Evolution vs Emm.. Evolution ..?

[James_S_Saint]

In a recent thread on a “somewhat” anti-Christian site, the following short discussion took place;

Evolutionist;
*Jesus: Invisible friend or evolutionary adaptation?

August 24th, 2009 - Heather Mac Donald
I had never heard of the “Third Man” phenomenon until reading this fascinating Wall Street Journal book review. People in extreme situations, such as explorers stranded on a mountain peak or shipwreck survivors, have reported the sensation of being accompanied out of danger by an invisible companion who offers them encouragement and guidance.

Believers might say: But of course! We are accompanied through life by an invisible friend. According to Michael Novak, for example, “God made humans to offer them his friendship and companionship.”

Scientists, however, can “evoke the sensation of a shared presence by stimulating the brain with electricity,” according to Wall Street Journal reviewer Michael Ybarra. The author of The Third Man Factor posits a possible evolutionary value to such a neurological sensation. The fact that we can electrically induce a hidden companion doesn’t mean that we are not walking with Jesus, but it does point at the very least to the unfathomably complex relationship between our consciousness, the sub-conscious workings of our brain, and the external world.*​

Jeff H; (Christian advocate)
So what your saying is that we have the power to perceive entities we can not see, and this can be artificially stimulated. My question would be, in the same way (according to evolution) we would not have eyes if we didn’t come from an environment where they would be useful, how do we have this ability, unless there we came from an environment where there were entities we could not see, and such perception would be an evolutionary advantage? Say, for example, God!

Thanks for the leg-up ​

Saint;
Haha…

I think "touche’ " is the word. :tiphat:

I don’t know if you realize how seriously significant of a thing you just did.

You just used the very most basic principle of evolution to prove the probable existence of God.

“According to evolution, any individual or small group of a species can grow an extra appendage merely by accident, but if a very large number of a species has the physical ability to do something, there had to be a practical benefit for its doing. Thus if millions of people have the physical ability to perceive of a God, there must have been a real benefit in such a perception.”

Spread that around and you will destroy the very foundation of the Anti-Christ/God agenda.

You deserve a Nobel Prize that that one. ​

Evolutionist;
You could be right, Jeff, or it may just be part of our ability to have empathy with others in our world. Or it could just be our Super Ego offering guidance to our Ego in time of danger. I should read the whole book and report back.​

…{{snicker}} npatrol:

 

[Prodigal_Son]

“According to evolution, any individual or small group of a species can grow an extra appendage merely by accident, but if a very large number of a species has the physical ability to do something, there had to be a practical benefit for its doing. Thus if millions of people have the physical ability to perceive of a God, there must have been a real benefit in such a perception.”

Fascinating. I’ve never seen Christianity and science as enemies, but I also haven’t considered how intimately they might be friends.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Fascinating. I’ve never seen Christianity and science as enemies, but I also haven’t considered how intimately they might be friends.

Oh I certainly agree. Real Science and real Christianity have never been at odds, only pseudo-scientists and pseudo-Christians.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

brilliant!

 

[liquidpele]

“According to evolution, any individual or small group of a species can grow an extra appendage merely by accident, but if a very large number of a species has the physical ability to do something, there had to be a practical benefit for its doing. Thus if millions of people have the physical ability to perceive of a God, there must have been a real benefit in such a perception.”

I agree with that for the most part actually. In fact, I’ve brought up that very point when talking with other atheists. However, you should not confuse evolution of social constructs and ideas with biological evolution. The two are based off the same ideas, but evolve from very different means. I also think that your ideas, and my ideas, of what advantages are provided by the belief in God would be very different. One of the more obvious ones of course is the Catholic belief in the non-use of contraceptives.

 

[thunderballs75]

Evolutionary Theory is quite correct in my opinion. However, not everything can be explained by evolutionary theory. Humans actually have the ability to do things which contradict their biological urges. For instance, humans have the ability to live chastely out of choice, though it goes completely against the biological craving.

God is not a creation of man, or an evolutionary adaptation. It is the product of Divine Revelation from God to His creation.

There is no real contradiction between evolutionary theory and Christianity. The problem only arises when atheists try to somehow use it to support their beliefs, when in reality it has very little to do with atheism at all. I don’t see how evolution=atheism. In my opinion, evolution supports the notion of God.

 

[liquidpele]

Evolutionary Theory is quite correct in my opinion. However, not everything can be explained by evolutionary theory. Humans actually have the ability to do things which contradict their biological urges. For instance, humans have the ability to live chastely out of choice, though it goes completely against the biological craving.

God is not a creation of man, or an evolutionary adaptation. It is the product of Divine Revelation from God to His creation.

There is no real contradiction between evolutionary theory and Christianity. The problem only arises when atheists try to somehow use it to support their beliefs, when in reality it has very little to do with atheism at all. I don’t see how evolution=atheism. In my opinion, evolution supports the notion of God.

I agree with that too. I think evolution has little to do with atheism. The problem is that so many religious people openly attack and attempt to discredit a theory which is so profoundly at the heart of modern biology… it’s almost maddening. I think atheists jump to the defence of evolution simply because it’s the easiest thing to defend and one of the major flaws of religious thinking by some parties. I can respect a person that believes in God and tries to follow the teachings of Jesus. It’s a lot harder to respect someone that believes the earth is 6000 years old and that evolution is a big conspiracy by evil atheist scientists.

 

[Eucharisted]

Major flaw in the perception of God theory: Perception dose not equal reality. The truth is not relatve.

 

[Benadam]

Evolutionist;
You could be right, Jeff, or it may just be part of our ability to have empathy with others in our world. Or it could just be our Super Ego offering guidance to our Ego in time of danger. I should read the whole book and report back.​

…{{snicker}} npatrol:
I’ve heard this from a friend at work. The God consciousness is a relief valve. That during times of great stress it is a mechanism to cope. It externalizes inner stress by creating an ‘other’ . place to project what isn’t understood . It prevailed because people who developed it were able to cope with anxieties associated with survival conditions.

My answer of course was that place of ‘other’ had to exist in some way or other. Coping mechanism’s aren’t custom made for particular circumstances. They pre-exist doing everyday functions. That the God consciousness had a general purpose in everyday life and is just used as a mechanism to cope with extremes.

 

[geometer]

The problem is that so many religious people openly attack and attempt to discredit a theory which is so profoundly at the heart of modern biology… it’s almost maddening.

Biochemistry is at the heart of modern biology, this is the hard science. Evolution is not hard science.

You should take a few biology courses.

 

[liquidpele]

Biochemistry is at the heart of modern biology, this is the hard science. Evolution is not hard science.

You should take a few biology courses.

Biochemistry pretty much is advanced biology. If you’re going to be picky though, then I’ll give a better analogy. Evolution is to Biology as Differential Equations is to Math. Also, I don’t appreciate the connotation that I have not taken biology courses - keep the assumptions and snippy comments to yourself please.

 

[Matthias123]

One of the more obvious ones of course is the Catholic belief in the non-use of contraceptives.

It is more then that:

We know that all acts are acted in order to obtain some good. For the act of existing is for the good of being, and the act of moving an object forward two inches is to move it forward and not backwards. Thus we understand that all actions are undertaken for some good. We also understand that any action contrary to this good, will itself be evil – a deficiency of good. So in the same way all human acts are to obtain some good. This is the first precept of natural law, that good is done and evil avoided.

All other precepts fall under this, and whatever man sees as his natural good is a precept of natural law and he should do, and what he sees as a natural evil he should avoid, because this would break a precept of the natural law. Since all things act naturally towards good, it follows that all things that man has a natural inclination for are good, and anything that is contrary to mans inclination is to be avoided. Since man has free will he can choose to commit an action that is deficient of good.

Man has the desire to exist, he also has the potential due to his free will to take his own life. Now the action of taking one’s own life will still be good in one sense, because without good there can be no action, but in another sense it will be a deficiency of good and thus evil because it is contrary to the natural inclination to exist.

All animals have the inclination to procreate in order to prevent the nonexistence of the species. Humans have a natural inclination to procreate, and also to care for one’s offspring. This inclination was providentially infused in man through Darwinian evolution. Therefore we understand that the natural end of sex is in one sense is for procreation. Also however, humans have a inclination for closeness with the opposite sex. They have the inclination to love and care for one another, and in loving each other they provide a solid foundation to raise offspring. We also know that sex is extremely pleasurable for this reason. Therefore we understand that the natural end of sex in another sense is the uniting of husband and wife in an ever closer bond.

Now from nature it is obvious that there is a twofold end to sex. It is firstly procreative, and secondly it is unitive. Therefore we would understand that if any two of these final ends are removed we would call the action of sex to be unnatural and disordered. The natural law is the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law, and this natural law is providentially caused in nature, because God directions all things to a meaningful and purposeful end. So it follows that neglecting any one of these natural ends would be offensive to God.

Now Aristotle says in (Ethic. viii, 12) that “man is an animal more inclined by nature to connubial than political society.” Also “man is naturally a political and gregarious animal,” as the same author asserts (Polit. i, 2) Therefore marriage itself is of the natural law.

Now the natural end of marriage itself is the good of the offspring. So it follows that sexual intercourse before marriage would be a violation of natural law because it is putting the lower desire of sexual pleasure and intimacy, over the higher desire and inclination to procreate. Therefore since this action of seeking gratification self outside of marriage is at the expense of the offspring which is the natural end of both sex and marriage, we would be right to call things act extremely selfish. Also we know that fornication is a mortal sin (Tobit 4:13) (Galatians 5:21)

Now when it comes to the sexual act itself, there are numerous practices that are against the natural law. Sex that does not end with the act finishing in vaginal intercourse, is gravely disordered. This is because a primary natural end of sex (procreation) is being avoided. However this may happen by accident and therefore no guilt will be incurred. It is however a grave matter, and done will full knowledge and full consent of the it is a mortal sin.

Likewise any act of artificial contraception is also gravely disordered because it removed one of the natural ends of sex and thus is a violation of natural law. So it follows that this is also a mortal sin. In addition for the above reasons, masturbation is also gravely disordered and incurs the same gravity of guilt.

Also if the act of sex is performed and it is not desired to increase a deeper union with one’s spouse it would also be disordered and be a mortal sin. Thus eliminates the “lay back and think of England” abomination.