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.

[f.Christian]

... mngmt out to lunch -- permanently !

Evolution reminds me of a napolean boneapart with a plastic army --- CHARGE !

[whattajoke]

Before stating erroneous things like your ideas about what is theory and what is fact, and how science works as a whole, please learn to spell the man's name correctly:

D-A-R-W-I-N.

I don't usually call attention to spelling errors, for I have many myself, but your repeated misspelling of Darwin's name, despite the fact it's on this board a hundred times, does not bode well for your empty rhetoric supposedly calling evolution into question.

[js1138]

I don't think Darwain was utterly hopelessly wrong, just not right on everything. Its not his fault, he made mistakes.

You will, of course, enlighten us as to the details of Darwin's mistakes, or failing that, give us a ration reason for believing that he made mistakes. (I do accept that anyone who spends a lifetime recording observations will make errors -- I'd just like to know if you've compiled a list of Darwin's errors of observation.)

Or perhaps you aren't referring to details, but rather to some conceptual error. So what would that be?

[PatrickHenry]

[Why not just accept that they are both...theories, and not proven fact?] That is my position.

But creationism is most definitely NOT a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a rational, comprehensible, cause-and-effect explanation (or model) for verifiable facts. Further, a scientific theory must be falsifiable, which can happen by observing verifiable facts which contradict it. Creationism fails to be a scientific theory in absolutely every respect. It's an article of faith, which is fine with me, but that's not science.

[Dimensio]

Ah, unable to use facts or history to counter the claim regarding a literal interpreation of the Bible not being the historical view, so you just resort to rhetoric.

[stuartcr]

I don't think very many public schools have a sociology or comparative religions course...the only place left to introduce these theories would be science or maybe world history or even geography. I can't see a problem if they're introduced as a theories.

[Stultis]

Schools teach ONE scientific theory as though it was fact (without explaining the flaws)

I KNOW. It burns me up too. No one has ever SEEN the claimed chemical reactions occur, or proven by DIRECT OBSERVATION that they even occur in the so-called "chloroplasts," YET THE T-H-E-O-R-Y OF "PHOTOSYTHESIS" IS ROUTINELY TAUGHT AS FACT!!!

I'm glad someone is finally standing up to the ORTHODOX PHOTOSYTHESISTS, good for y..., er, wait... [reading rest of message]

Oh, never mind. I thought maybe you were opposed to dogmatism as a matter of principle.

[whattajoke]

Your ID-inspired belief of what evolution states ("something from nothing!") is so wrong and insipid that I find it simply insulting.

(perhaps your caveat about the "cosmological" theory covers you to some extent, but I must admit, I'm not sure what you mean by that).

Freeper to Freeper, FYI, the "something from nothing" stuff? The only place I can find that is that little book called... the Bible. I haven't read that in a bio book in my life. Oh well, maybe I'm missing something?

[f.Christian]

To: whattajoke

waj ...

It is my strong contention that science, and all its tenets, is an important part of conservatism. We consider ourselves more knowledgable and educated (well, we are) and this is all part of that. The minority of YEC's in our world do us an injustice, and make for easy ridicule from the left.


ph ...


Well stated. That is also my position.


112 posted on 04/29/2003 3:00 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)


fC ...


Overlordism ...

I'm only surprised that you publicly admit it (( you 're not joshing // tricking me ? ? )) !

"We consider ourselves more knowledgable and educated (well, we are)" ---


fC ...


Is that only what your worried about ... what leftist think ---

"The minority of YEC's in our world do us an injustice, and make for easy ridicule from the left."

What's the difference between your village and hillary clinton's ?





wj ...

As has been stated here a million times, scientific debate is not meant for public spectacle. Truth be told, it's a tedious, boring exercise detailing minute facts, written out over tens of thousands of pages in hundreds of texts, journals, online resources, museum placards, etc.


fC ...

classic ... elitisim !


To: f.Christian

fC...

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change.

LC...

Now I follow, thank you. Actually, I don't disagree with this at all since I see the left as abandoning the uncertianty of democracy and majority rule (( constitutional // law ))** for the assurance technocracy and expert rule (( dictatorship // tyranny ))**.

152 posted on 9/10/02 12:17 PM Pacific by Liberal Classic

** .. .. .. my additions !

Boshevik monopoly (( experts )) ... social // mind engineers ---

Brainwashing (( God // Truth )) -- Indoctrination (( lies // evolution // atheism )) !

Main Entry: tech·no·crat
Pronunciation: 'tek-n&-"krat
Function: noun
Date: 1932
1 : an adherent of technocracy
2 : a technical expert; especially : one exercising managerial authority

Main Entry: tech·noc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: tek-'nä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Date: circa 1919
: government by technicians; specifically : management of society by technical experts

[Last Visible Dog]

So where would you teach this course? Science class? Sociology? Comparative religion? Why not teach it in Sunday School?

To be honest that is a good question. Cosmology is a strange beast. It is really more of a philosophy. Truth is cosmology is a teeny tiny part of the science taught. NOTE: evolution in biology is a totally different subject than evolution in cosmology.

I certainly have no complaints about such a class, as long as no one is trying to deem it a science class

I totally agree. (including evolution as cosomology)

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?

I agree.

[Dimensio]

Why can't schools just explain what creationism is, and it's history.

Exactly what would they teach? There isn't just a single "creation story" to teach, as even Christians creationists don't completely agree on the story -- and then you have various other religions with their own creation stories to toss into the mix. How and where do you teach them, and in what context? There are some Christian creationists who think that their version of creationism is a type of 'science', which is a laughable claim, but they're going to demand a place in the science classroom where religious stories do not belong.

Then explain evolution to the children and it's history.

Evolution should, at the very earliest, wait until high school where a foundation for the most basic principles of biology are taught.

Then explain the newer biochemical theories to the students.

What do you mean by this?

[Dimensio]

I've heard mention of this 'creation theory', but I've never actually heard the theory laid out. Perhaps someone could explain exactly what "creation theory" is?

[Aric2000]

Sorry, it is obvious that you are clueless as to what evolution is trying to answer.

You think that abiogenisis is part of evolution, IT IS NOT.

Evolution does NOT try to answer the ORIGINS of life, it only tries to answer AFTER life was already here.

Your not knowing that, really took your credibility down a few knotches with me.

The beginning of life is NOT a question that evolution EVER asks. Only creationists, trying to discredit evolution try to say it does.

[whattajoke]

You missed the best one of these threads which followed your reasoning in your sarcastic post. It was great: a creationist, without knowing what was happening, admitted that earthquakes and such were a result of plate movement and that plate tectonics and cont. drift were "proven" because "of course that's been shown, etc." From that it went into a satire about "Intelligent Drift Theory" and so on.

It was perfect. No one "sees" continental drift. but we all accept it as earthquakes bear out. She didn't even understand the inanity of her position (fully accepted geologic ideas re drift and plate movement, but could not see how her so-called "micro evolution" could amount to something more).

I'll be using that logic throughout my life.

[Dimensio]

That's funny. Answering a claim that the Bible is wrong forever with ... the Bible!

That sure showed him how wrong he is. If it's in the Bible, it must be right, even he agreed to...

Oh, wait, he didn't. Nevermind.

[#3Fan]

Since in the Book of Genesis Chapter 1, and 2, the term DAY is modified with the term morning and evening, it obviously refers to a lteral day of 24 hours as we know it. It cannot refer to an indeterminite time period, for that would make the modifiers of evening and morning indeterminite time periods also. The simplest explanation is often the most accurate, and in this case, it is proven acurate again and again. Also, Exodus chapter 20: (Exo 20:11 KJV) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. If the reference to a 6 day creation is not a literal 6 days, then here where God speaks to Moses is a lie, also. Those who claim to believe the Bible and evolution cannot answer these things without dismissing entire portions of Scrripture as fiction.

Your theory is thrown out the window with this verse spoken by Jesus himself:

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

Those who don't understand that the mysteries are written in parables will think the bible says that the earth was created in six 24 hour days. Those that understand that parables explain the mysteries of creation will understand that a day is a time period, that evenings and mornings are the beginnings and ends of the time periods.

[Sonny M]

Here ya go.

http://www.jodkowski.pl/ip/LWitham002.html

http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/File068.html

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm

http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_iconoclast0201.htm

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2002-10/msg0044846.html

[RaceBannon]

I never said Creationism was on par with what Jesus did in His atoning death on the cross, what i said was is that the Doctrine of Creation is more important than Salvation.

The reason why, is that Creation contains the doctrine of Salvation in it, for it is a part of Creation to ask where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going.

Salvation comes under that.

It is through Creation we discover that God created us. There had to be a reason. That it makes us accuntable to Him just because He is creator. Because we are created beings, we are under His headship and authority, and He is sovereign over us. Evolution in any form denies this.

It is because of Creation that we read that men were CREATED on day 6. It is because of the sinlessness of man from that point until Adam sinned that we have any reason to need Salvation at all. It is because men were Created as flesh that we are able to HAVE a Saviour at all.

It is because of what we learn in Genesis we see what forms the foundation of the family unit; That family unit is supposed to teach us how we are to respond to God as men.

The marriage of a man to a woman is supposed to represent the marriage of Christ's bride to Him in Salvation, and the issue would not have an example to follow or be based upon unless Creation occured in the first place, for women were created for men, and mankind was created to have fellowship with the Creator.

The marriage relationship, begun in Genesis at day 6, is the foundation of how we can begin the understanding of how men are supposed to understand the hierarchy of our relationship with God. Man, Adam, was created to have fellowship with God; women, Eve, were created to be the perfectly suitable companion for man. This relationship is shown in perfection through the right relationship of the Bride of Christ and Christ Himself, the head of the Church.

It is because we were created man and women, and the relationship of men to women, that we have any idea of what it means to BE that Bride of Christ, the Church, and the levels of headship and authority that Christ has over the Church and what the man is supposed to have over the wife in marriage.

It is because we were created men and women from the beginning that any understanding of that can be known of men. If we evolved, then that reference to men and women would be moot and meaningless. The idea of the man being the head of the relationship would not have meaning, nor would any thought of alliegence to any head have meaning.

(Mark 10:6 KJV) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

(Mat 19:3 KJV) The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
(Mat 19:4 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
(Mat 19:5 KJV) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
(Mat 19:6 KJV) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Notice that the joining of the man and the woman is supposed to create ONE unit. The joining of Christ to His bride is supposed to create one unit, the Church, with Christ as the Head of that unit, as the man is to be the head of the family unit here while in our physical bodies.

While all the benefits of this blessing are only fully realized through believers who receive Salvation, it cannot be fully understood in this world unless a person believes what the Bible says about our being created creatures in the flesh and all the thoughts that go along with that.

But I will venture to say, I am not convinced that a person who believes in evolution can be saved. A person has to believe they are a sinner. Sin came from Adam. Men may not have great spiritual understanding on this when they get saved, but they have to clearly understand they are separated from God because of their sin, that they are condemned because of that sin, and that Salvation is only found in Jesus Christ.

If a person truely believes they came from slime, though, I have serious problems believing they can understand being in a fallen state in need of a saviour.

I am not going to say, like you accused me of, that a person cannot be saved unless they understand the doctrine of Creation, but I am not convinced of it. They need to understand they are sinners. Unless you convice a person they are lost, you are not going to get them saved. Even the most pagan Islander from somewhere can have total ignorance of the Bible, but when missionaries began to speak of the need of a Saviour, they didnt start with Jesus, they started with Genesis. And to their mazement, many of these tribes already had oral tradition that mirrored the book of Genesis, and KNEW there was a God that created the world somehow.

Jesus didnt die for the sins of an apelike bi-pedal creature, He died for the sins of the world that came through Adam.

(Rom 5:12 KJV) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

An evolutionist will dismiss you immediatly on that verse, simply because he doesnt believe that there was sin entering the world through Adam, for they do not believe in Adam.

Your own life experiences should also give you food for thought: Examine the doctrine of some 'believer' who tells you they believe in God AND evolution. That will tell you volumns, and it should bring out warnig bells as to whether they really believed the Gospel.

By rejecting Genesis 1-3, you reject why we even have a 7 day week.

(Exo 20:9 KJV) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
(Exo 20:10 KJV) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
(Exo 20:11 KJV) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Look at verse 11. SIX DAYS. That is God speaking. If it was not 6 days, why are six days mentioned here? Where did the mention of a week start? Genesis. Creation. If you reject Creation, you reject what God said in explaining that therehad to be a day of worship and why, you are calling God a liar.

By rejecting Creation, you reject that man was created on Day 6.

You reject that man sinned shortly after Day 6.

You reject that God promised a redeemer for Men.

You reject that that promise was fulfilled through Jesus Christ, for if you reject any of those verses that clearly, plainly spell that out, you reject what the Bible says about who, what, and why. In order to reject any of Genesis, you call everythng after it a lie.

Once you reject that, you leave open the rejection for everything after that, for every single doctrine in the Bible has it's origin in the Book of Genesis in some way or another, based on the FACT that God created the world in 6 days, that men were created special, and that sin in the world entered through Adam, and that God provided the sacrifice for that sin, and then promised a redeemer to come who would be killed, but in that death would forever kill the power of Satan.

Salvation came After Creation, in man's perspective anyways, not God's, but if men do not know why they need to be saved in the first place, because of Sin, you are just passing air through the lips, to those who have no idea what you are saying.

[stuartcr]

I have no idea what all that meant...by the way, what is a YEC?

[PatrickHenry]

I read the first of those sites. It says *nothing* about Darwin faking his data. I assume the remainder of your sites are equally worthless.