This is the second in a series of articles that examine nine “scientific facts” that require a new theological response.

Click Here to Read the first Article: What we can Know about the Universe.

Homo Sapiens, God, and the Evolving Universe

I am not a scientist, but the general outline of evolution seems pretty clear. Due to a variety of causes, genes in any given species will mutate. Mutations that help a species to survive and multiply are by definition beneficial to that species, helping it to adapt to changing environmental factors. Mutations detrimental to survival will factor into the demise of that species. There is no plan. Changes are due simply to random mutation and adaptation. And that change is a two way street. Any given species can become more complex in its struggle to survive and reproduce, or it can become simpler. Some bacteria have become simpler simply because simple made it easier to survive and reproduce. It all depends on what it takes for survival. Everything is contingent, which is to say that it need not have come into being, and it need not continue in its being.

As of now, no one knows how life began, but clearly it did. How we define life is a subject of controversy, but any definition would have to include the ability to reproduce. After life began, the environment continued to change, so life had to adapt to those new realities. And as life forms found themselves in different environments, they began to evolve in different directions, ultimately becoming plants and animals, fish, feathers and fur, conscious and not-so-conscious, the current panoply of life that surrounds us today even as it continues to change.

Understanding human evolution involves an admixture of fact and theory. The facts include well documented climate changes in Africa where many of the fossils were found, as well as genomes that have been sequenced only within the last decade. We have today the genome not only of homo sapiens, but of Neanderthals and Denisovans as well.

DNA analysis shows us that the humans of today share 99 per cent of their DNA with chimpanzees (or, some figures say 94%), and 50% of their DNA with bananas. How can this be?! From what I can understand as a simple layman, most DNA is instruction on details of life that all life has in common, such as the process by which a cell reproduces. But then there is that 1% difference, and it is in that 1% where the changes are given their unique marching orders. All humans share 99.9% DNA, but we don’t all look alike. Enter that .1% that makes us different from one another. And some of that .1% comes from Neanderthals.

At some point in the past, a few million years ago at least, some of those great apes experienced a mutation(s) that proved explosive: they developed bipedalism. They could now walk on two legs instead of four. Quite possibly at the same time, the environment was becoming less forest canopy and more open savannah. Some evolutionary theorists suggest that standing upright was a strategic advantage in grassland, enabling our ancestors to see game further away. Be that as it may, the bipedal adaptation continued to create change for millions of years.

The bipedal Homo Heidelbergensis lived in Africa, Europe and Asia as recently as 600,000 years ago. For whatever the reason, most likely climatic, the groups in Europe and Africa developed in isolation from one another. The African group became Homo Sapiens and the northern group became Neanderthal. It was only about 50,000-80,000 years ago that some of the African group started to migrate north, moving along the eastern end of the Mediterranean and up into what we call Europe. And along the way, they met Neanderthal, big and strong, requiring a large daily intake of calories due to the cold weather, and having a brain bigger in size than ours today.

The total picture is a bit fuzzy as to where and when the mixing occurred, and whether there were other hominins around, but there is no doubt that Neanderthals and homo sapiens co-existed on this planet as recently as 30,000 years ago.

And mated. Every human today of non-African descent has some DNA inherited from Neanderthals. Those Homo Sapiens who remained in Africa never met Neanderthal, never mated with them, and therefore have no Neanderthal genetic inheritance. But for those who left, the high probability points to inter-breeding. While that was going on, other ancestors, such as the Denisovan, were evolving in Siberia, China, and Indonesia, and their DNA shows up in southeastern Asians.

The story will most likely always be a bit fuzzy, and new evidence is continually being found. But there is no doubt we have evolved from earlier homo species, that we are genetically bound to them and to one another, and that the process will not stop with us.

The impact of evolution on traditional religion is explosive, and falls into two categories. The first is the claim of evolution that everything is contingent, the second is that species mutate. I’d like to analyze them one at a time, but before we do that, let’s listen to the full impact of what evolution has to say. It’s a broadside bombardment.

The Impact of the Contingency Factor

No Divine Plan

Contingency means that there is no reason why anything has to be. It could as well be as not. There is no upward direction to the change; it just moves on. According to evolution, everything is contingent, and there is no cosmic plan, no teleological dimension. What then is god’s role in all this? If the cosmos has no purpose, it’s pretty hard to say that god has a purpose. That old time talk about god’s plan for salvation is like talking in the wind. How can divine providence control a process that has no direction and no goal?

No Divine Direction

Forced to give up the concept of a divine plan, some believe that god, even if she does not have a plan, has a hope that matters will end a certain way. God wills a direction for earth history, perhaps toward a Kingdom of God, a kingdom of peace and justice. Prominent in the biblical perspective is the promise of the day when the lion will lie down with the lamb, when men will beat their swords into plowshares, when all the earth will be filled with plenty. The question for theologians has always been whether the promise is fulfilled in history, or beyond. But however one answers that question, it is a meaningless issue from the evolutionary perspective: God may have a hope, but the universe has no goal.

No Kingdom of God

There was a time in American history when the predominant theological outlook, called the Social Gospel, was very optimistic about the future. Things were getting inevitably better. Before you know it, the Kingdom of God on earth would be here, at least in preliminary form. But then began the great depression and the rumblings leading to the second world war, and the social gospel optimism was replaced by Christian Realism, under the inspiration of Reinhold Niebuhr. God’s historical kingdom was replaced by an eschatological kingdom that would not arrive until the end of time, whenever that might be. People today continue to look for the end of time and the coming of god’s kingdom, and continue to predict when that day will arrive. Todays historical reality is so depressing for some that the only hope they have is that it will all end.

What has evolutionary cosmology to say to all this? God’s promise of a Kingdom, whether in history or beyond, is null and void. If god does not intervene in the process, how can we affirm that the dream of god will be implemented? This is a radical repudiation of a basic tenet of biblical theology.

No Moral Law

Instead of talking about a divine plan, or a divine hope or direction into the future, others speak of some moral law that has been part and parcel of the universe since the beginning of time. The starry sky above, and the moral law within, and all that. That belief enabled Martin Luther King, Jr., among others, to fight racism with the presumed conscience of the “enemy” as his only tool. But again the questions of evolution: where did this moral law begin? with homo sapiens? with Neanderthal? with the Big Bang? If it does exist, will it last, or will it die out?

Mutation

No Singular Incarnation

Let’s move on from the scientific assertion that there is no teleological end toward which the cosmic process moves, to the assertion that species evolve. The broadside continues. Given that homo sapiens arose out of the species that went before, mated with Neanderthals, and continues to evolve, what does it mean to say that God was incarnate in Jesus? that Jesus was true man? Was there a Neanderthal Jesus?

No Singular Atonement

It is commonplace in Christianity, even outside fundamentalist circles, to assert that “Jesus died for our sins”. Whether that is an accurate description of what Jesus did is a topic for another day, but for those who want to say that, what does it mean from an evolutionary perspective? Did the Neanderthals need someone to die for them? Or Homo Heidelbergensis? And where is the dividing line? And if we do not say that Jesus died for our sin, but only that we needed him to do something for us, why is it that we need a savior? from what?

No Trinity

Even if one wanted to believe in god, it is highly selective, from an evolutionary perspective, to focus on one person from one planet and place that person into the cosmic godhead. Can we really believe that a man from Galilee is part of a cosmic-and-beyond triune god?

Humans not Special

Inasmuch as all life can be traced back to a common ancestor, what does it mean to be a human being? We homo sapiens like to think that we are the apex of nature, the epitome of self consciousness, and created in the image of god, whatever that might mean. We have a soul, and that makes us special. Really? Is not the belief in human superiority nothing more than a grand Illusion? Everyone knows that golden retrievers are more godlike than we are. And every day a new study shows that other members of the animal kingdom share elements of self awareness that we previously thought unique to humans. The latest news is about ravens.

Looking backwards, where can we mark the dividing line between ape and homo, between Neanderthal and homo? Some say we have something special, perhaps a soul, but did that something special just suddenly become part of a species, say June 3, 762,000 BCE? Did Neanderthals not have this?? How about Heidelbergensis? Was their self consciousness at a lower level than ours today? Who are we, anyway?

Earth not unique

And then there’s ET. Modern astrophysics paints a picture (almost literally) of a universe immense beyond comprehension. A universe that is evolving, by the way. Would not god love other creatures in the universe as “he” loves us? Where does Jesus fit into that situation? Did Mars or Venus or planet X have a savior once upon a time? Do they now? Do they need a savior? For what? And how can we elevate Jesus, true homo sapiens from that little planet earth, into the second person of a trinity?

Eternal Souls?

There are some answers to these questions that seem to incorporate evolution. One answer is that there are souls that migrate along the path of evolution. They may initially inhabit an amoeba, then a cat, then dog (I’m a dog person), then homo sapiens. They somehow remain the same, supposedly, but the incarnation differs. There is a certain logical consistency to the idea, and it definitely deals with the issues of evolution, but questions can be asked. Where did the souls come from? Are they older than the Big Bang, or are they a product of that event? Do they pre-date the origin of our universe such that they are part of some eternal cycle?

Eternal Wisdom?

There is another answer that focuses particularly on Jesus. The idea here is that Jesus is just another teacher in the long history of gifted teachers, that he is but one member of a long tradition of those who pass along wisdom that has been around a long time. There are those who believe that this wisdom was not available in the Middle East and that Jesus actually had to travel to India to get it. Others think that it was available in the Hebrew tradition, under the guise of wisdom literature. It’s not exactly clear, however, where this wisdom began. It’s one thing to have an eternal soul that seemingly transcends evolution, but quite another to place your bets on historical figures. Where did the wisdom begin? in our Neanderthal ancestors?

Commentary

First of all, a disclaimer. As I said in my introduction, I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. Most especially, I am not trying to convince my secular humanist family of friends about anything to do with god or Jesus because, as far as I can see, it doesn’t make any difference what you do or don’t believe. What does seem to matter is whether a person is loving and compassionate or not, both for their own happiness and fulfillment as well as that of others.

Evolution does not create any problems for secular humanism because there is no god to fit into the picture. It’s a different state of affairs for Christian theology.

In the previous chapter on cosmology, on the issue of whether or not love is the ultimate reality, i.e. whether process is teleologically defined and heading somewhere or not, we concluded that Christian theology and evolution are contradictory. Either the future will be shaped by god- in history or beyond- or it will not. Theology founded on faith says yes, science says no. I don’t see any compromise. If you take the teleology of god out of the equation (pun intended), and the nature of the universe is not love but neutrality or worse, then the faith of the disciples is misguided and bogus, and you can take down the Christian shingle and close up shop. I’m not ready to do that.

On the other hand, mutation is happening right in front of our eyes. There is no escape. The fact that Jesus was homo sapiens, coupled with the inevitable mutation of homo sapiens, forces us to accept the fact that he, like the dinosaurs, will become a fossil of the past. How does theology deal with that?

In the preceding section I spoke of what we learn from the Jesus/disciple encounter. I also described as theologically speculative any affirmations that go beyond what we learn in that encounter. However, knowing that some statement is speculative does not necessitate its being wrong. So let’s explore a bit and imagine a scenario, a scenario that recognizes that 1) species mutate, including homo sapiens, and so agrees with evolution on that score, 2) but also assumes a teleological end and so on that score rejects the total contingency of evolution. The cosmos changes, but god has an end in view.

An Incarnation?

The New Testament gospel of John, written perhaps 75 years after Jesus was executed, starts with the following statement of faith: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” That’s pretty highfalutin stuff. Historically, the first century Christians elevated a man they knew, a man called Jesus, into God Himself. Jesus became identified as an incarnation of God, the second person of a trinity, his continued presence in the world seen as the third person, the Holy Spirit.

Now, first century Christians knew nothing about evolution, so we have to cut them a break. But we do, and we need to accept this in-your-face fact as we try to intelligently make sense of Jesus. Or at least I do, since I’m calling myself a Christian. So, God decided we were in trouble, and the Word became flesh and tried to straighten us out. That has a certain logic to it. But what about Neanderthal? and ET? and non-Jews? We can assume, I think, that it’s certainly possible Neanderthal did not live up to his potential as a loving being. Perhaps the Word, then, became Neanderthal flesh and dwelt among them. And the same could hold true for ET. And the same for homo sapiens other than those in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. In other words, it certainly seems possible that the Word, as an incarnation of god, could appear in a variety of different times and places, according to the needs and shortcomings of evolving species.

Can we go further? Is that Word, manifest to the disciples as Jesus, still alive? Can I talk to him? Is he my friend? (Remember that old hymn “What a friend we have in Jesus”?) Certainly the disciples believed that he was alive again after the crucifixion. In fact, that’s the heart of their faith and their gospel. Rudolf Bultmann, a 20th century New Testament scholar, created quite an uproar in the Christian church when he essentially said that the rise of the disciples’ faith was itself the resurrection, and that Jesus himself was crucified, dead, gone. In other words, the resurrection was a purely subjective affair. Again, I can see the logic here, but I disagree. From what I can tell, the disciples felt and believed that the spirit of Jesus was alive and well, a spirit that was more than their faith, a spirit that transcended them. Not to say resuscitation of a corpse, that wasn’t it. But, yes, something that was outside of them, a spirit alive. You can see how I keep coming back to those disciples and what they experienced.

Can I talk with my friend Jesus, this homo sapiens incarnation of the Word? I guess it’s okay. I do it. Why not? and Neanderthal? Could she talk with the Word incarnate in her flesh after that incarnation had ended? I suppose so. Why not? The Spirit/Word of God did assume and continues to assume many forms. Jesus is one of them, and I assume there are many.

Divine Providence?

There’s Jesus. Now, how about providence? Going beyond the bare minimum that we learn from the Jesus/disciple encounter, where might speculation lead? I believe that theology works with a teleological view of the cosmos as formed by love and that science does not, and that this difference is basic. I also said that anything more would be speculative, but, hey, speculation can be fun.

When I was at Union Theological Seminary in NYC, we always talked about how god was doing things in history. Read the Hebrew bible- god is commissioning Abraham, Moses, Isaiah and the rest of the prophets, this army and that, all to accomplish his will on the planet. People believe today that god is doing things for them, answering prayer (sometimes) and performing what they call miracles. We want to believe that God is a god of history, active in the world in a manner that is side by side with the natural process of evolution. Traditionally, that activity is called providence. God is doing things. Indeed, God has a plan, a hope, a direction for history that is working out. By and large, this is how so many Christians see god, be it in a small Baptist church in the Bible Belt, or in many of the halls of theological academia.

All of that stands in sharp relief to the science of evolution. But in addition to the attack of evolutionary science on such a view of god, that old problem of evil also rears its ugly head. We’ll talk about evil later, but for now we can say that if god is active in history, she seems to be doing a lousy job. Providence stinks. The plan isn’t working. People are suffering unjustly.

We need to think about god in a new way.

I begin with the idea that the presence of god is twofold. On the one hand, it is everywhere in the universe. This is the panentheistic perspective described in chapter one. Unfortunately, we creatures are not aware of this presence as we ought and can be, so god becomes incarnate- whenever and wherever need be, today, long ago, far away- so that our (somebody’s) eyes can be opened to see the nearness of god everywhere. This means that we have a general presence of god throughout the universe, and a special presence that is found only in incarnations (plural).

As far as the special presence is concerned, let’s look at planet earth in recent history. Homo sapiens appears on the scene. She was not quite what she could be, not living up to being a loving and aware animal, so god becomes incarnate in human flesh in order to show what life can be and to challenge us to fulfill our potential. For Christians, that incarnation is Jesus. And this is, indeed, an intervention in history. I have no idea how that happens.

To help understand the general presence, I have two images that I like to use. Imagine yourself in the dark countryside. There is no moonlight, only the Milky Way, that band of light washing across the sky, a ribbon comprised of a hundred billion stars. And you feel both very insignificant and very important all at the same time. You sense something beyond that you are part of. A moment extraordinaire.

For the second image, imagine yourself in a NYC subway, rushing around a corner of the tunnel to meet your train connection. And there, on the concrete floor with a hand outstretched, eyes focused on you, is a wretched woman begging for a coin, a helping hand, a person who cares, and your little private world has been invaded. You continue along just like everyone else, but you know that something has just happened that transcends the normal. We have moments like the starry sky above and the subway beggar all the time. It’s that old panentheistic god knocking on our door.

What’s the relationship between special and general divine presence? between the word incarnate in Jesus and god’s presence everywhere? The disciples help us out on this one. The god they found in Jesus was the same god they experienced in their starry sky/beggar moments. Jesus helped them to understand that those moments did indeed involve the god beyond.

They, and we, learn that god, who is present in the stuff of the world, reaches out to us and challenges us to act. God does not act in history as an independent agent, (except when god decides it’s time to become incarnate; don’t ask.) There is no daily intervention. Asking god to do something doesn’t work. Instead, god opens our eyes and asks that we do the divine work, that we see what the possibilities are and act accordingly. God was in Jesus showing and enabling us to become loving and aware, calling us to act in history, to become the real us, loving and caring. Providence, as I see it, is not god acting in history in a manner interfering in the natural processes. It is god encountering us and enabling us to see what needs to be done. We should not be asking god to do things. We should be opening our own eyes to see what needs to be done and doing it. The Dalai Lama said the same thing while speaking of Syrian refugees. Forget “thoughts and prayers”. Do something.

Having said all this, I want to repeat what I said in the section about cosmology, and that is that if we begin our reflection with the Jesus/disciple encounter, the line of demarcation between faith and science is that faith sees the cosmos as informed by love, and science does not. That’s basic. But seeing the world as informed by love can be true not only of people of faith, but of people of all convictions, faith and non-faith, round the world. Just recently there was a report about a study that shows how compassion not only benefits the receiver but the giver as well. Seems as though there is something in our genes that rejoices in helping others. As I said earlier, that was the fundamental message of Jesus’ disciples, that the meaning of the resurrection is not a resuscitated body, but the omnipotence of love and compassion. Available to all.
 
Read Third Article: From the Very Big to the Very Small
Read Fourth Article: Undeserved Suffering
Read Fifth Article: The World We Create
Read Sixth Article: A Zone by Any Other Name
Read Seventh Article: How Other Persons Affect Us
Read Eighth Article: Who am I?