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.
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.
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.
The problem, of course, is with religion itself, since it's purpose is to enable the mind to escape reality.
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
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.
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.
The first message in this thread related to the origin of the universe.
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"?
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.
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
That is one way to react when you are proven wrong.
I would suggest that you do not talk to yourself.
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.