~ DEEP SIGH– OK, so there’s the “let’s be clear” thing lurking here. I do not ‘believe’ in, say, Darwinian evolution, because life is way complicated, and I think it has to do with DNA, bacteria, junk DNA, radiation, climate, environment, and lots and lots of factors. Nice neat (and smugly Victorian & progressive) charts of an upward-tending line of critters, where the connection between them is “and then, Evolution” are bad sciencing. Plus, snobbery, because we are at the end of the line– the highest, so far.
So with the theory of ‘survival of the fittest’. That ends up justifying eugenics and destructive social policies, and it doesn’t even account for the fossil record, or what we observe in nature. If I took you back to the Jurassic and asked you who was ‘fittest’, you’d probably put your money on the dinosaurs, and not the tiny hairy rat-things running between their feet. The same 100 000 years ago: sabre-tooth cats seemed pretty damn fittest.
However, I’m not sure if “doesn’t believe in evolution” means that the critic thinks as I do, or if it means “young earth creationist”. Such reacting to Darwinism creationism is a pseudo-religious, pseudo-scientific position blending the worst of both positions, and is a bizarre attitude towards evidence and what is. Giving free points to obnoxious public materialists like Nye and Tyson or the “brains trust” at the horrible old CBC is just plain stupid.
And God Said
The Hebrews were not Greeks, asking ‘How?’– they wanted to know Why, Who, and What It Meant. Thus, the creation accounts are *true*, without being a science textbook. Modern people are blind to many of these important distinctions.
Equally, for the Bible, God is not a distant figure who winds stuff up and lets it go with no further influence, but the very breath and existence and change and life-principle inherent in all living things. “Creation” is not a past moment, but a present activity: God makes his creatures make themselves. Chew on that, repeat, ponder.
If you read what MP Lunney actually said, he’s right: science deals with theories, probabilities, experiments, data, and not in doctrinaire ‘facts’. The “Public Truth Squads” and their media mouthpieces cannot understand what he is saying, because materialist bigotry. Lunney:
“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,” he said then.
“The evolutionist may disagree, but neither can produce Darwin as a witness to prove his point. The evolutionist may genuinely see his ancestor in a monkey, but many modern scientists interpret the same evidence in favour of creation and a Creator.”
Thus, evolution– however imagined in the popular mind– is a giant pile of ever-evolving theories supposedly subject to “what when where how” study, and not rather religious-sounding “man came from monkeys” statements. Of course, when you add the implicit ‘…and therefore there is no God” to the evolution package, you can see why many materialists will defend evolution to the last drop of blood.
By the bye, Mr. Lunney, re: “see his ancestor in a monkey”– our genetic ancestors were not chimps or apes, but probably more like lemurs; or to put it another way, modern simians and modern humans share a far-distant ancestor somewhere before both.
If you want, I can explain more.