A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL WORLD VIEW


 


16. DID GOD EVOLVE THE WORLD?


 


A Marker On The Journey
After becoming a Christian as a University student, I began to grapple with the conflict of Science and God's creation of the Universe. Looking around the bookshop one day, I found a book, "The Phenomenon of Man", by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, which was to become immensely influential for me.

What it did for me was to show that it was possible for a follower of Jesus to also believe in evolution. I devoured that book, and went on to read some of his other books. The book seemed to give such a positive view of God's purpose in creation, that all the dry stuff of science was brought to life. I felt that here was someone who was obviously loving his science and Jesus Christ, and was able to integrate them together. His ideas were important for me at the time to retain both my Christian faith and an open mind on scientific discoveries.

I tried to share my thoughts on Teilhard's work with other Christian students, but there seemed to be little interest. Then, when I was filled with the Spirit a few years later, his books no longer seemed to relate to what was happening to me spiritually, and I never went back to them, although that one book remained on my shelf as a marker of where I had been. I continued to develop my understanding of science and theology over the years.

But it wasn't until this year when I had nearly completed this book, that I suddenly realised that the conclusions I had come to bore some parallels to Teilhard's work. So I went back to study his ideas. It was an amazing feeling to realise that although I had only just stumbled on multi-dimensionality, that I had in some way been prepared for it forty years before by Teilhard.

 Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
There are some people who look at what he has written and proclaim that he was both a heretic and a poor scientist. I look at him and see that he was writing well in advance of his own time, and was a visionary who saw the importance of relating his faith to science.

He was a distinguished French paleontologist and also a Jesuit Priest, who worked mainly in China. The Catholic church did not allow him to publish his work, but it was published after his death in 1955.

Teilhard de Chardin accepted evolution as a continuous and gradual development of life from the smallest cells to modern man, though not Darwin's explanation of it.  Whereas Darwin saw only the 'external evolution', Teilhard explains there is also a within to evolution, or transformism as he sometimes calls it.

"In the eyes of the physicist nothing exists legitimately, at least up to now, except the without of things...Finally, it breaks down completely with man, in whom the existence of a within can no longer be evaded, because it is the object of a direct intuition and the substance of all knowledge." [TPOM pg 55]

He then goes on to explain that the within is the same thing as consciousness, and that this consciousness must exist everywhere in nature from all time, although in a most rudimentary form in some things. So then the process of evolution is guided by not only the without of life, but also by the within. Teilhard argues that because consciousness appears in us it is therefore a characteristic of the whole world. He is applying the principle of symmetry. "In a coherent perspective of the world life inevitably assumes a 'pre-life' for as far back before it as the eye can see. " [TPOM pg 57]

One of Teilhard's major ideas and new terms is of the noosphere. Just as plant and animal life on earth has been described as the biosphere, so he describes the development of consciousness in mankind as the noosphere.

He explains the noosphere as, "Much more coherent and just as extensive as any preceding layer, it is really a new layer, the 'thinking layer', which since its germination at the end of the Tertiary period, has spread over and above the world of plants and animals. In other words, outside and above the biosphere there is the noosphere." [TPOM pg 182]

Teilhard counters some of the objections people even today have about the reality of evolution, including our human evolution. Many people have wondered why there is no fossil evidence of the new forms of life. He sees that new forms arise in only one or a few individuals so would be very unlikely to leave enough traces for us to discover.

"If in its structure the embryo of each thing is fragile and fleeting and hence, in the past, practically ungraspable, how much more is it ambiguous and undecipherable in its lineaments? It is not in their germinal state that beings manifest themselves but in their florescence. Taken at the source, the greatest rivers are no more than narrow streams." [TPOM pg 189]

As well as God being involved in the process from inside evolution, Teilhard believes that God gives evolution a direction, by drawing it towards the Omega point, a future fulfillment of evolution. This of course is in contrast to Darwinian evolution which is without any goal other than survival. He sees the Omega point as the perfection and final collective unity of human consciousness. Evolution is seen as the ascent towards consiousness, so he believes that the goal of history must somewhere ahead arrive at a hyper-personal Omega. [TPOM pg 260]

Teilhard is content for most of his work to imply that God inspires the within and the Omega point. He is trying to write as a scientist rather than a theologian. But he does come to explain how he see the significance of evolution is for Christians.

"Though frightened for a moment by evolution, the Christian now perceives that what it offers him is nothing but a magnificent means of feeling more at one with God, and of giving himself more to him. ..Evolution has come to infuse new blood, so to speak, into the perspectives and aspirations of Christianity. In return, is not the Christian faith destined, is it not preparing, to save and even take the place of evolution... At the present moment Christianity is the unique current of thought, on the surface of the noosphere, which is sufficiently audacious and sufficiently progressive to lay hold of the world, at the level of effectual practice, in an embrace, at once already complete, yet capable of indefinite perfection, where faith and hope reach their perfection in love… (This) implies essentially the consciousness of finding itself in actual relationship with a spiritual and transcendent pole of universal convergence." [TPOM pg 297-8]

Without talking of multi-dimensions, he comes close to it in a number of places. "...there are different orders of 'spheres' or 'levels' in the unity of nature, each of them distinguished by the dominance of certain factors which are negligible in a neighbouring sphere or on an adjacent level." [TPOM pg 54]

He sees the rise of intelligence in humans to do with the struggle to master the dimensions. "I know of no more moving story nor any more revealing of the biological reality of a noogenesis than that of intelligence struggling step by step from the beginning to overcome the encircling illusion of proximity. In the course of this struggle to master the dimensions and the relief of the universe, space was the first to yield - naturally because it was more tangible." [TPOM pg 216]

He goes on from there to reflect on recent history, "In the last century and a half the most prodigious event, perhaps, ever recorded by history since the threshold of reflection has been taking place in our minds: the definitive access of consciousness to a scale of new dimensions; and in consequence the birth of an entirely renewed universe, without any change of line or feature by the simple transformation of its intimate substance." [TPOM pg 219]

Criticism of Teilhard
Teilhard leaves a lot to be desired in presenting scientific details to back up his claims. He doesn't really present a convincing case for evolution, probably because he is not trying to. He is content to make general statements and observations. His language is sweeping, sometimes confusing, and often not specific enough. Neither does he go into detail on his theology of creation so leaves himself open to new age thinking.

David Lane gives a comprehensive account and warning of how Teilhardism is used by New Agers. "At the heart of New Age thought are the philosophies of pantheism, monism, gnosticism, and emergent evolution, all of which were repackaged in "Christian" garb by Teilhard. The quest for the 'god within' - god immanent - and "Cosmic consciousness" are also central to New Age thought, as well as to Teilhard's philosophy...The devastating impact of his erroneous 'theological' fictions far outweighs any morsels of spiritual truth that can be gleaned from his writings. These fictions have been instrumental in undermining the faith of many sincere Christians believers as many scholars have noted. A warning needs to be sounded loud and clear against the deceptions, ambiguities, and errors which are rife in his writings." [TPOT pg 169-170]

Teilhard is being accused of pantheism, monism and naturalism. Some of his own writings speak against these, but there are enough grounds to be concerned that in his emphasising the immanent, he has not fully accepted both the transcendence and immanence of God that are essential parts of the gospel.  I believe that one problem for Teilhard was his starting aim of looking at life as a phenomenon. There is value in that stance because he is able to connect with all of us who experience the same phenomena. While he had a very broad view of what these phenomena were and went beyond the naturalistic, even including Christianity as part of the phenomenon of life, it was still a restrictive point of view. Intelligent design, miracles and revelation, for example, come from beyond the phenomena of life. The real problem is that it is difficult to combine both transcendence and immanence. As with humanism, one's presuppositions affect the outcome.

Because many conservative Christians have not accepted his scientific support of evolution, and considered his theology suspect, they have concluded that it is not possible to unite evolution and the gospel. The church has been the poorer in not considering his unique insights into how evolution is a process with divine immanence and purpose. It has left Christianity with a dangerous separation of science and theology.

But with the new understanding of dimensions, it is possible to see evolution as a gradual unfolding of God created dimensions, which allow God to be both immanent in and transcendent over his creation. The nature of all dimensions is they are transcendent to prior dimensions, and they are also immanent at the points of their intersection. [see Section 1]

Why Accept Evolution?
It is the very nature of God to be Trinitarian. This is the unique perspective of the Christian gospel. God is Lord and Father, Creator of all the universe , giving the universe its purpose and direction, and transcendent over his creation. He is also the Son, incarnate into his world, showing his glory to every part of his world, and communicating his purpose with us, so that we can be sharers with him in creation. Thirdly, he is the Holy Spirit, active in us now to enable us to belong to him, and know and do his purposes.

Is the Son only incarnate in his human body? Has God kept himself at arm's length in all other aspects of his creation and life, and only shown himself to us? A full understanding of incarnation is that God is involved intimately with all aspects of his creation, and in different ways he brings about renewal of the universe and life. God himself is not in process of evolving, but in his incarnation he is evolving the universe, in much the same way as God takes our unregenerate personalities and makes them his new creations. "When anyone is joined to Christ he is a new being, the old is gone and the new has come...All this is done by God…" [2 Corinthians 5:17-18]

The reason why we must accept a process of creative evolution is because God is not a God who works by magic, who makes something instantaneously appear out of nothing, but he is a God who works from without, but within his orderly and unfolding creation. Evolution takes incarnation seriously. God is not evolving this universe because he is using secondary or indirect laws or means to bring the universe about, but because he is intimately involved at every step along the way of evolution. More than that, God wants us to discover how he has been involved in the dimensions of the universe, so that we can see his glory in it, and be sharers with him. God is a Trinitarian God and evolution is the way God has chosen to express his nature.

God clearly hasn't finished with his creation yet. "This plan, which God will complete when the time is right, is to bring creation together, everything in heaven and on earth, with Christ as head." [Ephesians 1:10]  God is interested in his whole universe.

We cannot deny the very strong evidence of an old universe. For me the strongest natural evidence is the immense size of the universe. Because we know the speed of light, and that its speed must always be the same, the time it takes for light to reach us from the furthest parts of the universe, tells us how old the universe is. Some people suggest that God could have created the universe with the light already on the way. God is not out to trick us by making a young universe look old! By accepting an old universe we are able to accept the 'big bang' which is a major evidence why we all need to accept a transcendent creator God. With an old universe we are left with a very long time for God to do his work of creation, and an evolutionary process by which God has done this makes sense.

We must not deny the discoveries of science. God has given us our gifts of discovery in order that we may learn from its results to carry out the task that he gave us to be responsible for planet earth. Dating of fossils and rocks are a method which has its own cross-checks and now gives very reliable results. Although there may not be many fossils of transitional forms of life, there have been enough such fossils for us to have to accept evolution as the reason for them. A complete denial of evolution leaves inadequate explanations for the fossils we do have.

New discoveries in the field of genetics also gives powerful support to evolution. GraemeFinlay shows that by studying primate (human and ape) gene 'cutting and pasting' duplication, old genes being decommissioned, and the replication of parasitic virus-like genetic material in our genes, the links between humans and apes are shown. One of these genetic inserts is called an 'Alu sequence'. Finlay reports that in one study it was shown how 333 'Alu sequences' were identified which were common to humans, chimpanzees and baboons.

He says, "The evolutionary development of the primates has been rigorously established by this precise work."   [GBG&G pg 26] He then summarises, "The archaeological record that we carry around in our DNA is a detailed archive of our genetic history. With the current explosion of knowledge of molecular genetics, we may conclude several things that have long been contentious. It is established that we are an evolved species, related to chimps, gorillas, orangutans, Old World Monkeys, New World Monkeys and tarsiers (in that order) by descent from a progressively more remote series of common ancestors. It is often said that there is no evidence for macroevolution. This claim cannot be sustained. Macroevolution is established beyond doubt. In addition, we can lay to rest arguments that ongoing natural genetic processes cannot generate new gene functions. As a matter of fact, they do." [GBG&G pg 28]

I would question Finlay on the point of his attribution of the genetic changes to 'natural' processes. There are certainly some natural mechanisms as I have listed above. But has he done a probability study on the likelihood of such changes happening? Where they involve irreducibly complex  machines, the question would still arise as to how such changes can be purely natural and not show design. We have been too quick to assume that because there is a natural mechanism involved, that a supernatural mechanism is not also necessary.

Lee Strobel quotes the molecular biologist Stephen Meyer, "Chemical evolutionary theorists are not going to escape this. The laws of nature by definition, describe regular, repetitive patterns. For that reason one cannot invoke self-organizing processes to explain the origin of information, because informational sequences are irregular and complex… Future discoveries aren't going to change this principle." [TCFC pg 234]

The point I make from this is that while evolution of humans has been demonstrated, the reason for it has not been. We do not have to accept naturalism as the explanation for evolution. Particularly with multi-dimensions operating, we can see that a designed evolution is a much better explanation for life than naturalistic evolution. It is only naturalistic evolution which is against God's creating. The problem is not evolution, but Darwin's explanation of natural selection as the way it happens. Multi-dimensionality gives a new way to look at evolution.

Multi-Dimensionality and Evolution
Creative evolution also seems to me to be a logically necessary mode for multi-dimensionality.  Dimensions by their very nature are all interrelated, and together form one big dimensional ecology. Although the dimensions are distinguishable from each other, and have their own modes of operation, they do not act independently. There is no basis here for a radical division of natural and supernatural, that would have God separated to his spiritual sphere having created the universe in a magical way, and then leaving his world to itself.

The function of dimensions as created by God are that they are dimensions of his creative work.  They are the variety of ways that he works in the world and that his work is manifested. They are also the ways that he will work in the future, realising that God could work differently in the future than he has in the past. His dimensions could be still unfolding in the same way that an artist's painting may start from the detail of a close-up object to start with, then gradually paint in the background later, to give a larger perspective as the painting is created.

Instead of thinking of evolution as arising from the Teilhardian double force of the within and the Omega point, the role of dimensions would allow for a double flow: an upward flow from the basic dimensions towards the transcendent dimensions, and a downward flow from the spirit dimension towards the natural dimensions (See image 16, pg 78). This double flow could be seen as causing and directing the process of evolution. In this way the without and within of things and living beings are both being creatively changed and developed. Because God has created all dimensions, this is not two opposing forces, but more like the cooperation that is required between mind and body for me to type this.

This way of understanding evolution would avoid the New Age idea that consciousness and spirit has arisen out of matter, that there has been a gradual rise of human consciousness, and that we would one day see arise a new species of spiritual man to take on the role of God. The existence of all dimensions indicates the existence of God from the beginning, and that he is the one who unfolds them.

The dimensions allow creation to be intelligently designed by progressive revelation through the knowledge dimension which has been a part of the universe from the beginning. We know that the nature of Biblical revelation is progressive, so we can assume that it has also happened like that in the process of evolution. In other words it avoids the problem of God winding up the clock of life with all the information necessary at the beginning, and then leaving it alone like an out-of-work absentee landlord.

Multi-dimensional Evolution and Genesis
There is one more question I need to deal with here. Does the theory of multi-dimensional  evolution fit with Genesis?

Christians have always had a variety of understandings of Genesis. Two major understandings:

Evolution is often confused with Darwinism, which is the particular theory of how evolution has occurred. Darwinism as a purely naturalistic theory does not fit with any form of interpretation of Genesis. But a multi-dimensional world view is not naturalistic, instead allows us to consider evolution as a way that God has brought creation into being.
 
Multi-dimensional creative evolution is a way that God remains intimately involved in our world and history. His personal nature and purpose is continually able to be revealed to us. As we strive to find and do God's purpose in this world, we can tap into the revelation of God and his resources to enable us to do it. God isn't finished with us yet. []

Rev Brian Brandon, Revised November 2004

To go to next section
To go to Index
To go to Bibliography
To go back to the Home Page.