Evolutionary Theology

Author and historian Yuval Harari has foreseen a future where humans emerge as "self-made gods of planet Earth." Yet what may displace Homo Deus as the main mover in evolution? A prime candidate is a hybrid lifeform of greater scope. A new genus of superorganisms – Deus Narrans – will have an opportunity to engage actual and virtual beings across species lines in quests to co-evolve shared values, rather than advance a single genetic and memetic lineage. The art, technology and science endeavors arising from such new transspecies connectives may surpass in influence those of species-bound rivals. Exponential technologies will propel this transition. For eons, material scarcities prompted zero-sum rivalries among and between hominids and other species to reproduce at the expense of one another. As plenitude and longevity grow, new forms of non-zero sum interchange will arise among sentient beings. Evolution in a post-scarcity era will differ from earlier epochs by turning to the spread of lumenes -- replicable qualities of spirit (patterns of emotional response)-across species lines. New communication technologies and pattern languages can speed this shift. Technologies already are emerging for sentient beings to converse and share emotions among distantly-related animal and plant lifeforms. These tools will become central as evolution grows branchier. Genetic engineering and artificial intelligence soon will make Homo Sapiens the ancestor of myriad new cultures and species, many far surpassing our present capabilities. As a common ground for connecting sentient life forms, Deus Narrans can meet the need for spreading empathic resonances, understandings and collaboration among beings across species lines. The heart of such interactions may be a fractal system for co-creation in the realms of art, science, and technology. This paper maps how "social tetrahedrons" and “narrative fractals” can serve as interfaces through which sentient beings of all kinds can share experiences and create value at all scales in multiple realms. In the coming year, open source apps will begin testing such interfaces to bridge current cultural barriers in peer learning and online collaboration. If transcultural pilots succeed, they may set the stage for millions of humans – as well as individuals from new lifeforms to come – to explore, thrive, and co-evolve in relationships made possible by Deus Narrans.

Peut-on faire dialoguer le discours religieux sur la création
et le discours savant sur l’écologie ? Peut-on accepter que
la métaphysique et le discours scientifique sur la nature
demeurent étrangers l’un à l’autre ? Peut-on trouver dans le
christianisme et la philosophie des éléments de médiation afin que
ces deux conceptions entrent en dialogue ? Peut-on rapprocher
l’action créatrice de Dieu et les processus naturels mis en évidence
par la science en disant que Dieu crée dans le temps ?
Une relecture ouverte de la Bible et des Pères révèle que
la tradition chrétienne est à même de relever les défis de la
culture moderne et les interpellations de la sensibilité écologique
contemporaine. La notion de création continuée qui s’en dégage
rejoint ce que la cosmologie scientifique nous donne de percevoir
de la nature dans sa dimension historique et ce que la contestation
écologique nous demande d’apercevoir en ce qui concerne
l’importance et le sens de la biodiversité.
L’enjeu de cet ouvrage en ressort double. Il vise à clarifier
le concept de création continuée qui persiste à faire débat dans
le monde catholique et à justifier sa pleine légitimité. Il entend
aussi en fournir une représentation innovante parce qu’originelle
et apte par-là à motiver les chrétiens à s’engager en faveur de
la sauvegarde de la création. Car l’acte divin implique d’abord et
toujours le dynamisme et la relation.
Un traité éclairant, militant, limpide et fort.

There remains no credibility to arguments in opposition of Magellan’s spherical Earth (a theory originating in ancient Greek), Copernicus’s heliocentrism, or Newton’s Law of Gravitation; however, each of those theoretical assertions caused rifts in the common thinking of their times. While the Copernican Effect was considered seismic, no scientific revelation has impacted the world community with the same magnitude as Darwin’s theories of evolution—descent with modification, and natural and sexual selection. A widely applicable neologism I construed—What was fringe or heresy yesterday is science today—remains outside of the Darwinian paradigm since, for over one hundred fifty years, the central debate between creation and evolution continues, along with discord among the subsets contained within each side of the argument. Moreover, there appear to be as many scholarly exegeses on the conjecture of Darwin’s theism, if any, as there are on the central arguments of his theories. A fair presupposition is that Darwin’s beliefs would be revealed in his own writings; however, even when Darwin appears to make a clear statement on his theological position, he keeps his readers in obscurity through inconstancy, contradiction, or ambiguity, rendering his works ripe for analytical conjecture by those championing atheism, agnosticism, or natural theology. This essay will review Darwin’s beliefs as revealed in his writings throughout his life. Indeed, he transitioned as he matured as a man, scientist, father, and husband. Occasionally, examples will be provided to illustrate how Darwin’s own words are utilized out of context to support an author’s position on Darwin’s faith or lack of faith in a Creator. Finally, Darwin’s implied teleology is asserted through the examinations of First Cause, natural laws and theology, and theodicy.

Est-il correct de vouloir parler de désir de la création comme on prête des désirs à un sujet
humain ? Ce thème issu de l’épître aux Romains (8,19) semble suggérer cette interprétation
dans le contexte particulier de la crise écologique. Cependant une étude exégétique
attentive montre que telle n’est pas l’intention de Paul dont l’objectif est d’aviver la foi des
chrétiens de Rome en la résurrection. Comment est-il alors envisageable d’un point de vue
théologique de parler du désir de la création ? Comment éviter le piège anthropomorphique
de l’attribution d’une subjectivité propre à la création porteuse de ce désir ? Pierre Teilhard
de Chardin envisageait que l’histoire de l’univers tendait vers la réalisation de cette
subjectivité par l’avènement de la conscience généralisée, ou noosphère, médiatisée par
l’être humain. Le dialogue entre science et religion par la médiation de la philosophie de la
nature donnera des éléments d’intelligibilité d’un désir objectif et immanent présent dans la
création. Ce désir se caractérise par la contingence de sa réalisation vers une fin
indéterminée et selon une progression probabiliste. Il se manifeste dans la nature par une
profusion de modalités : dans le vivant, selon une herméneutique de la théorie de
l’évolution de Charles Darwin ; et dans l’univers, selon une herméneutique du modèle
standard de la nouvelle cosmologie depuis Georges Lemaître. Cette approche permettra
d’envisager les attentes eschatologiques de la création, la sortie d’un sens indéterminé
naturellement, en vue de sa glorification en Dieu.
Is it correct to speak of the desire of creation as the desires felt by human subjects? This
theme derived from the Epistle to the Romans (8,19) seems to suggest this interpretation in
the specific context of the ecological crisis. However a careful exegetical study shows that
this is not Paul’s intention, who aims to heighten the faith of the Christians of Rome in the
resurrection. How is it then possible to envisage from a theological point of view to speak
of the desire of creation? How is it possible to avoid the trap of an anthropomorphic
attribution of subjectivity to creation bearer of this desire? Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
envisioned that the history of the universe tends towards the achievement of this
subjectivity by the advent of the widespread consciousness, or noosphere, mediated by the
human being. The dialogue between science and religion through the mediation of the
philosophy of nature will give elements of understanding of an immanent desire and
purpose within creation. This desire is characterized by the contingency of its realization
toward an end using a probabilistic progression. It occurs in nature in a profusion of terms:
in the living, according to a hermeneutic of the theory of evolution of Charles Darwin; and
in the universe, according to a hermeneutics of the standard model of cosmology of
Georges Lemaitre. This approach will consider the eschatological expectations of creation,
the exit of a naturally indeterminate sense, for its glorification in God.

Despite many arduous attempts to reconcile the separation between theology and science, the common ground where these two areas of intellectual inquiry could converge has not been fully identified yet. The purpose of this paper is to use evolutionary theology as the new and unique framework in which science and theology are indeed brought into coherent alignment. The major step in this effort is to acknowledge that theology can no longer dialogue with science but must assume science and its method as its conceptual foundation. This approach successfully does away with any tensions that may arise between the two disciplines and establishes a firm ground on which neither of them will turn into ideology. Moreover, it enables the dialogue with contemporary scientific atheism on solid grounds and the restoration of the credibility of theology in the secularist culture of the day.

Today’s context of the debates concerning evolution allows theologians to work more
peacefully in order to enter in dialogue with the scientific discourses. Theology can identify at
least seven gifts that stem from the encounter with Charles Darwin's scientific heritage:
1. A new framework to think about nature.
2. The exit of a static universe, that allows to envisage nature dynamically and
historically.
3. The possibility of thinking the design of nature at another level, i.e. by not looking for
it in the details of natural structures but in the general tendencies of a universe which
gets continuously organised.
4. The eviction of non-Christian images of God by the failure of the design argument.
5. God's humility to think of theodicy: the sign of the cross as the answer to the question
of ontological evil.
6. Towards a new concept of finality, meaning an immanent desire for form.
7. The reintroduction of the theme of immanence in theology in order to think the
continuous and active presence of God.
These gifts are the signs of the passage of natural theology to theology of nature, i.e.
interpreting the theological meaning of history of nature rather than discovering and deducing
the existence of God and his attributes.

ABSTRACT
The new hominin fossil called Homo Naledi that was discovered two years ago in the Dinaldi Chamber (South Africa) has been welcomed into the species of human relative on 10 Sept 2015. Welcomed? Representing at least 15 individuals with most skeletal elements repeated multiple times, this is the largest assemblage of a single species of hominins yet discovered in Africa. Does however these bones represent a new Homo species? It is this question that I have tried to capture in my playful grammatically incorrect title “Welc(ho)mo Naledi”! However, it is not this question that I will endeavour to answer, but a very different theological implication. My aim in this article is definitely not to argue an opinion on the diverse question regarding the discovery of the fossil skeletons from the Dinaldi Chamber.  My aim is related but different, much more modest, restricted and focused. It is to ask “on the other historic side” (that is, beyond the fossil record!) of Naledi about human distinctiveness and symbolic behaviour, specifically on soteriology. Within the broader contemporary philosophical-theological discourses on anthropology and specifically the fundamental question, “Are we special?”, I would like ultimately to take on the intriguing theological implications for soteriology from the Naledi (and earlier) findings.

This paper argues that divine magnanimity, or makrothumia, in Irenaeus’s Against Heresies corrects John Haught’s kenotic approach to evolutionary theology. Haught describes God in relation to the evolving world by loving self-absence.  But this description is not scripturally coherent or faithful to the classical divine attributes. Irenaeus’s description of a magnanimous God, relating to the world by sustaining creation in the economy of salvation, provides a helpful corrective to Haught’s thought.

This paper first outlines Haught’s kenotic model of evolutionary theology and discusses its merits and problems.  Then, Irenaeus’s conception of divine magnanimity, or makrothumia is described, with emphasis on its importance to two key Irenaean concepts: the economy of salvation and Christ’s work of recapitulation.  Finally, makrothumia will be proposed as a useful term for evolutionary theologians.

Despite many arduous attempts to reconcile the separation between theology and science, the common ground where these two areas of intellectual inquiry could converge has not been fully identified yet. The purpose of this paper is to use evolutionary theology as the new and unique framework in which science and theology are indeed brought into coherent alignment. The major step in this effort is to acknowledge that theology can no longer dialogue with science but must assume science and its method as its conceptual foundation. This approach successfully does away with any tensions that may arise between the two disciplines and establishes a firm ground on which neither of them will turn into ideology. Moreover, it enables the dialogue with contemporary scientific atheism on solid grounds and the restoration of the credibility of theology in the secularist culture of the day.