It simply allows for belief in christianity to be cohesive with science. That is an old argument, but it does not persuade an atheist because it is only applicable to believers. I have long held the position that science in no way must conflict with biblical assertions when they are interpreted in a specific way. Many do not understand this or are at least ignorant of it, prefering their own dogmas and presumptions.
Absolutely right. The power of mythos has been in steady decline since the Enlightenment - and the creation story in Genesis is mythos. More modern readers, unable to understand the role of myth in knowledge, and worried that their religious tradition is losing credibility in the face of science, which is logos, have attempted to convert the mythos into logos by reinterpreting the myth in a scientific way.
This sort of activity should not persuade atheists or believers.
The Bible is not a bunch of assertions. The Bible is mythology. It cannot conflict with science unless the reader has fundamental misunderstandings about the text - unless the reader does not understand the function of mythology.
Religion can be totally innocuous in respect to scientific inquiry when even taken literally with clever dissection of terms as it is often so vague.
I disagree. If we read mythology literally, we are bound to see the mythology as being opposed to science - unless the writer was scientifically precise.
The problem comes in when old dogmas of organized religion which are in no way tied inseperably to the biblical writings interfere with scientific progress and atheist/agnostic freedom of belief.
I think it's more a misunderstanding about the nature of the text by the modern religious reader. Including a misunderstanding of old dogmas by the modern religious individual.
Because of their misunderstanding, they come to see secular progress as a threat to their religious beliefs.
While my convictions are along the agnostic bent, I respect the freedom of belief and understand that many religious practicioners are totally inocuous and in no way does religious belief necessarily impede progress.
I wish more of us were like this.
According to this story, God creates light on the first day. Yet he does not create any stars until the forth day. From where does the "first day" light come from if there are no heavenly bodies to produce it? This is a scientifically delinquent, mythological/religious text. Nothing more.
Well, mythology has no use for scientific accuracy. They are entirely different methods of contemplation. To level scientific criticisms against a mythological text is to miss the point of the text by a hundred miles. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon.
But to play along - the Sun. Remember, the text is thousands of years old, predates the heliocentric model, ect. The Sun was not understood to be a star.
Again, this scientific inaccuracy is irrelevant to the mythology.