Australian eJournal of Theology 4 (February 2005)
Humanity, Extraterrestrial Life and the Cosmic Christ in
Evolutionary Perspective
Alex Mok
Abstract: This article investigates human nature and original sin in the light of
evolutionary biology. It also explores the possibility of the existence of extraterrestrial
intelligent life and reflects on its theological implications. It is argued that the human
species may be the only or the very first intelligent life in the universe. In addition, it is
pointed out that the incarnation of the Logos is necessary for fulfilling the cosmic and
human evolution.
Key Words: human person – nature; original sin; evolution; extraterrestrial intelligent
life; Incarnation; Cosmic Christ; Logos Christology
n the quest for human origin, modern science has shown that human beings are part
of nature incorporating a long dynamic evolutionary process governed by law and
chance. This evolutionary worldview should be integrated with our religious beliefs so
that we can acquire a deeper understanding about humanity and our relationship with
God and nature. In fact, theology is faith seeking understanding and therefore, as with
science, its contents should be reexamined whenever there is new supportive or
incongruous knowledge. In this article, we will first point out that the concept of the
human person in the Bible is largely consistent with the findings of contemporary science.
We will then explore the possibility of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence and its
theological implications, trying to give a coherent picture of the evolving cosmos in the
end. We will also attempt to reformulate the doctrine of original sin in the language of
evolutionary biology. Finally, we will discuss the role of the cosmic Christ in God’s creation
and show that the incarnation can be considered as part of the cosmic evolution that
involves the direct participation of the Creator. The salvation of Jesus Christ is the
continuous creation of God in the evolutionary perspective.
THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF HUMAN NATURE
In the Bible, particularly in Genesis, we can trace four features of the concept of human
nature,1 as outlined below.
(1) A Unitary Person, not a Body-Soul Dualism
The Hebrew word nepheš (usually translated as soul) in the Old Testament and the
corresponding Greek word psychē in the New Testament refer to the inner self or the life
Walther Eichrodt, Man in the Old Testament, translated by K. and R. Gregor Smith (London:SCM Press, 1951);
Frederick Grant, An Introduction to New Testament Thought (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1950), 160-170.
1
1
AEJT 4 (February 2005)
Mok / Humanity, E.T. Life and Cosmic Christ
principle in accordance with the whole person and they do not mean the immortal
separable soul.2 The bible looks upon body and soul as different aspects of the same
personal unity. Joel Green states clearly, “It is axiomatic in Old Testament scholarship
today that human beings must be understood in their fully integrated, embodied existence.
Humans do not possess a body and soul, but are human only as body and soul.”3 According
to Oscar Cullmann, “the Jewish and Christian interpretation of the creation excludes the
whole Greek dualism of body and soul.”4 In the Bible, there is no actual dichotomy
between body and soul. The person is always regarded as an integrated embodied self.
Lynn de Silva writes:
Biblical scholarship has established quite conclusively that there is no dichotomous
concept of man in the Bible, such as is found in Greek and Hindu thought. The biblical
view of man is holistic, not dualistic. The notion of the soul as an immortal entity which
enters the body at birth and leaves it at death is quite foreign to the biblical view of
man. The biblical view is that man is a unity; he is a unity of soul, body, flesh, mind, etc.,
all together constituting the whole man.5
In 1 Corinthians 15:38-58, Paul stresses the resurrection of the total person, but not of the
immortal soul separate from a body. He affirms, however, the transformation of the body
in the future life, which he describes as “the spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44).
(2) A Unique Creature in Nature
The first creation account in Genesis 1:1-2:4a clearly depicts humanity as part of nature,
shaped with limitedness not unlike other creatures. All living things are related to one
another, forming an interdependent life matrix. As the divine creation is good, the natural
world has its own inherent value which is independent of human beings. Nevertheless, the
Priestly tradition also asserts that only humanity is created in the image of God (Imago
Dei):
Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and
over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’ So God
created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he
created them (Gen 1:26-27).
Of all the creatures, only man is able to know and love his creator. He alone is called to
share in God’s own life.6 This is the fundamental reason that humanity is unique within the
natural world and each human individual possesses the dignity of the person. Humans
alone are free moral beings who can choose between good and evil and be responsible for
their choices. They not only have the command over all the creatures but also have the
privilege of speaking directly to God. They are responsible selves integrated with moral
and spiritual capacities and bodily instincts. Although the biblical authors divided the
creation of God into six days or periods, they certainly did not intend to portray an
evolutionary worldview to their readers. Nevertheless, the biblical descriptions of the
Norman W. Porteous, “Soul,” Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 4:428.
Joel B. Green, ‘“Bodies—That is, Human Lives”: A Re-Examination of Human Nature in the Bible,’ in Whatever
Happened to the Soul? Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature, ed. Warren S. Brown, Nancey
Murphy, and H. Newton Malony (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 158.
2
3
4
Oscar Cullmann, Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? (New York: MacMillan, 1958), 30.
5
Lynn de Silva, The Problem of Self in Buddhism and Christianity (London: MacMillan, 1979), 75.
6
Catechism of the Catholic Church, no.356.
2
AEJT 4 (February 2005)
Mok / Humanity, E.T. Life and Cosmic Christ
similarities and differences between the human species and all the other creations are
largely coherent with contemporary scientific findings.
(3) The Social Self
“It is not good that the man should be alone” (Gen 2:18).
As Green argues7 the biblical anthropology emphasizes the holistic and social
character of human beings. For the Israelites, God’s covenant that created the unity of
their nation was with one people, but not with a sequence of individuals. Moreover, in the
Scriptures, individuals were always placed in the context of a community which has its
own traditional anthology of sacred stories and rituals. God is concerned not only with the
motives and actions of each individual but also with the integrity of the life of the
community. Human beings are not independent individuals, but are related to one another
as members of a family, citizens of a nation and children of the same personal God.
The nature of the human person in the Gospel of Luke hinges on the understanding
of Jesus’ salvific ministry, which is essentially the major theme of Luke’s writing. Luke’s
concept of salvation implicitly leads us to the meaning of authentic human existence. In
Luke’s narrative of Jesus’ healing of the woman suffering from the hemorrhage (Lk 8:42b48),8 we can find a vivid depiction of a holistic and social anthropology. The healing of the
woman whose sickness was socially distressing involves not only reversal of her physical
malady, but also restoration of her place in the society as well as provision of new
relations in the community of God’s people. This conception of the holistic and social
character of the human person can also be found in other Synoptic writings. For example,
in the Gospel of Matthew, cleansing a man with leprosy offers him new access to God and
to the community (Mt 8:1-4, Lev 13-14); healing a paralytic is equivalent to forgiving his
sins (Mt 9:2-8); extending the grace of God to tax collectors and sinners exhibits the work
of Jesus as a healer (Mt 9:9-13); and restoring the sight of two blind men is linked to the
manifestation of their faith (Mt 9:27-31). Similar accounts abound in the Synoptic Gospels,
“where spiritual, social and physical needs are simply regarded as human needs.”9
(4) The Image of God and the Fall
As mentioned earlier, humanity is created in God’s own image. But what exactly is this
image? And how much has man lost this image since Adam’s fall? Although human beings
as God’s image have dominion over all other creatures, the meaning of the divine image
should reflect the true nature of humanity but not just the wardenship of the natural
world. In fact, the dominion of humanity over the creation on God’s behalf should be
exercised in a way that would reveal God’s purposes for his creation. Moreover, being in
the image of God the human individual is capable of entering into communion with other
people, who as a family are called by grace to a covenant with God.10 The nature of
humanity therefore emanates from their relatedness to God as Creator. “The concept of
Joel B. Green, “Restoring the Human Person: New Testament Voices for a Wholistic and Social Anthropology”
in Neuroscience and the Person: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, ed. R.J. Russell, N. Murphy, T.C.
Meyering, and M.A. Arbib (Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, 1999), 3-22.
7
8
This story is also depicted in Mark’s Gospel (Mk: 5: 25-34) and Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 9: 20-22).
9
Green, “Restoring the Human Person,” 14.
10
Catechism of the Catholic Church, no.357.
3
AEJT 4 (February 2005)
Mok / Humanity, E.T. Life and Cosmic Christ
the Imago Dei, then, is fundamentally relational, and takes as its ground and focus the
graciousness of God’s own covenantal relations with humanity and the rest of creation.”11
The Yahwist creation narratives in Gen 2:4-3:24 reveal to us a great perception of
the human condition that is actually an authentic experience for each of us. The fall story
only provides a mythological reason for the current sinful human condition. It should be
noted that the Yahwist, however, does not portray sin as something that is inherited or
illustrate a doctrine of original sin. The second creation story cannot be understood in
isolation and it must be grasped with other stories in the Scriptures. The ultimate meaning
of the creation story or the fall of Adam and Eve can only be appreciated in the light of the
death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. “The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the
reverse side of the Good News that Jesus is the Saviour of all men, that all need salvation,
and that salvation is offered to all through Christ.”12
The four features of human nature outlined above are to a great extent in harmony
with the findings of modern science. In particular, current studies in neuroscience tend to
support the view of nonreductive physicalism – the metaphysical position that “the person
is a physical organism whose complex functioning, both in society and in relation to God,
gives rise to higher human capacities such as morality and spirituality.”13 In other words,
the new coherent understanding is that the human person is a multileveled unity
emerging from the basic elements of the material world, participating in social activities
with other persons, and being able to share in the eternal life of God. In addition, we are
indisputably part of nature and, more significantly, have a long cosmic and biological
evolutionary history.
EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE
Before we turn to the discussion of the human condition in the evolutionary framework,
let us now investigate the possibility of the existence of other intelligent beings in the
universe in a scientific way. It is because the existence of extraterrestrial life will give us a
new perspective on human nature within a cosmic context. The quest for the presence of
intelligent life beyond the earth has its roots stretched back into antiquity and has a strong
influence on both the scientific and the religious communities, serving as a good meeting
point for the dialogue between them in the modern time. Christian theology should be
implicitly involved in this ancient quest because it will naturally provoke us to ponder the
relation between God and humanity and, in particular, the mystery of the incarnation of
the Logos.
In the scientific context, the American astronomer Frank Drake14 proposed in 1961
his famous equation,
, for estimating the number
of technologically advanced civilizations in our galaxy that are presently capable of
communicating with us (N). This so-called Drake equation contains a series of factors
representing the probability of some major steps in the evolution of such civilizations.
These factors are the average rate of formation of suitable stars in our galaxy ( ), the
fraction of stars having planetary systems ( ), the average number of habitable planets
11
Green, “Restoring the Human Person”, 7.
12
Catechism of the Catholic Church, no.389.
This definition is given by Nancey Murphy who advocates a nonreductive physicalist account of human
nature. Nancey Murphy, “Human Nature: Historical, Scientific, and Religious Issues” in Brown, Murphy and
Malony, Whatever Happened to the Soul?, 25.
13
14
Frank Drake, “Project Ozma,” Physics Today 14 (April 1961): 40-46.
4
AEJT 4 (February 2005)
Mok / Humanity, E.T. Life and Cosmic Christ
per planetary system ( ), the fraction of those habitable planets on which life actually
arises ( ), the fraction of such life-bearing planets on which intelligence develops ( ), the
fraction of those intelligent-life planets that develop electromagnetic communications
technology ( ) and, finally, the average lifetime of these communicating civilizations (L).
Scientists, however, do not have sufficient information and knowledge to determine,
even approximately, some of these factors that have remained highly speculative ever
since they were proposed. The actual value for N may be any number from zero to
billions.15 The contemporary advocates for a large value of N are mostly astronomers and
physicists including Carl Sagan, Frank Drake and Philip Morrison16 who are very
optimistic about the two biological factors and whose values are simply taken to be
one. Many leading evolutionary biologists such as Theodosius Dobzhansky, George
Gaylord Simpson, Jacob Francois, Francisco Ayala and Ernst Mayr17 have opposed this
oversimplification and argued that the development of intelligent life is extremely
improbable even in the primate lineage. The evolutionist Owen Lovejoy explains clearly:
The evolution of cognition is the product of a variety of influences and preadaptive
capacities, the absence of any one of which would have completely negated the process,
and most of which are unique attributes of primates and/or homonids. Specific dietary
shifts, bipedal locomotion, manual dexterity, control of differentiated muscles of facial
expression, vocalization, intense social and parenting behaviour (of specific kinds),
keen stereoscopic vision, and even specialized forms of sexual behaviour, all qualify as
irreplaceable elements. It is evident that the evolution of cognition is neither the result
of an evolutionary trend nor an event of even the lowest calculable probability, but
rather the result of a series of highly specific evolutionary events whose ultimate cause
is traceable to selection for unrelated factors such as locomotion and diet.18
The general consensus among evolutionists is that the emergence of intelligent beings
involves a reasonably large number of improbable evolutionary steps that will make
(and hence N) practically equal to zero and therefore the earth may be the only planet that
harbors intelligent life in our galaxy or even in the entire universe. Consequently, as
intelligent life actually exists on our planet, life of lower forms ought to be statistically
plentiful in the universe. Although these different kinds of extraterrestrial life should
expand exponentially within their environmental limits,19 none of them may give rise to
intelligence according to modern evolutionary theory. It is therefore not very surprising
that astronomers will discover other primitive life forms in the solar system and other
extra-solar systems in the future.
Based on the Copernican Principle20 one may still dispute that as intelligent life
could actually develop on this planet in spite of the improbability in evolution, it should
also happen again on other extra-solar planets that may be numerous in the universe. To
respond to this question, it is important to note that the observation of intelligence on
earth is necessarily restricted by the weak anthropic principle21 (WAP) – what we observe
15
Drake’s original calculation gave N = 100,000.
16
Barrow and Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 576.
17
Barrow and Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 133.
C. Owen Lovejoy, “Evolution of man and its implications for general principles of the evolution of intelligent
life,” in Life in the Universe, ed. John Billingham (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1981), 326.
19 George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), 512.
18
20
The Copernican Principle states that we do not occupy a special position in the universe.
As stated by Barrow and Tipler, there are three primary versions of the anthropic principle: (1) Weak
Anthropic Principle (WAP): “The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally
probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life
can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.” (2) Strong
21
5
AEJT 4 (February 2005)
Mok / Humanity, E.T. Life and Cosmic Christ
in nature must satisfy the conditions required for our existence, otherwise we would not
be here to discuss it. In other words, whether intelligence is everywhere or nowhere in
this universe with the immensity of space and time, we must find ourselves on this planet
now. This is actually a consequence of the so-called ‘selection effect’. In fact, as first
suggested by Brandon Carter22 in 1983, WAP supports the viewpoint of the evolutionists
that the emergence of intelligence on a habitable planet is extremely improbable.
The basic idea in Carter's argument is to define three different time periods:
(unknown) is the average time needed to evolve ‘intelligent observers' on an earth-like
planet, (
years) is the actual time taken for evolution to produce intelligent
beings on earth, and
(
years) is the lifetime of the sun which is classified as a G2
23
main sequence star. Although we do not know
, we would expect a priori that
should belong to one of these three cases:
(1)
,
(2)
and
(3)
.
The second case should be statistically ruled out because it represents a very narrow part
of the entire hypothesis space and there exists no physical relationship between the
average time for evolution of intelligence and the lifetime of a main sequence star.
Nevertheless, both case 1 and case 3 are not consistent with the observed fact that
(to within a factor of 2.5). This means that the actual observed time to evolve
intelligence on earth ( ) does not draw near to the average time needed to evolve
intelligence on an earth-like planet (
). Now if the first case,
, were true, we
could have observed
with high probability. Therefore, combined with WAP, the
observation that
implies strongly that
and hence
. The fact
that we observe
is a necessary outcome of the WAP selection effect in spite of its
minimal likelihood of occurrence. We must evolve successfully before the sun depletes its
hydrogen fuel in the core, or else no observation could be made. In short, WAP inevitably
leads us to conclude that the third case,
, is most likely.
This conclusion implies that the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life is highly
improbable. In their controversial book, Barrow and Tipler also develop the so-called
space-travel argument against the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life and come to
the conclusion that:
the probability of the evolution of creatures with the technological capability of
interstellar communication within five billion years after the development of life on an
earthlike planet is less than
, and thus it is very likely that we are the only
intelligent species now existing in our galaxy.24
The basic idea of their argument, also known as the Fermi paradox, is straightforward: If
extraterrestrial intelligent beings exist and they possess a modest amount of rocket
Anthropic Principle (SAP): “The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at
some stage in its history.” (3) Final Anthropic Principle (FAP): “Intelligent information-processing must come
into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out.” Barrow and Tipler, The
Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 15-23. In this article, we will adopt WAP which is the most acceptable
version.
Brandon Carter, “The Anthropic Principle and Its Implications for Biological Evolution,” Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London A 310 (1983): 347-363.
22
A G2 star has a surface temperature of about 6000°C while a main sequence star burns its hydrogen fuel in
the core in a stable state. A star like our sun will stay on the main sequence for about 10 billion years.
23
24
Barrow and Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 576.
6
AEJT 4 (February 2005)
Mok / Humanity, E.T. Life and Cosmic Christ
technology, they would colonize the entire galaxy for various reasons25 in less than 300
million years26 and should therefore have visited the solar system. Since we have not
found them here on earth, this implies that they do not exist. The absence of evidence
would indeed be the evidence of absence.
The discussions above are consistent with the null results (up till now) of over a
hundred scientific projects in different parts of the world on searching for extraterrestrial
intelligent life.27 For example, Project Phoenix, carried out during the late 1990s, was the
most sensitive and comprehensive search for extraterrestrial civilizations. Using large
radio telescopes, it scrutinized radio signals originating from the vicinities of about one
thousand sun-like stars within a distance of two hundred light years from the earth. Yet no
meaningful signals have been received. In fact, our earth has been broadcasting radio
signals into space ever since the advent of radio and television technologies. The radio
radiation from the earth is now more intense than that from the sun as seen by a distant
observer in space. These terrestrial signals have reached a distance of 70 to 80 light years
from the earth, revealing our presence to more than a thousand stars. As we have not
received any responses thus far, we may conclude that no extraterrestrial civilizations
exist within a distance of 35 to 40 light years, or if they exist they are not interested in
replying to our signals.
As mentioned before, the existence of other intelligent beings beyond the earth
would raise some interesting theological questions, especially in connection with
Christology: Do extraterrestrial beings have original sin even though they are not
descendants of Adam and Eve? Would there be multiple incarnations of the Logos in the
other worlds? These questions unavoidably compel us to reexamine the doctrine of
original sin and the meaning of the incarnation of the Logos, in particular with respect to
the evolutionary worldview.
THE HUMAN CONDITION IN THE EVOLUTIONARY CONTEXT
In his famous book The Phenomenon of Man,28 Teilhard de Chardin simply divides the
evolution of the universe into three interrelated stages, from matter to life and then to
human. Important and critical transitions happened in these evolutionary processes and
the entire universe was created with a potential to move from the inanimate stage to the
conscious stage. The historical Jesus was the summit of divine creation and was also a new
stage of creation that became a perfect model for humankind. According to Teilhard de
Chardin, Jesus is a unique symbol of the union of the divine and the created human, which
is indeed the goal and fulfillment of the divine creation. The incarnation of the Logos was
not primarily to redeem us from the bondage of sins, but essentially to unite us with God
through love. Moreover, the Logos is the empowerment within the emergent universe that
drives the evolutionary processes conforming to the laws of nature. He is present in every
creation process and he works through the natural laws he has established. In the first
The motivations for interstellar communication and exploration include information exchange and survival
needs. Barrow and Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 590-601.
26 This is a short period when compared to the age of the galaxy which is more than ten billion years. A more
optimistic calculation will give a period of less than 4 million years. Barrow and Tipler, The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle, 578-590. See also Frank Tipler, The Physics of Immortality (New York: Doubleday,
1994), 54-55.
25
27
Woodruff Sullivan, “Alone in the Universe?” Nature 380 (21 March 1996): 211.
28
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man (New York: Harper & Row, 1959).
7
AEJT 4 (February 2005)
Mok / Humanity, E.T. Life and Cosmic Christ
transition, order was shaped out of the chaos towards the complexity of life. In the second
transition, life evolved through the biological laws towards even greater complexity that
brought about the emergence of intelligence and consciousness. Nevertheless, each phase
of evolution possessed a certain degree of “freedom” and therefore the development of
complexity was not carried out in a pre-determined way. In the initial inanimate universe,
the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics was the autonomy in the interactions of
small particles. Before the advent of intelligence, there were the statistical laws of random
mutation and natural selection in biological evolution. There is now the free will for
human beings who have a much more profound influence on the course of evolution.
Being self-conscious and intelligent, we could actually destroy the long history of
evolution by just pressing a button or contribute to our future development in a
constructive way. The evolution is still going on and the current phase becomes more
crucial owing to our greater complexity and freedom.
In this crucial phase of evolution, the incarnation of the Logos became necessary for
revealing to us the nature of creation so that the present social and cultural evolution
might lead us to true humanity. In Philip Hefner’s terminology, we have now evolved into
a symbiosis of genes and cultures.29 Hefner regards original sin as the discrepancy we
experience between the information coming from our genes and from our culture and also
as the fallibility and limitation that are part of the human evolution. We are fallible in a
sense that we move forward only through trial and error. Nevertheless, as emphasized by
Denis Edwards, discrepancy and fallibility are not of themselves sins.30 Using Karl
Rahner’s clarification of the theological concept of concupiscence,31 Edwards stresses that
there are two major disorders associated with original sin. The first kind of disorder
comes from the current sinful condition that is a result of the long history of the human
rejection of God. We were born and brought up in a sinful world which affects us and
which is the framework for making our own decisions. We are more or less shaped by
other people and by history. As social and cultural beings, we actualize ourselves in a
situation that has been contaminated with the sin of the world. “The sin of others is a
universal and permanent part of the human condition from the beginning and is in this
sense original.”32
The second kind of disorder is not a result of sin but is intrinsic to us as a spiritual
being and simultaneously as a fundamentally physical and limited creature. Owing to our
bodiliness and finitude, “we human beings are never fully autonomous, integrated and in
control.”33 Nevertheless, Rahner does not think that we can overcome these human
characteristics, as they are actually part of the divine creation. This kind of concupiscence
is a consequence of our finitude and, as Rahner insists, is morally neutral. It may keep us
not only from doing good things but also from doing bad ones. In other words, we are
inherently fallible because as finite evolutionary creatures we are subject to our
limitations and past evolutionary routes. This is the way that God has created us as free
responsible selves. Unfortunately our ancestors did fall and they created a sinful
environment for us.
29
Philip Hefner, The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture and Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 102.
30
Denis Edwards, The God of Evolution (New York: Paulist Press 1999), 65.
Karl Rahner, “The Theological Concept of Concupiscentia” in Theological Investigations, vol. 1 (Baltimore:
Helicon Press, 1961), 347-382.
31
32
Edwards, The God of Evolution, 67.
33
Edwards, The God of Evolution, 65.
8
AEJT 4 (February 2005)
Mok / Humanity, E.T. Life and Cosmic Christ
Our being human signifies a new evolutionary step towards the union with the
Creator. Before the appearance of human beings, all created entities with their lower
levels of freedom are in harmony with each other and they form an ecological system.
However, the non-human creations do not have the moral and spiritual capacities that are
unique to human beings. Now humanity, as part of nature, has remarkable abilities and
potentialities far greater than its pre-human ancestors. We have evolved into selfconscious and spiritual beings with free wills and moral judgments. In the context of
evolutionary biology, the fall of Adam can only be a symbolic story for the goodness of the
on-going creation. Each level of creation has new challenges directing to the ultimate goals
of creation. Using the terminology of Charles Birch and John Cobb, human beings are
“falling upward” that “identifies the occurrence of a new level of order and freedom
bought at the price of suffering.”34 Adam’s fall denotes not only an authentic experience of
every person from being innocent to committing sins, but also the alienation from original
harmony or the renewal of relationships when the creation moved from the pre-human
stage to the human stage. In this perspective, should there be extraterrestrial intelligent
beings, they would also have their own fall and inherit their own original sin.
JESUS CHRIST IN THE EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE
In light of contemporary cosmology, the historical Jesus is “the continuation and
fulfillment of a long cosmic evolution.”35 Being the heart of creation, Jesus reveals to us the
full meaning of creation. He as a man shares our long cosmic evolutionary history that
started from the Big Bang, continued in the creation of heavy elements in the stars and
supernovae, and evolved from the early life forms to Homo sapiens. As the Logos, Jesus is
also the self-expression and the self-revelation of God to creation. He is the origin of all
beings in the cosmos as well as the ultimate meaning of the evolving conscious cosmos.
The goal of the cosmic evolution may be perceived as the preparation for the incarnation
of the Logos who would bring the whole creation into union with God. As a corollary, the
assumption of human nature by the Logos implies two possibilities. The first one is that we
may be the only intelligent species in the whole universe and the other one is that we may
be the intelligent species that has first attained the capacities for making moral judgment
and spiritual reflection. This result is consonant with our earlier scientific discussions on
the (non-)existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life. To put it another way, the absence of
extraterrestrial intelligence conforms to our understanding of the incarnation of the Logos
in the evolutionary perspective.
The uniqueness of humankind is in fact a “classical” solution which is now shown to
be in agreement with the weak anthropic principle. The stance that only one world existed
was taken by Thomas Aquinas when he, following the Aristotelian tradition, tried to refute
the many worlds hypothesis put forward by earlier theologians including St. Augustine.
Although the plurality of worlds could exhibit the greatness and the glory of the Creator
who, being omnipotent and absolutely free, could have created other worlds, St. Thomas
rejected the pluralist model because it seemed to deny the orderly unity of the Creator.36
Charles Birch and John Cobb, The Liberation of Life: From the Cell to the Community (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1981), 138.
34
35
Barbour, Religion and Science, 248.
36
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 47, a. 3.
9
AEJT 4 (February 2005)
Mok / Humanity, E.T. Life and Cosmic Christ
JESUS AS THE COSMIC SAVIOUR
Human beings are made in the image of God and we can now say that this image is Jesus
Christ who has restored the cosmic order and has transformed the entire creation through
His death and resurrection. This character of the image of God is universal and
transcendental. In his letter to the Colossians, Paul clearly presents Christ as the creator,
the preserver and the savior for the entire creation:
He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things
were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or
dominions or principalities or authorities – all things were created through him and for
him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the
body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he
might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and
through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making
peace by the blood of his cross (Col 1: 15-20).
It is important to note that Christ’s salvation is for all things, whether on earth or in
heaven. All things, from the elementary particles to the galactic systems, and from the
microbes to the intelligent beings, were created by him and for him. This important
concept of Paul is consonant with John’s conviction that Christ is the alpha and the omega
of all creation (Rev 1:8). In addition, Paul also emphasizes that the Passover of Jesus is a
single historic event: “The death he died, he died to sin once for all.” (Rom 6:10) The
incarnation of Jesus may be seen as part of God’s creation that is scheduled for the
appropriate social and cultural settings in human history. The salvation of Jesus in this
broader sense is a divine creation activity that has become part of human and cosmic
history. In other words, the Logos would become human whether we have sinned or not,
although our earlier analysis shows that sin may be an inevitable phenomenon in the
evolutionary context. According to Teilhard de Chardin, we are now in the phase of
Christogenesis in which we are creating ourselves with empowerment from the preexisting and eternal Logos who is the “alpha-point” of all existing things as well as the
“omega-point” of the evolutionary cosmos. The human person is more who one becomes
than who one is. The ultimate goal of the evolutionary cosmos is the harmony of all
creation in the Logos who, as a person, discloses perfect dynamic relationships with God,
with humanity and with nature.
It should be pointed out that this concept of incarnation has its root in the scholastic
tradition. When Duns Scotus (1266-1308) tried to explain the concept of the unio
hypostatica,37 he affirmed that it was the intention of God that the world was created for
Christ in the very beginning and the world should be united with Christ by the closest
possible relationship – the incarnation.
The cosmic character of the Logos is prominent in Colossians 1:15-20.38 The
salvation of Jesus Christ is a once-for-all incident and its efficacy extends not only in time
but also in space. This cosmic Christology of Paul is consistent with the conception of
evolution that we have so far developed. Teilhard de Chardin even refers the cosmic
dimension of Christ as the third nature of Christ,39 demonstrating the significance of this
idea that has grown from modern cosmology. The universal redemption of Christ
The hypostatic union is a theological term asserting the one person subsisting in two natures, the divine and
the human, of the incarnate Christ.
37
38
See also Eph 1:3-10.
39
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Heart of Matter (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978), 93.
10
AEJT 4 (February 2005)
Mok / Humanity, E.T. Life and Cosmic Christ
essentially applies to all created beings, including any extraterrestrial intelligent life that
might exist elsewhere in the universe. Multiple incarnations of the Logos in these other
worlds are unnecessary because the earthly once-for-all incarnation of theLogos with the
“blood of his cross” has made available the reconciliation of the alien beings with God. In
the same way as the Israelites were chosen by God to represent the salvation of God for all
nations and peoples in the Old Testament, Homo sapiens are now chosen by God to
designate the reconciliation of God with the Christocentric universe. Being the very first
intelligent species in the universe, we now take on the mission to bring the good news to
the alien civilizations should they exist. This is scientifically feasible on account of the
colonization of the galaxy by our own species in less than 300 million years. Applying the
space-travel argument to ourselves, we would have colonized the entire galaxy well before
other intelligent beings could successfully evolve on their home planets.40 Nevertheless, as
noted by Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, the participation of the Christian redemption, be it
earthly or extraterrestrial, must be guided by the Holy Spirit, “who also works in a way
which is mostly unknown for us, but certainly the only one able to secure the universality
and interiorization of salvation.”41
CONCLUDING REMARKS
By investigating specific questions which concern both disciplines, science and theology
can contribute to a coherent vision of reality. In particular, our investigation shows that
the evolutionary worldview can help us better understand the original plan of the divine
creation, the meaning of the human person as the imago Dei, and the salvific universality
of the incarnation of the Logos. This is in agreement with the thought of St. Thomas that
“nature, philosophy’s proper concern, could contribute to the understanding of divine
Revelation.”42 The ultimate goal of scientific research is to discern the work of God and,
more importantly, to know God Himself. This is also the conviction of the author of the
Book of Wisdom: “From the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding
perception of their Creator” (Wis 13:5). In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul concludes
with such an evolutionary vision: “Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we
shall also bear the image of the man of heaven” (1 Cor 15:49). This is our true humanity.
Author: Alex Wing-Kee Mok teaches Science and Religion at the Holy Spirit Seminary College
in Hong Kong. He has obtained a Ph.D. in physics and has just completed his Masters Degree
in theology at ACU. He won the John Templeton Foundation Science and Religion Course
Program Award in 1999.
Email: [email protected]
The idea that we might transmit the knowledge of the salvation of the Logos to other planets via radio
communication is obviously out of place here.
40
Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, “Extraterrestrial Life” in Interdisciplinary Encyclopaedia of Religion and Science, ed.
Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti and Alberto Strumia (online English version): http://www.disf.org/en.
41
42
John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, Encyclical Letter (14 September 1998), no.43.
11