Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

James Lunney v. Evolution

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:03pm - 106 Comments

From the Conservative MP’s statement before QP.

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. 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.

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. 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.

Tags: Charles Darwin, creationism, evolution, gary goodyear, James Lunney

More by Aaron Wherry

Terry Levine

What an embarrassment.
Will Ouellette

What an embarrassment to Parliament.
Why would an omnipotent Deity leave all these clues about evolution if he/she/it/they did it all in only seven days.
If you are one of the faithful, these guys make your belief a laughing stock.
If you’re atheist or agnostic they are pitiable in their lack of knowledge.
Bob

The creationists will take their beliefs to the grave, but they still won’t be any more correct than when they started. Darwin’s theory will never be anything more than a scientific theory. That is not a bad thing, in the 150 years of the evolutionists, or proponents of intelligent design, desperately attempting to derail Darwin’s theory, science is finding more and more material to show that Darwin was right. The geneticists have even shown that our 23 genes in the DNA were once 24, just like the apes. (They found that gene number 2 is a combination of 2 genes joined together).
I don’t care that they continue to attempt to rebut Darwin’s theory, but the methods they use are enough to make one want to shake their head in disbelief. There was a very good program on PBS on the attempt of these zelleots to hijack a school board and force the science teachers to instruct the “intelligent design” (creationist) concept on students. The program very elegantly explains how reason finally prevailed, but it also demonstrated the deceitful methods that these creationists will use in the attempt to have their way. The beauty of it all was the fact that the judge that made the determination that intelligent design was just another word for creationisn, and that creationism is not science was a Bush appointee
Bob
George Chapman

The Harper government’s slashing funding to sciences of all kinds was one thing but to add the insult of appointing Goodyear right after cutting Arthur Carty’s position as Science Advisor is outrageous. I spent 38 years as a physicist at NRC and can personally attest to the qualifications of Dr Carty. But Goodyear? A fundamentalist fool who probably would have difficulty spelling “science”

As a side note, I re-read “The Origin of Species” to commemorate the bicentennial of Darwin’s birth. I was struck again by the depth of the man’s insight and gentlemanly modesty. He really understood and used the scientific method and was overly generous in citing others, even the unlamented Lamarck.

Stockwell Day was bad enough. Now we deal with Goodyear. Canadian science will be a laughing stock. How can I explain this to my scientific colleagues around the world?

George
Greg

How is this embarassing at all…as long as Lunney collects taxes and serves his community well that’s all that matters. If his constituents dislike him they can vote him out next year. Tempest in a teapot folks.
Lord Kitchener’s Own

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

Given a quick Google search of “polystratic fossils” and “polonium radio halos” I am prepared to believe that James Lunney has been taken in by some pseudo-scientific creationist malarkey.

You’re free to believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Just don’t try to tell me that this belief is based on “modern evidence unavailable to Darwin”. I’m hundreds of kilometres from Ottawa, but I can smell that from here.