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 ... 621-640641-660661-680 ... 1,041-1,055 next last
To: music_code
Creation is nothing of the sort, you have faith that it is true, NOT proof.

The resurrection of Jesus is not backed up by historical evidence, as a matter of fact it is the exact opposite.
The bible is the ONLY place that it is stated that jesus was crucified and resurrected.

Again, you have faith that this is true, not proof.

Having faith in something, is NOT having proof. That is why it is called faith.

And if I told someone that something resided in me, they would put me away in the funny farm, with nice large padded rooms and jackets with sleeves that tie in the back.
641 posted on 05/13/2003 9:05:12 AM PDT by Aric2000 (Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
550 was not address to me nor have I taken a position on it. I see no errors in the statement but I have no idea how it fits into the context of this debate. If you are one of those that is trying to pretend the word evolution only means biological evolution - you have already been proven wrong.

What is your point?

642 posted on 05/13/2003 9:07:18 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Such is the modus operandi of the "troll."

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.

643 posted on 05/13/2003 9:14:12 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Oi vey.

first of all, you may call me dude if you wish.

Ok, I'll admit, there has never been a study to determine what percentage of humans think of "biological evolution" when the term "evolution" is used. So my figure of 99.9% was, indeed, "made up." A study of this type has never been undertaken, perhaps, because everyone (save for you) already knows the outcome. 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?"

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.

I am no fool. I've "admitted you are correct" in the context of your singular reasoning. If some hippie on an acid trip tell me the clock is melting, how can I tell him otherwise? To him, the clock is indeed melting. to you, the term "evolution" is much broader and expansive than an as yet undetermined percentage of humans typically believes it to mean. Is that fair?

I've been meaning to ask you... after your 100 or so posts arguing your tenuous position, What's your point again?
644 posted on 05/13/2003 9:15:27 AM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies]

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

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.

645 posted on 05/13/2003 9:23:02 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
What's your point again?

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..

646 posted on 05/13/2003 9:23:10 AM PDT by general_re (No problem is so big that you can't run away from it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Ahh, the troll continues trolling.

Can we be done please?

This is just stupid.

We were talking Biological evolution, and you came in and tossed down cosmological evolution, 2 different animals, one is SPECIFIC, the other is GENERAL.

Your general theory is NOT what we were discussing, and when told that, you demanded that we discuss YOUR definition of evolution, which is NOT our definition of evolution.

So please, take your ball and go home, all your doing is upsetting yourself, and frustrating a few others, I would really like to get back to the subject at hand, instaed of trying to define something for you that should NOT need defining.
647 posted on 05/13/2003 9:25:18 AM PDT by Aric2000 (Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog; ThinkPlease
So. You are unable to present supporting evidence for your positions so you have to resort to name-calling.

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.

648 posted on 05/13/2003 9:42:48 AM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: BenR2
Thanks for taking the time to reply. So there are parts of the Bible that are symbolic and not meant as a literal interpretation. That then opens up a new set of problems, though. Which parts are to be read as literal; and which are symbolism, allegory or simply instructions directed at the human condition (as in this case, where we are instructed to rest one day each week).
649 posted on 05/13/2003 9:50:23 AM PDT by plusone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 599 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Ok, I'll admit, there has never been a study to determine what percentage of humans think of "biological evolution" when the term "evolution" is used. So my figure of 99.9% was, indeed, "made up." A study of this type has never been undertaken, perhaps, because everyone (save for you) already knows the outcome.

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.

650 posted on 05/13/2003 9:53:46 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
***I'm tired of your nonsense. Here's the original article. Remind me (and many others) again what your point is. The issue at hand is that priest/professor at ND said that Creationism is unique (pretty much) to the US. He made no mention of the cosmos. No one has. No one discussing biological evolution ever has.

You have. Why?

Notre Dame priest: Creationism debate unique to U.S.
The Bozeman Daily Chronicle ^ | 2003-05-11 | Walt Williams


Posted on 05/11/2003 7:38 PM EDT 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.


651 posted on 05/13/2003 10:09:49 AM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
For my sanities sake, will you please stop?

Your continued stupidity is getting old.

We were discussing BIOLOGICAL evolution.

YOU were discussing COSMOLOGICAL evolution.

2 DIFFERENT animals.

Now that we have the definitions STRAIGHT, will you please move on?

We will continue to DISCUSS BIOLOGICAL evolution, NOT Cosmological evolution. OK?

Evolution, the term came about from Darwins theory, the word was then used for other theories, such as COSMOLOGICAL evolution. We discuss the FIRST, not the second.

Have you figured it out yet? Or do I need to mail it to you.

Please stop, you were WRONG, by trying to discuss a TOTALLY different theory then we were discussing.

Admit it and move on, this is getting ridiculous.
652 posted on 05/13/2003 10:10:58 AM PDT by Aric2000 (Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
I've been meaning to ask you... after your 100 or so posts arguing your tenuous position, What's your point again?

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)

653 posted on 05/13/2003 10:11:11 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Now, now [Last Visible Dog]; 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.

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.

654 posted on 05/13/2003 10:11:18 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 648 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon
I've noticed that this thread was moved into the backroom because "Christians" like you cannot have a civilized debate without calling names and questioning the faith of anyone disagreeing with your sectarian view.

Thank you for proving my point about your prideful arrogance and complete ignorance of the Catholic faith.

655 posted on 05/13/2003 10:13:37 AM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 576 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Anarcho-loon alert --- bolsheviks !
656 posted on 05/13/2003 10:14:44 AM PDT by f.Christian (( I'm sure we could mount a "pay f.christian off" fund to get you to leave ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 653 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
We were discussing BIOLOGICAL evolution. YOU were discussing COSMOLOGICAL evolution.

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.

657 posted on 05/13/2003 10:19:53 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 652 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Now that we have the definitions STRAIGHT, will you please move on?

Already have - now it is your turn.

658 posted on 05/13/2003 10:20:44 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 652 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; longshadow; general_re; Aric2000
I don't know about you guys, but I've officially quit with this guy.

We all have our limits.

see you in the next thread.
659 posted on 05/13/2003 10:21:20 AM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Agreed, see ya there.
660 posted on 05/13/2003 10:22:56 AM PDT by Aric2000 (Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 659 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 621-640641-660661-680 ... 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