I have tried my best to strike a compromise between outright Creationism and Evolutionary Theory as it currently stands following the Modern Synthesis, pulling together many strands of Biology (which unify the theory of evolution) and possibly in its new form as Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. However, there is one thing that sticks in my craw: if humans did evolve then we are soulless creatures in a meaningless existence.
As a rule the theory of evolution cannot accommodate the existence of a soul above and beyond human consciousness.

However, theism depends upon the existence of a soul, an independent existence that has both corporeal and non-corporeal form. This invisible entity is improved or damaged by religious and the day-to-day vicissitudes of life. It either bears the scars of a life badly lived or reaches a higher level of existence as a result of self-sacrifice and humble actions.

To my mind, there can be no compromise between Evolution and Creationism, it is either one oe the other. Any views...?

Of Course it does!

That's why we are on earth...
To evolve/enlighten our soul.

We are only in physical form once, you know..
Make the best of it!

I don't think the soul evolves. Let's see, the soul can be seen as the basic or fundamental consciousness of a single entity. This consciousness develops a spirit, which is a "manifestation" or "reflection" of the soul. In other words, the soul is the part that processes things, the core if you will, and the spirit is the one that gains experience and evolves. At least, that's the way i see it.

We evolve, through a succession of progressive experiences. I can attest that at least we are not the same as we were before and after a human experience, it changes us, and adds to our over all spectrum of knowledge and experience.

(I remember existing before this life, so one life policy need not apply) However we do only live once as this life, so do make the most of it.

I simply do not see why evolutionary theory would mean that a "soul" could not exist.

It would only mean that science is unable as yet to locate or identify any "thing" that we might call a soul. However, any good scientist would agree that the lack of ability to identify or locate a thing does not mean such a thing cannot exist.

Not having found something, and conclusively disproving something are very different matters.

All evolutionary theory says is that creation as the Christian Bible states creation occurring, in literal terms of days and time frame, with creatures being created in their present form, could not have happened.

Evolutionary theory could not say anything at all about a "soul" because it is wholly unable to measure or quantify a "soul." It also cannot disprove a "God" or Divine being. (For the very same reason) What it can show is that as the Bible states the creation of life, it is wrong. Thats it. It cannot do anything more than that. Life simply did not show up on Earth THAT way.

Creationists and Scientists alike tend to go from that conclusion to make broad sweeping statements about what that means for a "God" or a "soul" but in truth, they are taking a very simple and limited conclusion and expanding it further than evidence should allow.

If some creationists were able to accept their sacred texts as being written by humans with limited understanding of nature, and allegorical, rather than the literal word of God, there could be compromise.

If some scientists did not rush out discounting all spiritual ideas because one was found not to be factual, there could be compromise.

The dispute is not between "science" and "God" it is between two stubborn dogmatic groups of people with axes to grind.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I simply do not see why evolutionary theory would mean that a "soul" could not exist.

Because the origin of the soul is seen by theists to require a Creator or Creative Force. This is untenable for the followers of evolutionist 'dogma.'

It would only mean that science is unable as yet to locate or identify any "thing" that we might call a soul. However, any good scientist would agree that the lack of ability to identify or locate a thing does not mean such a thing cannot exist.

Not having found something, and conclusively disproving something are very different matters.

I would love to agree with you because evolutionary theory has a weight of apparent evidence behind it with a good story/theory about how we advanced to the point that we developed language and self awareness. However, I believe that Dawkins et al would be much happier to consider humans as soulless creatures whose existentialism has its own justification and meaning and that there is nothing beyond this life. Buddhists may think differently, but then they are not as vociferous as the evolutionists.

All evolutionary theory says is that creation as the Christian Bible states creation occurring, in literal terms of days and time frame, with creatures being created in their present form, could not have happened.

You know as well as I do that the wording allows for interpretation of 'days' as 'era' or 'aeons.' So there is an opening here for people of reason to reconsider the time scales.

If some creationists were able to accept their sacred texts as being written by humans with limited understanding of nature, and allegorical, rather than the literal word of God, there could be compromise.

I agree with you on some of your assertions. However, evolutionary theory would have to come up with an explanation of how soul/ego/consciousness comes about. IMHO, they would prefer to believe in epiphenomenalism which considers that the consciousness or ego is akin to a foam on the noise of brain activity - that then consigns all human experience: love, compassion, hate, art, knowledge... to the waste bin of a side effect to the evolution of brain evolution. How sad is that?

If some scientists did not rush out discounting all spiritual ideas because one was found not to be factual, there could be compromise.

The dispute is not between "science" and "God" it is between two stubborn dogmatic groups of people with axes to grind.

You have a good attitude to find a compromise. I have tried and failed and in this Board you will not find many open-minded enough to even consider a compromise between Creatioinism and Evolutionism. It is a Hegelian fight of theis against antithesis until one crumbles. What a pity!

For those of us who believe in reincarnation, it most certainly does! That's the whole point of reincarnating. As to your base question about if evolution is true, then we were soulless creatures once, this is also true. The 'soul' came with self awareness. As this energy became more organized, it began to evolve. Before anyone dismisses reincarnation, I would ask that you try some form of 'past life regression'. Once you have experience this, your views on the subject change drastically. If you are a skeptic, even better, as the results will be shocking to you!

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
For those of us who believe in reincarnation, it most certainly does! That's the whole point of reincarnating. As to your base question about if evolution is true, then we were soulless creatures once, this is also true. The 'soul' came with self awareness. As this energy became more organized, it began to evolve. Before anyone dismisses reincarnation, I would ask that you try some form of 'past life regression'. Once you have experience this, your views on the subject change drastically. If you are a skeptic, even better, as the results will be shocking to you!

If everyone is reincarnated, are there enough souls to go round? There are more people on the Earth now than there ever have been in recorded history. Where did the new souls come from? I am open minded on this topic, but are there any empirical studies which back up the detail of a past life. for example if you remember being a farmer in Essex in medieval times, do you know the names of the squires and noblemen of the area as well as your companions? And can this information be independently verified by checking Church records?

In 'recorded history'. As a species, we date back more than 100,000 years. Some antropologists say as much as 200,000 years!

ED. There are several cases where past life memories have been verified. I will try to find such a case online and provide a link in a future post. Off the top of my head though, I would have to point out the Dali Lama.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by JaxonRoberts]

[edit on 20-9-2008 by JaxonRoberts]