In article , Larry   
   Caldwell  wrote:   
      
   > People get so confused.  A myth doesn't have to be either real or   
   > practical.  Who cares if the ark wouldn't hold all the animals, would   
   > probably sink, and there was never a flood anyway?  That's not the point   
   > of myth.   
      
      
   given that moral lessons are attached to myths, i see a bright future   
   for the noah myth.   
      
   it has been taken up by people who hold both pro-environmental and   
   pro-religion beliefs. god wanted noah to save the animals, therefore   
   god wants us to save the animals.   
      
   was the real noah an environmentalist? who cares, there probably was no   
   real noah. using the old myth for a new moral serves a purpose.   
      
   the noah myth has also been interpreted by creationists. they claim   
   that animals and humans evolved into their present forms after the   
   flood. therefore all occurences of evolution happened after the 6 days   
   of creation [don't ask me why this is put forward as a pro-creationist   
   argument].   
      
   eventually, religion will abondon creationism as we know it, maybe in   
   the next 100 years. when that happens, they will need a new biblical   
   paradigm for evolution.   
      
   noah's ark is perfect for this. theologians of the future will depict   
   noah's flood as one example of evolution and natural selection. the old   
   myth will be drafted to serve a new purpose.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)