The myth of evolution

[Willum]

Theists use myth an awful lot:

They have myths about talking snakes and magic DNA altering, evil bestowing fruit, and so on.

But they also use myth offensively, as in the case of evolution.

They say that since fish eggs don't hatch out men, or ape mommys don't give birth to human children, that evolution is false.

But anyone who does not need Original Sin in their playbook knows that that is not what evolution claims.

(As in write this, if they believed their myth of evolution was true, they would have to believe men and fish could interbreed or man an ape - but I digress.)

So we have what evolution is according to the REST of the world: The promotion of inheritable traits among generations

Vs

The myth of evolution, what Judaists and Christians maintain: That just about anything can evolve into anything else.

The point of discussion is, how do Judeo-Christians maintain their MYTH of evolution, in order to maintain their myth of creation (and sin)?

[Diagoras]

Thanks for posting the links. They both look very interesting and are from what I would consider credible sources. Unfortunately, the New Scientist article isn’t fully visible without subscribing.

However, the second article doesn’t have that problem so I’ve started reading it and will hopefully post some thoughts soon. At first glance, it seems like the research might be better described as complementing fossil evidence of evolutionary theory, rather than replacing it.

[Eloi]

[Replying to post 11 by Diagoras]

You're welcome.

The interview (the full article) ends saying:

How much will the scientific establishment now have to reorient in light of the momentum of the Extended Synthesis? Will Darwin go the way of Freud? And will the Extended Synthesis require an extensive rewriting of textbooks?

I believe that the field eventually will have to reorient. I don't by any means think the science that's been done under the Darwinian paradigm will disappear or will be seen to be entirely invalid. But the Darwinian mechanism that's used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of the several mechanisms - maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.

If this new way of understanding the appearance of new species becomes the mainstream, the changes in the previous way of understanding evolution would be drastic and the "macroevolution" concept would lose its raison d'être.

In the same article there are references to other researches. I'll try to find other articles I read about the same issue.

PD: I use Google Translator most of the time. I hope the idea is clear.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 10 by Eloi]

Why do you keep bringing up things about evolution that have nothing to do with the topic? It is exceedingly rude, especially indicating you haven’t bothered to read it, and you insist on not needing to.

The topic is about the myth that some theists hold about evolution, not recent discoveries about it.

[Eloi]

I have never heard any Christian saying that evolution implies that a female monkey gave birth to a human. It seems to me that the one who is creating a myth is you. Actually, it seems that I am more up-to-date in relation to evolution even though I don't believe in it.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 14 by Eloi]

Then you haven’t much read posts on this board.
Do you understand then, that evolution as non-mythologically described, is perfectly plausible and likely?

Do you understand then, that with evolution, there is no Garden of Eden, and thus no original sin, and so no need for Jesus?

[Eloi]

Moderator, OnceConvinced removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 16 by Eloi]

So you have been deriding the topic, just to deride it?
You are truly the salt of the Earth, and still avoiding the topic.

[Eloi]

Moderator, OnceConvinced removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

[Eloi]

You are saying from the beginning of this thread that Christians have an evolution-myth that has nothing to do with the real evolution theory, and that they do it to believe in the other alternative, that God is the Creator.

We, Christians, don't need any kind of evolution-myth or evolution-no-myth to believe in the Creator. We have a lot of reasons for that. You are talking from your imagination, creating a myth about a myth ... nothing real.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 19 by Eloi]

So,
1. What is your belief about evolution’s mechanism?
Does it involve inheritable traits, or do you think that it says monkeys can give birth to men?

2. Now, presumably you would substitute some magic sky wizard you call God, who magically created everything, all at once, without having any causal explanation for his existence, either, also creating talking snakes and magic generation-cursing fruit, and expect people to take you seriously?

About right?