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 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 1,041-1,055 next last
To: Last Visible Dog
I'm still waiting for you to specifically point out where I was in error in my post #555.
621 posted on 05/13/2003 6:53:31 AM PDT by ThinkPlease (Fortune Favors the Bold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
"Dude," you win. From now on, "dude," I will take the time and make the effort to spell out "Biological Evolution," "Dude."

Since you have proven yourself to be the 2nd most dense troll in the history of FR , I will do this for you in the hopes that it shuts you up. ("dude")

"Dude," when you learn the difference between "evolution" of the cosmos and what 99.9% of humans mean when they talk about "Evolution," and when you can learn to take a joke, and when you learn that repeating stupidass claims 100+ times on the same thread doesn't make you right, then, "dude," we'll talk again.

Essentially, you're pulling a Clinton here. Y'know, what the definition of "is," is? Moron.
622 posted on 05/13/2003 6:56:13 AM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
I'm still waiting for you to specifically point out where I was in error in my post #555.

That's simple... your error was simply expecting something cogent from LVD.
623 posted on 05/13/2003 7:00:30 AM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Look, look! It's more than biology and cosmology: The Evolution of the Computer.
624 posted on 05/13/2003 7:04:57 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

Comment #625 Removed by Moderator

To: PatrickHenry
Smokey link.
626 posted on 05/13/2003 7:41:08 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
I believe in one God, but all this that you mention, just doesn't seem to be valid demonstrations...just strong beliefs. The fact that we exist, doesn't really prove that God exists.

Creation is undeniable proof that God exists. Since it greets us every morning of our lives, it must be accounted for by some means. Science has revealed that there is an immense and exceedingly complex and well organized amount of information contained in the matter which comprises human beings and animals and plants, etc. It is obvious that the created order requires a Designer.

Belief in miracles and resurrection, is not proof to those that do not believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God, as none of that is proof.

The Resurrection of Christ is not only testified to in the Bible, but is also supported by historical evidence. Those who reject the testimony of the Bible have not thereby placed themselves in some kind of invulnerable position where they may be assured that there is no need to consider the matter further.

I do not attempt to validate my belief in God with any form of proof, I merely accept it and present it as an unsubstantiable belief. Why is it necessary for some to attempt to prove their beliefs?

Faith (in anything) that is not able to be substantiated in any way by reference to objective and external means is not a reasonable faith. Such a "faith" would merely be wishful thinking. In order for faith to be valid, the object of that faith must be valid. Christ Himself furnishes proof for us through His Resurrection and His present-day, real-time answers to our prayers and our questions. The Holy Spirit Himself resides within true believers in order to bear witness of Christ. God has not left Himself without a witness.

627 posted on 05/13/2003 7:47:26 AM PDT by music_code
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: music_code
I believe creation is the undeniable proof that the world has been created, nothing to do with how, why, or by whom. That is speculation. It does not have to be accounted for by any means.....it is, and will remain, a mystery to all on earth. The mystery is what is obvious.

I do not believe that the resurrection is supported by evidence.

What is faith, other than something which cannot be substantiated...if it was substantiated, then it would be a fact that none could deny, and there would be repeatable proof. I believe that God answers all our prayers, regardless of our differing, earthly, religious beliefs. This could be construed as proof of God, by some....but not proof of resurrection of the man named Jesus.
628 posted on 05/13/2003 8:01:39 AM PDT by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Sigh... time to sink to your level:



629 posted on 05/13/2003 8:03:28 AM PDT by balrog666 (When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon
Matthew and Luke give different geneologies for Jesus. There have been numerous attempts to reconcile the two, but the fact remains that two different geneologies are presented. A scholar might claim that one or the other is not the actual geneology but representative of something else -- but there is nothing in the Bible to support such a view (Sola Scriptura, n'est-ce pas?). Such is the same for the two creation accounts in Genesis -- both of which have already been posted on this thread. Some have claimed that these are simply two separate views of the same events; however, the orders of creation are markedly different. I've known some Christians to claim that the two accounts of the origins of man actually indicate that Adam had two wives, with Eve being the second (this is the foundation of the "Lilith" myth). However, no amount of squirming will obviate the simple fact that there are two different stories. I'm sure you are going to blow off this posting with a blythe "you simply don't know what you are talking about" quip, without actually addressing the points above. However, I'm quite used to such treatment at the hands of creationists, so rest assured I shall not be offended.
630 posted on 05/13/2003 8:07:15 AM PDT by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Yeah, what's with this green stuff? I think he's urinating on his posts.

I think the "Little Boy Blue" remarks have finally gotten to him.

631 posted on 05/13/2003 8:08:35 AM PDT by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: Junior
I think the "Little Boy Blue" remarks have finally gotten to him.

No problem. I'm ready to receive his latest posts:


632 posted on 05/13/2003 8:15:37 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 631 | View Replies]

To: Junior; PatrickHenry
You may continue to use "LBB."

In fact, it may now be more apt: "Little Boy Bile"
633 posted on 05/13/2003 8:23:47 AM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 631 | View Replies]

To: music_code
You contradict yourself. You say there is object and external evidence, then say that the evidence resides within true believers. Even the most preposterous "isms" have true believers. As for prayers being answered, are you willing to assert that the "answer" to any given prayer can be known in advance, or do the answers only become known in retrospect?
634 posted on 05/13/2003 8:27:05 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
Thank you for your response. I am well aware of the context of that passage, regarding His patience with us. We would fail to exist if not for His benevolence!

"2 Pet 3:8 KJV) But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

Just the same, Peter is reminding us that God is not confined to the same constraints of time that man is--He created time.
When I discuss with promoters of the evolution theory (which is based greatly on faith as much as creationism is), and am faced with their scientific "proof" of the ages of various things, despite the errors of carbon dating, I have no qualms in giving them that leeway in that God did not say how long His day was.
He was also communicating to us His plan on how to live and work (time-schedule-wise), and setting our lives on HIS schedule. (wish I could keep mine on His schedule always!!)

And once again, where do you stand on John 6:44-6:66??? ;)

635 posted on 05/13/2003 8:43:44 AM PDT by GOP_Thug_Mom (ad majorem dei gloriam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: js1138
You contradict yourself. You say there is object and external evidence, then say that the evidence resides within true believers.

There is no contradiction. There are two different kinds of evidence being spoken of. Internally, the Holy Spirit bears witness that the Christian is a true child of God (Romans 8). Externally, there is the witness of history, archaeology, and the changed lives of millions of people from sinners to saints to show that Christianity is true.

Even the most preposterous "isms" have true believers.

Exactly. That is why faith must be evaluated. The false must be exposed.

As for prayers being answered, are you willing to assert that the "answer" to any given prayer can be known in advance, or do the answers only become known in retrospect?

Answers to prayer are regularly experienced by those who know the One True Living God.

636 posted on 05/13/2003 8:54:41 AM PDT by music_code
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
"Dude," when you learn the difference between "evolution" of the cosmos and what 99.9% of humans mean when they talk about "Evolution," and when you can learn to take a joke, and when you learn that repeating stupidass claims 100+ times on the same thread doesn't make you right, then, "dude," we'll talk again.

Pardon me for referring to you with a familiar term; I will never do it again.

You claim 99.9% of humans believe evolution only means fish-to-man Darwinism (biological evolution); do you have any supporting evidence for this claim? I am guessing you just made that up. How can you insult other peoples intelligence when you make up “facts” in your statements?

The funny part of all of this is: I use to term “evolution as cosmology” to avoid confusion between one specific theoretical application of evolution and evolution as a concept. Clearly people like “whattajoke” are not here for debate or intellectual exchange – they are here to play “gotcha” – whattajoke thought he found a gotcha in my statement “evolution as cosmology” based on his misunderstanding of the term evolution.

Another point: I only repeated my point when somebody insulted me by attacking me personally and not the position I was taking.

You look really pathetic when you admit I was correct yet you still continue to insult my intelligence.

To sum up: the term “evolution as cosmology” defines cosmological theories where evolution in the key principle (the concept, not fish-to-man evolution) – this term is needed so that I can differentiate between “religion as cosmology”. Before you run off on yet another red herring – I am not implying there are only two cosmological theories – there are many “evolution as cosmology” theories and many "religion as cosmology” theories and even hybrids that contain a little of both.

The entire point is all cosmological theories have giant holes so present all of them in school to allow students to think rather than telling them what to think – this quickly degraded into a game of gotcha in an attempt to insult my intelligence. What is funny is the absurd nature of the gotcha arguments like “evolution has nothing to do with cosmology”

Now whattajoke is trying to save face by admitting I am correct while he continues to insult me. A wise man once said (related to Internet decision forums): He who resorts to insults loses – every time.

Essentially, you're pulling a Clinton here. Y'know, what the definition of "is," is? Moron.

Are you capable of rational thought? You are the one pulling a Clinton. I am using the actually COMPLETE MEANING of the word (Words do have meaning) - you are trying to claim your personal meaning of the word is the only meaning of the word. Clinton tried to claim “is” only meant “right now” and you tried to claim “evolution” only meant “biological evolution”.

You really make a fool out of yourself when you call me names while making irrational and not well thought out statements.

637 posted on 05/13/2003 8:57:03 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies]

To: music_code
With reference to your last line...how would one explain the prayers of non-Christians that are answered?
638 posted on 05/13/2003 8:58:04 AM PDT by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 636 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Sigh... time to sink to your level:

I see you do not handle defeat very well. (I guess you are pissed that you can’t take your ball and go home)

BTW: Now I am playing gotcha. (when in Rome, do as the Romans?)

639 posted on 05/13/2003 8:59:58 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: balrog666; PatrickHenry; ThinkPlease; Junior
I don't mean to put you on the spot but have you got the slightest clue about this jerk?

A quick review of his prior posts suggests he's basically a troll.

He also seems to have one or two fixations (ranting about how drawing inferences about criminal intent is a form of "mind-reading") and a peculiar "oddness" or incoherence in his remarks that could be indicative of an underlying pathology, though it would be speculative of me to attempt to be more precise.

BTW, note that after proclaiming that the rest of us "know nothing about cosmology" and after specifically challenging the explanation for the origin of the Universe offered by "ThinkPlease" as being a violation of "the known laws of physics," he conspicuously has avoided responding to the follow-up request by "ThinkPlease" at #563 to identify which laws of physics he thinks are being violated.

For someone who would have us believe that he studied cosmology as a undergrad or grad student, it should be a simple matter for him to answer that question, yet he avoids it like the plague.

Such is the modus operandi of the "troll."

640 posted on 05/13/2003 9:04:54 AM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 580 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 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