(Question)
I have a follow up question regarding humanity. Do you believe in the theory of evolution and if you do. Is morality an evolutionary advantage that was evolved or was it placed specifically in homosapiens? I have the same question for the 'soul'. If you don't believe in the theory of evolution how do you believe it was that we came to be?
Thanks.
(Response)
Sorry that it took me so long to get back to you!
But to delve right into it, yes, in many ways, I definitely believe in the "theory" of evolution. I put that in quotes because I don't necessarily think that there is one theory surrounding evolution, in fact, there are multiple approaches to the notion of evolution, but if we are simply talking about the theory that we evolved into a species, and as a species, yes, I'm totally on board with that. And furthermore, I don't think there is any reason not to be. There is nothing from Genesis, especially if you view it through the lens discussed in the last email, to suggest that there was not some type of evolution that took place on earth. In fact, in its simplest form, Genesis points directly toward this idea. First, the sun broke through the atmosphere, the water gave way to sustainable life (plants) and probably some extremely simplistic "animals" or at least early blue prints of them, and then there was man (with a couple steps in between, obviously.). In a nutshell, our planet and its occupants have evolved, that fact isn't worth trying to deny.
As for the idea that morality is an evolutionary advantage, that is where things get increasingly more complicated. Evolution seems to deal primarily in genes and their mutations. Something evolves due to a mutation that does not kill it and furthermore turns out to be beneficial in one way or another. Therefore, if morality was an evolutionary advantage, that would suggest that it is somehow tied into our genetic make up. And not only that, it would also suggest that morality was the product of a genetic mutation. If that were to be the case, then ultimately, we would have to assume that at some point in time, it was more advantageous to one's survival to live morally that to not. This has difficult and strange implications. Much of survival centers around the animalistic elements of our being. In fact, to kill for food and resources (although morally wrong) is entirely justified from a survival perspective. Therefore, one might argue that living morally has very few advantages until you get into a structured society where your survival actually depends on your ability to do so. Within the animal kingdom, there is really no place for morality. There, it does not go hand in hand with survival.
However, if it is structure, stability and progress that you are looking for, then morality plays an enormous role in your ability to bring about those notions. In addition to rational thought, it is most likely what provides the foundation for civilization. But I do not think that in any way implies that it is an evolutionary trait that has been developed over time. In a lot of ways, evolution doesn't really point toward progress, at least not in the sense that we have achieved it. Evolution is designed to keep a species alive, but it does not create the circumstances in which it is ultimately nullified. Unlike humans, animals are still subject to the evolutionary demands of survival, and if they can not keep up, they will go extinct. Humans have proven that this notion no longer applies to them. We have adapted beyond the principles of evolution.
So where does morality ultimately come from? Most likely, it was given to us when God bestowed the soul upon man. Prior to that moment, what we now know as man, was probably a more animalistic version in the form of Cro-Magnon. Without the soul, Cro-Magnon would have most likely continued on an evolutionary path similar to that of most mammals. The fit would have survived, while the rest did not. There would have been no progress beyond simple capabilities, and we today would probably live more like animals than humans.. (And I understand that they are one in the same, but I hope you get my point.)
Since I do recognize the validity of evolutionary theory, and I have explained the impact of the soul on man, I think that last question is kind of accounted for. However, I will say this. I do not think that it is a coincidence that the name of the "first man" in Genesis is Adam, and that in the Hebrew, Adam actually means man. When he receives the soul from God, I believe this marks the beginning of humanity as we know it. Were there humanoid like creatures that existed prior? Probably, but they did not possess an innate sense of morality, they were not fitted in the image of God. This notion is what ultimately ties all of this together. Morality links directly to the soul. Without the soul, there is no morality. So was it an evolutionary development? Is it a component of our genome? Most likely not. It was given to man, by God, that he might recognize his full potential.
Thanks!
MRD
No comments:
Post a Comment