Where Does Love Come From?

[St. Worm2]

If evolutionists are correct, and the world is merely the result of time, chance and impersonal forces of energy, acting on impersonal, inanimate chemicals, where did personal love come from? Well, of course, the only answer must be, like everything else, it evolved.

But How?

I’ve never seen an answer for that, how do you evolve love? In fact, how did the whole range of emotional, mental, and willful characteristics, which we humans possess, evolve? What plausible, naturalistic, materialistic evolutionary mechanism, brought them into existence in the first place?

Even More -- If evolution is true, why would such a characteristic as love evolve??

Evolution is a process of “survival of the fittest”. Those who are “unfit” -- the weak and the helpless, the disabled and the inferior -- do not survive! The evolutionary world is very much a “dog eat dog” world, where only the “strong”, and the “best”, and the “most powerful” survive, in the struggle for existence.

Love (in its most highly prized form), is SELFLESS, self- denying and self-sacrificing, just the opposite of evolution! Love champions the weak. Love comes from a place of submission and surrender. Most evolutionists like love and see it as a virtue, but their theory runs at cross purposes with it.

Love cares for the handicapped, and the debilitated, and the less fortunate. Evolution Destroys Them! If ultimate reality is evolution, again, why is there such a thing as “love”?

Nobel prize winner and Atheistic biologist, Jacques Monod, said it well:

“Natural selection, the process of evolution, is the blindest and most cruel way of evolving new species. The struggle for life and the elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our modern ethics revolts.”

Morality and love are fundamentally incompatible with an “evolutionary” explanation of life. (by Pastor John D. Grossmann .. excerpted from his sermon entitled, “Where Does Love Come From”, December 5th, 2004)


Yours and His,
David

 

[Vance]

You are neglecting the necessary ingredient of Theistic Evolution, which is found in the "theistic" part.

 

[SBG]

You are neglecting the necessary ingredient of Theistic Evolution, which is found in the "theistic" part.

This is what makes your position so beautiful. When you cannot explain from the science side, you jump to the God did it side. And when it comes to the science side and your opposition uses the 'God did it' theistic evolutionists jump on the one who said it, for saying it, claiming it is an invalid response.

What this forum could use is what FOX does, Fair and Balance. hehe.

 

[St. Worm2]

You are neglecting the necessary ingredient of Theistic Evolution, which is found in the "theistic" part.

Well, perhaps, but evolution is evolution, yes (or am I missing something)? If God chose to set things in motion and let evolution's, 'survival of the fittest', rule the universe, then my proposition still stands. Or are you saying that the evolutionary part of Theistic Evolution is not really evolution as we know it to be? If it is however, can one of the most intrinsic principles of true evolution, "survival of the fittest", and a love that cares for the handicapped, and the debilitated, and the less fortunate, and the weak, work together somehow? I really don't think so Vance, you just can't have it both ways.

Yours and His,
David

 

[Gold Dragon]

A large part of your confusion is a misunderstanding of evolution. Regarding "survival of the fittest", it is a common misunderstanding that this phrase accurately describes what happens in the process of natural selection which is a key mechanism of evolution. It is also misunderstood that qualities such as selflessness and love are not important in evolution. This link from PBS describes it well.

PBS : Evolution FAQ

8. Are evolution and "survival of the fittest" the same thing?

Evolution and "survival of the fittest" are not the same thing. Evolution refers to the cumulative changes in a population or species through time. "Survival of the fittest" is a popular term that refers to the process of natural selection, a mechanism that drives evolutionary change. Natural selection works by giving individuals who are better adapted to a given set of environmental conditions an advantage over those that are not as well adapted. Survival of the fittest usually makes one think of the biggest, strongest, or smartest individuals being the winners, but in a biological sense, evolutionary fitness refers to the ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment. Popular interpretations of "survival of the fittest" typically ignore the importance of both reproduction and cooperation. To survive but not pass on one's genes to the next generation is to be biologically unfit. And many organisms are the "fittest" because they cooperate with other organisms, rather than competing with them.

Here is their response to the statement about evolution being random chance.

PBS : Evolution FAQ

7. Is evolution a random process?

Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Where does love come from? As Vance said, you are missing thing Theistic part. God is love and the source of love.

 

[St. Worm2]

This is what makes your position so beautiful. When you cannot explain from the science side, you jump to the God did it side. And when it comes to the science side and your opposition uses the 'God did it' theistic evolutionists jump on the one who said it, for saying it, claiming it is an invalid response.

What this forum could use is what FOX does, Fair and Balance. hehe.

Hi SBG, you're right in a way, but the problem is this, both sides have their own "science", and both sides believe their "science" to be correct .. But the point I am making is a little more difficult to argue (at least IMHO .. ). Unless you can remove the call of God to support, protect, and love the "weak", the "poor", the "oppressed", and the "sick" from the Bible, or somehow remove the intrinsic evolutionary principle of "survival of the fittest" from evolution, then perhaps we are truly one step closer to understanding how correct YEC is!*


- Sorry, I just couldn't help myself!*


Yours and His,
David

 

[SBG]

Hi SBG, you're right in a way, but the problem is this, both sides have their own "science", and both sides believe their "science" to be correct .. But the point I am making is a little more difficult to argue (at least IMHO .. ). Unless you can remove the call of God to support, protect, and love the "weak", the "poor", the "oppresed", and the "sick" from the Bible, or somehow remove the intrinsic evolutionary principle of "survival of the fittest" from evolution, then perhaps we are truly one step closer to understanding how correct YEC is!*


- Sorry, I just couldn't help myself!*


Yours and His,
David

Hello there St. Worm! I would agree with you. One science is based on man's understanding of the world as he wants to see. Another science is based on a Biblical account.

That is why it doesn't surprise me the attacks made daily on creationists, because their science original began in the Bible.

You do have to give the theistic evolutionists some credit though, at least they are trying ammend the science without God by including God. I don't agree with them, and I find numerous Scriptural problems with it, but at least God is being talked about. That isn't such a bad thing.

 

[Vance]

The point is that the two issues ARE intertwined, it is not just "jumping back and forth", it is just recognizing that the two are not mutually exclusive. They both work together, or better, God MAKES evolution work, which means it is designed to accomplish His goals, just like every natural process we see in the universe today. And, yes, that IS the beauty of this approach. It is the sheer awe and wonder of God's amazing and boundless creation in all its complexity, history and development. God is truly God.

 

[gluadys]

Even More -- If evolution is true, why would such a characteristic as love evolve??[/size]

Evolution is a process of “survival of the fittest”. Those who are “unfit” -- the weak and the helpless, the disabled and the inferior -- do not survive! The evolutionary world is very much a “dog eat dog” world, where only the “strong”, and the “best”, and the “most powerful” survive, in the struggle for existence.

Love (in its most highly prized form), is SELFLESS, self- denying and self-sacrificing, just the opposite of evolution! Love champions the weak. Love comes from a place of submission and surrender. Most evolutionists like love and see it as a virtue, but their theory runs at cross purposes with it.

See Gold Dragon's response. This description is based on a misinterpretation of "fittest" to mean the largest, strongest, most selfish, etc. But who says those things make an organism fit to survive?

Nature is full of examples of mutual cooperation and dependence. Species whose members practice self-sacrifice for the welfare of their kin or their community seem to do as well or better as those in which intense competition is the rule.

If love increases the fitness of a species, those who practice love will survive.

I’ve never seen an answer for that, how do you evolve love? In fact, how did the whole range of emotional, mental, and willful characteristics, which we humans possess, evolve? What plausible, naturalistic, materialistic evolutionary mechanism, brought them into existence in the first place?

There are probably two parts to this. One way to evolve love would be through the introduction of parenting. Most species do not care for their offspring. They reproduce and either die or leave their eggs behind to hatch on their own. But we see increasingly with higher animals that the parents are more and more involved in the protection of their eggs and in the care of their young.

This has obvious evolutionary value as the protection of eggs and care of the young makes it more likely the next generation will survive. But it also sets up bonds between parent and child.

In addition, it creates a bond between the male and female parent. There are many species in which male and female mate for life, and maintain that bond with much greater fidelity than humans do.

We also see in some species, individuals who remain single, but attached to a mated pair, and sharing in the care of the young. This has often been observed among wolves.

In sum, observation shows a significant range of what we might call animal love in different species. And it appears that this is often an ingredient in "fitness" which is favoured by natural selection.

A second naturlistic explanation of love and other emotional attachments relies on the observation that all emotions are accompanied by hormonal secretions. A thoroughgoing materialist would say emotions are caused by these secretions, or even that they are nothing but hormonal reactions. I would not go that far. I consider it may be the emotion that stimulates the hormones rather than the reverse.

In any case, I don't see a problem with God seeing to it that species evolved the necessary hormonal secretions to stimulate and/or amplify emotional responses. Again, there is no evolutionary problem with this. If parenting is a good way to ensure survival of the next generation, then any hormonal secretion that strengthens a parental bond will be favoured by natural selection.

I expect both of these scenarios would support each other as God prepared us for conscious awareness of love for each other and supremely of the love of God.