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.

[Aric2000]

There you go again, we have explained this to you MANY times already, and yet you continue to use it as an argument.

Evolution does NOT claim that something came from NOTHING.

It claims that something made this something change into this something, not that this NOTHING became this something.

That is abiogenesis, a totally different theory and scientific endeavor.

Evolution takes that which was ALREADY there, and tries to explain how this came about from that.

Something from nothing, ridiculous argument against evolution, because it claims NOTHING of the sort.

[f.Christian]

bias-- ego gas ... hype // farts --- evolution !

[Last Visible Dog]

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?

So it is wrong but you can't tell me why?

If you don't understand what cosmology is or the difference between evolution in biology versus evolution as cosmology - you probably shouldn't have entered this tread.

Evolution as cosmology starts with the theory "something came from nothing". NOTE: telling me you are "insulted" is meaningless in an intellectual debate. If you can't present a position to disagree with my position - telling me you are "insulted" only seems ti prove you have run out of ammunition.

Tell us what you think the starting point of evolution as cosmology is - where did that matter come from? What caused the big bang?

[Agamemnon]

Christ is pretty clear, when He is quoted as saying that, "He that made them in the Beginning," speaking particularly of human beings, "made them male and female." We can let the Creator himself speak on His behalf about such matters, but also realize that the theistic evolutionist must come to grips with the compromise he has made since it flies in the face of his theology as much as it flies in the face of science itself.

Peter even in his time described those who would be the scoffers who would deny that the Flood itself ocurred.

Nothing new here. The evolutionist challenges both Moses and Christ. When he challenges Christ, he challenges the deity of Christ, as well. So it all boils down to this: either Jesus Christ is the Creator-God (as outlined in the Gospel of John), or random chance is the creator god.

For one who is a Christian, the choice is clear. Theisitic evolution does not merit consideration for those who adhere to what Moses wrote (as inspired by the Creator-God) or to what Christ, the Creator-God himself, is quoted as saying. Those who choose not to believe Christ (as many agnostics on these threads do not) will be inclined to believe in anything else but Christ.

[f.Christian]

ten megaton stink --- pollution !

[Aric2000]

Geez, the big bang and the beginning of life HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION!!

Hello, Mcfly, anyone home?

Evolution does not claim that Something came from nothing, never has, never will.

Stop using this silly argument, it has been explained and explained and explained to you, you are either dishonest, or don't care about the truth, as you claim you do.

[f.Christian]

Geez, the big bang (( smell ))!

[Stultis]

or random chance is the creator god

LOL! Usually it's "pure random chance." But even "random chance," well, what the heck is that anyway? I mean, I can't imagine how it has anything to do with evolution, but then I don't understand what it is supposed to mean, so maybe I'm wrong?

[stuartcr]

I am not familiar with it, but from this forum, it would appear to be what the bible teaches about the creation of earth. I would suggest asking those that are believers in it for the evidence you are seeking.

[PatrickHenry]

I'll recant, I believed he did the experiment and took the photo, but don't throw me into the creationoid Oblivion, some of those people are nuts.

You are hoisted out of babbling creationoid oblivion. No true creationoid ever takes back an erronious statement. They just keep digging deeper.

[Aric2000]

Oh puhlease, just because that is the way that you believe, does not make it so.

I know MANY christians who believe in evolution, they are STILL christians.

This, "believe what I believe or else", just kills me.

It would be hilarious, if it weren't so damned arrogant.

[Ten Megaton Solution]

Anyway, we've had this problem before (with Galileo) and we got through the crisis. We'll get through the problem of evolution too.

I don't think so. Gallileo simply moved the earth, and hence Man, out of the center of Creation. But it didn't truly matter because of the "God is Everywhere" theory.

But it is taught specifically that Man is God's special creation. This cannot be reconciled with a theory that says Man is one animal out of many produced by random variation and natural selection. Nope, if the Theory of Evolution in it's purest form is accepted, especially the presumption of "No Intelligent Design", then it cannot ever be compatible with any religion in the Judeo Christian/Islamic traditions.

After all, if Man's just an animal, he can't be sinful. And without sin, the religious leaders have nothing to extort money and fealty from their followers. Can't have that, no sirree.

[stuartcr]

All of the above.

[PatrickHenry]

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?

Among the clueless, you are truly supreme. I repeat (not for you, but for the lurkers), creationism is *not* a scientific theory. Read my tagline.

[stuartcr]

You are obviously demon-spawned, and will burn in a thousand hells.

[Aric2000]

I like you, you got attitude, in spades!!

[PatrickHenry]

Gallileo simply moved the earth, and hence Man, out of the center of Creation.

Not the point at all. Galileo's solar system theory (which all but a few flat-earthers now accept) was clearly contrary to a literal reading of scripture. As is evolution. Religion survived Galileo. It will survive Darwin.

[whattajoke]

I get it... since I, specifically, haven't shot your quirky idea out of the water, you can keep repeating it? I think on this thread alone Aric2000, Dimensio, DoctorStochastic, and patrickhenry have all bludgeoned you with the fact that "evolution as a cosmology" means nothing to anyone other than you.

Evolution does not, has not, and will not address the big bang, or abiogenesis specifically. Do I have to certified mail that to you or what?

Short answer: We don't know how "it" all began.

Long answer: There are many hypotheses regarding the many different questions inherent to that discussion, none of which belong in a discussion about evolution per se.

I'll count the minutes until you post your cosmological ideas again though. You simply don't care.

By the way, the idea that perhaps god did indeed start the whole thing going is well and good, and I certainly am in no position to "prove" that idea wrong. So now where does that leave us?

[f.Christian]

what is being taught in public schools ? ?

The fr pat henry ... self appointed mind and lives guardian // czar (( anarcho-loon ))--- of other people's children ---

via govt money -- schools --- very strange -- weird !

ph ...

So why should biologists worry about creationists? It's precisesly for the reason you say -- to prevent irrationality and bogus "science" from being rammed into (and thus ruining) the still-forming minds of innocent children.

271 posted on 05/01/2003 8:03 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)

fC ...

Atheist cram school ... TYRANNY --- America ?

[ContentiousObjector]

I feel embarrassed for you just reading this,