Could God be an evolutionary process?

[JRKH]

We often refer to ourselves (the faithful of the Church) as the Body of Christ. That each of us has a part to play. Not unlike cells in a body. This led me to an interesting thought. Could our development and need for God be an evolutionary process?

Science does not know why the first cells began to cooperate to the point of specializing and becoming a new organism. A multicelled organism. A process culminating in man. Science may be able to explain much of how these things occurr, but they cannot explain why the cells began this cooperation.

Perhaps, in the understanding of God, our need for God, our draw toward a unity with God, there is an evolutionary process involved. It is the process by which our primal energy is drawn toward that type of unity and cooperation that resulted in a completely new form of life. The multicelled creature.

Much of what God asks us to do is to combine our spirits together in prayer and adoration. To bring His spirit into our lives and to be united in our Love for Him and Each other. Science may not understand it, but this could actually be an evolutionary process. Reaching beyond our corporeal, individual selves to become a “new being”.

Am I nuts?

Comments?

Peace
James

 

[ricmat]

Science may be able to explain much of how these things occurr, but they cannot explain why the cells began this cooperation.

Comments?

Peace
James

1. Interesting thoughts. This vaguely sounds like something that Teilhard De Chardin said (but maybe I’m mistaken), but I read that book a LONG time ago. The Phenomenon of Man. He got in some trouble with the curia.
2. I’ll go out on a limb here and make a prediction. The god of Science (who doubles as the god of Pride) will explain things this way…Totally random mutations, undirected by our Designer, resulted in this cooperation happening, somehow. Those that cooperated continued to live on and propogate the species and those that didn’t cooperate died off (natural selection). Therefore, Evolution did it, somehow.

 

[JRKH]

1. Interesting thoughts. This vaguely sounds like something that Teilhard De Chardin said (but maybe I’m mistaken), but I read that book a LONG time ago. The Phenomenon of Man. He got in some trouble with the curia.
2. I’ll go out on a limb here and make a prediction. The god of Science (who doubles as the god of Pride) will explain things this way…Totally random mutations, undirected by our Designer, resulted in this cooperation happening, somehow. Those that cooperated continued to live on and propogate the species and those that didn’t cooperate died off (natural selection). Therefore, Evolution did it, somehow.

Thanks for the lead on De Chardin…I figured I wasn’t thinking anything really new.

As for the limb, I suspect it’s a pretty good and solid.
Random mutation certainly could explain some things. But what it doesn’t really explain the whys of these things, or why these “mutations” continue to pursue an upward trend.

Peace
James

 

[The_Barbarian]

The god of Science (who doubles as the god of Pride)

You don’t need to be sullen about science. Scientists themselves will tell you that science is a limited method that is completely unable to approach supernatural things.

I will explain things this way…Totally random mutations, undirected by our Designer, resulted in this cooperation happening, somehow. Those that cooperated continued to live on and propogate the species and those that didn’t cooperate died off (natural selection). Therefore, Evolution did it, somehow.

You think that’s what evolutionary theory is about? No wonder you hate science. Thank goodness it isn’t like that. BTW, it’s highly insulting to the Creator to demote him to a mere “designer.” Humans design. God creates.

 

[ricmat]

BTW, it’s highly insulting to the Creator to demote him to a mere “designer.” Humans design. God creates.

Actually, it’s a demotion to call him Creator as well. Like those folks who bless themselves “In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier.” UGHHH…

God IS.

Read the psalms. They talk a lot about God the Designer.

By the way, you put in quotes something that I didn’t actually say. That wasn’t nice.

I said:

The god of Science (who doubles as the god of Pride) will explain things this way…Totally random mutations, undirected by our Designer, resulted in this cooperation happening, somehow. Those that cooperated continued to live on and propogate the species and those that didn’t cooperate died off (natural selection). Therefore, Evolution did it, somehow.
You changed what I said to read:

Quote:
I will explain things this way…Totally random mutations, undirected by our Designer, resulted in this cooperation happening, somehow. Those that cooperated continued to live on and propogate the species and those that didn’t cooperate died off (natural selection). Therefore, Evolution did it, somehow.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Actually, it’s a demotion to call him Creator as well.

At the same time, each person is called, by grace, to a covenant with the Creator, called to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his place.
Pope Benedict XVI
tinyurl.com/ydc53m

God IS.

But for some reason, you object to letting Him be the Creator.

Read the psalms. They talk a lot about God the Designer.

I can’t seem to find “designer” in the Bible. Can you show me where it says that?

You changed what I said to read:

I will explain things this way…Totally random mutations, undirected by our Designer, resulted in this cooperation happening, somehow. Those that cooperated continued to live on and propogate the species and those that didn’t cooperate died off (natural selection). Therefore, Evolution did it, somehow.

Um, you’re upset because I didn’t quote your entire post? I quoted almost all of it.

 

[ricmat]

But for some reason, you object to letting Him be the Creator.

Absolutely not. God created the universe from nothing. God is many things. Why limit him to only one thing?

I can’t seem to find “designer” in the Bible. Can you show me where it says that?

The last time this came up, I posted a list of the psalms (from the Liturgy of the Hours) which mentioned God’s “design” or “designs”. As I recall, I posted examples only from week 2 or week 3 (whatever week we happened to be in at the time). Clearly if there are God’s designs, then God is the Designer.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3244531&postcount=445

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3199071&postcount=248

Um, you’re upset because I didn’t quote your entire post? I quoted almost all of it.

Of course it is possible to quote only part of an entire post, so long as the original meaning is not lost. Or if the post contains many unrelated subjects. Courtesy suggests that one thing you may not do is change the meaning of the person you are quoting, and still say “quote.” You changed the meaning of what I said, obviously, but still had it within the “quote” boundaries. That’s not nice.

This is going way off-topic. Perhaps you’d like to explain to the OP how cells came to start cooperating…

 

[The_Barbarian]

Absolutely not. God created the universe from nothing. God is many things. Why limit him to only one thing?

You never have told us why. Why not just admit He’s the Creator, not some demiurge designer.

The last time this came up, I posted a list of the psalms (from the Liturgy of the Hours) which mentioned God’s “design” or “designs”. As I recall, I posted examples only from week 2 or week 3 (whatever week we happened to be in at the time). Clearly if there are God’s designs, then God is the Designer.

If you weaken the term “design” to “intent.” Why not just bit the bullet and admit He’s the creator?

Of course it is possible to quote only part of an entire post, so long as the original meaning is not lost. Or if the post contains many unrelated subjects. Courtesy suggests that one thing you may not do is change the meaning of the person you are quoting, and still say “quote.” You changed the meaning of what I said, obviously, but still had it within the “quote” boundaries.

I don’t see how.

This is going way off-topic. Perhaps you’d like to explain to the OP how cells came to start cooperating…

Sure. The first element of this is found in prokaryotes, where there is cooperative clumping by bacteria, particularly the gliding bacteria.

**Bacteria are defined as unicellular organisms, but they don’t typically function as single cells in nature. Social behavior among bacteria is well established, and makes a lot of sense when you consider that billions of bacteria—representing as many as 1,000,000 species—can be found in just one gram of fertile soil. Cooperative bacteria coordinate a range of complex behaviors through a density-dependent mechanism called quorum sensing: when bacterial numbers reach a critical mass, individual cells secrete signaling molecules that control the behavior of the colony. Through quorum sensing, individual cells amass into biofilms (bacterial colonies that exude slime and other molecules that help them stick to everything from ship hulls to teeth), and some species are able to form structures called fruiting bodies to weather nutrient-poor conditions.

One group of bacterial species, known as the myxobacteria, exhibit several sophisticated social behaviors. They socially swarm and hunt other microbes in a manner analogous to wolf pack hunting. Even more dramatically, when cells of the species Myxococcus xanthus fall upon hard times due to lack of food, some 100,000 individuals band together and form fruiting structures. This process is marked by distinct gene expression programs, differentiation, and morphological changes. Inside the fruiting body, rod-shaped cells differentiate into spherical, stress-resistant spores designed to wait out a famine. But only a portion of the population turns into spores; the vast majority either commit cell suicide, making the ultimate sacrifice, or remain undifferentiated.**
tinyurl.com/3c7r9d

It makes sense. Cells that cooperate tend to survive. So any variation that does this tends to be favorable. Colonial animals carry it a bit farther, and then sponges do it even more closely.

 

[steveandersen]

… Could our development and need for God be an evolutionary process? …

The Church tells us that
In many ways, throughout history down to the present day, men have given expression to their quest for God in their religious beliefs and behavior: in their prayers, sacrifices, rituals, meditations, and so forth. These forms of religious expression, despite the ambiguities they often bring with them, are so universal that one may well call man a religious being: i.e. teh search for meaning and God is part of our nature

Behavioral anthropologists include religion as one of the modern behaviors that distinguish modern humans from our ancestors and are Cultural universals.

The beginning of these behaviors can be traced to the time of our most recent common ancestors.

So it appears that once again Science and religion agree.

 

[ricmat]

You never have told us why. Why not just admit He’s the Creator, not some demiurge designer.

If you weaken the term “design” to “intent.” Why not just bit the bullet and admit He’s the creator?

There’s no biting the bullet here. God is the Creator, so I believe. And I say so each time I say the Apostles Creed or the Nicean Creed. There’s no demi-urge involved. You apparently didn’t read the links I posted. Wisdom 13:3b (NAB) also describes God as one who “fashions” the works of nature. I suppose by your logic, a Fashioner is even more of a demotion than Designer.

So, where does “Father” stand in your line of thinking? Is that also a demotion from “Creator”?

BTW - your line of logic is just what the creationists are looking for. Certainly, creation in 6 days with everything popping into existence immediately is much more powerful than waiting 14 billion years for it all to happen. So the idea that God waited 14 billion years for something to happen that he could have done “immediately” is also a demotion, using your logic that God can be represented by only one term. I don’t go for the whole idea that God is represented by only one term. It seems to me that you need to be careful with this idea.

 

[buffalo]

Except for the constant teaching of the Catholic Church that we are all descended from two parents and Eve came from Adam.

This suggests a supernatural event in the arrival of Adam and Eve.

 

[JRKH]

Sure. The first element of this is found in prokaryotes, where there is cooperative clumping by bacteria, particularly the gliding bacteria.

**Bacteria are defined as unicellular organisms, but they don’t typically function as single cells in nature. Social behavior among bacteria is well established, and makes a lot of sense when you consider that billions of bacteria—representing as many as 1,000,000 species—can be found in just one gram of fertile soil. Cooperative bacteria coordinate a range of complex behaviors through a density-dependent mechanism called quorum sensing: when bacterial numbers reach a critical mass, individual cells secrete signaling molecules that control the behavior of the colony. Through quorum sensing, individual cells amass into biofilms (bacterial colonies that exude slime and other molecules that help them stick to everything from ship hulls to teeth), and some species are able to form structures called fruiting bodies to weather nutrient-poor conditions.

One group of bacterial species, known as the myxobacteria, exhibit several sophisticated social behaviors. They socially swarm and hunt other microbes in a manner analogous to wolf pack hunting. Even more dramatically, when cells of the species Myxococcus xanthus fall upon hard times due to lack of food, some 100,000 individuals band together and form fruiting structures. This process is marked by distinct gene expression programs, differentiation, and morphological changes. Inside the fruiting body, rod-shaped cells differentiate into spherical, stress-resistant spores designed to wait out a famine. But only a portion of the population turns into spores; the vast majority either commit cell suicide, making the ultimate sacrifice, or remain undifferentiated.**
tinyurl.com/3c7r9d

It makes sense. Cells that cooperate tend to survive. So any variation that does this tends to be favorable. Colonial animals carry it a bit farther, and then sponges do it even more closely.

Thanks for the lesson. Most interesting indeed!!
Of course as with any science, it mostly explains the what and hows of the activity, but not the why. By that I don’t mean the “survival” why, rather I’m refering to something I cannot describe. - An essence of the why.
Call it an “Essential Beginnings Why”.
Something called on the first bacteria to develop the “quorum sensing” you describe. Some “Energy” caused them to begin cooperating and then eventually develop into the complex creatures we we around us (including each other). It is this “EBW” (Essiential Beginnings Why) that I am getting at, and I’m not talking in a science vs. God sense either.

The more science studies matter, the more energy and the less matter they seem to find. In effect, the more “spirit” and the less body. So there is much study into the nature, properties and commonalities of energy.
So in essence, isn’t all matter formed from energy and “somehow” working to return to that pure energy state?

Often times I think that the biggest problem between acience and religion is simply how we phrase the questions and discussions.

I got no answers - but I love the questions.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

BTW - your line of logic is just what the creationists are looking for. Certainly, creation in 6 days with everything popping into existence immediately is much more powerful than waiting 14 billion years for it all to happen. So the idea that God waited 14 billion years for something to happen that he could have done “immediately” is also a demotion, using your **logic that God can be represented by only one term. I don’t go for the whole idea that God is represented by only one term. ** It seems to me that you need to be careful with this idea.

According to the catachism, god cannot be dscribed, or defined adequately. How does one define the infinite cause of the existance of all things; that is the beginning cause and ultimate end of all things.
Can’t be done in any human tongue or language.

James

 

[ricmat]

According to the catachism, god cannot be dscribed, or defined adequately. How does one define the infinite cause of the existance of all things; that is the beginning cause and ultimate end of all things.
Can’t be done in any human tongue or language.

James

I agree. We try, but by definition, there aren’t enough words to describe what is infinite!

 

[The_Barbarian]

There’s no biting the bullet here. God is the Creator, so I believe. And I say so each time I say the Apostles Creed or the Nicean Creed.

But “design” is what limited beings do, not God. He is omnisicient, and has no reason to figure things out.

There’s no demi-urge involved.

For ID, there is. If you push them, many of them will admit that it’s not an omnipotent being they have in mind, but one with limited capacities.

You apparently didn’t read the links I posted. Wisdom 13:3b (NAB) also describes God as one who “fashions” the works of nature.

It is the old usage, brought into English from old French “facere”; “to make.” Nothing about designing.

I suppose by your logic, a Fashioner is even more of a demotion than Designer.

You don’t think creation is making things? Creation is one way to fashion things, design is a different way. If you accept God as Creator, then He cannot be designer.

So, where does “Father” stand in your line of thinking?

Literally, of course, He is not our biological father. He is rather father in the deeper sense of giving us life, and caring for us as a father, but far more deeply and completely than our biological fathers could ever do.

Is that also a demotion from “Creator”?

For IDers, maybe. Not for a Catholic.

BTW - your line of logic is just what the creationists are looking for. Certainly, creation in 6 days with everything popping into existence immediately is much more powerful than waiting 14 billion years for it all to happen.

Creationists think so. But I think the vision of God prancing around, making a tree here, and rabbit there, is far weaker than an omnipotent God who produces the universe by speaking it into existence, from which everything then unfolds according to His will. The Catholic version is much more powerful than the creationist version.

So the idea that God waited 14 billion years for something to happen that he could have done “immediately” is also a demotion, using your logic that God can be represented by only one term.

If you believe, as creationists do, that God is subject to time. That’s not a Catholic belief, either. God is not constrained by time.

I don’t go for the whole idea that God is represented by only one term.

Me too. But I don’t go for the idea that we can call Him anything we take a fancy to, either.

It seems to me that you need to be careful with this idea.

We aren’t supposed to go around inventing new doctrines for God. It’s a core belief for Catholics.

 

[JRKH]

Hey Barbarian -
I like your name. It fits well with your style of posting.

You seem to like to tear/rend/chop things (posts) into small bits and gnaw on each one.

Personally I like to look at posts as a composite whole. Or at least in some kind of sizable chunks.

To each his own I guess.

Peace
James

 

[The_Barbarian]

Something called on the first bacteria to develop the “quorum sensing” you describe. Some “Energy” caused them to begin cooperating and then eventually develop into the complex creatures we we around us (including each other).

So far, every time we figure out what that something is, it turns out to be a natural process. God created nature to do His will in this world, and seems to use it for almost everything.

It is this “EBW” (Essiential Beginnings Why) that I am getting at, and I’m not talking in a science vs. God sense either.

That is beyond the reach of science. Science can’t begin to address such a question.

But scientists can, thank God.

 

[ricmat]

Barbarian,

A point that I made a while back (although I think it was to Spiritmeadow). “Design” can be both a verb or a noun. You can speak about God’s Creation as a design (noun). I can look at creation and see beauty in how all the laws work together, and say, “That’s a great design Lord!”. You seem to limit “design” to the verb category, as if to imply that God didn’t get Creation right the first time, and so “needs” to twiddle with it. No, obviously God doesn’t “need” to twiddle, although if that’s what he wants to do for other reasons, so be it. God certainly didn’t just step back and let things unwind after the fall…

And I’d like to point out that the idea that God created things in the beginning (which we both agree with), but then walked away from things to just let them unwind so to speak, is Deism. I believe that God continues to interact with his creation.

You say:
You don’t think creation is making things? Creation is one way to fashion things, design is a different way. If you accept God as Creator, then He cannot be designer.

Yes, creation is making things, and in the strongest sense, making them from nothing. Fashioning, designing, arranging, etc are things that God did with his Creation. This is the story of Genesis 1 and 2. I accept God as both Creator, and Designer, and Father, and Strong One of Jacob, and Fashioner, and many other things. They are not mutually exclusive. You are trying to make an argument here ex nihilo. You seem to hate any mention of Intelligent Design, and I think it’s flowing over into areas which are completely unrelated. You need to step back a bit I think…

 

[JRKH]

So far, every time we figure out what that something is, it turns out to be a natural process. God created nature to do His will in this world, and seems to use it for almost everything.

Amen to that one brother.

That is beyond the reach of science. Science can’t begin to address such a question.

But scientists can, thank God.

So even science (and scientists) must have faith of some kind.

Yes - Thank God

Peace
James