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.

[js1138]

Perhaps you can explain to me why it is that biologists update their theories with new evidence, root out instances of fraud and mistaken observation, and continue making steady progress, whereas creation scientists continue spouting the kind of drivel as in post #228, as if it were freshly minted.

Show me a page from a recent biology textbook with serious factual errors.

[RaceBannon]

I have to admit, if it is not studied, you would have a point, and I also have to admit, I havent got the book where I learned it, but the narrative as told in Genesis 1 and 2 are told in 2 different methods, but say the same story.

It has to do with ancient telling of the story. It was an Old Testament scholar that I read, Henry Morris, who wrote THE GENESIS RECORD. In that, he speaks of what is an accepted method of middle or near eastern ancient documents and the way the record is repeated. One is the literal, and the other is the expanded with commentary version.

They both agree on the days, but with a quick reading, it can appear that one came before the other and was reversed. I will have to get back to you! I have to find the source that explains it, I gave the book away!

[whattajoke]

Ah, I see... "Design" (with a capital D). Hmm, Design (with a capital D). Just curious, where can I read up on a scientific paper regarding this "Design" (with a capital D)?

I'm very interested in the actual science behind this "movement" (no capital M?) Now, I'm not looking for a popular mass market book here (ie Behe), I'm looking for peer reviewed science. Surely Intelligent (with a capital I) Design (with a capital D)has many peer reviewed papers. Help me out.

If Intelligent (with a captital I) Design (with a capital D) is so intelligent, why can I come up with a quick list of things "wrong" with, say, humans?

Sigh, I could go on... but I'll let you get back to me with those cites re the papers on Intelligent Design.

I won't hold my breath.

[stuartcr]

I don't think they are scientific theories. I was answering the question about what course would cover this topic (ie, where do you put it in the curriculum), in an average public school.

[Junior]

Just remember, in this context Darwinism is just as much a myth.

Now, how can you say this when you know that there is strong evidence in support of evolution, and none at all in support of the various creation stories.

[balrog666]

Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. -Euripides

[george wythe]

Please explain HOW Creationism could EVER be “debunked”

For what is worth, just off the top of my head, I can remember two cases where a specific portion of a sectarian creation myth has been debunked.

First of all, there are churches that do not allow disagreement about creation tales, you either accept the church’s version 100% or you are a heretic. Therefore, if portions of their creation myth are proven wrong, a case can be made that their creation myth was debunked.

For instance, Jehovah’s Witnesses who question the official dogma are excommunicated for “apostasy.” Nevertheless, the Jehovah’s Witness creation myth was proven wrong almost 30 years ago.

Jehovah’s Witnesses believed before 1975, that each creation day lasted 7,000 years, and therefore the last day of the creation week, the Sabbath, lasted 7,000 years. . . 6,000 years where sin will be allowed to flourish, and 1,000 years where Christ will return everything to the original purity.

Using their creation myth, the Jehovah’s Witnesses claimed that man was created in 4,026 B.C. and Christ will start his 1,000-year reign in 1975. After the 1975 fiasco, the sect leaders dropped quietly their belief that the creation days lasted 7,000 years.

Another case in mind. A friend of mind was a member of non-denominational church where the pastor taught that the dinosaurs and other similar large animals became extinct 4,000 years ago during the Noachian Flood.

My friend became aware of the modern dating techniques and had extensive conversations with his pastor. Eventually, his pastor did his own research, changed his theology, and now his pastor teaches that the dinosaurs became extinct due to a cataclysm not mentioned in the Bible, probably much earlier than 4,000 years ago.

As you can see, Jehovah’s Witnesses were forced to believe a creation myth that included debunked facts. In the second case, a pastor changed his mind about a creation myth and so did all his church members in lemming-like fashion.

Finally, I want to thank you for injecting a modicum of sanity into this thread, since you have calmly responded to people at both extremes while expressing your prudent reservations. As you said, evolution is just a piece of the puzzle. Cosmology and ontology are still in their infancy.

[whattajoke]

I'm familiar with Henry Morris and his ideas. We'll leave it at that... I can not, and will not every be able to discern what is to be taken literally and what's not in the bible.

At any rate, do please keep me on your CT ping list... gotta know when to start saving extra for the next tax that comes down the (Berlin Turn)pike.

[Sonny M]

Perhaps you can explain to me why it is that biologists update their theories with new evidence, root out instances of fraud and mistaken observation, and continue making steady progress, whereas creation scientists continue spouting the kind of drivel as in post #228, as if it were freshly minted

Again, I do not spout creationism, I think its wrong, Your post, is exactley what I am talking about, I want the study of evolution to continue to be updated, for scientists to continue to make steady progress, and to get a better and better picture for all of us. Asking me to justify creationism, is absurd, asking me to accept to Darwin, as written, without any kind of update, in its original format, while not absurd, certainly, can't be considered without doubt.

[Aric2000]

Indeed, and from the experience that I have had, and from what I have read, of creationists generally and personally, that is indeed what a typical creationist thinks.

How hard is it for you to realize, that a creationist is a LITERALIST, it is VERY easy to figure out what they believe.

JUST READ GENESIS!!!

Once you know the basic tenets of their faith, they then argue against evolution, using arguments based on another creationists tenets.

Once you give them a script, they follow it, how hard is that for you to understand?

And I am not an orthodox darwinian, although I do find that an interesting phrase, haven't heard it in quite a while, if ever, actually.

Anyway, A creationist line of reasoning is easy to follow and easy to figure out what is coming, they have a line of argument, and they follow it.

Once you have seen a number of these debates, you will see exactly what I mean.

[Dimensio]

The Bible is the Word of God, and is true.

I'm sure that you have evidence to support this assertion.

Actually, I think their primary push has been to get the government schools to own up to the fact that 'evolution' is an unprovable hypothesis

Actually, it's an unprovable theory -- of course, all theories in science are unprovable. That's the nature of science.

and at least to point out some of its major flaws (e.g., no fossil evidence of any 'missing links'; no evidence of 'positive' mutations; no evidence of increasing genetic information in anything - a prerequisite for a simpler organism morphing into a more complex organism

Given that just about all (if not all) of that has been observed, I'm not sure why you're calling them major flaws. To claim that none of them have happened would be lying. You don't want to lie to children, do you?

difficulty to reconcile with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

How do heat transfer equations create difficulties with the theory of evolution? So few people who claim that the 2nd law provides problems for evolution seem to really understand what it means. Next thing I know, you'll be claiming that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle plays into it.

if undirected sunlight would've reduced entropy; etc.

Well, undirected sunlight seems to be maintaining life on this planet. Honestly, if the 2nd law worked the way that Creationists who use it as an argument claim, life itself would be impossible because going from a state of a sperm cell and an egg cell to a fully developed human being is a MASSIVE increase in relative complexity!

Because we aren't godless commies ...yet.

What does 'godless communism' have to do with evolution?

[f.Christian]

Science and creation is like astronomy (( laws // design )) ...

and evolution is ... SWAMI science ---

astrology on mushrooms (( palm reading // seance )) !

[Dimensio]

I take it, then that you have a means of falsifying Last Thursdayism?

[Sonny M]

I have no problem with scientific claims being revised, fine, but if I ask that we keep studying darwin, and try to update it, and considering how much more we know now, then he knew then, and that to me its not possible, since from his time and era, for what he wrote, to be literally fact. When I say, lets revisit it again, and try and fill in the holes and revise it, people attack me like some religious creationist. Honestly, this seems to be the one thing, where everyone has a "us or them" attitude, its like your either a believer that darwin had it all right and there should be no questions, or you have to believe in the bible and say thats that, no questions.

[Ten Megaton Solution]

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.

Because schools don't teach religion, and hence cannot constititutionally be allowed to teach the religious nonsense called "Creationism".

The whole debate about "Creationism" seems more and more like a back-door way of sneaking religion into the curriculum. It would only have value in a science class if the teacher is permitted to identify all of the scientific fallacies the Creationists must employ to promote their chicanery. Include it in a biology course segment along with the Cardiff Giant, perhaps.

[PatrickHenry]

Remember the old saying, when you "assume".......

The claim that Darwin faked his data was garbage. The list of websites offered to back up that claim was topped off by a site that said nothing of the kind. I assume that's all you've got. If there's any more, let's see it. If not ... off with you into babbling creationoid oblivion.

[js1138]

Why can I come up with a quick list of things "wrong" with, say, humans?

Perhaps the true Eden was in Redmond?

On a more serious note, this link explains everything. Everything that can happen does.

[Aric2000]

You know, I am clueless as to what the hell you are talking about.

Evolution is studied, added to, things removed, fossils placed in one part are removed and placed in another.

Evolution is studied and CHANGED EVERY day, evolution of today is TOTALLY unrecognizable to Darwins Theory of evolution, the modern evolutionary theory is so far beyond Darwin's original that it is insane.

I have no idea where you are going, but you took a wrong turn about 3 posts back.

[Aric2000]

That kind of study jut gives me the willies, but if my Doppleganger is rich, I wish he'd share it with me...lol

[Sonny M]

If not ... off with you into babbling creationoid oblivion"

Again, in a previous post, mentioned before, somone named the "so called" fake experiment, now do not throw me into the creationoid oblivion, I am not a creationist, I do not believe genesis is science, all I want is to encourage more research. This seems to be one of those things, that everyone just has a us vs them attitude. I don't believe Darwin had it all right the first time, I think Creationism is wrong, and devine design looks to much like a backdoor to creationism. But if you to the posts I mentioned to you before, it lists the "so called" fake.