Has evolution wired us for sin?

[Ophiolite]

Correction, science relies on interpreting evidence through the bias of the scientist.

Which, as it is recognised, is why all findings are subject not only to the rigorous, structured approach to hypothesis formation and testing, but that formal and informal peer review, by many scientists, on a well nigh continuous basis, prevents the long term survival of biased conclusions.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The Neuroscience of the Seven Deadly Sins -​

Brain researchers are finding the sources of our nastiest temptations.​

​

Why does being bad feel so good?​

​

The most enjoyable sins engage the brain’s reward circuitry, including evolutionarily ancient regions such as the nucleus accumbens and hypothalamus; located deep in the brain, they provide us such fundamental feelings as pain, pleasure, reward, and punishment. More disagreeable forms of sin such as wrath and envy enlist the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex. This area, buried in the front of the brain, is often called the brain’s conflict detector, coming online when you are confronted with contradictory information or even simply when you feel pain. The more social sins (pride, envy, lust, wrath) recruit the medial prefrontal cortex. Found just behind the forehead, this region helps shape the awareness of self.​

​

It might be too strong to claim that evolution has wired us for sin, but excessive indulgence in lust or greed could certainly put you ahead of your competitors. “Many of these sins you could think of as virtues taken to the extreme,” says Adam Safron, a research consultant at Northwestern University whose neuroimaging studies focus on sexual behavior. “From the perspective of natural selection, you want the organism to eat, to procreate, so you make them rewarding. But there’s a potential for that process to go beyond the bounds.”​

​

View attachment 325746​

CS Lewis would certainly agree that “Many of these sins you could think of as virtues taken to the extreme,” — (not that the fact he would agree determines the truth of it...)

In that same vein, biologically we are wired, evolution or not, for self-preservation and self-interest, and there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. And those two necessarily invoke competition at times —but note: Personal Responsibility is not synonymous with Self-Determination, and there we begin to run into a problem. People insist on doing-for-themselves apart from their Creator, who said, "Apart from me you can do nothing."

 

[Mark Quayle]

Which, as it is recognised, is why all findings are subject not only to the rigorous, structured approach to hypothesis formation and testing, but that formal and informal peer review, by many scientists, on a well nigh continuous basis, prevents the long term survival of biased conclusions.

Or, if bell-weather and status quo loves the biased conclusion, goes out of its way to continue the bias, even to the point of ridicule or censure of dissenting voices. The shout-down happens all the time: "He's a Climate-Denier!", etc. But yes, you are correct; in the end, it all comes around, though not necessarily by the means you refer to here.

 

[Frank Robert]

People insist on doing-for-themselves apart from their Creator, who said, "Apart from me you can do nothing."

~30% are Christian leaving 70% who have no or little experience of the Christian Creator. I am not saying they would not know right from wrong, only that their experiences would weight heavily on their choices.

 

[Mark Quayle]

~30% are Christian leaving 70% who have no or little experience of the Christian Creator. I am not saying they would not know right from wrong, only that their experiences would weight heavily on their choices.

You have a point, but, I've got my sincere doubts that the whole 30% represents "know God" and "depend on God", nor, for that matter, that there aren't many of the 70% who in their secrets cry out to God, "have mercy on me a sinner".