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.
Does the term “build” define the processes involved in his work? No. One can build a house or build a Mini Cooper. This person builds houses. So build does not clearly define what he does
So. Is house a way to build? A process? But wait it is also a product.
A builder says he builds houses – is “houses” a product or a process or both?
A "house" is a product. "Building" is a process. "Building a house" is a more specific sort of process. Did you really need me to explain this to you? Here's a hint: notice the difference between the noun, "house", and the verb, "build". "Verbs", as you may or may not recall, denote actions, and "nouns" denote things. A "house" is a thing, not an action, and to "build" is an action, not a thing.
Okay, I admit - "products" versus "processes" was probably too advanced. Clearly, what is needed is a review of "nouns" versus "verbs".
What do you call the process to build a Hummer?
Have you ever heard of the term archetype is a Jungian context?
A person that works in the factory that builds Hummers says “I build hummers” – is that a process or a product. His work is not a product (not in this context). His work is not a Hummer – it is the process evolved in building a Hummer. Build does not define what he does because as I pointed out earlier, people also build houses. Clearly in this context hummer is both a product and process.
I am guessing you never studied philosophy. Just a guess.
Back to you disrupter.
Exactly. house is both a product and process: "building a house" defines a process not a product (the house will ultimately be a product) but when you say “building a house” you are speaking of a process.
Make that: archetype in a Jungian context
RIGHT ON!
A "house" is a product. "Building" is a process. "Building a house" is a more specific sort of process. Did you really need me to explain this to you? Here's a hint: notice the difference between the noun, "house", and the verb, "build". "Verbs", as you may or may not recall, denote actions, and "nouns" denote things. A "house" is a thing, not an action, and to "build" is an action, not a thing.
So now you are claiming a process is not a noun. The “Tango” is a dance – a process. Is “Tango” a noun or verb?
I call it "building a Hummer". What do you call a "Hummer"? "Building a Hummer," I'm guessing, since you clearly can't separate processes from products.
Clearly in this context hummer is both a product and process.
Isn't that convenient? And all you had to do was ignore the way words are actually defined and used, and just invent your own usage, sort of like "evolution as cosmology". Well, hell's bells, you can "prove" just about anything you like if you do that. What an amazing discovery you've stumbled upon - if that nasty old English language gets in the way of your BS "argument", just redefine words to your liking, and shazam! Problem solved...
Attaching a descriptive label to the process does not make it something other than a process. Are you sure you don't need a dictionary?
What do you call the process to build a hummer? Building a Hummer. But how can that be if Hummer can only be a product yet in that context it is a process. If not, “build” alone would define the process. How can “building a hummer” define both a process and a product at the same time? Isn’t that illogical?
HINT: “building a hummer” is a clause that can function as an adverb
Look at that hummer over there (Hummer is a product)
I build Hummers (“Build Hummers” is a process – build alone does not define the process)
Like I said, I am pretty sure you have never studied philosophy (or higher thinking)
Back to you disrupter – I expect you to change the subject real soon.
Like I said - now you are changing the subject (like a good disrupter)
The question is simple: Is tango a noun or a verb (I think you need a dictionary now)
Tango is a dance - a process
You claim a process is always a verb
Is Tango a noun or a verb?
Maybe I need to put it another way: checkmate
You are trolling, I think - nobody can possibly be this stupid. "Hummer", absent any modifier, is a product. "Building a Hummer" is a specific sort of process. We say "building a Hummer" precisely because "building", while an accurate description of the process, is not sufficiently specific to differentiate that particular process from other processes. Get it? "Hummer" = thing. "Building a Hummer" = process. Just to ram the original point home, "building a house" is not the same process as "building a Hummer", any more than the "evolution" of stars is the same process as the "evolution" of fish. And the evolution of stars and the evolution of fish are certainly not "two applications of the same principle", unless you're a dolt who cannot parse the differences between the two processes.
This is not difficult - you should have learned the difference between the two concepts some time in elementary school. Should have learned...
A label would be a noun – but wait, you said this earlier:
Disrupter (earlier): "Verbs", as you may or may not recall, denote actions, and "nouns" denote things.
Can a noun denote actions? Is “Football Game” a noun or a verb? Is it an action or a thing?
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.