http://www.nytimes.com/pages/science/index.html
Includes an article describing mutations seen in microbe/bacterium experiments conducted over decades, an article on evolution and the soul (including brief comments by Kenneth Miller), and lots of other stuff.
an article on evolution and the soul
Did you read that?
an article on evolution and the soul
Did you read that?
Yes.
Did it strike you that most of it demonstrated a pretty bad overreach on the part of those speaking for science?
And after reading that, can we agree that evolution is often seen and taught as something more than pure science?
Not really. Many of those “overreaching” statements weren’t made in a scientific manner (i.e. we have proven that…). They were made in a theological context, i.e opinions and belief systems, but in this case there is support for their claims from the scientific community, as opposed to the Bible, which is supported by eyewitness accounts and oral tradition. Just because it challenges the established religions doesn’t mean it is wrong.
As biologists turn up evidence that animals can exhibit emotions and patterns of cognition once thought of as strictly human, Descartes’s dictum, “I think, therefore I am,” loses its force.
For many scientists, the evidence that moral reasoning is a result of physical traits that evolve along with everything else is just more evidence against the existence of the soul, or of a God to imbue humans with souls.
The idea that human minds are the product of evolution is “unassailable fact,” the journal Nature said this month in an editorial on new findings on the physical basis of moral thought. A headline on the editorial drove the point home: “With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.”
Or as V. S. Ramachandran, a brain scientist at the University of California, San Diego, put it in an interview, there may be soul in the sense of “the universal spirit of the cosmos,” but the soul as it is usually spoken of, “an immaterial spirit that occupies individual brains and that only evolved in humans — all that is complete nonsense.”
Did it strike you that most of it demonstrated a pretty bad overreach on the part of those speaking for science?
And after reading that, can we agree that evolution is often seen and taught as something more than pure science?
To the first question: at first yes, but upon further thought, no. I thought that Dr. Miller got it correct, but then I realized that many of the statements were addressing the belief that there are certain qualities in humans that derive from the soul. Evolution and biology now show us that there are scientific (read: observable) mechanisms responsible for these qualities in both humans and assumedly soulless animals, which leads one to believe that these qualities are biologically based, not soul-based. Of course, that may be totally erroneous, based on our inadequate understanding of the theology of the soul.
I’d say that evolution is far more often seen than taught as more than science. Without supporting evidence, I’d say that evolution is rarely taught as more than pure science, and that evolution is commonly (in this country) seen as an attack outside of science by those who are, sorry to say, ignorant of the science.
I realized that many of the statements were addressing the belief that there are certain qualities in humans that derive from the soul.
The statements say very much more than that: They say that not only don’t those qualities derive from the soul, the fact that they don’t derive from the soul means that there is no soul.
**Without supporting evidence, I’d say that evolution is rarely taught as more than pure science, and that evolution is commonly (in this country) seen as an attack outside of science by those who are, sorry to say, ignorant of the science. **
What kind of supporting evidence do you need? Apparently a headline story in Nature stating that man is not created in God’s image is not enough.
I realized that many of the statements were addressing the belief that there are certain qualities in humans that derive from the soul.
The statements say very much more than that: They say that not only don’t those qualities derive from the soul, the fact that they don’t derive from the soul means that there is no soul.
**Without supporting evidence, I’d say that evolution is rarely taught as more than pure science, and that evolution is commonly (in this country) seen as an attack outside of science by those who are, sorry to say, ignorant of the science. **
What kind of supporting evidence do you need? Apparently a headline story in Nature stating that man is not created in God’s image is not enough.
If a soul is defined as imparting qualities A, B, C, and D to humans, and it is shown that soulless animals have demonstrated qualities A, B, and C, and that the mechanism behind those qualities is understood, is biological in nature and is also present in humans, doesn’t that say that our definition of “soul” is woefully inaccurate? One could, accurately, look at the concept of soul as impinging on the domain of the physical, in that it purports to explain certain observable properties. Evolution/biology point out those places where there is a more plausible explanation (see my first sentence above). If religion kept the description of “soul” purely to the unobservable, then there would be no claims that science could debunk, and therefore the two domains would be separate, as should be.
I thought the soul was our aspect to have a personal relationship with God? I admit that I don’t understand the measurement of “moral reasoning” within animals.
What purpose does science have in addressing issues of the soul? I know that science often gets ignorantly attacked by religious people; but there are times when science (namely in the form of scientists mixing their science and philosopgy so you can’t tell where one ends and the other begins) steps outside of its boundaries and goes on the offensive.
I don’t understand why the author uses Descartes expression as a lead-in for scientists saying there aren’t souls because animals can think too.
If religion kept the description of “soul” purely to the unobservable, then there would be no claims that science could debunk, and therefore the two domains would be separate, as should be.
I thought it did? IMO, no one has described the soul better than CS Lewis … “I do not have a soul. I am a soul. I have a body.” I also completely admit that trying to put paramters on a “soul” is like trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube. It’s not going to happen and the whole process just gets sloppy and messy.
“With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.”
Does this person know what the “image of God” means? IMO, this is the type of stuff that Vitus calls “over-reaching” … I think “over-reaching” is an understatement.
“an immaterial spirit that occupies individual brains and that only evolved in humans — all that is complete nonsense.”
I don’t even know where to start. I’ll try … Whose definition of soul is that? Who said the soul occupies the brain? Who said a soul evolves? When you set it up like that, it’s easier than dominos.
Then the “science” article quickly shifts to polling republicans.
Another theologian who has written widely on the issue, John F. Haught of Georgetown University, said in an interview that “for many Americans the only way to preserve the discontinuity that’s implied in the notion of a soul, a distinct soul, is to deny evolution,” which he said was “unfortunate.”
I’ve read (and often link to) his book, God After Darwin, and found it highly compelling … sometimes laborsome to read, but compelling. His main idea is that a Loving God would allow His creation the opportuity to autonomously develop (evolve) into something to distinct and individual from its Creator. That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t know of everything that’s going to happen, or that God doesn’t care, etc … just that God lets His creation develop on its own, as long as it reaches its final destination (a Creation capable of having a relationship with God). This is where I think people get hung up with God being concerned with us being “human” as in homo sapiens. IMO, God is much more concerned with our souls, as oppossed to what morphology we evolved. Obviously, there’s much more than that, but it is prett compelling.
Honestly, with quality information on evolution (by scientists) on the web and in books, I don’t see why one would turn to a newspaper for “science” articles.
If a soul is defined as imparting qualities A, B, C, and D to humans, and it is shown that soulless animals have demonstrated qualities A, B, and C, and that the mechanism behind those qualities is understood, is biological in nature and is also present in humans, doesn’t that say that our definition of “soul” is woefully inaccurate?
In the first place, where are you getting this definition of a soul from?
In the second place, while I don’t believe that animals have a spiritual soul, you have not “demonstrated” that animals are soulless.
In the third place, the mechanism behind those qualities is not understood, and is not the same in humans as in animals- perhaps you are confusing those moral qualities with observed behavior, and that’s a rather sloppy mistake, at this point in the discussion.
In the fourth place, even if you were right about all of the above, and even if it did mean that our definition of the soul is inadequate, it would not be evidence that the soul does not exist, which is what these folks, who purport to speak for science, are claiming.
**If religion kept the description of “soul” purely to the unobservable, then there would be no claims that science could debunk, and therefore the two domains would be separate, as should be. **
I guess I will wait while you find me a definition of the human soul that doesn’t explicitly state that the soul is spirit. Or alternatively, while you provide me with an explanation of how science can measure the spiritual.
I read an article once about a “Scientist” that was claiming to have proven the “soul” does exist. He was weighing bodies before and after they died. Apparently he came up with the result that the soul had weight, shown by the body getting lighter after death…so does that count?
~Matt
The soul is a made up term we use to make ourselves feel special. It is not a measurable thing so we can use it as we wish. To you God has given us a soul to make us diffrent then animals. To me there is no soul just the way we react to changes in the world around us.
In the end it does not matter.
Apparently he came up with the result that the soul had weight
Fascinating! How much? Are there fattie souls?
I wonder if anyone else finds that this statement robs the article of credibility? Because it bugs the hell out of me.
**
As biologists turn up evidence that animals can exhibit emotions and patterns of cognition once thought of as strictly human, Descartes’s dictum, “I think, therefore I am,” loses its force.
Why would that bug you? It seems to go inline with your thoughts on the soul and you should use it in your belief in a soul.
It bugs me because the author apparently thinks that if animals think, it has some kind of bearing on Descartes dictum, and she also apparently thinks that the dictum says that humans are unique among animals, or have a soul, or something like that.
In other words, it bugs me because it’s a perfect example of the flawed thinking and category errors that the article rests on.
If memory serves all souls were VERY VERY slim…
As far as,
As biologists turn up evidence that animals can exhibit emotions and patterns of cognition once thought of as strictly human, Descartes’s dictum, “I think, therefore I am,” loses its force.
I just found it odd. The expression “I think therefore I am” always meant, at least to me, that the overriding factor in ones own existence was self awareness. IOW if you “Think” and know that you “Think” then you are aware of the fact that you exist on some level.
If indeed an animal displays an ability to recognize that they are “thinking” than indeed “They are” so not only does the statement lose force, but IMHO, reinforces it.
Then again it could be I have completely misinterpreted that statement my entire life.
~Matt
Apparently he came up with the result that the soul had weight
Fascinating! How much? Are there fattie souls?
21 grams. There was a Sean Penn movie titled the same. You can probably work backward from the movie info on imdb or wiki to find the ‘scientist’ and other info. Pretty sure nobody put any stock in his ‘research’ even then.
The soul is a made up term we use to make ourselves feel special. It is not a measurable thing so we can use it as we wish. To you God has given us a soul to make us diffrent then animals. To me there is no soul just the way we react to changes in the world around us.
Perception/opinion has no place in a “scientific” thread. 
To me, I’m a soul whom God gave a body (the means is secondary). I don’t think religious people claim to “feel” God or “experience a closeness to God” in the same way I say I feel my son or feel the wind or experience sunshine, etc. People talk of the soul as if it was a mysterious organ we hope to one day discover and study. The soul is not a fleshy part inside the rib cage or protected by the skull.
Maybe, it’s just me, but doesn’t anyone feel that there’s more “to them” than just the physical exterior/interior?
**In the end it does not matter. **
Or, it’s the only thing that DOES matter. (Tibbs, I say that friendlylike just to be contrary, I’m really not trying to start an argument. I didn’t feel like you would respect me if I didn’t present the opposite side of the coin. It’s what we do.)
Regarding the NY Times is somewhat misguided: it is highly likely that they would mix up some of what they are trying to say. Such a media source can only be relied upon to communicate the basics (assuming they are good! - often this is beyond many) of the scientific issues addressed.
Better off to read a science journal’s view on the matter, rather than read some journo trying to stir up trouble to make the article “interesting”.
Editorial
Nature 447, 753 (14 June 2007) | doi:10.1038/447753a; Published online 13 June 2007Evolution and the brainTop of pageAbstract
With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.
The vast majority of scientists, and the majority of religious people, see little potential for pleasure or progress in the conflicts between religion and science that are regularly fanned into flame by a relatively small number on both sides of the debate. Many scientists are religious, and perceive no conflict between the values of their science — values that insist on disinterested, objective inquiry into the nature of the Universe — and those of their faith.
But there are lines that should not be crossed, and in a recent defence of his beliefs and disbeliefs in the matter of evolution, US Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas) crosses at least one. Senator Brownback was one of three Republican presidential candidates who, in a recent debate, described himself as not believing in evolution. He sought to explain his position with greater nuance in a 31 May article in The New York Times, in which he wrote: “Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as atheistic theology posing as science.”
Humans evolved, body and mind, from earlier primates. The ways in which humans think reflect this heritage as surely as the ways in which their limbs are articulated, their immune systems attack viruses and the cones in their eyes process coloured light. This applies not just to the way in which our neurons fire, but also to various aspects of our moral thought, as we report this week in a News Feature on the moral connotations of disgust (see page 768). The way that disgust functions in our lives and shapes our moral decisions reflects not just cultural training, but also biological evolution. Current theorizing on this topic, although fascinating, may be wide of the mark. But its basis in the idea that human minds are the product of evolution is not atheistic theology. It is unassailable fact.
This does not utterly invalidate the idea that the human mind is, as Senator Brownback would have it, a reflection of the mind of God. But the suggestion that any entity capable of creating the Universe has a mind encumbered with the same emotional structures and perceptual framework as that of an upright ape adapted to living in small, intensely social peer-groups on the African savannah seems a priori unlikely.
In Brownback’s defence, it should be acknowledged that these are deep waters. It is fairly easy to accept the truth of evolution when it applies to the external world — the adaptation of the orchid to wasps, for example, or the speed of the cheetah. It is much harder to accept it internally — to accept that our feelings, intuitions, the ways in which we love and loathe, are the product of experience, evolution and culture alone. And such acceptance has challenges for the unbeliever, too. Moral philosophers often put great store by their rejection of the ‘naturalistic fallacy’, the belief that because something is a particular way, it ought to be that way. Now we learn that untutored beliefs about ‘what ought to be’ do, in fact, reflect an ‘is’: the state of the human mind as an evolved entity. Accepting this represents a challenge that few as yet have really grappled with.
It remains uncertain how the new sciences of human behaviour emerging at the intersections of anthropology, evolutionary biology and neuropsychology can best be navigated. But that does not justify their denunciation on the basis of religious faith alone. Scientific theories of human nature may be discomforting or unsatisfying, but they are not illegitimate. And serious attempts to frame them will reflect the origins of the human mind in biological and cultural evolution, without reference to a divine creation. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<