[_ Old Earth _] A Summary of This Year's Defeats of Evolution Theory

[zeke]

Why not give us your one best evidence from science to support you notion that man and chimp have a common ancestor.

Follow up for kalvan - do you not have even "one best evidence from science" to present? Your boast still goes unsupported. What's with that?

 

[pHghost]

We could go on an on but the point that I'm making (or trying to make) is that when God actually does use allegory, it isn't to talk down to ignorant folk, but rather it gives us something that we can think about and discover deeper meaning. The allegory of men from animals is simply not supported in the bible.

Is the virgin birth of Jesus an allegory that was told to us (like a 'white lie') so that we wouldn't be confused? If God created His son, Jesus, by a special act of creation, and we believe Him in that, why is it that we can not simply believe that no man was there when He created Adam and take His word for it?

If evolutionary theory is true and if the big bang theory is true, and further, if what you are saying here is also true, we are left with a situation that stymies the imagination. Our heavenly Father didn't want to confuse us?? Saying that the allegory of God creating is a spiritual way to express the physical reality of God creating is just silly. Allegorical statements (like parables) show spiritual truths that are revealed through natural means.

Allegory and symbolism point to many a thing, not all are the same and work in exactly the same way.

Why do you equate allegory and symbolism with a 'white lie?' That is absurd. Sometimes, a symbolical description can be closer to the truth than a pragmatic description and stating pure facts (and not only in the realm of religion).

The issue of the virgin birth is completely unrelated. What exactly would it point to as an allegory? The virgin birth is very clear and straightforward, I don't believe it leaves much space for interpretation (if you disagree, let me know what points I should consider). The creation of the world is a different story altogether.

Have you ever though about why most of the parables Jesus gave were about agriculture?
Because it was something that the people understood, it was a way to bring them closer to understanding the important concepts.

It is actually not so important how exactly God created the universe and Earth and humans. The important thing is that he did it and why he did it. The Bible focuses on that; evolutionary processes are something which need not concern it, as that is not its purpose.

You are mistaken - the Genesis account is historical narrative and it doesn't even hint at the notion that man is descended from the 'beasts of the field'. Man was created in God's image...

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him...​

There is a clear distinction made by God between man and beast.

Creation is a process. It begins somewhere and ends somewhere. God chose that path as well, undoubtedly for a reason. He could have just made everything at once, with a single snap. But he did not. He chose to create things in a certain way, in a certain order. Man definitely comes after the beasts of the field, as you call them. Do you not feel that the given order, and the fact that the process is a progression, signifies something?

Also, do you know what created in his own image means?

If you consider the Bible a complete historical narrative, I'd like to know where Cain's wife came from.

 

[Sparkey]

Allegory and symbolism point to many a thing, not all are the same and work in exactly the same way.

Why do you equate allegory and symbolism with a 'white lie?' That is absurd.

I'm not used to being spoken down to, sir. I was replying to my friend, Barbarian who had just said, "Evolution is how God does it." He went on to say that "God does not decieve," meaning that the evidence that he brings, taken to its logical conclusion, shows that God is the ultimate cause of evolution, and sufficient to support his conclusion.

Barbarian and I have discussed this over a period of years and I'm certain that he does understand my intent when I flatly say, "God does not lie."

The issue of the virgin birth is completely unrelated. What exactly would it point to as an allegory? The virgin birth is very clear and straightforward, I don't believe it leaves much space for interpretation (if you disagree, let me know what points I should consider). The creation of the world is a different story altogether.

How is it different? Because you say it is? The word of God clearly states that God created various types of plants and animals with their seed. Further the word of God tells us that man was not created like any other, but that God personally took the dust of the earth and formed Adam then breathed the breath of life into his nostril. This was not the same as what some say happened when they speak of the fact that God called to the earth (and the sea) and caused them to bring forth life. Both acts were unique. Both the creation of the 1st Adam and the 2nd Adam were done apart from their "natural" process.

 

[pHghost]

I'm not used to being spoken down to, sir. I was replying to my friend, Barbarian

Please look at the quotations to understand what I am reacting to. I am responding directly to what you wrote in response to my last post, in no way am I implying anything about any statements between you and Barbarian and I do not understand where you get that idea.

 

[Sparkey]

Okay, one moment then.

 

[pHghost]

No problem.

 

[Sparkey]

I very much disagree with your conclusion He may be called a liar just because He hid things from us. The question, "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding," is unanswered and could not even have been asked if man were there to watch.

One of the rules of allegory is that the stories must agree; i.e. the symbolical tale cannot contradict the plain text.

I did make a mistake there. The above was my more recent post and I mistakenly thought that was what you referenced.

You do say though that the virgin birth is not allegorical just because it cites a supernatural cause Jesus coming to earth, right? How then can you assert that the creation of Adam was allegorical? Let me ask you the same question that you've asked me, "What exactly would it point to as an allegory?" Do you think that the supernatural creation of man points to somehting other than God creating man? The fact remains, both acts were unique. Both the creation of the 1st Adam and the 2nd Adam were done apart from their "natural" process.

 

[pHghost]

I did make a mistake there. The above was my more recent post and I mistakenly thought that was what you referenced.

You do say though that the virgin birth is not allegorical just because it cites a supernatural cause Jesus coming to earth, right? How then can you assert that the creation of Adam was allegorical? Let me ask you the same question that you've asked me, "What exactly would it point to as an allegory?" Do you think that the supernatural creation of man points to somehting other than God creating man? The fact remains, both acts were unique.

No problem.

I don't consider the supernatural element as the most grounding feature. There definitely are certain elements in the account of Mary becoming pregnant with our Lord, Jesus Christ, that might well be symbolic to a certain extent. By that I mean we do not know the precise workings of God, and what exactly happened in her womb from a chemically-biological perspective. But what we do have given, quite clearly, is a certain timeframe. It is precisely grounded within the time-matter of our human reality.

On the contrary, considering the creation of the world and of man, we are told of days, but those are days in the view of God, as man is still out of the picture. And as the Bible itself tells us, for God, one minute is like a thousand years, and a thousand years as one minute -- in short, for God, time is completely relative, he is not bound by it in any way. Thus, one day may well be equivalent to a billion years, as perceived by humans. This as well extends to the creating of man from the dust of the Earth, and breathing life into him.

I think Genesis points to God creating man, I do not disagree with that at all. But as to what made from soil and breathed his breath of life means exactly, and how long in human time it took, I dare not say.

Both the creation of the 1st Adam and the 2nd Adam were done apart from their "natural" process.

I agree. But for me, that still doesn't clash with evolution. Apart is not mutually exclusive with alongside.

 

[zeke]

Creation is a process. It begins somewhere and ends somewhere. God chose that path as well, undoubtedly for a reason.

No argument – creation was a process completed God's way but nowhere does Holy Writ even hint that God created via the Darwinian creation myth. God's special creation as revealed in the Bible and naturalistic Darwinism are mutually exclusive – the former is a theistic worldview based on God's word - the latter is an atheistic worldview that intentionally excludes God. The Darwinist, Will Provine sums up you dilemma as a theistic evolutionist quite well...

One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism." ~ Will Provine, "No Free Will"​

Where does that leave you?

Also, do you know what created in his own image means?

Yes, I do – do you?

in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. The threefold repetition of the term "created" should be observed as a significant negation of modern evolution theories as to the descent of man, and an emphatic proclamation of his Divine original. The threefold parallelism of the members of this verse is likewise suggestive, as Umbreit, Ewald, and Delitzsch remark, of the jubilation with which the writer contemplates the crowning work of Elohim"s creative word. ~ The Pulpit Commentary​

How does your version of Darwinism differ from that preached by the Devil's Chaplain, Richard Darwkins? Please be specific so we can analyze you 'thinking'.

If you consider the Bible a complete historical narrative, I'd like to know where Cain's wife came from.

The Genesis account is historical narrative and the answer to your question is quite obvious - Cain married his sister or a close relative (niece).

In ancient times, tribal nations preferred endogamous marriage- marriage to one's relatives; the ideal marriage was usually that to a cousin, and it was often forbidden for an eldest daughter to even marry outside the family. Marriage to a half-sister, for example, is considered incest by most nations today, but was common behaviour for Egyptian pharaohs; similarly, the Book of Genesis portrays Sarah as marrying Abraham, her half-brother, without criticizing the close genetic relationship between them, ~ Wikipedia​

Question for you – did Adam have a father “after the flesh”? If yes, was his father a human or a 'beast of the field”? Or do you deny that Adam was a historical person?

 

[zeke]

I think Genesis points to God creating man, I do not disagree with that at all. But as to what made from soil and breathed his breath of life means exactly, and how long in human time it took, I dare not say.

Is there anything in the historical narrative of Adam's creation to make you think it took tens of thousands of years for God to create Adam as a living being? Think man...

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
(Gen 2:7)​

 

[Sparkey]

No problem.

I don't consider the supernatural element as the most grounding feature. There definitely are certain elements in the account of Mary becoming pregnant with our Lord, Jesus Christ, that might well be symbolic to a certain extent. By that I mean we do not know the precise workings of God, and what exactly happened in her womb from a chemically-biological perspective. But what we do have given, quite clearly, is a certain timeframe. It is precisely grounded within the time-matter of our human reality.

On the contrary, considering the creation of the world and of man, we are told of days, but those are days in the view of God, as man is still out of the picture. And as the Bible itself tells us, for God, one minute is like a thousand years, and a thousand years as one minute -- in short, for God, time is completely relative, he is not bound by it in any way. Thus, one day may well be equivalent to a billion years, as perceived by humans. This as well extends to the creating of man from the dust of the Earth, and breathing life into him.

I think Genesis points to God creating man, I do not disagree with that at all. But as to what made from soil and breathed his breath of life means exactly, and how long in human time it took, I dare not say.


I agree. But for me, that still doesn't clash with evolution. Apart is not mutually exclusive with alongside.

Both the creation of the 1st Adam and the 2nd Adam were done apart from their "natural" process.

I agree. But for me, that still doesn't clash with evolution. Apart is not mutually exclusive with alongside.

I was with you right up to the last part, where you said, "apart is not mutually exclusive with alongside." I perfer to take the face value of words and try not to stretch them too much. Changing the word "apart" (which I assume quoted me) to "alongside" doesn't change what I said.

I try to not take too firm a stance where the question, "Where were you when I set the foundation of the world," would be put to me. That means my best answer is, "I don't know," to many questions that may arise. Some things though are firmly established. Clearly, God is our Father. It's difficult for me to compromise on that one because not only did we fall from grace, but a great price was paid to restore us. None of that would have been necessary under the strictly natural process that some propose.

 

[pHghost]

No argument – creation was a process completed God's way but nowhere does Holy Writ even hint that God created via the Darwinian creation myth. God's special creation as revealed in the Bible and naturalistic Darwinism are mutually exclusive – the former is a theistic worldview based on God's word - the latter is an atheistic worldview that intentionally excludes God.

I have yet to see an explanation why evolution excludes God. You repeat it over and over, but without giving an example that show why it would be so. I think the reason you haven't presented such an example is because it doesn't exist, and evolution in itself does not exclude God.

The Darwinist, Will Provine sums up you dilemma as a theistic evolutionist quite well...

One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism." ~ Will Provine, "No Free Will"​

Where does that leave you?

This is the opinion of some bloke I do not know, who is probably an atheist. Why should I take what he says seriously? If he is an atheist, he is far from being able to understand that the two do not contradict each other, as he cannot even wrap his mind around Christianity on its own. Plus, what he says is again just an empty statement, with no supporting evidence to why that should be the case.

Yes, I do – do you?

in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. The threefold repetition of the term "created" should be observed as a significant negation of modern evolution theories as to the descent of man, and an emphatic proclamation of his Divine original. The threefold parallelism of the members of this verse is likewise suggestive, as Umbreit, Ewald, and Delitzsch remark, of the jubilation with which the writer contemplates the crowning work of Elohim"s creative word. ~ The Pulpit Commentary​

This quote does not describe what in His own image means, as far as I can tell. All I will say now is that is doesn't really relate to evolution at all, and is not a discussion for this thread. Here are a couple general answers to it, but I wold recommend to read some serious theology on the subject if you want to understand more.

How does your version of Darwinism differ from that preached by the Devil's Chaplain, Richard Darwkins? Please be specific so we can analyze you 'thinking'.

I'm not familiar with the details of what Mr. Dawkins preaches, so I cannot say how my own thoughts differ from that.

The Genesis account is historical narrative and the answer to your question is quite obvious - Cain married his sister or a close relative (niece).

In ancient times, tribal nations preferred endogamous marriage- marriage to one's relatives; the ideal marriage was usually that to a cousin, and it was often forbidden for an eldest daughter to even marry outside the family. Marriage to a half-sister, for example, is considered incest by most nations today, but was common behaviour for Egyptian pharaohs; similarly, the Book of Genesis portrays Sarah as marrying Abraham, her half-brother, without criticizing the close genetic relationship between them, ~ Wikipedia​

Question for you – did Adam have a father “after the flesh� If yes, was his father a human or a 'beast of the field� Or do you deny that Adam was a historical person?

He couldn't have married a cousin, if the Bible is historical narrative, because Adam did not have a brother (or did I miss that somewhere?). Neither could he have married a half-sister, since that would have meant that Adam would have had a second wife, who would have also been his own daughter, as there were no other women around, except Eve (right?). Most important of all, the Bible does not mention any daughters at all, nor any other children of Adam and Eve at this point. It is also a good question whether Adam and Eve would have given him their daughter as a wife if they knew he had killed his brother. Wouldn't they just kick him out?

I have no reason to doubt that Adam was real. Whether he had a father after the flesh, who was a beast of the field, I truly cannot say. God alone knows that.

 

[pHghost]

Clearly, God is our Father.

Absolutely, without any doubt. I do not see how evolution changes that in any way, though.

 

[Sparkey]

Absolutely, without any doubt. I do not see how evolution changes that in any way, though.

I know that the topic is entitled "This year's defeats of Evolution" but my only statement here is that God created man. Well, that's not exactly true, I've also said that it was through a distinct and separate process. I don't believe that men "evolved" from a natural process that science states started with non-living matter and a big-bang. Hydrogen did not create us. There was a moment (some time ago) when there had been no man. God created the first and the whole human race can trace their ancestry back to God through Him.

Further, and in like manner, the plan of God included Jesus (who is called the 2nd Adam) and He paid the price for our sin so that we may again call him, "Abba, Father".

 

[zeke]

I have yet to see an explanation why evolution excludes God.

Maybe you confuse biological evolution with Darwinism.

I think the reason you haven't presented such an example is because it doesn't exist, and evolution in itself does not exclude God.

I have presented examples and classical Darwinism most certainly excludes God.

This is the opinion of some bloke I do not know, who is probably an atheist. Why should I take what he says seriously?

He is an atheist and the dilemma he presents for theistic evolutionists is correct - 'one can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism'. Are you a theistic evolutionist?

Do you have a religious view of evolution? If yes, what would that view be? Where does God come into play in your version?

This quote does not describe what in His own image means, as far as I can tell.

We both know what it means.

I'm not familiar with the details of what Mr. Dawkins preaches, so I cannot say how my own thoughts differ from that.

He preaches classical Darwinism. How does your view differ with classical Darwinism or is it the same?

Most important of all, the Bible does not mention any daughters at all, nor any other children of Adam and Eve at this point.

Nor does it exclude daughters. Cain married a near relative - sister, niece, great-niece. Is that a concept you cannot accept?

I have no reason to doubt that Adam was real. Whether he had a father after the flesh, who was a beast of the field, I truly cannot say. God alone knows that.

Then in your theology Adam's biological father could have been non-human? How does that work?

 

[lordkalvan]

Then remove them from your eye.

Heh-heh. Nice attempt at misdirection.

And yet the fact remains - Darwin "embraced a materialistic and atheistic worldview that would go with him to his grave."

Assume this conclusion is correct. So?

Do you agree with Ruse - is evolution promoted by its practitioners as an ideology - a secular religion? Was that Darwin's original intent

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’ ~ Michael Ruse, Darwinist​

I will tell you what I told you the first and every other time you have posted this appeal to authority: neither you nor Ruse has here shown that evolution is promoted as an ideology, nor has either of you shown that it is a secular religion, that it is put forward as an alternative to Christianity, that it is a religion, or that this has always been true. So I neither agree nor disagree with this opinion as no evidential argument has been given to support it whose merits can be assessed.

 

[lordkalvan]

Follow up for kalvan - do you not have even "one best evidence from science" to present? Your boast still goes unsupported. What's with that?

Are you naturally obtuse or do you work at it? I ask this in all seriousness because I have lost count of the number of times I have explained to you that when you clarify the meaning of the terms and expressions you have used to prejudge evidence that is unacceptable to you, I will be happy to discuss your demand in terms of evidence that is acceptable to you. That you continually fail to provide the requested clarifications strongly suggests that either you can't or else are afraid to do so because you understand the consequences. Please let us know which it is.

And may I take this opportunity to point out that it ill behooves you to complain about others not responding to your demands when you have still failed to respond to the innumerable requests made of you to explain how and why homology and the nested hierarchy support common design as well as they do common ancestry.

ETA Just to remind you, you wrote:

zeke: 'I have gone over this with you time and again.We are discussing biological evolution not Darwinian mythology. I am not concerned with your religious beliefs. The evidence required to support your assumptions and speculations is the kind that adheres to a scientific method. That requirement automatically excludes pseudoscience, mythology, bedtime stories and fallacious rhetoric.'

To which I replied:

LK: 'This is just word salad. Please define your terms so we know what you mean. What do you understand by:

1. Biological evolution.
2. How does it differ from 'Darwinian mythology'?
3. How have you determined that Darwin's work amounts to 'mythology' at all?
4. What is evidence that adheres to a scientific method in your view? In other words, how are you defining evidence and what constitutes a scientific method in this instance?
5. What constitutes pseudoscience in this context and can you show how it is pseudoscience?
6. What constitutes mythology in this context and can you show how it is mythology?
7. What constitute bedtime stories in this context and can you show how they are bedtime stories?
8. What constitutes fallacious rhetoric in this context and can you show how it is fallacious rhetoric?

Or do you mean that you simply intend to reject out of hand any argument that contradicts your pre-existing ideas by asserting that it constitutes one of these categories?'

 

[pHghost]

I know that the topic is entitled "This year's defeats of Evolution" but my only statement here is that God created man.

We both agree on that.

Well, that's not exactly true, I've also said that it was through a distinct and separate process. I don't believe that men "evolved" from a natural process that science states started with non-living matter and a big-bang. Hydrogen did not create us.

I would not say from, because by that you imply what you then state as well, that hydrogen created us. Instead, I would use the word through, as it is more clearly indicative that it was God who created us, and evolution was only the tool he used to do it, put into motion by Him.

As a (maybe not perfect) parallel I would use the production of a computer, let's say a MacBook. It is machined, soldered etc. in factories, by people and machines, but if you ask anyone who made the computer, you will pretty universally get the answer: Apple. The process behind it is something used to get to the final product, but it in itself didn't make the MacBook -- without Apple at the beginning of the process, the MacBook would never have emerged.

Also, during the process of making it, it is just a constituent of parts, not until late into the process does it become a real working computer. What is the step that makes that possible? You cannot really say. The way it is put together it is one specific part that finishes the construction of the computer as such, but with a tweaked construction process it could well be a different part that is added on last. Then you also have the software element. As in art as well, and other things, the whole is more than just the sum of the parts and the procedure.

So, yes, saying it was Evolution that created man is nonsense, but saying God put evolution in place, having designed everything to culminate in man, I don't personally have a problem accepting that, although I cannot of course say it is 100% correct.

Don't you think that the fact that science talks about creation in terms of the Big Bang and life emerging from non-living matter goes alongside the Biblical account? God breathing life into soil (non-living matter)? The Big Bang essentially being something that suddenly came from nothing? There still has to be something, or Someone behind it, who put it in motion, no?

 

[pHghost]

Maybe you confuse biological evolution with Darwinism.

Please enlighten me on what exactly is not acceptable for you within Darwinism and I'll try to shed some light on whether I consider that problematic or not and why.

I have presented examples and classical Darwinism most certainly excludes God.

So far you have mainly presented quotes that claim this, as a statement, but with no explanation or proof why that would be so.

He is an atheist and the dilemma he presents for theistic evolutionists is correct - 'one can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism'. Are you a theistic evolutionist?

Why do you trust an atheist on this over a Christian? Of course he is going to say that, it is his agenda as an atheist.

Do you have a religious view of evolution? If yes, what would that view be? Where does God come into play in your version?

Yes, I feel that evolution doesn't go against the Bible. God comes into play at the very beginning, as the Omnipotent Creator of all things.

We both know what it means.

Not so sure about that. When I asked you about it, you instead quoted an article attacking evolution (through the use of this term, yes, but it did not tell me anything about what you believe the terms means).

He preaches classical Darwinism. How does your view differ with classical Darwinism or is it the same?

What do you consider as classical Darwinism? In a way, today's view of evolution is post-Darwinist. It borrows a lot from Darwin, but has come a long way since then. As for Dawkins, the one video I saw of him led me to think he rather preaches atheism than Darwinism, actually. They might seem the same to you, but they are not.

Nor does it exclude daughters. Cain married a near relative - sister, niece, great-niece. Is that a concept you cannot accept?

I can accept that, yes. And you do as well, I can see. So, in the same way that the Bible doesn't mention any daughters, when there had to be some, why can't you consider the Bible also didn't mention evolution, even while it might have taken place? How about dinosaurs? Why aren't they mentioned in the Bible? Well, possibly because they were just part of the whole process, and the process itself is not so important, but its culmination, man, is. Which is why it mentions him directly without all the other stuff getting in the way.

Then in your theology Adam's biological father could have been non-human? How does that work?

See the MacBook parallel I presented as a response to Sparrowhawke in the post above, I think it demonstrates exactly that. If you have any additional questions to clarify it even more, feel free to ask.

 

[Sparkey]

We both agree on that.


I would not say from, because by that you imply what you then state as well, that hydrogen created us. Instead, I would use the word through, as it is more clearly indicative that it was God who created us, and evolution was only the tool he used to do it, put into motion by Him.

As a (maybe not perfect) parallel I would use the production of a computer, let's say a MacBook. It is machined, soldered etc. in factories, by people and machines, but if you ask anyone who made the computer, you will pretty universally get the answer: Apple. The process behind it is something used to get to the final product, but it in itself didn't make the MacBook -- without Apple at the beginning of the process, the MacBook would never have emerged.

Also, during the process of making it, it is just a constituent of parts, not until late into the process does it become a real working computer. What is the step that makes that possible? You cannot really say. The way it is put together it is one specific part that finishes the construction of the computer as such, but with a tweaked construction process it could well be a different part that is added on last. Then you also have the software element. As in art as well, and other things, the whole is more than just the sum of the parts and the procedure.

So, yes, saying it was Evolution that created man is nonsense, but saying God put evolution in place, having designed everything to culminate in man, I don't personally have a problem accepting that, although I cannot of course say it is 100% correct.

Don't you think that the fact that science talks about creation in terms of the Big Bang and life emerging from non-living matter goes alongside the Biblical account? God breathing life into soil (non-living matter)? The Big Bang essentially being something that suddenly came from nothing? There still has to be something, or Someone behind it, who put it in motion, no?

No. You've asked, "there still has to be something, or Someone behind it, who put it in motion, no?" I've replied, "no." You're begging the question here, assuming the initial point (evolution and big bang) explicitly as entirely true while you argue it. I understand your position well enough, but can not agree that this is what the Word of God says or intends or even suggests. Adam was directly created by God.

Remember when we spoke initially about the virgin birth? You asked a question about allegory. You believe that the Word of God in Genesis is allegory. But consider His words: "The LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - (Gen 2:7) Now, consider your words: "What exactly [does this] point to as an allegory?"

Look at what the Word of God states about the birth of Jesus: "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." - (Luk 1:34-35 KJV)

Here, I agree with the implication of your question about the Virgin birth, "What exactly would it point to as an allegory?" (your meaning is clear: there isn't any allegory).