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.

[music_code]

What a shame for those five.

Bible = Truth

Evolution = The Lie

[balrog666]

...and you have the elephant-sized balls to attempt to insult my intelligence.

Can I play too?

You must think that because of the comparison to your pea-sized brain.

How's that? Does that sound like you?

[PatrickHenry]

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

Give it up, man. Gotta know when to hold, know when to fold. And when to put someone on "virtual ignore."

[music_code]

'Tis not bogus, my friend. Those are the only two options on the table.

[Stultis]

looks like you have left yourself wide-open to that possibility

Yes, I have.

So what is "random chance"? How does evolutionary theory invoke it or rely on it as a mechanism?

[f.Christian]

virtual ignorance -- flatliners ... paramentalpalegics (( cripples ))!

[Dimensio]

What about the Hindu beliefs regarding the cyclic nature of the universe?

[Last Visible Dog]

You must think that because of the comparison to your pea-sized brain. How's that? Does that sound like you?

It sounds like most of the other Orthodox Darwinism arguments. Let me know if you guys ever want to have an intellectual debate related to cosmology (the origin of the universe).

[Aric2000]

You're right, but good grief.

Kinda like G3K and all of his facts.

Spout them enough times and finally no one will argue with him, so of course it must mean he's right after all.

Talk about cloeseminded, or just plain clueless and likes it that way, geez.....

[PatrickHenry]

It's either Christianity or evolution.

Well, at least you're not an advocate of ID.

[Aric2000]

That debate would be grand, but it has NOTHING to do with evolution.

Therefore it would be a debate on cosmology and or abiogenesis.

It would be more of a theological discussion then a scientific one at this point I am afraid.

[f.Christian]

Isn't that a self diagnosis ...

you need a pathologist (( analyst )) ---

to pull (( point )) out the tumor (( denial // delusion )) !

[music_code]

Hinduism falls into the evolutionary category because of its 're-absorption into Brahma/nothingness' nonsense.

[balrog666]

Let me know if you guys ever want to have an intellectual debate related to cosmology (the origin of the universe).

Tell you what. We'll call you if that happens.

So, for now, you can take your "evolution is cosmology is evolution because I saw so" nonsense and shove it.

[Aric2000]

I like your tagline FC, but I am not going to give to that fund.

I need a poster that I can point out to my children as mentally unbalanced and in need of medication, so I need you to stick around.

[music_code]

ID = Intelligent Design, which is completely in sync with Christianity. So of course I'm a believer in it.

[Dimensio]

Hinduism falls into the evolutionary category because of its 're-absorption into Brahma/nothingness' nonsense.

What does that have to do with evolution?

It looks like you've just redefined anything that isn't Biblical literalism as "evolution" and now you're pretending that it's a valid comparison even though your "evolution" is completely removed from any scientific definition of evolution. Thus while you have a true dichotomy of "Biblical literalism or not Biblical literalism", you're using a strawman definition of evolution for the second option, thus turning it into a dishonestly presented question.

[PatrickHenry]

This "evolution as cosmology" crapola must be found in a Jack Chick comic. But I can't stand to wade through that junk to find the source.

[f.Christian]

I feel sorry for children living in a cave -- prison (( ideology )) !

[Agamemnon]

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

So do I. I know plenty of people who are Christians and many who merely call themselves Christians. If they believe the same scriptures that we both read, however, they will have to come to grips with what the scriptures, say. What I have to say *about* the scriptures is not the issue. Read them for yourself. Those who are Christians do not question the veracity of scripture. What the scriptrues say is what the Christian will have to reconcile with his own origins model.

Where one's origins model conflicts with the plain reading of scripture is where the Christian must decide whether his Creator-God-Savior told the truth in scriptures, or that He did not (is a liar) or didn't know better (is not omniscient or omnopotent) and He is therefore, not God at all. If the person is a Christian by their identity and not just by thier word only, the choice between the two should be simple: the model (theistic evolution) is wrong, not the Creator, or His description of origins.

If you are a theistic evolutionist, the choice is yours. One of the choices is wrong. Choose wisely.