Evolution as Common Creation Mythos for Humanity

[E. Nato Difficile]

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

Oh. So you understand the world not as a set of useful narratives derived from our shared scientific legacy, but by personally understanding and verifying every data point in the entire research literature of geology, paleontology, genetics, microbiology, biochemistry, embryology, ethology, and every other discipline that deals with life on Earth?

Sure, I believe you.

-Nato

 

[McBell]

Oh. So you understand the world not as a set of useful narratives derived from our shared scientific legacy, but by knowing every data point in the entire research literature of geology, paleontology, genetics, microbiology, biochemistry, embryology, ethology, and every other discipline that deals with life on Earth?

Sure, I believe you.

-Nato

Please show that one has to know "the world not as a set of useful narratives derived from our shared scientific legacy, but by knowing every data point in the entire research literature of geology, paleontology, genetics, microbiology, biochemistry, embryology, ethology, and every other discipline that deals with life on Earth" in order to understand the world.

Good luck with that.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Please show that one has to know "the world not as a set of useful narratives derived from our shared scientific legacy, but by knowing every data point in the entire research literature of geology, paleontology, genetics, microbiology, biochemistry, embryology, ethology, and every other discipline that deals with life on Earth" in order to understand the world.

That's not the point I was disputing. Photonic made the claim that I am quite capable of understanding the world without a story time. In essence, however, we do understand the world through the stories we tell about it.

I'm no creationist or mystic. I think it's overwhelmingly likely that we understand the literal truth about things like evolution or the origin of the universe through the legacy of empirical evidential inquiry. And any change in our understanding of such subjects won't come from religious numbnuttery but through better methods of empirical inquiry.

I just want people to be honest about our layman's understanding of this method of inquiry. Nobody has done the requisite research to understand the minutiae of the history of life on Earth except as a series of interconnected narratives that we derive from the literature of empirical inquiry.

In other words, mythology. Not phony-miracle fairy tales, but the shared compendium of meaningful narratives about who we are and where we came from.

-Nato

 

[McBell]

That's not the point I was disputing. Photonic made the claim that I am quite capable of understanding the world without a story time. In essence, however, we do understand the world through the stories we tell about it.

I'm no creationist or mystic. I think it's overwhelmingly likely that we understand the literal truth about things like evolution or the origin of the universe through the legacy of empirical evidential inquiry. And any change in our understanding of such subjects won't come from religious numbnuttery but through better methods of empirical inquiry.

I just want people to be honest about our layman's understanding of this method of inquiry. Nobody has done the requisite research to understand the minutiae of the history of life on Earth except as a series of interconnected narratives that we derive from the literature of empirical inquiry.

In other words, mythology. Not phony-miracle fairy tales, but the shared compendium of meaningful narratives about who we are and where we came from.

-Nato

Yet you failed to show that these stories are a requirement for understanding.
You have not shown that he can not understand without the stories.
You have only presented that the stories can be used to understand the world, not that the stories are required to understand the world.

Your bringing up the list the way you did implies that knowing all of it (your list), whether through stories or otherwise, is required to understand the world.
I now understand that that was not your intention.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Yet you failed to show that these stories are a requirement for understanding.

I submit that it's easier to get ***** about the term mythology than it is to demonstrate that our understanding of the world isn't based on narratives derived from the annals of empirical inquiry.

So tell me, how do you come about your understanding of the history of life on Earth?

-Nato

 

[McBell]

I submit that it's easier to get ***** about the term mythology than it is to demonstrate that our understanding of the world isn't based on narratives derived from the annals of empirical inquiry.

So tell me, how do you come about your understanding of the history of life on Earth?

-Nato

One wonders why the blatant diversion tactic...

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

One wonders why the blatant diversion tactic...

I didn't know I was "diverting" anything. Did you ask me a question?

-Nato

 

[McBell]

I didn't know I was "diverting" anything. Did you ask me a question?

-Nato

I take it you are not going to demonstrate how someone cannot understand the world without stories?

 

[gnomon]

I fail to understand the need to equivocate, or create an equivocation, the idea of mythology with that of the scientific model.

If anything I find the view dismissive of the importance of mythology in understanding history and various cultures while at the same time dumbing down the concept of a scientific model.

It's two separate concepts. What practical purpose does it serve to confuse the two?

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

I take it you are not going to demonstrate how someone cannot understand the world without stories?

Stories are how humans understand things. In terms of evolution, scientific inquiry has created a set of narratives about species and populations, genetic similarities, and clues to the distant past through discovery of fossil remnants.

They may very well be true stories, but they're still stories. There are facts supporting these stories, but these facts are just a mountain of data points without a coherent context.

-Nato

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I fail to understand the need to equivocate, or create an equivocation, the idea of mythology with that of the scientific model.

If anything I find the view dismissive of the importance of mythology in understanding history and various cultures while at the same time dumbing down the concept of a scientific model.

It's two separate concepts. What practical purpose does it serve to confuse the two?

Most people who "believe" in evolution don't do so because of their knowledge of the merits of the various aspects of it as a scientific model. They may accept it more readily because it is a scientific model, but I've interacted with many people who accept evolutionary theory yet can't even describe it's fundamental mechanisms. For people like this, accepting things that science says, without understanding, amounts to a form of mythology - stories which provide a basis for interpreting and defining the world.

 

[Skwim]

Most people who "believe" in evolution don't do so because of their knowledge of the merits of the various aspects of it as a scientific model. They may accept it more readily because it is a scientific model, but I've interacted with many people who accept evolutionary theory yet can't even describe it's fundamental mechanisms. For people like this, accepting things that science says, without understanding, amounts to a form of mythology - stories which provide a basis for interpreting and defining the world.

What science stories are these; those that qualify as myth?

 

[McBell]

Stories are how humans understand things. In terms of evolution, scientific inquiry has created a set of narratives about species and populations, genetic similarities, and clues to the distant past through discovery of fossil remnants.

They may very well be true stories, but they're still stories. There are facts supporting these stories, but these facts are just a mountain of data points without a coherent context.

-Nato

you are still tiptoeing around the point.

Not that I am surprised.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What science stories are these; those that qualify as myth?

Depends on the person. Although, based on your question, I get the impression that you didn't absorb anything of what I was saying. I suspect it might be as simple as a semantic difference in the use of the word "myth."

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

I suspect it might be as simple as a semantic difference in the use of the word "myth."

:yes:


-Nato

 

[idav]

What science stories are these; those that qualify as myth?

The ones that turn out to be wrong later and have to be viewed symbolically.

 

[gnomon]

Depends on the person. Although, based on your question, I get the impression that you didn't absorb anything of what I was saying. I suspect it might be as simple as a semantic difference in the use of the word "myth."

That may be the case.

I'm willing to go along with the concept is just that my understanding of the OP was that it was calling for a grand reinterpretation of existing mythology, specifically the spiritual lines involving creation myths, and infusing them with the modern concept of natural selection. That I find a bit far fetched.

But that may not be what people are talking about.

So I could go either way, actually. I don't even know if it really makes a difference.

 

[painted wolf]

What science stories are these; those that qualify as myth?

the "ladder of progression" for one.

wa:do

 

[hzcummi]

Dr. Michael Zimmerman, founder of the Clergy Letter Project, writes that he encourages students to “make wise choices, both academically and socially, and to think about ways to play leadership roles in their community.” Is Dr. Zimmerman an advocate of truth?

The remainder of this commentary was submitted as a rebuttal, and as a comment to Dr. Zimmerman’s article. It would be interesting to see if the Huffington Post will publish it.

Why is it that those 13,000 "religious infidels” would sign that Clergy Project Letter, and refuse to examine the truth of Genesis? I'm not talking about the junk that Creation Science and current "old Earth" creationism teaches. I am speaking of the “Observations of Moses”, which is the correct opposing view to the evolution theory.

Why is it that the Texas School Board would accommodate the Discovery Institute, who doesn’t know the truth of Genesis, and that same school board ignores the Genesis expert who offered to show them the correct interpretation of chapter one? Just like all of the state of Louisiana, they failed to respond. Because of that, the truth is still not known. Both the Clergy and academia are hiding the truth from the students. What they would be teaching is a misrepresentation of what Moses wrote.

So what is their true purpose? It is not to teach the students the truth about the advent and extinction of prehistoric life forms. Their purpose is to add confusion to the curriculum, and to deny the authenticity of the Bible.

Tell you what, Dr. Zimmerman. You want the people to know the truth of this matter? Why don’t you get your facility to host the 64 minute PowerPoint presentation of the “Observations of Moses”. Not only will you expose the foolishness of both Focus on the Family and Stephen Meyer, but also the creationist clowns of “young Earth” and “old Earth” doctrines.

You want the truth? Then put your money where your mouth is, else you just as much an anti-realist as those you wrote of.

Herman Cummings
[email protected]

 

[McBell]

Dr. Michael Zimmerman, founder of the Clergy Letter Project, writes that he encourages students to “make wise choices, both academically and socially, and to think about ways to play leadership roles in their community.” Is Dr. Zimmerman an advocate of truth?

The remainder of this commentary was submitted as a rebuttal, and as a comment to Dr. Zimmerman’s article. It would be interesting to see if the Huffington Post will publish it.

Why is it that those 13,000 "religious infidels” would sign that Clergy Project Letter, and refuse to examine the truth of Genesis? I'm not talking about the junk that Creation Science and current "old Earth" creationism teaches. I am speaking of the “Observations of Moses”, which is the correct opposing view to the evolution theory.

Why is it that the Texas School Board would accommodate the Discovery Institute, who doesn’t know the truth of Genesis, and that same school board ignores the Genesis expert who offered to show them the correct interpretation of chapter one? Just like all of the state of Louisiana, they failed to respond. Because of that, the truth is still not known. Both the Clergy and academia are hiding the truth from the students. What they would be teaching is a misrepresentation of what Moses wrote.

So what is their true purpose? It is not to teach the students the truth about the advent and extinction of prehistoric life forms. Their purpose is to add confusion to the curriculum, and to deny the authenticity of the Bible.

Tell you what, Dr. Zimmerman. You want the people to know the truth of this matter? Why don’t you get your facility to host the 64 minute PowerPoint presentation of the “Observations of Moses”. Not only will you expose the foolishness of both Focus on the Family and Stephen Meyer, but also the creationist clowns of “young Earth” and “old Earth” doctrines.

You want the truth? Then put your money where your mouth is, else you just as much an anti-realist as those you wrote of.

Herman Cummings
[email protected]

So basically he is offering up one of many INTERPRETATIONS of a religious text as "truth" and wants it taught as science in a science class, right?

What science is being offered to support this "truth"?