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.
Re-education camps or shock therapy?
Let me guess: English isn't your native language.
Let me guess again: you've never studied Cosmology either at a under-grad or graduate level.
Cosmology: A branch of study concerned with the origins and nature of the universe.
It's nice to see you finally define your terms. It only took you 5 hours.
Now back to your original thesis: "Ok. THE basic tenet on which all of evolution (as a cosmological theory) is based is the tenet: “something came from nothing”."(back in post #200)
Are you sure that's what Big Bang theory says? Or is this just an approximation of something you made up in your head?
Says you. The twisters and distorted disparately tried to change what I was saying.
Evolution as Cosmology has no connection to the Big Bang Theory (unless you believe the Big Bang evolved (actually that is a big problem with evolution as cosmology). Evolution as cosmology is the theory that everything evolved (the cosmos, biology, everything) - no design, no cause. Problem is we have evidence that the universe started from a single cause making the foundation of evolution as cosmology either “something came from nothing” or “a miracle happened”
No more. No less.
Citation? Surely you can quote a published work?
How about simply standing for the truth and not accepting religious induced nonsense? How about living a life free from external mind control, to set the example.
Last time I checked, shock therapy and camps weren't necessary to support the heliocentric theory.
You are implying that the all-powerful, Creator-God of the Universe somehow couldn't get His message or facts straight, because He chose to use and speak through men? Jesus could have used the stones themselves to speak on His behalf, He's used the Universe itself when it suits His purpose: as scriptures say, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork...."
It suited his purpose to have man write the scriptures, and to trascend man's imperfections in doing so. Can your God, or god, as the case may be, do that? You might want to at the same time ask yourself, "How big is your God?" Big enough to transcend man's failings? I don't know about your god, but mine is.
"Of course, they were "inspired" by God,
Yes, does that mean anything to you, or is it just a throw away line?
but remember that Moses talked face to face with God, and even he had a problem "getting it right", which is why he was not allowed to enter the promised land.
Correction. He had a problem in a very specific instance with obedience, the penalty of which for disobedience denied his entry into the "Promised Land."
Therefore if Moses was unable to follow God's command, even though he was being instructed DIRECTLY by God, it follows that those mortals who wrote down the scriptures probably didn't follow God's directions perfectly either.
The disciples themselves were instructed directly by Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, Himself. Some were obedient, and one was actually indwelt for a time by Satan, himself. So what's your point? God is powerful enough to use imperfect vessels to do perfect work. He's God after all. It may be beyond man's ability and man's "logic" contained in 3.5 pounds of grey matter to understand, but most things about God are beyond man's ability to comprehend.
So, then, it can be construed that you CAN question the veracity of the bible and still be a Christian.
Sure, you can question the veracity of the bible if you like. Christians often question the veracity of the bible. As often happens, though, it becomes merely the first step on a journey that will have an honest biblical researcher asking himself how he could have possibly questioned the veracity of the bible in the first place. You'll get from point A to point B if you take the bible at face value from the start, realizing first that the One who wrote it by inspiration knows more than either you or I do.
You tell me. I presented options "a miracle happened" "something came from nothing". If you would like to present others - please do.
Where do you think the matter came from?
Evolution has to have a starting point - therein lies the problem.
Is your plan to attack me or state what YOU think?
Your search - "evolution as cosmology" - did not match any documents.
I once ran into a similar linguistic problem. The person was a native speaker of English. He was a very left-wing democrat, and a sodomite (but I repeat myself). He insisted that the "general welfare" clause in the US Constitution authorized our current "war on poverty" programs. "See there," he would say, "it says right in the Constitution -- welfare!" No matter how one would try to reason with him that the word in the Constitution didn't have the Great Society meaning, he just wouldn't see it. So whatcha gonna do? I gave up trying to reason with him.
Wrong on both points. Your perfect record is intact.
BTW: are you people claiming biology does not fall into the context of "the entire physical universe"
How far are you guys planning on going with this?
Actually you are wrong. This thread stated related to the origin of the universe.
I never used the term "cosmological event" Mr. Wordgames.
One minute you agree evolution is a key princple in most theories of cosmology then you say it is incorrect to considered evolution a cosmological event. Get your story straight - which is it?
BTW: I think it is "incorrect and improper" to claim evolution is an "event"
It seems pretty straightforward to me, there's nothing that says that the most basic physical rules were broken in anyway, right? So therefore, the conservation of energy holds. So, the matter went...nowhere...it was always there...in the form of energy? Matter? Chances are, though, it was extremely compact. Until we pierce the infrared background, we can only make models using the IR background as a boundary condition.
In short, it did NOT come from nowhere. Nor is it a miracle. I propose a corollary to Clarke's theorem, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", which is: "Any physical phenomenon that we do not understand is NOT a miracle."
The first message in this thread is about the origin of the universe.
You argue semantics, we argue evolution, BIOLOGICAL evolution, and creationism/ID.
Funny. All you have done is attack me with semantics. I was not the one desperately trying to differentiate between types of evolution.
Words means things (yes, I know, I should then say that this is "some final words"...).
I will use them as they are intended to be used, and won't pay you any more attention at all.
Good night.
Cosmology is the study of the origin, current state, and future of our Universe.
Source: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
Credentials of author: ABscl, Harvard Physics, 1969 Ph.D., Harvard Astronomy, 1976
Doesn't that fall into "a miracle happened" because your idea violates the known laws of physics?
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.