|
Let There Be Light: An Orthodox
Christian Theory of Human Evolution for the 21st Century
John P. Maletis
University of Glasgow
Abstract: Human creation
and evolution is often a theological topic that is dominated by Creationism and
a literal interpretation of the Bible and the book of Genesis in particular. As
an Orthodox Christian, I have for years been dismayed at the lack of clarity
within our own Church on this fundamental issue. In response to this problem,
this essay is an attempt to reconcile the traditional dichotomy between
Darwinism and Creationism. My intention for writing on this topic is twofold.
First, using a hybridized hypothetical theory consisting of mainly Darwinism
and Patristic theology, I hope to demonstrate that science and faith share a
common ground, perhaps a much wider ground than once thought. Second and most
importantly I intend that an honest open-minded reading of this essay will
leave the reader with more questions than answers on this vital, yet often
ignored question: how can Orthodoxy account for human evolution given the
current dichotomy between strict Darwinism and literal Creationism of the
Genesis account?
Introduction
Of all creatures
which God created, it’s without a doubt humans were created superior to all
other creatures. However, it is a fact that the whole world continues to evolve
just as it did at the birth of its creation. Given that the Orthodox Church
does not interpret Scripture literally but contextually, it’s with some
exegetical liberty that theologians of old and new continue to “draw water from
the same well” as our whole world continues to evolve, whether physically,
culturally, socially, or intellectually. Theology and science need not be
mutually exclusive, as some still claim today from all walks of life—hopefully
we’ve moved passed the Scope’s Trial mentality of 1920’s America! With
careful discernment of each category it is possible to come to a synthesis
where words like “Darwin”, “Garden of Eden”, The Origin of Species and the book of Genesis are not
diametrically opposed. I’ve attempted to do just that while at the same time
trying not to diminish either side in order to come to some common ground. I
view this “theory” as more of a thought-experiment in one of the most controversial
issues of faith today when a simple Google
News search of “religion” will yield endless buzzwords like intelligent design, evolution, church and state
etc… I’ll now start with the thought experiment.
The First
Humans and The Proto Zoê Theory[1]
The Creation account of Genesis 1
and 2 is the starting point for the world’s three major monotheistic faiths,
the evangelical starting point in the Gospel of John, and also the existential
starting point of our creation as human beings. It’s a very important text and
one that is cited almost as much as John 3:16. Yet ironically it remains the
dividing point among millions of Christians today. Furthermore, there seems to
exist a common misunderstanding of the word “evolution”. It’s not hard to clear
up: evolution is NOT a theory; it is a scientific fact[2].
The Big Bang, The Origin of Species—these are theories. Evolution is
everywhere, especially at the micro level where small microbes evolve into
organisms of complex structures in a matter of days. Evolution is a fact of
life. Without it the world would die in the war against the non-organic
elements that continually threaten the existence of small germs to Siberian
tigers.
Darwin’s theory
of human evolution in The Origin of Species is one that, although has been
refined by Mendel and others, remains the definitive theory of human origin
among most Americans minus the Creationists. Today the smallest form of life
acknowledged is the cell. According to broadly understood Theory of Common Descent, the protocell
(lit. “first-cell”) was the first living organism on earth[3].
Like all living cells on Earth, the protocell
cell had only two duties to fulfil: survive and replicate. To sum up some four
billion years of world history, the early protocell
evolved into multi-cellular organisms which gave way to a whole long list of
species. So with that said, how does the Creation
account even fit into any of this?
I would be hard
pressed to find many Orthodox Christian scholars who believe the world was
created in six full 24 hour days. Given that I have already asserted there
exists an inherent liberty in Scriptural exegesis within Church
Tradition—especially in relation with the Creation account—and that I assume Darwin’s Theory of Common Descent, I see no inconsistency in saying the
Earth was created 4.6 billion years ago. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest
this. Now this is where we really delve into what I call the proto zoê
[first life] theory. Hold on to your hats!
God created
human beings “in His image and likeness” and with a superiority over all of
creation[4].
According to Church Tradition, what distinguishes us human beings from the rest
of creation is that human beings are just that—they’re beings, they’re eternal,
endowed with a spirit. We’re not human beings because we have two feet or that
we have the capacity for self-consciousness[5].
We’re human beings because we have a spirit. A person in a vegetative state,
devoid of any mental faculties, of his self-consciousness is still just that—a
person. A person without any limbs, who is deaf, blind, and mute, is still just
that—a person. Our form or accidental qualities do not define a human being. In
like manner, given that human beings are genetically the most advanced species
on Earth and that we’re created by God with a superiority over all creation,
it’s quite possible that human beings could have started as the first cell—the
first living being on Earth; a true protocell.
In fact, we all started out as a small single cell (a zygote cell) at
conception. Given that Orthodoxy has always maintained that the human person is
created at conception (hence why abortion is considered murder in the Church)
it is not inconsistent with the Orthodox Tradition to believe that the form
that human beings “took on” at first was that of a small single cell, just as
we all were at one point in our life.
From a single
cell organism to what we look like today is quite a leap, but I’m not done with
the thought-experiment yet. Indeed the four billion years in between that
produced a whole gamut of species is quite a long time, but look at it from
another way. I already stated the human beings are the single most complex
species on Earth; it would only seem consistent with the scientific theories of
human evolution that human beings (as we know them today) are the product of
the world’s first life form. We already know that not too long ago (relative to
creation time) human beings took on a form that was indistinguishable from that
of today’s chimpanzee. Although I am purposely trying to refrain from biblical
exegesis in this paper, I do want to quote John 1 which is a reflection of the
first lines in Genesis: “In the beginning was the Word…and through Him all
things were made…in Him was life and that life was the light of men.”[6]
In light of John 1, there’s clearly a dialectical relationship between an
anthropocentric and theocentric view of creation synthesized in a
christocentric one encompassing all of creation made through Him: the Word
became flesh; the Word became human and thus incarnate.
Being that it is
possible for God to have ordained the first cell as a human being endowed with
a soul it is quite possible, in light of John 1, to view all of life (plants,
animals, microorganisms) as an “offshoot” of the human race. In other words,
picture a tree-diagram with a single trunk which becomes a bunch of branches
and twigs and so forth, but the top of the tree is a solid line from the base
of the trunk. This of course somewhat “rearranges” the Creation Account, however I maintain
that it is within the realm of acceptable Biblical interpretation given that
“six days” in Scriptural terms becomes four billion years in historical terms.
Furthermore, it only makes sense that the most complex being on Earth who also
happens to be the most superior could thus be the first to exist and given the
most time to evolve physically, while all other life is but an offshoot of this
one source—the proto zoê of the Earth—the first life of the Earth.
I hope that I’m
making some sense thus far but I’m still not done. Some may be asking if I
considered how this fits into what follows in Genesis: the Fall. In short, I
did think about it and it’s actually been a topic on my mind for years now. So
let’s get into the thick of it!
The Fall
I made the
argument above that self-consciousness does not define the difference between a
human being and any animal. Some people would use “rationality” as a
fundamentally exclusive trait to humans. Given the advances in linguistics,
neuroscience, zoology, and psychology, it’s quite debatable at this point that
both “self-consciousness” and “rationality” are exclusive traits of humans.
Using history as any kind of indicator, I would argue that if one accepted the proto
zoê theory I mentioned above, one would also have to accept that animals
may actually have these traits as well and thus are capable (although to a
limited extent) of thinking in the same manner as humans. If humans were
the first living organisms on
Earth, it must be accepted that other animals at least have the potential
in the future of developing mental capacities similar to those that humans have
today. So with that argument laid out I will tie all of this in with the proto zoê theory of the Fall.
As we get
further away from the Creation Account,
the more likely it is to accept the stories as happening the way they did,
empirically speaking. Even within the narrative of the Fall does Orthodox
Tradition (for the most part) view it [the narrative] as historically
fictional. A reading of the narrative in a contextual style is how most
Orthodox Christians interpret the Fall and I count myself as part of the
contextual group as well. After creation, the Account speaks of how humans were
in a state of paradise and innocence. Upon eating the fruit from the Tree of
The Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve thus saw themselves naked and lost
that innocence and state of sanctity. In like manner, I would argue from both a
historical and theological sense that as we [human beings] evolved into more
complex organisms, we developed mental faculties that became far superior as
time passed. At some point (era) in history, we became more conscious of the
world around us and of ourselves and ultimately of our freedom [free-will]
endowed by God at the creation of the cosmos. What had changed was that we
became conscious of this freedom and what it meant. In the same vein,
using the words of 19th century German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel: “Evil is nothing other than the
self-centeredness of the natural existence of Mind, so, conversely, Good enters
into actuality and appears as an existent self-consciousness.”[7]
Although this seems far-fetched and hard to believe, I would argue that the
Orthodox Church implicitly believes in this theory—in the pastoral theology of
the Sacrament of Confession. I ask you to patiently bear with me here as I
explain my reasoning.
You and I were
first conceived as a single zygote cell at conception and then at birth our
minds slowly became “aware” as we grew in age. The conception, birth,
development, and death of an individual are really, both in essence and in
metaphor, an image/model of the history of humankind itself up to this point.
Unlike the Augustinian concept of Original
Sin which the Roman Catholic Church adopted into their formal Church Dogma,
the Orthodox Church has never adopted that theology, stressing the classical
Greek idea of being born pure without sin, evil, and guilt (metaphorically
speaking). Given the Orthodox position on Original
Sin and my view on the evolution of humankind, it’s not inconsistent to
believe that humankind was unaware of the freedom (free-will) they possessed
until a certain point/era of evolution where an awareness of the self and of
the world became an actualized reality. The era in history when this occurred remains
unknown, but using the “micro-history” of an individual’s life as a model for
the evolution of mankind, it’s commonly agreed that a child’s first Confession
is generally acceptable around the age of 7, right around the age when the
child develops an acute awareness of self and of the world (which includes
ethics, norms, customs, etc…). In order for one to actually “commit a sin”, one
has to have some awareness of the inherent freedom of choice and of a right and
wrong. I say “of a right and wrong” because people who are unaware of any kind
of morality for whatever reason are usually not viewed as being guilty
for their actions (e.g. a chronically schizophrenic patient who commits suicide
versus one who kills herself over financial trouble) but it is out of the scope
of this paper to argue this point. Perhaps in the future I’ll delve into this
more deeply and with better clarity.
Attempting not
to beat a dead horse here, I will end with the belief that in looking at the proto
zoê theory using the image/model of an individual’s life as a sort of
paradigm to that of the whole historical development of humankind, commonly
held scientific theories can indeed find a synthesis with Scripture within the
bounds of Orthodox biblical and Patristic exegesis. This is my opinion and I’m
sure I’ll find plenty of detractors, especially from the theological side, to
this theory. However I can’t help but think that perhaps there is some light at
the end of the tunnel of this long, almost trivial debate between the one side
that misunderstands the definition of evolution—as if the fact of
evolution does not exist and it threatens Christianity is almost as absurd as
denying the fact humans breathe oxygen because there isn’t a Scriptural
reference to the existence of oxygen gas. On the other side there’s the
incongruous view the science must remain pure without any reference to “matters
of faith”—speaking as if all scientific theories are devoid of any kind of
belief or faith in the theory itself—an inherently contradictory and absurd
position. Then there are all of those caught in between—Christians, atheists,
bankers, students, scientists, and myself of course—who just try to make sense
of it all without trying to sound (too) absurd.
[1]Proto
Zoê. I’ve purposely used the
Greek word ‘ zoê’ in place of ‘bios’ as a kind of play-on-words. ‘Zoê’ has a much larger scope as
it relates to life versus ‘bios’ which
is more concerned with life-as-existence; the everyday aspect of life, human or
otherwise (hence the prefix ‘bio’ in biology). ‘Zoê’ has a wider connotation in that throughout the New
Testament “eternal life” uses ‘ zoê’—an
aspect of humanity that does not extend to any other living organisms in the
theological sense.
[2] See Carl Sagan’s Cosmos
(1980) pg 354.
[3] Attributed to
Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) and
The Descent of Man (1871).
[5] NB: If ever in a debate on the essence
[ontology] of the human being over the rest of creation, do not use self-consciousness as a reason. It’s the basis of many
atheistic philosophies and you’re bound to lose the argument. Martin Heidegger,
a 20 th century German philosopher, made the same mistake in his work
Being and Time (1927) in describing how ‘ Dasein’ (lit.
‘being’ yet in Heidegger’s sense of the word it is strictly human ‘being’)
necessitates self-consciousness, to which Jean-Paul Sartre (the French
atheistic philosopher) attacked some 15 years later in his work Being and
Nothingness (1943) . For further inquiry, see Sartre’s Being and
Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology, esp. Part II, Chapter 1
entitled Immediate Structures of the For-Itself in response to
Heidegger’s claim that human ‘being’ (Ger. ‘Dasein’) is different from
all else which ‘exists’ (Ger: ‘Existenz’).
[6] NB: The Greek
text uses the word ‘ zoê’ here for the
English word “life”.
[7] G.W.F. Hegel. Phänomenologie des Geistes. Oxford
University Press, 1977. pp. 469-70.
The German word ‘ Geist’
can be translated as both ‘spirit’ and ‘mind’. Here the “existence of Mind”
is a Hegelian concept of human beings, being endowed with a ‘mind’/’spirit’,
that is capable of self-conscious awareness from 1) a subjective
(phenomenological) view point and of 2) an ever-growing awareness of absolute
freedom that objectively exists, but only insofar as humanity views itself
through this objective view point. The teleological aspects of Hegel’s account
of human evolution and that of Orthodox eschatology share some fascinating
similarities from two very different viewpoints. See Hegel’s Philosophy of History.
|
