reature. You strike up a conversation and soon are chatting away. As an anthropologist you ask the creature about some of the stories they tell amongst themselves, such as their creation myth. The creature says they have no creation myth, just a factual account of creation. You then ask for a scientific explanation and find out that things began ten or fifteen years ago but life didn't appear until about three and a half billion years ago. Things went along for a while, and then jellyfish appeared!So what's the point; what does that mean, 'jelly fish appeared'? It means that is what it all lead up to, the creation of jelly fish. Why doesn't your account end with jelly fish? Because, more happened after that. But it does end with man? Yes. When man finally appeared, creation came to an end, because its objective had been reached. There was nothing left to create. That seems to be the unspoken assumption. It's certainly not always unspoken. The religions of your culture aren't reticent about it. Man is the end product of creation. Man is the creature for whom all the rest was made: this world, this solar system, this galaxy, the universe itself. Yes And this is not mythology? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------I-As you tell it, the birth of man was a central event indeed the central event in the history of the cosmos itself. From the birth of man on, the rest of the universe ceases to be of interest, ceases to participate in the unfolding drama. For this, the earth alone is sufficient; it is the birthplace and home of man, and that's its meaning. The Takers regard the world as some sort of human life-support system, as a machine designed to produce and sustain human life. And, in the telling of your story, you naturally left out any mention of the gods, because you didn't want it to be tainted with mythology. Obviously since the entire universe was made so that man could be made, man must be a ...
