Notre Dame priest: Creationism debate unique to U.S.

The Bozeman Daily Chronicle ^ | 2003-05-11 | Walt Williams

[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.

[RaceBannon]

First, show me the different timeline in Genesis 1 and 2, then we'll talk

[RaceBannon]

Woman, you do not understand why Salvation was necessary then.

[whattajoke]

Gen.1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Gen.1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen.2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Gen.2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the

[PatrickHenry]

Blasphemy! Placemarker.

[Stultis]

You seriously need to re-think that position, for Creation is the most vital doctrine we have.

I don't happen to be a Christian (I'm a non-religious theist) but I agree with you fully. The doctrine of creation is the most important and fundamental, second only to (but inseperable from) the doctrine of theism itself.

So why are you so eager to attach it to a clumsy and laughable pottage of pseudoscience? Can't you see that you are making the doctrine of creation subservient to matters of mundane fact? This is exactly what the "scientific atheist" types want you to do. You are also making it subservient to the doctrine of biblical innerancy, thus belieing you own claim that "Creation is the most vital doctrine."

[balrog666]

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA! Placemarker.

[Stultis]

Um, no, there is zero evidence that crocodiles are decendants. Thereis only a false theory, evolution, that makes that claim.

No, it doesn't. (If you mean, best as I can make out, that crocs are supposed to be descendents of dinosaurs.)

Crocs have long been understood to have arisen within the "thecodonts," a group that also, but only later and separately, gave rise to the dinosaurs, and possibly to birds as well. There remains controversy in the case of birds as to whether they evolved from dinosaurs, or from the ancestors of dinosaurs, but there is no such controversy as regards crocs, which have a pretty good fossil record. They originated before dinosaurs split off, and are not, therefore, descended from them.

But crocs do (as I mentioned in another message) share a more recent common ancestor with dinosaurs (and with birds) than they do with other living reptiles. In fact the ancestors of snakes and lizards, and nearly all modern reptiles save the crocs, seem to have split off very early from the lineages leading to thecodonts (and thus crocs and dinosaurs) and to the reptilian line that evolved into mammals. IOW the last common ancestors of crocociles and lizards is probably found among the earliest or "stem" reptiles, whereas the last common ancestor of birds and crocodiles lived well over a hundred million years later (IIRC).

[Stultis]

You have got to be kidding me! All the term dinosaur means is terrible lizard, it is not a genus, it is not a phylum, it is not a class, it is a latin term used to describe large reptiles that were dug up in sedimentary rock

Nope, you are wrong (again) Race. Dinosaur has always been a taxonomic term, from the time it was first devised. Dinosauria was originally a Class within the Order Reptilia, but has more recently been elevated to a Class in it's own right. Therefore, not only are Dinosaurs not just big, ancient reptiles, as you suggest, they are not even "reptiles" at all according to most taxonomic schemes.

[Stultis]

CORRECTION!!!

Dinosauria was originally a Class within the Order Reptilia, but has more recently been elevated to a Order in it's own right.

[Aracelis]

I suggest extreme caution in pursuing your current line of reasoning. Creationism is NOT on an equal footing with the sacrifice Jesus made. It is NOT a point of salvation...and yet your posts make it very clear that you have decided that a belief in Creationism as essential for receiving the gift Christ freely offers to anyone who will ask.

This is very dangerous territory, but I will give you credit for honesty. Far too many "Christians" on these threads dance about the subject. You at least have openly declared that Christ's death was insufficient.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast.

(Ephesians 2:8, 9)

[Stultis]

ACK! Brain ain't working right. Ignore the "correction" as I had it right the first time. IOW, here are the main taxanomic schemes regarding dinosaurs:

CLASS Reptilia
ORDER Dinosauria

-or-

CLASS Reptilia
SUPERORDER Dinosauria

-or-

CLASS Reptilia (coequal with) CLASS Dinosauria

There are also schemes, I believe, which do not recognize reptiles as a separate and coherent taxon.

[js1138]

Why can't schools just explain what creationism is, and it's history. Then explain evolution to the children and it's history. Then explain the newer biochemical theories to the students. That way the kids know itn all, and undrestand the history of ideas.

If you teach one creation myth you'll have to give them all equal time, then explain that science disagrees with them. Is that what creationists really want. Better to use vouchers so parents can choose their kids schools.

[f.Christian]

(( separation of state and ... freaks (( evolution )) --- not God ! ))

[js1138]

Likewise, there is more diversity in the male human genome than could come from one male ancestor unless...

• There has been variation and mutation since the time of Noah.
• The Great Flood, which was supposed to kill everyone except Noah and his tribe, didn't.
• There were other people created after the Great Flood.

Interesting that creationists deny the existence of any sort of evolutionary process when such a process is the only way to explain the diversity of man without contradicting the Bible or, at minimum, accusing it of major omissions.

Worth repeating

[f.Christian]

How many times can a heterosexual have samesex and remain a heterosexual ...

do you believe an individual can be both at the same time ?

[slimer]

You will notice that no one has responded to your post.

You did. I guess you are nobody.

Why? you ask....

No. you asked why?

Who asked you?

[stuartcr]

Maybe the rest of the world has better things to do than to argue something that will never be resolved, or to be so vain as to be obsessed with being right.

[f.Christian]

Science has't changed since it existed -- was created ...

people thanks to evolution // drugs ---

are getting dumber !

[whattajoke]

If you teach one creation myth you'll have to give them all equal time, then explain that science disagrees with them. Is that what creationists really want. Better to use vouchers so parents can choose their kids schools.

Also worth repeating. It boggles the mind that the creationists fail to see this obvious point. Most classes will have at least one hindu kid, one buddhist kid, one little atheist ballbuster, and perhaps an Incan for good measure. This "debate" will quickly become even more absurd, if that's possible.

[RightWingNilla]

Would you like me to dig up the info for you?

Sure. You have to admit though it does sound like a B movie plot.