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.

[Mr. Mojo]

If any of them attempt to answer, and you see the post, would you be kind enough to ping me?

[Ten Megaton Solution]

The reason why religion should be banned and relegated to embarassed whispered conversations:

Compared to the mind of God, the mind of Man is nothing

Since it hasn't been proven that God exists, it hasn't been proven that God has a mind.

But the mind of Man does exists, and the Mind of Man has not only conceived of interplanetary spacecraft, the Hand of Man has built them (Apollo). We've conceived and built instantaneous world girdling communication networks, we have the ability to fly around the globe in hours, we've damned mighty rivers and drained pestilential swamps. We've made diseases extinct. We've done things the primitives that wrote the Bible couldn't imagine.

Yet we suffer fools telling us that a fictitious invisible Man in the Sky is somehow greater than our own proven abilities.

They should be too embarassed to speak, but they're not.

[Ten Megaton Solution]

The reason why religion should be banned and relegated to embarassed whispered conversations:

Compared to the mind of God, the mind of Man is nothing

Since it hasn't been proven that God exists, it hasn't been proven that God has a mind.

But the mind of Man does exists, and the Mind of Man has not only conceived of interplanetary spacecraft, the Hand of Man has built them (Apollo). We've conceived and built instantaneous world girdling communication networks, we have the ability to fly around the globe in hours, we've damned mighty rivers and drained pestilential swamps. We've made diseases extinct. We've done things the primitives that wrote the Bible couldn't imagine.

Yet we suffer fools telling us that a fictitious invisible Man in the Sky is somehow greater than our own proven abilities.

They should be too embarassed to speak, but they're not.

[whattajoke]

I'll give you point for at least bringing a refreshing new perspective on this tired old subject. Now I get it, your whole strange "cosmological" view of things.

it makes no sense, holds no water, and has nothing whatsoever to do with biology, but hey, at least it's a novel idea.

As for your contention that there are people in the world who fit your description of "Orthodox Darwinists," I can't leave that one alone. Where on earth do you get these ideas? Rest assured, Darwin came up with some good ideas back in the day, had minimal proof at the time, and made several INCREDIBLY bold hypotheses. Funny thing is, many of these turned out to be true. They have been improved upon, studied further, expanded, etc. That's called science.

To use an infamous creationist/ID tactic, I'll quote you verbatim:

"I have no idea what you are talking about."

Yes, that is quite obvious.

[Aric2000]

And you liked that post so much you posted it twice..;)

I liked your post too, so I won't complain....

[stuartcr]

If you want to teach/introduce them....they have to go somewhere, historically, it's been science. I agree, it should be social-studies, but some schools don't have social-studies courses, and it would be too much to make a whole semester out of this topic. I think it's cheaper to just stick it in an existing course, and put a caveat on it.

[usastandsunited]

Its interesting that some people seem to devote so much time to prove that a group of people are so wrong in their beliefs. Why would that be ? I'm still trying to figure that one out. Is it to "convert" them, put them "in their place" , show the world how smart we are, or is it "fear" for some reason?

[f.Christian]

non fictitious visible slug // fool in a hole !

[Last Visible Dog]

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.

Really. The foundation of evolution as cosmology is "something came from nothing" or "a miracle happened"

Using your own logic, evolution as cosmology is not a scientific theory. "something came from nothing" is not a theory that is rational, comprehensible, cause-and-effect explanation. Hell, in evolution as cosmology it all starts with an effect that had no cause. Using your own words, evolution as cosmology fails to be a scientific theory.

Don't you hate it when you own words deflate your position?

[js1138]

What the heck. If you get an answer, ping everybody. Two pings if you get an answer for the source of genetic diversity since the Flood.

[Ten Megaton Solution]

If you call all that a lie, you call Jesus death on the cross absolutely inconsequential,

Okay, I'll bite. The alleged death of the alleged Jesus would have been absolutely inconsequential if a handful of deluded followers hadn't perpetrated the lie that became "Christianity", and if that lie hadn't been fomented, history as we know it would be totally different.

There. That wasn't too difficult.

[whattajoke]

ha ha. good question, and I can't really answer it for it. I have a couple reasons personally:

1) because I refuse to let creationists and the fundamentalist movement become the face of my beloved GOP.

2) because it's fun.

3) because I like science, and I think everyone should at least pick up a few things, and it pains me to see conservatives who are undoubtedly more intelligent that the libs continue to spout ridiculous creationist claims.

4) perhaps I am trying to "witness" and "convert." ; )

[js1138]

Worth repeating.

[Stultis]

Most of that list is simply overeaching by gratuitously (and ex post facto) drawing "scientific" insights from poetic language, but the following is flat wrong:

4. The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: “It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere.

It does NOT refer to a "sphere". There are perfectly good hebrew words to describe a sphere or a ball, but the word translated "circle" is not one. It is nowhere used in the bible to refer to a sphere. Do some research. I don't recall the word right now, but looked into this at one point and found that it carried the sense of a perimeter or boundary, such as the guarded perimeter surrounding an encampment, and in at least one case was used to describe God "inscribing" a "circle" of the earth on "the waters" with a compass. Obviously you can't draw a sphere with a compass.

[Aric2000]

Could you please go a bit further with that post, because I am not sure who or what you were talking about.

Are you talking about creationists being afraid of evolutionists, or vice versa?

If what you mean is that evolutionists are afraid of creationists, well, then you would be right, we are afraid that religion will somehow get a foothold in schools as science, when that happens, then science as we know it will be hurt, and hurt badly.

Religion has no place in a science classroom, whether you call it creationism or Intelligent Design.

Once that happens, then science loses it's credibility.

Evolution is a scientific theory, it should be taught in the classrooms as that, a scientific theory, to be questionied, to be built upon etc, and if it CAN be disproven, the to be disproved, but SCIENTIFICALLY.

Science has no room for faith, that is a religious venue, and should remain there.

[Dimensio]

Really. The foundation of evolution as cosmology is "something came from nothing" or "a miracle happened"

You've already been told that evolution is not cosmology and that it makes no claims that "something came from nothing". That you repeat it after being told only makes you dishonest, it doesn't make your lies any less invalid.

[metacognative]

If you are a Darwinite, your religion started in 1859 with the publication of 'On the Origin of Species' [of which we still know nothing[.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I'm still waiting to see if "random" can be equated with "independent, identically distributed." (I'm not bating my breath though.)

As I said before, Kefauver got more answers.

[f.Christian]

Atheism ...

"proven abilities" -- abominations !

Main Entry: blas·phe·my
Pronunciation: 'blas-f&-mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -mies
Date: 13th century
1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity
2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

[stanz]

Good to who?