UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 1 to Meditation 1194
Lunney's Creationist Dishonesty

by: John Tyrrell

To give your own opinion on this exchange of views, please sign in to the discussion forum below, or alternatively, use the contact page to provide your comments for publication.

My Member of Parliament, Dr. James Lunney, has used his newsletter - sent out at taxpayer expense - to try and explain his reasons for choosing to sit as an independent and represent his "faith community."

"In late March, I was one of three politicians attacked for refusing to affirm a Godless view that the origins of life happened by accident or random undirected natural process."

Actually, he was attacked for tweeting “[Just] stop calling #evolution fact!”.  Evolution does not address the origins of life. And while science does not as yet offer any clear answer to the origin of life, whatever that answer turns out to be, it will not automatically deny the existence of one or more deities. Nor does evolution automatically deny the existence of one or more deities.

"It's a subject I studied at university by the way, and that I know to be untenable given today's knowledge of molecular and cell biology."

Lunney does have a science degree - a Bachelor of Science granted from a reputable university in 1972. His doctorate is from a chiropractic school. I somehow doubt that he studied the origins of life in university or at chiropractic college. In any event, his qualifications are insufficient for him to categorically state that a natural cause for the origins of life is untenable. For him to state that he knows "today's knowledge of molecular and cell biology" makes a natural cause untenable illustrates his thorough ignorance of those subjects and that his views come not from science but from the dishonest writings of creationists deliberately misinterpreting science.

"That we have an increasingly vocal, strident and intolerant contingent of citizens who want to redefine Canada with a godless image and feed the compulsion to attack, discredit and vilify persons of faith in Canada, is a dark stain on the multi-faith, multicultural and tolerant character of our great and diverse nation."

Lunney knows the words "multi-faith, multicultural and tolerant", but he seems unable to understand what they mean. He wants to represent and promote his faith community when his job is to represent everyone in his constituency. Also, he confuses "secular" with "godless." A secular society is one in which no-one's religious views (or godlessness) are imposed on other people. A secular society is quite appropriate for a multi-faith, multicultural community. Lunney seems to want a society in which his minority religious views take precedence over others.

"I will not silently take being ridiculed publically [sic] for beliefs shared by millions of Canadians."

But Lunney feels free to criticize the scientific understanding of millions of Canadians and expects them to take it silently rather than pointing out he is wrong. Also, over two-thirds of Christians in Canada are members of the Roman Catholic Church, the United Church, or the Anglican Church - all three of which accept evolution. Essentially, by promoting his creationist views though his office, Lunney is criticizing the religious beliefs of the overwhelming majority of Christian Canadians. And yet Lunney pathetically whines about his own religious views being criticized.

"Beliefs that are not in conflict with science unless one side-steps scientific method and mismanages assumptions to adopt the competing religious construct of Evolutionism."

And here we see creationist dishonesty in all its glory. The claim that science and the scientific method is on the side of creationism. The claim that those who actually understand science are misusing it. The claim that evolution is a religious belief. The only ones side-stepping science and mismanaging assumptions are Lunney and his fellow creationists.



Have your say...

Please take a moment to share your thoughts, pro and con, on this discussion.

comments powered by Disqus