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.

[Last Visible Dog]

Cosmology DOES NOT mean the "evolution of the universe" - buy a dictionary.

You got me on that one - I meant to say "per se" meaning that is not the only meaning of the word cosmology.

[Last Visible Dog]

One final word, to you: 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.

Do statements like that make you feel better about yourself?

[ThinkPlease]

Doesn't that fall into "a miracle happened" because your idea violates the known laws of physics?

Are you going to continue to act all coy? Or are you going to share with the group which laws I broke?

[jwalsh07]

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.

Do you draw funds from the public treasury?

[Last Visible Dog]

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."

I think that actually means today's miracles are tomorrow's technology (I don't agree with your spin)

[PatrickHenry]

Why do I continue to lurk here? Why? This thread is a freaking asylum!

[jwalsh07]

Why do I continue to lurk here?

Because it makes you feel superior to others?

[Aric2000]

You still don't get it, but then again, I do not expect you too.

That would be way too much for you I am afraid.

Creationists attack DARWINS theory of evolution, which had NOTHING to say about the origins of the universe.

Since that is what they attack directly with their ID and creationist nonsense, that is what we discuss.

Cosmology may be attacked as well, but it was NOT what we were discussing, until you got here of course, then for some reason NONE of us were on the same wavelength with you, because you DEMANDED that we discuss cosmology, which is NOT what we were discussing.

Therefore you were discussing one thing, and we were discussing something else, you still claimed we were discussing the same thing, even though it was WAY obvious that we weren't.

You continued to say that evolution had to discuss the origins of the universe, and we told you, in no uncertain terms that it did not.

We were discussing 2 different things, and you still refuse to admit that indeed we were discussing 2 different things.

Well, you got this thread loaded with posts if nothing else.

Other then that, you basically made a fool of yourself.

[JeepInMazar]

>>You have to admit though it does sound like a B movie plot.<<

Agreed. Let me look for the info. and hopefully get back to you. I have the guy's card in my office somewhere.

[JeepInMazar]

It was just about 15 or 20 years ago that the Brazilians discovered a major river that they did not know even existed. This river drained more than the Mississippi. It was discovered using infra-red photography (the river was completely hidden with foliage). My point is that there are huge tracts of land which remain essentially unexplored. So I'm not surprised at all by your assertion.

Thanks for mentioning this. So many people seem to believe that everything there is to discover about the earth has already been discovered.

[ThinkPlease]

I think that actually means today's miracles are tomorrow's technology (I don't agree with your spin)

A pity, you have the right tack, too. At least you show signs of understanding the material, even if you don't agree.

[PatrickHenry]

[Why do I continue to lurk here?] Because it makes you feel superior to others?

For that, I could visit the local homeless shelter. The conversation might even be at a higher level. Well, there's probably going to be at least one deranged wino babbling that "evolution is cosmology."

[JeepInMazar]

OK...I just found the guy's card. For some reason it is the only one in the section I have for retired missionaries to the Congo, so once I got to that section it was easy to find his card!

I just emailed him and hope to hear back from him.

[PatrickHenry]

I found someone else who thinks "evolution is cosmology":

[Stultis]

Cosmology has nothing directly to do with evolution (it is the study of the universe in totality including the course of nature). Cosmology DOES NOT mean the "evolution of the universe" - buy a dictionary. Biology is a part of cosmology. (I am guessing you do not understand the meaning of the word totality - nor do you own a dictionary because if you did you could look it up and see how wrong you are).

Source: The Collins English Dictionary © 2000 HarperCollins Publishers:

cosmology [k&#594;z'm&#594;l&#601;d&#658;ý]
noun

1	the philosophical study of the origin and nature of the universe

2	the branch of astronomy concerned with the evolution and structure of the universe

3	a particular account of the origin or structure of the universe example: Ptolemaic cosmology cosmological [ˌkɒzmə'lɒdʒýkəl] "cosmo'logic adjective "cosmo'logically adverb(ial) cos'mologist noun

source

[Agamemnon]

Of course, you know how to read Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek as well as Aramaic.

Yes, I can. Can you?

You don't need any Pope or any other man to translate the Bible for you, and you don't need any concordance, biblical commentary and lexicon to make sense of the Bible.

Just curious: Which Pope do you credit for translating your bible? Which concordances do you find are most helpful to your study of the bible? Which lexicons? Do you even have any? I have bookshelves full that I refer to constantly.

You are right that I don't need a Pope, though I do have great respect for him as a man. I just don't happen to have him, or Mary, or a host of saints standing between me and my relationship with Christ, nor do I owe anything to intermediaries in order to be able able to pray to Him. As iit is with some Catholics, apparently you feel differently.

You are displaying the typical arrogance and ignorance of Catholic bashers.

I don't bash Catholics. Many of my friends are Catholics. Most I know do not have questions about the authority of the bible like you do. We differ doctrinally on some points, but they don't question the authority of scripture. Your rush to declaim me for standing for the authority of scripture will put you in the company of quite a number of Catholic bashers actually.

But again, you are the Supreme Arbiter of Christian Orthodoxy, therefore unless I agree with your sectarian viewpoint, I'm following men and not the Holy Spirit.

If you continue to question the authority of scripture, I submit that it is your own needy ego which desires to be that "Supreme Arbiter," since you seem to wrestle so much with the Creator-God, Jesus Christ holding that title exclusively. It is His title after all, not yours, and not mine.

If you are not following Jesus Christ, you are following something other than Jesus Christ.

[Stultis]

We're now in the "Smokey Backroom."

#&*$(@(, &*(&@#(&, *(&*(#*&$%&^ $&^))@ *(&^(#!!!

[longshadow]

Doesn't that fall into "a miracle happened" because your idea violates the known laws of physics?

We're still waiting for you explanation of which laws you think "ThinkPlease's" idea violate.

Since you assured me that you DID study Cosmology as either an undergrad or a grad student, it should be a simple matter for you to demonstrate where and how his idea violates "known laws of physics."

[balrog666]

I just said "evolution as cosmology" was not a proven complete scientific theory -

Your statement is semantically equivalent to:

I just said "evolution as doughnuts" was not a proven complete scientific theory -

So, given your illogic and asinine attitude, buy a clue and crawl back under your rock like the cockroach that you emulate.

[balrog666]

Wow! How could such an absolute moron as LastIdiotOnEarth exist on FR for over 4 years without learning a single thing about thread discussions, internet etiquette, or even the most basic manners?

Have you ever run into such a buffoon before? How about this specific idiot? Is he a returnee activating some long dormant account? I don't mean to put you on the spot but have you got the slightest clue about this jerk?