Darwinian evolution, which Teilhard sought to reconcile with dogma, focuses primarily on the role of natural selection in evolution. This is despite the fact that selection can only operate on what is presented for selection. Darwinians have tended to regard whatever is presented for selection as the product of chance. Some mutations that are presented for selection happen to be appropriate to the environment.  In this approach, all development, from the initial living cell to the present, is considered to be primarily the product of chance. Chance is thus considered to be responsible for all the enormous growth in both complexity and consciousness that Teilhard emphasised. A fundamental problem in this approach is that ‘chance’ is only an epistemological concept, applied due to a lack of knowledge.

The role of mutation in biological evolution is now attracting more attention. Beneficial mutation is the initiation of more complex novelty by the synthesis of existing elements. In biological evolution the growth in complexity relies on this synthesis. The part played by selection in evolution is the elimination of non-beneficial “mistakes” but also the elimination of more complex novelty that does not happen to fit the environment in which it appears.

Evolution literally means a “rolling outwards”. This suggests that what evolves is somehow present in its precursors. Mutation appears to involve a process of involution, a “rolling inwards” of existing elements to produce complexity. However, while the elements of what newly evolves have to be present in its precursors, it is not their presence, but their interaction and synthesis, which produce the more complex novelty. The evolution of the complex biological present can be understood as primarily the result of this involution and synthesis, rather than of chance.

In the creation of complexity, the most important role in the biological evolutionary process is played by mutation. Physical evolution, from the time of the Big Bang, is similarly a process of increasing complexity, involving synthesis in the production of heavier elements. It is in no way a “rolling out” of what is already present.

Cultural Evolution

Physical and Biological evolution are not the full story. Human cultures also evolve. The evolution of a culture is not a matter of chance. A culture is a process of free self-creation. As I argue in Chapter 5 of “The Process of the Cosmos”, the evolution of human moral cultures involves a reciprocal process of human self-creation. It is self-evident that humans make cultures and cultures, to a significant extent, make humans.

The development of any culture is a free process. From the time that an explanation of the world is first proposed within a human group, any further development of the culture of that group depends upon the perception of reality by the members of that culture. That perception of reality will necessarily be moderated by the understanding of reality embedded in the culture. Dix’s analysis of culture has shown that the roots of a culture are to be found in the ideas that the people of that culture take for granted as to the meaning and purpose of human life. (1967,7) 

With the further development of human intelligence the primitive original understanding of the world will tend to be challenged and modified.  Modification of the ideas that provide the basis of the culture will be driven by the interaction between reality, the understanding of reality embedded in the culture, and the clearer perception of reality by members of the culture. The latter is particularly the case if the culture values the pursuit of all knowledge.

For Hugo Meynell the development of the understanding of reality is critical to the development of human cultures. Through this development culture becomes “a means to the examination of life” He finds the key to the development of the understanding of reality in human authenticity. Persons are authentic in this sense “to the degree that, insofar as is possible to them, they attend to the experience available to them on any matter, envisage possible explanations for that experience, judge the possibility which is best confirmed by the evidence, and decide to act accordingly”. Following Bernard Lonergan he calls these four capacities attentiveness, intelligence, reasonableness and responsibility. He argues that to consider these capacities in our account of the world is to be led to a critical realism that will lead to “the intelligent conception and reasonable affirmation of an intelligent will, which provides the ultimate explanation of the world”. (2000, 1-2)

Mary Midgely demonstrates that man is formed in such a way that he needs a culture to complete him. We have an innate need of culture and we cannot live without one, nor without creating one. A person’s culture provides the necessary matrix for that person’s development. (1978,286) As noted in “The Process of the Cosmos”,  “the greater the degree of individual freedom that a culture permits, and the more responsive it is, in its traditions and structures, to the operation of our human moral value-consciousness, the more it will enable individuals to develop and to realise their good, and also to contribute to the further development of the culture.” (1999 Ch.5)

To summarise, culture can be understood as a process of human moral-cultural self-creation. The development of a culture is driven by the interaction between reality and the perception of reality by members of the culture. This development can lead to the idea that an intelligent will provides the ultimate explanation of the world. Let us apply this understanding of culture to the culture that produced Jesus.

In relation to this culture E.L. Doctorow has his character, Sarah Blumenthal, comment on Exodus 19-24 in these terms: “My sense here, what comes through to me, is the understanding these writers possessed of the morally immense human life. Do you see that? They were proposing an ethical configuration for human existence. Who before had done that in quite the same way? These Commandments were devised by human scriptural genius. We could make the case then for God’s presence after all in the humanly written Bible. The Lord, blessed be His name . . . being what impels us to struggle for historical and theological comprehension. The biblical minds who created the Ten Commandments that have structured civilization . . . provided the possibility of an ethically conceived life, an awareness that we live in states of moral consequence that, if not yet, must someday bring us closer to a union of understanding with the Creator. What a great and profound gift . . . and how worthy of reverence!” (2000,116)

The Hebrew culture, from the time of Moses, maintained its focus upon the necessity of moral behaviour. While other cultures have also produced spiritual leaders, the Hebrews, from the at least the time of Moses, produced a whole series of Prophets and spiritual leaders. This was a result of their conclusion that an intelligent will provides the ultimate explanation of the world, their efforts to understand that will, and their consequent focus on the appropriateness of human moral action. Jesus can be understood as the ultimate product of the Hebrew culture’s process of human moral-cultural self-creation.

As the product of a process of human moral-cultural self-creation, neither Jesus, nor any man, is a “mere creature”. The distinction between God and humanity is not as radical as Mascall thought. While “to be a creature is to exist with a derived existence” and “to exist with an underived existence is to be God”, to be the product of a process of self-creation does at least constitute a sort of “half-way house”. In reply to Mascall’s question “How then can a creature be deified?” we can answer that a mere creature cannot be deified. However all humans, including Jesus, are more than “mere creatures”. Mascall points to “the radical difference between God and the creature”. This difference is to be found in the mode of existence. While the essence of the creature is to exist with a derived, contingent existence, the essence of divinity is self-existence. But the difference in the mode of existence between the self-existent God and the product of a process of self-creation, with a largely self-created or self-derived existence, is not a radical difference. The mode of existence of the product of a process of self-creation can be similar, as self-created, to the mode of existence of the self-existent God. It is thus only the deontological success of the process of human moral-cultural self-creation that can enable us to literally become “partakers of the divine nature”.

To be the product of a process of self-creation is to exist, to a significant extent, with a self-derived existence. Different cultures will have quite different appreciations of reality, and different ideas as to what particular aspects of reality are important. We can contrast the Hebrew focus on moral action with the Classical Greek focus on philosophic thought. Depending on the focus of a particular culture’s process of self-creation, a product of such a process could conceivably become divine, in the sense of god-like, or similar to god, as Hulsbosch proposes. But this is no mere unfolding of what is already present. It requires the free and appropriate development of latent possibilities within human nature.

The Process of the Cosmos

An evolutionary Christology requires that a process approach be adopted towards the ontological status of Christ. I laid the foundation for such an approach in “The Process of the Cosmos”.  In that thesis I argue that the Cosmos, from the Big Bang to the present, can be understood as a process involving self-organisation and self-creation. This process moves through a series of emergent stages, each one of which has a greater degree of freedom to evolve than the previous stage. The laws of nature of the several stages range from the deterministic laws of the physical stage to the complete freedom of humans in relation to the moral law.

I consider why God would initiate such a process of self-creation, rather than directly create the desired end-product of such a process. I argue that God cannot directly create an entity that it is appropriate for God to love. God can only directly create a mere creature.

A perfect God has no needs. Because of the absence of needs, love provides the only possible motive for God to act. But the object of God’s love has to be appropriate and proportionate to that love. This means that God can only initiate a process involving self-creation, which could possibly result in the free self-creation of an entity that is both good and which, being self-created, has a mode of existence which is similar to the mode of existence of the self-existent God. Mascall was right about the fundamental gap between God and a mere creature, but wrong to consider humans as mere creatures.

If we consider the process of the Cosmos we see that each successive emergent stage of the process is built upon the previous stage, but exercises greater freedom than the previous stage. The first emergent stage is the physical stage, initiated by the Big Bang. The laws of Physics and Chemistry of this stage are deterministic, but permit of contingency. The next emergent stage is that of life. The laws of life permit more freedom to develop or evolve than do the deterministic laws of matter. Life is opportunistic rather than deterministic. Then there is the emergence of the stage of conscious life, which exercises greater freedom than can vegetative and instinctive life, and finally there is the emergence of human moral-cultural life. Each emergent level is supported by the previous level, but exercises a greater degree of freedom. The law of this present moral-cultural stage of the overall process, the moral law, permits total freedom. The moral law commands, but it does not compel. Humans are totally free to apply, or to fail to apply, the moral law. The movement through the various stages is from determinism to total freedom. Humans are free to establish, or to fail to establish, a fully moral world community.

I argue that each emergent stage of the process of the cosmos involves self-organization or self-creation. This self-creation is particularly clear in the human moral-cultural stage. Humans make cultures and cultures, to a significant extent, make humans. Culture is a continuous process of reciprocal self-creation. The degree to which a particular culture develops seems to depend on the nature of the world-view that provides the basis of that culture. It particularly depends on the effect on that world-view of the interaction between that world-view and reality. It thus primarily depends upon the development of the understanding of reality within that culture, and the consequent awareness of the need to modify the culture in the light of reality.