Tuesday, April 2

GOD’S chance creation
It’s always the random events that catch us by surprise, yet our world is far more fragile I fear than we realize. This would have been far more apparent to our distant ancestors prior to agriculture, which made possible more permanent settlements. For then we roamed the earth as hunters and gather’s, adapting to an ever-changing environment, to be more in tune with the elements and nature. What most don't realise is we have some evolutionary evidence suggesting we came very close to extinction.

The idea of permanency is understandable given the time frames of existence known to us in science today.  We now live in the age of the human. This has led, I suggest, to a degree of arrogance. For our part in its original creation and more particularly our evolution as the dominant species is somewhat a matter of chance or a mystery. I rather think our adaption may be more of a matter of chance than anything else, so that from a very small base we have grown exponentially. That we form an integral part of this continuous creation means we can now, more than ever before, be a positive or negative factor – to enrichment or to stuff it up. The need for new thinking becomes rather obvious. The fundamentalist idea we leave it all, in good faith  to GOD, is a recipe to ruin.    
That we live in a world that represents an evolved chance creation, is explained by Astrophysics Jesuit George Coyne.
Prior to his retirement George Coyne was previously Director of the Vatican Observatory since 1978, an observatory which is one of the oldest in the world with roots to astronomical observations commissioned by Pope Gregory XIII as part of his reform of the calendar in 1582. In one of his articles he rebuts the idea that random evolution is incompatible with belief in a creator God.

He explains the interactivity between chance, necessity and fertility in our universe and how what is random is also bound together through the process of fertility. What is meant by this fertility?

Coyne’s article explains the birth and death of stars and the combination of chemicals and molecules that ultimately form our life as we are creations from that star dust. The universe is not GOD and it cannot exist independently of God. Neither pantheism nor naturalism is true. A theologian already poses the concept of GOD’s continuous creation with which to explore the implications of modern science for religious belief. GOD is working with the universe, the universe has a certain vitality of its own like a child does, and it has the ability to respond to words of endearment and encouragement. His conclusion is: God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution, He is not continually intervening but rather allows, participates; loves. Is such thinking adequate to preserve the special character attributed by religious thought to the emergence not only of life but also of spirit, while avoiding a crude creationism?

Only a protracted dialogue will tell. But we should not close off the dialogue and darken the already murky waters by fearing GOD will be abandoned if we embrace the best of modern science.

I like the idea we have responsibility to nourish “Mother Earth’ as espoused by our aborigines. I also think it has a degree of commonality in thinking to Cohen’s idea of the universe as a whole, it has a certain vitality of its own that requires a type of spiritual encouragement.


♥ N o v a said...

I believe that humans deserve to have a bit of arrogance. We're the only species that have evolved to the level that we have, whether by chance or by divine intervention. But think of how far we have come, from the caveman existence to being able to travel and walk on the moon. It's extraordinary really, what humans have been able to accomplish.

Tom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lindsay Byrnes said...

Hi Nova,
I think I know what you mean about the remarkable material progress, but I am suggesting that progress equally risks the world increasingly becoming a train wreck for future generations. There are many concerned folk but not the overall impetus I fear, to arrest the current trends which endanger existence and sustainability. Also bear in mind just about all of our major scientific discoveries were both counter intuitive and or accidental, to mimic nature one way or another, from what was already created, so to that extent I think we can also be a bit humble .
But we can certainly take pride where good people use their imagination and research to ensure a better way of life to act in a concerned manner to move to a more sustainable future.
Best wishes

Hi Tom,
Not sure if I accidentally deleted your comment or that was your decision.
However you may aware down under we have the worst records for species extinction in the globe, such is the fragile nature of the land and the misuse of many large land tracts ill-equipped to deal with unsuited farming applications. However there are many land care groups intent on ensuring uninterrupted corridors so that species habitat can be maintained. This involves land owners setting aside up to 10 % to the environment, which has had the remarkable benefit of increasing yields. There are other groups such as ‘Trust for Nature’ trying to widen the application to anyone with a larger block of land setting aside in perpetuity a sizable plot that is to be maintained in that sustainable manner, for future generations. But meritorious as such moves may be, the degradation and loss of habituate continues, especially in relation to the 3rd largest river in the world, our Murray River, which is in a perilous state. Despite an act of parliament restricting the amount of water being taken for irrigation, revelations have come to the public’s notice of water meters turned off and poor administration by the authority set up to ensure its health could be restored.
Best wishes

Tom said...

Hi Lindsay;

No, I deleted my comment quite deliberately. Much of what I said was about mankind's misuse of the planet and that is reflected in your reply to Nova. As for the rest, not important.