Evolution science or reality?

[PhilVaz]

Dennis << That is why my approach also entertains other possible scenarios by which Adam and Eve might remain fully credible – the fully explanation of which would exceed spatial limits here. Dennis Bonnette Professor of Philosophy (Retired)
Author, Origin of the Human Species >>

Great book, I need to read it a few more times, but looks like the best we have now from an orthodox Catholic viewpoint. Thanks for writing it, I’ll try to get the word out.

Phil P

 

[Thal59]

There is a world of difference between a measurable change or variation within a species, and the wholesale change of one species to another. Inter-breeding or hybridizing can cause one species to adapt a trait from another. But the wholesale change of one species, such as fish, eventually becoming a whole different species such as apes, which eventually become men is as Col. Sherman T. Potter of the 4077th would put it… “Buffalo Bagels!”

This kind of wholesale evolution has never been proved nor is there any evidence to even support it. All of the so-called “cousins” of early man are variations of primates, not homosapiens. I have never seen a fossil that is 99% equal to modern man. All of these bizarre fossils are far more close to apes than humans. Here is a highly unscientific way to look at it.

X1-----X2—X3-----------X4-----X5–X6--------X7--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Modern man.

X1-X7 are the variations of “man” from the fossil record. (Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon etc.) They are very similar to apes, and they are very similar to each other, but there is a huge “evolutionary” gap between them and modern man. Evolutionists have been looking for this so-called “missing link” for centuries. That is why it is called the missing link, because the disparity is too great to sensibly link these apes to modern man.

I recently saw a documentary on TV where the narrator says that there are 2 million kinds of animals on the earth today that have been identified and recorded, but there may be as many as 10 million in existence. In other words, science could completely miss seeing millions of types of life on earth over the next several centuries without ever knowing they existed.

So, finding fossils of a variety of ape-like creatures could merely be the indication that there were once a variety of ape-like creatures that have gone extinct. It is possible that X1-X7 all existed at the same time only X7 lasted the longest before extinction. On top of that, I have absolutely no faith in science’s ability to date fossils on the terms of hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

When science says the next ape-like fossil discovery proves that the Scuzzy-Fuzzy Carniverowuzzy man lived half a million years ago and is a direct ancestor to modern man, don’t believe it.

Thal59

 

[melbourne_guy]

It would be better for the poster to state whether he is talking about macro-evolution or micro-evolution.

 

[Orogeny]

Thal59:

There is a world of difference between a measurable change or variation within a species, and the wholesale change of one species to another. Inter-breeding or hybridizing can cause one species to adapt a trait from another.

Species cannot reproduce with other species. How does hybridization or inter-breeding between species occur?

But the wholesale change of one species, such as fish, eventually becoming a whole different species such as apes, which eventually become men is as Col. Sherman T. Potter of the 4077th would put it… “Buffalo Bagels!”

Arguments from incredulity (or MAS*H) are not scientific arguments. Please provide some scientific evidence to support that claim.

This kind of wholesale evolution has never been proved nor is there any evidence to even support it.

I refer you to your Col. Potter quote on this one.

All of the so-called “cousins” of early man are variations of primates, not homosapiens.

You are right about that, but I bet you don’t know why.

I have never seen a fossil that is 99% equal to modern man.

Have you ever seen an electron? Hmm. I guess they must not exist.

All of these bizarre fossils are far more close to apes than humans. Here is a highly unscientific way to look at it.

Once again, you are right.

X1-X7 are the variations of “man” from the fossil record. (Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon etc.)

Cro-Magnon is Homo sapiens - modern man.

They are very similar to apes, and they are very similar to each other, but there is a huge “evolutionary” gap between them and modern man.

As I mentioned, Cro-Magnon was Homo Sapiens. Does that mean anything to you? Homo neanderthalensiswere more similar to a chimanzee than they were to Homo Sapiens? I would suggest you do a little research before you post comments like this. It hurts your cause.

Evolutionists have been looking for this so-called “missing link” for centuries. That is why it is called the missing link, because the disparity is too great to sensibly link these apes to modern man.

Missing link is not a scientific term. If you want to argue science, you need to use the proper terminology. The proper term is transitional species.

You need to visit some science-based web sites rather than those you have been spending your time on.

I recently saw a documentary on TV where the narrator says that there are 2 million kinds of animals on the earth today that have been identified and recorded, but there may be as many as 10 million in existence. In other words, science could completely miss seeing millions of types of life on earth over the next several centuries without ever knowing they existed.

You accept that for current animal populations and don’t see how that is reflected in the fossil record?

So, finding fossils of a variety of ape-like creatures could merely be the indication that there were once a variety of ape-like creatures that have gone extinct.

It is an indication that a variety of ape-like creatures existed and have become extinct.

It is possible that X1-X7 all existed at the same time only X7 lasted the longest before extinction.

Nope. Find one reference where any Australopithecene fossil or tool is found in the same strata as Homo sapiens. That is why it is not possible that they all occurred at the same time.

On top of that, I have absolutely no faith in science’s ability to date fossils on the terms of hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

So? You don’t believe in electrons either (based on your argument above).

When science says the next ape-like fossil discovery proves that the Scuzzy-Fuzzy Carniverowuzzy man lived half a million years ago and is a direct ancestor to modern man, don’t believe it.

Cute.

Peace

Tim

 

[Thal59]

Orogeny:

Species cannot reproduce with other species. How does hybridization or inter-breeding between species occur?Arguments from incredulity (or MAS*H) are not scientific arguments. Please provide some scientific evidence to support that claim.I refer you to your Col. Potter quote on this one.You are right about that, but I bet you don’t know why.Have you ever seen an electron? Hmm. I guess they must not exist.Once again, you are right.Cro-Magnon is Homo sapiens - modern man.As I mentioned, Cro-Magnon was Homo Sapiens. Does that mean anything to you? Homo neanderthalensiswere more similar to a chimanzee than they were to Homo Sapiens? I would suggest you do a little research before you post comments like this. It hurts your cause.Missing link is not a scientific term. If you want to argue science, you need to use the proper terminology. The proper term is transitional species.

You need to visit some science-based web sites rather than those you have been spending your time on.You accept that for current animal populations and don’t see how that is reflected in the fossil record? It is an indication that a variety of ape-like creatures existed and have become extinct.Nope. Find one reference where any Australopithecene fossil or tool is found in the same strata as Homo sapiens. That is why it is not possible that they all occurred at the same time.So? You don’t believe in electrons either (based on your argument above).Cute.

Peace

Tim

Sorry, Tim. But I have absolutely no desire to answer any of your questions. I could get “scientific” but I cannot get enthusiastic. Don’t take it personally, it is just that evolution is a totally useless and uninteresting topic for me.

Thal59

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Thal59:

Sorry, Tim. But I have absolutely no desire to answer any of your questions. I could get “scientific” but I cannot get enthusiastic. Don’t take it personally, it is just that evolution is a totally useless and uninteresting topic for me.

Thal59

Probably best not to post about it then.

 

[Orogeny]

Thal59:

Sorry, Tim. But I have absolutely no desire to answer any of your questions. I could get “scientific” but I cannot get enthusiastic. Don’t take it personally, it is just that evolution is a totally useless and uninteresting topic for me.

Thal59

That’s fine. Next time you post your opinions on the subject, just remember that someone will ask you to support them.

Peace

Tim

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

First, to PhilVaz, thank you for the kind words about my book.

Second, I failed to mention in my entry above a critical distinction usually missed in the debates over microevolution versus macroevolution. We must distinguish carefully between the biological species concept and the natural philosophical species concept. The sad truth is that biologists have had a bad time trying to define a species, with some ardently defending such based on notions of gross morphology or reproductive isolation, while others deny that species exist at all – preferring to refer merely to “populations.” The former come up with wildly varying estimates for the number of extant species, depending on the specificity of the criteria they employ – while the latter run the risk of undermining any form of Darwinism, since you can hardly have a program for the “origin of species” if you don’t believe in species as such. The natural philosophical species concept is based on the presence or absence of various living powers, regardless of morphology or reproductive qualities. Thus, living organisms that possess sensitive powers would be essentially and irreducibly superior to those that do not. Those with five external senses would be essentially superior to those with only one or two. Man would be essentially superior to mere brutes because man possesses intellective powers whereas brutes do not.

Clearly, the philosophical notion of species would allow for microevolution within natural species as encompassing great variations – even well above the biological classifications of species or genus or family, while still challenging the ability of material forces alone to be able to generate new and higher species possessing essentially superior powers. The entire debate over microevolution vs. macroevolution becomes recast once one must address these diverse concepts of species.

As for when true man appears in the paleoanthropological record, this must be determined not by outward physical appearance, but by evidence of genuine intellective activity. In my work, Origin of the Human Species, I point to the first formation of stone tools of a special sort that unequivocally demand intellective powers. These are the congruent, three-dimensionally symmetrical Achulean stone tools (hand axes) which appear for the first time, according to present human evolutionary theory, during the time of Homo erectus in the Middle Pleistocene period. Distinctions documented in my ape-language research article (www.origin.youshoppe.com) assist in supporting the claim that earlier wooden and stone tools need not demonstrate the presence of a genuinely human spiritual intellective soul in earlier primates employing or even fashioning more primitive tools. I do not necessarily conclude that Adam is to be found among Homo erectus populations, but merely suggest that the evidence raises this possibility, based on current thinking. Those who attempt to classify other later primates, such a the Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons, as non-human fail to account for the specifically intellective abilities of these populations. I would classify them as genuine human beings possessing the human spiritual intellective soul based upon our knowledge of their sophisticated artifacts. Clearly, God created Adam and Eve at some time prior to the appearance of these cousins of ours.

Dennis Bonnette
Retired Professor of Philosophy
Author, Origin of the Human Species

 

[Thal59]

Dr. Bonnette,

Though I have no faith in science’s ability to understand the distant past, at least to the extent it sometimes gives itself credit for, I enjoyed your post. Enough to ask two questions.

“We must distinguish carefully between the biological species concept and the natural philosophical species concept.”

1. Are you saying that scientists, or at least the lion’s share of them, has not yet agreed to what even constitutes a species or how lifeforms should be categorized in each species?

“Those who attempt to classify other later primates, such a the Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons, as non-human fail to account for the specifically intellective abilities of these populations.** I would classify them as genuine human beings possessing the human spiritual intellective soul based upon our knowledge of their sophisticated artifacts**. Clearly, God created Adam and Eve at some time prior to the appearance of these cousins of ours.”

1. You seem to support the intellectual abilities of the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, but it seems to me you make quite a leap to get to “I would classify them as genuine human beings possessing the human spiritual intellective soul based upon our knowledge of their sophisticated artifacts.” So my second question is: Are there any artifacts from these “later primates” that clearly shows that the Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons worshipped God, or understood of divinity or deity?

Thal59

 

[vern_humphrey]

“Those who attempt to classify other later primates, such a the Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons, as non-human fail to account for the specifically intellective abilities of these populations.** I would classify them as genuine human beings possessing the human spiritual intellective soul based upon our knowledge of their sophisticated artifacts**. Clearly, God created Adam and Eve at some time prior to the appearance of these cousins of ours.”

1. You seem to support the intellectual abilities of the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, but it seems to me you make quite a leap to get to “I would classify them as genuine human beings possessing the human spiritual intellective soul based upon our knowledge of their sophisticated artifacts.” So my second question is: Are there any artifacts from these “later primates” that clearly shows that the Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons worshipped God, or understood of divinity or deity?

Thal59

In a word, yes. There have been Neanderthal burials found with flowers and other signs that the people expected the deceased to go on after death.

Neanderthal remains have been found with healed injuries – injuries that would have rendered the individual incapable of caring for himself. Yet he was clearly tenderly cared for by others – showing an application of the Corporal Works of Mercy among these people.

 

[Thal59]

vern humphrey:

In a word, yes. There have been Neanderthal burials found with flowers and other signs that the people expected the deceased to go on after death.

Flowers may only show a sorrow at the loss of the individual. It does not necessarily show a belief in a diety or second life. Even an atheist might bring flowers to a funeral. Or maybe there is more in the “other signs” you mentioned. Could you be more specific?
vern humphrey:

Neanderthal remains have been found with healed injuries – injuries that would have rendered the individual incapable of caring for himself. Yet he was clearly tenderly cared for by others – showing an application of the Corporal Works of Mercy among these people.

Any animal would tend to the health of one of its young as best it could. I remember seeing footage of some elephants pushing at the body of a fellow elephant that had just been shot by a hunter. They were either trying to carry him away, or they were trying to get him back on his feet.

I do not say that your reply Vern does not have merit, simply that it is still a leap to go from Neanderthal to the modern man’s understanding of God or eternal life.

Thal59

 

[rossum]

quote=Dr. Bonnette We must show that man is essentially superior to lower animals, and that he is so by reason of intellective faculties not shared by brutes.
[/quote]

Since I am Buddhist, I see much less difference between humans and other animals that Christians generally seem to do. Because neither animals nor humans have souls (anatta/anatman) there is no essential difference between them and both animals and humans will all eventually attain nirvana.

There is a great difference in intelligence between humans and other animals but this does not mean that other animals do not posess some intelligence. A chimp is more intelligent than a cat. Since we can compare the different levels of intelligence then both chimps and cats must posess intelligence at different levels. If all animals had no intelligence then a dog would have the same intelligence as a worm, which is obviously false. From the Buddhist perspective there is no essential difference between humans and animals. Indeed the very concept of “essential difference” is rather suspect in Mahayana Buddhist philosophy, vide Nagarjuna.

quote=Dr. Bonnette we must demonstrate that man alone possesses a spiritual and immortal soul directly created by God alone.
[/quote]

To do this you need to demonstrate 1) the existence of a soul in man, 2) that this soul is immortal, 3) the non-existence of such a soul in other species, 4) the existence of God and 5) that God, rather than some other entity, directly created the soul. As a Buddhist I believe that the first and hence the second and fifth of these will be impossible. A great deal of philosophical effort has already gone into the fourth and it has not yet reached a conclusion.

quote=Dr. Bonnette We must show that Genesis’ patriarchal genealogies need not be continuous, and hence that human antiquity of great magnitude is possible.
[/quote]

My favourite example is Matthew 1:1 “Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham”. That is certainly not a continuous genealogy!

quote=Dr. Bonnette We must show what criteria of intellective activity is needed to determine the advent of unequivocally intellective fossil evidence of human presence, so as to determine what primate population might contain the presence of Adam.
[/quote]

There is an issue here with absence of evidence not implying evidence of absence. A manufactured tool like a wooden spear might well not survive, yet it would presumably have been relevant evidence if it had. At best you will be able to set a date before which Adam must have appeared.

quote=Dr. Bonnette We must show that nothing in that population precludes the direct creation of a human intellective spiritual soul by God.
[/quote]

If the presence of a soul implies the presence of free will, then it is possible for any animal with a soul to act, by its own free will, as if it didn’t have a soul.

quote=Dr. Bonnette We must offer a plausable scenario for the actual creation of Adam and Eve which fits both the paleoanthropological and theological parameters.
[/quote]

I think you will need to do a lot of work on this one. Scientific evidence on genetic bottlenecks in the descent of man will be relevant. These set fairly rigid limits on the smallest size of any interbreeding population from which we could be descended. Theologically the smallest size must be two. By including both paleoanthropological and theological parameters you may well be incorporating two inconsistent sources of knowledge.
Dr. Bonnette:

Hence, it is wise not to wed one’s Catholic faith in Adam’s origins too tightly to any particular scientific theory which might later prove misleading or downright false.

Good advice. All scientific theories are provisional and subject to change as new evidence is found.
Dr. Bonnette:

Professor of Philosophy (Retired)

I hope I didn’t make too many schoolboy howlers.

rossum

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thal59:

Flowers may only show a sorrow at the loss of the individual. It does not necessarily show a belief in a diety or second life. Even an atheist might bring flowers to a funeral. Or maybe there is more in the “other signs” you mentioned. Could you be more specific?

Funary practices are always associated with some sort of religious belief. An athiests don’t come from Mars. They absorb much of our culture and practices, even if they profess to reject the idea of a God.

Thal59:

Any animal would tend to the health of one of its young as best it could. I remember seeing footage of some elephants pushing at the body of a fellow elephant that had just been shot by a hunter. They were either trying to carry him away, or they were trying to get him back on his feet.

By no means any animal will show any compassion for the injured of its own species – some will eat the injured.

You cannot find a wild adult elephant with a disability that prevented it from long-term care for itself, or a chimpanzee, for that matter. Only the young get such care in non-human species.

Thal59:

I do not say that your reply Vern does not have merit, simply that it is still a leap to go from Neanderthal to the modern man’s understanding of God or eternal life.

Thal59

No one says the Neanderthal had modern man’s understanding of religion – no more than, say Julius Caesar had modern man’s understanding of religion. But neanderthal DID have rudimentary funary practices, did care for “useless” members of the community and in general behaved pretty much as the remotest homo sapiens did in these matters.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Dear Thal59,

Being only a junior member here, I am not used to the techniques of juggling replies, so please bear with me.

Vern Humphrey has addressed the second part of your query concerning whether Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon evinced knowledge of deities.

I prefer to take your questions in order. First, you ask, “1) Are you saying that scientists, or at least the lion’s share of them, has not yet agreed to what even constitutes a species or how lifeforms should be categorized in each species?”

If you read Dr. Larry Azar’s new book, Evolution – and Other Fairy Tales, you will see that he excellently documents the massive confusion among contemporary biologists as to exactly what constitutes a species, or as to whether species exist at all. Depending on how they determine what constitutes a species, those who maintain that they exist come up with wildly differing estimates as to the number of species. On the other hand, some biologists follow the immanent logic of Darwinism and maintain that species do not really exist outside the mind, but are merely convenient names we attach to midranges of infinitely graded differences between individuals. The latter often use the term, “population,” rather than species. Logically, for Darwin, species do not exist. Only individuals do. Gradualistic transformism slowly evolves these individuals over time, but there is no stable and immutable “species” involved. The overall situation is summed up by vertebrate paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson by saying, “No precise and generally acceptable definition of a species has yet been achieved.” See p. 3 of my book, Origin of the Human Species (Sapientia Press, 2003).

Now to your second question. You write,
“2) You seem to support the intellectual abilities of the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, but it seems to me you make quite a leap to get to “I would classify them as genuine human beings possessing the human spiritual intellective soul based upon our knowledge of their sophisticated artifacts.” So my second question is: Are there any artifacts from these “later primates” that clearly shows that the Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons worshipped God, or understood of divinity or deity?”

We do not need artifacts showing that Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons worshipped God or understood divinity in order to demonstrate that they possessed human spiritual intellective souls. Following Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy, all living things possess souls. Souls are simply the first principles of life in living things. But living things are divided according to levels of life powers possessed. Thus there are vegetative, sentient, and intellective souls. Man alone possesses an intellective soul. In chapters 5 and 6 of Origin of the Human Species, I explore the difference between mere sense knowledge (shared by both man and beast) and intellective knowledge, which latter is unique to human beings. The point is (although it takes a lot of space to explain it properly) that any rational animal is a human being. Thus, Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon, because they exhibit intellective abilities as manifested by their artifacts and behaviors, possess just as much as do we, intellective and thus spiritual human souls. Whether they worshipped diety is beside the point, although such behavior might be expected. I focus on the production of congruent, three-dimensionally symmetrical Acheulean stone tools (hand axes) dating some 500,000 years ago as evidence of such human intellective activity. Thus our Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon cousins are really Johnny-come-latelies to the banquet of human life – assuming, of course, that the paleontologists have done their science right.

Dr. Bonnette

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

To Rossum,

Since you write from a Buddhist perspective and I write from a Catholic Christian Aristotelian-Thomistic perspective, we must expect our judgments to differ radically in many areas. First, as I indicated in a prior post, I hold that man and brute are essentially different. Man possesses both sense and intellect; brutes only sense. Rather than say no living things have souls, I hold that all living things have souls – but that man alone possesses a spiritual intellective soul. You write, “If all animals had no intelligence then a dog would have the same intelligence as a worm, which is obviously false.” On the contrary, on the basis of your own hypothetical antecedent, “if all animals had no intelligence,” then a dog would have the same intelligence as a worm, namely, none. I don’t doubt that dogs react to sensory data in a manner far superior to a worm, but that does not mean that either dogs or worms possess genuine intellect. Sense knowledge grasps the particular, concrete sensible qualities of things. Intellective knowledge penetrates beyond sense appearance to grasp the very nature of things in terms of universal concepts which have no sensible qualities. Thus, we can imagine a man or a triangle, but we cannot imagine the concepts of humanity and triangularity – but we do understand them. Again, this is matter that takes a lot of space in chapters 5 and 6 of my Origin of the Human Species.

Since you hold that souls do not exist, I can see why you would deny the possibility of demonstrating that spiritual immortal souls in man are created directly by God alone. Again, this is something difficult to do briefly here, but which I do in chapter 6 of my book. In that chapter, I give three distinct proofs from St. Thomas Aquinas showing that the human soul is immaterial and subsistent (able to exist independent of matter). And, since material causes cannot produce a spiritual effect, the latter part of said chapter is devoted to showing that God alone can effect the production of each human soul. Concerning your fourth point about proving God’s existence, you write, “A great deal of philosophical effort has already gone into the fourth and it has not yet reached a conclusion.” The mere fact of controversy is not proof that a conclusion cannot be reached. In an earler work, Aquinas’ Proofs for God’s Existence (Martinus-Nijhoff, 1972), I present arguments to God’s existence which do reach a conclusion. If you dispute all such proofs, you must demonstrate that you know them all in full detail and can defeat the logic of each. That is quite a task.

Your favorite example of a discontinuous genealogy in Scripture is mine as well: "Matthew 1:1 “Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham”. In fact, I cite that same text on p. 183 of my Origin of the Human Species. You are also quite correct in pointing out that the fact that certain Middle Pleistocene stone tools are the first unequivocal proof of intellective presence is not proof that true man did not exist earlier. Indeed, I concede in my book that he might have been present earlier but failed to leave some permanent evidence of his presence.

You write, “If the presence of a soul implies the presence of free will, then it is possible for any animal with a soul to act, by its own free will, as if it didn’t have a soul.” If by that you mean that a sober man can act drunk, I concur. Again, as noted in the preceding paragraph, true man might have been present earlier than the time at which the fossil record affords unequivocal evidence. My concern was to look for the earliest hominid population with which evidence of undoubtedly intellective activity was associated by current theory

Your concern about the difficulty of reconciling paleontological evidence with theological truth is on point. That is why I spend chapters 9 - 12 on such reconciliation, including treating such issues as the bottleneck problem which you raise. The origin of Adam and Eve is the subject of great speculation when one attempts to fit it with the present theory of human evolution. Still, one must recall that we do not have direct vision of matters occurring half a million years ago or so. As Teilhard de Chardin notes, “At those depths of time when hominisation took place, the presence and the movements of a unique couple are positively ungraspable, unrevealable to our eyes at no matter what magnification.” (See p. 149 of my book.) I concede that the nub of the “Adam and Eve problem” rests in being able to address the general issues in plausible detail. That cannot be done here since it took me four chapters to do so.

Finally, I concur with you in restating something I said earlier: “Hence, it is wise not to wed one’s Catholic faith in Adam’s origins too tightly to any particular scientific theory which might later prove misleading or downright false.”

Dr. Bonnette

 

[Thal59]

Dr. Bonnette:

Thus, Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon, because they exhibit intellective abilities as manifested by their artifacts and behaviors, possess just as much as do we, intellective and thus spiritual human souls. Whether they worshipped diety is beside the point, although such behavior might be expected.

This portion of your reply is the focal point of the issue. In essence, you are saying that we can assume that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons have intellective spiritual human souls based on their demonstration of human, or psuedo-human, intelligence. Yet the notion of an intellective spiritual human soul is a “philisophical” premise that you have offered from the thinking of Aristotle and St. Thomas; people who most likely didn’t know about, nor were considering, entities such as Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons.

But notice the part of your post that I have highlighted in bold. Vern has tried to support this point of view by demonstrating that there is evidence that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons appeared to have excersised some acts of corporal mercy. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, there is still no direct evidence that they perceived of a divine nature, or worshipped a divine being. This is the crux of the issue to me. I cannot credit them with a spiritual soul, if they have never demonstrated an understanding of spirituality, divinity, or divine revelation.

You seem to consider this beside the point. I consider it the very heart of the issue. You suggest "…although such behavior might be expected." If this were true, then certainly there would be something in the form of archeological evidence to demonstrate this. If there is no such evidence, then the argument of silence becomes fairly tangible. In other words, you are basing your argument on the basis that because they have human-like intelligence, the spiritual soul must also be there, even there is no evidence of “spirituality.”

Considering the original poster’s question, this may conform very well with what Genesis says when God breathed the breath of life into Adam, whose name translates to “Humankind” not semi-Humankind, and “man” became a "living soul." Could this not constitute the birth of spirituality in humans; something apparently lacking in Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons regardless of their human-like intelligence?

Thal59

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thal59:

This portion of your reply is the focal point of the issue. In essence, you are saying that we can assume that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons have intellective spiritual human souls based on their demonstration of human, or psuedo-human, intelligence. Yet the notion of an intellective spiritual human soul is a “philisophical” premise that you have offered from the thinking of Aristotle and St. Thomas; people who most likely didn’t know about, nor were considering, entities such as Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons.

When Issac Newton was working out orbital mechanics, he didn’t know about the planet, Pluto. But that doesn’t mean that Pluto is somehow exempt from the rules!

Thal59:

But notice the part of your post that I have highlighted in bold. Vern has tried to support this point of view by demonstrating that there is evidence that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons appeared to have excersised some acts of corporal mercy. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, there is still no direct evidence that they perceived of a divine nature, or worshipped a divine being. This is the crux of the issue to me. I cannot credit them with a spiritual soul, if they have never demonstrated an understanding of spirituality, divinity, or divine revelation.

What wouild you accept as evidence of them percieving a divine nature? They wrote no books, left no inscribed monuments, built no buildings such as temples. They did leave some rudimentary circles and similar things that have no utility other than ceremonial – much as some American Indian tribes created.

What we do have shows us a people who tenderly cared for those who could not care for themselves – and who by reason of their injuries had no utilitarian value to the society in which they lived. They inhumed the bodies of their dead, leaving tokens and grave goods – things which in all other cultures are religious in nature.

Thal59:

You seem to consider this beside the point. I consider it the very heart of the issue. You suggest "…although such behavior might be expected." If this were true, then certainly there would be something in the form of archeological evidence to demonstrate this.

Such as?

Give us an example of the archeological evidence you would expect to find if they had a perception of the divine.

Thal59:

If there is no such evidence, then the argument of silence becomes fairly tangible. In other words, you are basing your argument on the basis that because they have human-like intelligence, the spiritual soul must also be there, even there is no evidence of “spirituality.”

But, as I pointed out, they did leave evidence – things that no lower animal has ever left.

Thal59:

Considering the original poster’s question, this may conform very well with what Genesis says when God breathed the breath of life into Adam, whose name translates to “Humankind” not semi-Humankind, and “man” became a "living soul." Could this not constitute the birth of spirituality in humans; something apparently lacking in Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons regardless of their human-like intelligence?

Thal59

Are Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon non-humans? Some experts are coming to see neanderthal as a separate species, but Cro-Magnon looks very much like a modern human.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Dear Thal59,

We must not confuse “spirituality” with “spiritual.” Indeed, Webster says “spirituality” means “sentiment or attachment to religious values.” But Aristotle and St. Thomas mean by “spirit” or “spiritual” something quite different. Spiritual means, in the technical philosophical sense, what is strictly immaterial, that which is not itself extended in space and is not dependent on anything extended in space. Thus, in this latter sense, while the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon were unknown to Aristotle and St. Thomas, whether they exhibited “spirituality” by having religious values or not would have been entirely irrelevant to the philosophical consideration of whether or not they possessed spiritual souls.

The philosophical arguments for a spiritual soul are based on the fact that an intellective being can produce spiritual concepts, judgments, and reasoning. That is why I gave the example of our being able to understand “humanity,” while we cannot imagine such a universal concept. We can imagine “a man,” Tom, Dick, and/or Harry with given size, color, shape, sex, strength, and so forth. But that is not the same thing as understanding the universal concept of humanity which must embrace a potentially infinite number of variant attributes. I do not wish to try to present the whole case for the human spiritural soul here, but want only to make clear that what is at issue is not “spirituality,” although having a spiritual soul (intellective soul) entails the capacity for grasping religious values. I am not conceding that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon failed to exhibit religious values. I am simply leaving that irrelevant issue to others. It is irrelevant precisely because, once you have demonstrated the spiritual nature of the human soul from man’s rational activities, it goes without saying that a rational being, capable of understanding the nature of things, is likely to speculate about or worship the Ultimate Cause of Nature.

If you recall, the evidence I pointed to in order to show the first demonstrable presence of human beings in the fossil record was the finding of Acheulean three-dimensionally symmetrical hand axes that appear to date from some 500,000 years ago. If my inference is correct that such stone tools require the understanding of abstract geometrical concepts in order to make, then spiritual souled primates appear to have existed long before the advent of both the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon, thereby making any discussion of them irrelevant also!

Incidentally, someone might object that a spiritual (intellective) soul in man is not independent of the body for its activities, since when unconscious or when brain-damaged, man fails to be able to use his intellect. This view is erroneously put forth by materialists who fail to understand that intellective activity is only accidentally dependent upon brain activity. The intellect needs sensory data in order to form concepts and make judgments, but those spiritual products themselves are not under the conditions of extended matter, and thus, the fact the mind can make them manifests spiritual causality by the intellective faculty. It is much like a computer that can sit there running, but can process no data unless data put into it. The computer exists entirely independent of the data, but still needs data to do its job. That is somewhat analogous to the way in which the intellect uses the body in order to operate, but is not intrinsically dependent upon the body either for its operations or its existence.

Dr. Bonnette

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Re: Vern Humphrey’s excellent comments:

Just a note regarding your final statement. You write:

“Are Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon non-humans? Some experts are coming to see neanderthal as a separate species, but Cro-Magnon looks very much like a modern human.”

You may be right about what some “experts” say, but recall the distinction between biological species and natural philosophical species. Paleoanthropological “experts” invariably use biological species concepts, based on things like morphology or genetics or reproductive isolation. My placing the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon in the same species with modern man rests upon the philosophical species concept. That is, since all three populations exhibit intellective powers, all are “rational animals,” the classical philosophical essential definition of true man. The proper division is between rational and irrational, between intellective and non-intellective. All three are rational (intellective) animals – hence, fully human.

Sometimes we say, “I only half understand.” This is incorrect. What we mean is that we understand some parts and not others. The principle of non-contradiction requires that we either understand or not. Hence, we either have intellect or not, and are thus human or not. Even the most complex, rich, abundant, sensory experience is not equal essentially to the very least element of true understanding (conceptualization).

Dr. Bonnette

 

[vern_humphrey]

Dr. Bonnette:

You may be right about what some “experts” say, but recall the distinction between biological species and natural philosophical species. Paleoanthropological “experts” invariably use biological species concepts, based on things like morphology or genetics or reproductive isolation. My placing the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon in the same species with modern man rests upon the philosophical species concept. That is, since all three populations exhibit intellective powers, all are “rational animals,” the classical philosophical essential definition of true man. The proper division is between rational and irrational, between intellective and non-intellective. All three are rational (intellective) animals – hence, fully human.

I have no argument with that. The evidence is that Neanderthal were fully human, albeit perhaps not able to interbreed with our own ancestors.

I tend to favor the biological definition first because it is more easily defined, not because I want to draw a philosophical distinction between Neandarthals and modern humans.