Can A Soul Evolve Within A Creature?

[Jaguar]

I watched a movie last night. Neanderthals & cavemen came to mind, and I wondered if they had a soul. I searched it here and found an interesting theory. The idea was that, if we indeed evolved from apes, then our souls to could have evolved. This sounded good, but I thought of the following question.

Could something like a soul evolve? It seems to me that one either has a soul or he doesn’t, or one is either born with a soul or he isn’t. Am I missing something here?

 

[marty1818]

Every living being has a soul. Animals, plants, humans, etc. Humans are the only ones that have eternal souls.

God Bless,
Matt

 

[marty1818]

It seems to me that one either has a soul or he doesn’t, or one is either born with a soul or he isn’t.

Every living thing has a soul. Plants, animals, humans, etc. We as humans are the only ones that have eternal souls which makes it possible for us to go to heaven.

Matt

 

[1ke]

Could something like a soul evolve? It seems to me that one either has a soul or he doesn’t, or one is either born with a soul or he isn’t. Am I missing something here?

Yes, you are missing the fact that our soul is not material like our bodies and that the church definitively teaches that the soul is specially created by God for each person, not produced by the parents.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I think the Church teaching is that a soul is simple. That is, it has no parts or components. Therefore there is nothing to evolve. As you say, it either is or it isn’t.

Evolution would require that a physical body evolve. Then, at some point, God withdraws the animal [mortal], soul and implants a human [immortal] soul.

 

[masterjedi747]

Evolution would require that a physical body evolve. Then, at some point, God withdraws the animal [mortal], soul and implants a human [immortal] soul.

…
That’s kind of a confusing way of saying it.

I don’t think anything gets “withdrawn”. The rational soul is “added” to the animal soul… they are fused together, fit together perfectly, so that you don’t have “two souls” or anything like that. And I don’t think animal souls have to be directly created and infused by God, that only happens with rational/immortal souls.

So in the end process, it ends up looking like this…
Pre-Adam: Non-rational “humans” with mortal animal souls.
Adam onward: Rational humans with immortal soul directly created and infused by God.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Jaguar,

Our soul is spiritual. It cannot evolve.

The soul exercises its activity through the mind. In an undevelopped mind, such as that of mentally deficient person, it cannot exercise its activity fully. In the same way, we can assume that God infused a soul into the first human when his brain had developped to the point where an immaterial soul could be effective.

Verbum

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I watched a movie last night. Neanderthals & cavemen came to mind, and I wondered if they had a soul. I searched it here and found an interesting theory. The idea was that, if we indeed evolved from apes, then our souls to could have evolved. This sounded good, but I thought of the following question.

Could something like a soul evolve? It seems to me that one either has a soul or he doesn’t, or one is either born with a soul or he isn’t. Am I missing something here?

**If “soul” is semantically equivalent to ****“living being” (as in Genesis 2.7), that could be so. If the soul were material at all, again, that could be so. Both of these are possible arguments for mortalism AKA thnetopsychism, the view that the soul dies with the body. The SDA & JWs are mortalists. The interpretation of the Biblical texts is complicated by the fact that Hebrew thought about man is not the same as Greek thought about man - & both have found their way into the texts which constitute the Bible. Which is awkward for later generations & cultures. **​

Those points from Gen.2 & materiality could also serve as arguments for the doctrines of Epicurus & Zeno, which were also (one way & another) materialist, & so, mortalist. Epicureanism & Stoicism have been very influential in Western thought, not last among Christians (the heretics in cantos nine & ten of Dante’s Inferno are mortalist, & Epicureans: the text says so. Epicureanism had something of a vogue in the 13th century shortly before the poem was written).

As the CC regards the soul as purely spiritual - & angels too as purely spiritual - mortalism is “out of bounds”. If it were material at all (& some of the Fathers believed it was: Tertullian is of several to think this), it would be subject to corruption, & so, to the prospect of evolving from one material state to another material state. Corruption, like evolution, is a form of change. Does it follow, that because the soul cannot evolve or corrupt, that it cannot change in any respect at all ? AFAICS, it does not.

The soul can change - it is not beyond every sort of change. And the change it is capable of, is of two kinds:

• change “within” it - as when one thought is succeeded by another in the intellect; or as when we use our imaginations
• change in its relation to anything that is not it, or in their relation to it.
  These are both changes mediated by, & affecting, the body & senses: “nothing is in the soul that is not first in the body”, for us, because we are unities of soul & body, in such a way that we are not complete as the creatures God has created us - IOW, as human creatures - unless we are both soul & body. They are “meant” for communion with one another - not separation or dissolution: that’s why death is, properly speaking, profoundly “unnatural”; as Wisdom 2.23 says: “For God formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him.”* **The Resurrection of “the man Christ Jesus” is the prototype, the working model, of ours; & the cause & guarantee of ours. **

**In the meantime, there can be purely spiritual changes in our souls, by virtue of the fact that the soul of man, which is a spirit, is united with a body, which is material, & changeable. So though the soul cannot evolve or corrupt, that does not amount to, require, or imply saying that it is beyond all change whatever. **

*see also for another possible translation:

• hope.edu/bandstra/BIBLE/WIS/WIS2.HTM
  - which has: “for God created us for incorruption, and made us in the image of his own eternity,*b *”.

Translation in post from NAB here:

• usccb.org/nab/bible/wisdom/wisdom2.htm

 

[abu_kamoon]

Believing in foolishness like evolution generates more questions than it answers. Not only does evolution contradict the Bible, it violates common sense.

The so-called Neanderthals were another “race” that died out. It you believe what the Bible says, the entire human race with the exception of eight people were annilated. Agains, if you reject what the Bible states, you are faced with more unanswerable questions.

 

[masterjedi747]

Believing in foolishness like evolution generates more questions than it answers.

Rejecting evolution generates an endless host of problems that can never be resolved.

Not only does evolution contradict the Bible, it violates common sense.

It only contradicts an unnecessarily literal interpretation of Genesis.
How does it violate common sense?

The so-called Neanderthals were another “race” that died out. It you believe what the Bible says, the entire human race with the exception of eight people were annilated.

Yep. Fine by me.
But that has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[abu_kamoon]

Rejecting evolution generates an endless host of problems that can never be resolved.

It only contradicts an unnecessarily literal interpretation of Genesis.
How does it violate common sense?

Yep. Fine by me.
But that has nothing to do with evolution.

It violates common sense to expect that a snail, or a house flie can become a man over millions or billions of years. This is not what we observe in nature. We see things degenerate. We see order go to disorder. We see systems breakdown, not become more sophistocated.

Mutation leads to degeneration and weakness. A highly complicated system like the eye cannot evolve over millions or billions of years. Otherwise, it would be a liability to the organism until it was sufficiently developed to function.

And of course, where are the transitional fossils? There should be a continuum of inter-specie fossils to be found. Where are they?

Common sense.

And then, there’s God’s Word.

 

[masterjedi747]

It violates common sense to expect that a snail, or a house fly can become a man over millions or billions of years.

That violates the theory of evolution itself, not just common sense. One current species is never going to evolve into another current species.

This is not what we observe in nature. We see things degenerate. We see order go to disorder. We see systems breakdown, not become more sophistocated.

What about viruses and bacteria that mutate and become immune to the antibiotics being used against them? Yes, it certainly does happen.

A highly complicated system like the eye cannot evolve over millions or billions of years. Otherwise, it would be a liability to the organism until it was sufficiently developed to function.

Unless each “stage” functioned perfectly well for the animal that it belonged to. Fish and insects even today don’t have perfect eyesight, but it’s good enough for them.

And of course, where are the transitional fossils? There should be a continuum of inter-specie fossils to be found. Where are they?

They are constantly being unearthed and recorded. But honestly, you can’t expect every animal that dies to become a fossil – many get completely broken down and recycled in nature.