Evolution as Common Creation Mythos for Humanity

[gnomon]

I would never equate a scientific model with mythology. I can't think of any scientific theories which have been turned to myth. Stories of scientific endeavors perhaps.

I do realize that the sciences involving the subatomic have mythological notions applied to them. We can see that in the film "What the bleep.." and it's derivatives. Such notions are horrible as they misrepresent science and truly do not offer up anything to help us learn.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

Mythos publishing co. is cool.

 

[Quagmire]

Gravity is only a theory.

But if someone started saying that gravity was caused by tiny, invisible, subterranean ground weevils, constantly spinning in little circles and creating innumerable micro-vortexes that sucked everything towards the ground, we'd have a myth on our hands.

 

[outhouse]

I thought science was your ultimate prove-it-all oracle.

you are wrong again

it was never a oracle

science does explain, study and examine which is not proof of anything.

 

[e2ekiel]

I thought ToE was proven by scientific evidence.

"Darwinism acheived its popular success... not on account of its scientific credentials, nor... threat to traditional Christianity, but because Darwin's ideas happen to coincide with... matters of competition, free trade, and the natural superiority of the English middle classes and their social values... [and] Darwin's deeply tainted social prejudices of his period (non-Europeans and women, for example, are both treated as non-entities)" - Alister McGrath

 

[Mr Spinkles]

An outstanding little book on this topic:

 

[Photonic]

"Darwinism acheived its popular success... not on account of its scientific credentials, nor... threat to traditional Christianity, but because Darwin's ideas happen to coincide with... matters of competition, free trade, and the natural superiority of the English middle classes and their social values... [and] Darwin's deeply tainted social prejudices of his period (non-Europeans and women, for example, are both treated as non-entities)" - Alister McGrath

So...attacking Darwin somehow invalidates evolution?

 

[idav]

But if someone started saying that gravity was caused by tiny, invisible, subterranean ground weevils, constantly spinning in little circles and creating innumerable micro-vortexes that sucked everything towards the ground, we'd have a myth on our hands.

It's symbolic!

 

[idav]

So...attacking Darwin somehow invalidates evolution?

He believed it for the wrong reasons and was wrong about his reason, but it's debatable.

 

[Photonic]

He believed it for the wrong reasons and was wrong about his reason, but it's debatable.

Well, our modern understanding of evolution would pretty much be in exactly the same place as it is now with or without Darwin. He just happened to be first. (Him being first is debatable, I think he was the first to go in depth about it)

 

[gnomon]

"Darwinism acheived its popular success... not on account of its scientific credentials, nor... threat to traditional Christianity, but because Darwin's ideas happen to coincide with... matters of competition, free trade, and the natural superiority of the English middle classes and their social values... [and] Darwin's deeply tainted social prejudices of his period (non-Europeans and women, for example, are both treated as non-entities)" - Alister McGrath

Well that was just horrible.

Though it does show the failure of relying on stories and anecdotes to understand science.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

From the linked site:

"THE GREAT STORY
encompasses meaningful ways of telling the history of everyone and everything. The Great Story is humanity's sacred narrative of an evolving Universe of emergent complexity and breathtaking creativity — a story that offers each of us the opportunity to find meaning and purpose in our lives and our time in history."
​

"Sacred story"? Sounds like these people are trying to personify the nature of the universe so as to foster an emotional or at least personal relationship with it. And with their veneration of certain physical manifestations, like specific geological sites, establish the same sort of trappings to bond with that religions now offer their followers.

The religion of the Cosmic Genesis. Nice I suppose, but to what practical purpose?

If everyone revered nature as the deists of the Enlightenment era Europe/US did, then they would be more inclined to experiment and investigate the world around them would they not?

As I understand several scientists as they develop their understanding of the world begin to appreciate their work by accompanying it with a sublime sense of wonder at the majestic beauty and complexity of the natural world.

And if someone could figure out a way to instill this "religious experience" as opposed to others, then I think the world would be a demonstrably better place, then yes?

MTF

 

[Quagmire]

It's symbolic!

And a lot more interesting then the whole "apple on the head" thing Newton came up with.

And Einstein's "people fall down stairs because time and space are curved" theory, who knows where the hell he was going with that one?

Yup, I'm sticking with the weevils.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

Pantheism.

What about it?

 

[painted wolf]

Yeah, Alister needs to brush up on his history. Darwin was pretty forward thinking for his day... he granted all humans basic human dignity and was horrified by slavery.

As for women, he granted them one of the most potent of natural selective measures... sexual selection.

wa:do

 

[Quintessence]

If everyone revered nature as the deists of the Enlightenment era Europe/US did, then they would be more inclined to experiment and investigate the world around them would they not?

As I understand several scientists as they develop their understanding of the world begin to appreciate their work by accompanying it with a sublime sense of wonder at the majestic beauty and complexity of the natural world.

And if someone could figure out a way to instill this "religious experience" as opposed to others, then I think the world would be a demonstrably better place, then yes?

MTF

Huh... that's another interesting aspect to bring forward in response to Skwim's earlier query.

Personally, part of my interest in a science career was due to that sublime wonder coming first, and wanting to study the things that I find sacred and awesome. It can work the other way too.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

I would never equate a scientific model with mythology.

Why not? Both concern the way we make sense of phenomena. The details of molecular physics and biochemical reactions in and of themselves don't make the natural world comprehensible to us, the narratives we create to explain them do.

I guess we modern folks like thinking we're intellectually superior to our benighted ancestors. In certain ways we are. But this fear of recognizing our self-validating constructs as myth just shows that we're uncomfortable with the cumulative, provisional nature of our knowledge.

-Nato

 

[Photonic]

Why not? Both concern the way we make sense of phenomena. The details of molecular physics and biochemical reactions in and of themselves don't make the natural world comprehensible to us, the narratives we create to explain them do.

I guess we modern folks like thinking we're intellectually superior to our benighted ancestors. In certain ways we are. But this fear of recognizing our self-validating constructs as myth just shows that we're uncomfortable with the cumulative, provisional nature of our knowledge.

-Nato

That may be for the general populace, but I am quite capable of understanding the world without a story time.

 

[idav]

That may be for the general populace, but I am quite capable of understanding the world without a story time.

Wha??... Next your gonna say you prefer books with no pictures!!!:cover:

 

[Photonic]

Wha??... Next your gonna say you prefer books with no pictures!!!:cover:

Get ready to have your mind blown, son.