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.
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.
Moot point, really. The universe clearly does not exist necessarily. For one thing, its existence is contingent on time and space.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
is creationism the pseudo-science, and creationism the religious belief. Calling a religious belief a falsehood or deception is profoundly ignorant and pointless.
Science is not god. Creationism is not worthless merely because science contradicts it.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The universe is nothing but a probability distribution. And I agree that this is a tangent, but an interesting one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I was only defending the use of the word “myth” as a descriptive term for the creation story (stories, 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.
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.
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.
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.
Of course I do; variation in reproductive rates due to genetics is all that’s necessary.
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.
Well, I think precisely that; do you expect me to pretend otherwise ?
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 ).
But then, what is being taught wouldn’t be science any more, so what’s the point ?
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 ).
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.
Incorrect. The statement “I am rich” is wrong, but not in all possible worlds.
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:
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.”)
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.
