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.
What is your point?
So. You are unable to present supporting evidence for your positions so you have to resort to name-calling.
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.
Well. I don’t claim to be a physicist but all matter in the universe condensed into a pin-point seems to violate most laws of physics – if you think I am wrong (and I just might be), demonstrate I am wrong – do you turn to name-calling like a child.
Sorry – I seem to have misread the post number
This is your summation in the post:
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."
1. All matter in the universe condensed into a pin-point seems to violate laws of physics. Like I said I am not a physicist so I could easily be wrong. Please enlighten me. This is a peripheral issue and has little to nothing to do with my position.
2. I believe the theorem means today’s magic is tomorrows technology – it is illogical to extrapolate that means there is no possibility of miracles.
Ah, well, you see, if people don't ever see the evidence for biological evolution, then they can continue to pretend that there is no evidence for biological evolution. So when there's a thread that poses a dangerous likelihood that the actual merits of the theory might be discussed, the easiest way to keep the evidence from being seen is to hijack the thread with worthless and irrelevant semantic arguments.
This is my working theory, anyway, and so far I see no evidence that would cause me to revise it..
Not at all; just pointing out that a spade is a spade.
****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.****
Well. I don’t claim to be a physicist
Ahh, but you did proclaim I was wrong when I guessed that had had never studied Cosmology either as an undergrad or grad student, so pointing out the specific laws of physics that are violated by "ThinkPlease's" explanation, and how they violate them, should be a piece of cake, unless you really didn't study Cosmology after all.....
but all matter in the universe condensed into a pin-point seems to violate most laws of physics [snip]
Now, now; be specific. Which laws are violated, and how are they violated? This should be easy for you; you implied that you HAD studied Cosmology as an undergrad or grad student. Don't be coy, share you Cosmological wisdom with us.
Now you are getting silly. You are wrong to assume evolution means only biological evolution on this planet (especially if the word evolution is grouped with the term cosmology). There is no way to talk yourself out of this one – on this ONE ISSUE you were wrong. Many theories of cosmology have the word evolution in their mission statement (I provided evidence to support this) so let's stop beating the dead horse.
“evolution as cosmology” incorporates fish-to-man evolution but is not limit to the one form of evolution. (NOTE: cosmological theories are theories to explain the universe in totality – biological falls in the category “universe in totality”
When someone tells you to "Xerox" a report, do you sit and stare blankly because you have no idea what they mean because your office uses Canon Copiers? Should we have a study to determine how many people use the term, "Copier" instead of the more accepted and universally understood, "Xerox?"
First, Xerox is both the name of a company and the shorted version of the word “xerography” which is the process used in photocopiers.
When trying to understand the meaning of words – it is best to start at the dictionary (lets not pull a Clinton – words have meaning)
xerox - A trademark used for a photocopying process or machine employing xerography. This trademark often occurs in print in lowercase as a verb and noun: “Letters you send should be xeroxed after you sign them” (Progressive Architecture). “He has four or five sheets of foolscap, xeroxes, I see, of court documents” (Scott Turow).
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
It seems you do not fully understand the meaning of the word xerox.
Lets look at the dictionary meaning for evolution.
evolution 1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. 2. a. The process of developing. B.Gradual development.
The biology definition is number 3.
Also, back in my post #208 (one of my first to you) I did state that your use of "cosmology" must be some sort of strange caveat that only you understand. 400 posts later, i've been proven right. So far, you are alone on your intellectually devoid island in your understanding of the world.
Cosmology is the study of the universe in totality including but not limited to the origin. Nobody has presented a single piece of evidence to disprove this statement.
Cosmology The science of the world or universe; or a treatise relating to the structure and parts of the system of creation, the elements of bodies, the modifications of material things, the laws of motion, and the order and course of nature.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
I guess that puts Webster’s and all other dictionaries and science textbooks on my “intellectually devoid island”
Hint: you are making a fool out of yourself again – your attempts to pull victory from the jaws of defeat are just making you look silly.
I am no fool. I've "admitted you are correct" in the context of your singular reasoning.
“singular reasoning” = making an understandable point.
If some hippie on an acid trip tell me the clock is melting, how can I tell him otherwise?
If somebody tells you the meaning of the words evolution and cosmology and then shows you supporting evidence (dictionaries, science books)– you would have to be on acid to continue claiming those meanings are wrong.
I am glad you asked that question - the game of "gotcha" turns debates into meaningless rambling - let's get back on topic.
My point:
First I will start with disclaimers - I am not referring to biological evolution – that should be taught in school since much of it is scientifically verifiable. I do not think creationism should be taught in the context of biology.
My point is: in the context of cosmology (theories of the universe in totality) evolution as cosmology is no more scientifically provable than religion as cosmology (in the context of cosmology next biology) therefore all theories of cosmology (evolution based and religion based) should be presented in school so students can think it out for themselves rather than schools telling them what to think. (This is not a big issue since the study of cosmology does not dominate school science programs - this stuff falls better in the realm of philosophy)
I think this is rather humorous. I used the words cosmology and “evolution as cosmology” so people would not confuse my statements and think I was referring to biological evolution – instead even with these giant in-yo-face delimiters people still jumped to the conclusion that I was referring to biological evolution. This mindset is what I refer to when I use the term “orthodox Darwinists” (rigid reactionary followers of strict Darwinist evolution)
There is one other way he could have studied "cosmology" without knowing anything about physics. He could have taken a course by that name in a bible college.
Thank you for proving my point about your prideful arrogance and complete ignorance of the Catholic faith.
This is the "I am going to take my ball and go home" argument
HINT: debate does not work that way.
I presented a point related to what should be taught in schools in the context of cosmology (what you were debating has absolutely no bearing on my position – I was not talking directly to you). Not a single point in my position has been proven wrong. All that happened is a few of you ignored the delimiters in my position and you jumped to an illogical conclusion turning the debate into a game of “gotcha”
Not a single point in my position has been proven wrong. You misinterpretation of my statement along with some follow-up statement (“evolution has nothing to do with cosmology”) have been proven wrong.
Already have - now it is your turn.
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.