OMEGA INDIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION Vol.8 No.2 December 2009

S

I

S

E

H

T

N

Y

S

N

I

S

I

H

T

U R T

Institute of Science and Religion Little Flower Seminary, Aluva - 683 101, Kerala, India.

Phone : 0484 2623437, 2626204 E-mail : [email protected] URL: www.lfseminary.org/htm/omega.htm Contents

The Editorial 3 The Editorial Articles At the beginning of the year 2009 which marked the bicentennial Evolution: Science and Meta-science - An Introduction of Darwin’s birthday and sesquicentennial of the publication of his epoch- K. Babu Joseph 7 making work The Origin of Species by Natural Selection, Omega had published a couple of articles attempting a contextual discussion on Can a Christian Believe in Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory? the evolutionary theory from philosophical and theological points of view. Sarojini Henry 18 Now, at the closure of this unique year of evolution, Omega is pleased to dedicate a series of articles exclusively dealing with a positive and The Sacramental Character of an Evolving Creation explorative dialogue between evolution and religious belief. Apart from Peter M. J. Hess 34 the constant subservience by the scientific community, what has sustained the evolution theory as a hot academic topic is its overarching existential Human Origins and Original Sin in an Evolutionary Context outreach, or its imposing appeal to the horizons of humanity’s meaning- Patrick McDonald 58 world. The philosophical and religious ramifications of this theory have been so foundational that the proponents and opponents of this theory Science, Religion and Darwin: A Contemporary Appraisal were destined to wrestle with it in one way or the other. The 18th and Kuruvilla Pandikattu 90 19th century intellectual and religious world had difficulty in accepting Darwin. And even now many thinkers are devising ways to domesticate Creation in Evolution or ignore it. Andrew Dickson White had stated that theory of evolution Francis P. Xavier 110 was something like a plough into an anthill, annihilating the very delicate fabrics of religion and faith. As for Richard Dawkins, the pitiless Creation Narratives and Modern Cosmology: indifference of the natural selection enables one to be an “Intellectually Are they at Loggerheads? Fulfilled Atheist.” Daniel Dennet found the impersonal, algorithmic, blind, C. D. Sebastian 129 purposeless processes of the universe of the evolution to be too dangerous an idea for believers to defend their faith. Faith Lessons from Chaotic Fig Trees Carlos E. Puente 157 Owing to the plethora of theological and philosophical accommodation that the theory of evolution has enjoyed over the decades, the voice of these ultra Darwinists is now almost a cry in the wilderness. Atheism on Darwinian grounds, now, rather than yielding to intellectual fulfillment, testifies to the intellectual bankruptcy, philosophical mediocrity, epistemic fixation, and the sabotage of almost every logical axioms and rational standards. These claims will be substantiated by the six articles such salvation have been offered to us. However, holding all of these of this volume on evolution. together consistently and plausibly might require some rethinking of what these beliefs mean and how we understand the sources of such beliefs. The opening article by K. Babu Joseph, having presented the most up-to-date features of the Darwinian formulation of the theory in terms Kuruvilla Pandikattu focuses on the impact Darwin’s theory had of natural selection and its validation in the wake of developments in on contemporary society, including religion. After exposing the grand genetics, challenges the stereotyped image of the science-religion conflict idea and the response it has generated in terms of admiration and awe, on evolution. Evolution theory has the limitation of not being able to the author looks at the relation between science and religion specially explain the advent of life, justifying indulgence in meta-scientific reflection. among American scientists to study the impact of the theory of evolution Making use of a picture of God as Energy and Information or Probability, on religion. Finally the plea is made for a reasoned and creative response he opens up a novel way of reconciling evolutionary and religious by believers and scientists alike, which will respect the autonomy of perspectives on creation. both science and religion and at the same time plead for a creative interaction in shaping human understanding and the evolving society at In spite of the many controversies that Christian faith has to face, the moment. some eminent theologians now argue persuasively that Christians can indeed, with integrity, connect their faith in God with a scientific After considering the various theories of creation and evolution understanding of evolution. They point out that evolutionary science can Francis Xavier reaches at a constructive hermeneutical synthesis where actually be taken as an invitation to enlarge our sense of the divine. evolution-theory and creation-faith converge into ‘creation in evolution.’ Sarojini Henry examines how theologians like Teilhard de Chardin, Wentzel Both evolution and creation are processes; the former, on the physical van Huyssteen and John F. Haught maintain that the theory of evolution level explaining how one being becomes a higher being, whereas the exposes a fresh view of the reality of the sacred and an astoundingly latter stating where the dynamic force for becoming comes from. God is meaningful universe. the initial dynamic force that set the evolutionary process in motion, as he created time, and He still continues the work in the universe - and this Peter M. J. Hess highlights the sacramental value of a dynamic process we understand as evolution. and evoloutionary world. Post-modern Christians need to absorb the reality that we inhabit a very ancient, dynamic, and evolving universe. In addition, we have two other articles on regular themes dealing The sacramental value of the world can be rediscovered in an evolutionary with the constructive interplacement between science and religion. C. matrix. He argues that the incarnational perspective serves both as the D. Sebastian considers the creation narratives of the religions and the zenith point of the inherently sacramental character of the universe and inflationary cosmology. In a way, they both propose the same pledge. of the unity of knowledge. Creation narratives inform us that this was the action of the first cause or creator who is called Supreme Being or God. There is a promising Patrick McDonald’s paper is a theological reflection on original analogical convergence between the assumptions of modern cosmology sin in the context of evolution. Although there is good reason to believe and religious beliefs as far as creation narrative is concerned. In this humans have evolved, and that this may raise very serious questions sense, they are not at loggerheads. about one account of original sin, it does not impact the central dynamic of the emergence of sin in human history and the need for healing and Carlos Puente does a commendable hermeneutical job in suggesting redemption. Accepting an evolutionary account of human origins does directions for finding harmony amidst chaos. The search for harmony is not undermine belief in God, belief in Christ, belief in the Bible, belief in one of the most pressing tasks we humans attempt and it is particularly a soul, belief in the salvation of that soul, nor belief that the means for difficult when the “evil” of “chaotic forces” propels us into restless and

4 Omega December 2009 5 often helpless states whose intrinsic disorder hampers our ability to find Omega our way to peace. During the past few decades a host of ideas have VIII (2009)2, 7-17 been established in order to study natural complexity, including the identification of pathways that progressively degrade “order” into the speciûc disorder of “chaos” and that define a host of chaotic trees, as epitomized by the iconic Feigenbaum tree, or “fig tree” in German. This work explains how such notions help us visualize the essential options we all face regarding order and disorder and shows how the ideas point Evolution: Science and Meta-science us to the straight roots of such trees as the only common ground where An Introduction we all may achieve true order and peace. - K. Babu Joseph1 The thrust of this entire volume, in general, is that the clichéd notion of science-religion conflict is now no news to any informed person. Abstract: The theory of evolution gives a scientifically satisfactory And, in particular, we emphasize that rather than tampering evolution explanation of the origin of biological species. Salient features of the with fixated and parochial soliloquies, an open and explorative approach Darwinian formulation of the theory in terms of natural selection are can open up deep depositories of truth and knowledge at stake in it. The outlined. Its validation in the wake of developments in genetics is also papers here argue that evolution should be sustained on the horizons of pointed out. A conflict between science and religion has been looming thanks to the following observations: (1) Since the fossils of several our religious and existential meanings for there is much more that has to human species have been discovered, it is not clear to which of these the be harvested from the hidden potentials of this theory. appellation Man applies. (2) There is no substantial difference in anatomy or behavior between Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes - Augustine Pamplany (Chimpanzee). These make the concept of soul cloudy and ill-defined. Guest Editor Evolution theory has, however, the limitation of not being able to explain the advent of life, justifying indulgence in meta-scientific reflection. This event is defined as creation in a broad sense, resolving the apparent conflict between science and religion. A picture of God as Energy and Information or Probability is made use of in this task. Keywords: Darwin, Evolution, Species, Primates, Fossils, Genes, DNA, RNA, Mutations, Entropy, Self, Energy, Information/Probability.

Introduction

The theory of evolution offers a more or less convincing explanation of the origin of biological species. Available data seem to suggest that life appeared on the earth some 3-4 billion years ago and has been evolving ever since. Although several thinkers have proposed the idea of evolution early on, it was Charles Darwin who presented its first scientific formulation. Natural selection, according to him, is the key to evolution. It favors the emergence of higher life forms from lower ones. He

6 Omega December 2009 7 K. Babu Joseph Evolution: Science and Meta-Science an Introduction visualized it as a very slow process taking thousands or millions of years conundrum, and to work out a synthesis of the two under the banner of in contrast with creation, as taught by various religions. Evolution occurs science. Since science relies ultimately on observation, religion should through a sequence of steps called adaptations. If one regards evolution not contradict it but attempt to conform to it. This is not scientism because as science and creationism as an artifact, then there need not be any separate areas of relevance are delineated to both - the world of senses conflict between science and religion. for science and the world of the spirit for religion. Whenever anything having scientific connotation arises, the last word shall be science’s. There are some open problems in the biological theory of evolution like the origin of life and the so-called missing links. The current opinion2 The author has published two articles3,4 and prepared a report5 on about the latter is that in the fossil record there are indeed several links a concept of God inspired by quantum physics. In the present article, an between the common ancestor and man, while there are gaps between attempt is made to briefly outline evolution theory in its modern version the common ancestor and chimpanzee. As for the ‘origin’ problem, science and to link it with a simple description of God sketched in Ref.3. It is doesn’t give a unique solution, and for that matter, there is no unique hoped that this approach comprises the best of ‘both worlds’ and will theory of the origin of the solar system or the Milky Way. The evidence satisfy scientists as well as religious thinkers. for the Big Bang, an event at which physical laws break down, is based on an extrapolation of galactic motions back in time as well as a couple 2. Evolution in a Nutshell of predictions that have been verified. Incompleteness is the hallmark of Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck6 was the first biologist to seriously science, but it need not restrain one from pursuing science, because propose evolution in place of a sporadic process of species extinction, to scientific theories are open–ended and falsifiable. The evidence in favor account for the existence of fossils. He argued that species got modified of evolution is so strong that it is naïve to imagine that the theory will be through adaptation to the environment. His theory was based on the overthrown someday and replaced by creationism. Nevertheless there principles of use and disuse, and inheritance of acquired characters, is ample scope for interpreting religion’s role vis-à-vis that of science. both proved incorrect later. Darwin, in his path–breaking work On the With its traditional emphasis on revelation, religious experience is ineffable, Origin of Species, published in 1859, defined a mechanism called natural euphoric and not falsifiable. Despite the difference in approach, religion selection which turned out to be acceptable to biologists. Alfred Wallace and science can co-evolve without mutual acrimony. Science has its also had simultaneously arrived at this idea, in an independent manner. singularities such as Black Holes and Big Bang, and direct verification Both Darwin and Wallace were influenced by Thomas Malthus, a British of any prediction under such extreme conditions is impossible. Do we economist, who pointed out that while a population increases in geometric not see a parallel between science and religion in this regime where progression, the food supplies increase only in arithmetic progression, falsifiability is absent? In a sense this justifies the transfer of the jargon causing a struggle for existence especially among the poor. Those who of one discipline into the other. For example, in the language of physics have access to more food will reproduce more. In the biological theory God may be characterized as Infinite Energy and Infinite Information. of evolution, this struggle is generalized as competition among the Compare this description with the common portrayal of God as Infinite members of each species. Those who survive are the fittest individuals Power and Infinite knowledge. The faithful look upon God as a person whose offspring outnumber those of others. Thus gradually, the species who can be cajoled to yield favors. Prayer or no prayer, God responds in improves. Darwin restricted natural selection to sexual selection by an unpredictable way and can, therefore, be described in probabilistic individuals. By adapting itself to the local environment in a long span of terms. time, a geographically separated species can become another species. The purpose of this article is to appropriate to evolution theory the In his book, Darwin quotes from a paper read by W. C. Wells before the distinction of a scientific discipline, and to religion, that of a cultural Royal Society in 1813, in which he distinctly recognizes the principle of natural selection: 8 Omega December 2009 9 K. Babu Joseph Evolution: Science and Meta-Science an Introduction that all life emerged from a common source. This is known as the theory Of the accidental varieties of man, which would occur among the first few and scattered inhabitance of the middle region of Africa, of common descent. Branching is the consequence of formation of new someone would be better fitted than the others to bear the species. Common descent explains the observation, among different diseases of the country. This race would consequently multiply, classes of vertebrates, of common characteristics including anatomical while the others would decrease; not only from their inability to features. All such species must have come from a common ancestor. sustain the attacks of diseases but from their incapacity of There is enough reason to believe that man (Homo sapiens) and contending with their more vigorous neighbours. The color of Chimpanzee (Pan triglodytes) had a common ancestor, but have evolved the vigorous race I take for granted, from what has already been along different branches. The bonobo (Pan paniscus) or pygmy said, would be dark. But the same disposition to form varieties chimpanzee is another chimpanzee-like species which manifests the so- still existing, a darker and darker race would in the course of time called human emotions of love, pity, jealousy and hatred. Up until now, occur: and as the darkest would be the best fitted for the climate, not a single uniquely human trait has been identified that is not found in this would at length become the most prevalent, if not the only 7 race, in the particular country in which it had originated. non-human primates. Characteristics such as tool use, reasoning ability, excitement, learning of words and meaning, consciousness, self The strongest evidence in favor of evolution came from fossils of awareness, enjoyment of humor and so on, which are usually rated as extinct organisms that lived in older geological strata, that is earlier epochs human, are shared by these animals too. Features such as the upright in the history of the earth. While the fossils found in the most recent gait, the greater manipulative skill of the fingers enabling precision grip, geological strata often closely resemble species still living, those of the the location of the vocal chord enabling free sound-making, and the older strata display remarkable differences from their living presence of a very large number of neurons in the brain, distinguishing representatives. This observation was interpreted as supporting Darwin’s man form other primates, are the gift of natural selection.8 There is a hypothesis that organisms of the earlier periods gradually evolved in difference of about 5% between the human and the chimpanzee genomes their descendents in the later periods. There are, however, many gaps in which is equivalent to 100 to 1000 genes. All efforts to identify a patently the fossil record, the reason being the possible loss of fossils in natural human gene have failed so that it has been suggested that the similarity catastrophes such as earthquakes, floods and volcanic eruptions in the in the two genomes implies that all genes of humans and chimpanzees past. Occasionally, a rare fossil is found that fills the gap between are on an average 95% similar and 5% different.9 ancestors and modern descendents. Since birds are believed to have descended from reptiles, there must be at least one transitional creature Hominid is the common name given to humans who differ from separating the two classes. The discovery in 1861 of the Archaeopterix, apes and monkeys by having the greatest number of adaptations helpful half–reptile, half–bird, that lived about 145 million years ago, was hailed for terrestrial locomotion. The common ancestor we share with as a remarkable proof of Darwinism. The current thinking is that since chimpanzee lived about 6 million years ago. One of the oldest fossils at the genetic level there is so much overlap between different species, discovered till recently is that of a girl referred to in the literature as it is absurd to try to trace lineage in the living world! Lucy. Her biological classification is Australopithecus afarensis. She was small but smaller still was Homo floresiensis, mockingly called Hobbit Humans belong to the mammalian order called primates, creatures whose fossils were spotted in a cave in Indonesia two or three years having a tree-living ancestry. Monkeys, apes and humans are classified ago. Among the other human species identified are Homo erectus, as anthropoid primates, characterized by a highly developed brain, Australopithecus africanus, Homoneanderthalensis and so on.10 The latest protracted infancy and increased parental care. Contrary to all pre- find is Ardipithecus ramidus, hailed as the breakthrough of the year 2009 Darwinian schemes that envisage a linear process of descent, Darwin by the journal Science in its column, Science News This Week,11 who is proposed the revolutionary notion of branching evolution. According to said to have walked on the earth 4.4 million years ago. Ardi’s anatomy is this view, all organisms on earth have common ancestors and it is possible 10 Omega December 2009 11 K. Babu Joseph Evolution: Science and Meta-Science an Introduction unlike that of living apes or later hominids such as Lucy. So she belongs he doesn’t explicitly mention the word soul, he means it’s creation by to a transitional species (link) between the common ancestor and the God. He says: “…the experience of metaphysical knowledge of self humans. awareness and self reflection, of moral conscience, freedom or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of Each gene is a portion of DNA and the genome is the totality of philosophical analysis and, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning 12 all genes. The DNA of a given species is a polymer molecule made up according to the Creator’s plan…” The Darwinists’ claim that there is of billions of permutations of the four letters A, C, G and T which stand nothing in man that is not a product of evolution, as there are animals for the nucleotides adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine, respectively. possessing similar faculties. As far back as 1967, the zoologist Desmond Each event in the evolutionary history of a species is recorded in its Morris15 made the interesting observation that our activities such as DNA. Any change or new trait in an organism, called mutation, is feeding, grooming, sleeping, fighting, mating, and care of the young have traceable. Mutation appears as a sequence of changes in the DNA. counterparts in other species. An important problem with the religious Some mutations are favored by nature and are preserved. This explains view is to decide whether Homo sapiens are the only humans endowed why certain genes have been preserved in the living world for billions of with a soul, while other human/humanoid species continue to be soulless. years, while others have been rejected through natural selection. Though There is some evidence suggesting that the Neanderthals who lived in random, natural selection acts on what is useful. Not all mutations result various parts of the globe till about 30,000 years ago, may have had in biological change as there is a tolerance range of variation. Such some crude form of religious belief as indicated by the way in which variations are the secret of why each human is a unique individual they buried their dead. They might have worshipped the forces of nature 13 biologically. Natural selection operates through adaptation to the as gods. This conjecture is not without controversy. Religion, art, music, environment. For instance, a moth species with background–matched and language are cultural universals of humanity. Some experts hold the color can survive the attack of predators better than that with color view that all these developed simultaneously about 50,000 years ago.16 mismatch. Thus the species with matched color becomes selected over that with unmatched color. Several cases of co-selection in which some Progress has been reported recently in understanding the genetic trait of one species is beneficial to another species and vice versa have basis of self awareness in the bacterium Proteus mirabilis.17 These been discovered. Competition and co-operation are thus two faces of bacteria form colonies while moving on solid surfaces, the process being the same coin. called swarming. Boundaries form between swarming colonies of the same strain, but not between colonies of a single strain. The ability to 3. Conflict with Religion discriminate between self and non-self (other) is an essential prerequisite for boundary formation. Some mutant bacteria of this species were seen Darwinism and religion have often clashed with each other over to be isolating themselves from their parent colony in a bid to start a new issues that are not properly analyzed by either party. Barring the one. Apparently, there is no comparison between the human self and the extremists among religious groups who take every word in their sacred ‘bacterial self’ but the difference is only in the scale of complexity. The books literally, there is a growing awareness of the principle of evolution human body may be regarded as a colony of single celled organisms and a possible role for God in the evolutionary process. Pope John Paul bound by proteins fibre - call them bacteria, if it suits - just like a swarm 14 II, for example, questions evolutionary theories of the mind which claims of Proteus mirabilis. If the bacterial swarm can be treated as an exemplar to have emerged from the forces of living matter as they are incompatible of self-assembly, why not use the same paradigm to describe the human with the concept of the dignity of man. He argues that there is a direct body. Self-assembly,18 which involves bottom-up architecture, is the divine intervention in the transition from the animal to the human state, a physical mechanism employed in the building of a termite mound or an discontinuity in the otherwise continuous process of evolution. Eventhough ant’s nest as well as in the development of an embryo. In all these

12 Omega December 2009 13 K. Babu Joseph Evolution: Science and Meta-Science an Introduction processes there is no top down guidance or control. So may be, some they will give you the world. But beyond assuming that the first cell day the details of articulation of the self and the mind will be exposed. somehow came into existence, how do biologists explain its emergence from the pre-biotic world four billion years ago?” The simplest bacterium The principle of natural selection is simple but powerful, as revealed Mycoplasma genitalium has about 387 protein-coding genes but a by the structures, order and chimera of purpose it can give rise to. The theoretical study by Gil et al, cited in Ref 18, puts the minimum number emergence of Homo sapiens is a landmark event in the history of of genes for sustained metabolism at 216. The big question is how come evolution. There is no need to involve the direct intervention of the an extremely complex network of so many proteins has arisen by itself. Almighty at that stage because evolution has not stopped and the species Stanley Miller’s famous experiment20 showed that amino acids could keeps on improving in terms of health, life expectancy and creativity. have formed by sparking in a mixture of methane, hydrogen, ammonia, Who knows if some super species will not appear replacing the sapiens! and water in the reducing atmosphere of the early earth. Nevertheless, One cannot also dismiss the possibility of an unprecedented case of the passage from amino acids to the living cell is a dark alley. There is a degradation of flora and fauna due to global warming. Millions of species theory claiming that RNA was a precursor to both protein and DNA in may be casualties of this disaster in the coming decades. Arguments the sense that it can function both as a catalyst and as carrier of genetic based on order in the universe are meaningless in the sense of information. DNA and RNA have the same ingredients except for one: thermodynamics since entropy, a measure of disorder, is increasing. The instead of thymine (T), RNA has uracil (U). Though DNA is usually biosphere is a micro-island of order in a vast ocean of disorder that is the made in the lab from RNA, its precursor role is yet to be proved. More universe. Even if extraterrestrial life is discovered, the total contribution speculative scenarios also have been discussed without any definitive of all life forms to negative entropy or order, would be marginal. conclusion. Attributing motive on the part of God in causing the emergence of Homo sapiens is an instance of anthropomorphic thinking, and this lacks Teilhard de Chardin, a philosopher and paleontologist, makes the credibility because there is hardly any merit this species can boast of following remarks about the advent of life:21 “No amount of historical vis-à-vis others. Some animals are known to be superior to humans in research is likely to reveal the details of this story. Unless the science of their capacity for compassion, love and loyalty. tomorrow is able to reconstruct the process in the laboratory, we shall probably never find any material evidence of this emergence of the 4. Convergence microscopic from the molecular, of the organic from the chemical, of the living from the pre-living. One thing is certain, however – a It is abundantly clear that evolution is the mechanism behind the metamorphosis of this sort could not have been the result of a simple appearance or disappearance of species on the earth. The environment continuous process.” Though Chardin’s postulate of the existence of a selects the suitable species by mercilessly eliminating the unsuitable ones. Within and Without in all things is likely to invite criticism, his Nature is not a static background; it is dynamic and location-dependent. characterization of the transition from the pre-biotic to the biotic as a Global warming, if left uncontrolled, will destroy forever tens of thousands discontinuous process is significant. Were it a smooth process, it would of species - a proof of the dynamic character of nature. Evolution is not have been more common in the universe. The currently available evidence without its bag of woes. It is not successful in explaining the origin of for extraterrestrial life, let alone extraterrestrial intelligent life, is shaky. life, for which there are only tentative theories at present, but as Dawkins So the beginning of life on earth must have been one of the rarest of rare has admitted a year or so ago, there is currently no convincing theory events in cosmic history. In Ref. 2 the present writer proposed a scientific about this. The situation is reminiscent of Big Bang to which both theory description of God in terms of energy and information or probability. and observation point, but the detailed physical mechanism remains a Even diehard atheists can agree with this definition. The physicist tells mystery, as physics breaks down at this point. In his article Moritz19 us that energy is the capacity for doing work. Work implies change and quotes the science writer Richard Robinson: “Give biologists a cell and 14 Omega December 2009 15 K. Babu Joseph Evolution: Science and Meta-Science an Introduction therefore, the advent of life, portrayed by the believers as a miracle, 7. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Sixth Edition of On the Origin of represents a manifestation of Energy/God with a high degree of Species, 1872, Indian Reprint (Delhi: Goyal Saab), pp. 18-19. information or low level of probability. The rest of the story is as told by 8. Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 25. the evolutionists. 9. Charles Pasternak, Quest: The Essence of Humanity (Chichester: Wiley, 2004), 5. Concluding Remarks pp. 5-6. 10. See, for example, Dawkins, Op. Cit, pp. 184-207. Evolution is a physical process in which living things negotiate equilibrium or peace with the surroundings. Since this is not a stable 11. Science Week This Week, December 18, 2009, 326 (5960) ([email protected]) state, species win or fail in making adaptations and the losers face the 12. See, for example, Matt Ridley, Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in threat of extinction. So long as there is no reliable explanation of the 23 Chapters (New York: Harper Collins, 1999), Perennial Edition 2000, pp. 4- onset of life on the earth, it can be considered to be an act of creation 10. which is nothing but an energy transaction with low probability. In this 13. Sean B. Carroll, The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Record of scenario, the physical and the spiritual are unified. Established religions Evolution (London: Quercus, 2009), pp. 60-62. with their elaborate ritual framework are rather cultural constructs than 14. Pope John Paul II, “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,” English philosophical or spiritual inventions. Which strengthens the case for translation reprint in Evolutionary and Molecular Biology: Scientific secularism. Perceptives in Divine Action, Robert John Russell, William Stoeger, S.J, Francis Ayala, eds., jointly published by Vatican Observatory and Centre for Theology and Natural Sciences, 1996, pp. 6, 8. Notes 15. Desmond Morris, The Naked Ape (London: Vintage, 1967), p. 7. 1. Dr. K. Babu Joseph is a former Vice- Chancellor of Cochin University of 16. See, for example, http://www.garwandwane.com religion/religion I. html. Science and Technology, where he is currently Professor Emeritus in the 17. Karime A. Gibbs, Mark L. Urbanonski, and E. Peter Greenberg, Science, Vol. Department of Physics. 321 (2008), pp. 256-259. 2. Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth (London: Bantam Press, 18. Dawikns, Op. Cit pp. 216-220 London, 2009), pp. 150-151. 19. For a recent review of various models, see Albrecht Moritz, “The Origin of 3. K. Babu Joseph, “The Concept of God According To Quantum Theology,” Life,” http://www.talkorigins.org/atroprob/origin of life. html Omega, Vol.1 (2002), pp. 58-72. 20. Stanley Miller, Science, Vol.117 (1953), pp. 528-529. 4 K. Babu Joseph, “Towards a Theory of God,” in Together Towards Tomorrow: Interfacing Science and Religion in India, Essays in Honor of 21. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man (London: Collins, 1955), Professor Job Kozhamthadam, S. J., Kuruvila Pandikattu S. J , editor, (Pune: p. 79. religion/religion I. html. Association of Science Society and Religion, 2006), pp. 261-267. 5. K. Babu Joseph, “Studies in Quantum Theology,” report of research under a project sponsored by IISR, Pune, during 2003-2004, unpublished, 2005. 6. For history of evolution especially pre-Darwinian theories see, for example, Monroe W. Strickberger, Evolution (Third Edition) (Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 2000), pp. 3-9.

16 Omega December 2009 17 Can a Christian Believe in Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory? Omega plausible mechanism for the evolution of all biological beings. However, VIII (2009)2, 18-33 for some of the mourners, there were doubts about the place of burial. Darwin, after all, had demolished the concept of the uniqueness of the human person and also undermined one of the eloquent arguments for the existence of a designer God. The journal Guardian, then, reassured its readers that they should not have any “misgivings, lest the sacred pavement of the Abbey should cover a secret enemy of faith.” Rather, Can a Christian Believe in Darwin’s the honour of the burial should be seen as “a happy trophy of the Evolutionary Theory? reconciliation between faith and science.”2 - Sarojini Henry1 Charles Darwin was buried in the Westminster Abbey near Isaac Newton and a few yards from the great Evangelist David Livingston. Abstract: With his theory of evolution, Charles Darwin made a great Did Darwin share the orthodox faith of these two leaders? Perhaps he difference to our understanding of who we are and how we have come did, as a student at Cambridge, pursuing theological studies. At the time into being on this fragile planet. What is significant to most Christians he joined the HMS Beagle trip, he held onto his inherited Anglican beliefs. is the impact of the theory of evolution on their religious sensibilities. If he were not called as a naturalist on the ship Beagle, Darwin might Darwinism, if not properly understood, clashes with some of the cherished well have become one of the numerous Anglican parson-naturalists who Christian beliefs. Darwinism’s emphasis on our animal ancestry is studied God’s creation in the English countryside. His experience during apparently contrary to the Christian belief that humans were made in the Beagle journey not only prevented his entry into the parsonage, but the image of God. Again what kind of a benevolent God can allow the also provided him plenty of opportunities for reflection, radical questioning suffering, waste and pain that went along with Darwin’s evolutionary and deep thinking about life and all its complexities. process through natural selection? In spite of the many controversies that Christian faith has to face, some eminent theologians now argue Darwin was a changed person when he emerged from the trip on persuasively that Christians can indeed, with integrity, connect their Beagle. With his new frame of mind, Darwin began to question many of faith in God with a scientific understanding of evolution. They point out the historical details in both the Old and New Testaments, questions that that evolutionary science can actually be taken as an invitation to enlarge our sense of the divine. This article examines how these are raised by several theologians and philosophers now in the twenty- theologians maintain that the theory of evolution exposes a fresh view first century. Darwin added nothing new on that score. Like many of the reality of the sacred and an astoundingly meaningful universe. contemporary scholars, Darwin also struggled over what constitutes legitimate and sufficient evidence for religious beliefs. Keywords: Evolutionary Theory, Natural Selection, Darwin’s Faith Journey, Evolutionary Theology, Metaphysics of the Future, Omega Point, Darwin was not the first naturalist to realize that evolution might Kenosis, God of Evolution. have occurred; scholars since the time of the Greek civilization, including his own grandfather Erasmus Darwin, had toyed with the idea of When Charles Darwin died in April 1882, the British authorities evolution. For a long time, such beliefs remained speculative and confused decided to bury him in Westminster Abbey, London. This was certainly without evidence and support. Based on a lifetime of careful scientific an affirmation that Darwin belonged to the nation and to the history of study and observation, Darwin not only presented a vast amount of the British Isles. Darwin had indeed made a significant contribution with evidence for evolution, but also proposed the mechanism of natural his theory of evolution producing a wealth of evidence and suggesting a selection, which operating on random variation across enormous time spans could result in a tremendous variety of life-forms. Darwin defines 18 Omega December 2009 19 Sarojini Henry Can a Christian Believe in Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory? natural selection: “The preservation of favourable variations and the In 1825, Charles left for Edinburgh to study medicine with a view rejection of injurious variations I call natural selection. Variations neither to becoming a physician like his father. Edinburgh was the best choice useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection and would for medical studies at that time, but Charles showed little academic be left a fluctuating element.”3 interest in medicine and was a bit shocked by the brutality of medical surgery. After two years, Charles dropped out of medical studies, although Darwin’s theory of evolution is often taken as a very close Edinburgh developed in him a passion for science and nature. At this approximation of the way life has evolved on Earth over billions of years. juncture, his father suggested to him the calling of an Anglican clergyman. Darwin had indeed provided a scientific explanation, essentially correct, but incomplete with some notable gaps of how evolution actually occurs. On October 15, 1827, Charles was admitted a member of Christ’s Throughout the years he worked on his idea, Darwin was inwardly afraid college in Cambridge. During his three years of theological studies, of alienating his people, his family and the whole British church and Charles became more interested in collecting biological specimens; he society. He did not publish his findings until he was nearly fifty years old. became a passionate amateur naturalist on the natural theology of William How he worked through these years and why he eventually published Paley who had argued that the complex structures of living things and his theory make a fascinating story. This is the story of one man’s struggle the remarkable adaptations of plants and animals required an intelligent to comprehend a world explained both by religion and by the evolutionary designer. At Cambridge, Charles also studied geology with Adam science that bears his name. Sedgewick, finding about the ancient age of the Earth and then went with him on a geological excursion in Wales. When he returned, he Darwin had indeed revolutionized humanity’s perception of itself, found to his amazement an invitation to join Captain Fitzgerald as a challenging Christian orthodox thinking which was already fraying at the naturalist on the ship HMS Beagle. edges. It is here that Darwin’s own religious journey fits in. A short history of Darwin’s religious odyssey is given below. It is followed by On 27th December 1831, Charles Darwin boarded HMS Beagle some pertinent Christian responses to Darwin’s theory of evolution over in Plymouth and set out on a journey that lasted nearly five years. Before the years. Finally there is the discussion of how some theologians seek the trip, Charles was ‘a sort of Christian,’ namely orthodox in a to affirm that Darwin’s theory is compatible with the Christian idea of conventional, rational Anglican kind of way. He was probably not exactly God and God’s action. as orthodox as he portrays himself before the Beagle voyage. For Darwin, personal experience of Jesus or the Holy Spirit had been always Darwin’s Faith Journey peripheral. Scripture played a significant part but mainly as a source Charles Darwin was born in a Christian family deeply embedded material for arguments that proved Christian truths. Darwin’s Christianity within an aristocratic Christian culture. His father Robert and grandfather was based more on rational defence of the creeds accepted in the church. Erasmus Darwin were Anglican and fairly free thinking, while his The Beagle effected a profound change in his way of seeing and mother’s relatives were strong Unitarians, believing in God but rejecting understanding reality - both of nature and of God. About Darwin’s voyage the doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, Fall, Atonement and Revelation. on the Beagle, Nick Spencer wrote: “Just as the Beagle gave Darwin Charles himself was tutored by a Unitarian minister at his mother’s material for his theory of evolution but did not witness the formulation of wishes. Charles’s mother died when he was eight and his sister took that theory, so the voyage gave him material for the loss of his Christian 4 over the responsibility of raising him up. Watched over by his elder sisters faith without witnessing that loss.” and maidservants, Charles grew up amidst wealth, comfort and country The years 1837-39 were crucial to Darwin’s attitude to Christian sports. scriptures and its doctrines. In his autobiography, he has a short chapter on “Religious beliefs” positioned after a chapter entitled “From my return 20 Omega December 2009 21 Sarojini Henry Can a Christian Believe in Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory? to England Oct. 2, 1836 to my marriage Jan. 29, 1839.” Here, Darwin Easter in 1851. He realized that religion or belief in a loving God offers begins by saying how orthodox he was on the Beagle trip and then no real comfort or consolation in times of sorrow; the sense of injustice described the ways by which he came to doubt Christian faith during and the feeling of loss only become overwhelming. Spencer concludes, this period. It is possible that disbelief was an acceptable trait within the “Once he had lived through Annie’s wretched death, he could not reconcile Darwin family, as his father and grandfather were both free-thinking. the reality of suffering … with his understanding of God.”9 Charles Darwin began to doubt “the Old Testament with its Darwin had unparalleled powers of observation, and speculation; manifestly false history of the world, with the tower of Babel, the rainbow his method was supremely thoughtful and tactful. It is possible that he as a sign, etc.” Darwin also recognized that the Old Testament writers understood that his theory at least redeemed his fellow Christians from “attribute to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant,” and concluded that the religious fastidiousness over the creation story in Genesis and has it “was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus, or the allowed them to see the creation of the universe in a scientific way. Yet, beliefs of any barbarian.”5 As for the New Testament, he wondered if Darwin could sense a tension in relating Christian faith with his theory the gospels had been written about the same time because they differ in of evolution. Nick Spencer reports about Darwin: “He was sure that it many important details, and do not possess the accuracies of eye- was possible to accommodate religious faith with his theory, a view he witnesses. On the miracles in the New Testament, Darwin opined that held right up to the end of his life, telling one correspondent, John Fordyce, the more we know of the fixed laws of nature, the more incredible in 1879 that, ‘it seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an miracles become. ardent Theist & an evolutionist.’”10 All these ruminations on life gradually led him to doubt the very Some Responses to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution scriptural details in the Bible. Are the Gospels from eye witnesses? How can the miracles in the New Testament be taken as true in this The publication of The Origin of Species ushered in a new era in scientific age? How true is the creation story given in Genesis? In his the intellectual history of humanity. It produced considerable public Autobiography, Darwin had summarized all these observations, “I excitement and many scholars discussed the book defending or deriding gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.”6 Darwin’s ideas. Among those favourable to evolutionary theory in contemporary times are Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. They Spencer also refers to the problem of suffering which was are both in the ultra-Darwinist camp; by adding a materialistic metaphysics tormenting Darwin ever since he formulated the idea of natural selection. to the science of evolutionary biology, they replace divine purpose and Spencer writes: providence with blind and uncaring natural law. By attempting to reduce The years of intense speculation after he arrived back from the life to chemistry and evolutionary theory to a purely mechanical process, Beagle voyage destabilized the comfortable, Paleyian Christianity they tend to make Darwinism fundamentally equivalent to atheism. of Darwin’s youth. And the theory of evolution by natural selection that he formulated during and after this period certainly For the creationists, there could be no compromise with Darwin’s highlighted the problem of suffering for him in a new and evolutionary theory and they believe that the theory contradicted the problematic way.7 biblical view of a six-day creation as divinely dictated in the book of Spencer further points out, “It was no surprise, therefore, that Genesis. Writing on creationists, John Haught argues, “These are when he first recognized that the natural world was not as ordered, predominantly Christian theists who agree with skeptics that Darwinian purposive or benign as had been thought, the Christian structure that had evolution, if true, would logically rule out the idea of God and a purposeful 11. towered about these foundations toppled.”8 The final blow for Darwin, Universe.” It was this opposition to Darwin’s theory that set the stage however, came when he lost his beloved daughter Annie aged ten, at for the creationists to preserve biblical inerrancy and literalism and to 22 Omega December 2009 23 Sarojini Henry Can a Christian Believe in Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory? eventually claim scientific credibility for the Genesis creation story, of divine purpose or design in nature. This disinterested manner of natural thereby placing biblical creation stories alongside evolutionary theory as selection suggests that we live in an impersonal, uncaring world. a competing set of scientific ideas. Another nagging question for Christian thinkers has to do with Among believing Christians, even those who accept the main trend theodicy. It is known that evolution by natural selection, with its ruthless of Darwinian explanation for the origin of species by natural selection, struggle for existence involved much agony, aimless wandering, and waste argue that God’s intervention is necessary for the creation of the human of life. It is believed that since life began on earth, there had been at soul. According to the Bible, humans were created separately from the least five major extinctions events. The most recent, the Cretaceous– rest of creation. Christians tend to assume that humans are different Tertiary extinction event, occurred 65 million years ago, marking the from, indeed higher than animals. Thus humans are unique and not the elimination of nearly all dinosaur species, which were the dominant animal accidental by-products of blind natural forces. They also bemoan that class of the period. It looks as though a number of species over billions human existence, hitherto considered sacrosanct, has been brought within of years have been used only as a means to an end and finally underwent the natural law of the natural sciences. To be suddenly removed as a extinction. The question is how to defend a loving, benevolent God, very special child of the Creator and placed in the zoo with all the other considering the immense suffering caused to creatures of different kinds animals turned out to be a traumatic experience. over millions of years. Before Darwin, the best explanation for the ordered and adaptive Reflecting on this problem of having to justify God in the face of features of living organisms was that they were designed purposefully all the pain and suffering that creatures of all kinds had to undergo over by a creator God. Ever since William Paley gave a classic rendition of the years, John Haught writes: the argument from design, Christians have been under the assumption How could a powerful and compassionate creator permit all the that within a static universe, the complex functioning of various parts of suffering, aimless wandering, and obscene waste that we behold the organisms and their harmonious adaptations to their surroundings in surveying the millions of evolution? How could a loving provide a strong evidence for an intelligent designer. Darwinism, concerned God tolerate the struggle, pain, cruelty brutality, and therefore, became a challenge to the idea of intelligent design, because death that lie beneath the relatively stable and serene surface of 12 it had offered an automatic, mindless mechanism as an alternative to nature’s present order? purposeful design, in order to explain the uncanny good fit between Theory of Evolution and Christian Theology organisms and their environments and each other. Thus the earlier design argument lost much of its appeal when Charles Darwin proposed that Darwinian science is experiencing such a vigorous renewal in the the blind process of natural selection acting on random variation could contemporary intellectual world that theologians are wondering if theology account for the origin of new forms of life. ought to think about God in a manner consistent with evolution. Many Christians do not openly reject Darwinian ideas. They often tend to By the nineteenth century, Christians had understood some of the ignore evolutionary theory or remain content by taking the easy way of passages in the Bible as cultural accretions. Thus the controversy was accepting that evolution is God’s way of creating. Some theologians not so much on conformity to the biblical version; rather the issue was take the trouble to think deeply about evolution, as for example, John that the variations which compose the raw material for evolution are Polkinghorne who considers the possibility that specific divine action is completely accidental and not directed by any divine intelligence. Darwin’s hidden in what is called chance in science. Willem B. Drees also refers views centered on what seemed to be the randomness of natural selection to D. J. Bartholomew for whom, “chance might really be chance, also and the appearance of new organisms by chance, meant the exclusion

24 Omega December 2009 25 Sarojini Henry Can a Christian Believe in Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory? from God’s perspective; this would not preclude the possibility that God life.”15 John Haught points to another characteristic namely novelty. He achieves God’s purposes through chance processes.”13 writes, “According to process theology, evolution occurs because God is more interested in adventure than in preserving the status quo.”16 It has already been noted that it is the random way of evolution that is the point of dissent for many people. Theologians are now Apart from these general observations, there are some well-known questioning the above assertion that Darwin’s natural selection suggests theologians who have taken up the question seriously and worked out that we live in an impersonal world. They argue that even if Darwin is plausible explanations why Christians ought to believe in Darwin’s theory. right, he has not told the whole story. In this connection, John Haught Many theologians have struggled with the problems involved in points out, “There have been considerable refinements in the scientific accommodating evolution to Christian faith and here the expositions of understanding of evolution since his day, especially in the area of genetics three scholars, namely, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Wentzel van Huyssteen and molecular biology.”14 These two areas have filled in the details about and John F. Haught are considered in detail. how change occurs, details that Darwin did not know. According to theologians, these two refinements in the Darwinian exposition of 1. Teilhardian Perspective evolution are sure proof that Darwin’s biology has not done away with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), a paleontologist, all the mysteries of life. philosopher and scholar of extraordinary breadth and originality, tried to Such an observation has given impetus to many theologians to re- reconcile the theory of evolution with Christian faith. Teilhard’s scientific articulate, reformulate and understand theological truths in a more studies had already convinced him of the validity of evolution as a suitable satisfactory way by looking at the relevant knowledge available in the paradigm fundamental to the understanding of human existence. In his theory of evolution. Theologians are now seeking to find a balanced view, the plausibility as well as the renewal of Christian faith depend discussion of the impact of evolution on Christian beliefs in order to upon a sustained encounter with Darwinian ideas. He, therefore, sought understand and appreciate the values at stake. They also seek to to transform theological sensibilities in a way that takes evolution seriously. transform our theological sensibilities in a way that takes the theory of While scientists normally consider nature as providing only the evolution seriously. raw material for their research, Teilhard affirmed the natural world Many theologians are pointing to the concurrence of evolutionary itself as a source of mystical illumination, and saw God’s presence theory with the Christian belief in continuing creation. Christians believe emanating from within the world. The theme of his book, The Divine that God not only created the universe in the beginning but also continues Milieu, is that the natural world is the setting for a vision of the ultimate. to sustain the universe and they point to many biblical verses to prove In fact, Teilhard’s experience of God was always mediated through God’s preservation and providence. It looks as though evolutionary theory nature. The evolutionary paradigm greatly modified his understanding allows theology to endorse continuing creation more appropriately. In an of the whole universe, its sacredness and God’s involvement with the evolving cosmos, creation is still happening no less in the present than in world. the beginning. The Big Bang universe continues to unfold and every day Teilhard was acutely aware that the materialistic metaphysics, on is still the dawn of creation. which is constructed the scientific ideas of many biologists, was not The process theologians are pointing out the resemblance between sufficient to incorporate the important features of evolution, particularly process theology and evolutionary biology. Ian Barbour convincingly that of bringing about a new being or novelty. Rejecting the materialist writes. “Process thought shares with evolutionary biology the assumption philosophy with its belief that lifeless, mindless matter alone is real, of historical continuity, including the continuity of nonhuman and human Teilhard devised a theological metaphysics which allows all of the data of evolution, and especially the fact of emergent novelty to stand out. 26 Omega December 2009 27 Sarojini Henry Can a Christian Believe in Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory? Teilhard was influenced by Henri Bergson, who propounded a Science at Princeton Theological Seminary, points out, “In fact, the idea non-mechanistic portrait of evolution propelled by an inner vital impulse. of evolution itself has now become a theory with tremendous explanatory Using this as a theoretical tool, Teilhard wanted to reconcile evolution force, a theory that explains many otherwise puzzling features of our with Christian theology, and this led him to envision evolution as directional, world in a very elegant way.”20 He concludes that while the process of meaning that it is oriented towards the human person, and will move evolution has shaped our world and our own species, it has also definitely toward the Omega Point. In his view, changes in the universe over millions shaped the way we know about the world. His argument is that of years has been directional; direction is still going on, no longer in the philosophers, “have long argued that human intelligence can be seen as geosphere, the nonliving layer of the earth, or in the biosphere or life- naturally arising through evolutionary processes,” and continues to write: layer, but in the sphere of human consciousness and thought, namely, the  noosphere, and will move toward the Omega Point where all          consciousness will converge.          The Omega Point is both the goal toward which we are striving   and a supreme consciousness existing independently of time and the    laws of matter. Here, Teilhard identifies the Christ of revelation with the This means that all our knowledge is grounded in biological omega of evolution. It is with the Cosmic Christ, that the divine purpose evolution. Huyssteen, therefore, argues, “not only are all our different to unite all reality will come to fruition. And Teilhard would affirm, forms of human knowledge, especially scientific knowledge, firmly “All endeavor cooperates to complete the world in Christ Jesus.”17 grounded in biological evolution, but also our claims to religious What Teilhard seemed to be looking for is what can be called a knowledge.”22 metaphysics of the future. According to Chardin, evolution requires that The conclusion is that our scientific and theological knowledge we think of God not as driving or determining events from the past , but are not only affected by their social and historical roots but also by their as drawing the world toward the future. Teilhard goes on to say that biological origin. This view that evolution, rightly understood, can actually “only a God who is functionally and totally ‘Omega’ can satisfy us.” He enrich our religious faith considerably, leaves ample scope for humans asks, “where shall we find such a God? …And who will at last give to develop religious meaning, values and purpose. Thus, evolutionary evolution its own God.?18 theory, far from attacking religion, is seen to be positively contributing to Haught refers to Teilhard who “called his proposed alternative a our claims to have a meaningful knowledge of God. Therefore, as ‘metaphysics of unire,’ that is, a conception of reality to which all things theologian Aubrey Moore rightly quipped, “Darwinism appeared, and, are drawn perpetually to deeper coherence by an ultimate force of under the guise of a foe, did the work of a friend.”23 attraction, abstractly identified as omega, and conceived of as an essentially future reality.”19 Not surprisingly Teilhard conceives of the 3) John F. Haught’s Integration world‘s sacred Alpha as also an Omega beckoning all things towards a In his book God After Darwin, John F. Haught, professor of transcendent future up ahead. Theology at Georgetown University, first examines the question whether 2) Wentzel van Huyssteen’ Views theology can make sense of the suffering, wastage, pain and struggle that the story of evolution has placed before us. He appeals to the old In his book, Duet or Duel?: Theology and Science in a notion of divine kenosis that is the concept of the self-emptying of the Postmodern World, Wentzel van Huyssteen, professor of Theology and logos implied in Philippians 2:7. In Patristic Christianity, kenosis has

28 Omega December 2009 29 Sarojini Henry Can a Christian Believe in Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory? been successfully employed in Christology. It was the Lutheran enhance and enrich traditional teaching about God and God’s way of theologians in the sixteenth century who realized that the solution to the acting in the world. Christological difficulties lies in the concept of Christ’s self-emptying. Haught describes the God of evolution as the God of the future. Haught himself understood kenosis to mean God’s withdrawal of Here Haught along with Teilhard, opts for a metaphysics of the future. his divine power from the world, thereby allowing natural processes in He remarks that when we take nature as static, then it has no future of the world to be contingent and free. Haught remarks: its own. Here he emphasizes the dynamic nature of the universe and, By ignoring the image of divine humility, it is easy for us to forget like Teilhard, refers to the notion of novelty emerging. Haught writes, that intrinsic to the divine kenosis is its authorization of creation’s “As It happens, the evolutionary picture of nature passing from ‘matter’ striving for genuine independence, vis-a-vis its creator. Love by through life to mind readily allows us to discern in its various past phases its very nature cannot compel, and so any God whose very a perpetual potency for new being.”27 In the metaphysics of the future, essence is love should not be expected to overwhelm the world God is experienced as the source of new possibilities and of impingement either with a coercively directive ‘power’ or an annihilating 24 of the future on the present. Haught claims confidently, “The power of ‘presence.’ the future is the ultimate metaphysical explanation of evolution.”28 Haught further claims that divine withdrawal does not necessarily dismiss God’s involvement with the world. According to St John 3:16, This is because such a conclusion best accounts for contingency, God indeed loves the world. By divine withdrawal, Haught emphasizes chaos and novelty. By contingency Haught means a feature that allows absence and not God’s presence. He continues: for random, accidental or chance occurrences. Haught claims that the prophetic biblical tradition brings the horizon of the futurity into view and Indeed an infinite love must in some sense ‘absent’ or ‘refrain provides resonance with evolutionary biology, wherein new life-forms itself’ precisely in order to give the world the “space” in which to become appear over time. He writes: something distinct from the creative love that constitutes it as “other.” Rather than attributing to God a rigid ‘plan’ for the universe, We should anticipate, therefore, that any universe rooted in an unbounded evolutionary biology prefers to think of God’s ‘vision’ for it. Nature love would have some features that appear to us as random or after Darwin is not a design but a promise. God’s ‘plan,’ if we undirected.25 continue to use the term, is not a blueprint but an envisagement 29 of what the cosmos might become. Haught argues further that it is this humble retreat on the part of Haught points out that biblical faith is concerned with what we God, letting the world to be the world that allows the cosmos to evolve in humans hope for as our ultimate fulfillment. Thus in evolutionary theology, a relatively autonomous way. Haught concludes: Haught proposes an eschatological understanding of creation, a So if ultimate reality is essentially self-giving love, and if love in metaphysics of the future, which better explains both the theology of turn entails ‘letting the other be,’ then, theologically speaking, creation and the science of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Haught both the world’s original coming into being and its indeterminate concludes that the God of evolution does not design things in advance Darwinian transformation through time would be completely 26 consonant with the Christian experience of God. but shares with all creatures an openness to an indeterminate future in an unfinished universe. At this stage, Haught introduces the concept of evolutionary theology as an important form of theological engagement with Darwinism. He points out that evolutionary theology discerns in evolution a most illuminating context for theology. In his view, evolutionary theology seeks to show how our new awareness of cosmic and biological evolution can 30 Omega December 2009 31 Sarojini Henry Can a Christian Believe in Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory? Notes 21. Wentzel van Huyssteen, “Evolution: A Key to Knowledge of God?,” in God for the Twentieth Century, ed. Russell Stannard (Philadelphia: Templeton 1. Dr. Sarojini Henry was a former professor of Theology at Tamil Nadu Foundation Press), pp. 47-48. Theological Seminary, Chennai. 22. Ibid. 2. Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations: Science, Religion and Search for God (London: Bantam Press, 1994), p. 2. 23. Cited in Arthur Peacock, “The Disguised Friend: Darwinism and Divinity,” in God for the Twentieth Century, p. 43. 3. Cited in Christopher Southgate, ed., God, Humanity and the Cosmos (Harrisburg P. A: Trinity, 1999), p. 140. 24. John Haught, God after Darwin, pp. 111-112. 4. Nick Spencer, Darwin and God (London: SPCK, 2009), p. 23. 25. Ibid., p. 112. 5. Ibid., pp. 40-41. 26. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 27. Ibid., p. 188. 7. Ibid., p. 118. 28. Ibid., p. 90. 8. Ibid., p. 115. 29. Ibid., p. 190. 9. Ibid., p. 119. 10. Ibid., p. 83. 11. John Haught, God after Darwin (Colorado: Westview Press, 2000), p. 26. 12. Ibid., p. 20. 13. Willem B. Drees, Religion, Science and Naturalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 198. See also D. J. Bartholomew, God of Chance (London: SCM Press, 1984). 14. John Haught, God after Darwin, p. 82. 15. Ian. G. Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science (London: SCM Press, 1990), p. 228. 16. Haught, God after Darwin, p. 42. 17. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Divine Milieu, trans. Bernard Wall (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1960), p. 56. 18. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Christianity and Revolution, trans. Rene Hague (New York: Harcourt Brace &Co., 1969), p. 240. 19. Haught, God after Darwin, p. 84. 20. Wentzel van Huyssteen, Duet or Duel?: Theology and Science in a Postmodern World (Harrisburg PA: Trinity, 1998), p. 82.

32 Omega December 2009 33 The Sacramental Character of an Evolving Creation Omega “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows VIIi (2009)2, 34-57 forth his handiwork.” Psalm 19:1

“Through him all things were made, and without him nothing was made that was made…. And the word became flesh and dwelt among us.” The Sacramental Character of an John 1:3, 14. Evolving Creation Introduction: God, Creation, and Sacramentality 1 - Peter M. J. Hess Among the world’s great religions, two traditions presuppose and articulate with particular clarity the sacramental character of the cosmos. Abstract: The paper begins with the question of how post-modern Christians can remain faithful to their foundational beliefs while at the Hinduism and Christianity testify in contrasting ways to the presence of same time absorbing the reality that we inhabit an ancient, dynamic, God within creation. With appropriate caution for generalizing about a and evolving universe. Reflection upon the sacramental character of an collection of sacred writings that is perhaps more diverse even than the evolving creation can enrich the theological vocabulary by rendering Judeo-Christian scriptures, it can safely be said that in Hindu philosophy it more responsive to our deepening knowledge of the universe we inhabit. creation reflects the very being of God: Christians in our century can make peace with the scientific perspective Desiring that he should become many, that he should make of that we inhabit an ancient, dynamic, and evolving universe. The mystery himself many forms, Brahman meditated. Meditating, he created of the universe, which may be metaphorically termed as the all things. Creating all things, he entered into everything. Entering sacramentality of the universe, as underscored by both science and into all things, he became that which has shape and that which is theology becomes the point of convergence between them. Five global shapeless; he became that which can be defined and that which developments in science in terms of space, time, culture, personhood cannot be defined; he became that which has support and that and evolutionary relatedness in recent times place us now in a very which has not support; he became that which is conscious and different world from medieval times. Post-modern Christians need to that which is not conscious; he became that which is gross and absorb the reality that we inhabit a very ancient, dynamic, and evolving that which is subtle. He became all things whatsoever: therefore universe. Our thinking in spheres as distinct as science, theology, ethics, the wise call him the Real. culture, and aesthetics no longer assumes a young and static world, but (Taittiriya Upanishad 2:6:1c) presupposes one that is ancient, dynamic and evolutionary. The sacramental value of the world can be rediscovered in this evolutionary Emanating from the One, or Brahman, the world unfolds over matrix. The incarnational perspective serves both as the zenith point of time into the myriad forms of biological nature. In a literal sense the the inherently sacramental in character of the universe and of the unity whole world is a sacrament, a visible manifestation of God. Vedantic of knowledge. The sacramental perspective is consonant both with texts testify both to the specific manifestations of the divine in nature, biblical revelation and theological tradition, and with a science that and to the universal that transcends the particular. Inquiring into which recognizes the limits of methodological naturalism. among the avatars of God is most properly the recipient of supreme Keywords: Evolution, Sacramentality, Creation, Soul, Imago Dei, worship the Shvetashvatara Upanishad asks, Personhood, Original Sin. Who is the master of the gods on whom the worlds rest? Who is the Lord of the two-footed and four-footed here? To what god shall we reverently give offerings?. . .

34 Omega December 2009 35 Peter M. J. Hess The Sacramental Character of an Evolving Creation It is the protector of the world in time, Astronomy discloses to us the processes of stellar evolution and the the master of the universe, hidden in all creatures. formation of rocky planets by accretion from nebular discs. From Shvetashvatara Upanishad (3) chemistry we learn about the nucleosynthesis of heavy elements in stars To summarize, in Upanishadic Hindu thought, God or the originating and of pre-organic compounds on planets, and from evolutionary biology principle is manifest in and through nature, and indeed, is one with nature, we learn the details of the history of life on earth. Neuroscience and and humans ultimately are one with all nature and with the divine. psychology allow us to explore the development of human rationality, including the emergence of moral awareness and spiritual sensitivity. The monotheistic metaphysic of the Western traditions stands in Even if science by itself is intrinsically incapable of discovering God, a marked contrast to this, distinguishing as it does between God and the Christian believes God to be immanent in the processes that are the works of God’s creation, expressed in Genesis 1-2, and in the psalms: subject of science.3 How many are your works, O LORD! In wisdom you made them all; Through centuries of changing explanatory frameworks of the earth is full of your creatures. science, Christianity has retained its essential sacramental orientation. There is the sea, vast and spacious, Pope Benedict XVI has noted that “only in the mystery of the Word teeming with creatures beyond number— made Flesh does the mystery of man truly become clear.”4 In the living things both large and small. Incarnation, God enters into an ancient and dynamic creation, Psalm 104:24-25 communicating divine truth through the capacities of the human creature. In its theology of creation — solidly rooted in Hebrew tradition — We can express this truth in complementary ways. From the perspective Christianity rejects pantheism, the identification of God with the multiple of evolutionary biology or anthropology, Homo sapiens represents the elements of the world. However, Christian theology affirms not only the mostly fully developed terrestrial manifestation of emerging primate infinite transcendence of God, but also the divine immanence. In an rationality. From the theological perspective, humans as imago Dei inverse of Hindu sacramentalism in which God is manifest in nature, embody the moral and spiritual response called forth by God from Christian thought locates nature within the all-encompassing matrix of creation. The Incarnation is the supreme expression of this response: in divine reality. Christian theology can quite appropriately be expressed in the person of Jesus God took on the quarks of the Big Bang, the dust of terms of panentheism, the philosophical framework in which God is both supernovae explosions, the DNA of dinosaurs, and the long history of immanent within nature and infinitely transcendent to it.2 Because it the primate genome. In an evolutionary paraphrase of St. Gregory of exists within God, nature is capable of manifesting the divine through Nazianzus, God assumes creation by becoming incarnate at its heart in a bread and wine, oil and water, fire and light, as we find expressed in human person, Jesus Christ.5 scripture, liturgy, and theology. A sacramental perspective carries important implications for How does the Christian sacramental principle inform the thinking theologically understanding our evolving universe. The Hebrew account of religious believers in a world dominated by and organized according in Genesis declares that God saw the world was good, and the Christian to the categories of modern science? We inhabit a very different world tradition has always affirmed the goodness of creation against from that of the biblical authors and first theologians of the Early Church. denunciations of the material world as evil, launched by heretical sects The picture of a young, finite and static cosmos has fallen away before such as Gnostics, Manicheans, or Cathars. Karl Rahner noted the our conception of an ancient, dynamic and evolving universe. Physics significance of this affirmation: informs us that the universe is governed by quantum mechanics, and The point at which God in a final self-communication irrevocably cosmology tells us how it may have begun 13.7 billion years ago. and definitively lays hold on the totality of the reality created by

36 Omega December 2009 37 Peter M. J. Hess The Sacramental Character of an Evolving Creation him is characterized not as spirit but as flesh. It is this which intricate ballet characterized alternately by harmony and conflict, by authorizes the Christian to integrate the history of salvation into 10 6 indifference and mutual engagement. Christianity naturally has reflected the history of the cosmos. the worldview assumed by its believers, and over the course of half a Indeed, in Catholic perspective creation is necessarily the domain millennium the physical worldview of the Christian West has been of God’s redemptive work, capable of bearing the incarnation and of dramatically altered. The geocentric cosmos that until the Renaissance being transfigured in turn by that creation. had served as a backdrop for the biblical drama of human salvation began to disintegrate in the face of discoveries in the natural and life A second important implication of the sacramental perspective is sciences. The loss of the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology in the the principle of the unitas scientiae, firmly held in Catholic tradition seventeenth century worked a progressively dislocating affect on the from Augustine to Albertus Magnus and Pope Benedict XVI. This is the modern psyche, exemplified by Pascal’s statement that “the eternal silence principle of the unity of knowledge or truth. Because God is present in of these infinite spaces frightens me.”11 The classical view of the world and through creation, the truths revealed by science and by religion would suffer yet further erosion with the eighteenth-century excavation ultimately constitute two sides of the same coin. The first Jesuits of geological “deep time” and the nineteenth-century discovery of the understood and maintained this unity with great competence at the dawn evolving nature of life. of the scientific era,7 but in our era of compartmentalized knowledge negotiating the unitas scientiae is increasingly a challenge. Pope Benedict The close partnership enjoyed by faith and reason in the Middle argues for an architectonic vision of truth rather than a simplistic biblical Ages became more fragile during the period known as the Scientific literalism: Revolution.12 The English Jacobean divine and poet and John Donne Holy Scripture in its entirety was not written from beginning to (1572-1631) illustrates the ambivalent response to the shifts in world end like a novel or a textbook. It is, rather, the echo of God’s view during this period. A man of deep pastoral concern, he engaged history with his people. The Bible is thus the story of God’s with more than a passing curiosity new currents of thought in natural struggle with human beings to make himself understandable to philosophy, but ultimately he subordinated questions about science to his them over the course of time; but it is also the story of their more urgent theological interests: 8 struggle to seize hold of God over the course of time. I need not call in the new philosophy, that denies a settledness, The unity of truth is challenged not only by compartmentalization, an acquiescence in the very body of the Earth, but makes the but by the bewildering pace of change affecting scientific knowledge, Earth to move in that place, where we thought the Sun had moved; I need not that help, that the earth itself is in motion, to prove social institutions, and even established moral truths. A critical faculty 13 that recognizes all experience as being evolutionary or developmental in this, that nothing upon Earth is permanent; . . . character is essential to interpreting this changing knowledge. If we Genuinely curious about the new science, Donne’s judgment that appreciate this - as did Newman with respect to doctrine more than a we will not improve our understanding of scientific matters by clinging century ago9 - we will understand why theological models are subject to to the spectacles of the “old philosophy” offered a startling critique of periodic reinterpretation, and why this should pose no threat to the core the seventeenth century canon of scientific authority: of our faith tradition. How imperfect is all our knowledge! . . . Young men mend not their sight by using old men’s Spectacles; and yet we look upon The Perspectival Shift in the Third Millennium Nature, but with Aristotle’s Spectacles, and upon the body of man, but with Galen’s, and upon the frame of the world, but with The Christian tradition has enjoyed long and fruitful engagement 14 Ptolemy’s Spectacles. with science, or “natural philosophy” as it used to be known, dancing an

38 Omega December 2009 39 Peter M. J. Hess The Sacramental Character of an Evolving Creation The relationship between Donne’s critique of science and his wider in, and fully related to the world.21 A theology that is not challenged and theological concerns is instructive: even should the “new philosophy” transformed as the scientific culture changes around it is not really a (non-Aristotelian science) provide us with a closer approximation to truth living theology at all, but only the fossilized relic of a once-living tradition. in the physical sciences, this would remain as incidental as all other Here we look at five global developments in scientific and cultural merely human learning unless it guided us in the direction of spiritual perspective that place us now in a very different world from that inhabited salvation. by our medieval Catholic forbears. The vast shifts in perspective spread across three centuries - in 1. Space: our perspective has shifted from that of a relatively cosmology, physics, chemistry, medicine, geology, and natural history - small cosmos to that of an unbounded universe. Cosmologies inevitably were in some respects intellectually and spiritually traumatic.15 The evolve, as happened when the Old Testament view (adapted from the disintegration of the long-established medieval world view sowed seeds Babylonian22) was replaced by Greek astronomy. The medieval of doubt and of mistrust of science in particular, illustrating the risk of Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology - in which concentric spheres bearing too close a dependence of theology upon a specific natural philosophy.16 the moon, sun, planets, and fixed stars revolve about an earth sitting in However, for every disintegration of a world view there is a corresponding the least honorable position of “cosmic sump”23 - has given way to the reintegration. With varying degrees of caution and success, religious modified Newtonian system of planets that revolve around the sun, itself communities in the early modern period responded by absorbing the one of a hundred billion stars in one of three hundred billion galaxies in most cogent models and ideas of the relevant sciences, including the known universe. Echoing Nicholas of Cusa’s metaphor for God, the heliocentrism and atomism, pulmonary circulation of the blood and the universe is unbounded in every direction, with its circumference nowhere existence of a vacuum, geological change and ecological relationships. and its center everywhere. The pace of revision of our scientific outlook accelerated in the 2. Time: the static medieval vision of a cosmos created in six twentieth century, creating new flashpoints of controversy. The days has given way to that of a dynamic universe with a history far Enlightenment emphasis on reason gave birth to methodological longer than the 6,000 year biblical timeline. The Newtonian view has in naturalism, which now often slips surreptitiously into metaphysical turn been modified by Einsteinian relativity, quantum mechanics, and naturalism. A spate of recent books has launched an all-out attack not Lemaitre’s proposal of a Big Bang model of cosmic origins. During 13.7 only on religious practice, but on the coherence of religious belief itself.17 billion years of cosmic inflation, hundreds of billions of galaxies of stars These arguments have in turn received rebuttals, sparking a vigorous formed from gaseous nebulae, heavier elements were cooked by debate that can be constructive for both religion and science.18 Daniel nucleosynsthesis within stars, and individual stars and planets formed Dennett has asserted that the theory of evolution by natural selection is from accretion discs of interstellar dust and gas. It is now generally a universal acid that “eats through just about every traditional concept, assumed that the universe will continue expanding into the indefinite and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old future, probably until it suffers an entropic heat death tens of billions of landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.”19 years from now.24 This is hardly news to a theologian familiar with the theory of 3. Evolutionary relatedness: the “Great Chain of Being” has evolution, and may in fact be considered salutary for the critical rethinking metamorphosed into an ecological web. Our terrestrial view of the of religious concepts. Indeed, John Haught welcomes the evolutionary hexaemeral creation story of Genesis - in which plants and animals were perspective as “Darwin’s gift to theology.”20 Evolution forces the created in their unique habitats on days four, five and six of creation theologian to integrate religious belief into cosmic history, and offers a week ¯ has given way to a perspective in which life on earth is shaped context for a doctrine of God as compassionate, suffering with, active by a long history and a shared genealogy. The eighteenth-century 40 Omega December 2009 41 Peter M. J. Hess The Sacramental Character of an Evolving Creation discovery of deep geological time and animal extinctions, led to the These great changes pose some significant questions for religious proposals of evolution by Lamarck, Wallace, and Darwin, and these to believers in the third millennium. Post-modern Christians must absorb the Modern Synthesis that forms the core of contemporary evolutionary the reality that we inhabit a very ancient, dynamic, and evolving universe, theory, supplemented by later developments such as molecular genetics, and yet at the same time maintain our fidelity to foundational beliefs and endosymbiosis, and evolutionary developmental biology. Western science traditions. The sacramental Christian perspective allows us both to has incrementally arrived at a unified account of the history of life on embrace tradition and responsibly to engage the expanding worldview earth, from the first eukaryotic cell to the branching bush of life, of of modern science. Faith and reason are not natural epistemological which primates form one branch and Homo sapiens one leaf related to opposites, aligned respectively with religion and with science. The two all others through their shared inheritance and common ecologies.25 terms in fact play complementary roles in both the scientific and the theological enterprises. Faith is central to any religious tradition, for without 4. Personhood: the Christian perspective on the human person it, scriptures are indistinguishable from other literature, and rituals are has come almost full circle. The Hebraic vision of the human as a psycho- emptied of transcendent meaning. In Christian thought, faith as “the somatic unity created in the image of God was at the core of the earliest assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews Christian theological anthropology. This was submerged in the Patristic 11:1) stands in complementary relationship to reason, which is essential era, however, by a Platonic dualism that separated soul from body, spirit to articulating and defining theological discourse: from matter. In the Middle Ages the Aristotelian metaphysic adopted by Thomas Aquinas held for a closer relation between body and soul, but Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot the influence of Platonism persisted in Cartesian dualism. After the deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. Consequently, Enlightenment, dualism had to share the stage with materialist methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is reductionism and a monist epistemology. Catholic theology since Vatican carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override II has moved back in the direction of a Hebraic psycho-somatic unity of moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things 30 the person,26 a view supported by various theories of emergence.27 Homo of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. sapiens is now understood as intimately bound up with the universe, Reason has been regarded since the Enlightenment as paradigmatic from the atoms or “star dust” that are our matter and the genetic to the scientific method, serving as it does to assess the sufficiency of information that is our form, to the self-reflective awareness that drives theories in explaining evidence. However, faith plays an equally significant us to try to understand ourselves, the universe, and God. if under-appreciated role, for a key component of a scientist’s work is 5. Cultural development: a final transition may be identified in faith that the world is in fact comprehensible, that truth about it can be the move away from a perception of culture as having been imparted in discovered. The conviction that science is an enterprise to which it is the early chapters of Genesis, toward a more evolutionary understanding. worth dedicating one’s life is a matter of faith. In religion, the traditio In the last few centuries, ideas of development have influenced studies fidei, or handing on of the faith, continues today as it did before the of such diverse topics as language, culture, morality, ritual, and spiritual Scientific Revolution, and now (just as then) the believing community consciousness. It is clear that language and culture have pre-human celebrates the mutual support of two ways of knowing. Pope John Paul roots, that proto-morality thrives among non-human animals,28 and even II noted that although “faith is not based on reason, it can certainly not that religion and theology have evolved,29 as humans with their cultural dispense with it. At the same time, it becomes apparent that reason evolution have developed greater philosophical sophistication and deeper needs to be reinforced by faith, in order to discover horizons it cannot 31 metaphysical understanding. reach on its own.” My working assumption is not only that faith and reason do coexist, but that they are necessarily partners in every act of human knowing. 42 Omega December 2009 43 Peter M. J. Hess The Sacramental Character of an Evolving Creation The Sacramental Perspective and the Challenge of Science ancient and venerable terms “creation” and “creationism” were hijacked by Fundamentalists in the early years of the twentieth century,32 and are The great shifts in perspective we have traced above - that the only slowly being won back for appropriate theological use. Christopher universe is unimaginably large and very ancient, that the earth has a Kaiser has traced in meticulous detail how the Christian doctrine of history and all life on earth is related through common ancestry, and that creation has been of seminal importance in the development of western human language, culture, art, morality and religion have all evolved from thought, and particularly of its science.33 capacities in pre-human animals - these now inform all dimensions of human reflection. Our thinking in spheres as distinct as science, theology, In the last year we celebrated the bicentennial of the birth of ethics, culture, and aesthetics no longer assumes a young and static Charles Darwin, and of the sesquicentennial of the publication of The world, but rather presupposes one that is ancient, dynamic and Origin of Species. It is as important to consider the theological evolutionary. implications as to celebrate the scientific significance of theory of evolution. Pope John Paul II acknowledged in 1996 that evolution is Indeed, perhaps no intersection is affected more profoundly by “more than a hypothesis,”34 and Pope Benedict XVI has said that “since evolution than the issues arising at the interface between science and it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically religion. Such issues include questions about creation and eschatology related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended sparked by cosmological investigation into the origins and far future of from this first organism.”35 The scientific model of an evolving creation the universe, questions evoked by biology about evolutionary suffering raises some intriguing questions for Catholic belief. Aristotle held that and human origins, and questions raised by neuroscience about human the world had been shaped by God out of preexisting matter, whereas in cognition and the nature of spiritual experience. Let us look at how three Christian theology the idea of God speaking the world into existence ex representative questions might be approached in a way both that is nihilo, “out of nothing” has long enjoyed currency, although the biblical responsive to the truths revealed by science about the evolving world, support is ambiguous.36 Pope Pius XII’ identification of George Lemaître’s and that is faithful to the Christian theological affirmation of the “Big Bang” with the primordial event of creation ex nihilo was premature, sacramental character of the universe. and Lemaitre himself cautioned the Pope against reading theology into a scientific theory.37 There is now considerable speculation in cosmology 1. The God of Creation and Evolution in a Sacramental about the preconditions of the Big Bang, and there seems to be nothing Universe to indicate that such an antecedent state would be antithetical to the 38 Creation and Evolution are not contradictory but complementary theology of creation. Even if we inhabited an “oscillating universe” (an terms, in the same way that “sphericity” and “orangeness” are infinite sequence of Big Bangs and Big Crunches) - and the evidence complementary descriptions of a fruit. “Creation” is a non-testable now seems to show that there is not enough dark matter to drive such a 39 metaphysical claim, the belief that the universe depends for its existence gravitational collapse - this model would still be compatible with a God upon something or some being outside itself. It makes no assertion about who sustains creation. Ilia Delio finds in an evolutionary understanding how or when the world came to be, or even whether or not creation was of the universe and of life on earth rich resources for theology, particularly an event or an “act” in time. “Evolution,” by contrast, is the biological so for re-envisioning Christology for the third millennium. theory that all life is related through “descent with modification.” As a 2. Evolution, the Soul, and “Original Sin” theory it is testable, and in fact it is as well substantiated as the theories about gravity, atomic structure, or continental drift. Properly interpreted, One of the thorniest problems raised by evolution is the nature of evolution makes no claims about God’s existence or non-existence, and the human person and the implications of an evolutionary account for is compatible with theism, atheism, and agnosticism. Regrettably, the the theology of “original sin.” Following the publication of Darwin’s The

44 Omega December 2009 45 Peter M. J. Hess The Sacramental Character of an Evolving Creation Descent of Man in 1871, it became progressively more difficult to deny theological language, as is true of the other cosmogonic stories in Genesis both the evolutionary history of Homo sapiens and the genealogical 1-11. “Adam” (Âdâm, “dust, humankind”) and “Eve” (Hawwâ, “living relationship between humans and other animals. Mainstream churches one”) do not denote individuals, but symbolize rather the whole human (both Protestant and Catholic) managed a gradual theological race. Their names may appropriately be applied to Homo sapiens as a accommodation of evolution. In Humani Generis (1950), Pope Pius whole as the species was evolving into rationality, moral consciousness, XII cautiously endorsed evolution even of the human body, but he drew and spiritual sensitivity. In the story, the breathing of God produces a a protective belt around the soul, which he declared to be uniquely created nefesh hayya or “living being,” but it seems pointless to pursue even a by God.40 modified literal interpretation that seeks to map Genesis 1:26-28 or 2:7- 25 onto a prehistoric infusion of souls into some tribe of suitably prepared To be sure, by definition, the purely spiritual lies rightly outside the hominids tens of thousands of years ago. Prima facie, this would seem province of science, but what the parameters of the “soul” are is a flatly to contradict Humani generis, and to reject established dogma profound question. Moreover, to seal off forever from scientific study about Original Sin as caused by Adam’s and Eve’s disobedience, and as the most interesting and important dimensions of what it means to be transmitted to their descendants through the “carnal begetting” frowned human seems both scientifically and theologically misguided. Humani upon by Saint Augustine.46 However, it is by no means evident that Generis categorically ruled out “polygenism” or the view that humans Augustine’s is the only theologically viable model of original sin, and did not descend from a single pair: Jerry Korsmeyer, Ilia Delio, and numerous others have articulated models For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains of original sin that are more reflective of what we know from science.47 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as How should we conceive theologically of the nature of the human from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain person in light of evolution? Traditional dualist conceptions carry the 41 number of first parents. usual problems of defining what the soul is and how it is connected to The problem is that science has now shown that monogenism - in the body. Recent reconsiderations range from defenses of a modified the sense of the descent of our entire species from one set of parents, dualism48 or a dipolar monism49to various forms of non-reductive Adam and Eve - is genetically impossible. In-breeding reduces population physicalism and philosophies of the soul as an emergent property of viability because the resulting lack of genetic diversity makes the what is essentially a psychosomatic unity.50 Theology has been able to population more susceptible to disease and trauma. When a species falls accommodate evolution of the human body from pre-human ancestors. below a certain threshold of breeding pairs, it reaches what is called a Therefore, once we have accepted a symbolic, non-literalistic “genetic bottleneck,” carrying the risk that the population will suffer interpretation of the Genesis creation story, theology seen from a irreversible genetic degradation.42 Humans appear not to have suffered sacramental perspective should also be capable of accommodating catastrophic bottlenecks within the last ten thousand years,43 although evolution of the “soul,” or of “soulishness,” the moral and spiritual the climatic results of Sumatra’s Mt. Toba eruption were severe enough capacities that set our species apart. A theology in which God works in, to reduce the population significantly.44 It is estimated by some that the with, and through creation can conceive of the soul as being transmitted minimum population during the tens of thousands of years of it took integrally through the evolution of human physical nature and its increasing hominids to evolve into full human consciousness was between 3,000 neural endowment. This is consistent with a Hebraic understanding of and 10,000 breeding pairs.45 the person as a psychosomatic unity, and addresses a number of important theological problems: What does this imply about the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis? It means that the author(s) of Genesis were employing richly symbolic (1) It preserves the sacramental idea of the universe as transfigured by God. It rejects a Platonic dualism in which all and only human souls 46 Omega December 2009 47 Peter M. J. Hess The Sacramental Character of an Evolving Creation are “saved,” a position that in itself renders unintelligible the Pauline deceptively simple to look at “normal” human beings as carrying the notion) that “all creation is groaning together” (Romans 8:22). “Salvation” imago Dei, and on that basis to ascribe to every human - and only to involves the whole of creation, not merely human souls being somehow humans - an immortal soul. Some experts estimate that up to fifty percent “raptured” out of bodies. of human conceptions result in miscarriage because the zygotes or embryos have a chromosomal abnormality incompatible with life, or (2) It solves the problem of a radical and genetically unintelligible because they are otherwise so genetically compromised that they cannot disjunction between pre-human hominids and Homo sapiens. Since all develop to mature gestation and a normal birth.53 If immortal souls are life on earth shares a common ancestry, and Homo sapiens represents imputed to these zygotes, fifty percent or more of humanity will never the one twig on the great terrestrial bush of life that so far has evolved have lived conscious lives on earth, but rather will have entered into rational self-awareness, it is impossible to draw a sharp dividing line immediately into eternity without ever having been able to make any between creatures that possesses an immortal soul and those that do decisions at all, moral or otherwise. The eternal destiny of more than not. Depending on how we calculate it, humans share close to 98.4% of half of humans, therefore, will be independent of any ethical decision 51 genes with chimpanzees, and our basing ensoulment on whether or not making or moral life. While we are certainly not in any position to pass an entity carries human DNA seems little more than genetic chauvinism. judgment on the status of these embryos, the implications of this All beings are possessed of soul, at an intensity appropriate to their level disconnect are not insignificant. of neural complexity. In the evolutionary model we avoid the irrational conundrum of having a generation of non-human parents giving birth to The doctrines of both “soul” and imago Dei are complicated yet human children, or of one single breeding pair as progenitors of the further by the twinning continuum. When a conception results in conjoined entire human species. twins who are easily separable, or who have discrete brains, the theological conclusion appears to be straightforward: each twin is an ensouled person. (3) It makes sense to an ecological theology that regards all God’s The situation is more complicated with parasitic twins, however. When work as the subject of a new creation, including the whole spectrum of a twin embryo fails to separate fully, one embryo can cease to develop life from the evolution of the first self-replicating molecule to the evolution but remain as vestigial tissue attached to the otherwise healthy and fully 52 of rational life wherever suitable conditions are found in the universe. formed twin. In the well-publicized case of Lakshmi Tatama (born in (4) It maintains the integrity of both scientific and theological 2005) in Bihar State in India, Lakshmi’s parasitic twin could not perspectives on reality. Theology does not need to assert a soul infusion independently move the extra arms and legs that projected from that is in principle undetectable by science, because there never was Lakshmi’s body, because the twin had no head or brain. It could such an infusion. In evolutionary history in sacramental perspective, the experience nothing, feel nothing, learn nothing, and make no moral or soul evolves concomitantly with the capacities of the body, at a rate aesthetic judgments. Without a developed personality or conscious life, commensurate with it. If God works “in, with, and under” evolution (to the personhood of Lakshmi’s twin remained entirely and solely in use Luther’s Eucharistic terms), evolutionary biology, genetics, and potentia, and its eschatological state would presumably be independent neuroscience need not fear treading on theological claims about of its truncated organic life. In contrast, like that of any other normal personhood. person Lakshmi’s eschatological state would presumably depend, at least in part, on her moral state during her life and at the time of her death. 3. Imago Dei and the Range of Personhood On the extreme end of the twinning spectrum lies another Related to the difficulty of justifying a sharp demarcation of perplexing phenomenon. “Tetragametic chimeras” carry the genetic immortally ensouled from non-ensouled primates is the problem of the contribution of four gametes (two eggs and two sperms) resulting from range of manifestations of “personhood” within the human species. It is

48 Omega December 2009 49 Peter M. J. Hess The Sacramental Character of an Evolving Creation the fusion of two fertilized ova at the blastocyst stage.54 Each ovum or or some other genetic endowment.56 I make the case that consciousness population of cells in the developing blastocyst retains its own character, of personal identity, the ability to sustain relationships, and the capacity resulting in “mosaicism” or a mixture of tissues. One pair of gametes for graced perfection should count for more toward determining the supplies the genetic information for part of the body, and the other pair presence of the imago Dei than the number of fertilized ova at supplies the information for the rest. Mosaicism might explain baffling conception.57 phenomena such as gender dysphoria, in which an XY gametic pair forms the head, and an XX pair forms the genitalia. Most tetragametic Conclusions chimeras appear outwardly normal, however, and have a unified We began with the question of how post-modern Christians can psychological sense of self. Prior to the era of genetic testing, they would remain faithful to their foundational beliefs while at the same time have gone through life without ever knowing about their dual origin, and absorbing the reality that we inhabit an ancient, dynamic, and evolving thinking of themselves only as “I,” not as “we.” universe. When we study the Christian worldview as it has unfolded In the case of tetragametic chimeras, if we insist upon the doctrine over many centuries, we see that it has retained its integrity through of the infusion of an immortal soul at the moment of conception, countless changes in our understanding of how the world actually works. theologically speaking do we end up with two souls living side-by-side in For much of that history no particular conflict was perceived between one body, one of them perhaps lying dormant for the entire life of that religion and science. Galileo remained a faithful Catholic until his death, body? Or is the soul whose gametes did not supply the brain removed by seeing no contradiction between his religious belief and his confidence God at the moment of fusion? Could we imagine two souls and thus two in the truth of heliocentric astronomy. And however estranged they may images Dei in one person? The case of the tetragametic chimera is one appear to be today, faith in scientific reason lies on the same continuum in which science compels us seriously to rethink our theological as religious belief.58 Theology and science are natural partners in an anthropology. Jose Mario Francisco has warned in another context that astonishing enterprise of knowing. the term “soul” is too easily drawn into a radical dualism, and that it Reflection upon the sacramental character of an evolving creation might be better simply to use the pronoun “I.”55 Considering the ancient can enrich our theological vocabulary by rendering it more responsive to religious and cultural valence of the term “soul” this proposal may not be our deepening knowledge of the universe we inhabit. For two millennia realistic. Christians expressed their theologies in the terms of the prevailing However, in light of the sacramental character of an evolving philosophical language and scientific models used to describe the natural creation, perhaps we can rethink the entire concept of imago Dei. God world, whether Platonic or Aristotelian, Newtonian or Darwinian, pre- has become incarnate within creation, illuminating it from within. The scientific or post-modern. As they have done in every revolution in whole created order in this sense is in the image of God, and its many worldview in the last twenty centuries, Christians in our century can elements reflect that image with a degree of transparency commensurate make peace with the scientific perspective that we inhabit an ancient, with their degree of evolution toward moral responsiveness and spiritual dynamic, and evolving universe. So long as our biblical interpretation, sensitivity. Perhaps we should reckon personhood or ensoulment or our doctrinal formulations, and our other foundational beliefs are not reflection of the imago Dei as depending less on a presumed ontological irrevocably wedded to one particular perspective on nature, there need state at the moment of conception than on how that image is developed be no conflict between scientific and religious perspectives. The throughout the life of the individual. Noreen Herzfeld has maintained sacramental perspective is consonant both with biblical revelation and that the capability of sustaining authentic relationships is a sounder theological tradition, and with a science that recognizes the limits of criterion for what it means to mirror the image of God than is intelligence methodological naturalism.

50 Omega December 2009 51 Peter M. J. Hess The Sacramental Character of an Evolving Creation For scientists the nature of the evolutionary universe is quite 4. Pope Benedict XVI, Address to Catholic Educators, Catholic University of properly a puzzle to be unraveled by means of the scientific method. 59 America, 17 April 2008 For theologians and religious believers the universe is both this and 5. Gregory of Nazianzus, “What is not Assumed is not Redeemed,” from “To something infinitely greater: it is a mystery before which we fall silent. Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius”, found in Nicene and Post Nicene Pope John Paul II has noted that Fathers, Vol. 2, #7, p. 648. Scientists are well aware that “the search for truth, even when it 6. Karl Rahner, Hominization: the Evolutionary Origin of Man as a Theological concerns a finite reality of the world or of man, is never-ending, Problem (Freiburg: Herder, 1958; London: Burns & Oates, 1965), p. 55. but always points beyond to something higher than the immediate 60 7. Mordechai Feingold, Jesuit Science and the Republic of Letters (Cambridge, object of study, to the questions which give access to mystery.” MA: MIT Press, 2002), pp. 1-45; Marcus Hellyer, Catholic Physics: Jesuit Theology written from an evolutionary perspective, which takes Natural Philosophy in Early Modern Germany (Notre Dame, IN: University seriously the antiquity of the world and its dynamic processes and its of Notre Dame Press, 2005), pp. 1-4, 240-244. long ages of suffering, has an apophatic character - it has nothing to say 8. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, ‘In the Beginning…’: A Catholic Understanding when it confronts the blank wall of mystery. Christians believe God to of the Story of Creation and the Fall, trans. Boniface Ramsey, O.P. be the author both of nature and of our act of knowing, and in Karl (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 1990), p. 18. Rahner’s words “in every act of knowing a person has an innate grasp 9. John Henry Cardinal Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian of God, not as an object, but rather as a horizon of mystery.61 Let us give Doctrine (London, 1888). the final word to Pope John Paul II, who noted that since “the things of the earth and the concerns of faith derive from the same God” a vital 10. This engagement is sketched in Peter M. J. Hess and Paul L. Allen, interaction between science and theology “leads to a greater love for Catholicism and Science (Greenwood, 2008), chapters 1-3. truth itself, and contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of 11. Blaise Pascal, Pensées, ed. and trans. Roger Ariew. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett the meaning of human life and of the purpose of God’s creation.”62 Publishing. Co., 2005), p. 205. 12. The term “Scientific Revolution” is still serviceable, although important caveats about it are registered by Margaret Osler and others in Margaret Notes and References Osler, ed., Rethinking the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge University Press, 2000). 1. Dr. Peter M. J. Hess serves as Faith Project Director with the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), and as adjunct professor at Saint Mary’s 13. John Donne, The Sermons of John Donne, ed. Evelyn M. Simpson and College, Moraga, California. He is a member of the International Society for George R. Potter, 10 vols. Vol. 7, sermon 10, 1626, (Berkeley: University of Science and Religion, and has worked for both the Metanexus Institute and California Press, 1954), p. 271. the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences. His scholarly work 14. Sermons, vol. 7, sermon 10, p. 260. focuses on the historical interaction between religion and the sciences. 15. Marjorie Nicolson, The Breaking of the Circle (New York: Columbia, 1960), 2. Philip C. Clayton, Barbour’s Panentheistic Metaphysic,” in Fifty Years in pp. 100, 106-7. Marjorie Nicholson has suggested that the scientific Science and Religion: Ian Barbour and His Legacy, ed. R. J. Russell discoveries which “hastened the breakup of the circle of perfection and the (Aldershot, Hants, UK: Ashgate Publishing, 2004), p. 116. celestial harmony of the world…heightened the perennial drama of human 3. Peter M. J Hess, “Creation, Design and Evolution: Can Science Discover or mortality” for Donne. Eliminate God?”The Journal of Law and Public Policy (forthcoming in 16. Max N. Wildiers, The Theologian and His Universe: Theology and 2010). Cosmology from the Middle Ages to the Present (New York: Seabury Press, 1982), pp. 158-60.

52 Omega December 2009 53 Peter M. J. Hess The Sacramental Character of an Evolving Creation 17. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (London: Bantam, 2006); Sam Harris, 29. Joseph Bulbulia, et al, eds., The Evolution of Religion: Studies, Theories, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (New York: and Critiques (Santa Margarita, CA: The Collins Foundation Press, 2008). W.W. Norton & Co., 2004); Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How 30. Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana; Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Warner, 2007). Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), paragraph 159. 18. John F. Haught,God and the New Atheism: a Critical Response to Dawkins, 31. Pope John Paul II, Encyclical letter, Fides et ratio, of the supreme pontiff Harris, and Hitchens (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), John Paul II: to the bishops of the Catholic Church on the relationship and David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific between faith and reason (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Pretensions (New York: Crown Forum, 2008). Conference, 1998), paragraph 67. 19. Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings 32. Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists (Berkeley: University of California of Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), p. 63. Press, 1993), pp. 37-53. 20. John F. Haught, God after Darwin: a Theology of Evolution, 2nd ed. (Boulder, 33. Christopher B. Kaiser, Creational Theology and the History of Physical CO: Westview Press, 2008), pp. 49-60; Deeper than Darwin (Boulder, CO: Science: the Creationist Tradition from Basil to Bohr (Leiden: Brill, 1994), Westview Press, 2003), passim. p. 8. 21. Discussed by Archbishop Józef-yciñski in God and Evolution: 34. Pope John Paul II, “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Fundamental Questions of Christian Evolutionism (Washington, D.C.: The Evolution” (1996). Catholic University of America Press, 2006), pp. 181-194. 35. Pope Benedict XVI, “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created 22. Guy Consolmagno, Brother Astronomer: Adventures of a Vatican Scientist in the Image of God” (2002) http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/ (McGraw Hill, 1991), p. 82. congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/ 23. Dennis R. Danielson, “The great Copernican cliché.” American Journal of rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html Physics, 69 (10) (2001), p. 1030. 36. It seems implied by 2 Maccabees 7:28; Genesis 1:1-2 is ambiguous. 24. Joel R. Primack and Nancy E. Abrams, The View from the Center of the 37. Hess and Allen, Catholicism and Science, pp. 104-106. Universe: Discovering Our Extraordinary Place in the Cosmos (Riverhead Press, 2007). 38. Michael E. Lodahl, “Creation out of Nothing? Or is Next to Nothing Enough?” chapter 9 in Bryan P. Stone and Thomas Jay Oord, eds., Thy 25. Richard Fortey, Life: A Natural History of the First Four Billion Years of Nature and Thy Name is Love: Wesleyan and Process Theologies in Life on Earth (London: Vintage, 1999). Dialogue (Nashville: Kingswood, 2001). 26. Karl Rahner, “Natural Science and Reasonable Faith,” in Rahner, Theological 39. The Supernova Cosmology Project, ; S. Investigations, vol. 21, trans. Hugh M. Riley (New York: Crossroad, 1988), p. Perlmutter et al., “Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the 42. Citation from Mark F. Fischer, “Karl Rahner and the Immortality of the universe and its cosmological implications,” Nature, 391, 51 (1998). Soul,” The Saint Anselm Journal 6.1 (Fall 2008), p. 2. 40. Pope Pius XII, Encyclical letter Humani Generis (Vatican, 1950), paragraph 27. Philip Clayton and Paul Davies, eds., The Re-emergence of Emergence: the 6. Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2006). 41. Humani Generis, paragraph 37. 28. Marc Bekoff, The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading Scientist Explores 42. The European bison, the cheetah, and the giant panda are all animals with Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy and Why They Matter (New World Library, very low heterzygosity, and thus are suffering severe bottlenecks. See Ridley, 2007). Evolution 3rd. ed., (Blackwell Publishing), 151 - 153; Menotti-Raymond and

54 Omega December 2009 55 Peter M. J. Hess The Sacramental Character of an Evolving Creation O’Brien, “Dating the Genetic Bottleneck of the African cheetah,” Proceedings (1982). “Early embryonic mortality in women,” Fertility and Sterility 38 (4), of the National Academy of Sciences 90, 3172-3176, (1993). pp. 447–53. PMID 7117572. 43. John Hawks, et al. “Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human 54. Claire Ainsworth, “The stranger within,” New Scientist 180.2421 (Nov 15, Evolution,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 17:2-22 (2000); Xiong et al, 2003), pp. 34-37(4). “No severe bottleneck during human evolution; evidence from two 55. Jose Mario C Francisco, “Too much “soul”: points and counterpoints from apolipoprotein C II alleles’, Am J Hum Genet 48, pp. 383 -389. culture, theology, and science,” in Science and Religion… and Culture in 44. Stanley H. Ambrose (1998). “Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, the Jesuit Tradition: Perspectives from East Asia (Adelaide: Australian volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans,” Journal of Human Theological Forum Press, 2006), pp. 135-156. Evolution 34 (6), pp. 623–651. 56. Noreen Herzfeld, In Our Image: Artificial Intelligence and the Human Spirit 45. Alec MacAndrew, “Misconceptions around Mitochondrial Eve: A Critique (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2002), pp. 94-95. of Carl Wieland’s AiG article on Mitochondrial Eve,” at http:// 57. The author gratefully acknowledges the counsel of Patristic theologian www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm. Hamilton Hess, D.Phil. Oxon., on this and other points. 46. Allen and Hess, Catholicism and Science, p. 102. 58. Michael Heller, Creative Tension: Essays on Science and Religion 47. Ilia Delio, Christ in Evolution (New York: Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 2008), (Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2003), p. 161. pp. 53-65; Jerry D. Korsmeyer, Evolution and Eden: Balancing Original 59. Francisco J. Ayala, “Darwin’s devolution: design without designer,” in Sin and Contemporary Science (New York: Paulist Press, 1998). Evolutionary and Molecular Biology: Scientific Perspectives on Divine 48. Philip A. Rolnick, Person, Grace, and God (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Action, ed. Robert J. Russell, et al. (Vatican City and Berkeley: Vatican Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 248-255. Observatory Publications, CTNS, 1998), p. 113. 49. Terence L. Nichols, The Sacred Cosmos: Christian Faith and the Challenge 60. Pope John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, paragraph 101. “I would urge them to of Naturalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2005), pp. 127, 153-181. continue their efforts without ever abandoning the sapiential horizon within which scientific and technological achievements are wedded to the 50. Warren S. Brown, et al., eds, Whatever Happened to the Soul? Scientific philosophical and ethical values which are the distinctive and indelible mark and Theological Portraits of Human Nature (Minneapolis: Augsburg- of the human person.” Fortress Press, 1998); Philip Clayton and Paul Davies, eds., The Re- emergence of Emergence: the Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to 61. Anne M. Clifford, “Creation,” 195-248 in Systematic Theology: Roman Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). Catholic Perspectives, vol. I. ed. Francis Schüssler Fiorenza and John P. Galvin. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), p. 236. 51. “Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome,” The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, Nature, 62. Pope John Paul II, Ex Corde Ecclesiae: Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Vol. 437|1 September 2005, pp. 69-87; http://www.genome.gov/Pages/esearch/ Universities (Rome: Vatican, 1990), pp. 17, 20. DIR/Chimp_Analysis.pdf 52. Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett, Evolution from Creation to New Creation: Conflict, Conversation, and Convergence (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2003). 53. One study testing hormones for ovulation and pregnancy found that 61.9% of conceptuses were lost prior to 12 weeks, and 91.7% of these losses occurred subclinically, without the knowledge of the once pregnant woman.[3] Edmonds DK, Lindsay KS, Miller JF, Williamson E, Wood PJ

56 Omega December 2009 57 Human Origins and Original Sin in an Evolutionary Context Omega so evolved, and that this may raise very serious questions about one VIII (2009)2, 58-89 account of original sin, it does not impact the central dynamic of the emergence of sin in human history and the need for healing and redemption. Accepting an evolutionary account of human origins does not undermine belief in God, belief in Christ, belief in the Bible, belief in a Human Origins and Original Sin in an soul, belief in the salvation of that soul, nor belief that the means for such salvation have been offered to us. However, holding all of these together Evolutionary Context consistently and plausibly might require some rethinking of what these - Patrick McDonald1 beliefs mean and how we understand the sources of such beliefs. Much work has been done, but the fruits might not be readily available to a Abstract: This paper is a theological reflection on original sin in the wider audience. I hope this essay might contribute to that end. context of evolution. The first part of this paper sketches out an outline of the apparent tension between a Biblical narrative and a scientific Here I focus on three main tasks. First, I sketch out an outline of narrative of human origins and the meaning of our lives and sinfulness. the apparent tension between a Biblical narrative and a scientific narrative Secondly, the author gives a brief outline of the story of human evolution of human origins and the meaning of our lives and sinfulness. Second, I and some of the main lines of fossil evidence supporting belief in that give a brief outline of the story of human evolution and some of the main narrative. Thirdly, it addresses the basic conception of human nature in lines of fossil evidence supporting belief in that narrative. Thirdly, I address the doctrines of the Divine Image, Original Righteousness, and Original the basic conception of human nature in the doctrines of the Divine Sin with special reference to the Historical Idealist conception. Although Image, Original Righteousness, and Original Sin. I outline the case for there is good reason to believe humans have evolved, and that this may what Robin Collins has called the Historical Idealist conception of original raise very serious questions about one account of original sin, it does not impact the central dynamic of the emergence of sin in human history sin. In concluding, I say a bit about the broader context of this discussion and the need for healing and redemption. We need a theological portrait concerning the meaning of human agency and the nature of the creation- of human nature that strongly affirms our embodied nature that is still evolution debate. open to libertarian free will and a sense of our “soul” as an aspect of our being that fits such a notion of free will. The paper concludes with 1 Two Competing Narratives? reflections concerning the meaning of human agency and the nature of the creation-evolution debate. Does the story of our origins have a clear connection to the grounds of our fundamental hopes? Consider two possibilities that have the Keywords: Human Origin, Original Sin, Evolution. adherence of a number of people around the world. The first is the Biblically based narrative and the second is the reigning scientific Introduction narrative. I will look at the Biblical narrative first. It is based not just in Genesis, but clearly laid out there in the first few chapters. God created If humans have evolved over millions of years from non-human the heavens and the earth (i.e., the earth, this planet, everything else in primates, is there a good reason to doubt one of the central teachings of the universe, the entire universe itself, and in some way, the rules by Christian faith? Namely, Jesus Christ came to earth to provide the means which the universe exists). God created all the inhabitants of earth, from for our salvation because without Jesus we are unable to climb out of Archaea that live in thermal vents deep under the sea, to algae that our sinful lives. I argue that there is good reason to believe humans have grow in the oceans, lakes, and swimming pools, to viruses that infect

58 Omega December 2009 59 Patrick McDonald Human Origins and Original Sin in an Evolutionary Context many mammals, to human beings – and all manner of life in between. whether God’s “plan” allows for creatures to contribute with some And with human beings, as Genesis 1 tells us, and we will explore below, measure of autonomy – this is a much-debated question within the God created human beings in God’s image. God created us for many Christian community. As we look at the world and the acts of human specific purposes, but with a unifying underlying purpose – to share in a beings we are both inspired to deeper belief, but sometimes horrified. relationship with God, as the old Baltimore Catechism puts it: why did The latter points out a perennial challenge for belief in a God of perfect God make you? Answer: God made me to know Him, to love Him, and goodness, power, and knowledge who actually is a Creator in a traditional to serve Him in this world and to be happy with Him forever in heaven.” sense – that is, the “problem of evil.” One way of understanding this Human beings were made intentionally, purposefully, and distinctively question rooted in the Scriptures, is that God created the earth good and by God to share a special relationship with God. God gave us the means in particular created human beings in the divine image with a certain to do so. God also gave us the means to do otherwise. The story of charge to have “dominion” within the Creation and to be in a certain Adam and Eve in the Garden reveals to us this dynamic. state of a realized relationship with God. Humans originally, Adam and Eve specifically, were in a state of justice and righteousness and that The story of the Garden also reveals that in history human beings being in the image of God knew God, knew themselves as beings in abandoned a path of intimate connection to God to a relationship God’s image, and honored this relationship in the appropriate way. Despite characterized by alienation; more directly by disobedience to God’s wishes what appear in Genesis to be God’s intentions for Adam and Eve to for us, and not simply disobedience by a kind of ignorant blundering; but enjoy a healthy, loving relationship with God, they chose to disobey God’s rather knowing and willful disobedience. The story from that point forward clear and direct command to avoid eating of the tree of knowledge of is one where in various ways God reaches out to address this alienation good and evil. This original “sin” had profound consequences, some of and human beings variously respond positively, at least some do, and yet which are enumerated in Genesis 3:14-24, and some of which have manage to renew our mode of disobedience and deeper alienation. In been outlined in Christian traditions building upon other Scriptures (e.g. the Bible God takes some very important steps to address this: the Romans 5), and Christian theological thought. expulsion of Adam and Eve, the mark of Cain, the encounter with Noah and his family as well as the flood, the calling of Abraham and the In contrast to this, the story that science offers to us appears to covenant thereby established, the encounter with Moses and liberation be radically different from the Biblical story and from the story that has of the Jewish people from Egypt, and the story of Israel outlined in the been part of the Christian tradition for most of our history. It seems to Old Testament. A culmination of this narrative from a Christian perspective some that the science of evolutionary biology in general, and the is the Incarnation, birth, ministry, passion, death, resurrection, and post- demonstration in particular that human beings are products of evolution resurrection commission of the disciples to establish the Christian Church. – undermines the crucial foundation stones of the portrait of human We believe that our existence is intimately bound up with this story. Our being taught historically by the Christian faith. Furthermore, the modern origins as a community and as individuals reflects this story. Our daily sciences may seem to speak to the process of the universe’s formation existence reflects this story. Our hopes for tomorrow, and all possible and the time in which this has occurred in a way that contradicts the tomorrows reflect this story. So, what we do today, and expect in the Biblical witness concerning God’s work of Creation. In short, the Big future is bound up intimately in our beliefs about our individual and Bang, the processes of stellar and galactic formation, the process of the collective past – our origins. formation of the solar system, the earth, the history of life on earth, and evolution as the big story of that process – these contradict the Genesis Part of the meaning of Christian Faith is that God as Creator has account of God’s manner and timing of Creation. a plan for Creation. The specificity of that plan, i.e., whether God has planned out and “ordains” every detail of the history of Creation or Now if Genesis is wrong about all that, how could it be that the Bible is trustworthy in its testimony, in Genesis 2:7 for example, that “the 60 Omega December 2009 61 Patrick McDonald Human Origins and Original Sin in an Evolutionary Context Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into How can something explained by “blind” laws of nature be considered a his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being”(NIV). “free choice”? What happens with humans as biological beings appears As the argument sometimes is put, if we can’t trust Genesis 1 about the to proceed by a process whereby given certain conditions, certain days of creation (how long, in what order, by what means) then why outcomes follow either as a mechanical outcome of the conditions plus should we trust it or Genesis 2 about the origins of humans beings. That the guiding laws, or those two plus random-chance – how can some is, why should we believe that there is meaning to the testimony that we such process be called a “free choice”? Furthermore how could there are created by God, in God’s image, and that God made us with a sense be a state of original righteousness from which humans could freely of a relationship of solidarity with God as expressed in Genesis 3? choose “obedience” or “disobedience”? And if we are biological beings, However, the problems reconciling science in general with Genesis 1 could it make any sense that we are made human in part by a spiritual are merely the tip of the iceberg. When we look at the message of the soul? sciences relating to human beings we see a much deeper challenge. If it is the case that so go origins, and so goes our daily self- From the perspective of biology applied to human beings, it looks more understanding, and so goes our hopes for tomorrow (both in the ordinary difficult to reconcile things. colloquial sense of hope, and especially a theological sense), THEN the First, it does not look like we were created specially by God as very different account of origins from science should indicate a very suggested by Genesis 2 (and re-affirmed elsewhere in Scripture such as different sense of our daily purpose and hope for ultimate purpose to our in Romans 5). Rather, it looks like we emerged gradually over millions of lives. Right? Not necessarily. years from non-human (i.e., not modern Homo Sapiens) primates such This is a complicated issue and the purpose of this inquiry is to as Ardipithecus ramidus and/or Australophithecus afarensis (and the honor that complexity. But let me simplify for a moment. There are a line of descent therefrom). It looks like there was not an exact “point” in few basic strategies of response to this conditional statement. One is to time when there was a non-Homo Sapiens population, then through affirm it, and then to do two things in response to that affirmation – some special act, there was a Homo Sapiens population. Evolution of a namely, reject science as part of the affirmation of Christian faith; the new species of higher primate is not a single generation phenomenon. other, is to reject Christian faith as part of the acceptance of the scientific Rather the emergence of modern Homo sapiens is a gradual, fitful, narrative. Affirming the conditional means that accepting the scientific ambiguous narrative in many ways. Further, this story seems to make it narrative about human origins (in short, it’s a 13.7 or so billion year story clear that we are thoroughly biological beings, from the animal world, of unbroken natural processes – the evolution of the whole cosmos from and belonging to it. This seems deeply confirmed by other biological Big Bang to Los Alamos, and beyond) does indeed change the meaning sub-disciplines. The genetic studies exploding in the last few decades, of our daily purpose and our hope for ultimate purpose. Now, there are capped by the now famous sequencing of the human genome, and the many people who reject science and its narrative because of its comparative studies of higher primate genomes (chimp, Neanderthal, consequences for the meaning of being human. The cost of acceptance etc.) allow for locating our genes in a clearly delineated “family tree” of is too high. We might point to many kinds of horrible examples where non-human primates. The exploding field of neuroscience and the people without a grounding in the Biblical narrative, taking it as the inspired grounding of the study of human cognition in the detailed study of the Word of God (thus, true) will act as people without a purpose, without a brain and our nervous system is revealing what seems to undergird our guiding framework of goodness, love, and obedience. deepest processes of thought, feeling, cognition, and consciousness (including self-consciousness). It suggests to many that all those aspects I wish to explore the geography of a negative answer to the of the Divine Image are thoroughly biological – from our consciousness question posed by the conditional. That is, no, a different narrative of our of God, to our love for God and others, to our choices to act accordingly. origins as far as the conditional states them does not lead to a vision of 62 Omega December 2009 63 Patrick McDonald Human Origins and Original Sin in an Evolutionary Context our purpose and meaning in life. That is, the scientifically current account Darwin’s theory. It is important to note that there will be no “proving” of origins, and specifically of human history and pre-history in the evolution that humans evolved in a common use of the word “prove”. The best of great apes in equatorial Africa, does NOT indicate a very different we may hope for in our lifetime is to provide very strong grounds for sense of our daily purpose and hope for ultimate purpose to our lives. In belief. I, for example, come at the science of human evolution from a short, having evolved doesn’t fundamentally alter the meaning of our layperson’s perspective. So, I will never personally be well-acquainted lives as human beings. It does not any more than cooking dinner in a enough with whatever direct and closely indirect evidence there is to microwave or on a modern electric stove fundamentally changes the have a clear “proof” of the case. However, I have seen enough evidence meaning of preparing food for a family meal. Some aspects of these and argument to make the case seem quite compelling. questions may be different. Some are mysterious in ways that they formerly were not. Some are understood to have different connotations. Some of the basic outlines of the argument include the following And so on. However, I will argue that the core meaning is the same. considerations. 1. The case from multiple sciences for an ancient earth/ Furthermore, the place of the Biblical narrative is the same, at bottom. universe. 2. The case from multiple sciences that the “basic” evolutionary We may indeed need to understand aspects of the Biblical narrative in theory is well-grounded. This is an argument from consilience or new ways. However, this is not new to the project in the Christian tradition convergence of many distinct, independent lines of evidence. This is nor should we expect that process of ongoing engagement with key absolutely crucial when we consider the lines of evidence salient to questions about the meaning of the Bible to come to a close any time human evolution. These include: soon. There are many hard questions raised by the prospect that human a. What we know about dating the hominid and more/less closely beings evolved from non-human primates. However, the truth for us of related primate species. those central teachings of the faith about being human and the meaning of being human are untouched at their core. Now to show this requires b. What we know about the classification and understanding of that we address a number of things. First, in this text we will take a brief behavior of pre-hominid primates. look at the science relevant to human evolution. There are very good c. What we know about the non-Homo fossils and paleo- reasons to believe, biologically speaking, modern humans are truly the biogeography. descendents of a long line of distinct species of hominins and then before hominins, non-hominid apes.2 d. Fossils from early Homo species to H. Erectus and H. Heidelbergensis (or the like). 2 Basic Argument for the Evolved Status of Modern Humans (Homo Sapiens) e. Study of Neanderthals

Why should we take seriously the hypothesis that “humans evolved f. Study of Homo Sapiens showing to be clearly distinct as a type biologically according to the mechanisms and historical narrative outlined and how ancient they go. by the biological theory of evolution”? We might begin by noting, recently, a significant trove of fossils of Ardipithecus Ramidus was made public g. Mechanisms of Biological evolution applied to hominin evolution. 3 by the publication of a series of articles in Science. Also within the past h. Genetic studies (e.g. the comparison of human genetics to closely year, a nearly complete draft of the Neanderthal genome was published related primates and to the available DNA from Neanderthal remains). by a group led by Svante Paabo in Leipzig, Germany. These are the latest in a long string of studies since Huxley’s 1863 that have engaged This paper will mostly survey the outlines of the narrative based the array of science and the question of human evolution in light of upon a survey of major fossil finds. In a later version I will also discuss

64 Omega December 2009 65 Patrick McDonald Human Origins and Original Sin in an Evolutionary Context in some detail the techniques of dating, e.g. bio-stratigraphic dating and However, there was a virtual treasure trove of fossils there and radio-isotopic dating (as well as other methods) that allow the scientists the whole set has been very carefully prepared and the preliminary studies the confidence they have in the ability to tell this story. done. All was published in a special issue of Science in 2009. What are the key findings of this? A number of them, but two are key. First, that Why do we believe that it’s plausible that anatomically modern Ardi et al were “facultative bi-peds” but also retained significant tree- humans have walked the earth likely for at least 160,000 years and that climbing capabilities; and this occurred not in an edge/savannah ecology as a species we have descended through a significant line of ancestor but in a woodland habitat (though not apparently deep jungle – see species going back several million years (maybe 6-7 mya; possibly more, Appendix for link to images). say up to 10 mya)4 to the last common ancestor of us and chimpanzees?5 There exists a considerable set of fossils, many thousands of individual Next in time (and in the “family tree – see Appendix, Smithsonian fossil remains, from probably hundreds or thousands of individual beings Hominin Family Tree) are the Australopithecines. The oldest fossils of that chronicles a very marked trend in time. The trend looks for all the the genus Australopithecus – i.e., southern ape are classified world to fit something like what one would expect on the theory of Australopithecus anamensis, and Kanapoi in Kenya is the site of the evolution, especially focusing on the concept of descent with modification. main fossils belonging to this species. Kamoyan Kimeu discovered a On a number of different features going back in time there are trends tibia in 1994, dated to be 4.1 mya. Until the remains of Ardi were published that track the emergence of distinctive human characteristics over a this was the oldest known evidence for bipedalism.9 “Lucy” is probably gradual process of change. Some of these include the following: the the most well-known Australopithecine fossil and was unearthed in development of bi-pedal capacities, the increase of average cranial size Ethiopia in 1974. Her remains document about 40% of the skeleton and (and so brain size), the decrease in canines, the decrease in ratio of arm cranium and is to this date, one of the most complete hominin fossils to length to leg length (so legs get longer compared to arm length), the date. The subject of much discussion and a recent national exhibition, flattening of the face (so less “prognathic”), the increasing sophistication Lucy is one among numerous finds of the species A. afarensis that of tools, the development of cultural knowledge and its transmission document their place as dedicated bi-pedal hominins with a combination (e.g. cooking, language, tools, ritual practices, etc.).6 of ape-like facial features and small crania coupled with more Homo like locomotion. There are as well a group of “robust” Austalopithecines. Let’s begin this narrative at the branching point. Some time, likely But, some interesting features of these “fossils” and of the creatures between 6 and 10 million years ago there is thought to have existed a they represent is what they tell us about certain adaptations, about the population of primates who are considered the last common ancestor of nature of hominid evolution (the kind of diversity); that there were humans (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees. Very interesting, for example, numerous species living at once in the 2 mya to 1mya era – that is, 7 there is a table of many anatomical features that Tim White et al infer Australopith species lived at the same time (not necessarily alongside of to belong to this population. From that population there branched at least exactly) as what looks to be at least 2, maybe several species of the 8 one distinct group though we do not know how exactly. There are various genus “Homo” – e.g. Rudolfensis/Habilis/Ergaster/Erectus. ways it seems that primate groups may become de facto reproductively isolated and that this isolation can lead to de jure reproductive isolation. The first members of the genus HOMO are Homo rudolfensis Geographic isolation is just one example (e.g. the isolation of bonobos and Homo habilis. They mark the first chapter in history of the existence from chimps by the Congo river?). Down one line emerged the population of creatures belonging (according to the taxonomy) to the same genus of hominins that left the fossils now called Ardipithecus ramidus. The to which we belong. This first seems to have occurred about 2.2 mya. first of these were discovered in 1992 at Aramis in Ethiopia. They Some of the key features include an increased cranial capacity, (reduced continued to dig more in 1993 and published their initial findings in 1994. canines – even further – changes in bipedal structure, less prognathic

66 Omega December 2009 67 Patrick McDonald Human Origins and Original Sin in an Evolutionary Context faces, etc.). There are debates continuing about whether Habilis The Ergaster/Erectus fossils are the first that very clearly belong specimens truly fit the Homo genus or would better fit Austalopith. But, to the genus Homo (there is ongoing debate about Habilis). There is a it seems clear – and in a broad sense is important – that by the time we great deal of lore associated with fossils classified as Homo Erectus get to Ergaster/Erectus, that we have a range of specimens that clearly (and some now called H. Ergaster).10 The finding of Java Man (later H. seem quite distinct from Australopiths, from living apes, e.g. chimps, Erectus) and associated fossils were some of the first hominin fossils bonobos, gorillas, etc., and yet also are quite distinct from Homo sapiens. found after the Neanderthal discovery in 1856. The digs in East Asia This is the key set of fossils, it seems to me, that presses so strongly the (first in Indonesia then in China) raised questions about where the first issue of human evolution for those who are skeptical. human ancestors appeared. The old story that H. Erectus stood up in Africa, stayed there for nearly a million years, and then migrated East to For the time period from, about 1.8 mya to as recently as 27 kya, Asia is now more complicated.11 we have fossils from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Europe (but NOT from the Americas), that seem quite clearly much bigger brained It is not completely clear where the fossils classified as Ergaster/ than living great apes, dedicated and highly capable bi-pedal beings, Erectus first emerged. There are specimens dated back to 1.8 mya in developing over time distinct tool-making traditions, and yet also Africa, in Georgia (i.e., near Russia), and in Indonesia (Java). seemingly, distinct in many important ways from modern humans. Following this set of fossils and related cultural artifacts (and Still, the vast preponderance of pre- Ergaster/Erectus ancestor their dates; surrounding geological and paleo-ecological evidences) candidates have been unearthed in Africa (e.g. H. Habilis and H. 12 suggests very important questions about the gradual emergence of what Rudolfensis). One of the oldest specimens was unearthed in Koobi we call unique features of humans. As Michael Roe pointed out in his Fora (Kenya). Fossil KNM-ER-3733 is a nearly complete cranium and lecture last Fall at SPU, and many others have noted as well, it’s a real is dated radiometrically to about 1.7 - 1.8 mya. Another very important question whether there are truly unique human features that we possess early African Ergaster/Erectus is the famous Turkana or Nariokotome and all animals lack. For example, chimps, bonobos, and gorillas have Boy, KNM WT 15000. This is possibly the most complete pre-Homo shown capacities to learn language – at least fairly extensive symbol Sapiens hominin fossil and dates to about 1.6 mya (see Appendix). manipulation (see cases of Koko the gorilla and Kanzi the famous Among the earliest in Erectus/Ergaster fossils in Eurasia are the bonobo); numerous animals show various interesting and complex findings from Dmanisi, Georgia. First uncovered in 1992 by an capacities to communicate; animals show capacities to behave in international team, the fossils from this site date to about 1.6 to 1.8 mya. seemingly altruistic ways; various animals use tools and some seem Partly because the fossils found in East Asia earlier this century were capable of passing on the capacity of tool use (pass on tool “cultures” uncovered before the maturation of radiometric dating techniques, partly where one group in one region of same species will show evidence of a from lack of available volcanic “tuffs”, they have proved difficult to date “cultural tradition” while another lacks it); some show intelligent exactly. However, in 1994 Swisher and Curtis surprised many by attachment and grief; some show some ability for recognition of self announcing new dates (using single crystal laser fusion techniques) for (see experiments on “red dot” in the mirror). One would expect that if specimens from Modjokerto (1.8 mya) and Sangiran (1.6 mya) sites in such capacities are possible with animals that show relatively less Java. sophistication than our Homo ancestors, with much smaller brains, and likely less sophistication in community structures, then our Homo One gets the picture of H. Ergaster/Erectus emerging in Africa ancestors would be likely to have quite interesting and impressive and then “sprinting” across the continents to land finally in Java. Foley capacities. Thought this raises questions about modern humans bearing and Lewin observe; uniquely the image of God, I don’t think the problems are terribly special.

68 Omega December 2009 69 Patrick McDonald Human Origins and Original Sin in an Evolutionary Context If they [Swisher and Curtis] are right, the new work changes the So, Homo Erectus/Ergaster had a long run. While there are question anthropologists must answer about Homo erectus: there specimens dated to have lived in Africa and Europe (possibly) in the is now no delay to be explained, but the pattern of the species’ years between 1 mya and 500 kya, there are other species that seemed origin is less clear. Although KNM-ER 3733 and the Modjokerto to have ranged in Africa and Europe (mid East too?). Homo skull are of equivalent age, a sufficient margin of error exists in Heidelbergensis is a species name given fossils found thought to have the dates to permit a gap in age of at least 100,000 years. A quick ranged in time from approximately 800 kya to about 200 kya. According calculation shows that, even at the glacial pace of population 16 expansion of 16 km per generation, Homo erectus could move to the Smithsonian website the Mauer mandible, a jaw and teeth found 13 from east Africa to east Asia in a mere 25,000 years. near Heidelberg Germany in 1907 is the basis for the species name. Another specimen is the Kabwe cranium. Specimens with certain traits So, an African origin for Erectus and then a subsequent migration somewhere intermediate between H. Erectus and modern H. Sapiens through Asia is consistent with currently accepted dates. This keeps in were previously lumped into the category Archaic H. Sapiens. Now, it view that the time frames with which we are talking here are vast. is becoming more common to call them H. Heidelbergensis. What is startling (to me anyway) is the dating of some fossils classified as Erectus as recently as approx. 27 to 53 kya (e.g. Ngandong 6 from The Kabwe cranium was found in Zambia in 1921 in Kabwe, Java). This would make the H. Ergaster/Erectus (sensu lato) type a Zambia. It is dated to approximately 125 kya to 300 kya first classified as survivor on earth from 1.8 mya to possibly as recent as 27 kya – a run of Homo rhodesiensis in v. 108 of Nature in the article by Arthur Smith about 1.77 mya. Furthermore, looking at the other types in various Woodward.17 The date is based in part on associated animal fossils from phylogenies, H. Erectus in the east appears to have survived and even the same site. There is some debate as to whether this specimen belongs thrived while H. Heidelbergnsis persisted in Africa and in Europe and to the African population from which it is thought all modern humans then while Neanderthals thrived in Europe and the Middle east, and then evolved (see Herto hominids, Appendix). Braincase in profile is low and while anatomically modern H. Sapiens emerged in Africa and then slopes back from a large supraorbital torus in strong affinity with H. Erectus. possibly exited Africa between 40 and 70 kya or so. Quite possibly as The sagittal keel and occipital torus may also resemble H. Erectus. modern H. Sapiens took over the prior range of H. Neanderthals, did However, the face is less prognathic and the brain size is about 1300 cc., they take over the range of H. Erectus in the east. (This of course raises much larger than any H. Erectus. A more recent find, the Sima de los the question of the Out of Africa v. Multi-regional Evolution Model, the Huesos site in Spain has yielded a significant cranium (number 5 latter defended for years by M. Wolpoff of U. Michigan). “Miguelon”). Many fragments (over 5000) and fossils of up to 28 individuals, dated to over 350,000. The tool, a biface called Excalibur, is made of red One of the important questions for responding to some of the quartzite. The findings include fragments of other crania, such as Skull 4, deepest skeptics are whether the dates are at all reliable (something I nicknamed Agamenón and skull 6, nicknamed Rui (from El Cid, a local will only hit briefly) and whether the anatomical differences between hero). There is also a complete pelvis (Pelvis 1), nicknamed Elvis, in the range of H. Erectus and those of modern humans.14 Erectus had a remembrance of Elvis Presley as well as mandibles, teeth, and numerous typical cranial range of 850 to 1100 cc. Their body size averaged about postcranial bones (femurs, hand and foot bones, vertebrae, ribs, etc.) The 1.8 m and 63 kg for males while 1.55m and 52 kg for females. This members of this species seem to have used the Acheulian took it much summarizes fossils from Africa, Western Asia, E. Asia and S.E. Asia. like Erectus. There is some thought that Heidelbergensis was ancestral Of note are the significant findings of H. erectus from Zhoukoudian, to Neanderthals; one wonders about the relationship of the population including many of the casts made of the lost fossils by Weidenreich, producing the Kabwe cranium to the H. Sapiens in Africa. However, the including 14 partial crania, 11 lower jaws, many teeth, some post-crania existence of such specimens fills in some of the morphological “space” (i.e., non-head bones), and many stone tools.15 between Erectus and H. Sapiens and Neanderthals.

70 Omega December 2009 71 Patrick McDonald Human Origins and Original Sin in an Evolutionary Context We are now at the part of the story where H.Sapiens and shells. The type of H. Sapiens called Cro-magnon, now called Early Neanderthals emerge. The story of the Neanderthals goes back to 1856 European Homo Sapiens, lived in Europe from possibly as far back as with the discovery by Johann Fuhlrotte in 1856 of a skullcap, thigh bones, 45 kya to about 10 kya. Some of the most important recent fossils part of a pelvis some ribs and some arm and shoulder bones. This was in attributed to H. Sapiens were uncovered in Herto, in the Middle Awash Feldhofer in the Neander valley (i.e., the “thal”; pronounced like “tall” in region of Ethiopia. They were found in 1997 and were radiometrically English) of Germany. This launched the search taken up very much in dated (Ar 40/Ar 39?) to be about 160 kya. The fossils include a nearly earnest after the publication of Darwin’s Origin, for evidence pertaining complete adult male cranium (BOU-VP-16/1) and significant remnant to the evolution of humans. The Neanderthals have been documented of a child’s cranium. The authors argue that these fossils predate classic by numerous rich fossil finds, with nearly complete skeletons from several Neanderthals and lack some of their “derived” features; further they20 finds (Spy 1 and 2 from Spy d’Orneau in Belgium; the Old Man fossils argue that the Herto hominins are morphologically and chronologically from La-Cha;elle-aux –Saints in France (with a brain capacity of 1620 intermediate between archaic African fossils (such as Kabwe and the cc); the Krapina site in Croatia, among several others.18 There has been like – classified either as H. Heidelbergensis or H. Rhodesiensis) and a long debate about the relationship of Neanderthals to modern humans. anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans (see Appendix). The It is not completely certain when they first appeared, but are thought to authors have lobbied to call them a new subspecies, H. Sapiens idaltu, have flourished in Europe and ranged to the Middle East, even to Central in part to signify that they have some distinct characteristics when Asia from 150 kya to about 35 kya. The Neanderthals are characterized compared to modern H. Sapiens and seem to be a good candidate for by thick bones that were likely heavily muscled, by on avg. larger crania the immediate ancestor of moderns. White et al. argue that this set of with larger brains on avg. than H. sapiens, and short limbs. Their skulls fossils strongly confirms the “Out of Africa” replacement hypothesis. are relatively longer and low (i.e., to H. sapiens) with sloping frontals Some of the key characteristics of moderns include: a smaller face and and often a protuberance in the occipital. Their faces are large and more protruding chin than more archaic forms (e.g. H. Heidelbergensis, prognathic; the prognathism differs from that of earlier hominins in that Neanderthals), a higher skull with pronounced forehead, and a less robust it occurs in the mid-facial region. They seem to have had large noses, post-cranial skeleton (see comparsion of Neanderthal and modern H. pulling the face forward. Some think this is a cold adaptation to the Sapiens, Appendix). extreme cold of Europe in the last glacial period. Finally, according to Foley and Lewin, “during the course of their existence in Europe they do 3 Christian Doctrine of the Human – A Closer Look not show a trend toward the modern human condition – rather, if anything Central to Christian belief is the notion that to be human is to bear 19 they become ‘more Neanderthal.’” The debate concerning how the the image of God in a unique way among God’s creatures. As some Neanderthals disappeared rages. Some argue that they were integrated have noted, we are unique among creatures in that we have the capacity into H. Sapiens migrating out of Africa; some argue they were part of a for self-consciousness while being embodied (so, angels and demons mixing of hominins throughout Eurasia and Africa in the grand Multi- may be self-conscious but not embodied; while other embodied creatures, regional hypothesis; but the trend these days seems to be that they did even cognitively advanced mammals, are embodied but not self-conscious not mix with modern H. Sapiens and that between 45 kya and 27 kya the in anything like the way we are). One way to put this is that we think, moderns displaced the Neanderthals. we know we think, we think about our thinking, we discuss it, etc. We One of the most famous Upper Paleolithic H. Sapiens finds also know of God’s existence – even those who deny that God exists occurred in Cro Magnon, France in 1868. The estimated age of these know that there is such a question. Put differently, humans are unique fossils is 30 kya. The site contained what was determined to be 5 among embodied creatures in our awareness of God’s existence (in the individuals with stone tools, carved reindeer antlers, ivory pendants and various ways in which we are and have been so aware). Furthermore,

72 Omega December 2009 73 Patrick McDonald Human Origins and Original Sin in an Evolutionary Context we have a sense of what it is to live in a way that honors who God is and It has been understood to mean standing for God here on earth, in a way that fails to do so. And we have the ability to make meaningful i.e., being the stewards of the earth as God’s servants and that this is choices about that – i.e., self-consciously to choose to act and form a taught in the first passage above. In addition, has been added the capacity story to our life that in various ways honors our deeper conscience (yes to reason, the capacity to love, and the capacity for both the awareness to God’s will) or fails to so honor it (no to God’s will, yes to our “selfish” of God and self-awareness. It may go one step further as an awareness will). From the Biblical narrative and a tradition of Christian theology, of both God and ourselves (and each other) as in a set of mutual the first humans have been thought to have the capacity to make such relationships. choices from a basis where they were not encumbered by sinful dispositions. By freely choosing to disobey God, they were responsible Some of these features are noted by Thomas Aquinas in the for consequences, and also in fact passed on a state of sinfulness (at Summa Theologiae. There he follows Augustine in citing our intellectual least a state of disposition to sin) to their descendents. And this “passing nature as crucial for setting us apart as embodied creatures on earth on” is not simply a kind of “free imitation” but a passing on by something who uniquely bear the image of God. To this he adds the following gloss: that has been called propagation suggesting that before we even make Since man is said to be the image of God by reason of his free choices we find ourselves within a state of sinful dispositions – intellectual nature, he is the most perfectly like God according to literally highly prone to miss the mark. that in which he can best imitate God in his intellectual nature. Now the intellectual nature imitates God chiefly in this, that God i. Created in the Divine Image. understands and loves Himself. Wherefore we see that the image of God is in man in three ways. First, inasmuch as man possesses It is not at all possible here to develop in detail a history of the a natural aptitude for understanding and loving God; and this concept of humans as created in the Divine Image. I will briefly note aptitude consists in the very nature of the mind, which is common some historically affirmed elements of the notion and ask what this could to all men. Secondly, inasmuch as man actually and habitually possibly mean given an evolutionary history to our becoming human. knows and loves God, though imperfectly; and this image consists First, the first chapter of Genesis 1:26-27 states (from NRSV): in the conformity of grace. Thirdly, inasmuch as man knows and loves God perfectly; and this image consists in the likeness of Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind (adam) in our image, glory. Wherefore on the words, ‘The light of Thy countenance, according to our likeness and let them have dominion over the O Lord, is signed upon us’ (Psalm 4:7), the gloss distinguishes a fish of the sea and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, threefold image of ‘creation,’ of ‘re-creation,’ and of ‘likeness.’ and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping The first is found in all men, the second only in the just, the third 21 thing that creeps upon the earth.’ So God create humankind in only in the blessed. his image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them. So, in the most minimal sense, we may be said to exist in the image of God if we have an aptitude to know and love God, to know This notion of being created in the image of God has been ourselves and each other as humans, to act as God’s stewards on earth, understood to mean created with a rational soul, combined with a human and in our having a moral worth that accords with those features (what body (that was created out of the ground). This seems suggested by exactly that means is a matter of ongoing debate, but seems crucial to Genesis 2:7-8. moral obligations to respect others’ fundamental interests and for them . . . then the Lord God formed man (adam) from the dust of the to respect ours). ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

74 Omega December 2009 75 Patrick McDonald Human Origins and Original Sin in an Evolutionary Context ii. Original Righteousness - Augustine and Irenaeus opportunities to do well or ill, the capacity to choose, and a whole set of natural/spiritual consequences that effect a long term “plan of salvation.” A second feature of the notion of being human in Judaeo-Christian On this view, the entire history of humanity from the very beginning may heritage is the idea that humans first existed in a state of integrity and be considered a history of salvation with the Biblical narrative telling us justice or righteousness. Abraham Calovius, 17th century Lutheran a very specific and important piece of the story. theologian, described original righteousness as follows: It is called a state of integrity, because man in it was upright and iii. Original Sin uncorrupt (Eccl. 7:29) in intellect, will, the corporeal affections and endowments, and in all things was perfect. They call it also Though the notion of original sin as a cause and consequence of 25 the sate of innocence, because he was innocent and holy, free the Fall seems not to have been first articulated by Augustine, it was 22 from sin and pollution. Augustine’s battle with the Pelagians that put a fairly definitive stamp upon the doctrine in the West. Nearly a century after Augustine’s death, This takes up a notion of the original state of Adam and Eve in the the Council of Orange met to put an official stamp upon the teaching. garden before they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. It goes The first two canons published in the documents of the council are back at least as far as Augustine and has had a significant influence on especially definitive of the key pieces of the doctrine. the articulation of the concept of the meaning of the Fall in Genesis 3 and its relation to the Incarnation of Christ, his ministry, passion, death, CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both resurrection and judgment. It seems that Adam and Eve were considered body and soul, that was “changed for the worse” through the perfect as humans in every way; whether this means they had the offense of Adam’s sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to intellectual ability and moral courage of great heroes and geniuses is not corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts completely clear, but seems a common way of understanding this the scripture which says, “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. conception. 18:20); and, “Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom A somewhat different gloss on the meaning of the original state you obey?” (Rom. 6:16); and, “For whatever overcomes a man, to of integrity in the garden is associated with the names of Theophilus of that he is enslaved” (2 Pet. 2:19). nd nd Antioch (2 c.) and Irenaeus of Lyon (2 c.). In this view, more prevalent CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin affected him alone in the Eastern Orthodox Church, Adam and Eve were created in a state and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is of relative innocence, both without sin in some sense and also more like only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and children than full-grown adults (i.e., who have in a sense lost “our not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through innocence”). Theophilus describes the rationale for the prohibition against one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and eating of the tree of knowledge this way “Adam, being yet an infant in contradicts the Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came into 23 the world through one man and death through sin, and so death age, was on this account as yet unable to receive knowledge worthily.” 26 Irenaeus adds that, “The man was a young child, not yet having a perfect spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12). deliberation” and “It was necessary for him to reach full-development The doctrine of original sin means several things: a. the sin that by growing in this way.”24 It seems a key piece of the idea here is that Adam and Eve committed; b. the consequences of this – i.e., that which humans were not made in our initial existence as wholly developed. we inherit by virtue of having descended from Adam (and Eve); c. this Rather, we were made with the capacity to relate and know in human latter includes importantly a loss or privation of sanctifying grace. This fashion, but also with much “room to grow”. Conceivably, without willing has been understood to entail both “mortality” i.e., a loss of access to us to sin, God placed us in a situation of abundance, but also with the tree of life, and spiritual death, i.e., an alienation from God, such that

76 Omega December 2009 77 Patrick McDonald Human Origins and Original Sin in an Evolutionary Context we are no longer connected by grace to God such that we can live lives On the HI view, original sin itself refers to three key pieces: i. of holiness, purity, and perfectly love of God and neighbor. Some have sinful choices made from very early on; ii. continuing sinful choices over understood this in a more radical sense, as in the following from the time of successive generations of “humans” – i.e., what Murphy calls 1530 Augsburg Confession: fully theological humans; and, iii.the resulting bondage to sin as such Furthermore it is taught among us that since the Fall of Adam, all spiritual darkness is passed on. This raises the question regarding the human beings who are born in the natural way are conceived and mode of inheritance (not just “imitation” but “propagation”). To capture born into sin. This means that from birth they are full of evil lust the historical core of the doctrine, the modes must capture a robust and inclination and cannot by nature possess true fear of God enough sense of being trapped in sin such that a relationship with God and true faith in God. Moreover, this same innate disease and (and so Christ) is a necessary condition for liberation, not just one way original sin is truly sin and condemns to God’s eternal wrath all among many possible remedies who are not in turn born again through baptism and the Holy 27 Spirit. Collins carefully notes that the mode of inheritance is intertwined Roman Catholics have sometimes emphasized that we still possess with genetic and cultural inheritance and is analogous to such inherited human nature and the image of God and thus maintain some of the attributes of human beings (p. 471). And just as cultural inheritance natural capacities to know and love God. However, because of the operates at its own level, the psychological and social, so does the spiritual inherited sin, these capacities are significantly distorted and to become mode operate at its own level. Like cultural inheritance, spiritual just and holy requires grace for the reparation and our redemption of inheritances are communal. What exactly makes an inheritance “spiritual” those capacities. One of the key Scriptural bases for this doctrine is the over and above the psychological, social, and cultural is not wholly clear letter of St. Paul to the Romans. In the following I will consider that in his essay. My brief answer is that it has to do with those realities as briefly in light of a pair of recent interpretations of the doctrine of original bound together in relation to God. For example, I have feelings sin. (psychology) about my children (social) in a context of American values and assumptions (social plus cultural) – but these may be understood in iv. The Historical/Ideal view of Original Sin a broader metaphysical framework bound up with beliefs and commitments to God and other spiritual beings (e.g. saints). In his helpful overview of the issue in the essay “Evolution and Original Sin” (2003, 469 – 501), Robin Collins develops and defends Why does the HI view increase (in Collins view) the plausibility what he calls an “Historical/Ideal (HI)” view of the meaning of original of the doctrine? Because it shows how the reality of original sin is a sin. There are several important background assumptions. The first is to natural consequence of humans being spiritually interconnected and understand Genesis 2 as a kind of “golden age” story. However, it is not having free will; that is, if our ancestors had free will and misused it then a “mere” myth as some understand that term. It is a story with a kernel such misuse would have significantly negative spiritual (and otherwise) of important literal and historical truth. Secondly, Adam and Eve represent consequences for us, their descendents. Second, he argues (noting his in a way both all people AND the first hominids who had the capacity own version of the meaning of original righteousness), the relatively for free-choice, self-consciousness, minimal awareness of God and God’s “clear” awareness of God by our first ancestors is what one would commands. Thirdly, in some way, the first hominids may have been in expect if we accept that God did not abandon early humans (or the some state of original justice and holiness (Collins, like Murphy, seems “first” theological humans) to moral and spiritual darkness from the very to favor a modified Eastern/Irenaean sense of relative childlike beginning. So, God is not to be thought of as an abandoning father.29 For innocence). But the first humans were still subject to many “sinful” Murphy30 the important point here is that God is not to be thought of as temptations and capable of some meaningful choice re: how to respond.28 the author of sin. Humans who first became fully theologically human

78 Omega December 2009 79 Patrick McDonald Human Origins and Original Sin in an Evolutionary Context knew enough about God to know what it meant to obey God or not, had death), the act of the first human or humans did not obviously, according the capacity in some sense to do so, or not, and did in fact choose freely to the Scriptural text, single-handedly change human nature. Thirdly, not to do so in important ways. The consequences of such choices have Collins argues that Romans suggests ongoing sin brought alienation and been passed on from generation to generation in likely complex and condemnation. So he says that Adam provides a theological representation multi-leveled ways. The transmission reaches to a true spiritual depth for all humans and for the first theologically human hominins,33 whenever that encompasses the genetic, physiological, psychological, social, and and wherever they came to be. Adam represents not just the first humans, cultural, yet is something more, in part because it means those realities but also the first disobedience of humans (and he notes, the lack of a as oriented to God and the transcendent, i.e., the spiritual world. mention of Eve may underscore the symbolic nature of Adam). Also, with Murphy, Collins reiterates that Romans 5 suggests that through Collins considers the strengths of the H.I. view in light of Romans Adam, and so let’s say by the free agency of humans, and not by God’s 1:18-32; 5:12-21, and in light of Genesis 1-4. A few of his points are doing, we die. We die not simply as a direct inheritance from two worth mentioning here. In his essay Collins reminds us of key factors individuals, but by a profound spiritual interconnectedness to the whole 31 guiding how we interpret the Scriptures. We must keep in mind that in history of humans. God intervenes repeatedly (quite possibly constantly) working through human authors in specific places and times and revealing in this history, but does not break the chain by force. God respects human content concerning the deepest mystery of reality, it may well be a dignity, our capacity to make meaningfully free choices, thus also, choices complex task to discern the meaning. Thus Scriptural interpretation should that have consequences and that affect the nature of our reflect understanding of historical context, of the rest of Scripture, the interdependence. history of interpretation and doctrinal development, elements of literary study, science, philosophy, and not least experientially based common Finally, as a brief example of comparison, we might peak at sense. Collins argues that Romans 1:18-32 is the key place in the letter Collins’s objections to the view of C.S. Lewis. In what may surprise where it offers an account of the Fall, i.e., how we came to be and some of his readers, Lewis argued in the Problem of Pain that an the remain in bondage to sin. Paul talks there not primarily about individual doctrine of original sin is consistent with humans having evolved. In the actions but about human communities all the way back to the first view of Lewis, when hominins (i.e., ancestors of full humans) reached emergence of humans, “for they knew God, but they did not honor Him the “right” stage of development, God gifted them with the capacity for as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their thinking and their self-consciousness and consciousness of God, and put them in a paradisal senseless minds were darkened.” And if this occurred through state with morally relevant appetites under control. The people lived in communities acting over time, then if fits the logic of the HI view. harmony and in genuine communion with God. But eventually, selfish choices occurred, and a darkening of hearts, minds, and souls followed Regarding, Romans 5:12-21, what Collins calls the locus classicus that went with alienation from God and each other. Collins argues that at of the traditional (esp. Augustinian) doctrine of original sin, he develops least three significant problems beset the view. One, how the Fall occurred his case. The first point is that the content is primarily about the identity is mysterious (as it is on a traditional Augustinian view) if it was the case of Jesus as the answer to sin and that Paul articulates the point in the that with moral and intellectual perfection there would be no temptation context of his own and his hearers presuppositions informed by the Jewish to sin. While this objection could possibly be handled, one might argue Scriptures and traditions. In this point, he notes the rhetorical structure that an Eastern view whereby the first humans were relatively “innocent” of the repeated “just as” this, so that, v. 18 providing a crucial example. but not morally and intellectually perfect (as much as humans as creatures Two, the texts (e.g. Genesis 3 or Romans 5) do not say clearly that our could be perfect) better fits any plausible scenario roughly concordant natures changed through Adam’s sin. Even if the first sins were a special with evolutionary history. Second, Collins argues that God placing the conduit for sin’s entry into the world (especially as a form of spiritual first theologically human people in a state of paradise by a miracle knowing

80 Omega December 2009 81 Patrick McDonald Human Origins and Original Sin in an Evolutionary Context that they would sin seems unmotivated and a relationally fruitless conception of the human, it would seem at first that a gradualist picture “experiment”. Finally, Collins observes that the realization of the kind of is obviously the best candidate for thinking about the narrative of consciousness here supposed seems to imply the existence of language. becoming theologically human. Why? That’s how the theory conceives Either the language slowly evolved (contrary to Lewis’s model) or it of speciation – it is not a one generation phenomenon. Furthermore, as would require a significant miracle on the part of God. Again, none of we’ve noted, many of the human distinctives (not just what we can do, these objections seem to be knock-down (as I may suggest below). but how we do it), appear to have emerged over a very long period of However, one might argue that a view of the doctrine that preserves time, and likely in fits and starts (along with the gradual growth and well its core meaning while being a good fit with science, might be a development of relevant physiological characteristics, such as brain size marginally better way to understand the relevant Scriptures. and neural architecture as well as capacities for manual dexterity and the relevant cultural capacities such as language and cooking). However v. Gradual or Punctuated? (and this may seem a bit wild), just as we have “a-ha” moments of insight, and these require many pieces of the puzzle to be in place without Initially, it looks as if humans – on the evolutionary picture – would the puzzle itself being solved, so also might it be the case that the history only have come gradually into the capacities that make possible bearing of evolution set the table for a special mutation (in, say, a key regulatory the image of God, being thus theologically human. For example, it does gene) to take place that made possible the emergence of (even dimly) a not seem plausible that merely having large brains, making and using God-conscious human (or two) in one generation. tools, capturing fire, caring for kin, ritual burying of kin, practicing art, engaging in ritual practices of other sorts, cooperating in hunting, and How does this look on a dualistic conception? First, let’s define being linguistic would by themselves qualify H. sapiens as having the dualism. In general dualists about human nature hold that some part of capacities traditionally associated with bearing the divine image. Many the human person is non-physical in nature. Substance dualists have of these capacities are indeed instantiated in human communities, going held that there is a non-physical substance that either is the person, or back at least 30,000 years or so, in ways that may be distinctive to combines with body in some way to be a human person. Property dualists Homo Sapiens (even if Neanderthals had some impressive capacities hold that some features of humans, such as minds, intentional states and practices). Furthermore, it does not seem likely that those capacities (e.g. beliefs about things, or desires for things), or qualitative states (e.g. would come together all at once, in one generation, much less in a male pains, sensational states) are non-physical. This brings up the question, and a female at the same time and place. Of course, a miracle could what is the physical? That’s a difficult question and one I would like to bring this about and might do so in a way that did not leave its exact forestall. However, we might in a preliminary sense define the physical trace. as follows. The physical includes things that are studied by our fundamental physics, and those entities composed of such things. For We are left with two broad options. One, conceive of this doctrinal example, physics conceives of the “universe” as composed of a veritable set as emerging gradually or as coming to be in something much more zoo of fundamental particles such as quarks, electrons, neutrinos, bosons, “puncutated” say in a relatively very short period of time. And hadrons, gravitons, and so on. These might also be composed of vibrating furthermore, each of those scenarios admits of a dualistic or a physicalist strings (if some version of string theory works out). In addition there is flavor. Often, one thinks of dualism as belonging to a punctuational thought to be a space-time continuum which is conceived in various conception only, but if one were say, to follow the view of William Hasker ways. Furthermore, we are surrounded by entities thought to be composed (Emergent Self), then it may be possible that the “emergence” of souls of the things physics studies and existing according to the rules that occurred gradually in evolutionary history, and that the emergence of physics attempts to articulate (e.g. Einstein’s Field Equations, the theologically humans by virtue of, in part, having theologically human Schroedinger Equation, the Standard Model of physical particles, etc.). souls may also have occurred gradually. If we were to accept a physicalist 82 Omega December 2009 83 Patrick McDonald Human Origins and Original Sin in an Evolutionary Context This includes all forms of life, and the units of biochemistry of which the effects of sin, then we can maintain a robust picture of both humans they are composed and according to which they exist. Now, something, emerging in a narrow band of history, spatially and temporally, having a whether an substance or a property, belonging to a human being that in special state of existence (integrity), then losing it because of free and some important sense does not per se belong to such physicality (isn’t “sinful” choices, and setting up a state of affairs that is a sinful state that strictly composed of physical things or existing according to the relevant is passed on not just psychosocially but also in some meaningful sense, “laws”) may be thought of as non-physical. spiritually. The mode of transmission to all of humanity may be left somewhat open ended, and one that is not a point of doctrine, which it Now might it have been the case that at some point in our long never seems to have been. evolutionary history, God brought it about that a non-physical dimension came to be to change an individual from a run-of-the-mill H. sapiens to 4 Final Thoughts a theological human? And might this be thought of as conferring a non- physical “soul or mind or spirit” that is distinctly “human” in the relevant What does it take to inherit eternal life (see Luke 10:25-27; Matt sense of bestowing the divine image? And might this be something that 22:34-40)? When asked this or a similar question, which commandment did not show itself in any obvious outward change of behavior – such as of the law is the greatest, Jesus responds with the two great a sudden emergence of art, or writing, or tilling the soil, or cooking, commandments. In Matthew Jesus says, “You shall love the Lord your hunting, or speaking? Some of those things seem quite possible to think God with your whole heart, with your whole soul, and with all your of as having been developed by hominins with sufficient brain power to mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. The second is like it; learn the relevant skills and pass them on, but still lacking something that ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments would confer the ability to know God, even dimly, and be able to make the whole law is based, and the prophets as well.” (Jesus here quotes some meaningful decision in life to follow God or in some way, choose a Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18). So participating in eternal life with God and path of not doing so. This reminds us of the deep difficulty of finding keeping the heart of God’s commandments seems central to our reason through the reconstruction of our deep past the clear signs of the first for existing. It is the sort of goal or purpose that makes sense for beings humans in a theological sense. created in God’s Image. It is the kind of purpose that is deeply frustrated by sin. It is the purpose that can be fulfilled only with the aid of Grace. So, it seems possible that on various conceptions of dualism, And the failure to realize it is most profoundly addressed by the events humans could have been gifted with non-physical capacities in one and actions of the Paschal Mystery. Jesus, the Lamb of God, takes generation that made the difference between having and lacking the away the sins of the world. These are central issues in the teaching of divine image. Now would this be a situation that would match the Christian Faith, in the teaching of Jesus, and in the teaching of the conception of original righteousness. Not likely will this fit well an Scriptures. Augustinian conception, but quite possibly may fit a more Irenaean conception in Collins’ style of conceiving it. Just as God did not coerce, program, or force the first humans to disobey, to miss the mark, “to eat of the tree of knowledge of good & This sort of model can stand with a dualist or physicalist conception evil” neither does God force us to remain with our state of disposition to of the human person. I won’t go through all of the different possible sin and thus alienation from a more fully realized relationship with God. scenarios now. A key consideration is that we distinguish between H. In the history of God’s relationship with Israel from the deliverance of Sapiens as a biological species and “human – in God’s image” as a Noah and family from the Flood, to the calling of Abraham, to the covenant theological reality. Furthermore, if our notion of original righteousness is with Moses and the Israelites in delivering them from Egypt and the sufficiently open-ended while still holding to the notion that with the gift giving of the Mosaic law, to the work of the prophets, we see God of the divine image there was something clearly different and also without reaching out to offer ways to overcome the disposition to sin. In Jesus, 84 Omega December 2009 85 Patrick McDonald Human Origins and Original Sin in an Evolutionary Context God Incarnate, we Christians believe that God has offered a learn more about the Bible, and about science. The challenge is just not fundamentally new, radical, and universal pathway to the overcoming of that simple. A set of things are involved in making such an adjustment the effects of sin – the ultimate answer to the problem of the original sin. and this paper has in no way enumerated all of them. We need a theological And in keeping with the original meaning of the gift of the Divine Image portrait of human nature that strongly affirms our embodied nature that and the ability to share in a life of loving solidarity with the triune God, is still open to libertarian free will and a sense of our “soul” as an aspect the offer of a pathway out of sin through a relationship to God through of our being that fits such a notion of free will. We need a portrait of the Faith in Christ is not something we believe to be coercive. God grants us Scriptures and the teaching of the tradition of Christianity that has the freedom, in thousands of ways that add up to a basic decision, to authority – i.e., a sense that the central teachings of Christianity are not follow Christ, to be His disciple, or to go another way. This freedom simply an intersection set of fallible human cultural traditions, practices, honors God’s dignity as creator and ours as created in God’s image; and beliefs. And we need a solid understanding of what is well-grounded furthermore, it plays a role in explaining why God is not the author of sin human knowledge, as opposed to yet another set of passing opinions, and a part in explaining why there is horrific wickedness and evil in the well-grounded in the evidence, but nonetheless mistaken. So, the task of world in spite of God’s goodness, knowledge, and power. God loves the charting a tentative model or map of reconciliation will operate at various world, and specifically, loves all creatures who suffer unfathomably, and levels and will be in principle at this time and place – incomplete. I hope knows of their (our) suffering, and has the power to end it. Yet, as part that it gives some people the courage to embrace this exciting and amazing of God’s love and justice, in some sense God allows free creatures to dimension of human investigation – the science of human nature and act in wicked and hurtful ways as part of honoring their dignity, and thus especially the evolutionary perspective on the question. But in doing, I freedom. Some passages of Scripture suggest that God’s hope is for all hope even more that the process of reconciliation deepens one’s sense freely to choose a life of discipleship and that God will ultimately be of WHO God Is, of God’s word, and of one’s profoundly important victorious over wickedness and that God indeed does work to a good place in God’s act of sharing in God’s being as Creator. end even through wickedness and suffering. In all of that, God honors human beings enough not to make us his puppets or “obedience” robots, 5 Appendix - Web-sites with images (and video) of various or the like. In short, God does a tremendous amount, and in the person of Hominin fossils Christ has made His presence profoundly evident in the history of Creation Smithsonian Hominin Family tree: – in order to address the ravages of the sin in which live and that we http://humanorigins.si.edu/ha/a_tree.html inherit. However, in some way, God has given us meaningful say, some autonomy, in our choice of our day to day response to God’s invitation to Hominin Crania compared: relationship. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275670/human-evolution Ardipithecus Ramidus: The troubles with evolution are not simple, they are not just http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/photogalleries/oldest- questions of reading the Bible as a theological text and not a science text human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-pictures/#025050_600x450.jpg book and by distinguishing Christian theology and church teachings from Australopithecus Afarensis: Lucy a literal or “plain-sense” reading of the Bible. They go deeper, maybe http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html much deeper. And the problems, the difficult challenges of seeing an even remotely plausible way through them might suggest the ongoing Homo Ergaster/Erectus: Turkana Boy cultural battle of the creation-evolution controversy. I think it is a bit http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html patronizing for some to suggest that Christians who bear deep reservations Homo Ergaster/Erectus?: Dmanisi Hominids about evolutionary theory, especially applied to humans, simply need to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html

86 Omega December 2009 87 Patrick McDonald Human Origins and Original Sin in an Evolutionary Context Herto Hominids: (for picture and brief npr news account: Life,” Proceedings of the BSCS, AIBS Symposium (Colorado Springs: BSCS, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1295624 2005). and: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1295460 10. One piece of lore is Franz Weidenreich’s story of rushing to get a trove of Neanderthal – Human Comparison fossils shipped to New York from China in 1941 only to lose the shipment http://www.britannica.com/bps/image/547371/73008/Skeleton-of-a-Neanderthal- once the port “fell” to the Japanese on Dec. 7, 1941. compared-with-a-skeleton-of-a 11. see Foley & Lewin 2004. 12. For slight evidence of a pre-Erectus Asian fossil see: Wanpo et. al. Nature NOVA Becoming Human - originally aired in November 2009 1995, pp. 275-278. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/becoming-human-part-1.html 13. Foley/Lewin, 2004, p. 340. Notes and References 14. for a diagram, see Foley and Lewin 2004, p. 342. 15. Weidenreich 1937. 1. Patrick McDonald is Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Seattle Pacific University, 3307 Third Ave. W, Seattle, WA 98119. 16. see: http://humanorigins.si.edu/ha/heid.htm; Foley and Lewin 2004. 2. Definition of Hominin from: www.hominin.net 17. see: http://humanorigins.si.edu/ha/brokenhill.htm. 3. Tim D. White, et al. 2009. “Ardipithecus ramidus and the Paleobiology of 18. for a review, see Richard Klein, “Whither the Neanderthals?” in Science. 7 Early Hominids.” Science 2 October: vol 326. No. 5949, pp. 75-86. March 2003: Vol. 299. no. 5612, pp. 1525-1527. 4. see T. White, et al. 2009 19.Foley & Lewin, 2004, p. 387 5. mya = millions of years ago; kya – thousands of years ago 20. White, et al. 2003 6 . Definition of Hominin (from: www.hominin.net) “Because of the genetic 21. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1a.93.a.4, Second and Revised Edition, closeness of humans to other African great apes (bonobos, chimpanzees, Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 1920. and gorillas), some scientists have argued for a revision of the current From: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/. Retrieved, January 20, 2010. classification system to one that is more inclusive of all evolutionary 22. George Murphy, “Roads to Paradise and Perdition: Christ, Evolution, and relationships. Thus, the orangutans, gorillas, chimps, bonobos and humans, Original Sin,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Vol. 58: no. 2, are classified under the Family Hominidae. But since orangutans diverged 2006, p. 113. sometime around 13 million years ago, they’ve been re-categorized into the 23. “Letter to Autolycus” in Ante-Nicene Fathers; from Murphy 2006, p. 114. sub-family Ponginae. The African apes, including humans, on the other 24. On the Apostolic Preaching, 47; from Murphy 2006, p. 114. hand, have been placed into a different sub-family Homininae. Ultimately, the bipedal apes have been assigned a new tribe Hominini or hominin. And 25. see Tatha Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary ll members of the fossil genera, such as Australopithecus, Ardipithecus, Meanings (Mahwah,N.J.: Paulist Press, 2002). Kenyanthropus, Sahelanthropus, Orrorin and Homo, are members of this 26. Canons of the Council of Orange. 529 CE. From :http://www.reformed.org/ tribe.” documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/ 7. Tim White et al 2009. canons_of_orange.html. Retrieved, August 25, 2009. 8. Throughout this essay regarding Hominin history, I will adopt the narrative 27. Murphy 2006, p. 113. stance and just say, “this happened, that happened” – all the while under 28. Robin Collins, “Evolution and Original Sin” in Keith Miller, (ed.), Perspectives that assumption that what we have is a set of evidence. Under the available on an Evolving Creation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), pp. 470-471. evidence and analysis of competent scientists this narrative may make the 29. Collins, 2003, p. 473. “most sense.” 30. Murphy, 2006, pp. 111, 115. 9. Robert A. Foley, and Roger Lewin, Principles of Human Evolution. (Oxford: 31. Collins, 2003, pp. 473-75. Blackwell, 2004); William H. Kimbel, “The Human Species on the Tree of 32. Collins, 2003, p. 481.

88 Omega December 2009 89 Science, Religion and Darwin: A Contemporary Appraisal Omega Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species has been called the VIII (2009)2, 90-109 most important book ever written. How important really is this book? Thomas Henry Huxley (“Darwin’s bulldog”) proclaimed that “On the Origin of Species” was “the most potent instrument for the extension of the realm of knowledge which has come into man’s hands since Newton’s Principia, and lamented to himself: “How extremely stupid not to have thought of that.”2 Science, Religion and Darwin: The Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr, arguably the greatest A Contemporary Appraisal evolutionary theorist since Darwin, holds: “It would be difficult to refute - Kuruvilla Pandikattu1 the claim that the Darwinian revolution was the greatest of all intellectual revolutions in the history of mankind.” Similarly the Harvard paleontologist Abstract: On the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s and historian of science Stephen Jay Gould called the theory of evolution On the Origin of Species, a book that fundamentally altered how we one of the half dozen most important ideas in the entire history of Western look at the natural world, and continues to frame biological research thought.3 today, this article focusses on the impact Darwin’s theory had on contemporary society, including religion. After exposing the grand idea Introducing the theory of evolution by natural selection, Darwin’s and the response it has generated in terms of admiration and awe, the book fundamentally altered how scientists look at the natural world, and author looks at the relation between science and religion specially continues to frame biological research today. Since the day it appeared, among American scientists to study the impact of the theory of evolution the book has been controversial, but today more than ever. That’s because on religion. Finally the plea is made for a reasoned and creative response by 1859, there had been several books on evolution published in Britain by believers and scientists alike, which will respect the autonomy of along with the revolutionary scientific work On the Origin of Species. both science and religion and at the same time plead for a creative “The most famous example being a book that came out in Victorian interaction in shaping human understanding and the evolving soicety at the moment. Relativising both science and religion, such an open- Britain in 1844 — an anonymous best-seller,” says Jim Endersby. It was 4 ended, creative and evolving vision of human beings and God will called The Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. guide our collective destiny. According to Endersby, professor of the history of science at the Keywords: Darwin, Origin of Species, Theory of Evolution, Uniqueness University of Sussex and the author of an introduction to a commemorative of Human Beings, Science-religion Dialogue, Evolution of God. edition of On the Origins of Species,5 The Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation may have captured the popular imagination, but it was lambasted by scientists for its multiple factual errors, and by the Introduction clergy for its affront to religious dogma. Darwin’s book got a much Tuesday, November 24, 2009 marked the 150th anniversary of the more positive reception. Further, Endersby affirms: “What really publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. All 1,250 impressed people with Darwin’s work was not so much the idea itself, copies of the initial print of the book were scooped up by readers eager but the book. It was the fact that there was so much detail, so much 6 to see the British naturalist going rogue with his radical new theory of evidence.” evolution, “By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of In fact, as soon as the book was published, it was not just scientists 1 Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” in the book’s full title. who liked the new theory, but also many theologians also. Popular history

90 Omega December 2009 91 Kuruvilla Pandikattu Science, Religion and Darwin: A Contemporary Appraisal holds that the church’s condemnation of Darwin was immediate and In this article I hope to focuss on the impact Darwin’s theory had universal. Endersby holds how different the situation actually was. In on contemporary society, including religion. After exposing the grand fact at least some in the Church even tried to collaborate with the work idea and the response it has generated in terms of admiration and awe, of Darwin. For example, Endersby says Darwin sent a copy of his book I look at the relation between science and religion specially among to one of the leading members of the Church of England, the Rev. Charles American scientists to study the impact of the theory of evolution on Kingsley. Kingsley wrote back to Darwin: “It’s just as noble a conception religion. Finally the plea is made for a reasoned and creative response of God to think that he created animals and plants that then evolved, that by believers and scientists alike. were capable of self-development, as it is to think that God has to constantly create new forms and fill in the gaps that he’s left in his own The Grand Idea creation.” Clearly pleased with this comment, Darwin included it in future In this section we indicate first that the grand idea of evolution is editions of On the Origins of Species. not in fact Darwin’s original one. Then we show the grandeur of the On Nov. 24, 1859, when the book was published, the historical human being in Darwin’s Origin. relationship between religion and science was already changing. As scientists started debating Darwin’s ideas about evolution, they were Not Really that New keen to hold the debate in a secular context. “You start seeing people He wasn’t, after all, the first person to suggest that evolution say, ‘Well, let’s think about this as a scientific question,’” says Jim Secord, happens, as noted by Olivia Judson, a The New York Times columnist. 8 the director of the Darwin Correspondence Project at Cambridge For example, his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, speculated about the University. “That’s really what it is. Leave the theology. That will work theory of evolution towards the end of the 18th century. Again at the itself out in some sort of way.” beginning of the 19th, the great French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck At many instances, the theology does not always work itself out, made a strong case for it. Lamarck, however, failed to be generally as evidenced by the strong anti-evolution sentiment in certain religions in persuasive because he didn’t have a plausible mechanism — he could the world today. Jim Secord really holds that On Origin of Species did see that evolution takes place, but he didn’t know how, which was provided not create the rift between science and religion, which appeared right by the theory of natural selection. when the rift was opening 150 years ago. Natural selection is what we normally think of as Darwin’s big “These debates about science and religion, if anything, have idea. Yet he wasn’t the first to discover that, either. At least two others actually increased in the last 10 to 20 years,” holds Secord. “And so — a doctor called William Wells, and a writer called Patrick Matthew Darwin is really a big talking point for these kinds of questions. And I — discovered it years before Darwin did. Wells described it (admittedly think people read Darwin and look to Darwin in some senses as a kind briefly) in 1818, when Darwin was just 9; Matthew did so in 1831, the of fault line for these continuing controversies.” year that Darwin set off on board HMS Beagle for what became a five- year voyage around the world.9 In the decades after the 1859 publication, support for Darwin’s theory got support from many scientists and grew in all quarters. But As a matter of fact, it was a few months after returning from this Endersby believes that at least some of that support was based on a voyage that Darwin first began to consider seriously the possibility of misunderstanding of Darwin’s ideas. He holds that there is no evolution, or the “transmutation of species.” At this time he knew nothing “predetermined endpoint” in the theory of evolution by natural selection.7 of Wells’s and Matthew’s accounts of natural selection; indeed, both accounts languished in obscurity until after the Origin was published.10

92 Omega December 2009 93 Kuruvilla Pandikattu Science, Religion and Darwin: A Contemporary Appraisal By 1858, Darwin had spent more than 20 years studying plants humble-bees, as Darwin called them); we, too, acquired a family tree and animals and thinking about evolution. He had filled notebook after with a host of remarkable and distinguished ancestors. notebook with his thoughts on how evolution works; he had, in 1844, The reason the Origin was so powerful, compelling and written a short manuscript on the subject that was to be published in the persuasive, the reason Darwin succeeded while his predecessors failed, event of his untimely death; and he had discussed evolution with a few is that in it he does not just describe how evolution by natural selection close friends. But he had published nothing on evolution as such. Then, works. He presents an enormous body of evidence culled from every in June of that year, Darwin received a package from a young man field of biology then known.11 named Alfred Russel Wallace containing a brief manuscript in which he outlined the principle of evolution by natural selection. At the same time, he uses every form of evidence at his disposal: he observes, argues, compares, infers and describes the results of What happened next is famous in the history of biology. On July experiments he has read about, or in many cases, personally conducted. 1, 1858, Wallace’s manuscript, as well as a couple of short statements For example, one of Darwin’s observations is that the inhabitants of on natural selection by Darwin (a segment of the 1844 manuscript, and islands resemble — but differ subtly from — those of the nearest part of a letter he’d written in 1857), were read at a meeting of the continents. So: birds and bushes on islands off the coast of South America Linnean Society in London. The meeting had been organized by some of resemble South American birds and bushes; islands near Africa are Darwin’s scientific friends to establish his priority in the discovery. populated by recognizably African forms. Of the material presented that night, the manuscript by Wallace He argues that the reason for this is that new islands become is, in some respects, the more impressive: it is clearer and more accessible. colonized by beings from the nearest continents, and that the new Yet it is Darwin who won; it is Darwin who, like a god in a temple, sits in inhabitants then begin evolving independently. He then asks: Can animals white marble and presides over the main hall at the Natural History and plants from the continents get to new islands, especially those that Museum in London. The reason is the Origin. Without the publication are far out at sea? To investigate this, he conducts experiments to see of the Origin the following year, the meeting at the Linnean Society how long seeds from different plants can remain immersed in saltwater could well have passed unnoticed, the Darwin-Wallace statements going and still begin to grow. In short, he tests his reasoning over and over the same way as those by Matthew and Wells. Indeed, the meeting had again. so little impact at the time that, at the end of the year, the president of the Linnean Society said, “The year which has passed has not, indeed, been Again in some respects, he is surprisingly far-seeing. The Origin marked by any of those striking discoveries which at once revolutionize, does not just expound natural selection. It contains a wealth of additional so to speak, the department of science on which they bear.” ideas and hypotheses, some of which Darwin went on to elaborate in other books. Among them: sexual selection. This is the idea — and it And the Origin changed everything, notes Judson. Before the remained controversial until recently — that males in many species are Origin, the diversity of life could only be catalogued and described; burdened with showy ornaments like enormous tails because the females afterwards, it could be explained and understood. Before the Origin, of their species have, by repeatedly picking the showiest males as their species were generally seen as fixed entities, the special creations of a mates, caused them to evolve them that way. deity; afterwards, they became connected together on a great family tree that stretches back, across billions of years, to the dawn of life. This is not to say that the Origin is flawless, or that Darwin was Perhaps most importantly, the Origin changed our view of ourselves. It right in every respect. It is not, and he was not. Nor is the book a definitive made us as much a part of nature as hummingbirds and bumblebees (or account of how evolution works. It wasn’t even definitive in his lifetime:

94 Omega December 2009 95 Kuruvilla Pandikattu Science, Religion and Darwin: A Contemporary Appraisal he published six editions, revising, sometimes heavily, from one to the Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted next.12 Yet his knowledge of the natural world is so immense, and the object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the scrutiny to which he subjects his ideas is so thorough and scrupulous, higher animals, directly follows. that the Origin presents a grand new vision of the world. A vision that, as far as possible given the knowledge available at the time, he worked There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having out in every detail. A vision that changed the world forever. 13 been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so The Grandeur in this View of Life: The Entangled Bank simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. An abridged conclusion of Origin gives us the grand vision proposed by Darwin.14 Unique Role of Humans

During early periods of the earth’s history, when the forms of life Darwin holds that human beings are, without doubt, descended were probably fewer and simpler, the rate of change was probably slower; from less highly organized form and still unique. A brief summary will be and at the first dawn of life, when very few forms of the simplest structure sufficient to recall to the reader’s mind the more salient points in this existed, the rate of change may have been slow in an extreme degree. The work.15 Many of the views which have been advanced are highly whole history of the world, as at present known, although of a length quite speculative, and some no doubt will prove erroneous; but I have in every incomprehensible by us, will hereafter be recognized as a mere fragment of case given the reasons which have led me to one view rather than to time, compared with the ages which have elapsed since the first creature, another. the progenitor of innumerable extinct and living descendants, was created. It seemed worthwhile to try how far the principle of evolution would In the distant future I see open fields for far more important throw light on some of the more complex problems in the natural history of researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the man. False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history… harm, for everyone takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness: and when this is done, one path towards error is closed and the road to truth is It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with often at the same time opened. many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, The main conclusion here arrived at, and now held by many and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from naturalists who are well competent to form a sound judgment, is that man is each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all descended from some less highly organized form. The grounds upon which been produced by laws acting around us. this conclusion rests will never be shaken, for the close similarity between man and the lower animals in embryonic development, as well as in These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with innumerable points of structure and constitution, both of high and of the Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; most trifling importance, —the rudiments which he retains, and the abnormal Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of reversions to which he is occasionally liable, —are facts which cannot be life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a disputed. Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. They have long been known, but until recently they told us nothing with respect to the origin of man. Now when viewed by the light of our 96 Omega December 2009 97 Kuruvilla Pandikattu Science, Religion and Darwin: A Contemporary Appraisal

knowledge of the whole organic world, their meaning is unmistakable. The the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of great principle of evolution stands up clear and firm, when these groups of astonished dogs— as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, facts are considered in connection with others… [they] all point in the offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats plainest manner to the conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest mammals of a common progenitor. superstitions.

We have seen that man incessantly presents individual differences Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though in all parts of his body and in his mental faculties. These differences or not through his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic scale; and variations seem to be induced by the same general causes, and to obey the the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed same laws as with the lower animals. In both cases similar laws of inheritance there, may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future. But prevail. Man tends to increase at a greater rate than his means of subsistence; we are not here concerned with hopes or fears, only with the truth as far as consequently he is occasionally subjected to a severe struggle for existence, our reason permits us to discover it; and I have given the evidence to the and natural selection will have effected whatever lies within its scope… best of my ability. We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is humblest living creature, with his godlike intellect which has penetrated bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a into the movements and constitution of the solar system—with all these distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of exalted powers—Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual his lowly origin. through the laws of ordinary reproduction... 150 Years Later: Awe and Protest The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely that man is descended from some lowly organized form, will, I regret to think, be highly Given the grandeur of the idea, it is not surprising that there is distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended both admiration and panic to the ideas proposed by Darwin even after from barbarians. The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of 150 years. Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind —such were our ancestors. These Awe and Admiration men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint, their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression was Darwin’s is the first face we see as we enter National Museum wild, startled, and distrustful. They possessed hardly any arts, and like of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution, from Constitution wild animals lived on what they could catch; they had no government, and Avenue, New York: young and pink and beardless; curious, ambitious, were merciless to every one not of their own small tribe. and still unaware, when this portrait was painted, of the decisive, divisive role he would play in solving the great mystery of nature and rewriting He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much the biography of humans and even God.16 shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins. For my own part I would as soon be descended Nearby is a letter in his own hand on fine blue paper. Here are his from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to brown silk scarf, his notebooks, his famous Galapagos mockingbirds, save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descending from and specimens of tropical plants, plucked and pressed by the seasick young voyager 10,000 miles from home. In another display case, the

98 Omega December 2009 99 Kuruvilla Pandikattu Science, Religion and Darwin: A Contemporary Appraisal handwritten tag on the leg of a Hudsonian godwit is dated Jan. 4, 1837. Protest and Panic It is signed by the man who collected the shorebird in the Falkland Islands: C. Darwin, Esq. Against this wondrous truth, comes a fusillade of confusion in an e-mail headlined “Making a Monkey out of Darwin.” It is from Pat Charles Darwin’s careful, methodical, brilliant little volume was Buchanan, the former U. S. Republican presidential candidate, and it released to a God-anchored London on Nov. 24, 1859. Since then, the would be comical if it were not for the millions of other recipients who work of tens of thousands of lesser investigators has done little to diminish might take such spam as truth: Darwin’s achievement, and much to enhance and embellish it. Still, about half of the adults surveyed in Britain and America continue not to accept “For 150 years,’’ Buchanan writes to mark the anniversary, “the that humanity arose as a result of billions of years of random, favourable fossil record has failed to validate Darwin. Darwin’s examples of natural mutations, and thus - as a Tree of Life on the wall of the National Museum selection . . . have been debunked. That Darwinism has proved `disastrous of Natural History depicts - we all are cousins to salmonella, Stegosaurus, theory’ is indisputable.’’ 17 lemons, leeches and yeast. But Buchanan has not finished. He goes on: “‘Darwin suits my Meet One of Your Oldest Relatives, beckons a sign in the Hall of purpose,’ Marx wrote. Darwin suited Adolf Hitler’s purposes, too. 18 Mammals above a showcase containing a model of Morganucodon Darwinism is not science. It is faith. Always was.’’ oehleri, a shrew-like thing about 10 centimetres long and 210 million American Scientists and Religion years old. “Its DNA was passed on to billions of descendants,’’ the Smithsonian tells us. “Including you.’’ No wonder Darwin wrote to a In the background of Darwinian model of evolution, we study in friend in 1844, early in his meticulous researches, when he realized how this section the relation between science and religion. Members of the his theory would be received, that admitting that species are not immutable scientific community are often seen as doubting Thomases, but the reality “is like confessing a murder.’’ No wonder the great man vomited nearly is more complex. Even Charles Darwin may have made room for God. every day for more than 20 years, expecting to be crushed at any moment Today, the overwhelming majority of scientists in the United States accept by the hammer of what he called “the blindness of preconceived Darwinian evolution as the basis for understanding how life on Earth opinions.’’ developed. But although evolutionary theory is often portrayed as No wonder scientists continue to hold him in awe, and museums antithetical to religion, it has not destroyed the religious faith of the 19 line their corridors with his portrait, his words, and his wonders. Born on scientific community. the same day of the same year as Abraham Lincoln, but in much more According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the elegant circumstances, Darwin governed no nation and mustered no Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in army. His 73 years spanned the 19th century from Napoleon to Einstein, May and June 2009, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in and, despite his denigration as the enemy of English religion, he was God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not. buried in Westminster Abbey. Furthermore, scientists today are no less likely to believe in God “What did Darwin get wrong, 150 years ago?’’ Allen Abel asked than they were almost 100 years ago, when the scientific community one of his latter-day disciples, a Smithsonian botanist named W. John was first polled on this issue. In 1914, 11 years before the Scopes Kress, who studies the interwoven lives of flowers and hummingbirds “monkey” trial and four decades before the discovery of the structure on the islands of the Caribbean. The reply was succinct: “Not much at of DNA, psychologist James Leuba asked 1,000 U.S. scientists about all!” their views on God. He found the scientific community evenly divided,

100 Omega December 2009 101 Kuruvilla Pandikattu Science, Religion and Darwin: A Contemporary Appraisal with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same the father of modern evolutionary theory might have responded to the number saying they did not. Scientists have unearthed many important question on belief in Pew’s recent survey of scientists.20 fossils since then, but they are, if anything, more likely to believe in God today. Six Reasons for Aversion The scientific community is, however, much less religious than Why, then, do so many Americans not accept the theory of the general public. In Pew surveys, 95% of American adults say they evolution? A 2001 Gallup Poll found that 45 percent of Americans agree believe in some form of deity or higher power. In fact, the public does with the statement “God created human beings pretty much in their not share scientists’ certainty about evolution. While 87% of scientists present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so,” while 37 say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only 32% of the percent preferred a blended belief that “Human beings have developed public believes this to be true, according to a different Pew poll earlier over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this year. this process,” and a paltry 12 percent accepted the standard scientific theory that “Human beings have developed over millions of years from Given that scientists are much less likely than the general public less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.” to believe in God, it’s not surprising that the percentage who are affiliated with a particular religion is also lower. Nearly half of U.S. scientists say These percentages have remained largely unchanged in they have no religious affiliation — describing themselves as atheist, subsequent surveys, although most scientists would prefer that the agnostic or nothing in particular — compared with 17% of all Americans. questions were asked without reference to God since the science of evolutionary biology stands or falls on its own whether God directed the Among scientists there are far fewer Protestants (21%) and process or not, or even if there is a God or not. Catholics (10%) than in the general public, which is 51% Protestant and 24% Catholic. And while evangelical Protestants make up more than a As proposed by Michael Shermer, there are at least six reasons fourth of the general population (28%), they are only a tiny slice (4%) of that make people resistant to accepting evolution.21 the scientific community. One notable exception is Jews, who make up 1. The Warfare Model of Science and Religion. The belief that a larger proportion of the scientific community (8%) than the general there is a war between science and religion where one is right and the population (2%). other wrong, and that one must choose one over the other. But the Pew poll found that levels of religious faith among scientists 2. Belief that evolution is a threat to specific religious tenets. Many vary depending on their specialty and age. Chemists, for instance, are people attempt to use science to prove certain religious tenets, but when more likely to believe in God (41%) than those who work in biology and they do not appear to fit, the science is rejected. For example, the attempt medicine (32%). And younger scientists (ages 18 to 34) are more likely to prove that the Genesis creation story is accurately reflected in the than older ones to believe in God or a higher power. geological fossil record has led many creationists to conclude that the As for Darwin, his letters indicate that he was probably an agnostic Earth was created within the past 10,000 years, which is in sharp contrast who lost his faith not because his groundbreaking theory was incompatible to the geological evidence for a 4.6 billion-year-old Earth. with religion, but because of his grief after the 1851 death of his favorite 3. Misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. A significant problem child, his 10-year-old daughter, Annie. And even then, he may not have is that most people know so little about the theory. In the 2001 Gallup completely rejected the idea of a higher power. The concluding sentence Poll, for example, a quarter of the people surveyed said they didn’t know of Origin of Species speaks of a “Creator” breathing life “into a few enough to say whether they accepted evolution or not, and only 34 percent forms or into one.” The passage raises at least a little doubt as to how 102 Omega December 2009 103 Kuruvilla Pandikattu Science, Religion and Darwin: A Contemporary Appraisal considered themselves to be “very informed” about the theory. Because of being cooperative and altruistic within our own groups, but competitive evolution is so controversial, public school science teachers typically and bellicose between groups. The purpose of civilization is to help us drop the subject entirely rather than face the discomfort aroused among rise above our hearts of darkness and to accentuate the better angels of students and parents. our nature. 4. The fear that evolution degrades our humanity. After Copernicus So Shermer, himself an atheist, urges the believers to embrace toppled the pedestal of our cosmic centrality, Darwin delivered the coup science, especially evolutionary theory, for what it has done to reveal de grâce by revealing us to be “mere” animals, subject to the same the magnificence of the divinity in a depth never dreamed by our ancient natural laws and historical forces as all other animals. ancestors. We have learned a lot in 4,000 years, and that knowledge should never be dreaded or denied. Instead, science should be welcomed 5. The equation of evolution with ethical nihilism. This sentiment by all who cherish human understanding and wisdom.22 was expressed by the neoconservative social commentator Irving Kristol in 1991: “If there is one indisputable fact about the human condition it is Conclusion: You are Here that no community can survive if it is persuaded - or even if it suspects - that its members are leading meaningless lives in a meaningless Much like Darwin himself aboard the Beagle, Smithsonian botanist universe.” named W. John Kress plucks and presses plants on scattered islands and brings them home. He seeks to understand how birds and plants 6. The fear that evolutionary theory implies we have a fixed human evolved together as they expanded from one island to the next. Every nature. The first five reasons for the resistance to evolutionary theory couple of years, he says, he reads The Origin over again and marvels at come almost exclusively from political conservatives. This last reason the author anew. originates from liberals who fear that the application of evolutionary theory to human thought and action implies that political policy and “Darwin was a biological genius,’’ Kress says. “We all yearn to economic doctrines will fail because the constitution of humanity is stronger make our own contribution, whether it’s the evolution of the birds of the than the constitutions of states. Caribbean, or adding another branch to the Tree of Life.’’23 We can very well agree that The Origin is not the final word on how living Plea for Reasoned Response things came to be. The science of genetics had not yet been elaborated to explain how what Darwin called “characters’’ are passed from parent All of these fears are baseless, according to Shermer. If one is a to child. But even though he scrupulously and nauseously avoided directly theist, it should not matter when God made the universe — 10,000 years referencing human evolution in Origin, the implication was clear. As ago or 10 billion years ago. The difference of six zeros is meaningless to Gilbert and Sullivan would put it later: “Darwinian man, though well- an omniscient and omnipotent being, and the glory of divine creation behaved, at best is only a monkey shaved.’’ Kress adds: “Darwin showed cries out for praise regardless of when it happened. that there is something that connects everything to Homo sapiens. And Likewise, it should not matter how God created life, whether it that is hard for some people to accept.’’ was through a miraculous spoken word or through the natural forces of On the Tree of Life on the wall that begins with animate, primordial the universe that He created. The grandeur of God’s works commands slime and ends in a marker that says YOU ARE HERE. “I don’t have a awe regardless of what processes He used. problem with that,’’ the botanist smiles. As for meanings and morals, it is here where our humanity arises But with the anniversary of Origin, and the new Hall of Human from our biology. We evolved as a social primate species with the tendency Origins opening in 2010, the Smithsonian has formed a Broader Social 104 Omega December 2009 105 Kuruvilla Pandikattu Science, Religion and Darwin: A Contemporary Appraisal Impacts Committee to try to find a way to bridge the crevasse between The Heretic Imperative the two extremes. “Science matters,’’ one of the committee’s members, Dr. Connie Bertka, holds. “What science has learned about the world The theory of Evolution has radically altered the way we look at matters, and if someone’s religious beliefs are preventing him from ourselves and the society. But a believer is not obliged to believe or engaging the science, that’s sad.’’ Bertka is a geologist who studies the disbelieve in the theory of evolution based on his faith, but depending on nature of carbon deep inside the Earth, and a Unitarian Universalist who her science. Science may come up with better or different theories to lectures at a theological seminary, making her well qualified to lunge at replace the current theory of evolution, which is best left to the scientists. evolution from both the secular and sacred side. At the same time the challenge confronting modern believers is to “Everybody wants to try to figure out what Darwin himself be informed by Darwin’s theory of evolution critically and creatively believed,’’ Bertka says. “There is a myth that he recanted on his deathbed and to apply it to other dimensions of religious life: the growth of the idea and declared his belief in God and Christianity. Atheists say he kept of god, the origin and development of dogmas, the life experiences of quiet about it but he really was an atheist. I think he lost far more sleep the believing community.25 Similarly the challenge confronting scientists agonizing over what the scientific reaction would be than what the is to apply the radical evolutionary ideas to science as a discipline. They religious authorities would think.’’ can utilize Darwinian insights to relativise science, respectfully and reverentially, and be open to religion that too had an evolutionary function. “What do you believe?’’ a reporter asked her. “I think we’re unique, but within a framework that relates us to all life on Earth,’’ she replies. Can we not have an image of human being that is truly evolving “What does it mean to be created ‘in God’s image?’ It means we are and grand? A self-understanding that is open to the more and still unique? co-creators with God. We have capacities that other mammals don’t. That is the imperative believers and scientists are today confronted with. But whatever this uniqueness is, it is something that evolved.’’ To choose reasonably and creatively from different possibilities! At the Smithsonian Institution, there’s a quotation from Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra, the protest of a soothsayer urged Notes and References to chart the future of the queen. “In nature’s infinite book of secrecy,’’ 1. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or he demurs, “a little I can read.’’ the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1st ed.) (London: A century and a half ago, Charles Darwin might have seized the John Murray, 1859), http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/ frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1, retrieved 2009-01-09. same disclaimer. His hope, he wrote near the end of The Origin, was that educated people might “no longer look at an organic being as a 2. Thomas Huxley, Six Lectures to Working Men “On Our Knowledge of the savage looks at a ship.’’ And his conclusion was that living things have Causes of the Phenomena of Organic Nature” (Republished in Volume II of come to be “not by miraculous acts of creation’’ and that life had been his Collected Essays, arwiniana), 1863, http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE2/ “originally breathed into a few forms or into one.’’ Phen.html, retrieved 2006-12-15 3. Michael Shermer. “Religion, evolution can live side by side,” Nov 23, 2009, Who, if anyone or anything, did the breathing, remains a matter of CNN Opinion, http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/ ferocious dispute, but if there is a middle ground, it is staked out by shermer.why.darwin.matters/. Connie Bertka “If it’s God’s stuff to begin with,’’ she says, “it’s still 24 4. Joe Palca, “At 150, Darwin’s ‘Origin’ Stirs Even More Debate” National God’s stuff at the end.’’ Public Radio, www.npr.org/ templates/ story/story.php?storyId=120692695, Nov 24, 2009. Retrieved on 12 ecember 2009.

106 Omega December 2009 107 Kuruvilla Pandikattu Science, Religion and Darwin: A Contemporary Appraisal 5. Jim Endersby, On the Origins of Species (commemorative edition) (Cambridge: 18. Allen Abel, “Charles Darwin still Evokes Awe, Howls of Protest,” Canwest Cambridge University Press, 2009). News Service, November 21, 2009. Due to lack of space I am not elaborating other instances of panic and protest against Darwinin evolution present 6. Joe Palca, “At 150, Darwin’s ‘Origin’ Stirs Even More Debate” National today. Public Radio, www.npr.org/ templates/ story/story.php?storyId=120692695, Nov 24, 2009. Retrieved on 12 ecember 2009. 19. David Masci “What do scientists think about religion?” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 24, 2009 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-masci24- 7. Joe Palca, “At 150, Darwin’s ‘Origin’ Stirs Even More Debate,” National 2009nov24,0,7022683.story. Public Radio, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/ story.php?storyId=120692695. 20. David Masci “What do Scientists Think about Religion?” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 24, 2009 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009, 8. Olivia Judson, “Darwinmania!”, The New York Times, Nov. 25, 2009. http:// Nov. 24,0,7022683 story. This section is adapted from this article. David opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/darwinmania/. Masci is a senior researcher at the Pew Forum. 9. Olivia Judson, “Darwinmania!”, The New York Times, Nov. 25, 2009. http:// 21. Michael Shermer, “Religion, Evolution can Live Side by Side,” Nov. 23, opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/darwinmania/. 2009, CNN Opinion, http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/ 10. Judson notes that after the Origin appeared, Matthew wrote to a magazine shermer.why.darwin.matters/. to draw attention to his statements on the subject; he then proceeded to put 22. Michael Shermer, “Religion, Evolution can Live Side by Side,” Nov. 23, 2009, “Discoverer of the Principle of Natural Selection” on the title pages of his CNN Opinion, http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/ books which annoyed Darwin. shermer.why.darwin.matters/. 11. He discusses subjects as diverse as pigeon breeding in Ancient Egypt, the 23. Allen Abel, “Charles Darwin still Evokes Awe, Howls of Protest,” Canwest rudimentary eyes of cave fish, the nest-building instincts of honeybees, the News Service, November 21, 2009. evolving size of gooseberries (they’ve been getting bigger), wingless beetles on the island of Madeira and algae in New Zealand. One moment, he’s 24. Allen Abel, “Charles Darwin still Evokes Awe, Howls of Protest,” Canwest considering fossil animals like brachiopods (which had hinged shells like News Service, November 21, 2009. clams, but with a different axis of symmetry); the next, he’s discussing the 25. Kuruvilla Pandikattu, The Bliss of Being Human: Science and Religion for accessibility of nectar in clover flowers to different species of bee. Self-Realization (Pune: Jnanam, 2004), pp. 1-29. 12. In the third edition, which appeared in 1861, he introduced a historical sketch in which he discusses his precursors, including Matthew and Wells. 13. Olivia Judson, “Darwinmania!,” The New York Times, Nov 25, 2009. http:// opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/darwinmania/. This section is abridged from Judson’s article. 14. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1946). (abridged). 15. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man Vol. II (London: John Murray, 1891) (abridged). 16. Allen Abel, “Charles Darwin still Evokes Awe, Howls of Protest,” Canwest News Service, November 21, 2009. 17. Allen Abel, “Charles Darwin still Evokes Awe, Howls of Protest,” Canwest News Service, November 21, 2009.

108 Omega December 2009 109 Creation in Evolution Omega difficult to see that often they are complementary in serving human VIII (2009)2, 110-128 beings to comprehend reality as it is. Often what science cannot believe and what faith cannot reason out culminate as a challenge to the human understanding of reality. Thus the human being becomes the integrating entity where religion and science converge and find their ultimate meaning regarding reality. Creation in Evolution If the human being were to stand on the shores of the sea of wisdom - He/she is approached by the waves of reason originating from 1 - Francis P. Xavier science as well as by waves of faith originating from religion. The key to understanding the contradiction between creation and evolution lies in Abstract: Very often, creation and evolution are discussed in a mutually accepting the basic and underlying principle, namely, God is the basic exclusive sense: either creation or evolution and vice versa. Revisiting origin of reality (organic or inorganic). The question is: how does life the creation-evolution debate in the contemporary context warrants clarifying the fundamental question: is creation over once for all when come into the world? Whether God is at work at every emergence of God created everything out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo), or, is God higher and complex life?, (creationism) or, whether there is a built-in continuously creating things in the universe (creatio continua)? If God mechanism already in inorganic elements that in course of time explodes is still active in the continual creation, then all the developments, it may into life (evolution)? Even if we accept that God created the universe, be termed as creation in evolution. Creation in evolution becomes the the question still remains whether he created out of nothing (creatio ex conceptual ground for a hermeneutical synthesis of the scientific and nihilo) or he sustains the world by continual creation (creatio continua). religious perspectives. Revisiting Christology from the Teilhardian It also depends on how one views the reality. One way of looking at the perspective is further helpful in this reconciliation. reality is that creation is the starting point and the continual process is Keywords: Creation, Evolution, Phases of Evolution, Creationism, the evolution. As the encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) Creation in Evolution, Ongoing Creation, Teilhard de Chardin, Omega indicates in the very beginning, faith and reason are the two wings that Point. elevate one’s spirit to reflect on reality (truth). We need a discerning mind in order to reason out and accept the theory of evolution and an understanding heart to believe that God is the origin of every reality in 1 Introduction whom everything exists, moves and has its being as Paul would put it More than ever the question of ‘Creation and Evolution’ is much (Acts 17:28). After considering the various theories on either side, we discussed now. Very often, it is discussed in a mutually exclusive sense: shall reach at a synthesis where evolution-theory and creation-faith either creation or evolution and vice versa. In the West, it is so debated converge into ‘creation in evolution.’ as to which theory is to be taught in the school with respect to the origin 1.1 Concept of Evolution and Creation of the universe: Whether God created the universe, or, whether everything in the universe evolves (automatically / depending on ‘selection rule’) Evolution (from the Latin word evolvere) means ‘to develop into from lower beings. Option for the creation theory is based on the teaching something.’ It is not simply just a change but development into ever of the Bible (that is, of theology) combined with the tradition of the complex substance leading to formation of life. In biology, evolution implies Church and evolution is based on scientific claims. What is lacking here the development of plants and animals from lower basic life forms or is a holistic view about the reality. If one can understand that both theology elements. In our context it is the development of life that has the ability (religion) and science seek after truth (which is one reality), it is not 110 Omega December 2009 111 Francis P. Xavier Creation in Evolution to become a human life (and even beyond human life, that is, after 2.1 Cosmic Evolution physical evolution, intellectual evolution and spiritual evolution.2 It is understood that there was some original substance to develop into From the time of the so called ‘Big Bang’ to the formation of the complex being. Here the time element is very important for the earth’s crest was the period of cosmic evolution. During this period, a development of material substance into being (and further into life). series of changes took place on the face of the universe. This can be broadly given as follows: formation of elementary particles’ building Many scientists believe that in the giant laboratory of the earth up of hydrogen, deuterium and helium’ formation of matter’ building (over 4 billion years ago) elements of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and up of heavier elements such as magnesium, silicon, iron etc’ formation nitrogen have combined to form complex molecules. In the process of galaxies’ beginning of our solar system’ formation of proto-earth perhaps a particular combination might have triggered off the most (about 5 billion years ago)’ formation of first formidable crest of earth intriguing and fascinating process called ‘life.’ The material basis could (about 4.2 billion years ago). This is the macro-evolution and it be a polymer, called protein, which got synthesized from simple chemical subsequently led the way to chemical evolution.6 compounds like methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide. The life thus began, got further evolved through the ages till it became ‘human.’ The 2.2 Chemical Evolution polymer could be a few billion years old but human beings are the new comers in the universe (about 1,00,000 years).3 This is also called molecular - or pre-biotic- phase. The beginning of this phase began with the organic-chemical micro molecule (combining On the other hand, creation means to bring out something out of into macro molecules) and the progress continued till the emergence of nothing. Here it means the whole universe has been brought out into bio-cell that can live by itself. At any rate, this evolution is more a latent existence out of nothing. Here ‘time’ also is created - in other words process in comparison with what was happening to the earth phase.7 ‘time’ began with the act of creation.4 So time has had a beginning but it also, so to say, evolves into and merges with eternity. 2.3 Biotic Evolution In a neutral sense, creation would mean the dependent formation Biotic evolution presupposes three factors; viz., continuous change, of the universe from an Absolute power. From a pantheistic view, the directional development and accumulation of information (from previous Absolute takes various forms (without, however, losing its basic identity). stages). Thus when evolution is talked about in a biotic sense it is a Here there could be the difference between the Creator and the created change with accumulation of (genetic) information in a developmental (creature). From the perspective of emanation, all beings flow out of the direction (of more complex or higher form of life or being). Based on Absolute and exist formally with God’s power. God exists as the power- these criteria various researches claim that the changes or development house for the flow of life but the emanated being never becomes God.5 from the original basis could be identified through various stages of development of organic matter and life.8 Here is the confrontation between reason and belief regarding whether life evolved from matter (with its built-in power) or was it brought In this phase the formation of bio-cell (the smallest entity that is into existence by an external absolute power. For a better understanding capable of life) originates containing in itself further evolution-phase. of the reality both reason and belief must go hand in hand. Hence this phase is called bioevolutive process. Now begins the phase of integration resulting in various systems. Bio-cells become the building 2 Evolution block for further more complex structure of higher system. As a result various species come into existence.9 The evolution strategy here is the In this section we can go over a few of the theories about evolution. so called ‘crossing-over’ from lower species to higher and more complex

112 Omega December 2009 113 Francis P. Xavier Creation in Evolution species. This is achieved by mutation-selection-technique of life situation that becomes the end product of the evolution. Not only the chromosomes.10 This can be further understood under two categories human beings possess at this stage discerning knowledge (cognitive or models, called corridor model and spherical model. evolution) which can be established through the structure of the brain but they can also synthesize the experience and know things not only a 2.3.1 Corridor Model posteriori but also a priori. This is the culmination of evolution from the physical realm to intellectual realm.14 Further, evolution continues This model is similar to the flat Euclidean geometry. Here the from the intellectual realm into the spiritual realm, namely, as noosphere, various qualities of a species are considered to be the various dimensional as Teilhard de Chardin would put it. axes in the history of evolution. From one point of time to another, certain qualities would become better, and, certain other qualities would become 2.5 Neo-Darwinism worse. But we concentrate on the situation that has become better in time than the previous epoch and thus we are able to understand the The modern evolutionary theory, which is known as neo- better quality or even appearance of new species along the Darwinism, is based on modern synthesis which on the one hand retains multidimensional corridor of time. According to this model, the Darwin’s principle of natural selection and on the other hand it includes development depends on necessary steps of mutations and probability the discoveries of population genetics, paleontology, systematic and of further success depends on the ratio of the successful mutations to molecular biology.15 The causes of the synthesis-theory are, the total number of mutations involved.11 a. Mutation - genetic change by chance; 2.3.2 Spherical Model b. New combination from genes by the outgoing generation; In this model the quality of the evolution is compared to the c. Selection through the environment (implying discarding the spherical symmetry. The quality will be the same with respect to the unnecessary genes); and concentric shells of the hyper-sphere. The quality becomes better with d. Isolation due to geography or lack of contact or interaction. This the spherical radius becoming shorter and shorter, thereby reaching the also causes the change in the hereditary.16 12 best quality at the centre of the sphere. Thus the evolution that began In all this process, God could be postulated as transcendentally in the periphery of the universe such as elements, reaches the best quality present though this idea is not welcomed by the evolutionary scientists. in the centre which is the crown of the universe, namely human being. God might have made possible the mutation-selection-isolation-mutation cycle. In everything God, ‘who is and who shall be’ as revealed to Moses 2.4 Psycho Evolution in the burning bush (Ex 3:14), could be the dynamic force of change and Here the evolution gets transformed into immaterial effect and evolution. achievement of organisms. It starts from the perception of signal from 3 Phases of Evolution the environment resulting in the physical reflex and psychological reaction through instinct, consciousness, thought-pattern and even leading into We can see two phases in the evolutionary process. The one is cultural area. Thus the evolution becomes somewhat internal - within the natural one and the other is the supernatural transcending the natural 13 oneself, in the frame of society and culture. one. Thus material evolution becomes by and by an evolution of According to the physical development the physical evolution of knowledge. It is not only mere physical evolution that can be noticed in mankind can be sub-divided into three groups (starting from about 2 the bodily change or development but also in the ability to reflect over 114 Omega December 2009 115 Francis P. Xavier Creation in Evolution million years) as ancient human, old human and modern human beings. through the stages of Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, The ancient human can be identified with Homo erectus who lived from Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens. But at the same time, concurrently, about 2 million upto about 300,000 years ago. The old humans developed the psycho-evolution was also taking place. For example, Homo habilis anatomically from the ancient human and they were similar to Homo possessed the ability to build up a language (mostly in the form of sounds); sapiens. They lived from about 400,000 to about 35,000 years ago. The Homo erectus was able to discover fire and make use of it; and Homo new human lived from about 40,000 upto 30,000 years ago. Apart from sapiens were able to develop the language in the form of writing (symbols the physical development (evolution) of mankind what is important is the in the beginning) as well.19 development of the intellect. Until about 2 million years ago, from ‘animal- being’ emerged the ‘human-being’ mainly because of the intellectual The apex of the evolution is the beginning of consciousness in development along with the physical development. Before this change human being. This comes about through the formation of central nervous ever took place, it is estimated that about 100,000 generations might system consisting of various nerve cells. The communication among the have gone by.17 nerve cells is through chemical and electrical energy transfer but the activities are coordinated from the brain. As the process becomes more The supernatural phase of evolution is a matter of theological and more active the experiences are stored up and thought-patterns are speculation. This is clearly brought out by Paul in I Cor 15:42-49. In formed within oneself. This is called the consciousness.20 trying to answer the question of whether there will be difference in the physical body on the occasion of resurrection of the dead, Paul is trying What is specific with human being is that each one has a soul to bring out the ‘crossing-over’ from the natural (worldly) physical body (that other non-human beings in the universe do not possess). Now what to the supernatural (heavenly) spiritual soul. He distinguishes between is the origin of the soul? Does it develop with evolution?, or, is it created natural body and spiritual body. In this passage what is implied is that the with each formation of human being? There are two views regarding material world with its various forms and nature will be transformed in the formation of soul: the future. At some point in the time axes of our history the physical or a. The soul emerges, so to say, into each human being when each material body was elevated or transformed into a body with life (or soul) one is biologically conceived. (This implies that evolutionary process which then transcends even time (as it has the spirit). The bridge to consists of the ability to transform the consciousness as the soul. That is, cross over between the material world and the eternal world is brought soul seems to be ‘immanent’ in the matter). about by faith. Thus ‘cross-over’ is from being material into becoming (immaterial) spiritual.18 b. Soul is created each time by God when a human being is conceived. According to this, the biological conception is a necessary 4 Origin of Human Being condition without which soul cannot be ‘created.’ God creates each soul as He created the world in the beginning or as He created the first Though it is relatively easy to accept the origin of life in the universe human soul. So it is the direct act of God. via biological evolution, when it comes to the case of human being, it becomes more complex, even complicated and often controversial. The This concept of soul-formation is also understood as the process origin of human beings is the product of two different processes which of becoming (according to Karl Rahner). Though the parents are were taking place simultaneously: on the one hand it was the bio-evolution, necessary for the human birth, the formation of soul is not self-replication and on the other, it was the psycho-evolution. Under bio-evolution, due but it is self-transcendence. Here the parents are also the cause of the to hybridization of protein resulting in the complex nature of DNAs, soul formation since they bring forth a new human being into the world human beings, as believed by many of the scientists, evolved physically but the soul is infused into the human being through the power of God.21

116 Omega December 2009 117 Francis P. Xavier Creation in Evolution The standpoint of the Church regarding the evolution, as in the the question: how can one explain, if all are created equally and created case of Galileo’s case (Copernican revolution), has changed over the from the same origin, the existence of tyranny and slavery in the world? period of time. In 1950 Pope Pius XII accepted the biological evolution Did God, one tends to ask, create a terrible and arbitrary world with so as a possibility but he warned that it should not be generalized especially much of limitations? If the origin (of matter and being) is one and the with respect to the formation/creation of the soul. According to the Church same substance/person, how can one explain the hierarchy in the various soul is created by God in every human being. In 1996, Pope John Paul II types of organisms?23 (The existence of evil and limitations can be recognized evolution as more than a simple hypothesis. explained, if one accepts the concept of original sin but it is beyond the scope of this article where we try to understand the reality within the 5 Creation context of creation-evolution relation). Creation is to bring out something out of nothing. As Christians While evolution is opportunistic (natural selection), creationist view we believe that God created everything and in the beginning of Genesis is deterministic. The nucleus of evolution theory is the complexity and we read the creation story. But we should not be surprised to encounter diversity of species and of life. The reason given is adaptation of species, theories other than the simple creation story (cataloguing day by day since adaptation assumes great significance when organisms are activities of God in a time frame of six days to create the entire universe). compared in the light of the theory of descent from common origin (or There are a few questions to be answered in the process of making ancestor). This explanation of biological complexity and diversity or clear to ourselves how God created everything. For example, is the macroevolution, according to Riddiford and Penny, has replaced the earlier creation over once for all when God created everything out of nothing explanation proposing a divine designer.24 According to creationists, the (creatio ex nihilo) or is God continuously creating things in the universe ‘adaptive’ explanations are scientifically inadequate: (creatio continua)? If God is still active in the continual creation, then all the (technical, technological, intellectual, etc.) developments (that go a. The terms adaptation and adaptedness are not adequately on even now) is creation in evolution. defined. Any and every morphological, physiological, and behavioural trait is termed as adaptation. Hence the term ‘adaptation’ is used with 5.1 Creationism several different meanings. Since the environment is constantly changing, an organism’s adaptedness cannot be measured absolutely. Based on the first and second chapters of Genesis that God created the universe, those who believe in creation, reject that the universe could b. Further, the adaptive explanations are ad hoc and appeal to no have evolved through a natural process. In 1963 a few scientists who general rule. For example, it is said that the mammals survived the period were strongly convinced of creation as given in the book of Genesis in which dinosaurs became extinct because mammals were better adapted founded the Creation-Research-Society. And today there are more than to the increasingly cooler temperature. 2500 sister or daughter organizations that have come up. According to them the creation story is scientific and they are convinced (for example c. In the absence of knowledge about relative adaptedness and about 28% of the population in Germany) that whatever is to be known its contribution of fitness, it will be impossible to make quantitative 25 about the origin of humankind has been already said in the Bible, especially predictions about the probability of survival of genotypes. 22 in the creation story. Hence the exponents of creation theory propose that God created Assuming God, who is the fullness of perfection and goodness, everything as said in the Bible. Often they believe literally whatever has has created the universe, the question remains why there is lack of been said in the Bible regarding creation. perfection and goodness in the world. In the earlier days people asked

118 Omega December 2009 119 Francis P. Xavier Creation in Evolution 6.3 Theories of Creation which do not appear.’ Again Rom 11:36 reads: ‘For from him and through him and to him are all things (made).’ Thus creation out of nothing, in Even if one believes that God has created the universe with all proper sense, is very much rooted in biblical tradition.27 things in it, still there are distinctions regarding how God created the universe and the things therein. The idea of creation out of nothing has been the universal consensus of the early Fathers including Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, 5.2 Creation out of Nothing Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, etc. St. Augustine, in a classic passage in his Confessions, expressed a well developed doctrine of creation out of The hidden grandeur of Gen 1:1-3 is that God is the absolute Lord nothing. He wrote: “You, O Lord... made something in the Beginning, of the world. Here the meaning ‘nothing’ can be interpreted in two ways which is of yourself, in your Wisdom, which is born of your own substance, as and you created this something out of nothing. You created heaven and a. creation out of chaos; and earth but you did not make them out of your own substance... b. creation out of nothing. You...created them from nothing... for there is nothing that you cannot do... You were, and besides you nothing was. From nothing, then, you But creation out of nothing, according to the Christian tradition, is created heaven and earth.”28 The doctrine of creation out of nothing not to be understood in the most radical sense of a creation from absolute became one of the firmest parts of the general teaching of the Church nothingness. ‘Nothing’ means simply the absence of material substance concerning creation. or principle apart from the fullness of God’s own being. Since nothing can come out of nothing (ex nihilo nihil fit), creation out of nothing For Christian theology the doctrine of a creation out of nothing implies that God created out of nothing other than God’s own ‘fullness implies that the possibility of matter existing with God from all eternity is of being.’ Though a creation out of absolute nothingness is an ruled out but God who transcends the universe can be said to have impossibility; a creation out of God’s own ‘substance’ would lead to a created the universe out of nothing so that it is dependent in every moment pantheistic deification of the physical world. Creation out of nothing, on God for its existence.29 therefore, signifies the theological recognition that God created a universe distinct from the divine being, not out of any preexisting matter or principle, 5.3 Continuing Creation 26 but out of nothing other than the fullness of God’s own being. If ‘creation out of nothing’ implies transcendence of God, the This concept of ‘creation out of nothing’ is very much rooted in ‘continuing creation’ brings in the immanence of God. But we do not the Bible. Other than Gen 1:1-3, we find in Job 26:7 similar idea expressed consider transcendence and immanence as mutually exclusive in the words: God ‘stretches the north over the empty place, and hangs affirmations about God. Theology has traditionally held the doctrines of the earth upon nothing.’ Also in Maccabees 7:28 we read: ‘Look at the creation out of nothing and continuing creation to be interrelated on the heaven and the earth and see everything that it is them, and recognize view that they are complementary aspects of God’s creative involvement that God did not make them out of things that existed.’ In the New with the physical universe. The creatio ex nihilo concept was formulated Testament, especially in the letters of Paul, we find reference to creation and defined at a time when the universe was believed to be static. But out of nothing. In Rom 4:17 it is stated: God ‘gives life to the dead and today we believe in a dynamic universe and hence there is the need for calls into existence the things that do not exist.’ It is more explicitly a concept of continuing creation. Barbour, clarifies this view: Today the mentioned in Heb 11:3: ‘By faith we understand that the world was world as known to science is dynamic and incomplete. Ours is an created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things unfinished universe that is still in the process of appearing. Surely the coming-to-be of life from matter can represent divine creativity as suitably

120 Omega December 2009 121 Francis P. Xavier Creation in Evolution as any postulated primeval production of matter ‘out of nothing.’ Creation to God’s ongoing sustaining of the world. Every moment of the world’s occurs throughout time.30 existence depends upon the ongoing grace of God.”32 But the idea of creation out of nothing in a static world need not 6 Synthesis of Creation and Evolution be replaced by continuing creation in a dynamic world. These are two complementary concepts that need not substitute one for the other. The question common to creation and evolution is the formation Pannenberg rightly points out: “The creatio continuata formula of the universe, life from matter, and finally consciousness (culminating presupposes the strict conception of creation as cretaio ex nihilo in as in the soul of human beings). This implies that the material elements much as it characterizes God’s preserving activity as the continuation of have had the transcending ability to take on the form of new configuration the creation out of nothing. For this reason alone the idea of a continuing into more complex form leading to life. Thus evolution cannot be reduced creation cannot be set in opposition to the creatio ex nihilo formula.”31 just to material dimension. On the other hand the creation has to be Continuing creation has instead to do with God’s multifaceted immanence understood as the initial motion setting in which the creation as a whole in the world. The God who creates ‘out of nothing’ necessarily transcends is taken along into the future and hence it is a creatio continua. Thus the physical reality thus created. Yet God’s transcendence does not the transcendence of God in initial creation and the immanence of God prevent God from being present every moment and in every aspect of in evolution are a synergic effect which complement each other.33 creation as God sustains the physical universe and the life within it in its The evolution process is seen as a process of becoming. The continuous processes of dynamic flux and becoming. scheme of micro-evolution could be depicted as follows: Just like the ex nihilo concept, aspects of the affirmation of a Gloun/quark (basic building blocks of matter)’ sub-atomic creatio continua are to be found in the Bible. We read in Ps 104:24-29: particles such as proton and neutron’ helium’ carbon and oxygen’ “O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them simple molecules such as water, ammonia, hydrogen’ complex all; the earth is full of your creatures... When you hide your face, they molecules such as amino acids’ macromolecules such as polymers, are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to proteins, nucleic acids’ formation of simple life such as virus, their dust.” Similarly, the psalmist affirms the activity of the Creator in bacteria’ complex single cell to multi cell life’ organic lives (plants, the ongoing process of our physical world when he writes in Ps 147:8-9: animals and fungi)’ human being. “(The Lord) covers the heavens with clouds, prepares rain for the earth, makes grass grow on the hills. He gives to the animals their food and to In all these we see a process of ‘becoming’ into higher form of the young ravens when they cry.” Perhaps the most frequently cited ‘being’. And there is a force that unites simple elements into complex biblical text relating to continuing creation is found in Col 1:16-17 in molecules and ultimately bringing out a complex life-form in the form of which God’s creative and sustaining activity through Jesus Christ is human being which again becomes a being of consciousness and soul. explicitated: “In him (Christ) all things in heaven and on earth were In all these changes, God is present as the unifying force. The Trinity created, things visible and invisible,... all things have been created through stands as the unifying force, since Trinity itself is the best example of him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him, things hold ‘becoming’ and ‘unification’ into one Godhead. So basically the universe together.” is creation in evolution of God which is basically getting united into the Trinity (through the unifying Spirit).34 Hefner, who identifies continuing creation primarily with God’s sustenance of the world, affirms that “creation…is not limited by what Human beings, though originated from matter, have emerged, in happened at the beginning when time was created. Creation also refers and through the spirit, into the light of consciousness. And after Christ’s salvific intrusion into human history, humankind has been lifted off from 122 Omega December 2009 123 Francis P. Xavier Creation in Evolution the plane of individual consciousness to that of universal consciousness. effect is trying to bring forth a convergence. Convergence, for Teilhard, And the spirit is now at work to elevate humankind from this plane of means unification of humankind to a universal personality in whom universal consciousness to the ultimate goal of reunion with the Lord of everything (though diverse and complex) in the universe meets and melts, Creation, the Omega Point. Even after the disintegration in Adam took so to say and fuses into one reality. This is the Omega Point who exists place, the integration in the new Adam (Jesus Christ) takes place and by himself as consummation of irreversible Principle. This, for Teilhard, the Spirit is now leading humankind on its course of action towards is Jesus Christ. In Jesus Christ the transcendence of God becomes fullness in the image and likeness of God, the Creator. The Spirit of God immanent. Thus in this Omega Point God is revealed as the driving is the unifying force that dynamically brings all to fruition ever since the force as well as the point of unification in the biological diversity. Thus creation began. But this is accomplished in and through Christ who is God is the Prime force of evolution and evolution is the way that God the ultimate point for all conscious matter-turned-life to reach, the does things in the universe.37 threshold to Omega Point and for each individual this happens in the Christ-consciousness. Jesus Christ is the paradigm of God. In Jesus Human being is not only considered as a mere physical body just Christ we are not mere ‘human beings’ but ‘human becomings’ once to eat and drink but also it is a being that is capable of love, hope, sympathy, again into the image and likeness of God.35 etc. In other words human being is considered to have more than a physical body. When Wis 4:23 says that the origin of life lies in the heart, In Jesus Christ, God is working as continuous and immanent we think in terms of a soul for human being. And this soul is active along Creator. In the words of Peacoke: “The human person of Jesus is then with the body. So body and soul of a human being cannot be considered to be seen, by virtue of his human response and openness to God, as the as two independent entities. This is the totality of human being that locus, the icon, in and through whom there is made open and explicit the transcends the visible creation as such. For example, in Ps 119:89-91, nature and character of the God who has never ceased to be present we read that the Word of Jahweh holds the firmament. But the firmament continuously creating and bringing God’s purposes to fruition in the order (heavens) cannot be separated from the earth. So heaven and earth of energy-matter-space-time... So, in this sense, the ‘incarnation’ which together make again the totality of creation. Again Ps 148:3-6, indicates occurred in Jesus the Christ may then properly be said to be the how God himself is bound with the people he created. Even if night and consummation of the creative and creating evolutionary process... and day fail, God will not fail in his promises, it says. It is again encouraging the significance and potentiality of all levels of creation may be said to to see who has brought out the order and harmony in the universe as we have been unfolded in Jesus the Christ... Hence Jesus the Christ occupies read in Baruch 3:33-35. The ‘word’ of Jahweh brings out not only the in ‘spiritual’ history (that is, the history of the relationship of humanity order and harmony in the universe to see but also in its functions. As we with God) the place that a mutation does in biological evolution.”36 read in Ps 147:15-20, each one in the universe has his/ her obligation and duty to fulfill. It is this following of each one’s ‘dharma’ so to say, that For Teilhard de Chardin evolution is a reality and God is the driving keeps the universe going as we read in Job 28:25. With this order and force in the material level potentially converting it into ever more complex harmony in the universe, the human being feels joy and peace within. being. Teilhard tried to combine the evolutionary theory with belief in God’s creation. Of course, it implies that one cannot take literally the From the ordinary material of the universe God creates, as we Genesis account of creation. According to Teilhard, the proteins which read in the Genesis, but what is important and specific and special here originated from the inorganic materials should have the ability, due to the is that God breathes into the human being the breath of life (Gen 2:7). geo-chemical processes, to become the phenomenon for formation of That is human being originates from the lower elements and organs but life to emerge. The biological diversity in the universe has now ushered he/she is chosen/invited to exist in the image and likeness of God and in the so called ‘nooshphere,’ that is, evolution of thoughts, which in with whom God could walk as friend and father in the garden of Eden in

124 Omega December 2009 125 Francis P. Xavier Creation in Evolution the cool breeze of the evening. It is true that God created human being, process in motion, as he created time, and He still continues the work in as he created other beings in the universe, with his powerful ‘word’. the universe - and this process we understand as evolution. And the same ‘word’ was the life, namely, Jesus Christ, and the Life was the light of human being (Jn 1:4). Here we find the fulcrum of the God who created the universe out of nothing is still at work as the universe where the evolving earthly material world (in the form of human God of immanence creating continually. So it is a creation in evolution. beings) meets the heavenly spirit. The transformation of matter into The Spirit that was hovering over the emptiness in the beginning of time spirit takes place m Jesus through his redemptive activity (Again we are entered the matter and through its creative evolution brought out life not going into the area of sin that called for redemption). This is the from the matter. Once life came in, based on experience, the Spirit brought eschatology of the universe. As Paul says in Rom 8:19-23, the mankind in consciousness, leading to the final form of Christ’s Abba-consciousness. takes part in the glory of God in and through his transformed creation (in The same spirit is still hovering over the universe sanctifying and Jesus Christ) and this creation, represented with human being as the converging everything, even the opposing principles, to fruition in and apex of creation, will get into the next world (2 Pt 3:13) where God through Christ. Thus in the process of matter becoming human beings, makes everything new (Rev 21:1-5). humans becoming Christ-conscious and finally converging in God, it is the Spirit that plays the vital role. It is the same Spirit that makes each Thus we see how God creates the material world and then brings one of us call God ‘Abba, Father’ (Rom 8: 15) and thereby uniting all of about life from these basic elements and finally brings about human humankind as one family and thereby the entire universe into the fold of being in his own image and likeness (Col 3:10) and makes the human God’s Trinity.39 This is then creation which has taken the ongoing dynamic being capable of entering into the ongoing world of eternity (after force of evolution. resurrection on the so called the ‘last day’) - from this world of matter into the glorious world of spirit. So mankind once again becomes, as said Notes and References in Eph 4:24, a new creation by becoming transformed into the resurrected 1. Francis P. Xavier is a scientist with specialization in botany, based in Chennai. Jesus and taking part in his holiness and glory in the eternal life (Jn 2. U. Kull, Evolution (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1987), p. 1. 38 17:3). 3. V. R. Gowariker, N.V. Viswanathan and J. Sreedhar, Polymer Science (New 7 Conclusion Delhi: New Age International, 1986), p. 1. 4. R. Kolterman, Grundzuege der modernen Natur-Philosophie (Frankfurt/M: In the process of understanding evolution and creation, we should Knecht, 1994), p. 78. not try to identify one with the other since they are complementary to 5. Kolterman, 1994, p. 79 each other. Evolution is a theory, a model explaining how beings (plants, 6. H. K. Erben, Evolution (Stuttgart: Enke, 1990), p. 18. animals, human) originate from lower form of beings. Whereas creation is a belief how human beings have been called for higher form of life - 7. Erben, p. 19. not only materialistic and physical, but intellectual and conscious as well. 8. L. Kaempfe (ed.), Evolution and Stammesgeschichte der Organismen (Jena: Fischer, 1992), p. 26. We could perhaps think that God created a ‘becoming-world’ with 9. Erben, p. 19 open-space and possibility to develop itself. And this is called evolution by natural scientists. Both evolution and creation are processes; the 10. I. Rechenberg, Evolutionsstrategie (Stuttgart: Friedrich Frommann, 1973), p. 91. former, on the physical level explaining how one being becomes a higher being, whereas the latter stating where the dynamic force for becoming 11. Rechenberg, pp. 103 ff. comes from. God is the initial dynamic force that set the evolutionary 12. Rechenberg, p. 115.

126 Omega December 2009 127 Francis P. Xavier 13. Erben, p. 20. Omega VIII (2009) 2, 129-156 14. Erben, p. 136. 15. J. W. Pollard (ed.), Evolutionary Theory (Chichester: John Wiley, 1984), p. 3. 16. Koltermann, 1994, p. 173. 17. Kaempfe, pp. 477-485. 18. A. Hulsbosch, Die Schoepfung Gottes (Wien: Herder, 1965), pp. 21ff. Creation Narratives and Modern 19. Erben, pp. 145-150. 20. S. N. Bosshard, “Evolution and Shoepfung,“ in Christiliclier Glaube in Cosmology: moderner Gesellschaft (Vol.3) (Freiburg I. B: Herder, 1981), pp. 98-104. Are They at Loggerheads? 21. Koltermann, 1994, pp. 238 ff. - C. D. Sebastian1 22. Koltermann, 1990. 23. E. Meyr, Und Darwin hat doch rech (Muenchen: Piper, 1994), pp. 28-33. Abstract: The origin of the universe has puzzled the human mind ever 24. Pollard, p. 26. since the dawn of history. This is the main problem of cosmology, and this predicament has been sorted out by the creation narratives of the 25. Pollard, pp. 27-30. religions and scriptures. In this paper we consider the creation 26. M. W. Worthing, God, Creation and contemporary Physics (Minneapolis: narratives of the religions and the inflationary cosmology (the key Fortress, 1996), pp. 73 f. theory in particle or high energy physics and astrophysics for last twenty-seven years or so). In a way, they both propose the same pledge. 27. Worthing, pp. 74 f. As per Inflationary theory, time and space began in an Initial 28. Worthing, pp. 76 f. Singularity, the specific character of which is essentially unknowable. 29. Worthing, p. 77. The foundations of the forces controlling interactions in our universe emerged from this Singularity. Creation narratives inform us that this 30. Worthing, p. 112. was the action of the first cause or creator who is called Supreme Being 31. Cited in Worthing, pp. 112 ff. or God. There is a promising analogical convergence between the 32. Worthing, pp. 112-115. assumptions of modern cosmology and religious beliefs as far as creation narrative is concerned. In this sense, they are not at 33. Bosshard, pp. 121 f. loggerheads. 34. K. Schmitz-Moormann (Ed), Schoepfung und Evolution (Duesseldorf: Keywords: Religion, Science, Cosmology, Creation, Inflationary Theory, Patmos, 1992), pp. 115-130. Big Bang, Origin of the Universe. 35. Francis P. Xavier, Vaiharai, I (1996), pp. 123-133. Xavier, 1998. 36. A. Peacoke, God and Science (London: SCM Press, 1996), pp. 81-88. 1 Overture 37. Erben, pp. 110 f. 38. Hulsbosch, pp. 60-77. Are science and religion at loggerheads? One of the most 39. Francis P. Xavier, Vaiharai, 3 (1998), pp. 168-187. remarkable developments of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was the unyielding progress of the perception that religion and natural sciences are at war. The slogan was like this: “Science is at war with

128 Omega December 2009 129 C. D. Sebastian Creation Narratives and Modern Cosmology religion – and that war can only lead to the elimination of religious belief humans slowly but surely accumulated knowledge about various as a relic of superstitious age that is now long behind us.”2 Recently, phenomena taking place in the world that formed their Sitz im Leben, Richard Dawkins in his book, The God Delusion,3 devotes the first the theories of cosmology took a more scientific contour. The progress two chapters to explain how the existence of a creator God and the of observational astronomy opened entirely new horizons of knowledge creation of the universe are improbable. He rejects out rightly the of the universe. The present state of the universe resulted from a creationist account of the universe as nonsensical and illogical holding continuous evolutionary process which started in a highly compressed on the conjecture of Natural Selection. However, the verity is that the homogenous material a few billion years ago. This is the hypothesis of a story of the beginning of the universe, which is often retold by scientists, “beginning.” We can ask a physicist or a chemist about the age of the theologians and philosophers, is still a developing story. But no matter atoms, a geologist about the age of the rocks, of the solid deposits in the how it is described, “the universe was born with a Big Bang, and over world, and of the oceans, and to an astronomer the age of the moon, the course of many billion years gave rise to matter, life, and humankind.”4 sun, and stars, galaxies, and so on and so forth. We will get the We may not know all the details of this astonishing unfurling, but we approximate answer from all of them whenever we inquire about the know that it happened. age of some particular property of the universe: ‘a few billion years old’. Thus we must assume ‘that the basic features which characterize As the creation narratives in the scriptures go, science also has the universe as we know it today are the direct result of some to say the same today. “The meandering course of evolution from the evolutionary development which must have begun a few billion years Big Bang to the living species to the appearance of humankind has ago.’8 Today as we stand with both feet on the ground, we have the big created inorganic, biological and human worlds, which can be seen to bang theory and the inflationary cosmology. The evolution of the universe comprise three evolutionary stages or domains. In this progression, from nothing is described by the big bang theory.9 Inflationary cosmology evolution itself evolved, first when matter gave rise to life, and second, has led us to figure out the beginning of the universe. when life produced Homo sapiens.”5 Religious beliefs and scientific discoveries are not going opposed as some had/have predicted. The There was a starting point. At this point there were no stars, no general tone of late nineteenth century-encounter between religion and chemical elements, no particle and no radiation. There was only vacuum the natural sciences was a strong positivist view of history.6 But that is in complete symmetry in the expanding universe. There occurred a not the case today at the close of the first decade of the twenty-first phase change in vacuum, and the symmetry passed into asymmetry. century. Here we are led to revisit the perennial questions: Who are This was the earliest origin of asymmetry. The energy released in the we? How did we get here? Where might we be going? Where, when phase change became radiation and particles, and this is the origin of and how did the universe begin? Where is the universe going? “The matter in the universe. Subsequently the particle/antiparticle asymmetry universe is going somewhere, and its momentum was triggered in the was generated, producing the baryons seen today. Followed by the first instant of the Big Bang.”7 There was a beginning of the universe nucleosythesis, there was the creation of helium and deuterium, which and there is a goal as well. marked the beginning of the chemical elements. Finally, gravitational assembling gave rise to various stars. Life appeared gradually, culminating 2 The Beginning of the Universe in humans.10

The theory of the origin of the world, the main problem of If there was a starting point, then we should think of the physics of first move. Who is that mover of the first move? St. Thomas Aquinas cosmology, has perplexed the human mind ever since the dawn of history. borrowed it from Aristotle’s ‘first mover’ or ‘unmoved mover’11 and Among the ancients, the origin of the world was necessarily associated Aquinas understood that the First Mover is God.12 In fact, the problem with a creative act by a Supreme Being. As the ages passed by, and of first move still exists in today’s physics. “Take the Newtonian 130 Omega December 2009 131 C. D. Sebastian Creation Narratives and Modern Cosmology mechanics as an example. In order to explain or predict the motion of day and night, and even of the seasons, movements of the moon and objects, we either need to know or fix the initial conditions. The ‘give’ stars. The regularity with which these phenomena function was of the initial conditions is equivalent to Aristotle’s ‘First Mover’.”13 It is understood by the Vedic people to be due to the power of gods.22 Further, true that post Newton physics has made a number of radical revisions in the gvedic ‘Song of Creation’ the Nsadya Skta,23 which has of Newtonian mechanics, but the problem of initial conditions always been extolled as containing ‘the flower of Indian thought’, the poet- remains. The basic framework of dynamics is this: “in order to explain philosopher recognizes the principle of causality; he not only traces the the motion of a system, we must either know or fix the initial conditions whole universe to a single source but also tackles the problem of its of the system. In the search for the origin of motion, we still cannot nature.24 This sort of belief in the uniformity of nature is based on a avoid the necessity of needing to know the initial conditions of the primitive conception of causation.25 universe.”14 Having said so, let us have a look at the creation narratives In the gveda we can find the creation analysis as cosmological in the scriptures.  speculations. The Vedic is tried to fathom mysteries of the beginning 3 Creation Narratives in the Scriptures of the universe and creation. One of the major preoccupations of the is, as we see in the hymns, is to discern the realms of gods and to The terminology that the religious literatures employ like “in the know the beginnings of the universe. The creation-hymns of gveda beginning” is a symbolic explication. “It implies a fantastic ambition: to furnish in seminal form certain symbolic structures and patterns of account for the origin of the world and the nature of everything that cosmology. These symbolic structures and patterns in the gveda are follows from it; to make visible what must, by definition, be invisible to “further developed in the cosmogonies of the Brhmaas, rayakas, men.”15 Creation is cosmogonic and ontogenetic, as it is invoked and the Upaniads from different perspectives, becoming interwoven whenever any new thing is brought into existence. The great creation into a single creation narrative in the Manu-smti and finally gaining narratives, like Hebraic (Biblical) Genesis,16 the Babylonian Enuma their most detailed elaboration in epic and Puric accounts.”26 Among Elish,17 or the Mayan Popul Vuh,18 and the Vedic Purusha Sukta 19 these symbolic presentations, we could bring out a number of creative and the Nasadiya Sukta 20 deal with cosmogenic scenario and principles and different means through which the universe is created or ontogenetic import directly and explicitly, because every “how” developed. (cosmogonic depiction) necessitates a “why”(ontogenetic import). Let us have a look at the creation narratives in the Vedic-Hindu, Zoroastrian, There are a number of assumptions which we find in the gvedic and Hebraic-Christian traditions. We take up first the Vedic-Hindu hymns about the principles of agents of creation or beginning of the account, because the Vedic account of the creation has not got the universe. They could be brought together as the following: (1) The 27 28 attention as that of the Hebraic-Christian narrative of the Genesis among Unmanifest Absolute, (2) Personal Creator God, (3) Purua, the 29 30 the writers of the scientific temperament. Cosmic Being, (4) Feminine Principles – Water and Speech, and (5) the Golden Embryo or the Cosmic Egg.31 These five sources of 3.1 Vedic Account of the Origin of the Universe creation could be summarized into two categories, namely, the beginning of the universe from an unmanifest Absolute (being) and creation of the The Vedic seers had arrived at a conception of the uniformity of universe by an omnipotent God. natural order before the dawn of a systematic philosophical thinking in India.21 The simple facts of everyday experience would have been 3.1.1 Beginning of the Universe from an Unmanifest Absolute sufficient for them to think of an order in the universe. They witnessed every day, without fail, the rising and setting of the sun, the change of As we have stated above, the Nsadya Sktam is the Creation Hymn of gveda.32If we look for an exegetical elucidation of Nsadya 132 Omega December 2009 133 C. D. Sebastian Creation Narratives and Modern Cosmology Skta, things become more fascinating. In the first verse of the hymn, phenomena, and there was an attempt to steer clear of the infinite we find the employment of the term ‘non-existent’. In order to regression by resorting to a non-contingent entity, as it is stated, “That understand this phraseology, we must make use of the Sanskrit terms One, breathless, breathed by its own nature.”38 There was an attempt sat (‘ens’, ‘being’ or ‘to be’) and asat (‘non-ens’, ‘non-being’ or ‘not to to posit an intelligent being as the creator of the universe, and that could be’), designating the visible and invisible existences. It is, in Vedic be presumed as the first cause of the world. The Purua-skta 39 is cosmology, the matter and spirit (prakti and purua). Unlike in Snkhya one of the best known for this sort of assumption. Pursua is the aggregate system33 where matter and spirit (prakti and purua) have a distinct of all living beings, spirit embodied in the egg of Brahm (Brahma), existence, in the Vedas, matter and spirit “would be blended and lost in that is, the Universal Spirit animating all creation. In the first verse of the one invisible, immaterial, incomprehensible First Cause.”34 It means Purua-skta, we read that the Purua having ‘a thousand’ heads, eyes, that the First Cause was in the beginning and it was uncaused. Nothing etc., and ‘a thousand’ is allegorically used for an infinite number. else existed before that First Cause, “neither matter nor spirit, and consequently that He created both.”35 In this second verse we see the Apart from the Purua-skta of the gveda, there are also other st th term ‘That One’ or Tad Ekam in Sanskrit. It means that the source or references in the gveda about a creator God. In the 121 hymn of 10 origin, the First Cause, is not personal, it is neither male nor female, but it is Maala (book) of gveda, we find that the things of this world are neuter. It is an impersonal principle which breathed by itself without breath. traced back to their causes. “That (Tat in Sanskrit) was the chiefest in There was nothing other than it. In verse four, we read ‘in the beginning all worlds, from whence the fierce one, the rich in radiance, was born; there was ‘desire’. The term desire stands for the ‘will of the supreme as soon as born, he destroys the foes, he in whom all living beings 40 being’ or the ‘will of God’. The Supreme Being willed; or there was a delight.” Again it is said: “… both the inanimate and animate (world) desire in the mind of the Supreme Being. So he desired or willed, thus, is purified by him. Nourished in thy exhilaration (all creatures) are 41 the creation takes place. In verse five, we come across term ‘ray’ assembled.” According to Syaa “That” (Tat in Sanskrit) mentioned used. This, according to Syaa,36 refers to the suddenness of creation, in the first verse of the hymn stands for Brahman, the First Cause of all 42 which was developed in the twinkling of an eye (nimia), like that flash beings. Thus there was an idea of God emerging, as the first cause, in of the sun’s ray. It was so quick that it was doubtful whether the things the Vedic literature. It was the conception of Hiraya-garbha (Golden 43 44 in the central space (understood by the word “across” in the text) were Germ) and also of Vivakarman that laid bare a remarkable advance 45 46 created first, or those above or below. In other words, it would mean, toward the idea of God. Vivakarman is the “creator of all” who 47 creation took place simultaneously in all three portions of the “generated and disclosed heaven by his might.” 37 universe. There are writers who connect this “ray”, which stands for Along with the conception of Prajpati, we also find the the “suddenness of creation”, with the Big Bang theory of modern conception of Brahman48 (neuter) and Brahm 49 (masculine) serving cosmology. the function of creator God. In the Taittirya Brhmaa, Brahman (neuter), Brahm (masculine) and Prajpati are used identically.50 This 3.1.2 Creation of the Universe by an Omnipotent God suggests that “the concepts of Brahman (neuter), Brahm (masculine) In the gveda, there is a conception of the creator of the universe, and Prajpati were used without much discrimination during the period which could be termed as the theory of a divine causation. According to of the Brhmaas, which may be considered a formative stage in the 51 this theory the creation of the world was by an omniscient and omnipotent conception of a personal God.” God or Ivara. The Vedic thinkers could not reconcile themselves to the The conception of an intelligent cause, which is external to the idea of infinite regression of phenomena. Prajpati Paramein was matter, in the creation of the world was gathering momentum, as we perceptive of the problem of the infinite regression of contingent have seen above. It still continued during the time of the Aitareya 134 Omega December 2009 135 C. D. Sebastian Creation Narratives and Modern Cosmology rayaka, and according to this text there is something other than the 3. 3 Biblical Creation Narrative and its Import passive matter to set it in motion. This principle of motion was given by God, the highest truth or satyasya satyam.52 The conception of creator- The biblical creation account was passed down orally for centuries God, the first cause of the world, continued during the time of Upaniads before being committed to writing, and must not have reached their also. There is a speculative theory in the Bhadrayaka Upaniad which final form with all the present details before the time of Davidic explicates for the first time how the original single Being gave rise to monarchical set up in Israel around 1000 BCE or even later.59 The the world of manifoldness.53 story-telling was an integral part of the Babylonian, Mesopotamian, and Hebraic cultures, and people must have focused on the overall message From these findings we conclude that the conception of a Creator- of the Genesis. Let us also not take ‘the six-day-creation and the seventh God also was very much prevalent in the Vedic literature. day rest of God’60 account literally, as we know number seven had a divine import for the Hebraic people, and hence the ‘rest’ notion of 3.2 The Creation Narrative in Zoroastrian Avesta Yahweh on the seventh day. One would suggest that the six-days- creation The comprehensive name of the scriptures of the Zoroastrians is narrative should not be taken literally. The use of ‘one day’ when referred Avesta.54 In Zoroastrianism, one of the oldest religions of the world, with God in ancient Hebraic tradition meant ‘a long time’ or ‘a long Ahura Mazda is the Supreme God. He is the creator of all as it is period of time.’ In this sense we find in Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 that written in the Yasna: “The creator, Ahura Mazda, resplendent and a day is like a thousand years for God, and a thousand years of humans 61 glorious, the greatest, best, most beautiful of beings, the most constant, are like just ‘a watch of the night’ for God. The Quran has also used the wisest, most perfect of form, supreme in righteousness, knowing to ‘a day’ of God as ‘a very long period of time’ even mentioning ‘a day’ 62 do good, giving joy at his good will; who created us, formed us, and as ‘fifty thousand years.’ sustains us.” (Yasna 1:1) Ahura Mazda is addressed as the ‘Great Here it is necessary to state that we do not subscribe to Ussher’s 55 Creator’ in the Yasna. According to the Gathas, the first among the Chronology.63 The chronology is helpful in understanding the sequence creations of Ahura Mazda was Vohu Mano, “Good Mind”, and it stands and timing of events. Biblical text does not always use a linear time-line for good intelligence and good moral sense. In consultation with Vohu spanning all of its episodes, but it does give much chronological and Mano, Ahura Mazda produced all other creatures. Vohu Mano is in the sequential information linked to events which we can absolutely date world and the special guardian of the faithful people. Vohu Mano (Good from secular history. Mind) is embodied in them. He is the guardian and protector of the animals, flocks and herds. Vohu Mano is the one who receives the just There are two creation narratives in the book of Genesis (Genesis and righteous people at the gate of paradise (Chinvad) at the end.56 1:1-2:4a and 2:4b-25). The first narrative ascribed to the Priestly source is more theological. It aims at a complete logical classification of the 57 The Bundahish describes the creation of the world. Among beings whose creation is deliberately fitted into the framework of a the worldly things, Ahura Mazda first created the sky. From the sky, week which closes with the Sabbath day of rest. The text makes use of Vohu Mano produced the cosmic light and the good religion of the Mazda. the primitive science of the day. It would be a grave mistake to seek After sky, Ahura Mazda created water. The third was dry land, the points of agreement between this schematic presentation and the data fourth plants, the fifth animals, and the sixth and final was mankind. The of modern science. Using a scenario familiar in the polytheistic myths work of creation took a year (365 days). There are six acts of the of ancient near-east, the narrative conveys a revelation of one creation corresponding to the six divisions of the year in the Parsi transcendent God, existing before the world which he created. This is a calendar.58 revelation valid for all time.64 The creation account of Genesis should

136 Omega December 2009 137 C. D. Sebastian Creation Narratives and Modern Cosmology be taken as an allegory to drive home the message that God is 4 Creation Narratives and Modern Cosmology: Analogical beyond the universe and he freely brought into existence the universe Convergence as something distinct from him. The last twenty-eight years have been glorious for modern The God of the Hebraic tradition is drastically different from the cosmology. “So glorious that the experimental advances in this direction God of Plato or the Prime Mover of Aristotle.65 In this connection it is have risen cosmology to the status of a genuine science: many befitting to quote from Philo Judaeus of Alexandria who wrote in the speculative theoretical issues have found an almost direct verification first century BCE: “God did not act as Aristotle had maintained as an and also many experiments can be performed now with better essentially passive first cause co-eternal with the world emanating by precision.”72 Twenty-eight years ago (in 1981), when it was proposed, necessity from divine reason, that God did not make the world out of the inflationary theory looked like an unusual product of scientific pre-existing matter as Plato proposed in the Timaeus, that God was imagination. Today it has become a widely accepted cosmological neither material nor in the world as supposed by the Stoics, and that paradigm. It has been said: “A key idea of modern cosmology is God is in no way necessitated, but that he had acted with entirely free cosmological inflation, which is a possible theory for the origin of all omnipotence in creating ex nihilo a world separate from himself.”66 structures in the Universe, including ourselves.”73 Peter E. Hodgson67 argues that Judeo-Christian world view 4.1 Cosmology and the Beginning of the Universe ushered in a fresh view of scientific thinking, which the Greek thought The term ‘cosmology’ drives from Greek, a word which to the had blocked. According to him Aristotle analyzed the concepts of space, ancient Greeks carried connotations such as ‘order’ ‘regular’ and time, and motion, and came to the conclusion that the world is eternal. ‘beauty’. For the ancient Greeks, the universe is a ‘cosmos’ not chaos. Aristotle also believed that time is cyclic, so that after a long time The domain of cosmology is the universe and all that is in it which has, everything is repeated again and again, without end. The Aristotelian had, and will have a physical existence.74 Cosmology constructs its world picture was a logically coherent structure that served as a modern evolutionary models making use of the physics of elementary framework for thinking for almost two thousand years. “By its emphasis particles and general theory of relativity. While the general theory of on purpose, a concept that has no place in physics, its overly optimistic relativity makes it possible to put together adequate macro-models of belief that it is possible to intuit the structure of the world, and its lack of the expanding universe, the physics of elementary particles gives details understanding of the importance of quantitative measurement, it of the processes taking place in the subsequent eras of evolution. prevented the development of genuine science.”68 Other Greeks, notably Archimedes and Euclid, made fundamental advances in geometry and In cosmology, the micro-world and macro-world meet and both the analysis of natural phenomena, but inspite of the heroic beginning, contribute to the enthralling hypothesis of the Big Bang to result in the Greek science never developed into a self-sustaining enterprise. “A evolution of the universe. Reversing the time arrow and running new beginning, a fresh style of scientific thinking, was made possible by backwards along the succession of supposed events, we come close to 75 the Judeo-Christian vision of the world.”69 In this regard, let us remind the singular point of the physical beginning of the universe. “The ourselves that Isaac Newton had seriously studied theology at Cambridge evolution of the universe may be subdivided into two epochs; the first and he was one of the greatest lay theologians of his age,70 and also the including the earliest moments after the big bang and characterized by a studied opinion of the scholars today that Albert Einstein could be taken domination of radiation and the second – the matter-dominated epoch- 76 as ‘a distinguished theologian.’71 extending to and including our present state.”

138 Omega December 2009 139 C. D. Sebastian Creation Narratives and Modern Cosmology 4.2 Creation Theory of Science Discussion Meeting held on 11-12 March 1982: “Possibly the most far- reaching recent development in the study of cosmology is the realization Cosmologists had traditionally avoided the problem of creation, that our Universe may contain no conserved quantities whatever. If this as it was a term foreign to the science until 1980s. It was better suited is true, then it is very tempting to assume that the Universe emerged to philosophical and theological discourse. The Big Bang theory assumed from nothing or from almost nothing. One scenario of this type is the a hot, dense primordial state of the universe, but did not offer a complete inflationary Universe.”82 explanation of how this state had come into existence nor of what caused the Big Bang. The Inflationary Theory gave an account of the universe The Big Bang and creation has to do much in the scientific as early as the beginning and it explained in more detail how all particles discussions today. The age old theory of creation of the universe held of the observed universe were produced. In this sense, it is a creation by the religionists also generates interest in knowing how religion and theory. (It has its difficulties as well, because the inflationary theory science are marching together as complementary explanations of the presupposed a small amount of matter to start inflation, and for this truth. The Standard Big Bang (SBB) Model had some long standing reason, the inflationary theory did not come up with an explanation of problems, like horizon, flatness, baryon asymmetry, etc. They could be the ultimate creation of the universe.)77 In 1982, Alexander Vilenkin solved by the cornerstone paper (published in 1981) of Alan Guth’s first surprised many by his paper titled ‘Creation of the Universe from model of inflation,83 which came to be known as ‘old inflation.’84 Nothing,’78 and it was the beginning of the trend. Vilenkin’s model did Inflationary cosmology postulates a period of accelerated expansion not have any Big Bang singularity and did not require any initial conditions. during the Universe’s earliest stages.85 The Linde86 - Albrecht- He argued that his theory explained how the universe is spontaneously Steinhardt87 modification tailored the Guth’s theory of its pitfall, and created from literally nothing. there is an elegant solution to some very important problems in cosmology: the monopole problem, the horizon problem, and the flatness problem. The universe of ours is apparently accidental. That is what many Such scenario will explain the origin of all matter, energy, and entropy in hold. However “it would be no less remarkable that basic physics had the universe. never been found to be organized in a fashion so propitious for life. Whether the laws of nature can force the coincidences of the universe In this theory, the postulation is that there occurred the creation or not, the fact that these relations are necessary for our existence is of matter after inflation: “the theory of reheating of the universe after surely one of the most fascinating discoveries of modern science.”79 inflation is the most important application of the quantum theory of particle Hence, we have to accept the fact that the beginning was not accidental. creation, since almost all matter constituting the universe was created during this process.”88 There was a Vacuum-like state at the beginning: 4.3 Inflationary Theory in Brief “According to the inflationary scenario, the universe at the early times expands quasi-exponentially in a vacuum-like state without entropy or The inflationary cosmology, which Alan H. Guth proposed in 1981, particles.”89 is now called ‘old inflation.’80 According to Alan H. Guth, the universe definitely has a beginning, though it is just one of many universes that 4. 4 The Initial Singularity and Inflationary Cosmology came into existence. Inflation never ends. The whole universe was created by quantum fluctuations from nothingness. While the concept Inflationary cosmology traces “the course of the universe back of a universe being created from nothing sounds improbable, it is to a localized initial state” 90 which is termed as initial singularity. perfectly consistent with the laws of conservation of energy because its Initial Singularity would mean an initial singularity of space-time that total energy value is zero.81 Alan H. Guth, the originator of inflationary corresponds to a zero-size singular gravitational instanton.91 It simply universe theory, said while delivering his paper in a Royal Society means that the universe must have started from an initial point. By 140 Omega December 2009 141 C. D. Sebastian Creation Narratives and Modern Cosmology “singularity” it is meant that the properties of space-time had become about? The first move, or the beginning of the universe, is beyond the completely indeterminate and causal relationships no longer applied. In limits of physics. It is impossible to determine and map the first move by 1994 Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin proved a theorem in a paper physical means. The very idea of the first move, presupposes, rather published by them,92 which stated that a past singularity at some point in implies, that nothing existed before. It is exactly what is meant by ex space is unavoidable. There was a beginning. We know in mathematical nihilo, things came from nothing. It was held as a ridiculous proposition terms, singularity is an infinity beyond which no information can cross. to build a physical theory for a long time. But the situation began to This is the point in space-time in which gravitational forces cause matter change ever since 1982. In the symposium on ‘The Very Early Universe’ to have an infinite density and zero volume. One can look at such a held at Cambridge, Andrei D. Linde95 proposed the interesting study of singularity as a possible manifestation of God’s action of creation. universe generated from ‘nothing’ in his paper “Nonsingular Regenerating Inflationary Universe.”96 Thus, Creation is nothing but a setting-into 4. 5 Universe ex nihilo motion, a circulation of energies.

We go back to the beginning of the universe, and reach at an 4.6 Significance of Inflationary Cosmology original ‘something’ or the primordial presence. Now the question Through publication of the classic book, The Early Universe, by crops up: ‘what lies behind that primordial presence?’ A nya, an  Edward W. Kolb and Michael S. Turner in 1990,97 a wide range of emptiness, a blank, or a state of no-thing. From here we understand ideas on the beginning of the universe became popular. In this work, the the creatio ex nihilo, (‘creation out of nothing’).93 Significantly we authors described ideas across the whole range of what had become find much of the same option available in modern cosmology, known as particle cosmology or particle astrophysics, including such especially with ‘big bang’ or evolutionary model, according to which topics as topological defects, inflationary cosmology, dark matter, axions, the present universe had an explicit (and explosive) beginning and will and quantum cosmology. It provided a more complete and physically have an end as well. intuitive description of the standard big bang cosmology, including the The representation of ‘nothing’ is a supremely paradoxical business role of thermodynamics, nucleosynthesis and out-of-equilibrium even in science. In 1912, a theory was put forward according to which dynamics. matter actually consists of micro-particles of nothing moving through An important topic in particle cosmology or particle astrophysics the ether like bubbles through a liquid (i.e., the exact converse of atomic is inflationary cosmology introduced in a seminal paper in 1981 by Guth theory) was described at the time as being ‘more plausible than the which we have mentioned earlier. Inflationary cosmology has been the electron hypothesis’. You cannot pinpoint, but only point to, origins major research area for the last 28 years ever since the publication of because as Gertrude Stein wrote: “Naturally, one does not know how it the influential paper of Guth in 1981. More papers have been written, happened until it is well over beginning happening.”94 Thus it is a discussed and debated about inflation98 than any other area of early symbolism. Universe cosmology. This inflation proposal was made by Guth to resolve problems related to the initial conditions considered necessary Let us also add here one more point: From the discovery of cosmic for the Big Bang cosmology. However, its long-lasting distinction is due expansion to the theory of inflation, the whole of modern cosmology has to a property discovered soon after its introduction, that is, it offers a been a success. Because of its success, this set of theories has been promising clarification for the original inhomogeneities in the Universe called standard cosmology which is popularly known as the Big Bang that are understood to have led to all the structures we observe, from Theory. For standard cosmology, the “first move” is physical problem: the most primitive objects formed to the clustering of galaxies to the how did the time, space, and vacuum at the epoch of inflation come observed irregularities in the microwave background. 142 Omega December 2009 143 C. D. Sebastian Creation Narratives and Modern Cosmology 5 Some Propositions ordering (binding, marking, building, weaving, etc.) run parallel: the abstract is not derived from the concrete nor the physical from the In the light of what we have been discussing so far in this essay, metaphysical. Yet their relation is bound to be metaphoric.”104 The we are of the opinion that “there is a systematic attempt, in fact outside numerical values that nature has assigned to the fundamental constants, religion, to explain the extraordinary contrived appearance of the physical such as the charge on the electron, the mass of the proton, and the world which is, if truth be told, a radical departure from traditional scientific Newtonian gravitational constant, may be mysterious, but they are thinking.”99 However, we must pay attention to the fact that “while crucially relevant to the structure of the universe that we perceive. As singular events of far-reaching influence do occur, their signature is not more and more physical systems, from nuclei to galaxies, have become breaking with the past, but opening of the future.”100 The radical better understood, scientists have begun to realize that many departure mentioned just above should be considered as a wonderful characteristics of these systems are remarkably sensitive to the precise opening to the promising convergence of the religious and scientific values of the fundamental constants. Had nature gone for a little diverse views. set of numbers, the world would be an incredibly different place, and in There was a fashionable opinion that science, for the most part all probability, we would not be here to see it. “More intriguing still, astrophysical cosmology, was in opposition to religious beliefs. There certain crucial structures, such as solar-type stars, depend for their were a number of factors that contribute to this perception: firstly, it is characteristic features on wildly improbable numerical accidents that because of a purely literal reading of the religious scriptures, ignoring combine together fundamental constants from distinct branches of the context of the writings; secondly, the conflict may also be fueled by physics. … Recent discoveries about the primeval cosmos oblige us to the apparent lack of mention of God in scientific articles. However, let accept that the expanding universe has been set up in its motion with a 105 us remind ourselves that, all scientific research is based on a process of cooperation of astonishing precision.” The sequence of creation brings starting with certain assumptions, attempting to predict what will evolve in a sacred order or hierarchy of things and events. In Biblical account 106 as a consequence of those assumptions, and testing the predictions. the “days” of Genesis are also symbolic of a divinely instituted order. This process is simply not applicable if one’s starting point is an Likewise it is in the Vedas and other scriptures of different religions. Omnipotent Being with the freedom to act in any way He chooses. A. The need of the hour is to have a deeper dialogue between the M. Sandorfi101 and M. Khandarker102 writes in this connection: “Faced disciplines of science and theology/religions. In his book, God, Creation, with this, believers who are scientists, such as ourselves, assume the and Contemporary Physics, 107 Mark W. Worthing calls our attention universe was created by God with magnificently beautiful intricacy which to two sorts of thinkers in the world of religion and science: the scientist- is our joy to unravel through a long process of building models with theologians and the “ordinary” theologians who make no claim to various starting points, predicting their consequences and searching for scientific credentials. He regards the latter group to be in danger of evidence that either confirms or refutes.”103 At a broad level, a creationist extinction. Their presence is necessary, however, in order to guarantee is someone who believes in a God who is absolute creator of heaven that the theology-science conversation remains a dialogue between and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will. Such a deity is generally disciplines rather than a dialogue between individuals. We too do not thought to be constantly involved (‘immanent’) in the creation, ready to have a second opinion in this regard, as that of the well-known Cambridge intervene as necessary, and without whose constant concern the creation elementary particle physicist John Polkinghorne who said that we need would cease or disappear. to encourage dialogue between theology and science. Let us pay There is an incredible exactitude in the ordering of the universe. attention to what Polkinghorne has to say: much of what is done in “The world-order of creation and the particular process of human science is “the creative interpretation of experience, not rigorous

144 Omega December 2009 145 C. D. Sebastian Creation Narratives and Modern Cosmology deduction from it” and “science is not the search for truth but for 2. Alister McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in ‘verisimilitude,’ the quality of having the appearance of truth or reality. the Modern World (London: Rider, 2004), p. 79 Incidentally, scientists can never know when they have absolute truth.”108 3. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York, Bantam Books, 2006). 6. Finale 4. James Redfield, Michael Murphy, and Sylvia Timbers, God and the Evolving Universe (New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 2002), p. 9. Humans are jijsu, seekers of knowledge, who search the 5. James Redfield, Michael Murphy, and Sylvia Timbers, God and the Evolving underlying secrets of the visible (gocara) and invisible (agocara) worlds. Universe, p. 15 They have the passion to investigate the nature of the unknown. If 6. Alister McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism: the Rise and Fall of Disbelief in science seeks to fathom and map out the visible (gocara) realities, the Modern World, p. 85 religion keeps the visible (gocara) and invisible (agocara) realities under 7. James Redfield, Michael Murphy, and Sylvia Timbers, God and the Evolving its purview. Knowledge in toto could be gained if and only if the visible Universe, p. 6 phenomena and invisible noumena are taken into consideration while one is searching for the same. In this regard the creation narratives of 8. George Gamow, The Creation of the Universe (North Chelmsford, MA.: the religions and the inflationary cosmology have some common stake, Courier Dover Publications, 2004), p. 18 (George Gamow was a renowned theoretical physicist and cosmologist. He was professor at George as there was a beginning of the universe and that begging is from nothing Washington University, Washington, DC and Univeristy of Colorado at (ex nihilo or from nya). As per Inflationary theory, time and space Boulder. He discovered alpha decay via quantum tunneling, and worked began in an Initial Singularity, the specific character of which is on radioactive decay of the atomic nucleus, star formation, stellar essentially unknowable. The foundations of the forces controlling nucleosynthesis, big bang nucleosynthesis, Cosmic Microwave interactions in our universe emerged from this Singularity. If such Background Radiation,nucleocosmogenesis and genetics.) beginning took place from nothing, it should be an action of some other 9. The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very superior power. There should be a first cause of it and that cause or beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have creator is called the Supreme Being. As Nobel Laureate in physics shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a (1997) William D. Philips says: “God is wonderful, and when I look at beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that results of sciences, it just increases my wonder at how great God is.”109 moment there was something: our universe. The Big Bang theory is an In finale, let me submit that there is a promising convergence between effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. The scientist and Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), Professor of Physics at the assumptions of modern cosmology and religious beliefs as far as the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, proposed what became known creation narrative is concerned. In this sense, they are not at loggerheads. as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his “hypothesis of the primeval atom” in 1927. The framework for the model Notes and References relies on Albert Einstein’s general relativity and on simplifying assumptions, such as homogeneity and isotropy of space. See Andre L. Berger, The Big 1. Dr. C. D. Sebastian is Associate Professor of Philosophy in the Department Bang and Georges Lemaitre (Dordrecht and New York: Kluwer Academic of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Publishers Group, 1984). Mumbai. He holds his M. A. (First Rank with two BHU Gold Medals) and 10. Fang Li Zhi and Li Shu Xian, Creation of the Universe (Singapore and New Ph. D. degrees in Indian Philosophy and Religion from Banaras Hindu Jersey, World Scientific Publishing Co. , 1989), pp. 141-142. University, Varanasi, India. He is the Editor of (Indian Scriptures), Journal of Sacred Scriptures (ISSN 0974-0090). 11. The eighth book of Aristotle’s Physics is the culmination of his theory of nature. He moves from the notion of motion in the cosmos to the identification of the single source that regulates the principle of all motion,

146 Omega December 2009 147 C. D. Sebastian Creation Narratives and Modern Cosmology and argues for the existence of the first ‘unmoved mover.’ For details see, 25. For a detailed exposition on this see, David J. Kalupahana, Causality: The Aristotle, Physics, Book VIII, Daniel W. Graham (translated with Central Philosophy of Buddhism (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, commentary) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). 1975), pp. 1-3. 12. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 1 (Prima Pars), Vol. 1 (New York: 26. Barabara A. Holdrege, Veda and Torah: Transcending the Textuality of Cosimo Classics, 2007). Scripture (Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1997), p. 36. 13. Fang Li Zhi and Li Shu Xian, Creation of the Universe, p. 144. 27. In gveda 10:129, the Nadya Skta, speaks of “That One” (Tad Ekam in Sanskrit), which is the ultimate source of creation. In gveda 10: 82 hymn 14. Fang Li Zhi and Li Shu Xian, Creation of the Universe, p. 144. speaks of the “Unborn” (aja in Sanskrit) as the cause of creation. 15. David Maclagan, Creation Myths: Man’s Introduction to the World 28. There is a wonderful concept of a personal creator God who is a marvelous (London: Thames and Hudson, 1977), p. 5. fashioner of the three worlds (earth, heaven and the region between them). 16. Genesis, chapters 1-3. That personal creator God is called as Prajpati in gveda 10: 121 hymn, and as Vivakarma(n) in gveda 10: 81 and 82 hymns. 17. L. W. King (ed.), Enuma Elish: The Seven tablets of Creation (New York: MS Press, 1976) (reprint of 1902 edition). 29. There is also the conception of a Cosmic Being, which is termed as Purua in the gveda 10: 90 (Purua Skta) and 130 hymns, who is the source of 18. Written in 1,544, in the Quiche language using Latin characters, the Popol the entire universe, both animate and inanimate beings. It is said that out of Vuh expresses the cosmo-vision of the ancient Mayan people. The first of his body the different parts of the universe are formed. the three parts deals with the creation story. The Popol vuh begins with the story of creation. There takes place a meeting of the god from the primordial 30. The Water (apa, ambha and salila) which symbolizes the feminine sea (Plumed Serpent) and god from the primordial sky (Heart of Sky) to principle that provides the primordial matrix of creation could be seen in discuss about the emergence of the Earth from the sea, and the creation of gveda 10: 129, 10: 121, and 10: 82 hymns. Sometimes that feminine principle the plants, the sun, moon, stars, and the humans. The gods discusses the is associated with Speech or Word of the goddess as we see in gveda 10: process of creation as “sowing” and the subsequent growth of plants, the 71 and 125 hymns. sun, moon, and stars, and birth and death of the people as the process of 31. In gveda 10: 121 and 10: 82 hymns we have the beautiful conception of “dawning.” The first attempt to create humans fails, and the gods are Hiraya-garbha or the Golden Embryo (Cosmic Egg), which contains the disappointed that the animals they created cannot speak or offer prayers. totality of the universe in an undifferentiated form. It goes like this: “Hiraya- The gods make attempts to make humans out of clay and wood and they garbha was present at the beginning.” (gveda 10: 121: 1). He from whom also fail. Finally they succeed in the creation of humans from corn. See for this creation arose, he may uphold it, or he may not (no one else can); he details: Delia Goetz and Andrian Recinos (eds.), Popol Vuh: The Sacred who is its superintendent in the highest heaven, he assuredly knows, or if Book of the Quiche Maya (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1950). he knows not (no one else does). (7) 19. gveda 10:90:1ff 32. In the gveda, 10th Maala (book), 129th Skta hymn is the Nsadya 20. gveda 10:129:1ff skta or the Creation Hymn. It goes like this: The non-existent was not, the existent was not; then the world was not, nor the firmament, nor that which 21. For a detailed study of the Vedic account of the Universe see C. D. Sebastian, is above (the firmament). How could there be any investing envelop, and “The Origin of the Universe: The Vedic Account,” Journal of Scared where? Of what (could there be) felicity? How (could there be) the deep Scriptures 3 (2), 2009, pp. 140-153. unfathomable water? (1) Death was not, nor at that period immortality, 22. gveda 1:115:4. there was no indication of day and night; THAT ONE un-breathed upon breathed of his own strength, other than THAT there was nothing else 23. gveda 10:129:1-7. whatever. (2)There was darkness covered by darkness in the beginning, all 24. M. Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian Philosophy (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass this (world) was undistinguishable water; that empty united world (world) Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1994), pp. 42-43.

148 Omega December 2009 149 C. D. Sebastian Creation Narratives and Modern Cosmology which was covered by mere nothing, was produced through the power of 44. We come across for the first time the idea of personal creator God in the austerity (tapas also means ‘heat’). (3)In the beginning there was desire, hymns addressed to Vivakarman. It must be stated further that the idea of which was the first seed of mind; sages having meditated in their hearts a personal creator God was a favourite topic of speculation during the have discovered by their wisdom the connection of the existent with the period of the Brhmaas. non-existent. (4)Their ray was stretched out, whether across, or below, or 45. B. M. Barua, A History of Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy (Calcutta: above; (some) were shedders of seed, (others) were mighty; food was University of Calcutta Press, 1921), p. 34. inferior, the eater was superior. (5) Who verily knows? Who in this world may declare it? Whence was this creation, whence was it engendered? The 46. gveda 10: 82:2. gods (were) subsequent to the (world’s) creation; so who knows whence it 47. gveda 10: 81: 2. arose? (6) 48 .ataptha Brhmaa 11: 2: 3: 1. 33. Snkhya is one of the six stika or orthodox (that which recognizes Vedic authority) systems of Indian philosophy. It is regarded as the oldest of the 49. Jaiminya Brhmaa 3: 17: 2. orthodox philosophical systems. Sage Kapila is traditionally considered to 50. Taittirya Brhmaa 8: 1: 3-4. be the founder of the Snkhya school, although no historical verification is 51. David J. Kalupahana, Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, p. possible. The definitive text of classical Snkhya is the extant Snkhya Krik, written by vara Ka. Snkhya philosophy regards the universe 18. as consisting of two eternal realities: Purua and Prakti or soul/spirit and 52. Aitareya rayaka 2: 3: 6: 2. matter; hence, it is a strongly dualist philosophy. The Purua is the centre 53. The Bhadrayaka Upaniad 1: 4: 1-5 of consciousness, whereas the Prakti is the source of all material existence. 54. This is also called as the Zend - Avesta. The Avesta, which the Parsis use 34. See Note 2 in the above mentioned H. H. Wilson (Tr), The g-Veda: The today, consists of five parts: (1) Yasna, the prayers recited by the priests at Hymns of g-Veda, Vol. VI (Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 2002), p. 350 the offering to all deities; (2) Vispered or Visprat, a supplement used in 35. See Note 2 in the above mentioned H. H. Wilson (Tr), The g-Veda: The certain liturgical prayers; (3) Vendidad or Videvdat, dealing with the rules Hymns of g-Veda, Vol. VI, p. 350. and regulations on purity like clean and unclean, and purifications and expiations; (4) Yashts, hymns in honor of divinities; and (5) the Khordah 36. Syaa was an important commentator on the Vedas, who lived in the 14th century CE in Vijayanagaram empire of south India. More than 100 works Avesta (meaning ‘small Avesta’), a collection of prayers for the laity and priests for private use. There is a portion called Gathas, which is a part of are attributed to him, and his magnum opus is Vedrtha Praka, literally menaing ‘the meaning of the Vedas made manifest”, which is a commentary the Yasna; and it consists of the chapters from twenty-eighth to the fifty- on the Vedas. fourth of the Yasna. The Gathas are metrical verses in a different dialect (or language) from the rest of the text, the oldest and most sacred part of the 37. See for more details Notes 2 and 3 in the above mentioned H. H. Wilson Avesta. They are in the form of the utterances of Zoroaster himself or the (Tr), The g-Veda: The Hymns of g-Veda, Vol. VI, p. 352. revelations of God to him. We have taken for our reference here the three 38. gveda 10:129:1. volumes of the translation of Avesta edited by F. Max Mueller, The Sacred Books of the East, Vols. IV, XXII and XXX1 (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass 39. The Purua Skta is in the gveda 10: 90:1-16. Publishers, 1965). 40. gveda 10:121:1. 55. Yasna 40: 1 41. gveda 10:121:2 56. For detailed account of creation account in Zoroastrianism see Dyuti Yajnik, 42. See for more details Note 1in the above mentioned H. H. Wilson (Tr), The “The Creation Narrative in Zoroastrianism”, Journal of Scared Scriptures, g-Veda: The Hymns of g-Veda, Vol. VI, p. 333. 3 (2), 2009, pp. 195-202. 43. Yajurveda Samhit 4: 1: 8, 31.

150 Omega December 2009 151 C. D. Sebastian Creation Narratives and Modern Cosmology 57. The Bundahish is a ninth century CE text which derives much of its content 64. See the footnotes 1 (a) and (b) in Genesis, chapter 1, in The New Jerusalem materials from the books of Avesta (those books which have been lost Bible, Henry Wansbrough (General Editor) (London: Darton, Longman & since then). odd Ltd, 2006), p. 17. 58. G. M. Moore, History of Religions, Vol. 1 (Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1971), pp. 65. Peter E. Hodgson, “The Christian Origin of Science,” in Logos, 4 (2), 2001, 382-383. p. 142. 59. Andre Lemaire, “The United Monarchy: Saul, David and Solomon,” and P. 66. As quoted in Peter E. Hodgson, “The Christian Origin of Science,” in Logos, Kyle McCarter Jr, “The Patriarchal Age: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” in 4 (2), 2001, pp. 145-146. Hershel Shanks (ed.), Ancient Israel: A Short History from Abraham to the 67. Peter E. Hodgson (1928-2008) was a British physicist and fellow of Corpus Roman Destruction of the Temple (Washington DC: Biblical Archeology Christi College, Oxford University. He was head of the Nuclear Physics Society, 1998). Theoretical Group of the Nuclear and Particle Physics Laboratory. He has 60. Genesis 1:1-2:4 written ten books on nuclear physics and many articles on theology and science, on the philosophy of science, and on nuclear power, energy, and 61. “A thousand years are to you like yesterday which has passed, like a watch the environment. of night” (Psalm 90:4). “There is one thing, my dear friends, that you must never forget: that with the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a 68. Peter E. Hodgson, “The Christian Origin of Science,” in Logos, 4 (2), 2001, thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter 3:8). p. 142. 62. “From God, the Lord of mounting ascents, to whom the angels and soul 69. Peter E. Hodgson, “The Christian Origin of Science,” in Logos, 4 (2), 2001, take a day to ascend, whose length is fifty thousand years” (Quran, Al- p. 142. Ma‘arij: 3-4 (Sura 70: 3-4). “He regulates all affairs from high to low, then 70. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) initiated a revolution in science, at the same time they rise by steps to perfection in a day, whose measure is a thousand he was a theologian, and he had studied theology: “It was also in Cambridge years of your reckoning” (Quran, As-Sajdah: 5 (Sura 32: 5). “Verily a day that Newton began seriously study theology” (Gary B. Ferngren, Science with your Lord is equal by reckoning to a thousand years” (Quran, Al-Hajj: and Religion: A Historical Introduction (Baltimore: John Hopkins 47 (Sura 22: 47). We have taken the references from Al-Quran, A University Press, 2002), p. 154). As Newton’s long-concealed private papers Contemporary Translation, Arabic/English Edition, Ahmed Ali (tr.) (Delhi: on theology became increasingly accessible, at the end of the twentieth Oxford University Press, 1987). century, scholars began a revolution in the understanding of Newton. 63. The Biblical chronology was derived by Archbishop James Ussher, Students of Newton’s thought are coming to see Newton as more than a Anglican Archbishop of Armagh (now in Northern Ireland) in his work the scientist. See Matt Goldish, Judaism in the Theology of Sir Isaac Newton Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti (Annals of the (New York: Springer-Veralag, 2007). Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world), published in 71. See Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology (Princeton, 1650 CE. This was his contribution to the long-running theological debate NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999). on the age of the Earth. Until recently, the King James Bible included dates in the marginal notes which helped place Biblical events in their 72. Nora Breton, Jorge L. Cervantes-Cota, and Marcelo Salgado, “Introduction” chronological context. According Ussher chronology “God created the in Nora Breton et al (ed.), The Early Universe and Observational heaven and the earth” in 4004 BCE; the Flood covered the Earth in 2348 Cosmology (Lecture Notes in physics 646) (Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, BCE; the Exodus occurred in 1491 BCE; David became King of Israel in 2004), p. 1. 1056 BCE; and the Nation of Judah was carried into captivity in 593 BCE. 73. Andrew R. Liddle and David H. Lyth, Cosmological Inflation and Large- For details see James Ussher, The Annals of the World, Larry Pierce (ed.) Scale Structure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. xii. (Green Forest, AR, Master Books, 2003).

152 Omega December 2009 153 C. D. Sebastian Creation Narratives and Modern Cosmology 74. Helge S. Kragh, Conceptions of Cosmos: From Myths to the Accelerating 88. Andrei Linde, “Inflation Cosmology” in Martin Lemoine, Jerome Martin Universe – A History of Cosmology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), and Patrick Peter (ed.), Inflationary Cosmology (Lecture Notes in Physics p. 1. 738), (Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2008), p. 13. 75. B. Lang and R. Teisseyre, “A Synopsis of Selected Topics in Cosmology” 89. Lev Kofman, “Preheating after Inflation” in Martin Lemoine, Jerome Martin in R. Teisseyre, J. Leliwa-Kopystynski and B. Lang (ed), Evolution of the and Patrick Peter (ed.), Inflationary Cosmology (Lecture Notes in Physics Earth and Other Planetary Bodies (Amsterdam and London: Elsevier, 1992), 738), (Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2008), p. 55. p. 1. 90. Lawrence Sklar, Physics and Chance: Philosophical Issues in the 76. B. Lang and R. Teisseyre, “A Synopsis of Selected Topics in Cosmology,” Foundations of Statistical Mechanics (Cambridge: Cambridge University p. 9. Press, 1995), p. 308. 77. Helge S. Kragh, Conceptions of Cosmos: From Myths to the Accelerating 91. Grichka Bogdanov and Igor Bogdanov, “Topological Field Theory of Initial Universe – A History of Cosmology, p. 240. Singularity Spacetime,“ Classical and Quantum Gravity, 18 (2001), pp. 4341-4372. 78. Alexander Vilenkin, “Creation of the Universe from Nothing”, Physics Letters, 117B (number 1, 2), 1982, pp. 25-28. 92. Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin, “Eternal Inflation and the Initial Singularity”, Physical Review Letters, 72, 3305-3309 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/ 79. P. C. W. Davies, The Accidental Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge University 9312022v1. Press, 1988), p. 236. 93. “My son, have pity on me; I carried you nine months in the womb and 80. Andrei Linde, “Inflation Cosmology,” in Martin Lemoine, Jerome Martin suckled you three years.... I implore you, my child, observe heaven and earth, and Patrick Peter (ed.), Inflationary Cosmology (Lecture Notes in Physics consider all that is in them, and acknowledge that God made them out of what 738) (Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2008), p. 2. did not exist, and that mankind comes into being in the same way. Do not fear 81. Alan Guth, The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of this executioner, but prove yourself worthy of your brothers, and make death Cosmic Origins, Reading, Mass, Perseus Books, 1998 welcome, so that in the day of mercy I may receive you back in your brothers’ company” (2 Maccabees 7: 27-29). “But does man not bear in mind that We 82. A. H. Guth, “Phase Transitions in the Embryo Universe,” in D. Lynden-Bell have created him aforetime out of nothing?” (Quran 19: 67). (ed.), The Big Bang and the Element of Creation (London: The Royal Society, 1982, p. 147. 94. Gertrude Stein, A Stein Reader, Ulla E. Dydo (ed.) (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1993), p. 498. 83. Alan H. Guth, “The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems”, Physical Review D 23 (1981), pp. 347-356. 95. Andrei Dmitriyevich Linde is renowned theoretical physicist, winner of Dirac Medal in 2002, and professor of physics at Stanford University. 84. J. L. Cervantes-Cota, “An Introduction to Standard Cosmology,” in N. Breton. J. L. Cervantes-Cota, and M. Salgado (ed.),The Early Universe and 96. This paper could be found at http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ealinde/ Observational Cosmology (Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2004), pp. 7 - 51. 1982.pdf 85. Edmund J. Copeland, “Inflation – In the Early Universe and Today,” in N. 97. Edward W. Kolb and Michael S. Turner, The Early Universe (Redwood Breton. J. L. Cervantes-Cota, and M. Salgado (ed.),The Early Universe and City, CA: Addison-Wesley,1990). Observational Cosmology (Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2004), pp. 53 - 107. 98. For a detailed exposition of cosmological inflation and all that related to 86. Andrei Linde, “A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution this topic see the useful and comprehensive book by Andrew R. Liddle of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole and David H. Lyth, Cosmological Inflation and Large-Scale Structure Problems,” Physics Letters B 108 (1982), pp. 389-393. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). 87. A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, “Cosmology For Grand Unified Theories 99. P. C. W. Davies, The Accidental Universe, p. viii. With Radiatively Induced Symmetry Breaking,” Physics Review Letters 48 (1982), pp. 1220-1223. 154 Omega December 2009 155 C. D. Sebastian 100. Waltraut C. Seitter and Hilmar W. Duerbeck, “Carl Wilhelm Wirtz – a Omega pioneer in observational cosmology,“ in B. Berotti et al (ed.), Modern VIII (2009)2, 157-191 Cosmology in Retrospect (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 366. 101. A. M. Sandorfi, holding a Ph. D. from the University of Toronto, is a Fellow of American Physical Society and Senior Physicist at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York. 1 102. M. Khandaker holding a Ph D from the University of Washington in Faith Lessons from Chaotic Fig Trees

Seattle, is a Professor of Physics at Norfolk State University in Virginia, 2 and a Research Scientist at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator - Carlos E. Puente Facility in Newport News, Virginia. 103. A. M. Sandorfi and M. Khandaker, “Modern Cosmology and the Judeo- Christian and Islamic Creation Accounts,” in Jnanatirtha: Journal of Abstract: Searching for order and its implied harmony is one of the most Sacred Scriptures, 2 (2002), p. 41. pressing tasks we humans attempt during our lives. This quest is particularly difficult when the “evil” of “chaotic forces” propels us into 104. David Maclagan, Creation Myths: Man’s Introduction to the World, p. restless and often helpless states whose intrinsic disorder hampers our 46. ability to find our way to peace. During the past few decades a host of 105. P. C. W. Davies, The Accidental Universe, p. vii. ideas have been established in order to study natural complexity, including the identification of pathways that progressively degrade 106. David Maclagan, Creation Myths: Man’s Introduction to the World, p. “order” into the specific disorder of “chaos” and that define a host of 51. chaotic trees, as epitomized by the iconic Feigenbaum tree, or “fig tree” 107. Mark William Worthing, God Creation, and Contemporary Physics in German. This work explains how such notions help us visualize the (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996). essential options we all face regarding order and disorder and shows how the ideas point us to the straight roots of such trees as the only 108. John Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an Age of Science (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998), p. 104. common ground (i.e., “under the fig tree”) where we all may achieve true order and peace. It is argued, citing a host of Biblical passages, 109. T. D. Singh (ed.), God is Person: Reflections of Two Nobel Laureates that the modern concepts provide a rich symbolism consistent with (Kolkatta: Bhaktivedanta Institute, 2007), p. 107. ancient Scripture that, in particular, allows us to further appreciate, in a strikingly coincidental fashion, why Jesus may have, seemingly out of character, cursed and withered a fruitless fig tree as he rebuked the wind (evil in of itself in both instances) and why He may have asked us to learn a lesson from a fig tree and other trees (even from those chaotic ones budding in science twenty centuries later) as a mysterious and yet urgent precursor to His second coming. The implications of the notions regarding our need to be always watchful, including our prescribed conversion by coming down our own “fig trees,” are emphasized. Keywords: Wholeness, Fragmentation, Turbulence, Chaos, Peace, Love, Eschatology.

156 Omega December 2009 157 Carlos E. Puente Faith Lessons from Chaotic Fig Trees Introduction the teachings of Jesus Christ,7 including, in particular, His celebrated According to the Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, chaos teachings via (fig) trees. 3 is “a state of utter confusion,” one in which “chance reigns supreme.” The Exquisite Dynamics of the Logistic Map In the past few decades, however, modern science has established that there is order in the way some of such “randomness” arises and has To fully appreciate the faith lessons herein, it is necessary to revealed that simple deterministic mechanisms, that is, not dependent review first the fundamentals of chaos theory and its rather precise, on the concept of chance, are unexpectedly sufficient to comprehend and often allegorical, terminology. In order to do so, it is convenient to such a common form of disorder.4-6 start first with the prototypical logistic map used in such studies, Among the pathways to chaos, the most celebrated has been the Xk+1 = αXk (1 - Xk), one defined via a chain of bifurcations, which reflects the progressive splittings of a system’s ultimate dynamics, in powers of two, before it where X is the size of a population, say “rabbits” (normalized reaches a totally disorganized state. Defining a new paradigm for from 0 to 1), k and k + 1 are subsequent generations, and α is a parameter studying complexity, such ideas resulted in applications in a variety of that may be any number between 0 and 4. disciplines ranging from ecology to engineering and from chemistry to This rather simple quadratic, and hence nonlinear, equation, physics, which included notably, in the latter, the elusive description of defines the dynamics of the population from one generation to the next. the dynamics of convection, that is, the eventual turbulent boiling of a If such a map is plotted, from a generic generation X (in the horizontal) fluid as its temperature is increased. Central to the discoveries is also k to the next generation X (in the vertical), the resulting graph gives a the springing of a host of diagrams, reflecting all possible scenarios k+1 symmetric parabola whose peak value of α/4 happens by the middle, from order to chaos and shaped as trees, that share surprising universal that is, properties, as first proven in the iconic Feigenbaum tree (“fig tree” in German) by physicist Mitchell Feigenbaum.4-6 when Xk = 1/2: This article explores matters of order and disorder by studying the opposite concepts of wholeness and fragmentation, unity and dust, and rest and wandering, as they arise in the modern study of chaos. As previously argued via multiplicative cascades arising in the study of turbulence,7 this work’s premise is that we as humans may learn from the ways of nature so that, by using our common sense, we choose to avoid the prescribed pathways that take us away from peace and into chaos and its related turbulence. Arguing that science indeed provides a suitable and impartial framework to reflect on our internal peace and the peace of our world, this work shows that there is one and only one state, defined by our dynamic abandonment to the origin,7 that qualifies as truly centered in love and that corresponds to a serene and universal condition situated at the roots of all chaotic (fig) trees, where we all The graph above shows the evolution of a population ruled by may find peace. It is shown how achieving such an ultimate state is such an expression, when the parameter α equals 2.8. As is seen, from a small initial population X = 0.04, and following the vertical and intimately related to pertinent matters of faith, as it concerns fully heeding 0

158 Omega December 2009 159 Carlos E. Puente Faith Lessons from Chaotic Fig Trees horizontal lines to the one to one line Y = X to aid in the progressive When α exceeds 1, the parabola crosses the threshold Y = X calculations, the population grows from X0 to X1 to X2 to X3, and to X4, and, as a consequence, the population no longer converges to zero, but and then spirals, after several repetitions, into a “fixed point attractor” rather diverges from the origin: X α ~ 0.64, that corresponds to the non-zero intersection of the parabola and the straight line. As from generation to generation the parabola provides an expected increase in population if there are few rabbits, but a logical decrease if there are too many of them, the repeated iterations of the logistic map gives rise to a logical organization of the population, and hence its name. Notice how the map is particularly severe regarding too many rabbits, for when their number equals its maximum value, Xk

= 1, the entire population extinguishes in the next generation, Xk+1 = 0, as one may imagine would happen due to extreme competition for limited resources.

It happens that the population’s ultimate destination, X depends dramatically on the value of the parameter α, as is reviewed next. As is seen, once again for α = 2.8, the slope of the parabola at the

When α is not above 1, the parabola is located below the one to origin exceeds that of the straight line, and, as such, a small value X0 one line: yields larger values X1, X2, and so on, that move away from the origin and never return. As the line is crossed by the parabola, zero becomes a repeller and such a destination is termed unstable, as an arbitrarily

small initial condition X0 close to zero, would no longer go to the origin. When α takes any value between 1 and 3, the dynamics of the logistic map do converge to the non-zero intersection between the

parabola and the straight line, which, from simple algebra, give X = (α - 1)/ α. Such an attractor happens to be a stable fixed point as the slope of the curve at such an intersection is mild, that is, one that has magnitude less than one, and hence pulls in all non-zero and non-one populations. When α is greater than 3, the slope at the non-zero intersection and such a placement leads to a progressive decrease in population between the parabola and the line also becomes too steep and, as such, size, from an arbitrary value X0 to X = 0, that is, the origin, as shown what happened to the origin also happens to this intersection, that is, it for α = 0.7. As may be appreciated, irrespective of the size of the initial repels. As shown for α = 3.2, the dynamics now settle, quite surprisingly, population, the iteration of the logistic map leads in this case to extinction, into stable oscillations that repeat every two generations and that make and hence such an ultimate fixed point attractor, that is, zero, is reached a limiting square in the figure: from everywhere and is termed stable. 160 Omega December 2009 161 Carlos E. Puente Faith Lessons from Chaotic Fig Trees attractors into repellers, and all of these happen via a rather simple quadratic equation just by varying the parameter α.

When α exceeds α, there are sometimes periodic repetitions, as for values of α of 3.74 and 3.83 resulting in oscillations every five and three generations:

These periodic attractors, every two generations, happen for a range of values of α, but, as before, such behavior becomes unstable and repels if α is further increased. As an example, when α = 3.46, oscillations every four generations appear: and, more commonly, dynamics that exhibit non-repetitive behaviors:

for values of α of 3.6 and 4, yielding attractors that contain infinitely many points, one set on the left bounded by two subintervals and the other apparently filling up the whole interval from 0 to 1. It so happens that as α is increased, a chain of bifurcations sets in, and the population remarkably oscillates in increasing powers of 2, It so happens that there exist values of the parameter α greater first every two generations, then every four, then every eight, then every than α for which the population eventually repeats exactly every n sixteen, and so on. It also turns out that the windows of stability for such generations, for any number n that is not a power of 2.8 As a consequence oscillations decrease rather quickly, in such a way that periodic behavior, and quite remarkably, the logistic map includes periodic behavior for any natural number n. However, intertwined with this startling gamut of for all powers of 2, happen in the limiting value α   3.5699. Strikingly, the logistic map contains infinitely many thresholds transforming repetitive behavior, there are great many parameter values greater than

162 Omega December 2009 163 Carlos E. Puente Faith Lessons from Chaotic Fig Trees

α for which the population does not repeat at all, but rather wanders the parabola crosses the threshold Y = X. From α = 3 onward, the forever following an unending dance inside an infinite set suitably known chain of bifurcations gets established and such grows additional branches as an “strange attractor.” in increasing powers of two, but with progressively smaller lengths, so that all powers happen up to a value α  3.5699. These infinite but stable cases, due to their lack of finite  convergence, define fittingly the mathematical notion of chaos. Such a As is better seen on a magnified tail of the diagram: name also turns out to be semantically accurate as two nearby populations, arbitrarily close, quickly diverge from one another when using the nonlinear logistic map, as if guided by chance. This extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, also known as the “butterfly effect,” explains why a small error, no matter how small and as proverbial as the flap of a butterfly’s wing, ultimately prevents us from knowing the precise evolution of a chaotic population. The Feigenbaum Tree

A graph of the stable attractor X as a function of the parameter α is known as the bifurcations diagram: from α onward, the tree contains additional periodic branches finely intertwined with chaotic behavior, whose infinite sequences of points in the associated strange attractors (plotted in the vertical for a given value of α) represent then the “foliage” of the tree. As is seen, the tail of the diagram also exhibits several “white bands” that turn out to correspond to all periods not included in the bifurcations, with the most prominent being, from left to right, the ones related to repetitions every 6, 5 and 3 generations. As seen prominently in the band corresponding to period 3, the tree contains noticeable “buds” that link the tree upwards and that merit further consideration.

This remarkable figure is the most celebrated icon of chaos theory As is seen magnifying the middle bud within the white band related and shows how chaotic behavior is ultimately obtained via a chain of to period 3: successive bifurcations. This diagram, when rotated counterclockwise ninety degrees, is the Feigenbaum tree, named after physicist Mitchell Feigenbaum who first proved some of its remarkable universal properties, as shall be reviewed later on. As is seen, the straight root of the tree corresponds to the extinction of the population, X = 0, and there appears a positive branch or “trunk,” X = (α - 1)/ α, when the parameter α is greater than 1 and

164 Omega December 2009 165 Carlos E. Puente Faith Lessons from Chaotic Fig Trees

as white bands are traversed from left to right, the diagram grows pricked by the present spikes, which literally rise to infinity as the scale yet more small branches and additional chaotic behavior. Strikingly, the of the graph is reduced. Similarly, and due to the aforementioned self- operation results in a reduced copy of the entire tree, one that includes, similarity of the diagram, the same would also happen by the end of any in a rather remarkable fashion, bifurcation branches that sprout additional chain of bifurcations within a white band region corresponding to any chaotic attractors unseen at the scale of the original graph, and yet period. As hinted by the uneven darkness within the tail of the tree, more white bands associated with higher order periods. there are also many other regions that correspond to uneven histograms that further reflect the rugged nature of the object.8 As the magnification may be continued with no limit, it turns out that the Feigenbaum tree contains infinitely many buds that emanate As shall be explained later on in detail, an infinite strange attractor, from the infinitely many white bands associated with each one of the that turn out to be the most common behavior within the tail of the possible periodic behaviors found in the tail. Amazingly, the tree contains diagram, excludes great many periodic points and hence have a disperse smaller copies of itself ad infinitum and such an extraordinary self- and non cohesive topological structure that resembles the one of “dust.” similarity, not discovered earlier than a generation ago due to intrinsic As a consequence, the foliage of the Feigenbaum tree is essentially technological limitations, implies a rather deep form of fragmentation dust. in the object.9 Universality in the Fig Tree and Other Trees In order to further appreciate the degree of brokenness in the chaotic fig tree, it is sensible to study in some detail its first strange It happens that all bifurcations within the Feigenbaum tree, including the ones that occur within all of the infinitely many sub-trees, attractor, that is, the first infinite attractor that happens when α = α, and known as the Feigenbaum attractor. Iterating the logistic map for take place in an orderly manner both in their openings and in their such a value of α and making a histogram over the eventual points durations. visited yields: As depicted for bifurcations happening at parameter values αn,

αn +1 and α n +2:

This attractor certainly contains infinitely many disperse points, springing from the scattering of the preceding chain of bifurcations, but, as is seen, those values are not evenly visited and the iteration process defines instead a complex multifractal object,7,10 made up of multiple disjoint thorns of different sizes. As may be appreciated, the Feigenbaum tree contains from α  such a sequence leads to decreasing bifurcation durations  ,  and onward a multitude of uneven thorns at many places. If one were to n n+1 n+2, and to alternating decreasing distances dn, dn+1, dn+2, measured pass a finger through the diagram at the value of α, one would get

166 Omega December 2009 167 Carlos E. Puente Faith Lessons from Chaotic Fig Trees from the horizontal line X¯ (equal to 1/2 for the beginning portion of the Feigenbaum tree) to the closest branch not intersected by such a line. What Feigenbaum proved in 1978 is the remarkable fact that the ratios dn/dn+1 and n / n +1, that is, from bifurcation to bifurcation, approach the same constants everywhere within the Feigenbaum tree:

d  —n F =-2.5029... —n F =4.6692... d 1  2 n+1 n +1 that contain, as seen for the Feigenbaum tree, a straight root, a “tender branch,” bifurcation branches, and, in an intertwined fashion, periodic The limits F and F are Feigenbaum’s universal constants and 1 2 branches and the dusty foliage of chaos. such are so important that they are to bifurcations in powers of two as π is to circles.11 The existence of such constants explains why there is Amongst the most important practical discoveries of chaos theory indeed order in the path to chaos via successive bifurcations, but such stands the surprising work of Albert Libchaber and Jens Maurer in does not imply, as it is often affirmed erroneously, that chaos itself is regards to the heating of liquid helium.12 Such researchers found, also in ordered. 1978, that there is a discernible order in the way convection takes such a fluid from a state of rest to its ultimate chaotic and turbulent state. Feigenbaum’s numbers turn out to be remarkably applicable as Remarkably, as the heat given to the fluid is increased, the helium they are also valid for countless nonlinear equations that give rise to experiences noticeable transitions that, up to the scale of the other chaotic trees, beyond the Feigenbaum tree. The iteration of measurements, includes four bifurcations that happen precisely at arbitrary unimodal functions, that is, those having one peak, yields similar temperature increments given by F . trees and all the budding within these impressive objects happens 2 precisely at the prescribed universal rates F1 and F2. As an example of These results illustrate the surprising fact that there are various this extraordinary fact, the simple equations ƒ (X ) = α X (1- X3)and ƒ physical systems for which their relevant dynamics may be understood (X ) = α X (1 - X )3, representing alternatives to the logistic map with via iterations of simple maps and in terms of a single parameter that graphs that are not symmetric and not fully convex: plays the role of α in the logistic map.4 As the overall notions of chaos theory became relevant in a variety of scientific fields including ecology, biology, chemistry, physics, engineering and economics, they established a new paradigm for the origins of disorder, for the ideas clearly implied the possibility of finding hidden simplicity in complexity and without employing the prescribed sets of differential equations or invoking the notion of chance.4-6 In the Plenitude of Chaos generate, by varying their respective parameter α, other chaotic trees Although chaotic behavior is not the most disorganized state seen in nature, it is pertinent to study the most disorganized chaotic state in also guided by the same numbers F1 and F2: order to fully appreciate its empty structure and some of its subtle details.

168 Omega December 2009 169 Carlos E. Puente Faith Lessons from Chaotic Fig Trees As such plenitude of chaos happens when the strange attractors are widest and at the top of the chaotic trees, such a special condition is hence associated with the archetypical selection of “maximum heat” that leads to maximum turbulence. As seen before, for the logistic map such an extreme condition corresponds to the largest possible parabola defined when α = 4, and judging by the dense horizontal-vertical lines:

there are great many points located in the past of the highest repeating value, that, by not wandering forever, are not members of the final attractor either. As the parabola is read backwards again and again, such points make up a binary tree that, as is seen, covers the interval from 0 to 1 in a dense manner. In a similar fashion, there are two other similar diagrams ending in the two other repeating points that define other locations that are not included in the strange attractor. Based on these observations, the structure of the strange attractor finally emerges. Such an infinite but uncountable set is equal to the it would appear that the dynamics travel everywhere within the logistic interval from 0 to 1 minus all the infinite binary trees associated with all parabola, suggesting that the widest strange attractor encompasses all periodic points and for every period, which correspond to extensions to the defining interval from 0 to 1. α = 4 of the infinitely many periodic attractors that the tree contains. As such, the strange attractor for α = 4, and similarly for other chaotic This, however, is not the case, as there are great many points in parameters α, by having infinitely many countable “holes,” is a rather the interval that ought to be excluded from the strange attractor, as disperse set that has the topological structure of dust. follows. First, the value 0 is not in the wandering attractor, for if X0 = 0, then the population remains there forever. Second, the nonzero Strikingly, all periodic behaviors, and for every period, turn out to intersection of the parabola and the straight line is not in the strange define dense subsets of the interval from 0 to 1 that end up oscillating attractor, α-1)/ α = 3/4, the population also remains there forever. But as such sets are unstable, a minute deviation from any of for if X0 = ( forever. Similarly, all the extensions to α = 4 of all unstable periodic such precise “jumps in high heat” would lead instead to wandering attractors, as defined by the many thresholds within the tree, need to be forever, that is, without repetition, in the stable infinite set that attracts excluded from wandering forever, for starting in any of those precise it all with all probability and that is also a dense subset of the interval locations leads instead to periodic oscillations forever. from 0 to 1. These observations imply that the ultimate attractor excludes the These subtleties are particularly noteworthy for the logistic map, infinitely many points corresponding to all periods. There are, however, for when α = 4, and only in such a case, there are great many countable even more points that need to be omitted. As illustrated below for an initial values X0 that altogether avoid wandering or oscillating for ever example repeating every three generations: in high heat, as such states define dynamics that eventually return to the allegorical root of thetree:

170 Omega December 2009 171 Carlos E. Puente Faith Lessons from Chaotic Fig Trees propagation of errors, due to the finite precision in our calculations, prevents us from predicting the dynamics, even if we know that it happens somewhere within the strange attractor. Chaos or no Chaos? A Sensible Question for Humans?

As one ponders the rather precise results herein regarding natural chaos, their striking simplicity and universality hint that it is sensible to employ the bifurcation notions and the symbolic logistic map to model how we, as humans, often end up in “chaos” and to study how such These are the pre-images of zero that find their way to the origin distress may be avoided in our lives. After all, depending on our “internal despite the most implacable jumping of neighboring chaotic or periodic heat,” we all experience distinct states that are accurately reflected by points. As is seen, such precise locations lead to iterations of the logical different locations within the Feigenbaum tree, as follows: either a gentle state properly maintained by the proverb of us not “crossing the line;” a map that eventually pass exactly by the middle, that is, X0 = 1/2 in the tip of the parabola, and then arrive at one to finally rest at zero. proud state that captures our fixed but not fully abandoned actions; a confused state that reflects the doubts of our multiple oscillations; or, Chaos is, no doubt, a rather jumping process. This is illustrated by surely worse, a state of great disarray, often accompanied by the studying what happens when starting quite close to the middle but not violence of thorns, where, by the excessive energies, we end up “biting 13 quite, at say X0 = 1/2 + ε: the dust:”

As, with due imagination, the logistic map may be used to represent, in the product of X and its complement (1- X ), the ever present stresses we all face and as the unforgiving nature of non- As is seen for Є = 10-5, the dynamics undershoot 1 slightly, linearities only creeps in when we choose to magnify such effects, that resulting in a succession of almost zero but positive population values is, when we select a value of α greater than 1, the Feigenbaum tree can that eventually result in extreme divergence and the seemingly random also be used to emphasize the central role that free will has either in dynamics of chaos. aiding us to create the “chaos” we experience or in helping us pursue a pathway to “wholeness,” by diminishing the inherent tensions while Here it is, once again, the butterfly effect, a reflection of the selecting a parameter α less than or equal to 1. These arguments turn unforgiving nature of non linear chaotic systems that prevent us from out to be consistent with common sense as the chaotic tree reflects our knowing their dynamics in the long run. This is one of the most important own organizational or logistic chart and as α properly captures our new notions of the theory, for when chaos rules, the unavoid able inherent dynamics of order or disorder as reflected in our “mild” or

172 Omega December 2009 173 Carlos E. Puente Faith Lessons from Chaotic Fig Trees “steep” slopes at the origin, in our essential choices of the simple or That this is the case may be seen in several passages from the complex, and in our subsequent attracting states of serenity and Scripture, as follows. peace or ultimately chaos and turbulence.14 As evidenced in Jesus’ words “whoever wishes to come after These reflections suggest that the posed question “chaos or no me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me” (Mk 8:34), 15 chaos?” is certainly a relevant one, for they hint that there is only one the key abandonment to His radical kind of love, one that excludes no way by which we all could achieve true peace, and that is to converge one (Mt 5:44), may be associated symbolically with the essence of to the origin, hence remaining in the straight roots of chaotic trees. number zero, and consequently with our convergence to the straight Certainly, climbing the Feigenbaum tree, and other trees, takes us away root of the Feigenbaum tree. Clearly, this “emptying of self” may be from the essence of the root and into states that reflect brokenness seen in Jesus’ invitation for our perfection (Mt 5:48) and in his pleas for and unrest, as it happens prominently in the chaotic states at high heat our repentance (Mt 4:17), that lead us, as the apostle Paul explains, to in which wandering forever, and always missing the point of return, an associated condition devoid of any sin (Rom 6:11-12), consistent represents a truly hellish condition. with the root. As the best solution clearly points us to virtue, humility and Jesus’ calls to our “extinction” certainly abound, and such include abandonment, that is, below the first threshold Y = X, we realize that some rather graphical ones inviting us to be at the root, such as “whoever chaos theory provides overarching ideas that lay an unexpected bridge wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my from science into other realms, as previously reported from multiplicative sake will save it” (Mk 8:35); “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a grain cascades and turbulence.7 of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat, but if it dies, it produces much fruit” (Jn 12:24); “whoever loves father The remainder of the article shall try to show that the common and mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son sense lessons drawn herein from the modern theory of chaos corroborate or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Mt 10:37); “whoever is indeed relevant faith lessons as revealed in the ancient word of the ashamed of me and of my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of Bible. At the end, such connections shall exhibit, via a consistent typology, when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy an unforeseen invitation for us to fully heed the teachings of Jesus Christ angels” (Lk 9:26) and “everyone of you who does not renounce all his based on modern science, including new consistent vistas of key passages possessions cannot be my disciple” (Lk 14:33), that help us appreciate associated with the rather symbolic fig tree. the relevance of sharing “our rabbits.” The Root of the Feigenbaum Tree Ever present in Jesus’ message are His demands for our conversion. Hence, such calls may be understood as transitions towards As hinted from the previous section, the root of the tree symbolizes the root of the tree associated with lowering our heat parameter α below those faithful ones who, by renouncing “their rabbits,” find a superior or at one, yielding a symbolic “decrease” of us so that Jesus’ love may state of harmony associated with obedience to God: increase in us, as expressed by John the Baptist (Jn 3:30), and an ultimate state of communion with Him in which we keep God’s commands, as consistently expressed throughout Scripture (e.g., Ps 119:59). “Coming down” the chaotic tree is certainly an accurate image for our repentance, as quite literally happened to Zacchaeus the little tax collector, who, after listening to the voice of Jesus, quickly came

174 Omega December 2009 175 Carlos E. Puente Faith Lessons from Chaotic Fig Trees down from a sycamore tree (curiously of the same family of the fig Certainly, the uneasy jumping forever on strange and periodic tree), and away from his own pride, to be fully reconciled with God, attractors reflects the anxious and foolish frustration we often experience him and all his family (Lk 19:1-10): in our lives, and so many times not by chance, when we, by choosing to live above the “threshold” (or more precisely some times above many thresholds), end up living in states of disarray, traveling in proverbial turbulence without finding our “root.” Although it may appear otherwise, climbing into the main branch is not any better either, for such an impetus surely takes away our peace. The Bible certainly includes several exhortations for us to move Jesus’ famous parable of the sower (Mk 4:1-20) may be used away from sin and into a condition of straightness or wholeness allegorically to illustrate what happens in the shoot of the Feigenbaum associated with the very shape of the root of the Feigenbaum tree and tree and also in the root, as follows. Following the four key categories with the inherent halo of righteousness of the children of God (Mt 18:3- coming down the tree, we may see: (a) our chaotic behavior in the 4). Such include, for instance, citations such as “in all your ways be seed that fell in the path and was eaten by the birds associated with mindful of the Lord, and He will make straight your paths” (Prv 3:6), Satan, for the Devil and his followers always miss the point while being “on the way of wisdom I direct you, I lead you on straightforward imprisoned forever in dust, (Mi 7:17, Is 29:5) a condition consistent with paths” (Prv 4:11), “let him who is wise understand these things, let him what happens in strange attractors; (b) our periodic behavior in the who is prudent know them, straight are the paths of the Lord, in them seed that fell on rocky ground and whose plant withered for lack of the just walk, but sinners stumble in them” (Hos 14:10), and, prominently roots representing lack of constancy under tribulation or persecution, from the prophets Isaiah and John the Baptist, “I am ‘the voice of one for the inherent doubts in the oscillations clearly take us away from the crying out in the desert,’ make straight the way of the Lord” (Jn 1:23, proper trust (Jas 1:6); (c) our fixed point behavior in the seed that fell Is 40:3). among thorns and giving a fruitless plant denoting us when dominated by anxiety and the lure of riches, for the main branch, by crossing the All these pleas to surrendering are consistently complemented threshold, represents a stubborn state that in its quest to go higher and by a host of Jesus’ sayings that invite us to trust in Him, such as “do not higher indeed encounters thorns and dust that ultimately disintegrate worry about your life, what you eat or drink, or about your body, what such a branch that becomes unstable as it passes X = 2/3 = 0.666... you will wear” (Mt 6:25), “do not worry about tomorrow, tomorrow will  when α = 3, and (d) our peaceful behavior in the seed that fell on rich take care of itself “ (Mt 6:34), “whoever wishes to be great among you soil and gave a plant that produced ample fruit, for, as we argued earlier, shall be your servant, whoever wishes to be first among you shall be the root is consistent with us hearing and accepting the good news: your slave” (Mt 20:26-27), that point us to humility, to zero, and hence to the attracting Origin of all goodness. The Shoot of the Feigenbaum Tree

The upper portions of the Feigenbaum tree, and also of the other chaotic trees, may be used to symbolize us when our excessive heats, and associated amplifying choices, take us away from obeying God’s The Feigenbaum tree reflects, no doubt, in its distinct destinations, commands and into states that reflect our lack of peace. the consequences of our actions. That, at the end, there are only two major categories that matter, either below or above the tree, may also 176 Omega December 2009 177 Carlos E. Puente Faith Lessons from Chaotic Fig Trees be seen vividly in God’s decree when He said to the people of Israel lick the dust like the serpent” (Mi 7:17), in the strong statement by the and to all of us, “I set before you here, this day, a blessing and a curse: Psalmist when he adds “all sinners will be destroyed, and the future of a blessing for obeying the commandments of the Lord, your God, which the wicked will be cut off” (Ps 37:38), and in God’s response to Job I enjoin on you today, a curse if you do not obey the commandments of when He asked “can you bring down the haughty with a glance, bury the Lord, your God, but turn aside from the way I ordain for you today, them in the dust together, in the hidden world imprison them?” (Jb 40:12- to follow other gods, whom you have not known” (Dt 11:26-28, Ps 13). In regards to this last passage, the subtle sensitivity to initial conditions 37:22). As a consequence, while our peaceful and fruitful behavior ever present on strange attractors indeed helps us visualize how God associated with the root of the Feigenbaum tree leads us to receive could achieve the feat of imprisoning sinners, for God may enter a blessings and life, our sinful and fruitless conducts related to the shoot multitude of them at different times and trap them inside the same dusty of the chaotic trees gives rise to curses and death (Dt 30:15-20). set, and there, all of them would be jumping forever, and without ever knowing that there are others doing just the same, as the dynamics on As chaos happens in the emptiness of dust and always missing such grim strange attractors do not repeat. the best destination, such a silly and false state (Ps 4:3) may be used to symbolize, first in a semantic way, the “strange” dynamics to which we As is seen, despite visiting infinitely many places, traveling inside are “attracted” to when we choose to cross the line and try to establish strange attractors is not fun at all. This happens because the butterfly our own ways without God (Rom 10:3). Such a restless jumping, leading effect does not provide us with good options, as it always leaves us to spiritual death if not corrected (Sir 15:17), also provides further irremediably trapped in an empty strange attractor in which there is imagery regarding the consequences of sin in God’s appointed curse only a deadly and eternal stress that always misses the point at the and punishment to sinners. For instance, strange attractors may be used origin.7 to visualize how God “disperses the arrogant of mind and heart” (Lk 1:51) and how such ultimate sets are graphically consistent with the The Identity of the Key Threshold nets that trap us due to our own pride (Ps 31:5). As already explained, the consistent calls to humility included in Incomplete strange attractors, made of infinitely many points Scripture relate goodness to the root of the Feigenbaum tree. always in motion, are by no means nice places to reside, especially Consequently, exhortations such as “everyone who exalts himself will when the underlying dynamics happen at the highest heat that reminds be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted” (Lk 14:11) us of the horrific turbulence of hell. Certainly, the very existence of and “whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant, such an infernal place reflects unabated chaos and such is the ultimate whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave” (Mt 20:26- place of punishment for the Devil. For as God Himself decreed “the 27) point us to choose α 1, so that our underlying dynamics happen serpent’s food shall be dust” (Gn 3:14, Is 65:25) and such a dreadful below the key threshold Y = X: state is reiterated in a future vision that affirms “the Devil who had led them astray was thrown into the pool of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were; there they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Rv 20:10). As expressed in Scripture, these categorical pronouncements regarding the symbol of dust and its related hell also apply to the those following the Devil, that is, the wicked. This is seen, for instance, in the words of the prophet Micah when he assures us that the wicked “shall

178 Omega December 2009 179 Carlos E. Puente Faith Lessons from Chaotic Fig Trees As our little and obedient parabola has a mild slope at the origin, life and will not come to condemnation, but has passed from death to the one to one line quite graphically shelters us from the “wind” of evil life” (Jn 5:24), can only be fullfiled at the Origin, and because His (Is 32:2) in the chain of bifurcations and beyond above the tree, and the defining motto “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so threshold becomes a literal “refuge and fortress” (Ps 91:2) that allows that everyone who believes in him might not perish but have eternal us to converge to the origin. As the formula of the line portrays, also life” (Jn 3:16, Jn 8:24, Jn 11:25-26), further explains the protecting quite geometrically, the defining equality between the crucified silhouette, geometry of the “shelter of the Most High” and “shadow of the Y, and the cross, X, we may see that the threshold symbolizes Jesus Almighty” (Ps 91:1), who shed His precious blood for us (Lk 22:20) Christ Himself, who, consistently said “I am the way the truth and the while stretching His arms to end up fulfilling the simplest, and yet hardest, life, no one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn 14:6), that may of equations Y = X (Jn 19:18). be clearly appreciated if X = 0 represents God the Father, the Origin, with capital O, of course.7 A Cursed Fig Tree That Y = X is the proper separatrix, the anointed one (Is 45:1), Few days before his crucifixion, Jesus performed an unusual the Messiah (Jn 1:41) and the only divine son of God (Jn 1:18), is seen miracle and surprisingly cursed a living fig tree, a living feigenbaum. in the fact that “the Father has given all judgment to His Son” (Jn 5:22), According to St. Matthew, “when He was going back to the city in the and also in a variety of assertions by Jesus himself that include: “I am morning, He was hungry; seeing a fig tree by the road, He went over the gate for the sheep” (Jn 10:7), “I am the good shepherd” (Jn 10,11), to it, but found nothing on it except leaves; and he said to it, ‘may no “do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell fruit ever come from you again,’ and immediately the fig tree withered; you, but rather division” (Lk 12:51), and notably “enter through the when the disciples saw this, they were amazed and said, ‘how was it narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to that the fig tree withered immediately?’ Jesus said to them in reply, destruction, and those who enter through it are many” (Mt 7:13-14) that ‘Amen, I say to you, if you have faith and do not waver, not only will hints at the chaos above. As the origin is not reachable, with all probability, you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this from the shoot of any chaotic tree, all these citations clearly point us, mountain, ‘be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will be done, whatever consistently and geometrically, to a little parabola and under the protection you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive” (Mt 21:18-22). of the threshold. In the less spectacular account according to St. Mark, the event These notions, unexpectedly linking geometry and Scripture, are is recorded in two stages that sandwich Jesus’ overturning of the tables however compatible with other passages that explain how Jesus, the on the temple area in Jerusalem (Mk 11:15-19).Such a version says, one who spoke in parabolas,16 shall change the prevailing and apparent “the next day as they were leaving Bethany He was hungry; seeing order of matters. For, as He said, “many who are first will be last, and from a distance a fig tree in leaf, He went over to see if He could find the last will be first” (Mt 19:30) as the humble sheep below shall be anything on it; when He reached it He found nothing but leaves; it was separated from the arrogant goats above during the judgment of nations not the time for figs; and he said to it in reply, ‘may no one ever eat of (Mt 25:31-46). your fruit again!,’ and his disciples heard it” (Mk 11:12-14). And, “when evening came, they went out of the city; early in the morning, as they As implied by these observations, the very logistic of salvation were walking along, they saw the fig tree withered to its roots, Peter and hence the very reason for rejoicing while understanding the good remembered and said to him, ‘Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed news (Prv 2:1-2, 5-11, Mt 13:23) is intimately related to us being below has withered,’ Jesus said to them in reply, ‘have faith in God, Amen, I the one to one line. For, Jesus’ words “Amen, amen, I say to you, say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into whoever hears my word and believes in the one who sent me has eternal

180 Omega December 2009 181 Carlos E. Puente Faith Lessons from Chaotic Fig Trees the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says As expressed before via the parable of the sower, God’s desire will happen, it shall be done for him; therefore I tell you, all that you ask for us to bear good fruit (Jn 15:8) is satisfied symbolically in the root of for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours” (Mk the Feigenbaum tree (Jn 15:8) and not above. That this is the case may 11:20-24). also be seen directly from Jesus’ own words when He said that “people do not pick figs from thornbushes” (Lk 6:44), as the structure of the Although the two accounts share the main cursing of the fig tree shoot of Feigenbaum tree contains plenty of them by the end of its followed by exhortations to faith, they differ in two significant ways, as infinitely many “white bands.” As John the Baptist’s proclaims “even follows. First, the version in St. Mark does not include the assertion that now the axe lies at the root of the trees, therefore every tree that does the disciples could also curse and subsequently wither the fig tree. Second, not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire” (Mt 3:10), the story in St. Matthew does not include the perplexing and simple these reflections enhance God’s invitation for all of us to always “produce explanation that the fig tree had no fruit because it was not the time for good fruit as evidence of our repentance” (Mt 3:8), a godly sorrow at all figs, as the tree was not in season. seasons, a “sweet fig of joy” (Song 2:13) that, as we have seen, may Did Jesus metaphorically cursed the unbelief of the people of only be attained via Jesus in the ever precious root. Israel at His time? Certainly, such an interpretation is consistent with A Modern Prophetic Fig Tree? His overturning of the tables and the rejection He experienced during the crucifixion.17,18 But in the spirit of the symbols of modern science The fine symbolic structure of the Feigenbaum tree explained herein and with due humility given the passage of twenty centuries, we herein and the Biblical symbolism of the fig tree may be used, with due may argue a more encompassing curse of all our prideful roads to humility, to study the history of God’s people and the delicate topic chaos, already and consistently cursed (Dt 30:15-20), that take us away pertaining to the end of the age and the return of Jesus Christ. from the root of God and into sin, pathways that if unchecked lead us indeed into chaos and death (Rom 8:13). For, after all, the modern The story starts, of course, with Adam and Eve, and their fall Feigenbaum tree, like the ancient and metaphoric one, has an accursed from obedience and nakedness (Gn 2:25) into sin and “coverage” with, shoot that does not produce any visible fruit in any season and hence it precisely, fig leaves (Gn 3:7). As the serpent, forever eating dust (Gn is rightfully withered to its root, but the root remains. 3:14), lied to the woman, a figurative “cascade of bifurcations” quickly happened, and this led to death, for God decreed “for you are dirt, and Scripture is certainly consistent on matters of disobedience, for to dirt you shall return” (Gn 3:19) as He banished man from the Garden those who turn their hearts away from the Lord are, once again, cursed of Eden (Gn 3:23). The story reached a crescendo when God established (Jer 17:5) and they justly receive the same rebuking Jesus gave to the a covenant with His people, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and wind, leading to the same astonishment on the disciples after a great Jacob (Israel), through the circumcision of every male, and later via the miracle (Mk 4:39-41), as it happened also with the withered fig tree. following of God’s law as given, in particular, to Moses. Scripture relates For the Devil is the ruler of the power of the air (Eph 2:2), the master the struggles of the Israelites in keeping the law, and tells us of their of turbulence and division,7 the one who pulls us up the chaotic fig tree times of peace and their times of distress. to start a chain of bifurcations precisely by 2/3 = 0.666 . . ., and in such terms, even if unexpected coming from modern science, we may Throughout the story, the fig tree and the vine appear as consistent understand why we, as Jesus’ disciples, may also utter such a curse symbols describing what would happen to the people of Israel. For ourselves against the shoot of the symbolic tree, as a manifestation of instance, under the ruling of King Solomon, “Judah and Israel lived in the powers that Jesus gives us to wage battle against evil (Mk 16:17- security, every man under his vine or under his fig tree” (1 Kgs 5:5); 18). but, in punishment, God “will lay waste their vines and fig trees” (Hos 182 Omega December 2009 183 Carlos E. Puente Faith Lessons from Chaotic Fig Trees 2:14, Jl 1:7,12). The fig tree also represents perseverance and hope, as all these things, know that he is near, at the gates; Amen, I say to you, a fig poultice administered by the prophet Isaiah healed a repentant this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place; King Hezekiah of Judah (Is 38:21). heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away” (Mt 24:32-35, Mk 13:28-31), according to St. Luke, “He taught them a lesson; As seen before in the distinct stages in Jesus’ famous parable of ‘consider the fig tree and all the other trees; when their buds burst the sower (Mk 4:1-20), the particular state of grace of an Israelite (and open, you see for yourselves and know that summer is now near; in the intrinsically of any human being) may be traced at the alternative stages same way, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of the Feigenbaum tree, for a fall in grace implies traveling a “road to of God is near; Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away chaos.” Invariably, the reasons for people’s distress are found in until all these things have taken place; heaven and earth will pass away, disobedience, for example, “why is the land ravaged, scorched like a but my words will not pass away’” (Lk 21:29-33). wasteland untraversed? Because they have abandoned my law, but follow rather the hardness of their hearts” (Jer 9:11-13) or “my people As the recently discovered Feigenbaum tree does have a rather go into exile because they do not understand” (Is 5:13). This rebellious thin and hence rather “tender branch” that loses its stability as it passes behavior, happening despite awesome displays of power by God, for precisely by X = 2/3 = 0.666 . . ., once again a symbolic repetition of a instance, the manna He sent them from heaven (Ps 78:27-32), points negative spiral forever and denoting the Devil’s perennial sin and the Jewish people at that time away from the symbolic root of the deception (1 Jn 3:8, Rv 13:18),7 and as such a symbolic tree filled with Feigenbaum tree, as the Psalmist explains about them, “their hearts thorns also quite literally “sprout leaves” of dust reflecting death, one were not constant toward him”, as “they were not faithful to God’s wonders if Jesus’ words are being surprisingly fulfilled in our times via covenant” (Ps 78:37). these scientiflc discoveries: These observations are particularly consistent with Israel’s stubbornness, “the first fruits of God’s harvest” (Jer 2:3), at the time when the story reached its plenitude with the coming of Christ. For “although he had performed so many signs in their presence they did not believe in him” (Jn 12:37), for “they stumbled over the stone that causes stumbling” (Rom 9:31-32), that is, for they chose to cross the line over Y = X. Scripture explains that this happened because “they did not acknowledge it openly in order not to be expelled from the synagogue, For we may see rather clearly for ourselves this fig tree and also for they preferred human praise to the glory of God” (Jn 12:42-43). For many other trees with their “buds burst open” into dust, rotten trees although they had a zeal for God they could not discern and hence that capture universally our ways to disorder when we choose to disobey submit to the righteousness of God in Christ (Rom 10:2-4). and go beyond our prescribed means: These arguments regarding the “obstinate branch” (in singular) having a broken faith (Ez 15:1-8) become quite relevant when considering Jesus’ eschatological discourse and, in particular, the very precise wording of Jesus’ parable of the fig tree, as recorded in the synoptic Gospels. While according to St. Matthew and St. Mark, Jesus said, “learn a lesson from the fig tree; when its branch becomes tender and sprouts leaves, you know that summer is near; in the same way when you see 184 Omega December 2009 185 Carlos E. Puente Faith Lessons from Chaotic Fig Trees Is this just a coincidence? Is this just an unwarranted association Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will between modern science and Holy Scripture? Certainly, the overall mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming down upon the clouds message of this work is one of love, ultimate love associated with the of heaven with power and great glory; and He will send out His angels root, and in the very same spirit we may interpret the very advent of the with a trumpet blast, and they will gather His elect from the four winds, chaotic tree as a consistent act of God’s mercy, an always fitting call to from one end of the heavens to the other” (Mt 24:30-31). repentance, even if it originates in the unlikely confines of chaos theory. These “God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved” (Col 3:12) may For without lessening the fact that within the parable’s context indeed be visualized, once again, in the root of the Feigenbaum tree: “these things” may naturally include other chaotic events in the eschatological discourse, such as persecution of believers (Lk 21:12- 19), a time of great tribulation (Mt 24:15-28), and powerful signs in the sky (Mt 24:29-30), the “geometric” connections herein yield an unexpected but relevant call to conversion towards the Origin, not only for the people of Israel, but for all of us. Clearly, an exact date for Jesus’ return may not be drawn, for Jesus Himself said “but of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Mt 24:36, Acts where the ultimate union between one flock and one shepherd 1:6-7). However, these reflections, in consonance with the predicted (Jn 10:16) yields the geometric equation of unity 1 = 0.999… that modern advent of the nation of Israel (Ez 36:1-37), provide indeed symbolizes love in the positive spirals.7 relevant reminders as they reaffirm that we ought to be watchful (Mk But, there are some elect, not yet in the root, that travel towards 13:32-37), for in the days of God’s chastisement the stars in the sky shall fall to the earth like unripe figs shaken loose from the tree in a the origin in the highest heat when α = 4, following the precise dynamics strong wind” (Rv 6:13). of the pre-images of zero: The message drawn here is consistent and is one of fruitfulness in the root, for as Jesus said, once again referring to the symbolic tree, “there once was a person who had a fig tree planted in his orchard, and when he came in search of fruit on it but found none, he said to the gardener, ‘for three years now I have come in search of fruit on this fig tree but have found none, so cut it down, why should it exhaust the soil?’ he said to him in reply, ‘sir, leave it for this year also, and I shall cultivate around it and fertilize it; it may bear fruit in the future, if not and these correspond, in consonance with the teachings of the Catholic you can cut it down’” (Lk 13:6-9). Church, to the holy souls in Purgatory that eventually arrive, aided by The Improbable Elect and the Church our prayers, to the heavenly destination with God.19

Right before the parable of the fig tree, the Gospel according to The diagram above is quite remarkable as it allows us to visualize St. Matthew records Jesus’ prophetic words, “and then the sign of the yet more citations regarding our salvation. Curiously, if the diagram is

186 Omega December 2009 187 Carlos E. Puente Faith Lessons from Chaotic Fig Trees rotated twice, once from left to right and once from bottom to top, it enter the kingdom of God (Mk 10:25). It is much easier indeed to wander portrays, quite consistently and admirably, the symbol of the square forever in high heat than to enter exactly through the middle point, root, which helps us appreciate the final destination and the true freedom which, borrowing from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, is a veritable Ω point, enjoyed by the elect. For as Jesus, “the root and o spring of David” (Rv a key point of conscious love and mercy, “the Lord’s own gate, where 22:16), explains, “whoever enters through me will be saved, and will the victors enter” (Ps 118:20). come in and go out and find pasture” (Jn 10:9), as the elect find the root even if subject to the purification of heat. These precise reflections further emphasize God’s incredible gift to us through Jesus Christ, and lead us to the humility and ample joy As the fullness of chaos contains great many (but countable) that are found in the root. For as Scripture teaches, once all is unstable paths that, when precisely followed, lead to the desired state consummated, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave of surrendering, and as these roads are extraordinarily intertwined nor free person, there is no male and female, for you are all one in with periodic scenarios for any period and also with the most probable Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28) and hence the only remaining set shall be the chaotic regime, one may vividly see why “many are invited but few are upright root of the Feigenbaum tree, the holy and united Church, the chosen” (Mt 22:14), why Jesus consistently distinguished between the bride of Jesus (Rv 19:7). faithful wheat and the superfluous weeds (Mt 13:24-30), or between the humble sheep and the arrogant goats (Mt 25:31-46), and why we That Israel shall heed to God in due time (Rom 11:25-29) is also must not judge (Mt 7:1-2), for all diagrams leading to distinct destinations beautifully seen in connection with the fig tree. This stems from the look just the same few generations to the past. mysterious and joyful encounter of Jesus with the disciple to be Nathanael, whom Jesus describes as a true Israelite, after seeing him under the With due imagination, in the protected diagram we may vividly fig tree (Jn 1:47-51). The implication, based on the symbolic notions imagine Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah “walking in the fire” and without herein, is that the root of the Feigenbaum tree is precisely where true consequences, when King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon threw them into Israelites belong, even if they doubt, as it happened to the disciple before a fiery furnace (Dn 3:1-92), and also Daniel himself when he came out he emotionally acknowledged the truth (Jn 1:49). After all, there are a unhurt from the lion’s den where he was sent after refusing to stop host of pathways that end up in the origin and the ones that reach the praying to God, as decreed by King Darius (Dn 6:2-24). In the same mid-point from above and from below may be used to denote the ultimate diagram we may also visualize yet another relevant citation pertaining salvation of the chosen Jews and Gentiles. to God’s faithful protection for his elect, for as the Psalmist says, “though a thousand fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, near you it Inside the root there is certainly plenty, for when saintly “zeroes” shall not come” (Ps 91:7). agree, the miraculous power of infinity rules (Mt 18:19-20), and such could be seen, once again with the aid of geometry, via the lovely equation The unequivocal dynamics towards zero certainly allows us to 0 + 0 =  that reflects that nothing is impossible to God. cherish more fully the mystery of our salvation, for in the ensuing diagram we may indeed appreciate “how constricted is the road that Summary and a Poetic Tribute to the Threshold leads to life” (Mt 7:14), “how hard is to enter the kingdom of God!” (Mk 10:24) and how narrow is the gate at α = 4, for in such a case it is just It has been shown how in the confines of science majestically stands a tree that includes all numerals in a dance that allows us to see a single point X0 = 1/2, that turns out; however, to satisfy Jesus’ famous saying that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle how chaos emerges. Such a fig tree contains foliage of disorder trapped (something probable if a needle is big enough) than for a rich one to in symbolic dust and chaos is expressed in jumps astir forever due to a rather subtle thrust that pushes us above the key threshold. Once the

188 Omega December 2009 189 Carlos E. Puente Faith Lessons from Chaotic Fig Trees crossing of the outset happens, the faithful root repels and that yields a 2. Carlos E. Puente lectures at the Department of Land, Air and Water tender offset or branch that fails to produce any fruit. The process Resources, University of California, Davis. defines a cascade of bifurcations that increases heat within and such an 3. Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary (Merrian-Webster Inc., 1991), p. 1564. escalation produces an inescapable succession of branches that are 4. P. Berg´, Y. Pomeau and C. Vidal, Order within Chaos (John Wiley: bent by the wind of evil and division. At the end, there is a sprouting of Interscience, 1987), p. 380. dynamics attracted to the craziness in strange attractors, a condition 5. F. C. Moon, Chaotic Vibrations (John Wiley & Sons, 1987), p. 309. that turns out to remind us that it is at the origin, at the root, where the 6. J. L. McCauley, Chaos, Dynamics and Fractals (Cambridge University flame of God resides. Press, 1993), p. 323. It has been explained how in the midst of chaos, when such a 7. C. E. Puente, “On the nature of equilibrium,” in Omega, 6.2 (2007), pp. 85- condition happens at its maximum heat, there is a escape from the hellish 105. situation of wandering forever without finding the proper destination, 8. H-O. Peitgen, H. Jürgens and D. Saupe, Chaos and Fractals (Springer- for up there there is small gate, a point, that leads to fine rest and loyal Verlag, 1992), p. 984. pathways that, by averting a fright, end up inviting us to an everlasting 9. B. B. Mandelbrot, The Fractal Geometry of Nature (Freeman, 1982), p. 468. dance. There are faithful routes leading to the root that are consistent 10. J. Feder, Fractals (Plenum Press, 1988), p. 283. with the symbols of a sought needle’s eye and wheat exquisitely 11. M. J. Feigenbaum, “Quantitative universality for a class of nonlinear surrounded by weeds. transformations,”in Journal of Statistical Physics, 19 (1978), pp. 25-52. At the end, this work exhibits an improbable rhyme between 12. J. Maurer and A. Libchaber, “Rayleigh-B´nard experiment in liquid helium modern science and Holy Scripture, one that, by reminding us of a rotten frequency locking and the onset of turbulence,” in Journal de Physique tree that foretells the very advent of time, invite us to grow small. Letters 40 (1979), pp. 419-423. Realizing the consistent typology herein in the invitation of Jesus to love 13. The figurines herein were made by Fernando Duarte, http:// (Jn 13:34-35), and heeding the converging fact that “he who tends a fig www.duarteid.com/. tree shall eat its fruit” (Prv 27:18), this work ends exalting the precious 14. C. E. Puente, “More lessons from complexity. The origin: the root of peace,” threshold Y = X who shall return in glory and in due time: in E:CO, Emergence, Complexity and Organization, 8.3 (2006), pp. 115- 122. 15. All Biblical quotations come from New American Bible, Saint Joseph Notes and References Edition (CatholicBook Publishing Co., 1992). 1. This work is warmly dedicated to Fathers Andrew Coffey, Richard Blinn, 16. The words parable and parabola are the same in Greek and in other Daniel Looney, Loreto Rojas, John Kakinda, Jos´ Aguilar, William Weigand, languages. Edwino Silvera, Camilo Bernal, Diego Jaramillo, Antonio Jos´ Sarmiento, Hernando Silva, Roberto Jaramillo, Sergio Bernal, Jorge Mario Posada, 17. W. R. Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree (She eld, 1980), p. Fernando Cuenca, Daniel Ferreira, Melchor S´nchez de Toca y Alameda, 319. Rafael Pascual, Pedro Barraj´n, Lucio Florio, Rafael Martinez, Javier L´opez, 18. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days (Hendrickson Publishers, Alfonso Miranda, Luis Alfonso Ru´z, Claudio Pe˜a, William Aparicio, 1993), p. 491. Augustine Pamplany, Stuart Swetland, Peter Sanders, James Tarantino, John 19. Catechism of the Catholic Church: Second Edition (Doubleday Religion, Cam poli, John Hampsch, George Coyne, Andrew Whitman, William Stoeger, 2003), p. 825. and former Catholic Priest Alberto Cuti´, for their friendship and loving support.

190 Omega December 2009 191 OMEGA INDIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Printer and Publisher Dr. Augustine Pamplany Institute of Science and Religion Little Flower Seminary, Aluva - 683 101 Ernakulam District, Kerala.

Editor Dr. Job Kozhamthadam De Nobili College, Ramwadi, Pune - 411 014

Printed at Ayodhya Printing Press Kaloor, Ernakulam, Kerala.

Place of Publicaiton Institute of Science and Religion Little Flower Seminary, Aluva-683 101 Ernakulam District, Kerala.

Owner Dr. Augustine Pamplany Director, Institute of Science and Religion Little Flower Seminary, Aluva - 683 101 Ernakulam District, Kerala.