I see a lot of posts here supporting YEC and sighting the Bible as a source. Posters hold that they believe in the Word and accept it as truth. That's fine.
My question is, do you further accept the Creationist beliefs from other cultures / religeons?
For example (there are obviously extreme truncated for space):
Egyptian -- The world begins with a series of floods until ground can rise above it.
African -- The Creator vomits up all of creation
Norse -- A mix of fire and ice formed Ymir the giant who sweated out giants and men.
Comanche -- The gods summon a wind from the four corners and create man from dust.
Mayan -- After the gods fail making men of clay and wood, they wipe everything clean with a great flood. Then with the help of mountain lion, coyote, parrot and crow, they manage to make men of flesh.
Chinese -- Ziene spat on his hand and from that formed all creation. This creation was destroyed by a great flood brought about by Zie. Only two people were spared A-Zie and his sister.
Inuit -- At first there was only water, then land rose out of the water and Raven stabbed it with his beak. This land had only room for one house and in it lived a man and woman and their son Raven, who has stabbed the land.
Obviously I have left out many many other stories of Creation. I'm sure there are literally thousands more that could be listed.
You'll notice that many of this stories have striking similiarities to Judeo/Christian/Muslim origin stories (beginning with nothing or water, a great flood, people made of clay/dust, etc.) However, they also have striking differences. (Multiple gods, animals already in existance, etc.)
Do these stories merit equal weight in the eyes of Creationists? Do they too merit classroom time, just like Intelligent Design? If so, doesn't that just make biology into the study of compairative religeon? If not, why are they discounted in favor of another choice?
I feel personally that the topic of Origins should be a seperate class in high school. You are not only dealing with science and religion/worldviews but also with philosophy and human history...way beyond the bounds of a science class to begin with. I also think that evolutionary views found in some religions (e.g. some forms of Hinduism) should be included, not just the creationist ones. Because I really don't think the way this topic is discussed in N. America right now as a religion vs. science issue is particularly accurate or helpful. The notion that some evolutionary ideas do not have some connection to some religions/philosophies of life is a fallacy, the notion that creationist ideas have no basis in scientific experiments is another fallacy. As far as these creation stories go, the similarities between them despite massive geographical/cultural differences, suggest there is some kind of truth to at least parts of them. Re. the differences in details, if the stories are not preserved properly from the beginning, of course, corruption is likely. I find it far easier to explain the similarities by suggesting that they are all related to one original story, that, in most cases, at least, has been corrupted over time. The alternative explanation...that the similarities are just coincidences takes way too much faith for me to believe.
The vast number of creation myths that exist is the single best argument against both Christian creationism and Christianity itself. The sheer, mindless arrogance of Christians when they claim that their story which has no supporting evidence is true while all the others aren't is stunning.
Not one of them warrant study in a science classroom. None of them are science. They all warrant serious study in their own right, but none are science and none are of any greater value then any other.
That is the simple fact that Christians, in their-self important assurance, always seem to miss. Exactly why is their belief any better then any other? Answer: It isn't. They are all equally factually false. They are also all equally true in the lessons they teach about what it is to be human and that is where their value lies. To actually believe any one and dismiss all the others is a classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
I am sure that some Christian creationist posters will take issue with my position. To them I say in advance, give me reasons why your beliefs about your creation myth are better (or more factual) that go beyond the fact that they happen to be yours. Don't waste everyone's time.
As far as these creation stories go, the similarities between them despite massive geographical/cultural differences, suggest there is some kind of truth to at least parts of them.
Actually after starting this thread, I started another one about this specific topic. I go into detail about causation for commonality of mythology.
It's in the faith and belief forum, and if I was better poster, I'd be able to link it right here.
The long and short of it is this, just because two mythologies have something in common, doesn't mean they are descended from the same source. There are lots of reasons the experiences of humans in one part of the world are like the experiences of others in another part of the world.
I would like to remind you, it isn't just a Christian story but also a Jewish one...Christians are not the only ones who believe it. Unlike the other versions of the creation myth, that typically have only one group that supports that version. I doubt any evolutionists have tried to confirm/deny the creation account. They just work from their own assumptions, and one of them is the a priori assumption that the Creation stories are simply myths...therefore, starting with different premises, they naturally end up with different conclusions. Which is fine, just as it's fine for creationists to work from their own premises. I think the history of science has shown, the more perspectives, the better.
Well, yes the Christian creation story is also the Jewish creation story, and Islam for that matter. This is because Christianity and Islam are both offshoots of Judaism.
As for your statement about disproving other myths, I assume that what you are saying is that evolutionists haven't tried to dismantle, say Norse, creation myths.
I counter with this - Evolutionists aren't trying to dismantle anyone's creation story (Christian or otherwise). We're just saying - this is the way it is. If your Creation story happens to coincide with the data, fantastic. If not, oh well.
But the secondary question raised by your statement is this: Do you think that the Norse myth of all life being vomitted up by a cow is on par with the Judeo/Christian creation story? That is, do you think that evolutionists should be as tasked in dismantling this myth as you feel it is in dismantling the Great Flood?
In the history of science, no perspective that says "This is what clearly happened, now let's get started proving it!" has ever been effective. The more sciectific prespectives, the better. Accepting myth as fact and then trying to prove it is of no benefit.
Also, in my society it is a subset of Christians who are trying to force their beliefs on everyone, so it is them that I am concerned with.
You also make the mistake of thinking that the scientific concepts of evolution are in some way an assumption. Each has been established by evidence over time, unlike any factual basis for any myth of creation. Also, the assumption that magical creation is in no way a priori. Over time, countless pieces of evidence have shown that these myths simply cannot be factual and the people who discovered these facts did not set out to disprove any creation myth. It was simply the inevitable occurence when the truth of how things work is pursued.
Creationists, ID supporters, or any other kind of "creartion science" types are of course welcome to their veiws and can do everything they want to bolster them, but they have no right to expect anyone to support them or to be taken seriously as doing science.
Maybe the important thing is the belief that has been passed down for centuries in all cultures and traditions, is that this is a created world and we are created beings. Some how I can't see God trying to explain the BB or QM to Moses or anyone else for that matter. Just revealing to people that He did it in a way that they would be able to understand would make sense to me.
Scientists are trying to work out "how" we are created and theologians are trying to work out "why".
Well, you may think they have been established...they sound like circular reasoning to me, based on assumptions that have yet to be proven...of course, proving something where there weren't any visible witnesses, is going to be very difficult indeed, requiring an awful lot of faith it seems to me. Also, if you are going to examine a hypothesis, you have to work within it's assumptions to see if it is cohesive. Otherwise, you are always going to be groping in the dark. Pieces of evidence can be interpreted different ways, depending on one's assumptions, it's really not as easy as you think. I think if people knew as much about evolutionary ideas in some other religions, I think they would realise the lines between science and religion are more blurred than they would like to believe. Alas, among evolutionists, only New Agers seem to have cottoned onto this fact. The rest seem to have their heads firmly planted in the sand.