Yes, i think we have to take the etiological myths of all mythologies, including the Bible, to be symbolic/metaphorical narratives intended to satisfy the archetypal curiosity of the human mind with respect to man's origin. Imagine the volumes of intricate technical literature, containing descriptions of scientific phenomena and chemical compositions/processes unknown to early humans, that would be required to describe the actual development of the human form (or that of any animated organism for that matter). For example, clearly the detailed descriptions of DNA's composition, structure and functions would have been of little value to the people of the Bronze Age.
i've never found the Creation story of Genesis to be at odds with the theory of evolution, any more than the story of storks bringing babies is at odds with biological conception, pregnancy, and birth. The two narratives are apples and oranges. One is a charmingly simple story invented to provide an answer to a complex biological question for the simple mind of a child who is too young (or has no immediate need) to understand the complex biological processes involved in prenatal development and birth while the other is a technically accurate description of the actual phenomenon intended for a mature person with sufficient educational background to understand and appreciate it.
i cannot see the historic development of the human organism as being solely the result of a random set of probabilistic occurrences, but i also don't visualize a giant hand of God scooping up a hand-full of clay and forming it into the first homo sapiens.
As for mythologies, they serve important functions in societies throughout history (i.e., Joseph Campbell identified four basic functions: the mystical, the cosmological, the sociological, and the pedagogical). The content of a myth can be true and conform to past and/or present reality, it can be fictional, or it can (and very often is) a combination of the two. In today's world, more and more we see man's understanding of science serve the mythological functions. Because of this, ironically, people for whom science serves mythological functions (or as a religion in itself) are sometimes as dogmatic and inflexible about potentially flawed science as the Inquisition was about the literalness of the Biblical story of Creation.
|
|