• Print friendly
• E-mail a friend
• Contact Us
• Social Networks
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
• Stock Market
  • Weather
  • Gas Prices
  • Flight Info
  • Lottery
  • Recipes
  • Soccer

I think, therefore I am, science, evolution

Where Does the Human Soul Exist?

By Joshua S. Hill

Friday, June 29, 2007

My attention was piqued yesterday by an article from the New York Times discussing new scientific information that is continually redefining the lack of differences between human and animal brains. In short, the emotions and feelings we experience like sympathy, anger and happiness are connected to new genes, brain-structures and 'physical correlates' being discovered by evolutionary biologists and cognitive neuroscientists every year.

The Times article thus posits that the 17th-century philosopher Descartes may not have been on the right track when he said "I think, therefore I am." The quote was a summing up of his belief that humans were entirely different to the animals of our world, and that we were the only ones capable of 'thinking'.

The article is based heavily around the 'science' proving that humans did indeed evolve from animals. I'm going to say from the beginning that I do not believe that we came from any form of animal or life form. But no, I am not going to say I disagree with evolution, because I do not! The two beliefs are not necessarily separate, and even though I believe that God created Adam and Eve as the first humans, it does not automatically prove that I do not believe in evolution. The simple fact is that we do not know. Science will prove that we came from apes (or another form of evolutionary history) by using suppositions and 'data' collected. I do not doubt this evidence, or the conclusions drawn from it. I simply believe that my God is a whole lot smarter than people give him credit for.

Fantasy-Comedy author Terry Pratchett hit upon an idea that is at its heart, both humorous, and entirely plausible. In several of his ever popular 'Discworld' books, he describes the creators of the Discworld on which his creations live, as introducing fossils and archaeological evidence in to the creation of their world to amuse later scientists.

Why is it that just because there is archaeological and scientific evidence, people are willing to throw out the idea of a God who created a universe. Until that point they are willing to believe that there is an entity that had the power to set the stars amongst the heavens, but are all of a sudden unwilling to believe that he could have created humans in a way that made it look as if we had come from a separate biological ancestor.

I am no scientist, and though I have a deep grounding in logic and an ability to understand much of what is debated, I will not endeavor to do so here. My simple point is that I do not necessarily disqualify either faith or evolution, simply because scientists as a stereotype are unwilling to allow for a clever and artful God.

Evolution is something that happens; that is a fact. There is proof of it all around us, and Darwin was no doubt on to something when he discovered his Galapagos Islands. But for the love of Pete, can you please open your minds to the possibility, just the mere possibility that you're not actually as smart as you think you are. That just maybe we haven't reached a level of intelligence that allows us to fully comprehend what it is that is going on around us. I sure as hell don't know how it is a mouse can make its way 2 meters up in to our pantry, so how is it that someone can claim to prove God does not exist?

According to the Times (where all information for this piece comes from) the scientific journal Nature says that the fact that the human brain is a product of evolution is "unassailable fact". A headline for the editorial in which this quote appeared said; "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."

Why?

Well I think the base problem is not that scientists as a stereotype seemingly hate all organized religion and faith, but rather the common belief of where the soul is located, and from whence it springs.

Richard Dawkins, the author of the popular book The God Delusion, is also used an example against the existence of a soul belonging solely (sorry) to the human race. The man who believes that religion is akin to a disease though, has no respect in my eyes. Yes, I have read his book and no I do not believe he has any idea what he is talking about when it comes to religion and faith!

My faith as a Christian (I'm a Baptist by the way) is not something that I am willing to put on the backburner; nor do I feel any need to. I am not in any way having to juggle my scientific, political, and sociological beliefs with my faith in a God and a Savior. In fact, it is my faith that helps me to realize that I don't know everything; I know a hell of a lot, but I don't know everything.

So what is the base problem of the argument?

I believe it is that people have relegated the human soul to something that is connected to our feelings, rather than to what we are in the universe.

The Times article is more than willing to suggest that due to our ever increasing similarities to the beasts of the field and birds of the air, we either do not have a soul or that the animals do. Well, once again, why is there an either/or situation present? Why cannot an animal have a soul? Without a doubt my cat has an intelligence that beats some people I currently have to interact with; what about Tabby says she doesn't have a soul. From the article;

"Evolutionary biology shows the transition from animal to human to be too gradual to make sense of the idea that we humans have souls while animals do not," wrote Dr. Murphy, an ordained minister in the Church of the Brethren. "All the human capacities once attributed to the mind or soul are now being fruitfully studied as brain processes -- or, more accurately, I should say, processes involving the brain, the rest of the nervous system and other bodily systems, all interacting with the socio-cultural world."

I agree 100%! In fact, when was there a doubt? The belief that has apparently existed that humans have both feelings and a soul, but animals have feelings but no soul, is contradictory in nature. If humans have forever linked soul and feelings together, why were animals relegated to the soulless?

Another quote from the Times article sums up my view on this perfectly;

Dr. Haught, who testified for the "More articles about American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)" American Civil Liberties Union when it successfully challenged the teaching of intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism, in the science classrooms of Dover, Pa., said, "The way I look at it, instead of eliminating the notion of a human soul in order to make us humans fit seamlessly into the rest of nature, it's wiser to recognize that there is something analogous to soul in all living beings."

Kenneth R. Miller, a biologist at Brown University, says that discussing the soul as a scientific subject is not the right path to take; "It is not physical and investigateable in the world of science." The man of faith is right; people are attempting to apply modern scientific principles to something that has, for all of history, remained a subject of metaphysics, rather than science.

"Everything we know about the biological sciences says that life is a phenomenon of physics and chemistry, and therefore the notion of some sort of spirit to animate it and give the flesh a life really doesn't fit with modern science," said Dr. Miller, a Roman Catholic whose book, "Finding Darwin's God" (Harper, 1999) explains his reconciliation of the theory of evolution with religious faith. "However, if you regard the soul as something else, as you might, say, the spiritual reflection of your individuality as a human being, then the theology of the soul it seems to me is on firm ground."

I'm gonna wrap it up now by answering a few simple questions.