April 03, 2015

James Lunney: 'Is it militant atheists who define the new Canada?'

Brian LilleyRebel Co-Founder
 

What does it say to persecuted Christians who've fled to Canada, to see their beliefs being trashed by militant atheists after they get here?

That's one of the thought-provoking observations MP James Lunney made during our lengthy conversation yesterday.

As we reported earlier, Lunney was a Conservative MP, but last week he changed his party affiliation to "independent" and stepped down from the Conservative caucus after being "caught up in a controversy over evolution."

Lunney, who has degrees in zoology and chemistry, says these kinds of social media campaigns are an attempt to "trap social conservatives" and keep them out of politics and the public square.

Lunney explains that supporters of Darwin are often unable to explain their own views coherently, citing celebrity atheist Richard Dawkins who, while rejecting the idea of God, posited space aliens as a possible source of life on Earth.

You won't want to miss this wide-ranging interview.

It's one I think you'll want to share.

Tell us your thoughts in the comments!

 

JOIN TheRebel.media for more news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

READ Brian Lilley's book CBC Exposed -- It's been called "the political book of the year."

FIGHT BACK against anti-Christian bigotry in the public square at ForCanada.ca

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-07-17 20:03:43 -0400
I would love to see you guys bring on Richard Dawkins and see what happens.
commented 2015-04-06 18:51:12 -0400
All I ask science to take from religion is morality and accountability. (Thanks for AIDS by the way) and don’t even try to dismiss this evidence from a Harvard Phd., Dr Leonard Horowitz. I think the “Best Instructions Before Leaving Earth” is a good manual to follow. I really don’t care where we came from, where we’re going is what concerns me. Before you discover “Anti-matter” and make the nuclear bomb look like a kids toy. Maybe that’s what happened to your ancient aliens. One science experiment too many, what we now refer to as The Black Hole. If you’re so intent on seeing God, sedate yourself to the point of clinically dead, and revive yourself. Let me know your results
commented 2015-04-06 17:27:29 -0400
Ron V, when compared side by side, Creationism vs. Abiogenesis/Evolution, one is based on “magic” and the other on scientific knowledge… and you claim one of the two options is a “fairy tale”. It seems very obvious to me which side is laughably lacking in credibility, logic and reason. Only one is correct and I think most sane people would select the correct answer if they did the proper analysis of this topic.
commented 2015-04-06 13:42:15 -0400
So, Ron, you agree that when god created it was like a magician and things just popped into existence because of god’s word? I you could be there during the creation actually happening, what would you see? Is that not a fair question? Or is it out of bounds to ask?
commented 2015-04-06 12:20:16 -0400
Folks, this has been entertaining, but you have to stop this tit-for-tat ‘evidence’ battle with atheists, RICHARD WAKEFIELD and company, who, by the way, are religious although they will claim otherwise, as it is not about the evidence. No amount of evidence will convince them to abandon their fairy tale of evolutionism.

Earlier, RICHARD WAKEFIELD asserted, “Oh, and the default position of science is that EVERYTHING has a natural origin, not a supernatural one. And science must have that position”. Science, from Latin scientia, simply means “knowledge”. With his imposed definition of science, declaring that “EVERYTHING has a natural origin”, he clearly is excluding the supernatural, thereby, ipso facto imposing atheism! Richard cannot even think coherently. Supernatural is beyond natural, but, nonetheless, he continues to demand a naturalistic explanation of how God created the universe, all the while he cannot provide a natural explanation apart from his evolutionary fairy tale.

This is not a science versus religion issue; it is a worldview issue. Our assumptions (presuppositions, like RICHARD WAKEFIELD’s that only natural explanations of the origin of the universe can be allowed) determine our conclusions. Most evolutionists, however, try to deny that it’s a worldview battle, claiming that they are unbiased, open-minded, objective pursuers of truth. If you believe that, then listen to some evolutionists! Earlier, I told you about Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist and an evolutionist at Kansas State University, declaring with his presupposition, “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic”. Also, listen to what evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin, Professor of Zoology and Biology at Harvard University, has to say, “We take the side of science in spite of the absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories (Ed.: I can’t agree with him more about the absurdity of the evolutionists’ just-so stories), because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” He admits that conclusions about our origins are based on his worldview, a secular (humanistic) worldview with a prior commitment, a pre-existing bias – before the evidence is in – before the court even sits – to reject the eyewitness account God provided in the Bible. Why? Because he “Cannot allow a divine foot in the door”!

So, while it has been somewhat entertaining and revealing, forget all the tossing of ‘evidence’ back and forth as no amount of evidence will convince ‘professor’ WAKEFIELD and company otherwise; unless he gives up his presupposition that God does not exit and that science (“knowledge”) when it comes the matter of origins must have a naturalistic explanation.

Note how various evidence-demanding atheists, including AaronRa whose video FREETHINKER tossed along, responded in this video to the question, “If it could be demonstrated/proved to your satisfaction that the God of the Bible exists would you worship Him?”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jydSDWcfk4&channel=creationtoday
Folks, it’s not about the evidence.
commented 2015-04-06 10:46:25 -0400
Hmm, not sure how the double tap happened…
commented 2015-04-06 10:43:29 -0400
Here is the google search of peer reviewed papers on the phylogeny of birds and reptiles.
https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=phylogeny+of+birds+and+reptiles&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=lZgiVcKzG4yUyAS8oYCgCg&ved=0CBoQgQMwAA

This is a simplified phylogenetic tree, which comes from analysing the MISTAKES in the DNA of existing organisms:

http://vertpaleo.org/PDFS/e3/e37bae08-014e-4f45-9f62-4136b1d44129.jpg

The important thing to understand is where the line to the lizards and the line to the birds meet (a node) was a speciation event back in deep time. The line to that node represents a single species back at that time, which no longer exists. That would not have been the only species at the time. The vast majority of species at that time didnt leave any subsequent species. Only that one species did and gave rise to the rest of the clads, including your iguana and owl.

You have to understand how phylogenetics works to appreciate how this happened.
commented 2015-04-06 10:43:28 -0400
Here is the google search of peer reviewed papers on the phylogeny of birds and reptiles.
https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=phylogeny+of+birds+and+reptiles&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=lZgiVcKzG4yUyAS8oYCgCg&ved=0CBoQgQMwAA

This is a simplified phylogenetic tree, which comes from analysing the MISTAKES in the DNA of existing organisms:

http://vertpaleo.org/PDFS/e3/e37bae08-014e-4f45-9f62-4136b1d44129.jpg

The important thing to understand is where the line to the lizards and the line to the birds meet (a node) was a speciation event back in deep time. The line to that node represents a single species back at that time, which no longer exists. That would not have been the only species at the time. The vast majority of species at that time didnt leave any subsequent species. Only that one species did and gave rise to the rest of the clads, including your iguana and owl.

You have to understand how phylogenetics works to appreciate how this happened.
commented 2015-04-06 10:28:38 -0400
“Show me where these changes result in a more dramatic genera transformation such as an iguana into an owl or a fruit fly into a humming bird.”

Let me be PERFECTLY clear. NO ONE CLAIMS THAT!!! Your understanding of how large scale evolution works is DEEPLY FLAWED and wrong, period.

Let me state is again, but I’m still not sure if it will sink in. Existing organisms today are linked together by a common ancestor which has long since gone extinct. Iguanas and owls have a common ancestor which belong to the group Synapsids. There are no Synapsids around today. They existed some 350 million years ago. At that time there were species of Synapsids. Over time, and through speciation due to selection, due to changes in the environment, there were small changes, which you accept, which accumulated and were filtered into Iguanas and owls OVER DEEP TIME. Owls and Iguanas share a lot of physical and genetic material. The differences between Iguanas and owls is one of degree of changes.

If you take the DNA of Iguanas and Owls, and look at the MISTAKES in certain genes, you will see the same mistakes occur in both species. Mistakes are NOT selected for or against, they get propagated to subsequent generations, subsequent species. Please read my example further down on how Phylogenetics works. You can do a simple experiment to see how it works.
commented 2015-04-06 10:27:33 -0400
Whatever your current stance on “evolution”, evolution is not a fact, which is correct. But, evolution is backed up with verifiable data which is why it is a scientific theory. So, this is when religion will say “god of the gaps” comes into play. All through history whenever a question cannot be answered it is usually said that there is where god intervenes. Neil Degrasse Tyson says “That religion is an ever receding pocket of ignorance”. He is correct. Whatever god you currently subscribe to cannot just be inserted to explain things, by that logic you can say, aliens did it or magical unicorns. I am an Atheist. I am not a “militant Atheist”, because I simply point out that the existence of your current god cannot be proven, no matter how much you want to believe. Religious people ask science to explain to them why they should believe in scientific theories, when they do not offer any verifiable data to support their claim. There are thousands of gods, you don’t believe in any of those gods either, which makes you just as much as an Atheist as I am, I just go ONE god further. It is time for the world to let go of ancient superstitions, time to grow up, you shouldn’t have an imaginary friend as a adult.
commented 2015-04-06 10:17:16 -0400
“But species do not change. Never. It is biochemically impossible.”

They do, it has been observed both in the wild and in the lab. It is not biochemically impossible.
commented 2015-04-06 10:12:12 -0400
Richard

Again you are referring to micro evolutionary changes. I have no issue with such changes. The iguana remains an iguana, the owl an owl and the fruit fly a fruit fly. Show me where these changes result in a more dramatic genera transformation such as an iguana into an owl or a fruit fly into a humming bird.
commented 2015-04-06 10:00:35 -0400
CFR READ you really need an education (or deprogramming)… you say “No fossil or geological evidence for Darwin’s myth exists” is a outright lie. Are you a science denier ? Is this what a religious mind-set does to a person. You feel that ‘Scientists’ are a “human hating cult”…. yikes. And YES humans (homo sapiens) ARE a member of the ape family if you didn’t notice. It religious attitudes such as what you have displayed that cause me grave concern for the future of mankind. I just hope you are not a follower of Islam and will have me put to death for being a non-believer of that ancient barbaric text “the koran”.
commented 2015-04-06 09:22:51 -0400
Macro evolution is beyond stupid. Micro evolution is from existing software DNA code, so yes there can be intra-species ‘variation’ to use a Darwinian buzzword. But species do not change. Never. It is biochemically impossible.
-Software code does not write or change itself
-DNA, RNA, mRNA, tRNA, Amino Acids, ATP all need each other and cannot form by ‘chance’
-Evolution theologists have never replicated the creation of any part of a cell, the Miller-Urey fraud of 1953 produced a contrived sample of 2 dead amino acids, out of 20….
-The math probability of insulin, a protein with only 51 amino acids, forming by chance, is less than 0. Since Darwinists are math-challenged, insulin would have 20 to the power of 51 or 2000Trillion possible combinations.
-10 million proteins exist in the human body manufactured by ribosomes themselves dependent on RNA and DNA. Manufacturing processes don’t occur by chance.
-No fossil or geological evidence for Darwin’s myth exists.

I could list 1 million more objections to this human-hating cult. You must be a very sick person to believe Dawkins, and that you are just an ape. Sick, sad, lonely, deluded. Let’s not forget that the Nazis were ardent evolutionists and gassed 6mn Jews and 5 mn Catholics [the unknown holocaust] in homage to their apostle Darwin and ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘racial evolution’. You do know that Chuckie was a racist right?
commented 2015-04-06 09:13:14 -0400
Personally, I really dont care if you believe in a god or not. If you do you likely have the “god gene”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

What I care about is the lack of support for science, the clear misrepresentation and ignoring of the evidence, that science has discovered.

We all have the desire to understand where we came from, what this is all about. You who want creation as the answer have, literally, taken then easy road. The Bible says it, so be it, I dont need to know the details how it happened. That may be fine for you, but it is definitely not fine for the rest of us.

A new super particle collider, CERN, is up and running after a refit. http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/5/8344135/lch-restart-cern-biggest-particle-accelerator
The only purpose of this massive device is to learn how the universe started. THAT’S science. THAT’S the inquisitive mind wanting to understand how we got here.

You people would no want us to do such research because it will show that there is no need for a god in the construction of the universe.

For me, the answers coming from that device will be far more awe inspiring than a simple “Poof!” creation.
commented 2015-04-06 09:03:08 -0400
“Only in the destructive mutations that occur; the fruit fly still remains a fruit fly. "

First, most genetic “mutations” have no effect on the organism. YOU are not the average of your parents because of gene mutations, the reshuffling of the genes is what makes you unique. Mistakes in the DNA of genes happens all the time. The vast majority of them have no effect. Those that do have an effect produce variability in an organisms features, which is then selected for or against.

The example earlier of the bird’s wings shortening on that bridge is because mutations in the gene which codes for wings made some of them shorter, which was selected for, and past on to subsequent generations.

As for a fruit fly still a fruit fly, yes. And we are still reptiles deep down, just altered due to gene mutations culminating into altered features, selected by the environment, over deep time.
commented 2015-04-06 08:55:57 -0400
“The leading evolutionist is saying that evolution hasn’t been observed.”

Speciation has been seen in the lab with fruit flies. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_45
http://www.rochester.edu/college/BIO/professors/fry/Fry_speciation_expevol_2009.pdf

Other examples of speciation occurring:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

Speciation is the key consequence of the process of evolution. It what leads to different organisms, with different features. It’s the filtering I noted earlier.

Again, you are using the argument from authority. Dawkins is wrong, assuming that quote is not out of context.
commented 2015-04-06 07:59:27 -0400
" Whether you like it or not. It adds another nail to the coffin we call religion. "
- more unsupportable opinion masquerading as science. I suppose the toxic irony/hypocrisy of your faith based belief in theories escapes you.
commented 2015-04-06 05:21:37 -0400
Freethinker

“Evolution has been observed In the fruit fly”?
Only in the destructive mutations that occur; the fruit fly still remains a fruit fly.

Evolution, as far as transmutation of species is concerned, is not a fact! It is full of holes and remains a controversial topic even among evolutionary scientist.
It is a belief based on faith with its many different factions. Indeed, similar to institutionalized religion and its, many different factions.
commented 2015-04-05 23:03:52 -0400
Evolution is a FACT. Whether you like it or not. It adds another nail to the coffin we call religion. The origin of life will be revealed by science when more research is completed in the field of abiogenisis : One of the things that Creationists don’t like about Science (among all the other things they don’t like about Science) is that it can explain how life came from chemicals. Granted, we don’t have the complete theory yet, but we are getting closer. Creationists claim that life can’t come from chemicals for a number of reasons, a website I once saw said something similar to this: “Imagine that all life on planet Earth disappeared, all you have are rocks and dust. How can life come from that? that’s the Evolutionist’s unanswerable dilemma, it shows how much faith they have to put into their preposterous answers”. I would agree with them, IF that’s what anyone thought! The pre-life conditions on Earth was extremely different to their scenario. Instead of rocks and dust we had a mass of chemicals floating about in water and volcanic pools, our atmosphere was completely different as well. Suddenly abiogenesis doesn’t seem so irrational. Life is basically a complex string of chemicals, biochemistry is what makes us work. And when left alone in a pre-life condition, complex chemicals bond together to form animo acids, sugars and even some of the four bases that constructs DNA. We have successfully created Nucleotides in the lab, and then from that you have to create polynucleotides, then you an get some basic RNA. DNA and proteins have to work together, you can’t have one without the other, and Creationists know this. But RNA can duplicate itself and store information, doing both jobs, once Evolution and mutation kick in the RNA can become more complex, Evolving into the DNA and proteins that make life possible. Abiogenesis is not a ‘preposterous answer’ that requires faith, because 1. faith is belief without evidence, and 2. we have evidence that this process can happen. Arguing that it is preposterous is an argument from personal incredulity, and just because your brain is too limited to see how Science works doesn’t mean that it can’t happen!
commented 2015-04-05 22:53:26 -0400
Liana, evolution has been observed in scientific studies of fruit flies and bacteria. Religion is based on brainwashing and lies, science is based on facts and data. Making false statements must be a by-product of your religious mindset… as religions are based on false statements.
commented 2015-04-05 21:47:18 -0400
Ok, ok, ok…
Here’s this…
Richard Dawkins, leading evolutionist says:
“Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it is happening.”
(www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html)
When asked what this means, he says the consequences of evolution can be seen, and agrees that this is circumstantial evidence. He is interpreting what can be seen by what he believes has taken place. Anyone with a paradigm can do that, making what is seen fit the paradigm. But that isn’t science, it is a belief system.
The second sentence: ‘Evolution hasn’t been observed in action.’
Science by definition is that an action must be observed or reproducible in order to be labelled true science.
The leading evolutionist is saying that evolution hasn’t been observed.
Therefore, evolution isn’t science.
Evolution is a religion.
But if it was labelled a religion, would they allow it to be taught in public schools? Hmmm…they’d have to let Creationism back in, too…
There is a lot riding on the labelling of evolution as science or religion. For one, the minds of many. And another, the success of the humanist agenda.
commented 2015-04-05 20:15:11 -0400
According to the Rg Veda which is the oldest of all scripture…creation happened so long ago that even God has forgotten the details…….:-)
commented 2015-04-05 19:35:21 -0400
“Indeed, atheists and Darwinists within the scientific and philosophical communities have little respect for the intelligent design movement. They refer to Intelligent Design “as biblical Creationism in another disguise” and they single out Theistic Evolution as “nonsense” and have described it as, “pious rant””

Because ID is nothing more than god-of-the-gaps.

I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how the creation happened if not by the Great Magician waving his hand and “POOF!!” there it is in perfect form.

I’m still waiting for the answer to my question, right after creation could you tell if the world was just created? Did it look like it does today?
commented 2015-04-05 19:32:31 -0400
“Evolution and the God of Hebrew scripture are incompatible.”

Not according to the millions of Christians who accept evolution and the God of Hebrew scripture.
commented 2015-04-05 19:13:46 -0400
So what is a theist doing in the sacred atheist cathedral of post secondary education? I attended a once parochial institution where the teachers were Jesuits, Redemtionists, and Sisters of Charity. They were required to have more than a decade of post secondary background before they could qualify to be professors. When I arrived there were only a tenured few of them left and the institution had been commandeered by feminists…..a more godless lot you will never encounter…except perhaps for Gaia their man hating Earth goddess.

The likes of them are in close consort with the graduates of that Unholy of Unholies called Law School. “Woe unto ye doctors of the law for ye make a burden which no man can bear yet ye touch not that burden with thine own hands”

This lot that have forsaken God want to bar Christians from their distinguished society…yet they have the temerity to demand an oath on the Bible during their performances of kabuki theatre…..an absurd demand when you consider:

(1) the book states unequivocally you are to refrain from swearing oaths
(2) by virtue of the fact that ordination in any of the orthodox Christian Churches that determined the Canon of the Bible is not a requirement for the Bar or the Judiciary they have no subject matter jurisdiction over that book
nor do they have power to invoke God’s aid using that book as their instrument.
(3) the book contains all manner of things that would not be considered lawful in a contemporary secular state
(4) in the divinely inspired words of the great Hebrew prophet George Gershwin “deys tings dat youse libel ta read in dat Bible what ain’t necessarily so”

That’s the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth but that would get you a contempt of court citation for saying it.
commented 2015-04-05 18:23:50 -0400
Richard,

What does that have to do with evolution?
Everything… Evolution and the God of Hebrew scripture are incompatible. The following statements by two well-known atheists clearly illustrate why this is the case.

Nobel Prize Winning Biologist, Jacques Monod states, “Natural selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms…The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.”

Frank Zindler sums it up well, ‘The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.”

Considering the above two statements those who attempt to merge the biblical God of creation with evolution (theistic evolutionists) have their work cut out. Not only must they convince their fellow believers that evolution and a belief in God is tenable, they must also convince those in the scientific community as well, especially those who reject God and have developed numerous models to support their belief that a divine creator played no part in the process.
Indeed, atheists and Darwinists within the scientific and philosophical communities have little respect for the intelligent design movement. They refer to Intelligent Design “as biblical Creationism in another disguise” and they single out Theistic Evolution as “nonsense” and have described it as, “pious rant”.