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.
Almost all of the subsets of the Big Bang theory assume that all of the energy in the universe was contained in a single atom, which then expanded in any number of dimensions to create the universe. As the universe expanded, the energy density of the universe dropped, and particles could condense out of the energy (there is a reaction where in two gamma ray photons(energy) collide, they create two particles of matter (which I can't remember, and I'm a little too busy at work here to look).
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.
As a scientist, I cannot believe that there are miracles. There is always a rational and logical physical explanation. Remember that the Northmen thought that lightning bolts were thrown by Thor, and other currently explained phenomena are no longer "unexplained". Therefore I don't believe that it is illogical. I don't think we'll ever know everything, but I believe that if we stop looking for answers, we'll truly have become a decadent and worthless society.
So, is THAT your point? (you may what to pop a verb into that statement)
We are dying to know exactly WHAT IS YOUR POINT. You attack others with name-calling but when you are asked to positively define and support your position - you dive for the tall grass.
Doesn't that violate our current laws of physics? All matter condensed to one atom - basically billions and billions and billions and billions of atoms condensed to one single atom. How can one atom in actuality be billions and billions and billions and billions of atoms? As I understand it (and I could very well be wrong) – there are theories of how this could be but this concept violates our current scientifically provable laws of physics.
As a philosophy I totally disagree. True scientists can not hold predetermined assumptions. You are saying you assume there is no possibility of miracles – in this statement you are not a scientist. A true scientist (speaking in archetypes) would say: anything is possible but currently I see not evidence that there are miracles.
I have big problems with supposed “men of science” that assume there is no god – that is not science, that is dogma support. A true scientist can only say – is it possible god exists but I have seen no evidence to support this position (just as I have seen no evidence that god does not exist – even though it is pretty much impossible to prove a negative)
There is always a rational and logical physical explanation.
That is a belief, not a fact (although there is evidence to support your belief)
Remember that the Northmen thought that lightning bolts were thrown by Thor, and other currently explained phenomena are no longer "unexplained". Therefore I don't believe that it is illogical. I don't think we'll ever know everything, but I believe that if we stop looking for answers, we'll truly have become a decadent and worthless society.
Funny, that is almost word-for-word my position. I have a bit different spin – I believe it is possible God may someday become part of the realm of science (rather than assuming someday we will prove there is no god) BOTTOM LINE: I agree with your position on this.
I stated in a previous post that scientists have determined that what we see with our eyes (matter) consists of both matter and information. It is the highly organized nature of that massive amount of information which points to a Designer. The facts, in other words, point to a Creator.
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.
How do you explain the empty tomb? Where is the body? Why did the Jews or Romans never produce it? What could possibly account for the drastic change in the behavior and actions of Jesus' disciples, from cowards hiding out in fear for their lives, to bold martyrs willing to testify they had seen Him alive right in the very city where He was crucified? How do you account for the change in the day of worship from Saturday (the 7th day) to Sunday (the 1st day) traceable back to 30 A.D.? How did the 15th chapter of Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians manage to be included in the Bible, without being refuted by the 500+ people whom Paul said saw Him alive? How do you explain the writings of Roman historians like Pliny the Younger who make reference to the resurrection?
Again, you have faith that this is true, not proof.
Unlike doubting Thomas, who saw the risen Christ in person and felt His wounds, I do not have the benefit of having seen Him alive myself. So yes, I accept the resurrection as an article of faith. But the Christian faith is based on reasonable evidence which God in His providence has given us. Faith does not contradict reason, but it does go beyond reason.
Having faith in something, is NOT having proof. That is why it is called faith.
That is true enough, but it is not the whole truth. Presumably you think that faith is on a par with mere fantasy or self-delusion. That is not so. As I said previously, Christian faith rests on a foundation of reasonable evidence.
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.
God is Spirit, not a material being.
Creation has already been published in the first few chapters of Genesis. All other published works are designed to challenge the original work and ... so far --- have failed.
How do you explain the first post in this thread?
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.
The FIRST post in this thread - the REALITY! - is a position related to cosmology (the world's origin). I think that means this thread started with a statement about cosmology and your statement is factually incorrect. I provided evidence of this already - you really should read the thread before you put your foot in your mouth.
Now it is time to ask you the question: WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR POINT (or is just a game of gotcha).
WRONG.
This thread stated as a debate on cosmology not biology - read the first post.
It was my tormenters that tried to pretend all evolution is biological evolution even though every time I used the word I put "cosmology" right next to it. Need I remind you that many of my tormenters screamed "evolution has nothing to do with cosmology" - they were later forced to admit they were wrong.
Studied philosophy, did you? You should demand a refund - trust me, you're entitled to one.
If nasty comments were intelletual - you would be an intellectual giant (they are not, sorry). You can save the "mine's bigger" debates for your junor high school locker room. Give it a rest.
Gosh, what a shame that your attention span couldn't carry you through to the end of the article:
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.
Now, which "theory of evolution" is discussed here? Remember, answers will be graded on their specificity as well as their accuracy....
The One True God is the Father of all men in the sense that He is their Creator. But this does not mean that all men therefore go to heaven to live eternally with God when they die. That requires salvation. That is a relationship that comes about when a man recognizes that he is a sinner who cannot meet God's standard of righteousness through his own efforts, and further understands that the destination of an unsaved man like himself is to spend eternity in hell. He further understands that God's only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, took it upon Himself to atone for the sin of man by dying on the cross of Calvary, thus paying the price man could not pay. When a lost sinner recognizes all of this, and places his faith and trust in the person and work of Christ alone, he is saved, and becomes a true child of God. God the Father adopts the saved man into His heavenly family. When this man dies, he goes to heaven for eternity.
So you see, there is a huge, eternal difference between God's care for the unsaved and God's care for the saved. It may appear that there is very little difference in this world between saved and unsaved, but this world is only a brief dwelling place for any of us. It's a two-world reality. This world is temporary; the next world is eternal.
It is a statement of fact, based on the available evidence. I cannot, however, be held responsible for how you choose to characterize that particular fact.
"Genesis as more of a religious lesson than an exact record of what happened" (Genesis=an explaination of how the universe was created = Cosmology)
"It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century that Genesis started to be taken literally." (Genesis=Cosmology)(darwinism did not exist in the 16th Century)
Charles Darwin spoiled that through his theory of natural selection, and the battle lines have been drawn ever since. (natural selection=biological evolution)
2 references to Cosomology and 1 reference to Biological Evolution (Darwinism).
I hope you were not trying to disprove my statement.
C'mon, chief - don't crap out on me now. You're so very close...
Please present your credentials - let use decide if you are qualified to judge someone’s level of education.
Is that Brahma or the Ginnungagap or the Trickster Coyote or...?
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.