2 Answers

  1. The most famous theories about the origin of man are the theory of evolution (represented by the teachings of Darwin) and the theory of creation (called “creationism”).

    It is not possible to stand firmly on the point of view of one (of them) that the theoretical description of the appearance of a person presented by each (of them) does not look quite perfect, because it has many gaps, contradictions, etc.But based on the views, approaches, ideas that were proposed by both some and others, it allows us to get a little closer to revealing how a person And, therefore, on the basis of all this, we can say that in the origin of man there was both one and the other — both the evolutionary theory and the theory of creation.

    The weakness (in my opinion) of the evolutionary theory is that it considers man most of all from the biological side. Yes, of course, evolution (becoming) along this line of man is quite possible. There is evidence for this: paleontological, comparative anatomical, etc. The evolutionary process is continuous. Its essence boils down to the fact that the most adapted (individuals) to environmental conditions and strong survive and give birth to their offspring, thereby natural selection occurs. The driving force of everyone is the vital force that is expressed precisely in the “struggle for existence”. It is an inner force that comes from the very subject of life. But what this power is in essence is not explained. Of course, they silently refer (us) to the forces of <materialistic> nature, but from the epistemological and ontological point of view, this will be illogical, and therefore unconvincing, because (there) other (again, non-materialistic) forces are most likely to operate…

    In this case, why don't we join the philosophical view that “living beings were created by movements guided by some intelligent driving force rather than by the random combination of atoms” (Leibniz, German philosopher).

    And yet (with all this) for some reason, the evolutionary theory does not consider what the human soul has to do with the appearance of man. After all, a person is a unity consisting of soul and body. And in all this, it is the soul that has (as many and many people think) an “unearthly” origin, because it belongs to the nature of the non-corporeal. What should <and> be understood as the act of creating the Supreme (“Obviously … the soul resembles the divine” – Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher, and according to the Dutch philosopher Spinoza, “god is the nature of the human soul”).

  2. Man has always been, and he created the universe. I myself participated in this, even it seems it was not a dream. If you tell them, no one will believe you or they will twist you at the temple.

Leave a Reply