A myth by any other name

We are here.  No one but a solipsist or Matrix devotee would dispute our existence on planet Earth.  But how we got here and where we are going is another matter entirely.

God and AdamThe precise cause of our existence is an issue of perpetual debate among scientists, philosophers, and theologians.  Since our varying positions in this debate are determined entirely by the origin myths we choose, we should start any serious discussion on the subject of origins with an honest look at those myths.

 

 

Whether we are aware of it or not, every Darwinist as well as every Creationist has chosen a myth to interpret all data continuously gathered by diligent scientists all around the world.   Unfortunately, the difference between the two opposing viewpoints is almost always characterized as the difference between what is science and what is not.  Darwin's tree of life As everyone knows, the Darwinist gets the label of “scientific” and the creationist is called “religious.”   In reality, neither Darwinism nor Creationism is science.  Both are myth-dependent beliefs about the world.  And if we all learn to clearly articulate our myths for each other, then we will all find it much easier to distinguish actual data from our interpretations of data.  

This simple exercise will not end our arguments over origins, but it certainly will clarify them for us.  We will have greater hope of resolving our conflicts if it becomes clear to everyone involved that we are not arguing about physical data discovered through the methodological naturalism of science.  We are arguing about which myth should be used to interpret the data.  We are engaged in a philosophical debate, not a scientific one.  And it is past time for everyone concerned to honestly acknowledge that one basic fact.

Before I continue, I must make it clear that the word myth is only convenient shorthand for me; it does not mean a fictional story.  Throughout this discussion, I define myth as “a grand narrative of existence that forms the foundation of a worldview.”   I considered using GINOAW for Grand Interpretive Narrative Of A Worldview, so if you can’t separate the word “myth” from the concept of fiction, just copy and paste into a Word document, find myth, and replace with GINOAW.   I simply prefer the single-syllabled myth over an unfamiliar and rather clumsy acronym.

Of course I’m convinced that my own myth is truth.  That’s why I chose it.  And by choosing, I have obviously judged all other myths to be false on some level.  In telling you how I made my choice, my goal is not to convince you that I am right.  My goal is to convince you that it is important for us all to fully understand our own myths and the myths of others.   Once that is done, then we can talk about which myth gives us the best explanation of reality.

Before we look at our myth options, I want to pay tribute to Leonard Read, the man who taught me that consistency requires a premise, because I’ve interpreted that principle to conclude that understanding the creation/evolution debate requires articulated myths.