Thursday, April 02, 2015

Poor James Lunney resigns from the Conservative Party because of bullying over his religious beliefs

Some of you may recall James Lunney, Conservative Party Member of Parliament for Nanaimo-Alberni in British Columbia. He's a chiropractor who spoke out against evolution back in 2009 [James Lunney: Creationist, Chiropractor, Conservative].

More recently, he defended another MP who didn't believe in evolution. He was mocked and ridiculed in the popular press and now he has decided to resign from the Conservative Party and sit in the House of Commons as an Independent. That's not working out so well according to CBC News [James Lunney defends views on evolution in House of Commons].
One day after he announced he was leaving the Conservative caucus to better defend his religious beliefs, Nanaimo-Alberni MP James Lunney attempted to do just that from his new seat in the corner of the House of Commons reserved for independent MPs.

But despite his best efforts, he was unable to convince House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer that the "cyberbullying" and "crowd-shaming" that he claimed to have experienced after questioning the science behind evolution constituted a breach of his parliamentary privilege.
Imagine that! He was unable to convince Parliament that making fun of his silly beliefs is wrong! This is exactly how the Canadian public SHOULD deal with people who act like kooks.

Wanna hear about his beliefs? This is what he said in Parliament ....
Speaking to CBC News Power & Politics host Evan Solomon on Wednesday evening, Lunney said that he was tired of seeing his faith community bullied.

...

Lunney described evolution — or, as he calls it, "macro-evolution" is "a theory in crisis."

"Scientists are not able to speak their mind on that — at least half of them who feel this way, they're gagged by an old construct," he argued.

"There's a whole generation of kids being taught that what they're taught in Sunday School or in church is garbage, it's wrong, it's false, and it's simply a form of bullying that's no longer acceptable. It's not scientifically tenable, it's a disservice to science… it's not freedom of religion if your views are put down by your peers."
Freedom comes in several forms. If you live in a free society then you have to be prepared to accept criticism of your most cherished beliefs. You can't hide behind religion to protect you when you act like an IDiot. Pointing out the stupidity of a Member of Parliament is not bullying

As far as I'm concerned, this is exactly how freedom should work.


75 comments :

  1. Amen! No, let me rephrase that.

    Actually, I find it encouraging that the reaction was so swift.

    ReplyDelete
  2. He is trying to pretend that he is displaying his courage by making this decision. But he makes this decision after he announces that he will not run again. After he qualifies for a full pension.



    ReplyDelete
  3. So Intelligent Design is totally science, has nothing to do with religion. Until you criticize it, and then "it's not freedom of religion if your views are put down by your peers."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It has nothing to do with religion, but its criticism invariably turns out to be "atheistic", "materialistic", and motivated by the critic's "Darwinist religion".

      Delete
    2. The DI and its #attackgerbil Casey Luskin have argued that ID is science, has nothing to do with religion, but if a science professor criticizes ID in a science class, that's illegal, because the First Amendment means you can't show hostility to religion. Ah derp derp derp.

      Delete
  4. "Pointing out the stupidity of a Member of Parliament is not bullying"

    I would say ESPECIALLY if one is a Member of Parliament. He has REQUESTED to be in the public spotlight by asking people to vote him into office.

    Dave Bailey

    ReplyDelete
  5. I never heard or followed this story, save here I think, but i don't understand.
    Why would someone resign because of stating christian/creationist beliefs??
    Creationism was the dominant belief for canadians, Upper Canada, until sometime in the 1900's. its popular still in double digits despite immigration.
    who is attacking this mP for his creationist beliefs and who cares/
    The establishment in canada does not represent Canada and is boring.
    its easter. do they attack these religious beliefs?
    If the conservative party gave him a desist order then say fight it and go public.

    if a spirit of censorship is being applied then thats a great thing to publically fight in a free country.
    if these attackers REALLY MEAN to punish and silence beliefs they don't like then they break the contracts we have about different beliefs.
    its fine if this MP resents the attack but canadians need a aggrersive creationist who welcomes it.
    i'm sure the majority respect and accept biblical creationist beliefs and free speech/thought. Whatever their opinion on origin conclusions.

    I'm glad for the attention to origin stuff and free speech stuff. Perhaps the silent majority once again needs to pay attention to these small obscure people who get paid to be interested in these subjects in the press or gov.
    This wouldn't happen in America. They are not so lame and boring and ordering what the truth is from no authority.
    However it did hit a nerve with the press etc. so they must be watching america and trying to make an example of any important persons dissent.
    I say it will backfire. Canadians don't like being told our faith or our ideas or our friends/neighbours are to be disallowed .
    I'm ready to rumble and Canuck confident to win.
    something doesn't add up here.
    if the media says these are immoral and illegal beliefs then why not directly attack the public who hold them??
    why the proxy of MP's??

    This shows again a Iron blanket of thought/speech control has settled on North America. Even in full view thee is given and received a spirit or deed of thought/speech control.
    I think its unCanadian and a moment of stopping a history of free men striving for truth and justice and equity.
    Good riddence to MP's not worthy to fight for freedom's tools.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Frankly, he was probably pushed out of the party. Smart conservatives these days understand that most of their "values" and beliefs do not fair well under modern scrutiny. The goal is to implement quietly. This is why, most evident in the US, when republicans are asked about their opinions, they refer to the question as a "gotcha question" and refuse to answer. This is why, when their comments to conservative audiences are repeated verbatim in the press, they deny their own words and claim they are fabrications of the "lame stream media". This is why, in both Canada and US, conservatives do everything in their power to shut down public radio (CBC and NPR). This is why, in both countries, conservatives view universities and education in general with disdain and suspicion. This is also why the ID movement claims they are talking about science when they are really working toward their dreams of instituting theocratic rule.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I first want to say that I hope there was no real cyber-bullying. Just polite but firm Canadian ridicule. But the second thing is: Oh, Canada. This is one reason why I admire you so much. Of course down here in the States this story would be the exact opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Poor" James Lunney is not a nut bar (is.gd/G3PD76); he's a Nanaimo bar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do people outside of Canada know what Nanaimo bars are? Or is that something we're keeping to ourselves, like Tim Horton's used to be?

      Delete
    2. Do people outside of Canada know what Nanaimo bars are?

      Shhhh. Nanaimo bars don't exist. Forget we ever mentioned it.

      Delete
  9. I don't believe the issue here is religious beliefs. It has to be something more profound.

    Let's analyze this for a moment. Let's pretend Lunney had said that he can't fulfill some parliament duties because he strongly believes he has to observe the Passover. Let's pretend that Lunney had defended his colleague who also couldn't fulfill his parliament duties because he strongly believes he has to observe the Sabbath. Would Lunney have been treated the same way by the parliament?

    I don’t think so, because the members of the parliament would be accused of anti-Semitism. That wouldn’t sit well with the public and the Canadian anti-Semitism law.

    Most Medias would cover it and their take would probably be different. Last thing parliament members want is to be accused of being anti-Semites. The Medias are also very careful about this sensitive issue.

    So, I know that the issue here is not religious beliefs.

    The issue here is evolution or rather the validity of the theory of evolution as scientific.


    Due to the explosion of the communications technology but especially the internet, the majority of people have an easy access to information. The theory of evolution and its proponents had felt pretty comfortable up until the mid-80. But then everything gradually changed. Now, it takes a few clicks on Google and one can find out easily what the critics of evolution say. This causes the proponents of the theory of evolution to feel threatened. More and more people say “it is just a theory”. Then, they find out that even the proponents of evolution don’t agree on many aspects of the theory. This causes more and more people to doubt that the theory of evolution is science.

    So, what the proponents of evolution have to do to protect their cherished theory of evolution?

    They have to fight back.

    They have to fight back on many different levels; the Medias, the internet, written publication and even in parliaments. They need to be heard or more and more people will doubt evolution. This blog is a living proof of the fighting back done by the proponents of evolution. Their motto is simple: You choose to criticize evolution in public, you will have handle the consequences. Lummey is just one of the many who fell victim of the fighting back by the proponents of evolution.

    Intimidation is one of their best weapons. It not only terrorizes the ones who have the courage to criticize evolution like Lummey. It does much more. It intimidates others from criticizing evolution in the future. Who really wants to be publically bullied and shamed for speaking his mind even if he/she strongly believes in something? In cases like Lummey’s, it is a public suicide and that’s is exactly what the proponents of the theory of evolution want for everyone who criticizes their precious creed that they promote with religious conviction.

    Amen!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mockery and ridicule are our best weapons. You choose to interpret this as intimidation but that's not correct.

      When someone makes fun of your stupid statements about scientific facts there's one easy and effective response that will turn the tables. All you have to do is prove that the critics are wrong and you are right about scientific facts and concepts. You can't be intimidated by mockery if you are right.

      The IDiots have had more than two decades to make their case in Canada and other countries. They have not succeeded. That's because they don't have a scientific leg to stand on.

      Pest, creationists of all kinds are welcome to comment on Sandwalk and refute everything I say. So far, all they've done is to demonstrate that they deserve to be mocked and ridiculed.

      If you think that James Lunney deserves more respect then feel free to quote what he says and demonstrate that his view of science is correct.

      Delete
    2. I know that the issue here is not religious beliefs.

      Actually it is, but it comes from religious folks. Lunney's co-religionists feel quite free to mock his beliefs as nutty, as they get ready to celebrate a fellow rising from the dead and thereby saving us all from being in Dutch with his daddy.

      Think about how wacky you've got to be to get mocked by that bunch!

      Delete
    3. The Bible mocks and ridicules the religious beliefs of pagans in the most vicious language imaginable, and contains rules for threatening and massacring pagans en masse and raping their surviving captive daughters. That's pretty intimidating stuff. Jesus hated gentiles. The "don't cast your pearls before swine" stuff equates gentiles to swine; elsewhere he equates them to dogs. As for Jews, Jesus called them adders, brood of vipers, and sons of Satan.

      Mockery, ridicule, threats and intimidation are great when Christians dish them out.

      But when a scientist says to you, "You dishonestly quoted that source out of context to reverse its meaning," you dainties clutch your pearls and shriek "Stop, you bullies!"

      We've got your number, and you won't silence our criticisms. You whited sepulchres.

      Delete
    4. As for Jews, Jesus called them adders, brood of vipers, and sons of Satan.

      As Jesus was a believing, practicing Jew all his life (the Last Supper being the Passover seder), one should read such statements as additions by others starting with Paul, and in fact there are quite good scholarly sources for this. For a popular treatment, see Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus."

      Delete
    5. Now, it takes a few clicks on Google and one can find out easily what the critics of evolution say.

      Yes, and just a few clicks on Google can also tell us what people are saying about chemtrails and the building of concentration camps for christians.

      But as for evolution, people with religious motivations are saying the same thing they have always said. Sometimes they deny science, other times they re-interpret scientific facts in contradiction of the scientists who have actually deduced the facts. Always they exploit legitimate controversy in science, or the circumstance that at no point in time do we understand everything, to suggest that science, the only reliable path toward understanding, is unreliable compared to... something, something.

      Google isn't the revolution you imagine it to be. I believe the bible mentions something about there being nothing new under the sun.

      Delete
    6. Jesus didn't mock. He was pronouncing judgments upon the Jews who although seeing his miracles and admitting them as FACTS refused to acknowledge that he was the expected by the Jews Christ.

      Delete
    7. SRM,

      I'm afraid that your comment has nothing to do with the theme except that there is a scientific controversy, which only proves my point.

      Delete
    8. Pest: The issue here is evolution or rather the validity of the theory of evolution as scientific.

      Pest, the only people who consider this to be an "issue" are religiously motivated people, the very demographic who are least likely to know anything about evolution, let alone the debates amongst scientists regarding evolutionary mechanisms. I fail to see the point you claim to be making.

      Delete
    9. Pest says,

      I'm afraid that your comment has nothing to do with the theme except that there is a scientific controversy, which only proves my point.

      There is no scientific controversy over the existence of evolution and the fact that it accounts for the history of life. Among knowledgeable evolutionary biologists there is no controversy over the fundamentals of evolutionary theory and population genetics.

      There are some scientists who want to extend evolutionary theory to include things like plasticity, eprigenetics, evo-devo etc. but those scientists are not making much headway in convincing evolutionary biologists. They've been trying for almost two decades. It's probably time for them to find something else that will keep them busy.

      Delete
    10. Larry, it has become very obvious to me and possibly many other observers that "knowledgeable evolutionary biologists" you like to refer to are actually very few biologists, who agree with YOUR view of evolution theory. I have been observing blogs like yours and many others and I'm pretty sure that among the most respected evolutionary biologists you are not going to find many to support your views. I believe PZ M may but I'm not sure if he really gets the drift stuff.

      Delete
    11. @Pest

      Read any undergraduate textbook on evolutionary biology. I challenge you to find one that does not cover random genetic drift and Neutral Theiry.

      There are different perspectives on the relative importance of various mechanisms of evolution but not on the fundamental mechanisms. I side with scientists like Michael Lynch but there are knowledgeable evolutionary biologists don't. Some of them post comments on this blog.

      If you think there's any scientifc controversy that allows room for creationism then you are mistaken. Anyone who makes such a claim is either stupid or lying, or both.

      Delete
    12. Re Larry Moran

      Anyone who denies the Theory of Evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked (but I don't want to consider that) - Richard Dawkins.

      Delete
    13. Larry,

      “Read any undergraduate textbook on evolutionary biology. I challenge you to find one that does not cover random genetic drift and Neutral Theiry.”

      I have read more than one of the evolutionary biology textbooks. I do recall at least one of them mentioning the genetic drift and possibly the neutral theory. I’m sure about the latter. The issue is that those textbooks did not indicate the significance of drift as the main mechanism of evolution. That’s why I’ve questioned the validity of RGD in evolutionary theory and the number of the “knowledgeable biologists” who support it you have been referring to so often on this blog.

      I’m on vacation in The Bahamas now, so I have no access to the library. After my return, I will try to look up some more textbooks to see if I can respond to your challenge.

      “There are different perspectives on the relative importance of various mechanisms of evolution but not on the fundamental mechanisms.”

      I’m confused. I thought the issue was the fundamental mechanism of evolution (and what it can actually accomplish)rather than various additional or side mechanisms.

      “I side with scientists like Michael Lynch but there are knowledgeable evolutionary biologists don't. Some of them post comments on this blog.

      I don’t believe I’ve read anything by Michal Lynch. I will try when I get back

      “If you think there's any scientifc controversy that allows room for creationism then you are mistaken. Anyone who makes such a claim is either stupid or lying, or both.”

      There is no doubt in my mind that there is scientific controversy between evolutionary theory and creationism or at least ID or even both.

      Whether there is room for creationism, is not a matter of majority opinion or scientists who try to influence the majority of opinion. It is the matter of an intelligent and well-informed (educated) point of view that involves critical thinking, or criticism of both sides of the controversy.

      If I’m not mistaken, that is the way you educate your students to think, and form their educated views, don’t you?

      Delete
    14. I've just realized. Nobody commented on the Anti-Semitism issue even the "the expert" oberski. I guess it hit the nail right on the head?

      Delete
    15. No, nobody commented on the anti-Semitism issue because it was such an obviously stupid statement that nobody felt the need to take issue with it. Beating the spot on the ground where a dead horse used to be 30 years ago isn't useful behavior.

      Delete
    16. Pest, if only you could make a coherent point worthy of discussion. For example, the anti-Semitism issue you raise seems only a lead-in to your conclusion that opposition to evolution has nothing to do with religion. No one has the patience to unwind your convoluted logic for the sole purpose of commenting on the necessarily presumed elements therein. Your ultimate conclusion is enough, yet even there you do not seem to have much of a consistent grasp on the point you are trying to make. So I don't think you will ever be accused of hitting the nail on the head.

      Delete
    17. Oh Pest, you blithering idiot, if we really wanted to terrorize someone into silence we would never use intimidation.

      First we would Poke them with the soft cushions and then Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!

      Works every time.

      Delete
    18. John Harshman,

      You don't think that if the same issue touched on Anti-Semitism, the outcome would have been different? I wonder why? Are you oberski's sock puppet or something? If not, give me another logical option, because you I don't think you can be Jewish can't you?

      Delete
    19. Steve Oberski,

      Have you ever wondered why 99% of you posts have no responses?

      Delete
    20. Colnago80,

      "Anyone who denies the Theory of Evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked (but I don't want to consider that) - Richard Dawkins.

      I have to agree with Dawkins not because I like him or respect him. I agree with Dawkins because the term "evolution" can have so many different and often contradicting definitions, that even my own one fits into his.

      Delete
    21. SRM,

      After you fail to prove your own claim of how cells supposedly reassemble after their membranes have been broken and their contents leaked out, I can't read any of your stuff. I think you are a coward and oberski's sock puppet.

      Delete
    22. It's even worse than you thought Pest, everyone who posts on this site is a Larry Moran sock puppet.

      Delete
    23. Ah Pest, I told Quest, or was it Pest, that the only proof needed that I had re-assembled cells was that I had living cells on a Petri plate right now. I can't show you the mechanism of how I did it, because it involves supernatural magic. I thought as a creationist you would appreciate that line of reasoning. I'm still waiting for my money.

      Delete
    24. This is the last time I'm responding to your BS. So, use oberski sock puppet from now on. Good bye

      Delete
    25. Pest, as one of my many sock puppets, you will leave when I tell you to leave, and not a moment before.

      Delete
    26. steve oberski,

      It's even worse than you thought Pest, everyone who posts on this site is a Larry Moran sock puppet.

      Even if you meant it as a joke, I still believe your comment is very disrespectful to the host who has tolerated a lot more BS than he should have. Whether you like it or not, the host of this blog is one of the most respected professors and bio-chemists in the world by both evolutionary biologist and creationists/ID proponents.

      Your insinuation for professor Moran to use sock-puppets is so out of line that I had do raise the issue with it. The point I'm trying to make is not only that it is totally disrespectful to accuse the host of a blog to have sock-puppets, it is outrageous to accuse the host of this blog of having sock-puppets knowing very well how direct and unblemished he is about his blog. I hope you realize your big mistake and apologize about it.

      Delete
    27. Steve oberski,
      Pest, as one of my many sock puppets, you will leave when I tell you to leave, and not a moment before"

      The way I see this happen is ONLY if you were the host of this blog.

      Delete
    28. Hey Pest, I'm sorry that you think that Larry Moran uses sock puppets and I hope you have the decency to apologize for you egregious display of pearl clutching and couch fainting.

      What a freaking drama queen.

      Delete
    29. Program! Program! Can't tell the sock puppets without a program!

      Delete
    30. One thing for sure, when God created Pest, he forgot to add the sarcasm detection gene.

      Delete
    31. Now I think it was another Pest sock puppet, Peer Terborg, who claimed ...atheist ... They may have lost the god-sensing part of the genome, referring to them as indel-mutants.

      Would it be fair to say that IDiots have lost the sarcasm detection part of the genome ?

      Delete
    32. I didn't know there was a gene for sarcasm detection. It must me one of those gene that can't be sequenced yet or hasn't been found to have a "function" in the so called jDNA.

      Delete
    33. I'm kid of flattered to be accused to being Quest's Peer's and Wilton's sock-puppet. I've looked back on the blog and at least 2 of them identified themselves as scientists with real specialty in their research. Who can match that here? Oberski?

      Delete
    34. Any idiot can identify himself as a scientist. Why, I bet even you can. Try it.

      Delete
    35. John Harshman,

      I don't know who you are so I'm not even going to try to retaliate. You must be one of the regulars on this blog Larry has been talking about.

      Have you published anything interesting lately? Or within the last few years I could look at just to get an idea what kind of scientist you are?

      Delete
    36. Re Pest (and he really is one)

      You lack sufficient intelligence to carry Harshman's briefcase.

      Delete
    37. I never claimed one. I try to keep up with the leading force of the scientific world and appreciate that world's leading scientists in the field even respond to me from time to time. My whole village follows this blog as our TV has been cut off due to some dispute. Thank you!

      Delete
    38. Colnago80,

      I've repeated the first grade 7 times, so it is a miracle I can have a conversation with you. I try my best to keep up. I hope you understand?

      Delete
    39. For the record, I don't own a briefcase. But Pest could try Google. There are a few scientists named Harshman, and a couple of them are evolutionary biologists. There's even a fly geneticist (Larry Harshman). But I'm the one with a J, and I like birds.

      How did Pest pass the entrance exam for first grade?

      Delete
  10. Creationism was the dominant belief for canadians, Upper Canada, until sometime in the 1900's. its popular still in double digits despite immigration.

    ????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's referring to all those heathen Hindoos and Musselmen. (I'm using the 19th century spellings because that's about where his head is at.)

      Dave Bailey

      Delete
    2. Yes them but I mean all non evangelical protestants or conservative protestants. I see Catholics as having never been creationists like protestants from the puritan side which is the foundation of Yankee America and so Canada as we were settled by them. In fact i would include angligan Protestants as not real creationists. Not YEC.
      So creationism is about the same here as in america relative to religious identity. and then a few other factors.

      Delete
    3. Dearest Robert, you should never, ever try to clarify anything you have said in a previous post.

      Delete
  11. Shouldn't the evidence itself be enough? Nobody questions gravity. Why not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, there are those who question the theory of gravity known as General Relativity. There are those who question the theory that most diseases are caused by germs and viruses. They are just as screwy as those who question evolution.

      Delete
    2. Yeah Pest, lots of creationists question gravity, relativity theory, quantum mechanics, etc. In fact a lot of creationists are geocentrists.

      Above you stupidly referred to googling creationist critiques of evolution, but of course you didn't bother googling creationist critiques of gravity before you shot off your mouth.

      Before you try to replace science with creationism, you should first learn something about it. I'm going to leave out the many creationists who dispute relativity theory, special and/or general-- that list would include "Doctor" Harold Slusher (fake Ph.D.), "Doctor" Kent Hovind (fake Ph.D.), "Doctor" Thomas Barnes (honorary Sc.D. from Bible school, but called himself "Doctor" anyway), geocentrist Gerardus D. Bouw, geocentrist James Hanson, the founder of Flood Geology George M. Price, and Andy Schlafly, who launched Conservapedia, the rightard response to Wikipedia, with a smug, passionate rejection of special relativity that made the rounds among scientists for its comedy value.

      Leaving out the above moronic objections to relativity, here are some things creationists say about gravity.

      “Gravity: Doesn't exist. If items of mass had any impact of others, then mountains should have people orbiting them. Or the space shuttle in space should have the astronauts orbiting it. Of course, that's just the tip of the gravity myth. Think about it. Scientists want us to believe that the sun has a gravitation pull strong enough to keep a planet like neptune or pluto in orbit, but then it's not strong enough to keep the moon in orbit? Why is that? What I believe is going on here is this: These objects in space have yet to receive mans touch, and thus have no sin to weigh them down. This isn't the case for earth, where we see the impact of transfered sin to material objects. The more sin, the heavier something is.” [cited at FSTDT.com]

      Kent Hovind: “His connotation is that if it [creationism] is not observable, testable, demonstratable, scientific, it’s not provable. I would like to see somebody who has ever seen an electron or an atom or a proton or a neutron. Nobody has ever seen one. Show me some gravity, give me a jar and paint it red. You know, what is gravity, what is magnetism, what is light?” [Source: Hovind v Farell Till Debate; http://kent-hovind.com/quotes/contradictions.htm]

      One of the few creationists of the 1960's to have achieved anything in life (allegedly) was the chemical engineer John G. Grebe, who said that gravity didn't exist, it was caused by electromagnetic interactions-- a remarkably popular idea among cranks!:

      Grebe: …Even now it is possible to hypothesize that the [Planck] length is the interval between crisscrossing paths of charges in motion, at the velocity of light, within the components of the nucleus. It is these dimensions that can be used to explain gravity as the residual electrostatic attraction between spinning electrons and positrons of nuclei acting on distant masses of nuclei.-- [John Grebe, “Nuclear Knowledge Teaches Deep Humility”, in Behind the Dim Unknown, ed. John C. Monsma (1966), p. 185]

      The founder of Flood Geology, Canadian George M. Price said in How Did The World Begin? (1942) that gravity and other natural phenomena are manifestations of God's direct fiat control [McIver, Anti-Evolution: A Bibligraphy, p.220]

      Delete
    3. Then there's James Hanson (the geocentrist, not the climatologist), described by McIver as "Approves Canadian geocentrist Walter van der Kamp’s view that planets and stars are in a shell 60 light-years distant. Cites objection by C.L. Poor (Columbia Univ. astronomer) to Einstein and beinding of light. ...Advocates Lesage’s idea that gravity is a bombardment from exterior of sphere of universe as compatible with geocentricity. [McIver, p.103]

      (Note that Hanson's idea of gravity as pushing us down from above, rather than pulling us from below, also matches the concave hollow Earth model of the Koreshan Unity colony of creationist Dr. Cyrus Teed, who postulated "gravic rays" that push us down coming from the center of the hollow we're looking up at. This is similar to the belief of Phoebe from "Friends", who also rejected evolution: "It's not so much that I don't believe in [gravity], ...lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down as I am being pushed.")

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXr2kF0zEgI

      Delete
    4. Here's Wilbur Glenn Voliva (1870–1942), creationist, Flat Earther, and Anti-Gravity: “I believe the earth is a stationary plane; that it rests upon water; and that there is no such thing as the Earth moving, no such thing as the Earth’s axis or the Earth’s orbit. It is a lot of silly rot, born in the egotistical brains of infidels. Neither do I believe there is any such thing as the law of gravitation. I believe that is a lot of rot, too. There is no such thing! I get my astronomy from the Bible.”

      Ray Comfort, in the Evolution of Stupidity, said that scientists believe gravity was caused by evolution, and since that's ridiculous, that shows evolution is ridiculous: "Okay, here's then what evolution folks think. They think that evolution has no intelligence. It is responsible for the making (oops! I blew it again, by using the word "making," when evolution doesn’t make anything)... it is responsible for the ever so slow development of the human eye, the brain, the blood, the heart, kidneys, liver, the perfect mix of oxygen in the air, the positioning of the sun and the planets, the seasons, male and female of all animals, birds, fish and insects, gravity, the amazing seas, the succulent fruits, beautiful flowers and massive trees.” [http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=9044]

      And I leave with you one final thought, a tweet in which Ray Comfort claims that there's no gravity in space:

      "It wasn't until thousands of years later [after the Bible was written] that science discovered that gravity doesn't exist in space"

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. Re Diogenes

      Not to forget Tom Bethell, a world class denier who denies relativity, HIV/AIDS, and climate change among others. Here's his entry on the Encyclopedia of American Loons.

      http://goo.gl/7mbZyc

      Delete
  12. It's nice to know that the nutcases in legislatures are not confined to the United States Congress and the noodle brains like James Inhofe have their counterparts in the Canadian Parliament.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The main difference is that Canadians are learning how to get rid of religious nutcases. I'm optimistic that we'll also learn how to get rid of all the other nutcases.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Regarding gravity I meant the fundamental concept of it that lead Isaac Newton to his discovery --the apple falling down from the tree. Everyone knows what would happen to the apple without gravity or whatever anyone wants to call it. It is a fact because everyone knows what happens to apples in space.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe you could explain because I don't know what would happen to apples without gravity or in space.

      Delete
    2. It is a fact because everyone knows what happens to apples in space.

      They get eaten by astronauts?

      Delete
  15. The main difference is that Canadians are learning how to get rid of religious nutcases.

    Sigh. Here in the States it is unfortunately a surefire way to become more popular.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To give you an idea of how much the moral zeitgeist has changed (for the better IMHO), here in Ontario those opposed to Ontario’s new sex ed curriculum are portrayed as fringe religious zealots by mainstream media.

      Our taxpayer funded Catholic school system is going absolutely bonkers. Not only can they no longer discriminate against homosexuals, now they are going to have to teach their children that they are not born deformed and depraved and that sex is actually a perfectly natural human attribute that can no longer be used a conditioning tool by a child abusing religious education system.

      Delete
    2. Our taxpayer funded Catholic school system is going absolutely bonkers.


      Even more revealing: That Catholic system actually isn't going bonkers over this. The Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario has actually endorsed the sex ed program:

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ontario-s-new-sex-ed-curriculum-the-most-up-to-date-in-the-country-1.2969654

      I guess they learned their lesson from when they tried to oppose Gay Straight Alliances, and ended up facing strong disapproval from their parishioners, teachers, students and school trustees.

      Anyway, the Catholic School Board (in Toronto, at least) has bigger problems on its plate:

      http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/catholic-school-board-cuts-principals-educational-assistants-guidance-teachers-1.2310021

      Delete

    3. Questions and Answers Regarding TCDSB’s Catholic Equity and Inclusive Education Policy

      1. Has the curriculum in Catholic schools changed with the approval of the Catholic Equity and Inclusive Education Policy?
      ...
      The curriculum in TCDSB Catholic schools remains unchanged, and is faithful to Church teachings.

      3. Does the Toronto Catholic District School Board discriminate against students with same sex orientation?
      ... 
      In Catholic schools, we promote the virtue of chastity, and we teach ALL students about the sanctity of the human body and the sacrament of marriage.


      From https://www.tcdsb.org/Board/EIE/Documents/EIE_QandAs.pdf

      Let's face it, they are a bunch of lying fucks from the get go.

      And I suspect this is exactly how they will "implement" the new sex-ed curriculum.

      Delete
  16. Off topic and a little belated, but I still want to share David Cameron's Easter message here on Sandwalk: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/news-video/video-david-camerons-easter-message-were-a-christian-country/article23799519/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretending to be religious in order to remain Prime Minister.

      Any one silly enough to believe that the easter bunny died and bounced back to life on the first Sunday after the first full moon occurring on or after the vernal equinox in order to bring chocolate eggs to the world is silly enough to vote for this man.

      Delete