Then you should know that survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the superior. Being “fittest” is being fit enough survival the environmental pressures you are facing. Those pressures are always changing. Sometimes the change is quick with dramatic effects like mass extinction events. Gradual changes like the end of an ice age will also cause extinction events.
This seems to be John Paul II’s position, that evolution is not a sign of human dignity. The spiritual soul is the source of our dignity, and it is not a consequence of evolution. Saying the evolution does not go beyond the competence of science is not a criticism. If evolution is used to deny that people have rational souls, that steps past what science can say. But if you are basing your argument on evolution not recognizing the importance of humanity, you have a problem. Evolution does not say that because it can not talk about the soul.
Actually, it explains a lot, but you appear to have a cognitive bias against understanding the theory of evolution for what it is. I can’t fix your bias; I can only explain how I understand it works. It is on you to step outside your bias and consider another view.
Back at you…
Except for the part where I explained how I once considered ID (Discovery Institute and Behe) to be a useful approach until I weighed all the options. I rejected that form of ID for good reasons because I stepped outside the arguements. I am always open to revision, are you?Back at you…
I don’t believe in souls. But it appears that some people, you included, correlate the posession of souls with a rational mind. As Neanderthals were rational beings I just wanted to know if you considered that they did not have souls. If not, then one of the criteria - rationality, appears to be incorrect.Freddy:
Do all hominid subspecies lack rational souls simply because someone chooses to label some sub species as irrational? Reality is independent of the thinking mind. Physical differences do not evidence the kind of soul animating beings whose bodies could possess either irrational or rational souls.
Why do some continue to post articles of faith as science facts? The strongest statement for your claims is “presently, evidence suggests that”.
Did the Neanderthals interbreed with other sub species? If the result of reproduction with a human is a Neanderman then Neanderthals are not extinct but continue in us.
The DNA evidence suggest they did. One of the few tenants of whatever “speciation” really means is that different species cannot successfully interbreed. If Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens successfully reproduced then the subspecies designation for both appears just as meaningless as species.
I’ve heard of this several times but never actually read it until now. Thank you for this post. It makes a lot sense.
Absolutely. Empirical, that is observable, repeatable and predictable, of macro-evolution.
…has been shown to be true. Next?
It’s been said… God The Creator Created Man’s Body and Soul… Created…
And science looks at the method God used to create that body. To quite HG, science “inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter”.
Man’s ‘science’ always accepts God as Creator?
If the scientist believes in God, then probably yes.rossum:
Man’s ‘science’ always accepts God as Creator?
Did God know what Adam would look like?
No. Some men accept YHWH as the creator. Some accept the Christian God, some accept Allah, some accept Vishnu, some accept various other deities. An agnostic scientist will ignore the question as not relevant and an atheist scientist will deny the existence of a creator.
God knows what Adam looks like.
Of course He does. That wasn’t the question.
Maybe this will answer your question? We have quoted most of the rest of this speech…