Two Catholic pubications touch upon evolution, first, Commonweal reviews kenotic theology, which seems to be entail (or at least align with) the necessity of evolution. I'm skeptical obviously, not being a believer, but it is an interesting idea and perhaps it will be attractive to some philosophically sophisticated believers (like panentheism). Second, The National Catholic Reporter reviews The Language of God
As an alternative to creationism and intelligent design, Dr. Collins endorses the theory of theistic evolution, which accepts Darwin's findings while positing that humans are "unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature." As evidence, he cites the existence of a universal moral law and an intuitive search for God throughout history.
Collins should read Breaking the Spell
- Log in to post comments
all that means is that those traits were present in the common ancestor of all 6 billion of us.
One of my old profs is writing a book about the 'god gene' (which i think you've mentioned before) and how it might be rooted in the selective pressures involved in interdemic selection.
'God' has provided a common rallying point for wars and tribal conflicts from time immemorial. I'd say it's possible, or even likely, that those groups with a higher frequency of the god allele were better able to act in a cohesive manner when warring against other groups.
Collins' "Universal Moral Law" stuff is taken directly from C.S. Lewis. It isn't any more convincing now than it was when Lewis **** it out half a century ago.
If there is a universal moral law, why is so much of public discourse taken up with arguing about moral issues?
What constitutes universal moral law? Examine the morals held by all people. Discard the ones they don't agree on. Keep the ones they do agree on. Is that deep, or trivial?
Even if there were a universal moral law, would it be proof of God? There are other possibilities, such as evolutionary explanations, which Collins dismisses without justification.
Even if there were a universal moral law, it would not support Biblical Christianity, since everyone now agrees that slavery and many other Biblical activities carried out by God, or by His chosen people at his urging, are immoral.
The NCR reviewer does not point out any of the manifold weaknesses in Collins' arguments, in fact he calls it a "wise and timely book." How sad.
Conceptualzation of change and time perplex mankind from his first thought, as he does not(and cannot)see all of nature.. In my own interpetation, we seem to come to a concensus that nature has a unifying concept to it and we can ask(claim) if this is so ..what is(would be?) the difference in the nature of the world regardless of how deeply we probe? The obvious answer is none. We just simply do not perceive it from our vantage points and are constantly pointing our heads way beyond, for evidences asked of facts explainable only by deduction . In doing so have we short circuited natural processes of change ..seeking greedily beyond what directly defines life and survival. Do we not know so when we try to ban gene cloning, or demand Americans get their own internal businesses in order before they tresspass afar, or ask for nuclear non-proliferation,or enforce auto emmison controls, or try to conserve parks and wooded areas... If the world has a unification, an underlying unique concept,maybe we are bored with it as we have walked past where we began; as the need to seek (a unity,known unity) originates inthe past from life needs. An animal can not do this ,his problem solving cannot invent or construct notion about some other hill beyond where he survives. It is my opinion that in this matter neither can(should) the problem solving of aware men. Given the existence of a unity he first knows of all things-there are not two unities by definition(i.e what he(mankind) knows of his seeking to seek and why he seeks-vs what he defines to seek.What instinct or motive could he have to even approach or transgress his first perception? It can hold no mystery as innate.
Wherein then does lay the difference between men and animals if we are to proclaim that the existance of a spiritual nature to men gives them an alternate evolutionary description. That we do not know the evolution of animals-how are we different? I think we can extrapolate to the fact, that, of the definition of animal,an animal is no more or less an animal than would be the definition of an animal of himself -a container can define no more than its' contents, as the same for man. And together..? always container and contents. If our spirit and learning grow and change the container is changed. If the soul can be defined as a composite of all of the possible choices of every possible path walked and learned, past to present, we might say without feeling too scientificized, or mechanical, that as light rebound and reflects past to present, our thinking souls are just alone, this vast (infinite) number that also defines the container-a fluid, thinking, seeking, feeling assembly of all that is-has rebounded too and from us of all the paths walked. There are only tales of evolution and history in this process, which reflects our lives also and only as they stand from past history to present . Are we digging up the world in a search for naught? have we walked past the important clues given to our witness ?..as we perhaps have a greater circumference to our containers than meets our eyes, impinges on our senses and feeling-is this not how men grow narrow/callous and unready when opportunity presents itself.
This I think is the only description of evolution, all science is dependant on first hand witness-is only a tool for the survival of our religious, spiritual, and social beings. It is evident in the nature of our science and religious questioning, catagorizations, and pursuits, questions of men and animals with respect to theory and understanding, that these notions have escaped us.
http://www.marvinekirsh.com
http://www.authorsden.com/marvinelikirsh