Myth vs Science

9 02 2012

Someone recently wrote that they prefer rational science to myth as far as an explanation of our natural world. Well, I’m not all about debunking science or any such thing, but it’s also been recently said that mankind’s total of knowledge about the world around him has doubled in the last fifty years AND will double again over the next fifty. Now looking back over the course of history there are a lot of things that we once took as “scientific” fact that just wasn’t so.

 Myth has a better track record than science as far as history is concerned. Many a scientific discovery came from exploring myths. Myths might not be rock solid truths, but for the most part they are grounded in some fact. Legends and myths come out of our worlds oral history, passed thru the generations over eons of time.

We know little of what there is to learn, and in the future people will look back on the science of today much like we look back on the science of yesterday. Besides, what exactly is rational with the thought that out of nothing something appeared, and then for no reason it changed and became something else, then changed again, then again, then again and eventually became a rock… then a tree… then…me?

Look at a flower and tell me how it got brewed out of that primordial stew. Why are things so limited, yet so advanced at the same time? How come, after all the years and years and years of change do to the various influences of the world around us we can’t hold a conversation with something that isn’t of our species? How come we could develop something like a thumb, but not wings… even bugs have wings…? Wouldn’t wings have been extremely advantageous to travel, to escape danger, to search for food and shelter?

Why, again, are there the limits? After coming so far, why aren’t we more advanced than this… if those theories are correct? If the little things can be so complex, why not the big things, too? Seriously, look at what it takes to reproduce. What it takes to feel, take in oxygen, digest food for nourishment… all complex systems. Yet, after producing all those abilities we can’t function but in a very tiny band of the environment. After all this time we should be able to do almost anything, survive almost anywhere, be… optimum.

Is it not true that evolution is just as much a story of loss as it is gain? What rational explanation is there for having such basic needs as food and water when evolution can take care of everything else that gets us to here? Why don’t we just absorb what we need or synthesize it out of sunlight?

Why are things so universally common among such vastly different species? Perhaps it because we have something in common after all… and perhaps that would be a creator.

Now, I’m not against ‘evolution’, for certainly things change, or evolve over time. There isn’t any fundamental religious dispute to that notion anyway. Creation of the Heavens and Earth caused a mighty big BANG I’m fairly sure. But science requires a “rational” explanation for everything. Creationist aren’t so limited. We understand that some of this is above our pay grade. But you scientists keep on working, now. You’ve got some pretty good God given talent, I’m sure.