Commentary on Capable of God

A Commentary on
“Capable of God: Evolution and New Creation”
Sarah Lancaster
Theology and Science Vol. 3, No. 2, 2005

In this paper Sarah Lancaster, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Methodist Theological School, explores the challenge that evolution presents for the traditional Christian pattern of creation, fall and restoration and, in particular, how John Wesley’s theology might be interpreted in light of this challenge. (“…if there was no original, pristine creation, then talk about regaining something that was once lost to us becomes enormously problematic.") The paper raised for me questions regarding the nature of evolution and how it integrates with the spiritual worldview which I will attempt to explore in this commentary.
One of the issues raised is that of direction in evolution. It is much easier to see a divine hand if there is direction. Natural selection is described by many as “blind” and “unconscious”. “Evolution is not moving toward a better and higher level of life.” S. Conway Morris (professor of earth sciences at Cambridge University), however, sees a directionality. He concludes that, once life has started, intelligent life is virtually inevitable. Although, as Ian Barbour points out, “It is … rather speculative to estimate probabilities when we have a sample of only one evolutionary history on one planet”, it seems to me that we can see a broad directionality in evolution. We and our environment can be seen at once as jointly the product of evolutionary history, divine purpose and our own activity. It is, however, possible that the Africans are right and the world will be taken over by the ants.
As Darwin’s theory has been expanded to postulate explanations for human nature other questions arise. “Evolutionary psychologists propose that the capacity for all sorts of human behavior, including gratitude, guilt, manipulation and morality, have been selected in nature because they enhance fitness.” It seems to me that evolutionary explanations for human nature encounter their own theodicy problem. (dogma does not square with reality) An example of this is altruistic love as expressed in the commandment “love your neighbor as yourself” or perhaps better expressed as “honor your neighbor as yourself”. As Michael Shermer a prominent spokesperson for the atheistic, scientific worldview says, if you are altruistic, “you are a fool”. If the evolution of human nature is explained by fitness to reproduce the “selfish gene”, it is hard to see why altruism has not evolved out of human nature. Is the “Jesus ethic” so counter to reality that it will eventually disappear completely? The question of direction in evolution once again raises its ugly head here. For those that say that there is no direction, but only randomness and chance, the idea that evolution proceeds to reproduce the “selfish gene” once again introduces direction and purpose to the discussion. If we say that evolution is the “supreme being” moving creation in a defined direction to an ultimate purpose, this begins to sound more like theology and philosophy than science. We have an all powerful divinity; it is just evolution and not the God of Abraham.
As we examine human nature and ask the question, how are we different from other creatures, we are led to explore not only how we are different, but where this difference comes from. “Other creatures have some measure of pleasure or pain, and of happiness or misery…The difference between humans and other animate creatures lies in what we are able to understand, will and choose, that is, that we are capable of knowing, loving and obeying God.” Similarly, we may use our understanding, will and ability to choose to opt to do something other than what God would desire for us. The question is, therefore, how do we choose how to act? Do we choose based on a universal moral law or an innate sense of what is right or wrong or, as Freud believed, based on what works in society? Do we choose based on what society decides is legal or do we listen to conscience or the God within? For me we choose based what on the God within, the self or soul is telling us. We can choose to ignore this voice within as Adam, as a prototype for humanity did in the Genesis story, but we know we are making this choice. This God within or soul is what makes us different from other animate creatures.
We exist in a created world that shapes and changes us just as we shape and change the world around us. In this process we have the capability for good as well as for evil. We can be part of this evolutionary process in relationship with the divine or not as we choose. As Buddhist thought would tell us, our actions have consequences for ourselves, for others and for the world. For us to say that we completely understand how this evolutionary process occurs is to exhibit a good deal human hubris.

Evolution and Continuing Creation

Nothing challenges my faith more than knowing that evolution took so many twists and turns that appear to be chance occurrences So I do what Father Brian recommends and “just let it go.” My faith in Christ remains as strong as ever. I’ll have to live through the mystery of the God/Universe thing.

The refs for my talk are
1) Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Don Brownlee. Ward is a geologist and paleontologist and Don is an astronomer, both at the U of Washington.
2) Wonderful Life – The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History by Stephen J Gould
3) The Book of Life by Gould – all you need to know about the science (NOT theory) of evolution.
4) The Sacred Depths of Nature by Ursula Goodenough.

Points of the talk:
We all begin as star dust. All of the elements needed to make us and the planets were made from supernovae – large stars that cook these elements before they explode and spew them out into space to later organize as stars and solar systems.

Darwin was right about natural selection but wrong in viewing evolution as a very slow and steady ‘connect the dots’ process, always with a ‘tendency’ toward more complex forms. There is NO tendency for everything to become more complex and end up with Homo sapiens as a sort of crowning species.

We are the result of many ‘contingencies’ or forces and changes of the Earth’s environment that made natural selection produce another form adapted to the new conditions. Had some things like a K-T comet extinction not occur, or the Moon not formed from a chance collision with a Mars-sized object, or had the Earth not located exactly as far from the Sun that it is (habitable zone) etc,, we likely would not be here at all.

Gould uses the term “punctuated equilibrium” to emphasize that evolution consists of long periods of time where life is happy to stay the same, punctuated by a major event like a climate change (glaciation or too much CO2 … ahem!), a drying up of inland seas, or comet/asteroid impacts that force existing life to ‘evolve or die.’ Examples were presented.

The going theory is that life began with the RNA molecule. The sugars and base pairs (nucleotides) needed to make RNA and DNA exist in space dust and likely arrived in the rocks that made the Earth. Some meterorites have shown the presence of sugars and amino acids – the building blocks of proteins. Or RNA evolved by the chance self organization of organic molecules deep in the ocean vents before oxygen appeared on the Earth.


Another theory is that bacteria came encased in those rocks, presenting a ready-made source of DNA (Panspermia). Others think life began in the hot deep ocean vents with the Archaea, the chemosynthetic extremophiles that make energy from chemicals only and not from sunlight and oxygen.

I showed how proteins are made by DNA and RNA, a wonder of wonders. No one yet has made an RNA molecule in the lab.

We went on to some basic biology showing the 3 domains of life: Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya. The first two are prokaryotes (having no nucleus) and the Eukarya have nuclei (you and I are Eukaryotes.)

We discussed continental drift (plate tectonics) throughout time showing how Pangea & Gonwanda were huge supercontinents that allowed animals to evolve and migrate wide distances before the continents split up into current geography. Continental drift also caused climate changes. The plates continue to subduct and cause earthquakes and Tsunamis i.e. Banda Ache and Sri Lanka. Is Yellowstone next?

I mentioned the Snowball Earth theory, the very latest theory for the Precambrian period – the time before the Cambrian explosion of life 550 my ago. Some very smart paleontologists think there were two periods of massive glaciations covering almost all the Earth’s oceans and most of the small amounts of land at the time during the Precambrian era (2.5 by ago to 550 my ago). It’s still speculative, but stay tuned.

We covered mass extinctions, esp. the Cretaceous – Tertiary or K-T Extinction 65 my ago that killed the dinosaurs and allowed small mammals to evolve. The ‘K’ in K-T comes from the German “Kreide” = chalk = the type of deposits the Cambrian fossils appear in. The word Cambrian is from Cambria, Wales, where Cambrian fossils appear.

The biggest extinction was the Permian of 250 my ago. It killed 95% of all marine animals. Cause is still unknown.

The Cambrian explosion of sea life found in the Burgess Shale 520 my ago produced animals from all the known phyla today plus a bunch more. Included was a small chordate – perhaps the ancestor of all vertebrates that followed. Many of the Cambrian animals went extinct for causes unknown; perhaps a period of major climate change occurred.

We skipped a few hundred million years and moved on to hominid evolution in Africa. Homo sapien’s DNA is only 1.2% different from a chimpanzee’s. We looked at the latest human lines – one hominid skull recently found in Chad from 7 my ago topping “Lucy” an australopithecine who dated at 3 my ago.

A comparison of mitochondrial DNA samples from Neanderthals and humans shows that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals did not interbreed. It’s now clear that many Neanderthals went on to serve in the US Congress. Here is how we humans are classified:

Domain Eukaryota
Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Chordata
Sub phylum Vertebrata
Class Mammalia (hair, milk)
Order Primate
Family Hominidae
Genus Homo
Species sapiens (“wise” but I have my doubts)

I view life as a great gift from God, and I am grateful I can be a part of it and share it with my loved ones at this wonderful time in evolutionary history. I’ll never understand it all, but I love trying to.

I closed with a quote from Ursula’s book. There was good discussion along the way and all seemed to have a good time. Steve Pauley MD

March 20 Science and Religion discussion

The Science and Religion Group met on March 20 to discuss the implications of quantum physics. We went through a presentation on the origins and basic concepts of quantum physics. Quantum physics arose out an effort to explain phenomena such as the photoelectric effect which were not adequately explained by classical physics. There developed from this the explanation of light as having both a wave and particle nature. Experiments exploring this dual nature demonstrated the role of the observer in determining the state of a system. When we don’t try to detect it light looks like a wave. Enter the observer and the wave nature collapses. Some have said that the determinism resulting from the collapse of the wave function demonstrates the presence of God. The same phenomena appear with a stream of sub-atomic particles.
In 1927 Heisenburg proposed his Uncertainty Principal i.e. It is impossible to measure simultaneously and with arbitrary precision both a particle’s position and velocity. The consensus interpretation of this principle is that what we conventionally think of as particles of matter are actually fuzzy statistical clouds governed by the laws of chance. The classical deterministic clockwork universe governed by laws of nature does not exist. Dissenters from this view, including Einstein, have proposed other explanations which attempt to account for a role for a divine hand. (“God does not play dice with the universe” – Einstein)
Quantum superposition or indeterminacy is an inherent result of the wave – particle duality. The state of a subatomic particle is undetermined until the observer looks. The observer and the observed are inextricably intertwined. This indeterminate state has been demonstrated experimentally. Experiments have succeeded in creating an atom that is in two places at once. Schrődinger’s cat thought experiment shows that these weird concepts from the subatomic world can have meaning in our macro world.
In Ian Barbour’s construct for thinking about these issues
· Conflict
o God’s hand in designing a deterministic universe
o The presence of chance at the quantum level
o More likely to occur in observational science such as astronomy and evolutionary biology than in experimental science such physics or chemistry.
· Independence
o The lessons of quantum theory demonstrate the limits of human knowledge
o Science is asking what, where and how whereas religion is asking why.
· Dialogue
o Quantum physics offers parallels to religious ideas-the role of the observer in affecting the outcome, holism
· Integration
o A closer relationship as exemplified by eastern religions such as Buddhism and quantum indeterminacy.

Other questions raised by these concepts are
1. What role does human consciousness play in observation?
2. What is the nature of reality? Is there a reality beyond our understanding?
3. What does it mean to be alive or dead?
We will meet again on April 5th to view and discuss the film “What the ‘Bleep’ Do We Know?”.

March 6 Science & Religion Discussion

On March. 6 I talked about chapter 2 in our book re astronomy and what the current thinking is on how astronomers & cosmologists view the universe and the Big Bang. Included was a PowerPoint talk.

Before the Ppt talk, I reviewed parts of Ch. 2 that spoke to me - how science is a great tool for us to figure it all out, what a gift from God that life is for all of us, and how we'll never be able to explain things like awe, wonder, and love - God's gifts to us.

Fact: the universe began 13.7 by ago in a Big Bang, There was with a sudden "inflation" or huge expansion of the universe caused by dark energy,the four forces emerged (strong force, weak force, and gravity).

Quarks united to form the first simple atomic nuclei (hydrogen, helium, lithium). Later the universe cooled enough for electrons to unite with the nuclei to form atoms.
Neutral hydrogen atoms (one proton and one electron)would not unite to form the first stars until 100 my later. Those stars would form galaxies 1 by later.

The first generation of stars were H and He only. The largest of those had to explode, and in that process protons and neutrons were so compressed that heavier elements formed. The supernova explosions spewed out those elements to form 2nd then 3rd gernation stars with planets like our own.

The make up of the universe is 73% dark energy, 23% dark matter, and 4% visible-tangible, the stuff out there we see.

The universe is flat and is expanding and will continue to expand under the force of dark energy which no one can explain.
Dark matter, again unexplained, surrounds galaxies and keeps rotating stars from flying off into space.

Speculation: since quantum mechanics and gen. relativity do not work at the time of the Big Bang, cosmologists have invented "string theory" which says that all fundamental partilces are really tiny strings that vibrate. The frequency of vibration determines what the particle is.

There are 5 string theories and one attempt to unify them - called M or "Matrix" theory but few really understand it. The search continues for a simple explanation of the universe called the Theory of Everything (TOE) or Grand Unification Theory (GUT).

They also postulate that our universe has 11 dimensions - the 3 we experience daily, 7 that are curled up and invisible, and time.

There is no way to prove strings, it would take an atom smasher the size of our solar system. But the big accelerator being built in Cern (French-Swiss border) may be able to smash particles and anti particles with enough energy to create the conditions right after the Big Bang - an instant in time called "super symmetry" a time before the 4 forces separated.

Cosmologists also postulate that there are multiverses that are flat like membranes or "branes" that periodically collide to create new Big Bangs.

Not all universes will end up exactly like ours which depends on the exact properties we see with fundamental partilces.

It is all so mind boggling that we realize we will all die surrounded by the wonder of God's works. The fun part is having God's gift of curiosity and trying to figure it all out.

Next subject 3/20- quantum physics by Don Liebich. (we are a bold group, no?)
Steve Pauley

February 6 Meeting

In our February 6^th meeting, we began our journey through the topics offered by Ian Barbour in his book “When Science Meets Religion”. This book was produced in response to a request to produce a more readable and user friendly version of his seminal work “Religion and Science”. Most of us agreed that if this volume was more accessible, then we were very glad we were not using the original work. A dictionary was an essential tool in reading the first chapter. Barbour presents four types of relationships between science and religion: conflict, independence, dialogue and integration.

Conflict: The relationship most dwelled upon by the media. This relationship most often manifests itself when secular materialists and biblical literalists interact; particularly with respect to creation and evolution. Many with a secular materialist world view have set themselves up as the high priests of this “religion”. Barbour points out that: “Scientists and are no wiser than anyone else when they step out of the laboratory”. On the other hand, it is hard to understand the point of view of biblical literalists, particularly in light of the advances in knowledge. It is disconcerting that those with this view are very well organized and have attempted to suppress in educational institutions the type of inquiring dialogue that is taking place in our group. Science is always embracing change and new understandings; religion needs to do the same. (See Bishop John Spong’s “Why Christianity Must Change or Die” and Marcus Borg’s “Reading the Bible Again for the First Time”)

Independence (Parallel tracks): There is no conflict here because science and religion are asking different questions; science asks what, when and how and religion asks why and what does it mean. Some of us were on true parallel tracks and others on separate tracks that tended to intersect either now or will some time in the future. Independence avoids conflict, but we miss the opportunity for constructive interaction and mutual enrichment.

Dialogue: “Dialogue emphasizes similarities in presuppositions, methods and concepts…”. Barbour points out that some say that:

“The data of science are unaffected by individual preferences or cultural influences. By contrast, religion seems to be highly subjective and strongly influenced by individual and cultural assumptions. Science is said to require detached observation and logical reasoning, whereas religion requires personnel involvement in a particular tradition and set of practices.

But many historians, philosophers of science and theologians have called into question this sharp contrast, arguing that science is not as objective nor religion as subjective as had been assumed. There are indeed differences of emphasis between the fields, but the distinctions are not absolute. Scientific data are theory-laden, not theory-free. Theoretical assumptions enter the selection, reporting and interpretation of what are taken to be data. Moreover, theories do not arise from logical analysis of data, but from acts of creative imagination in which analogies and models often play a role. Conceptual models help us to imagine what is not directly observable, especially in the realm of the very large (astronomy) and the very small (quantum physics).

Many of the same characteristics are present in religion…”.

Faith is needed in science; none of us has ever seen a quark, but observation and experience lead us to conclude the reality of its existence. Brain science can help explain the role that Buddhist meditation and centering prayer play in achieving a sense of well being and happiness.

Integration: Natural theology, theology of nature and systematic synthesis (?) attempt to integrate the two disciplines. We are in need of more enlightenment in these areas. Perhaps our future explorations will help our understanding here.

Dr. Steve Pauley will lead our next exploration of astronomy and creation on Mar 6. We will not meet on Feb 20 because of the annual meeting. Some of us will join Steve at Galena Lodge on Mar 10 for his stargazing lecture and dinner. We will also get an opportunity to observe some of these phenomena, Inshallah (God willing). Anyone interested in joining us should call Galena Lodge for reservations.

Science & Religion Group

We had our first meeting of the St. Thomas Science and Religion Group after services on January 23. We have a great group made of people with scientific backgrounds and those with no science background at all, people who have explored some of the issues and those who are searchers. All are welcome. We will be meeting after services on the first and third Sundays of the month. (with some exceptions for special events) Our next meeting is Sunday February 6 at 11AM. We will discuss issues raised in the first chapter of Ian Barbour's book Where Science Meets Religion "Four Views of Science and Religion". We will not meet on February 20, but will meet on March 6 at which time Steve Pauley will lead a beginning discussion of Astronomy and Creation. Some of us will also attend his new moon stargazing lecture at Galena Lodge on March 10. Our plan is to continue these postings so that even those that miss the meetings will be able to stay somewhat current.

The Windsor Report, Take 2

In my few minutes of spare time this week I have been looking at various responses to the Windsor report. The best article I have found so far comes from Christianity Today, a publication whose editorial views are more conservative than mine. It is an interview with N.T. Wright, a fairly traditional Biblical scholar who served on the commission. The article can be found at:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/142/42.0.html

An official response from the Episcopal left can be found on the Integrity web site. Integrity is the principal organization lobbying for the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the Episcopal Church. Their response can be found at:
http://www.integrityusa.org/press/18Oct2004.pdf

An official response from the Episcopal right can be found on the American Anglican Council web site. The AAC is a conservative organization that was formed in the mid 1990’s in response to the Episcopal Church’s movement toward including gays and lesbians. Their response can be found at:
http://www.americananglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=1177&c=51

The Presiding Bishop’s official statement is on the Episcopal Church’s site:
http://www.americananglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=1177&c=51

And now for something completely different. And silly.
http://www.wibsite.com/features/windsorreport/

Enjoy,
brian