Evolution theory as a parable inspired by God?

[Jim]

How do you define your God?

See this thread: My turn - my God

 

[Jim]

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.

I’m not thinking that humans could have always existed in the same form as now. I’m thinking that there could be many trees of life, and that humans could be on a tree that has always been separate from all others.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

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.

Given what we know, it is highly doubtful. The roots of the tree of life are twisted and knotted by horizontal gene flow, but that does not preclude a single origin or guarantee a multiple one. It just means it is more difficult, maybe impossible, to know the detail with certainty, given our present understanding and technology. Even if there were multiple origins of life that were so nearly compatible that they were comingled into obscurity and unresovable. Given our knowledge of existing life, the most obvious explanation would be that any comingling occurred very early in history and became a single line from which the rest of life evolved.

 

[danieldemol]

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

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.

Suppose though if humans had the form and DNA of an ape, would that not make them an ape?

I guess what i’m Getting at here - if the human species is not defined by it’s form and DNA what is it defined by?

 

[Jim]

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

Sorry. I should have said that I’m thinking of the Tree of Life and some stories associated with it as a parable.

 

[Jim]

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.

Thank you. If you know of some research that supports what you’re saying about the odds, I hope that you’ll post it here: Evolution theories with no universal common ancestor

 

[Jim]

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.

I posted this idea for everyone to see and criticize if they want to, and I’m glad for the criticism, but the way I’m saying it is for people who think that some theories from the sciences are contradicting their beliefs. I’m saying that the problem is not in the theories, but in the ways that people use them sometimes. Maybe people who believe that God created humans just as we are today, less than 10,000 years ago, can value those theories as parables, which might even be inspired by God.

 

[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.

After reading this through a couple of times, I will have to agree with the points that others have made, that your view of theory as a revealed parable is incompatible with the definition and concept within the frame of science. You seem to want to avoid the use of some terms like scientific, for instance, rather than try to educate people on the meaning of such terms that have a real and valid place and use. In my opinion, going that direction, in what appears to be an effort to untangle conflict, will only serve to facilitate it. Not only does it water down science and the discoveries made through the use of science, it fails to educate those you seem to be identifying as being confused or marginalized by the use of such terms. Popularizing science is a difficult and fine skill, but it should be done to inspire the audience to engage and learn. To drink deeply. It should not be carried out in way that dilutes an idea or concept down to some tasteless libation so that it is palatable only to the shallow thinker. In this instance, I would suggest that a level playing field is achieved by raising all the players to a higher level of understanding and not losing the entire game appealing to the least common denominator.

 

[Jim]

Even if there were multiple origins of life that were so nearly compatible that they were comingled into obscurity and unresovable.

That isn’t what I’m thinking. I’m thinking that maybe the different trees never have comingled that much.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you. If you know of some research that supports what you’re saying about the odds, I hope that you’ll post it here: Evolution theories with no universal common ancestor

I don't have any that immediately come to mind, but what would be the odds of a family in Missouri and, say Rawanda, both giving birth to one of me or one each of anyone? You shouldn't need too deep an understanding of probability to recognize the increasingly difficult odds that each new similarity would add in two groups having distinct and independent origins. One similarity may be improbable, but possible, 100 such similarities is asking people just to pretend those two groups are not related.

 

[Jim]

Suppose though if humans had the form and DNA of an ape, would that not make them an ape?

I guess what i’m Getting at here - if the human species is not defined by it’s form and DNA what is it defined by?

To avoid debates about semantics, I’m not saying any more that humans have always been human. What I’m thinking is that there could be many trees of life, and humans could be on a tree that has always been separate from all the others.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That isn’t what I’m thinking. I’m thinking that maybe the different trees never have comingled that much.

There is no evidence that would reasonably lead to that conclusion. But say there was. Within those two groups that have not mingled, but had the miraculous good fortune to find the same answers to the challenges of nature, there would be a common ancestry for each line. No matter how one tried to stretch it or take an a!tentative to some extreme, one would be faced with either the improbable entering the impossible or some kind of common ancestry.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To avoid debates about semantics, I’m not saying any more that humans have always been human. What I’m thinking is that there could be many trees of life, and humans could be on a tree that has always been separate from all the others.

The only reason I can see to speculate an alternative that is against the evidence and probability is to appeal to what a person wants to believe.

 

[danieldemol]

To avoid debates about semantics, I’m not saying any more that humans have always been human. What I’m thinking is that there could be many trees of life, and humans could be on a tree that has always been separate from all the others.

Evolution says that humans have always been humans, but that the distant ancestors of humans were not human, at least not in form and DNA. If you are asserting that these distant ancestors were human I would say what is it that made them human?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I posted this idea for everyone to see and criticize if they want to, and I’m glad for the criticism, but the way I’m saying it is for people who think that some theories from the sciences are contradicting their beliefs. I’m saying that the problem is not in the theories, but in the ways that people use them sometimes. Maybe people who believe that God created humans just as we are today, less than 10,000 years ago, can value those theories as parables, which might even be inspired by God.

I believe in God and I am not forced to believe the Earth is 10,000 years old or that humans were created just as they are in order to possess and maintain that belief. The theories of science do not threaten me or my belief. Perhaps those people that do feel threatened only do so because they have imposed that on themselves.

it seems rather arbitrary and one-sided to say that those that accept science must bend their values to those that do not. Then they must bend to every belief. That does not seem like it will leave much room or use for science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Perhaps, because I am known to express interest, tolerance and acceptance of people regardless of their religion or lack of religion--if I am aware at all--I am privy to a knowledge for the personal position of a number of my colleagues. Even when I know the facts of some positions are not widely known. This being the case, when we are gathered together in some meeting room for a lecture on some aspect or detail of biology, I can see that the same science and facts are being communicated to a group that represents a very broad spectrum of personal views. But it is all the same science we are all attempting to absorb and understand in the same way.

 

[leov]

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

Surely my dog have dog consciousness, it is complex , but not human consciousness...

 

[leov]

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 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.

I do know...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What I’m saying is that there might be more than one tree,

There might be, but then those "other" mysterious treed would consist of creatures that we yet to discover, because of all the life we know about and have studied and documented, they fit the one tree we have.

In fact, the one tree was exactly the result of studiying and documenting all life forms we encountered.

and one of those trees might be human going all the way back to the beginning of life.

That is definatly not the case. That is a demonstrably wrong idea.
If you represent earth's history on a 24-hour clock, first life appears very early in the morning.
Humans however, only show up 3 seconds before midnight.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

In other words, you've just "defined" your god into existance, just like one can "define" literally anything in to existance.