PSac, good info, but it does not contradict what I said.
Yep, I was just expanding on it :)
Believers, do you believe in evolution?
by everchangingworld 159 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
PSacramento
-
NewChapter
NC why is a fall not logical in the context of evolution? For example if we take evolution to turn on the survival of the fittest, and if the fittest denotes what is most fit for its environment, then there must also be an awareness that the best, the most able bodied, the most gifted in human terms often have to die becasuse evolution does not select according to human paramaters.
Not really. With Evolution, there is no knowledge or forsight. That is an incredibly hard concept to grasp, for some reason, and I had a difficult time with it. I think it is because many of us embraced the idea of an intelligent agent behind creation, so we naturally looked for some kind of plan. But there is no 'awareness'. No awareness of what is the best, but simply responses to pressure.
Also, 'fittest' does not necessarily translate into most able bodied or even most gifted. "Fittest" in this context is a reproductive term only. It is a measure of Differential Fittness. How many offspring will an individual reproduce that can go on to have offspring? Those that have a higher rate will reproduce more offspring and, therefore, pass on more genes and more of their traits into the population which will effect the overall look of the species.
Does this mean that only the strongest survive? No. Not necessarily. It could mean a slight variation in trait that enables an individual to get more food. My slightly longer legs. There is a monkey that developed one very long nail and pointy nail that enables them to dig into trees for bugs. The longer nails can go deeper, and perhaps this is how the trait was chosen and the nail grew. Or maybe it was a mutation that was favored. Or a favorite examply is a peacock tail. The tails are heavy, wasteful because the take a lot of food to maintain. They make peacocks slower and more vulnerable to predators, so they shorten the life of the peacock in the wild. But the peahens just love those tails, and the more eyes the better. So even though the tails don't make the peacock stronger, they make them more popular with the ladies, so they will reproduce more, even if their lives are shorter, and they will pass on those lovely, sexy tails to their offspring.
In any case. Your hypothesis does not place the fault of a fall on humans, but on evolution which has no thought and is not in control of humans. They have done nothing wrong by not being able to produce more offspring, it just is what it is. Even if humans valued the traits as a group, for instance talents that are brought to the group, even if they revered the talents, if that individual doesn't reproduce, no matter how wonderful they are, the traits are not passed on. That is not the fault of humans, so why would that be considered a fall? Why would some kind of punishment be doled out for something that was completely out of the control of individuals living?
Why is a fall not logical outside the garden context? Because we are talking about a population of people, not two, and what happens in one environment may not happen in a different environment, so how can all humans be effected? It doesn't make sense. We are talking about a universal fall, but humans aren't universal. Northern humans developed blue eyes and light skin, but equatorial humans did not. So any adaptation will not effect everybody.
It simply can't be a 'fall' if populations are simply responding to selective pressures that make them better adapted to their environment. There is no higher or lower, there is only adaptation. As far as your comment on variety and homogeneity, those are opposite things, so I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. Whether evolution favors either or both only depends on the environment. Saying 'of course it does' makes this confusing. There is no of course. If there is variation that increases Fittness, then it will favor such. If the particular variation is not favored, then it will not. No variation at all (as with species that clone rather than reproduce sexually) would mean there is no variation to respond to environmental pressures, so no evolution. Their existence will be dependent on the environment staying favorable.
-
soft+gentle
NC - I meant awareness in human terms. sorry I was not clear
NC why is a fall not logical in the context of evolution? For example if we take evolution to turn on the survival of the fittest, and if the fittest denotes what is most fit for its environment, then there must also be an awareness that the best, the most able bodied, the most gifted in human terms often have to die becasuse evolution does not select according to human paramaters.
We are humans and we are talking about a fall - a fall that is understandable to us as people - the logic here, that I am trying to grasp when listening to those who believe in God, is not biological but anthropological.
Nice explanation of evoltion btw - a keeper for me
sorry I meant to say heterogeniety instead of homogeniety - I always get them mixed up. thanks for picking up on that.
-
ziddina
Referring to Botchtower's comments...
The Roman Catholic church is a good example of Christians who are able to believe in a god [yes, that johnny-come-lately Middle-Eastern sheepherding males' volcano god that I'm always referring to ...] without having to reject scientific discoveries, information and evidence.
Not that it was ALWAYS so with the Catholic Church [cough cough copernicus cough cough] but at least the Catholics have been willing to change and move forward with the rest of humanity - compare their response to their pedophile problem - admittedly, only after they were caught, but - compare their response with that of the Watchtower Society...
-
PSacramento
Not that it was ALWAYS so with the Catholic Church [cough cough copernicus cough cough] but at least the Catholics have been willing to change and move forward with the rest of humanity - compare their response to their pedophile problem - admittedly, only after they were caught, but - compare their response with that of the Watchtower Society...
While the RCC has shanked the poodle more time than it should ( it is run by humans of course), the issues with science were far less than has been made out to be ( over blown at times). Fact is that the RCC has alays been a supporter of science, the issue is that many of the sceintists that were funded some way or another by the church, thought that the church woudl support them without much evidence.
That was not the case and evolution is a prime example of this.
There was not enough direct evidence to confirm Darwins viewes ( judge is still out as to what are the primary movers of evolution) so the RCC made no comment DIRECTLY on it and continues to do so.
We do NOT know what God used as the "driving force" in the crative process of the universe so, to rule out soemthing like evolution when we can see it happening in front of us ( granted at the mirco-evolutionary level) would be silly.
-
ziddina
"... Fact is that the RCC has alays been a supporter of science,..." PSacramento, page 8
"In the long History of the Catholic Church, there have been countless Catholic scientists and scholars who have expanded scientific knowledge across a diverse range of fields. The church itself has often been a patron of the sciences. Its longstanding commitment to expanding literacy and numeracy through education, and its provision of medical services has in many respects aided scientific development. However, there have also been occasions where Church authorities have viewed scientists or their discoveries as a threat to church teachings, or where scientific discoveries have contradicted the common understanding of scripture or challenged the intellectual opinions or beliefs of several bishops."
Bold and hi-lite mine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science#Copernicus
-
NewChapter
sorry I meant to say heterogeniety instead of homogeniety - I always get them mixed up. thanks for picking up on that.
GOT IT. Now that makes more sense. I do that too with certain terms. I know what they mean, but between my brain and my fingers or mouth they get switched around.
I wonder how this would look anthropologically. Seems there would be some kind of golden age, and where would they find that? Would it be Africa? What would a fall entail? Would we see reduction of some kinds of intelligence? A reduction or absence of violence? If it is not contained in a garden to just a few people, then it could not have been one simple action, but a series of events that spread thoughout humanity. That seems unlikely, but we are entertaining the 'what if' here.
-
PSacramento
Bold and hi-lite mine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science#Copernicus
For sure, since first and foremost the church is interested in the safe guarding ot theistic and ecclecisatic tradtion.
The issue is that with Cap and Galileo, they couldn't prove their views at the time, not 100%, so the church didn't give them their "offical stamp of approval". Prudent under the circumstances (the issues with the prtestant reformation).
Doesn't change what you didn't highlight:
"In the long History of the Catholic Church, there have been countless Catholic scientists and scholars who have expanded scientific knowledge across a diverse range of fields. The church itself has often been a patron of the sciences. Its longstanding commitment to expanding literacy and numeracy through education, and its provision of medical services has in many respects aided scientific development."
The thing is that, for the RCC, theology came first and rightly so since it is an religious organization.
BUT the moment a scientific theory is proven the RCC gives it it's backing or at least addresses any PERCEIVED issues it may have with Theology.
-
Chariklo
The thing is, the Catholic Church sees no conflict between God and science, naturally enough since God created everything, so studying anything is merely yet another exploration into God's world and, ultimately, the mind of God.
After all, not only was the study of genetics and an early originator of the thinking that eventually became the theory of evolution (NB evolution is not new, merely mankind's theory of it) a Catholic monk, Josef Mendel, but Catholic scientists have always been at the forefront of scientific exploration and discovery. (Yes, this is so despite the Church's rejection of some scientific discoveries, Copernicus, as we have been reminded, Galileo etc)
-
Dis-Member
"If you have an infinite number of monkeys, and they all have an etch-a-sketch, they will eventually, by chance, reproduce all of the great works of art ever created. It is likely they will finish stencil art first".
(via Banksy)