Jump to content

Talk:Creation myth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.14.121.19 (talk) at 11:00, 28 June 2011 (→Big bang?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Australian Aborigines

I'm perplexed by the various classifications of creation myths found in the article, on several grounds:

  • they are quite contradictory to each other, with their component categories having little in common;
  • they are not noticeably evidence-based - or if they are, the article does not offer supporting evidence for them;
  • not one of them seems to contain a category that usefully describes salient characteristics of the creation myths of the Australian Aborigines.


Within this latter, large group of creation myths, most serve to explicate:

  1. the major topographical features of the lands occupied and cared for by an Aboriginal nation, and
  2. distinctive features of important animals or plants.

They do so by referring to:

  1. journeys undertaken by totemic animals, spirits and other ancestors through a pre-existing (and usually undifferentiated) landscape, and
  2. particular actions taken by protagonists in a story of conflict, usually involving competition for resources (chiefly food or wives).


I doubt that the scholarly accounts are quite as remiss as this article makes them seem, but unfortunately, I don't know enough about the relevant works, or even the scholars. Now without me (or anyone) indulging in Original Research, I'd hope that some editor can remedy the faults I first listed?

yoyo (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't go into any detail about specific creation myths. What talkpage are you actually looking for? --King Öomie 19:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't go into specific detail of individual creation myths, but the article does need further development with more examples. I try to chip away at it little by little, but I'm no mighty-mo. More help is welcome here. (Note to those willing to help: It's important to key in on reliable sources of an academic nature instead of the do-it-yourself or popular content. ) Professor marginalia (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big bang?

Shouldn't the big bang be mentioned here, I mean it fits perfectly into the chaos myth/theory? From chaos into creation, that's literally what it describes.... --Nabo0o (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't belong here. The Big Bang is a cosmogony, but it is not a cosmogonical myth, it's a cosmogonical "theory". Myths and theories are very different in their academic and real life (in most cases) contexts. The authoritative sources on both cultural myths and scientific theories are essentially agreed on this. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
erm, biased much? saying the big bang is fact not myth? actually the idea of creation from nothing is fact, not myth. the article should be renamed to exclude the word myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.6.229 (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
here we go... 94.192.87.218 (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re "saying the big bang is fact not myth", above, in case nobody has bothered to look at the Big Bang article yet, its lead sentence reads, "The Big Bang model or theory is the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe.", Citing
as a supporting source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's make this simple. Creation is a myth because there is no evidence. The Big Bang Theory is a theory (in science, a fact) because there is overwhelming evidence supporting it. There we go. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"[I]n science, a fact" ... do you mean in the sense that evolution is considered a "fact," because it is a "theory for which there is overwhelming evidence?" It is entirely irrelevant to a mythological narrative whether or not there is scientific evidence propping it up. In the academic sense, myth is not defined by its lack of scientific evidence, but by its thematic content and its social and psychological functions. As a point of fact, I will note that to a vast majority of us there is actually no overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang. That is to say most of who believe the Big Bang is the most likely explanation, do so because we trust scientific authorities and not because we understand or are even cognizant of the relevant scientific evidence. As such the Big Bang may actually fulfill many of the same social or psychological functions as a creation myth, while clearly covering some of the same thematic ground. I'm not arguing for inclusion here, simply pointing out that the dichotomy between "myth" and "scientific theory/fact" being presented above is a false dichotomy--unless of course what is meant by "myth" is "fiction," but that isn't scholarly nor, as far as I can tell, how we use myth here on Wikipedia.Griswaldo (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get seriously bored with academic philosophical discussions. Simply put, a scientific theory is essentially a fact. The rest of your post-modernist commentary....could care less to be honest. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Academic philosophical? Post-modernist?" Sorry, but this is very mainstream, very boring, and very pre "post-anything." Oh and it's not "philosophical" it is for the most part "social scientific." For instance, for the view that myth is defined by its social or psychological function see Structural functionalism. Why are you making points about what is or is not considered "fact" in the scientific community on the talk page of an entry about myth, a topic that is not defined by the status of scientific theories/facts? Apples and oranges. That's my point. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are talking to me about this? I'm not the OP, some IP author is. I know precisely what is a theory, and what is a myth. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the problem is that there is a mass of people in the world that do not believe the creation is not a "myth". Instead of stating everything as "fact", no matter how much one believes that they are right, respect the views of others and their beliefs. One may not agree with someone else, but this debate, and that is all this is, will be ongoing until the Earth is destroyed, whether by a natural disaster or by religious prophecy. There is always going to be someone out there trying to discredit religion and someone else the science. What is the point? Why can't we all get along and respect each other and their beliefs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.165.196.84 (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly there is a distinction between the Big Bang Theory and creation myths. If not because of the strong scientific evidence in support thereof, then because it has no 'narrative', nor social or psychological function. Or perhaps it is distinct from a creation myth because creation myths are believed to be false by most people. Either way, it clearly has no place in this article.JTansut (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The big bang, although I believe it to be a myth, does not involve creation, so it wouldn't belong here. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 09:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. the Big Bang shouldn't be mentioned here. "The Big Bang theory isn't about the bang itself, but about what happened after the bang."[Bryson, Bill (2004). A short history of nearly everything. Black Swan. p. 32. ISBN 9780552151740.] However (said half in jest, but only half), vacuum genesis might; also quantum genesis.[Ferris, Timothy (1988). Coming of age in the Milky Way. Morrow. pp. 351–356. ISBN 9780688058890.] Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I don't agree with the overall direction of this article (mainly as it feels it has a direction) it would be wholly incorrect to discuss the Big Bang in this article. A myth by definition is a story or narrative. Whilst not everyone believes the big band theory to be correct, it is not a myth. Theories are for another page. Jkennedy561 (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not a myth, - clearly not a traditional story, doesn't have the characteristics of a myth, etc. Dougweller (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree, there is a distinction that should be made between the scientific theory and the commonly held beliefs about the creation of the world via "big bang." I'm sure those popular beliefs can be easily compared to other folk traditions, including ancient creation mythology. But the theory itself, no.Griswaldo (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point about the "creation of the world via 'big bang'", but not the theory itself being on here, Griswaldo. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 14:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Creation myths are symbolic traditional narratives; the Big Bang is the scientific consensus about the current (and past) expansion of spacetime. It's not even like comparing apples and oranges - it's like listing "happiness" as a type of vegetable. 74.14.121.19 (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creation_myth&oldid=436653944"