Aristotle in DE ANIMA (see Aristotle Introductory Readings by Terence Irwin and Gail Fine of Cornell University)quite adroitly introduces the notion of a soul on analogy between sleeping and waking and the state of knowing vs the state of attending to what one knows, while in the same sense Henry Morris comments that "It was Plato and Aristotle - not the Bible - that the theologians and scientists of the Middle Ages owed their concept of a geocentric, three-storied universe. Although the Bible teaches no such thing, Aristotle did-and the scholasticism of this period was very largely derived from him. Copernicus and Galileo both believed the Bible, but their heliocentric system had to overcome Aristotelianism before it could be accepted."(THe LOng WAr AGAInst GOd p.215)
If we all had good faith no matter the belief then perhaps no matter this nature of the soul, both creationists and evolutionists (not some improper amalgam) could come into synchrony of their respective states of knowing and attending to what each side knows. I, BSM, think that by the 2nd Volume of THE MODERN CREATION TRILOGY (Morris and Morris) that these creationist authors are quite correct to point to what it would look like IN GOOD FAITH to "see" evolution. I suspect in a mode that may not be identical to the ICR'type' that what may have been MISperceived ( in this context (see page 13))is motion of/at Faraday's electrotonic state which would then be so-cause of failure to see where/when faith enters between any state of knowing and all states attending to what is known. Hence for modern post Aristotelian science the soul confuses the evolutionist (as per this content)where indeed SOMETHINg I S conceived. If we were all communicating by faith I do not see how this can not be received. This was not the case.
Ya, know I dont really know if they do. My grandmother who doubts the belief probably assumes that it does not exist.
What I was doing here was an attempt to understand BOTH the difference between the THREE trilogy books and the prior pretext to the part I quoted where Morris writes "As Aristotle grew older, his philosophy became more materialistic and empirical than that of Plato, and his concept of GOD grew more and more impersonal. Instead of a divine Spirit, he began to think of GBOd as an impersonal Prime Mover that had set the universe in motion. Aristotle did not believe in transmutation of established species, but continued to believe, like Plato, that they had all originally "devolved," one from the other, in a descending Scale of Being as emanations from the primal World-Soul, which increasingly became identified essentially as just the World." This was telling enough for me. It was very revealing in the selected abstracts of Aristotle's writings that the Cornell Sage Philosophers LEFT OUT are precisely the passages about involutariness with regard to justice that I seem to be asserting from the Marshall Court time and Indian cases that was violated in my case OF TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE EVOLUTIONIST (my grandfather on the same side was one with a genetics PHD) I think due to the power either in the states or citizens that is something that connects what one knows (as to what one can do with what one knows) and the state of knowing. It would then be an error both for how the law acted in my case and Aristotle's comparison to waking and sleeping for then a state could committ anyone (mentally but erred physically but got away with the physical also becasue not only was the chemical conflated materially but the physical was interrupted powerfully at law yet there was no distinction in the case between conserved, reseverd or preseverd powers that post information age seem quite actually true) since everyone sleeps for some of the time. Psychiatry was simply invested with much too much power that if the states and the citizens had suits in kind would not be as easily isolated.
So once again, it is not that I can respond in general but I have a specific instance behind the reason I posted it. I am sorry if this is not enough.