Creation stories the world over often have features common in other creation stories. Scott Leonard in his book "Myths and Religion" includes Marta Weigel's detailed classification:
It is easy to find these motifs in well-known creation stories:
The Universe according to modern science also fits some of these motifs:
The attempt to pattern match science to creation myths is overdetermined and clearly a stretch compared to the creation stories to their own mythos. Some aspects of scientific discovery will arguably resonate with the same tropes, but that doesn't make the comparison or analogy useful. In fact one could legitimately suggest that that very resonance is simply confirmation bias from the operant conditioning of people to religious mythos -- which, if it weren't present, would just leave the naked scientific facts.
Are you saying that the Universe of modern science fits none of these creation motifs? I think that some things fit very well. Descent with modification involves reproduction, and that is obviously a form of secretion.
I will concede that some attempts at a fit do not work very well, like with the two Genesis creation stories.
@lpetrich I am mostly just saying that science isn't presuppositionalist and so doesn't represent an attempt (even an unconscious one) to fit with any of the 9 listed features. It's a synthesis of known facts into a proven explanatory framework. If the outcome of that process happens to somewhat fit some of those 9 features, or not, the scientific method would be indifferent to that.
At to whether either Genesis account constitutes any of those 9 features, it is interesting to consider, but ultimately doesn't change the fact that it is mythos-building and story-telling which has some arguable value as allegory or metaphor, and zero value as a literal account.
If you create nine vague categories everything will fit one or more of them. I will now go make myself a cup of tea, fits 8. Sorry I see my girlfriend put the kettle on for me, fits 7.
How are they vague? What would you consider well-defined?
I think that it is a reasonable classification. If it is not, then where does it go wrong?
But even if a classification is comprehensive, it can provide insights. Like covering a range of possible actions:
@lpetrich Yep that's it, covers just about every possible way you could bring someting into existence, so proving that it is mainly just random, ( it isn't) but that is all you get from this list. And remember you are only classifing fiction anyway, even if you do find a pattern it could just be a misleading false one.