Charles Darwin book

[Tye#2]

Dealing with nature and free will is certainly metaphysics.

I'm confused - how would animals killing animals be a "natural sin?" I'm not sure whether I'd agree or disagree, but I'd like to consider it further, so some elaboration would be awesome. Thanks!

I'm not sure if the following has anything to do with animals killing animals, but that's how I'm understanding it. Is it, how do you understand it?

Genesis 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.

[apothanein kerdos]

Dealing with nature and free will is certainly metaphysics.

I'm confused - how would animals killing animals be a "natural sin?" I'm not sure whether I'd agree or disagree, but I'd like to consider it further, so some elaboration would be awesome. Thanks!

Metaphysics, in a philosophical and ethical sense, refers to first causes unbeknownst to scientific thought or the different types of reality. The term comes from the works of Aristotle because it's found after his lectures on Physics, hence meta(Greek for "after) - physics. In this work he speaks of the first cause of everything (first part of the meaning of metaphysics) and then brought this to the "unmoved mover," or the first cause of everything who was completely transcendent and could not have a relationship with us (refer to Aristotle's Ethics...this also meets the second criteria).

A proper term would be "super natural" or "cognitive" or "ontology (nature of being). Using metaphysics, a term that discusses origins and different levels of what is real, is not proper to describe the entire debate on harmatology and man's ability to will on his own. Though any good discussion on either will include some metaphysical background, most of it will deal with ontological levels - is man constricted, does sin truly exist, is sin a make up of the mind, is there truly a morality, etc.

As for how animals killing each other is a "natural sin," theologically all of creation is living in sin, not just humans. This therefore puts the entire system out of whack. We look to natural selection and realize the entire purpose is completley anti-God. Note that it is supposedly rids the least effective species null and void, thus destroying part of God's creation. In the Bible we are told to look after the weak. The reason for this is that nature, in its fallen state, is prone to only seek after the powerful - this is why many philosophers, such as Nietzche or Plato's character Thrasymachus in The Republic, believe that the most powerful man will/should always have power - which is decidedly against God's original plan. This is natural evil/sin, that which occurs naturally without man's advancements. Everyone speaks of how humans cause evil to the enviroment but we often overlook the fact that evil already occurs within the enviroment. Do you believe that entropy is truly part of God's plan? Do you believe that God is pleased when a lion must eat a gazelle for its own survival? How could God be pleased when His creation is constantly at war with itself?

Romans 8 speaks of how this world is groaning because of sin, not because man sins, but because it is also encased in sin. This is what I mean by "natural sin."

[georgesbluegirl]

Interesting thoughts about nature.

By the way, ontology is indeed a more specific term which applies here, but it's also a subdiscipline of metaphysics. Just saying.

[LadyRaven]

The darwinian view does not include the concept of sin to begin with, but even if it did...Some branches of darwinianism teaches that each person evolves through stages like those the 'ancestors' went through and then each generation is more evolved and developed than the previous one, at least in some miniscule amount which might not be noticable but still might exist.

Therefore theoretically, we might not have evolved past our sin nature, however we're supposedly better than our predecessors and thus, theoretically, if evolution allowed for the concept of sin we could over a period of time evolve past it, though progress would seem immeasurable, much like our progress in other areas...

(Frankly this is bunk. My mother had mental problems, but in many other ways she was a superior person to me)

[apothanein kerdos]

Interesting thoughts about nature.

By the way, ontology is indeed a more specific term which applies here, but it's also a subdiscipline of metaphysics. Just saying.

Not always. Whereas metaphysical deals with the first cause of reality and different types of reality, ontologly deals mostly with the make up of things within that reality. Ontology deals with the specific physical results, such as what is observable and what is thinkable, and therefore sin falls into this category, not into the broad realm of metaphysics. By declaring it a metaphysical problem you essentially place it as an "extra-world" problem and one that is above us that invades our reality. Sin resulted from man and therefore is on the same metaphysical plane of existence, manifesting itself in the physical world through its birth through cognitive thought - therefore, it makes no sense to call it a metaphysical problem when it is clearly a subset of ontology.

[John R Nolan]

An English naturalist named Charles Darwin published a book about evolution. Darwin said that God did not create the living world as we know it and as the Bible says. Darwin believed that all living things developed somehow over vast ages of time. He said that invertebrates like insects and jullyfish slowly turned into invertebrates like fish, lizards, and horses. He said that there were no people at first, but then some tree-dwelling, monkeylike creatures with tails, hairy bodies, and pointed ears gradually developed into people. - Understanding God's World by Laurel Hicks and Dawn Mereness

Now, could someone please explain to me if this is true (which it's not) then why hasn't man developed (evolved) past our sinful nature?

[CallMeBernard]

An English naturalist named Charles Darwin published a book about evolution. Darwin said that God did not create the living world as we know it and as the Bible says. Darwin believed that all living things developed somehow over vast ages of time. He said that invertebrates like insects and jullyfish slowly turned into invertebrates like fish, lizards, and horses. He said that there were no people at first, but then some tree-dwelling, monkeylike creatures with tails, hairy bodies, and pointed ears gradually developed into people. - Understanding God's World by Laurel Hicks and Dawn Mereness

Now, could someone please explain to me if this is true (which it's not) then why hasn't man developed (evolved) past our sinful nature?

What affects evolution is the success of a particular individual to pass on its genes. Any variance in that gene- for example those caused by mutations- may result in a change in phenotype (e.g. faster, stronger, better camoflage, etc).

Assuming the change in phenotype is for the better (those that are for the worse tend to die out) then the indiviual is more likely to have successful offspring- which continues the genes etc etc. I'm guessing you already know this.

Man hasn't 'evolved' past Sin since Sin doesn't usually affect our capacity to breed or find a mate- otherwise large sections of our population would now be wondering around partnerless & childless.

If something doesn't affect the breeding or survival of an individual it won't be affected by evolution. Hence Sin is unaffected by the process.

[Pizzaguy]

An English naturalist named Charles Darwin published a book about evolution. Darwin said that God did not create the living world as we know it and as the Bible says.

Not to nit-pic, but....

Darwin wrote "Origin of Species" (I think his original title was "On the Origin of Species", actually.) I have a copy at home I bought while in high school in the 70's. He never said that God did not create the world, all he was doing was trying to prove that living things 'evolve'. I have read his book, and I am not so sure he intended a "Science verses Religion" argument.

I also don't think he proved evolution, he DID prove natural selection, but not evolution.

Edited October 23, 2006 by Pizzaguy

[apothanein kerdos]

I don't think this is exactly right. It seems from the Bible that sin started with satan, and not Adam and Eve. satan is certainly part of creation, and one wicked spirit, but that's about all we know about the rascal.

In a technical sense you are correct (though he still exists on the same metaphysical level as we do). On the other hand, note how Romans 8 (I think) states how sin entered creation through man. THus, though Satan was the originator of rebellion, man was the "perfector" of it and it then spread to creation through our sin.

You are correct that it is a paradox...however it "originated" from man (we were not inherently sinful but did cause the first sin within this world) because we wanted to be autonomous from God.

[Pizzaguy]

The fact that there are extinctions proves natural selection, in its most basic premise anyway.

Evolution however, is another matter entirely.