Evolution theory as a parable inspired by God?

[Jim]

I think of theories in the sciences as models. I’ve been discussing that in another thread: Example of models, metaphors and analogies in the sciences

I don’t think of any model as being true or right in any way that makes all other models false or wrong. A model can be more or less useful, for good or for evil, depending on how it’s used and what it’s used for. Sometimes no single model is the best model for all purposes.

I think that sometimes when people use theories from the sciences as reasons for denouncing other people’s beliefs, they are taking them too literally, and possibly more literally than most people with science degrees do. One way that I’ve responded to that is in the discussion about models that I linked to above.

I’m thinking now of evolution theory as a parable, inspired by God, possibly to send us a message about our oneness with all of nature. I think that’s actually what it means to researchers sometimes. The reason I think that it’s inspired by God is that I think of all honest and responsible research as being inspired by God, and I think that there has been some honest and responsible research going into evolution theory.

 

[Jim]

Some people might like to know what I actually think about evolution theory and creation beliefs. I don’t think of the Bible creation stories as actual descriptions of how the universe was created, in a material sense. I don’t think of the earth as being less than 10,000 years old. I don’t think of all life on earth as having any common ancestors, other than possibly the earth itself.

 

[danieldemol]

Some people might like to know what I actually think about evolution theory and creation beliefs. I don’t think of the Bible creation stories as actual descriptions of how the universe was created, in a material sense. I don’t think of the earth as being less than 10,000 years old. I don’t think of all life on earth as having any common ancestors, other than possibly the earth.

There is no none religious reason to believe that all species had unique roots.

According to my understanding the divergence of species has in some cases been documented Jim.

8 Examples of Evolution in Action - Listverse

 

[epronovost]

I’m thinking now of evolution theory as a parable, inspired by God, possibly to send us a message about our oneness with all of nature. I think that’s actually what it means to researchers sometimes. The reason I think that it’s inspired by God is that I think of all honest and responsible research as being inspired by God, and I think that there has been some honest and responsible research going into evolution theory.

That's a rather facile interpretation in my opinion. It basically assumes de facto that God exists and "inspire" anything and everything that has explanation power or veracity. It's practically conspirational thinking in which everything is evidence that there is a conspiracy and the fact that there is little tangible proofs or even evidence of absence is even more proof that there is a conspiracy.

 

[Jim]

There is no none religious reason to believe that all species had unique roots.

According to my understanding the divergence of species has in some cases been documented Jim.

8 Examples of Evolution in Action - Listverse

Thanks. I’m not denying divergence of species. What I’m saying is that there might be more than one tree, and one of those trees might be human going all the way back to the beginning of life.

 

[Jim]

That's a rather facile interpretation in my opinion. It basically assumes de facto that God exists and "inspire" anything and everything that has explanation power or veracity.

In my current way of thinking, it’s true by definition, by my definition of God.

 

[Heyo]

I’m thinking now of evolution theory as a parable, inspired by God, possibly to send us a message about our oneness with all of nature. I think that’s actually what it means to researchers sometimes. The reason I think that it’s inspired by God is that I think of all honest and responsible research as being inspired by God, and I think that there has been some honest and responsible research going into evolution theory.

Sounds like you try to reconcile your belief with science under the primacy of your belief. You want to make science your b!tch. That's not how science works. You either follow the evidence or you get lost.

 

[epronovost]

In my current way of thinking, it’s true by definition, by my definition of God.

How do you define your God?

 

[epronovost]

Thanks. I’m not denying divergence of species. What I’m saying is that there might be more than one tree, and one of those trees might be human going all the way back to the beginning of life.

That's demonstrably false. Humans are definitely animals, mammals, primates and hominid and they are definitely recent in the history of animal life on Earth.

 

[danieldemol]

Thanks. I’m not denying divergence of species. What I’m saying is that there might be more than one tree, and one of those trees might be human going all the way back to the beginning of life.

Can you provide a non-religious reason for believing that humans are as old as life itself?

If I understood correctly the earliest homosapien fossils are only 350,000 years old whereas life itself is at least 3.77billion years old.

 

[LuisDantas]

Evolution theory is a scientific finding, not a parable. It is demonstrated, predictable, an actual technical tool with comercial applications even.

If you insist on attempting to tie it to theistic doctrine (which is not IMO a good idea, since the two matters are quite unconnected in reality) you pretty much have to accept that, for whatever reason, that doctrine is not very interested in biology and can't describe nor predict biological facts with any detail.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thanks. I’m not denying divergence of species. What I’m saying is that there might be more than one tree, and one of those trees might be human going all the way back to the beginning of life.

Are you suggesting the possibility that another branch of life arose independently that was human from the start? That would be incredibly difficult to believe or conceive. Explanations for shared DNA, RNA, and biochemistry would have to be provided. Why do we share traits with other vertebrates and mammals that evolved later? How would you explain multicellularity and tissue differentiation arising in a single step? What about mitochondria? What explanation would there be for humans to have these, when they are the result of symbiosis between two different microbial organisms that you propose as part of a separate and distinct branch of life? What about the highly conserved regulatory genes we share with so many other living things? The odds of even one these conditions arising independently and simultaneously in two distinct and unrelated groups would be astronomical. Put them together and you reach impossible very fast. And this is just some of the barriers that come quickly to mind. There would be a multitude of examples where similarity and shared conditions demand explanation.

Given the evidence, it is not a viable hypothesis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sounds like you try to reconcile your belief with science under the primacy of your belief. You want to make science your b!tch. That's not how science works. You either follow the evidence or you get lost.

That is an interesting way to put it. I immediately had a rather humorous image come to mind.

While still agreeing with the sentiment of your post, technology is the front where one could possibly say we have done that to science. Though, even there, we are still being taken where science leads us and not twisting it to desired outcomes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think of theories in the sciences as models. I’ve been discussing that in another thread: Example of models, metaphors and analogies in the sciences

I don’t think of any model as being true or right in any way that makes all other models false or wrong. A model can be more or less useful, for good or for evil, depending on how it’s used and what it’s used for. Sometimes no single model is the best model for all purposes.

I think that sometimes when people use theories from the sciences as reasons for denouncing other people’s beliefs, they are taking them too literally, and possibly more literally than most people with science degrees do. One way that I’ve responded to that is in the discussion about models that I linked to above.

I’m thinking now of evolution theory as a parable, inspired by God, possibly to send us a message about our oneness with all of nature. I think that’s actually what it means to researchers sometimes. The reason I think that it’s inspired by God is that I think of all honest and responsible research as being inspired by God, and I think that there has been some honest and responsible research going into evolution theory.

You can certainly believe this. In some ways, I believe along those lines myself, but it is belief. You or I cannot use it to demonstrate something to another person or explain some natural phenomenon using that belief. It would be no more robust as an explanation than some next belief that might be radically different and unrelated to a view dominated by Christianity. All that different beliefs would have in common is that none of them would be able to provide objective answers that explain any evidence.

 

[leov]

Can you provide a non-religious reason for believing that humans are as old as life itself?

If I understood correctly the earliest homosapien fossils are only 350,000 years old whereas life itself is at least 3.77billion years old.

There is no proven other reason of appearance of human consciousness even if outwardly human may be just a primate.

 

[danieldemol]

There is no proven other reason of appearance of human consciousness even if outwardly human may be just a primate.

I’m not sure if i’m understanding what you are saying here, but other primates seem to have a degree of consciousness befitting their brain size

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m not sure if i’m understanding what you are saying here, but other primates seem to have a degree of consciousness befitting their brain size

I was thinking the same thing. I missed what he is trying to say.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no proven other reason of appearance of human consciousness even if outwardly human may be just a primate.

I am not aware that we know how consciousness arose or evolved, but I do not know any supernatural origin that can be affixed as an explanation.

 

[Valjean]

The theory of evolution was not "inspired," it was derived from observed facts and testing. Like all scientific theories, it is proposed as a literal, objective, fact, not a metaphor or parable.

If another person's belief contradicts an established scientific theory, that belief may be legitimately be considered wrong until evidence and testing establish it as fact.

 

[Jim]

Can you provide a non-religious reason for believing that humans are as old as life itself?

No, and I don’t believe it myself. I’m only thinking of it as a possibility.

If I understood correctly the earliest homosapien fossils are only 350,000 years old whereas life itself is at least 3

I don’t mean that humans always had the same form that we have today. I mean that there could be many trees of life, with humans in a tree that has always been separate from all the others.