Richard Rohr on Evolution

“The universe really is “inspirational matter,” we now know, and is not merely inert. Now we might call it instinct, evolution, nuclear fusion, DNA, hardwiring, the motherboard, healing, growth, or just springtime, but nature clearly continues to renew itself from within.

“God seems to have created things that continue to create and recreate themselves from the inside out. It is no longer God’s one-time creation or evolution; rather, God’s form of creation precisely is evolution.”

-Fr.Richard Rohr, from his book Falling Upward

11 Responses

  1. Jose Lopez says:

    Depends on what he thinks evolution is. God’s process is not evolution by the common standards we’ve been taught and heard of since childhood. Our, now, knowledge of how the biological process works does not allow for our commonly known evolutionary process. So, clarification is necessary.

    • If you read my book Evolution 2.0 or the articles on this blog, you’ll see there’s a far richer version of evolution than what you get from the Darwinists.

      • David Philpot says:

        If you consider an invisible hand as the “author” of nature, then magic is as good as any description of evolution. There is no mechanism that can be observed to justify this opinion, it is merely an assertion–and they are rife in the theistic world. One cannot start with the “answer” and work backwards towards a desired outcome and call it a valid or sound argument. These arguments use the assumption that “the invisible hand” is the most viable cause that describes the conditions we observe and that since we don’t understand everything about the universe, that mystery can only be answered by another, bigger mystery. This is creationism in a lab coat.

        • David, you have flip flopped Darwinism and Creation perfectly. Food for thought; where did the thought of God come from and what caused it to stick around for so long and evolve into what we have had for the last 8000 years. What in evolution could have driven men to want to appease or know this being they created.

          • David Philpot says:

            David, you ask where did the thought of God come from? Humans are are pattern and agency seeking primates because those behaviors gave us evolutionary benefits. There is a naturalistic explanation for these behaviors, and because men have dreamed up 40,000 Gods in the last 70,000 years or so, how do theists know they are worshiping the right one ? Faith cannot be the way to know this because adherents to every religion claim to have come to their beliefs thru faith. To be intellectually honest and consistent you would have to accept the truth claims from every religion because those religious people turned to faith for exactly the same reason as everybody else; because there is no evidence for any God.

        • Dr B J Ryan says:

          Love it…!! So well said!!

        • Gerry Moloney says:

          Life cannot come from non life. It’s as simple as that.

  2. ru galzu says:

    in the beginning there was code ——–

  3. Ken Koskinen says:

    Two of the great mysteries are the origin of the universe and that of life. Many people claim that God or Intelligent Design is the answer but this is loaded with inherent problems. The first issue is the subject of these answers are mysteries themselves. Who has seen God create anything? How do we even know there is a god? Where is she/he/them to be found? Be careful here, as citing beliefs do not solve anything either as beliefs are also uncertain.

    Intelligent Design is similarly riddled with uncertainties. IDers claim some unknown or unidentified intelligence created the universe and intervened over millions of years to create every species that has ever existed. This is an extremely vague idea and ID should probably be better called unidentified design as the agent in this pseudo-explanation is completely unidentified and therefore unknown. You can’t claim that something unknown is the solution to any mystery.

    In other words, claiming god or ID as the creative agent is like using a mystery to explain a mystery and that simply is not a solution. It is more honest to simply admit that we do not yet have all the answers. Mysteries are exciting and make the world interesting but these kind of answers do not solve anything.

  4. Mike Bay says:

    “Inspirational matter”??? Aside from Perry Marshall’s thesis I don’t see a lot of evidence to support this inspirational sideline. Neutrons &company decide what’s next by inspiration? Gallaxies collide out of their inspiration? Death itself was an inspiration of the first life? Come on. This is getting ridiculous…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *