Let's breakdown his statement to see just how wrong he is:
"Mr. Speaker, recently we saw an attempt to ridicule the presumed beliefs of a member of this House and the belief of millions of Canadians in a creator. Certain individuals in the media and the scientific community have exposed their own arrogance and intolerance of beliefs contrary to their own."
No one has ridiculed anyone's beliefs. Canadian Minister Gary Goodyear was rightful ridiculed for turning a scientific question (evolution) into an issue of religion. This man is our Minister of State for Science and Technology! Ugghhh.
"Any scientist who declares that the theory of evolution is a fact has already abandoned the foundations of science. For science establishes fact through the study of things observable and reproducible. Since origins can neither be reproduced nor observed, they remain the realm of hypothesis."
First, theories are not facts. Theories are a set of intellectual tools we use to articulate and apply to our daily endeavors.
Second, no one is claiming evolution can explain the origin of the organisms. Evolution can help explain why they change. He is 0-2 in this statement with respect to a lack of comprehension."In science, it is perfectly acceptable to make assumptions when we do not have all the facts, but it is never acceptable to forget our assumptions. Given the modern evidence unavailable to Darwin, advanced models of plate techtonics, polonium radiohalos, polystratic fossils, I am prepared to believe that Darwin would be willing to re-examine his assumptions. The evolutionists may disagree, but neither can produce Darwin as a witness to prove his point."
This is where the crazy comes on strong. His examples of plate techtonics, polonium radiohalos and polystratic fossils are all complex topics that only appear to be problematic to evolution if you're ignorant, or shilling Creationism.
Also I love how he believes that he knows what Darwin would think. But really, who gives shit what Darwin thinks, its not like what he thinks would matter. If we could resurect Darwin and he agreed, would that invalidate the all the work in biology since his death?"The evolutionists may genuinely see his ancestor in a monkey, but many modern scientists interpret the same evidence in favour of creation and a creator."
Wrong again. There is no debated among modern scientists about (young earth) creationism (Claiming the earth is only about 6000 to 10 000 years old). Belief in young earth creationism implies either humans lived with dinosaurs or dinosaur bones fake (and where planted by Satan to fool humantity). I don't think you'll find scientists debting these facts.
Evolution neither denies nor requires a role of an original creator. Setting up science and religion as enemies hurts everyone. Idiots like James Lunney are doing it only create wedge issues to win votes.
FYI, on a note completely unrelated to the debate over creationism vs evolution, I have met this MP and he's that guy who insists you call him Dr. Lunney. He was unclear whether this was due to a MD or PhD background.
ReplyDelete