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.

[whattajoke]

I understand you! (You sound like my family now... scary thought).

I'll get back to you after 50 yrs of marital bliss (!) and let you know that believe it or not, non fundamentalist christians can indeed have a happy marriage. I promise.

[MEGoody]

"LOL, you can be awfully scary sometimes."

Being scared makes you laugh? Um, okay.

[f.Christian]

I hope -- pray --- good sailing !

[Aric2000]

Yeah, he can be scary, just as a lot of Fundamentalists can be scary.

I find it rather amusing, in a sick sort of way.

Yeah, I have a strange sense of humor.

So sue me....

[jwalsh07]

I really want to know who and what you are when I see a post, darnit all anyway.

Try asking, it's a quaint ole American custom.

[Junior]

will my soon-to-be wife accept my "self love?"

Only if you wash your hands afterward...

[PatrickHenry]

Who, really, does this [Jack Chick] crap appeal to (other than me to get a good laugh?)

My suspicion is that virtually every creationist in these threads is a fan of Jack Chick. I say that because of the striking similarity between the nonsense in his work and the identical nonsense in their postings. I know of a couple of intelligent creationists, who drop in on occasion (not lately) but they don't say the things that Jack Chick says.

[jwalsh07]

He;s an anti-theiat to the core. Ask him and he;ll tell you but a curdory reading of his posts on this thread alone gives amply evidence of his disdain for and dislike of theism.

You been sleeping?

[jwalsh07]

Who's Jack Chick and wny are you obsessed with him?

[PatrickHenry]

Who's Jack Chick and wny are you obsessed with him?

See the link in post 430.

[Aric2000]

I wish, I am lacking about 4 hours.

Maybe he is an antitheist to the core, so what?

I don't like organized religion nor churches either, maybe for different reasons, maybe not.

And you seem to have fat fingers today, or are you just typing way too fast. ;)

[RaceBannon]

Somehow, I knew that old tired false interpretation would come up...(sigh)...

read the passage, the ENTIRE passage, it has nothing to do with time as specifics nor does it have to do with Creation, it has to do with God being patient waiting forus to repent of our sins and be saved, and how God is willing to give us time to do so.

(2 Pet 3:1 KJV) This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

(2 Pet 3:2 KJV) That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

(2 Pet 3:3 KJV) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

(2 Pet 3:4 KJV) And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

(2 Pet 3:5 KJV) For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

(2 Pet 3:6 KJV) Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

(2 Pet 3:7 KJV) But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

(2 Pet 3:8 KJV) But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

(2 Pet 3:9 KJV) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

[jwalsh07]

Maybe he is an antitheist to the core, so what?

Stalin and Mao were anti-theists so the comparison is and was valid. The free exercise clause of the first amendment takes an opposing view and welcomes the speech from theists that TMS dislikes so heartily.

I don't like organized religion nor churches either, maybe for different reasons, maybe not.

Free country.

And you seem to have fat fingers today, or are you just typing way too fast. ;)

In an effort to deby advancing age I refuse to wear my glasses while on FR so as to annoy certain folks. :-}

[Last Visible Dog]

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

Why do we have to put up with clowns like this?

[Agamemnon]

You are welcome to read my response to Aric2000 on this matter.

I am not a Catholic and do not rely on the Catholic Church either to speak for me, or to do my thinking for me on such matters.

If you and I agree that Jesus Christ is Himself the Supreme Arbiter of Christian doctrine, we know that if He is God and the Creator, Himself, there's nothing man (or the Catholic Church) can do, or say which has merit apart from that.

You just have to get a grip on Who's Creation it is, regardless of what you purport are Creationist "myths." Are you implying that the Catholic believes the scriptures contain "myths." If so then I'll thank God there was a Reformation.

Your own ego obscures what the Creator-God's scriptures have said on the matter of origins. You are welcome to take it up with the Creator-God and His scriptures yourself. You don't need me for that. Read the scriptures. Approach them with a spirit of honesty, humility and a real desire to learn, and you will find, as I and many others have, that you won't need a Pope or an encyclical to interpret them for you or to do your thinking for you either.

[jwalsh07]

Why do we have to put up with clowns like this?

Because we need a constant reminder of the humility, tolerance and Christian mores of certain technocrats.

[DannyTN]

I object to the wording "your religion started" for many of those. You are confusing the religion with the various organizations associated with the religion. They are not the same.

The faith that Jews have in God, didn't start with Abraham, it started with Adam. But since there may have been a break in the faith between Noah and Abraham, I'll concede Abraham is an adequate starting point.

Christianity views itself as the fulfillment of the Jewish messianic prophecies. Therefore, Christianity didn't technically start with Jesus, it's as old as the Jewish faith.

Likewise the Protestants didn't start a brand new religion when they split from the Catholics. It's still Christianity, there are differences in organization management and minor doctrines, but the majority of Christian organizations agree on the basic salvation message and therefore accept each other as Christian and are as old as Christianity.

There are some groups such as the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses that either materially change the nature of God or the nature of salvation so that I would agree that had a definite recent start point and are not a continuation of the ancient religion.

[balrog666]

Why do we have to put up with clowns like this?

Leave whenever you want, joke-boy.

[jwalsh07]

What's the matter, all out of BWAHAHA'S?

[balrog666]

Because we need a constant reminder of the humility, tolerance and Christian mores of certain technocrats.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! Touche'

How's that?