- in regard to your argument about "mythology". I agree
that it is inconvenient to use a term for which the techical
meaning is different from the popular connotation. But as
scientists we learn to put up with this. There are
countless examples of proteins/receptors/molecules with
biological activity which were given names that subsequently
turn out to be unhelpful; other terms are misleading - for
the longest time I could not work out what alternated in the
"alternate" complement pathway, and then I discovered that
"alternate" was American for "alternative" (!); and there
are countless examples of medical terms whose technical
definition differs from popular connotation. Tough! It is
a shame, we try to do better with new dicoveries, but in the
meantime we learn to live with it.
- as for the world on a turtle's back. It seems to me that
you are ignoring the problem of God communicating to people
with limited knowledge and understanding. One would not
expect God to use 20th century cosmology to communicate with
the early Jews. As with all of scripture we have to try to
understand the understanding of those for whom it was first
written. Scripture has to transcend cultures and time.
- lastly, there is a huge difference between "no evidence"
(as in exodus etc) and "contrary evidence" (as in geological
evidence against a young earth). Again there is a great
deal in the biological sciences that has to deal with this;
lack of evidence does not mean very much.
Thanks to Glen for his continuing thought provoking stuff.