SJ: Sagan's actual "description of cosmic evolution as revealed by the
science of our time" in Cosmos pp337-338, is *very* compatible with
the description of "creation" in Genesis 1.
Compatible perhaps although there are still some contradictions. But even
if you agree that they are compatible, under Occam's razor the explanation
involking extra complications would fail.
>SJ>Wilson admits that out that *in the case of origins*, "evolution" as
>"revealed by science" is a form of creation myth: "...Every generation
>needs its own creation myths, and these are ours..." (Wilson E.O., et
>al., "Life on Earth", 1973, p624)
PM>Again, science not religious faith which does not allow a change of its
>'myth'.
SJ: Why "change" when it is right first time? Science, originally thought
the universe was infite in time, but now reluctantly, science has had
to concede what Genesis 1:1 claimed all along, that there was a beginning:
We do not know if the universe is infinite in time. We now know based upon
observations that there was a bing bang several tens of billions of years
ago and we cannot observe what was there before that. But if you want to
hold the bible to a standard of scientific accuracy you will have to deal
also with the scientific inaccuracies of the bible.
PM>No matter how often you repeat the word myth, creation remains one
while
>science changes according to observation and knowledge. No blurred
>distinctions.
SJ: See above. Since Genesis 1 was revealed by God (I do not ncessarily
mean
this is a simplistic way), it does not need to "change", because it
has been right all along, in its fundamental claim that: "In the beginning
God created the heavens and the earth." (Gn 1:1), as Robert Jastrow,
founder
and director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and an
agnostic
admits:
It does not need to change ? And yet the bible revealed that the earth was
flat until science found otherwise ? Is this limited scientific accuracy
also admissible ? But your assumption is that it was revealed by God so it
does not allow for 1) errors 2) transcription errors 3) interpretation
errors....
What if it was just a mythical story ?
>SJ...my main point was that "Darwinian...macro evolution...*functions* as
>a creation-myth".
PM>So it functions as one but it isn't? It explains the scientific data,
>unlike myths, is adaptable, falsifiable, testable, unlike religious
creation
>myths. So it might appear to be a myth but it isn't?
SJ: I don't have any brief for "religious creation myth" in general. But
in the case of Genesis 1, it stands apart from all other ancient creation
accounts in that it outlines in popular language an account that in the
words of leading Middle East archaeologist W.F. Albright:
If you want to claim accuracy in genesis you will have to deal with
inaccuracies in other books as well Steve.
PM>You mean how evolution could be falsified? If your question is to
suggest
>that there is little evidence against the theory of evolution and that
>there is plenty of evidence in support then we agree.
SJ: No. I did not ask "how evolution could be falsified?", I asked you to
"tell me...some of the evidence against the theory of Evolution."
SJ: That you cannot even frame the question (much less answer) it, is
evidence
to me that "the theory of evolution" is functioning as a creation myth for
you.
Why ? As far as I am aware there is no evidence against the theory of
evolution. But perhaps I am wrong about this ? And is this evidence fatal
for the theory of evolution ?
SJ: I find it most significant that you use the words of *religion*
("doubters
or disbelievers" in respect of "the theory of evolution". That is more
evidence that "the theory of evolution" is functioning as a creation myth
for
you. But you are in good company - it functions as a creation myth for many
(if not most) leading evolutionists, as the following religious language
used
by Francis Crick of Dawkin's "Blind Watchmaker" indicates:
The similarity of word choice is merely coincidental or perhaps sarcastic
? To claim this as evidence like you have done above is of course hardly
support for your assertion that evolution is a "creation myth". Unlike the
religious myth it is open to criticism, change, it can be falsified, it
makes predictions. To refer to this as a myth indicates that you are
trying to reduce the value of science to an issue of faith. If your
personal faith is that limited that you have to resort to such tactics
then perhaps the problem lies at your end.
After all what is wrong about believing in a creation myth ? But why do
you feel the need to bring a scientific theory to the level religious
faith ?
Two very different issues. If you consider your religious faith strong,
then you should admit that the scientific creation myth has similar
strenght as it relies on mere faith so why call it a creation myth ? But
if your religious faith is weak and you feel that evolution is subverting
your faith then bringing it down to a religious level makes it possible
for you to reject it in favour of your own faith.
So either way I am curious why you decide to refer to science in a manner
to suggest it to be similar to religious faith when in fact it isn't ?