davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
What a load of crap.
Evolution & Creationism: Why can't people believe both?
- Thread starter seekeroftheway
- Start date
What a load of crap.
Not really, although he did sum it up rather briefly.
You need to recognise that organisms are inherently selfish - and that leads to morality.
There's a bunch of cavemen in a cave...
The first caveman, Bob, looks over at Ted. Now Ted happens to be the best fire starter Bob has ever seen. Without Ted's abilities, Bob would probably freeze to death pretty quickly. Because of that Bob does not beat him around the head for no good reason. He then looks at Mop who happens to be the best hunter Bob has ever seen. If he beats Mop to death it's likely he will starve to death very soon. Behind Mop is Linda, a beautiful cavewoman. If Bob beats her to death for no good reason he won't get laid. The thing is though, Jop has got his eyes on Linda too, so Bob goes about beating him to death.
Morality merely serves your own needs.
Well, at least two of them, Simon Magus and Theudas, are referenced in the New Testament.
Theudas and Athronges are referenced by the historian Flavius Josephus, who I believe is the only historical source of any mention of Jesus outside of the bible (although many believe Josephus's mention of Jesus to be a forgery from centuries later).
Simon Magus is referenced by numerous historians.
I'll agree that his description is poor, and I would not have phrased this concept that way. That said, the evidence that there is an evolutionary basis for altruism is actually very, very strong.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
I think Simon is the one mentioned by Paul, who lived obviously after Jesus.
But is the date of the other two before Jesus?
I think this is also short-sighted.
The thing all of these characters likely share is the vast quantity of their genes. Evolution by natural selection is the study of which genes get passed on. Generally speaking, any gene which is going to influence the organism it defines in a way which makes that gene more likely to survive is going to get passed. There's no need for that influence to appear in the form of a conscious decision on the part of the organism.
In general, the way this has presented in most organisms is that we are altruistic toward other organisms which we view as similar to ourselves, and to the degree we view them as similar. This presents in situations where we tend to care more about our close kin than distant kin, more about our close social groups than loose social groups, and more about a bunny than a bug.
Roughly the same time.
Oh, I don't doubt evolution. When it's used as an all encompassing theory as a worldview however, there are insurmountable difficulties.
In terms of morality, I don't think evolution fits; the view that altruistic genes were passed down to us and now the great majority of us feel that unselfish behaviour is "right".
An individuals self-sacrificing, altruistic behaviour toward his or her own blood kin might result in a greater survival rate for the individual's family or extended clan, and therefore result in a greater number of people. However, for evolutionary purposes the opposite response - hostility to all people outside ones group - should be just as widely considered moral and right behaviour. Yet today we believe that sacrificing time, money, emotion and even life - especially for someone "not of our kind" or tribe - is right.
If we see a total stranger fall in the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if the person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection? Such people would have been less likely to survive and pass on their genes. On the basis of strict evolutionary naturalism, that kind of altruism should have died out of the human race long ago. Instead, it's stronger than ever.
Last edited:
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
I was under the impression that in evolution there is no right or wrong, it is just a process.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
They lived (at least one of them I saw) around the time of Jesus, but when did they start claiming they were the messiah?
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Putting it like that does peek my interest.
How do scientists apply the scientific method to make this plausible?
Anthronges, apparently, was at least a decade or two before Jesus. Theudas could either have been during Jesus's lifetime or right before it. The only date concerning Simon I found was the he was alive in 37 A.D. (and, apparently, noteworthy).
All of which I think is a little beside the point. I'm simply saying that men claiming to be the messiah were fairly common. Jesus was not the first (and clearly, not the last)
I still wish I could find the source of the interview I first heard this in. If I do, I'll let you know.
There's an entire book about it, but I'm not sure you'll appreciate the author.
There's no morality, certainly. I'm simply saying that altruistic behavior is an evolved behavior.
Most of those items are either not always regarded as immoral by humans, not always contrary to the survival of "our" genes, or both.
An evolutionary explanation for morality that had the ambition of describing specific moral prohibitions as evolutionarily fixed would have to avoid focusing on one cultural system's morality.
As far as altruism, it's widespread in the world. Mammals, insects, birds, even some plants, sacrifice their own immediate good for their associates' in many circumstances. Humans do it in more complex and socially mediated ways, but that's how humans do most everything.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
It is interesting how these popped up around the time of Jesus, it seems, and how they increased after Jesus said what he did.
I'm suspicious of the source, I mean everyone claims that Josephus writings on Jesus were suspicious, so what source do the Jews use to claim he was a false messiah?
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
In your opinion how could the scientific method be used to verify this theory?
What source do you use to calim that he was?
Actually, 2 of the 3 seemed to be before him, so I don't see the increase.
At the very least, you have to admit that predicting more messiahs doesn't seem to have been a particularly impressive prediction.
Not sure what you mean.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Faith.