I Don’t think I’m going to sit in front of my monitor and wait for all those pixels to come up with my picture.
How can you know everything? What limit do you put on the definition? I mean, do you eventually want a giant computer program that will tell you exactly where a electron is at all times in a certain molecule? How much longer that molecule has to exist? What will happen to the cell when that molecule dies? and so on until knowning where that electron is will tell you when someone will die?
It seems like one of the nicest things you could do for science is to “confuse outdated mythologies.” Which is better competition: a clear-thinking outdated mythology or one that is confused?**
The point I was trying to make is that Jenkinsfan and people who think like him, insist on the literal truth of stories as those found in Genesis. I retract the word “outdated” from my statement.
2. Joseph Campbell, paraphrased: "Mythology serves a need in humanity, for archetypal heroes, dreams, fears, etc. What we need is a mythology suited for today."
Agreed! One could argue that modern films serve this purpose to some degree. George Lucas’s Star Wars series shows this admirably, I think. What would be very interesting, after seeing the sucess of films based on OT stories (think Prince of Egypt), is to try other mythological systems, such as Celtic, Norse, Sumarian, etc.
I’m eagarly waiting for the modern interpretation of Lord of the Rings to premeire later this year.
