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.
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.
I think the "Little Boy Blue" remarks have finally gotten to him.
No problem. I'm ready to receive his latest posts:
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.
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.
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?)
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."
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.