My last post, "Mythologizing Evolution," generated quite a bit of controversy and not a little hostility. Some of this was my own fault for not anticipating some confusion about the meaning of the word "myth" as I was using it.
The confusion about the word "myth" in my post comes from its two very different meanings. In popular parlance myth means "falsehood" or "made-up story." I have on my desk a delightful little book titled "Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion." Myth is employed here in the popular sense and the title essay explains that the harsh treatment of Galileo by the Inquisition -- torture, imprisonment -- has no basis in fact. It is a made-up story -- a myth. Obama's birth in Kenya is a current example of this sort of myth.
But there is a far more interesting definition of myth used in literature. One scholarly and wide-ranging discussion starts with this definition: "Myths are symbolic tales of the distant past (often primordial times) that concern cosmogony and cosmology (the origin and nature of the universe), may be connected to belief systems or rituals, and may serve to direct social action and values."
The definition is enlarged to include a wide-ranging roster of other attributes often but not always possessed by myths, including the fact that the mythological story "is or was considered a true explanation of the natural world (and how it came to be)." The setting is often in a "previous, proto-world." The story is "formative of worldview," and "conveys how to live: assumptions, values, core meanings of individuals, families, communities." Myths answer questions like: "Why are we here?" "Who are we?" "What is our purpose?"
Questions of simple truth take a back seat to questions of meaning in this deeper definition. The story at the heart of the myth may or may not be factually true but the meaning of the story transcends its factual character. The story of Abraham Lincoln's birth in a humble log cabin has a mythological character not possessed by Bill Clinton's birth in a hospital in Arkansas.
The best way to understand America's ongoing resistance to evolution -- as evidenced in the recent Gallup Poll -- is the theory's failure as an origins myth. Most Americans believe they are created by God, in God's image, whatever that means; they believe God cares about them and wants them to care for each other. They believe they are called to live virtuous lives and be people of character. They may fall short of these ideals but they believe these profound truths are rooted in their creation story.
Whether we think that the biblically based story of our origins is historically and scientifically accurate or not, we certainly have to admit that it is a beautiful story and that, at its best -- with some egregious exceptions -- it has nurtured our civilization in wholesome ways. Post-Christian Norway, which just made a strong move in the direction of full secularization, nevertheless retained official recognition of its "Christian and humanistic heritage," of which it is obviously and justifiably proud.
To take root in deeply religious America, evolution needs to be a better myth. Edward O. Wilson, one of our greatest living scientists and certainly no champion of creationism or any sort of religion, has gone so far as to say we need to appreciate the scientific story of origins to the point where we can "worship the evolutionary epic."
While "worshipping the evolutionary epic" might sound absurd and even meaningless, we must not be too quick to throw out Wilson's provocative proposal. Wilson understands, in ways that many of us do not, just how hard-wired we are to seek purpose in the world. He understands that we may not be able to simply abandon our traditional creation story without some sort of replacement. And evolution, as a full-blown origins myth, is not a satisfactory replacement for most Americans.
This is why evolution is constantly being "mythologized" by its champions -- to make it a better origins story.
Of course, if we could all agree that evolution could be viewed as God's method of creation, we could have our mythological cake and eat it too. But, as the latest Gallup Poll makes clear, this is not happening.
Follow Karl Giberson, Ph.D on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gibersok
Matthew Hutson: Are Conservatives More Religious and Liberals More Spiritual?
No, the Christian myth is ugly and adds nothing to the truth.
Non-credo absurdum est.
It seems obvious to me that the first step should be better education about the reality of science, not packaging it as something it's not and adding more misinformation and confusion than there already is. It's all too similar to encouraging a kind of pseudoscience, or fictional version of scientific understandings, and I just don't see what good that does.
I would suggest going the opposite direction.
Science doesn't - MUSTN'T - intentionally make false claims. Science's frank honesty is what separates it from (and makes it superior to) religion.
If Giberson wants an evolutionary myth, I suggest he talk to theologists, not scientists. Theologists are experts at creating myths. And they're the only ones who think there's a real answer to questions like, "Why are we here?", "Who are we?", and "What is our purpose?"
Those are meaningless questions. We're here because that's how the physics and probabilities worked out. Who we are is very bright apes frustrated because we can't predict the future -- especially the behavior of other people. We have no intrinsic purpose. Any effort to inject meaning into these answers can only reflect the values of the person writing the myth.
Will the "evolution myth" tell us that homosexuality is good, or bad? How about adultery? It will depend on who writes the myth.
And whoever that is, I will not tolerate them claiming to speak for Science.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see the beauty in our species being created in a garden by an ancient Near Eastern deity, only to be thrown out after a woman gets duped by a reptilian apple salesman—which results in our species getting cursed.
That aside, the main point I wish to make is the following:
I’m not interested in what is beautiful; I’m interested in what is true.
JESUS THE LAST NEPHILIM ISBN:978-1-84748-797-1.'Many millions of Earth years passed and the process of evolution resulted in an ape man being formed.Then the Nephilim arrive on Earth.'The Nephilim were on the Earth in those days,and also afterward'.Genesis 6:4. The creatures that roamed the Earth were not capable of being a major part of their work force as it was found their brain power had millions of years to evolve before they had the intelligence required to understand and obey orders."We cannot wait millions of years,the Nephilim god said."LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE AND AFTER OUR LIKENESS" Genesis 1:26.And so began the process to genetically design a creature .The first test tube being!!.
ref; Cosmology is a myth or Science- Nobel Laur . Alfven- 1984,1992
Need: Search Origins- Cosmology Vedas
Sub:Cosmology Definition-Vidyardhi Nanduri
The subject of COSMOLOGY is a borderland between Sciences and Philosophy. This subject attracts all mankind in search of direction to provide Unity in many diversified fields.Is there a higher dimension of Science in Myths and Philosophies? Can VEDAS provide more light for the COSMIC UNIVERSE ?
COSMOLOGY DEFINITION
COSMOS PRIMER- PRIME DRIVE
Cosmos primer lists out the Prime drive functions in COSMOLOGY
FROM PHILOSOPHY TO VEDAS
1. Cosmology in Vedas 2.Cosmology in Philosophy 3. Science of Philosophy
4. Basic Philosophy,
FROM SCIENCE TO COSMOLOGY
1. Basic Science 2. Philosophy of Science 3.Cosmogony-Astrophysics
4. Cosmology -Present Day under Revision
NATURE TO COSMIC DIVINE
1. Nature 2.Divine Function in Nature 3. Divine Universe 4. Cosmos Divine
EVOLUTION TO CATCH-UP WITH COSMOS YOGA
Search:VISION series
Key words:Cosmology Definition, Philosophy-Vedas,Science-Cosmology,Nature-Cosmic Divine
http://cosmologytrust.blogspot.com/
I never heard stories about Galileo being tortured and thrown into a dungeon until I heard apologists refuting them. Of course, the apologists' refutation is misleading, as is their assertion of what the story used to be. Galileo was threatened with torture and was imprisoned -- in two of his houses, which certainly were much more comfortable than dungeons, but he was still confined. And he was only not tortured because he signed documents saying that he didn't believe what he did believe about science. That's definitely a serious conflict between science and religion.
I have an interesting little book on my desk: Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating Myth From History.
That sort of thing is definitely not for everybody.
"To take root in deeply religious America, evolution needs to be a better myth."
No. Replacing BS with better BS only benefits purveyors of BS. Like Giberson and the author of that little book on his desk. and most of the people who write about religion for HP.
Galileo WAS tried by the Inquisition under Pope Urban VIII, in 1633. He was found GUILTY of being "vehemently suspect of heresy," and sentenced to LIFE INPRISONMENT. This sentence was commuted to "permanent house arrest", and he did, in fact, remain under house arrest, under guard, until his death. While under arrest, he was visited by men like Thomas Hobbes and John Milton.
I think that promulgating myths about "the myths of evolution" or Science doesn't get anybody anywhere. Science has given us the most intricate and beautiful and consistent story of the Heavens and Earth and Mankind that we have ever seen. Religious myths can't touch it, and don't belong in the same paragraph. You are NOT helping.
Hint: it isn't science...... for more clues, check the web site for the BioLogos Foundation.......
He went to a Pentecostal "college", and then taught there for 25 years. A "Liberal Arts" school where fewer than 10% major in "Liberal Arts", while nearly 40% study "Business". Hmmm.
I reckon he already knew he was lying about Galileo, then. Nevermind.
-Ghostof EugeneDebs, WM Class of '85.
Reality. Embrace it. It just might surprise you.
Life has been evolving for at least 3.5 billion years or 78% the age of the Earth.
Modern humans didn't come on the scene until 200,000 years ago or about 0.0044% the age of the Earth. All of written history is 5,000 years or about 0.00011% of the age of the Earth.
If God exists and produced us this way, then he chose about the most time inefficient way imaginable to go about it. Given how natural selection works, he also chose an unimaginably cruel way to make progress.
Besides, they've proven themselves innumerate already.
It seems to me that what can be asserted without evidence can also be rejected without evidence.
That's a rather difficult role for the TEP folk to play when creationists dig in their heels and reject anything which conflicts with their beliefs.
I would hope that in future polls, Gallup phrases the questions in a better way to distinguish between the two:
"God used the natural process of evolution to bring about the diversity of life, including mankind." (Theistic Evolution)
"God actively and supernaturally guided the process of evolution to bring about the diversity of life, including mankind." (Intelligent Design with Common Descent)
"God created each 'kind' of life form individually, over billions of years of time." (Intelligent Design or Old Earth Creationism without Common Descent)
The remaining choices could be phrased:
"God created each "kind" of life form individually, over a period of days, several thousand years ago." (Young Earth Creationism)
"God had no part in the process." (Deism or Atheism)