I'm curious if you have any thoughts on the potential for man or angelic beings to manipulate creation to bring about perverse creatures. Genesis 6 mentions apparent angelic/human hybrids, and there are Enochian traditions about angelic beings also creating hybrid mutations among other plants and animals.
Is it possible some of the creatures existing on earth today are the result of some kind of unholy efforts of men or angels at warping creation into something it's not intended to be?
What does it mean to defy the telos of creation and make Frankenstein's monster? Whether biological, robotic, digital, or some combination?
If all matter contains within it all the potentiality of all of its forms, is it even possible to make a creature that is outside of this potential?
If you read part 1, you’ll find that I explore this possibility in the section on animal predation and disease. I think it’s possible, though I’m hesitant to ascribe such corrupt status to any particular animal species — cough, cough, hyenas.
As for the ramifications of such beings existing, I think the properly Eastern perspective is that God, who synergizes all things towards the good of those who love him, works to redeem even abominations.
I see this in two places. The first is the Eastern patristic reading of Peter’s comments on Christ’s descent into Hades, in Maximus, for example, that reads the food as redemptive in intent — these were judges in the flesh that they might live by the Spirit of God, which is to say, they were ripped from the flesh and cast into the darkness of Hades where they could no longer act on their passions, having been deprived of a body, so that they might be saved at the preaching of Christ. Those who rebelled in this context includes the abominations.
We see something similar in the iconography of the East. As Jonathan Pageau has rightly pointed out, dog-headed men were symbols of abominations. According to tradition, St Christopher was such an abomination, which is why he is sometimes depicted with a dog head. We also see dog-headed men in some Pentecost iconography, where all the peoples of the world who have been redeemed (depicted outside the church doors) include in their midst a dog-headed man.
In other words, the redemptive work of Christ is so vast and all encompassing that it includes the things that ought not be.
I imagine I still believe evolution the way Dawkins described it, but it bothers me now that I am a christian. This essay clarifies alternatives so thank you very much!
So the vision of a single cosmic organism which you deem acceptable ("The unfolding is the slow cell division of an organism until all that is implicit becomes explicit."), this means that you do find acceptable that there is a single common ancestor for all living things?
So please clarify if you think common ancestry, but not as product of macroevolution, but as chain-of-being-unfolding could be acceptable by realism or not? And if it is, why can't we use macroevolution as a valid term, if we imagine different process behind it (selection vs unfolding)?
When I look at some apes, specially orangutans I find it so obvious that we are related, which of course is not an argument, but it something I can't unsee.
Thanks again.
P.S. I heard argument somewhere that the bible actually doesn't describe plant death in eden, since fruits are freely given by plants to be eaten. Or maybe it is death but self giving death?
Re: apes, the feeling you’re experiencing is something you can put your finger on: morphology. It’s a legitimate variable in evolutionary biology to study anatomical similarity between species and other classifications. So when you see a great ape, or even a monkey, you see the facial musculature we share. That gives them the power of extreme expression, just like us. No other animal has this, so your awe is justified. Some would call your noticing that numinous, in a sense.
Re: “macroevolution,” I’d caution you to read what that entails. The objection to it, especially as expressed by Jacobs, is unfortunate. The phenomenon of speciation is well known. Religious apologists who repeat this creationist talking point, like the owner of this Substack (Hi Nathan!), do great injury to proselytism by not being more careful about this bullet point precisely because of its epistemic import. This is all about epistemology, ultimately, and so any hint of carelessness or willful ignorance on the apologist’s part can create immediate resistance in a potential convert. We don’t often consider this, do we? Your average unbeliever might have paid attention in biology or philosophy or natural history. Maybe her dad is a cellular biologist and she doesn’t really vibe on someone knocking her dad’s profession. Maybe she’s proud of her mom who teaches anthropology.
And believe me, Nathan will get smart people asking smart questions. Starting with “macroevolution doesn’t happen” is a very rough start. One must, at the very least, accept that one is a primate. (Actually, Nathan’s an ape, technically, since “species” is just necessary organizing nomenclature.)
One must accept that primate relationship because it’s genomically confirmed in human chromosome 2.
And through beautiful fossil captures.
Being literate in science is thirsty work but pays off in preserving one’s dignity. It’s also helpful when you need to counsel Protestants whose parents told them the earth is younger than human beings have been alive.
Thank you for this. A couple of questions from a new subscriber: 1) Is this picture of an unfolding cosmic creation consonant with Whitehead? If so, have you yet had a conversation with Dr. Matthew Segall? 2) Have you encountered the work of Dr. Michael Levin? His experimental biology has uncovered a kind of almost infinite adaptability within simple organisms and a seeming intelligence to navigate their way through problem spaces as well as shape space. If you have seen his work, where do you think he falls on this spectrum of realism or nominalism? A talk between the two of you would be a must watch.
Yes, Nathan should look at Michael Levin's work if he hasn't already. His work on planaria and being able to manipulate their bioelectricity so that they then turn into the shape of another species is very relevant. With that, though, what happens is the planaria over a few weeks revert back to their original species. Bear in mind, planaria are happy to be two-headed (or whatever-headed) for generations (even though there is no DNA change). The offspring still encode/remember two-headedness hence forth forevermore. However, when your push them into the attractor space of another species, nope, it doesn't work permanently; its like there has not been enough of a push to stabalize there. Perhaps coupled with genetic manipulations one could?
I think we should do more experiments to empirically test if you can turn one species into another. Michael Levin is probably working hard to try!
I probably lean more towards the realist position like Nathan, btw. Although I think there is a mystery here too. In particular, I don't like his use of the word "accident". Could equally say a "happy serendipity", one that pushes an organism down a trajectory that enables a better fit with its environment and better conforms it to what it is supposed to be, to God's plan for that organism. I can't argue for this position so easily, but I'm pointing towards the work on Timothy Jackson: https://timothyjackson.substack.com/p/excess-and-ontogenesis What really is random, what really is accidental?
I really wish you hadn’t said this: “I, personally, do not believe in macro evolution.”
That’s the wrong verb off the bat. *Accept the findings of evolutionary biology* is a better way to phrase it and preempts getting off to a wrong start.
Hi Dr. Jacobs, thank you for this excellent breakdown. This really has helped cement for me the notion of a providential cosmos, and help undo some of the nihilism I assumed via the modern evolutionary synthesis.
On that note, however, I'm curious if we might de-conflate the notions of "macroevolution" from that of "via random mutation." The picture you paint of Gregory of Nyssa's unfolding cosmic organism looks to me like "macroevolution," the only difference being that his is a providential view. Could we perhaps speak instead of a "providential macroevolution," as aligned with the Eastern Fathers? The problem after all is not the notion of a gradual unfolding cosmos, but of a non-providential unfolding.
Great essay.
I'm curious if you have any thoughts on the potential for man or angelic beings to manipulate creation to bring about perverse creatures. Genesis 6 mentions apparent angelic/human hybrids, and there are Enochian traditions about angelic beings also creating hybrid mutations among other plants and animals.
Is it possible some of the creatures existing on earth today are the result of some kind of unholy efforts of men or angels at warping creation into something it's not intended to be?
What does it mean to defy the telos of creation and make Frankenstein's monster? Whether biological, robotic, digital, or some combination?
If all matter contains within it all the potentiality of all of its forms, is it even possible to make a creature that is outside of this potential?
Thanks for your kind remark.
If you read part 1, you’ll find that I explore this possibility in the section on animal predation and disease. I think it’s possible, though I’m hesitant to ascribe such corrupt status to any particular animal species — cough, cough, hyenas.
As for the ramifications of such beings existing, I think the properly Eastern perspective is that God, who synergizes all things towards the good of those who love him, works to redeem even abominations.
I see this in two places. The first is the Eastern patristic reading of Peter’s comments on Christ’s descent into Hades, in Maximus, for example, that reads the food as redemptive in intent — these were judges in the flesh that they might live by the Spirit of God, which is to say, they were ripped from the flesh and cast into the darkness of Hades where they could no longer act on their passions, having been deprived of a body, so that they might be saved at the preaching of Christ. Those who rebelled in this context includes the abominations.
We see something similar in the iconography of the East. As Jonathan Pageau has rightly pointed out, dog-headed men were symbols of abominations. According to tradition, St Christopher was such an abomination, which is why he is sometimes depicted with a dog head. We also see dog-headed men in some Pentecost iconography, where all the peoples of the world who have been redeemed (depicted outside the church doors) include in their midst a dog-headed man.
In other words, the redemptive work of Christ is so vast and all encompassing that it includes the things that ought not be.
Uh oh, you might open up the "can demons be redeemed" can of worms. ;-)
Thanks for the reply!
I’m happy to address that, which I have in the past, noting the spectrum of replies amongst the fathers. All ya have to do is ask!
I imagine I still believe evolution the way Dawkins described it, but it bothers me now that I am a christian. This essay clarifies alternatives so thank you very much!
So the vision of a single cosmic organism which you deem acceptable ("The unfolding is the slow cell division of an organism until all that is implicit becomes explicit."), this means that you do find acceptable that there is a single common ancestor for all living things?
So please clarify if you think common ancestry, but not as product of macroevolution, but as chain-of-being-unfolding could be acceptable by realism or not? And if it is, why can't we use macroevolution as a valid term, if we imagine different process behind it (selection vs unfolding)?
When I look at some apes, specially orangutans I find it so obvious that we are related, which of course is not an argument, but it something I can't unsee.
Thanks again.
P.S. I heard argument somewhere that the bible actually doesn't describe plant death in eden, since fruits are freely given by plants to be eaten. Or maybe it is death but self giving death?
Re: apes, the feeling you’re experiencing is something you can put your finger on: morphology. It’s a legitimate variable in evolutionary biology to study anatomical similarity between species and other classifications. So when you see a great ape, or even a monkey, you see the facial musculature we share. That gives them the power of extreme expression, just like us. No other animal has this, so your awe is justified. Some would call your noticing that numinous, in a sense.
Re: “macroevolution,” I’d caution you to read what that entails. The objection to it, especially as expressed by Jacobs, is unfortunate. The phenomenon of speciation is well known. Religious apologists who repeat this creationist talking point, like the owner of this Substack (Hi Nathan!), do great injury to proselytism by not being more careful about this bullet point precisely because of its epistemic import. This is all about epistemology, ultimately, and so any hint of carelessness or willful ignorance on the apologist’s part can create immediate resistance in a potential convert. We don’t often consider this, do we? Your average unbeliever might have paid attention in biology or philosophy or natural history. Maybe her dad is a cellular biologist and she doesn’t really vibe on someone knocking her dad’s profession. Maybe she’s proud of her mom who teaches anthropology.
And believe me, Nathan will get smart people asking smart questions. Starting with “macroevolution doesn’t happen” is a very rough start. One must, at the very least, accept that one is a primate. (Actually, Nathan’s an ape, technically, since “species” is just necessary organizing nomenclature.)
One must accept that primate relationship because it’s genomically confirmed in human chromosome 2.
And through beautiful fossil captures.
Being literate in science is thirsty work but pays off in preserving one’s dignity. It’s also helpful when you need to counsel Protestants whose parents told them the earth is younger than human beings have been alive.
Thank you for this. A couple of questions from a new subscriber: 1) Is this picture of an unfolding cosmic creation consonant with Whitehead? If so, have you yet had a conversation with Dr. Matthew Segall? 2) Have you encountered the work of Dr. Michael Levin? His experimental biology has uncovered a kind of almost infinite adaptability within simple organisms and a seeming intelligence to navigate their way through problem spaces as well as shape space. If you have seen his work, where do you think he falls on this spectrum of realism or nominalism? A talk between the two of you would be a must watch.
Yes, Nathan should look at Michael Levin's work if he hasn't already. His work on planaria and being able to manipulate their bioelectricity so that they then turn into the shape of another species is very relevant. With that, though, what happens is the planaria over a few weeks revert back to their original species. Bear in mind, planaria are happy to be two-headed (or whatever-headed) for generations (even though there is no DNA change). The offspring still encode/remember two-headedness hence forth forevermore. However, when your push them into the attractor space of another species, nope, it doesn't work permanently; its like there has not been enough of a push to stabalize there. Perhaps coupled with genetic manipulations one could?
I think we should do more experiments to empirically test if you can turn one species into another. Michael Levin is probably working hard to try!
I probably lean more towards the realist position like Nathan, btw. Although I think there is a mystery here too. In particular, I don't like his use of the word "accident". Could equally say a "happy serendipity", one that pushes an organism down a trajectory that enables a better fit with its environment and better conforms it to what it is supposed to be, to God's plan for that organism. I can't argue for this position so easily, but I'm pointing towards the work on Timothy Jackson: https://timothyjackson.substack.com/p/excess-and-ontogenesis What really is random, what really is accidental?
I really wish you hadn’t said this: “I, personally, do not believe in macro evolution.”
That’s the wrong verb off the bat. *Accept the findings of evolutionary biology* is a better way to phrase it and preempts getting off to a wrong start.
Hi Dr. Jacobs, thank you for this excellent breakdown. This really has helped cement for me the notion of a providential cosmos, and help undo some of the nihilism I assumed via the modern evolutionary synthesis.
On that note, however, I'm curious if we might de-conflate the notions of "macroevolution" from that of "via random mutation." The picture you paint of Gregory of Nyssa's unfolding cosmic organism looks to me like "macroevolution," the only difference being that his is a providential view. Could we perhaps speak instead of a "providential macroevolution," as aligned with the Eastern Fathers? The problem after all is not the notion of a gradual unfolding cosmos, but of a non-providential unfolding.