Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Notre Dame priest: Creationism debate unique to U.S.
The Bozeman Daily Chronicle ^ | 2003-05-11 | Walt Williams

Posted on 05/11/2003 4:38:14 PM PDT by Junior

Despite movements across the nation to teach creationism in public schools, a science historian said Monday that Christians haven't always used a literal interpretation of the Bible to explain the world's origins.

"For them, the Bible is mostly to teach a religious lesson," said Ernan McMullin of the earliest Christian scholars.

McMullin spoke to a crowd of about 60 people at Montana State University on "Evolution as a Christian theme."

McMullin, a professor at the University of Notre Dame and a Catholic priest, is recognized one of the world's leading science historians and philosophers, according to MSU.

He has written about Galileo, Issac Newton, the concept of matter and, of course, evolution.

It's a subject has been hotly debated ever since Charles Darwin first published "On the Origins of Species" in 1859.

Christian fundamentalists have long pushed the nation's public schools to teach creationism as an alternative, which in its strictest form claims that the world was created in six days, as stated in the Bible's Old Testament Book of Genesis.

But McMullin said creationism largely is an American phenomenon. Other countries simply don't have major creationist movements, leading him to ask: "What makes it in the U.S. ... such an issue (over) evolution and Christian belief?"

The answer probably lies in the nation's history, with the settlement by religious groups, he said. Also, public education and religion are more intertwined here than other countries.

McMullin discussed how Christians have tried to explain their origins over the past 2,000 years, using several examples to show that many viewed Genesis as more of a religious lesson than an exact record of what happened.

It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century that Genesis started to be taken literally. Then theologians started using nature - and its many complexities - as proof of creation.

Charles Darwin spoiled that through his theory of natural selection, and the battle lines have been drawn ever since.

"It replaced an older view that had sounded like a strong argument for the existence of God," McMullin said.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 981-1,0001,001-1,0201,021-1,0401,041-1,055 next last
To: balrog666
Hey, has the sh!t-for-brains jerk actually left? Let's see if he answers to the call...

This was addressed to me. I haven't left. I answer the call.

1,001 posted on 05/15/2003 6:16:30 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 997 | View Replies]

To: Junior
An "I guess I'm just an idiot" placemarker (why, oh why cannot I not just ignore the apparent contradictions and believe there are none despite the evidence?).

Because you are mistakenly confusing what is merely the bias inherent with your premise with what is evidence.

Call yourself an "idiot" as you will. That is your choice. I think of you more as willfully intellectually lazy, not an "idiot" per se. That said self-delusion is an idiotic basis for a position.

You continue to entertain what you term "Apparent contradictions," because for you they are self-affirming -- they don't have to be correct as observations go, but they are convenient if not essential in your mind to support your unsupportable premise.

The evidence stands: there is no contradiction. Your mistaken premise is -- and for the sake of your personal definintion must be: contradiction, at all costs and against all logic and accomplished study.

Your problem is that you have failed to prove it here, and no one with any scholarly acheivement has either -- the most anti-biblical scholars gave up such vain attempts long ago. You are the hold out not because you have seen something that has eluded even the most learned albeit skeptical critic. No, you merely insist that it be so because your ego insists it must be so and needs it to be so.

You are enamoured of your premise inspite of the evidence. Because you are so wedded to the notion, you'll do everything in your mind to dismiss evidence, because it doesn't doesn't fit your premise. This is the major failing of the evolutionist. Empirically speaking: incorrect premise - non-supportive evidence = bad "science."

You want "apparent contradictions" to be true so badly, you will ignore and must ignore all evidence to the contrary in order to salvage your precious, self-defining premise.

That, however is not science.

Good science concerns itself with evidence and adjusts it's premises accordingly.

As you insist on remaining willfully ignorant of the evidence, sadly you also continue to remain what is commonly known as "wise" in your own conceit.

1,002 posted on 05/15/2003 6:19:26 PM PDT by Agamemnon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 915 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
This was addressed to me. I haven't left. I answer the call.

Oops, I refuse to address a post the actual jerk under any circumstances and I didn't think that would be a problem. I should have added a "placemarker" or "/rhetorical" to the post. Sorry!

1,003 posted on 05/15/2003 6:27:50 PM PDT by balrog666 (When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1001 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Quite all right. I get called worse every day.
1,004 posted on 05/15/2003 6:31:54 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1003 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
And if the Gospel of Christ proves to be true, it will at that time be too late for those who have disregarded it to change their minds, or their destiny

How does this threat differ from that of other religions? How does one choose between Transgressive Sacrality and your threats?

1,005 posted on 05/15/2003 8:05:07 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 993 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
"And if the Gospel of Christ proves to be true, it will at that time be too late for those who have disregarded it to change their minds, or their destiny"

How does this threat differ from that of other religions? How does one choose between Transgressive Sacrality and your threats?

Would you consider those who direct you toward the ONLY life boats available to escape a sinking ship to be "threatening" you?

Once again. The Gospel message in the Bible is either the truth or it is a lie.

If it is truth, then the words are merciful....far from being "threats".

And of course anything less than warning people of the dire consequences of unbelief would be unconscionable for a God of mercy.

1,006 posted on 05/15/2003 8:20:19 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1005 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
All of you are claiming that you have the only lifeboats.
1,007 posted on 05/15/2003 8:22:38 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1006 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
All of you are claiming that you have the only lifeboats.

Right. And your challenge is to figure out who is telling the truth.

1,008 posted on 05/15/2003 8:37:29 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1007 | View Replies]

To: Jorge; Doctor Stochastic
Right. And your challenge is to figure out who is telling the truth.

Prove to me that you "life boat" has any more validity than Norse Mythology, Mithraism, etc.

1,009 posted on 05/15/2003 8:57:45 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1008 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Prove to me that you "life boat" has any more validity than Norse Mythology, Mithraism, etc.

Proof begins with whether or not you believe Jesus Christ Who claimed to be the ONLY WAY to God and salvation...was a liar and a maniac...or if He was telling the truth.

I was an atheist for many years..until once day I looked at the words of Jesus and recognized what He said was from God....that He was not deceitful madman.

It's a simple question of one or the other...and making a simple decision.

To those who accept and recognize Who Jesus is...no proof is needed. To those who reject Him, no proof will ever be enough.

1,010 posted on 05/15/2003 9:07:50 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1009 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Proof begins with whether or not you believe Jesus Christ Who claimed to be the ONLY WAY to God and salvation...was a liar and a maniac...or if He was telling the truth.

Ooh, the tired old false trichotomy of "liar, lord or lunatic". It's really fun when you deal with someone who just cannot get it through their head that there aren't just three choices. It leaves out "misquoted" and "mistaken".
1,011 posted on 05/15/2003 9:40:00 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1010 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
I was an atheist for many years..until once day I looked at the words of Jesus and recognized what He said was from God....that He was not deceitful madman.

Did you look at the words of other religious leaders and conclude that they were either liars or lunatics, or did you only seek an answer from one source. Also, if you were an atheist, how did you readily recognize Christ's words as those of a specific God?

Remember, atheists lack belief in all gods, not just the one that you claim to worship. How did you, an atheist, manage to rule out all god possibilities other than the Christian one?
1,012 posted on 05/15/2003 9:42:55 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1010 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Liar lord or lunatic placemarker
1,013 posted on 05/15/2003 10:29:37 PM PDT by Aric2000 (Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1011 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
Call Keating a heretic making an excuse, but the same could be said of your interpretation.
I'm glad Christ came to establish His Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will put my faith in the translations derived at by His Church, since you and I could debate this all day, and then go debate with someone else with their own individual interpretation. Perhaps this is why there are over 30,000 denominations today??? :(
1,014 posted on 05/16/2003 4:43:06 AM PDT by GOP_Thug_Mom (ad majorem dei gloriam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 863 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Thug_Mom
no, there are so many denominations because people wont believe what it clearly says. It says 6 literal days. That is repeated several times in other books like Exodus.

We do not have different denominations over whether David captured 20,000 horsemen or 2000.

We have different denominations because the Bible says we are saved by grace, through faith, and that the local church is the head of authority over the local assembly of believers, and some choose to say a certain city is head and that works are necessary along with Grace.

Different denominations exist over error, not interpretations of difficult passages, but over the plain, clear passages. Those that are obviously not believing what it clearly plainly says are in error.
1,015 posted on 05/16/2003 5:07:12 AM PDT by RaceBannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1014 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
It seems, by what you said, that until that proof is available to all, it should be taken as a belief vice the truth or a lie, therefore. It seems that this would make all beliefs equally valid/invalid.....or just that, individual beliefs.
1,016 posted on 05/16/2003 5:52:38 AM PDT by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 993 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
I don't believe there is a need for lifeboats.
1,017 posted on 05/16/2003 7:16:39 AM PDT by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1008 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Hi, RA. PLACEMARKER
1,018 posted on 05/16/2003 8:31:53 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1009 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Plain old placemarker for me.

You are getting fancy, that's very artistic, I'll have to see about doing some of that HTML stuff too.

Looks like fun, and adds some nice details to the thread.
1,019 posted on 05/16/2003 8:49:50 AM PDT by Aric2000 (Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1018 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
You are getting fancy ...

Just trying to keep up with LBB, who is now going multi-colored on us. As is his sidekick.

You will note that the sequence of colors in my placemarker matches the rainbow spectrum, more or less, from violet to red. Hey, I needed *some* kind of guide to follow.

1,020 posted on 05/16/2003 10:22:01 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1019 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 981-1,0001,001-1,0201,021-1,0401,041-1,055 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson