Creation Stories (genesis, God, divine)

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

I think there's a big difference between a story and a description based on systematic observation of evidence and mathematical modeling. Our understanding of the Big Bang will be expanded and refined; many things that don't make sense now will be understood; some of the ways we explain things now will have better, more precise explanations. But this will be because of new research and new observations. Creation stories change for cultural reasons, not scientific reasons.

Creation stories don't generally correspond to the physical realities of origins. They tell us about the perceptions of the people who wrote the stories.

Culture will affect science in the same way. Our culture is very scientifically driven in the same way that religion once drove the ignorant masses, and, as you rightly say, culture eventually changed their creation myths. The reason why science drives culture today is because the people allow it to based upon the supposition that scientific naturalism can answer more questions than anything else.

However, if people change their supposition, the way science is used will be changed. Research on such innovative and broad topics could cease, and the scientific mind can be dulled. If such a thing occurs, science will be changed by culture. Furthremore, if a revolution occured in philosophy and philosophers were able to convince scientists that their methods are inferior to a certian philosophical model, then science would be forever changed.

Conversely, if science advances far beyond where it is now in how it gathers and interprets information, it may determine that any theory is bogus.

[Lightkeeper]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

I think there's a big difference between a story and a description based on systematic observation of evidence and mathematical modeling. Our understanding of the Big Bang will be expanded and refined; many things that don't make sense now will be understood; some of the ways we explain things now will have better, more precise explanations. But this will be because of new research and new observations. Creation stories change for cultural reasons, not scientific reasons.

Creation stories don't generally correspond to the physical realities of origins. They tell us about the perceptions of the people who wrote the stories.

I think the people of OT times observed and came up with the best answer they could for their times.

[scitsofreaky]

All creation stories are an attempt to put something we don't understand in ways that we can understand. The Bible's story is put into terms of a working man, big bang in the terms of science, and so on.

[painted wolf]

I think the thing that sets the Big Bang apart from other 'creation' stories is that there is no 'creator'. It was a natural event of unknown (but not unguessed at) origin.

wa:do

[linwood]

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

I think we can advance so far in our knowledge the the BB can be a metaphor.

I disagree.

Religious creation stories are believed on faith as there is no empirical evidence to support them in a literal sense.

The Big Bang is supported by evidence to an extent and once that evidence has been deemed inadequate the "story" fails.

While the BB in part is supported by what I believe is blind faith the road to that faith was paved with observable evidence, evidence that at this point cannot be denied.

My point is that this story will change as new evidence becomes clear and sooner or later it may not even resemble the original story.

Religious creation stories don`t follow this route when taken literally.

They cannot be falsified.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by No*s

Ancient creation stories have staying power, because they are more than a model. The BB is just a model, and if it loses its claim to being literally factual, it cannot continue to hold force. Ancient stories can [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img].

The BB is not "just a model" No*s....like evolution, it is also a fact. With a powerful enough telescope, one can quite literally see the universe evolving into what it has become today....and the BB is still happening today (just as evolution is still happening). Facts, in my opinion, should have more staying power than myths....but I agree that most of the time (sadly) they don't.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

The BB is not "just a model" No*s....like evolution, it is also a fact. With a powerful enough telescope, one can quite literally see the universe evolving into what it has become today....and the BB is still happening today (just as evolution is still happening). Facts, in my opinion, should have more staying power than myths....but I agree that most of the time (sadly) they don't.

Ah, then I stand corrected on that point. I was under the impression that the BB was a model that explained what we observe right now rather well, but was still a model (albeit a very well-tested model).

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by No*s

Ah, then I stand corrected on that point. I was under the impression that the BB was a model that explained what we observe right now rather well, but was still a model (albeit a very well-tested model).

Well you're right, the BB is a model....my point is it is not *just* a model. Like evolution, the BB is also a fact. My fault for not being clearer.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

Well you're right, the BB is a model....my point is it is not *just* a model. Like evolution, the BB is also a fact. My fault for not being clearer.

Ah, OK .

It was partially my fault as well. When saying "just a model," I didn't mean to denigrate it, but rather, to emphasize that it was a model and not metaphor, where creation stories tend to be both.