? about genetics, evolution, and Genesis

[geo]

molika said:

The cave allegory is a misrepresentation of my original point. Typical, but none-the-less incorrect.

I wonder who's misrepresenting whom...

[SensoUnico]

When the first humanoid became self aware and self obsessed the veil of animal innocence fell off. It is then humans ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge and got that potential to be evil. Evil exists purely in humans, not animals or plants and it is not something that floats around the universe but the potential is in our DNA waiting to be activated. Unfortunately, the on switch is very easy to turn on.

[molika]

Nock, if there are things you consider evil, what is your reference point for this evil? If there are things considered evil by all humans in all times, what is the reference point for this evil?

My point being unless you consider this world a sump of relativism where what you consider evil some consider good then there must be a measurable scale of good. As you stated, there are things that all humans agree are evil, all the time. For us to know evil, we must know what is good. If we understand there is a universal absolute evil, then we must know a universal absolute good.

Scary thought SU, (maybe more for you than me) but I actually agree with most of your post…<br>

[nockwasright]

molika said:

Nock, if there are things you consider evil, what is your reference point for this evil? If there are things considered evil by all humans in all times, what is the reference point for this evil?

My point being unless you consider this world a sump of relativism where what you consider evil some consider good then there must be a measurable scale of good. As you stated, there are things that all humans agree are evil, all the time. For us to know evil, we must know what is good. If we understand there is a universal absolute evil, then we must know a universal absolute good.

Scary thought SU, (maybe more for you than me) but I actually agree with most of your post…<br>

Molika this of the grades of good is one of the oldest "proofs" of the existence of God, as it's one of the five Thomas Aquinas' famous proofs. It doesn't stand, as the ground assumption is wrong.
Saying I think there is something good and evil for all humans, I meant that we tend to considere the same things good/evil, as we have roughly same tastes in food or beauty. It's just because our nature is similar, it doesn't make those things also good or evil for the stars or the viruses or for all men. It' an "average" feeling. Monkeys have a "moral" too (for instance they distinguish between intentional and casual harmful acts)
As for my personal reference point, I don't know. I just istinctively consider some things evil. I guess it is the same for everybody.

[molika]

The ground assumption is not wrong. If there is no basis for good, there can be no basis for evil and everything becomes relative. This is simple logic. How then do all humans ‘tend’ to agree on certain concepts of good/evil? Either there is no such thing as good and evil or there is a universal absolute good from which we discern what is evil. We can’t have it both ways.

Nock, if you have any interest, a book by CS Lewis called ‘Mere Christianity’ deals with this subject in detail.
Don't let the title scare you, it's not a 'religious' book in the traditional sense, more like a scientific view of christianity.


Excerpt:
Chapter One
The Law of Human Nature
Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: 'How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?' -- 'That's my seat, I was there first' -- 'Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm' -- 'Why should you shove in first?' -- 'Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine' -- 'Come on, you promised.' People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: 'To hell with your standard.' Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the 'laws of nature' we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong 'the Law of Nature', they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation, and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law-with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.

We may put this in another way. Each man is at every moment subjected to several different sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey. As a body, he is subjected to gravitation and cannot disobey it; if you leave him unsupported in mid-air, he has no more choice about falling than a stone has. As an organism, he is subjected to various biological laws which he cannot disobey any more than an animal can. That is, he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things; but the law which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals or vegetables or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses.

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair.

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to-whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

[nockwasright]

molika said:

The ground assumption is not wrong. If there is no basis for good, there can be no basis for evil and everything becomes relative. This is simple logic. How then do all humans ‘tend’ to agree on certain concepts of good/evil?

Just because we are all humans and thus have things in common. We also almost all like puppies and dislike worms, this doesen't make puppies good and worms bad, it is just tied to our evolutionary history.

Either there is no such thing as good and evil or there is a universal absolute good from which we discern what is evil. We can’t have it both ways.

As any other thing good and evil can be relative and subjective. For me penicillin's good. For a virus, evil.

And the other man very seldom replies: 'To hell with your standard.'

Very seldom doesn't mean never. If it was absolute it should be never.

Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the 'laws of nature' we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong 'the Law of Nature', they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation, and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law-with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.

The law of gravity is equally true for all men all times, all things all animals. It's quite clear it is not the same with the concept of good and wrong.

What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair.

The Nazis thought they were right. Some still think they were right. Which proof has this author to say the contrary? Didn't the Nazi soldiers sport a "Got mit Uns" belt buckle?

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean.

Again, we are all human, we have silimarities, but humans are less than powder if confronted with time and space. Why our way of acting should be measure of the Universe?

Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle

Pacifists now admire deserters more than soldiers.

, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him.

In totalitarian states (as USSR) children who spyed on parents were cheered by the State.

You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to-whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired.

Ayn Rand wouldn't agree. Plus, there are evolutionistic reason for the "generous" acting.

Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

Do you ever watch MTV?

[Cerdic]

merlin said:

Cerdic-

Thank you for your thoughtful answers to my questions. I always understood the theory of evolution to be a linear process. Somehow a living one-celled organism appeared and through natural selection and as you put it- blind-luck- the various Kingdoms of life appeared. I assumed that mammals had shared ancestry with the types of life that came before, but that mammals would share more dna with other mammals and the types of life that came before would not have that mammalian dna. But how does radiation fit into this theory? I take radiation to mean that species of life radiated out from the one-cell organism so the species of ape does not share dna with humans.

I need more explanation of radiation. It is a fascinating theory.

You've caused me to do a lot of research. Here's a website on classification that was a help to me, if anyone else is interested:

anthro.palomar.edu/animal/default.htm

Thanks for your answers. I'm knowledgeable about horses, American blues/rock music, and Bible study, so if you have any questions about them, just ask!

You're welcome.

Evolution is a linear process, in essence, but that does not preclude relatedness. For example all mammals are related at a DNA level because they share a, very distant, common ancestor. However after speciation occurs, because cross mating is no longer possible, each daughter species is henceforth separate.

Species can be formed through geographical separtion, behavioural specialisation or sexual selection. Killer whales seem to form two or three distinct populations, which are not geographically separated. The differences between them are largely "cultural-behavioural." One type, the "transients" spend most of their time moving long distances and feed on other marine mammals - seals, dolphins and whales, another type the "locals" have a smallish home range and feed almost exclusively on fish. The two types may have been separated genetically for over a hundred thousand years.

Chimpanzees and humans probably had a common ancestor from 7 to 10 million years ago, so they are very similar to each other genetically. On the level of DNA even very unrelated organisms can have surprising levels of similarity. This is particularly the case for genes encoding proteins vital for cellular function. For example the protein enolase is vital for glycolysis, a major source of energy in all living cells. Proteins are made up of "building blocks" called amino acids, these form a linear chain which makes up the protein itself. Human alpha enolase is 92.1% identical at the amino acid level to the alpha enolase of the duck, 87.8% identical to that of the African clawed toad, 70.1% identical to tomato enolase and 68.4% identical to that of the malaria parasite (P falciparum).

Even at the level of organisational genes, such as those found in developing embryos, those found in fruit flies are amazingly similar to the ones found in humans.

Species are separate, but all life appears to be interrelated.

I'm a Blues fan also, particularly Elmore James and Howlin' Wolf, I like Bessie Smith from the earlier days.

[merlin]

You have great taste in Blues! I like those artists, too. I'm also crazy about BB King, Mississippi Fred McDowell, R. L. Burnside (check out the video, Deep Blues), and in the younger generation of crazy white boys mixing with the black blues masters,in their live cd from Bonnaroo, the North Mississippi Allstars Hill Country Review.

The majority of what most people call evolution seems to me to be simple adaptation, as in your bird example, over the generations the birds adapted new bird ways to get food. They did not cross species and evolve into people. But at some point in time, this sort of cross-speciation must have happened. Is there any fossil record of this? I mean, is there any creature who has left evidence of being at the same time two different species?

Please excuse me if this a dumb question. I'm new at this debate, but fascinated. The implications of the same species adapting differently until finally they can't breed are mind-boggling. I can see where that IS evolution.

[molika]

Nock, the Nazi's could have had 'God with us' engraved on their foreheads and they still would not have been right.

Knowing right from wrong has nothing to do with sinning. We know it's wrong to gossip, or cheat, or tell a lie. We will even justify it to ourselves and others, but it is still wrong.

Just because there is an absolute good does not mean that every person will stop behaving badly and stop justifying their evil actions or stop being selfish. It just means that deep down, we all know right from wrong.

A serial killer does not kill because he does not know this is wrong, he does it for the thrill.

Sorry, don't watch too much TV lately, much less MTV, I am an old lady

[vela]

Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
ROM 14:22

[nockwasright]

Ok, Molika, I guess we can close it here, as we are repeating our points over and over.
I'm glad for you you have faith; I haven't and that's it.
And you don't miss much with MTV

[molika]

Brother Vela, you posted Romans 14-22 to make a point.
In context, what does this scripture mean to you?

Romans 14
1AS FOR the man who is a weak believer, welcome him [into your fellowship], but not to criticize his opinions or pass judgment on his scruples or perplex him with discussions.
2One [man's faith permits him to] believe he may eat anything, while a weaker one [limits his] eating to vegetables.

3Let not him who eats look down on or despise him who abstains, and let not him who abstains criticize and pass judgment on him who eats; for God has accepted and welcomed him.

4Who are you to pass judgment on and censure another's household servant? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he shall stand and be upheld, for the Master (the Lord) is mighty to support him and make him stand.

5One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike [sacred]. Let everyone be fully convinced (satisfied) in his own mind.

6He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

7None of us lives to himself [but to the Lord], and none of us dies to himself [but to the Lord, for]

8If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or we die, we belong to the Lord.

9For Christ died and lived again for this very purpose, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

10Why do you criticize and pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you look down upon or despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God.

11For it is written, As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God [acknowledge Him to His honor and to His praise].(A)

12And so each of us shall give an account of himself [give an answer in reference to judgment] to God.

13Then let us no more criticize and blame and pass judgment on one another, but rather decide and endeavor never to put a stumbling block or an obstacle or a hindrance in the way of a brother.

14I know and am convinced (persuaded) as one in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is [forbidden as] essentially unclean (defiled and unholy in itself). But [none the less] it is unclean (defiled and unholy) to anyone who thinks it is unclean.

15But if your brother is being pained or his feelings hurt or if he is being injured by what you eat, [then] you are no longer walking in love. [You have ceased to be living and conducting yourself by the standard of love toward him.] Do not let what you eat hurt or cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died!

16Do not therefore let what seems good to you be considered an evil thing [by someone else]. [In other words, do not give occasion for others to criticize that which is justifiable for you.]

17[After all] the kingdom of God is not a matter of [getting the] food and drink [one likes], but instead it is righteousness (that state which makes a person acceptable to God) and [heart] peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

18He who serves Christ in this way is acceptable and pleasing to God and is approved by men.

19So let us then definitely aim for and eagerly pursue what makes for harmony and for mutual upbuilding (edification and development) of one another.

20You must not, for the sake of food, undo and break down and destroy the work of God! Everything is indeed [ceremonially] clean and pure, but it is wrong for anyone to hurt the conscience of others or to make them fall by what he eats.

21The right thing is to eat no meat or drink no wine [at all], or [do anything else] if it makes your brother stumble or hurts his conscience or offends or weakens him.

22Your personal convictions [on such matters]--exercise [them] as in God's presence, keeping them to yourself [striving only to know the truth and obey His will]. Blessed (happy, to be envied) is he who has no reason to judge himself for what he approves [who does not convict himself by what he chooses to do].

23But the man who has doubts (misgivings, an uneasy conscience) about eating, and then eats [perhaps because of you], stands condemned [before God], because he is not true to his convictions and he does not act from faith. For whatever does not originate and proceed from faith is sin [whatever is done without a conviction of its approval by God is sinful].

[vela]

molika said:

Brother Vela, you posted Romans 14-22 to make a point.
In context, what does this scripture mean to you?

molika, it was not my intention to get into a deep teological discussion, but simply point to a scriptural instance illustrating that the absolute nature of good and/or evil is relative to the believer's consiousness.

I know it sounds like a contradiction but like Paul wrote (and quoting from the same Bible version as you):

Everything is permissible (allowable and lawful) for me; but not all things are helpful (good for me to do, expedient and profitable when considered with other things). Everything is lawful for me, but I will not become the slave of anything or be brought under its power.

1 Co. 6:12

[molika]

You started it and you ought to know better!

But that is the problem Vela, both scriptures you quoted have nothing to with the question of absolute good/evil. If Paul inferred that absolute good/evil was relative and specific to each believer that would be a major contradiction to the Bible. The absolutes of good/evil are defined by the 10 commandments. With Jesus the 10 commandments are made stronger, not diluted down to relativisms. Paul is saying to the gentiles that what is most important is to follow the will and commands of God and not worry about what to wear or eat or which day to set aside for the Sabbath. What Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 6 is that just because something is technically ‘lawful’ (since through Christ we are no longer under the ‘law’ but only the 10 commandments) it does not mean it is spiritually appropriate and if we go around doing whatever we thought we could get by with we would be slaves to our whims.

As believers in Christ it is our duty to speak of the truth and the way and the life. When a non-believer sees his sin and recognizes his sin will lead to an eternity in hell then and only then will he see his need for Christ and then and only then will he truly be a believer. Without this recognition, all you have is religion and nice ideas, relativism.

When you misrepresent the intent of a certain scripture verse out of context and with that clearly contradict the Bible then to me that is blasphemy!

[vela]

molika said:

You started it and you ought to know better!

Thanks for reminding me!

But that is the problem Vela, both scriptures you quoted have nothing to with the question of absolute good/evil. If Paul inferred that absolute good/evil was relative and specific to each believer that would be a major contradiction to the Bible. The absolutes of good/evil are defined by the 10 commandments. With Jesus the 10 commandments are made stronger, not diluted down to relativisms.

molika, with all due respect, what you're talking about here is religious absolutes or, in other words, dogma. Besides, Jesus said that all the law and the prophets depend only on two commandments, which you already know.

Paul is saying to the gentiles that what is most important is to follow the will and commands of God and not worry about what to wear or eat or which day to set aside for the Sabbath. What Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 6 is that just because something is technically ‘lawful’ (since through Christ we are no longer under the ‘law’ but only the 10 commandments) it does not mean it is spiritually appropriate and if we go around doing whatever we thought we could get by with we would be slaves to our whims.

For me the essential thing here is: happy, is he who has no reason to judge himself for what he approves . I am not called upon to judge you.

As believers in Christ it is our duty to speak of the truth and the way and the life. When a non-believer sees his sin and recognizes his sin will lead to an eternity in hell then and only then will he see his need for Christ and then and only then will he truly be a believer. Without this recognition, all you have is religion and nice ideas, relativism.

The duty that you speak about, where does it spring from? Do you let other dictate what is your duty as a believer?

When you misrepresent the intent of a certain scripture verse out of context and with that clearly contradict the Bible then to me that is blasphemy!

Now, that's a little extreme, isn't it? I'll let Paul respond to your last statement: "Who are you to pass judgment on and censure another's household servant? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he shall stand and be upheld, for the Master (the Lord) is mighty to support him and make him stand."