How scientific is the myth? Part I

Matt’s brother and intellectual spar-partner, Jim, engaged with me in a friendly and fruitful debate, some months ago, about “World-Origin Myths,” and which might be the most scientific. The two main competitors, it seems, are the Genesis myth (“In the beginning was the word”) and the modern naturalistic myth (“In the beginning were the particles”).

The beginning of the universe is obviously unavailable to direct eye-witness observation, so the best hypothesis will be the one that fits the facts that we do observe today.

The conversation went along swimmingly for awhile, and ended when I realized that I simply do not have enough knowledge of the contemporary Science Conversation to proceed with the argument.

Jim was kind enough to point me to an article on the subject of the age of the universe, whether or not it is expanding, and where scientists are at, generally, on the subject.

Jim, with your indulgance, I’m picking up that conversation again, having only perused the article, in order to share pieces of the article with Mere-O readers, share my comments on the article, and invite others (John?) who are somewhat more up-to-date on such matters to contribute as they will!