Interesting Templeton Question

[natehardee]

I found this sort of interesting.
www.templeton.org/evolution/
I wonder about this a lot and how much it matters to us as Christians. I found it looking for information about Robert Wright. I saw him in an interview talking about his new book "Evolution of God". He is an atheist that believe religion is good for mankind.

[knowingthomas]

Reading the comments, so many responses, it's hard to make a decision. I would be interested in hearing other's input on the question/articles.
The interesting commentary:

I read with delight the blog'lets at this site. I suppose my comment is addressed to all, but Dr. Martin Nowak said something that made me think (which is no mean feat). He writes, "My position is very simple. Evolution has led to a human brain that can gain access to a Platonic world of forms and ideas." My question is "How?" How did evolution lead to the development of a brain larger and more powerful than what is needed to survive? My mountain family would compare it to "hunting rabbit with cannon." In other words, our brains are not only larger than what we need to survive but so large that we are destroying ourselves by the radical changes we make to our environment, unlike other social animals that change their environment only as needed.

In reading Frans de Waal's observations: why are we surprised that humans have no new "parts" mentally over animals, or that animals experience compassion? If we have a common Maker, would there not be a commonality woven throughout all He created/evolved? One can drive by homes designed by Frank L. Wright & without having an interpretive sign out front identifying the designer, one can recognize the architect even through the different "contractors" or species who built them. Our similarity to animals doesn't disprove a creator, though it should inspire respect and protection for all the masterpieces . . . and for the Master of those pieces.

I am rather astonished and perplexed by the fact that, in all these discussions, none of these learned people gave any real credit to the dawn and development of language, especially written language, as a catalyst to the explosive evolutionary development of mankind. With written language, suddenly (anthropologically speaking) the sum of all human knowledge AND human emotion could (and did) start to grow exponentially. Nothing (figuratively) from that point had to be re-learned or re-experienced by subsequent generations. Even God exists as a byproduct of language (with its inescapable duality).

Language released the left brain to make humankind what it is today. Now all we need is a similar revolution to release our right brain, and we will have utopia within the next geological heartbeat.


The Templeton Foundation might as well have asked twelve blind men to describe an elephant as to explain the source of human nature. The answer to the question is no on two accounts. First, among the respondents there is no common understanding of human nature. Only Eva Jablonka identified the initial problem: we must define "human nature." Furthermore, it is not clear in what the nature inheres, as no one, including Darwin, is quite sure what it is to be human. If Homo sapiens consists of a number of closely related varieties, per Darwin, then who--or what--is really human, and how would we know?

The respondents propose that peculiar genetic distinctions have significant evolutionary consequences that imply that Homo sapiens may be divisible into at least a few Darwinian varieties. There are now so many different modes of evolution being investigated that it is not clear what does the evolving or to what the path of natural selection has led. If evolution works through a variety of mechanisms at different rates and produces results difficult to define or discriminate, then the existence of "human nature" as a unifying concept is problematic.

Second, "human nature" is an abstraction, a conceptualization applied to a group of individuals on an uncertain basis. If "species" is an arbitrary mental construct, then human nature exists primarily as a concept abstracted from individual instances or conditions. It thus has a uniform relation to all individuals precisely as an abstraction, not by measurable properties. In other words, human nature is not a scientific reality--it has no quantifiable properties. It has the same scientific value as saying birds are "bird-like." Can the process of natural selection explain the formulation and content of particular concepts? I doubt it. Is there a particular random process of natural selection for ideas? If Darwin thought so I don't know of it.


I'm surprised that Frans de Waal didn't touch on the concept of the immaterial mind of man. For example: truth, justice, and mercy (which only the mind of man conceives) are immaterial concepts that have no height, weight, shape or colour; they have no material attributes. It stands to reason that the thing that produces them is immaterial too. And, if it is, then evolution or natural processes are not an explanation for human nature since evolution works through material processes.

And, with all due respect to the professor, that is the point he misses (which seems not to have occurred to him) in describing the relation between humans and chimpanzees. Even though a bystanding chimp will go over and console another chimp, the chimp will never pull himself/herself out of that experience and explain it as consoling or sympathizing. But we do. And it is on that difference that human nature can't be explained through evolution. It is on that difference that we do the art of representation, construct a science, invent, speak a language, or even make acts of faith. That is the whole basis for calling man a rational being.

Think about it: a monkey doesn't draw or do science or hypothesize. A monkey doesn't begin to do it or begin to begin to do it at all. With man, some line has been crossed before it could be crossed at all. So, contrary to what the professor said--that human nature can't be understood in isolation from nature--it can't be understood in relation to nature at all since the mind of man is immaterial.

The facepalmers:

RE: Frans de Waal
molly vollmer
04/17/2009
Hurrah for Frans de Waal! Only when people are willing to give up the need to believe in an omnipotent being who will take care of them will they realize we can do pretty good on our own. A personal code of ethics will be followed more often than one that is imposed.

Martin Nowak writes: "Evolution has led to a human brain that can gain access to a Platonic world of forms and ideas." This is a beautiful and appealing thought. Yet these forms and ideas may be immanent in our world and actualized by our minds, rather than "coming from another world." You would not, I presume, conceive the eternal laws of physics as coming from another world, yet they may be viewed as ultimately giving rise to biological evolution; and biological evolution may have resulted in shaping our minds to reflect these underlying eternal laws. In short: Mathematics, Beethoven, and Mahler do not imply any kind of dualism, although it may be illuminating, sometimes, to think in this manner. Nor does the idea of evolution imply that our conceptions of truth, beauty, or the good are ultimately arbitrary, and we would need religion to supply an anchor because we feel that this is necessary. We may leave things open if we don't know, and keep wondering and marveling.

To infer any other-worldly source is pure superstition; it has no basis in fact and can't be demonstrated.

That's not to say that life has no meaning. It has the meaning we give it. [lol] Bottom line--we are dirt. We come from dirt, we end up as dirt. While we are here, we should be humble.

We have two hands, two feet; we walk on our two feet, we eat with our hands, and we kill with our hands. Where does moral law come from, which river in human nature do we drink from? From Gods, no. It is innate, planted in us from the beginning. It is up to evolution to decide if we become killers or monks. All the praying in the world will not change the fact that our future is stamped on our DNA. Why did some Jews make it out of the death camps alive and others did not? I'm sure most of them prayed for salvation from their fate. There is no salvation from your fate unless you're just plain lucky. Our fate is a crap shoot. It began in a bubbling body of water a long time ago. So evolution does explain human nature, much like the wind explains a sailboat.

It is patently dishonest to attempt to hoist religion onto the back of science. Muddling the two together will not make the one more true. The underlying agenda of this site and the JTF is obvious. Pathetic.

Human beings come into the world with a predisposition to believe in supernatural phenomena. This predisposition is an incidental byproduct of cognitive functioning gone awry.

"Does evolution explain human nature?" Well, then, if evolution cannot explain it, then does belief in, faith in, and supplication to a vainglorious, cruel, self-centered, arrogant, vindictive, anti-life, unjust, and intolerant super-being called "God" explain it? Seems like you've aimed your question in the wrong direction. [Honestly, it's like all the NA comments on the internet are written by one very angry person. They sound all the same!]

Finally, the voice of reason:

Pat Collett
06/12/2009
How extraordinary that in the face of such open-minded discussions there can be so much bigotry displayed by commentators. They surely cannot see beyond their own ego-driven opinions.

[knowingthomas]

Just caught something else too:

RE: Martin Nowak
Wayne Tyson
06/27/2009
Jesus threw the money-changers out of the temple because in any house of God/love/social integration, deals are forbidden. In paradise, needs are met, no demands are made. Gifts like cooperation are not gifts if the deal is reciprocity. Cooperation synergistically moves through the system, creating harmony. Deals lead to koyaanisqatsi.

I wonder how Genesis 18: 26-33 would work into this.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2018:26-33;&version=31;

[jamierobertson]

Thomas, ever read Private Eye? They have a comedy character called Dave Spratt who occasionally rants incomprehensibly on left-wing topics, full of bluster and rhetoric but contradicting himself at every turn. Seeing some of the comments above, I can't help but think of him!

Nate - thanks for that link, it's interesting reading.

EDIT - Re: Wayne Tyson. Never mind Genesis 18, he's have to throw out the whole of Deuteronomy - it is a contract between God and the Israelites, after all.

[humphreyclarke]

Jul 19, 2009 22:46:50 GMT knowingthomas said:

Bottom line--we are dirt. We come from dirt, we end up as dirt. While we are here, we should be humble.

Although this comment comes from an atheist, it's actually very similar to something John Calvin wrote:

'If God had formed us of the stuff of the sun or the stars, or if he had created any other celestial matter out of which man could have been made, then we might have said that our beginning was honourable...but when someone is made of clay, who pays any attention to him?...[so] who are we?, We are all made of mud, and this mud is not just on the hem of our gown, or on the sole of our boots, or in our shoes. We are full of it, we are nothing but mud and filth both inside and outside.'

Or it could be compared to:

'“dust you are, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19)

Jul 19, 2009 22:46:50 GMT knowingthomas said:

I read with delight the blog'lets at this site. I suppose my comment is addressed to all, but Dr. Martin Nowak said something that made me think (which is no mean feat). He writes, "My position is very simple. Evolution has led to a human brain that can gain access to a Platonic world of forms and ideas.

This is actually one of Simon Conway Morris's more far out ideas which he expresses in his more informal lectures. I think he sees the brain as a kind of antenna which evolution moulds to discover higher realities. Hence he believes conciousness is not in the brain. Bit off the wall but far weirder things have been suggested in studies of the 'hard problem of conciousness' which is something of a graveyard of ambition.