# Why do most Americans deny evolution? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 31, 2005, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801 "2005-12-31T00:16:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801/121 "2006-01-01T17:07:17Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > I’d find your argument considerably more compelling if you were to describe precisely what you feel is scientific value in the statement “God set natural selection in motion”. There is _no_ scientific value in it, and that is half the point I’ve been making. The other half is what you’re having trouble getting possibly because it is a notion so foreign to you, namely, that science is not the only valid epistemology. In other words, to say that a thing is not scientifically valuable is not to say that it has no value. > [@](#): > > Anyway, the only point I was trying to make here, and I’ll admit it’s not an original one, is that scientists in general do not appear to be in opposition to statements of faith, only that faith is irrelevant in the discussion of scientific facts. If you want to continue to argue this point, knock yourself out, but I’d pretty much said all I can on this subject. But the converse is also true. Science is irrelevant to a discussion of faith. Creationism is not wrong simply because it is unscientific. It is merely unscientific. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801/122 "2006-01-01T17:11:04Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > I think “necessary” would be a better word here. God may indeed be _required_ to explain the existence of the universe, assuming the theistic viewpoint is correct. However, nobody, theist or atheist, can say that God is _necessary_ for the existence of the universe, or that the universe _necessarily_ exists of itself. > > (Of course, if God does exist, He has necessary rather than contingent existence, but the same doesn’t apply to the universe). Moot point, really. The universe clearly does not exist necessarily. For one thing, its existence is contingent on time and space. > [@](#): > > When those statements are amenable to scientific investigation, yes. A creationist’s statement “I believe that God created the universe” isn’t scientifically testable. A creationist’s statment “I believe that the universe was created 6000 years ago, that all animals came into existence at the same time, and that the Earth was covered by a worldwide flood” _is_ scientifically testable, has been scientifically tested, and been found to be false - or, rather, inconsistent with certain very basic metaphysical propositions, such as the self-consistency of the physical world, the continuity between past and future events, etc. The Omphalos argument, which is compatible both with the results of science and the literal truth of Genesis, denies that the physical world is self-consistent. I don’t know of any other creationist argument that doesn’t involve denying the results of science in one way or another. And that’s they’re mistake. Let me put it another way: they are not wrong to say that the earth was created six thousand years ago; they are wrong to say that science confirms that the earth was created six thousand years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801/123 "2006-01-01T17:19:51Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > One might say that Martin Luther King, Jr was a negro in every sense of the word, so what’s wrong with calling him a negro? Or one might say that the actions of the 9/11 Saudi terrorists was brave in every sense of the word, so what’s wrong with citing their bravery? Or Stephen Hawking is a cripple in every sense of the word, so what’s wrong with calling him a cripple? But the words “negro”, “hero”, and “cripple” are still accurate descriptions, even though the use of them might be offensive. To be honest, I think that “myth” is one of the _least_ offensive words that can be used to describe creationism. I would much prefer something like “falsehood” or “deception”. > [@](#): > > You know, I know, everybody knows: the point of the term “myth” is to set the belief in opposition with reality, thereby attempting to establish the pathos and psychosis of those who believe it — and _especially_ when the term is slashed together with the term “religion”, as in myth/religion. In other words, creationism is disparaged as utterly worthless, right along with belief in God generally. Yes. Creationism _is_ in opposition to reality. It _is_ utterly worthless. You have correctly interpreted the word “myth” as applied to creationism. Now, I agree completely that it’s wrong, or, at least, scientifically unjustified, to extend this condemnation to religion and “belief in God generally”. Our atheist friends are being unscientific when they do that. But I hope you’ll appreciate that the argument “Creationism is a religious belief, therefore anyone who accepts the truth of religion should also accept the truth of creationism” is equally wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801/124 "2006-01-01T17:20:15Z")
I disagree that calling creationism a myth disparages religion, or even that it necessarily disparages the myth. A myth is a sacred story. Myth is a _genre_. The Genesis story belongs to that genre. It’s a simple statement of fact. It’s also a simple statement of fact that the story is not literally true. Why do you call that statement “absurd?” Would you object to using the word “myth” for ancient Greek or Egyptian creations stories? An understanding of the Genesis creation myth as allegory is not something which is disparaged by calling it a myth. An insistence on a literal belief in the myth degrades both science and the myth. It’s climbing up the sign post instead of following the arrow and in some cases it also involves trying to prevent anyone else from following the arrow. To paraphrase Jesus (in the Gospel of Thomas), the ID/Creationist movement is like a dog lying in a manger. They neither eat nor do they let the cattle eat. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801/125 "2006-01-01T17:26:18Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Oh, I don’t think the sky will fall if high school students are not given a basic understanding of the scientific method and outlook. However, I do contend that one result could easily be a steady erosion of support for science by the public. And that result can just as easily be made impossible by not diluting the early education in biology by teaching non or junk science in science classes. Technological advances depend upon science and if the science is better elsewhere I think technological leadership will follow. > > There is alarmism and there is also sticking of the head in the sand. If the attacks on evolution were just here and there I agree that they could be dismissed. However, the attacks aren’t scattered and they are increasing. I’m not a Boy Scout but I do believe in Be Prepared and I don’t accept that mixing science and mytholgy in early education will be without consequences just because most people aren’t specialists in biology. I would find that argument persuasive if you could show, thru polling or some other form of data, that the teaching or non-teaching of evolution in schools was somehow correlated to support for science by the public. You might actually find that people are turned away from science if they feel it threatens their faith-- ie, teaching creationism alingside evolution in school might increase public support for science. Don’t take that as an endorsement of teaching creationism. I’m just saying that we really don’t know what effect it would have. ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801/126 "2006-01-01T17:29:03Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Moot point, really. The universe clearly does not exist necessarily. For one thing, its existence is contingent on time and space. I would regard time and space as being contingent on the existence of the universe, rather than the other way round. And pantheism, at least, regards the universe as existing necessarily. However, this is pure metaphysics - interesting, but not really relevant to the current debate. 🙂 > [@](#): > > And that’s they’re mistake. Let me put it another way: they are not wrong to say that the earth was created six thousand years ago; they are wrong to say that science confirms that the earth was created six thousand years ago. Hmm. Only for a _very_ narrow definition of “wrong” - something like “absolutely and indubitably false on all possible world-views”. I would say that they’re at least as wrong as someone who claims that 2 + 2 = 5, or, indeed, that pi = 3.2 (or whatever figure the Indiana legislature wanted to adopt). One can adopt an extreme sceptcism to any generally-accepted “truth”, but there _are_ some facts one has to accept if one is going to deal sensibly with the outside world. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801/127 "2006-01-01T17:29:12Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > But the words “negro”, “hero”, and “cripple” are still accurate descriptions, even though the use of them might be offensive. To be honest, I think that “myth” is one of the _least_ offensive words that can be used to describe creationism. I would much prefer something like “falsehood” or “deception”. is creationism the pseudo-science, and creationism the religious belief. Calling a religious belief a falsehood or deception is profoundly ignorant and pointless. > [@](#): > > Yes. Creationism _is_ in opposition to reality. It _is_ utterly worthless. You have correctly interpreted the word “myth” as applied to creationism. Science is not god. Creationism is not worthless merely because science contradicts it. > [@](#): > > Now, I agree completely that it’s wrong, or, at least, scientifically unjustified, to extend this condemnation to religion and “belief in God generally”. Our atheist friends are being unscientific when they do that. But I hope you’ll appreciate that the argument “Creationism is a religious belief, therefore anyone who accepts the truth of religion should also accept the truth of creationism” is equally wrong. To declare something objectively wrong, there must be something objectively right. If science has deemed itself to be objectively right, then it has become indistinguishable from religion. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801/128 "2006-01-01T17:31:41Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Just out of curiosity, is it possible at all for you to frame the statement you made in a way free of condescention and pejorative — references to fairy tales and myths? While “fairy tale” might indeed be condescending, “myth” is exactly the right word to describe the Genesis story. What word do you think describes it better? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801/129 "2006-01-01T17:31:57Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I disagree that calling creationism a myth disparages religion, or even that it necessarily disparages the myth. A myth is a sacred story. Myth is a _genre_. The Genesis story belongs to that genre. It’s a simple statement of fact. It’s also a simple statement of fact that the story is not literally true. Why do you call that statement “absurd?” Would you object to using the word “myth” for ancient Greek or Egyptian creations stories? > > An understanding of the Genesis creation myth as allegory is not something which is disparaged by calling it a myth. An insistence on a literal belief in the myth degrades both science and the myth. It’s climbing up the sign post instead of following the arrow and in some cases it also involves trying to prevent anyone else from following the arrow. To paraphrase Jesus (in the Gospel of Thomas), the ID/Creationist movement is like a dog lying in a manger. They neither eat nor do they let the cattle eat. If a myth is a sacred story, then what is a “myth/religion”? And why must it oppose science? If it is not your intention to defend what Der Trihs said, then it would help me to know that you are making some new argument, because my objection was to what he said and how he said it. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801/130 "2006-01-01T17:35:48Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > While “fairy tale” might indeed be condescending, “myth” is exactly the right word to describe the Genesis story. What word do you think describes it better? Myth is not a word with a single definition that carries no connotation baggage. _American Heritage_ gives one definition as “A fictitious story, person, or thing”. While you might yourself believe that the Genisis story is fictitious, it is possible that a person believes it is true **irrespective of any scientific standing**. It is only when a person holds up Genesis as scientific that he makes an error. The story may not be fictitious at all. Your base presumption is that science is truth. Just because it is not scientific does not mean it is false. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801/131 "2006-01-01T17:39:36Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > I would regard time and space as being contingent on the existence of the universe, rather than the other way round. And pantheism, at least, regards the universe as existing necessarily. However, this is pure metaphysics - interesting, but not really relevant to the current debate. 🙂 The universe is nothing but a probability distribution. And I agree that this is a tangent, but an interesting one. > [@](#): > > Hmm. Only for a _very_ narrow definition of “wrong” - something like “absolutely and indubitably false on all possible world-views”. I would say that they’re at least as wrong as someone who claims that 2 + 2 = 5, or, indeed, that pi = 3.2 (or whatever figure the Indiana legislature wanted to adopt). One can adopt an extreme sceptcism to any generally-accepted “truth”, but there _are_ some facts one has to accept if one is going to deal sensibly with the outside world. Well, that’s what wrong means: false in every possible world. In point of fact, space is curved; therefore, there exists no circle in the actual world which has a ratio of pi. Again, something is not objectively wrong just because it is scientifically wrong. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801/132 "2006-01-01T17:51:20Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Myth is not a word with a single definition that carries no connotation baggage. _American Heritage_ gives one definition as “A fictitious story, person, or thing”. While you might yourself believe that the Genisis story is fictitious, it is possible that a person believes it is true **irrespective of any scientific standing**. It is only when a person holds up Genesis as scientific that he makes an error. The story may not be fictitious at all. Your base presumption is that science is truth. Just because it is not scientific does not mean it is false. This semantic splitting of hairs is not really helpful. Why even have the word “myth”, then, since anything could possibly be true? When we say that Genesis is fiction, we are saying that there is no physical evidence that it describes any actual events in the physical world. It certainly may have some truth in a spiritual or allegorical sense, but that is consistent with calling it a myth. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801/133 "2006-01-01T17:52:51Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > If a myth is a sacred story, then what is a “myth/religion”? It’s nothing. It’s a meaningless juxtaposition. The terms are not synonomous. Religion can _include_ myth (without necessarily including literal interpretations of myth) but its is not the _same_ as myth. > [@](#): > > And why must it oppose science? Neither religion or myth _must_ oppose science, but some religious beliefs (including literal beliefs in myths) are contrary to what is provable by science and some religionists definitely do try to prevent or obstruct the teaching of science which contradicts their religious beliefs. > [@](#): > > If it is not your intention to defend what Der Trihs said, then it would help me to know that you are making some new argument, because my objection was to what he said and how he said it. I was only defending the use of the word “myth” as a descriptive term for the creation story (storie **s** , actually) in Genesis. Not only because it’s a perfectly valid _literary_ categorization, but also because it’s demonstrable fiction. Any truth it may contain on an allegorical level does not change its genre as myth or its status as fiction. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801/134 "2006-01-01T17:55:43Z")
Incidentally, a story can belong to the genre of “myth” and still be literally true. Theoretically anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801/135 "2006-01-01T18:00:52Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Science is not god. Creationism is not worthless merely because science contradicts it. I would agree with this, but I would also say that creationism is contradicted by the real world, not merely by science. Science provides us with exceptionally good tools to look at and analyse the real world, but the existence and limitations of the real world are still objective realities, irrespective of what science has to say about them. Consider an example from some 20 years ago - Yogic Flying. The devotees of this particular - pastime - sincerely believed that they could fly. Science could contradict their beliefs by referring to the General Theory of Relativity - the real world contradicted them by the simple _fact_ (and I use the word deliberately) that the human body is heavier than air. Yogic Flying and creationism are unscientific. They are also, independently of science, Just Plain Wrong. The one does not necessarily follow from the other - I think that you may be mistaken if you think that science makes this claim. > [@](#): > > Well, that’s what wrong means: false in every possible world. I would disagree with this - I would say that “wrong” means “false in _this actual_ world”. Fortunately, “wrong” isn’t, as far as I know, a precisely-defined philosophical term, so our disagreement on this point can be allowed to stand amicably. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801/136 "2006-01-01T18:09:17Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Well, that’s what wrong means: false in every possible world. That’s a bizarre assertion. False in every possible world entails that something is metaphysically impossible. That it is necessarily false. Wrong is not a synonym for impossible. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801/137 "2006-01-01T18:10:51Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > The universe is nothing but a probability distribution. We don’t know that. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801/138 "2006-01-01T18:31:14Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Gratuitous assertion gratuitously denied. You do not know what is or is not required to put natural selection into motion. Of course I do; variation in reproductive rates due to genetics is all that’s necessary. > [@Liberal](#): > > Just out of curiosity, is it possible at all for you to frame the statement you made in a way free of condescention and pejorative — references to fairy tales and myths? No. Creation _is_ a fairy tale/myth; therefore, I can’t discuss it without bringing up the subject, whether or not I use the words or mention any other myths. Also, I’m not a scientist; nor have I ever claimed to be. > [@Liberal](#): > > In other words, creationism is disparaged as utterly worthless, right along with belief in God generally. Well, I think precisely that; do you expect me to pretend otherwise ? > [@Liberal](#): > > Let me put it another way: they are not wrong to say that the earth was created six thousand years ago; they are wrong to say that science confirms that the earth was created six thousand years ago. People who believe that are either ignorant or crazy. It requires either a denial of a great deal of scientific knowledge, or of an objective reality ( as \*\*Tevildo \*\* said ). > [@John Mace](#): > > You might actually find that people are turned away from science if they feel it threatens their faith-- ie, teaching creationism alingside evolution in school might increase public support for science. But then, what is being taught wouldn’t be science any more, so what’s the point ? > [@Liberal](#): > > Science is not god. Creationism is not worthless merely because science contradicts it. Science is not a god, but it is the best tool we have for understanding the world. If science contradicts creationism, and you can’t prove science wrong, then yes, creationism is worthless ( at best ). > [@Liberal](#): > > To declare something objectively wrong, there must be something objectively right. If science has deemed itself to be objectively right, then it has become indistinguishable from religion. No, science has not “deemed itself to be objectively right”; its simply tested itself against the facts. Over and over. Religion is based on faith, which is a polite term for denying reality. They are opposites. > [@Liberal](#): > > Well, that’s what wrong means: false in every possible world. Incorrect. The statement “I am rich” is wrong, but not in all possible worlds. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801/139 "2006-01-01T18:51:48Z")
What I have always found _interesting_\* about these discussions is that multiple players with diverse viewpoints are attempting to discuss issues as though there was some common agreement that might be reached if they could just “get through” to the other side (while failing to note that there is no “other side”: there are multiple other posters with widely divergent perspectives). For example: > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I disagree that calling creationism a myth disparages religion, or even that it necessarily disparages the myth. A myth is a sacred story. Myth is a genre. The Genesis story belongs to that genre. It’s a simple statement of fact. It’s also a simple statement of fact that the story is not literally true. Now, I would tend to accept that version of the word “myth.” In fact, I consider myth to be one of the most beautiful expressions to which humans give voice, used in the definition that I tend to use, “the expression, usually in story, of the common truths held by a group.” However, **Liberal** is clearly correct that the usage on this board, from both believers and skeptics, tends to relegate the word to the meaning, “false tale to explain something not understood by people unequipped to determine the truth.” We find **Der Trihs** using it in that manner in this very thread, just a post or so up from mine. In his narrow world, there is only “fact” and “fantasy” and from his perspective, everything that cannot be seen or touched or proven by science is clearly fantasy that must be dismissed as worthless. Similarly, we have had (before we chased most of them away from the SDMB) any number of biblical literalists who would have bridled at the notion that any part of scripture was myth–even though I, who am also a believer, consider that to be the highest compliment paid to scripture. So we get into these threads and we find some people arguing over whether science accurately describes the known world, some people asserting that the known world (as identified by science) must be the only world, some people indulging in philosophical exercises to explore whether there **is** a world (or more than one), and nearly everyone reacting to individual sentences from (what they perceive to be) the “other side” and throwing in new objections or counterarguments against positions they find offensive and often missing the point that the person with whom they think they disagree was actually making a wholly separate point on some different issue that got confused because many of the words used are the same. - (Originally in the sense of “here is an _interesting_ idea” but more frequently as “may you live in _interesting_ times.”) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801/140 "2006-01-01T19:19:03Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Now, I would tend to accept that version of the word “myth.” In fact, I consider myth to be one of the most beautiful expressions to which humans give voice, used in the definition that I tend to use, “the expression, usually in story, of the common truths held by a group.” > However, **Liberal** is clearly correct that the usage on this board, from both believers and skeptics, tends to relegate the word to the meaning, “false tale to explain something not understood by people unequipped to determine the truth.” > We find **Der Trihs** using it in that manner in this very thread, just a post or so up from mine. In his narrow world, there is only “fact” and “fantasy” and from his perspective, everything that cannot be seen or touched or proven by science is clearly fantasy that must be dismissed as worthless. Worthless in the context of a scientific explanation of how the earth was formed and how life evolved. But I don’t think even **Der Trihs** is saying that the Genesis story **as myth** is worthless. Myths and stories have their purpose, and the Genesis story continues to have meaning in an allegorical sense even if it cannot be said to have meaning in a scientific sense. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-americans-deny-evolution/337801.md?page=8)