ND> BS>     The biological definition is an organismic state characterized by
ND> BS>  capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to
ND> BS> stimuli, and reproduction.
ND> BS>  Which rather seems to disqualify the Judeo-Christian concept of the
ND> BS>  nature of God, if all four characteristics must be present to 
ualify
ND> BS>  something as alive.  Assuming spiritual "life" exists, what would be
ND> BS>  its definition?
ND>Spiritual life is the ability to choose and imagine. Simple as that. Trees 
ha
ND>no ability to choose what to do; it is pure instinct. Wolves or bears 
cannot
ND>imagine anything. They have no "false memory." You can think of a neon 
green
ND>school bus with Michael Jackson riding in the front seat, can't you? 
(That's
ND>just a random thing that came to my mind.) but a But an animal with no 
oul
ND>cannot think of what it has not experienced.
I almost hate to tell you this, Nick, but your above description
is an excellent picture of an animal with a neocortex as large
as ours.  No other animal has a neocortex as large as ours except
for dolphins and whales.  The neocortex is what gives us the ability
to imagine things that do not exist, and to manipulate those imagined
things, and to make plans that bring those imagined things into existence.
The neocortex is what gives us the ability to override our instincts.
You might argue that we typically act out the instinctive behaviors
that are driven by powerful emotions, and that we tend to use the
reasoning mind to make up excuses for what we did, but that is in
perfect accord with the evolutionary model, which points out that
an organism must build upon what it already has, and cannot toss
out lower brain centers and start from scratch.
The only way the creationist model can explain this is to say
that God created humans to be inherently sinful (why?) and
plunked them on earth to test them (why?) and quite coldly
sends the flunkees into eternal agony (why?).
If we say that humans are inherently evil and sinful, why did
God create us that way?
I think the evolutionary model makes more sense: we are part of
a continuum, a creature with newfangled reasoning faculties that
are routinely overridden by earlier brain centers that use
emotional drives to create instinctive behaviors that
may have been useful a million years ago but now seem strange.
Five million years ago, males best ensured the survival of their
genes by spraying sperm into as many females as possible.
A million years ago, with human babies becoming increasingly
helpless, males best ensured the survival of their genes by
bonding with a human female and making sure the offspring
survived.  Unless you've been living under a rock for the
last ten years, you know that human males have both these
compulsions.  You can explain this as sinfulness or you can
explain it as an instinctive behavior that was once useful
but is not so useful anymore.  The latter is in perfect
accord with evolutionary theory: once a behavior gets wired
into DNA, you don't get rid of it by just wishing it away.
 * SLMR 2.1a * HEADLINE: PLANE TOO CLOSE TO GROUND, CRASH PROBE TOLD
--- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta
(1:301/45)
---------------