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.
And yet there are two orders of creation in Genesis, and at least two contradictory geneologies of Jesus in the NT. Man is fallible, as anyone who has dictated to a secretary knows...
Yeah, what's with this green stuff? I think he's urinating on his posts.
Evolution: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Creation and conscience are sufficient proof that God exists.
Next, you need to demonstrate that this god is in fact Jesus Christ as you describe him.
Jesus Himself has demonstrated that 2000 years ago by His miracles and His Resurrection.
Finally, you need to demonstrate that anything stated by Jesus Christ is necessarily the truth.
Christ's Resurrection validates His true identity and therefore His Word as well.
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.
God has presented sufficient evidence to all men. He awaits your response. Your desire to 'test my hypothesis' is not without merit in itself, but is disingenuous in the manner you have described. God is not a substance in a test tube, as you well know.
Clearly you do not understand the meaning of the words - why did you bother posting this message. Evolution is THE key concept in most cosmological theories (but not all). The problem with evolution as the ONLY driving force in a cosmological theory is there are some big holes (of course there are big holes in all cosmological theories). My position all along has been schools need to present all cosmologic theories (including creationism) because all theories have giant holes in them – so it is better to give ALL the information to students and allow them to think (their thinking in the future could help fill in the holes).
To sum up – evolution is the predominate theme/process in most cosmological theories (I am guessing you know nothing about cosmological theories– what is strange is if you scroll up you will find a physics book in which evolution is presented as the key concept in cosmology – when you make a fool out of yourself, you go all the way) When this supporting evidence was presented the other disrupters tried to say “well that ia s different type of evolutions” You really need to try and keep up.
You doughnuts comments demonstrates both your ignorance on this subject and your arrogance - I am amazed when someone like you arrogantly expresses their ignorance. But it is good for a chuckle.
HINT: if you are going to pretend you are an instant expert on a subject you better do some research so you can provide supporting evidence for your claims – claiming somebody is wrong and then spewing insults makes you look like a quasi-know-it-all junior high school student.
You make the assertions so I'll let you defend them. Just know that there has been no credible scholarship from even the most jaded of scriptural "higher" critics including some the most academically accomplished, who, when they became fully educated in the details of their own critique could find any contradiction in the scriptures themselves. Archaeological scholarship has similarly failed to contradict any account, as it appears in scriptures. So Junior, we all invite you to produce something that the "experts" on your side of the debate can't.
I suspect that you originated this thread with an intent to "stir things up." Fair enough. But be prepared to be called on to produce some original thought of your own from time to time. Instigating cock fights for the sake of doing so is a pastime typically reserved for the talentless and uninformed.
Seek help dude.
I have present many pieces of supporting evidence that evolution is the key element of most cosmological theories - that is what "evolution as cosmology" means. Basically I have provided evidence that you don't know what you are talking about (I also presented the dictionary definition [just in case you are completely clueless] – CLUE: evolution is a process and it is not limited to biology [on this planet]) In spite of all this information you spent a large amount of time making juvenile graphics that do nothing but expose your ignorance and arrogance.
Dude, when you make an a$$ out of yourself - you go all the way.
Evolution: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form [The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition]
So class, what would “evolution as cosmology” mean? RIGHT, a cosmological theory where a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
class dismissed.
Sorry that was not grammatically correct. Try this:
So class, what would “evolution as cosmology” mean? RIGHT, a cosmological theory where a gradual process changes things into different and usually more complex or better forms.
“evolution as cosmology” = a cosmological theory where evolution is the key principle
“religion as cosmology” = a cosmological theory where the teachings of the religion are the key principles (although these theories often try to incorporate evolution as a secondary principle)
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.
