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 they are both types of evolution, a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form
What do I win Alex?
So now you are back to claiming evolution has nothing to do with any theories of the universe in totality (cosmology). Scroll up disrupter, that point was disproved yesterday (many times with many pieces of supporting evidence)
One thing you are - predictable. As soon as your butt is nailed to the wall you change the subject.
BTW: how are you doing to address the book I present as evidence that evolution is part of cosmology?
Oh, good - more succinctly, they both involve "change". I guess I shouldn't really be surprised, since I predicted exactly this sort of vague handwaving several hundred posts ago. The mechanisms are completely different, just like "building a house" isn't the same process as "building a Hummer", but I suppose it would be crass to interrupt your little touchdown dance by pointing that out...
Well, I figure that once you actually read the thing, you might be armed to present something resembling an argument about how the evolution of cosmic structure is the same process as biological evolution. Until then, it's kind of hard to argue with a title...
"fallacy of converse accident" placemarker
"'building a Hummer' is an adverbial clause" placemarker
"exect alluting" placemarker
Nine as 900 placemarker.
Well Disrupter, you can go right on pretending that evolution is not the key principle in nearly ALL non-religion based cosmological theories. And you can also go on pretending that the word evolution can only mean Darwinism. You are not here to debate or exchange ideas – you are here to disrupt.
Right. It really helps that you don't have to do anything but assert this. This way, you can claim to be right without having to pony up any evidence.
You're intellectually bankrupt. Your position is completely without merit. You have no means of demonstrating that what you say is truth.
Perhaps this will help:
1. Some things undeniably exist.
2. My non-existence is possible.
3. Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another.
4. There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence.
5. Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists.
6. This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-perfect.
7. This infinitely perfect being is appropriately called "God".
8. Therefore, God exists.
9. This God who exists is identical to the God described in the Christian Scriptures.
10. Therefore, the God described in the Bible exists.
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.