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.
You tried to tell us what Creationists think. Fact is you just don’t know – you are making it up. You are pretending you can read their minds (know what their thought process is). The fact is you DON”T KNOW. Your position in this debate must be really weak if you have to resort to mind-reading and telling other people what they really think.
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.
Address this to a Creationists – I am not one. I take positions against the arrogance of orthodox Darwinists. My position is: we don’t know it all and evolution appears to be a piece of the puzzle but it clearly is not the entire puzzle. Until you can present real scientific evidence that God did not create the universe, please stop pretending like its true.
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.
Only in your personal mind. (again, you are trying to force your way of thinking on everybody – it does not work that way). Please explain HOW Creationism could EVER be “debunked” – if you can’t explain that one, now maybe you are starting to see the flaws in your thinking.
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.
Science has “debunked” a lot of “evolution fact” – there is nothing silly about debunking a scientific theory unless this theory has become dogma in your mind.
The creationist worldview is based on a very fragile foundation, and if it is cracked, it will all come tumbling down.
Will you stop with the mind reading. You have not been elected official Spokesmodel of Worldwide Creationism so stop pretending like you have. You know you have a weak position when you have to retort to telling us what other people “really” think.
I see Orthodox Darwinists clinging to their dogma with just about the same amount of zeal as the Creationists.
No need for mind reading. Creationists have told us this themselves.
So every Creationist has talked to you therefore you are in a position to tell us how all of them think. Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t that textbook bigotry?
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)
So where would you teach this course? Science class? Sociology? Comparative religion? Why not teach it in Sunday School?
I certainly have no complaints about such a class, as long as no one is trying to deem it a science class...see, most everything except for evolution is non-scientific, and therefore doesn't belong in the science classroom. Therefore, another forum is required. As near as I can tell, to date each Creationist foray into getting Creation into the classrooms has been to place it in a science classroom, which is not the place for it. Do you agree or disagree?
Maybe they do, but I didn't say whatever it is that you attribute to me.
Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.In Galileo's time, those passages were taken very literally. The Joshua episode and the passage from Ecclesiastes were used at his trial. He was found guilty of heresy for teaching that the earth orbited the sun. The Crime of Galileo: Indictment and Abjuration of 1633.1st Chronicles 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
[I'll skip Job, because it's too long to quote here, but it has more of the same.]
Psalms 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
Psalms 96:10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.
Psalms 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be re-moved for ever.
Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. [This is a lovely and very clear description of the sun orbiting the Earth.]
Here's two flat-earth passages from the New Testament, written centuries after the Greeks had accurately computed the circumfrence of the earth:
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; [Clearly, this high mountain is looking over a flat Earth.]
Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
Galileo's book on the solar system was banned, and Galileo was put under house arrest for the remainder of his life (around 6 or 7 years, as he was then in his 70s).
Today, no one reads scripture that literally -- at least not regarding the motion of the earth. There are some very clever reasons now given for this, but the churchmen who prosecuted Galileo were clever too, and the bible hasn't changed. Yet somehow, our understanding of those passages has changed, and we now regard them as metaphorical. Why? Because science has taught us that they can't be literally true. And no one runs around (like they used to do) saying that you can't be a Christian and also believe in the solar system. Nor does anyone run around demanding equal time in classrooms for the geocentric model of the universe. The Church officially pardoned Galileo in the 1960s (about 330 years after his conviction). These things take time.
In my ever-so-humble opinion, it is the same with Genesis and evolution. But it takes time for folks to adjust to the fact that they have been reading some passages too literally. The Pope (for those who care) has recently addressed this issue: Message from the Pope, 1996 (re evolution).
After Galileo, it took generations for our understanding of the bible to be reconciled to the solar system. Today, not only Catholics but also many Protestants have no problem with evolution. I suppose the same reconciliation with evolution will come to all denominations. But not right away. Anyway, we've had this problem before (with Galileo) and we got through the crisis. We'll get through the problem of evolution too.
That's not what I said. I quoted *you* and said that *you* were hopelessly wrong. For example, you said some of Darwin's evidence was faked. I think that's serious enough that it should be well-documented, and you should have no trouble backing it up. Can you?
Wrong. intelligent design is a scientific theory/concept (actually many theories/concepts). Intelligent design has no direct connection to creationism. Also recognize that scientific theory can turn to dogma not unlike that of religion. Blind faith in current scientific theories has no stronger an intellectual foundation than religion.
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.
Nonsense. Schools teach ONE scientific theory as though it was fact (without explaining the flaws) because it seems (I am not pretending I can read minds) many Orthodox Darwinists fear that accepting the flaws in evolution somehow forces them to believe is a god.
Oh, yes, I know what you are going to say, but, but, but, evolution is not science, sorry, wrong answer, nice try though.
Will you stop pretending you can read minds? That was not what I was going to say – so you are wrong on that point (what other points are you wrong on?)
Don't need to be a mind reader, to know what a creationist thinks.
Spoken like a true bigot.
I hope you don’t consider yourself a “person of science” (at least not when it come to cosmology).
The tactic of the bigot or those with weak arguments is first be to become the definer of the opposition – you tell us what the opposition really thinks and then you build arguments based on your unsubstantiated assumptions – this way all you have to focus on is attacking the straw man you created and you don’t have to actually present any positive support for your position. This is not scientific thinking – this is zealous support of dogma.
But we know what they write. Perhaps when they write they lie about what they think.
That is my position.
Dakmar...
I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.
fC...
These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!
Dakmar...
Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.
God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.
452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar
Gross distortion of what? The historical record? I don't think so...
Ok. THE basic tenet on which all of evolution (as a cosmological theory) is based is the tenet: “something came from nothing”. Can you prove or disprove something came from nothing? NO – Absolutely not. So I guess your position is Evolution (as a cosmological theory) is not science. (don’t you hate being nailed by you own rhetoric?)
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.