Agreed. I had a preaching mentor who used to say to me whenever of got sloppy with my illustrations: “Analogies illustrate a point; they don’t prove a point”.
To use analogies in the former sense is legitimate. To deploy them in latter sense is fallacious.
That seems to me to be splitting hairs.
The analogy used to convict David of His actions? Was that just an illustration or did it “prove” what he had done?
As I see it analogies show the principles and abstractions of a situation or theory They clarify the thinking process and either validate it or show it to be flawed. If you are arguing over the principles or structures of a theory then to allegorise it is to demonstrate that you fully understand the implications and details of your theory (assertion, etc.) And can transpose them onto a comparable situation to prove that the principle is, or is not plausible.
We all know the dangers of taking an allegory beyond its intention or trying to squeeze it where it does not apply or fit. But the allegorical models, say of the Trinity, are very helpful in showing that such a formation is actually possible rather than some sort of mysterious paradox. They do not prove it par se, but they do help to not disprove it out of hand .(because something similar in principle exists)
Richard
Perhaps. Nevertheless I think distinction stands. For example, you cited the example of Nathan and David in 2 Samuel 12:
“The Lord sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him. “Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.” David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die! He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.” Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes?” ~ 2 Samuel 12:1-9 (NIV2011)
Nathan’s illustration did not prove that what David did was evil because A. David didn’t steal a lamb, B. David thinks Nathan is talking about a real man, C. Nathan has to clarify that David is the man in story, D. Yahweh has to spell it out to David in the following verses.
However, the story does illustrate by comparison the evil that David committed.
But I am happy to be proved… by argument or illustration 
.
All I am saying is that the story illustrated the principles and consequences of David’s actions by superimposing them onto actions that David could identify with and had moral opinions of. Once the connections are made then the allegory does convict.
My problem on this forum is that the Scientists cannot recognise the relevance of any allegory, or superimpose the principles onto their theoriseing.
Richard
And all I am saying is if the allegory did the convicting Yahweh would not have needed to explain David’s actions. In the flow of the narrative the allegory acts as a trap to show David to be a hypocrite and set the stage for Yahweh’s rebuke. But happy to agree to disagree 
I’m not a scientist and my preaching mentor was an OEC so neither of us have got horses in that race. 
You seem to think that you can overturn one of the most well supported theories in biology by pointing out that cars can’t run underwater. Can you tell us why you think this argument should compel scientists to abandon the theory of evolution?
Because if it mentioned them in Genesis it would be true.
Agreed. Analogies are very helpful for illustrating a concept. However, analogies should never be confused with actual evidence or the theory itself. All analogies fail at some point.
On a more general note, the scientific revolution of the 1700’s was founded on the idea of replacing Rationalism with Empiricism. Rationalism was the idea that one could just think through a problem by relying on human intuition. The Empiricists claimed that this was a bad method because human intuition is fallible. Rather, one should support ideas with empirical facts. The whole reason we have the scientific method is because human intuition is often wrong.
It helps if they are understood.
Richard
I understand the analogy just fine. You think there is a chasm between earlier species and modern species that evolutionary mechanisms can’t cross over, and your analogy is a car that can’t drive over an ocean. What we are asking for is evidence for this chasm, but all you seem to have is the analogy.
Sure they do, and frequently. How often has the old bowling ball on a rubber sheet been pulled out for discussions of general relativity? The problem is that while such an allegory might assist a lay person somewhat in visualizing orbits in a relativistic model, general relativity scarcely utilizes bowling balls for actual support. There is a gulf between the illustration and the theory, and to the extant that they are not the same thing, pushed beyond the illustration analogies are just misleading.
Analogies, by intent, illustrate difficult topics by simpler, more accessible comparisons. That train only runs in one direction. To discuss the validity of a scientific theory requires proficiency with the actual technical detail of the theory; there is no shortcut. There is an immense difference between illustration and demonstration - that is not splitting hairs.
On the contrary, scientists are fully aware of the relevance of allegory and analogy. But what scientists are aware of is that allegories and analogies are limited in what they can do.
The thing you need to understand about allegories and analogies is that they are an over-simplification. Many concepts in science are complex, mathematical and technical, and the fine details are every bit as important as the bigger picture when it comes to applying them. However, this means that it is difficult if not impossible to explain them accurately without years of education and training. When trying to explain things to the layman, you can only paint a picture in broad brush strokes that are often inaccurate, easily misunderstood, and not intended to be taken literally.
It’s like the difference between a map and a territory. A map can tell you where the roads through a town are, where the schools and shopping centres are, but it won’t tell you what the people in the town are like, what the local laws and customs are, or the colloquialisms that people use to refer to different local events, landmarks and delicacies.
Excellent analogy and explanation of its limitations. 
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.