by MOK Wing Kee, Alex
The Human Person and the Incarnate Word in
Light of Contemporary Cosmology 1
1. Introduction
Ever since the dawn of civilization, human beings have been searching for their origins and their destinies. Philosophy, science, religions and even superstitions are part of the human quest for existential meanings and truth. Certain crucial questions about human life have preoccupied our ancestors: How did life begin? What is the purpose of life? What is the best kind of life? Does God exist? Do other kinds of life exist in the universe? Why must we suffer? Can we be immortal? What is the good? What is the essence of justice? What is human dignity? The human identity and the fulfillment of the human person are actually the primary concern of these intellectual questions that have challenged the greatest minds2.
In the quest for human origin, modern science has given us a partial answer – Human beings are part of nature incorporating a long dynamic evolutionary process governed by law and chance. This evolutionary worldview should be integrated with our religious beliefs so that we can acquire a deeper understanding about humanity and our relationship with God and nature. In fact, theology is faith seeking understanding and therefore, as with science, its contents should be reexamined whenever there is new supportive or incongruous knowledge. The exploratory nature of any theological investigations should always allow us to find new descriptions about the Christian faith as well as the reality and experiences of human beings. Although Christian theology is necessarily founded on historical revelation and religious experience, many scholars hold that it should be consistent with the physical reality discovered by scientists. The universe is a creation of God and what we find in nature should reflect the wisdom and the beauty of the same God who communicates with us through the incarnate Logos. St. Paul says plainly, “Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Rom 1:20) In this paper, we will first show that the concept of the human person in the Bible is largely consistent with the findings of contemporary science. We will then investigate the basic ideas in the anthropic cosmological principle, a seemingly new design argument for the existence of God, and explore its implications for the theology of creation. We will illustrate that this modern anthropic principle is coherent with the doctrine of the Logos. In the light of the new discoveries in science, we will explore the possibility of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence and its theological implications, trying to give a coherent picture of the evolving cosmos in the end. We will also attempt to reformulate the doctrine of original sin in the language of evolutionary biology, as an example to demonstrate the possible integration of modern science and Christian faith. Finally, we will discuss the role of the cosmic Christ in God's creation and the fulfillment of human life in our new cosmic picture. We will point out that creation and salvation are two interrelated concepts in the Bible. Jesus Christ, the Logos, is the manifestation of the divine creative work and the incarnation can be considered as part of the cosmic evolution that involves the direct participation of the Creator. The salvation of Jesus Christ is the continuous creation of God in the evolutionary perspective. Our participation in the creation leading to a new stage of evolution is part of the fulfillment of the divine creative work.
2. The Biblical View of Human Nature
In the Bible, particularly in Genesis, we can trace four features of the concept of human nature3, as outlined below4.
2.1 A unitary person, not a body-soul dualism
The Hebrew word (usually translated as soul) in the Old Testament and the corresponding Greek word in the New Testament refer to the inner self or the life principle in accordance with the whole person and they do not mean the immortal separable soul.5 The bible looks upon body and soul as different aspects of the same personal unity. Joel Green states clearly, “It is axiomatic in Old Testament scholarship today that human beings must be understood in their fully integrated, embodied existence. Humans do not possess a body and soul, but are human only as body and soul.”6 According to Oscar Cullmann, “the Jewish and Christian interpretation of the creation excludes the whole Greek dualism of body and soul.”7 In the Bible, there is no actual dichotomy between body and soul. The person is always regarded as an integrated embodied self. Lynn de Silva writes:
Biblical scholarship has established quite conclusively that there is no dichotomous concept of man in the Bible, such as is found in Greek and Hindu thought. The biblical view of man is holistic, not dualistic. The notion of the soul as an immortal entity which enters the body at birth and leaves it at death is quite foreign to the biblical view of man. The biblical view is that man is a unity; he is a unity of soul, body, flesh, mind, etc., all together constituting the whole man.8
In 1 Corinthians 15:38-58, Paul stresses the resurrection of the total person, but not of the immortal soul separate from a body. He affirms, however, the transformation of the body in the future life, which he describes as “the spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44).
2.2 A Unique Creature in Nature
The first creation account in Genesis 1:1-2:4a clearly depicts humanity as part of nature, shaped with limitedness not unlike other creatures. All living things are related to one another, forming an interdependent life matrix. As the divine creation is good, the natural world has its own inherent value which is independent of human beings. Nevertheless, the Priestly tradition also asserts that only humanity is created in the image of God (Imago Dei):
Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Gen 1:26-27)
Of all the creatures, only man is able to know and love his creator. He alone is called to share in God's own life9. This is the fundamental reason that humanity is unique within the natural world and each human individual possesses the dignity of the person. Humans alone are free moral beings who can choose between good and evil and be responsible for their choices. They not only have the command over all the creatures but also have the privilege of speaking directly to God. They are responsible selves integrated with moral and spiritual capacities and bodily instincts. Although the biblical authors divided the creation of God into six days or periods10, they certainly did not intend to portray an evolutionary worldview to their readers. Nevertheless, the biblical descriptions of the similarities and differences between the human species and all the other creations are largely coherent with contemporary scientific findings.
2.3 The Social Self
“It is not good that the man should be alone.” (Gen 2:18)
As Green argues11, the biblical anthropology emphasizes the holistic and social character of human beings. For the Israelites, God’s covenant that created the unity of their nation was with one people, but not with a sequence of individuals. Moreover, in the Scriptures, individuals were always placed in the context of a community which has its own traditional anthology of sacred stories and rituals. God is concerned not only with the motives and actions of each individual but also with the integrity of the life of the community. Human beings are not independent individuals, but are related to one another as members of a family, citizens of a nation and children of the same personal God.'
The nature of the human person in the Gospel of Luke hinges on the understanding of Jesus' salvific ministry, which is essentially the major theme of Luke's writing. Luke's concept of salvation implicitly leads us to the meaning of authentic human existence. In Luke's narrative of Jesus'healing of the woman suffering from the hemorrhage (Lk 8:42b - 48)12, we can find a vivid depiction of a holistic and social anthropology. The healing of the woman whose sickness was socially distressing13 involves not only reversal of her physical malady, but also restoration of her place in the society as well as provision of new relations in the community of Go's people. This conception of the holistic and social character of the human person can also be found in other Synoptic writings. For example, in the Gospel of Matthew, cleansing a man with leprosy offers him new access to God and to the community (Mt 8:1-4, Lev 13-14); healing a paralytic is equivalent to forgiving his sins (Mt 9:2-8); extending the grace of God to tax collectors and sinners exhibits the work of Jesus as a healer (Mt 9:9-13); and restoring the sight of two blind men is linked to the manifestation of their faith (Mt 9:27-31). Similar accounts abound in the Synoptic Gospels, “where spiritual, social and physical needs are simply regarded as human needs.”14
2.4 The Image of God and the Fall
As mentioned earlier, humanity is created in God's own image. But what exactly is this image? And how much has man lost this image since Adam's fall? Although human beings as God's image have dominion over all other creatures, the meaning of the divine image should reflect the true nature of humanity but not just the wardenship of the natural world. In fact, the dominion of humanity over the creation on God's behalf should be exercised in a way that would reveal God's purposes for his creation. Moreover, being in the image of God the human individual is capable of entering into communion with other people, who as a family are called by grace to a covenant with God15. The nature of humanity therefore emanates from their relatedness to God as Creator. “The concept of the Imago Dei, then, is fundamentally relational, and takes as its ground and focus the graciousness of God's own covenantal relations with humanity and the rest of creation.”16
It is a well-known biblical story that Adam and Eve committed the first human sin by eating the fruit “from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen 2:9). This story symbolizes the abuse of freedom and our first parents’ disobedience toward God, resulting in a break-up of the original harmonious relationship between them and their Creator. One of the tragic consequences of the first sin is the loss of the grace of the original holiness and justice that was a free gift of God. “Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendents human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called the original sin.”17 By this first sin, “Death makes its entrance into human history” (Rom 5:12) and “human nature is weakened in its powers; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the domination of death; and inclined to sin.”18 All men and women are now born in a deteriorated state deprived of the original holiness and justice. Like a chain reaction, the descendents of Adam and Eve continued to sin19 and each person is affected by the sins of his or her predecessors and commits his or her own sinful acts. In other words, we are effectively exposed to “the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29) and we are all prone to sin and evil.
The fall of Adam and Eve affects us all by infecting us with this original sin, resulting in a loss of the image of God. The only cure to this inherited disease of human nature is baptism instituted by the new Adam, Jesus Christ, who has conquered death and is the only way to the eternal life of God. “Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God.”20 The grace of baptism is another free gift of God superseding that of Adam and Eve. Through the first sacrament we express our recognition of the love and the presence of God. It is a symbolic action that reflects our acceptance of God's grace that has existed in our lives, even before we realize it. The washing and the cleansing by the waters of baptism symbolize the new life out of death, when one turns away from sin and evil and follows the Christian way of living. “As one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men” (Rom 5:18). If one nonetheless is to ask why God did not prevent us from sinning, the best answer might be that “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom 5:20)21.
The Yahwist creation narratives in Gen 2:4-3:24 reveal to us a great perception of the human condition that is actually an authentic experience for each of us. The fall story only provides a mythological reason for the current sinful human condition. It should be noted that the Yahwist, however, does not portray sin as something that is inherited or illustrate a doctrine of original sin. The second creation story cannot be understood in isolation and it must be grasped with other stories in the Scriptures. The ultimate meaning of the creation story or the fall of Adam and Eve can only be appreciated in the light of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. “The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the reverse side of the Good News that Jesus is the Saviour of all men, that all need salvation, and that salvation is offered to all through Christ.”22
The four features of human nature outlined above are to a great extent in harmony with the findings of modern science. In particular, current studies in neuroscience tend to support the view of nonreductive physicalism – the metaphysical position that “the person is a physical organism whose complex functioning, both in society and in relation to God, gives rise to higher human capacities such as morality and spirituality.”23 In his classic book on science and religion, Ian Barbour offers a nice summary:
It would be consistent with both the scientific and the biblical outlook to understand the person as a multileveled unity who is both a biological organism and a responsible self. We can escape both dualism and materialism if we assume a holistic view of persons with a hierarchy of levels. Some of these levels we share with all matter, some we share with all living things, some with all animal life, while some seem to be uniquely human. The person can be represented by the concept of the self, conceived not as a separate entity but as the individual in the unified activity of thinking, willing, feeling, and acting. The self is best described, not in terms of static substances, but in terms of dynamic activities at various levels of organization and functioning. In the biblical view, it is this integral being whose whole life is of concern to God.24
The new coherent understanding is that the human person is a multileveled unity emerging from the basic elements of the material world, participating in social activities with other persons, and being able to share in the eternal life of God.
3. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle 25
Before we delve into the creation concepts in the Scriptures, let us take a look at the modern cosmological theory that might be relevant to the creation ideas. In contemporary cosmology, the Big Bang is the most firmly founded model26 that describes the evolution of the cosmos from its early history to the present observable universe. In this model, the universe began about 14 billion years ago27 with a gargantuan explosion, from which all matter, energy, space and time came into being. Today scientists do not yet know how this explosion occurred. The scientific explanation of the Big Bang28 itself might require a complete marriage of the two most fundamental physical theories – general relativity and quantum mechanics. The unification of these two theories29 has actually been the final dream of many physicists30 since three quarters of a century ago. Without a complete theory, scientists can only give us some details about the evolving universe after it was about 10-43 seconds old31. In the Big Bang scenario, the universe has been expanding and its temperature has been falling ever since the extremely hot primordial explosion. One of the consequences of the cooling process is that matter was formed out of the hot radiation. Some of this matter later evolved into galaxies, stars, planets and even life and consciousness that we observe today in compliance with the laws of nature.32
For a long time, many great thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas (1227-1274) with his “Five Ways” have been trying to demonstrate the existence of God in a rational way. Surprisingly, modern cosmology points to an apparently new teleological argument and offers a great deal of evidence indicating that the universe has to be “fine-tuned” in order that life and consciousness can exist. The evolution of life depends on the laws of nature as well as the fundamental physical constants33 governing the interactions in the cosmos. Over the past few decades, scientists have discovered that the existence of life and consciousness is extremely sensitive to the delicate balance of these natural laws and physical constants. A slight change in the properties of elementary particles and the laws of nature would result in a lifeless universe34. Therefore there is an intimate link between the nature of the universe and our own existence. This so-called anthropic principle35 certainly has a profound philosophical implication for the biblical creation ideas.
The most frequently discussed scientific explanation for the many remarkable coincidences in the universe leading to the evolution of intelligent life is the multiple-universes idea, in which many universes could exist simultaneously or successively with different natural laws and values for the physical constants. Most of these universes are uninhabitable because of the inappropriate laws or physical constants. But a few out of many of them might harbor life because of the appropriate conditions. So it is not very surprising that we find our universe having some very special laws and physical constants because our universe is just the one with the favorable conditions, out of the many unsuccessful ones. There could still be a winner for the next lottery although the odds are extremely small. Nevertheless, I maintain that one might still imagine the existence of numerous universes, all of which have no life at all because there could be an infinite number of possible sets of physical laws and constants that are hostile to the existence of life. Large number of universes might not guarantee the existence of life. There could indeed be no winner for the next lottery if the odds approach zero.
Furthermore, as argued by John Leslie, the many-universes hypotheses are highly speculative and without any scientific evidence36. In fact, the major philosophical problem about the multiverse idea is that all these other universes are in principle unverifiable and hence non-falsifiable. The multiverse is indeed as elusive as God.
It seems more appealing to believe in a universe designed by a supreme creator whose existence is palpably supported by the religious experience in the human history. Does it follow that the anthropic principle provides evidence for the existence of God? This is not necessarily so. Our belief is not based on any scientific proof, but it is based on the revelation of God, as the New Testament emphasizes. However, one can contend that the new cosmology is consistent with the theistic worldview. Modern science shows that not only our universe is contingent, but also it has a high degree of rationality. Einstein said it well: “the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.”
4. The New Cosmology and the Logos
It is worth noting here that the Scriptures were written with an old cosmological conception. In fact, the cosmological view of the biblical authors was more influenced by their theological thinking than the natural observations in their times. The earth itself was already the whole static material universe. Above it were the stars and the heaven governed by God and below it were the abysses and the hell resided by the devils. In the age of science and technology, however, we should reformulate some of the theological contents in the Scriptures in light of the new scientific understandings about the cosmos. Biblical themes such as the creation, the providence and the salvation of God should be correlated with modern cosmological ideas that may bring new theological insights.
Contrary to the seven-day creation story in the Old Testament (Gen 1.1-2.3), cosmologists tell us that our solar system was formed out of the solar nebula about 4.6 billion years ago. The most primitive life on earth appeared about 3.8 billion years ago and later evolved into the diversity of life that we observe today.37 Homo sapiens were latecomers and first appeared about 400,000 years ago, following the Homo erectus that had their origins in Africa about two million years ago. Molecular biology and fossil discoveries have found that human beings and the modern African apes share 99% of their DNA, indicating that both species are descended from common ancestors38 who appeared about four to six million years ago. We are indisputably part of nature and, more significantly, have a long cosmic and biological evolutionary history. To develop a theology of nature that is compatible with the discoveries of modern science, the idea of the Logos is particularly important as it encloses the cosmic dimension of the incarnate Christ.
Rationality of the universe is the fundamental principle for science, without which scientific investigation becomes impossible. In the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel, John39 particularly speaks of the origin of Jesus to a cosmological extent. The parallel of the use of language between the Prologue and Genesis in the introductory verses is obvious and it connects the cosmic dimension of Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, to the foundation of the divine creation. Jesus was with God in the beginning, before God’s creation and therefore before the existence of time, space and matter40. John commemorates Jesus as the Logos, or the Word of God, accentuating the hearing tradition of the Jewish community as well as the Johannine community: What we hear, see and experience now is the revelation of God. The Word that made the heavens and the earth is the foundation of all creation, as Paul has also proclaimed: “All things were created through him and for him. He is before all things and in him all things hold together” (Col 1:16-17). With a richer and deeper meaning than Genesis, John declares that Jesus not only is the source of all creation, but is the underlying rational principle of all existing things as well. In Greek, the term Logos also means the logic or the rational principle underlying the fundamental reality of the universe41. In terms of the Greek language, therefore, the creation and the rational principle in the creation were self-expressions of God who now reveals Himself as the Word, in whom we can find the true meaning of the divine creation.
The integration of the dual meanings of the term Logos clearly connects the Jewish creation ideas to the Greek philosophical conceptions about the ultimate operational rules of the universe at the time of the Johannine community. Moreover, it is significant that John identifies the Logos with God: “the Word was God” and personalizes the Logos with Jesus, as witnessed by John the Baptist and the Johannine community. The use of this special word Logos in the Prologue remarkably conveys to the readers the idea that Jesus was the divine creator who now brings salvation to his creation. In this respect, salvation may be regarded as a continuing process of the divine creation. In other words, creation and salvation are the same activity of God. For the Johannine community, God's creation had never stopped but had been continuing since the beginning of the cosmic history, particularly through the death and resurrection of Jesus and the receiving of the Holy Spirit that they had experienced. Jesus plainly said, “my Father is working still, and I am working” (Jn 5:17). Creation is not a one-time action but an on-going activity of God42.
5. The Rational and the Anthropic Principles
Does it follow that the anthropic principle is one of the self-expressions of the Logos? Scientists and theologians have not arrived at a conclusive answer to this question. On the one hand, one has to be cautious of taking too seriously the possible theological implications of the contemporary cosmological theories because scientific theories or hypothesis are by nature provisional. As mentioned earlier, we do not yet have a unified theory about the universe. In fact, according to Karl Popper43, we can never be sure about obtaining such a complete theory. If the current theory is to be replaced by a future one, we may then have to rethink our theological inferences.
On the other hand, what is philosophically significant is that our cosmos44 is rational and unified, whether we can eventually find a complete theory or not. The work of scientists is after all to study the natural laws reflecting the rational and unified beauty of the universe. Indisputably, the anthropic principle shows us the wonder of our cosmos. This aesthetic experience of scientific exploration was also the conviction of the Greeks or the Stoics in the first century.
Nevertheless, the Stoic philosophical view about the rational principle is static, and impersonal, whereas the Johannine experience of the Logos is dynamic and personal. John celebrates the pre-existent Logos as the life-giver and the light of the world. All things exist in him and through him. The Logos is the light that enlightens people and gives power to all his believers to become the children of God (Jn 1:12). In the beginning he was with God and now he becomes flesh and blood and tabernacles among us (Jn 1:14). The incarnation of the Logos brings glory to God and raises all existing things to a new stage of creation. In John's writings, the glory is always associated with the love of God; this is the “glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world” (Jn 17:24).
According to John, to be in unity and in love with God is embedded in the nature of creation.45 The incarnation of the Logos effectively marks a new level of existence for the creation. This is a new vision for the nature of the created cosmos that has been evolving from pure radiation46 to the complexity of life and intelligence.
6. Extraterrestrial Life
Before we turn to the discussion of the human condition in the evolutionary framework, let us now investigate the possibility of the existence of other intelligent beings in the universe in a scientific way. It is because the existence of extraterrestrial life will give us a new perspective on human nature within a cosmic context. The quest for the presence of intelligent life beyond the earth has its roots stretched back into antiquity47 and has a strong influence on both the scientific and the religious communities, serving as a good meeting point for the dialogue between them in the modern time. Christian theology should be implicitly involved in this ancient quest because it will naturally provoke us to ponder the relation between God and humanity and, in particular, the mystery of the incarnation of the Logos.
6.1 The Drake Equation
In the scientific context, the American astronomer Frank Drake48 proposed in 1961 his famous equation, N = R* x fp x ne x f1 x fi x fc x L , for estimating the number of technologically advanced civilizations in our galaxy that are presently capable of communicating with us (N). This so-called Drake equation contains a series of factors representing the probability of some major steps in the evolution of such civilizations. These factors are the average rate of formation of suitable stars in our galaxy (R*), the fraction of stars having planetary systems (fp), the average number of habitable planets per planetary system (ne), the fraction of those habitable planets on which life actually arises (f1), the fraction of such life-bearing planets on which intelligence develops (fi), the fraction of those intelligent-life planets that develop electromagnetic communications technology (fc) and, finally, the average lifetime of these communicating civilizations (L).
Scientists, however, do not have sufficient information and knowledge to determine, even approximately, some of these factors that have remained highly speculative ever since they were proposed. The actual value for N may be any number from zero to billions49. The contemporary advocates for a large value of N are mostly astronomers and physicists including Carl Sagan, Frank Drake and Philip Morrison50 who are very optimistic about the two biological factors f1 and fi whose values are simply taken to be one. Many leading evolutionary biologists such as Theodosius Dobzhansky, George Gaylord Simpson, Jacob Francois, Francisco Ayala and Ernst Mayr51 have opposed this oversimplification and argued that the development of intelligent life is extremely improbable even in the primate lineage. The evolutionist Owen Lovejoy explains clearly:
The evolution of cognition is the product of a variety of influences and preadaptive capacities, the absence of any one of which would have completely negated the process, and most of which are unique attributes of primates and/or homonids. Specific dietary shifts, bipedal locomotion, manual dexterity, control of differentiated muscles of facial expression, vocalization, intense social and parenting behaviour (of specific kinds), keen stereoscopic vision, and even specialized forms of sexual behaviour, all qualify as irreplaceable elements. It is evident that the evolution of cognition is neither the result of an evolutionary trend nor an event of even the lowest calculable probability, but rather the result of a series of highly specific evolutionary events whose ultimate cause is traceable to selection for unrelated factors such as locomotion and diet52.
The general consensus among evolutionists is that the emergence of intelligent beings involves a reasonably large number of improbable evolutionary steps53 that will make fi (and hence N) practically equal to zero and therefore the earth may be the only planet that harbors intelligent life in our galaxy or even in the entire universe. Consequently, as intelligent life actually exists on our planet, life of lower forms ought to be statistically plentiful in the universe. Although these different kinds of extraterrestrial life should expand exponentially within their environmental limits54, none of them may give rise to intelligence according to modern evolutionary theory. It is therefore not very surprising that astronomers will discover other primitive life forms in the solar system and other extrasolar systems in the future.
6.2 Carter's Argument
Based on the Copernican Principle55 one may still dispute that as intelligent life could actually develop on this planet in spite of the improbability in evolution, it should also happen again on other extrasolar planets that may be numerous in the universe56. To respond to this question, it is important to note that the observation of intelligence on earth is necessarily restricted by the weak anthropic principle57 (WAP) – what we observe in nature must satisfy the conditions required for our existence, otherwise we would not be here to discuss it. In other words, whether intelligence is everywhere or nowhere in this universe with the immensity of space and time58, we must find ourselves on this planet now. This is actually a consequence of the so-called ‘selection effect’. In fact, as first suggested by Brandon Carter59 in 1983, WAP supports the viewpoint of the evolutionists that the emergence of intelligence on a habitable planet is extremely improbable.
The basic idea in Carter's argument is to define three different time periods: tav (unknown) is the average time needed to evolve ‘intelligent observers’ on an earth-like planet, te ( 4x109 years) is the actual time taken for evolution to produce intelligent beings on earth, and tms ( 1010 years) is the lifetime of the sun which is classified as a G2 main sequence star60. Although we do not know tav, we would expect a priori that tav should belong to one of these three cases: (1) tav << tms , (2) tav tms and (3) tav >> tms. The second case should be statistically ruled out because it represents a very narrow part of the entire hypothesis space and there exists no physical relationship between the average time for evolution of intelligence and the lifetime of a main sequence star. Nevertheless, both case 1 and case 3 are not consistent with the observed fact that te tms (to within a factor of 2.5). This means that the actual observed time to evolve intelligence on earth (te) does not draw near to the average time needed to evolve intelligence on an earth-like planet (tav). Now if the first case, tav << tms, were true, we could have observed te tav with high probability. Therefore, combined with WAP, the observation that te tms implies strongly that tav >> tms and hence tav>> te. The fact that we observe te < tms is a necessary outcome of the WAP selection effect in spite of its minimal likelihood of occurrence. We must evolve successfully before the sun depletes its hydrogen fuel in the core, or else no observation could be made. In short, WAP inevitably leads us to conclude that the third case, tav >> tms, is most likely. This conclusion also implies that the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life is highly improbable.
6.3 The Fermi Paradox
In their controversial book, Barrow and Tipler also develop the so-called space-travel argument against the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life and come to the conclusion that
the probability of the evolution of creatures with the technological capability of interstellar communication within five billion years after the development of life on an earthlike planet is less than10-10, and thus it is very likely that we are the only intelligent species now existing in our galaxy.61
The basic idea of their argument, also known as the Fermi paradox62, is straightforward: If extraterrestrial intelligent beings exist and they possess a modest amount of rocket technology, they would colonize the entire galaxy for various reasons63 in less than 300 million years64 and should therefore have visited the solar system. Since we have not found them here on earth, this implies that they do not exist. The absence of evidence would actually be the evidence of absence.
6.4 Scientific Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence
The discussions above are consistent with the null results (up till now) of over a hundred scientific projects in different parts of the world on searching for extraterrestrial intelligent life65. For example, Project Phoenix66, carried out during the late 1990s, was the most sensitive and comprehensive search for extraterrestrial civilizations. Using large radio telescopes, it scrutinized radio signals67 originating from the vicinities of about one thousand sun-like stars within a distance of two hundred light years from the earth. Yet no meaningful signals have been received. In fact, our earth has been broadcasting radio signals into space ever since the advent of radio and television technologies. The radio radiation from the earth is now more intense than that from the sun as seen by a distant observer in space. These terrestrial signals have reached a distance of 70 to 80 light years from the earth, revealing our presence to more than a thousand stars. As we have not received any responses thus far, we may conclude that no extraterrestrial civilizations exist within a distance of 35 to 40 light years, or if they exist they are not interested in replying to our signals.
As mentioned before, the existence of other intelligent beings beyond the earth would raise some interesting theological questions, especially in connection with Christology: Do extraterrestrial beings have original sin even though they are not descendants of Adam and Eve? Would there be multiple incarnations of the Logos in the other worlds?68 These questions unavoidably compel us to reexamine the doctrine of original sin and the meaning of the incarnation of the Logos, in particular with respect to the evolutionary worldview.
A short version of this paper was published in the fourth issue of the Australian Ejournal of Theology. The website of this journal is
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal.
On 15 June 2006, the world-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking delivered an inaugural lecture for the Institute for Advanced Study at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology on “The Origin of the Universe”. At the beginning of his wide-ranging lecture, Hawking introduced his theme by asking two big questions: Why are we here? Where did we come from?
Eichrodt, W. Man in the Old Testament, translated by K. and R. Gregor Smith. London:SCM Press, 1951; Frederick Grant. An Introduction to New Testament Thought, 160-170. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1950.
There may be other ways of analyzing the various dimensions of the human person. For example, in his article “Artificial Insemination: Ethical Considerations” (Louvain Studies (1980), pp. 3-29), Louis Janssens suggests that there are eight fundamental dimensions of the human person, namely, (1) a subject, (2) an embodied subject, (3) part of the material world, (4) interrelational with other persons, (5) an interdependent social being, (6) historical, (7) equal but unique, and (8) called to know and worship God. Our emphasis, however, is placed on the biblical interpretations.
Porteous, N. W. “Soul.” In Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 4, 428. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962.
Green, J. B. ‘“Bodies—That is, Human Lives”: A Re-Examination of Human Nature in the Bible.’ In Whatever Happened to the Soul? Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature, edited by W. S. Brown, N. Murphy, and H. N. Malony, 158. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.
Cullmann, O. Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? 30. New York: MacMillan, 1958.
de Silva, L. The Problem of Self in Buddhism and Christianity, 75. London: MacMillan, 1979.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 356.
In Gen 1:3-31, the Priestly writers divide the strophes into two parallel sections. Each section has three parts which emphasize on the separation of different objects such as the light and the darkness, the heavenly water and the earthly water, the seas and the land, the day and the night, the birds and the fish, and the man and all other creatures.
Green, J. B. “Restoring the Human Person: New Testament Voices for a Wholistic and Social Anthropology.” In Neuroscience and the Person: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, edited by R. J. Russell, N. Murphy, T. C. Meyering, and M. A. Arbib, eds., 3-22. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, 1999.
This story is also depicted in Mark’s Gospel (Mk: 5: 25-34) and Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 9: 20-22).
Lev 15: 25-30 “If a woman has a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her impurity, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her impurity, all the days of the discharge she shall continue in uncleanness; as in the days of her impurity, she shall be unclean. Every bed on which she lies, all the days of her discharge, shall be to her as the bed of her impurity; and everything on which she sits shall be unclean, as in the uncleanness of her impurity. And whoever touches these things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening. But if she is cleansed of her discharge, she shall count for herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, and bring them to the priest, to the door of the tent of meeting. And the priest shall offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her before the Lord for her unclean discharge.”
Green. “Restoring the Human Person,” 14.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 357.
Green. “Restoring the Human Person”, 7.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 417.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 418.
For example, Cain’s murder of his brother Abel. The story of the flood and Noah’s ark further symbolizes the widespread of evil.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405.
The Easter Proclamation (the Exultet) of the liturgy for the Easter Vigil has such a joyful verse: “O happy fault… which gained for us so great a Redeemer!”
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 389.
This definition is given by Nancey Murphy who advocates a nonreductive physicalist account of human nature. Murphy, N. “Human Nature: Historical, Scientific, and Religious Issues.” In Whatever Happened to the Soul? Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature, 25, edited by W. S. Brown, N. Murphy, and H. N. Malony. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.
Barbour, I. G. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues, 272. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997.
The anthropic principle was first proposed by astrophysicist Brandon Carter in Poland in 1973, during a special meeting commemorating Copernicus’s 500th birthday.
The 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics has been awarded to two American scientists, John C. Mather and George F. Smoot, for their work that offered increased support for the Big Bang theory of the universe.
According to the latest astronomical findings, the universe is 13.6 + 0.2 billion years old (Science News, vol. 166 (July 31, 2004), 69).
Still, scientists cannot answer the limit questions: Why is there a Big Bang? Or why does the universe exist?
Currently, the most promising unified theory is the superstring theory, in which the most fundamental ingredients of the universe are vibrating strands of energy, known as strings, which make up all the constituents of nature including all the force carriers such as gravitons and photons, and all the elementary particles such as electrons and quarks.
For example, Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein. Einstein, however, did not like quantum mechanics owing to its statistical nature. His unsuccessful unified theory only incorporated the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force and did not take into account the two nuclear forces, namely, the weak force and the strong force.
This is a ten-million-billion-billion-billion-billionth of a second from the beginning.
For a more comprehensive description of modern cosmology and the anthropic principle, see Russell, R. J., N. Murphy, and C. J. Isham, eds. Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Physics. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, 1996; Barrow, J. D., and F. J. Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
There are about a dozen physical constants whose values have to be determined from experiments. For example, the electron mass is equal to 9.1093826 (16) x 10-31kg.
For example, if the ratio of proton to electron mass (1.836 x 103) were very slightly varied, DNA replication would become impossible.
As stated by Barrow and Tipler, there are three primary versions of the anthropic principle: (1) Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): “The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.” (2) Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): “The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.” (3) Final Anthropic Principle (FAP): “Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out.” Barrow and Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 15-23. In this paper, we will focus on WAP which is the most acceptable version.
Leslie, J. Universes. London and New York: Routledge, 1989.
The discoveries from paleontology indicate that more than 99% of the species of life have developed and become extinct in the evolutionary history.
For example, the Australopithecus Africanus (the southern ape from Africa).
Although there is uncertainty about the identity of the author of the Fourth Gospel, we will simply name him as John, following the tradition of Irenaeus (130-200 C.E.).
This is hard to define the meaning of the temporal word “before” here, as time itself did not exist before the creation. St. Augustine answered well the question: “What was God doing before He made heaven and earth?” His answer was “God was preparing hell to those who pry into mysteries.” Augustine, Confessions, XI.xiii.14.
The emphasis of the Logos in the Johannine Prologue has been well explained by many authors. See, for example, Morris, L. The Gospel According to John, rev. ed., 102-111. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Schnackenburg, R. The Gospel According to St. John, vol. 1. London: Burns & Oates, 1968; and Brown, R. E. The Gospel According to John, vol. 1. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1966.
In addition to the concept of creation-out-of-nothing (Creatio ex Nihilo), this idea of continuing creation (Creatio Continua) can also be found in the Hebrew writings, for example, Psalm 104.
Popper, K. R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books, 1959.
In Greek, cosmos means orderliness.
This is interesting to note that in Hebrew, the words God and Nature have the same numerical value, and so do the two words love and one. Therefore, some modern scholars argue that to love implies being in one with God.
Light is one kind of electromagnetic radiation. In scientific terms, the phrase in Genesis, “let there be light”, can be interpreted as “let there be radiation”! Gerald Schroeder gives an interesting scientific analysis on Genesis in his book Genesis and the Big Bang. New York: Bantam Books, 1990.
Two fine books on the historical studies of extraterrestrial life are Dick, S. Plurality of Worlds: The Origins of the Extraterrestrial life Debate from Democritus to Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982; and Crowe, M. The Extraterrestrial Life Debate, 1750-1900. Mineola: Dover, 1999. For a short historical review, see Crowe, M. “A History of the Extraterrestrial Life Debate.” In Zygon 32 # 2 (June 1997) 147-162.
Drake, F. “Project Ozma.” In Physics Today 14 (April 1961) 40-46.
Drake’s original calculation gave N=100,000.
Barrow and Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 576.
Barrow and Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 133.
Lovejoy, C. O. “Evolution of man and its implications for general principles of the evolution of intelligent life.” In Life in the Universe, edited by J. Billingham, 326. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1981.
The Human Genome Project, completed in 2003, found that the number of genes in the human genome is about 30,000 and each contains an average of 3000 nucleotide bases (A, C, T and G), of which about 10% are immutable for building proteins. The probability against assembling the human genome spontaneously is then , (4-3000x0.1)30000 10-5000000,an exceedingly small number.
Simpson, G. G. The Meaning of Evolution, 512. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967.
The Copernican Principle states that we do not occupy a special position in the universe.
As of 16 October 2007, astronomers have discovered 255 extrasolar planets in 218 separate extrasolar systems – 192 single-planet systems and 26 multiple-planet systems. All of these planets except one (named PSR 1257+12 b) are more massive than earth. NASA's proposed Kepler mission, scheduled for launch in February 2009, will search for earth-sized planets around 100,000 sun-like stars over a period of 4 years. It is expected that several hundreds of terrestrial planets in the habitable zone (where liquid water can exist on the planets) will then be detected. But if Kepler fails to find any terrestrial planets, then such planets must be rare and life might be uncommon in the universe.
See footnote 35.
The vastness of space is no waste because of our own presence. Our universe must be old enough for the stellar production of heavy elements necessary for the evolution of life and consciousness. But an old expanding universe has to be very huge. This is another example of the anthropic principle.
Carter, B. “The Anthropic Principle and Its Implications for Biological Evolution,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A 310 (1983) 347-363.
A G2 star has a surface temperature of about 6000°C while a main sequence star burns its hydrogen fuel in the core in a stable state. A star like our sun will stay on the main sequence for about 10 billion years.
Barrow and Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 576.
One day in 1950 during a mealtime at Los Alamos National Laboratory, when his fellows were discussing the advanced civilizations in the galaxy, the famous physicist Enrico Fermi asked, “So? Where is everybody?” The colloquial saying adopted by most authors is “If they existed, they would be here.”
The motivations for interstellar communication and exploration include information exchange and survival needs. Barrow and Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 590-601.
This is a short period when compared to the age of the galaxy which is more than ten billion years. A more optimistic calculation will give a period of less than 4 million years. Barrow and Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 578-590. See also Tipler. The Physics of Immortality, 54-55. New York: Doubleday, 1994.
Sullivan, W. “Alone in the Universe?” Nature 380 (21 March 1996) 211.
The official website is
http://www.seti-inst.edu/Welcome.html.
Two billion channels in the range of 1 to 3 GHz for each target star were simultaneously monitored with a bandwidth of only 1 Hz. This radio range corresponds to the wavelengths of 10cm to 30cm, which, as the astronomers believe, is the best part of the electromagnetic spectrum for interstellar communications.
In his popular book, The Age of Reason, first published in 1793, the deist Thomas Paine rejects Christianity for a number of reasons. He argues that it is ridiculous for him to believe that the Son of God would have to die many times on different planets harboring intelligent beings: “are we to suppose that every world in the boundless creation had an Eve, an apple, a serpent, and a redeemer? In this case, the person who is irreverently called the Son of God, and sometimes God himself, would have nothing else to do than to travel from world to world, in an endless succession of death, with scarcely a momentary interval of life.” Paine, T. “The Age of Reason.” In Thomas Paine; Representative Selections, edited by H. H. Clark, 283. New York: Hill and Wang, 1961.
Teilhard de Chardin, P. The Phenomenon of Man. New York: Harper & Row, 1959.
7. The Human Condition in the Evolutionary Context
In his famous book “the Phenomenon of Man”69, Teilhard de Chardin simply divides the evolution of the universe into three interrelated stages, from matter to life and then to human. Important and critical transitions happened in these evolutionary processes and the entire universe was created with a potential to move from the inanimate stage to the conscious stage. The historical Jesus was the summit of divine creation and was also a new stage of creation that became a perfect model for humankind. According to Teilhard de Chardin, Jesus is a unique symbol of the union of the divine and the created human, which is indeed the goal and fulfillment of the divine creation. The incarnation of Jesus was not primarily to redeem us from the bondage of sins, but essentially to unite us with God through love. In the gospels, the coming of the kingdom of God, a perfect scene in which God reigns with his full intention of creation, is always the central missionary message of Jesus. We are called to authentic existence and to become a perfect image of God full of grace, truth and love70.
The Logos is the empowerment within the emergent universe that drives the evolutionary processes conforming to the laws of nature. He is present in every creation process and he works through the natural laws he has established. In the first transition, order was shaped out of the chaos towards the complexity of life. In the second transition, life evolved through the biological laws towards even greater complexity that brought about the emergence of intelligence and consciousness71. Nevertheless, each phase of evolution possessed a certain degree of “freedom” and therefore the development of complexity was not carried out in a pre-determined way. In the initial inanimate universe, the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics was the autonomy in the interactions of small particles. Before the advent of intelligence, there were the statistical laws of random mutation and natural selection in biological evolution. There is now the free will for human beings who certainly have a much more profound influence on the course of evolution. Being self-conscious and intelligent, we could actually destroy the long history of evolution by just pressing a nuclear button or contribute to our future development in a constructive way. The evolution is still going on and the current phase becomes more crucial owing to our greater complexity and freedom.
In this crucial phase of evolution, the incarnation of the Logos became necessary for revealing to us the nature of creation so that the present social and cultural evolution might lead us to true humanity. In Philip Hefner's terminology, we have now evolved into a symbiosis of genes and cultures72. Hefner regards original sin as the discrepancy we experience between the information coming from our genes and from our culture and also as the fallibility and limitation that are part of the human evolution. We are fallible in a sense that we move forward only through trial and error. Nevertheless, as emphasized by Denis Edwards, discrepancy and fallibility are not of themselves sins73. Using Karl Rahner's clarification of the theological concept of concupiscence74, Edwards stresses that there are two major disorders associated with original sin. The first kind of disorder comes from the current sinful condition that is a result of the long history of the human rejection of God. We were born and brought up in a sinful world which affects us and which is the framework for making our own decisions. We are more or less shaped by other people and by history. As social and cultural beings, we actualize ourselves in a situation that has been contaminated with the sin of the world. “The sin of others is a universal and permanent part of the human condition from the beginning and is in this sense original.”75
The second kind of disorder is not a result of sin but is intrinsic to us as a spiritual being and simultaneously as a fundamentally physical and limited creature. Owing to our bodiliness and finitude, “we human beings are never fully autonomous, integrated and in control.”76 Nevertheless, Rahner does not think that we can overcome these human characteristics, as they are actually part of the divine creation. This kind of concupiscence is a consequence of our finitude and, as Rahner insists, is morally neutral. It may keep us not only from doing good things but also from doing bad ones. In other words, we are inherently fallible because as finite evolutionary creatures we are subject to our limitations and past evolutionary routes. This is the way that God has created us as free responsible selves. Unfortunately our ancestors did fall and they created a sinful environment for us.
Traditionally, sacraments are regarded as the symbolic instruments for conveying the grace of God to believers. The sacramental rituals are special moments in which the finite humanity encounters the infinite divinity. Jesus Christ is the primordial sacrament of God and the Church, founded by Jesus, is the consequential sacrament of Christ. In the sacrament of baptism we acknowledge Jesus Christ as our savior through the grace of God and we begin our new life in the Christian way. In the evolutionary context, it means that one has to conquer concupiscence by joining the Christian community whose people are witnesses to the perfect life of Jesus and also by making right choices in his or her life within human limitations. Humanity is a new species with the greatest freedom in the evolutionary history and now we can find the meaning of the cosmic evolution in Jesus Christ, the Logos, who will enable us to make the quantum leap. Nevertheless, our own participation in creating ourselves is important because we have become God's “created co-creators”77 who are evolving into a new creation not only through the salvific work of Jesus but also by our own efforts.
8. Jesus Christ in the Evolutionary Perspective
Our being human signifies a new evolutionary step towards the union with the Creator. Before the appearance of human beings, all created entities with their lower levels of freedom are in harmony with each other and they form an ecological system. However, the non-human creations do not have the moral and spiritual capacities that are unique to human beings. Now humanity, as part of nature, has remarkable abilities and potentialities far greater than its pre-human ancestors. We have evolved into self-conscious and spiritual beings with free wills and moral judgments. In the context of evolutionary biology, the fall of Adam can only be a symbolic story for the goodness of the on-going creation. Each level of creation has new challenges directing to the ultimate goals of creation. Using the terminology of Charles Birch and John Cobb, human beings are “falling upward” that “identifies the occurrence of a new level of order and freedom bought at the price of suffering.”78 Adam’s fall denotes not only an authentic experience of every person from being innocent to committing sins, but also the alienation from harmony or the break-up of relationships when the creation moved from the pre-human stage to the human stage. In this perspective, should there be extraterrestrial intelligent beings, they would also have their own fall and inherit their own original sin.
It is important to realize at this point that creation is not a single event in time but is an unfinished continuing process. The concept of continuing creation is not foreign even in the Old Testament, though it may not be one of the central ideas. We, being created, are invited to participate in the continuing creative work of God (Gen 1: 27-28). Like Teilhard de Chardin, Philip Hefner maintains that Jesus is the perfect model of true humanity. Jesus, as fully human and fully divine signifying the unity of the creation and the Creator, denotes a new stage of cosmic evolution and divine self-communication that requires our free decisions and our active involvement. We are called to be in perfect relationship with the cosmos, with others and ourselves as well as with the divine mystery. If “sin, in all its forms, is a violation of relatedness”79, then the salvation of Christ is to help us live out all these relationships to a superb extent. As the Logos placed order out of the chaos in the beginning of the cosmic history, he now places order out of evil and sin in the human history. Like the two faces of a coin, creation and salvation are one plan of God in this cosmic sense.
The grace of God offered to us in the sacraments is therefore part of the continuing creation of God. We are summoned to participate in God's creation by building up qualitative relationships with God, people and nature through the love of God manifest in Jesus the Christ. Grace, as a self-communication of God, is not only individual and communal but also environmental. We live in a world of grace because the universe itself is sacramental.80 The emergence of self-consciousness in the universe is also the gradual awareness of the presence of the divine love in this universe full of grace.
In the incarnation of the Logos, we can discern the nature of the divine creation and the meaning of the human existence. The creation is a long evolutionary process in the light of contemporary cosmology and the historical Jesus is “the continuation and fulfillment of a long cosmic evolution”81. Being the heart of creation, Jesus reveals to us the full meaning of creation. He as a man shares our cosmic evolutionary history that started from the Big Bang, continued in the creation of heavy elements in the stars and supernovae, and evolved from the early life forms to Homo sapiens. As the Logos, Jesus is also the self-expression and the self-revelation of God to creation. He is the origin of all beings in the cosmos as well as the ultimate meaning of the evolving conscious cosmos. The goal of the cosmic evolution may be perceived as the preparation for the incarnation of the Logos who would bring the whole creation into union with God. As a corollary, the assumption of human nature by the Logos implies two possibilities. The first one is that we may be the only intelligent species in the whole universe and the other one is that we may be the intelligent species that has first attained the capacities for making moral judgment and spiritual reflection. This result is consonant with our earlier scientific discussions on the (non-)existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life. To put it another way, the absence of extraterrestrial intelligence conforms to our understanding of the incarnation of the Logos in the evolutionary perspective.
The uniqueness of humankind is in fact a “classical” solution which is now shown to be in agreement with the weak anthropic principle. The stance that only one world existed was taken by Thomas Aquinas when he, following the Aristotelian tradition, tried to refute the many worlds hypothesis put forward by earlier theologians including St. Augustine. Although the plurality of worlds could exhibit the greatness and the glory of the Creator who, being omnipotent and absolutely free, could have created other worlds82, St. Thomas rejected the pluralist model because it seemed to deny the orderly unity of the Creator. In his Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas argues:
The very order of things created by God shows the unity of the world. For this world is called one by the unity of order, whereby some things are ordered to others. But whatever things come from God, have relation of order to each other, and to God Himself... Hence it must be that all things should belong to one world.83
Although the human race might be alone in the universe, we are not the final stage of evolution but we are emerging into a new mode of creation and becoming more like Christ, “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15), through the divinizing grace of God. Using the terminology of Teilhard de Chardin, we are in the phase of Christogenesis in which we are creating ourselves with empowerment from the pre-existing and eternal Logos who is the “alpha-point” of all existing things as well as the “omega-point” of the evolutionary cosmos. The human person is more who one becomes than who one is. The ultimate goal of the evolutionary cosmos is the harmony of all creation in the Logos who, as a person, discloses perfect dynamic relationships with God, with humanity and with nature. This is the true humanity for us and this is also the joyful revelation that the Johannine community experienced in the resurrected Jesus. The doctrine of original sin may then be understood as part of the inevitable process for the transcendence of human beings who have a long history of evolutionary legacy. Through the ritual of baptism, the recipient has a new life and becomes a new creation in Christ, as emphasized by St. Paul. In his book on the sacraments of initiation, Kenan Osborne writes:
The Christian does not merely have life without sin, but a wholly new kind of life which is for God and in Christ Jesus… unifying the baptized more strongly with one another, but above all more deeply unifying the believers with Christ, with the Spirit, and with the Father.84
As pre-human ancestors evolved through natural selection and mutation, humanity now evolve through human freedom and decision of accepting the grace of God that has existed ever since the primordial creation and the dawn of consciousness. Rejecting the traditional concept of original sin, the theologian Matthew Fox even writes that Genesis actually portrays the “original blessing” of humanity85 and this should become the new paradigm for our time.
9. Jesus as the Cosmic Savior
Human beings are made in the image of God and we can now say that this image is Jesus Christ who has restored the cosmic order and has transformed the entire creation through His death and resurrection. This character of the image of God is universal and transcendental. In his letter to the Colossians, Paul clearly presents Christ as the creator, the preserver and the savior for the entire creation:
He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities – all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Col 1: 15-20)
It is important to note that Christ’s salvation is for all things, whether on earth or in heaven86. All things, from the elementary particles to the galactic systems, and from the microbes to the intelligent beings, were created by him and for him. This important concept of Paul is consonant with John's conviction that Christ is the alpha and the omega of all creation (Rev 1:8). In the letter to the Romans, Paul emphasizes that the Passover of Jesus is a single historic event, “The death he died, he died to sin once for all.” (Rom 6:10) The incarnation of Jesus Christ is indeed part of the divine creation plan that is scheduled for the appropriate social and cultural settings in human history87. As mentioned earlier, the incarnation in the evolutionary perspective is not primarily for the forgiveness of human sin, but is essentially for the union of the cosmos with its creator. In other words, the salvation of Jesus Christ in this broader sense is a divine creation activity that has made its way into human and cosmic history. The Logos would become human whether we have sinned or not, although our earlier analysis shows that sin may be an inescapable phenomenon in the evolutionary context. It should be pointed out that this concept of incarnation has its root in the scholastic tradition. When Duns Scotus (1266-1308) tried to explain the concept of the unio hypostatica88, he affirmed that it was the intention of God that the world was created for Christ in the very beginning and the world should be united with Christ by the closest possible relationship – the incarnation89.
The cosmic character of the Logos is prominent in Colossians 1:15-20 90. The salvation of Jesus Christ is a once-for-all incident and its efficacy extends not only in time but also in space. This cosmic Christology of Paul is consistent with the conception of evolution that we have so far developed. Teilhard de Chardin even refers the cosmic dimension of Christ as the third nature of Christ91, demonstrating the significance of this idea that has grown from modern cosmology. The universal redemption of Christ essentially applies to all created beings, including any extraterrestrial intelligent life that might exist elsewhere in the universe. Multiple incarnations of the Logos in these other worlds are unnecessary because the earthly once-for-all incarnation of the Logos with the “blood of his cross” has made available the reconciliation of the alien beings with God. In the same way as the Israelites were chosen by God to represent the salvation of God for all nations and peoples in the Old Testament, Homo sapiens are now chosen by God to designate the reconciliation of God with the Christocentric universe. Being the very first intelligent species in the universe, we now take on the mission to bring the good news to the alien civilizations should they exist. This is scientifically feasible on account of the colonization of the galaxy by our own species in less than 300 million years. Applying the space-travel argument to ourselves, we would have colonized the entire galaxy well before other intelligent beings could successfully evolve on their home planets92. Nevertheless, as noted by Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, the participation of the Christian redemption, be it earthly or extraterrestrial, must be guided by the Holy Spirit, “who also works in a way which is mostly unknown for us, but certainly the only one able to secure the universality and interiorization of salvation.”93
10. The Fulfillment of Human Life
From the biblical anthropology, a Christian can reflect on the way to fulfill the purpose of human life as created by God. The moral actions that he takes should correspond to the inherent values of the human person. This is the basic concept of morality94. Although an atheist can also be a moral person by recognizing the goodness of creation through natural reason, he may still fall into error by human ignorance95. The true humanity can only be known as it is given to us by the revelation of God as the Creator, especially in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the Logos. As God himself became one of us in our history, we are assured of the goodness and value of the divine creation and more importantly the ultimate meaning of human existence.
In his book on abortion and euthanasia, Ronald Dworkin maintains that for religious people all human beings are sacred because they are the beloved children of God. He also argues that for the non-religious people every human being is nevertheless sacred because each individual human life is the highest product of natural creation as well as the masterpiece of human creation96. Scholars such as Michael Perry and Robert Grant97 disagree that Dworkin has successfully laid the foundation for the sacredness of human beings in the objective way and therefore they attempt to employ alternative secular justifications for human rights. I propose that one possible response to this opposition is to resort to the new discoveries in modern cosmology. As we have discussed earlier, evolutionary and cosmological scientists today have shown that human beings are the products of some highly improbable evolutionary processes that may happen once and for all in the history of the universe. Moreover, as Teilhard de Chardin pointed out, human beings are significant and precious because we have the greatest complexity and the highest level of organization in the universe98.
As the children of God, we should live a coherent life showing our special status and relationship among ourselves. As repetitively commanded by Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, our response to accepting God’s love is to love our neighbors as ourselves including our enemies and persecutors. In fact, the self-realization of the human person takes place through our moral acts towards other people and ourselves. The Jesuit, Joseph Fuchs, writes nicely, “…believers must translate their living faith, that is, their ‘Christian intentionality,’ into concrete living and manifest it in their lives. This is the reality of the human person…”99 The fulfillment of the human person is simply “that he live as man, that he discover himself and his world as well as their latent possibilities, that he understand them, that he shape and realize himself as genuinely human, as bodily-spiritual being.”100 I believe this is the best response to the recognition of the anthropic principle.
11. Concluding Remarks
In this paper, we have examined our current understandings of the cosmic evolution and the divine creation and presented a possible integration of these two ostensibly contradicting concepts. By investigating specific questions which concern both disciplines, science and theology can contribute to a coherent vision of reality. In particular, our investigation shows that the evolutionary worldview can help us better understand the original plan of the divine creation, the meaning of the human person as the imago Dei, and the salvific universality of the incarnation of the Logos. This is in agreement with the thought of St. Thomas that “nature, philosophy’s proper concern, could contribute to the understanding of divine Revelation.”101 The ultimate goal of scientific research is to discern the work of God and, more importantly, to know God Himself. This is also the conviction of the author of the Book of Wisdom: “From the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator” (Wis 13:5).
Our free determination to accept God's invitation becomes part of the fulfillment of the divine creative activity in the cosmic Christology. The sacrament of baptism is a symbol of the acceptance of the recipient to the invitation of this cosmic construction through the grace of God. It removes original sin in a sense that it transforms us from the state of concupiscence to a new state of creation with the fulfillment of relationships with God, other people, ourselves and nature. The transcendent and immanent God creates us not only to be the most advanced creatures in the universe but also to be His sons and daughters. This is the salvation that Jesus has brought us. It is actually a great honour for us to be able to participate in the divine creation that has taken place for 14 billion years. Nonetheless it is not an easy task and accordingly Jesus promised to send us the Holy Spirit as our spiritual guidance. God has never rested from his creative work but has been recruiting us to join the construction of His kingdom. The present realization of this kingdom under construction is also the experience of the Johannine community whose people were baptized with water and the Spirit from above. Many scholars hold that this kind of realized eschatology in the Fourth Gospel emphasizes the response of the believer who can experience the fullness of humanity now. In the cosmic Christology, the real Sabbath in the Genesis creation story is established only if the whole creation is consummated in union with the Logos at the end of the cosmic evolutionary history. This is also the time that the kingdom of God genuinely comes upon us who will then become fully the image of God. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul concludes with such an evolutionary vision: “Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.” (1 Cor 15:49) This is our true humanity.
In fact, Jesus summarizes his sermon on the mount by asking his followers to “be perfect, as our heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48).
It is interesting to note that intelligence and consciousness are not vital capacities for the survival of the fittest in nature.
Hefner, P. The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture and Religion, 102. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
Edwards, D. The God of Evolution, 65. New York: Paulist Press 1999.
Rahner, K. “The Theological Concept of Concupiscentia.” In Theological Investigations I, 347-382. Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1961.
Edwards. The God of Evolution, 67.
Edwards. The God of Evolution, 65.
Our role as created co-creators is well explored by Philip Hefner in his book The Human Factor.
Birch, C., and J. B. Cobb. The Liberation of Life: From the Cell to the Community, 138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Barbour. Religion and Science, 270.
Temple, W. “The Sacramental Universe.” In Nature, Man and God. Macmillan: London, 1934.
Barbour. Religion and Science, 248.
For this reason, the Bishop of Paris, Etienne Tempier, condemned in 1277 the Aristotelian proposition “that the First Cause cannot make many worlds”. Dick. Plurality of Worlds, 28.
Thomas, A. Summa Theologiae I, q. 47, a. 3.
Osborne, K. The Christian Sacraments of Initiation: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, 46. New York: Paulist Press, 1987.
Fox, M. Original Blessing, 18-19. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 2000.
The words “all things” or “everything” appear seven times in this Pauline passage.
In Mark's Gospel, Jesus began his mission by first proclaiming the fulfillment of time: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel.” (Mk 1:15)
The hypostatic union is a theological term asserting the one person subsisting in two natures, the divine and the human, of the incarnate Christ.
Minges, P. “Duns Scotus, Blessed John.” In The Catholic Encyclopedia (online). New York: Appleton, 1907-12;
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05194a.htm.
See also Eph 1: 3-10.
. Teilhard de Chardin. The Heart of Matter, 93. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978.
The idea that we might transmit the knowledge of the salvation of the Logos to other planets via radio communication is obviously out of place here.
Tanzella-Nitti, G. “Extraterrestrial Life.” In Interdisciplinary Encyclopaedia of Religion and Science, edited by G. Tanzella-Nitti and Alberto Strumia. (online English version)
http://www.disf.org/en.
For Aristotle, morality is to live a virtuous way of life in fulfillment of a moral tradition; for Kant, it is based on reason and freedom; and for utilitarians, a moral action should bring the greatest happiness for human beings.
This is emphasized by Thomas Aquinas, for example, in his Summa Theologiae I, q. i. a. 2.
Dworkin, R. Life’s Dominion: An Argument about Abortion, Euthanasia and Individual Freedom. New York: Knopf, 1993.
Perry, M. J. “Is the Idea of Human Rights Essentially Religious?” In Doctrine and Life 45 (April 1995) 284-296. Grant, R. “Abortion and the Idea of the Sacred.” In Times Literary Supplement, June 18, 1993, 11.
Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, 226-228.
Fuchs, J. “Is There a Specifically Christian Morality?” In The Distinctiveness of Christian Ethics – Readings in Moral Theology, no. 2, edited by C. E. Curran , and R. A. McCormick, 8. Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1980.
Fuchs, “Is There a Specifically Christian Morality?”, 10.
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998) 43.
Bibliography
Barbour, I. G. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997.
Barrow, J. D., and Tipler, F. J. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
Billington, J., ed. Life in the Universe. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1981.
Birch, C., and Cobb, J. The Liberation of Life: From the Cell to the Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Brown, R. E. The Gospel According to John, 2 vols. AB 29, 29a, Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1966-1970.
Brown, R. E., J. A. Fitzmyer and R. E. Murphy, eds. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.
Brown, W. S., N. Murphy and H. N. Malony, eds. Whatever Happened to the Soul? Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.
Carter, B. “The Anthropic Principle and Its Implications for Biological Evolution.” In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, A 310 (1983) 347-363.
Clark, H. H., ed. Thomas Paine; Representative Selections. New York: Hill and Wang, 1961.
Clayton, P. God and Contemporary Science. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Crowe, M. The Extraterrestrial Life Debate, 1750-1900. Mineola: Dover, 1999.
Crowe, M. “A History of the Extraterrestrial Life Debate.” In Zygon, 32 # 2 (June 1997) 147-162.
Cullmann, O. Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? New York: MacMillan, 1958.
DeGidio, S. “What is a Sacrament?” In Sacraments Alive: Their History, Celebration and Significance, 4-20. Mystic CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1991.
Davis, J. J. “Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the Christian Doctrine of Redemption.” In Science and Christian Belief 9 # 1 (1997) 21-34.
Davies, P. Are We Alone? Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life. New York: Basic Books, 1995.
Davies, P. The Mind of God. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992)
de Silva, L. The Problem of Self in Buddhism and Christianity. London: MacMillan, 1979.
Dick, S. Life on Other Worlds: The 20th-Century Extraterrestrial Life Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Dick, S., ed. Many Worlds: The New Universe, Extraterrestrial Life, and the Theological Implications. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2000.
Dick, S. Plurality of Worlds: The Origins of the Extraterrestrial life Debate from Democritus to Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Drake, F. “Project Ozma.” In Physics Today 14 (April 1961) 40-46.
Drees, W. Beyond the Big Bang: Quantum Cosmologies and God. La Salle: Open Court, 1990.
Dworkin, R. Life’s Dominion: An Argument about Abortion, Euthanasia and Individual Freedom. New York: Knopf, 1993.
Edwards, D. Breath of Life: A Theology of the Creator Spirit. Maryknoll N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2004.
Edwards, D. Jesus and the Cosmos. New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1991.
Edwards, D. The God of Evolution. New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1999.
Eichrodt, W. Man in the Old Testament, translated by K. and R. G. Smith. London:SCM Press, 1951.
Evans, C. A. Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Gospel, JSNTup 89. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
Finn, T. M. “General Introduction.” In Early Christian Baptism and the Catechumenate: West and East Syria, 1-27. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992.
Fox, M. Original Blessing. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 2000.
Fox, M. The Coming of the Cosmic Christ. Melbourne: Collins Dove, 1988.
Fuchs, J. “Is There a Specifically Christian Morality?” In The Distinctiveness of Christian Ethics – Readings in Moral Theology, # 2, edited by C. E. Curran and R. A. McCormick, 3-19. Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1980.
Grant, F. An Introduction to New Testament Thought. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1950.
Harris, E. Prologue and Gospel. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
Haught, J. F. God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution. Boulder: Westview Press, 2000.
Hawking S. The Illustrated A Brief History of Time. New York: Bantam Books, 1996.
Hefner, P. The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture and Religion. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
Henry, G. C. Logos. New York: Associated University Presses, 1976.
John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio. 14 September, 1998.
Leslie, J. Universes. London and New York: Routledge, 1989.
MaGrath, A. E. Science and Religion: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 1999.
McKenna, J. “Symbol and Reality: Some Anthropological Considerations.” In Worship 65 (1991) 2-27.
McKenzie, J. L. Dictionary of the Bible. London: Chapman, 1966.
Moloney, F. J. The Gospel of John. Sacra Pagina 4. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998.
Morris, L. The Gospel According to John, rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Osborne, K. B. The Christian Sacraments of Initiation: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist. New York: Paulist Press, 1987.
Osborne, K. B. “Official Church Teaching on the Sacraments” In Sacramental Theology: A General Introduction, 100-118. New York: Paulist Press, 1988.
O'Murchu, D. Quantum Theology. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1998.
Pannenberg, W. Toward a Theology of Nature: Essays on Science and Faith. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.
Peacocke A. Theology for a Scientific Age. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
Perry, M. J. “Is the Idea of Human Rights Essentially Religious?” Doctrine and Life 45 (April 1995) 284-296.
Polkinghorne J. Belief in God in an Age of Science. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998.
Polkinghorne J. The Faith of a Physicist. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.
Popper, K. R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books, 1959.
Porteous, N. W. Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 4 Nashville: Abingdon, 1962.
Rahner K. “The Theological Concept of Concupiscentia.” In Theological Investigations I, 347-382. Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1961.
Richardson, M., and W. Wildman, eds. Religion and Science: History, Method, Dialogue. New York: Routledge, 1996.
Russell, R. J., N. Murphy, and C. J. Isham, eds. Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Physics. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, 1996.
Russell, R. J., N. Murphy, T. C. Meyering, and M. A. Arbib, eds. Neuroscience and the Person: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, 1999.
Russell, R. J., W. R. Stoeger, and F. J. Ayala, eds. Evolutionary and Molecular Biology: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, 1998.
Russell, R. J., W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, eds. Physics, Philosophy and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding, 2nd ed. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, 1995.
Schillebeeckx, E. “Christ the Primordial Sacrament.” In Christ the Sacrament of Encounter with God, 13-47. London: Sheed and Ward, 1963.
Schnackenburg, R. The Gospel according to St. John, 3 vols., HThKNT IV/1-3. London: Burns & Oates, 1968-1982.
Schroeder, G. L. Genesis and the Big Bang. New York: Bantam Books, 1990.
Schmitz-Moormann, K. Theology of Creation in an Evolutionary World. Cleveland: Pilgram Press, 1997.
Simpson, G. G. The Meaning of Evolution. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967.
Sullivan, W. We Are Not Alone: The Continuing Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, rev. ed. New York: Dutton, 1993.
Teilhard de Chardin, P. The Phenomenon of Man. London: William Collins, 1959.
Teilhard de Chardin, P. The Heart of Matter. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978.
Temple, W. Nature, Man and God. Macmillan: London, 1934.
Tipler, F. The Physics of Immortality. New York: Doubleday, 1994.
Worthing M. W. God, Creation, and Contemporary Physics. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.