Yes, but phagocytes don’t eat bacteria for nourishment; they are simply getting rid of the bacteria before it harms the body.
Death is a necessary part of life. Cells have a definite life span. There is programmed cell death call apoptosis. A cell that ignores the signal to die is cancerous.
I don’t know what this means. Science says nothing about why things are the way they are. And the Bible is not clear on the origins of evil, natural or otherwise.
I have no strongly held theory, but Tolkien in the first chapter of the Silmarillion depicts a poetic version of Lewis’s idea. The Satan figure tries to introduce dissonant notes into God’s creation symphony. God picks them up and incorporates them, creating something both tragic and beautiful and ultimately redemptive.
Evolution is a vicious cruel process… The Lewis- Tolkien suggestion is as good a theological explanation for it as any.
Sure it does. It explains natural phenomena.
My point was that it explains natural phenomena, but not God’s reasons for why He does things. Science tells us the medical reasons why people and animals suffer from horrible diseases, for example, but not what God’s reasons are for this.
True. God’s actions and reasons, as important as they are, is outside the scope of science. And that’s a good thing.
I myself have used Lewis’s notion of the hnakra water monster as an analogue to Leviathan in God’s speech to Job. Both are dangerous, but neither is evil.
The question of animal suffering and death continues to bother me. I find it difficult to reconcile with the traditional claim that God is not the author of death. C. S. Lewis presents the imaginative alternative in Out of the Silent Planet, where mortality is natural and unfeared by the unfallen races of Malacandra. FWIW, I share some of thoughts in this article, with reference to Dr Solleweder’s article: C. S. Lewis and the Fall: Must Death Always be Evil? | Eclectic Orthodoxy.
And you should be bothered by it. That’s why I’m a Unitarian.
Adopting a 6 day creation is certainly not the solution, because the Flood (which is usually associated with a 6 day creation revelation) was unnecessarily vicious.
Some interesting facts about that observation. Larger brains do require more energy, which doesn’t necessarily require meat eating, but definitely requires more calorie intake to supply the brain’s energy demands. Thus, as hominids developed larger brains, they required more and more food. (Neanderthal actually had larger cranial capacity than us, by the way.) What is interesting is that after the invention of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, the trend toward larger body and brain size reversed, and H. sapiens actually began to shrink until about the Napoleonic era, when we began to grow slightly larger again. (Mostly around the middle! haha) Presently, our cranial capacity is still less than that of the first humans.
Sorry for the interruption. Carry on …
Are you sure about that?
It seems pretty settled. Here’s a short bit from a 2010 article in Discovery magazine:
Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he (John Hawks) says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” If our brain keeps dwindling at that rate over the next 20,000 years, it will start to approach the size of that found in Homo erectus, a relative that lived half a million years ago and had a brain volume of only 1,100 cc. … After meeting with Hawks, I call around to other experts to see if they know about our shrinking brain. Geneticists who study the evolution of the human genome seem as surprised as I am (typical response: “No kidding!”), which makes me wonder if I’m the world’s most gullible person. But no, Hawks is not pulling my leg. As I soon discover, only a tight-knit circle of paleontologists seem to be in on the secret, and even they seem a bit muddled about the matter. Their theories as to why the human brain is shrinking are all over the map.
The Wikipedia entry on brain size is useful, although the usual caveats to relying on Wiki for accuracy still apply.
The H. naledi thing is so new that even the scientists can’t seem to figure out where to “slot” that discovery. I probably should keep my mouth shut on that front until someone smarter than me decides how it fits into the overall narrative.
Edit: I should also note for the record that I was wrong about the agriculture connection and 10,000 years. The shrinkage began 20 kya, so it predates the invention of agriculture, which is why that early theory about agriculture contributing to our “decline” has mostly been discarded.
This finding of Homo sapiens having a smaller brain than prior hominids seems to only upset the people who think there is something called Devolution.
Neanderthal was a very robust and muscular hominid; his brain size correlates to the massiveness of his body.
Sapiens economized on body size (much like mammoths isolated on small islands and limited food supply) also economized on body size.
Part of the reduction in protein intake would be in having a smaller brain to regulate the smaller body mass … while still developing more complex neo-cortex connections… effectively increasing the ratio of cortex tissue to body size.
One hopes that further investigation sheds more light on the very interesting H. naled primates. The article you cited illustrates that even good scientists tend to exaggerate early evidence in order to gather support for their continued work. Note that in the title the claim is made that H. naled HAD a tiny but advanced brain. QUESTION: Advanced in what way and based upon what evidence? The article begins with a statement I believe is most crucial: It’s not the size of your brain, it’s how you organise it. In a previous post I have cited the evidence of a Frenchman, operating in today’s modern society, whose brain scan shows a brain size about the same as Lucy’s, the famous A. afarensis. The Frenchman’s brain was normal sized at birth, but as it was being organized (programmed) while he was young, parts of it were gradually being ‘dissolved’ by the pressures of hydrocephalus that he was born with.
Evidence that his brain had become organized is provided by the fact that he fits into modern society (with perhaps an IQ of slightly less than 100). The only evidence that H naled’s brain was organized seems to be that they may have purposely disposed of their dead in a natural cave opening. That may have been merely for sanitary reasons. I claim no expertise in anatomy or paleontology, but just from a skull cast it seems quite a leap of faith to say that H. naled’s BA-45 area (needed for cognition) seems larger than a modern chimp’s. Even if so, is it better organized.?? It seems wiser to wait for further evidence to reach any conclusions as to where H. naled fits on the evolutionary road to humankind.
Al Leo
To re-repeat: Brain SIZE is a red herring in determining when primates became human. Some 3 million years ago Lucy’s brain was large enough if it were optimally organized (programmed). But evolution cannot ‘seek out’ the optimum. Was the GLF that occurred some 40 K yrs ago just ‘dumb luck’, bound to happen sooner or later, or was it God’s plan? I’ve made a choice that satisfies me.
Al Leo
You should be careful with quoting “outdated” articles from 2010 
. Just kidding, I don’t think the overall picture presented in that quote will change much.
It will be interesting to see how Homo Naledi will fit into the bigger picture when they’ve got it all sorted out!
At the end of the day …
Sapiens are still here and Naledi are still gone.
Sounds like a great finale to a wonderful story …
I will eventually get to the subject “C.S. Lewis on Evil” but first a slight digression to relate an experience I had on Father’s Day. (And a belated good wishes to the fathers who participate in this Forum!)
The Good Lord has blessed me with a long life (91+ yrs.) and having so much of my progeny living close by that want to celebrate holidays with me at ‘the old homestead’, which does have a large backyard and swimming pool to entertain all the young folk. Watching my eight great grandkids tossing Frizbees, playing bocci ball and romping in the pool made for a memorable Father’s Day. But an especial treat was watching my youngest–three year old, Olivia, with her curly blond hair and inquisitive mind soaking up all the new experiences from her surroundings. She chased a pair of fluttering monarch butterflies just out of her reach as they performed their amazing mating dance. (How do they manage such acrobatics?). Then she sat on the steps of the swimming pool watching her cousins, aunts and uncles squirting each other with water pistols. Finally, uttering a little sigh, she said: “I like this place!”
Isn’t that what we hope God intended for all of us to think about this wonderful earth he created for us? We get that idea when we read Genesis. I would give just about anything if I could be sure that Olivia (and all her generation) would still feel that way about our World when she reaches the age of 13, or 23, or 63. At the age of three she is soaking up information from a variety of sources–most good sources, thankfully. But what about all the other 3 yr. olds in the rest of the world, especially in the poorer countries? In what direction will they be headed ten or twenty years from now?
Back to topic: C.S. Lewis on Evil & Evolution. Moral Evil can exist only for creatures that have a mind that can distinguish right from wrong; i.e. a conscience. But pain and death appear to be a natural part of all sensate animal life. If evolution is indeed God’s chosen method of creating a variety of life, then it seems to make sense that he sees to it that parents are rewarded if they stick around long enough to teach their offspring the best ways of improving their lives. A simple example is how a mother hen shows her chicks what is good to eat and what is not. But it is not that simple, as a recent Nova TV program on Australian Dingos showed. After running down and disabling a young kangaroo, the parent dingos lolled in the shade watching their offspring learning the lesson of the day: what should your food smell and taste like. The kangaroo would wince in pain as one dingo pup chewed on his ear and another chewed on his genitals.
Previously I have been satisfied with the evolutionary explanation that the pair bonding that led to mating for life so both were available for teaching the resultant offspring–thus increasing their survival chances–was God’s way eventually of encouraging and blessing human marriage and family life. But is God really happy with the way it works out for Dingos? Frankly, I am confused, and C.C. Lewis is not much help. Can anybody out there do any better?
Al Leo
Reading of your kids and grandkids was truly a blessing. Thank you for sharing. As to C.S. Lewis, not sure it is relevant, but one of my favorite stories of him was when asked as to whether animals went to heaven, he replied that he could see how God could incorporate a heaven for mosquitoes and a hell for man in the same place.
I’m in Ecuador at the moment, and after touring a bit in Quito, and then also experiencing the hospitality (even if just as an educational tourist) of a Quechua community farther south, it is driven home to me at the moment how easy it is for us to think of our own home cultures as the norms against which all suffering or luxury would be measured. For example in the U.S. most of us might think that not having toilet paper available in every facility would be more than an inconvenience --some might even call it suffering. But in some other places they don’t see it that way and nor do they seem (so far as I’ve seen) to go around feeling as if they’re suffering some deprivation in that way. They just don’t feel the same “need” that so many others have been socialized to feel in the area of commode hygiene. Now I know this little example is a far cry from torture, or “red in tooth and claw” life/death struggles, or abject poverty. Those do indeed raise the discussion to a higher level that you perhaps intend, but it does convince me that it is always a fool’s errand to think that our own ideas of what makes for paradise or punishment are somehow the gold standards across all times and cultures.
Edit … why bless me if I haven’t gone and left out the point I was working towards … So does anybody here think “developed” countries should go find those “poor” happy three year olds and inform them how miserable and wretched they really are without instant personal access to first world marketing channels (or rather marketers’ access to them is the only way that really works) and without ready access to all the healthcare they might need (actually that sounds pretty good to me too - I do live in the U.S. after all) and also deprived of labor-saving mechanization on their mountainside farms where no tractor could stay upright? They have the audacity to be carrying on in life sometimes with radiant smiles and laughs. Somebody really needs to be educating them about how miserable they really are. (sarcasm, that). I know that corporate marketers are working in deadly earnest on that task. Given that they have already have us in their clutches, I’m pretty sure our view of paradise or punishment either one is hopelessly skewed from some real gold standard. I think, Al, that as you enjoy your family, you, like all of us, are catching glimpses of the real thing heaped as it might be with distractions that can prove to be counterfeit. Others, in vastly different circumstances also hit and miss on this in just the same way we do, but in their own cultural terms and levels. That the Christian message cuts right through all that, refusing to respect material poverty, or wealth, comfort, or suffering, any one of those for its own sake, is one of the amazing things about it.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.