Given the principles of evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, do you think belief in the supernatural will die out or become a m

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bradski said:
Breeding in a large group causes changes within that group. Evolution doesn’t work on individuals, only on populations.

Evolutionary change is based on changes in the genetic makeup of populations over time. Populations, not individual organisms, evolve.

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_teacherfaq.php#a4
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church considers the difference between the general polygenesis source model and the specific Science of Human Evolution.
 
grannymh said:
We wonder why we even think about the supernatural when an ordinary man can walk on the moon. Seriously, when that happened, I went outside and looked up.
Click to expand...
Another poster reminded me of a new supernatural entity, which has only existed since 2002.

When someone very angry dies, their grudge lives on taking human form. Teenagers love to become a grudge on Halloween. The makeup is easy and they get to make scary throat noises. The grudge was created for a Japanese horror movie thirty years after the moon landings. So re the thread title, teenagers learn evolution yet the supernatural is alive and kicking.
grannymh said:
The Catholic Church considers the difference between the general polygenesis source model and the specific Science of Human Evolution.
Click to expand...
I’m still not sure whether there’s an issue, since the Church teaches God first gave souls to two people, isn’t that irrespective of population size?
 
inocente said:
I’m still not sure whether there’s an issue, since the Church teaches God first gave souls to two people, isn’t that irrespective of population size?
Click to expand...
It depends on your definition of “two people”…

If your “two people” are fully complete humans then they already have rational spiritual souls so why would you be saying that God gave them additional souls?

If your “two people” are not two real fully complete humans, what are they? Evolution science would consider them part of the hominin populations (plural intended)descending from a speciation event.

The obvious solution is to stop looking at Adam as a large polygenesis source.
 
grannymh said:
It depends on your definition of “two people”…

If your “two people” are fully complete humans then they already have rational spiritual souls so why would you be saying that God gave them additional souls?

If your “two people” are not two real fully complete humans, what are they? Evolution science would consider them part of the hominin populations (plural intended)descending from a speciation event.

The obvious solution is to stop looking at Adam as a large polygenesis source.
Click to expand...
I looked up the OED definition and it says people = human beings in general or considered collectively.

As the soul is spiritual, I assume biologically there’s no difference between human beings without and human beings with a spiritual soul - there is no clinical test, no MRI scan, etc. which can distinguish the spiritual soul in Homo sapiens.

In other words, evolution didn’t produce people with spiritual souls, and could never produce people with spiritual souls. Evolution produced biological people, without spiritual souls. Then God chose two people and gave the first spiritual souls to them.

So I’m still not seeing any conflict between evolution and God giving spiritual souls to people (although there are several problems with trying to read Genesis 2 & 3 literally, not least spontaneous creation and a talking snake).
 
Bradski said:
'Religious Education (RE) is a compulsory subject in the state education system in England. Schools are required to teach a programme of religious studies according to local and national guidelines.

Religious Education in England is mandated by the Education Act 1944 as amended by the Education Reform Act 1988 and the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The provision of Religious Education is compulsory in all state-funded schools, but it is not compulsory for any of the children to take the subject. The subject consists of the study of different religions, religious leaders, and other religious and moral themes. However, the curriculum is required to reflect the predominant place of Christianity in religious life and hence Christianity forms the majority of the content of the subject.’ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_education_in_primary_and_secondary_education

I’m surprised you don’t know what is being taught in your own country.
Click to expand...
You’re obviously unaware that what is specified in the curriculum is not always (or even usually) observed in a secular society. Do you know the percentage of Christians in the UK? Why have so many churches been converted into flats or commercial ventures? Why do so many girls or young women have abortions as a matter of course? Why are weddings the exception rather than the rule? A visit to England would be enlightening…
 
IWantGod said:
Given the principles of evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, do you think belief in the supernatural will die out or become a minority worldview?
Click to expand...
No, I think a sense that there is more to reality than what is betrayed by sense perception alone is a hard-wired human attribute and has been for a very long time. If religion and revealed truth becomes persecuted, this hard-wired attribute will manifest itself spontaneously through spontaneously invented beliefs and false superstitions. People will continue to believe in more than what they can see and touch just as surely as dogs will chase things. People will create art, they will dream dreams, they will find patterns in an incomplete data set. It is what we do.

Natural selection won’t be working against this hard-wired propensity towards religion, not until there is some mechanism by which the children of people resistant to the neurological underpinnings of religion survive and reproduce at a higher rate. If anything, the trend on that front would seem to be entirely the opposite. The confirmed concrete rationalists don’t have the courage to have big families; they sometimes don’t have the courage to have families at all. The process of natural selection works against a temperament that resists reproduction!

The New Testament desciptions of the end times do not describe a Christian community that has converted the entire world, but rather one that has preached to the entire world. It describes a situation where a high proportion of human beings have rejected the truth. The main thing is to hold fast to what has been taught.
 
inocente said:
I looked up the OED definition and it says people = human beings in general or considered collectively.

As the soul is spiritual, I assume biologically there’s no difference between human beings without and human beings with a spiritual soul - there is no clinical test, no MRI scan, etc. which can distinguish the spiritual soul in Homo sapiens.

In other words, evolution didn’t produce people with spiritual souls, and could never produce people with spiritual souls. Evolution produced biological people, without spiritual souls. Then God chose two people and gave the first spiritual souls to them.

So I’m still not seeing any conflict between evolution and God giving spiritual souls to people (although there are several problems with trying to read Genesis 2 & 3 literally, not least spontaneous creation and a talking snake).
Click to expand...
What happened to the humans with no souls?
 
EasterJoy said:
No, I think a sense that there is more to reality than what is betrayed by sense perception alone is a hard-wired human attribute and has been for a very long time. If religion and revealed truth becomes persecuted, this hard-wired attribute will manifest itself spontaneously through spontaneously invented beliefs and false superstitions. People will continue to believe in more than what they can see and touch just as surely as dogs will chase things. People will create art, they will dream dreams, they will find patterns in an incomplete data set. It is what we do.

Natural selection won’t be working against this hard-wired propensity towards religion, not until there is some mechanism by which the children of people resistant to the neurological underpinnings of religion survive and reproduce at a higher rate. If anything, the trend on that front would seem to be entirely the opposite. The confirmed concrete rationalists don’t have the courage to have big families; they sometimes don’t have the courage to have families at all. The process of natural selection works against a temperament that resists reproduction!

The New Testament desciptions of the end times do not describe a Christian community that has converted the entire world, but rather one that has preached to the entire world. It describes a situation where a high proportion of human beings have rejected the truth. The main thing is to hold fast to what has been taught.
Click to expand...
Good post.
 
inocente said:
Another poster reminded me of a new supernatural entity, which has only existed since 2002.

When someone very angry dies, their grudge lives on taking human form. Teenagers love to become a grudge on Halloween. The makeup is easy and they get to make scary throat noises. The grudge was created for a Japanese horror movie thirty years after the moon landings. So re the thread title, teenagers learn evolution yet the supernatural is alive and kicking.

I’m still not sure whether there’s an issue, since the Church teaches God first gave souls to two people, isn’t that irrespective of population size?
Click to expand...
A common misunderstanding.

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

Source: Human Generis

Ed
 
EasterJoy said:
No, I think a sense that there is more to reality than what is betrayed by sense perception alone is a hard-wired human attribute and has been for a very long time. If religion and revealed truth becomes persecuted, this hard-wired attribute will manifest itself spontaneously through spontaneously invented beliefs and false superstitions. People will continue to believe in more than what they can see and touch just as surely as dogs will chase things. People will create art, they will dream dreams, they will find patterns in an incomplete data set. It is what we do.

Natural selection won’t be working against this hard-wired propensity towards religion, not until there is some mechanism by which the children of people resistant to the neurological underpinnings of religion survive and reproduce at a higher rate. If anything, the trend on that front would seem to be entirely the opposite. The confirmed concrete rationalists don’t have the courage to have big families; they sometimes don’t have the courage to have families at all. The process of natural selection works against a temperament that resists reproduction!

The New Testament descriptions of the end times do not describe a Christian community that has converted the entire world, but rather one that has preached to the entire world. It describes a situation where a high proportion of human beings have rejected the truth. The main thing is to hold fast to what has been taught.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Primitive man intuitively recognised the difference between physical and spiritual events.
 
IWantGod said:
What happened to the humans with no souls?
Click to expand...
Many lineages die out. Genes indicate the most recent common ancestor, but in humans that is unknown.
edwest2 said:
A common misunderstanding.

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

Source: Human Generis

Ed
Click to expand...
Polygenism is a racist doctrine that there are different races of humans which come from different origins. I think it had some support in 1950 when that encyclical was issued, so its no surprise that the Church condemned and condemns it. Until Charlottesville I thought everyone did.
 
inocente said:
Many lineages die out. Genes indicate the most recent common ancestor, but in humans that is unknown.

Polygenism is a racist doctrine that there are different races of humans which come from different origins. I think it had some support in 1950 when that encyclical was issued, so its no surprise that the Church condemned and condemns it. Until Charlottesville I thought everyone did.
Click to expand...
That’s not what Humani Generis tells us. Scientists tell us there were primitive pre-humans or hominids. Look up the term. They looked like humans, they say, but were not true humans - yet. Then, magically, true human beings ‘evolved’ and there were more than two true humans who somehow emerged from a group of ‘not quite humans.’ The Church never condemned Humani Generis.

Ed
 
edwest2 said:
That’s not what Humani Generis tells us. Scientists tell us there were primitive pre-humans or hominids. Look up the term. They looked like humans, they say, but were not true humans - yet. Then, magically, true human beings ‘evolved’ and there were more than two true humans who somehow emerged from a group of ‘not quite humans.’ The Church never condemned Humani Generis.

Ed
Click to expand...
I don’t understand. The Church issued Humani Generis, so of course it never condemned it.

The Church condemned and condemns racism. And that’s what the encyclical condemns in condemning polygenism.

And of course humans evolved, but we all evolved from a single population. Scientifically, all men [and women] are created equal.
 
Bradski said:
Breeding in a large group causes changes within that group. Evolution doesn’t work on individuals, only on populations.

Evolutionary change is based on changes in the genetic makeup of populations over time. Populations, not individual organisms, evolve.

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_teacherfaq.php#a4
Click to expand...
I read the conclusion of the link you provided, and it’s intention are clearly secular. Three quotes taken from your link…
To make these students more comfortable, you can help them understand that evolution, like all of science, seeks to explain natural things through natural causes.
Click to expand...
And if God created, there would be no natural cause, you must accept there are huge gaps in the knowledge of life on Earth.
It need not be considered incompatible with their faith because science does not rely on, and cannot evaluate or test, supernatural explanations.
Click to expand...
Evolution does not explain how life first started, and if we were truthfully looking for a first life, then God makes sense.
MISCONCEPTION: Individual organisms can evolve during a single lifespan.
Click to expand...
CORRECTION: Evolutionary change is based on changes in the genetic makeup of populations over time. Populations, not individual organisms, evolve. Changes in an individual over the course of its lifetime may be developmental (e.g., a male bird growing more colorful plumage as it reaches sexual maturity)
Click to expand...
That fits in with your theory that a population of 140 is needed for a sustainable growth.
we can observe rapid evolution going on around us all the time. Over the past 50 years, we’ve observed squirrels evolve new breeding times in response to climate change, a fish species evolve resistance to toxins dumped into the Hudson River, and a host of microbes evolve resistance to new drugs we’ve developed.
Click to expand...
This is the part of the ToE that I understand more and can accept.

But this does not seem like a good example of genetic drift, the squirrels remain squirrels. The fish remain the same fish as do the microbes. It does not show how 140 split from their common ancestor at 2.30 pm on a given day.
 
inocente said:
I don’t understand. The Church issued Humani Generis, so of course it never condemned it.

The Church condemned and condemns racism. And that’s what the encyclical condemns in condemning polygenism.

And of course humans evolved, but we all evolved from a single population. Scientifically, all men [and women] are created equal.
Click to expand...
What? You lost me. Entirely. Adam and Eve, literally 2 people, are our first parents. That’s it. Not wandering groups of almost humans, which according to science, totally invalidates the idea of 2 people being our first parents. According to them, a much larger population than 2 was needed.

Ed
 
edwest2 said:
What? You lost me. Entirely. Adam and Eve, literally 2 people, are our first parents. That’s it. Not wandering groups of almost humans, which according to science, totally invalidates the idea of 2 people being our first parents. According to them, a much larger population than 2 was needed.

Ed
Click to expand...
I’ll again link the Catholic University of America’s page on evolution. It’s headed “Science for Seminaries”. They don’t appear to have any problem with the science and neither do many other Catholics.

trs.cua.edu/Science-for-Seminaries/biology-evolution.cfm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top