knowledge to be certain there is no God. He or she would have to know everything, because if there is something outside his or her area of knowledge, that something could include God. An atheist would have to be everywhere in and out of the universe all at one time, because if there is anywhere he or she cannot be, God could be there.

No atheist can claim total knowledge, therefore atheism is self-refuting, because knowing everything and being everywhere is to be like God.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-18 9:24:26 PM

The question "who created the creator?" is illogical. God by definition cannot be created or God is not God. God cannot be God if God is not eternal.
If you accept the universe has a beginning, all evolutionists do. Nothing can create itself (what evolutionists insist) That would mean that it existed before it existed, which is a logical absurdity.
Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe had a beginning, therefore it has a cause.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-18 9:58:02 PM


Why can God be eternal, but not existence itself?

Our universe most certainly had a beginning. But a beginning does not imply a god. It only implies a beginning. And since quantum physics suggests that nothingness is unstable and all quantum events function on waves of probably (see my other post (The crazy truths about absolute truth) there is reason to believe that that universe was nothing more than a random quantum event. And that new universes are being created all the time.

At least there's evidence for the quantum theory, in the form of observable phenomena that shows evidence for superpositioned states, etc.

There's no evidence for a god. To say that "all beginnings require a creator" is not evidence. It is simply an unproven supposition. It's also a supposition which I reject.

The theory of evolution is a well-established theory with more evidence to support it than virtually any other natural theory. Creationists rejection of evolution's evidence does not change the fact it evolution has been proven to the point of fact.

As I've previously said, if Creationists demanded the same standard of evidence from scientists for evolution of the court system, then almost no criminal would be convicted.

We don't solve murders by going back in time and witnessing the murder first hand. But Creationists demand a first-hand account of the entire multi-million year evolution from less evolved primates into humans.

Considering that the fossile record is filled with recent, more distant and even further relatives of humanity. The fact that DNA analysis links us with other apes, etc. is actually far better evidence than is used to send murderers to their death by execution.

So I fully expect, the good Christian creationist that you are, to go and demand Robert Picton's release from jail. Since his murders are just a theory. Anybody could have put the bodies on his farm. Nobody specifically saw Picton kill anyone.

So since you reject evolution on those grounds, I hope to see you firm up your consistency on more mundane human issues like criminal investigations.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-19 8:20:26 AM

Is is just me, or did StanleyR just find a way to argue that it is the position which is backed by evidence which is illogical because of the fact that it is possible to obtain such evidence?

Posted by: Charles | 2010-09-20 9:29:00 AM


It's always amusing to me when creationists attempt to use logic to their advantage. It always backfires, since their position is built on ignorance of the natural world, and faith in the supernatural.

Their position cannot be argued logically. All they can do, is try and impose impossible -- and quite frankly illogical -- requirements on science.

The creationists use the logical fallacy of moving the goalpost, by saying "this is the exact evidence I need to be convinced, otherwise you're wrong".

For evolution, they demand, a first-hand account of an "monkeys turning into humans". Setting up not only an impossible requirement of proof, but one that's based on a red herring. Even if you had a time machine, you couldn't prove it, because natural selection does not claim that sideward mutations occur.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-20 10:35:22 AM

You know Mike, I've become quite accustomed to hearing really bad arguments (based on shitty logic) from company executives attempting to justify bad decisions. But that should be expected. They know they're bad arguments - they're just hoping I won't notice it. In this case, the arguments are even more absurd and I get the feeling these people really believe what they are writing.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-09-20 12:54:48 PM

Down, Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R)

July 3rd. 1881.

Dear Sir

I hope that you will not think it intrusive on my part to thank you heartily for the pleasure which I have derived from reading your admirably written `Creed of Science,’ though I have not yet quite finished it, as now that I am old I read very slowly. It is a very long time since any other book has interested me so much. The work must have cost you several years and much hard labour with full leisure for work. You would not probably expect anyone fully to agree with you on so many abstruse subjects; and there are some points in your book which I cannot digest. The chief one is that the existence of so-called natural laws implies purpose. I cannot see this. Not to mention that many expect that the several great laws will some day be found to follow inevitably from some one single law, yet taking the laws as we now know them, and look at the moon, what the law of gravitation — and no doubt of the conservation of energy — of the atomic theory, &c. &c. hold good, and I cannot see that there is then necessarily any purpose. Would there be purpose if the lowest organisms alone destitute of consciousness existed in the moon? But I have had no practice in abstract reasoning and I may be all astray. Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? Secondly I think that I could make somewhat of a case against the enormous importance which you attribute to our greatest men: I have been accustomed to think, 2nd, 3rd and 4th rate men of very high importance, at least in the case of Science.

Lastly I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risks the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is. The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world. But I will write no more, and not even mention the many points in your work which have much interested me. I have indeed cause to apologise for troubling you with my impressions, and my sole excuse is the excitement in my mind which your book has aroused.

I beg leave to remain | Dear Sir | Yours faithfully and obliged Charles Darwin.

An interesting note on a number of levels. The issue of natural law appears most pertinent to this discussion. The philosophical naturalist will suggest that a notion such as "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." is the product of a neuronal or electro-chemical event that rose incrementally through natural selection to provide a fitness benefit. The question, though, is how did that belief get connected to the electro-chemical process?

Posted by: Jim | 2010-09-20 3:47:33 PM

Of course the CRTC should be abolished, along with all useless officialdom. On the matter of SunNews (FoxNews) debate, let a thousand flowers flourish. Nothing would thrill me more than a wildly anti-leftist media outlet, viciously attacking all those sacred cows that should slaughtered. Unbiased news? I care not for that. Everyone knows that mainstream news is mindless bunk and not even worthy of one iota of comment. Time for the truth as it should be told. Fair and balanced? How about smash socialism or else? Ultimately, the only way freedom and liberty will be promoted is if it is shoved down everyones throat. Only that action will heal decades of socialist injuries.

Posted by: AB Patriot | 2010-09-20 9:15:15 PM

Privatize the Communist Broadcast Corp or CBC, let it ride the Capitalist Free Market system it so despises. I have listened to probably 5 or 6 hrs of CBC on the radio since the 1970s. It is useless.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-20 11:18:19 PM

It was evolutionist Herbert Spencer who announced to the scientific world that everything that exists in the universe falls into five categories...
space and
That's what he said and he said it in that order...time, force, action, space and matter.

How about this? The first verse of the first book in the Bible. Genesis 1 verse 1:
"In the beginning," that's time,
"God," that's force,
"created" that's action,
"the heavens," that's space,
"and the earth," that's matter.
Right there in the first verse.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-21 9:40:23 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.