[...]
>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:
>"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)
PM>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.
SJ: It is interesting that you now accept that "cosmic evolution" is
"evolution". We *are* making progress! ;-)
No we aren't
SJ: My point was that *in the case of origins*, the line between "myth"
and "science" becomes blurred. This is seen by the fact that when
Sagan writes a "description of cosmic evolution as revealed by...
science" it has "the sound of epic myth".
But it is simply a description of cosmic evolution as revealed by the
science of our time. No myth here unlike creation.
SJ: Wilson admits that out that *in the case of origins*, "evolution" as
"revealed by science" is a form of creation myth:
SJ: "How much of this can be believed? Every generation needs its own
creation myths, and these are ours. They are probably more accurate
than any that have come before, but they are undoubtedly subject to
revision as we find out more about the nature and the history of
life." (Wilson E.O., et al., "Life on Earth", 1973, p624)
Again, science not religious faith which does not allow a change of its
'myth'.
No matter how often you repeat the word myth, creation remains one while
science changes according to observation and knowledge. No blurred
distinctions.
PM>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.
SJ: No doubt the "traditional myths" were also based on the "scientific
evidence" of that time. But my main point was that "Darwinian...
macro evolution...*functions* as a creation-myth".
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: To test whether "since "1943" "severe methodological criticism..."
*has* "been brought to bear on evolutionary speculation", my question
to you (and all the other evolutionists), is:
SJ: "Please tell me, then, some of the evidence against the theory
of Evolution."
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.
But even criticism of a theory is what is all part of science. There have
been and will be over time many doubters or disbelievers and some might
have a valid point and the theory has to be adapted. A religious creation
myth however does not allow for such a scientific behavior and has to be
presumed correct even in
face of contradicting evidence.