First Photograph, circa 1826.
Early fake photo, 1905.
Then there's the famous fairy photos that baffled the creator of Sherlock Holmes.
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.
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.
From the references I have, I am getting two conflicting stories. One seems to refer to what you are stating (I don't have the font to type in the word) seeming to imply that the Earth is not round, but that God surrounds the earth, or rather encircles the earth (Albert Barnes Notes).
Another source seems to imply that the word refers to a "circle--applicable to the globular form of the earth, above which, and the vault of sky around it, He sits." (Jamieson, Faussett and Brown Commentary).
I personally have no qualms either way and can see both as true.
I'm a blasphemer.
Now what? More importantly, giving me this nice impressive label doesn't seem to be advancing your argument. Perhaps you should get your head out of your dictionary?
There is no way in these short exchanges you could glean my views on cosmology – so don’t pretend like you can. You are starting out on a faulty foundation.
it makes no sense, holds no water, and has nothing whatsoever to do with biology, but hey, at least it's a novel idea.
That’s what you get for mind reading. You are not even close. Biology as we know it now is a piece in the puzzle that is cosmology. You put the word cosmology in quotes so I am guessing you do not fully understand its meaning – cosmology is the study of the totality of the physical universe and it origin.
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.
I understand – the comment is a little too close to home for you and it makes you uncomfortable.
Where on earth do you get these ideas?
From zealous followers of scientific theories. People that believe Darwinism explains it all related to the origin of the universe – people that believe evolution as cosmology is scientifically provable.
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.
Like what? Nothing related to the origin of the universe and Darwinism has “turned out to be true” they are all still theories
They have been improved upon, studied further, expanded, etc. That's called science.
Not when people like yourself assume theory is fact. That is not science – that is zealous support of dogma. Nothing related to evolution as cosmology has been proven by science. The foundation of evolution as cosmology is “something came from nothing” or “a miracle happen in a universe where miracles don’t happen”. Evolution as cosmology is based on an unscientific principle. Some aspects of evolution are scientifically supportable. Orthodox Darwinists believe all of it is.
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.
I am not a Creationist. I don’t know what ID is and it is news to me that ID has “tactics”. You are really losing it – I meant what I said – I had no idea what you are talking about. You seem incapable of grasping the reality that I do not follow your weird conspiracy theories (involving the ID’s and their secret tactics). You try to read minds and you think in labels and clichés – you really should like a zealot.
First Photograph, circa 1826.
Early fake photo, 1905.
Then there's the famous fairy photos that baffled the creator of Sherlock Holmes.
I guess you've been told.
Certainly it will. Religion will last as long as humanity does. Religion is an instinctual response to the individual's psychological needs, namely his ego's desire to pretend it will last forever, and his ego's need for parental figures.
When the child grows to maturity, his parents are no longer the super-beings they were, so he invents bigger and better ones.
Nope, superstitions and religions are curses Mankind will have to bear for eternity.
Because we evolved to invent them. The best we can do is understand ourselves, and why we want to invent such otherwise useless things.
Who made you the Supreme Arbiter of Christian Doctrine?
Theistic evolution makes more sense than many creationist myths.
As a matter of fact, the largest Christian denomination, the Roman Catholic Church, does not agree with your narrow, condemnatory viewpoint.
The Catholic Position
Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.
Pope John Paul II in his own words:
Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return.
Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.
So, you claim evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.
Your claim that evolution has nothing to do with cosmology proves you have no idea what you are talking about (usually the person that attacks other people's intelligence is in fact the one that lacks intelligence)
Get a clue and try again.
Evolution is both a theory of biology and a cosmology theory (theory of the origin of the universe).
You do have a hell of a lot of nerve to attack my intelligence when you clearly don’t understand the subject you are trying to debate.
I try not to be too insulting to people than can order my tongue torn out with red hot tongs.
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.