Evolution and the Brain

[edwest2]

This article from the journal Nature sums up the current worldview in scientific circles nicely:

nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7146/full/447753a.html

The author goes on to describe how a group of people will rationally and dispassionately look at the evidence. Considering that those people are also human beings, I have doubts that the data will be delivered without bias or some distortion. Experts, even the very best experts, can do things like the recent events on Wall Street. What some call human nature but what the Church recognizes as man’s Original Sin nature, is always a factor.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

From the Nature article:
Scientific theories of human nature may be discomforting or unsatisfying, but they are not illegitimate.

Christianity may also be discomforting or unsatisfying to some, but that does not invalidate Christianity, either.

There is no shame in being part of nature. The only shame is in thinking we are only part of nature.

 

[edwest2]

From the Nature article:
Scientific theories of human nature may be discomforting or unsatisfying, but they are not illegitimate.

Christianity may also be discomforting or unsatisfying to some, but that does not invalidate Christianity, either.

There is no shame in being part of nature. The only shame is in thinking we are only part of nature.

And for some reason you skipped commenting on the very first sentence? When will it become apparent that Science is very concerned about debunking religion - all religion? Huh? Not made in God’s image - surely be put aside.

It reminds me of a few scientists on this forum who have also decided that a few parts of the Bible are just, well – wrong.

Peace,
Ed

 

[06convert]

This article complicatedly simplifies human beings.

Maybe for science the idea that we came from God is harder to believe than the idea that we came from apes. However, for me, the idea we came from apes is harder to believe than the idea we came from God.

Wth a little faith, I can tell you why humans exist, how we were created, how the earth was formed, and how everything in this universe came to be. The answers to these questions are simple to me, why are they so difficult for scientists?

Who decided the answers have to be complicated? To me the answers are clear so it seems silly to spend and consume your life searching for scientific reasons behind everything. Relying on nothing more than theories and uncertainty.

I get a kick out of how many times words like uncertain, maybe, or theory, are used to explain the ideas behind scientific articles.

Also isn’t it great when the scientist says something like:

“Current theorizing on this topic, although fascinating, may be wide of the mark. But its basis in the idea that human minds are the product of evolution is not atheistic theology. It is unassailable fact.”

It’s a theory, no wait, it’s unassailable fact, because I say so. I need proof for everything, except the fact that this is a FACT. . :whacky:

 

[anon5216]

…
It’s a theory, no wait, it’s unassailable fact, because I say so. I need proof for everything, except the fact that this is a FACT. . :whacky:

That last sentence sounds an awful lot like the Vatican talking -
if you’re not already Christian and Catholic.

 

[ricmat]

This article from the journal Nature sums up the current worldview in scientific circles nicely:

nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7146/full/447753a.html

Speaking of the scientific worldview…just a coincidence…I came across this quote today while on a site totally unrelated to evolution.

"These scientisms, as I shall call them, are clusters of scientific ideas which come together and almost surprise themselves into creeds of belief, scientific mythologies…. And they share with religions many of their most obvious characteristics: a rational splendor that explains everything, a charismatic leader or succession of leaders who are highly visible and beyond criticism, certain gestures of idea and rituals of interpretation, and a requirement of total commitment. In return the adherent receives what the religions had once given him more universally: a world view, a hierarchy of importances, and an auguring place where he may find out what to do and think, in short, a total explanation of man. And this totality is obtained not by actually explaining everything, but by an encasement of its activity, a severe and absolute restriction of attention, such that everything that is not explained is not in view."
— Julian Jaynes, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

And another related quote:

But scientists, who ought to know
Assure us that it must be so.
Oh, let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about.
—Hilaire Belloc

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

And for some reason you skipped commenting on the very first sentence? When will it become apparent that Science is very concerned about debunking religion - all religion? Huh? Not made in God’s image - surely be put aside.

It reminds me of a few scientists on this forum who have also decided that a few parts of the Bible are just, well – wrong.

Peace,
Ed

Science does not have to recommend itself to religionists. :banghead: Any more than a burger has to commend itself to a cat; for although burgers are a travesty of food and ought to be banned, it does not follow that cats are usefully employed in eating them, nor that burgers have to alter themselves to make this possible & pleasurable: things are what they are: cats & burgers do not mix, & neither do Genesis & geology.​

As for those “parts of the Bible”, they are not being called wrong - they are being called irrelevant to the matter in hand.

Let us suppose - just for the sake of it - that Genesis is relevant to geology: the question then arises: why not apply other bits of the Bible that [appear to] explain or account for natural phenomena, to those phenomena as scientifically understood ?

For example:

• medicine is wrong in thinking epilepsy is caused by brain damage - it’s really caused by demons
• animal fertility is caused by the voice of JHWH - not by anything accessible to animal husbandry
• clouds are not caused by water droplets - that would mean that the cherubim on which JHWH flies are water droplets, which is a blatant denial of the supernatural: real believers don’t believe in atheistic bilbe like water droplets, but in the cherubim throne of JHWH
  And so on.

These scientific explanations, like all others, are to be ruled out of court, for they are constructed on the same sort of reasoning as geological explanations of the crust of the earth; so the reasoning that makes those objectionable, makes these others equally objectionable.

If these accounts are not objectionable, even though they are framed in scientific categories, why are evolution & geology - which are to be judged by scientific categories & by no others, since no others are methodologically appropriate to them - found objectionable by some religionists ? To accept the validity of scientific methods & answers where it is methodologically appropriate in some passages, while excluding it where it is equally methodologically appropriate, is superstition; as well as methodologically inappropriate: which makes it both bad science & bad exegesis.

 

[rossum]

It reminds me of a few scientists on this forum who have also decided that a few parts of the Bible are just, well – wrong.

There are parts of the Bible that I find to be wrong for moral reasons, nothing to do with science:However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

[Leviticus 25:44-46]
That passage is morally wrong and its wrongness is nothing to do with science.

In Buddhism one of the elements of the Eightfold Path is Right Livelihood, which forbids all trading in slaves. That is my source for calling this passage wrong, nothing to do with science.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

This is the journal Nature - international weekly journal of science.

The first line is a belief statement about God. It was irrational since science cannot study God.

It was ignorant because it was making a claim about a being that science cannot study. To put it another way, the writer has no scientific data about God.

It was also attempting to establish a myth by using dogmatic wording. It drew a conclusion about something science cannot demonstrate as true.

Apparently, the writer was motivated to respond regarding a religious statement made by a politically powerful person. So it was a political statement but it was in no way a scientific statement.

To see Nature supporting an atheistic worldview while giving a left handed nod to religious believers, and, at the same time, attacking an article of faith in Christianity shows how far the atheist-scientific working relationship has spread.

This should, hopefully, put to rest any further comments claiming science is silent about God/the supernatural or cannot comment on God/the supernatural. It does comment not just on God but, in this case, on a specific article of faith held by Christians.

The motivation was clearly to establish in the minds of some that man was not made in God’s image. And what other purpose could there be for making such a statement other than to proclaim a worldview that denies God’s existence?

Peace,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

There are parts of the Bible that I find to be wrong for moral reasons, nothing to do with science:However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

[Leviticus 25:44-46]That passage is morally wrong and its wrongness is nothing to do with science.

In Buddhism one of the elements of the Eightfold Path is Right Livelihood, which forbids all trading in slaves. That is my source for calling this passage wrong, nothing to do with science.

rossum

Just out out of curiosity, Leviticus was written a thousand years or more BC. Were the Buddhists of the time allowed to own (or trade) slaves?

 

[ricmat]

The questions below relate to evolution and the brain, although it is not a response to the OP.

There exist in the world individuals who are exceptionally unexceptional, except in one extremely narrow area. The term for these folks used to be “idiot-savant”, but I’m sure that’s not the politically correct term anymore.

There are cases where such a person can instantly tell you the day of the week for specific dates far in the future without the aid of calendars or computing devices. There are others who can tell you instantly whether or not an extremely large number is prime (which is a time consuming task even for a computer). There are other cases of similar exceptional ability. Unfortunately for those involved, it seems to have come at the expense of what we consider to be fairly normal abilities.

Question number 1: Why is it advantageous from the perspective of evolution for someone to be able to instantly define a future day of the week, or identify a prime number?

Question number 2: Is this perhaps a case of “infused knowledge” with which mankind, in the form of Adam and Eve, first walked the earth?

 

[Namesake]

Question number 1: Why is it advantageous from the perspective of evolution for someone to be able to instantly define a future day of the week, or identify a prime number?

Evolution only selects traits that increase reproduction through competition. Your question doesn’t make much sense because there is no indication increased reproduction through competition.

Question number 2: Is this perhaps a case of “infused knowledge” with which mankind, in the form of Adam and Eve, first walked the earth?

That isn’t a science question.

 

[The_Barbarian]

And for some reason you skipped commenting on the very first sentence?

Hmm… first paragraph says:

The vast majority of scientists, and the majority of religious people, see little potential for pleasure or progress in the conflicts between religion and science that are regularly fanned into flame by a relatively small number on both sides of the debate. Many scientists are religious, and perceive no conflict between the values of their science — values that insist on disinterested, objective inquiry into the nature of the Universe — and those of their faith.

Sounds like they have that much right, anyway.

When will it become apparent that Science is very concerned about debunking religion - all religion?

Don’t see how. Scientists have always considered religion to be consistent with science. Darwin, for example, Wolcott, Ayala, Dobzhansky, etc. You’ve been led down the garden path, once more.

Huh?

Dobzhansky was one of the giants of evolutionary science. He was devoutly convinced that God created all things.

Surprised? It’s because whoever is feeding you this garbage is just showing you what they want you to see.

Not made in God’s image - surely be put aside.

The guy who wrote that doesn’t get the Catholic take on it. For us, the “image” is in our minds and souls. God has no body.

 

[ricmat]

The questions below relate to evolution and the brain, although it is not a response to the OP.

There exist in the world individuals who are exceptionally unexceptional, except in one extremely narrow area. The term for these folks used to be “idiot-savant”, but I’m sure that’s not the politically correct term anymore.

There are cases where such a person can instantly tell you the day of the week for specific dates far in the future without the aid of calendars or computing devices. There are others who can tell you instantly whether or not an extremely large number is prime (which is a time consuming task even for a computer). There are other cases of similar exceptional ability. Unfortunately for those involved, it seems to have come at the expense of what we consider to be fairly normal abilities.

Question number 1: Why is it advantageous from the perspective of evolution for someone to be able to instantly define a future day of the week, or identify a prime number?

Question number 2: Is this perhaps a case of “infused knowledge” with which mankind, in the form of Adam and Eve, first walked the earth?

1. Evolution only selects traits that increase reproduction through competition. Your question doesn’t make much sense because there is no indication increased reproduction through competition.
2. That isn’t a science question.

1. Let me rephrase. Evolutionists believe that all human characteristics, physical, mental, etc. came about via evolution. I’m questioning how the special skills mentioned above improve survivability. Personally, I don’t think these features evolved. I’m curious how evolutionists explain these features.
2. So I’m not allowed to ask questions that aren’t science questions?

 

[rossum]

Just out out of curiosity, Leviticus was written a thousand years or more BC. Were the Buddhists of the time allowed to own (or trade) slaves?

The Buddha was born about 563 BCE so there would have been no Buddhists at that time.

The Buddhist ban on slavery goes back to the beginning of Buddhism:“A lay follower should not engage in five types of trade. Which five? Trade in weapons, trade in human beings, trade in meat, trade in intoxicants, and trade in poison.”

Anguttara Nikaya 5.177

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

1. Let me rephrase. Evolutionists believe that all human characteristics, physical, mental, etc. came about via evolution.

All those we can accurately measure. Things like souls and minds, being immaterial and not quantifiable, are beyond the reach of science.

I’m questioning how the special skills mentioned above improve survivability. Personally, I don’t think these features evolved. I’m curious how evolutionists explain these features.

So name some, and we’ll take a look.

1. So I’m not allowed to ask questions that aren’t science questions?

You can ask any question. But if you ask a question outside the boundaries of science, you are making the error Cardinal Ratzinger was speaking of, that is made by atheists.