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.

[Ten Megaton Solution]

Umm...if the Bible is not the work of God, then what's the point in quoting the damn thing? If it's the work of man, I'd rather quote from Lexx or the Power Puff Girls or the Food Network.

[ThinkPlease]

Hint: Evolution for the purposes of these discussions usually is defined as "biological evolution" the definition accepted here

[PatrickHenry]

Somebody moved this thread. We're now in the "Smokey Backroom."

[ThinkPlease]

I was wondering where all of this haze came from. Hey, is someone smoking pot in here? It's getting a bit musty smelling...

[Dimensio]

You can take it any way you please Dimensio, it doesn't change the fact neither you nor anyone else has a working hypothesis for creation of the Universe.

Personally, I don't claim to have a working hypothesis for the origin of the universe. All that I know is that the universe is here now, but I've not seen anything that provides convincing data regarding the ultimate origins of the universe (even the Big Bang hypothesis doesn't work past Plank time) so I can only assert "I don't know", which IMO is far more honest than appealing to a supernatural origin just because I feel a need for some explanation.

[Last Visible Dog]

more "evolution as cosmology" crapola (as PatrickHenry calls it)

Cosmology: area of science that aims at a comprehensive theory of the structure and evolution of the entire physical universe.

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.

[Dimensio]

Interesting. Dr. Lerner claims that evolution is the central organizing principle of biology, geology and cosmology, yet nothing else on that site deals with anything other than biology. So basically we have Lerner's apparent misstatement despite the fact that it's not explanined in any detail touted as 'proof' that evolution deals with cosmology. Of course, you've still not provided an explanation as to how alelle frequency change over time is used in a hypothesis for the origins of the universe.

As for your previous reference: here's a hint. The word 'evolution' does not always refer to the 'Theory of evolution'. The context of the title of the book suggests that the word 'evolution' is not used as the title of a theory. It would appear that you are playing semantic games, so now the question is just how much you realise it.

[george wythe]

Those who are Christians do not question the veracity of scripture

Catholics do not question the Scriptures, we question your sectarian interpretation of it to fit your prejudices.

Do you take everything in the Bible literally, as old Christian literalists who believed that the Sun went around the Earth quoting the Bible to support their prejudices?

Joshua chapter 10:

¹² On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:

"O sun, stand still over Gibeon,
O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."

¹³ So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

¹⁴ There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!

[Dimensio]

No, it's no baiting tactic. Since Jesus Christ IS God, then what He says about the matter of the origin of man and creation is the truth. That means all other truth claims which contradict His are false. That eliminates all other 'god' options (like Hinduism for example). And of course it eliminates evolution.

You have the beginnings of an airtight case here. There's just a few minor details. First, you need to demonstrate that a god -- any god -- exists. Next, you need to demonstrate that this god is in fact Jesus Christ as you describe him. Finally, you need to demonstrate that anything stated by Jesus Christ is necessarily the truth. You may be able to handle the last two requirements simultaneously, by showing that part of the nature of the 'god' who you've shown to exist is that all that it speaks is the truth.

I await your evidence. I'm not expecting proof, but I would like to see a means of testing your hypothesis with predictable results and falsification criteria.

[Ten Megaton Solution]

Not a problem at all. Simply recognize that religions are a manifestation of the irration subconscious processes of the human mind and do not attempt to equate them with the real universe, and the "problem" vanishes.

It's funny. No one would defend a dream they had while asleep, yet wars are fought and skyscrapers toppled over the dreams people have when they're supposed to be awake.

[Junior]

Is English a second language for you? "Evolution" as it is used in the title of the book you post has nothing to do with "Evolution" the biological theory (and neither would have anything to do with "evolution" as a naval operation). Your confusing of the terms indicates an intellect on par with the renowned LBB.

[Ten Megaton Solution]

that should be "irrational subconscious".

[Last Visible Dog]

Hint: Evolution for the purposes of these discussions usually is defined as "biological evolution" the definition accepted here

The discussions here were relating to cosmology and not biology. Evolution means things evolved - arguing over what evolved seems a bit unnecessary. Also, I never used the “biology” delimiter in my reference to evolution as cosmology. Evolution is a key principle in most theories of cosmology – making all the those “evolution has nothing to do with cosmology” statements that much more absurd.

[jwalsh07]

Personally, I don't claim to have a working hypothesis for the origin of the universe.

Then, necessarily, you must leave open the possibility of a Supreme Being as one possible explanantion yet atheists by definition deny this possibility.

And by doing so, they no longer can claim the mantle of scientific inquiry because they have ruled out what is indeed a distinct possible outcome when all is said and done.

To be clear, I'm a Grandpa and will be long gone by the time science tunes evolutionary theory and the cosmology of creation. So, I'm interested in the big picture which to me is Creation.

[longshadow]

I think a social-studies elective is most appropriate.

I've changed my mind.

I now conditionally support the inclusion of "Creationism" in public school curricula.......

The "condition" is that it be taught as part of the "Fallacies, Frauds, and Myths" section of a course of study on "Critical Thinking" skills. It can be taught along side "Flat-Earth" geography, Numerology, Astrology, Chiropratic and Homeopathic Medicine, Man-Induced Global Warming, Psychic Pets, Velikovskian Catastrophism, Crystal Healing, Aroma Therapy, Psychic Healing, and host of other examples of nonsense masquaerading as science.

If the Creationists want their ideas in school that badly, I say, let's accomodate them...... under "Fallacies, Frauds, and Myths."

[PatrickHenry]

Probably my last word on the insane "evolution as cosmology" issue:

Here's the home page of the University of Pennsylvania Department of Physics and Astronomy. "Astrophysics & Cosmology" is within that department. To no one's surprise, there is no mention of biology. CLICK HERE.

[PatrickHenry]

"Fallacies, Frauds, and Myths" section of a course of study on "Critical Thinking" skills.

Not bad. But the government schools (where unionized clerks babble mindlessly to your kids) don't have anyone qualified to teach such a course.

[Last Visible Dog]

Is English a second language for you? "Evolution" as it is used in the title of the book you post has nothing to do with "Evolution" the biological theory

So you are claiming the word evolution does not mean evolution? Does the word evolution in "Biological Evolution" have a different meaning than the word evolution in "Cosmic Evolution"? NO!

Is English your second language? The words mean the exact same thing - the only thing different is what evolves. The word evolution is not tied to biology – evolution is a concept that applies to many different systems.

Think out your statement before you post - your statement made no sense.