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.

[Last Visible Dog]

Which Creationism Legend? The Hebrew-Christian-Moslem version? The Hopi version? The Navajo version? The Chukchi version? The Yoruba version? The Scientologist version? Do all these get equal time? Are these to be taught as part of a science class or a history class?

When teaching cosmology, one most deal in the realities of the situation. It is not really science although science is part of it – it is history but the record is sketchy. The fact is we do not really know – all ideas must be presented (the creations myths, the Darwin myths) along with any and all supporting scientific and historic data – then let the students make up their own mind. The flaws in the theories must also be exposed. No scientific fact conclusion can be made therefore it should not be made.

[george wythe]

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.

When in college, I had the opportunity to attend a creation-evolution debate. There were three Christian creationists and one biology-teaching evolutionist.

I first I thought that the panel was stacked with one point of view, but soon realized that the imbalance was going to work to the biology professor’s advantage.

The first creationist was a Seventh-Day Adventist who believed that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. The second creationist was a Baptist who believed that the “days” of Genesis were just periods of time, thousands or millions of years each, therefore not taking issue with any specific dates. The last creationist was a Pentecostal who believed that God created everything eons of years ago, then destroyed it and created everything again about 10,000 years ago.

Needless to say, on top of their differences about chronology, they also had different interpretations of most of the details provided in the Bible.

At the end of the debate, the creationists were at each others’ throat, while the evolutionist just allowed the food fight to continue long enough to show the foolishness of teaching any sectarian creation myth as Christian or biblical.

The fact is that Christians and Bible-believers do not agree at all on their interpretation of the Creation account.

Now you add to this, the other creation myths believed by the many other religions of the world, and the biggest food fight will ensue after school boards try to determine which sectarian creation myth should be taught as creationism.

[f.Christian]

The deadliest battle yet for Conservatism: The Evolution // atheist Juggernaut versus the Culture of Life.

[Last Visible Dog]

Your typical creationist lives in a very fragile world; if any part of his carefully-constructed world view is questioned, it threatens to bring the rest of his psyche crashing down around his shoulders.

Men of “science” rarely resort to mind-reading. Give it a rest Junior.

You don’t know what creationist think, so stop pretending you do.

[Aric2000]

You made the comment, and of course provided that link.

I wished to explain that what you stated and what you linked to, has been debunked, so that perhaps, instead of making a fool of yourself twice, you would know why, and not do it again.

I guess that that really doesn't matter to you and you want to look foolish again.

Oh well, see if I do any more favors for IDr's.

Boy, try to be helpful........

[Last Visible Dog]

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.

....therefore let’s pretend one of the theories is fact and be done with it.

The closed minds of the Orthodox Darwinists are amazing is light of the fact they call themselves “people of science”

[f.Christian]

To: DWPittelli

You're missing the point. The whole idea of individual liberty is rooted in rebellion, in the idea that "No one has the right to tell me what to do!". Evil began when Lucifer cried out his eternal non serviam to God in Heaven, and to this day human beings follow in his footsteps, refusing to submit their own wills to any authority.

Rebellion is pandemic in our society; everywhere, people cry out for freedom from Church, State, parents, teachers, or anything else that denies them the satiation of the senses or the deification of the Self. The worship of the goddess Liberty has become our national cult; piety towards our Creator and loyalty towards our ancestors (i.e. traditionalism) have been cast aside by our culture. Confronted with the majesty of God and His Law, we turn instead to the worship of the golden calf of that makes us happy -- our own selves. But there is no happiness there. There is no freedom there. There is only us, enslaved to our nerve endings for all eternity.

The freedom promised by this world is an illusion. Every man who "liberates" himselves from the Yoke of God only chains himself to the millstone of his own desires. The way of Self, as both Our Lord and the Buddha pointed out, is the most abject slavery of all. Only by dying to Self -- by renouncing the illusion of individual liberty and submitting our wills to God -- can we hope to live. In a very real sense, the only way to be free is to become a slave of Christ. "He that loses his life for My sake shall find it."

Only by acknowledging Jesus Christ as our LORD -- not our buddy or our peer but as our absolute Master -- can we ever be free. Christianity is a religion of humilty, not pride; of submission, not of independence. Only by throwing away our pride, by humbling ourselves before God and the authorities he institutes here on Earth (even when it hurts!), and by dedicating ourselves to obedience, order, and our duty can we ever cast of the shackles of unquenchable desire and truly be free.

"Where the Spirit of the LORD is, there is liberty."

23 posted on 05/01/2003 1:40 PM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)

[george wythe]

Christians who question the assumption that the creation days were 24-hour periods point to the inconsistency of having evenings before mornings in those days.

Such Christians will argue the having the evening first, then the morning shows that the creation days are allegories referring to periods of time when God started creation certain category.

At the beginning of the day, the evening, everything was murky and unclear. At the end of the day, the morning, everything God created was complete and clear.

Genesis chapter 1:

^{5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.
13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.}

[Aric2000]

Creationists tell us what they think ALL the time, we do not need to be mindreaders.

Many say that if Creationism is NOT TRUE, then you might as well throw the rest of the bible away as well, and other silly and inane comments.

If Creationism is debunked in a creationists eyes, their entire worldview will come into question, and that is one thing that will not stand with a creationist.

That is why they try and debunk evolution, come up with silly theories, such as ID and try to claim that it is science, and other questionable acts.

The creationist worldview is based on a very fragile foundation, and if it is cracked, it will all come tumbling down.

No need for mind reading. Creationists have told us this themselves.

[Aric2000]

No. it's this theory is science (evolution), the others are religion(creationism/ID).

We teach the one that science holds to in the public school and let the religious doctrine be taught at home by the parents, who should be the ones teaching it anyway.

Oh, yes, I know what you are going to say, but, but, but, evolution is not science, sorry, wrong answer, nice try though.

Don't need to be a mind reader, to know what a creationist thinks.

[f.Christian]

g3 ...

evolution, as I have said many times is ANTI-SCIENCE.

The central point of science is the discovery of causes and effects and materialist evolution denies it. It proposes random events as the engine of the transformation of species.

This is totally unscientific, it is an attack on science which in order to expand human knowledge and human health and living standards needs to find the causes and effects of how our Universe functions.

Randomness answers nothing and leads to no discoveries.

In fact it opposes scientific inquiry and is a philosophical know-nothingism.

That is why evolution has been popular with the masses and virtually ignored by scientists.

It is ... pseudo-science (( link // source )) --- for morons.

With a few words such as 'survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection' it seeks to make idiots think they are knowledgeable.

We see the idiocy of evolution and evolutionists daily on these threads. That is why they all repeat the same stock phrases, throw a few links (because they cannot even understand the concepts being discussed), but never give any facts showing their theory to be what they claim it is - the center of science. If it was, they should have no problem doing so. It is not, that's why they cannot.

sop ...

The theory of evolution is just that - a theory.

g3 ...

It may be a theory, but it is not a scientifically supported theory which is what evolutionists claim it to be. Anybody can have a theory about anything. It is whether a theory is valid that is the point. So you have not given any evidence for your side. All you have done is indulge in rhetoric, but you have not shown that evolution is science or have in any way refuted my statement that evolution cannot in fact be science because of its central proposition that 'evolution just happens'. Such is not science.

539 posted on 03/13/2003 8:59 PM PST by gore3000

[Z.Hobbs]

Following this logic, If you are a Republican your beliefs originated in Wisconsin and Michigan in the 1850's. I hope the concepts of limited government, representative democracy, rule of law and equality before the law were believed in before the 1850's.

Islam can be said to have originated in the 600's because it materially rejects the Old and New Testament.

Evangelical Protestantism embraces the Old and New Testament. Some denominations may follow their founder more than the Scriptures but to say that Evangelical Protestantism religion (beliefs) in general began with Martin Luther is a gross distortion.

[Last Visible Dog]

Now you add to this, the other creation myths believed by the many other religions of the world, and the biggest food fight will ensue after school boards try to determine which sectarian creation myth should be taught as creationism.

Just remember, in this context Darwinism is just as much a myth. None of this can be taught as fact therefore eliminating all theories except one is anti-intellectual dogma.

When it comes to cosmology all that can be argued in possibilities - not which one is "correct" (unless you mean politically correct and in that case is it politically correct to pretend Darwinism is the only possible theory)

[plusone]

So it is not meant as a literal interpretation?

[Aric2000]

Poor FC, you actually believe the garbage that G3K spouts?

That whole hyperbole that he spouted there is a crock, and a lie. But it sounds so good to your worldview and creationist mind that you don't bother to check the REAL truth, you just take G3K at his word because for goodness sake, it makes sense and gives you something to fall back on.

Sorry FC, but G3K is full of something, and it ain't facts.

Ask ANY scientist, astronomer, geneticist, physicist, and any other ist's or er'r you can come up with. 99% of SCIENTISTS believe that evolution indeed is the best theory about the evolution of life there is, and that it is INDEED scientific.

But, if they say that to you, you will still believe G3K, because you HAVE to, in order for you little worldview to stay in one piece, and not come tumbling down.

[Aquinasfan]

The Intelligent Design movement is the wave of the future. The US is ahead of the rest of the world in this scientific endeavor as well. The movement will greatly benefit science generally and medicine in particular, in the not-too-distant future.

[george wythe]

The theory of evolution is a scientific hypothesis subject to constant revision and improvement.

Creation myths are theological dogmas not subject to revision and improvement. As a matter of fact, questioning such dogmas can lead to being considered spiritually a weak or a backsliding Christian.

Comparing the dynamism and change of evolution to the static stay and durability of creation myths is not an adequate analogy.

IMHO, if my church changed its creation myth as often as the evolution theory is changed, I’ll stop believing in any Spirit direction for my church leaders.

[f.Christian]

Truth and science never changes and evolutions morphs and spins !

[stuartcr]

Why not just accept that they are both...theories, and not proven fact?

[Aric2000]

Intelligent design in NOT science.

The basic tenet of a theory must be provable or falsifiable in order to be scientific.

So, in order for ID to be scientific, you must be able to prove or disprove the existence of an intelligent designer.

Since you CANNOT prove or disprove the existence of an intelligent designer, the entire theory falls apart at the get go. Therefore it CANNOT be science, it is religion.

When you can prove, or DISPROVE the existence of God AKA the Intelligent Designer, that is when ID will become scientific, until then, it is wishful thinking on your part to think it is scientific in any way shape or form.

At this juncture in time, you have FAITH that an Intelligent Designer exists, and that ID is true, but you have NOTHING scientific to back it up, NOTHING.

The ID movement is a wave that is waning, and will slowly die, as the scientific community continues to ignore it, and for good reason, it is NOT scientific.

And it will not enhance science at all, when you allow a relgious doctrine into science for political correctness, then science will not benefit, it will be destroyed.