SJ: In the case of origins, the line between "myth" and
"science" becomes blurred. Sagan, after recounting
These are some of the last "fifteen billion years of cosmic
evolution", admits:
SJ: "It has the sound of epic myth, and rightly. But it is simply a
description of cosmic evolution as revealed by the science of our
time." (Sagan C., "Cosmos", Macdonald: London, 1981, pp337-338)
That it has the sound of epic myth does not make it one. Of course Sagan
is correct to point out that unlike myth, evolution is revealed by science.
PM>Why the need to redefine words to suggest that there is no
>difference between a creation myth based on unprovable assumptions
>of a super natural being and a story of evolution (which is btw not
>creation, a common confusion)?
SJ: Where have I "redefined words"? I am merely point out that "the
Darwinian theory of [macro] evolution" functions as a creation-myth.
That's why you are here debating it! If it was just another
scientific theory, you wouldn't bother.
There is where you and the people you quoted disagree with you. Naming it
a creation myth does not make it similar to the 'traditional myth'
especially since both quoted researchers mentioned that it is based on
scientific evidence.
PM>A bit dated isn't it? However such quotes, however interesting,
>do not further a scientific discussion either.
SJ: Berlinski notes this "dated" defence is a favorite tactice of
Darwinists:
Dated research per se need not be wrong but given the fact of fast
scientific discoveries they do tend to lose their relevance.
SJ: Unfortunately for your argument, truth doesn't get "dated" with the
mere passage of time. You need to show that since "1943" "severe
This assumes of course that the statement was truthful. I am pointing out
that much could have changed in the last 50 years or so.