There is also a related theory in biochemistry that fits here. There is a tendency for people of certain appearances to be attracted to each other (blond hair, blue eyes for example).  This may also apply to folks who not only have certain DNA traits, but also certain DNA mutations.  Most of the time, a mutation is ‘corrected’ in the next generation since the mutation would most likely be the recessive characteristic.  However, if two people who have the mutation are ‘attracted’ to each other, this produces a next generation of the same mutation.  If ‘love’ can be boiled down to biochemistry, then that next generation would be attracted to others with the same mutation.  It is an interesting theory to try to track.

As Arte Johnson used to say ... “Verrrrry intewesting ...”.

The cause and effect of genetic progression does not seem to be advanced rocket science. In fact, it seems fairly self-evident, though it is of course essential to work on a scientific proof of the self-evident. ‘Self-evident’ is often like ‘eye witness testimony’; that is, highly skewed, and what is ‘self-evident’ can often be a matter of political convenience. A good example is in the ‘self-evident truths’ of the Declaration of Independence, which clearly were not all that self-evident to the southern delegations ... but we wander afield here.

The other day I was having a conversation with a Naz pastor, about the ‘issue’ of how the COTN is addressing homosexuality. The Methodists and the Presbyterians, among others, are in a tizzy over it, being as how at least some of them are ordaining gay and lesbian pastors and endorsing gay marriage. “How can they do that?” I asked, if it is biblically an ‘abomination’. If we can agree that the mere fact of ‘being’ is not a biblical ‘abomination’, but the practice of certain behaviors is, then we can see how a church could ordain a gay/lesbian pastor who remains celibate. But if the gay/lesbian acts and behaviors are a biblical ‘abomination’, then how can a church go along with same-sex marriage?

It seems to me that the passages in the bible that deal with the ‘abomination’ lean toward forced homosexual behavior, or homosexual behavior that is not borne of a loving relationship. Some of the passages addressing this seem ... ambiguous ... so one can cite the bible to support whatever personal prejudices one might have. I am sure we are all shocked by that concept. And, when we get our knickers in a twist over what the Good Book says - or appears to say - about the ‘issue’ ... are we being yet once again selectively literal? Isn’t it a real marvel how so many can be so convinced that the bible is the inerrant literal Word of God, and then be so selective over what portions and passages they will become exercised and fanatical?

Look at heterosexual behaviors outside of a loving relationship. Look at what is happening in Africa, where sex/rape is used as a terror weapon, on a wholesale basis. Is that not an ‘abomination’ in the same sense?

Then we moved on to the ‘why’ of it all. If we accept that heterosexual sex is necessary for the continuation of a the species, then homosexuality makes no sense, does it. Or does it?  Take a look at the studies on various species, not the least of which are whales, where homosexual behaviors are well-documented. Why do whales bugger each other, in a manner of speaking. One theory ties directly in to Darwinian evolutionary theory; that is, that the biggest and the strongest and the most aggressive males get all the females, leaving the younger and weaker males to relieve their biological urges where and however they may. This is an environmental ‘issue,’ is it not? Perhaps cultural? Can we accept that whales have ‘cultural issues’? If we accept Baldwin, then over millennium after millennium after millennium (I just had to use the word) could we not reasonably expect a genetic remapping in at least some representatives of a species? And now, though Tab A is not fitting into Slot A, we have what seem to be aberrant sexual behaviors that actually make sense within the context of biological pressures directly associated with propagation of a viable species - it gives the leftovers something to do with all that procreative energy - and are not really all that aberrant when considered in the larger view of propagation of a species.

Can this be applied to humans? Certainly. Human survival as a species has been skewed by our ability to alter our environment. The weak, the stupid, and the inept can now survive very well, thanks to the efforts of those more endowed with the means to create, shape the environment, and survive. This skewing also clouds an empirical evaluation of why some of us may exhibit certain behaviors.

Then there is this as we look at human homosexual behaviors: if for whatever reason a reasoning entity engages in homosexual behaviors, and those behaviors are constrained within a loving relationship with another reasoning entity, I really have a hard time understanding how that could be one of those ‘biblical abominations’. I really don’t understand homosexual attraction, either, but that’s beside the point. The point is, to me at least, is that the position of the Christian right, of Christian fundamentalists, and probably across a wider spectrum of Christianity, toward individuals who are involved in a committed, loving relationship that is also homosexual is completely unreasonable, illogical, and quite possibly based on a culturally biased interpretation of just what constitutes that ‘biblical abomination.’

I’m just kicking a few thoughts around here, not presenting this as Gospel.

How does that dog hunt?

I will admit, that molecular stuff was over my head. But the example of the bison and horses is on that I thought was interesting.I have never heard anything quite like that before. Definitely something to think about in regard to free will and the evolutionary theory. I am not sure how you made the connection to your last statements on love though. However animals think and make choices like that I do not know, but I definitely think there is a capacity for love, loyalty, etc.

Up until I read your blog Dr. Oord, I have never heard of the Baldwin Effect. Granted science and I do not mix, but don’t want to think I am completely useless in information when it comes to science.

I think that the Baldwin Effect makes good sense. What really intrigued me was this:
“Learned behaviors cannot be directly inherited, said Baldwin.  But the initiatives of organisms can be a factor in the establishment of random genetic changes and thereby affect the direction of evolutionary change.  The behavior of thriving organisms can be imitated by others and transmitted socially for a long enough period that random genetic mutations support that beneficial behavior.”

I’m not sure I completely agree with everything that Baldwin proposed here, but I think this opens the door to discussions on the topic. I know behavior has a lot to do it, but I’m not ready to give it all the credit that Baldwin does.

Thanks for sharing!

A controversial view in science is Social-Biology.  It proposes that certain behaviors become genetically stamped in humans. A simple example of this is racism. When humans were hunter-gatherers their survival was dependent upon providing security for their family-clan.  If someone came walking by and they looked different they could be a threat.  They could be after the food stores or they could be scouting out the territory to take over control by killing of any threats to that goal. After thousands of years this defense became part of the makeup of human nature.

The issues is that even if we have a genetic disposition to be suspicious, as thinking reasoning human beings we can fight off such tendencies.  This is the essence of Christianity. We are fraught with dispositions toward self-centerdness (survival), appetites (sex, overeating, addictions), and prejudice (protection of family and clan). However, a Spirit led life gives us the ability to overcome these tendencies and Love our Neighbor.

I really enjoyed this blog Dr. Oord. I am a firm believer in that God gave us freedom, as I am sure most Christians are as well (or at least in the Nazarene/Wesley world). Over the last several years I have been trying to figure out how I feel about evolution and the creation of the world. It seems more and more plausible to me that God easily could have given us freedom, or given our evolution freedom, to just that…evolve over time. I hope that makes sense.
I am still having a hard time with this concept, because I want to believe that creation happened as is said in Genesis. But, at the same time I am realizing more and more that we have no idea how long it took for each day to happen. So God could have given the freedom out of love for creation to evolve over time.
I guess we will know when we ask God directly some day.

I appreciated this blog, especially as someone who wants to affirm an evolutionary process, but still maintain a theological viewpoint founded heavily on love. It seems that the two often can be incompatible in the way it usually discussed in Christian circles. However, in studying for myself and for a course this past spring and doing research on biological altruism and cooperation, I began to see that aspects of love can be held while still affirming that evolutionary processes took place. I appreciate your outlook on melding these concepts, as well as dealing with freedom, a heavy concept in and of itself, in this post.

I really like where this blog is going. I think that it does two things that i just really appreciate. First, it links Christian concepts to science, which is something I thnk some people still struggle with doing. However, this shows to me one more example of how there are ways to do so that give positive affirming results relating the two, even if they may alter someones original view. Second, I think it is interesting that the point was made that it is possible with this idea, that other creatures may be capable of love, becuae i think it really affirms to that we have hope a difference can be made. That if we as Christians strive hard, and don’t give up, like we sometimes want to when we are defeated, that their in fact could be a change in this world for the better. Maybe we can also eventually see a world again that believes in a genuine love (highly general statement, but at times very true).

This entry really had me thinking about the little details on the design of every creature and human being,and how every aspect of who/what was created was methodically thought out before it came into existence. A couple of points made in this entry I found to be interesting was the idea proposed by Baldwin taking about behavior that cannot be inherited but instead learned and also the degrees of freedom an organism may have depending on its level of complexity. When looking at Freedom at a Molecular level I do not necessarily agree with the idea proposed that creatures with a certain level of complexity have a certain degree of freedom but instead think that there is a possibility that every creature was given the same amount of freedom but is not able to use there freedom to its full capacity because of the way they were created.

If God created the world, then why can’t creatures have the same essence of freedom and love that we do. In the case of evolution, so what if we might have developed from apes. I believe that we are created in the image of God, and who says that God did not start as something different than he is today. Evolution is part of this world, so why should we as mammals be excluded form the possibility of it.

Before coming to a University, I never even considered evolution to be a possibility. Now I can consider how God could have used evolution to create the world and to give us freedom through these theories. I am not saying this is the method He used. I believe that God is intentional in everything that He does and would create the world accordingly. One question that I ponder is whether humans have reached the highest level on the evolutionary chain. If we developed freedom in the way we interact with the world over a certain amount of time, then will then will we eventually attain a different degree of freedom? I find that highly unlikely and have a hard time grasping why we are not still evolving. Or maybe we are and we just cannot see it?

Very interesting entry… As i read through this blog post and some of the comments i am in the same boat as Mr. Fruh in that the molecular aspect was over my head. Nonetheless it is easy to relate with the bison/horse analogy. It is easy to see in life, relationships with friends, family, coworkers, and other individuals, the theory behind the analogy. If i were to look around the room and take note of every individual and their story, a pattern would emerge and would have the underlying tale that they responded to the environment (and occurrences) in their lives that lead them to this place in this very moment, whether that has been set ahead to happen regardless by God, that there was no alternative to the occurrence, or it was us acting freely, I don’t know factually, but I believe that it was by free will.

This blog was very interesting and I agree with Baldwin’s basic theory that an organism’s environment and learned behavior can affect its evolution. However, evolution here needs to be defined. In this blog, I assume macroevolution is being discussed, as simple to complex was brought up multiple times. Though open to this theory, I have never been able to accept it. I believe microevolution occurs, and allows a certain freedom within species. In my studies of cell biology, I have never seen anything but evidence for intelligent design. The complexity of a single, simple cell is mindblowing- to explain it be random evolutionary processes would be difficult at best. I agree that God made His creation with a definite degree of freedom, and it is interesting to see this proposed at a molecular level.

If the question at hand is “Can other non-human entities demonstrate love?” then I would have to answer: Yes, I think nonhuman creatures are capable of love.  Love as we humans understand it takes many different forms.  People show their love for others in many different ways.  I personally think animals are capable of love.  However, many people are quick to say its not possible because it is not (necessarily) shown in a human form.

I have never thought of these theories before. I enjoy being exposed to new ideas but some of these about molecules and atoms being able to change internally are rather new to me. Kinda makes my head spin a bit. I should have payed more attention in high school chem, phys, and bio. There are still so many things abut the universe that we do not understand. Sometimes it seems like we know many truths about the world, I am not sure that we have ever scratched the suffice. It is exciting think about how complex everything is. Maybe there is another world in my wardrobe…. I think will start looking.

“Can non-humans demonstrate love?” I thnk the answer is yes. Domestic animals like dogs and cats, you can train to do certain things but in the end they love you because they show affection towards humans and sometimes other animals. In other studies of wild life animals you can see that mothers have affection towards their babies but they have to learn how to survive so their love is more ‘tough’. Other people may say that animals are just animals and they don’t have feelings but I believe they do and are capable of love. May not be to the ability of that of humans but it’s still there. Birds mate for life. Does that give you somewhat of a hint?

Today’s conversation in class about the author discussing the binds of our selfish, genetic nature comes back to mind when I read about freedom in not only a biological aspect, but also in my abilities and capacities to act upon that freedom. You added a quote about determination and its direct correlation to freedom, and to be quite honest, I have never thought of it that way, but in remembering today’s talk it makes perfect sense. If we are not determined to act upon our God-given freedoms, we are, in truth, completely bound. For all intents and purposes we would be walking around in the dark feeling our way through when we could just turn on the light switch.

I do believe that animals show affection or to use your term Dr. Oord “love”. It is not the romantic love that humans know, I believe that is more like companionship love one shows toward friends. Dogs in particular display this type of affection very well. One their owner dies they do mourn for that loss. I doubt they know what death is but they do recognize and remember certain humans especially the ones that they have interact with on a daily basis. I think they know when they have not seen a favorite person in a while. I think they know who is missing from their routine.
In a documentary about the evolution of dogs, it was discovered that dogs understood that the face of the human is important to get clues about what is going on with that human, including emotional and physical clues. Hence why some people have therapy dogs.

Baldwin’s theory that the initiatives and responses of an organism or a group of organisms are assimilated into their genetic structure is intriguing, especially the idea that random mutations support their behavior. Random mutations are just that, random. How can a random mutation support learned and conscience behavior? It is true that our choices such as food, exercise, exposure to sunlight, chemical and other factors can induce mutations, but they are not random. Such mutations have an identifiable cause, and could have been avoided in theory. Mutations can be passed down from generation to generation, but most mutations that have a real effect on an organism either kill the organism before reproduction or are fixed by proofreading enzymes or counteracted by a secondary mutation.

A most intriguing topic. I would have to say that some animals [to a certain degree] express and/or feel love. As mentioned above “it seems plausible that humans are not the only creatures on planet earth capable of love.” I have watched the same documentary on dogs as Niki did, and another finding that was found is that dogs are mentally dependent on human beings. And in some cases, it can be said, vice versa. Like Niki mentioned, dogs express a sort of super friendly love for their owners. The documentary also discovered that dogs mourn at the death of its owner. In the same way, humans beings mourn at the death of their best friends.
Aristotle said that there are three types of souls, nutritive soul, sensitive soul, and rational soul. Plant life have nutritive souls, animals have sensitive souls, and human beings have rational souls. Aristotle explains that sensitives souls meant that animals are able to feel physical pain and pleasure. It makes me question his teachings if dogs are able to love. Because Aristotle described love as being a rational soul experience, then a dog would qualify as having a rational soul. I guess what I am getting at is that I believe that animals are capable of love, but I feel we have yet to know which animals are capable. The documentary described dog breading as human beings greatest experiment. The question is do we have to make an animal become capable of love or through processes mentioned above   make it possible to happen in nature?

As a nursing major, I definitely agree with Baldwin’s simple theory that organisms respond to their environment in somewhat predictable ways. However, I also believe cells themselves are one of the most intricate and fascinating parts of science. To say everything is “predictable” would be a massive understatement, that would not not only define creatures, but humans as well.
I believe I have a set of genes behind who I am, but this does not necessarily determine who I am going to be in the future or how exactly I am going to respond to my environment.
I believe in Divine Creation. God has a purpose for everything, and setting restrictions to that could change the way I look at the world entirely.

I agree that humans change and definitely adapt to their environment, however I don’t think that we change into something else eventually. I believe in the divine creation and I believe that God made science, and it is another one of those things that God gave us our brains to uncover and explore. I do not think that everything is predictable, and I do not think that a genetic code tells everything that there is to know about an organism, I believe we are way more complex than that.

While the molecular discussion wasn’t completely over my head, I did not get much out of it because it seemed like a lot of speculation. For what seems like consistency’s sake, Barbour strives to equate the freedom that humans and animals have to the potential freedom present on a molecular level. He wants to say that it would be consistent to trace our freedom all the way back to our foundations. I think this is a stretch. The Bible shows us that there is a clear difference between the freedom of man compared with the freedom of other living organisms. I feel much more comfortable with the emergence theories. And, like others, I appreciated the bison/horse metaphor in describing how groups of people change over time.

Freedom in the Bible is something that is given to God’s people through the act of free will. Throughout this freewill, God gave us the ability to adapt with things in our environment including other mammals. Throughout the Bible there is reference to caring for one another, as well as caring for the animals. In Jonah 4:11, God is speaking to Jonah asking him when compassion is necessary. “Should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals.” I think here God is showing compassion not only for people who are not necessarily ignorant, but not educated, as well as compassion for animals. Evolution has had an effect in how we have adapted to one another, through the use of domesticating animals and caring for them, one thing evolution does not mentioned if the relationship side of evolving. I believe that animals and humans have “evolved” into relationship with one another, one in which God has set forth for us to understand and interact in.

Freedom in the Bible is something that is given to God’s people through the act of free will. Throughout this freewill, God gave us the ability to adapt with things in our environment including other mammals. Throughout the Bible there is reference to caring for one another, as well as caring for the animals. In Jonah 4:11, God is speaking to Jonah asking him when compassion is necessary. “Should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals.” I think here God is showing compassion not only for people who are not necessarily ignorant, but not educated, as well as compassion for animals. Evolution has had an effect in how we have adapted to one another, through the use of domesticating animals and caring for them, one thing evolution does not mentioned is the relationship side of evolving. I believe that animals and humans have “evolved” into relationship with one another, one in which God has set forth for us to understand and interact in.

I don’t think I have ever heard love explained through scientific theory quite like that before. Though it is interesting, it sits with me funny. From the very beginning of creation God said that the creation was good. Jesus was able to summarize all of the laws given to man by telling us to LOVE God and to love one another. I don’t see how God could have looked at his creation in the very beginning and said that it is good, if our love genes had not yet been developed. In order to have had a sinless world before the fall of man, I feel like love would have had a large presence.

I agree with the point of freedom, that freedom can be determined on determination. There are different degrees of freedom. I think that it is the way that you look at it. I don’t know if people completely use different degrees of freedom, or if they are just unaware of the capacity of their freedoms. I don’t think I would say it is through genes, but rather it is through awareness. I agree that If humans share significant continuity with their nonhuman companions, which means that humans are not the only one’s capable of expressing love. I like the bison/horse example because people do change over time, but they change on varying levels. This is dependent on genes, as well as environment.

This entry goes along with what we are discussing in Origins right now. I have so many different points of view being thrown at me that is confusing to me. However, I do agree and believe that God created us and all the creatures. What I found interesting was Baldwin and how he talks about the idea of behavior cannot be inherited but instead learned and also the degrees of freedom an organism may have depending on its level of complexity. The idea of freedom at the molecular level I do not fully agree with. I think that each creature was given freedom, but are not able to use the freedom to full capacity because of the way they were created.

Although, this is very interesting, I am not sure how much I want to consider placing into my theology. I believe that the Bible separates humans and their freedom to other living organisms and their freedoms. I see that much of this article is opinions and speculations, but not very much research. I would actually have to study up on these people and their beliefs before I can decide whether or not I can agree with them. Their ideas and beliefs are very interesting and once I have some extra time I might study and see if I can find some more distinct information.

I feel that we do have freedom to choose. The theories of emergence to me are a lot of speculation. I am not sure we can prove if single cell organisms have freedom or if choice emerged at some point. I do believe that we as humans do have freedom and we are not driven as machines by our genes. I do feel that it is very plausible that other animals have freedom of choice as well and with that we have the ability to love. With the ability to choose we have the opportunity to show love to others, it is up to us if we will or not; not up to our genes.

I think that the example of behavior along with genes driving evolution makes sense.  Genes do not totally determine the fate of an organism.  There are many factors that contribute to microevolutionary changes.  But to humanize molecules, molecules don’t have feelings/choices, they are not sentient.  I think that going down to that level to try to support evolution is stretching it.

I find it interesting that addressing the question of whether nonhuman creatures can love requires the discussion of freedom and that such a discussion would delve so deeply into the intricacies of molecules. Clearly humans love, and I don’t think many would argue against other creatures such as dogs and chimps also being able to love. It would appear that this matter of freedom and when/where it surfaces tries to explain how ‘more simple’ creatures may be able to love as well. While I agree that intellectually it is an interesting idea, at the same time, it does not seem overly important. Whether or not a ladybug can love does not have much bearing on my life and how I live it.

I think your last point about love and the connection to freedom outside of humanity alone is a powerful one. As someone who wants to affirm that their is evidence for not only levels of cooperation, but specifically altruism throughout the natural kingdom, I want to also say that freedom is a byproduct of the evolutionary process. This means that not only humanity has the ability to choose and act as free agents in a complex way. This idea does not undermine the idea that God gifted freedom, but allows for God to work intimately with the evolutionary process for all the natural world and not just humanity in God’s love for all.

I really valued the example of the horses and bison and the ways they could have possibly adapted to fit their environments.  I believe creatures adapt and change to fit their environment and what it takes to survive, but I also think people do that as well, to some extent.  The last line is what really caught my attention, though.  I have never specifically wondered if other creatures on the planet were capable of loving, but now that I am thinking about it, it wouldn’t surprise me.  Maybe they are not capable of expressing love how we express love or in the same way, but there are always stories about animals who have saved their owner.  I really can’t bring myself to believe they were all trained to do that, so what prompts them?  Maybe it’s instinct, or maybe more than merely instinct.  It would be hard to tell.

The molecular determination seems far fetched for me. Much of the application of the determining molecules was focused around evolution and biology, but what about inanimate objects? Do they have the same self determination in the molecules as the molecules within living creatures? For the three theories presented, the emergent theory, in my opinion holds the most water.

I appreciate that for some people it is very important for them to have a theory about where they came from or how exactly humans came to be. I on the other hand do not feel like that it is something that will have any real significance in my life. Regardless of my theory in evolution/creation I will still be the same person, live the same life, and love the same.

I find it interesting that, under the assumption that evolution is how we came to be, we are now trying to theorize about how love may have developed in the evolutionary system. The paradigm we are put into as we read is that we hold evolution as absolute truth, but then we have these other things called love and the bible, and we aren’t sure how they fit into our world and development. But I wonder… shouldn’t it be the other way around? I agree that science and faith do fit together quite nicely, but where I disagree is that we have all the answers scientifically. I’m not sure why we are so eager to accept the bible as flimsy and subject it to any interpretation that can make it fit with a new, immovable faith in the recently developed theory of evolution.

As for Barbour and Clayton, their ideas are interesting, but that’s all they are: ideas and speculation. They don’t have a lot of relevance to me since I’m still not sold on the foundational assumption of the blog.

Though this entry had a lot of ideas, it was the last line about all creatures being able to love that I would like to discuss. There is a movie called “All Dogs Go to Heaven.” It is a simple children’s movie, but the title makes me wonder, do animals really go to Heaven? And with that, are they capable of love? I look at my dogs and I believe that they are indeed capable of love. They know who I am and seem genuinely excited to see me when I come home. But can I say the same for an ant or an icky spider? It is not as easy to say that they love…but if dogs love, then must they also love? It is an interesting question to ponder.

This blog has a lot of ideas that I struggle with. I am a science major and believe in evolution. My family however does not. I grew up in a very christian home and evolution is not really accepted. I however do like how this blog correlated with the lecture we attended. I really enjoyed the fact that you can be a christian and believe in God and believe in evolution. One thing I often wonder is can all creatures go to heaven? Can all creatures really love? I am not so sure about this topic and appreciate you bringing it to attenetion.

I have never thought that molecules could have freedom. Reading this post made me realize that humans are a compilation of molecules and we seem to think that we have freedom. This being said,I agree that freedom must be based on the level of complexity of the organism. When taking about DNA replication, we never talk about the freedom that a holo-enzyme has in replication
This enzyme has one job and it is the only job it is capable of doing. it cannot decide that its job will be different because they weren’t given that much freedom when they were created. So,now after reading this article, I am not sure freedom is a real thing or is it just something we, as humans, created to feel superior to other organsisms.