Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Notre Dame priest: Creationism debate unique to U.S.
The Bozeman Daily Chronicle ^ | 2003-05-11 | Walt Williams

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.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 1,041-1,055 next last
To: jwalsh07
Then, necessarily, you must leave open the possibility of a Supreme Being as one possible explanantion yet atheists by definition deny this possibility.

Deny? I don't deny, I simply refuse to accept without evidence. Show me evidence of a universe-creating "Supreme Being", and I might change my tune.

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.

That depends. When you say "supreme being" are you referring to a purely natural phenomenon, or are you implying supernatural qualities as well?
521 posted on 05/12/2003 5:08:51 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
The discussions here were relating to cosmology and not biology.

Actually, the discussion here is focused evolution in the biological sense, and how it relates to Creationism, specifically how the silly creationist nonsense isn't spreading to other nations. You'd know this if you bothered to read the referenced article.

Evolution is a key principle in most theories of cosmology

That may be, but cosmological change isn't driven by natural selection or random mutation of genetic codes, and its meaning when used cosmologically means more of an orderly progression of events as the Laws of Thermodynamics are followed.

So, since this thread started on a biological theme, your insistence that Evolution be considered as a cosmological event is incorrect and improper, and possibly your understanding of the concepts are weak.

522 posted on 05/12/2003 5:09:27 PM PDT by Ten Megaton Solution
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
We've come to the crux of LVD's argument. It has nothing to do with the viability of biological evolution as a theory, it's merely semantic wordplay on the word 'evolution'.
523 posted on 05/12/2003 5:09:42 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
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.

Are still trying to claim evolution has nothing to do with cosmology. I think you already lost that one. Your "well evolution really only means biological evolution" argument does not fly.

524 posted on 05/12/2003 5:10:43 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: Manitoulin
The problem, of course, is not with religion in and of itself

The problem, of course, is with religion itself, since it's purpose is to enable the mind to escape reality.

525 posted on 05/12/2003 5:10:49 PM PDT by Ten Megaton Solution
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
The only one not discussing biological evolution WAS YOU!!!..

The rest of us were discussing the Theory of evolution, started by Darwin in 1859. This had to do with Biological evolution.

Not universe evolution, not cosmology, it was, and is, and has been about biological evolution.

It is really bizarre to be called clueless by the one who is actually clueless as to what the ORIGINAL discussion was about.
526 posted on 05/12/2003 5:11:27 PM PDT by Aric2000 (Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Okay, you're being obtuse. Biological evolution deals with the change in living organisms over generations. Cosmological evolution deals with stars, planets, et al. Biological change does not equate to cosmological change. The fact that you are bantering semantics in an effort to make your point speaks volumes for the soundness of your views.
527 posted on 05/12/2003 5:15:12 PM PDT by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
We've come to the crux of LVD's argument. It has nothing to do with the viability of biological evolution as a theory, it's merely semantic wordplay on the word 'evolution'.

Nope. I just said "evolution as cosmology" was not a proven complete scientific theory - some other clowns said "cosmology has nothing to do with evolution" and tried to support this silly statement by saying evolution really only means biological. I have not changed my position one bit - the wordplay comes form the disrupters

528 posted on 05/12/2003 5:15:15 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: Ten Megaton Solution
Isn't that a miss diagnosis ...

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

to pull (( point )) out the tumor (( denial // delusion // PROJECTION )) ---

rotten aching tooth !
529 posted on 05/12/2003 5:17:35 PM PDT by f.Christian (( I'm sure we could mount a "pay f.christian off" fund to get you to leave ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
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.

Or as my old undergraduate advisor used to put it, "The only thing constant is change." So what? It's not what was being bandied about before you got here. The subject of this thread was biological Evolution(or big e Evolution)--at least before you got it bogged down in 300 posts of semantical discussion. That has scientifically little to do with BB theory and cosmology. They share a common background of an old universe, but they have little to do with each other--just because you think it has a lot in common does doesn't make it so.

530 posted on 05/12/2003 5:18:06 PM PDT by ThinkPlease (Fortune Favors the Bold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

Comment #531 Removed by Moderator

To: Junior
Biological change does not equate to cosmological change

So? Evolution in both contexts means the exact same thing.

The fact that you are bantering semantics in an effort to make your point speaks volumes for the soundness of your views.

Spoken by a person that just posted a message bantering sematics in an effort to make their point. You should have read that one before you posted it because you just nailed your own butt to the wall.

532 posted on 05/12/2003 5:20:33 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
Or as my old undergraduate advisor used to put it, "The only thing constant is change." So what? It's not what was being bandied about before you got here. The subject of this thread was biological Evolution(or big e Evolution)--at least before you got it bogged down in 300 posts of semantical discussion

The first message in this thread related to the origin of the universe.

533 posted on 05/12/2003 5:24:20 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Nope. I just said "evolution as cosmology" was not a proven complete scientific theory - some other clowns said "cosmology has nothing to do with evolution" and tried to support this silly statement by saying evolution really only means biological. I have not changed my position one bit - the wordplay comes form the disrupters

That dog don't hunt. I don't believe you said that until post #161(our fourth post on this thread), and not again until post #200--never mind that it's just awkward terminology anyway? Why not just say "Big Bang theory"?

534 posted on 05/12/2003 5:24:51 PM PDT by ThinkPlease (Fortune Favors the Bold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: All
Gentlemen, I'm out of this moronic sub-thread about "cosmology as evoution" -- or is it "evolution as cosmology"? -- because there's nowhere for this conversation to go.

Why I No Longer Debate Idiots .

535 posted on 05/12/2003 5:27:03 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Theory: a comprehensible, falsifiable, cause-and-effect explanation of verifiable facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: Manitoulin
I may be splitting hairs, but the problem is with those who use religion for purposes other than escaping reality.

Well, no. The problem lies, and always will, with those willing to let others do their thinking for them. Who insist on using emotion as their primary arbiter of action. If these people didn't exist, no one would be able to "use" religion for any purpose at all.

And clearly one cannot "replace" something that is built into our genetic code. But with knowledge comes choice. We no longer choose to treat lepers are filthy outcasts, because we at least recognize a disease when we see one.

We no longer choose to blame the woman for not producing the son we want. We know it's the male contribution that determines the child's sex.

We no longer blame the woman for being "barren", since we know men can be infertile, too.

We no longer choose to perform exorcisms on the mentally ill, since we know far more about the brain than we used to.

So, there's no reason why we should choose to treat religion as anything other than an irrational urge that should be controlled as an exercise of maturity.

536 posted on 05/12/2003 5:27:40 PM PDT by Ten Megaton Solution
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
That has scientifically little to do with BB theory and cosmology. They share a common background of an old universe, but they have little to do with each other--just because you think it has a lot in common does doesn't make it so.

So you are back to the "biological evolution has no connection to cosmology" word game.

Try this:

Cosmology: The science of the world or universe; or a treatise relating to the structure and parts of the system of creation, the elements of bodies, the modifications of material things, the laws of motion, and the order and course of nature.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

537 posted on 05/12/2003 5:28:11 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Why I No Longer Debate Idiots .

That is one way to react when you are proven wrong.

I would suggest that you do not talk to yourself.

538 posted on 05/12/2003 5:29:40 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 535 | View Replies]

To: Ten Megaton Solution
Trivia genius -- reality drop out ...

try to see the forest --- saw dust !
539 posted on 05/12/2003 5:30:01 PM PDT by f.Christian (( I'm sure we could mount a "pay f.christian off" fund to get you to leave ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
An excellent link, to be sure.
540 posted on 05/12/2003 5:31:57 PM PDT by Ten Megaton Solution
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 535 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 1,041-1,055 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson