James Lunney: Christianity under siege
"Questioning theory vs. fact is the unpardonable sin for adherents of evolutionism.
Bigotry and intolerance are the trademark of militant atheism and its adherents’ campaign against God. Conrad Black exposed as much in his eloquently written and defended articles recently. As a multi-racial, multicultural, multi-faith society, Canada has been known to a world in conflict as a standard for respect for diversity and inclusion. However, a religious defence of science seems to be the vehicle for the most vitriolic, pejorative, vulgar campaigns of intolerance and ad hominem attacks in Canada today."
Ai-yi-yi-yi! James Lunney, where does one even begin?
Let's start with some basics. There is no war on Christianity. There is a war against idiocy trying to masquerade as intelligent debate. In concept, an ideological war on Christianity isn't even possible. Not if such a war is conducted by attacking every single belief (as Lunney is describing). Worldwide there are over 40,000-FORTY THOUSAND- different Christian denominations that all splintered away from each other over some disagreement or another. Ask 40,000 Christians detailed questions about what they believe and you will get 40,000 different answers. Survey how many Christians wince when James Lunney opens his mouth and you'll likely get a very high and statistically significant number.
James Lunney is pre-occupied by "militant atheists" attacking him. What about fellow Christians? Any Christian calling James Lunney an idiot is therefore a self-hating Christian?
Lunney is quite preoccupied with the "Theory of Evolution." He describes it as "losing its grip as biological sciences have outstripped any rational defence of the origins of life or the complexities of the simplest cell ever coming into being by random undirected events or natural processes"
Oh bullshit. That tired old argument. (And what the hell does "the world of the cell was beyond anything Darwin could have imagined" even mean?" If Lunney is proposing that Darwin should have had all of the definitive answers when he developed his theories on evolution he is beyond nuts. What Darwin could or could not have imagined (or even understood) is in no way relevant to the continuing scientific study of evolution. If Darwin had all the answers, it wouldn't be an ongoing field of study!) (I'm going to ignore the WTF? reference to "The Father of Eugenics." Someone else can knock down that particular straw-man.)
I'll let others refute Lunney's complete ignorance of the scientific method, biology, evolution or even logic. Well actually, I'll continue to attack his logic.
For fun let us accept Lunney's contention that life is too complex to evolve without a creator. Why does that prove that Lunney's God is that creator? Where is the proof? I'm fairly certain that followers of other faiths in this world would have trouble with Lunney's assertion that his God created the universe. I haven't seen his argument telling them that they are all wrong. (That would be quite entertaining to witness.)
What Lunney completely fails to understand; if you are going to assail the logic of your opponents, your own logic had better be rock solid. Otherwise you risk looking like an untutored idiot.
The thing about faith in God is, is it does not need or rely on logic. That's why it is called faith. And this is how Lunney is both correct and wrong at the same time. "The notion that belief in God is incompatible with pursuit of science is a falsehood" is entirely correct. But Lunney is ignoring his own words. I'm going to make it simple for him.
"Evolutionism is based on a false construct from another century; it is as repugnant as any other form of bigotry."
Evolutionism? Bigotry? Look dude, just because you can form sentences stringing together random words, it does not make them true. For instance: "Creationism is based on a rigorous study of all the scientific literature. Its self-evident truth cannot be denied."
Man I cannot tell you how much it hurt to write that. My brain's idiocy callus is not as thick as Lunney's apparently.
Lunney writes like a looney. And I will continue to call him out for it as long as he continues to think he has a valid platform to preach from.
Over to you Dogbert: