LETTER: History of 'our ancestors' much more complex than simple evolution

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 | 2:14 p.m. CST; updated 7:06 p.m. CST, Wednesday, February 23, 2011

I’m glad you brought up the topic of evolution in your recent article "MU researcher helps change view of human evolution" (on bone structure of early humanoids, Feb. 10), if only in the reference made to “our ancestors.”

To assume that all readers would be in agreement with the concept of a descent from the Neanderthals is careless. It is clear in the Bible that the “fall” of Adam and Eve was a fall from the enlivening aspect of the physical form to an actual physical form. That is why they were not aware of their nakedness before the “fall.” It is clear in the Bible that the offspring of Adam and Eve married into humans who were already present on the earth.

Rudolf Steiner (Austrian philosopher, 1861-1925) stated that the so-called “animal man” had made the descent into dense physical form much earlier than did Adam and Eve, and by doing so, they were retarded in their spiritual evolutionary path. Adam and Eve represented a higher (or much higher) octave of spiritual development because they had stayed within an ethereal realm for a much longer time. Nevertheless, they did fall from the unadulterated realms that compose our “Heavens” or “Seven Heavens.”

Steiner goes on to explain that the “fall” was necessary for humans to gain true inner freedom of self, in order to gain an “I,” and while accomplishing this task, they would be required to perceive and redeem the fallen earth through their actions and desire to return to the unadulterated heavens.

It is expected that the physical forms of the “animal man” and humans would be genetically intertwined; so on a physical level, no one on earth could be defined as human or animal. However, such a categorization can be made by observing the level of consciousness of every human being.

I think some humans are more like insects than animals because of their value systems, because of what they think about all day long, because of what they desire for themselves (perhaps at the expense of others), because of their physical actions and level of productivity. However, having an animal consciousness is bad enough, so I’ll say no more.

It is lazy thinking to say whether evolution is true or false. It is lazy thinking to assume that a simplistic interpretation of the Bible is true or false. It is not lazy thinking to observe ourselves and fellow man to see what level of consciousness we are participating in – by choice.

Julia Williams lives in Columbia.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Michael Schoelz February 17, 2011 | 4:57 a.m.

Me: "Yea, that dude steiner sure was nuts. No one is actually trying to combine science religion philosophy and psychology together today right? Cause that would just be about the silliest thing you could do. Am I right, almost all early-modern/modern philosophers, surely we have moved passed this point?"

They, led by Hume and Kant, reply with a resounding and depressed, "no."

For real, this is hardly worth arguing with. Great if you believe it but for real it has absolutely no bearing on anyone else. YOU CANNOT prove this, so do not operate on the pretense that you can. You can't even prove that evolution is truth, its just a guess, but one that is backed up with a body of evidence, not just the bible. THE BIBLE DOESN'T COUNT, for the sole fact that it is too controversial. God save this woman from her own debilitating arrogance. And for good measure, me too.

Also, I bet you like ayn rand.

(Report Comment)
Michael Schoelz February 17, 2011 | 5:06 a.m.

"I think some humans are more like insects than animals..."

Really, just an awful thing to say or print. I really am at a loss for words.

(Report Comment)
Gregory Brown February 17, 2011 | 7:50 a.m.

The only people I've met over the years who were followers of Steiner have been women. They have been uniformly smug, a bit wild eyed, advocates of the idiocies of Waldorf Education, and deeply set in their murky opinions. I wonder if Ms. Williams is an exception.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.