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 the HELL are you talking about?
Book of Gensis = Cosmology
Darwins work = Biological Evolution
What the HELL is your point (you have been proven wrong - changing the subject will not help). The opening passage contained references to cosmology and the FIRST message in the thread referred to cosmology therefore your claim that his thread was about biological evolution and not cosmology is blatantly false.
C'mon, chief - don't crap out on me now. You're so very close...
You though you had a gotcha by posting statements from the opening passage but you failed to realize more of the quotes referred to cosmology than biological evolution thus rendering your point invalid. I am not close - I am there - I provided proof your statement was wrong.
A completely unsupported statement has no merits - on that it will stand.
But since you're so concerned about that sort of thing, why don't you post your own CV, so that we might judge your claims as to your qulifications to speak about cosmology specifically and philosophy generally?
You made the point that you were in a position to judge other people - you can't turn that back on me - I didn't make that stupid statement.
That's okay, just go on as you are - go ahead and beat your chest some more, declare victory once or twice more, and strut around as though you've thoroughly vanquished the infidels. With a little luck, nobody will notice that you've completely refused to address the very simple question of which account is generally referred to as "evolution" - Darwin, or something else...
What the HELL does this question have to do with whether or not this thread was about cosmology?
All you are doing is trying to change the subject.
The Theory of evolution is referred to as "evolution" (duh) - I thought you were trying to prove this thread was not about cosmology - the example you presented had three references to cosmology and one reference to biological evolution (looks like your position has been proven wrong)
What the HELL is your point!?!
Au contraire - the record is there before us, for anyone to see. And frankly, it speaks for itself.
You made the point that you were in a position to judge other people - you can't turn that back on me - I didn't make that stupid statement.
I merely note that your claims of training in philosophy do not jibe with your rhetorical gambits thus far. I chose to assume that the cause of this was poor training and inadequate education. In this, I am being quite generous, to be honest - the other options available to me are that you are simply unintelligent, or that you are purposefully mendacious. If you prefer one of those alternatives instead, please let me know.
I have no interest in debating if the Theory of Evolution is called Evolution - of course it is - so what?
God's love is unconditional. God's forgiveness is conditional. They are two separate concepts. John 3:16 explains the distinction:
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son..." -- that is the UNconditional part - God's love.
"...that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." -- that is the CONDITIONAL part - God's forgiveness.
This life matters very much, for it is the blueprint for eternity for each human being. True, a lifespan of even 100 years is quantitatively like "zero" when compared to eternity. However, that is not the issue. Man was created to live forever in his natural state. He forfeited that immortality through disobedience (sin). So instead we live in bodies which age, grow weak, and die. But man is a being created to live eternally. Once created, he exists forever. Following physical death comes the intermediate state of spiritual body existence in the present-day heaven or the present-day hell (Hades, to be more exact). At some point(s) in the future God will raise the bodies of the saved and the lost. Final settlement concerning heavenly rewards for the saved and degrees of punishment for the lost will be determined by God. Final destinations will be established in heaven/earth for the saved, and the Lake of Fire for the lost.
To sum up: One. Where you go in the next life (heaven or hell) hinges on what your response is IN THIS LIFE to who Jesus Christ is (declared to be the Son of God), and what He has done for mankind (dying on the cross of Calvary to atone for the sins of the world).
Two. What the next life (eternity) is like (regardless which place you end up) hinges on how you lived IN THIS LIFE. For the saved, the degree and quality of heavenly rewards, responsibilities, privileges, capacity for enjoyment, fellowship with God, etc., hinges on the quality of the service you rendered for Christ while here on earth. Motives will be examined as well as deeds. Heart attitude counts big time. For the lost, works and again motives will be examined. Degree of punishment will be based on what light (knowledge) you had, what opportunities you had, and what you did with those opportunities. Your exact degree of accountability will be determined by Almighty God, and your degree of suffering and your solitary place in the Eternal Lake Of Fire will be fixed, forever.
Then there's the age old question about why bothering to live here at all. Catholics, at least, cover this one up by saying suicide is a mortal sin, but to my knowledge, I'm not sure that's officially part of protestantism.
If one is saved, even suicide will not change your destination from heaven to hell, since in fact there is no sin that you can commit that can ever separate you from the love of God (Romans 8:33-39). Heaven is the sure destination of the Christian - every Christian, from the greatest to the least.
Now, if one is lost, suicide merely hastens your arrival in Hades. Whether it makes for worse punishment in hell is speculation, but off the top of my head I'd have to say it doesn't look good on a resume.
If I lived on the "wrong side of the tracks" and moving up to the right, beautiful, side of the tracks were simple, I'd do whatever it takes to get to the other side.
God has made it simple. Salvation is a gift that one must freely accept in order to receive.
It's very simple. Your post 653 is either woefully uninformed, or purposefully meretricious. To wit:
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)
But now you've had several hundred posts patiently explaining, impatiently informing, and just generally out and out telling you that the theory of evolution is not a cosmological theory, and yet you continue to carry on as though it were. It is not, your ridiculous tap-dancing notwithstanding. I understand perfectly how convenient it is to label it as such, but nowhere has anyone said, stated, implied, or inferred that Darwin's evolution - the only evolutionary theory present in the article, remember - is a theory to explain the origins of anything other than life on earth. And yet you keep attacking "evolution as cosmology" when nothing in this article refers to any such thing, and no one other than you appears to be proposing such a thing.
Why are you doing that? What the hell is your point, to quote something I've heard somewhere recently...
Threads which continue for the length that these do and are topics concerned with matters of parochial interest, rather than general interest are moved to the backroom, not because you have chosen to harrangue the authority of the bible, or because (as quoted above) it appears that you are the one afflicted with the passion for name calling and less-than-civilized discourse.
If you continue to post in this fashion, it won't surprise me in the least if the Administrator loses his patience with you and decides to pull the thread. Then you can accuse him of being anti-Catholic too.
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.