The debate dealing with the teaching of Creationism versus the science of evolution is a heated one. It seems to me that framing the dialogue in terms of understanding metaphor is a promising approach. I'm sure many of you have come across the idea that one day in the Creation story could represent a larger cycle of time; that's a simple example. But there are more refined ways of communicating with poetry in Scripture. Communication that uses the "wisdom of God" would surely imply the use of a high level of refined poetic tools.

At the time that Genesis and other early Creationist scriptures were compiled, the "science" of the time and the function of religion were linked with poetry and its devices. The proper understanding of those devices are needed again like a de-coder ring to understand the texts correctly. In ancient Judaic theological thought and discourse, for example, there was never a debate about whether the whale was big enough to house Jonah. That aspect of the story meant something else; it was not the point and to debate it was to miss the mark. And as we all know, even current fundamentalist Christians know enough not to cut off an offending hand, despite Jesus' instructions to do so, so literalism isn't comprehensive in their reading of Scripture.

For Progressives, understanding metaphor is at an advanced level because as an interfaith community we must not only understand the meanings of metaphors but also to understand metaphors in terms of other metaphors. For example, these two proverbs mean the same thing, although each uses different imagery: “the nobler the tree, the more pliant the twig” and “the bravest soldiers are the most civil to prisoners”. (Understanding metaphor on this level advances the inter-faith dialogue: each faith has it's own stories, images and metaphors, but we know to compare their meanings, not their surface imagery and so we find that these metaphors distill to active illustrations of values we all share.)

I concede that dry scientific language isn't very emotionally evocative or spiritually edifying or satisfying for a lot of people. Meanwhile shared language is a testament to shared culture, affinities and tastes. Entire groups of people can be rallied by the same language, just as when we share an anecdote or joke with someone over e-mail it's because we know that particular person would appreciate what is said and how it's articulated. We recognize them as belonging to our culture. We also know that if one friend enjoys a subjective anecdote and another wants to see footnotes, these are both somewhat aesthetic choices: the material toward which one gravitates feeds the spirit of that particular person in an individual way that has something to do with enjoyment, nourishing effectively and offering satisfaction.

Creationist scriptures and all creation stories are bundles of nourishment, and this is their function -- to facilitate mental and spiritual health and to be as definitive about it as the state of the language will bear. A study in Siberia of what distinguishes a "shaman" from an ordinary member of a society is that a shaman will never say "I don't know" to anything. It is the shaman's job to create whole visions for the sake of the people who needed order and beauty in their world.

Where science is open-ended and leaves unanswered questions (being ironically humble in a secular world), it was not the role of religious scripture at that time to do this. Humility can be present in the followers as they marvel at the story, but the purpose of the story was, and is, to give comfort and order and articulate a reason for awe in the community.

Another aspect of scriptural creation stories is that they choose to focus on a level of meaning that incorporates aesthetic and metaphysical perspectives within that aesthetic, poetic setting, using poetic -- metaphorical -- language. Science chooses not to focus on that aspect of it, allowing that ground to be tended by the receiver of the information who can choose whether and what kind of value judgments and metaphysical/spiritual language crops to plant in the field that science provides. And yet, scientific language and the discoveries and wonders of which it speaks communicate the same humbling awe of Creation.

Both versions are satisfying on their particular levels and do the job they are intended to do.

My question is: why cannot the two languages be seen as choosing to focus on their own functions, their own layers of focus, and using their own grammar? I perceive the stories they tell to be superimposed.