sunsong
First, welcome to the fora! I hope you enjoy the conversations.
You wrote:
I don't know that I accept that we as humans could have evolved from an animal, .....I am not even really sure I accept the term "human animal" now that I think about it.
With that said, you are probably going to think I am talking out both sides of my mouth, but, I do think evolution of all creation occurs.
If you ask a doctor or biologist, they do classify humans as "animals" (primates, in fact).
I am also having some personal issues that have created a mental block for me when it comes to this type of thinking.
No problem. Take your time. Our God is certainly a God of understanding.
Know also that we, as Catholics, have a lot of freedom on this topic. The Holy Catholic Church, and Popes in particular, have made it clear that understanding that life on earth (including and especially humans) has evolved from very simple forms into what we see today, is acceptable. The previous Popes John Paul II (on the road to sainthood, now), and Benedict have made multiple statements in support of evolution. So it's clear that the idea of evolution (common descent) itself is not contrary to God's Law. Our Holy Father Pope Francis, to my knowledge, has not yet, but I'm eager to hear what he thinks.
Pope Emeritus Benedict, before he was Pope, chaired a Catholic commission to look at evolution. The full text of their conclusion is here:
Cardinal Ratzinger and International Theological Commission on Creation and Evolution. Paging down to paragraph #63 shows especially clear support for evolution.
Note that in all cases, the Catholic position is clear: Biological evolution may have occurred, and if it did, God was the force behind this process. Versions of evolution that exclude God are incorrect.
While members of some groups/churches of Protestants, Muslims and Jehovah's Witnesses are expressly not allowed to see evolution as real, as Catholics, we are allowed to do so.
You also might want to talk with your priest about it. He no doubt has given this some thought, and is well read in the Holy Scriptures.
In His Name-
Papias
****************************
elopez wrote:
One aspect of our lizardbrain is that since our ancestors thought about reproducing, so do we.
Um, no. Thoughts don't influence evolution. No one is saying that what they thought about somehow changed their genes (and hence ours).
The idea of the lizardbrain is that the desire to have sex (regardless of reproduction) is something that was selected for.
Let me explain. Imagine a group of lizards. These lizards will not all be exactly alike in most aspects. If we look at their brains (as influenced by their DNA), some lizards will have brains will have circuits that make them want to have sex, and others won't.
Obviously, those that want to have sex will seek it out, and have sex. Those that don't have that mutation, won't. So the next generation will be mostly from those who had the DNA to want to have sex. So that next generation of lizards will be now mostly have brains that want to have sex, because those lizards that lacked that mutation tended not to have sex and hence not reproduce.
Of course, that had to happen before the lizard stage (or the lizards wouldn't be there), but "lizard" is the stage they chose to refer to.
That basic concept above is just simple evolutionary selection. It's obviously how things work, and is accepted by pretty much everyone who studies life. So the upshot is that all animals will have brain circuits (resulting from past mutations) which make them desire sex. That too is understood by practically all biologists, and is hence non-controversial.
The "lizardbrain" idea is to refer to those parts of our brain that direct basic instincts, like food, thirst, sex, fighting, danger, etc as the "lizardbrain". (Those needs have been called "the four F's: Fighting, Feeding, Fleeing, and mating). It's commonly thought of as being mostly in the bottom of the brain (as mark said), but that's not important (nor asserted inflexibly - it's likely that some of those "sex desiring" circuits go outside that brain stem area). Even those of us here probalby agree (I do) that some parts of our brain are more involved with sexual and other basic instinct type desires - and hence to have a name for those areas - to call them the "lizardbrain" is reasonable.
As gluadys pointed out, this idea might be useful to some - to personify that part of the brain - to give it a name - so as to more directly deal with desires that are not helpful (like overeating, unhealthy sex, etc.). Thus, someone on a diet who sees ice cream in the fridge can say to themselves "no, lizardbrain, you aren't going to get me to have some now.". I agree - if it helps one live a life of integrity and holiness, then that's a good thing.
-Papias
