@theophilus cv,
theophilus;71368 wrote:It is possible to check a theory about what is going on now, but if you have theory about how something happened in the past how are you going to check it?
If you check this site
Science Against Evolution Official Home Page
you will find that not all scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution.
I find that presentation entirely dishonest. It is very wicked, I think, to
pretend that the lifework of so may devoted and honest people is trivial, like some sort of nonsense thought up in a bar.
Going back to the Book of Genesis, you ought to face the fact that you are comparing totally different things when you put it up against science. Let's take it stage by stage:
Early peoples, on such evidence as we have, used ceremonial magic before engaging in important activities like hunting and (later) planting. Some of them dressed up as animals to dance being hunted, and 'became' those animals to the extent that their particular clan must never eat its flesh - it was taboo, cannibalism for them - as with Jews and pork, and so on - while the rest of the tribe was allowed to do so. The British seem to have had a particularly strong horse taboo.
As time went on they began to see the figures of the ritual dance as 'gods', strange magic beings, which helped them explain the unexplained (rain, wind, earthquake, whatever) and is a kind of early 'science', I suppose. 'Gods' were forces of nature, normally seen at first as animals, as in the dance (Egypt), then as shape-shifters who often became animals (classical Greece). Very slowly, particularly in the Fertile Crescent, religion began to develop into morality, ethics and philosophy and move towards the notion of one single God (coming, probably, from the Sky-Father god of the pastoralists). This was a huge advance, and various reformers began to experience messages from such a being, important messages too. That was the way their minds worked, in my opinion: they certainly weren't
lying.
'Truth' in all such societies is expressed in stories. Some, like the universal habit of telling creation-myth stories are primitive and not to be taken very seriously, while others, the epics, parables and the like, are profoundly serious and still work without any of us having to be literary critics and 'spell out' the truth contained. These stories - like the New Testament, Shakespeare or Tolstoy work like great music: they effect us directly.
Language, however, is not well designed for
scientific truth, because (read Lakoff and Johnson's 'Mataphors we live by') it works so heavily by metaphor. I am writing this IN April, for instance (time is a box), ON Saturday (time is a surface); I am WRESTLING WITH WORDS (discussion is a physical combat) to make my meaning CLEAR (meaning is a sort of glass). All language is like this, which is why I am so dubious about philosophy, and why we need mathematics to make serious statements.
Science began to develop much later, and in my view, will establish truths about reality but NOT about how we should behave, so that to mix up ways of thinking developed millenia apart is simple anachronism. Sorry to go on so long, but I think it matters.