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.

[Dimensio]

My point was evolution as cosmology does *not* fit your personal definition of a scientific theory.

And our point is that the notion that evolution has anything to do with cosmology is your assertion and no one else's. Repeatedly bitching about "evolution as cosmology" is meaningless given that evoltuion is not cosmology and that while there are a number of different theories and hypothesis of cosmology, none of them are "evolution".

[vollmond]

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.

This reminds of the old Bill Cosby routine about starting off all conflicts with a coin toss:

Aric2000 of the Evolutionists, this is f.Christian of the Creationists.

f.Christian of the Creationists, this is Aric2000 of the Evolutionists.

If you'd please shake hands? All right!

Okay, Creationists, call the toss!

Creationists call heads, it's tails!

Aric2000, you've won the toss, what are you gonna do?

Aric2000 says the Evolutionists will change their theory as they see fit, depending on what bones they've found today. They'll be allowed to reclassify and reconfigure all past theories to make them come in line with the current theory. And they don't need to say where life came from in the first place. In short, the Theory of Evolution can not be disproved because it's constantly evolving: by definition, the current theory is the fittest.

Creationists, you'll have to prove the existence of an extreme being, and accept the Bible literally.

[balrog666]

Repeating a stupid statement does not make it any less stupid.

Then why do you keep repeating the same invincibly-ignorant idiocy?

See anybody familiar?

[whattajoke]

If your position is evolution is not an explaination of the origin of the universe - why the HECK are you on this thread?

to try to beat it into the heads of blockheaded numbskulls like you to finally accept the fact that no one, at any time, in any place, ever claimed that evolution is an explanation of the origin of the universe.

Since we are all obviously adherents of the Darwinian Orthodoxy (?) we'd obviously adhere to "The Origin of the Species," not the "origin of the universe."

Note new tactic of speaking to LVD's level, in hopes he picks up on something... anything... Beuller?

[Dimensio]

In short, the Theory of Evolution can not be disproved because it's constantly evolving

Actually, the process of revising a theory involves disproving the previous incarnation. The previous incarnation is falsified because it runs contrary to newly discovered evidence, so a new one is created in its place.

Falsification of a theory does not necessarily imply throwing it out completely. Newton's theories were falsified, but they still have useful applications.

[Last Visible Dog]

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.

It only means nothing if you are completely clueless. Clearly you do not understand what you are trying to talk about. This thread relate to the origin of the universe (cosmology) – if you believe evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe – WHY the hell are you on this thread? Just to annoy people.

After the insults and brain-dead "you're wrong, nanny nanny booo booo" - your next tactic is to explain that a group of people agree with you therefore you most be correct - are you trying use as many different types of fallacious logic as possible?

[f.Christian]

stupid birds ...

Main Entry: 2crow
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): crowed /'krOd/; also in sense 1 chiefly British crew /'krü/; crow·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English crAwan
Date: before 12th century
intransitive senses
1 : to make the loud shrill sound characteristic of a cock
2 : to utter a sound expressive of pleasure
3 a : to exult gloatingly especially over the distress of another b : to brag exultantly or blatantly
transitive senses : to say with self-satisfaction
synonym see BOAST

[Dimensio]

Again, could you point to a scientific reference for "evolution as cosmology", or are you going to just assert that it is without evidence and call people who actually know what they are talking about idiots because they prefer sticking to facts?

[f.Christian]

monitor cam !

[Agamemnon]

I don't understand what it is supposed to mean, so maybe I'm wrong?

Well, since you put it that way, Stultis (appropriate name there), looks like you have left yourself wide-open to that possibility.

[Aric2000]

Please see post 285.

You obviously do not like the way science works.

Oh, well, yes, our ideas and evidence change regularly, but the basic theory is sound, it is where all the pieces fit that is in question at this time.

That is how the theory changes, it grows, with each new fossil find or DNA evidence, when a part of the theory is falsified, that part is removed and the new part is put in it's place, until that evidence is falsified and replaced by the new evidence.

Why do you have such a problem with this?

[Aric2000]

Whoops, 385 not 285, duh!!

[music_code]

It's either Christianity or evolution. Either the God of the Bible created all things, or matter has eternally existed, in which case inanimate matter is God.

[whattajoke]

I'm only annoying you, trust me. Are you telling me it's not annoying to post the same ridiculous lie 40 times in one day?

At least I have 10 guys on here who agree with me (a few of which happen to teach physics or study your beloved cosmology). You have none. But you're right, that's certainly not "proof."

Let's take this discussion to the web. For every kook you find who agrees with your outright lie, I can drum up 10000 scientists who will question how you even know how to operate a computer.

you must live in Elkton.

[f.Christian]

evolution ... definition --- something for fools to crow about !

[Dimensio]

You're being sarcastic, right? You aren't seriously proposing the false dilemma of either Biblical literalism or atheistic evolution, right?

I would normally just assume that your comments were intended in jest, but I've seen too many idiots who actually believe in that bogus dichotomoy recently.

[whattajoke]

that's all there is in this world? Evolution and christianity? The hubris in your statement is monumental. In my small department alone, there are 5 people who give the bible no more credence than Richard Scarry books.

[f.Christian]

Your dept the looney bin !

[Aric2000]

And what did this article have to say about cosmology?

Give me ONE example, ONE line from the article that says anything about cosmology.

Where the devil did you come up with that? This article said nothing about the origins of the universe except in it's related parts regarding creationism.

It NO WHERE claims that evolution tries to explains the origins of the universe.

NO WHERE!!!

Show me where it says that and I will recant, but I don't see a thing about that in the article.

[Aric2000]

Inanimate matter is god?

Hmm, that is an interesting concept.

Can't say that I have heard that one before.

You guys can be so bizarre sometimes.