Q&A: Soul versus Evolution
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.
Soul versus Evolution
Question
If we adopt the evolutionary approach, then there’s no chance that there is such a thing as a “soul” in the sense that it is eternal and free to choose as it wishes. Everything changes, everything develops, everything moves; there is nothing that remains as it is, and therefore it’s impossible to talk about a soul in a discussion of free choice. There is also no point at which we could point to a “soul injection” into a human being; that simply doesn’t go together with evolutionary theory.
I’d be glad to hear your opinion.
Thanks
Answer
There is not even a single pair of words here whose connection to each other I understood. It’s a collection of strange assertions, and I have nothing to say about them.
It seems to me that this is what he means:
If we accept evolution as plausible science and adopt it, then according to evolutionary theory humanity is the product of a long process of the development of life, which underwent countless mutations and genetic changes as a result of natural selection, as Richard Dawkins described, until they reached their current form — the human being. Before Homo sapiens there was a primordial creature devoid of human consciousness, lacking free choice or inner will as we know it today. If so, the question arises: how can one simultaneously hold both belief in evolutionary theory and belief in the entry of a soul into the human body? For if we assume that souls did not exist before the appearance of Homo sapiens, how could it be that at a certain stage, suddenly, in broad daylight, souls began to “enter” the bodies of these creatures and turn them into human beings in the spiritual sense?